L. Hably szerk.: Studia Botanica Hungarica 21. 1989 (Budapest, 1989)

Mészáros, Sándor: Comparison and relations of the Hungarian and the Mongolian flora

In respect of Hungary, there are 22 native plant families which do not occur in Mongolia.Tbey are also represented in low species number, the mean value/families being 2.5. These families can be divided, roughly, into two groups: - in general, deciduous tree families of European (as well as East-Asian and North-American) distribution are missing like beech, linden and maple, Oleaceae (Frœdmis, Ligustrum), Anacardiaceae (Cotinus), Staphylaceae and, among the conifers, Taxaceae - at least half of the other plant families missing from the Mongolian flora are of Mediterranean distribution like Amaryllidaceae or the family of Cistaceae. It is interesting to examine, however, the common set of plant families as well. The largest 16 families (comprising at least 10 genera) among the 90 families in common are apparently the same in both countries. This can be considered as a further proof of the basic structural unity of the Holarctic flora. A list of these 17 families, including the number of species and genera are presented on Table 1. Notably, the number of genera and species is fairly near to each other in several cases (e.g., Ranunculaceae, Labiatae, Cruciferae, Compositae). There are only a few among the 16 largest families which are definitely more abundant in one of the countries than in the other. For example, the family of Chenopodiaceae is unambiguously better represented in Mongolia (the number of genera and species being roughly two times more than in Hungary) and, according to the number of species, such are the families of Gramineae and Leguminosae as well. At the same time, members of the families Polypodiaceae, Umbelliferae and Orchidaceae, as well as by the number of species - Rosaceae are better represented in Hungary. COMPARISON ON THE GENERIC LEVEL As it is apparent from Table 1., there were 356 genera found which are present in both countries, comprising roughly 60% of the relevant Mongolian genera. This ratio of 60% seems fairly consistent, valid for cca. 10 families demonstrated on the Table. There are two families among the largest 16 where this ratio is essentially higher; 90-90% of the Mongolian genera of Polypodiaceae and Cyperaceae can be equally found in Hungary as well. In case of three families, however (Chenopodiaceae, Cruciferae and Boraginaceae), this ratio is ranging between 36-44%. In case of the family Chenopodiaceae, this is in accordance with the high ratio of endemic genera, namely 9 out of the 16 genera missing from Hungarian flora are, according to GRUBOV (1955), endemic genera of Central Asian origin (Agriophyllum, Kalidium, Anabasis, Iljinia, Haloxylon, Nanophyton, Petrosimonia, Halogeton, Sympegma). In respect of species diversity, the most characteristic elements of the Mongolian flora comprise three families only, namely Leguminosae, Compositae and Gramineae. In the family of Leguminosae, the genera Qxytropis (78 species), Astragalus (71 species) and Caragana (13 species), in case of Compositae, Artemisia (70 species) and Saussurea (27 species) and, among the Gramineae, Poa (23 species) Elymus (21 species) and Stipa (18 species) are the most abundant ones. These three families contain genera rich in species in Hungary as well, however, the leading genera are different in case of the Leguminosae, Trifolium (27 species). Vicia (20 species) and Lathyrus (18 species), in case of Compositae, Hieracium (67 species) and Centaurea (22 species), among the Gramineae, Festuca (16 species) and Bromus