ten additions to the rotifer fauna of...

Ten additions to the rotifer fauna of Turkey

Murat KAYA1,*, Ahmet ALTINDAĞ2

1Aksaray University, Faculty of Arts and Science, Department of Biology, 68100, Aksaray - TURKEY2Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Ankara University, 06100, Beşevler, Ankara - TURKEY

Received: 24.12.2008

Abstract: Ten monogonont rotifer species new for the Turkish fauna discovered in 2007 are discussed: Cephalodelladelicata Wulfert, C. cf. forceps Donner, C. misgurnus Wulfert, Dipleuchlanis propatula (Gosse), Encentrum limicola Otto,E. mustela (Milne), Lecane aculeate (Jakubski), L. paradoxa (Steinecke), Notommata glyphura Wulfert, and Proales similisde Beauchamp. Eight are widely distributed, but C. cf. forceps Donner and L. paradoxa (Steinecke) have been recordedonly from the Palearctic. Important parts of the trophi structure of some species are shown using scanning electronmicroscopy (SEM). Dissolved oxygen, electrical conductivity, pH, and water temperature were also measured.

Key words: Rotifera, taxonomy, new records, SEM

Türkiye’nin rotifer faunasına on yeni ek

Özet: 2007 yılında keşfedilen, Türkiye faunası için yeni 10 monogonont rotifer türü tartışıldı. Bunlar; Cephalodelladelicata Wulfert, C. cf. forceps Donner, C. misgurnus Wulfert, Dipleuchlanis propatula (Gosse), Encentrum limicola Otto,E. mustela (Milne), Lecane aculeate (Jakubski), L. paradoxa (Steinecke), Notommata glyphura Wulfert, Proales similis deBeauchamp’dır. Sekizi geniş dağılım göstermektedir fakat C. cf. forceps Donner and L. paradoxa (Steinecke) yalnızcaPaleoarktik bölgesinden kaydedilmiştir. Bazı türlerin trophi yapılarındaki önemli bölgeler elektron mikroskobu (SEM)kullanarak gösterilmiştir. Ayrıca çözünmüş oksijen, elektriksel iletkenlik, pH ve su sıcaklığı da ölçülmüştür.

Anahtar sözcükler: Rotifera, taksonomi, yeni kayıtlar, SEM

IntroductionThe identification of Rotifera is difficult for many

reasons; most species were described before 1950, andoriginal descriptions do not report importanttaxonomical details that can be observed only withmodern technological equipment such as scanningelectron microscopy (SEM) and high-quality lightmicroscopes. Moreover, the type specimens are rarelyavailable, so that new records cannot be compared

with the original type specimens. Recently some newguide books for some families of rotifers wereprepared, but many of the species included in thesebooks were taken from old publications and so theyare still problematic. This is the case especially formany semiloricate and illoricate species, which arestill awaiting redescription. New taxonomic analysesreporting additional details to old descriptions willhelp in their identification.

195

Research Article

Turk J Zool34 (2010) 195-202 © TÜBİTAKdoi:10.3906/zoo-0812-12

* E-mail: [email protected]

SEM facilities were used for the first time byKoehler and Hayes (1969a, 1969b); since then, SEMobservation has become part of the routine work inrotifer taxonomy, to find and show usefulmorphological details especially for semiloricate andilloricate rotifers. Almost all recent descriptions ofnew species have used SEM (Sørensen, 1998; Segersand Shiel, 2003; De Smet and Chernyshev, 2006).

The present paper reports 10 new species for theTurkish fauna, adding taxonomic details from originaldrawings and SEM pictures, and adds ecologicalinformation on such species.

Freshwater invertebrates are now well known inTurkey, and many new records have been reportedrecently for rotifers (Kaya et al., 2008; Altındağ et al.,2009; Kaya and Altındağ, 2009), for cladocerans(Yalım and Çıplak, 2005), for mites (Toluk et al., 2007;Urhan, 2008), for ostracods (Kulköylüoğlu et al., 2007;Zhao et al., 2007), and for other benthic invertebrates(Çamur-Elipek et al., 2006). This shows that manyfaunistic studies are still needed to improve ourknowledge of the distribution of invertebrates inTurkey, which represents a bridge between Europeand the Middle East.

Important contributions to Turkish rotifer faunawere made in the past (Dumont and De Ridder, 1987;Segers et al., 1992; Akbulut and Yıldız, 2005; Ustaoğluet al., 2005; Altındağ et al., 2005; Kaya et al., 2007).According to a checklist by Ustaoğlu et al. (2004) andKaya et al. (2008), 261 species are known from Turkey.Since this review, 14 new records have been added tothe Turkish fauna (Altındağ et al., 2009; Kaya andAltındağ, 2009), and the number of Turkish rotifersnow stands at 285.

Materials and methodsSample collectionThe samples were collected using a plankton net

(55 μm mesh size) from 5 different water bodies inTurkey in 2007. Sampling localities and ecologicalparameters are provided together with each species.

Environmental variablesFour variables were measured: temperature, T (YSI

51 Oxygenmeter, OH, USA), pH (WTW 340-A/SET-1 pH-meter, Weilheim, Germany), dissolved oxygen,

DO (YSI 51 oxygen-meter), and electricalconductivity, EC (WTW LF 92 conductometer,Weilheim, Germany).

Species identificationWe used a Leica DMLS microscope at

magnification from 40 to 1000 for identification anddrawing of the species. Taxonomic features of hardjaws of rotifers (called trophi) were observed by trophiisolation, dissolving the soft body parts in dilutedNaOCl. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)preparations were obtained following the procedureof De Smet (1998). SEM observation was performedusing a JEOL JSM-60 60 LV on material sputter-coated with a Polaron SC 502.

Distributions of the species are given according toSegers (2007). PAL: Palearctic, AFR: Afrotropical,ORI: Oriental, NEA: Nearctic, NEO: Neotropical,AUS: Australian, PAC: Pacific, and ANT: Antarctic.

Results and discussionWe found 10 new record rotifers for Turkey. Eight

of these species are widely distributed around theworld, but C. forceps and L. paradoxa have beenrecorded only from the Palearctic until now (Segers,2007).

Cephalodella delicata Wulfer, 1937Only one specimen of this species was found, on

25.04.2007 from Homurlu Stream, coordinates38°12´31.22˝N, 35°47´11.04˝E. Species could not bedrawn, but some parts of the animal were measured.

Measurements (μm): total length 103.2, toe 22.3,trophi 18.5, ramus 10.1, manubrium 10.3, uncus 5.3.

Ecology: although this species is widelydistributed, its ecological preferences are still notknown. Ecological data for the water sample wherethe species was found are: dissolved oxygen 14.9mg/L, conductivity 190 μs cm-1, pH 8.9, watertemperature 14.3 °C, altitude 1311 m.

Distribution: it has been recorded from NEA,PAC, PAL.

Cephalodella cf. forceps Donner, 1949(Figures 1-8)Twenty specimens were collected, on 07.04.2007

from Soysallı Pond, coordinates 38°23´27˝N,035°21´54˝E.


196

DescriptionFemale. Body stout, round, head short, neck

indistinct, lorica not thin. Foot tapered; tail very short;vitellarium with 8 nuclei; 2 very small eyespots. Toesdagger-like, curved ventrally, not vacuolated in themiddle. Trophus type B: rami almost symmetric, withstrong alulae on both sides (not double alulae); uncithick and coarse; manubria longer than fulcrum,characteristically crutched and carry lamella on bothsides (Figures 5, 6, 9); fulcrum spatulate (Figure 5).Male unknown and not found in our samples.

Measurements (μm): total length 169-183, toe32.3-33.8, trophi 25.7-27.2, ramus 10.9-11.6,manubrium 22.0-24.2, fulcrum 17.7-19.1, uncus 8.1-8.6.

Differential diagnosis from original description andthe other species in the genus

Cephalodella cf. forceps differs from other speciesin the genus by its dagger-like toes, strong alulae onrami, and crutched manubrium with lamella on bothsides. It is closely related to the original description ofC. forceps by Donner (1949) but differs by its stouterand not vacuolated toes, lorica not thin and rami withsingle and not double alulae.

According to Donner (1978), there are doublealulae on the rami but there are no double alulae onthe rami of our specimens (Figures 7, 8). It is notknown if the toes are vacuolated or not (Nogrady etal., 1995); the toes are not vacuolated in ourspecimens (Figure 2). Moreover, our specimens havestouter toes and lorica is not thin.

It is possible that some taxonomically importantparts of the species could not be seen when the specieswas described by Donner (1949), or that the animalswe found in Turkey, here reported as C. cf. forceps,belong to a new variation of C. forceps. We supportthe first hypothesis, because of the lack oftechnological equipment such as quality lightmicroscopy or SEM in the first half of the last century.In conclusion, we consider that C. cf. forceps is C.forceps.

Ecology: it lives among plants (Nogrady et al.,1995). In the present study, the species was recordedfrom Soysallı Pond (Develi, Kayseri, Turkey) inmacrophytes on 07.04.2007. Soysallı Pond is shallowand stagnant. Conductivity 190 μS cm-1, pH 6.78,dissolved oxygen 1.29 mg/L, water temperature 11.9°C, altitude 1079 m.

M. KAYA, A. ALTINDAĞ

197

2

3 4

1

10 µm

50 µm

Figures 1-4. Cephalodella cf. forceps. 1. habitus; 2. toes; 3. trophi; 4. manubrium. (1, 2, 4. lateral view, 3. dorsal view).

Distribution: Palearctic species; according to DeRidder and Segers (1997), the species has beenrecorded from River Hase, NW Germany (Koste,1970; Koste, 1976); Lake Alfsee, NW Germany (Kosteand Poltz, 1987); C Eur. Mountains and plains(Berzins, 1978); Lake Wallsee and r. Lobau, AustrianDanube basin (Donner, 1978); Bejing, China (Zhuge,1997); Quingyi River, China (Xin-Li et al., 2004).Moreover, we found it from the Palearctic; so ourpaper confirms that C. forceps is a Palearctic species.

Cephalodella misgurnus Wulfert, 1937(Figure 9)

The sample was collected from running water(Homurlu Stream), coordinates 38°12´31.22˝N,

35°47´11.04˝E. The species was also recorded frommud of running waters in Central Europe by Koste(1978), in a central Mexican pond by Sarma andManuel (1998), and from Svalbard, Norway (De Smet,1990).

Measurements (μm): total length 169, toe 56.6-59.7, trophi 18.4-27.9, ramus 6.6-9.5, fulcrum 13.9-17.6, uncus 8.1-8.8, manubrium 15.8-18.4.

Ecology: the species lives in muddy sediments andin streams (Nogrady et al., 1995). We also found thisspecies from a stream. Dissolved oxygen 14.9 mg/L,conductivity 190 μs cm-1, pH 8.9, water temperature14.3 °C, altitude 1311 m.


198

5 µm

5 6

78

u

5 µm

m

5 µma

2 µm

l

Figures 5-8. Trophi of Cephalodella cf. forceps. 5, 6. general trophi structure; 7, 8. rami (5, 7. dorsalview; 6. lateral view; 8. ventral view; a, alula; f, fulcrum; l, lamella; m, manubrium; u,uncus).

Distribution: AUS, NEO, ORI, PAL.Dipleuchlanis propatula (Gosse, 1886)

(Figure 10)Only a single individual was found, on 07.04.2007

from Soysallı Pond, coordinates 38°23´27˝N,035°21´54˝E.

Measurements (μm): total length 221.8, toes 67.5,lorica length 156, lorica width 162.5.

Ecology: Conductivity 190 μS cm-1, pH 6.78,dissolved oxygen 1.29 mg/L, water temperature 11.9°C, altitude 1079 m.

Distribution: It is a widely distributed species(Segers, 2007), and has been recorded from AFR,AUS, NEA, NEO, ORI, and PAL.

Encentrum limicola Otto, 1936(Figures 11, 12)

The sample was collected on 07.04.2007 fromSultan Marshes, coordinates 38°16´20.60˝N,35°14´32.57˝E.

Measurements (μm): contracted body length 165-169, toe 21.6-22.9, trophi 32.3-33.1, ramus 11.4-13.2,

fulcrum 9.9-10.7, uncus 9.1-10.3, intramalleus 6.5-6.9,manubrium 18.2-19.8.

Ecology: it is a marine species (De Smet, 1997), butwe recorded it from inland saline waters. Dissolvedoxygen 10.84 mg/L, conductivity 3270 μs cm-1, pH8.75, water temperature 12.4 °C, altitude 1075 m.

Distribution: PAL species recorded from Germany,Baltic Sea, Spitsbergen, and Arctic Ocean (De Smet,1997).

Comments: E. limicola is a marine species, but werecorded it from inland saline waters. We prepared 2specimens of this species for SEM, and we reportedthat there is no difference between the trophistructures of this species recorded from marine (DeSmet, 1997) and inland saline water, suggesting that


199

5 µm

9

50 µm

10Figure 9. Trophi of Cephalodella misgurnus in ventral view.

Figure 10. Dipleuchlanis propatula, dorsal view of habitus.

this species is limited by salinity only, and not bydifferences between continental and proper marinehabitats, as is the case for many other rotifer species(Fontaneto et al., 2006).

Encentrum mustela (Milne, 1885)(Figures 13, 14)

The sample was collected on 25.04.2007 from arunning freshwater habitat (Homurlu Stream),coordinates 38°12´31.22˝N, 35°47´11.04˝E. Trophistructure of the species was prepared for SEM, and nodifferences in the trophi structure of this speciesdescribed by De Smet (De Smet, 1997).

Measurements (μm): body length 126-149, toe14.7-16.1, trophi 24.9-28.6, ramus 10.9-11.8, fulcrum8-8.2, uncus 10.6-11.3, intramalleus 1.5-2.2,supramanubrium 4.9-5.1, manubrium 16.6-21.2.

Ecology: Dissolved oxygen 14.9 mg/L,conductivity 190 μs cm-1, pH 8.9, water temperature14.3 °C, altitude 1311 m.

Distribution: AFR, ANT, PAL.Lecane aculeata (Jakubski, 1912)

(Figure 15)

The sample was collected on 20.06.2007 from LakeŞeyh Abdulrahim (Diyarbakır, Turkey), coordinates37°51´51.86˝N, 40°54´18.14˝E.

Taxonomical comments: the species is close to L.arcula (Figure 16), but it is easily distinguished by itslonger antero-lateral spine (7-11 μm in L. aculeata, 3-5 μm in L. arcula) and its more elongate lorica (Segers,1995).

Measurements: dorsal plate length 64.6-66.7 μm,dorsal plate width 48.6-53.4 μm, ventral plate length75.3-81.6 μm, ventral plate width 45.9-49.7 μm, toe 124.2-27.3 μm, claw 1 6.1-6.3 μm, antero-lateral spine12.1-12.9 μm.


Distribution: AFR, AUS, NEO, ORI, PAC, PAL.Lecane paradoxa (Steinecke, 1916)

(Figure 17)The sample was collected on 07.04.2007 from

Sultan Marshes, coordinates 38°16´20.60˝N,35°14´32.57˝E.

Measurements (μm): ventral plate length 70.1-72.9, ventral plate width 61.3-63.8, dorsal plate length74.2-76.5, dorsal plate width 68.6-71.3. Ourmeasurements are slightly longer than those reportedby Segers (1995).

Ecology: it occurs in fresh and saline waters. Thespecies was recorded in saline waters in the presentstudy. Dissolved oxygen 10.84 mg/L, conductivity3270 μs cm-1, pH 8.75, water temperature 12.4 °C,altitude 1075 m.

Distribution: according to Segers (1995), it is a rarespecies recorded from France, Germany, Japan, andnorthern Arabia (PAL). We also found it from thePalearctic, and so our result confirms that it is aPalearctic species.

Notommata glyphura Wulfert, 1935The sample was collected on 20.06.2007 from Lake

Şeyh Abdulrahim (Diyarbakır, Turkey), coordinates37°51´51.86˝N, 40°54´18.14˝E. N. glyphura is close toN. cerberus, but it is easily distinguished by thepresence of a retrocerebral organ and the mastax


200

10 µm

5 µm

5 µm5 µm13 14

1211

Figures 11-14. 11. trophi of Encentrum limicola; 12. rami of E.limicola; 13, 14. trophi of E. mustela (11. ventralview; 12, 13, 14. dorsal views; all figures fromdifferent individuals).

(Nogrady et al., 1995). Our specimens werecontracted and so we could not draw a figure.

Measurements: total length 346-375 μm, toes 14.5-15.8 μm, trophi 39.8-44.6 μm, fulcrum 21.2-25.4 μm.


Distribution: It is a cosmopolitan speciesdistributed in AFR, AUS, NEA, NEO, ORI, PAL.

Proales similis De Beauchamp, 1907Only one individual was found, on 07.06.2007

from Lake Camız, coordinates 38°19´16.77˝N,35°19´27.71˝E. The species could not be drawn.

Measurements (μm): length 112.1, toe 7.4, trophi19.3, ramus 12.7, fulcrum 5.1, uncus 7.4, manubrium16.2.

Ecology: It is known as a halophile species (DeSmet, 1997), and it was recorded also fromhypersaline spring water (Brian and Koste, 1993) andfrom Mediterranean Sea Italian coast (Ricci andFontaneto, 2003). We recorded this species fromhyposaline water. Our study confirms that it is ahalophile species. Dissolved oxygen 16.40 mg/L,conductivity 8780 μs cm-1, pH 8.84, water temperature28.1 °C, altitude 1076 m.

Distribution: AUS, NEA, ORI, PAC, PAL.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank Diego Fontaneto (Imperial

College London, UK) for comments on the first draftof the manuscript. This paper is a part of the firstauthor’s PhD thesis.


201

Figures 15-17. Habitus of Lecane species in ventral view. 15. Lecane aculeata; 16. L.arcula; 17. L. paradoxa.

50 µm 50 µm50 µm

1615 17

Akbulut, N. and Yıldız, K. 2005. The Rotifera Fauna of Euphra RiverBasin (Turkey). Hacettepe Journal of Biology and Chemistry.34: 93-105.

Altındağ, A., Kaya, M., Ergönül, M.B. and Yiğit, S. 2005. Six rotiferspecies new for the Turkish fauna. Zoology in the Middle East.36: 99-104.

Altındağ, A., Segers, H. and Kaya, M. 2009. Some Turkish rotiferspecies studied using light and scanning electron microscopy.Turk. J. Zool. 33: 73-81.

Berzins, B. 1978. Rotatoria in J. lllies: Limnofauna Europae. G. FischerVerlag, Stuttgart and New York; pp. 54-91.

Brian, C.K. and Koste, W. 1993. Rotifers of the genus Proales fromsaline springs in the Namib desert, with the description of a newspecies. Hydrobiologia. 255/256: 449-454.

Çamur-Elipek, B., Arslan, N., Kırgız, T. and Oterler, B. 2006. Benthicmacrofauna in Tunca River (Turkey) and their relationshipswith environmental variables. Acta Hydrochimica etHydrobiologica. 34: 360-366.

De Ridder, M. and Segers, H. 1997. Monogonont Rotifera recordedin the World literature (except Africa) from 1960 to 1992.Studiedocumenten van het KBIN, 88, Brussels, Belgium; pp.481.

References


202

De Smet, W.H. 1990. Notes on the monogonont rotifers fromsubmerged mosses collected on Hopen (Svalbard). Fauna norv.Ser. A. 11: 1-8.

De Smet, W.H. 1997. Rotifera 5: the Dicranophoridae. Guides to theIdentification of the Microinvertebrates of the ContinentalWaters of the World, vol. 12. SPB Academic Publishing BV, TheHague, the Netherlands; pp. 1-325.

De Smet, W.H. 1998. Preparation of rotifer trophi for light andscanning electron microscopy. Hydrobiologia. 387/388: 117-121.

De Smet, W.H. and Chernyshev, A.V. 2006. Two new species ofDicranophoridae (Rotifera: Monogononta) from Peter the GreatBay, Sea of Japan. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. UK. 86: 657-663.

Dumont, H.J. and De Ridder, M. 1987. Rotifers from Turkey.Hydrobiologia 147: 65-74.

Donner, J. 1949. Rotatorien einiger Teiche um Admont. Mitt. Naturw.Ver. Steiermark. 77/78: 1-10.

Donner, J. 1978. Material zur saprobiologyschen Beurteilungmehrerer Gewässer des Donausystems bei Wallsee und in derLabau, Österreich, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung derlitoralen Rotatorien. Arch. Hydrobiol (Suppl.). 52: 117-228.

Fontaneto, D., De Smet, W.H. and Ricci, C. 2006. Rotifers in saltwaterenvironments, re-evaluation of an inconspicuous taxon. J. Mar.Biol. Ass. UK. 86: 623-656.

Kaya, M., Yiğit, S. and Altındağ, A. 2007. Rotifers in Turkish inlandwaters. Zoology in the Middle East. 40: 71-76.

Kaya, M., Altındağ, A. and Sezen, G. 2008. The genus SinantherinaBory de St. Vincent, 1826, a new record for the Turkish rotiferfauna. Turk. J. Zool. 32: 71-74.

Kaya, M. and Altındağ, A. 2009. New record rotifer species for theTurkish fauna. Turk. J. Zool. 33: 7-12.

Koehler, J.K. and Hayes, T.L. 1969a. The rotifer jaw: a scanning andtransmission electron microscope study. I. The trophi ofPhilodina acuticornis odiosa. J. Ultrastruct. Res 27: 402-418.

Koehler, J.K. and Hayes, T.L. 1969b. The rotifer jaw: a scanning andtransmission electron microscope study. II. The trophi ofAsplanchna sieboldi. J. Ultrastr. Res 27: 419-434.

Koste, W. 1970. Ueber eine parasitische Rädertierart, Albertia reicheltin sp. Zool. Anz. 184: 428-434.

Koste, W. 1976. Ueber die Rädertierbestände der oberen undmittleren Hase in den Jahren 1966-1969. Osnabr. Naturw. Mitt.4: 191-263.

Koste, W. 1978. Rotatoria. Die Radertiere Mitteleuropas begründetvon Max Voigt. Monogononta. 2. Aufl., I. Textband, II.Tafelband, 234 Taf., Gebr. Borntraeger, Berlin, Stuttgart; pp. 673.

Koste, W. and Poltz, J. 1987. Ueber die Rädertiere (Rotatoria, PhylumAschelminthes) des Alfsees, eines Hochwasser-Rückhaltbeckensder Hase, NW Deutschland, FRG. Osnabr. Naturwiss. Mitt. 13:186-220.

Kulköylüoğlu, O., Colin, J.P. and Kılıç, M. 2007. Neocopytus, a newgenus of marine Ostracoda from the Mediterranean Sea(Turkey). Crustaceana. 80: 979-998.

Nogrady, T., Pourriot, R. and Segers, H. 1995. Rotifera 3: TheNotommatidae and the Scaridiidae. Guides to the Identificationof the Microinvertebrates of the Continental Waters of theWorld 8. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, theNetherlands; pp. 248.

Ricci, C. and Fontaneto, D. 2003. Mediterranean rotifers: a veryinconspicuous taxon. Biogeographia, Lavori Soc. Ital. Biogeogr.24: 161-167.

Sarma, S.S.S. and Manuel, E. 1998. Rotifer diversity in a centralMexican pond. Hydrobiologia. 387/388: 47-54.

Segers, H., Emir, N. and Mertens, J. 1992. Rotifera from North andNorth-east Anatolia (Turkey). Hydrobiologia. 245: 179-189.

Segers, H. 1995. Rotifera. The Lecanidae (Monogononta). In: Guidesto the Identification of the Microinvertebrates of theContinental Waters of the World. Volume 2. SPB AcademicPublishing, Netherlands; pp. 226.

Segers, H. and Shiel, R.J. 2003. Microfaunal diversity in a biodiversityhotspot: new rotifers from Southwestern Australia. ZoologicalStudies. 42: 516-521.

Segers, H. 2007. Annotated checklist of the rotifers (Phylum Rotifera)with notes on nomenclature, taxonomy and distribution.Zootaxa. 1564: 1-104.

Sørensen, M.V. 1998. Marine Rotifera from a sandy beach at DiskoIsland, West Greenland, with description of Encentrum porsildin. sp. and Notholca angakkoq n. sp. Hydrobiologia. 386: 153-165.

Toluk, A., Ayyildiz, N. and Subias, L.S. 2007. Two new species ofoppioid mites from Turkey (Acari : Oribatida). Zootaxa. 1551:61-68.

Urhan, R. 2008. Two new species of Zercon CLKoch (Acari,Mesostigmata, Zerconidae) from Turkey: Zercon longisetosussp.n. and Zercon osmanelinensis sp.n. Turk. J. Zool. 32: 217-224.

Ustaoğlu, M.R., Balık, S. and Özdemir, M.S. 2004. The rotifer fauna ofLake Sazlıgöl (Menemen-İzmir). Turk. J. Zool. 28: 267-272.

Ustaoğlu, M.R., Balık, S., Özdemir, M.S. and Aygen, C. 2005. Thezooplankton of some mountain lakes in the Taurus Range(Turkey). Zoology in the Middle East. 34: 101-108.

Xin-Li, W., Yi-Long, X., Lei, Z., Xing-Jia, L. and Fa-Yang, C. 2004.Community structure and species diversity of rotifers in theWuhu section of the Qingyi River. Biodiversity Science. 12: 387-395.

Yalım, B. and Çıplak, B. 2005. Digging more deeply into the verrucosa-group of the genus Alona (Anomopoda, Chydoridae): Alonamediterranea new species from the Mediterranean part ofAnatolia (Turkey). Crustaceana. 78: 565-578.

Zhao, Y., Zhao, Y. and Zheng, C.Z. 2007. Neocopytus, a new genus ofmarine Ostracoda from the Mediterranean Sea (Turkey) (vol80, pg 979, 2007). Crustaceana. 80: 1280-1280.

Zhuge, Y. 1997. The study of taxonomy and distribution of Rotifera insix typical zones of China, PhD thesis, Chinese Academy ofSciences, Beijing. Inst. of Hydrobiology.

ten additions to the rotifer fauna of...

Documents