Something else we forgot to remember …

The story of the mysterious red alga that I wrote about a couple of weeks ago (see “More than just an insignificant dot?”) has taken another intriguing turn.   Having decided that the alga was probably Audouinella pygmaea, I was shown a paper from 2011 by Orlando Necchi and Marianna Oliveira in which they consider the affinities of Audouinella species and came to the conclusion that Audouinella pygmaea only really exists in the imaginations of people who write identification guides. I’ve written before about the complicated life history of red algae (see “The schizophrenic life of red algae …”) and commented that it can be hard to differentiate between simple red algae such as Audouinella and stages in the life history of more complicated red algae.

Audouinella hermanii, the red alga that I was writing about in those earlier posts, does not present us with any serious problems, as it is possible to see all the reproductive structures, which enables us to distinguish between the (haploid) gametophyte filaments and the (diploid) sporophytes. However, reproductive organs have not been observed on populations of A. pygmaea, which presents us with some problems. Is this really an independent species of Audouinella or just a “chantransia” (gametophyte) stage of another red alga? Necchi and Oliveria took a number of populations of A. pygmaea and another species, A. macrospora (which has not been recorded from Britain or Ireland) and compared their genetic composition with other freshwater algae. What they found was that these chantransia stages were more closely related to known species from other red algal genera than they were to each other.   Their conclusion: “Audouinella pygmaea” does not exist in any meaningful sense. Rather, the populations we describe as A. pygmaea represent life history stages of other red algae. These life history stages are impossible to tell apart from one another using morphological criteria.   However, there is a good chance that a thorough search of the Anghidi Fawr stream upstream of where the sonde was placed will reveal another red alga – most likely Batrachospermum or Thorea – that was releasing the carpospores that produced the filaments that we named Audouinella pygmaea.

Curiously, this brings us back close to the situation almost 100 years ago as, reading my trusty old copy of West and Fritsch I read that the freshwater species we now call Audouinella were then placed in the genus Chantransia and that “C. pygmaea is probably a stage in the life-history of Batrachospermum moniliforme Roth.”   Another case, perhaps, of things we forgot to remember?

Reference

Neechi, O. Jr. & Oliveira, M.C. (2011). Phylogenetic affinities of “chantransia” stages in members of the Batrachospermales and Thoreales (Rhodophyta). Journal of Phycology 47: 680-686.

West, G.S. & Fritsch F.E. (1927). A Treatise on the British Freshwater Algae.   Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Advertisements

One thought on “Something else we forgot to remember …

  1. It might be worthwhile to determine the genome of a suspect alga, so that it can be matched against genomes of definitively-identified algae.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s