Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:52:14.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Heterodera cruciferae n.sp. of Brassicas, and on a Heterodera Strain infecting Clover and Dock

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2009

Mary T. Franklin
Mary T. Franklin
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Parasitology, St. Albans.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Heterodera cruciferae n. sp., parasitic upon Brassicas and other Cruciferous plants, is described and compared with H. schachtii, the sugar beet eelworm.

The new species differs from the sugar beet eelworm in its host range, in the reaction of the larvae to root excretions of sugar beet and in the time of hatching of the larvae. The cysts are somewhat shorter and rounder than in the sugar beet eelworm and differ in having attached to the vulva a mass of jelly-like substance containing eggs and sometimes one or two males. The larvae are shorter than in H. schachtii. The males are similar but tend to be smaller and with shorter stylets.

The results of infection experiments with cysts from the roots of dock and of clovers indicate that these cysts are of the same race, and are probably a biological strain of the sugar beet eelworm H. schachtii.

Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 21 , Issue 2-3 , October 1945 , pp. 71 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1945

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

Edwards, E. E., 1935.— “On the eelworm, Heterodera schachtii, with special reference to the oat race in Britain.” J. Helminth., xiii (2), 129–138. (W.L. 11224b.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenwick, D. W., 1943.—“A refinement of Gemmell's single cyst technique.” J. Helminth., xxi (1), 37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenwick, D. W. & Franklin, M. T., 1942.—“Identification of Heterodera species by larval length.” J. Helminth., xx (3/4), 67–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, M. T., 1939.— “Natural infections of Heterodera schachtii on clovers in Britain.” J. Helminth., xvii (2), 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, M. T., 1940.—“On the specific status of the so-called biological strains of Heterodera schachtii Schmidt.” J. Helminth., xviii (4), 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffart, H., 1932.—“Untersuchungen am Hafernematoden Heterodera schachtii Schm. unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der schleswig-holsteinischen. Verhaltnisse I.” Arb. Biol. Reichsanst., Berl., xx (1), 1–26. (W.L. 1628.)Google Scholar
Goffart, H., 1936.— “Neue Wirtspflanzen von Heterodera schachtii Schmidt.” Z. PflKranhh., xlvi (8), 359–364. (W.L. 23540 b.)Google Scholar
Schmidt, O., 1930.— “Sind Riiben-und Hafernematoden identisch ?” Pflanzenbau, iii, 420–464. (W.L. 16151 b.)Google Scholar
Triffitt, M. J., 1929a.—“Further observations on the morphology of Heterodera schachtii, with remarks on the bionomics of a strain attacking mangolds in Britain.” J. Helminth., vii (3), 119–140. (W.L. 11224 b.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Triffitt, M. J., 1929b.—“On the occurrence and significance of Heterodera schachtii infesting certain weeds.” J. Helminth., vii (4), 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Triffitt, M. J., 1931.—“On the occurrence of Heterodera radicicola associated with Heterodera schachtii as a field parasite in Britain.” J. Helminth., ix (4), 205–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, C. L., Ogilvie, L. & Mulligan, B. O., 1933.—“Observations on the pea strain of the eelworm Heterodera schachtii and its relation to ‘pea sickness’” Ann. Kept., Long Ashton lies. Sta., 1933, 74–85.Google Scholar