Branchiobdellidae in Arkansas

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 7 Article 14 1955 Branchiobdellidae in Arkansas David Causey University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Fresh Water Studies Commons Recommended Citation Causey, David (1955) "Branchiobdellidae in Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 7 , Article 14. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol7/iss1/14 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact , . ** Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 7 [1955], Art. 14 BRANCHIOBDELUDAE IN ARKANSAS DAVID CAUSEY 1 of Arkansas University The small oligochaetes discussed here occur on the gills or on the ventral surface of the crawfish. They are noticeable particularly on the ventral side of the abdomen. When the crawfish are preserved, the worms usually drop of f and fall into the detritus at the bottom of the container. Apparently, there is no agreement on the relationship that exists between the worms and the crawfish. Stephenson (1930) says: "These are parasites of the external surface and not parasitic when young, the intestinal tract gills of freshwater crayfishes. showing debris and small animals; but in the adult " the jaws are used to break the skin of the host in order to suck the blood. This report is similar to one by Hall (1915), who also reported that he had found "several pieces of striated voluntary muscle fiber in the intestine of the adult worms." Moore (1895) reported seeing blood from the crawfish in the worm intestine. Goodnight (1940), a more recent American student of the group, expresses the opinion that they are and in general non-parasitic. at most only faculative parasites All accounts seem to be based on an observation of the contents of the worm digestive tract in which the indestructible diatom shells attract attention first Other things are visible--such as algal detritus, nematode worms, and stages of sporozoan life cycles. The constant association with the crawfish, the chitinous jaws with strength enough to break the skin, the well developed suckers for holdfast organs--all these provide circumstantial evidence that the small worms are parasitic. A critical study of the relationship between the worms and the hosts would be interesting. There seems to be no host specificity beyond that of the West Coast Astacus, which are different species from those of the eastern crawfish, which are Cambarinae (Pennak, 1953). Apparently, young crawfish tend to have more worms than the older, butpresent collections are not adequate to prove this. Goodnight's (1940) monograph is recent and complete, while Pennak's (1953 Freshwater Invertebrates) offers the literature published since 1940 and has a key derived from Goodnight. Nine genera and 26 species of North America are described. The records described in this paper are mainly from Northwest Arkansas. Since there is no evidence of host specificity known, and since the specimens mainly are derived from the detritus in the bottoms of jars containing a variety of crawfish species, no attempt has been made to associate the worms with par- .. . ticular crawfish. This report is based on 39 collections of crawfish in Arkansas. DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES Branchiobde I la Arkansas: amer icana Clarksville Johnson Farmington Ouachita River Fayetteville Springdale This appears to be a widespread species. The type was described from Texas, and has been reported from North Carolina and New York. The collections are all from Northwest Arkansas, with the exception of a vague Ouachita River record, *hich represents an area near Camden, Arkansas. Canbar incola chirocephala Arkansas: Johnson Mena Missouri: Alma Devils Den Farmington Roaring River The author wishes to thank Dr. Nelle B Causey, Dr. Carl E. Hoffman, and Dr. Hugh Iltis for specimens. A number of students also provided material which was helpful in the research reported here. They were Robert Bronaugh, P. M. Daniels, A. M. Hulsey, R. G. Leonard, Mrs. Ola Murry, R. R. Ratton, J. P. Redman, R. L. Slaughter, and Miss Ruth Steuart. NOTE: Research Paper No. 1110, Journal Series, University of Arkansas 43 Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1955 I 43 Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 7 [1955], Art. 14 ¦ ARKANSAS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 44 This is also a widespread species. It was reported from Missouri originally, but since then it has been found in Illinois, New York, Kentucky, Virginia, Indiana, North Dakota, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee, and in Ontario, Canada. Cambar incola elevata Arkansas: Fayetteville Johnson This species has been reported from Illinois, Wisconsin, list to which this paper adds Arkansas. and Missouri, a Cambar incola macr odontn Arkansas: Banks Bentonville Boxley Durham Elkins Farmington Bradley County Johnson Missouri: Oklahoma: McAlester Roaring River This species is widespread in Arkansas. The lateral teeth of the upper jaw tend in the Arkansas specimens to be larger than reported in the original description. This species has been reported previously from Mena, Arkansas, by Goodnight (1940). The species was originally described from Colorado. Other states reporting it include Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Mississippi, Illinois, Virginia, Missouri, Michigan, South Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska. This Oklahoma record appears to be the first report from that state. Cambar incola vitrea Arkansas: Johnson This species has a wide distribution. It was described originally from Michigan, and then reported from Wisconsin, Colorado, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Florida, Oklahoma, Alabama, New York, Kentucky, North Dakota, Texas, Mississippi, Wyoming, Georgia, and also from Ontario, Canada. There is no explanation for this single record, other than inadequate coverage of Arkansas. Many of the records of distribution of these various species of worms are based upon single collection sites. Pterodri lus mexicanus Arkansas: Durham Johnson Goshen Stone County This is an improbable and unexpected record. The species was originally described from Mirador, Vera Cruz, Mexico, by Ellis (1919). A single, poorly preserved specimen was available. It is characterized, within the genus, by segment VIIIbearing a simple four-horned appendage. No other segments have appendages. The Arkansas specimens agree with this description. Xironodrilus (...truncated)