Specialization of pyramidal cell structure in the visual areas V1, V2 and V3 of the South American rodent, Dasyprocta primnolopha

Marked phenotypic variation has been reported in pyramidal cells in the primate cerebral cortex. These extent and systematic nature of these specializations suggest that they are important for specialized aspects of cortical processing. However, it remains unknown as to whether regional variations in the pyramidal cell phenotype are unique to primates or if they are widespread amongst mammalian species. In the present study we determined the receptive fields of neurons in striate and extrastriate visual cortex, and quantified pyramidal cell structure in these cortical regions, in the diurnal, large-brained, South American rodent Dasyprocta primnolopha. We found evidence for a first, second and third visual area (V1, V2 and V3, respectively) forming a lateral progression from the occipital pole to the temporal pole. Pyramidal cell structure became increasingly more complex through these areas, suggesting that regional specialization in pyramidal cell phenotype is not restricted to primates. However, cells in V1, V2 and V3 of the agouti were considerably more spinous than their counterparts in primates, suggesting different evolutionary and developmental influences may act on cortical microcircuitry in rodents and primates. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

A discussion on the Heteracanthocephalidae Petrochenko, 1956 (Acanthocephala : Palaeacanthocephala)

Several heteracanthocephalid specimens were recovered from the flatfish Rhombosolea leporina (Gunther), a host of Heteracanthocephalus peltorhamphi (Baylis, 1944) Petrochenko, 1956 from New Zealand. Unlike H. peltorhamphi, these new specimens have trunk spines. Measurements and proboscis armament of the new specimens are consistent with the worms being Aspersentis minor Edmonds & Smales, 1992 originally described from the Australian flounder Rhombosolea tapirina Gunther. A review of the family Heteracanthocephalidae Petrochenko, 1956 was undertaken to assess the validity of its four genera and eight species. The validity of Aspersentis megarhynchus (Linstow, 1892) Golvan, 1960 (syn. Echinorhynchus megarhynchus Linstow, 1892) is questioned. E. megarhynchus is not considered to be an heteracanthocephalid and is relegated to a species inquirenda. A. megarhynchus (Linstow, 1892) of Golvan (1960) nec E. megarhynchus Linstow, 1892 is considered a synonym of A. austrinus Van Cleave, 1929. The monotypic genus Heteracanthocephalus Petrochenko, 1956 is proposed as a synonym of Aspersentis Van Cleave, 1929 because there appear to be insufficient morphological differences between them. Aspersentis peltorhamphi n. comb. is proposed for Heteracanthocephalus peltorhamphi. The monotypic genus Sachalinorhynchus Krotov & Petrochenko in Petrochenko, 1956 is considered valid, but the other heteracanthocephalid genus, Bullockrhynchus Chandra, Rao & Shyamasundari, 1985, also monotypic, is not. B. indicus Chandra, Rao & Shyamasundari, 1985 possesses more features resembling rhadinorhynchids than heteracanthocephalids but only females are known, and therefore the genus and species cannot be placed. There are currently four valid species of Aspersentis and one of Sachalinorhynchus.