Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T23:45:40.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distinct Morphological Differences Between DDT-Resistant and Non-DDT-Resistant Strains of the House Fly, Musca domestica L.1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

R. S. Bigelow  and
E. J. LeRoux
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper is a report on the discovery of distinct morphological differences between DDT-resistant and non-DDT-resistant strains of the house fly, Musca domestica L. Since DDT-resistant house flies were first reported in Italy in 1945-46, such differences have been sought by a number of workers (e.g. Wiesmann, 1947; D'Alessandro et al., 1949; March and Lewallen, 1950; Anon., 1950). Various slight differences have been detected but none of a magnitude comparable to those described in this paper has so far been reported.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 86 , Issue 2 , February 1954 , pp. 78 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anon., 1950. Says tolerant fly structures are the same as others. Pest Control 18(4): 22.Google Scholar
Babers, F. H., and Pratt, J. J. Jr. 1951. Development of insect resistance to insecticides—II A critical review of the literature up to 1951. U.S.D.A. Publ. E-818: 7–12.Google Scholar
Barber, G. H., and Schmitt, J. B.. 1949. Further studies on resistance to DDT in the house fly. J. Econ. Ent. 42: 287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigelow, R. S., and Reimer, C.. 1954. An application of the linear discriminant function to insect taxonomy. Can. Ent. Vol. LXXXVI, No. 2, pp. 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, J. F. 1952. Conference on insecticide resistance and insect physiology. Nat. Acad. Sci. Publ. 219: 72–78.Google Scholar
D'Alessandro, G., and Smiraglia, C.. 1949. Comportamento di stipiti di Musca domestica sensibili e resistenti al DDT. Di Fronte a esaclorocicloesano e Octa-Klor. Soc. Ital. di Biol. Sper. Bol. 25: 305–307.Google Scholar
Goulden, C. H. 1952. Methods of statistical analysis. 2nd ed.John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
Harrison, Mary C. 1953. DDT-resistance and its inheritance in the house fly. J. Econ. Ent. 46: 528–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, W. V. 1950. DDT-resistant house flies and mosquitoes. J. Econ. Ent. 43: 527–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, R. B., and Lewallen, L. L.. 1950. A comparison of DDT-resistant and non-resistant house flies. J. Econ. Ent. 43: 721–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiesmann, R. von. 1947. Untersuchungen über das physiologische Verhalten von Musca domestica L. verchiedener Provennienzen. Schweiz, ent. Gesell. Mitl. 20: 484–504.Google Scholar