Studying the formation of local faunae and the likelihood for presence of vulnerable and rare species in core areas of ecological network and poorer refuges is the ground for scientific-practical valuations. Biodiversity territorial assessing, planning the nature protection, weighing the ecosystem shifts in transformed milieu and appraising a capacity for adaptation to changes in landscapes and habitats are among these. A part of that matter is dependence of faunal richness (in insects, other invertebrates, mammals, birds) on the floral richness that follows, in a way, diversity of habitat types. I considered that issue versus a simplified habitual approach distributed among conservationists – description of plant diversity is adequate to description of diversity in a community. It was shown (Андреев, 2002) that masking, imitating and amplifying factors mediate the dependence. Thus, adding a new plant species in a site increases likelihood for new insect species; the adding declines average space of other plants that declines probability for populating the other insects dwelling these plants. Lenz (1991) had shown influences on Odonata of factors: (1) spatial niche diversity – habitat architecture forming by plants; (2) abiotic niche space narrowing by pollution; (3) habitat square inducing statistically the species accumulation; (4) habitat isolation (fragmentation) impeding the accumulation. Correlations of species numbers were: important positive with the factor 1, very strong negative – the factor 2, very weak positive – the factor 3 and very weak negative – the factor 4. There are animal taxa independent or very dependent on species richness and structural diversity of plants. Therefore the above mentioned habitual approach is poorly grounded. It would be naturally to think the presence of habitats of certain types and of corresponding them plant associations with totality of these habitats determine plant species richness in the limits of a discrete natural (subnatural) site. How that certainty strong? There are now data on some taxa and theoretic notions while direct estimates for significance of relations between richness of flora, fauna and habitats are absent. Mainly published data (Andreev et al., 2012) on 151 feasible and identified Core Areas of National Ecological Network (NEN) allow such estimates. Direct estimating the dependence of species richness of highest plants and numerous insects is impossible. Hence relations of highest plants species richness, on the one hand, and insects from Operational List (OL) of the NEN and from lists of protected species, on the other hand, are estimated. OL is ample for use of statistics and data on many sites are. At the IX-th International Conference of Zoologists, 12-13 October 2016 89 same time OL includes rare species that are present with a probability in each place and may be not fixed. In such cases, therefore, zero values were substituted by the tiny constant. In other cases (highest plants, birds and mammals) incomplete data pairs were removed and the shortest length of samples became 77 pairs. All parametric correlations of insect and plant species numbers were significant (p < 0.05). But, these are quite weak for OL species – coefficient kp = 0.58 – and for species of Red List (RL) of Moldova (in conformity with law) – kp = 0.65, coefficients for species from annexes of Bern Convention and EU Habitat Directive are weaker (0.48 – 0.36). Determination coefficients (R2) vary in limits 0.13 – 0.42. That may be linked with (1) inequality of linear regression model, (2) real weakness of correlations, (3) acting the uncertain factors. Nonparametric (Spearman’s, Kendall Tau and gamma) correlations are significant but weaker, Spearman’s one is the best: for OL species kS = 0.46, for RL – kS = 0.55. Thus, inequality of the linear model is not important. Correlations between variables of plant and mammal species richness is near to insect case: kp = 0.54 with R2 = 0.29, kS = 0.40 (correlations are significant). Correlations of plants and birds variables are poor (kp = 0.21 with R2 = 0.04, kS = 0.14 – correlation is not significant) despite of a link between habitat architecture and faunal richness of dendrophilous birds (Zubcov, 2001). Some factors determine succession of a habitat (association) and ecosystem (habitat type) on the basis of development of vegetation. Correlations of plant species number with numbers of ecosystems and associations are found significant but weak – kp = 0.49 and 0.53 with R2 = 0.24 and 0.23, kS = 0.44 and 0.61. Correlations for numbers of ecosystems and plant associations made up, correspondingly: with OL insect number – kp = 0.38 and 0.32, kS = 0.20 (correlation is not significant) and 0.23; with mammal species number – kp = 0.44 and 0.47, kS = 0.41 and 0.43; with bird species number – kp = 0.52 and 0.29, kS = 0.50 and 0.26. Thus, the direct measuring the considered dependence confirms the theoretic notions.