

Moderators: Chris S., Pau, Beatsy, rjlittlefield, ChrisR
That doesn't seem to be a very good division, though; most subsequent work have found those all nested together. See for instance Shao et al., available here, as an example. So personally I'd stick with calling them all Euplotes for the time being; but if it is freshwater, I think the only species that get so large are all part of the Euplotoides subgroup.Bruce Taylor wrote:Traditionally, this ciliate is called Euplotes. About 20 years ago, the genus was divided, so if we accept the new taxonomy we can only say this is a member of the family Euplotidae, and might be either Euplotes, Euplotoides, Euplotopsis or Moneuplotes (depending on the number and arrangement of ventral cirri and the "silverline" pattern in the pellicle).
Thanks, Josh, I hadn't read that! Euplotoides & Moneuplotes seem to have held up reasonably well, but you're right...better to stick with the old names until it gets sorted out.actinophrys wrote:See for instance Shao et al., available here, as an example. So personally I'd stick with calling them all Euplotes for the time being; but if it is freshwater, I think the only species that get so large are all part of the Euplotoides subgroup.