Hydrobiologia 298: 315-353, 1995.
D. Belk, H. 1. Dumont & G. Maier (eds), Studies on Large Branchiopod Biology and Aquaculture fl.
© 1995 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
315
Checklist of the Anostraca
Denton Belk 1 & Jan Brtek 2
1 Biology Department, Our Lady of the Lake University of San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78207-4666, USA
2Hornonitrianske Muzeum, Hlinkova 44, Prievidza 97101, Slovakia
Key words: Anostraca, checklist, distribution, nomenclature, nomina dubia, nomina nuda, types, type locality
Abstract
In this checklist, we number the named anostracan fauna of the world at 258 species and seven subspecies organized
in 21 genera. The list contains all species described through 31 December 1993, and those new species names
made available in previous pages of this volume. The most species rich genus is Streptocephalus with 58 described
species level taxa. Chirocephalus with 43, Branchinecta 35, and Branchinella 33 occupy the next three places.
With the exception of Branchipodopsis and Eubranchipus each having 16 species, all the other genera include less
than 10 species each. The need for zoogeographic study of these animals is demonstrated by the fact that almost
25% of the named taxa are known only from their type localities.
Introduction
We present a complete listing of species in the crustacean order Anostraca as of 31 December 1993, and
those described in the preceding pages of this symposium volume. The list is alphabetical by genus, then
species, and lastly subspecies when such are described.
Subgenus is included when this category has been
described and we consider the case for establishing it
justified; however, notation of subgenus does not alter
the order of listing. Following each name, we include
notes on type material, type locality, geographic distribution, actions of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, new synonyms, sources of
synonymies, and other information we consider pertinent and helpful. We also point out problem areas
needing study. Much of the information on Daday's
syntypes came from Forr6 & Brtek (1984).
During preparation of the checklist, we critically evaluated each species using the best information
available to us. In cases where we consider the available information indicates nominal species belong to
the same taxon, we synonymize them. We also change
taxa from the subspecies to the species category when
we consider the available evidence favors such a move.
When the status of a taxon is questionable and needs
study, we point this out. We do not list manuscript
names, nomina nuda, as such names are not valid
scientific names because they fail to conform to the
requirements of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature for availability as species names.
This checklist recognizes 258 species and seven
subspecies arranged in 21 genera; however, its authors
disagree on the number of valid genera. The checklist follows Belk (1995; this volume) in considering Drepanosurus Simon, 1886 and Siphonophanes
Simon, 1886 as synonyms of Eubranchipus Verrill,
1870 and in reestablishing them as subgenera. Brtek
considers all three to be separate valid genera as characterized in Brtek (1966).
Confusing names in the genus Artemia
In his publications on Artemia, Dr Cesare Artom of
Italy used a number of names to differentiate various
populations and subpopulations. While doing this, he
created potential nomenclatural problems by presenting these names in the style of scientific names. However, an examination of his work indicates that he did
not intend these names to be available names of species
or subspecies as the concept of availability is presented in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Third Edition (the Code). Commenting on
Artom's names, Bond (1934) noted that Artom 'used
his terms as conveniences'. More recently, Barigozzi
(1974) pointed out that Artom often introduced names
which were styled like scientific names and then never
used them again. Barigozzi went on to note that Artom
thought of Artemia salina (Linnaeus, 1758) as a com-
D. Belk, H. 1. Dumont & G. Maier (eds), Studies on Large Branchiopod Biology and Aquaculture fl.
© 1995 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
315
Checklist of the Anostraca
Denton Belk 1 & Jan Brtek 2
1 Biology Department, Our Lady of the Lake University of San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78207-4666, USA
2Hornonitrianske Muzeum, Hlinkova 44, Prievidza 97101, Slovakia
Key words: Anostraca, checklist, distribution, nomenclature, nomina dubia, nomina nuda, types, type locality
Abstract
In this checklist, we number the named anostracan fauna of the world at 258 species and seven subspecies organized
in 21 genera. The list contains all species described through 31 December 1993, and those new species names
made available in previous pages of this volume. The most species rich genus is Streptocephalus with 58 described
species level taxa. Chirocephalus with 43, Branchinecta 35, and Branchinella 33 occupy the next three places.
With the exception of Branchipodopsis and Eubranchipus each having 16 species, all the other genera include less
than 10 species each. The need for zoogeographic study of these animals is demonstrated by the fact that almost
25% of the named taxa are known only from their type localities.
Introduction
We present a complete listing of species in the crustacean order Anostraca as of 31 December 1993, and
those described in the preceding pages of this symposium volume. The list is alphabetical by genus, then
species, and lastly subspecies when such are described.
Subgenus is included when this category has been
described and we consider the case for establishing it
justified; however, notation of subgenus does not alter
the order of listing. Following each name, we include
notes on type material, type locality, geographic distribution, actions of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, new synonyms, sources of
synonymies, and other information we consider pertinent and helpful. We also point out problem areas
needing study. Much of the information on Daday's
syntypes came from Forr6 & Brtek (1984).
During preparation of the checklist, we critically evaluated each species using the best information
available to us. In cases where we consider the available information indicates nominal species belong to
the same taxon, we synonymize them. We also change
taxa from the subspecies to the species category when
we consider the available evidence favors such a move.
When the status of a taxon is questionable and needs
study, we point this out. We do not list manuscript
names, nomina nuda, as such names are not valid
scientific names because they fail to conform to the
requirements of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature for availability as species names.
This checklist recognizes 258 species and seven
subspecies arranged in 21 genera; however, its authors
disagree on the number of valid genera. The checklist follows Belk (1995; this volume) in considering Drepanosurus Simon, 1886 and Siphonophanes
Simon, 1886 as synonyms of Eubranchipus Verrill,
1870 and in reestablishing them as subgenera. Brtek
considers all three to be separate valid genera as characterized in Brtek (1966).
Confusing names in the genus Artemia
In his publications on Artemia, Dr Cesare Artom of
Italy used a number of names to differentiate various
populations and subpopulations. While doing this, he
created potential nomenclatural problems by presenting these names in the style of scientific names. However, an examination of his work indicates that he did
not intend these names to be available names of species
or subspecies as the concept of availability is presented in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Third Edition (the Code). Commenting on
Artom's names, Bond (1934) noted that Artom 'used
his terms as conveniences'. More recently, Barigozzi
(1974) pointed out that Artom often introduced names
which were styled like scientific names and then never
used them again. Barigozzi went on to note that Artom
thought of Artemia salina (Linnaeus, 1758) as a com-