Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T01:25:01.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation in the Hatching-response of Aëdes Eggs (Diptera: Culicidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

J. D. Gillett
J. D. Gillett
Affiliation:
East African Virus Research Institute, Entebbe, Uganda.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Eggs of Aëdes do not necessarily hatch on becoming mature, even though conditions are known to be compatible with hatching. Even the eggs laid by a single female in a single batch and kept submerged in a single container may hatch in instalments over a very long period and, although on one occasion a high proportion of the eggs may hatch within a given period, on another, for no apparent reason, very few may hatch.

The problem of erratic hatching has been studied here mainly in Aëdes africanus (Theo.) and A. aegypti (L.). It is considered that mature eggs enter a state of diapause, the depth of which varies with the passage of time, and that the manner of this variation with time itself varies from egg to egg. Different batches of eggs laid by females of the same species vary in the proportion of the different kinds of egg present.

Variation in response of the eggs has been studied by the application of a suitable hatching-stimulus in equal daily doses. The stimulus used was sufficiently weak to allow variation in response to be manifested, but sufficiently strong to outweigh uncontrolled variables in the environment.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , August 1955 , pp. 241 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1955

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

Bacot, A. W. (1916). Report of the entomological investigation undertaken for the Commission for the year, August 1914 to July 1915.—Rep. Yell. Fev. Comm., 3, pp. 1–191.Google Scholar
Bates, M. & Roca-Garcia, M. (1945). Laboratory studies of the saimiri-Haema-gogus cycle of jungle yellow fever.—Amer. J. trop. Med., 25, pp. 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxton, P. A. & Hopkins, G. H. E. (1927). Researches in Polynesia and Melanesia Parts … I–IV.—Mem. Lond. Sch. Hyg. trop. Med., no. 1, 260.Google Scholar
Christophers, Sir S. E. (1945). Structure of the Culex egg and egg-raft in relation to function (Diptera).—Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond., 95, pp. 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fielding, J. W. (1919). Notes on the bionomics of Stegomyia fasciata, Fabr. (Part I).—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 13, pp. 259–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillett, J. D. (1951). The larva, pupa and adult male of Aëdes (Stegomyia) ruwenzori Haddow and van Someren (Diptera: Culicidae).—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., 45, pp. 195–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillett, J. D. (1955). The inherited basis of variation in the hatching response of Aëdes eggs (Diptera: Culicidae).—Bull. ent. Res., 46, pp. 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslam, J. F. C. (1927). Is there a general factor tending to cause eggs of Aëdes variegatus in different experimental pots to hatch on certain days?—Mem. Lond. Sch. Hyg. trop. Med., no. 1, pp. 238–240.Google Scholar
Heal, R. E. & Pergrin, M. M. (1945). A technique for the laboratory rearing of Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say.—Proc. N.J. Mosq. Ext. Ass., 32, pp. 105–112.Google ScholarPubMed
Ross, E. W. & Gillett, J. D. (1950). The cyclical transmission of yellow fever virus through the Grivet Monkey, Cercopithecus aethiops centralis Neumann, and the mosquito Aëdes (Stegomyia) africanus Theobald.—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., 44, pp. 351–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, C. J. (1922). Notes on the bionomics of Stegomyia calopus, Meigen, in Brazil. Part I.—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., 16, pp. 389–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar