Nacktamöbe - vermutlich Chaos diffluens

Begonnen von Henner1, Juli 08, 2012, 17:38:11 NACHMITTAGS

Vorheriges Thema - Nächstes Thema

Henner1

Auch diese Amöbe entstammt einer meiner Erd-Wasser-Kulturen. Die Aufnahme entstand mit Phasenkontrast unter 400x Vergrößerung mit dem Bresser Researcher Trino. Die Bestimmung ist leider nicht ganz eindeutig, ich vermute jedoch aufgrund der Ausbildung der Pseudopodien und dem Fließverhalten, dass es sich um ein Exemplar der Art Chaos diffluens handelt.


Ferry

Hallo Henner,

Chaos diffluens ist eine Phantasiename. Sie besteht nicht (mehr). Deine Amöbe ist eine Mayorella-Art. Sehe z. B.  http://www.arcella.nl/mayorella

Herzliche Grüße,

Ferry
www.arcella.nl
www.natuurfotografie.info

Henner1

Hallo Ferry,

danke für die Bestimmungshilfe und den Literaturhinweis.

LG Hendrik

JB

Hi Ferry,

Do you know what happend to the species name of Chaos diffluens (OF Mueller, 1786) Schaeffer, 1926 = Proteus diffluens OF Mueller, 1786 ?

http://carnegiescience.edu/publications_online/amebas/default.html

Kind regards,

Jon

Holger Adelmann

Hallo Jon,

soweit ich weiss war Chaos diffluens ein alter Name der heute obsolet ist. Es gibt wohl noch den Genus-Namen Chaos, aber die neue Bezeichnung fuer das gleiche Wesen ist wohl Amoeba proteus.

Herzliche Gruesse
Holger


Ferry

Hallo Jon,

Holger is right. The original name was Proteus diffluens, Müller, 1786, changed by Schaeffer, 1926, into Chaos diffluens, but later considered to be a synonym of Amoeba proteus. The name "proteus" has priority over the name "diffluens" according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, because it was described earlier, in 1766 by Pallas as Volvox Proteus.

Regards,

Ferry
www.arcella.nl
www.natuurfotografie.info

JB

Hello Holger and Ferry,

Thank you for the clarification. So Volvox chaos Linne, 1758 = Volvox proteus Pallas, 1766 = Chaos chaos Linne, 1767 = Amoeba proteus Leidy, 1879.

Just one question: Schaeffer (1926) pointed out that what he called Chaos diffluens (OF Mueller, 1786) had just "1 discoid nucleus" while the other species (his Chaos chaos (Linne, 1758) Linne, 1767) had "numerous" nuclei (Ref. p. 47).

Has it been shown by culture or by DNA evidence that the two forms are really part of the same species?

Greetings,

Jon

Ferry

Hi Jon,

ZitatHas it been shown by culture or by DNA evidence that the two forms are really part of the same species?

But why should they be identical? You question is, I guess: is Schaeffers Chaos diffluens identical with his Chaos chaos? I don't think so, but we will never know.

Regards,

Ferry 
www.arcella.nl
www.natuurfotografie.info

JB

Hi Ferry,

"Your question is, I guess: is Schaeffer's Chaos diffluens identical with his Chaos chaos?"

Exactly! As you said, this is hard to know :)

However, if the large amoeba with the single nucleus (etc.) was a separate species, then Chaos diffluens would not be a synonym of Amoeba proteus. It would be interesting to know if anybody has investigated this in more detail.

Kind regards,

Jon

Ferry

Hi Jon,

I'm sure that microscopists in the 18e century couldn't detect a nucleus, or even had the faintest idea what is was, IF they could see such a particle. And the number of nuclei is the crucial distinction between Amoeba and Chaos. Without observing and describing that characteristic, we will never know what those pioneers really saw. And without that knowledge Chaos diffluens remains a synonym for Amoeba proteus.

Regards,

Ferry
www.arcella.nl
www.natuurfotografie.info

JB

#10
Thanks!

Kind regards,

Jon