Skip to main content
The Journal of Basic and Applied Zoology

Table 2 Comparative morphometrics of adult female isolate HCN with original Hemicriconemoides rosae population and other species of the Hemicriconemoides genus

From: Molecular and phenotypic characterization of Hemicriconemoides rosae (Rathour et al., 2003) from mustard rhizosphere in India

Characters

Authors

L

a

b

V

PL

Stylet

R

Rst

Roes

Rv

Ran

Sty%L

Annulus W

H. rosae

Present isolate HCN, Mustard

443

(376–472)

15.3

(13.6–16.9)

5.1

(4.6–5.6)

92

(90–95)

87

(72–94)

54

(50–58)

108

(102–115)

13.9

(12–20)

21

(20–22)

9.6 (8–13)

6.9 (6–8)

12.3 (10.7–14.8)

4.4 (3.6–5.2)

H. communis

Edward and Misra (1964)

480

(340–500)

16

(12–25)

4.5

(4–5)

93

(89–96)

109*

54*

(51–58)

115

(110–130)

16*

26*

8*

7*

10.8*

3.5*

H. wessoni

Chitwood and Birchfield (1957)

429.2 (382.5–499.8)

12.7

(10.7–15)

4.6

(4.0–5.5)

92

(89–93.5)

–

54

(50–60)

(76–83)

–

–

9*

5*

15.9*

(4–5)

H. californianus

Pinochet and Raski (1975)

440

(410–460)

17

(16–19)

4.1

(3.4–4.6)

91

(90–92)

–

80

(77–83)

119

(112–127)

–

–

11 (10–12)

5 (4–6)

–

–

H. macrodorus

Volvas et al. (2000)

691

(548–761)

17

(15–21)

4.4

(3.8–5.2)

95

(94–96)

152

(140–171)

101

(90–110)

137

(127–148)

23

(18–27)

–

13 (2–14)

8 (7–9)

15 (13–18)

5.8*

H. chitwoodi

Esser (1960)

540

(480–590)

15.5

(13.4–17)

3.8

(3.5–4.1)

90.1

(88.1–91.0)

–

91

(85–95)

124

(116––133)

–

–

(12–16)

(8–11)

–

–

H. parataiwanensis

Decraemer and Geraert (1992)

499

(440–535)

15.2

(13.8–16)

4.2

(3.9–4.5)

90

(88.7–91)

120.2

(107–129)

79.4

(77–82)

138.1

(129–145)

25.4

(23–29)

–

9.1 (8–10)

5 (4–10)

15.9*

3.5*

H. paracamelliae

Maria et al. (2018)

563

(519–604)

16.9

(15.3–18.5)

4.4

(4.1–5.0)

88.9

(87.7–90.1)

127

(119–135)

83

(80–85)

132

(124–140)

23.1

(22–26)

34.5 (31–37)

14.8 (13–16)

8 (5.0–10.0)

14.7 (13.7–16.3)

–

H. kanayaensis

Nakasono and Ichinohe (1961)

571

(500–631)

21.5

(18.7–24.4)

4.8

(3.3–5.6)

88.9

(87.5–91.5)

–

74

(66–79)

150

(142–164)

–

–

18 (16–21)

12 (11–15)

12.9*

4.6*

H. phoenicis

Van den Berg et al. (2015)

630

(549–699)

21.6

(16.7–24.3)

4.7

(4–5.7)

46

(27–62)

133

(117–149)

88

(81–97)

130

(123–137)

23

(21–25)

32 (28–36)

14 (13–19)

10 (9–15)

14 (12.6–16.3)

5.5 (4.5–6.5)

H. litchi

Edward and Misra (1964)

480

(450–500)

15

(13–18)

4.6

(3–5)

92

(91–93)

107*

63

(60–65)

130

(128–133)

12*

25*

12*

7*

13.1*

3.5*

H. strictathecatus

Esser (1960)

560

(510–590)

–

–

–

–

79

(73–83)

138

(127–152)

18.8*

27.3*

(11–13)

–

–

–

H. cocophilus

Dasgupta et al. (1969)

(460–500)

(14–15)

(4.0–5.0)

(91–92)

–

(50–57)

(108–143)

–

–

(9–10)

(8–9)

–

(3–5)

H. brachyurus

Dasgupta et al. (1969)

(400–540)

(13–17)

(4.3–5.2)

(93–95)

96*

(56–64)

(98–119)

–

–

(7–9)

(6–7)

–

–

  1. All measurements are in µm (except ratio and percentage) and in the form of mean ± standard deviation (range)
  2. *Values were determined in holotype specimens
  3. L = Body length, PL = Pharynx length, a(L/BD), b(L/PS), V% (anterior to vulval/total body length) × 100, Stylet = Stylet length, Stylet knob W = Stylet knob width, R = Total number of body annules, Rst = Annules from anterior extremity to base of stylet, Roes. = Annules from anterior extremity to base of oesophagus, Rv = Annules from vulva to tail terminus, Ran = Annules from anus to tail terminus, Annulus W = Annulus width, Sty%L = Stylet length/body length*100
Back to article page