NO. 3580 OSTRACOD FAMILIES — KORNICKER 3 



Hartmann (1964). However, Poiilsen (19G2, p. 339) perceived that 

 Pseudophilomedes might require a higher ranking in the classification: 



. . . according to the description the two genera [Paramekodon Brady and 

 Norman, 1896, and Pseudophilomedes Miiller, 1894] hold a rather unique position 

 in the family Cypridinidae (and in the Rutidermatidae and Sarsiellidae) by 

 having only two endites on the maxilla. Also in the reduced number of bristles 

 on the basale and endopodite of the mandible and by the reduced 1st and 2nd 

 endites and the end-joint of the 6th limb the two genera differ widely from all 

 other Cypridinidae. If further investigations should confirm these differences 

 these two genera may well have to be included in a family of their own. 



After revicAving the genus Pseudophilomedes I find that I concur 

 with Poulsen; therefore, I have estabhshed the new family Pseudo- 

 philomedidae. The genus Pseudophilomedes Miiller, 1984, with its 

 synonym Paramekodon Brady and Norman, 1896, is referred to the 

 Pseudophilomedidae. 



Miiller (1912, p. 33) considered Paramekodon Brady and Norman, 

 1896, to be a synonym of Pseudophilomedes Miiller, 1894. Skogsberg 

 (1920, p. 348) agreed with Miiller and stated: "In the identification 

 of Paramekodon with Pseudophilomedes Miiller certainly is correct." 

 Sylvester-Bradley (1961, p. 399) also considered Paramekodon to be 

 a synonym of Pseudophilomedes. Poulsen (1962, p. 339) was of the 

 opposite opinion and stated: "If the description of Paramecodon [sic] 

 is reliable, it is based on a single specimen conserved dry, the species 

 differs in so many respects from Pseudophilomedes that the uniting 

 of the two genera into one — as done by G. W. Miiller is hardly 

 admissible." 



Differences between Pseudophilomedes and Paramekodon seem quite 

 minor; therefore, I have followed Muller (1912), Skogsberg (1920), 

 and Sylvester-Bradley (1961) in considering Paramekodon to be a 

 synonym of Pseudophilomedes. Of possible significance in this regard 

 is the following statement by Brady and Norman (1896, p. 623) in 

 their publication in which the genus Paramekodon was established: 



It was not until our Monograph was nearly completed, and on the point of 

 going to press, that there appeared the splendid work of Herr. G. W. Muller on 

 the Ostracoda of the Gulf of Naples. This work has, in the case of some few 

 species, anticipated our descriptions, and we have, as far as possible, rectified 

 our nomenclature in conformity with it. For the rest we have thought it best 

 to let our MS. go to press as it was originally written. 



It was in the work mentioned in the above statement that MuUer 

 established the genus Pseudophilomedes. It is unfortunate that 

 Brady and Norman did not have more time to study Muller's paper 

 before publishing their monograph. The fact that they wongly 

 considered a species of Philomedes to be males of Pseudophilomedes 

 foveolatus Miiller, 1894, shows that they held a misconception of the 



