Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T18:52:31.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Larvae of Ceratophyllus wickhami and other Species of Fleas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Enid K. Sikes
Enid K. Sikes
Affiliation:
Research Student, Department of Medical Entomology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A short historical account is given of the writings on flea larvae since the seventeenth century. The larvae have been known since Leeuwenhoek tried to breed them in 1683.

The life-history of Ceratophyllus wickhami is described. The fleas were bred in the laboratory on a grey squirrel. Three larval instars occur, and the life-history occupies, on an average, 6 weeks under experimental conditions.

The external anatomy of the third instar larva of C. wickhami is described. The mouth parts are generalised and suggest the condition of a primitive insect. The tracheal system is composed of a double longitudinal trunk on each side, with spiracles on the prothorax, metathorax and first eight abdominal segments.

The first and second instar of C. wickhami are similar to the third instar larvae, except in size and the presence of a hatching spine in the first stage.

The larva of Ceratophyllus fasciatus is mentioned. The importance of the species lies in the presence of completely separated galea and lacinia.

Larvae of Xenopsylla cheopis and X. astia are briefly described. The larvae of the two species are practically identical except for the shape of the mandibles.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , March 1930 , pp. 242 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1930

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

Bacot, A. W. (1914). Bionomics of fleas. J. Hygiene, Plague Supplement, 3, 447–654.Google Scholar
Bacot, A. W. and Ridewood, W. G. (1914). Observations on the larvae of fleas. Parasitology, 7, 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchard, E. (1868). Métamorphoses, mœurs et instincts des Insectes, p. 630. Paris.Google Scholar
1Bonnet, G. (1867). Mémoires sur la Puce pénétrante ou Chique. Arch. de Méd. navale, 8.Google Scholar
Cestone, J. (1699). A new discovery of the original of fleas. Philos. Trans. 21, 42–43.Google Scholar
Defrance, M. (1824). Notice sur la Puce irritante. Ann. des Sc. naturelles, 1, 440–441.Google Scholar
2De Geer, Ch. (1778). Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire des Insectes, 7, 12–13.Google Scholar
Dufour, L. (1862). Des Cocons de la Puce. Ann. Soc. Ent. France, 4ième Sér. 1, 225–258.Google Scholar
Gimingham, C. T. (1926). On the presence of an egg burster in the Aphidae. Trans. Ent. Soc. London, 1925, pp. 585–590.Google Scholar
Haliday, A. H. (1856). On the affinities of the Aphanaptera among insects. Nat. Hist. Rev. Proc. 3, 9.Google Scholar
Harms, B. (1912). Untersuchungen über die Larve von Ctenocephalus canis. Teil l. Arch. f. Mikrosk. Anat. 80 (2), 167–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, J. H. (1928). A note on some external characters of X. cheopis. Parasitology, 20, 115–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirst, L. F. (1927). Researches on Parasitology of Plague. Colombo.Google Scholar
Hirst, L. F. (1927). Rat flea surveys and their use as a guide to plague preventive measures. Trans. Roy. Soc. Trop. Med. and Hyg. 21, 87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imms, A. D. (1925). A General Textbook of Entomology, pp. 662–667, Methuen.Google Scholar
Imms, A. D. (1929). Some methods of technique applicable to entomology. Bull. Ent. Res. 20, 165–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraepelin, K. (1884). Ueber die systematische Stellung der Puliciden. Hamburg.Google Scholar
Künckel, J. (1873). Observations sur les Puces, en particulier sur les Larves des Puces de Chat et de Loir. Ann. Soc. Ent. France, 5ième Sér. 3, 129–142.Google Scholar
Labourlbène, A. (1872). Métamorphoses de Ia Puce du Chat. Ann. Soc. Ent. France, 5ième Sér. 2, 267–274.Google Scholar
Leeuwenhoek, A. (1683). Abstract from a letter. Philos. Trans. 13, No. 145, 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martini, E. (1922). Die Eidonomie der Flöhe. Centralbl. f. Bacteriol. 1, Abt. Orig. 88, 205–221.Google Scholar
Mitzmain, M. B. (1910). General observations on the bionomics of the rodent and human fleas. U.S. Pub. Health Bull. No. 38.Google Scholar
Oudemans, A. C. (1909). Neue Ansichten über die Morphologie des Flöhkopfes, sowie über die Ontogenie, Phylogenie und Systematik der Flöhe. Nov. Zoo. 16, 133–178.Google Scholar
Oudemans, A. C. (1913). Suctoriologisches aus Maulwurfsnestern. Tijdschr. Entomol. 56, 3, 238–280.Google Scholar
Packard, A. C. (1872). Embryological studies of hexapodous insects. Mem. Peabody Acad. Sci. Salem, Mass., 1, 3rd Mem.Google Scholar
Packard, A. C. (1894). On the systematic position of the Siphonaptera with notes on their structure. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 26, 312–355.Google Scholar
Patten, and Cragg, . Textbook of Medical Entomology, pp. 434–477.Google Scholar
Perfiljew, P. P. (1926). Anatomie der Flöhlarven. Zeitschr. f. Morphol. und. Ökol. der Tiere, 7, Parts 1 and 2, pp. 102–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1Roesel, A. J. (1749). Insecten-Belustigung, 2, Nuremburg.Google Scholar
Simmons, W. J. (1888). The metamorphoses of the dog flea. Amer. Mo. Micros. J. 9, 227–230.Google Scholar
1Vallisneri, A. (1733). Esperienze ed Osservazione intorno all' origine, sviluppi et costumi di vari insetti. Opere fisico-mediche, 1, 212.Google Scholar
Webster, W. J. (1929). The anatomy of the Indian Xenopsylla larvae. Ind. J. of Med. Res. 17, 90–92.Google Scholar
Westwood, J. O. (1848). The common flea (P. irritans). Ann. and Magas. of Nat. Hist. Ser. 2, 1, 316–318.Google Scholar