Dr. Murai Éva szerk.: Parasitologia Hungarica 22. (Budapest, 1989)
De Geer, to pinkeye in cattle, where not only a summary but a critical evaluation of the relevant literature was given stating that the data available fulfil the criteria (similar toKOCH's postulates) necessary to incriminate the face fly as a vector of Moraxella . MORGAN et al. (1983) published an annotated bibliography of the face fly with 837 citations of papers, books etc. : this is though not a complete bibliography but undoubtedly includes all the Important papers on this species till 1982. Many excellent papers and reviews on the biology and control of M. autumnalis are available, the latest one is that of PICKENS and MILLER's (1980). A more detailed information on the relevant literature Is available also In the bibliographies of the above papers. Here only some more papers are mentioned. GERHARDT et al. (1982) demonstrated a definite decrease of IBK cases after a fly control. PAPP and GARZÔ (1985) published numerous new data of flies of pasturing cattle in Hungary, including a simultaneous evaluation of the activity of the larval and Imago populations of the face fly. There an estimation is also given for the determination of the ratio of the imaginai population which is on the bodies of cattle at a moment: this value is only 0.1 to less than 1.0% (probably about 0.5%). This datum is a tool for a better evaluation of the findings of BERKE BILE et al.(1981), who found that less than 1 % of the imagoes were contaminated in a herd in IBK. ARENDS et al. (1982, 1984) reported on convincingly successful trials on laboratory and field transmission of Moraxella bovis to cattle by face flies. GLASS and GERHARDT (1983, 1984) demonstrated the way of transmission of M. bovis, analysing the relationships of feeding activity of face flies and revealing the transmission of vast amounts of bacteria by regurgitation from the crop. GLASS et al. (1982) stated that M. bovis can survive one day only in the alimentary tract but about three days on the body. BROWN and ADKINS (1972) studied the feeding activity of face flies in order to determine the relative contribution of mechanical "irritation" and bacterial infection to the production of IBK; they found that also calves kept uneontaminated were indicative of mild to moderate pinkeye through irritation by the mouthparts of face flies. SHUGART et al. (1979) were among the first ones who demonstrated the ability of face flies to cause direct damage to the eyes of cattle. They proposed an economic iniurv level of one face fly/eye/month). BROCE and ELZINGA (1984) and KOVÁCS-SZ. (1987) demonstrated that morphological characteristics of prestomal teeth and of some other mouthparts of the face fly account for the observed damage caused to the eyes of cattle. There are rather numerous papers also on fly counts (incl. face fly) on the body of cattle, e.g. HTLLERTON et al. (1984) published results of fly counts on five species (incl. M. autumnalis ) associated with dairy heifers in southern England (from the back, belly, teats and head) In order to judge the species involved in the transmission of summer mastitis by their site preference. However, no data have been found on the absolute number of face flies visiting cattle eyes and on the ratio of their numbers on the whole body and on the eyes. In order to collect data on the possible elements of activity of face flies on the eyes of cattle, it was essential to collect data also on the duration of their visits on eyes. FIELD DATA x Face fly counts were made in three lowland pastures in East and Central Hungary: Füzesgyarmat, Holstein-Friesian heifers in various stages of pregnancy, mild pinkeye in some Face flies ( Musca autumnalis De Geer, 1776) are easily differentiate from the smaller bodied flies of Haematobia and Hydrotaea , Musca osiris and M . tempestiva; the stable fly ( Stomoxys calcitrans L.) is very much other shaped, the housefly, Musca domestica L„, does not occur in pastures. The only other species in Hungary, which Is so similar to the face fly that one cannot differentiate it by this method, is Musca larvipara ; however, the populations of this latter species are only ca. 0.1-0.2% of those of the face fly in lowlands of Hungary.
