G. S. Brady’s Pleistocene ostracods from the Brickearth of the Nar Valley, Norfolk, U.K.

The identity of four ostracod species described by G. S. Brady (1865) from the Pleistocene Brickearth of the Nar Valley, Norfolk, E. England, is established. This has been accomplished by comparing rediscovered type material and Brady’s illustrations and descriptions with Recent specimens.


INTRODUCTION
The recent re-curation of the G. S. Brady Collection at the Hancock Museum, Newcastle-upon-Tyne (see Davis & Horne, 1985), has brought to light a large number of type specimens of Ostracoda which were hitherto thought to have been lost. Of particular note among these are the types of three of the four species which Brady (1865) described from the Brickearth of the Nar Valley, Norfolk. The aim of this paper is to present a reappraisal of the taxonomic status and potential palaeoenvironmental significance of these species.

DISCUSSION
In 1865, G. S. Brady described four new ostracod species from samples of the Brickearth of the River Nar Valley in Norfolk. He reported that this material was given to him by T. R. Jones; however, its exact provenance is unknown since neither Brady nor Jones (1 865), who also described fossils from this deposit, made any reference to a particular locality. At about the same time, Rose (1 836, 1865) reported several exposures of 'Brickearth' in the Nar Valley and it is possible that Brady's material came from one or more of these localities. The deposit is generally accepted as being Pleistocene, probably Hoxnian (antepenultimate interglacial), in age (Stevens, 1960).
Despite the fact that Brady's original descriptions and illustrations are fairly informative, there has not been a consensus in the literature regarding the generic and specific identity of three of these taxa. This is a situation we are now able to rectify following the rediscovery of type material. Curiously, the specific identity of the fourth species, Cytheridea punctillata, for which there is no surviving type material, has never been questioned.
All four species have living representatives in N.W. European waters today; their original and revised generic and specific names are as follows: Brady, 1865 Herein Cytheridea punctillata = Sarsicythendea punctillata Cythere carinata sp. nov.
(Brady 1 = Carinocythereis whitei (Baird, 1850) Brady's original plate (Pl. 9) is reproduced herein as our P1.1 for comparison with our illustrations of syntypic, topotypic and Recent specimens (Pl. 2). All the specimens illustrated in P1. 2 are housed either in the Hancock Museum, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, or in the British Museum (Natural History), London, as indicated in the text. As well as a brief synonymy and taxonomic comments, we have offered some notes on the presentday ecology of each species which may help in future studies.
The establishment of the fact that all four taxa have living representatives whose ecology and distribution are known, is an important step towards the interpretation of the depositional environment of the Nar Brickearth. In view of the detailed study of the Nar Valley ostracod fauna presently being undertaken by other authors (Drs. A. R. Lord & E. Robinson, pers. comm.) it would be inappropriate for us to enter into any discussion of the environmental significance or age of the fauna as a whole. Preliminary findings indicate that the environmental history of the deposit may be complex (Lord & Robinson, 1978), and it remains to be seen whether or not Brady's four species are of major importance. specimens, and for permission to photograph them. We wish to thank Drs. A. R. Lord and E. Robinson of University College, London, for providing us with some comparative material and for discussing the broader aspects of the Nar Valley Brickearth ostracod fauna. Dr. R. C. Whatley, (University College of Wales, Aberystwyth) commented helpfully on the text.
Remarks. Athersuch & Whittaker (1981) showed that the specimens illustrated by Robinson (1978) as Hemicythere arborescens were conspecific with Hemicythere villosa (Sars), and considered arborescens to be a nomen dubium since the types were, at the time, presumed lost. The rediscovered type, though not well preserved, has enabled us to determine that Cythere arborescens is in fact a senior synonym of Cythere woodwardii, described by Brady himself only three years later from the Recent of the Mediterranean; two specimens of Aurila woodwardii auct., from the Mediterranean, are figured here for comparative purposes (Pl. 2, figs. 2, 4). A . arborescens sensu Uffenorde (1972) should be referred toA. hesperiae Ruggieri (see Ruggieri, 1975 for further discussion). A. arborescens is a predominantly phytal marine littoral and shallow sublittoral species which has also been found in brackish lagoonal environments. Distribution. A. arborescens is predominantly a Mediterranean species although it has been recorded alive in S.W. Wales and we have seen empty valves in Recent sediments from the Thames Estuary; we cannot trace any records between S. Britain and the Mediterranean. This curious and apparent disjunct distribution could be merely due to previous taxonomic confusion, but if ultimately proved would mirror the distribution of certain species of Cytheropteron which Whatley & Masson (1979) suggest is due to postglacial readjustment. Pleistocene: Brady's (1865) (Brady). 0 carapace; 745pm long. Dorsal view, BMNH slide no. 1980.4. Cape Greco, Fig. 5. Loxoconcha rhomboidea (Fischer). Topotype of 'C. carinata Brady',9RV;640pm long. Lateral view,BMNH Fig. 6. Loxoconcha rhomboidea (Fischer). ? carapace; 615 p m long. Right lateral view, BMNH slide no. 1975.1242. Curinocythereis whitei (Baird). d carapace; 890pm long. Right lateral view, BMNH slide no. 1984.173.  (Brady). Juvenile A-1 LV; 630pm long. Lateral view, BMNH slide no. 1981.95.