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

Centropyxiella arenaria

  Centropyxiella arenaria , after Valkanov, 1970   Centropyxiella arenaria  Valkanov, 1970 Diagnosis: Test with almost parallel sides, covered with mineral grains; length varying strongly,

Read More »

Centropyxiella

  Genus Centropyxiella  Valkanov, 1970 Diagnosis: Test with plagiostome, embedded with xenosomes. Border of the pseudostome bent outwardly, in contrary to Centropyxis where the border

Read More »

Centropyxis armata

  Centropyxis armata, after Van Oye, 1952   Centropyxis armata  (Van Oye, 1952) n. comb.Basionym: Cyclopyxis armata Van Oye, 1952 Diagnosis: Test chitinoid, with relatively long

Read More »

Archerella elliptica

  Archerella elliptica, after Van Oye, 1956   Archerella elliptica  (Decloitre, 1974) n. comb.Basionym: Ditrema elliptica Decloitre, 1974   Diagnosis: Test elliptical with two apertures. Dimensions:

Read More »

Archerella jollyi

  Archerella jollyi, after Van Oye, 1956   Archerella jollyi  (Van Oye, 1956) n. comb.Basionym: Amphitrema jollyi Van Oye, 1956   Diagnosis: This species differs

Read More »