Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:30:52.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Report upon Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Edward Hindle  and
Gordon Merriman
Edward Hindle
Affiliation:
(From the Quick Laboratory, Cambridge.)
Gordon Merriman
Affiliation:
(From the Quick Laboratory, Cambridge.)
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.

Under the conditions of our experiments, indication was afforded that—

(1) House-flies tend to travel either against or across the wind. The actual direction followed may be determined either directly by the action of the wind, or indirectly owing to the flies being attracted by any odours it may convey from a source of food.

(2) It is likely that the chief conditions favouring the dispersal of flies are fine weather and a warm temperature. The nature of the locality is another considerable factor, as in towns flies do not travel as far as in open country, this being probably due to the food and shelter afforded by the houses.

(3) Under experimental conditions, the height at which the flies are liberated, and also the time of day, appear to influence the dispersal of the insects. As judged by one experiment, when flies are set free in the afternoon they do not scatter so well as when liberated in the morning.

(4) The maximum flight in thickly-housed localities in our experiments was about a quarter of a mile; but in one case a single fly was recovered at a distance of 770 yards. It should be noted, however, that part of this distance was across open fen-land.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , April 1914 , pp. 24 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1914

References

REFERENCES

Copeman, S. M., Howlett, F. M. and Merriman, G. (1911). An experimental Investigation on the Range of Flight of Flies. Reports to the Local Government Board on Public Health and Medical Subjects. N.S. No. 53, 1–10, with map.Google Scholar
Hewitt, C. G. (1912). Observations on the Range of Flight of Flies. Reports to the Local Government Board on Public Health and Medical Subjects. N.S. No. 66, 1–5, with map.Google Scholar
Howard, L. O. (1911). The House Fly—Disease Carrier. New York: F. A. Stokes Co.Google Scholar
Jepson, F. P. (1909). Notes on Colouring Flies for Purposes of Identification. Reports to the Local Government Board on Public Health and Medical Subjects. N.S. No. 16, 4–9.Google Scholar
Niven, J. (1906). Report on the Health of the City of Manchester for 1906. 262.Google Scholar
Nuttall, G. H. F. (1899). On the rôole of Insects, Arachnids and Myriapods as carriers in the spread of bacterial and parasitic disease of men and animals. A critical and historical study. Johns Hopkins Hospital Reports VIII. 154 pp. 2 plates.Google Scholar
Nuttall, G. H. F. and Jepson, F. P. (1909). The part played by Musca domestica and allied (non-biting) Flies in the spread of Infective Diseases. A Summary of our present knowledge. Reports to the Local Government Board on Public Health and Medical Subjects. N.S. No. 16, 13–41.Google Scholar