taxonID	type	description	language	source
A83CB427FFD4FFDBFCF2F9729FE2FEA4.taxon	diagnosis	Improved diagnosis (based on Boise population): In vivo size about 60 – 130 × 20 – 50 µm. Body shape highly variable depending on state of contraction, ranging from clavate in extended condition through fusiform, pyriform, elliptical to almost globular in semi-contracted and contracted state. Macronucleus elliptical with a single micronucleus. Highly refractive dumbbell-shaped inclusions scattered throughout cytoplasm and usually concentrated in anterior body part. Contractile vacuole subterminal in extended condition, terminal in contracted state. Extrusomes about 10 µm long, rod-shaped, attached to oral bulge and forming bundles in cytoplasm. On average 15 ciliary rows, each row anteriorly differentiated into a dorsal brush composed of one to four dikinetids.	en	Rajter, Ľubomír, Bourland, William, Vďačný, Peter (2019): Morpho-molecular Characterization of the Litostomatean Predatory Ciliate Phialina pupula (Müller, 1773) Foissner, 1983 (Haptoria, Lacrymariidae). Acta Protozoologica 58 (2): 53-68, DOI: 10.4467/16890027AP.19.004.10835, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.4467/16890027ap.19.004.10835
A83CB427FFD4FFDBFCF2F9729FE2FEA4.taxon	materials_examined	Type locality: Müller (1773) did not specify the type locality. He mentioned only that he found the species in water and ice from dunghills during November and December. Type material and voucher slides: No type material is available from Müller’s (1773) specimens. Three voucher slides containing protargol-impregnated specimens from the Boise population have been deposited at Department of Zoology, Comenius University in Bratislava. Material studied: Specimens from lower microaerobic layers of the interstitial sandy sediments from the floodplain area of the Boise River near the Glenwood Bridge, Boise, Idaho, U. S. A.	en	Rajter, Ľubomír, Bourland, William, Vďačný, Peter (2019): Morpho-molecular Characterization of the Litostomatean Predatory Ciliate Phialina pupula (Müller, 1773) Foissner, 1983 (Haptoria, Lacrymariidae). Acta Protozoologica 58 (2): 53-68, DOI: 10.4467/16890027AP.19.004.10835, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.4467/16890027ap.19.004.10835
A83CB427FFD4FFDBFCF2F9729FE2FEA4.taxon	etymology	Etymology: Not given in the original description. The feminine Latin noun pupula is a diminutive form of pupa (doll, puppet or pupa of an insect), obviously referring to the doll- or pupa-like body shape of the ciliate. The name is treated as a noun in the nominative singular standing in apposition to the generic name [Art. 11.9.1.2 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1999)].	en	Rajter, Ľubomír, Bourland, William, Vďačný, Peter (2019): Morpho-molecular Characterization of the Litostomatean Predatory Ciliate Phialina pupula (Müller, 1773) Foissner, 1983 (Haptoria, Lacrymariidae). Acta Protozoologica 58 (2): 53-68, DOI: 10.4467/16890027AP.19.004.10835, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.4467/16890027ap.19.004.10835
A83CB427FFD4FFDBFCF2F9729FE2FEA4.taxon	description	Description of Boise population: Size in vivo 60 – 130 × 20 – 50 µm, usually about 85 × 30 µm, as calculated from some in vivo measurements and morphometric data adding 15 % preparation shrinkage; length: width ratio on average 2.2: 1 in vivo and 2.9: 1 (n = 32) in protargol preparations (Table 1). Body shape highly variable depending on state of contraction, ranging from clavate in extended condition through fusiform, pyriform, elliptical to almost globular in semi-contracted and contracted state. Head barrel-shaped, about 8.5 × 6.0 µm in size after protargol impregnation, distinct from trunk but without neck-like region, sometimes retracted into trunk creating an impression of shoulders. Posterior body end tapered and tail-like in extended condition, narrowly to broadly rounded in semi-contracted and contracted state (Figs 2 A, E, F, 3 A, C, E, F, H – M). Contraction occurs slowly. Nuclear apparatus located in or slightly posterior to mid-body, usually slightly lateral of cell center. Macronucleus elliptical, on average 15 × 10 µm (n = 32) in size after protargol impregnation. Micronucleus adjacent to macronucleus, usually attached to anterior pole of macronucleus, elliptical and about 2 µm long in vivo (Table 1; Figs 2 A, 3 A, D, E, F). Contractile vacuole subterminal in extended specimens while terminal in semi-contracted and contracted cells, excretory pore (s) not recognizable in vivo or after protargol impregnation (Figs 2 A, F, 3 A, F). Only one type of extrusomes, rod-shaped, about 10 × 0.5 µm in size in vivo, attached to oral bulge and in bundles scattered throughout cytoplasm, impregnate well with the protargol method used (Figs 2 A, C, 3 C, F, G). Cortex very flexible, distinctly furrowed by ciliary rows, sometimes dotted by tips of cortical granules in SEM (Fig. 4 A – C). Cortical granules colorless, broadly elliptical to elliptical and about 0.8 × 0.4 µm in size in vivo, oriented perpendicularly to cell surface, rather irregularly and narrowly spaced forming seven or eight rows between adjacent ciliary rows, impregnate deeply with the protargol method used often making observations of the ciliary pattern difficult (Figs 2 D, 3 A, F). Cytoplasm colorless, packed with few to many lipid droplets, some extrusome bundles, and many highly refractive inclusions. Individual inclusions dumbbell-shaped, about 2 µm long and usually numerous in anterior body half, rendering the cell dark in appearance at low magnifications (Figs 2 A, B, 3 A – C, E – M). Swims fast along helical trajectory by rotation about main body axis. Somatic cilia about 8 µm long in vivo, arranged in an average of 15 rows, each row composed of about 22 monokinetids with some dikinetids (dividing basal bodies) irregularly interspersed. Somatic kineties ordinarily spaced, extend meridionally to slightly helically depending on state of contraction (Table 1; Figs 2 A, 4 A, C). Dorsal brush at anterior end of all somatic kineties, very inconspicuous not only in vivo but also in protargol preparations and in SEM because composed of only two to five dikinetids (SEM measurements): first brush dikinetid bears a short, 1.5 – 2.0 µm-long, rod-like cilium followed by an ordinary cilium about 6.5 µm long; second dikinetid associated with a minute, 0.3 µm-long, stump-like cilium followed by an ordinary cilium; all following brush dikinetids with anterior basal body unciliated and posterior basal body bearing an ordinary cilium (Table 1; Figs 2 E, 4 A, B). Oral apparatus occupies apical end of head. Oral bulge contains tip of extrusomes, posteriorly delimited by circumoral kinety as usual in congeners. Circumoral kinety and its structure very difficult to recognize in protargol preparations, very likely composed of dikinetids. Head kineties helical and narrowly spaced, extend between circumoral kinety and dorsal brush, composed of densely arranged monokinetids bearing about 10 µm long cilia in vivo and almost completely covering head in SEM (Figs 2 A, E, 3 A, 4 A).	en	Rajter, Ľubomír, Bourland, William, Vďačný, Peter (2019): Morpho-molecular Characterization of the Litostomatean Predatory Ciliate Phialina pupula (Müller, 1773) Foissner, 1983 (Haptoria, Lacrymariidae). Acta Protozoologica 58 (2): 53-68, DOI: 10.4467/16890027AP.19.004.10835, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.4467/16890027ap.19.004.10835
A83CB427FFDCFFD4FF46F8B49955FB5E.taxon	description	According to multiple phylogenetic analyses, the family Lacrymariidae represents a monophyletic and distinct lineage within the subclass Haptoria (e. g., Gao et al. 2008, Vďačný et al. 2011, Zhang et al. 2012, Kwon et al. 2014, Wu et al. 2017, Huang et al. 2018, Wang et al. 2019), which is also in accordance with the present results (Figs 5, 6). In the pioneer studies, the genera Phialina and Lacrymaria were each depicted as being monophyletic (Zhang et al. 2012, Kwon et al. 2014). However, with an increasing sequence pool, both genera have become non-monophyletic (Wu et al. 2017, Huang et al. 2018, Wang et al. 2019, present study). Although the generic home of most lacrymariid taxa is questionable and unstable (e. g., Penard 1922, Kahl 1930, Foissner 1983, Dragesco and Dragesco-Kernéis 1986, Foissner et al. 1995, Jankowski 2007), Phialina appears to be a paraphyletic stem genus while Lacrymaria seems to be polyphyletic both in the single gene and multigene phylogenetic analyses (Figs 5, 6). Therefore, we suppose that the phialinid bauplan, i. e., the anterior body end differentiated into a head-like structure directly attached to the trunk (i. e. without an intervening neck-like region), might represent the ground pattern in the family Lacrymariidae. On the other hand, the long highly contractile neck carrying the head-like structure probably evolved later and convergently in multiple Lacrymaria species from Phialina - like ancestors. The phylogenetic home of the family Lacrymariidae within the subclass Haptoria is still uncertain (for details, see Vďačný and Rataj 2017). However, the peculiar brush structure of the family Lacrymariidae, i. e., the posterior basal body of brush dikinetids associated with an ordinary cilium (Fig. 4 A, B), indicates a close relationship with the family Chaeneidae Kwon et al., 2014. There are also further morphological features (e. g., body contractility, head-like anterior body end, and separation of the dorsal brush from the anterior body end by files of somatic monokinetids) corroborating the sister-group relationship of the families Lacrymariidae and Chaeneidae (Kwon et al. 2014, Vďačný and Rataj 2017). Whether these features are synapomorphies, plesiomorphies or homoplasies, needs to be tested by further molecular markers.	en	Rajter, Ľubomír, Bourland, William, Vďačný, Peter (2019): Morpho-molecular Characterization of the Litostomatean Predatory Ciliate Phialina pupula (Müller, 1773) Foissner, 1983 (Haptoria, Lacrymariidae). Acta Protozoologica 58 (2): 53-68, DOI: 10.4467/16890027AP.19.004.10835, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.4467/16890027ap.19.004.10835
