The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Morphology or taxonomy Direct Neocaridina evidence

Occurrence of Scutariella worms on Neocaridina davidi shrimp (Bouvier, 1904) in Hungary

Hoitsy et al., 2023. Magyar Allatorvosok Lapja 145(6): 351-358.

Open the source

This record is a claim boundary, not a quality badge. Evidence class and species relationship describe what was studied. They do not make the result universal, complete or automatically applicable to a home aquarium.

Source taxon as published
Owner-submitted captive Neocaridina davidi from multiple breeders; host-identification method not reported
Environment
Fifteen selected diagnostic submissions held five per approximately 18-litre aquarium at reported pH 6.8, conductivity 300 microsiemens and 25 C during examination
Life stages
seven females and eight males; size, age and sexing method not reported
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Owners submitted 15 shrimp from different breeders after seeing moving white organisms on the day of introduction or within the following days. The shrimp were photographed, and associated live worms were collected into water drops, examined by stereomicroscopy and light microscopy, and identified from stated morphological references.

Experimental unit: Selected submitted shrimp for carrier observations and an unreported number of removed worms for morphological identification; five shrimp shared each of three holding aquaria, but no treatment or outcome comparison was assigned

Endpoints: visible worm count and body region, worm length, live worm morphology, species identification, presence of worm eggs in the branchial chamber.

Claim boundary

What it can support: All 15 selected shrimp carried visible opalescent-white moving worms, with 2 to 8 observed on the head, antennae or rostral region. Examined worms were reported as 0.8 to 2.0 mm long and identified as Scutariella japonica using paired anterior projections, two eyespots, internal reproductive anatomy and a posterior horseshoe- or heart-shaped sucker. Some worms contained eggs, and eggs were visible through the lateral carapace in the branchial chamber.

What it cannot support: This was a selected diagnostic case series, not a prevalence, transmission, quarantine-duration, water-quality or source-risk study. Host identity was not independently verified, source counts and clustering were not reported, the number of worms examined was omitted, and no molecular confirmation, voucher or image-accession record was stated. The study measured no respiration, gill lesion, molting failure, growth, reproduction, mortality, spontaneous clearance or treatment outcome. Harm statements were literature synthesis, not observations in these 15 shrimp. Fenbendazole was mentioned in one discussion sentence without product, dose, exposure, allocation, control, efficacy, recurrence or host-safety data. It cannot support a treatment recipe, a claim that every white worm is S. japonica or use of treatment response as diagnosis.

Publication status audit

Matched in dated Crossref query

The canonical DOI appeared in the dated broad query and carried no registered update in that response. This is a metadata observation, not proof that the work has never changed.

Metadata snapshot reviewed 2026-08-12. Inspect the method, unmatched queue and limitations.

Correction impact

If this source boundary changes, these are the known downstream consumers. The list distinguishes scientific re-review from generated parity and historical follow-up.

Editorial review required (6)

This curated wording or synthesis must be reconsidered when the source boundary changes. A passing generator test cannot decide the new scientific meaning.

  • anatomy decision card Tank-side decision card
    The card translates this guide into an observation, first action, next record and stopping boundary, so all four require editorial review when the source changes.
  • health decision card Tank-side decision card
    The card translates this guide into an observation, first action, next record and stopping boundary, so all four require editorial review when the source changes.
  • quarantine decision card Tank-side decision card
    The card translates this guide into an observation, first action, next record and stopping boundary, so all four require editorial review when the source changes.
  • anatomy practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • health practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • quarantine practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.

Generated from governing registry (16)

This surface derives from a governing registry and should update with it, but release tests must still prove parity and routing.

Historical record needs follow-up decision (1)

Do not silently rewrite history. Decide whether the prior change record remains accurate and publish a new correction or scope note when needed.

Inspect the corpus-wide propagation audit.

How this record is classified

Morphology or taxonomy: Anatomy, specimen identification or taxonomic relationships were studied with stated methods. A trade name or photograph cannot replace those methods.

Direct Neocaridina evidence: The source measured animals named within Neocaridina. Direct still does not mean universal or sufficient.

Topics: Health, Anatomy, Species and taxonomy

Critically appraise this source without a score

These questions fit this record's morphology or taxonomy role. They are prompts, not automatic judgments. Open the original source to answer them.

  1. Identity and provenance: How were the organism, population, stock and life stage identified and sourced? A published name or seller label can hide a taxonomic, population or life-stage transfer.
  2. Independent unit: What unit was independently assigned or sampled, and how many units support each comparison? Animal counts do not create independent replication when animals share a vessel, site, family or treatment history.
  3. Comparison and context: What was the actual comparator, allocation process, environment, duration and material condition? A result has meaning only against the comparison and conditions that produced it.
  4. Endpoint and measurement: Which endpoint was measured, with what method, unit, timing, resolution and decision rule? One endpoint cannot silently become survival, welfare, diagnosis, reproduction or long-term population performance.
  5. Denominators and missingness: Are starting counts, exclusions, losses, missing observations and analysis denominators reconciled? Unreported or changing denominators can alter the apparent direction, precision and applicability of a result.
  6. Transfer boundary: What is the nearest tempting aquarium claim that this source design cannot establish? Direct evidence can still be narrow, and adjacent evidence can be useful only while the inference remains visible.
  7. Examined material: Which specimens, localities, sexes, stages, types or sequence accessions were actually examined? A diagnosis applies to examined material and methods, not automatically to a trade-line photograph.
  8. Diagnostic characters: Which characters or loci distinguish the taxon, and were alternatives explicitly compared? Color alone may be variable, convergent or unrelated to the diagnostic character.
  9. Name history: Were synonyms, historical combinations, type material and later revisions checked? An older title can describe a population that later work placed in another taxon.
  10. Consumer identification limit: Can the required character or method be observed reliably in an ordinary live-animal image? A valid taxonomic method may still be unavailable to a keeper examining one photograph.

Read the complete appraisal framework.

Related source material

Where it is used

Reuse the reviewed citation boundary

Download CSL-JSON or download RIS. Both retain this record's support, limitation and review note.

Challenge a transcription, interpretation or missing boundary. A challenge changes the record only after editorial review.