Observations on Amphora Species (Bacillariophyceae) in the British Museum (Natural History)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Observations on Amphora species (Bacillariophyceae) in the British Museum (Natural History). V. Some species from the subgenus Amphora F.R. Schoeman and R.E.M. Archibald National Institute for Water Research, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Pretoria Six Amphora species [A. affinis KOtzing, A. copulata Introduction (KOtzing) nov. comb., A. marina W. Smith, A. ova/is (KOtzing) This is the penultimate paper in a series on Amphora species KOtzing, A. proteus Gregory, A. robusta Gregory) belonging (Schoeman & Archibald 1986a, 1986b, 1986c, 1986d, 1986e) to the subgenus Amphora Cleve were observed on strewn slides in the British Museum (Natural History). Light of which the type specimens are kept in the British Museum microscope photographs of examples corresponding to (Natural History). We have dealt with these species in order their descriptions have been included. Comments on the to verify the identification of taxa recorded from southern authenticity of the material examined and the suitability of Africa_The purpose of these papers is also to provide helpful the observed specimens as types for the species are made. information to those who may not have the opportunity of S. Afr. J. Bot. 1986, 52: 425-437 examining the British Museum (Natural History) material. Six taxa from the subgenus Amphora Cleve are considered Ses Amphora-spesies [A. affinis KOtzing , A. copulata (KOtzing) nov. comb., A. marina W. Smith, A. ova/is here. Three are treated in the format adopted in earlier papers (KOtzing), KOtzing, A. proteus Gregory, A. robusta Gregory) (e.g. Schoeman & Archibald 1986a). The other three taxa wat tot die subgenus Amphora Cleve behoort is op form a group of closely related species, whose taxonomy and diatoomstrooimikroskoopplaatjies in die versameling van die nomenclature are more complex. This group comprises Am British Museum (Natural History) waargeneem. Ligmikro phora affinis, A. copulata and A. ova/is, which were all skoopfoto's van voorbeelde wat ooreenstem met hul originally described by Kiitzing (1833, 1844), but his concept beskrywings word ingesluit. Kommentaar word gelewer oor die egtheid van die ondersoekte materiaal en oor die of these taxa is confused. Our research shows that Kiitzing geskiktheid van die eksemplare as tipes van die (1833) originally distinguished two species, Frustulia ova/is and respektiewelike spesies. Frustulia copulata, which he subsequently united as Amphora S.-Afr. Tydskr. Plantk. 1986, 52: 425-437 ova/is (Kiitzing 1844). At the same time he (Kiitzing 1844) distinguished two more species, Amphora libyca Ehrenberg Keywords: Amphora, Bacillariophyceae, light microscopy, (1840) and Amphora ajjinis Kiitzing_ Later authorities (Van type material Heurck 1880- 85; Cleve 1895) recognized that these two species are conspecific, but treated them as a variety of A. ova/is_ However, it appears from the literature that there has been no re-investigation of the identity of F. copulata. Through the courtesy of the British Museum (Natural History) we obtained a recently prepared slide of an unnumbered sample in the Kiitzing collection, labelled as containing both F. ova/is and F. copulata. Having examined this slide we conclude that the differences between the two are sufficient to resurrect F. copulata as a valid species. On comparing examples of F. copulata with specimens on the type slide of A. ajjinis it was evident that the two species are identical. As a result some nomenclatural and taxonomic changes are proposed. These are discussed in detail in our treatment of the 'Amphora ova/is complex' (consult paragraph 4 below). Unfortunately we have not been able to examine Ehrenberg's type material of Amphora libyca (kept in Berlin) to confirm whether it is identical to A. ajjinis. Nevertheless, for the time being we accept the commonly held opinion that they are conspecific. F.R. Schoeman* and R.E.M. Archibald Materials National Institute for Water Research, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, P.O. Box 395, Pretoria, 0001 Republic of Following the style of our previous papers in this series South Africa (Schoeman & Archibald 1986a), the slides examined in this *To whom correspondence should be addressed study are listed separately under the species or species complex involved_ In addition to the British Museum slides (indicated Accepted 14 April 1986 by the abbreviation BM prefixed to their serial number) we 426 S.-Afr. Tydskr. Plantk., 1986, 52(5) examined two slides from Van Heurck's 'Types du Synopsis J.!m; dorsal striae near the centre 15-20 in 10 J.!ID, and at des Diatomees de Belgique' (prefixed by the abbreviation the poles 16-20 in 10 J.!ID; ventral striae 12-16 in 10 J.!ID. VHS) in the National Institute for Water Research (NIWR) slide collection. A corresponding slide may be found in the 4. The 'Amphora ova/is complex' Van Heurck collection in the British Museum (Natural Hist Rather than discussing each species individually, we will deal ory). In the text below (paragraph 6) we have used the symbol instead with a group of taxa which have close, but sometimes MF to denote Maltwood Finder coordinates used to locate confusing affinities. Different opinions on their taxonomic some specimens. status and nomenclature have produced a complex of species or varieties, whose taxonomy needs clarification. The group ObseiVations and Discussion comprises Amphora ova/is (Kiitzing) Kiitzing (1844, p.107, 1. Amphora affinis KUtzing = A. copulata (KUtzing) nov. pl.5, figs 35, 39), A. affinis Kiitzing (1844, p.107, pl.30, comb. fig.66), A . libyca Ehrenberg (1840, p.205), A. ova/is var. See comments under 'Amphora ova/is complex' (consult ajfinis (Kiitzing) Van Heurck (1880- 85, p.59, pl.l, fig .2), paragraph 4). and A. ova/is var. libyca (Ehrenberg) Cleve (1895, p.104). It is therefore appropriate that we should determine first how 2. Amphora copulata (Kutzing) nov. comb. many taxa are involved and then their correct nomenclature. See comments under 'Amphora ova/is complex' (consult As far as we are aware, the British Museum (Natural paragraph 4). History) does not have a slide designated as the type for A. ova/is, but there are several slides prepared from Kiitzing's 3. Amphora marina W. Smith herbarium material, marked as containing A. ova/is. However, W. Smith 1857, p.9, pl.l, fig.2. Cleve 1895, p.103. Van after examining these slides, we became confused as to what Heurck 1880-85, p.58, pl.l, fig.16. Kiitzing really called A. ova/is, since some slides contained forms fitting our present concept of A. ova/is (cf. Patrick and Slides examined: BM 1033 Biarritz, France, 1856. Coli. Reimer 1975, p.68, pl.l3, figs 1, 2), while others only had Greville. (Figures 1 - 7). examples fitting the description of A. affinis, and yet others VHS 101 (NIWR 6/101) 'Carrieghills' (? Corriegills), Arran, contained both species. Scotland. (Figures 8- 10). A. ova/is was first described by Kiitzing (1833, p.539, pl.l3, Notes: A. marina was described by W. Smith (1857, p.9, pl.l, fig.5) under the name Frustulia ova/is and was recorded as fig.2) but his illustration only depicts the species in girdle view. occurring 'Einzeln unter Frustulia subulata und acuminata etc. We have therefore no illustration of the valve to aid its identifi bei Weisenfels'. Referring to the descriptions of the latter two cation. Our identification of this species is based on slide BM species in the same publication, Kiitzing (1833, p.538 and 1033 from the Greville collection in the British Museum (Natu p.555) cited Decas IX of his 'Algarum aquae dulcis German ral History), which was prepared from material collected at icarum' (Kiitzing 1833- 36) as the depository for his type Biarritz in France, one of the two type localities cited by W. material (Habitat: Leucopetram = Weisenfels) of these two Smith in his diagnosis. The authenticity of this slide is further species, and hence also for A. ova/is. We therefore examined attested to by W. Smith's initials engraved on the glass. We two slides (BM 78085, BM 78086) made from Decas IX, can therefore regard it as the type slide for A. marina. In No.81 (F. subulata), and one (BM 78084) prepared from Figures 1-7 we have illustrated several examples of A. marina Decas IX, No.84 (F. acuminata) expecting to find A. ova/is. from this slide, which contained only frustules. These specimens This expectation was encouraged by an illustration of A. ova/is show the valve characteristics of the species reasonably well. from the Decas IX, No.84 material produced by Reimer (in In addition toW. Smith's slide, we also observed a number Patrick & Reimer 1975, pl.l3, fig .1). However, despite a very of examples of A. marina on Van Heurck's (1884- 87) slide careful search, we were unsuccessful and observed only a few no. 10 from 'Carrieghills', Arran (e.g. Figures 8-10). They specimens of A. ajfinis (mainly on Decas IX, No.84) and are identical to the Biarritz examples. some odd examples of Amphora pediculus (Kiitzing) Kiitzing Cleve (1895, p.103) doubted the validity of A. marina and (vide Schoeman & Archibald 1978). We were therefore still suggested that it may be a form of Amphora proteus. Accord uncertain as to what Kiitzing described as A. ova/is and which ing to our observations (see paragraph 5), the latter is a larger material could be used to typify this species . species with much coarser striation. In this respect a comment It was not until the British Museum (Natural History) sent by Gregory (1857, p.518) on the variability in striae density us a recently made strewn slide (BM 81032), prepared from of A. proteus is noteworthy. Gregory cited ca. 9 striae in 10!!m an early Kiitzing gathering kept in an unnumbered packet, for A.