• Corpus ID: 27077624

[Acanthocephalan Paracanthocephaloides soleae (Porta, 1905) n. comb. (Arhythmacanthidae: Paracanthocephaloidinae) parasites of Solea impar Benn].

  title={[Acanthocephalan Paracanthocephaloides soleae (Porta, 1905) n. comb. (Arhythmacanthidae: Paracanthocephaloidinae) parasites of Solea impar Benn].},
  author={L Paggi and P Orecchia},
  volume={25 1},
The authors redescribe an acanthocephalan found in the intestine of Solea impar Benn. formerly considered as belonging to the species Acanthocephaloides soleae (Porta, 1905) Petrotschenko, 1956. The systematic position of the species soleae is discussed. For the absence of the trunk spines and for the morphology of the proboscis it is assigned to the genus Paracanthocephaloides Golvan, 1969 as Paracanthocephaloides soleae (Porta, 1905) n. comb. 
3 Citations

Acanthocephaloides cyrusi n. sp. (Acanthocephala: Arhythmacanthidae) from southeast African teleost fishes

A new species, Canthocephaloides cyrusi, is described from the fishes Solea bleekeri and Pomadasys commersoni from Lake St. Lucia, Natal, South Africa by the more marked sexual dimorphism in length, the arrangement of hooks, the proboscis with the longest hooks at the anterior-most extremity and the greater size of the Proboscis hooks and body spines.

Description of Harpagorhynchus golvaneuzeti n. gen. n. sp. (Acanthocephala, Harpagorhynchinae n. sub-fam.) with a review of acanthocephalan parasites of soleid fishes in the Mediterranean Basin

A critical review of the literature on echinorhynchid species infecting soleid fishes in the Mediterranean basin showed that Solearhynchus soleae should be considered a junior synonym of S. rhytidotes (Monticelli, 1905) and that S. kostylewi (Meyer, 1932) is a valid species.

A review of the Arhythmacanthidae (Acanthocephala) with a description of Heterosentis hirsutus n. sp. from Cnidoglanis macrocephala (Plotosidae) in Australia.

The Arhythmacanthidae subfamilies are reviewed: there is little utility in the recognition of these taxa because of the small number of genera involved and the validity of the characters on which they are based is in doubt, particularly whether trunk spines are present or absent.