Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mnl9s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-29T01:11:35.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

House Flies as Carriers of Disease

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

J. T. C. Nash
J. T. C. Nash
Affiliation:
County Medical Officer of Health for Norfolk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

All observers agree that Musca domestica comprises over 90 percent. of the flies found in houses; my own observations show 97 percent. M. domestica is most easily distinguished by the venation of its wings, the fourth vein being bent up at an angle, and by the four longitudinal black stripes on the thorax. It is thus easily distinguished from Homolomyia canicularis, another somewhat smaller fly which frequents houses and forms the bulk of the remaining 3—10 per cent.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , September 1909 , pp. 141 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1909

References

Chantemesse, and Borel, (1905). [Report of Meeting of Acad. of Med. of Paris.] Lancet, 11. 4th, p. 318.Google Scholar
Crichton-Browne, Sir James (IX. 1908). Liverpool Sanitation.Google Scholar
Gleichen, and Keller, (1905)(1790). Geschichte der gemeinen Stubenfliege. Gleichen. Historie de la Mouche Commune de nos appartments. J. C. Keller. (Bound together.)Google Scholar
Glover, (X. 1908). Lancet. Vol. II.Google Scholar
Griffith, A. (V. 1908). The Life History of House-flies. Pub. Health.Google Scholar
Hamer, W. H. (1908). Nuisance from Flies. London County Council Report.Google Scholar
Hewitt, C.Gordon, (X. 1908). Biology of house-flies in relation to Publ. Health. Journ. Roy. Inst. Publ. Health, 10. 1908, also Monograph on M. domestica. Quart. Journ. of Microsc. Sci., Vol. LII. N.S.Google Scholar
Howard, L. O. (1902). Rept. United States Dept. of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. D. (XII. 1907). Report to Committee of Merchants' Association. New York.Google Scholar
Nash, J. T. C.. (1902—1907). Reports to Southend Health Committee.Google Scholar
Nash, J. T. C.. (1903). The seasonal incidence of Typhoid Fever and of Diarrhoea. Trans. Epidemiol. Soc., Vol. XXII. N.S.Google Scholar
Nash, J. T. C. (1903). Trans. Epidemiol. Soc., Vol. XXII. pp. 44–47.Google Scholar
Nash, J. T. C. (1903). The Hospital, 01. 31st and 02. 7th.Google Scholar
Nash, J. T. C.. (1904) Lancet, Vol. II. p. 1403.Google Scholar
Nash, J. T. C.. (1904 and 1906). Special Reports on Epidemic Diarrhoea.Google Scholar
Nash, J. T. C.. (1905). The Waste of Infant Life. Journ. Roy. San. Inst., Vol. XXVI. No. 9, pp. 495–498.Google Scholar
Nash, J. T. C. (V. 1906). The Prevention of Epidemic Diarrhoea. Practitioner.Google Scholar
Nash, J. T. C. (1906). Annual Health Report (Southend-on-Sea).Google Scholar
Newstead, R. (1907). The habits &c. of the common house-fly. Ann. of Trop. Med. and Parasit. Univ. of Liverpool, Vol. I. No. 4.Google Scholar
Niven, James (1905). Report on Health of Manchester during 1904.Google Scholar
Nuttall, G. H. F.. (1899). On the Rôle of insects, arachinds and myriapods as carriers in the spread of bacterial and parasitic diseases of man and animals. A critical and historical study. Johns Hopkins Hosp. Reports, Vol. VIII.Google Scholar
Packard (1874). On the transformation of the common house-fly, &c. Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist., Vol. XVII. pp. 136–150.Google Scholar