Matskási István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 87. (Budapest 1995)

Erdei, B.: The Sarmatian flora from Erdőbénye-Ligetmajor, NE Hungary

Figs 21-22. The leaf distribution of the flora in: 21 = Ligetmajor, 22 = Kővágó-oldal DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE FLORAS OF LIGETMAJOR AND KŐVÁGÓ-OLDAL Cystoseiritespartschii STERNB. being mass in Kővágó-oldal is totally missing in Ligetmajor. We can draw the conclusion that presumably Kővágó-oldal was close to the sea whereas in Ligetmajor there must have been a fresh-water inlet. The genera of Ginkgo, Liquidambar, Glyptostrobus, Sequoia and Libocedrus were found in Kővágó-oldal; however, they are missing in Ligetmajor. The species of Glyptostrobus and Liquidambar are riparian elements. It refers to that the extension of a riparian coenosis must have been bigger in Kővágó-oldal than in Ligetmajor. A reason for this must have been the quicker change of the terrain in Ligetmajor; that is to say that a steeper slope must have existed in this area. There is another interesting difference in respect of the species of Quercus. In Kővágó-oldal more than 25% of the flora is formed by Quercus mediterranea UNGER and Quercus urophylla UNGER (Quercus kubinyii is represented with only 2.8%). In Ligetmajor the ratio of Quercus kubinyii (KOVÁTS et ETT.) BERGER is similar and it seems to replace Quercus mediterranea UNGER and Quercus urophylla UNGER in this flora (these species are represented with only some specimens). Two kinds of explanation are conceivable: namely, the ecological features must have been different in Kővágó-oldal and Ligetmajor or their floras are not uniform in respect of their age (Table 3).