Rhipicephalus compositus Neumann, 1897

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 : 116-117

18. Rhipicephalus compositus Neumann, 1897 .

Afrotropical: 1) Angola, 2) Burundi, 3) Central African Republic, 4) Democratic Republic of the Congo, 5) Kenya, 6) Malawi, 7) Mozambique, 8) Rwanda, 9) South Sudan, 10) Tanzania, 11) Uganda, 12) Zambia, 13) Zimbabwe ( Yeoman & Walker 1967, Norval & Tebele 1984, Walker 1974, Matthysse & Colbo 1987, Tandon 1991, Walker et al. 2000, Morel 2003, ElGhali & Hassan 2012, Uilenberg et al. 2013, Olivieri et al. 2021, Shekede et al. 2021, Sili et al. 2021).

Several records of Rhipicephalus compositus have been published under the name Rhipicephallus ayrei , a synonym of Rhipicephalus compositus in Walker et al. (2000).

Rhipicephalus compositus has been confused with Rhipicephalus capensis and Rhipicephalus gertrudae , as noted in Walker et al. (2000) and Morel (2003), while Matthysse & Colbo (1987) discussed the difficulties involved in separating adults of Rhipicephalus compositus , Rhipicephalus cliffordi , Rhipicephalus pseudolongus and Rhipicephalus longus . Uilenberg et al. (2013) stated that morphological separation of Rhipicephalus compositus from Rhipicephalus cliffordi is extremely difficult. Additionally, Guglielmone et al. (2020) cautioned that the redescription of Rhipicephalus compositus in Elbl & Anastos (1966c) differs from the redescriptions of this tick in Walker et al. (2000) and other authors. For these reasons, several records of Rhipicephalus compositus should be considered tentative, casting doubt on the extent of this species’ geographic distribution.

The presence of Rhipicephalus compositus in Mozambique is based on Morel (2003), who validated several records of Santos Dias, some of them published under the name Rhipicephalus ayrei .

The holotype of Rhipicephalus compositus was allegedly collected in Khartoum ( Sudan), but Walker et al. (2000) believed that the type locality is erroneous because the climate there is unsuitable for the development of this species. Accordingly, we do not include Sudan within the range of this tick. Bergeon & Balis (1974) reported the presence of Rhipicephalus compositus in Ethiopia, but Morel (1980) found errors in specimen identification, and Ethiopia is also not included within the range of this tick.