Podocotyle mehsena ( Nagaty, 1941 ) Nagaty, 1941

Martin, Storm B., Cutmore, Scott C., Ward, Selina & Cribb, Thomas H., 2017, An updated concept and revised composition for Hamacreadium Linton, 1910 (Opecoelidae: Plagioporinae) clarifies a previously obscured pattern of host-specificity among species, Zootaxa 4254 (2), pp. 151-187 : 177

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4254.2.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:0BDF72E4-5330-4EE7-8560-DF44E71C1F41
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6048993
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/436E87B5-BE7C-555A-FF67-FAD8FE574C08
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Podocotyle mehsena ( Nagaty, 1941 )
status	comb. nov.

Treatment

Podocotyle mehsena ( Nagaty, 1941) View in CoL n. comb.

Synonyms: Hamacreadium mehsena Nagaty, 1941 ; Apopodoctyle mehsena ( Nagaty, 1941) Pritchard, 1966 .

Records. From Lethrinus mahsena [as “ L. mehsena ”] in the Red Sea by Nagaty (1941).

Remarks. This species was described based on one mature specimen. Pritchard (1966a) transferred it to Apopodocotyle but Cribb (2005a) returned it to Hamacreadium when he synonymised Apopodocotyle with Cainocreadium . It does not belong in Hamacreadium because the vitelline follicles are restricted to the hindbody. It resembles Allopodocotyle lethrini ( Yamaguti, 1942) Pritchard, 1966 and Allopodocotyle tamame ( Yamaguti, 1942) Pritchard, 1966 , which are parasites of lethrinids from off Japan, but Allopodocotyle species are characterised by an entire ovary, whereas Nagaty (1941) described a four-lobed ovary. The condition of the ovary and the vitelline follicles suggest it belongs in Podocotyle ( Pritchard 1966a; Gibson & Bray 1982; Cribb 2005a), to which it is transferred here. It resembles P. bongosi , also from the Red Sea ( Nagaty & Abdel Aal 1962b) but that species has an extra-caecal genital pore.