A Nondichotomous Key to Protist Species Identification of Reticulitermes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SYSTEMATICS A Nondichotomous Key to Protist Species Identification of Reticulitermes (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) 1 J. L. LEWIS AND B. T. FORSCHLER Department of Entomology, 413 Biological Sciences Building, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 99(6): 1028Ð1033 (2006) ABSTRACT A key was developed using morphological and behavioral characters to identify nine genera and 13 species of protists found in the hindgut of three Reticulitermes speciesÑ Reticulitermes flavipes (Kollar), Reticulitermes virginicus (Banks), and Reticulitermes hageni BanksÑby using the online IDnature guides by Discover Life. There are seven characters and 13 taxa, each attached to species descriptions, digital stills, or movies to aid in protist species identiÞcation. We chose characters for protist species identiÞcation that were easy to observe with live samples and a light microscope at 400ϫ magniÞcation. All 11 protists from R. flavipes and nine each in R. virginicus and R. hageni were recognized using original and revised species descriptions. This was the Þrst report of the protist genera Trichomitus from both R. virginicus and R. hageni. KEY WORDS symbiotic protists, termite identiÞcation, anaerobic protists identiÞcation, Parabasa- lia, Oxymonadida The anaerobic symbiotic protist orders found in the (workers have Ϸ57 Ϯ 11%), because it is not found in hindgut of lower termites (Isoptera) include Tricho- R. virginicus and R. hageni (Lewis and Forschler monadida Kirby, Oxymonadida Grasse´, and Hyper- 2004b). Trichonympha agilis Leidy (1877) is Ϸ19 Ϯ 5% mastigida Grassi & Foa` (Yamin 1979). None of these of the protist population in R. virginicus compared protist species are found outside of the insect host with 4 Ϯ 3% in R. flavipes and 7 Ϯ 5% in R. hageni (Kirby 1941, Margulis et al. 1986), and their identiÞ- (Lewis and Forschler 2004b). Dinenympha fimbriata cation has relied on two established techniques, high- Kirby (1924) is Ϸ27 Ϯ 9% of the protist population in deÞnition microscopy of Þxed cells and light micros- R. hageni compared with 11 Ϯ 7% in R. flavipes and 2 Ϯ copy of living cells (Inoue et al. 2000). Although 2% in R. virginicus (Lewis and Forschler 2004b). molecular techniques can identify protist species, ver- There are generic keys to termite protists (Calkins iÞcation still requires correct morphological identiÞ- 1926, Lee et al. 1985), but they do not provide species- cation (Kudo et al. 1998; Ohkuma et al. 1999, 2000). level determinations. Here, we describe an approach Examining Þxed cells by using high-deÞnition micros- to identify termite hindgut protists from R. flavipes, copy is time-consuming and often requires a specialist R. virginicus, and R. hageni by using a nondichotomous to identify distinguishing characteristics. In contrast, key with morphological and behavioral characters eas- observing live cells simpliÞes species identiÞcation ily observed with a light microscope by using the and study of the protist community (Kirby 1932, Lewis online IDnature guides by Discover Life (Lewis and and Forschler 2004a). Forschler 2006) and a revision to and consolidation of Three Reticulitermes Holmgren (Rhinotermitidae) Koidzumi (1921) and Kudo (1966). termite species have been described in the southeast- ern United States: Reticulitermes flavipes (Kollar), Materials and Methods Reticulitermes virginicus (Banks), and Reticulitermes hageni Banks (Weesner 1970, Nutting 1990). Eleven We referred to all original and revised protist spe- protists are recognized from R. flavipes, eight in cies descriptions (Leidy 1877, 1881; Grassi 1879, 1892, R. virginicus, and eight in R. hageni (Yamin 1979, Lewis 1917; Koidzumi 1916, 1917; Dubosq and Grasse´ 1924, and Forschler 2004b). It was proposed, although not 1928; Kirby 1924, Powell 1928, Brown 1930a,b, 1931; widely accepted, that the termite protist community Boykin et al. 1986; Lewis and Forschler 2004b) fol- can substitute for termite species identiÞcation lowing the terminology of Koidzumi (1921) and Kudo (Brown 1930a, Kirby 1937, Dropkin 1944, Cook 1996, (1966) for distinguishing characters (Figs. 1Ð3; Ap- Lewis and Forschler 2004b). The presence of Dine- pendix 1). These characters include termite host, pro- nympha gracilis Leidy (1877) distinguishes R. flavipes tist cell size and shape, number and placement of ßagella, axostyle, and indicator protist species used in 1 Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected]. termite identiÞcation. 0013-8746/06/1028Ð1033$04.00/0 ᭧ 2006 Entomological Society of America November 2006 LEWIS AND FORSCHLER:IDENTIFICATION OF TERMITE PROTISTS 1029 Fig. 1. Protist species in R. flavipes. (a) Dinenympha fimbriata Kirby 1924. (b) Dinenympha gracilis Leidy 1877. (c) Spirotrichonympha flagellata (Grassi 1892). (d) Trichonympha agilis Leidy 1877. (e) Trichomitus trypanoides (Dubosq and Grasse´ 1924). (f) Microjoenia fallax (Dubosq and Grasse´ 1928). (g) Spironympha kofoidi Koidzumi 1917. (h) Monocercomonas sp. Grassi 1879. (i) Holomastigotes elongatum Grassi 1892. (j) Pyrsonympha vertens Leidy 1877. (k) Pyrsonympha major Powell 1928. Scale bar ϭ 10 m (photos taken using a Leica microscope at 400ϫ magniÞcation and images acquired using an AxioCam digital camera). Termites were collected from different established CoolPix 995 digital camera equipped with 4ϫ digital Þeld sites and laboratory colonies from Georgia, USA. zoom. Collections were made in Clarke, Lamar, McIntosh, Spalding, and Union counties as presented by Lewis and Forschler (2004b). Termite species were identi- Results Þed using dichotomous keys to both the soldier and We identiÞed nine genera and 13 species of pro- alate castes (Scheffrahn and Su 1994). Termites col- tists found in the hindgut of R. flavipes, R. virginicus, lected from Þeld sites were sampled for protists within and R. hageni (Figs. 1Ð3; Appendix 1; Lewis and 72 h. Laboratory cultures were sampled at various Forschler 2006). All 11 protist species previously de- times after collection and maintained as described scribed from R. flavipes were observed (Yamin 1979, previously (Grube and Forschler 2004). Voucher Lewis and Forschler 2004b). These species included specimens from each termite collection were pre- Dinenympha fimbriata, D. gracilis, Holomastigotes served in 100% ethanol and deposited at the House- elongatum Grassi (1892), Microjoenia fallax (Dubosq hold and Structural Entomology Laboratory at the and Grasse´ 1928), Monocercomonas sp. Grassi (1879), University of Georgia (Athens, GA). Pyrsonympha major Powell (1928), P. vertens Leidy The termite hindgut was removed using forceps to (1877), Spironympha kofoidi Koidzumi (1917), Spiro- pull the last two abdominal segments away from the trichonympha flagellata (Grassi 1892), Trichomitus rest of the termite and placed in a saline solution as trypanoides (Dubosq and Grasse´ 1924), and Tricho- described by Lewis and Forschler (2004a). The nympha agilis (Fig. 1; Lewis and Forschler 2006). worker caste was chosen because this caste has all Other than being in a separate termite species, we representatives of the protist community for each could not distinguish P. major from P. minor. termite species (Dropkin 1944, Mannesmann 1972, We identiÞed nine protist species from R. virginicus: Lewis and Forschler 2004b). Protists were observed D. fimbriata, H. elongatum, M. fallax, Monocercomonas with a Leica compound microscope at 400ϫ magniÞ- sp., P. minor Powell (1928), S. kofoidi, S. flagellata, cation. Digital stills were acquired with an AxioCam T. trypanoides, and T. agilis (Fig. 2; Lewis and Forsch- digital camera, with all scale bars equal to 10 m. All ler 2006). Nine protists were identiÞed from R. hageni, movies were taken at 400ϫ magniÞcation with a Nikon including: D. fimbriata, H. elongatum, Microjoenia 1030 ANNALS OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA Vol. 99, no. 6 Fig. 2. Protist species in R. virginicus. (a) Trichonympha agilis Leidy 1877. (b) Spironympha kofoidi Koidzumi 1917. (c) Spirotrichonympha flagellata (Grassi 1892). (d) Holomastigotes elongatum Grassi 1892. (e) Microjoenia fallax (Dubosq and Grasse´ 1928). (f) Trichomitus trypanoides (Dubosq and Grasse´ 1924). (g) Pyrsonympha minor Powell 1928. (h) Dinenympha fimbriata Kirby 1924. (i) Monocercomonas sp. Grassi 1879. Scale bar ϭ 10 m (photos taken using a Leica microscope at 400ϫ magniÞcation and images acquired using an AxioCam digital camera). pyriformis Brown (1930), Monocercomonas sp., number of ßagella, site of ßagellar attachment, and P. minor, S. kofoidi, S. flagellata, T. trypanoides, and the presence of an axostyle (Koidzumi 1921, Honig- T. agilis (Fig. 3; Lewis and Forschler 2006). This is berg 1963, Kudo 1966). Preserving protist cells is the Þrst report of T. trypanoides in R. hageni and R. difÞcult because different stains are needed for virginicus. some distinctive organelles; thus, several slide prep- We were able to identify termite protists from arations are often needed, and Þnding the same R. flavipes, R. virginicus, and R. hageni by using protist species on each slide is time-consuming. Pre- the following characters: termite host, cell size and paring a fresh slide mount allows for correct species shape, number and placement of ßagella, and axo- identiÞcation by observing protist movement pat- style (Figs. 1Ð3; Appendix 1; Lewis and Forschler terns, which simpliÞes distinguishing similar spe- 2006). cies, especially hard-to-observe organelles, such as axostyle, ßagellum number, and placement of ßagella. Discussion This is the Þrst termite protist key to consolidate We were able