Phylum Cycliophora

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Phylum Cycliophora feed on bacteria or bits of food dropped from host only 3 species can regenerate by internal budding first discovered in 1995 on the mouthparts of the àcontinually produces new funnels by internal asexual Norway lobster budding very small; less than half mm; 0.35 - 0.10 mm as the new funnel develops the old buccal funnel disingegrates all species symbiotic on crustaceans the new funnel then emerges through the trunk and takes the place of the old one more recently have been found on the American Lobster and European lobster Life cycle Body Form complex life cycle with 3 basic life stages saclike, bilateral body à alternation of generations with no body cavity, acoelomate 1. asexual feeding stage back end has short stalk with adhesive disc by which dominant stage is sessile, solitary feeding stage they attach to their host neither male nor female cellular epidermis surrounded by cuticle 350 microns; saclike Digestive System attached to host by short stalk with an adhesive disc at the end anterior feeding organ is a ciliated buccal funnel sessile feeding stage is asexual cilia around mouth moves food into esophagus 2. sexual stages esophagus leads to à U shaped gut à anus Animals: Phylum Cycliophora; Ziser Lecture Notes; 2015.10 1 Animals: Phylum Cycliophora; Ziser Lecture Notes; 2015.10 2 the onset of the sexual stage is believed to be female matures and breaks free triggered by imminent molting of the lobster host. briefly free-swimming, then attaches to lobster mouthparts the feeding form produces either male or female progeny which develop internally within the female form a new dispersive larva develops; resumably from a fertilized egg dwarf male the female progressively degenerates and the a simple sac mature larva escapes nonfeeding; no mouth, digestive system or eventually the larva settles and anus metamorphoses into an asexual feeding stage two reproductive organs contain stores of sperm Evolutionary Relationships two penile organs taxonomy is controversial; molecular data indicates it may be related to rotifers and acanthocephala matures inside feeding stage before breaking free and becoming attached to another feeding stage that is in the process of producing a female reproductive individual mechanism of fertilization is unknown female also develops inside a feeding form contains a single egg Animals: Phylum Cycliophora; Ziser Lecture Notes; 2015.10 3 Animals: Phylum Cycliophora; Ziser Lecture Notes; 2015.10 4 .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Phylogenetic Classification of Life
Proc. Natl. Accad. Sci. USA Vol. 93, pp. 1071-1076, February 1996 Evolution Archaeal- eubacterial mergers in the origin of Eukarya: Phylogenetic classification of life (centriole-kinetosome DNA/Protoctista/kingdom classification/symbiogenesis/archaeprotist) LYNN MARGULIS Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003-5810 Conitribluted by Lynnl Marglulis, September 15, 1995 ABSTRACT A symbiosis-based phylogeny leads to a con- these features evolved in their ancestors by inferable steps (4, sistent, useful classification system for all life. "Kingdoms" 20). rRNA gene sequences (Trichomonas, Coronympha, Giar- and "Domains" are replaced by biological names for the most dia; ref. 11) confirm these as descendants of anaerobic eu- inclusive taxa: Prokarya (bacteria) and Eukarya (symbiosis- karyotes that evolved prior to the "crown group" (12)-e.g., derived nucleated organisms). The earliest Eukarya, anaero- animals, fungi, or plants. bic mastigotes, hypothetically originated from permanent If eukaryotes began as motility symbioses between Ar- whole-cell fusion between members of Archaea (e.g., Thermo- chaea-e.g., Thermoplasma acidophilum-like and Eubacteria plasma-like organisms) and of Eubacteria (e.g., Spirochaeta- (Spirochaeta-, Spirosymplokos-, or Diplocalyx-like microbes; like organisms). Molecular biology, life-history, and fossil ref. 4) where cell-genetic integration led to the nucleus- record evidence support the reunification of bacteria as cytoskeletal system that defines eukaryotes (21)-then an Prokarya while
[Show full text]
Plant Evolution an Introduction to the History of Life
Plant Evolution An Introduction to the History of Life KARL J. NIKLAS The University of Chicago Press Chicago and London CONTENTS Preface vii Introduction 1 1 Origins and Early Events 29 2 The Invasion of Land and Air 93 3 Population Genetics, Adaptation, and Evolution 153 4 Development and Evolution 217 5 Speciation and Microevolution 271 6 Macroevolution 325 7 The Evolution of Multicellularity 377 8 Biophysics and Evolution 431 9 Ecology and Evolution 483 Glossary 537 Index 547 v Introduction The unpredictable and the predetermined unfold together to make everything the way it is. It’s how nature creates itself, on every scale, the snowflake and the snowstorm. — TOM STOPPARD, Arcadia, Act 1, Scene 4 (1993) Much has been written about evolution from the perspective of the history and biology of animals, but significantly less has been writ- ten about the evolutionary biology of plants. Zoocentricism in the biological literature is understandable to some extent because we are after all animals and not plants and because our self- interest is not entirely egotistical, since no biologist can deny the fact that animals have played significant and important roles as the actors on the stage of evolution come and go. The nearly romantic fascination with di- nosaurs and what caused their extinction is understandable, even though we should be equally fascinated with the monarchs of the Carboniferous, the tree lycopods and calamites, and with what caused their extinction (fig. 0.1). Yet, it must be understood that plants are as fascinating as animals, and that they are just as important to the study of biology in general and to understanding evolutionary theory in particular.
[Show full text]
Kingdom Animalia: Phylum Summary Table
KINGDOM ANIMALIA: PHYLUM SUMMARY TABLE Phylum PORIFERA CNIDARIA PLATYHELMINTHES (flatworms) NEMATODA (roundworms) ANNELIDA (segmented worms) Examples Sponges Sea jellies, Hydra, coral Planaria, tapeworm Trichinella, hookworm, Earthworm, polychaete worms, colonies, sea anemones nematode leech Body type Asymmetry Radial symmetry Bilateral symmetry Bilateral symmetry Bilateral symmetry (Symmetry) Ecological roles Food source Food source Food source Food source Food source home / shelter Reef- home, protect Parasitic Parasitic Parasitic symbiotic with shores Eat dead animals – Aerate soil Aerate soil bacteria Chem. – anticancer saprophyte Breakdown material Breakdown material Body organization 2 germ layers 2 layers: ecto & endo 3 layers: ectoderm, mesoderm, 3 layers: ectoderm, 3 layers: ectoderm, mesoderm, (# germ layers) Ectoderm, endoderm With mesoglea between endoderm mesoderm, endoderm endoderm Body cavity Acoelom Acoelom Acoelom Pseudocoelom Coelom Digestive system Filter feed: collar cells, Gastrovascular cavity, Mouth and gastrovascular Complete digestive Complete digestive system: food vacuoles, mouth, and cavity system: mouth & anus mouth & anus osculum nematocysts to capture food Mouth also serves as anus Special organs Special organs Reproduction Sexual: Sexual: male & female Sexual: hermaphroditic – Sexual: separate sexes = Sexual: hermaphroditic – heramaphroditic – medusa – gametes fuse cross fertilization dioecious cross fertilization gametes released in H2O Asexual: budding, Asexual: fragmentation Asexual: budding, regeneration
[Show full text]
Fungi-Chapter 31 Refer to the Images of Life Cycles of Rhizopus, Morchella and Mushroom in Your Text Book and Lab Manual
Fungi-Chapter 31 Refer to the images of life cycles of Rhizopus, Morchella and Mushroom in your text book and lab manual. Chytrids Chytrids (phylum Chytridiomycota) are found in terrestrial, freshwater, and marine habitats including hydrothermal vents They can be decomposers, parasites, or mutualists Molecular evidence supports the hypothesis that chytrids diverged early in fungal evolution Chytrids are unique among fungi in having flagellated spores, called zoospores Zygomycetes The zygomycetes (phylum Zygomycota) exhibit great diversity of life histories They include fast-growing molds, parasites, and commensal symbionts The life cycle of black bread mold (Rhizopus stolonifer) is fairly typical of the phylum Its hyphae are coenocytic Asexual sporangia produce haploid spores The zygomycetes are named for their sexually produced zygosporangia Zygosporangia are the site of karyogamy and then meiosis Zygosporangia, which are resistant to freezing and drying, can survive unfavorable conditions Some zygomycetes, such as Pilobolus, can actually “aim” and shoot their sporangia toward bright light Glomeromycetes The glomeromycetes (phylum Glomeromycota) were once considered zygomycetes They are now classified in a separate clade Glomeromycetes form arbuscular mycorrhizae by growing into root cells but covered by host cell membrane. Ascomycetes Ascomycetes (phylum Ascomycota) live in marine, freshwater, and terrestrial habitats Ascomycetes produce sexual spores in saclike asci contained in fruiting bodies called ascocarps Ascomycetes are commonly
[Show full text]
Receptor-Like Kinases from Arabidopsis Form a Monophyletic Gene Family Related to Animal Receptor Kinases
Receptor-like kinases from Arabidopsis form a monophyletic gene family related to animal receptor kinases Shin-Han Shiu and Anthony B. Bleecker* Department of Botany and Laboratory of Genetics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 Edited by Elliot M. Meyerowitz, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, and approved July 6, 2001 (received for review March 22, 2001) Plant receptor-like kinases (RLKs) are proteins with a predicted tionary relationship between the RTKs and RLKs within the signal sequence, single transmembrane region, and cytoplasmic recognized superfamily of related eukaryotic serine͞threonine͞ kinase domain. Receptor-like kinases belong to a large gene family tyrosine protein kinases (ePKs). An earlier phylogenetic analysis with at least 610 members that represent nearly 2.5% of Arabi- (22), using the six RLK sequences available at the time, indicated dopsis protein coding genes. We have categorized members of this a close relationship between plant sequences and animal RTKs, family into subfamilies based on both the identity of the extracel- although RLKs were placed in the ‘‘other kinase’’ category. A more lular domains and the phylogenetic relationships between the recent analysis using only plant sequences led to the conclusion that kinase domains of subfamily members. Surprisingly, this structur- the 18 RLKs sampled seemed to form a separate family among the ally deﬁned group of genes is monophyletic with respect to kinase various eukaryotic kinases (23). The recent completion of the domains when compared with the other eukaryotic kinase families. Arabidopsis genome sequence (5) provides an opportunity for a In an extended analysis, animal receptor kinases, Raf kinases, plant more comprehensive analysis of the relationships between these RLKs, and animal receptor tyrosine kinases form a well supported classes of receptor kinases.
[Show full text]
Biology of Fungi, Lecture 2: the Diversity of Fungi and Fungus-Like Organisms
Biology of Fungi, Lecture 2: The Diversity of Fungi and Fungus-Like Organisms Terms You Should Understand u ‘Fungus’ (pl., fungi) is a taxonomic term and does not refer to morphology u ‘Mold’ is a morphological term referring to a filamentous (multicellular) condition u ‘Mildew’ is a term that refers to a particular type of mold u ‘Yeast’ is a morphological term referring to a unicellular condition Special Lecture Notes on Fungal Taxonomy u Fungal taxonomy is constantly in flux u Not one taxonomic scheme will be agreed upon by all mycologists u Classical fungal taxonomy was based primarily upon morphological features u Contemporary fungal taxonomy is based upon phylogenetic relationships Fungi in a Broad Sense u Mycologists have traditionally studied a diverse number of organisms, many not true fungi, but fungal-like in their appearance, physiology, or life style u At one point, these fungal-like microbes included the Actinomycetes, due to their filamentous growth patterns, but today are known as Gram-positive bacteria u The types of organisms mycologists have traditionally studied are now divided based upon phylogenetic relationships u These relationships are: Q Kingdom Fungi - true fungi Q Kingdom Straminipila - “water molds” Q Kingdom Mycetozoa - “slime molds” u Kingdom Fungi (Mycota) Q Phylum: Chytridiomycota Q Phylum: Zygomycota Q Phylum: Glomeromycota Q Phylum: Ascomycota Q Phylum: Basidiomycota Q Form-Phylum: Deuteromycota (Fungi Imperfecti) Page 1 of 16 Biology of Fungi Lecture 2: Diversity of Fungi u Kingdom Straminiplia (Chromista)
[Show full text]
Animal Phylum Poster Porifera
Phylum PORIFERA CNIDARIA PLATYHELMINTHES ANNELIDA MOLLUSCA ECHINODERMATA ARTHROPODA CHORDATA Hexactinellida -- glass (siliceous) Anthozoa -- corals and sea Turbellaria -- free-living or symbiotic Polychaetes -- segmented Gastopods -- snails and slugs Asteroidea -- starfish Trilobitomorpha -- tribolites (extinct) Urochordata -- tunicates Groups sponges anemones flatworms (Dugusia) bristleworms Bivalves -- clams, scallops, mussels Echinoidea -- sea urchins, sand Chelicerata Cephalochordata -- lancelets (organisms studied in detail in Demospongia -- spongin or Hydrazoa -- hydras, some corals Trematoda -- flukes (parasitic) Oligochaetes -- earthworms (Lumbricus) Cephalopods -- squid, octopus, dollars Arachnida -- spiders, scorpions Mixini -- hagfish siliceous sponges Xiphosura -- horseshoe crabs Bio1AL are underlined) Cubozoa -- box jellyfish, sea wasps Cestoda -- tapeworms (parasitic) Hirudinea -- leeches nautilus Holothuroidea -- sea cucumbers Petromyzontida -- lamprey Mandibulata Calcarea -- calcareous sponges Scyphozoa -- jellyfish, sea nettles Monogenea -- parasitic flatworms Polyplacophora -- chitons Ophiuroidea -- brittle stars Chondrichtyes -- sharks, skates Crustacea -- crustaceans (shrimp, crayfish Scleropongiae -- coralline or Crinoidea -- sea lily, feather stars Actinipterygia -- ray-finned fish tropical reef sponges Hexapoda -- insects (cockroach, fruit fly) Sarcopterygia -- lobed-finned fish Myriapoda Amphibia (frog, newt) Chilopoda -- centipedes Diplopoda -- millipedes Reptilia (snake, turtle) Aves (chicken, hummingbird) Mammalia
[Show full text]
Darwin's “Tree of Life”
Icons of Evolution? Why Much of What Jonathan Wells Writes about Evolution is Wrong Alan D. Gishlick, National Center for Science Education DARWIN’S “TREE OF LIFE” mon descent. Finally, he demands that text- books treat universal common ancestry as PHYLOGENETIC TREES unproven and refrain from illustrating that n biology, a phylogenetic tree, or phyloge- “theory” with misleading phylogenies. ny, is used to show the genealogic relation- Therefore, according to Wells, textbooks Iships of living things. A phylogeny is not should state that there is no evidence for com- so much evidence for evolution as much as it mon descent and that the most recent research is a codification of data about evolutionary his- refutes the concept entirely. Wells is complete- tory. According to biological evolution, organ- ly wrong on all counts, and his argument is isms share common ancestors; a phylogeny entirely based on misdirection and confusion. shows how organisms are related. The tree of He mixes up these various topics in order to life shows the path evolution took to get to the confuse the reader into thinking that when current diversity of life. It also shows that we combined, they show an endemic failure of can ascertain the genealogy of disparate living evolutionary theory. In effect, Wells plays the organisms. This is evidence for evolution only equivalent of an intellectual shell game, put- in that we can construct such trees at all. If ting so many topics into play that the “ball” of evolution had not happened or common ances- evolution gets lost. try were false, we would not be able to discov- THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION er hierarchical branching genealogies for ells claims that the Cambrian organisms (although textbooks do not general- Explosion “presents a serious chal- ly explain this well).
[Show full text]
Classification of Plants
Classification of Plants Plants are classified in several different ways, and the further away from the garden we get, the more the name indicates a plant's relationship to other plants, and tells us about its place in the plant world rather than in the garden. Usually, only the Family, Genus and species are of concern to the gardener, but we sometimes include subspecies, variety or cultivar to identify a particular plant. Starting from the top, the highest category, plants have traditionally been classified as follows. Each group has the characteristics of the level above it, but has some distinguishing features. The further down the scale you go, the more minor the differences become, until you end up with a classification which applies to only one plant. Written convention indicated with underlined text KINGDOM Plant or animal DIVISION (PHYLLUM) CLASS Angiospermae (Angiosperms) Plants which produce flowers Gymnospermae (Gymnosperms) Plants which don't produce flowers SUBCLASS Dicotyledonae (Dicotyledons, Dicots) Plants with two seed leaves Monocotyledonae (Monocotyledons, Monocots) ‐ Plants with one seed leaf SUPERORDER A group of related Plant Families, classified in the order in which they are thought to have developed their differences from a common ancestor. There are six Superorders in the Dicotyledonae (Magnoliidae, Hamamelidae, Caryophyllidae, Dilleniidae, Rosidae, Asteridae), and four Superorders in the Monocotyledonae (Alismatidae, Commelinidae, Arecidae, Liliidae). The names of the Superorders end in ‐idae ORDER ‐ Each Superorder is further divided into several Orders. The names of the Orders end in ‐ales FAMILY ‐ Each Order is divided into Families. These are plants with many botanical features in common, and is the highest classification normally used.
[Show full text]
New Phylogenomic Analysis of the Enigmatic Phylum Telonemia Further Resolves the Eukaryote Tree of Life
bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/403329; this version posted August 30, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. New phylogenomic analysis of the enigmatic phylum Telonemia further resolves the eukaryote tree of life Jürgen F. H. Strassert1, Mahwash Jamy1, Alexander P. Mylnikov2, Denis V. Tikhonenkov2, Fabien Burki1,* 1Department of Organismal Biology, Program in Systematic Biology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden 2Institute for Biology of Inland Waters, Russian Academy of Sciences, Borok, Yaroslavl Region, Russia *Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected] Keywords: TSAR, Telonemia, phylogenomics, eukaryotes, tree of life, protists bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/403329; this version posted August 30, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. Abstract The broad-scale tree of eukaryotes is constantly improving, but the evolutionary origin of several major groups remains unknown. Resolving the phylogenetic position of these ‘orphan’ groups is important, especially those that originated early in evolution, because they represent missing evolutionary links between established groups. Telonemia is one such orphan taxon for which little is known. The group is composed of molecularly diverse biflagellated protists, often prevalent although not abundant in aquatic environments.
[Show full text]
I Biology I Lecture Outline 9 Kingdom Protista
I Biology I Lecture Outline 9 Kingdom Protista References (Textbook - pages 373-392, Lab Manual - pages 95-115) Major Characteristics Algae 1. Cbaracteristics 2. Classification 3. Division Cblorophyta 4. Division Chrysophyta 5. Division Phaeopbyta 6. Division Rhodopbyta Protozoans 1. Characteristics 2. Classification 3. Class FlageUata 4. Class Sarcodina 5. Class Ciliata 6. Class Sporozoa I Biology I Lecture Notes 9 Kingdom Protista References (Textbook - pages 373-392, Lab Manual- pages 95-115) Major Characteristics I. Protists possess eukaryotic cells with well defined nuclei and organelles 2. Most are unicellular, however there are multi-cellularforms 3. They are diverse in their structure 4. They vary in size from microscope algae to kelp that can be over 100feet in length 5. They are diverse (like bacteria) in the way they meet their nutritional needs A . Some are photosynthetic like land plants - are autotrophic B. Some ingest theirfood like animals - heterotrophic by ingestion C. Some absorb theirfood like bacteria andfungi - heterotrophic by absorption D. One species - Euglena - is mixotrophic meaning that it is capable ofboth autotrophic and heterotrophic life styles. 6. Reproduction in Protists A. is usually asexual by mitosis B. sexual reproduction involves meiosis and spore formation and usualJy occurs only when environmental conditions are hostile C. spores are resistant and can withstand adverse conditions 7. Some protozoans form cysts - a type ofresting stage 8. Photosynthetic protists (mostly algae) are part ofplankton. Plankton are those organisms suspended infresh and marine waters that serve asfood for -- heterotrophic animals and other protists 9. There are diverse opinions on how to classify members ofthe Kingdom Protista.
[Show full text]
Taxonomy and Classification
Taxonomy and Classification Taxonomy = the science of naming and describing species “Wisdom begins with calling things by their right names” -Chinese Proverb museums contain ~ 2 Billion specimens worldwide about 1.5 M different species of life have been described each year ~ 13,000 new species are described most scientists estimate that there are at least 50 to 100 Million actual species sharing our planet today most will probably remain unknown forever: the most diverse areas of world are the most remote most of the large stuff has been found and described not enough researchers or money to devote to this work Common vs Scientific Name many larger organisms have “common names” but sometimes >1 common name for same organism sometimes same common name used for 2 or more distinctly different organisms eg. daisy eg. moss eg. mouse eg. fern eg. bug Taxonomy and Classification, Ziser Lecture Notes, 2004 1 without a specific (unique) name it’s impossible to communicate about specific organisms What Characteristics are used how do we begin to categorize, classify and name all these organisms there are many ways to classify: form color size chemical structure genetic makeup earliest attempts used general appearance ie anatomy and physiological similarities plants vs animals only largest animals were categorized everything else was “vermes” but algae, protozoa today, much more focus on molecular similarities proteins, DNA, genes History of Classification Aristotle was the first to try to name and classify things based on structural similarities
[Show full text]