Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:22:06.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parous rates in some Amazonian mosquitoes collected by three different methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

John B. Davies ,
Philip S. Corbet ,
M. T. Gillies  and
A. W. R. McCrae
John B. Davies
Affiliation:
External Staff, Medical Research Council, Trinidad Regional Virus Laboratory, P.O. Box 164, Port of Spain, Trinidad
Philip S. Corbet
Affiliation:
Research Institute, Canada Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 367, Belleville, Ontario, Canada
M. T. Gillies
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, England
A. W. R. McCrae
Affiliation:
East African Virus Research Institute, P.O. Box 49, Entebbe, Uganda, East Africa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A total of 4418 mosquitoes caught by three collection methods at two levels in the forest near Belém, Brazil, were dissected to determine the proportion of parous individuals. About two-thirds of the mosquitoes belonged to Culex (Melanoconion) portesi Senevet & Abonnenc and C. (M.) taeniopus D. & K. The dissection technique entailed dissecting out the ovaries for examination of the tracheoles, whilst preserving the rest of the mosquito for later processing for virus recovery. Analysis of the results showed that, although significant differences were found in the parous rates from samples caught off human bait, and from mouse-baited Trinidad no. 17 and blower traps, these differences were unlikely to be of practical value when compared to differences in catching ability and ease of operation of the methods. In all, 2771 mosquitoes were classed as parous, and these when inoculated into baby mice in 142 pools yielded 14 isolations. It was concluded that the technique used did not reduce the likelihood of isolating viruses from the dissected mosquitoes.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , October 1971 , pp. 125 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

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

Aitken, T. H. O., Worth, C. B. & Tikasingh, E. S. (1968). Arbovirus studies in Bush Bush forest, Trinidad, Wi., September 1959-December 1964. III Entomologic studies.—Am. J. trop. Med. Hyg. 17, 253–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Causey, O. R., Causey, C. E., Maroja, O. M. & Macedo, D. G. (1961). The isolation of arthropod-borne viruses, including members of two hitherto undescribed serological groups, in the Amazon region of Brazil.—Am. J. trop. Med. Hyg. 10, 227–249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corbet, P. S. (1959). Recognition of individual nulliparous and parous mosquitoes.—Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg. 53, 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbet, P. S. (1960). Recognition of nulliparous mosquitoes without dissection.—Nature, Lond. 187, 525–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, J. B. (in press). A small mosquito trap for use with animal or carbon dioxide baits.—Mosquito News.Google Scholar
De Freitas, E. N., Shope, R. E. & Toda, A. (1966). A blower trap for capturing mosquitoes.—Mosquito News 26, 373–377.Google Scholar
Detinova, T. S. (1962). Age-grouping methods in Diptera of medical importance with special reference to some vectors of malaria.—WHO Monograph no. 47, 216 pp. Geneva, WHO.Google Scholar
Polovorova, V. P. (1949). Determination of the physiological age of female Anopheles.—Med. Parazit. (Mosk.) 18, 352–355. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
Woodall, J. P. (1967). Virus research in Amazonia. Atlas do Simposio Sobre a Biota Amazonica, vol. 6 (Patulogia), 31–63.Google Scholar