Dr. Murai Éva szerk.: Parasitologia Hungarica 16. (Budapest, 1983)
Key to genera of Diplodiscinae 1. Acetabulum with accessory sucker 2 - Acetabulum without accessory sucker 3 - Acetabulum with ruffled peduncle 5 2. Caeca end at anterior margin of acetabulum Diplodiscus - Caeca end at middle part of body ." Australodiscus 3. Vitellaria in middle region of body 4 - Vitellaria at posterior part of body Dermatemytrema 4. Acetabulum constricted into two portions Catadiscus - Acetabulum without constrictions Pseudodiplodiscus 5. Caeca end at middle part of body, vitellaria in zone of testis Progonimodiscus Survey of genera of Diplodiscinae Diplodiscus Diesing, 1836 Syn. : Pseudod iplodiscoides Murty, 1970 Species of this genus are distributed in Europe, Asia and Africa; those reported under this genus from Australia, were assigned to a new genus (see below). In Europe there is one representative of this genus, Diplodiscus subclavatus (Goeze, 1782), which is widelly distributed. In the literature we have often found that the authorship of this species was attributed to PALLAS (1760). LOOSS (1892) convincingly demonstrated that the species described by GOEZE (1782) is equal to, in the present-day sense. D. subclavatus Syns: Amphistomum subclavatus Goeze, 1782 Diplodiscus unguiculatus (Rud. , 181 9) Diesing, 1836 Diplodiscus sp. Honer, 1960 D. subclavatus paludinae Honer, 1961 The first species, described from Asia, was D. amphichrus Tubangui, 1933 found in the Philippines; later the following were included: D. amphichrus magnus Srivastava, 1934 from India; D. mehrai Pande, 1937 from India; D. amphichrus japonicus Yamaguti, 1936 from Japan; D. sinicus Li, 1937 from China; D. melanosticti Yamaguti et Mitunaga, 1943 from Japan; D. sacculosus Yuen, 1962 from Malaya; D. lali Pandey et Chakrabarti, 1968 from India; D. chauhani Pandey, 1969 from India; D. amphichrus brevis Nama et Khichi, 1973 from India and D. minutus Li et Gu, 1978 from China. After recovery of these species several of them were reexamined and re-interpreted and the picture of the validity of the presently accepted valid species is variable and not rarely controversal. LI (1937) in the diagnosis of D. sinicus, differentiated it on the basis of body dimensions and the internal organs both from D. amphichrus and P.a. japonicus based upon seemingly clear-cut characters. The latter subspecies was raised to specific rank by himself. SRIVASTAVA (1934) described D. a. magnus and PANDE (1937) D. mehrai , both authors from India and the latter author raised P.a. japonicus to species rank like it was done by LI (1937) in the same year. BRAVO-HOLLIS (1941) declared Li's species to be a synonym of D. amphichrus although she mentioned the differences evident in the length of the primary pharyngeal sacs. SINGH (1954) was of the opinion that the minute differences (position of the genital opening) on which designation of the subspecies P.a. magnus and the species D. mehrai were based, are consequence of the fixative procedure and individual variations. Accordingly, both P.a. magnus
