The Sudan distribution pictvtre is a ciirious one. Although 

 we have a fair number of collections from cattle in that half of 

 Equatoria Province that is east of the Nile, none contain spec- 

 imens of B . anniilatus except two from high altitudes (lo from 

 Katire, 33 00 feet elevation, 1$ from Nagichot, 65OO feet elevsu 

 tion) and one from Torit, at the general two thousand foot level 

 of the plains in this area. Yet collections from the southern 

 part of Upper Nile Province, which is just north of the east bank 

 of Equatoria Province, include a good number of specimens. Cli- 

 matic, faunal, or floral differences can hardly account for the 

 rarity of B. annul at us in Torit and Juba districts. The most 

 easterly r'ecord, Akobo, Upper Nile Province, is on the Ethiopian 

 frontier (7°A7'N., 33°01«E.). On the west bank of the Nile, this 

 species is here recorded from several localities to as far north 

 as Talodi, Kordof an Province (10°37«N.). 



Some specimens reach the Haifa Quarantine station in Northern 

 Province but Boophilus ticks have never been collected from indige- 

 nous cattle in Northern Province. 



DISTRIBUTION 



Thus far we know B. annttlatus only from West Africa, Central 

 Africa, and certain peEts of southern Svidan near thg periphery of 

 East African biotic Provinces. As early as 1905, Donitz recognized 

 that this tick inhabited only '"tropical Africa* and was absent in 

 eastern and southern Africa. He tentatively applied the name B. 

 aus trails Fviller to it, although he stated clearly that he could 

 not differentiate African material from descriptions of American 

 B. annulatus . Unfortunately, he had no American specimens for 

 "omDarison for it appears that this perspicacious student might 

 otheivise have saved future generations much misunderstanding. 

 Instead, this species subsequently has been either completely 

 overlooked or subjected to numerous ambiguous remarks and names. 



Many African specimens undoubtedly have been identified as 

 B. decoloratus , and earlier workers who have recognized specimens 

 as different from B. decoloratus have referred to them by various 

 names. The actual" species with which various investigators were 

 dealing cannot be determined without seeing their specimens. For 

 instance, Nuttall*s lots identified as B. australis , which have 



- 299- 



