Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T18:30:22.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rat-fleas in Plymouth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

R. B. Mayfield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Three species of flea were found on rats caught on the docks of Plymouth, England, namely, Nosopsyllus (Ceratophyllus) fasciatus, Xenopsylla cheopis, and Leptopsylla segnis (musculi).

2. The findings of Xenopsylla cheopis were almost entirely confined to a certain grain store, whence the flea was obtained constantly throughout the period of the investigation.

3. A few rats caught in the town of Plymouth yielded Leptopsylla segnis and Nosopsyllus fasciatus, but no Xenopsylla cheopis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , September 1938 , pp. 314 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1938

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

REFERENCES

Matheson, (1934). An analysis of data regarding rats and rat-fleas obtained over a period of years from the Port and City of Cardiff. Ann. Rep. Med. Officer Hlth, City and Port of Cardiff.Google Scholar
Newstead, & Evans, (1921). Report on rat-flea investigation. Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol 15, 287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, (1905). Occurrence of Pulex cheopis at Plymouth. Ent. Mon. Mag. (2), 16, 139.Google Scholar
Rothschild, (1911). A further note on X. cheopis. Ent. Mon. Mag. (2), 22, 113.Google Scholar
Rothschild, (1916). Occurrence of X. cheopis in Bristol. Ent. Mon. Mag. (3), 2, 279.Google Scholar
Webster, (1932). Notes on the Study of Plague in the Field. Ind. Med. Gaz. 66, 693.Google Scholar
White, (1934). Espéce et nombres de puces trouvées sur les rats, pris á terre, dans le port de Londres. Bull. Office Int. Hyg. Pub. 26, 255.Google Scholar