Translation:There are no butterflies, bees or flies in this zoo.
Does anyone agree that using 'and' in this sentence is unnatural in english? I would definitely say or
Is the Hungarian natural? i.e. would Hungarian use és in a negative sentence such as this one, rather than vagy?
I had to think really hard on this one. Which probably means there is not much difference. But anyway... Yes, the Hungarian sentence does sound natural to me. I think the underlying sense is something like "this is the list of things that are not: A, B, C and D".
If I say it with "vagy", it feels closer to saying that there is no distinction: "There are no butterflies, bees or flies here: there are only bugs." Meaning we (they) are all equal.
Am I sensing correctly that it is the opposite in English?
Anyway, this distinction does not feel strong at all. It is probably up to the context to make it clear.
In English, at least for me, the neutral wording is with or for both of those meanings: "There are no butterflies here, and also no bees, and also no flies." and "There are no B/B/F here; there are only bugs."
The first of those is perhaps derived from an idea like "I am looking for a butterfly, or a bee, or a fly; if I see any of those, I will be happy." But at the zoo, there is no animal from any of those categories.
"There are no butterflies, bees, and flies here" sounds odd and a bit as if someone is trying to say "There are no animals here which are simultaneously a butterfly, a bee, and a fly". Or perhaps "It is not the case that: there are butterflies, bees, and flies here." -- so the sentence would be true if there were butterflies and bees but no flies, because not all of B+B+F are there.
I think I would probably say "There are no butterflies, bees, nor flies in this zoo".