identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
6E5B321FFFA7FFF574ECFB4CC17BFC66.text	6E5B321FFFA7FFF574ECFB4CC17BFC66.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Plesioastiotrema Karar & Blend & Dronen & Adel 2023	<div><p>Plesioastiotrema n. gen.</p><p>Type-species. Plesioastiotrema monticellii (Stossich, 1904) n. comb.</p><p>Etymology. The generic designation is based on the Greek word root “plesios” meaning “near” and refers to similarities the new genus has with members of Astiotrema (sensu stricto), wherein the two species now composing this new genus were originally considered.</p><p>Diagnosis. Body large, elongate to elongate oval, spatulate. Tegument spinous. Forebody approximately 1/4 of body length. Suckers subglobular, unspecialized. Oral sucker round, subterminal. Ventral sucker at border between first and second 1/4 of body, of roughly equal size with oral sucker or smaller. Prepharynx usually indistinct. Pharynx well developed, smaller than suckers. Esophagus fairly long, thin-walled, straight to slightly sinuous. Intestine bifurcates dorsal to ventral sucker in anterior part of second 1/4 of body. Ceca terminate in anterior portion of posterior half of body. Testes two, intercecal, smooth to slightly indented, tandem, elliptical to transversely elongate and separated by small inter-testicular space. Cirrus-pouch clavate, diagonal or slightly dextral to midbody line, extends distinctly into hindbody. Internal seminal vesicle large, thick-walled, unipartite, occupies most of space in cirrus-pouch; pars prostatica and ejaculatory duct short, tubular, indistinct from each other; no or few glandular cells apparent around pars prostatica or upper aspect of seminal vesicle. Genital atrium shallow, inconspicuous. Genital pore median to submedian, immediately anterior to ventral sucker, pre-bifurcal or at or near base of esophagus. Ovary globular to elliptical, intercecal, pre-equatorial, median to submedian, entire, at base of cirrus-pouch or lateral to it. Canalicular seminal receptacle distinct, post-ovarian, variable in size, elliptical to saccate. Vitellarium follicular; fields of variable length, extracecal and sometimes over ceca; anterior extent of vitellarium bifurcal or post-bifurcal; posterior extent pre-testicular or testicular. Uterus inter and post-cecal, fills most of hindbody posterior to ovary, extends to posterior extremity. Metraterm muscular, alongside cirrus-pouch. Eggs numerous, operculated, elliptical, unfilamented, tanned, unembryonated in uterus. Excretory vesicle Y-shaped. Excretory pore terminal. In intestine of colubrid water snakes and turtles; Europe &amp; Southeast Asia.</p><p>Remarks. Astiotrema monticellii Stossich, 1904 was described by Stossich (1904) for specimens collected from the intestine of the viperine water snake, Natrix maura (Linnaeus) (syn. Tropidonotus viperinus Boie) ( Squamata: Colubridae) (type-host), from Naples, Italy. Stossich (1904) distinguished A. monticellii from Astiotrema reniferum (Looss, 1898) Looss, 1900 and Astiotrema impletum (Looss, 1899) Looss, 1900 by the position of the ventral sucker directly ventral to the intestinal bifurcation, the pre-bifurcal location of the genital pore and the shorter extent of both the ceca and vitellarium. Subsequent records of A. monticellii also indicated the unique position of the ventral sucker relative to the intestinal bifurcation as well as the pre-bifurcal position of the genital pore when compared with other taxa of Astiotrema (sensu latu) (see Dollfus 1957; Timofeeva 1961; Sharpilo &amp; Iskova 1989). Astiotrema magniovum Fischthal &amp; Kuntz, 1965, was described by Fischthal &amp; Kuntz (1965) for one specimen gathered from the large intestine of the Malayan soft-shelled turtle, Dogania subplana (Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire) ( Testudines: Trionychidae), from Kasiqui, North Borneo. Astiotrema magniovum has the same two characteristics observed in A. monticellii: a ventral sucker directly ventral to the intestinal bifurcation and a pre-bifurcal genital pore. Astiotrema monticellii was reported from a distinct reptilian group, colubrid water snakes, and from close localities (e.g., Eastern Europe [Ukraine &amp; Russia] and south-central Europe [Italy]) (Stossich 1904; Dollfus 1957; Timofeeva 1961; Sharpilo &amp; Iskova 1989; Tkach et al. 2001; Ruchin &amp; Kirillov 2012). However, other species of Astiotrema, particularly those within the restricted concept, are known mainly from turtles, a few amphibians and fish, and monitor lizards distributed in Africa, Asia and Europe (see Karar et al. 2021). While A. magniovum parasitizes a turtle from the Trionychidae, a reptile family known to harbor some other species of Astiotrema (sensu stricto) (see Karar et al. 2021), it was recorded from Borneo, a relatively distant locality. Based on what we think in A. monticellii and A. magniovum are distinct generic-level morphological features as well as their widely separate localities (Italy, Ukraine and Russia vs Borneo), we believe neither species to belong within Astiotrema (sensu stricto) and are in need of their own genus, thus, we propose Plesioastiotrema n. gen. for both species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFA7FFF574ECFB4CC17BFC66	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFA6FFF374ECFBD8C450FECA.text	6E5B321FFFA6FFF374ECFBD8C450FECA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Plesioastiotrema monticellii (Stossich 1904) Karar & Blend & Dronen & Adel 2023	<div><p>Plesioastiotrema monticellii (Stossich, 1904) n. comb.</p><p>(Figs. 1–3)</p><p>(Syns. Distomum signatum of Monticelli, 1891 nec Dujardin, 1845; Astiotrema monticellii Stossich, 1904)</p><p>Records. 1. Stossich (1904); 2. Dollfus (1957); 3. Timofeeva (1961); 4. Sharpilo &amp; Iskova (1989); 5. Tkach et al. (2001); 6. Ruchin &amp; Kirillov (2012).</p><p>Remarks. Plesioastiotrema monticellii n. comb. (syn. A. monticellii) was incompletely described as Distomum signatum Dujardin, 1845 by Monticelli (1891). Stossich (1904) re-examined the materials deposited by Monticelli and assigned them to Astiotrema as A. monticellii which, in turn, is presently reassigned as the type-species of Plesioastiotrema . From previous records of this species, only the anterior extent of the vitelline fields exhibited a slight range of variability where the follicles either reached the anterior border of the ovary (Dollfus 1957), extended a little further to a point midway between the ovary and intestinal bifurcation (Stossich 1904; Dollfus 1957) or the follicles extended to immediately posterior to the intestinal bifurcation (Timofeeva 1961; Sharpilo &amp; Iskova 1989). Madhavi &amp; Rao (1972) reported a doubtful record of A. monticellii (= P. monticellii) from the intestine of the Indian flap-shelled turtle, Lissemys punctata (Bonnaterre) ( Testudines: Trionychidae), collected from an unidentified locality (we assume Asia). Lissemys punctata is restricted to Asian localities (e.g., Bangladesh, Burma, India, Nepal, Pakistan &amp; Sri Lanka) (see Uetz et al. 2022) and represents a known host for A. reniferum, Astiotrema odhneri Bhalerao, 1936 and Astiotrema cyclemysi Siddiqi, 1965 (see Gupta 1954; Agrawal 1966a; Karar et al. 2021); whilst the other records of P. monticellii clarify the limit of its distribution to European localities and to parasitize only colubrid water snakes (Stossich 1904; Dollfus 1957; Timofeeva 1961; Sharpilo &amp; Iskova 1989; Tkach et al. 2001; Ruchin &amp; Kirillov 2012). Based on the distinct and limited distribution of host groups, the distant localities, and the absence of both a complete morphological description and illustrations for the adult worms of Madhavi &amp; Rao (1972), we believe they misidentified their specimens. Accepted records of P. monticellii demonstrate its uniquity in morphology and limited locality (Europe) as well as its distinct host group (colubrid water snakes).</p><p>Plesioastiotrema monticellii can be easily characterized within the new genus by the following combination of morphological features: (i) oral sucker larger than ventral one, (ii) vitelline field short, extends anteriorly to either ovarian level or level immediately posterior to intestinal bifurcation while posteriorly follicles terminate at mid-level of anterior testis, (iii) ceca short, terminate at level of inter-testicular space, and (iv) testes that are tandem and ellipsoid in shape.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFA6FFF374ECFBD8C450FECA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFA0FFF374ECFE74C4F7FCBF.text	6E5B321FFFA0FFF374ECFE74C4F7FCBF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Plesioastiotrema magniovum (Fischthal & Kuntz 1965) Karar & Blend & Dronen & Adel 2023	<div><p>Plesioastiotrema magniovum (Fischthal &amp; Kuntz, 1965) n. comb.</p><p>(Fig. 4)</p><p>(Syn. Astiotrema magniovum Fischthal &amp; Kuntz, 1965)</p><p>Record. 1. Fischthal &amp; Kuntz (1965).</p><p>Remarks. Plesioastiotrema magniovum n. comb. is similar to P. monticellii in most morphological characters except in having (i) roughly equally-sized suckers, (ii) more longitudinally-extended vitellarium distributed from a little anterior to the ovary to the level of the posterior margin of the anterior testis, (iii) longer ceca that terminate at the level of the end of the posterior testes, (iv) large, distinct, transversely elongated testes, (v) a submedian genital pore located at the anterosinistral margin of the ventral sucker and (iv) larger eggs (62–76 × 28–35 µm vs 22–31 × 11–14 [see Dollfus 1957]).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFA0FFF374ECFE74C4F7FCBF	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFA0FFF174ECFC2BC6FEFBF6.text	6E5B321FFFA0FFF174ECFC2BC6FEFBF6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Homeoastiotrema Karar & Blend & Dronen & Adel 2023	<div><p>Homeoastiotrema n. gen.</p><p>(Fig. 5)</p><p>Type- and only species. Homeoastiotrema turneri (Bray, Van Oosterhout, Blais &amp; Cable, 2006) n. comb.</p><p>(Syn. Astiotrema turneri Bray, Van Oosterhout, Blais &amp; Cable, 2006)</p><p>Etymology. The generic designation is based on the Greek word root “homeo” meaning “similar” and refers to similarities the new genus has with members of Astiotrema (sensu stricto), wherein one species now composing this genus was originally considered.</p><p>Diagnosis. Body large, elongate oval, tapers at both ends. Tegument spinous. Forebody approximately 1/3 of total body length. Suckers subglobular, unspecialized. Oral sucker subterminal. Ventral sucker at border between first and second thirds of body, larger than oral sucker. Prepharynx short or apparently absent. Pharynx well developed, smaller than both suckers. Esophagus long, narrow, rectilinear. Intestine bifurcates in posterior forebody. Ceca fairly long, terminate at various levels in post-testicular region. Testes two, intercecal, oblique to virtually symmetrical. Cirrus-pouch claviform, does not reach into hindbody. Internal seminal vesicle large, unipartite; pars prostatica long, slightly sigmoid, tubular; ejaculatory duct tubular, short, indistinct; numerous glandular cells fill space around pars prostatica and upper aspect of seminal vesicle. Genital atrium small. Genital pore post-bifurcal, median to slightly submedian. Ovary spherical, intercecal, larger than testes, pre-equatorial, entire or indented, at base of ventral sucker, contiguous to slightly posterolateral to it. Canalicular seminal receptacle distinct, post-ovarian, variable in size, saccular. Vitellarium follicular; fields extracecal to slightly over ceca, of variable length; anterior extent of vitellarium to pharyngeal, pre-bifurcal or bifurcal levels; posterior extent terminates at posterior testis or just into post-testicular region. Uterus inter and post-cecal, extracecal in fully gravid specimens, fills most of hindbody posterior to ovary, extends to posterior extremity. Metraterm simple. Eggs numerous, unfilamented, tanned, unembryonated in uterus. Excretory vesicle not observed. Excretory pore terminal. In intestine of freshwater fishes ( Cichlidae); East Africa.</p><p>Remarks. From some freshwater localities in Lake Malawi, Bray et al. (2006) described A. turneri for several specimens collected from the intestine of four species of cichlids (Cichliformes: Cichlidae): the zebra mbuna, Maylandia zebra (Boulenger) (syn. Pseudotropheus zebra [Boulenger]) (type-host); the scrapermouth mbuna, Labeotropheus trewavasae Fryer; the purple mbuna, Melanochromis vermivorus Trewavas; and the blue-black zebra, Maylandia emmiltos (Stauffer, Bowers, Kellogg &amp; McKaye) (syn. Pseudotropheus emmiltos [Stauffer, Bowers, Kellogg &amp; McKaye]). Bray et al. (2006) thoroughly compared A. turneri with A. reniferum, A. impletum and Astiotrema lazeri El-Naffar, Saoud &amp; Hassan, 1984 as the most common species of Astiotrema reported form freshwater fish in Africa. Furthermore, Bray et al. (2006) presented a detailed comparative analysis of A. turneri with three species of plagiorchiid-like worms which have been reported from freshwater fishes from Africa: Glossidium pedatum Looss, 1899, Afromacroderoides lazerae Khalil, 1972 and Alloglossidium fatemi Abdel-Maksoud, 1998 . Due to the considerable confusion as to the status of these forms in Africa, Bray et al. (2006) concluded that: (i) A. reniferum does not commonly occur in African freshwater fishes and it is often confused with G. pedatum; (ii) Af. lazerae, As. lazeri and G. pedatum are similar morphologically and morphometrically; and (iii) cichlids previously had not been reported as hosts for Astiotrema with the occasional exception of A. reniferum from the Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus), and the blue tilapia, Oreochromis aureus (Steindachner) (Cichliformes: Cichlidae) (Tawfik et al. 1996; El Garhy 2003), as well as a doubtful record of A. impletum from O. niloticus by Hamada (2002) (see Discussion below).</p><p>We find A. turneri to be unique from all taxa of Astiotrema (sensu lato) and particularly distinguished from those recognized in Astiotrema (sensu stricto) and Plesioastiotrema by a combination of five features: (i) the cirrus-pouch in A. turneri does not extend into the hindbody vs extending well into the hindbody to the ovarian level in other taxa of Astiotrema; (ii) the pars prostatica in A. turneri is fairly long, sigmoid, vesicular proximally and narrower distally vs short and straight with the same width along its length; (iii) A. turneri has numerous and distinct glandular cells filling a large space around the pars prostatica and anterior aspect of the seminal vesicle vs few glandular cells occupying a smaller space around the pars prostatica in other taxa of Astiotrema; (iv) A. turneri is the only species possessing an ovary larger than the testes; and (v) the ventral sucker in A. turneri is of a slightly larger size than the oral one vs suckers in other Astiotrema spp. either roughly equal in size or the oral sucker is larger than the ventral one. In addition to differential features mentioned earlier, A. turneri differs from species of Plesioastiotrema by possessing a ventral sucker directly posterior to the intestinal bifurcation, a post-bifurcal genital pore and records of freshwater hosts vs a ventral sucker directly ventral to the intestinal bifurcation, a pre-bifurcal genital pore and records of reptilian hosts. Based on the dissimilar morphological features observed in A. turneri as well as its distinct host group ( Cichlidae), we believe A. turneri belongs in neither Astiotrema (sensu stricto) nor Plesioastiotrema; therefore, we erect Homeoastiotrema n. gen. and designate A. turneri as its type species, Homeoastiotrema turneri (Bray, Van Oosterhout, Blais &amp; Cable, 2006) n. comb.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFA0FFF174ECFC2BC6FEFBF6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFA2FFFF74ECFAF0C7C3F8FA.text	6E5B321FFFA2FFFF74ECFAF0C7C3F8FA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ichthyastiotrema Karar & Blend & Dronen & Adel 2023	<div><p>Ichthyastiotrema n. gen.</p><p>(Figs. 6–8)</p><p>Type- and only species. Ichthyastiotrema fotedari (Dhar, 1977) n. comb.</p><p>(Syns. Astiotrema fotedari Dhar, 1977; Astiotrema fusiformis [Wang, 1981] Karar, Blend, Dronen &amp; Adel, 2021 [Malformed suffix]; Astiotrema fusiforme [Wang, 1981] Karar, Blend, Dronen &amp; Adel, 2021; Gauhatiana fusiformis Wang, 1981)</p><p>Etymology. The generic designation is based on the Greek word root “ichthys” meaning “fish” and refers to the restriction of hosts to a distinct group of fishes (i.e., Cyprinidae) compared with that of Astiotrema (sensu stricto), wherein one species now composing this genus was originally considered.</p><p>Diagnosis. Body large, elongate to fusiform, mainly rounded at both ends or rounded anteriorly and tapered posteriorly. Tegument spinous. Forebody approximately 1/5 of total body length. Suckers subglobular, unspecialized. Oral sucker subterminal. Ventral sucker posterior to midpoint of first third of body, fairly smaller than oral sucker. Prepharynx absent. Pharynx well developed, smaller than both suckers. Esophagus short, narrow. Intestine bifurcates at mid-forebody. Ceca long, terminates a little anterior to posterior extremity. Testes two, intercecal, in middle third of body, globular to elliptical, tandem to oblique. Cirrus-pouch claviform, extends well into hindbody. Internal seminal vesicle large, unipartite; pars prostatica short, straight, tubular; ejaculatory duct tubular, short, indistinct; few glandular cells fill space around pars prostatica and upper aspect of seminal vesicle. Genital atrium small. Genital pore post-bifurcal, median to slightly submedian, immediately in front of ventral sucker. Ovary globular, intercecal, smaller than testes, pre-equatorial, entire, dextral, at base of cirrus-pouch or lateral to it. Canalicular seminal receptacle absent. Vitellarium follicular; fields long, extracecal to slightly over ceca; anterior extent of vitellarium to pharyngeal, pre-bifurcal or bifurcal levels; posterior extent terminates at blind ends of ceca or slightly further posterior. Uterus inter and post-cecal, extracecal in fully gravid specimens, fills most of hindbody posterior to ovary, extends to posterior extremity. Metraterm simple. Eggs numerous, unfilamented, tanned, unembryonated in uterus. Excretory vesicle not observed. Excretory pore terminal. In intestine of freshwater fishes ( Cyprinidae); Eastern &amp; Southern Asia.</p><p>Remarks. Karar et al. (2021) defined A. fotedari as one of eight species recognized within Astiotrema (sensu stricto) characterizing it by the following uniquely-combined features: extensive vitellarium, extending either from the level of the intestinal bifurcation or pharyngeal level, and terminating at the blind ends of the ceca or slightly further posteriorly; long ceca, terminating a little anterior to the posterior extremity; an ovary closer to the ventral sucker than to the anterior testis; and an oral sucker larger than the ventral one. In addition, G. fusiformis was synonymized with A. fotedari based on possessing the same overall morphology and host group ( Cyprinidae Rafinesque) (Karar et al. 2021). Dhar (1977) considered A. fotedari a plagiorchiid within Astiotrema whereas Wang (1981) placed his specimens in the Macroderoididae McMullen, 1937 . Karar et al. (2021) recognized A. fotedari within Astiotrema (sensu stricto) in the superfamily Plagiorchioidea (sensu lato) - neither a plagiorchiid nor a macroderoidid (see Pojmańska et al. 2008).</p><p>Karar et al. (2021, figs. 23–25) did not specify the absence of the canalicular seminal receptacle in A. fotedari as was postulated by Dhar (1977, figs. 1 &amp; 2) in the original description (i.e., “receptaculum seminis apparently absent”; see also Wang 1981, fig. 7). The absence of the seminal receptacle herein contradicts the diagnosis of Astiotrema (sensu stricto) by Karar et al. (2021) as well as other previous diagnoses of this genus (see Yeh &amp; Fotedar 1958; Pojmańska et al. 2008). Furthermore, we feel the presence or absence of the canalicular seminal receptacle represents a strong diagnostic feature for differentiating at the generic as well as higher levels. Thus, we find A. fotedari to be unique from all taxa of Astiotrema (sensu stricto) and its derived genera ( Homeoastiotrema and Plesioastiotrema) by the absence of the seminal receptacle and its distinct host group ( Cyprinidae). Besides the differential features mentioned earlier, A. fotedari is distinguished from species of Plesioastiotrema by a ventral sucker well-positioned posterior to the intestinal bifurcation and a post-bifurcal genital pore vs a ventral sucker directly ventral to the intestinal bifurcation and a pre-bifurcal genital pore. In addition, A. fotedari can be characterized from species of Homeoastiotrema by the former possessing a cirrus-pouch extending well into the hindbody to the ovarian level vs never surpassing the ventral sucker level; a short, straight pars prostatica with the same width along its length vs a fairly long, sigmoid pars prostatica, vesicular proximally and narrower distally; few glandular prostatic cells occupying a smaller space around the anterior aspect of the seminal vesicle and the pars prostatica vs numerous cells filling a large space within the cirrus-pouch; an ovary smaller than the testes vs the reverse; and an oral sucker larger than the ventral one vs a ventral sucker of a slightly larger size than the oral one.</p><p>Astiotrema fotedari exhibits a closer relationship to the Macroderoididae compared to other plagiorchioid families based on the combination of the following characteristics and available host-parasite data: (i) genital pore unarmed at level of ventral sucker; (ii) oral sucker without lateral muscular papillae or lappets; (iii) a large portion of the uterus reaches into the post-testicular region; (iv) external seminal vesicle absent; (v) parasitic in intestine of freshwater fishes; and (vi) this species shares a common locality (Asia) with macroderoidids (see Bray 2008e; Font &amp; Lotz 2008). An important characteristic in macroderoidids is the presence of a uterine seminal receptacle usually, which may explain the absence of the canalicular seminal receptacle in A. fotedari (i.e., A. fotedari may possess a uterine seminal receptacle). Although there are highly similar morphological characteristics between members of the Macroderoididae and A. fotedari, the former possesses a bipartite seminal vesicle (see Font &amp; Lotz 2008) (Note: the two taxonomically disputed macroderoidid genera Gauhatiana Gupta, 1953 and Pseudoparamacroderoides Gupta &amp; Agrawal, 1968 have a sacciform, unipartite cirrus-pouch – see Font &amp; Lotz 2008 and Truong et al. 2021, respectively; Discussion below). The difference in the nature of the seminal vesicle (bipartite vs unipartite) between highly morphologically similar taxa represents attributes that are mutually exclusive and may potentially put these taxa into two different families or even superfamilies as we have observed with some trematode keys (e.g., see Pojmańska et al. 2008; Tkach 2008). Accordingly, we believe that A. fotedari does not belong within the Macroderoididae . The Allocreadiidae Looss, 1902 may represent a potential family for A. fotedari based in its members’ similar morphology; in particular, the diagnosis of this family includes possessing a sacciform internal seminal vesicle and parasitizing the intestine of freshwater fishes (see Caira &amp; Bogea 2005). However, allocreadiids are aspinose distomes and have a canalicular seminal receptacle which, in turn, contradicts the diagnosis of A. fotedari which has a spinose body and lacks a canalicular seminal receptacle. Thus, we find A. fotedari does not appear to be an allocreadiid either.</p><p>Based on the dissimilar morphological features observed in A. fotedari (particularly, the combination of the absence of a canalicular seminal receptacle and the presence of a sacciform seminal vesicle) as well as its distinct host group ( Cyprinidae) when compared to that observed in macroderoidids, allocreadiids, Astiotrema (sensu stricto) and its derived genera ( Homeoastiotrema and Plesioastiotrema), we believe A. fotedari to need its own genus, thus, we propose Ichthyastiotrema n. gen. within the Plagiorchioidea (sensu lato) to accommodate A. fotedari as its type-species, Ichthyastiotrema fotedari (Dhar, 1977) n. comb.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFA2FFFF74ECFAF0C7C3F8FA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFAFFFFC74ECFDD1C045F926.text	6E5B321FFFAFFFFC74ECFDD1C045F926.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Galactosomum erinaceum (Poirier 1886) Bittner & Sprehn 1928	<div><p>Galactosomum erinaceum (Poirier, 1886) Bittner &amp; Sprehn, 1928</p><p>(Fig. 9)</p><p>(Syns. Distomum erinaceum Poirier, 1886; Distoma erinaceum Poirier, 1886; Distoma [ Dicrocoelium] erinaceum [Poirier, 1886] Stossich, 1892; Astiotrema erinacea [Poirier, 1886] Stossich, 1904 [Malformed suffix]; Astiotrema erinaceum [Poirier, 1886] Stossich, 1904)</p><p>Record. 1. Poirier (1886).</p><p>Remarks. Poirier (1886) described D. erinaceum to accommodate some immature specimens liberated from cysts and collected from the intestine of the short-beaked common dolphin, Delphinus delphis Linnaeus (Artiodactyla: Delphinidae), in European waters of the North Atlantic Ocean. Stossich (1892) moved D. erinaceum into the subgenus Dicrocoelium Dujardin, 1845 within Distoma Retzius, 1786 . Looss (1899) noted that the immature specimens of D. erinaceum highly corresponded to the two known members of Astia Looss, 1899 nec Koch, 1879 (= Astiotrema) (i.e., the type-species A. reniferum and A. impletum) in all recognizable structural details, but no reassignment of D. erinaceum within this genus was proposed. Stossich (1904) reassigned D. erinaceum within Astiotrema as A. erinaceum and Nicole (1923) also followed this same approach. Jägerskîld (1908) and Odhner (1911) pointed out the similarity and close relationship of this form with monostomids (i.e., members of Monostoma Zeder, 1800 [syn. Monostomum Creplin, 1829]) such as Galactosomum (particularly Galactosomum lacteum [Jägerskîld, 1896] Looss, 1899) and other closely related forms despite the difference in host groups; A. erinaceum has been reported from a marine mammalian host ( D. delphis) whereas adult worms of Galactosomum are parasites of birds and their metacercariae are encysted in fishes (see Jägerskîld 1908). Bittner &amp; Sprehn (1928) investigated A. erinaceum and concluded its placement in Galactosomum as a recognized species based on its distinctive marine mammalian host. Reassignment of A. erinaceum to Galactosomum has been considered by subsequent authors who differ in the validity of G. erinaceum (i.e., either accepted [Price 1931; Morozov 1952] or currently a taxon inquirendum [Pearson 1973; WoRMS 2022a]). The description of G. erinaceum was based on excysted metacercaria and exhibited a close affinity to G. lacteum, particularly the larval form (see Culurgioni et al. 2007); however, it differs from the latter in its adult (see Prudhoe 1949) and metacercarial forms (see Culurgioni et al. 2007) by having (i) an ovary well-separated from the ventral sucker by a long distance vs contiguous, (ii) a seminal receptacle distinctly larger than ovary vs an ovary larger than seminal receptacle, and (iii) a distinct esophagus, more than half the length of the prepharynx vs an absent to indistinct esophagus, in addition to (iv) a record of encysted metacercaria from a marine mammalian host vs records of adult worms from birds and their encysted metacercariae from fishes. Thus, we consider G. e rinaceum a valid species within Galactosomum and in need of future collection of their adults.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFAFFFFC74ECFDD1C045F926	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFAFFFFC74ECFE89C431FD82.text	6E5B321FFFAFFFFC74ECFE89C431FD82.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Galactosomum Looss 1899	<div><p>Genus Galactosomum Looss, 1899</p><p>(Syns. Microlistrum Braun, 1901; Knipowitschiatrema Issaitschikov, 1927; Galactosomoides Cable, Connor &amp; Balling, 1960; Retevitellus Cable, Connor &amp; Balling, 1960; Allocercarioides Yamaguti, 1971; Cercarioides [ Allocercarioides] Yamaguti, 1971)</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFAFFFFC74ECFE89C431FD82	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFAFFFFC74ECF8A1C710F80B.text	6E5B321FFFAFFFFC74ECF8A1C710F80B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Glossidium Looss 1899	<div><p>Genus Glossidium Looss, 1899 (incertae sedis)</p><p>(Syn. Afromacroderoides Khalil, 1972)</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFAFFFFC74ECF8A1C710F80B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFAEFFFB74ECFF71C7AFFC66.text	6E5B321FFFAEFFFB74ECFF71C7AFFC66.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Glossidium pedatum Looss 1899	<div><p>Glossidium pedatum Looss, 1899</p><p>(Figs. 10 &amp; 11)</p><p>(Syn. Astiotrema lazeri El-Naffar, Saoud &amp; Hassan, 1984 n. synonym)</p><p>Records. 1. Looss (1899); 2. Beverley-Burton (1962); 3. Fischthal (1973); 4. Mashego (1977); 5. Moravec (1977); 6. El-Naffar et al. (1984); 7. Mashego &amp; Saayman (1989); 8. El-Naggar et al. (1991, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c); 9. Imam et al. (1991); 10. El-Shahawi &amp; Al-Bassel (1992); 11. Arafa &amp; Reda (2002); 12. van Rensburg et al. (2003); 13. Ibraheem (2007); 14. Abdel-Gaber et al. (2016); 15. Zhokhov et al. (2017); 16. Dumbo et al. (2019).</p><p>Remarks. Glossidium was erected for the type-species G. pedatum gathered from the intestine of the bayad, Bagrus bajad (Forsskål), and the semutundu, Bagrus docmak (Forsskål) ( Siluriformes: Bagridae), from the River Nile at Cairo (Looss 1899). Subsequent records of G. pedatum revealed that the North African catfish, Clarias gariepinus (Burchell) (syns. Clarias lazera Valenciennes and Clarias mossambicus Peters) ( Siluriformes: Clariidae), represented the most frequently reported hosts of this parasite (Fischthal 1973; Mashego 1977; Mashego &amp; Saayman 1989; Imam et al. 1991; El-Shahawi &amp; Al-Bassel 1992; van Rensburg et al. 2003; Bray &amp; Hendrix 2007; Abdel-Gaber et al. 2016; Dumbo et al. 2019). We found only one other record of G. pedatum from B. bajad and B. docmak (see Ibraheem 2007). In addition, the distribution of G. pedatum is restricted to freshwater localities across the continent of Africa including Botswana (van Rensburg et al. 2003), Egypt (Looss 1899; Imam et al. 1991; El-Shahawi &amp; Al-Bassel 1992; Ibraheem 2007; Abdel-Gaber et al. 2016), Ethiopia (Fischthal 1973), Lake Malawi (Bray &amp; Hendrix 2007), Mozambique (Dumbo et al. 2019) and South Africa (Mashego 1977; Mashego &amp; Saayman 1989; Bray et al. 2006). Some morphological features in G. pedatum exhibited a slight range of variability which we feel falls within the range of intra-specific variation including: (i) prepharynx length varied from shorter than the pharynx (Looss 1899; Abdel-Gaber et al. 2016; Dumbo et al. 2019), equal in length to the pharynx (Fischthal 1973) or longer than the pharynx (van Rensburg et al. 2003); (ii) pharynx shape either cylindrical (Looss 1899; van Rensburg et al. 2003; Dumbo et al. 2019), papillate or four-lobed (Fischthal 1973; Dumbo et al. 2019), or tulip-shaped (van Rensburg et al. 2003; Dumbo et al. 2019); (iii) excretory pore positioned either subterminally (Looss 1899; Fischthal 1973; Dumbo et al. 2019) or terminally (Ibraheem 2007; Abdel-Gaber et al. 2016); and (iv) cecal ends terminate at either the posterior level of the posterior testis (Looss 1899; Fischthal 1973; van Rensburg et al. 2003; Dumbo et al. 2019) or slightly posterior to it without reaching the posterior extremity (Ibraheem 2007; Abdel-Gaber et al. 2016; Dumbo et al. 2019, fig. 2a). From all previous records, it can be concluded that the key combination of diagnostic morphological characteristics for G. pedatum include: possessing suckers of roughly equal size, a short or absent esophagus, an intestinal bifurcation positioned in the mid-forebody, a moderately-sized and bipartite seminal vesicle occupying about 1/3 of the cirrus-pouch with a longer and tubular pars prostatica and ejaculatory duct, an ovary very close to or adjacent to the ventral sucker, tandem testes or nearly so, ceca that reach well into the anterior portion of the post-testicular region, vitellarium extending from the level of the anterior margin of the ventral sucker to the level of the posterior testis, and G. pedatum is endemic to Africa infecting freshwater fish of the Clariidae Bonaparte and the Bagridae Bleeker.</p><p>Investigation and reexamination of Afromacroderoides and its type species, A. lazerae, by Mashego &amp; Saayman (1989) revealed that the morphological features of this genus were more typical of the Plagiorchiidae than the Allocreadiidae and that A. lazerae and G. pedatum share the same host species ( C. gariepinus) and are both found in Africa (White Nile River near Khartoum, Sudan and what was Lebowa, South Africa) (see Khalil 1972). Thus, Mashego &amp; Saayman (1989) synonymized Afromacroderoides with Glossidium as well as reassigned its type-species, A. lazerae, as a synonym of G. pedatum . Subsequent authors adopted the synonymy of Afromacroderoides with Glossidium but they have retained A. lazerae (now considered to be Glossidium lazerae [Khalil, 1972] Pojmańska, Tkach &amp; Gibson, 2008) as a distinct species separate from G. pedatum (Bray et al. 2006; Pojmańska et al. 2008; Dumbo et al. 2019). This is based on the former species possessing longer ceca that terminate near the posterior extremity of the body, a distinctly long esophagus, and G. lazerae has a bipartite seminal vesicle that is larger, occupying almost the entire cirrus-pouch (approximately 3/4 of it) with a shorter pars prostatica and ejaculatory duct (see Khalil 1972; Bray et al. 2006; Pojmańska et al. 2008, figs. 66.8 &amp; 66.9; Dumbo et al. 2019).</p><p>Astiotrema lazeri was described for specimens collected from the intestine of the North African catfish, C. gariepinus (syn. C. lazera), from Lake Nasser in Aswan, Egypt (El-Naffar et al. 1984). One of the most interesting features mentioned in the original description of A. lazeri is that it possesses a bipartite seminal vesicle in contrast to other known species of Astiotrema . However, El-Naffar et al. (1984) did not use this feature in their comparisons with other taxa of Astiotrema at that time; they depended on features such as sucker size, presence or absence of an esophagus, host and geographical distribution, slight differences in vitellarium extent, egg size and location of the cecal ends. The nature of the seminal vesicle (i.e., unipartite vs bipartite; saccular vs tubular; straight vs coiled) is a strong morphological character for differentiating taxa at the genus, family and even superfamily levels as we have experienced. Accordingly, A. lazeri does not belong within Astiotrema (sensu stricto) nor its closely related genera (i.e., Homeoastiotrema, Ichthyastiotrema and Plesioastiotrema). Our analysis of the diagnostic features of A. lazeri in combination with its reported host showed that it clearly belongs within Glossidium . Based on the previously mentioned morphological comparison between G. lazerae and G. pedatum, specimens from El-Naffar et al. (1984) appear identical with G. pedatum in all morphological features as well as have the same host species ( C. gariepinus) and locality (Egypt); accordingly, A. lazeri represents a synonym of G. pedatum . This same conclusion was suggested by Bray et al. (2006), who also pointed out the close morphological relationship between the specimens of A. lazeri of El-Naffar et al. (1984) and that of G. pedatum .</p><p>Bray et al. (2006) morphologically compared A. reniferum and G. pedatum and noted that both species have been frequently reported from the North African catfish, C. gariepinus, in Africa (see Khalil 1959; Beverley-Burton 1962; Fischthal 1973; Moravec 1977; Mashego &amp; Saayman 1989; El-Naggar et al. 1991; van Rensburg et al. 2003; Dumbo et al. 2019). Bray et al. (2006) also indicated that specimens reported as A. reniferum by Beverley-Burton (1962), Moravec (1977) and El-Naggar et al. (1991) appear morphologically closer to G. pedatum than to A. reniferum . We concur with Bray et al. (2006) regarding these particular reports of A. reniferum based on the latter possessing all the characteristics of G. pedatum, particularly the bipartite seminal vesicle. The same previous considerations also indicate the erroneous identification of specimens reported by El-Naggar et al. (1993a, 1993b, 1993c), Arafa &amp; Reda (2002) and Zhokhov et al. (2017) as A. reniferum to also be G. pedatum . Thus, our conclusion supports the opinion of Bray et al. (2006) that A. reniferum does not commonly occur in African freshwater fishes, having usually been mistaken for G. pedatum .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFAEFFFB74ECFF71C7AFFC66	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFA8FFE674ECFB60C110FD7A.text	6E5B321FFFA8FFE674ECFB60C110FD7A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Alloastiotrema Karar & Blend & Dronen & Adel 2023	<div><p>Alloastiotrema n. gen.</p><p>(Figs. 12 &amp; 13)</p><p>Type- and only species. Alloastiotrema birmanii (Khan, Gul-E-Lala, Ghazi, Khatoon, Waheed &amp; Khan, 2021) n. comb.</p><p>(Syn. Astiotrema birmanii Khan, Gul-E-Lala, Ghazi, Khatoon, Waheed &amp; Khan, 2021)</p><p>Etymology. The generic designation is based on the Greek word root “allos” meaning “other” or “strange” and refers to differences the new genus has compared to other taxa within Astiotrema Looss, 1900 (sensu lato), wherein one species now composing this genus was originally considered.</p><p>Diagnosis. Body large, elongate, spatulate. Tegument spinous. Forebody approximately 1/2 of body length. Suckers subglobular, unspecialized. Oral sucker round, subterminal. Ventral sucker equatorial to immediately post-equatorial, slightly larger than oral sucker. Prepharynx indistinct. Pharynx well developed, smaller than suckers. Esophagus moderately long, thin-walled, straight. Intestinal bifurcation well anterior to ventral sucker at midpoint of first 1/4 of body. Ceca terminate near posterior extremity. Testes two, intercecal, smooth, oblique, elliptical, contiguous or separated by small inter-testicular space. Cirrus-pouch large, clavate, runs straight along longitudinal axis, well anterior to ventral sucker, does not exceed mid-forebody level. Seminal vesicle large, saccular, occupies most of space in cirrus-pouch; pars prostatica and ejaculatory duct short, tubular, indistinct from each other. Genital pore median, conspicuously pre-bifurcal. Ovary trilobed, in posterior half of body, intercecal, submedian. Vitelline follicles small, in two irregular extracecal lateral fields, confined between base of cirrus-pouch and level of anterior margin of ventral sucker. Uterus extra-, inter- and post-cecal; coils confluent anteriorly and fills most space between cirrus-pouch and ventral sucker; occupies entire hindbody posterior to testes. Eggs numerous, elliptical, tanned. Excretory vesicle not observed. Excretory pore terminal. In intestine of bullfrogs ( Dicroglossidae Anderson); Southern Asia.</p><p>Remarks. Khan et al. (2021) established A. birmanii to accommodate specimens collected from the intestine of the Indian or Indus Valley bullfrog, Hoplobatrachus tigerinus (Daudin) (syn. Rana tigrina Daudin) ( Anura: Dicroglossidae), from various localities of Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan. Astiotrema birmanii can be easily distinguished from all taxa of Astiotrema either at the expanded or restricted levels by a combination of the following features: (i) longer forebody, approximately half body length; (ii) an equatorial to immediately post-equatorial ventral sucker; (iii) a large distance, about 1/3 of body length, separating the intestinal bifurcation and ventral sucker; (iv) a trilobed, post-equatorial ovary; (v) vitellarium located anterior to the ventral sucker, confined between the base of the cirrus-pouch and the level of the anterior portion of the ventral sucker; (vi) the cirrus-pouch does not exceed mid-forebody level posteriorly and is well-separated from the ventral sucker by a large distance of about 1/4 of body length; and (vii) the uterus is inter-, post- and extensively extra-cecal with coils confluent anteriorly, filling most space anterior to the ventral sucker and occupying the entire hindbody posterior to the testes (see Khan et al. 2021, figs. 1 &amp; 2). In contrast, taxa of Astiotrema (sensu lato) have: (i) a shorter forebody that does not exceed 1/3 of body length; (ii) a conspicuously pre-equatorial ventral sucker; (iii) a very small distance separating the intestinal bifurcation from the ventral sucker; (iv) an entire, smooth and pre-equatorial to slightly equatorial ovary; (v) vitellarium extending between the base of the oral sucker to the posterior extremity; (vi) a cirrus-pouch that extends distinctly into the hindbody or at least located at the ventral sucker level; and (vii) the uterus is inter- and post-cecal, occasionally slightly extracecal, filling the inter-testicular space and most of hindbody posterior to the ovary, extending to the posterior extremity. Despite the paucity of information provided in the description of A. birmanii by Khan et al. (2021) and their uninformative illustrations (see Khan et al. 2021, figs. 1 &amp; 2), the inferred characteristics and the dissimilar morphological features observed in A. birmanii as well as its distinct host group ( Dicroglossidae) provide sufficient evidence to suggest that A. birmanii belongs in neither Astiotrema (sensu stricto) nor its derived genera ( Homeoastiotrema, Ichthyastiotrema and Plesioastiotrema).</p><p>To our knowledge, investigations on digeneans infecting H. tigerinus reveal that this anuran host represents a repository for Indian digeneans only with the exception of A. birmanii from Pakistan (Khan et al. 2021) and Diplodiscus amphichrus Tubangui, 1933 from the Philippines (Skrjabin 1949). These digeneans include the following: i) Astiotrema ranarum (Mehra &amp; Negi, 1926) Fotedar, 1971 (Karar et al. 2021); ii) Diplodiscus magnus Srivastava, 1934 (Srivastava 1934); iii) Halipegus mehransis Srivastava, 1933 (Chauhan 1953; Skrjabin &amp; Guschanskaja 1955); iv) Halipegus ovocaudatus (Vulpian, 1859) Looss, 1899 (Chauhan 1953); v) Mesocoelium thapari Gupta &amp; Jahan, 1978 (Gupta &amp; Jahan 1978); vi) Phyllodistomum shandrai Bhalerao, 1937 (Bhalerao 1937; Pigulewsky 1953); vii) Pleurogenoides euphlycti Shinad &amp; Prasadan, 2018 (Shinad &amp; Prasadan 2018); viii) Pleurogenoides gastroporus (Lühe, 1901) Travassos, 1921 (Khotenovsky 1970); ix) Pleurogenoides sphaericus (Klein, 1905) Travassos, 1921 (Khotenovsky 1970); and x) Pleurogenoides wayanadensis Shinad &amp; Prasadan, 2018 (Shinad &amp; Prasadan 2018). Astiotrema birmanii is characterized from all previously mentioned digeneans by the same features discussed above as with that of Astiotrema; thus, based on the dissimilar morphological features observed in A. birmanii, we find it also does not belong in any of these close representative genera.</p><p>Although Khan et al. (2021) believed A. birmanii to be a plagiorchiid, our findings suggest that A. birmanii is closer to the Dolichoperoididae Johnston &amp; Angel, 1940 rather than the Plagiorchiidae based on the combination of the following characteristics: genital pore median, at level of esophagus; oral sucker lacks lateral muscular papillae or lappets; ventral sucker well-developed, undivided; forebody long; vitelline follicles in continuous fields; and parasitic in an anuran (Bray 2008e; Gibson 2008). Astiotrema birmanii and dolichoperoidids share some morphological characteristics, in particular, a long forebody, a ventral sucker just inside the posterior half of the body, a large distance separating the intestinal bifurcation and ventral sucker, and a post-equatorial ovary. However, members of the latter are distinguished from the former by an elongate-fusiform body; symmetrical or almost so testes; a ventrally sub-lateral genital pore on either side of the body at the level of the oral sucker; a ventral sucker slightly smaller than the oral one; a subglobular ovary; uterine coils that do not reach the post-testicular space; vitellarium in restricted lateral fields between about the level of the ventral sucker and level of the testes; and dolichoperoidids are parasites in the lungs, trachea and esophagus of snakes restricted to Australia (see Gibson 2008). Our investigations suggest A. birmanii is closer to another genus, Caudouterina Martin, 1966, which currently is in a disputed taxonomic position (i.e., this genus has been considered either in the Allocreadiidae [see Martin 1966; Yamaguti 1971; Caira &amp; Bogea 2005] or closer to the Encyclometridae Mehra, 1931 [see Curran et al. 2006]). Both A. birmanii and Caudouterina rhyacotritoni Martin, 1966 parasitize amphibian hosts (Indian or Indus Valley bullfrog, H. tigerinus vs Olympic torrent salamander, Rhyacotriton olympicus [Gaige] [Urodela: Rhyacotritonidae]) and share several morphological features; in particular, a long forebody, a nearly equatorial ventral sucker, a large distance separating the intestinal bifurcation and ventral sucker, and a post-equatorial ovary. However, A. birmanii can be easily distinguished by (i) its trilobed ovary vs entire smooth one in C. rhyacotritoni; (ii) vitellarium confined between base of cirrus-pouch and level of anterior portion of ventral sucker vs vitellarium situated between level of pharynx and near posterior extremity, confluent anterior to ventral sucker; (iii) large cirrus-pouch well-separated from ventral sucker by a large distance vs small one and immediately anterior to/contiguous with ventral sucker; (iv) a genital pore that is pre-bifurcal vs conspicuously posterior to the intestinal bifurcation; and (v) A. birmanii possesses a uterus that is highly extensive extra-cecally with coils confluent anteriorly filling most of the space anterior to the ventral sucker and occupying the entire hindbody posterior to the testes (see Khan et al. 2021, figs. 1 &amp; 2) vs a uterus in C. rhyacotritoni that reaches the posterior extremity with one or more loops extending between testes (see Martin 1966; Caira &amp; Bogea 2005). With the comparatively unique morphological features observed in A. birmanii, we believe this species does not belong in either the Dolichoperoididae or Caudouterina and is in need of its own genus. Therefore, we erect Alloastiotrema n. gen. and designate As. birmanii as its type species, Alloastiotrema birmanii (Khan, Gul-E-Lala, Ghazi, Khatoon, Waheed &amp; Khan, 2021) n. comb. For Alloastiotrema we lack information about the nature and shape of the excretory vesicle, the distribution of spines over the body, and the presence/absence of a seminal receptacle. Therefore, we exclude Alloastiotrema from the family Plagiorchiidae, and while we believe it to belong within the superfamily Plagiorchioidea, its family designation remains uncertain.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFA8FFE674ECFB60C110FD7A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFB5FFE674ECFC34C014FB80.text	6E5B321FFFB5FFE674ECFC34C014FB80.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Laiogonimus Vercammen-Grandjean 1960	<div><p>Genus Laiogonimus Vercammen-Grandjean, 1960</p><p>(Syns. Astiotrema [Biguetrema] Deblock &amp; Capron, 1962; Biguetrema [Deblock &amp; Capron, 1962] Yamaguti, 1971)</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFB5FFE674ECFC34C014FB80	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFB5FFE474ECFBDFC077FC66.text	6E5B321FFFB5FFE474ECFBDFC077FC66.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Laiogonimus tananarivensis (Deblock & Capron 1962) Fischthal & Thomas 1968	<div><p>Laiogonimus tananarivensis (Deblock &amp; Capron, 1962) Fischthal &amp; Thomas, 1968</p><p>(Figs. 14–16)</p><p>(Syns. Astiotrema [Biguetrema] tananarivense Deblock &amp; Capron, 1962; Astiotrema tananarivense Deblock &amp; Capron, 1962; Laiogonimus vercammengrandjeani Meskal, 1970 n. syn.)</p><p>Records. 1. Deblock &amp; Capron (1962); 2. Meskal (1970).</p><p>Remarks. Biguetrema was erected by Deblock &amp; Capron (1962) as a subgenus within Astiotrema for the type species Astiotrema (Biguetrema) tananarivense to accommodate specimens collected from the intestine of the Mascarene grass or ridged frog, Ptychadena mascareniensis (Duméril &amp; Bibron) (syn. Rana mascareniensis Duméril &amp; Bibron) ( Anura: Ptychadenidae) (type-host), Goudot’s bright-eyed frog, Boophis goudotii Tschudi (Syn. Rhacophorus goudoti Tschudi) ( Anura: Mantellidae), and from an unidentified shrub frog, Rhacophorus sp. ( Anura: Rhacophoridae), from Madagascar. Deblock &amp; Capron (1962) stated that their specimens were morphologically similar to members of Astiotrema except in having four distinct features, the combination of which has not been reported before in Astiotrema or in the closely-related taxa Haplometra Looss, 1899, Glossidium, Alloglossidium Simer, 1929, Styphlodora Looss, 1899, and Paurophyllum Byrd, Parker &amp; Reiber, 1940 . These four features were (i) a cirrus-pouch that extends within the forebody obliquely from the anterior margin of the ventral sucker, (ii) a seminal vesicle folded over itself followed by a spherical pars prostatica, (iii) a pre-bifurcal, sinistral genital pore, and (iv) lateral, mostly extracecal vitellarium composed of 6 to 12 voluminous, massive follicles. In addition, due to the report of Astiotrema trituri Grabda, 1959 (= Neoastiotrema trituri [Grabda, 1959] Tkach, 2008) by Grabda (1959a, 1959b) from an amphibian (i.e., L. vulgaris – see above), Deblock &amp; Capron (1962) erected Biguetrema as a subgenus within Astiotrema . Fischthal &amp; Thomas (1968) excluded A. (B.) tananarivense from Astiotrema and combined it within Laiogonimus as the second recorded species, L. tananarivensis, characterizing it by having testes not completely surrounded by the uterus, a seminal vesicle with one loop, and the oral sucker smaller than the ventral one. Meskal (1970) revised A. (B.) tananarivense and referred to conspicuous differences distinguishing it from Astiotrema in several respects: (i) possessing a cirrus-pouch that does not surpass the level of the mid-ventral sucker posteriorly vs a cirrus-pouch in Astiotrema which extends into the hindbody, reaching the ovarian level posteriorly; (ii) having a distinctly submedian to nearly submarginal genital pore whereas Astiotrema has a median to slightly submedian genital pore; (iii) the cirrus-pouch in A. (B.) tananarivense contains a winding to convoluted seminal vesicle vs a unipartite sacciform one in Astiotrema; and (iv) an ovary much closer to the ventral sucker than the anterior testis in A. (B.) tananarivense while the ovary is mid-way between the ventral sucker and anterior testis in taxa of Astiotrema . Based on those differential characteristics, Meskal (1970) adopted A. (B.) tananarivense within Laiogonimus, concurring with Fischthal &amp; Thomas (1968) regarding their combination L. tananarivensis . Yamaguti (1971) followed the same approach and synonymized the subgenus, Biguetrema, within Laiogonimus based on their similarities in morphology, host group (anuran amphibians) and locality (both taxa are from Africa, specifically Madagascar and Lake Kivu on the border between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda) (see Vercammen-Grandjean 1960; Deblock &amp; Capron 1962). Dhar (1977) considered this species to belong within Astiotrema (i.e., A. tananarivense), apparently unaware of the synonymy within Laiogonimus . We support the placement of A. (B.) tananarivense within Laiogonimus as L. tananarivensis based on previously explained morphological features and host-parasite data, in addition to the distinctive nature of the vitellarium observed in L. tananarivensis: vitellarium consists of large follicles distributed in two lateral, mostly extra-cecal groups of 6 to 12 follicles per row, extending along ceca between ventral sucker and posterior testis; vitelline follicle numbers usually higher in the left group compared to the right one, while follicle number on the right side varies more than that on the left (see Deblock &amp; Capron 1962).</p><p>Meskal (1970) described the third species within Laiogonimus, L. vercammengrandjeani, for specimens gathered from the small intestine, occasionally rectum, of some anuran amphibians in Ethiopia: the Mascarene grass or ridged frog, P. mascareniensis; the Erlanger’s grassland frog, Ptychadena erlangeri (Ahl) ( Anura: Ptychadenidae); Natal dwarf puddle frog, Phrynobatrachus natalensis (Smith) ( Anura: Phrynobatrachidae); and Angola river frog or common river frog, Amietia angolensis (Bocage) (syn. Rana angolensis Bocage) ( Anura: Pyxicephalidae). Laiogonimus vercammengrandjeani was distinguished from L. tananarivensis by possessing an esophagus shorter than the pharynx, slightly larger egg size (30.0–32.8; 31.3 × 12.5 µm in L. vercammengrandjeani v s 24.0 –28.0; 24.5 × 15.0–18.0; 15.5 µm in L. tananarivensis), slightly smaller suckers ratio (1: 1.20–1.30 in L. vercammengrandjeani v s 1: 1.43 in L. tananarivensis) and shorter body length (1,350–1,700; 1,508 µm in L. vercammengrandjeani vs 2,99 – 3,800; 3,440 µm in L. tananarivensis). We believe these variations represent slight allometric changes which can be attributed to one or a combination of several factors, in particular, maturity of the worm, degree of contraction and flattening of the sample(s), fixation-induced variation, host induced variability (i.e., slight difference in egg size) and different treatments of the specimens such as dehydration and staining methods. Accordingly, with given morphological and morphometric measurements, the same host ( P. mascareniensis), close morpho and nearby localities in Africa (Ethiopia vs Madagascar); we consider L. vercammengrandjeani a synonym of L. tananarivensis .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFB5FFE474ECFBDFC077FC66	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFB7FFE574ECFAEAC07BFB4E.text	6E5B321FFFB7FFE574ECFAEAC07BFB4E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neoastiotrema trituri (Grabda 1959) Tkach 2008	<div><p>Neoastiotrema trituri (Grabda, 1959) Tkach, 2008</p><p>(Fig. 17)</p><p>(Syn. Astiotrema trituri Grabda, 1959)</p><p>Records. 1. Grabda (1959a, 1959b); 2. Sharpilo &amp; Iskova (1989); 3. Tkach (2008).</p><p>Remarks. Grabda (1959a) described A. trituri from the small intestine of the smooth, northern smooth or common newt, Lissotriton vulgaris (Linnaeus) (syn. Triturus vulgaris Dunn) ( Caudata: Salamandridae), from Lake Mamry in northeastern Poland. Astiotrema trituri was distinguished from all Astiotrema species by (i) the position of the posterior testis near the posterior extremity of the body and posterior to the ends of the ceca, (ii) the much smaller cirrus pouch, and (iii) very large eggs – “almost double-sized” (48–61; 54 × 25–31; 29). That same year, Grabda (1959b) elucidated that A. trituri has life-cycle patterns identical to that of members of the Plagiorchioidea and concluded that the first intermediate host was a pulmonate snail, the great ramshorn, Planorbarius corneus (Linnaeus) (syn. Coretus corneus [Linnaeus]) ( Gastropoda: Planorbidae). The second intermediate hosts included some cladoceran species: Simocephalus exspinosus (De Geer), Ceriodaphnia reticulata (Jurine), Daphnia magna Straus ( Anomopoda: Daphniidae) and Eurycercus lamellatus (Müller) ( Anomopoda: Eurycercidae). The development of this parasite includes the formation of a sporocyst and a xiphidiocercaria. Molecular characterization by Tkach (2008) of some taxa of Astiotrema including A. reniferum, A. monticellii (= P. monticellii), A. turneri (= H. turneri) and A. trituri demonstrated that the first three taxa formed a monophyletic clade closest to the heterophyids in contrast to A. trituri which clustered very close to Plagiorchis Lühe, 1899 . Concerning A. trituri, it possesses a typical plagiorchiid-like bipartite seminal vesicle, whereas the other three species of Astiotrema (sensu lato) in the analysis of Tkach (2008) possess an undivided, sac-like seminal vesicle. Based on life-cycle patterns of A. monticellii (= P. monticellii) examined by Shevchenko &amp; Vergun (1960), Tkach (2008) referred that: (i) the first intermediate host of A. monticellii (= P. monticellii) is the prosobranch (gilled) snail Bithynia leachii (Sheppard) ( Gastropoda: Bithyniidae), not a pulmonate one as described for A. trituri; (ii) amphibians serve as the definitive host for A. trituri (see Grabda 1959b) whereas amphibians represent intermediate hosts for A. monticellii (= P. monticellii) (Shevchenko &amp; Vergun 1960); and (iii) the development of A. monticellii (= P. monticellii) includes the formation of cercariae from the Pleurolophocerca group within rediae (see Shevchenko &amp; Vergun 1960), which is typical for members of the Opisthorchioidea . As previous molecular phylogenetic analyses generally indicated that Astiotrema formed a monophyletic clade distinctly separate from all members of the Plagiorchioidea and that clade was, moreover, closer to the Opisthorchioidea (Tkach et al. 2001; Olson et al. 2003), Tkach (2008) removed A. trituri from Astiotrema and transferred it into the Plagiorchiidae . Despite the high similarity between A. trituri and members of Plagiorchis, the position of the right posterior testis (near the posterior extremity and past the cecal ends) vs the left anterior testis (intercecal and separated from right posterior testis by numerous uterine coils) gave justification for separating A. trituri into its own genus, Neoastiotrema, with its type- and only species, N. trituri (see Tkach 2008).</p><p>Besprozvannykh et al. (2015) demonstrated that Shevchenko &amp; Vergun (1960) most likely described a larva belonging to a member of the Opisthorchioidea and neither the cercaria nor the metacercaria of a species of Astiotrema . In addition, they clarified that the first intermediate host of A. odhneri is a pulmonate snail and not a prosobranch (gilled) one; whereas, the second intermediate host can include pulmonate snails, frog tadpoles, and small fish within which sporocysts and xiphidiocercariae develop, but neither rediae nor pleurolophocercariae form. Besprozvannykh et al. (2015, fig. 2) also demonstrated through 28S rRNA gene sequence data that Astiotrema species clustered away from the Plagiorchioidea and formed a monophyletic clade closer and in a basal position to the Opisthorchioidea . Thus, observations of life-cycle patterns by Besprozvannykh et al. (2015) point out a convergence between both Neoastiotrema and Astiotrema, whereas their phylogenetic results indicate a distant relationship between them. Accordingly, we conclude that: (1) reliance on life cycle patterns for differentiating between these two genera may not be useful; (2) without distinct morphological evidence, morphological data become more confusing and unconvincing for differentiating among morphologically similar taxa; hence, using molecular phylogenetic results and support may illustrate the degree of divergence or convergence and give an indicator for delimitations of species and/or higher ranks; (3) the bipartite vs unipartite nature of the seminal vesicle herein represents a stronger feature for differentiating between these two genera and it can be highly effective in differentiating at higher levels of taxonomy such as families or even superfamilies as stated by Pojmańska et al. (2008) and Tkach (2008).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFB7FFE574ECFAEAC07BFB4E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFB6FFE574ECFA70C445F9BA.text	6E5B321FFFB6FFE574ECFA70C445F9BA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Orientocreadium Tubangui 1931	<div><p>Genus Orientocreadium Tubangui, 1931</p><p>(Syns. Ganada Chatterji, 1933; Neoganada Dayal, 1938; Nizamia Dayal, 1938; Ganadotrema Dayal, 1949; Macrotrema Gupta, 1951; Paratormopsolus Dubinina &amp; Bychowsky in Skrjabin, 1954; Orientocreadium [ Pseudoorientocreadium] Agrawal &amp; Sharma, 1990)</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFB6FFE574ECFA70C445F9BA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFB6FFE074ECF964C6ACFDEA.text	6E5B321FFFB6FFE074ECF964C6ACFDEA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Orientocreadium batrachoides Tubangui 1931	<div><p>Orientocreadium batrachoides Tubangui, 1931</p><p>(Fig. 18)</p><p>(Syns. Neoganada barabankiae Dayal, 1938; Ganadotrema indica Dayal, 1949; Neoganada secunda Dayal, 1949; Ganadotrema mahendrai Gupta, 1951; Ganadotrema phillipai Gupta, 1951; Ganadotrema vermai Gupta, 1951; Orientocreadium dayalai Saksena, 1958; Orientocreadium dayali Yamaguti, 1958; Orientocreadium indica (Dayal, 1949) Saksena, 1958; Orientocreadium mahendrai [Gupta, 1951] Saksena, 1958; Orientocreadium philippai [Gupta, 1951] Saksena, 1958; Orientocreadium raipurensis Saksena, 1958; Orientocreadium vermai [Gupta, 1951] Saksena, 1958; Orientocreadium bharati Saksena, 1960; Orientocreadium umadasi Saksena, 1960; Orientocreadium lazeri Khalil, 1961; Orientocreadium barabankiae [Dayal, 1938] Beverley-Burton, 1962; Orientocreadium secundum [Dayal, 1949] Beverley-Burton, 1962; Ganada barabankiae [Dayal, 1938] Fischthal &amp; Kuntz, 1963; Ganada indica [Dayal, 1949] Fischthal &amp; Kuntz, 1963; Astiotrema gangesense nom. nov.; Astiotrema gangeticus Gupta &amp; Singh, 1985 nec Harshey, 1932 n. syn.)</p><p>Records. 1. Tubangui (1931); 2. Dayal (1938a, 1949); 3. Tubangui &amp; Masiluñgan (1944); 4. Gupta (1951); 5. Saksena (1958, 1960); 6. Khalil (1961); 7. Beverley-Burton (1962); 8. Agrawal (1963, 1964); 9. Fischthal &amp; Kuntz (1963); 10. Kakaji (1969); 11. Zaidi &amp; Khan (1977); 12. El-Naffar et al. (1984); 13. Sirikantayakul (1985); 14. Bhadauria &amp; Dandotia (1988); 15. Hafeezullah (1989); 16. Moravec &amp; Sey (1989); 17. Dutta (1995); 18. Hafeezullah &amp; Dutta (1999); 19. Gibson et al. (2005); 20. Taeleb &amp; Lashein (2013); 21. Tepe et al. (2013); 22. Vankara et al. (2014); 23. Zhokhov et al. (2017); 24. Al-Moussawi et al. (2018); 25. Dumbo et al. (2019).</p><p>Remarks. Astiotrema gangeticus was described by Gupta &amp; Singh (1985) for specimens collected from the intestine of the Philippine catfish, Clarias batrachus (Linnaeus) ( Siluriformes: Clariidae), from the River Ganges, Kanpur, India. Gupta &amp; Singh (1985) apparently were not aware that their proposed name “ Astiotrema gangeticus ” was pre-occupied (i.e., Astiotrema gangeticus Harshey, 1932) for specimens earlier gathered from the intestine of the flap-shelled turtle, Emyda granosa Strauch ( Testudines: Trionychidae), in Allahabad, India (Harshey 1932); specimens of Harshey (1932) are currently considered a synonym of A. reniferum (see Yeh &amp; Fotedar 1958; Karar et al. 2021; WoRMS 2022b). Based on (i) distinctive morphology and different host-parasite data (particularly host type, feeding habits and habitats) of specimens collected by Gupta &amp; Singh (1985) vs those of Harshey (1932) and (ii) according to the Principle of Priority by the ICZN as well as (iii) our desire to correct a homonym, we rename the specimens of Gupta &amp; Singh (1985) Astiotrema gangesense nom. nov.; the species designation refers here to the fish locality “River Ganges” where worms were recorded.</p><p>Gupta &amp; Singh (1985) distinguished their specimens from other taxa of Astiotrema by some disputed, variable, overlapping and/or unspecialized features including (i) the difference in esophagus length, posterior extent of cirrus-pouch relative to ovary, distribution of body spines and body size; (ii) slight variations in the anterior extent of vitellarium and genital pore position (whether at bifurcal level or immediately post-bifurcal compared to some taxa of Astiotrema); and (iii) they relied on a problematic taxonomic feature for differentiating among taxa of Astiotrema, the absence of the seminal receptacle (the diagnosis of Astiotrema indicates the presence of either a large or small canalicular, post-ovarian seminal receptacle with few spermatozoa or overlapped by uterine coils - see Yeh &amp; Fotedar 1958; Pojmańska et al. 2008; Karar et al. 2021). In addition, the presence or absence of the seminal receptacle represents a strong diagnostic feature for differentiating at the genus and subfamily levels, not for the species-level only as we have experienced. Thus, these previous reasons make the comparison by Gupta &amp; Singh (1985) inadequate to distinguish their material as a distinct species from other representatives of Astiotrema . However, we note two features we find unique for A. gangesense compared to taxa of Astiotrema (sensu lato): (i) vitelline fields confluent in posterior half of post-testicular space forming a U-shaped posterior extent; and (ii) the male genital system (see Gupta &amp; Singh 1985, fig. 1A) has what appears to be an external vesicular seminal vesicle, confined in the space between the cirrus-pouch and ovary; not a seminal receptacle overlapping the anterior margin of the ovary as stated in the main text, since the seminal receptacle in Astiotrema generally is positioned posterior/postero-lateral to the ovary, not anterior to it, and distinctly separated from the cirrus-pouch (see Yeh &amp; Fotedar 1958; Pojmańska et al. 2008; Karar et al. 2021). Consequently, we believe Gupta &amp; Singh (1985) misidentified their specimens as Astiotrema . These specimens are plagiorchioids belonging to the Orientocreadiidae as members of the only and type-genus, Orientocreadium, based on the combined following characteristics: parasitizing intestine of freshwater fish; mouth close to anterior extremity, opens in oral sucker; hermaphroditic duct and sac absent; excretory vesicle Y-shaped with terminal excretory pore at posterior extremity; suckers and pharynx present; testes post-ovarian; cirrus-pouch present; intestinal ceca two; vitellarium follicular, extensive; elongate to fusiform, aspinose body; genital pore in forebody, median, post-bifurcal; oral sucker lacks lateral muscular papillae or lappets; much of uterus reaches into post-testicular region; external seminal vesicle present; and prepharynx distinct (see Bray 2008f).</p><p>Our survey of digeneans parasitizing the intestine of the Philippine catfish, C. batrachus, and its synonyms referred to several records that included three representatives of Orientocreadium: (i) Orientocreadium batrachoides Tubangui, 1931 (Tubangui 1931; Dayal 1938a; Tubangui &amp; Masiluñgan 1944; Gupta 1951; Saksena 1958, 1960; Bhadauria &amp; Dandotia 1988; Hafeezullah 1989; Hafeezullah &amp; Dutta 1999; Taeleb &amp; Lashein 2013; Tepe et al. 2013; Vankara et al. 2014); (ii) Orientocreadium clariae (Chatterji, 1933) Yamaguti, 1954 (see Chatterji 1933); and (iii) Orientocreadium lucknowensis Nigam, Chandra, Johri &amp; Saxena, 2015 (Nigam et al. 2015). Orientocreadium clariae and O. lucknowensis are extremely similar to O. batrachoides except O. clariae has smaller eggs (18 × 12 μm in O. clariae vs ≥ 25 × 18 μm in O. batrachoides) (see Beverley-Burton 1962) and O. lucknowensis is characterized by the presence of a small seminal receptacle overlapping the ovary (cf. canalicular seminal receptacle) as stated by Nigam et al. (2015, fig. 1.1); this contradicts the diagnosis of members of the Orientocreadiidae which indicates all have a uterine seminal receptacle (see Jones &amp; Bray 2008). Accordingly, we consider O. lucknowensis as incertae sedis until the true nature of the small, saccular structure overlapping the ovary can be confirmed.</p><p>Regarding geographical distribution, O. batrachoides exhibits a wide distribution in freshwater fishes within various localities of both Africa and Asia: China (Gibson et al. 2005); Egypt (Fischthal &amp; Kuntz 1963; El-Naffar et al. 1984; Taeleb &amp; Lashein 2013); Ethiopia (Zhokhov et al. 2017); India (Dayal 1938a, 1949; Gupta 1951; Saksena 1958, 1960; Agrawal 1963, 1964; Kakaji 1969; Bhadauria &amp; Dandotia 1988; Hafeezullah 1989; Dutta 1995; Hafeezullah &amp; Dutta 1999; Vankara et al. 2014); Iraq (Al-Moussawi et al. 2018); Mozambique (Dumbo et al. 2019); Pakistan (Zaidi &amp; Khan 1977); Philippines (Tubangui 1931; Tubangui &amp; Masiluñgan 1944; Sirikantayakul 1985); Sudan (Khalil 1961); Turkey (Tepe et al. 2013); Vietnam (Moravec &amp; Sey 1989); Zambia (Beverley-Burton 1962); and Zimbabwe (Beverley-Burton 1962). Based on the identical morphology of A. gangesense with O. batrachoides, particularly the absence of a canalicular seminal receptacle, approximately the same egg size (28–33 × 13–19 μm), and sharing close localities from the reported geographical area (India) and from the same host ( C. batrachus), we find A. gangesense to represent another synonym of O. batrachoides .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFB6FFE074ECF964C6ACFDEA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFB3FFEE74ECF90CC4B7FE7E.text	6E5B321FFFB3FFEE74ECF90CC4B7FE7E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Longigula Qiu, Zhang & Li 1983	<div><p>Genus Longigula Qiu, Zhang &amp; Li, 1983</p><p>(Figs. 19 &amp; 20)</p><p>Qiu et al. (1983) established Longigula within the Plagiorchiidae to include two species: the type species, Longigula auris Qiu, Zhang &amp; Li, 1983, from the intestine of the Chinese pond, Chinese three-keeled pond or Reeves’ turtle, Mauremys reevesii (Gray) (syn. Chinemys reevesi [Gray]), from Suixian County, China, as well as Longigula papillus Qiu, Zhang &amp; Li, 1983 from the intestine of the snake-eating, yellow-margined box or golden-headed turtle, Cuora flavomarginata (Gray) (syn. Cyclemys flavomarginata [Gray]) ( Testudines: Geoemydidae), from Wuhan, China. In a comparison with Astiotrema (sensu stricto), Longigula exhibits the same morphology, in particular, possessing a unipartite sacciform seminal vesicle within the cirrus-pouch (see Qiu et al. 1983, figs. 1, 4) as well as sharing the same host group ( Geoemydidae) and recorded common locality (China) (see Karar et al. 2021). Based on the nature of the seminal vesicle within the Plagiorchiidae (bipartite, tubular or coiled) either at the expanded or restricted levels, we find Longigula does not resemble plagiorchiids; it appears most closely related to Astiotrema (sensu stricto) and its derived and closely related genera ( Homeoastiotrema, Ichthyastiotrema and Plesioastiotrema) in almost all morphology except its possessing papillae-like lateral lobes or ventrolateral lappets on both sides of the oral sucker, a post-equatorial ovary, and a distinctly large distance separating the ovary from the ventral sucker (see Qiu et al. 1983).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFB3FFEE74ECF90CC4B7FE7E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFBDFFEE74ECFD68C1F2F8C6.text	6E5B321FFFBDFFEE74ECFD68C1F2F8C6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Kalipharynx Boeger & Thatcher 1983	<div><p>Genus Kalipharynx Boeger &amp; Thatcher, 1983</p><p>(Fig. 21)</p><p>Kalipharynx was erected by Boeger &amp; Thatcher (1983) for its type-species, Kalipharynx piramboae Boeger &amp; Thatcher, 1983, to accommodate specimens collected from the intestine of a freshwater fish, the South American lungfish, Lepidosiren paradoxa Fitzinger (Ceratodontiformes: Lepidosirenidae), from Xiborena Hole, off Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil. Boeger &amp; Thatcher (1983) emphasized the similarity of their new genus to Heterorchis Baylis, 1915 from which it differs mainly by possessing a unipartite sacciform seminal vesicle and a submedian genital pore (see Boeger &amp; Thatcher 1983) whereas Heterorchis is characterized by its bipartite seminal vesicle and submarginal genital pore (see Baylis 1915; Pojmańska et al. 2008). Although Heterorchis underwent some taxonomic displacements between the Plagiorchiidae (Baylis 1915; Prudhoe &amp; Bray 1982) and the Fellodistomidae Nicoll, 1909 (Vassiliades &amp; Richard 1970; Yamaguti 1971), which settled on allocating Heterorchis to the Plagiorchiidae, Boeger &amp; Thatcher (1983) seemed unaware of the opinion of Prudhoe &amp; Bray (1982) and placed Kalipharynx in the Fellodistomidae based on its close morphology with Heterorchis . Pojmańska et al. (2008) considered Kalipharynx and Heterorchis as incertae sedis in the Plagiorchioidea (sensu lato) on the basis of an absence of information on the structure of the excretory vesicle in the former (see Boeger &amp; Thatcher 1983) and the highly unusual organization of the excretory vesicle observed in the type-species of the latter, Heterorchis crumenifer Baylis, 1915 (see Baylis 1915).</p><p>As stated earlier, the change in nature of the seminal vesicle (unipartite vs bipartite; saccate vs tubular; straight vs coiled) represents a strong morphological character for differentiating taxa not only at the genus level but also at family and even superfamily levels. Accordingly, we believe Heterorchis and Kalipharynx do not represent members in the same group. Thus, Heterorchis probably represents a member of the Plagiorchiidae or a closely related family, whereas, Kalipharynx is apparently closer to that group of genera that have a unipartite, sacciform seminal vesicle: Astiotrema (sensu stricto), Homeoastiotrema, Ichthyastiotrema, Longigula and Plesioastiotrema . Kalipharynx easily can be characterized by the combination of the following features: ventral sucker large, about three times size of oral one; ceca overlap ventral sucker dorsally; pharynx papillate; posterior extent of cirrus-pouch does not surpass ventral sucker level; posterior extent of vitelline fields extends well into post-testicular area; esophagus extremely short; genital pore submedian, extracaecal; and its ovary is equatorial. In addition, Plesioastiotrema is morphologically closest to Kalipharynx, particularly in that both share in having an extracaecal genital pore. However, the former differs by having (i) a ventral sucker of roughly equal size with the oral one or slightly smaller, (ii) the intestinal bifurcation overlaps the ventral sucker dorsally, (iii) a pharynx that is not papillate, (iv) the posterior extent of the cirrus-pouch exceeds the ventral sucker, reaching ovarian level, (v) the posterior extent of the vitellarium never surpasses the testicular zone, (vi) an esophagus that is fairly long, (vii) a median genital pore (viii) a pre-equatorial ovary, (ix) and records of Plesioastiotrema are from reptilians and not from fish.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFBDFFEE74ECFD68C1F2F8C6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFBCFFEC74ECFF71C6FBF8A2.text	6E5B321FFFBCFFEC74ECFF71C6FBF8A2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudoparamacroderoides Gupta & Agrawal 1968	<div><p>Pseudoparamacroderoides Gupta &amp; Agrawal, 1968 as a controversial genus</p><p>In this section, we investigate the taxonomically problematic status of this genus via a detailed morphological study of each recognized species. This will involve comparing and evaluating the differential characteristics between each species to identify the valid species within this genus as well as accommodate those species we consider not to be congeneric.</p><p>The problematic status of features used for differentiating taxa of Pseudoparamacroderoides Gupta &amp; Agrawal, 1968</p><p>Truong et al. (2021) resurrected and emendated Pseudoparamacroderoides as a distinctive macroderoidid genus negating it as either a subgenus of Paramacroderoides Venard, 1941 (see Yamaguti 1971) or a junior subjective synonym of Astiotrema (see Kumari et al. 1972), Paramacroderoides (see Font &amp; Lotz 2008) or Macroderoides Pearse, 1924 (see Tkach et al. 2010). The diagnostic combinations of characteristics that supported this argument were: i) a prominent ventral sucker and a subspherical oral sucker lacking distinctively enlarged circumoral spines; ii) blind ceca terminating in the post-testicular space near the posterior extremity; iii) an elongate, densely spinous body; iv) a unipartite, saccate, internal seminal vesicle; v) a median to submedian genital pore immediately anterior to the ventral sucker; vi) a pre-testicular, submedian ovary abutting or posterolateral to the ventral sucker; vii) a blind-ending seminal receptacle that is lateral or posterolateral to the ovary; viii) follicular vitellarium, extending from the level of or slightly anterior to the ventral sucker to the mid post-testicular region; ix) an I-shaped, wholly post-ovarian excretory vesicle, terminating at the level of the testicular region; and x) records finding species of Pseudoparamacroderoides to infect the intestine of freshwater bagrid catfishes distributed in the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia (Truong et al. 2021).</p><p>Five species are recognized within Pseudoparamacroderoides: Pseudoparamacroderoides dongthapensis Truong, Curran &amp; Bullard in Truong, Curran, Dutton &amp; Bullard, 2021; Pseudoparamacroderoides keni Agarwal &amp; Agarwal, 1984; Pseudoparamacroderoides raychaudhurii Agarwal &amp; Kumar, 1983; Pseudoparamacroderoides seenghali Gupta &amp; Agrawal, 1968; and Pseudoparamacroderoides vittati Kakaji, 1969 (syn. Pseudoparamacroderoides vittatusi Kakaji, 1969 [malformed suffix]) (Truong et al. 2021; WoRMS 2022c). In their review on the validity of features used to differentiate among the last four species, Truong et al. (2021) discussed some dubious and not well-justified features that had been adopted by authors in the original descriptions of these species. These features included i) ovary either contiguous or posterolateral to ventral sucker by a small distance; ii) change in seminal receptacle shape and position; iii) the slight disparity observed in anterior extent of the vitellarium (i.e., whether follicles terminate either at the level of the base of the ventral sucker or slightly anterior to it); iv) the extensive degree of either inter- or extra-cecal uterine coils; v) the indistinguishable proportional size of the suckers among these four species; and vi) presence/absence of a small prepharynx. Truong et al. (2021) attributed these slight variations to one or more combined factors, particularly, the low sample sizes used, fixation-induced variations, and the varying degrees of relaxation and flattening among the worms studied; we can add the different treatments (e.g., nature and structure of the stain, staining procedures, stain pre/post-treatment, type of dehydrating and clearing materials, dehydration periods, and handling efficiencies) used in preparation of specimens as well as the effect of varying degrees of worm maturity on growth and extension of some internal features. Truong et al. (2021) also stated that the narrative descriptions of these four species were less informative and in need of more paraphrasing while the published illustrations lacked sufficient detail to confirm their putatively unique features. Accordingly, the descriptions of P. keni, P. raychaudhurii and P. vittati were weakly differentiated from the type-species, P. seenghali, and, in fact, strikingly similar to each other (see Truong et al. 2021). Truong et al. (2021) still recognized these three species as distinct members within Pseudoparamacroderoides in addition to building a key to all five reported congeneric taxa based on other morphological features and morphometric measurements they thought to be more constant, not highly vulnerable to variabilities caused by different preparatory treatments and well-justified as differential features. These characteristics included i) variation in the anterior extent of the excretory vesicle, either to the level of the posterior testis or to the level of or beyond the anterior testis; ii) testes either less than 1/5 or more than 1/4 of maximum body width in diameter; iii) hindbody less or more than twice length of forebody; iv) ceca terminate at middle of post-testicular space or near posterior end of body; v) uterus extends posteriorly beyond cecal ends or not; and vi) a post-uterine space that is either more than 10% or less than 5% of body length.</p><p>Our investigations on the validity of the aforementioned features in the key by Truong et al. (2021) to the nominal species of Pseudoparamacroderoides (sensu lato) cast doubt on their stability and credibility as well as demonstrate their high potential versatility. Hence, we believe their effectiveness as differential features may be unjustified. This argument is based on three observations: 1) Very low sample size(s) used in the original descriptions without any further supplemental re-descriptions. Specifically, three mature and eight immature specimens recorded as P. seenghali (see Gupta &amp; Agrawal 1968); a single specimen as P. vittati (see Kakaji 1969); three specimens of P. raychaudhurii (see Agarwal &amp; Kumar 1983); four specimens of P. keni (see Agarwal &amp; Agarwal 1984); and seven specimens of P. dongthapensis (Truong et al. 2021) . These low numbers, particularly in the aforementioned first four species, make it virtually impossible to demonstrate intra-specific variation. Therefore, if more specimens had been collected to describe these species, it is highly possible that a wide range of intra-specific variation in the differential features authors used to differentiate among these species would have been observed making determination of con-specificity inconclusive. Thus, while we understand that authors may choose to describe a species from few individuals instead of waiting for more specimens, especially with rare material, we want to note that relying on slight differences among disputed characteristics (i.e., features lacking variation due to low intensities of infection) may lead to more confusion and complicate taxonomic considerations greatly. Some examples we noted for differentiating among taxa of Pseudoparamacroderoides included: the presence or absence of a short prepharynx; the difference in anterior extent of the vitellarium (from the base of the ventral sucker to slightly anterior to its upper margin); the slight change in the extension of cecal ends (either near the posterior extremity or slightly anterior); the posterior extent of the post-testicular uterine coils (terminate near the posterior extremity or slightly anterior) and by extension the change in length of the post-uterine space; positioning of testes relative to each other (opposite to oblique) and by extension the difference in length of the inter-testicular distance; esophagus straight or partially curved; shape of the seminal receptacle; and the slight change in the anterior extent of the excretory vesicle within the level of the testicular region (either at mid posterior testis level or extending to anterior margin of the anterior one), especially if the inter-testicular distance is small and not effective to create an obvious difference. We note that the differences in each feature are very slight, and with the inability to confirm such features as consistent via subsequent redescriptions, the probability that these differences reflect intra-specific vs species level variation is higher. 2) Degree of worm maturity, which reflects growth and distribution of several internal organs. This includes expansion of uterine coils, hence, the length of the post-uterine distance; size and density of vitelline follicles; distribution of vitellarium and, by extension, slight changes observed in the length of the anterior and posterior extent of vitellarium; egg size; testes diameter; body length and width; posterior extent of ceca; and the amount of spermatozoa, hence, seminal receptacle size and shape.As we have experienced with many digeneans studied, the aforementioned values increase and/or expand in fully mature specimens compared to either early adult or immature ones. Regarding the positioning of the testes relative to each other (i.e., oblique vs opposite), we have observed the testes position to change during maturation beginning within early mature or immature individuals up to fully mature conspecific adults. 3) Different treatments and handling efficiencies during specimen preparation. This includes the degree of relaxation of worms during fixation, different fixation process(es) and type (s) of fixative(s) used, the degree of applied flattening of specimens, varying staining processes employed, and inordinate dehydration of specimens which could cause distortion in the shape and distribution of internal organs and/or lack of some tegumental structures. For example, excessive pressure while flattening can cause distortion in the shape, diameter(s) and distribution of the body and internal organs casting doubt on the validity of corresponding morphometric measurements. In contrast, an absence of relaxation and/or flattening may lead to a lack of clarity or artificial absence of some internal structures resulting in an inaccurate determination of the actual size of internal organs and their distances between each other. Based on our experimental experience, insufficient or prolonged dehydration of specimens (mainly in 95% and/or absolute ethanol) can cause specimens to shrink to less than their actual size, alter the appearance of the body wall, its width, delicate genital structures, folding of body margins (particularly specimens delicate in thickness) and, resultantly, affect morphometric and allometric observations in addition to lessening resolution of contiguous structures such as the fine ducts of the male and female genital systems.”</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFBCFFEC74ECFF71C6FBF8A2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFBEFFED74ECFF71C477FF5E.text	6E5B321FFFBEFFED74ECFF71C477FF5E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudoparamacroderoides Gupta & Agrawal 1968	<div><p>Pseudoparamacroderoides Gupta &amp; Agrawal, 1968 (sensu stricto)</p><p>(Figs. 22 &amp; 23)</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFBEFFED74ECFF71C477FF5E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFBEFFEB74ECFF19C615FA86.text	6E5B321FFFBEFFEB74ECFF19C615FA86.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudoparamacroderoides seenghali Gupta & Agrawal 1968	<div><p>Type-species. Pseudoparamacroderoides seenghali Gupta &amp; Agrawal, 1968</p><p>(Syns. Pseudoparamacroderoides vittati Kakaji, 1969 n. syn.; Pseudoparamacroderoides vittatusi Kakaji, 1969 [malformed suffix])</p><p>Records. 1. Gupta &amp; Agrawal (1968); 2. Kakaji (1969); 3. Kumari et al. (1972).</p><p>Pseudoparamacroderoides seenghali was described as the type-species of Pseudoparamacroderoides for specimens collected from the intestine of giant-river catfish, Sperata seenghala (Sykes) (syn. Mystus seenghala [Sykes]) ( Siluriformes: Bagridae), from the Gomti River (a tributary of the Ganges River) at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India (Gupta &amp; Agrawal 1968). A year later and from the same locality, Kakaji (1969) added P. vittati (as P. vittatusi) for one specimen gathered from the intestine of the striped dwarf catfish, Mystus vittatus (Bloch) ( Siluriformes: Bagridae), and differentiated it from P. seenghali by the former possessing i) an ovary slightly distant from the ventral sucker posteriorly vs an ovary contiguous with the ventral sucker; ii) a seminal receptacle positioned lateral to the ovary vs post-ovarian; iii) the anterior extent of vitellarium located at the level of the anterior end of the ventral sucker vs at the level of the intestinal bifurcation or a little anterior (Note: the vitelline follicles appear distinctly post-bifurcal in the type illustration of P. seenghali [see Gupta &amp; Agrawal 1968, p. 71]); iv) intercecal uterine coils vs coils that overlap the medial margins of ceca; v) an excretory vesicle extending up to the middle of the posterior testis vs up to the anterior margin of the anterior testis; and vi) different host species, M. vittatus vs S. seenghala . In their review, Truong et al. (2021) referred to the dubious and comparatively unjustified state of the aforementioned first four features (i.e., separation between the ovary and ventral sucker, seminal receptacle shape and position, the anterior extent of vitellarium, position of uterine coils relative to ceca) and considered the length or anterior extent of the excretory vesicle to be the only valid feature listed by Kakaji (1969) differentiating P. vittati from P. seenghali . We concur with Truong et al. (2021) except as concerns the anterior extent of the excretory vesicle. The short inter-testicular distance, and resultantly, the difference in location of the anterior extent of the excretory vesicle (either at the middle of the posterior testis or at the level of the anterior margin of the anterior testis) remains indistinctive and we feel it does not preclude conspecifity of P. vittati with P. seenghali . We can see this in different descriptions of the excretory vesicle of P. seenghali in Kakaji (1969) vs Gupta &amp; Agrawal (1968). The anterior extent of the excretory vesicle terminates at the “anterior end [margin] of anterior testis” in P. seenghali (see Kakaji 1969, p. 73) whereas the type description of this species referred to the excretory vesicle as “passing between testes” and the type illustration shows this feature to extend to the mid-level of the anterior testis (see Gupta &amp; Agrawal 1968, p. 70–71). Another example is the anterior extent of the vitellarium. Kakaji (1969, p. 73) stated that the vitelline follicles began from the level “of intestinal bifurcation or a little anterior to it” in P. seenghali whereas Gupta &amp; Agrawal (1968, p. 72) stated the anterior extent of vitellarium “from middle or hind end of ventral sucker”. The implicit meaning of the original text in the Discussion of P. seenghali implies extra-cecal uterine coils (see Kakaji 1969, p. 73) which contradicts the illustration in the type description of P. seenghali which exhibits mainly inter-cecal uterine coils that may overlap the medial margins of the ceca but are not extra-cecal (see Gupta &amp; Agrawal 1968, p. 71). Regarding the host-parasite data of P. seenghali and P. vittati, both hosts ( S. seenghala vs M. vittatus) belong to the bagrid catfishes, Bagridae Bleeker, and to two closely related genera, the whiskered bagrid catfishes, Mystus Scopoli, and the Sperat bagrid catfishes, Sperata Holly, which share food and feeding habits (see Froese &amp; Pauly 2022) and were captured from the same locality (the Gomti River at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India). According to all aforementioned, we could not find any evidence for separating P. vittati as a distinct species from P. seenghali . Thus, with similarities in host taxa, locality, an absence of differential features, the enantiomorphic appearance of P. vittati with P. seenghali (see Gupta &amp; Agrawal 1968, p. 71; Kakaji 1969, fig. 10), and the probable effects of host-induced variability, we synonymize P. vittati with P. seenghali and consider the features used by Kakaji (1969) and Truong et al. (2021) for differentiating both species as representative of intra-specific variation. Therefore, we consider these two taxa conspecific, P. vittati becoming a new synonym of P. seenghali .</p><p>Kumari et al. (1972) referred to the existence of a great amount of variation in A. reniferum after gathering a number of specimens from the intestine of two freshwater siluriform fishes at Kolkata (Calcutta), India: the Gangetic mystus, Mystus cavasius (Hamilton) ( Siluriformes: Bagridae), and the Philippine catfish, C. batrachus . These variations included i) size of suckers, either equally or subequally sized; ii) presence of a prepharynx, either small or not evident; iii) esophagus length, between short to moderately long, and either straight to twisted; iv) intestinal bifurcation position, at mid-forebody level or more posterior; v) location of cecal ends where terminate, a little anterior to the posterior extremity or midway within the post-testicular space; vi) positioning of testes, tandem to obliquely tandem; vii) length of inter-testicular space highly variable; viii) anterior extent of cirrus-pouch, in region posterior to the ventral sucker to the middle of the ovary or extends further posterior; ix) cirrus-pouch, either claviform or twisted to nearly S-shaped; x) position of ovary in relation to ventral sucker, either overlapping/contiguous with ventral sucker or positioned between the ventral sucker and anterior testis; xi) difference in the ratio between the length and the width of the body; xii) vitellarium extent, from slightly posterior to the intestinal bifurcation anteriorly and to the posterior end of the posterior testis posteriorly; xiii) genital pore, either median or submedian; xiv) excretory vesicle shape, from I-shaped to Yshaped with intermediate phases; xv) variation in anterior extent of the excretory vesicle, between the level of the posterior testis to close to the ovarian level; and xvi) excretory pore, either terminal or subterminal. These variations were attributed to the degree of relaxation or contraction of specimens as well as time and state of fixation (Kumari et al. 1972). Based on these variations, Kumari et al. (1972) synonymized Pseudoparamacroderoides with Astiotrema . We concur with Kumari et al. (1972) in the noticeable similarities between these two genera, but the I-shaped excretory vesicle represents a differential diagnostic feature for Pseudoparamacroderoides . Although Kumari et al. (1972, p. 320) stated that in A. reniferum there is great variation in excretory vesicle shape (i.e., “shape varies from ‘I’ to ‘Y’ with intermediate conditions”), our examination of their illustrations (Kumari et al. 1972, figs. 2A–F) did not find a distinct Y-shaped excretory vesicle. Some of the excretory vesicles of these illustrated individuals appear to be transversely inflated at the distal end (i.e., anterior swelling); such a case was also observed in P. dongthapensis (see Truong et al. 2021, fig. 4). Regarding host-parasite data, Pseudoparamacroderoides is restricted to freshwater bagrid catfishes ( Mystus and Sperata) (see Truong et al. 2021) whilst Astiotrema (sensu stricto) is distributed within a wide variety of host groups (i.e., reptilians, amphibians and freshwater fishes) (see Karar et al. 2021). However, neither M. cavasius nor C. batrachus has been reported as a host for any taxon of Astiotrema before and/or after Kumari et al. (1972). Mystus cavasius belongs to a commonly known host genus harboring taxa of Pseudoparamacroderoides (see Kakaji 1969; Agarwal &amp; Kumar 1983; Agarwal &amp; Agarwal 1984; Truong et al. 2021). Clarias batrachus is widespread along with M. cavasius in Indian freshwaters, and both share food and feeding habitats (Froese &amp; Pauly 2022). As a result, we believe that Kumari et al. (1972) erroneously identified their specimens as A. reniferum . These specimens represent a taxon that belongs to Pseudoparamacroderoides, most likely P. seenghali, based on their identical morphology, the same wide range of intraspecific variability observed, a sharing of the same and/or close host group, their nearby localities, and similar host feeding habitats.</p><p>We also noted that one of the most striking variations observed in P. seenghali is the position of the cirrus-pouch relative to the ventral sucker and ovary which varies from either confined to the area between the ovary and ventral sucker (see Kakaji 1969, fig. 10; Kumari et al. 1972, figs. 1A &amp; 1E) or positioned laterally in the same direction from both the ventral sucker and ovary (i.e., ventral sucker situated between ovary and cirrus-pouch) (see Gupta &amp; Agrawal 1968, p. 71; Kumari et al. 1972, figs. 1B–D &amp; 2B). Such a case has been observed in other digeneans (e.g., A. impletum – see Karar et al. 2021); thus, with the absence of distinct morphometrical and/or obvious morphological variation as well as the sharing of the same host group, food/ feeding habits and nearby localities, we consider this variability (i.e., positions of the cirrus-pouch relative to the ventral sucker and ovary) as an example of intraspecific variation and not indicative of a lack of con-specificity with P. seenghali across these three studies.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFBEFFEB74ECFF19C615FA86	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFB8FFE874ECFAB8C77FFB62.text	6E5B321FFFB8FFE874ECFAB8C77FFB62.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudoparamacroderoides dongthapensis Truong, Curran & Bullard	<div><p>Pseudoparamacroderoides dongthapensis Truong, Curran &amp; Bullard in Truong, Curran, Dutton &amp; Bullard, 2021</p><p>(Fig. 24)</p><p>Record. 1. Truong et al. (2021).</p><p>Truong et al. (2021) established P. dongthapensis for specimens infecting the intestine of the whiskered bagrid catfish, Mystus mysticetus Roberts ( Siluriformes: Bagridae), from the Mekong River at Cao Lanh Fish Market, Dong Thap Province, Vietnam. This species was characterized from P. seenghali (and its synonym, P. vittati) by the following features: i) a more elongate hindbody, more than twice the length of the forebody (2.2–2.6×) vs less than twice the length of the forebody in P. seenghali (1.4–1.9×); ii) a longer excretory vesicle extending anteriad beyond the anterior testis (49–55% of body length) vs a shorter one reaching the mid-level of the posterior or anterior testis (32–44% of body length) in P. seenghali; iii) a uterus extending posteriorly into the post-cecal space near the posterior extremity of the body (very small post-uterine space ~1% of body length) vs P. seenghali which has a uterus restricted to the cecal space (post-uterine space ~10–13% of body length); iv) a shorter esophagus (6–12% of body length) vs a longer one in P. vittati (= P. seenghali) (19% of body length); v) a cirrus-pouch extending posteriad to the ventral sucker vs restricted to the area around the ventral sucker, not surpassing its posterior margin in the original description of P. seenghali; and vi) proportionally larger testes (diameter&gt; 1/4 of maximum body width) vs a smaller value for this feature in P. vittati (= P. seenghali) (diameter &lt;1/5 of maximum body width) (see Gupta &amp; Agrawal 1968; Kakaji 1969; Truong et al. 2021). As mentioned earlier, the change in the anterior extent of the excretory vesicle (i.e., whether it terminates at level of posterior testis or extends anteriorly to level of anterior one) is a dubious and not well-justified feature, however, the distinct allometric difference in length of the excretory vesicle as a percentage of body length in P. dongthapensis from that of P. seenghali we feel represents a justified differential feature between both species. The forebody/hindbody ratio of P. dongthapensis is distinctly different from that of P. seenghali, thus, constituting another valid differential feature. With the expansion in the range of esophagus length as a percentage of body length and the more posterior extent of the cirrus-pouch to the level of the ovary (as a consequence of synonymizing P. vittati with P. seenghali in concert with the intra-specific variation observed by Kumari et al. 1972), we find using both these features for differentiating P. dongthapensis from P. seenghali not to be informative due to the existence of these two features that are now within the range of variation we recognize within P. seenghali . Regarding proportionally larger testes in P. dongthapensis vs P. seenghali, we find it important to mention that this feature can be subject to variation due to differences in the degree of worm maturity as well as the degree of flattening during fixation. While Truong et al. (2021, p. 699) stated that their “live adult trematodes were … flame-killed on microscope slides using coverslips to restrain the specimens without putting pressure on the specimen[s] …”, the earlier studies of Gupta &amp; Agarwal (1968) and Kakaji (1969) did not elucidate their fixing procedures for specimens collected (i.e., no way to determine if or to what degree specimens were flattened). Thus, while we cannot dispute the use by Truong et al. (2021) of allometric differences in testes size as a feature distinguishing P. dongthapensis from P. seenghali, in this instance, caution is advised here in using this measurement comparatively. We commend Truong et al. (2021, fig. 5) for their detail in describing and illustrating the distinguishing features in the male genital system of P. dongthapensis, yet these features were not included among the characteristics of P. dongthapensis used to distinguish it from P. seenghali . We concur with Truong et al. (2021) that P. dongthapensis represents a distinct species from P. seenghali, irregardless of their high morphological resemblance, same host group (bagrid catfishes, Mystus), close food and feeding habits of hosts, and their main geographical region (South Asia). However, the differences in the features of their male terminal genitalia are worthy of note. These features are: i) the seminal vesicle in P. dongthapensis is approximately 51–53% of cirrus-pouch length vs approximately 31–32% of cirrus-pouch length in P. seenghali; ii) the pars prostatica is longer than the ejaculatory duct, measuring 12–48% of cirrus-pouch length, in P. dongthapensis vs a pars prostatica that is shorter than the ejaculatory duct, about 12–19% of cirrus-pouch length, in P. seenghali; and iii) P. dongthapensis has a bulbous, short ejaculatory duct, 15–20% of cirrus-pouch length vs a tubular, longer ejaculatory duct, 23–39% of cirrus-pouch length, in P. seenghali .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFB8FFE874ECFAB8C77FFB62	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFFBBFFD674ECFADCC1A4FCB2.text	6E5B321FFFBBFFD674ECFADCC1A4FCB2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudoparamacroderoides pseudobagri (Wang 1983)	<div><p>Pseudoparamacroderoides pseudobagri (Wang in Wang, Zhao, Chen &amp; Tao, 1983) n. comb.</p><p>(Fig. 25)</p><p>(Syns. Astiotrema pseudobagri [Wang in Wang, Zhao, Chen &amp; Tao, 1983] Karar, Blend, Dronen &amp; Adel, 2021 n. syn.; Gauhatiana pseudobagri Wang in Wang, Zhao, Chen &amp; Tao, 1983 n. syn.)</p><p>Record. 1. Wang et al. (1983).</p><p>As previously mentioned, Karar et al. (2021) re-assigned G. pseudobagri into Astiotrema as A. pseudobagri based on its lack of one of the key characteristics of Gauhatiana, vitellarium divided into two separate clusters on each side of the body. Furthermore, Karar et al. (2021) considered A. pseudobagri a junior subjective synonym of A. reniferum . Karar et al. (2021) did not specify the presence of an I-shaped excretory vesicle in the specimens of Wang et al. (1983) illustrated in the original description (see Wang et al. 1983, fig. 4). As a result of the problematic state of the specimens of Kumari et al. (1972) (discussed earlier), in particular, the variation of the excretory vesicle shape from I-shaped to Y-shaped with intermediate phases, Karar et al. (2021) did not emphasize this feature as one of the variables subject to intraspecific variation. Furthermore, species of Astiotrema (sensu stricto) have been recorded within the intestine of a wide variety of host groups including some freshwater fishes. However, no freshwater bagrid catfish has been reported as a host for any taxa of Astiotrema except for the disputed reports of Kumari et al. (1972) and Wang et al. (1983). The earlier specimens of A. reniferum of Kumari et al. (1972) we now recognize as P. seenghali . Our findings indicate the specimens of Wang et al. (1983) are neither a taxon of Astiotrema nor Gauhatiana but belong to Pseudoparamacroderoides based on their high similarity to the features within the generic diagnosis of the latter, particularly, in having an I-shaped excretory vesicle, a common host group (freshwater bagrid catfishes; i.e., the yellow catfish, Tachysurus fulvidraco) and a shared geographical distribution (Southeast Asia; Hongze Lake, China).</p><p>Specimens of Wang et al. (1983) can be easily differentiated from the two recognized taxa within Pseudoparamacroderoides ( P. dongthapensis and P. seenghali) by the following features: i) an indistinct or absent esophagus vs a short to moderately long one in P. dongthapensis and P. seenghali; ii) a forebody less than 1/4 of body length vs larger values in P. dongthapensis and P. seenghali; iii) tandem testes vs oblique or nearly opposite testes; iv) a cirrus-pouch predominantly dorsal to ventral sucker and extending into hindbody about 1/2 the distance between ventral sucker and ovary vs a cirrus-pouch predominantly lateral to ventral sucker and that can extend into hindbody to ovary; v) a median ovary distinctly separated by a long distance from ventral sucker vs a submedian ovary, posterolateral to ventral sucker or abutting it; vi) a seminal receptacle anteromedian to ovary vs either dextral or sinistral, posteromedian or median to ovary in P. dongthapensis and P. seenghali; vii) larger egg size (36–39 × 21–22 μm) vs (28–33 × 10–13 μm in P. dongthapensis and 25–31 × 10–12 μm in P. seenghali); and viii) possessing a short I-shaped excretory vesicle, wholly post-testicular, limited to the posterior half of the post-testicular space vs a long I-shaped excretory vesicle (with or without anterior swelling), wholly post-ovarian, inter-testicular, and never post-testicular, extending either anterior to or beyond anterior testis or median to posterior testis (see Gupta &amp; Agrawal 1968; Kakaji 1969; Kumari et al. 1972; Truong et al. 2021). Accordingly, we reassign the specimens of Wang et al. (1983) as a distinct species, Pseudoparamacroderoides pseudobagri (Wang in Wang, Zhao, Chen &amp; Tao, 1983) n. comb., within Pseudoparamacroderoides; the third species we recognize within this genus.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFFBBFFD674ECFADCC1A4FCB2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFF85FFD774ECFACCC65DFD0E.text	6E5B321FFF85FFD774ECFACCC65DFD0E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Alloglossidium raychaudhurii (Agarwal & Kumar 1983) Karar & Blend & Dronen & Adel 2023	<div><p>Alloglossidium raychaudhurii (Agarwal &amp; Kumar, 1983) n. comb.</p><p>(Fig. 26)</p><p>(Syn. Pseudoparamacroderoides raychaudhurii Agarwal &amp; Kumar, 1983 n. syn.)</p><p>Record. 1. Agarwal &amp; Kumar (1983).</p><p>Agarwal &amp; Kumar (1983) described P. raychaudhurii from three specimens collected from the intestine of the striped dwarf catfish, M. vittatus, within the Varuna River, a tributary of the Ganges River Basin, Varanasi, northern Uttar Pradesh, India. Pseudoparamacroderoides raychaudhurii was differentiated from the original description of P. seenghali by the former possessing a prepharynx, an ovary well-separated from the ventral sucker, a coiled seminal vesicle, and a different vitellarium extent. In addition, they distinguished P. raychaudhurii from P. vittati (= P. seenghali) by the difference in sucker ratio, a shorter length of the esophagus, the greater extent of the excretory vesicle and the shape of the seminal receptacle. Truong et al. (2021) referred to the dubious state and weak differentiation of the aforementioned features for distinguishing P. raychaudhurii from P. seenghali, and this is what led them to consider these descriptions as strikingly similar to each other. We concur with Truong et al. (2021) in their evaluation of these features except for the coiled nature of the seminal vesicle; they considered the illustrations by Agarwal &amp; Kumar (1983, figs. 1A &amp; 1B) of this feature to be “medially constricted”. Truong et al. (2021) regarded species of Pseudoparamacroderoides as possessing a unipartite seminal vesicle, yet the obvious coiled (bipartite) nature of this feature in P. raychaudhurii apparent in illustrations of this species (see Agarwal &amp; Kumar 1983, figs. 1A &amp; 1B; Fig. 26 of current study) represents a strong morphological character for distinctly separating P. raychaudhurii from this genus. Our findings suggest that P. raychaudhurii belongs to an alloglossidiid genus (see Hernández-Mena et al. 2016), Alloglossidium, based on the combination of the following characteristics: body spines dense in anterior extremity, decreasing in number at mid-level of hindbody; oral sucker spherical, with subterminal aperture; ventral sucker well-developed, with lumen, in anterior half of body, approximately equal in size to oral sucker; testes post-equatorial; cirrus-pouch curved, not completely anterior to ventral sucker but partially dorsolateral to it with a bipartite seminal vesicle; genital pore median, immediately anterior to ventral sucker; ovary submedian, entire, between ventral sucker and testes, closer to ventral sucker; uterine seminal receptacle present; vitelline follicles form continuous lateral fields not confluent anteriorly and posteriorly, extend anteriorly beyond level of ventral sucker; excretory vesicle I-shaped; excretory pore terminal; and ceca terminate in post-testicular space, extending to near posterior end of body (Font &amp; Lotz 2008; Hernández-Mena et al. 2016). Accordingly, we move P. raychaudhurii into Alloglossidium as Alloglossidium raychaudhurii (Agarwal &amp; Kumar, 1983) n. comb., and, thus, it now represents the first record of an Indian alloglossidiid species. This species is characterized from other congeners by the more posterior extent of its vitellarium into the post-testicular zone and its record from a different group of freshwater fish, the bagrid catfishes, Bagridae .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFF85FFD774ECFACCC65DFD0E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFF85FFD674ECFB9AC050FB52.text	6E5B321FFF85FFD674ECFB9AC050FB52.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Alloglossidium Simer 1929	<div><p>Genus Alloglossidium Simer, 1929</p><p>(Syns. Alloglossoides Corkum &amp; Turner, 1977; Hirudicolotrema Fish &amp; Vande Vusse, 1976; Parastiotrema Miller, 1940)</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFF85FFD674ECFB9AC050FB52	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFF84FFD574ECFCF8C4FCFB2A.text	6E5B321FFF84FFD574ECFCF8C4FCFB2A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anomalomacroderoiditrema Karar & Blend & Dronen & Adel 2023	<div><p>Genus Anomalomacroderoiditrema n. gen.</p><p>(Fig. 27)</p><p>Type- and only species. Anomalomacroderoiditrema keni (Agarwal &amp; Agarwal, 1984) n. comb.</p><p>(Syn. Pseudoparamacroderoides keni Agarwal &amp; Agarwal, 1984)</p><p>Etymology. The generic designation is based on the Greek word roots “anomalos, macro, deros, trema” meaning “dissimilar/unlike, large/big, long or long-lived &amp; Trematoda ”, respectively, and refers to the dissimilarities of this genus compared to all taxa of the Macroderoididae, wherein one species now composing this genus was originally considered.</p><p>Diagnosis. Body small, elongate oval, spatulate. Tegument spinous. Forebody approximately 1/3 of body length. Suckers subglobular, unspecialized. Oral sucker ventro-subterminal. Ventral sucker, pre-equatorial, at anterior half of the second 1/3 of body, more or less equal to oral sucker in size. Prepharynx prominent. Pharynx well developed, smaller than suckers. Esophagus short, thin-walled, straight. Intestine bifurcates in posterior extremity of forebody, slightly dorsal to ventral sucker, near posterior end of first 1/3 of body. Ceca terminate in post-testicular space, a little anterior to posterior end of body. Testes two, intercecal, smooth, oblique to obliquely tandem, subglobular, separated by large inter-testicular space. Cirrus-pouch clavate, dextral to midbody line, extends around right margin of ventral sucker from its posterior margin up to intestinal bifurcation, does not extend into hindbody. Internal seminal vesicle large, thick-walled, unipartite, occupies approximately 1/3 space in cirrus-pouch. Pars prostatica short, tubular; few glandular cells around pars prostatica or upper aspect of seminal vesicle. Ejaculatory duct long, tubular, distinct from pars prostatica. Genital atrium shallow, inconspicuous. Genital pore submedian, extra-cecal, bifurcal. Ovary lobed, intercecal, pre-equatorial, posterolateral to ventral sucker or abutting it. Canalicular seminal receptacle distinct, post-ovarian, variable in size, elliptical to saccate. Vitellarium follicular, cecal to slightly extracecal, fields extend between pharyngeal level and cecal ends; anterior extent of vitellarium pre-bifurcal or bifurcal; posterior extent slightly anterior to cecal extemities. Uterus inter and post-cecal, fills most of hindbody posterior to ovary, extends to posterior extremity. Metraterm distinct, alongside cirrus-pouch. Eggs numerous, operculated, elliptical, unfilamented, tanned, unembryonated in uterus. Excretory vesicle I-shaped, extends to testicular level. Excretory pore terminal. In intestine of freshwater bagrid catfishes; South Asia (e.g., Indian subcontinent).</p><p>Pseudoparamacroderoides keni was proposed by Agarwal &amp; Agarwal (1984) for four specimens collected from the intestine of the striped dwarf catfish, Mystus vittatus, captured from the Ken River, a tributary of the Ganges River, Panna District, Madhya Pradesh, India. Agarwal &amp; Agarwal (1984) differentiated P. keni from P. seenghali (and its synonym P. vittati) by the vitellarium extending from pharyngeal level to a little anterior to cecal extremities and a short esophagus. It further differed from the original description of P. seenghali by possessing a prepharynx and from P. vittati (= P. seenghali) in the sucker ratio. We agree with Truong et al. (2021) in considering the anterior extent of the vitellarium to the intestinal bifurcation – and we add that the vitellarium can be seen to reach to the pharnyx (see Agarwal &amp; Agarwal 1984, fig. 1B) – as a valid diagnostic feature for differentiating P. keni from other taxa of Pseudoparamacroderoides, and we do not consider taxonomically informative the last-three aforementioned features (i.e., short esophagus, presence of a short prepharynx and sucker ratio) based on our earlier comparisons and overlap with features described and illustrated for P. seenghali (and its synonym P. vittati) (see Gupta &amp; Agrawal 1968, p. 71; Kakaji 1969, p. 73; Kumar et al. 1972, figs. 1 &amp; 2).</p><p>Furthermore, Agarwal &amp; Agarwal (1984) provided three diagnostic features that we feel are sufficient to differentiate P. keni from all taxa of Pseudoparamacroderoides as well as this species from all taxa of the Macroderoididae . These features are: i) a lobed ovary appearing partially tri-lobed (Agarwal &amp; Agarwal, 1984, figs. 1A &amp; 1C) to irregularly shaped (Agarwal &amp; Agarwal, 1984, fig. 1B); ii) a ventral sucker that overlaps the posterior portion of the intestinal bifurcation and left cecum at its origin (Agarwal &amp; Agarwal, 1984, figs. 1A &amp; 1B); and iii) a submedian, extracecal genital pore, sinistral to the intestinal bifurcation.</p><p>One of the most controversial and ambiguous observations we noted in our research was the orientation of the type illustrations of P. keni . Specifically, where Agarwal &amp; Agarwal (1984) for their figs. 1A–1C stated that they were drawn in ventral view. In contrast, our findings reveal these illustrations possess aspects of both ventral and dorsal views. Figures (1A–C) show the ovary over the ventral sucker which, in turn, represents a dorsal view, whereas the original illustrations were stated as drawn in a ventral view (see also our Fig. 27). The ventral sucker and genital pore were illustrated over the cecum, which reflects a ventral aspect. In the main text, Agarwal &amp; Agarwal (1984) stated that the genital pore was positioned “extracaecal on left side of intestinal bifurcation”, whilst based on the aforementioned ventral view of their illustrations, the genital pore is apparently on the right side of the intestinal bifurcation. To avoid confusion, we suggest changing the orientation of the illustrations of Agarwal &amp; Agarwal (1984) from a ventral view to a dorsal view so as to be consistent with the original text (i.e., “genital pore on the left side of intestinal bifurcation”) and to remove the ambiguity regarding the position of the ovary over the ventral sucker.</p><p>Based on what we think in P. keni are distinct generic-level morphological features (i.e., the combination among the aforementioned three characteristics along with the distinctive extent of the vitellarium), we believe P. keni neither belongs within Pseudoparamacroderoides, related taxa (e.g., Macroderoides and Paramacroderoides) nor any other macroderoidid genus and is in need of its own genus. Therefore, we propose Anomalomacroderoiditrema n. gen. to accommodate specimens of P. keni as its type-species, Anomalomacroderoiditrema keni (Agarwal &amp; Agarwal, 1984) n. comb.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFF84FFD574ECFCF8C4FCFB2A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFF86FFD374ECFB14C4C7FECA.text	6E5B321FFF86FFD374ECFB14C4C7FECA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudoparamacroderoides Gupta & Agrawal 1968	<div><p>Problematic status of Pseudoparamacroderoides Gupta &amp; Agrawal, 1968 (sensu stricto) &amp; Anomalomacroderoiditrema n. gen.</p><p>The taxonomic position of Pseudoparamacroderoides has fluctuated between the Macroderoididae and the Allocreadiidae, occasionally the Plagiorchiidae . Gupta &amp; Agrawal (1968) assigned Pseudoparamacroderoides to the Walliniinae within the Allocreadiidae . Yamaguti (1971) reduced the rank of Pseudoparamacroderoides to the subgenus level within Paramacroderoides as a member of the Macroderoididae . Kumari et al. (1972) reassigned Pseudoparamacroderoides as a junior subjective synonym of Astiotrema in the Astiotrematinae Baer, 1924 from the Plagiorchiidae . Agarwal &amp; Kumar (1983) retained Pseudoparamacroderoides as a subgenus of Paramacroderoides within the Macroderoididae, again. Agarwal &amp; Agarwal (1984) retrieved the genus rank of Pseudoparamacroderoides as a distinct macroderoidid genus. Font &amp; Lotz (2008) synonymized Pseudoparamacroderoides with Paramacroderoides whereas Tkach et al. (2010) revealed the substantial differences of members of Pseudoparamacroderoides and that of Paramacroderoides . As a result, they proposed synonymizing Pseudoparamacroderoides with Macroderoides since it is the morphologically most similar genus. Truong et al. (2021) resurrected and emended Pseudoparamacroderoides as a distinct genus within the Macroderoididae . As clarified earlier, the change in the nature of the seminal vesicle (either bipartite or unipartite) between highly morphologically close taxa represents contradictory attributes that could separate these taxa within two different families or even superfamilies. As Pseudoparamacroderoides (sensu stricto) and Anomalomacroderoiditrema possess a saccate, unipartite seminal vesicle, compared to the bipartite nature of this feature in other genera of the Macroderoididae (see Font &amp; Lotz 2008), we believe, accordingly, that Pseudoparamacroderoides (sensu stricto) and Anomalomacroderoiditrema do not belong within the Macroderoididae . The Allocreadiidae may represent a potential family for both genera based on a high similarity in most diagnostic features (see Caira &amp; Bogea 2005) except allocreadiids are aspinose trematodes whereas both genera in question have a distinctly spinose body. Therefore, we believe Pseudoparamacroderoides (sensu stricto) and Anomalomacroderoiditrema do not appear to be allocreadiids either.</p><p>Focusing on the characteristics of Pseudoparamacroderoides (sensu stricto) and Anomalomacroderoiditrema, we find strong similarities with taxa of Astiotrema (sensu stricto) and its closely related group of genera (i.e., those that have a unipartite, saccate seminal vesicle: Homeoastiotrema, Ichthyastiotrema, Kalipharynx, Longigula and Plesioastiotrema); however, there are some differential features. Pseudoparamacroderoides (sensu stricto) is the most similar to Astiotrema (sensu stricto) except for the former having an I-shaped excretory vesicle and its host group restricted to bagrid catfishes ( Mystus, Sperata and Tachysurus Lacépède) (see Truong et al. 2021; comments above) vs having a Y-shaped excretory vesicle and a wide variety of host groups, without any record of freshwater bagrid catfishes, in Astiotrema (sensu stricto) (see Karar et al. 2021).</p><p>With the absence of information regarding the excretory vesicle in Homeoastiotrema, Ichthyastiotrema and Kalipharynx, the distinction between Pseudoparamacroderoides (sensu stricto) and these three genera is limited. Ichthyastiotrema lacks a canalicular seminal receptacle and is restricted to cyprinid freshwater fish vs Pseudoparamacroderoides (sensu stricto) which possesses a canalicular seminal receptacle and is reported from freshwater bagrid catfishes. Homeoastiotrema is characterized from Pseudoparamacroderoides (sensu stricto) by five differential features: a cirrus-pouch in Homeoastiotrema that does not extend into the hindbody vs one extending well into the hindbody to near ovarian level in Pseudoparamacroderoides (sensu stricto); the pars prostatica is fairly long, sigmoid, vesicular proximally and narrower distally vs one that is short and straight with the same width along its length; the presence of numerous and distinct glandular cells filling a large space around the pars prostatica and anterior aspect of the seminal vesicle vs few glandular cells occupying a smaller space around the pars prostatica; a ventral sucker of slightly larger size than the oral one vs suckers roughly equal in size; and Homeoastiotrema parasitizes a distinct group of freshwater cichlids vs Pseudoparamacroderoides (sensu stricto) that parasitizes freshwater bagrid catfishes. Kalipharynx easily can be characterized from Pseudoparamacroderoides (sensu stricto) by possessing the following combination of features (see Boeger &amp; Thatcher 1983; Pojmańska et al. 2008): the former having a distinctly large ventral sucker, about three times the size of the oral one vs the latter possessing nearly equally-sized suckers; ceca that overlap the ventral sucker dorsally vs ceca that do not overlap it; a papillate pharynx, equal in size with the oral sucker vs a non-papillate pharynx, smaller than both suckers; the posterior extent of the cirrus-pouch does not surpass ventral sucker level vs cirrus-pouch extends well into hindbody; a submedian, extracecal genital pore vs a median, intercecal one; an equatorial ovary equal in size to testes vs a pre-equatorial ovary, smaller than testes; and Kalipharynx parasitizes a distinct group of freshwater lepidosirenid lungfish vs records of Pseudoparamacroderoides (sensu stricto) from freshwater bagrid catfishes.</p><p>Regarding Longigula, it possesses papillae-like lateral lobes or ventrolateral lappets on both sides of the oral sucker, a post-equatorial ovary, a distinctly large distance separating the ovary from the ventral sucker, a Y-shaped excretory vesicle and it infects the intestine of geoemydid freshwater turtles (see Qiu et al. 1983; Tkach 2008). Pseudoparamacroderoides (sensu stricto) lacks any lateral lobes/lappets around the oral sucker, possesses a pre-equatorial ovary with a small distance separating the ovary from the ventral sucker, an I-shaped excretory vesicle, and is reported from freshwater bagrid catfishes. Plesioastiotrema is well-differentiated by having a ventral sucker directly ventral to the intestinal bifurcation, an esophageal genital pore, a Y-shaped excretory vesicle and it is found within a distinct reptilian group, colubrid water snakes, as well as from a trionychid freshwater turtle. In contrast, Pseudoparamacroderoides (sensu stricto) has a ventral sucker posterior to the intestinal bifurcation, a post-bifurcal genital pore, an I-shaped excretory vesicle and it is restricted to freshwater bagrid catfishes.</p><p>Concerning Anomalomacroderoiditrema, it is differentiated from Astiotrema (sensu stricto), Homeoastiotrema, Ichthyastiotrema, Kalipharynx, Longigula and Plesioastiotrema by the same features used earlier for differentiating Pseudoparamacroderoides (sensu stricto) from these aforementioned genera in addition to the four characteristics previously mentioned regarding Anomalomacroderoiditrema: a lobed ovary; a ventral sucker that overlaps the posterior portion of the intestinal bifurcation and left cecum at its origin; a submedian, extracecal genital pore, sinistral to the intestinal bifurcation; and the distinctive extent of the vitellarium – from pharyngeal level to a little anterior to the cecal extremities.</p><p>In conclusion, based on having a combination of features including the unipartite saccate internal seminal vesicle, I-shaped excretory vesicle, conspicuous spinose body, and distinct host group, our findings demonstrate Anomalomacroderoiditrema and Pseudoparamacroderoides (sensu stricto) are plagiorchioid genera morphologically closer to taxa of Astiotrema (sensu stricto) and its closely related group of genera ( Homeoastiotrema, Ichthyastiotrema, Kalipharynx, Longigula and Plesioastiotrema). By contrast, our investigations exclude these two genera from the Allocreadiidae, the Macroderoididae, or any known family of the Plagiorchioidea . In other words, the family designation of these two genera remains uncertain, thus, we propose both to belong within the expanded concept of the Plagiorchioidea .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFF86FFD374ECFB14C4C7FECA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFF80FFD174ECFD8CC49AF856.text	6E5B321FFF80FFD174ECFD8CC49AF856.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gauhatiana Gupta 1953	<div><p>Gauhatiana Gupta, 1953</p><p>(Figs. 28 &amp; 29)</p><p>(Syns. Gauhatinae Dayal &amp; Gupta, 1953 [nomen nudum]; Gauhatiana Dayal &amp; Gupta, 1954 [lapsus]; Gauhatiana Gupta, 1955 [lapsus])</p><p>Gauhatiana exhibits a relationship to members of the Opisthorchiidae Looss, 1899 based on its morphological structure and extent of the excretory vesicle (Y-shaped). However, Gauhatiana possesses a muscular cirrus pouch and the structure and position of its genital organs and coiled uterus originally placed Gauhatiana within the Fellodistomatidae Odhner, 1911 (= Fellodistomidae Nicoll, 1909) as a member of the Haplocladinae Odhner, 1911 (= Fellodistominae Nicoll, 1909) (see Gupta 1953). Skrjabin &amp; Koval (1957) erected the Proctoecinae Skrjabin &amp; Koval, 1957 within the Fellodistomatidae and reassigned Gauhatiana as one of its members. Yamaguti (1958) transferred Gauhatiana to the Walliniinae Yamaguti, 1958 within the Allocreadiidae . In their revision of Astiotrema, Yeh &amp; Fotedar (1958) sunk Gauhatiana; they synonymized Gauhatiana with Astiotrema within the Plagiorchiidae and its type species, Gauhatiana batrachii Gupta, 1953, with A. reniferum . Agrawal (1966a) did not agree with Yeh &amp; Fotedar (1958) in holding Gauhatiana to be synonymous with Astiotrema based on the difference in the appearance of the vitellarium; Gauhatiana has follicles distributed into two distinct aggregations (prebifurcal group and post-acetabular group) whilst vitellarium in Astiotrema forms one continuous, uninterrupted field.</p><p>Gauhatiana has undergone many taxonomic displacements being considered either in the Allocreadiidae or in the Macroderoididae McMullen, 1937 (see Mehra 1962; Skrjabin &amp; Koval 1966, 1974; Gupta &amp; Miglani 1974, 1976; Wang 1981; Prudhoe &amp; Bray 1982; Wang et al. 1983) as a result of the confusion observed among the morphological characters of both families, particularly the lack of consensus regarding the diagnosis of the Macroderoididae which, in turn, has caused a noticeable change in either recognizing or not the validity of this family and/or what genera should be assigned to it (see Yamaguti 1958, 1971; Prudhoe &amp; Bray 1982; Gibson 1996; de León 2001; Choudhury et al. 2002; Moravec &amp; Salgado-Maldonado 2002; de León et al. 2007; Font &amp; Lotz 2008; Pojmańska et al. 2008).</p><p>Font &amp; Lotz (2008) pointed to a lack of distinctive features for differentiating between the Plagiorchiidae and the Macroderoididae with the exception of the shape of the excretory vesicle originally described by McMullen (1937); I-shaped in the Macroderoididae and Y-shaped in the Plagiorchiidae . However, Font &amp; Lotz (2008) retained Gauhatiana tentatively within the Macroderoididae, in spite of its Y-shaped excretory vesicle, until a distinct consensus could be reached for distinguishing both families. Since Gauhatiana has a unipartite internal seminal vesicle and neither a bipartite nor a convoluted undivided tubular one, characteristic in members of both the Plagiorchiidae and the Macroderoididae, we do not consider Gauhatiana to be a plagiorchiid or a macroderoidid. Gauhatiana also has a distinct cirrus pouch unlike members of the Opisthorchiidae, which have a tubular, coiled seminal vesicle situated free in the parenchyma of the forebody (i.e., no cirrus-pouch) (see Scholz 2008), thus Gauhatiana does not belong among the opisthorchiids either.</p><p>Focusing on representatives of Gauhatiana, only four species have been reported: (i) the type-species, G. batrachii (syns. Gauhatinae batrachii Dayal &amp; Gupta, 1953 [nomen nudum]; Gauhatiana batrachii Dayal &amp; Gupta, 1954 [lapsus]; Orientocreadium batrachii [Dayal &amp; Gupta, 1954] Arthur &amp; Shariff, 2015 [lapsus]; Gauhatiana batrachii Gupta, 1955 [lapsus]), from the intestine of Clarias batrachus from the River Brahamputra at Guwahati, India; (ii) Gauhatiana lebedevi Gupta &amp; Miglani, 1976 from the intestine of a marine teleost at Port Blair, India; (iii) G. fusiformis from the intestine of the yellowfin, Xenocypris macrolepis Bleeker (syn. Xenocypris argentea Günther) ( Cypriniformes: Xenocyprididae), from Fujian Province, China; (iv) and Gauhatiana pseudobagri Wang in Wang, Zhao, Chen &amp; Tao, 1983 from the intestine of the yellow catfish, Tachysurus fulvidraco (Richardson) (syn. Pseudobagrus fulvidraco [Richardson]) ( Siluriformes: Bagridae), from Hongze Lake, China.</p><p>Karar et al. (2021) transferred the Chinese forms, G. fusiformis and G. pseudobagri, into Astiotrema as synonyms of Astiotrema fotedari Dhar, 1977 and A. reniferum, respectively, based on their lack of some characteristics of Gauhatiana, especially vitelline fields that are not distributed in two separate clusters on each side of the body. Based on the present study, G. fusiformis and G. pseudobagri have been reassigned – this time into I. fotedari and P. pseudobagri (see above).</p><p>Thus, Gauhatiana remains represented only by the two Indian forms, G. batrachii and G. lebedevi; both species similar to each other in morphology except G. lebedevi can be differentiated form G. batrachii by the latter having an oral sucker larger than the ventral one, the posterior extent of the cirrus-pouch exceeds the ventral sucker level, an equatorial to just post-equatorial ovary lying midway between the anterior testis and ventral sucker rather than closer to the anterior testis, a relatively short pars prostatica and a shorter space separating the ventral sucker from the intestinal bifurcation (see Gupta &amp; Miglani 1976, figs. 1 &amp; 2 vs Gupta 1953, figs.7 &amp; 8).</p><p>Our investigations on digeneans infecting airbreathing catfishes, genus Clarias Scopoli, reveals that Gauhatiana is morphologically close to three plagiorchioid fluke genera: Astiotrema (sensu stricto) (Khalil 1959, 1969), Glossidium (e.g., Khalil 1972; Fischthal 1973; Mashego 1977; Moravec 1977; Mashego &amp; Saayman 1989; van Rensburg et al. 2003) and Alloglossidium (Abdel-Maksoud 1998) . Focusing on the characteristics of Gauhatiana, we found it shares with species of Astiotrema (sensu stricto) a combination of body plan morphology (particularly distome body plan), a unipartite vesicular seminal vesicle, host family they infect ( Clariidae) and a common locality (India) when compared to Glossidium and Alloglossidium .</p><p>Gauhatiana is distinguishable from Glossidium, Alloglossidium and Astiotrema (sensu stricto) in addition to Alloastiotrema, Homeoastiotrema, Ichthyastiotrema, Longigula, Kalipharynx and Plesioastiotrema by possessing (i) vitellarium in two separated clusters in lateral fields (prebifurcal field and post-acetabular field) and an equatorial to just post-equatorial ovary; (ii) a large number of unicellular prostatic gland cells that occupy the entire space within the cirrus-pouch around the seminal vesicle, pars prostatica and ejaculatory duct; and (iii) the ejaculatory duct joins the terminal part of the uterus to form a well-developed globular genital atrium (i.e., “genital sinus”) (see Gupta 1953, fig. 7; Gupta &amp; Miglani 1976, figs. 1 &amp; 2).</p><p>The other genera mentioned have (i) vitellarium in one continuous uninterrupted field and a pre-equatorial ovary, (ii) few numbers of prostatic gland cells that occupy a small space around the pars prostatica and anterior border of the seminal vesicle as well as (iii) a weakly-developed genital atrium. Accordingly, we continue to adopt Gauhatiana as a distinct genus from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) and the derived, closely related genera Homeoastiotrema, Ichthyastiotrema and Plesioastiotrema .</p><p>Although workers have observed the morphological convergence of Gauhatiana within the Plagiorchioidea, our findings suggest that Gauhatiana represents a monorchioid taxon rather than a plagiorchioid one based on the combination of the following characteristics: parasite in intestine of a teleost; both suckers and pharynx present; mouth opens through an oral sucker; male and female ducts open separately into a well-developed genital atrium; prepharynx absent; testes two, post-ovarian; excretory vesicle Y-shaped with an excretory pore at the posterior extremity; cirrus-pouch present; vitellarium follicular, relatively small, with comparatively few follicles; spinose, unipartite body without a specialized holdfast organ; hermaphroditic sac absent; genital pore in forebody, anterior to ventral sucker; and an intestine with two ceca (Bray 2008 a, 2008c). Only the Lissorchiidae Magath, 1917 and the Monorchiidae are morphologically close monorchioids to Gauhatiana . The Lissorchiidae is restricted to monorchioid members that (i) parasitize freshwater fishes, (ii) possess a lateral or sublateral genital pore, (iii) have a tubular, I-shaped excretory vesicle, (iv) possess a genital atrium that is either weakly-developed or absent and (v) have a simple metraterm without a terminal organ (Bray 2008d). Members of the Monorchiidae include monorchioids that (i) parasitize marine and occasionally freshwater teleosts, (ii) have a median genital pore in the forebody, (iii) possess an excretory vesicle variable in shape (i.e., saccular, tubular, V- and Y-shaped), (iv) possess a distinct genital atrium and (v) have a terminal organ either absent or present as a simple or bipartite structure (Madhavi 2008). Accordingly, we reassign Gauhatiana within the Monorchiidae .</p><p>Concerning the representative subfamilies of the Monorchiidae, characteristics of Gauhatiana exhibit a combination of features confined between that of the Monorchiinae Odhner, 1911 and the Opisthomonorcheidinae Yamaguti, 1971 (see Madhavi 2008). Gauhatiana is distinguished from members of both subfamilies by the absence of a terminal organ and vitellarium distributed in two distinct clusters. Thus, we adopt Gauhatiana as belonging to the Monorchiidae, yet separate from all monorchiid subfamilies until future studies on Gauhatiana can help indicate its true taxonomic position.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFF80FFD174ECFD8CC49AF856	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
6E5B321FFF8DFFDE74ECFE89C050F9FD.text	6E5B321FFF8DFFDE74ECFE89C050F9FD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Alloglyptus Byrd 1950	<div><p>Genus Alloglyptus Byrd, 1950</p><p>(Fig. 30)</p><p>Byrd (1950) erected Alloglyptus within the Plagiorchiidae (syn. Plagiorchiinae Pratt, 1902) for its type species, Alloglyptus crenshawi Byrd, 1950, collected from the small intestine of the green or North American green anole, Anolis carolinensis Voigt ( Squamata: Dactyloidae), in Baker County, Georgia, USA (Byrd 1950). Based on possessing a plump to elongate body without sleeve-like lateral expansions posterior to the ventral sucker, an I-shaped excretory vesicle, and a hermaphroditic duct as well as the absence of an external seminal vesicle, Yamaguti (1958) differentiated and separated Alloglyptus into its own subfamily, Alloglyptinae Yamaguti, 1958, within the Plagiorchiidae . Tkach (2008) synonymized the Alloglyptinae with the Plagiorchiidae and retained Alloglyptus in the Plagiorchiidae .</p><p>We find that Alloglyptus exhibits a high morphological similarity to Astiotrema (sensu stricto) and its closely related group of genera ( Homeoastiotrema, Ichthyastiotrema, Longigula, Kalipharynx and Plesioastiotrema) particularly in possessing a unipartite, saccate seminal vesicle. Otherwise, Alloglyptus can be differentiated from the earlier genera by a tegument completely devoid of spines, a weakly muscular cirrus pouch containing a slightly indented seminal vesicle, the distal portion of the male and female ducts fuse together to form a short hermaphroditic duct before opening to the outside through the genital pore, and members of Alloglyptus possess an I-shaped excretory vesicle terminating near the level of the testes (Byrd 1950, figs. 1, 2).</p><p>In a comparison with other plagiorchiid genera, Alloglyptus can be distinguished by its naked tegument, Ishaped excretory vesicle and hermaphroditic duct which, in turn, reflect a convergence of Alloglyptus with both the Opisthorchioidea (see Bray 2008b) and the Apocreadioidea Skrjabin, 1942 (i.e., Megaperidae Manter, 1934 or Apocreadiidae Skrjabin, 1942 [Note: family name currently under consideration by the ICZN (see Blend et al. 2019)]) (see Bray 2005; Cribb 2005; Blend et al. 2017). However, the Apocreadioidea and the Opisthorchioidea lack a cirrus pouch, which is observed in Alloglyptus . Moreover, we find Alloglyptus exhibits a great resemblance with the Gorgoderoidea (syn. Allocreadioidea Looss, 1902), specifically members of the Allocreadiidae, in all morphological features and host group(s) except the former possesses a hermaphroditic duct (see Caira &amp; Bogea 2005; Cribb 2005).</p><p>With a very small cirrus-pouch relative to body size (see Byrd 1950, fig. 1) as well as the absence of a detailed morphological illustration of the genital system, specifically the distal parts of the male and female ducts, it is possible that Byrd (1950) may have erred in his acknowledgement and description of the short hermaphroditic duct. It may be that the distal parts of the male and female ducts near the genital pore become closer and overlap each other, thus superficially appearing to fuse together into a common duct.</p><p>From the foregoing, we conclude that if it is true that there is a short hermaphroditic duct in Alloglyptus, we feel it is not of significant importance to create a severe conflict regarding its affiliation with any of the aforementioned families. Consequently, based on the current understanding of the morphology of Alloglyptus and adopted digenean keys, we conclude that the Allocreadiidae represents the most appropriate taxonomic position for Alloglyptus .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E5B321FFF8DFFDE74ECFE89C050F9FD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Karar, Yasser F. M.;Blend, Charles K.;Dronen, Norman O.;Adel, Asmaa	Karar, Yasser F. M., Blend, Charles K., Dronen, Norman O., Adel, Asmaa (2023): Towards resolving the problematic status of the digenean genus Astiotrema Looss 1900: Taxa excluded from Astiotrema (sensu stricto) with special reference to plagiorchioid genera closely related to the restricted concept of Astiotrema. Zootaxa 5284 (3): 445-495, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5284.3.2
