Advertisement

Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 233–246 | Cite as

Relationship of pathology to scolex morphology among Caryophyllid cestodes

  • John S. Mackiewicz
  • Gerald E. Cosgrove
  • William D. Gude
Article

Summary

The comparative pathology as related to modes of attachment and scolex morphology of the following 15 species of caryophyllid cestodes was studied: Caryophyllaeus laticeps, Monobothrium ingens, M. hunteri, M. ulmeri, Glaridacris catostomi, G. confusus, Biacetabulum infrequens, B. biloculoides, B. carpiodi, Hunterella nodulosa, Isoglaridacris folius, Khawia iowensis, Atractolytocestus huronensis, Capingens singularis and Spartoides wardi. Species with specialized holdfasts having loculi, bothria, or acetabula elicit little or no pathology; on the other hand, those with a terminal introvert, weakly developed loculi, or lacking specialized structures elicit pronounced host reactions in the form of nodules or shallow ulcers. Species with similar types of scolexes appear to attach in similar ways. An interface layer, apparently mucoid in nature as shown by histochemical tests, is often present between host and parasite of some species. Distribution in the intestine, multiple infections, and niche width as related to scolex morphology are discussed. Photomicrographs of species in situ, of pathology, and drawings of scolex types supplement the observations.

Keywords

Specialized Structure Interface Layer Similar Type Niche Width Multiple Infection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amlacher, E.: Taschenbuch der Fischkrankheiten. Jena: Gustav Fischer 1961.Google Scholar
  2. Amin, O. M.: Helminth fauna of suckers (Catostomidae) of the Gila River System, Arizona II. Five parasites from Catostomus spp. Amer. Midland Naturalist 82, 429–443 (1969).Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, O. N.: The ecology of parasites of freshwater fish. In: Parasites of freshwater fish and the biological basis for their control Bull. State Scil. Res. Inst. Lake and River Fish. 49, 3–215 (1959). Jerusalem: Israel Program for Scientific Translations 1962.Google Scholar
  4. Bauer, O. N., Musselius, V. A., Strelkov, Yu. A.: Diseases of pond fishes. Moscow: Kolos 1969 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  5. Bovien, P.: Caryophyllaeidae from Java. Vidensk. Medd. fra Dansk. Naturh. foren. 82, 157–181 (1926).Google Scholar
  6. Calentine, R.: Archigetes iowensis sp. n. (Cestoda: Caryophyllaeidae) from Cyprinus carpio L. and Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri Claparède. J. Parasit. 48, 513–525 (1962).Google Scholar
  7. Calentine, R., Ulmer, M.: Khawia iowensis n. sp. (Cestoda: Caryophyllaeidae) from Cyprinus carpio L. in Iowa. J. Parasit. 47, 795–805 (1961).Google Scholar
  8. Hunter III, G. W.: Studies on the Caryophyllaeidae of North America. Ill. Biol. Monog. 11, 186 pp., 1927 (1930).Google Scholar
  9. Janiszewska, J.: Caryophyllaeidae europejeskie ze szczególnym uwzglednieniem Polski. Trav. Soc. Sci. et des Lettres de Wrocław, Ser. B. No 66 (1954).Google Scholar
  10. Kanaev, A. I.: Caryophylliasis in carp and methods of controlling it. Autoreferat, Mosrybvtuz, p. 137–149, 1956 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  11. Kennedy, C. R.: The effect of temperature upon the establishment and survival of the cestode Caryophyllaeus laticeps in orfe, Leuciscus idus. Parasitology 63, 59–66 (1971).Google Scholar
  12. Kennedy, C. R., Walker, P. J.: Evidence for an immune response by dace, Leuciscus leuciscus, to infections by the cestode Caryophyllaeus laticeps. J. Parasit. 55, 579–582 (1969).Google Scholar
  13. Lawrence, J. L.: Host-parasite relationships in Catostomus commersoni, with emphysis on the caryophyllaeid tapeworms. Diss. Abstr. 29, 4895-B (1969).Google Scholar
  14. Liu, Si-Kwang, Edward, G.: Gastric ulcers associated with Contracaecum spp. (Nematoda: Ascaroidea) in a Steller sea lion and a white pelican. J. Wildl. Dis. 7, 266–271 (1971).Google Scholar
  15. Mackiewicz, J. S.: Monobothrium hunteri sp. n. (Cestoidea: Caryophyllaeidae) from Catostomus commersoni (Lacépède) (Pisces: Catostomidae) in North America. J. Parasit. 49, 723–730 (1963).Google Scholar
  16. Mackiewicz, J. S.: Redescription and distribution of Glaridacris catostomi Cooper, 1920 (Cestoidea: Caryophyllaeidae). J. Parasit. 51, 554–560 (1965).Google Scholar
  17. Mackiewicz, J. S.: Two new caryophyllaeid cestodes from the spotted sucker, Minytrema melanops (Raf.) (Catostomidae). J. Parasit. 54, 808–813 (1968).Google Scholar
  18. Mackiewicz, J. S., McCrae, R.: Hunterella nodulosa gen. n., sp. n. (Cestoidea: Caryophyllaeidae) from Catostomus commersoni (Lacépède) (Pisces: Catostomidae). J. Parasit. 48, 798–806 (1962).Google Scholar
  19. Mackiewicz, J. S., McCrae, R.: Biacetabulum biloculoides n. sp. (Cestoidea: Caryophyllaeidae) from Catostomus commersoni (Lacépède) in North America. Proc. helminth. Soc. Wash. 32, 225–228 (1965).Google Scholar
  20. Mrázek, A.: Über die Larve von Caryophyllaeus mutabilis Rud. Cbl. Bakt. Parasitenk. u. Infectionskr. 29, 485–491 (1901).Google Scholar
  21. Murhar, B. M.: Crescentovitus biloculus gen. nov., sp. nov., a fish cestode (Caryophyllaeidae) from Nagpur, India. Parasitology 53, 413–418 (1963).Google Scholar
  22. Musselius, V., Ivanova, N., Laptev, V., Apazidi, L.: Concerning cloveworms in carp. Ribovodstuo i Ribovodstuo, p. 25–27 (1963) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  23. Schäperclaus, W.: Fischkrankheiten, 3rd edition. Berlin: Akademie Verlag 1954.Google Scholar
  24. Shcherban, M. P.: Cestode infections of carp. Kiev: Izdatelstvo “Urozhai” 1965 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  25. Stirewalt, M. A.: Chemical biology of secretions of larval helminths. In: H. Whipple ed., Some biochemical and immunological aspects of host-parasite relationships. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 113, art. 1, 36–53 (1963).Google Scholar
  26. Szidat, L.: Über einige neue Caryophyllaeiden aus ostpreussischen Fischen. Z. Parasitenk. 9, 771–786 (1937).Google Scholar
  27. Will, H.: Anatomie von Caryophyllaeus mutabilis Rd. Z. wiss. Zool. 56, 1–39 (1893).Google Scholar
  28. Williams, H. H.: Helminth diseases of fish. Helminth. Abstr. 36, 261–295 (1967).Google Scholar
  29. Wisńiewski, L. W.: Das genus Archigetes R. Leuck. Eine Studie zur Anatomie, Histogenese, Systematik und Biologie. Mem. Acad. polan. Sci. et Lettres, Cl. Sci. Math. Nat., Ser. B2, 1–68 (1930).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • John S. Mackiewicz
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gerald E. Cosgrove
    • 3
  • William D. Gude
    • 3
  1. 1.State University of New York at AlbanyAlbany
  2. 2.University of TennesseeKnoxville
  3. 3.Biology DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak Ridge

Personalised recommendations