4.3 Article

Three new species of Anthobothrium van Beneden, 1850 (Cestoda: Tetraphyllidea) from the grey sharpnose shark Rhizoprionodonoligolinx Springer, 1964 (Carcharhinidae) in the Persian Gulf

期刊

PARASITOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 121, 期 1, 页码 143-154

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00436-021-07397-0

关键词

Tapeworm; Helminthology; Systematics; Elasmobranchs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three new species of Anthobothrium van Beneden, 1850 were described based on 22 specimens of Rhizoprionodon oligolinx Springer from the Persian Gulf. These three new species are the only tetraphyllidean species reported to date from the southern waters of Iran.
The sampling of 22 specimens of Rhizoprionodon oligolinx Springer from the Persian Gulf made possible the description of three new species of Anthobothrium van Beneden, 1850. Anthobothrium parimae sp. nov. is different from its congeners, except for A. altavelae Neifar, Euzet and Ben Hassine, 2002, A. lyndoni Ruhnke and Caira, 2009, and A. lesteri Williams, Burt and Caira, 2004, in the total length. It differs from A. altavelae in the number of the proglottids; from A. lyndoni in the length of the mature proglottids; and from A. lesteri Williams, Burt and Caira, 2004 in possessing one hemicircular band, rather than two circular bands, of musculature in its bothridia. The other two new species, being the smallest in size within the genus, most closely resemble each other but differ in the position of the genital pore in the proglottid, the number of post-vaginal testes, the number of the ventral and dorsal columns of vitelline follicles in each lateral band, and the distribution of the gladiate spinitriches on the strobila. These three new species are the only tetraphyllidean species reported to date from the southern waters of Iran. In addition, for the first time, more than two congeners belonging to Anthobothrium are reported from the same host species sympatrically and simultaneously. The morphological variation within this genus is also discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据