new data from file Pachysentiscanicola2021 available
The type species for Pachysentis is P. canicola.[5][2] In 1972, Schmidt reclassified six species from the Prosthenorchis genus and one species from the Oncicola genus into the genus Pachysentis. – These are two isolated bits of information without context that should be elaborated on. Who described the type species and when, and based on what specimen collected where? In what family was the genus originally placed? Was Schmidt 1972 the last reclassification, i.e., did this result in the currently recognized 11 species?
I see what you are suggesting but I am not sure what to add. Do you think any of these points are worth adding?
Specimen originally collected by Von Olfers and Sello form a canis species in Brazil prior to publication in 1931.
Family was not changed, just the genus.
Schmidt was the last reclassification though a new species was discovered in 2019.
Yes, I would say so, at least the first of your points. This is standard information in biology articles. I would suggest a sentence like "The genus Pachysentis was first described by the Czech helminthologist Anton Meyer in 1931 based on a specimen collected by Von Olfers and Sello from a canis species in Brazil --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
But he was describing several species at once? In any case, something like this with other appropriate information would be great, including the number of species he described and what the type species is (you mention this later, but the type species clearly belongs within the "taxonomy" section). Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
There are eight cement glands compactly arranged each with a single giant nucleus used to temporarily close the posterior end of the female after copulation – Can you link or explain "nucleus" here?
It was also found infesting the western diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox) – But the lead says it only infests primates and carnivorans.
You provide the meaning of the name for all species except Pachysentis ehrenbergi?
with different measurements. – This does not make much sense to me. It would be an unlikely coincidence if the measurements would be identical. Writing something like "; these specimens were significantly larger/smaller" would be more helpful.
It is the only known parasite of the crab-eating racoon in Brazil. – It can't be the only one since the title of the paper that you cite here is "Oncicola luehei in a wild crab-eating raccoon (Procyon cancrivorus) from the Brazilian cerrado savanna".
P. rugosus has been found to infest the large intestine of Azaras's capuchin (Sapajus cay) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – Again, I would say the information "Rio de Janeiro" is misleading at best, since the species does not occur there (zoo animal again, I assume).
P. septemserialis is considered by Gomes (2019) to have an uncertain taxonomic status due to differences between the paratypes morphological characteristics and the original description, the similarity in hosts – what does "similarity in hosts" mean, and why does it suggest an uncertain taxonomic status? I can't follow here.
whereas a collar was observed – observed where (the paratype?) by whom?
ingested by an arthropod, the intermediate host. The intermediate hosts of most Pachysentis species are not known. Contradicts a cystacanth (larval) stage in an intermediate host such as the Egyptian cobra
Please check if mesenteron links to the correct article; the article is human-only so this needs additional explanation.
The acanthor are passed – singular/plural
I worry a bit about language quality. I fixed a lot of grammar issues myself, in addition to those mentioned above, but I think the article still needs a careful copy-edit.
