Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T13:49:21.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the structure of the scolex of Bothriocephalus scorpii (Müller 1776) and Clestobothrium crassiceps (Rud. 1819) and the mode of attachment of the scolex to the intestine of the host

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Gwendolen Rees
Gwendolen Rees
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Two Pseudophyllidea, Bothriocephalus scorpii (Müller) and Clestobothrium crassiceps (Rud.), have been obtained from Scophthalmus maximus (L.) and Merluccius merluccius (L.) respectively, from fishing grounds to the west of the British Isles.

2. The musculature of the scolex in both has been compared relative to the form and mode of function of that organ. All the major groups of muscles are present in both, but their arrangement is modified in C. crassiceps, due to the presence of hemispherical bothria, instead of open grooves, and a sphincter muscle around the bothrial opening.

3. The mode of attachment is discussed briefly in C. crassiceps, and in more detail in B. scorpii, where the structure of the scolex was found to be admirably suited to the form of the host's mucosa. The effect on the mucosa is slight, due to the absence of very powerful muscles and of other specialized adhesive structures.

4. The nervous system of the scolex in both species has been compared, and a fundamental similarity has been found. Modifications in C. crassiceps are associated with shortening of the scolex and the difference in form of the bothria.

5. The excretory system shows the same correlation with the form of the scolex.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 48 , Issue 3-4 , November 1958 , pp. 468 - 492
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

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

Baylis, H. A. (1939). Further records of parasitic worms from British vertebrates. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. S. 11, 4 (23), 473–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellingham, O'B. (1844). Catalogue of Irish Entozoa, with observations. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 13, various pages.Google Scholar
Cooper, A. R. (1918). North American pseudophyllidean cestodes from fishes. Illinois Biol. Monogr. 4 (4), 154–70, 186–200.Google Scholar
Diesing, K. M. (1850). Systema helminthum 1, 692 pp. Vindobonae.Google Scholar
Dollfus, R. Ph. (1956). Liste des parasites animaux du hareng de l'Atlantique nord et de la Baltique. J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 22, 1, 58–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraipont, J. (1881). Recherches sur l'appareil excréteur des trematodes et des cestodes; deuxième partie. Arch. Biol., Paris, 2, 1–40.Google Scholar
Hilmy, I. S. (1939). Bothriocephalus scorpii (Mueller 1776), Cooper 1917. Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 23, 385–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, L. H. (1951). The Invertebrates, vol. 11. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Johnstone, J. (1909). Internal parasites and diseased conditions of fishes. Trans. Biol. Soc. Liverpool, 32, 87–100.Google Scholar
Joyeux, Ch. & Baer, J. G. (1936). Faune de France, 30, Cestodes. Paris. Paul Lechevalier et Fils.Google Scholar
Lönnberg, E. (1891). Anatomische Studien über Skandinavische Cestoden. K. svenska VetenskAkad. Handl. 24, 1–109.Google Scholar
Markowski, S. (1935). O cyklu rozwojowym Bothriocephalus scorpii (Müller 1776)…, etc. Bull. int. Acad. P. Cracovie (Acad. pol. Sci.), (11) (3/5), 1–17.Google Scholar
Nicoll, W. (1907). A contribution towards a knowledge of the entozoa of British marine fishes. Part 1. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (7), 19 66–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemiec, J. (1888). Untersuchungen über das Nervensystem der Cestoden. Arb. zool. Inst. Univ. Wien, 7, 1–60.Google Scholar
Rees, G. (1941 a). The musculature and nervous system of the plerocercoid larva of Dibothriorhynchus grossum (Rud.). Parasitology, 33, 373–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, G. (1941 b). The scolex of Aporhynchus norvegicus (Olss.). Parasitology, 33, 433–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, G. (1943). The anatomy of Anthobothrium auriculatum (Rud.) (Cestoda) from Raja batis L. Parasitology, 35, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, G. (1946). The anatomy of Phyllobothrium dohrnii (Oerley) from Hexanchus griseus (Gmelin). Parasitology, 37, 163–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rees, G. (1951). The anatomy of Cysticercus taeniae-taeniaeformis (Batseh, 1786) (Cysticercus fasciolaris Rud. 1808), from the liver of Rattus norvegicus (Erx.), including an account of spiral torsion in the species and some abnormalities in structure. Parasitology, 41, 46–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rees, G. (1956). The scolex of Tetrabothrius affinis (Lönnberg), a cestode from Balaenoptera musculus L., the Blue Whale. Parasitology, 46, 425–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, G. & Llewellyn, J. (1941). A record of the trematode and cestode parasites of fishes from the Porcupine bank, Irish Atlantic slope and Irish sea. Parasitology, 33, 390–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, W. (1844). Additions to the fauna of Ireland. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 13, 430–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardle, R. A. (1933). Cestoda of Canadian fishes. 1. The Pacific coast region. Contr. Canadian Biol. 7 (18), 221–43.Google Scholar
Wardle, R. Z. & McLeod, J. A. (1952). The Zoology of Tapeworms. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar