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

Yogsothoth knorrus

Yogsothoth knorrus, after Shishkin and Zlatogursky, 2018 Yogsothoth knorrus Shishkin and Zlatogursky, 2018 Diagnosis: Individual cells in colony have a diameter of 5.53-13.26 µm; they

Read More »

Yogsothothidae

Yogsothoth carteri, from Shishkin and Zlatogursky, 2018 Yogsothothidae  Shishkin and Zlatogursky, 2018 Diagnosis: Centrohelids covered with two types of tangentially-oriented plate-scales, having a different morphology.

Read More »

Acanthocystis dürrschmidtidae

A. dürrschmidtidae – after Wujek, 2003 Acanthocystis dürrschmidtidae  Wujek, 2003 Diagnosis: Cells 35-40 µm (based on a whole mount). Periplast comprising scales of two types, plate

Read More »

Centroplasthelida

Centroplasthelida Febvre-Chevalier and Febvre, 1984   Diagnosis: Phagotrophic and non-photosynthetic protists with one large spherical or near spherical centrosome at the center of the cell

Read More »

Pterocystida

  Pterocystida Cavalier-Smith and Heyden, 2007 stat. n.   Phylogenetic diagnosis: The least inclusive clade, containing Pterocystis devonica, Raphidiophrys heterophryoidea and Choanocystis curvata, but not Acanthocystis

Read More »

Panacanthocystida

Panacanthocystida Shishkin et Zlatogursky, 2018   Diagnosis: Centrohelids usually covered with siliceous scales or with organic spicules: scale-bearing species with both inner plate-scales and outer

Read More »