4.1 Article

Intraclass Evolution and Classification of the Colpodea (Ciliophora)

Journal

JOURNAL OF EUKARYOTIC MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 58, Issue 5, Pages 397-415

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2011.00566.x

Keywords

Bardeliella; cladistics; classification; evolutionary systematics; molecular taxonomy; ontogenesis

Categories

Funding

  1. Austrian Science Foundation (FWF) [20360-B17, 20461-B17]
  2. German Science Foundation (DFG) [STO 414/3-1]
  3. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  4. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P 20360] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Using nine new taxa and statistical inferences based on morphological and molecular data, we analyze the evolution within the class Colpodea. The molecular and cladistic analyses show four well-supported clades: platyophryids, bursariomorphids, cyrtolophosidids, and colpodids. There is a widespread occurrence of homoplasies, affecting even conspicuous morphological characteristics, e. g. the inclusion of the micronucleus in the perinuclear space of the macronucleus. The most distinct changes in the morphological classification are the lack of a basal divergence into two subclasses and the split of the cyrtolophosidids into two main clades, differing mainly by the presence vs. absence of an oral cavity. The most complex clade is that of the colpodids. We partially reconcile the morphological and molecular data using evolutionary systematics, providing a scenario in which the colpodids evolved from a Bardeliella-like ancestor and the genus Colpoda performed an intense adaptive radiation, giving rise to three main clades: Colpodina n. subord., Grossglockneriina, and Bryophryina. Three new taxa are established: Colpodina n. subord., Tillinidae n. fam., and Ottowphryidae n. fam. Colpodean evolution and classification are far from being understood because sequences are lacking for most species and half of their diversity is possibly undescribed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available