Amphileptus procerus ( Penard, 1922 ) Song & Wilbert, 1989
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3760.4.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:A2E3A664-E992-40AB-8327-59998302652D |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6127127 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/AA61DC68-FFBC-032D-FF43-FCBEFB9AF95C |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Amphileptus procerus ( Penard, 1922 ) Song & Wilbert, 1989 |
status |
|
Amphileptus procerus ( Penard, 1922) Song & Wilbert, 1989 View in CoL
Amphileptus procera View in CoL — Matis & Tirjaková 1992: 51.
Amphileptus procerus View in CoL — Matis & Tirjaková 1995: 247; Tirjaková 1997b: 27; Tirjaková 1998: 15; Tirjaková 2001: 15; Baláži & Matis 2002b: 8; Tirjaková 2006: 9; Tirjaková & Vďačný 2013a: 670.
Hemiophrys procera View in CoL — Matis 1961: 772.
Litonotus procerus View in CoL — Tirjaková 1993: 134.
Main morphological characters (according to Song & Wilbert 1989 and Foissner et al. 1995). Length 200– 800 µm in vivo. Body fusiform, posteriorly tail-like; highly contractile. Two macronuclear nodules with a single micronucleus in between. Many scattered contractile vacuoles. Extrusomes rod-like, about 10 µm long, scattered in cytoplasm and forming an anterior cluster in oral bulge. Somatic ciliary pattern Amphileptus -like; about 25–40 right and 7–13 left kineties.
Morphological and taxonomical notes. According to Matis (1961) up to 200 µm long. However, Penard (1922) and Song & Wilbert (1989) recorded much larger specimens, ranging from 600 to 800 µm in length. On the other hand, the length varies from 200 to 800 µm according to Foissner et al. (1995). Since Matis’ (1961) specimens are at or below the lower size limit, we question their conspecificity with A. procerus . Possibly, they are a misidentified A. proceroformis Song & Wilbert, 1989 .
Distribution. Amphileptus procerus was recorded in Ereč during June and December ( Matis 1961); in the backwaters of the Danube River in Čičov ( Matis & Tirjaková 1992); in the periphyton and benthos of the Turiec River ( Tirjaková 1993); in the littoral zone of the Danube River and its through-flowing river arms near the hydroelectric power structures in Gabčíkovo ( Matis & Tirjaková 1995); in an oligotrophic stream from the National Nature Reserve Rozsutec, Malá Fatra Mts ( Tirjaková 1997b); in the benthos from tributaries of the Hron River ( Tirjaková 1998); in the benthos from Javorový potok stream, High Tatra Mts ( Tirjaková 2001); in the pelagial of the Danube River near Hrušov and of the Váh River near Komárno ( Baláži & Matis 2002b); in the spring area of the Hron River ( Tirjaková 2006); in the sediment from the littoral zone of the upper Váh River ( Tirjaková & Vďačný 2013a).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Amphileptus procerus ( Penard, 1922 ) Song & Wilbert, 1989
Vďačný, Peter & Rajter, Ľubomír 2014 |
Amphileptus procerus
Tirjakova 2013: 670 |
Balazi 2002: 8 |
Tirjakova 2001: 15 |
Tirjakova 1998: 15 |
Tirjakova 1997: 27 |
Matis 1995: 247 |
Litonotus procerus
Tirjakova 1993: 134 |
Amphileptus procera
Matis 1992: 51 |
Hemiophrys procera
Matis 1961: 772 |