14.06.2013 Views

PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY

PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY

PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

188 B. M. HONIGBERG<br />

tion among different members. One pattern (exemplified by Naegleria)<br />

is characterized by the lobose pseudopodia encountered in amebae<br />

of the subclass Lobosia. Another pattern (exemplified by Dimorpha<br />

and other helioflagellates) is marked by typical axopodia terminating<br />

internally in a central granule or centroplast, as in heliozoa<br />

of the order Centrohelida. Future studies can be expected to lead to<br />

a more natural regrouping of the forms placed here for convenience.""<br />

As might have been expected, the order RHIZOMASTIGIDA was omitted<br />

from the more recent scheme published by L e v i n e et al. (1980). Actually,<br />

the constitution of this "order" has varied among the standard<br />

protozoology texts; e.g., Hall (1953) included the following genera<br />

among RHIZOMASTIGIDA: Histomonas, Heliobodo, Mastigamoeba, Mastigella,<br />

Mastigina and Rhizomastix. Amon other workers, he felt also<br />

that Pteridomonas was a chrysomonad and that Actinomonas and Dimorpha<br />

had helioflagellate affinities. Grasse (1952) thought that Pteridomonas<br />

was also a helioflagellate. Many authors (e.g., Kudo 1966)<br />

included Tetramitus and Naegleria in RHIZOMASTIGIDA. Certain protozoologists<br />

assigned at least some of the rhizomastigid genera to many<br />

flagellate and rhizopod assemblages. Vickerman, who until recently<br />

(Vickerman 1976) considered Cercomonas and Heteromita as BO-<br />

DON<strong>IN</strong>A incertae sedis, included these two genera in his discussion of<br />

zooflagellates at the 1981 session in Warsaw. According to him (V i ck<br />

e r m a n, personal communication): Cercomonas and Heteromita are<br />

clearly related to each other and sufficiently distinct from both chrysomonads<br />

and sarcodines to merit a separate small order. Accordingly,<br />

using the characteristics presented by him at the 1981 Congress, I propose<br />

to create, with Vickerman as the sole authority, a new<br />

order among MASTIGOPHORA.<br />

Order CERCOMONADIDA Vickerman<br />

Two heterodynamic acronematic flagella whose kinetosomes cap cone<br />

of microtubules closely enveloping drawn out anterior part of nucleus;<br />

cone apparently attached to nucleus; microtubules, some lying along<br />

nucleus, not all subpellicular (as in Kinetoplastida)-, single, membranebounded,<br />

postnuclear organelle of unknown function loosely capping<br />

posterior part of nucleus; extrusomes resembling haptocysts of heliozoans<br />

often associated with surface microtubule tracks; several mitochondria<br />

with tubular cristae; food ingestion by pseudopodia; contractile vacuole<br />

usually postnuclear, may be adbasal (as in Kinetoplastida).<br />

Cercomonas, Heteromita<br />

Some of the former members of RHIZOMASTIGIDA can be now<br />

assigned to known flagellate and rhizopod taxa, and this is reflected in<br />

http://rcin.org.pl

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!