Monogenetic Trematodes of Gulf of Mexico Fishes. Part II. The Superfamily Gyrodactyloidea. (Continued)

Hargis, William J.

doi:10.2307/3273790

Cited by 32 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rooting was accomplished a posteriori as proposed by Nixon and Carpenter (1993 POLYONCHOINEA Bychowsky, 1937DACTYLOGYRIDEA Bychowsky, 1937 Remarks. Most species of Rhamnocercinae are described as having posteriorly confluent intestinal caeca (Hargis 1955, Luque and Iannacone 1991, Zambrano 1997, Chaves et al 1999. Based on this character, Oliver (1987) removed Rhamnocercinae from Diplectanidae and elevated it to the family category within Heterotesioidea Euzet et Dossou, 1979.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hargis (1955) described the copulatory complex of R. bairdiella as composed of an MCO and an accessory piece, and referred to confluent intestinal caeca. However, analysis of the paratypes (USNPC 49346) indicated that the structure referred to by Hargis (1955) as an accessory piece represents an expansion of the distal portion of the MCO. The confluence of the intestinal caeca could not be verified in these specimens.…”

Section: Rhamnocercus Bairdiellamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hargis (1955) and Seamster and Monaco (1956) discussed the validity of Rhamnocercinae based on the origin of the echinodiscs and squamodiscs (see comment above). Bychowsky (1957) suggested that Rhamnocercinae and species of Lepidotrema are closely related due to the presence of spines in the peduncle and haptor, and considered squamodiscs to be homologous with these spines.…”

Section: Taxonomic Revisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Oliver (1987) proposed elevation of the Rhamnocercinae to the family level within the Heterotesioidea based on the confluent condition of the gut. Chaves et al (1999) rejected this change in category but considered that species of this taxon possess confluent intestinal caeca as suggested by Hargis (1955), Luque andIannacone (1991) andOliver (1987). Chaves et al (1999) recommended that a possible change in category would only be justifiable if based on a phylogenetic analysis of the Diplectanidae.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hargis (1955) rejected the Rhamnocercinae based on the proposed homology of the dorsal and ventral "plates" (parenchymatic spines, sensu Monaco et al 1954) of rhamnocercines and the squamodiscs of other diplectanids. Seamster and Monaco (1956) rejected the proposal of Hargis (1955) and continued to recognise the Rhamnocercinae as valid. Oliver (1987) proposed elevation of the Rhamnocercinae to the family level within the Heterotesioidea based on the confluent condition of the gut.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Revision and phylogeny of Rhamnocercinae Monaco, Wood et Mizelle, 1954 (Monogenoidea: Diplectanidae)

Domingues¹,

Boeger²

2006

FOLIA PARASIT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Species of Rhamnocercinae Monaco, Wood et Mizelle, 1954 are gill parasites of sciaenid fishes (Perciformes). Seven are marine species (three in the western Atlantic and four in oriental Pacific) and one is a neotropical freshwater species (Rio Doce Basin, Brazil). While the status of the subfamily may be questioned, this assemblage of species is apparently supported by several shared apomorphic and plesiomorphic characters, such as: (1) peduncular spines with anterior and posterior roots; (2) haptor laterally expanded, armed with anchors (two pairs); bars (one ventral, two dorsal); 14 hooks and haptoral accessory spines; and (3) Monaco et al. (1954) proposed the Rhamnocercinae to accommodate diplectanid species with the following characteristics: (1) absence of squamodiscs and (2) presence of parenchymatic spines in the haptor and peduncle. Hargis (1955) rejected the Rhamnocercinae based on the proposed homology of the dorsal and ventral "plates" (parenchymatic spines, sensu Monaco et al. 1954) of rhamnocercines and the squamodiscs of other diplectanids. Seamster and Monaco (1956) rejected the proposal of Hargis (1955) and continued to recognise the Rhamnocercinae as valid. Oliver (1987) proposed elevation of the Rhamnocercinae to the family level within the Heterotesioidea based on the confluent condition of the gut. Chaves et al. (1999) rejected this change in category but considered that species of this taxon possess confluent intestinal caeca as suggested by Hargis (1955), Luque andIannacone (1991) andOliver (1987). Chaves et al. (1999) recommended that a possible change in category would only be justifiable if based on a phylogenetic analysis of the Diplectanidae. Desdevises et al. (2001) accepted Oliver's decision (1987 and proposed a phylogenetic hypothesis for genera of Diplectanidae. Obviously, species of Rhamnocercoides and Rhamnocercus were not considered in their phylogenetic analysis.While the taxonomic status of this group of species remains uncertain, its eight species depict a unique character that may represent a synapomorphy, supporting its natural condition. Its species are gill parasites of sciaenids (Perciformes, Sciaenidae) and share the presence of peduncular spines with deep and superficial roots. Thus, in this paper, the species included in Rhamnocercinae are revised based on a phylogenetic hypothesis.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rhamnocercus Bairdiellamentioning

confidence: 99%