PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY
PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY
PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
12 B. M. HONIGBERG<br />
superorders among the nonpigmented flagellates, save PARABASALI-<br />
DEA? 2. Is there enough evidence in support of the kinships suggested<br />
by Brugerolle (1977) for RETORTAMONADIDA, DIPLOMONA-<br />
DIDA, and OXYMONADIDA to allow the establishment of superorder<br />
(class?) for these orders? 3. Where actually do CHOANOFLAGELLIDA<br />
and BICOSOECIDA belong in the general classification scheme; could<br />
they be placed in a higher taxon? 4. Is there any justification for<br />
dividing the nonpigmented flagellates into the somewhat informal superordinal<br />
groupings recommended by Grasse (1952)?<br />
Although for convenience's sake (we still have difficulty with avoiding<br />
this pragmatic concept), we shall discuss here the orders of ZOOMASTI-<br />
GOPHOREA, as was done by Prof. VICKERMAN, we ought not to lose<br />
sight of the need for reconsidering the validity of this class as well<br />
as of PHYTOMASTIGOPHOREA. As I suggested during the Round-<br />
Table Discussion, these taxa may well be soon put to rest.<br />
Professor Vickerman concentrated on the changes in the orders<br />
of ZOOMASTIGOPHOREA between the first (H o n i g b e r g et al.<br />
1964) and second (L e v i n e et al. 1980) Systems of Classification published<br />
by the Society of Protozoologists. He noted that these changes<br />
were more noticeable among the "lower" mostly free-living nonpigmented<br />
flagellates than among the structurally more complex and almost<br />
exclusively parasitic forms. He felt that the problems of classification<br />
and evolution of K<strong>IN</strong>ETOPLASTIDA Honigberg, 1963, DIPLOMONA-<br />
DIDA Wenyon, 1926 emend. Brugerolle, 1975, and TRICHOMONADIDA<br />
Kirby, 1947, emend. Honigberg, in Camp, Mattern and Honigberg, 1974,<br />
which were discussed at the Fourth International Congress of Parasitology<br />
in Warsaw, 1979 (Honigberg et al. 1982), could be left out of<br />
the present consideration. He also did not discuss RETORTAMONADIDA,<br />
analyzed in some detail by Kulda and Nohynkova (1978), and<br />
PROTEROMONADIDA Grasse, 1952 emend. Vickerman, 1976, which he<br />
as well as Kulda and Nohymkova (1978) considered as quite<br />
separate from K<strong>IN</strong>ETOPLASTIDA. Professor Vickerman felt, however,<br />
that more ultrastructural details are needed to enable us to obtain<br />
an understanding (of OXYMONADIDA and HYPERMASTIGIDA) comparable<br />
to that we have now of kinetoplastids, proteromonads, retortamonads,<br />
diplomonads, and trichomonads. It is a pity that Dr. Brugerolle<br />
who did much work on the fine structure of the last two<br />
groups could not be present, for he could have discussed the relationships<br />
among RETORT AMONADIDA, DIPLOMONADIDA, and OXYMO-<br />
NADIDA as suggested in his 1977 publication.<br />
Among the problems discussed by Prof. Vickerman was that<br />
of CHOANOFLAGELLIDA. These organisms, with a single flagellum and<br />
a collar made up of a ring of tentacles, were at one time considered as<br />
http://rcin.org.pl