PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY

More documents

Recommendations

Info

16 B. M. HONIGBERG semblage or establish new ones for these genera. Thus there still remains a group of former rhizomastigotes which will have to be considered for some time as species incertae sedis. It has been pointed out by Vickerman that one of the problems in placing "lower" zooflagellates in an order is how minimal a definition of the order is acceptable. A good example of this problem quoted by him is the assignment by Hollande (1980) of Perkinsiella, the endobiont of the parasitic amebae Paramoeba and Janickina to KINETO- PLASTIDA. Perkinsiella has, indeed, a single mitochondrion rich in DNA fibrils which, however, are isotropic in their arrangement. On the basis of the available data, Vickerman concluded: "In the absence of any sign of a flagellar apparatus or pellicular microtubules and of information on nuclear division, the writer would hesitate to assign this organism to KINETOPLASTIDA, though it is possible that adaptation of Perkinsiella to existence as an organelle of its amoeba host may have robbed it of most of its kinetoplastid characteristics." Although Hollande (1980) claimed that: "... les microtubules situés à la périphérie du cinétoplaste pourraient être homologues de ceux qui, dans une cellule de Cryptobia sont sous-jacents à la pellicule;..." one would tend to concur with Vickerman that the evidence for the presence of subpellicular microtubules is not compelling. In general, although an admirer of Prof. Hollande's cytologic researches, I cannot help but feel that assignments of flagellates or any other protozoa to given taxa ought to be based on stronger evidence than that provided by him for Perkinsiella. It is evident from the foregoing discussion that although much is known about both the pigmented and nonpigmented flagellate groups, which constitute the basic assemblages of the greatest importance to evolution of eukaryotes, there remain many important problems still to be solved. Clearly the solution of some of these problems will depend upon mutual understanding and effective collaboration among protozoologists, phycologists, and mycologists. Appendix to MASTIGOPHORA Prof. W. Michajlow presented his views on the taxonomy and taxonomic criteria that ought to be employed for the group of parasitic euglenoids "Euglenida parasitica," which he has been studying for many years. Since we are concerned in the present discussion primarily with higher taxa, we cannot consider details of taxa below suborders. It suffices to say that in classifying the parasitic euglenids, Michajlow wishes to employ the following criteria: 1. structure of parasitic and free-living forms (present in the life cycle); 2. details of the developmental cycles; http://rcin.org.pl
PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PROTOZOA 191 3. the type of movement characteristic of the parasitic and free-living forms; 4. host specificity based upon statistical data; 5. geographic distribution. The editors of the Post-Congress Publication may wish to include the entire presentation in an Appendix to the present discussion (see p. 219). Superclass RHIZOPODA von Siebold, 1845 Speaker Dr. T. K. Sawyer (U.S.A.) Dr. Sawyer did not transmit to us the full text of his remarks and there was relatively little discussion of the very important superclass RHIZOPODA, probably because several of the experts concerned with this group were unable to attend the Congress. Consequently, the reader is referred to the abstract published by Dr. Sawyer in Progress in Protozoology, the Congress Proceedings, which were distributed among the participants at the registration desk in Warsaw. The only person who made extensive remarks in connection with RHIZOPODA was Prof. J. B. J a d i n. His most interesting presentation was entitled "Relation entre protozoaires, bactéries et virus." Superclass ACTINOPODA Calkins, 1909 Discussants Prof. J. B. Jadin (Belgium)- Prof. J. J. Lee (U.S.A.) Speaker Discussants Prof. C. Bardele (Fed. Prof. J. J. Lee (U.S.A.) Rep. Germany) Dr. D. J. Patterson (U.K.> Prof. Bardele expressed his full agreement with the views of the absent Dr. Merinfeld (see Merinfeld 1981) that ACTINOPODA do not represent a natural assemblage, but rather have to be regarded as an artificial taxon. According to Prof. Bardele, only those species presently available for cytologic analysis by modern methods should be employed in all future considerations of the organisms now included among ACTINOPODA. The species that have not been located and examined since the turn of the century ought to be excluded from such considerations. The speaker listed a series of characteristics he considers useful in the analysis of phylogenetic relationships among the actinopods: (a) asexual reproduction — binary or multiple fission; (b) location of the division spindle and the type of polar bodies present during mitosis; (c) sex- http://rcin.org.pl
Page 1 and 2: POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NENCKI I
Page 3 and 4: PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY Proceeding
Page 5 and 6: INTRODUCTORY REMARKS This Part II o
Page 9 and 10: 183 In his abstract Mignot (1981) s
Page 11 and 12: PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PR
Page 13 and 14: 187 algae by phycologists (Bourelly
Page 15: PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PR
Page 21 and 22: 195 The foregoing subdivisions of A
Page 35 and 36: 209 vine et al. 1980), there is no
Page 39 and 40: 213 evidence for the assumption of
Page 41 and 42: REFERENCES 215 Bardele C. F. 1977:
Page 47 and 48: THE TAXONOMIC POSITION OF EVGLENIDA
Page 51 and 52: 225 brate cycle in vitro. Further c
Page 53 and 54: 227 could support the development o
Page 55 and 56: 229 for the development of methods
Page 57 and 58: IN VITRO CULTIVATION OF PARASITIC P
Page 59 and 60: Malaria IN VITRO CULTIVATION OF PAR
Page 61 and 62: IN VITRO CULTIVATION OF PARASITIC P
Page 63 and 64: 237 Rai Choudhuri A. N.. Chowdhuri
Page 67 and 68:
241 Only those with 9-type 1 fronto
Page 69 and 70:
PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY Proceeding
Page 71 and 72:
THE MOLECULAR DIVERSITY OF TETRAHYM
Page 73 and 74:
247 in eukaryotes. It is about the
Page 75 and 76:
Table 2 Mating species of Tetrahyme
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Table 8 Percentage of DNA reanneali
Page 85 and 86:
259 pattern; they do confirm our ju
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Table 13 Two-dimensional electropho
Page 91 and 92:
265 Cuny M., Milet M. and Hayes D.
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
MEMBRANE FUSIONS IN PROTOZOA 269 It
Page 97 and 98:
Table 1 Characterization of exocyto
Page 99 and 100:
Fig. 3. Freeze fractured trichocyst
Page 101 and 102:
* 1 ^MBBHBBHBBBBI jgf'- Fig. 5. Tan
Page 103 and 104:
273 the preliminary designation "co
Page 105 and 106:
MEMBRANE FUSIONS IN PROTOZOA 275 ba
Page 107 and 108:
277 B i 1 i n s k i M., Plattner H.
Page 109 and 110:
LIST OF SCIENTIFIC REPORTS presente
Page 111 and 112:
281 structure and cytochemistry of
Page 113 and 114:
283 LIST OF SCIENTIFIC REPORTS A. P
Page 115 and 116:
285 LIST OF SCIENTIFIC REPORTS R. G
Page 117 and 118:
287 LIST OF SCIENTIFIC REPORTS K. G
Page 119 and 120:
LIST OF SCIENTIFIC REPORTS 289 R. A
Page 121 and 122:
291 LIST OF SCIENTIFIC REPORTS magn
Page 123 and 124:
293 Co-Chairman: Jan Kućera, Czech
Page 125 and 126:
295 LIST OF SCIENTIFIC REPORTS for
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION AMONG P
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
http://rcin.org.pl
Page 141 and 142:
LONDON 1965 http://rcin.org.pl
Page 143 and 144:
LENINGRAD 1969 http://rcin.org.pl
Page 145 and 146:
CLERMONT-FERRAND 1973 http://rcin.o
Page 147 and 148:
WARSAW 1981 http://rcin.org.pl
Page 149:
CONTENTS Introductory Remarks 179 B
show all

PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY

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

Delete template?

Save as template?