Locomotion and attachment to the host ofMyxinidocotyle andAcanthocotyle (Monogenea, Acanthocotylidae)
- 55 Downloads
The locomotion and attachment of members of the generaMyxinidocotyle andAcanthocotyle (Monogenea, Acanthocotylidae) were studied and marks left by the posterior attachment organ on the hagfish and the rajid host skin were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The muscle-fibre arrangement in three types of pseudohaptors is described. The pseudohaptor was found to have a suction function. Anatomical data and attachment marks indicate that the hooks of the haptor have a strong attachment capacity. We conclude that in larval stages as well as in adults, the haptor is the most important posterior locomotory organ, whereas the fully developed pseudohaptor is used for stationary attachment. The deep marks caused by both unarmed (Myxinidocotyle) and sclerite-armed (Acanthocotyle) pseudohaptoral ridges appeared to be harmless imprints, whereas the 16 haptoral hooks caused small wounds that may provide potential openings for secondary infections of the host skin.
KeywordsElectron Microscopy Scanning Electron Microscopy Larval Stage Secondary Infection Potential Opening
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Cone DK, Odense PH (1984) Pathology of five species ofGyrodactylus Nordmann. 1832 (Monogenea). Can J Zool 62:1084–1088Google Scholar
- Kearn GC (1967) The life-cycles and larval development of some acanthocotylids (Monogenea) from Plymouth rays. Parasitology 57:157–167Google Scholar
- Lester RJG (1972) Attachment ofGyrodactylus toGasterosteus and host response. J Parasitol 58:717–722Google Scholar
- Malmberg G, Fernholm B (1989)Myxinidocotyle gen.n. andLophocotyle Braun (Platyhelminthes, Monogenea. Acanthocotylidae) with descriptions of three new species from hagfishes (Chordata, Myxinidae) Zool Ser 18:187–204Google Scholar
- Price EW (1938) North American monogenetic trematodes: II. The families Monocotylidae, Microbothriidae, Acanthocotylidae and Udonellidae (Capsaloidea) J Wash Acad Sci 28:183–198Google Scholar