A Rotifer? [ID'd as Euplotes]

Mitch640 · Post by **Mitch640** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:47 pm

Kind of looks like a Rotifer, but I'm not sure. Captured with a microscope USB Video Camera.

ABEL · Post by **ABEL** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 5:06 am

Hello

It is not a rotifer, this is a ciliate, possibly euplotes

Mitch640 · Post by **Mitch640** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 5:25 am

Thanks Abel. Once I get pointed in the right direction, it's easy to find more of them on Google or YouTube. Definitely an euplotes.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:44 am

Mitch640 wrote:Definitely an euplotes.

Caution is warranted. The reason ABEL says "possibly euplotes" is that there are many ciliates that look quite similar and can be told apart only by experts. Sometimes the distinction comes down to bits of anatomy that don't even show on images like these. It's definitely a ciliate. It might be Euplotes, which is only one genus among many.

--Rik

Mitch640 · Post by **Mitch640** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:58 am

I suppose you could even go further. Just because one person calls it an euplotes, doesn't mean it is either. I mean, who is the final authority, what about genetic drift? I saw that when shooting birds. A Western states Red Tail hawk has shown so much genetic drift it is almost unrecognizable from the Eastern bird. Without a common breeding ground, or individuals moving long distances every year or two, to mix the genes, it happens. I imagine the same thing happens in the bug world, only faster. And you should see the "experts" arguements over the Sharpshinned Hawk and the Coopers.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 10:40 am

Yep. I mentioned the naming issue because it's a recurring theme that newcomers to a field try to nail down ID's too precisely. No offense intended.

--Rik

NikonUser · Post by **NikonUser** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:05 am

The standard way to express uncertainty is to use cf.

So in this instance if identification is not 100% (I have no idea either way)
"A Ciliate cf. Euplotes"

If the genus is known with absolute certainty but you are not 100% certain of the species you would state
e.g., "Daphnia cf. pulex" meaning I know its a Daphnia and I believe it is pulex.

Mitch640 · Post by **Mitch640** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:12 am

No offense intended.

None taken, and identification is really secondary to me. Nice to know what ballpark it's in, but I am more concerned with getting good images than anything else right now.

ID's, with any certainty, will take years for me. LOL

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:14 am

Also, in addition to book references, you should bookmark the following sites (There are others as well but I find these extremely helpful)

http://starcentral.mbl.edu/microscope/p ... azorganism

http://protist.i.hosei.ac.jp/

http://www.nies.go.jp/chiiki1/protoz/identifi.htm

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:21 am

The standard way to express uncertainty is to use cf.

NU, do you happen to know the etymology of "cf." as used here? I'm used to it in the sense of "compare to" as described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cf.

--Rik

Mitch640 · Post by **Mitch640** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:23 am

Thanks for the links Charles. I am getting a growing collection and already spend a lot of time, just looking through them in the hopes that maybe something will stick in my memory. It's tough though, as I have no background in anything like this. I'm a retired construction worker. Ask me about cement and rebar. LOL

NikonUser · Post by **NikonUser** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:12 pm

rjlittlefield wrote:
The standard way to express uncertainty is to use cf.
NU, do you happen to know the etymology of "cf." as used here? I'm used to it in the sense of "compare to" as described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cf.

--Rik

I believe it is used to mean compare, but not in the sense of differences such compare the taste of an apple with that of an orange; but in the context of comparing things for their similarity.
Some discussion here
http://www.venomdoc.com/forums/viewtopi ... 4897b1042b

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:30 pm

Thanks, NU. I seem to recall having seen "nr." ("near") used in a similar way. But I don't have any references handy for that.

--Rik

NikonUser · Post by **NikonUser** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 4:17 pm

nr is somewhat definitive in that you are implying a close taxonomic relationship, which could be totally erroneous.
cf. is far less definitive,the implication is a close relationship between 'a & b' but in actuality all you are saying is that 'a' looks like 'b' and should be compared to it; it leaves the door open for 'a' not to be closely related to 'b'.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 5:57 pm

That makes sense -- thanks, NU.

--Rik