1916
DOI: 10.2307/3271002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Notes on Some Nematodes from Fresh-Water Fishes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
24
0
1

Year Published

1929
1929
1996
1996

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
24
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Skrjabina (1974) distinguished T. clitellarius from T. lebedevi by the presence of four pairs of unequal sized post-anal papillae in T. clitellarius, as opposed to five pairs of equal sized post-anal papillae in T. lebedevi. However, it is evident from our study that the papillar arrangements of the two species are identical, including the position of the phasmids, which were not mentioned by Ward & Magath (1917) and apparently misplaced in the diagram of Skrjabina (figure 48, page 84, of Skrjabina, 1974). The sizes of the caudal papillae (excluding the papilliform phasmids, which are always the smallest) are frequently uniform in T. lebedevi, while displaying much variability in T. clitellarius.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 84%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Skrjabina (1974) distinguished T. clitellarius from T. lebedevi by the presence of four pairs of unequal sized post-anal papillae in T. clitellarius, as opposed to five pairs of equal sized post-anal papillae in T. lebedevi. However, it is evident from our study that the papillar arrangements of the two species are identical, including the position of the phasmids, which were not mentioned by Ward & Magath (1917) and apparently misplaced in the diagram of Skrjabina (figure 48, page 84, of Skrjabina, 1974). The sizes of the caudal papillae (excluding the papilliform phasmids, which are always the smallest) are frequently uniform in T. lebedevi, while displaying much variability in T. clitellarius.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…Skrjabina (1974) also considered the spicule size of T. clitellarius diagnostic, and this is stated as being 1.6 rnm as opposed to 1.1 mm for T. lebedevi. The data for T. clitellarius were apparently obtained from the original description of Ward & Magath (1917). Although we were unable to locate the type-material (J.R. Lichtenfels, pers.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations