Bairdia amygdaloides Brady 1866
Creators: name: Maddocks, Rosalie F.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2013
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Ostracoda
Podocopida
Bairdiidae
Bairdia
Bairdia amygdaloides

description: Bairdia amygdaloides Brady, 1866
History. Brady (1866) described Bairdia amygdaloides from " Australia, 17 fathoms (Prof. Jukes's soundings)." Brady's drawings show a smooth, siliquose LV, a dorsally arched RV of a different species, and a juvenile LV interior. The name is sometimes included in checklists, but the identity and provenance of the species described by Brady have not been clarified. In the absence of type fixation and a topotypic population, the species is not recognizable.
Brady (1880) reported B. amygdaloides from six Challenger stations, including Hawaii (Fig. 2). It is likely that these records apply to several species, none of which is the true (unrecognizable) B. amygdaloides. Brady figured two morphotypes, one smaller and more tumid, but it is not known whether any of the illustrated specimens were from Hawaii. The high-arched lateral outline, densely punctate surface, and large size are traits found in many genera and species of bairdiids.
Brady (1890) reported B. amygdaloides from localities near Fiji, New Caledonia, and Samoa. His description itemized traits that are now known to be common throughout the genus Neonesidea and not of specific value. He did not provide illustrations or dimensions, and it is likely that several species and genera were included within his material. Chapman (1902) reported B. amygdaloides from Funafuti but did not illustrate it.
Maddocks (1969, pp. 19–20) did not reclassify B. amygdaloides into Neonesidea, as implied by Kempf (1986, p. 213). She merely suggested that the material erroneously identified under this name by Brady (1890) might include one or more species of Neonesidea. This is not a nomenclatural action.
Holden (1967) synonymized Brady's (1880, not 1866) identification of B. amygdaloides from Hawaii (only) with his new species B. kauaiensis. He illustrated several instars of B. kauaiensis and compared them with Brady's illustrations. As Figure 2 shows, it is unlikely that Brady's (1880) illustrated specimens belong to N. kauaiensis. He mentioned finding two specimens at Clipperton Island, but this identification was not confirmed by Allison & Holden (1971).
Holden (1976) reported fossils of N. kauaiensis from Midway, emphasized the invisibility of the pitting and reclassified it in Neonesidea. As Figure 2 shows, it is likely that the Midway population is not conspecific with either Brady's (1880) or Holden's (1967) Hawaiian material.
Conclusions: The true B. amygdaloides is unrecognizable at present, and this name (though available) is best treated as a nomen dubium until useful type or topotypic material can be examined. The Hawaiian record belongs to another, unidentified species.
description: Published as part of Maddocks, Rosalie F., 2013, New and poorly known species of Neonesidea (Bairdiidae, Ostracoda, Crustacea) from French Frigate Shoals, the Hawaiian Islands, pp. 457-510 in Zootaxa 3608 (6) on pages 461-462, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3608.6.3, http://zenodo.org/record/221771