The object did not show a buccal cavity nor any internal organ i.e esophagus and digestive tract which would be present if it were a true parasite. I would classify it as an artifact.
lots of artifact answers... Here's a few hints: annulated cuticle, nucleated hypodermis, bacillary bands, stichocytes, variation is width along length. :)
morphology indicates nematode, Stichocytes indicate the parasite belongs to the Trichocephalida, different sized cross sections suggest an animal with varying body width, annulated cuticle suggests Trichuria trichuris, human whipworm which is also consistent with anatomical location of discovery.
Of course, Lukus is right and I feel ashamed! I know whipworms but not from histological sections. It really didn't come to my mind but given the hints, it's clear now.
Much has to be learned. Being techs, we know the worm in its "mundane" morphology and through the recognition of its ova, not in its histologic presentation.
Not animal, not mineral, but vegetable.
ReplyDeleteBW in vt
For me, it doesn't look like any parasite I know. IMHO, it is most likely some plant material.
ReplyDeleteThe object did not show a buccal cavity nor any internal organ i.e esophagus and digestive tract which would be present if it were a true parasite. I would classify it as an artifact.
ReplyDeleteFlorida Fan
No definitive internal structures, I agree artifact.
ReplyDeleteLee
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletelots of artifact answers... Here's a few hints: annulated cuticle, nucleated hypodermis, bacillary bands, stichocytes, variation is width along length. :)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletemorphology indicates nematode, Stichocytes indicate the parasite belongs to the Trichocephalida, different sized cross sections suggest an animal with varying body width, annulated cuticle suggests Trichuria trichuris, human whipworm which is also consistent with anatomical location of discovery.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Lukus is right and I feel ashamed! I know whipworms but not from histological sections. It really didn't come to my mind but given the hints, it's clear now.
ReplyDeleteMuch has to be learned. Being techs, we know the worm in its "mundane" morphology and through the recognition of its ova, not in its histologic presentation.
ReplyDeleteFlorida Fan
LOL, I agree with Florida Fan, show me the egg or the worm, NO PROBLEM, the histologic sections...we leave that to pathology..LOL!
ReplyDeleteLee