Monogenetic Trematodes from Some Chesapeake Bay Fishes
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1959 Monogenetic Trematodes from Some Chesapeake Bay Fishes John Walter McMahon College of William and Mary - Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Marine Biology Commons, and the Oceanography Commons Recommended Citation McMahon, John Walter, "Monogenetic Trematodes from Some Chesapeake Bay Fishes" (1959). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539617723. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.25773/v5-j9a9-s897 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HOMOGENETIC TRBMATODES FROM SOME CHESAPEAKE BAT FISHES B f John Walter McMahon Virginia Fisheries laboratory- May 1959 Gloucester Point, Virginia A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT r 'J OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER -e° OF ARTS FROM THE COLLEGE OF. WILLIAM AND MARY f j ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to eapreiie Me appreciative thanks to ©if, W* #* Hargis, Jr,* Virginia Fisherlea Laboratory* lor aid and encouragement throughoutthis study* Special thanks are due to ©#. £* L, McHugh* former ©tractor* Virginia Fisheries Laboratory, for Me assistance, to Mr, Frank Wojelk lor aid in statistical analysis of date* to Mr, Robert Bailey for aid with photography * to other staff members of the Laboratory for their Invaluable aid in.- helping to collect and identify host material and to Ruth W. McMahon for her moral support and assistance In preparation of the pim m * TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................ MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Monocotyle p r ic e.......... i Monocotyie diademalis.. Loimopa.piHo.sum dasyatj Bmpruthotrema ralae .. Benedenla posterocolpa Tagla bairdiella ............. Bicotylophora tgachinoti lupeoeotyle brevoortia ei Micrpcotyie poronoti................... Comparison of Samples of three Microcotyle species .... Mlcroeotyte Microcofyie Microcotyle atenotorni ............. ibdnoides gracilis. ............... Seombegocotyle seomberomori Fsoudaadne me&ieaoa ................. Lithidocotyle a c anthophall us .. Yboracocotyie crocea................. Fag'S OCCURRENCE OF MONOGEN ElDS OH THEIR HOSTS............. 54 HOST SFECIFICITir.................... ........................................................... lnlr&gpeeificity .......................................................................... Supraspecificity ............................................................................ 64 CONCLUSION........................................................................................... 66 SUMMARY................................................................................................... 67 LITERATURE CITED........................................................... 69 TABLE 2 TABLE 3 INTRODUCTIOM Yey f little work has been done on the monogenetie trema- lodes of the Atlantic coast of North America* P tm im m records are coo* Hoed mainly to areas such as Woods Hole {Mats*), New York Aquarium, Beaufort* |M* CL b and the Tortuga#. Oaiy fragmentary records are listed for the Western Atlantic from Labrador to- Havana,. Cuba. Because past studies have been, of a limited localised nature# almost the entire cootie nental shelf area and open, water are completely unexplored, Works on monogeneids of the Gulf of Mexico# not within the strictly Atlantic region but closely allied to It in character of fish fauna, add useful supplementary records* The following summary refers to known Atlantic locality records and the respective workers? Labrador# Price {1939b Nova Scotia,: Stafford (1904), Linton {1940b- Maine, Mauler (1926); Woods Hole (Mass* b MacCatlum (1931), Linton (1940); Gape Cod# Colo {1699), Linton (If40b Rhode island# Colo (1699)1 Mew York Aquarium and Fish. Market, MacCallum (1913*18*. If2i|f Ylrginla* Frayne (1941b Beaufort# North Carolina# Linton (1905), Mauler {.1936)#. Fears# (1949)$ Bermuda# Meatieeiii (1909), Hanson (1950); Tortuga#* Frail (1910b Linton (1910), MacCallttm f 19m i6b Brooks (1934), Manter {1930-42), Fuji! (1944); Cuba# Yigueras (1935*1940). In a single paper, Frayne (1993) treated a few monogeoeid flukes from the region under study* Thus the Chesapeake Bay is a relatively unexplored region for monogeneids. Most of the-above papers are systematic studies with vary few data on distribution of parasites* number of hosts infected and in* tensity of infectlnns* Some workers* e*g* MaeCallum (1913*18# 1921), obtained specimens from mixed fish samples. from, aquaria and fish m arkets. which ..resulted in erroneous host records* ■ To avoid spurious host records, careful collecting techniques and consideration of host and parasite numbers were incorporated Into the present work. This paper deals with the Monogenea recovered from 116 Individual host specimens representing I t genera and .11 families, In all 149 host specimens of 'SO species were collected and-examined during the period from Suns 1957 to October lf§8*. Of these, 77 hosts of 13 species bore the parasites reported below* Collections were made at Cape Henry, Lynhaven Inlet, Ocean View, York Elver and several trawling .stations in Chesapeake Bay* Eighteen monogeneid species belonging to 15 genera were taken from the skin (one) or gills (17) of their hosts* Seven species are partially or completely rede scribed* and they and the remaining eleven are reported from the Chesapeake Bay area for the first time* Bata on occurrence* incidence, and host-specifieify are included along with other pertinent biological notes* • MATERIALS AND METHOD Fishes used Iii ltd® Investigation were collected from commercial, pound nets and haul seines .and exploratory otter trawls. Some specimens of RMnoptera. quaOriieba* LeSueur* cow-nosed ray* were captured by band spear In ©hallow water areas of the York River. Tyloea.ru® marimts* Walhaum* needlefish, specimens were taken with a dip net off the Laboratory dock at •night* Fish gills were immediately excised on hoard the fishing vessel If Mm# and other conditions permitted* hut most host material was collected from fresh catches of incoming fishing boats* Methods of Host Identification Hosts were Identified- using keys and systematics of Hildebrand and Sehroeder (1927), Breder f 19291 and Bigelow and Schroeder {1953a* 1953b), Skates* rays.* and other host species not properly identified in the field were brought to the Laboratory for verification. Species identification was verified by Dr. W. J. Hargis* Jr*, and W* H, Mas smarm of'the Virginia Fisheries Laboratory, Gills were excised from fish as quickly as possible and lamella were separated to facilitate manipulation, Gills from each host were placed immediately into marked bottles containing the relaxing agent ^saturated solution of Chlaretone (Parke -Davis) and filtered sea waterj. Shaking of Jars containing gills hastened relaxation of the worm®.* which after m hour or more dropped off the gills, Worms wore then preserved by adding a mixture of A* f% A* ^glacial acetic acid, 9S per cent alcohol* formaldehyde*, die-tilled water Is E<h 6 : 4 ®]* Proportion 9 1 water wae 5ater reduced becauee e5£cessive tended to render some of the worms soft and easily damaged* Farasttee were recovered by examining gill material and sediment under a die* seetiag mlcfoicope. Skates and rays were also examined for ventral and nasal, .specimens of Monogenea, Skin specimens occurred entirely on the ventral surface of the host* Careful, examination under bright oblique light was. necessary to locate these transparent Monogenea which revealed their presence by slight movements* A spatula or thin*edged Instrument facilitated removal of these forms, Pelafield’a haematoxylin and alum cochineal were used to bring out the complex structures of these animals. Of the 'two the latter was most satisfactory and widely used* 'The technique involved over* staining*, and then destalning* under close observation* with a weak solution, of HC l Im 30 per cent alcohol* After dehydrating specimens were cleared In beechwood creosote and mounted permanently in Ficcolyie. Clear mounts in Euparal were used in some cases to observe structures such .as excretory p m m and ducts which might otherwise have been obscured by the Stain* Whole mounts were used exclusively* and where possible a large number of individuals was studied for comparison* « 5 * Methods of. Parasite Identification Parasites were identified using the keys and the descrip tions of S p m m m <1946)* Hargis (1955*IfSthJ and Price (1936-!943h), The taxonomic, scheme of .Spreaton Is employed In tbit paper* Her llSynopei#*t drew extensively from the work of P rice C1936*1943h), Hargis fl9S8a*l9591 and T&maguti (1941 and 1953} have made some taxonomic emendations and additions since Sprostonfssynopsis was published* rrmm The terminology' employed is that presented by Margie (19S4* 1958}, Earlier workers tended 'to borrow inapplicable term#* from, other groups or utilise long descriptive phrases. F rie r to Margie* list of terms, Sprostonand .Price contributed much towards standard isation of terminology*. Measurements All measurements were, made using an ocular or filar micrometer and are cited, in. millimeters* Adult specimens were used for