Comparative Parasitology 67(1) 2000 - Peru State College

1974); P. laticeps Eigenmann, Laguna de Chascomus,
Buenos Aires, Argentina (Suriano,
1986a).
SPECIMENS STUDIED: 49 vouchers, USNPC
88964, HWML 15016, UN AM 3711, IPCAS M-
353, CHCM 314; 3 vouchers deposited by Molnar
et al. (1974), USNPC 73179.
REMARKS: Aphanoblastella travassosi is
widely distributed in cenotes of the Yucatan
Peninsula. All available specimens were slightly
to strongly contracted as a result of fixation in
ambient 4% formalin; however, our measurements
correspond fairly closely to respective
values reported by Price (1938), Molnar et al.
(1974), and Suriano (1986a). Price (1938) did
not describe or draw the accessory piece of the
copulatory complex of this species but indicated
that one was present; the drawing of the copulatory
complex by Molnar et al. (1974) corresponds
to our Figure 13, while that provided by
Suriano (1986a) is apparently distorted.
Discussion
Of the 22 species of Urocleidoides from the
Neotropical Region that were considered incertae
sedis by Kritsky et al. (1986), 17 remain to
be reassigned at the generic level: Urocleidoides
affinis Mizelle, Kritsky, and Crane, 1968, from
Characidae (Characiformes); Urocleidoides
amazonensis Mizelle and Kritsky, 1969, from
Pimelodidae (Siluriformes); Urocleidoides carapus
Mizelle, Kritsky, and Crane, 1968, from
Gymnotidae (Gymnotiformes); Urocleidoides
catus Mizelle and Kritsky, 1969, from Pimelodidae
(Siluriformes); Urocleidoides corydori
Molnar, Hanek, and Fernando, 1974, from Callichthyidae
(Siluriformes); Urocleidoides costaricensis
(Price and Bussing, 1967) Kritsky and
Leiby, 1972, from Characidae (Characiformes);
Urocleidoides gymnotus Mizelle, Kritsky, and
Crane, 1968, from Gymnotidae (Gymnotiformes);
Urocleidoides heteroancistrium (Price and
Bussing, 1968) Kritsky and Leiby, 1972, from
Characidae (Characiformes); Urocleidoides kabatai
Molnar, Hanek, and Fernando, 1974, from
Characidae (Characiformes); Urocleidoides lebedevi
Kritsky and Thatcher, 1976, from Pimelodidae
(Siluriformes); Urocleidoides margolisi
Molnar, Hanek, and Fernando, 1974, from Callichthyidae
(Siluriformes); Urocleidoides megorchis
Mizelle and Kritsky, 1969, from Pimelodidae
(Siluriformes); Urocleidoides microstomus
Mizelle, Kritsky, and Crane, 1968, from
KRITSKY ET AL.—DACTYLOGYRIDS FROM MEXICAN CENOTES
Characidae (Characiformes); Urocleidoides stictus
Mizelle, Kritsky, and Crane, 1968, from
Characidae (Characiformes); Urocleidoides
strombicirrus (Price and Bussing, 1967) Kritsky
and Thatcher, 1974, from Characidae (Characiformes);
Urocleidoides trinidadensis Molnar,
Hanek, and Fernando, 1974, from Characidae
(Characiformes); and Urocleidoides virescens
Mizelle, Kritsky, and Crane, 1968, from Gymnotidae
(Gymnotiformes). Previously, Kritsky et
al. (1989) transferred Urocleidoides variabilis
Mizelle and Kritsky, 1969, a parasite of neotropical
Cichlidae (Perciformes), to Sciadicleithrum
Kritsky, Thatcher, and Boeger, 1989. In the
present study, 5 species of Urocleidoides (sensu
lato) from pimelodids (1 described subsequent
to the emended diagnosis of Urocleidoides by
Kritsky et al., 1986) are reassigned to Ameloblastella
gen. n. or Aphanoblastella gen. n.
Six of the Urocleidoides spp. remaining as incertae
sedis occur on siluriform catfishes in the
Neotropical Biogeographical Region. Based on
the comparative morphology of the copulatory
complexes of U. corydori, U. margolisi, and
Philocorydoras platensis Suriano, 1986, the former
2 species should probably be transferred to
Philocorydoras (see Suriano, 1986b; Molnar et
al., 1974). We have not formally made this transfer
because details of the internal anatomy, particularly
those of the reproductive systems, are
lacking.
A new genus for U. amazonensis, U. catus,
U. megorchis, and perhaps U. lebedevi is probably
justified based in part on presence of modified
hook pairs 5 and 6 (slender hook shank,
degenerate thumb, and straight point). While
these species lack other generic characters of
Demidospermus (as emended by Kritsky and
Gutierrez, 1998) and therefore cannot be accommodated
in it, species of Demidospermus also
have modified hook pairs 5 and 6, suggesting a
phylogenetic relationship between these species
and Demidospermus spp. Mizelle and Kritsky's
(1969) use of "gut normal" in their descriptions
of U. amazonensis, U. catus, and U. megorchis
is presumed to mean that the gut consists of a
bifurcated esophagus and 2 ceca confluent posterior
to the gonads. However, U. lebedevi was
reported to have 2 blind ceca posterior to the
gonads (Kritsky and Thatcher, 1976). Features
of the digestive system in all of these species
must be verified before formal proposals for generic
placement can be made.
Copyright © 2011, The Helminthological Society of Washington