36 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. los 



of Br. coloradensis, accompanied by the drawings of 1874, contains 

 statements contradicted by the drawings and by the first description, 

 as well as internal contradictions and confusions. The material for 

 the second description came from a third locality on Gray's Peak at 

 an elevation of 12,000 ft. On the basis of the second description 

 Br. coloradensis remains incognizable, and it is most likely that the 

 two descriptions are based on a careless examination of two species. 



It seems appropriate, at this point, to call attention to the untrust- 

 worthiness of Packard's work on phyllopods. His descriptions are 

 not only deficient in differential characters, but they also contain 

 errors, contradictions, vague and indefinite comparisons with other 

 species, invalid distinctions, and are replete with blunders and mis- 

 labeling in the illustrations. He apparently left no type specimens of 

 any of his species of fairy shrimp. In my opinion, neither of Packard's 

 species of Branchinecta can be recognized from his publications, and 

 his specific names should be regarded as nomina dubia. 



Dr. Mackin's distinction between alpine, permanent-water species 

 and species inhabiting the plains and foothills at lower altitudes is 

 not in complete accordance with my own experience. I have collected 

 both Br. coloradensis and Br. paludosa in the Medicine Bow Mountains 

 at elevations above 10,000 ft. and also on the plains in Montana at 

 4,200 ft. I have in my collection six distinct species of Branchinecta 

 collected from the plains regions of Montana and Wyoming. These 

 circumstances make most uncertain any surmises as to the species 

 Packard had before him, based on their supposed occm-rence only in 

 an alpine or a plains locality. 



Shantz (1905) was the first reviser of Packard's work on Branchi- 

 necta, and the species he described as being, in his belief, Packard's 

 coloradensis and lindahli are entitled to stand. Pearse (1912) gave 

 a description adequate for the recognition of a species which up to 

 that time had not been recognizably described, and there is no con- 

 vincing proof that Br. packardi is, in fact, a synonjon of one of 

 Packard's species. 



As a consequence, Br. shantzi Mackin, 1952, must be regarded as 

 an invalid synonym of Br. coloradensis Packard (as revised by Shantz, 

 1905) ; the Br. coloradensis of Mackin's revision is an invalid synonym 

 of Br. lindahli Packard (as revised by Shantz, 1905), and the Br. 

 lindahli of Mackin's revision is an invalid synonym of Br. packardi 

 Pearse, 1912. 



