Page images

CENTRAL AFRICA: cmmnoous (Rageau 1953A,B). FRENCH EQUATORIAL AFHIcZTIFEE§§3h'1943B). BEIGIAN CONGO (Neumann 1899,1911. Nuttall and Warburton 1916. Schwetz 192vc,1932. Bequacrt l930A,l93l).

NOTE: According to Theiler (correspondence), the record for Ruanda_Urundi by Santos Dias (l954D) is in error.

EAST AFRICA: SUDAN (King l908,19ll,l926. Hoogstraal 1954B).
ETHIOPIA (Tonelli-Rondelli 1930A. Stella 1940).

mum (Lewis 1931c,193z.. Loveridge 1936B. Hoogstraal 1951.15). ucmm (Theiler 194513. Wilson 19500. Hoogstraal 1954B). TANGA. mmm (Neumann l90'7C,l9l0B,l9ll. D'dnitz 1910. Morstatt 1913. Loveridge 1923c,192s. Bequaert 19301).

SOUTHERN AFRICA: ANGOLA (Howard 1908. Bacelar 1950). 110211.:-1. BIQuE“(H_'owar"'&"'17XF8_. Santos Dias l948A,l952D,l953B. Bacelar 1950).

NORTHERN RHODESIA (Theiler 191.52). SOUTHERN RHODESIA (Jack 1942). NYASALAND (Theiler 191.515. Wilson 19501;).

SOUTHWEST AFRICA (Warburton 1922. Theiler 194512). ‘UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (Koch 181.4. Neumann 1901. Howard 1908. Ddnitz 1910B.

Curson 1928. Bedford l932B,l936. Schulze l936E. Theiler 1945B.
Hoogstraal 19540).


Snakes, without predilection for any one group (Theiler 1945B). Host genera recorded by various authors are: fython, Simoce halus, Pseudas is, Naja, L co hidion (= L co hidium), Me ya, Se Son, Dehdroas is = endras is), Causus, Bitis, Das ltis, Boaegon, Zhd Rham hie his. AIso the Dehasian snake Crota ho ltis (= Leptodira) hotamhheia (Neumann l9073,l9l0B). In addition to some of these same

host genera, Miss J. B. Walker's (correspondence) Tanganyika collec_

tions contain specimens from Rham hio his 0 nchus rostratus. Philothamnus i. irreflularis (= Chgoropis emini oogstraal 19540). Most host records are or arge, poisonous snakes, possibly because of the great interest they always arouse when collected. Yet I have examined hundreds of smaller African snakes without finding Aponomma ticks on them.

Acontias lumbeus, a blind, limbless, viviparous lizard has been iste as a South African host (Bedford 1936).

A single female in BM(NH) collections was taken with A. exor_

natum from Varanus e. albigularis, the coastal onitor lizard, in Kenya, and another Tema e as een noted from a porcupine in Zulu; land (Hoogstraal 1951.0 ).



The snake tick sometimes occurs in great numbers on a single host. Loveridge (l923C) states: “This snake (Das ltis scabra) was literally covered with ticks, 75 of which I co ecte “. Lar_

vae, nymphs and adults are often taken from a single host (Lewis 1934, Rageau 1953B).

Specimens are usually found between the host's dorsal scales, especially just behind the neck, sometimes on the head, rarely on the venter.




The nnst complete recent work on this species is by Theiler (19458). The taxonomic review shows that A. laeve Neumann, 1899, is actually a non African species and that-A. Iatum (Koch, 1844) has priority for the African species. Immature stages were described and illustrated and adults were redescribed and illustrated in the same study.

Should specimens agreeing with characters of this species but having a very wide, quadrate body outline be encountered in the Sudan, they should be checked (cf. Theiler 19458) for A. transversale Lucas, 1844, the python tick, which Theiler states (correspondence) may be expected to occur in this area. The male of transversale lacks an anal groove and is incompletely chitinized on the posterior

third of the dorsum. The female is similarly broad; its scutal margin is notched or concave posteriorly rather than broadly

rounded. These two snake ticks are the only inornate aponommas known to occur in Africa.


Males and females are easily identified in the African tick fauna By key characters and notes.


Boo hilus ticks are practically unique in that their entire life cycge from larva to engorged, mated adult is confined to a single host. Females drop to the ground to oviposit. This single. host type of life cycle has numerous biological advantages. It also allows for particularly easy control by dipping infested animals, a benefit partially negated by the development of boophilid strains resistant to chemicals.

The boophilid type of life cycle eliminates danger_ridden periods between two or three different kinds of hosts, possibly in inhospitable areas and for indefinite periods. The predilection of these ticks for large domestic animals particularly favors widespread dispersal and suvival, not only within a continent but also from continent to continent on imported hosts.

Cattle are the chief hosts throughout the world, horses, other domestic stock, and wild antelopss and deer are less frequently attacked. Other wild animals are uncommonly infested. The veter_ inary importance of B00 hilus ticks is considerable and they are suspect as reservoirs 0? some human disease pathogens.

Collectors who wish to be assured of accurate identification of their boophilid material should make every effort to obtain long series and to find the small, yellowish males as well as the heavier, more conspicuous, podshaped females.

Two of the three species presently recognized in this genus occu in the Sudan. One of these, Boo hilus decoloratus (Koch, 1844), is endemic and ranges widely thgoughout Ifrican areas with relatively high rainfall and with some shrub cover; it is well known practically everywhere on the continent south of the great northern deserts and semideserts.

The second species is B. annulatus (Say, 1821) Q: B. con 0lensis Minning, 1934), African popfilations of which cannot e istinguished from the famed American Texas fever vector, §. annulatus. This species is poorly known, more restricted, and less common in the Ethiopian Faunal Region than 2. decoloratus and has been intro.


duced from elsewhere. Data in the present report are the only published facts that give any information on the biology or ecology of §. annulatus on this continent. North African and Near Eastern populations usually called B. calcaratus subspp. appear to be identical to §. annulatus.'_


The third species, B. micro lus (Canestrini, 1888) (s B. fallax Minning, 1934), {E no ye wn from the Sudan. This pantropical cattle parasite appears slowly to be extending its pesent southern and eastern African range northwards after once having been more widely distributed on Africa because of frequent importation of infested cattle from Madagascar. Differential characters for this species are provided in the following key and additional notes concerning it may be found following the discussion of the two related species.

What has been considered the classic taxonomic work on Boophilus is that of Minning (1934,1935,1936). He divided the genus into three subgenera: Boo hilus (sensu strictu), Uroboophi_ lus, and Pal oboo hilus and descri a number of mnewm species. These subgenera have Been given the status of genera in many pub. lished papers, probably because Minning himself, curiously enough, failed to place a generic designation before them in his discus. sion of species. Several later workers (Cooley 1946, Anastos 1950, and others) have questioned the worth of these finings, and in the present instance the Minning reports are of little value. The method appears to have been to hastily examine a few specimens from widely scattered areas, to describe and illustrate them inadequately, and whenever possible to apply names based on assumed, uncritically regarded, slight morphological variations. There is little or no correlation between the present and other extensive collections of boophilids collected from several geographical areas throughout the world, and Minning's illustrations an remarks about species collected in the same localities. Anastos (1950) has abandoned these three subgenera with the hearty concur. rence of many serious colleagues.

Anastos (loc. cit.) on the other hand, would confine the known Boo hilus species oTFthe world to the three discussed herein. Al. thaugh it appears that his view is most likely correct, a pains. taking study of extensive, worldwide series of specimens will be

« PreviousContinue »