Herpetocypris telavivensis (Krampner, 1928)

Nagler, Christina, Geist, Juergen & Matzke-Karasz, Renate, 2014, Revision of the genus Tanycypris (Ostracoda, Cypricercinae) with the description of Tanycypris alfonsi n. sp., and an identification key to the genus, Zootaxa 3821 (4), pp. 401-424 : 421-422

Herpetocypris telavivensis (Krampner, 1928)

Nomen nudum 1928a Herpetocypris telavivensis — Krampner: 284, 286, 288.

* 1928b Herpetocypris telavivensis Krampner : 267–270, figs 1–11.

1992 Tanycypris telavivensis —Martens et al.: 114.

Diagnosis. L = 2.2–2.5 mm; H = 1 mm; W = 0.75 mm; Carapace in dorsal view egg-shaped, yellowish-brown, translucent; LV and RV differing in shape, with LV>RV. CR asymmetric, with left trunk thin and curved, and right trunk stout and straight. Males unknown ( Krampner 1928b).

History. Krampner (1928a) mentioned this species for the first time in an ecological publication on a temporary freshwater pool near Tel Aviv without any taxonomic description, thus producing a nomen nudum. She acknowledged the help of Vincent Brehm (Lunz, Austria), to whom she had sent her material for identification. A short time later, she published the taxonomic description of Herpetocypris telavivensis (see Krampner 1928b). No further record of this species has been published ever since and Martens et al. (1992) transferred it to Tanycypris without explanation.

In the frame of this study, several attempts were made to track down Krampner’s material. It is not present in the Vulkani-Institute (Tel Aviv), nor in the University collections of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Our focus was therefore on finding Vincent Brehm’s collection, to whom Krampner had given her material for identification. According to a short online biography of Brehm ( Adamicka 2010) the limnologist Vladimir Kořinek transferred some of Brehm’s collection to the British Museum of National History , London, in 1988. However, this transfer was not confirmed by the NHM, nor were any of Brehm’s ostracods found in their collection .

Until the 1950s, Brehm closely collaborated with Hans Wolfgang Schäfer, limnologist and ostracodologist in Berlin. Schäfer immigrated to South Africa in 1954 and soon continued ostracod research as an employee of the then Department of Agricultural Technical Services. However, Schäfer ceased publishing on ostracods and information on his further career has long been unavailable.

An indication of the whereabouts of the Brehm collection emerged when investigating the archive of Erich Triebel’s correspondence, housed in the Senckenberg Institute (Frankfurt, Germany). Triebel, founder and head of the micropaleontological section from 1939 to 1969, corresponded with researchers worldwide. The correspondence with Schäfer includes a letter sent from Pretoria in 1961, where Schäfer claims to have the largest private ostracod collection, particularly because Vincent Brehm had given him all ostracod material he owned. In the same letter, Schäfer explained that his collection and documents would go to the Transvaal Museum in Pretoria (now Ditsong National Museum of Natural History) after his death.

Attempts to find the Schäfer collection, and thus the Brehm material, in the Ditsong Museum have not (yet) been successful. For the time being, Brehm’s material cannot be tracked down and thus the material Krampner gave to Brehm must be considered lost. An evaluation of the generic assignment must therefore be carried out based on the original description only.

Conclusions. Following Krampner’s description and illustrations (1928b), three characters of H. telavivensis are clearly different from Tanycypris : in dorsal view, the carapace is egg-shaped (not elliptical, or torpedo-shaped as in Tanycypris ), the valve outline in lateral view is too rectangular for the genus Tanycypris , and the asymmetry of the caudal rami is not typical of Tanycypris , either. In contrast, this asymmetry has been regarded as typical of the Near Eastern species of Herpetocypris by Krampner (1928b: 270).

A final assessment, however, can only be provided if Krampner’s material reappears in the future. For the time being, we here reject an assignment of this species to the genus Tanycypris .