Systematic Parasitology

, Volume 83, Issue 2, pp 145–158 | Cite as

A new species of Asthenocotyle Robinson, 1961 (Monogenea: Microbothriidae), a skin parasite of the great lanternshark Etmopterus princeps Collett from the Azores, with a redescription of A. kaikourensis Robinson, 1961 and observations on A. taranakiensis Beverley-Burton, Klassen & Lester, 1987

  • Graham C. Kearn
  • Ian D. Whittington
  • Paul Thomas


Asthenocotyle azorensis n. sp. (Monogenea: Microbothriidae) is described from the dermal denticles of the great lanternshark Etmopterus princeps Collett off the Azores. The type-species of the genus, A. kaikourensis Robinson, 1961, is redescribed and additional observations are made on A. taranakiensis Beverley-Burton, Klassen & Lester, 1987. The generic diagnosis is revised. The new species is distinguished from its two congeners by the large size of the pharynx and fewer testes. The ejaculatory bulb of A. kaikourensis is much larger than those of A. taranakiensis and A. azorensis and is supplied with many ducts from an extensive field of male accessory gland-cells located outside the genital pouch and extending posteriorly to the region of the germarium and external seminal vesicle. Asthenocotyle taranakiensis is distinguished from the other two species by its copulatory sclerite, which forms a double loop, although this may not be the case when the copulatory organ is extended. The bodies of A. azorensis and A. kaikourensis are similar in shape, with the maximum width approximately 37% and 25%, respectively, of the total length from the anterior end. In addition to the relatively small size of the genital pouch and ejaculatory bulb in A. azorensis and A. taranakiensis, the vaginal opening is adjacent to the common genital opening. In A. kaikourensis, the vaginal opening is distant from and posterior to the common genital opening. The functional morphology of the copulatory organ of A. azorensis is considered. The relative importance, for the taxonomy of microbothriids, of the number of testes versus the anatomy of the copulatory complex is discussed.


  1. Beverley-Burton, M., Klassen, G. J., & Lester, R. J. G. (1987). Generic diagnosis of Asthenocotyle Robinson, 1961 (Monogenea: Microbothriidae) and description of Asthenocotyle taranakiensis new species from Oxynotus bruniensis (Oxynotidae) taken in New Zealand waters. International Journal for Parasitology, 17, 965–969.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cheung, P. J., & Nigrelli, R. F. (1983). Dermophthirioides pristidis n. gen., n. sp. (Microbothriidae) from the skin and Neoheterocotyle ruggierii n. sp. (Monocotylidae) from the gills of the smalltooth sawfish, Pristis pectinata. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, 102, 366–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Euzet, L., & Maillard, C. (1967). Parasites de poisons de mer ouest-africains, récoltés par J. Cadenat. VI. Monogènes de Sélaciens. Bulletin de l’Institut Fondamental d’Afrique Noire, 29, 1436–1493.Google Scholar
  4. Froese, R., & Pauly, D. Editors. (2011). FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication., version (10/2011).
  5. Glennon, V., Chisholm, L. A., & Whittington, I. D. (2006). Pseudoleptobothrium aptychotremae Young, 1967 (Monogenea, Microbothriidae) redescribed from a new host, Trygonorrhina fasciata (Rhinobatidae) in South Australia with a description of the larva and post-larval development. Acta Parasitologica, 51, 40–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hendrix, S. S. (1994). Marine flora and fauna of the eastern United States. Platyhelminthes: Monogenea. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Technical Report National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), No. 121, 106 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Jones, E. I. (1933). Studies on the Monogenea (Trematoda) of Plymouth. 1. Microbothrium caniculae (Johnstone 1911). Parasitology, 25, 329–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kearn, G. C. (1965). The biology of Leptocotyle minor, a skin parasite of the dogfish, Scyliorhinus canicula. Parasitology, 55, 473–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kearn, G. C. (1979). Studies on gut pigment in skin-parasitic monogeneans, with special reference to the monocotylid Dendromonocotyle kuhlii. International Journal for Parasitology, 9, 545–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kearn, G. C., Whittington, I. D., & Evans-Gowing, R. (2010). A new genus and new species of microbothriid monogenean (Platyhelminthes) with a functionally enigmatic reproductive system, parasitic on the skin and mouth lining of the largetooth sawfish, Pristis microdon, in Australia. Acta Parasitologica, 55, 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kearn, G. C., Whittington, I. D., & Evans-Gowing, R. (2011). Spermatophores in Dermopristis cairae Whittington & Kearn, 2011 (Monogenea, Microbothriidae). Acta Parasitologica, 56, 371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. MacCallum, G. A. (1926). Deux nouveaux trématodes parasites de Carcharhinus commersonii: Philura orata et Dermophthirius carcharhini. Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparée, 4, 162–171.Google Scholar
  13. Perkins, E. (2010). Family ties: molecular phylogenetics, evolution and radiation of flatworm parasites (Monogenea: Capsalidae). Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Earth & Environmental Sciences, The University of Adelaide, 198 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Perkins, E. M., Donnellan, S. C., Bertozzi, T., Chisholm, L. A., & Whittington, I. D. (2009). Looks can deceive: molecular phylogeny of a family of flatworm ectoparasites (Monogenea: Capsalidae) does not reflect current morphological classification. Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution, 52, 705–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Price, E. W. (1963). A new genus and species of monogenetic trematode from a shark, with a review of the family Microbothriidae Price, 1936. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington, 30, 213–218.Google Scholar
  16. Robinson, E. S. (1961). Some monogenetic trematodes from marine fishes of the Pacific. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, 80, 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sproston, N. G. (1946). A synopsis of the monogenetic trematodes. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, 25, 185–600.Google Scholar
  18. Whittington, I. D., & Kearn, G. C. (2011). A new species of Dermopristis Kearn, Whittington & Evans-Gowing, 2010 (Monogenea: Microbothriidae), with observations on associations between the gut diverticula and reproductive system and on the presence of denticles in the nasal fossae of the host Glaucostegus typus (Bennett) (Elasmobranchii: Rhinobatidae). Systematic Parasitology, 80, 41–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Yamaguti, S. (1963). Systema helminthum. Vol. IV. Monogenea and Aspidocotylea. New York: Interscience Division, John Wiley & Sons, 699 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graham C. Kearn
    • 1
  • Ian D. Whittington
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Paul Thomas
    • 5
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  2. 2.Monogenean Research Laboratory, Parasitology SectionThe South Australian MuseumAdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.Marine Parasitology Laboratory, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences (DX 650 418)The University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  4. 4.Australian Centre for Evolutionary Biology and BiodiversityThe University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  5. 5.The Henry Wellcome Laboratory for Cell Imaging, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations