Analyses of heliozoan interrelationships: an example of the potentials and limitations of ultrastructural approaches to the study of protistan phylogeny
- 22 April 1986
- journal article
- research article
- Published by The Royal Society in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. B. Biological Sciences
- Vol. 227 (1248) , 325-366
- https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1986.0026
Abstract
Concepts about specific relationships among various groups of protists are diverse and protist taxonomy is consequently unstable. In order to investigate the causes of this variety, data (mainly ultrastructural) relating to 198 characters of 25 species of heliozoa and other protozoa are analysed. Procedures are used which are compatible with numerical taxonomy (single linkage, complete linkage and group average cluster analyses), cladistic procedures (Camin--Sokal, Dollo and Wagner parsimony analyses) and evolutionary taxonomy (an intutive tree). The results are presented as branching diagrams. There is no complete congruence among any of the techniques, but all give similar results in some important aspects. The Wagner and Dollo parsimony analyses give those results which are most credible. The results corroborate the view that several major traditional taxa of protozoa (the heliozoa, flagellates, amoebae and filose amoebae) are polyphyletic and require revision. All of the analyses identify the following clusters: actinophryid heliozoa, centrohelid heliozoa, chrysophyte flagellates, actinomonad and pedinellid flagellates and nucleariid filose amoebae. As there is no disagreement, these are confirmed as monophyletic taxa. There is a strong suggestion for a close relationship between dimorphid flagellates and desmothoracid heliozoa. There is some support for the suggestion that the actinophryid heliozoa are more closely related to actinomonad helioflagellates than to other heliozoa. The results are summarized as an unrooted `true tree'. The lack of agreement among the analyses appears not to be due to a lack of rigour in analytical procedures, but to an inadequate supply of data. The paucity of data cannot be compensated for by the application of repeatable techniques. Most relationships among high level protist taxa are likely to be (currently) obscured by similar limitations. Ultrastructural data are well suited to mapping out the diversity of protozoa. Electron microscopy currently appears to be the most valuable technique for investigating problems of evolutionary relationships of protists. Various hurdles to the development of a natural (phylogenetic) classification of protists are discussed.This publication has 51 references indexed in Scilit:
- The cell characters of two Helioflagellates related to the Centrohelidian lineage:Dimorpha andTetradimorphaDiscover Life, 1984
- Caractéristiques Ultrastructurales de l'HélioflagelleTetradimorpha(Hsiung) et leur Intéret pour l'Etude Phyletique des HéliozoairesThe Journal of Protozoology, 1983
- RadiolariaPublished by Springer Nature ,1983
- FLAGELLA AND THE CELL SURFACEPublished by Elsevier ,1982
- Surface organization and composition of Euglena. II. Flagellar mastigonemesThe Journal of cell biology, 1978
- Organization and Control of Microtubule Pattern in Centrohelidan Heliozoa*†The Journal of Protozoology, 1977
- The fine structure of the centrohelidian Heliozoan Heterophrys marinaCell and tissue research, 1975
- Cell cycle, morphogenesis, and ultrastructure in the pseudoheliozoan clathrulina elegansCell and tissue research, 1972
- A METHOD FOR DEDUCING BRANCHING SEQUENCES IN PHYLOGENYEvolution, 1965
- The Fine Structure of the Heliozoan, Actinosphaerium nucleofilum*The Journal of Protozoology, 1960