Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T14:12:40.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Insect Fauna of the Late Miocene Locality of Öhningen (Germany) Less Diverse than Reported: An Example of the Hydrophilid Beetles (Coleoptera)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2015

Martin Fikáček  and
Heiko Schmied
Martin Fikáček
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, National Museum, Kunratice 1, CZ-148 00 Praha 2, Czech Republic, Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, Viničná 7, CZ-128 44 Praha 2, Czech Republic
Heiko Schmied
Affiliation:
Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, Animal Ecology, University of Bonn, Melbweg 42, 53127 Bonn, Germany,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The fossils originally assigned to the family Hydrophilidae (Coleoptera, Polyphaga) from the late Miocene locality of Öhningen (southern Germany) are revised. Nine hydrophilid species are recognized, most of them representing the tribe Hydrophilini. Five species are reliably assigned to genera: Hydrochara noachica (Heer, 1847), n. comb. (=Hydrophilus rehmanni Heer, 1847, n. syn.), Hydrobiomorpha braunii (Heer, 1847), n. comb. (=Hydrous escheri Heer, 1862, n. syn.), Hydrobiomorpha heeri n. sp., Hydrophilus spectabilis Heer, 1847 (=Hydrophilus knorrii Heer, 1847, n. syn., =Hydrophilus giganteus Heer, 1862, n. syn.), and Hydrophilus vexatorius Heer, 1847. Two taxa are treated as Hydrophilini incertae sedis: Hydrophilopsis elongata Heer, 1862, and Hydrous ovalis Heer, 1862. Two species represent Hydrophilidae incertae sedis: Escheria ovalis Heer, 1847 and E. bella Heer, 1862. The fossil genus Hydrophilopsis Heer, 1862 likely represents the modern genera Sternolophus Solier, 1834 or Hydrobiomorpha Blackburn, 1888, the fossil genus Escheria Heer, 1847 likely represents some modern genus within the Hydrophilini or Hydrobiusini. Six taxa are excluded from the Hydrophiloidea: Helophorus magnus Heer, 1862, H. exilis Heer, 1862 (possibly belonging to Curculionidae), Hydrobius couloni Heer, 1862 and H. godeti Heer, 1862 (both possibly belonging to Curculionidae: Zygopinae), Hydrophilus braunii var. minor Heer, 1862, and Hydrophilus stenopterus Heer, 1862 (likely a leaf fossil). Our revision revealed a rather high amount of inaccurate family and genus assignments and a moderate amount of species-level synonymy in the original treatment of Öhnigen fauna by O. Heer. The diversity of the hydrophilid beetles in Öhningen is thus lower than previously reported, but still being slightly higher compared to other European Paleogene and Neogene localities.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 87 , Issue 3 , May 2013 , pp. 427 - 443
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berger, J. P., Reichenbacher, B., Becker, D., Grimm, M., Grimm, K., Picot, L., Storni, A., Pirkenseer, C., Derer, C., and Schaefer, A. 2005 a. Paleogeography of the Upper Rhine Graben (URG) and the Swiss Molasse Basin (SMB) from Eocene to Pliocene. International Journal of Earth Sciences, 94:697–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, J. P., Reichenbacher, B., Becker, D., Grimm, M., Grimm, K., Picot, L., Storni, A., Pirkenseer, C., and Schaefer, A. 2005 b. Eocene–Pliocene time scale and stratigraphy of the Upper Rhine Graben (URG) and the Swiss Molasse Basin (SMB). International Journal of Earth Sciences, 95:711–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berthold, A. A. 1827. Latreille's natürliche Familien des Thierreichs. Gr. H. S. priv.Landes-Industrie-Comptoirs, Weimar, 10+604p.Google Scholar
Blackburn, T. 1888. Notes on Australian Coleoptera with descriptions of new species. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, series 2, 3:805–875.Google Scholar
Darilmaz, M. C., Kiyak, S., and Short, A. E. Z. 2010. Discovery of the water scavenger beetle genus Brownephilus Mouchamps in Turkey (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae, Hydrophilini). ZooKeys, 53:13–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabricius, J. C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae, sistens insectorum classes, ordines genera, species, adiectus synonymus, locis, descriptionibus, observations. Libraria Korte, Flensburg and Lipsia, 32+832p.Google Scholar
Fikáček, M., Hájek, J., and Prokop, J. 2008. New records of the water scavenger beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae, Hydrophilidae) from the central European Oligocene-Miocene deposits, with a confirmation of the generic attribution of Hydrobiomorpha enspelense Wedmann, 2000. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France (Nouvelle Série), 44:187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fikáček, M., Wedmann, S., and Schmied, H. 2010 a. Diversification of the greater hydrophilines clade of giant water scavenger beetles dated back to the Middle Eocene (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae: Hydrophilina). Invertebrate Systematics, 24:9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fikáček, M., Schmied, H., and Prokop, J. 2010 b. Fossil hydrophilid beetles (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae) of the late Oligocene Rott Formation (Germany). Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition), 84:732–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fikáček, M., Prokop, J., and Nel, A. 2010 c. Fossil water scavenger beetles of the subtribe Hydrobiusina (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae) from the late Oligocene locality of Aix-en-Provence (France). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 50:445–458.Google Scholar
Fikáček, M., Hájek, J., and Schmied, H. 2011 a. On the identity of the fossil aquatic beetles from the Tertiary localities in the southern part of the Upper Rhine Graben (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae, Dytiscidae). ZooKeys, 78:15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fikáček, M., Prokin, A., and Angus, R. B. 2011 b. A long-living species of the hydrophiloid beetles: Helophorus sibiricus from the early Miocene deposits of Kartashevo (Siberia, Russia). ZooKeys, 130:239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fikáček, M., Prokin, A., Angus, R. B., Ponomarenko, A., Yue, Y., Ren, D., and Prokop, J. 2012 a. Revision of Mesozoic fossils of the helophorid lineage of the superfamily Hydrophiloidea (Coleoptera: Polyphaga). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 52:89–127.Google Scholar
Fikáček, M., Prokin, A., Angus, R. B., Ponomarenko, A., Yue, Y., Ren, D., and Prokop, J. 2012 b. Phylogeny and the fossil record of the Helophoridae reveal Jurassic origin of modern hydrophiloid lineages (Coleoptera: Polyphaga). Systematic Entomology, 37:420–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geoffroy, E. L. 1762. Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris dans laquelle ces animaux sont rangés suivant un ordre méthodique. Tome premier. Durand, Paris, 28+523p.Google Scholar
Grimaldi, D., and Engel, M. S. 2005. Evolution of the Insects. Cambridge University Press, New York, 755p.Google Scholar
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T., and Ryan, P. D. 2001. Paleontological Statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica, 4:1–9.Google Scholar
Hansen, M. 1991. The hydrophiloid beetles. Phylogeny, classification and a revision of the genera (Coleoptera, Hydrophiloidea). Biologiske Skrifter, 40:1–367.Google Scholar
Hansen, M. 1999. World Catalogue of Insects. Volume 2. Hydrophiloidea (s.str.) (Coleoptera). Apollo Books, Stenstrup, 416p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hantke, R. 1954. Die fossile Flora der obermiozänen Oehninger-Fundstelle Schrotzburg (Schienerberg, Süd-Baden). Denkschriften der Schweizerischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 80:27–118.Google Scholar
Heer, O. 1847. Die Insektenfauna der Tertiärgebilde von Oeningen und von Radoboj in Croatien. Erster Theil: Käfer. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig, 229 p. + 8 pl.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heer, O. 1849. Die Insektenfauna der Tertiärgebilde von Oeningen und von Radoboj in Croatien. Zweiter Theil: Heuschrecken, Florfliegen, Aderflügler, Schmetterlinge und Fliegen. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig, 264 p. + 17 pl.Google Scholar
Heer, O. 1853. Die Insektenfauna der Tertiärgebilde von Oeningen und von Radoboj in Croatien. Dritter Theil: Rhynchoten. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig, 138 p. + 14 pl.Google Scholar
Heer, O. 1862. Beiträge zur Insektenfauna Oeningens. Coleoptera. Geodephagen, Hydrocanthariden, Gyriniden, Brachyelytren, Clavicornen, Lamellicornen und Buprestiden. Verhandelingen Uitgegeeren Door de Hollandse Maatschappye der Wetenshappen te Harlem, 16:1–90+ pl. 1–7.Google Scholar
Heer, O. 1865 a. Ueber die fossilen Kakerlaken. Viereljahresschrift der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft Zürich, 9:273–303.Google Scholar
Heer, O. 1865 b. Die Urwelt der Schweiz. Friedrich Schulthess Verlag, Zürich, 622p.Google Scholar
Heer, O. 1867. Fossile Hymenopteren aus Oeningen und Radoboj. Neue Denkschriften der Allgemeiner Schweizerischer Gesellschaft für die Gesamten Naturwissenschaften, (1867):1–42+ 3 pl.Google Scholar
Hinsken, S., Ustaszewski, K., and Wetzel, A. 2007. Graben width controlling syn-rift sedimentation: The Palaeogene southern Upper Rhine Graben as an example. International Journal of Earth Sciences, 96:979–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kälin, D., Weidmann, M., Engesser, B., and Berger, J. P. 2001. Paléontologie et âge de la Molasse d‘eau douce supérieure (OSM) du Jura neuchâtelois. Mémoires Suisses de Paléontologie, 121:65–99.Google Scholar
Kiselev, S. V., and Nazarov, V. I. 2009. Late Cenozoic insects of northern Eurasia. Paleontological Journal, 43:1–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komarek, A. 2004. Taxonomic revision of Anacaena Thomson, 1859. I. Afrotropical species (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Koleopterologische Rundschau, 74:303–349.Google Scholar
Krell, F. T. 2006. Fossil record and evolution of Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera: Polyphaga). Coleopterists Society Monograph, 5:120–143.Google Scholar
Latreille, P. A. 1802. Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière des Crustacés et des Insectes. Familles naturelles et genres, Vol. 3. F. Dufart, Paris, xii+468p.Google Scholar
Lutz, H. 1997. Taphozönosen terrestrischer Insekten in aquatischen Sedimenten—ein Beitrag zur Rekonstruktion des Paläoenvironments. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen, 203:173–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mai, D. H. 1995. Tertiäre Vegetationsgeschichte Europas. Fischer, Jena, 691p.Google Scholar
Ponomarenko, A. G., and Kirejtshuk, A. G. 2005. Taxonomic list of fossil beetles of suborders Cupedina, Carabina and Scarabaeina (Part 1). Available at: http://www.zin.ru/Animalia/Coleoptera/eng/paleosy0.htm. Accessed: 17 December 2009.Google Scholar
Rasband, W. 2012. ImageJ 1.44p. Available at http://imagej.nih.gov/ij.Google Scholar
Rasnitsyn, A. P., and Zherikhin, V. V. 2002. Appendix: Alphabetic list of selected fossil sites. Impression fossils, p. 437–444. InRasnitsyn, A. P. and Quicke, D. J. L.(eds.), History of Insects. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selmeier, A. 1990. Die Molasseflora von Öhningen, p. 214–220. InWeidert, W. K.(ed.)Klassische Fundstellen der Paläontologie, Band 2. Goldschneck-Verlag, Korb.Google Scholar
Short, A. E. Z. 2010. Phylogeny, evolution and classification of the giant water scavenger beetles (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae: Hydrophilini: Hydrophilina). Systematics and Biodiversity, 8:17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Short, A. E. Z., and Fikáček, M. 2011. World catalogue of the Hydrophiloidea (Coleoptera): additions and corrections II (2006–2010). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 51:83–122.Google Scholar
Solier, A. J. J. 1834. Observations sur la tribu des Hydrophiliens et principalement sur le genre Hydrophilus de Fabricius. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 2:299–318.Google Scholar
Wedmann, S. 2000. Die Insekten der oberoligozänen Fossillagerstätte Enspel (Westerwald, Deutschĺand). Systematik, Biostratinomie und Paläoökologie. Mainzer Naturwissenschaftliches Archiv, 23:1–154.Google Scholar