Advertisement

Hustedt’s study of the diatom species Tetracyclus ellipticus: why history is not just a chronicle of events

  • D. M. Williams
Conference paper
Part of the Developments in Hydrobiology book series (DIHY, volume 90)

Abstract

In 1914 Hustedt presented a monographic revision of the genus Tetracyclus Ralfs. His paper was a detailed account of his investigations made for the illustrations of the genus in Schmidt’s Atlas. Hustedt made a particularly detailed study of the species T. ellipticus and outlined his ideas of the interrelationships between the subspecific taxa he understood to be “organised” around the nominate type. The monograph was unusual (and unique) in that Hustedt included a schematic diagram which represented his views on the “interrelationships” of symmetry characters observed between the various subspecific taxa he recognised. I show that Hustedt’s diagram can be related to a particular understanding of both species definitions and taxonomic practice and that others who have followed Hustedt (by implication) move further away from, rather than closer to, the data they are attempting to explain in a systematic framework.

Key words

Tetracyclus classification species Hustedt history 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bailey, J. W., 1845. Notice of some new localities of infuso- ria, fossil and Recent. Am. J. Sci. Arts 48: 321–343.Google Scholar
  2. Bonik, K., 1982. Gibt es Arten bei Diatomeen? Eine evolutionsbiologische Deutung am Beispiel der Gattung Nitzschia. Senckenbergiana biol. 62: 413–434.Google Scholar
  3. Edgar, R. K., 1979. J. W. Bailey and the diatoms of the Wilkes Exploring Expedition (1838–1842). Occ. Pap. Farlow Herbm Cryptogam. Bot. 14: 9–33.Google Scholar
  4. Ehrenberg, G. C., 1843. Mitteilung über 2 neue asiatische Lager fossiler Infusorien-Erden aus dem russischen TransKaukasien (grusien) und Siberien. Ber. Akad. wiss. Berl. 1843: 43–49.Google Scholar
  5. Ehrenberg, G. C., 1845. Neue Untersuchungen über das kleinste Leben als geologisches Moment. Ber. Akad. wiss. Berl. 1845: 53–88.Google Scholar
  6. Ehrenberg, G. C., 1854. Mikrogeologie. Das Erden und Felsen schaffende Wirken des unsichtbar kleinen selbstandigen Lebens auf der Erde. Leopold Voss, Leipzig, 374 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Grant, V., 1957. The plant species in theory and practice. In E. Mayr (ed.), The Species Problem. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Publ. 50: 39–80.Google Scholar
  8. Hagen, J. B., 1983. The development of experimental meth- ods in plant taxonomy, 1920–1950. Taxon 32: 406–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hermann, O. and H. Reichelt, 1893. Ueber Diatomeenschichten aus der Lausitz. Ber. Naturf. ges. Leipzig, Jahrgang 1892 /1893: 67–76.Google Scholar
  10. Hustedt, F., 1912. In A. Schmidt, Atlas der Diatomaceenkunde. Heft 71, t. 281–284, R. Reisland, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  11. Hustedt, F., 1914a. Die Bacillariaceen-Gattung Tetracyclus Ralfs; kritische Studien über Bau und Systematik der bisher beschriebenen Formen. Abhandl. naturwiss. Verein Bremen. 23: 90–107.Google Scholar
  12. Hustedt, F., 1914b. Bacillariales aus den Sudeten und einigen benachbarten Gebieten des Odertales. Arch. Hydrobiol. Plankt. 10: 1–128.Google Scholar
  13. Kociolek, J. P. and E. F. Stoermer, 1988. Taxonomy, ultra-structure and distribution of Gomphoneis herculeana, G. eriensis and closely related species (Naviculales: Gomphonemataceae). Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia. 140: 2497.Google Scholar
  14. Lam, H. J., 1936. Phylogenetic symbols, past and present. Acta biotheor. 2: 153–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lange-Bertalot, H. and R. Simonsen, 1978. A taxonomic revision of the Nitzschia lanceolatae Grunow. 2. European and related extra-european freshwater and brackish water taxa. Bacillaria 1: 11–111.Google Scholar
  16. Lotsky, J. P., 1916. Evolution by means of hybridisation. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 166 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mann, D. G., 1982. The use of the central raphe endings as a taxonomic character. Pl. Syst. Evol. 141: 143–152.Google Scholar
  18. Mann, D. G. and J. P. Kociolek, 1990. The species concept in diatoms: Report on a workshop. In H. Simola (ed.), Proceedings of the 10th International Diatom Symposium, O. Koeltz, Koenigstein: 577–583.Google Scholar
  19. Mayr, E., 1982. The growth of biological thought. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  20. Nelson, G., 1989a. Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics 5: 275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nelson, G., 1989b. Species and taxa: systematics and evolution. In D. Otte and J. A. Endler (eds), Speciation and its consequences, Sinauer Assoc., Sunderland: 60–81.Google Scholar
  22. Nelson, G. and P. Ladiges, 1990. Biodiversity and biogeography. J. Biogeogr. 17: 559–560.Google Scholar
  23. Nelson, G. and N. I. Platnick, 1981. Systematics and biogeography: Cladistics and vicariance. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Patterson, C., 1988. The impact of evolutionary theories on systematics. In D. L. Hawksworth (ed.), Prospects in Systematics, Clarendon Press, Oxford: 59–91.Google Scholar
  25. Silva, P. C., 1984. The role of extrinsic factors in the past and future of green algal systematics. In D. E. G. Irvine and D. M. John (eds), Systematics of the green algae, The Systematics Association Special Volume 27, Academic Press, London: 419–433.Google Scholar
  26. Simonsen, R., 1987. Atlas and catalogue of the diatom types of Friedrich Hustedt. Vols 1–3. J. Cramer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  27. Stevens, P. F., 1984. Metaphors and typology in the development of botanical systematics 1690–1960, or the art of putting new wine in old bottles. Taxon 32: 169–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stevens, P. F., 1986. Evolutionary classification in botany, 1960–1985. J. Am. Arb. 67: 313–339.Google Scholar
  29. Stevens, P. F., 1990. Nomenclatural stability, taxonomic instinct, and flora writing - a recipe for disaster? In P. Baas, K. Kalkman and R. Geesink (eds), The plant diversity ofGoogle Scholar
  30. Malesia. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht: 387410.Google Scholar
  31. Theriot, E. C., 1992. Speciation in lacustrine centric diatoms of the Stephanodiscus niagarae complex (Bacillariophyceae): 1. Morphological evolution in geographic and environmental space. Syst. Biol., 41: 141–157.Google Scholar
  32. VanLandingham, S. L., 1967. Paleoecology and Microfloristics of Miocene Diatomites from the Otis Basin Juntura Region of Harney and Malheur Counties, Oregon. Nova Hedwigia, Bieh., 26: 1–77.Google Scholar
  33. Williams, D. M., 1986. Proposal to conserve the generic name Tetracyclus against Biblarium ( Bacillariophyta ). Taxon 35: 730–731.Google Scholar
  34. Williams, D. M., 1987. Observations on the genus Tetracyclus Ralfs (Bacillariophyta) I. Valve and girdle structure of the extant species. Brit. J. phycol. 22: 383–399.Google Scholar
  35. Williams, D. M., 1989. Observations on the genus Tetracyclus Ralfs (Bacillariophyta) II. Morphology and taxonomy of some species from the genus Stylobiblium. Brit. J. phycol. 24: 317–327.Google Scholar
  36. Williams, D. M., 1990. Examination of auxospore valves in Tetracyclus from fossil specimens and the establishment of their identity. Diatom Res. 5: 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Williams, D. M., In press. Ontogeny and phylogeny in the genus Tetracyclus. Special Publications of the California Academy of Science.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. M. Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BotanyThe Natural History MuseumLondonUK

Personalised recommendations