Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:41:31.452Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The reactions of Lucilia sericata (Mg.) to various substances placed on sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

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

Extract

1. The reactions, under field conditions, of Lucilia sericata (Mg.) to various substances placed on sheep are described.

2. Attempts to produce either attraction or oviposition by placing cystine or cysteine hydrochloride in the living fleece gave negative results.

3. Several organic sulphur compounds (see Table 1) of a type which might arise from the breakdown of cystine have been tested. All showed some power of attraction for L. sericata. Ethyl mercaptan and dimethyl disulphide were the most powerful as attractants, but none of these substances was able to induce oviposition.

4. Tests with ammonium compounds and carbon dioxide have shown that, at the concentrations used, ammonia acted as an attractant. For oviposition to occur carbon dioxide had to be present.

5. Hydrogen sulphide was detected as a constituent of the fleece atmosphere of certain sheep. This substance, whilst having no attractive powers when used alone on sheep, increased the attractiveness of organic sulphur compounds.

6. Comparative tests with.ammonium carbonate-indole and ammonium carbonate-ethyl mer-captan mixtures have shown marked variations in the relative powers of these preparations to induce oviposition.

7. A distinction is drawn between stimuli which attract L. sericata to sheep and those which induce oviposition. Ammonia and various organic sulphur compounds enhanced attraction, but both ammonia and carbon dioxide were necessary for oviposition. It is suggested that some of these materials may be produced under natural conditions from the break-down of fleece keratin or by the bacterial decomposition of sweat and similar products in the fleece.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 40 , Issue 1-2 , January 1950 , pp. 179 - 186
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. & Davies, L. (1947). Sweating in sheep. Nature, Lond., 159, 34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Cragg, J. B. & Thurston, B. A. (1949) The reactions of blowflies to organic sulphur compounds and other materials used in traps. Parasitology, 40, 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, L. (1948) Observations on the development of Lucilia sericata eggs in sheep fleeces. J. Exp. Biol. 25, 86–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeney, M. R. (1940) Chemical investigations on the fleece of sheep. Bull. Coun. Sci. Industr. Res., Aust., 130, 1–52.Google Scholar
Hobson, R. P. (1935) Sheep blow-fly investigations. II. Substances which induce Lucilia sericata Mg. to oviposit on sheep. Ann. Appl. Biol. 22, 294–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, R. P. (1936) Sheep blow-fly investigations. III. Observations on the chemotropism of Lucilia sericata Mg. Ann. Appl. Biol. 23, 845–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, R.P. (1938) Sheep blow-fly investigations. VII. Observations on the development of eggs and oviposition in the sheep blow-fly, Lucilia sericata Mg. Ann. Appl. Biol. 25, 573–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macfarlane, W. V. (1942) Blowfly strike in Marlborough. New Zealand. N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. A. 23, 205–13.Google 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. II. Relation of strike to host and edaphic factors. Bull. Ent. Res. 34, 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar