Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T17:01:01.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The phylogeny of the nematode family Metastrongylidae Leiper, [1909]: a correlation of host and symbiote* evolution†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Ellsworth C. Dougherty
Ellsworth C. Dougherty
Affiliation:
Division of Medical Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California‡
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. History of the classification of the family Metastrongylidae is briefly reviewed.

2. The probable origin of the family is discussed. It is believed that the metastrongylids arose, in common with the family Strongylidae, from a primitive group of eustomatous, cloacinin-like, gastro-intestinal strongylines that were symbiotic with an ancestral mammalian group, possibly the pantotheres. One group of these symbiotes established itself in the mammalian respiratory tract and originated the metastrongylid line.

3. The family Trichostrongylidae is regarded as of common origin with the family Ancylostomatidae from eustomatous ancestors. Thus meiostomy in the metastrongylids and trichostrongylids is convergent.

4. The Metastrongylidae consist of three main lines, each characteristic of a placentate order: the Filaroidinae in the Carnivora, the Pseudaliinae in the Cetacea, and the Protostrongylinae in the Artiodactyla. These lines probably have evolved from a common ancestor, symbiotic with a host at the base of the carnivore-cetacean-ariodactyl radiation. Certain forms have become secondarily adapted to symbiosis with members of other placentate orders.

5. Morphological and biological evidence is given for each of the foregoing phylogenetic conclusions.

6. Metastrongylus Molin, 1861, is regarded as a relict genus. With it, in a subfamily Metastrongy-linae, is placed the genus Heterostrongylus Travassos, 1925.

7. Heterostrongylus is represented by a single known species, H. heterostrongylus Travassos, 1925, from an opossum (order Marsupialia). Morphologically it is primitive with cloacinin-like cephalic features. In view of the phylogenetic status of its host it may well represent an ancestral type that has evolved along with the Marsupialia from a common ancestry with the other metastrongylids, probably in the panthotheres. As yet unknown lungworms of marsupials may shed light on this interesting point.

8. Diagnoses are given for the family Metastrongylidae and its subfamilies; the twenty-two component genera are listed under the latter. New synonymies are made: Neometastrongylus Kreis, 1944, a synonym of Neostrongylus Gebauer, 1932; Neometastrongylus buechii Kreis, 1944, of Neostrongylus linearis (Marotel, 1913) Gebauer, 1932; and Otophocaenurus Skriabin, 1942, of Pharurus Leuckart, 1848. Otophocaenurus oserskoi Skriabin, 1942, becomes Pharurus oserskaiaae (Skriabin, 1942, n.emend.) n.comb.; Metathelazia massino becomes M. massinoi (Davtian in Skriabin, 1933, n.emend.) Dougherty, 1943.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 39 , Issue 3-4 , February 1949 , pp. 222 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1949

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

Baird, W. (1853). Catalogue of the Species of Entozoa, or Intestinal Worms, contained in the Collection of the British Museum. London.Google Scholar
Baylis, H. A. (1936). Nematoda. Vol. 1 (Ascaroidea and Strongyloidea). In Fauna of British India. London.Google Scholar
Baylis, H. A. & Daubney, R. (1925). Parasitology, 17, 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baylis, H. A. & Daubney, R. (1926). A Synopsis of the Families and Genera of Nematoda. London.Google Scholar
Boev, S. N. & Vol'f, Z. V.* (1938). Trudy Vses. Inst. Gel'mintol. 3, 144.Google Scholar
Böhm, L. K. & Gebauer, O. (1934). Zool. Anz. 105, 287.Google Scholar
Chitwood, B. G. (1937). Raboty po Gel'mintologii… Skriabina…, 69, addenda, 795.Google Scholar
Chitwood, B. G. & Chitwood, M. B. (1937). An Introduction to Nematology, sect. I, pt. I. Baltimore.Google Scholar
Chitwood, B. G. & Chitwood, M. B. (1940). ‘The reproductive system’, chap. x of An Introduction to Nematology, sect. i, pt. iii.Google Scholar
Cram, E. B. (1927). Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. No. 140.Google Scholar
Diesing, K. M. (1851). Systema Helminthum, Vol. 2, Vindobonae.Google Scholar
Dougherty, E. C. (1943 a). Proc. Helminth. Soc. Wash. 10, 16.Google Scholar
Dougherty, E. C. (1943 b). Proc. Helminth. Soc. Wash. 10, 69.Google Scholar
Dougherty, E. C. (1943 c). Proc. Helminth. Soc. Wash. 10, 74.Google Scholar
Dougherty, E. C. (1944 a). Proc. Helminth. Soc. Wash. 11, 66.Google Scholar
Dougherty, E. C. (1944 b). Parasitology, 36, 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, E. C. (1945 a). Parasitology, 36, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, E. C. (1945 b). Proc. Helminth. Soc. Wash. 12, 44.Google Scholar
Dougherty, E. C. (1946 a). Proc. Helminth. Soc. Wash. 13, 16.Google Scholar
Dougherty, E. C. (1946 b). J. Parasit. 32, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, E. C. & Goble, F. C. (1946). J. Parasit. 32, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, E. C. & Herman, C. M. (1947). Proc. Helminth. Soc. Wash. 14, 77.Google Scholar
Dujardin, F. (1844). Histoire Naturelle des Helminthes ou Vers Intestinaux. [1845.] Paris.Google Scholar
Gebauer, O. (1932). Z. Parasitenk. 4, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goble, F. C. & Cook, A. H. (1942). J. Parasit. 28, 451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goble, F. C. & Dougherty, E. C. (1943). J. Parasit. 29, 297.Google Scholar
Hobmaier, A. & Hobmaier, M. (1934). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol., N.Y., 31, 509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamenskiiˇ, S. N. (1905). Sborn. Trud. Khar'kov. Vet. Inst. 7, 17.Google Scholar
Kreis, H. A. (1944). Rev. Suisse Zool. 41, 227.Google Scholar
Lane, C. (1917). Indian J. Med. Res. 4, 414.Google Scholar
Leiper, R. T. (1909). Rep. Wellcome Trop. Res. Lab. (1908), 3, 187.Google Scholar
Pearse, A. S. (1942). Introduction to Parasitology. Springfield-Baltimore.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Railliet, A. (1885). Éléments de Zoologie Médicale et Agricole. [Fasc. 1], Paris.Google Scholar
Railliet, A. (1916). Rec. Méd. Vét. 92, 517.Google Scholar
Railliet, A. & Henry, A. (1909). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 66, 85.Google Scholar
Railliet, A. & Henry, A. (1912). Arch. Parasit. 14, 562.Google Scholar
Romer, A. S. (1945). Vertebrate Paleontology. Chicago.Google Scholar
Shul'ts, R. E. S., Orlov, I. V. & Kutas, A. IA. [i.e. Schulz, R.-E. S., Orlow, I. W. & Kutass, A. J.] (1933). Zool. Anz. 102, 303.Google Scholar
Skriabin, K. I. (i.e. Skriabine, K. I.) (1933 a). Bull. Soc. Zool. Fr. 58, 87.Google Scholar
Skriabin, K. I. (i.e. Skrjabin, K. I.) (1933 b). Ann. Parasit. Hum. Comp. 11, 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skriabin, K. I. (1941). Zool. Zh. 20, 327.Google Scholar
Skriabin, K. I. (1942). C.R. Acad. Sci. U.R.S.S. 37, 35. [Translation of Russian paper in Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR. 37.]Google Scholar
Skriabin, K. I. (1946). Stroitel'stvo Sovetskoiˇ Gel'mintologii. Moscow-Leningrad.Google Scholar
Stilés, C. W. (1903). Bull. U.S. Hyg. Lab. (U.S. Treas. Dept.) No. 10.Google Scholar
Travassos, L. (1925). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 93, 1259.Google Scholar
Travassos, L. (1937). Monograph. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz, 1.Google Scholar
Weidman, F. D. (1923). Sect. xvii of Fox, H. Disease in Captive Mammals and Birds. Incidence, Description, Comparison. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Yorke, W. & Maplestone, P. A. (1926). The Nematode Parasites of Vertebrates. Philadelphia.Google Scholar