1982
DOI: 10.2307/3225764
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative Morphology of the North American Species of Spinitectus (Nematoda: Spirurida) Analyzed by Scanning Electron Microscopy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

1985
1985
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The general morphology (especially the structure of cephalic end and the spination of body) and measurements of the single available female specimen from Albula glossodonta are very similar to those of Spinitectus beaveri Overstreet, 1970, a stomach parasite of Albula vulpes (Linnaeus) in Florida (Biscayne Bay), USA (Overstreet 1970, Jilek andCrites 1982). Since the hosts of both forms belong to the same fish genus, it is apparent that both of them are closely related or even conspecific.…”
Section: Commentsmentioning
confidence: 75%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The general morphology (especially the structure of cephalic end and the spination of body) and measurements of the single available female specimen from Albula glossodonta are very similar to those of Spinitectus beaveri Overstreet, 1970, a stomach parasite of Albula vulpes (Linnaeus) in Florida (Biscayne Bay), USA (Overstreet 1970, Jilek andCrites 1982). Since the hosts of both forms belong to the same fish genus, it is apparent that both of them are closely related or even conspecific.…”
Section: Commentsmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…specimen from New Caledonia. Jilek and Crites (1982) studied by SEM the cephalic structure of S. beaveri and found it very different from those of the three other, freshwater North American species of Spinitectus examined, especially in the shape of the oral aperture and highly reduced pseudolabia. However, in fact, by this structure S. beaveri differs from all other congeneric species hitherto studied by SEM.…”
Section: Commentsmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Taking the cystidicolid genus Spinitectus as an example, Jilek & Crites (1982c) pointed out that some workers have omitted descriptive details of the head or have provided incomplete or misleading en face drawings. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) may provide accurate representations of nematode head anatomy, tail anatomy and cuticular ornamentation but this technology is not readily available to field workers for whom this Guide is mainly intended.…”
Section: Collection and Examination Of Nematodesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is most similar to S. micracanthus and S. carolini in possessing a relatively long stoma, a posteriorly directed vagina, a right spicule with a terminal ventral barb, and a heart-shaped caudal mucron (Christian, 1972;Choudhury and Dick, 2001). How- ever, S. macrospinosus can be readily distinguished from its North American congeners primarily by the arrangement and large size of its spines (see Mueller and Van Cleave, 1932;Christian, 1972;Jilek and Crites, 1982;Choudhury and Dick, 1992;Caspeta-Mandujano and Moravec, 2000;Caspeta-Mandujano et al, 2000;Choudhury and Pérez-Ponce de León, 2001 for comparison). It is easily distinguished from S. micracanthus and S. carolini by the size and arrangement of its spines and the position of its excretory pore.…”
Section: Remarksmentioning
confidence: 99%