Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T06:23:32.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the growth of Pediculus (Anoplura)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

P. A. Buxton
P. A. Buxton
Affiliation:
Professor of Medical Entomology, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The paper discusses the points of difference between the three larval instars in Pediculus and the changes in proportion which take place during growth, not only during larval life but also at the final moult.

2. It is easy to separate larvae of the first instar from others, more difficult to distinguish those in the second and third instars. The principal points of difference are as follows:

First instar. Setae on dorsum of abdomen, few, long and in longitudinal lines: one median pair on most segments. Paratergal plates (carrying spiracle) absent. Mean measurements as in Table I, the best point of distinction between instars being in length of third tibia, which is 0·197 mm. in first instar. Ratio of head to thorax and abdomen about 1:2·8

Second instar. Setae of dorsum of abdomen in one transverse row, containing 2–3 pairs of setae. Paratergal plates present (as also in third instar). Mean length of third tibia, 0·270 mm. Ratio of head to thorax and abdomen about 1: 3·5.

Third instar. Setae on dorsum of abdomen, not in one row, but somewhat irregular: a pair of minute supplementary setae, on seventh and eighth segments, close to midline. Mean length of third tibia, 0·363 mm. Ratio of head to thorax and abdomen about 1:4·3.

3. During larval life the dimensions of all parts increased as geometrical progressions (Dyar's law), but the rate of increase is different in different parts of the body, so that the proportions, for instance, of head to thorax and abdomen alter with growth; in other words, growth is allometric or heterogonic. But when the insect attains maturity the measurements of several of the parts depart significantly from the geometrical progression which has prevailed during larval life. In most parts of the body the increase at maturity is greater in females than males (no point of distinction having been observed in larvae in the preceding instars); but in the length of the third tibia the increase in the female is much less than in the male. Among other insects in which metamorphosis is slight there are several in which the rate of growth of parts alters at the last moult and becomes different in the two sexes; in some indeed the difference develops much earlier than the last moult. Probably, therefore, it would be true to say that regular allometric growth is generally disturbed by the development of secondary sexual characters.

It is a pleasure to acknowledge help received from Dr J. S. Huxley.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , January 1938 , pp. 65 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1938

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

Balfour-Browne, F. (1909). The life-history of the Agrionid dragon-fly. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. pp. 253–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodenheimer, F. S. (1929). Studien zur Epidemiologie, Oekologie mid Physiologie der afrikanischen Wanderheuschrecke (Schistocerca gregaria Forsk.). Z. angew. Ent. 15, Heft 3, 435–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodenheimer, F. S. (1933). The progression factor in insect growth. Quart. Rev. Biol. 8, 92–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxton, P. A. (1936). Studies on populations of headlice (Pediculus humanus capitis: Anoplura). I. Parasitology, 28, 92–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvert, P. P. (1929). Different rates of growth among animals with special reference to the Odonata. Proc. Amer. phil. Soc. 68, 227–74.Google Scholar
Dawes, B. & Huxley, J. S. (1934). Rapid growth rate and diminishing heterogony. Nature, 133, 982–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyar, H. G. (1890). The number of moults of lepidopterous larvae. Psyche, Lond., 5, 420–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enderlein, G. (1905). Läusestudien IV. Über einen auffälligen Sexualdimorphismus bei Polyplax spinulosa (Burm.). Zool. Anz. 29, 192–4 (1906).Google Scholar
Fahrenholz, H. (1912). Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Anopluren. Jber. niedersãchs. Zool. Ver. 1910, 1911 and 1912, pp. 1–58.Google Scholar
Florence, Laura (1921). The hog louse, Haematopinus suis Linné: its biology, anatomy and histology. Bull. Cornell agric. Exp. Sta. 51, 637–743.Google Scholar
Hase, A. (1915). Beitrãge zu einer Biologie der Kleiderlaus (Pediculus corporis de Geer= vestimenti Nitzsch.). Z. angew. Ent. 2, 265–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hase, A. (1931). Siphunculata; Anoplura; Aptera. Lãuse; Biol. Tiere Dtschl. Lief. 34, Teil 30, 1–58.Google Scholar
Hindle, E. (1919). Sex inheritance in Pediculus humanus var. corporis . J. Genet. 8, 267–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, R. H. (1918). A note on the life cycle and fertility of the body louse (Pediculus corporis). J. econ. Ent. 11, 404–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, J. S. (1932). Problem of Relative Growth. London.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. & Teissier, G. (1936). Terminology of relative growth. Nature, Lond., 137, 780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keilin, D. & Nuttall, G. F. H. (1930). Iconographic studies of Pediculus humanus . Parasitology, 22, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkpatrick, T. W. (1923). The Egyptian cotton-seed bug (Oxycarenus hyalinipennis, Costa). Its bionomics, damage, and suggestions for remedial measures. Bull. Minist. Agric. Egypt, No. 35.Google Scholar
Landois, L. (1864). Untersuchungen über die and dem Menschen schmarotzenden Pediculinen. Abh. I. Anatomie des Phthirius inguinalis Leach. Z. wiss. Zool. 14, 1–26.Google Scholar
Larsen, O. (1930). Biologische Beobachtungen an schwedischen Notonecta-Arten. Ent. Tidskr. 51, 219–47.Google Scholar
Müller, J. (1915). Zur Naturgeschichte der Kleiderlaus. Öst. Sanitätsw. 27, Nos. 36, 38 and 47/49 Beilage, 75 pp.Google Scholar
Nuttall, G. H. F. (1917 a). Studies on Pediculus. I. The copulatory apparatus and the process of copulation in Pediculus humanus . Öst. Sanitätsw. 9, 293–324.Google Scholar
Nuttall, G. H. F. (1917 b). The biology of Pediculus humanus . Parasitology, 10, 80–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oudemans, A. C. (1923). Mededeelingen over Mallophaga en Pediculi. V. Ent. Bericht. Nederl. Ent. Vereenigung. 6, 163–168.Google Scholar
Patton, W. S. & Cragg, F. W. (1913). A Text-book of Medical Entomology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przibram, H. & Meguśar, F. (1912). Wachstumsmessungen an Sphodromantis bioculata Burm. 1. Länge und Masse. Arch. EntwMech. Org. 34, 680–742.Google Scholar
Severin, H. H. P. & Severin, H. C. (1911). The life-history of the walking-stick, Diapheromera femorata Day. J. econ. Ent. 4, 307–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sikora, H. (1915). Beiträge zur Biologie von Pediculus vestimenti . Zbl. Bakt. 76, Orig. pp. 523–37.Google Scholar
Spett, G. E. (1930). Entwicklung der sekundären Geschlechtsmerkmale in der Ontogenese des Chorthippus parallelus Zett. (Orthoptera). Arch. EntwMech. Org. 122, 593–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spett, G. E. (1934). On the problem of insect growth. Zool. Zh. 13, 195–206.Google Scholar
Spett, G. E. (1935). Ontogenetic analysis of systematic differences in grasshoppers. Zool. Zh. 14, 674–98.Google Scholar
Sweilengrebel, N. H. (1918). Quelques remarques sur la façon de combattre le pou des vêtements. Arch. néerl. Sci. Sér. IIIB, 3, 1–31.Google Scholar
Warburton, C. (1910). Report on a preliminary investigation on flock as a possible distributor of vermin, and on the life history of the body louse. Rep. Local Govt. Board, N.S. 27.Google Scholar