Page images
PDF
EPUB

were long overlooked by earlier workers, and obvious specimens of R. tricuspis were identified as R. lunulatus.

Zumpt (1943A,1950A) accepted the differing descriptions of R. tricuspis and R. lunulatus as referring to separate species. He synonymized R. glyphis under R. lunulatus but did not see specimens of R. tricuspis. Theiler (1947) reared R. tricuspis and observed that the range of variation in the Fl generation from a single female included characters ascribed to R. tricuspis as well as to R. lumilatus. For the purposes of the present work, Theiler has restudied her material and confirmed her earlier ob servations, Santos Dias (19500,19520) described differences, which Theiler has found to be intraspecific, for R. tricuspis and R. lunulatus.

It might be indicated that in Theiler and Robinson (1954) the term R. lunulatus is used only for literature references of that name, but does not infer that these authors consider R. lunulatus to be a valid species.

In the following description, the range of variation in Theiler's material is noted. Only typical specimens were des cribed in her 1947 paper, in which R. tricuspis was compared with R. simus simus.

DENTIFICATION

Male:

The somewhat linear arrangement of the few large, deep scutal punctations identifies R. tricuspis in the R. simus group within which it stands out easily by the curiously sinuous posterior margin of the adanal shields that are projected more or less as a spur at the inner or outer juncture, or at both junctures, In typical specimens, these two pointed spurs and the pointed, heavily sclerotized accessory anal shields give this area of the tick a tricuspid appearance. The spurlike outer juncture is pronounced but the inner point is frequently more rounded and shorter. Lateral grooves, usually well indicated, rarely may be much reduced or indicated by only a line of adjacent punctations. The posterior grooves are typically distinct but in some specimens tend to disappear. [Note that in specimens of R. simpsoni from a single host the same variation in scutal grooves

occurs. Small rhipicephalid species that crowd into a small area of the host frequently show these modifications.] Small or fine interstitial punctations are present, though they may be faint. Coxa I bears a pointed dorsal projection that typically is promi. nent but in some specimens is smaller, though still pointed. This reddish to black tick usually has a pearshaped body and measures up to 3.5 mm, or even 4.3 mm. long.

Female: Usually small size (up to 4.5 mm. long and 2.3 mm. wide) and association with the male distinguishes this sex from that of R. s. simis. Clearcut characters to distinguish these two females are difficult to define in view of the frequent reduction of the lateral grooves in R. s. simus.

In most specimens of R. tricuspis the shieldshaped scutum contrasts with the subcircular scutum of R. s. simus. The lateral grooves are characteristically short (shorter than in R. s. simus) and contain four to six closely adjacent punctations.

Larvae and nymohs have been described by Theiler (1947) and compared with those of R. s. simus.

[blocks in formation]

These nymphs were originally identified as those of R. mühlensi (Hoogstraal 1954B). Subsequent study of the difficult problem of immature rhipicephalid identification indicates that they are of a different species and most closely resemble R. maculatus Neumann, 1901, (Theiler, correspondence) an ornamented species from southeastern Africa that is not known from the Sudan.

Note (page 637) that it is quite possible that these specimens are the immature stages of the species referred to herein as R. ?distinctus.

ANIMALS AND OTHER SOURCES FROM WHICH

TICKS HAVE BEEN COLLECTED

The following lists are a résumé of Sudanese tick host records in the present collection. The fauna of Torit District in Equatoria Province has been most thoroughly studied, that of Eastern and Juba Districts, to the east and west of Torit District respectively, has also received considerable attention though not to the extent of that in Torit District. These three Districts comprise that part of Equatoria Province lying east of the Nile. The west bank of Equatoria Province remains poorly known and will undoubtedly pro vide a rich source of new data to future workers.

In Bahr El Ghazal Province, the area from Yirol to Wau and northwards has been fairly well studied; the remainder of this Province has been surveyed but should receive more attention. Upper Nile Province is the least studied of this group of three Provinces with tropical African savannah landscape and big game animals. Some East African tick species presently unknown in the Sudan may occur on animals in this area. Hosts from which ticks have been collected in the remaining Provinces, comprising desert scrub, semidesert, and desert zones of the Sudan, are mostly domestic animals. Kassala and Northern Provinces are less well represented in these collections than Darfur and Kordofan Provinces.

Equatoria Province data are more representative of the overall picture of host parasite relationships than those of other Provinces and are, therefore, reviewed in greater detail than data for other Provinces. Certain significant negative data are also included.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

UNEXPLORED

R. Kinyeti

EASTERN KOMBO HILL
DISTRICT

Mongolia TORIT

DISTRIGT

.Lado

MORU - AGIPPI . Loelli

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

.Lolimi

R. Nile

780

JUBA
DISTRICT

AT
Gondokoro

Thingoito

.Lolo pori
LAFIT MTS.

Norongyoto

BOYA Kapoota
. Ngo ngola

HILLS
.Loronyo
Lirio

R.Kidong
Loronyo •
• Lokila

olongo Lands Murogotiko.

•Illu
Okaru

Torongoro
.Labolvo Koyola

Torit "Lugurron
Goniryo
elmotong

DIDINGA HILLS
• Imurok

Nogschot
RROLL DONGOTONA
LOR IMATÒNG MTS, MTS 19
. Mogwa

Kotird 'Ikoto
Obbo

Tolongo.Gila
. Opori

ACHOLI

HIUS • Kajo Koji

Tarotoina • Forajok

.Loboni

Sunat

KENYA
(TURKANA)

RUDOLPH

[ocr errors]

40

[ocr errors]

LAKE

[blocks in formation]

36

Scale
60

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

00

100

120

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »