-141- 



(1982) reported a higher hatching rate of 59% in laboratory-bred Lu . 

 shannoni . 



Larvae and pupae . Johnson and Hertig (1961) found that most 

 Panamanian species of sand flies fall roughly into two classes 

 according to their behavior in culture: 1) those that feed on the 

 surface of the food material, and 2) those that burrow in the food 

 mixture. In general, the surface feeders have long caudal bristles, 

 which presumably discourage burrowing, and dark, thick-shelled eggs 

 with a sticky substance that cements them to the substrate. The 

 burrowers usually have short caudal bristles, pale brown or black 

 eggs, often with thin shells and lacking an adhesive substance. Some 

 species such as Lu. gomezi , which has short caudal bristles and feeds 

 on the surface, fit neither category. From the larval behavior, these 

 authors were able to predict that Lu. panamensis (Dyar), ]_u. pessoana 

 (Barretto), Lu. trapidoi (Fairchild and Hertig), and Lu. y lephi letor 

 (Fairchild and Hertig) would be found on the surface of objects such 

 as rotting leaves. These predictions were confirmed by Hanson (1961), 

 who found the larvae on dead leaves scattered on the forest floor. 

 Since Lu . diabolica is a surface feeding species, it seems reasonable 

 to predict that it will be found in the field on the surface of its 

 food material. Further field studies will be required to confirm this 

 prediction. 



According to Gemetchu (1976) and other workers, an essential 

 feature of a good rearing environment for sand flies is porosity of 

 the substrate to ensure dampness without excess free water. Judgment 

 of dampness is empirical and depends on experience and personal 

 judgment (Eldridge et al., 1963) 



