Measurement and comparison of the antennae and anal column structure of three species of flea larvae

doi:10.11853/j.issn.1003.8280.2020.05.015

Abstract

Abstract: Objective To observe and compare antennae and anal column morphology of three flea larvae, Xenopsylla cheopis, Ctenocephalides felis, and Leptopsylla segnis, to measure and compare the ratios of antenna length to antenna spacing and anal column length to anal column spacing of the three species, and to explore and establish a quantifiable method to classify and identify the flea larvae. Methods At a temperature of (24±1)℃ and a relative humidity (80±10)%, the three species of flea larvae were obtained by conventional feeding and plate culture with mice as blood supply animals. The pictures of the larvae were taken under an anatomical microscope. The antenna length, antenna spacing, anal column length, and anal column spacing of the larvae were measured. The ratios of antenna length to antenna spacing and anal column length to anal column spacing of the three species of larvae were statistically analyzed by the rank sum test. Results The antennal morphology of the three larvae was basically the same, but the length and spacing of antennae were different; the ratio of antenna length to antenna spacing was 0.87±0.06 for X. cheopis, 1.26±0.37 for C. felis, and 1.02±0.06 for L. segnis, with a significant difference by the rank sum test (H=173.241, P<0.001), as well as a significant difference between any two species of them (all P<0.001). The anal column of X. cheopis larvae was thin, with nearly the same thickness from the base to the end; the anal column of C. felis larvae changed greatly from the base to the end, with a thick base and a thin end; the anal column of L. segnis larvae was thick, with nearly the same thickness from the base to the end. The length and spacing of anal columns of the three species of larvae were different; the ratio of anal column length to anal column spacing was 1.31±0.13 for X. cheopis, 2.60±0.55 for C. felis, and 4.82±1.47 for L. segnis, with a significant difference by the rank sum test (H=161.082, P<0.001), as well as a significant difference between any two species of them (all P<0.001). Conclusion The larvae of X. cheopis, C. felis, and L. segnis have similar morphology of antennae, but different morphologies of anal columns. The ratios of antenna length to antenna spacing and anal column length to anal column spacing of the three species are significantly different, which can be used as a basis for the morphological classification and identification of common flea larvae in residential areas.

Key words: Xenopsylla cheopis, Ctenocephalides felis, Leptopsylla segnis, Larva, Antennae, Anal column, Ratio

摘要： 目的观察和比较印鼠客蚤、猫栉首蚤和缓慢细蚤3种蚤类幼虫的触角及肛柱形态，测量和比较触角长与触角间距比值、肛柱长与肛柱间距比值及差异，探讨和建立对幼虫可量化的数值分类与鉴定的方法。方法在温度（24±1）℃，相对湿度（80±10）%的条件下，以小白鼠为供血动物，采用常规饲养和平皿中培育的方法获得3种蚤类幼虫，体式解剖镜下拍摄幼虫图片，测量幼虫的触角长、触角间距、肛柱长及肛柱间距，采用秩和检验对3种幼虫触角长与触角间距的比值、肛柱长与肛柱间距的比值进行统计学分析。结果 3种幼虫的触角形态基本相同，但触角长及触角间距存在差异，其中印鼠客蚤幼虫触角长与触角间距的比值为0.87±0.06，猫栉首蚤幼虫触角长与触角间距的比值为1.26±0.37，缓慢细蚤幼虫触角长与触角间距的比值为1.02±0.06，三者触角长与触角间距的比值进行秩和检验，差异有统计学意义（H=173.241，P<0.001），三者分别进行两两比较，差异均有统计学意义（均P<0.001）；印鼠客蚤幼虫的肛柱纤细，且基部至端部近等粗；猫栉首蚤幼虫的肛柱形态由基部到端部变化急促，基部粗，端部细；缓慢细蚤幼虫肛柱粗壮，且基部至端部近等粗。3种幼虫肛柱及肛柱间距存在差异，其中印鼠客蚤的幼虫肛柱长与肛柱间距的比值为1.31±0.13，猫栉首蚤的幼虫肛柱长与肛柱间距的比值为2.60±0.55，缓慢细蚤的肛柱长与肛柱间距的比值为4.82±1.47，对三者的肛柱长与肛柱间距的比值进行秩和检验，差异有统计学意义（H=161.082，P<0.001），三者分别进行两两比较，差异均有统计学意义（均P<0.001）。结论 3种幼虫的触角形态相近，肛柱形态各异。触角长与触角间距的比值及肛柱长与肛柱间距的比值均存在较大差异，可作为居民区常见蚤种幼虫形态分类鉴定的依据。

关键词: 印鼠客蚤, 猫栉首蚤, 缓慢细蚤, 幼虫, 触角, 肛柱, 比值

CLC Number:

R384.3

CUI Yao-ren, KANG Dong-mei, ZHENG Nan. Measurement and comparison of the antennae and anal column structure of three species of flea larvae[J]. Chines Journal of Vector Biology and Control, 2020, 31(5): 575-579.

崔耀仁, 康东梅, 郑楠. 3种蚤类幼虫触角与肛柱结构量度的测定和比较[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2020, 31(5): 575-579.

References

[1] 王敦清. 几种常见蚤类幼虫形态的比较研究[J]. 昆虫学报,1956,6(3):311-321,378. Wang DQ. Comparative morphology of some common flea larvae (Siphonaptera)[J]. Acta Entomol Sin,1956,6(3):311-321,378.
[2] 柳支英,高钜镇,吴厚永,等. 黄鼠(Citellus dauricus Brandt)体外寄生的松江黄鼠蚤(Ceratophyllus tesquorum sungaris Jordan)的季节消长调查[J]. 人民军医,1960(2):33-40. Liu ZY,Gao JZ,Wu HY,et al. A study of the seasonal fluctuation of the suslik flea (Ceratophyllus tesquorum sungaris Jordan)[J]. People's Military Surgeon,1960(2):33-40.
[3] 虞以新. 麻雀脊蚤幼虫形态的研究[J]. 动物学杂志,1957,1(2):119-120. Yu YX. Study on larval morphology of sparrows' fleas[J]. Chin J Zool,1957,1(2):119-120.
[4] 孙昌秀. 草原黄鼠蚤的季节消长[J]. 寄生虫学报,1965,2(3):310. Sun CX. The season of prairie fleas waxes and wanes[J]. J Para Med Ento,1965,2(3):310.
[5] 叶瑞玉,于心,王敦清. 我国若干蚤类幼虫形态的比较[J]. 昆虫学报,1982,25(2):209-216. Ye RY,Yu X,Wang DQ. Larvae known in China,in addition with four new descriptions and studies on their spiracles[J]. Acta Entomol Sin,1982,25(2):209-216.
[6] 叶瑞玉,于心. 新蚤属一新种及其幼虫形态的记述(蚤目:多毛蚤科)[J]. 昆虫学报,1993,36(3):371-374. Ye RY,Yu X. On a new species of Neopsylla and its larva morphology (Siphonaptera:Hystrichopsyllidae)[J]. Acta Entomol Sin,1993,36(3):371-374.
[7] 费荣中,徐宝娟,石杲,等. 方形黄鼠蚤松江亚种幼虫形态及与同属蚤幼虫的比较[J]. 昆虫学报,1986,29(1):81-84. Fei RZ,Xu BJ,Shi G,et al. Morphological observations of the larvae of Citellophilus tesquorum sungaris and their comparison with larvae of two other forms of Citellophilus[J]. Acta Entomol Sin,1986,29(1):81-84.
[8] 王志军,李明立. 无棘额蚤的养殖及其一龄幼虫破卵器形态[J]. 地方病通报,1990,5(1):34-37. Wang ZJ,Li ML. Laboratorial breeding of Frontopsylla aspiriformis and morphologic observation on the egg buster of the first instar larvae[J]. Endem Dis Bull,1990,5(1):34-37.
[9] 肖柏林. 红羊新蚤的幼虫形态及与二齿新蚤幼虫的比较[J]. 昆虫学报,1993,36(1):67-70. Xiao BL. Morphological observation of the larvae of Neopsylla hongyangensis and their comparison with larvae of N. bidentatiformis[J]. Acta Entomol Sin,1993,36(1):67-70.
[10] 肖柏林. 曲扎角叶蚤幼虫的形态描述[J]. 昆虫学报,1995,38(2):188-190. Xiao BL. Description of the larval of morphology of Ceratophyllus chutsaensis (Siphonaptera:Ceratophyllidae)[J]. Acta Entomol Sin,1995,38(2):188-190.
[11] Qi YM,He JH. Morphological description on the larva of Neopsylla specials specialis[J]. Entomol Sin,1997,4(1):59-66.
[12] 王键,阴利群,石杲. 蚤类幼虫肛柱腹小孔的形态及其分类意义[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志,2000,11(6):466. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1003-4692.2000.06.020. Wang J,Yin LQ,Shi G. Morphology and taxonomic significance of antral lacunae of fleas larvae[J]. Chin J Vector Biol Control,2000,11(6):466. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1003-4692.2000.06.020.
[13] 鲁亮,吴厚永. 窄板额蚤华北亚种幼虫形态研究(蚤目:细蚤科)[J]. 昆虫学报,2002,45(3):380-383. DOI:10.3321/j.issn:0454-6296.2002.03.018. Lu L,Wu HY. The larval morphology of Frontopsylla nakagawai borealosinica (Siphonaptera:Leptopsyllidae)[J]. Acta Entomol Sin,2002,45(3):380-383. DOI:10.3321/j.issn:0454-6296.2002.03.018.
[14] 刘井元,马立名,周毅德. 吴氏角叶蚤幼虫形态记述及其与同属另外3种的比较[J],昆虫学报,2003,46(1):85-89. Liu JY,Ma LM,Zhou YD. Description of larval morphology of fleas and comparison with other three species of the same genus[J],J Ento,2003,46(1):85-89.
[15] 刘艳华,温海军,石杲. 内蒙古蚤类研究概述[J]. 医学动物防制,2013,29(1):42-43. DOI:10.7629/yxdwfz201301013. Liu YH,Wen HJ,Shi G. Introduction to research on fleas in Inner Mongolia[J]. J Med Pest Control,2013,29(1):42-43. DOI:10.7629/yxdwfz201301013.
[16] 王海波,石杲. 中国蚤类幼虫分类研究概述[J]. 医学动物防制,2003,19(9):533-534. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1003-6245.2003.09.010. Wang HB,Shi G. An overview of the classification of flea larvae in China[J]. J Med Pest Control,2003,19(9):533-534. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1003-6245.2003.09.010.
[17] 李景原,石杲,王建国,等. 弯鬃蝠蚤的幼期及蚤类幼虫刚毛形态的观察[J]. 昆虫知识,1988,25(1):35-36. Li JY,Shi G,Wang JG,et al. Observation on the juvenile stage and the morphology of the bristles of fleas[J]. Entomol Knowl,1988,25(1):35-36.