4.5 Article

Diversity in the genus Skeletonema (Bacillariophyceae).: I.: A reexamination of the type material of s. Costatum with the description of s. Grevillei sp Nov.

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYCOLOGY
卷 41, 期 1, 页码 140-150

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2005.04066.x

关键词

diatoms; morphology; new species; SEM; Skeletonema costatum; S. grevillei; taxonomy; TEM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The type material of Skeletonema costatum (Greville) Cleve was reexamined with the aims of providing an EM description of the species and clarifying which of the recently recognized Skeletonema Greville species, if any, deserves the epithet costatum. Two permanent mounts and two loose samples from the same collections from Hong Kong Bay were examined. Two distinct Skeletonema species were found in all materials. Based on the original description and on the observation of the lectotype, it was concluded that the most abundant morph in the type material is S. costatum. Cells were heavily silicified and 5-16 mum in diameter. The external processes of the fultoportulae in the terminal valves were open tubules with claw-shaped tips. The intercalary fultoportulae processes were closed flattened tubules with a pore at their base, each attached to two processes of the sibling valve (1:2 junction). The rimoportula had a long process and was located marginally in all valves. The second morph in the type material was described as Skeletonema grevillei Sarno et Zingone sp. nov. Cells were delicate, 4-7.5 mum in diameter, and formed short colonies. The fultoportulae processes in the terminal valves were open tubes having narrow tips with truncated or spiny margins. In the intercalary valves, they formed knuckle-like generally 1:1 junctions. A scallop-work of silica bridges joined the bases of the processes. The rimoportula was marginal in all valves. Neither S. costatum nor S. grevillei match any Skeletonema species that have been recently analyzed by combined morphological and molecular approaches.

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

4.5
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