Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:07:48.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘head’ and ‘body’ races of Pediculus humanus L.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

J. R. Busvine
J. R. Busvine
Affiliation:
Entomology Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Measurements were made of the head length, head width, total body length, antenna length, length and breadth of 3rd antennal segment of head and body lice from natural infestations. In all measurements (except the last) the means were significantly different for. the two forms, but in all cases there was considerable overlap.

2. Head lice reared continuously on the body for forty-three generations (over 2 years) did not change systematically in size. Body lice reared under similar conditions were likewise constant.

3. There was a highly significant difference between mean measurements of all the samples of head lice reared for up to 2 years on the body when compared with body lice reared for a similar period in the same way. The means for lice worn 24 hr. per day were less than those worn 12 hr. per day in both strains. An experiment showed that this is probably due to a difference in average temperature.

4. The mean live weights of head and body strains were even more distinct than linear dimensions on the several occasions when these were recorded.

5. Measurements of the dimensions of the opercula of the eggs of the two races and the numbers of air cells in them were distributed in the same way as the body measurements: that is, distinct means but overlapping individuals.

6. Ventral abdominal muscles in wild head lice are typically confined to segment 5. (The forty specimens examined adhered to this rule.) In wild body lice, muscles are usually also present in segment 4 as well.

7. Hybrids (female body x male head louse) were fertile for several generations. In size, the F1 generation was intermediate, but the F2 and F3 generations became identical with the body louse strain.

8. Eggs of the body louse strain hatched at the same time as those of the head strain, but the body strain reached a significantly higher percentage hatch.

9. The times of moulting during development were studied in both races in relation to differing opportunities to feed (24, 12, 6 and 3 hr. per day). The two strains showed very similar reactions in regard to speed of development, but throughout there was a higher pre-imaginal mortality in the head strain.

10. Head lice were shown to be considerably more susceptible to starvation than body lice.

11. If adults of the two strains are mixed, there is no tendency towards homogeneous mating. Of the mixed matings, those between body louse males and head louse females are much more common than the reverse.

12. Female head lice show a slight difference in their egg-laying preferences when offered a choice of hair, voile and tape.

My thanks are due to Prof. P. A. Buxton, F.R.S., for a number of helpful suggestions based on his extensive knowledge of louse biology and to Dr J. O. Irwin for critical comments on the statistical issues.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 39 , Issue 1-2 , July 1948 , pp. 1 - 16
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

REFERENCES

Alpatov, V. V., Nastukova, O. K. & Chartulari, E. M. (1945). Zool. J. Moscow, 24, No. 1, 42. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Bacot, A. W. (1917). Parasitology, 9, 228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourne, W. A. (1946). Brit. med. J. 2, 332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busvine, J. R. (1946). Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. A. 21, 98.Google Scholar
Buxton, P. A. (1940). Parasitology, 32, 303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, G. F. (1935). Stanford Univ. Publ. biol. Sci. 2, No. 8.Google Scholar
Freund, L. (1925). Dtsch. med. Wschr. 51, 358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindle, E. (1917). Parasitology, 9, 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, F. M. (1918). Parasitology, 10, 186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. G. (1939). Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 89, 543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keilin, D. & Nuttall, G. H. F. (1919). Parasitology, 11, 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landois, L. (1865). Z. wiss. Zool. 15, 494.Google Scholar
Marsh, F. & Buxton, P. A. (1937). J. Hyg., Camb. 37, 254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellanby, K. (1932). J. Hyg., Camb. 32, 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuttall, G. H. F. (1919 a). Parasitology, 11, 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuttall, G. H. F. (1919 b). Parasitology, 11, 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, O. W. (1944). Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 94, 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocha-Lima, H. Da & Sikora, H. (1925). In Abderhalden, Emil: Handbuch der Biologischen Arbeitsmethoden. Lief. 183 (Abt. xii, Teil I, Heft 4), 769.Google Scholar
Sikora, H. (1917). Arch. Schiffs- u. Tropenhyg. 21, 275.Google Scholar
Sikora, H. (1919). Arch. Schiffs- u. Tropenhyg. 23, 65.Google Scholar