Page 115 [115]
OCR
§ 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 wellknown 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.
