Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:46:12.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations on the Habits and Parasites of Common Flies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

G. S. Graham-Smith
G. S. Graham-Smith
Affiliation:
University Lecturer in Hygiene, Cambridge.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Within the last few years several books and numerous papers have been published dealing with various problems relating to the life-histories, and disease-spreading capacities, of house-frequenting and other nonbiting flies. An intimate knowledge of the habits of flies is essential if the most suitable methods are to be devised in order to diminish their numbers, yet it is only too evident that many of the accepted hypotheses are founded on the most superficial observations, and that extensive and carefully planned experiments, with a few notable exceptions, are conspicuously absent.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , June 1916 , pp. 440 - 544
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1916

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

Adams, G. (1787). Essays on the Microscope, p. 386.Google Scholar
Atkinson, E. L. (IV. 1916). The Fly Pest in Gallipoli. Journ. Royal Naval Medical Service, ii. pp. 147–152.Google Scholar
Backhausbn, (1893). Cited from Berg's, C. Pseudoscorpionidenkniffe, XVI. by Kew, 1901.Google Scholar
Banks, N. (1895). Entomological News, vi. p. 115.Google Scholar
Bernstein, J. M. (1910). Summary of the Literature relating to the Bionomics of the Parasitic Fungus of Flies, Empusa muscae (Cohn), with special reference to the economic aspect. Reports to the Local Government Board on Public Health and Medical Subjects, New Series, No. 40, p. 41.Google Scholar
Bernstein, J. M. (1914). The Destruction of Flies by means of Bacterial Cultures. Reports to the Local Government Board on Public Health and Medical Subjects, New Series, No. 102, pp. 27–31.Google Scholar
Bishopp, F. C., Dove, W. E. and Parman, D. C. (1915). Notes on certain points of economic importance in the biology of the house-fly. Journ. Econom. Entomol. viii. pp. 54–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brefeld, O. (1873). Untersuchungen über die Entwickelung der E. muscae und E. radicans. Abd. u. Naturf. Gesellsch. xii. pp. 1–50.Google Scholar
Camprell, (1887). Letter cited by Kew, 1901.Google Scholar
Copeman, S. M. and Austen, E. E. (1914). Do House-flies hibernate? Reports to the Local Government Board on Public Health and Medical Subjects, New Series, No. 102, pp. 6–26.Google Scholar
Donovan, E. (1797). The Natural History of British Insects, vi. p. 84.Google Scholar
Editorial Note (1835). Entomological Magazine, ii. p. 322.Google Scholar
Gerstaecker, A. (1859). Bericht über die wissenschaftlichen Leistungen im Gebiete der Entomologie, p. 347. (Cited by Kew, 1901.)Google Scholar
Godfrey, R. (1909). The False-scorpions of Scotland. Ann. Scottish Nat. Hist. pp. 22, 153, and 1910, p. 23.Google Scholar
Griffith, A. (1908). Life-History of house-flies. Pub. Health, xxi. pp. 122–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gūssow, H. T. (1913). Empusa muscae and the extermination of the house-fly. Reports to the Local Government Board on Public Health and Medical Subjects, New Series, No. 85, pp. 11–14.Google Scholar
Hagen, H. (1867). Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. xi. p. 323.Google Scholar
Hagen, H. (1879). Zoologischer Anzeiger, ii pp. 399–400. (Cited by Kew, 1901.)Google Scholar
Hesse, E. (1914). Cited by Bernstein, 1914, p. 27.Google Scholar
Hewitt, C. G. (1914). The House-fly, Musca domestica Linn. CambridgeUniv. Press.Google Scholar
Hickson, S. T. (1905). A parasite of the House-fly. Nature, lxxii. p. 429.Google Scholar
Hickson, S. T. (1905). Chelifers and House-flies. Nature, lxxii. p. 629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, H. reported by Ellingsen, E. (1907). Notes on Pseudo-scorpions, British and Foreign. Journ. Queckett Micro. Club, x. p. 155.Google Scholar
Hill, M. D. (1905). A parasite of the House-fly. Nature, lxxii. p. 397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, L. O. (1911). The House-Fly, Disease Carrier. Stokes Co. New York.Google Scholar
Keilin, D. (1915). Recherches sur les larves de diptères cyclorhaphes. Bull. Scieniijique de la France et de la Belgigue, xlix. pp. 15–198.Google Scholar
Kew, H. W. (1901). Lincolnshire Pseudo-scorpions: with an account of the association of such animals with other arthropods. The Naturalist, pp. 193–215.Google Scholar
Kew, H. W. (1911). A synopsis of the False-Scorpions of Britain and Ireland. Proc. Roy. Irish Acad. xxix. p. 38.Google Scholar
Kirby, W. and Spence, W. (1826). An Introduction to Entomology, iv. p. 228.Google Scholar
Knab, F. (1897). Entomological News, viii. p. 13.Google Scholar
Koch, L. (1873). Uebersichtliche Darstettung der europäischen Chernetiden (Pseudoscorpione), p. 6. (Cited by Kew, 1901.)Google Scholar
Leydig, F. (1867). Skizze zu einer Fauna Tubingensis, p. 16. (Cited by Kew, 1901.)Google Scholar
Loew, H. (1845). Dipterologische Beiträge, p. 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Löw, F. (1866). Verhandlungen der k.-k. zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, xvi. p. 944. (Cited by Kew, 1901.)Google Scholar
Lucas, W. J. (1908). Trans. Entomol. Soc. Lond. (Proceedings), p. LVII.Google Scholar
Lukis, F. C. (1831). Loudon's Mag. Nat. Hist. iv. p. 284Google Scholar
Lukis, F. C. (1834). Loudon's Mag. Nat. Hist. vii. p. 163.Google Scholar
Menge, A. (1855). Cited by Hagen (1867).Google Scholar
Michael, A. D. (1901). British Tyroglyphidae. Ray Soc. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G. (1835). Entomological Magazine, ii. p. 321.Google Scholar
Olive, E. W. (1906). Cytological studies on the Entomophthoreae. I. The morphology and development of Empusa. Bot. Oaz. xli. p. 192. (Cited by Bernstein, 1910.)Google Scholar
Pickard-Cambridge, O. (1892). Monograph on the British species of the Chernetidae or False Scorpions. Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist, and Antiquarian Club, xiii. p. 199.Google Scholar
Pocock, P. I. (1905). A parasite of the House-fly. Nature, lxxii. p. 604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poda, N. (1761). Insecta Musei Oraecensis, p. 122. (Cited by Kew, 1901.)Google Scholar
Portchinsky, J. A. (1913). Review in Review of Applied Entomology, i. B. 149.Google Scholar
Ramsbottom, J. (1914). An Investigation of Mr Hesse's Work on the supposed relationship of Empusa muscae and Mucor racemosus. Reports to the Local Government Board on Public Health and Medical Subjects, New Series, No. 102, pp. 31–32.Google Scholar
Schiner, J. R. (1872). Verhandlungen der k.-k. zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, xxii. p. 75. (Cited by Kew, 1901.)Google Scholar
Simon, E. (1879). Les Arachnides de France, vii. pp. 11–12, 33–34. (Cited by Kew, 1901.)Google Scholar
Spicer, W. W. (1867). Helps to Distribution. Hardwicke's Science-Gossip, p. 244.Google Scholar
Stainton, H. T. (1864). Proc. Entomological Soc. (3), ii p. 112.Google Scholar
Stecker, A. (1875). Deutsche entomologische Zeitschrift, xix. p. 314. (Cited by Kew, 1901.)Google Scholar
Stevens, S. (1866). Proc. Entomol. Soc. of London (3), v. p. XXVII.Google Scholar
Thaxter, R. (1888). The Entomophthoreae of the United States. Mem. Bosl. Soc. Nat. Hist. iv. pp. 133–201.Google Scholar
Wagner, F. V. (1892). Zoologischer Anzeiger, xv. p. 434. (Cited by Kew, 1901.)Google Scholar
Warburton, C. (1909). Arachnida Embolobranchiata. Cambridge Nat. Hist. Chernetidea, iv. pp. 430–438.Google Scholar