Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 March 2024 | 16(3): 24854–24880
ISSN 0974-7907
(Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5821.16.3.24854-24880
#5821 | Received 28 February 2020 | Final received 29 September 2023 |
Finally accepted 27 February 2024
Faunal inventory and illustrated
taxonomic keys to aquatic Coleoptera (Arthropoda: Insecta) of the northern
Western Ghats of Maharashtra, India
Sayali D. Sheth 1,
Anand D. Padhye 2 &
Hemant V. Ghate 3
1 Annasaheb Kulkarni Department of
Biodiversity, Abasaheb Garware College, Pune, Maharashtra 411004, India.
1 Department
of Zoology, Prof. Ramkrishna More College Arts, Commerce and Science College,
Akurdi Pune, Maharashtra 411044, India.
2 Department of Zoology, Abasaheb
Garware College, Pune, Maharashtra 411004, India.
3 Department of Zoology, Modern
College, Shivajinagar, Pune, Maharashtra 411005, India.
1 saylisheth@gmail.com (corresponding author), 2 adpadhye63@gmail.com,
3 hemantghate@gmail.com
Editor: Anonymity requested. Date of
publication: 26 March 2024 (online & print)
Citation: Sheth,
S.D., A.D.. Padhye & H.V. Ghate (2024). Faunal inventory and illustrated taxonomic
keys to aquatic Coleoptera (Arthropoda: Insecta) of the northern Western Ghats
of Maharashtra, India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 16(3):
24854–24880. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5821.16.3.24854-24880
Copyright: © Sheth et al. 2024. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License. JoTT allows unrestricted use,
reproduction, and distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate
credit to the author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: Funding agencies for the current work are as follows: University
Grants Commission (UGC), Delhi, India; Board of College and University
Development (BCUD), Pune, India.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing
interests.
Author details: Dr. Sayali D. Sheth is currently working as an
assistant professor of Zoology in PDEA’s Ramkrishna More Arts, Commerce and
Science, Akurdi, Pune. She studies ecology and evolution using water beetles as models. Dr. Anand D. Padhye is a retired professor of Zoology
(Abasaheb Garware College, Pune). He has been working in the field of
biodiversity with a special interest in amphibians. Dr. Hemant V. Ghate is a retired professor of Zoology
(Modern College, Shivajinagar, Pune). He is currently pursuing the taxonomy
of multiple groups of insects.
Author contributions: SDS has collected data. SDS and HVG have identified the research
material and performed all photography. SDS, HVG, and ADP have prepared the manuscript.
Acknowledgements: We are obliged to Olof Biström,
Anders Nilsson, Jiri Hájek, Günther Wewalka, Stephen Baca, Shriraj Jakhalekar,
and Sameer Padhye for their help and comments on initial versions of the
manuscript. Sayali gratefully acknowledges Neelesh Dahanukar for providing
facilities at Indian Institute of Science and Educational Research, Pune to
prepare illustrations. Sayali is thankful to Yugandhar Shinde (Modern College,
Shivajinagar, Pune) for providing laboratory space to prepare insect specimens
for deposition. We are grateful to Fernando Pederzani, Jiri Hájek, Martin Fikáček,
Lars Hendrich, Kelly Miller, Michael Balke, Olof Biström, Manfred Jäch, Mario
Toledo, Günther Wewalka, Grey Gustafson, David Bilton, Anders Nilsson, Ignacio
Ribera, and Stephen Baca for timely correspondence on taxonomic problems.
Sayali thanks her colleagues for their valuable help on field and for some
samples. We are grateful to the authorities of Abasaheb Garware College, Modern
College (Shivajinagar), and IISER, Pune for providing facilities. Sayali is
grateful to Prof. Dr. R.A. Morey (Head, Department of Zoology) and authorities
of PDEA’s Prof. Ramkrishna More College, Akurdi, Pune for support. Anand D.
Padhye acknowledges Board of College and University Development (BCUD), SPPU,
Pune for partial funding. Sayali thanks University Grants Commission, New Delhi
for fellowship.
Abstract: Following several surveys of
aquatic Coleoptera during 2013–2018 in northern Western Ghats, India, we hereby provide an illustrated
checklist with modified keys to the species of families Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae,
Noteridae, and Hydrophilidae. To date, we have collected 69 species of true
water beetles, adding new occurrence records for two species to the fauna of
the state. Keys are modified from the works of various authors. Distribution
records are provided with district specific records for Maharashtra. Keys,
species lists, and distribution records are based on our survey results.
Species were identified following the works of various authors, and affirmed by
dissecting male genitalia. Provided with keys are habitus images, images of
male genitalia for 59 species, and digital drawings & scanning electron
micrographs of taxonomically important structures wherever necessary. These
surveys were conducted to revive the work on aquatic beetles that have been
neglected for about 40 years, and to prepare a revised checklist.
Keywords: Dytiscidae, escarpments, freshwater ecosystems, Hydrophilidae, inland
waters, orographic rain, water beetles.
Introduction
The taxonomy of most of the
aquatic beetles has been thoroughly studied worldwide, and to date more than
13,000 species are described under this group (Short 2018). The Oriental region
harbours about 3,580 species of aquatic beetles (Jäch & Balke 2008).
According to Ghosh & Nilsson (2012), there are over 250 dytiscid species
found in India, and the same catalogue records 48 species from Maharashtra. It
was essential to revisit the aquatic beetle fauna of Maharashtra as the
previous work was done 40–45 years before (Vazirani 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970a,b,
1971, 1977a,b, 1984). A recent literature-based checklist of aquatic beetles
from Maharashtra reports 57 species of beetles under the families Dytiscidae
Leach, 1815; Gyrinidae Latreille, 1810; Noteridae Thomson, 1860, and
Hydrophilidae Latreille, 1802 (Sharma & Bano 2012). A series of papers by
Vazirani (1967, 1968, 1969, 1970a,b, 1971, 1977a,b, 1984) included past as well
as new records, and also added new species of water beetles, a majority of
which belong to Dytiscidae. Tonapi & Ozarkar (1969a,b) in their studies on
aquatic beetles from the Pune region included water beetle species with brief
descriptions and short notes on their ecology. Data on the family Haliplidae
Aube, 1936 from Maharashtra is available (Sheth et al. 2016). Additionally,
Sheth et al. (2018) revised the dytiscid genus Copelatus Erichson, 1832
with the discovery of three new species. Further, a recent study presented a
record of 15 species of water beetles from Pune (Deb et al. 2023). The
taxonomic keys and descriptions are available for many, if not all, species of
Indian Dytiscidae, and Noteridae (e.g., Vazirani 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970a,b,
1971, 1977a,b, 1984; Pederzani 1995; Miller & Wewalka 2010), Gyrinidae, and
Haliplidae (Vazirani 1984); however, some of these keys need revision. Also,
compiled literature and keys for the Indian Hydrophilidae, another large group
of aquatic beetles, are not readily available.
Here, for the first time, we are
providing digital images of 59 species of aquatic beetles, collected from
western Maharashtra. These exclude a total of 12 species as detailed
information is already available for 10 species under the genera Eretes
Laporte, 1833, Copelatus Erichson, 1832, and Haliplus Latreille
1802 (Sheth & Ghate 2014; Sheth et al. 2016, 2018). Additionally, due to a
lack of intact specimens, two species, namely Microdytes svensoni K.B.
Miller & Wewalka, 2010 and M. boukali Wewalka, 1997 were also
omitted. Keys provided by Vazirani (cited earlier) are updated and modified
wherever necessary. The earlier and latest literature (Balfour-Browne 1946;
Vazirani 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970a,b, 1971, 1977a,b, 1984; Biström &
Silfverberg 1981; Biström 1982, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1996; Brancucci 1983; Nilsson
et al. 1989; Hansen 1991; Schödl 1992, 1993; Pederzani 1995; Wewalka 1979,
1997; Miller 2002; Biström & Nilsson 2003; Brancucci 2003; Komarek 2003;
Balke et al. 2004; Miller et al. 2006; Miller & Wewalka 2010; Bouchard et
al. 2011; Nilsson 2011; Ghosh & Nilsson 2012; Miller & Bergsten 2012;
Hendrich & Brancucci 2013; Short & Fikáček 2013; Bilton 2015; Biström
& Bergsten 2015; Nilsson 2015; Hajek & Brancucci 2015; Nasserzadeh
& Komarek 2017; Villastrigo et al. 2017) was followed for identification
and nomenclature. In the previous Indian literature, line drawings were also
poorly produced or lacking. Hence, taxonomically important structures of
aquatic beetles are illustrated also with line drawings, wherever necessary.
Latest names of species are used. To restrict the size of this paper earlier
synonymies and species distributions outside Maharashtra are not presented, as
these are already available in the familywise catalogues (cited earlier). For
the same purpose keys to families, subfamilies, and genera are not given.
Materials
and Methods
Study area
For the present work, we focused
on freshwater habitats in the northern Western Ghats (hereafter referred to as
NWG) of Maharashtra State (locality and habitat details are according to Sheth
et al. 2019). NWG are one of eight parts of the Deccan plateau formed due to
volcanic eruptions (Image 1A). Based on the geology and geography, there exists
an altitudinal gradient in NWG. The altitude in NWG (Image 1B) ranges 600–1,375
m with the highest at Kalasubai peak (1,650 m) in Maharashtra State. The
escarpments (900–1,375 m) act as barriers for summer winds because of which the
Ghats receive orographic rain. During the southwest monsoon (June–October) the
Ghats receive maximum rainfall followed by the dry period for the rest of the
year. The rainfall ranges from 3,500–6,500 mm and decreases northwards and eastwards
(Image 1C). The heat waves and cold waves are experienced in NWG. Temperature
reaches as high as 42 ⁰C to as low as 4 ⁰C. The eastern side of the Ghats have
lower temperature ranges as opposed to the western side. The annual mean
temperature (Image 1D) in the Western Ghats proper is somewhat lower as
18---–24 ⁰C (Mani 1974).
Methods
Specimen collection,
identification, and preparation of illustrations follows Sheth & Ghate 2014
and Sheth et al. 2019 (please refer to the reference list provided as a
supplementary file Sheth et al. 2019 as a comparative literature). All these
references for the identification of specimens are provided with keys for
respective taxa in the present paper. The checklist is prepared from our
surveys. The specimens are deposited in the Hemant Vasant Ghate collection
(HVGC) at Modern College, Pune. The specimens will be subsequently deposited in
the Zoological Survey of India, Akurdi, Pune.
Results
Checklist of aquatic beetles of
NWG
[*new record to Maharashtra; #already
published in Sheth & Ghate 2014, Sheth et al. 2016 and Sheth et al.
2018]
Family Dytiscidae Leach, 1815
Subfamily: Hydroporinae Aubé,
1836
Tribe: Hyphydrini Gistel, 1848
Hyphydrus lyratus flavicans Régimbart,
1892
Material examined and
distribution: Seven males and 10 females from Pune and Nashik.
Hyphydrus intermixtus (Walker, 1858)
Material examined and
distribution: 45 males and 40 females were studied from Pune, Satara,
Ahmednagar, Nashik, Raigad, and Kolhapur.
Hyphydrus renardi Severin, 1890
Material examined and
distribution: 30 males and 30 females were studied from Pune, Satara,
Ahmednagar, Thane, Nashik, Kolhapur, and Ratnagiri.
Microdytes sabitae Vazirani, 1968
Material examined and
distribution: 24 males and 23 females were studied from Pune, Satara, and
Ahmednagar.
Microdytes whitingi K.B. Miller &
Wewalka, 2010
Material examined and
distribution: three females and one male
from Pune.
Tribe: Hydrovatini Sharp, 1880
Hydrovatus cardoni Severin, 1890
Material examined and
distribution: seven males and eight females were studied from Kolhapur and
Ratnagiri.
Hydrovatus rufoniger rufoniger*(Clark, 1963)
Material examined and
distribution: one male and one female from Ratnagiri.
Hydrovatus acuminatus Motschulsky, 1859
Material examined and distribution:
three males and two females studied from Nashik, Pune, Sangli, and Sindhudurg.
Tribe: Bidessini Sharp, 1880
Clyeodytes hemani Vazirani, 1968 (Image 4C, 5C)
Material examined and
distribution: 20 males and 30 females from Satara.
Hydroglyphus flammulatus (Sharp, 1882)
Material examined and
distribution: 60 males and 65 females were examined from Pune, Satara, Thane,
Nashik, Kolhapur, and Sindhudurg.
Hydroglyphus inconstans (Régimbart,
1892)
Material examined and
distribution: More than 100 males and females were examined from Pune, Satara,
Thane, Raigad, Nashik, and Ratnagiri.
Yola indica Biström, 1983 (Image 4F, 5F)
Material examined and
distribution: five males and five females from Pune, Ahmednagar, Sangli, and
Kolhapur.
Peschetius quadricostatus (Aubé, 1838) (Image 6A, 7Aa, 7Ab)
Material examined and
distribution: 50 males and 50 females were studied from Pune, Thane, Raigad
Nashik, Ratnagiri, and Sindhudurg.
Peschetius toxophorus Guignot, 1942 (Image 6A, 7Aa, 7Ab)
Material examined and
distribution: 50 males and 50 females were studied from Pune, Satara, and
Nashik.
Tribe: Hygrotini Portevin, 1929
Hygrotus (s.str.) musicus (Klug,
1834) (Image 6C,
7C)
Material examined and
distribution: two males and two females from Pune.
Hygrotus nilghiricus Régimbart, 1903 (Image6D, 7D)
Material examined and
distribution: Five males and eight females from Pune.
Subfamily: Laccophilinae Gistel,
1856
Tribe: Laccophilini Gistel, 1856
Laccophilus ceylonicus Zimmermann, 1919
Material examined and distribution:
18 males and 23 females from Pune and Satara.
Laccophilus flexuosus Aubé, 1838
Material examined and
distribution: more than 100 males and females studied from Pune, Satara, Thane,
Nashik, Kolhapur, and Ratnagiri.
Laccophilus inefficiens (Walker, 1859)
Material examined and
distribution: more than 150 males and females were studied from Kolhapur, Pune,
Satara, Ahmednagar, Nashik, Thane, and Sindhudurg.
Laccophilus parvulus parvulus Aubé,
1838
Material examined and
distribution: 15 males and 18 females were studied from Pune, Satara,
Ratnagiri, and Sindhudurg.
Laccophilus parvulus obtusus Sharp,
1882
Material examined and
distribution: 10 males and eight females from Pune, Nashik, Thane, Ratnagiri,
and Sindhudurg.
Subfamily: Colymbetinae Erichson,
1837
Tribe: Colymbetini Erichson, 1837
Rhantus taprobanicus Sharp, 1890 (Image 9D, 10D)
Material examined and
distribution: eight males and eight females were studied from Raigad, Satara,
Pune, Ahmednagar, Kolhapur, and Nashik.
Subfamily: Copelatinae Branden,
1885
Tribe: Copelatini Branden, 1885
Copelatus schuhi# Hendrich
& Balke, 1998
Material examined and
distribution: two males and six females from Pune and Ratnagiri.
Copelatus deccanensis#
Sheth, Ghate & Hájek, 2018
Material examined and distribution:
two males and six females from Nashik, Ahmednagar, and Pune.
Copelatus bezdeki# Sheth,
Ghate & Hájek, 2018
Material examined and
distribution: one male and four females were studied from Kolhapur, Satara, and
Pune.
Copelatus indicus# Sharp, 1882
Material examined and
distribution: one male and one female were studied from Satara.
Copelatus schereri# Wewalka,
1981
Material examined and
distribution: one male was studied from Satara.
Copelatus mysorensis#
Vazirani, 1970
Material examined and
distribution: three males and five females were studied from Pune.
Copelatus cryptarchoides#
Régimbart, 1899
Material examined and
distribution: one male and one female from Pune.
Lacconectus lambai Vazirani, 1977
Material examined and
distribution: 20 males and 23 females were studied from Satara.
Lacconectus andrewesi Guignot, 1952
Material examined and
distribution: six females and four males from Pune.
Subfamily: Dytiscinae Leach, 1815
Tribe: Eretini Crotch, 1873
Eretes griseus# (Fabricius, 1781)
Material examined and
distribution: 10 males and 10 females from Nashik, Pune, Kolhapur, and
Sindhudurg.
Tribe: Aciliini Thomson, 1867
Sandracottus festivus (Illiger, 1801)
Material examined and
distribution: eight males and seven females were studied from Satara, Pune, and
Ahmednagar.
Sandracottus dejeanii (Aubé, 1838)
Material examined and
distribution: seven males and nine females were studied from Raigad and Pune.
Tribe: Hydaticini Sharp, 1880
Hydaticus incertus Régimbart, 1888
Material examined and
distribution: 25 males and 26 females were studied from Pune, Nashik, and
Kolhapur.
Hydaticus luczonicus Aubé, 1838
Material examined and
distribution: 40 males and 47 females were studied from Pune, Ahmednagar,
Nashik, and Satara.
Hydaticus vittatus vittatus (Fabricius,
1775)
Material examined and
distribution: 30 males and 30 females were examined from Kolhapur, Pune,
Satara, Ahmednagar, and Nashik.
Hydaticus satoi satoi Wewalka, 1975
Material examined and
distribution: 15 males and 15 females from Raigad, Pune, Satara, Ahemdnagar,
Nashik, and Sindhudurg.
Subfamily: Cybistrinae
Tribe: Cybistrini Sharp, 1880
Cybister sugillatus Erichson, 1834
Material examined and
distribution: three males and four females studied from Pune, Satara, Raigad,
and Sindhudurg.
Cybister cardoni Severin, 1890
Material examined and
distribution: one male and one female from Ratnagiri.
Cybister tripunctatus lateralis
(Fabricius, 1798)
Material examined and
distribution: two males and four females were studied from Pune, Nashik,
Raigad, and Ratnagiri.
Cybister confusus Sharp, 1882
Material examined and
distribution: two males and four females from Pune, Raigad, and Ratnagiri.
Cybister cognatus Sharp, 1882
Material examined and
distribution: three males and three females from Pune and Nashik.
Family: Gyrinidae Latreille, 1810
Subfamily: Gyrininae Latreille,
1810
Tribe: Enhydrini Régimbart, 1882
Dineutus indicus Aubé, 1838
Material examined and
distribution: 50 males and 52 females were studied from Raigad, Pune, Satara,
Ahmednagar, Nashik, and Sindhudurg.
Dineutus unidentatus Aubé, 1838
Material examined and
distribution: one male and two females from Nashik.
Tribe: Orectochilini Régimbart,
1882
Patrus productus (Régimbart, 1883)
Material examined and distribution:
two males and two females from Ratnagiri.
Patrus discifer (Walker, 1859)
Material examined and
distribution: 10 males and 12 females were examined from Pune, Kolhapur, and
Ratnagiri.
Patrus cf haemorrhous (Régimbart
1891)
Material examined and distribution:
one female from Pune.
Patrus assimilis (Ochs 1957)
Material examined: 10 males and
10 females from Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg.
Patrus limbatus (Régimbart, 1883)
Material examined: One male and
one female from Pune
Family: Noteridae Thomson, 1860
Subfamily: Noterinae Thomson,
1860
Tribe: Noterini Thomson, 1860
Canthydrus laetabilis (Walker, 1858)
Material examined and
distribution: 12 males and 14 females were studied from Pune.
Canthydrus luctuosus (Aubé, 1838)
Material examined and distribution:
20 males and 20 females were studied from Pune, Nashik, and Kolhapur.
Tribe: Neohydrocoptini Zalat,
Saleh, Angus & Kaschef, 2000
Neohydrocoptus bivittis*
Motschulsky 1859
Material examined and
distribution: two males and three females from Ratnagiri (collected by SVP
& MRK).
Neohydrocoptus sp. 2
Material examined and
distribution: one male and two females from Ratnagiri (collected by SVP &
MRK) and one specimen from Pune.
Family: Haliplidae Aube, 1936
Subfamily: Haliplinae, Tribe:
Haliplini
Haliplus arrowi# Guignot,
1936
Material examined and
distribution: 22 males and 15 females from Pune and Satara.
Haliplus angustifrons#
Régimbart, 1892
Material examined and
distribution: one male form Pune.
Family: Hydrophilidae Latreille,
1802
Subfamily: Hydrophilinae
Latreille, 1802
Sternolophus inconspicuus (Nietner,
1856)
Material examined and
distribution: five males and three females were studied from Pune district.
Sternolophus rufipes (Fabricius, 1792)
Material examined and
distribution: five males and 10 females were studied from Pune, Nashik,
Ratnagiri, and Sindhudurg.
Hydrobiomorpha spinicollis
(Eschscholtz, 1822) (Image 20C, 21C)
Material examined and
distribution: three females and two males from Pune and Kolhapur.
Hydrophilus olivacious Fabricius, 1781 (Image 20D, 21D)
Material examined and
distribution: Three males and six females from Nashik, Pune, Raigad, and Goa.
Berosus pulchellus MacLeay, 1825
Material examined and
distribution: 11 females and six males from Pune, Nashik, Raigad, and
Sindhudurg.
Berosus chinensis Knisch, 1922
Material examined and
distribution: two females and two males from Pune.
Berosus indicus (Motschulsky, 1861)
Material examined and
distribution: eight females and eight males from Pune, Nashik, Satara, and
Sindhudurg.
Berosus indiges Schödl, 1992
Material examined and
distribution: two males and two females from Nashik.
Regimbartia attenuata (Fabricius, 1801)
(Image 22E,
24E)
Material examined and
distribution: two males and four females from Pune, Satara, Kolhapur,
Ratnagiri, and Sindhudurg.
Allocotocerus sp1 (Image 22F, 24F)
Material examined and
distribution: seven males and eight females from Kolhapur, Ratnagiri, and
Sindhudurg districts.
Amphiops sp1 (Image 25A, 25B)
Material examined and distribution:
three females and two males from Pune, Ratnagiri, and Sindhudurg.
Remarks: Size: 3.5–4 mm
Helochares sp1 (Image 25C, 25D)
Material examined and distribution:
two females and four males from Nashik, Pune, Ratnagiri, and Sindhudurg.
Remarks: Size: 5.3–5.6 mm
Helochares sp2 (Image 25E, 25F)
Material examined and distribution:
three females and two males from Nashik and Ratnagiri.
Remarks: Size: 4.5–4.8 mm.
Illustrated taxonomic
keys to the aquatic beetles of NWG
Family Dytiscidae
Subfamily: Hydroporinae Aubé,
1836
Genus Hyphydrus Illiger,
1802
Biström (1982) was followed for
generic as well as species level identification.
Illustrations and additions to
the keys to Hyphydrus species:
1. Pronotum with distinct black
marking at posterior margin (Figure 1A); in male last abdominal segment with
tubercles; second abdominal segment of male with spine like process (Figure
1B); in female each elytron with longitudinal depression; size large, 4---–5mm
(Image 2A); male genitalia (Image 3A)…H. l. flavicans Régimbart, 1892
- Pronotum with distinct black
markings at anterior and posterior margins; in male last abdominal segment
without tubercles; male without spine like process on second abdominal segment;
female without longitudinal depression per elytron; size small, 3---–4 mm…2
2. Pronotum with anterior and
posterior black markings connected on disc (Figure 1C); elytra less shiny; pro
and mesotarsi with last segment dark (Figure 1D); size 3.5---–4mm (Image 2B);
median lobe of male genitalia with a hook like apical process in lateral view
(Image 3B)...H. intermixtus (Walker, 1858)
- Pronotum with anterior and
posterior black markings separate (Figure 1E); elytra shiny; last segment of
pro and mesotarsi not darkened; size 3---–4mm (Image 2C); median lobe of male
genitalia without a hook like apical process in lateral view (Image 3C)…H.
renardi Severin, 1890.
Genus Microdytes J.
Balfour-Browne, 1946
Species were
identified using the descriptions and keys provided by Wewalka (1997) and
Miller & Wewalka (2010).
Illustrations and keys to Microdytes
species (Image 3D, 3E):
1. Body globular oval, size 2 mm
(Image 2D); dorsal-ventral sides with coarse punctures...M. sabitae
Vazirani, 1968
- Body oblong oval, size 1.5 mm
(Image 2E); dorso-ventrally flat, punctures on dorsal-ventral sides obsolete...M.
whitingi K.B. Miller & Wewalka, 2010
Genus Hydrovatus Motschulsky,
1853
The species were identified using
keys by Biström (1996).
Illustrations and keys to Hydrovatus
species (Image 3F, 5A, and 5B):
1. Elytron black with pale yellow
transverse fasciae, sutural region black; size 3 mm (Image 2F)...H.
cardoni Severin, 1890
- Elytron concolourous...2
2. Size 3.5 mm (Image 4A) …H.
rufoniger rufoniger (Clark, 1963)
- Size 2.5 mm (Image 4B)...H.
acuminatus Motschulsky, 1859
Genus Hydroglyphus Motschulsky,
1853
The species were identified using
keys by Vazirani (1968).
Illustrations and keys to Hydroglyphus
species:
1. Pronotal plicae do not
continue on elytra; size 2.5 mm (Image 4D); median lobe of male genitalia
abruptly narrows to apex (Image 5D)...H. flammulatus (Sharp,
1882)
- Pronotal plicae continue on
elytra; size 1.5 mm (Image 4E); median lobe of male genitalia gradually narrows
to apex (Image 5E)…H. inconstans (Régimbart, 1892)
Genus Hygrotus Stephens,
1828
Illustrations and keys to Hygrotus
species
1. Median lobe of male genitalia
broad from base to apex (Image7 Ca,b); body Size 3 mm (Image 6C)…
Hygrotus musicus (Klug, 1834)
- Median lobe of male genitalia
broad at base, bulges in middle, narrows towards apex (Image7Da,b); body Size
4.5 mm (Image 6D)…Hygrotus nilghiricus Régimbart, 1903
Remarks: Villastrigo et al.
(2017) proposed a new classification of tribe Hygrotini based on molecular
phylogeny. The former genus Herophydrus was synonymized with a subgenus Hygrotus
s. str. and the genus Hyphoporus was given a new status of a subgenus
under the genus Hygrotus (Villastrigo et al. 2017).
Subfamily: Laccophilinae Gistel,
1856
Genus Laccophilus Leach,
1815
The generic identification is
based on keys provided by Pederzani (1995) and Brancucci (1983), and species
level identification is based on Brancucci (1983) and Vazirani (1968).
Illustrations and additions to
the keys to Laccophilus species:
1. Elytra dark brown or black
with 3 yellow fasciae and a median yellow spot per elytron (fasciae: 1st—sub-basal
fascia well separated from base, 2nd—post median and 3rd—apical)
elytral microsculpture (Image 8A); size 4 mm (Image 6E); male genitalia (Image
7E)...L. ceylonicus Zimmermann, 1919
- Elytra with black lines or
irrotations; overall pale yellow to reddish yellow dorsally...2
2. Ventrally concolourous; size
3.5---–4.5 mm...3
- Ventrally without uniform
colouration (metacoxal plates and some abdominal segments darker); smaller
species (size 3 mm);…4
3. Each elytron with several
irregular and thin black lines, uniformly distributed except most lateral region, elytral
microsculpture consists of irregular hexagons within which place small
hexagons(Image 8B); anterior and posterior margins of pronotum with thin black
band medially; size 4–4.5 mm (Image 6F); median lobe of male genitalia broad
from base to apex (Image 7F)...L. flexuosus Aubé, 1838
- Each elytron with several
irregular and thick black lines connected at many points forming irrotations,
these lines become thinner or obsolete in sub-basal region and in apical half,
appear as fasciae, elytral microsculpture consists of small hexagons (Image
8C); anterior and posterior margins of pronotum with thick black band medially;
size 3.5mm (Image 9A); median lobe of male genitalia broad at base narrowly
tapers towards apex, angled near base (Image 10A)...L. inefficiens
(Walker, 1859)
4. Each elytron with 5---–6
double, solid parallel lines (on disc) interrupted largely at base and in
apical half (Image 9B), elytral microsculpture consists of small hexagons
(Image 8D); median lobe of male genitalia broad at apex (Image 10B)...L.
parvulus parvulus Aubé, 1838
- Each elytron with 5–6 double,
parallel lines (on disc) less interrupted at base and in apical half (Image
9C), elytral microsculpture consists of small hexagons (Image 8E); median lobe
of male genitalia distinctly narrow at apex (Image 10C)...L. parvulus
obtusus Sharp,1882
Remarks: Pro and meso tarsi of
male bear adhesive setae arranged in four rows (Image 8F).
Subfamily: Copelatinae Branden,
1885
Genus Lacconectus Motschulsky,
1855
Species were identified using
keys and description provided by Vazirani (1970a, 1977a) and Brancucci (2003).
Illustrations and additions to
the keys to Lacconectus species:
1. Body elongate oval, elytra
uniformly yellowish-brown, with narrow faint basal streak, but without yellow
fasciae per elytron; size 5–5.5 mm (Image 9E); apex of median lobe broadly
pointed (Image 10Ea), apical lobes on parameres almost uniformly broad (Image
10Eb) ...L. lambai Vazirani, 1977
- Body oblong oval, elytra dark
brown to black with 3 broad yellow fasciae; size 5 mm (Image 9F); apex of
median lobe narrow (Image 10Fa), apical lobes on parameres narrow at base while
broad at apex (Image 10Fb) ..L andrewesi Guignot, 1952
Remarks: Lacconectus andrewesi
was found in the same habitat along with Laccophilus ceylonicus, which
has similar elytral pattern as that of L. andrewesi.
Subfamily: Dytiscinae Leach, 1815
Genus Sandracottus Sharp,
1882
Illustrations and additions Keys
to the Sandracottus species:
1. Head with black mark not
continuous; pronotal anterior and posterior median black bands connected by a
thin black line; two yellow stripes parallel to suture initiate just after the
elytral base terminate in basal half; size 14–15mm (Image 11A); tip of median
lobe continuous in dorsal view of male genitalia (Image 12A)...S. festivus
(Illiger, 1801)
- Head with black mark
continuous; pronotal anterior and posterior median black bands connected by a
thick black band; two yellow large spots instead of yellow stripes present just
after the elytral base; size 11–13 mm (Image 11B); tip of median lobe
bifurcated in dorsal view of male genitalia (Image 12B)…S. dejeanii
(Aubé, 1838)
Genus Hydaticus Leach,
1817
According to Ghosh & Nilsson
(2012) in India all nine species belong to H. (Prodaticus) Sharp,
1882, out of which four are known from Maharashtra. However, Miller et al.
(2009) and Pederzani (1995) consider Hydaticus and Prodaticus as
two separate genera.
Illustrations and additions to
the keys to the Hydaticus species:
1. Smaller species, size 10 mm
(Image 11C); elytra yellow with confluent black spots; pronotum on disc
(anterior and posterior margins) with faint, well separated black bands; short
tuft of setae present at apex of median lobe of male genitalia (Image 12 Ca,b)…H.
incertus Régimbart, 1888
- Larger species, size more than
10 mm; elytra black with lateral yellow patterns; pronotal disc black, lateral
margins yellow; short tuft of hair absent at apex of median lobe of male
genitalia…2
2. Two lateral yellow vittae
present on elytra; male mesotarsomeres with two rows of adhesive cups...3
- Elytral yellow vittae replaced
by large yellow band (nearly half the width of elytron) posteriorly extends up
to the tip, a transverse, narrow yellow band connected to lateral yellow band
extend towards suture sub-basally; male mesotarsomeres with four rows of
adhesive cups; form broadly oval, large as 13 mm (Image 11D); pronotal lateral yellow band extends largely
on disc, leaving narrow, median black region (Figure 2C); male genitalia (Image
12Da,b)…H. luczonicus Aubé, 1838
3. Form oval, narrow (Image 13A);
lateral vittae broad, join each other well before reaching mid of elytron,
terminate just before apex; pronotal yellow band not extending beyond elytral
humeral vitta (Figure 2A); size 12.5 mm; median lobe of male genitalia narrowly
explanate from base to apex (Image 14Aa,b)...H. vittatus vittatus
(Fabricius, 1775)
- Form oval, broad (Image 13B);
lateral vittae narrow, join each other beyond mid of elytron, terminate well
before apex; pronotal yellow band extending beyond elytral humeral vitta
(Figure 2B); size 12.8–13.0 mm; median lobe of male genitalia broadly explanate
from base to apex (Image 14Ba,b)…H. satoi satoi Wewalka, 1975
Genus Cybister Curtis,
1827
According to Miller et al. (2007)
there are four subgenera under the genus as Cybister (Megadytoides)
Brinck, Cybister (Melanectes) Brinck, Cybister (Cybister)
Curtis and Cybister (Neocybister) Miller, Bergsten and Whiting.
This classification was based 47 adult and larval characters, and molecular
work on Cytochrome oxidase I (COI), Cytochrome oxidase I (COII), Histone 3 (H3)
and wingless genes (Miller et al. 2007). Our specimens belong to C. (Melanectes)
Brinck and C. (Cybister) Curtis. The generic identification is
based on keys provided by Pederzani (1995) and Miller et al. (2007), and
species identification is based on Vazirani (1968).
Illustrations and additions to
the keys to the Cybister species:
1. Pronotum with red lateral
margins; elytra without lateral yellow bands or stripes (Image 13C); ventrally
uniformly dark brown; only 3rd and 4th abdominal
sternites with lateral pale yellow spots; mesotarsi of male without sexual
pubescence; median lobe of male genitalia without bifurcated apex, widest at
the middle in ventral view (Image 14C); female with second rudimentary claw;
female without sexual sculpture on elytra (Figure 3A)…C. (Melanectes)
sugillatus Erichson, 1834
- Both pronotum and elytra with
lateral yellow bands or stripes; 3rd, 4th, and 5th
abdominal sternites bear yellow spots laterally; mesotarsi of male with sexual
pubescence; median lobe of male genitalia with or without bifurcated apex in
ventral view; female without second metatarsal claw; females with or without
sexual sculpture on elytra...2
2. Total Size less than 25 mm
(Image 13D); apex of median lobe of male genitalia not bifurcated anteriorly in
ventral view (Image 14D), female without sexual sculpture on elytra (Figure
3B)…C. cardoni Severin, 1890
- Size 25 or more than 25 mm...3
3. Size 25 mm (Image 13E);
elytral band wider than that on pronotum, extend on elytral epipleura, reach at
elytral apex; ventrally largely brown with metaventrite and metacoxal plates
yellow laterally; apex of median lobe male genitalia bifurcated (Image 14E);
female without sexual sculpture on elytra (Figure 3C)...C. (cybister)
tripunctatus lateralis (Fabricius, 1798)
- Size more than 25 mm; female
with sexual sculpture on elytra...4
4. Elytral yellow band gradually
narrows towards apex leaving lateral-most area brown; female with secondary
sexual sculpture prominent (Figure 3D), in the form of short strioles, cover
entire elytra except region near suture and apex (1/5th of elytral
size); male with both first and second mesotarsomeres completely covered with
sexual hairs; size 36 mm (Image 13F); apex of median lobe of male genitalia
bifurcated (Image 14F)...C. (cybister) confusus Sharp,
1882
- Elytral yellow band as wide as
pronotal band, narrows in basal half; female elytral sculpture in the form of
short, deep, sparsely placed strioles, present in basal half only, leaving
posterior half shiny (Figure 3E); male with only first mesotarsomere completely
covered with sexual hairs while second mesotarsomere incompletely covered; size
32–34 mm (Image 15A); apex of median lobe of male genitalia (Image 16A)...C.(cybister)
cognatus Sharp, 1882
Family: Gyrinidae Latreille, 1810
Subfamily: Gyrininae Latreille,
1810
Genus Dineutus MacLeay,
1825
1. For identification of
Gyrinidae, work by Miller & Bergsten (2012), and Vazirani (1984) was used.
Vazirani (1984) followed the classification of the family Gyrinidae in three
subfamilies viz, Orectochilinae, Enhydrinae, and Gyrininae. However, Miller
& Bergsten (2012) re-classified the family in three subfamilies
Spanglerogyrinae, Heterogyrinae, and Gyrininae based on 42 morphological
characters and molecular work on 12S rRNA, cytochrome c oxidase I and II,
elongation factor 1 alpha and histone III. The tribe Enhydrini is now included
under the subfamily Gyrininae (Miller & Bergsten 2012).
Illustrations and additions to
the keys to Dineutus species:
Larger species, size 12–15 mm
(Image 15B); elytral dorsal striae weakly impressed, elytral apical margin not
denticulate, elytral epipleura not produced into spine (Figure 4A); median lobe
and parameres equal in size,; parameres subparallel and with smoothed apex
(Image 16B)...D. indicus Aubé, 1838
- Smaller species, size 6–7 mm
(Image 15C); elytral dorsal striae shallow but distinctly impressed, elytral
apical margin denticulate, elytral epipleura produced into spine (Figure 4B);
median lobe and parameres sub-equal in size, parameres subparallel in apical
region, apex rounded (Image 16C)...D. unidentatus Aubé, 1838
Remarks- The individuals were
found in groups on the water surface at the edge of large water body as well as
in open water. When disturbed, the beetles go under water, move fast to escape
from the view and reappear on the surface.
Genus Patrus Aubé, 1838
Miller & Bergsten (2012)
raised the subgenus Patrus to genus rank; it was formerly under the Orectochilus
Dejean, 1833. Vazirani (1984) classified 43 Indian species of Patrus
species into six groups.
Illustrations and additions to
the keys to Patrus species:
1. Labrum 3–4 times broader than
long…2
- Labrum less than 3 times
broader than long…4
2. Epipleura produced into spine
(Figure 4C); median lobe as equal as parameres in size, median lobe broad at
base while largely tapers towards apex (Image 16D); total size 4–5 mm (Image
15D)…P. productus (Régimbart, 1883)
- Epipleura not produced into
spine…3
3. Smaller species, size 4–5 mm
(Image 15E, Figure 4D); median lobe as equal as parameres in size, apex blunt
(Image 16E)...P. limbatus (Régimbart, 1883)
- Larger species, size 7 mm
(Image 15F, Figure 4E); median lobe 2/3rd the size of parameres,
apex narrow, bifid at tip (Image 16F)...P. discifer (Walker 1859)
4. Epipleura not produced into
spine; inner margin of lateral pubescence on elytra with 3 lobes (Figure 4F);
size 5mm (Image 17A)...P. cf haemorrhous
(Régimbart 1891)
- Epipleura produced into spine;
inner margin of lateral pubescence on elytra without 3 lobes (Figure 4G); size
7–7.25 mm (Image 17B); median lobe shorter than parameres, broadly pointed at
apex (Image 18A)…P. assimilis (Ochs 1957)
Family: Noteridae Thomson, 1860
Subfamily: Noterinae Thomson,
1860
Genus Canthydrus Sharp,
1882
Miller (2009) provided
systematics of world Noteridae Thomson, 1860. Miller (2009) and Vazirani (1968)
was followed for genus level and species level identification, respectively.
Illustrations and additions to
the keys to Canthydrus species:
1. Head and pronotum largely
yellow with medial short black streak at posterior margin; size 2.5 mm (Image
17D); male genitalia (Image 18C)...C. laetabilis (Walker, 1858)
- Head black, pale
anteromedially; pronotum largely black with corners yellow; size 3 mm (Image
17C); male genitalia (Image 18B)...C. luctuosus (Aubé, 1838)
Remarks: Scanning electron
micrographs revealed noterid platform of Canthydrus species is more or less
uniformly covered with dense setae (Image 19A).
Genus Neohydrocoptus Satô,
1972
Previously the genus Neohydrocoptus
was a subgenus under the genus Hydrocoptus Motschulsky (1853) but, later
it was raised to genus level by Nilsson et al. (1989) (Nilsson 2011). Vazirani
(1968) reported N. subvittulus and N. bivittis species
from India under the genus Hydrocoptus Motschulsky (1853). Keys provided
by Miller (2009) were followed for generic identification.
Illustrations and additions to
the keys to Neohydrocoptus species:
1. Head with prominent black
streak posteriorly; pronotum anteromedially with broad black mark, posteriorly
with a narrow band; size 3.5 mm (Image 17E); median lobe of male genitalia
anteriorly spatulate, large paramere narrowly triangular, bear numerous setae
from base to apex (Image 18D)…N. bivittis* Motschulsky 1859
- Head without prominent black
streak; pronotum anteromedially without broad black mark, posteriorly with
little narrow band; size 2 mm (Image 17F); median lobe of male genitalia
slightly bulging subapically, large paramere broadly pointed, bear hardly any
setae (Image 18E)... Neohydrocoptus sp2
Remarks: Scanning electron
micrographs revealed noterid platform of Neohydrocoptus species is
covered with sparse and short setae (Image 19C). Adhesive structure of male
Indian Neohydrocoptus species (Image 19D) differs than that of male Canthydrus
species (Image 19B).
Family Hydrophilidae Latreille,
1802
Subfamily Hydrophilinae
Latreille, 1802
Genus Sternolophus Solier
1834
Komarek (2003) was followed for
generic identification. Nasserzadeh & Komarek (2017) was followed to
identify species.
Illustrated keys to Sternolophus
species:
1. Metaventral spine short, not
extending on the abdominal ventrite; size 9 mm (Image 20A); lobules of median
lobe of male genitalia large (Image 21A)...S. inconspicuus (Nietner,
1856)
- Metaventral spine long, extends
on the abdominal ventrite; size 10 mm (Image 20B); lobules of median lobe of male genitalia
small (Image 21B)...S. rufipes (Fabricius, 1792)
Genus Berosus Leach 1817
Illustrated keys to Berosus
species: Schödl (1992; 1993) was referred for identification.
1. Size small, 2.5–3.0 mm (Image
22A); last abdominal sternite of male with medial bulge (Image 23A); male
genitalia (Image 24A)...B. pulchellus MacLeay, 1825
- Size large, 4.5–6.5 mm; last
abdominal sternite of male without median bulge…2
2. Elytral intervals 2–5 with
irregular punctures…B. chinensis Knisch, 1922 (Image 22B, 23D,
24B)
- Elytral intervals 2–5 without
irregular punctures…3
3. Bulge present in front of
metaventral projection; last abdominal ventrite of male without median bulge
(Image 23C); parameres of male genitalia broad (Image 24C); habitus (Image
22C)... B. indicus (Motschulsky, 1861)
- Bulge absent in front of metaventral
projection, last abdominal ventrite of male without median bulge (Image 23B);
parameres of male genitalia slender (Image 24D); habitus (Image 22D)…B.
indiges Schödl, 1992
Discussion
The present study was initiated
to revive the work carried out during the 1970s by Vazirani, Tonapi &
Ozarkar (1969a,b) on aquatic beetles in Maharashtra after a gap of 40 years.
Although there are a few other short reports on species from Maharashtra, most
of these earlier works provide only line drawings of a few species. However,
good quality photos of many of Indian species are still not available. In fact,
this may be the first attempt from India to provide well-curated digital images
of several species of aquatic beetles in one place. Not only that, many checklists
and other short reports still use old nomenclature (as discussed below). Some
recent checklists are probably based only on published literature and are
incomplete, inaccurate and, hence, misleading.
The checklist of aquatic beetles
of Maharashtra (Sharma & Bano 2012) missed some previously reported species
from this region such as Cybister sugillatus Erichson, 1834,
Clypeodytes hemani Vazirani, 1968, and Microdytes whitingi Miller
& Wewalka, 2010. Among these are the species for which the type locality (e.g.,
C. hemani and M. whitingi) is Maharashtra (Vazirani 1967; Miller
& Wewalka 2010), respectively. The checklist still includes 52 species,
even though there are these omissions. We have collected 68 species from
different types of water bodies in western Maharashtra with descriptions of new
species (Sheth et al. 2018). Further, Hydrovatus rufoniger rufoniger was
recorded earlier from Bihar in the
eastern part of India (Vazirani 1970b). The present work extends its range
westward in India. Similarly, Neohydrocoptus bivittis is recorded for
the first time from the Konkan region, westward to the northern Western Ghats
of Maharashtra. This suggests that the water beetle fauna of Maharashtra has
perhaps been underestimated and intensive surveys may reveal a few more known
species or even new species (Sheth et al. 2019).
Secondly, updated nomenclature
(mentioned below) is not followed in the latest checklist (Sharma & Bano
2012). For example, the genus Guignotus Houlbert, 1934, still used by
Sharma & Bano (2012), was synonymised with the genus Hydroglyphus Motschulsky,
1853 (Biström & Silverberg 1981). Miller et al. (2006) also shifted the
genus Peschetius from the tribe Hydroporini to the tribe Bidessini.
Likewise, Miller & Bergsten (2012) published valid subfamily-group,
tribe-group and genus-group names under the family Gyrinidae. They raised the
former subgenus Patrus to the genus level. Vazirani (1984) followed the
classification of the family Gyrinidae in three subfamilies, namely-
Orectochilinae [genera Orectochilus s.str and Orectochilus (Patrus)],
Enhydrinae (genus Dineutus), and Gyrininae (genera Gyrinus, Aulogyrinus
and Metagyrinus). Miller & Bergsten (2012) included all the
above-mentioned genera under the single subfamily Gyrininae Latreille, 1810, with
three tribes, based on a detailed study of morphology and DNA sequences for the
phylogenetic analysis.
During the course of our surveys,
we also collected specimens of additional hydrophilid genera Laccobius
Erichson, 1837 and Enochrus Thomson, 1859 other than those presented
here. These species have much size variation; females appear similar for many
species within these genera and revised keys for species-level identification
are scanty. Therefore, we could identify most specimens to the genus level only.
Due to this uncertainly, these genera were not included in this chapter.
However, the work on their species-level identification is in progress.
Within the period of 5−6 years,
we have collected diverse species of beetles adapted to freshwater ecosystems.
However, this includes submerged species and water surface dwellers only. We
further intend to work on other water associated beetles and also survey other
type of inland waters, namely saline ecosystems.
For
images - - click here for full PDF
References
Balfour-Browne,
J. (1946). On Peschetius
Guignot (Col., Dytiscidae) with a description of a new species from India. Journal
of the Bombay Natural History Society 46: 103−105.
Balke, M., I.
Ribera & A.P. Vogler (2004). MtDNA phylogeny and biogeography of Copelatinae, a
highly diverse group of tropical diving beetles (Dytiscidae). Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution 32(3): 866−880.
https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2004.03.014
Bilton, D.
(2015). A new species
of Yola Gozis, 1886 from the Western Cape of South Africa (Coleoptera:
Dytiscidae: Bidessini). Zootaxa 3905(3): 441−446. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3905.3.10
Biström, O.
& H. Silfverberg (1981). Hydroglyphus Motschulsky, a senior synonym of
Guignotus Houlbert (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae). Annales Entomologici
Fennici 47: 124.
Biström, O.
(1982). Revision of
the genus Hyphydrus Illiger (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Acta Zoologica
Fennica 165(5): 1−121.
Biström, O.
(1983). Revision of
the genus Yola Des Gozis and Yolina Guignot (Coleoptera:
Dytiscidae). Acta Zoologica Fennica 176: 1−67.
Biström, O.
(1986). Review of
the genus Hydroglyphus Motschulsky (= Guignotus Houlbert) in
Africa (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae). Acta Zoologica Fennica 182: 1−56.
Biström, O.
(1988). Generic
review of the Bidessini (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae). Acta Zoologica Fennica
184: 1−41.
Biström, O.
(1996). Taxonomic
revision of the genus Hydrovatus Motschulsky (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae). Entomologica
Basiliensia 19: 57−584.
Biström, O.
& A.N. Nilsson (2003). Taxonomic revision and cladistic analysis of the genus Peschetius Guignot
(Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Aquatic Insects 25(2): 125−155. https://doi.org/10.1076/aqin.25.2.125.14038
Biström, O.
& J. Bergsten (2015). A new species of Peschetius Guignotdescribed from Sri Lanka
(Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Koleopterologische Rundschau 85: 57−60.
Bouchard, P.,
Y. Bousquet, A.E. Davies, M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga, J.F. Lawrence, C.H.C. Lyal,
A.F. Newton, C.A.M. Reid, M. Schmitt, S.A. Slipinski & A.B.T. Smith (2011). Family-group names in Coleoptera
(Insecta). ZooKeys 88: 1−972. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.88.807
Brancucci, M.
(1983). Révision des
espèces est-paléarctiques, orientales et australiennes du genre Laccophilus
(Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Entomologische Arbeiten aus dem Museum G. Frey,
31/32: 241−426. https://doi.org/biostor.org/reference/143852
Brancucci, M.
(2003). A review of
the genus Lacconectus Motschulsky, 1855 from the Indian subcontinent
(Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Entomologica Basiliensia 25: 23−39.
Deb, R., P.
Takawane, R. Morey, S. Pokale, B. Baidya & A. Bagade (2023). Diversity of aquatic beetles in
relation to water quality from Khadakwasla dam, Pune. Indian Journal of
Entomology 1–6. https://doi.org/10.55446/IJE.2023.1513
Ghosh, S.K.
& A.N. Nilsson (2012). Catalogue of the diving beetles of India and adjacent countries
(Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Skörvnöpparn, Supplement 3: 1−77 (Accessed 9
February 2015).
Hájek, J.
& M. Brancucci (2015). A taxonomic review of the Oriental Laccophilus javanicus species
group (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 63:
309−326. https://doi.org/zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:AC7F1491-CD89-4F10-9D61-55354B55E368
Hansen, M.
(1991). The
hydrophiloid beetles. Phylogeny, classification and a revision of the genera
(Coleoptera, Hydrophiloidea). Biologiske Skrifter, Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab,
Denmark, 367 pp.
Hendrich, L.
& M. Brancucci (2013). The genus Cybister Curtis, 1827 in Laos (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae,
Cybistrini). Entomologica Basiliensia et Collectionis Frey 34: 75−88.
https://biogeography.unibas.ch/entomol_2013.html
Jäch, M.A
& M. Balke (2008). Global diversity of water beetles (Coleoptera) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia
595(1): 419−442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-007-9117-y
Komarek, A.
(2003). Hydrophilidae:
I. Check list and key to Palearctic and Oriental genera of aquatic
Hydrophilidae (Coleoptera), pp. 383–395. In: Jäch, M.A. & L. Ji (eds.). Water
beetles of China, Vol. 3. Zoologisch-Botanische Gesellschaft in Österreich
and Wiener Coleopterologenverein, Wien, vi+572 pp.
Mani, M.S.
(1974). Ecology and
Biogeography in India. W. Junk, The Hague, 647 pp.
Miller, K.B.,
G.W. Wolfe & O. Biström (2006). The phylogeny of the
Hydroporinae and classification of the genus Peschetius Guignot, 1942
(Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Insect Systematics & Evolution 37(3):
257−279. https://doi.org/10.1163/187631206788838617
Miller, K.B.,
J. Bergsten & M.F. Whiting (2007). Phylogeny and classification of
diving beetles in the tribe Cybistrini (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae, Dytiscinae). Zoologica
Scripta 36(1): 41−59 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-6409.2006.00254.x
Miller, K.B.
(2002). Revision of
the Genus Eretes Laporte, 1833 (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Aquatic
Insects 24(4): 247−272. https://doi.org/10.1076/aqin.24.4.247.8238
Miller, K.B.
(2009). On the
systematics of Noteridae (Coleoptera: Adephaga: Hydradephaga): Phylogeny,
description of a new tribe, genus and species, and survey of female genital
morphology. Systematics and Biodiversity 7(2): 191−214. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477200008002946
Miller, K.B.,
J. Bergsten & M.F. Whiting (2009). Phylogeny and classification of
the tribe Hydaticini (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae): partition choice for Bayesian
analysiswith multiple nuclear and mitochondrial protein-coding genes. Zoologica
Scripta 38(6): 591−615. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-6409.2009.00393.x
Miller, K.B.
& G. Wewalka (2010). Microdytes Balfour-Browne of India with description of three new species
(Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Hydroporinae). Zootaxa 2420: 26−36.
Miller, K.B.
& J. Bergsten (2012). Phylogeny and classification of whirligig beetles (Coleoptera:
Gyrinidae): relaxed-clock model outperforms parsimony and time-free Bayesian
analyses. Systematic Entomology 37(4): 706−746. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3113.2012.00640.x
Nasserzadeh,
H. & A. Komarek (2017). Taxonomic revision of the water scavenger beetle genus Sternolophus
Solier, 1834 (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Zootaxa 4282: 201−254. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4282.2.1
Nilsson A.N.,
R.E. Roughley & M. Brancucci (1989). A review of the genus- and
family-group names of the family Dytiscidae Leach (Coleoptera). Entomologica
Scandinavica 20(3): 287−316. https://doi.org/10.1163/187631289X00348
Nilsson, A.N.
(2011). A World
Catalogue of the Family Noteridae, or the Burrowing Water Beetles (Coleoptera,
Adephaga). Version 16.VIII.2011.
www2.emg.umu.se/projects/biginst/andersn/WCN/wcn_index.htm. Accessed 9 February
2015.
Nilsson, A.N.
(2015). A World
Catalogue of the Family Dytiscidae, or the diving beetles (Coleoptera, Adephaga)
Version 1.I.2015. http://www2.emg.umu.se/projects/biginst/andersn/. Accessed 9
February 2015.
Pederzani, F.
(1995). Keys to the
identification of the genera and subgenera of adult Dytiscidae (sensu lato) of
the world (Coleoptera Dytiscidae). Atti Accademia roveretana Agiati
244(7): 5−83.
Sharma, R.M.
& R. Bano (2012). Insecta: Coleoptera (Aquatic) In: State Fauna Series, Fauna
of Maharashtra Zoological Survey of India 20(2): 499−501.
Sheth, S.D.
& H.V. Ghate (2014). A report of an aquatic beetle Eretes griseus (Fabricius, 1781)
(Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Dytiscinae: Eretini) from the Western Ghats and other
parts of Maharashtra, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 6(12):
6571−6575. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o4036.6571-5
Sheth,
S.D., H.V. Ghate & B.J. van Vondel (2016). Illustrated redescription of Haliplus
(Liaphlus) arrowi Guignot, 1936 (Coleoptera: Haliplidae) from the
Western Ghats, India, and notes on the closely related H. angustifrons
Régimbart, 1892. Zootaxa 4127: 355–364. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4127.2.7
Sheth, S.D.,
H.V. Ghate & J. Hájek (2018). Copelatus Erichson, 1832 from Maharashtra,
India, with description of three new species and notes on other taxa of the
genus (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Copelatinae). Zootaxa 4459: 235−260. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4459.2.2
Sheth, S.D.,
A.D. Padhye & H.V. Ghate (2019). Factors affecting aquatic beetle
communities of northern Western Ghats of India. Annales de Limnologie 1:
1–12. https://doi.org/10.1051/limn/2018030
Schödl, S.
(1992). Revision der
Gattung Berosus Leach 2. Teil: Die orientalischen Arten der Untergattung
Enoplurus (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). - Koleopterologische Rundschau
62: 137–164.
Schödl, S.
(1993). Revision der
Gattung Berosus Leach 3. Teil: Die paläarktischen und orientalischen
Arten der Untergattung Berosus s. str. (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae).
Koleopterologische Rundschau 63: 189−233.
Short, A.E.Z.
& M. Fikáček (2013). Molecular phylogeny, evolution, and classification of the Hydrophilidae
(Coleoptera). Systematic Entomology 38: 723−752. https://doi.org/10.1111/syen.12024
Short, A.E.Z.
(2018). Systematics
of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera): current state and future directions. Systematic
Entomology 43: 1−18.
Tonapi, G.T.
& V.A. Ozarkar (1969a). A Study on the Aquatic Coleoptera of Poona (Maharashtra). Journal of
the Bombay Natural History Society 66(2): 310−316.
Tonapi, G.T.
& V.A. Ozarkar (1969b). A study on the Aquatic Coleoptera of Poona (Maharashtra). Journal of
the Bombay Natural History Society 66(3): 533−538.
Vazirani,
T.G. (1967).
Contribution to the study of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera). 1. on a collection
of Dytiscidae from Western Ghats with descriptions of two new species. Oriental
Insects 1(1–2): 99−112. https://doi.org/10.1080/00305316.1967.10433855
Vazirani,
T.G. (1968). Contribution
to the study of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera). 2. A review of the subfamilies
Noterinae, Laccophilinae, Dytiscinae and Hydroporinae (in part) from India. Oriental
Insects 2 (3–4): 221−341. https://doi.org/10.1080/00305316.1968.10433885
Vazirani,
T.G. (1969). Contributions
to the study of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera). V. Revision of Indian species of Hyphoporus
Sharp (Dytiscidae). Bulletin du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle 41(1): 203−225.
Vazirani,
T.G. (1970a).
Contributions to the study of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera). VII. A revision of
Indian Colymbetinae (Dytiscidae). Oriental Insects 4(3): 303−362. https://doi.org/10.1080/00305316.1970.10433967
Vazirani,
T.G. (1970b).
Contributions to the study of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera). VI. A review of
Hydroporinae: Dytiscidae in part, from India. Oriental Insects 4(1):
93−129. https://doi.org/10.1080/00305316.1970.10433945
Vazirani,
T.G. (1971).
Contributions to the study of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera). 8. A new subgenus
of Clypeodytes Régimbart (Dytiscidae). Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society 68: 481−482.
Vazirani,
T.G. (1977a). Catalogue of
Oriental Dytiscidae. Miscellaneous Publication Occasional Paper Records of
the Zoological Survey of India 6: 1−111.
http://faunaofindia.nic.in/PDFVolumes/occpapers/006/index.pdf
Vazirani,
T.G. (1977b). Notes on a
collection of Dytiscidae (Coleoptera) from Maharashtra, with description of a
new species. Records of zoological survey of India 73: 123−133.
http://faunaofindia.nic.in/PDFVolumes/records/073/01-04/0123-0133.pdf
Vazirani,
T.G. (1984). The Fauna of
India: Coleoptera. Family Gyrinidae and family Haliplidae, Zoological Survey of India,
Calcutta, 140 pp.
Villastrigo
A., I. Iribera, M. Manuel, A. Millán & H. Fery (2017). A new classification of the
tribe Hygrotini Portevin, 1929 (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Hydroporinae). Zootaxa
4317: 499−529. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4317.3.4
Wewalka G.
(1979). Revision der
Artengruppe des Hydaticus (Guignotites) fabricii (Mac
Leay), (Col., Dytiscidae). Koleopterologische Rundschau 54: 119−139.
Wewalka, G.
(1997). Taxonomic
revision of Microdytes Balfour-Browne (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) Koleopterologische
Rundschau 67: 13−51.
http://www.zobodat.at/pdf/KOR_67_1997_0013-0051.pdf