Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T20:28:11.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The morphology of the British Prostriata with particular reference to Ixodes hexagonus Leach. II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

D. R. Arthur
D. R. Arthur
Affiliation:
The Department of Zoology, King's College, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The palps of all stages of Ixodes trianguliceps are provided with a ventral plate below the basal article; formerly this plate was thought to be the first palpal article. This article in the larva and nymph is produced forward into a spur, but in the female tick this spur is incorporated into the basis capituli as the sella. The hypostomes of I. trianguliceps and I. canisuga are redescribed to clear up existing inaccuracies.

Ticks in which the rostrum does not extend beyond the apex of the first palpal article are found on birds, and this probably represents a primitive condition. Those with palpal spurs, which may or may not be fused with the basis capituli, are found on birds (not in Britain) or on mammals of the mouse size group, and those where the rostrum is produced beyond the first palpal article occur on a wide range of large and small animals. The longer and more heavily toothed digits of ticks appear to be associated with a wide host range and vice versa. The structure of the digit may also influence the choice of attachment sites by ticks on their hosts because the microstructure of the skin varies in different parts.

Variations in size and form of the scuta of some British ticks are described, and the mean growth rate is ascertained from this data. The information shows that the material of I. ricinus and I. hexagonus is homogeneous, and that specific differences occur in size, shape, the position and type of dermal ducts and in the relation between scutal and alloscutal bristles.

The morphology of Gené's organ in I. hexagonus is described. It consists of a basal sac-like portion surmounted by four horns and lined with a cuticle beneath an epithelium. The gland is a proliferation of the epithelium and located near the bifurcation of the base into the horns. A watery refractile fluid, secreted by the gland, accumulates between the epidermis and the cuticle in the horn-like extensions. Proximally the thick endocuticle and epidermis lie close together, and two cuticularized rods penetrate the endocuticle for about half-way along the stalk. The rods arise from the postero-dorsal margin of the basis capituli. Muscles, arising from the free ends of the rods, pass back to near the hind-margin of the scutum; they retract the basis capituli after egg laying and indirectly assist in the retraction of Gené's organ. A suggested mechanism for everting Gené's organ in I. hexagonus is outlined.

During feeding the opisthosomatic cuticle of all developmental stages of the tick is much stretched. In the larva, where the cuticle is thin, this is effected by the flattening of the epicuticular pleats, but nymphs and females have, in addition, two longitudinal folds alongside the body which stretch to a far greater extent than do the epicuticular pleats. Similar folds are present between the hard ventral plates and the scutum and between the epimeral and median plates in the male. Coupled with the large size of the male digit, this suggests that morphologically, at least, males can imbibe blood.

The growth of the leg segments of I. hexagonus is not constant from stage to stage, and as a result the shortest ‘leg-length’ of the female exceeds the longest ‘leg-length’ of the male.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 42 , Issue 3-4 , January 1953 , pp. 161 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1953

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

Arthur, D. R. (1946). Parasitology, 37, 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, D. R. (1949). Parasitology, 39, 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, D. R. (1951 a). Parasitology, 41, 66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, D. R. (1951 b). Parasitology, 41, 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertkau, P. (1881). Verh. naturh. Ver. preuss. Rheinl. J. 38, 145.Google Scholar
Bernshtein, M. M. (1948). Legkaya. Prom. 5, 18.Google Scholar
Braun, , Reismann, , Ivanov, & Rjabinen, (1932). Centraini naucoissledovatelksi koz promyslennosti. Leningrad.Google Scholar
Brohmer, P. (1944). Fauna der Deutschland, pp. 453–8. Berlin.Google Scholar
Carstens, P. & Kinzelbach, W. (1933). Züchtungskunde, 8, 135.Google Scholar
Chiodi, V. (1933). Mont. ital. zool. 43, 284.Google Scholar
Elton, C. & Keay, G. (1936). Parasitology, 28, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falke, H. (1931). Z. Morph. Ökol. Tiere, 21, 567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gené, J. (1848). Mem. R. Accad. Sci. Torino, 9, 751.Google Scholar
Gregson, J. D. (1937). Proc. Ent. Soc. B.C. 33, 15.Google Scholar
Hughes, T. E. (1949). Ann. Trop. Med. Parasit. 43, 349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, B. M. (1950). Parasitology, 40, 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lees, A. D. (1946). Parasitology, 37, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lees, A. D. (1947). J. Exp. Biol. 23, 379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lees, A. D. (1948). J. Exp. Biol. 25, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lees, A. D. & Beament, J. W. L. (1948). Quart. J. Micr. Soc. 89, 291.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, C. P. (1900). Ent. News, 11, 326.Google Scholar
Milne, A. (1947). Parasitology, 38, 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemec, V. (1940). J. Int. Soc. Leath. Chem. 24, 243.Google Scholar
Neumann, L. (1899). Mém. Soc. zool. 12, 129.Google Scholar
Nordenskiöld, E. (1908). Zool. Jb. Abt. 2, 25, 637.Google Scholar
Nuttall, G. H. F., Cooper, W. F. & Robinson, L. E. (1908). Parasitology, 1, 238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuttall, G. H. F., Warburton, C., Cooper, W. E. & Robinson, L. E. (1911). Ticks. A monograph of the Ixodoidea, Pt. II. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, L. E. & Davidson, J. (1913–1914). Parasitology, 6, 20, 217, 382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samson, K. (1909). Z. wiss. Zool. 93, 185.Google Scholar
Schulze, P. (1942). Z. Morph. Ökol. Tiere, 38, 379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snodgrass, R. E. (1948). The feeding organs of Arach-nida, including mites and ticks. Smithsonian Misc. Coll. 110, no. 10. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Talice, R. V. (1930). Ann. Parasit. hum. comp. 8, 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheler, E. G. (1899). Proc. R. Agric. Soc. Engl. 4, 626.Google Scholar
Wheler, E. G. (1906). J. Agric. Sci. 1, 400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
With, C. J. (1904). Vidensk. Medd. naturh. Foren. Kbh. 56, 137.Google Scholar
Yalvac, S. (1939). Z. Morph. Okol. Tiere, 35, 535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar