339 This chapter, in large measure, is independent of the others. Here, we diagnose or characterize in a succinct manner, all suprageneric taxa assign- able to the Phylum Ciliophora. In each charac- terization, we have highlighted text in bold that we believe refers to synapomorphies or shared derived traits for these taxa. These characteriza- tions are revisions of those provided in Corliss (1979), Lynn and Small (2002), de Puytorac and collaborators (1994a), and other references subse- quent to these publications. Kahl’s (1930–1935) great series has invaluable species descriptions, but omitted entirely certain major higher groups, and there is no comparison between the size of the total assemblage then and now. All genera are listed, supplying author and date. Synonyms are occasionally indicated where genera are con- sidered problematic, and homonyms are noted. We have also indicated those genera designated as nomen nudum by Aescht (2001) as these highlight generic concepts for which additional research may confirm the conclusions of the original describer. Nevertheless, our coverage does not go to the nomenclatural and taxonomic depth of Aescht, whose scholarly work should be consulted for a comprehensive treatment of the literature in relation to genera published up to 13 March 2000. Nor do we provide diagnoses and characterizations of genera or subgenera, many of which can be found in the second volume of the Traité edited by de Puytorac and Collaborators (1994a), Jankowski (2007) and in other special- ist works: the chapters of the Traité volume have been separately cited in the previous chapters devoted to treatment of the classes. We have included newly described genera published since Aescht (2001) and Berger (1999, 2001), and have indicated these genera by marking them with an asterisk ( * ). Details, discussions of controversial matters, revelation of the rationale behind the new classi- fication, evolutionary interrelationships, definition of terminology employed, and rich citation of per- tinent literature sources are still to be found only in the preceding chapters. 17.1 Style and Format The classes are arranged, in supposed phylogenetic order, based on the data provided by molecular phylogenetic analyses and ultrastructural stud- ies ( see Chapter 16 ). However, other taxa are presented alphabetically, each name followed by its author(s) and date of first valid description. Throughout, we have generally followed Aescht (2001) as the nomenclatural authority on genera. Remarks and comments are kept to a minimum but are included when considered indispensable. Characterizations of taxa are as complete as possible at the levels of phylum, subphy- lum, class, and family. Other taxa are provided with a minimum characterization. Diagnostic or shared-derived characters for each taxon are highlighted in bold typeface. Whenever refer- ence is made to size, the following criteria were used: small means < 80 µm in body length ; medium means 80–200 µm in body length ; and Chapter 17 The Ciliate Taxa Including Families and Genera 340 17. The Ciliate Taxa Including Families and Genera large means > 200 µm in body length . Taxa are considered “ free-swimming ” if they are typically not attached to a substrate by a stalk or lorica or some other attachment organelle . In relation to life history, we make the broad distinction between “ free-living ” (i.e., NOT associated with other organisms) and symbiotic . We use the fol- lowing classification of symbioses: commensal- ism – the symbiont benefits but the host does not; mutualism – both symbiont and host benefit; and parasitism – the symbiont benefits and the host is obviously harmed. Ciliates have often been called parasitic , but they are most often commensalistic . In the characterizations of fami- lies, it is common that a general feature might be followed by “(?)” (e.g., feeding (?) ). This is meant to indicate that we have not been able to discover information about that character from the literature. We would be grateful to receive correspondence that would remove these areas of ignorance, either through personal observations by the correspondent or direction to the literature on the group. We have reserved the use of the category incertae sedis for families and genera that seem to demand restudy to determine their appropriate assignment in our overall scheme. 17.2 Nomenclatural Notes, Abbreviations, and Figure References Names of all authors of a taxonomic name are written out in full, even when the authorship is multiple, with a single exception. Whenever “de Puytorac et al., 1974” appears after a name, it is to be understood to stand for the following complete list of co-authors: de Puytorac, Batisse, Bohatier, Corliss, Deroux, Didier, Dragesco, Fryd-Versavel, Grain, Grolière, Hovasse, Iftode, Laval, Roque, Savoie, and Tuffrau. Abbreviations ( not italicized if directly follow- ing a generic name) include: hom. = homonym; n. n . = nomen novum ; non = not; p.p . = pro parte ; s.l . = sensu lato ; s.s . = sensu stricto ; subj. syn. = subjective synonym; syn(s). = synonym(s). In the case of subjective synonyms, we have noted all those that were listed by Aescht (2001) and for which we currently have reserved judgement on their validity. When comments are used, they are preceded by “ NOTE ” or are in brackets. Synonymies have been established either by reference to the original literature or, when that was unavailable, by using the informa- tion provided in the Zoological Record . For many of the genera established, for example, by Jankowski (1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, and some- times later) and others, and for which authors have not provided assignment to family, we have assumed that the genus remains within the family to which its type species was assigned at the time the author proposed the new genus. For example, Pelagotrichidium Jankowski, 1978 has Hypotrichidium faurei as the type spe- cies, but Jankowski (1978) did not assign the new genus to a family. Therefore, we have assumed that the new genus Pelagotrichidium remains in the Family SPIROFILIDAE to which Hypotrichidium was assigned. Since Corliss (1979), numerous monotypic fam- ilies have been established. In the vast majority of cases, we have not affirmed these families, but rather placed them in synonymy with the family from which the type genus of the new monotypic family originated. Future research, especially using molecular genetic approaches, may dem- onstrate the genetic distinctiveness of these pro- posed monotypic families. This would provide the additional support necessary to remove them from synonymy. For example, Corliss synonymized the monotypic Family SCHIZOCARYIDAE with the Family PLAGIOPYLIDAE , and placed its type genus Schizocaryum as incertae sedis in the latter family. Examination of Schizocaryum by electron microscopy (Lynn & Frombach, 1987) and gene sequencing (Lynn & Strüder-Kypke, 2002) dem- onstrated in the former case that its morphology was very different from the plagiopylids , justify- ing the establishment of a monotypic family, and demonstrated in the latter case that the family should be placed within the Order Philasterida (see p. 414). 17.3 The Ciliate Taxa to Genus 341 17.3 The Ciliate Taxa to Genus Phylum CILIOPHORA Doflein, 1901 (syns. Ciliae , Ciliozoa , Cytoidea , Eozoa , Hetero caryota , Heterokaryota , Infusoria , also Ciliata [ Ciliatea , Ciliaside , Euciliara ] + Suctoria [ Suctorea ], Gymnostomea + Ciliostomea + Tentaculifera , Kinetodesmatophora + Postciliodesmatophora , Rhabdophora + Cyrtophora , Kinetofragminophora + OLIGOHYMENOPHOREA + Polyhymenophorea , Tubuli- corticata + Filicorticata + Epiplasmata + Mem branellophora ) Eukaryotic, unicellular, protists; size, 10– 4,500