Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-l82ql Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T19:08:00.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The common House-fly, Musca domestica, L., and its Behaviour to Temperature and Humidity*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Sonti Dakshinamurty
Sonti Dakshinamurty
Affiliation:
From the Department of Medical Entomology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The study of the common house-fly, Musca domestica, L., has not received the attention it merits by medical entomologists. Although the correlation between fly-borne diseases and climatic factors has interested several workers, this correlation has not been satisfactorily explained. An investigation of the influence of climatic factors on house-flies was therefore undertaken.

House-flies can be reared in the laboratory by a proper choice of the breeding medium and suitable technique. Manures, kitchen refuse and synthetic media may be used but the last mentioned is recommended for the production of a supply of standard insects.

M. domestica chooses the lower humidity on each of the humidity gradients, 20–40, 40–60, 60–80 and 80–100 per cent., at a constant temperature of 25°C. The choice is significant for both sexes, and for dry and wet flies, except for dry flies at the range 60–80 per cent.

The house-fly chooses 30°C. in temperature gradients of 20–30°C. and 30–40°C. at constant humidity, expressed either in the R.H. or the S.D. scale. It chooses 30°C. with dry air if possible, but with moist air if it must. In a gradient of 33–27°C. where dry air is associated with 33°C. in the S.D. scale in the one case, and 27°C. in the R.H. in the other, it chooses 33°C. or 27°C. according as it coincides with dry air. Dry air as represented by low R.H. or high S.D. did not make any difference to its choice, consequently it is not possible to decide whether house-flies choose by the R.H. scale or the S.D. scale. The activity of M. domestica to different combinations of temperature and humidity shows maximum activity with high temperature and low humidity, minimum with high temperature and high humidity; while in the case of low temperature combinations with either high or low humidity, activity lies intermediate in degree. High and low temperatures and high and low humidity within themselves also show significant results by the χ2 test.

The experimental results are explained on physiological grounds and the results obtained in these experiments are compared with those of other workers on similar problems on a variety of insects.

The general experience with regard to house-flies in the field is explained in the light of these laboratory findings.

For a correct analysis of the behaviour of the house-fly in nature, biological stimuli such as feeding, breeding and resting habits must be considered quantitatively in relation to environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, rainfall and light. The present work forms part of such a study.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , December 1948 , pp. 339 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1948

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

Ainsworth, R. B. (1909). J. R. Army med. Cps., 12, pp. 485–498.Google Scholar
Aldridge, A. R. (1907). J. R. Army med. Cps., 2, pp. 558–571.Google Scholar
Austen, E. E. (1939). The House Fly.—Econ. Ser. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), no. 1 (4th edn. revd. by J. Smart), 25 pp.Google Scholar
Awati, R. R. (1919). Indian J. med. Res., 7, pp. 549–567.Google Scholar
Bacot, A. W. & Martin, C. J. (1924). J. Hyg., 23, pp. 98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxton, P. A. (1931a). Bull. ent. Res., 22, pp. 431–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxton, P. A.. (1931b). Proc. ent. Soc. Lond., (A) 6, pp. 27–31.Google Scholar
Buxton, P. A.. (1932). Biol. Rev., 7, pp. 275–320.Google Scholar
Buxton, P. A. & Mellanby, K. (1934). Bull. ent. Res., 25, pp. 171–175.Google Scholar
Graham-smith, G. S. (1913). Flies in relation to Disease. Cambridge Univ. Pr.Google Scholar
Gunn, D. L. (1934). Z. vergl. Physiol., 20, pp. 617–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunn, D. L.. (1937). J. exp. Biol., 14, pp. 178–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunn, D. L. & Cosway, C. A. (1938).J. exp. Biol., 15, pp. 555–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunn, D. L. & Kennedy, J. S. (1936). J. exp. Biol., 13, pp. 450–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamer, W. H. (1908–1910). Reports of the Public Health Committee to the London County Council.Google Scholar
Hewitt, C. G. (1914). The House Fly. Cambridge Univ. Pr.Google Scholar
Howard, L. O. (1912). The House Fly as Disease Carrier. London, J. Murray.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. S. (1937). J. exp. Biol., 14, pp. 187–197.Google Scholar
Key, K. H. L. (1936). Bull. ent. Res., 27, pp. 399–422.Google Scholar
Martin, C. J. (1913). Brit. med. J., 4th Jan., 1913, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Mellanby, K. (1933). J. sci. Instrum., 10, pp. 349–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellanby, K.. (1934). Proc. roy. Soc., (B) 116, pp. 139–149.Google Scholar
Mellanby, K.. (1935). Biol. Rev., 10, pp. 317–333.Google Scholar
Mellanby, K.. (1939). Proc. roy. Soc., (B) 127, pp. 473–487.Google Scholar
Newstead, R. (1907–1909). Report(s) on … the common House Fly … in Liverpool.Google Scholar
Nicholson, A. J. (1934). Bull. ent. Res., 25, pp. 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niven, J. (1910). Proc. R. Soc. Med., (Epid.), 3 (2), pp. 131–216.Google Scholar
Patton, W. S. & Senior White, R. (1924) Rec. Indian Mus., 26, pp. 553–577.Google Scholar
Peters, O. H. (1910). J. Hyg., 10, pp. 602–777.Google Scholar
Richardson, H. H. (1932). Science, 76, pp. 350–351.Google Scholar
Roberts, E. (1906). Enteric Fever in India. London, Baillière, Tindall & Cox.Google Scholar
SirRogers, L. (1928). Indian med. Res. Mem., no. 9, 175 pp.Google Scholar
Russell, A. J. H. & Sundararajan, E. R. (1928). Indian med. Res. Mem., no. 12, 204 pp.Google Scholar
Senior White, R. (1934). Bull. ent. Res., 25, pp. 551–596.Google Scholar
Thomsen, M. (1934). Quart. Bull. Hlth Org. L.o.N., 3, pp. 304–324.Google Scholar
Thomsen, M.. (1938). Stuefluen og Stickfluen.—Beretn. vet.-og Landbohøjsk. landøkon. Forsøgslab., 176, 352 pp.Google Scholar
Thomsen, M. & Hammer, O. (1936). Bull. ent. Res., 27, pp. 559–587.Google Scholar
Thomson, R. C. M. (1938). Bull. ent. Res., 29, pp. 125–140.Google Scholar