Oldal 68 [68]
OCR
66 | III. Biotope and animal associations different in two arvideserta at two different locations, where the same crop species is cultivated. Therefore, the space is a factor important enough for it not to be subsumed under the biocoenosis. It should not be placed above it, either, but it is possible to place it at the same level or, especially, below it, as a set of conditions, linked to space, that has a determining influence on the biocoenosis at every step of its development. § PARTS OF THE BIOTOPE The reservations that are manifested in the use of the word biotope is no wonder, given the variety of uses conferred by various authors. The concept is used in connection from small to large spaces, which indicates that the concept itself is insufficient to indicate the spatial aspect of a biocoenosis. The populations living within the biotope are existentially bound to it, and we cannot use the term biotope to indicate that place, as it was already used to denote a more ample space. If we recognise that the biotope is a synbiological concept, and we can mention it only in connection to a biocoenosis (Dudich, 1939; Bej-Bienko, 1954; Schwenke, 1953), we will not define its limits too strictly. Unfortunately, the within-biotope terms and definitions are disorganised and uneven, mostly because of the intrusion of idiobiological positions. Before considering anything else, we must examine the nomenclature of the parts of the biotope. Hesse (1924) is satisfied by objecting to the excessive restriction of the term biotope. Friederichs (1930, 1954) uses the word habitat for the small spaces (tree trunk, leaf, flowers for bees), and his phrasing is, without doubt, idiobiological. Dudich’s (1932) view is entirely synbiological, when coining the term oecus, while Park's habitat-niche (see Allee et al., 1949) is idiobiological in one respect (“Rest and sleep, or their physiological equivalents, are consequently generally consummated within a more or less sheltered place. This is the habitat niche or home’, p. 437.), but can also be interpreted as part of the biotope (p. 438: “In limited sense, each habitat is a microcosm, containing a biocenose”; p. 439: “The habitat may be a part of the physical environment [...] or of the biological environment”). The most varied position is Tischler’s treatment. Based on his examples (tree trunk, hazelnut bush, a cadaver), his biochor is the same as Friederichs’ habitat, his stratum is a vegetation level, and the term “Strukturteile” (lit. structural parts) is used for plant parts (roots, flower, fruit) that can be considered parts of the biotope only through an idiobiological view, because they are parts of a bigger unit, the plant, without which they cannot exist. Tischler’s habitat is identical with the site where a species lives, so it is also an idiobiological term. Krogerus (1932) suggests biochorion instead of Friederichs’ habitat, and uses it for what is, more or less, an association. Given that the term biochor
