Bairdia bradyi Bold, 1957

Bairdia bradyi Bold, 1957 View in CoL

Not 1852 Bairdia foveolata Bosquet [= Cuneocythere (Monsmirabilia) foveolata ( Bosquet, 1852) Keij, 1957 ].

1868A Bairdia foveolata Brady sp. nov.: 56, Pl. 7, figs. 4–6 [homonym of Bairdia foveolata Bosquet, 1852 .]

1912 Nesidea sp. –Müller, p. 249.

1957 Bairdia bradyi Bold , new name: p. 236 [replacement name; not Pl. 1, fig. 5, which is a Miocene species from Trinidad]. 2024 Bairdia foveolata Brady–Brandão et al. https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=503997

? 1890 Bairdia foveolata Brady–Brady , p. 493.

? 1965 Bairdia foveolata Brady–Benson , p. 400.

? 1986 Paranesidea sp. 2 aff. fracticorallicola Maddocks, 1969 –Cabioche et al., p. 25, Pl. 7, fig. 7.? 2002 Paranesidea cf. fracticorallica [sic] Maddocks–Hoibian et al., Table 12, Pl. 1, fig. 17.

Not 1868B Bairdia foveolata Brady–Brady, Part 1, Ch. 14, p. 61.

Not 1869A Bairdia foveolata Brady–Brady, Part 1, Ch. 17, p. 83.

Not 1869F Bairdia foveolata Brady–Brady, Part 1, Ch. 33, p. 161.

Not 1870C Bairdia foveolata Brady–Brady, Part 2, Ch. 14, p. 240.

Not 1880 Bairdia foveolata Brady–Brady , p. 55, pl. 8, figs. 1a–f, 2a–f.

Not 1901 Bairdia foveolata Brady–Egger , p. 426, Pl. 2, figs. 1–4.

Not 1928 Bairdia foveolata Brady–Chapman & Crespin , p. 169.

Not 1957 Bairdia bradyi Bold –Pl. 1, fig. 5 only.

Not 1960 Bairdia foveolata Brady–Puri , Table 1.

Not 1960 Bairdia bradyi Bold–Puri , p. 130.

Not 1963 Bairdia bradyi Bold–Bold , p. 365.

Not 1963 Bairdia cf. B. bradyi Bold–Benson & Coleman , p. 18, Pl. 2, figs. 1–3, Text-fig. 7.

Not 1966 Bairdia bradyi Bold–Bold , p. 45, Pl. 5, figs. 5a–c.

Not 1966 Bairdia bradyi Bold–Morales , p. 28, Pl. 1, figs. 4a–d.

Not 1966 Bairdia cf. B. bradyi Bold–Baker & Hulings, Pl. 3, fig. 17.

Not 1967 Bairdia cf. B. bradyi Bold–Hulings , p. 87, Table 1.

Not 1967 Bairdia bradyi Bold–Swain , p. 36, Pl. 7, fig. 4.

Not 1969 Bairdia bradyi Bold–Bold , p. 121, Pl. 1, fig. 6.

Not 1971 Bairdia bradyi (Bold) [sic]–Puri, p. 168.

Not 1976 Bairdoppilata sp. aff. B. bradyi (Bold) –Holden, p. F17, Pl. 1, figs. 1, 2; Pl. 9, figs. 20, 21.

Not 1978 Paranesidea sp. cf. P. bradyi (Bold) –Kontrovitz, p. 139, Pl. 1, fig. 6

Not 1978 Bairdia foveolata Brady–Llano (fide Llano, 1982, p. 77).

Not 1980 Bairdia sp. aff. B. bradyi Bold–Fithian , p. 100, Pl. 2, figs. 3a–b.

Not 1980 Neonesidea bradyi ( Bold, 1957) –Hanai et al., p. 111.

Not 1982 Bairdia bradyi van den Bold–Llano , p. 77, pl. 2, fig. D13.

Not 1988B Paranesidea bradyi Bold–Bold , Table 3.

Not 1989 Bairdia sp. A –Machain-Castillo, Table 1.

Not 1991 Bairdia bradyi Bold –Machain-Castillo & Gío-Argáez, Table 4.

Not 1994 Bairdia bradyi Bold –Machain-Castillo & Gío-Argáez, Table 1.

Not 2002 Bairdia bradyi Bold –Gio-Argáez et al., p. 256, Table 2.

Not 2024 Bairdia bradyi Bold–Brandão et al. [On this WoRMS web page the status is stated to be “unaccepted (superseded original combination).” There is no notation of the fact that it was proposed as a replacement name for Bairdia foveolata Brady, 1868 . The species is erroneously stated to be fossil only. The accepted name is stated to be Neonesidea bradyi ( Bold, 1957) . The reclassification in Neonesidea by Hanai et al. (1980) is accepted.] https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia. php?p=taxdetails&id=460018

Not 2024 Bairdoppilata bradyi (Bold) –Brandão et al. [On this WoRMS web page, the status is stated to be “unaccepted (superseded recombination.)” The accepted name is stated to be Neonesidea bradyi ( Bold, 1957) . The species is stated to be fossil only. The author of this combination ( Holden, 1976) is not mentioned.] https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia. php?p=taxdetails&id=799603

Not 2024 Paranesidea bradyi (Bold) –Brandão et al. [On this WoRMS web page the status is stated to be “unaccepted (superseded recombination).” The accepted name is stated to be Neonesidea bradyi ( Bold, 1957) . The author of this combination ( Kontrovitz, 1978) is not mentioned.] https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=460077

Not 2024 Neonesidea bradyi ( Bold, 1957) –Brandão et al. [On this WoRMS web page the status is stated to be “accepted.” The authors for the new combination are given ( Hanai et al., 1980). Synonymised names include Bairdia bradyi Bold, 1957 ; Bairdoppilata bradyi ( Bold, 1957) ; and Paranesidea bradyi ( Bold, 1957) .] https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia. php?p=taxdetails&id=460077

Material Examined: None.

Dimensions: Brady (1868A) stated the length as 0.0015 but did not specify the units.

Nomenclatural Remarks:

Bairdia foveolata Brady, 1868 View in CoL A was described from harbour sediment collected at Nouméa, New Caledonia. The species name is a junior primary homonym of Bairdia foveolata Bosquet, 1852 View in CoL . Bold (1957, p. 236) recognized this and proposed the replacement name Bairdia bradyi View in CoL for it: “As the name Bairdia foveolata BRADY, 1868 View in CoL , is preoccupied by Bairdia foveolata BOSQUET, 1852 View in CoL (= Monsmirabilia foveolata (Bosquet)) , the name Bairdia bradyi View in CoL is proposed here.”

It is clear that Bold (1957, p. 236) proposed Bairdia bradyi as a “new name,” not as a new species. As a Substitute Name ( ICZN, 1961, 1999, Article 60), the name B. bradyi applies first of all, and perhaps only, to Brady’s material from New Caledonia. Although Bold’s publication concerned Miocene assemblages of Trinidad, the new name applies only to Brady’s species. Later, Bold (1963, p. 361; 1966, p. 44) alluded to having examined some of Brady’s Fonds material, but he did not state which species were examined, provided no details about his observations, and did not mention fixation of any lectotype.

The G.S. Brady Ostracod Collection, formerly in the Hancock Museum in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, is now kept in the Great North Museum Resource Centre at the Discovery Museum in the same city. Catalogue numbers are prefixed by NEWHM .

http://greatnorthmuseum.org.uk

https://collectionssearchtwmuseums.org.uk/#browse=enarratives.17433

There are five listings for Bairdia foveolata at the online website for the G. S. Brady Collection at the Hancock Museum (http://greatnorthmuseum.org.uk) ( NEWHM: 2.05.43, 2.06.25, 2.08.23, 2.08.25, 2.09.33), but none of the listed slides contains material from Nouméa, from which the selection of a lectotype would be permitted. Two catalog entries are for specimens subsequently identified from other locations in later chapters of Les Fonds de la Mer ( Mauritius and New Providence, Bahamas). Three catalog entries represent specimens subsequently identified in Challenger collections (East Moncoeur Island; Bass Strait; and Nares Harbour, Manus Island, Admiralty Islands).

There are five listings for Bairdia bradyi in the Online Catalog of the H.V. Howe Collection of the Louisiana Museum of Natural Science (http://appl103.lsu.edu/natsci%5CCollections%5Cnatscicolsearch.nsf/OpenSearchPag e?openagent&ID=1052). Two entries ( HVH 8242, HVH8772) are for specimens reported by W.A. van den Bold in later publications (1966, Recent from Colon Harbour, Panama; 1969, from the Miocene Ponce Formation of Puerto Rico). Two entries ( HVH 8118, HVH8119) are for specimens identified and illustrated by Morales (1966, from the Laguna de Terminos, Mexico). One entry is an unattributed, unpublished identification (from the Atlantic Ocean off Trinidad), which might be the basis for the statement by Bold (1957, p. 236) that the species “still occurs in the seas around Trinidad.” There are no entries in the online catalog for the combinations Bairdia foveolata , Bairdoppilata bradyi , or Paranesidea bradyi .

Kornicker (1961, p. 62, in comparative remarks for Bairdia gigacantha ) erroneously referred to Bold’s illustrated specimen as a “ holotype ” (1957, Pl. 1, fig. 3, from the Miocene of Trinidad). Because B. bradyi was proposed as a Substitute Name, not a new species, the holotype specimen (if it can be located) is still Brady’s (1868A) carapace from Nouméa Harbour .

Holden (1976, p. 17) describing late Cenozoic fossil assemblages of Midway Island, reported a species of Bairdoppilata in open nomenclature as “ Bairdoppilata sp. aff. B. bradyi (Bold) .” There was no discussion of the generic reclassification, nor was it flagged as deliberate by “nov. comb.” or similar words (ICZN Recommendation 16A). Holden’s discussion is confusing, because first he commended Bold’s (1957) global synonymy for B. bradyi , and then he stated that the “ foveolata-bradyi complex” includes multiple species. His use of “aff.” implied uncertainty about the identification of the specimen, leaning toward a probability that it was not B. bradyi but a different, unnamed species ( Bengston 1988; Sigovini et al. 2016).

Kontrovitz (1978, p. 139, Pl. 1, fig. 6) reported Paranesidea sp. cf. P. bradyi (Bold) from the Pleistocene of South Florida. He did not discuss the generic re-assignment, nor was it flagged as a deliberate recombination by the use of “nov. comb.” or similar words (ICZN Recommendation 16A). The use of “cf.” implied that the identification of the specimen was uncertain or provisional ( Bengston 1988; Sigovini et al. 2016).

Hanai et al. (1980) published the new combination Neonesidea bradyi ( Bold, 1957) in a regional checklist without any taxonomic discussion or illustration. There was no discussion of the generic reclassification, nor was it flagged as deliberate by the use of “nov. comb.” or similar words (ICZN Recommendation 16A). They cited just two of the subsequent records of B. foveolata by Brady (1868B, from Java; 1880, from Hong Kong Harbour). Their synonymy omitted the original record by Brady (1868A) from New Caledonia, as well as numerous subsequent identifications from other parts of the world. They did cite “ Nesidea sp. ” of Müller (1912, p. 249), who considered that all of the subsequent reports of B. foveolata represented misidentifications. They also added the note: “Misidentification possible according to Benson (1964, p. 400)” [sic, for Benson (1965)]This generic combination is designated as “accepted” by Brandão et al. (2024) in the World Ostracoda Database and WoRMS, from which it has migrated into other databases (BISMaL, COPEPEDIA, GBIF).

Kempf (1986A) accepted all three of these citations [in Bairdoppilata by Holden (1976), in Paranesidea by Kontrovitz (1978), and in Neonesidea by Hanai et al. (1980)] as nomenclatural New Combinations and generic reclassifications of B. bradyi , even though two of the identifications were in open nomenclature.

Kempf (1986B, Volume 2 only, Index B, p. 101, line 24517) listed Bairdia bradyi a second time and attributed it to Triebel (1948). This second entry applies to a different species, which belongs to the Genus Triebelina . The original name, Bairdia truncata Brady, 1890 , is a junior secondary homonym of Bairdia truncata Kirkby, 1858 , for which Triebel (1948, p. 18) proposed the substitute binomen Triebelina truncata . Triebel did not explicitly mention the binomen Bairdia bradyi .

Bold (1988B, Table 2) cited Paranesidea bradyi from Alacran Reef on the Yucatan shelf, without discussion or mention of an authority.

Brandão et al. (2024) designated Bairdia foveolata Brady, 1868 as “accepted.” On this page no mention is made of the fact that it is a junior homonym of Bairdia foveolata Bosquet, 1852 , or that the substitute name Bairdia bradyi was proposed for it by Bold (1957).

Brandão et al. (2024) designated Bairdia bradyi Bold, 1957 as “unaccepted combination, superseded.”

Brandao et al. (2024) designated Bairdoppilata bradyi as “unaccepted, superseded recombination,” crediting the combination to Holden (1976).Actually, Holden identified the species from Midway Island in open nomenclature as “ Bairdoppilata sp. aff. B. bradyi (Bold) .” His use of “aff.” implied uncertainty about the identification of the specimen, leaning toward the probability that it was not B. bradyi but a different, unnamed species ( Bengston 1988; Sigovini et al. 2016).

Brandão et al. (2024) designated Paranesidea bradyi as “unaccepted, superseded combination,” crediting it to Kontrovitz (1978). Actually, Kontrovitz (1978, p. 139, Pl. 1, fig. 6) reported it in open nomenclature as “ Paranesidea sp. cf. P. bradyi (Bold) . “ The use of “cf.” implied that the identification of the specimen was uncertain or provisional ( Bengston 1988; Sigovini et al. 2016).

Brandão et al. (2024) designated Neonesidea bradyi ( Bold, 1957) as “accepted,” crediting the combination to Hanai et al. (1980). The associated taxonomic species was erroneously stated to be fossil only (Miocene of Trinidad). This designation has migrated from World Ostracoda Database and WoRMS into other databases (BISMaL, COPEPEDIA, GBIF).

Taxonomic Remarks: Bairdia bradyi in New Caledonia

From 1867 to 1887 the Marquis de Folin conducted an ambitious private program of collecting and describing coastal marine sediments worldwide, including the shells contained in them. The sediment samples were collected by officers of merchant vessels and citizens residing at the ports visited by the ships. On the recommendation of M.A. Milne-Edwards, de Folin invited G. S. Brady to describe the ostracods. Apart from one early paper (1866), until this time most of Brady’s experience had been with British faunas.

The descriptions were published in a private serial, Les Fonds de la Mer, of which de Folin was the editor and chief author. It was issued in parts to subscribers, one signature at a time, approximately four parts per year. The series is rare, and only four sets are known to exist in libraries, of which most are incomplete. Reconstruction of the dates of issue of the parts was formerly a matter of some uncertainty ( Winkworth 1941; Winkworth & Fischer 1946; Rehder 1946; Howe 1955, 1962; Dolan 2020). Apparently, there is only one copy in North America, in the Smithsonian. It is likely that all North American taxonomists, and many elsewhere, depend on a photocopy or digital image of this set, which is now available online through Biodiversity Heritage Library, https://www. biodiversitylibrary.org. Both W.A. van den Bold (1957, p. 247; 1963, p. 31) and Richard H. Benson (in Benson & Coleman 1963) mentioned having consulted the Fonds. Harbans S. Puri (1960) cited Brady’s publications in the Fonds collectively, but he did not state explicitly whether he examined the volumes.

Brady (1868A, p. 56, Pl. 7, figs. 4–6) described Bairdia foveolata from harbor sediment collected at Nouméa , Grand Terre, New Caledonia (22 o 18’S, 166 o 48’E), mentioning a rounded dorsum and surface pitting, as well as conspicuous blunt spines on the anterior and posterior margins. Brady’s figures (two of which are reproduced here as Figures 1A–B View FIGURE 1 ) show a dorsally arched, punctate carapace. The low-set, narrowly extended anteroventral margin is furnished with about 8–10 unusually prominent, robust marginal spines. The subtle caudal process of Brady’s figure is set rather low, at about one-quarter of height. The valve contact, as represented for both the dorsal and anterior views, is curiously sinuous. The dorsal view (his Pl. 7, fig. 5) may be upside-down, according to the valve overreach. No information was provided concerning supplemental dentition (if present), patch pattern, and soft anatomy. The information provided is not sufficient to establish the generic affinity of Brady’s species .

In three more chapters of Les Fonds de la Mer, Brady (1868B, 1869A, 1870C) identified (but did not illustrate) B. foveolata at the following additional localities: Coast of Java (Brady 1868B, Part 1, Ch. 14, p. 61), Mauritius (Brady 1869A, Part 1, Ch. 17, p. 83), and Ȋles Lucayes (New Providence, Bahamas, second visit; Brady 1870C, Part 2, Ch. 14, p. 240). In the last of these chapters (Brady 1870C, Part 2, Ch. 14, p. 240), one finds the memorable comment about the difficulty of identifying species of Bairdia , with which all taxonomists can sympathize:

“Les espèces du genre Bairdia présentent des transitions si faibles, qu’il est souvent difficile de les déterminer sûrement, á moins d’avoir sous les yeux de bonnes séries d’échantillons vivants. M. Brady attribue en conséquence, sous toutes réserves, au Bairdia foveolata , certains spécimens des I’les Lucayes plus grands que les types de Noumea et d’une ornamentation plus variable.” [Comment relayed by the Marquis de Folin, p. 240–241]

“The species of the genus Bairdia present such slight transitions, that it is often difficult to determine them with certainty, without having under the eyes a good series of living examples. In consequence, M. Brady attributes to Bairdia foveolata , with reservations, certain specimens from the Iles Lucayes [that are] larger than the types from Nouméa and of more variable ornamentation.” [Translation by the author.]

In other chapters of the Fonds there was no mention of B. foveolata , although additional species of Bairdia were described or identified. It is noteworthy that B. foveolata was not included in Brady’s species lists for the following six Fond s localities, which are of interest for Caribbean taxonomy: (1) New Providence, Bahamas, first visit (Brady 1869B, Part 1, Ch. 26, p. 122); (2) Saint-Vincent Harbor of Cape Verde Islands, first visit (Brady 1869D, Part 1, Ch. 28, p. 138); (3) Colon-Aspinwall, Panama (Brady 1869E, Part 1, Ch. 30, p. 152); (4) Port-au-Prince, Haiti (Brady 1869E, Part 1, Ch. 32, p. 160; 2, Ch. 3, p. 192.); (5) Santiago Harbour, Cuba (Brady 1870B, Part 2, Ch 13, p. 238); and (6) Vera Cruz and Carmen, Mexico, Gulf of Mexico (Brady 1870D, Part 2, Ch. 15, p. 243).

The H.M.S. Challenger did not visit New Caledonia. Brady (1880, p. 55, pl. 8, figs. 1a–f, 2a–f; here reproduced as Figures 1C–L View FIGURE 1 ) identified B. foveolata at six Challenger stations: off Bermuda; off St. Vincent Island of the Cape Verde Islands; off East Moncoeur Island in Bass Strait, Australia; off Booby Island, Torres Strait, Australia; in Hong-Kong Harbour; and from Nares Harbour in the Admiralty Islands. Those reports probably apply to other species. Brady, himself, complained about the heterogeneity of outline and surface ornament among the material that he referred to this species. He illustrated two varieties and mentioned that both of them lack the conspicuous marginal spines of the Nouméa specimen, but he did not specify the localities from which those illustrated specimens were collected. As Müller (1912) pointed out, it is likely that multiple species were represented in Brady’s (1880) material, and that none of them were conspecific with the population from the type locality (Nouméa). Brady’s dimensions (L 1.1 mm) exceed those of the Caribbean species of the Ba. fithianae species group described here.

Brady (1890, p. 493) reported but did not illustrate Bairdia foveolata from Nouméa and from six other collections in the Southwest Pacific ( Fiji and Samoa). Those identifications would be plausible, because of their proximity to New Caledonia, but they require verification.

Taxonomic literature for New Caledonia is sparse, and Brady’s species has been ignored by subsequent authors. The compilation by Maddocks (2007) is the only publication to include Brady’s (1868A) paper in the References. The name Bairdia foveolata was not included in the Species Checklist of that publication, however, because it is a primary homonym. The replacement name Bairdia bradyi van den Bold was omitted from that list, because the species was considered to be unrecognizable from Brady’s illustrations.

Benson (1965, p. 400) listed Bairdia foveolata Brady in a species list for the Indo-Pacific Realm in his “Catalog of Pacific Ostracode species and their environments,” adding the note “Variable, misidentifications possible.” His checklist was compiled chiefly from identifications by Brady (1868A, 1880, 1890).

Apostolescu (1967) illustrated exteriors of four bairdiid species from Baie Saint-Vincent in New Caledonia, without dimensions or taxonomic descriptions. Most were designated as “aff.” species described by Brady (1880), although the Challenger Expedition did not visit New Caledonia. His illustration (Pl.1, figs. 4–5) of “ Bairdia aff. victrix (Brady) ” shows a high-domed carapace with conspicuous posteroventral spines.

Cabioche et al. (1986) listed species of Neonesidea , Paranesidea , and Triebelina from the fringing reefs of New Caledonia. The LV exterior figured in their Pl. 7, fig. 7 (identified as “ Paranesidea sp. 2 aff. fracticorallicola Maddocks, 1969 ”) shows similarities to Brady’s drawing of B. foveolata (subtriangular outline, coarse punctation, exuberant marginal spinosity), but the internal characters were not documented.

Babinot & Degaugue-Michalski (1996) reported species of Neonesidea , Paranesidea , and Triebelina from the Chesterfield Islands and northern New Caledonia, without taxonomic discussion or illustrations.

Hoibian et al. (2002, Pl. 1, fig. 17) illustrated the exterior of a RV with unusually long marginal spines from Roche Percée Bay (about 160 km north of Nouméa), which they identified as Paranesidea cf. fracticorallica [sic]. It may be, perhaps, the same species reported by Cabioche et al. (1986).

In summary, the identity of Brady’s New Caledonia species, to which the replacement name B. bradyi applies, remains uncertain. The original description is vague, Brady’s drawings are suggestive but problematic, and the internal features of the carapace and soft anatomy are unknown. Without internal information, it is unclear whether this species should be classified in Paranesidea , Bairdoppilata , or another genus. Brady’s later reports of this species from distant localities are heterogeneous and unlikely. To establish its validity the species should be redescribed from topotypic material. Until B. bradyi can be verified as a valid species at its type locality, it will not be possible to recognize it at other locations.

Taxonomic Remarks: Bairdia bradyi as identified by W. A. van den Bold

It is difficult to determine W.A. van den Bold’s conception of Bairdia bradyi , because his published identifications were heterogenous, and many were not accompanied by illustrations.

Bold (1957, p. 236) proposed the name Bairdia bradyi as a new name (not a new species), explaining that it was intended as a replacement name for a junior homonym: “As the name Bairdia foveolata BRADY, 1868 , is preoccupied by Bairdia foveolata BOSQUET, 1852 (= Monsmirabilia foveolata (Bosquet)) , the name Bairdia bradyi is proposed here.”

He then stated that B. bradyi “still occurs in the seas around Trinidad,” from which it may be inferred that he accepted Brady’s global range for the living species. This assumption was followed uncritically by later authors. In his synonymy he accepted the subsequent identifications by Brady (1880), querying only the Cretaceous records by Chapman & Crespin (1928). The only illustration (Pl. 1, fig. 5; reproduced here as Figure 1M View FIGURE 1 ) was an outline sketch of an entire carapace with high-arched, inflated contours, collected from the St. Croix Limestone (Miocene) of Trinidad. It is not caudate; there is no indication of punctation, opaque patch pattern, marginal spines, or supplemental dentition (if present); and there are no evident points of resemblance either to Brady’s (1868A) illustration of the Nouméa specimen or to the Caribbean species identified under this name by later authors.

Bold (1963, faunal list on p. 365, and Table 2 on p. 366) reported that B. bradyi is living in the recent shallow-water fauna of the Gulf of Paria, between Trinidad and the east coast of Venezuela, but he provided no description or illustrations to support this identification. He stated (p. 361) that he obtained a loan of material from Brady’s Fonds collections, but he did not say which species were included in that loan. He offered comparative remarks only for two species of Cytheroidea.

Bold (1966, p. 45, Pl. 1, figs. 5a–c; reproduced here as Figures 1V–X View FIGURE 1 ) illustrated a much different species from Colon Harbour, Panama, which he identified as Bairdia bradyi . He referenced Brady’s (1869D, p. 152) report on the ostracode fauna of Colon-Aspinwall, although Brady did not mention B. foveolata in his faunal list for that Fonds locality. No description or taxonomic discussion was provided for this interesting form. It might be identifiable as Ba. fimbriata , sp. nov., which is described below, from Belize and Roatan. He mentioned (p. 44) that he had access to part of Brady’s Fonds material, but he did not say whether B. foveolata was included or make any comparative observations.

Bold (1969, p. 121, Pl. 1, fig. 6; reproduced here as Figure 1Z View FIGURE 1 ) reported B. bradyi from the Miocene Ponce Formation of Puerto Rico, stating that the species is “widespread in Miocene-Recent sediments of the Caribbean.” His illustration presents a nearly featureless carapace without caudal process or marginal denticles, which does not resemble Brady’s species from New Caledonia, the specimen recorded from the Miocene of Trinidad by Bold (1957), the specimens illustrated from Colon Harbor by Bold (1966), or any of the Caribbean species of the Ba. fithianae species-group described below.

Bold (1988B, p. 155, Table 1, Table 2, Appendix) listed Paranesidea bradyi ( Bold, 1957) at Alacran Reef on the Yucatan platform and characterized its distribution as Caribbean. There was no accompanying illustration, taxonomic discussion, or explanation of the generic reclassification. In some comments published earlier, Bold (1974, p. 31) had minimized the taxonomic significance of bairdoppilatan supplemental dentition, considering it a labile character that may be subject to convergence. Instead, he mentioned that he preferred to enlarge the taxonomic concept of the Genus Paranesidea to encompass bairdiid species having punctate ornament and marginal spines.

In his comprehensive compilation of Cenozoic ostracod faunas for the Dominican Republic, Bold (1988A) listed seven species of Bairdiidae (three of Bairdia , one of Bairdoppilata , and three of Paranesidea ) but did not mention B. bradyi .

Taxonomic Remarks: Bairdia bradyi as identified by subsequent authors

Puri (1960, p. 130) reported Bairdia bradyi Bold in Florida Bay at his stations 3, 6 and 7 (off Crane Key, Molasses Reef off Tavernier, and Key Largo, in the Florida Keys), although in his Table 1 he listed it under the older name B. foveolata Brady. Puri did not describe or illustrate B. bradyi , however, and he did not provide dimensions or a catalog number for a plesiotype specimen. Therefore, it is unclear which species, of several living in Florida waters, he intended to identify by that name.

In the same paper and at the same stations, Puri (1960, p. 131, Pl. 6, figs. 14, 15, Table 1) described and illustrated Bairdia milne-edwardsi 1 Brady, 1869C, including dimensions (L 0.811 mm, H 0.473 mm) and a catalog number for a plesiotype specimen. He stated that his Florida specimens were closer to the “more typical” form of the two forms subsequently illustrated under this name by Brady (1880). Puri did not provide distinguishing remarks for B. bradyi and B. milneedwardsi , and it is possible that these are inconsistent appellations for what he considered to be a single species. Bairdoppilatan supplemental dentition was not mentioned for either one. His dimensions (L 0.811 mm, H 0.473 mm) would plot within the lower part of the LV cluster for the population of Ba. fithianae , sp. nov., from Florida (Graph 3). Puri’s drawings (Pl. 6, figs. 14, 15) show points of resemblance to Ba. fithianae : the moderate LV>RV dorsal overreach, the high-arched but asymmetrical dorsal margin, the nearly level ventral margin, the slightly swollen but not ridged caudal process, and the crisply punctate surface.

Benson & Coleman (1963, p. 18, Pl. 2, figs. 1–3; Text-Fig. 7) reported Bairdia sp. cf. B. bradyi Bold, 1957 from the West Coast of Florida and Florida Bay, but their assemblages included multiple species (Maddocks, unpublished observations). Most of the traits listed in the description are not diagnostic at the species level, and supplemental bairdoppilatan dentition was not mentioned. The dimensions provided are rather small: L 0.71 mm, H 0.47 mm, W 0.39 mm. Their photographs (Pl. 2, figs. 1–3; here reproduced as Figures 1O–Q View FIGURE 1 ) show a species of Paranesidea that is common throughout the Florida Keys, the Flower Gardens, and perhaps Laguna de Terminos, Mexico. Benson & Coleman compared B. bradyi to Bairdia victrix Brady, 1869 D (p. 142, Pl. 18, figs. 17–18) but their photographs of B. victrix (Pl. 2, figs. 4–10) belong to a second species of Paranesidea . The specimen illustrated in their Text-fig. 7 (reproduced here as Figure 1N View FIGURE 1 ) represents a third species, which was later described from the Belize platform as Paranesidea bensoni by Teeter (1975, p. 417, Figures 3b–d View FIGURE 3 , 4b View FIGURE 4 ). Teeter mentioned that he had seen it also in Florida assemblages. Anatomical details (Maddocks, unpublished) confirm its distinct generic status.

Baker & Hulings (1966, Pl. 3, fig. 17; here reproduced as Figure 1U View FIGURE 1 ) reported Bairdia cf. B. bradyi in their Assemblage C on the south coast of Puerto Rico. Their figure shows a large closed carapace with angular outlines, which may be a species of Paranesidea or Triebelina .

Morales (1966, p. 28, Pl. 1, figs. 4a–d; here reproduced as Figures 1R–T View FIGURE 1 ) reported Bairdia bradyi from Laguna de Terminos on the Bay of Campeche. Its occurrence was restricted to sands of the tidal delta of Boca de Paso Real, just inside the pass, suggesting inward transport from the Yucatan shelf and Bay of Campeche. The stated dimensions for adults (L 0.70–0.83 mm, H 0.40–0.45 mm, W 0.40 mm) are smaller than those of species of the Ba. fithianae group. The photographs show a subovate lateral outline and an indistinctly mottled patch pattern. There was no mention of bairdoppilatan supplemental dentition (if present). This is probably a small species of Paranesidea .

Hulings (1967, Table 1) listed Bairdia cf. bradyi Bold in the Gulf of Mexico, citing as authorities Benson & Coleman (1963) and Morales (1966).

Swain (1967, p. 36, Pl. 7, fig. 4; here reproduced as Figure 1Y View FIGURE 1 ) reported B. bradyi from the Gulf of California on the basis of a single juvenile RV, with a crisply punctate surface and a rather extended caudal process. An exaggerated caudal process is a feature of juveniles in several species of Bairdoppilata , and the species identification must be regarded as insufficiently supported.

Puri (1971) listed Bairdia bradyi (Bold) [sic] in a species list for the North Atlantic. This entry is probably based on Brady’s (1880) identification of B. foveolata at Bermuda.

Holden (1976, p. F17, Pl. 1, figs. 1, 2, Pl. 9, figs. 20–21) identified late Cenozoic fossils of “ Bairdoppilata sp. aff. B. bradyi (Bold) ” from drillholes on Midway Island. The use of “aff.” implied uncertainty about the identification

1 [ Bairdia milneedwardsi had been named by Brady (1869C, p. 139, Pl. 17, figs. 3–4) from São Vicente Island in the Cape Verde archipelago of the North Atlantic Ocean. Brady’s drawing presents an angulate, subtriangular to subrhomboidal lateral outline (LV), which lacks the posterodorsal concavity and caudal process of the Florida species identified under this name by Puri (1960). The internal characters are unknown. The length was given as 0.008 (units not specified). The original description is vague, and there is insufficient information to establish the identity of this species or its generic classification. The Ostracoda of the Cape Verde Islands are poorly known, and clarification of B. milneedwardsi must await redescription of topotypic material. Until the species is recognizable at its type locality, credence cannot be given to reports from other localities. The subsequent record of B. milneedwardsi by Baker & Hulings (1966, Pl. 2, fig. 16) on the south coast of Puerto Rico might apply to a species of Paranesidea .]

of the specimen, with the probability that it was not B. bradyi but a new, unnamed species ( Bengston 1988; Sigovini et al. 2016). Holden’s discussion is contradictory, because first he commended Bold’s (1957) global synonymy for B. bradyi . Then he stated that several species are included in this “ foveolata-bradyi complex,” and the Midway specimens are more like those described from the Pacific than the Caribbean.

Kontrovitz (1978, p. 139, Pl. 1, fig. 6; here reproduced as Figure 1 View FIGURE 1 AA) reported Paranesidea sp. cf. P. bradyi (Bold) from the Pleistocene of South Florida and illustrated the exterior of a RV. The use of “cf.” implied uncertainty about the identification ( Bengston 1988; Sigovini et al. 2016). He did not mention any reason for the generic re-assignment. The dimensions (L 0.85 mm, H 0.54 mm, W 0.45 mm) show H:L proportions that would be rather high for the RV of most species in the Ba. fithianae species group. The SEM photo shows characteristics that are often associated with species of Paranesidea : upright posture, punctate surface, and small, low-set caudal process.

Fithian (1980, p. 100, Pl. 2, figs. 3a–b; here reproduced as Figures 1 View FIGURE 1 BB–CC; unpublished dissertation) reported Bairdia sp. aff. B. bradyi Bold to be common in coarse sediments on the Paria-Trinidad-Orinoco Shelf. The use of “aff.” signaled uncertainty about the identification, leaning to the probability that it was not the same but perhaps a related species ( Bengston 1988; Sigovini et al. 2016). She remarked on the presence of bairdoppilatan supplemental dentition, which, she said, distinguishes it from “the nominate species” [ B. bradyi ], and which had not been mentioned by previous authors. Nevertheless, she classified the species in Bairdia rather than Bairdoppilata . She also noted similarities to and distinctions from two other species, Bairdia teeteri Allison & Holden, 1971 and Paranesidea bensoni Teeter, 1975 . Fithian illustrated the interior and exterior of a RV, but RV are less diagnostic than LV, and coating for SEM obscures the opaque patch pattern. The lateral outline shows some correspondence to Ba. fithianae . The dimensions (RV L 0.83 mm, H 0.45 mm) would be acceptable for Ba. fithianae (Graph 3).

Llano (1982) reported Bairdia bradyi as uncommon in the Bay of Cartagena, Colombia, in water depths less than 10 m. The illustrated specimen (Pl. 2, fig. D–13; here reproduced as Figure 1 View FIGURE 1 DD) might be a species of Paranesidea .

Machain-Castillo & Gío-Argáez (1991, p. 41, Table 4) listed Bairdia bradyi in the Laguna de Terminos but not in coastal samples of the Bay of Campeche. It was not included in their subsequent list for the west shelf of the Yucatan peninsula ( Machain-Castillo & Gío-Argáez 1992, Appendix 1). Machain-Castillo & Gío-Argáez (1994, p. 256, Table 1) listed Bairdia bradyi Bold from the Bay of Campeche, citing Morales (1966), Bold (1988B), and Machain-Castillo (1989, as “ Bairdia sp. A ”) as authorities. Gío-Argáez et al. (2002, Table 2) listed Bairdia bradyi Bold from the eastern part of the Bay of Campeche. These publications compiled lists of species that had been previously identified from Mexican waters, without taxonomic discussion or illustrations.

Parada Ruffinatti & Reyes de Carvajal (1999) listed one specimen of “ Bairdia foveolata ” from Los Vasquez lagoon, Isla Baru , on the Caribbean coast of Columbia, but it was omitted from the assemblage reported by Reyes de Carvajal (1999) for this location .

From a negative perspective, it is noteworthy that Teeter (1975) did not report Bairdia bradyi from the Belize platform, and it was not listed from Bermuda by Keyser & Schöning (2000). It was not included in the checklists for the Gulf of Mexico by Maddocks (2005) and Maddocks et al. (2009).

Genus BAIRDOPPILATA Coryell, Sample & Jennings, 1935 View in CoL

1935 Bairdoppilata Coryell, Sample & Jennings View in CoL : 3.

1963 Bairdia M’Coy—Morkhoven , p. 32 [part].

1969 Bairdoppilata (Bairdoppilata) Coryell, Sample & Jennings—Maddocks , p. 66.

1995 Bairdoppilata Coryell, Sample & Jennings—Maddocks , p. 215.

2022 Bairdoppilata Coryell, Sample & Jennings—Maddocks , p. 309.

Type species: Bairdoppilata martyni Coryell, Sample & Jennings, 1935 View in CoL was described from the Chickasawhay Formation of Mississippi (Oligocene). Photographs of a topotype specimen were published by Maddocks (2022, p. 325, figs 15J–L) to supplement the drawing accompanying the original description.

Species Included: The soft anatomy of Bairdoppilata View in CoL has been described, at least in part, for at least 18 named species (16 species listed by Maddocks 2022, Table 2; Bairdoppilata japonica Horikoshi et al., 2019 View in CoL ; plus fragments of Bairdoppilata magnafasciata View in CoL illustrated by Maddocks & Horne 2024). Many other species have been designated from fossil and dry specimens. Kempf (1986A, 1995) listed 97 nominal species of living and fossil Bairdoppilata View in CoL , and 29 living species are tabulated in WoRMS ( Brandão et al. 2024). The genus is ancient, being well represented in Cretaceous assemblages of North America, Africa and elsewhere.

In the northern and central Caribbean, the most common bairdiid species is Ba. cushmani ( Tressler, 1949) View in CoL . Occasionally, it may be the second, third or fourth most abundant species of Bairdiidae View in CoL in a shallow-water assemblage ( Maddocks 2022), although it is usually surpassed by species of Neonesidea View in CoL and Paranesidea View in CoL . Two other species, Ba. magnafasciata View in CoL and Ba. parvafasciata View in CoL , are distinctive but less numerous ( Maddocks & Horne 2024). Collectively, the new species described here are widely distributed, but each individual species occurs at fewer localities and is less abundant, uncommon, or rare in local assemblages.

Soft Anatomy: It is well established for living species of Bairdoppilata View in CoL and Glyptobairdia View in CoL that the diagnostic supplemental dentition of the valves is consistently accompanied by distinctive anatomical traits of the soft body. These useful indicators include the scissors-like distal claws of the A2, the nearly smooth fused claw of the A2, the four segregated setae of the vibratory plate of the fifth limb, the relative length of all seven setae of the furca, the multiple distal appendages of the hemipenis, and the uniformly dentate plate of the esophageal valve ( Brandão 2008; Hartmann 1974, 1978, 1979, 1980; Horikoshi et al. 2019; Kornicker 1961; Maddocks 1969, 2015, 2018, 2022; Rome 1960). At the species level, a few details of appendage and genital anatomy may be useful for identification, especially the hemipenis and the distal claws of the A2.

Regrettably, only two specimens yielded dry fragments of the soft anatomy ( Figures 20N–P View FIGURE 20 ; 28C–D View FIGURE 28 ). Those fragments conform to the Genus Bairdoppilata View in CoL but do not provide diagnostic information for the species. It has been necessary to rely solely on features of the carapace to distinguish the species described below.

Remarks: In his comments regarding the Genus Bairdoppilata, Hartmann (1974, p. 253 –254) emphasized the “finely toothed” nature of the hinge, probably referring to the ligamental striations of the contact surfaces of the hinge-proper in both valves. The species described here display conspicuous ligamental striation.

Hartmann (1974, p. 253–254) also pointed out that the valve margins have small spines in some species of Bairdoppilata , but in others they are smooth. He suggested that a revised diagnosis of the genus is needed, which should give explicit attention to these marginal details.

In the Caribbean species described below, marginal spines are usually present in juveniles, and the number of spines increases from instar A–3 to A–1. They are developed most commonly along the posteroventral margin of the LV, less commonly on the anteroventral margin of the LV, occasionally along the posteroventral margin of the RV, but not on the RV anteroventral margin. Rarely and inconsistently, these marginal spines may persist into the adult stage, but they are more usually replaced by a smooth edge.

Likewise, in these Caribbean species the marginal frills are narrow (5–20 µm) and common on juvenile valves but absent in adults. Instead of a true frill, as developed in other bairdiid genera, adults of the species described below have smooth anteroventral and posteroventral valve margins, or else they have a narrow, scalloped or irregular edging, which lacks the sharply incised, parallel fluting of a true frill. This narrow edging is actually an overgrowth of the surface puncta and muri beyond the valve edge, which in exaggerated form produces a velum. Exuberant growth of the surface layer of punctate ornament forms a curved canopy or awning, which projects beyond the valve margin. The edge of the velum is thickened and scalloped, resembling a piecrust edge.

The homologies and ontogenetic development of these marginal structures require more systematic examination. Unfortunately, until the morphogenetic relationships of marginal spines, frills, and vela are better understood, it will be difficult to formulate a diagnosis for the Genus Bairdoppilata on the basis of these features, as Hartmann desired.

Bairdoppilata fithianae species group: Six of the new species described below are very similar in general aspect, and they are here referred to as the Bairdoppilata fithianae group: Ba. fithianae sp. nov., Ba. fimbriata sp. nov., Ba. floreana sp. nov., Ba. hypsiliformis sp. nov., Ba. sima sp. nov., and Ba. thyreoides sp. nov. The nominal species, Ba. fithianae , is the most widely distributed and, in some ways, the least distinctive. Ba. sima and Ba fimbriata have rather exaggerated morphologic traits, which render them identifiable at a glance: the RV of Ba. sima has flaring marginal flanges, and the LV of Ba. fimbriata has a posteroventral fringe of blunt spines, although the opposing valves are less distinctive. Ba. hypsiliforms , Ba. floreana , and Ba. thyreoides have less extreme characteristics and more restricted geographic occurrences.

The other two new species stand somewhat apart. Ba. diatreta , sp. nov., and Ba. collaevata , sp. nov., occur along the northern Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico and share a distinctive, filigree patch pattern.