Les Nématodes parasites de Lémuriens malgaches

Chabaud, A. G.; Brygoo, E. R.; Petter, A. J.

doi:10.1051/parasite/1965402181

Cited by 34 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…I mention this species because Sandosham (1950) did not know of Yamaguti's second paper and continued to refer to E . m u r k ( 5 ) Callistourn brygooi Chabaud and Petter, 1958 from Lemur macaco in Madagascar is clearly distinct from all the other oxyurids and need not be considered further here (but see page 118).…”

Section: Systematic Analysis O F the Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Oxyurid Parasites (Nematoda) of Primates

Inglis

1961

Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enterobius nycticebi Baylis, 1928 and E. callithricis Solomon, 1933 are briefly redescribed and the oxyurid parasites of primates are discussed, additional morphological evidence being presented on many of them when necessary. The parasites are regrouped into two genera, with two subgenera each, thus: Enterobius Leach, 1853 with Enterobius and Protenterobius subgen. nov. (type species E. nycticebi); Trypanoxyuris Vevers, 1923 with Trypanoxyuris and Paraoxyuronema Artigas, 1937. A trend from a three‐lipped mouth opening to a two‐lipped is demonstrated within the genus Trypanoxyuris and a trend from a “doubled” to “single” spicule is demonstrated within Enterobius. It is pointed out that although the trend in Enterobius parallels the phylogeny of the hosts in part it does not necessarily establish a phylogeny particularly as there are relatively few records of the parasites. This is clearly demonstrated by recording from which of the genera of living primates oxyurid parasites have been reported. It is argued that “Cameron's Hypothesis”—one species of parasite (Enterobius or Trypanoxyuris): one genus of host—appears to hold good in the wild and that there is a tendency in the genus Enterobius for the parasites most like the parasites of man to occur in the hosts phylogenetically nearest man. The subfamily Oxyurinae is reviewed and two tribes, Oxyurini and Heteroxynematini, are recognized. It is reported that Callistoura brygooi Chabaud and Petter, 1958 does not have a spicule and that the structure described by Chabaud and Petter as such is a modified gubernaculum similar to that found in Ozolaimus and related genera. The great similarity between the male tail of C. brygooi and Ozolaimus is noted and it is suggested that Callistoura should be treated as a genus incertae sedis until a full study of the subfamily Pharyngodoninae, to which it is clearly related, can be undertaken. Several new synonyms are demonstrated, thus: Buckleyenterobius deniata Sandosham, 1950=Enterobius lemuris Baer, 1935; Oxyuris parallela Linstow, 1908=O. polyoon Linstow, 1909 and is referred to Enterobius; Oxyuris armata Kreis, 1940=Primasubulura distans (Rudolphi, 1819).

show abstract

Section: Systematic Analysis O F the Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The head in that specimen is identical with that of E . lemuris and it appears probable that Sandosham has misinterpreted the finely striated cuticular structures a t the anterior end of the oesophagus, -described by Chabaud & Petter (1958) from E . lemuris-as teeth.…”

Section: Systematic Groupingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Oxyurid Parasites (Nematoda) of Primates

Inglis

1961

Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Past studies have surveyed intestinal flora of various Malagasy primates [Chabaud & Bain, 1965;Chabaud & Petter, 1958;Chabaud et al, 1961Coulanges, 1976;Durette-Desset & Chabaud, 1981;L'Huillier & Zeller, 1977;Petter et al, 1972;Randriamiadamanana et al, 1998]. Only a few studies have specifically surveyed ring-tailed lemurs at individual reserves for baseline health, including fecal exams [Dutton et al, 2003;Sauther et al, 2006].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survey and comparison of major intestinal flora in captive and wild ring‐tailed lemur (Lemur catta) populations

Villers

Jang

Lent

et al. 2007

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A survey to identify the major intestinal species of aerobic bacteria, protozoa and helminths was conducted on captive and wild populations of ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta). Samples were collected from 50 captive lemurs at 11 zoological institutions in the United States. In Madagascar, 98 aerobic bacteria samples and 99 parasite samples were collected from eight sites chosen to cover a variety of populations across the species range. Identical collection, preservation and lab techniques were used for captive and wild populations. The predominant types of aerobic bacteria flora were identified via five separate tests. The tests for parasites conducted included flotation, sedimentation and FA/GC. Twenty-seven bacteria unique to either the captive or wild populations were cultured with eight of these being statistically significantly different. Fourteen bacteria common to both populations were cultured, of which six differed significantly. Entamoeba coli was the only parasite common to both the captive and wild populations. Giardia spp., Isospora spp., strongyles-type ova, Entamoeba spp. and Entamoeba polecki were found only in captive samples. Cryptosporidium, Balantidium coli, pinworm-type ova, and two fluke-like ova were seen only in wild samples. In addition, samples were compared for both bacteria and parasites from three unique field sites in Madagascar. In this three-site comparison, six types of bacteria were statistically significantly different. No significant differences regarding parasites were seen. Significant differences were found between the captive and wild populations, whereas fewer differences were found between sites within Madagascar. Although we isolated Campylobacter and Giardia, all animals appeared clinically healthy.

show abstract

“…Prosimians' gastrointestinal parasites are less well studied. Some studies have been conducted on lemur parasites, but most studies have focussed on inventories and morphological descriptions (e.g., Chabaud and Choquet 1955, Chabaud and Brygoo 1956, Chabaud and Petter 1958, 1959, Chabaud et al 1961a,b, 1964, 1965, Petter et al 1972, Hugot et al 1995, 1996, Randriamiadamanana 1998, Hugot and Baylac 2007, Rasambainarivo 2008. Few studies were based on animals in their natural habitat (Junge and Louis 2002, 2007, Junge and Sauther 2006.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%