Page 46 [46]
OCR
44 | II. Biocoenosis and zoocoenosis are active there. Such temporary elements can only be distinguished following a spatially explicit approach, where they constitute obvious examples of movement between these temporary elements and zoocoenoses. They well illustrate the main reason why a zoocoenosis is not a topographic unit, in contrast to a plant association. Temporal elements are members of a zoocoenosis and they signal its presence, nearby or more distant; their characteristic is that they have emigrated from the space that contains their primary energy source, and now reside in a foreign space. Such spatial change is a regular phenomenon in several populations. The role of the peregrinant (vagrant) elements requires little explanation. A characteristic example is the presence of a pea curculionid on an apple tree in June, or the wood borers (Ipidae) in an open herb association (Thalenhorst, 1951). Such peregrinants (“tourists”) perhaps include a significant portion of insects present in any association that are considered tourist only due to our scant knowledge; not being aware of their links to a member of the association, or to the resident zoocoenosis. This classification does not completely overlap with Tischler’s (1947, 1950) four classes, and is also different because the latter is based on a relationship to habitats; it considers the spatially delimited zoocoenosis from the point of view of species, therefore the zoon, the animal assemblage, is suitable for analysis. His indigenae group includes our corrumpents, obstants, and intercalary element; the hospites group was already mentioned, while the groups vicini and alieni are, perhaps, similar to peregrinants, forming two subgroups, considering whether they arrived from nearby or from afar. Such a grouping is legitimate in the analysis of a given spatial unit or plant association, but this is the field of ecofaunistics that had to be separated from coenology sensu stricto, using concepts liberated from a spatial view. Therefore, Tischler’s eucoen - tychcoen, acoen and xenocoen terms cannot be used in coenology; they refer to sharing the same space rather than forming a trophic association. We do not see the need to keep this framework in coenology, as this will not change the status of semaphoronts foreign to the association. The example mentioned by Tischler (turnip sawfly at field edges) points to a sustinent rather than peregrinant. The seven groups are, clearly, not of equal importance when we consider the foundation of a zoocoenosis. They cannot be, because these groups include animals collected without considering their ecological connections, and we have already declared that they can be considered to belong to the fauna of the given area, but this does not necessarily overlap with a coenosis.
