Neoncicola
genus of worms
Neoncicola is a genus of parasitic worms containing nine species and belongs to the family Oligacanthorhynchidae.
Taxonomy
Phylogenetic analyses have been conducted on Oncicola, a genus morphologically nearly identical to Neoncicola and Pachysentis apart from the number of hooks on the proboscis, and have also placed it in the family Oligacanthorhynchidae.
Description
The distinguishing characteristic separating Neoncicola from these similar genera is that it possesses 30 hooks, as opposed to 36 for Oncicola and more than 36 for Pachysentis.
Species
There are nine species in the genus Neoncicola.
Neoncicola artibei Smales, 2007
N. artibei was found infesting the Great fruit-eating bat (Artibeus lituratus). The species was named after the genus of the host, Artibeus.
Neoncicola avicola (Travassos, 1917)
N. avicola was originally described from specimens found in the Red-winged tinamou (Rhynchotus rufescens) in Brazil. Despite the name avicola (meaning "bird-dweller"), it is an atypical member of a genus usually found in mammals.
Neoncicola bursata (Meyer, 1931)
N. bursata was identified in the South American coati (Nasua nasua) and the Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis). It is primarily distributed across Central and South America.
“Neoncicola” enters the record as genus of worms. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Neoncicola, genus and worms can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Neoncicola” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Neoncicola, genus and worms 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 Sep 9, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q3830440. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2007, 1917 and 1931.
Scientific names, classifications and consensus can change while older terminology persists in catalogues and historical literature. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. 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 “Neoncicola”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Neoncicola primary sources, Neoncicola archive and Neoncicola 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 “Neoncicola”?
- 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 “Neoncicola” 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.