Boros István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 4. (Budapest 1952)

Kovács, L.: The Eupithecia communities and the problems of their evolution in our swamps and reeds (Lepid.)

must have bred in the swamps around the Kisbalaton in former times. There is an opposite case,-when a rather insensitive species (haworthiata) was unable to establish itself, because the lack of its food plant in Bátorliget. ín the cases of some other widely spread species (venosata, millefoliata, innotata) we are inclined ta explain their absences in one or more places by the inevitable déficiences in the collectings. This statement may bear also upon the case of another species (virgaureata), known insufficiently, owing to the lack of collectings in the spring. Concerning the remaining species, until their range and oecological characterization is not sufficiently defined, it were early to try to explain the respective differences. The Eupithecia species collected on the Diássziget are linariata, centaureata, absinthiata, assimilata, millefoliata, innotata, virgaureata, ad G. pumilata. Six of these species are generally distributed, nor can they be classified as oecologically sensitive. G. pumilata was found hitherto in dry, ruderal places. Among the others, only absinthiata is characteristic to our wet areas. The characteristics of virgaureata, as we have already mentioned, are not yet clear. The species found on the Diás were all caught also in the neighbourhood, with the exception of pumilata, though of an universal spread. In fact, it may be said, that the Eupithecia species of the Diás represent a restricted part of the Eupithecia species of the neighbourhood. We are bound to conclude therefore that no independent Eupithecia community has developed on the Diás but that the species occurring there immigrated from the environment. The special circumstances of the island manifest themselves insofar only that the dominancy assumes a form diverging from that of the environment : there is a dominant species there with a very high percentage and a subdominant species of also a rather high percentage. The Eupithecia species caught in the marshy region of Ócsa are valerianatar centaureata, selinata, tripunctaria, absinthiata, assimilata, vulgata, castigata, millefoliata, subnotata, innotata, and Gymnoscelis pumilßta. We have not yet characterized subnotata on the ground of our inland data. According to the distribution of its food plant, Atriplex and Chenopodium, it is a moth of ruderal places. This fact is confirmed by collecting experiences. It is frequent even in the gardens of settlements, so in Budapest, too ; but it is rarely met with in other places. If we consider its occurrence in Ócsa, weïnay suppose that it is able to remain in wet areas, too. There is a specimen in the Collection of the Museum, originating from the Kisbalaton, but no assumptions can be based on it, as we do not know its stricter collecting locality.-Of the other species six are eurycoen, three are characteristic species of wet areas. Two species belong to those for the characterization of which we do not possess enough data. We have mentioned that of the 12 Eupithecia species of Ócsa, 10 are identical with those of the woods of Vörs, and 7 with those of Bátorliget. We may now, also, point out the fact that of the species concurrent with those of the woods of Vörs 5 are generally distributed, and that of the species occurring in greater numbers in our swampy regions plumbeolata is missing here, and also that the dominancy relations are totally different. There is a species here appearing in very high dominancy numbers and which belongs to the species that are widely distributed. Then there is a subdominant species here, with also rather great numbers, which occurs but in small numbers in Bátorliget and in the wet part of the woods of Vörs. We have yet to speak of the Eupithecia species of the reeds. During collectings in the vast reedy territories of the Kisbalaton, only 4 Eupithecia species were caught, one specimen of each. These .are haworthiata, linariata, pullchellata v. pyreneata, and centaureata, which, according to our data, are all oecologically insensitive, with the exception of one species. The food plants of the first and the third