Species of Eimeria of small wild rodents from the British Isles, with descriptions of two new species

Abstract

An examination of oocysts in samples and isolates originating from the faeces or gut contents of 582 wild wood-mice (Apodemus sylvaticus), yellow-necked mice (A. jlavicollis) and bank-voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) revealed 7 different species of the genus Eimeria. Of these, E. divichinica Musaev & Veisov, 1963, E. apodemi Pellhrdy, 1954 and E. hungaryensis Levine & Ivens, 1965 are recorded from British wood-mice, and E. rysavyi Levine & Ivens, 1965 from British bank-voles for the first time. Two additional species from the wood-mouse, E. montgomeryae n.sp. and E. uptoni n.sp., are described. The species E. divichinica, E. apodemi, E. hungaryensis and E. uptoni were also found in the yellow-necked mouse. The pre-patent times of E. apodemi, E. hungaryensis, E. montgomeryae and E. divichinica were established by passage in the wood-mouse.

ESTABLISHMENT OF A HEALTH SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM FOR REINTRODUCTION OF THE EURASIAN BEAVER (CASTOR FIBER) INTO SCOTLAND

“…Mycobacterium microti (Cavanagh et al, 2002), cowpox virus (Carslake et al, 2005), Cryptosporidium parvum (Quy et al, 1999), Eimeria spp. (Lewis and Ball, 1983), Bartonella (Birtles et al, 2001), Toxoplasma (Hay et al, 1983), and Leptospira (Salt and Little, 1977) have all been reported in UK wild rodent populations, and thus released beavers may become exposed. Ideally, wild rodents in the vicinity of the release sites should also be trapped and screened.…”

Eimerians from Different Karyotypes of the Japanese Wood Mouse (Apodemus spp.), with Descriptions of Two New Species and a Redescription of Eimeria montgomeryae Lewis and Ball, 1983

“…Lewis and Ball (1983) also described E. montgomeryae, from A. sylvaticus, to have oocysts with a roughly-pitted outer wall, 1-3 polar bodies, and ovoid sporocysts with large Stieda bodies; oocysts of E. montgomeryae were 22 x 19 (18-24 x 16-23). The shape indices of the oocysts and sporocysts of the E. apodemi and E. montgomeryae measured and described by Lewis and Ball (1983) are identical, as are their line drawings. We are convinced (1) that Pellerdy (1954) could not have missed such key oocyst characters as a rough oocyst wall, polar bodies, and Stieda bodies in his description of E. apodemi and, therefore, (2) that the E. apodemi and E. montgomeryae described by Lewis and Ball (1983) represent a single species with a very broad range of oocyst sizes; this is not unusual in rodent coccidia (see Duszynski, 1971).…”

“…1-4) that was always approximately the same width as the Stieda body (this is an important distinction, see below). In the paper by Lewis and Ball (1983), their figure 3h is a photomicrograph of a sporocyst of E. montgomeryae; it shows a distinct substieda body (the same width as the Stieda body) which they omitted in their description and in their line drawing of E. montgomeryae. We have included this key character in our redescription (above).…”

“…These oocysts, with the same general shape of E. divichinica, were 25 x 18 (22-28 x 15-20) with 1-3 polar bodies and with ovoid sporocysts, 15 x 9 (13-15 x 8-10), that had definite Stieda bodies. We believe that Lewis and Ball (1983) relied too much on the similarity of shape of these 2 forms and not enough on more definitive characters such as size and the presence or absence of Stieda and polar bodies. Eimeria inuyamensis most closely resembles Eimeria divichinica sensu Lewis and Ball (1983) which we believe they should have, but did not, name as new.…”

Coccidia (Apicomplexa: Eimeriidae) Infecting Cricetid Rodents from Alaska, U.S.A., and Northeastern Siberia, Russia, and Description of a New Eimeria Species from Myodes rutilus, the Northern Red-Backed Vole

“…rufocanus in Russia is a new host record. Line drawings (Levine and Ivens, 1965;Ball, 1982, 1983) and a photomicrograph of a sporulated oocyst (Lewis and Ball, 1983) of E. cernae already have been published, and these can be compared to our Figure 1, which we have deposited as a photoneotype, as noted above. Vance and Duszynski, 1985 Site of infection: Unknown, oocysts recovered from feces.…”