the marine alga Tasmanites (pelagica ?)

Images made through a microscope. All subject types.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Franz Neidl
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:59 am
Location: Italy

the marine alga Tasmanites (pelagica ?)

Post by Franz Neidl »

I think this is the marine alga Tasmanites pelagica. Somebody can confirm it? (I am optimistic because in the web there are always some experts - this was my experience some days ago with the polichaeta!)
1 photo (stack with 4 pictures).

Franz

Image

Jacek
Posts: 5357
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 7:00 am
Location: Poland

Post by Jacek »

Franz, long you were gone, a great photo. What lens?

carlos.uruguay
Posts: 5358
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:05 pm
Location: Uruguay - Montevideo - America del Sur
Contact:

Post by carlos.uruguay »

I don't know which algae is it, but the photo is excellent

Ken Ramos
Posts: 7208
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:12 pm
Location: lat=35.4005&lon=-81.9841

Post by Ken Ramos »

That is cool :!: Wonder what all those tiny pores are all about, gas exchange :?:

Ernst Hippe
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:41 am
Location: Germany

Post by Ernst Hippe »

Franz,
according to Hoppenrath et al, Marine Phytoplancton (page 216), 1t could be Halosphaera cf. viridis (Prasinophyceae)? This book shows alo a diatom Actinocyclus sp. (?).
Regards Ernst

Franz Neidl
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:59 am
Location: Italy

Post by Franz Neidl »

Hello Ernst,

thank your for your answer. I don't think so (in the moment!) that this is Halosphaera (viridis?). I find Halospaera (viridis?) always green coloured. Anyway: also Tasmanites is from the Prasinophyceae-family.
Unfortunately I dont have the book from Mona Hoppenrath (I know I should finaly buy it!). Would it be possible for you to scan page 216 and send it to me per email?
Franz

Hello Jacek,
you are asking "what lens". It was a Nikon 40, plan apo.
Franz

RogelioMoreno
Posts: 2977
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Panama

Post by RogelioMoreno »

Nice picture!

Rogelio

Ernst Hippe
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:41 am
Location: Germany

Post by Ernst Hippe »

Hallo Franz,
I made a scan and will send it to you per E-Mail. Please give me the adress per PM.
Regards Ernst

René
Posts: 467
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:22 am

Post by René »

Hi guys,

Franz's image shows a clear double wall. It is therefore Pachysphaera, not Halosphaera (P. pelagica seems to be the obvious choice). As far as I am aware Tasmanites is reserved solely for fossil taxa.

Best wishes, René

BJ
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:53 am
Location: England

Post by BJ »

hello Franz,

i think that your ID of Tasmanites is spot on - one feature is the colour - quite a dull green - not the bright green of Halosphaera for example. Unfortunately I cannot remember the characteristics of the two (? or more ) species.

My recollection is that fossil specimens and recent specimens show identical wall structure and therefore may be considered to be the same organism. Tasmanites was named first and therefore has nomenclatural priority over Pachysphaera.

I am impressed (as I usually am by your photos !) that you managed to get so many of the pores in sharp focus - even with stacking.

Thank you for another interesting post.

Brian

René
Posts: 467
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:22 am

Post by René »

Oh yes, Ernst, good suggestion. Actinocyclus (more specifically A. octonarius) shows the same characteristics to this thingy: a wall which shows fine stripes (which are pores) and more or less scattered pores on the surface. But Actinocyclus is a diatom with green chloroplasts around a clear protoplast (mostly vacuole, I should add). This thing howevver, is a prasinophycean plate with contents that resemble Brussels sprouts :smt019

Best wishes, René

Franz Neidl
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:59 am
Location: Italy

Post by Franz Neidl »

Many thanks to everybody for the vivid discussion. I found some literature in the web about this alga:
According to BOALCH G.T. there is not distinction between the fossil and the recent alga (Pachysphaera pelagica). Therefore the right name is Tasmanites pelagica (as also Brian is saying):
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1 ... 3400203923

about the distiction between Pachysphaera pelagica and Pachysphaera marsshalliae Teyssedre, B., Les algues vertes..., Annexe Nr. 5 (2006) is writing "PARKE (1966) a décrit avec precision le phycome de Pachysphaera....... Pour le specimen rapportés à Pachysphaera marshalliae ces pores sont de deux calibres différants alors que ceux de P. pelagica sont tous du meme calibre. C'est d'après ce critère que PARKE (1966) a distingué les deux espèces" 33-34.
http://paleopolis.rediris.es/cg/CG2006_BOOK_01/

My conclusion: I think that this alga is Tasmanites pelagica.

Franz

René
Posts: 467
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:22 am

Post by René »

Hmm, taxonomy has this annoying tendency to evolve at at way quicker pace than the organisms it describes. Under the Saint Louis Code, Boalch's suggestion has been reversed some 10 years ago: http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclature/c ... c3a011.htm, Ex. 28

Best wishes, René

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic