Uherkovich Ákos: A Dráva mente állatvilága II. (Dunántúli Dolgozatok Természettudományi Sorozat 9., 1998)

Ábrahám L.: A Duna-Dráva Nemzeti Park recésszárnyú-alkatú (Megaloptera, Raphidioptera, Neuroptera) faunájának természetvédelmi vizsgálata, II. - Natural protection studies on the neuropteroids (Megaloptera, Raphidioptera, Neuroptera) fauna of the Duna-Dráva National Park, Hungary II.

280 DUNÁNTÚLI DOLGOZATOK (A) TERMÉSZETTUDOMÁNYI SOROZAT 9. (1998) collection data are shown in Fig. 4. A similar problem has to be also mentioned with the complex of Dichochrysa prasina. The species is regarded (CIANCHI, BULLINI 1992) a complex of at least three species, Dichochrysa prasina А, В and C. Hemerobius humulinus is generally not regarded generally as an independent taxonomical unit. These taxonomical changes cannot be evaluated correctly from the point of view of nature conservation without their genetic isolation and ecological study. The territory of the national park along the Dráva river is by no means homogenous, neither from geographical nor phytogeographical point of view, as already mentioned in the introduction. The hilly country (between Csurgó and Őrtilos) that stays under intensive West Balcan influence is placed from phytogeographical point of view to the Villány flora district (Harsanyense) of the Praeillyricum province. The Somogy section of Dráva river belongs to the Inner Somogy flora district (Somogyicum) whereas the Dráva Plain is already part of the Eupannonicum province (Pócs 1981). The zoogeographical status of different regions show differences in taxonomic units which served as basis for division, to what extend it has been explored and when it was made (DUDICH 1957, VARGA 1964, UHERKOVICH 1981, BÁBA 1982). The zoogeographical study of Neuropteroidea does not aim to draw lines between faunistical districts and to distinguish parts based on the presence or absence of some species but to point out ecological factors that manifest themselves in the present distribution of species. For this study the method of area analysis was used. The fauna along the Dráva river was ranged - based on works of DE LATTIN (1967), VARGA (1964, 1971, 1995) and ASPÖCK et al. (1980, 1991) - into faunistic districts and elements, DE LATTIN (1967) ranged the fauna of Holarctic into three big ecological types according to their limiting effects on water within the biomes; 1. Arboreal, 2. Eremial, 3. Tundrái. The majority of the fauna of Europe and thus also of Hungary is arboreal. The stereoscopic faunal patterns of Europe were examined by ASPÖCK et al. (1980) who used the method of area analysis. In this arrangement of species there are some elements of uncertainty. These resulted partly from the unsatisfactory knowledge of recent distributions of some species (Coniopteryx hoelzeli, Coniopteryx aspoecki) and from the absence of microtaxonomical examinations; so the centres of distribution of polycentric species cannot be established. In some cases, like Hemerobius stigma, the element of uncertainty was increased by the enlargement of the area due to anthropogenic influence. Much incertitude emerged in the area analysis of the aquatic Sisyridae family (ASPÖCK et al. 1980). This problem was then solved by MALICKY (1983) who studied the distribution of Trichoptera species and has pointed out that some animal groups that have kept on an aquatic way of life cannot be identified with the arboreal ecological type (DE LATTIN 1967) of some terrestrial animal groups. The species that have occurred in the region of Dráva were grouped into faunal regions and elements. The proportions of elements are shown in Fig. 6. Inside the Holarctic arboreal biome the faunal elements of Palearctic belong to distribution centres, to the Eastern and Western Palearctic subrogions.