New records of Helophoridae, Hydrochidae, and Hydrophilidae (Coleoptera) from New Brunswick, Canada

Abstract The following three species of Helophoridae are newly recorded for New Brunswick, Canada: Helophorus (Kyphohelophorus) turberculatus Gyllenhal, Helophorus (Rhopaleloporus) oblongus LeConte, Helophorus (Rhopaleloporus) marginicollis Smetana. Hydrochus subcupreus Randall, family Hydrochidae, and the following 15 species of Hydrophilidae are newly reported for the province: Berosus fraternus LeConte, Berosus peregrinus (Herbst), Berosus sayi Hansen, Paracymus despectus (LeConte), Chaetarthria atra (LeConte), Cymbiodyta acuminata Fall, Cymbiodyta blanchardi Horn, Cymbiodyta minima Notman, Enochrus (Lumetus) hamiltoni Horn, Enochrus (Methydrus) consors (LeConte), Enochrus (Methydrus) consortus Green, Enochrus (Methydrus) pygmaeus nebulosus (Say), Cercyon (Cercyon) cinctus Smetana, Cercyon (Cercyon) herceus frigidus Smetana, Cercyon (Dicyrtocercyon) ustulatus (Preyssler).


Introduction
This paper treats new records of Helophoridae, Hydrochidae, and Hydrophilidae from New Brunswick, Canada. A few brief comments are required regarding the family status of Helophoridae, Hydrochidae, and Georissidae as there has been some disagreement in the literature. Smetana (1988) in the review of the Hydrophilidae of Canada and Alaska treated the Helophorinae and Hydrochinae as subfamilies of the Hydrophilidae. Van Tassel (2000) provided a general overview on the taxonomy and classification of North American members of the Hydrophilidae and also treated these taxa as subfamilies of the Hydrophilidae. This arrangement was subsequently used by Bousquet et al. (2013) in the Checklist of the Beetles of Canada. However, Hansen (1991), employing adult characters, and Archangelsky (1998), using adult and larval characters, provided data that support treating these subfamilies as families (Helophoridae, Hydrochidae, Georissidae). See Van Tassel (2000) for more details and references regarding this issue. Recently, Short and Fikáček (2013) provided a revised classification of the Hydrophilidae based on morphological data and molecular analysis of DNA sequence data from mitochondrial and nuclear genes. They also considered the Helophoridae, Hydrochidae, and Georissidae as separate families and made a number of changes to the classification of the Hydrophilidae. We follow their classification in this publication.
The Helophoridae and Hydrochidae are aquatic and usually occur in fresh water (Smetana 1988, Van Tassel 2000. The Hydrophilidae (water scavenger beetles) occurring in Canada can generally be divided into two biologically different groups, one aquatic and the other terrestrial, but see Short and Fikáček (2013) and Bloom et al. (2014) for more detailed discussions on the relationship between diversity patterns, habitat associations, and taxonomic lineages in this family from a global perspective. The aquatic species, which are the most species rich in Canada, belong to the subfamilies Hydrophilinae, Chaetarthriinae, and Enochrinae (Smetana 1988, Van Tassel 2000, Short and Fikáček 2013. Members of the Sphaeridiinae are mostly terrestrial, with a few semi-aquatic species. Aquatic species usually live in stagnant pools, littoral areas of lakes and ponds, in shallow water of streams, and in springs, and a few occur in brackish to strongly saline water (Smetana 1988, Van Tassel 2000. Immature stages are predaceous, and adults are mostly omnivorous, feeding on decaying vegetation and plants, but some are predatory on snails and other small invertebrates (Van Tassel 2000). The terrestrial species are scavengers in fresh mammal dung, soil rich in humus, rotting mushrooms, seaweed, or among moist decaying leaves (Smetana 1988, Van Tassel 2000. See Van Tassel (2000) for further details on the biology of North American members of this family.
Thirty-eight species of Hydrophilidae, including the Helophoridae and Hydrochidae, were reported for New Brunswick by Smetana (1988) and Roughley (1991). Since those publications, little has been published on the Hydrophilidae of New Brunswick. In the most recent checklist of the beetles of Canada, eight species of Helophoridae (as Helophorinae), one species of Hydrochidae (as Hydrochinae), and 37species of Hydrophilidae were reported for the province . During a general survey of the Coleoptera of New Brunswick, an additional three species of Helophoridae, one species of Hydrochidae, and 15 species of Hydrophilidae have been recorded for the province. The purpose of this paper is to report on these new records.

Methods and conventions
Collection methods. The following records are based, in part, on specimens collected as part of a general survey to document the Coleoptera fauna of New Brunswick. Helophoridae, Hydrochidae, and Hydrophilidae were sampled from various aquatic and semiaquatic habitats. Aquatic habitats were sampled with aquatic nets. Very small aquatic and semi-aquatic habitats, such as vernal pools, spring-fed seepages, and moss and debris on stream margins, were sampled by removing moss and debris and placing it on a cloth sheet or aquatic net to drain water away. The specimens were sifted and collected as they became active. Some specimens were collected from Lindgren funnel trap samples during a study to develop methods for improved survey and detection of potentially invasive species of bark and wood-boring beetles. These traps are visually similar to tree trunks and are often effective for sampling species of Coleoptera that live in microhabitats associated with standing trees (Lindgren 1983), but species associated with other habitats are often collected as well. At many sites, equal numbers of traps were deployed in the canopy and 1 m high under trees. Traps were baited with various combinations of lures for detecting Cerambycidae. See Webster et al. (2012) for details of the lures used and Hughes et al. (2014) for methods used to deploy Lindgren traps and sample collection. A description of the habitat was recorded for all specimens collected during this survey. Locality and habitat data are presented as on labels for each record. Two labels were used on many specimens, one that included the locality, collection date, and collector, and one with macro-and microhabitat data and collection method. Information from the two labels is separated by a // in the data presented from each specimen.
Specimen preparation. Males of Hydrochidae and some species of Helophoridae and Hydrophilidae were dissected to confirm their identity. The genital structures were dehydrated in absolute alcohol and mounted in Canada balsam on celluloid microslides and then pinned with the specimens from which they originated. Keys in Smetana (1985 and(1988) were used to determine specimens.
Distribution. Every species is cited with current distribution in Canada and Alaska, using abbreviations for the state, provinces, and territories. New records for New Brunswick are indicated in bold under Distribution in Canada and Alaska. The following abbreviations are used in the text:

Species accounts
All records below are species newly recorded for New Brunswick, Canada. Species with a † are adventive to Canada, species with a * are Holarctic. The determination that a species was a new record was based on information in the print version of . The classification used below follows Short and Fikáček (2013).

Family Helophoridae Leach, 1815
Helophorus (  Comments. Most specimens from New Brunswick were collected from saturated sphagnum moss in an open calcareous cedar fen. Smetana (1988) mentions that Paracymus despectus (LeConte) frequents shallow water with abundant organic debris but noted that little else was known about its habitat preferences. Comments. In New Brunswick, adults of Chaetarthria atra (LeConte) were found on river margins among cobblestones set in fine sand and gravel, under small rocks, and in moist gravel at water's edge. Little was previously known about its habitat preferences (Smetana 1988).