On the Correct Specific Names of Several North American Species of the Phyllopod Genus Branchinecta Verrill

Abstract

It seems apparent that if an error is made complete enough and carried through with confidence, and provided with sufficient psychological distraction, it may be perpetuated through three quarters of a century in time and the more or less thorough scrutiny of a small army of experts. And that even when the error is obvious and easily demonstrable. The history of the genus Branchinecta began in the United States (not North America) with the description by Packard (1874) of B. coloradensis. Since the date of the original description, the species has never been known under its correct name, even though the description was accurate and mrovided with acceptable illustrations. A few years subsequent to the description of B. coloradensis, the trivial name was inadvertently transferred to another species of the genus and has been accepted in its incorrect application ever since. The perpetuation of this error in confusion of two species inevitably involved a third species (B. 1Indahli) with the net result that for approximately the last half century three species of Branchinecta have been carried in the literature, burdened by as many scientific aliases. It is the hope of the author to be able to reapply correct trivial names to all three species and to erect synonymies for future guidance of researchers in the phyllopod field. The identity of Branchinecta coloradensis, Packard, 1874.-Packard's original description of B. coloradensis was based on two collections. According to him he used female from a pond on a mountain near Twin Lake Creek, Colorado; elcvation, 12,500 feet (Hayden's Survey of Colorado, 1873; collected by Lieut. W. L. Carpenter, U. S. A.) and about a hundred males, and females, with eggs, Colorado, Dr. Viele (Museum Comp. Zoology 'Cambridge) no date. The description was illustrated by three drawings, (1) of the head of a male, front view showing the claspers, (by a lapsus calami this drawing was labeled as head of the female), (2) toto drawing of a male, side view, and (3) toto drawing of a female side view. All three were grouped together as figure 12. The text of the description was short and obviously based on one male specimen. It is worthwhile to quote this description verbatim.