Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T18:33:58.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XXV.—The Effect of Increased Daily Illumination and of Reversed Day and Night on the Œstrus Cycle of the Mouse (Mus musculus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2014

R. A. R. Gresson
R. A. R. Gresson
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Edinburgh
Get access

Extract

In the course of a recent investigation on the fertilised egg of the mouse (Gresson, 1940 a, b) it was necessary to keep a record of the time at which pairing took place. This revealed that copulation, especially in the winter, was very infrequent during the hours of daylight, and usually took place at about 12 midnight or between midnight and early morning. Similar observations were made by Lewis and Wright (1935), who found that in the autumn and winter mice seldom copulated during the day, and that while the majority of pairings took place between 10 p.m. and 1 a.m., several of their mice paired between 1 a.m. and 7 a.m., whereas in the spring pairing occurred more readily during all hours of the day.

Type
Proceedings
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , 1940 , pp. 333 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1940

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

VI. References to Literature

Allanson, M., Rowlands, I. W., and Parkes, A. S., 1934. “Induction of Fertility and Pregnancy in the Anœstrus Ferret,” Proc. Roy. Soc., B, vol. cxv, pp. 410–421.Google Scholar
Baker, R. J., and Ranson, R. M., 1932. “Factors affecting the Breeding of the Field Mouse (Microtus agrestris). Part I. Light,” Proc. Roy. Soc., B, vol. cx, pp. 313–322.Google Scholar
Bissonnette, T. H., 1932. “Modification of Mammalian Sexual Cycles: Reactions of Ferrets (Putorius vulgarus) of Both Sexes to Electric Light added after Dark in November and December,” Proc. Roy. Soc., B, vol. cx, pp. 322–336.Google Scholar
Bissonnette, T. H., and Bailey, E. E., 1936. “Litters from Ferrets in January induced by Increased Exposure to Light after Nightfall,” Amer. Nat., vol. lxx, pp. 454–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bissonnette, T. H., and Csech, A. G., 1937. “Modification of Mammalian Sexual Cycles. VII. Fertile Matings of Raccoons in December instead of February induced by Increased Daily Periods of Light,” Proc. Roy. Soc, B, vol. cxxii, pp. 246–254.Google Scholar
Gresson, R. A. R., 1940 a. “Presence of the Sperm Middle-Piece in the Fertilised Egg of the Mouse (Mus musculus),” Nature, vol. cxlv, pp. 145, 425.Google Scholar
Gresson, R. A. R.,1940 b. “A Study of the Cytoplasmic Inclusions during Maturation, Fertilisation and the First Cleavage Division of the Egg of the Mouse,” Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci. (in press).Google Scholar
Hemmingsen, A. M., and Krarup, N.B., 1937. “Rhythmic Diurnal Variations in the Œstrus Phenomena of the Rat and their Susceptibility to Light and Dark,” K. Danske Vidensk. Selsk. Biol. Med., vol. xiii, No. 7, pp. 1–61.Google Scholar
Lewis, W. H., and Wright, E. S., 1935. “On the Early Development of the Mouse Egg,” Contr. Embryol. Carneg. Inst., vol. xxv, pp. 113–134.Google Scholar
Marshall, F. H. A., 1940. “The Experimental Modification of the Œstrus Cycle in the Ferret by Different Intensities of Light Irradiation and other Methods,” Journ. Exp. Biol., vol. xvii, pp. 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, F. H. A., and Bowden, F. P., 1936. “The Further Effects of Irradiation on the Œstrus Cycle of the Ferret,” Journ. Exp. Biol., vol. xiii, pp. 383–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, W. L., 1936. “Effect of Light on Reproductive Cycle of Peromyscus leucopus noveboracensis,” Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med., vol. xxxiv, pp. 329–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, W. L., 1940. “Some Effects of Artificial Illumination on Reproduction in the White-Footed Mouse, Peromyscus leucopus noveboracensis,” Journ. Exp. Zool., vol. lxxxiii, pp. 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar