Page images

UGANDA (A. Theiler 1910A. Bruce et al 1911. Neave 1912. Neumann 1922. Richardson 1930. Mettam 1932. Carmichael 1934. Wilson 1948B,C,1950C. Lucas 1954).

TANGANYIKA (Neumann 1901,1907C,1910B,1911. Morstatt 1913. Loveridge l923A. Bequaert l930A. Allen and Loveridge l933. Moreau l933. Evans 1935. Cornell 1936. Zumpt l943A. J. B. Walker, unpublished, see various parts of HOSTS section below).

SOUTHERN AFRICA: ANGOLA (Manetti 1920. Sousa Dias 1950. Santos Dias T95CC)." MOZAMBIQUE (Howard 1908,1911, larval identification in 1908 paper open to question. As R. ecinctus: Howard 1909B. Sant'Anna 1911. Theiler 1943B. TZumpu. I.).3A. Santos Dias 1947B,1952D,H,1953C,1954A,H,1955A).

NORTHERN RHODESIA (Neave 1912. Le Roux 1934, 1937, 1947. Matthysse 1954. Theiler and Robinson 1954). SOUTHER!! RHODESIA (Robertson 1904B. Edmonds and Bevan 1914. Bevan 1920. Jack 1921, 1928, 1937,1942. Lawrence 1942). NYASALAND (Old 1909. Neave l912. De Meza 1918A. Davey and Newstead 1921. Zumpt 1943A. Wilson 1943,1945, 1946, 1950B).

BECHUANALAND (Theiler, unpublished). SOUTHWEST AFRICA (Trommsdorff 1913, 1914. See immature HOSTs below). UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (Koch 1844. Neumann 1901,1911. Lounsbury 1903A, 1904A, B, 1905B, 1906.C. Robertson 1904. A. Theiler and Stockman 1904. A. Theiler 1905B,1909B, 1911B, 1912A, 1921. Howard 1908. Galli-Valerio l909B. Speiser 1909. A. Theiler and Christy 1910. Dönitz 1910B. Moore 1912. Van Saceghem 1914. Breijer 1915. Bedford 1920, 1926, 1929, 1932, 1934, 1936. Cowdry 1925B,C, 1926A,1927. R. du Toit, Graf, and Bekker 1941. Curson 1928. Cooley l934. Bedford and Graf 1935, 1939. R. du Toit 1942B,C, 1947. Zumpt 1943A. Zumpt and Glajchen 1950. Meeser 1952).

OUTLYING ISLANDS: ZANZIBAR (Neave 1912. Aders 1917).


(ADAGASCAR: "Neumann (1901,1911). Poisson (1927). TonelliRondelli (1938). Buck (1948A) indicated that this species

("Haemaphysalis simus") is not established on Madagascar. # (1953EE7

ARABIA: YEMEN (Sanborn and Hoogstraal 1953. Hoogstraal, ms.).

NOTE: The known distribution of this species in Arabia on the map of the American Geographical Society (1954) should be limited to the mountains of the Yemen.

MISCELLANEOUS: Tonelli-Rondelli (1938) noted that Stella (1938D) had reported R. simus from ITALY and indicated that this report is certainly an error in identification; also that this species is absent from LIBYA / reported as present by Stella (1938C) 7, ALGERIA, TUNISIA, and MOROCCO. Records for Mytilene, GREECE (Senevet 1920), repeated without further substantiation by Pandazis (1947), and records for TURKEY (Stefko 1917) are probably also erroneous or refer to introduced, non-established Specimens.

Neumann (1911) listed R. simus from EGYPT and Brumpt (1920) stated that East Coast fever exists in Egypt and might be carried by this tick. Mason (1922B) quoted this as an erroneous statement that R. simus occured in Egypt, to which Brumpt (1923, p. 43, footnote) replied that he had merely hypothesized this possibility on the basis of Neumann's record. Carpano (1936) reported microorganisms in specimens of this tick (?imported or misidentified – #) collected from carnivores in the Cairo zoological gardens. Actually, the glossy tick is not established in Egypt, as confirmed earlier by Mason (1922B).

Records from TURKESTAN (Yakimov and Kohl-Yakimov 1911, Yakimov 1917, 1922, 1923) are based on : now considered as subspecies of R. sanguineus (cf. page 717). The "R. simus or R. sanguineus" from tortoises in IRAN (Michael 1899) probably refers to H.


Data from BORNE0 (Neumann 1901) probably refers to R. sanguineus subsp. or to R. haemaphysaloides subsp.

Christophers (1907C) reported R. simus from southern INDIA but, as Sharif (1928) says, this too is probably a misidentification. Patton's (1910) remarks concerning the transmission of Piroplasma gibsoni of India by a new species of tick related to R. simus have been elaborated in subsequent reviews to indicate that E. simus transmits this organism.


Adult hosts of predilection are carnivores, pigs, buffalo, and other large or medium size game animals. Antelopes are usually second-choice hosts. Among domestic animals, dogs and pigs frequently are preferred. The incidence on cattle varies locally and may be either very high or very low even where the glossy tick is common. People are frequently attacked, especially in the vicinity of their dwellings. Although Matthysse (1954) considers adults to be parasites of medium size mammals, overall data indicate that host size is only one factor, the type of host being an equally important consideration. Larvae and nymphs feed chiefly on burrowing rodents, less commonly on other small animals.


Cattle: Factors influencing parasitism of domestic cattle by R. S. simus are still unknown. Although this tick is common throughout Equatoria Province, its incidence on cattle is nil or low everywhere except in Juba District where the rate may run fairly high. In Central Sudan, the numbers on cattle are variable but never high.

R. s. simus is one of the five species of this genus that occurs with any degree of frequency on Uganda cattle but in most districts the rate of infestation is low (Wilson 1950C).

In South Africa, the glossy tick "does not appear to thrive well on cattle" (Lounsbury 1904B). Theiler (correspondence), however, reports that in cattle raising areas of South Africa these animals are the favorite host of the glossy tick.

Wilson (1950B) considered this to be an uncommon Nyasaland tick because he took it on only 24 occasions during an extensive three year tick survey. Ten of these collections were from cattle. Earlier, Wilson # doubted that females ever become fully engorged on cattle. Theiler (correspondence) has found that the glossy tick is more common in Nyasaland than Wilson believed. Rarity of cattle infestation here probably accounts for this discrepancy inasmuch as relatively few wild animals were examined. Matthysse (1954) considers this to be a rather important Northern Rhodesian cattle parasite, but does not provide a clear cut analysis of the situation there.

Low incidence of R. s. simus on cattle is not universal. It is not only common but numerous on cattle on the coastal plains of Kenya (Dick and Lewis 1947).

Dogs: Throughout the range of R. s. simus, domestic dogs are frequently among its most common hosts and are mentioned by many authors. In Equatoria Province, dogs are infested by this parasite as frequently as they are by R. S. sanguineus, but the numbers of simus are considerably lower in all #2: except those from Kajo Kaji. The yellow dog-tick, H. l. leachii, is much less common on dogs in the Sudan but in certain other areas of Africa this is one of their most important arthropod parasites. Kauntze (1934) and Roberts (1935) did not consider R. s. simus to be an important pest of dogs when studying boutonneuse fever in Kenya, but Dick and Lewis (1947) found this common tick to be only slightly less numerous on dogs than R. s. sanguineus in the coastal area of Kenya. At Nelspruit, South Africa, Lounsbury (1904A) collected more glossy ticks than kennel ticks on canines in the same place. According to Theiler (correspondence), R. s. simus and H. l. leachii generally are more common on South Ifrican dogs than is R. S. sanguineus, and H. l. leachii is usually the most common of the three.T.Matthysse" (1954) Iisted R. s. simus only once from Northern Rhodesian dogs, and noted R. appeniculatus, R. S. sanguineus, and E. tricuspis more frequently.

Pigs: Wherever I have encountered domestic pigs in the range of the glossy tick, a close association between the two and a high . rate of infestation has been noted. No mention of similar situations is found in the literature. Wild warthogs and bushpigs (see below) are commonly infested. In South Africa, on the other hand, domestic pigs are amazingly free of ticks and more are recorded from bushpigs than from warthogs (Theiler, correspondence).

Tendeiro's reports from Portugese Guinea (listed above) contain numerous references to R. S. simus and R. S. Senegalensis on domestic pigs. The identity of West African specimens should be checked.

Other domestic animals are more or less frequently reported as hosts, but the incidence is seldom if ever mentioned. In addition to the Sudan records given above, some of these are:

Cat (Jack 1921, 1942).

Horses (Neumann 1901,1902B,1911, Howard 1908, Massy 1908, Lewis 193LA, Bedford 1932B).

Goats (Howard 1908, Lewis 1931A, Bedford 1932B, Wilson 1950B).

Sheep (Howard 1908, Lewis 1931A,C,1932A,1934, Daubney and Hudson 1934, Wilson 1950B).

Camels (Neumann 1902B, 1911).
Chickens (Lucas 1954).

Man More specimens of R. s. simus were taken on members of our parties in southern Sudan than any other tick species. Several of these were engorging and others might have done so if they had not been removed. Galli-Valerio £ Jack (1942), and Lumsden (1955) noted incidental attacks on man. Veneroni (1928) and Zumpt and Glajchen (1950) reported human paralysis after bites of the glossy tick. Others have said specifically that no specimens were found on people during surveys, for example, Kauntze's (1934) report on the Kilmani area near Nairobi. J. B. Walker (correspondence), however, reported five males and three females from man in tall grass country south of Arusha, Tanganyika.

Wild Animals

Primates: In Bahr El Ghazal, hundreds of specimens were collected from old male baboons, some of which harbored as many as 200 glossy ticks, chiefly in the axilla. In the same areas, baboons travelling in community groups were consistently free of ticks. In Kenya, we found specimens on Colobus monkeys (see also I. schillingsi, page 558), but, except for a note by Lumsden (1955), there is no reference in the literature to similar collections. Theiler (correspondence) has a single record from Galago crassicaudatus agisymbanus from Zanzibar.

Carnivores: These animals, along with some of the larger and thicker skinned herbivores of Africa, appear to be hosts of choice: Lions A All extensive African collections studied by the writer contain specimens from lions. Reported by Neumann

« PreviousContinue »