Escheria crassipunctata Foerster , 1891

Martin, Fikacek, Hajek, Jiri & Schmied, Heiko, 2011, On the identity of the fossil aquatic beetles from the Tertiary localities in the southern part of the Upper Rhine Graben (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae, Dytiscidae), ZooKeys 78, pp. 15-25 : 19-20

Escheria crassipunctata Foerster, 1891 Fig. 7

Escheria crassipunctata Förster 1891: 364, plate XI, Fig. 11 (original description from Brunstatt); Handlirsch 1908: 767 (catalogue).

Hydrobius crassipunctatus : Théobald 1937: 169, plate II, Fig. 28 (transferred to Hydrobius , referred from Kleinkems); Hansen 1999: 319 (catalogue).

Taxonomic notes.

As in the case of Copelatus convexus , Théobald (1937) transferred Escheria crassipunctata to the hydrophilid genus Hydrobius and assigned fossil specimen no. R 707 from the locality of Kleinkems (deposited in NHMB) to this species. We have examined the specimen from Kleinkems for this study (Figs 10-11) but we cannot confirm that it is conspecific with Escheria crassipunctata for the following reasons: (i) the elytra are slightly constricted sub-basally in the specimen from Kleinkems, but evenly rounded laterally in Escheria crassipunctata ; (ii) the body outline is distinctly interrupted between the pronotum and the elytra, but it is uninterrupted in Escheria crassipunctata , (iii) eyes are large and globular in the specimen from Kleinkems, but relatively small in Escheria crassipunctata . A more detailed comparison is impossible as the holotype of Escheria crassipunctata is lost and was moreover preserved in dorsal view based on the drawing by Förster (1891), whereas the specimen from Kleinkems is preserved in ventral view.

Based on the original drawing by Förster (1891), Escheria crassipunctata does not bear any synapomorphy of the Hydrophiloidea . For this reason, the species is removed from the fossil record of the Hydrophiloidea and is placed in Polyphaga incertae sedis.

Specimen no. R707 from Kleinkems does not bear any synapomorphy of the Hydrophiloidea , and moreover bears a combination of characters which excludes its assignment to the Hydrophiloidea : (i) prosternal process wide, (ii) mesocoxal cavities rather wide apart, and (iii) eyes large and globular. The preserved characters of this specimen do not allow an unambiguous family assignment (see Lawrence et al. 1999).