Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T12:58:33.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No. 3. The Kidney-worm of Swine: Stephanurus dentatus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2009

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Imperial Bureau of Agricultural Parasitology: Notes and Memoranda
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , July 1931 , pp. 179 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1931

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

Almeida, E. de 1928.—“Stephanurus morai n. sp. nova especie do genero Stephanurus,” Bol. Assist. Méd. Indig. Angola, II, (11) 240–241 [also in French, pp. 241–242], 4 figs.Google Scholar
Bailliet, C. C., 1866.—Histoire naturelle des helminthes des principaux mammifères domestiques, Paris, 172 pp. [See p. 57.]Google Scholar
Baylis, H. A., & Daubney, R., 1926.—A synopsis of the families and genera of nematoda, London XXXVI + 277 pp. [See p. 165.]Google Scholar
Bernard, P. N., & Bauche, J., 1913.—“Influence du mode de pénétration cutanée ou buccale du Stephanurus dentatus sur les localisations de ce nématode dans l'organisme du porc et sur son évolution,” C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, CLVII, 74–76.(W.L. 6628.)Google Scholar
Bernard, P. N. 1914.—“Influence du mode de pénétration cutanée ou buccale du Stephanurus dentatus sur les localisations de ce nématode dans l'organisme du porc et sur son évolution,” Ann. Inst. Pasteur, XXVIII, 450–469, pl. 14. (W.L. 857.)Google Scholar
Best, W. R. L., 1914.—“Notes on swine breeding in the Philippines,” Philipp. Agric. Rev., VII, 109–122. [See pp. 121–122.] (W.L. 16186.)Google Scholar
Boynton, W. H., 1913.—“Kidney-worm infestation of swine,” Philipp. Agric. Rev., VI, 395–398. (W.L. 16186.)Google Scholar
Boynton, W. H. 1914,—“Kidney-worm infestation of swine in the Philippine Islands with special reference to the pathological changes,” Philipp. J. Scì., IX, (3), 269–289, pl. 1–3. (W.L. 16189.)Google Scholar
Cameron, T. W. M., 1930.—“Helminth parasites of stock in the British West Indies,” J. Helm. VIII, (2), 77–84.Google Scholar
Cameron, T. W. M., & Ross, I. C., 1924.—“On the identity of the kidney worm of pigs in New South Wales,” J. Helm., II, (3), 149–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carus, , 1863.—Handbuch der zoologie, Vol. II. [See p. 464.]Google Scholar
Cobbold, T. S., 1871a.—“Rare entozoon in the hog,” [Letter to editor] Brit. Med. J., I, Jan. 14, 50–51. (W.L. 3579.)Google Scholar
Cobbold, T. S. 1871b.—“The new hog parasite,” [Letter to editor] Brit. Med. J., II, Sept. 30, 394. (W.L. 3579.)Google Scholar
Cobbold, T. S. 1871c.—“Australian entozoa,” Veterinarian, Lond., XVII, (204), 902–903. (W.L. 22503.)Google Scholar
Cobbold, T. S. 1873.—The internal parasites of our domesticated animals; a manual of the entozoa of the ox, sheep, dog, horse, pig and cat, London, IX + 144 pp., 28 figs. [See pp. 119, 120.]Google Scholar
Cobbold, T. S. 1879.—Parasites; a treatise on the entozoa of man and animals, including some account of the ectozoa— London, XI + 508 pp., 85 figs. [See pp. 407, 412.]Google Scholar
Creplin, F. C. H., 1841.—Enthelminthologie, Endozoologie, Entozoologie, Allg. Encycl. Wiss. Künste (Ersch & Gruber), Leipzig, 1 sect., XXXV, 76–83. [See p. 82.]Google Scholar
Daubney, R., 1923.—“The kindey worm of swine: a short re-description of Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839,” J. Comp. Path., XXXVI, 97–103, 5 figs. (W.L. 11136.)Google Scholar
Dean, D. V., 1874.—“Strongylus dentatus,” 7th Ann. Rep. Bd. Hlth., City of St. Louis, VII, 43–69.Google Scholar
Diesing, K. M., 1839.—“Neue Gattungen von Binnenwürmern nebst einem Nachtrage zur Monographie der Amphistomen,” Ann. Wien. Mus. Naturg., II, (2), 219–242, pl. 14–20. [See pp. 232–233.]Google Scholar
Diesing, K. M. 1851.—Systema helminthum, Vindobonæ, II, vi + 588 pp. [See p. 296.]Google Scholar
Diesing, K. M. 1861a.—“Revision der Nematoden,” SitzBer. Akad. Wiss. Wien, XLII, (28), 595–736, 1 pl., figs. 1–11. [See p. 717.] (W.L. 20170.)Google Scholar
Diesing, K. M. 1861b.—“Kleine helminthologische Mittheilungen,” SitzBer. Akad. Wiss. Wien, XLIII, 1 Abt., (4), 269–282. [See pp. 281–282.] (W.L. 20170.)Google Scholar
Dietrich, , 1910.—Swine breeding, feeding and management, Chicago312 pp. 26 figs.Google Scholar
Dinwiddie, R. R., 1892.—“Some parasitic affections of animals,” J. Comp. Med., XIII, [See p. 344.] (W.L. 11134.)Google Scholar
Drabble, J., 1922.—“The kidney worm of hogs in New South Wales, Sclerostomum renium n. sp.,” J. Comp. Path., XXXV, 302–305, 1 fig. (W.L. 11136.)Google Scholar
Drabble, J. 1923.—“The kidney worm of hogs in New South Wales, Sclerostomum renium n. sp.,” J. Comp. Path., XXXVI, 217–230, 9 figs. (W.L. 11136.)Google Scholar
Dujardin, F., 1845.—Histoire naturelle des helminthes ou vers intestinaux, Paris, XVI + 654 + 15 pp., 12 pl. [See p. 289.]Google Scholar
Fayrer, J., 1879.—“On the relation of Filaria sanguinis hominis to the endemic diseases of India,” Lancet, Lond., (2894), Feb. 15, 221–223. [See p. 221.] (W.L. 11995.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiebiger, J., 1912.—Die tierischen Parasiten der Haus- und Nutztiere. Ein Lehr- und Handbuch mit Bestimmungstabellen fūr Tierärzte und Studierende, Wien & Leipzig, XVI + 424 pp., 302 figs., 1 pl. [See p. 287.]Google Scholar
Fletcher, W. B., 1871.—“Observations on the structure and habitat of the Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, or Sclerostoma pinguicola Verrill,” Amer. J. Sci., 3. s., I, (6), 435–437. (W.L. 621.)Google Scholar
Gedoelst, L., 1911.—Synopsis de parasitologie de l'homme et des animaux domestiques, Lierre & Bruxelles, XX + 332 pp., 327 figs. [See p. 129.]Google Scholar
Goldberg, O. F. P. F., 1855.—Helminthum dispositio systematica, Berolini, Dissertation, 130 pp., 1 pl., 22 figs. [See p. 112.]Google Scholar
Hall, M. C., 1924.—“Parasites of Swine.” Privately printed, 160 pp.Google Scholar
Hellemans, J., 1911.—“Ueber das Auftreten des Strongylus pinguicola (Sclerostoma pinguicola Verrill, Stephanurus dentatus Diesing) auf Java und Sumatra,” Zbl.Bakt., LVII, Abt. I, (3), 212–239— figs 1–8. (W.L. 23684.)Google Scholar
Hutyra, F., & Marek, J., 1913.—Spezielle Pathologie und Therapie der Haustiere, Jena, 4th. Edit., I, XVI + 1144 pp [see p. 611], II, XIV + 1088 pp. [see pp. 491, 540, 609, 1049.]Google Scholar
Jefferson, W. B., 1893.—“Kidney worms,” [Letter to editor], Amer. Swineh., X, (10), Oct., p.12. (W.L. 676.)Google Scholar
Joyeux, C., 1924.—“Liste de quelques helminthes récoltés dans les colonies Portugaises d'Afrique,” Ann. Parasit., II, 232–235, 1 fig. [See p. 234.]Google Scholar
Kauzal, G., 1930.—“A survey of the helminth parasites of swine in New South Wales,” Austr. Vet. J., VI, 51–56.Google Scholar
Leidy, J., 1856.—“A synopsis of Entozoa and some of their ectocongeners observed by the author,” Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., VIII, (1), Jan.-Feb., 42–58. (W.L. 16590.)Google Scholar
Leidy, J. 1904.—Researches in helminthology and parasitology. With a bibliography of his contributions to science arranged and edited by Joseph, Leidy jr., Washington— 281 pp. [See p. 100.]Google Scholar
Leuckart, K. G. F. R., 1876.—Die menschlichen Parasiten und die von ihnen herrührenden Krankheiten, Leipzig, II, (3), 513–882, 119 figs. [See p. 881.]Google Scholar
Leuckart, K. G. F. R. 1879.—Allgemeine Naturgeschichte der Parasiten mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der bei dem Menschen schnarotzenden Arten. Ein Lehrbuch für Zoologen Landwirthe und Mediciner, Leipzig & Heidelberg, X + 216 pp., 92 figs. [See p. 60.]Google Scholar
Linstow, O. F. B. von, 1903.—“Entozoa des zoologischen Museums der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu St. Petersburg,” Ann. Mus. Zool. Acad. imp. sci. St. Pétersb., VIII, (3–4), 265–294, pls. 17–19, figs. 1–36. [See p. 270.]Google Scholar
Lopez-Neyra, C. R., 1929.—“Primer caso de parasitismo por el Stephanurus dentatus in Europa,” Mem. Soc. esp. Hist. nat., XV, Dec., 241–245. (W.L. 13483.)Google Scholar
Looss, A., 1904.—“Zur Kenntniss des Baues der Filaria loa Guyot,” Zool. Jahrb., XX, (6), 549–574. [See p. 561.] (W.L. 23831.)Google Scholar
Looss, A., 1905.—“The anatomy and life history of Agchylostoma duodenale Dub.,” Rec. Egypt. Govt. Sch. Med., III, 1–159, 10 pl., 106 figs. [See pp. 19–20.] (W.L. 17739.)Google Scholar
Lutz, A., 1888.—“Klinisches über Parasiten des Menschen und der Hausthiere,” Zbl. Bakt., III, (24), 745–748. [See p. 748.] (W.L. 23684.)Google Scholar
Macfie, J. W. S., 1915.—“A note on the provisional identifications of worms collected at Accra,” Rep. Accra Lab., London, pp. 80–81.Google Scholar
Magalhäes, P. S. de, 1894a.—“Ueber einen Strongylus in der Niere des Schweines (Sclerostoma pinguicola Verr., Stephanurus dentatus Dies.),” Zbl.Bakt., XVI, (7), 292–297, 1 fig. (W.L. 23684.)Google Scholar
Magalhäes, P. S. de 1894b.—“Nachtrag zu meiner Mittheilung über den Strongylus der Niere des Schweines (Sclerostoma pinguicola Verr., Stephanurus dentatus Dies.),” Zbl.Bakt., XVI, (20), 821. (W.L. 23684.)Google Scholar
Mesnil, F., 1921.—“Variété des voies d'accès des parasites sanguicoles à leur hôtes,” Bull. Soc. Path. exotique, XIV, (6), 310–315. (W.L. 5310.)Google Scholar
Molin, R., 1861.—“Il sottordine degli acrofalli ordinato scientificamente secondo i risultamenti delle indagini anatomiche ed embriogeniche,” Mem. Ist. veneto, 1860, IX, 427–633, pl. 25–33. [See pp. 436, 477, 586–587.] (W.L. 13507.)Google Scholar
Mönnig, H. O., 1928.—“Check list of the worm parasites of domesticated animals in South Africa,” 13th and 14th Reps. Director Vet. Ed. and Res., Onderstepoort, 801–837, 42 figs. [See pp. 809, 823.]Google Scholar
Morris, W., 1871.—“Internal worms from Australia.” [Letter to editor.] Mthy. Microscop. J., VI, 243–244.Google Scholar
Natterer, , 1874.—“Un nouveau parasite du porc,” Agronome, XVI, (35), 95. (W.L. 334).Google Scholar
Neumann, L. G., 1905.—A treatise on the parasites and parasitic diseases of the domesticated animals. [Transl. Fleming, G., revised J. Macqueen], London, 2nd edit., XVI + 697 pp., 365 figs. [See pp. 279, 469, 643.]Google Scholar
Neveu-Lemaire, M., 1912.—Parasitologie des animaux domestiques. Maladies parasitaires non bactériennes, Paris, ii, + 1257 pp., 770 figs. [See p. 650.]Google Scholar
Newcomb, R. W., 1913.—“A note on kidney-worm infestation of swine as shown post-mortem at the Manila matadero,” Philipp. Agric. Rev., VI, 399–400. (W.L. 16186.)Google Scholar
Nicolas, C., 1922.—“Contribution à l'étude de la Stéphanurose du porc,” Bull. Soc. Path. exotique, XV, (9), 819. (W.L. 5310.)Google Scholar
Nordmann, A., 1840.—Les vers (vermes). (In Lamarck, J.-B.-P.-A. de M. de. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres [etc.). Paris, 2nd Edit., III, 542–686. [See pp. 650–651.]Google Scholar
Olsson, P., 1869.—“Om entozoernas geografiska utbredning och förekomst hos olika djur,” Forh. skand. naturf. Mote, 4–10, Juli, 1868, 481–515. [See p. 488.] (W.L. 8603.)Google Scholar
Parkes, E. A., 1891.—A manual of practical hygiene, London, 8th Edit., XX + 769 pp., 10 pl., 103 figs. [See pp. 267, 269.]Google Scholar
Porter, E., 1823.—“An account of a number of worms found in the kidneys of a hog, Amer. Med. Rec. Philad., VI, (1), 151.Google Scholar
Railliet, A., 1893.—Traité de zoologie médicale et agricole, Paris, 2nd Edit., (1), 736 pp., 494 figs. [See p. 452.]Google Scholar
Railliet, A., & Henry, A., 1909.—“Sur la classification des Strongylidæ: 2. Ankylostominæ,” C.R. Soc. Biol. Paris, LXVI, (4), 168–171. [See p. 171.] (W.L. 6630.)Google Scholar
Railliet, A. 1911.—“Helminthes du porc recueillis par M. Bauche en Annam,” Bull. Soc. Path. exotique, IV, 693–699. [See p. 695.] (W.L. 5310.)Google Scholar
Railliet, A., Henry, A., & Bauche, J., 1919.—“Un nouveau Strongylidé du porc,” Bull. Soc. Path. exotique, XII, 324–332. [See p. 324.] (W.L. 5310.)Google Scholar
Ross, I. C., 1931.—“The Kidney worm of pigs; its growing importance to Australia,” J.C.S.I.R., IV, (1), 30–33.Google Scholar
Rousseau, L., 1921.—“Stephanurus dentatus parasite des porcs en Guyane,” Bull. Soc. Path. exotique, XIV, (4), 219–222. (W.L. 5310.)Google Scholar
Roux, P. L. le, 1930a.—“A brief review of the literature dealing with the Kidneyworm (Stephanurus dentaius Diesing, 1839) of swine, together with suggestions for its control and ultimate eradication,” Papers Vet. Sect. Pan Afric. Agric. Vet. Conf., Pretoria, 1929, 112–118.Google Scholar
Roux, P. L. le 1930b.—“Helminthiasis of domestic stock in the Union of South Africa,” J. S. Afr. Vet. Med. Ass., 1, (4), 43–65. [See p. 47.]Google Scholar
Schneidemühl, G., 1896.—Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Pathologie und Therapie des Menschen und der Haustiere für Thierärzte, Ärzte und Studierende, Leipzig, (2), 209–448. [See p. 319.]Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., 1921.—“Effects of secretions of certain parasitic nematodes on coagulation of blood,” J. Parasit., VII, (3), 144–150. [See p. 147.] (W.L. 1428.)Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. 1925.—“Helminth parasites of hogs in the Philippine Islands,” Philipp. J. Sci., XXVII, (2), 227–233, 2 pl. [See pp. 227, 229.] (W.L. 16189.)Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Price, E. W., 1929.—“The life history of the swine kidney worm,” Science, LXX, 613–614. (W.L. 19938.)Google Scholar
Seiller, F., 1902.—Ueber das Verhalten der lymphatischen Apparate bei Ulcerationen im Darme des Schweines, Dissertation (Giessen), Hannover, 51 pp., 1 pl. 2 figs. [See p. 32.]Google Scholar
Shealy, A. L., & Sanders, D. A., 1927.—“Investigations of Stephanurus dentatus (kidney worm) of hogs, Preliminary report,” J. Amer. Vet. Med. Ass., LXXI, 361–367, 6 figs. (W.L. 11022.)Google Scholar
Skrjabin, K. J., 1917.—“Stéphanurose des porcs,” Arkh. vet. Nauk., (1/2). (W.L. 1999.)Google Scholar
Skrjabin, K. J. 1921.—“La stéphanurose des porcs et son agent,” Bull. Soc. Path. exotique, XIV, 47–54. (W.L. 5310.)Google Scholar
Sluiter, C. P., & Swellengrebel, N. H., 1912.—De dierlijke parasieten van den mensch en van onze nuisdieren. Amsterdam, xvi + 520 pp., 262 figs., 1 col. pl. [See p. 386.]Google Scholar
Spindler, L. A., 1930.—“On the occurrence of the swine kidney worm in a yearling calf,” Report presented by M. Jones to the Helminthological Society of Washington. “Society Proceedings,” in J. Parasit., XVII, (1), 52. (W.L. 11428.)Google Scholar
Stiles, C. W., & Hassall, A., 1894.—“A preliminary catalogue of the parasites contained in the collections of the United States Bureau of Animal Industry, United States Medical Museum, Biological Department of the University of Pennsylvania (Coll. Leidy) and in Coll. Stiles and Coll. Hassall,” Vet. Mag. Philad., I, (5), 331–354. [See p. 345.]Google Scholar
Stiles, C. W. 1905.—“The determination of generic types, and a list of round worm genera, with their original and type species,” Bull. U.S. Bur. Anim. Ind., 1–150. [See p. 139.] (W.L. 5642.)Google Scholar
Stossich, M., 1899.—“Strongylidæ Lavoro monografico,” Boll. Soc. Adriat. Sci. nat., XIX, 55–152. [See pp. 56, 101.] (W.L. 3359.)Google Scholar
Tayler, L., 1900.—“Our present knowledge of the kidney worm (Sclerostoma pinguicola) of swine,” Rep. U.S. Bur. Anim. Ind., (1899), 613–637, figs 30–45. (W.L. 1193.)Google Scholar
Underhill, B. M., 1920.—Parasites and parasitosis of the domestic animals, New York, xix + 379 pp., 172 figs. [See pp. 295–296.]Google Scholar
Vaullegeard, A., 1901.—“Étude expérimentale et critique sur l'action des helminthes. I. Cestodes et nématodes,” Bull. Soc. linn. Normandie, 5.s. IV, 84–142. [See p. 123.] (W.L. 5244.)Google Scholar
Verrill, A. E., 1870a.—“Description of Sclerostoma pinguicola, a new species of Entozoa, from the hog,” Amer. J. Sci., 2.s. (149), L, 223–224, 1 fig. (W.L. 621.)Google Scholar
Verrill, A. E. 1870b.—“The internal parasites of domestic animals; their effects and remedies,” 4th Rep. Conn. Bd. Agric., (1869–70), 162–251, figs. 49–84. [See pp. 179, 248, 249.] (W.L. 1218.)Google Scholar
Ward, H. B., 1895.—“The parasitic worms of man and the domestic animals,” Ann. Rep. Nebraska Bd. Agric., Lincoln, (1894), 225–348, figs. 1–82, 2 pl. [See p. 308.]Google Scholar
White, J. C., 1859.—“Specimens and figures of Stephanurus dentatus, Diesing, and Sclerostomum dentatum? Rudolphi.” Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., VI, 428. (W.L. 16672.)Google Scholar
Wolffhügel, K., 1911.—Los zooparásitos de los animales domésticos en la Republico Argentina, Buenos Aires, 108 + XIX pp. [See p. 76.]Google Scholar
Wolffhügel, K. 1919.—“Sobre Stephanurus dentatus. Mi articulo sobre Stephanurus dentatus es unicamente una confirmation de trabajos anteriores de Bernhard et Bauche,” Rev. med. vet. III, (17). [Reprint: 1 p.]Google Scholar
Yorke, W., & Maplestone, P. A., 1926.—The nematode parasites of vertebrates, London, X + 536 pp., 307 figs. [See pp. 50–52, fig. 23.]Google Scholar
Zürn, F. A., 1882.—Die Schmarotzer auf und in dem Körper unserer Haussäugethiere, sowie die durch erstere veranlassten Krankheiten, deren Behandlung und Verhütung. 1. Theil: Tierische Parasiten, Weimar, 2nd. Edit., xvi + 316 pp., 4 pl. [See p. 278]Google Scholar