Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:18:41.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Host specificity and the probability of discovering species of helminth parasites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2005

R. POULIN  and
D. MOUILLOT
R. POULIN
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand
D. MOUILLOT
Affiliation:
UMR CNRS-UMII 5119 Ecosystèmes Lagunaires, Université Montpellier II, CC 093, 34095 Montpellier cedex 5, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Different animal species have different probabilities of being discovered and described by scientists, and these probabilities are determined to a large extent by the biological characteristics of these species. For instance, species with broader geographical ranges are more likely to be encountered by collectors than species with restricted distributions; indeed, the size of the geographical range is often the best predictor of a species' date of description. For parasitic organisms, host specificity may be similarly linked to the probability of a species being found. Here, using data on 170 helminth species parasitic in freshwater fishes, we show that host specificity is associated with the year in which the helminths were described. Helminths that exploit more host species, and to a lesser degree those that exploit a broader taxonomic range of host species, tend to be discovered earlier than the more host-specific helminths. This pattern was observed across all helminth species, as well as within the different helminth taxa (trematodes, cestodes, nematodes and acanthocephalans). Our results demonstrate that the parasite species known at any given point in time are not a random subset of existing species, but rather a biased subset with respect to the parasites' biological properties.

Keywords

freshwater fishhost specificitytaxonomic distinctnessyear of description
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 130 , Issue 6 , June 2005 , pp. 709 - 715
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

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

REFERENCES

ALLSOP, P. G. ( 1997). Probability of describing an Australian scarab beetle: influence of body size and distribution. Journal of Biogeography 24, 717–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BLACKBURN, T. M. & GASTON, K. J. ( 1995). What determines the probability of discovering a species? A study of South American oscine passerine birds. Journal of Biogeography 22, 7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COLLEN, B., PURVIS, A. & GITTLEMAN, J. L. ( 2004). Biological correlates of description date in carnivores and primates. Global Ecology and Biogeography 13, 459–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GASTON, K. J. ( 1991). Body size and probability of description: the beetle fauna of Britain. Ecological Entomology 16, 505–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GASTON, K. J. & BLACKBURN, T. M. ( 1994). Are newly described bird species small bodied? Biodiversity Letters 2, 16–20.Google Scholar
GASTON, K. J., BLACKBURN, T. M. & LODER, N. ( 1995). Which species are described first? The case of North American Butterflies. Biodiversity and Conservation 4, 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MARGOLIS, L. & ARTHUR, J. R. ( 1979). Synopsis of the Parasites of Fishes of Canada. Bulletin of the Fisheries Board of Canada 199, Ottawa, Canada.
McDONALD, T. E. & MARGOLIS, L. ( 1995). Synopsis of the Parasites of Fishes of Canada: Supplement (1978–1993). Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 122, National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada.
MUELLER, J. F. ( 1934 a). Two new trematodes from Oneida Lake fishes. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 53, 231–236.Google Scholar
MUELLER, J. F. ( 1934 b). Parasites of Oneida Lake fishes. Part IV. Additional notes on parasites of Oneida Lake fishes, including descriptions of new species. Roosevelt Wild Life Annals 3, 335–373.Google Scholar
NELSON, J. S. ( 1994). Fishes of the World, 3rd Edn. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
POULIN, R. ( 1996). How many parasite species are there: are we close to answers? International Journal for Parasitology 26, 1127–1129.Google Scholar
POULIN, R. ( 2002). The evolution of monogenean diversity. International Journal for Parasitology 32, 245–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
POULIN, R. & MORAND, S. ( 2004). Parasite Biodiversity. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C.
POULIN, R. & MOUILLOT, D. ( 2003). Parasite specialization from a phylogenetic perspective: a new index of host specificity. Parasitology 126, 473–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
REED, R. N. & BOBACK, S. M. ( 2002). Does body size predict dates of species description among North American and Australian reptiles and amphibians? Global Ecology and Biogeography 11, 41–47.Google Scholar
SCOTT, W. B. & CROSSMAN, E. J. ( 1973). Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Bulletin of the Fisheries Board of Canada 184, Ottawa, Canada.
VAN CLEAVE, H. J. & MUELLER, J. F. ( 1932). Parasites of Oneida Lake fishes. Part I. Descriptions of new genera and new species. Roosevelt Wild Life Annals 3, 1–72.Google Scholar
VAN CLEAVE, H. J. & MUELLER, J. F. ( 1934). Parasites of Oneida Lake fishes. Part III. A biological and ecological survey of the worm parasites. Roosevelt Wild Life Annals 3, 161–334.Google Scholar