Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-7262s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-14T16:49:32.061Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Starlings as Distributors of “Gapes.”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2009

E. Aneurin Lewis
E. Aneurin Lewis
Affiliation:
Demonstrator, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, and Field Officer, Institute of Agricultural Parasitology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

(1) Of 482 starlings examined during the period November 1925 to February 1926, 169 were infested with the Gapeworm (S. trachealis): the percentage of infected birds being 35 per cent. This confirms the previous observations when the writer found 14 infected birds out of 38.

(2) There is a suggestion of a gradual increase, towards March, in the percentage of starlings infected.

(3) The average length of the gapeworm in starlings is much the same as the average length of the gapeworm of chickens.

(4) Welsh names for gapes are given.

(5) Gapes among chickens occurs in Cardiganshire, Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire from March to August; in young turkeys in May and June; and in adult turkeys and pheasants throughout the year.

(6) Starlings, turkeys and pheasants act as a bridging, between November to March when few or no young chickens occur for the propagation and distribution of the gapeworm.

(7) Cases are instanced of (a) a sudden outbreak of gapes among chickens kept in an area where no turkeys have been kept, (b) heavy losses among pheasants on an estate which starlings had previously frequented in very large flocks.

(8) Owing to the higher percentage of infection and its wider migrations, the starling is here considered as a more effective distributor of the disease than turkeys. Other wild birds, such as pheasants, thrushes, rooks and jays, also play a part in spreading the gapeworm and the disease this worm causes.

Information

Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , May 1926 , pp. 43 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1926

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

Dujardin, F., 1845.—“Histoire naturelle des Helminths,” pp. 261–262. Paris.Google Scholar
Megnin, P., 1883.—“On the Gapes Disease of Gallinaceous Birds, etc.,” pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.—“The Nematode. or Roundworm Diseases of Poultry.” Leaflet No. 58.Google Scholar
Lewis, E. A., 1925.—“Starlings as Distributors of Capes.” Journ, of Helminthology, vol. III., No.2, pp. 81–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortlepp, R. J., 1923.—“The life History of Syngamus trachealis (Montagu) v. Siebold, the Gape Worm of Chickens.” Journ. of Helminthology, vol. I., pp. 119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ransom, B. H., 1916.—“Miscellaneous Investigations of Animal Parasites.” Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, p. 64.Google Scholar
Ransom, B. H., 1917. —“Miscellaneous Investigations of Animal Parasites.” Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, pp. 56–57.Google Scholar
Ransom, B. H., 1918. —“Miscellaneous Investigations of Animal Parasites.” Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, p. 55.Google Scholar
Ransom, B. H., 1920.—“Gapeworm in Turkeys and Chickens.” Journ. of Parasitology,. Vol. 6, pp. 200–201.Google Scholar
Ransom, B. H., 1921.—“The Turkey an Important Factor in the Spread of Gapeworms.” Bulletin No. 939 of the United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Waite, R. H., 1920.—“Earthworms—The Important Factor in the Transmission of Gapes in Chickens.” Maryl. State Coll. of Agric, Bulletin 234, pp. 103–118.Google Scholar
Walker, H. D., 1886.—“The Gape Worm of Fowls (Syngamus trachealis), the Earthworm (Lumbricus terrestris), its original Host, etc” Bull. Buff. Soc. Nat. Sc., vol. v., No. 2, pp. 47–71. Buffalo.Google Scholar