PROGRESS IN PROTOZOOLOGY

12 B. M. HONIGBERG
superorders among the nonpigmented flagellates, save PARABASALI-
DEA? 2. Is there enough evidence in support of the kinships suggested
by Brugerolle (1977) for RETORTAMONADIDA, DIPLOMONA-
DIDA, and OXYMONADIDA to allow the establishment of superorder
(class?) for these orders? 3. Where actually do CHOANOFLAGELLIDA
and BICOSOECIDA belong in the general classification scheme; could
they be placed in a higher taxon? 4. Is there any justification for
dividing the nonpigmented flagellates into the somewhat informal superordinal
groupings recommended by Grasse (1952)?
Although for convenience's sake (we still have difficulty with avoiding
this pragmatic concept), we shall discuss here the orders of ZOOMASTI-
GOPHOREA, as was done by Prof. VICKERMAN, we ought not to lose
sight of the need for reconsidering the validity of this class as well
as of PHYTOMASTIGOPHOREA. As I suggested during the Round-
Table Discussion, these taxa may well be soon put to rest.
Professor Vickerman concentrated on the changes in the orders
of ZOOMASTIGOPHOREA between the first (H o n i g b e r g et al.
1964) and second (L e v i n e et al. 1980) Systems of Classification published
by the Society of Protozoologists. He noted that these changes
were more noticeable among the "lower" mostly free-living nonpigmented
flagellates than among the structurally more complex and almost
exclusively parasitic forms. He felt that the problems of classification
and evolution of KINETOPLASTIDA Honigberg, 1963, DIPLOMONA-
DIDA Wenyon, 1926 emend. Brugerolle, 1975, and TRICHOMONADIDA
Kirby, 1947, emend. Honigberg, in Camp, Mattern and Honigberg, 1974,
which were discussed at the Fourth International Congress of Parasitology
in Warsaw, 1979 (Honigberg et al. 1982), could be left out of
the present consideration. He also did not discuss RETORTAMONADIDA,
analyzed in some detail by Kulda and Nohynkova (1978), and
PROTEROMONADIDA Grasse, 1952 emend. Vickerman, 1976, which he
as well as Kulda and Nohymkova (1978) considered as quite
separate from KINETOPLASTIDA. Professor Vickerman felt, however,
that more ultrastructural details are needed to enable us to obtain
an understanding (of OXYMONADIDA and HYPERMASTIGIDA) comparable
to that we have now of kinetoplastids, proteromonads, retortamonads,
diplomonads, and trichomonads. It is a pity that Dr. Brugerolle
who did much work on the fine structure of the last two
groups could not be present, for he could have discussed the relationships
among RETORT AMONADIDA, DIPLOMONADIDA, and OXYMO-
NADIDA as suggested in his 1977 publication.
Among the problems discussed by Prof. Vickerman was that
of CHOANOFLAGELLIDA. These organisms, with a single flagellum and
a collar made up of a ring of tentacles, were at one time considered as
http://rcin.org.pl