Review of records of hymenolepidids (Eucestoda: Hymenolepididae) from dormice (Rodentia: Gliridae) in Europe, with a redescription of Armadolepis spasskyi Tenora & Baruš, 1958 and the description of A. genovi n. sp.

  • Arseny A. MakarikovEmail author
  • Boyko B. Georgiev
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Cestoda


Armadolepis (Armadolepis) spasskyi Tenora & Baruš, 1958 is redescribed on the basis of the type-series consisting of the holotype from the garden dormouse Eliomys quercinus (Linnaeus) (type-host) and a paratype from the forest dormouse Dryomys nitedula (Pallas); the occurrence of this species in the fat dormouse Glis glis (Linnaeus) cannot be confirmed due to the lack of specimens from this host species both in the type-series and other studied samples. The main corrections in the diagnostic characters of A. spasskyi are related to the number and length of the rostellar hooks (12 hooks, 12–14 µm long versus 16–19 hooks, 15.3–17.1 µm long in the original description) and the position of the testes in triangle (versus in line as originally described). Specimens originally identified as Hymenolepis myoxi (Rudolphi, 1819) by Genov (1984) from the fat dormouse G. glis from Bulgaria are described as Armadolepis (Bremserilepis) genovi n. sp. The new species differs from the congeners by the presence of a rudimentary rostellum and rudimentary rostellar hooks; the new species differs from the other two species of the subgenus, A. (B.) myoxi and A. (B.) longisoma, by its longer cirrus-sac (196–240 µm), scolex diameter of 180–300 µm (wider than that of A. myoxi and narrower than that of A. longisoma) and wider ovary (220–310 µm). Cestodes previously reported as Hymenolepis myoxi from E. quercinus from Switzerland and France (western and north-western Alps) are now identified as Armadolepis (A.) jeanbaeri Makarikov, 2017. Cestodes from G. glis from Switzerland and Slovakia, previously identified as Hymenolepis sulcata (von Linstow, 1879), are now identified as Armadolepis (B.) myoxi (sensu stricto). The position of Hymenolepis (s.l.) sciurina Cholodkovsky, 1913 as a subspecies of A. myoxi is rejected and it is considered a species inquirenda.



We thank the curators of the helminthological collections Dr Jean Mariaux (Natural History Museum, Geneva, Switzerland) and Dr Tomas Scholz (Institute of Parasitology, Biology Centre, Czech Academy of Sciences, České Budějovice, Czech Republic) for enabling the access to cestode specimens used in the present study.


A substantial part of this work was funded by a research project included in the collaborative programme of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (no. 19-54-18015) and the National Science Fund of Bulgaria (no. KP-06-Russia-06). Further support for AAM was provided by the Federal Fundamental Scientific Research Program for 2013–2020, Grant No. VI.51.1.5 (AAAA-A16-116121410121-7). The scientific visit of AAM to the Natural History Museum, Geneva, Switzerland, was funded by the MHNG.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. Baer, J.-G. (1932). Contribution à la faune helminthologique de Suisse (Deuxième partie). Revue Suisse de Zoologie,39, 1–57.Google Scholar
  2. Dudiňák, V., & Špakulová, M. (2005). A survey of helminth species originally described from Slovakia supplemented by a list of the type material deposited in the East-Slovakian Museum (Výhodoslovenské muzeum) in Košice. Helminthologia,42, 233–245.Google Scholar
  3. Erhardová, B. (1958). Parasiticti cervi hlodavcu Československa. Československá Parasitologie,5, 27–103.Google Scholar
  4. Faivre, J. P., & Vaucher, C. (1978). Redescription de Hymenolepis sulcata (von Linstow, 1879), parasite du loir Glis glis (L.). Bulletin de la Société Neuchâteloise des Sciences Naturelles,101, 53–58.Google Scholar
  5. Genov, T. (1984). [Helminths of insectivores and rodents in Bulgaria.] Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bulgarskata Akademiya na Naukite, 348 pp (In Bulgarian).Google Scholar
  6. Haukisalmi, V., Hardman, L. M., Foronda, P., Feliu, C., Laakkonen, J., Niemimaa, J., et al. (2010). Systematic relationships of hymenolepidid cestodes of rodents and shrews inferred from sequences of 28S ribosomal RNA. Zoologica Scripta,39, 631–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Holden, M. E. (2005). Family Gliridae. In: D. E. Wilson & D. M. Reeder (Eds.) Mammal species of the world: A taxonomic and geographic reference (3rd ed.). Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 840–841.Google Scholar
  8. ICZN (2012). International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: Amendment of articles 8, 9, 10, 21 and 78 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature to expand and refine methods of publication. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature,69, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Joyeux, C., & Baer, J.-G. (1936). Faune de France. 30. Cestodes. Paris: P. Lechevalier, 613 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Makarikov, A. A. (2017). A taxonomic review of hymenolepidids (Eucestoda, Hymenolepididae) from dormice (Rodentia, Gliridae), with descriptions of two new species. Acta Parasitologica,62, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Makarikov, A. A., Gulyaev, V. D., & Kontrimavichus, V. L. (2011). A redescription of Arostrilepis horrida (Linstow, 1901) and descriptions of two new species from Palaearctic microtine rodents, Arostrilepis macrocirrosa sp. n. and A. tenuicirrosa sp. n. (Cestoda: Hymenolepididae). Folia Parasitologica,58, 108–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Makarikov, A. A., Stakheev, V. V., & Tkach, V. V. (2018). Phylogenetic relationships of the genus Armadolepis Spassky, 1954 (Eucestoda, Hymenolepididae), with descriptions of two new species from Palaearctic dormice (Rodentia, Gliridae). Systematic Parasitology,95, 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Murai, E., & Tenora, F. (1977). Hymenolepis sulcata (von Linstow, 1879): Occurrence in Glis glis (Rodentia) in Hungary. Parasitologia Hungarica,10, 63–66.Google Scholar
  14. Neov, B., Vasileva, G. P., Radoslavov, G., Hristov, P., Littlewood, D. T. J., & Georgiev, B. B. (2019). Phylogeny of hymenolepidid cestodes (Cestoda: Cyclophyllidea) from mammalian hosts based on partial 28S rDNA, with focus on parasites from shrews. Parasitology Research,118, 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Spassky, A. A. (1954). Classification of hymenolepidids of mammals. Trudy Gelʼmintologcheskoy Laboratorii Akademii Nauk SSSR, 7, 120–167. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  16. Tenora, F. (1965). Supplementary notes on hymenolepidid tapeworms parasitizing glirid dormice in south Slovakian limestone area Czechoslovakia. Československá Parasitologie,12, 299–303.Google Scholar
  17. Tenora, F. (1967). The helminthofauna of small rodents of the Roháčska dolina valley (Liptovské Hole Mts., Slovakia). Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Academiae Scientiarum Bohemicae, Brno,1, 29–68.Google Scholar
  18. Tenora, F., & Baruš, V. (1958). Armadolepis spasskyi sp. n., eine neue Bandwurmart aus Nagern der Fam. Myoxidae. Folia Zoologica, 7, 339–342.Google Scholar
  19. Tenora, F., Baruš, V., & Koubková, B. (1999). Remarks on tapeworms of the family Hymenolepididae (Cyclophyllidea) parasitizing dormice (Gliridae: Rodentia) in Europe. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis,47, 13–23.Google Scholar
  20. Vaucher, C., & Quentin, J. C. (1975). Présence du cysticercoïde de Hymenolepis myoxi (Rud., 1819) chez la Puce du lérot et redescription du ver adulte. Bulletin de la Société Neuchâteloise des Sciences Naturelles,98, 27–34.Google Scholar
  21. Žarnowski, E. (1955). Parasitic worms of forest micromammalians (Rodentia and Insectivora) of the environment of Pulawy (district Lublin). I. Cestoda. Acta Parasitologica Polonica, 3, 279–368. (In Polish).Google Scholar
  22. Zhaltsanova, D.-S. D. (1992). [Helminths of mammals in the basin of Lake Baikal.] Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Nauka, 204 pp (In Russian).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals, Siberian BranchRussian Academy of SciencesNovosibirskRussia
  2. 2.Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem ResearchBulgarian Academy of SciencesSofiaBulgaria

Personalised recommendations