𝘔𝘰𝘢𝘳 Protocryptomonas species: Protocryptomonas ellipsoidea Skvortsov 1969 and "Protocryptomonas obovatus Skvortsov 1960"

I wasn't planning on writing a post for two taxa, but the goal is to do it quickly. It's really a "filler" genus I chose to reach my sub-goal of 30 illustrations. And I plan to do the same for other genera in the Cryptomonadaceae family.

Both species belong to the genus Protocryptomonas. If you want more context about the genus (where I explain some of the taxonomic uncertainties surrounding it) and the type species (P. mukdenensis), then visit the page dedicated to P. mukdenensis.

Friendly screamer!: The illustrations are free to use under CC BY-SA 4.0, non-commercial, attribution required (DOTkamina 2026).

Taxonomically, Protocryptomonas is a genus that, along with others (including Cryptomonas, of course), belongs to the family Cryptomonadaceae, order Cryptomonadales, class Cryptophyceae (commonly called "cryptomonad algae"). You know where this is going: cryptomonad algae are then included in the subphylum Rollomonadia, phylum Cryptista, subkingdom Hacrobia, kingdom Chromista. 

The kingdom Chromista is related to the clade Archaeplastida, which includes algae that are relatives and ancestors of plants. You might also encounter another classification, where the phylum Cryptista is included in the clade Pancryptista, which is related to Archaplastida, and both form the large CAM clade. But that's not really important; the point is that Protocryptomonas is another distant relative of plant ancestors.

The references I used to write this post and also to create these illustrations are the following:

• "Algae Novae et Minus Cognitae Chinae Boreali-Orientalis 2. Flagellatae Prope Oppidum Mukden in Anno 1957 Collectarum". B. V. Skvortzov. 1960. Bulletin of Botanical Research. 1-8 pp.
• "On new genera of Cryptomonadinae recorded from North-Eastern China". B. V. Skvortzov. 1968. Journal of Japanese Botany. 8-16 pp.
• "Protocryptomonas ellipsoidea Skvortsov 1969". AlgaeBase. 2023. Formerly: E.A. Molinari Novoa in Guiry, M.D. & Guiry, G.M. AlgaeBase. World-wide electronic publication, National University of Ireland, Galway.

Let's get quick: here I present two species, Protocryptomonas ellipsoidea and Protocryptomonas obovatus.

The first entry in this post: P. ellipsoidea appeared in the 1968 article by good old Skvortsov. It is also recognized in AlgaeBase as Protocryptomonas ellipsoidea Skvortsov 1969. In that article, he mentions, and emphasizes, that the difference between P. ellipsoidea and the other two species also described there (P. obovata and P. chilomonoides) is its ellipsoidal shape. To me, that seems a rather vague distinction.

I think it's more noteworthy to highlight that P. ellipsoidea has two flagella, where the primary flagellum is twice the length of the cell, and the secondary flagellum is 1.5 times the length of the cell (in P. mukdenensis, the secondary flagellum was almost the same length as the cell). The cell's dimensions, by the way, are 11 to 18 microns long and 7 microns wide. It is also mentioned that the cell moves rapidly and in a rotational fashion.

The central nucleus, of course, I also omits the nucleolus. The contractile vacuole near de flagellar bodies.

The reticulated mitochondrion, Golgi apparatus, endoplasmic reticulum, and hypothetical vestibulum are represented. These structures should exist in cryptomonad algae species, but there is no direct evidence for this species (nor for the genus Protocryptomonas), so their shapes and sizes are speculative.

In Skvortsov's (1968) article, the description of P. ellipsoidea makes no mention of starch granules, so I based my representation on the general description of the genus Protocryptomonas (5 to 10 starch granules) and also used Figures 7 to 9 from that article, where the specimens have 3 to 7 starch granules of highly variable size, with some being larger than others and others roughly the same size. I have used Figure 9 as a base in combination with Figure 8, to represent, in my case, 6 starch granules, where one is very large and the rest are more medium-sized.

P. ellipsoidea was found in autumn in a cold-water pond near the city of Harbin. Its distribution is inferred to be in northern Manchuria, China.

Okay, now let's talk about the other species, "Protocryptomonas obovatus Skvortsov 1960." I've put it in quotation marks because it doesn't actually have a formally accepted taxonomic name. It's not even accepted in AlgaeBase. It appears alongside the description of P. mukdenensis in Skvortsov 1960.

Before continuing, I must clarify that the name "P. obovatus" is not the same as the other name "P. obovata" mentioned in Skvortsov 1968; that appears to be a different species with different characteristics. You will see this in a future post.

... So P. obovatus It's 12 to 13 microns long and 8 microns wide. The flagellar dimensions are similar to P. mukdenensis: the primary flagellum is twice the length of the cell, and the secondary flagellum is almost the same length as the cell. It has a central nucleus and a contractile vacuole near the flagellar bodies. The vestibulum, endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondrion, and Golgi apparatus are hypothetical in this illustration.

The major difference is that P. obovatus has "numerous starch granules scattered in the anterior part" of the cell. No exact number is mentioned; in Figure 19 of Skvortsov 1960, I would swear there are 20 to 21, and in the posterior region of the cell there are smaller dots that I honestly don't know what they are, but they can't be starch granules because the original description itself says they are "in the anterior region," not the posterior. I haven't represented those mysterious dots. But I have represented the starch granules; I would swear there are about 20.

P. obovatus was found in a lake near Mukden (present-day Shenyang), and its distribution is inferred to be in Northeast China, Liaoning Province. The same applies to P. mukdenensis.

And well, that's all for this post. It took me a while to write it because I was playing some "The Floor is Lava" games on Roblox. Remembering things, I guess, although I don't know what I'm supposed to remember there.

¯\_(⊙︿⊙)_/¯

Protocryptomonas mukdenensis Skvortsov ex C.E.M.Bicudo 1989

This post was originally going to be dedicated to another Cryptomonas species, specifically Cryptomonas marssonii, but I'm having some trouble representing the chloroplast (I think I'm going to have to rearrange layers or something, i'm about to get polymerized at this point with this shit).

So I started reviewing the taxonomy that includes the Cryptomonas genus and found that there are a ton of species and genera, some of them quite obscure. What if I tried to represent them?

And so begins the context for this genus, Protocryptomonas. It's considered a "rare" genus, but only because it lacks detail. No preserved specimens exist; all that remains are the illustrations and descriptions made by Skvortsov. Therefore, the genus is questionable, as to whether they are truly cryptomonads. The question, it seems to me, also lies in whether it's a true genus, or a form of a better-known species, but since only illustrations remain, not much can be determined. It amuses me that, despite everything, the genus and species were accepted taxonomically based solely on the images. You can read more about this in Bicudo (1989).

Friendly (abusive) reminder!: The illustrations are free to use under CC BY-SA 4.0, non-commercial, attribution required (DOTkamina 2026).

Taxonomically, Protocryptomonas is a genus that, along with others (including Cryptomonas, of course), belongs to the family Cryptomonadaceae. I don't have much more to add there, so what follows is a copy-paste of other descriptions of Cryptomonas species:  family Cryptomonadaceae is included in order Cryptomonadales, class Cryptophyceae (commonly called "cryptomonad algae"). You know where this is going: cryptomonad algae are then included in the subphylum Rollomonadia, phylum Cryptista, subkingdom Hacrobia, kingdom Chromista. 

The kingdom Chromista is related to the clade Archaeplastida, which includes algae that are relatives and ancestors of plants. You might also encounter another classification, where the phylum Cryptista is included in the clade Pancryptista, which is related to Archaplastida, and both form the large CAM clade. But that's not really important; the point is that Protocryptomonas is another distant relative of plant ancestors.

I should mention that my references for the text and images are:

• "A Companion to the Identification of Cryptomonad Flagellates (Cryptophyceae = Cryptomonadea)". Gianfranco Novarino. 2003. Hydrobiologia 502(1):225-270. DOI: 10.1023/B:HYDR.0000004284.12535.25
• "Algae Novae et Minus Cognitae Chinae Boreali-Orientalis 2. Flagellatae Prope Oppidum Mukden in Anno 1957 Collectarum". B. V. Skvortzov. 1960. Bulletin of Botanical Research. 1-8 pp.
• "Protocryptomonas Skvortsov ex C.E.M.Bicudo, 1989". AlgaeBase (formerly "E.A. Molinari Novoa in Guiry, M.D. & Guiry, G.M"). 2023. AlgaeBase. World-wide electronic publication, National University of Ireland, Galway.
• "Validation of the generic name Protocryptomonas (Cryptophyceae: Cryptomonadaceae)". Carlos E. de M. Bicudo. 1989. TAXON. Vol. 38, Issue 1. 82-83 pp. https://doi.org/10.2307/1220898

Well then, to begin discussing this species, let's start with some general information about the genus. I have based myself on the most current description which is the one in AlgaeBase 2023, and it continues like this: "Free-swimming, biflagellate, dorsiventrally asymmetric monads; with a firm, smooth, hyaline periplast; elliptic or obovate with rounded ends; non-metabolic; flagella unequal, subapically inserted, one twice the cell length, the other one and one-half times the cell length; chloroplasts absent; with five to ten spherical starch grains; a single contractile vacuole near the flagellar bases; A little known freshwater genus recorded only from cold water ponds, impure ditch water and standing water near Harbin, northern Manchuria, China".

Some of these general characteristics are those I have represented for M. mukdenensis Skvortsov ex C.E.M.Bicudo 1989, which is the type species for Protocryptomonas. The central nucleus is visible (I have decided not to depict a nucleolus, as I don't know if one exists or should exist), as is the contractile vacuole near the "flagellar bases" (this leads me to believe it's near the basal bodies, which anchor the flagella to the cytoplasm, but I haven't depicted them). Bicudo (1989) mentions that there are "two contractile vacuoles," although the original descriptions by Skvortzov (1960) only mention one, and AlgaeBase also mentions one, so I'll conclude that there is only one contractile vacuole.

However, in Skvortzov (1960), the descriptions are in Latin and Chinese XDDD. But roughly translated by machine (thanks a lot, Google Translate!), it says the following about Protocryptomonas mukdenensis: oblong or ovate cell shape, 13 to 15 µm long, 7 to 9 µm wide.

Two flagella at the anterior end, the primary one twice as long as the cell, and the secondary one almost the same length as the cell. That's how I've represented them, with the secondary flagellum as if it were "ventral" to the primary one. This arrangement isn't mentioned anywhere; it's an inference derived from how I've been representing the flagella in the Cryptomonas illustrations (the ventral flagellum is shorter, and the dorsal one is longer).

So that's where the analogy comes in. According to Clay (2015), the vestibulum exists in all cryptomonads, and that would also include Protocryptomonas, but there's no actual data or evidence for that, so the vestibulum is highly speculative, which is why it's marked with a question mark and the text is transparent. The same applies to the reticulated mitochondrion, the endoplasmic reticulum, and the Golgi apparatus. These structures should be present in most eukaryotes, but I'm not sure if they exist in Protocryptomonas, given the shapes and sizes I've used to represent them. That's why they're speculative and presented in transparent text. If anything is more relevant, I'd say the reticulated mitochondrion, as Clay (2015) suggests that cryptomonads have this form. However, it's still entirely speculative for Protocryptomonas because there's no direct ultrastructural evidence.

In the general description for Protocryptomonas, AlgaeBase (2023) mentions 5 to 10 spherical starch grains (the organism lacks chloroplasts, and in my opinion, any other type of plastid). But for P. mukdenensis specifically, Skvortzov (1960) mentions that "Cellula oblonga vel ovata; granula amylaceae magna singula," or in Chinese if you prefer: "細胞長橢圓形或卵形；澱粉粒大，單一," which apparently means that the cells have large, individual starch granules. I assume that each cell has a single starch granule, which, according to the same article, is half the size of the cell and has the same width as the cell.

... So it's a huge thing, and it can't mean that each cell has "a few individual granules" because the cell would be too swollen and would have to be larger. Either that, or I simply don't know Latin or Chinese, which is true. So if you're reading this and think I'm misinterpreting everything, let me know in the comments here or on the Wikimedia discussion! Or something like that; sooner or later I'll see it and might correct it.

So, the conclusion is that I've represented P. mukdenensis with only one large starch granule. Since the image is designed as if viewed ventrally, the nucleus is dorsal and the starch grain is "ventral," as if it were covering the nucleus. Actually, this is just an assumption; I'm not saying it necessarily applies to all of them. It's something I inherited from how I've represented Cryptomonas species, with the chloroplasts "covering" the nucleus, which is "behind," although what actually happens is that the chloroplasts "envelop" the nucleus like a sandwich. Protocryptomonas doesn't have chloroplasts—uhm, did I already mention it doesn't have chloroplasts?

Idk what I'm doing with my life

And well, I suppose that's all I had to explain about this organism. It lacks other structures present in Cryptomonas or other genera. It does not have ejectisomes or a furrow/gullet system. More details providing context for Protocryptomonas are supposed to be found in this reference: Castro, A. A. J. d., C. E. d. M. Bicudo & D. d. C. Bicudo, 1991. Cryptogamos do Parque Estadual das Fontes do Ipiranga, SaoPaulo, SP. Algas, 2: Cryptophyceae. Hoehnea 18: 87–106. But unfortunately, I have not been able to access that reference.

What do you do in these situations? 

Well. Open Roblox. 

And listen to liminal music.

Kentomonas sorsogonicus Votypka et Lukes 2014

A strangely named organism, one of those I like to choose for the morbid fascination of illustrating the unknown. Kentomonas sorsogonicus isn't in AlgaeBase, so I based its taxonomy on that of NCBI Taxonomy.

The organism belongs to the subfamily Strigomonadinae, family Trypanosomatidae, order Trypanosomatida. That alone is enough to tell you that Kentomonas is related to the legendary Trypanosoma (sleeping sickness) and Leishmania. In this order, no one is spared: all its members are parasites. Trypanosomatids have several characteristics, among which I can highlight the kinetoplast (an organelle with a dense granule of kDNA located within the mitochondria, and usually associated with the basal bodies of the flagella), and the presence of glycosomes, which store glycolytic enzymes for glycolysis (Michels et al. 2006).

The order Trypanosomatida is included in the subclass Metakinetoplastina, along with the other orders Eubodonida, Neobodonida, and Parabodonida. These other orders are very diverse in their organisms, a few being parasitic and most free-living. In fact, I illustrated a species of Neobodonida, Klosteria bodomorphis, some time ago.

The subclass Metakinetoplastina is included in the class Kinetoplastea, and this in the phylum Euglenozoa, which makes Kentomonas distantly related to more "innocent" organisms like Euglena or Diplonema. Euglenozoa is included in the clade Discoba (which includes the other phyla Heterolobosea, Jakobea (which includes the last species I illustrated, Andalucia godoyi), and Tsukubea), and finally in the domain Eukaryota.

Anyway, the main source that I have used to create the illustrations, and the information written here, was "Kentomonas gen. n., a New Genus of Endosymbiont-containing Trypanosomatids of Strigomonadinae subfam. n." (2014), by Jan Votýpka, Alexei Yu Kostygov, Natalya Kraeva, Anastasiia Grybchuk-Ieremenko, Martina Tesařová, Danyil Grybchuk, Julius Lukeš and Vyacheslav Yurchenko. Protist, Vol. 165, Issue 6. 825-838 pp.

Another source was: "Farming, slaving and enslavement: histories of endosymbioses during kinetoplastid evolution", (2018), by Jane Harmer, Vyacheslav Yurchenko, Anna Nenarokova, Julius Lukeš and Michael L. Gingerby. Parasitology, 145, 1311–1323. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182018000781 

A peaceful screamer reminder: the following illustrations are free to use and are also available on Wikimedia Commons. Of course, commercial use of these images is not permitted, nor is their use without proper attribution. "DOTkamina (2026)" is sufficient.

Kentomonas sorsogonicus was found infecting the hindgut of a female Sarcophaga fly (species undetermined), which was captured near Donsol, Sorsogon, in the Philippines. Its cellular form is called a "choanomastigote": an oval or rounded shape with a ring-like structure at its anterior end from which the flagellum protrudes. I have indicated this ring in the illustration. In Kentomonas sorsogonicus, the choanomastigote is more elongated, giving it a "barleycorn" appearance. You, as a likely native English speaker, will know what a "barleycorn" is because either I'm searching incorrectly, or I'm getting seeds I've never seen before.

Another unsettling thing is that the "choanomastigote" has the kinetoplast anterior to the nucleus (watch this image). I thought I'd messed up because I depicted the kinetoplast posterior to the nucleus in my illustration, near the basal body. However, in K. sorsogonicus, the kinetoplast doesn't appear to be fixed; its position varies depending on the individual, being posterior, anterior, or lateral to the nucleus, or wherever you like. But that's perfect for me because I didn't have to correct anything, haha.

Speaking of the flagellar pocket, it seems to be incredibly long and occupy a large part of the cell, as can be seen in Votýpka et al. (2014): Figure 2B, reaching the area where the nucleus and the endosymbiont are located (in the posterior region). Logically, "beneath" the flagellar pocket (which, remember, is an invagination that envelops the flagellar axoneme) is the basal body, whose size I don't know, so I've represented it with a "normal" size for me, but it's up to you to judge.

Flagellar axoneme

The axoneme is 9+2, the standard microtubular structure of eukaryotic flagella (9 peripheral microtubular doublets surrounding two central microtubular singlets). This axoneme, when enveloped by the plasma membrane, is what is called the "flagellum." Since the flagellar pocket is an invagination, its interior is technically lined by the plasma membrane. The flagellum, therefore, originates from inside the cell, emerges through the ring, and widens as it does so. The flagellum has a paraflagellar rod, a protein structure that supports the flagellum. In other trypanosomatids, this rod is well-developed, but in K. sorsogonicus and other species of the subfamily Strigomonadinae, it is inconspicuous (rudimentary or almost nonexistent). I have depicted the paraflagellar rod along a section of the first part of the flagellum as it emerges from the ring. I don't know if it will be a fragmented structure, if it's shorter, or if it occupies the entire flagellum.

The flagellar pocket is an invagination shaped like a round-bottomed bottle with a neck (like a Florence flask). This means that near the anterior part of the cell, where it opens with the ring, it's narrower, and the plasma membrane that acts as its inner "wall" is closer to the plasma membrane that surrounds the axoneme (that is, the flagellum). It's in this area of ​​contact that we find the desmosomes, two or three rows of them that attach the flagellum to the membrane of the flagellar pocket.

K. sorsogonicus, cell anatomy

Transversal section of the flagellar pocket in the anterior zone, with the desmosomes.

The organism has an oval-shaped nucleus, which, according to Votýpka et al. (2014): Figure 2B, appears to be located at the posterior of the cell, with the endosymbiont even further posterior. This endosymbiont is a β-proteobacterium, known as Candidatus Kinetoplastibacterium sorsogonicusi Yurchenko et Kostygov sp. n. This symbiont is typically surrounded by glycosomes, which is why I have depicted them in greater numbers around the symbiont.

The kinetoplast is cylindrical and has a loose network of kDNA fibrils. The kinetoplast is located within the mitochondrion, which, as in other species, is single and reticulated. In K. sorsogonicus, the mitochondrion is so reticulated that it extends close to the plasma membrane, pushing it outward like longitudinal horizontal varices, forming the longitudinal ridges visible on the cell's exterior. The mitochondria are rich in tubular cristae.

SEM external appearance.

The endoplasmic reticulum appears to be a structure as branched as the mitochondria, distributed throughout the cell, or at least that's what has been observed in other trypanosomatids (Sandes and Queiroz de Figueiredo 2022). In the case of K. sorsogonicus, its actual appearance is not described; I have depicted it as much less extended, almost near the nucleus. This shape and size are speculative, and it could actually be more widespread throughout the cell. The shape of the Golgi apparatus is also speculative.

In addition to the main image, I have also drawn the organism's external appearance as it would be seen under a scanning electron microscope (SEM), where the ring and, above all, the mitochondrial ridges are visible. I have also drawn the cross-section of the flagellum's axoneme with the paraflagellar rod; the cross-section of the anterior region of the cell where the flagellar pocket is narrow and in contact with the flagellum via desmosomes (in the main image, I have depicted two rows of desmosomes that are not very noticeable; in the cross-section, the desmosomes are more visible, but only one row is shown); and the cross-section of a posterior region of the cell, where the nucleus, the posteriorly widened portion of the flagellar pocket, the flagellum's axoneme within the flagellar pocket, and the mitochondrion are visible. In the cross-section, the mitochondrion appear as a cluster of individual, round mitochondria. I hope I have pointed out the branches near the surface that form the ridges, giving, in this cross-section, a wavy cell surface.

And now...

some non-labeled icons

That's all I had to say about this organism.

Andalucia godoyi E.Lara, Chatzinotas & A.G.B.Simpson 2006

I'll confess I'm pretty burned out because I just finished writing and publishing about Cryptomonas borealis (well, that was on 30th May) but I at least wanted to get started on this species. At this point, you might be wondering, "Why this species?" Well, don't overthink it; I didn't either when I chose it. It was supposed to be a simple one, in theory. But the microtubular part was a real headache for a few days. I even almost gave up on continuing these illustrations.

A peaceful screamer reminder: The following illustrations depict Andalucia godoyi E.Lara, Chatzinotas & A.G.B.Simpson 2006, as the name is recorded on AlgaeBase. The images are free to use and are also available on Wikimedia Commons. Of course, commercial use of these images is not permitted, nor is their use without proper attribution. "DOTkamina (2026)" is sufficient. I guess that's it. gng goodbye ʕ•̫͡•ʕ•̫͡

First, some context: Andalucia godoyi belongs to the family Andaluciidae, suborder Andalucina, order Jakobida, class Jakobea. 

Damn, I'm already so lazy about having to write this, haha. I have to.

...

Hmm, let's see: formally, the class Jakobea only includes the order Jakobida. I suppose that's why these organisms are known as "jakobids," regardless of whether they're referring to the order or the class. Jakobea, along with Malawinonadea, is characterized by having a posterior cilium in a ventral feeding groove, which gives a "scooped-out" appearance, and that's why both taxa were included in the Excavata group (Lewis and Brodie 2007).

The class Jakobea would be included in the subphylum Eolouka, and this in the phylum Loukozoa. According to Mindat, the phylum Loukozoa includes Jakobea along with the subphylum Neolouka, the class Malawimonadea, and the class Tsukubea. Leukozoa would be related to the order Ancyromonadida. Mindat does not consider Eolouka; that's from AlgaeBase.

According to AlgaeBase, the matter is more complicated: Leukozoa would include the subphyla Eolouka, along with Kinetomonada, Metamonada, and Neolouka. The subphylum Eolouka would include the classes Jakobea, Kinetomonadea, and Tsukubea.

In any case, the phylum Loukozoa is included within the infrakingdom Excavata, which is in the kingdom Protozoa, and from there to the domain Eukaryota.

I haven't researched it much, but I would think that the connections between species within these clades are more molecular than morphological. I haven't found much information about what makes jakobids stand out. Wikipedia mentions a number of characteristics, but I don't think they are truly diagnostic enough to distinguish jakobids from the rest. Namely:

Jakobids possess two flagella, inserted at the anterior end of the cell, and, like other organisms in the Excavata group, they have a ventral feeding groove and an associated cytoskeletal support. The posterior flagellum has a dorsal vane and is aligned within the ventral groove, where it generates a current that the cell uses for food intake. The nucleus is generally located anteriorly and has a nucleolus. Most known jakobids have a mitochondrion, also located anteriorly, and different genera have flattened, tubular, or absent cristae. Food vacuoles are located mainly at the back of the cell, and in most jakobids the endoplasmic reticulum is distributed throughout the cell.

( •_•)>⌐■-■

Having said that, I can finally say that the main source I consulted to obtain the information for this blog post, as well as for the creation of the images, was the following: "Andalucia (n. gen.)--the deepest branch within jakobids (Jakobida; Excavata), based on morphological and molecular study of a new flagellate from soil", by Enrique Lara, Antonis Chatzinotas and Alastair G. B. Simpson, 2006. J Eukaryot Microbiol. 53(2):112-120 pp. doi: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2005.00081.x.

Other sources employed in this text and image construction were:

• "Andalucia godoyi (gen. nov.; sp. nov), a novel jakobid-like flagellate isolated from soil, is a representative of a new excavate clade". by Enrique Lara, 2005. In: Molecular analysis of the biodiversity of protists in hydrocarbon-polluted and pristine soils. Thèse Nº 3211 109-122 pp.
• "Jakobida", by Simpson, A. G. B. 2017. In: Archibald, J., Simpson, A., Slamovits, C. (eds) Handbook of the Protists. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28149-0_6

The "main cell image" or "main illustration", When I use these terms with "main" I will be referring to this image.

See this sh1t drawing? I have to say, it turned out amazing because it's been a while since I last opened those images, and now I have no idea what it's supposed to show.

Well, I'm back now, and I remember what it's about: you see, the main image is divided into three sections. It's best if you look at it from right to left. Yes, I know it would have made more sense to do it from left to right, but that's just how the sketch came out, and well, I've always been bad at organizing things.

In the right-hand section is the main image of the cell of the organism Andalucia godoyi, in lateral view. In the central part, there's a detail of the flagellar apparatus, which corresponds to the anterior surrounding area, where the basal bodies and the beginning of the ventral groove are located. In that diagram of the flagellar apparatus, you'll notice about four black lines, which correspond to cross-sections. The details of these sections are indicated on the left, under "sections details." Let's discuss each part slowly.

Lateral view.

Right part of the main image: diagram of the organism in lateral view. Specifically, where the ventral side is facing left, and the dorsal side is facing right. It also indicates that the side being viewed is the left, and the opposite side (which is not being viewed) would be the right. Okay, this illustration shows the most representative parts of the Andalucia godoyi cell:

Starting with the ventral groove, whose length I don't know, but in the article by Lara et al. 2006, Figs. 2 and 3, it is indicated as being in the middle of the cell, which leads me to interpret that it occupies more or less almost the entire ventral area of ​​the cell; it must be quite long. I also know that its origin is "at the anterior end" because it mentions that the flagella originate above the ventral groove, and the flagella are correctly positioned at the anterior end.

The single mitochondrion is an elongated structure that runs the length of the cell from the anterior end (near the basal bodies of the flagella) to near the posterior end, after encircling the nucleus from above, either from the left or the right side (according to Lara 2005). The mitochondrion has tubular cristae. I don't know if I'm hallucinating or if I'm really bad at protistology, but in the micrographs, the mitochondrion resembles white bean broth, with whitish spots that give it a trypophobic appearance, and I've decided to represent the mitochondrion that way. You can check the original images yourself if you want.

The nucleus is located in the center of the anterior region of the cell. It has a nucleolus located in the center. One particular feature is the presence of an electron-dense spherical organelle attached to the posterior part of the nucleus, which Lara et al. (2006) refer to it as the "paranuclear body," and that's how I've written it in the illustration.

They also mention the existence of a Golgi apparatus, which for some reason they call the "Golgi apparatus dictyosome," and then say that it has "3 to 5 cisternae" (I've drawn it with 3 cisternae), in the anterior part of the cell, "ventrally and to the right of the flagellar apparatus." I have no problem with that, except that "dictyosome" is supposed to be the name for each of the individual cisternae that make up the Golgi apparatus, and in Lara et al. (2006) they mention it as if it were a synonym for "Golgi apparatus." Well, that's my question; I'll leave you to think about it or discuss it in the comments.

Nothing is mentioned about the endoplasmic reticulum. Fortunately, Simpson (2017) mentions that in jakobids, the endoplasmic reticulum is branched throughout the cell. That's how I've represented it. I've avoided (I think I'll do so in future illustrations) distinguishing between the rough and smooth endoplasmic reticulum as two separate parts (this is for the sake of understanding, as eukaryotic cells are taught in schools and colleges, but it gives the mistaken impression that they are two completely separate sub-parts). In any case, you can still distinguish which part would be the rough endoplasmic reticulum because some branches have a higher concentration of ribosomes (those blue dots). Furthermore, I've drawn more ribosomes more dispersed throughout the cell, as should be the case in any standard eukaryotic cell.

In the posterior half of the Andalucia godoyi cell, there are several food vacuoles with digesting bacteria. I've depicted about four of them. And that's all I have to say about them, really.

Flagellar apparatus detail. F2 is the anterior flagellum (and B2 the basal body of F2). F1 is the posterior flagellum (and B1 is... the basal body...... of F1).

And now for the fun part: the flagellar apparatus. In the main cell image (right side), the basal bodies and their respective flagella are only faintly visible. Both flagella are twice as long as the cell itself, and they have the typical 9+2 flagellar arrangement (9 peripheral microtubular doublets surrounding two central singlets). The microtubular structure of the basal bodies isn't mentioned, but I've decided to represent them with the standard 9+0 arrangement (9 peripheral microtubular triplets surrounding an empty center).

With that brief introduction, let's now describe the central part of the illustration, labeled "flagellar apparatus" in a red box. Before proceeding, I should mention that the representations of microtubules and related structures are very "linear." For some structures, Lara et al. (2006) mention the number of microtubules that compose them, but not for others, and in those I have represented them as a single line or as several, but these are speculative decisions made primarily to avoid confusing the observer. It assumes that in reality they could be wider, more diffuse, more complex, etc. Another point: to avoid double terms and confusion, I have decided to use the same terms employed in Lara et al. (2006), so that it can be compared with the illustrations in that work and the terminology they use.

We can discuss the flagellar apparatus in terms of which structures accompany which of the two basal bodies. But first, let's talk about the basal bodies: both measure approximately 550 nm and are separated by an angle of 135º, with a distance of 170 nm between them. There are two thin, crescent-shaped, electron-dense structures that connect the basal bodies. The first is the StC (striated crescent, striated connecting fibre), which is crescent-shaped. The other is the SmC (thin smooth crescent fibre), and according to Lara et al. (2006), it is associated with the dorsal side of basal body 2. Both structures are shown in Lara et al. (2006) Figure 12, but I couldn't distinguish exactly which one was the SmC. I've represented it as being "below" the StC, because that's how it seems to be indicated in Figure 12 of the article. I'm not entirely sure.

Flagellar apparatus detail (right) and sections details (left).

Now, let's talk about the structures that accompany the basal body of the anterior flagellum (B2). There is a dorsal fan (F) of approximately 12 microtubules, which originates near the anterior side of basal body 2 (B2). The dorsal fan connects to B2 via the fan-associated sheet (FA). And that concludes our discussion of B2.

The structure of the basal body 1 (B1) companions is more complex. There are two main microtubular roots (structures that anchor the basal bodies to the cell): microtubular root 1 (R1) and microtubular root 2 (R2).

R1 "originates against the right edge of basal body 1, is directed posteriorly, and consists of a flat row of microtubules." I understand this to mean that the origin of R1 is on the right side of B1. Along with R1, there is a non-microtubular "I" fiber (denoted simply as the letter "I"), associated with the ventral face of R1. Hence, in my illustration, this I structure is "to the left" of R1, which would be interpreted as it being near the ventral side of R1.

There is also a dense "B" fiber (B), which originates against the right ventral side of B1 and continues along the right side of B1, converging with the external portion of R1. I interpret the "B" fiber as being closer to the "I" fiber first, as can be seen in Lara et al. (2006) Figures 14 to 16, although in those micrographs it appears to be further away. Even so, the order would be with the "B" fiber most ventral, then the "I" fiber, and finally R1.

There is also a non-microtubular "A" fiber (A) that initially originates on the dorsal side of B1 (although in my illustration it is not quite on the dorsal side, but rather at a point between the right dorsal and almost ventral sides of B1, so that it is close to Figures 14 and 15 of Lara et al. (2006)), and then it is located near the dorsal side of R1. The "A" fiber has a striated appearance in some sections, which, in my opinion, gives it the appearance of a line with darkened circular spots on top, and that's how I've represented it.

"A singlet microtubule (S) originates in the 'corner' formed by the dorsal side of R1 and the right side of B1." The "S" microtubule is initially connected to the dorsal side of B1 by a singlet-associated fiber (SA), and then extends downwards (posteriorly). This leads me to believe that the SA fiber only seems to exist when it connects the S microtubule to the dorsal side of B1, and that's why in the illustration it only appears near B1, as if it were on top of the "S" microtubule. I hope it's noticeable, although it's already an eyesore for me. Duh...

In addition to R1, there is microtubular root 2 (R2). It originates near the left side of B1 and extends posteriorly. It is made of 7 microtubules. It is accompanied by the non-microtubular "C" fiber (C), which is on the dorsal side of R2. As I can see in Lara et al. (2006) Figure 13, the C fiber appears to be attached to R2 from its origin. The arrangement of the C fiber consists of two conspicuous dense lamellae that seem to be separated by a thinner lamella in between, like a sandwich. This is what I have tried to represent in my illustration.

The sections dude

I will now pause to discuss the left side of the main illustration: the "Section Details." You will have noticed that in the diagram of the flagellar apparatus, there are 4 lines that refer to the 4 cross-sections indicated in these "Section Details." I will begin by discussing Section 1: "B1 transversal section," where I have attempted to represent a cross-section of B1 and its associated structures according to what I have explained previously: B1 has a 9+0 arrangement (9 peripheral microtubular triplets). On the ventral side is the B fiber (the ventral side in this image would be approximately the lower half of B1). Towards the right (which in this image would be the upper left corner) are R1 along with the I fiber, the A fiber, and the S fiber, which connects to SA on the dorsal side of B1. The dorsal side of B1 in this image would encompass roughly the upper half of B1. The left side would be the lower right corner, where R2 and the C fiber are located.

Returning to the flagellar apparatus, the posterior flagellum (F1) has a particular feature: it possesses a flagellar vane (FVA), located on the dorsal side of F1 and appearing after the origin of the 9+2 axoneme of F1. It's true that in my illustration, the ventral side is, in the image, the orientation towards the left, and the FVA appears to be facing that direction, but the intention is to give the appearance that it's actually "behind the axoneme, on the dorsal side," which would be almost the opposite of the ventral side, which is what we're seeing "from the front" in the drawing. There's also the line for Section 2: "F1 transversal section," where it's clearer: the FVA is in the upper half of F1 (which is the dorsal area), and the lower half of F1 is the ventral side. The truth is, I've made some kind of mistake in representing it there, but honestly, I'm getting sleepy.

Finally, the last tedious thing with which I hope to finish writing this entry: you will notice that in the diagram of the flagellar apparatus, the "tip," or rather, the "beginning" or "anterior end" of the ventral groove (GR) is represented. Lara et al. (2006) suggest that it consists of these parts: a right margin (the edge) (RM), the right wall (RW), the floor of the GR (FL), the left wall (LW), and the left margin (LM). The GR is a groove; understand these parts as if we were talking about a tube cut in half longitudinally, or a semicylindrical water channel, such that the edges where this tube has been cut would be the left and right margins; the non-central curved parts on the sides, the left and right walls; and finally, the curved part that acts as the "base," "center," or "floor" of this cut tube, would be the "ventral groove floor."

These designations are important for what Lara et al. (2006) explain later: the arrangement of the structures adjacent to basal body 1 (B1) changes slightly at the beginning of the ventral groove. R1 divides into two parts: the outer portion (R1o) and the inner portion (R1i). Fiber I, which I mentioned earlier runs alongside the ventral side of R1, once it reaches the beginning of the ventral groove, runs only alongside R1o, presumably also on its ventral side, and they form an R1o/I complex, such that they are assumed to be together.

Fiber B, which is initially located on the right ventral side of B1, somewhat close to R1, once the ventral groove begins, continues only near the R1o/I complex and eventually connects to them.

Fiber A, which is originally on the dorsal side of R1, terminates shortly after the ventral groove begins.

R2, which is initially a compact bundle of 7 microtubules, begins to splay as the ventral groove begins. This also coincides with the termination of the C fiber, shortly after the start of the ventral groove.

The structures that continue alongside the ventral groove provide support for the parts of the ventral groove mentioned earlier. Thus, the B fiber supports the right margin (RM), the R1o/I complex supports the right wall (RW), R1i supports the floor of the ventral groove (FL), and to its left, the singlet (S). This suggests that the S fiber supports the left side of FL, and R1i the right side. The left wall (LW) and the left margin (LM) are supported by the microtubules of R2. This support arrangement can be seen more clearly in Section 4: "Ventral Groove: transverse section (not so proximal part)."

The sections but without labels

The "initial" or "predecessor" states of these structures during the initial (but maximum) stage of the ventral groove are shown in Section 3: "Ventral groove: Proximal start transversal section." The parts of the ventral groove I mentioned earlier are shown, along with how the structures are arranged before reorganizing as described in Section 4. Thus, in Section 3, R1 still exists as a complete structure (without an external or internal part), and the A fiber is still present near R1. Note that the microtubules of R2 are very close together, whereas in Section 4 they are more separated, as Lara et al. (2006) indicate occurs when R2 has already passed the beginning of the ventral groove.

Damn, my fingers and eyes have really hurt having to write all this. It's a mixture of satisfaction at having finished writing and being able to finally release the images on Wikimedia, but also of the hard work of having to thoroughly read about these structures to represent them correctly. 

-

-

-

-

I guess it's part of the hobby.

The deadline is dying (◑_◑)

 "Hey... didn't you have your final project meeting this week?"

Just end it all

And how do I answer that question to my mom, admitting that I'm actually avoiding it again for whatever serious reasons you can think of? Officially, I'm trying to write more text and get the project more or less finished, not "ugh, it's still not finished?", and I'm hoping to have it done by next week. But it's exhausting when, at family parties for birthdays or religious celebrations, my mom says, "Yes, I hope he finishes that project already," because it's the ultimate life goal, right? 

Well, I don't see it that way. It's more like an obligation I can't skip if I want to get my degree, which I think is what's really draining me. And I can't really say, "I'm hardly doing anything, actually." When you (my mom) see me researching or writing until late at night, I'm actually doing research on the protists I'm drawing, on the speciation book that I think will never see the light of day, or something else entirely, except for that final project. 

I feel mortified. Yesterday I made a few paragraphs, and as on other occasions, completely forcing myself, it doesn't feel good at all. I don't see any direction, nor a good ending. I keep creating illustrations or something else, thinking, hoping that if the worst-case scenario happens, it will be enough to tell myself, "At least I didn't waste so much time." Well, I hope so.

Hey, I wish I could go to sleep, take a nap for a while. I feel like I need it more than usual. But my mother is watching me. I have to try to rest while I'm in front of the computer and then muster some effort, because this is a rare occasion when it's on.

And in fact, I'm going now, because I'm already writing just for avoid time. Building phantom echoes for my future self? Heh, what a good joke.

kicsit elakadtam

Trying to feel cool rn but i'm just sit down on the chair looking at a blank screen, or whatever

(¬_¬”)

So, yeah. Ugh... I promised myself I'd keep the description for Andalucia godoyi short, but I've been feeling down for the past few days. It's not so much down as a lack of sleep. I don't know why I'm wasting a whole blog post describing this state, but I feel it was necessary, or it will be when I reread this after some time. 

I think I'll upload something else to Pixiv or maybe some AI-related stuff for my OC. And then I'll start remodeling, because the drawing of Andalucia godoyi has some major errors in the cellular structure. I discovered an article about the general description of the Jakobids, and there's a ton of stuff I have to correct. Well, not that much, actually, but since I did the drawing without layers, it's going to be tedious because I have to erase a lot and redraw everything, and also organize the layers of other diagrams that I did layer in the same drawing. I have to restructure them so they match the corrections, and... I guess that's why I'm already feeling tired, because I know it's going to be a real drag. Ugh...

But I have to do it, because I'm pretty stuck, and it's already mid-June! Damn, time keeps passing, and I don't feel like I'm making much progress. I have to break this seasonal stagnation somehow.

Cryptomonas borealis Skuja 1956

This is an organism I've wanted to illustrate for a while because it seemed interesting compared to other Cryptomonas species, with the "borealis" part and all that. I don't really have much energy to write this post, but I'll try anyway. Then, to feel less guilty, I'll see if I can get around to writing something for the final project. I should notify my supervisor for another mandatory review next week. What follows is a notice regarding the use of the images and taxonomic context, which is almost entirely copied and pasted from the other Cryptomonas guides, so don't expect much ingenuity there.

This species belongs to the family Cryptomonadaceae, order Cryptomonadales, class Cryptophyceae (commonly called "cryptomonad algae"). You know where this is going: cryptomonad algae are then included in the subphylum Rollomonadia, phylum Cryptista, subkingdom Hacrobia, kingdom Chromista. 

The kingdom Chromista is related to the clade Archaeplastida, which includes algae that are relatives and ancestors of plants. You might also encounter another classification, where the phylum Cryptista is included in the clade Pancryptista, which is related to Archaplastida, and both form the large CAM clade. But that's not really important; the point is that Cryptomonas borealis is another distant relative of plant ancestors.

bleeeeeh (˶˃ ᵕ ˂˶)

The following illustrations depict Cryptomonas borealis Skuja 1956, as the name is recorded on AlgaeBase. I have shown it in ventral view. The images are free to use and are also available on Wikimedia Commons. Of course, commercial use of these images is not permitted, nor is their use without proper attribution. "DOTkamina (2026)" is sufficient.

For the creation of these illustrations, as well as the text describing them, I have relied on and consulted the following works:

• "Chapter 18 - Cryptomonads". Brec L. Clay, 2015. Freshwater Algae of North America (Second Edition). Academic Press.
• "Cryptomonas borealis Skuja 1956". E.A. Molinari Novoa in Guiry, M.D. & Guiry, G.M. AlgaeBase. World-wide electronic publication, National University of Ireland, Galway. 2024.
• "Cryptomonas borealis Skuja, 1956". Martin Kreutz. Real Micro Life. 2021.
• "Light microscopical observations of the sigmoid species of the genus Cryptomonas Ehrenberg (Cryptophyceae) and their eventual pyrenoids". Pavel Javornický. Acta Musei Silesiae Scientiae Naturales. 63(1):1-24. DOI: 10.2478/cszma-2014-0001. 2014.
• "Revision of the Genus Cryptomonas (Cryptophyceae): a Combination of Molecular Phylogeny and Morphology Provides Insights into a Long-Hidden Dimorphism". Kerstin Hoef-Emden and Michael Melkonian. Protist: Volume 154, Issues 3-4, 371-409 pp. 2003.

Cryptomonas borealis is a rare species of Cryptomonas. 

Actually, it's not rare in any particular way; I just said that because the name sounded legendary. "B o r e a l i s"—few things surpass that in epicness. The C. borealis cell is oval with a wavy surface. In fact, I would describe it more accurately, in lateral view, as a kind of rectangular oval that has been bruised. It measures 20 to 50 µm in length.

The organism has two chloroplasts ranging in color from brownish to olive green. One would assume that both chloroplasts are the same color in each individual. In the ventral view, however, I have depicted each chloroplast as a different color: the "ventral" one more greenish and the "dorsal" one more brownish. But I'm sure that doesn't happen in real life. I made that decision to make it easier to distinguish both chloroplasts in the ventral view, but it doesn't mean they are bicolored in real life.

There are no pyrenoids; what exist are several hexagonal or oval starch granules. In the illustrations, I distinguish between "chloroplast 1 starch grains" and "chloroplast 2 starch grains," but this is purely for didactic purposes and to facilitate the separation of the two chloroplasts in the drawing. In reality, the starch granules of both chloroplasts should not differ in size, quantity, or color.

Furthermore, according to Clay (2015), I have represented two nucleomorphs as they are assumed to exist in Cryptomonas (one for each chloroplast, if there are two chloroplasts). Of course, their shape and location are almost speculative. Clay (2015) mentions that they are "between the pyrenoid and the nucleus," but I have represented them as being above the nucleus, since there are no pyrenoids in this species.

One notable feature of this species is the "gullet mouth," which is "widely open." This can be understood as the anterior part of the cell, where the vestibulum and gullet are located, being especially wide. It doesn't end in a "point" or a "curve" as occurs in other Cryptomonas species. In fact, from a lateral view, it literally resembles two jaws or "protrusions" surrounding the entrance (vestibulum), like "a fish with its mouth open," according to Kreutz (2021). I believe I've managed to represent this in my illustration, but you can check Kreutz (2021), Figure 1b, to get a better visualization. Furthermore, this arrangement results in one side of the cell around the vestibulum appearing more "prominent" than the other. In this case, the more prominent side is the dorsal side; you'll see that it's higher on that side than on the ventral side. This prominent area is known as the "apical rostrum."

The gullet, btw, reaches up to half the length of the cell and is covered with ejectisomes, as is common in other Cryptomonas species. In the illustrations of the organism in Kreutz (2021) and Javornický (2014), it appears that the ejectisomes do not completely cover the gullet; rather, there is a portion closer to the exterior ("the vestibulum") that is not covered by them. And that is how I have represented it.

The vestibulum has a "vestibular ligule," a characteristic of campylomorphic Cryptomonas species, such as C. borealis. However, this structure is almost speculative because it has not been reported for this specific species; rather, it is a characteristic that is "assumed" for campylomorphic Cryptomonas. You can learn more about this morphology in the entry on Cryptomonas obovata.

According to Hoef-Emden and Melkonian (2003), the furrow is curved, and I would venture to say that it extends to just under half the length of the cell, based on what I can observe in Hoef-Emden and Melkonian (2003): Figures 2 and 10. That is my main excuse for having depicted the large furrow.

Two Maupas bodies are represented, although the species can have as few as one, or even as many as three. The contractile vacuole is located anteriorly, beneath the apical rostrum. There is also a nucleus with a nucleolus located posteriorly, "in posterior third" (Kreutz 2021). I assume the nucleolus exists because, according to Clay (2015), in cryptomonads during interphase (the "normal" phase of cell life where it is not dividing, but simply existing), the nucleolus is "prominent and persistent."

I have drawn the endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, and the single reticulated mitochondrion. The shapes of these structures are speculative. In the case of the mitochondrion, it's a predicted reticulated shape based on what Santore and Greenwood (1977) explains, where it's mentioned that Cryptomonas has a single mitochondrion with numerous branches distributed throughout the cell, concentrated in areas like the gullet. It's assumed that these mitochondrial branches should have different thicknesses in various sections, but in my drawing, the width of these branches is almost uniform.

I assume that the flagellar arrangement in C. borealis is type 4, as described in Kugrens et al. (1987): this means: the flagella do not follow the basic type 1 flagellar arrangement (long dorsal flagellum with two rows of mastigonemes, each with a terminal filament; short ventral flagellum with one row of mastigonemes, each with two unequal terminal filaments). Instead, there is a type 4 flagellar arrangement. In this arrangement, there is only one row of mastigonemes for both flagella. The nature of the terminal filaments is the same as in type 1 flagella. Therefore: long (dorsal) flagellum with one row of mastigonemes, each with a terminal filament; short (ventral) flagellum with one row of mastigonemes, each with two unequal terminal filaments. Additionally, at the terminal tip of the long flagellum, there are four "terminal hairs".

Kugrens et al. (1987)'s work does not mention that C. borealis has type 4 flagella. I infer this because its morphological relationship with C. curvata and C. platyuris, among other species, has been discussed (Javornický 2014 and Hoef-Emden and Melkonian 2003). And C. curvata and C. platyuris have type-4 flagella. Furthermore, flagellar type 4 in Kugrens et al. (1987) is associated with species described as campylomorphic by Clay (2015)... and C. borealis is campylomorphic and only has this morph according to Hoef-Emden and Melkonian (2003). All of this leads me to believe that C. borealis has this flagellar arrangement. But of course, this is speculative, and electron microscopy studies would be necessary to confirm it.

Both the mastigonemes and the additional filaments and hairs can only be seen with an electron microscope. Don't expect to see them with a light microscope. Even the flagella are sometimes difficult to see with a light microscope. I almost forgot: both flagella are located on the right side of the vestibule. That's from a dorsal view. In a ventral view, they appear to be on the left, but that's just an illusion!

I really think that was all I had to say about this species. I've had it ready for a long time—I mean, the illustrations—but I was too lazy to write it. Thankfully, I'm finally out of writer's block.