2014
DOI: 10.1007/s11230-014-9523-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A new species of Plectognathotrema Layman, 1930 (Trematoda: Zoogonidae) from an Australian monacanthid, with a molecular assessment of the phylogenetic position of the genus

Abstract: During helminthological examinations of teleost fishes of Ningaloo

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The species of faustulids nesting within the Gymnophalloidea are Pseudobacciger cheyenae Sun, Bray, Yong, Bacciger astyanactis Lunaschi, 1988 (added to the analysis of the 28S phylogenetic tree). A recent phylogenetic analysis using 28S and ITS DNA sequences has demonstrated that even though P. cheyenae is currently recognized within the Faustulidae, this species is not closely related to the other faustulid genera, such as Antorchis Linton, 1911, Bacciger Nicoll, 1924, Paradiscogaster Yamaguti, 1934and Trigonocryptus Martin, 1958Cutmore et al (2014) demonstrated that these genera are associated with the Zoogonidae in the Microphalloidea; instead, P. cheyenae is nested within Gymnophalloidea as a sister taxa to the Tandanicolidae (Sun et al 2014). Based on these results, the species Bacciger astyanactis must be re-allocated because it does not belong in Bacciger and should probably be included within Pseudobacciger.…”
Section: Journal Of Helminthology 269mentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The species of faustulids nesting within the Gymnophalloidea are Pseudobacciger cheyenae Sun, Bray, Yong, Bacciger astyanactis Lunaschi, 1988 (added to the analysis of the 28S phylogenetic tree). A recent phylogenetic analysis using 28S and ITS DNA sequences has demonstrated that even though P. cheyenae is currently recognized within the Faustulidae, this species is not closely related to the other faustulid genera, such as Antorchis Linton, 1911, Bacciger Nicoll, 1924, Paradiscogaster Yamaguti, 1934and Trigonocryptus Martin, 1958Cutmore et al (2014) demonstrated that these genera are associated with the Zoogonidae in the Microphalloidea; instead, P. cheyenae is nested within Gymnophalloidea as a sister taxa to the Tandanicolidae (Sun et al 2014). Based on these results, the species Bacciger astyanactis must be re-allocated because it does not belong in Bacciger and should probably be included within Pseudobacciger.…”
Section: Journal Of Helminthology 269mentioning
confidence: 98%
“…A recent phylogenetic analysis using 28S and ITS DNA sequences has demonstrated that even though P. cheyenae is currently recognized within the Faustulidae, this species is not closely related to the other faustulid genera, such as Antorchis Linton, 1911, Bacciger Nicoll, 1924, Paradiscogaster Yamaguti, 1934 and Trigonocryptus Martin, 1958; Cutmore et al . (2014) demonstrated that these genera are associated with the Zoogonidae in the Microphalloidea; instead, P. cheyenae is nested within Gymnophalloidea as a sister taxa to the Tandanicolidae (Sun et al . 2014).…”
Section: Revisiting the Higher-level Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The position of the genus within the family Faustulidae has been confirmed by molecular data, with Antorchis forming a strongly supported clade with species of the faustulid genera Bacciger Nicoll, 1914 andTrigonocryptus Martin, 1958 in the analyses of Olson et al (2003), Sun et al (2014) and Cutmore et al (2014). The analyses of Sun et al (2014) highlighted the possible need for future division of the Faustulidae into two families, one related to the Zoogonidae (the clade to which Antorchis belongs) and one related to the Gymnophalloidea Odhner, 1905.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…Remarks: The present specimens belong within the Zoogonidae based on the following diagnostic combination of features: a genital pore in the forebody that is neither median nor close to the anterior extremity or lateral edge of the ventral sucker; a cirrus pouch with proximal extremity oriented posteriorly; an ovary that is entire and in the hindbody; a distinct alimentary tract as opposed to absent or greatly reduced; an ejaculatory duct and metraterm that are unarmed; testes in the hindbody; and a fish host (Bray, 2008a). Unlike members of the Cephaloporinae, Yamaguti, 1934, these specimens lack an unusually posterior ventral sucker, a lateral genital pore close to the level of the oral sucker, and a monacanthid host, yet they possess an operculate egg and vitellaria in paired fields of follicles and not in one or two compact masses (i.e., Zoogoninae Odhner, 1902); therefore, they are placed within the Lepidophyllinae (Bray, 2008b;Cutmore et al, 2014). This material belongs within Steganoderma because of its possessing an elongate oval to fusiform body, more or less entire testes and ovary, narrow ceca that extend to or near the level of the testes, an undivided sessile round ventral sucker with a mid-ventral aperture, vitelline fields in the hindbody, non-filamented eggs, neither enlarged circumoral spines nor pockets in the ejaculatory duct and metraterm, a claviform cirrus pouch, a saccular seminal vesicle (though bipartite, both portions are saccate), and these specimens infect the intestine instead of the urinary bladder of its fish host (Bray, 2008b).…”
Section: Zoobank Registrationmentioning
confidence: 99%