Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-w7rtg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-18T23:13:44.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Development of the Human Hymenolepis nana (Siebold 1852) in the White Mouse; with remarks on “H. fraterna,” “H. longior” and H. diminuta

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

W. N. F. Woodland
W. N. F. Woodland
Affiliation:
Wellcome Bureau of Scientific Research, 25–27, Endsleigh Gardens, London, N.W. 1.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Out of 57 mice (previously ascertained to have been free from “H. fraterna”) 30 were fed on fresh eggs of Hymenolepis nana, the other 27 serving as controls. Out of the 30 egg-fed mice, only 7 were found to be infected (23·3 per cent.) when examined from thirteen to twenty-six days afterwards. None of the 27 control mice showed infection.

2. This low percentage of infection (when compared with the 90 per cent, infection obtained in my previous work when I fed 20 mice on “H. fraterna” eggs) is probably due to one or more of three factors: (a) change of host (Grassi records that he found it very difficult to infect wild rats with “H. fraterna” eggs obtained from tame rats and in this case the animals were of the same or closely allied species); (b) the full-grown adult condition of the mice; (c) the perfect health of the mice, due to having been supplied with vegetable food (Vitamin B) every day, this condition rendering the mice refractory to infection. In my previous work the mice were in poor condition owing to deficiency of Vitamin B.

3. The proof that rats and mice can be infected with H. nana eggs from Man, the identity of structure of the two parasites and their eggs and their uniform geographical distribution render it practically certain that H. nana and “H. fraterna” are one and the same species. The fact that up to the present there is practically no evidence that Man can be infected with eggs derived from rats or mice does not militate against this conclusion.

4. Mature specimens of H. nana found in tame mice vary enormously in size (as already indicated by Joyeux)—between 7 mm and 80 mm. (measured in balsam) in length. “H. longior” (Baylis, 1922) does not exist as a distinct species.

5. I failed to infect two Cercopithecus monkeys fed with a plentiful supply of fresh H. nana eggs (from Man).

6. Experiments are described which confirm Joyeux's statement that H. diminuta (of the mouse), unlike H. nana, does not possess a direct one-host life-cycle.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 1924 , pp. 424 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1924

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

Baylis, H. A. (1922). Observations on certain Cestodes of Rats, with an Account of a new Species of Hymenolepis. Parasitology, xiv. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettencourt, A. (Juin, 1916). Cases de Infestaçao pela Hymenolepis nana em Portugal. Med. Contemporanea, xxxiv. 193.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. C. (1922). Species of Hymenolepis as Human Parasites. Journ. Amer. Med. Assoc. lxxviii. 636.Google Scholar
Grassi, B. (1887). Entwicklungscyclus der Taenia nana. Dritte Präliminarnote. Centralbl. f. Bact. u. Parasit. ii. 305.Google Scholar
Grassi, B. and Rovelli, G. (1892). Ricerche embriologiche sui Cestodi. Atti Accqd. Gioenia, Catania, Ser. 4, iv. (Memoir 2).Google Scholar
Joyeux, Ch. (1920). Cycle évolutif de quelques Cestodes. Recherches expérimentales Bull. Biol. France et Belgique (Suppl. II.).Google Scholar
Paes, I. (1917). Sur la Fréquence des Vers intestinaux chez les Enfants de Lisbonne. Arquiv. Inst. Bact. Camara Pestana, v. Fasc. 1, 17.Google Scholar
Saeki, Y. (20, III. 1920). Experimental Studies on the Development of Hymenolepis nana. Jikwa Zasshi, p. 203 (summarised in the Trop. Dis. Bull. xviii. 112).Google Scholar
Scott, H. H. (1923). A Contribution to the Experimental Study of the Life-histories of Hymenolepis fraterna Stiles, 1906, and Hymenolepis longior Baylis, 1922, in the Mouse. Journ. Helminthol. i. p. 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, F. H. (1916). Studies in Indian Helminthology. No. III. On an unsuccessful Attempt to infect Mus decumanus with Hymenolepis nana Siebold, etc. Rec. Ind. Mus. xii. 295.Google Scholar
Uchimura, R. (IX. 1922). On the Development of Hymenolepis nana and Hymenolepis murina. Jikwa Zasshi, No. 268 (summarised in Japan Med. World, Tokyo, iii. 53, and in Trop. Dis. Bull. xx. 626).Google Scholar
Woodland, W. N. F. (1924 a). On the Life-cycle of Hymenolepis fraterna (H. nana var. fraterna Stiles) of the White Mouse. Parasitology, xvi. No. 1, p. 69 (also Nature, Sept. 22, 1923, p. 436).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodland, W. N. F. (1924 b). Hymenolepis nana and H. fraterna. Nature, May 10, p. 675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar