ON SOME NEMATODES FROM SOLAN DISTRICT , HIMACHAL PRADESH , INDIA

The authors undertook a faunistic survey of some areas of Solan District, Himachal Pradesh, during December, 197 6-January, 1977, in the course of which some nematodes were collected. The present paper deals with this material which comprises eleven species of nine genera of eight families. Though the material is numerically insignificant, it is nevertheless interesting in that it not only furnishes unrecorded morphological variations for some and new locality records for ~1l the known species reported here, but also yields one new species. As not much is known about the helminth fauna of Himachal Pradesh, the present paper initiates an attempt to study this fauna of the area. All measurements are in millimeters.


INTRODUCTION
The authors undertook a faunistic survey of some areas of Solan District, Himachal Pradesh, during December, 197 6-January, 1977, in the course of which some nematodes were collected.The present paper deals with this material which comprises eleven species of nine genera of eight families.Though the material is numerically insignificant, it is nevertheless interesting in that it not only furnishes unrecorded morphological variations for some and new locality records for ~1l the known species reported here, but also yields one new species.
As not much is known about the helminth fauna of Himachal Pradesh, the present paper initiates an attempt to study this fauna of the area.
All measurements are in millimeters.
Remark8: It may be noted that incidence of infection does not appear to be very high.
Remarks: Of the two localities, Solan showed a higher infection of the hosts probably as these were brought for slaughter from a warmer and lo\ver region.

Genus Gaigeria Railliet and Henry, 1910
Gaigeria pachyscelis Railliet and Henry, 1910 Remarks: The specimens agree in body measurements etc. with those of Baylis (1936) and in spicules with those of Cameron (1924).Remarks: Here also, hosts at Solan were more infected for•reasop~ already stated.
Remarks: The species is quite widely distributed.
(Text-fig.1, A-E)  Fe'lnale: Body 11.9 -13.5 long, 0.2 wide; tail conical and with a short spine, vulva 7.6 -8.8 from anterior end; eggs 0.022 -0.033 X 0.022, with four cuticular floats, lateral ones very large.Remarks: Moravec (1975) subdivided the genus Rhabdochona into 4 subgenera, of which one is Globockona.Under this subgenus he included the species (group B) showing eggs with floats, a character hitherto known in three species, viz.R. barusi Majumdar and De, 1971, from Barilius sp. from RanchL Bihar; R. singki Ali, 1956, from Glos80gobius giuri8 from Hyderabad; and R. gambiana Gendre, 1922 from three African hosts, viz.Barbus eutaenia, Barilius moori, and an undetermined .fish(probably Barilius).A fourth species R. minima Moravec and Daniel, 1976 from Noemar.heilus rupicola var.ingli8i Hora from Nepal included by the authors under this subgenus and based only on males, is being retained tentatively (under group A).A comparative chart showing the key characters of the above four species alongwith the present specimens (given below) clearly indicates that these specimens differ from those of the other four and therefore justify for theit reception the creation of a new species, Rhabdochona bariliusi.Fotedar and Dhar's (1977)  Remarks: Thapar (1950) from a single female from Tor tor from Hospet, Madras, described the new species R. hospeti.One more new species R. bal'bi was described from Puntius kolus and Tor khudree from Pune, Maharashtra, by Karve (1951).This species was considered by Rasheed (1965) as an apparent synonym of R. hospeti.Subsequently, three more new species were added under the genus, viz., it.ghaggl'i from Tor tor from near Chandigarh, Punjab, by Sood (1969); and H. alii .andR. labeonis, both from Lflbeo roh1:ta from Nanded, Maharashtra, by Kalyankar (1972).However, all these four species were definitely treated as synonyms of R. hospeti by Moravec (1975).The present specimens show some differences from its earlier descriptions in respect of body size, size of spicules, and number and arrangement of-caudal papillae, but as these differences are not uncommon in the genus, they are considered just as intraspecific variations.