Dr. Éva Murai szerk.: Miscellanea Zoologica Hungarica 1. 1982 (Budapest, 1982)

Sey, O.: The morphology, life-cycle and geographical distribution of Paramphistomum cervi (Zeder, 1790) (Trematoda: Paramphistomata)

The first comprises papers containing nomination of this species only, without further information or comments. Since P. cervi and the closely related species in question are characterized by minute histo-morphological features, in the case of these papers it is almost impossible to ascertain the proper systematic status of species involved by these papers, unless by any indirect way. The usage of such papers in the outline of the distribution of P.cervi is rather limited. The second group of papers either deal with this species explicitly or include descriptions or drawings from which the species' status can be decided more or less accurately. FISCHOEDER (1903) and NASMARK (1937) were of the opinion that P. cervi has an European distribution only. Information accumulated in the last decades has, on the one hand, increased the range of P. cervi and, on the other made our knowledge on its distribution more precise, supporting well-established evidence that P. cervi occurs in the Palaearctic region and in some other territories, too. Of the numerous reports referring to its presence in the Palaearctic region and in the European part of the Mediterranean area, the distributional data of P. cervi were summarized in the author's earlier paper (SEY, 1980b), pointing out that it was found in almost every European country. Many papers are concerned with the distribution of P. cervi in the Siberian and the Manchurian areas and the present paper can be confined to the most important ones. In these areas it was recovered in the USSR (SKRJABIN & SCHULTS, 1937; EVRANOVA, 1954; ASADOV, 1960; KADENATSII, 1963; MITSKEVICH, 1963; OVCHARENKO, 1963; ROMASHOV, 1963; VELICHKO, 1966, 1968; ZHALTHANOVA, 1969; RUZIEV, 1972), in Mongolia (IVASHKIN, 1955; own unpublished data), Korea (HI, 1958; CHU, 1972), in Japan (TAKAHASHI, 1927; FUKUI, 1929

+

), and China (HSU, 1935; WU et al. 1956 and the material, deposited in the USNM, derived from Lanchov, China). In the Asian part of the Mediterranean area P. cervi was reported from Turkey (MERDIVENCI, 1957; own unpublished data), in Pakistan (RAHMAN, 1958), Iran (RAFYI et al. 1968; own unpublished data) and Iraq (ALTAIF et al. 1978; but taking the intermediate hosts listed in this paper into account, this species does not seem to be P. cervi

). In the Nearctic and the Neotropic regions P. cervi was reported from Canada (THRELFORD, 1967; LANKESTER et al., 1979), from the USA (OLSEN & FENSTERMACHER, 1942; DI KM ANS, 1939; PRICE, 1953; BECHLUND, 1964), Mexico (QUIROZ & OCHOA, 1973), in Cuba (KOTRLA & PROKOPIC, 1973), Panama (FOSTER, 1939), Costa Rica {BRENES, 1961; CABALLERO et al. 1957), Venezuela (VOGELSANG, 1935; CABALLERO & DIAZ-UNGRIA, 1958), Argentina (NIEC, 1972) and Brazil (VELÁZQUEZ-MALDONADO, 1976). TRAVASSOS et al. (1969) and DIAZ-UNGRIA (1973) seemingly are of the opinion that P. cervi is not found in Brazil and Venezuela, respectively. On the basis of the amphistome material derived from Canada as well as the sections deposited in the USNM, examined by the writer, it seems that the occurrence of P. cervi in the in the Nearctic region is rather questionable. The same can be said, in spite of several reports as to the presence of this species in the Neotropic region because it is difficult to ascertain (in the absence of appropriately fixed test material and histo-morphological examinations) whether they really refer to P. cervi or the species indigenous in this region (

P. liorchis

). The number of publications on the presence of P. cervi in the Ethiopian region and the African part of the Mediterranean area (North Africa) is more than could be listed in the scope of this paper, consequently, we should be limited to those which bring sufficient proof that the species described under this name is not P. cervi. LOOSS (1912) stated that what he himself had earlier (1896) believed to be P. cervi (= Am phistomum conicum

) from Egypt was P. microbothrium

. DINNIK (1951) found P. cervi in East Africa but subsequent examination (DINNIK, 1952; DINNIK & DINNIK, 1954) showed that in fact it was P. microbothrium. Recent investigations in Egypt (SEY, 1976, 1977; SEY & ABDEL-RAHMAN, 1975) revealed that P. cervi of ABDEL-GHANI (1961) and of TADROS (1958) were again identical with P. microbothrium. SWART (1954), after examination of the amphistome material from cattle in the Republic of South Africa, came to the conclusion that the so-called P. cervi was in fact P. microbothrium

. CEIRO (1961) also expressed his doubt concerning the presence of P. cervi in Angola. YAMAGUTI (1971), however, is of the opinion that TAKAHASHI (1927) had before him P. gotoi and not P. cervi. At the same time, ASIZAWA et al. (1969) again discovered a P. cervitype fluke in Japan.