Rhipicephalus bursa Canestrini & Fanzago, 1878

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 : 115

12. Rhipicephalus bursa Canestrini & Fanzago, 1878 .

Palearctic: 1) Albania, 2) Algeria, 3) Armenia, 4) Azerbaijan, 5) Bosnia and Herzegovina, 6) Bulgaria, 7) China (north), 8) Croatia, 9) Cyprus, 10) France, 11) Georgia, 12) Greece, 13) Iran, 14) Iraq, 15) Israel, 16) Italy, 17) Jordan, 18) Kazakhstan, 19) Kosovo, 20) Lebanon, 21) Libya, 22) Montenegro, 23) Morocco, 24) North Macedonia, 25) Palestine, 26) Portugal, 27) Romania, 28) Russia, 29) Serbia, 30) Slovenia, 31) Spain, 32) Switzerland, 33) Syria, 34) Tunisia, 35) Turkey, 36) Turkmenistan, 37) Ukraine, 38) Uzbekistan ( Feider 1965, K ö hler et al. 1967, Saliba et al. 1990, Papadopoulos et al. 1996, Yeruham et al. 1996, Filippova 1997, Bouattour et al. 1999, Walker et al. 2000, Morel 2003, Cringoli et al. 2005, Chen et al. 2010, Omeragic 2011, Bursali et al. 2012, Krčmar 2012, Akimov & Nebogatkin 2013, Sherifi et al. 2014, Ereqat et al. 2016, Hovhannisyan & Dilbaryan 2016, Tsatsaris et al. 2016, Dabaja et al. 2017, Estrada-Peña et al. 2017, Hosseini-Chegeni et al. 2019, Perfilyeva et al. 2020, Tsapko 2020, Zhao et al. 2021).

Guglielmone et al. (2020) mistakenly quoted Estrada-Peña et al. (2017) as stressing the need for a morphological redescription of Rhipicephalus bursa , but, in fact, Estrada-Peña and co-workers stated that the species in need of revision was Rhipicephalus pusillus , not Rhipicephalus bursa .

Walker et al. (2000) treated records of Rhipicephalus bursa from Xinjiang Province in northern China as misidentifications; however, Chen et al. (2010), Zhang, G. et al. (2019), Zhang, Y.K. et al. (2019) and Zhao et al. (2021) regard records of this tick in that and other provinces of northern China as valid, and China is provisionally included within this tick’s range.

According to Okely et al. (2022), only one study reported the presence of Rhipicephalus bursa in Egypt, but this tick is not established there. Many records of Rhipicephalus bursa have been published based on specimens collected outside the Palearctic Zoogeographic Region, e.g., Brazil, Cuba, Curaç ã o, French Guiana, Haiti, Mexico, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Timor, Uruguay, Venezuela and several sub-Saharan countries, but these records are thought to have resulted from misidentifications or mixing specimens from a variety of imported hosts, since there are no established populations of Rhipicephalus bursa in these countries ( Walker et al. 2000, Guglielmone et al. 2021). Records of Rhipicephalus bursa from Senegal and Ethiopia (Afrotropical Region) in Dahmani et al. (2019) and Tegegen & Amante (2020), respectively, and from India (Oriental Region) in Nataraj et al. (2021) also require confirmation. Gargili et al. (2017) included Oman within the geographic distribution of Rhipicephalus bursa based on a paper that does not support this statement.