1932
DOI: 10.1080/00378941.1932.10833785
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sur unMicrosporasymbiotique d'une éponge,Ficulina ficus (M. Ficulinæsp. nov.)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

1951
1951
1985
1985

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The similarity between the two algae is very great as emphasized by Feldmann (1941), and after the present findings one must regard them as specifically identical. The correct name for the plant in question is Microspora ficulinae P. Dangeard (1932), as the epithet endozootica was not used at the level of species until 1951.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The similarity between the two algae is very great as emphasized by Feldmann (1941), and after the present findings one must regard them as specifically identical. The correct name for the plant in question is Microspora ficulinae P. Dangeard (1932), as the epithet endozootica was not used at the level of species until 1951.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The chloroplasts became very dark on the addition of iodine, so that no inclusions could be seen in them. However, when Melzer's reagent was used numerous minute dark grains became visible, as seen by Dangeard (1932) in his M. ficulinae. This latter reagent, mainly used by mycologists, combines the iodine with chloral hydrate, which renders the material more transparent.…”
Section: New Observationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Previous records have indicated M. ficulinae as occurring in late summer (Dangeard 1932). The extensive development of this sponge community may be attributed to its being sheltered from wave-action, although experiencing strong tidal currents.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…This was because Magne could not demonstrate the presence, in the plastids, of starch, which is a diagnostic feature of the Chlorophyceae. Previously, Dangeard (1932) had described an endobiotic alga from Roscoff, Brittany, in another sponge, Ficulinaficus (L.), now Suberites ficus (L.). Previously, Dangeard (1932) had described an endobiotic alga from Roscoff, Brittany, in another sponge, Ficulinaficus (L.), now Suberites ficus (L.).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%