Rhipicephalus, Koch, 1844

Genus Rhipicephalus View in CoL View at ENA

Rhipicephalus spp. are distributed in all regions of Pakistan. Rhipicephalus microplus ( Canestrini, 1888) View in CoL is the most frequently reported tick species at all localities. Five Rhipicephalus View in CoL species have been found to infest various vertebrate hosts in Pakistan: Rhipicephalus annulatus (Say, 1821) View in CoL , Rhipicephalus haemaphysaloides Supino, 1897 View in CoL , Rh. microplus View in CoL , Rhipicephalus ramachandrai Dhanda, 1966 View in CoL , and Rhipicephalus turanicus Pomerantzev, 1940 View in CoL ( Fig. 37) ( McCarthy 1967; Begum et al. 1970b; Siddiqi & Jan 1986; Karim et al. 2017; Rehman et al. 2017; Cabezas-Cruz et al. 2019; Kasi et al. 2020; Ghafar et al. 2020b; Kamran et al. 2021; Ali et al. 2021, 2022, 2023b, c,; Khan Z et al. 2022; Alam et al. 2022; Zeb et al. 2022; Hussain et al. 2023; Aneela et al. 2023; Tila et al. 2023; Shehla et al. 2023; Khan M et al. 2023; Ullah S et al. 2024). This survey revealed the presence of two Rhipicephalus View in CoL species: Rh. haemaphysaloides View in CoL and Rh. microplus View in CoL . Additionally, Rh. sanguineus (Latreille, 1806) View in CoL has been reported in several previous Pakistan studies ( Cabezas-Cruz et al. 2019; Ali et al. 2019, 2021, 2022a; Alam et al. 2022; Khan Z. et al 2022; Tila et al. 2023; Shehla et al. 2023). However, in their analysis of the geographical distribution of the hard ticks of the world, Guglielmone et al. (2023) do not list Rh. sanguineus View in CoL as a species that occurs in Pakistan, pointing out that there are many populations of Rh. sanguineus View in CoL sensu lato worldwide, some of which surely belong to Rh. sanguineus View in CoL sensu stricto, as defined by Nava et al. (2018), whose molecular data will be essential to diagnosing these populations. In an attempt to confirm the presence of Rh. sanguineus View in CoL , extensive sequencing and phylogenetic analyses were carried out based on several mitochondrial genes, which revealed that our species exactly matches an undetermined species that was categorized as Rhipicephalus sp. III by Dantas-Torres et al. (2013), whose sequences closely match Rhipicephalus sp. III from our study, with 99.9% identity for 12S rRNA and 100% for 16S rRNA. However, an evaluation of sp. III’s phylogenetic status shows a separate clade distinct from R. turanicus View in CoL and Rh. sanguineus View in CoL . In Pakistan Rh. turanicus View in CoL has been recorded from hosts in KP ( Ali et al. 2019, 2021, 2022a; Khan Z. et al. 2022; Alam et al. 2022; Aneela et al. 2023; Tila et al. 2023; Shehla et al. 2023; Ali et al. 2023b; Khan M et al. 2023; Ullah S et al. 2024), Balochistan ( Kasi et al. 2020), Punjab ( Rehman et al. 2017; Hussain et al. 2023), Gilgit-Baltistan, and Azad Jammu and Kashmir ( McCarthy 1967; Karim et al. 2017). Again, however, Guglielmone et al. (2023) do not list Rh. turanicus View in CoL as a species that occurs in Pakistan, noting that this species is taxonomically complex, and that one lineage, named Rh. turanicus View in CoL sensu stricto by Bakkes et al. (2020), was described from two specimens collected on a dog at an unknown location in Central Asia, whereas Filippova (2008) stated that the type host of Rh. turanicus View in CoL is Ovis aries View in CoL (sheep) and the type locality is Tashkent, Uzbekistan. Clearly, morphological and molecular data from the type host at the type locality will be needed before any definitive statement can be made concerning the distribution of Rh. turanicus View in CoL outside Uzbekistan.