Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T05:06:50.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Annotated catalogue of species of Angiostrongylus and the related genera Gallegostrongylus, Rodentocaulus and Stefanskostrongylus (Nematoda: Metastrongyloidea, Angiostrongylidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2019

Robert H. Cowie Open the ORCID record for Robert H. Cowie [Opens in a new window]
Robert H. Cowie*
Affiliation:
Pacific Biosciences Research Center, University of Hawaii, 3050 Maile Way, Gilmore 408, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Robert H. Cowie, E-mail: cowie@hawaii.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This catalogue is concerned with the closely related angiostrongylid genera Angiostrongylus, Gallegostrongylus, Rodentocaulus and Stefanskostrongylus. Three species, Angiostrongylus cantonensis, A. costaricensis and A. vasorum, have attracted most attention because of their importance in human and domestic animal disease. Many of the remaining species are poorly known and the number of valid taxa is unclear. The catalogue lists all nomenclaturally available and unavailable genus-group and species-group names that have been applied to the above genera and the species included in them, indicating their current nomenclatural status and providing the rigorous nomenclatural basis for future work. The catalogue lists 14 published and nomenclaturally available genus-group names, with the above four treated as valid, the other ten being junior synonyms. There are 42 published species-group names: 36 are valid, two are junior synonyms, four are nomenclaturally unavailable. One additional species, described in Chabaudistrongylus (synonym of Angiostrongylus), is listed as incertae sedis in Angiostrongylidae. Also listed are two unpublished collection names. The catalogue provides bibliographic details for all published names, and for available names provides locations of type material, details of type localities, geographic distributions and details of type and other hosts, both definitive and intermediate, to the extent known. The catalogue is a work of nomenclature, not a revisionary taxonomic work. No new names or new combinations are proposed. The apparently new family-group synonymy of Cardionematinae with Angiostrongylidae is introduced, as are four genus-group synonymies, three with Angiostrongylus and one with Stefaskostrongylus.

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 93 , Issue 4 , July 2019 , pp. 389 - 423
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Introduction

Species of Angiostrongylus Kamensky, 1905 and of the related genera Gallegostrongylus Mas-Coma, 1977, Rodentocaulus Schultz, Orlov & Kutass, 1933 and Stefanskostrongylus Drozdz, 1970 (Metastrongyloidea, Angiostrongylidae) are parasitic nematodes that use various species of mammals (Rodentia, Carnivora, Soricomorpha and Afrosoricida of the former Insectivora, and in one case a primate) as definitive hosts and a wide diversity of snails (Gastropoda) as intermediate hosts. Most modern authors have accepted around 20 species in the genus Angiostrongylus (e.g. Maldonado et al., Reference Maldonado, Simões, Thiengo and Lorenzo-Morales2012: 304; Spratt, Reference Spratt2015: 179; Barratt et al., Reference Barratt, Chan and Sandaradura2016: 1088; Robles et al., Reference Robles, Kinsella, Galliari and Navone2016: 181; Valente et al., Reference Valente, Robles, Navone and Diaz2018: 143), with fewer species in the other genera, which have been variously recognized by different authors.

Three of these species have attracted the most attention. Angiostrongylus cantonensis (Chen, 1935), with rats as its definitive hosts, can infect humans and other mammals (e.g. domestic animals) and birds as accidental hosts, causing often severe neurological problems when the parasites reach the brain and spinal cord, where the majority of them die (e.g. Alicata & Jindrak, Reference Alicata and Jindrak1970; Graeff-Teixeira et al., Reference Graeff-Teixeira, da Silva and Yoshimura2009; Lunn et al., Reference Lunn, Lee and Smaller2012; Cowie, Reference Cowie2013a; Barratt, et al., Reference Barratt, Chan and Sandaradura2016). Angiostrongylus costaricensis Morera & Céspedes, 1971, also primarily using rats as its definitive hosts, causes a gastrointestinal vascular syndrome in humans (e.g. Graeff-Teixeira et al., Reference Graeff-Teixeira, Camillo-Coura and Lenzi1991, Reference Graeff-Teixeira, Goulart and de Ornellas Brum2005) as well as in other mammals as accidental hosts (e.g. Miller et al., Reference Miller, Kinsella, Garner, Evans, Gullett and Schmidt2006). Dogs and other canids are the definitive hosts of Angiostrongylus vasorum (Baillet, 1866) and infection can cause a diversity of signs and symptoms, respiratory problems and coagulopathy being the most common (e.g. Morgan & Shaw, Reference Morgan and Shaw2010; Di Cesare & Traversa, Reference Di Cesare and Traversa2014). Relatively little is known about most of the other species in the group (e.g. Spratt, Reference Spratt2015: 180; Valente et al., Reference Valente, Robles, Navone and Diaz2018: 143).

The taxonomy and systematics of the genus Angiostrongylus have relied primarily on the morphology of the male reproductive structures, host taxa and the location of adult worms in the definitive hosts. Classification has been extremely fluid, in part depending on the emphasis given to each of these suites of characters (e.g. Dougherty, Reference Dougherty1951: 92) and on whether to split or lump genus-group taxa. The key revisions that have been published (tables 1–3) are as follows.

Table 1.

Classifications and lists of species of Angiostrongylus and related genera by selected authors, 1946–1970. Valid genus-group names (listed alphabetically, subgenera within genera) shown in bold capitals, generic synonyms in italic non-bold capitals listed alphabetically beneath the valid genus-group name. Type species of the valid genus shown in bold non-italic lower case immediately below the genus-group synonymy. Other valid species in non-bold non-italic lower case with synonyms in non-bold italic lower case beneath the valid name; unavailable names in non-bold, non-italic lower case in quotation marks and listed at the end of the list of valid species. The number of valid species in each valid genus is listed in parentheses after the genus name.

Table 2.

Classifications and lists of species of Angiostrongylus and related genera by selected authors, 1971–1986. Valid genus-group names (listed alphabetically, subgenera within genera) shown in bold capitals, generic synonyms in italic non-bold capitals listed alphabetically beneath the valid genus-group name. Type species of the valid genus shown in bold non-italic lower case immediately below the genus-group synonymy. Other valid species in non-bold non-italic lower case with synonyms in non-bold italic lower case beneath the valid name; unavailable names in non-bold, non-italic lower case in quotation marks and listed at the end of the list of valid species. The number of valid species in each valid genus is listed in parentheses after the genus name (Anderson (Reference Anderson1978) did not list all species, only examples, so no numbers are provided for his classification).

Table 3.

Classifications and lists of species of Angiostrongylus and related genera by selected authors, 1991–present. Valid genus-group names (listed alphabetically, subgenera within genera) shown in bold capitals, generic synonyms in italic non-bold capitals listed alphabetically beneath the valid genus-group name. Type species of the valid genus shown in bold non-italic lower case immediately below the genus-group synonymy. Other valid species in non-bold non-italic lower case with synonyms in non-bold italic lower case beneath the valid name; unavailable names in non-bold, non-italic lower case in quotation marks and listed at the end of the list of valid species. The number of valid species in each valid genus is listed in parentheses after the genus name.

Dougherty (Reference Dougherty1946) was the first to bring some order to Angiostrongylus and related genera, acknowledging Haemostrongylus Railliet & Henry, 1907 as an objective junior synonym (same type species) of Angiostrongylus, while also placing Parastrongylus Baylis, 1928, Rodentocaulus, Pulmonema Chen, 1935 and, tentatively, Cardionema Yamaguti, 1941 in synonymy. He included seven species (Cardionema ten Yamaguti, 1941 only tentatively) (table 1).

Skrjabin et al. (Reference Skrjabin, Shikhobalova, Schulz, Popova, Boev and Delyamure1952) differentiated the seven species placed by Dougherty (Reference Dougherty1946) in Angiostrongylus into four genera: Angiostrongylus, Rodentocaulus (revived from synonymy) and two new genera of Schulz (Reference Schulz1951), i.e. Angiocaulus Schulz, 1951 and Rattostrongylus Schulz, 1951 (table 1). Yamaguti (Reference Yamaguti1961) accepted the arrangement of Skrjabin et al. (Reference Skrjabin, Shikhobalova, Schulz, Popova, Boev and Delyamure1952) but also included in Angiostrongylus two more recently described species, Angiostrongylus blarini Ogren, 1954 and Angiostrongylus soricis Sołtys, 1954, for a total of nine species (table 1).

Drozdz (Reference Drozdz1970) split Angiostrongylus sensu lato into two subgenera, Angiostrongylus sensu stricto and Parastrongylus. The genus now included 12 species (with the placement of ten uncertain but tentatively in Angiostrongylus sensu stricto) (table 1). In a footnote he noted that he had become aware of petrovi Tarjymanova & Tschertkowa, 1969 after submission of his manuscript but had not been able to obtain the publication in which it was described. It is listed herein in his classification (table 1) as incertae sedis. He also established a new genus, Stefanskostrongylus Drozdz, 1970, for Angiostrongylus michiganensis Ash, 1967 (as type species), Angiostrongylus blarini Ogren, 1954 and Angiostrongylus soricis Sołtys, 1954 (table 1).

Bhaibulaya & Cross (Reference Bhaibulaya and Cross1971) added the then recently described species Angiostrongylus costaricensis Morera & Céspedes, 1971, Angiostrongylus malaysiensis Bhaibulaya & Cross, 1971 and Angiostrongylus schmidti Kinsella, 1971 to Drozdz's list, but did not acknowledge Drozdz's subdivision of Angiostrongylus, placed Haemostrongylus raillieti Travassos, 1927 in the synonymy of Angiostrongylus vasorum Baillet, 1866 and moved Rodentocaulus ondatrae Shultz, Orlov & Kutass, 1933 from Angiostrongylus to Stefanskostrongylus, for a total of 13 species in Angiostrongylus and four in Stefanskostrongylus (table 2).

Chabaud (Reference Chabaud1972) accepted the subdivision of Angiostrongylus, as proposed by Drozdz (Reference Drozdz1970), but raised the subgenera to full generic status, Angiostrongylus and Parastrongylus. He retained Rodentocaulus ondatrae in its re-established original combination with Rodentocaulus (which had been previously synonymized with Angiostrongylus by Dougherty and with Parastrongylus by Drozdz) and moved Angiostrongylus costaricensis to his newly created genus Morerastrongylus Chabaud, 1972, to which he also added the recently described Aelurostrongylus andersoni Petter, 1972. He added three of his own species to Stefanskostrongylus, i.e. Aelurostrongylus pottoi Chabaud & Bain, 1965, Aelurostrongylus minimus Chabaud, Brygoo & Petter, 1965 and the newly described Stefanskostrongylus dubosti Chabaud, 1972. He implicitly excluded Cardionema ten from consideration by excluding Cardionema, of which it is the type species, as it was described only from females, the male morphology being key to distinguishing species. He noted in a footnote that he did not consider Rattostrongylus petrovi Tarjymanova & Tschertkowa, 1969 because he had not been able to consult the original description. Thus, he accepted four species in Angiostrongylus (Angiostrongylus), seven in Angiostrongylus (Parastrongylus), two in Morerastrongylus, one in Rodentocaulus and six in Stefanskostrongylus – a total of 20 species, plus two that could be regarded as incertae sedis (petrovi and ten) (table 2).

Anderson (Reference Anderson1978, republished as Anderson, Reference Anderson, Anderson, Chabaud and Willmott2009) recognized three genera, Angiostrongylus, Rodentocaulus and Stefanskostrongylus, plus the recently introduced Gallegostrongylus, and with Angiostrongylus divided into two subgenera, Angiostrongylus sensu stricto and Parastrongylus. He did not provide lists of species in each, just illustrated examples (in all but one case the type species of the genus-group taxon), and only these species are listed in table 2. Nonethless, his genus-group arrangement has been influential.

Kontrimavichus (Reference Kontrimavichus, Kontrimavichus and Delyamure1979a: 57) ‘accepted in toto’ (English translation edition, 1985) the system of Chabaud, although he introduced Chabaudistrongylus for Angiocaulus ryjkovi Juschkov, 1971 and Rattostrongylus petrovi Tarjymanova & Tschertkowa, 1969, neither of which had been included in Chabaud's system. He placed Sobolevingylus microti Rausch & Rausch, 1969 in his new genus Rauschivingylus Kontrimavichus, 1979 as its type and only species, although Anderson (Reference Anderson1978: 3) had placed it in Stefanskostrongylus.

Ubelaker (Reference Ubelaker1986), in an influential review, recognized six genera. He raised the subgenera of Angiostrongylus to genera (Angiostrongylus and Parastrongylus). He reinstated Angiocaulus Schulz, 1951, which had previously been synonymized with Angiostrongylus by Drozdz (Reference Drozdz1970: 600), Chabaud (Reference Chabaud1972: 742) and Anderson (Reference Anderson1978: 24), including two species, its type species, Angiostrongylus gubernaculatus Dougherty, 1946 and Cardionema ten Yamaguti, 1941. And he retained Gallegostrongylus, Rodentocaulus and Stefanskostrongylus as valid. In total, he listed four species in Angiostrongylus, 12 in Parastrongylus, two in Angiocaulus, one in Rodentocaulus and three in Gallegostrongylus; he did not formally treat Stefanskostrongylus but mentioned three species in passing, one of which, Angiostrongylus minutus Ohbayashi, Masegi & Kubota, 1973, he newly assigned to the genus, for a total of eight species now in Stefanskostrongylus (table 2).

Bhaibulaya (Reference Bhaibulaya1991) preferred to retain in Angiostrongylus most of these species that had been placed in other genera, listing 20 species in Angiostrongylus (table 3). [See also Bhaibulaya (Reference Bhaibulaya and Cross1979), who had listed 19 of the 20 species, omitting only Angiostrongylus siamensis Ohbayashi, Kamiya & Bhaibulaya, 1979, which was published later in the year]. He omitted the three species placed by Ubelaker (Reference Ubelaker1986) in Gallegostrongylus as well as Rattostrongylus petrovi Tarjymanova & Tschertkowa, 1969 and Angiocaulus ryjikovi Juschkov, 1971. However, he included in Angiostrongylus the species placed by Ubelaker (Reference Ubelaker1986) in Angiocaulus and Stefanskotrongylus, the latter in contrast to Bhaibulaya & Cross (Reference Bhaibulaya and Cross1971), as well as Angiostrongylus blarini Ogren, 1954, which was omitted by Ubelaker (Reference Ubelaker1986).

Costa et al. (Reference Costa, De Arauja Costa and Guimaraes2003), in a rather inconclusive review, seemed to accept Angiostrongylus, with at least Haemostrongylus and Angiocaulus as synonyms and a total of 12 species (table 3). They also accepted Rodentocaulus, with its single (type) species, as had Chabaud, Anderson and Ubelaker. And they recognized Stefanskostrongylus, with three species, Angiostrongylus michiganensis Ash, 1967, Angiostrongylus blarini Ogren, 1954 and Angiostrongylus soricis Sołtys, 1954. Other species treated by previous authors were not mentioned.

There have been no major revisions since this, although various authors, in providing lists of species of Angiostrongylus, have explicitly or implicitly accepted or rejected one or other of the above arrangements. Gibbons (Reference Gibbons2010) reviewed genera introduced since the key of Anderson (Reference Anderson1978) but made no judgements as to their status. In general, despite this diversity of treatments, the consensus has long been that Angiostrongylus is a valid genus. However, the division of Angiostrongylus into two subgenera or genera (Angiostrongylus sensu stricto and Parastrongylus) and the validity of Angiocaulus have not been widely accepted (e.g. Campbell & Little, Reference Campbell and Little1988: 570; Kamiya & Fukumoto, Reference Kamiya and Fukumoto1988: 48; Cross, Reference Cross2004: 107; Robles et al., Reference Robles, Navone and Kinsella2008, Reference Robles, Kinsella, Galliari and Navone2016; Graeff-Teixeira et al., Reference Graeff-Teixeira, da Silva and Yoshimura2009; Souza et al., Reference Souza, Simões, Thiengo, Lima, Mota, Rodrigues-Silva, Lanfredi and Maldonado2009; Rebello et al., Reference Rebello, Barros, Mota, Carvalho, Perales, Lenzi and Neves-Ferreira2011; Maldonado et al., Reference Maldonado, Simões, Thiengo and Lorenzo-Morales2012: 304; Vieira et al., Reference Vieira, Muniz-Pereira, de Souza Lima, Moraes Neto, Guimarães and Luque2013; Spratt, Reference Spratt2015).

Although Costa et al. (Reference Costa, De Arauja Costa and Guimaraes2003: 10) included the type species of Stefanskostrongylus (and two other species consistently placed in this genus, i.e. Angiostrongylus blarini Ogren, 1954, Angiostrongylus soricis Sołtys, 1954) in Angiostrongylus, the consensus seems to be (often implicitly by omission of its species from Angiostrongylus) that Stefanskostrongylus is a valid genus, although the number of species explicitly included in it varies. Rodentocaulus also seems consistently to be considered valid, with just a single species, Rodentocaulus ondatrae Schulz, Orlow & Kutass, 1933. Gallegostrongylus appears not to have been considered a synonym of Angiostrongylus, but while Ubelaker (Reference Ubelaker1986) placed Aelurostrongylus andersoni Petter, 1972 in Gallegostrongylus (table 2), Spratt (Reference Spratt2015: 180) and Robles et al. (Reference Robles, Kinsella, Galliari and Navone2016: 181) listed it in Angiostrongylus (table 3).

Thus, four genera, Angiostrongylus, Gallegostrongylus, Rodentocaulus and Stefanskostrongylus, seem to emerge as valid, although some authors include some species of the last three genera in Angiostrongylus. This catalogue accepts these four genera as valid, pending further research. Three additional species have been noted that were not included in the above revisions and lists: Stefanskostrongylus mascomai Kontrimavichus, 1979, Stefanskostrongylus yagii Asakawa, Kamiya & Ohbayashi, 1988, both still treated in Stefanskostrongylus, and Gallegostrongylus australis Spratt et al., 2001, still included in Gallegostrongylus. In total, therefore 36 species are treated herein as valid in these four genera: 21 in Angiostrongylus, four in Gallegostrongylus, one in Rodentocaulus and ten in Stefanskostrongylus (table 3). This classification is primarily a work of nomenclature, not taxonomy. It should be considered as a comprehensive compilation of names in this group of genera but not as a definitive taxonomic treatment, rather a starting point for such a treatment.

Further taxonomic revision integrating morphological and molecular evidence may well confirm or deny the validity and placement of at least some of the taxa treated herein. Spratt (Reference Spratt2015: 179) noted that ‘Despite the efforts to divide the genus Angiostrongylus into subgenera that conveniently separate species in carnivores from species in rodents, this separation now appears artificial rather than phylogenetic’. Similarly, placement of species from Soricomorpha, Afrosoricida and a primate in Stefanskostrongylus may yet prove to be artificial. The key will be molecular phylogenetic analyses. However, such analyses are beset by the problem that many species are only known from their original description and perhaps one or a few subsequent studies. They are often only known from their type locality. Thus, obtaining new material of many of them will be a daunting task, given their occurrence in widely separated parts of the world. As yet, molecular analyses have not been sufficiently comprehensive to address the overall phylogeny of this close-knit group of genera as most such studies have only analysed a small number of species and have not included representatives of all four of the genera here considered valid (e.g. Fontanilla & Wade, Reference Fontanilla and Wade2008; Jefferies et al., Reference Jefferies, Shaw, Viney and Morgan2009; Eamsobhana et al., Reference Eamsobhana, Lim, Solano, Zhang, Gan and Yong2010; Foronda et al., Reference Foronda, López-González and Miquel2010; Gasser et al., Reference Gasser, Jabbar, Mohandas, Schnyder, Deplazes, Littlewood and Jex2012; Lv et al., Reference Lv, Zhang and Zhang2012; Jabbar et al., Reference Jabbar, Jex, Mohandas, Hall, Littlewood and Gasser2013; Gherman et al., Reference Gherman, Ionică, D'Amico, Otranto and Mihalca2016a; Rodpai et al., Reference Rodpai, Intapan and Thanchomnang2016; Yong et al., Reference Yong, Song, Eamsobhana and Lim2016; Deak et al., Reference Deak, Mihalca and Hirzmann2018).

Explanatory information

Scope

This catalogue does not treat all genera and species of the family Angiostrongylidae. Rather, it includes only those species in the genus Angiostrongylus and genera that are closely related to it and into which various species have been placed differently by different authors over the last century. Species placements into these genera and the relationships among these genera and other genera of Angiostrongylidae are largely unclear. This catalogue only considers species placed in Angiostrongylus, Gallegostrongylus, Rodentocaulus and Stefanskostrongylus, as discussed in the Introduction.

Arrangement and treatment of taxa

The sequence of genera is alphabetical. Genus-group synonyms are listed chronologically under the genus-group heading. Species-group names are listed alphabetically within genera. Treatment of names generally follows the most recent authoritative revisions, although few of these are up to date, as discussed above and explained in more detail as necessary under each entry. No subgenera are recognized as valid, again as discussed above.

No revisionary work has been attempted and no new taxonomic decisions have been made, with the exception of the introduction of the synonymies of Cardionema Yamaguti, 1941, Chabaudistrongylus Kontrimavichus, 1979, Morerastrongylus Chabaud, 1972 and Rattostrongylus Schulz, 1951 with Angiostrongylus Kamensky, 1905, of Rauschivingylus Kontrimavichus, 1979 with Stefanskostrongylus Drozdz, Reference Drozdz1970, and of Cardionematinae with Angiostrongylidae, which are indicated in boldface by ‘n. syn.’, as explained in Remarks sections associated with those names. With these exceptions, the nomenclature presented in this catalogue is derived solely from review of the literature. All interpretations follow the fourth edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999), hereafter the Code.

Unavailable names

Nomenclaturally unavailable names are listed with full citation and a statement of why the name is unavailable. Additional information is provided in the Remarks sections. Incorrect spellings are not listed separately but some are discussed, although no doubt there are others scattered through the literature.

Typographical treatment of names

Family and genus headings are placed flush left (i.e. lined up with the left margin) in bold upper case type. Valid, available species-group names are listed flush left in boldface. Synonyms are listed in italics flush left, upper case for family and genus-group names, lower case for species-group names. Unavailable names are listed in plain type, flush left. Additional information about the status of a name is provided in the Remarks sections.

Taxonomic references

The citation for the original proposal of a genus-group name follows the name. The reference consists of author(s), date of publication and page and plate/figure numbers. For species-group names, on the line following the name and indented, the name is given in its original generic combination, verbatim as published by the author, using the original orthography, even if now considered incorrect according to the Code. The name is followed by its author(s), date of publication, page number and plate/figure number(s).

The author/date citation acts as a reference to the work as listed in the References. If an author published more than one work in the same year, a suffix (a, b, etc.), indicating chronological order of publication, is attached to the date in both the catalogue text and the References. The page number cited is that on which the name first appeared. In some instances, the name first appeared, for example, in a title, abstract, figure legend or table, with the actual description beginning on a subsequent page. In such cases, and others in which it seemed useful, all relevant page numbers are generally cited. In one case (dujardini Drozdz & Doby, 1970), a later publication has bearing on the original introduction of the name and the reference is included in square brackets following the original reference. Authors’ names are given as in the original publication, for instance without accents or diacritical marks if these were absent.

Current taxonomic status

The current taxonomic status is indicated and includes the current combination if a valid taxon, and if not, the appropriate synonymy (with one or a few supporting citations).

Type species

For genus-group names, the type species and its method of fixation (Code, Articles 66–70) are given following the taxonomic reference.

Type material

Only the following angiostrongylid type specimens are noted in this catalogue: holotypes, paratypes and syntypes; there are no known lectotypes, paralectotypes or neotypes. Catalogue numbers, numbers of specimens in each lot, whether males or females, are noted, if known. Most original descriptions were based on both males and females, with a male usually designated as the holotype (if a holotype was designated). Most of these authors who designated a holotype also designated a female as an ‘allotype’. However, although according to the Code (Recommendation 72A) the term allotype may be used to indicate a specimen of opposite sex to the holotype, designation of allotypes and their status are not regulated by the Code (see the Code Glossary). Such specimens, as part of the type series, are considered paratypes but are here also noted as having been designated as allotypes. However, as was the case in much early parasitological research (Brooks, Reference Brooks1993), some descriptions did not mention type material, or, if they did, they did not mention where it was deposited or provide collection catalogue numbers. The information provided is derived from the original description, other literature (citations given) and from enquiries made to museums either directly to a person or via the museum's on-line databases, and in one case by direct examination of the material. In some cases personal communications are not cited in the text but all those who provided assistance, some of them extensively, are listed in the Acknowledgements, along with their institutions. This catalogue is not a taxonomic revision and I have seen very little of the type material. The true status of much of it needs to be verified by more in-depth study; this catalogue simply lists known type and possible type material as the starting point for such study.

Type localities

The type locality (‘the geographical … place of capture, collection or observation of the name-bearing type’; Code, Article 76) is given for each available species-group name. The location is given verbatim as published by the author, within quotation marks, and no citation is appended; if a translation seemed useful it is provided in square brackets. If the type locality was indicated in other than the original description, the citation of that source is provided. Any additional interpretive or explanatory information regarding the type locality is placed in the Remarks sections. An exhaustive attempt to determine exact collection localities has not been made.

Type hosts

In most cases a single species of host was reported, in which case this is considered the type host. In other instances, in which more than one host was mentioned, one of them was identified as the type host, whereas in one case (Angiostrongylus cantonensis) neither of the two species mentioned was selected and the hosts are considered as ‘syntype hosts’. These host species are here considered to be definitive hosts, that is hosts in which the nematodes develop to reproductive maturity and females produce viable eggs or larvae. Nomenclature, both scientific and common names, of type hosts and other vertebrate hosts (see below) mostly follows the appropriate sections of Mammal Species of the World (Wilson & Reeder, Reference Wilson and Reeder2005): Bronner & Jenkins (Reference Bronner, Jenkins, Wilson and Reeder2005) for Afrosoricida, Musser & Carleton (Reference Musser, Carleton, Wilson and Reeder2005) for Muroidea, Thorington & Hoffmann (Reference Thorington, Hoffmann, Wilson and Reeder2005) for Sciuridae, Hutterer (Reference Hutterer, Wilson and Reeder2005) for Soricomorpha and Wozencraft (Reference Wozencraft, Wilson and Reeder2005) for Carnivora.

Symbiotype material

Symbiotypes are the host specimens from which the type material of a parasite was described (Frey et al., Reference Frey, Yates, Duszynski, Gannon and Gardner1992; Duszynski, Reference Duszynski2016). Rarely were details provided in original descriptions, perhaps because the hosts were rarely preserved. Details of symbiotypes are provided if known. Symbiotypes are not mentioned in the Code and their designation and status are not regulated by the Code.

Location in host

The location in the definitive host where mature angiostrongylids have been found is noted, in most cases quoted directly from the original description but in some cases additional detail or clarification is provided.

Other hosts

In many cases, species in which angiostrongylids have been found have been listed or treated as ‘hosts’ but without indication of whether these are definitive or accidental hosts, i.e. hosts that, in contrast to definitive hosts, are hosts in which the nematodes do not become reproductive adults and in which they die. Thus, it would be presumptive in some cases to assume that these species listed as ‘hosts’ are definitive hosts unless it were known that mature reproductive nematodes had been found within them; so they are listed here as ‘other’ hosts pending future investigation of their true status. An exhaustive search for records of other hosts has not been made and these entries are undoubtedly incomplete for some species.

Intermediate hosts

All species use Gastropoda (snails, including slugs) as intermediate hosts, i.e. obligate hosts in which early larval development takes place; some (e.g. Angiostrongylus cantonensis) employ a great diversity of host species (Kim et al., Reference Kim, Hayes, Yeung and Cowie2014). If the list is long, then a reference is provided to give access to more details. If only a few species are known as intermediate hosts, these are listed with references, although under the assumption that other species so far not reported could also act as hosts. For others, no specific intermediate host species have been reported, in which case this is stated.

Known range

The range (if known) of each valid species-group taxon is given. In some cases this information is not detailed, providing simply the country or region from which the species has been recorded in the literature. Citations for the sources of this information are provided, unless no information other than the type locality is available, in which case this is stated.

Miscellaneous annotations

Under each genus-group name, explanatory and other useful information is given immediately under the standard entry for the name in a Remarks section. For each species-group name, annotations other than those indicated in the above paragraphs are placed in square brackets immediately following the item to be clarified or, if the annotations are more extensive, placed in a Remarks section following the standard entry for the species. Citations in the text often provide, in addition to the year, the page number specific to the particular statement to which the citation refers, for ease of reference in what are often large and complex works.

Abbreviations and acronyms

AHC

Australian Helminthological Collection, South Australian Museum, Adelaide, Australia

BAS

Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria

CHIOC

Coleção Helmintológica do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

CHMLP

Helminthological Collection of the Museo de La Plata, La Plata, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina

Code

International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999)

Fig(s).

Figure(s)

IEE RAS

A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

MCZR

Museo Civico di Zoologia di Roma, Rome, Italy

MLP

Museo de La Plata, La Plata, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina

MNHN

Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris, France

MPM

Meguro Parasitological Museum, Tokyo, Japan

NHMUK

Natural History Museum, London, UK

n. syn.

new synonymy

p(p).

page(s)

pl(s).

plate(s)

s.g.

subgenus

UFRJ

Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

USNM

United States National Museum, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, USA

USNPC

United States National Parasite Collection, Helminth Collection, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, USA

WoRMS

World Register of Marine Species

Systematic catalogue
Superfamily METASTRONGYLOIDEA Molin, 1861
METASTRONGYLOIDEA Molin, 1861a: 437 [as Metastrongylida]

Much confusion has surrounded the author and date of publication of this family-group name. In the past, various websites, including WoRMS, recognized ‘Diesing, 1851’ as the author of the family name. However, the name does not appear in his monograph (Diesing, Reference Diesing1851), and in fact the genus Metastrongylus had not at that time been published and so could not have formed the basis for the family-group name. However, although the entries in WoRMS have now been corrected (see below), Diesing (Reference Diesing1851) is still recognized incorrectly by various other derivative websites. Leiper (Reference Leiper1908), Railliet & Henry (Reference Railliet and Henry1909: 85) and Lane (Reference Lane1917) have also been variously recognized as authors of the superfamily, family and subfamily names.

Molin (Reference Molin1861a: 437, 589) was the first to establish the name, as the family ‘Metastrongylida’, with two included genera (his new genus Metastrongylus and Prosthecosacter Diesing, 1851). He also published the name in at least one subsequent article in 1861 (Molin, Reference Molin1861b: 513). Leuckart (Reference Leuckart1864: 79) used the family name ‘Metastrongylida’ and included Metastrongylus, which he stated incorrectly was a new genus. Leiper (Reference Leiper1908: 189, 191) was the first to use the name with the correct endings for both the family Metastrongylidae and subfamily Metastronglinae. As a result, Leiper (Reference Leiper1908) has generally been treated as the authority for the family and subfamily names (e.g. Böhm & Gebauer, Reference Böhm and Gebauer1934: 287; Schulz, Reference Schulz1951: 296; Skrjabin et al., Reference Skrjabin, Shikhobalova, Schulz, Popova, Boev and Delyamure1952: 639; Yamaguti, Reference Yamaguti1961: 513; De Lay & Blaxter, Reference De Lay, Blaxter and Lee2002: 16; Maldonado et al., Reference Maldonado, Simões, Thiengo and Lorenzo-Morales2012: 303), although Dougherty (Reference Dougherty1944: 66, Reference Dougherty1946: 23, Reference Dougherty1949: 231, Reference Dougherty1951: 91) referred the family name to Leiper (Reference Leiper1908 [as 1909]) but (Dougherty, Reference Dougherty1949: 231, Reference Dougherty1951: 91) referred the subfamily name to Railliet & Henry (Reference Railliet and Henry1909: 85). Lane (Reference Lane1917: 422) was the first to use the name for the superfamily Metastrongyloidea (e.g. Stiles & Hassall, Reference Stiles and Hassall1920: 577; Carreno & Nadler, Reference Carreno and Nadler2003: 971) and as a result Lane (Reference Lane1917) has generally been treated as the authority for the superfamily name (e.g. Dougherty, Reference Dougherty1944: 66; Merdivenci, Reference Merdivenci1964: 155; Corrêa et al., Reference Corrêa, Bueno, Soares, Vieira and Muniz-Pereira2016: 912; Deak et al., Reference Deak, Mihalca and Hirzmann2018). Chabaud (Reference Chabaud and Grassé1965: 922, 923) referred the superfamily name to Leiper (Reference Leiper1908 [as 1909]) and the subfamily name to Leiper (Reference Leiper1908). Beveridge et al. (Reference Beveridge, Spratt, Durette-Desset and Schmidt-Rhaesa2014: 600, 603) referred the superfamily name to Lane (Reference Lane1917) but the family name to Leiper (Reference Leiper1908: 603).

Despite all this confusion, it is clear that Molin (Reference Molin1861a: 437, 589) was the first to introduce the family-group name. Although according to modern convention he used an incorrect suffix, which is deemed an incorrect original spelling and must be corrected (Code, Article 32.5.3), the corrected name retains the authorship and date of the original spelling (Code, Article 33.2.2). Furthermore, regardless of the rank attributed to the name (superfamily, family, subfamily), its author and date remain unchanged, according to the Principle of Coordination (Code, Articles 34.1. 36.1). Thus, authorship and date of Metastrongyloidea, Metastrongylidae and Metastrongylinae are all of ‘Molin, 1861’.

The entries for Metastrongyloidea and Metastrongylidae in WoRMS have now been corrected (on 5 July 2018 by D. Gibson, in communication with this author) on the basis of the above bibliographic research; see Bezerra et al. (Reference Bezerra, Decraemer and Eisendle-Flöckner2018) and WoRMS (2018), respectively.

Family ANGIOSTRONGYLIDAE Böhm & Gebauer, 1934
ANGIOSTRONGYLIDAE Böhm & Gebauer, 1934: 291 [as Angiostrongylinae]

Introduced as a subfamily Angiostrongylinae of the family Metastrongylidae. A full synonymy is not listed here as being beyond the scope of this work. Family placement of the four genera treated herein has differed among authors but the consensus seems that they be placed in the family Angiostrongylidae, which was first elevated to family level by Anderson (Reference Anderson1978: 3), in the superfamily Metastrongyloidea (e.g. Liu, Reference Liu and Liu2013: 477; Vieira et al., Reference Vieira, Muniz-Pereira, de Souza Lima, Moraes Neto, Guimarães and Luque2013: 330). Others have placed them in the Metastrongylidae, perhaps not acknowledging the validity of the family Angiostrongylidae (Souza et al., Reference Souza, Simões, Thiengo, Lima, Mota, Rodrigues-Silva, Lanfredi and Maldonado2009; Maldonado et al., Reference Maldonado, Simões, Thiengo and Lorenzo-Morales2012: 303) or treating it as a subfamily (Mas-Coma, Reference Mas-Coma1977b: 639). Dougherty (Reference Dougherty1946: 17, 19) placed Angiostrongylus in the subfamily Filaroidinae (of which he considered Angiostrongylinae a synonym) of the Metastrongylidae. Skrjabin et al. (Reference Skrjabin, Shikhobalova, Schulz, Popova, Boev and Delyamure1952) placed their four genera in the subfamily Angiostrongylinae of the family Filaroididae, while Yamaguti (Reference Yamaguti1961), who followed the subfamily and generic assignments of Skrjabin et al. (Reference Skrjabin, Shikhobalova, Schulz, Popova, Boev and Delyamure1952), placed the Angiostrongylinae in the Protostrongylidae, as did Alicata (Reference Alicata1964: 12) and Bhaibulaya & Cross (Reference Bhaibulaya and Cross1971), while Ash (Reference Ash1967: 625) also adopted this arrangement and placed the Protostrongylidae in the superfamily Metastrongyloidea. Chabaud (Reference Chabaud1972) and Kontrimavichus & Delyamure (Reference Kontrimavichus and Delyamure1979) placed the subfamily Angiostrongylinae in the family Filaroididae. Thorough phylogenetic analysis of the entire Metastrongyloidea at all levels from the species to the superfamily is needed to resolve these relationships.

This catalogue does not treat all genera and species of the family but only the genera Angiostrongylus, Gallegostrongylus, Rodentocaulus and Stefanskostrongylus and the species assigned to them, as discussed in the Introduction. It follows the most recent convention (cf. table 3) of placing these four genera in the family Angiostrongylidae (not subdivided into subfamilies) of the Metastrongyloidea.

Genus ANGIOSTRONGYLUS Kamensky, 1905
ANGIOSTRONGYLUS Kamensky, 1905: 44. Type species Strongylus vasorum Baillet, 1866, by subsequent designation of Leiper (Reference Leiper1926: 207)

  • Remarks. Regarding the designation of the type species, Kamensky wrote (translated) ‘Angiostrongylus g. n. with typus – Ang. vasorum (Baill.) and Ang. cardiacus (Bossi)’, thereby designating, inappropriately, two species as types. Such was not unusual at the time (N.L. Evenhuis, pers. comm., 15 July 2018); the lack of punctuation between the two names indicates that the designation was not of a type species and a second included species. Leiper (Reference Leiper1926: 207) was the first to state explicitly that the type species of Angiostrongylus is vasorum. The availability and authorship of cardiaca Bossi, 1871 (unavailable) and cardiacus Kamensky, 1905 are discussed herein under the entries for those names.

HAEMOSTRONGYLUS Railliet & Henry, 1907: 753. Type species Strongylus vasorum Baillet, 1866, by monotypy.

  • Remarks. Objective junior synonym of Angiostrongylus Kamensky.

PARASTRONGYLUS Baylis, 1928: 284, Figs 3, 4. Type species Parastrongylus tateronae Baylis, 1928, by monotypy.

PULMONEMA Chen, 1935: 312. Type species Pulmonema cantonensis Chen, 1935, by original designation.

CARDIONEMA Yamaguti, 1941: 436, 437. Type species Cardionema ten Yamaguti, 1941, by original designation.

  • Remarks. Some authors, given the importance of the male morphology in angiostrongylid taxonomy, have explicitly excluded Cardionema from consideration (Chabaud, Reference Chabaud1972: 741) or considered it incertae sedis (Yamaguti, Reference Yamaguti1961: 678) because the description was based only on females. Nonetheless, Dougherty (Reference Dougherty1946: 23) tentatively synonymized Cardionema with Angiostrongylus and subsequent authors (e.g. Skrjabin et al., Reference Skrjabin, Shikhobalova, Schulz, Popova, Boev and Delyamure1952: 709; Drozdz, Reference Drozdz1970: 600; Anderson, Reference Anderson1978: 24) definitively did so. Placed in synonymy with Angiocaulus Schulz by Ubelaker (Reference Ubelaker1986: 237, 240, 241), although Cardionema has priority over Angiocaulus; both are here treated as synonyms of Angiostrongylus. Type genus of Cardionematinae Yamaguti, Reference Yamaguti1941. Chabaud & Choquet (Reference Chabaud and Choquet1953: 183), following the classification of the Filaroidea by Wehr (Reference Wehr1935), placed the Cardionematinae as a subfamily in the family Dipetalonematidae, with Cardionema Yamaguti, 1941 as its only genus. The subfamily Cardionematinae was listed in the synonymy of Filaroidinae by Dougherty (Reference Dougherty1946: 20). However, if the type species (Cardionema ten) of the type genus (Cardionema) is placed in Angiostrongylus, the type genus of Angiostrongylidae, as it is herein, then Cardionematinae Yamaguti, 1941 must be treated as a synonym of Angiostrongylidae Böhm & Gebauer, 1934; n. syn.

ANGIOCAULUS Schulz, 1951: 296. Type species Angiostrongylus gubernaculatus Dougherty, 1946, by original designation.

RATTOSTRONGYLUS Schulz, 1951: 296. Type species Angiostrongylus cantonensis (Chen, 1935), by original designation.

  • Remarks. Junior synonym of Parastrongylus Baylis, teste Drozdz (Reference Drozdz1970: 601), Anderson (Reference Anderson1978: 24) and Ubelaker (Reference Ubelaker1986: 237). Because Parastrongylus is here not recognized as a subgenus but as a junior synonym of Angiostrongylus, Rattostrongylus is treated as a junior synonym of Angiostrongylus, apparently for the first time; n. syn.

MORERASTRONGYLUS Chabaud, 1972: 742. Type species Angiostrongylus costaricensis Morera & Céspedes, 1971, by original designation.

  • Remarks. Synonym of Parastrongylus Baylis, teste Anderson (Reference Anderson1978: 24) and Ubelaker (Reference Ubelaker1986: 237). Because Parastrongylus is here not recognized as a subgenus but as a junior synonym of Angiostrongylus, and because Angiostrongylus costaricensis, the type species of Morerastrongylus, is placed in Angiostrongylus, Morerastrongylus is treated as a junior synonym of Angiostrongylus, apparently for the first time; n. syn.

CHABAUDISTRONGYLUS Kontrimavichus, 1979a: 85. Type species Angiocaulus ryjikovi Juschkov, 1971, by original designation.

  • Remarks. Junior synonym of Parastrongylus Baylis, teste Ubelaker (Reference Ubelaker1986: 237). Because Parastrongylus is here not recognized as a subgenus but as a junior synonym of Angiostrongylus, and because Angiocaulus ryjikovi, the type species of Chabaudistrongylus, is placed in Angiostrongylus, Chabaudistrongylus is also treated as a junior synonym of Angiostrongylus Kamensky; n. syn.

canis

  • Strongylus vasorum Canis Vogel, 1899: 252. Unavailable name: not intended as a trinomen (subspecies, variety, form, etc.).

  • Remarks. Considerable misinterpretation has surrounded this name. Vogel (1899: 252) was the first to have put the three words together, which has been interpreted as an intention to describe a subspecies (or variety or form, etc.) of Strongylus vasorum Baillet. Others have subsequently listed it in the synonymy of vasorum. Stiles & Hassall (Reference Stiles and Hassall1920: 57, 167, 739) listed canis as of ‘Vogel (Rev. of Guittard…)’ and ‘Vogel in Guittard’, on p. 57 as ‘canis Vogel’ (which could be interpreted as a synonym or a subspecies) and on p. 167 and p. 739 as ‘vasorum canis Vogel’ (which suggests interpretation as a subspecies, etc.). Stiles & Hassall (Reference Stiles and Hassall1920: 739) also referenced Capdebielle & Hussenet (Reference Capdebielle and Hussenet1911; with incorrect volume and page numbers; correct details given by Hassall et al., Reference Hassall, Doss, Farr, Carson and Bero1939: 668) but these authors did not mention ‘canis’. Dougherty (1946: 21) listed ‘Strongylus vasorum canis Vogel in Guittard, Reference Guittard1899’ in the synonymy of vasorum Baillet. Despite these various interpretations, Vogel (1899: 252) had essentially only translated and paraphrased an article by Guittard (Reference Guittard1899: 131), which was a case report of a dog that died and during autopsy was found to have ‘strongles’ in the right ventricle of the heart, the atrium and the pulmonary artery. Guittard identified the worms as Strongylus vasorum. The title of Guittard's article, which is the sole article under a heading ‘Médecine Canine’ is ‘Le Strongylus vasorum’. Vogel titled his translation ‘Strongylus vasorum Canis’ (note the upper case C of Canis). He may have simply appended ‘Canis’ to vasorum to indicate that the worms came from the blood vessels (vasorum, genitive plural) of the dog (canis, could be interpreted as nominative or as genitive singular), or more generally that it was a parasite of dogs. Or ‘Canis’ could simply have been an acknowledgement of Guittard's ‘Médecine Canine’. Even if Vogel had intended ‘Canis’ to be part of the name of the species (and not of a taxon of lower rank, i.e. subspecies, variety, form, etc.), the entire name could then be interpreted as non-binominal and hence unavailable (Code, Articles 5.1. 5.2). Thus, canis Vogel does not appear to be intended as the introduction of a subspecific name, especially as in the body of his article Vogel stated ‘Der Wurm heisst jetzt Strongylus vasorum’ [The worm is now known as Strongylus vasorum]. Fiebiger (Reference Fiebiger1912: 265) headed his entry ‘Strongylus vasorum canis Baillet’ but Baillet did not mention or describe a subspecies (or variety or form) ‘canis’. Fiebiger did not mention Vogel. Although Fiebiger provided a description he did not explicitly indicate that he intended to describe a subspecies, etc. He referenced two publications by Laulanié (1882, Reference Laulanié1884) and no others. Thus, neither Vogel's nor Fiebiger's articles are here interpreted as having been intended to introduce a subspecific (or varietal or form) name and so neither ‘canis’ Vogel nor ‘canis’ Fiebiger are available names. Subsequent usages (Stiles & Hassall, Reference Stiles and Hassall1920; Dougherty, Reference Dougherty1946) in which the name was published as a synonym of a valid name (i.e. vasorum Baillet) also do not make it available (Code, Article 11.6).

cantonensis

cardiaca

  • filaria cardiaca Bossi, 1871: 303. Unavailable name: non-binominal.

  • Remarks. Bossi (Reference Bossi1871: 303) wrote ‘tutti questi caratteri essendo quelli che segnano l'ordine dei nematoidei ed il genera filaria, parmi che si potrebbe con ragione chiamare questo ematozoa filaria cardiaca del cane’ [all these characters being those that signify the order of the nematodes and the genus filaria, I think that we could rightly call this ematozoa filaria cardiaca of the dog]. There has been confusion regarding the name and its availability. Costa et al. (Reference Costa, De Arauja Costa and Guimaraes2003: 11) listed it as ‘Ematozoa filaria cardiaca’ as if cardiaca were a subspecies of the species ‘filaria’ in the genus ‘Ematozoa’. However, Bossi explicitly stated that it was in the genus ‘filaria’ and probably used the term ‘ematozoa’ to mean a parasite of the circulatory system. The genus Filaria was established by Müller (Reference Müller1787: 64) with its type species subsequently designated by Stiles & Hassall (Reference Stiles and Hassall1905: 67, 106). Bossi's use of all lower case italics (as in the quotation above) is perhaps the cause of the confusion. Had he written ‘Ematozoa Filaria cardiaca’ there would have been no confusion as his intention would have been clear and his introduction of the name ‘Filaria cardiaca’ arguably would have conformed with the use of binominal nomenclature in which a generic name must begin with an upper-case letter (Code, Article 5.1; although see Article 28). However, in his paper Bossi also referred to other species similarly, in italic but apparently in a Latinized vernacular, which suggests that his ‘filaria cardiaca’ was also vernacular and not a formal binomen. Even if Bossi's intention had been to establish the species cardiaca in the genus Filaria, the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature was not followed and his name is considered here as unavailable.

  • cardiacus

  • Ang. [= Angiostrongylus] cardiacus Kamensky, 1905: 44.

  • Current taxonomic status. Junior synonym of vasorum Baillet (e.g. Dougherty, Reference Dougherty1946: 21; Costa et al., Reference Costa, De Arauja Costa and Guimaraes2003: 11).

  • Type material. The material of Bossi (Reference Bossi1871), location unknown.

  • Type locality. ‘Torino’ [Turin, Italy] (Bossi, Reference Bossi1871: 302).

  • Type host. Domestic dog.

  • Symbiotype material. Unknown.

  • Location in host. ‘ventricoli … cuore’ [ventricles … heart] (Bossi, Reference Bossi1871: 302, 303).

  • Other hosts. Not reported.

  • Intermediate hosts. Not reported.

  • Remarks. Kamensky (Reference Kamensky1905: 44) was the first to make the name available, when he introduced the genus Angiostrongylus with two included species, vasorum Baillet and ‘Ang. cardiacus (Bossi)’ (see Remarks under Angiostrongylus). Some subsequent authors attributed the name cardiacus to Bossi (Reference Bossi1871), e.g. Leiper (Reference Leiper1926: 206, as ‘Bozzi’) and Tiğin (Reference Tiğin1972: 78). Others attributed it to Bossi (Reference Bossi1871, who described the species but did not make the name available; see cardiaca Bossi), but acknowledged Kamensky, e.g. Dougherty (Reference Dougherty1946: 21), who listed it as of ‘Bossi, of Kamensky, Reference Kamensky1905’, Skrjabin et al. (Reference Skrjabin, Shikhobalova, Schulz, Popova, Boev and Delyamure1952: 709) as ‘Bossi after Kamensky, 1905’ and Yamaguti (Reference Yamaguti1961: 505) as ‘Bossi, 1870, of Kamensky, 1905’, perhaps implicitly acknowledging the problems with Bossi's introduction of the name and its subsequent availability from Kamensky (Reference Kamensky1905). Leiper (Reference Leiper1926: 206) considered cardiacus Kamensky (as ‘Bozzi’ [sic]) as a valid species, but since Dougherty (1946: 21) synonymized it with vasorum Baillet, very few authors have mentioned it, e.g. Ubelaker (Reference Ubelaker1986: 238, as ‘Bossi, Reference Bossi1871 of Kamensky, 1905’), who listed it in the synonymy of vasorum Baillet.

chabaudi

costaricensis

daskalovi

dujardini

felineus

gubernaculatus

kanis

  • Strongylus vasorum kanis Schneidemühl, 1896: 318. Unavailable name: not intended as a trinomen (subspecies, variety, form, etc.).

  • Remarks. Name attributed to Railliet by Schneidemühl (Reference Schneidemühl1896: 318), perhaps in error for Baillet, the author of vasorum. Stiles & Hassall (Reference Stiles and Hassall1920: 99, 167, 739) listed kanis Schneidemühl, apparently considering it a replacement name for canis Vogel, despite the latter's later publication date, and referring it to ‘Str. vasorum’. Dougherty (Reference Dougherty1946: 21) listed ‘Strongylus vasorum kanis Schneidemühl, 1896’ in the synonymy of vasorum Baillet. However, kanis Schneidemühl is considered unavailable as it appears not to have been intended as a proposal of a new subspecies (or variety, etc.), the word ‘kanis’ simply indicating that it was the Strongylus vasorum of the dog. This interpretation essentially follows that of canis Vogel (see Remarks under that species). Subsequent usages (Stiles & Hassall, Reference Stiles and Hassall1920; Dougherty, Reference Dougherty1946) in which the name was published as a synonym of a valid name (i.e. vasorum Baillet) also do not make it available (Code, Article 11.6).

lenzii

mackerrasae

malaysiensis

morerai

petrovi

raillieti

ratti

  • Haemostrongylus ratti Yokagawa, 1937: 247, 250, Figs 1, 2.

  • Current taxonomic status. Junior synonym of cantonensis Chen (e.g. Dougherty, Reference Dougherty1946: 22).

  • Type material. Unknown.

  • Type locality. ‘Karenko Prefecture, a district on the east coast of Formosa’ [Taiwan].

  • Type host. Rats (species not reported).

  • Symbiotype material. Unknown.

  • Location in host. ‘pulmonary artery and right heart’.

  • Other hosts. Not reported.

  • Intermediate hosts. Not reported.

  • Remarks. Spelled incorrectly as ‘Hemostrongylus’ in the title (Yokagawa, Reference Yokagawa1937: 247) but correctly as ‘Haemostrongylus’ elsewhere in the publication.

ryjikovi

  • Angiocaulus ryjikovi Juschkov, 1971: 344, 345, 346, text figs.

  • Current taxonomic status. Angiostrongylus ryjikovi (Juschkov, Reference Juschkov1971). Valid species (e.g. Maldonado et al., Reference Maldonado, Simões, Thiengo and Lorenzo-Morales2012; Robles et al., Reference Robles, Kinsella, Galliari and Navone2016: 181).

  • Type material. Museum of the Helminthological Laboratory of the USSR Academy of Sciences (now part of IEE RAS). Holotype (male) and paratype (as ‘allotype’) (female) – preparation No. 348, presence in IEE RAS confirmed (S. Spiridonov via Y. Kantor, pers. comm., 4 December 2018); paratypes (possibly IEE RAS) – (six specimens) (Juschkov, Reference Juschkov1971: 344, 345; see Remarks).

  • Type locality. ‘North Ural’ [in English title]. ‘Komi Autonomous Republic, Pechora District (river Synya)’ [translated from Russian].

  • Type host. Myodes rutilus (Pallas) (Cricetidae: Arvicolinae; northern redbacked vole; as ‘Clethrionomys’).

  • Symbiotype material. Two animals out of 145 examined; location unknown.

  • Location in host. ‘lungs’ [translated from Russian].

  • Other hosts. Not reported.

  • Intermediate hosts. Not reported.

  • Known range. Known only from the type locality.

  • Remarks. Spelled ‘ryjikovi’ in the Russian title of the work, the legend to the figure (p. 345) and in the English title of the English summary (p. 346), but as ‘ryjicovi’ in the heading of the description. Apparently neither spelling has been selected as the correct original spelling; therefore, as First Reviser, ‘ryjikovi’ is here selected and ‘ryjicovi’ becomes an incorrect original spelling and is not separately available (Code, Article 19.3). The author's name was spelled ‘Jushkov’ in the English title and summary (p. 346), but ‘Juschkov’ associated with the name and description heading (p. 344), the latter accepted here. The original description was based on eight specimens but although only a holotype (male) and an allotype (female) were explicitly designated, the remaining six specimens should be considered paratypes (see Remarks under costaricensis Morera & Céspedes); however, only the holotype and allotype could be confirmed as present in IEE RAS. Known only from the original description (Spratt, Reference Spratt2015: Table 1). Type species of Chabaudistrongylus, placed in Parastrongylus by Ubelaker (Reference Ubelaker1986: 238).

sandarsae

  • Angiostrongylus sandarsae Alicata, 1968: 896, Figs 1–6.

  • Current taxonomic status. Angiostrongylus sandarsae Alicata, 1968. Valid species (e.g. Maldonado et al., Reference Maldonado, Simões, Thiengo and Lorenzo-Morales2012; Robles et al., Reference Robles, Kinsella, Galliari and Navone2016: 181).

  • Type material. Holotype – USNM 1366737 (USNPC 71160) (male); paratype (as ‘allotype’) – USNM 1366738 (USNPC 71161 (female); paratypes – USNM 1366739 (USNPC 71162) (one male, one female specimens); paratypes – unknown location (two male, two female specimens) (Alicata, Reference Alicata1968: 896; details also from USNM Invertebrate Zoology collection on-line database; see Remarks).

  • Type locality. ‘Vicinity of Beira, Mozambique’.

  • Type host. Mastomys natalensis (Smith) (Muridae; Natal multimammate mouse, Natal mastomys).

  • Symbiotype material. Unknown.

  • Location in host. ‘Pulmonary arteries’.

  • Other hosts. ‘Gerbil tatera’ (Alicata, Reference Alicata1968: 896; Muridae, possibly a species of Gerbilliscus).

  • Intermediate hosts. Not reported.

  • Known range. Known only from the type locality, a locality in Kenya (Kamiya & Fukumoto, Reference Kamiya and Fukumoto1988: 48) and a possible record in South Africa (Archer et al., Reference Archer, Appleton, Mukaratirwa, Lamb and Schoeman2017: 62).

  • Remarks. The original description was based on four male and four female specimens with a holotype, allotype and paratypes explicitly designated (Alicata, Reference Alicata1968: 896). However, the single paratype lot listed (USNPC 71162/USNM 1366739) only contains one male and one female specimen. The location of the four additional specimens, also considered paratypes, is unknown. Apparently (Spratt, Reference Spratt2015: Table 1) known only from the original description, the report of Kamiya & Fukumoto (Reference Kamiya and Fukumoto1988: 48) in ‘Praomys’ natalensis and the tentative identification, also in Mastomys natalensis, of Archer et al. (Reference Archer, Appleton, Mukaratirwa, Lamb and Schoeman2017: 62); included in various classifications and lists (e.g. those in tables 1–3).

schmidti

sciuri

siamensis

tateronae

  • Parastrongylus tateronae Baylis, 1928: 284, Figs 3, 4.

  • Current taxonomic status. Angiostrongylus tateronae (Baylis, 1928). Valid species (e.g. Maldonado et al., Reference Maldonado, Simões, Thiengo and Lorenzo-Morales2012: 304; Spratt, Reference Spratt2015: 180; Robles et al., Reference Robles, Kinsella, Galliari and Navone2016: 181).

  • Type material. Syntypes (Baylis, Reference Baylis1928: 280) – NHMUK ZOO 1929.1.24.45-50 (six specimens) (NHMUK: ecatalogue: 7077983) (details from NHMUK on-line database).

  • Type locality. ‘Ibadan’, ‘Nigeria’.

  • Type host. Gerbilliscus (Taterona) kempii (Wroughton) (Muridae; Kemp's jerboa, northern savanna gerbil).

  • Symbiotype material. Unknown.

  • Location in host. ‘stomach, according to collector's label – normal habitat perhaps lungs or air-passages’.

  • Other hosts. Possibly the western broad-toothed field mouse (Apodemus epimelas) (as ‘Apodemus mystacinus’) (Erhardová, Reference Erhardová1960: 92). [These two Apodemus species (Muridae) are now considered distinct, with epimelas in the Balkans and mystacinus in the Aegean islands and farther east (Musser & Carleton, Reference Musser, Carleton, Wilson and Reeder2005: 1265, 1269)].

  • Intermediate hosts. Not reported.

  • Known range. Known only from the type locality and possibly from Albania (Erhardová, Reference Erhardová1960: 92).

  • Remarks. Type species of Parastrongylus. Apparently (Spratt, Reference Spratt2015: Table 1) known only from the original description, although mentioned subsequently in various taxonomic treatments and lists (e.g. those in tables 1–3), comparatively in treatments of other species, and as a record in Apodemus epimelas (as ‘mystacinus’) from Albania (Erhardová, Reference Erhardová1960: 92). This latter record may be the result of a misidentification of Angiostrongylus dujardini Drozdz & Doby (Chabaud, Reference Chabaud1972: 742; Kontrimavichus, Reference Kontrimavichus, Kontrimavichus and Delyamure1979a: 105).

ten

  • Cardionema ten Yamaguti, 1941: 436, pl. 9, Figs 27–29, text Figs 29, 30 (p. 437).

  • Current taxonomic status. Angiostrongylus ten (Yamaguti, 1941). Valid species (e.g. Yamaguti, Reference Yamaguti1961: 678; Ubelaker, Reference Ubelaker1986: 240; Bhaibulaya, Reference Bhaibulaya1991: 189).

  • Type material. Syntypes – location unknown (three female specimens).

  • Type locality. ‘Yamasina near Kyoto’ [Japan].

  • Type host. Martes melampus melampus (Wagner) (Mustelidae; common black-footed marten, Japanese marten).

  • Symbiotype material. Unknown.

  • Location in host. ‘Heart’.

  • Other hosts. Not reported.

  • Intermediate hosts. Not reported.

  • Known range. Apparently known only from the type locality.

  • Remarks. The only species to have been described or placed in Cardionema, but the description was based on only three ‘mature, though not yet fully gravid, females’. Some authors therefore, given the importance of the male morphology in angiostrongylid taxonomy, have explicitly excluded ten from consideration (Kinsella, Reference Kinsella1971: 495; Morera & Céspedes, Reference Morera and Céspedes1971: 175) or explicitly considered it incertae sedis (Spratt, Reference Spratt2015: 179). See also the remarks under Cardionema in the synonymy of Angiostrongylus. Nonetheless, Dougherty (Reference Dougherty1946: 23) placed it tentatively in Angiostrongylus (tentatively also placing Cardionema in the synonymy of Angiostrongylus). Yamaguti (Reference Yamaguti1961: 678) listed Cardionema as incertae sedis, and thus Cardionema ten also incertae sedis by implication. And Ubelaker (Reference Ubelaker1986: 240) placed Cardionema ten in Angiocaulus based on host affinities, despite listing Cardionema, which has priority, as a junior synonym of Angiocaulus. Not listed by Chabaud (Reference Chabaud1972), Maldonado et al. (Reference Maldonado, Simões, Thiengo and Lorenzo-Morales2012) and Robles et al. (Reference Robles, Kinsella, Galliari and Navone2016), but listed in Angiostrongylus by Bhaibulaya (Reference Bhaibulaya1991: 189).

vasorum

Genus GALLEGOSTRONGYLUS Mas-Coma, 1977.
GALLEGOSTRONGYLUS Mas-Coma, 1977b: 637, 641, 642. Type species Gallegostrongylus ibicensis Mas-Coma, 1977, by original designation.

THAISTRONGYLUS Ohbayashi, Kamiya & Bhaibulaya, 1979: 8, Fig. 2. Type species Thaistrongylus harinasutai Ohbayashi, Kamiya & Bhaibulaya, 1979, by original designation.

  • Remarks. Junior synonym of Gallegostrongylus Mas-Coma, teste Ubelaker (Reference Ubelaker1986: 241). Listed separately from Gallegostrongylus and excluded from Angiostrongylidae by Morales et al. (Reference Morales, Ubelaker and Gardner2012: 615), but retained here in Angiostrongylidae as a junior synonym of Gallegostrongylus, pending further study.

andersoni

australis

  • Gallegostrongylus australis Spratt, Haycock & Walter, 2001a: 45, 46, 47, Figs 1–7.

  • Current taxonomic status. Gallegostrongylus australis Spratt, Haycock & Walter, 2001. Valid species.

  • Type material. Holotype – AHC 31393 (male); paratype (as ‘allotype’) – AHC 31394 (female); paratypes – AHC 31395 (four specimens, males), 31396 (five specimens, females) (Spratt et al., Reference Spratt, Haycock and Walter2001a: 48).

  • Type locality. ‘Ludwigs Swamp, Nadgee (formerly Naghi) State Forest (NSF), (37°17′S, 149°48′E) approx. 30 km S of Eden, New South Wales, Australia’.

  • Type host. Rattus fuscipes (Australian bush rat).

  • Symbiotype material. Location unknown (eight males, eight females).

  • Location in host. ‘subpleural nodules of the lung’.

  • Other hosts. Muridae: Rattus lutreolus (Australian swamp rat), Mus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz (house mouse), and experimentally Rattus rattus (black rat) (Spratt et al., Reference Spratt, Haycock and Walter2001a: 48; Spratt, Reference Spratt2002: 178).

  • Intermediate hosts. Experimental infection of Deroceras panormitanum (Lesson & Pollonera), Lehmannia nyctelia (Bourguignat), Limacus flavus, Limax maximus and Milax gagates (Draparnaud), but Cornu aspersum was unsuitable (Spratt et al., Reference Spratt, Haycock and Walter2001b).

  • Known range. Australia (New South Wales, Tasmania). Known only from the type locality and two other locations, as mentioned in the original description.

  • Remarks. In their original description Spratt et al. (Reference Spratt, Haycock and Walter2001a: 45; also Spratt et al., Reference Spratt, Haycock and Walter2001b: 115) placed this species in the family Angiostrongylidae. Gallegostrongylus was excluded from the Angiostrongylidae by Morales et al. (Reference Morales, Ubelaker and Gardner2012: 615). Spratt (Reference Spratt2015) did not mention australis, perhaps because he accepted Gallegostrongylus as valid and therefore excluded from his paper, which was concerned only with species of Angiostrongylus, yet he did treat andersoni as a species of Angiostrongylus even though it had been previously placed in Gallegostrongylus by Mas-Coma (Reference Mas-Coma1977b: 642) and Ubelaker (Reference Ubelaker1986: 241). The life cycle was described by Spratt et al. (Reference Spratt, Haycock and Walter2001b).

harinasutai

  • Thaistrongylus harinasutai Ohbayashi, Kamiya & Bhaibulaya, 1979: 5, 8, Fig. 2.

  • Current taxonomic status. Gallegostrongylus harinasutai (Ohbayashi, Kamiya & Bhaibulaya, 1979). Valid species.

  • Type material. Syntypes – helminthological collection, Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Hokkaido University, Japan, No. 140 (Ohbayashi et al., Reference Ohbayashi, Kamiya and Bhaibulaya1979: 6; Gibbons & Krishnasamy, Reference Gibbons and Krishnasamy1986: 107) (one male, one female, and possible additional syntypes; (Ohbayashi et al., Reference Ohbayashi, Kamiya and Bhaibulaya1979: 6; see Remarks). Attempts to confirm the presence of the type material in this collection were unsuccessful.

  • Type locality. ‘Mae Sariang, 150 km southwest to [sic] Chiang Mai’, ‘Thailand’.

  • Type host. Berylmys berdmorei (Blyth) (Muridae; as ‘Rattus’).

  • Symbiotype material. Location unknown.

  • Location in host. ‘Lungs’.

  • Other hosts. Not reported.

  • Intermediate hosts. Not reported.

  • Known range. Apparently known only from the type locality.

  • Remarks. The description was based explicitly on one male and one female, both fragmented, as no complete worms were available (Ohbayashi et al., Reference Ohbayashi, Kamiya and Bhaibulaya1979: 8). However, in the host from which the specimens were obtained a ‘conglomeration of worms’ was observed and some of these may have contributed to the description. The species was redescribed by Gibbons & Krishnasamy (Reference Gibbons and Krishnasamy1986: 108–112, Figs 8–16) who referred to the ‘holotype male and paratypes’ in the original description, indicating that more than the two specimens explicitly described by Ohbayashi et al. (Reference Ohbayashi, Kamiya and Bhaibulaya1979: 8) constituted the type series. Use of the term ‘holotype’ by Gibbons & Krishnasamy (Reference Gibbons and Krishnasamy1986: 107) does not constitute a lectotype designation because they did not explicitly indicate that they were selecting from the type series that particular specimen to serve as the name-bearing type (Code, Article 74.5). The species appears only to be known from the original description and the redescription of Gibbons & Krishnasamy (Reference Gibbons and Krishnasamy1986), which was based on the original material, as confirmed by Veciana et al. (Reference Veciana, Chaisiri, Phuphisut, Morand and Ribas2014: 331, 332). Thaistrongylus was treated as a synonym of Gallegostrongylus by Ubelaker (Reference Ubelaker1986: 241), with harinasutai therefore placed in the new combination with Gallegostrongylus by him.

ibicensis

  • Gallegostrongylus ibicensis Mas-Coma, 1977b: 637, Fig. 1.

  • Current taxonomic status. Gallegostrongylus ibicensis Mas-Coma, 1977. Valid species (Anderson, Reference Anderson1978: 23; Ubelaker, Reference Ubelaker1986: 241).

  • Type material. Syntypes – Département de Parasitologie de la Faculté de Pharmacie de Barcelone (ten male and four female specimens) (Mas-Coma, Reference Mas-Coma1977b: 638). However, the type material could not be found in the University of Barcelona (C. Feliu, pers. comm., 10 October 2018) and is not in the University of Valencia, to which Mas-Coma moved in 1981 (S. Mas-Coma, pers. comm., 21 July 2018).

  • Type locality. ‘Ile d'Ibiza (Baléares, Espagne)’.

  • Type host. Mus musculus (Muridae; house mouse).

  • Symbiotype material. Unknown.

  • Location in host. ‘poumons’ [lungs].

  • Other hosts. Mus spretus Lataste (Muridae; Algerian mouse, western Mediterranean mouse) (Mas-Coma et al., Reference Mas-Coma, Esteban, Fuentes, Bargues, Valero and Galan-Puchades2000: 44).

  • Intermediate hosts. None reported.

  • Known range. Ibiza (Balearic Islands), as ‘Eivissa’ (Catalan) (Mas-Coma et al., Reference Mas-Coma, Esteban, Fuentes, Bargues, Valero and Galan-Puchades2000: 44).

  • Remarks. Type species of Gallegostrongylus. Mas-Coma (Reference Mas-Coma1977b: 642) also included andersoni Petter, 1972 in Gallegostrongylus.

Genus RODENTOCAULUS Schulz, Orlov & Kutass, 1933
RODENTOCAULUS Schulz, Orlov & Kutass, 1933: 309, 310. Type species Rodentocaulus ondatrae Schulz, Orlov & Kutass, 1933), by monotypy (‘Typische und zur Zeit einzige Art’ [typical and currently the only species]).

ondatrae

Genus STEFANSKOSTRONGYLUS Drozdz, 1970
STEFANSKOSTRONGYLUS Drozdz, 1970: 601. Type species Angiostrongylus michiganensis Ash, 1967, by original designation.

  • Remarks. Bhaibulaya (Reference Bhaibulaya1991: 189) and Costa et al. (Reference Costa, De Arauja Costa and Guimaraes2003: 10) treated michiganensis, the type species of Stefanskostrongylus, in Angiostrongylus (along with other species usually placed in Stefanskostrongylus, i.e. blarini Ogren, soricis Sołtys, and in Bhaibulaya's case minutus Ohbayashi, Masegi & Kubota) presumably because they did not recognize Stefanskostrongylus as valid. By placing the type species of Stefanskostrongylus in Angiostrongylus they implicitly synonymized Stefanskostrongylus with Angiostrongylus. Anderson (Reference Anderson1978: 22) and Ubelaker (Reference Ubelaker1986: 237), followed here, accepted Stefanskostrongylus as a valid genus, though neither provided a complete list of species. Asakawa et al. (Reference Asakawa, Kamiya and Ohbayashi1988: 7) listed seven species of Stefanskostrongylus, i.e. blarini Ogren, dubosti Chabaud, michiganensis Ash, minimus Chabaud, Brygoo & Petter, minutus Ohbayashi, Masegi & Kubota, pottoi Chabaud & Bain and soricis Sołtys, omitting mascomai Kontrimavichus and microti Rausch & Rausch, and introduced yagii Asakawa, Kamiya & Ohbayashi. Stefanskostrongylus as listed in this catalogue includes all ten of these species.

RAUSCHIVINGYLUS Kontrimavichus, 1979b: 147. Type species Sobolevingylus microti Rausch & Rausch, 1969, by original designation.

  • Remarks. Anderson (Reference Anderson1978: 3) placed microti in Stefanskostrongylus. Subsequently, Kontrimavichus (Reference Kontrimavichus, Kontrimavichus and Delyamure1979b: 147) designated microti as the type species of his new genus Rauschivingylus. As this catalogue follows Anderson's placement of microti (type species of Rauschivingylus) in Stefanskostrongylus, Rauschivingylus is here treated as a junior synonym of Stefanskostrongylus, apparently for the first time; n. syn.

blarini

  • Angiostrongylus blarini Ogren, 1954: 681, Fig. 1, pl. 1 (Figs 1–15).

  • Current taxonomic status. Stefanskostrongylus blarini (Ogren, 1954). Valid species (Asakawa et al., Reference Asakawa, Kamiya and Ohbayashi1988: 7; Kinsella & Tkach, Reference Kinsella and Tkach2009: 47).

  • Type material. Holotype (male) and paratype (as ‘allotype’) (female) – USNM 1346767 (USNPC 47831); paratypes and slide of sectioned lung cyst – USNM 1346768 (USNPC 47832) (Ogren, Reference Ogren1954: 681; details also from USNM Invertebrate Zoology collection on-line database).

  • Type locality. ‘Champaign County Illinois’ [USA].

  • Type host. Blarina brevicauda (Say) (Soricidae; northern short-tailed shrew).

  • Symbiotype material. Seven shrews (Ogren, Reference Ogren1954: 681), location unknown.

  • Location in host. ‘Lung, in cysts near bronchioles’.

  • Other hosts. Not reported.

  • Intermediate hosts. Not reported. Slugs, Deroceras laeve (as ‘gracile’), from the location where the shrew hosts were collected had no larvae in the foot and could not be infected experimentally, and other slugs, Philomycus carolinianus (Bosc), from a site adjacent to the shrew collection site had larval nematodes in the foot but these may not have been A. blarini (see Ogren, Reference Ogren1954: 683).

  • Known range. Illinois, Ohio (Oswald, Reference Oswald1958: 329), USA.

  • Remarks. Generally placed in Stefanskostrongylus (tables 1 and 2). However Bhaibulaya (Reference Bhaibulaya1991: 189) and Costa et al. (Reference Costa, De Arauja Costa and Guimaraes2003: 10) kept it in Angiostrongylus, presumably because they did not recognize Stefanskostrongylus, though they did not state this explicitly (see Remarks under Stefanskostrongylus, above).

dubosti

  • Stefanskostrongylus dubosti Chabaud, 1972: 735, 736, unnumbered figure.

  • Current taxonomic status. Stefanskostrongylus dubosti Chabaud, 1972. Valid species (Anderson, Reference Anderson1978: 21; Kontrimavichus, Reference Kontrimavichus, Kontrimavichus and Delyamure1979a: 127; Asakawa et al., Reference Asakawa, Kamiya and Ohbayashi1988: 7).

  • Type material. Holotype (male); paratype (female, as ‘allotype’); paratypes (five male, four female specimens, and one first-stage larva) – all MNHN-IN-HA-375.

  • Type locality. ‘Makokou (Gabon)’.

  • Type host. Potamogale velox (du Chaillu) (Afrosoricida: Tenrecidae; giant otter shrew).

  • Symbiotype material. Unknown.

  • Other hosts. Not reported.

  • Location in host. ‘poumons’ [lungs].

  • Intermediate hosts. Not reported.

  • Known range. Gabon.

  • Remarks. Chabaud (Reference Chabaud1972: 736) noted six male and five female specimens, all having burst (‘éclaté’) on fixation, and (p. 738) gave dimensions of the male holotype, the female allotype and a first-stage larva. These specimens are not distinguished in the single MNHN tube, but the holotype and allotype may be identifiable by the dimensions given. Retained in Stefanskostrongylus by Anderson (Reference Anderson1978: 21), Kontrimavichus (Reference Kontrimavichus, Kontrimavichus and Delyamure1979a: 127) and Asakawa et al. (Reference Asakawa, Kamiya and Ohbayashi1988: 7).

mascomai

  • Stefanskostrongylus mascomai Kontrimavichus, 1979a: 129.

  • Current taxonomic status. Stefanskostrongylus mascomai Kontrimavichus, 1979. Valid species (Tinnin et al., Reference Tinnin, Ganzorig and Gardner2011: 4).

  • Type material. Syntypes – 12 specimens (six males, six females) (Mas-Coma, Reference Mas-Coma1977a: 452; see Remarks) – location unknown; not found in the University of Barcelona (C. Feliu, pers. comm., 10 October 2018) nor in the University of Valencia, to which Mas-Coma moved in 1981 (S. Mas-Coma, pers. comm., 21 July 2018).

  • Type locality. ‘vallées de Ribas (Pyrénées-orientales espagnoles) et de Viladrau (Montseny)’ [Spain] (Mas-Coma, Reference Mas-Coma1977a: 452).

  • Type host. Sorex minutus Linnaeus (Soricidae; Eurasian pygmy shrew).

  • Symbiotype material. Unknown.

  • Location in host. ‘bronches’ (Mas-Coma, Reference Mas-Coma1977a: 452).

  • Other hosts. Soricidae: Sorex caecutiens Laxmann (Laxmann's shrew) and Sorex isodon Turov (taiga shrew) (Domnich, Reference Domnich1984: 71).

  • Intermediate hosts. Not reported.

  • Known range. North-east Spain (Mas-Coma, Reference Mas-Coma1977a: 452). Also reported from near Magadan, a city on the northern coast of the Okhotsk Sea, Russia (Domnich, Reference Domnich1984: 71), although the great distance between this locality and the type locality makes this record questionable.

  • Remarks. Mas-Coma (Reference Mas-Coma1977a) referred his material to Stefanskostrongylus soricis (Sołtys), but Kontrimavichus (Reference Kontrimavichus, Kontrimavichus and Delyamure1979a) determined that the material differed from this species and in fact represented an undescribed species. He therefore described a new species based on the description of Mas-Coma. His description (in the English language translation) is ‘from Mas-Coma, 1977’ and is almost word-for-word a translation of the original French of Mas-Coma, suggesting that he did not see the original material. Nonetheless, the material on which his description is based is that of Mas-Coma, and thus the type material, locality and host record are those of Mas-Coma (Reference Mas-Coma1977a: 452).

michiganensis

  • Angiostrongylus michiganensis Ash, 1967: 625, Figs 1–5.

  • Current taxonomic status. Stefanskostrongylus michiganensis (Ash, 1967). Valid species (Drozdz, Reference Drozdz1970: 602; Chabaud, Reference Chabaud1972: 741; Ubelaker, Reference Ubelaker1986: 240; Asakawa et al., Reference Asakawa, Kamiya and Ohbayashi1988: 7; Laakkonen et al., Reference Laakkonen, Haukisalmi and Merritt1997: 287; Kinsella & Tkach, Reference Kinsella and Tkach2009: 47).

  • Type material. Holotype (male) and paratype (as ‘allotype’) (female) – USNM 1357074 (USNPC 61348) (notes state ‘specimens in poor condition’); paratypes – location unknown (five male, two female specimens) (Ash, Reference Ash1967: 625; details also from USNM Invertebrate Zoology collection on-line database and from G. Tschen, pers. comm., 10 July 2018; see Remarks).

  • Type locality. ‘Reese's Bog, Cheboygan County, Michigan’ [USA].

  • Type host. Sorex cinereus cinereus Kerr (Soricidae; masked shrew, cinereus shrew).

  • Symbiotype material. Unknown.

  • Location in host. ‘Bronchioles’.

  • Other hosts. Tentative identification of S. michiganensis in Sorex fumeus Miller (smokey shrew) (Laakkonen et al., Reference Laakkonen, Haukisalmi and Merritt1997: 287).

  • Intermediate hosts. Not reported.

  • Known range. Michigan, possibly Pennsylvania (Laakkonen et al., Reference Laakkonen, Haukisalmi and Merritt1997: 287), USA.

  • Remarks. Ash (Reference Ash1967: 625) based his description on six male and three female specimens, and although only explicitly designating a holotype and allotype as type material, the remaining five male and two female specimens should be considered paratypes (see Remarks under costaricensis Morera & Céspedes). Type species of Stefanskostrongylus, but placed in Angiostrongylus by Bhaibulaya (Reference Bhaibulaya1991: 189) and Costa et al. (Reference Costa, De Arauja Costa and Guimaraes2003: 10), who apparently did not recognize Stefanskostrongylus.

microti

  • Sobolevingylus microti Rausch & Rausch, 1969: 443, Figs 1–6.

  • Current taxonomic status. Stefanskostrongylus microti (Rausch & Rausch, 1969). Valid species (e.g. Anderson, Reference Anderson1978: 3).

  • Type material. Holotype (male) and fragments of females) – USNM 1366004 (USNPC 70425); paratypes – location unknown (one male and numerous fragments).

  • Type locality. ‘Nabesna Road (lat. 62°35′N. long. 143°34′W.), between the Wrangell and Mentasta Mountains, Alaska.’

  • Type host. Microtus oeconomus (Pallas) (Cricetidae: Arvicolinae; northern or root vole).

  • Symbiotype material. Unknown.

  • Location in host. ‘Pulmonary tissue’.

  • Other hosts. Myodes rutilus (Arvicolinae; northern red-backed vole; as ‘Clethrionomys’), Spermophilus undulatus (Pallas) (Sciuridae; long-tailed ground squirrel, long-tailed suslik; as ‘Citellus’) (Rausch & Rausch, Reference Rausch and Rausch1969: 443; Kontrimavichus, Reference Kontrimavichus, Kontrimavichus and Delyamure1979b: 147); however, the latter species is Asian (Thorington & Hoffmann, Reference Thorington, Hoffmann, Wilson and Reeder2005: 812).

  • Intermediate hosts. Deroceras laeve occurred at the type locality and could be experimentally infected (Rausch & Rausch, Reference Rausch and Rausch1969: 445).

  • Known range. Alaska.

  • Remarks. Rausch & Rausch (Reference Rausch and Rausch1969: 443) based their descriptions on two complete males and numerous fragments, and numerous fragments of females, although only explicitly designating a holotype and fragments of females (whether all or just some of them was not stated) as additional type material and providing their location in USNM and catalogue number. Thus, the additional complete male and male fragments are paratypes, and all the female fragments are paratypes. If they still exist, these additional paratypes may also be in the USNM, but their location was not mentioned by Rausch & Rausch (Reference Rausch and Rausch1969) and they are not in the USNM on-line database. Placed in Stefanskostrongylus by Anderson (Reference Anderson1978: 3) but as the type species of his new genus Rauschivingylus (subfamily Sobolevingylinae) by Kontrimavichus (Reference Kontrimavichus, Kontrimavichus and Delyamure1979b: 147). Retained in Sobolevingylus by Tinnin et al. (Reference Tinnin, Ganzorig and Gardner2011: 23). Placed here in Stefanskostrongylus, following Anderson (Reference Anderson1978: 3), despite the host not belonging to either Afrosoricida or Soricomorpha and pending further research.

minimus

minutus

  • Angiostrongylus minutus Ohbayashi, Masegi & Kubota, 1973: 15, 16, Figs 1–8, 12, 13.

  • Current taxonomic status. Stefanskostrongylus minutus (Ohbayashi, Masegi & Kubota, Reference Ohbayashi, Masegi and Kubota1973). Valid species (e.g. Ubelaker, Reference Ubelaker1986: 240; Asakawa et al., Reference Asakawa, Kamiya and Ohbayashi1988: 7).

  • Type material. Syntypes – Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Hokkaido University (‘About 30 specimens including complete ones of 6 males and 3 females’, the complete ones being those on which the description was primarily based) (Ohbayashi et al., Reference Ohbayashi, Masegi and Kubota1973: 16). Attempts to confirm the presence of the type material in this collection were unsuccessful.

  • Type locality. ‘Yumoto, Nikkô, and areas near Lakes Saiko and Kawaguchi’.

  • Type host. Urotrichus talpoides Temminck (Soricomorpha: Talpidae; Japanese shrew mole).

  • Symbiotype material. The description was based on specimens from 13 U. talpoides individuals, their location now unknown.

  • Location in host. ‘Lungs’.

  • Other hosts. Not reported.

  • Intermediate hosts. Not reported.

  • Known range. Apparently known only from the type locality.

  • Remarks. Although this species was described from a species of Soricomorpha, Ohbayashi et al. (Reference Ohbayashi, Masegi and Kubota1973) placed it in Angiostrongylus based on morphological characters. Ubelaker (Reference Ubelaker1986), however, noting that species described from ‘insectivore’ hosts did not occur in the vascular system (Ash, Reference Ash1967), assigned it to Stefanskostrongylus based on its presence in the host's lung tissue and not its vascular tissue. Asakawa et al. (Reference Asakawa, Kamiya and Ohbayashi1988: 7) listed it in Stefanskostrongylus.

pottoi

  • Aelurostrongylus pottoi Chabaud & Bain, 1965: 569, 570, 571, un-numbered figure (p. 570).

  • Current taxonomic status. Stefanskostrongylus pottoi (Chabaud & Bain, 1965). Valid species (Chabaud, Reference Chabaud1972: 741; Kontrimavichus, Reference Kontrimavichus, Kontrimavichus and Delyamure1979a: 133; Asakawa et al., Reference Asakawa, Kamiya and Ohbayashi1988: 7, as ‘potti’).

  • Type material. Syntypes – MNHN-IN-S-350 (two male, one female specimens, fragments of other specimens).

  • Type locality. ‘la station de La Maboké (République centrafricaine) … en captivité à la Ménagerie du Jardin des Plantes’ [Paris]. [MNHN database indicated the locality incorrectly as Cameroun (9 July 2018); the original handwritten MNHN catalogue entry indicates République centrafricaine].

  • Type host. Perodicticus potto (Müller) (Primates: Lorisidae; potto).

  • Symbiotype material. Unknown.

  • Location in host. ‘poumons’ [lungs].

  • Other hosts. Unknown.

  • Intermediate hosts. Not reported.

  • Known range. Apparently known only from the type locality.

  • Remarks. Placed in Stefanskostrongylus by Chabaud (Reference Chabaud1972: 741) and Kontrimavichus (Reference Kontrimavichus, Kontrimavichus and Delyamure1979a: 133), despite the host being a primate.

pulmonalis

  • Angiostrongylus pulmonalis Sadovskaya, 1954: 390. Unavailable name: nomen nudum.

  • Remarks. The name was apparently introduced in a dissertation that Ash (Reference Ash1967: 628), Ubelaker (Reference Ubelaker1986: 240) and the present author could not find. However, a dissertation does not constitute a published work, unless it satisfies the criteria listed in the Code (Article 8), which this dissertation almost certainly does not, so the name was not made available from the dissertation. However, the author published a summary of the dissertation (Sadovskaya, Reference Sadovskaya1954) in which the name was listed among other parasitic worms from Primorsky Krai (far eastern Russia), but with no description, only indicating the hosts as Sorex minutus and Sorex sp. The name is therefore a nomen nudum, as also considered by Ash (Reference Ash1967: 628), followed by Drozdz & Doby (Reference Drozdz and Doby1970: 660). Ash (Reference Ash1967: 628) suggested that because it occurs in the same host in ‘approximately the same geographical area’ (‘Premore’) as does soricis Sołtys it could in fact be a misidentification of that species. Ubelaker (Reference Ubelaker1986: 240) considered it a ‘species inquirendae’ but also probably based on a misidentification of soricis Sołtys because of its presence in shrews. He placed it in Stefanskostrongylus on the basis of its presence in shrews.

soricis

yagii

  • Stefanskostrongylus yagii Asakawa, Kamiya & Ohbayashi, 1988: 1, 2, 4, 5, Figs 12–19.

  • Current taxonomic status. Stefanskostrongylus yagii Asakawa, Kamiya & Ohbayashi, 1988. Valid species.

  • Type material. Syntypes – MPM 19499 (five male, three female specimens), possibly Asakawa collection (four male, five female specimens) (T. Iwaki, pers. comm., 27 April 2018).

  • Type locality. ‘Hokkaido, Japan’.

  • Type host. Sorex caecutiens (Soricidae; as ‘Sorex shinto saevus’, saevus now a synonym of caecutiens (see Hutterer, Reference Hutterer, Wilson and Reeder2005: 285–286); Laxmann's shrew).

  • Symbiotype material. Unknown.

  • Location in host. ‘lungs’.

  • Other hosts. Not reported.

  • Intermediate hosts. Not reported.

  • Known range. Known only from the type locality.

  • Remarks. The description was based on nine male and eight female specimens. Asakawa et al. (Reference Asakawa, Kamiya and Ohbayashi1988: 5) stated ‘Type specimen is deposited in Meguro Parasitological Museum (No. 19499)’. Unfortunately, this cannot be considered as having designated the holotype, as MPM19499 contains eight specimens and none of them is clearly identified as the holotype, even though the data associated with specimens state ‘Holotype, Paratype’. They are treated here as syntypes. The use of the term ‘type’, singular, is considered here as a lapsus calami for ‘types’, plural. The additional specimens are thought to be in the private collection of Mitsuhiko Asakawa (T. Iwaki, pers. comm., 28 April 2018). This species appears to be known only from the original description and has apparently never been placed in a different genus. Found in 14 Japanese shrews (Asakawa et al., Reference Asakawa, Kamiya and Ohbayashi1988: 2, 9).

Incertae sedis in Angiostrongylidae
timani

  • Chabaudistrongylus timani Juschkov, 1981: 187, Figs 1–5.

  • Current taxonomic status. Valid species, incertae sedis in Angiostrongylidae.

  • Type material. Museum of the Helminthological Laboratory of the USSR Academy of Sciences [now part of IEE RAS]. Holotype (male) – preparation No. 531; paratype (female, as ‘holotype’) – preparation No. 532; paratypes (females) – preparations No. 534–538 (see Remarks). Presence of these specimens in IEE RAS has been confirmed (S. Spiridonov via Y. Kantor, pers. comm., 2018).

  • Type locality. ‘north-east of European USSR, Timan Ridge, upper reaches of the River Vym’ [translated from Russian].

  • Type host. Myodes rutilus (Cricetidae: Arvicolinae; northern red-backed vole; as ‘Clethrionomys’) (host of the holotype).

  • Symbiotype material. Six Myodes rutilus, one Myodes rufocanus; location unknown.

  • Location in host. ‘lung tissue, bronchioles’ [translated from Russian].

  • Other hosts. Myodes rufocanus (Sundevall) (grey red-backed vole; as ‘Clethrionomys’) (Juschkov, Reference Juschkov1981: 187).

  • Intermediate hosts. Not reported.

  • Known range. Known only from the type locality.

  • Remarks. The material on which the description was based was said to have comprised two male and seven female specimens (Juschkov, Reference Juschkov1981: 187). The single intact male specimen in preparation No. 531 was clearly designated as the holotype. However, the female specimen in preparation No. 532 was also designated as a ‘holotype’. This catalogue considers this a lapsus calami, and accepts this specimen as an ‘allotype’, conforming with conventional type designation in parasitology and with the earlier description of Angiocaulus ryjikovi by Juschkov (Reference Juschkov1971: 345). The specimens in preparations No. 534–538 were designated as paratypes. The male fragment (preparation No. 533), though listed, was not explicitly given any type status and is therefore excluded from the type series (Code, Article 72.4.6). Juschkov (Reference Juschkov1981: 189) thus enumerated and provided details of only eight specimens, two males (one fragmentary) and six (not seven) females, so his mention of nine specimens (two males, seven females) on p. 187 and p. 189 may simply have been in error. Juschkov (Reference Juschkov1981: 190) placed his new species in the subfamily Angiostrongylinae of the family Filaroididae and in the genus Chabaudistrongylus. This genus is here treated as a junior synonym of Angiostrongylus, and therefore it is possible that C. timani should be placed in Angiostrongylus. However, no revisionary treatment has included C. timani and it appears not to have been mentioned in the literature since its description. As this catalogue is not a revisionary work, it is here simply listed as incertae sedis in Angiostrongylidae with the correct generic combination uncertain, pending further research.

Unpublished names
‘kratae’

  • Angiostrongylus ‘kratae’ [no author, unpublished collection name]

  • Remarks. Information is derived from the USNM Invertebrate Zoology on-line database, from the original record cards, and from discussion with staff of the USNM collection. The record cards indicate ‘sp. n.’. The name is the Thai name for the tree shrew Tupaia glis (see Jaroonsvesama, Reference Jaroonsvesama2005: 993). The material was obtained from the pulmonary artery of a specimen of this species imported to the USA from Thailand. The USNM catalogue lists a ‘holotype’ (male) – USNM 1369983 (USNPC 74420), an ‘allotype’ (female) – USNM 1369984 (USNPC 74421), and ‘paratypes’ – USNM 1369985 (USNPC 74422). It is listed in the GBIF database (accessed 11 July 2018), on the basis of the USNM specimens, with no additional information. The name appears not to have been published and the species has not been described.

‘putae’

  • Angiostrongylus ‘putae’ [no author, unpublished collection name].

  • Remarks. Information is derived from the USNM Invertebrate Zoology on-line database, from the original record cards, and from discussion with staff of the USNM collection. The handwritten record card identifies it as Angiostrongylus ‘sp.’ but the on-line database identifies it as Angiostrongylus ‘putae’. Collected by H.C. Clark, 25 August 1932, and identified by B.G. Chitwood, 5 September 1932. The name was listed among 21 species of Angiostrongylus by Lunn (Reference Lunn2006: 17; an unpublished thesis), who attributed it to ‘(Clarke [sic], 1932)’ and referenced Bhaibulaya (Reference Bhaibulaya1991). However, Bhaibulaya (Reference Bhaibulaya1991: 189–190) listed only 20 species, and did not list ‘putae’. The on-line USNM database lists a voucher specimen as USNM 1334250 (USNPC 32998) from a specimen of ‘Tayra barba biologia’ [presumably the tayra, Eira barbara (Linnaeus), Mustelidae], obtained from the Panama Canal Zone. The lot with the immediately following catalogue number, USNM 1334251 (USNPC 32999), is identified as Trichostrongylus ‘putae’ and placed in the Rhabditida, Trichostrongylidae, whereas Angiostrongylus ‘putae’ was placed in Strongylida, Angiostrongylidae. The name appears not to have been published and the species has not been described.

Author ORCIDs

Robert H. Cowie, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2986-7092

Acknowledgements

I thank Richard Malik, Eric Morgan, Matthew Robinson and Steve Sait for the initial discussions that stimulated me to produce this catalogue and for comments on a draft. I thank Yuri Kantor for help with obtaining literature and for Russian translation and transliteration. For help with tracking down (or attempting to track down) type material I thank Marcelo Knoff and Silvana Thiengo (CHIOC), Michel Franc (École nationale vétérinaire de Toulouse), Patrick Bourdeau (Ecole Vétérinaire de Nantes), Praphathip Eamsobhana (Mahidol University, Bangkok), Loredana Mariniello (MCZR), Cristina Damborenea and Diego Verzi (MLP), Coralie Martin (MNHN), Takashi Iwaki (MPM), Stefano D'Amelio (Sapienza Università di Roma), Yuri Kantor and Sergei Spiridonov (Severtzov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Moscow), Zhong-Dao Wu and Zhao-Rong Lun (Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou), Carlos Feliu (Universitat de Barcelona), Jean-Pierre Gangneux (Centre hospitalier universitaire de Rennes), Santiago Mas-Coma (Universidad de Valencia) and Anna Philipps, Georgia Tschen and Eric Hoberg (USNM). Pierre Lozouet facilitated my visit to the MNHN helminthological collection and Coralie Martin was extremely helpful in accessing the type material and information associated with it. Corinne Bolze (MNHN), Eileen Harris and David Gibson (NHMUK), Mal Bryant (Queensland Museum), Mark Blaxter (University of Edinburgh) and Mahdis Aghazadeh (University of Sydney) helped with additional literature and information. Neal Evenhuis (Bishop Museum, Honolulu) reviewed the manuscript and offered nomenclatural advice. Philippe Bouchet (MNHN) and David Gibson (NHMUK, WoRMS) facilitated correction of the authority of the family-group names Metastrongyloidea and Metastrongylidae in WoRMS. The original draft of the manuscript was completed while I was hosted at the MNHN, for which I especially thank Philippe Bouchet and Virginie Héros. Contribution number 10665 of the University of Hawaii School of Ocean and Earth Sciences.

Financial support

The stimulus to produce this catalogue came from discussions in Thailand and Laos, supported by a Worldwide Universities Network Research Development Fund grant 2016-17 to Eric Morgan.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

All publications referenced have been seen, as have all original descriptions of taxa formally treated in the catalogue; all are listed here. Original descriptions of other taxa mentioned in passing and of host taxa are not listed. Dates (day and month) are given in square brackets, especially for key publications, if they were readily obtainable, but exhaustive research has not been undertaken to ascertain precise dates of publication for all. If an author's initials were not given in the publication but are known, they are placed in square brackets. Additional notes regarding bibliographic information, including translations of titles, are given in square brackets, as necessary or useful.Google Scholar
Aghazadeh, M, Jones, MK, Aland, KV, Reid, SA, Traub, RJ, McCarthy, JS and Lee, R (2015a) Emergence of neural angiostrongyliasis in eastern Australia. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 15(3), 184–190.Google Scholar
Aghazadeh, M, Reid, SA, Aland, KV, Restrepo, AC, Traub, RJ, McCarthy, JS and Jones, MK (2015b) A survey of Angiostrongylus species in definitive hosts in Queensland. International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife 4(3), 323–328.Google Scholar
Aghazadeh, M, Traub, RJ, Mohandas, N, Aland, KV, Reid, SA, McCarthy, JS and Jones, MK (2015c) The mitochondrial genome of Angiostrongylus mackerrasae as a basis for molecular, epidemiological and population genetic studies. Parasites & Vectors 8, 473. doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-1082-0.Google Scholar
Aghazadeh, M, Harvie, MC, Owen, HC, et al. (2016) Comparative pathogenesis of eosinophilic meningitis caused by Angiostrongylus mackerrasae and Angiostrongylus cantonensis in murine and guinea pig models of human infection. Parasitology 143(10), 1243–1251.Google Scholar
Alicata, JE (1964) Parasitic Infections of Man and Animals in Hawaii. Technical Bulletin 61. Honolulu, Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Tropical Agriculture, University of Hawaii. 138 pp.Google Scholar
Alicata, JE (1968) Angiostrongylus sandarsae sp. n. (Nematoda: Metastrongyloidea), a lungworm of rodents in Mozambique, East Africa. Journal of Parasitology 54(5), 896–899.Google Scholar
Alicata, JE (1991) The discovery of Angiostrongylus cantonensis as a cause of human eosinophilic meningitis. Parasitology Today 7(6), 151–153.Google Scholar
Alicata, JE and Jindrak, K (1970) Angiostrongylosis in the Pacific and Southeast Asia. Springfield, Illinois, Charles C. Thomas, Publisher. x+105 pp.Google Scholar
Anderson, RC (1978) CIH Keys to the Nematode Parasites of Vertebrates. No. 5. Keys to Genera of the Superfamily Metastrongyloidea. Farnham Royal, UK, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. 40 pp.Google Scholar
Anderson, RC (2000) Nematode parasites of vertebrates. Their development and transmission. 2nd edn. Wallingford, UK, CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
Anderson, RC (2009) Strongylida Metastrongyloidea. pp. 178–217 in Anderson, RC, Chabaud, AG and Willmott, S (Eds) Keys to the nematode parasites of vertebrates. Archival volume. Wallingford, UK, CAB International. xx+650 pp.Google Scholar
Archer, CE, Appleton, CC, Mukaratirwa, S, Lamb, J and Schoeman, MC (2017) Endo-parasites of public-health importance recovered from rodents in the Durban metropolitan area, South Africa. Southern African Journal of Infectious Diseases 32(2), 57–66.Google Scholar
Asakawa, M, Kamiya, H and Ohbayashi, M (1988) Studies on the parasite fauna of Insectivora III. Two new nematodes, Soboliphyme abei n. sp. (Soboliphymatidae) and Stefanskostrongylus yagii n. sp. (Angiostrongylidae) from Sorex spp. in Japan. Journal of Rakuno Gakuen University 13, 1–10.Google Scholar
Asato, R, Taira, K, Nakamura, M, Kudaka, J, Itokazu, K and Kawanaka, M (2004) Changing epidemiology of Angiostrongylus cantonensis in Okinawa Prefecture, Japan. Japanese Journal of Infectious Diseases 57(4), 184–186.Google Scholar
Ash, LR (1967) Angiostrongylus michiganensis sp. n. (Nematoda: Metastrongyloidea), a lungworm occurring in the shrew, Sorex cinereus cinereus, in Michigan. Journal of Parasitology 53(3), 625–629.Google Scholar
Ash, LR (1968) The occurrence of Angiostrongylus cantonensis in frogs of New Caledonia with observations on paratenic hosts of metastrongyles. Journal of Parasitology 54(3), 432–436.Google Scholar
Aziz, NAA, Daly, E, Allen, S, Rowson, B, Greig, C, Forman, D and Morgan, ER (2016) Distribution of Angiostrongylus vasorum and its gastropod intermediate hosts along the rural–urban gradient in two cities in the United Kingdom, using real time PCR. Parasites & Vectors 9: 56. doi: 10.1186/s13071-016-1338-3.Google Scholar
Baillet [CC] (1854) Dochmius trigonocepalus [sic] (Dujardin. Histoire naturelle des Helmintes). – Strongylus trigonocephalus (Rudolphi). Journal des Vétérinaires du Midi 7, 72–73.Google Scholar
Baillet C[C] (1866) Helminthes. Nouveau Dictionaire Pratique de Médecine, de Chirurgie et d'Hygiène Vétérinaires 8, 519–687.Google Scholar
Barratt, J, Chan, D, Sandaradura, I, et al. (2016) Angiostrongylus cantonensis: a review of its distribution, molecular biology and clinical significance as a human pathogen. Parasitology 143(9), 1087–1118.Google Scholar
Barutzki, D, Dyachenko, V and Schaper, R (2017) Lungworms in Germany 2002–2016: is there an increase in occurrence and geographical spread. Parasitology Research 116(1 Supplement), S11–S30.Google Scholar
Baylis, HA (1928) On a collection of nematodes from Nigerian mammals (chiefly rodents). Parasitology 20(3), 280–304.Google Scholar
Beveridge, I, Spratt, DM and Durette-Desset, M-C (2014) Order Strongylida (Railliet & Henry, 1913). pp. 557–612 in Schmidt-Rhaesa, A (Ed) Handbook of zoology. Gastrotricha, Cycloneuralia and Gnathifera. Volume 2: Nematoda. Berlin, De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bezerra, TN, Decraemer, W, Eisendle-Flöckner, U, et al. (2018) NeMys: World Database of Free-Living Marine Nematodes. Metastrongyloidea Molin, 1861. Available through the World Register of Marine Species at http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=22890 (accessed 5 July 2018).Google Scholar
Bhaibulaya, M (1968) A new species of Angiostrongylus in an Australian rat, Rattus fuscipes. Parasitology 58(4), 789–799.Google Scholar
Bhaibulaya, M (1974) Experimental hybridization of Angiostrongylus mackerrasae, Bhaibulaya, 1968 and Angiostrongylus cantonensis (Chen, 1935). International Journal for Parasitology, 4(6), 567–573.Google Scholar
Bhaibulaya, M (1975) Comparative studies on the life history of Angiostrongylus mackerrasae Bhaibulaya, 1968 and Angiostrongylus cantonensis (Chen, 1935). International Journal for Parasitology 5(1), 7–20.Google Scholar
Bhaibulaya, M (1979) Morphology and taxonomy of major Angiostrongylus species of eastern Asia and Australia. pp. 4–13 in Cross, JH (Ed) Studies on angiostrongyliasis in eastern Asia and Australia. Taipei, U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit No. 2.Google Scholar
Bhaibulaya, M (1991) Snail borne parasitic zoonoses: angiostrongyliasis. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health 22(Supplement), 189–193.Google Scholar
Bhaibulaya, M and Cross, JH (1971) Angiostrongylus malaysiensis (Nematoda: Metastrongylidae), a new species of rat lung-worm from Malaysia. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health 2(4), 527–33.Google Scholar
Binkienė, R (2006) Helminth fauna of shrews (Sorex spp.) in Lithuania. Acta Zoologica Lituanica 16(3), 241–245.Google Scholar
Biocca, E (1957) Angiostrongylus chabaudi n. sp. parassita del cuore e dei vasi polmonari del gatto selvatico (Felis silvestris). Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Rendiconti della Classe di Scienze Fisiche, Matematiche e Naturali Serie VIII 22, 526–532.Google Scholar
Biocca, E, Balbo, T and Costantini, R (1976) Observazioni sulla specie Stefanskostrongylus soricis (Soltys, 1954). Parassitologia 18(1–3), 45–51.Google Scholar
Böhm, LK and Gebauer, O (1934) Zur System der Familie der Metastrongylidae Leiper 1908. Zoologischer Anzeiger 105, 287–294.Google Scholar
Bolt, G, Monrad, J, Frandsen, F, Henriksen, P and Dietz, HH (1993) The common frog (Rana temporaria) as a potential paratenic and intermediate host for Angiostrongylus vasorum. Parasitology Research 79(5), 428–430.Google Scholar
Bossi, G (1871) Due casi di cardite verminosa prodotta da un particolare entozoa con accessi epilettiforme in due cani de caccia. Giornale di Medicina Veterinaria 19(7), 300–303.Google Scholar
Bourque, AC, Conboy, G, Miller, LM and Whitney, H (2008) Pathological findings in dogs naturally infected with Angiostrogylus vasorum in Newfoundland and Labrador. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 20(1), 11–20.Google Scholar
Bronner, GN and Jenkins, PD (2005) Order Afrosoricida. pp. 71–81 in Wilson, DE and Reeder, DM (Eds) Mammal species of the world. A taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd edn. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Brooks, DR (1993) Extending the symbiotype concept to host voucher specimens. Journal of Parasitology 79(4), 631–63.Google Scholar
Caballero, R, Thomé, JW, Andrews, KL and Rueda, A (1991) Babosas de Honduras (Soleolifera: Veronicellidae): biología, ecología, distribución, descripción, importancia económica, y claves para su identificación. Ceiba 32(2), 107–126.Google Scholar
Čabanová, V, Guimaraes, N, Hurníková, Z, Chovancová, G, Urban, P and Miterpáková, M (2017) Endoparasites of the grey wolf (Canis lupus) in protected areas of Slovakia. Annals of Parasitology 63(4), 283–289.Google Scholar
Čabanová, V, Miterpáková, M, Druga, M, Hurníková, Z and Valentová, D (2018) GIS-based environmental analysis of fox and canine lungworm distribution: an epidemiological study of Angiostrongylus vasorum and Crenosoma vulpis in red foxes from Slovakia. Parasitology Research 117(2), 521–530.Google Scholar
Čabrilo, OB, Simin, V, Miljević, M, Čabrilo, B, Mijatović, D and Lalošević, D (2018) Respiratory and cardiopulmonary nematode species of foxes and jackals in Serbia. Helminthologia 55, 213–221.Google Scholar
Callaway, WA, Turner, AA, Croshaw, OB, Ferguson, JA, Julson, ZJ-N, Volp, TM, Kerr, SE and Rymer, TL (2018) Melomys cervinipes (Rodentia: Muridae). Mammalian Species 50(968): 134–147.Google Scholar
Campbell, BG and Little, MD (1988) The finding of Angiostrongylus cantonensis in rats in New Orleans. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 38(3), 568–573.Google Scholar
Capdebielle, [H-B] and Hussenet, [L-D-A-M] (1911) Embolie cérébrale produite par Strongylus vasorum. Revue Vétérinaire 36(3), 144–147. [1 March; p. 129]Google Scholar
Carney, WP and Stafford, EE (1979) Angiostrongyliasis in Indonesia: a review. pp. 14–25 in Cross, JH (Ed) Studies on angiostrongyliasis in eastern Asia and Australia. Taipei, U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit No. 2.Google Scholar
Carreno, RA and Nadler, SA (2003) Phylogenetic analysis of the Metastrongyloidea (Nematoda: Strongylida) inferred from ribosomal RNA gene sequences. Journal of Parasitology 89(5), 965–973.Google Scholar
Carvalho, O dos S, Teles, HMS, Mota, RM, de Mendonça, CLGF and Lenzi, HL (2003) Potentiality of Achatina fulica Bowdich, 1822 (Mollusca: Gastropoda) as intermediate host of the Angiostrongylus costaricensis Morera & Céspedes 1971. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical 36(6), 743–745.Google Scholar
Chabaud, AG (1965) Ordre des Strongylida. pp. 869–931, 1166–1176 in Grassé, P-P (Directeur), Traité de zoologie. Anatomie, systématique, biologie. Tome IV. Némathelminthes (Nématodes, Gordiacés), Rotifères, Gastrotriches, Kinorhynques (troisième fascicule). Paris, Masson et Cie.Google Scholar
Chabaud, A-G (1972) Description de Stefanskostrongylus dubosti n. sp. parasite du Potamogale et essai de classification des nématodes Angiostrongylinae. Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparée 47(5), 735–744.Google Scholar
Chabaud, A-G and Bain, O (1965) Aelurostrongylus pottoi n. sp. métastrongylide parasite de primates. Remarques sur les affinités entre les nématodes de carnivores, d'insectivores et de lémuriens. Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparée 40(5), 569–573.Google Scholar
Chabaud, A-G and Choquet, M-T (1953) Nouvel essai de classification des filaires (superfamille des Filarioïdea). Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparée 28(3), 172–92.Google Scholar
Chabaud, A-G, Brygoo, E-R and Petter, A-J (1965) Nématodes pulmonaires du Limnogale (Insectivores–Tenrecidae). Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparée 40(4), 467–475.Google Scholar
Chaisiri, K, Dusitsittipon, S, Panitvong, N, Ketboonlue, T, Nuamtanong, S, Thaenkham, U, Morand, S and Dekumyoy, P (2018) Distribution of the newly invasive New Guinea flatworm Platydemus manokwari (Platyhelminthes: Geoplanidae) in Thailand and its potential role as a paratenic host carrying Angiostrongylus malaysiensis larvae. Journal of Helminthology. doi: 10.1017/S0022149X18000834 [on line 20 September]Google Scholar
Chan, D, Barratt, J, Roberts, T, et al. (2015) The prevalence of Angiostrongylus cantonensis/mackerrasae complex in molluscs from the Sydney region. PLoS ONE 10(5), e0128128. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128128.Google Scholar
Chen, H-T (1935) Un nouveau nematode pulmonaire, Pulmonema cantonensis, n. g. n. sp. des rats de Canton. Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparée 13(4), 312–317.Google Scholar
Colella, V, Cavalera, MA, Deak, G, Tarallo, VD, Gherman, CM, Mihalca, AD and Otranto, D (2017) Larval development of Angiostrongylus chabaudi, the causative agent of feline angiostrongylosis, in the snail Cornu aspersum. Parasitology 144(14), 1922–1930.Google Scholar
Corrêa, P, Bueno, C, Soares, T, Vieira, FM and Muniz-Pereira, LC (2016) Checklist of helminth parasites of wild primates from Brazil. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 87(3), 908–918.Google Scholar
Costa, JO, De Arauja Costa, HM and Guimaraes, MP (2003) Redescription of Angiostrongylus vasorum (Baillet, 1866) and systematic revision of species assigned to the genera Angiostrongylus Kamensky, 1905 and Angiocaulus Schulz, 1951. Revue de Médecine Vétérinaire 154(1), 9–16.Google Scholar
Cowie, RH (2013a) Biology, systematics, life cycle, and distribution of Angiostrongylus cantonensis, the cause of rat lungworm disease. Hawai‘i Journal of Medicine and Public Health 72(6) Supplement 2, 6–9.Google Scholar
Cowie, RH (2013b). Pathways for transmission of angiostrongyliasis and the risk of disease associated with them. Hawai‘i Journal of Medicine and Public Health 72(6) Supplement 2, 70–74.Google Scholar
Cowie, RH (2017) Angiostrongylus cantonensis: agent of a sometimes fatal globally emerging infectious disease (rat lungworm disease). ACS Chemical Neuroscience 8(10), 2102–2104.Google Scholar
Cowie, RH, Strong, EE, Rosenberg, G and Hayes, KA (2017) Types of Ampullariidae (Mollusca: Gastropoda) in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 165(1), 175–194. [on-line 15 December]Google Scholar
Cross, JH (1979) Studies on angiostrongyliasis in eastern Asia and Australia. Taipei, U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit No. 2. ix+164 pp.Google Scholar
Cross, JH (2004) Angiostrongylus (Parastrongylus) cantonensis in the western hemisphere. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health 35(Supplement 1), 107–111.Google Scholar
Cross, JH and Bhaibulaya, M (1974) Validity of Angiostrongylus malaysiensis Bhaibulaya and Cross, 1971. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health 5(3), 374–378.Google Scholar
Dard, C, Nguyen, D, Miossec, C, de Meuron, K, Harrois, D, Epelboin, L, Cabié, A and Desbois-Nogard, N (2018) Angiostrongylus costaricensis infection in Martinique, Lesser Antilles, from 2000 to 2017. Parasite 25, 22. doi: 10.1051/parasite/2018022.Google Scholar
Deak, G, Gherman, CM, Ionică, AM, et al. (2017) Angiostrongylus vasorum in Romania: an extensive survey in red foxes, Vulpes vulpes. Parasites & Vectors 10, 330. doi: 10.1186/s13071-017-2270-x.Google Scholar
Deak, G, Mihalca, AD, Hirzmann, J, et al. (2018) Validity of genus Perostrongylus Schlegel, 1934 with new data on Perostrongylus falciformis (Schlegel, 1933) in European badgers, Meles meles (Linnaeus, 1758): distribution, life-cycle and pathology. Parasites & Vectors 11, 568. doi: 10.1186/s13071-018-3124-x.Google Scholar
De Lay, P and Blaxter, M. (2002) Systematic position and phylogeny. pp. 1–30 in Lee, DL (Ed) The biology of nematodes. Boca Raton, CRC Press.Google Scholar
De Liberato, C, Berrilli, F, Odorizi, L, et al. (2018) Parasites in stray dogs from Italy: prevalence, risk factors and management concerns. Acta Parasitologica 63(1), 27–32.Google Scholar
Diakou, A, Psalla, D, Migli, D, Di Cesare, A, Youlatos, D, Marcer, F and Traversa, D (2016) First evidence of the European wildcat (Felis silvestris silvestris) as definitive host of Angiostrongylus chabaudi. Parasitology Research 115(3), 1235–1244.Google Scholar
Di Cesare, A and Traversa, D (2014) Canine angiostrongylosis: recent advances in diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Veterinary Medicine: Research and Reports 5, 181–192. [1 December; p. 181]Google Scholar
Diesing, CM (1851) Systema helminthum. Vol. II. Wilhelmum Braumüller, Vindobonae [Vienna]. vi+588+[3] pp. [after 19 June; p. vi]Google Scholar
Doby, JM, Drozdz, J and Beaucournu, JC (1970) Existence en France d'un Angiostrongylus (nématode métastrongyloïdé) parasite de rongeurs sauvage. Bulletin de la Société de Pathologie Exotique 63(3), 376–381. [after 13 May; date of the séance at which the paper was presented, p. 376].Google Scholar
Doby, JM, Piedade-Guerreiro, J and Drozdz, J (1971) Repartition geographique de Angiostrongylus (Parastrongylus) dujardini Drozdz et Doby, 1970, nematode parasite des petits rongeurs sauvages, presence au Portugal. Anais da Escola Nacional de Saude Publica e de Medicina Tropical (Lisboa) 5(1–2), 59–60.Google Scholar
Domnich, IF (1984) The first finding of nematodes of Aelurostrongylus pridhami and Stefanskostrongylus mascomai (Nematoda: Filaroididae) from mammals of north-eastern Asia in the USSR. Parazitologiya 18(1), 68–72. [In Russian, English title and summary]Google Scholar
Dougherty, EC (1944) The genus Metastrongylus Molin, 1861 (Nematoda: Metastrongylidae). Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington 11(2), 66–73.Google Scholar
Dougherty, EC (1946) The genus Aelurostrongylus Cameron, 1927 (Nematoda: Metastrongylidae), and its relation with the description of Parafilaroides, gen. nov. and Angiostrongylus gubernaculatus sp. nov. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington 13, 16–26.Google Scholar
Dougherty, EC (1949) The phylogeny of the nematode family Metastrongylidae Leiper, [1909] [sic]: a correlation of host and symbiote evolution. Parasitology 39(3–4), 222–234.Google Scholar
Dougherty, EC (1951) A further revision in the classification of the family Metastrongylidae Leiper (1909) (Phylum Nematoda). Parasitology 41(1–2), 91–96.Google Scholar
Drozdz, J (1970) Révision de la systématique du genre Angiostrongylus Kamensky 1905 (Nematoda: Metastrongyloidea). Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparée 45(5), 597–603.Google Scholar
Drozdz, J and Doby, JM (1970) Angiostrongylus dujardini sp. n. (Nematoda: Metastrongyloïdea), parasite de rongeurs (Apodemus sylvaticus et Clethrionomys glareolus). Bulletin de la Societe Zoologique de France 95(4), 659–668. [after 10 November; date of the séance at which the paper was presented, p. 659]Google Scholar
Drozdz, J, Doby, J-M and Mandahl-Barth, G (1971) Etude des morphologie et évolution larvaires de Angiostrongylus (Parastrongylus) dujardini Drozdz et Doby 1970 Nematoda: Metastrongyloidea. Infestation des mollusques hôtes intermédiaires. Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparée 46(3), 265–276.Google Scholar
Duszynski, DW (2016) The Biology and identification of the Coccidia (Apicomplexa) of marsupials of the World. Amsterdam, Elsevier. xii+241 pp.Google Scholar
Eamsobhana, P, Lim, PE, Solano, G, Zhang, H, Gan, X and Yong, HS (2010) Molecular differentiation of Angiostrongylus taxa (Nematoda: Angiostrongylidae) by cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) gene sequences. Acta Tropica 116(2), 152–156.Google Scholar
Eamsobhana, P, Lim, PE and Yong, HS (2015) Phylogenetics and systematics of Angiostrongylus lungworms and related taxa (Nematoda: Metastrongyloidea) inferred from the nuclear small subunit (SSU) ribosomal DNA sequences. Journal of Helminthology 89(3), 317–325.Google Scholar
Eamsobhana, P, Yong, HS, Song, SL, Prasartvit, A, Boonyong, S and Tungtrongchitr, A (2018) Cytochrome c oxidase subunit I haplotype reveals high genetic diversity of Angiostrongylus malaysiensis (Nematoda: Angiostrongylidae). Journal of Helminthology 92(2), 254–259.Google Scholar
Eleni, C, Di Cesare, A, Cavicchio, P, Tonnicchia, MC, Meoli, R, Frangipane di Regalbono, A, Paoletti, B, Pietrobelli, M and De Liberato, C (2016) Fatal Angiostrongylus dujardini infection in callitrichid monkeys and suricates in an Italian zoological garden. Parasitology International 65(4), 333–335.Google Scholar
Erhardová, B (1960) On the question of the helminth fauna of murine rodents in Albania [translated from Russian]. Československá Parasitologie 7, 91–96. [in Russian, German abstract]Google Scholar
Faulkner, CT, Patton, S, Munson, L, Johnson, EM and Coonan, TJ (2001) Angiocaulus gubernaculatus in the island fox (Urocyon littoralis) from the California Channel Islands and comments on the diagnosis of Angiostrongylidae nematodes in canid and mustelid hosts. Journal of Parasitology 87(5), 1174–1176.Google Scholar
Ferdushy, T and Hasan, MT (2010) Angiostrongylus vasorum: the ‘French Heartworm’. Parasitology Research 107(4), 765–771.Google Scholar
Ferdushy, T, Kapel, CMO, Webster, P, Al-Sabi, MNS and Grønvold, J (2009) The occurrence of Angiostrongylus vasorum in terrestrial slugs from forests and parks in the Copenhagen area, Denmark. Journal of Helminthology 83(4), 379–383.Google Scholar
Fiebiger, J (1912) Die tierischen Parasiten der Haus- und Nutztiere. Ein Lehr- und Handbuch mit Bestimmungstabellen für Tierärzte und Studierende. Wien [Vienna] and Leipzig, Wilhelm Braumüller. xvi+424 p. 302 figs [March or later; p. x]Google Scholar
Fontanilla, IKC and Wade, CM (2008) The small subunit (SSU) ribosomal (r) RNA gene as a genetic marker for identifying infective 3rd juvenile stage Angiostrongylus cantonensis. Acta Tropica 105(2), 181–186.Google Scholar
Foronda, P, López-González, M, Miquel, J, et al. (2010) Finding of Parastrongylus cantonensis (Chen, 1935) in Rattus rattus in Tenerife, Canary Islands (Spain). Acta Tropica 114(2), 123–127.Google Scholar
Frey, JK, Yates, TL, Duszynski, DW, Gannon, WL and Gardner, SL (1992) Designation and curatorial management of type host specimens (symbiotypes) for new parasite species. Journal of Parasitology 78(5), 930–932.Google Scholar
Garcia-Campos, A, Power, C, O'Shaughnessy, J, Browne, C, Lawlor, A, McCarthy, G, O'Neill, EJ and de Waal, T (2018) One-year parasitological screening of stray dogs and cats in County Dublin, Ireland. Parasitology. doi: 10.1017/S0031182018002020 [on line 18 December]Google Scholar
Gasser, RB, Jabbar, A, Mohandas, N, Schnyder, M, Deplazes, P, Littlewood, DTJ and Jex, AR (2012) Mitochondrial genome of Angiostrongylus vasorum: comparison with congeners and implications for studying the population genetics and epidemiology of this parasite. Infection, Genetics and Evolution 12(8), 1884–1891.Google Scholar
Gerrikagoitia, X, Barral, M and Juste, RA (2010) Angiostrongylus species in wild carnivores in the Iberian Peninsula. Veterinary Parasitology 174(1–2), 175–180.Google Scholar
Gherman, CM, Ionică, AM, D'Amico, G, Otranto, D and Mihalca, AD (2016a) Angiostrongylus chabaudi (Biocca, 1957) in wildcat (Felis silvestris silvestris, S) from Romania. Parasitology Research 115(6), 2511–2517.Google Scholar
Gherman, CM, Deak, G, Matei, IA, et al. (2016b) A rare cardiopulmonary parasite of the European badger, Meles meles: first description of the larvae, ultrastructure, pathological changes and molecular identification of Angiostrongylus daskalovi Janchev & Genov 1988. Parasites & Vectors 9, 423. doi: 10.1186/s13071-016-1718-8.Google Scholar
Giannelli, A, Kirkova, Z, Abramo, F, Latrofa, MS, Campbell, B, Zizzo, N, Cantacessi, C, Dantas-Torres, F and Otranto, D (2016) Angiostrongylus chabaudi in felids: new findings and a review of the literature. Veterinary Parasitology 228, 188–192. [15 September]Google Scholar
Gibbons, LM (2010) Keys to the nematode parasites of vertebrates. Supplementary volume. Wallingford, UK, CABI. viii+416 pp.Google Scholar
Gibbons, LM and Krishnasamy, M (1986) Malayometastrongylus diardinematus n. g. n. sp. (Metastrongyloidea: Angiostrongylidae) from Rattus rattus diardii in Malaysia and a redescription of Thaistrongylus harinasutai Ohbayashi, Kamiya & Bhaibulaya, 1979. Systematic Parasitology 8(2), 107–115.Google Scholar
Gillis-Germitsch, N, Manser, MB, Hilbe, M and Schnyder, M (2017) Meerkats (Suricata suricatta), a new definitive host of the canid nematode Angiostrongylus vasorum. International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife 6(3), 349–353.Google Scholar
Giraldo, A, Garzón, C, Castillo, A and Córdoba-Rojas, DF (2019) Confirmation of the presence of Angiostrongylus cantonensis in lung tissue of the African giant snail (Lissachatina fulica) in Colombia. Infectio, 23(2), 129–132.Google Scholar
Graeff-Teixeira, C, Camillo-Coura, L and Lenzi, HL (1991) Clinical and epidemiological aspects of abdominal angiostrongyliasis in southern Brazil. Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo 33(5), 373–378.Google Scholar
Graeff Teixeira, [sic] C, Thiengo, SC, Thome, [sic] JW, Medeiros, AB, Camillo-Coura, L and Agostini, AA (1993) On the diversity of mollusc intermediate hosts of Angiostrongylus costaricensis Morera & Cespedes, 1971, in southern Brazil. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 8(3), 487–489.Google Scholar
Graeff-Teixeira, C, Goulart, AH, de Ornellas Brum, C, et al. (2005) Longitudinal clinical and serological survey of abdominal angiostrongyliasis in Guaporé, southern Brazil, from 1995 to 1999. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical 38(4), 310–315.Google Scholar
Graeff-Teixeira, C, da Silva, ACA and Yoshimura, K (2009) Update on eosinophilic meningoencephalitis and its clinical relevance. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 22(2), 322–348.Google Scholar
Graeff-Teixeira, C, Morassutti, AL and Jones, MK (2018) Diagnosing and understanding angiostrongyliasis, a zoonotic cause of meningitis. ACS Chemical Neuroscience 9(3), 393–394.Google Scholar
Graille, M, Ferté, H, Petit, T, Ollivet Courtois, F, Gauchot, J-Y, Nougaillon, J-L, Vitaud, C, Wardzynski, C and Lemberger, K (2015) Fatal Parastrongylus dujardini infection in captive callitrichids. Veterinary Pathology 52(2), 364–368.Google Scholar
Grisi, L (1971) Ocorrência de Angiocaulus raillieti (Travassos, 1927) comb. n. em Canis familiaris L. (Nematoda, Protostrongylidae). Revista Brasileira de Biologia 31(1), 27–32.Google Scholar
Guerino, LR, Carvalho, JF, Magalhãesa, LA and Zanotti-Magalhães, EM (2017) Susceptibility of Biomphalaria glabrata submitted to concomitant infection with Angiostrongylus costaricensis and Schistosoma mansoni. Brazilian Journal of Biology 77(3), 451–458.Google Scholar
Guilhon, J (1960) Rôle des Limacidés dans le cycle évolutif d’Angiostrongylus vasorum (Baillet, 1866). Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences 251(3), 2252–2253. [after 14 November; date of the séance at which the paper was presented, by C. Bressou, who has been included as a co-author in some publications, e.g. Schnyder et al. (2017)]Google Scholar
Guilhon, J (1963) Recherches sur le cycle évolutif du strongle des vaisseaux du chien. Bulletin de l'Académie Vétérinaire de France 116(10), 431–442. [after 5 December; date of the séance at which the paper was presented]Google Scholar
Guilhon, J (1965a) Évolution larvaire d'Angiostrongylus vasorum (Baillet, 1866) dans l'organisme d'Arionidés. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences 261, 4225–4227. [after 15 November; date of the séance at which the paper was presented, by C. Bressou]Google Scholar
Guilhon, J (1965b) Transmission d’Angiostrongylus vasorum (Baillet, 1866) aux canidés sauvages. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences 261, 4496–4497. [after 22 November; date of the séance at which the paper was presented, by C. Bressou]Google Scholar
Guilhon, J and Afghahi, A (1969) Evolution larvaire d’Angiostrongylus vasorum (Baillet, 1866) dans l'organisme de diverses espèces de mollusques terrestres. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences, Série D: Sciences naturelles 268(1), 434–436. [after 13 January; date of the séance at which the paper was presented, by C. Bressou]Google Scholar
Guilhon, J and Cens, B (1969) Migrations et évolution d’Angiostrongylus vasorum (Baillet, 1866) dans l'organisme du chien. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences, Série D: Sciences naturelles 269(3), 2377–2380, pls. I, II. [after 15 December; date of the séance at which the paper was presented, by C. Bressou]Google Scholar
Guilhon, J and Cens, B (1973) Angiostrongylus vasorum (Baillet, 1866). Etude biologique et morphologique. Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparée 48(4), 567–596.Google Scholar
Guilhon, J and de Gaalon, A (1969) Evolution larvaire d'un nématode parasite de l'appareil circulatoire du chien dans l'organisme de mollusques dulçaquicoles. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences, Série D: Sciences naturelles 268(1), 612–615, pl. I. [after 20 January; date of the séance at which the paper was presented, by C. Bressou]Google Scholar
Guittard, J (1899) Le Strongylus vasorum. Le Progrès Vétérinaire 12(premier semestre)(5), 131–133. [12 February; p. 117]Google Scholar
Hassall, A, Doss, MA, Farr, MM, Carson, GB and Bero, D (1939) Part 3. Authors: С tо CZYGAN. pp. 613–961 in Index-catalogue of medical and veterinary zoology. Washington, DC, United States Department of Agriculture. [March; frontispiece]Google Scholar
Hicklenton, L and Betson, M (2019) Molecular detection of Angiostrongylus vasorum in gastropods in Surrey, UK. Parasitology Research 118, 1051–1054.Google Scholar
Hutterer, R (2005) Order Soricomorpha. pp. 220–311 in Wilson, DE and Reeder, DM (Eds), Mammal species of the World. A taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd edn. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 1999. International code of zoological nomenclature. 4th edn. London, International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. xxix+306 pp.Google Scholar
Incani, RN, Caleiras, E, Martín, M and González, C (2007) Human infection by Angiostrongylus costaricensis in Venezuela: first report of a confirmed case. Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo 49(3), 197–200.Google Scholar
Jabbar, A, Jex, AR, Mohandas, N, Hall, RS, Littlewood, TJ and Gasser, RB (2013) The mitochondrial genome of Aelurostrongylus abstrusus – diagnostic, epidemiological and systematic implications. Gene 516(2), 294–300.Google Scholar
Janchev, J and Genov, T (1988) Angiostrongylus daskalovi sp. n. (Nematoda: Filaroididae) from Mustelidae in Bulgaria. Helminthologia 25, 81–88.Google Scholar
Jaroonsvesama, N (2005) Gnathostomiasis. Journal of the Royal Institute of Thailand 30(4), 998–1001.Google Scholar
Jeandel, R, Fortier, G, Pitre-Delaunay, C and Jouannelle, A (1988) Angiostrongylose intestinale à Angiostrongylus costaricensis a [sic] propos d'un cas en Martinique. Gastroentérologie Clinique et Biologique 12, 390–393.Google Scholar
Jefferies, R, Shaw, SE, Viney, ME and Morgan, ER (2009) Angiostrongylus vasorum from South America and Europe represent distinct lineages. Parasitology 136(1), 107–115.Google Scholar
Juschkov, VF (1971) Angiocaulus ryjikovi sp. n. (Nematoda, Strongylata), a parasite of the northern redbacked vole (Clethrionomys rutilus Pallas) from North Ural. Parazitologiya 5(4), 344–346. [in Russian, English title and summary (as “Jushkov”)]Google Scholar
Juschkov, VF (1981) Chabaudistrongylus timani sp. n. (Nematoda, Filaroididae), a parasite of forest vole lungs. Parazitologiya 15(2), 187–191. [in Russian, English title and summary (as “Jushkov”)]Google Scholar
Kamensky, SN (1905) Sistematichescoe polozhenie rodov Metastrongylus Wost. i Protostrongylus g. n. sredi drugikh Strongylidae [The systematic position of the genera Metastrongylus Wost. and Protostrongylus g. n. among other Strongylidae]. Sbornik Trudov Kharkovskago Veterinarnago Instituta [Comptes rendus des travaux spéciaux de l'Institut vétérinaire à Kharkoff] 7(2), 17–50.Google Scholar
Kamiya, M and Fukumoto, S-I (1988) Angiostrongylus sandarsae Alicata, 1968 (Nematoda: Metastrongyloidea) from Praomys natalensis in Kenya. Japanese Journal of Veterinary Research 36(1), 47–52.Google Scholar
Kamiya, M, Oku, Y, Katakura, K, Kamiya, H, Ohbayashi, M, Abe, H, Suzuki, H and Bhaibulaya, M (1981) Report on the prevalence and experimental infections of Angiostrongylus siamensis Ohbayashi, Kamiya et Bhaibulaya, 1979, parasitic in the mesenteric arteries of rodents in Thailand. Japanese Journal of Veterinary Research 28(4) [for 1980], 114–121. [31 January]Google Scholar
Kim, DY, Stewart, TB, Bauer, RW and Mitchell, M (2002) Parastrongylus (= Angiostrongylus) cantonensis now endemic in Louisiana wildlife. Journal of Parasitology 88(5), 1024–1026.Google Scholar
Kim, JR, Hayes, KA, Yeung, NW and Cowie, RH (2014) Diverse gastropod hosts of Angiostrongylus cantonensis, the rat lungworm, globally and with a focus on the Hawaiian Islands. PLoS ONE 9(5), e94969.Google Scholar
Kim, JR, Wong, TM, Curry, PA, Yeung, NW, Hayes, KA and Cowie, RH (2019) Modelling the distribution in Hawaii of Angiostrongylus cantonensis (rat lungworm) in its gastropod hosts. Parasitology 146(1), 42–49. doi: 10.1017/S0031182018001026 [on-line 21 June 2018, print 8 January 2019]Google Scholar
Kinsella, JM (1971) Angiostrongylus schmidti sp. n. (Nematoda: Metastrongyloidea) from the Rice Rat, Oryzomys palustris, in Florida, with a key to the species of Angiostrongylus Kamensky, 1905. Journal of Parasitology 57(3), 494–497.Google Scholar
Kinsella, JM (1987) Studies on the life cycle and host specificity of Parastrongylus schmidti (Nematoda: Angiostrongylidae. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington 54(2), 245–248.Google Scholar
Kinsella, JM and Tkach, VV (2009) Checklist of helminth parasites of Soricomorpha (= Insectivora) of North America north of Mexico. Zootaxa 1969, 36–58.Google Scholar
Kistler, WM, Brown, JD, Allison, AB, Nemeth, NM and Yabsley, MJ (2012) First report of Angiostrongylus vasorum and Hepatozoon from a red fox (Vulpes vulpes) from West Virginia, USA. Veterinary Parasitology 200(1–2), 216–220. [24 February]Google Scholar
Koch, J and Willesen, JL (2009) Canine pulmonary angiostrongylosis: an update. The Veterinary Journal 179(3), 348–359.Google Scholar
Kontrimavichus, VL (1979a) Subfamily Angiostrongylinae Boehm and Gebaur, 1934. pp. 55–138 in Kontrimavichus, VL and Delyamure, SL (Eds) Principles of nematology. Volume 29. Filaroids of domestic and wild animals. Moscow, Nauka Publishers. [Original in Russian. English edition translated from Russian published in 1985 for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and National Science Foundation by Amerind Publishing Co. New Delhi. Title, publisher, page numbers and other details here and in the text are as in the English translation].Google Scholar
Kontrimavichus, VL (1979b) Subfamily Sobolevingylinae Romanov, 1952. pp. 138–14 in Kontrimavichus, VL and Delyamure, SL (Eds) Fundamentals of nematology. Volume 29. Filaroids of domestic and wild animals. Moscow, Nauka Publishers. [Original in Russian. English edition translated from Russian published in 1985 for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and National Science Foundation by Amerind Publishing Co. New Delhi. Title, publisher, page numbers and other details here and in the text are as in the English translation].Google Scholar
Kontrimavichus, VL and Delyamure, SL (1979) Fundamentals of nematology. Volume 29. Filaroids of domestic and wild animals. Moscow, Nauka Publishers. vii+183 pp. [Original in Russian. English edition translated from Russian published in 1985 for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and National Science Foundation by Amerind Publishing Co. New Delhi. Title, publisher, page numbers and other details here and in the text are as in the English translation].Google Scholar
Kottwitz, JJ, Perry, KK, Rose, HH and Hendrix, CM (2014) Angiostrongylus cantonensis infection in captive Geoffroy's tamarins (Saguinus geoffroyi). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 245(7), 821–827. [1 October; p. 821]Google Scholar
Kudo, N, Oku, Y, Kamiya, M and Ohbayashi, M (1983) Development and migration route of Angiostrongylus siamensis in mice. Japanese Journal of Veterinary Research 31(3–4), 151–163. [31 October]Google Scholar
Laakkonen, J, Haukisalmi, V and Merritt, JF (1997) Lung parasites of shrews from Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 33(2), 285–289.Google Scholar
Lane, C (1917) Bunostomum kashinathi and the Ancylostomidae. Indian Journal of Medical Research 4(1), 414–439, pls. 32–35.Google Scholar
Lange, MK, Penagos-Tabares, F, Hirzmann, J, Failing, K, Schaper, R, Van Bourgonie, YR, Backeljau, T, Hermosilla, C and Taubert, A (2018a) Prevalence of Angiostrongylus vasorum, Aelurostrongylus abstrusus and Crenosoma vulpis larvae in native slug populations in Germany. Veterinary Parasitology 254, 120–130.Google Scholar
Lange, MK, Penagos-Tabares, F, Vélez, J, Gutiérrez, J, Hirzmann, J, Chaparro-Gutiérrez, JJ, Piedrahita, D, Taubert, A and Hermosilla, C (2018b) Regional report on Angiostrongylus vasorum in Colombia: genetic similarity to European lineage. Veterinary Parasitology: Regional Studies and Reports 13, 21–23. [on-line 20 March]Google Scholar
Laulanié [F] (1882) Sur une tuberculose parasitaire du chien et sur la pathogénie du follicule tuberculeux. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences 94(1), 49–52.Google Scholar
Laulanié, F (1884) Sur quelques affections parasitaires du poumon et leur rapport avec la tuberculose. Archives de Physiologie Normale et Pathologique (3) 4, 487–522, pl. 20. [Refers to a note presented to the Académie des Sciences on 2 July 1882, but there was no séance on that date and Laulanié did not publish in volume 95 (July–December 1882). However, he did present a note at the 2 January 1882 séance (Laulanié, 1882, above) that corresponded to the description of the note given in this 1884 paper, so it was probably that to which he was referring.]Google Scholar
Leiper, RT (1908) An account of some helminthes contained in Dr. C. M. Wenyon's collection from the Sudan. pp. 187–199, pls. 21, 22 in Third report of the Wellcome Research Laboratories at the Gordon Memorial College Khartoum. London, Baillière, Tindall & Cox. [Report for 1908, and referenced as such by Leiper (1926: 203), but possibly published in 1909, as cited be some other authors.]Google Scholar
Leiper, RT (1926) On the roundworm genera Protostrongylus and Angiostrongylus of Kamensky, 1905. Journal of Helminthology 4(4–5), 203–207.Google Scholar
Leuckart, R (1864) Bericht über die wissenschaftlichen Leistungen in der Naturgeschichte der niederen Thiere während des Jahres 1863. Archiv für Naturgeschichte 30(2), 33–180.Google Scholar
Lim, BL and Ramachandran, CP (1979) Ecological studies on Angiostrongylus malaysiensis (Nematoda: Metastrongylidae) in Malaysia. pp. 26–48 in Cross, JH (Ed) Studies on angiostrongyliasis in eastern Asia and Australia. Taipei, U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit No. 2.Google Scholar
Lima, LC, Massara, CL, de Souza, CP, Vidigal, TD, Lenzi, HL and Carvalho, O dos S (1992) Suscetibilidade de Planorbidae da região metropolitana de Belo Horizonte, MG (Brasil) ao Angiostrongylus costaricensis (Nematoda, Angiostrongylidae). Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo 34(5), 399–402.Google Scholar
Liu, D (2013) Angiostrongylus. pp. 477–486 in Liu, D (Ed) Molecular detection of human parasitic pathogens. Boca Raton, CRC Press.Google Scholar
Lunaschi, LI, Álvarez, VHM and Damborenea, C (2012) Type material housed in the Helminthological Collection of the Museo de La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Zootaxa 3199, 1–59.Google Scholar
Lunn, JA (2006) Canine neural angiostrongyliasis. Thesis, Master of Veterinary Clinical Studies, University of Sydney. 175 pp. [March; title page]Google Scholar
Lunn, JA, Lee, R, Smaller, J, et al. (2012) Twenty two cases of canine neural angiostronglyosis in eastern Australia (2002–2005) and a review of the literature. Parasites & Vectors 5, 70. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-5-70.Google Scholar
Lv, S, Zhang, Y, Steinmann, P, Yang, G-J, Yang, K, Zhou, X-N and Utzinger, J (2011) The emergence of angiostrongyliasis in the People's Republic of China: the interplay between invasive snails, climate change and transmission dynamics. Freshwater Biology 56, 717–734.Google Scholar
Lv, S, Zhang, Y, Zhang, L, et al. (2012) The complete mitochondrial genome of the rodent intra-arterial nematodes Angiostrongylus cantonensis and Angiostrongylus costaricensis. Parasitology Research 111(1), 115–123.Google Scholar
Mackerras, MJ (1958) Catalogue of Australian mammals and their recorded internal parasites. I–IV. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 83(2), 101–160. [26 September; front matter, table of contents]Google Scholar
Mackerras, MJ and Sandars, DF (1955) The life history of the rat lung-worm, Angiostrongylus cantonensis (Chen) (Nematoda: Metastrongylidae). Australian Journal of Zoology 3(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Mackie, JT, Lacasse, C and Spratt, DM (2013) Patent Angiostrongylus mackerrasae infection in a black flying fox (Pteropus alecto). Australian Veterinary Journal 91(9), 366–367.Google Scholar
Majoros, G, Fukár, O and Farkas, R (2010) Autochtonous infection of dogs and slugs with Angiostrongylus vasorum in Hungary. Veterinary Parasitology 174(3–4), 351–354.Google Scholar
Maldonado, A Jr, Simões, RO, Oliveira, APM, Motta, EM, Fernandez, MA, Pereira, ZM, Monteiro, SS, Lopes Torres, EJ and Thiengo, SC (2010) First report of Angiostrongylus cantonensis (Nematoda: Metastrongylidae) in Achatina fulica (Mollusca: Gastropoda) from southeast and south Brazil. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 105(7), 938–941.Google Scholar
Maldonado, A Jr, Simões, R and Thiengo, S[C] (2012) Angiostrongyliasis in the Americas. pp. 303–320 in Lorenzo-Morales, J (Ed) Zoonosis. Rijeka, InTech. [March; front matter]Google Scholar
Martin-Alonso, A, Abreu-Yanes, E, Feliu, C, Mas-Coma, S, Bargues, MD, Valladares, B and Foronda, P (2015) Intermediate hosts of Angiostrongylus cantonensis in Tenerife, Spain. PLoS ONE 10(3), e0120686. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.Google Scholar
Mas-Coma, S (1977a) Metastrongylidés parasites des soricidés d'Europe. Description de Paracrenosoma combesi n. sp. de Crocidura russula Hermann, 1780. Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparée 52(4), 447–456. [after 21 March; p. 447]Google Scholar
Mas-Coma, S (1977b) Gallegostrongylus ibicensis n. gen. n. sp. (Nematoda: Metastrongylidae), parasite pulmonaire de Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758 (Rodentia: Muridae) à Ibiza (Baléares). Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparée 52(6), 637–642. [after 16 May; p. 637]Google Scholar
Mas-Coma, S and Gallego, J (1975) Contribucion al conocimiento de la helmintofauna de micromamiferos ibericos. I. Parasitos de Sorex spp. (Insectivora: Soricidae). Revista Iberica de Parasitologia 35(3–4), 262–281.Google Scholar
Mas-Coma, S, Esteban, JG, Fuentes, MV, Bargues, MD, Valero, MA and Galan-Puchades, MT (2000) Helminth parasites of small mammals (insectivores and rodents) on the Pityusic island of Eivissa (Balearic archipelago). Research and Reviews in Parasitology 60(1–2), 41–49.Google Scholar
Maurer, RL, Graeff-Teixeira, C, Thomé, JW, Chiaradia, LA, Sugaya, H and Yoshimura, K (2002) Natural infection of Deroceras laeve (Mollusca: Gastropoda) with metastrongylid larvae in a transmission focus of abdominal angiostrongyliasis. Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo 44(1), 53–54.Google Scholar
McCarthy, G, Ferrand, M, De Waal, T, Zintl, A, McGrath, G, Byrne, W and O'Neill, EJ (2016) Geographical distribution of Angiostrongylus vasorum in foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in the Republic of Ireland. Parasitology 143, 588–593.Google Scholar
Mendonça, CLGF, Carvalho, OS, Mota, EM and Lenzi, HL (2008) Development of Angiostrongylus costaricensis Morera and Céspedes 1971 (Nematoda: Angiostrongylidae) larvae in the intermediate host Sarasinula marginata (Semper 1885) (Mollusca: Soleolifera). Parasitology Research 102(5), 861–865. [on-line 22 February; p. 861]Google Scholar
Merdivenci, A (1964) A new lungworm, Angiostrongylus sciuri n. sp. parasiting in the venae pulmonales of the squirrel, Sciurus vulgaris. İstanbul Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi mecmuası. Seri B. Tabiî ilimler [Revue de la Faculté des sciences de l'Université d'Istanbul. Série B, Sciences naturelles] 29(3–4), 155–158.Google Scholar
Mészáros, F (1972) The occurrence of Angiostrongylus (P.) dujardini Drozdz et Doby, 1970 (Nematoda) in rodents in Hungary. Parasitologia Hungarica 5, 163–176. [15 December; journal website]Google Scholar
Miller, CL, Kinsella, JM, Garner, MM, Evans, S, Gullett, PA and Schmidt, RE (2006) Endemic infections of Parastrongylus (=Angiostrongylus) costaricensis in two species of nonhuman primates, raccoons, and an opossum from Miami, Florida. Journal of Parasitology 92(2), 406–408.Google Scholar
Molin, R (1861a) Il sottordine degli acrofalli ordinato scientificamente secondo i risultamenti delle indagini anatomiche ed embriogeniche. Memorie dell’ I.R. Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti 9[1860], 427–[633], pls. 25–33. [after 14 January 1861; p. [633]]Google Scholar
Molin, [R] (1861b) Die im Menschen vorkommenden Helminthen, nach dem jeztigen Standpuncte der Wissenschat bearbeitet. Österreichische Zeitschrift für praktische Heilkunde 7(40), 511–516. [4 October; p. 511/512]Google Scholar
Morales, ME, Ubelaker, JE and Gardner, SL (2012) A new genus and species of lungworm (Nemata: Metastrongyloidea) from Akodon mollis Thomas, 1894 (Rodentia: Cricetidae) in Peru. Journal of Parasitology 98(3), 612–616.Google Scholar
Morera, P (1973) Life history and redescription of Angiostrongylus costaricensis Morera and Céspedes, 1971. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 22(5), 613–621.Google Scholar
Morera, P and Céspedes, R (1971) Angiostrongylus costaricensis n. sp. (Nematoda: Metastrongyloidea), a new lungworm occurring in man in Costa Rica. Revista de Biología Tropical 18(1, 2), 173–185.Google Scholar
Morgan, ER (2018) Angiostrongylus - spread or no spread? Parasites & Vectors 11(Supplement 1), O1.Google Scholar
Morgan, E[R] and Shaw, S[E] (2010) Angiostrongylus vasorum infection in dogs: continuing spread and developments in diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Small Animal Practice 51(12), 616–621. [on-line 21 October; p. 616]Google Scholar
Morgan, ER, Jefferies, R, Krajewski, M, Ward, P and Shaw, SE (2009) Canine pulmonary angiostrongylosis: the influence of climate on parasite distribution. Parasitology International 58, 406–410.Google Scholar
Morgan, ER, Clare, EL, Jefferies, R and Stevens, JR (2012) Parasite epidemiology in a changing world: can molecular phylogeography help us tell the wood from the trees? Parasitology 139, 1924–1938.Google Scholar
Mota, EM and Lenzi, HL (2005) Angiostrongylus costaricensis: complete redescription of the migratory pathways based on experimental Sigmodon hispidus infection. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 100(4), 407–420.Google Scholar
Müller, OF (1787) Verzeichniß der bisher entdeckten Eingeweidewürmer, der Thiere, in welchen sie gefunden worden, und der besten Schriften, die derselben erwähnen. Der Naturforscher 22, 33–86.Google Scholar
Musser, GG and Carleton, MD (2005) Superfamily Muroidea. pp. 894–1531 in Wilson, DE and Reeder, DM (Eds) Mammal species of the World. A taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd edn. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Núñez, R and Mirambell, F (1981) Angiostrongilosis abdominal. Un caso de conducta conservadora. Revista Médica del Hospital Nacional de Niños, Costa Rica 16(2), 109–116.Google Scholar
Ogren, RE (1954) A lungworm, Angiostrongylus blarini, n. sp. from the short-tailed shrew, with observations on the histopathology and life cycle. Journal of Parasitology 40(6), 681–684, pl. 1.Google Scholar
Ohbayashi, M, Masegi, T and Kubota, K (1973) Further observations on parasites of the Japanese shrew mole, Urotrichus talpoides Temminck. Japanese Journal of Veterinary Research 21(1–2), 15–22. [April]Google Scholar
Ohbayashi, M, Kamiya, M and Bhaibulaya, M (1979) Studies on the parasite fauna of Thailand I two new metastrongylid nematodes, Angiostrongylus siamensis sp. n. and Thaistrongylus harinasutai gen. et sp. n. (Metastrongyloidea; Angiostrongylidae) from wild rats. Japanese Journal of Veterinary Research 27(1–2), 5–10. [April]Google Scholar
Ohbayashi, M, Machida, M, Kamiya, H, Oku, Y, Abe, H and Klongkamnuankarn, K (1983) Incidence of Angiostrongylus siamensis in small mammals at Nakorn Nayok, Thailand. Japanese Journal of Veterinary Research 31, 49–50. [March]Google Scholar
Okano, T, Haga, A, Mizuno, E, Onuma, M, Nakaya, Y and Nagamine, T (2014) Angiostrongylus cantonensis (Nematoda: Metastrongylidae) in the Ryukyu Islands tree rat (Diplothrix legata). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 50(2), 322–325.Google Scholar
Oku, Y, Katakura, K, Nagatsuka, J and Kamiya, M (1979) Possible role of tadpole of Rana chensinensis as an intermediate host of Angiostrongylus cantonensis. Japanese Journal of Veterinary Research 27(1–2), 1–4. [April; “1978” on p. 1 is in error]Google Scholar
Oku, Y, Katakura, K and Kamiya, M (1980) Tadpole of the clawed frog, Xenopus laevis, as an experimental intermediate host of Angiostrongylus cantonensis. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 29(2), 316–318.Google Scholar
Oswald, VH (1958) Helminth parasites of the short-tailed shrew in central Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 58(6), 325–334.Google Scholar
Panayotova-Pencheva, M, Trifonova, A, Dakova, V, Salkova, D and Movsesyan, SO (2017) On the parasites of genus Angiostrongylus (Nematoda: Angiostrongylidae) and some cases of Angiostrongylus daskalovi in badgers from Bulgaria. Russian Journal of Parasitology 40(2), 124–128.Google Scholar
Patel, Z, Gill, AC, Fox, MT, et al. (2014) Molecular identification of novel intermediate host species of Angiostrongylus vasorum in Greater London. Parasitology Research 113(12), 4363–4369.Google Scholar
Petter, A-J (1972) Description d'une nouvelle espèce d’Aelurostrongylus parasite de rongeur africain. Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparée 47(1), 131–137.Google Scholar
Petter, A-J (1974) Le cycle évolutif de Morerastrongylus andersoni (Petter, 1972). Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparée 49(1), 69–82.Google Scholar
Petter, A-J and Cassone, J (1975) Mode de pénétration et localisation des larves de Morerastrongylus andersoni (Petter, 1972) (Metastrongyloidea, Nematoda) chez l'hôte intermédiaire. Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparée 50(4), 469–475.Google Scholar
Pipitgool, V, Sithithaworn, P, Pongmuttasaya, P and Hinz, E (1997) Angiostrongylus infections in rats and snails in northeast Thailand. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health 28(Supplement 1), 190–193.Google Scholar
Pojmańska, T, Salamatin, R, Sulgostowska, T, Cielecka, D, Okulewicz, A, Niewiadomska, K and Grytner-Zięcina, B (2012) The Polish collection of parasitic helminths (a report on realization of works concerning fusion of parasitic collections dispersed among different scientific institutions). Annals of Parasitology 58(2), 75–86.Google Scholar
Priest, JM, Stewart, DT, Boudreau, M, Power, J and Shutler, D (2018) First report of Angiostrongylus vasorum in coyotes in mainland North America. Veterinary Record 183, 747. doi: 10.1136/vr.105097.Google Scholar
Prociv, P, Spratt, DM and Carlisle, MS (2000) Neuro-angiostrongyliasis: unresolved issues. International Journal for Parasitology 30(12–13), 1295–1303.Google Scholar
Prokopič, J (1957) Helminthofaunistický výzkum rejsců z rodu Neomys. Helminthofaunistische Forschung an Insektenfressern der Gattung Neomys. Věstník Československé Zoologické Společnosti. Acta Societatis Zoologicae Bohemoslovenicae 21(1), 44–64. [in Czech; German summary, Russian and German titles]Google Scholar
Prokopič, J (1959) The parasitic helminths of Insectivora in ČSR. Československá Parasitologie 6(2), 87–134. [in Czech, English summary]Google Scholar
Prokopic [sic], J and Mahnert, V (1970) Über Helminthen der Kleinsäuger (Insectivora, Rodentia) Tirols (Österreichs). Berichte des Naturwissenschaftlich-medizinischen Vereins in Innsbruck 58, 143–154.Google Scholar
Railliet, A and Henry, A[CL] (1907) Sur les variations des strongyles de l'appareil respiratoire des mammifères. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances et Mémoires de la Société de Biologie 63, 751–753. [after 21 December, the date of the séance at which the paper was presented; p. 751]Google Scholar
Railliet, A and Henry, A[CL] (1909) Sur la classification des Strongylidae: I. – Metastrongylinae. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances et Mémoires de la Société de Biologie 66, 85–88. [after 16 January, the date of the séance at which the paper was presented; p. 85]Google Scholar
Ramos-de-Souza, J, Thiengo, SC, Fernandez, MA, et al. (2018) First records of molluscs naturally infected with Angiostrongylus cantonensis (Nematoda: Metastrongyloidea) in northeastern Brazil, including new global records of natural intermediate hosts. Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo 60, e51. doi: 10.1590/S1678-9946201860051.Google Scholar
Rausch, RL and Rausch, VR (1969) Studies on the helminth fauna of Alaska. XLVII. Sobolevingylus microti sp. nov. (Nematoda: Pseudaliidae), a lungworm of rodents. Canadian Journal of Zoology 47(3), 443–447.Google Scholar
Rebello, KM, Barros, JSL, Mota, EM, Carvalho, PC, Perales, J, Lenzi, HL and Neves-Ferreira, AGC (2011) Comprehensive proteomic profiling of adult Angiostrongylus costaricensis, a human parasitic nematode. Journal of Proteomics 74(9), 1545–1559.Google Scholar
Ribas, A, Milazzo, C, Foronda, P and Casanova, JC (2004) New data on helminths of stone marten, Martes foina (Carnivora, Mustelidae), in Italy. Helminthologia 41(1), 59–61.Google Scholar
Robles, M del R, Navone, GT and Kinsella, JM (2008) A new angiostrongylid (Nematoda) species from the pulmonary arteries of Akodon azarae (Rodentia: Cricetidae) in Argentina. Journal of Parasitology 94(2), 515–519.Google Scholar
Robles, M del R, Perfumo, CJ, Kinsella, JM and Navone, GT (2012) Histopathology associated with angiostrongylosis in Akodon species (Rodentia: Sigmodontinae) from Sierra de la Ventana, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Journal of Parasitology 98(6), 1133–1138.Google Scholar
Robles, M del R, Kinsella, JM, Galliari, C and Navone, GT (2016) New host, geographic records, and histopathologic studies of Angiostrongylus spp (Nematoda: Angiostrongylidae) in rodents from Argentina with updated summary of records from rodent hosts and host specificity assessment. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 111(3), 181–191.Google Scholar
Rodpai, R, Intapan, PM, Thanchomnang, T, et al. (2016) Angiostrongylus cantonensis and A. malaysiensis broadly overlap in Thailand, Lao PDR, Cambodia and Myanmar: a molecular survey of larvae in land snails. PLoS ONE 11(8), e0161128. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161128.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, R, Sandri, ASS, Porto, SM, et al. (2018) Invasive slug Meghimatium pictum (Stoliczka, 1873) infected by Angiostrongylus costaricensis Morera & Céspedes, 1971, and the possible risk of human infection associated with grape consumption. Journal of Helminthology. doi: 10.1017/S0022149X18000822 [on line 12 September]Google Scholar
Romanov, IV (1952) Novye vidy gel'mintov ot dikikh sobolei [New species of helminths from wild sables]. Trudy Gel'mintologicheskoi Laboratorii, Akademii Nauk SSSR 6, 323–333. [in Russian]Google Scholar
Roots, CD (1992) Morphological and Ecological Studies on Helminth Parasites of British Shrews. PhD thesis, King's College and Royal Holloway & Bedford New College, University of London. 314 pp.Google Scholar
Rosen, L, Ash, LR and Wallace, GD (1970) Life history of the canine lungworm Angiostrongylus vasorum (Baillet). American Journal of Veterinary Research 31(1), 131–143.Google Scholar
Sadovskaya, NP (1954) [Parasitic worms of rodents and insectivores of Primorsky Krai.] Trudy Gel'mintologicheskoi Laboratorii, Akademii Nauk SSSR 7, 388–390. [in Russian]Google Scholar
Samoylovskaya, NA, Khrustalev, AV, Moskvin, AS and Uspenskiy, AV (2014) [Catalog of the Helminth Collection of the Central Museum of Helminthology]. Moscow, All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Helminthology named after K.I. Skrjabin. 519 pp. [in Russian]Google Scholar
Santos, CP (1985) Redescrição de Angiostrongylus (Parastrongylus) costaricensis isolado de novo hospedeiro silvestre, Pooechimys sp. na Venezuela (Metastrongyloidea, Angiostrongylidae). Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 80(1), 81–83.Google Scholar
Sawabe, K and Makiya, K (1995) Comparative infectivity and survival of first-stage larvae of Angiostrongylus cantonensis and Angiostrongylus malaysiensis. Journal of Parasitology 81(2), 228–233.Google Scholar
Schneidemühl, G (1896) Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Pathologie und Therapie des Menschen und der Hausthiere für Thierärzte, Ärzte und Studirende. Leipzig, Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann. Lieferung 2, pp. 209–448. [date from Stiles & Hassall (1910: 2069)]Google Scholar
Schnyder, M, Bilbrough, G, Hafner, C and Schaper, E (2017) Angiostrongylus vasorum, “the French heartworm”: a serological survey in dogs from France introduced by a brief historical review. Parasitology Research 116(Supplement 1): S31–S40.Google Scholar
Schug, K, Krämer, F, Schaper, R, Hirzmann, J, Failing, K, Hermosilla, C and Taubert, A (2018) Prevalence survey on lungworm (Angiostrongylus vasorum, Crenosoma vulpis, Eucoleus aerophilus) infections of wild red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in central Germany. Parasites & Vectors 11, 85. doi: 10.1186/s13071-018-2672-4.Google Scholar
Schulz, RS (1951) [Phylogenesis of the nematode suborder Strongylata and rearrangement of the system of the Metastrongyloidea.] Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 80(2), 293–296. [in Russian] [after 19 July; p. 293, 296]Google Scholar
Schulz, RE, Orlov, IW and Kutass, AJ (1933) Zur Systematik der Subfamilie Synthetocaulinae Skrj. 1932 nebst Beschreibung einiger neuer Gattungen und Arten. Zoologischer Anzeiger 102, 303–310. [after 26 January; p. 303]Google Scholar
Segovia, J-M, Torres, J, Miquel, J, Sospedra, E, Guerrero, R and Feliu, C (2007) Analysis of helminth communities of the pine marten, Martes martes, in Spain: mainland and insular data. Acta Parasitologica 52(2), 156–164.Google Scholar
Serres, E (1854) Entozoaires trouvés dans l'oreille droite, le ventricule correspondant et l'artère pulmonaire d'un chien. Journal des Vétérinaires du Midi 7, 70–72.Google Scholar
Sey, O (1965) A pézsmapocok (Ondatra zibethica) (L. 1776) magyarországi belsö élösködö férgei I. [The internal parasitic worms of Ondatra zibethica (L. 1776) in Hungary, I.] Vertebrata Hungarica 7(1–2), 153–175. [in Hungarian, German summary]Google Scholar
Shamsi, S, Miles, S, Tozer, K, Raidal, SR and Smales, LR (2018) The first report of cerebral, pulmonary and gastrointestinal angiostrongyliasis in the water rat Hydromys chrysogaster from Queensland, Australia. Journal of Helminthology. doi: 10.1017/S0022149X18000779 [on line 24 August]Google Scholar
Simin, S, Kosić, LS, Kuruca, L, Pavlović, I, Savović, M and Lalošević, V (2014) Moving the boundaries to the south-east: first record of autochthonous Angiostrongylus vasorum infection in a dog in Vojvodina province, northern Serbia. Parasites & Vectors 7, 396. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-7-396.Google Scholar
Skrjabin, KI, Shikhobalova, NP, Schulz, RS, Popova, TI, Boev, SN and Delyamure, SL (1952) Opredelitel’ Paraziticheskikh Nematod. Tom III. Strongilyaty. Moskva, Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. 890 pp. [Key to Parasitic Nematodes, Vol. III Strongylata. English translation by Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1961. Page numbers cited herein refer to the English translation.]Google Scholar
Skyrienė, G and Paulauskas, A (2012) Distribution of invasive muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus) and impact on ecosystem. Ekologija 58(3), 357–367.Google Scholar
Smales, LR (2005) Helminth parasites of the grassland melomys (Muridae: Hydromyinae) from Australia and Papua New Guinea. Australian Journal of Zoology, 53, 369–374.Google Scholar
Smales, LR, Heinrich, B and McKillup, SC (2004) The helminth parasites of Melomys cervinipes (Rodentia: Muridae: Hydromyinae). Australian Journal of Zoology, 52, 65–80.Google Scholar
Sołtys, A (1954) Helminthofauna of Soricidae in the Białowieża National Park. Acta Parasitologica Polonica 1(16), 353–402. [26 May; p. 353]Google Scholar
Song, S-L, Yong, H-S and Eamsobhana, P (2018) Angiostrongylus mackerrasae and A. cantonensis (Nematoda: Metastrongyloidea) belong to same genetic lineage: evidence from mitochondrial protein-coding genes. Journal of Helminthology 92(4), 524–529.Google Scholar
Souza, JGR, Simões, RO, Thiengo, SARC, Lima, WS, Mota, EM, Rodrigues-Silva, R, Lanfredi, RM and Maldonado, A Jr (2009) A new metastrongilid [sic] species (Nematoda: Metastrongylidae): a lungworm from Akodon montensis (Rodentia: Sigmodontinae) in Brazil. Journal of Parasitology 95(6), 1507–1511.Google Scholar
Spratt, DM (2002) Parasites and pathology of the respiratory tracts of native and feral mammals in Australia: a review. Australian Mammalogy 24(2), 177–192.Google Scholar
Spratt, DM (2015) Species of Angiostrongylus (Nematoda: Metastrongyloidea) in wildlife: a review. International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife 4(2), 178–189.Google Scholar
Spratt, DM, Haycock, P and Walter, EL (2001a) Gallegostrongylus australis n. sp. (Nematoda: Angiostrongylidae) from muridae in Australia, with zoogeographical considerations. Parasite 8(1), 45–51.Google Scholar
Spratt, DM, Haycock, P and Walter, EL (2001b) Life history and pathogenesis of Gallegostrongylus australis (Nematoda: Angiostrongylidae) in Muridae. Parasite 8(2), 115–125.Google Scholar
Steeb, S, Hirzmann, J, Eskens, U, Volmer, K and Bauer, C (2014) Lungenwurm-Infektionen bei der Europäischen Wildkatze. KompaktVET 3-2014, 9.Google Scholar
Stevanović, O, Diakou, A, Morelli, S, Paraš, S, Trbojević, I, Nedić, D, Sladojević, A, Kasagić, D and Di Cesare, A (2019) Severe verminous pneumonia caused by natural mixed infection with Aelurostrongylus abstrusus and Angiostrongylus chabaudi in a European wildcat from western Balkan area. Acta Parasitologica. doi: 10.2478/s11686-019-00029-9 [on line 12 February]Google Scholar
Stiles, CW and Hassall, A (1905) The determination of generic types. And a list of roundworm genera. With their original and type species. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 79, 1–150. [after 20 July; p. 3]Google Scholar
Stiles, CW and Hassall, A (1910) Index-catalogue of medical and veterinary zoology. Part 26. [Authors: S to Schnyder.]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry, Bulletin 39, 1981–2076. [2 June; cover page]Google Scholar
Stiles, CW and Hassall, A (1920) Index-catalogue of medical and veterinary zoology. Subjects: roundworms (Nematoda, Gordiacea, and Acanthocephali) and the diseases they cause. United States Public Health Service, Hygienic Laboratory Bulletin 114, 1–886. [June; cover page]Google Scholar
Stokes, VL, Spratt, DM, Banks, PB, Pech, RP and Williams, RL (2007) Occurrence of Angiostrongylus species (Nematoda) in populations of Rattus rattus and Rattus fuscipes in coastal forests of south-eastern Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology 55(3), 177–184.Google Scholar
Tarjymanova, RA and Tschertkowa, AN (1969) Rattostrongylus petrovi nov. sp. – la nouvelle nématode du loir. Trudy Azerbajdžanskogo Naučno-Issledovatel'skogo Instituta Medicinskoj Parazitologii i Tropičeskoj Mediciny im. S. M. Kirova 7, 307–310. [in Russian, French title and résumé]Google Scholar
Tebb, AI, Johnson, VSD and Irwin, PJ (2007) Angiostrongylus vasorum (French heartworm) in a dog imported into Australia. Australian Veterinary Journal 85(1 & 2), 23–28.Google Scholar
Thorington, RW Jr and Hoffmann, RS (2005) Family Sciuridae. pp. 754–818 in Wilson, DE and Reeder, DM (Eds), Mammal species of the World. A taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd edn. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Tiğin, Y (1972) The first case report on the occurrence of Angiostrongylus vasorum Baillet, 1866 infection in a dog. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi 19(1/2), 76–84. [in Turkish, English summary]Google Scholar
Tinnin, DS, Ganzorig, S and Gardner, SL (2011) Helminths of small mammals (Erinaceomorpha, Soricomorpha, Chiroptera, Rodentia, and Lagomorpha) of Mongolia. Special Publications of the Museum of Texas Tech University 59, 1–50. [26 August; cover and front matter]Google Scholar
Travassos, L (1927) Nematodeos novos. Boletim Biologico 1(6), 52–61. [26 May; p. 25]Google Scholar
Traversa, D, Di Cesare, A and Conboy, G (2010) Canine and feline cardiopulmonary parasitic nematodes in Europe: emerging and underestimated. Parasites & Vectors 3, 62. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-3-62.Google Scholar
Traversa, D, Lepri, E, Veronesi, F, Paoletti, B, Simonato, G, Diaferia, M and Di Cesare, A (2015) Metastrongyloid infection by Aelurostrongylus abstrusus, Troglostrongylus brevior and Angiostrongylus chabaudi in a domestic cat. International Journal for Parasitology 45(11), 685–690.Google Scholar
Ubelaker, JE (1986) Systematics of species referred to the genus Angiostrongylus. Journal of Parasitology 72(2), 237–244.Google Scholar
UNGEGN (United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names) Working Group on Romanization Systems (2016) Report on the current status of United Nations romanization systems for geographical names. Version 4.0 [published 26 February 2013, updated 24 September 2013 and 30 March 2016]. Russian. New York, United Nations. 2 pp. Available at http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom1_ru.pdf (accessed 19 March 2018).Google Scholar
Valente, R, Robles, M del R, Navone, GT and Diaz, JI (2018) Angiostrongylus spp. in the Americas: geographical and chronological distribution of definitive hosts versus disease reports. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 113(3), 143–152.Google Scholar
Varcasia, A, Tamponi, C, Brianti, E, Cabras, PA, Boi, R, Pipia, AP, Giannelli, A, Otranto, D and Scala, A (2014) Angiostrongylus chabaudi Biocca, 1957: a new parasite for domestic cats? Parasites & Vectors 7, 588. doi: 10.1186/s13071-014-0588-1.Google Scholar
Veciana, M, Chaisiri, K, Phuphisut, O, Morand, S and Ribas, A (2014) New data on Malayometastrongylus diardinematus (Gibbons and Krishnasamy, 1986) (Metastrongyloidea: Angiostrongylidae) a lungworm occurring in Rattus tanezumi (Temminck, 1844) from South-East Asia. Helminthologia 51(4), 331–336.Google Scholar
Veronesi, F, Traversa, D, Lepri, E, et al. (2015) Occurrence of lungworms in European wildcats (Felis silvestris silvestris) of central Italy. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 52(2), 270–278.Google Scholar
Vieira, FM, Muniz-Pereira, LC, de Souza Lima, S, Moraes Neto, AHA, Guimarães, EV and Luque, JL (2013) A new metastrongyloidean species (Nematoda) parasitizing pulmonary arteries of Puma (Herpailurus) yagouaroundi (É. Geoffroy, 1803) (Carnivora: Felidae) from Brazil. Journal of Parasitology 99(2), 327–331.Google Scholar
Vieira, FM, Muniz-Pereira, LC, de Souza-Lima [sic], S, Rocha, BM and Luque, JL (2017) Parasitic nematodes of three species of wild carnivore mammals from Atlantic forest in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 88(4), 801–806.Google Scholar
Vogel [first name unknown] (1899) Strongylus vasorum canis. Deutsche Thierärztliche Wochenschrift 7(28), 252. [15 July; p. 252]Google Scholar
Wang, Q-P, Lai, D-H, Zhu, X-Q, Chen, X-G and Lun, Z-R (2008) Human angiostrongyliasis. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 8, 621–630.Google Scholar
Wang, H, Lu, L, She, D, Wen, Z, Mo, Z, Li, J and Li, H (2018) Eating centipedes can result in Angiostrongylus cantonensis infection: two case reports and pathogen investigation. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 99(3), 743–748.Google Scholar
Wehr, EE (1935) A revised classification of the nematode superfamily Filarioidea. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington 2(2), 84–88. [31 July; front matter of issue]Google Scholar
Wilson, DE and Reeder, DM (Eds) (2005) Mammal species of the World. A taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd edn. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press. Vol. 1: xxxv+[i]+[2]+743+[1] p. Vol. 2: xvii+[i]+[2] p.+p. 745–2142.Google Scholar
WoRMS (World Register of Marine Species) (2018) Metastrongylidae Molin, 1861. Available at http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=834873 (accessed 5 July 2018).Google Scholar
Wozencraft, WC (2005) Order Carnivora. pp. 532–628 in Wilson, DE and Reeder, DM (Eds) Mammal species of the World. A taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd edn. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Yamaguti, S (1941) Studies on the helminth fauna of Japan part 35. Mammalian nematodes, II. Japanese Journal of Zoology 9(3), 409–439.Google Scholar
Yamaguti, S (1961) Systema helminthium. Volume III. The nematodes of vertebrates. New York, Interscience Publishers. Part I: title page and verso, [ii]+p. 1–[680]; Part II: title page and verso, [i]+p. 681–1261 [includes pls. 1–102 and explanations].Google Scholar
Yokagawa, S (1937) A new species of nematode found in the lungs of rats Hemostrongylus ratti n. sp. Transactions of the Natural History Society of Formosa 27, 247–250.Google Scholar
Yong, HS and Eamsobhana, P (2013) Definitive rodent hosts of the rat lungworm Angiostrongylus cantonensis. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology Supplement 29, 111–115.Google Scholar
Yong, H-S, Song, S-L, Eamsobhana, P and Lim, P-E (2016) Complete mitochondrial genome of Angiostrongylus malaysiensis lungworm and molecular phylogeny of Metastrongyloid nematodes. Acta Tropica 161, 33–40.Google Scholar
York, EM, Butler, CJ and Lord, WD (2014) Global decline in suitable habitat for Angiostrongylus (=Parastrongylus) cantonensis: the role of climate change. PLoS ONE 9(8), e103831. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103831.Google Scholar
York, EM, Creecy, JP, Lord, WD and Caire, W (2015) Geographic range expansion for the rat lungworm in North America. Emerging Infectious Diseases 21(7), 1234–1236.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Classifications and lists of species of Angiostrongylus and related genera by selected authors, 1946–1970. Valid genus-group names (listed alphabetically, subgenera within genera) shown in bold capitals, generic synonyms in italic non-bold capitals listed alphabetically beneath the valid genus-group name. Type species of the valid genus shown in bold non-italic lower case immediately below the genus-group synonymy. Other valid species in non-bold non-italic lower case with synonyms in non-bold italic lower case beneath the valid name; unavailable names in non-bold, non-italic lower case in quotation marks and listed at the end of the list of valid species. The number of valid species in each valid genus is listed in parentheses after the genus name.

Figure 1

Table 2. Classifications and lists of species of Angiostrongylus and related genera by selected authors, 1971–1986. Valid genus-group names (listed alphabetically, subgenera within genera) shown in bold capitals, generic synonyms in italic non-bold capitals listed alphabetically beneath the valid genus-group name. Type species of the valid genus shown in bold non-italic lower case immediately below the genus-group synonymy. Other valid species in non-bold non-italic lower case with synonyms in non-bold italic lower case beneath the valid name; unavailable names in non-bold, non-italic lower case in quotation marks and listed at the end of the list of valid species. The number of valid species in each valid genus is listed in parentheses after the genus name (Anderson (1978) did not list all species, only examples, so no numbers are provided for his classification).

Figure 2

Table 3. Classifications and lists of species of Angiostrongylus and related genera by selected authors, 1991–present. Valid genus-group names (listed alphabetically, subgenera within genera) shown in bold capitals, generic synonyms in italic non-bold capitals listed alphabetically beneath the valid genus-group name. Type species of the valid genus shown in bold non-italic lower case immediately below the genus-group synonymy. Other valid species in non-bold non-italic lower case with synonyms in non-bold italic lower case beneath the valid name; unavailable names in non-bold, non-italic lower case in quotation marks and listed at the end of the list of valid species. The number of valid species in each valid genus is listed in parentheses after the genus name.