Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T17:28:40.652Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ixodes ricinus in Relation to its Physical Environment

II. The Factors Governing Survival and Activity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

John MacLeod
John MacLeod
Affiliation:
Carnegie Research Fellow, Moredun Institute, Edinburgh
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a previous paper (MacLeod, 1934) the different physical factors in the environmental complex of the sheep tick were discussed in their relation to the development of the gorged tick, and an experimental analysis was made of the effects produced, under laboratory conditions, by their action and interaction. The present paper deals with the active unfed ticks. These present rather a different problem from the gorged ticks, for, whereas in their case the climatic optimum resolved itself into that combination of conditions under which development proceeded favourably and with a low attendant mortality, the unfed tick, on the other hand, is faced with two desiderata, survival and hostparasitisation, the physical optima for which may not be coincident. It is necessary, therefore, to consider not only the climatic optimum for survival and activity, but also the factor or factors which influence parasitisation, and those conditions under which host-parasitisation is facilitated.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , February 1935, pp. 123 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1935

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Buxton, P. A. (1930). Proc. roy. Soc. B, 106, 506.Google Scholar
Buxton, P. A. (1931). Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 6, 27.Google Scholar
Buxton, P. A. (1932). Biol. Rev. 7, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxton, P. A. (1932 a). Parasitology, 24, 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe, N. (1921). Parasitology 13, 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe, N. (1922). Parasitology 14, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falke, H. (1931). Z. Morph. Ökol. Tiere, 21, 567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson-Carmichael, T. D. (1884). Note appended to Third Report, Special Committee to investigate Loupingill. Trans. H. and A. Soc. 16, 301.Google Scholar
Hindle, E. and Merriman, G. (1912). Parasitology, 5, 203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, W. D. and Hooker, W. A. (1907). Bull. U.S. Bur. Ent. No. 72.Google Scholar
MacLeod, J. (1932). Parasitology, 24, 382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, J. (1934). Parasitology 26, 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellanby, K. (1932). Parasitology 24, 419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olenev, N. O. (1927). Défense des Plantes, 4, 354.Google Scholar
Roubaud, E. (1922). C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 174, 964.Google Scholar
Totze, R. (1933). Z. vergl. Physiol. 19, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uvarov, B. P. (1931). Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 79, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar