Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T06:11:22.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A note on the comparative anatomy of the clamps in the superfamily Diclidophoroedea (Trematoda: Monogenea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Nora G. Sproston
Affiliation:
Keddey Fletcher-Warr Student, University of London

Extract

A re-examination of the haptoral sclerites forming the clamps, or ‘armoured suckers’, in Diclidophoroidea shows that they can be grouped into four main types, representing lines of evolution from what is here regarded as the primitive, or more generalized, form of clamp, that of the family Mazocraeidae. It has been shown that the form of the clamp skeleton must be regarded as of primary importance in the classification of the superfamily, since not only is it correlated with certain diagnostic characters of the soft parts of these worms, but it is usually fully developed some time before these parts make their appearance. Due attention has not always been paid to the detail of the clamps in systematic works, so that the position of some forms must remain uncertain until they can be redescribed. Owing to the sclerites often being twisted bars, curving through three dimensions, with the primary bars often jointed or fused, the appearance of different types of clamp is at first sight highly complex. The difficulty of interpreting them is increased by their being semi-transparent, and appearing of different shapes when viewed from various angles. These obscurities disappear when they are regarded as modifications of the fundamental plan found in Mazocraës and its allies.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1945

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

REFERENCES

Bonham, K. & Guberlet, J. E. (1937). J. Parasitol. 23, 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinkmann, A. Jr., (1942). Qöteborgs Kungl. Vitensk. Handl. Ser. B. 2, 1.Google Scholar
Campbell, F. L. (1929). Ann. Ent. Soc. 22, 401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerfontaine, P. (1898). Arch. Biol. Gand. 15, 301.Google Scholar
Goto, S. (1894). J. Coll. Sci. Tokyo. 8, 1.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, J. (1941). Parasitology. 33, 397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meserve, F. G. (1938). Allan Hancock Pacif. Exped. (Univ. Calif. Publ.). 2, 27.Google Scholar
Price, E. W. (1936). George Washington Univ. Bull. (Summaries of Doctoral Theses 19341936), p. 10.Google Scholar
Remley, L. W. (1942). Trans. Amer. Micr. Soc. 61, 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sproston, N. G. (1945 a). Parasitology. 36, 176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sproston, N. G. (1945 b). Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond. (in the Press).Google Scholar