scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Classification of the acanthocephala.

01 Sep 2013-Folia Parasitologica (Institute of Parasitology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic)-Vol. 60, Iss: 4, pp 273-305
TL;DR: An updated version of the 1985 scheme incorporating new concepts in molecular taxonomy, gene sequencing and phylogenetic studies is presented, which became the standard for the taxonomy of this group and remains so to date.
Abstract: In 1985, Amin presented a new system for the classification of the Acanthocephala in Crompton and Nickol's (1985) book 'Biology of the Acanthocephala' and recognized the concepts of Meyer (1931, 1932, 1933) and Van Cleave (1936, 1941, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1951, 1952). This system became the standard for the taxonomy of this group and remains so to date. Many changes have taken place and many new genera and species, as well as higher taxa, have been described since. An updated version of the 1985 scheme incorporating new concepts in molecular taxonomy, gene sequencing and phylogenetic studies is presented. The hierarchy has undergone a total face lift with Amin's (1987) addition of a new class, Polyacanthocephala (and a new order and family) to remove inconsistencies in the class Palaeacanthocephala. Amin and Ha (2008) added a third order (and a new family) to the Palaeacanthocephala, Heteramorphida, which combines features from the palaeacanthocephalan families Polymorphidae and Heteracanthocephalidae. Other families and subfamilies have been added but some have been eliminated, e.g. the three subfamilies of Arythmacanthidae: Arhythmacanthinae Yamaguti, 1935; Neoacanthocephaloidinae Golvan, 1960; and Paracanthocephaloidinae Golvan, 1969. Amin (1985) listed 22 families, 122 genera and 903 species (4, 4 and 14 families; 13, 28 and 81 genera; 167, 167 and 569 species in Archiacanthocephala, Eoacanthocephala and Palaeacanthocephala, respectively). The number of taxa listed in the present treatment is 26 families (18% increase), 157 genera (29%), and 1298 species (44%) (4, 4 and 16; 18, 29 and 106; 189, 255 and 845, in the same order), which also includes 1 family, 1 genus and 4 species in the class Polyacanthocephala Amin, 1987, and 3 genera and 5 species in the fossil family Zhijinitidae.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
15 Jun 2016-Zootaxa
TL;DR: This work includes all published records, to April 2015, of the helminths occurring in Australasian monotremes and marsupials, with due regard for synonymy and an attempt to include life history studies, pathological observations and epidemiology.
Abstract: This work includes all published records, to April 2015, of the helminths occurring in Australasian monotremes and marsupials, with due regard for synonymy and an attempt to include life history studies, pathological observations and epidemiology. It also contains all unpublished records known to us and referrable, by accession numbers, to curated collections in Australia and overseas. Information is presented by host family, genus, species, sub-species or chromosome race and includes the names of all host species from which no parasites have been recorded. Most records pertain to free-living and wild animals; where they do not, they have been annotated appropriately. Unpublished information known to the authors has been included in annotations to entries, where appropriate. Parasites are arranged as follows: Trematoda, Cestoda, Nematoda, Acanthocephala, and their systematic position is indicated by abbreviations placed before the name. The authority for each parasite record is given after the author’s name, as a number in parentheses, and this refers to the numbered (1-664) list of references. A parasite-host list is presented alphabetically, irrespective of taxonomic affiliation together with the host species in which they are known to occur. Hosts are arranged initially by family and alphabetically within each family.

50 citations


Additional excerpts

  • ...…(Khalil et al., 1994), the CIH Keys to the Nematode Parasites of Vertebrates (Anderson, 1978; Anderson & Bain, 1976; Chabaud, 1975 a, b; Durette-Desset & Chabaud, 1981;Hartwich, 1974; Lichtenfels, 1980a, b; Petter & Quentin, 1976; Gibbons, 2010) and Amin (1987, 2013) for the Acanthocephala....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The review brings overwhelming evidence on the importance of Canis aureus as a wild reservoir of human and animal parasites as well as the zoonotic potential is the most important aspect of species reported in the golden jackal.
Abstract: The golden jackal (Canis aureus) is a species under significant and fast geographic expansion. Various parasites are known from golden jackals across their geographic range, and certain groups can be spread during their expansion, increasing the risk of cross-infection with other carnivores or even humans. The current list of the golden jackal parasites includes 194 species and was compiled on the basis of an extensive literature search published from historical times until April 2017, and is shown herein in synoptic tables followed by critical comments of the various findings. This large variety of parasites is related to the extensive geographic range, territorial mobility and a very unselective diet. The vast majority of these parasites are shared with domestic dogs or cats. The zoonotic potential is the most important aspect of species reported in the golden jackal, some of them, such as Echinococcus spp., hookworms, Toxocara spp., or Trichinella spp., having a great public health impact. Our review brings overwhelming evidence on the importance of Canis aureus as a wild reservoir of human and animal parasites.

45 citations


Cites background from "Classification of the acanthocephal..."

  • ...[36] for cestodes; De Ley & Blaxter [37] for nematodes; Amin [38] for acanthocephalans; and the database “Catalogue of Life: 2016 Annual Checklist” by Roskov et al....

    [...]

  • ...Taxonomy follows Adl et al. [31] for protists; Gibson et al. [32], Jones et al. [33], and Bray et al. [34] for trematodes; Kahlil et al. [35] and Nakao et al. [36] for cestodes; De Ley & Blaxter [37] for nematodes; Amin [38] for acanthocephalans; and the database “Catalogue of Life: 2016 Annual Checklist” by Roskov et al. [39] for arthropods....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This study uses non-tree-based and tree-based methods through a coalescent approach to explore the species limits of specimens of Neoechinorhynchus collected in 57 localities across Middle America, and identifies 10 additional genetic lineages herein regarded as candidate species.

40 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The review shows that ‘interchange’ is limited and asymmetrical, but simple narratives of northward isthmian dispersal will likely prove inadequate to explain the historical biogeography of many host–parasite associations in tropical Middle America, particularly those involving poeciliids.
Abstract: We examine the extent to which adult helminths of freshwater fishes have been part of the Great American Biotic Interchange (GABI), by integrating information in published studies and new data from Panama with fish biogeography and Earth history of Middle America. The review illustrates the following: (1) the helminth fauna south of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, and especially south of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, shows strong Neotropical affinities; (2) host–parasite associations follow principles of the ‘biogeographic core fauna’ in which host-lineage specificity is pronounced; (3) phylogenetic analysis of the widespread freshwater trematode family Allocreadiidae reveals a complex history of host-shifting and co-diversification involving mainly cyprinodontiforms and characids; (4) allocreadiids, monogeneans and spiruridan nematodes of Middle American cyprinodontiforms may provide clues to the evolutionary history of their hosts; and (5) phylogenetic analyses of cryptogonimid trematodes may reveal whether or how cichlids interacted with marine or brackish-water environments during their colonization history. The review shows that ‘interchange’ is limited and asymmetrical, but simple narratives of northward isthmian dispersal will likely prove inadequate to explain the historical biogeography of many host–parasite associations in tropical Middle America, particularly those involving poeciliids. Finally, our study highlights the urgent need for targeted survey work across Middle America, focused sampling in river drainages of Colombia and Venezuela, and deeper strategic sampling in other parts of South America, in order to develop and test robust hypotheses about fish–parasite associations in Middle America.

39 citations


Additional excerpts

  • ...…(1), Polyacanthorhynchus (2), Pomphorhynchus (5), Paracavisoma (1), Quadrigyrus (3), Rhadinorhynchus (1) and Wolffhugelia (1) (Vizcaíno & Lunaschi, 1987; Thatcher, 1991, 2006; Amin, 2000, 2013; Olmos & Habit, 2007; Santos et al., 2008; Arredondo & Gil de Pertierra, 2010; Melo et al. 2013)....

    [...]

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Terminology for microtriches, the surface features both unique to and ubiquitous among cestodes, is standardised based on discussions that occurred at the International Workshops on Cestode Systematics in Storrs, Connecticut, USA in 2002, in Ceské Budejovice, Czech Republic in 2005 and in Smolenice, Slovakia in 2008.
Abstract: Terminology for microtriches, the surface features both unique to and ubiquitous among cestodes, is standardised based on discussions that occurred at the International Workshops on Cestode Systematics in Storrs, Connecticut, USA in 2002, in Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic in 2005 and in Smolenice, Slovakia in 2008. The following terms were endorsed for the components of individual microtriches: The distal, electron-dense portion is the cap, the proximal more electron-lucent region is the base. These two elements are separated from one another by the baseplate. The base is composed of, among other elements, microfilaments. The cap is composed of cap tubules. The electron-lucent central portion of the base is referred to as the core. The core may be surrounded by an electron-dense tunic. The entire microthrix is bounded by a plasma membrane, the external layer of which is referred to as the glycocalyx. Two distinct sizes of microtriches are recognised: those 200 nm in basal width, termed spinitriches. Filitriches are considered to occur in three lengths: papilliform ( 6 times as long as wide). In instances in which filitriches appear to be doubled at their base, the modifier duplicated is used. Spinitriches are much more variable in form. At present a total of 25 spinithrix shapes are recognised. These consist of 13 in which the width greatly exceeds the thickness (i.e., bifid, bifurcate, cordate, gladiate, hamulate, lanceolate, lineate, lingulate, palmate, pectinate, spathulate, trifid, and trifurcate), and 12 in which width and thickness are approximately equal (i.e., chelate, clavate, columnar, coniform, costate, cyrillionate, hastate, rostrate, scolopate, stellate, trullate, and uncinate). Spiniform microtriches can bear marginal (serrate) and/or dorsoventral (gongylate) elaborations; they can also bear apical features (aristate). The latter two modifiers should be used only if the features are present. The terminology to describe the overall form of a spinithrix should be used in the following order: tip, margins, shape. Each type of microthrix variation is defined and illustrated with one or more scanning electron micrographs. An indication of the taxa in which each of the microthrix forms is found is also provided.

238 citations


"Classification of the acanthocephal..." refers background in this paper

  • ...However, these structures do not appear to be homologous with microtriches of cestodes (see chervy 2009 for details on microtriches in cestodes)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The results indicate that the family level classification of palaeacanthocephalans needs to be reevaluated with respect to comprehensively sampled phylogenetic hypotheses.
Abstract: The Palaeacanthocephala is traditionally represented by 2 orders, Echinorhynchida and Polymorphida, with 10 and 3 families, respectively. To test the monophyly of the class, these 2 orders, and certain families, phylogenies were inferred using nuclear small-subunit (SSU) and large-subunit (LSU) ribosomal DNA sequences obtained for 29 species representing 10 families, 2 other classes of acanthocephalans, and 3 rotifer outgroups. Phylogenetic relationships were inferred by analyzing combined SSU and LSU sequences using maximum parsimony (MP) and maximum likelihood (ML) methods. Parsimony and ML trees inferred from combined analysis of these rDNA data strongly supported monophyly of Palaeacanthocephala and provided good resolution among species. Neither Polymorphida nor Echinorhynchida was monophyletic. Gorgorhynchoides bullocki (Echinorhynchida) was nested within the 6 species representing Polymorphida, and this clade was nested within species representing Echinorhynchida. Three of 4 palaeacanthocephalan families that could be evaluated were not monophyletic, and this finding was strongly supported. These results indicate that the family level classification of palaeacanthocephalans, which is mainly based on combinations of shared characters (not shared derived characters), needs to be reevaluated with respect to comprehensively sampled phylogenetic hypotheses.

170 citations


"Classification of the acanthocephal..." refers methods in this paper

  • ...…1932] clAss pAlAeACAnthOCephAlA Meyer, 1931 (the criteria for the classification of families of Palaeacanthocephala based on morphological characteristics may need to be re-evaluated using gene sequence methods, see, e.g. garcía-Varela and Nadler 2005, to establish phylogenetic relationships....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The hypothesis that the Acanthocephala represent a taxon within the phylum Rotifera and not a separate phylum is supported, which agrees with a previous cladistic study of morphological characters.
Abstract: Rotifers are free-living animals usually smaller than 1 mm that possess a characteristic wheel organ. Acanthocephalans (thorny-headed worms) are larger endoparasitic animals that use vertebrates and arthropods to complete their life cycle. The taxa Acanthocephala and Rotifera are considered separate phyla, often within the taxon Aschelminthes. We have reexamined the relationship between Rotifera and Acanthocephala using 18S rRNA gene sequences. Our results conclusively show that Acanthocephala is the sister group of the rotifer class Bdelloidea. Rotifera was nonmonophyletic in all molecular analyses, which supports the hypothesis that the Acanthocephala represent a taxon within the phylum Rotifera and not a separate phylum. These results agree with a previous cladistic study of morphological characters.

150 citations


"Classification of the acanthocephal..." refers background in this paper

  • ...…et al. (2000), Welch (2000) and Near (2002), among others even suggest that rotifera and Acanthocephala are phylogenetically related sister groups. garey et al. (1996) and others, suggested that the Acanthocephala represent a taxon within phylum rotifera. several workers have since demonstrated…...

    [...]

  • ...…with the rotifera, gastrotricha, Kinorhyncha, Priapuloidea, Nematomorpha and Nematoda under the Aschelminthes. recent molecular studies by garey et al. (1996), garcíaVarela et al. (2000), Welch (2000) and Near (2002), among others even suggest that rotifera and Acanthocephala are…...

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
28 Sep 2006-Zootaxa
TL;DR: The data demonstrate that the helminth fauna of freshwater fish in Mexico is divided into Neotropical and Nearctic components with no apparent transition zone between them.
Abstract: Using published records and original data derived from my research, a checklist was generated of the helminth parasite fauna in 194 native and 18 introduced freshwater fish species from 30 families from Mexico. The checklist contains 262 nominal species, from 152 genera and 59 families of helminth parasites. It includes 37 species of adult trematodes, 52 metacercariae, 49 monogeneans, 15 adult cestodes, 22 metacestodes, 7 adult acanthocephalans, 5 cystacanths, 56 adult nematodes and 19 larval nematodes. Most of these species (150, 57%) are Neotropical, 35 (13%) are Nearctic, and 28 (11%) are either anthropogenically introduced into Mexico (21 of them), or are world-wide in their distribution (7 species). Insufficient data preclude the determination of the status of the rest of the species. Only 18 of these species are tentativelly pointed out as endemic to Mexico, although 55 species are recognized as being endemic to Mesoamerica. The data demonstrate that the helminth fauna of freshwater fish in Mexico is divided into Neotropical and Nearctic components with no apparent transition zone between them. The Nearctic fauna mainly consists of allogenic generalist species capable of invading Neotropical hosts and environments, but the Neotropical fauna, mostly autogenic and consisting of specialists to certain host families, is limited to Neotropical environments and hosts. This Neotropical fauna forms part of a Mesoamerican zone that extends from southeast Mexico along the Gulf of Mexico slope and into Central America. Fish families have typical groups of helminth species which allows the spatial distribution of helminths to follow that of their hosts. Together with their allogenic generalist characteristics, this gives this helminth fauna a broad distribution that covers Mexico’s Neotropical and Nearctic basins.

136 citations


"Classification of the acanthocephal..." refers background in this paper

  • ...…and described a few species and genera, but did not recognize order Neoechinorhynchida and included its families under order gyracanthocephala. salgado-Maldonado (2006) discussed and listed all helminth parasites of freshwater fishes in Mexico. salgado-Maldonado and Amin (2009) discussed and…...

    [...]

  • ...…nomenclature of the Acanthocephala culminated his life-long contributions to the systematics of the phylum. some of the more recent regional contributions to acanthocephalan taxonomy include those by Amin (2000), salgado-Maldonado (2006), Bhattacharya (2007), and salgado-Maldonado and Amin (2009)....

    [...]

  • ...…(nec formosanum, nec formosans) N. (N.) gibsoni Khan et Bilqees, 1989 (err: gilbesoni fide golvan 1994) N. (N.) golvani salgado-Maldonado, 1978 (salgado-Maldonado 2006 suggested the existence of two cryptic species of N. golvani, one associated with cichlids and the other with eleotrids in…...

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A key to the classes, orders, families, and subfamilies of Acanthocephala based on the Meyer-Van Cleave system as presented by Amin (1985) is provided.
Abstract: A key to the classes, orders, families, and subfamilies of Acanthocephala based on the Meyer-Van Cleave system as presented by Amin (1985) is provided. A new class (Polyacanthocephala) and a new order (Polyacanthorhynchida) are erected to accommodate members of the monogeneric family Polyacanthorhyn- chidae Golvan, 1956. The classification of the phylum Acanthoceph- ala recently presented by Amin (1985) was based, for the most part, on the concepts proposed by Meyer (1931-1933) as modified by Van Cleave (1936), expanded by Golvan (1959-1962, 1969) and Bullock (1969), and outlined by Amin (1982). This scheme is now widely accepted by most acanthocephalan taxonomists. The schemes of Petrochenko (1956, 1958) and Yamaguti (1963) are not in line with the above system. Petro- chenko (1956) devised a system based heavily on acanthor spination in which the Acantho- cephala were divided into 3 subclasses, Neoechinorhynchinea, Echinorhynchinea, and Gigantorhynchinea; he regarded the Neoechi- norhynchinea as the most primitive group. Ya- maguti (1963) arranged the Acanthocephala into 4 orders, Neoechinorhynchidea, Echinorhynchi- dea, Gigantorhynchidea-which are essentially Petrochenko's subclasses-and the new order

128 citations


"Classification of the acanthocephal..." refers background or methods in this paper

  • ...…with two orders (Echinorhynchida with 11 families and Polymorphida with three families). this remained the accepted classification scheme until Amin (1987) added a fourth class to the phylum: Polyacanthocephala (and a new order and family) to remove inconsistencies in the class…...

    [...]

  • ...…1987 (the validity of this class was supported by ribosomal rNA gene sequence studies by garcía-Varela et al. 2002.) orDEr pOlyACAnthOrhynChidA Amin, 1987 FAMilY polyacanthorhynchidae golvan, 1956 (previously in rhadinorhynchidae) gENUs Polyacanthorhynchus travassos, 1920 (nec 1926) sPEciEs…...

    [...]

  • ...Arhythmorhynchus macracanthus Ward et Winter, 1952] S. sacra Bhattacharya, Pande et srivastava, 2002, clAss pOlyACAnthOCephAlA Amin, 1987 (the validity of this class was supported by ribosomal rNA gene sequence studies by garcía-Varela et al. 2002.) orDEr pOlyACAnthOrhynChidA Amin, 1987 FAMilY…...

    [...]

  • ...(4, 4, 16, 1, 1; 18, 29, 106, 1, 3; 189, 255, 845, 4, 5 in the Archiacanthocephala, Eoacanthocephala, Palaeacanthocephala, Polyacanthocephala Amin, 1987, and the fossil family Zhijinitidae, respectively). these numbers do not include species listed in Appendix ii (see p. 298–299)....

    [...]

  • ...More recently, Petrochenko (1956) devised a system based heavily on acanthor spination and golvan (1959, 1960, 1961, 1969) considered the Eoacanthocephala (by now regarded as the most ancient group), Palaea- Keywords: spiny-headed worms, species list, taxonomic system, Archiacanthocephala, Eoacanthocephala, Palaeacanthocephala, Polyacanthocephala canthocephala and Archiacanthocephala to be classes, but relied heavily on the number of cement glands and trunk spination....

    [...]