Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T18:45:47.648Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experiments on the olfactory responses and host-specificity of the Oriental rat flea (Xenopsylla cheopis), (Siphonaptera: Pulicidae)*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

A. Shulov  and
D. Naor
A. Shulov
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Entomology and Venomous Animals, Department of Zoology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
D. Naor
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Entomology and Venomous Animals, Department of Zoology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Factors governing the response of the Oriental rat flea, X. cheopis, to the white rat and to three murids were studied in an olfactometer.

Starved females aged 5–10 days were attracted to white rats, whereas starved younger females were repelled or indifferent. Starved males, 1–10 days old, were either indifferent or were repelled.

No clear-cut attraction of 7- and 8-day-old starved females towards the murids Meriones tristrami, Acomys dimidiatus and Microtus guentheri was observed.

Starved females increased their weight during the first 8 days of life by 12·0%, while starved males lost 2·2%. Females kept in a vessel with a white rat showed a 115·2% weight gain, while males under the same conditions gained only 18·8% (Table 5).

The authors wish to thank Dr F. G. A. M. Smit, of the British Museum (Natural History), Tring, Hertfordshire (England), for his valuable help in the preparation of the manuscript for this paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , May 1964 , pp. 225 - 231
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

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

REFERENCES

Andersen, L. W. & Ball, H. J. (1959). Antennal hygroreceptors of the milkweed bug, Oncopeltus fasciatus (Dallas) (Hemiptera, Lygaeidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 52, 279–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrow, W. M. (1907). The reactions of the pomace fly, Drosophila ampelophila Loew, to odorous substances. J. exp. Zool. 4, 515–37. (Cited by Andersen & Ball, 1959.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Zeev, M. & Sternberg, S. (1962). Factors affecting the feeding of fleas (Xenopsylla cheopis Rothsch.) through a membrane. Ent. exp. appl. 5, 60–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, M. (1954). The Natural History of Mosquitoes, 379 pp. New York: The Macmillan Co.Google Scholar
Benton, A. H., Cerwonka, R. & Hill, J. (1959). Observations on host perception in fleas. J. Parasit. 45, 614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dethier, V. G. (1957). The sensory physiology of blood-sucking arthropods. Exp. Parasit. 6, 68–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frings, H. (1941). The loci of olfactory end-organs in the blowfly, Cynomyia cadaverina Desvoidy. J. exp. Zool. 88, 65–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafez, M. (1950). On the behaviour and sensory physiology of the house-fly larva, Musca domestica L. I. Feeding stage. Parasitology, 40, 215–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead-Briggs, A. R. & Rudge, A. J. B. (1960). Breeding of the rabbit flea, Spilopsyllus cuniculi (Dale): requirement of a ‘factor’ from a pregnant rabbit for ovarian maturation. Nature, Lond., 187, 1136–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, M. & Clay, T. (1952). Fleas, Flukes and Cuckoos, 304 pp. + xiv. The New Naturalist. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Siegel, S. (1956). Non-Parametric Statistics. New York, Toronto, London: McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc.Google Scholar
Smith, C. N. & Eddy, G. W. (1954). Techniques for rearing and handling body lice, Oriental rat fleas and cat fleas. Bull. World Hlth Org. 10, 127–37.Google ScholarPubMed