Studies on Deropristis Inflata (Molin), Its Life History and Affinities to Trematodes of the Family Acanthocolpidae

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The phylogeny of the Lepocreadioidea (Platyhelminthes, Digenea) inferred from nuclear and mitochondrial genes: Implications for their systematics and evolution

“…Pearson (1986) has, however, shown that the paranephridial system is widespread amongst digeneans suggesting that this cannot be considered a synapomorphy for these two families. Cable and Hunninen (1942) said 'The genital complex and excretory system of the gyliauchenids agree well with those of the lepocreadiids and certainly are unlike those of typical amphistomes', but gave little other evidence of close morphological relationships between these families. Despite the lack of obvious morphological similarities, our molecular results are unambiguous in placing this taxon within the Lepocreadioidea, as presently recognised.…”

“…Paragyliauchen is always monophyletic in all analyses and never directly related to the non-amphistomatous clade, despite the fact that it does not exhibit extreme amphistomy, in that the ventral sucker is placed non-terminally with the testes largely posterior to it (Yamaguti 1934, Machida 1984. Cable and Hunninen (1942), Cable (1956) and Yamaguti (1971) all considered the gyliauchenids close to the lepocreadiids and the latter included them within the Lepocreadiidae, whereas other authors have considered gyliauchenids closer to paramphistomes or microscaphidiids, due to the lack of an oral sucker (Ozaki 1937a, b;Pearson 1992). Much was made by Manter (1940) and Cable and Hunninen (1942) of the shared presence of the lymphatic (or paranephridial) system in gyliauchenids and lepocreadiids.…”

“…Cable and Hunninen (1942), Cable (1956) and Yamaguti (1971) all considered the gyliauchenids close to the lepocreadiids and the latter included them within the Lepocreadiidae, whereas other authors have considered gyliauchenids closer to paramphistomes or microscaphidiids, due to the lack of an oral sucker (Ozaki 1937a, b;Pearson 1992). Much was made by Manter (1940) and Cable and Hunninen (1942) of the shared presence of the lymphatic (or paranephridial) system in gyliauchenids and lepocreadiids. Pearson (1986) has, however, shown that the paranephridial system is widespread amongst digeneans suggesting that this cannot be considered a synapomorphy for these two families.…”

“…Molecular results have shown that three of these families (Acanthocolpidae Lühe, 1906, Apocreadiidae Skrjabin, 1942and Brachycladiidae Odhner, 1905 are not closely related to the Lepocreadiidae Odhner, 1905 . Three other families await molecular studies, namely the Deropristidae Cable et Hunninen, 1942;Liliatrematidae Gubanov, 1953 andMegaperidae Manter, 1934. Molecular phylogenetic analysis indicates that the four remaining families form a monophyletic group, the group now known under the name Lepocreadioidea.…”

Distribution of helminths in the digestive tracts of New Zealand freshwater eels

“…Paraquimperia, Spirocamallanus, and Cucullanus moved posteriorly down the tract, and Spirocamallanus and Cucullanus were subsequently lost from A. dieffenbachii. Posteriad movement appears to be the general response of alimentary helminths of fish held live in aquaria (Cable & Hunninen 1942, MacKenzie & Gibson 1970, Williams et al 1970, Awachie 1972, Kennedy et al 1976, and may be attributed to unsuitable conditions under which the host is held (Kennedy et al 1976), or starvation (MacKenzie & Gibson 1970, Williams et al 1970, Moller 1976). However, Awachie (1972) found that although starvation did not cause loss or movement of Echinorhynchus truttae, loss occurred after starvation interspersed with feeding.…”