Microworld

world of amoeboid organisms

Menu
Paralieberkuehnia elegantula
Paralieberkuehnia elegantula, Crailoo, Netherlands

 

Genus Paralieberkuehnia De Saedeleer 1934

Diagnosis: Shell spherical to slightly ovoid, with distinct tubular neck, composed of an organic material, very fine granulated, without any embedded xenosomes; colorless to yellow-brown till dark-brown. Cytoplasm with an asymmetrical bundle of filopodia (peduncle or “Pseudopodienstiel”) which are granular (extrusomes),  thin, usually straight, and are able to branch and anastomose, thus forming a network or reticulum. Nucleus relatively large, globular with a central nucleolus. One or two contractile vacuoles.

Ecology: freshwater; shallow, iron rich water, between Spagnum, but also in small rivers.

Video: I made this video from material which came from the Geul, a small river at the border of Belgium and the Netherlands. This cell shows anastomising filopodia.

Remarks: The designation of genus Paralieberkuehnia is problematic. It was erected by De Saedeleer in 1934 for P. elegantula (Penard, 1904) which he made the type species. Penard describes his species based on the observation of three specimens from two different localities. The shell is as Penard writes “a perfect sphere” with a small tubular neck. De Saedeleer also found three similar specimens, however with an inner tubular structure. He states that Penard may have overlooked that structure.
De Saedeleer writes that Paralieberkuehnia is a free living and locomotive species, while Microgromia-species attach their shell  to the substrate. That is what I think makes any sense. But De Saedeleer doesn’t mention this characteristic in his diagnosis! The main difference between Microgromia and Paralieberkuehnia is, according to De Saedeleer, the presence of an inward tubular structure in the latter.
I’v seen numerous shells of L. elegans sensu Penard, but only twice shells with an inner tubular structure. I thinks those are different species, because the specimens with an inner tubular structure showed much more a reticulum, which I’ve never seen in L. elegans sensu Penard.
At this moment I think that genus Paralieberkuehnia is characterized by a spherical, non attached shell with straight free moving granulopodia, while Microgromia species have an attached shell with granulopodia appressed to the substrate.
I found this species in Waidring, Austria, Belgium and at several locations in the Netherlands.
An important difference between Paralieberkuehnia and Microgromia and Apogromia is that Paralieberkuehnia specimens aren’t attached to the substrate, while the other groups are sessile forms. You can often find specimens of Microgromia and Apogromia, and also Microcometes, attached to the cover glass. Their granulopodia are lying on the substrate, while Paralieberkuehnia specimens hang freely and stretch their granulopodia freely in the water around.

Paralieberkuehnia elegantula
Paralieberkuehnia elegantula
P. elegantula, after Penard, 1904 and after De Saedeleer, 1934
Paralieberkuehnia elegantula
Paralieberkuehnia elegantula
P. elegantula, after Hoogenraad and De Groot, 1940
Paralieberkuehnia elegantula
Shell with an inward tubular structure
Lieberkuehnia elegantula
Shell with an inward tubular structure
Recent posts

Penardochlamys arcelloides

P. arcelloides – after Penard, 1904 Penardochlamys arcelloides  (Penard, 1904) Deflandre, 1953 Diagnosis: Colorless or very slightly yellowish envelope, bag or cauldron-shaped, very thin, chitinous,

Read More »

Haplomyxa spec

Fig. 1: Main cell body of specimen A, partly hidden by debris Haplomyxa sp. Three specimens were observed in a Petri dish, along with two

Read More »

Lachmannia spec.

“Lachmannia” spec., body length 127 µm “Lachmannia” spec. I found two cells, size about 125 µm when ovoid, with an organic-walled membranous test and a

Read More »

Diplophrys spec. 7

Diplophrys spec., with three tufts of filopodia Diplophrys spec. These cells are granular, never seen before. I found them in a sample from the Bert

Read More »

Psammonobiotus spec.

I found this specimen in a sample from the Oppad, near Hilversum, 2020. It is similar to Psammonobiotus linearis, but lacks a clear spine at

Read More »

Sphenoderia compressa

Sphenoderia compressa, after Badewitz, 2002 Sphenoderia compressa Badewitz, 2002 Diagnosis: Test ovoid, oval in cross section, hyaline, covered with relatively small, oval, rather irregularly arranged

Read More »