4.7 Article

The downsizing of gigantic scales and large cells in the genus Mallomonas (Synurales, Chrysophyceae)

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-09006-1

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [EAR-1725265, EAR-1940070]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mallomonas is the largest and most speciose genus within the Synurales. Recent discoveries of fossil species have shown that their scales and cell size were larger than those of modern species. These fossils were likely slow swimmers and required significant energy to maintain their position in the water column.
Mallomonas is the largest and most speciose genus within the Synurales, a monophyletic clade of siliceous scale-bearing organisms within the class Chrysophyceae. The genus consists of unicellular, motile, photosynthetic organisms found in freshwater localities worldwide. Mallomonas diverged from other synurophytes during the lower Cretaceous at approximately 130 Ma. Recent discoveries of fossil species were used to examine shifts in scale and cell size over geologic time. On average, scales of fossil species were 2.5 times larger than those produced by modern species. However, a smaller subset of extinct fossil taxa lacking modern analogs had scales over four times larger than modern species, and the largest recorded specimens were six times larger. Data from modern species were further used to develop a model relating scale size to cell size, and applied to the fossil specimens. Based on the model, the mean size of fossil cells was almost twice as long and 50% wider compared to modern species, and cells of taxa lacking modern analogs close to three times as large. These large cells, covered with robust siliceous scales, were likely slow swimmers requiring significant energy to maintain their position in the water column, and possibly prone to increased predation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available