Skip to main content
NCBI home page
International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife logoLink to International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife
. 2018 Sep 11;7(3):343–354. doi: 10.1016/j.ijppaw.2018.09.004

First record of viviparity in polystomatid flatworms (Monogenea: Polystomatidae) with the description of two new species of Madapolystoma from the Madagascan anuran hosts Blommersia domerguei and Mantella expectata

Willem Landman a, Olivier Verneau a,b,c, Louis Du Preez a,d,∗
PMCID: PMC6154473  PMID: 30258781

Abstract

Two frog species, Blommersia domerguei and Mantella expectata, are reported as hosts for new species of Madapolystoma. Phylogenetic analyses and genetic divergences observed in the genus supported the distinction of two morphotypes infesting selectively each host species and morphological investigation combining marginal hooklet morphometrics, genital spine number and measurements further showed that polystomes from the two host species differed from each other and from all other known polystomes. Madapolystoma magnahami n. sp. and Madapolystoma isaloensis n. sp. are therefore described as two new species. Advanced in utero development was illustrated in both polystome species following the observation of well developed hamuli and two pairs of haptoral suckers in developing embryos. Inside some of these in utero embryos a F2 generation embryo was also observed. This is the first report of true viviparity among polystomatid flatworms.

Keywords: Blommersia domerguei, Madagascar, Madapolystoma isaloensis n. sp., Madapolystoma magnahami n. sp., Mantella expectata, Monogenea

Graphical abstract

Image 1

Open in a new tab

Highlights

  • •

    Two new species of polystomes (Monogenetic flatworms) from Madagascar.

  • •

    First indication of true viviparity among the Polystomatidae.

  • •

    Unique life cycle with advanced degree of parental care.

1. Introduction

As a biodiversity hotspot Madagascar is ranked within the world's top three regions of conservation importance (Myers et al., 2000). The high species diversity and level of endemicity is ascribed to the isolation of the island over an extended period of time (Myers et al., 2000; Goodman and Benstead, 2005; Glaw and Vences, 2007). The separation of Madagascar from other landmass began during the breakup of Gondwana about 156–165 Mya (Rabinowitz et al., 1983) and ended when it separated from India about 84–94 Mya (Storey et al., 1995). Globally, Madagascar is ranked as the country with the twelfth highest amphibian species richness (Andreone et al., 2008). While the true species number of anuran species was reckoned to be close to 465 species (Glaw and Vences, 2007; Vieites et al., 2009; Glaw et al., 2010), 345 frog species are currently described from the island (Frost, 2018) with a near 100% endemicity. Only two non-native invasive species have been recorded, namely Hoplobatrachus tigerinus Daudin, 1802 and Duttaphrynus melanostictus Schneider, 1799 (Glaw et al., 2010; Moore et al., 2015).

In spite of the conservation status of Madagascar, the diversity and endemicity of the less prominent taxa are poorly known (Myers et al., 2000; Goodman and Benstead, 2005). As can be expected, the species richness is not restricted to the herpetofauna alone but also applies to their parasites (Wohltmann et al., 2007; Junker et al., 2010; Rocha et al., 2012; Kuzmin et al., 2013). Four genera of polystomes (Monogenea: Polystomatidae) have been described in Madagascar: (i) Uropolystomoides Tinsley and Tinsley, 2016 with a single species Uropolystomoides chabaudi (Euzet and Combes, 1965) from the chelonian host Pelomedusa subrufa (Lacépède, 1788); (ii) Metapolystoma Combes, 1976, with a single species Metapolystoma brygoonis (Euzet and Combes, 1964) from the anuran host Ptychadena mascareniensis (Duméril and Bibron, 1841); (iii) Madapolystoma Du Preez et al., 2010 with three species infecting frogs, namely Madapolystoma biritika Du Preez et al., 2010 from Mantella madagascariensis (Grandidier, 1872), Madapolystoma cryptica Berthier et al., 2014 and Madapolystoma ramilijaonae Berthier et al., 2014, from the same host Guibemantis liber (Peracca, 1893); (iv) Kankana Raharivololoniaina et al., 2011, with a single species Kankana manampoka Raharivololoniaina et al., 2011 from the frog Cophyla pollicaris (Boulenger, 1888).

Because it has been shown that polystomes coevolved with their hosts since their origin in the Palaeozoic age (Verneau et al., 2002, 2009a; Héritier et al., 2015), investigating their phylogeny can provide relevant insights into the diversification of amphibians over ancient and recent geological periods (Badets et al., 2011). Out of the 345 known anuran species from Madagascar, 86 species from a few selected localities were screened for polystomes (Verneau et al., 2009b). At least twelve polystome morphotypes were identified from these amphibians, suggesting that a great number of polystome species from Madagascar still await description. It is therefore important to study their systematics and evolution as this particular frog-polystome association may not only provide significant information on the biogeographical origins of Malagasy frogs (Verneau et al., 2009b), but also, ultimately, aid in their conservation as discussed by Berthier et al. (2014) for the host Guibemantis liber.

In January 2005 during a herpetological survey conducted in Madagascar (Fig. 1a), two frog species examined for polystomes were found to be infected with two distinct Madapolystoma morphotypes. Blommersia domerguei Guibé, 1974 (Fig. 1b) was collected from the Ambohitantely Special Reserve (Fig. 1a) and Mantella expectata Busse and Böhme, 1992 (Fig. 1c) was collected in the Isalo region (Fig. 1a). Since the discovery of these two groups of parasites, the collection of additional specimens of B. domerguei and M. expectata has been hampered by administration difficulties for sampling amphibians in Madagascar, and because of the conservation status of the second species. Therefore, despite the low sample size, we now describe the two new species herein since it is unlikely that we will have the opportunity to collect additional material in the foreseeable future.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

a) Map of Madagascar with the distribution areas and sampling localities of the two investigated frogs; b) Blommersia domerguei; c) Mantella expectata. (Map-Library, 2007).

2. Material and methods

2.1. The hosts

Blommersia domerguei and M. expectata are both small frogs of the family Mantellidae, which is the most diverse amphibian family in Madagascar (Glaw and Vences, 2006). Blommersia domerguei is known from six small areas along the east coast of Madagascar (Fig. 1a). It occurs in swamps at a relatively high altitude (Glaw and Vences, 2007) and its conservation status is considered to be “Least Concern” (IUCN, 2017). Species in this genus lay their eggs against structures overhanging ponds or streams (Glaw and Vences, 2007). In contrast, M. expectata is listed as “Endangered” (IUCN, 2017) and is known from only a small geographical area in the dry sandstone massif near Isalo (Glaw and Vences, 2007) (Fig. 1a). The majority of Mantella species lay their eggs in excavated terrestrial nests. After flooding, tadpoles leave the nest and move to ponds or streams (Glaw and Vences, 2007).

2.2. Host and parasite sampling

Fifteen adult specimens of B. domerguei were collected in the Ambohitantely Special Reserve in Madagascar in January 2005. Frogs were collected by hand and temporarily kept in clear plastic bags containing plant material and water, until dissection. The six specimens of M. expectata used in this study were obtained from an exporter in Antananarivo who collected the frogs at Isalo during the same period. Prior to dissection, frogs were anesthetized and subsequently killed with MS222 (ethyl-4-aminobenzoate). Dissection and internal inspection were performed using a Nikon SMZ-645 dissecting microscope. The urinary bladder and kidneys were removed and inspected for worms in a small glass Petri dish containing 0.6% Ringers solution. Adult parasites were fixed in 10% buffered formalin under coverslip pressure while most of the subadult polystomes were mounted in ammonium picrate glycerine. Some of the juveniles were preserved in absolute ethanol for molecular studies. Adult polystomes were washed free of fixatives in tap water and stained overnight in a weak acetocarmine solution, dehydrated, cleared in xylene and mounted in Canada balsam.

2.3. Sequence analysis

28S rDNA sequences of Madapolystoma spp. that were reported in Verneau et al. (2009b) and Berthier et al. (2014) were obtained from Genbank (Table 1). Sequences of K. manampoka, Eupolystoma alluaudi (de Beauchamp, 1913) and Eupolystoma vanasi Du Preez et al., 2003, were also selected for rooting the tree according to Raharivololoniaina et al. (2011). Sequence alignment was done with the help of ClustalW (Thompson et al., 1994) implemented in the MEGA software version 7 (Kumar et al., 2016) with regard to the 28S ribosomal secondary structure defined for polystome species (Badets et al., 2011; Héritier et al., 2015).

Table 1.

Polystome species investigated, host species, geographical locations and 28S Genbank accession numbers.

Polystome species Host species Location Genbank Accession Number
Madapolystoma ramilijaonae Guibemantis liber Madagascar: Andasibe JN800271
Madapolystoma ramilijaonae Guibemantis liber Madagascar: An’Ala JN800272
Madapolystoma ramilijaonae Guibemantis liber Madagascar: Ranomafana JN800273
Madapolystoma ramilijaonae Guibemantis liber Madagascar: Ranomanafakely JN800274
Madapolystoma ramilijaonae Guibemantis liber Madagascar: An’Ala FM897276
Madapolystoma ramilijaonae Guibemantis liber Madagascar: Andasibe FM897277
Madapolystoma cryptica Guibemantis liber Madagascar: Tsaratanana JN800275
Madapolystoma cryptica Guibemantis liber Madagascar: Andranomapanga JN800276
Madapolystoma cryptica Guibemantis liber Madagascar: Ambohitantely JN800277
Madapolystoma cryptica Guibemantis liber Madagascar: Makira JN800278
Madapolystoma sp. Guibemantis liber Madagascar: Andrakata JN800279
Madapolystoma sp. Guibemantis liber Madagascar: Montagne d’Ambre JN800280
Madapolystoma biritika Mantella baroni Madagascar: Unknown locality FM897278
Madapolystoma sp. Blommersia wittei Madagascar: Isalo FM897273
Madapolystoma sp. Gephyromantis sculpturatus Madagascar: An’Ala FM897274
Madapolystoma sp. Gephyromantis sculpturatus Madagascar: An’Ala FM897275
Madapolystoma sp. Blommersia blommersae Madagascar: An’Ala FM897271
Madapolystoma sp. Blommersia domerguei Madagascar: Ambohitantely FM897272
Madapolystoma sp. Mantella expectata Madagascar: Isalo FM897279
Kankana mananpoka Cophyla pollicaris Madagascar: Ranomafana HM854293
Eupolystoma vanasi Schismaderma carens South Africa AM157200
Eupolystoma alluaudi Bufo sp. Togo AM157199
Open in a new tab

To depict the relationships within Madapolystoma, a Minimum Evolution (ME) tree was inferred from the MEGA software, based upon the calculation of the Kimura 2-parameter distance after excluding gaps and partially sequenced regions in the final alignment (complete deletion option). One thousand replications were completed to evaluate the robustness of the nodes. Finally, genetic divergences (uncorrected p-distances) as well as total differences were determined for species delimitation following the complete deletion option in MEGA-7.

2.4. Morphology and morphometry

Specimens were examined using a Nikon NiE compound microscope (Nikon, Netherlands) fitted with a Nikon DS-Ri1 digital camera. Morphological structures and organs were measured in micrometres using a Nikon NIS elements D software program. Marginal hooklets were measured and plotted according to the procedure of Du Preez and Maritz (2006), in order to discriminate distinct species.

3. Results

3.1. Phylogenetic relationships and genetic divergences

Regarding the ME tree (Fig. 2), a sister species relationship was unambiguously evidenced between M. biritika and the undescribed species of Madapolystoma from B. domerguei, with bootstrap support of 100%. Considering the 1.2% genetic divergence that was calculated between the two polystomes (Table 2), we consider that they are separate species according to the 28S species-level threshold defined by Du Preez et al. (2007) for amphibian polystomes, which was estimated to about 0.07%. Furthermore, 22 substitutions were observed between these two polystomes following pairwise sequence comparisons, among which 11 corresponded to individual changes in the undescribed species of Madapolystoma from B. domerguei, suggesting it is a distinct species.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Minimum Evolution tree for Madapolystoma spp. Numbers on nodes indicate bootstrap support values. Madapolystoma sp. from B. domerguei refers to M. magnahami n. sp. and Madapolystoma sp. from M. expectata refers to M. isaloensis n. sp.

Table 2.

Matrix of p-distances (upper right) and total differences (lower left) inferred from pairwise comparisons of 28S sequences.

JN800271 JN800272 JN800273 JN800274 FM897276 FM897277 JN800275 JN800276 JN800277 JN800278 JN800279 JN800280 FM897278 FM897273 FM897274 FM897275 FM897271 FM897272 FM897279 HM854293 AM157200 AM157199
Madapolystoma ramilijaonae_JN800271 0.0000 0.0016 0.0016 0.0000 0.0000 0.0055 0.0062 0.0062 0.0070 0.0062 0.0055 0.0429 0.0406 0.0476 0.0453 0.0461 0.0531 0.0593 0.0859 0.1132 0.1046
Madapolystoma ramilijaonae_JN800272 0 0.0016 0.0016 0.0000 0.0000 0.0055 0.0062 0.0062 0.0070 0.0062 0.0055 0.0429 0.0406 0.0476 0.0453 0.0461 0.0531 0.0593 0.0859 0.1132 0.1046
Madapolystoma ramilijaonae_JN800273 2 2 0.0000 0.0016 0.0016 0.0055 0.0062 0.0062 0.0070 0.0047 0.0055 0.0414 0.0406 0.0476 0.0468 0.0445 0.0523 0.0578 0.0843 0.1116 0.1030
Madapolystoma ramilijaonae_JN800274 2 2 0 0.0016 0.0016 0.0055 0.0062 0.0062 0.0070 0.0047 0.0055 0.0414 0.0406 0.0476 0.0468 0.0445 0.0523 0.0578 0.0843 0.1116 0.1030
Madapolystoma ramilijaonae_FM897276 0 0 2 2 0.0000 0.0055 0.0062 0.0062 0.0070 0.0062 0.0055 0.0429 0.0406 0.0476 0.0453 0.0461 0.0531 0.0593 0.0859 0.1132 0.1046
Madapolystoma ramilijaonae_FM897277 0 0 2 2 0 0.0055 0.0062 0.0062 0.0070 0.0062 0.0055 0.0429 0.0406 0.0476 0.0453 0.0461 0.0531 0.0593 0.0859 0.1132 0.1046
Madapolystoma cryptica_JN800275 7 7 7 7 7 7 0.0008 0.0008 0.0016 0.0055 0.0031 0.0429 0.0406 0.0476 0.0468 0.0461 0.0539 0.0601 0.0851 0.1124 0.1046
Madapolystoma cryptica_JN800276 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 0.0000 0.0008 0.0062 0.0039 0.0437 0.0414 0.0484 0.0476 0.0468 0.0546 0.0609 0.0859 0.1132 0.1054
Madapolystoma cryptica_JN800277 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 0 0.0008 0.0062 0.0039 0.0437 0.0414 0.0484 0.0476 0.0468 0.0546 0.0609 0.0859 0.1132 0.1054
Madapolystoma cryptica_JN800278 9 9 9 9 9 9 2 1 1 0.0070 0.0031 0.0445 0.0422 0.0492 0.0484 0.0476 0.0546 0.0609 0.0851 0.1124 0.1062
Madapolystoma sp._JN800279 8 8 6 6 8 8 7 8 8 9 0.0055 0.0437 0.0429 0.0484 0.0476 0.0468 0.0554 0.0609 0.0867 0.1140 0.1046
Madapolystoma sp._JN800280 7 7 7 7 7 7 4 5 5 4 7 0.0445 0.0422 0.0492 0.0484 0.0476 0.0546 0.0609 0.0851 0.1132 0.1069
Madapolystoma biritika_FM897278 55 55 53 53 55 55 55 56 56 57 56 57 0.0289 0.0461 0.0484 0.0312 0.0172 0.0554 0.0835 0.1054 0.0968
Madapolystoma sp._FM897273 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 53 53 54 55 54 37 0.0414 0.0453 0.0304 0.0398 0.0546 0.0781 0.1046 0.0952
Madapolystoma sp._FM897274 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 62 62 63 62 63 59 53 0.0187 0.0429 0.0570 0.0570 0.0710 0.0991 0.0874
Madapolystoma sp._FM897275 58 58 60 60 58 58 60 61 61 62 61 62 62 58 24 0.0476 0.0593 0.0617 0.0788 0.1062 0.0960
Madapolystoma sp._FM897271 59 59 57 57 59 59 59 60 60 61 60 61 40 39 55 61 0.0445 0.0546 0.0773 0.1046 0.0898
Madapolystoma sp._FM897272 68 68 67 67 68 68 69 70 70 70 71 70 22 51 73 76 57 0.0632 0.0929 0.1124 0.1038
Madapolystoma sp._FM897279 76 76 74 74 76 76 77 78 78 78 78 78 71 70 73 79 70 81 0.0937 0.1101 0.1062
Kankana manampoka_HM854293 110 110 108 108 110 110 109 110 110 109 111 109 107 100 91 101 99 119 120 0.0734 0.0601
Eupolystoma vanasi_AM157200 145 145 143 143 145 145 144 145 145 144 146 145 135 134 127 136 134 144 141 94 0.0625
Eupolystoma alluaudi_AM157199 134 134 132 132 134 134 134 135 135 136 134 137 124 122 112 123 115 133 136 77 80
Open in a new tab

The undescribed species of Madapolystoma from M. expectata occupied a more basal position within Madapolystoma, being in an intermediate position between two undescribed polystomes from Gephyromantis sculpturatus (Ahl, 1929) and all other polystome spp., however with low bootstrap support (Fig. 2). Because the genetic divergences between this polystome and the remaining polystomes ranged from 5.46 to 6.32% (Table 2), it is likely that this polystome is also a separate species according to the 28S species-level threshold defined by Du Preez et al. (2007). Similarly, 70 to 81 substitutions were observed between this polystome and all others, among which 25 corresponded to unique changes, thus supporting our conclusion regarding its systematic status.

3.2. Taxonomic summary of Madapolystoma magnahami n. sp. (Fig. 3; Table 3)

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

a–b) Ventral view of M. magnahami n. sp. holotype. (c) Hamuli from mature specimens and (d) Marginal hooklets 1 (top) and 2–8 (bottom). Scale bars: B, 500 μm; C, 100 μm; D, 25 μm. Abbreviations: em, embryo; ev, excretory vessel; gb, genital bulb; gc, genito-intestinal canal; ha, hamuli. hp, haptor; ic, intestinal caecum; mh, marginal hooklet; mo, mouth; pe, potential embryo; ph, pharynx; su, sucker; sv, seminal vesicle; va, vagina; vd, vas deferens; vi, vitelline follicles; vv, vitelline duct.

Table 3.

Body measurements in micrometres for all known Madapolystoma spp.

Madapolystoma magnahami n. sp. Madapolystoma isaloensis n. sp. Madapolystoma cryptica Madapolystoma biritika Madapolystoma ramilijaonae
Total length 2179; 2340 2672 1151 (1027–1239) 2041 (1304–3041) 2948 (1493–3481)
Greatest width 507; 597 871 429 (411–439) 512 (420–597) 705 (602–857)
Haptor length - Body length to ratio 0.29 0.23 0.49 0.33 0.35
Width at vagina 414; 457 683 481 (369–548)
Haptor length 550; 648 618 387 (337–424) 679 (594–788) 661 (567–771)
Haptor width 769; 934 877 475 (431–550) 882 (707–1046) 922 (765–1013)
Hamulus length X 239 (231–244) 173; 228 227 (215–239) 215 (190–238) 179 (163–195)
Hamulus length Y 204 (193–212) 183; 202 208 (197–219) 199 (175–223) 178 (154–193)
Hamulus hook length 48 (47–49) 46; 49 36 (31–39) 45 (34–50) 39 (31–47)
Oral disk 157; 161 134 71 (58–83) 160 (95–206) 123 (90–156)
Pharynx length 156; 166 149 94 136 (117–164) 175 (164–184)
Pharynx width 140; 153 130 58 119 (105–125) 154 (151–156)
Genital bulb diameter 15 27 31 20 (18–24) 33 (30–38)
Number of genital spines 6 7 7 8 5–8
Genital spine length 17 (16–17) 7.9 (7.4–8.4) 14 10.7 (10.5–10.9) 15 (14–16)
Sucker diameter 209 (193–221) 207 (201–216) 160 (122–186) 200 (160–255) 216 (188–244)
Maximum no of developing eggs or embryos in utero 5 0 11 1–32 21
Marginal hooklet 1 length 27.6 (26.6–28.4) 25.5 (24.6–26.6) 23.1 (21.6–24.7) 24.2 (21.4–26.1)
24.6 (20.4–26.9)
23.8 (21.2–26.1)		 23.0 (20.6–26.2)
Marginal hooklet 2–8 length 27.0 (26.3–27.4) 25.8 (26.4–26.7)
Open in a new tab

3.2.1. Classification

Class Monogenea van Beneden, 1858, Order Polystomatidea Lebedev, 1988, Family Polystomatidae Gamble, 1896.

Genus Madapolystoma Du Preez et al., 2010.

3.2.2. Type host

Blommersia domerguei (Mantellidae).

3.2.3. Type locality

Ambohitantely Special Reserve, Madagascar (18,166667S; 47,273333E).

3.2.4. Site in host

Mature parasites were found in the urinary bladder while immature stages were found in both urinary and accessory bladders.

3.2.5. Level of infection

Of the 15 specimens of B. domerguei that were collected, ten frogs were infected by two mature and 27 juvenile parasites, of which nine were found in the accessory bladder (prevalence 67%; mean intensity 2.7).

3.2.6. Type-material

Morphological description based on two mature and 20 immature specimens. Two sexually mature specimens (holotype NMBP 474 and paratype NMBP 475) as well as six immature specimens (paratypes NMBP 476 ‒NMBP 481) from a single locality i.e., Ambohitantely Special Reserve (Fig. 1a). Types are deposited in the Parasitic Worm Collection, National Museum, Aliwal Street, Bloemfontein 9301.

3.2.7. Voucher material

The remaining specimens were deposited in the polystome collection of the North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.

3.2.8. Zoobank

The Life Science Identifier (LSID) of the article is urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:4C10D3CF-44C2-4DB4-90B9-648C1F1D0CE1. The LSID for the new name Madapolystoma magnahami n. sp. is urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:EB537C95-A9E2-4BBE-BB0D-E68725F30D10.

3.2.9. Etymology

The species epithet magnahami is a combination of two latin words, namely magna and hamus, meaning respectively great and hook. This refers to the large marginal hooklets of this species that are larger than those of all the other known species of Madapolystoma.

3.2.10. Description

Measurements in micrometres for mature parasites are given in Table 3. Body pyriform with widest point about two-thirds from anterior extremity (Fig. 3a and b), Mouth subterminal and surrounded by false oral sucker. Pharynx longer than wide. Intestine bifurcates, converging posteriorly; no prehaptoral anastomoses. Testis position unclear but probably in posterior half of body proper as vas deferens extends into posterior half of body proper; vas deferens widens anteriorly to form seminal vesicle, narrowing towards genital bulb, opening in common genital opening. Genital pore opening mid-ventral, posterior to intestinal caeca bifurcation; genital atrium muscular, armed with six genital spines. Genital spines of both adult parasites were not measurable but measurable in subadult specimens. Ovary position unclear but based on position of reproductive ducts probably in midbody. Two vaginae, on lateral margins, with marginal opening; vaginal vestibule cup-shape. No distinct vitellaria observed; few small clusters of what appear to be granular vitelline follicles in posterior half of body. Genito-intestinal canal present and prominent; situated behind confluent vitelline duct. Uterus sac-like holds five and eight embryos, respectively. Embryos not ciliated, encapsulated in thin membrane. Four embryos in advanced stage of development with two pairs of suckers and developing hamuli clearly visible (Fig. 3a and b). Darker patch of cells observed at midbody in more developed embryos (Fig. 3a). Embryos 224–391 long and 152–168 wide. Sucker pair 1 of embryos 39–64 in diameter and sucker pair two 41–47. Haptor of adult parasite with three pairs of suckers. Hamuli well developed; without deep cut between handle and guard (Fig. 3c). Marginal hooklet pairs 1 and 2 located along periphery between posterior-most pair of suckers while marginal hooklet pairs 3–5 imbedded in suckers; marginal hooklet pairs 6–8 located anteriorly in haptor between sucker pair 3. Posterior-most marginal hooklet 1 and marginal hooklets 2–8 almost of equal length (Fig. 3d).

3.3. Taxonomic summary of Madapolystoma isaloensis n. sp. (Fig. 4; Table 3)

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

a–b) Ventral view of M. isaloensis n. sp. holotype. (c) Hamuli from mature specimens and (d) Marginal hooklets 1–8. Scale bars: B, 200 μm; C, 100 μm; D, 20 μm. Abbreviations: de, developing embryo; ee, early embryo; ev, excretory vessel; gb, genital bulb; gc, genito-intestinal canal; ha, hamuli. hp, haptor; ic, intestinal caecum; mh, marginal hooklet; mo, mouth; ph, pharynx; su, sucker; sv, seminal vesicle; va, vagina; vd, vas deferens; vi, vitelline follicles; vv, vitelline duct.

3.3.1. Type host

Mantella expectata (Mantellidae).

3.3.2. Type locality

Isalo, Madagascar (coordinates not known).

3.3.3. Site in host

Mature parasite was found in the urinary bladder while immature stages were found in both urinary and accessory bladders.

3.3.4. Level of infection

All six specimens of M. expectata examined were infected by as many as nine subadult parasites. One mature and 24 juvenile polystomes were recovered. This resulted in a prevalence of 100%, with a mean intensity of 5.33.

3.3.5. Type material

Morphological description are based on one mature and 19 immature specimens. The type series comprises one sexually mature specimen (holotype NMBP 482) and six immatures (paratype NMBP 483–488) from a single locality, Isalo (Fig. 1a). Types are deposited in the Parasitic Worm Collection, National Museum, Aliwal Street, Bloemfontein 9301.

3.3.6. Voucher material

The remaining specimens were deposited in the polystome collection of North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.

3.3.7. Zoobank

The Life Science Identifier (LSID) of the article is urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:4C10D3CF-44C2-4DB4-90B9-648C1F1D0CE1. The LSID for the new name Madapolystoma isaloensis n. sp. is urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:744DAD34-F102-4946-9135-813DD528118A.

3.3.8. Etymology

The species epithet refers to the type locality, Isalo.

3.3.9. Description

Measurements in micrometres for mature parasites are given in Table 3. Body elongate with widest point just anterior to the haptor (Fig. 4a and b); anterior mouth and posterior haptor with three pairs of suckers and pair of hamuli posteriorly between posterior-most sucker pair. Mouth subterminal surrounded by false oral sucker. Pharynx longer than wide. Intestine bifurcates, converging posteriorly; no prehaptoral anastomoses. Testis position unclear but probably posterior in body proper as vas deferens extends into posterior half of body proper; vas deferens widens anteriorly to form seminal vesicle, narrowing towards genital bulb, opening in common genital opening. Genital pore opening mid-ventral, posterior to intestinal caeca bifurcation; genital atrium muscular; armed with seven genital spines. No distinct vitellaria observed; a few small clusters of what appears to be granular vitelline follicles in posterior half of body. Two vaginae, on lateral margins, with marginal opening; vaginal vestibule cup-shaped. Genito-intestinal canal present, prominent; situated behind confluent vitelline duct. Ovary position unclear but based on the position of reproductive ducts probably in midbody. Uterus sacciform, extending from genital bulb backwards full length of body proper. Haptor with three pairs of suckers. Two hamuli well developed; without cut between handle and guard (Fig. 4c). It was not possible to distinguish between marginal hooklets one and two on holotype but these were measured on juvenile paratypes (Fig. 4d). Marginal hooklet pairs 1 and 2 located along periphery between posterior-most pair of suckers; marginal hooklet pairs 3–5 imbedded in the suckers obscured and not measurable; marginal hooklet pairs 6–8 located anteriorly in haptor between sucker pair 3.

3.4. Marginal hooklet morphometrics

Marginal hooklet morphometric measurements separated M. magnahami n. sp. of B. domerguei from all the other known species of Madapolystoma, including M. isaloensis n. sp. of M. expectata, as no overlaps were evidenced in the scatterplot (Fig. 5). However, whereas marginal hooklet morphometric measurements separated M. isaloensis n. sp. from M. ramilijaonae, they did not clearly separate it from M. biritika and M. cryptica (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

Scatter diagram of a × c plotted against b × c for all known Madapolystoma spp., M. magnahami n. sp. and M. isaloensis n. sp. The ellipses represent 95% of the confidence interval about the mean.

3.5. Remarks

The phylogenetic position of the two undescribed species of polystomes found among Madagascan frogs clearly indicated they could be both assigned to the genus Madapolystoma of the family Polystomatidae. Regarding the genetic divergences estimated within Madapolystoma (Table 2) and private changes observed within each molecular lineage, i.e. Madapolystoma sp. of B. domerguei and Madapolystoma sp. of M. expectata, molecular results thus supported the morphological description of two new species, i.e. M. magnahami n. sp. from B. domerguei and M. isaloensis n. sp. from M. expectata. The most significant morphological characteristics that distinguish M. magnahami n. sp. and M. isaloensis n. sp. from each other and from the three other known Madapolystoma spp. (M. biritika, M. madagascariensis and M. cryptica) are the size and shape of marginal hooklets and the number and size of genital spines (Table 3).

4. Discussion

In species of Madapolystoma marginal hooklets C1‒C8 were found to be of equal length. This phenomenon has also been reported for species of Eupolystoma and Kankana. This is in contrast with the usual situation encountered in species of Polystoma and most other polystomes where the posteriormost hooklet pair is significantly larger than the rest (see for instance Tinsley, 1973, 1974; Du Preez and Kok, 1993, 1995; Du Preez et al., 2002; Aisien et al., 2011; Du Preez, 2011, 2013). Therefore, this measure may be a good character for species delimitation in Madapolystoma. Marginal hooklet morphometrics (Fig. 5) were thus useful in separating M. magnahami n. sp. from M. isaloensis n. sp. and from all the other known Madapolystoma spp. with 95% confidence. Madapolystoma magnahami n. sp. currently has the largest marginal hooklets of all known species in the genus. However, the measurements of marginal hooklets were not able to isolate M. isaloensis n. sp. from M. cryptica nor M. biritika. They did however separate M. isaloensis n. sp. from M. magnahami n. sp. and M. ramilijaonae. Regarding the number of genital spines in M. magnahami n. sp., although it overlapped with that reported in M. ramilijaonae, the length of genital spines was larger on average than for M. ramilijaonae (Berthier et al., 2014). Though the number of genital spines recorded in M. isaloensis n. sp. overlapped with that reported in M. cryptica, length of genital spines was larger than that of M. cryptica (Berthier et al., 2014).

The value of sclerotized structures in the description of soft-bodied parasites such as polystomes has been emphasised (Du Preez and Maritz, 2006) and although some taxonomists advocate that polystomes should not be flat fixed (Platt et al., 2011), it is of utmost importance to observe sclerotized structures in flat orientation. Fixing specimens under cover slip pressure does not affect the measurement of sclerites or smaller rigid structures such as the oral sucker, genital bulb or even, in some taxa, the haptoral suckers (Platt et al., 2011). When sufficient material is available we recommend that (1) a specimen be fixed in high quality ethanol or a fixative such as RNALater for DNA extraction; (2) some of the specimens be heat-killed by placing them in a drop of water on a microscope slide that is then heated from below with a butane lighter until the parasite stops moving followed by fixation in 10% buffered formalin and (3) remainder of the specimens to be fixed in 10% buffered formalin under coverslip pressure. Body measurements and placement of organs should be studied from the unflattened specimens while sclerites should be measured in flattened specimens. However, in instances where a limited number of specimens are available, such as here we do recommend fixing specimens flat under coverslip pressure.

Species of Diplorchis, Eupolystoma, Kankana, Neodiplorchis, Parapolystoma, Pseudodiplorchis and Sundapolystoma all have extended uteri (Du Preez et al., 2003; Raharivololoniaina et al., 2011) allowing for the accumulation of large numbers of eggs and/or in utero development. Therefore repeated re-infection of a single host may occur either during breeding events, after releasing larvae, or following an internal life-cycle inside the host. In the latter case the oncomiracidium does not leave the host but attaches to the bladder wall alongside its parent inside the urinary bladder. In Eupolystoma it has been shown that both ciliated and unciliated oncomiracidia are produced (Combes et al., 1973; Fournier and Combes, 1979); ciliated oncomiracidia are destined to leave the host to swim and find another host, while unciliated oncomiracidia are destined for an internal cycle. In Madapolystoma the in utero development is taken a step further in that no ciliated oncomiracidia are produced. Embryos develop gradually into juvenile parasites. In M. magnahami n. sp. hamuli and two pairs of suckers (Fig. 3a and b) were observe. In the most advanced in utero developing juveniles of M. magnahami n.sp. a darker cluster of cells is visible in the middle of the parasites (Fig. 3a). We hypothesize that this cluster of darker cells is a developing F2 embryo, implying true vivipary. To confirm whether Madapolystoma is viviparous, histological serial sectioning would be necessary; however no specimens were available for histology. True viviparity has been well documented for the teleost monogenean Gyrodactylus (see: Tinsley, 1983; Harris, 1983, 1985; Bakke et al., 2002; Cable and Harris, 2002) and reported for the anuran monogenean Gyrdicotylus (see Harris and Tinsley, 1987; Jackson and Tinsley, 1994). Du Preez et al. (2010) and Berthier et al. (2014) reported advanced development of embryos with the presence of developing hamuli and suckers in the embryos but did not mention the development of F2 developing embryos within the F1 generation.

The presence of only a small number of developing embryos in species belonging to Madapolystoma indicates a unique reproductive strategy. All the known hosts for Madapolystoma namely species of Blommersia, Guibemantis and Mantella deposit their egg clutches terrestrially or semi-terrestrially. While species of Blommersia and Guibemantis attach their eggs to vegetation or other objects close to water, Mantella spp. deposit their eggs in hidden cavities on the ground (Glaw and Vences, 2007). During a field trip to Madagascar in February 2006, a frog egg mass overhanging a pool was collected and inspected under a stereo microscope. A small polystome embryo was observed on the egg mass. It has been documented that frogs laying eggs outside the water may return, at regular intervals, to urinate on the eggs to keep them moist. We therefore hypothesize that a developing embryo in Madapolystoma spp. may leave the host during such an event and stay on the egg mass until another frog visits the egg clutch, when it then enters the cloaca and migrates to the accessory bladder from where it migrates to the urinary bladder.

During stock piling of offspring in utero, the reproductive capacity of polystomatids is probably determined by body size (Tinsley, 1990). While the total annual egg production of Polystoma integerrimum (Fröhlich, 1791), with a length of 10 mm, may be as many as 4000 eggs produced in only a few days (Combes, 1972), in Pseudodiplorcis americanus (Rodgers and Kuntz, 1940) with a similar body length it rarely exceeds 300 (Tinsley, 1990). The maximum reported number of eggs and developing embryos in a single individual of Madapolystoma spp. is 32 (Du Preez et al., 2010). In the instance of M. magnahami n. sp. and M. isaloensis n. sp., with their very small body size of less than 2.5 mm, and in utero development to a very advanced stage, the annual offspring production is probably very limited.

Well-defined testis tissue and ovaries could not be located in both M. magnahami n. sp. and M. isaloensis n. sp., in spite of careful examination with a high-end compound microscope. For species of Gyrodactylus it has been reported that the testis develops only after the first embryo is produced and that the female reproductive system develops after the male reproductive system (Bakke et al., 2007). Most polystomatids produce chitinous yellow eggs that develop in the water body after being released from the host. In species where in utero development is the norm (i.e. species of Eupolystoma, Kankana, Pseudodiplorchis and Wetapolystoma (see Tinsley, 1990; Gray, 1993; Raharivololoniaina et al., 2011) eggs are not encapsulated in a yellow rigid shell, but rather a semi transparent flexible membrane. This allows for direct maintenance of developing larvae through parental nutrients. Whereas vitellaria are distributed throughout most of the body proper in most polystomatids, it is significantly reduced and restricted to lateral fields in species displaying extensive in utero development of eggs. For some species of Eupolystoma and for K. manampoka, the closest relatives to species belonging to Madapolystoma (see Raharivololoniaina et al., 2011), the vitellaria are restricted to two narrow lateral streaks posteriorly in the body proper (Du Preez et al., 2003). The advanced in utero development as observed in Madapolystoma would involve direct maintenance of offspring by parental nutrients which explain the lack of vitellaria fields. According to Bakke et al. (2007), in viviparous forms the vitellaria never fully develop and never produce egg-shell precursor proteins. Vitelline cells in viviparous species appear to be reduced to patches of granular syncitia in the posterior part of the body (Cable et al., 1996). This is in accordance with what we observed for M. magnahami n. sp. and M. isaloensis n. sp.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that there was no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to Miguel Vences, Liliane Raharivololoniaina and Malagasy students for support and assistance during fieldwork and to Les Minter for commenting on the manuscript. We are grateful to the Malagasy authorities, in particular the Direction des Eaux et Forêts and Madagascar National Parks, for providing permits for research, collection, and export of specimens. We are indebted to theNational Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa (grant no. 61253) for financial support. Any opinion, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and therefore the NRF does not accept any liability in regard thereto.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijppaw.2018.09.004.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following is the supplementary data related to this article:

Multimedia component 1
mmc1.xml (253B, xml)

References

  1. Aisien M.S.O., Du Preez L.H., Imasuen A.A. Polystoma okumuensis n. sp. (Monogenea: Polystomatidae) from Boulenger's striped frog, Phlyctimantis boulengeri (Perret, 1986) in Nigeria. J. Helminthol. 2011;85:153–159. doi: 10.1017/S0022149X10000386. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Andreone F., Carpenter A.I., Cox N., Du Preez L., Freeman K., Furrer S., Garcia G., Glaw F., Glos J., Knox D., Köhler J., Mendelson J.R., III, Mercurio V., Mittermeier R.A., Moore R.D., Rabibisoa N.H.C., Randriamahazo H., Randrianasolo H., Raminosoa N.R., Ramilijaona O.R. The challenge of conserving amphibian megadiversity in Madagascar. PLoS Biol. 2008;118 doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Badets M., Whittington I., Lalubin F., Allienne J.-F., Maspimby J.-L., Bentz S., Du Preez L.H., Barton D., Hasegawa H., Ohler A., Combes C., Verneau O. Correlating early evolution of parasitic platyhelminths to Gondwana breakup. Syst. Biol. 2011;60:762–781. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syr078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bakke T.A., Harris P.D., Cable J. Host specificity dynamics observations on gyrodactylid monogeneans. Int. J. Parasitol. 2002;32:281–308. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7519(01)00331-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakke T.A., Cable J., Harris P.D. The biology of gyrodactylid monogeneans: the "Russian-Doll Killers. Adv. Parasitol. 2007;64:161–376. doi: 10.1016/S0065-308X(06)64003-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Berthier P., Du Preez L., Raharivololoniana L., Vences M., Verneau O. Two new species of polystomes (Monogenea: Polystomatidae) from the anuran host Guibemantis liber. Parasitol. Int. 2014;63:108–119. doi: 10.1016/j.parint.2013.09.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cable J., Harris P.D. Gyrodactylid developmental biology: historical review, current status and future trends. Int. J. Parasitol. 2002;32:255–280. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7519(01)00330-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cable J., Harris P.D., Tinsley R.C. Ultrastructural adaptations for viviparity in the female reproductive system of gyrodactylid monogeneans. Tissue Cell. 1996;28:515–526. doi: 10.1016/s0040-8166(96)80054-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Combes C. Écologie des Polystomatidae (Monogenea): facteurs influencant le volume et le rythme de la ponte. Int. J. Parasitol. 1972;2:233–238. [Google Scholar]
  10. Combes C., Bourgat R., SalamiCadoux M.-L. Biologie des Polystomatidae: le cycle interne direct chez Eupolystoma alluaudi (de Beauchamp, 1913) Z. Parasitenkde. 1973;42:69–75. doi: 10.1007/BF00329012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Du Preez L.H. Polystoma vernoni n. sp. (Monogenea: Polystomatidae) from the sharp nosed grass frog Ptychadena oxyrhynchus (Smith, 1849) in South Africa. J. Helminthol. 2011;85:294–299. doi: 10.1017/S0022149X10000581. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Du Preez L.H. Polystomatidae (Monogenea) of southern African Anura: Polystoma channingi n. sp. parasitic in two closely related Cacosternum species. Afr. Zool. 2013;48:64–71. [Google Scholar]
  13. Du Preez L.H., Kok D.J. Polystomatidae (Monogenea) of Anura in southern Africa: Polystoma testimagna n. sp., parasitic in Strongylopus f. fasciatus (Smith, 1849) Syst. Parasitol. 1993;25:213–219. [Google Scholar]
  14. Du Preez L.H., Kok D.J. Polystomatidae (Monogenea) of southern African Anura: Polystoma claudecombesi n. sp. parasitic in Rana angolensis Bocage, 1866. Syst. Parasitol. 1995;30:223–231. [Google Scholar]
  15. Du Preez L.H., Tinsley R.C., De Sa R. Polystomatidae (Monogenea) of southern African Anura: Eupolystoma vanasi n. sp. parasitic in Schismaderma carens (Smith, 1848) Syst. Parasitol. 2003;54:71–79. doi: 10.1023/a:1022169106845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Du Preez L.H., Maritz M.F. Demonstrating morphometric protocols using polystome marginal hooklet measurements. Syst. Parasitol. 2006;63:1–15. doi: 10.1007/s11230-005-5496-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Du Preez L.H., Raharivololoniaina L., Verneau O., Vences M. A new genus of polystomatid parasitic flatworm (Monogenea: Polystomatidae) without free-swimming life stage from the Malagasy poison frogs. Zootaxa. 2010;2722:54–68. [Google Scholar]
  18. Du Preez L.H., Vaucher C., Mariaux J. Polystomatidae (Monogenea) of southern African Anura: Polystoma dawiekoki n. sp. parasitic in Ptychadena anchietae (Bocage, 1867) Syst. Parasitol. 2002;52:35–41. doi: 10.1023/a:1015034329033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Du Preez L.H., Verneau O., Gross T.S. Polystoma floridana n. sp. (Monogenea: Polystomatidae) a parasite in the green tree frog, Hyla cinerea (Schneider), of North America. Zootaxa. 2007;1663:33–45. [Google Scholar]
  20. Frost D.R. American Museum of Natural History; New York, USA: 2018. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference.http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html Version 6.0 9 13 March 2018). Electronic Database accessible at. [Google Scholar]
  21. Fournier A., Combes C. Démonstration d'une dualité évolutive des embryons chez Eupolystoma alluaudi (Monogenea, Polystomatidae) et de son rôle dans la genèse du cycle interne. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris. 1979;289:745–747. [Google Scholar]
  22. Glaw F., Vences M. Phylogeny and genus-level classification of mantellid frogs (Amphibia, Anura) Org. Divers. Evol. 2006;6:236–253. [Google Scholar]
  23. Glaw F., Vences M. third ed. Köln, Vences & Glaw; 2007. A Field Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Madagascar; p. 496. (ISBN 978-3-929449-03-7) [Google Scholar]
  24. Glaw F., Koehler J., De la Riva I., Vieites D.R., Vences M. Integrative taxonomy of Malagasy treefrogs: combination of molecular genetics, bioacoustics and comparative morphology reveals twelve additional species of Boophis. Zootaxa. 2010;2383:1–82. [Google Scholar]
  25. Goodman S.M., Benstead J.P. Updated estimates of biotic diversity and endemism for Madagascar. Oryx. 2005;39:73–77. [Google Scholar]
  26. Gray M.E. Wetapolystoma almae n. gen., n. sp. (Monogenea: Polystomatidae) parasite of Bufo typhonius (Linnaeus, 1758) (Amphibia: Bufonidae) from Tropical Peru. Trans. Kans. Acad. Sci. 1993;96:181–185. [Google Scholar]
  27. Harris P.D. The morphology and life cycle of the oviparous Oögyrodactylus farlowellae gen. et sp. n. (Monogenea, Gyrodactylidae) Parasitology. 1983;87:405–420. [Google Scholar]
  28. Harris P.D. Species of Gyrodactylus von Nordmann, 1832 (Monogenea, Gyrodactylidea) from freshwater fishes in southern England, with a description of Gyrodactylus rogatensis sp. nov. from the bullhead Cottus gobio. J. Nat. Hist. 1985;19:791–809. [Google Scholar]
  29. Harris P.D., Tinsley R.C. The biology of Gyrdicotylus gallieni (Gyrodactylidea), an unusual viviparous monogenean from the African clawed toad, Xenopus laevis. J. Zool. 1987;212:325–346. [Google Scholar]
  30. Héritier L., Badets M., Du Preez L.H., Aisien M.S., Lixian F., Combes C., Verneau O. Evolutionary processes involved in the diversification of chelonian and mammal polystomatid parasites (Platyhelminthes, Monogenea, Polystomatidae) revealed by palaeoecology of their hosts. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2015;92:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2015.05.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. IUCN. 2017.http://www.iucnredlist.org Date of access: Downloaded on 14 September 2017.
  32. Jackson J.A., Tinsley R.C. Infrapopulation dynamics of Gyrdicotylus gallieni (Monogenea: gyrodactylidae) Parasitology. 1994;108:447–452. doi: 10.1017/s0031182000076009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Junker K., Lhermitte-Vallarino N., Barbuto M., Ineich I., Wanji S., Bain O. New species of Rhabdias (Nematoda: rhabdiasidae) from afrotropical anurans, including molecular evidence and notes on biology. Folia Parasitol. 2010;57:47–61. doi: 10.14411/fp.2010.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kumar S., Stecher G., Tamura K. MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2016;33:1870–1874. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msw054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kuzmin Y., Junker K., Du Preez L., Bain O. A new species of Rhabdias Stiles et Hassall, 1905 (Nematoda: rhabdiasidae) from Blommersia domerguei (Guibé) (Amphibia: Mantellidae) in Madagascar. Folia Parasitol. 2013;60:469–474. doi: 10.14411/fp.2013.050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Map-Library, 2007. http://maplibrary.org/library/stacks/Africa/Madagascar/index.htm. http://maplibrary.org/library/stacks/Africa/Madagascar/index.htm Date of access: 31-07-2017.
  37. Moore M., Fidy J.F.S.N., Edmonds D. The new toad in town: distribution of the Asian toad, Duttaphrynus melanostictus, in the Toamasina area of eastern Madagascar. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2015;8:440–455. [Google Scholar]
  38. Myers N., Mittermeier R.A., Mittermeier C.G., da Fonseca G.A.B., Kent J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature. 2000;403:853–858. doi: 10.1038/35002501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Platt T.R., Firth A., Sharma R.S.K. Redescription of Neopolystoma liewi du Preez and Lim, 2000 (Monogenea: Polystomatidae), from Cuora amboinensis (Testudines: geomydidae) with notes on specimen preparation. Comp. Parasitol. 2011;78:286–290. [Google Scholar]
  40. Rabinowitz P.D., Coffin M.F., Falvey D. The separation of Madagascar and Africa. Science. 1983;220:67–69. doi: 10.1126/science.220.4592.67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Raharivololoniaina L., Verneau O., Berthier P., Vences M., Du Preez L. First monogenean flatworm from a microhylid frog host: Kankana, a new polystome genus from Madagascar. Parasitol. Int. 2011;60:465–473. doi: 10.1016/j.parint.2011.08.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Rocha R., Borda E., Andreone F., Rosa G.M. First reports of leech parasitism in Malagasy anurans. Comp. Parasitol. 2012;79:352–356. [Google Scholar]
  43. Storey M., Mahoney J.J., Saunders A.D., Duncan R.A., Kelley S.P., Coffin M.F. Timing of hot spot-related volcanism and the breakup of Madagascar and India. Science. 1995;267:852–855. doi: 10.1126/science.267.5199.852. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Thompson J.D., Higgins D.G., Gibson T.J. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 1994;22:4673–4680. doi: 10.1093/nar/22.22.4673. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Tinsley R.C. Observations on Polystomatidae (monogenoidea) from east Africa with a description of Polystoma makereri n. sp. Z. Parasitenkde. 1973;42:251–263. doi: 10.1007/BF00328887. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Tinsley R.C. Observations on Polystoma africanum Szidat with a review of the inter-relationships of polystoma species in Africa. J. Nat. Hist. 1974;8:355–367. [Google Scholar]
  47. Tinsley R.C. Ovoviviparity in platyhelminth life-cycles. Parasitology. 1983;86:161–196. doi: 10.1017/s0031182000050885. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Tinsley R.C. Host behaviour and opportunism in parasite life cycles. In: Barnard C.J., Behnke J.M., editors. Parasitism and Host Behaviour. Taylor and Francis; London: 1990. pp. 158–191. [Google Scholar]
  49. Verneau O., Bentz S., Sinnappah N.D., Du Preez L., Whittington I., Combes C. A view of early vertebrate evolution inferred from the phylogeny of polystome parasites (Monogenea: Polystomatidae) Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2002;269:535–543. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1899. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Verneau O., Du Preez L.H., Badets M. Lessons from parasitic flatworms about evolution and historical biogeography of their vertebrate hosts. C. R. Biol. 2009;332:149–158. doi: 10.1016/j.crvi.2008.08.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Verneau O., Du Preez L.H., Laurent V., Raharivololoniaina L., Glaw F., Vences M. The double odyssey of Madagascan polystome flatworms leads to new insights on the origins of their amphibian hosts. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2009;276:1575–1583. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1530. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Vieites D.R., Wollenberg K.C., Andreone F., Köhler J., Glaw F., Vences M. Vast underestimation of Madagascar's biodiversity evidenced by an integrative amphibian inventory. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009;106:8267–8272. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0810821106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Wohltmann A., Du Preez L., Rödel M.-O., Köhler J., Vences M. Endoparasitic mites of the genus Endotrombicula Ewing, 1931 (Acari: prostigmata: parasitengona: Trombiculidae) from African and madagascan anurans, with description of a new species. Folia Parasitol. 2007;54:225–235. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Multimedia component 1
mmc1.xml (253B, xml)

Articles from International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES