Hyalomma rufipes Koch, 1844a

Guglielmone, Alberto A., Nava, Santiago & Robbins, Richard G., 2023, Geographic distribution of the hard ticks (Acari: Ixodida: Ixodidae) of the world by countries and territories, Zootaxa 5251 (1), pp. 1-274 : 108-109

22. Hyalomma rufipes Koch, 1844a .

Afrotropical: 1) Angola, 2) Benin, 3) Botswana, 4) Burkina Faso, 5) Cameroon, 6) Central African Republic, 7) Chad (south), 8) Democratic Republic of the Congo, 9) Djibouti, 10) Eritrea, 11) Eswatini, 12) Ethiopia, 13) Gambia, 14) Ghana, 15) Guinea, 16) Guinea-Bissau, 17) Ivory Coast, 18) Kenya, 19) Lesotho, 20) Liberia, 21) Malawi, 22) Mali (south), 23) Mauritania (south), 24) Mozambique, 25) Namibia, 26) Niger (south), 27) Nigeria, 28) Oman, 29) Saudi Arabia (south), 30) Senegal, 31) Sierra Leone, 32) Somalia, 33) South Africa, 34) South Sudan, 35) Sudan, 36) Tanzania, 37) Togo, 38) Uganda, 39) Yemen, 40) Zambia, 41) Zimbabwe; Palearctic: 1) Egypt, 2) Saudi Arabia (north). Note: Hyalomma rufipes has also been found in the following Palearctic territories, and it is hypothesized that this tick is established in some of them, but there are no definitive data for where this may be happening, as discussed below: Palearctic: 1) Algeria, 2) Cyprus, 3) Czechia, 4) Germany, 5) Greece, 6) Hungary, 7) Iran, 8) Israel, 9) Italy, 10) Jordan, 11) Kazakhstan, 12) Libya, 13) Mali (north), 14) Malta, 15) North Macedonia, 16) Palestine, 17) Qatar, 18) Russia, 19) Spain, 20) Sweden, 21) Syria, 22) Tajikistan, 23) Tunisia, 24) Turkey, 25) Turkmenistan, 26) Ukraine, 27) Uzbekistan ( Hoogstraal 1956 a, Hoogstraal & Kaiser 1958b, Aeschlimann 1967, Yeoman & Walker 1967, Walker 1974, Pegram et al. 1982b, Keirans 1985 b, Konstantinov et al. 1990, Saliba et al. 1990, Tandon 1991, Papadopoulos et al. 1996, Wassef et al. 1997, Terenius et al. 2000, Morel 2003, Cringoli et al. 2005, Ruiz-Fons et al. 2006, Apanaskevich & Horak 2008b, Sylla et al. 2008, Hornok & Horváth 2012, Papa et al. 2012, Bursali et al. 2012, Djerbouh et al. 2012, Mediannikov et al. 2012 a, Lorusso et al. 2013, Tsatsaris et al. 2016, Diarra et al. 2017, Horak et al. 2018, Chitimia-Dobler et al. 2019, Hosseini-Chegeni et al. 2019, Abdally et al. 2020, Grandi et al. 2020, Húbalek et al. 2020, Tsapko 2020, Okely et al. 2021, Olivieri et al. 2021, Rudolf et al. 2021, Schulz et al. 2021, Sili et al. 2021, Shekede et al. 2021).

The morphological identification of Hyalomma rufipes is difficult, as demonstrated in the study of Apanaskevich & Horak (2008b). This species was extensively confused with Hyalomma impressum and other related species until Feldman-Muhsam (1954) carefully redescribed both Hyalomma rufipes and Hyalomma impressum . Nevertheless, nomenclatural problems persisted, with bona fide records of Hyalomma rufipes published under the names Hyalomma impressum , Hyalomma marginatum impressum , Hyalomma plumbeum impressum or Hyalomma marginatum rufipes , and the last name is still used by some workers.

Camicas et al. (1998) listed Hyalomma rufipes as an Afrotropical species, treating Palearctic records as importations. Hoogstraal (1956a), Hoogstraal & Kaiser (1958) and Apanaskevich & Horak (2008b) regarded Hyalomma rufipes as an Afrotropical tick established in sub-Saharan countries, but also in Egypt (Palearctic), although Hoogstraal & Kaiser (1959b) and Hoogstraal (1980) recognized Hyalomma rufipes as endemic in Oman and Yemen. Wassef et al. (1997) added Saudi Arabia (Afrotropical and Palearctic) to this list, but the northern limit of Hyalomma rufipes is treated here as uncertain. Asian and European records of Hyalomma rufipes are considered to be a consequence of nymphs introduced with migrating birds that later molted into adults found infesting mammals in Asia and Europe. Rudolf et al. (2020) considered it probable that Hyalomma rufipes adults found on local mammals in central Europe had overwintered, having molted from engorged nymphs introduced by migrating birds, underscoring the possibility that permanently established tick populations might pose a threat to this part of Europe, although Uiterwijk et al. (2021) regarded the likelihood of this occurring in the Netherlands as low. We hypothesize that permanent populations of Hyalomma rufipes are already established in undetermined areas of southern Europe, and/or at equivalent latitudes in central and western Asia.

Teng & Jiang (1991) allegedly found Hyalomma rufipes in China, but Apanaskevich & Horak (2008b) stated that such specimens are in fact Hyalomma turanicum . Chen et al. (2010) and Lang et al. (2022) argued that Hyalomma rufipes is a Chinese tick, but this opinion was not accepted by Zhang, G. et al. (2019), Zhang, Y.K. et al. (2019) and Zhao et al. (2021). China is therefore provisionally excluded from the geographic distribution of this species. McGarry et al. (2001) allegedly found one specimen of Hyalomma rufipes on a traveler returning from Nepal or Tibet, a record that requires confirmation because there is no evidence that Hyalomma rufipes occurs in those countries ( Chen et al. 2010, Pun et al. 2018). There is an unclear Indian record of a male and female of Hyalomma rufipes in Keirans (1985b, page 398), although the original label data refer to nymphs of Hyalomma aegyptium , perhaps indicating that the label was in error or tick specimens representing more than one species had been placed in the same collection vial. Either way, Jadhao et al. (2022) later listed Hyalomma rufipes from India, but the presence of this species in that country requires confirmation, and these specimens are not included in our analysis. Farooqi et al. (2017) and Shahid et al. (2021), among others, claimed to have collected Hyalomma rufipes in Pakistan, but these records require verification.

Sands et al. (2017b) presented molecular evidence to argue that at least two species may exist under the name Hyalomma rufipes .