S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 56. (Budapest, 1995)

Table 1 (continued) Species Total Codes of no. localities of indiv. Panagaeus bipustulatus (Fabricius, 1775) 4 10, 14, 17 Lebia cyanocephala (Linnaeus, 1758) 1 8 Lebia humeralis Dejean, 1825 4 7, 14 Demetrius atricapillus (Linnaeus, 1758 5 7, 12, 18,22 Dromius agilis (Fabricius, 1787) 1 20 Dromius angustus Brull, 1834 2 8,21 Dromius linearis (Olivier, 1795) 12 1, 12, 14, 16, 21 Dromius longiceps Dejean, 1826 1 11 Drypta dentata (Rossi, 1790) 1 19 *Brachinus psophia Audinet-Serville, 1821 1 4 Fertő (Csiki 1946) in our country. Brachinus psophia was recorded in Hungary only in recent years (Horvatovich 1992, Kovács and Hegyessy 1993). Amara sollicita was recorded in recent years, too. Szél and Ádám (1991) found it in a pitfall trap in a dolomitic grassland. This record represents the first datum on the flight of this species. The individual number of each species in Table 1 is quite low. The capturing data indicate not only the presence of the species in a particular area, but also prove that the carabid species have flying individuals. It is essential, because the flight is an important means of dispersal for many ground beetle species (Noonan 1985), i.e. flying nearly always is especially connected with dispersal, and will, therefore, mean losses for the source populations (Den Boer 1985). It depends on many factors how important the flight is for a species. Wallin (1985) in wheat and Desender (1986) in pasture demonstrated that the dispersal of dominant species occurs predominantly by movements on the ground. Their very low catches of macropterous and dimorphic species in window traps, in comparison to the high yield in pitfalls, clearly indicate this. In other territories the dispersal of various species is guaranteed by flight which serves for different aims. For example, dispersal by flight may play a role in finding the overwintering site (Van Huizen 1977), in colonization (Adis 1982, Boiteau 1983), in the loss of pupation site or habitat (Kirk 1975, Holliday and Hagley 1978), etc. The low individual numbers in our light traps may be explained by the following facts: 1. The specimens are less susceptible to flight to light. 2. The site is inhabited by a small population of the species. 3. The population is large, but the rate of long winged specimens are low. This is important, because the dispersal power is generally greater in the case of fully winged ground beetles (Den Boer 1970). In a sample of Calathus melanocephalus Van Dijk (1978) has found that the 99.8 percent of individuals was brachypterous. Desender et al. (1980) have also observed macropterous individuals in extremely low