Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T03:03:27.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations on the Life-histories, Nutritional Requirements and Fecundity of Blowflies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

M. J. Mackerras
M. J. Mackerras
Affiliation:
Commonwealth Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Canberra, F.C.T.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

L. sericata, L. cuprina, Ch. rufifacies, C. stygia and C. augur have been bred through many generations in captivity. These flies were bred in artificial light as well as in sunlight. Inbreeding had no effect upon activity, fecundity or length of life.

A diet of protein is necessary for the maturation of ova but not of spermatozoa.

Oviposition is not strictly associated with a suitable larval environment, but is more in the nature of a response to a tactile stimulus. Copulation appears to provide an essential stimulus for oviposition.

No evidence of parthenogenesis has been obtained and unfertilised females did not lay eggs.

The maximum oviposition observed was 3,171 ova by a hybrid Lucilia. This fly lived 94 days.

A total oviposition of 2,373 ova was observed in a L. sericata. Both parent flies lived 77 days.

The number of ova a fly can produce at one time is dependent on its size and thus on the amount of food obtained in the larval stage.

The sex-ratio for Lucilia is very close to 1 : 1. Starvation in the larval period did not have a marked effect on the sex-ratio.

It is possible to cross the two closely related species of Lucilia, and the cuprina characters appear to be dominant. It is unlikely that this cross occurs in the field.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , September 1933 , pp. 353 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1933

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

Cousin, G. (1929a). L'alimentation de Lucilia sericata et ses relations avec la ponte.—C. R. Soc. Biol., c, 9, pp. 648–649.Google Scholar
Cousin, G. (1929b). Sur le mode de ponte de Lucilia sericata Meig.—C. R. Soc. Biol., c, 10, pp. 731–732.Google Scholar
Cousin, G. (1929c). Sur les relations entre l'accouplement et le réflexe de ponte de Lucilia sericata Meig.—C. R. Soc. Biol., c, 11, pp. 818–820.Google Scholar
Cousin, G. (1929d). Sur les conditions extérieures déterminant le lieu de ponte de Lucilia sericata Meig.—C. R. Soc. Biol., c, 11, pp. 820–822.Google Scholar
Cousin, G. (1929e). Remarques sur la vie larvaire de Lucilia sericata Meig.—C. R. Soc. Biol., cl, 22, pp. 653–654.Google Scholar
Cousin, G. (1929f). Conditions externes nécessaires pour obtenir un développement normal des larves de Lucilia sericata Meig.—C. R. Soc. Biol., cl, 23, pp. 788–790.Google Scholar
Cousin, G. (1929g). Influence de l'état hygrométrique du milieu sur l'évolution larvaire de Lucilia sericata Meig.—C. R. Soc. Biol., cl, 24, pp. 913–915.Google Scholar
Cousin, G. (1929h). Influence de l'alimentation, des gaz toxiques et de la température sur la diapause de Lucilia sericata Meig.—C. R. Soc. Biol., cl, 25, pp. 1115–1117.Google Scholar
Cousin, G. (1929i). Les facteurs externes qui déterminent la reprise de l'évolution larvaire de Lucilia sericata Meig. et leur relation avec les influences extérieures qui ont provoqué la diapause.—C. R. Soc. Biol., cl, 25, pp. 1117–1120.Google Scholar
Cowan, F. A. (1932). A study of fertility in the blowfly Phormia regina Meig.—Ohio J. Sci., xxxii, pp. 389–392.Google Scholar
Davies, W. M. (1929). Hibernation of L. sericata Meig.—Nature, cxxiii, pp. 759–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Froggatt, W. W. & Froggatt, J. L. (1916). Sheep-Maggot Flies No. 2.—Farmers Bull. no. 110, Dept. Agric., N.S.W.Google Scholar
Fuller, M. E. (1932). The larvae of the Australian sheep blowflies.—Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., lvii, pp. 77–91.Google Scholar
Glaser, R. W. (1923). The effect of food on longevity and reproduction in flies.—J. Exp. Zool., xxxviii, pp. 383–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herms, W. B. (1928). The effect of different quantities of food during the larval period on the sex-ratio and size of L. sericata and Theobaldia incidens.—J. Econ. Ent., xxi, pp. 720–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holdaway, F. G. & Evans, A. C. (1930). Parasitism a stimulus to pupation : Alysia manducator in relation to the host Lucilia sericata.—Nature, cxxv, pp. 598–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, T. Harvey, & Tiegs, O. W. (1922). Notes on the biology of some of the more common Queensland Muscoid flies.—Proc. R. S. Queensl., xxxiv, pp. 77–101.Google Scholar
Johnston, T. Harvey, & Hardy, G. H. (1923). Observations regarding the life-cycle of certain Australian blowflies.—Proc. R. S. Queensl., xxxv, pp. 21–42.Google Scholar
Lowne, B. T. (1890–1892). “ The Blowfly,” ii, pp. 658–678. London.Google Scholar
Report of theJointBlowflyCommittee (1933). The Sheep blowfly problem in Australia.—Rept. Joint Blowfly Comm. of C.S. & I.R. and N.S.W. Dept. Agric., C.S.&I.R. Pamphlet No.37 and Sci. Bull. N.S.W. Dept. Agric. No. 40.Google Scholar
Roberts, R. A. (1930). The wintering habits of Muscoid flies in Iowa.—Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer., xxiii, pp. 784–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roubaud, E. (1922). Recherches sur la fecondité et la longévité de la mouche domestique.—Ann. Inst. Pasteur, xxxvi, pp. 765–783.Google Scholar
Salt, G. (1932). The natural control of the sheep blowfly, Lucilia sericata, Meigen.—Bull. Ent. Res., xxiii, pp. 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smit, B. (1928). Observations on the life-history of the sheep maggot fly L. sericata.—Sci. Bull. no. 68, Dept. Agric., Union S. Africa.Google Scholar
Smit, B. (1931). A study of the sheep blowflies of South Africa.—l7th Rept., Director Vet. Serv. & Anim. Ind., Union S. Africa.Google Scholar