Skip to main content
. 2019 Jun 20;10:23–28. doi: 10.1016/j.ijppaw.2019.06.009

Table 1.

Comparison between Cardicola dhangali n. sp. and its most morphologically similar congeners; percentages calculated from total body length, following (in part) Nolan et al. (2014). Measurements shown in μm.

Species Body Body length/width Spine length Spines per row Oral sucker Oesophagus % Anterior caeca length % Posterior caeca/anterior caeca Testis length/width Testis length % Testis width % Ovary length % Ovary position Male genital pores position Female genital pore position
C. dhangali n. sp. 3690 × 1105 3.3 7–8 7–14 Absent 29.02 9.73, 10.27 6.79, 8.50 3.54 64.71 18.26 8.86 Medial and left Right Right
C. aurataa 1093–1321 × 248–284 3.8–4.9 4–5 4–11 Present 3.10–3.60 Left-medially Left
hC. chaetodontisb 1150–1850 × 180–200 5–7 Absent Right Right
hC. chaetodontisc 899–1396 × 119–257 4.3–70 5–6 Present 33–37 2–5 5.4–12.5 3.1–5.5 36–38 41–66 7–16 Right to medial Left Left
C. curranid 1375–2853 × 442–663 2.6–5.0 19–25 2–4 Absent 31–40 9–18 1.8–4.2 24–37 25–59 Medial Left Left
C. forsterie,f 2512–4670 × 570–1070(f) 4.34–5.79(e) Present 29–33(f) 4–7(f) 72–75(f) Left Left
C. jiigurrug 1785–2505 × 132–160 13.2–15.7 <1 Present 28.2–36.3 15.9–22.0 2.2–4.1 Left Left
C. palmerid 1449–2357 × 867–1105 1.9–2.9 33–38 3–5 Absent 44–52 19–26 1.0–1.8 14–21 42–61 Medial Left Left

aHolzer et al. (2008); bYamaguti (1970); cNolan and Cribb, (2006); dBullard and Overstreet (2004); eShirakashi et al. (2012); fNolan et al. (2014); gYong et al. (2016); hCardicola chaetodontis considered here as two potentially separate species based on the morphological differences in Yamaguti (1970) and Nolan and Cribb, (2006).