1 Topic by John Bratton

  • John Bratton
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 14-01-2016
  • Posts: 23

Topic: Too many records of the water beetle Helochares obscurus ?

The number of dots on the NBN map of H. obscurus is vastly greater than in the 2016 published atlas. Many of the extra records are from Local Record Centres so I am mentioning it here as a way of suggesting LRCs should have a critical look at their records of this rare fenland species. It wasn't until 1982 that the three species were recognised in Britain but the name obscurus was in use here earlier than that.

2 Reply by charliebarnes

  • charliebarnes
  • Veteran
  • Offline
  • From: Greater Lincolnshire
  • Registered: 07-09-2008
  • Posts: 1,384

Re: Too many records of the water beetle Helochares obscurus ?

Presumably these should be Helochares lividus sensu auctt. partim non (Forster, 1771)?

Charlie Barnes
Information Officer
Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership

charliebarnes's Website

3 Reply by John Bratton

  • John Bratton
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 14-01-2016
  • Posts: 23

Re: Too many records of the water beetle Helochares obscurus ?

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. If the doubtful records can't be resolved into one of the current three British species, I'd have thought they should be just flagged as unreliable without altering the species name.

4 Reply by charliebarnes

  • charliebarnes
  • Veteran
  • Offline
  • From: Greater Lincolnshire
  • Registered: 07-09-2008
  • Posts: 1,384

Re: Too many records of the water beetle Helochares obscurus ?

Yeah, I missed some words out of that reply somehow...

I think I meant to say "Presumably these [the errors] should be Helochares lividus (Forster, 1771) - of those that I've checked, they've been supplied as Helochares lividus sensu auctt. partim non (Forster, 1771)."

If you do a search for Helochares lividus in Recorder, restricting searching to Preferred taxa or via the Import Wizard, Helochares lividus sensu auctt. partim non (Forster, 1771) is the only option on the Beetle checklist. I.e. a data management issue.

The same may have happened with Helochares punctatus - there are 3 records of Helochares punctatus sensu auctt. partim non Sharp, 1869 in the KMBRC dataset but I wonder if they should be Helochares punctatus Sharp, 1869.

Charlie Barnes
Information Officer
Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership

charliebarnes's Website

5 Reply by sratcliffe

  • sratcliffe
  • Administrator
  • Offline
  • Registered: 03-07-2017
  • Posts: 286

Re: Too many records of the water beetle Helochares obscurus ?

Hi John and Charlie,

Many thanks for letting me know. I have contacted KMBRC. It does look like the records should be Helochares lividus - it is the supplied scientific name for the records, although the taxon id points to Helochares obscurus.

I have also passed on your comment about Helochares punctatus as well, Charlie.

Best wishes, Sophie