Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T20:13:35.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Proteocephalus filicollis (Rudolphi, 1802) and Proteocephalus ambiguus (Dujardin, 1845), Two Hitherto Confused Species of Cestodes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

J. J. Willemse
J. J. Willemse
Affiliation:
Zoological Laboratory, University of Amsterdam*
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Several kinds of data were collected from worms belonging to the genus Proteocephalus, living in the intestines of Pygosteus pungitius and Gasterosteus aculeatus.

a. Morphological data. When we compare the morphological characteristics of worms from the two hosts we find small differences in those characteristics commonly used in the descriptions of species of the genus Proteocephalus. Regularly differences of the same magnitude are used to separate species.

b. Experimental infections show that a high degree of host specificity exists in worms from the two hosts. It is impossible to cultivate worms originally coming from one host species in the intestine of the other. These experimental infections were carried out either by feeding intermediate hosts carrying plerocercoids to fishes free of infection, or by collecting worms from the intestine of one fish and introducing them into the intestine of another fish.

Experimental infections of alien hosts failed whereas infections of the proper host, carried out as controls, always were successful.

c. Mixed populations of Gasterosteus and Pygosteus living in a small closed canal system gave additional data indicating the existence of a high degree of host specificity. Throughout the year Gasterosteus showed no infection at all whereas Pygosteus was “normally” infested.

d. Monthly dissections of Pygosteus showed that in Proteocephalus living in this fish species no seasonal cycle exists similar to that found by Hopkins in Proteocephalus from Gasterosteus. The stages of development of Proteocephalus collected during the dissections of Gasterosteus correspond with Hopkins' seasonal cycle.

e. As a result of these observations it is proposed to consider the worms from Pygosteus as belonging to a distinct species. Since Dujardin was the first to describe worms belonging to the genus Proteocephalus and living in the intestine of Pygosteus as Proteocephalus ambiguus (Dujardin, 1845) this obviously ought to be the name of the species involved. The use of the name P. filicollis (Rudolphi, 1802) is restricted to material from Gasterosteus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 42 , Issue 3-4 , September 1968 , pp. 395 - 410
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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

Hopkins, C. A., 1959.—“Seasonal variations in the incidence and development of the Cestode Proteocephalus filicollis (Rud. 1810) in Gasterosteus aculeatus (L. 1766).” Parasitology, 49, 529–542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunter, G. W., 1928.—“Contributions to the life-history of Proteocephalus ambloplitis (Leidy).” J. Parasit., 14, 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, G. W., 1929.—“Life-history studies on Proteocephalus pinguis La Rue.” Parasitology, 21, 487–496.Google Scholar
Jarecka, L., 1960.—“Life-cycles of tapeworms from lakes Goldapiwo and Mamry Pólnoce.” Acta parasit. pol., 8, 47.Google Scholar
Kuczkowski, St., 1925.—“Die Entwicklung im Genus Ichthyotaenia Lönnberg. Ein Beitrag zur Cercomertheorie auf Grund experimenteller Untersuchungen.” Bull. intern. Acad. Polon. Sci., Classe Sci. Math. B., 423–446.Google Scholar
Langeron, M., 1942.—Précis de Microscopie. Masson & Cie. Paris.Google Scholar
La Rue, G. R., 1914.—“A revision of the Cestode family Proteocephalidae.” Illinois biol. Monogr., 1, 1–350.Google Scholar
Meggitt, F. J., 1927.—“Remarks on the cestode families Monticellidae and Ichthyotaeniidae.” Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., 21, 69–87.Google Scholar
Reichenbach-Klinke, H.-H., 1957.—“Artzugehörigkeit und Entwicklung derals Scolex pleuronectis Müller bekannten Cestodenlarven (Cestoidea, Tetraphyllidea).” Zool. Anz., 20 suppl., 317.Google Scholar
Wagner, E. D., 1954.—“The life history of Proteocephalus tumidocollus Wagner 1953, (Cestoda) in rainbow trout.” J. Parasit., 40, 489–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, O., 1915.—“Über den Entwicklungsgang einer Fischtaenie.” Zool. Anz., 46, 70–75.Google Scholar
Wagner, O., 1917.—“Über Entwicklungsgang und Bau einer Fischtaenie (Ichthyotaenia torulosa Batsch).” Jenaische Ztschr. Naturw., 48, 1–66.Google Scholar
Willemse, J. J., 1965.—“In westelijk Nederland voorkomende soorten uit het geslacht Proteocephalus (Cestoda) en hun gastheerspecificiteit.” Thesis, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Willemse, J. J., and Veltman, A. L. M., 1962.—“Proteocephalus filicollis (Rud. 1810) in the Netherlands.” Bijdr. Dierk., 32, 66–69.Google Scholar