Klosteria bodomorphis Mylnikov & Nikolaev 2003

Klosteria bodomorphis is a free-living protist belonging to the Neobodonidae family, which, as I'll explain later, is related to dangerous kinetoplastid organisms... well, it's not that surprising, but still.

These drawings are free to use and you probably found them on Wikimedia Commons. They are licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. Free use for non-commercial purposes. You also have to give credit every time you use an image. "DOTkamina 2026" is fine, I think.

Sources: formally just one: "The taxonomic position of Klosteria bodomorphis gen. and sp. nov. (Kinetoplastida) based on ultrastructure and SSU rRNA gene sequence analysis" by Sergey I. Nikolaev, Alexander P. Mylnikov, Cedric Berney, Jose Fahrni, Nikolai Petrov and Jan Pawlowski, Protistology 3 (2), 126-135 (2003)... or simply Nikolaev et al. (2003). It's literally the article where this species is described. Although, to be honest, it was a bit complicated because there were strange concepts I didn't quite understand. That's why I also consulted this book chapter on kinetoplastid microanatomy: "Kinetoplastea" by Gibson, W. (2016).

So... Klosteria bodomorphis belongs to the family Neobodonidae, order Neobodonida, subclass Metakinetoplastina, in the class Kinetoplastea. I don't know what is more unnerving: that Kinetoplastea is included in the phylum Euglenozoa (meaning they are distantly related to the famous microalgae Euglena), or that along with Neobodonida, which includes free-living species that eat bacteria, it encompasses other clades where the titans, the horror of many, reside, such as Trypanosoma and Leishmania (in the order Trypanosomatida).

But with Klosteria bodomorphis, you have nothing to worry about. This is a free-living organism that was isolated from samples taken from the Baltic Sea shoreline, near the town of Kloster, Germany, in December 1994. It's an organism that feeds on bacteria—which ones? I don't know. In the illustration, I depict a specimen of Aerobacter (Klebsiella) aerogenes as prey, and within its food vacuoles, I have drawn amorphous pinkish blobs representing partially digested bacteria of that species. The reason for choosing this specific species is that Nikolaev et al. (2003) used this bacterium as a food source in laboratory culture. However, it is unknown exactly which bacterial species or clades it might consume in nature.

But focusing on its anatomy, I'll begin by saying that it has two heterodynamic flagella: the anterior one measures 12 µm and the posterior one 17 µm. At the end of each flagellum are short, tapering tips known as acronemes. The anterior flagellum is covered with mastigonemes measuring 2 to 2.5 µm. Both flagella are covered by a layer of condensed glycocalyx, but I haven't depicted that.

You already know the typical flagellar configuration: 9+2 (nine doublets of microtubules surrounding two central single microtubules), enclosed by the plasma membrane. More generally, flagella "emerge" from the cytoplasm. In Klosteria bodomorphis, the flagella emerge from a kind of "depression" on the cell surface, surrounding the lower portions of the external flagella. This "depression" is known as a "flagellar pocket," which is shallow and located subapically. According to Nikolaev et al. (2003), flagellar pockets containing four flagella have been found... which is quite disturbing.

Equally disturbing is the microtubule system identified using electron microscopy, which I have represented more accurately based on the text by Gibson (2016). First, it's worth noting that the flagella, or rather, the 9+2 configuration, originate from the basal bodies. The basal bodies are also anchored by flagellar roots (abbreviated "fr" in the image). Hell yeah, fr!

The flagellar root of the anterior flagellum (that is, the one that originates from the basal body of the previous flagellum) is made of 2 to 3 microtubules and then gives rise to the dorsal submembrane band (simply called the "dorsal band"), which is made of at least 25 microtubules. This band, according to Gibson (2016), extends along the entire dorsal side of the cell.

Simultaneously, the flagellar root of the posterior flagellum emerges from the basal body of the posterior flagellum. This root is composed of six microtubules and extends posteriorly (presumably towards the ventral side of the cell) to form the ventral submembrane band (or simply the "ventral band"), composed of 27 microtubules, which runs along the entire ventral side of the cell.

Between the basal bodies are two microtubules that connect them, which I have labeled as the "fibrillar connection" in the illustration. Another interesting microtubular structure is the so-called "MTR band" (microtubular reinforced band), composed of four to five microtubules. It originates at the surface of the flagellar pocket and extends to the cytopharynx, where it is supplemented by additional microtubules. I have depicted two additional microtubules in the illustration, but Nikolaev et al. (2003) do not specify the actual number. I chose that number because I think I see two more than the 5 of MTR (I hope there are 5) in Illustration 16, but in Illustrations 14 and 15 I think I see more... so I don't know xd.

The shapes of the bands are purely illustrative, but their placement is based verbatim on Nikolaev et al. (2003), and primarily visually on Gibson (2016) Figure 3, and Frolov et al. 2021.

The organism has a cytostome (the "mouth" through which food, bacteria, enters), which is essentially the opening through which food enters. This opening connects to the rest of the invagination, the cytopharynx, a tunnel-like structure measuring 1.8 to 2.3 µm. The lower part of the cytopharynx is surrounded by vesicles. This can be called the "cytostome-cytopharynx complex," and it is simply a very complex cellular feature for phagocytosis, since it is in the cytopharynx that food is packaged into food vacuoles. These vacuoles are directed toward the hind part of the cell (the posterior part).

The organism also has a Golgi apparatus, which is located near the basal bodies. The shape of the Golgi apparatus in the illustration is more schematic than realistic. The nucleus with nucleolus, obviously (although I haven't depicted the nucleolus in this image), "lies at the level of the bottom of the flagellar pocket and at the end of the cytopharynx," according to Nikolaev et al. (2003). They also say that the nucleus is vesicular. I don't know exactly what that means; in (cancer) cytology, it refers to cells with loosely packed chromatin, which under the microscope appear to have nothing inside... but I don't know. In my illustration, you'll see that the nucleus has some dark ornaments in the center and others surrounding it. You can assume the one in the center is the nucleolus. This decision was based on Nikolaev et al. (2003): Figure 17. Around the nucleus is the endoplasmic reticulum, both smooth and rough, and its shapes and existence are speculative (I assume they must exist because they are common in all eukaryotic cells).

The mitochondrion have an almost speculative shape. As can be seen in Nikolaev et al. (2003): Figure 18, appears to extend across a significant portion of the cell. The authors debate whether it is truly a single structure or if it might be more branched. I have chosen to depict it as slightly branched. The authors describe the mitochondria as having discoid cristae. The cristae are invaginations of the inner mitochondrial membrane, and their discoid form refers to the fact that these invaginations are shaped like discs with small "peduncles" (pedicellate, see Pánek et al. (2020): Figures 2A and 2F) when the section is longitudinal, and like sausages or cylindrical "bacilli" when the section is transverse. I have represented them almost as if they were seen in transverse section and pedicellate, in the mitochondrion of my illustration.

Now, I mentioned earlier that Klosteria bodomorphis belongs to the large order Kinetoplastea, and you'll read that the most important characteristic of this group is the kinetoplast, a mass of DNA arranged in maxicircles and minicircles (Wang et al. 2025), located within the mitochondria in a specific region, usually near the basal bodies. But this isn't a mandatory feature for all kinetoplastids; it's actually a structure that is repeated in some, and especially studied in species that are parasitic to humans. For other kinetoplastid species, we can speak of "kinetoplasty," a term that encompasses other forms of organization of kinetoplastid DNA (kDNA).

One such form is pankinetoplasty, described as bundles of kDNA isotropically distributed throughout part or all of the mitochondrial lumen (Gibson 2016: Figure 1i)... think of it as more or less elongated groups of kDNA that are present throughout, or almost throughout, the interior of the mitochondrion. In cell biology, "isotropic" refers to the fact that, in any part of a structure, the properties (I suppose physical, shape, optical, chemical, or whatever) will be more or less similar (New World Encyclopedia n.d.).

According to Nikolaev et al. (2003), Klosteria bodomorphis has little DNA within the mitochondrion that can be interpreted as kDNA, and if so, the most appropriate classification would be pankinetoplasty. The reason they give is that the kDNA fibers do not occupy a very prominent space within the mitochondria. The pankinetoplast (and any other type of kinetoplast, really) should appear as dark spots or aggregates within the mitochondria under an electron microscope. I only manage to observe this more or less in Nikolaev et al. (2003): Figures 16 and 18. I imagine these small spots are slightly darker than the cristae... I have represented the supposed "pankinetoplast" of K. bodomorphis as more or less elongated spots, somewhat distributed throughout the mitochondrion... but it is possible that in reality they are even smaller, more insignificant, less observable or noteworthy spots.

Finally, storage substance granules measuring 0.10 to 0.35 µm in diameter have also been observed in Klosteria bodomorphis. These, along with symbiotic bacteria, one of the most cursed aspects of the organism, measure 0.3 to 0.6 µm in diameter. The authors noted cell division in some of these bacteria, and I have indeed depicted such bacterial division in my illustration.

However, this isn't the end. I've forgotten about the trichocysts. In Klosteria bodomorphis, these are elongated and cylindrical. Length: 1.2 to 1.9 µm, diameter: 0.15 µm, with an internal rod of 0.6 to 0.77 µm, which I've represented as a darker area within the trichocysts. Nikolaev et al. (2003) mention that they are located near the ventral side of the flagellar pocket. I suppose I've erred here because I've depicted them more dorsally, near the ventral band. In fact, this is clearer in the image attached next to the main one, titled "Close-up of the flagellar zone," (the image above, without labels) which is entirely inspired by Nikolaev et al. (2003): Figure 13. So... feel free to discuss whatever you like in the comments. I'd be happy to see corrections and possible improvements. My hand hurts right now, and I have a trip planned where I'll be dragging myself along to see if my final project makes any progress, so lol.

There are 8 to 9 trichocysts arranged in a row, also known as extrusomes. This group is known as a "trichocyst battery." In the main image, only two trichocysts are visible, but that doesn't mean there are only two... they're assumed to be viewed from the side, and those two are "covering" the others.

I guess that's all I have to say. I wasn't expecting to do this illustration, because the organism seemed strange to me. I don't even know how I came across this organism; I think I was reading about trichocysts for a previous illustration. I don't know, I just got a sudden urge and said, "Let's do it, or I'll die." Or maybe it was out of pride. Or perhaps it was out of morbid curiosity to see if I'll finally reach 100 illustrations, or even 20. That number 20 looks pretty promising.

Monomastix opisthostigma Scherffel 1912

So... how did I decide to draw this species?

Who knows? I remember considering doing something related to Paramastix conifera, an organism I'd illustrated before.

First of all, the illustrations here are free to use, and are also available on Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license: you can use them freely, as long as it is not for commercial purposes (using them for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited, unless it is for a documentary, in any case you should contact me), and you must also attribute the authorship (like "DOTkamina 2026". Help me leave my mark!).

Monomastix opisthostigma is a strange organism. There isn't much information available about it; in fact, what's online is mostly reposted. Fortunately, I think it's almost enough to create the illustration.

First, I'll start with the sources used for the general cell body:

• "An image-based key: Monomastix (Chlorophyceae)". PhicoKey, A. L. Baker, 2017.
• "Chlorophya. Prasinophyta. Ulvophyceae". Katedra botaniky Přírodovědecké fakulty Univerzity Karlovy (KBPFUK) n.d.
• "Flagellate green algae from four water bodies in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Southeast Brazil". Mariângela Menezes and Carlos Eduardo de Mattos Bicudo. Hoehnea, 2008.
• "Monomastix Scherffel, 1912". AlgaeBase, 2013.
• "Monomastix minuta and M. opisthostigma (Chlorophyta, Prasinophyceae), two species new to polish flora". Joanna Picińska-Fałtynowicz. Polish Botanical Journal 48(1): 79-81. 2003.
• "Monomastix opisthostigma". Protist Information Server: images by Y. Tsukii 1998.
• "Monomastix opisthostigma". Protist Information Server: Protist Movies. 2007. 
• "Monomastix opisthostigma Scherffel 1912". AlgaeBase, 2020.

So, based on those sources, I also wrote the following, which you will see in this post: Monomastix belongs to the family Monomastigaceae, class Mamiellophyceae, phylum Chlorophyta, which in turn is included in the subkingdom Viridiplantae. This means that Monomastix is ​​included in the large group of organisms considered "plants and green algae sensu stricto" (green plants and green algae in the strict sense). 

Phylogenetically, Chlorophyta is related to other clades of Viridiplantae (Prasinococcus, Mesostigmatophyceae, Chara, etc.) which are then "distantly" related to the clade Embryophytes, the "land plants sensu stricto" as such... plants, that is. Chlorophyta (and therefore Monomastix) is the Viridiplantae clade most distantly related to land plants. Although included within Viridiplantae, it is closely related to the ancestor that gave rise to the clade, as well as the other two Viridiplantae relatives (the red algae, Rhodophyta, and Glaucophyta), which together with Viridiplantae make up the Archaeplastida clade.

Monomastix opisthostigma has several characteristics that can vary depending on the individual. It is described as having an ellipsoidal or nearly cylindrical to elongated shape, a slightly asymmetrical cell body with rounded ends (anterior and posterior), and a slightly inclined horizontal position. I'm not sure if this last point is related to the fact that, in the Protist Information Server micrographs, one end (the anterior) appears wider than the posterior. This differs from the schematic illustrations in Picińska-Fałtynowicz (2003) and Menezes and Bicudo (2008) (Figures 106-112), where the organism appears almost perfectly oval, and I would swear wider than it actually is. I have chosen to represent it as if the anterior end were slightly enlarged.

Note that the median trichocyst measures aprox. 4 µm in the illustration (that is an artistical decision). The size of M. opisthostigma can range from 14 to 21 µm in width and 6 to 10 µm in length. In Menezes and Bicudo (2008), it is mentioned that "there are usually two chloroplasts, sometimes one," but elsewhere I see that they refer to a single chloroplast, which, at the back of the cell, has a deep vertical incision... this means that a chloroplast is actually made up of two lobes connected by a junction at the back of the cell, of varying narrowness. I suppose that when this narrowing is so extreme, or doesn't exist at all, they refer to two chloroplasts as such.

Each chloroplast lobe has a pyrenoid in its middle, which I assume is covered in a starch sheath, as I infer from Menezes and Bicudo (2008) (Figures 106-112). An elliptical stigma may (or may not) be present at the back. The stigma is a structure that acts as an eye. Picińska-Fałtynowicz (2003) mentions that the stigma (or "eyespot") is red.

At the apical (anterior) end of the cell, there is a slight depression or indentation, easily visible in the drawing as a slight concave curve. There should be a groove there (which I haven't shown) from which the organism's single flagellum emerges. This flagellum is thin and tends to become thinner towards its tip. The flagellum may be attached to a "pro-basal body," as described in Protist Movies (2007). This is odd because I would expect flagella to have a basal body to anchor them. The "pro-basal body" is implied to be a simpler or "preceding" structure of the basal body, and it's also indicated with a question mark. Mysterious...

In the anterior portion, there is generally a single contractile vacuole; rarely, there may be two. The nucleus is also located anteriorly, though not as apically. Trichocysts are thought to act as a defense mechanism in other organisms: they are a type of extrusome (the ejectisomes of cryptomonads are also extrusomes) that release a kind of fibrous protein cords grouped into a spindle-like structure, which serves to damage or attack a potential predator. I would believe that the trichocysts of Monomastix do the same thing. When the cells are juveniles, they have one or two. Later, they can have three or four. According to Baker (2017) and Protist Movies (2007), up to seven. The trichocysts are elongated, 3 to 5 µm long, located parallel to each other, and sometimes absent according to Menezes and Bicudo (2008).

The endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, and mitochondrion are depicted near the nucleus, and their shapes and sizes are purely speculative; they are assumed to exist, as in almost any standard eukaryotic cell. In the rough endoplasmic reticulum, you will see many dots; these are the ribosomes concentrated in that structure. Additionally, several ribosomes are distributed throughout the cell in the illustration, as they should be in real life for any eukaryotic cell.

I have chosen to depict only one mitochondrion, but I don't know if there might be more; I haven't found any information on this. What I have found is that there is a single mitochondrion in other species related to M. opisthostigma, which are also included in the class Mamiellophyceae: Crustomastix didyma (Nakayama et al. 2000), Ostreococcus tauri (Joux et al. 2015), and Dolichomastix tenuilepis (Throndsen et al. 1997). Since they are included in the same class as Monomastix, I assume that M. opisthostigma could also have a single mitochondrion. You will also see that I have represented the mitochondrial cristae as if they were tubular, but that is also speculative.

This drawing can be considered part of the end of a phase. I finally blocked it out (girl M). There was no point in clinging to any more illusions.

ミヽ（。＞＜）ノ

Cryptomonas obovata Skuja 1948... and notes on Cryptomonas morphs

Well, I don't expect to have much to say about this one, to be honest, except that I've noticed some details that were perhaps missing from the other Cryptomonas curvata illustration I published back in 2025. Damn, that year sounds so far away, and it's already February 2026. When will it be Christmas again?

The following illustrations depict Cryptomonas obovata Skuja 1948, 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.

There are two main sources I used as a basis for creating the illustration of this organism:

• "Cryptomonas obovata Skuja, 1948". Martin Kreutz, 2021. Real Micro Life.
• "Chapter 18 - Cryptomonads". Brec L. Clay, 2015. Freshwater Algae of North America (Second Edition). Academic Press.

Btw, that chapter of "Cryptomonads" is even haunting my dreams. Clay, Lee, Hill, Andersen, Kugrens etc., seem to be the experts on cryptomonad algae; they've been researching these organisms since the past century (That's an exaggeration, but... well, you know what I mean). It would fill me with uncertainty, humility, joy, and a touch of fear if they were to see the images I create.

For the design of the flagella, I relied on this article: "Ultrastructural variations in cryptomonad flagella", by Paul Kugrens, Robert E. Lee, Robert A. Andersen, 1987. The design of the mitochondrion is speculative, but it is based on what is said in Santore and Greenwood (1977). I will explain it later.

Cryptomonas obovata follows a similar anatomical scheme to that of Cryptomonas curvata, which I illustrated earlier. The first noticeable difference is in its shape: Cryptomonas curvata could be oval-shaped but slightly more elongated than C. obovata, in addition to having a slight curve at its posterior end.

The second difference, and the one I find most unnerving, is the absence of pyrenoids. Instead, it has numerous starch granules distributed throughout the cell, although Kreutz (2021) mentions that these are located "beneath the chloroplasts." In microscopic photographs (see Kreutz (2021): Figures 1 to 4), these starch granules are clearly visible in both ventral and dorsal views. In my representation, I have chosen to depict them as being beneath the chloroplasts—in other words, "covered" or "hidden" by them. But you should consider that in real life, this property wouldn't be so obvious. Let's not forget that C. obovata has two chloroplasts.

There's another important aspect I should mention: some species within the genus Cryptomonas, according to Clay (2015), can have two distinct morphotypes in their life cycles: the cryptomorph and the campylomorph. I'd say this is a bit poorly worded, because at first glance it implies that it occurs "in all Cryptomonas species," but a quick review of the article by Hoef-Emden and Melkonian (2003) shows that this isn't always the case. Some species do indeed exhibit both morphotypes (cryptomorph or campylomorph), while other species only express one of the two (or, based on current research, it's assumed that only one morphotype occurs in these species because the other simply hasn't been found or observed).

So, briefly, using Clay's (2015) description: the cryptomorph consists of cells that are more or less rounded or oval in shape. These cells are protected by the periplast (a structure that performs a function similar to that of the cell wall in plant cells). The periplast has two layers: the inner periplast component (which in the cryptomorph consists of rounded or oval plates), and the surface periplast component (which in the cryptomorph is made of a thin layer of fibrils).

In the cryptomorph, the plastidial complex (the set of cellular plastids) is generally made up of two chloroplasts, with two pyrenoids not traversed by thylakoids, and two nucleomorphs, one between the nucleus and the pyrenoids. The furrow of the cryptomorph is "complex," possessing a stoma.

The campylomorph was considered for some time to be such a distinct morph that individuals with this morph were considered species in different genera of Cryptomonas. Formally, Campylomonas and Chilomonas. Now that it's known that the forms of both genera are actually the campylomorph, an alternative to the cryptomorph of Cryptomonas, they are considered synonymous where applicable.

But let's see: using again Clay (2015): the campylomorph is first different from the cryptomorph by having a more "sigmoid" cell shape; I would describe it, in simple terms, as a somewhat oval, flattened cell shape with varying degrees of elongation and curvature. More importantly, the periplast may be composed solely of the inner periplast component, simply a layer without shaped plates. The surface periplast component may be absent, but if present, it would be made of fibrillar material or heptagonal "scales."

The campylomorph generally has the same plastidial complex structure as the cryptomorph. The most noticeable difference is seen in the furrow, which lacks a stoma. In addition, it also has a scalariform furrow plate, a structure similar to the furrow plate that, in the campilomorph, resembles a ladder. In the cryptomorph, this furrow plate is only fibrous. I haven't depicted the furrow plate in the illustrations of this species. Finally, the vestibulum in the campylomorph also has a "vestibular ligule," a kind of extension that covers a small portion of the vestibule.

My state right now.

But anyway, those would be the main differences between the cryptomorph and the campylomorph of a Cryptomonas species. Now, in which species exactly, and in which ones only a single morph has been observed... hell, who knows?

According to the article by Hoef-Emden and Melkonian (2003), and comparing it with the information in Clay (2015), the cryptomonad species in which only the cryptomorph was found are: C. ovata, C. obovata (the species I illustrated in this post), C. phaseolus, C. tetrapyrenoidosa, and C. erosa. Clay (2015) also mentions C. ozolinii Skuja 1939 as a cryptomorph, but Hoef-Emden and Melkonian (2003) already indicate that it is actually a synonym of C. pyrenoidifera Geitler 1922 emend. Hoef-Emden and Melkonian (in Hoef-Emden and Melkonian (2003), this synonym is written simply as "C. ozolini Skuja"). C. pyrenoidifera exhibits both morphs, cryptomorph and campylomorph.

Similarly, considering Hoef-Emden and Melkonian (2003) and Clay (2015), the species where, conversely, only the campylomorph was found are: C. platyuris and C. marssonii. Clay (2015) also mentions C. rostratiformis Skuja (omitting the "1950"), which would actually be a synonym of C. curvata Ehrenberg 1832. I had illustrated C. curvata as campylomorphic, but according to Hoef-Emden and Melkonian (2003), it also has the cryptomorph.

There is a problem with C. reflexa. First, it should be noted that Clay (2015) mentions C. reflexa Marsson (syn. Campylomonas reflexa Hill). In AlgaeBase, the closest taxon to the one mentioned is C. reflexa (M.Marsson) Skuja 1939, but I'm not certain. Hoef-Emden and Melkonian (2003) mention C. reflexa Skuja (1939), which may in fact be the same as C. reflexa (M.Marsson) Skuja 1939 in AlgaeBase (they also appear in the same original publication). In any case, Hoef-Emden and Melkonian (2003) indicate C. reflexa as another synonym of C. curvata, and therefore, it would have both cryptomorph and campylomorph. C. reflexa has about five names in AlgaeBase, and all of them are in an "unstable" state, meaning they are not fully accepted.

C. marssonii Skuja 1948 does have only a campylomorph (or rather, only that morph has been found), according to Hoef-Emden and Melkonian (2003). The problem is that this name is currently being debated...

But anyway. I think that covers the important points regarding the morphs.

Returning to Cryptomonas obovata, it's established that it only has the cryptomorph. Based on the general characteristics of the cryptomorph, I have represented its furrow with a stoma. The vestibule lacks a vestibular ligule. There are two nucleomorphs, one on each side of the nucleus.

The main difference from the general scheme of the cryptomorph is that C. obovata does not have pyrenoids; instead, it has those starch granules I mentioned earlier. The ejectisomes "envelop" the entire gullet. This is something that also occurs in other Cryptomonas species. I mention this because in the illustration of C. curvata I did some time ago, I didn't depict the ejectisomes surrounding the entire gullet. Why? For better visibility... I suppose. The contractile vacuole is located behind the chloroplasts and near the anterior region, according to what I see in Kreutz (2021). I haven't represented the periplast and its components.

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.

Finally, the flagella of C. obovata are of type 1 flagella according to Kugrens et al. (1987): the long (dorsal) flagellum has two opposing rows of mastigonemes, each with a single terminal filament. The short (ventral) flagellum also has a single row of mastigonemes, each with two terminal filaments of different lengths. Additionally, there are approximately three terminal hairs at the end of the dorsal flagellum.

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 could swear there was more to say, but the truth is I went off for a while to... I don't know, do something, the thing is I don't remember anymore. I hope I've covered everything.

Oh right, I almost forgot... the maupas bodies! Those two funny things way behind the chloroplasts and starch granules. C. obovata only has two maupas bodies. I don't know if you know this, but all the colors in these drawings are merely schematic and for educational purposes, and don't necessarily correspond to what you can see in real life. However, according to the images in Kreutz (2021), maupas bodies can be seen under a microscope as two shiny structures. What are they for? .... HAH, who knows?

Pyrenomonas helgolandii

I was feeling a bit down because I thought I wasn't going to manage another illustration. Two important things: the first, which I think I've already mentioned in another post, is that my mom has had her surgery, and as I said, she can't do anything at all due to the severity of her injury. Dealing with her has been a real pain, to put it mildly, because of the sudden influx of housework (which has taken away time from literally everything), and because sometimes my mother gets the urge to criticize my efforts. But then everything settles down, so... I guess it's okay 𐙚🧸ྀི

The other big reason is that I realized a fatal error in my other illustrations of cryptomonads, and I'm going to dedicate a separate blog post to this as soon as I can. For the few of you who have bothered to look at the previous versions, you'll see that I've represented mitochondria as individual units and especially as "a group"... NO, THAT'S COMPLETELY WRONG. It turns out that cryptomonads are believed to possess only ONE SINGLE MITOCHONDRIA (Clay 2015), and not only that, but this mitochondria is reticulated, meaning it's like a large complex with many "branches" that can occupy a large part of the cell. However, in microscopic sections, not all of this mitochondria is visible; only a portion of one of the "arms" can be seen, giving the illusion of "a few" scattered mitochondria. I'm working on redrawing the cryptomonad species I've already uploaded, but with this error, redesigning them to reflect this new information. I hope to do so soon.

Fortunately, I haven't made this mistake for this species, Pyrenomonas helgolandii U.Santore. If you look at the Wikipedia page, you'll see that it's a species of Pyrenomonas (obviously), along with Pyrenomonas ovalis (which I've also illustrated), and "other species," but I'm going to edit that because those other species are no longer categorized within Pyrenomonas, but rather in Rhodomonas.

In fact, Pyrenomonas is a strange genus, because it doesn't seem to be fully accepted as a distinct genus from Rhodomonas. That's why its type species (a holotype) is "Pyrenomonas salina," even though this species is officially accepted as Rhodomonas salina (AlgaeBase n.d.).

Focusing on Pyrenomonas helgolandii, this organism has proven more mysterious to me than Pyrenomonas ovalis. I haven't found much visual information about it; the illustration I'm presenting here is based on the micrographs that appear in these two articles:

• Takahiro Yamagishi, Atsushi Kai and Hiroshi Kawai (2012). "Trichocyst Ribbons of a Cryptomonads Are Constituted of Homologs of R-Body Proteins Produced by the Intracellular Parasitic Bacterium of Paramecium". Journal of Molecular Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00239-012-9495-2
• Tomonori Sato, Chikako Nagasato, Yoshiaki Hara, Taizo Motomura (2014). "Cell Cycle and Nucleomorph Division in Pyrenomonas helgolandii (Cryptophyta)". Protist. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protis.2014.01.003

And of course, there are more mentions of this organism elsewhere, but from what I've seen, they always refer to one of these two articles. Briefly, based on what I've seen in both articles, P. helgolandii is quite similar to P. ovalis. I haven't seen too many differences: the mitochondrion is assumed to be reticulate and large, as is assumed to be the case for other cryptomonads (Clay 2015); the chloroplast is reddish-brown and bilobed, with both lobes connected by a "bridge" that encloses the pyrenoid, which is enveloped in a covering of starch granules. 

Of course, the pyrenoid in this species, as in P. ovalis, has a longitudinal invagination into which the nucleomorph is inserted. The contractile vacuole is located in the anterior region (where the flagella are located). Ah, I assume the flagella follow the same pattern as in P. ovalis: the ventral one is shorter and has a single row of hairs, and the dorsal one is longer and has a double row of hairs. The flagella are housed in the vestibule, which connects to a gullet. The shapes and sizes of the Golgi apparatus and endoplasmic reticulum are purely speculative, and I assume they exist because they are fundamental structures of a eukaryotic cell.

So.... what's different? ᕕ( ᐛ ) ᕗ

Let's start with the least unnerving: I don't know if the same occurs in P. ovalis, but in P. helgolandii there are two elements that can be observed within the nucleomorph. The first is the fibrillogranular body (Sato et al. (2014) misspell it as "fibrilogranular"), a collection of biomolecules arranged as fibers and granules of varying sizes, possibly some kind of vestigial nucleolus or chromatin (Gillott and Gibbs 1980). The second are electron-dense globules, structures made of some biomolecule that scatters electrons under the electron microscope, hence their very dark appearance. Which biomolecule? Who knows. Gillott and Gibbs (1980) theorized that it might be RNA.

And now, the organelle that most disturbed me is what Sato et al. (2014) refers to as the "pericle." That's a terrible term that I haven't been able to find anywhere else, not even as something similar. I initially thought of "pellicle," but that refers to an entire membrane. In Sato et al. (2014), Figure 6B, the "pericle" seem to refer to a black, slightly fusiform, oval-shaped structure, and the text mentions "several arranged peripherally." Honestly, I don't know what they are, what they're supposed to be made of, or what their purpose is, so as a precaution, I only drew one.

Of course, these images are free to use under Creative Commons. Not for commercial use. Also, you must credit me. It's very simple! Just write something like "DOTkamina (2026)".

(o^^)o(^^o)

( /・・)ノ

I really don't have anything else to say.

I don't know if I should dedicate another post to what I'm about to say, but today feels strange. It's a mix of losing the motivation to do anything related to my university assignments and a somewhat lackluster joy at having finished this drawing. I don't know, I feel odd and liminal. Like, could I have done better? Maybe. Shouldn't I be doing this? Probably. 

ᄽ●・●ᄿ

Today I walked with girl M, and on the way she was telling me various things about her exes and fights with some sort of friend of hers. Nah, I like her voice. I genuinely want to spend more time with her. But she's dangerous because her behavior, ideals, and perceptions of the future don't align with mine. Why do I feel like I'd still venture into a relationship with her? I don't know.

Anyway, the semester's almost over. I guess all this will end with that. She asks me for help with an assignment. I can't help but give in. 

In the end.

Pyrenomonas ovalis

This was actually a project I had almost finished and was about to postpone. Well, I don't know if I'll manage to finish it right before 2026, but at least the drawings were complete, and that's what counts. For these diagrams, I used the images and information available in the following two sources, as well as the information written in this blog post:

• "Chapter 18 - Cryptomonads". In: "Freshwater Algae of North America (Second Edition)". Brec L. Clay 2015.
• "Ultrastructure and Systematics of Two New Freshwater Red Cryptomonads, Storeatula rhinosa, sp. nov. and Pyrenomonas ovalis, sp. nov.". Paul Kugrens, Brec L. Clay, Robert E. Lee. 1999.

Having said that, I will begin by stating that Pyrenomonas ovalis P.Kugrens, B.L.Clay & R.E.Lee 1999 (synonym: Rhodomonas ovalis Nygaard 1950) is a species of cryptomonad alga (superclass Cryptomonada, class Cryptophyceae, order Pyrenomonadales, family Pyrenomonadaceae), belonging to the phylum Cryptista in the clade Pancryptista, which in turn is part of the CAM clade, which, along with Pancryptista, also includes Archaeplastida (the algae related to and ancestors of plants).

The cells of Pyrenomonas ovalis (each cell being considered an "independent individual") are oval-shaped and can vary in color from pink to red, due to the presence of chloroplasts. I should mention that, although reddish tones were used in the illustrations, they aren't entirely realistic of the organism in real life, and their use was purely artistic and educational (to make the parts more visible).

The thing is, at first glance it might seem that P. ovalis has two chloroplasts. That's not true! It has a single chloroplast, but it's bilobed. Each lobe is connected by a midline that encloses a starchy membrane, which in turn encloses the pyrenoid. What's unsettling is that the pyrenoid has a ventral invagination that houses a nucleomorph so oddly shaped that it's elongated and fusiform. Oddly shaped, because until now I'd only seen nucleomorphs with more or less oval shapes (well, like misshapen potatoes), but anyway, they resemble organelles that never quite became nuclei. But the nucleomorph of P. ovalis has this strange shape and location.

That, I believe, is the most remarkable feature of this organism. The rest is typical of what you would expect to find in cryptomonad algae. The nucleus is located at the posterior of the cell, the contractile vacuole at the anterior, and the vestibule, with its furrow, connects to a gullet, which houses the flagella. The flagella are located subapically on the right side of the vestibule (this would be in dorsal view; in ventral view, they appear to be inserted on the left side). The ventral flagellum is shorter than the dorsal one and has only one row of tubular hairs, while the longer dorsal flagellum has two rows. The endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi apparatus have speculative shapes. The single reticulated mitochondrion distributed throughout the cell also have a speculative shape, but his shape in the cross-section is not speculative, as I based it on how they appear in Kugrens et al. (1999): Figure 21.

In the case of the mitochondrion, I have tried to represent it according to the established pattern for cryptomonad algae: that it is usually a single reticulated mitochondrion (i.e., as if it were an interconnected network). In the work of Santore and Greenwood (1977), it is indicated that this single reticulated mitochondrion is usually like a network of branches (sometimes thinner than others) that may be concentrated around the gullet. The branches extend throughout the cell, both internally (I would call this the "internal mitochondrial complex") and near the inner side of the plasma membrane (the "peripheral mitochondrial complex").

There are some exceptions to this general form of reticulated mitochondrion (for example, Hemiselmis rufescens has a more worm-like and unbranched mitochondria) (Santore and Greenwood (1977), but unfortunately for Pyrenomonas ovalis, I haven't found any visual information about its mitochondrion in ventral or spatial view across the entire "body" of the organism. There is a micrographic representation in cross-section (Kugrens et al. (1999): Figure 21), which mistakenly suggest that they are individual units, but it's most likely a random cross-section, a piece of mitochondria, from the entire tangled structure that runs through the cell.

The transversal section I've drawn better shows the bilobed nature of the chloroplast. I've also included the thylakoids (those dark lines that create a kind of labyrinth within the chloroplast lobes. The thylakoids are the sites where photosynthesis takes place, by the way). The ventral invagination of the thylakoid, where the nucleomorph is located, is also visible. In cross-section, it appears small, but that's due to the viewing angle; ventrally, its true elongated shape would be visible. Although it's a cross-section, I've also included a "shadow" of the vestibule, but that's just a representation of its location; it wouldn't actually be visible in a cross-section.

I've also illustrated what I imagine a colony of P. ovalis to look like, since Kugrens et al. (1999) mention that it forms palmelloid colonies. Do you know what "palmeloid" means? Because I thought they formed palm-shaped colonies or something. Purely nonsense: palmelloid in this context means colonies whose cells are enveloped in some kind of protective secretion. In the case of P. ovalis, this coating is a mucilage matrix. In Kugrens et al. (1999): Figure 16, the electron microscopy image reveals that the mucilage has a rather irregular and wrinkled texture, like aluminum foil that has been crumpled and folded quite a bit. Although that could be a consequence of the freeze-fracture technique being applied to observe that shape. This technique consists of freezing (fracturing) a biological sample and then depositing a platinum-carbon mixture to build a replica that can be better observed under a transmission electron microscope (Severs 2007). Anyway, I've represented that same texture in my illustration, and my "colony" only consists of 3 specimens... but you can imagine that in real life a colony could include more P. ovalis cells.

Finally, I've also depicted the periplast of Pyrenomonas ovalis. As in other cryptomonads, the periplast is a covering structure of the cell, functioning as a cell wall (although it's more flexible and not as thick), and it consists of two parts: the inner component (made of rectangular plates with rounded corners), and the outermost surface component, which consists only of thin fibrils.

And I think there's nothing more to say about this organism. I just want to mention that these illustrations will be hosted on Wikimedia Commons for free (non-commercial) use, with the requirement that you credit me (DOTkamina 2025). 

And I think that, all things considered, it's a good way to end 2025. I wish I could have done more... but at least I can say that I did, and that I'd like to continue making more illustrations as long as I can. 

I hope this is helpful. Happy new year (づ ◕‿◕ )づ

Goniomonas truncata

Goniomonas appears to be a primitive cryptomonad organism because it lacks chloroplasts, unlike other cryptomonads. It also lacks any other type of plastid or nucleomorph. In all cases, it appears transparent. That's why I liked drawing it: simple and easy to remember.

In the following illustrations, I've depicted the dorsal and lateral views of the organism. The illustrations are based on the following sources:

• "Chapter 18 - Cryptomonads". In: "Freshwater Algae of North America (Second Edition)". Brec L. Clay 2015.
• "Goniomonas truncata (Fresenius, 1858) Stein, 1878". Dr. Martin Kreutz. 2023 (Estimated with WebsiteAge). 

Additionally, I needed to consult other sources of information for the writing of what is written in this entry, which are the following:

• "Cryptic Cryptophytes – revision of the genus Goniomonas".  Maria Sachs, Frank Nitsche, Hartmut Arndt. 2025.
• "Heterotrophic flagellates (Amorpha and Diaphoretiches) in phytotelmata bromeliad (Bromeliaceae)". Poliana Maria Sachertt Mendes, Fernando Miranda Lansac-Tôha, Bianca Ramos Meira, Felipe Rafael Oliveira, Luiz Felipe Machado Velho, Fábio Amodêo Lansac-Tôha. 2019.
• "Morphology, Ultrastructure, and Small Subunit rDNA Phylogeny of the Marine Heterotrophic Flagellate Goniomonas aff. amphinema". Mercedes Martin-Cereceda, Emily C. Roberts, Emma C. Wootton, Elisa Bonaccorso, Patricia Dyal, Almudena Guinea, Dale Rogers, Chris J. Wrighte and Gianfranco Novarino. 2009.
• "The mitochondrial complex in cryptophyceae". U.J. Santore, A. D. Greenwood. 1977.
• "Order Cryptomonadida". Paul Kugrens, Robert E. Lee and David R. A. Hill. In: J. J. Lee, G. F. Leedale & P. Bradbury (ed.), An Illustrated Guide to the Protozoa. 2nd ed. 2002. p. 1111–1125.
• "Ultrastructure and molecular phylogeny of the cryptomonad Goniomonas avonlea sp. nov.". Eunsoo Kim, John M Archibald. 2013.

I was seriously considering postponing writing this, but I really want to finish it and at least try to reach 10 protists and not feel like an empty shell. Let's look at the main image:

I've included two views: dorsal and lateral. I think the dorsal view is easier to understand than the ventral view; I believe the parts are clearer in the ventral view. I don't want it to be obvious that the main inspiration was Clay's diagrams (2015).

The flagella of Goniomonas truncata are of similar length, approximately half the length of the cell, and emerge from the dorsal side of the vestibule. Clay (2015) mentions, however, that one of these flagella has a row of "curved spines" (Kugrens et al. 2002 describe them as "recurved"), and a row of fine "non-tubular hairs" on both flagella. Indeed, that is how I have depicted them in the illustrations, although you may need to enlarge the images to see that detail.

In Clay's diagrams (2015, Figure 3A), it is represented with 8 ejectisomes, but Kreutz (2023) mentions that there are only 6, and according to the micrographs in that reference, there appear to be 4 ejectisomas larger than the other 2 (see Figures 4a and 4b of the reference), with the 4 facing ventrally and the other 2 facing dorsally. However, this is just my observation, and I don't know if it's a real anatomical feature, since I don't see that arrangement in Figures 2 and 3 of the same reference. I have represented it as mentioned in Kreutz (2023) and as visualized in Kreutz (2023, Figures 4a and 4b).

I think many agree that Goniomonas appears to be an ancestral cryptomonad organism and that's why it doesn't have chloroplasts or any other type of plastid. It has several food vacuoles, which form each time the organism ingests bacteria, so their number and size vary depending on the size and quantity of bacteria ingested. The nucleus is located dorsally in the center. And in Clay (2015), it is not represented with anything else, giving the appearance that it is actually simpler than other cryptomonads.

Of course, mitochondrion, Golgi apparatus, rough and smooth endoplasmic reticulum were represented, but their shapes, sizes, and colors are merely speculative, and I assume they must exist because this organism is a eukaryote, and these organelles are technically present in "most eukaryotic cells." Ribosomes are also represented, in high concentration near the rough endoplasmic reticulum, and dispersed and a lighter purple hue (like small dots) throughout the cell.

In the case of the mitochondrion, I have tried to represent it according to the established pattern for cryptomonad algae: that it is usually a single reticulated mitochondrion (i.e., as if it were an interconnected network). In the work of Santore and Greenwood (1977), it is indicated that this single reticulated mitochondrion is usually like a network of branches (sometimes thinner than others) that may be concentrated around the gullet. The branches extend throughout the cell, both internally (I would call this the "internal mitochondrial complex") and near the inner side of the plasma membrane (the "peripheral mitochondrial complex").

There are some exceptions to this general form of reticulated mitochondrion (for example, Hemiselmis rufescens has a more worm-like and unbranched mitochondria) (Santore and Greenwood (1977), but unfortunately for Goniomonas truncata, I have not found any information about its mitochondrion. In the case of the illustration of Goniomonas here, I have chosen to represent it as less extended and with somewhat broad mitochondrial branches, but I believe that in reality it should be more tangled and extensive.

Clay (2015) mentions that Goniomonas truncata only has one furrow and does not connect to any gullet as occurs in other cryptomonads. It also mentions that bacterial ingestion occurs through phagocytosis, via a structure known as an "infundibulum." Neither of these structures is depicted in Clay (2015).

The descriptions I found of the furrow and infundibulum are limited, mainly because I don't have enough visual references. But I did what I could. According to Kugrens et al. (2002), the furrow is ventral and connected to the vestibule. The furrow has a stoma on its posterior end (I understood this to mean "at the posterior end," and there is a reference to this in Cryptomonas tetrapyrenoidosa, see Kugrens et al. (2002), Figure 4). The infundibulum is described as being located "on the left side" of the cell. Kugrens et al. (2002), Figure 13, shows a micrograph of Goniomonas truncata that conveniently indicates the furrow and infundibulum. 

Considering that the flagella are located on the dorsal side of the vestibule, then in that figure we are viewing the organism from the ventral side, and the furrow appears to be a large structure that runs along a good portion of the ventral area, I believe roughly halfway, although that is just a rough estimate. In Clay (2015), the diagrams also have an unnamed notch on the ventral side, which I suppose could represent the furrow. The infundibulum in Figure 13 appears as a hollow, which obviously extends deeper into the cell, but its length is not indicated. 

Kim and Archibald (2013) mention that the infundibulum of G. truncata is "narrow and located near the anterior left corner," which is basically what I had already mentioned: that it is "located on the left side." I don't know how narrow it actually is; I have represented it as roughly the same width as the furrow, although shorter in length. In Martin-Cereceda et al. (2009), it's mentioned that the infundibulum of G. truncata could actually be interpreted as a cytopharynx, but in my representation, I call it an "infundibulum" anyway.

And what else can I say about this? Well, nothing more. The rest of the cell is occupied by food vacuoles. I could swear I've already mentioned that somewhere. I think I have nothing more to add. Oh yes, except that this was supposed to be published at Christmas, but I got delayed because I was terribly depressed to see that the furrow was ventral and not "dorsal" as I was originally representing it, and I had to redraw the diagrams and names again to make them match. That said, the part about the infundibulum and furrow is almost speculative, because I don't know their true morphology and size. It's there as a research reference for future projects.

Of course, Goniomonas truncata is transparent and doesn't have that many colors in real life. The ones shown here are for illustrative and educational purposes. I've tried to avoid using overly bright colors that might lead to misunderstandings. The images are free to use and are available on Wikimedia Commons. As always, the only requirement is that you credit me if you use, reference, or modify any of the images: DOTkamina 2025.