Geographic distribution of the hard ticks (Acari: Ixodida: Ixodidae) of the world by countries and territories Author Guglielmone, Alberto A. 0000-0001-5430-2889 guglielmone.alberto@inta.gob.ar Author Nava, Santiago 0000-0001-7791-4239 nava.santiago@inta.gob.ar Author Robbins, Richard G. 0000-0003-2443-5271 robbinsrg@si.edu text Zootaxa 2023 2023-03-07 5251 1 1 274 http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5251.1.1 journal article 235222 10.11646/zootaxa.5251.1.1 43227427-a867-4744-9e4c-2b2302524890 1175-5326 7704190 3326BF76-A2FB-4244-BA4C-D0AF81F55637 35. Dermacentor rhinocerinus ( Denny, 1843 ) . Afrotropical: 1) Angola , 2) Central African Republic , 3) Chad (south), 4) Democratic Republic of the Congo , 5) Eritrea , 6) Ethiopia , 7) Kenya , 8) Malawi , 9) Mozambique , 10) Namibia , 11) Somalia , 12) South Africa , 13) South Sudan , 14) Tanzania , 15) Uganda , 16) Zambia , 17) Zimbabwe ( Morel & Graber 1961 , Theiler 1962 , Yeoman & Walker 1967 , Morel 1980 , Matthysse & Colbo 1987 , Tandon 1991 , Keirans 1993, Kolonin 2009 , Burridge 2011 , ElGhali & Hassan 2012 , Uilenberg et al. 2013 , Olivieri et al. 2021 ). Dermacentor rhinocerinus has been confused with Amblyomma rhinocerotis and vice versa ( Guglielmone & Nava 2014 ). The above geographic distribution of Dermacentor rhinocerinus is historical. The current range of this tick has surely been reduced because its principal hosts, rhinoceroses, have been exterminated in several African territories. The records of Dermacentor rhinocerinus from Chad and Ethiopia are based on Morel & Graber (1961) and Morel (1980) , who referred to this tick as Amblycentor ( lapsus for Amblyocentor ) rhinocerinus . Burridge (2011) and Guglielmone & Robbins (2018) listed Cameroon within the geographic distribution of Dermacentor rhinocerinus , but during the present analysis no records from that country were found. Elbl & Anastos (1966d) stated that records of Dermacentor rhinocerinus from Rwanda are unconfirmed, while the records of this species in Pakistan by Farooqi et al. (2017) and Ramzan et al. (2020b) are regarded here as misidentifications.