2010
DOI: 10.1645/ge-2448.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Redescriptions of the Nematodes Litomosoides patersoni (Mazza, 1928) (Onchocercidae) and Stilestrongylus stilesi Freitas, Lent, And Almeida, 1937 (Heligmonellidae) Parasites of Holochilus chacarius (Rodentia, Cricetidae) From Salta, Argentina

Abstract: Two nematode species are redescribed from the type host species Holochilus chacarius Thomas (Rodentia, Cricetidae, Sigmodontinae) and from the type locality of 1 of them, i.e., Ingenio San Martín de Tabacal, Salta Province, Argentina. Rodents were deposited at the Colección Mamíferos Lillo, Tucumán, Argentina. Litomosoides patersoni (Mazza, 1928) (Onchocercidae) possesses a buccal capsule with irregular external walls, a buccal cavity smooth, becoming thinner near the oral opening, a complete set of head papil… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

4
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the description by Freitas et al (1937) is accurate enough: the presence of longitudinal ridges salient and transversely striated is remarked, and particularly the description and illustration of the caudal bursa, spicules, and gubernaculum are very clear and allow us to easily distinguish the specimens described as L. fortuita. Other species described by Freitas et al (1937) as coparasitic with L. fortuita, i.e., S. stilesi and H. argentinus, were also identified in the hosts examined during this work, but both are easily differentiated from L. fortuita by characters of the synlophe, caudal bursa, and spicules in males and by the synlophe and shape of the posterior extremity in females (see redescriptions of H. argentinus in Durette-Desset [1968] and of S. stilesi in Notarnicola et al [2010]). Concerning the females of L. fortuita, they were not described or identified by Freitas et al (1937) and the matching of males and females of the species was possible through the study of the synlophe.…”
Section: Remarksmentioning
confidence: 70%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, the description by Freitas et al (1937) is accurate enough: the presence of longitudinal ridges salient and transversely striated is remarked, and particularly the description and illustration of the caudal bursa, spicules, and gubernaculum are very clear and allow us to easily distinguish the specimens described as L. fortuita. Other species described by Freitas et al (1937) as coparasitic with L. fortuita, i.e., S. stilesi and H. argentinus, were also identified in the hosts examined during this work, but both are easily differentiated from L. fortuita by characters of the synlophe, caudal bursa, and spicules in males and by the synlophe and shape of the posterior extremity in females (see redescriptions of H. argentinus in Durette-Desset [1968] and of S. stilesi in Notarnicola et al [2010]). Concerning the females of L. fortuita, they were not described or identified by Freitas et al (1937) and the matching of males and females of the species was possible through the study of the synlophe.…”
Section: Remarksmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…The fate of these species was diverse: L. argentina was redescribed and, on the basis of the synlophe, transferred to Hassalstrongylus Durette- Desset, 1971 (Heligmonellidae); H. mazzai was also transferred to Hassalstrongylus, although its synlophe remains unknown (Durette-Desset, 1971). Finally, S. stilesi was redescribed on new material collected and its position in the genus Stilestronglus (as redefined by Durette-Desset, 1971) confirmed (Notarnicola et al, 2010).…”
mentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Notarnicola, 2005 (44.8-72.3 mm); L. taylori Guerrero & Bain, 2011 (mean 54.3 mm); and L. circularis (von Linstow, 1899) (65 mm). Moreover, the new species can be differentiated from L. patersoni in having a buccal capsule with a thickening instead of irregular walls, and by the slender microfilaria instead of a stout one (Notarnicola et al, 2010); from L. oxymycteri by the absence of a precloacal papilla (Notarnicola et al, 2000); from L. anguyai and L. nasuti in having no salient amphids and a complete set of head papillae (Notarnicola et al, 2002;Notarnicola & Navone, 2009); from L. navonae in having a more posteriorly located vulva (mean 2,023 vs 1,359 lm from the anterior extremity) and microfilaria with a sheath visible only at the anterior extremity (Notarnicola, 2005); from L. taylori by the presence of a thickening in the buccal capsule instead of irregular walls ; and from L. circularis by a shorter right spicule (mean length 80-110 vs 98-121 lm) and different spicular ratio (mean 3.5 vs 2.8) .…”
Section: Remarksmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…In the last 10 years, five new species of Litomosoides were described in cricetid rodents in central and northeastern Argentina, and L. patersoni (Mazza 1928) was found in the type host and type locality in the northwest of the country and has been redescribed (Notarnicola 2005;Notarnicola et al 2000Notarnicola et al , 2010b.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%