Stunkard, Horace W. (American Miusetum of Natural History, Central Par-k West at 79th St., New York, N.Y. 10024) 1972. Clarification of Taxonomy in the Mesozoa. Syst. Zool. 21:210-214.-The literature of the Mesozoa is confused because of errors in taxonomy, both in names and dates. Faulty notions concerning the relations between hosts and parasites led to the erection of imaginary genera. Differences of opinion on the limits of generic concepts have resulted in suppression and restoration of generic names. The status of suprageneric categories is similarly confused. Families have been erected, e.g., Heterocyemidae van Beneden, 1882; Orthonectidae Hartmann, 1925; and Heteronectidae Hartmann, 1925, with names that are invalid since they are not based on type genera. The designations and dates given by Grasse in the Traite de Zoologie (1961) are sometimes in error or are otherwise indefinite. The family names Rhopaluridae and Pelmatosphaeridae proposed by Caullery (1961) had been established by Stunkard (1937), where other emendations were made. The Mesozoa, originally regarded as a subphylum intermediate between Protozoa and Metazoa, are secondarily simplified marine organisms derived from free-living progenitors, degraded as a result of parasitism. Their morphology and life cycles, still only partially elucidated, indicate platyhelminth affinities. The rhombozoans and digenetic trematodes are initially parasites of mollusks and the dicyemids arose and evolved with the cephalopods. [Mesozoa.] The name Mesozoa was proposed by E. van Beneden (1876) to denote a group of organisms which he regarded as intermediate between Protozoa and Metazoa. According to Nouvel (1948), the first of these organisms had been discovered by Cavolini (1787) in the renal organs of cephalopod mollusks. They were described by Krohn (1839) and Erdl (1843). Von Kolliker (1849) reported that they had long been known to zoologists and specimens found by him in Octopus vulgaris and Octopus macropus, as well as those reported by other authors from different cephalopods, were regarded as a single species which he named Dicyema paradoxum. The genus, as erected, was monotypic and D. paradoxum is the type species. The generic name, Dicyema, was selected by von Kolliker to denote the fact, first observed by him, that the animals produced two kinds of embryos, which he designated as wurmf6rmig and infusorienartig. Van Beneden (1876) recognized that the vermiform and infusoriform embryos were produced in different individuals, termed 1 Supported by NSF GB-30661 respectively, nematogenes and rhombogenes. He described the cellular organization and traced the development of the vermiform embryos. The anterior cells that form the calotte were termed polars, the two lateral cells between the calotte and the more posterior superficial cells were termed parapolars, while the central cell was regarded as endodermal. Van Beneden restricted the genus Dicyema to parasites of octopuses; those of 0. vulgaris were designated as Dicyema typus; those from 0. macropus as Dicyema clausianum. The name, D. paradoxum, was ignored. Van Beneden believed in strict taxonomic correlation between hosts and parasites. New genera were erected for the dicyemid parasites of each genus of cephalopods other than Octopus and the parasites from the several cephalopod species were regarded as distinct. Species described by Wagener (1857) were redescribed and renamed when assigned to the new genera. Four genera were included in a new family
Read full abstract