Figure 1:
Micrographs of Radophilis similis collected from Tanzania. Representative anatomy shown for males (A-F) and females (G-L): (A, G) Entire body structure; (B, H) pharyngeal region; (C, I) posterior region; (D, J) anterior region (stylet, stylet knobs, and median bulb shown by red, yellow, and purple arrows, respectively); (E, K) posterior region (vulva and spicule shown by white arrows); and (F, L) tail region. Scale bars: 50 µm (A-G) and 25 µm (B-F, H-L).
Table 1.
Morphometrics (µm) of adult R. similis female and male populations collected from the agro-ecological zones sampled. Data are means ± SD and standard range (Roy et al., 2018; Elbadri et al., 1999) in parentheses.
| Female populations | Male populations | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parametera | Lake zone | Northern zone | Southern Highlands zone | Zanzibar islands | Lake zone | Northern zone | Southern Highlands zone | Zanzibar islands |
| L | 520.5 ± 11.4 | 564.1 ± 11.4 | 554.3 ± 11.4 | 581.0 ± 11.4 | 486.3 ± 12.2 | 566.1 ± 12.2 | 542.8 ± 12.2 | 570.5 ± 12.2 |
| (500 – 600) | (500–600) | (500 – 600) | (500 – 600) | (440 – 685) | (440–685) | (440 – 685) | (440 – 685) | |
| a | 28.5 ± 5.1 | 28.5 ± 5.1 | 27.3 ± 3.9 | 30.3 ± 2.7 | 29.5 ± 3.8 | 31.8 ± 5.2 | 33.1 ± 3.6 | 33.1 ± 3.6 |
| (20 – 34.0) | (20 – 34.0) | (20 – 34.0) | (20 – 34.0) | (24.5 – 42.5) | (24.5 – 42.5) | (24.5 – 42.5) | (24.5 – 42.5) | |
| b | 6.3 ± 1.1 | 4.93 ± 0.7 | 5.79 ± 0.7 | 5.6 ± 0.8 | 5.2 ± 0.3 | 5.3 ± 0.5 | 5.4 ± 0.3 | 5.1 ± 0.2 |
| (4.2 – 6.6) | (4.2 – 6.6) | (4.2 – 6.6) | (4.2 – 6.6) | (4.1 – 5.6) | (4.1 – 5.6) | (4.1 – 5.6) | (4.1 – 5.6) | |
| b' | 5.1 ± 0.5 | 4.2 ± 0.6 | 4.9 ± 0.5 | 4.8 ± 0.6 | 5.4 ± 0.5 | 5.4 ± 0.7 | 5.5 ± 0.8 | 5.9 ± 0.7 |
| (3.3 – 5.7) | (3.3 – 5.7) | (3.3 – 5.7) | (3.3 – 5.7) | (3.7 – 6.8) | (3.7 – 6.8) | (3.7 – 6.8) | (3.7 – 6.8) | |
| c | 8.2 ± 1.0 | 7.9 ± 0.5 | 7.5 ± 0.5 | 8.4 ± 1.2 | 6.8 ± 0.3 | 6.8 ± 0.6 | 7.3 ± 0.1 | 6.9 ± 0.6 |
| (6.8 – 12.2) | (6.8 – 12.2) | (6.8 – 12.2) | (6.8 – 12.2) | (6.3 – 10.3) | (6.3 – 10.3) | (6.3 – 10.3) | (6.3 – 10.3) | |
| c' | 4.4 ± 0.7 | 4.2 ± 1.0 | 5.12 ± 0.8 | 4.8 ± 0.5 | 5.8 ± 0.7 | 5.7 ± 1.0 | 5.8 ± 1.1 | 6.4 ± 0.7 |
| (2.8 – 6.2) | (2.8 – 6.2) | (2.8 – 6.2) | (2.8 – 6.2) | (3.7 – 6.9) | (3.7 – 6.9) | (3.7 – 6.9) | (3.7 – 6.9) | |
| Sl | 10.8 ± 1.1 | 10.6 ± 1.1 | 10.7 ± 1.1 | 10.4 ± 1.1 | 10.3 ± 2.2 | 10.0 ± 2.0 | 9.8 ± 2.2 | 8.7 ± 2.2 |
| (14 – 18) | (14 – 18) | (14 – 18) | (14 – 18) | (8 – 13) | (8 – 13) | (8 – 13) | (8 – 13) | |
| V | 51 ± 0.9 | 55.5 ± 0.9 | 55.4 ± 0.8 | 58.2 ± 0.7 | 131.7 ± 2.1 | 144.0 ± 2.1 | 131.6 ± 2.2 | 131.7 ± 2.1 |
| (50.7 – 59) | (50.7 – 59) | (50.7 – 59) | (50.7 – 59) | (128 – 250) | (128 – 250) | (128 – 250) | (128 – 250) | |
| W | 16.0 ± 3.0 | 18.0 ± 3.0 | 17.6 ± 3.0 | 18.8 ± 3.0 | 14.5 ± 2.0 | 16.1 ± 2.1 | 14.7 ± 2.1 | 14. 7 ± 2.3 |
| (13 – 21) | (13 – 21) | (13 – 21) | (13 – 21) | (14 – 18) | (14 – 18) | (14 – 18) | (14 – 18) | |
| t | 64.7 ± 2.0 | 73.3 ± 2.3 | 75.2 ± 2.0 | 72.3 ± 2.6 | 69.2 ± 2.0 | 81.8 ± 1.9 | 72.0 ± 2.1 | 80.5 ± 2.0 |
| (52 – 100) | (52 – 100) | (52 – 100) | (52 – 100) | (60 – 90) | (60 – 90) | (60 – 90) | (60 – 90) | |
| OL | 72.5 ± 2.6 | 91.8 ± 2.6 | 82.7 ± 3.1 | 84.8 ± 3.6 | 63.8 ± 2.1 | 80.1 ± 2.2 | 76.4 ± 2.2 | 72.5 ± 2.0 |
| (69 – 99) | (69 – 99) | (69 – 99) | (69 – 99) | (62 – 123) | (62 – 123) | (62 – 123) | (62 – 123) | |
| DGO | 3.0 ± 0.4 | 3.5 ± 0.5 | 3.2 ± 0.5 | 2.6 ± 0.5 | 1.8 ± 0.1 | 2.4 ± 0.5 | 2.6 ± 0.3 | 1.5 ± 0.3 |
| (2.0 – 5.5) | (2.0 – 5.5) | (2.0 – 5.5) | (2.0 – 5.5) | (1.5–3.0) | (1.5 – 3.0) | (1.5 – 3.0) | (1.5 – 3.0) | |
Figure 2:
Bayesian consensus trees inferred for Radophilis similis. (A) Tree inferred from SSU & ITS1 rRNA. (B) Tree inferred from ITS1 and ITS2 rRNA. (C) Tree inferred from LSU rRNA. Posterior probability values >50% are shown. Sequences original to this study are labeled green, red, and blue for trees in (A), (B), and (C) respectively; sequences labeled pink represent outgroup species.