Loveridge (1928) ambiguously associated 0. moubata with gi- 

 raffes in Tanganyika, and Santos Dias (1952H,T953B,19$/^K) men- 

 tioned small nu-nbers of nymphal and adult specimens from lion, 

 Lichtenstein's hartebeest, vjaterbuck, and scaley sinteater. Fur- 

 ther data for these exceptional records are desirable. 



Heisch (1950A) obtained negative results when he attempted 

 to induce 0. moubata in Kenya to bite house rats, Rattus rattus, 

 placed in "Huts for experimental pvirposes. Wild rodents from 

 tick-infested Tanganyika dwellings gave no evidence of spirochetes 

 when tested in the laboratory (Geigy and Mooser 1955). 



van den Branden and Van Hoof (1922) fed laboratory specimens 

 on the fruit bat. Eidolon helvum . 



No other wild mammals have been reported actually to have 

 been observed as hosts of 0. moubata in nature. The fact that 

 the burrow- inhabiting wartHog and the domestic pig each serve 

 as a host of this tick is of special interest, lleisch and Grainger 

 (1950) have concluded that before 0. moubata became '*domesticated'" 

 it inhabited large burrows of v/ild animals. 



Roubaud (1916) conjectured that soie of the several external 

 parasites of warthog and man alike may be attracted to these hosts 

 because of their hairless skin. This interesting theory is prob- 

 ably not now tenable for 0. moubata in the light of present kfiov/- 

 ledge. 



In review, it appears that large burrows of wild animals, 

 anong which those of the warthog are the most common, are the 

 favorite and quite possibly the original habitat of 0, moubata . 

 It should be borne in mind, however, that those populations of 

 this tick inhabiting wild animal burrows may possibly represent 

 a different physiological or biological race, or a distinct sub- 

 species. It would be of value to determine the donesticability 

 of "wild'" populations. 



Recently, Heisch (1954G ) has noted that ticks from burrows 

 are more difficult to feed on laboratory animals than are those 

 from domestic habitations. Geigy and Mooser (1955) observe tiiat 

 bush ticks are more blue gray in color, move more quickly, attach 

 to the host and suck blood more quickly, and are hardier in cap- 

 tivity than specimens from domestic populations of 0. moubata . 



- 131 - 



