PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY

More documents

Recommendations

Info

198 B. M. HONIGBERG 1. Morphological, especially fine-structural, features are, as indicated by Prof. Scholtyseck, the principal bases for separation of the higher protozoan taxa. It is the presence of the apical complex that helps in placing a newly discovered organism in the phylum API- COMPLEXA. This structural characteristic can be recognized rather quickly. On the other hand, finding all stages of a life cycle might take months, years, or, indeed a lifetime of an investigator; 2. It is now generally accepted that the main, or even the only structural pattern found among the members of the phylum APICOM- PLEXA is the one characteristic of the class SPOROZOA Leuckart, 1879, or even of the suborder EIMERIINA Léger, 1911. This limited view can be seen in the diagrams of the apical complex included in the majority of the more recent reports. The presence or absence of the •conoid or the number and position of rhoptries and of subpellicular microtubules are the features often used for separation of the members of the phylum under consideration. However, this approach is not rational. The structural organization may vary far more, e.g., Dermocystidium marinum or Spiromonas. Yet the presence of a trilaminar pellicle, or a micropore, or rhoptries etc. can be considered sufficient for inclusion of an organism among APICOMPLEXA, even though any of these structures by itself may not constitute sufficient grounds for assigning a protozoon to SPOROZOA; 3. Dissimilarity in life cycles of organisms having similar structure does not preclude their assignment to APICOMPLEXA. For example, until the late 1960's or early 1970's the life cycles of genera such as Toxoplasma, Sarcocystis, or Besnoitia were considered as distinct from those typical of SPOROZOA. The more recent fine-structural findings indicated the need for inclusion of these genera in APICOMPLEXA, albeit not in SPOROZOA. Subsequent studies of their life cycles showed that Toxoplasma and the related genera belonged together with Eimeria, Isospora, and Plasmodium in the order EUCOCCIDIIDA Léger et Dubosq, 1910; they are considered now as members of the suborder EIMERIINA Léger, 1911. According to Dr. Beyer, the situation cited by her for Toxoplasma may apply also to Dermocystidium (= Perkinsus) marinum, the life cycle of which is incompletely understood. Thus, it is impossible to include the latter genus in SPOROZOA. However, the presence of apical structures in Perkinsus, although strikingly different from those of "typical" coccidia, provides a sufficient reason for placing this organism in API- COMPLEXA. Further studies are needed before a definite position in this phylum is found for the heretofore neglected genus Perkinsus. The discussant expressed no opinion about placing this genus in L e v i n e's (1978) class PERKINSEA. (It should be noted here that several of the http://rcin.org.pl
PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PROTOZOA 199 panel members supported Prof. D e s s e r's view-point with regard to Levine's class. They agreed with the former that there are problems even with placing Perkinsus in APICOMPLEXA.) As far as the piroplasmids are concerned, Dr. Beyer, like the previous speakers, emphasized the fact that until now there has been found much more similarity between the piroplasmids and haemosporidians in their ultrastructure than in their life cycles. She also supported Prof. Scholtyseck in separating the piroplasms from SPO- ROZOA. The last discussant was Prof. KRYLOV who submitted the following remarks on, and scheme of classification of the phylum SPORO- ZOA Leuckart, 1879 emend. Krylov et Dobrovolsky, 1980 (he does not accept the name APICOMPLEXA Levine, 1970). His presentation was taken from the chapter which he and A. A. Dobrovolsky contributed to the book on higher taxa of Protozoa (see below). According to the discussant, SPOROZOA have the following structural characters: (a) trilaminar pellicle in "migrating stages" (merozoites or sporozoites); (b) ultracytostome (micropore); (c) polar rings; (d) subpellicular microtubules; (e) conoid; (f) rhoptries and micronemes. According to the principles formulated by Cuvier as early as in 1817, SPOROZOA, with a common plan of organization, should be placed in a separate animal phylum. Within the limits of this phylum Prof. Krylov recognizes three large groups: 1. Class PERKINSEMORPHA Levine, 1978 emend. Krylov, 1980. Orders with features characteristic of all sporozoans; with flagellated vegetative stages; 2. Class GREGARINOMORPHA Dufour, 1928 emend. Krylov et Dobrovolsky, 1980. Gametogenesis similar in both sexes; 3. Class COCCIDIOMORPHA Doflein, 1901 emend. Krylov, 1980 Gametogenesis usually different in male and female gametes. The discussant believes that the class COCCIDIOMORPHA includes two phylogenetically different groups of orders. These groups are placed in two subclasses: 1. Subclass COCCIDIOMORPHINA Doflein, 1901 emend. Krylov, 1980 — Order 1. AGAMOCOCCIDIIDA Levine, 1979 — Order 2. PROTOCOCCIDIIDA Kheisin, 1956 — Order 3. COCCIDIIDA Labb
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 21 and 22: 195 The foregoing subdivisions of A
Page 23: PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PR
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 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:
THE MOLECULAR DIVERSITY OF TETRAHYM
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:
PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY Proceeding
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:
PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY Proceeding
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?