Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T07:47:14.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The transmission of Actinomyces rhodnii Erikson in Rhodnius prolixus stål (hemiptera) and its influence on the growth of the host

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

G. Brecher  and
V. B. Wigglesworth
G. Brecher
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
V. B. Wigglesworth
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Actinomyces rhodnii has been isolated regularly from Rhodnius prolixus reared in the laboratory. It is not transmitted through the egg but is taken up by the young nymph from the environment; sometimes from the contaminated surface of the egg; more often perhaps from the dry excreta of other members of the species.

Rhodnius has been reared free from Actinomyces by sterilizing the surface of the egg and feeding with suitable precautions.

These sterile insects grow and moult normally until the 4th or 5th instar. Moulting is then delayed or may fail entirely in spite of repeated feeds of blood. Very few insects without Actinomyces become adult, and those few are almost certainly incapable of reproduction. Normal growth and moulting and egg production are resumed if the insects are re-infected with Actinomyces.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , March 1944 , pp. 220 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1944

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

Aschner, M. (1931). Z. Morph. Ökol. Tiere, 20, 368–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumpt, E. (1914). Bull. Soc. Path. exot. 7, 702–5.Google Scholar
Dias, E. (1937). Mem. Inst. Osw. Cruz, 32, 165–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, J. T. (1926). Parasitology, 18, 238–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, D. (1935). Med. Res. Coun., Lond., Spec. Rep. Ser. no. 203.Google Scholar
Glaser, R. W. (1930). J. Exp. Med. 51, 58–82.Google Scholar
Glasgow, H. (1914). Biol. Bull. Woods Hole, 26, 101–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuskop, M. (1923). Arch. Protistenk. 47, 350–84.Google Scholar
Ørskov, J. (1923). Investigations into the morphology of ray fungi. Thesis. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Patton, W. S. & Cragg, F. W. (1913). A Textbook of Medical Entomology. Madras.Google Scholar
Reynolds, J. M. (1943). Nature, Lond., 151, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenkranz, W. (1939). Z. Morph. Ökol. Tiere, 36, 279–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waksman, S. A. (1919). Soil Sci. 8, 71–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigglesworth, V. B. (1929). Parasitology, 21, 288–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigglesworth, V. B. (1933). Quart. J. Micr. Sci. 76, 269–318.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, V. B. (1934). Quart. J. Micr. Sci. 77, 191–222.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, V. B. (1936 a). Quart. J: Micr. Sci. 79, 91–121.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, V. B. (1936 b). Parasitology, 28, 284–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar