« PreviousContinue »
sinuous posterior margin merging with the narrowly blunt posterior margin. The cervical grooves are very deep and convergent, and reach the midlength of the scutum; thence they continue as very shallow, divergent grooves extending to or almost to the posterior margin. Lateral grooves as such are absent; their place is marked by three to seven very large, deep puctations that may be either free or in a shaLlow depression; the lateral field beyond these grooves is more or less abruptly raised. The scutum is slightly depressed between the lateral punctations and the shallow exten. sions of the cervical grooves, but its intense black surface is otherwise marked by only four to seven large, deep, scattered puctations. The basis capituli is three times as wide as long and widest at its midlength; the porose areas are oval, vertical (not tilted), about twice as long as wide, deep, separated by a distance of one and a half times their own length, and extend from almost the posterior margin to just past the midlength of the basis capituli. Ventrally, it is important to note that
coxa I is not deeply divided but that its posterior margin bears two robust spurs; the broadly triangular internal spur is not quite so long as the more narrowly triangular external spur and the division between these two spurs is equitriangular with the internal spur.
No other specimens of this species have been found in the Sudan. See HOSTS and REMARKS below.
DISTRIBUTION The hyrax glossy tick ranges from southern Sudan to Southwest Africa. Its distriution is probably more continuous than present records indicate. Possibly two species are represented in the
UGANDA (A. J . Haddow, correspondence; connnon at Kaabong, Kara. moja). TANGANYIKA (Theiler 1947).
SOUTHERN'AFRICA: SOUTHRN RHODESIA (Bulawayo specimens; Thei~r, uhpu lS e ). mzmsxqua (Santos Dias 19530).
SOUTHWF.SI"AFRICA (Bedford l929A,l932B. Zumpt 1943A. Theiler 1947. BMNH collections contain numerous specimens from Bellrode, Naukluft, and Otjosongombe; K. Jordan le it, H. H. det.). UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (Cooley 1934. Theiler . Note: Occurs in Cape Province, Orange Free State, and Transvaal. Earlier records appear to be based on misidentification; see HOSTS below).
*The possibility that the single specimen available from the Sudan represents an undescribed species should be considered. See REMARKS and IDENTIFICATION (pages 638 and 639).
Hyraxes, or dassies, both rock and arboreal kinds, are the
chief host of this tick. Procavia coombsi (Bedford 1929,1932B). E’. ca nsis meneliki (Uganda materifi noted above). P. habessinica
5111 i udan record above). P. 'ohnstoni matschiei-and Hetero
E ax welwitschi volkmanni (Theiler . Procavia water5r ensis 11 hwest Ifrica; Theiler, unpublished). Dendrah ax a. arbgreus
(Santos Dias 19530). Procavia sp. and Heterohgax sp. T~
Although other animals have been reported as hosts, Theiler (correspondence) now believes these records to be based on incorrect identification. Bedford (1934) and Theiler (191.7) referred to domestic sheep in Cape Province of South Africa; and A. J.
Haddow (correspondence) to the long...snouted dikdik in Karamoja,
It is of some interest that we found only a single specimen of this tick on the numerous rock hyraxes taken in Torit and
Juba Districts in Equatoria Province. Few of these mammals were taken at Rejaf, where the tick was found, but good series were obtained and carefully examined in a number of other localities.
It is of qual interest to note that while 21 rhipicephalid larvae and nymphs were found on two hyraxes (Hetero a brucei boo straali) in Torit District, these represent, acco ng to Theiler (correspondence), an unidentifiable species, not R. distinctus. Inasmuch as hyrax parasites are most distinctive and Host_specific, it is pobable that these larvae and nymphs represent the same species as the single Sudanese male, which differs from Southwest African specimens of R. distinctus, and that these represent an undescribed species.
Nymphs and adults are found on rock hyraxes. Nothing else is lmown about the biolog of this species.
Uns tudi ed .
This species is a member of the R. simus group (Zumpt 1942A). On superficial examination, males might 5; confused with either R1 s. san 'neus or R. s. simus, or, as noted below, they may easily be mis ey . Oncg the Basic characters are learned, the worker recognizesthis as a most distinct species, the female of whickx is even more unique than the male. This note applies to material from both southwestern and eastern Africa.
The single Sudanese male agrees with numerous specimens frona Southwest Africa in all respects except the width and shape of the externoposterior juncture of the adanal shields (see below). Should further Sudanese specimens be consistent in this respect, it is likely that they represent a subspecies or species differing fronafi. distinctus of Southwest Africa. In this respect, the bkazanu bique-specimen illustrated by Santos Dias (19530, figure 3) is like the Sudanese specimen. The female accompanying Santos Dias‘ male has a much longer scutum than those from Southwest Africa and a much more narrowly pointed posterior margin. This fact may support the premise that populations from Mozambique to the Sudan represent an undescribed species. Note that the female herein illustrated (Figures 263 and 264) is from Southwest Africa and possibly not representative of Sudanese populations. Pre_ sumably, also the immature specimens referred to as Rhipicephaéus sp. (page 7785, which differ fron1R. distinctus, may associa with the single available Sudanese_maIe.
It is unfortunate that more time could not have been devoted to determining the actual status of the Sudanese male during the course of the present study. Although we collected this specimen in 1948, it had been separated from the rest of the collection by another member of the party and eventually sent to the Museum of Comparative Zoology. Just as the present work was being completed, Dr. J. Bequaert noted this specimen and kindly returned it to our collection.