Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

On the identity of the fossil aquatic beetles from the Tertiary localities in the southern part of the Upper Rhine Graben (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae, Dytiscidae)

Read this article at

Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      Abstract

      This study focuses on the fossil beetles assigned previously to the family Hydrophilidae described from the localities in the southern part of the Upper Rhine Graben: Brunstatt (France, Alsace) and Kleinkems (Germany, Baden-Württemberg) (both dated ca. to Eocene-Oligocene boundary, 34 Ma). The identity of Escheria convexa Förster, 1891 is fixed by the designation of its neotype, the species is redescribed, illustrated, transferred from the hydrophilid genus Hydrobius Leach, 1815 to the genus Copelatus Erichson, 1832 ( Coleoptera: Adephaga: Dytiscidae) and compared with other fossil representatives of Copelatus. The identity of the remaining three species, Hydrobius crassipunctatus (Förster, 1891), Hydrobius dimidiatus (Förster, 1891) and Hydrobius punctulatus (Förster, 1891),is briefly evaluated on the basis of the original descriptions and illustrations only, because their types were lost or destroyed during World War II; all three species are removed from the fossil record of the Hydrophiloidea and placed into Polyphaga incertae sedis. The geology and stratigraphy of Brunnstatt and Kleinkems are discussed briefly.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 1

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      MtDNA phylogeny and biogeography of Copelatinae, a highly diverse group of tropical diving beetles (Dytiscidae).

      Copelatinae is a diverse lineage of diving beetles (Dytiscidae) frequently encountered in wet tropical and subtropical forests, but phylogenetic relationships are very poorly understood. We performed a phylogenetic and biogeographic analysis of this worldwide distributed group based on 50 species including a representative sample of major taxonomic groups and biogeographical regions. DNA sequences were obtained for the mitochondrial genes cytochrome oxidase I, cytochrome b, and 16S rRNA, for a total of 1575 aligned nucleotide positions. We found Copelatinae to be monophyletic, placed in a derived position and not sister to all remaining dytiscids, as had been suggested by earlier authors. The largest genus, Copelatus with some 460 known species was paraphyletic with respect to the smaller genera Lacconectus and Aglymbus. Among the major lineages of Copelatus, the subgenus Papuadytes was consistently recovered as sister to all other species (including Lacconectus and Aglymbus) with the possible exception of two western Palearctic taxa. We propose that the subgenus Papuadytes is removed from Copelatus and assigned generic status. Likewise, the two western Palearctic Copelatus are removed from this genus, and assigned the available genus name Liopterus. Our best phylogenetic hypothesis retrieved Afrotropical and New Guinean plus Australian species of Copelatus as monophyletic. Asian species were paraphyletic with respect to a species from Sulawesi which grouped with the species from New Guinea. Asian species were also paraphyletic with respect to Oriental Lacconectus, which was grouped with a clade of Neotropical species. Neotropical Copelatus form at least two separate lineages. The biogeographical evolution of Papuadytes is consistent with the relative age of the landmasses in the Austral region. Basal species are Australian, and successively derived ones are from New Caledonia and New Guinea. One species apparently dispersed from New Caledonia to China. Assuming a molecular clock and using a standard calibration of 2% divergence/MY the origin of Copelatinae is estimated to be between 85 and 95 MY.
        Bookmark

        Author and article information

        Affiliations
        [1 ]Department of Entomology, National Museum, Kunratice 1, CZ-148 00 Praha 2, Czech Republic
        [2 ]Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, Viničná 7, CZ-128 44 Praha 2, Czech Republic
        [3 ]Steinmann Insitute of Geology, Mineralogy and Palaeontology, University of Bonn, Nußalle 8, 53115 Bonn, Germany
        [4 ]Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, Animal Ecology, University of Bonn, Melbweg 42, 53127 Bonn, Germany
        Author notes
        Corresponding author: Martin Fikáček ( mfikacek@ 123456gmail.com ).

        Academic editor: Jes Rust

        Journal
        Zookeys
        ZooKeys
        ZooKeys
        Pensoft Publishers
        1313-2989
        1313-2970
        2011
        28 January 2011
        : 78
        : 15-25
        3088061
        21594154
        10.3897/zookeys.78.800
        Martin Fikáček, Jiří Hájek, Heiko Schmie

        This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

        Categories
        Article
        ScienceOpen disciplines:
        Keywords:

        Comments

        Comment on this article