Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:07:17.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distephanus Speculum: Double Skeletons with One Aberrant Partner

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

A. D. Boney
A. D. Boney
Affiliation:
Department of BotanyUniversity of GlasgowGlasgow
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Skeletal form is the key to silicoflagellate taxonomy. Variations in skeleton morphology have been frequently described for the genera Dictyocha and Distephanus (Lemmerman, 1908; Deflandre, 1932; Hovasse, 1932; Frenguelli, 1935; Boney, 1973, 1976), and the wide ranging skeletal variations observed with clonal cultures of Dictyocha fibula Ehrenb. underline the potential plasticity of skeleton formation in this species, (Van Valkenberg & Norris, 1970). Sufficient information now appears available to indicate where taxonomic confusions may arise, particularly when single skeletons are observed either in phytoplankton samples or in fossil deposits. Paired skeletons are predivision stages (Gemeinhardt, 1930; Hovasse, 1932; Marshall, 1934; Boney, 1976). The juxtaposition of the two skeletons in this predivision stage allows a more critical assessment of the taxonomic significance of an aberrant form.

Type
Short Note
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 61 , Issue 4 , November 1981 , pp. 1027 - 1029
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boney, A. D., 1973. Observations on the silicoflagellate Dictyocha speculum Ehrenb. from the Firth of Clyde. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 53, 263–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boney, A. D., 1976. Observations on the silicoflagellate Dictyocha speculum Ehrenb.: double skeletons and mirror-images. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 56, 263–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deflandre, G., 1932. Sur la systématique des silicoflagelles. Bulletin. Société botanique de France, 79, 494–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenguelli, J., 1935. Variaciones de Dictyocha fibula en el Golfo de San Matias. Anales del Museo argentine de ciencias naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadavia’ Buenos Aires, 38, 265–281.Google Scholar
Gemeinhardt, K., 1930. Silicoflagellatae. In Kryptogamen-Flora von Deutschland, Oesterreich und der Schweiz by L., Rabenhorst, vol. 10(2), pp. 1–87. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Hovasse, R., 1932. Contribution a l'etude des silicoflagelles: multiplication, variabilité, hérédité, afnnités. Bulletin biologique de la France et de la Belgique, 66, 448–501.Google Scholar
Lemmerman, C., 1908. Flagellate, Chlorophyceae, Coccosphaerales, und Silicoflagellatae. Nordisches Plankton (Botanischer Teil), part XXI, 26–32.Google Scholar
Marshall, S. M., 1934. The Silicoflagellata and Tintinoidea. Scientific Reports of the Great Barrier Reef Expedition, 4, 623–664.Google Scholar
Van Valkenberg, S. D. & Norris, R. E., 1970. The growth and morphology of the silicoflagellate Dictyocha fibula Ehrenberg in culture. Journal of Phycology, 6, 48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar