This will be an exercise not only in learning the steps involved in presenting a scientific poster presentation as if it were for an actual meeting, but also in creativity. Note that because the description of a new symbiotic relationship is necessarily a huge undertaking, requiring a great deal of background literature search, species description and other research, much of what you will be citing in your projects will--of necessity--be imaginary. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU INDICATE IMAGINARY/FICTIOUS PORTIONS OF YOUR PROJECT, TO DISTINGUISH THEM FROM ACTUAL RESOURCES. All actual sources must be properly cited in your poster's literature cited section, lest you be guilty of PLAGIARISM!

Whenever possible, use actual, published information from refereed journals to back up your work. Use fictitious or imaginary works only when they relate directly to your imaginary organisms, as shown in "NOTE #1" below.

Information from published journals and books is generally far more reliable than that from any web sites, and we encourage you to use books, rather than the internet, in your research. However, if you do wish to use the internet as a starting point, be sure your source is a reliable one, such as one hosted by an official department of an accredited university (e.g., http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/alllife/threedomains.html), one created by a coalition of professional scientists listed as authors (e.g., http://tolweb.org/), or government-sponsored scientific sites.

Again, we remind you: if you use a published resource of any kind, failure to properly cite it constitutes plagiarism, and will be considered cheating. Don't make this mistake!

EXAMPLE: parasitism (one population benefits, and the other is inhibited by the relationship)

Each should be a fictitious species with a Genus/species scientific name of your own choosing. Although you may nest your organisms in actual taxa as far down as family, the absolute minimum requirements for the "known phylogeny" of your make-believe organisms are as follows.

1. If the organism is a PROKARYOTE, it should be nested in a known KINGDOM. You may

create a fictitious Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and species for your prokaryote.

2. If the organism is a PROTIST, it should be nested in a known PHYLUM. You may create a

fictitious Class (-ceae), Order (-ales), Family (-aceae), Genus and species for your protist.

3. If the organism is a FUNGUS, it should be nested in a known PHYLUM. You may create a

fictitious Class (-mycetes), Order (-ales), Family (-aceae), Genus and species for your protist.

4. If the organism is a PLANT, it should be nested in a known CLASS. You may create a

fictitious Order (-opsidae), Family (-aceae), Genus and species for your plant.

5. If the organism is an ANIMAL, it should be nested in a known ORDER. You may create a

fictitious Family (-idae), Genus and species for your protist.

The suffixes shown in parentheses after some of the taxonomic ranks indicate a commonly used suffix for that particular rank, and we suggest that when you choose a name for your ficitious taxon, you use the appropriate suffix. If you wish to get more sophisticated, feel free to delve more deeply into the mycological, zoological, botanical and other literature to find other appropriate names. But the above are acceptable for our purposes.

Your Dictionary of Word Roots and Combining Forms (Borror) has simple rules of nomenclature on pages 113-115. Use these and the rest of the book in naming your organisms. Note that when you create these organisms, you should use as many published resources as possible, preferably books. (You know. Those big, heavy things made out of paper.) Cite all sources of information in your "Literature Cited" and "Additional References" sections, as appropriate.

A SAMPLE PROJECT

Base your own project on the GENERAL outline shown in this sample project, but do not copy it too closely. Be original, and don't be afraid to go beyond what's shown here.

OUR SAMPLE ORGANISMS:

Species one: Is a green alga named Archaeoconis lepidomyces.

Phylogeny: Domain Eukarya, Kingdom (?) Chlorophyta, Phylum Chlorophyta, Class Pleurastrophyceae, Order Archaeoconiales, Family Archaeoconaceae, Genus Archaeoconis, species lepidomyces.

Description: The organism's name refers to its growth habit, which is to form scale-like colonies within the tissues of a symbiotic species of fungus, Ceratolophus viridis (Krempels, 1999). The symbiotic association of the green alga and its fungal partner was discovered in July of 1998 in a field site 35 km south of Anchorage, Alaska, where the organisms were discovered growing on an outcropping of granite boulders. (See site map, Figure 1).

Species two: Is a fungus named Ceratolophus viridis

Phylogeny: Domain Eukarya, Kingdom Fungi, Phylum Ascomycota, Class Euascomycetes, Order Ceratophales, Family Ceratoseae, Genus Ceratolophus, species viridis

Description: The organism's name refers to the form of the vegetatively growing thallus, which rise in the shape of small, green horns approximately 2cm tall, from the surface of the granite substrate. Microscopic examination of the mycelium revealed a second organism growing amid the hyphae, which were described and named Archaeoconis lepidomyces (Krempels 1999a).

NOTE #1: The two references above, (Krempels, 1999 and Krempels 1999a) refer to imaginary articles written by the author and describing the "new species". In the Literature Cited section of this project, you will find these two imaginary papers cited, and designated as FICTITIOUS in parentheses after the citation. Whenever you use a fictitious citation, you must indicate that it is fake in this manner.

Your poster board consists of two side panels and a central panel. The two side panels should be used to describe the two species in your symbiotic relationship. For each, be sure to include:

1. Complete phylogeny of the species

2. Physical appearance of the species, INCLUDING AN ILLUSTRATION.

3. Locality data (where the organism was collected)

4. Habitat information (in what type of microhabitat was it living?)

5. Natural history information, if known, such as

a. general metabolism, physiology notes (photoautotroph? facultative anaerobe? etc.)

b. reproductive cycle

c. behavior (if applicable)

d. anything interesting about your species

e. nature of the suspected symbiotic relationship with the other species

6. Literature Cited and/or Additional References (the latter only if you read an interesting source,

did not cite it in your work, but still feel that a reader would find it interesting or useful.)

Since you've just discovered these two symbionts, your hypothesis about the nature of their interaction is just that. It remains to be seen whether some of the more subtle forms of symbiosis (e.g., parasitism, commensalism, protocooperation, mutualism, competition) are really operating in your system. Predation is a fairly obvious form of symbiosis, and for this particular type of interaction, it may be sufficient to simply record imaginary "field observations" of kills observed, stomach contents examined in the predator, etc. For the others, however, it is important to formulate a testable hypothesis about the relationship, and this is where you must be logical and creative.

This will be written in the form of a scientific paper, complete with abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion, as described in Appendix 4 of your laboratory manual, Life, the Universe and Evolution.

This section of the project should be printed and posted on the CENTER of your three-part poster board, as illustrated in your lab manual (Laboratory 11).

A new symbiotic association of a green alga (Archaeoconis lepidomyces) and an ascomycete fungus (Ceratolophus viridis) was discovered in July 1998 in a granite outcropping 35 kilometers south of Anchorage, Alaska (Figure 1). Transmission electron micrographs reveal that in their natural state, A. lepidomyces live in scale-shaped colonies between the hyphae forming the vegetative (i.e., non-reproductive) thallus of C. viridis. It is suspected that this relationship is beneficial to both the fungus and its algal symbiont, with the algae providing photosynthates to the fungus and the fungus protecting the algae from severe environmental elements.

It is not known whether Archaeoconis lepidomyces and Ceratolophus viridis grow at the same rate whether living together or separately. (This is the QUESTION). Therefore, we put forth the following hypotheses:

H_O: There is no difference in the rate of growth of Archaeoconis lepidomyces culture whether

grown in pure culture or grown in natural association with Ceratolophus viridis."

H_A: There is a difference in the rate of growth of Archaeoconis lepidomyces culture when grown in

pure culture as compared to rate of growth in natural association with Ceratolophus viridis."

and

H_O: There is no difference in the rate of growth of Ceratolophus viridis culture whether

grown in pure culture or grown in natural association with Archaeoconis lepidomyces."

H_A: There is a difference in the rate of growth of Ceratolophus viridis culture when grown in

pure culture as compared to rate of growth in natural association with Archaeoconis

NOTE #2: You can go into greater detail about the natural history and details of your organisms that I have here. This is just a quick example to get you started.

Note also that although I have used growth rate as an indicator of the "health" of each population, there are other parameters you could use just as well. Consider using such as reproductive rate, lifespan, biomass, etc. Be creative and original!

Three different culture groups were initiated and grown under identical conditions in environmental providing light/dark cycle and humidity similar to what the organisms would experience in their natural habitats.

All cultures were grown on minimal agar media incubated on a 12-hour light and 12-hour dark cycle at 33% humidity. Culture group I (30 replicates) consisted of isolated Archaeoconis lepidomyces cells. Culture group II (30 replicates) consisted of isolated Ceratolophus viridis hyphae lacking A. lepidomyces symbionts, and Culture group III consisted of Ceratolophus viridis hyphae with natural densities of A. lepidomyces cultures intercalated among the hyphae.

Cultures were allowed to grow for six weeks. Cell biomass and numbers of A. lepidomyces were used as indices of algal growth rate in all cultures. Hyphal biomass and volume were used as indices of C. viridis growth rate in all cultures.

Growth rate of A. lepidomyces was higher in isolated culture than it was in symbiotic culture (Table 1). Growth rate of C. viridis was lower in isolated culture than it was in symbiotic culture (Table 2).

Because A. lepidomyces grows more rapidly in pure culture than in symbiotic association, and C. viridis grows more slowly in pure culture than in symbiotic association, our data might be interpreted as indicating that the symbiotic relationship between A. lepidomyces and C. viridis is a form of controlled parasitism on the part of the fungal symbiont. If environmental conditions in the symbionts' natural habitat were exactly the same as those in the environmental chamber, this might be so.

However, because environmental conditions inside the chamber did not include such rigors as wind chill, freezing, severe drought, and other seasonably variable conditions the organisms might encounter over their lifespans, it is still possible to consider this a form of protocooperation. Although further studies are necessary to confirm this, it is not likely that A. lepidomyces could survive alone in the habitat in which it is found in association with C. viridis. We predict that further field studies will confirm that the association between this alga and fungus is indeed a form of obligate mutualism on the part of the alga, and possibly the fungus, as well, at least in the particular habitat in which this association appears to be endemic.

Krempels, D. 1999. Archaeoconis lepidomyces, a new species of chlorophyte algae found in

association with a fungal symbiont. Biosystematics 113(4): 78-81. (FICTITIOUS)

Krempels, D. 1999. Ceratolophus viridis, a new species of ascomycete fungus found in

association with a chlorophyte symbiont. Biosystematics 113(4): 82-85. (FICTITIOUS)

NOTE #3: The Methods, Results, and Discussion samples here are necessarily very short and to the point. We're just trying to steer you in the right direction. You should also include any Figures, Tables, illustrations (electron micrographs, line drawings, etc.) and other visual aids as necessary, to make your presentation clear and easy to understand.