-85- 



recognizing most parous females. Johnson and Hertig (1961) found that 

 some Panamanian sand flies secreted accessory gland granules before 

 taking blood and discharged them at various times afterwards. Adler 

 and Mayrink (1961) observed dark brown fluid in the accessory glands 

 of blood-fed Uj. longipalpis (Lutz and Neiva) and noted changes in 

 glands of five other species. Johnson et aj_. (1963) found that in 

 laboratory-reared Panamanian sand flies, granules may be present or 

 absent without regard to parous or nulliparous condition of the 

 female. They concluded that examination of the accessory glands does 

 not aid in determining whether females of Panamanian sand flies are 

 parous or nulliparous. Minter (1964) believed that the accessory 

 glands were useful in estimating parous rates in Kenya. Lewis (1965) 

 examined accessory glands of five species of Lutzomyia in Belize and 

 concluded that the glands were unreliable for indicating whether or 

 not a fly was parous. Chaniotis and Anderson (1968) studied 

 laboratory-bred females of three California species and found no 

 granules in accessory glands of 150 nullipars. Scorza et aj_. (1968), 

 on the other hand, concluded that accessory gland granules were 

 unreliable for recognizing parous females in Venezuela. Lewis et al. 

 (1970) reconsidered a statement made earlier by Lewis (1965) regarding 

 the indicative value of accessory glands by stating that the glands 

 are quite useful for recognizing parous females of many Old World and 

 some New World species. They reported that errors in interpretation 

 are caused by irregular secretions, loss of secretion, the effect of 

 blood-meals, and the parasite Monocystis ( Ascocystis) . Ward (1974) 

 found that 82.05% of laboratory-reared Lu. longipalpis developed 

 granules, but no eggs when kept for seven days without blood or sugar. 

 He questioned the value of accessory glands in determining parity in 



