Ixodes frontalis ( Panzer, 1798 )

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 : 17

89. Ixodes frontalis ( Panzer, 1798) .

Palearctic: 1) Algeria, 2) Armenia, 3) Azerbaijan, 4) Belarus, 5) Belgium, 6) Bulgaria, 7) Croatia, 8) Cyprus, 9) Czechia, 10) Denmark, 11) Egypt, 12) France, 13) Georgia, 14) Germany, 15) Great Britain, 16) Hungary, 17) Iran, 18) Ireland, 19) Italy, 20) Malta, 21) Moldova, 22) Morocco, 23) Netherlands, 24) Norway, 25) Poland, 26) Portugal, 27) Romania, 28) Russia, 29) Serbia, 30) Slovakia, 31) Slovenia, 32) Spain, 33) Sweden, 34) Switzerland, 35) Turkey, 36) Turkmenistan, 37) Ukraine ( Filippova 1977, Ogandzhanian 1984, Martyn 1988, Trilar 2004, Cringoli et al. 2005, Kolonin 2009, Santos-Silva et al. 2011, Bursali et al. 2012, Krčmar 2012, Mihalca et al. 2012, Nowak-Chmura & Siuda 2012, Petney et al. 2012, Bona & Stanko 2013, Estrada-Peña et al. 2017, Pflieger et al. 2017, Tsapko & Kotti 2017, Hornok et al. 2020 a, Rubel et al. 2021).

This tick has been widely confused with Ixodes brunneus (Nearctic) in the past, and several reports of Ixodes frontalis have appeared under the synonym Ixodes pari , the most frequent of the synonyms of Ixodes frontalis , as listed in Guglielmone & Nava (2014).

Heylen et al. (2012) cautioned that Ixodes frontalis can be confused with Ixodes ricinus , as has occurred with specimens from Finland. Sevestre et al. (2021) morphologically identified specimens of Ixodes acuminatus that were molecularly classified as Ixodes frontalis .

Records from some of the territories listed above include specimens collected from migratory birds, and it is possible that permanent populations of Ixodes frontalis do not exist in a number of these areas, a situation that calls for further field work. Hosseini-Chegeni et al. (2019) did not list Ixodes frontalis as being found in Iran; its presence in Iran is based on Kolonin (2009) and is regarded here as provisionally valid.

Zhang, G. et al. (2019) and Zhang, Y.K. et al. (2019) included China within the geographic range of Ixodes frontalis , based on Guo et al. (2016). However, Zhao et al. (2021) did not list Ixodes frontalis as a species found in China. We feel that the presence of Ixodes frontalis requires confirmation and have provisionally excluded China from this species’ range. A record of Ixodes frontalis from the Philippines (Oriental Region) in Wilson (1970a) was treated as valid by Kolonin (2009), Drehmann et al. (2019) and other authors, but Saracho-Bottero et al. (2021) regarded that record as probably belonging to a different species. The same can be said about the Namibian (Afrotropical Region) record in Putzig (1939). Both the Philippines and Namibia are excluded from the geographic distribution of Ixodes frontalis .

Hornok et al. (2016a) presented molecular evidence that two lineages of Ixodes frontalis may represent different species.