Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T03:04:29.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Further Studies on the Development of Cysticercus fasciolaris and Cysticercus pisiformis, with special reference to the Growth and Sclerotization of the Rostellar Hooks*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2009

Hilary Crusz
Hilary Crusz
Affiliation:
From the Department of Parasitology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The previous observations of the author and others on the development ot Cysticercus fasciolaris and C. pisiformis have been confirmed and amplified by experimental studies, and the developmental processes of the two forms are compared. While definite information has been obtained on the age of the various developmental stages, there is considerable variation due to the subtleties of the host-parasite relationship.

The study of the development of the rostellar hooks of taeniids has been extended by the use of differential staining, histochemical tests and polarized light, and new facts, such as the chemical and optical differences existing between cuticle and hooklets and between blade and base of hooks, have been brought to light.

Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 22 , Issue 3-4 , December 1948 , pp. 179 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1948

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bartels, E., 1902. —“Cysticfrcus fasciolaris. Anatomic BeitrSge zur Entwicklung und Umvrandlung in Taenia crassicollis.”. Zool. Jber., Anatom., XVI, 511–570.Google Scholar
Brauk, M., 1894–1900.—Vennes. Abt. Ib. Cestodes: in Bronn's Klassen u. Ordnungeh des Thier-Reichs. Vierter Bd. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. H., 1942.—“Experimental eosinophilia with keratin from Ascaris suum and other sources.” J. Infectious Diseases, LXXI, 270–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crusz, H., 1947.—“The early development of the rostellum of Cysticercus fasciolaris Rud., and the chemical nature of its hooks.” J. Parasit., XXXIII. 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crusz, H., 1948c.—“On the transverse fission of Cysticercus pisiformis in experimentally infested rabbits, and the phylogenetic significance of asexual phenomena in cysticerci.” J. Helminth., XXII.Google Scholar
Dennell, R., 1946.—“A study of an insect cuticle: the larval cuticle of Sarcophaga falculata Pand. (Diptera).” Proc. Roy. Soc. Ser. B., CXXXIII, 348–373.Google Scholar
Glaser, H., 1909.—“Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Cysticercus longicollis Rud.” Z. wiss. Zool., XCII. 540–561.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, R., 1900.—“Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Echinococcusköpfchen.” Zool. Jber., Anatom., XIII, 487–494.Google Scholar
Leuckart, R., 1856.—Die Blasenbandwtlrmer und ihre Entwickelung. Giessen.Google Scholar
Leuckart, R., 1886.—The parasites of man, and the diseases which proceed from them. Trans, by W. Hoyle. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Lisok, L., 1936.—Histochimie Animale. Paris.Google Scholar
Mlodzianowska, B., 1931.—“Uber die jUngsten Entwicklungsstadien von Cysticercus fasciolaris Rud., der Larve von Taenia taeniaeformis Bloch. auf Grund von Experimentaluntersuchungen.” Bull. Internal. Acad. Polon. (Ser. B.) Set. Nat. II. Zool., 3/5. 475–511.Google Scholar
Pantin, C. F. A., 1948.—Notes on microscopical technique for zoologists. Second impression. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Picken, L. E. R., 1940.—“The fine structure of biological systems.” Biol. Rev., XV, 133–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryor, M. G. M., 1940a.—“On the hardening of the ootheca of Blatta orientalis.” Proc. Roy. Soc, Ser. B. CXXVIII. 378–393.Google Scholar
Pryor, M. G. M., 1940b.—“On the hardening of the cuticle of insects.” Proc. Roy. Soc 393–407.Google Scholar
Raum, J., 1883.—“BeitragezurEntwick'elungsgeschichtederCysticercen.” Inaug. Dissert. 45. pp. Dorpat. (Figures in Bronn's Klassen u. Ordnungen. IV. Vennes.)Google Scholar
Salisbury, L. F. & Anderson, R. J., 1939.—“Concerning the chemical composition of Cysticercus fasciolaris.” J. biol. Chem., CXX1X, 505–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suoroointzev, I. A. & Pavlova, P. I., 1936.—“Répartition de l'azote des fractions albumineuses dans Ie corps des Ténias.” Ann. Parasit.hum. comp., XIV, 489–494.Google Scholar
Stephenson, W., 1947.—“Physiological and histochemical observations on the adult Hver fluke, Fasciola hepatica L. III. Egg-shell formation.” Parasitology, XXXVIII, 128–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, R. T., 1908.—“On the histogenesis of Cysticercus pisiformis.” Zool. Jber. Anatom., XXVI, 183–254.Google Scholar