Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-06T11:14:37.002Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Emergence and Sex Ratio of Culex fatigans Wied. (Diptera, Culicidae) in Laboratory Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

M. Qutubuddin
M. Qutubuddin
Affiliation:
Malaria Institute of Pakistan, Karachi.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In view of the great diversity of opinion on the subject of sex ratio and order of emergence of the two sexes of adults in laboratory-bred mosquitos and those occurring in nature, 70 experiments spread over a period of 1 year, were conducted in the laboratory at room temperature to study (a) the order of emergence of the sexes, (b) proportions of sexes in the total output in a brood, (c) the effect of larval and pupal mortality, (d) the effect of food, and (e) of temperature on sex ratio. The common species, C. fatigans, was chosen for the purpose.

By a statistical evaluation and graphical representation of the data it has been shown that males hatch out significantly earlier than females, and that the larval life of the males is significantly shorter than that of the females.

It is concluded that the sexes emerge in a 1: 1 ratio, although a small number of aberrant cases with a significant preponderance of one sex or the other may occur.

Larval as well as pupal mortality below 20 per cent. does not seem to affect the sex ratio; nor has it been possible to establish any relationship between sex ratio and mortality in any of the aquatic stages.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , January 1953 , pp. 549 - 565
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1953

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). Rep. Yell. Fev Comm., Lond., 3, pp.1–191.Google Scholar
*Berkeley, W. N. (1902). Laboratory work with mosquitos.—112 pp. New York.Google Scholar
Boyd, M. F. (1930). An introduction to malariology.—p. 309. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Univ.Press.Google Scholar
Bradley, G. H. (1926). Amer. J. trop. Med., 6, pp 283–298.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 pp.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1950). Statistical methods for research workers. 11th edn.—354 pp New York, Hafner.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. M. (1922). Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., 16, pp. 425–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Harold, H. H. (1923). J. R. Army med. Cps., 41 pp. 282–290.Google Scholar
Hill, A. B. (1948). Principles of medical statistics. 4th edn.—252 pp. London, Lancet.Google Scholar
Lamborn, W. A. (1922). Bull. ent. Res., 13, pp. 129–149.Google Scholar
*Mayne, B. (1925). Publ. Hlth Bull. Wash., no. 156, pp.107–109.Google Scholar
Metha, D. R. (1934). Rec. Malar. Surv. India., 4, pp. 65–75.Google Scholar
Nuttall, G. H. F. & Shipley, A. E. (1902). J. Hyg., 2, pp. 58–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Rees, D. C. (1901). Practitioner, 66, pp. 271–300.Google Scholar
Ribbands, C. R. (1949). Bull. ent. Res., 40, pp. 371–377.Google Scholar
Ross, R. (1911). The prevention of malaria, p. 165. 2nd edn.Google Scholar
*Russell, P. F. (1925). Amer, J. Hyg., 5, pp. 149–174.Google Scholar
Sen, P. (1935). Rec. Malar. Surv.,India, 5, pp.159–171.Google Scholar
SeniorWhite, R. (1934). Bull. ent. Res., 25, pp.551–596.Google Scholar
*Siler, J. F., Hall, M. W. & Hitchens, A. P. (1926). Philipp. J. Sci., 29, pp. 1–304.Google Scholar
Stephens, J. W. W. & Christophers, S. R. (1908). The practical study of malaria, p. 185. 3rd edn.London.Google Scholar
*van Breeman, M. L. (1920). Meded. burgerl. geneesk. Dienst Ned.-Ind. 1920, no. 4 pp. 63–115.Google Scholar
Young, C. J. (1922). Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., 16, pp. 389–406.Google Scholar