L. Forró szerk.: Miscellanea Zoologica Hungarica 13. 2000 (Budapest, 2000)

Forró, L.: Checklist, distribution maps and bibliography of large branchiopods in Hungary (Anostraca, Notostraca, Spinicaudata, Laevicaudata)

Dudich (1933), Chirocephalus shadini was collected by Kertész (1956a), originally described as Pristicephalus hungaricus n.sp., he has also distinguished the new form Branchipus visnyai (Kertész 1956b), and first found Chirocephalus diaphanus in Hungary (Kertész 1958). Of these eleven taxa several ones were also found in the last years, but some, such as B. visnyai, C. hankoi and C. diaphanus are known only from one locality. The two notostracans were mentioned already in the earlier publications (e.g. T. cancriformis by Chyzer (1858), Lepidurus apus by Örley (1886a, b), the former one being much more abundant. The otherwise rather rare laevicaudatan Lynceus brachyurus was first detected by Chyzer (1858) and found also in recent years. Chyzer (1858) found Leptestheria dahalacensis, later Cyzicus tetracerus (Chyzer 1861a,b) and Eoleptestheria ticinensis (Chyzer 1892). Abonyi (1910, 1911) first found Limnadia lenticularis near Budapest and Makó, and Kertész (1958) collected Imnadia yeyetta for the first time in Hungary. A summary of the Hungarian "Conchostraca" fauna was published by Daday (1913). The remaining papers not mentioned above are mostly faunistical publications or in some cases limnological studies, where records of large branchiopod species are given. Taxonomy Both the nomenclature and the taxonomy used in the present paper follow Belk & Brtek (1995) and Brtek & Thiéry (1995). 1. Dudich (1926) recorded - with question mark Chirocephalus spinicaudatus var. chyzeri from Bátorliget, this record was also listed by Megyeri (1953) as C. spinicaudatus, but new material was not found in the latter study, and even a more recent investigation (Forró 1991) did not yield any specimen of this taxon. Kertész (1955) - in the introduction of his paper mentioned that he carried out a study aimed at concerning its taxonomical status, however, no results were published later. Because of the uncertainities this taxon was omitted from the present checklist. 2. Kertész (1956b) described a new form of Branchipus stagnalis f. visnyai from Kőszeg, and it was considered a valid species by Cottarelli (1969), Belk & Brtek (1995) accepted this opinion and - at the same time - emphasised the need of a detailed comparison with B. schaefferi. This view was accepted here and hence B. visnyai is listed in the checklist. Discussion Altogether 19 large branchiopod (11 Anostraca, 2 Notostraca, 5 Spinicaudata, 1 Laevicaudata) species are now known from the present area of Hungary. K. Chyzer, E. Daday and more recently G. Kertész have worked specifically on these groups in Hungary, while in the last 40 years nobody dealt with the scientific (taxonomical, faunistical, ecological) study of these animals, though in most parts of the world the research activities aimed at these groups were intensified This greater interest partly comes from nature conservation issues and for this reason it would also be highly desirable to carry out detailed investigations on the occurrence and distribution of large branchiopods in Hungary. At present there are some areas where Triops cancriformis, Branchipus schaefferi and Streptocephalus torvicornis were frequently found, in sodic waters Branchinecta ferox and B. orientális were recorded.