Myxobolus absonus sp. n. (Myxozoa: Myxosporea) Parasitizing Pimelodus maculatus (Siluriformes: Pimelodidae), a South American Freshwater Fish

Light and electron microscopy of Myxobolus sciades n. sp. (Myxozoa), a parasite of the gills of the Brazilian fish Sciades herzbergii (Block, 1794) (Teleostei: Ariidae)

“…When comparing the present results with those for the different Myxobolus spp previously described in Brazilian fish (Table), we observed several morphological differences in the dimensions and shape of the spores and PCs as well as the number, position and organisation of the coils in the PFCs. Species such as Myxobolus inaequus (Kent & Hoffman 1984), Myxobolus desaequalis and Myxobolus absonus (Cellere et al 2002) were excluded from the possibility of belonging to the same species, because these organisms posses two unequallysized PCs. Reported species infecting organs other than the gills were also excluded from the comparative table.…”

“…Most of the Brazilian Myxobolus species have been described based on only light microscopy descriptions and diagrammatic drawings (Walliker 1969, Kent & Hoffman 1984, Molnár & Békési 1993, Gioia & Cordeiro 1996, Molnár et al 1998, Cellere et al 2002, Eiras et al 2005a, 2007, Martins & Onaka 2006; even fewer have been described using light and ultrastructural observations (Casal et al 1996, 2002, 2009, Tajdari et al 2005 In this paper, we describe light and ultrastructural data for a new myxosporidian species found in the gill of the teleost fish, Sciades herzbergii, which was collected from a river Northeast of Brazil.…”

“…In a recent synopsis, 744 Myxobolus species have been identified parasitizing fish (Eiras et al 2005b) and more recently, 792 named species of the same genus, including seven infecting amphibians, have been described (Lom & Dyková 2006). However, this number has been successively increasing over the years by the continuing description of new species in different countries, including Brazil (Casal et al 2006, Martins & Onaka 2006, Eiras et al 2007, Adriano et al 2009a, b, Azevedo et al 2009).Most of the Brazilian Myxobolus species have been described based on only light microscopy descriptions and diagrammatic drawings (Walliker 1969, Kent & Hoffman 1984, Molnár & Békési 1993, Gioia & Cordeiro 1996, Molnár et al 1998, Cellere et al 2002, Eiras et al 2005a, 2007, Martins & Onaka 2006; even fewer have been described using light and ultrastructural observations (Casal et al 1996, 2002, 2009, Tajdari et al 2005 In this paper, we describe light and ultrastructural data for a new myxosporidian species found in the gill of the teleost fish, Sciades herzbergii, which was collected from a river Northeast of Brazil. …”

“…Most of the Brazilian Myxobolus species have been described based on only light microscopy descriptions and diagrammatic drawings (Walliker 1969, Kent & Hoffman 1984, Molnár & Békési 1993, Gioia & Cordeiro 1996, Molnár et al 1998, Cellere et al 2002, Eiras et al 2005a, 2007, Martins & Onaka 2006; even fewer have been described using light and ultrastructural observations (Casal et al 1996, 2002, 2009, Tajdari et al 2005, Adriano et al 2009a) as well as molecular analyses (Adriano et al 2009b). However, some specific aspects of the histopathology have been simultaneously reported by invasion of different organs; Myxobolus spp most frequently infects the gills of fish (Molnár & Békési 1993, Molnár 2002, Eiras et al 2005a, Casal et al 2006, Lom & Dyková 2006, Adriano et al 2009a, Azevedo et al 2009.…”

Myxobolus franciscoi sp. nov. (Myxozoa: Myxosporea: Myxobolidae), a parasite of Prochilodus argenteus (Actinopterygii: Prochilodontidae) from the Upper São Francisco River, Brazil, with a revision of Myxobolus spp. from South America

“…Myxobolus porofilus, infecting a host, Prochilodus lineatus (Valenciennes, 1837), that is closely related to the host of M. franciscoi, has even smaller spores (5.7 by 4.8 µm) and smaller polar capsules than our species. Besides, unlike M. franciscoi, M. porofilus infects the visceral cavity of the host (ADRIANO et al 2002). Therefore we cannot consider the two forms to be identical.…”