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

Centropyxis tropica

C. tropica, after Deflandre, 1929 Centropyxis tropica  Deflandre, 1929 Basionym: Centropyxis aculeata var. tropica Deflandre, 1929 Diagnosis: As for C. aculeata, but with much longer

Read More »

Centropyxis nauwercki

Centropyxis nauwercki, after Schönborn, 1975 Centropyxis nauwercki  Schönborn, 1975 Diagnosis: Shell divided by a ring groove into a highly convex, balloon-shaped fundus part and a

Read More »

Centropyxis pontifera

Centropyxis pontifera, after Bartos, 1963 Centropyxis pontifera  Bartos, 1963 Diagnosis: Test large, broadly oval, formed of a thick, solid, brownish-yellow organic matter. Test with many

Read More »

Centropyxis pyriformis

Centropyxis pyriformis, after Van Oye, 1958 Centropyxis pyriformis  Van Oye, 1958 Diagnosis: This species is distinguished from C. aculeata by its narrowed shape towards the

Read More »

Centropyxis dentistoma

Centropyxis dentistoma, after Decloitre, 1949 Centropyxis dentistoma  Decloitre, 1949 Basionym: Centropyxis aculeata var. dentistoma Decloitre, 1949 Diagnosis: Pseudostome lobed, with 4 to 7 sharp teeth,

Read More »

Centropyxis compressa

Centropyxis compressa, after Van Oye, 1948 Centropyxis compressa  Van Oye, 1948 Diagnosis: Test a little elongated and very flattened regularly, like that of Arcella discoides;

Read More »

Centropyxis lata

Centropyxis lata, after Jung, 1942 Centropyxis lata  Jung, 1942 Diagnosis: Shell coarse-scaled, covered with a mix of diatoms and detritus; pseudostome large, ventral side mostly

Read More »

Centropyxis aurita

Centropyxis aurita, after Laminger, 1973 Centropyxis aurita  Laminger, 1973 Diagnosis: In ventral view, the shell is more or less broadly ovoid in outline. Quite straight truncated

Read More »

Centropyxis grelli

Centropyxis grelli, after Laminger, 1973 Centropyxis grelli  Laminger, 1973 Diagnosis: Shell covered with relatively large mineral particles. The pseudostome outline is formed by two convex arches.

Read More »

Centropyxis adami

Centropyxis adami, after Laminger, 1971 Centropyxis adami  Laminger, 1971 Diagnosis: In ventral view, the outline of the shell is more or less elliptical, in side

Read More »