Microworld

world of amoeboid organisms

Menu
Paralieberkuehnia elegantula
P. 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 Sphagnum, but also in small streams.

Video: I made this video from material which came from the Geul, a small stream at the border of Belgium and the Netherlands. This cell shows anastomosing 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 have seen numerous shells of P. 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 have never observed in P. elegans sensu Penard.
At this moment, I think that the 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 at one hand and Microgromia and Apogromia at the other hand is that Paralieberkuehnia specimens are not 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

Kibisidytes

K. marinus, after Jepps, 1934 Kibisidytes marinus Jepps, 1934 Diagnosis: Small amoeboid organism occurring in the sea, attached to the surface film or to some

Read More »

Phaeobola

P. aeris from Dumack et al., 2000 Phaeobola Dumack et al., 2000 Diagnosis: Cells roundish to oval shaped. Shell colorless to amber-colored, rough surface, few

Read More »

Rhizaspis armata

R. armata, 68 µm long, excl. spines – Laegieskamp Rhizaspis armata (Lauterborn, 1901) Dumack et al., 2021 Basionym: Pamphagus armatum Lauterborn, 1890 Diagnosis: Theca membranous,

Read More »

Rhizaspis spinosa

The original description with original drawings, Penard, 1890. Rhizaspis spinosa (Penard, 1890) Dumack et al., 2021 Basionym: Trinema spinosum Penard, 1890 Diagnosis: Theca membranous, ovoid

Read More »

Difflugia “pseudoclaviformis”

Difflugia “pseudoclaviformis”, front and side view, 424 µm Difflugia “pseudoclaviformis” Diagnosis: Shell pyriform, compressed, with a more or less pronounced aboral protuberance; shell composed of

Read More »

Difflugia from Lolo Pass

Shells 461-448 µm, stacked image. I found this large en remarkable shells in sediment of a small mountain lake near Lolo Pass, Montana USA. It differs

Read More »

Foraminifer drome

Unknown species, collected from the river Drôme, France, 2021 Unknown species September 2021, I found about ten specimens of an agglutinated foraminifer in a sample

Read More »

Cyclopyxis spec

Cyclopyxis spec., 168 µm Cyclopyxis spec. Diagnosis: Shell circular in ventral and dorsal view, more or less hemispherical in lateral view (height/diameter ≈ 0.5); lateral

Read More »

Difflugia fallax

Difflugia fallax, from Penard, 1902 Difflugia fallax Penard, 1890 Diagnosis: Shell hyaline or yellowish-greenish, black at low magnification, round in cross section, formed of a

Read More »