New species of the Hydroporus longulus-group from Iran, Armenia and Turkey with a synopsis of the group (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae)

ACTA ENTOMOLOGICA MUSEI NATIONALIS PRAGAE Published 15.xii.2009 Volume 49(2), pp. 529–558 ISSN 0374-1036 New species of the Hydroporus longulus-group from Iran, Armenia and Turkey with a synopsis of the group (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) Hans FERY Räuschstraße 73, D-13509 Berlin, Germany; e-mail: [email protected] Abstract. Hydroporus jelineki sp. nov. is described from Iran and Turkey, H. hajeki sp. nov. from Iran, H. holzschuhi sp. nov. from Turkey and H. shaverdoae sp. nov. from Armenia. The lectotypes of H. jacobsoni Zaitzev, 1927 and H. kraatzii Schaum, 1868 are designated. Hydroporus libanus Régimbart, 1901 and H. kryshtali Bilyashiwski, 1993 are also included in the study, since they are similar to some of the new species and almost unknown in the literature; their original descriptions are translated from Latin and Ukrainian, respectively. Except H. kraatzii, the above-mentioned species are externally rather similar, and only the males can be distinguished with certainty by the shape of their aedeagi, which are fi gured along with the female genitalia of fi ve species. All these species belong to the longulus-group of Hydroporus Clairville, 1806, the members of which were treated as belonging to the subgenus Sternoporus Falkenström, 1930 until not long ago. Some historical notes on the classifi cation of the longulus-group members and, additionally, on that of the H. memnoniusand the H. neglectus-group members are provided. A synopsis of the H. longulus-group is also given, the total number of its members now increasing from 23 to 27. Finally, some general notes on the habitats of the H. longulus-group members are provided. Key words. Coleoptera, Dytiscidae, Hydroporus, longulus-group, new species, lectotype, Palaearctic Region, Armenia, Georgia, Iran, Lebanon, Russia, Turkey Introduction Shortly after the description of fi ve new species of the H. longulus-group of the genus Hydroporus Clairville, 1806 from Turkey (FERY & ERMAN 2009), further four new species of that group can be communicated. This is possible not only because more material became available in the meantime, but in particular because the identity of Hydroporus jacobsoni FERY: New species and synopsis of the Hydroporus longulus-group (Dytiscidae) 530 Zaitzev, 1927 – for which the male genitalia were unknown until now – could be clarifi ed. Thus, material which was waiting for its determination can now be classifi ed with greater certainty. The number of members of the H. longulus-group therefore increases from 23 in FERY & ERMAN (2009) to 27. It is remarkable that the area of the known distribution of this species group expands more and more from the western Mediterranean and central Europe to Asia Minor and the Near East. The knowledge about these species and also about those of the related Hydroporus memnoniusand neglectus-groups is far from complete, but we now have suffi cient information to warrant taking stock. This is why there are provided 1) a historical review in part about the different classifi cations of the members of the three species groups, 2) a synopsis of the H. longulus-group members, and 3) notes on their habitats and collecting techniques. Material and methods The collections where specimens are located are coded as follows: CAS Coll. A. Skale, Hof/Saale, Germany; CGW Coll. G. Wewalka, Vienna, Austria; CHF Coll. H. Fery, Berlin, Germany, property of NMW; CHS Coll. H. V. Shaverdo, Vienna, Austria; CLH Coll. L. Hendrich, Berlin, Germany, property of NMW; CMS Coll. M. I. Shapovalov, Maykop, Republic of Adygeya, Russia; NMPC Národní Muzeum, Prague, Czech Republic (J. Hájek); NMW Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria (M. A. Jäch); ZISP Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Science, St. Petersburg, Russia (A. Kirejtshuk); ZMUK Zoological Museum, University Kiev, Ukraine (A. V. Putchkov); ZSM Zoologische Staatssammlung München, Munich, Germany (M. Balke). The male and female genitalia have been studied and fi gured in wet condition. In the text the following abbreviations are used: hw (handwriting), TL (total length), MW (maximum width), IO/MP (ratio of interocular distance and pronotal width at posterior angles). Co-ordinates are given in decimal notation unless cited verbatim from labels. My personal comments are given in square brackets. Numbers in braces mark localities and refer to the map in Fig. 26, which was made by using ‘Microsoft Encarta World Atlas 2000’. The designation of two lectotypes is made to support the stability of the nomenclature. The terminology to denote the orientation of the genitalia follows MILLER & NILSSON (2003). Historical and general notes on the taxon Sternoporus The species of the H. longulus-group have been treated as ‘something special’ within Hydroporus since SEIDLITZ (1887). He included in his ‘2. Gruppe [= group], 5. Abtheilung [= division]’ of subgenus ‘Hydroporus i. sp.’ [‘i. sp.’ = ‘in specie’ = ‘in particular’; same meaning as ‘s. str.’] also members of the H. memnonius-group and the Holarctic Hydroporus picicornis J. Sahlberg, 1874, which was later included in the genus Hydrocolus Roughley Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 49(2), 2009 531 & Larson, 2000 and recently replaced by the name Hydrocolus sahlbergi Nilsson, 2001. SEIDLITZ (1887) also included H. celatus Clark, 1862 (now treated as a synonym of H. longulus Mulsant & Rey, 1861) in that group, but placed H. neglectus Schaum, 1845 in his ‘2. Gruppe, 2. Abtheilung’ (Table 1). Thirty-two years later, ZIMMERMANN (1919) discussed intensively the value of several characters, in particular the shape of the posterior margin of the metacoxal processes, and created a new subgenus Heterosternus Zimmermann, 1919: 161, 178. In Heterosternus he included, beside the Holarctic Hydrocolus sahlbergi (see above), several Nearctic species which stand today in Heterosternuta Strand, 1935, Hydrocolus Roughley & Larson, 2000, Neoporus Guignot, 1931, and Sanfi lippodytes Franciscolo, 1979. He also raised Graptodytes Seidlitz, 1887 and Deronectes Sharp, 1882 to generic rank, but he defi ned them in a much wider sense than today. Moreover, he divided ‘Hydroporus i. sp.’ into several complexes, one of them called ‘II.C’ (ZIMMERMANN 1919: 167). Herein he included species with relatively thick lateral rim of the pronotum and a more or less parallel body. Hydroporus neglectus was treated in his complex ‘I.B.2’ (Table 1). The next step was done by FALKENSTRÖM (1930: 24), who created the new subgenus Sternoporus Falkenström, 1930 of Hydroporus and placed three species in it (Table 1). Today one of them stands in the H. longulus-group and the other two are treated as H. memnoniusgroup members. I refrain from presenting more details about the following historical development and refer to WOLFE & MATTA (1981), NILSSON (1989: 113), and also FERY (1999: 223) who gave reviews about the grouping inside Hydroporus s. l., each until the respective year of publication. Nevertheless, it might be interesting for the reader to have an overview about Seidlitz’, Zimmermann’s and Falkenström’s grouping and the development in the last four decades in tabulated form (Table 1). Here are also included the members of the Hydroporus memnoniusand neglectus-groups, as well as Hydrocolus sahlbergi, however, the species described as new in FERY & ERMAN (2009) and in the present work are not considered. Although NILSSON (1989) synonymised Sternoporus with Hydroporus, the former name was still used by PEDERZANI (1995), PEDERZANI et al. (2004) and PEDERZANI & ROCCHI (2005). PEDERZANI (1995: 66; note 37) wrote: ‘NILSSON (1989) synonymized the subgenera of Hydroporus, I keep them distinct, as usual. Hydroporidius [Guignot, 1949] is poorly characterized indeed, but Sternoporus is a very distinct taxon, both in the metacoxal and the genital structure, as well as in the ecological behaviour.’ This opinion is not too surprising; WOLFE & MATTA (1981: 150) already pointed out that ‘... many subgenera are still readily recognized in the fi eld (even by non-specialists).’ Sternoporus is still in use among European colleagues, at least as a working title, e.g. when exchanging information about collected specimens. Everybody knows more or less what is meant by that name: mostly blackish, rather parallel-sided species with a microreticulate upper surface and sinuate, medially backwards protruding posterior margin of the metacoxal processes, which live in springs, bogs, and seepages at rather high altitude and can often be found in the muddy and vegetated areas beside fl owing or stagnant water and not in the water body itself (see the section on typical ‘Sternoporus’ habitats at the end of the present work). Thus, sometimes I wonder whether these ‘Sternoporus’ are not yet something special. FERY: New species and synopsis of the Hydroporus longulus-group (Dytiscidae) 532 Table 1. History of classification of Hydroporus longulus-, memnonius-, and neglectus-group members, plus Hydrocolus sahlbergi. SEIDLITZ (1887) ZIMMERMANN (1919) FALKENSTRÖM (1930) SCHAEFLEIN (1971, 1979) 1) FRANCISCOLO (1979) WOLFE & MATTA (1981) FOSTER & ANGUS (1985) FOSTER (1987) H. anatolicus H. apenninus H. bodemeyeri H. constantini H. cuprescens H. dobrogeanus H. erzurumensis H. gueorguievi H. jacobsoni H. jurjurensis Hydrop. II.C. H. kraatzii 2. Gr., 5. Abt. Hydrop. II.C. Sternoporus Sternoporus H. kryshtali H. libanus H. longulus 2. Gr., 5. Abt. Hydrop. II.C. Sternoporus Sternoporus Hydroporus Sternoporus H. nevadensis 2. Gr., 5. Abt. Hydrop. II.C. H. pfefferi H. regularis 2. Gr., 5. Abt. H. sardomont. H. brancoi H. cantabricus Hydrop. II.C. H. ferrugineus 2. Gr., 5. Abt. Hydrop. II.C. s. str. memnon.-gr. Hydroporus Sternoporus H. hebaueri H. lenkoranensis H. lluci H. longicornis 2. Gr., 5. Abt. Hydrop. II.C. Sternoporus Sternoporus Sternoporus Sternoporus Hydroporus Sternoporus H. melanarius 2. Gr., 5. Abt. Hydrop. II.C. Sternoporus Hydroporidius Hydroporidius Hydroporidius Hydroporus Sternoporus H. memnonius 2. Gr., 5. Abt. Hydrop. II.C. s. str. Hydroporus Sternoporus H. neclae H. necopinatus Hydrop. II.C.4) memnon.-gr.4) Hydroporus4) Sternoporus4) H. normandi Hydrop. II.C. memnon.-gr. H. obsoletus 2. Gr., 5. Abt. Hydrop. II.C. s. str. memnon.-gr. Hydroporus Sternoporus H. productus Hydrop. II.C. H. sanfi lippoi memnon.-gr. H. angusi H. neglectus 2. Gr., 2. Abt. Hydrop. I.B.2 Sternoporus Sternoporus Hydroporus Sternoporus Hydrocolus sahlbergi 2. Gr., 5. Abt.6) Heterosternus 6) Heterosternus 6) 1) combining SCHAEFLEIN (1971, 1979); 2) combining NILSSON (1989, 1990); 3) combining PEDERZANI et al. (2004) and PEDERZANI & ROCCHI (2005); 4) under the name cantabricus Sharp, 1882, see FERY (1999). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 49(2), 2009 533 NILSSON (1987) NILSSON (1989, 1990) 2) NILSSON & HOLMEN (1995) PEDERZANI (1995) NILSSON (2001) PEDERZANI et al. 3) (2004, 2005) current classifi cation (2009) H. anatolicus longulus-gr. longulus-gr. H. apenninus Sternoporus longulus-gr. H. bodemeyeri longulus-gr. longulus-gr. H. constantini longulus-gr. longulus-gr. H. cuprescens longulus-gr. longulus-gr. H. dobrogeanus longulus-gr. Sternoporus longulus-gr. H. erzurumensis longulus-gr. longulus-gr. H. gueorguievi longulus-gr. longulus-gr. H. jacobsoni longulus-gr. longulus-gr. H. jurjurensis longulus-gr. Sternoporus longulus-gr. H. kraatzii memnon.-gr. longulus-gr. longulus-gr. H. kryshtali longulus-gr. longulus-gr. H. libanus longulus-gr. longulus-gr. H. longulus Sternoporus 5) longulus-gr. Sternoporus longulus-gr. H. nevadensis longulus-gr. longulus-gr. H. pfefferi longulus-gr. longulus-gr. H. regularis longulus-gr. Sternoporus longulus-gr. H. sardomont. Sternoporus longulus-gr. H. brancoi memnon.-gr. memnon.-gr. H. cantabricus memnon.-gr. memnon.-gr. H. ferrugineus memnon.-gr. Hydroporus memnon.-gr. H. hebaueri memnon.-gr. memnon.-gr. H. lenkoranensis memnon.-gr. memnon.-gr. H. lluci memnon.-gr. memnon.-gr. H. longicornis Sternoporus Hydroporus memnon.-gr. Sternoporus 5) memnon.-gr. memnon.-gr. H. melanarius Sternoporus Hydroporus memnon.-gr. Hydroporidius 5) memnon.-gr. memnon.-gr. H. memnonius Sternoporus Hydroporus memnon.-gr. memnon.-gr. memnon.-gr. H. neclae memnon.-gr. H. necopinatus memnon.-gr. memnon.-gr. H. normandi memnon.-gr. memnon.-gr. H. obsoletus Sternoporus memnon.-gr. memnon.-gr. memnon.-gr. H. productus memnon.-gr. memnon.-gr. H. sanfi lippoi memnon.-gr. Hydroporus memnon.-gr. H. angusi Hydroporus neglectus-gr. neglectus-gr. H. neglectus Sternoporus Hydroporus neglectus-gr. neglectus-gr. neglectus-gr. Hydrocolus sahlbergi Sternoporus 6) with ‘?’ Hydroporus 6) Hydroporus oblitus-gr. 5) Hydrocolus Hydrocolus 5) without explicitly mentioning the species names, but indicating that FRANCISCOLO’s (1979) classifi cation is adopted 6) under the name picicornis J. Sahlberg, 1875; in genus Hydroporus before ROUGHLEY & LARSON (2000); specifi c name replaced by sahlbergi Nilsson, 2001 FERY: New species and synopsis of the Hydroporus longulus-group (Dytiscidae) 534 On the other hand, the synonymy is supported not only by NILSSON’s (1989) results on larvae, but also by additional facts: 1. Species of the H. memnonius-group (and even species of totally different groups, such as H. discretus Fairmaire & Brisout, 1859 of the H. planus-group) often have the posterior margin of the metacoxal processes protruded backwards medially and slightly sinuate nearby. This character maybe not as strongly expressed as in species like e.g. H. longulus, but it is often diffi cult to make a clear decision. 2. Some species of the H. memnonius-group (e.g., H. brancoi Rocchi, 1981 and H. normandi Régimbart, 1903) and also of other groups (e.g., H. brancuccii Fery, 1987 of the H. planusgroup) can be found in typical ‘Sternoporus’ habitats. 3. Hydroporus longicornis, the type species of Sternoporus, has the posterior margins of the metacoxal processes protruded backwards medially but only indistinctly sinuate nearby and it is a H. memnonius-group member. In addition, H. longicornis has a symmetrical median lobe in ventral view, whereas members of the H. longulus-group have an asymmetrical one, although in a few cases the asymmetry is only weak. All these observations show that Sternoporus Falkenström cannot be clearly delimited and, instead, less strict entities such as ‘group’ should be used. This is why I do not hesitate to adopt the classifi cation used by NILSSON (2001) in his World Catalogue of Dytiscidae. Taxonomy The external morphology of the species treated in the present work is very similar. A correct determination of single females is impossible and the identifi cation of males requires studying their aedeagi. Hydroporus jelineki sp. nov. is described in detail below, the descriptions of the other species are kept shorter and sometimes only differential diagnoses are given to avoid repeating the many common features. Descriptions chiefl y relate to the respective holotypes or lectotypes, which in all cases are mature males; female characters and the general variability are given separately. These descriptions and diagnoses shall be started with a general characterisation of the H. longulus-group members from FERY & ERMAN (2009: 2), which is always omitted in the rest of the paper: ‘habitus elongate oval; upper side dark brownish to black, immaculate; pronotum and elytra on disc with distinct reticulate sculpture; lateral pronotal beading distinct; margin of elytra in lateral view ascending only slightly towards humeral angle; epipleura in lateral view visible to humeral angle; genae not distinctly darker than gula; metacoxal lines diverging anteriorly; posterior margin of metacoxal processes strongly sinuate and medially protruded backwards; median lobe of aedeagus in most species asymmetrical, in frontal view with apex slightly twisted to left, most easily observed in species with tip of median lobe more or less truncate.’ I fi rst deal with species that have the tip of the median lobe in ventral view not pointed, but more or less truncate and broadly rounded. They are followed by species with the median lobe more or less evenly tapering to the tip in ventral view, at least in apical third; some of them have the tip rather pointed and others distinctly rounded. Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 49(2), 2009 535 Hydroporus jelineki sp. nov. Type locality. Iran, Mazandaran province, 1 km N of Kandovan tunnel, Chalus river valley, ca. 36.165N 51.317E, 2620 m a.s.l. {2}. Type material. HOLOTYPE: , ‘Iran, 1.VI.2006, ‘Alborz’ Mts., 1 km N Tunel-e-Kandovan, ‘Chalus Rud’ river valley, 36°09,9’N 51°19,0’E; 2620 m, Jiří Hájek & Pavel Chvojka leg.’ [printed] {2}, ‘Holotype, Hydroporus jelineki sp. n., H. Fery det. 2009’ [red, printed] (NMPC). PARATYPES: IRAN: 2  1 , same collecting data as the holotype (NMPC, CHF). 1 , ‘1.5.1970 Iran, Paß zw. Karadj u. Chalus [= pass between Karadj and Chalus], (2500 m), leg. Ressl’, ‘Hydroporus jacobsoni Zaitz.?, det. G. Wewalka [19]72’ (CGW). Karaj is situated ca. 50 km NWW Tehran, and Chalus is situated N of Tehran at the border of the Caspian Sea. This collecting site is most probably close to the Kandovan tunnel {2}. 2  4 , ‘Iran, 31.V.–1.VI.2006, Mazandaran prov., ‚Alborz‘ Mts., 2 km E Ilka, (alpine meadow, stream, lake), 36°14,0‘N 51°26,0‘E; 2900 m, Jiří Hájek & Pavel Chvojka leg.’ [printed] {1} (NMPC, CHF). Most specimens, especially females, are infested by Laboulbeniales (J. Hájek, personal communication). 1 , ‘N. Iran, 2400 m, 8 km NE Ziaran, 10.–16.7.1977’ [printed] {3}, ‘Loc. no. 400, Exped. Nat. Mus. Praha’ [printed] (NMPC). Ziaran is a mountain village near Abyek, ca. 52 km NW of Karaj, in the Zanjan province. According to HOBERLANDT (1983: 23) the collecting site ‘no. 400’ is situated already in the Tehran province and its co-ordinates are 36.17N 50.58E. 1 , ‘Iran, Zanjan [province], Kuh-e Sendan Dag, 2000 m, 10 km N of Abhar [ca. 36.21N 49.21E], 9.6.2005, V. Major leg.’ [printed] {5} (CAS). 1 , ‘Iran / Ostan-e Markazi [province], 10 km SE Tafresh [ca. 36.65N 50.07E] 2600 m, 16.7.2004 leg. Mühle’ {4} (ZSM). Each paratype is provided with the respective red printed label. Additional specimens examined (not treated as paratypes). TURKEY: 1  2 , ‘SO-Türkei [= SE Turkey] 31.5., 5 km w. Şirnak [ca. 37.51N 42.39E] (44), leg. Jäch 1987’ {6}, ‘Hydroporus jelineki Fery (?), H. Fery det. 2009’ [white label, printed] (NMW). These specimens are not treated as paratypes, because they are immature and thus the body shape and the shape of the genitalia decidedly changed. Certainly, the shape of the apex of the single male’s median lobe is recognisable even though the rest of the structure is strongly deformed. Nevertheless, I have some doubt whether the Turkish population belongs to H. jelineki sp. nov., given also the large distance between the Turkish and the Iranian localities (ca. 700 km). Other species have much closer areas of distribution. Description. Habitus in dorsal view elongate oval; body outline with slight but perceptible discontinuity between pronotum and elytra; maximum width situated near middle of total length. Almost entire dorsal and ventral surface black and shiny. Upper side microreticulated, venter in part so. Head rather broad, interocular distance equalling about half of pronotal width at posterior angles. Clypeus with two interocular grooves behind anterior margin. Punctures on head rather coarse, evenly distributed, distance between punctures about two times that of their diameter; punctures near anterior margin, near eyes and on vertex smaller, in grooves denser. Vertex with broad transverse brown marking; narrow and short, oblique stripe on clypeus above insertion of each antennae shining through brownish. Pronotum with maximum width between posterior angles; sides in posterior two thirds weakly curved or almost straight, not parallel but slightly converging anteriad, in anterior third more strongly curved. Rim distinct, somewhat broader in anterior third or more or less of same width over entire length. Centre of disc with one very coarse puncture or short scratch; nearby punctation much fi ner and sparser than on clypeus of head; on each side of centre an area with punctation still fi ner and sparser; punctation near sides more or less as coarse as on clypeus; along anterior margin with a puncture line, punctures fi ner and dispersed in middle, to sides coarser and denser; without coarse punctures before posterior margin except near sides. Postero-laterally with a depressed area on each side, here punctures rarely deformed longitudinally. Lateral parts of pronotum with indistinct setae. Lateral beading brownish translucent, in particular posteriorly. FERY: New species and synopsis of the Hydroporus longulus-group (Dytiscidae) 536 Figs. 1–4. Median lobe of aedeagus of: 1 – Hydroporus jelineki sp. nov. (a – ventral view, b – lateral view, c – apex in dorsal view, d – frontal view; arrows indicating direction of dorsal and frontal views); 2 – H. erzurumensis Erman & Fery, 2000 (redrawn from ERMAN & FERY (2000)); 3 – H. libanus Régimbart, 1901; 4 – H. holzschuhi sp. nov. Elytra with punctation on disc more or less uniformly distributed; punctures coarser than those on head and on pronotum, somewhat smaller behind anterior margin, on sides and apex and next to suture. Distance between punctures on disc roughly that of their diameter; near sides and in particular on apex less dense. Puncture lines not very distinct but perceptible, Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 49(2), 2009 537 marked by somewhat denser normal punctures and a few interspersed coarser punctures. Setae on disc very short and indistinct, laterally and posteriorly longer and more distinct. In lateral view margin of elytra ascending slightly towards humeral angle. Lateral elytral beading distinct, narrower than pronotal beading. Epipleuron in lateral view visible to humeral angle. Elytra to a large extent black or very dark blackish brown, near sides and apex somewhat more brownish, along suture only very indistinctly more brownish. Venter with most parts weakly microreticulated; gula, metacoxal processes, centres of metaventrite and second abdominal ventrite smooth. Genae smooth close to gula, elsewhere reticulated. Punctation on metacoxal plates, sides of metaventrite and on fi rst two abdominal ventrites very coarse; on epipleura, centre of metaventrite, metacoxal processes and rest of abdominal ventrites less coarse and rather sparse; last abdominal ventrite with punctures somewhat coarser and sparser, reticulation more impressed. Punctures on gula very sparse centrally and much denser laterally. Anterior angles of prosternum with a small and fl at, rather densely and roughly punctate, posteriorly sharply delimited, more or less triangular area. Most punctures on venter with fi ne indistinct seta. Prosternal process posteriorly lanceolate, more or less tectiform in cross-section, sides beaded and provided with long setae. Process between procoxae with a distinct transverse ridge, sub-basally before this ridge with some transverse grooves; process not prolonged anteriorly as narrow convexity onto prosternum; middle of prosternum fl attened and rugosely sculptured. Posterior margins of metacoxal processes medially protruded backwards, laterally sinuate; lines of metacoxal processes diverging anteriorly, not reaching posterior margin of metaventrite. Antennae with fourth segment shorter than third and fi fth, latter two more or less of equal length; antennomeres fi ve to ten more than 1.5 times as long as wide, slightly fl attened, in cross section more or less elliptical. Ventral surface predominantly black; posterior part of metacoxal processes brownish translucent, also posterior margins of last abdominal sterna very narrowly brownish translucent; each side of third, fourth and fi fth abdominal ventrites indistinctly dark brownish. Gula of same colour as black genae. Mouthparts, prosternal process and legs including trochanters brownish; proand mesocoxae brownish only near socket of legs; middle of femora darkened. Antennae and palpi brownish, segments not darkened apically. Contrast between black surface and brownish appendages not very conspicuous. . First three proand mesotarsomeres slightly dilated, provided with sucker setae, fi rst ones of each additionally with sucker cups (compare Figs. 10–12 in FERY & ERMAN 2009); protarsal claws short, of same length, in particular anterior one thickened, curved near base and almost straight in distal two thirds, at tip slightly bent; mesotarsal claws evenly curved, longer than protarsal claws. Median lobe of aedeagus asymmetric (Fig. 1a–d), with a unique shape among all Hydroporus: in ventral view (Fig. 1a) almost parallel over entire length, but slightly widening before tip, broadly rounded on each side; dorsal side with two hook-like extensions on each side shortly before tip (Fig. 1c), well visible in lateral view (Fig. 1b), but also in ventral view (Fig. 1a) if median lobe slightly inclined. Frontal view in Fig. 1d being a good example for an apex of median lobe twisted to left, this character being present in all H. longulus-group members, but more diffi cult to observe in species with more or less pointed median lobe in ventral view. Paramere as in Fig. 9. FERY: New species and synopsis of the Hydroporus longulus-group (Dytiscidae) 544 Figs. 9–15. Left paramere. 9 – Hydroporus jelineki sp. nov. 10 – H. libanus Régimbart, 1901; 11 – H. holzschuhi sp. nov.; 12 – H. jacobsoni Zaitzev, 1927; 13 – H. hajeki sp. nov.; 14 – H. shaverdoae sp. nov.; 15 – H. kryshtali Bilyashiwski, 1993. Variability. The specimens studied vary to a certain extent in colouration of the dorsal and ventral surface, in punctation and body outline (degree of pronoto-elytral discontinuity, position of maximum width of the body). The shape of the median lobe varies also a little in the four males studied, but at present I cannot separate them as distinct populations that could be clearly characterised and possibly described as new taxa (see also the remarks below). Distribution. Hydroporus jacobsoni is distributed in the Georgian and Russian Caucasus (Fig. 26; for several localities see the next section). However, the true distribution of the species is by far not clear, because only females, which cannot be assigned to H. jacobsoni with certainty, are known from most localities; such localities are provided with a question mark in Fig. 26. Any future males from other Russian or Georgian localities should be studied to verify whether they belong to H. jacobsoni or to another, possibly still undescribed species. GUÉORGUIEV (1981: 407) recorded H. jacobsoni from several localities in Turkey. Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 49(2), 2009 545 According to my studies these data are most probably incorrect and must be attributed either to H. dobrogeanus or to other species, e.g. those described in FERY & ERMAN (2009). Hydroporus jacobsoni in the literature. Hydroporus jacobsoni has been rarely treated in the literature and the only essential contributions have been given by Zaitzev. The fi rst seven lines of the original description (ZAITZEV 1927: 17) are in Latin (see below for the following part in Russian). A shortened translation into German is given by GSCHWENDTNER (1939: 34–35) and a translation into English follows here: ‘ . Similar to H. longulus Muls. but certainly different: microsculpture of surface less regular, less even, elytra posteriorly more constricted, with punctures coarser and much more approximated, side margin (in lateral view) anteriorly less ascending (but more strongly than in H. melanarius); pronotum near sides more coarsely (sometimes subrugosely) punctate, sides little curved, lateral beading thicker. Penis until 2/3 of length of rather equal width, then tapering [to tip]. Length 3.4–3.8 mm.’ Notes: In the English translation (ZAITZEV 1972: 185) of ZAITZEV (1953b: 174) the shape of the median lobe in ventral view is described as ‘then abruptly tapering’ behind the basal two thirds. The adverb ‘abruptly’ seems to be at least somewhat misleading and the phrase should be replaced by ‘from here tapering [until tip]’. All other contributions known to me are in Russian. I give here the translations by P. Petrov of the relevant parts of these works: ZAITZEV (1927: 17–18) (for the Latin part see above): ‘The new species belongs to the cycle longulus-nevadensis-cantabricus, but since the latter two Pyrenean species are known to me only by description, so I am comparing our [= my] species only with the former [= H. longulus], two specimens of which I have before my eyes. It is impossible to consider it the same as longulus if it were only for the fact that the latter [= H. longulus] as well as the two others mentioned above are characteristic inhabitants of the western Mediterranean region, one with larger range of distribution, both the others with narrower. However, in APFELBECK [1904: 377] we fi nd a record of the species [= H. longulus] for Herzegovina and Attica, but we are still not completely convinced of the correctness of this record. Differences in the shape of the penis do not allow considering our species as a race of longulus. Judging by the localities where it was found, this species lives in our land only in water bodies of higher mountainous areas. Leder [= SCHNEIDER & LEDER 1877: 86] reports H. longulus from Suram [locality {18}]. No doubt this record refers to our species, the more so because Suram is situated near Bakuriani [locality {17}], where specimens used for this description were taken. Jacobson (Beetles of Russia, p. 426) was absolutely right doubting Leder’s data.’ Suram, better known under the name Surami, is a town in central Georgia (ca. 42.01N 43.25E) NW of the town of Khashuri. A mountain range in the west of Khashuri was formerly called Suramskiy Khrebet and today is named as the Likhskiy Khrebet (SCHÜTZE & KLEINFELD 2001: 131). In LEDER (1880: 454) it is called ‘Suram-Gebirge’ or ‘Meskisches Gebirge’ [Gebirge = mountains]. This mountain range divides Georgia into the eastern and western part and connects the Greater Caucasus and the Lesser Caucasus ranges. The distance between Khashuri and Bakuriani is about 30 km. ZAITZEV (1933: 335): ‘Lake Tabis-kuri, Bakuriani [locality {17}], Suram [locality {18}], then on the main Caucasus range (spring near Mount Adai-khokh [locality {20}], 1070 m, near FERY: New species and synopsis of the Hydroporus longulus-group (Dytiscidae) 546 Vladikavkaz), Gvilety [locality {19}], ca. 1500 m, near Mount Bambak [locality {23}] in environs of Maikop, 2050 m. This species may be considered close to longulus Muls. and cantabricus Sharp, which both live in mountain water bodies of the Pyrenees, the Alps, and the Balkan Peninsula. There are no closer relatives either of these two species or of jacobsoni in the north, at present. Probably some species during the postglacial time, when rising higher into the mountains, produced all the three species mentioned above, and maybe also astur Sharp.’ [Hydroporus astur Sharp, 1882 is a junior subjective synonym of Hygrotus marklini (Gyllenhal, 1813); see BALKE & FERY 1993.] ZAITZEV (1946: 88): ‘It was found also in the eastern part of the main range (Lagodekhsk nature reserve, river Antsal’-or [ca. 41.76N 46.22E, ca. 120 km due E Tbilisi, locality {16}], 7 VIII [19]37 Kakauridze!)’ [the exclamation mark most probably means ‘the collector’]. ZAITZEV (1953a: 93): ‘Considerable material is present from Bakuriani [locality {17}], Gvileti [locality {19}], Lagodekhi (river Antsal’-or) [locality {16}]. In mountain water bodies with fl owing water.’ Hydroporus hajeki sp. nov. Type locality. Iran, Ardabil province, Jebal-e Sabalan mountain [= Kühha-ye Sabalan], Qutur Su [= Guter-Su = Ghotur Suei], ca. 40 km due WNW Ardabil, ca. 38.325N 47.842E; ca. 2725 m a.s.l. {7}. Type material. HOLOTYPE: , ‘Iran, Ardabil prov., 5.VI.2006, Qutur Su (sulphureous springs), ‚Jebal-e Sabalan‘ Mt., 38°19,6‘N 57°50,5‘E; 2725 m, Jiří Hájek & Pavel Chvojka leg.’ [printed] {7}, ‘Holotype, Hydroporus hajeki sp. n., H. Fery det. 2009’ [red, printed] (NMPC). PARATYPES: IRAN: 6 , 4 , same collecting data as the holotype; each paratype provided with a red printed paratype label (NMPC, CHF). Differential diagnosis (given chiefl y as differences from H. jelineki sp. nov.). Externally very similar to H. jelineki sp. nov. Punctation on elytra on average slightly coarser and less dense, puncture lines more distinct. Upper surface black except vertex of head and posterior part of pronotal rim. Darkening of middle of femora rather inconspicuous in most specimens. . Median lobe (Fig. 6) in ventral view more or less evenly tapering to apex, tip rather broadly rounded. Paramere as in Fig. 13. Sucker cups on fi rst tarsomere of proand mesotarsomeres present. . See remarks under H. jelineki sp. nov. Gonocoxosternum and gonocoxae as in Figs. 19 and 24. Measurements. TL: 3.3–3.7 mm, MW: 1.65–1.85 mm, TL/MW: 1.97–2.03, IO/MP: 0.46–0.50. Variability. Only variability in size noticed in the type series. Distribution. So far known only from the type locality in the Ardabil province, north-western Iran (Fig. 26). Biology. Sabalan is ‘an isolated volcano with lots of springs, some of them sulphurous’. The specimens were collected in a bog with small pools (5–20 cm in diameter) near a non-sulphurous spring on the slopes of the mountain (J. Hájek, personal communication; see Figs. 29–30). Etymology. This species is named after my friend Jiří Hájek (Prague, Czech Republic) (noun in apposition in the genitive case). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 49(2), 2009 547 Figs. 16–25. 16–20 – gonocoxosternum. 16 – Hydroporus jelineki sp. nov.; 17 – H. holzschuhi sp. nov.; 18 – H. jacobsoni Zaitzev, 1927 (specimen from Itkol); 19 – H. hajeki sp. nov.; 20 – H. shaverdoae sp. nov. 21–25 – gonocoxae. 21 – H. jelineki sp. nov.; 22 – H. holzschuhi sp. nov.; 23 – H. jacobsoni (specimen from Itkol); 24 – H. hajeki sp. nov.; 25 – H. shaverdoae sp. nov. Hydroporus shaverdoae sp. nov. Hydroporus sp. n.: SHAVERDO (2003: 35, 36). Type locality. Armenia, Mount Aragats, NW Byurakan, near Amberd, 40.406N 44.228E; ca. 2100 m a.s.l. {15}. Type material. HOLOTYPE: 1 , ‘Armenia: Mt. Aragats (18), NW Byurakan, nr. Amberd, 40°24.34’N 44°13.65’E, ca. 2100 m, 6.5.2001, leg. Shaverdo & Schillhammer’ [printed] {15}, ‘Hydroporus jacobsoni Zaitz., Shaverdo H. det. 2001’ [printed, hw Shaverdo in part], ‘Holotype, Hydroporus shaverdoae sp. n., H. Fery det. 2009’ [red, printed] (NMW). The numbers in brackets on the labels of the holotype and other specimens deposited in CHS refer to additional collecting data given in SHAVERDO (2003). PARATYPES: ARMENIA: 1 , same collecting data as the holotype (CHS). 1  5 , ‘S Armenia: 31.5.2001 (76), 3 km above Kadzharan [= Kajaran or Kadscharan, ca. 39.16N 46.16E], Kadzharan river, ca. 2000 m, leg. Shaverdo’ [printed] {10}, ‘Hydroporus jacobsoni Zaitz., Shaverdo H. det. 2001’ [printed, hw Shaverdo in part] (CHS, CHF). Each paratype is provided with the respective red printed label. FERY: New species and synopsis of the Hydroporus longulus-group (Dytiscidae) 548 Additional material studied. The following six specimens probably belong to the new species, but are not treated as paratypes since they are females and I am not sure about their identity: 1 , ‘Armenia: N Yerevan (65), 24 km NW Hrazdan, bel. [= below] Ankavan, 40°38.22’N 44°32.34’E, ca. 1970 m, 27.5.2001, leg. Shaverdo’ [printed] {14}, ‘Hydroporus jacobsoni Zaitz., Shaverdo H. det. 2001’ [printed, hw Shaverdo in part] (CHS). 3 , ‘Armenia: N Yerevan (55), 30 km NW Hrazdan, above Ankavan, 40°37.35’N 44°28.02’E, ca. 2050 m, 19.5.2001, leg. Shaverdo & Schillhammer’ [printed] {13}, ‘Hydroporus jacobsoni Zaitz., Shaverdo H. det. 2001’ [printed, hw Shaverdo in part] (CHS, CHF). 1 , ‘Armenia: E Dilizhan [= Dilijan] (61), Parzlich Lake, 22.5.2001, ca. 1330 m, 40°45.19’N 44°57.72’E, leg. Shaverdo & Schillhammer’ [printed] {12}, ‘Hydroporus jacobsoni Zaitz., Shaverdo H. det. 2001’ [printed, hw Shaverdo in part] (CHS). 1 , ‘Arm. Sevan Lake, Tsovagynch [= Tsovagyugh, ca. 40.63N 44.95E], 17.–20.6.1981, Josef Král lgt.’ [printed] {11}, ‘Hydroporus (Sternoporus)  ?, jakobsoni [sic!] Zaitz, Wewalka 1983’ [hw Wewalka] (CGW). Differential diagnosis (given chiefl y as differences from H. jelineki sp. nov.). More similar to H. jelineki sp. nov. and especially to H. hajeki sp. nov. than to H. jacobsoni. Maximum width of body more or less in middle of total length, distinctly before middle of elytral length. Discontinuity of body outline in dorsal view between pronotum and elytra weak, maximum width of pronotum at posterior angles. Punctation on disc of elytra more or less as in H. jelineki sp. nov., puncture lines distinct. Upper surface mostly black; only vertex of head, short stripe above insertion of each antennae and pronotal rim at posterior angles dark brownish. Venter with contrast between brownish appendages and body surface not prominent, more or less as in H. jelineki sp. nov. Darkening of middle of femora indistinct. . Median lobe (Fig. 7) in ventral view with tip broader rounded than in H. hajeki sp. nov. (Fig. 6) and H. kryshtali (Fig. 8), and clearly much broader than in H. jacobsoni (Figs. 5–7). Paramere as in Fig. 14. Sucker cups on fi rst tarsomere of proand mesotarsomeres present. . Without conspicuous external differences to males. Gonocoxosternum and gonocoxae as in Figs. 20 and 25. Measurements. TL: 3.45–3.9 mm, MW: 1.65–1.85 mm, TL/MW: 1.97–2.14, IO/MP: 0.47–0.50. Variability. Some specimens also dark brownish next to suture of elytra and/or on entire pronotal rim; in a few specimens elytra in larger extent dark brownish. Punctation slightly varying in coarseness and density; sides of pronotum in a few specimens slightly more curved posteriorly. Distribution. So far known as endemic for Armenia, collected in the northern as well as in the southern part (Fig. 26). Biology. The following additional collecting data have been communicated by H. V. Shaverdo (see also SHAVERDO 2003): locality {10}: puddles on the banks of Kadzharan river, between large granite rocks (diameter ca. 3 m), plenty of Heracleum, bottom of puddles covered by decaying plant material. Locality {12}: puddle, caused by deep car tracks, probably longlasting, shaded, with much fl ooded vegetation (Ranunculus), in surrounding forest. Locality {13}: small spring fed puddles, bottom sandy-stony, thick layer of decaying leaves, grass, twigs and branches, banks with Caltha. Locality {14}: shallow stagnant area and fl ooded grassland, ca. 10 cm deep, near Marmaryk river; geology: granite with volcanic and crystalline components. Locality {15}: small river, fast fl owing, ca. 2–5 m wide, exceedingly cold (ca. 5°C), most aquatic beetles from small accompanying rivulets with dense aquatic vegetation (incl. moss); geology: volcanic (basalt, tuff). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 49(2), 2009 549 Etymology. The species is named after my colleague and friend Helena V. Shaverdo (Vienna, Austria), who kindly submitted her material for study (noun in apposition in the genitive case). Hydroporus kryshtali Bilyashiwski, 1993 Hydroporus kryshtali Bilyashiwski, 1993: 15 (original description). Type locality. Ukraine, Crimea, Kara-Dagh massif, ca. 44.9N 34.7E {24}. Type material. HOLOTYPE: , ‘Ukrainian SSR, Crimean oblast, mountain district Kara-Dagh, 8.VII 1997, leg. A.A. Petrenko’ {24}, ‘derelict well, in humid silty soil’ [both label texts in Cyrillic; translation by M. Bilyashiwski], ‘Holotypus [printed], Hydroporus kryshtali , det. Bilyashiwskiy [hw Bilyashiwski]’ [red] (ZMUK). The holotype lacks the last seven segments of the right antenna and the last nine of the left one. Diagnosis. Considering that the existence of this species or at least its description will be unknown to many colleagues, I provide here a translation of the original description (BILYASHIWSKI 1993: 15): ‘Material: Holotype , Crimea, Kara-Dagh massif, derelict well (in humid clayey silt/soil), stored in the Zoological Museum of the Kiev University, Petrenkow leg. Male: Body black, legs, antennae, and mouth parts yellowish red, total length 3.6–3.7 mm, maximum width of elytra 1.8 mm. The whole dorsal surface shagreened, microsculpture formed by small and evenly punctured isodiametrical cells of equal size (the punctation is more sparse on frons). Segments of antennae thickened, almost like a string of pearls [the antennae seem to have been damaged only after the description]. Pronotum with broad beading, in particular anteriorly; posterolaterally near the base with weak impressions. Elytra with three puncture lines which are more marked anteriorly. The punctures larger than those on head and pronotum. Prosternal process lanceolate, provided with a transversal tubercle between procoxae, which is formed by a sloping edge of the process anteriorly. The sloping part with transversal carinae. The process is compressed in the anterior third, and its posterior part obtuse. The suture of posterior episterna provided with coarse punctures. Sides of metasternum and metacoxae as well as the fi rst three abdominal sternites coarsely punctured, the punctation almost absent in the middle of the sternites. Fourth and fi fth sternite provided with weak punctures, particularly at the sides and near the sutures. The microreticulation consists of a net of small transversal cells. Last visible abdominal sternite shagreened, totally covered by small scattered punctures. Posterior margin of the metacoxal processes prolonged medially. Anterior claws of same length, sickle-shaped; inner claw much broader than the external one, inner side sloping. Shape of the aedeagus closely related to that of Hydroporus gueorguievi Wewalka, nevertheless, in apical third and tip much narrower. Females unknown. Except the male genitalia, this species can be distinguished from related species by the strongly thickened segments of the antennae, the shape of the prosternal process and some less important details of the external morphology.’ Thanks to A. V. Putchkov (Kiev, Ukraine), I had the opportunity to study the holotype in 1996. The original description is quite appropriate, but the following remarks shall be added: The body shape is more parallel and elongate than that of H. jacobsoni and H. shaverdoae sp. nov. The sides of the pronotum have a dark brownish rim, the anterior and posterior FERY: New species and synopsis of the Hydroporus longulus-group (Dytiscidae) 550 margins are brownish translucent; the elytra are only indistinctly lighter next to the suture than elsewhere. The protarsal claws are very short, of equal length, strongly curved at base and otherwise straight. . Median lobe (Fig. 8) in ventral view more tapering to tip and more shortly rounded than in H. shaverdoae sp. nov. (Fig. 7). Paramere as in Fig. 15. Proand mesotarsi not studied for sucker cups. . So far unknown. Measurements. TL: 3.6 mm, MW: 1.7 mm (not 1.8 mm as given in the original description), TL/MW: 2.12. Distribution. So far known only from the type locality in the Kara-Dagh massif in Crimea, Ukraine (Fig. 26). I have studied several H. longulus-group specimens from Crimea – all males proved to be H. dobrogeanus. Etymology. Colleague Bilyashiwski kindly communicated that the species was named in honour of O.P. Kryshtal, a famous Ukrainian entomologist (noun in apposition in the genitive case). Hydroporus kraatzii Schaum, 1868 Hydroporus kraatzii Schaum, 1868 in KRAATZ (1868: 384) (original description). Hydroporus kraatzii Schaum, 1868 in SCHAUM & KIESENWETTER (1868: 66), syn. nov. (objective junior synonym and primary homonym, preoccupied by H. kraatzii Schaum, 1868 in KRAATZ (1868: 384); synonymy personally communicated by A. N. Nilsson, Umeå, Sweden). Hydroporus kraatzii Schaum, 1868 in SCHAUM & KIESENWETTER (1868: 66): SHARP (1882: 481) – NILSSON & HOLMEN (1995: 67) – NILSSON (2009a: 146). Hydroporus kraatzi Kiesenwetter, 1868: GEMMINGER & HAROLD (1868: 435) (incorrect authorship, referring to H. kraatzii Schaum, 1868 in SCHAUM & KIESENWETTER (1868)). Hydroporus kraatzi Schaum, 1868: ZIMMERMANN (1919: 169, 1920: 88, 1931: 153). – SCHAEFLEIN (1971: 38). Hydroporus hedwigi Reitter, 1897: 45: ZIMMERMANN (1919: 169) (synonymy with H. kraatzii). – NILSSON (2007: 51). Hydroporus hedwigae Schenkling, 1917: 52 (unjustifi ed emendation of H. hedwigi Reitter): NILSSON (2007: 51) (synonymy). Type locality. Poland, ‘Glatzer Schneeberg’ [‘Schneeberg’ = ‘snow mountain’; this mountain is called Králický Sněžník in Czech and Śnieżnik Kłodzki in Polish]. The border between the Czech Republic and Poland runs exactly across the peak of the mountain. The co-ordinates of the ‘Glatzer Schneeberg’ are given in Wikipedia (access January 2009) as 50.201N 16.849E. According to KRAATZ (1968: 384), Kraatz himself collected at least some specimens on the northern slope of the ‘Glatzer Schneeberg’. It is therefore more likely that the type locality is in Poland and not in the Czech Republic. Type material. LECTOTYPE (by present designation): , a small rectangular dark blue label, ‘Type’ [hw Cl. Müller], ‘Glatzer Schneebg’ [hw Cl. Müller], ‘Type von Hydr. Kraatzi Schaum’ [red, hw?], ‘Lectotype, Hydroporus kraatzii Schaum, 1868, des. H. Fery 2009’ [red, printed] (ZSM). Notes on the type material. According to HORN et al. (1990: 345) and SCHERER (1982: 60), at least parts of Schaum’s Hydroporinae came ‘via E. A. H. v. Kiesenwetter, via Cl. Müller’ to the ZSM in 1905. It is known from other Schaum’s types that at least some of them were provided with a small rectangular dark blue label and/or that Clemens Müller, owing to his knowledge about the origin of the specimens, added labels in his own handwriting (see FERY 1992a: 67, 1992b: 119, 1992c: 343, 351; FERY et al. 1996: 315; FERY & BRANCUCCI 1997: 247). Thus, I have no doubt that the designated lectotype is a (former) syntype of H. kraatzii Schaum, 1868. Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 49(2), 2009 551 HORION (1941: 393) reported that ‘types’ should be stored in the Deutsches Entomologisches Institut (DEI). However, DÖBLER (1976) did not list any types of H. kraatzii in the collections of the DEI and I have not been able to fi nd such specimens during several visits at that institute. The fi rst publication of the name Hydroporus kraatzii (KRAATZ 1868: 384) cites the species as ‘Hydroporus Kraatzii Schaum n. sp. in litt.’ Although the author of that work is Kraatz, the authorship of the taxon must be assigned to Schaum because he is cited as the author. In addition, the taxon was described by Schaum a second time in SCHAUM & KIESENWETTER (1868: 66) (compare Article 50.1.1 including the Example in ICZN 1999). Synopsis of the Hydroporus longulus-group The following synopsis of the species of the H. longulus-group is chiefl y based on the World Catalogue of Dytiscidae (NILSSON 2001, 2009a) and on the newest version of the Catalogue of Palaearctic Dytiscidae (NILSSON 2009b). Hydroporus anatolicus J. Balfour-Browne, 1963 Hydroporus apenninus Pederzani & Rocchi, 2005 Hydroporus artvinensis Fery & Erman, 2009 Hydroporus bodemeyeri Ganglbauer, 1900 = Hydroporus bulgaricus Hlisnikovský, 1955 = Hydroporus collarti Guignot, 1949 = Hydroporus guignoti Gschwendtner, 1935 Hydroporus cagrankaya Fery & Erman, 2009 Hydroporus constantini Hernando & Fresneda, 1996 Hydroporus cuprescens K. W. Miller & Fery, 1995 Hydroporus dobrogeanus Ieniştea, 1962 Hydroporus erzurumensis Erman & Fery, 2000 Hydroporus gueorguievi Wewalka, 1975 Hydroporus hajeki sp. nov. Hydroporus holzschuhi sp. nov. Hydroporus jacobsoni Zaitzev, 1927 Hydroporus jelineki sp. nov. Hydroporus jurjurensis Régimbart, 1895 = Hydroporus djurdjurensis Bedel, 1925 (unjustifi ed emendation) Hydroporus kraatzii Schaum, 1868 in KRAATZ (1868) = Hydroporus kraatzii Schaum, 1868 in SCHAUM & KIESENWETTER (1868) (second description) = Hydroporus hedwigi Reitter, 1897 = Hydroporus hedwigae Schenkling, 1917 (unjustifi ed emendation) Hydroporus kryshtali Bilyashiwski, 1993 Hydroporus libanus Régimbart, 1901 Hydroporus longulus Mulsant & Rey, 1861 = Hydroporus celatus Clark, 1862 Hydroporus lundbergi Fery & Erman, 2009 FERY: New species and synopsis of the Hydroporus longulus-group (Dytiscidae) 552 Hydroporus nevadensis Sharp, 1882 Hydroporus pfefferi Wewalka, 1974 (replacement name) = Hydroporus orientalis Hlisnikovský, 1955 (preoccupied by Hydroporus orientalis Clark 1863, standing today in genus Hydroglyphus Motschulsky, 1853) Hydroporus regularis Sharp, 1882 Hydroporus sardomontanus Pederzani, Rocchi & Schizzerotto, 2004 Hydroporus shaverdoae sp. nov. Hydroporus sivrikaya Fery & Erman, 2009 Hydroporus toledoi Fery & Erman, 2009 Notes on typical habitats of H. longulus-group members and collecting techniques Members of the H. longulus-group attract the attention of water beetle collectors not only because of their elegant habitus, but also because they are usually assumed rare and apparently diffi cult to collect. Most collections have only a small number of them if any. The problem is that these species do not live where water beetlers usually collect – they are only accidentally found in ponds and streams! The literature contains hints such as ‘in mountains, [...] in Sphagnum’ (SCHAEFLEIN 1971: 39) or ‘from hills until sub-alpine or even alpine level, in little streams’ (GUIGNOT 1947: 111). Little more information is given in BURMEISTER (1939: 224): ‘mountainous [...] in small stream-pools, ponds and springs, often under stones at the border of streams’ and similar statements are found in HORION (1941: 392). KOFLER (1963: 25) collected it ‘by squeezing the water out of fully wet spring-moss followed by sieving’. CARRON (2005: 101) calls H. kraatzii ‘a diffi cult to collect and semi-subterranean species’ and interestingly reports about H. longicornis (a H. memnonius-group member with similar biology): ‘The species lives semisubterranean, near springs and trickling and even on wet meadows without visible water’. F. BALFOUR-BROWNE (1940: 322) states that for H. longulus ‘the usual habitat is springs, wells and trickling, mossy or peaty streams [...] I used to fi nd it regularly at one spot [...] where a small trickle of water ran down a mossy slope. When found it is usually not uncommon, but it seems defi nitely restricted as to habitat.’ SCHAEFLEIN (1979: 7) gives even more details about H. kraatzii and H. longicornis that were found together with H. gyllenhalii Schiödte, 1841: ‘the collecting site is not a water in the usual sense, but a small fl at puddle [...] fed by a small spring [...] in summer one must stamp depressions with the boots into the mud. When water is re-fi lling these depressions, the species can be caught by means of a small tea strainer.’ Relatively detailed habitat descriptions are also given under the section ‘Biology’ of H. shaverdoae sp. nov. HERNANDO & FRESNEDA (1996: 160) give an exhaustive description of the habitat of H. constantini (translation not verbatim): ‘All habitats were very small springs on a sloping ground, once forming small streams, but then already seeping into the wet ground, and this all repeatedly over short distances. Most specimens were found by stamping the wet meadow next to the springs, also at places where no water is seen on the surface; the specimens came out of the ground and crawled between the vegetation. At other places the specimens were Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 49(2), 2009 553 Fig. 26. Distribution of Hydroporus jelineki sp. nov. (1–6), H. hajeki sp. nov. (7), H. holzschuhi sp. nov. (8–9), H. shaverdoae sp. nov. (10–15), H. jacobsoni Zaitzev, 1927 (16–23), H. kryshtali Bilyashiwski, 1993 (24), H. libanus Régimbart, 1901 (25–26). found crawling on the underside of small stones, placed in water only a few millimetres deep; sometimes they were apparently simply hidden in the mud. Even if single puddles were slightly polluted by cowpats, some specimens could still be collected. It is possible that the specimens came here only accidentally, but anyway it seems clear that this species and others of the same group are not inhabitants of common waters. Their habits might be called hygropetric or rhithrobiontic or both.’ GERECKE (1996: 474) described and fi gured a similar habitat as a ‘rheohelocrene’ spring. I can confi rm the last observations and want to add some of my own experiences: The main habitat of H. longulus-group members is not the water body itself, but the areas next to it, where water is seeping through the mud, through Sphagnum and other vegetation or decaying leaves, sometimes fl owing in a thin fi lm over the sloping ground, then again trickling out of the mud at a more steeping spot, forming small puddles of only a few centimetres diameter and then seeping again into the muddy ground. Defi nitely, at least a very slow fl ow of water seems necessary for these species. Figures 27–32 show such typical habitats. The fi rst four photos are from two Iranian localities and the last two from a Spanish locality, given as a European locality for comparison. I had the best results when I fi lled the net by hand with mud from