Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:35:02.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fleas Common on Rats in Different Parts of the World and the Readiness with which they Bite Man

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Harriette Chick  and
C. J. Martin
Harriette Chick
Affiliation:
Assistant, Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine
C. J. Martin
Affiliation:
Director of the Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

(1) As far as is at present known, the great majority of the fleas infesting Mus rattus and Mus decumanus in different parts of the world, belong to either the species Xenopsylla cheopis, Ceratophyllus fasciatus, Ceratophyllus anisus, Ctenopsylla musculi or Ctenophthalmus agyrtes or are comprised of some admixture of these five species.

(2) Xenopsylla cheopis is the most prevalent in the tropics and sub-tropical regions and often occurs there to the almost complete exclusion of other species. It is common during summer and autumn in some of the warmer parts of the temperate zone, more especially in ports which have maritime intercourse with the tropics.

(3) In the cooler regions Ceratophyllus fasciatus is the most universally distributed flea and is associated with more or less of Ctenopsylla musculi and Ctenophthalmus agyrtes according to the locality and the habitat of the particular rats.

(4) In Japan Ceratophyllus fasciatus is replaced by Ceratophyllus anisus, a closely allied species.

(5) The numerous other fleas which have been captured off rats are only occasional visitors.

(6) Ceratophyllus fasciatus, like Xenopsylla cheopis, readily bites man. Out of 517 experiments 308 fed, or 59% were positive. In 101 experiments, under identical circumstances with a rat, 59, or 58.4% of the fleas fed.

(7) The experiments with Ceratophyllus fasciatus were made upon eight persons and evidence was obtained of preference on the part of the insects for particular individuals.

(8) 111 experiments were made with 46 specimens of Ctenopsylla musculi; only 4 fed=3.6% whereas 9 out of 11 fed on a mouse.

(9) 68 specimens of Ctenophthalmus agyrtes were tried, in some cases upon three persons. None fed, whereas 11 out of 19 of the same fleas fed on a rat under identical conditions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 1911 , pp. 122 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1911

References

Billet, (1908). Peste en Algérie, 1907. Recherches particuliéres sur les rats, leurs ectoparasites, etc. dans le Départment de Constantine. Bull. Soc. Path. exotique, Vol. I. p. 111.Google Scholar
Commission for Investigation of Plague in India, Reports of. Journal of Hygiene, Vol. VI. 1906;Google Scholar
Commission for Investigation of Plague in India, Reports of. Journal of Hygiene, Vol. VII. 1907;Google Scholar
Commission for Investigation of Plague in India, Reports of. Journal of Hygiene, Vol. VIII. 1908;Google Scholar
Commission for Investigation of Plague in India, Reports of. Journal of Hygiene, Vol. X. 1910.Google Scholar
Conseil, E. (1909). Recherches sur la peste en Tunisie. Bull. Soc. Path. exotique, Vol. II. p. 324.Google Scholar
Fox, Carroll (1910). The flea and its relation to plague. Article in “The rat and its relation to the public health,” published by the Treasury department and Marine-Hospital Service of the United States, Washington, 1910.Google Scholar
Galli-Valerio, (1900, a). Les puces des rats et des souris, jouent-elles un rôle important dans la transmission de la peste bubonique à l'homme? Centralbl. f. Bakt. I. Abt. Vol. XXVII. p. 1.Google Scholar
Galli-Valerio, (1900, b). Quelques observations sur la transmission de la peste bubonique par les puces des rats et des souris. Centralbl. f. Bakt. I. Abt. Vol. XXVIII. p. 842.Google Scholar
Galli-Valerio, (1907). L'état actuel de nos connaissances sur le rôle des puces dans la transmission de la peste bubonique. Centralbl. f. Bakt. I. Abt. Vol. XXXIX. p. 625.Google Scholar
Gauthier, and Raybaud, (1903). Recherches expérimentales sur le rôle des parasites du rat dans la transmission de la peste. Revue d'hygiène et de Police sanitaire, Vol. XXV. No. 5.Google Scholar
Gauthier, and Raybaud, (1909). La puce du rat (Ceratophyllus fasciatus) pique l'homme. Compt. Rend. Soc. de Biol. Vol. LXVII. p. 859.Google Scholar
Gauthier, and Raybaud, (1910, a). Des variétés de pullicidés trouvés sur les rats à Marseille. C. R. Soc. de Biol. Vol. LXVIII. p. 198.Google Scholar
Gauthier, and Raybaud, (1910, b). Les puces du rat, Ceratophyllus fasciatus et Ctenopsylla musculi, piquent l'homme. Compt. Rend. Soc. de Biol. Vol. LXVIII. p. 941.Google Scholar
Giles, (1906). How to recognise the species of Pulex possibly concerned in the transmission of plague. Journ. Trop. Med. Vol. IX. p. 190.Google Scholar
Herzog, (1905). Zur Frage der Pestverbreitung durch Insecten. Zeitsch. f. Hyg. Vol. LI. p. 268.Google Scholar
Jorden, and Rothschild, (1908). Revision of the non-combed Siphonaptera. Parasitology, Vol. I. p. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitasato, (1909). Rat-fleas with their special reference to the transmission of plague in Japan. Trans. Bombay Med. Congr., 1909, p. 93.Google Scholar
Liston, W. G. (1904). Plague, rats and fleas. Journ. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. Vol. XVI. p. 253.Google Scholar
McCoy, and Mitzmain, (1909). Experimental Investigation of biting of man by fleas from rats and squirrels. Reports of Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service of the United States, Vol. XXIV. No. 8.Google Scholar
Martin, and Rowland, (1911). Observations on rat-plague in East Suffolk. Appendix to the Report of the Medical Officer to the Local Govt. Board.Google Scholar
Ogata, M. (1896). Ueber die Pestepidemie in Formosa. Centralbl. f. Bakt. I. Abt. Vol. XXI. p. 774.Google Scholar
Raynaud, L. (1909). Prophylaxie de la peste en Algérie. Revue d'hygiène et de Police sanitaire, Vol. XXXI. p. 101.Google Scholar
Rothschild, (1903). New species of Siphonaptera from Egypt and the Soudan. Entom. Monthly Mag. Vol. XXXIX. p. 83.Google Scholar
Rothschild, (1905). Some new Siphonaptera. Novitates Zoologicae, Vol. XII.Google Scholar
Rothschild, (1906). Note on the species of fleas found upon rats in different parts of the world. Journal of Hygiene, Vol. VI. p. 483.Google Scholar
Rothschild, (1910). A synopsis of the fleas found on Mus norwegicus decumanus, Mus rattus alexandrinus and Mus musculus. Bull. of Entomol. Res. Vol. I. p. 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuberg, and Manteufel, (1910). Rattenflöhe aus Deutsch-Ostafrica. Arb. a. d. Kais. Gesundheitsamte, Vol. XXXIII. p. 559.Google Scholar
Shipley, (1908). Rats and their animal parasites. Journ. of Economic Biology, Vol. III. No. 3, p. 61.Google Scholar
Simond, (1898). La propagation de la peste. Ann. de l'inst. Pasteur, Vol. XII. p. 625.Google Scholar
Tidswell, (1903). Report of the Board of Health on the second Outbreak of Plague at Sydney in 1902, p. 71.Google Scholar
Tidswell, (1910). Report of the Government Microbiol. Dept. New South Wales for 1909, p. 20.Google Scholar
Tiraboschi, (1904). Les rats, les souris et leurs parasites cutanés. Archiv. de Parasitol. Vol. VIII. p. 161.Google Scholar
Tiraboschi, (1907). État actuel de la question du véhicule de la peste. Archiv. de Parasitol. Vol. II. p. 545.Google Scholar
Verjbitski, D. T. (1908). The part played by insects in the epidemiology of plague. Journal of Hygiene, Vol. VIII. p. 162.Google Scholar