4.0 Article

A New Clade, Based on Partial LSU rDNA Sequences, of Unarmoured Dinoflagellates

期刊

PROTIST
卷 164, 期 5, 页码 673-685

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.protis.2013.07.002

关键词

Acrobase; Ceratoperidinium; Gymnodiniales; LSU rDNA; phylogeny; unarmoured

资金

  1. project DEVOTES (DEVelopment Of innovative Tools for understanding marine biodiversity and assessing good Environmental Status)
  2. European Union under the 7th Framework Programme, 'The Ocean for Tomorrow' Theme [308392]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The order Gymnodiniales comprises unarmoured dinoflagellates. However, the lack of sequences hindered determining the phylogenetic positions and systematic relationships of several gymnodinioid taxa. In this study, a monophyletic clade was defined for the species Ceratoperidinium margalefii Loeblich III, Gyrodinium falcatum Kofoid & Swezy, three Cochlodinium species, and two Gymnodinium-like dinoflagellates. Despite their substantial morphotypic differentiation, Cochlodinium cf. helix, G. falcatum and 'Gymnodinium' sp. 1 share a common shape of the acrobase. The phylogenetic data led to the following conclusions: (1) C. margalefii is closely related to several unarmoured dinoflagellates. Its sulcus shape has been observed for the first time. (2) G. falcatum was erroneously assigned to the genus Gyrodinium and is transferred to Ceratoperidinium (C. falcatum (Kofoid & Swezy) Rene & de Salas comb. nov.). (3) The genus Cochlodinium is polyphyletic and thus artificial; our data support its separation into three different genera. (4) The two Gymnodinium-like species could not be morphologically or phylogenetically related to any other gymnodinioid species sequenced to date. While not all studied species have been definitively transferred to the correct genus, our study is a step forward in the classification of inconspicuous unarmoured dinoflagellates. The family Ceratoperidiniaeceae and the genus Ceratoperidinium are emended. (c) 2013 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

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

4.0
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