Komma caudata

Komma caudata (L.Geitler) D.R.A.Hill 1991 is a species of unicellular blue-green alga (although the color is actually primarily in the chloroplast, as the rest of the alga is transparent). It belongs to the superclass Cryptomonada, commonly called "cryptomonads" or "cryptophytes," which in turn are included in the phylum Cryptista, within the clade Pancryptista. This clade is closely related to the clade Archaeplastida, which includes Rhodelphia (species of the genus Rhodelphis), red algae (Rhodophyta), glaucophytes (Glaucophyta), picozoans (Picozoa), and finally the plants and green algae related to them (Viridiplantae).

Organism dimensions? 8 to 12 µm long and 4 to 6 µm wide.

Before continuing, I must mention that all the information written here, as well as the diagrams and illustrations, were based on the drawings, micrographs, and information available in these articles:

• Chroomonas and other blue-green cryptomonads. David R. A. Hill 1991. 
• "Chapter 18: Cryptomonads". Brec L. Clay 2015. Pages 809-850. From the Book: "Freshwater Algae of North America (Second Edition)".

Komma caudata. Full diagram. DOTkamina 2025. Based on: Clay (2015) and Hill (1991).

Well, the main diagram (?) depicts several things. In the center, which is the main image, is the anatomical diagram of Komma caudata as if it were a longitudinal section. All the parts have schematic shapes that approximate reality, as well as purely representative colors, which don't necessarily illustrate what the organism actually looks like. The mitochondria and the endoplasmic reticulum (both smooth and rough) are represented speculatively, and it's assumed that they should exist since it's a eukaryotic cell. The Golgi apparatus is also speculative, although it is mentioned that it exists in the anteroventral part. In Hill (1991), Figure 21, it's depicted almost near the contractile vacuole, and I've done the same for my illustrations.

What else is noteworthy? Well, Komma caudata has a comma-like shape, hence the name. It was previously classified as Chroomonas caudata L.Geitler 1924, which is its basionym. The synonym is Chroomonas acuta Utermöhl (1925). In Clay's (2015) illustration, Figure 13A, it is depicted with a very pointed posterior end, but I believe it is smoother. In fact, it was depicted that way in the earlier version of Clay's 2003 work.

Let's talk about the other structures: Komma caudata has two flagella, one short and one long, located on the right wall of the vestibule. The vestibule is a concavity that leads to the digestive zone of a protist, which in this case is the gullet. Both flagella have mastigonemes: the short one has only one row of mastigonemes, while the long one has two rows oriented in different (opposite) directions. The mastigonemes consist of two parts: what I call the "main tubular hair" (to refer to the main structure of the mastigoneme, although this term is not recognized in any of the articles), and the "fine terminal filament". The "fine terminal filaments" also cover the ends of the flagella.

Clay (2015) only "mentions" the nucleus located at the posterior end of Komma caudata, a contractile vacuole at the anterior end, and two rows of ejectisomes, six in each row (it's important to note that neither Clay (2015) nor Hill (1991) specifies the number of ejectisomes; it seems Clay (2015) assigned that number by mere inference or for some unknown reason, but I decided to replicate it. In the earlier version, Kugrens and Clay (2003) listed two rows of five ejectisomes each. In any case, ejectisomes are not easily visible under a light microscope, and the two rows appear to be rare to observe).

Clay (2015) neither mentions nor depicts the nucleomorph that was found according to Hill (1991). The nucleomorph should be located on the ventral side of the pyrenoid, and slightly posterior to it (I have drawn it as if it were "just below" the pyrenoid). In Hill (1991), it is mentioned that the nucleomorph cannot have a well-defined shape, appearing as a diffuse, layered, fibrillogranular region. The nucleomorph is a kind of vestigial nucleus. 

Komma caudata illustration (No labels).

Komma caudata possesses a single large chloroplast containing the biliprotein Cr-phycocyanin 645. It is perhaps the largest of all the organelles, literally occupying the entire dorsal region of Komma caudata. In fact, you can imagine it as a kind of internal backpack or corset-like structure that almost completely surrounds the organism internally. In Clay's (2015) illustration (Figure 13A), I almost got freaked out because it depicted "two apparent chloroplasts," but damn, it's supposed to have only one. Then I realized that what he was trying to represent was the immensity of the chloroplast; it wasn't two, but the same one, but because it was a longitudinal section, they appeared to be two, with the rest of the chloroplast "at the bottom, on the dorsal side of the organism." 

I think in my drawing I've tried to make the immensity of the chloroplast clear. But just in case it's not clear, the cross-sectional illustration clearly shows how much the chloroplast extends:

Komma caudata. Transversal section.

Clay (2015) represents the pyrenoid as a separate structure attached to the chloroplast, but I believe that pyrenoids are, in fact, inside the chloroplasts, and therefore I represent it within them. The only one pyrenoid is surrounded by "several starch granules," which form the "sheath of starch".

Speaking of the cross-sectional view: the one I'm illustrating here is a section of the pink line that's in the main illustration, and it's based on Figures 22 and 23 from Hill (1991). You can only see the gullet, the chloroplast, and the pyrenoid with its starch coat, oh, and two ejectisomas. Consider that the nucleomorph should be located below the pyrenoid region, and the nucleus much further down.

Other organelles: mitochondria, which, according to Hill (1991), have been found as "mitochondrial profiles restricted to the center of the cytoplasm". Therefore, I have depicted some mitochondria oriented towards the center of this alga. The shape and size of the illustrated mitochondria are speculative. Furthermore, I assume there must be few of them, since there is a chloroplast that provides energy to the entire organism. I do not know how many mitochondria there might be.

Komma caudata. Periplast representation.

The illustration at the bottom right in the main diagram (or simply wacth the image above, with your eyes obviously) shows a simplified representation of what the periplast of Komma caudata would look like under an electron microscope. The periplast is like a cell wall, only softer. In Komma caudata, it's made of hexagonal plates. Next to the simplified image is a surface view of a pair of these hexagons with the cytoplasm underneath. Then there is a cross-sectional view of the same section, showing that the plates are arranged like roof tiles. These hexagonal plates are not represented in the other diagrams of the organism.

Well, I guess that is all there is to say. I thought I had finished everything yesterday, but then I noticed an error in the placement of the Golgi apparatus and had to redraw the entire thing again this morning. Uff. I would say it annoyed me, but I actually did it without complaining much. I suppose this is what people call true vocation. I don't know.

As always, these images appear on Wikimedia Commons and anyone can use them for homework, essays, monographs, theses, presentations, constructive critiques, articles, or posts. The use remains noncommercial. I don't think I mentioned this in other posts, but if you see any of my illustrations for sale, contact me at once or report the content, because (I want to gain that money too lmaoo) these illustrations remain free and should not appear on sale. The only requirement I ask for their use is that you mention the authorship: DOTkamina 2025. A fuller credit line could read: “DOTkamina 2025 (based on Clay 2015 and Hill 1991).”

I guess that's all. I'll continue dreaming on that girl.

Paramastix conifera

You know what? 

(๑´• .̫ •ू`๑)

(´°̥̥̥̥̥̥̥̥ω°̥̥̥̥̥̥̥̥｀)

I was going to postpone this drawing until next week, but I think I'm going to have a meltdown because tomorrow I have to justify the rejected aspects of my final graduation project to the Honorable University Council. The best part is, I think I've identified weaknesses that even my advisor couldn't see. And I think they're going to humiliate me. Yes, I know that's how the scientific world is, that's how they teach you and all that. But when you don't have enough resources to keep messing around, waiting to finish your degree isn't... it's not an option. It would be if it were guaranteed that by doing this well, I'd have a good job. But not even that. That's why the stress. If I take any longer, I'll lose the opportunity to at least work in something other than what I studied. Who knows; waiter, janitor, kitchen helper, selling things on the street. But again, the younger the better, because for some reason, world despise uneducated old people.

                                                     *I¡m so f_cking dead lmao ((유∀유|||))

So, tomorrow is my extinction event. I might publish something about it. But, as a final act of proving I'm not that stupid, I rushed to finish this pending drawing for The Protist Series. Because I would de extinct tomorrow. If it's destructive, my performance and desire to contribute will die again. So, I'd better take advantage of the time and publish this.

                                            This is how I think I'll be riding the bus tomorrow.

Paramastix conifera Skuja, 1948 is a predator. It belongs to the clade Disparia, which may be distantly related within the Diaphoretickes complex, which includes the close relatives of plant ancestors (Archaeplastida). For the illustrations, I relied on the information and images available in this article, "Rediscovery of the multiflagellated protist Paramastix conifera Skuja 1948 (Protista incertae sedis)" by Zölffel and Skibbe (1997). The description I will give of the organism is also based on the same article.

And the raw version :3

:33333333 č̷̢̢̡̢̱̠͈̜̣̲̼̝̮̪̯͉̖̝̟͉̬͚̹͇͕̖̱̻̖͕͎̦͇̬̞̗̯͍͔̭̖̦̻͈̙͜͜ͅͅŗ̸̢̧̡̡̛͍͓̮̱͔͙̟̩̞͇̹̜͇͖̮̹̙̜̼͍̘͍̰̳̳̬̪͚͎̝͕̮̃̿̔̀̔̋͛̈̍̄̿̀͂̌̓̑͐̅̍̀̽̅͂̏̆̈̔͛̄͆̄̎͑̆̓̂̚͝͝ͅi̶̡̧̡̛͎̟̙͇̦̲͈̣̙̮̹̳̪͍̜̲̻̝̞̮̻̰̤͙̱͚͈͇͕̺̹̱͓̞̩̱͍̮̟̠͚̬̭̹̠͔͎̤̗̎͋͐̾̆̃͛͜͜ͅn̷̡̢̲̼͎̭̗͖͇̖̭̜͖̞̰͉̤͎͖̩̖̯̱̱͍̘̙̣͍͔̥̼͇͉͈̣̰̤͎̯̮̣̫͚̪͑̅̉͌͊̔̃̉̚͜͜͝͝ͅͅͅg̶̛̭͉̞͇̳̱̭̦̲̣͚͍̟̣͔̉̽͗͂̈́͆͒̈̈́̍͗̉͂͋̋͂̿̂̌̂͐̊̽̔̇͐̋͌̏̉̀̀̑̊͑̔̏̕̕͜͝͝͝͝͠͝͠͝ͅͅe̵̡̢̢͚͙͔̘͚̗͍̝̫͚̲͈̺̜̲̫̩̣̮̤̐̓̿͜

What to consider from these images: the organism has two parts, the anterior and the posterior. The preceding structure is the equivalent of a "head." It has a nipple-like protrusion called a "papilla." Inside the papilla is an aggregation of microtubules forming a cytostome, which acts as the organism's mouth. Under a light microscope, this cytostome is barely visible. At the base of the papilla are two furrows (only one is shown in the image; the other is assumed to be on the opposite side and therefore not visible). Extending from each furrow is a row of flagella, called "kinety." Here, they are represented as having eight flagella for each furrow, making a total of 16... but the total number can vary from 16 to 20. Under a microscope, the flagella are very fragile and break easily, giving the appearance of fewer flagella.

The organism typically has one or two contractile vacuoles and numerous food vacuoles. Paramastix conifera preys on algae, primarily small cryptophytes and phytomonad-like algae. In the illustration of predation (see below), I depict it devouring a specimen of Komma caudata (L.Geitler) D.R.A.Hill 1991, previously known as Chroomonas caudata L.Geitler. This is a species of cryptophyte, a group of organisms even more closely related to plants.

No, there is no report of Paramastix conifera specifically preying on Komma caudata; this is merely my own deductive interpretation, since Komma caudata is a small cryptophyte that can fit inside P. conifera. I based this on size: Paramastix conifera can reach a size of 10 to 18 µm in length and 9 to 12 µm in width. Komma caudata reaches a length of 8 to 12 µm and a width of 4 to 6 µm (Kugrens and Clay 2003). For the predation illustration, it's assumed that the depicted P. conifera is 18 x 9 µm, and the ingested K. caudata is 8 x 4 µm. This is a visual estimate; I didn't actually draw it to scale.

Another reason I chose K. caudata is because there are reports of it being found in freshwater in Germany. P. conifera has also been found in a freshwater body in Germany, specifically in a shallow dimictic lake in the northwestern outskirts of Berlin. I haven't considered the specific environmental ranges and habitat conditions of both organisms, so keep in mind that P. conifera may never have actually coexisted with K. caudata. No, I didn't find better "prey" because they were the same size as, or larger than, P. conifera.

Speaking of predation: this process is simple. As shown in the illustration, the predator first detects its prey, then captures it with its papilla (pseudopodia have not been observed), which expands to ingest the prey. While ingesting, a new food vacuole begins to form. According to the article by Zölffel and Skibbe (1997), it's normal to see P. conifera with several food vacuoles, containing the remains of the algae and related organisms it consumes. It's due to this diet that the color of P. conifera ranges from greenish to brownish.

In the illustration, I depict three types of vacuoles (these aren't formal types; this is entirely my artistic interpretation): one with greenish-yellow tones and a dark green background (this is assumed to be a recent-digestion vacuole), two with a more yellowish-turquoise hue (these are mid-digestion vacuoles), and four almost transparent with light blue tones and yellowish-brown spots (these are late-digestion vacuoles, and the color is due to the degradation of chlorophyll in the prey). Keep in mind that food vacuoles are not fixed structures and don't have a standard quantity: once digestion is complete, they degrade.

Before continuing, I forgot to mention that the representation of Komma caudata and P. conifera in the predation diagram is simplified. In the case of K. caudata, I based my work on Figure 11A and photograph 12A from Chapter 21, "Cryptomonads", of the book "Freshwater Algae of North America" ​​by Kugrens and Clay (2003). Please note that the colors in all illustrations are merely representative. Except for the green tones of P. conifera due to prey (and even then, that representation is still creative), the rest are purely for illustrative and schematic purposes and do not correspond to the actual colors.

What else am I forgetting to mention? Oh, right, the organelles: in the anatomical illustration of P. conifera, I depict several small mitochondria, a Golgi apparatus, and an endoplasmic reticulum (both smooth and rough are assumed to be present). These are structures that are assumed to exist in all eukaryotic cells, but there is no defined morphology or numerical quantity for all organisms. I couldn't find that information for P. conifera or related species, so the shape, number, and size of the mitochondria, Golgi apparatus, and endoplasmic reticulum are purely speculative. At least for mitochondria, the general consensus is that eukaryotic cells have "tens to hundreds" of them.

A sh1t. But understandable I swear.

(┳Д┳)

I think that's all I have to say. These images are available on Wikimedia Commons and can be used freely, for non-commercial purposes, of course. Want to use them for an article, thesis, or anything else? Please be sure to give me proper credit: DOTkamina 2025.

Rhodelphis marinus

So... seriously, I managed to illustrate all four Rhodelphis species. I feel most proud of Rhodelphis edaphicus, as it was a new species and I hadn't initially planned to illustrate it, but I couldn't resist the temptation.

Rhodelphis marinus is a simple drawing; there isn't much information available about its habits. What I do know is that it's similar to Rhodelphis limneticus in several ways. One troubling thing is that there's no indication that it has contractile vacuoles, unlike Rhodelphis limneticus. These contractile vacuoles are never shown in the micrographs of the species. I don't know if this is because they weren't found, or if it should be assumed that they are present. 𝑰 𝒄𝒉𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒅𝒆𝒑𝒊𝒄𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎.

The article I used as a basis for this species is the same as for Rhodelphis limneticus: "Non-photosynthetic predators are sister to red algae" by Gawryluk et al. 2019. These images are free to use. You know, just give me the credit! DOTkamina 2025.

(•˕ •マ.ᐟ

ᶜᵃⁿ ʸᵒᵘ ⁱᵐᵃᵍⁱⁿᵉ ʰᵉʳ ʳᵉᵃᵈⁱⁿᵍ ᵗʰⁱˢ?

Rhodelphis edaphicus

Unlike other Rhodelphis species, this one was isolated from agricultural soil, not from a body of water. Even more intriguing, it has several characteristics that are rare in other species, and these were responsible for the delay in publishing these images, because I had to redraw everything to correct the errors.

But let's see: R. edaphicus shares the same property with other species regarding the length of its flagella: the posterior flagellum is longer than the anterior one. In other species, only the posterior flagellum has simple mastigonemes. But in R. edaphicus, both flagella have mastigonemes, and not only that, but there are two types: complex mastigonemes (which are usually made of 3 pieces or parts, although they can also be made of only parts 1 and 2), and between them, several mastigonemes or "simple hairs," whose shape resembles part 3 of the complex mastigonemes.

Additionally, on the dorsal side of the cell, there are three grooves, and on the ventral side, there is only one. In the main image of the individual, I have depicted all the grooves, but note that the ventral groove shouldn't be easily visible because it's located underneath. In the other images, I haven't depicted the grooves. I could say it's due to laziness, but microscopy is on my side: under a light microscope, the grooves are barely noticeable.

There is also a keel-like structure that separates the flagellar pockets. In case you didn't know, flagellar pockets are invaginations that surround the bases of the flagella, and I believe they are related to motility. These pockets are present in all Rhodelphis species, but I haven't depicted them in other drawings. I have included them here because of this anatomical feature: between these pockets in R. edaphicus, there is this keel-shaped wall. In the anatomy image, the circle is enlarged as a "section of the ventral area," but I think using the term "section" is incorrect because it's not a longitudinal or transverse section as such. It's simply an enlargement of how that piece circled in red would look on the ventral side.

Another characteristic of R. edaphicus is the presence of three contractile vacuoles, arranged like the corners of an isosceles triangle (don't know what an isosceles triangle is? You'll see that you need to know geometry to study biology). They also have food vacuoles, which form after ingesting bacteria or another unicellular eukaryote. In these images, I haven't shown the food vacuoles. Finally, R. edaphicus has at least two possible morphs: one cone-shaped (although I would say it's more like the shape of those crepe cones or the ones they sell fries with chicken nuggets in), and another more globular form that appears in the article describing the species (Figure 1J). It looks to me like a morbidly obese specimen.

Another morphological peculiarity to mention: when an individual is going to divide (binary fission), first the dividing cell acquires an almost rectangular shape, then the two future cells acquire the normal "oval" shape.

Of course, keep in mind that the colors used in these drawings are merely representative, to illustrate and differentiate the parts, and do not necessarily correspond to reality. In fact, the organism is colorless, and under a light microscope, some parts are barely visible. 

All this information, as well as the information I used to create these illustrations, was obtained from the article by Belyaev et al. 2025: "Rhodelphis edaphicus sp. nov.—a new lineage of predatory archaeplastids from agricultural soil". Please, if you want to know more about this organism, or see real images of its cells, take a look. The article is freely accessible!

You can use my illustrations for your projects, homework, presentations, articles, essays, website, or whatever you like. The only requirement is that you give me proper credit. Simply write something like "DOTkamina 2025".

૮꒰ ྀི >⸝⸝⸝< ྀི꒱ა

૮꒰ ྀི >⸝⸝⸝< ྀི꒱ა

    ૮꒰ ྀི >⸝⸝⸝< ྀི꒱ა 

                   ૮꒰ ྀི >⸝⸝⸝< ྀི꒱ა

                               ૮꒰ ྀི >⸝⸝⸝< ྀི꒱ა

                                                ૮꒰ ྀི >⸝⸝⸝< ྀི꒱ა

                                                             ૮꒰ ྀི >⸝⸝⸝< ྀི꒱ა

                                                                     ૮꒰ ྀི >⸝⸝⸝< ྀི꒱ა 

·˚ ༘₊· ͟͟͞͞꒰➳

·˚ ༘₊· ͟͟͞͞꒰➳

·˚ ༘₊· ͟͟͞͞꒰➳

·˚ ༘₊· ͟͟͞͞꒰➳

𓆩❤︎𓆪

𓆩❤︎𓆪

𓆩❤︎𓆪

𓆩❤︎𓆪

v

𓆩❤︎𓆪

𓆩❤︎𓆪

𓆩❤︎𓆪

𓆩❤︎𓆪

𓆩❤︎𓆪

𓆩❤︎𓆪

𓆩❤︎𓆪

𓆩❤︎𓆪

𓆩❤︎𓆪

𓆩❤︎𓆪

𓆩❤︎𓆪

☪︎ ִ ࣪𖤐 𐦍 ☾𖤓

Ä̵̛̻͖̩͍̿̈́̊̃̚n̸̢̥̝͚̳̮͍̲̣̺̝͇͕͍̏͗̏͆͗̽̇͒͆̄̈̃͐̾͠ḑ̷̭̪̱͎̜̞̰̌ ̴̲̖̠̘̮̃͑̑̑͗͆ͅĮ̴̧̻͈͚̍̈́̍͊̋̕ ̴̨̛͙͙̝̫͈͇̠̥͔͍̎̒̈́͗̄͐̃̽̊͊̕͝f̵̧̯̘̫̹̺̹̼̬̘͉̺̜͎̼̀͂̐̈́͆͐͝͝e̵̘̰̞̺͑̽͝l̴̹̽͆̈́̀́͠l̵̨͖͕̞̖̰͋̌̿̾̋͆͗͘͝ ̸̢͓͇̪̝̣̻̍͛̎̇̑͋̍͛̐͝f̵̛̛̳̤̻̃́͑̃̐͒͊́̈́̎õ̴͕̜̲̰̓̄̅́̋̔̎̈̔͑͝͝ṛ̷̱̺̳͖̎́̃̊̈́͜ͅ ̸̬̜̠̹̬̭͍̯͔̤̘̣̩̬̂͑̽͑͋̂̾͊̆̉͊͛̕̚͝ͅh̶̙̦̲͊͋̕è̷͎̣͙̥̬͎̱̔͌͐͛̈́͊͛̐͐̕̚͝r̶̨̢̪̪͉͇̱̝̲̻̲̻̱͍͂̆́͂̑́ ̵̡̛̛͇͔̈́͒̾͐̀͗̄͠͝͝͠͝a̵̢̛̦̲̻͙͎̜̖̟̒͛̐̿̍̋̏̈́̾g̴̨̧̛̛̠̰͚̟̪͓̩̼̖̾̒̓͆̋̊̏̾̏͝͠͝a̵̡̗͚̗̹̖̱̹̅́̾͘͝ͅͅį̵̫̹̦͙͍͔̺̩̤̱̯̱̭́̐̄̀͘͜n̷̙̺̯̱͓͕̦̘̞̫͓͗̍̔͊͐͊̉̋͜͝.̵̢̢̰̜̜̣̟̘̪̜̮̳̣͙̬͂̈́̀̅̅̽͝.̷̨̨̣̰͙͕̯̝̫̈́̒.̵̨̛̦͉̝͓̿̓̀͛̿͋̊́̔̎̃͆

𓍯𓂃

𓍯𓂃

𓍯𓂃

sybau!

Rhodelphis mylnikovi

Rhodelphis mylnikovi was isolated from fresh water like Rhodelphis limneticus, specifically from the Étang du Manet pond near Montigny-le-Bretonneux in Ile de France, France. Analyses place it close to R. limneticus, and it shares 95.16 percent of the nucleotides in the 18S rRNA gene with that species.

The full illustration shows simplified anatomy of Rhodelphis mylnikovi in the upper left corner. The lower part of the image shows behaviors observed in the species: binary fission; cannibalism, shown by a darker gray individual being eaten; and predation, shown by an individual that consumes a specimen of Bodo saltans with its parts labeled for clarity. Why? Uhm... why not?

In the cases of cannibalism and predation, pseudopodia are shown, which are cytoplasmic protrusions that reach out to capture and swallow prey. This detail matters because the simplified anatomy diagram also shows a pseudopodium, and it's important to note that this structure doesn't appear all the time.

These illustrations of Rhodelphis mylnikovi are based on the microscope photographs in the article by Prokina K. I. et al. 2024: "Morphological and molecular characterization of a new member of the phylum Rhodelphidia". The organism itself has no color. All colors in the illustrations serve an artistic and educational purpose and do not reflect the organism's true appearance.

To create Bodo saltans and its structures, I relied on these works:

• Harmer J. et al. 2018. "Farming, slaving and enslavement: histories of endosymbioses during kinetoplastid evolution".
• Midha et al. 2021. "Bodo saltans (Kinetoplastida) is dependent on a novel Paracaedibacter-like endosymbiont that possesses multiple putative toxin-antitoxin systems".
• Malysheva et al. 2007. "Mitosis of the free-living flagellate Bodo saltans strain PS+ (Kinetoplastidea, Bodonida)".

Below are the images without text, in case you want to use them or create your own version. Remember that these images are free to use; just be sure to give me proper credit: DOTkamina 2025.

Rhodelphis mylnikovi individual.

Rhodelphis mylnikovi, binary fission.

Rhodelphis mylnikovi, cannibalism behavior. The individual being eaten appears in a darker gray. A rather cursed fate, r̴̛̛̬̝̻̠͛̾̀̒̄̔̾̑̿̇͌̓i̷̡̦͔͖͚̮̘̼̙̙̓͗̏͠g̵͖̠̬̩̖̞̽͐̎̈́́̒̉̎̃́͑̾̀͝͝ḫ̸͚͖̀t̴͖͚͆̈̐͆̇͋̅̔̑̆͋̉͌̇͝?

Rhodelphis mylnikovi, predation behavior. Eating a Bodo saltans. Yummy yummy :)

𝙊𝙔𝙀

nO, nadA :)

Pochitaserra patriciacanalae

Looks like this is the trend right now. How could I pass that up? You should see the machine I become when I focus. I would normally take one to two weeks, but I was so desperate that I finished this today.

The drawing shows the fossil animal in my style (Pochitaserra patriciacanalae), using Carlost Sapiens’s drawing as a reference. I decided to get creative with my animal’s design. Feel free to examine the drawing closely. Find all the hidden references!

Rhodelphis limneticus

Well, well, well… what do we have here? A microorganism, obviously. Can’t you see that, ẙ̷̡̡̡̡̨̡̛̩̻̮̲̤͓͍͙̮͚͉̬͇̪̤͓̟̺̘̠̫̖̺͍̳͓̬̞̯̬̝̹̭͉̮͓̜̤͇̞̫̹͇̩̜͈̩̭̲̤̺̅͛͗̀̅́́̒̇͌́͛͑̒͊̄̂̉́̈́͊̒̍͊̇̉̐̅͑̏͛͋́́̎͛͂̎̏͂̍͗̔̓̓̈́́̈́͊͛̉̈́̇̀̀́̄̏̍̅͆̇̍͒̄̃̈́́͗̇̀͆͛͋̎͛̚͘̕̚̕̚͜͜͠͝͝͝͝ợ̶̡̡̢̨̨̢̧̨̨̡̡̡̧̨̛̛̮̝̭͕̖̗͔̟̻̰͍͙̻͚̰͔͔̖̝̣̺̫̼͇̝̦̖͙̤̘̱̲̞̟͔̘̥̬͉̘̹͉̙͍̪͈̳͕̱͈͙̠͉̩͎̱̹̱͚̣̜͈͉̹̖̬̹̺̜̻̰̲͍̣̻̦̮͓̤͓̦͉̖̦̠̟̪̞͕̠̬̬̠̩͇̙͉͊̑̏͒̿̓͐̇̀͐̋̃́̀̓́̽̓̈́̂̀̔̊̂̐͋̔̄̓͑̉̃̒̈́́̒͒̽̇͋̓̍̂͒̉͐̍̉̈́̀͒̈́͌̓̈́́̕͜͜͜͜͝͝͠͝ͅͅͅứ̶̢̢̧̢̧̢͈̬̰͎̝̩͔͍͚̦͕͓̥̮̙̝̱͇͔͉̲͔̺͔̳̘̲̰̭̼͍̫̳̹̟̮̦̝͈̠̲͈̜͇̼̙͇̰͓͍̜̖̗̳̤͕̤̦̠̘̦̞͆́͌́̂͆̽̑̈́̏̏̎͐̅̅̐͛̑̓͌͗͑̔̌̓̎͆̿̀̍͆̂̍̅̒̀̔̋͐̅̔̅̈́̓̓̉́̊͂̄̐͐̇́̈́̑̿̑̈͘͘̚̚͘̕͘̚̚͜͜͝͝͝͠͝͝͝ͅ ̵̡̡̧̤̜̪̠̺̳̠͚͎̹͖̺͚͓͓̖̯͎͎͈̼̼͈̩͉̪̰̖̜̲̣̟̱͓̮̼͚̺̂̈́̈́̓͒̿̇͂͋̆̉̋̋̓̍̉͐́̔̓͒̐̚͘͝͠f̴̢̧̟͇̜͍͔̙̰͕̜̣̩̟̜̩̖̟̗̲͓̜̪̲̀̋̋͜ờ̸̡̡̡̨̢̛̛͚̮̟̣͙͉̘̞̝̦̼̬͎͕̬̦͉̬̘̠͍̙̘͙̥͖̳͕̤̲̗̲̦͔̥̼̣͖̩̝̩̦̰̲̣͈̙̖͚͋̔̄͊͒͋́̇̒̔̐̈́̒͐͋̀̽̂̈́̎͆́̄̏̃͌̓͌̈̃̔̆̒̌̌̃̅̊̈́͑͌͑̄̑̇͌́̀̃̆͒̐̈́͐͐̇̈́̑̾̀͑̈́͂̀̕̕̕̚̚͜͝͠͠͠͝͝o̶̡̢̩͍̳̱̥̩͓͉̮̝̟̻͔̭̺͕̘͔͉̖̰̜̯̰̠͙̍͌͑̆͌̇́̇̆͒̓̅̓̆̄͒̈́͐͆̊̽͒́̑́̑̉͐̍̆͊̑̽͗̉͘͘͠͝ļ̶̨̧̧̛̛̛͙̜̼̹͇̮̬̦͖̝̬͉͓͓̺͚̺̻̩̟̱̘̬̥͈̭͖̣͙͎̮͍̻̱͖͔̹̠̮̩̘̼̋̑́̒͌̐̿̀̅͑̎̾̈́̾̀̾̀͂̊̒̆̅̍̃̌̈̓̓̄͛̃̈͌̿͂͑̿̇̅̐͒̓͐͐̃͌̅̓̑̈́̐̋̋̄̐́̓̒̊͒̈́͐̾̌́͂̑̋̈́̾͂͋̓̈̈́̊̈̍̂̈͊̽̆͌̊̍͌͐̿͂͆̾͒̑̀̄̒̈̀̽̚͘̕͘̕̕̕͜͜͜͜͝͝͝͝͝͝͝͝͠͝ͅ?

Rhodelphis limneticus is one of the species within the genus Rhodelphis, relatives of red algae, except they lack color and act as predators. The following image shows a scientific reconstruction of the organism’s anatomy, highlighting its most representative parts according to the description in “Non-photosynthetic predators are sister to red algae” by Gawryluk et al. (2019).

And let’s not forget the clean version without labels for easier use:

Important notes: the illustrated parts are purely schematic and not necessarily to scale (although I have tried to keep the proportions as faithful as possible to the micrographs presented in the article mentioned above). The colors are for illustration and visibility purposes only, since the organism itself is transparent. Only the most notable anatomical parts are shown; not every structure of the organism is represented. Also, keep in mind that individual variation exists—a specimen of Rhodelphis limneticus may display differences not reflected in this image. That’s Biology, lil' fella. That's why I stayed away from the molecular side of things.

I believe that covers the key details. The image is free to use. If you want to translate the labels and such, feel free. The only requirement is to credit me as the author of the drawing: DOTkamina 2025.

Squalus griffini

I think the only reason I chose to draw this animal was because there was an interesting gap in the Wikipedia sea, and I couldn't resist. Unfortunately, I'd made some major mistakes with the coloring (older versions had a rather extravagant blue), so I got discouraged and abandoned it  ╮ (. ❛ ᴗ ❛.) ╭

It wasn't until recently that I regained the motivation to pick it up again. Perhaps influenced by that "someone," you might find more context o̶̮͛́ņ̷͚̓̎ ̶̲̜̅̈ṡ̴͈̘̓o̷̻̓̔m̶̠̯̌̈e̵̡̝̔͆ ̵̺̻̔v̸̥̮͚̍͝î̶̘d̴̤̪̻̀e̴̜͖͓͗͂o̸̬̒ ̴̪͋͜p̵̨͔̤͂̍l̶̮̙̤͛à̸͕͙͍̿t̵̮̥̣̋̃f̵̪̲̏͗ͅo̶̡̹̐̓̂ŗ̵̌͆m̵̜̆̈́.

┐(´•_•`)┌

The species presented here has several names. For this drawing, I believe I based it on the photographs of: NMNZ P.039893 in Museum of New Zealand (Bray D. J., Fishes of Australia 2018); and Duffy C. (Fish Base s.f., that would imply that the specimen I drew is a male).

Histioteuthis meleagroteuthis

One of the squids that’s pissed me off the most to draw, by far. I had one version done, then realized the color might be off, but I decided to just fix those weird fins it has on its head and the little bumps all over its body (which, by the way, are nipple-shaped. I repeat, they are NIPPLE-SHAPED; they just look like diamonds in the drawing because of the top-down perspective). I’m writing this right now because I seriously just want to post the drawing already. If I keep putting it off, I’m going to give myself a damn aneurysm.

I used these two photographs as a reference for this drawing, in case you want to check them out: Umut Ayoğlu 2025 and Vladimir @laptikhovsky 2018.

Centrophorus atromarginatus (dwarf gulper shark) by DOTkamina

Digital illustration of Centrophorus atromarginatus. The digital drawing is basically a tracing of another one I made by hand. I just felt like doing it digitally because I tried to do another one but the strokes came out weird. The drawing is based on the illustrations by Kim In Young and Shark References; and the photograph of a female specimen SL-87; BRT-I 0021 by Fernando et al. 2019.

You can find this image hosted on: Wikimedia Commons, Twitter, Tumblr, Threads, Pinterest, DeviantArt, Pixiv, Instagram, Piapro, Bluesky, Behance. The digital drawing process (speedpaint) is hosted here (slow version, no music, original with IbisPaint), on Instagram, Bluesky and TikTok.

The skecthes!:

Some facts about Centrophorus atromarginatus.

Attention. I wrote almost none of the following information. It's a combination of various pieces of information that weren't taken from Wikipedia. Sources at the end!

Description: A little-known deepwater dogfish found on the upper continental slopes to at least 450 m. Dorsal spines (total): 2; Anal spines: 0. Adults with tips of dorsal fins black, prominently marked from base of fins. Body shape: elongated. Often confused with Centrophorus granulosus. 

Biology: it most likely consume deep sea dwellers: bony fish, cephalopods (squids), crustaceans and jellyfish. 

Ventral view of Dwarf gulper shark's head (Source: Kim In Young).

Reproduction: Ovoviviparous, embryos feed solely on yolk. Distinct pairing with embrace. Gives birth to a single pup. 28-36 cm at birth.

Habitat: Marine; bathydemersal; depth range. Deep-water.

Specimen recorded in its habitat. (Source: JAMSTEC 1991).

Importance to humans: The gulper shark is fished with a variety of methods including bottom trawls, hook and line, or with pelagic trawls in the eastern Atlantic. Although sometimes caught as bycatch, some deepwater longline fisheries do target this species while operating in deepwater areas. Utilised for its meat, fins (low value) and liver oil (very high value, which contains squalene), mostly in Japan.

Size: Tipically 60-75 cm. Max length: 87 cm. 28-36 cm at birth. 

Depth: 183 - 450 m.

Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: Gulf of Aden, Japan, Taiwan, and northern Papua New Guinea.

IUCN status: Critically Endangered (CR) (A2bd); Date assessed: 01 September 2019.

References and sources:

• FishBase s.f. Centrophorus atromarginatus Garman, 1913. Dwarf gulper shark.
• JAMSTEC. 1991. KPM-NR 105787. Centrophorus atromarginatus Garman, 1913 [Squalidae]. FishPix. Kanagawa Prefectural Museum of Natural History, Odawara & National Museum of Nature and Science, Tokyo.
• Kim In Young. s.f. 드워프 걸퍼 샤크(Dwarf gulper shark)-Centrophorus atromarginatus (Garman) → Family 35. FISHILLUST.
• Shark References. 2025. Centrophorus atromarginatus Garman, 1913. Dwarf gulper shark.
• SharkSider. 2022. Dwarf Gulper Shark. 
• SharkWater. 2025. Dwarf Gulper Shark. Sharkwater Productions - The Truth Will Surface.

Squatina argentina by DOTkamina

Ballpoint pen and brown and black marker illustration of Squatina argentina (Argentine angelshark), dorsal view almost lateral. This representation is very schematic and artistic, and does not necessarily represent the animal's true colors. I also include the other photo with the two previous sketches I made. For this drawing, I based it on photographs by Kriss Shephard (2008), NOAA, and Gadig O.B.F. (FishBase); and on the illustration available at Fish Commercial.

You can find this image hosted on: Wikimedia Commons, Twitter, Tumblr, Threads, Pinterest, DeviantArt, Pixiv, Instagram, Piapro, Bluesky, Behance.

The skecthes!:

Some facts about Squatina argentina.

Attention. I wrote almost none of the following information. It's a combination of various pieces of information that weren't taken from Wikipedia. Sources at the end!

Description: This species is distinguished from its congeners by having a darker background color, ranging from dark-brown to reddish-brown (vs. light-brown to dark-brown in S. guggenheim and S. occulta), with higher number of tooth rows with 24 vertical tooth rows in both upper and lower jaws, tooth formula 12-12/12-12; (vs. 9-9 to 10-10/9-9 to 11-11 in S. occulta, and 9-9 to 11-11/9-9 to 11-11 in S. guggenheim), and with anterior half of pectoral fin margin convex (vs. anterior margin of pectoral fin straight).

Cross section: angular.

Image credit: NOAA.

Distinguishing Characteristics. Differs from S. guggenheim and S. occulta with the interspiracular surface covered by small and homogeneous dorsal denticles, without enlarged denticles (vs. a pair of enlarged, conical and morphologically distinct dermal denticles between spiracles in S. occulta and S. guggenheim); differs from S. occulta by lacking blackish irregular small spots surrounding white spots on dorsal surface (i.e. absence of ocelli-like markings); differs further from S. guggenheim by having the dorsal midline denticles on trunk morphologically similar to other trunk denticles and barely organized in a row (vs. dorsal midline row of enlarged denticles morphologically distinct from other trunk denticles), the denticles close to origin of pectoral fin morphologically homogeneous, similar to other pectoral denticles (vs. presence of a pair, or more, enlarged and morphologically distinct denticles from other pectoral denticles, in S. guggenheim).

Coloration. It varies, but it generally has a sandy brown or brownish-gray body with lighter spots or blotches, allowing it to blend into the sandy or muddy bottom. This camouflage helps it remain hidden from both prey and potential predators.

Dentition. Tooth formula 12-12/12-12.

Biology: Found on the continental shelf and slope. Benthic. It feeds primarily on a variety of bony fishes and smaller bottom-dwelling invertebrates. They can bury themselves in the sand or mud of the seabed, effectively camouflaging themselves and remaining virtually invisible, a phenomenon known as "cryptic behavior." Only their eyes and spiracles (the openings behind the eyes that they use for breathing) remain exposed. 

Parasites: Pontobdella moorei Oka, 1910 (Hirudinea).

Reproduction: Ovoviviparous, embryos feed solely on yolk. Both ovaries are functional. Argentine angelsharks reach sexual maturity at about 120 cm (3.94 ft) in length. The female's reproductive cycle lasts two to three years. The number of pups per litter can vary, but is generally between 9 and 10 (the range is from 7 to 11). When it's time to give birth, the female angelshark releases her already formed pups into the water. The pups are relatively large compared to other shark species, measuring between 30 and 40 centimeters (12 and 16 inches) in length. This size advantage at birth may increase their chances of survival. The Argentine angelshark’s reproductive cycle is thought to be biannual.

Development: After birth, young angelsharks embark on an independent life. They grow and develop through a continuous growth process, shedding their skin and developing new dermal denticles as they grow in size. Angelsharks' growth rate is influenced by factors such as prey availability, environmental conditions, and individual genetics.

Longevity: Not well documented, but it is estimated that they can live at least 15.5 years.

Habitat: It's commonly found in coastal areas, close to the shore, but is also common in offshore waters. They are also associated with estuaries, and the continental shelf and slope, where they find suitable prey and shelter. It prefers sandy or muddy substrates, where it can effectively camouflage itself among the seafloor sediments.  They have also been seen, additionally, in habitats such as sandbanks, seagrass meadows, rocky bottoms, and areas with underwater canyons or reefs.

Importance to humans: The primary threat to Argentine angelsharks is overutilization by commercial fisheries, particularly the trawl and bottom gillnet fisheries in Brazil, where the species is likely most concentrated. The species is reported as a significant bycatch species in the commercial monkfish fishery, which likely contributed to a significant decline in the population in the early 2000s.

Size: 100 to 120 cm. In males: 100 cm, max. 170 cm. Pups: 30 -  40 cm.

Depth: 51 / 100 to 400 m.

Distribution: Southwest Atlantic: Brazil to southern Uruguay, including Argentina.

IUCN status: Critically Endangered (CR) (A2bd). Date assessed: 05 August 2017

References and sources:

• FishBase s.f. Squatina argentina (Marini, 1930). Argentine angelshark.
• MarineBio. 2025. Tiburones ángel argentinos, Squatina argentina. Vida marina.
• NOAA. 30/10/2023. Argentine Angelshark. NOAA Fisheries.
• Squatina argentina at IUCN database. 2017.
• Shark References. 2025. Squatina argentina (Marini, 1930). Argentine angelshark.

Carcharhinus isodon by DOTkamina.

Drawing of Carcharhinus isodon, made with a rapidograph and markers. For this work, I used photographs from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and Bryan Huerta as references. The colors used are purely artistic, they do not represent the actual color of this animal! The image quality probably isn't the best. I'm sorry my camera isn't the greatest. I don't think I'll ever move forward (or have the desire) to make a digital version. I feel better drawing "by hand" away from any screen, I'll always repeat that.

You can find this image hosted on: Wikimedia Commons, Twitter, Tumblr, Threads, Pinterest, DeviantArt, Pixiv.

Some facts about Carcharhinus isodon.

Attention. I wrote almost none of the following information. It's a combination of various pieces of information that weren't taken from Wikipedia. Sources at the end!

Description: Blue-grey on top, greyish on sides, white below, white band on sides, fins unmarked. Body relatively slender; eyes large, round, nictitating eyelids present; snout pointed, length before mouth < mouth width, ~1.1-1.3 time width between nostrils; anterior nasal flaps very reduced; upper lip furrows short, not very noticeable; top and bottom teeth nearly symmetrical, with non-oblique narrow points, lower teeth smooth, upper teeth weakly and irregularly serrated; 12-16 rows of teeth on side of top jaw; spiracle absent; gill slits very long (3rd slit longest, > height of anal fin), last two over pectoral, no papillae; first dorsal relatively small, front margin a little convex, rear margin concave, its origin over or just behind free rear tip of pectoral fin; second dorsal relatively large, with slightly concave rear margin, its origin over or slightly behind that of the anal fin; anal fin with deeply notched rear margin; pectoral fins small, narrow, with angular front edge; no ridge on top of body between dorsal fins; no keel on tail base; tail fin strongly asymmetrical, with well developed lower lobe, undulating ridge along dorsal surface of top lobe, and a notch under tip of that lobe.

Image credit: FAO.

Distinguishing Characteristics

1. Snout pointed, shorter than the width of the mouth.
2. Fins unmarked, the undersides of the pectoral fins are pure white.
3. First dorsal fin originates behind the insertion point of pectoral fins along inner margin.

Small in size with a long pointed snout and fairly large eyes. The mouth is broadly rounded in the front with well-defined labial furrows around the corner of the mouth. The gill slits are very long, about half the length of the base of the first dorsal fin. The origin of the first dorsal fin is over or just slightly posterior to the insertions of the pectoral fins. The first dorsal fin is small with a short rear tip. The trailing edge of the first dorsal is falcate with a rounded apex. The second dorsal fin is moderately large with a short rear tip. The pectoral fins are small. Pelvic fins have narrowly rounded tips. The upper edge of the caudal fin is just about straight with a narrowly rounded tip. There is no interdorsal ridge on the finetooth shark.

Species appearing similar to the finetooth shark include the lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris), blacktip shark(Carcharhinus limbatus), and spinner shark (Carcharhinus brevipinna). The lemon shark can be distinguished by its second dorsal fin that is almost as large as its first dorsal. The blacktip shark and spinner shark have black-tipped fins while the finetooth shark lacks any distinguishing markings on the fins.

Coloration. This shark is dark bluish-grey or bronze above, paling to grayish then to a white underside. There is an inconspicuous white band along the flank. There are no distinguishing marks on the fins.

Dentition. This shark is named for its very small, clear, fine teeth. The upper teeth are narrow and weakly serrated or smooth with erect to slightly oblique cusps. The lower teeth are erect with smooth cusps and transverse roots. Dermal denticles are small and overlapping. Each is a bit broader than long with blades containing three ridges, each with three short teeth with the median tooth longest.

Biology: Commonly found close inshore. Forms large schools. Feeds on small bony fishes and cephalopods. Distinct pairing with embrace. Viviparous (with a yolk-sac placenta), 1 - 6 to 13 young per litter. The embryos are nourished through a placental connection. Gestation is approximately 12 months with the females moving into nursery areas in late May. Birth occurs from late May to mid-June.

Typically hovering around 10 m (33 ft) deep, the deepest they go is 152 m (490 ft). Adults and juveniles are common in shallow coastal waters off South Carolina during the warm summer months and migrate south when surface water temperatures drop below 20 °C (68 °F). This population of ringtooth sharks winters in waters off the coast of Florida. These sharks are often found near estuaries, lagoons, bays, and off river mouths, as long as the salinity is within their range.

Predators: Larger sharks, including the dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus).

Parasites: The parasite Phoreiobothrium triloculatum is known to sometimes inhabit finetooth sharks. This parasite also can affect other related sharks in the Carcharhinus genus. It is found in the spiral valves of the sharks.

Importance to humans: In the western Atlantic, this shark may be incidental by-catch on floating longlines in inshore waters but is considered to have little overall economic importance to the commercial shark fishery. However, local fishermen may target them with gillnets close to shore. In the northern Gulf of Mexico, they are taken occasionally by rod and reel, and the meat is presumably marketed and eaten either fresh or dried-salted. While this shark is not involved in any reported injuries, care should be taken when handling these sharks.

Size: average 129 cm, range 119-139 cm; max 160-200 cm. Size at birth 51 to 64 cm.

Depth: 0-20 to 40 m.

Distribution: Western Atlantic: North Carolina, USA to Cuba, the Gulf of Mexico, and southern Brazil to Uruguay. Occurrence in the eastern Atlantic, specifically in Senegal and Guinea-Bissau have not been confirmed, and may be based on Carcharhinus brevipinna.

IUCN status: Near Threatened (NT) (A2bd). Date assessed: 01 July 2019.

References and sources:

• Carcharhinus isodon at IUCN database. 2019.
• FishBase s.f. Carcharhinus isodon (Valenciennes, 1839). Finetooth shark.
• Raimundo D & Bowling Tyler. 2020. Finetooth Shark. Prepared by: Cathleen Bester. Florida Museum. 
• Shark References s.f. Carcharhinus isodon (Valenciennes in Müller & Henle, 1839). Finetooth shark.
• Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. 2024. Species: Carcharhinus isodon, Finetooth Shark. Shorefishes of the Greater Caribbean online information system.