diff --git a/data/58/0F/71/580F71701F72EB00FCBF0EECFEAAFA7D.xml b/data/58/0F/71/580F71701F72EB00FCBF0EECFEAAFA7D.xml new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..b38a7b90557 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/58/0F/71/580F71701F72EB00FCBF0EECFEAAFA7D.xml @@ -0,0 +1,380 @@ + + + +New species of Gyrodactylus von Nordmann, 1832 (Monogenoidea: Gyrodactylidae) from Gymnodiptychus dybowskii (Kessler, 1874) (Schizothoracinae) in the Kunes River (Yili River basin), China + + + +Author + +Zhang, Wen-Run + + + +Author + +Hao, Cui-Lan + + + +Author + +Arken, Kadirden + + + +Author + +Rong, Meng-Jie + + + +Author + +Tian, Sheng-Li + + + +Author + +Kadir, Munira + + + +Author + +Yue, Cheng + +text + + +International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife + + +2023 + +2023-12-31 + + +22 + + +136 +145 + + + + +http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijppaw.2023.10.002 + +journal article +10.1016/j.ijppaw.2023.10.002 +2213-2244 +13288880 + + + + + +Gyrodactylus gymnodiptychi + +n. sp. + + + + +Type +host: + +Gymnodiptychus dybowskii +Kessler, 1874 + +. + + + + + +Type locality: +Kunes River +, +Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region +, +China +( + +82 + +◦ + +34′49.61″ N + +; + +84 + +◦ + +44′30.41″ E + +) + +. + + + +Site of infection: gills and fins. + + + +Types material: + +The +Holotypes +XJLCC20191101 + +and the + +Paratypes +XJLCC20191102-05 +are deposited in the museum of Parasitology at the Xinjiang Agricultural University. + + + + + +Fig. 1. +Holotype of + +Gyrodactylus gymnodiptychi + +from the gills of + +Gymnodiptychus dybowskii +. + +(A) Whole specimen (composite, ventral view), (B) Male copulatory organ (MCO), (C) Hamuli (HA), (D) Hamulus (HM), (E & F) Dorsal bar (DB), (G) Ventral bar (VB), and (H) Marginal hook (MH). + + + + +Genetic material: The +ITS1-5.8S-ITS2 +rDNA sequence was deposited in the GenBank (Accession numbers MH445967 and MH445968). + + + + +Etymology: The species was named by referring to the genus of host + +Gymnodiptychus dybowskii + +from which it parasitized. + + + + +Zoo bank: LSID + +urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub: +34E792F3-9ED8-45C3- A673-FC5C44577BAC + +. + + + +3.2. Morphology + + + +Based on +28 specimens +. Body "gourd-like" shape, fusiform, a depression in the middle of body, total body length 368.0 (223.3–608.0) long, 80 (62.0–136.5) wide. Pharynx bulb 21.1 (13.8–29.7) long, 19.7 (13.6–28.2) wide ( +Fig. 1A +and +Table 2 +). The cecum was posterior to the anterior edge of the testes ( +Fig. 1A +). MCO 12.3 (8.0–19.9) long, 8.5 (6.9–10.2) wide, armed with one central spine, two large spines and three small spines, posterior to pharyngeal bulb ( +Fig. 1B +& +2A +). Hamuli 61.6 (57.5–73.7) long, shafts 52.3 (44.9–55.9) long, points 28.2 (18.8–39.0) long, slim; proximal shaft 8.4 (7.9–11.2) wide, curved. Aperture distance 19.1 (18.8–23.8) long, hamulus aperture angle 31.7 + +◦ + +(26.9 + +◦ + +–33.5 + +◦ + +), hamulus root 22.4 (18.8–25.8) long, inward and curved ( +Fig. 1C +& +2B +). Dorsal bar 29.2 (21.7–38.6) long, 2.2 (1.6–3.3) wide, the middle flat, straight, with a hollow at each end ( +Fig. 1E and F +and +2C & D +). Ventral bar 40.7 (35.8–53.1) long, 8.0 (6.5–10.9) wide, ventral bar processes 12.1 (7.8–14.3) long, ovoid; ventral bar membrane 19.9 (15.9–22.3) long ( +Fig. 1G +& +2E +). Marginal hook 38 (30.4–45.6) long, hook shaft 32.6 (24.1–37.9) long, rounded bottom; marginal hook sickle 8.7 (6.4–10.6) long, curved, tilted forward; sickle point 5.2 (3.6–5.7) wide, sickle distal 3.7 (2.7–5.0) wide. Marginal hook toe 2.23 (2.1–2.8) long, marginal hook aperture 7.1 (7.0–8.5) long, hook instep 1.0 (0.9–1.3) high, and filament loop 12.2 (12.0–16.1) long ( +Fig. 1H +& +2F +). + + + + +3.3. Remarks + + +To understand the association of + +G. gymnodiptychi + +n. sp. +with known members of + +Gyrodactylus + +, we compared the morphological features of + +G +. +gymnodiptychi + +n. sp. +with + +Gyrodactylus aksuensis +Ergens and Karabekova (1980) + +; + +Gyrodactylus tokobaevi +Ergens and Karabekova (1980) + +; and + +Gyrodactylus montanus +Bychowsky, 1957 + +; +Ergens and Karabekova (1980) +; +Gusev, 1985 +). As depicted in +Fig. 3 +, compared with + +G. aksuensis + +, the dorsal bar of + +G. gymnodiptychi + +n. sp. +was raised at both ends with a hollow, but + +G. aksuensis + +was lanker and narrower than + +G. gymnodiptychi + +n. sp. ( +Fig. 3A and B +). + +Gyrodactylus gymnodiptychi + +n. sp. +exhibited similar ventral bar morphology to the + +G. tokobaevi + +( +Fig. 3A and C +). In both species, their ventral bar processes were prominent, but hamulus roots of + +G. gymnodiptychi + +n. sp. +were curved inward. In addition, the dorsal bar of + +G. gymnodiptychi + +n. sp. +had a straight center and a projection with a hollow at both ends, but the + +G. tokobaevi + +only had prominent ends without hollow. Additionally, the MCO of + +G. gymnodiptychi + +n. sp. +had three spines fewer than + +G. tokobaevi + +( +Fig. 3A and C +). + +Gyrodactylus gymnodiptychi + +n. sp. +exhibits similar dorsal bar morphology to the + +G. montanus +. + +In both species, their dorsal bars had a hollow at both ends of the projection, but the hamulus root of + +G. gymnodiptychi + +n. sp. +was curved inward and stouter than + +G. montanus + +. In addition, the ventral bar processes of + +G. gymnodiptychi + +n. sp. +were more prominent than + +G. montanus + +( +Fig. 3A and D +). The results clearly revealed identifiable morphological differences between + +G. gymnodiptychi + +n. sp. +and other + +Gyrodactylus + +members. In addition, + +G. gymnodiptychi + +n. sp. +was the only one showing a hollow dorsal bar and curved hamulus root that were distinct from the other eleven species, carrying non-hollow dorsal bars and straight hamuli roots, of gyrodactylid isolated from the fish subfamily +Schizothoracinae +. + + + + \ No newline at end of file