Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T11:09:01.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Helminth Parasites of Dogs in Marseilles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

S. Gladstone Solomon
S. Gladstone Solomon
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture Research Scholar, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Dogs are notoriously susceptible to helminthic infections, especially of the alimentary tract. Their role as carriers of such important pathogenic organisms as Echinococcus and Taenia multiceps makes the study of their parasites of more than academic importance, so much so that by an order of the United States Bureau of Animal Industry, all sheep dogs imported into the U.S.A. have to be held in quarantine pending a faecal examination for helminthiasis (Wigdor, 1919). Statistical surveys of the helminth parasites carried by dogs have already been made in a number of different countries. In this country the subject has been studied by Lewis at Aberystwyth, in Wales; and by Nuttall and Strickland in Cambridge. Brown and Stammers have made a parasitological survey of the dogs in London based on post-mortems combined with examination of faeces from London pavements.

Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , June 1933 , pp. 157 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1933

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

Bailliet, M. C., 1863.—Rècherches sur un Cysticerque polycephale du lapin, etc. Mem. A cad. Toulouse. 6th Ser., I, pp. 452–482. (W.L. 13230.)Google Scholar
Brown, H. and Stammers, G., 1922.—Observations on canine Faeces on London pavements. Lancet, Dec. 1922, pp. 1165–1167. (W.L. 11995.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, R. and Young, C., 1922.—Parasites of dogs and cats in Amazonas. Ann. Trop. Med. Parasit., XVI, 3 pp., 297–300. (W.L. 1063.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M. C., 1917.—Parasites of the Dog in Michigan. J.Amer. Vet. Med. Ass., LI (N.S. 4), 3, pp., 383–396. (W.L. 11022.)Google Scholar
Joyeux, Ch., 1932. Les Données parasitaires concernant le Kyste hydatique du Poumon. Arch. Méd. Gén. Colon., I, 5, pp. 277–283.Google Scholar
Lewis, E. A., 1927.—A Study of the Helminths of Dogs and Cats of Aberystwyth, Wales. J. Helm., v, 4, pp. 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuttall, G. and Strickland, , 1908.—Note on the Prevalence of intestinal Worms in Dogs in Cambridge. Parasitology, I, 3, pp. 261–262. (W.L. 16035.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skrjabin, K., 1924.—Zur Charakteristik der Wurminvasion bei Hunden und Katzen des Dongebietes. Berl. Tierãrtzl. Wschr., XXXX, p. 257. (W.L. 2818.)Google Scholar
Sommer, H. O., 1896.—Results of the Examination of fifty Dogs at Washington, D.C., forAnimal Parasites. Vet. Mag., Aug. 1896, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
Wharton, L., 1917.—The intestinal Worms of Dogs in the Philippine Islands. J. Parasit., iv, 2, pp. 80–82. (W.L. 11428.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigdor, M., 1919. A Study of the faecal Examination of a Thousand imported Dogs. J. Amer. Vet. Mid. Ass., LVI(N.S. 9), 2, pp. 189–191. (W.L. 11022.)Google Scholar
Witenberg, G., 1932. On the Cestode subfamily Dipylidiinae Stiles. Z. Parasit., Bd. 4, Ht. 3, pp. 542–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar