Biologie Animale

SYSTEMA HELMINTHUM VOL I

Auteur inconnu

This book "is designed primarily for laboratory workers in the field of helminthology, for use in determining the generic identity of the helminths with which they are dealing". Four pages are given to a general morphological account with a brief list of larval forms occurring in the principal orders. Each of the subsequent chapters is concerned with the tapeworms from fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals respectively. The families, genera and species within each order are treated alphabetically except that the type genus is always mentioned first. In a chapter entitled "Systematic survey of the cestodes of vertebrates and their host relationships" is found a list of orders, families, sub-families, genera and sub-genera, arranged in an order identical to that in the first chapters, with a conventional letter facing the genus to indicate the host group. The bibliography occupies 159 pages and is incomplete although the book is said to include "all the recent advances in the field of systematic helminthology up to February 1959"! The illustrations occupy 140 pages and the 584 figures are grouped into 70 plates irrespective of any possible affinities of the species included on the same plate. The figures are reproduced photographically from the original drawings and greatly reduced. In most cases the result is unsatisfactory and at least 50 figures are useless even to a specialist; some are out of focus and a few upside down (figs. 85, 161, 302c). The original lettering of the figures has been retained so that abbreviations appear, when legible, in German, French and English. The really important details cannot be seen in most figures and it is astonishing that such an expensive book could be so poorly illustrated. The book closes with an alphabetical index of 91 pages. Most helminthologists agree that tapeworms are a difficult group to study and that technique, state of preservation or maceration play an important part in the end result. Many of the older descriptions are, by modern standards, insufficient and in most cases the original material is no longer available. Faulty technique and badly preserved material are the commonest causes of many of the unreliable descriptions found in contemporary papers. For this reason, the establishment of new genera based upon such descriptions and without the original material being investigated should be officially discouraged. Of the 31 new genera created by Yamaguti, all but two are based on other author's descriptions. This leads to the creation of new genera for species which are inexistent, e.g. Oncobothriocephalus n.g., made for Ptychobothrium armatum from a bird, which species was recognized by its author more than 30 years ago as based on a wrong host, the true host being a Nile fish. ohria n.g. is based on a description of a worm devoid of a scolex and of which the uterus is unknown. Acotylolepis n.g. is proposed for Hymenolepis anacetabulata=Coronacanthus polyacantha=H. integra. Allohaplo-paraxis n.g., for H. sagitta, is said to lack an external seminal vesicle and yet this is apparent in the original figure reproduced by Yamaguti (fig. 247). Diorchis occlusa is an obvious synonym of H. liguloides but is made type of Aporodiorchis n.g. The 20 new genera introduced by Yamaguti into the family Hymenolepididae confound the confusion that has already been created by the Russian authors and in no way further a clear understanding of this difficult group. Critical systematic work previously accepted by leading authorities is not even mentioned. Diplogynia is correctly placed in Hymenolepididae but Diploposthe and Jardugia are relegated, together with the unrelated genus Diplophallus, to the family Diploposthidae. The genus Skorikowia, a synonym of Haploparaxis is reinstated based on Linstow's description but Yamaguti has ignored the fact that Fuhrmann re-examined the type and found one not two testes as stated by Linstow. Acanthocirrus is once again put into synonymy with Gryphorhynchus even though the two genera have been shown to be quite distinct. Recent publications based on type material have demonstrated that Southwellia is founded on a faulty description; that Multicapsiferina is a composite species made up of several different fragments; that Tetracisdicotyla is a synonym of Crepidobothrium; that Sobolevina is a synonym of Ascometra; that Unciunia is a synonym of Choanotaenia; that Spirometra is a sysnonym of Luehella, etc.... But these are ignored. Amongst the hosts of "Octopetalum" numidae is listed Porogynia paronai, a tapeworm.

🌐الوصف متاح باللغة الفرنسية فقط