From pearl at dsi.uanl.mx Tue Oct 3 11:16:25 2006 From: pearl at dsi.uanl.mx (paul earl) Date: Tue Oct 3 12:04:11 2006 Subject: [Protista] Paramecium Message-ID: <45228CD9.9050809@dsi.uanl.mx> Dear Friend in Need, I would like to clean up some odd Paramecium spp. I need data on Dragesco's 4 P. jankowsii, P ugandae, P africanum and P pseudotrichium. Other fugitives are P wichtermani, P arcticum and P dragescoi Aliev, 1990. The reference for P wichtermani is: Mohammed AH, Nashed NN. 1968-69. Paramecium wichtermani n. sp. with notes on other species of Paramecium common in the fresh-water bodies in the area of Cairo and its environs. Bull Zool Soc Egypt 22: 89-104. I cannot find this in Biosis, Pubmed, Zool Record, etc. Help ! I do not have access to Ralph Wicherman's wonderful 1986 book. The Dragesco 1970 reference is An Fac Sci Yaound? 1-141. Of course, I need only the Paramecium figures & text. Two other Dragesco are: An Fac Sci Cameroun 9: 87-126, 1972, and Fauna Tropicale 26: 1-559, 1986. I have a new P. sp in Mexico. Nearest neighbor (!) is Texan P sonneborni Aufderheide, Daggett & Nerad, 1983 (ref. ID; 4061 original paper). of the aurelia complex. I need all dimensions. Example: anterior to buccal cavity. This is ALL the information I have except for Dragesco's 1970 drawings found at http://www.bondy.ird.fr/pleins_textes/pleins_textes_6/Idt/00554.pdf#search=%22dragesco%2C%20protozoaires%2C%20pdf%22 Measurements can be taken off drawings. As this method was good enough for Renn? Descartes, it's simply good enough till something better comes along. Note that aurelia complex species cannot be told apart by using 18S rDNA, yet some can be easily discriminated morphometrically. Thank you for your kind attention to these requests. My Very Best, Paul R. Earl Repeated: http://www.bondy.ird.fr/pleins_textes/pleins_textes_6/Idt/00554.pdf#search=%22dragesco%2C%20protozoaires%2C%20pdf%22 From pearl at dsi.uanl.mx Thu Oct 5 11:49:19 2006 From: pearl at dsi.uanl.mx (paul earl) Date: Thu Oct 5 15:04:44 2006 Subject: [Protista] Paramecium tric Message-ID: <4525378F.90600@dsi.uanl.mx> Dear Reader, Paramecium trichium Stokes, 1885 is not a synonym of P. putrinum Claparede & Lachmann, 1858-59 since it is smaller and also its MI is smaller. See Wenrich DH (J Morph Physiol 43: 81-103, 1926). The original descriptions have length 83 for P. trichium and 105 ?m for P. putrinum. By Wenrich's measurements, P. trichium has: 85 L, 34 W, 20 MAL and 10 MAW, single, compact MI of 3 ?m, round yet sometimes oval. P. putrinum has about 4.5 ?m for MI..Y. Tsukii gave 91 x 44 microns for P. trichium from Japan. See http://protist.i.hosei.ac.jp/pdb/Images/Ciliophora/Paramecium/trichium/trichium_02.html Kudo (1966 but not forgotten!) gave 80-150 for P. putrinum. This average is (80 + 150)/2) = 115 ?m. The MA of P. putrinum is 25 x 15 ?m. We have 4 possible groups as greater than100 ?m L or less, and greater than 4 ?m MI or less. Figure 1 after Wenrich, 1926, including "pocketing" of the MA surface. Attached. Wenrich wrote, "It is quite impossible to harmonize these varying descriptions of P. putrinum with each other or with the known characters of P. trichium. I am inclined to believe that the species described by Schewiakoff, Roux, and Alvarez are all different species, while that of B?tschli is probably identical with P. trichium." Schewiakoff's species was about 130 ?m L. Currently, paramecia less than 100 ?m long are called P. putrinum that are P. trichium. Best, Paul R Earl -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DHwenrich.doc Type: application/msword Size: 86528 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/protista/attachments/20061005/534223da/DHwenrich-0001.bin From pearl at dsi.uanl.mx Mon Oct 9 11:11:05 2006 From: pearl at dsi.uanl.mx (paul earl) Date: Mon Oct 9 11:29:28 2006 Subject: [Protista] No macronuclear regeneration Message-ID: <452A7499.4050202@dsi.uanl.mx> It is long known that the process of macronuclear regeneration in Paramecium aurelia is a mistake. Misreading the sequence of stages in stained slides caused this error. See Sonneborn (Adv Gen 1: 263-358, 1947), and the most excellent modern view of macronuclear (MA) development by M Nowacki et al (Curr Biol15:1616–1628, 2005.). Both green fluorencent protein and FISH are very much underused in ciliate studies. When the MA starts to break down, a signal has gone through saying, "wrong genotype for the old MA." If "same genotype" is the signal, the old genotype can stay and thereby compete with any other MA anlagen. Resorption of the old MA without fragmentation is possible, yet seems unlikely. When MA fragments appear only in exconjugants the wrong genotype signal might have come from the synkarion. All this is speculation just as MA regeneration is. Paul R Earl From kloetzel at umbc.edu Mon Oct 9 12:20:19 2006 From: kloetzel at umbc.edu (john kloetzel) Date: Mon Oct 9 12:24:15 2006 Subject: [Protista] No macronuclear regeneration In-Reply-To: <452A7499.4050202@dsi.uanl.mx> References: <452A7499.4050202@dsi.uanl.mx> Message-ID: Paul, I realize you speak of Paramecium here. But one case in which Mac regeneration in a ciliate has been shown (clearly, I think, albeit cytologically) is in Euplotes. Check my 1981 paper in J. Protozoology 28:108-116. In this case regeneration of the old Mac was induced by UV irradiation of the Anlage, preventing its development. The resultant cells should be heterokaryons, with parental Mac and F1 Mic. John Kloetzel On Oct 9, 2006, at 12:11 PM, paul earl wrote: > It is long known that the process of macronuclear regeneration in > Paramecium aurelia is a mistake. Misreading the sequence of stages in > stained slides caused this error. See Sonneborn (Adv Gen 1: 263-358, > 1947), and the most excellent modern view of macronuclear (MA) > development by M Nowacki et al (Curr Biol15:1616–1628, 2005.). Both > green fluorencent protein and FISH are very much underused in ciliate > studies. > > When the MA starts to break down, a signal has gone through saying, > "wrong genotype for the old MA." If "same genotype" is the signal, the > old genotype can stay and thereby compete with any other MA anlagen. > Resorption of the old MA without fragmentation is possible, yet seems > unlikely. When MA fragments appear only in exconjugants the wrong > genotype signal might have come from the synkarion. All this is > speculation just as MA regeneration is. > > Paul R Earl > > > _______________________________________________ > Protista mailing list > Protista@net.bio.net > http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/protista > **JAK** ************************************************************************ ******* John A. Kloetzel, Ph.D. Department of Biological Sciences University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) 1000 Hilltop Circle Baltimore, MD 21250-0000 USA Phone: (410) 455-2247 or -3913 (Lab) Fax: (410) 455-3857 ************************************************************************ ******* -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1987 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/protista/attachments/20061009/ca4aa515/attachment.bin From jonathan.rubery from oup.com Thu Oct 12 05:24:55 2006 From: jonathan.rubery from oup.com (RUBERY, Jonathan) Date: Thu Oct 12 07:55:02 2006 Subject: [Protista] Oxford University Press, Microbial Eukaryotes Message-ID: Dear Protista, Please would it be possible to post the following message to all list members: ----------------------------------------------------------- Dear Prostista Member, Oxford University Press is proud to announce the recent publication of the following book: Genomics and Evolution of Microbial Eukaryotes by Laura A. Katz and Debashish Bhattacharya. To find out more about this book and to order a copy please click on the following link http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780198569749 If you would like to know more about OUP books, and would like us to keep you up-to-date on new books and journal contents please sign up to our news services at www.oup.com/uk/emailnews ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks, Jonathan Jonathan Rubery Assistant Marketing Manager, Sciences Academic Sciences Department Great Clarendon Street Oxford OX2 6DP +44 (0) 1865 35 4795 direct line +44 (0) 1865 35 3680 fax email: jonathan.rubery@oup.com www.oup.com SCIENCE ENEWS Sign up to our science e-mail news service and receive regular special discount offers and to be kept updated on books publishing in your field http://www.oup.co.uk/academic/science/emailnews Oxford University Press Publisher & Distributor of the Year 2005 and 2006 Awarded by the Academic, Specialist, and Professional Group of the UK Booksellers Association P Please consider the environment before printing this email -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/protista/attachments/20061012/240fa50c/attachment.html From martin from umce.ca Sat Oct 14 05:12:44 2006 From: martin from umce.ca (Martin) Date: Sat Oct 14 15:19:26 2006 Subject: [Protista] Is it a rotifer ? Message-ID: Hello, I know this posting is not appropriate here but protistologists are in a better position than most biologists to give a sound advice about organisms living in the microscopical world. So, I recently found in a small freshwater pond something that is probably a rotifer but one of a special kind I never saw before. If somebody could give me a hint about its exact nature, that would be greatly appreciated. The beast (photos and a movie) can be seen on: http://www.umce.ca/cours/martin/microscopy Thanks in advance. Marti From martin from umce.ca Mon Oct 16 04:59:36 2006 From: martin from umce.ca (Martin) Date: Mon Oct 16 08:28:49 2006 Subject: [Protista] Re: Is it a rotifer ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As a matter of fact, this organism was a rotifer of the genus Collotheca. Thanks to Dr. Nomdedeu. Thereafter, I was able to find a lot of infos about that genus on the web (even very nice movies of different species). I will try to determine the species with some publications and papers on rotifers in Canada of which I found the references. Martin Martin a ?crit : > Hello, > > I know this posting is not appropriate here but protistologists are in a > better position than most biologists to give a sound advice about > organisms living in the microscopical world. > > So, I recently found in a small freshwater pond something that is > probably a rotifer but one of a special kind I never saw before. If > somebody could give me a hint about its exact nature, that would be > greatly appreciated. > > The beast (photos and a movie) can be seen on: > http://www.umce.ca/cours/martin/microscopy > > Thanks in advance. > Marti > From martin from umce.ca Mon Oct 16 05:32:53 2006 From: martin from umce.ca (Martin) Date: Mon Oct 16 08:29:06 2006 Subject: [Protista] Re: Is it a rotifer ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Collotheca ornata is a name suggested by Dr. Nomdedeu and this site http://www.cladocera.de/rotifera/taxonomy/col.html shows photos of this species which is quite similar to what I saw. Martin Martin a ?crit : > Hello, > > I know this posting is not appropriate here but protistologists are in a > better position than most biologists to give a sound advice about > organisms living in the microscopical world. > > So, I recently found in a small freshwater pond something that is > probably a rotifer but one of a special kind I never saw before. If > somebody could give me a hint about its exact nature, that would be > greatly appreciated. > > The beast (photos and a movie) can be seen on: > http://www.umce.ca/cours/martin/microscopy > > Thanks in advance. > Marti >