Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-13T09:59:56.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laminariocolax Tomentosoides on the Isle of Man

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

G. Russell
G. Russell
Affiliation:
Marine Laboratory, Port Erin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Laminariocolax tomentosoides is a common epi-endophyte on the I.O.M. Though probably pseudoperennial as an endophyte it produces fertile external filaments only from September to June with a March maximum in size and numbers. It reproduces vegetatively by growing through its host's tissues and asexually by means of zoospores from plurilocular sporangia. In culture, zoospores give rise to fertile plants in 7 days and several generations can be produced in 4 weeks. The offspring bear only plurilocular sporangia. The chromosome number is apparently 16 and the life-history probably a postponed series of diplonts.

Laminariocolax tomentosoides produces cysts which, in the past, have been mistakenly identified as unilocular sporangia and which are so similar to the ascocysts of Ascocyclus that this genus would seem to be based on a character of little value. Another description of unilocular sporangia in the species is tentatively attributed to infection by a fungus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , October 1964 , pp. 601 - 612
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1964

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.)

References

Batters, E. A. L., 1892. New or critical British algae. Grevillea, Vol. 21, No. 97, pp. 13–23.Google Scholar
Batters, E. A. L., 1902. A catalogue of the British marine algae. J. Bot., Lond., Vol. 40 (Suppl.), pp. 1–107.Google Scholar
Borgesen, F., 1902. The Marine Algae of the Fœröes. (Botany of the Fœröes, Vol. 2.) Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Cotton, A. D., 1912. Clare Island Survey. Marine Algae. Proc. R. Irish Acad., Vol. 31, Part 15, 178 pp.Google Scholar
Farlow, W. G., 1889. On some new or imperfectly known algae of the United States. Bull. Torrey bot. Cl., Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gran, H. H., 1893. En norsk form af Ectocarpus tomentosoides Farlow. Forh. VidenskSelsk. Krist. No. 17, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Hamel, G., 1931–1939. Phéophycées de France. Paris.Google Scholar
Jack, J., 1890. Marine algae of the Arbroath district. J. Bot., Lond., Vol. 28, pp. 10–15.Google Scholar
Jonsson, H., 1903. The marine algae of Iceland, 2, Phaeophyceae. Bot. Tidsskr., Vol. 25, pp. 141–95.Google Scholar
Knight, M., 1929. Studies in the Ectocarpaceae, 2, The life history and cytology of Ectocarpus siliculosus Dillw. Trans, roy. Soc. Edinb., Vol. 56, pp. 307–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, M. & Parke, M. W., 1931. Manx Algae. Mem. Lpool mar.biol. Comm., No. 30.Google Scholar
Kny, L., 1873. Über einige parasitische Algen. Bot. Ztg, Bd. 31, pp. 139–43.Google Scholar
Kuckuck, P., 1894. Bemerkungen zur marinen Algenvegetation von Helgoland. Wiss. Meeresuntersuch., Bd. 1, Hft. 1, pp. 223–63.Google Scholar
Kuckuck, P. 1899. Über Polymorphic bei einiger Phaeosporeen. Festschr. Schwendener, Berlin, pp. 357–84.Google Scholar
Kylin, H., 1937. Bemerkungen über die Entwicklungsgeschichte einiger Phaeophyceen. Lunds. Univ. Årsskr., Bd. 33, No. 1, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
Kylin, H., 1947. Die Phaeophyceen der schwedischen Westküste, Lunds Univ. Årsskr., Bd. 43, No. 4, pp. 1–99.Google Scholar
Lund, S., 1959. The marine algae of east Greenland, I, Taxonomical part. Medd. Grønland, Bd. 156, No. 1, pp. 1–247.Google Scholar
Magnus, P., 1875. Die botanischen Ergebnisse der Nordseefahrt 1872. Jber. Commis. wiss. Untersuch. Meere, Kiel, Bd. 2, pp. 61–79.Google Scholar
Newton, L., 1931. A Handbook of the British Seaweeds. London.Google Scholar
Parke, M. W., 1933. A contribution to knowledge of the Mesogloiaceae and associated families. Publ. Hartley bot. Labs, Lpool Univ., No. 9, pp. 1–43.Google Scholar
Printz, H., 1926. Die Algenvegetation des Trondhjemsfjorden. Skr. norske VidenskAkad., Oslo, Mat.-Nat. Kl., No. 5, pp. 1–273.Google Scholar
Rautenberg, E., 1960. Zur Morphologie und Ökologie einiger epiphytischer und epi-endophytischer Algen. Bot. mar., Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 133–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenvinge, L. K., 1894. Les algues marines du Greenland. Ann. Sci. nat. Bot., Sér. 7, T. 19, pp. 53–164.Google Scholar
Rosenvinge, L. K. & Lund, S., 1941. The marine algae of Denmark, 2, Phaeophyceae. K. danske vidensk. Selsk., Bd. 1, No. 4, pp. 1–79.Google Scholar
Russell, G., 1962. An aceto-carmine staining technique for the Ectocarpales. Nature, Lond., Vol. 193, No. 4813, p. 396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Setchell, W. A. & Gardner, N. L., 1922. Phycological contributions, 2–4. Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot., Vol. 7, pp. 334–384.Google Scholar
Sparrow, F. K., 1943. Aquatic Phycomycetes. 785 pp. Ann Arbor: Univ. Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, W. R., 1957. Marine Algae of the northeastern Coast of North America. 2nd ed. Michigan.Google Scholar
Wright, E. P., 1879. On a species of Rhizophydium parasitic on species of Ectocarpus with notes on the fructification of the Ectocarpi. Trans. R. Irish Acad., Vol. 26, pp. 369–80.Google Scholar