Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Systematics, Taxonomy, and Nomenclature of the Trematoda

Horace W. Stunkard
The Quarterly Review of Biology
Vol. 38, No. 3 (Sep., 1963), pp. 221-233
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2820128
Page Count: 13
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($19.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Systematics, Taxonomy, and Nomenclature of the Trematoda
Preview not available

Abstract

Recent publications present diverse opinions concerning the classification and taxonmy of the Trematoda. Dollfus (1958b) adopted the system of Faust and Tang (1936), recognizing three subclases: Monogenea, Digenea, and Aspidogastrea. Baer and Euzet (1961) removed the Monogenea from the Trematoda and regarded the group as a separate and independent class in the phylum Platyhelminthes, while Baer and Joyeux (1961) restricted the Trematoda to three subclases: Aspidogastrea, Digenea, and Didymozoidea. Stunkard (1962) presented a new arrangement and restored the terminology of Burmeister (1856) but revised the status of the Aspidobothrea. The class Trematoda was divided into two subclasses, Pectobothridia and Malacobothridia. The Pectobothridia contain two orders, Monopisthocotylea and Polyopisthocotylea; the Malacobothridia contain two orders, Aspidodothrea and Digenea. Morphological and development data are presented to support the opinion that the polystomes should be retained in the Trematoda; that the Didymozoidea should be included in the Digenea; and that the Aspidobothrea and Digenea should be included in a higher taxonomic unit, the Malacobothridia.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
221
    221
  • Thumbnail: Page 
222
    222
  • Thumbnail: Page 
223
    223
  • Thumbnail: Page 
224
    224
  • Thumbnail: Page 
225
    225
  • Thumbnail: Page 
226
    226
  • Thumbnail: Page 
227
    227
  • Thumbnail: Page 
228
    228
  • Thumbnail: Page 
229
    229
  • Thumbnail: Page 
230
    230
  • Thumbnail: Page 
231
    231
  • Thumbnail: Page 
232
    232
  • Thumbnail: Page 
233
    233