Xenocriconemella (De Grisse and Loof,
Criconemella (De Grisse and Loof, 1965)
Madinema (Khan, Chawla and Saha, 1976)
Seshadriella (Darekar and Khan, 1981)
Neobakernema (Ebsary, 1981)
Crossonemoides (Eroshenko, 1981)
Criconemoides (Taylor, 1936)
Macroposthonia (de Man, 1921)
Mesocriconema is an agriculturally-important genus that has undergone
several name changes over the years. Fortunately, the species names have
remained stable. A considerable amount of the earlier literature on nematodes in
the genus Mesocriconema (Family: Criconematidae) refers
to them by generic names that have since been synonymized, particularly Criconemoides,
Macroposthonia and Criconemella. Maggenti
argued to suppress
the generic name Criconemella and to resurrect Criconemoides. That
resurrection was accepted by some authors (Al Banna and
Gardner, 1993), but more Loof and de Grisse (1989) proposed the name Criconemoides,
which gained fairly wide acceptance (e.g. Pinkerton et al., 1999; Carneiro
et al., 1998). However, Mesocriconema
was proposed by Andrassy (1965) for species with crenate margins of the retrorse
A very large number of species has been described within the genus
Criconemoides sensu lato. The genus was erected by Taylor (1936) to
accommodate Criconematidae without cuticular extensions (crenations) of the annules.
When new genera were erected, the original name, Criconemoides, remained
in question due to incomplete original description and lack of availability of
type material. Subsequently, Criconemella was used but because
there was no formal diagnosis of that genus, Brzeski et al. (2002a) resurrected
the genus name Criconemoides. The name Mesocriconema was
proposed by Andrassy (1965) for species with
crenated margins of the annules. Through some convoluted history of
generic name changes, well documented by Brzeski et al. (2002b),
Criconemoides was resurrected as a genus name by Loof and
de Grisse, (1989).
The taxonomic status and species composition of the genera Criconemoides
Tylor 1936 and Mesocriconema Andrassy, 1965 continues to be
The general criteria for distinguishing between the two genera are:
Ongoing molecular characterizations are expected to clarify the distinctions
or lack thereof.
References: Cordero et al. (2012), Geraert (2010).
Female: Body of variable
length (0.3 to 0.6 mm); heavy annulation of cuticle -
200 or fewer, no spines, no extra cuticle; posterior edge
smooth, uneven or crenate. Submedian lobes of lips generally
well-developed, but may be poorly developed and even
absent in some species; separated or connected in
First body annule
may be reduced. Second annule usually wider than first. In some species (M.
axeste, M. citricola) first annule
but more or less directed forward.
Vulval lips widely
separated (vulva "open"); anterior lip may be
have long stylet and anchor-shaped knobs.
end rounded to conoid; generally four lateral lines,
rarely three, exceptionally two (M. oostenbrinski); caudal
smooth to crenate, no rows
[Ref: Raski & Luc, Rev. Nematol. 10(4):409-444
(1987), and H. Ferris; Cordero et al. (2012), Geraert (2010)]
Ring Nematode movement (pass mouse over thumbnail picture). Video Source: J.D. Eisenback, Nemapix.
Specimens of this interesting group of nematodes were rarely
detected in soil samples, and were usually in low numbers, until the development
of sugar flotation and centrifugation extraction techniques (Jenkins, 1964).
Those techniques maximize recovery of "wide-bodied", slow-moving
nematodes. They revealed that ring nematodes are very common, particularly in
permanent crop, landscape and ornamental plantings. They can also be very
abundant. Population levels of 50,000/l of soil have been recovered from around
roots of peach trees (Jaffee and
D-rated pests in California.
feed ectoparasitically on root tips or along more mature roots. The
nematodes are migratory unless soil pore
space limits their movement. Adult stages of the larger ring nematode adults
appear sedentary or stuck within their pore space as they develop to adult size.
Woody plants and turf are hosts for many
Nematodes exhibit characteristic slow, sluggish movement.
This group of nematodes is relatively unstudied on grape, however, among Prunus
spp. it is known to seriously alter host physiology (Nyczespir and Wood, 1988).
Extraction poor except with sugar/centrifuge - then found
Pinkerton, J. N.; Forge, T. A.; Ivors, K. L.; Ingham, R. E.. 1999.
Plant-parasitic nematodes associated with grapevines, Vitis vinifera, in
Oregon vineyards. Journal of Nematology, 31:624-634.
Brzeski, M., Y.E. Choi and P.A.A. Loof. 2002a. Compendium of the genus
Criconemoides Taylor, 1936 (Nematoda: Criconematidae). Nematology
Brzeski, M., P.A.A. Loof and Y.E. Choi . 2002b. Compendium of the genus
Mesocriconema AndrÃƒÂ¡ssy, 1965 (Nematoda: Criconematidae). Nematology
Cordero, M. A. Robert T. Robbins, Allen L. Szalanski.
2012. Taxonomic and Molecular Identification of Mesocriconema and
Criconemoides Species (Nematoda: Criconematidae). J. Nematology 44:
Geraert, E. 2010. The Criconematidae of the World: Identification of the
Family Criconematidae. Academia Press, Gent. 615p.
Loof, P.A.A and A. De Grisse. 1989. Taxonomic and nomenclatorial observations
on the genus Criconemella De Grisse and Loof, 1965 sensu Luc and
Raski, 1981. Med. Fac. Landn. Rijksuniv. Gent. 54:53-74.
Raski, D.J. and Luc, M. 1987. A reappraisal of Tylenchina (Nemata) 10. The
superfamily Criconemaroidea Taylor, 1936. Rev. Nemarol. 10:409-444.