Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T16:21:38.233Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Larval trematodes (Brachylaemidae) from the slugs Milax sowerbii (Férussac), Agriolimax reticulatus (Müller) and Arion lusitanicus Mabille

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

J. B. Cragg ,
R. Foster  and
M. Vincent
J. B. Cragg
Affiliation:
Zoology Department, Durham Colleges, in the University of Durham
R. Foster
Affiliation:
Zoology Department, Durham Colleges, in the University of Durham
M. Vincent
Affiliation:
Zoology Department, Durham Colleges, in the University of Durham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Metacercariae are recorded from the kidney tissues of slugs. Over 3000 slugs belonging to ten species were examined. Infection was confined to Milax sowerbii (Férussac) and Agriolimax reticulatus (Müller) apart from a few infected specimens of Arion ater (Linnaeus) or A. lusitanicus Mabille. Only one sporocyst was discovered and this occurred in A. lusitanicus.

2. Four distinct stages in metacercarial development are described—the caudal stage (0·7 × 0·3 mm.), the feeding stage (0·9 × 0·5 mm.), the corrugated stage (1·3 × 0·7 mm.) and the mature metacercaria (2·5 × 1·0 mm.). The corrugated stage is so-named because of the distinctive appearance of its cuticle.

3. Both the cercaria and metacercaria belong to the genus Brachylaemus (Dujardin, 1843) Blanchard 1847 and they probably belong to the same species. Since the life history is not known, no trivial name has been given to the organism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 47 , Issue 3-4 , December 1957 , pp. 396 - 404
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allison, L. N. (1943). Leuchloridiomorpha constantiae (Mueller) (Brachylaemidae), its lifecycle and taxonomic relationship among the trematodes. Trans. Amer. Micr. Soc. 62, 127–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchard, E. (1847). Recherches sur l'organisation de vers. Ann. nat. Sci. Zool. (2) 8, 271–342.Google Scholar
Dullfus, R. Ph. (1954). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Dujardin, F. (1843). Mémoire sur les helminthes des musaraignes, et en particulier sur les trichostomes, les distomes, et les taenias, sur leurs métamorphoses et leurs transmigrations. Ann. Sci. nat. Zool. (2) 20. 329–49.Google Scholar
Dujardin, F. (1845). Histoire naturelle des helminthes ou vers intestinaiac, pp. 407–20. Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frömming, E. (1954). Biologic der mitteleuropäischen Landgastropoden, pp. 404. Berlin.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, K. (1899). Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Entwioklung von Distomum leptostomum. Zool. Jber. Abt. Syst. 12, 174–204.Google Scholar
Leidy, J. (1850). Description of two species of Distoma, with a partial history of one of them. J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. 1, 301–10.Google Scholar
Mehra, H. R. (1936). A new species of the genus Harmotrema, with a discussion on the systematic position of the genus, and a classification of the family Harmostomidae. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. India, 6, 217–40.Google Scholar
Pantin, C. F. A. (1946). Notes on Microscopical Technique for Zoologists. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Pavlovskaia, I. E. B. (1956). La variabilité des signes morphologiques et son importance dans la classification des Trématodes. XIV Int. Congr. Zool. Copenhagen. (1953), pp. 363–4.Google Scholar
Quick, H. E. (1947). Arion ater (L.) and A. rufus (L.) in Britain and their specific differences. J. Conch. 22, 249–61.Google Scholar
Quick, H. E. (1949). Slugs (Mollusca). Linn. Soc. Lond. Monogr. no. 8, pp. 29.Google Scholar
Quick, H. E. (1952). Rediscovery of Arion lusitanicus Mabille in Britain. Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond. 29, 93–101.Google Scholar
Ulmer, K. J. (1951). Postharmostomum helicis; its life-history and a revision of the subfamily Brachylaeminae. Trans. Amer. Micr. Soc. 70, 189–238, 319–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar