34. Dermacentor reticulatus (Fabricius, 1794).

Palearctic: 1) Armenia, 2) Austria, 3) Azerbaijan, 4) Belarus, 5) Belgium, 6) Bosnia and Herzegovina, 7) Bulgaria, 8) China (north), 9) Croatia, 10) Czechia, 11) France, 12) Georgia, 13) Germany, 14) Great Britain, 15) Hungary, 16) Italy, 17) Kazakhstan, 18) Kosovo, 19) Latvia, 20) Lithuania, 21) Moldova, 22) Netherlands, 23) Poland, 24) Portugal, 25) Romania, 26) Russia, 27) Serbia, 28) Slovakia, 29) Slovenia, 30) Spain, 31) Switzerland, 32) Turkey, 33) Ukraine (Feider 1965, Filippova 1997, Martyn 1988, Cringoli et al. 2005, Nijhoj et al. 2007, Kolonin 2009, Chen et al. 2010, Akimov & Nebogatkin 2011 a, Santos-Silva et al. 2011, Bursali et al. 2012, Krčmar 2012, Nowak-Chmura et al. 2012, Petney et al. 2012, F ö ldvári et al. 2016, Rubel et al. 2016, 2020, 2021, Estrada-Peña et al. 2017, Knap et al. 2019, Capligina et al. 2020, Hornok et al. 2020 a, Karbowiak et al. 2020, Pavlović et al. 2020, Perfilyeva et al. 2020, Dwuznik-Szarek et al. 2021, Zhao et al. 2021, Rubel & Brugger 2022).

Many records of Dermacentor reticulatus have been published under the name Dermacentor pictus.

Kjaer et al. (2019) investigated the supposed presence of Dermacentor reticulatus in Sweden, concluding that this tick is not established there. Later, Kjaer et al. (2021) considered it probable that this tick is established in Denmark, but its presence there has yet to be confirmed. We therefore provisionally exclude Sweden and Denmark from the geographic distribution of Dermacentor reticulatus. Usman et al. (2022) recorded this tick in Pakistan, but their diagnosis is based on studies that do not include Dermacentor reticulatus, and Pakistan is therefore excluded from this tick’s range.