Seite 98 [98]
OCR
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
