CO885-(21-23) — Page 543

CO882 & CO885 Colonial Office Confidential Prints 理藩院機密印刊 All

'' 'य'। '

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 885

22 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

66

4. The Ordinance provides that within the settled areas and within 20 miles of such areas lion and cheetah may be killed without a licence and by any means. It is considered that this provision will meet the objection to the Ordinance which may be raised by stock farmers.

5. As power is reserved by Section 36 of the Principal Ordinance to authorise natives to kill any animals which are causing damage to their property, natives can be authorised to kill lion and cheetah for the protection of their stock.

6. If lion and cheetah are to be protected, this Ordinance is, in my opinion, a necessary and

Ordinance for enactment. proper

R. M. COMBE,

Attorney-General.

Nairobi,

2nd April, 1913.

THE GAME AMENDMENT ORDINANCE, 1913.

Section 1.--Short Title. Section 2.-Interpretation. Section 3.-Amendment of Schedule 3.

to

Section 4.-No poison trap or set gun

be used for the killing or capturing of lion or cheetah. Section 5.-Saving as to the killing of

lion on or near private land.

19482

(No. 159.) SIR,

The effect of this amendment is to place lion and cheetah in the same position as other animals mentioned in Sche- dule 3, subject, however, to the provi- sions of Section 5 of this Ordinance.

>

The term "private land is defined in the Principal Ordinance, and in- cludes a shop or store site within a Native Reserve occupied by a non- native under a licence.

It is considered that occupiers of shop sites in a Native Reserve will have no legitimate cause for complaint if they are permitted to kill lion or cheetah within five miles of their shops or stores, and that it is not necessary to allow the twenty-mile radius which is allowed in the case of lands occupied for farming or grazing purposes.

No. 36.

GAMBIA.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE GOVERNOR.

[Answered by No. 41.]

Downing Street, 27 June, 1913.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch, No. 127, of the 14th of May,* and to inform you that I concur generally in your view that it is not at present necessary to establish reserves or sanctuaries for wild fauna in the Gambia Protectorate.

2. I note, however, from Dr. Hopkinson's memorandum, that certain bright- coloured birds are sought after by skin-hunters, and have to enquire whether, in your opinion, protective measures might be advisable, especially in the case of a purely insectivorous and, therefore, useful bird like the golden cuckoo.

I have, &c.,

• No. 33.

L. HARCOURT.

18936

67

No. 37.

MEMORANDUM BY MR. W. F. FISKE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF GLOSSINA BIONOMICS IN RELATION TO SLEEPING SICKNESS.

The problem of African trypanosomiasis involves three groups of animal organisms:

(1) The protozoan parasites.

Their vertebrate hosts.

(3) Their insect vectors.

-

Three principal methods for the solution of the problem have been proposed :-

(1) Segregation and depopulation.

(2) Game destruction.

(3) Clearing measures.

All of these, but in varying degree, involve consideration of Glossina bionomics; the first, least of all, but to the extent of a consideration of the geographical distri- bution of the fly and the natural conditions governing it. The second, in addition to the above, must take into account the vertebrate hosts and feeding habits of the fly. The third is essentially based upon one bionomic characteristic of the fly-its avoid- ance of localities devoid of certain types of vegetation.

It is thus inferentially apparent that the bionomics of Glossina should be con- sidered in connection with any proposal looking toward control of trypanosomiasis. Viewing the problem from another standpoint, this conclusion is upheld. Were any one of the three groups of animal organisms involved to be eliminated-the pro- tozoan parasites, Glossina (presuming it to be their only vector), or the vertebrate hosts of Glossina--the problem would be solved. But amongst vertebrate hosts are included man as well as his domestic animals.

On this account it would appear that while local elimination of the fly might result in local immunity from the disease, local elimination of the parasites, or of the wild vertebrate hosts, or of both, would not. The fire might be said to be ready laid, awaiting only the touch of the match, and accidental introduction of any animal suffering from howsoever mild a degree of parasitism might conceivably furnish the necessary spark to bring on a conflagration.

Control of the disease through its insect vector appears, therefore, to be the most satisfactory, if any feasible methods for such control can be devised. They must, however, be based on the bionomics of the flies involved, and intimate familiarity with these is thus rendered highly desirable.

Instances might be cited (to show how true this is) in which sums aggregating hundreds of thousands of pounds have literally been wasted in attempts to control noxious insects: the uselessness of the expenditure only becoming apparent when. after many years of continual effort, it was discovered that a single, obscure, but highly important, point in the bionomics of the insects involved had been overlooked, thus vitiating the entire outlay.

With such object lessons as these available for contemplation, no entomologist can without risk presume that " enough is known for practical purposes " concerning any noxious insect.

AN HYPOTHETICAL SCHEME OF BIONOMICS FOR GLOSSINA PALPALIS IN EAST AFRICA. In the course of a recent review of a large part of the literature on Glossina bionomics, three notable gaps in the life story of Glossina palpalis were encountered, giving rise to three questions:

(1) Why do male flies predominate in certain localities and the females in

certain others? (2) What parasite, other specific natural enemy, or impediment to increase, prevents the fly increasing to disastrous and obviously self-destructive superabundance in localities particularly favourable to its increase.

(3) Why do some localities remain fly free while others, apparently precisely

similar, are always infested?

There was something mysterious in the recorded observations-often times

$3180

E 2

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.