Hostname: page-component-6587cd75c8-cpvbf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-23T17:46:50.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A further revision in the classification of the family Metastrongylidae Leiper [1909] (Phylum Nematoda)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Ellsworth C. Dougherty
Ellsworth C. Dougherty
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, and Kerckhoff Laboratories of Biology, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Recent studies by Gerichter have demonstrated that I have erred in referring the skrjabingylin lungworms to the family Trichostrongylidae.

2. On the basis of his data and a re-evaluation of my theories of metastrongylid evolution it is suggested that the Skrjabingylinae (except Dictyocaulus) are close to the Filaroidinae and that quite possibly the position of the vulva in the former is the consequence of a secondary shift from opening just anterior to the anus to opening in the mid-region of the body; the ‘trichostrongylid’ configuration of the ovejectoral apparatus would thus be convergent.

3. The genus Dictyocaulus is removed from the Skrjabingylinae and left in a subfamily Dictyocaulinae in the family Metastrongylidae, although its trichostrongylid affinities are very suggestive. If trichostrongylid, this genus is considered to exhibit convergence with the metastrongylids and not to represent an evolutionary link between the two families.

4. The nature of metastrongylid life cycles is discussed, and the compatibility of known data with the evolutionary scheme proposed for the family is pointed out. It is evident that in metastrongylids symbiotizing marine littoral and pelagic hosts (Pinnipedia and Odontoceti) larval development must rely upon new intermediate host groups if the basic pattern has been retained from ancestors in terrestrial hosts.

5. The possible importance of histological studies and of investigations on chromosome number and structure for a further understanding of the evolution of the suborder Strongylina is pointed out.

6. A revised scheme for the evolution of the Metastrongylidae is presented as Fig. 1. The family Metastrongylidae now includes six subfamilies: Metastrongylinae, Filaroidinae, Skrjabingylinae, Pseudaliinae, Protostrongylinae, and Dictyocaulinae. The basic premises previously expressed (Dougherty, 1949b) on the evolution of the family are retained in the amended scheme.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 41 , Issue 1-2 , July 1951 , pp. 91 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1951

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Chandler, A. C., Alicata, J. E. & Chitwood, M. B. (1941). Chap, VI of Christie, J. R. (ed.), An Introduction to Nematology, sect, II, part II.Google Scholar
Chitwood, B. G. (1938). Publ. Carneg. Instn, no. 491, p. 51.Google Scholar
Davtian, Ė. A. (1940). Trudy Nauchno-issl. Vet. Inst. (Erevan, Armenian S.S.R.), 3, 40.Google Scholar
Dougherty, E. C. (1945 a). Parasitology, 38, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, E. C. (1945 b). Proc. Helminth. Soc. Wash. 12, 44.Google Scholar
Dougherty, E. C. (1946). Proc. Helminth. Soc. Wash. 13, 16.Google Scholar
Dougherty, E. C. (1949 a). Parasitology, 39, 218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, E. C. (1949 b). Parasitology, 39, 222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, E. C. & Goble, F. C. (1946). J. Parasit. 32, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, E. C. & Herman, C. M. (1947). Proc. Helminth. Soc. Wash. 14, 77.Google Scholar
Gerichter, C. B. (1948). J. Parasit. 34, 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerichter, C. B. (1949). Parasitology, 39, 251.Google Scholar
Honess, R. F. (1942). Bull. Wyo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 255.Google Scholar
Joyeux, C. & Gaud, J. (1943). Bull. Soc. Path. Exot. 36, 232.Google Scholar
Joyeux, C. & Gaud, J. (1946). Arch. Inst. Pasteur Maroc, 3, 383.Google Scholar
Nigon, V. (1949). Ann. Sci. Nat. ser. II, 11, 1.Google Scholar
Sarwar, M. M. (1944). Proc. 31st Indian Sci. Congr., part III, p. 89.Google Scholar
Sarwar, M. M. (1948). Indian J. Vet. Sci. 17, 63 [1947].Google Scholar
Savina, N. B. (1940). Trudy Nauchno-issl. Vet. Inst. (Erevan, Armenian S.S.R.), 3, 44.Google Scholar
Shul'ts, R. S. & Andreeva, N. K. (1948). Doklady Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R., 62, 841.Google Scholar
Shul'ts, R. S. & Boev, S. N. (1940). Trudy Kazakh. Nauchno-issl. Vet. Inst. 3, 174.Google Scholar
Shul'ts, R. S. & Kadenatsiì, A. N. (1948). Doklady Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R., 63, 341.Google Scholar
Shul'ts, R. S., Orlov, I. V. & Kutas, A. IA. [i.e. Schulz, R.-E.S., Orlow, I. W. & Kutass, A. J.] (1933). Zool. Anz. 102, 303.Google Scholar
Skriabin, K. I. (1941). Zool. Zh. 20, 327.Google Scholar
Skriabin, K. I. (1946). Stroitel'stvo Sovetskoĭ Gel'mintologii. Moscow-Leningrad.Google Scholar
Wetzel, R. (1938). Libro Jubilar do Prof. Lauro Travassos, p. 531.Google Scholar