Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:13:16.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Present Status of the Amphistome Problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

H. W. Stunkard
H. W. Stunkard
Affiliation:
(From the Molteno Institute for Research in Parasitology.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

While working on the amphistomes in the Congo Collection of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, it has been necessary to review the literature on this group of trematodes. In an earlier paper (1917), the writer described certain amphistomes from reptiles and birds and submitted an arrangement to show the probable relationship of the reptilian and avian amphistomes to those of other vertebrates. The amphistomes of fishes had been studied by Daday (1907), those of frogs by Cohn (1904) and Johnston (1912), while the mammalian species had been the subject of extensive papers by Fischoeder (1903) and Stiles and Goldberger (1910). Many of the descriptions were fragmentary, knowledge of the forms was incomplete, and the classification of Stiles and Goldberger was received with severe criticism, especially by Braun (1911), Odhner (1911) and Looss (1912). In this paper Looss described the lymphatic systems of Schizamphistomum scleroporum and Paramphistomum gigantocotyle, and announced (p. 358) that for many years he had been engaged in preparing a classification of the amphistomes which would be based on the form of the lymph and excretory systems and the structure of the copulatory apparatus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , May 1925 , pp. 137 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1925

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

Braun, M. (1911). (Review of Stiles and Goldberger, 1910). Zool. Zentralbl. XVIII. 705–708.Google Scholar
Cohn, L. (1904). Zur Kenntnis einiger Trematoden. Centralbl.f. Bakt. und Parasit. XXXIV. 35–42, 4 figs.Google Scholar
Daday, E. von (1907). In südamerikanischen Fischen lebende Trematoden-Arten. Zool. Jahrb. Syst. XXIV. 469–590, 6 pls.Google Scholar
Fischoeder, F. (1903). Die Paramphistomiden der Säugethiere. Zool. Jahrb. Syst. XVII. 485–660, 11 pls.Google Scholar
Johnston, S. J. (1912). On Some Trematode Parasites of Australian Frogs. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S. Wales, XXXVII. 285–362, pls. 14–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, Clayton (1924). Gastrodiscus hominis. Ann. Trop. Med. Parasit. XVIII. 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Looss, A. (1912). Ueber den Bau einiger anscheinend seltener Trematoden-Arten. Zool. Jahrb. Suppl. xv. 323–366, 3 pls.Google Scholar
MacCallum, W. G. (1905). On Two New Amphistome Parasites of Sumatran Fishes. Zool. Jahrb. Syst. XXII. 667–678, 2 figs.Google Scholar
Maplestone, P. A. (1923). A Revision of the Amphistomata of Mammals. Ann. Trop. Med. Parasit. XVII. 113–213, 32 figs, and 4 pls.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odhner, T. (1911). Zum Näturlichen System der digenen Trematoden, I. Zool. Anz. XXXVII. 181–191.Google Scholar
Stiles, Ch. W., and Goldberger, J. (1910). A Study of the Anatomy of Watsonius watsoni of Man and of Nineteen Allied Trematode Worms of the Superfamily Paramphistomoidea. Bull. Hyg. Lab. No. 60, 264 pp., 205 figs. Washington.Google Scholar
Stunkard, H. W. (1916). On the Anatomy and Relationships of some North American Trematodes. Journ. Parasit, III. 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stunkard, H. W. (1917). Studies on North American Polystomidae, Aspidogastridae, and Paramphistomidae. Illinois Biol. Monogr. III. 1–115, 11 pls.Google Scholar
Ward, H. B. (1918). Parasitic Flatworms, Trematoda. Fresh-Water Biology. Ward and Whipple.CrossRefGoogle Scholar