63. Amblyomma javanense (Supino, 1897a).

An Oriental species, all of whose parasitic stages are usually found on Pholidota: Manidae, but they have also been collected from Rodentia: Hystricidae. Adults and nymphs have been recovered from Carnivora: Hyaenidae, and Squamata: Scincidae; adults alone have been collected from Mammalia (several orders), and rarely from Squamata: Colubridae, Pythonidae and Varanidae, and Testudines: Emydidae. Amblyomma javanense is a very rare parasite of humans.

M: Supino (1897a), under the name Dermacentor indicus as explained in Guglielmone and Nava (2014); see note below

F: Supino (1897a), under the name Dermacentor indicus as explained in Guglielmone and Nava (2014), but this view is not accepted by all authors

N: Supino (1897a), under the name Rhipicephalus javanensis and given its current status by Schulze (1934)

L: Kadarsan (1971)

Redescriptions

M: Anastos (1950), Teng and Jiang (1991), Voltzit and Keirans (2002), Sun et al. (2016), Duan et al. (2020)

F: Anastos (1950), Teng and Jiang (1991), Voltzit and Keirans (2002), Sun et al. (2016), Duan et al. (2020)

N: Supino (1897b, under the name Rhipicephalus javanensis), Teng and Jiang (1991), Voltzit and Keirans (2002); see note below

L: Teng and Jiang (1991), Voltzit and Keirans (2002)

Note: Guglielmone and Nava (2014) explain that Dermacentor indicus has been treated as a synonym of Amblyomma badium or Amblyomma sublaeve, but these names are synonyms of Amblyomma javanense. Santos Dias (1958a) treats Dermacentor indicus as a synonym of Amblyomma fuscolineatum because he regards Amblyomma javanense (under the name Rhipicephalus javanensis) as a synonym of Amblyomma fuscolineatum, but both Amblyomma fuscolineatum and Amblyomma javanense are valid. Camicas et al. (1998) state that the larva of Amblyomma javanense is undescribed, but it was described by Kadarsan (1971). Nandi (1981) supposedly redescribed the nymph of Amblyomma javanense, but his redescription differs from those presented in Teng and Jiang (1991) and Voltzit and Keirans (2002), and it is therefore not included in the list above. However, it should also be stressed that there are differences in the basis capituli of the nymph of Amblyomma javanense as redescribed by Teng and Jiang (1991) and Voltzit and Keirans (2002). The resulting confusion is heightened by Voltzit and Keirans (2002) because their text states that the nymphal hypostome has a 2/2 dental formula, whereas their figure shows 3/3 dentition. Recognition of this tick is further complicated by Jabin et al. (2019), who apparently studied bona fide males and females of Amblyomma javanense, but their specimens were notably smaller than those measured by Anastos (1950), Teng and Jiang (1991) and Voltzit and Keirans (2002).