100

5
On the Coexistence of Fleas (Siphonaptera)
on Mammals in Hungary
István S Z A B Ó
Zoological Department of the Hungarian Natural History Museum,
•
Budapest
• •
S e v e r a l papers d e a l i n g w i t h t h e n a t u r a l h i s t o r y o f f l e a s r e c o r d
the common occurrence o f s e v e r a l f l e a species on one h o s t - s p e ­
c i e s . These communications u s u a l l y r e f e r t o a l l t h e f l e a spe­
c i e s o c c u r r i n g on s e v e r a l i n d i v i d u a l s o f t h e h o s t species and
o n l y r a r e l y does a paper c o n s i d e r t h e f l e a p o p u l a t i o n found on
a s i n g l e h o s t specimen ( o r i n t h e i r n e s t s , burrows, e t c . ) . I n
my o p i n i o n i t would be more i n f o r m a t i v e i f t h e f l e a p o p u l a t i o n s
were e v a l u a t e d on t h e b a s i s o f s i n g l e i n d i v i d u a l s o f t h e same
h o s t s p e c i e s , because t h e c o n s t a n t haunts o f a n i m a l s
the l o c a ­
t i o n o f t h e i r n e s t s , t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e i r é.ssociutions w i t h
o t h e r n e i g h b o u r i n g s p e c i e s , and so on, d i f f e r even w i t h i n a
s m a l l area o f t h e h a b i t a t , and a l l these f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c e t h e
common occurrence o f f l e a s p e c i e s .
• .
The common occurrence o f f l e a species aroused my i n t e r e s t some
t i m e ago. Examining.my m a t e r i a l c o l l e c t e d from 1958 t i l l t h e
end o f 1967, I f o u n d t h a t a l t h o u g h g i v e n host, u s u a l l y c a r r i e s a
s i n g l e f l e a species t h e common occurrence o f s e v e r a l f l e a spe­
c i e s i s n o t rare.On one host s p e c i e s ( o r i n i t s nest, m a t e r i a l ) ,
I found one f l e a species i n 66.5 per cent o f cases, two I n
26.8 fo, t h r e e i n 5.8
and 4 i n 0.9
Since i n o n e - t h i r d o f
the cases more t h a n one f l e a s p e c i e s was found t o occur
on a
host specimen, a study o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f c o e x i s t e n c e neemed
worthwhile,
w i t h s p e c i a l regard to the f o l l o w i n g pointB of i n ­
q u i r y : i s t h e r e any s y s t e m a t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s p e c i e s
o c c u r r i n g together;
another;
cies
a r e they i n any way
interdependent
on
one
do c e r t a i n s p e c i e s favour c o e x i s t e n c e ; a r e t h e r e spe­
which
seldom i f e v e r occur c o e x i s t w i t h o t h e r s ; f i n a l l y ,
i s t h e r e any apparent
reason,
common occurrence
s p e c i e s or
of
e c o l o g i c a l or o t h e r w i s e ,
f o r the
i s i t merely a spontaneous or
chance phenomenon?
M a t e r i a l s and Methods
S i n c e methods f o r
known only
a
c o l l e c t i o n of f l e a s
summary
of
methods
or
used
t h e i r hosts are w e l l
in
this
study
will
given.Mouse and shrew s p e c i e s were c o l l e c t e d by l i v e and
traps,
dormice and hedgehogs by hand,
subterranean
lethal
with water)
or
by
traps,
gophers
shooting,
bats
moles and
either
by
nets
or
by
mole-rats
hand
specimens were
placed
chloroform v e s s e l s ;
moment of capture
in a
sealed
by hand
(single
were
securely
wild­
a f t e r c a p t u r e , the host
cotton
thus a l l f l e a s
by
(flooding
specimens), a l l o t h e r mammals ( s q u i r r e l s , f o x e s , badgers,
c a t s , martens) by s h o o t i n g . Immediately
be
lethal
sack
present
and
later
in
on the h o s t a t the
c o l l e c t e d a f t e r narcotization.
G r e a t weight was l a i d on g a t h e r i n g the f l e a s s e p a r a t e l y by host
specimen,
except
for
s p e c i e s were caught
one another,
members o f
c a s e s when
in
t r a p s on
i n d i v i d u a l s of the same host
f u r t h e r than a few s t e p s from
since i n a l l probability their
the
same
family
living
in a
f l e a s occurred
common
on
subterranean
burrow.
The fundamental requirement
existence
system
of
f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g c o n d i t i o n s of
f l e a s p e c i e s per
( P i g .
l)
i n d i v i d u a l host
w h i c h a l l o w s one
specimen.
The
i s a recording
to d i s c o v e r , a t any
the numbers and s p e c i e s of f l e a s o r i g i n a t i n g
co­
from
time,
a g i v e n host
s e r i a l i n v e n t o r y number must a l s o be e n t e r e d f o r
the h o s t i n q u e s t i o n
( P i g .
l)
s i n c e without t h i s , had
the
f l e a specimens been p r e s e r v e d e i t h e r i n a l c o h o l or mounted on a
Serial
Number
sorszám
Host S p e c i e s
gazdaállatfaj
h*
cm
CT C
D
O P
H
fcJ* CO
p m
H> 0»
P o
c_i.
p.
ro
ind.no. - db.
Date o f
Collection
gyűjtés i d e j e
Locality
lelőhely
Collector
gyűjtő
00
H
Remarks
megjegyzés
Table l - l .
Research M a t e r i a l
táblázat.
- Vizsgálati anyag
Nests,
Burrows,
and Holes
Investigated
vizsgált fész­
k e k , kotorékok
és odúk
Material Investigated
vizsgált anyag
Apodemus s y l v a t i c u s
Arvicola terrest.sch.
1
-
4
5
109
473
30
79
318
27,5
44
75
8
Crocidura leucodon
C r o c i d u r a suaveolens
5
41,7
0
3
Barbastella barbast.
Clethrionomys g l a r e o l .
Cricetus cricetus
6
2
Canis familiáris
citellus
32,7
S-S
5
8
Citellus
Positive
pozitiv
flavicollis
7
Positive
pozitiv
Apodemus agrárius
Apodemus
6
Total
összesen
1
Total
összesen
Host S p e c i e s
gazdafaj
31
220
6
6
1
155
31
-
3
8
20
117
-
--
II
5
II
!
5
37,5
100,-
11
64,5
53,2
2
2
2
2
0
1
-
-
103
6
6
0
1
0
1
Dryomis n i t e d u l a
Eptesicus serotinus
E r i n a c e u s europaeus r .
Felis
Felis
catus
sylvestris
Glis glis
Lepus europaeus
Martes f o i n a
Mêles mêles
Micromys m i n u t . p r a t .
Microtus a g r e s t i s
Microtus a r v a l i s
M i c r o t u s oeconom.méh.
Minlopterus s c h r e i b e r s i
Mus musculus s p i c i l e g u s
Muscardinus a v e l l a n a r .
Mustela n i v a l i s
Mustela p u t o r i u s furo
Mustela p u t o r i u s hung.
•2
4
3
1
1
4
18
4
3
1
4
7
3
1
3
4
1
3
11
3
11
109
3
6
25
88
33
154
72
11
2
2
1
-2
106
42
9
2
24
152
40
32
7
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
Myotis dasycneme
1
1
Myotis daubentoni
Myotis b e c h s t e i n i
2
2
-7
42
-11
19
46
Myotis b r a n d t i
Myotis myotis
-
-2
2
35
5
6
7
100,100,-
3
1
1
1
2,7
24,-
1
-
47,7
27,3
10
7
38,8
100,100,100,33,3
100,100,-
1,3
55,5
63,6
2
2
11
5
50,100,100,100,100,0
0
16,6
•
2
1
Myotis n a t t e r e r i
Myotis
oxygnathus
Neomys anomalus m i l l e r i
Neomys f o d i e n a
Nyctalus l e i s l e r i
Nyctalus noctula
Ondatra
zibethicus
8
3
5
47
8
159
6
2
14
7
6
16
1
21
14
2
Sciurus v u l g a r i s
fuse.
Sorex a r a n e u s
Sorex m i n u t u s
Spalax leucodon
T a l p a europaea
Vulpes vulpes c r u c i g e r a
-
1
Plecotus austriacus
Rhinolophus h i p p o s i d .
5
20
27
Rhinolophus ferrumequ.
. 4
206
Pipistrellus pipistr.
Pitymya subterraneus
Plecotus a u r i t u s
Rattus norvegicus
3
27
2
44
2
15
11
-2
-
33
280
27
82
13
18
1
16
49
23
2,331
6
4
-
5
2
2
42
27
57,1
71,4
0
80,100,-
6
12
2
77,8
3
2
78,5
0
42
2
4,5
0
6
81,8
198
29,3
55,5
0
7,7
88,9
28
22
2
21
1
826
1,505
64,57 fo
7
37,5
22,8
• 12
35,43 1°
6
57,1
95,6
64,28 %
slide
(F i g. 2 ) , i t w o u l d
"be i m p o s s i b l e
to establish later
w h e t h e r t h e f l e a s i n t h e c o l l e c t i o n come f r o m t h e same h o s t i n ­
dividual or not.
During the t e n year p e r i o d
cimens and 42 n e s t s
I had o c c a s i o n t o examine 2331 spe­
or subterranean
burrows
o f 55 mammalian
s p e c i e s . F l e a s were f o u n d on 35.43 p e r c e n t o f t h e h o s t s and i n
64.28 p e r c e n t o f t h e i r n e s t s
the
l ) . The T a b l e
shows
e x t e n t o f i n f e c t i o n o f t h e s e v e r a l h o s t species.One hundred
p e r c e n t , o r complete
in
( T a b l e
those
l a c k o f i n f e c t i o n by f l e a s o c c u r r e d m a i n l y
host species
f o r w h i c h I was u n a b l e
t o c o l l e c t suf­
f i c i e n t m a t e r i a l . Presumably, a l a r g e number o f specimens would
not
show
this
high
degree
o r complete
l a c k o f i n f e c t i o n . On
mouse and shrew s p e c i e s and on moles and m o l e - r a t s
there
p r o b a b l y more f l e a s
than
i t was a b l e t o e s t a b l i s h .
from
most
o f these
the fact
that
species
l e t h a l t r a p s and i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t ,
t i o n s o f t h e • t r a p s p e r day, a p a r t
already
left
I estimate
the c o o l i n g hosts
this
were
collected
o f t h e f l e a p o p u l a t i o n had
prior
to collection.
source o f e r r o r t o be n o t h i g h e r
However,
than
able t o prevent s c a t t e r i n g o f the f l e a s . S i m i l a r l y , t h e
nests,
burrows,
holes
were
i n a l l cases p l a c e d
5-10 j6.
( F i g .
3)
from which
I was
material
immediately
i n t o c o m p l e t e l y s e a l a b l e bags and t h e n t r a n s f e r r e d i n t o
tractor
by
d e s p i t e s e v e r a l examina­
A f t e r c a p t u r e o f i n d i v i d u a l s o f o t h e r mammalian s p e c i e s ,
of
occur
T h i s stems
an ex­
t h e p a r a s i t e s a r e unable t o
escape.
Results
Occurrences o f s i n g l e f l e a
species
Before d e s c r i b i n g t h e coexistence
o f d i f f e r e n t f l e a s p e c i e s on
a s i n g l e h o s t a n i m a l I propose t o l i s t
currences
o f f l e a species
made t o t h e s e .
than
that
t h e cases
o f s i n g l e oc­
as r e p e a t e d r e f e r e n c e w i l l
l a t e r be
The number o f cases i s i n some i n s t a n c e s h i g h e r
of the l i s t e d l o c a l i t i e s ,
made a t s e v e r a l s e p a r a t e
times.
because
c o l l e c t i o n s were
F i g . 3 - 3 . ábra.
Extractor
Féazekfuttató
T a b l e 2 - 2 . táblázat.
Serial Number
sorszám
Occurrence o f S i n g l e F l e a Species
B o l h a f a j o k egyenkénti előfordulása
-p
CO
CQ
CO
Species - f a j i
m
cd
o
1
2
Siphonaptera
Host - gazdaállat
Species - f a j
-p
CO
03
CO
i
CO
m
cd
o
Locality
lelőhely
3
4
1
Archaeopsylla
5
Erinaceus
eur.roum.
5
Misina-tető
Monor
Orgovány
Tompa
2
C e r a t ."
tribulis
1
Citellus
citellus
1
Tahitótfalu
3
Chaetops.
globiceps
4
Felis
sylvestris
Vulpes vulpes
1
Diósjenő
3
Kaposvár
Szentmártonkáta
Pilisszentkereszt
4
Chaetops.
rothsch.
2
Martes f o i n a
2
Deszkáspuszta
Mátraszentimre
5
Citelloph.
martinoi
1
Citellus
citellus
1
Gyulafirátót
6
Citelloph.
simplex
1
Citellus
citellus
1
Ha j dubago s
7
Ctenoceph.
canis
2
Canis
familiáris
lepus
europaeus
1
Budapest
1
Boly
Canis
familiáris
F e l i s catus
1
Budapest
2
Monor
Budapest
M u s t e l a p u t or.
furo
1
8
Ctenoceph.
fells
4
Gödöllő
1
9
2
Ctenoph.ag.
"bosnic.
3
49
Apodemus
agrárius
2
Kisbalaton
Fityeház
Zajk
Németbánya
Kisbalaton
Szabadegyháza
Bakonybel
Kiszépalmapuszta
őriszentpéter
Pálihálás
Pityeház
Buesuta
Németbánya
Kisbalaton
Kaposmérő
Szalafő
Bucsuta
Tatabánya
Németbánya
Kisbalaton
2
Németbánya
1
Kisbalaton
4
Németbánya
Iharkút
6
Sarkadremete
1
Sarkadremete
T
Apodemus
agrárius
Apodemus
sylvaticus
Microtus
arvalis
1
Tákos
2
Táko s
1
Lónya
Apodemus
flavicoll.
Clethrionomys
glar.
3
Kisnána
4
Deszkáspuszta
K i snána
2
Hajdubagos
Tákos
Tahitótfalu
Deszkáspuszta
Apodemus
flavicoll.
Apodemus
sylvaticus
Clethrionomys
glar.
Micromys
minut.prat.
Microtus
agrestis
Microtus
arvalis
Microtus
oecon.méh.
Pitymys
subterran.
10
II
12
13
Ctenoph.ag.
eurous
Ctenoph.ag.
kleins.
Ctenoph.ag.
peusian.
Ctenoph.
assimilia
7
4
7
16
4
Apodemus
flavicoll.
Mus musculus
spic.
Apodemus
flavicoll.
Clethrionomys
glar.
7
18
2
11
2
2
1
2
5
4
Microtus
arvalis
8
Orgovány
Kishalaton
Bugyi
Németbánya
Lippó
Békéscsaba
Nagykovácsi
Kisbalaton
Neomys
fodiens
Sorex a r a n e u s
Talpa
europaea
1
1
2
Kisbalaton
Sarkadremete
Kisszépalmapuszta
14
Ctenoph.
caucasicus
1
Spalax
leucodon
1
Hajdubagos
15
Ctenoph.
congener
3
Apodemus
flavicoll.
Clethrionomys
glar.
1
Németbánya
2
Németbánya
Bakonybél
Apodemus
flavicoll.
Citellus
citellus
1
K i snána
4
Hollóháza
Szabadszállás
Fácánkert
Bugac
Ócsa
16
Ctenoph.
orientális
. 6
Mustela
nivalis
17
Ctenoph.
solutus
14
Apodemus
flavicoll.
Apodemus
sylvaticus
Clethrionomys
glar.
18
Doratopsylla
d.das.
10
Neomys
fodiens
Sorex a r a n e u s
1
Gombáspuszta
Nagysomlyóhegy
Deszkáspuszta
Alcsut
Pisznice-hegy
Gézaháza
Kisszépalmapuszta
Kisnána
Budakeszi
Litke
Kistolmács
Deszkáspuszta
1
Németbánya
9
Németbánya
Deszkáspuszta
Szalafő
11
2
1
19
2
Hystrichops.
talp.or.
3
5
Apodemus
agrárius
Apodemus
flavicoll.
Microtus
oecon.jméh.
Ondatra
zihethicus
Talpa
europaea
4
1
Kisbalaton
1
Cserfekvés
1
Kisbalaton
1
Kapuvár
1
Iharkút
20
Ischnopsyllus
elong.
6
Myotis myotis
Nyctalus
noctula
1
5
Pilismarót
Rétszilas
Szikra-Tőserdő
Lillafüred
Kisbalaton
21
Ischnopsyllus
hexact.
15
Myotis myotis
Myotis
oxygnathus
2
6
Pipistrellus
pipistr.
Plecotus
austriacus
1
Legény-barlang
Ördöglyuk-barlang
Pálvölgyi-barlang
S olymári-barlang
Abalige ti-barlang
Legény-barlang
Szekszárd
6
Tata
Gyöngyös
Budapest
Pilis
Dorog
Tompa
Eptesicus
serotinus
4
Miniopterus
schreib.
Myotis
dasycneme
Myotis myotis
1
Pilismarót
Budapest
Alpár
Németbánya
Abaligeti-barlang
1
Szikra-Tőserdő
3
Myotis
oxygnathus
8
Pilismarót
Eger
Pisznicei-barlang
Ördöglyuk-barlang
Pálvölgyi-barlang
Nagymaros
Abaligeti-barlang
Leány-barlang
Gyöngyös
22
Ischnopsyllus
interm.
17
1
2
4
3
23
Ischnopsyllus
octact.
6
Pipistrellus
pipistr.
6
Sopron
Lillafüred
Németbánya
Bakonybél
24
Ischnopsyllus
simpl.myst.
1
Myotis
brandti
1
Baláta-tó
25
Ischnopsyllus
simpl.simpl.
2
Myotis
nattereri
2
Leány-barlang
Legény-barlang
26
Leptopsylla
segnis
Apodemus
flavicoll.
Mus muscuius
spicil.
2
Tákos
27
28
29
Megabothris
turbid.
Megabothris
walkeri
Monopsyllus
sciur.
17
3
2
26
15
Deszkáspuszta
Orgovány
Pel3Őgöd
Sarkadremete
K i sszépalmapuszta
Budapest
Tákos
Pálihálás
Apodemus
flavicoll.
Clethrionomys
glar.
Microtus
arvalis
1
őriszentpéter
1
őriszentpéter
1
Tákos
Microtus
agrestis
Sorex
minutus
1
Kisbalaton
1
Kisbalaton
Apodemus
flavicoll.
Dryamis
nitedula
Glis glis
3
Gödöllő
Iharkút
Gödöllő
Mêles mêles
Muscardlnus
avellan.
Myotis
oxygnathus
Sciurus vulg.
fuscoat.
1
1
1
Deszkáspuszta
Pisznice-hegy
Budakeszi
Budapest
Mecsek-hg
Gödöllő
1
Legény-barlang
5
14
Diósjenő
Pilisszántó
Deszkáspuszta
Budapest
1
2
Sciurus v u l g .
fuscoat.
30
No so pay U u s
fasciat.
4
3
9
Apodemus
flavicoll.
Apodemus
sylvaticus
Microtus
arvalis
Mua muaculua
spicil.
14
2
3
1
Csákvár
Budakeszi
Zirc
Németbánya
Gödöllő
Mecsek-hg.
Pisznice-hegy
Sarkadremete
Tahitótfalu
Sarkadremete
Békéscsaba
3
Sarkadremete
Békéscsaba
31
Nycteridops.
eusarca
3
Nyctalus
noctura
3
lengyel
Budapest
32
Nycteridops.
pentact.
7
Barbastella
"barbast.
Myotis myotis
Myotis
oxygnathus
Plecotus
austriacus
1
Vereshegyi-barlang
1
1
Abaligeti-barlang
ördöglyuk-barlang
4
Üllő
Gödöllő
Királyrét
Kisbalaton
Iharkút
33
Palaeops.
kohauti
3
Talpa
europaea
3
34
Palaeops.
similis
10
Talpa
europaea
10
35
Palaeops.
. sor.rosic.
18
Apodemus
agrárius
Clethrionomys
glar.
Micromys
minut.prat.
Neomys
anomal . m i l l .
36
Peromyscops.
fallax
3
Németbánya
Szabadegyháza
Deszkáspuszta
Bakonybél
Iharkút
1
Kisbalaton
1
Kisbalaton
1
Pákozd
4
Németbánya
Kisbalaton
Pákozd
Kisbalaton
Pákozd
S o r e x araneus
11
Clethrionomys
glar.
1
Németbánya
2
1
4
3
1
Németbánya
1
Németbánya
Canis
familiáris
5
P e l i s catus
Meie3 meles
1
3
Mustela
putor.hung.
Vulpes vulpes
crucig.
1
Orgovány
Hont
Sárcsikut
Kapuvár
Bugac
Csákvár
Drégelypalánk
Lónya
Hajdúbagos
5
Szigetmonostor
Szentendre
Haj dubagos
Kapuvár
Mihálygerge
Rhinolophus
ferrume.
2
Gyula
Abaligeti-barlang
Microtus
arvalis
Pitymys
subterran.
P u l ex
irritans
37
Rhinolophops.
u n i p.
38
In
T a b l e
but
this
them o c c u r
the
15
2
, 2
certain
species
i s n o t an e x p r e s s i o n
- as shown i n
occur
i n only a
of their rarity
T a b l e
3 -
few
cases,
s i n c e most o f
more
frequently
company o f o t h e r species.On t h e b a s i s o f m a t e r i a l
in
collected
so f a r , t h e f o l l o w i n g f l e a s p e c i e s o f mammals may be c o n s i d e r e d
rare :
Chaetopsylla
simplex R o t h s c h i l d ;
(Wagner);
rothschildi
Kohaut;
Ischnopsyllus simplex
I . variabilis
I . simplex mysticus Jordan;
Megabothryis
walkeri (Rothschild);
h a u t i Dampf; P e r o m y s c o p s y l l a
Palaeopsylla ko­
f a l l a x (Rothschild); Rhadinopsylla
isacantha isacantha (Rothschild);
R. p e n t a c a n t h a
(Rothschild);
R. s t r o u h a l i S m i t , h i t h e r t o f o u n d as a s i n g l e specimen o n l y and
identified
conditionally
even
by
i t s discoverer;
Rhinolopho-
p s y l l a u n i p e c t i n a t a u n i p e c t i n a t a ( T a s c h e n b e r g ) , and T a r s o p s y l l a
octodecimdentata octodeclmdentata
(Kolenati).
c i e s o f t h e s e f l e a s a r e r a r e i n Hungary,
ture i s quite
understandable.
their
As t h e h o s t spe­
i n f r e q u e n t cap­
Table 3 - 3 . táblázat.
Serial
Number
sorszám
Common Occurrence
o f P l e a S p e c i e s - B o l h a f a j o k együttes előfordulása
Common Occurrence
of F l e a S p e c i e s
Együttesen elő­
forduló b o l h a f a j o k
Case
eset
Host - gazdaállat
Species - f a j
Case
eset
Locality
lelőhely
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
Archaeopsylla e r i n .
Pulex i r r i t a n s
1
Vulpes v u l p e s
crue.
1
ócsa
2
Ceratoph.pullatus
Ctenoph.ag•eurous
Nosopsyllus f a s c .
1
Apodemus f l a v i c o l l .
1
Sarkadremete
3
Ceratoph.pullatus
Monopsyllus s c i u r .
1
Muscardinus a v e l l .
1
Gödöllő
4
Ceratoph.tribulis
Monopsyllus s c i u r .
1
Sciurus vulg.fuse.
1
Szeleste
5
Ceratoph.tribulis
Nosopsyllus f a s c .
1
Citellus
1
Tahitótfalu
6
Chaetops.globicepB
Chaetops.trichosa
Paracéras m e l i s
Pulex i r r i t a n s
1
Vulpes vulpes
1
Deszkáspuszta
citellus
crue.
1
2
3
4
6
5
7
Chaetops.globiceps
Pulex I r r i t a n s
6
Vulpes v u l p e s crue.
8
Chaetops.globiceps
Ctenoceph.canis
Paraceras m e l i s
Pulex i r r i t a n s
1
Vulpes vulpes crue.
1
Mecsek-hg.
9
Chaetops,globiceps
Monopsyllus s c i u r .
1
Sciurus vulg.fuse.
1
Németbánya
10
Chaetops.globiceps
Monopsyllus s c i u r .
Pulex i r r i t a n s
1
Vulpes vulpes crue.
1
Németbánya
11
Chaetops.globiceps
Paraceras m e l i s
1
Vulpes vulpes crue.
1
Deszkás-puszta
12
Chaetops.globiceps
Paraceras m e l i s
Pulex i r r i t a n s
1
Meies meles
1
Ba j n a
13
Chaetops.trichosa
Paraceras m e l i s
Pulex i r r i t a n s
2
Meies meles
o
Sárcsikut
Litke
14
Chaetops.trichosa
Pulex i r r i t a n s
7
Canis familiáris
Meies meles
1
Drégelypalánk
Pusztavám
S za ba d egy há za
Egervár
. 6
Vokány
Pécsudvar
Inárcs
Rákoscsaba
Budakalász
Drégelypalánk
M3
1
2
6
4
5
Vulpes v u l p e s c r u e .
3
Drégelypalánk
Belvárgyula
Kutberek
3
•
15
CItelloph.martinoi
Ctenoph.orientális
3
Citellus
citellus
3
Hollóháza
16
Citelloph.simplex
Ctenophth.assimllis
1
Citellus
citellus
1
Hajdubagos
Citelloph.simplex
Ctenoph.caucasicus
Ctenoph.orientális
1
Spalax leucodon
1
Ha jdubagos
18
Citelloph.simplex
Ctenoph.orientális
3
Citellus
citellus
3
Ha jdubago s
Bátorliget
19
Ctenoceph.canis
Ctenoceph.felis
Pulex i r r i t a n s
1
C a n i s familiáris.
1
Biharugra
20
Ctenoph.ag.hosnic.
Ctenoph.assimilis
4
Clethrionomys g l a r .
3
M i c r o t u s oecon.méh.
1
Balatonlelle
Kisbalaton
Kisbalaton
-
21
Ctenoph.ag.bosnic.
»
Ctenoph.assimilis
Megabothris w a l k e r !
1
Clethrionomys g l a r .
1
Kisbalaton
22
Ctenoph.ag.hosnic.
Ctenoph.assimilis
Palaeops.sor.ros.
1
Sorex araneus
1
Kisbalaton
1
23
2
Ctenoph.ag.bosnic.
Ctenoph.congener
3
11
4
5
6
Apodemus f l a v i c o l l .
Clethrionomys g l a r .
1
9
Neomys f o d i e n s
1
Zajk
Sárcsikut
Németbánya
Kisszépalmapuszta
Németbánya
24
Ctenoph.ag.bosnic.
Ctenoph.congener
Ctenoph.solutus
1
Clethrionomys.glar.
1
Sárcsikut
25
Ctenoph.ag.bosnic.
Ctenoph.congener
Doratops.d.dasycn.
2
Apodemus f l a v i c o l l .
Clethrionomys g l a r .
1
1
Németbánya
Németbánya
26
Ctenoph.ag.bosnic.
Ctenoph.congener
Hystrichops.talp.or.
1
Clethrionomys
glar.
1
Gombáspuszta
27
Ctenoph.ag.hosnic.
Ctenoph.congener
Hy s t r i c h o p s . t a l p . o r .
Peromyscops.fallax
1
Clethrionomys
glar.
]
Iharkút
28
Ctenoph.ag.hosnic.
Ctenoph.congener
Peromyscops.fallax
3
Clethrionomys g l a r .
Pitymys subterraneus
2
1
Néme tbánya
Németbány
29
Ctenoph.ag.hosnic.
Ctenoph.congener
Rh.vàtnops . i s a c a n t h a
1
Clethrionomys
glar.
1
Iharkút
30
Ctenoph,ag.boonlc
Ctenoph.orientális
1
Apodemus f l a v i c o l l .
1
Mecsek-hg.
1
31
2
C t e n o p h . a g .b o s n i c
Ctenoph.solutus
4
3
7
Apodemus
5
6
flavicoll.
6
Clethrionomys g l a r .
1
Sárcsikut
Németbánya
Pisznice-hegy
Bakonynána
Budakeszi
Kaposmérő
32
Ctenoph.ag.bosnic.
Doratops.a.dasycn.
2
Neomys a n o m a l . m i l l .
Pitymys subterraneus
1
1
Németbánya
Németbánya
33
C t e n o p h .a g . h o s n i c
Hystrichops.talp.or.
2
Microtus a r v a l i s
Mus musculus s p i c .
1
1
Németbánya
Kisbalaton
34
Ctenoph.ag.bosnic
Megabothris t u r b i d .
9
Apodemus f l a v i c o l l .
Clethrionomys g l a r .
1
7
Microtus agrestis
1
őriszentpéter
őriszentpéter
Zajk
Szalafő
Kisbalaton
35
Ctenoph.ag.bosnic.
Megabothris t u r b i d .
Monopsyllus s c i u r .
1
Clethrionomys
glar.
1
őriszentpéter
36
Ctenoph.ag.hosnic.
Megabothris w a l k e r i
1
M i c r o t u s oecon.méh.
1
Kisbalaton
37
Ctenoph.ag.hosnic.
Megabothris w a l k e r i
Palaeops.sor.ros.
1
Neomys f o d i e n s
1
Kisbalaton
38
Ctenoph.ag.hosnic
Monopsyllus s c i u r .
1
Apodemus f l a v i c o l l .
1
őriszentpéter
39
Ctenoph.ag.hosnic.
Nosopsyllus fasc.
Palaeops.sor.ros.
Peromyscops.fallax
1
Apodemus
1
Németbánya
flavicoll.
1
2
3
4
5
40
Ctenoph.ag. "bosnic.
Palaeops.sor.ros.
3
Microtus agrestis
Neomys a n o m a l . m i l l .
T a l p a europaea
1
1
1
Kisbalaton
Németbánya
Kaposmérő
41
Ctenoph.ag.eurous
Hystrichops.talp.or.
1
Apodemus f l a v i c o l l .
1
Sarkadremete
42
Ctenoph.ag.eurous
Hystrichops.talp.or.
Nosopsyllus fasc.
1
Apodemus s y l v a t i c u s
1
Sarkadremete
43
Ctenoph.ag.eurous
Nosopsyllus fasc.
1
Apodemus f l a v i c o l l .
1
Sarkadremete
44
Ctenoph.ag.eurous
Rhadinops.pentac.
1
Apodemus f l a v i c o l l .
1
Sarkadremete
45
Ctenoph.ag.kleins.
Ctenoph.assimilis
Megabothris t u r b i d .
1
Apodemus s y l v a t i c u s
1
Tákos
46
Ctenoph.ag.peusian.
Ctenoph.congener *
2
Apodemus f l a v i c o l l .
Clethrionomys g l a r .
1
1
Kisnána
Kisnána
47
Ctenoph.ag.peusian.
Ctenoph.oriental!s
1
Apodemus
flavicoll.
1
Deszkáspuszta
48
Ctenoph.ag.peusian
Ctenoph.solutus
5
Apodemus f l a v i c o l l .
5
Deszkáspuszta
Kisnána
49
C te n o ph. ag. peus i a n .
Hystrichops.talp.or.
Apodemus
flavicoll.
1
Diósjenő
50
Ctenoph.ag.peus.
X eurous
C tenoph.assimilis
Apodemus s y l v a t i c u s
1
Ócsa
. 1
1
6
1
2
3
6
4
5
arvalis
1
Ohat
1
Deszkáspuszta
1
Hajdubagos
51
Ctenc-ph.ag.peup.
x eurous
x kleins.
Ctenoph.assimilis
1
Microtus
52
Ctenoph.ag.ssp.
Ctenoph.congener
1
Clethrionomys
53
Ctenoph.ag.ssp.
Ctenoph.orientális
1
T a l p a europaea
54
Ctenoph.. as s i m i l i s
Megabothris t u r b i d .
1
Clethrionomys
glar.
1
Kisbalaton
55
Ctenoph.assimilis
Nosopsyllus fasc.
5
Apodemus f l a v i c o l l .
Apodemus s y l v a t i c u s
Microtus a r v a l i s
1
1
Bugac
Tahitótfalu
Pácánkert
Békéscsaba
Apaj
glar.
2
T a l p a europaea
56
Ctenoph.assimilis
Palaeops.sor.ros.
1
Neomys f o d i e n s
1
1
Kisbalaton
57
Ctenoph.bisoctodent.
Palaeops.kohauti
Palaeops.similis
1
T a l p a europaea
1
Deszkáspuszta
58
Ctenoph,bisoctodent. i
Palaeops.similis
2
T a l p a europaea
2
Deszkáspuszta
59
Ctenoph.caucasicus
Ctehoph.congener
Ctenoph,orientális
1
Spalax leucodon
1
Hajdubagos
60
Ctenoph.caucasius
Ctenoph.orientális
1
Spalax: l e u c o d o n
4
Ha j dubago s
3
2
3
4
5
6
61
C t enoph. c ongener
Dorâtops.d.da syen.
1
Sorex
araneus
1
Németbánya
62
Ot eno ph. c ongener
Peromyscops.fallax
2
Clethrionomys g l a r .
Microtus a r v a l i s
1
1
Németbánya
Németbánya
63
Ctenoph. s o l u t u s
Rhadinops.strouhali
1
Apodemus
1
Deszkáspuszta
64
Dorâtops.d.dasycn.
Hystrichops.talp.or.
Palaeops.sor.ros.
1
Neomys.anomal.mill.
1
Németbánya
65
Doratops.d.dasycn.
Monopsyllus s c i u r .
1
Apodemus f l a v i c o l l .
1
Bakonynána
66
Doratops.d.dasycn.
Palaeops.similis
2
Sorex araneus
T a l p a europaea
1
1
Deszkáspuszta
Deszkáspuszta
67
Doratops.d.dasycn.
Palaeops.sor.ros.
5
Sorex a r a n e u s
5
Németbánya
K i s s zépalmapus z t a
Iharkút
68
Hystrichops.talp.or.
Megabothris w a l k e r i
1
M i c r o t u s oecon.méh.
1
Kisbalaton
69
Ischnopsyll.elong.
Ischnopsyll.interm.
1
Myotis
1
Héviz
70
Ischnopsyll.elong.
Nycteridops.eusarca
1
Nyctalus
1
Legény-barlang
71
Ischnopsyll.hexact.
Ischnopsyll.interm.
6
Epteslcuo serotinus
M y o t i s oxygnathus
1
5
Velence
ördöclyuk-barlang
Abaligeti-barlang
Aggteleki-barlang
flavicoll.
oxygnathus
noctula
1
2
3
72
Ischnopsyll.hexact•
Ischnopsyll.interm.
Nycteridops.pentact«
1
Myotis
73
Ischnopsyll.hexact.
Ischnopsyll.variah.
1
Myotis
74
Ischnopsyll.hexact.
Nycteridops.pentact.
3
75
Monopsyllus
Tarsopsylla
sciur.
octod.
76
Paraceras melis
Pulex i r r i t a n s
5
6
oxygnathus
1
Abaligeti-barlang
oxygnathus
1
ördöglyuk-barlang
B a r h a s t e l l a harhast.
2
Plecotus austriacus
1
ördöglyuk-barlang
Kec s k e - b a r l a n g
Budapest
2
Sciurus vulg.fuse.
2
Répáshuta
Sopron
3
Canis familiáris
Meies meles
1
2
Németbánya
Gödöllő
Budakeszi
4
The
case number o f t h e h o s t s p e c i e s
w i t h o u t need
the
( T a b l e
study o f the l i s t
i s n o t so e v i d e n t f r o m
a
o f species found o c c u r r i n g t o g e t h e r .
Common o c c u r r e n c e s o f s e v e r a l f l e a
o f f l e a species
species
The
coexistence
and
i n the nest materials i s l i s t e d i n T a b l e
o f t h e common o c c u r r e n c e s
stances only;
displays
o f explanation the extent o f host s p e c i f i c i t y o f
f l e a species. This r e l a t i o n s h i p
Most
5)
on t h e same h o s t
were
found
individuals
3.
i n one o r t w o i n ­
t h o s e n o t e d i n t h r e e o r more cases a r e w o r t h y o f
s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n . Besides
t h e number o f c a s e s , t h e
significance
o f t h e s e common o c c u r r e n c e s i n c r e a s e s i f t h e y a r e f o u n d i n more
t h a n one h o s t s p e c i e s
At present,
ficant
o r i n g e o g r a p h i c a l l y remote
localities.
t h e f r e q u e n c y o f cases seems t o be t h e most
( T a b l e
signi­
4).
Table 4 - 4 . táblázat.
Frequency o f Common O c c u r r e n c e s o f F l e a S p e c i e s
t o t h e Number o f S p e c i e s
Bolhafajok
együttes előfordulásának gyakorisága a talált
f a j o k száma s z e r i n t
Number o f D i f f e r e n t Common O c c u r r e n c e s
Comprising
2 Species J 3 Species | 4 Species
Különféle együttes előfordulások száma
2 faj
3 faj
4faj
28
7
5
2
3
2
2
1
1
According
18
3
1
Frequency o f Common
Occurrences
Együttes előfordu­
lások gyakorisága
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
11
X
X
X
X
Further evaluation
Tables.
and i l l u s t r a t i o n a r e d e r i v e d f r o m two o t h e r
T a b l e
5
shows t h e f r e q u e n c y o f o c c u r r e n c e s
b i n e d cases o f s i n g l e and common o c c u r r e n c e s )
f l e a species.
T a b l e
6
per host
d i s p l a y s t h e frequency
(com­
o f the
of
common
occurrences o f the i n d i v i d u a l f l e a species.
I n t h e c o u r s e o f my i n v e s t i g a t i o n s t h e f o l l o w i n g forms
mon o c c u r r e n c e s o f f l e a s p e c i e s were e s t a b l i s h e d .
o f com­
F l e a common o c c u r r e n c e s on mouse s p e c i e s
I t was most f r e q u e n t l y on mouse s p e c i e s t h a t c o e x i s t e n c e o f s e ­
v e r a l f l e a s p e c i e s was f o u n d .
net
only
because t h e g r e a t m a j o r i t y
duals belonged
fact
that
most
o u r mice
agyrtes
Ca.
i s probably accounted f o r
o f collected host
indivi­
t o t h i s g r o u p b u t a l s o because o f t h e w e l l - k n o w n
flea
species
f a m i l y M u r i d a e i n Hungary.
on
This
belong
can be f o u n d
on members
o f the
The m a j o r i t y o f f l e a s p e c i e s l i v i n g
t o t h e genus Ctenophthalmus,
o f which Ct.
( C . a . b o s n i c u s Wagner; C.a.eurous J o r d a n e t R o t h s c h i l d ;
k l e i n s c h m i d t i a n u s Peus; C a . p e u s i a n u s R o s i c z k y ) o c c u r
in
most p o p u l a t i o n s and i n r a t h e r w e l l d e f i n e d g e o g r a p h i c a l a r e a s ,
as was d e m o n s t r a t e d
i n an e a r l i e r p a p e r (SMIT and SZABÓ, 1 9 6 7 ) .
However, o t h e r s p e c i e s o f t h e genus a l s o o c c u r r e d , v i z . C a s s i milis assimilis
(Taschenberg),
C c o n g e n e r congener R o t h s c h i l d ,
and. C s o l u t u s s o l u t u s J o r d a n e t R o t h s c h i l d . T o g e t h e r w i t h those
species,
t h e H u n g a r i a n members o f t h e genera H y s t r i c h o p s y l l a ,
L e p t o p s y l l a , M o n o p s y l l u s , N o s o p s y l l u s , P a l a e o p s y l l a , Peromyscopsylla,
and R h a d i n o p s y l l a
occurred
more
rarely.
f r e q u e n t p o p u l a t i o n s ( o n 9 and 1 1 o c c a s i o n s )
The two most
a l s o o c c u r r e d on
mice ( s e r i a l numbers 23 and 3 4 ) . Both s p e c i e s a r e r a t h e r
local,
b e i n g f o u n d i n t h e Bakony M t s * and i n t h e n e i g h b o u r h o o d
o f the
v i l l a g e őriszentpéter. A n o t h e r i n t e r e s t i n g f a c t i s t h a t one i n ­
stance o f both
common o c c u r r e n c e s was observed
of the v i l l a g e Zajk, Comitat Zala.
«
Mountains
i n t h e environs
Table 5 Frequency
5. táblázat.
o f F l e a S p e c i e s Found on Host S p e c i e s
Gazdaállatfajokon
-
talált b o l h a f a j o k előfordulási esetszámai
o
•H
CQ
.
.
H
p
• •H
-p
-p
•
ci -p •H
ra
ri
CQ
f-+
o CQ CQ • ri >CQ> ft
o •ra
H CQ rp ri . •Hci
ri
riD
fl ri H • o
C
. crid. • CQ CriD ri •HHra Sari
•
•H H •H 1-1 CD ri
o
cd p riSi •HftHCD
ft-H CCÖQ o M03
ra
ra
ri
ri
CD CD
Ü
CQ
-P •H
H
.
•H riri
•H
•H H o ri
03 ft
•H fl
M
U
CD fl
ri
P
ri
ra
ri
ri
ri
ra
rio fl
• H O •
03 CQ CQ •HO CüQ O •
H H •Hra •HCQ ri o •CH
CD
H (D -pcd ra ri rH ctUDP
d CD a PÜ H • rH• fl 8)H H •HO CQ o O P •H
O •HCQ H
ri ri ri •rip PO
D
P ft
ft-H P m ri
rH ri
ci
a ricd ri
M
o
c
d
0
3
pi
c
d
CQ o P
o
fl
ra
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
CQ H
•H
p >i -p ri cdCD riftft
•H CQ P
p ri
•H • H <H ri ririri• Ü
o ri ç
a O a CD ri
cö Pri
rjH o riH CD • • CCQO -H
fl fl
ri
CQ
C
Q
CD
S a
H
H
£3 ri (U • cdra CD p CQ O
o
o
-P •H ci •H CÖ CD fl CD fl ft ft
o
o
X p P
ft
ri
ri
ri
fl
• CQ
CD
0Q
•
. H 0) rio •H •H cd cd CQ CQ CQ CQ Cri
Q P •
H c
ö 3 H O priS rao H• . Í5JJ.
o •HCQ O 0 Cft-H
H ft
ri•H H cd ra
ft•
. bO bû. tiD CQ•Hm ri
i> H -H •H ririD ft^
• • •OH
W) U
ci o riO • r i P- 03
bo
.•H• o ra
«
• o • fi
• ra
• • • • ra
• rao riraraCQ flH
H H
CÖ
•
A. fl
A
CQ r-j•H
c
d
c
d
c
d
c
d
o
o
o
fl
ri
fl
ra
H
ri
ri
CQ CQ
•
u CQ CQ raftftftft •
• *
ft ri
raCQ. m rara>>fl
flH H
rararario riftftftft> >
.ri
. . . A A. ra
O
ft-PO O ftHo ft
o COD COD - r i flflflflflA A fl
o Oft
CQ iH o o O o ra
ft
ft
ftft
ftftftCQ P P >j >•> H •H ftftftCri
<D • • ft
O
O
o rH
fti ft
ft ftftfto •H
o o o o ft oo raraCri
o o o D b ^ ri•Hri•HriH ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ri
D C
D CD CD 03 O a X •H
CÖ -P P -P -P -P rH H
o o o o o o O o p ri
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
fl
o o
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
fl
ft
ft
d cQCd o o PO PO rH
flü CÖu CUÖ CCÖD CCÖD CD PCD PCD CriD ri
riD CriD CriD CriD CriD ri CriD CriD ri
riD CriD ri CriD cd P
fl fl A A fio fl -Pft cttO
ri Hri Hri ri O 03 ci rH •Hri m
CD C
CD C
c
d
C
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
ri
H
ri
ra
ri
ra
ri
ri
ri
U CD CD S fii fi•H •H P -P -P P P P P p -P P P P P -P P o >Î CQ CQ m rararara03 03 CD o o l>i ï>> a ririri03 pi flflflflri
H
H M M H H M H : S S S ri; K
PH PH PH PH
PH ftcri fl
flflEH
•4 o O o o o O O O O O7 o O O O o O 1o O o Ü O O
4
\
3
30 C
H
4 3 23 2 3
2 2
5 6
1
4
4 4
2 1 3
3
5
2
4
.
ri.
•H
CQ
*J
H
U
i
si
Apodemus agrárius
Apodemus f l a v i c o l l i s
Apodemus s y l v a t i c u s
Barbastella barbast.
1
2 2
C a n i s familiáris
2
Citellus citellus
4 5
40
Clethrionomys glar.
Dryomis n i t e d u l a
Eptesicus serotinus
5
E r i n a c e u s europaeus
F e l i s catus
2
Felis silvestris
4
Glis glis
Lepus e u r o p a e u s
Martes f o i n a
2
Meles meles
5
4
Micromys m i n u t . p r a t .
2
Microtus agrestis
4
Microtus a r v a l i s
3
M i c r o t u s oecon.méhelyi
Miniopterus schreib.
Mus m u s c u l u s s p i c i l .
j
Muscardinus a v e l l a n .
\
Mustela n i v a l i s
Mustela p u t o r . f u r o
1
Mustela putor.hung.
Myotis b r a n d t i
M y o t i s dasycneme
Myotis myotis
Myotis n a t t e r e r i
M y o t i s oxygnathus
Neomys a n o m a l u s m i l l .
2
2
Neomys f o d i e n s
Myctalus n o c t u l a
Ondatra z i b e t h i c u s
Pipistrellus pipistr.
Pitymys subterraneus
6
Plecotus austriacus
Rhinolophus ferrume.
Sciurus v u l g a r i s fuse.
\ 4
Sorex araneus
Sorex m i n u t u s
Spalax leucodon
1
Talpa europaea
i
Vulpes v u l p e s crue.
43
\
1
4
3
2
4
5
4
i 6
8
10
21
4
9
3 1 2
5
4
5
<
4
5
5
1
4
2
4
3
\
{
1
2
3
2
•
i
\
4 2 3
2
4 3 45
4
2
6
2
3 1
1
6
4
2
4
<
7
5
2
3
1
7
i 3 3
\ 47
16
6
1
1
4 14 4
1
3
48
Table 6 Frequency
6.
táblázat.
o f Common O c c u r r e n c e s of F l e a S p e c i e s -
B o l h a f a j o k együttes előfordulásának gyakorisága
g
0
. . X.
ri
Ü CQ CQ ri
ri
CQ
•
p
P! CQ
ci ori Cû
• ri
ä
0
CQ
CQ
•
CÛ
•H
p
•H
P
ri
0ri
H •
ri ri •Hri
•
CÖ
p ri
ri
ri
CQ CQ
0 0 •H
CD CQ
0
0
•H
•H
•H
•d
ftP
p
•H
H
u
ci
ri H CQ riri
ri CQ fl . H o •Ho 0ri riCÛ riH CÖ p a flrifl
ri CoQ o o •H CÛ H
ri CÖo flriO
H •H
o
0 CO CQ
•H
cd
0
•H •H
-p ri o ri ÏÏOo ri P ri cd o cd ri ri ri H ri •H ri
•H fl -P
X X fl •H p
o p o Ü
ri
CQ
H
p >> P ri 0 •H p
a o ri0ri ri
od p •H flO ri0 ri
rir—t 0ri
flriP ri•-H • H0 fl
riri
CQ •H
0riri
CD
-p H
•H cd •H a 0 fl0 flflA
p
•
•
a
fl•H ria CQ priCÛ
. CoQ ori ri •H Hriri CQ rHo0 0X ri ri
H
0ri
H cd p rH ri a
H P CQ ri
• .
o . . .
cd CQ CQ CQ CQ ri
o
o
.
\>>H fltu) P
bO
EVD bQ •H cd o ri -d fl fl
. •H > H •H riri0 flflCQ CQ fl•H • • • H
PI
PH
•H
P O
Ü
O
CQ
•H
fl
o
ri
CD •
CÖ P p
.A
Pi
o
O ft H
• fl
flAP.
flCÖ
H PH
fl
O
0
0
<
ri
ri
P
O
O
CQ
ci
CQ
«
PH PH
O
O
O
•
»
cû Cû CQ CQ
O fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl •H fl
PH
fl
PH PH
O
O
O
ririHH
ri fl
p
H
H
P
CQ CQ
o o
fl fl
fl fl fl fl
o O o o o O P ririririri
flflPO
p
.
CQ
CQ
flflM
CD
CQ
CQ
H H H S S S
•
fl TT)
•H •H
ri
0 0ri
PH
O P
CQ
ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri flo flo flo flo ri ri
ri
0 0 ri
o !>>
o O
Archaeopsylla erin.
1
C erat.pullatus
Cerat.tribuli s
\
i
Chaetops.globiceps
1
Chaetops t r i c h o s a
Citelloph.martinoi
Citelloph.simplex
1
Ctenoceph.canis
Ctenoceph.felis
Ctenoph.ag.bosnicus
Ctenoph.ag.eurous
1
Ctenoph.ag.kleins.
Ctenoph.ag.peusian.
Ctenoph.ag.p.x e.
Ctenoph.ag.p.x k.x e.
Ctenoph.ag. ssp.'
Ctenoph.assimilis
5
i
\
Ctenoph.bisoctodent.
Ctenoph.caucasicus
Ctenoph.congener
20
2
Ctenoph.orientális
3 4
\
\
Ctenoph.solutus
8
4
Doratops.dasycnema
4
Hy s t r i c h o p s . t a l p . o r .
4 2
Ischnops.elongatus
Ischnops.hexactenus
Ischnops.intermed.
Ischnops.variabilis
Megabothris t u r b i d .
<Û i
Megabothris w a l k e r i
3
\ \ 2
Monopsyllus
sciur.
2
i 1
Nosopsyllus f a s c i a t .
\ 3
Nycterid.eusarca
Nycterid.pentactena
Palaeops.kohauti
Palaeops.similis
Palaeops.sor.ros.
6
Paraceras melis
4 3
Peromyscops.fallax
5
Pulex i r r i t a n s
9
2 1
\
Rhadinops.isacantha
\
Rhadinops.pentacant.
Rhadinops.strouhali
T a r s o p s y l l a octod.
P
O
ricd ricd ririfl
• o o. o
. CQ• CQ• flO
•
Ü
CÖ p
u cd P P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a> o 0
ÍH 0 CD flfl•H •H p -P p p p p p p p p P p p p p
O o o o O O o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o
flo
0
CQ
CQ
CQ
P,
H O
fl fl
fl
p P H H O O O o
O fl
o o O
0 0 0 0
O
H H
P
PH
CQ
CQ CQ
ri rp
•
X
cd
CQ
O
P
P H P
•H
H
P
CÛ
CQ
O
H •H
0
•H
CQ
•H
ri<
CO
CQ
•
P
o o
>> >>
• • • CÛ
CQ CQ CQ cö
O
o
CÛ
fl fl fl 0ri b
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
a
riCQ
ri fl
•H
X
O
CQ CQ H
PH
O
O
P
Cû
ri •H
ri •H
ri fl
H
o
ri ri cd ri c H0 fl flCÖ
flcd Hcd Hriri
ri flCriÖ
ri0ri riflfl
TJ
CÛ
flflflflflflW flflflflflEH
(
1
1
<
2
4
3
3
<0
i
2
3
i
\
5
«
20
10 3 2 i
3
04 V
2
5
6
i
\
2 1 4
i
1
1
2
2
5
3
\
6
6
i 3 2
\
6
i
\
\
3
l
2 6
\
i
i
<
\
7
3
\
7
1
2
\
i
5
h
i
i
\
3
1*
3
\
\
l
2
\
6 h
\
8
6
i
\
i
8
3
3
P l e a common o c c u r r e n c e s on shrew s p e c i e s
The most f r e q u e n t f l e a o c c u r r i n g on shrew s p e c i e s i n Hungary i s
P a l a e o p s y l l a s o r i c i s r o s i c z k y i Smit,
followed
hy D o r a t o p s y l l a
das.dasyenema ( R o t h s c h i l d ) . E i t h e r one o f t h o s e s p e c i e s , o r b o t h
a p p e a r i n most p o p u l a t i o n s , f r e q u e n t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Ctenopht h a l m u s a g y r t e s b o s n i c u s Wagner, o r more r a r e l y w i t h C t . a s s i m i ­
lis
a s s i m i l i s (Taschenberg),
Hystrichopsylla
talpae
C t . congener congener R o t h s c h i l d ,
orientális S m i t ,
Megabothris
walkeri
( R o t h s c h i l d ) , and P a l a e o p s y l l a s i m i l i s s i m i l i s Dampf.
P l e a common o c c u r r e n c e s on t h e f o x and t h e badger
A specifical foxflea
i s Chaetopsylla globiceps (Taschenberg),
f l e a s s p e c i f i c f o r t h e badger a r e C h a e t o p s y l l a t r i c h o s a
sa K oh a u t
and
three species,
Paraceras m e l i s m e l i s ( W a l k e r ) .
P u l e x i r r i t a n s Linné i s a l s o
Besides
can i n t e r m i n g l e
easily,
alternate
although the
s p e c i f i c f l e a s mentioned above u s u a l l y p r e d o m i n a t e
host species.
those
f r e q u e n t on b o t h
h o s t s p e c i e s . Since t h e f o x and t h e badger f r e q u e n t l y
their l a i r s their fleas
tricho-
on t h e i r own
I n t h e e i g h t cases o f common o c c u r r e n c e f o u n d on
t h e badger, o n l y t h e f o u r f l e a s p e c i e s l i s t e d above o c c u r r e d i n
various
c o m b i n a t i o n s whereas
f l e a s found
i n the fourteen
on t h e f o x , t h e s p e c i e s
populations of
Monopsyllus
sciurorua
( S c h r a n k ) and A r c h a e o p s y l l a e r i n a c e i e r i n a c e i (Bouché) a l s o ap­
p e a r e d i n one case each.
I s h o u l d l i k e t o remark
that the flea
s p e c i e s o f t h e f o x and t h e badger a r e a l s o f r e q u e n t l y f o u n d on
b r e e d s o f dog used i n hunting badger-dog, f o x - t e r r i e r , and
their
mongrels.
P l e a common o c c u r r e n c e s on t h e m o l e - r a t and t h e gopher
Owing t o t h e much decreased numbers o f Spalax l e u c o d o n Kordmann
i n Hungary, t h e above two h o s t s p e c i e s o c c u r t o g e t h e r i n o n l y a
few l o c a l i t i e s . However, I t h i n k t h a t t h e common o c c u r r e n c e s o f
t h e i r f l e a a s h o u l d he d i s c u s s e d t o g e t h e r ,
gation
of
a locality
(Hajdubagos),
species.
host
to
can
f r e q u e n t l y he f o u n d
e i t h e r alone or together w i t h other f l e a
Ctenophthalmus
specific
investi­
where t h e two h o s t s p e c i e s
o c c u r t o g e t h e r t h e f l e a s o f t h e gopher
on t h e m o l e - r a t a l s o ,
s i n c e i n an
the
caucasicus
mole-rat;
(Taschenberg)
i t occurred
is
i n a l l observed
cases t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e f l e a s p e c i e s o f t h e gopher,
case w i t h Ctenophthalmus
clearly
and
i n one
congener congener R o t h s c h i l d . The f l e a s
o f t h e gopher a r e
C i t e l l o p h i l u s m a r t i o n i (Wagner e t I o f f ) ,
C.
s i m p l e x (Wagner),
and
In
t h e e i g h t cases o f
Ctenophthalmus
orientális (Wagner).
common o c c u r r e n c e s
found
on t h e gopher
o r o t h e r o f t h e s e s p e c i e s h a v e , w i t h one e x c e p t i o n , a l w a y s
one
been
p r e s e n t . B e s i d e s t h e f o r e g o i n g s p e c i e s 3 o t h e r f l e a s were f o u n d ,
each on one o c c a s i o n . They were C e r a t o p h y l l u s t r i b u l i s
presumably
ground.
(Jordan)
t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e gopher f r o m a b i r d n e s t i n g on t h e
Ctenophthalmus
a s s i m i l i s a s s i m i l i s (Taschenberg),
and
N o s o p s y l l u s f a s c i a t u s (Bosc).Two v a r i e t i e s o f common o c c u r r e n c e
( s e r i a l numbers 17 and 1 8 )
deserves
s p e c i a l mention
very f r e q u e n t l y
occur
were
that
found
i n t h r e e cases
whereas t h e f l e a s
each.
on
a
I t
t h e gopher
on t h e m o l e - r a t , t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
o f t h e m o l e - r a t has n e v e r been o b s e r v e d
t h e same l o c a l i t y and
of
gopher
flea
occupying
habitat.
P l e a common o c c u r r e n c e s on t h e mole
I f o u n d s i x k i n d s o f f l e a p o p u l a t i o n s on the mole w i t h
s p e c i f i c P a l a e o p s y l l a s i m i l i s s i m i l i 3 Dampf
o f them. I n t h r e e cases Ctenophthalmus
appearing
the
host
i n most
bisoctodentatus bisocto-
d e n t a t u s K o l e n a t i was a l s o o b s e r v e d - p r e v i o u s l y c o l l e c t e d o n l y
f r o m t h e mole i n Hungary - so t h a t i t can be r e g a r d e d w i t h some
justification
t i o n e d above,
aa
host s p e c i f i c .
Ctenophthalmus
Besides
the
two s p e c i e s men­
a g y r t e s b o s n i c u s Wagner, C t . a s s i ­
m i l i s a s s i m i l i s ( T a s c h e n b e r g ) , Ct.orientális (Wagner),
p s y l l a dasyonema dasycnema ( R o t h s c h i l d ) ,
Nosopsyllus
Doratofasciatus
( B o s c ) , P a l a e o p s y l l a k o h a u t i Dampf, a n d , P . s o r i c i s r o s i c z k y i Smit
were a l s o c o l l e c t e d i n one case each. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , I have n o t
y e t had o c c a s i o n
to
collect
the
material
of
a
mole
burrow,
t h o u g h t h e r i c h f l e a f a u n a o f i t s n e s t has a t t r a c t e d t h e a t t e n ­
t i o n of several research workers
(OUDEMANS, 1913;
WAGNER, 1 9 3 6 ) .
R e c e n t l y ROSICKY ( 1 9 3 7 ) , SMIT ( 1 9 6 2 ) , and JTJRIK (1968)
from
i n v e s t i g a t i o n of considerable m a t e r i a l e s t a b l i s h e d the
presence
an
o f many f l e a s p e c i e s , b o t h on t h e a n i m a l and i n i t s n e s t . R e g r e t ably,
none o f t h e s e a u t h o r s ,
have p u b l i s h e d i n f o r m a t i o n
v e r a l hosts
and
with
on
t h e i r nests
exception of
ROSICKY
the f l e a p o p u l a t i o n s o f
t h e se­
but
currence of the f l e a species
the
have merely
d i s c u s s e d t h e oc­
observed.
P l e a common o c c u r r e n c e s on t h e b a t
I t m i g h t be assumed t h a t s e v e r a l t y p e s o f f l e a p o p u l a t i o n w o u l d
o c c u r on b a t s because c e r t a i n
i n b o t h t h e i r w i n t e r and
only
members
each
other
of a
but
bat
species
aggregate
i n masses
summer q u a r t e r s . T r u e , i n most c o l o n i e s
given
species
t h e r e would
are
still
closely
be
t r a n s m i s s i o n of d i v e r s f l e a species
more
than
associated with
possibilities
i n t h e case
of
for
other
mammalian g r o u p s . However, I f o u n d o n l y s i x k i n d s o f common oc­
currences of f l e a s ,
among w h i c h o n l y two o c c u r r e d i n t h r e e and
s i x cases,
respectively
( s e r i a l numbers 71 and 7 4 ) , w h i l e
four
compositions
were
other
observed
i n o n l y one
The most f r e q u e n t s p e c i e s o f t h e cases o f c o e x i s t e n c e
n o p s y l l u s hexactenus
(Kolenati),
t i o n s i n e l e v e n cases.
schild)
with
The
other species
i n t h r e e v a r i a t i o n s on e i g h t
the
case each.
is
Isch­
which., o c c u r r e d i n f o u r v a r i a ­
occurrence
of
is
common h a v i n g been f o u n d
fairly
I.intermedius (Roth­
occasions.
I n a d d i t i o n t h e r e a r e o t h e r , somewhat o c c a s i o n a l , comron o c c u r ­
r e n c e s o f s m a l l e r s p e c i f i c numbers and
Thus,
besides
Monopsyllus
sciurorum
r a t h e r r a r e appearence.
sciurorum
(Schrank),
the
s p e c i f i c f l e a o f the s q u i r r e l ( S c i u r u s v u l g a r i s f u s c o a t e r Altum)
and i t s n e s t ,
one
may
occasionally find
p s y l l a octodecimdentata octodecimdentata
i n i t s company
(Kolenati),
a
Tarsospecies
r a t h e r r a r e i n Hungary. The v a r i o u s dormouse s p e c i e s show a
de-
finite
rel
p r e f e r e n c e f o r a r t i f i c i a l n e s t i n g boxes,where t h e s q u i r ­
f l e a s (M.sciurorum)
gether w i t h
the fleas
nested there.
the
to
living
on t h e dormice
o f avian
species
may be f o u n d t o ­
which
had p r e v i o u s l y
T h i s a s s o c i a t i o n w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d as i t i s
r e s u l t o f human i n t e r f e r e n c e and n o t n a t u r a l . N o r do I w i s h
d i s c u s s t h e v a r i o u s common o c c u r r e n c e s o f f l e a s p e c i e s t o be
f o u n d on o u r d o m e s t i c
animals.
Discussion
From t h e f o r e g o i n g d a t a o f o b s e r v e d
attempt w i l l
be made
t o answer
c o e x i s t i n g f l e a s p e c i e s , an
t h e problems
raised
i n the
introduction.
1.
The f o l l o w i n g
systematic
relationship
can be e s t a b l i s h e d
between f l e a s p e c i e s o c c u r r i n g t o g e t h e r on a g i v e n h o s t
or i n
i t s n e s t s : t h e members o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n s b e l o n g t o
v a r i o u s f a m i l i e s and genera i n . . . .
4 2 . 1 fo o f cases;
the
same f a m i l y i n
18.4 ^ o f cases;
the
same f a m i l y and genus i n
39.5 i° o f cases.
Taking i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t
Siphonaptera belongs
one-third
the species
t o t h e genus Ctenophthalmus
most commonly o c c u r r i n g f l e a s the
half
apparent
connections
stem more
from
clination
of closely
association.
of
Hungarian
t o t h e f a m i l y H y s t r i c h o p s y l l i d a e and n e a r l y
- whose members a r e t h e
one can s a f e l y
between
species
the composition o f the fauna
related
conclude
occurring
that
together
t h a n f r o m any i n ­
species t o form c e r t a i n types o f
There i s as y e t no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r r e l a t i n g t h e
s p e c i f i c c o m p o s i t i o n o f mixed p o p u l a t i o n s t o any n e a r e r
inter­
relationship.
2. I sought
to
live
i nvain to explain
together.
dependence
the i n c l i n a t i o n
o f t h e species
Nor i s t h e r e any r e a s o n t o suppose an i n t e r ­
o f the' s p e c i e s :
t h e y d e r i v e no advantage o r d i s a d -
v a n t a g e f r o m t h e presence o r absence o f o t h e r f l e a s p e c i e s .
food requirements
hardly d i f f e r .
of
And
the
larvae
i t would
be
and
some s m a l l e r - s i z e d f l e a w o u l d have
presence
of
fully
less
food
t h a t any
could i n t e r f e r e
or
with
the
feeding
because
one
from
the
some f a v o u r a b l e
of
case: v i z , i f
species t o
h a b i t a t /nest, burrow, l i t t e r / ,
others.
presence
overprolieven
then
t h e members o f t h e m i n o r i t y s p e c i e s m i g h t o b t a i n l e s s f o o d
only
in
a
c i r c u m s t a n c e s e n a b l e d one
species
of
the
c e r t a i n s p e c i e s t o c o e x i s t i n g s p e c i e s i n o n l y one
in
that
of
o f the
reproduction
m i g h t presume d i s a d v a n t a g e s a r i s i n g
ferate
fleas
t o suppose
t h e l a r g e - s i z e d H y s t r i c h o p s y l l a t a l p a e orientális.
There i s no i n f o r m a t i o n t o s u g g e s t
(One
developed
unreasonable
The
though
p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e number o f i n d i v i d u a l s o f t h e
3. A
comparison
of
those species which
cies.
The
seldom o r
5
and
6
fully
r o t h s c h i l d i , Ischnopsyllus
I . s. s i m p l e x ,
u. u n i p e c t i n a t a . .The
identifies
n e v e r a s s o c i a t e w i t h o t h e r spe­
f o l l o w i n g were n e v e r f o u n d i n s p e c i f i c
Chaetopsylla
mysticus,
T a b l e s
species.)
associations:
octactenus,
L e p t o p s y l l a segnis,
species Archaeopsylla
I .
simplex
Rhinolophopsylla
e.
erinacei,Ischno­
p s y l l u s v a r i a b i l i s , N y c t e r i d o p s y l l a eusarca, Rhadinopsylla
tacantha,
in
one
and R h . s t r o u h a l i o c c u r r e d
case o n l y . The
together w i t h other
m a j o r i t y o f these species,
pen-
species
having
noTten­
dency t o appear i n t h e company o f o t h e r s , have been c o l l e c t e d a
few t i m e s
may
be
o n l y ; most o f them a r e p r o b a b l y
some w h i c h appear t o be r a r e
a l s o o c c u r i n f r e q u e n t l y i n Hungary,
of c o l l e c t i o n . I t should
t r u l y r a r e , but
only
or
because
because
be emphasized a g a i n
l e s s t h a n we
rather
which are
inclined
the
to regard
cause
of
those
t h i s phenomenon
of
t h i n k and we
lections,
cies.
still
seldom c a p t u r e d
as
in
s e v e r a l times
i n t h e case o f s p e c i e s w h i c h
to occur
in
t h e company o f o t h e r s ,
lies
I f the
in
t h e y m i g h t a l s o be f o u n d t o c o e x i s t w i t h
However,
fail
are
actually
f a u l t s o f the c o l l e c t i n g apparatus or techniques.
c i e s m e n t i o n e d above a r e c a p t u r e d
hosts
some a s p e c t
t h a t the number o f
rare f l e a species i s considerably
r a r e whereas
there
their
other
are f r e q u e n t
the
r e m a i n s t h a t , f o r some unknown r e a s o n t h e y have no
spe­
future col­
spe­
and
possibility
„inclination"
t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n s p e c i f i c a s s o c i a t i o n s . Such a r e I . o c t a c t e n u s ,
h . s e g n i s , A . e r i n a c e i , and N.eusarca. I have c o l l e c t e d t h e h o s t s
( E r i n a c e u s europaeus r o u m a n i c u s Barr.-Ham.,
and
s p i c i l e g u s Perényi) o f two o f t h e s e s p e c i e s
( A . e r i n a c e i and L.
segnis)
i n moderate numbers,
b u t I have n e v e r
occur t o g e t h e r w i t h o t h e r f l e a species,
Mus
musculus
f o u n d them t o
even t h o u g h b o t h h o s t s
have ample o p p o r t u n i t y , b o t h i n t h e i r n e s t s and sphere o f a c t i ­
vity,
t o a c q u i r e a number o f o t h e r p a r a s i t e s .
One m i g h t t h e r e ­
f o r e i n f e r w i t h some j u s t i f i c a t i o n
that
a r e f o r some r e a s o n
to coexist with
that
they
versa.
less
inclined
shun t h e p r e s e n c e
t h e s e two f l e a
of the l a t t e r ,
or
o r , indeed, v i c e
One s h o u l d a l s o r e c a l l t h a t C t . c a u c a s i c u s ,
the mole-rat,
species
others
the f l e a of
has n e v e r been f o u n d on g o p h e r s t h o u g h
a l l flea
s p e c i e s o f t h a t l a t t e r a n i m a l f r e q u e n t l y o c c u r on t h e m o l e - r a t .
The
problem
of host s p e c i f i c i t y i n f l e a s ,
perhaps d e p e n d i n g t o
some e x t e n t on t h e t y p e o f f o o d ( b l o o d ) may be c l a r i f i e d by l a ­
boratory
experiments.
4. The l a 3 t
and most
ecological,
o r some
difficult
other,
question
cause
o f the coexistence
s p e c i e s on a h o s t , o r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y
nature.
involves the actual
o f i t s chance
of flea
(spontaneous)
The s p e c i f i c f l e a s o f t h e h o s t s a r e known, and we a l s o
have i n f o r m a t i o n on a n i m a l s
which
c o u l d serve as h o s t s f o r t h e
g i v e n f l e a s p e c i e s . Those f l e a s c o n s i d e r e d most s p e c i f i c appear
i n c i d e n t a l l y t h o u g h seldom,
but
these
a r e merely
h o s t changes i t s h a u n t
any l e n g t h o f t i m e , a n d
ing
other
sites.
hosts
(mainly i t s s i t e
then
can h a r d l y be
(The number
t h e i r „true" h o s t s ,
phenomena.
I f , however, t h e
of reproduction) f o r
i f t h i s be t h e h a b i t a t o f h o s t s s u p p o r t ­
f l e a species,
migrant host
on o t h e r t h a n
occasional
t h o s e a p p e a r i n g l a t e r on t h e i m ­
d e f i n e d as m e r e l y
of individuals
occasional para­
o f a f l e a s p e c i e s f o u n d on
and i n t h e i r n e s t s i n d i c a t e s t h e o c c a s i o n a l o r
nature
o f the f l e a species.)
I t was many t i m e s
my
t h a t t h e f l e a fauna o f a h o s t f o u n d i n an e n v i r o n m e n t
from
i t s usual
habitat
s p e c i e s t o be e x p e c t e d .
(nesting site)
specific
experience
different
i s n o t composed o f t h e
I s h o u l d l i k e t o p u t f o r w a r d a most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c example ( n o t
c o n t a i n e d i n t h e T a b l e s , because t h e case was
p e r i o d under i n v e s t i g a t i o n ) .
p a r t o f t h e c o u n t r y (Madaras) an e r m i n e
Kerr)
made
s t u d i e d a f t e r the
I n O c t o b e r , 1968,
i n the southern
( M u s t e l a erminea a e s t i v a
i t s s u b t e r r a n e a n q u a r t e r s i n a f i e l d much i n f e s t e d
by g o p h e r s .
We
succeeded
in
s h o o t i n g the a n i m a l .
Fourteen of
t h e f i f t e e n f l e a specimens f o u n d on i t proved t o b e l o n g
to
s p e c i f i c f l e a s o f t h e gopher ( C i t e l l o p h i l u s m a r t i n o i and
phthalmus
viduals
the
Cteno­
orientális). T h i s c o m p a r a t i v e l y l a r g e number o f i n d i ­
also
indicates
a t t a c h themselves
that
the f l e a species mentioned
so much t o t h e i r h o s t s
as
t o the
do n o t
habitat
of
the n e s t i n g s i t e .
DUDICH (1939) has a l r e a d y remarked
that
one u s u a l l y
encounters
d i f f i c u l t i e s when a t t e m p t i n g t o e s t a b l i s h t h e b i o t o p e s
c i e s . This statement
of f l e a s .
of
spe­
i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e o f p a r a s i t e s and
thus
What t h e n , a r e t h e b i o t o p e s o f f l e a s ? E n v i r o n m e n t
the s t r i c t e r or wider
which
occur
areas
of
on
the
sense
animals
plains,
f i n d any.demonstrable
f o r e s t stand,and
a r e p r e s e n t , and
living
and
more f r e q u e n t i n a r i d ,
of
the
term?
There
i n pastures
ethers
on
forest
are
and
agricultural
mammals. Some a r e
o t h e r s i n damper h a b i t a t s .
connection
between
in
species
I f a i l e d to
the p l a n t cover,
the
the occurrence o f f l e a species; - i f the hosts
t h e i r b u r r o w s and n e s t s s u i t a b l e f o r i n v a s i o n
by and r e p r o d u c t i o n o f f l e a s , we m i g h t expect t h e appearance o f
c e r t a i n species.
wider
but
Hence t h e b i o t o p e o f f l e a s p e c i e s
t h e more
restricted habitat;
the
i s not the
small area
where
t h e y r e p r o d u c e , l a y t h e i r eggs, t h e l a r v a e f i n d t h e i r f o o d , and
t h e pupae t r a n s f o r m i n t o imagos.
I n the search f o r the b i o t o p e
o f t h e f l e a s we have t h u s a r r i v e d
at
be t h e y s u b t e r r a n e a n b u r r o w s ,
the ground,
idea
that
in
the l a i r s of t h e i r hosts,
or nests
constructed
on clumps o f g r a s s , s h r u b s , o r t r e e s .
the biotope
of
s h o u l d be r e j e c t e d a t once;
only
holes,
the f l e a species
this
assumption
some cases o f e n d o p a r a s i t i s m . )
(Tne
i s the host
may
be
The b i o t o p e s
on
bizarre
itself
justified
mentioned
above can be d e l i n e a t e d r a t h e r s a t i s f a c t o r i l y and a l s o a s s i g n e d
to the b i o c o e n o l o g i c a l horizons o f
the
temperate r e g i o n s
es-
t a " b l i s h e d by BALOGH ( 1 9 5 3 ) .
The
communication
of
the
several
s p e c i e s u s u a l l y o c c u r s between n e i g h b o u r i n g h o r i z o n s o n l y . Rare
exceptions n a t u r a l l y occur,
rum)
found
e.g.
i t s unusual host
either
by
squirrel
having
the course o f the f o o d - c h a i n ,
as,
a
on one o c c a s i o n on a f o x ;
f o r i n s t a n c e , was
or
flea
(M.s.sciuro­
i t m i g h t have a r r i v e d
fallen
from
eventually
on
the nest or i n
from
the
ground,
t h e s q u i r r e l f l e a c o l l e c t e d by s o i l
sur­
f a c e e x t r a c t i o n methods.
On t h e b a s i s o f my
experiences gained i n t h e course
of
collec­
t i o n s and i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , I v e n t u r e t o s t a t e t h a t a g r e a t m a j o ­
rity
o f f l e a species
appear
t o be more bound
to
certain
types
o f n e s t s and t h e i r m i c r o c l i m a t e t h a n t o t h e h o s t s t h e m s e l v e s .
I
s h a l l t r y t o prove t h i s a s s e r t i o n by some examples. The f o x and
t h e badger i n h a b i t t h e same b i o t o p e where
i n most o f o u r mouse
s p e c i e s a l s o o c c u r , b u t I have n e v e r f o u n d a f l e a s p e c i e s p a r a ­
s i t i z i n g mice
on
e i t h e r the f o x or
characteristic fleas
of
the badger. S i m i l a r l y ,
t h e s e l a t t e r two h o s t s have n e v e r
c u r r e d on m i c e , a l t h o u g h t h e r e a r e i n n u m e r a b l e
t h e exchange o r t r a n s m i s s i o n o f
T h a t i s n o t t o say,
however,
fleas
or
vice
on
these
hosts.
mouse f l e a s
versa,
a r e o n l y a few r e c o r d s o f such an o c c u r r e n c e . )
differences
i n the
of
hosts,
f l e a species
will
though t h i s
o n l y be an o c c a s i o n a l phenomenon. (Even i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e
l a c k o f such i n t e r c h a n g e
oc­
opportunities f o r
living
t h a t one o r two
n o t be f o u n d on f o x o r b a d g e r ,
the
I n my
can
there
opinion,
i s n o t due s i m p l y t o
but t o the f a c t
that
n e s t s o f mice
have a c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t m i c r o c l i m a t e f r o m t h o s e o f t h e deep
subterranean burrows
PETJS (1953)
of
t h e f o x and
the badger. I n c i d e n t a l l y ,
has a l r e a d y p o i n t e d o u t t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e c o r ­
r e l a t i o n between t h e o c c u r r e n c e
environmental f a c t o r s ,
so
my
o f c e r t a i n f l e a s p e c i e s and
experiences
would
the
seem t o c o r r o ­
borate h i s statements.
A c e r t a i n kind of c o r r e l a t i o n
of the hosts
and
their
fleas
i n the s y s t e m a t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p
(and a l s o t h e i r o t h e r p a r a s i t e s )
a p p e a r s t o be f r e q u e n t l y d e m o n s t r a b l e . T h i s
c o n t r a d i c t s my
statement a p p a r e n t l y
p r e v i o u s a s s e r t i o n , because i t m i g h t be
supposed
t h a t the f l e a s
account
of
species.
fox,
of
the hosts
the d i f f e r e n t
But t h e n why
mentioned
above
do
not mingle
systematical categories of
on
the h o s t
do t h e f l e a s o f t h e badger o c c u r
on
the
and v i c e v e r s a ? - t h e two h o s t s p e c i e s a r e a s s i g n e d t o two
different
mammalian
families.
The mice s t a n d a t l e a s t
as
far
removed f r o m t h e shrews as f r o m t h e f o x and t h e badger, b u t t h e
f l e a s c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e one
still
o c c u r on t h e o t h e r . The
j e c t i o n t h a t t h e f l e a s p e c i e s o f t h e mice
d i f f e r may
in
and
t h e shrews
ob­
still
t h e r e f o r e be a p p a r e n t l y j u s t i f i e d - t h e s e h o s t s
a common h a b i t a t and i n s u b t e r r a n e a n burrows
f e r i n g t y p e s . I n t h e course
f a c t f o u n d mouse and
many p l a c e s
but
o f making my
shrew s p e c i e s
live
of n o t too
dif­
c o l l e c t i o n s , I have i n
within
the
same
habitat i n
t h e shrews i n v a r i a b l y o c c u r r e d i n t h e v i c i n i t y
of
the m o i s t e r areas
( s m a l l e r bodies o f standing waters,
shores
of
b r o o k s ) , so t h e m i c r o c l i m a t e o f t h e i r n e s t s a l s o i s p r o b a b l y
d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of mice.
Evidence
The
s u p p o r t i n g my
t h e s i s can be f o u n d i n t h e mouse f a m i l y .
flea Gt.a.assimilis
i s more o r l e s s s p e c i f i c
vole (Microtus a.arvalis Pallas).
vole inhabits
rather
fields,
and
of
(Apodemus,
mice
dry
I t i s known
meadows, p a s t u r e s , . and
so t h e e n v i r o n m e n t
the
field
the
field
agricultural
of i t s nests i s d r i e r than t h a t
Clethrionomys,
Pitymys,
have c o l l e c t e d Ct«assimilis r a t h e r
if
to
that
Micromys).
Now
I
f r e q u e n t l y on mouse s p e c i e s
t h e i r h a b i t a t s were a d j a c e n t t o d r y a r e a s , and
even i n cases
when I f o u n d no f i e l d v o l e s i n t h e v i c i n i t y . I t m i g h t be assumed
in
t h i s case
- and w i t h j u s t i f i c a t i o n -
bound n o t so much t o M . a r v a l i s as
nests
and
to
t h e i r s t r i c t e r environment.
that Ct.assimilis
the
microclimate of i t s
Though I have d i s c u s s e d
h e r e o n l y o c c u r r e n c e s jof f l e a s p a r a s i t i z i n g mammals,
l i k e to substantiate
fleas.
my
t h e o r y by
A g r e a t number o f h o s t s ,
is
I
should
an example drawn f r o m a v i a n
n o t t o o f a r removed
from
one
a n o t h e r s y s t e m a t i c a l l y , o f a v i a n f l e a s p e c i e s a r e known i n Hun­
gary.
There
Rothschild,
paria L.);
i s one
e x c e p t i o n , namely C e r a t o p h y l l u s s t y x
demonstrated
styx
only from the sandmartin ( R i p a r i a r i -
n o r d i d I f i n d any
o t h e r f l e a s p e c i e s on t h i s h o s t .
Even PEUS's (1968) abundant r e s e a r c h m a t e r i a l f a i l e d t o p r o d u c e
other f l e a s
from
this
host,
and
s i n g l e c a s e on the stonechat
casionally
nests
in sites
C.styx
was
found
i n only
(Oenanthe oenanthe L . ) , which
s i m i l a r to the subterranean
c a v i t i e s of the sand-martin.
oc­
nesting
Thus we have the s p e c i f i c f l e a
a n e s t type which d i f f e r s fundamentally
a
from the n e s t s of
of
other
s p e c i e s . I t would be f u r t h e r proof of my assumption i f C . s . s t y x
were found
in
the s i m i l a r l y c o n s t r u c t e d n e s t
of
the
bee-eater
(Merops a p i a s t e r L . ) . These examples s u f f i c e to prove the m e r i t
of t h i s type of i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and to draw a t t e n t i o n to
my
hy­
pothesis .
F i n a l l y , I should l i k e to add
some
remarks concerning
my
and f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . Though n u m e r i c a l data r e f e r r i n g to
duals
of
coexisting species are
available,
I have
work
indivi­
discussed
only c a s e s of s p e c i f i c a s s o c i a t i o n s . I n l a t e r communications I
i n t e n d to c o n s i d e r , whose s t u d y i n g f l e a populations
host s p e c i e s ,
the n u m e r i c a l r a t i o s and
the p a r a s i t i c s p e c i e s .
also indicated,
found
a given
A more i n t e n s i v e c o l l e c t i n g of n e s t s i s
as w e l l a s the e v a l u a t i o n of the occurrence
f l e a s by seasons
species
of
sex d i s t r i b u t i o n sex of
(YYSOTSKAJA, 1 9 6 7 ) ,
on the h o s t s
and
and
comparison
t h e i r n e s t s (JURIK,
demonstration of c o r r e l a t i o n s between
found on the h o s t s
the
of
1968),
t h e i r n e s t s (ROTHSCHILD, 1967).
One
ratory
might
be
answered
i n v e s t i g a t i o n s how
far
the
being
i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Many
i f i t could
be
flea
determined
or
the above-
c i t e d a u t h o r s and by o t h e r s , w i t h o u t , however, a l l a s p e c t s
tions
and
the development of f l e a s
more of these a s p e c t s have a l r e a d y been examined- by
c o n s i d e r e d i n the course of a g i v e n
of
flea
ques­
by
s p e c i e s found
labo­
i n the
samples show food p r e f e r e n c e s . A l s o , a s a l r e a d y s t a t e d , I a t t a c h
g r e a t importance to moisture,
humidity,
and
temperature
condi­
t i o n s a f f e c t i n g the s e v e r a l biotopes.The i n v e s t i g a t i o n of these
latter
seems
to
present
most
difficulties,
since
after
the
exposure of the n e s t s the o r i g i n a l m i c r o c l i m a t i c c o n d i t i o n s can
no l o n g e r e x i s t .
assured,
I f a t e c h n i c a l s o l u t i o n to
t h i s problem were
we would be much n e a r e r a demonstration
s p e c i f i c i t y of f l e a s p e c i e s .
of
the n e s t -
The p r e s e n t paper d i s c u s s e s t h e most f r e q u e n t v a r i a t i o n s o f co­
e x i s t e n c e o r common o c c u r r e n c e s o f f l e a species o c c u r r i n g on
mammals i n Hungary. The c o e x i s t e n c e o f f l e a s on mouse and shrew
s p e c i e s , on t h e f o x and t h e badger, on t h e m o l e - r a t and t h e
gopher, as w e l l as t h e mole and t h e b a t s p e c i e s , appeared i n
( c o m p a r a t i v e l y ) most d e f i n i t e and f r e q u e n t l y r e p e a t e d composi­
t i o n s . No s y s t e m a t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p c o u l d be demonstrated between
t h e f l e a species c o e x i s t i n g on t h e h o s t s . I t c o u l d n o t be proven
t h a t any one o f t h e f l e a species o f t h e v a r i o u s
associations
was e s p e c i a l l y i n c l i n e d t o occur i n s p e c i f i c c o m p o s i t i o n s . Some
species occur v e r y seldom o r n o t a t a l l i n t h e company o f o t h e r
f l e a s p e c i e s . The most probable c o n d i t i o n s a f f e c t i n g t h e e v o l u ­
t i o n o f c o e x i s t e n c e , namely t h e environment o f t h e n e s t s , t h e i r
p o s t i t i o n as t o h o r i z o n , t h e i r s t r u c t u r e and m i c r o c l i m a t e , i m p l y
t h a t i f these f a c t o r s a r e f a v o u r a b l e f o r t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f c e r ­
t a i n f l e a species p r e s e n t i n t h e a r e a , t h e n t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f
f o r m i n g s p e c i f i c a s s o c i a t i o n s a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r these
species.
S Z A B Ó , I . : A magyarországi emlősök bolháinak (Siphonaptera) együttélési viszonyai
A szerző 1958-tól 1967 végéig 55 emlősfaj 2331 példányát és 42
fészkét vizsgálta meg bolhászati szempontból, melyeknek 35,4,
i l l e t v e 64,3 $-át találta bolhával fertőzöttnek. Sikerült meg­
állapítania az egérfélék-, cickányfélék-, róka és b o r z - , földi­
k u t y a és ürge-, vakond- és denevérfélék bolháinak együttes elő­
fordulásait, melyek a vizsgálati anyagban a leghatározottabban
és gyakran ismétlődő formában j e l e n t k e z t e k .
A gazdaállatokon
együttesen előfordult b o l h a f a j o k között nem sikerült származás­
t a n i összefüggést találni; nem látszik bizonyítottnak, hogy az
együttesen előfordult f a j o k közül v a l a m e l y i k különösképpen h a j ­
lamos lenne a társulásra; a magyar fauna b o l h a f a j a i között akad
néhány, melyek csak i g e n ritkán, vagy
elő társulásban.
zete,
egyáltalán nem f o r d u l n a k
Végül megállapítja, hogy ha a fészkek környe­
s z i n t b e l i elhelyezkedése,
struktúrája
és
mikroklímája
kedvező a területen előforduló bolhák b i z o n y o s f a j a i n a k ,
e f a j o k részére
gei.
fennállanak
az együttes
előfordulás
akkor
lehetősé­
E d d i g i gyűjtései és anyagának kiértékelése során s z e r z e t t
t a p a s z t a l a t o k alapján a szerző ugy véli,
hogy a b o l h a f a j o k jó-
része inkább r a g a s z k o d i k b i z o n y o s fészektipusokhoz i l l e t v e azokmikrokiimájához, m i n t magához a gazdaállathoz.
R e f e r e n c e s
BALOGH,J.: A zoocönológia a l a p j a i . - Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest,
pp. 248. 1953.
DUDICH,E.: „Élettér", élőhely, életközösség. - Term. Tud. Közi.
Pótf. 7 1 . 49-64. 1939.
JURIK,M.: P l e a s o f t h e mole T a l p a europaea L. i n CzehoSlovakia
( A p h a n i p t e r a ) . - A c t a E n t . Bohemoslov. 6_5_. 67-75. 1968,
OUDEMANS ,A. : S u c t o r o l o g i s c h . e s aus M a u l w u r f n e s t e r n . - T i j d s c h r .
v . Entom. 5j6. 238-280. 1913PEUS,F.: Flöhe. - Akademische V e r l a g s g e s . G e e s t . u . P o r i i n g K.-G.,
. L e i p z i g , p p . 43. 1953.
PEUS,F.: Z u r K e n n t n i s d e r Flöhe D e u t s c h l a n d s I I . F a u n i s t i k u n d
Ökologie d e r Vogelflöhe ( I n s e c t a , S i p h o n a p t e r a ) . - Z o o l . J b .
S y s t . 9 5 . 571-633. 1968.
ROSICKY,B.: A p h a n i p t e r a z i m n i c h h n i z d k r t k a obecného ( T a l p a e u ­
ropaea L.) V r u z n y c h b i o t o p e c h . - Öeskoslov. P a r a s i t . 4.
275-290. 1957.
ROTHSCHILD,M.: The R a b b i t F l e a and Hormones. - Penguin S c i . S u r v .
B i o l . 189-199: 1967.
SHIT,F.: S i p h o n a p t e r a c o l l e c t e d
f r o m moles
and t h e i r nests a t
w i l p , N e t h e r l a n d s , by Jhr.W.C. v a n Heurn. - T i j d s c h r . v . E n t o m .
105.
29-44. 1962.
SMIT,P. -
SZABÓ,I.: The
d i s t r i b u t i o n of Subspecies
thalmus a g y r t e s i n Hungary
- Ann.
H i s t . - N a t . Mus.
Nat.
of Ctenoph­
(Siphonaptera:Hystrichopsyllidae).
Hung. 59. 345-351.
VYSOTSKAJA,S.: B i o c e n o t i t c h e s k i e o t n o s e n i a mezdu
1967ektoparasitami
grüsunov i o b t a t e l i a m i i h gnesd. - P a r a s i t . Sbornik. 2_3. I 9 ­
60.
1967.
WAGNER,J.: Über d i e Aphanipterenfauna der Maulwurfnester. - Eonowia 15. 97-101.
Received:
24.4.1969.
1936.
I - SZABÓ
Z o o l o g i c a l Department of the Hun­
g a r i a n N a t u r a l H i s t o r y Museum,
Budapest, V I I I . Baross u. 13.