Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:00:05.960Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diversity of Acanthocephala parasites in Neotropical amphibians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2024

L.A. Olivera Open the ORCID record for L.A. Olivera [Opens in a new window]  and
K.M. Campião Open the ORCID record for K.M. Campião [Opens in a new window]
L.A. Olivera*
Affiliation:
Postgraduate Program in Zoology, Federal University of Paraná. Curitiba, Brazil Laboratory of Biological Interactions, Federal University of Paraná, UFPR-Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
K.M. Campião
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Biological Interactions, Federal University of Paraná, UFPR-Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
*
Corresponding author: L.A. Olivera; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Acanthocephalans constitute a small taxonomic group related to rotifers and specialized in a parasitic lifestyle. Anurans act as paratenic and definitive hosts and infections always occur trophically. Our objective is to describe and summarize the richness of acanthocephalans in Neotropical anurans. We conducted a literature review in the main research databases, compiling data published until August 2021. We identified 66 articles with records of acanthocephalan-anuran association, 53.03% were carried out in Brazil. We detected 108 species of anurans from 11 families parasitized by acanthocephalans. With the exception of Bufonidae, Hylidae and Leptodactylidae, which are relatively well-studied families, interaction with acanthocephalans remains largely unexplored for most anuran species. We found six families of acanthocephalans: Centrorhynchidae, Echinorhynchidae, Oligacanthorhynchidae, Cavisomidae, Neoechinorhynchidae and Plagiorhynchidae. Centrorhynchidae and Echinorhynchidae presented the largest number of taxa associated with anurans. The largest number of records corresponded to acanthocephalans in the larval stage (cystacanths), for which anurans act as paratenic hosts. We observed a lack of specific taxonomic resolution in the identifications of most reports, because a large part of the records in the larval stage make morphological identification difficult. Brazil, Mexico, Paraguay, Argentina, Ecuador and Peru are the countries with the most records, while Costa Rica, Venezuela, Colombia, Chile and Uruguay exhibited the lowest publication numbers, resulting in gaps in the distribution of acanthocephalans. We expanded the known number of anuran species parasitized by acanthocephalans, compared to the last published review. Overall, we aim to contribute to the understanding of diversity within this intriguing but understudied group.

Keywords

NeotropicalchecklistAcanthocephalaAmphibiansHelminthsInteractionHost-parasiteParasite ecology
Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 98 , 2024 , e11
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Acanthocephala is a monophyletic group exclusively comprising parasitic organisms. Phylogenetically, this group shares a relationship with rotifers, characterized by the presence of a syncytial epidermis (Storch and Welsch Reference Storch and Welsch1969; García-Varela and Nadler Reference García-Varela and Nadler2006; Perrot-Minnot et al. Reference Perrot-Minnot, Cozzarolo, Amin, Barčák, Bauer, Filipović Marijić, García-Varela, Hernández-Orts, Le Yen, Nachev, Orosová, Rigaud, Šariri, Wattier, Reyda and Sures2023). The name Acanthocephala (acantho = spines, cephala = head) derives from the group’s main morphological feature: a spiny proboscis at the anterior end of their body, through which they attach to host tissues. The life cycle of acanthocephalans typically involves two or more hosts, with arthropods commonly serving as the first intermediate host, where the first larval stages develop (Nuñez and Drago Reference Nuñez, Drago and Drago2017). In the adult stage, these animals are obligatory intestinal parasites of vertebrates. The fertilized eggs, eliminated with feces, contains an acanthor larva that develops into the infective acantela form in the intermediate host. Inside the arthropod, the acantela changes into a cystacanth, capable of infecting the vertebrate definitive or a paratenic host (Schmidt Reference Schmidt, Crompton and Nickol1985; Monks Reference Monks2021). In this context, amphibians emerge as a significant vertebrate group for the study of acanthocephalans, given their trophic role as predators of various arthropod species and, simultaneously, as prey for different groups of vertebrates, characterizing them as crucial trophic links in ecosystems. Thus, anurans can serve as definitive or paratenic hosts for acanthocephalans, influencing the successful completion of these parasite’s life cycle (Goater et al. Reference Goater, Goater and Esch2014).

Studies describing acanthocephalan species parasitizing amphibians from the Neotropical region have a longstanding history, dating back to the early 19th century when the first species was described (Rudolphi Reference Rudolphi1819). The first reviews assessing the knowledge on the group occurred in the beginning of the 20th century, when the pioneering parasitologist Lauro Travassos reviewed species of acanthocephalan parasites of anurans, but only for Brazilian hosts (Travassos Reference Travassos1919, 1926). A few years later, Yamaguti (Reference Yamaguti1963) presented a comprehensive worldwide review that greatly contributed to the knowledge of Neotropical acanthocephalan species. Salgado-Maldonado (Reference Salgado-Maldonado, Hurlbert and Villalobos1982) produced a list of acanthocephalans from Central America and neighboring regions. At the beginning of the 21st century, reviews of parasitic acanthocephalans of anurans were published for South America (Campião et al. Reference Campião, Morais, Dias, Aguiar, Toledo, Tavares and Da Silva2014), Mexico (García-Prieto et al. Reference García-Prieto, García-Varela and Mendoza-Garfias2014), Argentina (Hernández-Orts et al. Reference Hernández-Orts, Kuchta, Semenas, Crespo, Gonzalez and Aznar2019), Brazil (Aguiar et al. Reference Aguiar, Morais, Silva, Dos Anjos, Foster and Da Silva2021), and Venezuela (Cañizales Reference Cañizales2020). These reviews hold substantial importance in advancing the taxonomic knowledge for the group. Nonetheless, such existing literature indicates the need for integrating and synthesizing all this information, since several species are distributed in various countries in the Neotropical region. Therefore, this study aims to (i) comprehensively synthetize the diversity of parasitic acanthocephalan species in Neotropical anurans, providing a consolidated compilation of the current knowledge; (ii) provide a list of parasitic acanthocephalans in anurans, including previously used synonyms, in order to promote a comprehensive and organized taxonomic spectrum; (iii) present an overview of research efforts in different locations, highlighting discrepancies and gaps in the understanding about the interactions between acanthocephalans and anurans throughout the Neotropical region; (iv) identify the anuran families that received most extensive research attention for their association with acanthocephalans, in order to uncover research trends and focal locations; (v) explore the role these anurans play in the acanthocephalan life cycle, providing a broad view of the interactions and ecological implications involved. By attaining these objectives, we aim to foster a more comprehensive and holistic understanding of the dynamics between acanthocephalans and anurans in the Neotropical region, thus contributing significantly to the advancement of knowledge in the fields of parasitology and ecology.

Material and methods

We conducted a literature review with searches in the following databases: Biological Abstracts; Helminthological Abstracts; Veterinary Records; PubMed; Scopus; Science Direct; Web of Science (ISI); Scielo; ResearchGate; BioOne; ISI; Jstor Academia; and Google Scholar, under the following selected keywords: ‘Anura’, ‘Acanthocephala’, ‘Helminth’, and ‘Parasites’. Articles written in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, published up to August 2022, were considered in the selection. For each article, data were compiled about the geographical location of the association, parasite development stage, and parasite and host species and family. The original nomenclature for hosts has been updated according to the American Museum of Natural History (Frost Reference Frost2023). Acanthocephala were classified based on Amin (Reference Amin, Crompton and Nickol1985, Reference Amin2013) and Smales (Reference Smales2014).

Results

We identified a total of 66 publications, including reviews, that reported the association between amphibians and acanthocephalans across 11 countries in the Neotropical region (Figure 1). Brazil was the country with the greatest number of studies (53.03%), followed by Argentina (15.15%), Mexico (13.64%), Peru (9.09%), and Costa Rica (3.03%). Colombia, Venezuela, Paraguay, Chile, Uruguay, and Ecuador exhibited the lowest research representation each (1.52%). Brazil also had the greatest number of studied hosts (66 species), representing 61.11% of the studied species, while 13 studied anurans were from Paraguay, 11 from México, 10 from Argentina, 9 from Ecuador, 5 from Peru, 4 from Costa Rica, 3 from Venezuela, 1 from Uruguay, 1 from Chile, and 1 from Colombia; it is important to consider that some anuran species occur in more than one country (Table 1). Altogether, 108 anuran species distributed across 11 families have records of infection by acanthocephalans (Figure 2). Hylidae (37.96%), Leptodactylidae (28.7%), and Bufonidae (12.96%) are the families with the highest number of studied species, and Hylidae is the one with great study effort.

Figure 1. The reported associations of Acanthocephala parasites of anurans in countries within the Neotropical region. Each point is an association report; a general coordinate for the locality was included when not provided in published report.

Table 1. Anuran hosts and their associated Acanthocephala parasites in the Neotropical region, with updated scientific names

Figure 2. Records of acanthocephalan association in different families of anurans in Neotropical region. Each bar was constructed based on the number of associations, representing the number of anuran hosts and study effort for each anuran family.

Nineteen acanthocephalan taxa were recorded, 12 of which were identified to the species level, representing 63.16% of the reports. Six families of acanthocephalans were detected in this review: Centrorhynchidae, Echinorhynchidae, Oligacanthorhynchidae, Cavisomidae, Neoechinorhynchidae, and Plagiorhynchidae. Centrorhynchidae and Echinorhynchidae presented the largest number of taxa associated with anurans (Figure 3). A total of 65.52% of acanthocephalans were found in the larval stage (cystacanths) and 16.09% in the adult stage. Cystacanths and adult together were also recorded in 4.02% of total records (Figure 4), and 14.37% of the records do not indicate the parasites stage of development (Table 2). The results indicate that anurans most frequently serve as paratenic hosts in the acanthocephalan life cycle. Hylidae, Leptodactylidae, and Bufonidae were the anuran families with the highest number of records as definitive hosts for acanthocephalans.

Figure 3. Number of records of Acanthocephala families reported as parasites of anurans in the Neotropical region.

Figure 4. Number of records of development stages of Acanthocephala parasites of Neotropical anurans.

Table 2. Anuran species reported as hosts of unidentified Acanthocephalan in the Neotropical region

Discussion

This is the first effort to compile all records for 11 countries of the Neotropical region regarding the associations between acanthocephalans and anurans. The largest proportion of the analyzed reports (65.52%) corresponds to records on the parasite’s larval stage. This indicates that anurans act as paratenic hosts in the life cycle of most acanthocephalan species. This result relates to the low number of records with specific identification – a recurring pattern observed. This is due to the impracticality of achieving specific identification based on morphological characters in larvae (i.e., cystacanths). Thus, non-specific reports were very common. This aspect, coupled with the scarcity of specialists in the field (Perrot-Minnot et al. Reference Perrot-Minnot, Cozzarolo, Amin, Barčák, Bauer, Filipović Marijić, García-Varela, Hernández-Orts, Le Yen, Nachev, Orosová, Rigaud, Šariri, Wattier, Reyda and Sures2023) and the inherent complexity of parasite identification (Selbach et al. Reference Selbach, Jorge, Dowle, Bennett, Chai, Doherty, Eriksson, Filion, Hay, Herbison, Lindner, Park, Presswell, Ruehle, Sobrinho, Wainwright and Poulin2019; Zhao et al. Reference Zhao, Yang, Lü, Ru, Wayland, Chen, Li and Li2023), contributes to a taxonomic gap for acanthocephalans.

Several recognized biogeographic regions make up the Neotropic, with diverse ecosystems, climates, and habitats found in Central and South America, as well as the Caribbean. The number and classification of these regions can vary between biologists and ecologists, but some of the main biogeographic regions within the Neotropic include Amazonia, Andean Region, Mesoamerica, Chaco, Atlantic Forest, Caribbean, and Gran Chaco (Morrone Reference Morrone2014; Morrone et al. Reference Morrone, Escalante, Rodriguez-Tapia, Carmona, Arana and Mercado-Gómez2022). In the Caribbean region, Mexico is the country with more records (9.77%), followed by Costa Rica (2.87%). For the subregion of the Antilles or Caribbean Antilles – made up of Cuba, Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, and other islands – we found no records. Another area that harbors an important fraction of the world’s biodiversity is the Amazon rainforest, which is one of the regions with the greatest biodiversity on earth and covers several countries in South America – mainly Brazil (first place in records and number of species), but also extends to Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and smaller parts of other countries. The number of reports in the Amazon region is alarming in terms of comparison of species richness. For example, Venezuela, with 1.72% of the records and 2.78% of the species (3 spp.) compared to Colombia. With 816 spp. anurans currently described (Batrachia 2023), only one (Oophaga histrionica) has records of parasitism by acanthocephalans, and for at least two decades no research has been carried out on the acanthocephalan associated with anuran species from Colombia. The highest concentration of data is found in South America, with 56.32% of the records for Brazil – records that are concentrated in the Atlantic Forest region and with a small percentage of the data in the northeastern area. The second southern country in South America with the highest registration is Paraguay, with 8.62%, followed by Argentina, with 6.9% of the reports, which make up what is known as El Chaco and an extensive plain mosaic of different habitats, including dry forests and savannas. Altogether, these data show that the diversity of Acanthocephala in the Neotropical region may be linked to the diversity of available hosts, and more importantly, it reflects the intensity of research efforts, as areas with the highest number of reports are those known to house institutions that traditionally have parasitologists.

Three families of acanthocephalans had greater representation among amphibians: Centrorhynchidae, Echinorhynchidae, and Oligacanthorhynchidae. Of these, Centrorhynchidae are the most reported, with Centrorhynchus sp. being the most recorded taxon. Given that these parasites primarily use birds and mammals as their definitive hosts, this finding suggests that anurans are frequently preyed upon by these vertebrates (Santos and Amato Reference Santos and Amato2010). Although reports of infections by Centrorhynchus have been suggested as accidental cases in amphibians (McAlpine Reference McAlpine1996), these parasites may use a wide range of species as probable paratenic hosts, thereby increasing the chances of completing their life cycle (Malcicka et al. Reference Malcicka, Agosta and Harvey2015). However, members of the Echinorhynchidae family use anurans as their definitive hosts. Pseudoacanthocephalus lutzi Syns.: Echinorhynchus lutzi Hamann, Reference Hamann1891; Acanthocephalus saopaulensis Smales, Reference Smales2007b, which was also one of the taxa with the highest number of records in this review, can be mentioned as an example. This species has been reported as a parasite of amphibians in Argentina (Lajmanovich and Martinez de Ferrato Reference Lajmanovich and Martinez de Ferrato1995; Gutiérrez et al. Reference Gutiérrez, Attademo, Guerrero, Peltzer and Lajmanovich2005; Arredondo and Gil de Pertierra Reference Arredondo and Pertierra2009), Uruguay (Cordero Reference Cordero1933), Peru (Tantaleán Reference Tantaleán1976; Tantaleán et al. Reference Tantaleán, Sánchez, Gómez and Huiza2005), Paraguay, and Brazil (Smales Reference Smales2007b).

Hylidae, Leptodactylidae, and Bufonidae were the anuran families with the highest number of species associated with acanthocephalans, a similar pattern found for other helminths, making them the only three host families for all the main groups of parasitic helminths, including acanthocephalans (Campião et al. Reference Campião, Morais, Dias, Aguiar, Toledo, Tavares and Da Silva2014; Cañizales Reference Cañizales2020). These three anuran families encompass a remarkable diversity of species, varying greatly in size and life histories, and they are extensively distributed across South America (de Sá Reference De Sá, Grant, Camargo, Heyer, Ponssa and Stanley2014). Size in particular is an important characteristic for helminth infection, as larger species live longer and thus have longer exposure to a variety of parasites (Campião et al. Reference Campião, Ribas, Morais, Silva and Tavares2015; Gutiérrez et al. 2019). The great diversity within these families is another reason why they present the highest number of records and species parasitized by acanthocephalans in this review, a pattern observed in other helminth groups as well (Campião et al. Reference Campião, Morais, Dias, Aguiar, Toledo, Tavares and Da Silva2014).

In contrast to findings in many studies that typically identify nematodes and other metazoans as the most prevalent parasites, certain hosts have already presented acanthocephalans as the most prevalent and abundant parasites (Martins-Sobrinho et al. Reference Martins-Sobrinho, Silva, Santos, Moura and Oliveira2017; Toledo et al. Reference Toledo, De Fonesca, Iannacone, Cardenas Callirgos, Pineda Castillo and da Silva2017; Leivas et al. Reference Leivas, Leivas and Campião2018). The factors influencing acanthocephalan diversity, prevalence, and abundance remain not fully understood. However, it is well established that the host diet plays a significant role in the transmission and life cycle of acanthocephalans. In fact, the evolutionary history of acanthocephalans is mainly linked to the two most species-rich groups: the aquatic crustaceans and the fundamentally terrestrial insects (Amin Reference Amin, Crompton and Nickol1985). Isopods have already been recorded as intermediate hosts of acanthocephalans (Amato et al. Reference Amato, Amato, Araujo and Quadros2003) and have been considered significant constituents of several anuran diets (García-Padrón and Borrego Quevedo Reference García-Padrón and Borrego Quevedo2020). In this regard, the trophic niche can be an explanation on how frogs become infected with these helminths. One of the species with the highest number of records as host of acanthocephalans was Rhinella marina, which was reported with high prevalence (97%) (Toledo et al. Reference Toledo, De Fonesca, Iannacone, Cardenas Callirgos, Pineda Castillo and da Silva2017). Rhinella marina is distributed from Texas through Mexico and Central America and extends all the way to Brazil (Campbell Reference Campbell1998; Lee Reference Lee1996; Espínola-Novelo et al. Reference Espínola-Novelo, Guillén-Hernández, González-Salas and Canto2017). It has become an invasive species in several countries around the world, including islands, with reported occurrences in Australia, the southern United States, Hawaii, Fiji, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Europe. Drake et al. (Reference Drake, Zieger, Groszkowski, Gallardo, Sages, Reavis, Faircloth, Jacobson, Lonce, Pinckney and Cole2014) found a high prevalence of infection in 95% of Rhinella marina individuals collected on the Island of Granada. Similarly, Pinhão et al. (Reference Pinhão, Wunderlich and Anjos2009) noted a parasite prevalence of 100% and high abundance of acanthocephalans in a population of Rhinella icterica in Brazil. In addition to their large size (Solís et al. Reference Solís, Ibáñez, Hammerson, Hedges, Diesmos and Matsui2009; Frost Reference Frost2023), both species have opportunistic feeding habits, have extensive foraging strategies (Strüssmann et al. Reference Strüssmann, Beatriz, Hoffmeister and Magnusson1984), and occupy terrestrial and aquatic habitats that increase the chances of parasite infections (Aho Reference Aho, Esch, Bush and Aho1990). Even if body size is related to eating habits – since large species can feed on a greater variety of prey – generalist eating habits could contribute to the high prevalence of acanthocephalan infection even on smaller species (Leivas et al. Reference Leivas, Leivas and Campião2018; Martins-Sobrinho et al. Reference Martins-Sobrinho, Silva, Santos, Moura and Oliveira2017).

The relatively low richness of acanthocephalans parasitizing anurans observed in this review corroborates the pattern reported by other authors (Barton et al. 1994; Campião et al. Reference Campião, Morais, Dias, Aguiar, Toledo, Tavares and Da Silva2014; Goater et al. Reference Goater, Goater and Esch2014) and can be explained by the low number of known species, approximately 1500 distributed around the world (Amin Reference Amin1987; Poulin and Morand Reference Poulin and Morand2004; Kennedy Reference Kennedy2006; Amin Reference Amin2013; Monks Reference Monks2021). Nevertheless, a crucial factor contributing to the observed low diversity of acanthocephalans is the limited number of studies conducted on this subject. Despite the obvious importance of understanding the associations between parasites and anurans, particularly in the Neotropical region — where the highest richness of these hosts is found — the main challenge lies in the scarcity of studies and in the limited fraction of hosts investigated. Therefore, we emphasize the importance of comprehensive parasite inventories. Moreover, the inclusion of molecular tools for identifying acanthocephalan species, already highlighted in other studies (Selbach et al. Reference Selbach, Jorge, Dowle, Bennett, Chai, Doherty, Eriksson, Filion, Hay, Herbison, Lindner, Park, Presswell, Ruehle, Sobrinho, Wainwright and Poulin2019; Zhao et al. Reference Zhao, Yang, Lü, Ru, Wayland, Chen, Li and Li2023), can help fill one of the main gaps highlighted in this study, which is the lack of species level identification. At the same time, the inclusion of ecological information about hosts, such as diet and habitat, can contribute to a better understanding of the life strategies of acanthocephalans. Furthermore, studying the life cycle of acanthocephalans offers a very interesting and little-explored research theme for the Neotropical region. Such studies provide complementary information to taxonomy (and vice versa) (Blasco-Costa and Poulin Reference Blasco-Costa and Poulin2017) and can also facilitate research into ecology and evolution. In this context, we expect that this scientific field will flourish in the Neotropical region, renowned for its exceptional biodiversity (IUCN 2020; Frost Reference Frost2023).

Overall, our results highlight many information gaps if we take into account the exuberant and growing diversity of amphibians in the Neotropical region. The ongoing deforestation of ecosystems, the impacts of climate change, the rapid escalation of habitat destruction, alterations to ecosystems, and droughts are factors that have repercussions on the diversity, abundance, and survival of anurans and other vertebrates. The loss of species and populations also leads to the loss of their parasites, including parasites that have not yet been described (Greene and Lossos Reference Greene and Losos1988; Dobson et al. Reference Dobson, Lafferty, Kuris, Hechinger and Jetz2008; Muniz-Pereira et al. Reference Muniz-Pereira, Vieira and Luque2009), depriving the access to crucial taxonomic and ecological information (Poulin and Morand Reference Poulin and Morand2004). Thus, parasitological inventories are essential as they provide the basis for investigations into evolutionary biology, systematics, taxonomy, conservation, and ecology of hosts and parasites. Throughout this article, we have broadened the understanding of the number of anuran species parasitized by acanthocephalans in comparison to the last existing review, with the intention of enhancing the available knowledge on the diversity within this captivating yet underexplored group of organisms.

Financial support

LAOT received a master’s scholarship from the Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, in Portuguese, CAPES). KMC received CNPq grant in reference to the process (306934/2022-1).

Competing interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Aguiar, A, Toledo, GM, Anjos, LA and Silva, RJ (2015) Helminth parasite communities of two Physalaemus cuvieri Fitzinger, 1826 (Anura: Leiuperidae) populations under different conditions of habitat integrity in the Atlantic Rain Forest of Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology 75, 963–968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aguiar, A, Morais, DH, Silva, LAF, Dos Anjos, LA, Foster, OC and Da Silva, RJ (2021) Biodiversity of anuran endoparasites from a transitional area between the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado biomes in Brazil: new records and remarks. Zootaxa 4948(1), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aho, JM (1990) Helminth communities of amphibians and reptiles: comparative approaches to understanding patterns and processes. pp. 157–195 in Esch, GW, Bush, AO, and Aho, JM (Eds), Parasite communities: patterns and processes. New York, Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alcantara, EP, Ferreira-Silva, C, Silva, LAF, Lins, AGS, Ávila, RW, Morais, DH and Da Silva, RJ (2018) Helminths of Dermatonotus muelleri (Anura: Microhylidae) from Northeastern Brazil. Journal of Parasitology 104(5), 550–556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amato, JFR, Amato, SB, Araujo, PB, Quadros, AF (2003) First report of pigmentation dystrophy in terrestrial isopods, Atlantoscia floridana (van Name) (Isopoda, Oniscidea), induced by larval acanthocephalans. Revista Brasileira de Zoología 20, 711–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amin, OM (1985) Classification. pp. 27–72 in Crompton, DWT and Nickol, BB (Eds), Biology of the Acanthocephala. London and New York, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Amin, OM (1987) Key to the families and subfamilies of Acanthocephala, with the erection of a new class (Polyacanthocephala) and a new order (Polyacanthorhynchida). Journal of Parasitology 73, 1216–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amin, OM (2013) Classification of the Acanthocephala. Folia Parasitologica 60, 273–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amin, OM and Heckmann, RA (2014) First description of Pseudoacanthocephalus lutzi from Peru using SEM. Scientia Parasitologica 15, 19–26.Google Scholar
Arredondo, NJ and Pertierra, AA (2009) Pseudoacanthocephalus lutzi (Hamann, 1891) comb. n. (Acanthocephala: Echinorhynchidae) for Acanthocephalus lutzi (Hamann, 1891), parasite of South American amphibians. Folia Parasitológica 56, 295–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Azevedo-Ramos, C, Santos, MMQ, and Oliveira, VRL (1998) Helminths of three Amazonian treefrogs: interspecific differences in prevalence and infection intensity of parasites. Journal of the Brazilian Association for the Advancement of Science 50, 361–363.Google Scholar
Barton DPA (1994) Checklist of helminths parasites of Australian amphibia. Records of the South Australian Museum 27(1), 13–30.Google Scholar
Batrachia (2023) Lista de los Anfibios de Colombia: Referencia en linea V.13.2023 http://www.batrachia.com (accessed November 2023).Google Scholar
Blasco-Costa, I and Poulin, R (2017) Parasite life-cycle studies: a plea to resurrect an old parasitological tradition. Journal of Helminthology 91, 647–656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bursey, CR and Goldberg, SR (2001) Falcautra lowei n.sp. and other helminths from the Tarahumara frog, Rana tarahumarae (Anura: Ranidae), from Sonora, Mexico. Journal of Parasitology 87, 340–344.Google ScholarPubMed
Bursey, CR, Vrcibradic, D, Hatano, FH and Rocha, CFD (2006) New genus, new species of Acanthocephala (Echinorhynchidae) from the Brazilian frog Hylodes phyllodes (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Journal of Parasitology 92(2), 353–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bursey, CR and Goldberg, SR (2007) New species of Hedruris (Nematoda: Hedruridae), Anuracanthorhynchus lutzi (Hamann, 1891) n. comb. and other helminths in Lithobates warszewitschii (Anura: Ranidae) from Costa Rica. Caribbean Journal of Science 43(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabrera-Guzmán, E, León-Règagnon, V, and García-Prieto, L (2007) Helminth parasites of the leopard frog Rana cf. forreri (Amphibia: Ranidae) in Acapulco, Guerrero, México. Comparative Parasitology 74, 96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, JÁ (1998) Amphibians and reptiles of northern Guatemala, the Yucatán and Belize. Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma Press. pp. 380.Google Scholar
Campião, KM, Morais, DH, Dias, OT, Aguiar, A, Toledo, G, Tavares, LER and Da Silva, RJ (2014) Checklist of helminth parasites of amphibians from South America. Zootaxa 3843(1), 1–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campião, KM, Ribas, AC, Morais, DH, Silva, RJD and Tavares, LER (2015) How many parasites species a frog might have? Determinants of parasite diversity in South American anurans. PLoS ONE 10(10), e0140577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campião, KM, Silva, ICO, Dalazen, GT, Paiva, F and Tavares, LER (2016) Helminth parasites of 11 anuran species from the Pantanal wetland, Brazil. Comparative Parasitology 83, 92–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cañizales, I (2020) Helmintos endoparásitos en anuros de Venezuela: revisión sistemática y análisis de diversidad [Endoparasite helminths in anurans from Venezuela: systematic review and diversity analysis]. Acta Biologica Venezuelica 40(1), 109–127.Google Scholar
Chero, J, Cruces, C, Iannacone, J, Sáez, G, Alvariño, L, Luque, J and Morales, V (2016) Comunidad de helmintos parásitos del sapo espinoso Rhinella spinulosa (Wiegmann, 1834) (Anura: Bufonidae) de Perú. Revista de Investigaciones Veterinarias del Perú 27(1), 114–129.Google Scholar
Cordero, EH (1933) Sur quelques acanthocéphales de l’Amerique méridionale. Annales de parasitologie humaine et comparée 11(4), 271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, CR, Mascarenhas, W, Batista-Oliveira, D, et al. (2022) Endoparasite community of anurans from an altitudinal rainforest enclave in a Brazilian semiarid area. Journal of Helminthology 96, e62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Sá, RO, Grant, T, Camargo, A, Heyer, WR, Ponssa, ML and Stanley, E 2014) Phylogeny of the neotropical genus Leptodactylus Fitzinger, 1826 (Anura: Leptodactylidae): phylogeny, the relevance of non-molecular evidence, and species account. South American Journal of Herpetology 9, 1–128.Google Scholar
Dobson, A, Lafferty, K, Kuris, A, Hechinger, RF and Jetz, W (2008) Homage to Linnaeus: How many parasites? How many hosts? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 11482–11489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dos Santos, VGT, Borges-Martins, M, and Amato, SB (2016) Estructura de la comunidad parasitaria de la rana arboricola Scinax fuscovarius (Anura, Hylidae) de campo Belo Do Sul, Santa Catarina, Brasil. Neotropical Helminthology 10(1), 41–50.Google Scholar
Drake, MC, Zieger, U, Groszkowski, A, Gallardo, B, Sages, P, Reavis, R, Faircloth, L, Jacobson, K, Lonce, N, Pinckney, R and Cole, RA (2014) Survey of helminths, ectoparasites, and chytrid fungus of an introduced population of cane toads, Rhinella marina (Anura: Bufonidae), from Grenada, West Indies. Journal of Parasitology 100(5), 608–615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Draghi, R, Drago, FB, Saibene, PE and Agostini, MG (2020) Helminth communities from amphibians inhabiting agroecosystems in the Pampean Region (Argentina). Revue suisse de Zoologie 127(2), 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duré, MI, Schaefer, EF, Hamann, MI, and Kehr, AI (2004) Consideraciones ecológicas sobre la dieta, la reproducción y el parasitismo de Pseudopaludicola boliviana (Anura, Leptodactylidae) de Corrientes, Argentina. Phyllomedusa 3(2), 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espínola-Novelo, JF and Guillén-Hernández, S (2008) Helminth parasites in Chaunus marinus and Cranopsis valliceps (Anura: Bufonidae) from Lagunas Yalahau, Yucatán, Mexico. Journal of Parasitology 94, 672–674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Espínola-Novelo, JF, Guillén-Hernández, S, González-Salas, CF and Canto, A (2017) Helminth diversity oftwo anurans: Rhinella marina and Incilius valliceps (Anura:Bufonidae) from lagunas de Yalahua, Yucatán, Mexico. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 88, 365–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabio, SP (1982) Helmintos de populações simpátricas de algumas espécies de anfíbios anuros da família Leptodactylidae. Arquivos da Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro 5, 69–83.Google Scholar
Fernandez, JC and Ibarra, HG (1990) Acanthocephalus caspanensis n. sp. (Acanthocephala: Echinorhynchidae) parásito de Bufo spinulosus Wiegmann en el altiplano chileno. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 25(2), 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frost, DR (2023) Amphibian species of the world: an online reference. Version 6.1 (15 abr. 23). Electronic database accessible at https://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/index.php. American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.5531/db.vz.0001.Google Scholar
García-Padrón, LY and Borrego Quevedo, CA (2020) Dieta de Eleutherodactylus atkinsi (Anura: Eleutherodactylidae) en el occidente de Cuba. Poeyana 511, 53–58.Google Scholar
García-Prieto, L, García-Varela, M, and Mendoza-Garfias, B (2014) Biodiversidad de Acanthocephala en México. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 85, S177–S182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Varela, M and Nadler, SA (2006) Phylogenetic relationships of Syndermata based on small subunit (SSU) and large subunit (LSU) of rRNA and cytochrome oxidase subunit I gene sequences. Molecular Phylogenetic and Evolution 40, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goater, TM, Goater, CP, and Esch, GW (2014) Parasitism: the diversity and ecology of animal parasites. 2nd edn. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
Goldberg, SR and Bursey, CR (2003) Helminths of two anuran species, Atelopus spurrelli (Bufonidae) and Dendrobates histrionicus (Dendrobatidae), from Colombia, South America. Parasitology International 52, 251–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, SR and Bursey, CR (2008) Helminths from 10 species of brachycephalid frogs (Anura: Brachycephalidae) from Costa Rica. Comparative Parasitology 75(2), 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, SR, Bursey, CR, Salgado-Maldonado, G, Báez, R and Cañeda, C (2002) Helminth parasites of six species of anurans from Los Tuxtlas and Catemaco Lake, Veracruz, Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist 47(2), 293–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, SR, Bursey, CR, Caldwell, JP and Shepard, DB (2009) Gastrointestinal helminths of six sympatric species of Leptodactylus from Tocantins State, Brazil. Comparative Parasitology 76(2), 258–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graça, RJ, Oda, FH, Lima, FS, Guerra, V, Gambale, PG and Takemoto, RM (2017) Metazoan endoparasites of 18 anuran species from the mesophytic semideciduous Atlantic Forest in southern Brazil. Journal of Natural History 51, 705–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, HW and Losos, JB (1998) Systematics, natural history, and conservation. BioScience 38, 458–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez, C, Attademo, A, Guerrero, S, Peltzer, P and Lajmanovich, R (2005) Life history notes: Physalaemus biligonigerus (False-eyed frog). Endoparasites. Herpetological Review 36(2), 161–162.Google Scholar
Hamann, O (1891) Monographie der Acanathocephalen (Echinorhynchen). Ihre entwicklungsgeschichte, histogenie u. anatomie. Jen Seitschr. Naturwiss 25(2), 113–231.Google Scholar
Hamann, MI and Kehr, AI (1998) Variación espacio temporal en infrapoblaciones de helmintos y su relación con las fluctuaciones poblacionales de Hyla nana (Anura, Hylidae). Cuadernos de Herpetología 12(2), 23–33.Google Scholar
Hamann, MI, González, CE, and Kehr, AI (2006) Helminth community structure of the oven frog Leptodactylus latinasus (Anura, Leptodactylidae) from Corrientes, Argentina. Acta Parasitologica 51(4), 294–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández-Orts, JS, Kuchta, R, Semenas, L, Crespo, EA, Gonzalez, RA and Aznar, FJ (2019) An annotated list of the Acanthocephala from Argentina. Zootaxa 4663(1), 1–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lux Hoppe, EGL, Pedrassani, D, Hoffmann-Inocente, AC, Tebaldi, JH, Storti, LF, Zanuzzo, FS, Avancini, N and Nascimento, AA (2008) Estudos ecológicos em taxocenoses helmintícas de Chaunus ictericus (Spix, 1824) e C. schneideri (Werner, 1894) (Anura: Bufonidae) simpátricos, capturados no distrito de São Cristóvão, município de Três Barras, Santa Catarina. Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária 17(1), 166–169.Google Scholar
Iannacone, J (2003) Helmintos parasitos de Atelopus bomolochus Peters 1973 (Anura: Bufonidae) de Piura, Peru. Gayana 67(1), 9–15.Google Scholar
IUCN (2020) The IUCN Red List of threatened species. Version 2020-1.Google Scholar
Kennedy, CR (2006) Ecology of the Acanthocephala. New York, Cambridge University Press. pp. 248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lajmanovich, RC and Martinez de Ferrato, A (1995) Acanthocephalus lutzi (Hammon 1891) parásito de Bufo arenarum en el Rio Paraná, Argentina. Revista de la Association de Ciencas Naturales del Litoral 26, 19–23.Google Scholar
Leivas, PT, Leivas, WF, and Campião, K (2018) Diet and parasites of the anuran Physalaemus cuvieri Fitzinger, 1826 (Leiuperidae) from an Atlantic Forest fragment. Herpetology Notes 11, 109–113.Google Scholar
Lee, JC (1996) The amphibians and reptiles of the Yucatán Peninsula. Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press, Comstock Publishing Associates.Google Scholar
Lins, AGS, Aguiar, A, Morais, DH, Firmino da Silva, LA, Ávila, RW and Silva, RJD (2017) Helminth fauna of Leptodactylus syphax (Anura: Leptodactylidae) from Caatinga biome, Northeastern Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária 26, 74–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malcicka, M, Agosta, SJ, and Harvey, JA (2015) Multilevel ecological fitting: indirect life cycles are not a barrier to host switching and invasion. Global Change Biology 21(9), 3210–3218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machado, HTS, de Oliveira, SS, Benício, RA, de Castro Araújo, K and Ávila, RW (2022) Helminths infecting sympatric congeneric treefrogs in northeastern Brazil. Acta Parasitologica 67(2), 658–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madelaire, CB, Franceschini, L, Morais, DH, Gomes, FR and Da Silva, RJ (2020) Helminth parasites of three anuran species during reproduction and drought in the Brazilian semiarid Caatinga Region. Journal of Parasitology 106(3), 334–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martins-Sobrinho, PM, Silva, WGO, Santos, EGD, Moura, GJBD and Oliveira, JBD (2017) Helminths of some tree frogs of the families Hylidae and Phyllomedusidae in an Atlantic rainforest fragment, Brazil. Journal of Natural History 51, 1639–1648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAlpine, DF (1996) Acanthocephala parasitic in North American amphibians: a review with new records. Alytes 14, 115–121.Google Scholar
Morrone, JJ (2014) Biogeographical regionalization of the Neotropical region. Zootaxa 3782, 1–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrone, JJ, Escalante, T, Rodriguez-Tapia, G, Carmona, A, Arana, M and Mercado-Gómez, JD (2022) Biogeographic regionalization of the Neotropical region: new map and shapefile. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 94, e20211167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monks, S (2021) Zootaxa 20th anniversary celebration: section Acanthocephala. Zootaxa 1, 31–37.Google Scholar
Muniz-Pereira, LC, Vieira, FM and Luque, JL (2009) Checklist of helminth parasites of threatened vertebrate species from Brazil. Zootaxa 2123, 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuñez, MV and Drago, F (2017) Phylum Acanthocephala. pp. 190 in Drago, F (Coord), Macroparásitos: diversidad y biología. La Plata, AR, Editorial de la Universidad de La Plata.Google Scholar
Paredes-Calderón, L, León-Règagnon, V and García-Prieto, L (2004) Helminth infracommunities of Rana vaillanti Brocchi (Anura: Ranidae) in Los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico. Journal of Parasitology 90(4), 692–696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parra, AB, Pontes, MR, Queiroz, MS, et al. (2019) Helminths of Chiasmocleis albopunctata (Boettger, 1885) (Anura: Microhylidae) and Dendropsophus nanus (Boulenger, 1889)(Anura: Hylidae) in Cerrado, southeastern Brazil. Neotropical Helminthology 13(2), 295–304.Google Scholar
Perrot-Minnot, MJ, Cozzarolo, MS, Amin, OM, Barčák, D, Bauer, A, Filipović Marijić, V, García-Varela, M, Hernández-Orts, JS, Le Yen, TT, Nachev, M, Orosová, M, Rigaud, T, Šariri, S, Wattier, R, Reyda, F and Sures, B (2023) Hooking the scientific community on thorny-headed worms: interesting and exciting facts, knowledge gaps and perspectives for research directions on Acanthocephala. Parasite 30, 23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinhão, R, Wunderlich, AC, Anjos, LA, et al. (2009) Helminths of the toad Rhinella icterica (Bufonidae), from the municipality of Botucatu, São Paulo state, Brazil. Neotropical Helminthology 3, 35–40.Google Scholar
Poulin, R and Morand, S (2004) Parasite biodiversity. Washington, D.C., USA, Smithsonian Institution Books.Google Scholar
Queiroz, MS, Pontes, MR, Neto, MC, Campião, KM and Anjos, LA (2020) Helminths of 8 anuran species from a remnant riparian forest in the Cerrado biome, Brazil. Herpetology Notes 13, 463–478.Google Scholar
Romero-Mayén, ARL, García-Prieto, G, and León-Règagnon, V (2016) Helminth parasites of Lithobates psilonota (Amphibia: Ranidae) from western Mexico. Comparative Parasitology 83, 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudolphi, AC (1819) Synopsis of the Entozoa with two Addenda. August Rucker, Berlin (in Latin). Rudolphi, C. (1819) Entozoorm synopsis cui accedunt mantissa duplex et índices locupletissimi. Berolini. pp. 811.Google Scholar
Salgado-Maldonado, G (1982) Acanthocephala. pp. 121–131 in Hurlbert, SH and Villalobos, A (Eds), Aquatic biota of Mexico, Central America and the West Indies. San Diego, California, San Diego State University.Google Scholar
Salgado-Maldonado, G and Caspeta-Mandujano, JM (2010) Lueheia inscripta (Westrumb, 1821) (Acanthocephala: Plagiorhynchidae) in anurans (Leptodactylidae: Bufonidae) from Mexico. Parasite 17(2), 161–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sani, AA, Rangel, GT, Dos Santos, LC and Frezza, TF (2021) Helmintos parasitos de répteis e anfíbios no estado de São Paulo. Interfaces Científicas-Saúde e Ambiente 8(3), 32–59.Google Scholar
Santos, VGT and Amato, SB (2010) Helminth fauna of Rhinella fernandezae (Anura: Bufonidae) from the Rio Grande do Sul coast land, Brazil: analysis of the parasite community. Journal of Parasitology 96, 823–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, GD (1985) Development and life cycles. pp. 273–286 in Crompton, DWT and Nickol, BB (Eds), Biology of the Acanthocephala, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schaefer, EF, Hamann, MI, and Kehr, AI (2006) Trophic, reproductive and parasitological aspects of the ecology of Leptodactylus chaquensis (Anura: Leptodactylidae) in Argentina. Herpetological Journal 4, 387–394.Google Scholar
Selbach, C, Jorge, F, Dowle, E, Bennett, J, Chai, X, Doherty, JF, Eriksson, A, Filion, A, Hay, E, Herbison, R, Lindner, J, Park, E, Presswell, B, Ruehle, B, Sobrinho, PM, Wainwright, E and Poulin, R (2019) Parasitological research in the molecular age. Parasitology 146, 1361–1370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sena, PA, Conceição, BM, Silva, PF, Silva, WGO, Ferreira, WB, Silva Júnior, VA. da, Moura, GJ, de B. and Oliveira, JB (2018) Helminth communities of Pithecopus nordestinus (Anura: Phyllomedusidae) in forest remnants, Brazil. Herpetology Notes 11, 565–572.Google Scholar
Silva, CS, Alcantara, EP, Silva, RJ, Ávila, RW and Morais, DH (2019) Helminths parasites of the frog Proceratophrys aridus Cruz, Nunes, and Juncá, 2012 (Anura: Odontophrynidae) in a semiarid region, Brazil. Neotropical Helminthology 13, 169–179.Google Scholar
Silva, CS, Ávila, RW, and Morais, DH (2018) Helminth community dynamics in a population of Pseudopaludicola pocoto (Leptodactylidae: Leiuperinae) from Northeast-Brazilian. Helminthologia 55(4), 292–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva-Neta, AF, Alcantara, EP, Oliveira, CR, de Carvalhoł, EFF, Morais, DH, da Silva, RJ and Ávila, RW (2020) Helminths associated with 15 species of anurans from the Ibiapaba Plateau, Northeastern Brazil. Neotropical Helminthology 14(2), 197–206.Google Scholar
Smales, LR (2007a) Acanthocephalans of amphibians and reptiles (Anura and Squamata) from Ecuador, with the description of Pandosentis napoensis n. sp. (Neoechinorhynchidae) from Hyla fasciata. Zootaxa 1445, 49–56.Google Scholar
Smales, LR (2007b) Acanthocephala in amphibians (Anura) and reptiles (Squamata) from Brazil and Paraguay with description of a new species. Journal of Parasitology 93(2), 392–398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smales, LR (2014) 6. Acanthocephala. En De Gruyter eBooks, pp. 317–336.Google Scholar
Solís, F, Ibáñez, R, Hammerson, G, Hedges, B, Diesmos, A and Matsui, M (2009) Rhinella marina. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Google Scholar
Speare, R (1990) A review of the diseases of the cane toad, Bufo marinus, with comments on biological control. Australian Wildlife Research 17(4), 387–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, V and Welsch, U (1969) Über den Aufbau des Rotatorienintegumentes. Zeitschrift für Zellforschung 95, 405–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strüssmann, C, Beatriz, M, Hoffmeister, M and Magnusson, WE (1984) Diet and foraging mode of Bufo marinus and Leptodactylus ocellatus. Journal of Herpetology 18(2), 138–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stumpf, IVK (1982) Helmintos em Leptodactylus ocellatus (L. 1758) em Curitiba, Brasil. Acta Biologica Paranaense 10/11, 215–218.Google Scholar
Tantaleán, M (1976) Contribución al conocimiento de los helmintos de vertebrados del Perú. Biota 10, 437–443.Google Scholar
Tantaleán, M, Sánchez, L, Gómez, L and Huiza, A (2005) Acantocéfalos del Perú. Revista Peruana de Biología 12, 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toledo, G, De Fonesca, MG, Iannacone, J, Cardenas Callirgos, JM, Pineda Castillo, C and da Silva, RJ (2017) Infection with Pseudoacanthocephalus lutzi (Hamman, 1891) (Acanthocephala: Echinorhynchidae) in Rhinella marina (Linneaus, 1785) (Amphibia: Bufonidae) in Peru. Neotropical Helminthology 11, 405–411.Google Scholar
Toledo, GM, Aguiar, A, Silva, RJ and Anjos, LA (2013) Helminth fauna of two species of Physalaemus (Anura: Leiuperidae) from an undisturbed fragment of the Atlantic Rainforest, Southeastern Brazil. Journal of Parasitology 99(5), 919–922.Google ScholarPubMed
Travassos, L (1919) Contribuições para o conhecimento dos Centrorhynchidae. Folha Medica 6, 342.Google Scholar
Travassos, L (1926) Contribuição para o conhecimento da fauna helmintológica brasileira. XX. Revisão dos acantocéfalos brazileiros. Parte II. Fam. Echinorhynchidae. Sf. Centrarchinae Travassos, 1919. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 19, 31–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trejo-Meléndez, V, Osorio Sarabia, D, García-Prieto, L and Mata-López, R (2019) Helminth fauna of Incilius marmoreus (Anura: Bufonidae) in a neotropical locality of Mexico. Comparative Parasitology 86, 52–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velázquez-Urrieta, MY and León-Règagnon, V (2018) Helminth fauna of two species of leopard frogs (Amphibia: Ranidae) from Chiapas, Mexico. Comparative Parasitology 85, 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamaguti, S (1963) Systema helminthum: Acanthocephala. vol. 5. New York, Interscience.Google Scholar
Yáñez-Arenas, CA and Guillén-Hernández, S (2010) Helminth fauna of Lithobates brownorum (Anura: Ranidae) en tres localidades del estado de Yucatán, México. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 81, 191–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaracho, VH and Lamas, MF (2008) Leptodactylus diptyx (Tropical bullfrog). Endoparasites. Herpetological Review 39(4), 461.Google Scholar
Zaracho, VH, Acosta, JL, and Lamas, MF (2012) Dieta y parasitismo de Leptodactylus diptyx (Anura: Leptodactylidae) del nordeste argentino. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 83, 1180–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, TY, Yang, RJ, Lü, L, Ru, SS, Wayland, MT, Chen, HX, Li, YH and Li, L (2023) Phylomitogenomic analyses provided further evidence for the resurrection of the family Pseudoacanthocephalidae (Acanthocephala: Echinorhynchida). Animals 13(7), 1256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. The reported associations of Acanthocephala parasites of anurans in countries within the Neotropical region. Each point is an association report; a general coordinate for the locality was included when not provided in published report.

Figure 1

Table 1. Anuran hosts and their associated Acanthocephala parasites in the Neotropical region, with updated scientific names

Figure 2

Figure 2. Records of acanthocephalan association in different families of anurans in Neotropical region. Each bar was constructed based on the number of associations, representing the number of anuran hosts and study effort for each anuran family.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Number of records of Acanthocephala families reported as parasites of anurans in the Neotropical region.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Number of records of development stages of Acanthocephala parasites of Neotropical anurans.

Figure 5

Table 2. Anuran species reported as hosts of unidentified Acanthocephalan in the Neotropical region