4 4 3 «4 ff hay 4 a i 7 i 4 ob AOR Rona hi sy 4 : f ie OP Pe : 4 fig iy s ooh wi," ‘ hae aba i pith i Py 4 Ay. a2 ‘ é pei yt I ¢ ii hy "Ph 4 ; PAL Ms aut By 4one Ds a 4 pi Ths |) 2 Pas 0 6 f 4) . Oy Sat ae) PME RC AO FCC hte A M ay § Rew bala i Hi de hp pu ie My SENT tye De DS i te MONOID on SANE TIE ih Te gi ; i Wen < 7 ; ‘,t ‘ ‘ a} Be. ; ” ot ARTS . * ’ fe ry ; fs ; ; \ ; ‘ Sa 4 uf jrethg Be ; BAA Ty Pat at eG aaletiy : se % Le phiad, ‘es ’ : te teh EA e* : ¢ ° Z : i" A ie A Mee ' y Why Per ar ahd Nish st Tap A eeutiat: Ae 4 Aa , Historic, archived document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. te oh ‘ite iT. rt op bamil ie reeye CVE 6 ike Opi pe ; b fy eaK wily, bench Syfstoyaag oe y fthe . * an fant $n 9's Ory gaol ie Pie ened gd ke rebap hy peel gre ott ws hacer. Jak, BRO, Sa ieg Br eae pede lk «phan soy ei ch cide hears LE ie ed brazing 28h tot baa ésaet ly, a i: Pe Ai ence Aaoee eid wre edna ah ab ae rep be - ai, vay) teh Sekiy. Gero Hag (hy ibe tem to seb ogi A, oie. to sto: aagey al add ahi) Ses) eA Whee Bobi i Vpwuts iio ms ages] adn | Be ae CONC Le, WOE tp. ite TE vewmpouily: 5 iM pie kacpjocsing, Sarsih oie ie ne Dish) 0% Pees L-hiot 4 acitmagen fi YH1R Bde mah Seo L anoiotat: dah Py f Laernk ewan ied lean: hod, biok’ angaspel Pn ; aloo oe: by i oy aloia i BWM bons ie hoordsan pana Oe rie Fn a Yet ey. bys e ne cc aaa: . aobe os es fe TERA PM ~ preter ne: hoe i yheath MAES R zt iy ne i a aye " Nagy ag iy faked ay AS roM he ee Bi i tus es mh , ‘ ‘ t “7 Y ‘ ‘ wl * a A ish gee ¢ a ae Wr i an : iu ad ‘ Pigat. 4 hip a pe 4 ce : i io : «he del AST * vc A\* ch 4 ae ) f ty - rs ae aa met ; - ey 4 : . ; nf : ‘ i 2 1 x ‘ Bi ‘ a ‘ % : ee f ‘wut fe fuieie ne es fe * Upeaet H . " ; tf ih 1 as vt t v > ‘ : 4 ‘ et : ‘ > 1 y J ! i - > ah or +e “s : i ; By, - r ' 4 * ; ‘Ws : } ’ Why Pd. \ é ri Mihi t he ¢ +. 4 daha tk rs “ iy ‘ a c? 4 » : hn ‘ 7 nw ihe gd / 43) a di. id ; ' yi ; 4 eet kh: Wie ee Lio) 3 eee \ i 7 J ~ : H cutyaldam vt amend . yy i: } o a ae ipa belpegeia ae he Sort dllsitaeiecrd: caliente enema a f ee 4 { Es an ' : ih FM Ete cant , v ~ 19 Feet ee 4 E t A AY ile aaa iy ‘ Vid | cee hs: A : hs DAMES =: aCe . 7 a 1 x ¥ . ’ ah } & ee 1 f \ i | \ w iJ i kee P i i r { ls * é a 3 ee ‘ ra 5 mt ' 3 * i fad 4 e F ‘ 1 1 ‘ hi ; - ii , : Rhee ; os Pe ae ™e TU ¢ : ¥ \ is } y f A a , iM | iy i 7 t } a paral eae BES 5% ae i M : > ban a “f | Barca i uae PEN toad tN aa eas at en er Ri ys a ee ‘ai RCE Aer ti f tekthlaat bis i ee et Issued March 31, 1913. | NA | a é | a ents = if ‘ , ) | ay 0) ee a eel ad om } 5. RRA Rw INARA A, | at joy kee FA RARABLOR ae sc Se FRY jos. ee ee a ae Ll Won Lore eee > { —t ito Fee Phe TERE Rp a _ | F © OE ANGLE ims & Z ‘ ~ ¥ ae oe éz | BF Wy ks 2 2 f a os | $s 3 *% we" ie 3 = t, * Z %s %) : 4 po a 3 Basy be e* . Ait ia i i es Z - 2s it LONE yoy 23 ': WANS Sted, ae AT ? 1 1 es > SX Soh thes Sie aa na oe 3 - | = OSA PIOS are + 3 | NP OP ORL a Vt Ee CS Ww } ae USS, DEPART VENTE OF AGRICULTURE, BUREAU OF ENTOMOLOGY—CIRCULAR No. 170, L. O. HOWARD, Entomologist and Chief of Bureau. | THE FOWL TICK. BY -F. C. BISHOPP, Entomological Assistant. 76851°—13 WASHINGTON : GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 19138 | r | BUREAU OF ENTOMOLOGY. L. O. Howarp, Entomologist and Chief of Bureau. C. L. Margtatt, Entomologist and Acting Chief in Absence of Chief. R. S. Ciirron, Executive Assistant. W. F. TAstTet, Chief Clerk. F. H. CHITTENDEN, in charge of truck crop and stored product insect investigations. A. D. HOPKINS, in charge of forest insect investigations. W. D. HUNTER, in charge of southern field crop insect investigations. F. M. WEBSTER, in charge of cereal and forage insect investigations. A. L. QUAINTANCE, in charge of deciduous fruit insect investigations. E. FE’. PHILLIPS, in charge of bee culture. PD. M. RoGers, in charge of preventing spread of moths, field work. Roiia P. CurRIg£, in charge of editorial work. MABEL COLCORD, in charge of library. SOUTHERN FieLp Crop INSECT INVESTIGATIONS. W. D. HUNTER, in charge. W. D. Pierce, J. D. MITCHELL, G. D. Smiru, BH. A. McGRecor, Harry PINKUS, B. R. Coan, G. N. Wotcort, W. A. THomas, R. W. Morevanp, C. E. Hester, engaged in cotton-boll weevil investigations. A. C. Morgan, G. A. RUNNER, S. E. CrumMB, D. C. PARMAN, engaged in tobacco insect investigation. F. C. BisHopr, A. H. Jennines, H. P. Woop, W. V. KING, engaged in tick in vesti- gations. : T. E. Hottoway, E. R. BARBER, engaged in sugar-cane insect investigations. J. L. WEBB, engaged in rice insect investigations. R. A. Cootey, D. L. VAN DINE, A. FE’. Conrani, C. C. KRUMBHAAR, collaborators. It ; CIRCULAR No. 179, Issued March 31, 1913, United States Department of Agriculture, BUREAU OF ENTOMOLOGY. L. O. HOWARD, Entomologist and Chief of Bureau. THE FOWL TICK. (Argas miniatus Koch.) By F. C. BisHopp, Entomological Assistant. INTRODUCTION. Among the many problems which confront the poultry raiser in the southwestern portion of the United States none surpasses in im- portance that of the fowl or chicken tick (Argas miniatus Koch). The statement has been made by reliable authorities that chicken rais- ing in certain localities in southwestern Texas is pra¢tically prohibited by this pest. It is very common to meet people in many sections of the infested area who have disposed of their poultry mainly on ac- count of the losses caused by this tick. The damage occasioned to the man who is raising poultry on a considerable scale is very small when compared with the losses sustained by the hundreds of ind1- viduals in town and country who keep a few fowls for home use. This is partly due to the lack of attention given to their poultry by those who do not attempt to go into the industry commercially. It is difficult to make a reliable estimate of the damage chargeable to the fowl tick, as much of the loss is indirect or complicated with damages produced by other causes. There is no doubt, however, that the total loss due to the pest amounts to many thousands of dollars annually. HISTORICAL. A tick which many authorities consider identical with our Ameri- ean form was briefly described by Oken in 1818 from specimens col- lected in Persia. In 1844 a German investigator, Koch, described specimens from Demerara, British Guiana. The latter were un- questionably of the same species as the tick which occurs in the United 1 Submitted by permission as a minor thesis for the degree of Master of Science at the Colorado Agricultural College. 1 Y THE FOWL TICK. States. Our earliest record of the occurrence of the fowl tick in this country was published in 1872 by Dr. A.S. Packard. This was based upon a collection of ticks made by Mr. G. W. Belfrage in southwestern Texas. Dr. L. O. Howard? states that Mr. F. G. Schaupp sent specimens of this tick to the Bureau of Entomology in November, 1884. At that time it was said to be a severe pest to chickens in Dimmit County, Tex. Mr. Albert Turpe stated that the tick appeared in Kinney County. Tex., in 1892, but Mr. Ferdi- nand Hoehr averred that it had been present in that county since 1888. According to a statement of Prof. C. M. Weed published in the Prairie Farmer, January 7, 1888, Mr. George H. Trook sent in specimens of this tick from Maricopa County, Ariz., with the in- formation that they were troubling chickens in that section. Dur- ing December, 1894, Mr. C. H. T. Townsend found the pest infesting chickens at San Diego, Tex., and earlier in the same year Mr. E. M. Ehrhorn reported it as attacking chickens and turkeys at Merced, Cal. It has not been possible to secure reliable data on the early history of the pest from residents in the infested territory. It seems prob- able that it has existed in southwestern Texas for many years and was probably introduced from Mexico at the time of the colonization of the State by the Spanish who came in from that country. Further- more, it has not been firmly established whether the species has been spreading northward in Texas, although the belief that a gradual spread has taken place has been expressed by Prof. E. D. Sanderson. It is certain, however, that the tick is becoming more generally dis- seminated throughout the infested territory along with the settling up of the Southwest. DISTRIBUTION. The chicken tick, “ blue bug,” * bloodsucker,” or “ tampan,” as it is called in different localities or regions, is a widely disseminated species. In the United States it is infrequently met with outside of the semiarid and arid Southwest. However, it has been reported a number of times from Florida, and the Marx collection in the United States National Museum contains specimens from Iowa. The collec- tion of the Bureau of Entomology contains specimens from a corre- spondent at Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where the tick was said to be injurious, and Mr. G. A. Runner found the species in numbers at Key West, Fla. In this country, as has been indicated, this tick occurs in greatest abundance in the warm portions of the arid and semiarid region. A careful study of its normal distribution in Texas shows that it does not extend far eastward into the region where the annual rainfall exceeds 30 inches. This makes the eastern edge of its 1Insect Life, Div. Ent., U. S. Dept. Agr., vol. 7, p. 418, 1895. THE FOWL TICK. 8 range coincide closely with a line dividing one of our life zones, known as the Lower Austral, into the Lower Sonoran and Austrori- parian Faunas. The map (fig. 1) shows approximately the normal distribution of the species in the United States. It is a serious pest throughout the greater part of western Texas, southern New Mexico and Arizona, southern and western California, and on the great plateau of north- central Mexico and in other parts of that country. In many other regions of the world this tick is of importance as an enemy of poultry. It appears to occur commonly in Persia, India, southern Russia, Fic. 1.—Distribution of the fowl tick (Argas miniatus) in the United States. (The large dots indicate localities where this tick has been collected by the Bureau of Entomology. ‘The small dots show the normal distribution of the species within the United States.) (Original.) Roumania, North and South Africa, various parts of Australia, the West Indies, Mexico, Panama, British Guiana, and Brazil. There appears to be no reason why the species may not become established in all of our Gulf States, as it occurs in other countries which have very similar climates. However, it will probably never become a pest of continuous importance in the States east of Texas on account of their humid climates. There is little danger of the establishment of the species in the more northern States, and the cases where it is occasionally found outside of the area of normal occurrence must be considered as temporary infestations brought 4 THE FOWL TICK, about by the introduction of the tick on fowls or in coops from in- fested regions. If favorable conditions exist at the time of introduc- tion the tick may breed and become of some importance as a pest for a short period, but sooner or later it is so checked as to be of little consequence or it dies out completely. HOSTS. Although the chicken is the host most frequently attacked by this species, a considerable number of other domestic fowls may be troubled by it, and turkeys, geese, ducks, pigeons, ostriches, and canaries have each been found to suffer from its attack. During this investigation a few larvee of this species have been found in southern Texas on the meadowlark (J. D. Mitchell) and on wild turkey (F.C. Pratt). It has also been reported to have been collected, in rare instances, on cattle and jack rabbits, and experimentally it has been induced to feed upon rats and mice. In Persia this tick, which is known as the “ miana bug,” has.a formidable reputation. It is said to attack man with avidity in that country, and early writers report very serious effects produced by its bite. In some cases it was accused of producing death within 20 hours. These statements are no doubt overdrawn and other species of a closely allied genus (Ornithodoros) may have been confused with this one. Prof. Lounsbury. in South Africa, allowed specimens to feed upon his arm and experienced no serious results. In this country we have had no authentic reports of this pest attacking man. HOW THE INJURY IS DONE. As a result of the presence of this creature loss is sustained in several ways: (1) Through death, which may occur among poultry of all ages; (2) by the lowering of the vitality of the fowl so as to make it readily susceptible to disease; (3) by greatly reducing egg production; (4) by stunting the growth of chickens; and (5) by disturbing setting hens. Death may be produced in two ways. First, by gross infestation, which drains the fow] of blood and produces intense irritation similar to “tick worry,” caused by the cattle tick and other species among the larger domestic animals. This difficulty is most apparent when chickens are placed in coops which have not been occupied for several months. The ticks are extremely hungry, attack the fowls in great numbers, and soon weaken them to such an extent that they are unable to get on the roost. When the chickens are thus weakened they more readily fall victims to the ticks. In some cases the infested fowls appear paralyzed, being unable to use the legs. The wings droop, the feathers have a ruffled appearance, the appetite is lost, and the fowl may die as soon as two or three days after the first attack. THE FOWL TICK, 5 Tn less severe infestations, when the fowls are very hearty, they may droop for some time, or, if removed from further infestation, quickly recover. Second, death may be produced by a specific disease which has been proven to be carried by the chicken tick. This malady, which is Inown as spirochetosis, has been proven to exist in many countries where the chicken tick occurs, namely, in India, Egyptian Sudan, Transcaucasia, Roumania, Tunis, Algeria, Rhodesia, South Australia, Brazil, and Martinique. It is also probable that the disease occurs in other islands of the West Indies.