**3. Results and discussion**

Out of 46 dogs found positive for ehrlichiosis, 35 dogs (76.10%) were infested with ticks (**Figure 2**). The ticks collected from different sites of the dogs suffering from ehrlichiosis were identified as *R. sanguineus* based on specific morphological features viz. the reddish brown scutum and conscutum, slightly convex shaped eyes, hexagonal basis capitulum, bifid first coxae, posterior "U" shaped genital aperture and the presence of adanal glands [9]. Bashir et al. [25] from Pakistan reported 96.8% of the ticks were identified as *R. sanguineus* and the remaining identified as *Dermacentor* and *Haemaphysalis* species. *R. sanguineus* was the most commonly encountered tick in India as reported by [28]. In the present study, all the ticks were identified as *R. sanguineus* which concurred with the findings of [24] who reported that *R. sanguineus* was the only tick that infested dogs in India [29]. Filippova [27] reported that *E. canis* developed in the salivary glands of *R. sanguineus* and were able

**253**

**Author details**

**4. Summary**

**Figure 2.**

Koperumselvan Karthika

infection in dogs of Puducherry.

*Representation of ticks in dogs with ehrlichiosis.*

Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, India

provided the original work is properly cited.

\*Address all correspondence to: karthika1988.6@gmail.com

to transmit *E. canis* from a naturally infected dog to an uninfected dog via the bite of an infected tick. Although, *R. sanguineus* seems to be the vector for spread of *E. canis*, definite studies regarding tick transmission of the disease is lacking in India. Hence, transmission studies needs to be undertaken to determine its vector potentiality.

The present study on ticks collected from 35 dogs affected with *Ehrlichia canis* were identified as *R. sanguineus* based on the typical morphological features which included hexagonal basis capitulum, bifid first coxae, presence of adanal shields, posterior "U" shaped genital aperture and the presence of adanal glands. Hence, it is concluded that *R. sanguineus* ticks were responsible for transmitting *E. canis*

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

*Identification of Ticks in Dogs with Ehrlichiosis DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92244* *Pests, Weeds and Diseases in Agricultural Crop and Animal Husbandry Production*

These ticks were identified using standard keys [22, 23].

to be undertaken to determine its vector potentiality.

identification of specific morphological features.

**2.1 Collection of ticks**

laboratory for further studies.

**2.2 Tick identification**

**2.3 Tick control measures**

**3. Results and discussion**

exposure.

using stereomicroscope and magnifying lens. The stereomicroscope was used at a low magnification of 10× and magnifying lens was used at 40× magnification for

Unengorged/engorged male and female ticks were collected from dogs either by gently plucking from the body of the dog by hand manipulation or with the help of blunt pointed forceps without damaging their mouth parts. The specimen collected in a plastic container with ventilated cap was labeled appropriately as per host and sites of attachment. Label must contain information about date and place of collection, host, age and site of collection. These samples were transported to the

The ticks in the present study were identified as *R. sanguineus* (**Figure 1**). Sen and Fletcher [24] reported that *R. sanguineus* was the only tick that infested dogs in India. Bashir et al. [25] from Pakistan reported 96.8% of the ticks were identified as *R. sanguineus* and the remaining identified as *Dermacentor* and *Haemaphysalis* species. In the present study, all the ticks were identified as *R. sanguineus* and concurred with the findings of [24]. Krogt [26] demonstrated that *R. sanguineus* ticks were able to transmit *E. canis* from a naturally infected dog to an uninfected dog via the bite of the infected tick. Filippova [27] from Japan reported that *E. canis* developed in the salivary glands of *R. sanguineus.* Though, *R. sanguineus* seems to be the vector for *E. canis* in Puducherry, definite studies regarding tick transmission of ehrlichiosis caused by *E. canis* in India is lacking. Hence, transmission studies needs

Economic losses can be reduced by adopting tick control measures like chemical acaricides [7]. The major reason to control ticks includes disease transmission, tick paralysis or toxicosis by *Rhipicephalus* sp. [7] and physical damage caused by ticks. Keeping animals away from tick-prone areas is the most effective way to control

Out of 46 dogs found positive for ehrlichiosis, 35 dogs (76.10%) were infested with ticks (**Figure 2**). The ticks collected from different sites of the dogs suffering from ehrlichiosis were identified as *R. sanguineus* based on specific morphological features viz. the reddish brown scutum and conscutum, slightly convex shaped eyes, hexagonal basis capitulum, bifid first coxae, posterior "U" shaped genital aperture and the presence of adanal glands [9]. Bashir et al. [25] from Pakistan reported 96.8% of the ticks were identified as *R. sanguineus* and the remaining identified as *Dermacentor* and *Haemaphysalis* species. *R. sanguineus* was the most commonly encountered tick in India as reported by [28]. In the present study, all the ticks were identified as *R. sanguineus* which concurred with the findings of [24] who reported that *R. sanguineus* was the only tick that infested dogs in India [29]. Filippova [27] reported that *E. canis* developed in the salivary glands of *R. sanguineus* and were able

**252**

**Figure 2.** *Representation of ticks in dogs with ehrlichiosis.*

to transmit *E. canis* from a naturally infected dog to an uninfected dog via the bite of an infected tick. Although, *R. sanguineus* seems to be the vector for spread of *E. canis*, definite studies regarding tick transmission of the disease is lacking in India. Hence, transmission studies needs to be undertaken to determine its vector potentiality.
