Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-r8tb2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-09T06:51:48.546Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Species delimitation of Apharyngostrigea Ciurea, 1927 (Digenea: Diplostomoidea) based on morphology and molecular data from the Neotropical region of Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2025

Alejandra López-Jiménez*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biología Comparada, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México, México
Martín García-Varela
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zoología, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México, México
Rogelio Aguilar-Aguilar
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biología Comparada, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México, México
*
Corresponding author: Alejandra López-Jiménez; Email: aleloji@ciencias.unam.mx

Abstract

The genus Apharyngostrigea comprises a group of diplostomoidean digeneans that parasitize birds of the family Ardeidae (herons), with approximately 20 species described worldwide. Despite numerous efforts, a robust phylogenetic framework to delimit species within the genus is still lacking, mainly due to the limited morphological variation among its members. This study employed an integrative taxonomic approach, combining nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences with morphological data to assess species boundaries within Apharyngostrigea based on specimens collected from southeastern Mexico. Using a combination of species discovery (Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery, Assemble Species by Automatic Partition, General Mixed Yule Coalescent and Poisson Tree Processes) and validation methods based on Bayesian gene tree topologies (BPP and PHRAPL). We found high diversity within this genus in southeastern Mexico. Our analyses supported the delimitation of four nominal species that were previously described and validated in this study, along with the redescription of three of them. In addition, through species delimitation methods and morphological examination, we identified two candidate species and/or lineages that require further evidence to be formally described. This study demonstrates that an integrative taxonomic approach provides a robust framework for species delimitation in taxonomically complex groups such as Apharyngostrigea.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

Species delimitation is a practical methodological approach to identify independent evolutionary lineages that lack gene flow among them (Sites and Marshall, Reference Sites and Marshall2003; De Queiroz, Reference De Queiroz2007). In general, species should be delimited objectively and through rigorous analyses. Currently, various methods support an integrative taxonomic approach, especially for analysing taxonomically complex groups (Padial et al., Reference Padial, Miralles, De la Riva and Vences2010; Carstens et al., Reference Carstens, Pelletier, Reid and Satler2013). These methods should be complemented with other lines of evidence, such as morphology, behaviour and ecology data (Miralles and Vences, Reference Miralles and Vences2013). The main species delimitation methods are subdivided into de novo inference methods (without a priori defined entities) and validation methods (where predefined entities are tested) (Carstens et al., Reference Carstens, Pelletier, Reid and Satler2013). These methods can be classified into three main categories: 1) distance-based methods such as Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery (ABGD) (Puillandre et al., Reference Puillandre, Lambert, Brouillet and Achaz2012) and Assemble Species by Automatic Partition (ASAP) (Puillandre et al., Reference Puillandre, Brouillet and Achaz2021), which analyse pairwise genetic distances among sequences to detect the presence of a barcode gap, 2) network-based methods, such as the REfined Single Linkage (RESL) algorithm, as implemented in the Barcode of Life Data System (BOLD), which employ a graph-based Markov clustering approach to explore connectivity among sequences through random walks in the network (Ratnasingham and Hebert, Reference Ratnasingham and Hebert2007, Reference Ratnasingham and Hebert2013) and 3) model-based approaches, such the General Mixed Yule Coalescent (GMYC) model (Pons et al., Reference Pons, Barraclough, Gomez-Zurita, Cardoso, Duran, Hazzel, Kamoun, Sumlin and Vogler2006; Fujisawa and Barraclough, Reference Fujisawa and Barraclough2013) and Poisson Tree Processes (PTP) model (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Kapli, Pavlidis and Stamatakis2013; Kapli et al., Reference Kapli, Lutteropp, Zhang, Kobert, Pavlidis, Stamatakis and Flouri2017). These methods apply mixture models with two distinct components, distinguishing within-species and between-species variation. PTP employs two Poisson distributions to model branching events, while GMYC combines a coalescent model with a Yule diversification model (Carstens et al., Reference Carstens, Pelletier, Reid and Satler2013). Despite the variety of species delimitation methods, few have been applied to the study of parasites, mainly in trematodes (Martínez-Aquino et al., Reference Martínez-Aquino, Ceccarelli and Pérez-Ponce de León2013; Herrmann et al., Reference Herrmann, Poulin, Keeney and Blasco-Costa2014; Locke et al., Reference Locke, Caffara, Marcogliese and Fioravanti2015; Pérez-Ponce de León et al., Reference Pérez-Ponce de León, García-Varela, Pinacho-Pinacho, Sereno-Uribe and Poulin2016; Gordy et al., Reference Gordy, Locke, Rawlings, Lapierre and Hanington2017; Pinacho-Pinacho et al., Reference Pinacho-Pinacho, García-Varela, Sereno-Uribe and Pérez-ponce de León2018; Vainutis et al., Reference Vainutis, Voronova, Mironovsky, Zhigileva and Zho-khov2023; Fernandez, et al., Reference Fernandez, Beltramino, Vogler and Hamann2024).

Apharyngostrigea Ciurea, Reference Ciurea1927 is a cosmopolitan genus of diplostomoidean digeneans that parasitize birds of the family Ardeidae (herons) (Dubois, Reference Dubois1968). Morphologically, members of this genus are characterized by the absence of a pharynx (Niewiadomska, Reference Niewiadomska, Gibson, Jones and Bray2002). Currently, the genus comprises 20 species distributed worldwide, associated with ardeids (Dubois, Reference Dubois1938, Reference Dubois1968; Pérez-Vigueras, Reference Pérez-Vigueras1944; Kim et al., Reference Kim, Hong, Ryu, Choi, Yu, Cho, Park, Chae and Park2020). However, the validity of many species within the genus Apharyngostrigea remains controversial, mainly due to their high morphological similarity and the lack of molecular data for their corroboration. Particularly in Mexico, two species of Apharyngostrigea have been recorded; A. brasiliana Szidat, 1929 in the Boat-billed heron (Cochlearius cochlearius L.) in Champotón, Campeche from the Gulf of Mexico, and A. cornu (Zeder, Reference Zeder1800) Ciurea, Reference Ciurea1927 in four ardeids species; Great Egret (Ardea alba L.), Green Heron (Butorides virescens L.), Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax L.) and Yellow-crowned Night Heron (Nyctanassa violacea L.), in the states of Veracruz, Gulf of Mexico and Sinaloa, Mexican Pacific (Hernández-Mena et al., Reference Hernández-Mena, García-Prieto and García-Varela2014; López-Jiménez et al., Reference López-Jiménez, González-García and García-Varela2022). However, a recent study based on molecular analyses of nuclear and mitochondrial genes suggests that the records of A. cornu in Mexico correspond to A. pipientis (Faust, Reference Faust1918) and Apharyngostrigea sp., respectively (Locke et al., Reference Locke, Drago, López-Hernández, Chibwana, Núñez, Van Dam, Achinelly, Johnson, de Assis, de Melo and Pinto2021).

In the present study, we employed an integrative taxonomic approach, combining morphological examination with multiple molecular species delimitation methods to assess species diversity within Apharyngostrigea in Mexico. We generated new molecular data based on mitochondrial and nuclear genes and provided additional morphological information for specimens collected in southeastern Mexico.

Materials and methods

Specimen collection

Birds belonging to the family Ardeidae were collected between 2013 and 2022 from three localities in the Gulf of Mexican slope and seven in the Mexican Pacific slope (Figure 1; Table 1). Ardeids were identified following Howell and Webb (Reference Howell and Webb1995), and the American Ornithologist’ Union (1998) guidelines. Adults were obtained from the intestine and placed in Petri dishes with saline solution. The collected digeneans were relaxed using heat-killed distilled water and preserved in 70% ethanol for molecular and morphological analyses.

Figure 1. Map of Mexico showing the sampling sites for Apharyngostrigea spp. Localities correspond to those listed in Table 1. Sites marked with a triangle indicate those previously sampled by Hernández-Mena et al. (Reference Hernández-Mena, García-Prieto and García-Varela2014) and López-Jiménez et al. (Reference López-Jiménez, González-García and García-Varela2022).

Table 1. Information on the specimens of Apharyngostrigea spp. Sampled in this study. Collection sites (CS); sampled localities; geographical coordinates; host names, tree label, and GenBank accession numbers

Morphological analyses

Some specimens were stained with Mayer’s paracarmine (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany), dehydrated through a graded ethanol series, cleared with methyl salicylate and mounted on permanent slides using Canada balsam. Photographs and measurements were taken with a Leica DM 1000 LED compound microscope (Leica Microsystems CMS GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany). All measurements were recorded in micrometres (μm) and are presented as ranges with the mean in parentheses. Voucher specimens were deposited in the Colección Nacional de Helmintos (CNHE), Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Mexico City.

Molecular data

To obtain genomic DNA, preserved samples were digested individually in tubes and digested overnight at 56°C in a solution containing 10 mM Tris–HCl (pH 7·6), 20 mM NaCl, 100 mM Na2 EDTA (pH 8·0), 1% sarkosyl and 0·1 mg mL-1 proteinase K. Following digestion, DNA was extracted from the supernatant using the DNAzol reagent (Molecular Research Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The internal transcribed spacers (ITS1-5.8s-ITS2) of the nuclear ribosomal DNA were amplified using the forward primer BD1 (5′−GTC GTA ACA AGG TTT CCG TA−3′) and the reverse primer BD2 (5′−ATC TAG ACC GGA CTA GGC TGT G−3′) (Bowles et al., Reference Bowles, Blair and McManus1995). Partial fragments of domains D1–D3 of the large subunit of nuclear ribosomal DNA (28S) were amplified using the forward primer 391 (5′−AGCGGAGGAAAAGAAACTAA−3′) (Nadler et al., Reference Nadler, Hoberg, Hudspeth and Rickard2000) and the reverse primer 536 (5′−CAGCTATCCTGAGGGAAAC−3′) (García-Varela and Nadler, Reference García-Varela and Nadler2005). A fragment of cox1, approximately 470 bp in length, was amplified using the forward primer AphaF (5′−TATGATTTTTTTYTTTTTRATG−3′) and the reverse primer AphaR (5′−CCAAACYAACACMGACAT−3′) (see López-Jiménez et al., Reference López-Jiménez, González-García, Andrade-Gómez and García-Varela2023). Polymerase chain reactions (PCRs) were carried out in 25 μL reaction volumes following the manufacturer’s instructions. The PCR cycling conditions included an initial denaturation at 94°C for 3 min, followed by 35 cycles of 94°C for 1 min, annealing at 50°C for 28S and ITS and 55°C for cox1 for 1 min, and extension at 72°C for 1 min, with a final post-amplification incubation at 72°C for 10 min. Sequencing reactions were performed using ABI Big Dye terminator sequencing chemistry (Applied Biosystems, Boston, MA, USA), and the reaction products were separated and detected using an ABI 3730 capillary DNA sequencer. Contigs were assembled, and base-calling differences were resolved using CodonCode Aligner v.12.0.1 (CodonCode Corporation, Dedham, MA, USA).

Alignment and phylogenetic analyses

The new sequences were aligned with those of other species of the genus Apharyngostrigea available in GenBank (Supplementary material S1). Matrices for each gene were aligned individually using the ClustalW algorithm (Thompson et al., Reference Thompson, Gibson, Plewniak, Jeanmougin and Higgins1997) with the default parameters in MEGA v.11 software (Tamura et al., Reference Tamura, Stecher and Kumar2021). Nucleotide substitution models for each molecular marker were selected using JModelTest v.2.1.10 (Darriba et al., Reference Darriba, Taboada, Doallo and Posada2012), applying the optimal Akaike information criterion (AIC) (Akaike, Reference Akaike, Parzen, Tanabe and Kitagawa1974). The selected models were HKY + I for the 28S gene, TVM + G for the ITS gene and T1M1 + I + G for the cox1 gene. Individual gene trees and the concatenated dataset (28S, ITS and cox1) were analysed using maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian inference (BI). The species Strigea magnirostris (López-Jiménez et al., Reference López-Jiménez, González-García, Andrade-Gómez and García-Varela2023) sequences were used as outgroup to root the trees in all analyses (both individual and concatenated datasets). For ML analyses, we used the software RAXML v.8.2.12 (Stamatakis, Reference Stamatakis2006), to generate gene trees based on the substitution model closest to previous estimates, with 1,000 replicates, using the computational resource Cyberinfrastructure for Phylogenetic Research Science Gateway v3.3 (Miller et al., Reference Miller, Pfeiffer and Schwartz2010). Bayesian inference analyses for individual and concatenated trees (28S, ITS and cox1) were conducting using MrBayes v3.2.6 (Ronquist et al., Reference Ronquist, Teslenko, van der Mark, Ayres, Darling, Ho ̈hna, Larget, Liu, Suchard and Huelsenbeck2012), with Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulations run for 10 million generations, sampling every 1,000 generations and discarding the first 2,500 samples as ‘burn-in’ (25%). The results were visualized using FigTree v1.4.2 (Rambaut, Reference Rambaut2012). Additionally, we generated individual gene trees under a molecular clock framework to perform the GMYC analysis using BEAST v.2.7.7 (Suchard et al., Reference Suchard, Lemey, Baele, Ayres, Drummond and Rambaut2018). The analysis was conducted under a Yule model and a coalescent model with a constant population size, using both constant and relaxed molecular clocks. A total of 10,000 replicates were run, ensuring that all output parameters had an Effective Sample Size (ESS) >200.

Species delimitation (discovery and validation)

Species delimitation was performed with two different approaches, following the methodology of Carstens et al. (Reference Carstens, Pelletier, Reid and Satler2013). First, four exploratory or discovery methods were applied to identify potential candidate species based on a priori information using single-gene data (28S, ITS and cox1). Two distance-based methods were employed: ABGD (Puillandre et al., Reference Puillandre, Lambert, Brouillet and Achaz2012) with the following parameters–Pmin: 0·01, Pmax:0·1, Steps: 10, Nb bins: 20 and Jukes-Cantor distances (JC69)–and Assemble Species by Automatic Partitioning (ASAP) (Puillandre et al., Reference Puillandre, Brouillet and Achaz2021), which was run with 1,000 replicates under the JC69 genetic distance model. Additionally, two model-based approaches, General Mixed Yule Coalescent model (GMYC) (Pons et al., Reference Pons, Barraclough, Gomez-Zurita, Cardoso, Duran, Hazzel, Kamoun, Sumlin and Vogler2006) and Poisson Tree Processes model (PTP) (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Kapli, Pavlidis and Stamatakis2013), were applied. The trees with Yule clock, coalescent constant and relaxed clock were generated in BEAUTi and BEAST v.2.7.7 (Drummond et al., Reference Drummond, Suchard, Xie and Rambaut2012) executed for at least 20 million MCMC generations, sampling every 10,000 generations. Convergence of the two chains was assessed using TRACER v.1.7 (Rambaut et al., Reference Rambaut, Drummond, Xie, Baele and Suchard2018). GMYC analyses were conducted in R v.4.1.3 (Allaire, Reference Allaire2012) with the ‘splits’ package (Ezard et al., Reference Ezard, Fujisawa and Barraclough2021) for single and multiple threshold GMYC. PTP analyses were executed using the web server (https://species.h-its.org/) (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Kapli, Pavlidis and Stamatakis2013) with default settings: rooted tree, MCMC generations = 100,000, burn-in = 0·1, seed = 123 and thinning = 100.

Candidate species were assessed using two species validation methods based on phylogenetic trees constructed from multilocus data: BPP and PHRAPL. Bayesian species delimitation was executed using BPP (Bayesian Phylogenetics and Phylogeography) v.4.3.8 (Yang, Reference Yang2015), a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) program designed to analyse multilocus sequence data under the multispecies coalescent (MSC) model. BPP requires sequence data as input and a predefined guide tree topology (Yang and Rannala, Reference Yang and Rannala2014). It can be used for four types of inference problems (Yang, Reference Yang2015). We conducted an A11 analysis (species delimitation = 1 and species tree = 1): which jointly estimates species delimitation/assignment and species tree models (Yang and Rannala, Reference Yang and Rannala2014). The analysis was run for 100,0000 rjMCMC generations with burn-in = 8,000 and sampling frequency of 2. Additionally, Phylogeographic Inference Using Approximate Likelihoods (PHRAPL) was employed to evaluate alternative demographic and evolutionary scenarios underlying the observed genetic patterns. The analysis was conducted using ML gene trees within the PHRAPL framework, implemented in R v.4.1.3 with the ‘phrapl’ package (Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Morales, Carstens and O’Meara2017). Four subsamples per gene tree were used, and the grid search was performed by evaluating 10,000 simulated trees. The five best-fitting models were selected based on their AIC values.

Analysis of morphometric data

For these species recognized through the previous delimitation methods, we conducted a principal component analysis (PCA) to explore and describe the patterns of morphological variation in Apharyngostrigea specimens found in Mexico. A total of 24 morphometrics variables were considered from 47 specimens belonging to four species – A. cornu (n = 10), A. pipientis (n = 10), A. simplex (n = 8) and A. brasiliana (n = 10) (measurements obtained by López-Jiménez et al., Reference López-Jiménez, González-García and García-Varela2022) – as well as two undescribed species, Lineage 1 (n = 7) and Lineage 2 (n = 2). The PCA was performed using the ggplot2, ggfortify, cluster, lfda and reader packages implemented in R v.4.1.3 (R Core Team, 2022) (Supplementary Material S2).

Results

Phylogenetic analyses and species boundaries

Phylogenetic analyses were performed for each dataset individually and for the concatenated dataset. The 28S alignment included 60 sequences with 1,157 characters, the ITS dataset included 64 sequences with 1,057 characters and the cox1 dataset included 72 sequences with 371 characters. The concatenated tree of the three genes (28S + ITS + cox1), including a total of 174 individuals (the same individuals for which all three markers were obtained) (Table 1). These sequences were analysed with other species of Apharyngostrigea available in GenBank (Supplementary Material S1). Trees for individual markers are shown in Supplementary Material S3. In general, the individual trees for each marker showed the same topology, highly supported by posterior probability values. Phylogenetic hypotheses generated through Bayesian analyses of the concatenated sequences (28S + ITS + cox1), as well as results from the species delimitation analyses, are shown in Figure 2. Overall, these analyses recognized four nominal species and two candidate species and/or lineages in Mexico (Figure 2). The first clade consisted of four sequences of A. brasiliana (MZ614714, MZ614716–18) collected from the Boat-billed heron in a single locality from the Gulf of Mexico slope. These sequences formed a sister clade with 26 sequences of Apharyngostrigea, including four sequences identified as A. simplex (MK510081, MH777791, MH777789, MN179319) from Brazil and Argentina (López-Hernández et al., Reference López-Hernández, Locke, de Assis, Drago, de Melo, Rabelo and Pinto2019; Locke et al., Reference Locke, Drago, López-Hernández, Chibwana, Núñez, Van Dam, Achinelly, Johnson, de Assis, de Melo and Pinto2021). The third clade consisted of two sequences of Apharyngostrigea sp. (Lineage 2) collected from the Snowy egret (Egretta thula Molina) in Champotón, Campeche, Gulf of Mexico in the present study. The fourth clade contained seven sequences collected from the Great blue heron (Ardea herodias L.) in two localities, Emiliano Zapata, Tabasco and Villa Tututepec, Oaxaca, from Mexico. This clade was nested with sequences identified as A. cornu (HM064894, JF769449–50, AF184264) from Canada and Ukraine (Tkach et al., Reference Tkach, Pawlowski, Mariaux, Swiderski, Littlewood, Bray, Dtj and Bray2001; Locke et al., Reference Locke, McLaughlin, Lapierre, Johnson and Marcogliese2011). The fifth clade contained two sequences originally identified as A. cornu from Mexico and reassigned as A. pipientis by Locke et al. (Reference Locke, Drago, López-Hernández, Chibwana, Núñez, Van Dam, Achinelly, Johnson, de Assis, de Melo and Pinto2021) (JX977838–39), along with sequences identified as A. pipientis (MT677870, MT943784–85 and MT943779) from Argentina and Canada (Locke et al., Reference Locke, Drago, López-Hernández, Chibwana, Núñez, Van Dam, Achinelly, Johnson, de Assis, de Melo and Pinto2021). Finally, the sixth clade contained two sequences identified as Apharyngostrigea sp. (Lineage 1) from the Yellow-crowned Night Heron (N. violacea) collected previously in the Cortadura, Veracruz by Hernández-Mena et al. (Reference Hernández-Mena, García-Prieto and García-Varela2014), in the Gulf of Mexico and Zapotal, Chiapas, Mexican Pacific, in the present study.

Figure 2. Results of phylogenetic analysis and species delimitation. Bayesian majority rule (50%) phylograms based on the concatenated (28S + ITS + cox1) gene sequences of Apharyngostrigea. Black vertical lines indicate that the corresponding genes in the phylogram and their concatenated sequences were recovered by the different species delimitation methods employed: Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery (ABGD); Assemble Species by Automatic Partitioning (ASAP); Generalized Mixed Yule Coalescent method (GMYC); Poisson Tree Processes (PTP); Bayesian Phylogenetics and Phylogeography (BPP); Phylogeographic Inference Using Approximate Likelihoods (PHRAPL).

Species discovery methods based on mitochondrial data tend to estimate a higher number of species compared to those using nuclear genes (such as 28S and ITS), due to the lower genetic variability observed in nuclear markers. For instance, within the A. simplex clade, species delimitation varied depending on the method used: ABGD and ASAP grouped it as a single species, whereas GMYC and PTP methods recognized two and five distinct species, respectively. In contrast, validation methods such as BPP and PHRAPL consistently supported the presence of four nominal species (A. cornu, A. pipientis, A. simplex and A. brasiliana) along with two candidate species and/or lineages were also recovered in Mexico with high posterior probability support values (see Figure 2). Overall, most species delimitation approaches (discovery and validation), whether based on single-locus or multilocus analyses, recognized four nominal species and two candidate species and/or lineages within the genus Apharyngostrigea (Figure 2).

Morphological differentiation

PCA was conducted to corroborate the morphological differences between the species of Apharyngostrigea found in the present study. Morphometric data were obtained from 47 specimens corresponding to four species – A. pipientis, A. cornu, A. simplex and A. brasiliana–as well as two undescribed species (Lineage 1 and Lineage 2). The combined, simultaneous analysis of all considered groups does not enable a distinction between the entities, due to the conservative morphology of the genus. An exception was observed in the morphometrical data of A. brasiliana, which formed a distinct cluster separate from other species (Figures 3 and 4). Based on cumulative variance and eigenvalues, the first five principal components (PCs) were retained for at least 80% of total variation. However, only PC1 and PC2 were statistically significant. According to the loading values, a combination of 10 variables contributed significantly to PC1, which explained 30·1% of the total variation (95% confidence interval; P < 0·001), while a combination of eight variables contributed significantly to PC2, explaining 19·7% of the total variation (95% confidence interval; P < 0·001) (Supplementary Material S4).

Figure 3. Principal component analyses (PCA) of four species and two lineages of Apharyngostrigea were conducted with 24 variables from 47 individuals.

Figure 4. Photographs of specimens from analysed lineages and species of Apharyngostrigea. (A) Lineage 1. Scale bars = 500 μm. (B) Lineage 2. Scale bars = 200 μm. (C) A. cornu. Scale bars = 200 μm. (D) A. pipientis. Scale bars = 500 μm. (E) A. simplex. Scale bars = 500 μm. (F) A. brasiliana. Scale bars = 500 μm.

Morphological redescription

Apharyngostrigea cornu (Zeder, Reference Zeder1800) Ciurea, Reference Ciurea1927

Host: Ardea herodias Linnaeus, 1758 (Pelecaniformes: Ardeidae)

Locality: Emiliano Zapata, Tabasco, Mexico (17°46’29.14’’N, 91°44’24.91’’W)

Site of infection: Intestine.

Voucher material: CNHE 12482

GenBank accession number: 28S: PX620623–629; ITS: PX620571–577; cox1: PX641999–2005.

Redescription based on 10 gravid adults (Figure 4C; Table 2). Body distinctly bipartite, 1846–2529 (2299) in total length. Tegument smooth. Forebody caliciform or pyriform, slightly wider than long, 578–750 × 605–809. Ratio of forebody length to body length: 1: 3·1–4·2 (3·5). Hindbody cylindrical, longer than forebody, 1268–1906 × 342–530. Ratio of forebody length to hindbody length: 1: 2·1–3·2 (2·5). Oral sucker subterminal, 147–183 × 120–160. Ventral sucker oval, larger than oral sucker, 230–258 × 148–300. Suckers width ratio: 1: 1·05–1·93 (1·44). Pharynx absent. Holdfast organ has well-developed dorsal and ventral lips. Proteolytic gland well-developed 183–257 × 119–270, situated in the intersegmental region. Testes in tandem are deeply multilobed, and are situated in the second third of the hindbody. Anterior testis 212–303 × 186–265, posterior testis slightly larger than anterior testis 249–316 × 232–289. Seminal vesicle sinuous, postesticular. Ovary oval or reniform, pretesticular 108–177 × 207–235, situated in 27–31/100 of hindbody. Mehlis’ gland and vitelline reservoir in intertesticular region. Vitelline follicles are distributed in both regions of the body, being scarce in the forebody, where they penetrate into the lobes of the holdfast organ, while in the hindbody, they are concentrated in the neck region (preovarian zone), extending dorsally toward the testes and reaching the vesicle seminal or copulatory bursa. Copulatory bursa well developed, 218–336 × 332–491. Genital cone small, 146–238 × 170–246. Relatively few eggs (2–10), oval 55–91 × 45–70. Excretory pore terminal.

Table 2. Comparative measurements of adult specimens of Apharyngostrigea cornu (Zeder, Reference Zeder1800) Ciurea, Reference Ciurea1927

a Estimated from Figures 3 and 4 in Olsen, 1940.

Remarks

Apharyngostrigea cornu was originally described as Distoma cornu by Zeder (Reference Zeder1800), based on specimens found in the intestine of the Grey Heron (Ardea cinerea L.) in Europe. Later, Rudolphi (1809, 1819) transferred it to the genus Amphistoma and subsequently renamed it Monostoma cornu, respectively. Over time, this taxonomic classification became the subject of debate (see Dubois, Reference Dubois1938, Reference Dubois1968). A detailed morphological study of the species was conducted by Ciurea (Reference Ciurea1927). Morphologically, A. cornu is distinguished from its congeners by the presence of abundant vitelline follicles in both parts of the body, a relatively large body size and an ovary situated between 27 and 49/100 of the hindbody (Dubois, Reference Dubois1968). However, our specimens collected from the intestine of the Great Blue Heron (A. herodias) from Emiliano Zapata, Tabasco, in the Neotropical region of Mexico showed a reduced number of vitelline follicles in the forebody compared to previous descriptions (Figure 4C). Additionally, our specimens exhibited some degree of intraspecific morphological variation. For example, they presented lower values in the following characteristics: anterior testes width (186–265 vs 220–1160), genital cone length (146–238 vs 194–530) and egg size (55–91 × 45–70 vs 80–118 × 50–75) (see Table 2). A. cornu has been reported parasitizing primarily ardeid birds in Europe and Africa (Dubois, Reference Dubois1938, Reference Dubois1968; Richard, Reference Richard1964; Olson et al., Reference Olson, Cribb, Tkach, Bray and Littlewood2003). In North America, adult specimens of A. cornu have been recorded in A. herodias and N. nycticorax from Canada and the United States. Additionally, the metacercariae (larval form) have been reported in cyprinid fish such as Catostomus commersonii Lacepède, Notemigonus crysoleucas Mitchill and Pimephales notatus Rafinesque in Canada (Olsen, Reference Olsen1940; Locke et al., Reference Locke, McLaughlin, Lapierre, Johnson and Marcogliese2011).

Apharyngostrigea pipientis (Faust, Reference Faust1918)

Host: Ardea alba Linnaeus, 1758 (Pelecaniformes: Ardeidae)

Locality: Zapotal, Chiapas, Mexico (15°58’20.26’’N, 93°51’23.04’’W).

Site of infection: Intestine

Voucher material: CNHE 12483

GenBank accession number: 28S: PX620632–637, PX620639–652; ITS: PX620578–589, PX620591–98; cox1: PX642031–050

Redescription based on 10 gravid adults (Figure 4D; Table 3). Body virguliform, 2·4–3·4 mm (2·84 mm) in total length. Tegument smooth. Forebody with median opening, 601–902 × 649–877. Ratio of forebody length to body length: 1: 3·4–4·7 (3·9). Hindbody recurved, longer than forebody 1766–2523 × 321–516, with maximum width in testicular zone. Ratio of forebody length to hindbody length: 1: 2·4–3·7 (2·9). Oral sucker subterminal, well developed, 112–170 × 102–157. Ventral sucker, larger than oral sucker 195–256 × 152–199. Pharynx absent. Holdfast organ well-developed dorsal and ventral lips. Proteolytic gland oblongue 231–377 × 121–191, located in the intersegmental region. Testes in tandem multilobed, located in second or third of hindbody. Anterior testis 190–360 × 150–251, posterior testis 196–422 × 160–229. Seminal vesicle long, postesticular. Ovary reniform, pretesticular 154–243 × 120–175, situated approximately 22–48/100 of hindbody. Mehlis’ gland intertesticular. Vitelline follicles occupy the entire length of the hindbody, densely concentrated in the preovarian region, extending dorsally to the testes and reaching the end of the body, with a lower density in the forebody, penetrating into the lobes of the holdfast organ. Copulatory bursa large, 281–388 × 240–364. Genital cone small, 174–224 × 145–228, genital atrium with a small opening. Eggs numerous 13–60 (30), oval 50–88 × 38–53. Excretory pore ventro-subterminal.

Table 3. Comparative measurements of adult specimens of Apharyngostrigea pipientis (Faust, Reference Faust1918)

Remarks

Apharyngostrigea pipientis was described by Olivier (Reference Olivier1940) after experimentally infecting a non-natural host (Pigeon domestique Gmelin) in Michigan, USA. Since then, it has been reported in North and Central America and has been referred to with different names (Dubois and Rausch, Reference Dubois and Rausch1950; Dubois, Reference Dubois1968). Morphologically, A. pipientis is distinguished from its congeners by having an oblong proteolytic gland situated in the upper portion of the hindbody, as well as its virguliform body shape (Dubois, Reference Dubois1968). Our specimens collected from the intestine of the Great Egret (A. alba) in the locality Zapotal, Chiapas, from the Neotropical region of Mexico, are morphologically similar to A. pipientis from previous studies (Figure 4D; Table 3). However, our specimens do not have spines on the tegument as previously reported by Locke et al. (Reference Locke, Drago, López-Hernández, Chibwana, Núñez, Van Dam, Achinelly, Johnson, de Assis, de Melo and Pinto2021). A. pipientis has been mainly reported parasitizing ardeid birds in the Americas, such as Botaurus lentiginosus Rackett, B. virescens, A. alba egretta, A. herodias, Ixobrychus exilis Gmelin and N. nycticorax from Canada, USA, Cuba and Argentina (Pérez-Vigueras, Reference Pérez-Vigueras1944; Dubois and Rausch, Reference Dubois and Rausch1950; Locke et al., Reference Locke, Drago, López-Hernández, Chibwana, Núñez, Van Dam, Achinelly, Johnson, de Assis, de Melo and Pinto2021).

Apharyngostrigea simplex (Johnston, Reference Johnston1904) Szidat, 1929

Host: Egretta thula Molina, 1782 (Pelecaniformes: Ardeidae)

Locality: Santa María Cocotepec, Oaxaca, Mexico (15°48’24.56’’N, 97°00’49.79’’W).

Site of infection: Intestine.

Voucher material: CNHE 12484

GenBank accession number: 28S: PX620653–675; ITS: PX620599–621; cox1: PX642008–030

Redescription based on eight gravid adults (Figure 4E; Table 4). Body distinctly bipartite, 2·4–3·4 mm (3·01 mm) in total length. Tegument smooth. Forebody bulbiform, 577–766 × 586–835. Hindbody claviform, longer than forebody 1863–2844 × 344–515. Ratio of forebody length to hindbody length: 1: 2·6–4·6 (3·4). Oral sucker subterminal well developed, 107–164 × 114–129. Ventral sucker oval, larger than oral sucker, 175–242 × 135–180. Pharynx absent. Proteolytic gland is large, 186–266 × 130–178, situated in intersegmental region. Testes in tandem, multilobed. Anterior testis 218–389 × 197–381, posterior testis slightly longer than anterior testes 260–418 × 270–357. Seminal vesicle long, postesticular. Ovary ovoid, pretesticular 119–182 × 100–140, situated approximately 33–48/100 of hindbody. Mehlis’ gland and vitelline reservoir in intertesticular region. Vitelline follicles are densely concentrated in the preovarian region of the hindbody, extending to the posterior margin of the posterior testis; in the forebody, vitelline follicles are sparse and scattered around the with sucker ventral. Copulatory bursa poorly delimited, 227–327 × 222–383, with a slightly developed muscular ring (Ringnapf). Genital cone small, covered with minute spines 128–229 × 141–238. The ejaculatory duct and uterus converge at the base of the genital cone to form the hermaphroditic duct. The genital atrium has a large opening. Uterus with 4–11 (7) eggs, oval 67–97 × 42–66. Excretory pore subterminal.

Table 4. Comparative measurements of adults Apharyngostrigea simplex (Johnston, Reference Johnston1904)

Remarks

Apharyngostrigea simplex was originally described by Johnston (Reference Johnston1904) from the host Egretta novaehollandiae Latham in Australia. Later, Dubois and Pearson (Reference Dubois and Pearson1965) provided a redescription based on individuals collected from other ardeids (E. garzetta and A. plumifera) in Australia. Our specimens, collected from E. thula in the Neotropical region of Mexico, are similar to those described by Ostrowski de Núñez (Reference Ostrowski de Núñez1989) and Locke et al. (Reference Locke, Drago, López-Hernández, Chibwana, Núñez, Van Dam, Achinelly, Johnson, de Assis, de Melo and Pinto2021) from the same host species in Argentina (Figure 4E, Table 4). However, Locke et al. (Reference Locke, Drago, López-Hernández, Chibwana, Núñez, Van Dam, Achinelly, Johnson, de Assis, de Melo and Pinto2021) reported the presence of tegumental spines, which in our specimens were observed exclusively on the genital cone, exhibiting a distinct pattern of spination.

Discussion

Species delimitation is a growing area of research in systematic biology (Sites and Marshall, Reference Sites and Marshall2003; Camargo and Sites, Reference Camargo, Sites and Pavlinov2013; Flot, Reference Flot2015). This approach is based on the interpretation of species as independent evolutionary lineages and is in line with the paradigm of integrative taxonomy (De Queiroz, Reference De Queiroz2007). The results of this study, based on four species delimitation discovery methods, such as ASAP, ABGD, GMYC and PTP, and two validation methods, as BPP and PHRAPL, revealed a high diversity within the genus Apharyngostrigea in Mexico. However, the DNA sequence-based approaches using nuclear and mitochondrial genes differed in the number of delimited species for the examined populations of Apharyngostrigea, particularly with GMYC and PTP, which relied on mitochondrial data. This is because species delimitation methods are based on different assumptions to distinguish evolutionary entities among individuals from different populations (Pons et al., Reference Pons, Barraclough, Gomez-Zurita, Cardoso, Duran, Hazzel, Kamoun, Sumlin and Vogler2006; Puillandre et al., Reference Puillandre, Lambert, Brouillet and Achaz2012; Fujisawa and Barraclough, Reference Fujisawa and Barraclough2013; Miralles and Vences, Reference Miralles and Vences2013). In general, the analyses revealed a total of four nominal species (A. cornu, A. pipientis, A. simplex and A. brasiliana) and two candidate species and/or lineages within the genus with high posterior probability support values. Phylogenetic analyses based on nuclear and mitochondrial genes showed that Apharyngostrigea is monophyletic, coinciding with a recent study (see Locke et al., Reference Locke, Drago, López-Hernández, Chibwana, Núñez, Van Dam, Achinelly, Johnson, de Assis, de Melo and Pinto2021). Additionally, molecular data confirm previous records of A. pipientis in the Americas (Dubois, Reference Dubois1968; Goldberg et al., Reference Goldberg, Bursey and Wong2002; Locke et al., Reference Locke, Drago, López-Hernández, Chibwana, Núñez, Van Dam, Achinelly, Johnson, de Assis, de Melo and Pinto2021). Our specimens, collected from four ardeid hosts (A. alba, N. nycticorax, B. virescens and Tigrisoma mexicanum Swainson) across seven localities in Mexico, were nested within sequences morphologically identified as A. pipientis from Canada, the United States, Brazil and Argentina (Locke et al., Reference Locke, Drago, López-Hernández, Chibwana, Núñez, Van Dam, Achinelly, Johnson, de Assis, de Melo and Pinto2021). They are also similar to sequences previously identified as A. cornu from the same hosts in Mexico, which were later reassigned to A. pipientis (Hernández-Mena et al., Reference Hernández-Mena, García-Prieto and García-Varela2014; Locke et al., Reference Locke, Drago, López-Hernández, Chibwana, Núñez, Van Dam, Achinelly, Johnson, de Assis, de Melo and Pinto2021). This digenean has also been recorded in other ardeid species in Africa and Korea, expanding its distribution range, possibly due to its broad host spectrum (Olivier, Reference Olivier1940; Pulis et al., Reference Pulis, Tkach and Newman2011; Kim et al., Reference Kim, Hong, Ryu, Choi, Yu, Cho, Park, Chae and Park2020). We report for the first time the presence of A. simplex in southeastern Mexico. Our specimens collected from the Snowy Egret (E. thula) are morphologically similar to those reported by Ostrowski de Núñez, (Reference Ostrowski de Núñez1989) and Locke et al. (Reference Locke, Drago, López-Hernández, Chibwana, Núñez, Van Dam, Achinelly, Johnson, de Assis, de Melo and Pinto2021) from the same host in Argentina. However, A. simplex was originally described by Johnston (Reference Johnston1904) from specimens found E. novaehollandiae and E. garzetta in Australia. Therefore, confirming the presence of this species in the Americas requires molecular comparison with sequences from Australian specimens. Finally, our specimens collected from the Great Blue Heron (A. herodias) in two localities in Mexico (Emiliano Zapata, Tabasco and Villa Tututepec, Oaxaca) clustered with sequences of adult specimens previously identified as A. cornu from the same host, as well as with metacercariae from three cyprinid species in North America (Locke et al., Reference Locke, McLaughlin, Lapierre, Johnson and Marcogliese2011). However, this species was originally described in Europe (Zeder, Reference Zeder1800) from the Great Heron (A. cinerea) and has been reported in several ardeid species in Africa and Central Asia (Richard, Reference Richard1964; Dubois, Reference Dubois1968). Taxonomically, A. cornu exhibits considerable morphological variability, which may be attributed to its wide range of definitive hosts or could indicate a cryptic species complex. Therefore, sequences from European specimens are needed to clarify the status of A. cornu in the Americas (Locke et al., Reference Locke, Drago, López-Hernández, Chibwana, Núñez, Van Dam, Achinelly, Johnson, de Assis, de Melo and Pinto2021).

Ukoli (Reference Ukoli1967) mentioned the difficulty in distinguishing species of Apharyngostrigea, based mainly on morphological characteristics such as the size and position of organs (e.g. ovary or testes). This variability depends on several factors, including the degree of parasite maturation, the physiological condition of the host, and the contraction or extension of the body during fixation, among others. In this sense, the taxonomic history of Apharyngostrigea is somewhat complex, as many species have been synonymized in various studies due to similar morphological characteristics, further complicating species delimitation (Dubois, Reference Dubois1938, Reference Dubois1968; Mishra and Gupta, Reference Mishra and Gupta1975). In the present study, no distinct morphological differences were observed among the Apharyngostrigea species analysed. PCA did not reveal a clear separation between species of this genus, except for A. brasiliana, which formed a distinct cluster separate from the other species. This analysis also suggests that specimens labelled as Lineage 2 exhibit some characteristics similar to those of A. cornu, and others that bring it close to A. simplex. Further analyses focused on Lineage 2 will allow us to determine whether the observed features result from morphological variation within any of the previously described species for which molecular data are not yet available, or whether this lineage represents a yet undescribed species.

As recently suggested by Cribb et al. (Reference Cribb, Barton, Blair, Bott, Bray, Corner, Cutmore, De Silva, Duong, Duong, Duong, Duong, Duong, Duong, Faltynkova, Gonchar, Hechinger, Herrmann, Huston, Johnson, Kremnev, Kuchta, Louvard, Luus-Powell, Martin, Miller, Perez-Ponce de Leon, Smit, Tkach, Truter, Waki, Vermaak, Wee, Yong and Achatz2025), the recognition of trematode species remains a major ongoing challenge that must be addressed through an integrative approach. As many other genera, Apharyngostrigea includes some well-characterized species and others that are morphologically very similar, suggesting the presence of an unrecognized component of cryptic diversity. The use of molecular markers within an integrative taxonomy framework is crucial for species delimitation, particularly in cases where their taxonomic status is uncertain. The genus Apharyngostrigea currently contains approximately 20 species worldwide, of which six species are reported in the Americas (Ostrowski de Nuñez, Reference Ostrowski de Núñez1989; Hernández-Mena, et al., Reference Hernández-Mena, García-Prieto and García-Varela2014; Locke et al., Reference Locke, Drago, López-Hernández, Chibwana, Núñez, Van Dam, Achinelly, Johnson, de Assis, de Melo and Pinto2021; López-Jiménez et al., Reference López-Jiménez, González-García and García-Varela2022). In this study, four discovery delimitation methods were implemented, such as ABGD, ASAP, GMYC and PTP and two validation methods, BPP and PHRAPL, in combination with morphological data. This study contributes to clarifying certain taxonomic hypotheses regarding species delimitation within this genus, reinforcing the taxonomic status of three species and identifying two lineages that may represent new species. However, further studies incorporating multiple lines of evidence are needed to fully assess the diversity of the genus and to elucidate the phylogenetic relationships among its species. The addition of other congeneric species of Apharyngostrigea from Europe, Africa and Asia Central is imperative to better understand the evolution of this group of digeneans.

Supplementary material

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182025101315.

Data availability statement

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgements

The first author thanks Leopoldo Andrade Gómez and Tonatiuh González García for their help during field work. We are grateful to Laura Márquez and Nelly López for the sequencing service at LaNaBio, UNAM.

Author contributions

A.L.-J., M.G.-V. and R.A.-A. conceived and designed the study. A.L.-J. and M.G.-V. conducted data gathering. A.L.-J. performed phylogenetic analysis. A.L.-J., M.G.-V. and R.A.-A. wrote and edited the article.

Financial support

This research was supported by the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Postdoctoral Program (POSDOC) at Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico (DGAPA-UNAM); and the Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigación e Innovación Tecnológica (PAPIIT-UNAM) IN204425 and Secretaria de Ciencia, Humanidades, Tecnología e Innovación (Ciencia Basica y de Frontera 2025, CBF-2025-I-1433) No 1433 to M.G.-V.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical standards

The sampling in this work complies with the current laws and animal ethics regulations of Mexico. Specimens were collected under the Cartilla Nacional de Colector Científico (FAUT 0202) issued by the Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT) to M.G.-V.

References

Akaike, H (1974) A New Look at the Statistical Model Identification. In Parzen, E, Tanabe, K and Kitagawa, G (eds), Selected Papers of Hirotugu Akaike. Springer Series in Statistics. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 215222.Google Scholar
Allaire, J (2012) RStudio: integrated development environment for R. Boston MA 770, 165171.Google Scholar
American Ornithologist’ Union (1998) Checklist of North American Birds, 7th Edn. Washington, DC: American Ornithologist’ Union, 829.Google Scholar
Bowles, J, Blair, D and McManus, DP (1995) A molecular phylogeny of the human schistosomes. Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution 4, 103109.Google Scholar
Camargo, A and Sites, JJr (2013) Species delimitation: a decade after the renaissance. In Pavlinov, IY (ed.), The Species Problem Ongoing Issues. IntechOpen pp. 225247, https://doi.org/10.5772/52664.Google Scholar
Carstens, BC, Pelletier, TA, Reid, NM and Satler, JD (2013) How to fail at species delimitation. Molecular Ecology 22, 43694383. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12413Google Scholar
Ciurea, I (1927) Contributions à l’étude morphologique de Strigea cornu, (Rud.). Bulletin Academic Roumaine Section Scientifique 11, 1216.Google Scholar
Cribb, TH, Barton, DP, Blair, D, Bott, NJ, Bray, RA, Corner, RD, Cutmore, SC, De Silva, MLI, Duong, B, Duong, BDuong, BDuong, BDuong, BDuong, B, Faltynkova, A, Gonchar, A, Hechinger, RF, Herrmann, KK, Huston, DC, Johnson, PTJ, Kremnev, G, Kuchta, R Louvard, C, Luus-Powell, WJ, Martin, SB, Miller, TL, Perez-Ponce de Leon, G, Smit, NJ, Tkach, VV, Truter, M, Waki, T, Vermaak, A, Wee, NQX, Yong, RQY and Achatz, TJ (2025) Challenges in the recognition of trematode species: consideration of hypotheses in an inexact science. Journal of Helminthology 99, e54121. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022149X25000367.Google Scholar
Darriba, D, Taboada, GL, Doallo, R and Posada, D (2012) jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nature Methods 9, 772. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2109Google Scholar
De Queiroz, K (2007) Species concepts and species delimitation. Systematic Biology 56, 879886. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150701701083Google Scholar
Drummond, AJ, Suchard, MA, Xie, D and Rambaut, A (2012) Bayesian phylogenetics with BEAUti and the BEAST 1.7. Molecular Biology and Evolution 29, 19691973. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mss075Google Scholar
Dubois, G (1938) Monographie des Strigeida. Mémoires de la Société Neuchâteloise Des Sciences Naturelles 6, 535.Google Scholar
Dubois, G (1968) Synopsis of the Strigeidae and of the Diplostomidae (Trematoda). Mémoires de la Société Neuchâteloise Des Sciences Naturelles 10, 1258.Google Scholar
Dubois, G and Pearson, JC (1965) Quelques Strigeida (Trematoda) d’Australie. Bulletin de la Societé Neucha^teloise Sciences Naturelles 88, 7799.Google Scholar
Dubois, G and Rausch, R (1950) Troisième contribution a l’étude des Strigeides (Trematoda) Nord Américains. Bulletin de la Société Neuchâteloise Des Sciences Naturelles 73, 1950.Google Scholar
Ezard, T, Fujisawa, T and Barraclough, T (2021) Splits: species limits by threshold statistics. R package version 1.0.Google Scholar
Faust, EC (1918) Life-history studies on Strigea species (Trematoda) with a discussion of the classification of the Strigeidae. Illinois Biological Monographs 5(2), 1120.Google Scholar
Fernandez, MV, Beltramino, AA, Vogler, RE and Hamann, MI (2024) Morphological and molecular characterization of brown-banded broodsacs and metacercariae of Leucochloridium (Trematoda: Leucochloridiidae) parasitizing the semi-slug Omalonyx unguis (Succineidae) in Argentina. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 204, 108112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2024.108112Google Scholar
Flot, JF (2015) Species delimitation’s coming of age. Systematic Biology 64, 897899. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syv071Google Scholar
Fujisawa, T and Barraclough, TG (2013) Delimiting species using single-locus data and the Generalized Mixed Yule Coalescent approach: a revised method and evaluation on simulated data sets. Systematic Biology 62, 707724. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syt033Google Scholar
García-Varela, M and Nadler, SA (2005) Phylogenetic relationships of Palaeacanthocephala (Acanthocephala) inferred from SSU and LSU rDNA gene sequences. Journal Parasitology 91, 14011409. https://doi.org/10.1645/GE-523R.1Google Scholar
Goldberg, SR, Bursey, CR and Wong, C (2002) Helminths of the western chorus frog from eastern Alberta, Canada. Northwest Science Notes 76, 7779.Google Scholar
Gordy, MA, Locke, SA, Rawlings, TA, Lapierre, AR and Hanington, PC (2017) Molecular and morphological evidence for nine species in North American Australapatemon (Sudarikov, 1959): a phylogeny expansion with description of the zygocercous Australapatemon mclaughlini n. sp. Parasitology Research 116, 21812198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-017-5523-xGoogle Scholar
Hernández-Mena, DI, García-Prieto, L and García-Varela, M (2014) Morphological and molecular differentiation of Parastrigea (Trematoda: Strigeidae) from Mexico, with the description of a new species. Parasitology International 63, 315323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parint.2013.11.012Google Scholar
Herrmann, KK, Poulin, R, Keeney, DB and Blasco-Costa, I (2014) Genetic structure in a progenetic trematode: signs of cryptic species with contrasting reproductive strategies. International Journal Parasitology 44, 811818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2014.06.006Google Scholar
Howell, SNG and Webb, S (1995) A Guide to the Birds of Mexico and Northern Central America. New York: Oxford University Press, 851.Google Scholar
Jackson, ND, Morales, AE, Carstens, B and O’Meara, B (2017) PHRAPL: Phylogeographic Inference Using Approximate Likelihoods Systematic Biology 66(6), 10451053. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syx001.Google Scholar
Johnston, SJ (1904) Contributions to a knowledge of Australian entozoa. No. III. On some species of Holostomidae from Australian birds. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 29, 108116. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.20156Google Scholar
Kapli, P, Lutteropp, S, Zhang, J, Kobert, K, Pavlidis, P, Stamatakis, A and Flouri, T (2017) Multi-rate Poisson tree processes for single-locus species delimitation under maximum likelihood and Markov chain Monte Carlo. Bioinformatics 33, 16301638. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx025Google Scholar
Kim, HC, Hong, EJ, Ryu, SY, Choi, KS, Yu, DH, Cho, JG, Park, J, Chae, JS and Park, BK (2020) Morphological and molecular characterization of Apharyngostrigea pipientis Faust, 1918 (Trematoda: Diplostomidea) from Ardea cinerea jouyi. Egretta Intermedia and Nycticorax Nycticorax in Korea. Journal of Veterinary Clinics 37, 242248. https://doi.org/10.17555/jvc.2020.10.37.5.242Google Scholar
Locke, SA, Caffara, M, Marcogliese, DJ and Fioravanti, ML (2015) A large-scale molecular survey of Clinostomum (Digenea, Clinostomidae). Zoologica Scripta 44, 203217. https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12096Google Scholar
Locke, SA, Drago, FB, López-Hernández, D, Chibwana, FD, Núñez, V, Van Dam, A, Achinelly, MF, Johnson, PTJ, de Assis, JCA, de Melo, AL and Pinto, HA (2021) Intercontinental distributions, phylogenetic position and life cycles of species of Apharyngostrigea (Digenea, Diplostomoidea) illuminated with morphological, experimental, molecular and genomic data. International Journal for Parasitology 51, 667683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2020.12.006Google Scholar
Locke, SA, McLaughlin, JD, Lapierre, AR, Johnson, PT and Marcogliese, DJ (2011) Linking larvae and adults of Apharyngostrigea cornu, Hysteromorpha triloba and Alaria mustelae (Diplostomoidea: Digenea) using molecular data. Journal of Parasitology 97, 846851. https://doi.org/10.1645/GE-2775.1Google Scholar
López-Hernández, D, Locke, SA, de Assis, JCA, Drago, FB, de Melo, AL, Rabelo, EML and Pinto, HA (2019) Molecular, morphological and experimental-infection studies of cercariae of five species in the superfamily Diplostomoidea (Trematoda: Digenea) infecting Biomphalaria straminea (Mollusca: Planorbidae) in Brazil. Acta Tropica 199, 105082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2019.105082Google Scholar
López-Jiménez, A, González-García, MT, Andrade-Gómez, L and García-Varela, M (2023) Phylogenetic analyses based on molecular and morphological data reveal a new species of Strigea Abildgaard, 1790 (Digenea: Strigeidae) and taxonomic changes in strigeids infecting Neotropical birds of prey. Journal of Helminthology 97, e35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022149X23000196Google Scholar
López-Jiménez, A, González-García, MT and García-Varela, M (2022) Molecular and morphological evidence suggests the reallocation from Parastrigea brasiliana (Szidat, 1928) Dubois, 1964 to Apharyngostrigea Ciurea, 1927 (Digenea: Strigeidae), a parasite of boat-billed heron (Cochlearius cochlearius) from the Neotropical region. Parasitology International 86, 102468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parint.2021.102468Google Scholar
Martínez-Aquino, A, Ceccarelli, FS and Pérez-Ponce de León, G (2013) Molecular phylogeny of the genus Margotrema (Digenea: Allocreadiidae), parasitic flatworms of goodeid freshwater fishes across central Mexico: species boundaries, host specificity and geographical congruence. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 168, 116. https://doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12027Google Scholar
Miller, MA, Pfeiffer, W and Schwartz, T (2010) Creating the CIPRES science gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. In Gateway Computing Environments Workshop, 14 November 2010, New Orleans, LA, USA. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Pp. 18. https://doi.org/10.1109/GCE.2010.5676129Google Scholar
Miralles, A and Vences, M (2013) New metrics for comparison of taxonomies reveal striking discrepancies among species delimitation methods in Madascincus lizards. Plos One 8, e68242. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068242Google Scholar
Mishra, PN and Gupta, NK (1975) Redescription of Apharyngostrigea ramai (Verma, 1936). A trematode of cattle egret. Folia Parasitologica 22, 8991.Google Scholar
Nadler, SA, Hoberg, EP, Hudspeth, DSS and Rickard, LG (2000) Relationships of Nematodirus species and Nematodirus battus isolates (Nematoda: Trichostrongyloidea) based on nuclear ribosomal DNA sequences. Journal of Parasitology 86, 588601. https://doi.org/10.2307/3284877Google Scholar
Niewiadomska, K (2002) Family Strigeidae Railliet, 1919. In Gibson, DI, Jones, A and Bray, RA (eds), Keys to the Trematoda, Vol. 1. London UK: CABI Publishing and The Natural History Museum, pp. 231242.Google Scholar
Olivier, L (1940) Life history studies on two strigeid trematodes of the Douglas Lake region, Michigan. Journal of Parasitology 26, 447477. https://doi.org/10.2307/3272250Google Scholar
Olsen, OW (1940) Two New Species of Trematodes (Apharyngostrigea bilobata: Strigeidae, and Cathaemasia nycticorasis: Echinostomatidae) from Herons, with a Note on the Ocurrence of Clinostomum campanulatum (Rud.). Zoologica 25, 323328.Google Scholar
Olson, P, Cribb, T, Tkach, V, Bray, R and Littlewood, D (2003) Phylogeny and classification of the Digenea (Platyhelminthes: Trematoda). International Journal of Parasitology 33, 733755. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7519(03)00049-3Google Scholar
Ostrowski de Núñez, M (1989) The life history of a trematode, Apharyngostrigea simplex (Johnston 1904), from the ardeid bird Egretta thula in Argentina. Zoologischer Anzeiger 222, 322336.Google Scholar
Padial, JM, Miralles, A, De la Riva, I and Vences, M (2010) The integrative future of taxonomy. Frontiers in Zoology 7, 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-7-16Google Scholar
Pérez-Ponce de León, G, García-Varela, M, Pinacho-Pinacho, CD, Sereno-Uribe, AL and Poulin, R (2016) Species delimitation in trematodes using DNA sequences: Middle- American Clinostomum as a case study. Parasitology 143, 17731789. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182016001517Google Scholar
Pérez-Vigueras, I (1944) Trematodes de la superfamilia Strigeoidea; descripción de un género y siete especies nuevas. Revista de la Universidad de la Habana 52, 294314.Google Scholar
Pinacho-Pinacho, CD, García-Varela, M, Sereno-Uribe, AL and Pérez-ponce de León, G (2018) A hyper-diverse genus of acanthocephalans revealed by tree-based and non-tree-based species delimitation methods: ten cryptic species of Neoechinorhynchus in Middle American freshwater fishes. Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution 127, 3045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2018.05.023Google Scholar
Pons, J, Barraclough, TG, Gomez-Zurita, J, Cardoso, A, Duran, DP, Hazzel, S, Kamoun, S, Sumlin, WD and Vogler, A (2006) Sequence-based species delimitation for the DNA taxonomy of undescribed insects. Systematic Biology 55, 595609. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150600852011Google Scholar
Puillandre, N, Brouillet, S and Achaz, G (2021) ASAP: assemble species by automatic partitioning. Molecular Ecology Resources 21, 609620. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13281Google Scholar
Puillandre, N, Lambert, A, Brouillet, S and Achaz, G (2012) ABGD, automatic barcode gap discovery for primary species delimitation. Molecular Ecology 21, 18641877. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05239.xGoogle Scholar
Pulis, EE, Tkach, VV and Newman, RA (2011) Helminth parasites of the wood frog, Lithobates sylvaticus, in prairie pothole wetlands of the Northern Great Plains. Wetlands 31, 675685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-011-0183-6Google Scholar
R Core Team (2022) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Rambaut, A (2012) FigTree v1.4.2. Available at http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/soft-ware/figtree/ (accessed 20 November 2024).Google Scholar
Rambaut, A, Drummond, AJ, Xie, D, Baele, G and Suchard, MA (2018) Posterior Summarization in Bayesian Phylogenetics Using Tracer 1.7. Systematic Biology 67, 901904. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syy032Google Scholar
Ratnasingham, S and Hebert, PDN (2007) BOLD: The barcode of life data system (http://www.barcodinglife.org). Molecular Ecology Notes 7, 355364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.xGoogle Scholar
Ratnasingham, S and Hebert, PDN (2013) A DNA-based registry for all animal species: the Barcode Index Number (BIN) System. PLoS ONE 8, e6621. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066213Google Scholar
Richard, J (1964) Trématodes d’oiseaux de Madagascar. Note IV. Strigéidés et Cyathocotylides. Bulletin du Muséum National d´Histoire Naturelle 36, 506522.Google Scholar
Ronquist, F, Teslenko, M, van der Mark, P, Ayres, DL, Darling, A, Ho ̈hna, S, Larget, B, Liu, L, Suchard, MA and Huelsenbeck, JP (2012) MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Systematic Biology 61, 539542. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/sys029Google Scholar
Sites, JW and Marshall, JC (2003) Delimiting species: a renaissance issue in systematic biology. Trends Ecology and Evolution 18, 462470. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00184-8Google Scholar
Stamatakis, A (2006) RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22, 26882690. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl446Google Scholar
Suchard, MA, Lemey, P, Baele, G, Ayres, DL, Drummond, AJ and Rambaut, A (2018) Bayesian phylogenetic and phylodynamic data integration using BEAST 1.10. Virus Evolution 4, vey016. https://doi.org/10.1093/ve/vey016Google Scholar
Tamura, K, Stecher, G and Kumar, S (2021) MEGA11: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 11. Molecular Biology and Evolution 38, 30223027. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msab120Google Scholar
Thompson, J, Gibson, T, Plewniak, F, Jeanmougin, F and Higgins, D (1997) The CLUSTAL_X windows interface: flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Research 25, 48764882. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/25.24.4876Google Scholar
Tkach, VV, Pawlowski, J, Mariaux, J, Swiderski, Z, Littlewood, D and Bray, R (2001) Molecular phylogeny of the suborder Plagiorchiata and its position in the system of Digenea. In Dtj, L and Bray, RA (eds.), Interrelationships of the Platyhelminthes. London, UK: Taylor & Francis, pp. 186193.Google Scholar
Ukoli, F (1967) On Apharyngostrigea (Apharyngostrigea) simplex (Johnston, 1904) new comb, and A. (Apharyngostrigea) serpentia n. sp. (Strigeidae: Trematoda) with an evaluation of the taxonomy of the genus Apharyngostrigea Ciurea, 1927 by the method of numerical taxonomy. Journal Helminthology 41, 235256. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022149X00021635Google Scholar
Vainutis, KSS, Voronova, ANN, Mironovsky, ANN, Zhigileva, ONN and Zho-khov, AEE (2023) The species diversity assessment of Azygia Looss, 1899 (Digenea: Azygiidae) from the Volga, Ob, and Artyomovka Rivers basins (Russia. with Description of A. Sibirica N. Sp. Diversity 15, 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15010119Google Scholar
Yang, Z (2015) The BPP program for species tree estimation and species delimitation. Current Zoology 61, 854865. https://doi.org/10.1093/czoolo/61.5.854Google Scholar
Yang, Z and Rannala, B (2014) Unguided species delimitation using DNA sequence data from multiple Loci. Molecular Biology and Evolution 31, 31253135. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msu279Google Scholar
Zeder, J (1800) Erster Nachtrag zur Naturgeschichte der Eingeweidewürmer. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Zhang, J, Kapli, P, Pavlidis, P and Stamatakis, A (2013) A general species delimitation method with applications to phylogenetic placements. Bioinformatics 29, 28692876. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btt499Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Map of Mexico showing the sampling sites for Apharyngostrigea spp. Localities correspond to those listed in Table 1. Sites marked with a triangle indicate those previously sampled by Hernández-Mena et al. (2014) and López-Jiménez et al. (2022).

Figure 1

Table 1. Information on the specimens of Apharyngostrigea spp. Sampled in this study. Collection sites (CS); sampled localities; geographical coordinates; host names, tree label, and GenBank accession numbers

Figure 2

Figure 2. Results of phylogenetic analysis and species delimitation. Bayesian majority rule (50%) phylograms based on the concatenated (28S + ITS + cox1) gene sequences of Apharyngostrigea. Black vertical lines indicate that the corresponding genes in the phylogram and their concatenated sequences were recovered by the different species delimitation methods employed: Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery (ABGD); Assemble Species by Automatic Partitioning (ASAP); Generalized Mixed Yule Coalescent method (GMYC); Poisson Tree Processes (PTP); Bayesian Phylogenetics and Phylogeography (BPP); Phylogeographic Inference Using Approximate Likelihoods (PHRAPL).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Principal component analyses (PCA) of four species and two lineages of Apharyngostrigea were conducted with 24 variables from 47 individuals.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Photographs of specimens from analysed lineages and species of Apharyngostrigea. (A) Lineage 1. Scale bars = 500 μm. (B) Lineage 2. Scale bars = 200 μm. (C) A. cornu. Scale bars = 200 μm. (D) A. pipientis. Scale bars = 500 μm. (E) A. simplex. Scale bars = 500 μm. (F) A. brasiliana. Scale bars = 500 μm.

Figure 5

Table 2. Comparative measurements of adult specimens of Apharyngostrigea cornu (Zeder, 1800) Ciurea, 1927

Figure 6

Table 3. Comparative measurements of adult specimens of Apharyngostrigea pipientis (Faust, 1918)

Figure 7

Table 4. Comparative measurements of adults Apharyngostrigea simplex (Johnston, 1904)

Supplementary material: File

López-Jiménez et al. supplementary material

López-Jiménez et al. supplementary material
Download López-Jiménez et al. supplementary material(File)
File 860.4 KB