|
|
Wilhelm, W. E., & Anderson, J. H. (1971). Vahlkampfia lobospinosa (Craig. 1912) Craig. 1913: rediscovery of a coprozoic ameba. J Parasitol, 57(6), 1378–1379.
|
|
|
|
Walker, M. L., & Becklund, W. W. (1971). Occurrence of a cattle eyeworm, Thelazia gulosa (Nematoda: Thelaziidae), in an imported giraffe in California and T. lacrymalis in a native horse in Maryland. J Parasitol, 57(6), 1362–1363.
|
|
|
|
Malek, E. A. (1971). The life cycle of Gastrodiscus aegyptiacus (Cobbold, 1876) Looss, 1896 (Trematoda: Paramphistomatidae: Gastrodiscinae). J Parasitol, 57(5), 975–979.
|
|
|
|
Hoogstraal, H., & Mitchell, R. M. (1971). Haemaphysalis (Alloceraea) aponommoides Warburton (Ixodoidea: Ixodidae), description of immature stages, hosts, distribution, and ecology in India, Nepal, Sikkim, and China. J Parasitol, 57(3), 635–645.
|
|
|
|
Hoogstraal, H., Dhanda, V., & Bhat, H. R. (1970). Haemaphysalis (Kaiseriana) davisi sp. n. (Ixodoidea: Ixodidae), a parasite of domestic and wild mammals in Northeastern India, Sikkim, and Burma. J Parasitol, 56(3), 588–595.
|
|
|
|
Valova, G. P., & Mefod'ev, V. V. (1972). [Specific features of an epidemic process in leptospiroses in northern conditions in Western Siberia]. Zh Mikrobiol Epidemiol Immunobiol, 49(11), 138–145.
|
|
|
|
Polley, L. (1986). Strongylid parasites of horses: experimental ecology of the free-living stages on the Canadian prairie. Am J Vet Res, 47(8), 1686–1693.
Abstract: Each month for a 1-year period (October through September), equine fecal masses containing eggs of strongylid nematodes were placed outdoors on small grass plots in Saskatchewan, Canada. Thereafter, feces and grass from the plots were sampled after intervals of 1 week or longer, and the strongylid eggs and larvae recovered were counted. These observations were made over a 2-year period. Development of eggs to infective larvae occurred in all experiments, except those established in October, December, and January. Infective larvae from experiments set up in April through September survived that winter. During the summer, there was a gradual build up of infective larvae in the fecal masses, which reached a peak in August and September and then decreased into the winter. These results are discussed in the context of the control of strongylid parasites of horses on the Canadian prairie and in other areas of the world with a similar climate and similar horse management practices.
|
|
|
|
Ribeiro, H. S., Larangeira, N. L., & Paiva, F. (1979). [Prevalence of Dictyocaulus arnfieldi (Cobbald, 1884) Railiet & Henry 1907, in Pantaneira breed horses of the region of Pocone, MT]. Arq Inst Biol (Sao Paulo), 46(3-4), 107–110.
Abstract: The authors sacrificed fifty-five horses originated from the “Pantanal”, lowlands in the State of Mato Grosso in two different periods, droughty period and flooded and they described for the first time the Dictyocaulus arnfieldi in Mato Grosso. Relationship between droughty and flooded periods proved not to occur.
|
|
|
|
McHugh, C. P. (1989). Ecology of a semi-isolated population of adult Anopheles freeborni: abundance, trophic status, parity, survivorship, gonotrophic cycle length, and host selection. Am J Trop Med Hyg, 41(2), 169–176.
Abstract: A population of adult Anopheles freeborni near Sheridan, CA was sampled daily during 13 August-7 September 1984. Data on abundance, trophic status, and gonotrophic age were recorded. Abundance and gonotrophic age data were analyzed to estimate daily survivorship and gonotrophic cycle length. Daily survivorship for unfed mosquitoes was estimated to be 0.72 with a gonotrophic cycle of 6 days duration. Daily survivorship for bloodfed mosquitoes was estimated to be 0.74 with a gonotrophic cycle of 4 days. The 2 day difference in gonotrophic cycles between unfed and bloodfed mosquitoes was the result of the period required for maturation and mating of teneral females. In 1986, an incage release of field-collected females estimated survivorship at 0.75 per day. Precipitin tests of 1,338 blood-engorged mosquito abdomens indicated that bovids, horses, rabbits, and canids comprised 92% of bloodmeals; no bloodmeals of human origin were detected.
|
|
|
|
Sterck, E., Watts, D., & van Schaik, C. (1997). The evolution of female social relationships in nonhuman primates. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 41(5), 291–309.
Abstract: Considerable interspeci®c variation in female social relationships occurs in gregarious primates, particularly with regard to agonism and cooperation between females and to the quality of female relationships with males. This variation exists alongside variation in female philopatry and dispersal. Socioecological theories have tried to explain variation in female-female social relationships from an evolutionary perspective focused on ecological factors, notably predation and food distribution. According to the current ``ecological model'', predation risk forces females of most diurnal primate species to live in groups; the strength of the contest component of competition for resources within and between groups then largely determines social relationships between females. Social elationships among gregarious females are here characterized as DispersalEgalitarian, Resident-Nepotistic, Resident-Nepotistic-Tolerant, or Resident-Egalitarian. This ecological model has successfully explained i€erences in the occurrence of formal submission signals, decided dominance relation ships, coalitions and female philopatry. Group size and female rank generally a€ect female reproduction success as the model predicts, and studies of closely related species in di€erent ecological circumstances underscore the importance of the model. Some cases, however, can only be explained when we extend the model to incorporate the e€ects of infanticide risk and habitat saturation. We review evidence in support of the ecological model and test the power of alternative models that invoke between-group competition, forced female philopatry, demographic female recruitment, male interventions into female aggression, and male harassment.
Not one of these models can replace the ecological model, which already encompasses the between-group competition. Currently the best model, which explains
several phenomena that the ecological model does not, is a ``socioecological model'' based on the combined importance of ecological factors, habitat saturation and infanticide avoidance. We note some points of similarity and divergence with other mammalian taxa; these remain to be explored in detail.
|
|
