Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T21:55:28.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the life history and the biology of the rat-flea, Nosopsyllus fasciatus (Bosc.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

M. Sharif
M. Sharif
Affiliation:
From the Molteno Institute of Biology and Parasitology, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A brief summary of previous work done on the life history and the biology of fleas is given. The duration of various well-defined periods during the course of metamorphosis of the flea at temperature 23° C. and 90 per cent relative humidity is recorded.

It is experimentally proved that blood, although the most important part of the nutritional requirements of the flea larvae, is by itself not sufficient for their normal and successful development. The flea larvae require an additional food which in nature is supplied by the organic refuse present in the bed of the host of the adult fleas.

Experiments were carried out to determine the nutritional value of different constituents of the blood and it was found that the fibrin has no nutritive value to the flea larvae, while the serum and red corpuscles have equal nutritive value. Lagging larvae are the result of some deficiency in the food. The serum possesses all the essential proteins for the normal development of flea larvae but lack of the required amount of iron in it increases the percentage of mortality and delays the development. On the other hand the red corpuscles or haemoglobin, though rich in proteins containing iron but on account of the poverty of some other proteins necessary for the normal development prolong the development and increase the percentage of mortality. It was further experimentally proved that flea larvae require blood for their development in order to obtain the necessary supply of iron for their normal growth. The denatured proteins of the blood and its constituents have no nutritive value for the flea larvae.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , April 1937 , pp. 225 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1937

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

Bacot, A. W. (1914). A study of the bionomics of the common rat fleas and other species associated with human habitations, with special reference to the influence of temperature and humidity at various periods of the life history of the insect. J. Hyg. Plague Supplement, 3, 447–654, Pls. XXVII–XXXIV.Google Scholar
Bacot, A. W. & Ridewood, W. G. (1914). Observations on the larvae of fleas. Parasitology, 7, 157–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchard, E. (1868). Métamorphoses, mœurs et instincts des Insectes, 716 pp. Paris.Google Scholar
Buxton, P. A. (1931). Studies on the biology of fleas. Lond. Nat. pp. 39–42.Google Scholar
Buxton, P. A. & Mellanby, K. (1934). The measurement and control of humidity. Bull. ent. Res. 25, 171–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cestone, D. (1699). A new discovery of, the original of fleas, made by the Signior D'iacinto Cestone of Leghorn. In an Extract of a Letter from Leghorn to Dr Martin Lister, November 24, 1698, concerning Seignior Redi's Manuscripts, and the Generation of Fleas. Philos. Trans. 21, 42–3, 1 Pl.Google Scholar
Defrance, M. (1824). Notice sur la Puce irritante. Ann. Sci. nat. 1, 440–3.Google Scholar
Hicks, E. P. (1930). The early stages of the Jigger Tunga penetrans. Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 24, 575–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Künckel, J. (1873). Observations sur les Puces: en particulier sur les larves des Puces de Chat et de Loir (Pulex felis et Pulex fasciatus). Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. (5) 3, 129–42, Pl. VI.Google Scholar
Laboulbène, A. (1872). Métamorphoses de la Puce du Chat (Pulex felis Bouché). Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. (5) 2 267–74, Pl. XIII.Google Scholar
Leeson, H. S. (1932). Methods of rearing and maintaining large stocks of fleas and mosquitos for experimental purposes. Bull. ent. Res. 23, 25–31.Google Scholar
Leewenhoeck, A. (1683). An abstract of a letter from Mr Anthony Leewenhoeck writ to Sir C. W. Philos. Trans. 13, No. 145, 74–81, Pl. II.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellanby, K. (1933). The influence of temperature and humidity on the pupation of Xenopsylla cheopis. Bull. ent. Res. 24, 197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitzmain, M. B. (1910 a). Some new facts on the bionomics of the California rodent fleas. Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 3, 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitzmain, M. B. (1910 b). General observations on the bionomics of the rodent and human fleas. Treasury Dept. Pub. Hlth Marine-Hospital Serv. U.S. Pub. Hlth Bull. No. 38, 34 pp. Washington.Google Scholar
Nordberg, S. (1931). Undersökningar rörande aphanipterlarvernas näringsbiologi. Notul. ent., Helsingfors, 11, 160–4.Google Scholar
Patton, W. S. & Cragg, F. W. (1913). A Textbook of Medical Entomology, pp. i–xxxiv + 1–764. Madras.Google Scholar
Pérez, J. (1894). Notes Zoologiques. Act. Soc. linn. Bordeaux, 47, 231–331.Google Scholar
Rösel von Rosenhof, A. J. (1749). Beschreibung des so bekannten als beschwerlichen Flohes. Sammlung der Mücken und Schnacken hiesiges Landes in Insecten Belustigung, 2, 9–24, Pls. II–IV. Nürnberg.Google Scholar
Sikes, E. K. (1930). Larvae of Ceratophyllus wickhami and other species of fleas. Parasitology, 22, 242–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sikes, E. K. (1931). Notes on breeding fleas, with reference to humidity and feeding. Parasitology 23, 243–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strickland, C. (1914). The biology of Ceratophyllus fasciatus Bosc., the common rat-flea of Great Britain. J. Hyg., Camb., 14, 129–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tiflov, V. & Ioff, I. (1932). Beobachtungen über die Biolögie der Flöhe (In Russian; summary in German). Rev. Microbiol., Saratov, 11, 95–117.Google Scholar
Westwood, J. O. (1848). The common flea (Pulex irritans). Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 1, 316–18.Google Scholar