PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J O Corliss

Publications and source records attributed to J O Corliss.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1992

Should there be a separate code of nomenclature for the protists?

The present Botanical and Zoological Codes of Nomenclature are often inadequate for resolution of all the peculiar problems caused by the very nature of the numerous and diverse groups of the so-called 'lower' eukaryotic organisms known as protists. Whether or not a separate code should therefore be created for these species--many but not all of which are unicellular in structure and microscopic in size--is complicated by several factors. The principal one is related to the wide dispersal of protists throughout many taxonomic classes and phyla/divisions; sometimes even multiple kingdoms are involved. If recognition of a single kingdom Protista is no longer tenable, then even the concept of one code per kingdom is not applicable. Other difficulties arise primarily from long-standing differences in major provisions of present Botanical and Zoological Codes. Numerous 'ambiregnal' forms exist, species currently under dual code jurisdiction. The matter of names for suprafamilial taxa of protists, irrespective of their ultimate kingdom assignment, poses another set of concerns not yet resolved. A plea is made to recognize the legitimacy of having distinct high-level ranks for protist species that seem to be widely separated phylogenetically from fellow protists or from other eukaryotic assemblages.

Animals↗
PubMed1988

The quest for the ancestor of the Ciliophora: a brief review of the continuing problem.

Although the assumption has long been made that the Ciliophora arose from flagellates, limited progress has been made in determining exactly what extant group - flagellate or other - may best resemble the ancestral "preciliate" assemblage. The distinctiveness of the ciliates and of the many protist phyla containing flagellated stages in their life cycles makes the recognition of potentially homologous features difficult. The suggestion that there may be a phylogenetic relationship between dinoflagellates and ciliates, while seeming unlikely from consideration of a number of specialized characters, is attracting increased attention. This is because some basic similarities (possibly shared derived characters) are characteristic of many species from both groups: cortical alveoli, tubular mitochondrial cristae, kinetidal systems, acentric mitoses with persisting nuclear envelope, functional cytostome, extrusomes (mucocytsts and explosive trichocysts), locomotory organelles, and small subunit rRNAs (close structural similarity values). But many questions remain unanalyzed or unanswered, and caution is still advisable in drawing any firm conclusions about the evolutionary closeness of ciliates and dinoflagellates.

Animals↗
PubMed1984

The kingdom Protista and its 45 phyla.

Because most recent treatments of the protists ('lower' eukaryotes comprising the kingdom PROTISTA Haeckel, 1866) have been preoccupied with either a 'phylogenetic-tree' approach or a discussion of the impact of possible endosymbiotic origins of major intracellular organelles, the overall systematics of the group, from taxonomic and nomenclatural points of view, has been almost totally neglected. As a result, confusion over contained phyla, their places in a classification scheme, and even their names (and authorships) is growing; the situation could become chaotic. The principal objective of the present paper is to recognize the taxonomic interrelationships among all protist groups; and it includes the specific proposal that some 45 phyla, defined and characterized, be assigned to 18 supraphyletic assemblages within the kingdom PROTISTA (itself redefined and contrasted with the other eukaryotic kingdoms recognized here: ANIMALIA, PLANTAE and FUNGI). Vernacular terms are employed for identification of the 18 assemblages, but defensible formal names are proposed at the level of phylum. None is presented as new: authorship-and-date credits are given to preceding workers on the taxonomy of the many groups involved. By presenting taxonomic characterizations as well as relevant nomenclatural data for each taxon described, a comprehensive scheme of overall higher-level classification within the kingdom emerges that may be considered to serve as a solid base or 'taking-off point' for future discussions. The 18 supraphyletic groups and their phyla (in parentheses and including authorships and dates of their formal names) are as follows: I. The rhizopods (phyla Karyoblastea Margulis, 1974; Amoebozoa Lühe, 1913; Acrasia Van Tieghem, 1880; Eumycetozoa Zopf, 1885; Plasmodiophorea Zopf, 1885; Granuloreticulosa De Saedeleer, 1934; incertae sedis Xenophyophora Schulze, 1904). II. The mastigomycetes (Hypochytridiomycota Sparrow, 1959; Oomycota Winter, 1897; incert. sed. Chytridiomycota Sparrow, 1959). III. The chlorobionts (Chlorophyta Pascher, 1914; Prasinophyta Christensen, 1962; Conjugatophyta Engler, 1892; Charophyta Rabenhorst, 1863; incert. sed. Glaucophyta Bohlin, 1901). IV. The euglenozoa (Euglenophyta Pascher, 1931; Kinetoplastidea Honigberg, 1963; incert. sed. Pseudociliata Corliss & Lipscomb, 1982). V. The rhodophytes (Rhodophyta Rabenhorst, 1863). VI. The cryptomonads (Cryptophyta Pascher, 1914). VII. The choanoflagellates (Choanoflagellata Kent, 1880).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Animals↗
PubMed1981

What are the taxonomic and evolutionary relationships of the Protozoa to the Protista?

In order to consider the problems of protist-protozoan interrelationships in proper perspective, a new "packaging" of phyla within the great kingdom Protista is proposed. Although it is based largely on historical groupings and is admittedly "unnatural" (nor are taxonomic names proposed for my five supraphyletic groupings), the arrangement may clarify some long-persisting problems, especially with regard to mixed algal-protozoan groups and/or phylogenies. Some three dozen phyla are recognized as comprising the kingdom, with the number that might be considered as "protozoan" ranging from 10 to 25, depending on one's viewpoint. No taxon should have the formal name "Protozoa", "Phytoflagellate" and "zooflagellate" are also misleading categories. Taxonomic and evolutionary relationships of phyla containing protozoa (with small "p") are inextricably intermeshed with those of other protist phyla, and thus no unified protozoan super-group exists.

Animals↗
PubMed1980

A newly revised classification of the protozoa.

The subkingdom Protozoa now inclues over 65,000 named species, of which over half are fossil and approximately 10,000 are parasitic. Among living species, this includes approximately 250 parasitic and 11,300 free-living sarcodines (of which approximately 4,600 are foraminiferids); approximately 1,8000 parasitic and 5,100 free-living flagellates; approximately 5,600 parasitic "Sporozoa" (including Apicomplexa, Microspora, Myxospora, and Ascetospora); and approximately 2,5000 parasitic and 4,700 free-living ciliates. There are undoubtedly thousands more still unnamed. Seven phyla of PROTOZOA are accepted in this classification--SARCOMASTIGOPHORA, LABYRINTHOMORPHA, APICOMPLEXA, MICROSPORA, ASCETOSPORA, MYXOSPORA, and CILIOPHORA. Diagnoses are given for these and for all higher taxa through suborders, and reporesentative genera of each are named. The present scheme is a considerable revision of the Society's 1964 classification, which was prepared at a time when perhaps 48,000 species had been named. It has been necessitated by the acquisition of a great deal of nex taxonomic information, much of it through electron microscopy. It is hoped that the present classification incorporatesmost of the major changes that will be made for some time, and that it will be used for many years by both protozoologist and non-protozoologists.

Animals↗
PubMed1980

Method for coding data on protozoan strains for computers.

Traditionally, observations on the nature of protozoa have been published in periodicals or books, or remain buried in research notebooks. The retrieval and processing of information on a particular species or strain are dependent solely upon individual investigators. Although various modern methods have been applied to the study of protozoa, no attempt has been made to develop a system with which information on protozoan strains can be stored, retrieved easily, and processed for various analyses by computer technology. Based upon an existing system for encoding data on bacterial strains, a complementary system applicable to protozoan strains was developed and is described herein.

Animals↗
PubMed1976

Search for clues to the evolutionary meaning of ciliate phylogeny.

Progress in ciliatology and in allied fields may demystify ciliate phylogenetics. Concentration on hymenostomes (mainly Tetrahymena and Paramecium) may have obscured directional features of ciliate physiology in phylogenetic problems. Therefore, means are suggested for "domesticating" the presumptively primitive, predominantly marine, sand-dwelling gymnostomes having nondividing macronuclei. The prize quarry is the marine psammophile Stephanopogon whose homokaryotic condition may mark it as a living fossil. Eventual axenic cultivation of these "primitive" ciliates may be aided by use as food of easily grown photosynthetic prokaryotes, some isolated from the marine sulfuretum or adjacent aerobic muds and sands where "karyorelictid" ciliates flourish.

Acetates↗
PubMed1975

Nuclear characteristics and phylogeny in the protistan phylum Ciliophora.

Ciliates possess a number of nuclear characteristics which, in combination, are unique among the Protista. Nevertheless, attempts to understand the origin - presumably from a flagellate ancestry - of the Ciliophora as a phylum must be made, as well as efforts to elucidate phylogenetic pathways within the large and diverse assemblage represented by its present-day forms. The macronucleus may provide an important clue to early ciliate phylogeny, since we still have, among extant species, groups of distinct "karyological relicts" exhibiting the very features expected in hypothetical forms corresponding to postulated stages in macronuclear origin and evolution. The relationship of the groups of "relict" species to the predominant polyploid-macronucleate forms, with a direct impact on the classification system as well as ciliate evolution and phylogeny in general, is discussed in some detail. Arguments are presented for taxonomic separation of the relatively primitive homokaryotic and diploid-macronucleate forms, which also share other features in common related to their being members of the interstitial fauna, from the more advanced ciliates. The problem is complicated by the non-nuclear structural complexities of these sand-dwelling forms, apparently secondarily-derived specializations which, by convergence, have come to resemble certain non-homologous features of the allegedly more highly evolved groups.

Biological Evolution↗
PubMed1975

Three centuries of protozoology: a brief tribute to its founding father, A. van Leeuwenhoek of Delft.

It was exactly 300 years ago this month (August 1974) that the 17th century modest draper from Delft, Holland--Antony van Leeuwenhoek--discovered protozoa. Describing them, often with amazing accuracy considering the optical equipment he was using (simply a home-made "glorified" hand lens), in letters to the Royal Society of London, he established himself, certainly, as the founding father of protozoology. It is particularly appropriate for an assemblage of protozoologists to pay homage to this intrepid "philosopher in little things," a man with an insatiable curiosity about his wee animalcules, on the tricentenary of his discovery of them, since it was an event of such long-lasting significance.

Eukaryota↗