33. Amblyomma dissimile Koch, 1844a.

A Nearctic and Neotropical species, all of whose parasitic stages are usually found on Anura: Bufonidae, and Squamata: Boidae and Iguanidae, but all parasitic stages have also been collected from Squamata (several families), Testudines: Emydidae, and Rodentia: Echimyidae; adults and nymphs have been recovered from Testudines (several families), Crocodilia: Alligatoridae, Artiodactyla: Bovidae, Pilosa: Bradypodidae and Choloepodidae, and Rodentia: Caviidae; adults alone have been taken from Pelecaniformes: Ardeidae, Crocodilia: Crocodylidae, Carnivora: Procyonidae, and Rodentia: Dasyproctidae and Erethizontidae; immature stages have been recovered from Squamata (several families), Didelphimorphia: Didelphidae, Perissodactyla: Equidae, Rodentia: Cricetidae, Cuculiformes: Cuculidae, Passeriformes: Thamnophilidae, and Psittaciformes: Psittacidae (Guglielmone & Robbins 2018, Bermúdez et al. 2018, Binetruy et al. 2019). Amblyomma dissimile is a sporadic parasite of humans.

M: Koch (1844a)

F: Koch (1844a)

N: Neumann (1899)

L: Hooker et al. (1912)

Redescriptions

M: Koch (1847), Neumann (1899), Hooker et al. (1912), Robinson (1926), Floch and Abonnenc (1940), Cooley and Kohls (1944), Boero (1957), Floch and Fauran (1958), Onofrio et al. (2006b), Voltzit (2007), Barros-Battesti et al. (2009), Guzmán-Cornejo et al. (2011), Nava et al. (2017), Bermúdez et al. (2018), Dantas-Torres et al. (2019b)

F: Koch (1847), Neumann (1899), Hooker et al. (1912), Robinson (1926), Floch and Abonnenc (1940), Cooley and Kohls (1944), Boero (1957), Floch and Fauran (1958), Onofrio et al. (2006b), Voltzit (2007), Barros-Battesti et al. (2009), Guzmán-Cornejo et al. (2011), Nava et al. (2017), Bermúdez et al. (2018), Dantas-Torres et al. (2019b) N: Hooker et al. (1912), Cooley and Kohls (1944), Keirans and Durden (1998), Martins et al. (2010, 2014), Nava et al. (2017); see note below

L: Cooley and Kohls (1944), Clifford et al. (1961), Amorim and Serra Freire (1994a)

Note: Santos Dias (1958a) and Camicas et al. (1998) treat Amblyomma dissimile as a synonym of Amblyomma bibroni, a view rejected in Guglielmone et al. (2003, 2009, 2014) and here. Lampo et al. (1997) stress the difficulties involved in differentiating the female of Amblyomma dissimile from that of Amblyomma rotundatum and described genetic markers for this purpose, while also stating that differences in spurring of coxae I to IV and in scutal punctation are useful when attempting to morphologically separate both species, points largely echoed by Luz et al. (2018b). Scott and Durden (2015) briefly described and figured an alleged nymph of Amblyomma dissimile found on a bird in Canada, but there are disagreements between the text and figures; additionally, the figures of the nymph show marked differences from bona fide redescriptions of the nymph of Amblyomma dissimile, as in Martins et al. (2014) and Nava et al. (2017). The debatable record of Scott and Durden (2015) is repeated in Scott et al. (2018).