Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T07:29:49.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations on the occurrence of the plerocercoids of Triaenophorus nodulosus (Pallas, 1781) (Cestoda: Pseudophyllidea) in the perch Perca fluviatilis L. of Llyn Tegid (Bala Lake), Merionethshire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

James C. Chubb
James C. Chubb
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, The University of Liverpool
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The perch was the principal host for the plerocercoid of Triaenophorus nodulosus in Llyn Tegid.

Three stages of plerocercoid development were recognized: non-encapsuled developing plerocercoids, encapsuled but living mature plerocercoids, and dead encapsuled degenerate plerocercoids.

The stomach contents of the perch were analysed and planktonic crustaceans were found to be a significant part of the food from May to December. No change in diet in relation to length was found.

The period of occurrence of developing plerocercoids in the perch livers was March to June. This in relation to other evidence was shown to indicate the period of infection of the perch by the procercoids.

The three stages of plerocercoid development recognized were found to occur simultaneously in a few perch, and thus may represent infections acquired over three successive seasons.

There was no seasonal periodicity of occurrence of the plerocercoids in the perch.

All the perch examined were more or less equally infected by plerocercoids. There was no tendency for older, longer perch to be more heavily infected.

One to five capsules, normally containing one plerocercoid each, occurred in the livers of the infected perch.

For the perch examined there was a dynamic equilibrium between establishment of procercoids from the copepod host, and loss of plerocercoids by degeneration within the perch.

The mature plerocercoids form the reservoir of infection for the definitive host of T. nodulosus, the pike.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , August 1964 , pp. 481 - 491
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bauer, O. N. (1961). Relationships between host fishes and their parasites. Parasitology of Fishes, pp. 84–103. (English translation.) Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd Ltd.Google ScholarPubMed
Bauer, O. N. (1962). The ecology of parasites of freshwater fish (relationship between parasite and environment). Bulletin of the State Scientific Research Institute of Lake and River Fisheries, 49, 3–215. Translation by Israel programme for Scientific Translations.Google Scholar
Chubb, J. C. (1963 a). Seasonal occurrence and maturation of Triaenophorus nodulosus (Pallas, 1781) (Cestoda: Pseudophyllidea) in the pike Esox lucius L. of Llyn Tegid. Parasitology, 53, 419–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chubb, J. C. (1963 b). On the characterization of the parasite fauna of the fish of Llyn Tegid. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 141, 609–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chubb, J. C. (1964). Occurrence of Echinorhynchus clavula (Dujardin, 1845) nee Hamann, 1892 (Acanthocephala) in the fish of Llyn Tegid (Bala Lake), Merionethshire. J. Parasit. 50, 52–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chubb, J. C., Awachie, J. B. E. & Kennedy, C. R. (1964). Evidence for a dynamic equilibrium in the incidence of Cestoda and Acanthocephala in the intestines of freshwater fish. (In the Press.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copland, W. O. (1956). Notes on the food and parasites of pike (Esox lucius) in Loch Lomond. Glasg. Nat. 17, 230–5.Google Scholar
Fraser, P. G. (1960). The occurrence of Diphyllobothrium in trout, with special reference to an outbreak in the west of England. J. Helminth. 34, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuhrmann, O. (1926). Catalogue des Invertébrés de la Suisse. Cestodes. Muséum d'histoire Naturelle de Genève. Fasc. 17, pp. 149.Google Scholar
Ginetsinskaya, T. A. (1961). The life cycles of fish helminths and the biology of their larval stages. Parasitology of Fishes, pp. 140–79 (English translation). Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd Ltd.Google Scholar
Guttowa, A. (1955) O inwazyjności onkosfer Triaenophorus lucii (Müll.) i jej zmienności. Acta parasit. pol. 3, 447–65.Google Scholar
Guttowa, A. (1958). Dalsze badania nad wplywem temperatury na rozwój zarodków tasiemca Triaenophorus lucii (Müll.) w jajeczkach, oraz na inwazyjność powstalych z nich onkosfer. Acta parasit. pol. 6, 367–81.Google Scholar
Hopkins, C. A. (1959). Seasonal variations in the incidence and development of the cestode Proteocephalus filicollis (Rud. 1810) in Gasterosteus aculeatus (L. 1766). Parasitology, 49, 529–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joyeux, C. & Baer, J. G. (1938). Sur le développement des Pseudophyllidea (Cestodes). C. r. Séanc. Soc. Biol. 127, 1265–6.Google Scholar
Keleher, J. J. (1952). Growth and Triaenophorus parasitism in relation to taxonomy of Lake Winnipeg ciscoes (Leucichthys). J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 8, 469–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michajłow, W. (1951). ‘Stadialność’ rozwoju niektórych tasiemców (Cestoda). Uderzaja¸ca analogia biologiczna. Annls Univ. Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, 6 (sect. C). (Original not seen.)Google Scholar
Michajłow, W. (1962). Species of the genus Triaenophorus (Cestoda) and their hosts in various geographical regions. Acta parasit. pol. 10, 1–38.Google Scholar
Miller, R. B. (1945 a). Studies on cestodes of the genus Triaenophorus from fish of Lesser Slave Lake, Alberta. III. Notes on Triaenophorus nodulosus (Pallas) in the second intermediate host. Canad. J. Res. D, 23, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, R. B. (1945 b). Studies on cestodes of the genus Triaenophorus from fish of Lesser Slave Lake, Alberta. IV. The life of Triaenophorus crassus Forel in the second intermediate host. Canad. J. Res. D, 23, 105–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, R. B. (1952). A review of the Triaenophorus problem in Canadian lakes. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 95, 1–42.Google Scholar
Mueller, J. F. (1959). The laboratory propagation of Spirometra mansonoides (Mueller, 1935) as an experimental tool. II. Culture and infection of the copepod host, and harvesting the procercoid. Trans. Amer. micr. Soc. 78, 245–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheuring, L. (1919). Eine massenhafte Infektion von Triaenophorus nodulosus bei Forellenbrut. Allg. FischZtg. 44, 202–7.Google Scholar
Scheuring, L. (1923). Studien an Fischparasiten. Z. Fisch. 22, 93–204.Google Scholar
Sprent, J. F. A. (1962). Parasitism, immunity and evolution. The Evolution of Living Organisms. Symp. roy. Soc. Vict. Melbourne, 12 1959, pp. 149–65.Google Scholar
Vik, R. (1959). Studies of the helminth fauna of Norway. III. Occurrence and distribution of Triaenophorus robustus Olsson, 1892 and T. nodulosus (Pallas, 1760) (Cestoda) in Norway. Nytt Mag. Zool. 8, 64–73.Google Scholar
Vogt, K. (1938). Experimentelle Untersuchungen über die Gründe von Masseninfektionen mit Plerocercoiden des Fischbandwurmes Triaenophorus nodulosus (Pall.). Z. Fisch. 36, 193–224.Google Scholar
Wardle, R. A. (1933). Significant factors in the plerocercoid environment of Diphyllobothrium latum (Linn.). J. Helminth. 11, 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, N. H. F. (1963). Summer food of lake whitefish, Coregonus clupeaformis Mitchill, from Heming Lake, Manitoba. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 20, 279–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar