1956
DOI: 10.2307/2422330
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

North American Freshwater Tetraonchinae

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1975
1975
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…T. tengra (Tripathi, 1959) n. comb. Singh & Sharma, 1992 Dactylogyrus seenghali Jain, 1961 Silurodiscoides seenghali (Jain, 1961) Gussev, 1976 Silurodiscoides siamensis Lira, 1990 Ancylodiscoides sigmoidovagina Yamaguti, 1942 Silurodiscoides sigmoidovagina (Yamaguti, 1942) Gusev, 1985 Ancyrocephalus siluri Zandt, 1924 Urocleidus siluri (Zandt, 1924) Mizelle & Hughes, 1938 Ancylodiscoides siluri (Zandt, 1924) Yamaguti, 1937 Parancylodiscoides siluri (Zandt, 1924) Achmerow, 1964 Silurodiscoides siluri (Zandt, 1924) Gussev, 1976 Ancylodiscoides soldatovi Gussev & Strelkow, 1960 Silurodiscoides soldatovi (Gussev & Strelkow, 1960) Gusev, 1985 Silurodiscoides sudhakari Gussev, 1976 Parancylodiscoides sudhakari (Gussev, (1976) Dubey, Gupta & Agarwal, 1992 Ancylodiscoides strelkowi Achmerow, 1952 Parancylodiscoides strelkowi (Achmerow, 1952) Achrnerow, 1964 Silurodiscoides strelkowi (Achmerow, 1952) Gusev, 1985 Silurodiscoides tasekberai Lim, 1986 Silurodiscoides tasekensis Lim & Furtado, 1986 Neomurraytrema tengra Tripathi, 1959 Silurodiscoides tengra (Tripathi, 1959) Gussev, 1976 Parancylodiscoides tengra (Tripathi Dubey, Gupta & Agarwal, 1992 Wallago attu (S)…”
Section: T Surendraimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…T. tengra (Tripathi, 1959) n. comb. Singh & Sharma, 1992 Dactylogyrus seenghali Jain, 1961 Silurodiscoides seenghali (Jain, 1961) Gussev, 1976 Silurodiscoides siamensis Lira, 1990 Ancylodiscoides sigmoidovagina Yamaguti, 1942 Silurodiscoides sigmoidovagina (Yamaguti, 1942) Gusev, 1985 Ancyrocephalus siluri Zandt, 1924 Urocleidus siluri (Zandt, 1924) Mizelle & Hughes, 1938 Ancylodiscoides siluri (Zandt, 1924) Yamaguti, 1937 Parancylodiscoides siluri (Zandt, 1924) Achmerow, 1964 Silurodiscoides siluri (Zandt, 1924) Gussev, 1976 Ancylodiscoides soldatovi Gussev & Strelkow, 1960 Silurodiscoides soldatovi (Gussev & Strelkow, 1960) Gusev, 1985 Silurodiscoides sudhakari Gussev, 1976 Parancylodiscoides sudhakari (Gussev, (1976) Dubey, Gupta & Agarwal, 1992 Ancylodiscoides strelkowi Achmerow, 1952 Parancylodiscoides strelkowi (Achmerow, 1952) Achrnerow, 1964 Silurodiscoides strelkowi (Achmerow, 1952) Gusev, 1985 Silurodiscoides tasekberai Lim, 1986 Silurodiscoides tasekensis Lim & Furtado, 1986 Neomurraytrema tengra Tripathi, 1959 Silurodiscoides tengra (Tripathi, 1959) Gussev, 1976 Parancylodiscoides tengra (Tripathi Dubey, Gupta & Agarwal, 1992 Wallago attu (S)…”
Section: T Surendraimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Vaginal characteristics were variously described: "vagina prominently cuticularized" (C. alatus); "vagina not certainly observed but apparently on left" (C. brachus); "vagina, left with folded walls" (C. stentor, C. Joridianus); "vagina not observed" (C. malleus); "vagina could not be found" (C. pricei). Mizelle (1938) doubted the validity of several of the nine genera proposed by Mueller (1934Mueller ( , 1936aMueller ( , 1937 and later (Mizelle and Hughes 1938) recognised only Cleidodiscus, Urocleidus Mueller, 1934, andActinocleidus Mueller, 1937 on the basis that more than one character was needed to justify a genus and that sexual characters were of greater taxonomic value than differences seen in the haptoral armature. Mizelle and Hughes evidently considered the shape of the penis, the presence of the accessory piece, and the basal articulation between these two parts, to be of prime diagnostic importance for Cleidodiscus.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Measurements and morphology of the haptoral parts (ventral and dorsal bars, ventral and dorsal hamulus, and number and arrangement of hooks), penis and accessory piece were determined for all species using an ocular micrometer, according to Beverley-Burton (1986). Taxonomic identification and nomenclatural decisions were made using original descriptions, keys and the taxonomic summaries of Mueller (1934, 1936, 1937), Hargis (1952), Mizelle et al (1956), Mizelle & Crane (1964), Price (1967) and Beverley-Burton (1986). Vouchers of the stained adult parasite specimens, and vials with parasites preserved in 70% ethanol, representing each species recovered were deposited in the parasite collection of the Colección Nacional de Helmintos (CNHE), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%