Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T15:07:41.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The morphology and life-cycle of the oviparous Oögyrodactylus farlowellae gen. et sp.nov. (Monogenea, Gyrodactylidea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

P. D. Harris
P. D. Harris
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Westfield College, University of London, London NW3 7ST
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Oögyrodactylus farlowellae gen. et sp.nov., an oviparous monogenean, is described from the skin and fins of Farlowella amazonum, a South American loricarid catfish. The Oögyrodactylidae fam.nov., containing O. farlowellae and Phanerothecium caballeroi Kritsky and Thatcher, 1977, is placed with the Gyrodactylidae in the Gyrodactylidea. Although oviparous, the Oögyrodactylids are closely related to the viviparous gyrodactylids. Both families share a combination of characters, including haptor morphology, articulated marginal hooks and spike sensilla, which is not seen in other monogeneans. O. farlowellae is similar to a hypothetical ancestor of the gyrodactylids and shows that the family arose from monopisthocotylean rather than polyopisthocotylean stock. There is a close resemblance between the reproductive system of the immature Oögyrodactylus and that of the mature Gyrodactylus, suggesting that progenesis, involving the precocious maturation of oocytes, may have been important in the evolution of the viviparous genera. O. farlowellae retains eggs individually in the ootype until embryonation is comparatively advanced. After oviposition the eggs adhere to the substrate and hatch to give a crawling, unciliated larva. These are adaptations to a host which inhabits fast-flowing streams, where the eggs and infective larvae are exposed to a constant, uni-directional water current. The life-cycle (egg to adult) is completed in 11–13 days at 27 °C.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 87 , Issue 3 , December 1983 , pp. 405 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

Alexander, R. McN. (1966). Structure and function in the catfish. Journal of Zoology 148, 88–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, J. G. & Euzet, L. (1961). Traité de Zoologie: class des Monogènes. In Traité de Zoologie (ed. Grassé, P. P.), 4 Masson Ed.Google Scholar
Braun, E. (1966). Beiträge zur mikroskopischen Anatomie und Fortpflanzungsbiologie von Gyrodactylus wageneri V. Nordman, 1832. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 28, 142–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bychowsky, B. E. (1957). Monogenetic Trematodes, Their Systematicas and Phylogeny. Moscow and Leningrad: Academy of Sciences, U.S.S.R. (In Russian) Hargis, W. J. & Oustinoff, P. C. (1961). Washington: American Institute of Biological Sciences.Google Scholar
Combes, C. (1981). Invasion strategies of parasites of amphibious hosts. In Biology of Monogeneans, Third European Multicolloquium of Parasitology. Parasitology 82, (4) 63–4.Google Scholar
Ergens, R. (1965). Die Morphogenese der chitinoiden Teile des Haptors bei Gyrodactylus tincae Malmberg 1956 (Monogenoidea) und ihre morphologische metrische Variabilität. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 26, 173–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlayson, J. E. (1982). The alleged alternation of sexual phases in Kuhnia scombri, a monogenean of Scomber scombrus. Parasitology 84, 303–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fournier, A. (1981). Sensors and effectors: Ultrastructure of some sense organs. In Biology of Monogeneans, Third European Multicolloquium of Parasitology. Parasitology 82, (4) 61–3.Google Scholar
Hora, S. L. (1930). Ecology, bionomics and evolution of the torrential fauna, with special reference to the organs of attachment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B 219, 217–82.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. D. O. (1912). Notes on the habits of a climbing catfish, Argas marmorata from the Republic of Colombia. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 22, 327–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, T. H. & Tiegs, O. W. (1922). New gyrodactylid Trematodes from the Australian fishes, together with a reclassification of the superfamily Gyrodactyloidea. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 47, 83–131.Google Scholar
Johri, L. N. & Smyth, J. D. (1956). A histochemical approach to the study of helminth morphology. Parasitology 46, 107–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearn, G. C. (1968). The development of the adhesive organs of some diplectanid, tetraonchid and dactylogyrid gill parasites (Monogenea). Parasitology 48, 149–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalil, L. F. (1970). Further studies on Macrogyrodactylus polypteri, a monogenean on the african freshwater fish, Polypterus senegalus. Journal of Helminthology 44, 329–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kritsky, D. C. & Thatcher, V. E. (1977). Phanerothecium gen.nov. and Fundulotrema gen.nov. Two new genera of viviparous Monogenea (Gyrodactyloidea) with a description of P. caballeroi sp.nov. and a key to the subfamilies and genera of the family. Exerta Parasitologica en memoria del doctor Eduardo Caballero y Caballero, Instituto de Biologie, Mexico, pp. 53–60.Google Scholar
Lambert, A. (1979). Recherches sur les affinities phyletiques des vers parasites Gyrodactylidae (Monogenea). Comptes rendus, Académie des sciences, Paris, Serie D 288, 231–3.Google Scholar
Lambert, A. (1980 a). Oncomiracidiums et phylogenese des Monogenea (Plathelminthes) Premiere partie: Developpement post-larvaire. Annales de Parasitologie (Paris) 55, 165–98.Google Scholar
Lambert, A. (1980 b). Oncomiracidiums et phylogenese des Monogenea (Plathelminthes). Deuxieme partie: Structures argyrophiles des oncomiracidiums et phylogenese des Monogenea. Annales de Parasitologie 55, 281–325.Google ScholarPubMed
Lester, R. J. G. & Adams, J. R. (1974). Gyrodactylus alexanderi: Reproduction, mortality and effect on the host, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Canadian Journal of Zoology 52, 827–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Llewellyn, J. (1963). Larvae and larval development of monogeneans. In Advances in Parasitology vol. 1, pp. 287–326. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, J. (1970). Taxonomy, genetics and evolution of parasites: Monogenea. Journal of Parasitology 56, 493–504.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, J. (1981 a). Evolution of monogeneans. In Evolution of Helminths, Third European Multicolloquium of Parasitology. Parasitology 82, (4)165–7.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, J. (1981 b). Evolution of viviparity and invasion by adults. In Biology of Monogeneans, Third European Multicolloquium of Parasitology. Parasitology 82 (4) 64–6.Google Scholar
Lyons, K. M. (1969). Compound sensilla in monogenean skin parasites. Parasitology 59, 625–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malmberg, G. (1970). The excretory systems and marginal hooks as a basis for the systematics of Gyrodactylus. Arkiv für Zoologie 23, 1–237.Google Scholar
Malmberg, G. (1982). On evolutionary processes in Monogenea, though basically from a less traditional viewpoint. In Parasites–Their World and Ours. Amsterdam, New York and Oxford: Elsevier Biomedical.Google Scholar
Mizelle, J. D. & Kritsky, D. C. (1967). Studies on monogenetic trematodes XXX. Five new species of Gyrodactylus from the Pacific Tomcod Microgadus proximus (Girard). Journal of Parasitology 53, 263–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohdner, T. (1912). Die Homologien der weiblichen Genitalwege bei den Trematoden und Cestoden. Nebst Bemerkugen zum naturlichen System der monogenen Trematoden. Zoologischer Anzeiger 39, 337–51.Google Scholar
Patrick, R. (1964). A discussion of the results of the Catherwood expedition to the Peruvian headwaters of the Amazon. Verhandlungen der internationale Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie 15, 1084–90.Google Scholar
Turnbull, E. R. (1956). Gyrodactylus bullatarudis n.sp. from Lebistes reticulatus with a description of its life cycle. Canadian Journal of Zoology 34, 583–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar