Ixodes fuscipes Koch, 1844a

Guglielmone, Alberto A., Petney, Trevor N. & Robbins, Richard G., 2020, Ixodidae (Acari: Ixodoidea): descriptions and redescriptions of all known species from 1758 to December 31, 2019, Zootaxa 4871 (1), pp. 1-322 : 30-31

87. Ixodes fuscipes Koch, 1844a .

A Neotropical species, but it was recently demonstrated that this tick has been widely confused with Ixodes spinosus , a reinstated species (see note below), and that Ixodes aragaoi is a synonym of Ixodes fuscipes ( Labruna et al. 2020) . Therefore, all the information about Ixodes fuscipes in Guglielmone et al. (2014) and other references is invalid. Usual hosts for males and females of Ixodes fuscipes are Artiodactyla : Bovidae and Cervidae , but adult ticks have rarely been collected from Carnivora : Canidae and Perissodactyla : Equidae . The undescribed immature stages have been collected from Didelphimorphia : Didelphidae , Rodentia : Cricetidae , and Passeriformes : Furnariidae , Parulidae and Turdidae ( Labruna et al. 2020, Guglielmone A.A., unpublished). There are no records of Ixodes fuscipes causing human parasitism.

M: Fonseca (1935a), under the name Ixodes ricinus aragaoi , a synonym of Ixodes fuscipes ; see note below

F: Koch (1844a); see note below

N: undescribed

L: undescribed

Redescriptions

M: Fonseca (1937, under the name Ixodes ricinus aragaoi ), Onofrio et al. (2006 a, 2009, 2014), Nava et al. (2017), Saracho-Bottero et al. (2020), all under the name Ixodes aragaoi ; see note below

F: Fonseca (1937, under the name Ixodes ricinus aragaoi ), Onofrio et al. (2006 a, 2009, 2014), Nava et al. (2017), Saracho-Bottero et al. (2020), all under the name Ixodes aragaoi, Labruna et al. (2020) ; see note below

Note: the morphological diagnosis of the female of Ixodes fuscipes has been largely confused with that of the reinstated Ixodes spinosus as explained in Labruna et al. (2020). The first figures of Ixodes fuscipes with diagnostic value were published by Nuttall and Warburton (1911), who used a female of the syntype series of Ixodes spinosus , which was considered a synonym of Ixodes fuscipes at that time. This opinion prevailed until the holotype female of Ixodes fuscipes was morphologically compared with the female of Ixodes spinosus used by Nuttall and Warburton (1911) to redescribe what they believed to be Ixodes fuscipes , a comparison which showed that both Ixodes fuscipes and Ixodes spinosus are valid species ( Labruna et al. 2020), and that almost all records of Ixodes fuscipes females correspond, in fact, to Ixodes spinosus . Additionally, Labruna et al. (2020) compared the holotype female of Ixodes fuscipes with the females of the syntype series of Ixodes aragaoi , concluding the latter name is a synonym of the former name. These taxonomic changes mean that all ecological data concerning Ixodes fuscipes apply to Ixodes aragaoi , and all previous records of the immature stages of Ixodes fuscipes or Ixodes cf. I. fuscipes , as in Gianizella et al. (2018b), do not refer to this tick. The larvae and nymphs of Ixodes fuscipes referenced above are specimens recorded as Ixodes aragaoi in Brazil or under the name Ixodes pararicinus , instead of Ixodes fuscipes , in Uruguay.