Haemaphysalis

Guglielmone, Alberto A., Petney, Trevor N. & Robbins, Richard G., 2020, Ixodidae (Acari: Ixodoidea): descriptions and redescriptions of all known species from 1758 to December 31, 2019, Zootaxa 4871 (1), pp. 1-322 : 201

1. Haemaphysalis ? cretacea Chitimia-Dobler, Pfeffer and Dunlop, 2018.

A fossil species whose host is unknown.

M: unknown

F: unknown

N: Chitimia-Dobler et al. (2018); see note below

L: unknown

Redescriptions: none

Note: Chitimia-Dobler et al. (2018) classify this species in the genus Haemaphysalis , and even include it in the subgenus Alloceraea , which contains “primitive Haemaphysalis ” according to the definition in Hoogstraal and Kim (1985). However, the morphological structures shown in the figures of Chitimia-Dobler et al. (2018) do not support the inclusion of cretacea in the genus Haemaphysalis ( Hoogstraal & Kim 1985, Geevarghese & Mishra 2011). The authors state (page 3) that the basis capituli is slightly wider than long, but on page 7 assert that it is 2.6 times wider than long, although accompanying figures show a basis capituli that is obviously longer than broad. Also, on page 5, the second article of the palps is declared to be 1.6 longer than the third article, but the authors’ figures show a second article almost four times longer than the third article (this is most evident in figure 2). Hoogstraal and Kim (1985) emphasize that “the most basic criterion of the 17 primitive Haemaphysalis is the presence, in each stage, or only in larvae and nymphs, of a lateral convexity of the basis capituli or of a projection from each side of the basis capituli,” a criterion not met in the nymph described by Chitimia-Dobler et al. (2018). In summary, the morphological characters of cretacea clearly rule out inclusion of this fossil tick in the genus Haemaphysalis .