Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:31:39.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. Report on Rat-Fleas in Suffolk and North Essex

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

C. Strickland  and
G. Merriman
C. Strickland
Affiliation:
Assistant to the Quick Professor, Cambridge
G. Merriman
Affiliation:
Student in Medical Entomology, Quick Laboratory, Cambridge.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

To summarize our principal observations made in the course of the investigation into the rat-fleas of the suspected plague area of East Suffolk, July—October, 1911:

(1) We found an average of four fleas per rat: 822 rats were examined and 3293 fleas taken.

(2) The average was subject to a local variation (0·6 to 6·5).

(3) 15 species of fleas were taken from the rats, but of these there were only two species, C. fasciatus and C. agyrtes, which occurred in any numbers.

There were C. fasciatus 1986 or about 60 per cent.

C. agyrtes 1257 or about 38 per cent.

Rare species 50 or about 2 per cent.

(4) The average number of fleas per rat and the percentage of rats infested by fleas showed a well-marked seasonal variation, there being a considerable decline in the numbers as the cooler weather came on. Ceratophyllus fasciatus and Ctenophthalmus agyrtes both participated in a similar way in this variation.

(5) C. fasciatus is chiefly found on rats caught near human habitations; C. agyrtes on those caught in the hedgerows.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , April 1913 , pp. 2 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1913

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

Bosc, d'Antic (1801). Bull. Soc. Philom. ii. 156.Google Scholar
Bouché, (1835). Nov. Ac. Leop. Carol. xvii. 507Google Scholar
Chick, and Martin, (1911). Journ. of Hygiene, xi. 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis, (1826). Brit. Ent. iii. 114.Google Scholar
Curtis, (1832). Brit. Ent. ix. 417.Google Scholar
Dale, (1878). History of Glanville's Wooton.Google Scholar
Dampf, . (1910). Zool. Jahrb. Suppl. 12, 620, 622.Google Scholar
Dugès, (1910). Ann. Set. Nat. xxvii. 160.Google Scholar
Heller, (1896). Ent. Nachr. xxii. 97, figs. 1 and 2.Google Scholar
Indian Plague Commission (1906). Journ. of Hygiene, vi. 446.Google Scholar
Indian Plague Commission (1907). Journ. of Hygiene vii. 429, 445.Google Scholar
Indian Plague Commission (1908). Journ. of Hygiene viii. 295.Google Scholar
Indian Plague Commission (1910). Journ. of Hygiene x. 460.Google Scholar
Kolenati, (1862). Horae Soc. Ent. Ross. ii. 27.Google Scholar
Linnaeus, (1746). Fauna Suecica, Edit. I.Google Scholar
Martin, and Rowland, (1911). Reports of Local Government Board on Public Health and Medical Subjects, N.S., No. 52.Google Scholar
Raius, (1710). Historia insectorum.Google Scholar
Rothschild, (1898). Ent. Rec. and Journ. of Variation, ix. 65.Google Scholar
Rothschild, (1900). Nov. Zool. vii. 542.Google Scholar
Rothschild, (1902). Ent. Monthly Magazine, xiii. 225, pl. IV.Google Scholar
Rothschild, (1908). Parasitology, i. No. 1.Google Scholar
Schrank, (1803). Fauna bonica, iii. 195.Google Scholar
Tiraboschi, (1904). Arch. de Parasitologie, viii. 161.Google Scholar
Wagner, (1898). Horae Soc. Ent. Ross. xxxi. 35.Google Scholar