Matskási István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 94. (Budapest 2002)

Korsós, Z., Hornung, E. , Szlávecz, K. ; Kontschán, J.: Isopoda and Diplopoda of urban habitats: new data to the fauna of Budapest

28. Kryphioiulus occultus (C. L. KOCH, 1847) 29. Ommatoiulus sabulosus (LINNAEUS, 1758) 30. Ophyiulus pilosus (NEWPORT, 1842) 31. Xestoiulus laeticollis (PORAT, 1889) 32. Brachyiulus bagnalli (CURTIS, 1845) 33. Megaphyllum unilineatum (C. L. KOCH, 1838) 34. Megaphyllum projectum (VERHOEFF, 1894) 35. Mesoiulus paradoxus BERLESE, 1886 Polydesmida 36. Brachydesmus superus LATZEL, 1884 37. Brachydesmus dadayi VERHOEFF, 1895 38. Polydesmus complanatus (LINNAEUS, 1761) 39. Polydesmus denticulatus C. L. KOCH, 1847 40. Strongylosoma stigmatosum (EICHWALD, 1830) 41. Oxidus gracüis (C. L. KOCH, 1847) 42. Amphitomeus attemsii (SCHUBART, 1934) 43. Poratia aff. digitata (PORAT, 1889) 44. Cynedesmus formicola COOK, 1896 The distribution of species according to the 25 different localities are summarized in Table 2. Two localities, Nos 7 and 21, clearly stand out with the highest species numbers. Both are greenhouses that provide favourable conditions for both exotic and local species. One isopod species (Trichorhina tomentosa) and three millipede species (Amphitomeus attemsii, Poratia aff. digitata, and Cynedesmus formicola) are recorded for the first time in Hungary. (Trichorhina tomentosa was preliminarily mentioned already by KONTSCHÁN & HORNUNG 2001.) All of them were found in the hothouse of the Eötvös Loránd University (Füvészkert), which is located in the center of Budapest. It is a rather old hothouse, and has a well-established network to regularly import new plant material from exotic places, which enables the easy introduction of the soil fauna as well. A phenetic classification using Euclidean distances and average linkage (UPGMA, Systat 8.0) were carried out for 21 localities. Localities 1, 2, 5, and 16 were omitted from the analysis because neither isopods, nor diplopods were found at these sites. Table 3 shows the presence-absence data matrix. The dendrogram (Fig. 2) shows that Füvészkert (No. 7) and Soroksár (No. 21) are separated from the rest of the localities. In the next locality cluster, first Népliget (No. 8), then Rupp-hegy (No. 9), Palotai-sziget (No. 4), and Óbudai-sziget (No. 3) are separated, all representing different semi-natural biotopes and human influences. The remaining localities are combined in two large clusters.