Oldal 131 [131]
OCR
§ Oualitative characteristics | 129 that are only present there. A character species of a biotope is, however, a zoogeographical and faunistic - but not a zoocoenological - concept, and can only have an associative connection. In this case, however, the concept of species can only be used exceptionally, and not generally. In zoocoenology, we can only speak of character species when all ontostadia of a species stay within the same associative category, and only if this framework, precisely due to the constant presence of this species, is uniquely characteristic. Given that such populations are always of stenoecus and stenotopic species, the concept of character species has an unmistakeable idiobiological flavour and, for this reason (even though its importance in phytocoenology is not doubted at all), we cannot encourage its adoption in zoocoenology, at least not in this form. An equivalent term, though, that in phytocoenology is the character species, is also needed in zoocoenology. However, as the variability of idiobiological factors is incomparably larger among animal than plant species, we are only correct in using the term character species in zoocoenology if we restrict it to populations that are strictly linked to a certain catena, or presocium. The term remains ambiguous even after this restriction, because we can use it to 1.) name a population that is known from only one catena (for example, Norbanus [Picroscytus] globulariae is a character species in the Stagmatophoraetena albiapicellatae catenarium), or, 2.) denote a population that is characteristic of a zoocoenosis in a specific landscape. There is no doubt that the first case is identical to the definition of the stenofidel population. From this, it follows that every stenofidel population is, eo ipso, a character species. The second case could be a zoogeographical term, had we not modified it so that the criterion is not the association with a landscape or biotope, but of its close link to a zoocoenotic category, even if in a specific landscape. Thus, it is unavoidable to define, precisely, the meaning of character species, otherwise we have to deal with a murky concept, and the potential confusion in its interpretation. We define stenofidel character species as “populations that will appear exclusively in one given zoocoenosis”, without considering any landscape limitation of the coenological affinity. For landscape character species, we understand populations that give a landscape-limited special character to a zoocoenosis. Such populations are not necessarily stenofidel; their main feature is that they are members of the zoocoenosis in question only in the given landscape. Naturally, we can only talk about character species if we study, or compare, several individuals of the same zoocoenosis. For example, the species spectrum of the Hyphantria cunea in the various landscapes of the Carpathian Basin, or the changes in this catenarium on the Hungarian Plain, the Czech-Moravian Basin and Steierland. Likewise, we can only talk about fidelity in connection to such a comparative analysis.
