Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T18:01:38.732Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The reactions of blowflies to organic sulphur compounds and other materials used in traps

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

J. B. Cragg  and
Beryl A. Thurston
J. B. Cragg
Affiliation:
Zoology Department, Durham College in the University of Durham
Beryl A. Thurston
Affiliation:
Zoology Department, Durham College in the University of Durham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Seven organic sulphur compounds likely to be produced in the breakdown of cystine have been tested under field conditions as blowfly attractants. Two of them, ethyl mercaptan and dimethyl di-sulphide, when mixed with hydrogen sulphide or carbon dioxide formed powerful attractants for females of the blowflies Lucilia caesar (and L. illustris) and L. sericata.

2. In the majority of trials 10 ml. 0·2% ethyl mercaptan mixed with 10 ml. freshly saturated hydrogen sulphide solution was used as the control attractant. As a standard in field-trapping studies this material overcomes many of the disadvantages of meat baits.

3. Sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, ammonium hydroxide, ammonium carbonate and indole, at various concentrations, did not activate the organic compounds. Furthermore, when added to the ethyl mercaptan-hydrogen sulphide preparation they did not increase its activity.

4. In the present experiments oviposition was rarely induced. When it did occur it was associated with the presence of indole.

5. L. caesar responded to attractants placed 2 ft. from the ground as well as to the same materials placed on the ground. Height alone, therefore, was not responsible for the fact that L. caesar did not respond to the attractants when they were placed on sheep.

6. The responses of blowflies to chemical attractants was linked with climatic conditions. Thus, under certain conditions Calliphora spp., particularly C. vomitoria, responded to these attractants.

7. The results obtained in the present investigation emphasize the attractive nature of sulphur-containing compounds and the possible importance of hydrogen sulphide and carbon dioxide as sensitizing agents of such compounds on sheep.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 40 , Issue 1-2 , January 1950 , pp. 187 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1950

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

Cragg, J. B. (1949). The reactions of Lucilia sericata (Mg.) to various substances placed on sheep. Parasitology, 40, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cragg, J. B. & Ramage, G. R. (1945). Chemotropic studies on the blowflies Lucilia sericata (Mg.) and Lucilia caesar (L.). Parasitology, 36, 168–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freney, M. R. (1937). Studies on the chemotropic behaviour of sheep blowflies. Pamphl. Coun. Sci. Industr. Res., Aust., 74, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Hepburn, C. A. & Nolte, M. C. A. (1943). Sheep blowfly research. III. Studies on the olfactory reactions of sheep blowflies. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 18, 27–48.Google Scholar
Holdaway, F. G. (1933). Differential behaviour of Lucilia sericata Meig and Lucilia caesar L. in natural environments. J. Anim. Ecol. 2, 263–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackerras, I. M. & Mackerras, M. J. (1944). The attractiveness of sheep for Lucilia cuprina. Bull. Coun. Sci. Industr. Res., Aust., 181, 1–44.Google Scholar
MacLeod, J. (1943). A survey of British sheep blowflies. Bull. Ent. Res. 34, 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, A. J. (1934). The influence of temperature on the activity of sheep blowflies. Bull. Ent. Res. 30, 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar