Abstract
Stephanodiscus makarovae, a taxon originally described from Russia, is morphologically similar to several other taxa within Cyclostephanos, namely C. invisitatus, C. delicatus and C. tholiformis. However, it has not yet been transferred into Cyclostephanos, perhaps due to the difficulty in identifying it, as its original description is available only in the Russian language. To investigate its morphology, a detailed morphological comparison of S. makarovae and C. invisitatus was done from 286 SEM micrographs of 12 monoclonal strains. We performed a three-gene phylogenetic analysis with strains from eight additional taxa to independently confirm the position of S. makarovae. The morphology of S. makarovae shows key features of the genus Cyclostephanos and this attribution is supported by the phylogeny. Here we propose the transfer of the taxon S. makarovae to Cyclostephanos, considering the morphological and molecular data. According to both the molecular and morphological data, C. delicatus has a unique position within the genus; S. makarovae and C. invisitatus are morphologically very similar but genetically distinct. Furthermore, based upon the results, it was possible to reassign the authority of the transfer of S. delicatus into Cyclostephanos.
Highlights
Cyclostephanos consisted of four clades (1.00/95)—representing C. delicatus, S. makarovae, C. invisitatus and C. dubius, with high support for all the nodes
Based on the results of this study we find that S. makarovae should be transferred to Cyclostephanos, as has been done with the similar taxa S. invisitatus and S. delicatus in the past
The issue first came to light when eight strains from eight distinct water bodies first identified in the light microscope as C. invisitatus were molecularly distinct from other C
Summary
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Scientific and methodical advancements in diatom taxonomy have given rise to conflicting species and generic concepts, resulting in frequent transfers. These difficulties are especially clear when examining the taxonomic relationships within the many genera erected in the mid-19th century, many of which have since been revised, forgotten or resurrected.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
