Oldal 98 [98]
96 | IV. Categories of animal associations
monophagous population relying on plant-based energy. The catenarium
can change, according to the dominance, or degree of corrumpency, of the
constituent corrumpent populations.
The same holds for the presocium and supersocion. These two categories
do not imply that the first would encompass all polyphagous herbivorous
insects, nor the second all vertebrates living in an area; in doing that, we
would end up with an ecofaunistical view. A given area does not support one
pre- or supersocion, but several, occasionally many of them (especially of
presocia).
We formulate the names of pre- and supersocia as in the categories
discussed before: to the genitivus of the appropriate generic name, we add
the -cium or -cion ending, with the species name also in genitivus. The
delimitation of either category can only be made considering the contact
through a shared energy source, and we illustrate this below.
Let us assume that, in the arvideserta biotope, three corrumpent populations
play a decisive role: Agriotes sputator, Melolontha melolontha, and Agrotis
segetum (segetis). All three utilise the same energy source, so they belong to
the same presocium, with all their obstant and intercalary elements. The
zoocoenosis is named after the corrumpent with the highest degree of
corrumpency and, if in the arvideserta in question at that time, the role of
the larvae of A. segetum is the largest, the name of the presocium is Agrotidicium
segetis. It is possible that, at a distance from this area, the dominance of the
larvae ceases, and it becomes a Melolonthaecium melolonthae or Agrioticium
sputatoris. It is conceivable that a concentration of field voles appears in the
field of alfalfa; in this case, the presocia present will be covered by an
Arvicolaecion arvalis supersocion, but this can be of such a low density that
it does not influence the formation of the presocia.
In an agrilinosa, the catenaria formed in spring on oecuses constituted by
apple, plum and cherry trees can be covered by a strong Operoptheraecium
brumatae, followed in the summer by a Hyphantriaecium cuneae. In a
monospecific forest of oak, a Lymantriaecium disparis cannot be formed,
because the larval populations of the gypsy moth can associate with it only
by a catenarium. Therefore, what is formed there is a Lymantriaenarium
disparis. Likewise, a fall webworm population, living on a mulberry tree
hedge, can be a basis for a catena (Hyphantriaetena cuneae) or, at most, a
catenarium (Hyphantriaenarium cuneae).
From the above, we can see that the actual names of catenaria, pre- and
supersocia change according to - given the landscape and the year - the
dominance of different populations, or their degree of corrumpency. This is
not a defect of the concept but a consequence of us striving not to
“straightjacket” reality into a rigid terminology. This peculiar change of the
terminology follows from the essence of the zoocoenological concept. Why
would a catenarium be named after a species whose population was dominant
in the given location and year, when it is possible that it will play a minor