2020
DOI: 10.1007/s00436-020-06948-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A new species of Wallinia Pearse, 1920 (Digenea: Allocreadiidae), in Astyanax bimaculatus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Characidae) in Northeast Brazil, based on morphology and DNA sequences

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results of the molecular analysis further corroborated the independence of the new species. The topology of the phylogenetic tree, regarding on the position of Auriculostoma, Creptotrematina and Wallinia, agrees with previous studies by Curran et al (2011), Razo-Mendivil et al (2014 and Alves Dias et al (2020), but disagrees with Pérez-Ponce de León et al (2015), Hernández-Mena et al (2016, 2019 and Da Silva et al (2021). There is no doubt about the monophyly of each genus, but the phylogenetic relationships between them are not well supported and require further scrutiny.…”
Section: Molecular Characterizationsupporting
confidence: 82%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The results of the molecular analysis further corroborated the independence of the new species. The topology of the phylogenetic tree, regarding on the position of Auriculostoma, Creptotrematina and Wallinia, agrees with previous studies by Curran et al (2011), Razo-Mendivil et al (2014 and Alves Dias et al (2020), but disagrees with Pérez-Ponce de León et al (2015), Hernández-Mena et al (2016, 2019 and Da Silva et al (2021). There is no doubt about the monophyly of each genus, but the phylogenetic relationships between them are not well supported and require further scrutiny.…”
Section: Molecular Characterizationsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…(2015), Hernández-Mena et al (2016, 2019) and Da Silva et al . (2021). There is no doubt about the monophyly of each genus, but the phylogenetic relationships between them are not well supported and require further scrutiny.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%