Abstract
Paracaesicola n. gen., is erected herein to accommodate a new microcotylid species, Paracaesicola nanshaensis n. sp., collected from the Yongshu Reef, South China Sea. This species is the first monogenean to be recorded from the gills of Paracaesio sordida. The new species is characterized by the following features: (i) haptor short, with clamps arranged in two equal bilateral rows; (ii) testes numerous, arranged in two roughly alternating longitudinal rows, extending into the haptor; (iii) genital atrium armed with 16 robust spines, which are vertically arranged on top of the sausage shaped muscular male copulatory organ; and (iv) single vagina, bottle-shaped, with a distinctly bulbous vaginal atrium. The terminals of the reproductive system discriminate Paracaesicola n. gen. from all other genera in the Microcotylidae. Molecular phylogenetic analyses, based on partial 28S rDNA, places Paracaesicola nanshaensis n. sp. within the microcotylid clade, but its sequence differs from all known available microcotylid sequences.
Highlights
Microcotylidae Taschenberg, 1879 is the most speciose family in the Polyopisthocotylea monogeneans, and most species in this family parasitize marine teleost fishes
The topology of the maximum likelihood (ML) showed representative species belonging to different families (Microcotylidae, Heteraxinidae, Gotocotylidae, Protomicrocotylidae, Allodiscotylidae), while forming a monophyletic clade in their own family
The new species P. nanshaensis clustered with Cynoscionicola branquialis AF382050 and Diplostamenides sciaenae FJ432589 to form a separate monophyletic subclade (68% bootstrap support in ML, 76% in NJ)
Summary
Microcotylidae Taschenberg, 1879 is the most speciose family in the Polyopisthocotylea monogeneans, and most species in this family parasitize marine teleost fishes. Tripathi [33] and Dillon & Hargis [10] proposed early arrangements of the species in this family. Unnithan [34] proposed a taxonomic rearrangement of Microcotylidae, dividing the family into four subfamilies and 18 genera. Mamaev [28] considered that Unnithan’s work could result in additional confusion, and rejected all Unnithan’s subfamilies, recognising only five of his 13 new genera. Many monogenean species have been described from
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
