Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:46:24.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Reinvestigation by Light and Electron Microscopy of Ruttnera Spectabilis Geitler (Haptophyceae), with Special Reference to the Fine Structure of the Zoids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

J. C. Green  and
Mary Parke
J. C. Green
Affiliation:
The Laboratory, Marine Biological Association, Citadel Hill, Plymouth
Mary Parke
Affiliation:
The Laboratory, Marine Biological Association, Citadel Hill, Plymouth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Within the Chromophyta (sensu Christensen, 1962) a number of genera having benthic phases in which the vegetative cells are embedded in masses of thick, sometimes stratified mucilage, have been described from both marine and freshwater habitats. Examples include Gloeochrysis Pasch. (Pascher, 1925), Geochrysis Pasch. (Pascher, 1931), Sarcinochrysis Geitl. (Geitler, 1930), Chrysotila Anand (Anand, 1937) and Ruttnera Geitl. (Geitler, 1942). In many cases the vegetative stages are so similar morphologically as to be almost indistinguishable, especially in the juvenile condition in which the cells are often arranged in regular blocks (the ‘Sarcinochrysis’ condition) and under such circumstances it is difficult to ascertain their true systematic relationships.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , August 1974 , pp. 539 - 550
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1974

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

REFERENCES

Allen, E. J. & Nelson, E. W., 1910. On the artificial culture of marine plankton organisms. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 8, 421–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anand, P. L., 1937. A taxonomic study of the algae of British chalk-cliffs. Journal of Botany, British and Foreign, 75, Suppl. 2, 1–51.Google Scholar
Baker, J. R. J. & Evans, L. V., 1973. The ship-fouling alga Ectocarpus. I. Ultrastructure and cyto-chemistry of plurilocular reproductive stages. Protoplasma, 77, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourrelly, P., 1957. Recherches sur les Chrysophycées. Morphologie, Phylogénie, Systématique. Revue algologique, Mémoire Hors-Série No. 1, 1–412.Google Scholar
Bourrelly, P., 1968. Les algues jaunes et brunes, Chrysophycées, Phéophycées, Xanthophycées et Diatomées. Les algues d'eau douce: initiation à la systématique, 2, 438 pp. Paris: Boubée.Google Scholar
Bourrelly, P. & Magne, F., 1953. Deux nouvelles especes de Chrysophycées marines. Revue générate de Botanique, 60, 684–7.Google Scholar
Callow, M. E. & Evans, L. V., 1973. Mucilage production by the unicellular red alga Rhodella. British Phycological Journal, 8, 206.Google Scholar
Carter, N., 1937. New or interesting algae from brackish water. Archiv fur Protistenkunde, 90, 1–68.Google Scholar
Christensen, T., 1962. (2nd Edition 1966). Alger. In: Botanik, Eds. T. W. Bocher, M. Lange and T. Serenson (Systemati sk Botanik), 2, No. 2, 1–178. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Chu, S. P., 1942. The influence of mineral composition of the medium on the growth of plank-tonic algae. Journal of Ecology, 30, 284–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritsch, F. E., 1935. The structure and reproduction of the Algae, 1, xvii, 791 pp. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gayral, P., 1972. Sur les Chrysophycées à zoïdes phéophycéens, notamment Sarcinochrysis marina Geitler. Bulletin. Société phycologique de France, 17, 40–5.Google Scholar
Geitler, L., 1930. Ein grünes Filarplasmodium und andere neue Protisten. Archiv für Protistenkunde, 69, 615–36.Google Scholar
Geitler, L., 1942. Neue luftlebige Algen aus Wien. österreichische botanische Zeitschrift, 91,49–51.Google Scholar
Geitler, L., 1943. Eine neue atmophytische Chrysophycee, Ruttnera spectabilis, nov. gen., nova spec. Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie u Hydrographie, 43, 100–9.Google Scholar
Green, J. C., 1973. Studies in the fine structure and taxonomy of flagellates in the genus Pavlova. II. A freshwater representative, Pavlova granifera (Mack) comb. nov. British Phycological Journal, 8, 1–12.Google Scholar
Green, J. C. & Manton, I., 1970. Studies in the fine structure and taxonomy of flagellates in the genus Pavlova. I. A revision of Pavlova gyrans, the type species. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 50, 1113–30.Google Scholar
Kornmann, P., 1955. Beobachtungen an Phaeocystis - Kulturen. Helgoländer wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen, 5, 218–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagerheim, G., 1893. Phaeocystis, nov. gen., grundadt på Tetraspora Poucheti Har. Botaniska notiser, 1893, 32–3.Google Scholar
Magne, F., 1954. Les Chrysophycées marines de la Station Biologique de Roscoff. Revue générate de Botanique, 61, 389–416.Google Scholar
Manton, I., 1967. Further observations on the fine structure of Chrysochromulina chiton with special reference to the haptonema, ‘peculiar’ Golgi structure and scale production. Journal of Cell Science, 2, 265–272.Google Scholar
Manton, I. & Peterfi, L. S., 1969. Observations on the fine structure of coccoliths, scales and the protoplast of a freshwater coccolithophorid, Hymenomonas roseola Stein, with supplementary observations on the protoplast of Cricosphaera carterae. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B, 172, 1–15.Google Scholar
Parke, M., 1949. Studies on marine flagellates. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 28, 255–86.Google Scholar
Parke, M., 1971. The production of calcareous elements by benthic algae belonging to the class Haptophyceae (Chrysophyta). In: Proceedings of the II Planktonic Conference, Rome 1970, Ed. A., Farinacci, 2, 929–37. Rome, Edizioni Tecnoscienza.Google Scholar
Parke, M. & Dixon, P. S., 1964. A revised check-list of British marine algae. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 44, 499–542.Google Scholar
Parke, M., Green, J. C. & Manton, I., 1971. Observations on the fine structure of zoids of the genus Phaeocystis (Haptophyceae). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 51, 927–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, B. C. & Diboll, A. G., 1966. Alcian stains for histochemical localization of acid and sulfated polysaccharides in algae. Phycologia, 6, 37–46.Google Scholar
Pascher, A., 1925. Die braune Algenreihe der Chrysophyceen. Archiv für Protistenkunde, 52, 489–564.Google Scholar
Pascher, A., 1931. Eine braune, aërophile Gallertalge und ihre Einrichtungen für die Verbreitung durch den Wind. Beihefte zum Botanischen Zentralblatt, 47, 325–45.Google Scholar
Pouchet, M. G., 1892. Sur une algue pélagique nouvelle. Compte rendu des séances de la Société de biologie, Sér. IX, 4, 34–6.Google Scholar
Provasoli, L., Mclaughlin, J. J. A. & Droop, M. R., 1957. The development of artificial media for marine algae. Archiv für Mikrobiologie, 25, 392–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scherffel, A., 1900. Phaeocystis globosanov. spec, nebst einigen Betrachtungen über die Phylogenie niederer, insbesondere brauner Organismen. Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen der Kommission zur wissenchaftlichen Untersuchung der deutschen Meere, Abteilung Helgoland, 4, 1–29.Google Scholar
Subrahmanyan, R., 1962. On Ruttnera pringsheimii sp. nov. (Chrysophyceae) from the coastal waters of India. Archiv fiir Mikrobiologie, 42, 219–25.Google Scholar