ANNALES HISTORICO-NATURALES MUSEI NAT ION ALI S HUNGARICI Tonius 62. PARS ZOOLOG ICA 1970

Data to the Knowledge of Hungarian Maerolepidoptera. V. The Occurrence and Distribution of Some Xoctuid Species () in Hungary

By L. KOVÁCS, Budapest

In Ihe following, I propose to discuss the problem of indigeousness and the distribution in Hungary of some Noctuid species. The paper is, at the same time, a reply to certain questions put either in personal discussions or in correspond­ ence. 1. The occurrence in Hungary of Ogygia nigreseens (HÖFNER, 1887). REBEL mentioned, in earlier literature, that the species occurs also in Hungary, and cited Herkulesfürdő (Baia Herculeana), now in Rumania, as locality. A female specimen, deriving from about 20 km to the south (Orsova on the Danube), is in fact preserved in the Collection of Lepidoptera, Hungarian Natural History Museum (13 July, 1909, leg. RAICHL). However, there is no record of its occurrence in the present area of Hungary in earlier literature. The first two home localities are given, however, in my faunistic list published in 1953. and no further locality data have been available until 1956, when 1 published a Supplement to the faunistic list. Indeed, only a few new localities became known to date, and the number of collected speci­ mens is also small. Although nigreseens is indisputably a rare occurrence in the country, I have no doubt that it is indigenous in Hungary. This assumption is substantiated by the fact that the majority of the captured specimens are freshly hatched and that our exemplars display features, though less conspicuous, by which they differ from both the western and the Transylvanian specimens. The difference is so well disguised that my attention was first called to it by the photographs made of specimens of di verse origin. Fig. 1 shows 2 pairs each of Ogygia nigreseens HÖFN., and Ogyia forcipula SCHIFF. The first pair of nigreseens derives from the neighbourhood of Regensburg, the other from our Central Range. The forcipula exemplars originate also from the Central Hangt1 and serve for comparative purposes. The first pair is a rather sharply delineated dark form, the other is paler and with a less distinct pattern. For the sake of security, slides of the genital organs had also been made some years earlier, for which 1 am indebted to my friend Dr. L. ISSEKTJTZ. I submit below the detailed data of our home nigreseens specimens available, grouped as to higher regional units (Map 1.).

1. Budapest (13 June, 1952, çf, leg. GY. ÉHIK); 2. Mts. Dunazug and environ­ ment: Pilistető (16 June, 1951, 1 çf 1?» leg. L. ISSEKTJTZ; 1 çf, leg. I. KOVÁCS; 1 çf, leg. GY. LENGYEL); Leányfalu, (16 July, 1936, 1 çf, leg. ANDREÁNSZKY); Szentendre (2. June, 1946, 1 çf, leg L. KOVÁCS); 3. Mts. Mátra: Mátraháza (15 Julv, 1961, 1 Ç, light trap); Ágasvár (2. July, 1952,1 Ç,Ieg. I. BALOGH); 4. Mts Bükk: Szentlélek (20 Fig. 1. First row : O gyg ia n igrescens HÖFNEB, Q* and Q , Regensburg (leg. M. SÄLZL).-Second row: Ogygia nigreseens Höi NEK, rf and Ç, Central Range, Hun­ gary (leg. I. KOVÁCS and L. ISSEKTJTZ, respectively). — Third and fourth rows: Ogygia fotcipu- la SCHIFFERJIILLER, one pair each, from H u liga iv

July, 1952, 1 cf, leg- J. KOVÁCS); Pannarét (21 July, 1962, 2 çf, leg. M. ZÖLD); Répás­ huta (29 July, 1962, 1 9> light trap). This is indeed a meagre material, totalling no more than 10 çf and 4 9- The majority of the localities lie at a height of 600-800 m a.s.l. (Pilistelő, Mátraháza. Mts. Bükk) and only three between 200-600 m. The first zone har­ boured 11 specimens, the second merely 3. Obviously therefore, nigreseens prefers in Hungary medium high mountainous sites wherein temperature values remain below the nationwide mean and the aerial humidity content is also richer. The characteristic ecological requirements delimit O. nigreseens rather sharply from the nearly related O. forcipula. There are namely many localities known of forcipula in the Central Range, but these are almost exceptionless at lower eleva­ tions, where nigreseens occurs but seldom. The former can most frequently be found on the warm, dry, southern declivities of the range, and in similar sites of the low and hilly Transdanubia. Interestingly, it is almost completely absent from the Great Plains, from both the sandy and hard grounds. Only a single specimen, de­ riving from this area, had in six years of operation been captured by the light trap Map 1 : The localités up to the end of 1969, of Ogygia nigres­ cent; HÖFXKR (empty circles) and Lithophane semibrunnea HAWOBTH (full circles) in Hungary at Kecskeinét. Il is also further characteristic of forcipula that it is locally not rare in ruderal territories in the environment of the capital. 2. orbona HUFNAGEL, 1766, and Noctua interposita HÜBNER, 1789, in Hungary. CH. BOURSIN, the excellent specialist in the systematics of the has shown in a paper published in 1963 that Noctua orbona and interposita are. contrarily to earlier usage and concept, not forms of the same specie's hut distinct specific taxa, well separable also by differences in their genital organs. His findings evoke great interest and investigations began everywhere to clear up the distribu­ tion of the two species. With respect to Hungary, I made the necessary examinations already some years ago and also lectured on the results in our Entomological Society. Though this problem is an organic part of faunistical investigations conducted at an inter­ national level, I have only now occasion to make available my data also to the larger lepidopterological public. There is no doubt that both species are indigenous to Hungary, but there are essential differences in their distribution. Whereas the occurrence of interposita is wellnigh contiguous in the northern part of the country, the area of orbona is considerably disjointed. Furthermore, there is only one interposita specimen known as yet from the Great Plains (Őcsa), but of the merely half as many localities of orbona a greater number falls into that region (Tâss and Peszér between the Danube and the Tisza, and Bátorliget in the northeast of the Plains). The details of the distribution of the two species are illustrated by Map 2. In plotting the locality data, I used only reliable informations. To begin with, interposita has not yet been found west of the Mts. Bakony in the Transdanubia. In this latter region, the southern borders of its occurrence appears to be the Lakes Balaton and Velence, then the hilly region around Gödöllő in the east. Locality data are available from the northern part of the Central Range (Mts. Cserhát, Mátra, Bükk), and from the hilly area of Tokaj and the Mts. Zemplén in its eastern section. The map shows a total of 22 localities. Most of the localities derive from the environment of Budapest, the best explored part of the country. This circumstance makes it highly probable that the Map 2 : The localitites, up to the end of 1969, of Noctua interposita HÜBXER (empty circles) and Noctua orbona HFFXAGEL (full circles) in Hungary

species will be found, by more intense explorations, in still many other areas. The majorit}- of exemplars have been caught by the UV light trap operating at Makkos- hotyka which recommends a more frequent recourse to this source of light. The known localities of orbona is considerably less, not more than 13 in alL One of these lies in the western confines of the country (Sopron), one each in the northern part of the Mts. Bakony, the Mts. Vértes, and the Balaton Plateau, two each in the Mts. Dunazug and the hills around Buda, one in the hilly region of Gödöllő, two in the sandy district between the Danube and the Tisza, and one each in the Mts. Bükk and Bátorliget. Most specimens originate from the Mts. Dunazug, having been captured on bait on the Pilistető, nearly 700 m a.s.l. Al­ though further localities may also be expected to be discovered for orbona, they will hardly alter the fact that it is considerably more local and seldom than inter­ posita. 3. The distribution of Lithophane semihrunnea (HAWORTH, 1809) (Fig. 2.). The following discussion was also instigated by one of CH. BOURSIN'S papers. On the occasion of describing a subspecies (ssp. wiltshirei BOURSIN, 1962) of semi- brunnea, BOURSIN also expounded the range of this species. He contends that its area, including also that of the new subspecies, extends from Iraq to NW Africa, through Anatolia, the Balkan Peninsula, Italy, France, England, and Spain. This list is, however, not wholly compatible with earlier data given in litera­ ture according to which the species had also been collected northeast to the region delineated by BOURSIN. Such localities are, e.g. Pomerania and Austria-Hungary in the STAUDINGER-KEBEL Catalogue, and also Braunschweig in HAMPSOX. SPULER also cites Pomerania and the Austro-Hungarian empire, with WARREN again enumerating the above regions in SEITZ'S work. Since specimens originating from these territories are present also in the Hungarian Natural History Museum, I submit their data for a further support of the respective communications (Map 1). I. Data from Hungary. Budakeszi, 8 Sept., 1951, 1 Ç> leg. I. KOVÁCS; Csillag- hegv (north of Budapest), 19 March, 1911, 1 $, leg. MONDOK; Budapest, 28 Oct., 1897, 1 O, leg. ULBRICH; 4 Oct., 1919, 1 cf, leg. JABLONKAY; 16 Sept. and 17 Oct., 1921, 1-1 cf, leg. L. KOVÁCS; Pécel, 13 Sept., 1896, 1 çf, leg. ULBRICH; Peszér, 2 April,1949,l Ç, leg. L. KOVÁCS ; 24 Sept., 1949,1 çf, leg. I. BALOGH; Kaposvár, USept., 1938, 1 çf, leg. S. PAZSICZKY; Mesztegnyő (Com. Somogy), 9 April, 1964, 1 çf, leg. WETTSTEIN. The home specimens cited above represent without exception the nominate form. II. Other data. Czechoslovakia: Pozsony (Bratislava), 1 Q ; — Romania; Boros­ jenő (Ineu), 20 and 28 Sept., 1913, 1-1 çf and 1-1 O each, leg. L. DIÓSZEGHY; — Germany: Ilmenau, 1 $, coll. WAGNER; Hamburg-Sülldorf, 24 Sept., 1932, 1 çf, leg. F. DIEHL; without nearer locality data: 2 çf, coll. E. FRIVALDSZKY; — France: Auzas (Vendée), Sept., 1929, 1 (f. These specimens, too, belong to the nominate form.

With a single datum, we can also contribute to the extension of ssp. wiltshirei BOURSIN. The data of the female preserved in the Hungarian Natural History Museum are as follows: Ifrane, Morocco, 10 Sept., 1954 (upper label); Xnlina semi- brunnea HB. var. maroccana RUNGS (lowel label). As yet I have no data whether the name var. maroccana is an in litteris designation or a published one. In this latter case, the problem of priority should also be cleared. 4. Sidemia zollikoferi (FREYER, 1835): a recent appearance of the species in Hungary after a latency for 134 years. C. F. FREYER described, in the second volume (fascicle 31) of his work "Neuere Reiträge zur Schmeiterlingskunde", published in instalments, a Noctuid under the name Noctua zollikoferi, discovered in 1834. Its first collector, A. KINDERMANN, sent it to him with the request that it be named to honour ESCHER-ZOLLIKOFER, a lepidopterist in Zürich. With reference to the fact that there already exists a lepidopterous called escheri, FREYER

Fig. 2. First row : Lithophane semibrunnea HAWORTH, çf and 9, Boros­ jenő (Ineu), Rumania, 28 Sept., 1913 (leg. L. ÜIÓSZKOHY), and Budakeszi, 8 Sept., 1951 (leg. I. KOVÁCS). — Second row: Sidemia zollikoferi Freyer, çf, Inota, 11 Sept., 19G8 (leg. M. NYÍRŐ) used the second part of the double name to be applied for the new species, of which he had bot male and female specimens available. The collector, A. KINDERMANN, moved from Bohemia in 1820 to Buda, on the right side of the Danube. In the capital of Hungary he registered as a master weaver, but, according to the available data, he was already at that time collecting and selling . He was collecting mainly around Budapest and discovered a number of hitherto unknown lepidopterous species. With the description of the new taxa he entrusted specialists residing abroad, and principally FREYER. FREYER'S description of zollikoferi is unmistakably distinct. Of the available noctuid , he compared it with Nonagria (Noctua) typhae THNBG., which, in his opinion, most resembled it. Concerning the differences, he called attention on those appearing mainly on the underside of the wings. He pointed out the well discernible hinulate spot ("Mondflecken") on the underside of all four wings of typhae, these spots are absent in the new species. Besides, the underside of the wings of typhae are smudgy white, and shaded with blackish brown in the middle of the forewings, whereas those of zollikoferi are silvery white. Though on the illus­ trations of Plate 184 the traces of the discal spot are still visible on the forewings of zollikoferi, the cited characteristics are in fact decisive in separating the two species. However, FREYER'S illustrations will be further reviewed later. Though contrarily to his usage FREYER failed in this instance to mention the locality of the new species, the view became soon general among collectors in Hungary that it was captured in the environments of Budapest as understood today. Unfortunately, KINDERMANN'S list in which he enumerated the lepidopterous species observed in the vicinity of his residence —and which ABAFI-AIGNER still used in 1898 —became in the meantime lost or is in abeyance. But even if zollikoferi hat been listed in it, this is not decisive —at least not in itself—in a modern sense, since at that time, and even much later, it was coustomary to list species, collected at distances 40-50 km removed from the centres of lepidopterological activities, in the faunistic enumerations of the respective areas. From the middle of the last century, there recurs in Hungarian lepidopterolog­ ical literature a single home locality for zollikoferi, namely Budapest. This datum is met with in FRIYALDSZKY (1865), in the Fauna Regni Hungáriáé (1896). and in ABAFI-AIGNER'S comprehensive work on Hungarian Macrolepidoptera (Magyar­ ország lepkéi, 1907). Literature abroad also mentions the occurrence of the species in Hungary, but the authors record only exceptionally its supposed home locality. Subsequent to FREYER'S description, zollikoferi was recorded from an ever increasing number of countries. The new localities lie in places removed at great distances from one another, in an area extending from England or Switzerland in Europe to the Ural and Turkestan in Central Asia. In 1959, (i. WARNECKE published a detailed list of the localities, giving, as far as possible, also the date of captures or observations. Collectors in Hungary soon came to hear about the growing amount of locality data. Though these instigated renewed efforts to discover new home localities, they all seemed to remain fruitless—at least not one new datum had been published. Also I. FRIVALDSZKV noticed this, indeed, he even commented on it (1865). Nor is there any indication that any one of the specimens caught by KINDERMANN had ever found its way to some home collection. Even the Collection of Lepidoptera of the Hungarian Natural History Museum failed to produce an authentic Hungarian specimen up to 1968. The two unlabelled exemplars which came to its possession by the purchase of the TREITSCHKE Collection have never been considered, even by contemporary collectors, of Hungarian origin, and our present knowledge expressedly precludes any such assumption. The judicious examination of these facts, and principally the fruitlessness of later researches as well as the absence of an an then lie home specimen demanded great prudence in citing zollikoferi when I had been compiling the checklist of Hungarian Macrolepidoptera. For the time being, at least, I have removed it from the enumeration of the unambiguously proven home species and relegated it to a sort of appendix containing all those species of which we had no available specimen of truly Hungarian origin. Any final decision of Ihe problem had thus been re­ ferred to the outcome of future investigations. In a comparatively short time after the publication of the Hungarian faunal catalogue, there came the turn which finally removed all uncertainties concerning the indigeneity of zollikoferi. In the autumn of 1968. Dr. M. NYÍRŐ, a zealous aug­ menter of the Collection of Lepioptera of our Museum, again produced for identi­ fication a considerable amount of material captured in the vicinity of Várpalota. Two large, hoary grey noctuid moths, both males, sprang to the eyes at once from the collection; they had been captured at light a few days earlier, on 4 and 11. September, respectively (Fig. 2). There was no doubt for a moment that the Hungar­ ian zollikoferi had again "came to light", after a latency of 134 years. A comparison with the zollikoferi material of the Museum, acquired between the two world wars partly from the Ural area partly from Kerch (Crimea), and FREYER'S illustrations, gave interesting results. The two fresh specimens almost completely agree with the form published by FREYER. They, too, are characterized by the finely cinereous hue of the upperside of the wings as well as by the wholly whitish shade, of a slightly metallic sheen, of the undersides. Some slight differences appear in the more conspicuous reniform spot owing to their darker grey tint than the basic colour of the forewings. in the marked, contiguous and blackish grey discal spot and the deeper greyish hue of the wings from it towards the margins on the underside. The forewings of the specimens originating from the Ural and Kerch are not pure cinereous but show a slightly ochreous suffusion, indeed, the shape of the wings is slightly different, being shorter and wider. The genitalia failed to display any constant difference. However, any final evaluation should be left pending until comparisons can be made on the basis of a greater material available from Hungary. With respect to the foodplant of zollikoferi, literature data arc not uniform. According to some authors, the larvae live on Gramineac, especially in mountainous habitats, while some others refer to Thalictruni species, principally in marshy bio- topes. BERGMANN submits a datum, important also in Hungarian circumstances, by citing a plant association in the list of its habitats which comprise, as one of its predominant species. Cladium mariscus (Cyperaceae; Cladietum). This associa­ tion occurs also iii the vicinty of Várpalota, between the villages Csór and Nádasd- ladány (Com. Veszprém, Transdanubia). The inference that our specimens derive from this locality seems to be well founded. Now, BERGMANN'S datum concerning the plant association cited above does not preclude the possibility that KINDERMANN had in fact discovered zollikoferi in the nearer environment of Budapest. According to botanists well informed about the earlier phytological conditions of the capital, this plant association still existed in the first half of the century around the Roman amphitheater at Aquincum (= Óbuda), in the present third district of the capital. My friend and colleague, J. Szőcs, well cognizant of the area from his collectings conducted there, had at once visited the locale and actually succeeded to discover Cladium mariscus in a rather restricted spot of the erstwhile very extensive marshy region. According to literature data, this region was a favourite collecting locality of the lepidopterists of the capital in the first half of the last century. The recent appearance of zollikoferi in our home fauna justifies the assumption that the origin of the specimens serving for FREYER'S description should be sought for in Hungary. And on the basis of the above considerations the inference that the discovery was made in the area of the capital cannot be excluded. Arguments substantiating this theory are, on the one hand, the earlier phytocoenological conditions of Budapest and the well known usage that collectors restrict their activities, even in present days, to the nearer vicinity of their residence during the autumn. Owing to the rapid extension of the capital, one cannot, unfortunately, cherish the hope that zollikoferi will again be found in its presumably ancient locality. Prospects are, however, much better in the sense that by thorough and painstaking investigations further localities may be discovered and that, in the possession of a richer Hungarian material, the problems delineated above will satisfactorily be solved.

References: 1. ABAFI-AIGNER, L.: A lepkészet története Magyarországon (Buda­ pest, 1900, pp. 206.) — 2. ABAFI-AIGNER, L.: Zur Biolologie der Lepidopteren X. (Illustr. Zeitschr. für Ent., 5, 1900, p. 299.) — 3. ABAFI-AIGNER, L.: Magyarország Lepkéi (Budapest, 1907, pp. VI + XXXII +137 + T51). — 4. ABAFI-AIGNER, L.; PAVEL, J. & UHRYK, N.: Lepidoptera (in: Fauna Regni Hungáriáé III., Budapest, 1896, pp. 82). — 5. BERGMANN, A.: Die Grossschmetterlinge Mitteldeutschlands (IVA Jena, 1954, pp. 581-1060, spec. 704-706). - 6. BOURSIN, CH.: Lithophane semibrunnea Haw. (Zeitschr. Wiener Ent. Ges., 47, 1962, p. 92-94). — 7. BoxmsiN, CH.: Une Espèce de Noctua L. Européenne et Française, méconnue depuis 173 ans, Noctua interposita Hb. 1789 (Bull. Mensuel de la Soc. Linn, de Lyon, 32, 1963, p. 72-79). — 8. BTJRMANN, K.: Sidemia zollikoferi Frr. im Alpenraum (Zeitschr. Wiener Ent. Ges., 45,1960, p. 65-67). — 9. FORSTER, W. & WOHLFAHRT. TH. À. : Die Schmet­ terlinge Mitteleuropas (Stuttgart, 1960-1968, pp. 224). - 10. FREYER, C. F.: Neuere Beiträge zur Schmetterlingskunde (IL, Augsburg, 1835., pp. 162 + T192, spec. p. 145 and T184), — 11. FRIVALDSZKY, I. : Jellemző adatok Magvarország faunájához (Budapest, 1865, pp. 274 + T13). — 12. HAMPSON, G. F.: Catalogue of the Noctuidae in the Collection of the British Museum (VII. London, 1908, pp. XV+ 709). — 13. HÖFNER, G. : Drei neubenannte Schmetterlings-Abänderungen (Soc. Ent., 2, 1887, p. 121). — 14. KOVÁCS, L.: A magyarországi nagylepkék és elterjedésük I, and IL (Rovart. Közi., Nov. séria, 6, 1953, p. 76-164 and 9, 1956, p. 89-140). - 15. REBEL, FL: Die Lepidopterenfauna von Herkulesbad und Orsova (Ann. Naturhist. Hofm. Wien, 25, 1911, p. 253-430 +TVII). - 16. SPULER, A.: Die Schmetterlinge Europas I. Stuttgart, 1908, pp. CXXVIII + 385). — 17. STATJDINGER, O. & REBEL, H.: Cata­ log der Lepidopteren des palaearktischen Faunengebietes (I, Berlin, 1901, pp. XXX + , 411). — 18. WARNECKE, G. : Sidemia zollikoferi Frr. als Wanderfalter in Mittel- und Nordeuropa (Lep. Noct.) (Zeitschr. Wiener Ent. Ges., 44, 1959, p. 101-108). - 19. WARREN, AV.: Die Eulenartigeii Nachtfalter (in: Seitz: Die Gross-Schmetterlinge der Erde III. Stuttgart, 1914, pp. III +511). — 20. VOBBEODT, K.: Die Schmetterlinge der Schweiz (I. Bern, 1911, pp. LV + 489).