Dracunculus medinensis
species of nematode
Dracunculus medinensis (Guinea worm, dragon worm, fiery serpent) is a nematode that causes dracunculiasis, also known as Guinea worm disease. The disease is caused by the female which, at around 80 centimetres (31 inches) in length, is among the longest nematodes infecting humans. The length of specimens exhibits extreme sexual dimorphism, as the longest recorded male Guinea worm is only 4 cm (1+1⁄2 in).
Guinea worm disease is on target to be the second infectious disease of humans to be eradicated, after smallpox, and the D. medinensis species would be made extinct to accomplish it. It was formerly endemic to a wide swath of Africa and Eurasia; as of 2023, it remains endemic in five countries: Chad, Mali, South Sudan, Angola and Ethiopia, with most cases in Chad. Guinea worm spread to Angola c. 2018, and it is considered endemic there. Infection of domestic dogs is a serious complication in Chad.
The common name "Guinea worm" is derived from the Guinea region of Western Africa.
History
Dracunculus medinensis ("little dragon from Medina") was described in Egypt as early as the 15th century BCE and possibly was the "fiery serpent" afflicting the Israelites described in the Bible.
In the mid-19th century, the nematode Camallanus lacustris, which infects freshwater fish, was discovered to develop in copepods.
“Dracunculus medinensis” enters the record as species of nematode. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Dracunculus, medinensis and species can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Dracunculus medinensis” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Dracunculus, medinensis and species provides the most credible route into that argument.
The date and method of observation matter as much as the stated conclusion, especially where classification or consensus has changed. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q1502531. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2023 and 2018.
A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Dracunculus medinensis”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Dracunculus medinensis primary sources, Dracunculus medinensis archive and Dracunculus research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Dracunculus medinensis”?
- Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Dracunculus medinensis” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.