Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:47:03.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On identifying Multiceps spp. by measurement of the large hook

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2009

Phyllis A. Clapham
Phyllis A. Clapham
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Parasitology, St. Albans.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The genus Multiceps has come under intense observation recently and the validity of the various species has been considered. The hook, being of a chitinous nature and therefore presumably of a less variable disposition than most other points, has been used for specific diagnosis, though as has been shown earlier, even this structure is not entirely satisfactory. But there is no other structure that is more satisfactory. When the information has been available, the blade length has been used as this is the most constant part of the hook. The small hook is of little or no diagnostic value. In many cases, however, only the range of the total length has been known.

Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 20 , Issue 1-2 , August 1942 , pp. 31 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1942

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baylis, H. A., 1932. “On a coenurus from Man.” Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg. xxv (4), 275–280. (W.L. 21671.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnal, G., Joyeux, C. & Bosch, P., 1933.—“Un cas do cénuroso humaine dû à Multiceps serialis (Gervais).” Bull. Soc. Path. exot., xxvi (8). 1061–1071. (W.L. 5310).Google Scholar
Brumpt, E., Duvoir, M. E. & Sainton, J., 1934. “Un cas de cénurose humaine dû au Coenurus serialis, parasite habituel des lapins et des lièvres.” Bull. Acad. Méd. Paris, cxii (26), 58–67. (W.L. 3683.)Google Scholar
Christenson, R. O., 1930.—“A new cestode reared in a Dog, M. packii sp. nov.” J. Parasit., xvi (1). 49–53. (W.L. 11428.)Google Scholar
Clapham, P. A., 1942. “On two new species of Coenurus from Africa, and a note on the development of the hooks” J. Helminth, xx (1/2), 25–31. (W.L. 11224b.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobbold, T. S., 1861.—“List of Entozoa, including Pentastomes, from animals dying at tho Society's Menagerie, between the years 1857–60 inclusive with descriptions of several new species.” Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., (8), 117–125. (W.L. 16737).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M. C., 1916. “A new and economically important Tapeworm, Multiceps gaigeri from tho dog.” J. Amer. vet. med. Ass., n.s. in, 214–223. (W.L. 11022.)Google Scholar
Joyeux, C., 1923.—“Note sur le Multiceps spalacis.” Ann. parasit. hum. comp., I (1). 65–69. (W.L. 899a.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyeux, C., Richet, C. & Schulmann, E., 1922.—“Déscription d'un Cénuro trouvé chez la souris blanche de laboratoire.” Bull. Soc. zool. Fr., XLVII, 181–186. (W.L. 540).Google Scholar
Mégnin, P., 1880.—“Sur une nouvelle forme de ver vésiculaire.” J. Anat. Paris, xvi, 181–192. (W.L. 11024.)Google Scholar
Pagenstecher, H. A., 1877.—“Zur Naturgeschichte der Cestoden.” Z. wiss. Zool., v, xxx (I), 171–193. (W.L. 23635).Google Scholar
Railliet, A. & Henry, A., 1915.—“Sur un Cénuro de la Gerbillo à pieds velus.” Bull. Soc. Path. exot., viii (4), 173–177. (W.L. 5310.)Google Scholar
Railliet, A. & Marrulaz, M., 1919.—“Sur un Cénure nouveau de Bonnet chinois (Macacus sinicus).” Bull. Soc. Path, exot., XII (5), 223–228. (W.L. 530).Google Scholar
Railliet, A. & Mouquet, , 1919.—“Cénure du Coypou.” Bull. Soc., cent., Méd. Vét., LXXII, 204–211. (W.L. 5020.)Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., 1924.—“A new proliferating larval tapeworm from a porcupine.” Proc. U.S. not. Mus., LXVI (24), 1–4. (W.L. 16944).Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., 1927. “A subcutaneous tumor in a primate caused by Tapeworm larvae, experimentally reared to maturity in dogs.” J. agric. Res., xxxv (5), 471–480. (W.L. 10965.)Google Scholar
Setti, E., 1892. “Nuovi elminti dell'Eritrea.” Boll. Mus., Zool. Anat. comp. Genoa, LVII, 19 pp. (W.L. 3324).Google Scholar
Southwell, T., 1923.—“Notes on parasitic worms from the Gold Coast.” Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., xvii, 553–554. (W.L. 1063.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taramelli, N. & Dubois, A., 1931. “Un cas de cénurose chez l'homme.” Ann. Soc. belge Méd. trop., xi (2), 151–154. (W.L. 926.)Google Scholar
Turner, M. & Leiper, R. T., 1919. “On the occurrence of Coenurus glomeratus in Man in West Africa.” Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med., XIII (2), 23–24. (W.L. 21671.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar