Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:28:38.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Report on a Collection of Cestoda, mainly from Egypt. Part II. Cyclophyllidea: Family Hymenolepididae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

F. J. Meggitt
F. J. Meggitt
Affiliation:
University of Rangoon.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In cestodes of this family, the number, size, and shape of the rostellar hooks is needed for the identification of the species. While number and size are often quoted (e.g. Fuhrmann, 1924 a) the shape is usually ignored owing to the impossibility of reproducing innumerable figures: this greatly lessens the usefulness of such lists as the one above mentioned, especially to workers not in touch with a well-stocked library. For this reason the formula illustrated in Text-fig. 1 is suggested. The base, AB, of the hook is considered as unity and other measurements are expressed in decimals of it. EH is a tangent drawn parallel to AB and touching the hook at its highest point H; GB, FC and KL are perpendiculars drawn from AB to the two extremities G, F of the hook and to the inside, K, of the curve FG. With the points A, G, H and K fixed the approximate shape of the hook is determined: the various formulae may then be compared or the hook itself be reconstructed. Text-fig. 2 gives examples of the various types of hooks and their respective formulae, Text-fig. 3 of their reconstruction from the formulae. This arrangement appears preferable to that of Stevenson (1904) as being simpler and also facilitating reconstruction.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 1927 , pp. 420 - 450
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1927

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

Baczynska, H. (1914). Études anatomiques et histologiques sur quelques nouvelles espèces de cestodes d'oiseaux. Bull. sci. Neuchât. sci. nat. 40, 187–239.Google Scholar
Beddard, F. E. (1913). Contributions to the anatomy and systematic arrangement of the Cestoidea. X. On two new species of tapeworms from Genetta dongolana. Proc. Zool.Soc. London, 1913, 549–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clerc, W. (1902). Contribution à l'étude de la faune helminthologique de l'Oural. Zool. Anz. 25, 569–75.Google Scholar
Clerc, W. (1903). Contribution à l'étude de la faune helminthologique de l'Oural. Rev. suisse zool. 2, 241–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohn, L. (1901). Zur Anatomie und Systematik der Vogelcestoden. Nov. Act. Leop. Carol. Akad. 79, 265–450.Google Scholar
Fuhrmann, O. (1905). Das Genus Diploposthe Jacobi. Centralbl. Bakt. Abt. 1, 40, 217–24.Google Scholar
Fuhrmann, O. (1907). Bekannte und neue Arten und Genera von Vogeltänien. Centralbl. Bakt. Orig. 45, 516–36.Google Scholar
Fuhrmann, O. (1908). Die Cestoden der Vögel. Zool. Jahrb. Suppl. 10.Google Scholar
Fuhrmann, O. (1908 a). Nouveaux Ténias d'oiseaux. Rev. suisse zool. 16, 27–73.Google Scholar
Fuhrmann, O. (1924). Hymenolepis macracanthos (v. Linstow). Considérations sur le genre Hymenolepis. J. Parasitol. 11, 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M. C. (1919). The adult taenioid cestodes of dogs and cats and of related carnivores in North America. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 55, 1–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krabbe, H. (1869). Bidrag til Kundskab om Fuglenes Baendelorme. Dansk. Viden. Selsk. Skr. nat. math. Afd. (5), 8, 249–363.Google Scholar
Linstow, O. v. (1904). Neue Helminthen aus Westafrika. Centralbl. Bakt. Abt. 1, Orig. 36, 379–83.Google Scholar
Lühe, M. (1898). Beiträge zur Helminthenfauna der Berberei. S-B. Preuss. Akad. Wissen. Berlin, 40, 619–28.Google Scholar
Lühe, M. (1910). Parasitische Plattwürmer. II. Cestodes. In Die Süsswasserfauna Deutschlands, H. 18.Google Scholar
Mayhew, R. L. (1925). Studies on the avian species of the cestode family Hymenolepididae. Illinois Biol. Monogr. 10, No. 1.Google Scholar
Meggitt, F. J. (1924). The Cestodes of Mammals. London.Google Scholar
Moghe, M. A. (1925). A new species of Monopylidium, M. chandleri, from the red-nettled lapwing (Sarcogrammus indicus Stoliczka) with a key to the species of Monopylidium. Parasitol. 17, 395–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neyra, C. R. L. (1927). Considérations sur le genre Dipylidium Leuckart. Bull. soc. path. exot. 20, 434–40.Google Scholar
Neyra, C. R. L. (1927 a). Sur les cysticercoïdes de quelques Dipylidium. Ann. paras. 5, 245–8.Google Scholar
Parrot, L. and Joyeux, C. (1920). Les cysticercoïdes de Tarentola mauritanica L. et les Ténias du chat. Bull. soc. path. exot. 13, 687–95.Google Scholar
Ransom, B. H. (1904).An account of the tapeworms of the genus Hymenolepis parasitic in man. Bull. Hyg. Lab. U.S. Pub. Health and Mar. Hosp. Serv. 18.Google Scholar
Ransom, B. H. (1909). The taenioid cestodes of North American birds. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 49.Google Scholar
Skrjabin, K. J. (1914). Beitrag zur Kenntnis einiger Vogelcestoden. Centralbl. Bakt. Abt. 1, Orig. 75, 59–83.Google Scholar
Skrjabin, K. J. (1924). Progynopylidium nölleri n.g., n.sp. ein neuer Bandwurm der Katze. Berlin tierärz. d. Wochenschr. 40, 420–2.Google Scholar
Stevenson, E. C. (1904). Variations in the hooks of the dog tapeworms, Taenia serrata and Taenia serialis. Stud. Zool. Lab. Univ. Nebraska 59, 409–48.Google Scholar
Volz, W. (1900). Beitrag zur Kenntnis einiger Vogelcestoden. Arch. Naturg.Google Scholar