Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:56:11.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies of acari IV. A review of the lung mites of snakes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Frank A. Turk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

All the Mesostigmatic mites which have been found as ecto- or endoparasites of snakes are listed and it is suggested that the latter are probably derived from the former. The homologies of the dorsal shields are established and a progressive fusion is shown to have taken place. On this evidence a new genus is erected for O. bedfordi (Radford) to include most probably the lung mites of African snakes. The life history and general biology are discussed. It is shown that there is no experimental evidence that these acari are vectors of disease or that they induce any change in the tissues of the host. Evidence is brought forward to show that the parasites of the more nearly related snake hosts are themselves more nearly related: some consequences of this are discussed. A key to the females of all the known lung mites of snakes is given together with the diagnosis of the new genus Hammertonia and of a new species, Ophiopneumicola americana. The view that the genus Ophiopneumicola is not a natural group is expressed. O. hammertoni Radford is redescribed and some points of significance discussed. The species incertae sedis of Keegan (1943) are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 38 , Issue 1-2 , January 1947 , pp. 17 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1947

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

Ewing, H. E. (1922). Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 62, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewing, H. E. (1924). Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 26, 179.Google Scholar
da Fonseca, F. (1934). Z. Parasitenk. 6, 508–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
da Fonseca, F. (1940). Mem. Inst. Butantan. 14, 53–8.Google Scholar
Hubbard, W. E. (1938). Trans. Amer. Micr. Soc. 57, 400–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, W. E. (1939). Amer. Midl. Nat. 21, 657–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, W. E. (1940). Trans. Amer. Micr. Soc. 59, 243–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keegan, H. L. (1943). Parasitology, 35, 128–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newstead, R. (1906). Mem. Lpool. Sch. Trop. Med. 18, 45–50.Google Scholar
Radford, C. D. (1937). North-West. Nat. 12, 38–42.Google Scholar
Radford, C. D. (1939). Parasitology, 31, 243–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sambon, L. W. (1913) in Boulenger, G. A. The Snakes of Europe, p. 108. Methuen.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L. (1940). J. Parasit. 26, 309–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stejneger, L. & Barbour, T. (1923). A Check List of North American Amphibia and Reptiles. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Vitzhum, H. G. (1931). ‘Acari’ in Handbuch der Zoologie. Krumbach & Kukenthal, 3, Lief. 1. Leipzig: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vitzhum, H. G. (1935). Z. Parasitenk. 7, 709–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar