海金沙配子体发育及卵发生的显微观察

用光镜观察海金沙(Lygodium japonicum)配子体发育和卵发生。海金沙孢子为四面体形,具三裂缝,孢子萌发方式为密穗蕨型(Anemia-type);配子体的发育形态多样,通常丝状体长至3~5个细胞时通过顶细胞纵分裂发育为片状体,进而发育为心形原叶体,在心形原叶体上可产生精子器和颈卵器。但在培养过程中也可产生10个细胞以上的丝状体,这种丝状体发育成的片状体和原叶体形态通常不规则,只产生精子器,不产生颈卵器。原叶体发育是铁线蕨型(Adiantum-type),性器官是薄囊蕨型(Leptosporangiate-type)。切片观察海金沙颈卵器产生于生长点下方表面细胞,经两次分裂形成了顶细胞、初生细胞和基细胞。其中初生细胞再经两次不等分裂产生卵细胞、腹沟细胞和颈沟细胞,此时三个细胞紧密相连,随发育,颈沟细胞和和腹沟细胞退化,卵周围形成了分离腔,光镜观察显示成熟卵细胞上无典型卵膜形成,未观察到受精孔的结构。     

阔叶鳞盖蕨配子体发育及卵发生的研究

采用显微镜和透射电镜对阔叶鳞盖蕨(Microlepia platyphylla)的配子体发育和卵发生过程进行了观察,以阐明其卵发生的细胞学机制,探讨其演化地位。阔叶鳞盖蕨孢子褐色,四面体形,具三裂缝,接种5~10d后孢子萌发,经丝状体和片状体阶段发育为心形原叶体,原叶体发育是铁线蕨型,通常为雌雄异株,精子器产生于不规则配子体的表面,颈卵器产生于心形原叶体生长点的下方,性器官是薄囊蕨型。卵发生研究表明,阔叶鳞盖蕨颈卵器产生于生长点下方表面细胞,经两次分裂形成了顶细胞、初生细胞和基细胞。其中初生细胞再经两次不等分裂产生卵细胞、腹沟细胞和颈沟细胞,此3个细胞通过胞间连丝紧密相连,随发育,腹沟细胞与卵细胞间形成了分离腔,但在孔区处始终通过胞间连丝相连,成熟卵细胞上形成了卵膜和受精孔,卵核表面产生了核外突,通过比较表明阔叶鳞盖蕨卵发生与蕨（Pteridium aquilinum）卵发生相似。     

乌蕨配子体发育及卵发生的显微观察

采用光学显微镜对乌蕨的配子体发育及卵发生的过程进行了研究,以阐明蕨类植物颈卵器发育特征,为揭示蕨类植物有性生殖机制以及鳞始蕨科的演化提供依据。结果表明:(1)乌蕨孢子黄褐色,具单裂缝,表面平滑或呈疣状纹饰;孢子接种12d萌发,萌发类型为书带蕨型,原叶体发育类型为铁线蕨型。(2)半薄切片观察表明,乌蕨颈卵器产生于原叶体生长点下方的表面细胞,即颈卵器原始细胞,该细胞经过两次分裂形成纵向3层细胞,最上层细胞发育为颈卵器的颈部壁细胞,中间层细胞即初生细胞再经过两次不等分裂产生颈沟细胞、腹沟细胞和卵细胞,此三细胞最初紧密贴合,随着颈卵器的发育,卵细胞与腹沟细胞间从两侧向中间产生分离腔,且腹沟细胞与颈沟细胞开始退化;分离腔逐渐向中间扩大,直至出现孔状结构,即受精孔;颈卵器发育后期,在卵细胞上表面形成染色较深的卵膜,颈沟细胞与腹沟细胞退化成絮状物。     

峨眉凤丫蕨配子体发育及卵发生的研究

用显微观察及透射电镜技术对峨眉凤丫蕨的配子体发育及卵发生过程进行了观察研究,以探讨其卵发生细胞学机制及蕨类植物演化关系。结果表明:(1)峨眉凤丫蕨孢子接种7～9d萌发,经丝状体和片状体阶段发育为心形原叶体,成熟原叶体雌雄同株,在原叶体基部产生精子器,在原叶体生长点下方产生颈卵器。(2)卵发生研究表明,峨眉凤丫蕨颈卵器产生于生长点下方的表面细胞,该细胞经2次分裂形成3层细胞,中间者为初生细胞,它经2次不等分裂产生卵细胞、腹沟细胞和颈沟细胞;新产生的卵与腹沟细胞间连接紧密,有发达的胞间连丝,随着发育,卵细胞与腹沟细胞之间产生分离腔,而腹沟细胞与卵细胞始终通过孔区相连;发育中期,卵核形成大量核外突;发育后期,在卵细胞外侧形成卵膜,孔区演变为受精孔,核外突数量减少。     

蕨配子体发育及卵发生的显微结构观察

运用显微观察技术对蕨(Pteridium aquilinum var. latiusculum)配子体发育和卵发生进行了研究。结果表明：(1)蕨孢子黄褐色,四面体形,具三裂缝,接种后3～7 d萌发,经丝状体和片状体阶段发育成原叶体,成熟原叶体雌雄异株或同株。(2)蕨颈卵器产生于生长点下方的表面细胞(颈卵器原始细胞),该细胞经2次分裂形成3层细胞,其上层和下层细胞发育为颈卵器壁细胞,中间细胞为初生细胞,它经2次不等分裂产生3个细胞,分别为卵细胞、腹沟细胞和颈沟细胞;刚产生时,此3个细胞紧贴颈卵器壁,细胞质内液泡较多,随着发育,卵细胞和腹沟细胞之间产生了分离腔,但二者通过孔区相连,在卵细胞上表面可观察到卵膜;此后,颈沟细胞和腹沟细胞逐渐退化,颈卵器壁细胞内具有黑色颗粒物质。连续切片观察发现,成熟卵细胞上表面中央具有受精孔。卵发生的细节尚需超微结构的研究。     

阔鳞瘤蕨颈卵器形成与卵发生的初步研究

运用光学显微镜与透射电镜对阔鳞瘤蕨（Phymatosorus hainanensis(Noot.) S.G.Lu）颈卵器形成和卵发生进行了研究。阔鳞瘤蕨颈卵器产生于雌配子体生长点下方分枝毛状体内侧。切片观察表明颈卵器起源于配子体表面的原始细胞,该细胞经两次不等分裂形成3个细胞,上下两个细胞分别发育为颈卵器的颈部与底部壁细胞,中间的细胞为初生细胞,含有较丰富的细胞器。初生细胞进行两次不等分裂产生颈沟细胞、腹沟细胞与卵细胞。成熟颈卵器内颈沟细胞和腹沟细胞退化,卵细胞上表面产生受精孔。本研究阐述了阔鳞瘤蕨颈卵器形成和卵发生的细胞学过程,对阐明蕨类植物雌性生殖器官的发育特征有一定的科学意义。     

蜈蚣草性器发育的观察

用石蜡切片法研究了蜈蚣草(Pteris vittata L.)性器发育的全过程,结果表明精子器与颈卵器都由原叶体表面的细胞发育而来.但二者不是同源的,精子器由基细胞、环细胞和盖细胞和精细胞构成,成熟后以盖裂方式开放.卵细胞成熟后,颈卵器内的腹沟细胞与颈沟细胞都解体,颈卵器开放时前端几个细胞破裂,并释放粘性物质以吸引精子.     

蕨类植物桂皮紫萁颈卵器和精子器形态和发育的研究

利用扫描电镜技术和树脂切片技术对蕨类植物桂皮紫萁（Osmunda cinnamomeaL.var.asiatica Fernald)的颈卵器和精子器的形态和发育进行了细致的研究。颈卵器发生于雌配子体的腹面,颈部由4列壁细胞构成,6-7个细胞高,内部含有颈沟细胞,腹沟细胞和卵细胞,卵细胞在整个发育过程中,造粉体和囊泡最为显著,颈卵器内的卵细胞成熟时产生卵膜和分离腔。精子器发生于雄配子体的边缘及腹面,由7-8个壁细胞螺旋状围绕而成,壁细胞内为产精组织,精子成熟时精子器盖细胞开裂释放出游动精子。     

中华刺蕨和长耳刺蕨配子体发育研究

采用光镜观察,对中华刺蕨和长耳刺蕨配子体发育进行了观察研究.结果表明:中华刺蕨和长耳刺蕨的孢子和配子体发育特征相似,孢子均两侧对称,单裂缝,孢子萌发方式为书带蕨型;配子体经丝状体、片状体发育为心形原叶体,毛状体多产生于幼原叶体生长点两侧边缘,为多细胞棒状,原叶体发育方式为槲蕨型;幼原叶体阶段即可产生精子器,而颈卵器只产生于大型心形原叶体生长点下方,性器官发育类型为薄囊蕨型,卵受精后发育成孢子体.该研究结果支持秦仁昌将刺蕨属和实蕨属独立为实蕨科的观点.     

日本蹄盖蕨配子体发育的研究

采用混和土培养日本蹄盖蕨(Athyrium niponicum)孢子,显微镜下观察记录其孢子萌发及配子体发育过程。结果表明:孢子黑褐色,赤道面豆形,极面观椭圆形,单裂缝。播种7 d左右孢子萌发,萌发类型为向心型,配子体发育为铁线蕨型。丝状体7~11细胞时开始发育为片状体。播种14 d后发育形成幼原叶体,成熟原叶体呈心脏形。原叶体边缘可产生单细胞毛状体。播种后20 d左右精子器出现,精子器近圆球形,由3细胞组成。7 d后颈卵器出现,成熟颈卵器3~5层细胞高。精卵受精后14 d左右即可观察到从原叶体上生成的幼胚。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor