[Taxacom] Taxonomic treatment of cyanobacterial endosymbionts

Tony Rees tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 17 17:21:06 CDT 2021


Thanks Ken... for IRMNG I am thinking there are 3 options:

(1) List either or both (probably now not Cyanocyta though) as accepted
names in Cyanophyceae, with their proposed families

(2) List both genera and their containing families as unaccepted names in
Cyanophyceae, do not synonymise

(3) Synonynise (sensu lato) both names with those of their "host" cells in
Glaucophyta, and move the names there.

At present I am inclining towards option (2), but could be persuaded
otherwise by any suitable argument...

Regards - Tony


On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 07:52, Kenneth Kinman via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> Hi Tony,
>         Cyanocyta korschikoffiana was apparently not validly published.
> And although Skujapelta nuda was validly published, I doubt that most
> botanists today would consider it an independent organism.  They seem to be
> very primitive chloroplasts called muroplasts, but apparently totally
> dependent on their hosts.
>                         -----------Ken Kinman
> Cyanocyta was not validly published according to:
> https://lpsn.dsmz.de/species/cyanocyta-korschikoffiana
> Shujapelta was validly published:
> https://lpsn.dsmz.de/species/skujapelta-nuda
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Tony Rees
> via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 3:38 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: [Taxacom] Taxonomic treatment of cyanobacterial endosymbionts
>
> Hi all,
>
> The glaucophycean "algae" Glaucocystis nostochinearum and Cyanophora
> paradoxa contain endosymbionts (cyanelles) resembling blue-green algae
> (Cyanobacteria) that have been separately named in the past (by Hall and
> Claus, 1963) as cyanobacteria in their own right, namely as Skujapelta nuda
> (fam. Skujapeltaceae, order Chroococcales) in Glaucocystis, and Cyanocyta
> korschikoffiana (fam. Cyanocytaceae, order Chroococcales), respectively.
>
> In Index Nominum Genericorum, Skujapelta and Cyanocyta are retained in
> Cyanobacteria, whereas in AlgaeBase (current version) Skujapelta is placed
> in Glaucosphaerales (Rodophyta - not Glaucophyceae) but still in its own
> family, while Cyanocyta is not mentioned.
>
> So here is a puzzle: should the names for the cyanelles, i.e.  Skujapelta
> and  Cyanocyta, be treated as "accepted" names, in their own families,
> within Cyanobacteria, or synonyms of their host names and placed in
> Glaucophyceae? What would you do, if interested in treating these names in
> a system of higher taxonomy?
>
> Comments welcome,
>
> Regards - Tony
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> www.irmng.org<http://www.irmng.org>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
>


More information about the Taxacom mailing list