Page 104 [104]
OCR
102 lv. The dynamics of the animal communities the eurichron, the latter the stenochron populations (Dahl, 1921). Between them lie the mezochron populations (Balogh, 1953) that are active over a longer part of the vegetation period but not the whole. In the arvideserta, Neoglocianus (Ceutorrhynchus) macula-alba is a stenochron, while its second-grade parasite, Baryscapus (Tetrastichus) diaphanthus (terminalis) is a eurichron. The imagoes of Opertophtera brumata and Erannis defoliaria are stenochrons, while their larvae are mezochrons. There are also populations that, when the temperature becomes unfavourable, respond by leaving the zoocoenosis and change biotope. Migrating birds, that leave in the autumn, or the ones that arrive at the onset of the winter, belong to this group, and among them, there are both steno- and mezochron populations. The “species groups” of aspects represent populations that are active at the same time, and the different species groups are more divergent when their activity periods are more distant in time. Their characteristic is not only the species identity, but also their ontostadium (the winter moth, for example, is represented by larvae in spring, and by adults during the autumn). Above we used “aspect” only in the associational sense, but there is no doubt that the animals living in an area also have seasonal changes. It would not be correct to call these aspects - they are nothing more than the fauna itself. This fauna is defined as all the animals that are present at a given site at a given time, from which we can screen out the associations using coenological characteristics. The criterion on which we declare that the animals in a plant community form a community does not change with the changing of the seasons: all our encounters with the animal kingdom brings contact with such concrete communities. We can recognise aspects in this community; they are not seasonal representations of the given community, but a sum of aspects of several communities, in no need of a separate name because it is not an associational term but a form of coexistence. It is something that is a study subject not of zoocoenology, but of ecofaunistics. If, during a study of a wheat field at a given time, we find adults of Chlorops pumilionis, Cephus pygmenus and Collyria coxator (calcitrator), as well as larvae of Lema cyanella, among numerous other insects, it does not mean that these semaphoront groups represent an aspect of the wheat field, as this would be an ecofaunistical approach. We can only state that we are confronted by a Chlorops adult, a Cephus-Collyria adult, and a Lema larval aspect of the catenae Chloropiditena pumilionis and a Cephitena pygmaei, and Lemaetena cyanellae. The other individuals collected can only be sorted into aspects of zoocoenoses once we know their associative relations. Lacking this, the collected material remains a part of an animal community, that can be analysed faunistically, but not coenologically. Consequently, we cannot talk about aspects, either.
