Nomimoscolex suspectus n. sp. (Eucestoda: Proteocephalidea: Zygobothriinae) with morphological and molecular phylogenetic analyses of the genus

• Published in: Systematic parasitology Vol. 47; no. 3; pp. 157 - 172
• Main Authors: Zehnder, M P, de Chambrier, A, Vaucher, C, Mariaux, J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Springer Nature B.V 01.11.2000
• Subjects: Animals; Brachyplatystoma; Catfishes - parasitology; Cestoda - anatomy & histology; Cestoda - classification; Cestoda - genetics; DNA, Ribosomal; Female; Helminth Proteins - isolation & purification; Male; Molecular Sequence Data; Nomimoscolex suspectus; Phylogeny; RNA, Ribosomal, 28S; RNA, Ribosomal, 5.8S
• ISSN: 0165-5752; 1573-5192
• DOI: 10.1023/A:1006465026316

We describe a new species of Nomimoscolex from the Amazon siluriform fishes Brachyplatystoma filamentosum, B. flavicans and B. vaillanti. It differs from N. piraeeba in a lower mean number of testes, the paramuscular position of the vitelline follicles, the ovarian width/proglottis width ratio and the cirrus-pouch length/proglottis width ratio. Protein electrophoresis assays performed for 25 enzymatic systems showed that specimens of N. suspectus n. sp. from the three host species form a homogenous population which was genetically isolated from N. piraeeba and N. dorad. Moreover, the latter two species, synonymised by Rego (1991) because of their close morphological similarity, could be separated at eight loci. We thus restore N. dorad as a valid species. We finally examined the composition of the genus Nomimoscolex using DNA sequences from the 5.8S rRNA, ITS-2 and 28S rRNA nuclear ribosomal genes and a matrix of 24 morphological characters. Phylogenetic relationships were inferred for nine species of the genus, five members of other monticelliid genera and two outgroup species. The results of the phylogenetic analyses performed on morphological and molecular characters converged with those from allozyme studies and showed that N. suspectus, N. piraeeba and N. dorad clustered in a distinct clade that excluded other members of the genus. We therefore recognised them as an aggregate of species to reflect an isolation supported by both morphological and genetic data. Because relationships among the remaining Nomimoscolex representatives and other genera were generally poorly resolved, regardless of the database analysed, no action was taken to reorganise them into alternative groupings.