Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T14:13:15.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations on the Tropisms of Dorylaimus saprophilus and Rhabditis succaris

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2009

Phyllis A. Clapham
Phyllis A. Clapham
Affiliation:
From the Department of Helminthology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

(1) The reactions of Dorylaimus under ordinary conditions of life are noted, especially its mode of progression and its burrowing habit.

(2) Some experiments were carried out with a view to finding out what physical and chemical stimuli are responsible for bringing about these reactions.

(3) The possibility of hydrotropism, thermotropism, geotropism, stereotropism, heliotropism and chemotropism are considered.

(4) The conclusion to be drawn from the data is, that taken on the whole, eelworms do not exhibit well marked tropic responses except in the case of stereotropism. It is obvious here, however, that they do everything in their power to put their body surface in contact with some solid object. This need explains why the worms are always found in the interstices of the zoogloeal film round the clinker. No other tropic response is needed to explain this habitat.

Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , February 1931 , pp. 29 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1931

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

Boycott, A. E., 1905.—“Ankylostomiasis,” Trans. Epidem. Soc. London 24. (W.L. 21485.)Google Scholar
Boycott, A. E. 1911.—The Milroy Lectures on Anchylostoma Infection. “The Diagnosis of Anchylostoma Infection,” Lancet, Lond. Mch. 25. (W.L. 11995.)Google Scholar
Fülleborn, F., 1924.—“Uber ‘Taxis’ (Tropismus) bei Strongyloides und Ankylostomen Larven.” Arch. Schiffs.-u.-Tropenhyg. 28. (W.L. 1804.)Google Scholar
Khalil, M., 1922.—“Thermotropism in Anchylostoma larvæ.” Proc. Roy. Soc. Tropical Diseases Section. (W.L. 16900.)Google Scholar
Lane, Clayton, 1930. “Behaviour of Infective hookworm Larvæ,” Ann. Trop. Med. Parasit. XXIV. 3. (W.L. 1063.)Google Scholar
Loeb, J., 1918.—“Forced Movements, Tropisms and Animal Conduct.”Google Scholar
Looss, A., 1911.—“Anatomy and Life History of Agchylostoma duodenale,” Pt. II. “The Development in the Free State,” Cairo.Google Scholar
Lutz, A., 1885.—“Ueber Ankylostoma duodenale und Ankylostomiasis,” Samml. Klin. Vortr. Teil I., Nos. 255–6. Teil II., No. 265. (W.L. 19681.)Google Scholar
Payne, F. K., 1923 A.—Investigations in the Control of Hookworm Disease, XIV. “Field Experiments on the vertical migration of larvæ,” Amer. J. Hyg. 3, 46. (W.L. 600A.)Google Scholar
Payne, F. K. 1923 B.—Investigations in the Control of Hookworm Disease, XXX. “Studies in the factors involved in the migration of Hookworm larvæ in the soil.” Amer. J. Hyg. 3, 547. (W.L. 600A.)Google Scholar
Peters, B. G., 1928.—“On the Bionomics of the Vinegar Eelworm,” J. Helm. VI.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G. 1930.—“Some Nematodes met with in a Biological Investigation of Sewage,” J. Helm. VIII.Google Scholar
Przibram, H., 1913.—“Experimental-Zoologie.” 4. Vitalitāt. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Sheard, C. and Hardenbergh, J. G., 1927.—“The Effects of Ultra-violet and Infra-red Irradiation on Demodex folliculorum,” J. Parasit. 14, 36. (W.L. 11428.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springer, M. and Tardieu, A., 1925.—“De l'action des rayons ultra-violets sur la croissance,” Bull. Acad. Méd. Paris. 95. (W.L. 3683.)Google Scholar