world of amoeboid organisms

Menu
Euglypha cabrolae
4 Eugypha rotunda var. minor: apertural scale (5) and detail of the test (6); 7 Euglypha hyalina: apertural scale (8) and detail of the test (9); 10 Euglypha capsiosa: apertural scales (11-12) and detail of the test (13) – after Coûteaux, 1978

Euglypha rotunda  var. minor Wailes,

Coûteaux (1978): “Out of twenty individuals observed in scanning electron microscopy, three types of Euglypha correspond to the description of the small Euglypha rotunda. They can be distinguished from each other by characters which appear clearly in scanning electron microscopy: these traits are mainly the shape and number of scales around the pseudostome and the body, and the number and position of teeth present on the internal surface of the apertural scales. It is difficult to say which of these three forms corresponds to Euglypha rotunda var. minor since the characters used for their distinction could not be observed. Netzel (1972) in a work on Euglypha rotunda published a photo whose characters (shape of the scales of the pseudostome and the body, correspond to the type of PL III, E (in Coûteaux 1978). Only the size is different. It is therefore possible to define Euglypha rotunda var. minor as follows:”

Diagnosis: Test ovoid, little or no laterally compressed. Eight diamond-shaped apertural scales, almost as wide as they are long, and characterized at their distal end by a finger-shaped structure; the largest width is half the length. On the inner side, there is a median hook at the tip of the scale and two pairs of side hooks located in its anterior third. All hooks are straightened outward and forward. The length/width ratio is 1.37. Test scales: 8 rows visible in width, 6 in length, elongated, almost rectangular.

Dimensions: (n=2) Test length: 19.6-22.6 µm; width: 12.6-14.3 µm. Apertural scales: length 3.8-3.9 µm, width 2.8 µm. Scales: length: 3.6-3.9 µm, width: 2.8 µm).

Remarks: The other two similar types (E. hyaline and E. capsiosa) are also uncompressed and can not be attached to a species already described. They differ from Euglypha rotunda var. minor by the shape of the scales of the pseudostome and the test, they resemble it by the size and the general shape of the body.

Literature: Coûteaux, M., 1978. Quelques Thécamoebiens du sol de Japon. Rev. Écol. Biol. Sol, 15:1:119-128.

Recent posts

Polychaos spec.

Polychaos spec. Polychaos spec. Diagnosis: Large amoeba with an irregular more or less polypodial shape during slow locomotion; uroid finely papillated, usually very large fasciculate

Read More »

Spiculophrys

Genus Spiculophrys Zlatogursky, 2016 Diagnosis: Centrohelids lacking silica scales but with numerous thin, pointed organic (without any traces of silica) scales tapering towards acute apices. 18S

Read More »

Acanthocystis drakena

From Zlatogursky, 2016 Acanthocystis drakena Zlatogursky, 2016 Diagnosis: Cells are 21.1-30.5 µm (ca. 26.7) in diameter. Cell is covered with oval plate-scales having a margin

Read More »

Choanocystis symna

From Zlatogursky, 2014 Choanocystis symna Zlatogursky, 2014 Diagnosis: Cell body ca. 6.7 µm in diameter. Axopodia three–five times longer than a cell diameter. Plate-scales dumbbell-shaped

Read More »

Acanthocystis costata

From Zlatogursky, 2014 Acanthocystis costata Zlatogursky, 2014 Diagnosis: Cell body ca 9.5 µm in diameter. Axopodia 2–3 times longer than cell diameter. Length of spine-scales

Read More »

Kinetocyst

Left: ultra-structure of a kinetocyst of Raphidiophrys contractilis); right: two kinetocysts in an axopodium. Kinetocysts In centrohelid heliozoa, extrusomes are called kinetocysts, and are present

Read More »