Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:55:42.938Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Water-finding and Oviposition by captive Mosquitoes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

John S. Kennedy
John S. Kennedy
Affiliation:
Wellcome Entomological Field Laboratories, Wellcome Bureau of Scientific Research, London.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The behaviour of Anopheles labranchiae atroparvus, Culex pipiens molestus and Aëdes aegypti has been studied before and during oviposition.

2. Anopheles and Culex when ready to lay make repeated descents to the ground and fly about with a skimming-hopping movement, while Aëdes flies about generally, at all heights.

3. On encountering water Anopheles breaks into a hovering flight, laying its eggs during this “oviposition dance” or while settled on the water. Culex stops “dead” on the water and lays its eggs settled there, as does Aëdes but with some fidgeting about. After encountering water mosquitoes may leave it again, but fly about the floor more steadily and persistently than before.

4. Among the factors which stimulate mosquitoes after they have arrived directly over a water surface, contact with the surface is essential for actual oviposition by Culex and Aëdes, and almost so for Anopheles. Good pre-ovipository responses may be induced by water vapour alone and by the reflection from the surface, although how this latter stimulus acts is not clear. A dark appearance, especially if the surroundings are relatively light, facilitates these responses.

5. Direct attraction of the mosquitoes over the short range available in a cage was only induced by a contrastingly dark appearance, but Anopheles and Culex are aided in water finding by diurnal changes, correlated with light and activity changes, in the sense of their geotactic response.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , January 1942 , pp. 279 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1942

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

Bates, M. (1940 a). Oviposition experiments with Anopheline mosquitoes.—Amer. J. trop. Med., 20, pp. 569–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, M. (1940 b). The nomenclature and taxonomic status of the mosquitoes of the Anopheles maculipennis complex.—Ann. ent. Soc. Amer., 33, pp. 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxton, P. A. & Hopkins, G. H. E. (1927). Researches in Polynesia and Melanesia. Parts 1–4. London.Google Scholar
Detinova, T. S. (1936). Certains éléments de la conduite des femelles d'Anopheles maculipennis messeae Fall. [In Russian.]—Med. Parasit., 3, pp. 525–543. (Not seen; abstr. in Rev. Appl. Ent. (B) 25, p. 141.)Google Scholar
Fraenkel, G. S. & Gunn, D. L. (1940). The Orientation of Animals. Kineses, Taxes and Compass Reactions.—Oxford, Clarendon Press, 352 pp.Google Scholar
Herms, W. B. & Freeborn, S. B. (1921). The egg-laying habits of Californian Anophelines.—J. Parasit., 7, pp. 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundertmark, A. (1938). Ueber das Helligkeitsunterscheidungsvermögen von Anopheles maculipennis.—Anz. Schädlingsk., 14, pp. 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jobling, B. (1935). Effect of light and darkness on oviposition in mosquitoes.—Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg., 29, pp. 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalandadze, L. P. & Sagatelova, I. S. (1939). Observations sur les pontes de l'Anopheles maculipennis maculipennis. [In Russian.]—Med. Parasit., 8, pp. 50–55. (Not seen; abstr. in Rev. Appl. Ent. (B) 28, p. 184.)Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. S. (1939). The visual responses of flying mosquitoes.—Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., (A) 109, pp. 221–242.Google Scholar
Kerschbaumer, F. (1901). Malaria, ihr Wesen, ihre Entstehung und ihre Verhütung. Wien und Leipzig, Wilh. Braumüller, 170 pp. (Not seen; quoted in Nultall & Shipley, l.c.)Google Scholar
Lamborn, W. A. (1922). Some problems of the breeding places of the Anophelines of Malaya; a contribution towards their solution.—Bull. Ent. Res. 13, pp. 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, H. S. (1931). Anopheline mosquitoes in Southern Rhodesia 1926–1928. A report on investigations made during researches on blackwater fever conducted by Dr. G. R. Ross.—Mem. Lond. Sch. Hyg. Trop. Med. no. 4.Google Scholar
Nuttall, G. H. F. & Shipley, A. E. (1901). Studies in relation to malaria. II. The structure and biology of Anopheles (Anopheles maculipennis). The egg and larva.—J. Hyg., Camb., 1, pp. 45–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senior-White, R. (1926). Physical factors in mosquito ecology.—Bull. Ent. Res., 16, pp. 187–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, R. C. M. (1940). Studies on the behaviour of Anopheles minimus. Part I. The selection of the breeding place and the influence of light and shade.—J. Malar. Inst. India, 3, pp. 265–294.Google Scholar
Weiss, H. B. (1914). Notes on the positive hydrotropisms of Gerris marginatus and Dineutes assimilis.—Canad. Ent., 46, pp. 33–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar