4.1 Article

Pseudocnidae of archinemerteans (Nemertea, Palaeonemertea) and their implications for nemertean systematics

期刊

JOURNAL OF MORPHOLOGY
卷 279, 期 10, 页码 1444-1454

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmor.20881

关键词

CLSM; proboscis; ultrastructure

资金

  1. Russian Science Foundation [14-50-00034]
  2. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [18-04-00704]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The structure of pseudocnidae of 16 species of Palaeonemertea clade Archinemertea (= Cephalotrichida s.l.) was investigated with confocal laser, scanning, and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). All species of the genus Cephalothrix possess two kinds of pseudocnidae, large and small. Only one type of pseudocnida is present in Balionemertes and Cephalotrichella. TEM revealed variation in the ultrastructure of large and small pseudocnidae of four species of Cephalothrix. Pseudocnidae of Balionemertes, Cephalotrichella, and Cephalothrix differ in substructure: in Balionemertes and Cephalotrichella the medulla is located in the basal half of the pseudocnidae with a precore layer situated in the apical half, whereas in Cephalothrix spp. and other palaeonemerteans the medulla surrounds a precore layer. Our results confirm the division of archinemerteans into Cephalotrichidae (with genus Cephalothrix) and Cephalotrichellidae (with genera Cephalotrichella and Balionemertes). The synapomorphy of Cephalotrichidae is pseudocnida dimorphism and the synapomorphies of Cephalotrichellidae are the position of the pseudocnidae on epithelial ridges and the distinct organization of pseudocnida layers, specifically the relative position of the medulla and precore layers. The pseudocnida lateral process, one or more of which is present in most species observed, is a probable synapomorphy of the clade Archinemertea. This is the first application of pseudocnida features to distinguish super-generic nemertean taxa and the results suggest that pseudocnidae provide a useful source of characters for nemertean systematics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据