Coolia is a widespread and ecologically important genus of benthic marine dinoflagellates found in tropical regions. Historically, there has been taxonomic confusion about the taxonomy and toxicity of this group. The goal of this study was to resolve morphological questions concerning Coolia tropicalis and determine the taxonomic identity of the Australian Coolia isolate which has been reported to produce cooliatoxins. To accomplish this, the morphology of tropical strains from Belize (the type locality of C. tropicalis), Malaysia, Indonesia, and Australia were examined and compared to published reports. The morphological analysis showed that C. tropicalis differs from the original description in that it has a slightly larger size (35-47 μm long by 30-45 μm wide versus 23-40 μm long by 25-39 μm wide), and the shape of fourth apical plate, and the length of Po plate (7.4-12 μm versus 7 μm). Based on both morphology and phylogenetic analysis using LSU D1- D3 rDNA sequences, the clones of C. tropicalis from Malaysia, Indonesia, and Belize were found to form a monophyletic clade within the genus. The strain producing cooliatoxin was found to be C. tropicalis, not Coolia monotis as originally assumed. To explore the factors influencing the growth of Coolia species, the growth rates of C. tropicalis and Coolia malayensis were determined at different temperatures and salinities. Both species tolerated a wide range of temperatures, but cannot survive at temperatures <20°C or >35°C. C. monotis, the dominant species reported in the literature, probably does not produce toxins.
A new species of toxic benthic dinoflagellate is described based on laboratory cultures isolated from two locations from Brazil, Rio de Janeiro and Bahia. The morphology was studied with SEM and LM. Cells are elliptical in right thecal view and flat. They are 37-44μm long and 29-36μm wide. The right thecal plate has a V shaped indentation where six platelets can be identified. The thecal surface of both thecal plates is smooth and has round or kidney shaped and uniformly distributed pores except in the central area of the cell, and a line of marginal pores. Some cells present an elongated depression on the central area of the apical part of the right thecal plate. Prorocentrum caipirignum is similar to Prorocentrum lima in its morphology, but can be differentiated by the general cell shape, being elliptical while P. lima is ovoid. In the phylogenetic trees based on ITS and LSU rDNA sequences, the P. caipirignum clade appears close to the clades of P. lima and Prorocentrum hoffmannianum. The Brazilian strains of P. caipirignum formed a clade with strains from Cuba, Hainan Island and Malaysia and it is therefore likely that this new species has a broad tropical distribution. Prorocentrum caipirignum is a toxic species that produces okadaic acid and the fast acting toxin prorocentrolide.
A recently published study analyzed the phylogenetic relationship between the genera Centrodinium and Alexandrium, confirming an earlier publication showing the genus Alexandrium as paraphyletic. This most recent manuscript retained the genus Alexandrium, introduced a new genus Episemicolon, resurrected two genera, Gessnerium and Protogonyaulax, and stated that: "The polyphyly [sic] of Alexandrium is solved with the split into four genera". However, these reintroduced taxa were not based on monophyletic groups. Therefore this work, if accepted, would result in replacing a single paraphyletic taxon with several non-monophyletic ones. The morphological data presented for genus characterization also do not convincingly support taxa delimitations. The combination of weak molecular phylogenetics and the lack of diagnostic traits (i.e., autapomorphies) render the applicability of the concept of limited use. The proposal to split the genus Alexandrium on the basis of our current knowledge is rejected herein. The aim here is not to present an alternative analysis and revision, but to maintain Alexandrium. A better constructed and more phylogenetically accurate revision can and should wait until more complete evidence becomes available and there is a strong reason to revise the genus Alexandrium. The reasons are explained in detail by a review of the available molecular and morphological data for species of the genera Alexandrium and Centrodinium. In addition, cyst morphology and chemotaxonomy are discussed, and the need for integrative taxonomy is highlighted.