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 16. Haemaphysalis bispinosa Neumann, 1897 . Oriental:1) Bangladesh , 2) Bhutan (south), 3) China (south), 4) India , 5) Malaysia , 6) Myanmar , 7) Nepal (south and central), 8) Pakistan (east), 9) Singapore , 10) Sri Lanka , 11) Thailand ( Hoogstraal et al. 1968 b , Rahman & Mondal 1985, Keirans 1985b , Tanskul & Inlao 1989 , Islam et al. 2006 , Kolonin 2009 , Chen et al. 2010 , Liyanaarachchi et al. 2015 a , Karim et al. 2017, Pun et al. 2018 , Namgyal et al. 2021 ). Camicas et al. (1998) listed Haemaphysalis bispinosa as an Australasian and Oriental species, but Hoogstraal et al. (1968b) found that Haemaphysalis bispinosa has been extensively confused with the reinstated Haemaphysalis longicornis in Australasia. Since then, Haemaphysalis bispinosa has been considered by most workers to be an Oriental species, where it has also been confused with Haemaphysalis intermedia and other Oriental ticks ( Keirans 1985b ) . Consequently, the limits of the range of this species are unclear. There are records of Haemaphysalis bispinosa from Singapore in Keirans (1985b) and Tanskul & Inlao (1989) , but Kwak (2018c) did not recognize this tick as occurring in Singapore , which is provisionally included within its range. The situation in China is difficult to evaluate. Chen et al. (2010) and Zhang, Y.K. (2019) treated Haemaphysalis bispinosa as an Oriental tick found in southern China , but Zhang, G. et al. (2019) recorded its presence in both northern and southern China . However, Chen et al. (2015) evaluated alleged Haemaphysalis bispinosa collections made in 18 Chinese provinces, and all of them were reclassified as Haemaphysalis longicornis , leading Chen et al. (2015) to hypothesize that Haemaphysalis bispinosa is not present in China . Thereafter, Wang et al. (2020) found specimens of this tick in southern China , although their morphological and molecular support for a diagnosis of Haemaphysalis bispinosa is rather weak. Zhao et al. (2021) did not list Haemaphysalis bispinosa as a Chinese tick. We provisionally include southern China within the range of Haemaphysalis bispinosa . Keirans (1985b) described several records of Haemaphysalis bispinosa collected on the island of Zanzibar , Tanzania (Afrotropical), mostly from cattle, during the beginning of the 20 th century, and at least one of these records was associated with cattle imported from India . No bona fide African records of Haemaphysalis bispinosa , apart from those in Keirans (1985b) , have subsequently been found, and this tick is not considered to be present in the Afrotropical Zoogeographic Region. Petney et al. (2019) included Japan within the range of this tick, but its presence in that country was not supported by Yamaguti et al. (1971) and Kwak (2018b). Phan Trong (1977) listed Haemaphysalis bispinosa as a Vietnamese species, but its occurrence there was not recognized by Kolonin (2009) and Petney et al. (2019) . Kamran et al. (2021) allegedly found Haemaphysalis bispinosa on horses in the Palearctic portion of Pakistan , but their records are treated here as unconfirmed and Pakistan is not included within the range of this tick.