Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T00:59:40.645Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Total evidence’ refutes the inclusion of Perkinsus species in the phylum Apicomplexa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 1997

M. E. SIDDALL ,
K. S. REECE ,
J. E. GRAVES  and
E. M. BURRESON
M. E. SIDDALL
Affiliation:
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062, USA
K. S. REECE
Affiliation:
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062, USA
J. E. GRAVES
Affiliation:
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062, USA
E. M. BURRESON
Affiliation:
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The phylogenetic affinities of the oyster pathogen Perkinsus marinus were investigated with morphology, 18S-like rDNA data and actin sequence data. Morphological investigations revealed that Perkinsus species do not have a conoid and that other criteria which have been used to place them in the Apicomplexa are general to alveolates. When considered separately, 18S-like rDNA and actin data sets each support a closer affinity for Perkinsus marinus with the dinoflagellates. However, each of these separate analyses possess their own biases and weaknesses. Use of the phylogenetic principle of ‘total evidence’ in which data sets are combined in simultaneous analysis yielded a more robust hypothesis that is stable both to character and taxonomic sampling. The resulting cladogram strongly corroborates the placement of Perkinsus species with the Dinoflagellida and not with the Apicomplexa.

Keywords

congruenceDinoflagellidaPerkinsusphylogenyApicomplexa
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 115 , Issue 2 , August 1997 , pp. 165 - 176
Copyright
1997 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)