Thayensia supplementum I. - Národní park Podyjí

Pulicaria vulgaris, Pyrola chlorantha, Sideritis montana, Taraxacum bessarabicum,
Torilis arvensis, Triglochin palustre, Vaccaria hispanica subsp. grandiflora, Viola suavis).
Podrobnější analýza, hodnotící vývoj jednotlivých biotopů a jejich flóry na základě
srovnání Drlíkovy Květeny Znojemska s poznatky jeho předchůdců a následovníků, je
ovšem nad rámec tohoto krát ké ho shrnutí a bude předmětem podrobnější studie.
Jako samostatně bádající amatér Drlík evidentně neměl možnost konzultovat svá
určení se specialisty. Je to celkem zřejmé z úrovně jeho determinací. Některé skupiny
mu zřejmě byly bližší, takže v nich není mnoho determinačních omylů, zatímco v jiných
se dopouštěl až školáckých chyb (např. při určování některých rostlin lipnicovitých).
Tyto omyly mu dnes nelze vyčítat. Naopak, Drlíkova snaha o důsledné shromažďování
herbářových do kla dů je mimořádně cenná a právě konfrontace sbírkového fondu
s textem rukopisu umožňuje dnešní kritický pohled na jeho odkaz.
SUMMARY
The manuscript of the “Květena Znojemska 1950–1954” was written by the first of the authors and
has not been published so far. After the manuscript had been discovered in the family archive, the
present co-authors translated it into the digital form and prepared it to be published (its original form
is shown in Figs. 1 and 2). In his manuscript, Vratislav Drlík joins up mainly with scientists who lived
in Znojmo, above all, Adolf Oborny (1840–1924) who was professor at the Znojmo gymnasium for
many years. This late scien tist is the author of a work named “Die Flora der Znaimer Kreises” (OBORNY
1879) and a critical work on the “Flora von Mähren und österr. Schlesien” (OBRONY 1883–1886) which
was very modern at its time. It is very in te re sting to note that Drlík worked with another book on the
flora of the Znojmo region whose main protagonist was Wolf gang Him mel baur, private university
teacher in Vienna (HIM MEL BAUR & STUMME 1923). Although both cri ti cal and very valuable in retrospective
points of view, this work was practically unknown to the Cze cho slo va ki an bo ta nists before
World War II. For example, it was not mentioned even in the contemporary botanical bibliography
(FUTÁK & DOMIN 1960). Furthermore, Drlík joins up with the studies by O. To mas chek, published in
the periodical „Natur und Heimat“, the major natural history forum of the Sudetic Ger mans, published
in Ústí nad Labem (TOMASCHEK 1933, 1935).
For the identification of plant species, Drlík chiefly used the work by LAUS (1908) and, in a limited
extent, the most widespread key published during the first Czechoslovakian republic (POLÍVKA et al.
1928). He also considered the flora written by Dostál to be of importance (DOSTÁL et al. 1948–1950)
and often refers the reader to its sim pli fying and often somewhat distorted geographic information.
It is surprising to note the author’s isolation from the Brno scientific centre, as during the first
Cze cho slo va ki an Republic this centre issued a large number of papers at least partly pertaining to
the Znojmo region. This is true, first of all, of the fragmentary “Květena Moravy“ (Flora of Moravia)
(PODPĚRA 1926–1930), only oc ca si o nal ly cited by Drlík. It is also worth mentioning the numerous
studies of Suza. Suza was not only the author of the term Praebohemicum, denoting the whole region
under the present study, but also treated its botanical pe cu li a ri ties in a monograph published in
the Botanisches Centralblatt, the international periodical issued in Dresden, Germany (SUZA 1935).
From among the disciples of the Brno botanical school, Drlík only quotes, in several cases, František
Švestka, who after World War II was active for a short time as scho ol mas ter in the Znojmo region.
Several studies by Anton Fröhlich, schoolmaster at Mikulov (e.g. FRÖH LICH 1930, also pertain to this
region. However, Drlík probably did not even know Fröhlich’s papers.
Drlík’s main activity area was the southern part of the present Znojmo Region; he had very scant
data from the area north of the Jevišovka River (the areas around Miroslav and Moravský Krumlov).
Sur pri sing on the one hand yet understandable on the other is the fact that Drlík’s text lacks his own
direct observations in the area lying close at the boundary between Czechoslovakia and Austria. At
the time Drlík worked in that area, access to the border zone was already rather complicated. From
the Dyje River valley, lying in the present Podyjí National Park, Drlík recorded several species only
278