Variation in the number of oral spines of Phagicola longicollis Kuntz and Chandler, 1956, and the description of P. inglei n. sp. (Trematoda: Heterophyidae).

R. Hutton,F. Sogandares-Bernal
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3274548
1958-12-01
Journal of Parasitology
Abstract:During the course of investigations on a species of Phagicola from Mugil cephalus L., the Striped Mullet, and M. curema Cuvier & Valenciennes, the White Mullet, we have had the opportunity to examine numerous specimens of Phagicola longicollis. Through the courtesy of Allen McIntosh, Parasitologist, Animal Disease and Parasite Research Branch, U. S. Department of Agriculture, the type slide, U. S. National Museum Helminthological Collection No. 38169, was obtained. This slide contains a number of specimens of P. longicollis (Fig. 1), two P. ascolonga (Witenberg, 1929) Price, 1932, and several Heterophyes heterophyes (Siebold, 1852) Stiles & Hassall, 1900. Phagicola longicollis can be readily separated from the 2 specimens of P. ascolonga by the fact that in the former the uterus never extends posteriorly beyond the testes while in the latter the uterus always extends beyond the testes. Other differences include shape of body, structure of gonotyl, and posterior extent of the oral appendage. We observed, on the type slide, some specimens (syntypes) of P. longicollis with 14, others with 15, and three with 16 oral spines in a single row. Some damaged specimens had less than 14 oral spines. The original description of this species by Kuntz and Chandler (1956) states: ". . . Mouth surrounded by single circle of 14, sometimes 15, spines, . . ." The late Dr. A. C. Chandler, in a personal communication (1957), stated: "... I counted the oral spines on several dozen specimens of Phagicola longicollis and found 14 in most, 15 in some, and thought I counted 16 in a few, but decided I had made an error. However, it is quite possible that there is a variation from 14 to 16 in this species, so some of the specimens on which you found 16 spines may belong to this species...." Dr. Chandler kindly sent us most of his specimens of P. longicollis and P. ascolonga for examination. Included in this material were specimens of a species of Phagicola that were obviously not P. ascolonga. Except for 1 specimen (Fig. 3) having a coronet of 17 oral spines in a single row and others having 16 oral spines they conform with the original description of P. longicollis. We feel, therefore, from the observations stated above, the description of P. longicollis should be expanded to include a variation of from 14 to 17 oral spines. Stunkard and Uzmann (1955) discuss the Ascocotyle-Phagicola complex. They conclude, "Decision on the taxonomic status of Phagicola should await more complete information, especially on the developmental stages of its members." Additional information may show that Phagicola is not a valid genus. However, it has
What problem does this paper attempt to address?