Systematic Parasitology

, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp 159–187 | Cite as

Taxonomic revision and phylogenetic analysis of the cestode genus Paraprogynotaenia Rysavy, 1966 (Cyclophyllidea: Progynotaeniidae)

Article
  • 84 Downloads

Abstract

The type-series of Paraprogynotaenia jimenezi Rysavy, 1966 [type-species of Paraprogynotaenia Rysavy, 1966] from Charadrius wilsonia Ord in Cuba and P. charadrii (Yamaguti, 1956) (= Proterogynotaenia charadrii Yamaguti, 1956) from C. alexandrinus L. in Japan are redescribed. Two new species are described: Paraprogynotaenia minuta n. sp. from C. alexandrinus on the Black Sea coast of Bulgaria [type-host and type-locality, based on specimens previously reported as P. charadrii], from the same host species in Tunisia and from “Tringa totanus” (the host identification is uncertain) in France [the latter two samples were previously reported as Progynotaenia odhneri Nybelin, 1916]; and Paraprogynotaenia canarisi n. sp. from C. marginatus Vieillot in the Republic of South Africa [type-host and type-locality] and from C. alexandrinus and Pluvialis dominica (Müller) in Taiwan [specimens from both localities were previously reported as Paraprogynotaenia charadrii]. P. jimenezi can be distinguished from its congeners by having 12 hooks of equal length. Among the remaining species with 18–22 hooks of varying length, P. minuta n. sp. can be distinguished by the smaller number of proglottides: up to 8 vs 15–20 for P. charadrii and P. canarisi n. sp. The latter two species can be differentiated from one another by the blade length/total length ratio of the smallest (lateral) rostellar hooks, which is less than 0.5 for P. canarisi n. sp. and 0.5 or more for P. charadrii. An identification key to the species of Paraprogynotaenia is provided and the generic diagnosis is amended. A phylogenetic analysis based on 17 morphological characters resulted in the following hypothesis for the relationships within the genus: (P. jimenezi (P. minuta (P. charadrii, P. canarisi))).

References

  1. Cramp, S., & Simmons, K. E. L. (Eds.). (1983). The birds of the Western Palearctic (Vol. III 931 pp). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Georgiev, B. B., & Vaucher, C. (2001). Revision of the genus Parvirostrum Fuhrmann, 1899 (Cestoda, Cyclophyllidea, Paruterinidae). Systematic Parasitology, 50, 13–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Howard, R., & Moore, A. (1980). A complete checklist of the birds of the world (701 pp). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Jensen, L. A., Schmidt, G. D., & Kuntz, R. E. (1983). A survey of cestodes from Borneo, Palawan and Taiwan, with special reference to three new species. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington, 50, 117–134.Google Scholar
  5. Joyeux, Ch., & Baer, J.-G. (1939). Sur quelques cestodes des Charadriiformes. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France, 64, 171–186.Google Scholar
  6. Khalil, L. F. (1994). Family Progynotaeniidae Fuhrmann, 1936. In L. F. Khalil, A. Jones & R. A. Bray (Eds.), Keys to the cestode parasites of vertebrates (pp. 381–385). Wallingford: CAB International.Google Scholar
  7. Nikolov, P. N., & Georgiev, B. B. (2002). The morphology and new records of two progynotaeniid cestode species. Acta Parasitologica, 47, 121–130.Google Scholar
  8. Rysavy, B. (1966). Nuevas especies de Céstodos (Cestoda: Cyclophyllidea) de aves para Cuba. Poeyana, Serie A, 19, 22 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Ryzhikov, K. M., & Tolkacheva, L. M. (1981). [Acoleata-tapeworms of birds.] Osnovy Tsestodologii (Vol. 10, 215 pp). Nauka: Moscow, (In Russian).Google Scholar
  10. Schmidt, G. D. (1986). CRC handbook of tapeworm identification (675 pp). Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Schmidt, G. D., & Canaris, A. G. (1992). Tapeworms of the families Progynotaeniidae Fuhrmann, 1936 and Dioecocestidae Southwell, 1930 from shorebirds of South Africa. Systematic Parasitology, 23, 37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schmidt, G. D., Greenberg, Z., & Wertheim, G. (1986). Raillietina (Raillietina) alectori sp. n. and other avian cestodes from Israel and Sinai. Bulletin du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, Sér. 4, Section A, 8, 101–109.Google Scholar
  13. Smyth, J. D., & McManus, D. P. (1989). The physiology and biochemistry of cestodes (398 pp). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Swofford, D. L. (2003). PAUP*. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods). Version 4. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Vasileva, G. P., Gibson, D. I., & Bray, R. A. (2003). Taxonomic revision of Tatria Kowalewski, 1904 (Cestoda: Amabiliidae): redescriptions of T. biremis Kowalewski, 1904 and T. minor Kowalewski, 1904, and the description of T. gulyaevi n. sp. from Palaearctic grebes. Systematic Parasitology, 54, 177–198.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Yamaguti, S. (1956). Studies on the helminth fauna of Japan. Part 50. Cestodes of birds, III (23 pp). Okayama: Published by the author.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Central Laboratory of General EcologyBulgarian Academy of SciencesSofiaBulgaria
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyNatural History MuseumLondonUK

Personalised recommendations