Morphologic and molecular description of Metopus fuscus Kahl from North America and new rDNA sequences from seven metopids (Armophorea, Metopidae)
European Journal of Protistology, ISSN: 0932-4739, Vol: 50, Issue: 3, Page: 213-230
2014
- 30Citations
- 854Usage
- 20Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations30
- Citation Indexes30
- 30
- CrossRef27
- Usage854
- Downloads804
- Abstract Views50
- Captures20
- Readers20
- 20
Article Description
Most species in the large ciliate genus Metopus Claparède & Lachmann, 1858 lack detailed descriptions based on modern morphologic and molecular methods. This lack of data for the vast majority of species hampers application of a morphospecies approach to the taxonomy of Metopus and other armophorids. In this report we redescribe the large species, Metopus fuscus Kahl, 1927 based on in vivo observation, silver impregnation, scanning electron microscopy, and single-cell 18S rDNA sequencing of a freshwater North American (Idaho) population. Metopus fuscus invariably has a perinuclear envelope of endosymbiotic bacteria not found in other species. Unlike the original description of a single row of coarse granules between ciliary rows, the Idaho population has five loose rows of small interkinetal granules. We discuss the possible importance of this character in metopids. We also provide a phylogenetic analysis including seven other new metopid 18S rDNA sequences: Brachonella spiralis, B. galeata, Metopus laminarius, M. setosus, M. striatus, M. violaceus, Palmarella lata. Metopus fuscus and M. setosus form a fully supported clade, challenging previous morphospecies groupings. We discuss some ambiguities of armophorid morphologic terminology in the earlier literature. Our phylogenetic analysis of Idaho metopids indicates that the genera Metopus and Brachonella are both nonmonophyletic.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0932473914000121; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejop.2014.01.002; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84897937413&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24882683; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0932473914000121; https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/bio_facpubs/386; https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1385&context=bio_facpubs; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejop.2014.01.002
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know