PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY
PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY
206 B. M. HONIGBERG by light microscopy, were considered sufficient for proposing interrelationships among the suprafamilial taxa of ciliates. The advent of electron microscopy in particular (see history in Corliss 1974) has allowed a revolution not only in taxonomy and classification but also in our ideas concerning affinities and evolutionary lines among these protozoa. New methodologies of data analysis are now available (phenetics, cladistics, etc.) as well as the new technological and cytological approaches: outstanding examples at this Congress would include Dr. B a r d e- 1 e's precise and patient use of the freeze-fracture technique and Dr. L y n n's application of his own "Structural Conservatism Hypothesis." Others have emphasized what the discussant likes to call the "Constellation of Characters Hypothesis;" Drs. Bar dele and Lynn also subscribe to this latter approach. The intriguing case of Stephanopogon can be used as a striking example of the value of ultrastructural studies and of treating numerous data by computer analysis. Most of the data Dr. Corliss mentioned — and the half-dozen slides he showed were results of a study now being concluded at the University of Maryland by Ms. Diana Lipscomb. Stephanopogon has, for a whole century, been recognized and classified as a "relatively simple marine benthic gymnostome ciliate". In a recent book (Corliss 1979), a new order, PRIMOCILIATIDA, was even erected for it. Electron microscopical studies, however, reveal that it not only does not show such major and essentially unique ciliate characters as pellicular alveoli, parasomal sacs, kinetodesmata, and transverse and posticiliary ribbons of microtubules (universally associated with ciliate kinetosomes) but does show such "lower" flagellate features as mitochondrial cristae that are discoidal, a single kind of nucleus with single large central endosome or nucleolus (with "promitotic" type of division), a symmetrogenic mode of fission, a desmose running between adjacent basal bodies, and a subpellicular sheet of microtubules. Stephanopogon possesses also some characters found in both ciliate and flagellate groups, as well as several totally unique features of its own. A cladistic analysis of 136 characters, as found (present or absent) in some 34 taxa of flagellated (or ciliated) high-level protozoan groups, reveals that Stephanopogon belongs in some supraordinal taxon that also includes both the trypanosomatids (former "lower zooflagellates") and the euglenids (former "green algae"). (Ms. Lipscomb and the discussant will be publishing details soon, elsewhere, including proposal of a unique order for this "ciliate-turned-flagellate.") http://rcin.org.pl
PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PROTOZOA 207 DO PROTOZOA CONSTITUTE A "NATURAL" SUBKINGDOM? Speakers Prof. J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.) Prof. G. I. Poljansky (U.S.S.R.) Discussants Prof. P. C. C. Garnham (U.K.) Prof. B. M. Hoinigberg (U.S.A.) Prof. W. Michajlow (Poland) Prof. F. J. R. Taylor (Canada) The final section of the Round Table Discussion was devoted to the much discussed and controversial question of the subkingdom PROTO- ZOA. Two of the most eminent students of protozoa were invited to present arguments for and against the premise that the "unicellular" organisms constitute a "natural" subkingdom of the kingdom ANIMA- LIA. The discussants were also senior scientists who have previously published on this or related subjects. The following remarks were made by Profs. CORLISS and POL- JANSKY, which they summarized in the papers they transmitted to me for inclusion in this report (B.M.H.). The following text of Prof. CORLISS is given with only minor editorial changes. We've heard and seen examples throughout papers given at this Congress and especially by the "group-experts" who have participated in this Round-Table Discussion, of what is happening with respect to the systematic arrangements and evolutionary interrelationships among various major protozoan taxa. But no one has yet pinpointed the causes for what may seem to be "pure chaos" to the "conservative majority" among practicing protozoologists. The number one point, certainly, is that we're in the middle of a continuing flood of new and exciting data on the protozoa, much of it being of an ultrastruetural or biochemical-molecular nature. We have improved methodologies for analysis of numerous comparative data. We are facing up — or need to do so — to the reality, even the practicality, of treating protozoan groups within the larger context of the kingdom PROTISTA, a major taxon of the biotic world containing numerous other (than protozoan) unicellular eukaryotic forms classifiable into separate classes or phyla. Every taxonomic protozoologist, although a specialist on his or her own group, should today be aware of the prokaryote-eukaryote story (eukaryogenesis), the serial endosymbiosis theory of Dr. Lynn M a rg u 1 i s, and the value of recognizing the PROTISTA as separate from the multicellular eukaryotes [kingdoms PLANTAE, MYCETAE (fungi), and ANIMALIA]. 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 7 and 8: PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY Proceeding
- 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 and 16: PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PR
- Page 17 and 18: PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PR
- Page 19 and 20: PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PR
- Page 21 and 22: 195 The foregoing subdivisions of A
- Page 23 and 24: PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PR
- Page 25 and 26: PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PR
- Page 27 and 28: PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PR
- Page 29 and 30: PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PR
- Page 31: PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PR
- Page 35 and 36: 209 vine et al. 1980), there is no
- Page 37 and 38: PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PR
- Page 39 and 40: 213 evidence for the assumption of
- Page 41 and 42: REFERENCES 215 Bardele C. F. 1977:
- Page 43 and 44: PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PR
- Page 45 and 46: PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY Proceeding
- Page 47 and 48: THE TAXONOMIC POSITION OF EVGLENIDA
- Page 49 and 50: PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY Proceeding
- 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 65 and 66: PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY Proceeding
- 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: THE MOLECULAR DIVERSITY OF TETRAHYM
- Page 79 and 80: THE MOLECULAR DIVERSITY OF TETRAHYM
- Page 81 and 82: THE MOLECULAR DIVERSITY OF TETRAHYM
PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PROTOZOA 207<br />
DO PROTOZOA CONSTITUTE A "NATURAL" SUBK<strong>IN</strong>GDOM?<br />
Speakers<br />
Prof. J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.)<br />
Prof. G. I. Poljansky<br />
(U.S.S.R.)<br />
Discussants<br />
Prof. P. C. C. Garnham (U.K.)<br />
Prof. B. M. Hoinigberg (U.S.A.)<br />
Prof. W. Michajlow (Poland)<br />
Prof. F. J. R. Taylor (Canada)<br />
The final section of the Round Table Discussion was devoted to the<br />
much discussed and controversial question of the subkingdom PROTO-<br />
ZOA. Two of the most eminent students of protozoa were invited to<br />
present arguments for and against the premise that the "unicellular"<br />
organisms constitute a "natural" subkingdom of the kingdom ANIMA-<br />
LIA. The discussants were also senior scientists who have previously<br />
published on this or related subjects.<br />
The following remarks were made by Profs. CORLISS and POL-<br />
JANSKY, which they summarized in the papers they transmitted to<br />
me for inclusion in this report (B.M.H.).<br />
The following text of Prof. CORLISS is given with only minor editorial<br />
changes.<br />
We've heard and seen examples throughout papers given at this<br />
Congress and especially by the "group-experts" who have participated<br />
in this Round-Table Discussion, of what is happening with respect<br />
to the systematic arrangements and evolutionary interrelationships<br />
among various major protozoan taxa. But no one has yet pinpointed the<br />
causes for what may seem to be "pure chaos" to the "conservative<br />
majority" among practicing protozoologists.<br />
The number one point, certainly, is that we're in the middle of<br />
a continuing flood of new and exciting data on the protozoa, much of<br />
it being of an ultrastruetural or biochemical-molecular nature. We have<br />
improved methodologies for analysis of numerous comparative data. We<br />
are facing up — or need to do so — to the reality, even the practicality,<br />
of treating protozoan groups within the larger context of the kingdom<br />
PROTISTA, a major taxon of the biotic world containing numerous<br />
other (than protozoan) unicellular eukaryotic forms classifiable into<br />
separate classes or phyla.<br />
Every taxonomic protozoologist, although a specialist on his or her<br />
own group, should today be aware of the prokaryote-eukaryote story<br />
(eukaryogenesis), the serial endosymbiosis theory of Dr. Lynn M a rg<br />
u 1 i s, and the value of recognizing the PROTISTA as separate from<br />
the multicellular eukaryotes [kingdoms PLANTAE, MYCETAE (fungi),<br />
and ANIMALIA].<br />
http://rcin.org.pl
Change language