I think that this species is quiet different from Nebela gracilis var. stomata by shape of the margin and size. N. gracilis var. stomata has not such a wavy margin and it is much smaller.
I found a few online sources for Ralf’s suggestion that may facilitate discussion:
Original description of Nebela gracilis by Penard can be found here http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/10712428#page/1001/mode/1up
This link will take straight to figure 6 and 7 in plate 8 at the end of book, for description navigate back to page 934.
The variety described by Wailes is on page 157 here http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/32143949#page/209/mode/1up
I paste the text here:
N. gracilis, Penard. (Rev. Suisse Zool. 1910.)
Var. STOMATA, var. nov. (PL 12. figs. 41 & 42.)
This variety differs from the type in the possession of two evaginated
pores, one on either side of the neck. Similar protuberances occur on other
Nebelae, i. e. N. tuberosa and N. americana. Individuals also occur here of a
more slender form than shown in figs. 41 & 42, with a long, slender neck ;
they are below the average size, measuring about 90 um in length.
Length 90-130 um; breadth about half the length or less ; thickness two-
thirds of the breadth ; aperture oval, about 20 um by 13um, slightly notched in narrow view.
Distribution. Peru (l. 107-130 um) ; Long Island, U.S.A. (l. 100-116 um).
If you scroll down a few pages you’ll get to the figures.
Hope this helps.
Morphologically it looks like a Nebela gracilis, perhaps the var. stomata Wailes 1912. If necessary I can send you the description, but copy paste does not work.
I must add here that this species is not closely related (genetically) neither N. penardiana, nor to N. tubulosa (results based on COI sequences)…
This species is perhaps most similar to Nebela penardiana, but differs form it by the wavy side of the shell.
If you have any suggestion or if you have seen this species elsewhere we would be interested in your input!
One possibility that recently surfaced for formalization is ISTAR
becoming a Section of the International Society of Protistologists
(ISOP, website http://www.uga.edu/protozoa/). As usual, there are good reasons to do this, but there are
also possible complications/concerns. We do not fully understand how
everything would work out, but we are in contact with Michael Dolan,
the secretary of ISOP which may be able to answer our questions.
Let's explain the parts we understand:
- while being a Section we remain independent: we continue to have our
website, we organize our own meetings, etc.
- we don't have to go through all the legalese in establishing ISTAR.
We would abide by ISOP constitution and bylaws, so this would be a
relatively painless procedure
- we do not have to worry about electing officers such as President,
Secretary, Treasurer, etc. We only need to elect a steering committee,
which is more appropriate for our small size
- the one condition to being a Section of ISOP is that 30 of our
members are also regular members of ISOP. On the one side this means
not everybody in our Society has to necessarily be a member of ISOP.
On the other side we calculate we have about 15 current members, which
means we would need to ask 15 more people to join ISOP. The 15 people
already ISOP members need to do nothing.
- members of our Society who are also members of ISOP will have full
benefits at ISOP, which among other things means receiving a print
copy of the Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology, and a free copy of the
two volume Illustrated Guide to the Protozoa upon subscription. So in
fact, people will get two societies for the price of one.
- there is a cost to be a member of ISOP (about 90 dollars/year for
regular members, 40 for students, and 20 for corresponding members)
- if we have 30 regular/student members, we get a seat at the ISOP
executive committee. In our understanding this is the key position to
getting funds from them.
- if we do not have 30 regular/student members, but some mixture of
corresponding+regular+student members, we can still be a Section but
do not get a seat at Executive Committee.
- there is a good chance that by becoming a Section of ISOP, we can
organize a Testate Amoeba session at their annual meeting.
- a further advantage is that by being numerous members in ISOP, we can help shape that society according to our needs.
Now, some preliminary concerns have already been raised about this option:
- one major concern is that people would be sending their money to a
larger society, and we have to worry about how this money will return
to us to fund our activities. The main activity we would like to see
funded is our tri-annual meeting. So we would like money to partly
cover the meeting costs, but more importantly, provide travel grants
to students and researchers who are out of funds. Alternatively, we
must think that if we had our own independent Society, we would have
to calculate what amount of income would we actually have to cover
such costs in the three years between meetings. Our preliminary
understanding is that it will be the executive committee officer's job
to make sure we see those funds.
- perhaps most members of ISTAR are more on the ecology side, and
won't have a great benefit by joining ISOP. If a large portion of our
members are not interested in joining ISOP, it really doesn't make
much sense to be a Section.
It is apparent from participation in the website that there is indeed an interest in a formal Society. There are many benefits with the formalization of the Society, most importantly, representation before other entities. However, there are a number of responsibilities and duties that will need to be performed by appointees. We would like to suggest that the moment of formalization is near and these issues need to be discussed in broader terms. We would appreciate some feedback on these issues. A forum thread on the website has been set up so that everyone can contribute to the discussion.
Okay, I've made a Mystery solved section, and included a link to the Ogden and Zivcovic article which is freely available at the Biodiversity Heritage Library!
Thank you Yuri! This does make a lot of sense.
I looked on the Ogden and Zivcovic reference, and Difflugia nodosa was indeed described in Leidy as Difflugia pyriformis var. nodosa, which is the figure I was looking at in Leidy's book.
My images are a perfect match with Ogden and Zivcovic images in page 355, even the cement! Also the dimensions (as far as I remember) fit very well. It seems this has been recorded for North America, Europe, Russia and Africa. Well, now we can add South America to the tally - or maybe it has been recorded already? How about southern Asia?
In any case, thanks so much for the help Yuri, I think I will file this under a "Mystery solved" session in the website, what do you think?
Hi Dan.
These specimens are compressed laterally. I'm sure that both individuals are belong to the same species. It is more or less polymorphic.
Actually it is common species in freshwater sediments.
You can find some information here:
Ogden, C.G., Zivkovic, A. Morphological studies on some Difflugiidae from Yugoslavia (Rhizopoda, Protozoa). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Zoology. Ser. 1983. V. 44. Iss. 6. P 341-375.
Chardez, D. Etude et notes systematiques sur trois thecamoebiens de la section des comprimees. Revue Vervietoise d'Histoire Naturelle. 1981. V. 38. Iss. 1-3. P. 20-24.
Cheers
Yuri.
Thanks Yuri!
Actually these are SEMs from 2 individuals. Fig. 1 is a top view of the specimen in Figure 2. It is really compressed dorso-ventrally (or laterally?), so when I found it on slides I was seeing the wide part, but then by picking it I could realize it was really flat on the other dimension.
If I may ask, do you have a reference for Difflugia nodosa? I don't think I've ever read about this taxon.
Thanks again!
dan
On figs 2,3,4 this is Diffligia nodosa.
Hi all,
I've just noticed that discussion is goin on :)
Thanks for that! The name sounds well for me.
Have good day
Mariusz
Hi all, I thought we could discuss about the identity of the amoeba featured in the Twilight Zone. Thanks in advance!
Following the suggestions so far, I've changed every instance I could find into the singular form.
If you find inconsistencies somewhere in the website, please correct them to the correct:
International Society for Testate Amoeba Research
Thanks to all who shared their opinion!
I agree with Richard…
Dear all,
Thanks to everybody who has contributed to the setting up of the society and website thus far, sterling work!
On the name front I like the 'International Society for Testate Amoeba Research' suggestion, the 'ISTAR' acronym rolls off the tongue nicely. My understanding is that amoeba should be in the singular. Try substituting in the plural form of other organisms with more familiar plural forms- 'international society of diatoms research' for instance would plainly sound wrong.
cheers,
richard
I also think the singular sounds better. I would use the plural if we were writing "International Society for research on testate amoebae".
Searching on the web reveals many international societies of * research. And in grammatically comparable cases, the rule for the "*" seems to be the singular form (e.g. diatom, stem cell, trace element, UFO, contact lens, eye).
Edward Mitchell
"International Society for Testate Amoebae Research" is fine. JY
Louis,
I'm on your side on this one. I believe using the singular is more appropriate. Even in non-organism centered societies they use singular: "Society for Stem Cell Research".
Perhaps we could consult with a language specialist?
