Phenotypic plasticity in Caryophyllaeus brachycollis Janiszewska, 1953 (Cestoda: Caryophyllidea): does fish host play a role?

Recent molecular phylogenetic studies on fish tapeworms of the genus Caryophyllaeus Gmelin, 1790 (Cestoda: Caryophyllidea), parasites of cyprinid fishes in the Palaearctic Region, have revealed unexpected phenotypic plasticity that seems to be related to definitive hosts. In the present paper, Caryophyllaeus brachycollis Janiszewska, 1953 is redescribed and its two morphotypes are circumscribed on the basis of newly-collected specimens. Morphotype 1 from barbels [Barbus spp. including the type-host Barbus barbus (L.); Barbinae] and chubs (Squalius spp.; Leuciscinae) is characterised by a more robust body with spatulate scolex, which is only slightly wider than a very short neck region, and the anterior position of the testes and vitelline follicles, which begin immediately posterior to the scolex. Specimens of Morphotype 2 from breams (Abramis spp., Ballerus spp. and Blicca spp.; Abraminae), which have been previously misidentifed as Caryophyllaeus laticeps (Pallas, 1781), possess a more slender body with a flabellate scolex, which is much wider than a long neck, and the first testes begin at a considerable distance posterior to the first vitelline follicles. Despite conspicuous differences in the scolex morphology and the anterior extent of the testes and vitelline follicles, both morphotypes are identical in the morphology of the posterior end of the body, in particular that of the cirrus-sac, which is large, thick-walled, elongate-pyriform, and contains a long cirrus, and in the distribution of the vitelline follicles, which surround medially vas deferens near the cirrus-sac. A specimen of Morphotype 1 from B. barbus from the Argens River, France, is designated as neotype of C. brachycollis. The presence of phenotypic plasticity in morphological characteristics previously used for differentiation of species of Caryophyllaeus may confound species identification, which is crucial for biodiversity, ecological and evolutionary studies. To avoid these potential problems, combination of morphological and molecular data is strongly recommended.