Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:20:42.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

HOUSEFLY MEMORY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

R. H. Wright
Affiliation:
6822 Blenheim St., Vancouver, British Columbia V6N 1R7

Extract

H. Mourier (1965) described a “novelty effect” in the response of houseflies, Musca domestica L., to a “new object” (usually a 15×15 cm square black tile) placed on the floor of their cage. On its first introduction into their familiar environment, the tile appeared highly attractive and received many visits. The number of visits thereafter decreased and approached a constant level after about 20 min. If the tile was then removed and replaced after an interval of less than 5 min there was no novelty receptivity, but this gradually returned as the time the tile was out of the cage was more and more extended. After 40–60 minutes the response was equal to the “new object” attractiveness. The flies did not seem to miss the tile when it was removed (Mourier, pers. comm., 1971).

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1974

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

Ascher, K. R. S. and Hirsch, I.. 1965. The housefly and the cube of sugar. Wld Rev. Pest Control 4(3): 103111.Google Scholar
Mourier, H. 1965. The behavior of houseflies towards “new objects.” Vidensk. Meddr dansk naturh. Foren. 128: 213221.Google Scholar
Traynier, R. M. M. 1970. Habituation of the response to sex pheromone in two species of Lepidoptera, with reference to a method of control. Ent. exp. appl. 13: 179187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, R. H. 1966. An insect olfactometer. Can. Ent. 98: 282285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar