ABSTRACT In the early twentieth century, three species of ticks – Haemaphysalis leachii, Hyalomma aegyptium and Ixodes ricinus – were originally thought to be part of the New Zealand fauna. In the absence of any firm evidence for their continued existence in this country, and without any satisfactory explanation for their original appearance, they were deleted from faunal lists about 60 years later. After consulting all relevant literature, we have dismissed the original suggestion that both the ticks Ha. leachii and Hy. aegyptium – originally taken from a museum specimen of the extinct huia, Heteralocha acutirostris – were introduced along with the Indian myna, Acridotheres tristis. Instead we find that there was a greater chance that their presence was the result of contamination, possibly through the collecting efforts and extensive travel of Walter L. Buller, a nineteenth-century naturalist and ornithologist. Further, although Hy. aegyptium was correctly identified, the other huia tick is actually Haemaphysalis (Rhipistoma) indica, not Ha. leachii sensu stricto. The taxonomic history of Ha. leachii (but not the other two species) has been convoluted and the spelling of the species epithet has frequently been contradictory. We briefly examine this history and clarify the correct spelling of that species name. We conclude that the supposed presence of I. ricinus was due to misidentification, possibly being confused with the cattle tick, Haemaphysalis longicornis, or the kiwi tick, Ixodes anatis.

中文翻译：

---

重新检查可疑的新西兰蜱记录：丢失的物种、错误识别或污染？

摘要 在 20 世纪初期，三种蜱类——Haemaphysalis leachii、Hyaomma aegyptium 和 Ixodes ricinus——最初被认为是新西兰动物群的一部分。由于没有任何确凿的证据证明它们在这个国家继续存在，并且对它们的原始外观没有任何令人满意的解释，大约 60 年后它们被从动物群列表中删除。在查阅了所有相关文献后，我们驳回了最初的建议，即两个蜱哈。leachii 和 Hy。aegyptium - 最初取自已灭绝的 huia Heteralocha acutirostris 的博物馆标本 - 与印度八哥 (Acridotheres tristis) 一起被引入。相反，我们发现它们的存在更有可能是污染的结果，可能是通过 19 世纪博物学家和鸟类学家 Walter L. Buller 的收集努力和广泛旅行。此外，虽然Hy。aegyptium 被正确识别，另一个 huia 蜱实际上是 Haemaphysalis (Rhipistoma) indica，而不是 Ha。严格意义上的leachii。哈的分类史。leachii（但不是其他两个物种）令人费解，物种加词的拼写经常相互矛盾。我们简要回顾了这段历史并澄清了该物种名称的正确拼写。我们得出结论认为，I. ricinus 的存在是由于错误识别，可能与牛蜱、Haemaphysalis longicornis 或猕猴桃蜱、Ixodes anatis 混淆。另一个 huia 蜱实际上是 Haemaphysalis (Rhipistoma) indica，而不是 Ha。严格意义上的leachii。哈的分类史。leachii（但不是其他两个物种）令人费解，物种加词的拼写经常相互矛盾。我们简要回顾了这段历史并澄清了该物种名称的正确拼写。我们得出结论认为，I. ricinus 的存在是由于错误识别，可能与牛蜱、Haemaphysalis longicornis 或猕猴桃蜱、Ixodes anatis 混淆。另一个 huia 蜱实际上是 Haemaphysalis (Rhipistoma) indica，而不是 Ha。严格意义上的leachii。哈的分类史。leachii（但不是其他两个物种）令人费解，物种加词的拼写经常相互矛盾。我们简要回顾了这段历史并澄清了该物种名称的正确拼写。我们得出结论认为，I. ricinus 的存在是由于错误识别，可能与牛蜱、Haemaphysalis longicornis 或猕猴桃蜱、Ixodes anatis 混淆。我们简要回顾了这段历史并澄清了该物种名称的正确拼写。我们得出结论认为，I. ricinus 的存在是由于错误识别，可能与牛蜱、Haemaphysalis longicornis 或猕猴桃蜱、Ixodes anatis 混淆。我们简要回顾了这段历史并澄清了该物种名称的正确拼写。我们得出结论认为，I. ricinus 的存在是由于错误识别，可能与牛蜱、Haemaphysalis longicornis 或猕猴桃蜱、Ixodes anatis 混淆。