Foraminifera (NOT Alveolates)

[Ken Kinman]

Dear All,
     I found the paper this weekend.  Journal of Molecular Evolution (Van de
Peer, et al., 1996), 42:201-210.
      "Note Added in Proof.  After this paper was accepted for publication,
we learned from Dr. J. Pawlowski (personal communication) that the SSU rRNA
sequence published for _Ammonia beccarii_ is most probably not that of this
foraminifer, but possibly that of an apicomplexan parasite of this
organism."  End quote.
      Therefore I will be asking the UCMP site to modify its tree, assuming
that this was the molecular evidence which misled them into placing forams
with the alveolates.  Also note that the NCBI database seems to contain both
the old incorrect and new correct sequences for _Ammonia beccarii_.  If any
NCBI workers are still on this list, I would suggest annotating the
incorrect sequence in some way (to prevent future confusion).
             ------Sincerely, Ken Kinman
P.S.  The NCBI also still classifies forams as part of Granuloreticulosea.
Now that Order Athalamida (biomyxids and promycetozoids) are no longer
considered closely related to forams, I am even more convinced that I was
correct in 1994 in calling it Class Foraminiferea.  It is not only more
recognizable, but it is apparently also more accurate.  Granuloreticulosea
appears to be polyphyletic and a name not as widely known in the scientific
community thank goodness).
*********************************************************
>From: Ken Kinman <kinman at HOTMAIL.COM>
>Reply-To: Ken Kinman <kinman at HOTMAIL.COM>
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: Foraminifera (are Alveolates???)
>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:29:09 -0500
>
>Dear All,
>      The UCMP site shows the forams belonging to the alveolates.  I am
>fairly certain this is based on erroneous information, but need to confirm
>it.
>      I was told this was based on molecular evidence, but I'm pretty sure
>I read somewhere that the rRNA evidence for this was not really that of a
>foram, but instead an alveolate (sporozoan?) parasite of a foram.
>      Can anyone verify my suspicions or cite the paper where this was
>discussed.  I can't find it and need to verify this before I ask them to
>change their phylogenetic tree.  The dinoflagellates, ciliates, and
>apicomplexan sporozoans do form a large valid clade, but I don't think the
>forams belong with them.
>           -------- Thanks, Ken Kinman
>P.S.  Here is a link to the UCMP (Berkeley) tree:
>  http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/protista/alveolates.html
>_______________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com