Page 115 [115]
§ The aim of the analysis | 113
This view gives the coenological characteristics a different content than
can be seen in even the current literature. However, in order to minimise
changes to the existing terminology, we used them unchanged, but used them
also for associational categories.
The quantitative characteristics do not reflect the structure of the
zoocoenosis, but the quantitative characteristics of the communities of
otherwise similar structure. This is clear from the fact that, in the same
zoocoenosis, the dominant populations can be different, yet the category
itself remains. The overall structure must remain unchanged during these
fluxes of populations; thus, we cannot consider as structural elements anything
else than the life form groups already discussed, namely the coeti of
zoocoenoses. A zoocoenosis is not held together by the dominant populations
but by the coeti that coexist. In these coeti, certain populations are dominant
at certain times, which can bea time- and space-bound feature of the coenosis,
but this is not a matter of structure.
This view is not distant from other Hungarian authors, as two of the triad
of Dudich, Balogh and Loksa (1952) are identical with the intercalary and
obstant coetus. They also write that “within the groups, species can substitute
each other. This ecological vicariance creates a very variable ecological
structure.” These words clearly refer to this sustained structure that can be
filled by different species combinations, different zoocoenoses, whose structure
is, nonetheless, identical. In his latest work, Balogh (1953) retains this view
and, in a tabular list, the species are grouped into trophic groups. This indicates
that a coenological anlaysis cannot end with the establishment of density
and mass relationships, but is inseparable from methods that shed light on
the roles of individual populations.
§ THE WORKFLOW OF THE ZOOCOENOLOGICAL STUDIES
When a phytocoenologist works in the field, all that is evident is a stand of
coexisting plants. They have no other task than to identify the associative
categories in the plant stand, to analyse them using established, and well¬
known characteristics, and to draw the appropriate conclusions based upon
them. An experienced phytocoenologist does not have much difficulty in
identifying the species in the plant community.
When the zoocoenologist works in the field, they are confronted by a few
animals, a small fraction of those that are really present. Their first task is to
capture them, and then to find most of those that must be present but are
not immediately visible. This assemblage cannot be usefully analysed by the
phytosociological toolkit, because this will not reveal a community - it
remains the assemblage of that area. The full identification of species
constituting the assemblage in the field is not possible by anyone, if only due
to the small size of most animals that prevents a precise identification.