Molinacuaria indonesiensis n. sp. (Nematoda, Acuarioidea) from Rattus argentiventer in Indonesia

Abstract

Molinacuaria indonesiensis n. sp. from the stomach of Rattus argentiventer, the rice field rat, in Sukamandi, Java, Indonesia is described and figured from the examination of seven males and three females. The species is separated from the three other species of the genus, namely, M. bendelli (Adams & Gibson, 1969) Wong & Lankester, 1985, M. acholonui (Schmidt & Kuntz, 1972) Wong & Lankester, 1985 and M. gallinulae (Wang, 1966) Wong & Lankester, 1985. The species is characterised by (i) the larger body measurements, (ii) the presence of a fold rather than a deep groove separating the anterior cephalic region and the ptilina which form four distinct shields, (iii) the morphology of the four ptilina, each one being tripartite with a pointed middle section twice as long at the two lateral sections (iv) the number of papillae on the posterior end of the male (two pairs pre-cloacal, four pairs post-cloacal), (v) the morphology of the left spicule, and (vi) the female tail being straight with a terminal knob.

Phylogeny, host-parasite relationship and zoogeography

“…This nematode was collected from the alimentary canal of Rattus argentiventer, a pest rodent in rice cultivation in Indonesia. Only one month later, British and Indonesian researchers published another paper describing a new acuariid, Molinacuaria indonesiensis, from the same rat species in a nearby locality in Indonesia (Gibbons et al, 1992). Both are apparently conspecific.…”

“…Such cases are not uncommon in science, especially in the field of taxonomy. The problem is that we classified this nematode as a new genus in the subfamily Seuratiinae, whereas Gibbons et al (1992) placed it in the known genus of the subfamily Schistorophinae. The cause of these different classifications was the interpretation of small structures in the cephalic region.…”

“…1 A). Gibbons et al (1992) may have considered them as ptilina that are specific to Schistorophinae (see Wong and Lankester, 1985), whereas we judged that they were not homologous with ptilina but only with homoplasy. In the Schistorophinae, the ptilina are independent from the pseudolabia, and hence there is a furrow or suture between the pseudolabium and ptilinum (Figs.…”