Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:36:22.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The anatomy of three digenetic trematodes, Skrjabiniella aculeatus (Odhner), Lecithochirium rufoviride (Rud.) and Sterrhurus fusiformis (Lühe) from Conger conger (Linn.)*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Dilys O. Jones
Dilys O. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The anatomy of three digenetic trematodes from Conger conger (Linn.), Skrjabiniella aculeatus (Odhner), Lecithochirium rufoviride (Rud.) and Sterrhurus fusiformis (Luhe) has been described. The technique employed is given, and in each case the history of the species has been traced.

2. The discussion on the nomenclature of Skrjabiniella aculeatus explains why this generic name used by Issaitschikow (1928) has been adopted in this work in place of Prosorhynchus, and a key to the genera Prosorhynchus s.str. and Skrjabiniella has been suggested. A table showing the proposed division of Odhner's genus Prosorhynchus is included.

3. In the discussion on the hemiurid worms it is pointed out that there is no sound basis for the separation of the genera Lecithochirium and Sterrhurus as they stand.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 35 , Issue 1-2 , February 1943 , pp. 40 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1943

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

Beneden, P. J. van (1870). Mem. Acad. R. Belg. 38, 81–2. Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Fuhrmann, O. (1928). Handb. Zool. Kuk. 109, 132–6.Google Scholar
Issattschikow, M. (1928). Ber. Wiss. Meerinst. 3 (2), 22–4, 27. Moscow.Google Scholar
Lebour, M. V. (1908). Northumberland Sea Fisheries Cttee. Reports on the Scientific Investigations, 1905–1911, pp. 23–7, 31–3.Google Scholar
Linton, E. (1910). Pap. Tortugas Lab. 133, 61–3, 139, 140, 141–7.Google Scholar
Lloyd, L. C. (1938). J. Parasitol. 24 (2), 103–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Looss, A. (1907). Zool. Jb. Jena, Abt. Syst. 26, 63–180.Google Scholar
Lühe, M. v. (1901). Zool. Anz. Lpz. 24, 394–403, 473–8.Google Scholar
Manter, H. W. (1926). Illinois Biol. Monogr. 10, 90–3.Google Scholar
Manter, H. W. (1934). Pap. Tortugas Lab. 27, 267, 305–11, 313.Google Scholar
Mathias, P. (1934). Arch. Zool. exp. gen. 75, 574–6.Google Scholar
Nicoll, W. (1910). Parasitology, 3, 322–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicoll, W. (1914). J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K. 1, 488–91, 494.Google Scholar
Odhner, T. (1905). Fauna Arctica, 4 (2), 297, 302, 305.Google Scholar
Ozaki, Y. (1928). Jap. J. Zool. 2 (1), 35–60.Google Scholar
Pigulewsky, S. W. (1931). Zool. Am. Lpz. 96, 10–14.Google Scholar
Yamaguti, S. (1937). Jap. J. Zool. 20, 491–3.Google Scholar
Wagener, G. R. (1860). Arch. Naturgesch. 1, 178–81.Google Scholar