Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:38:44.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stimuli involved in the Attraction of Aëdes aegypti, L., to Man*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Alec H. Parker
Alec H. Parker
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Glasgow.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The reactions of Aëdes aegypti females to certain stimuli normally associated with the human surface body have been investigated. The apparatus used was such that the insects were unable to touch the source of stimulation. Attraction to the latter was indicated by the congregation of females in its vicinity.

The following stimuli proved attractive: the intact palm of the hand; collected sweat at room temperature; moisture at room temperature; moisture at body-surface temperature. A warm surface at body-surface temperature produced no apparent effect, either of attraction or of repulsion.

The four types of stimulus found to be attractive also had marked activating effects. The magnitude of these effects was much greater for the hand and warm moisture, than for cold sweat and cold moisture.

Due allowance for the complication introduced by these differences in activation having been made, cold sweat appeared to be slightly, but significantly, more attractive than cold moisture. A reaction to olfactory stimuli is presumed to have been responsible for this. Such stimuli, however, are not considered to have been of much importance in comparison with warmth and moisture; moisture at body-surface temperature had very nearly, and possibly the same, attractive effect as the intact hand.

The results are compared with those of other recent investigations, and the need for caution in applying them where conditions differ from those under which they were obtained is emphasised.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , December 1948 , pp. 387 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1948

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

Christophers, S. R. (1947). J. Hyg., 45, pp. 176–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, W. A. L., Bracey, P. & Harvey, A. (1945). Bull, ent. Res., 35, pp. 227–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delong, D. M.et al. (1945). Rep. nat. Res. Coun. Insect Contr. Comm., no. 176. Washington.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. M. (1922a). Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., 16, pp. 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, R. M.. (1922b). Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., 16, pp. 425–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J. S. (1939). Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., (A) 109, pp. 221–242.Google Scholar
Reuter, J. (1936). Oriënteerend onderzoek naar de oorzaak van het gedrag van Anopheles maculipennis Meigen bij de voedselkeuze.—Proefschr. Rijksuniv. Leiden, 118 pp. (R.A.E., (B) 24, pp. 223–225).Google Scholar
Shannon, R. C. (1931).—Proc. ent. Soc. Wash., 33, pp. 125–164.Google Scholar
Woke, P. A. (1937).—J. Parasit., 23, pp. 310–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar