DOCSLIB.ORG

The Classification of Lower Organisms

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Classification of Lower Organisms Ernst Hkinrich Haickei, in 1874 From Rolschc (1906). By permission of Macrae Smith Company. C f3 The Classification of LOWER ORGANISMS By HERBERT FAULKNER COPELAND \ PACIFIC ^.,^,kfi^..^ BOOKS PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA Copyright 1956 by Herbert F. Copeland Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 56-7944 Published by PACIFIC BOOKS Palo Alto, California Printed and bound in the United States of America CONTENTS Chapter Page I. Introduction 1 II. An Essay on Nomenclature 6 III. Kingdom Mychota 12 Phylum Archezoa 17 Class 1. Schizophyta 18 Order 1. Schizosporea 18 Order 2. Actinomycetalea 24 Order 3. Caulobacterialea 25 Class 2. Myxoschizomycetes 27 Order 1. Myxobactralea 27 Order 2. Spirochaetalea 28 Class 3. Archiplastidea 29 Order 1. Rhodobacteria 31 Order 2. Sphaerotilalea 33 Order 3. Coccogonea 33 Order 4. Gloiophycea 33 IV. Kingdom Protoctista 37 V. Phylum Rhodophyta 40 Class 1. Bangialea 41 Order Bangiacea 41 Class 2. Heterocarpea 44 Order 1. Cryptospermea 47 Order 2. Sphaerococcoidea 47 Order 3. Gelidialea 49 Order 4. Furccllariea 50 Order 5. Coeloblastea 51 Order 6. Floridea 51 VI. Phylum Phaeophyta 53 Class 1. Heterokonta 55 Order 1. Ochromonadalea 57 Order 2. Silicoflagellata 61 Order 3. Vaucheriacea 63 Order 4. Choanoflagellata 67 Order 5. Hyphochytrialea 69 Class 2. Bacillariacea 69 Order 1. Disciformia 73 Order 2. Diatomea 74 Class 3. Oomycetes 76 Order 1. Saprolegnina 77 Order 2. Peronosporina 80 Order 3. Lagenidialea 81 Class 4. Melanophycea 82 Order 1 . Phaeozoosporea 86 Order 2. Sphacelarialea 86 Order 3. Dictyotea 86 Order 4. Sporochnoidea 87 V ly Chapter Page Orders. Cutlerialea 88 Order 6. Laminariea 89 Order 7. Fucoidea 91 VII. Phylum Pyrrhophyta 94 Class Mastigophora 95 Order 1. Cryptomonadalea 96 Order 2. Adiniferidea 98 Order 3. Cystoflagellata 99 Order 4. Cilioflagellata 102 Order 5. Astoma 105 VIII. Phylum Opisthokonta 110 Class Archimycetes Ill Order 1. Monoblepharidalea Ill Order 2. Chytridinea 113 IX. Phylum Inophyta 119 Class 1. Zygomycetes 121 Order 1. Mucorina 121 Order 2. Entomophthorinea 124 Class 2. Ascomycetes 125 Order 1. Endomycetalea 129 Order 2. Mucedines 130 Order 3. Perisporiacea 131 Order 4. Phacidialea 133 Order 5. Cupulata 134 Order 6. Exoascalea 137 Order 7. Sclerocarpa 137 Order 8. Laboulbenialea 140 Class 3. Hyphomycetes 140 Order 1. Phomatalea .... 141 Order 2. Melanconialea 141 Order 3. Nematothecia 141 Class 4. Basidiomycetes 142 Order 1. Protobasidiomycetes 146 Order 2. Hypodermia 147 Order 3. Ustilaginea 149 Order 4. Tremcllina 149 Order 5. Dacryomycetalea 150 Order 6. Fungi 150 Order 7. Dermatocarpa 152 X. Phylum Protoplasta 157 Class 1. Zoomastigoda 157 Order 1. Rhizoflagellata 158 Order 2. Polymastigida 163 Order 3. Trichomonadina 166 Order 4. Hypcrmastiglna 168 Class 2. Mycetozoa 171 Order 1. Enteridiea 171 Order 2. Exosporea 177 vi Chapter Page Order 3. Phytomyxida 177 Class 3. Rhizopoda 179 Order 1. Monosomatia 183 Order 2. Miliolidea 185 Order 3. Foraminifera . 185 Order 4. Globigerinidea 187 Order 5. Nummulidnidea 188 Class 4. Heliozoa 189 Order 1. Radioflagellata 190 Order 2. Radiolaria 194 Order 3. Acantharia 195 Order 4. Monopylaria 198 Orders. Phaeosphaeria 198 Class 5. Sarkodina 200 Order 1. Nuda 201 Order 2. Lampramoebae 205 XI. Phylum Fungilli 206 Class 1. Sporozoa 207 Order 1. Oligosporea 209 Order 2. Polysporea 211 Order 3. Gymnosporidiida 211 Order 4. Dolichocystida 214 Orders. Schizogregarinida 215 Order 6. Monocystidea 215 Order 7. Polycystidea 216 Order 8. Haplosporidiidea 218 Class 2. Neosporidia 219 Order 1. Phaenocystes 219 Order 2. Actinomyxida 221 Order 3. Cryptocystes 222 XII. Phylum Ciliophora 223 Class 1. Infusoria 228 Order 1. Opalinalea 228 Order 2. Holotricha 229 Order 3. Heterotricha 230 Order 4. Hypotricha 233 Order 5. Stomatoda 233 Class 2. Tentaculifera 235 Order Suctoria 235 List of Nomenclatural Novelties 237 Bibliography 238 Index 271 VII LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Portrait of Ernst Heinrich Haeckel Frontispiece Figure Page 1. Structure of cells of blue-green algae 13 2. Photographs of Escherichia coli . 15 3. Caulobacterialea; Myxobactralea; Cristispira Veneris 26 4. Coccogonea; Gloiophycea 32 5. Bangialea 42 6. Nuclear phenomena in Polysiphonia violacea 45 7. Heterocarpea 48 8. Ochromonadalea 54 9. Ochromonadalea; Silicoflagellata 56 10. Vaucheriacea 64 11. Choanoflagellata 68 12. Hyphochytrialea 70 13. Bacillariacea 72 14. Oomycetes 78 15. Stages of nuclear division in Stypocaulon 84 16. Familiar kelps of Pacific North America 90 17. Microscopic reproductive structures of Laminaria yezoensis ... 92 18. Cryptomonadalea 97 19. Cystoflagellata; Cilioflagellata 104 20. Astoma 106 21. Astoma 108 22. Monoblepharidalea 114 23. Chytridinea 116 24. Zygomycetes 122 25. Ascomycetes 132 26. Ascomycetes 136 27. Mycosphaerella personata 138 28. Basidiomycetes 144 29. Fruits of Agaricacea 153 30. Rhizoflagellata 160 31. Polymastigida; Trichomonadina 164 32. Hypermastigina 170 33. Mycetozoa 176 34. Ceratiomyxafruticulosa 178 35. Life cycle of "Tretomphalus" i. e., Discorbis or Cymbalo pora . 180 36. Shells of Rhizopoda 184 37. Radioflagellata 192 38. Radiolaria; Acantharia; Monopylaria; Phaeosphaeria 196 39. Chaos Protheus 200 40. Sarkodina 204 41. Life cycle of Goussia Schuhergi 208 42. LUe cycle of Plasmodium; Babesia bigemina 212 43. Life cycle of Myxoceros Blennius 220 44. Infusoria, order Hypotricha 232 45. Tokophrya Lemnarum 234 ix Chapter I INTRODUCTION The purpose of this work is to persuade the community of biologists that the ac- cepted primary classification of living things as two kingdoms, plants and animals, should be abandoned; that the kingdoms of plants and animals are to be given definite limits, and that the organisms excluded from them are to be organized as two other kingdoms. The names of the additional kingdoms, as fixed by generally accepted principles of nomenclature, appear to be respectively Mychota and Protoctista. These ideas originated, so far as I am concerned, in the instruction of Edwin Bingham Copeland, my father, who, when I was scarcely of high school age, admitted me to his college course in elementary botany. He thought it right to teach freshmen the fundamental principles of classification. These include the following: The kinds of organisms constitute a system of groups; the groups and the system exist in nature, and are to be discovered by man, not devised or constructed. The system is of a definite and peculiar pattern. By every feature of this pattern, we are inductively convinced that the kinds of organisms, the groups, and the system are products of evolution. It is this system that is properly designated the natural system or the natural classification of organisms. It is only by metaphor or ellipsis that these terms can be applied to systems formulated by men and published in books. Men have developed a classification of organisms which may be called the taxo- nomic system. Its function—the purpose for which men have constructed it—is to serve as an index to all that is known about organisms. This system is subject to cer- tain conventions which experience has shown to be expedient. Among natural groups, there are intergradations; taxonomic groups are conceived as sharply limited. Natural groups are not of definite grades; taxonomic groups are assigned to grades. When we say that Pisces and Filicineae are classes, we are expressing a fact of human conven- ience, not a fact of nature. The names assigned to groups are obviously conventional. Since the taxonomic system represents knowledge, and since knowledge is ad- vancing, this system is inherently subject to change. It is the right and duty of every person who thinks that the taxonomic system can be improved to propose to change it. A salutary convention requires that proposals in taxonomy be unequivocal: one proposes a change by publishing it as in effect; it comes actually into effect in the degree that the generality of students of classification accept it. The changes which are accepted are those which appear to make the taxonomic system, within its conven- tions, a better representation of the natural system. Different presentations of the taxonomic system are related to the natural system as pictures of a tree, by artists of different degrees of skill or of different schools, are related to the actual tree; the taxonomic system is a conventionalized representation of the natural system so far as the natural system is known. These statements are intended to make several points. First, as a personal matter, advancement of knowledge of natural classification, and corresponding improvement of the taxonomic system, have been my purpose during the greater part of a normal lifetime. Secondly, I have pursued this purpose, and continue to pursue it, under the guidance of principles which all students of classification will accept (perhaps with variations in the words in which they are stated). In the third place, I have tried to answer the question which scientists other than students of classification, and likewise the laity, are always asking us: why can one not leave accepted classification undis- 2 ] The Classification of Lower Organisms turbed? One proposes changes in order to express what one supposes to be improved knowledge of the kinds of organisms which belong together as facts of nature. If here I place bacteria in a different kingdom from plants, and Infusoria in a different king- dom from animals, it is because I believe that everyone will have a better understand- ing of each of these four groups if he does not think of any two of them as belonging to the same kingdom. The course of evolution believed to have produced those features of the natural system to which the present work gives taxonomic expression is next to be described. Life originated on this earth, by natural processes, under conditions other than those of the present, once only. These are the opinions of Oparin ( 1938) 1, and appear sound, although some of the details which he suggested may not be. When the crust of the earth first became cool, it was covered by an atmosphere of ammonia, water vapor, and methane, and by an ocean containing the gases in the atmosphere above it and minerals dissolved from the crust.
Recommended publications
  • Variable Absorption of Mutational Trends by Prion-Forming Domains During Saccharomycetes Evolution

    Variable Absorption of Mutational Trends by Prion-Forming Domains During Saccharomycetes Evolution

    Variable absorption of mutational trends by prion-forming domains during Saccharomycetes evolution Paul M. Harrison Department of Biology, McGill University, Monteal, Quebec, Canada ABSTRACT Prions are self-propagating alternative states of protein domains. They are linked to both diseases and functional protein roles in eukaryotes. Prion-forming domains in Saccharomyces cerevisiae are typically domains with high intrinsic protein disorder (i.e., that remain unfolded in the cell during at least some part of their functioning), that are converted to self-replicating amyloid forms. S. cerevisiae is a member of the fungal class Saccharomycetes, during the evolution of which a large population of prion-like domains has appeared. It is still unclear what principles might govern the molecular evolution of prion-forming domains, and intrinsically disordered domains generally. Here, it is discovered that in a set of such prion-forming domains some evolve in the fungal class Saccharomycetes in such a way as to absorb general mutation biases across millions of years, whereas others do not, indicating a spectrum of selection pressures on composition and sequence. Thus, if the bias-absorbing prion formers are conserving a prion-forming capability, then this capability is not interfered with by the absorption of bias changes over the duration of evolutionary epochs. Evidence is discovered for selective constraint against the occurrence of lysine residues (which likely disrupt prion formation) in S. cerevisiae prion-forming domains as they evolve across Saccharomycetes. These results provide a case study of the absorption of mutational trends by compositionally biased domains, and suggest methodology for assessing selection pressures on the composition of intrinsically disordered regions.
  • Molecular Phylogenetic Position of Hexacontium Pachydermum Jørgensen (Radiolaria)

    Molecular Phylogenetic Position of Hexacontium Pachydermum Jørgensen (Radiolaria)

    Marine Micropaleontology 73 (2009) 129–134 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Marine Micropaleontology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marmicro Molecular phylogenetic position of Hexacontium pachydermum Jørgensen (Radiolaria) Tomoko Yuasa a,⁎, Jane K. Dolven b, Kjell R. Bjørklund b, Shigeki Mayama c, Osamu Takahashi a a Department of Astronomy and Earth Sciences, Tokyo Gakugei University, Koganei, Tokyo 184-8501, Japan b Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1172, Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway c Department of Biology, Tokyo Gakugei University, Koganei, Tokyo 184-8501, Japan article info abstract Article history: The taxonomic affiliation of Hexacontium pachydermum Jørgensen, specifically whether it belongs to the Received 9 April 2009 order Spumellarida or the order Entactinarida, is a subject of ongoing debate. In this study, we sequenced the Received in revised form 3 August 2009 18S rRNA gene of H. pachydermum and of three spherical spumellarians of Cladococcus viminalis Haeckel, Accepted 7 August 2009 Arachnosphaera myriacantha Haeckel, and Astrosphaera hexagonalis Haeckel. Our molecular phylogenetic analysis revealed that the spumellarian species of C. viminalis, A. myriacantha, and A. hexagonalis form a Keywords: monophyletic group. Moreover, this clade occupies a sister position to the clade comprising the spongodiscid Radiolaria fi Entactinarida spumellarians, coccodiscid spumellarians, and H. pachydermum. This nding is contrary to the results of Spumellarida morphological studies based on internal spicular morphology, placing H. pachydermum in the order Nassellarida Entactinarida, which had been considered to have a common ancestor shared with the nassellarians. 18S rRNA gene © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Molecular phylogeny. 1. Introduction the order Entactinarida has an inner spicular system homologenous with that of the order Nassellarida.
  • Genome Diversity and Evolution in the Budding Yeasts (Saccharomycotina)

    Genome Diversity and Evolution in the Budding Yeasts (Saccharomycotina)

    | YEASTBOOK GENOME ORGANIZATION AND INTEGRITY Genome Diversity and Evolution in the Budding Yeasts (Saccharomycotina) Bernard A. Dujon*,†,1 and Edward J. Louis‡,§ *Department Genomes and Genetics, Institut Pasteur, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique UMR3525, 75724-CEDEX15 Paris, France, †University Pierre and Marie Curie UFR927, 75005 Paris, France, ‡Centre for Genetic Architecture of Complex Traits, and xDepartment of Genetics, University of Leicester, LE1 7RH, United Kingdom ORCID ID: 0000-0003-1157-3608 (E.J.L.) ABSTRACT Considerable progress in our understanding of yeast genomes and their evolution has been made over the last decade with the sequencing, analysis, and comparisons of numerous species, strains, or isolates of diverse origins. The role played by yeasts in natural environments as well as in artificial manufactures, combined with the importance of some species as model experimental systems sustained this effort. At the same time, their enormous evolutionary diversity (there are yeast species in every subphylum of Dikarya) sparked curiosity but necessitated further efforts to obtain appropriate reference genomes. Today, yeast genomes have been very informative about basic mechanisms of evolution, speciation, hybridization, domestication, as well as about the molecular machineries underlying them. They are also irreplaceable to investigate in detail the complex relationship between genotypes and phenotypes with both theoretical and practical implications. This review examines these questions at two distinct levels offered by the broad evolutionary range of yeasts: inside the best-studied Saccharomyces species complex, and across the entire and diversified subphylum of Saccharomycotina. While obviously revealing evolutionary histories at different scales, data converge to a remarkably coherent picture in which one can estimate the relative importance of intrinsic genome dynamics, including gene birth and loss, vs.
  • Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan 2011-2016

    Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan 2011-2016

    Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan 2011-2016 April 1981 Revised, May 1982 2nd revision, April 1983 3rd revision, December 1999 4th revision, May 2011 Prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce Ohio Department of Natural Resources National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Division of Wildlife Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 2045 Morse Road, Bldg. G Estuarine Reserves Division Columbus, Ohio 1305 East West Highway 43229-6693 Silver Spring, MD 20910 This management plan has been developed in accordance with NOAA regulations, including all provisions for public involvement. It is consistent with the congressional intent of Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, and the provisions of the Ohio Coastal Management Program. OWC NERR Management Plan, 2011 - 2016 Acknowledgements This management plan was prepared by the staff and Advisory Council of the Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve (OWC NERR), in collaboration with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources-Division of Wildlife. Participants in the planning process included: Manager, Frank Lopez; Research Coordinator, Dr. David Klarer; Coastal Training Program Coordinator, Heather Elmer; Education Coordinator, Ann Keefe; Education Specialist Phoebe Van Zoest; and Office Assistant, Gloria Pasterak. Other Reserve staff including Dick Boyer and Marje Bernhardt contributed their expertise to numerous planning meetings. The Reserve is grateful for the input and recommendations provided by members of the Old Woman Creek NERR Advisory Council. The Reserve is appreciative of the review, guidance, and council of Division of Wildlife Executive Administrator Dave Scott and the mapping expertise of Keith Lott and the late Steve Barry.
  • Multiple Roots of Fruiting Body Formation in Amoebozoa

    Multiple Roots of Fruiting Body Formation in Amoebozoa

    GBE Multiple Roots of Fruiting Body Formation in Amoebozoa Falk Hillmann1,*, Gillian Forbes2, Silvia Novohradska1, Iuliia Ferling1,KonstantinRiege3,MarcoGroth4, Martin Westermann5,ManjaMarz3, Thomas Spaller6, Thomas Winckler6, Pauline Schaap2,and Gernot Glo¨ ckner7,* 1Junior Research Group Evolution of Microbial Interaction, Leibniz Institute for Natural Product Research and Infection Biology – Hans Kno¨ ll Institute (HKI), Jena, Germany 2Division of Cell and Developmental Biology, School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, United Kingdom 3Bioinformatics/High Throughput Analysis, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Germany 4CF DNA-Sequencing, Leibniz Institute on Aging Research, Jena, Germany 5Electron Microscopy Center, Jena University Hospital, Germany 6Pharmaceutical Biology, Institute of Pharmacy, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Germany 7Institute of Biochemistry I, Medical Faculty, University of Cologne, Germany *Corresponding authors: E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]. Accepted: January 11, 2018 Data deposition: The genome sequence and gene predictions of Protostelium aurantium and Protostelium mycophagum were deposited in GenBank under the Accession Numbers MDYQ00000000 and MZNV00000000, respectively. The mitochondrial genome of P. mycophagum was deposited under the Accession number KY75056 and that of P. aurantium under the Accession number KY75057. The RNAseq reads can be found in Bioproject Accession PRJNA338377. All sequence and annotation data are also available directly from the authors. The P. aurantium strain is deposited in the Jena Microbial Resource Collection (JMRC) under accession number SF0012540. Abstract Establishment of multicellularity represents a major transition in eukaryote evolution. A subgroup of Amoebozoa, the dictyos- teliids, has evolved a relatively simple aggregative multicellular stage resulting in a fruiting body supported by a stalk. Protosteloid amoeba, which are scattered throughout the amoebozoan tree, differ by producing only one or few single stalked spores.
  • Protist Phylogeny and the High-Level Classification of Protozoa

    Protist Phylogeny and the High-Level Classification of Protozoa

    Europ. J. Protistol. 39, 338–348 (2003) © Urban & Fischer Verlag http://www.urbanfischer.de/journals/ejp Protist phylogeny and the high-level classification of Protozoa Thomas Cavalier-Smith Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PS, UK; E-mail: [email protected] Received 1 September 2003; 29 September 2003. Accepted: 29 September 2003 Protist large-scale phylogeny is briefly reviewed and a revised higher classification of the kingdom Pro- tozoa into 11 phyla presented. Complementary gene fusions reveal a fundamental bifurcation among eu- karyotes between two major clades: the ancestrally uniciliate (often unicentriolar) unikonts and the an- cestrally biciliate bikonts, which undergo ciliary transformation by converting a younger anterior cilium into a dissimilar older posterior cilium. Unikonts comprise the ancestrally unikont protozoan phylum Amoebozoa and the opisthokonts (kingdom Animalia, phylum Choanozoa, their sisters or ancestors; and kingdom Fungi). They share a derived triple-gene fusion, absent from bikonts. Bikonts contrastingly share a derived gene fusion between dihydrofolate reductase and thymidylate synthase and include plants and all other protists, comprising the protozoan infrakingdoms Rhizaria [phyla Cercozoa and Re- taria (Radiozoa, Foraminifera)] and Excavata (phyla Loukozoa, Metamonada, Euglenozoa, Percolozoa), plus the kingdom Plantae [Viridaeplantae, Rhodophyta (sisters); Glaucophyta], the chromalveolate clade, and the protozoan phylum Apusozoa (Thecomonadea, Diphylleida). Chromalveolates comprise kingdom Chromista (Cryptista, Heterokonta, Haptophyta) and the protozoan infrakingdom Alveolata [phyla Cilio- phora and Miozoa (= Protalveolata, Dinozoa, Apicomplexa)], which diverged from a common ancestor that enslaved a red alga and evolved novel plastid protein-targeting machinery via the host rough ER and the enslaved algal plasma membrane (periplastid membrane).
  • Slime Moulds

    Slime Moulds

    Queen’s University Biological Station Species List: Slime Molds The current list has been compiled by Richard Aaron, a naturalist and educator from Toronto, who has been running the Fabulous Fall Fungi workshop at QUBS between 2009 and 2019. Dr. Ivy Schoepf, QUBS Research Coordinator, edited the list in 2020 to include full taxonomy and information regarding species’ status using resources from The Natural Heritage Information Centre (April 2018) and The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (February 2018); iNaturalist and GBIF. Contact Ivy to report any errors, omissions and/or new sightings. Based on the aforementioned criteria we can expect to find a total of 33 species of slime molds (kingdom: Protozoa, phylum: Mycetozoa) present at QUBS. Species are Figure 1. One of the most commonly encountered reported using their full taxonomy; common slime mold at QUBS is the Dog Vomit Slime Mold (Fuligo septica). Slime molds are unique in the way name and status, based on whether the species is that they do not have cell walls. Unlike fungi, they of global or provincial concern (see Table 1 for also phagocytose their food before they digest it. details). All species are considered QUBS Photo courtesy of Mark Conboy. residents unless otherwise stated. Table 1. Status classification reported for the amphibians of QUBS. Global status based on IUCN Red List of Threatened Species rankings. Provincial status based on Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre SRank. Global Status Provincial Status Extinct (EX) Presumed Extirpated (SX) Extinct in the
  • Biodiversity of Plasmodial Slime Moulds (Myxogastria): Measurement and Interpretation

    Biodiversity of Plasmodial Slime Moulds (Myxogastria): Measurement and Interpretation

    Protistology 1 (4), 161–178 (2000) Protistology August, 2000 Biodiversity of plasmodial slime moulds (Myxogastria): measurement and interpretation Yuri K. Novozhilova, Martin Schnittlerb, InnaV. Zemlianskaiac and Konstantin A. Fefelovd a V.L.Komarov Botanical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia, b Fairmont State College, Fairmont, West Virginia, U.S.A., c Volgograd Medical Academy, Department of Pharmacology and Botany, Volgograd, Russia, d Ural State University, Department of Botany, Yekaterinburg, Russia Summary For myxomycetes the understanding of their diversity and of their ecological function remains underdeveloped. Various problems in recording myxomycetes and analysis of their diversity are discussed by the examples taken from tundra, boreal, and arid areas of Russia and Kazakhstan. Recent advances in inventory of some regions of these areas are summarised. A rapid technique of moist chamber cultures can be used to obtain quantitative estimates of myxomycete species diversity and species abundance. Substrate sampling and species isolation by the moist chamber technique are indispensable for myxomycete inventory, measurement of species richness, and species abundance. General principles for the analysis of myxomycete diversity are discussed. Key words: slime moulds, Mycetozoa, Myxomycetes, biodiversity, ecology, distribu- tion, habitats Introduction decay (Madelin, 1984). The life cycle of myxomycetes includes two trophic stages: uninucleate myxoflagellates General patterns of community structure of terrestrial or amoebae, and a multi-nucleate plasmodium (Fig. 1). macro-organisms (plants, animals, and macrofungi) are The entire plasmodium turns almost all into fruit bodies, well known. Some mathematics methods are used for their called sporocarps (sporangia, aethalia, pseudoaethalia, or studying, from which the most popular are the quantita- plasmodiocarps).
  • A Guide to 1.000 Foraminifera from Southwestern Pacific New Caledonia

    A Guide to 1.000 Foraminifera from Southwestern Pacific New Caledonia

    Jean-Pierre Debenay A Guide to 1,000 Foraminifera from Southwestern Pacific New Caledonia PUBLICATIONS SCIENTIFIQUES DU MUSÉUM Debenay-1 7/01/13 12:12 Page 1 A Guide to 1,000 Foraminifera from Southwestern Pacific: New Caledonia Debenay-1 7/01/13 12:12 Page 2 Debenay-1 7/01/13 12:12 Page 3 A Guide to 1,000 Foraminifera from Southwestern Pacific: New Caledonia Jean-Pierre Debenay IRD Éditions Institut de recherche pour le développement Marseille Publications Scientifiques du Muséum Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle Paris 2012 Debenay-1 11/01/13 18:14 Page 4 Photos de couverture / Cover photographs p. 1 – © J.-P. Debenay : les foraminifères : une biodiversité aux formes spectaculaires / Foraminifera: a high biodiversity with a spectacular variety of forms p. 4 – © IRD/P. Laboute : îlôt Gi en Nouvelle-Calédonie / Island Gi in New Caledonia Sauf mention particulière, les photos de cet ouvrage sont de l'auteur / Except particular mention, the photos of this book are of the author Préparation éditoriale / Copy-editing Yolande Cavallazzi Maquette intérieure et mise en page / Design and page layout Aline Lugand – Gris Souris Maquette de couverture / Cover design Michelle Saint-Léger Coordination, fabrication / Production coordination Catherine Plasse La loi du 1er juillet 1992 (code de la propriété intellectuelle, première partie) n'autorisant, aux termes des alinéas 2 et 3 de l'article L. 122-5, d'une part, que les « copies ou reproductions strictement réservées à l'usage privé du copiste et non destinées à une utilisation collective » et, d'autre part, que les analyses et les courtes citations dans un but d'exemple et d'illustration, « toute représentation ou reproduction intégrale ou partielle, faite sans le consentement de l'auteur ou de ses ayants droit ou ayants cause, est illicite » (alinéa 1er de l'article L.
  • The Revised Classification of Eukaryotes

    The Revised Classification of Eukaryotes

    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231610049 The Revised Classification of Eukaryotes Article in Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology · September 2012 DOI: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2012.00644.x · Source: PubMed CITATIONS READS 961 2,825 25 authors, including: Sina M Adl Alastair Simpson University of Saskatchewan Dalhousie University 118 PUBLICATIONS 8,522 CITATIONS 264 PUBLICATIONS 10,739 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Christopher E Lane David Bass University of Rhode Island Natural History Museum, London 82 PUBLICATIONS 6,233 CITATIONS 464 PUBLICATIONS 7,765 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Biodiversity and ecology of soil taste amoeba View project Predator control of diversity View project All content following this page was uploaded by Smirnov Alexey on 25 October 2017. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. The Journal of Published by the International Society of Eukaryotic Microbiology Protistologists J. Eukaryot. Microbiol., 59(5), 2012 pp. 429–493 © 2012 The Author(s) Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology © 2012 International Society of Protistologists DOI: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2012.00644.x The Revised Classification of Eukaryotes SINA M. ADL,a,b ALASTAIR G. B. SIMPSON,b CHRISTOPHER E. LANE,c JULIUS LUKESˇ,d DAVID BASS,e SAMUEL S. BOWSER,f MATTHEW W. BROWN,g FABIEN BURKI,h MICAH DUNTHORN,i VLADIMIR HAMPL,j AARON HEISS,b MONA HOPPENRATH,k ENRIQUE LARA,l LINE LE GALL,m DENIS H. LYNN,n,1 HILARY MCMANUS,o EDWARD A. D.
  • Protozoologica ACTA Doi:10.4467/16890027AP.17.016.7497 PROTOZOOLOGICA

    Protozoologica ACTA Doi:10.4467/16890027AP.17.016.7497 PROTOZOOLOGICA

    Acta Protozool. (2017) 56: 181–189 www.ejournals.eu/Acta-Protozoologica ACTA doi:10.4467/16890027AP.17.016.7497 PROTOZOOLOGICA Allovahlkampfia minuta nov. sp., (Acrasidae, Heterolobosea, Excavata) a New Soil Amoeba at the Boundary of the Acrasid Cellular Slime Moulds Alvaro DE OBESO FERNADEZ DEL VALLE, Sutherland K. MACIVER Biomedical Sciences, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK Abstract. We report the isolation of a new species of Allovahlkampfia, a small cyst-forming heterolobosean soil amoeba. Phylogenetic analysis of the 18S rDNA and the internal transcribed spacers indicates that Allovahlkampfia is more closely related to the acrasids than to other heterolobosean groups and indicates that the new strain (GF1) groups with Allovahlkampfia tibetiensisand A. nederlandiensis despite being significantly smaller than these and any other described Allovahlkampfia species. GF1 forms aggregated cyst masses similar to the early stages of Acrasis sorocarp development, in agreement with the view that it shares ancestry with the acrasids. Time-lapse video mi- croscopy reveals that trophozoites are attracted to individuals that have already begun to encyst or that have formed cysts. Although some members of the genus are known to be pathogenic the strain GF1 does not grow above 28oC nor at elevated osmotic conditions, indicating that it is unlikely to be a pathogen. INTRODUCTION and habit. The heterolobosean acrasid slime moulds are very similar to the amoebozoan slime moulds too in life cycle, but these remarkable similarities in ap- The class heterolobosea was first created on mor- pearance and function are most probably due to parallel phological grounds to unite the schizopyrenid amoe- bae/amoeboflagellates with the acrasid slime moulds evolution.
  • Author's Manuscript (764.7Kb)

    Author's Manuscript (764.7Kb)

    1 BROADLY SAMPLED TREE OF EUKARYOTIC LIFE Broadly Sampled Multigene Analyses Yield a Well-resolved Eukaryotic Tree of Life Laura Wegener Parfrey1†, Jessica Grant2†, Yonas I. Tekle2,6, Erica Lasek-Nesselquist3,4, Hilary G. Morrison3, Mitchell L. Sogin3, David J. Patterson5, Laura A. Katz1,2,* 1Program in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, University of Massachusetts, 611 North Pleasant Street, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, USA 2Department of Biological Sciences, Smith College, 44 College Lane, Northampton, Massachusetts 01063, USA 3Bay Paul Center for Comparative Molecular Biology and Evolution, Marine Biological Laboratory, 7 MBL Street, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, USA 4Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Brown University, 80 Waterman Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02912, USA 5Biodiversity Informatics Group, Marine Biological Laboratory, 7 MBL Street, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, USA 6Current address: Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA †These authors contributed equally *Corresponding author: L.A.K - [email protected] Phone: 413-585-3825, Fax: 413-585-3786 Keywords: Microbial eukaryotes, supergroups, taxon sampling, Rhizaria, systematic error, Excavata 2 An accurate reconstruction of the eukaryotic tree of life is essential to identify the innovations underlying the diversity of microbial and macroscopic (e.g. plants and animals) eukaryotes. Previous work has divided eukaryotic diversity into a small number of high-level ‘supergroups’, many of which receive strong support in phylogenomic analyses. However, the abundance of data in phylogenomic analyses can lead to highly supported but incorrect relationships due to systematic phylogenetic error. Further, the paucity of major eukaryotic lineages (19 or fewer) included in these genomic studies may exaggerate systematic error and reduces power to evaluate hypotheses.