Taprobanica (2011) Vol. 3. No. 2. Pages 50-111.

Published date: 25th, December 2011

TAPROBANICA the Journal of Asian Biodiversity ISSN 1800-427X - Volume 03, Number 02, pp. 50-111, Pls. 8.

© 2011, Taprobanica Private Limited, Jl. Kuricang 18 Gd.9 No.47, Ciputat 15412, Tangerang, Indonesia

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF THASUN AMARASINGHE

[email protected]

DEPUTY EDITORS SURANJAN KARUNARATHNE

[email protected] NIKI AMARASINGHE

[email protected]

ASSOCIATE EDITORS MADHAVA BOTEJUE

[email protected]

SANDY NURVI [email protected]

RIZKA ALNANDA [email protected]

SECTIONAL EDITORS MIGUEL ALONSO [email protected] UPALI AMARASINGHE [email protected] NATALIA ANANJEVA [email protected] MOHOMED BAHIR [email protected] AARON BAUER [email protected] BRUCE BEEHLER [email protected] FRANKY BOSSUYT [email protected] RAFE BROWN [email protected] BIJU DAS [email protected] INDRANEIL DAS [email protected] ANSLEM DE SILVA [email protected] REMA DEVI [email protected] SURATISSA DISSANAYAKE [email protected] ALAIN DUBOIS [email protected] ROHAN FERNANDO [email protected] COLIN GROVES [email protected] LEE HARDING [email protected] S. HENKANATHTHEGEDARA [email protected] BRENDEN HOLLAND [email protected]

V. B. HOSAGOUDAR [email protected] KEVIN HYDE [email protected] DJOKO ISKANDAR [email protected] JAYANTHA JAYEWARDENE [email protected] H. KATHRIARACHCHI [email protected] ANDRE' KOCH [email protected] SARATH KOTAGAMA [email protected] SVEN KULLANDER [email protected] ENRIQUE LA MARCA [email protected] TZI MING LEONG [email protected] ARAVIND MADHYASTHA [email protected] K. MANAMENDRA-ARACHCHI [email protected] M. MEEGASKUMBURA [email protected] JEFFREY MILLER [email protected] MOHOMED NAJIM [email protected] ANNA NEKARIS [email protected] VINCENT NIJMAN [email protected] HANS-DIETER PHILIPPEN [email protected] SUDHEERA RANWALA [email protected]

DON REYNOLDS [email protected] JODI ROWLEY [email protected] JOHN RUDGE [email protected] PRASAD SENADHEERA [email protected] B. K. SHARMA [email protected] RALF SOMMERLAD [email protected] HOJUN SONG [email protected] ROBERT STUEBING [email protected] JATNA SUPRIATNA [email protected] RAM VERMA [email protected] EDUARD VIVES [email protected] GERNOT VOGEL [email protected] RICHARD WAHLGREN [email protected] YEHUDAH WERNER [email protected] NIKHIL WHITAKER [email protected]

50 TAPROBANICA VOL. 03: NO. 02

EDITORIAL

Natural History Today and Tomorrow

Although it is often said that the 19th Century was the epoch Natural History, the most substantial efforts in the study of nature and natural history will almost certainly be recorded during the 21st Century, which Alain Dubois (2010) has dubbed “the century of extinctions”. We will thus be learning more about nature at the same time that we may be witnessing its wholesale demise. Still, today it is not too late to change course, through a greater appreciation of Natural History. In most societies science and technology are today predominant. This editorial argues that natural history is an equally important field of knowledge—one that knits together the work of biogeography, taxonomy, ecology, ethology, and evolution. Knowledge and appreciation of natural history underpins all actions that sustain the wealth of nature, which, in turn, underpins the future of our every-day existence (Alonzo et al., 2011).

My plea is thus for naturalists and natural history – the very foundation of humankind’s study of life on earth (Beehler, 2010). The practice of natural history, in the face of global change and the threat of a looming extinction crisis, is needed now more than ever (Greene, 2005 & references therein). Dubois (2010) and Cotterill & Foissner (2010) highlighted the shortage of taxonomic expertise that hinders the comprehensive enumeration of this planet’s species. Other types of expertise are needed as well, and well as other tools and interventions, as we aspire to a more fruitful and biodiverse 22nd Century. I list these below: Step 1: Children growing up in nature. Many of the very best professional naturalists began as children whose sense of curiosity about the outdoors was fostered by supportive parents. Much has been written in the West about this current century’s nature-free childhood in which most entertainment comes from electronic devices (Louv, 2008). Parents who care about their children ensure that they often get out-of-doors, in nature. Today, many parents are too busy to encourage childhood leisure in nature. And yet child naturalists mature to become the best natural historians and field scientists. Step 2: Schools teaching natural history. Politicians and pundits around the world decry the poor state of public schooling. One big step towards better schools and improved education is for educators to embrace nature as a critical central theme for an enriching curriculum. For a twelve-year-old, it is more important to learn the names of backyard species, cloud types, and the cycle of the seasons than to memorize the chemical structure of DNA. Step 3: Nature clubs forming. Every community should sponsor a nature club that gets young people out into nature on weekends and during the school holidays. Mountain-climbing, bird-watching, snake-collecting, and other natural pursuits are critical to build the minds and bodies of our youth. All need to be instilled with the understanding of humankind’s close bond to nature. Step 4: Universities creating departments of natural history. Programmers and modelers abound in universities, but what of naturalists – field experts who can identify species and who study the wealth of nature? Modeling is for naught without the strong field data to power the model. Conservation biology is all the rage with students today, but how can conservation be successful without the natural history data informing intelligent planning and reserve design? Universities should be encouraging the study of nature and species. Departments of Natural History can bring together those who are seeking to enumerate the species on earth and their place in the many ecosystems that make up the biosphere. Step 5: Governments investing in natural history. What happened to the world’s natural history surveys? They closed down before their mandate was achieved. Who is going to collect, curate, and name the millions of undescribed species on earth? Every forward-thinking country should resurrect a strong natural history survey whose objective is to discover, map, and name its species.

TAPROBANICA, ISSN 1800-427X. October, 2011. Vol. 03, No. 02: pp. 50-51. © Taprobanica Private Limited, Jl. Kuricang 18 Gd.9 No.47, Ciputat 15412, Tangerang, Indonesia.


Step 6: Treaties supporting nature and traditional knowledge. The many multilateral treaties purporting to support the earth’s natural resources need to re-boot and to refocus on nature, natural places, and wild species, and also to support traditional cultures as stewards of nature and traditional knowledge about nature. Step 7: Multilaterals recognizing nature. The World Bank and the regional development banks need to bring nature back into their investment planning. Institutions that are interested in investing in carbon should also be willing to invest in forests for their biodiversity values. These are critical to a more livable biosphere. Step 8: Economists valuing nature. Economic analyses must include nature’s services in their reckoning. Only then can we begin to find a pathway to an environmentally sustainable global economy. Step 9: Institutes pursuing unknown nature. Museums and research institutes need to reach back to their roots, and to attempt to capture that inspiration that comes from the study of wild nature. Research scientists need to take time from their molecular labs and get out into the field more often practicing the art of natural history. Step 10: Laws supporting nature. We all know the term “natural law,” but perhaps we have forgotten our links to nature when creating laws and regulations. Care for and better understanding of nature should be fundamental tenets that underpin each nation’s network of laws and regulations.

Let’s all remember—it’s Nature first and foremost, not “biodiversity.” Biodiversity was just a way of making nature seem complex and “scientific,” and more fundable by donor agencies. As scientists, naturalists, and citizens, we all must advocate for Nature. Each of us must proudly declare ourselves to be Naturalists. Recognition of Nature’s primacy should inform everything we do. Only this way we can take back the future—a future that features the wealth of Nature. Literature Cited Alonso, L., J. L. Deichmann, S. A. McKenna, P. Naskrecki and S. J. Richards (Eds)., 2011. Still counting…: biodiversity exploration and conservation - the first 20 years of the Rapid Assessment Program. Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia: 316. Beehler, B. M., 2009. The forgotten science: a role for natural history in the twenty-first century? Journal of Field Ornithology, 81(1): 1-4. Cotterill, F. P. D. and W. Foissner, 2010. A pervasive denigration of natural history misconstrues how biodiversity inventories and taxonomy underpin scientific knowledge. Biodiversity Conservation, 19: 291-303. Dubois, A., 2010. Taxonomy in the century of extinctions: taxonomic gap, taxonomic impediment, taxonomic urgency. Taprobanica, 2 (1): 1-5. Greene, H. W., 2005. Organisms in nature as a central focus for biology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20 (1): 24-26. Louv, R., 2008. Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Algonquin Books, New York: 214. Bruce M Beehler Sectional Editor: Taprobanica, the journal of Asian Biodiversity March 3rd, 2011 Biodiversity Assessment Division of Science and Knowledge Conservation International 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500 Washington, DC 22202 USA

MAMMAL FAUNA IN SUNDARBAN TIGER RESERVE, WEST BENGAL - INDIA


STATUS OF THE MAMMAL FAUNA IN SUNDARBAN TIGER RESERVE, WEST BENGAL - INDIA Sectional Editor: Lee Harding Submitted: 01 April 2011, Accepted: 22 August 2011

Jayanta Kumar Mallick Wildlife Wing, Forest Directorate, Bikash Bhawan, North Block, 3rd floor, Salt Lake City, Kolkata, West Bengal, India Email: [email protected] Abstract Sundarban Tiger Reserve (2,584.89 km2) in West Bengal is a part of the world’s largest estuarine wetland and the only mangrove tigerland, spread over India and Bangladesh. Its plant associations exhibit a great generic/species diversity and offers habitats of many rare and endangered mammals. The dense thickets of Heritiera fomes, Nypa fruticans and Phoenix paludosa form the prime habitat of Panthera tigris tigris. This tigerland is also the abode of a good number of its prey and other associated mammal species. A one-year (January-December 2010) study was conducted with the frontline forest department staff to investigate the distribution and status of the mammalian species found in this thirty-eight years’ old tiger conservation area, involving literature review, questionnaire and ground surveys. This has revealed shrinkage of the mangrove swamp habitat and a number of mammal species in decline due to extensive anthropogenic and natural threats. Out of forty nine extant species recorded (eight orders: twenty three families), four are globally endangered, four vulnerable and two near threatened as per IUCN Red List. Alarmingly, fifteen mammal species were found on only rare occasions. In addition, six species (two orders: three families) had become extinct during the last two centuries. Though distributed over all forest block areas, the frequency of tiger-sighting was recorded more from Sajnekhali Wildlife Sanctuary and the buffer areas than Sundarban National Park or the core area. High-priority wildlife conservation, proper implementation of the tiger action plan, further infrastructural development and effective joint forest management are essential for saving this tigerland. Key words: Tigerland, world heritage, wetland, distribution, threats, conservation Introduction In 1947, the Radcliff Mission awarded the western Sundarbans (the Hooghly-Matla estuary) to West Bengal, India and the eastern Sundarbans to East

Bengal (now Bangladesh). The western Sundarbans in North and South 24-Parganas districts form about 40% of this largest estuarine wetland-cum-




mangrove tigerland and 60% falls in Bangladesh. Sundarban Tiger Reserve (STR) is located a little south of the Tropic of Cancer between 21° 32’ - 22° 40’ N and 88° 05’ - 88° 10’ E. It is bounded by the rivers Kalindi, Raimangal and Harinbhanga on the east along the Bangladesh border, the rivers Bidya and Matla on the west, the Bay of Bengal on the

south and the khals (erosion channels) Bara Herobhanga and Gomdi as well as the rivers Pitchkhali, Kapura, Korankhali, Raimangal and Kamlakhali on the north (Fig. 1). The surface area of STR is 2,584.89 km2, of which the forest cover is 1,680 km2 and 905 km2 is under water regime (Table 1).

Fig.1: Location of the study area within the Ganges River estuary complex in the Bay of Bengal.

MALLICK, 2011


Table 01: Blockwise distribution of the reserve forest in STR

Block Compartments Area (in hectares) Land Water Total

Panchamukhani 1-5 13,946.77 3,719.19 17,665.96 Pirkhali 1-7 13,684.52 4,891.60 18,576.12 Matla 1-4 11,507.64 6,122.30 17,629.94 Chamta 1-8 16,875.99 5,192.70 22,068.69 Chhotohardi 1-3 9,260.75 8,306.06 17,566.81 Goasaba 1-4 10,514.10 6,658.93 17,173.03 Gona 1-3 8,562.64 5,340.82 13,903.46 Bagmara 1-8 16,576.51 12,816.84 29,393.35 Mayadwip 1-5 12,998.15 14,338.11 27,336.26 Arbesi 1-5 9,663.83 5,378.86 15,042.69 Jhilla 1-5 8,740.71 3,573.09 12,313.80 Khatuajhuri 1-3 9,547.68 3,693.69 13,241.37 Harinbhanga 1-3 8,391.04 3,295.87 11,686.91 Netidhopani 1-3 6,447.68 2,852.32 9,300.00 Chandkhali 1-4 11,293.15 4,297.50 15,590.65 Total 1,68,011.16 90,477.88 2,58,489.04

STR is a network of rivers, channels and creeks that forms innumerable flat islands, which are submerged mostly during the high spring tides and partially during the ordinary high tides. There are no villages within STR, but there is a 65 km forest-village interface on the north-western side that is prone to frequent tiger-straying and livestock depredation (Vyas, 2004). The sources of all the rivers flowing through STR being progressively silted up, these are getting more brackish and shallow year after year. By repeated scouring during the ebb tides, innumerable small khals have been formed. Their banks are as high as two metres in some places, but shallow in the interior islands due to repeated silt deposits. The climate in STR is subtropical, where the temperature varies from 20 °C (December-January) to 33 °C (June-July), the average annual rainfall is 1,763 mm (75% received during June to September) and the humidity level is 70-80%. This region is often exposed to severe storms and cyclones. STR is one of the foremost reserves of Project Tiger, which was launched in 1973 to save the Bengal tiger from extinction (Chaudhuri & Chakrabarti, 1979d). In 1984, Sundarban National Park was declared with an area of 1,330.12 km2, which was also designated as the inviolate core area including the primitive zone or gene pool at Chamta block. In 1987, this park was recognized as a World Heritage Site (UNESCO) under Criterion IV- Habitats of rare and endangered species. The Sundarban was also included in the World Network of Biosphere Reserve in 2001. The Government of

India has recommended the Sundarban as a Ramsar Site (a wetland of international importance). In 2007, an area of 1,699.62 km2 was notified as the Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH) by including additional area of 369.50 km2 (Reserve Forests) to the existing core. This CTH consists of nine blocks divided into forty two compartments: Matla (four), Chamta (eight), Chhotohardi (three), Goasaba (four), Gona (three), Bagmara (eight), Mayadwip (five), Netidhopani (three) and Chandkhali (four). The buffer zone of 885.27 km2 (as revised in 2009) includes six blocks (twenty nine compartments). Of these, Panchamukhani (five) and Pirkhali (seven) blocks form Sajnekhali Wildlife Sanctuary (362.42 km2), the gateway to this tigerland. The balance area in Arbesi (five), Jhilla (six), Khatuajhuri (three) and Harinbhanga (three) blocks is earmarked as a multiple-use zone for regulated harvest of various forest resources for meeting the local needs. The study area is divided into four territorial ranges including six beats: Sajnekhali, Basirhat, East and West. STR is administered by the field director along with one deputy and two assistant directors. Besides, there are fifteen land-based and ten floating camps. Fourteen eco-development committees have been formed under Sajnekhali, Dattar and Bidya Beats and eleven forest protection committees under Bagna and Jhingakhali Beats, involving 8,158 members for the purpose of joint forest management and protection over 376.35 km2

in Arbesi, Jhilla, Pirkhali and Panchamukhani blocks. STR is recognized as one of the most important global biodiversity (aquatic and



terrestrial) hot spots. It harbours about 350 species of vascular plants (26 true mangroves, 29 mangrove associates, 29 back mangroves, and 102 phytoplanktons, etc.) and there are 1692 recorded faunal species (481 vertebrates, 1 hemichordates, 1104 invertebrates and 106 protozoans) (Naskar & Mandal, 1999; Raha & Saha, 2004; Gopal & Chauhan, 2006; Chaudhuri, 2007). The Sundarban provides a number of ecological services such as (1) trapping of sediment and land formation, (2) protection of human lives and habitation from regular cyclones, (3) acting as a nursery for fish and other aquatic life, (4) oxygen production, (5) waste recycling, (6) production of timber, fuel wood and other minor forest products and (7) carbon recycling. This tidal halophytic mangrove reserve is especially important because there is no other protected area with more than 100 individuals of the Bengal tiger in the country. This compact habitat, divided into fifteen blocks of variable size (about 100-300 km2), is of sufficient size to maintain a viable population of the tiger. STR comes under 8B- East Coast Bio-geographic Zone and the Sunderbans Mangroves eco-region. The landscape characteristics of STR (Table 2) have been analysed recently (Jhala et al., 2008). The notified areas provide dense, almost impenetrable and inaccessible Tidal Swamp Forests (4B), sub-divided into Mangrove type (4B/TS1, 4B/TS2), Salt water type mixed forests (4B/TS3), Brackish type (4B/TS4) and Palm type (4B/E1) (Champion & Seth, 1968). Table 2: Landscape characteristics in STR (from Jhala et al., 2008)

This fragile eco-system is sensitive to changes in salinity and the continuous cycle of erosion and deposition is affecting the plant communities, giving rise to a dynamic floristic changes. The northern boundary and new depositions are characterized by Kala Baen (Avicennia marina), Piara Baen (A. alba) and Sada Baen (A. officinalis),

flanked by the foreshore grassland of Dhani grass (Oryza coarctata). These are gradually replaced by Genwa (Excoecaria agallocha) and then Goran (Ceriops decandra). The southern and eastern associates include Garjan (Rhizophora apiculata), Kankra (Bruguiera sexangula) and few patches of Sundari (Heritiera fomes). The pure Hental (Phoenix paludosa) forest exists in relatively high land with compact soil. Dhundul (Xylocarpus granatum), Passur (Xylocarpus mekongensis) and Golpata (Nypa fruticans) palm are extremely limited in extent. Keora (Sonneratia apetala), an indicator species for the newly accreted mud banks, is an important food resource for the herbivores. To date, no detailed study has been done to determine the mammalian diversity and status in this region. Although the frontline staff have gathered some knowledge and experience over years and maintain field records, few are published. Most of the studies in the western Sundarbans had dealt with the ecology, straying and man-eating behaviour of the tiger (Chakrabarti, 1979a, 1979b, 1980, 1984a, 1984b, 1984c, 1986, 1992 & 1993b; Chakrabarti & Chaudhuri, 1973, 1974, 1977, 1979, 1985 & 1986; Chaudhury & Chakrabarti, 1972, 1979a, 1979b, 1979c, 1980 & 1989; Chaudhury & Choudhury, 1994a & 1994b; Chowdhury & Sanyal, 1985a, 1985b & 1985c; Das, 2002, 2003, 2005a, 2005b & 2009; Dent, 1932; Deuti & Roy Choudhury, 1999; Dwivedi, 2009; Ghosh & Mandal, 1988; Gupta, 1966; Mukherjee, 1975 & 2003; Mukherjee & Tanti, 2001; Rishi, 1988, 1993a & 1993b; Saha, 1988; Sanyal, 1981, 1983, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c & 2001; Seidensticker et al., 1976). 30-40 species of mammals have been recorded in STR (Chaudhuri & Sarkar, 2004, Das & Nandi, 1999a & 1999b; De, 1990; Ghosh, 1995; Mandal & Nandi, 1989). Some species-specific studies were also done (Chakrabarti, 1993a; Chakrabarti & De, 2007; Mandal, 1964, 1981 & 1990; Mukherjee, 2006; Mukherjee & Gupta, 1965; Rookmaaker, 1998). The recent landmark report (Jhala et al., 2008) estimated only 1411 adult tigers in India, which did not, however, include any population of the Sundarban tigers. To fill in the knowledge-gap, there is need of a detailed study on the current distribution and status of the Bengal tiger and other mammals in STR. Material and Methods After conducting a literature survey on the mammalian diversity in STR, a database was prepared for facilitating field verification during the study period (January-December 2010). A sample questionnaire survey was also conducted on a set

Parameters Value Number of forest patches 737 Forest patch density per 1000 km2 12.3 Mean forest patch area (km2) 3.1 Mean forest perimeter to area ratio 16.6 Total forest core area (km2) 534.4 Number of disjunct forest core areas 128 Mean forest core area (km2) 0.72 Median forest core area (km2) 14.29 Total forest core area in forest patches >1000 km2

534.42

55

MALLICK, 2011


pro forma among the fringe villagers, who depend on the forest resources for their livelihood, the frontline staff, researchers, tourist guides, representatives of local Eco-development/Forest Protection Committees and non-government organizations. Working inside the hostile mangrove habitat, which is approachable and traversed only by the watercrafts, is very difficult due to inaccessibility, absence of any forest road, natural obstacles and lack of logistic infrastructures. The stilt-root/pneumatophore-infested and muddy forest floor prevents any transect survey. Hence, the field study was conducted with the help of the stationed and mobile forest department staff, who are engaged in regular patrolling and monitoring. A number of field visits (12 x 3= 36 days) to the site were also made by the author. Both up- and down-stream surveys were carried out by using a mechanized boat at a speed of 1.5-3 km/h along the rivers and creeks from 5:30 h to 19:00 h. Observations were made from both the front and back of this vessel with a binocular. The boat-survey was, however, suspended at night due to poor visibility and security-risk. At night, the observations were made from the wire-caged watch towers at Sajnekhali, Sudhanyakhali, Dobanki, Netidhopani, Burirdabri, Jhingakhali, Gazikhali, Mayadwip, Gabbani, Arbesi-1 and Haldi by using a search light. The mammal fauna were listed on the basis of direct sighting, indirect methods (e.g. foot prints, faeces, scratch marks, calls, etc.), questionnaire survey and departmental records (census, monitoring, casualty and rescue data). The mammal species sighted were identified and classified by consulting a current field handbook (Bahuguna & Mallick, 2010). Threats: The mangrove ecosystem is so fragile that any interference may lead to extinction of various components and also the ecosystem as a whole in the long run. Being the only forest in a region inhabited by 3.9 million people (2001 census), more than 5% of whom are estimated to enter forest for fishing, honey-collection, wood-cutting and shrimp fry-collection, the study area is prone to heavy biotic pressure. Between 1994-1995 and 2001-2002, ten tigers were poached while straying into the fringe villages. Though poaching of the tiger has been reduced, poaching of the prey species like the spotted deer and wild boar has led to prey-

depletion. Although snaring is a traditional practice along with traps of different kinds, the spotted deer are also killed by gun-shot by following their track. The consumption of venison is largely local, but the actual impact of this problem is unknown. Deer meat and skin have been seized recently from the fringe villages like Samsernagar as well as the distant towns like Baruipur. Besides, illicit felling of the small timber and fuel wood, unauthorized fishing, destruction of the spawns of various fish in the course of large-scale catching of the tiger prawn (Peanacus monodon) spawns, are reportedly high in the buffer zone because of rapid increase in the human population, poverty and unemployment in the reclaimed areas. All these have adverse effect on the ecological balance, leading to elimination of the floral and faunal species. Often the Sundarban suffers from severe storms and cyclones. During the super cyclone Aila (May 2009), the frontline shelter vegetation was damaged severely in some vulnerable areas. Many deer were swept away to the fringe villages and, in some cases, the villagers captured them and handed over to the forest staff, but some might have been poached by the distressed people for consumption (Banerjee, 2009). Except one case of tiger-straying into a fringe village, there was no report of any tiger’s death during the study period. Inasmuch as the wild islanders are excellent swimmers and possibly warned of the incoming natural calamity in advance, most of them could escape and perhaps took refuge in the unaffected highlands with dense vegetation. The reduced freshwater flow from the Ganges and its distributaries and increase in salinity (range varying from 0.4% to 27.5%) of the water and soil has caused floristic changes and shrinkage of the tiger’s prime habitat, i.e. Sundari (Heritiera fomes), Hental (Phoenix paludosa) and Golpata (Nypa fruticans). Gradual sinking of the delta due to rising sea levels is also reported. The islands or sandbars like Bedford (Suparibhanga), Kabasgadi, Lohachara (in river Hooghly) and New Moore /South Talpatti, 2 km from river Harinbhanga, have already disappeared and the Ghoramara Island (80 km2) has submerged. Water pollution sources include the exhaust oil from the watercrafts, sewage and chemical effluents upstream. Soil erosion and silt deposition, uncontrolled tourism (about one hundred thousand people visiting the Sundarbans every year), straying of tigers from seven forest

56



blocks, viz. Pirkhali, Panchamukhani, Arbesi, Jhilla, Chandkhali, Goasaba and Harinbhanga into the fringe villages (21 villages mostly affected) and depredation on the domestic animals, killing of human beings entering the forests by the tigers and the porous international border (about 20 km) with Bangladesh are some of the serious management problems in STR. Moreover, there are organizational (frontline staff) and infrastructure deficiencies. Project Tiger Directorate assessed that comparatively an extensive area is covered by a staff in the Sundarban- Ranger 215.42 km2, Forester 112.39 km2 and Guard 25.34 km2 (GOI, 2005).

Results and Discussion Forty nine extant species (eight orders: twenty three families) were recorded during the present study, out of which four are globally endangered, four vulnerable and two near threatened as per IUCN Red List and, alarmingly, 20 mammal species (40.81%) were found only rarely (Table 3). Fifteen species are, however, included in Schedules I and II of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Besides, six species (two orders: three families) were extinct during last two centuries due to habitat degradation and ecological changes (Table 4).

Table 3: Checklist and status of extant mammalian species in STR (C: common, R: rare, EN: endangered, VU: vulnerable, NT: near threatened, LC: least concern, DD: data deficient)

No. Species name Common name Local status IUCN

Order SORICOMORPHA Shrew-form

Family SORICIDAE Shrews 01 Suncus murinus Linnaeus, 1766 White-tailed musk shrew C LC

Order CHIROPTERA Bats

Family PTEROPODIDAE Old world fruit bats 02 03 04

Rousettus leschenaulti Desmarest, 1820 Cynopterus sphinx Vahl, 1797 Pteropus giganteus Brünnich, 1782

Indian fulvous fruit bat Greater short-nosed fruit bat Indian flying fox

C C C

LC LC LC

Family MEGADERMATIDAE False vampire bats

05 06

Megaderma lyra Geoffroy, 1810 Megaderma spasma Linnaeus, 1758

Greater false vampire bat Lesser false vampire bat

C R

LC LC

Family RHINOLOPHIDAE Rhinolophids

07 08 09 10

Coelops frithi Blyth, 1848 Hipposideros bicolor Temminck, 1834 Hipposideros lankadiva Kelaart, 1850 Rhinolophus lepidus Blyth, 1844

Tailless leaf-nosed bat Bicoloured round- leaf bat Kelaart’s gigantic leaf-nosed bat Little Indian horseshoe bat

R R R C

LC LC LC LC

Family RHINOPOMATIDAE Mouse-tailed bats 11 Rhinopoma hardwickii Gray, 1831 Lesser mouse-tailed bat R LC

Family EMBALLONURIDAE Sheath-tailed bats 12 Taphozous longimanus Hardwicke, 1825 Long-armed sheath-tailed bat C LC

Family VESPERTILIONIDAE Evening bats 13 14 15 16 17 18

Myotis hasseltii Temminck, 1840 Pipistrellus coromandra Gray, 1838 Pipistrellus mimus Wroughton, 1899 Scotophilus kuhli Leach, 1821 Scotophilus heathi Horsfield, 1831 Kerivoula papillosa Temminck, 1840

Van Hasselt’s bat Indian Pipistrelle Indian pygmy pipistrelle Lesser yellow house bat Asiatic lesser yellow bat Papillose woolly bat

R C C C R R

LC LC LC LC LC LC

Order PRIMATES Primates

Family CERCOPITHECIDAE Monkeys 19 Macaca mulatta Zimmermann, 1780 Rhesus macaque C LC

Order CARNIVORA

Family CANIDAE Dogs 20 21

Canis aureus Linnaeus, 1758 Vulpes bengalensis Shaw, 1800

Golden jackal Bengal fox

C R

LC LC

57

MALLICK, 2011


Family FELIDAE Cats 22 23 24 25

Felis chaus Schreber, 1777 Prionailurus bengalensis Kerr, 1792 Prionailurus viverrinus Bennett, 1833 Panthera tigris Linnaeus, 1758

Jungle cat Leopard cat Fishing cat Bengal tiger

C R R C

LC LC EN EN

Family HERPESTIDAE Mongooses 26 27

Herpestes edwardsi Saint-Hilaire, 1818 Herpestes javanicus Saint-Hilaire, 1818

Common or grey mongoose Small Indian mongoose

C C

LC LC

Family MUSTELIDAE Otters

28 29

Lutrogale perspicillata Saint-Hilaire, 1826 Aonyx cinerea Illiger, 1815

Smooth-coated otter Small-clawed otter

R C

VU VU

Family VIVERRIDAE Civets

30 31 32

Paradoxurus hermaphroditus Pallas, 1777 Viverra zibetha Linnaeus, 1758 Viverricula indica Saint-Hilaire, 1803

Common palm civet Large Indian civet Small Indian civet

C R C

LC NT LC

Order CETACEA Dolphins and Porpoises

Family DELPHINIDAE Dolphins 33 34 35

Orcaella brevirostris Gray, 1866 Sousa chinensis Osbeck, 1765 Stenella attenuata Gray, 1846

Irrawaddy dolphin Indo-Pacific hump-backed dolphin Pantropical spotted dolphin

C R R

VU NT LC

Family PHOCOENIDAE Porpoises

36 Neophocaena phocaenoides Cuvier, 1829 Little black finless porpoise R VU

Family PLATANISTIDAE 37 Platanista gangetica Roxburgh, 1801 Gangetic dolphin C EN

Order ARTIODACTYLA Even-toed ungulates

Family SUIDAE Pigs 38 Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758 Wild boar C LC

Family CERVIDAE Deer

39 Axis axis Erxleben, 1777 Cheetal or Spotted deer C LC

Order PHOLIDOTA Family Manidae

40 Manis pentadactyla Linnaeus, 1758 Chinese pangolin R EN

Order RODENTIA Rodents Family SCIURIDAE Squirrels

41 Funambulus pennantii Wroughton, 1905 Five-striped palm squirrel C LC

Family MURIDAE Rats, Mice 42 43

Bandicota bengalensis Gray & Hardwicke, 1833 Bandicota indica Bechstein, 1800

Indian mole rat Large bandicoot rat

C C

LC LC

44 45 46 47

Mus booduga Gray, 1837 Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758 Rattus norvegicus Berkenhout, 1769 Rattus rattus Linnaeus, 1758

Little Indian field mouse House mouse Brown Norway rat Common black house rat

C C R C

LC LC LC LC

Family HYSTRICIDAE Porcupines

48 Hystrix indica Kerr, 1792 Indian crested porcupine R LC

Order LAGOMORPHA Hares Family LEPORIDAE Hares

49 Lepus nigricollis Cuvier, 1823 Indian rufous-tailed or black-naped hare R LC

58



Table 4: List of extinct mammalian species in the study area No. Species name Common name Remarks

Order PERISSODACTYLA Odd-toed ungulates Family RHINOCEROTIDAE Rhinoceros

01 Rhinoceros unicornis Linnaeus, 1758 Great Indian one-horned rhinoceros

Changing landscape and loss of freshwater mangroves led to extinction of this species.

02 Rhinoceros sondaicus Desmarest, 1822 Smaller one-horned or Javan rhinoceros

Last one killed around 1888; presence during early 20th century doubtful. Remains of this animal were collected from an excavated pond in upper layers in 1870 and displayed in the Indian Museum, Kolkata.

Order ARTIODACTYLA Even-toed ungulates Family CERVIDAE Deer

03 Rucervus duvaucelii Cuvier, 1823 Swamp deer or Barasingha

Existed till the earlier part of the 20th century.

04 Muntiacus muntjak Zimmermann, 1780 Barking deer

During early 20th century represented about 4% of total deer population in the freshwater mangrove forests, which were reclaimed; even hoof-marks were not recorded within Tiger Reserve in recent past.

05 Axis porcinus Zimmermann, 1780 Hog deer Extinct at the end of 19th century. Family BOVIDAE Buffaloes

06 Bubalus bubalis Linnaeus, 1758 Asiatic wild water buffalo

Found till 1885; by the end of 19th century died out. A specimen of hip bone found from a pond excavation during 1980 was identified by Zoological Survey of India.

Apart from the tiger, there are no other large terrestrial carnivores in the Sundarbans. The small carnivore community is composed of the leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis), fishing cat (Prionailurus viverrinus) and jungle cat (Felis chaus). The creeks fringing the mangroves and associated mudflats harbour the diurnal smooth Indian otter (Lutra perspicillata) and the nocturnal small-clawed otter (Aonyx cinereus), which live on the fishes, crustaceans and mollusks. The jackal (Canis aureus) and Indian fox (Vulpes bengalensis) are present in the fringe areas. Among the civets, the small Indian civet (Viverricula indica) is common in the reclaimed lands along with the palm civet (Paradoxurus hermaphrodites), which is seen occasionally. At present, the main ungulate prey species in STR are the cheetal (Axis axis), which are found in small and large herds, and the wild boar (Sus scrofa), only loners of which are sighted. The Great one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), small one-horned rhinoceros (R. sondaicus), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak), swamp deer (Cervus duvauceli), hog deer (Axis porcinus) and wild buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) are already extinct (Bahuguna & Mallick, 2004; Mukherjee, 1980). During early 1990s, Project

Tiger estimated the populations of the cheetal (31,000), wild boar (12,000) and rhesus macaque (38,000). Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta), the only primate in the Sundarbans, is quite abundant. They are gregarious and found in scattered groups of 30-40 individuals. At Sudhanyakhali, this monkey is abundant seasonally and its numbers generally decline after April, when most of them migrate to the interior forests, and increase from October onwards with the start of the tourist season. Their mating season is usually between February and July. The rivers and near-shore waters are the abode of five aquatic mammals: the dolphins and porpoises. Among them, the Gangetic dolphin (Platanista gangetica) and Irrawady dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris) are common along the upper part of the rivers Matla, Bidyadhari, the confluence of Raimangal and Jhilla at Bagna, Amlamati and at Sudhanyakhali. Rarely, the black finless porpoise (Neomeris phocoenoides) is met with. An Indo-Pacific hump-backed dolphin was sighted and photographed a few years back near Sajnekhali. There are no recent records of sighting any Pantropical spotted dolphin in the Sundarban.

59

MALLICK, 2011


Among the rodents, Bandicota indica, B. bengalensis and Mus booduga are quite abundant. The white-bellied tree rats (Rattus rattus arboreus Horsfield, 1851), nesting in bunches of leaves and twigs, were also observed. Holes and nests of the five-striped palm squirrel (Funambulus pennantii) in the tree trunks and branches were also discovered. All the previous censuses (1976-2004) in STR recorded a population of ±250 tigers on the basis of pugmark analysis (Table 5). Block-wise abundance of the tiger in 2004 census was also assessed (Table 6). Accordingly, tiger concentration was calculated to be <10 km2/tiger. Since 2006, a new methodology—“Monitoring of tigers, co-predators, prey and habitat” through direct sighting, collection of pugmarks and scats, roaring and other signs—was introduced in Sundarbans. Data were available during 2007-2008 (Table 7) and 2008-2009 (Table 8). Table 5: Tiger census (plaster cast method) in STR

Year Male Female Cub Total

1973 Incomplete census, only one-fifth area covered 50

1976 66 72 43 181 1977 - - - 205 1983 137 115 12 264 1989 126 109 34 269 1992 92 132 27 251 1996 95 126 21 242 1997 99 137 27 263 1999 96 131 27 254 2001 93 129 23 245 2004 83 133 33 249

Table 6: Block-wise census figures (2004) in STR

Block (compartment) Male Female Cubs Total Pirkhali (1-7) 8 14 5 27 Panchamukhani (1-5) 6 13 4 23 Jhilla (1-6) 3 5 - 8 Arbesi (1-5) 8 12 1 21 Harinbhanga (1-3) 4 6 3 13 Khatuajhuri (1-3) 3 6 3 12 Champta (1-8) 11 12 3 26 Chandkhali (1-4) 5 9 - 14 Bagmara (1-8) 11 13 3 27 Gona (1-3) 4 6 2 12 Netidhopani (1-3) 3 5 1 9 Chhotohardi (1-3) 3 10 2 15 Matla (1-4) 6 8 2 16 Goasaba (1-4) 4 8 2 14 Mayadweep (1-5) 4 6 2 12 Total 83 133 33 249

Table 7: Month-wise tiger monitoring data in STR during 2007-2008

Month Direct tiger sighting (no)

Roaring heard (no)

Sighting of fresh

pugmarks (no)

Adult Cub Adult Cub April 25 - 10 586 3 May 14 - 8 629 - June 11 4 6 411 - July 13 - 5 380 - August 21 - 19 433 5 September 24 - 19 332 1 October 18 - 12 466 1 November 26 - 17 455 - December 27 1 15 747 - January 28 1 22 849 - February 25 - 17 711 - March 35 - 6 540 - Total 267 6 156 6539 10

Table 8: Month-wise tiger monitoring data in STR during 2008-2009

Month Direct tiger sighting (no)

Roaring heard (no)

Sighting of fresh

pugmarks (no) Adult Cub Adult Cub

April 20 - 10 586 3 May 16 - 8 629 - June 23 - 6 411 - July 20 4 5 380 - August 31 - 19 433 5 September 17 - 19 332 1 October 53 - 12 466 1 November 37 - 17 455 - December 39 - 15 747 - January 51 - 22 849 - February 37 2 17 711 - March 50 - 6 540 - Total 394 6 156 6539 10

The present survey, based on direct sighting and indirect evidences along the river/creek banks, bank-side mangroves and at the watchtower locations, revealed that the tigers were present throughout the landscape with varying abundance. In all, the tiger was sighted 417 times (mean 13 in September and maximum 56 in January) in fourteen forest blocks during the study period (Table 9). Such sighting was frequent during the winter and summer months. Maximum sighting was recorded on the north-western forest blocks like Pirkhali (43.16%), Netidhopani (18.46%), Arbesi (13.18%) and Panchamukhani (5.75%). Although tiger was not sighted in Mayadwip block, the pugmarks of a mother along with a cub and (separately) those of an adult male were traced in this island a number of times in May.

60



Table 9: Month (M)-wise tiger sighting records in STR during 2010 survey Forest block M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11* M12 Total

Panchamukhani 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 2 - 3 2 6 24 Pirkhali 33 31 23 27 9 10 16 4 3 3 5 16 180 Matla 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 - - - - - 10

Chamta - - 2 1 1 - 2 - - - - 1 7 Chhotohardi 3 1 1 - - 1 2 - 1 - - - 9

Goasaba 1 - 3 1 1 - 5 1 1 1 - 2 16 Gona - - - - - - 1 - - 1 - - 2

Bagmara - 2 - 1 - - - - - - - - 3 Mayadwip - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

Arbesi 2 2 6 1 4 4 9 3 6 5 - 13 55 Jhilla 2 1 3 2 1 - 3 - - 1 - - 13

Khatuajhuri 2 2 3 - 2 - 1 1 - - 1 1 13 Harinbhanga 1 - 1 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 5 Netidhopani 10 4 11 11 4 11 3 5 2 10 1 5 77 Chandkhali - 1 1 - 1 - - - - - - - 3 Grand total 56 47 57 50 25 30 44 17 13 24 9 45 417

Four cubs were also sighted, two each at Pirkhali and Chhotohardi in November. However, the cub-sighting ratio is very low in the study area. In all, only five cubs were found in three out of fifteen blocks (20%). Earlier, the author found the signs of hunting a deer by the tiger at Burirdabri (Khatuajhuri block), opposite Bangladesh. There was a resident tiger family including a cub in this small island. During the study, the tigers used different habitats for definite purposes like shelter, breeding, hunting, etc. This habitat use pattern vis-à-vis the forest types are recorded separately (Table 10). Out of thirteen forest types/associations, nine (88%) are used as habitats (shelter= 72%, breeding= 7% and hunting= 9%) and four types (12%) are not normally preferred by the tigers. Due to frequent shifting or island-migration and occupation of new habitat by the tigers, the habitat occupation and range of movement varies considerably from individual to individual and from time to time, mainly depending on availability of the prey species—be it wild, domestic or human beings entering forests with legal permits or illegally. A review of the human-tiger conflict data showed only one case of tiger poaching during the twenty first century (Table 11). Moreover, the incidences of human deaths due to tiger depredation in the forests are also on the wane (Fig. 2). But tiger-straying cases have recently been increased greatly,

particularly after the onslaught of cyclone Aila in 2009 (Table 12). The straying tigers were captured with the help of the villagers and committee members and rehabilitated in the wild. Similarly, a good number of other mammals were also rescued and rehabilitated (Table 13). Fig. 2: Humans killed by tigers in Sundarban Tiger Reserve since 1985.

61



Table 10: Habitat types used by tigers in STR

Tide levels Type of habitat- Pure or mixed

Percentage of total forests

App. density of trees/acre

Abundance indicators Remarks

High

Coastal forests with Casuarina spp. and others bordered by high retaining

sand-wall

Very small Variable Present in good numbers

Ideal breeding site with abundant preys; e.g. signs of mother-cub seen at Mayadwip.

Above natural tidal

limits

Heritiera-Phoenix (submerged only a number

of times during kotals). 2% 5,000 Common Ideal tiger

habitat

Heritiera-Excoecaria 2% 3,000-5,000 Presence low Not ideal habitat Heritiera-Excoecaria-

Ceriops 4% 3,000-5,000 Presence low Not ideal habitat

Excoecaria- Phoenix 3% 3,000-5,000 Common Ideal tiger habitat including breeding

Phoenix 4% 3,000 Common Ideal tiger habitat including breeding

Excoecaria 2% 200-300 Rare Not ideal habitat

Ceriops 5% 500 Visitor Ideal hunting ground

Excoecaria- Ceriops 70% Genwa: 100-

400 Garan: 500

Common Ideal tiger habitat

Rhizophora-Bruguiera 4% Not dense Uncommon Not ideal habitat

Below natural tidal

limits

Oryza coarctata Riverbanks Average Uncommon

Hunting (Cheetal) ground, particularly April-June

Avicennia-Oryza 2% Average Uncommon - do - Avicennia-Sonneratia 2% Average Uncommon - do -

Table 11: Natural death cases (ND) and poaching (P) of mammalian species in STR

Name 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 ND P ND P ND P ND P ND P ND P

Tiger 1 - - - 1 - 1 - - - - 1 Fishing cat 2 - 1 - 4 - - - 4 - - - Jungle cat 1 - - - 4 - - - - - - - Cheetal 10 1 2 - 10 2 3 - 3 4 2 -

Wild boar - - - 1 1 - 3 4 1 - - - Rhesus

macaque - - - - - - 1 - 1 - - -

Dolphin - - 1 - - - 2 - 1 - 1 - Otter - - - - - - - - - - 1 -

Mongoose - - - - 1 - - - - - 1 - Table 12: Tiger straying incidents detected in STR

Year Number Year Number Year Number Year Number Year Number 1986 14 1987 20 1988 4 1989 4 1990 11 1991 1 1992 3 1993 1 1994 8 1995 25 1996 18 1997 3 1998 5 1999 10 2000 6 2001 8 2002 26 2003-04 23 2004-05 14 2005-06 2

2006-07 11 2007-08 11 2008-09 15 2009-10 24

62

MALLICK, 2011



Table 13: Rescue and release of mammalian species other than tiger in STR Name 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Fishing cat - 3 4 3 2 8 Jungle cat 4 4 4 8 7 5

Leopard cat - - - 1 1 - Civet cat - - - - 2 - Cheetal 1 1 15 - 2 -

Wild boar 1 4 6 50 6 6 Jackal - - - - 1 1

Rhesus macaque 1 1 1 3 2 5 Dolphin 3 - - - - 1

Small clawless otter - - 1 4 1 1

Mongoose - - - 2 1 1 Shrinkage of habitat due to tides, salinity of creek waters and pneumatophore-infested forest floor have offered a very adverse habitat conditions for the tigers. Nevertheless, they were reportedly more or less present in all the fifteen blocks of STR since early 1970s and their predatory aberration was also reported as they used to migrate from block to block (Chamta-Matla to adjoining Chandkhali-Netidhopani-Panchamukhani-Pirkhali) (Chaudhuri & Chakrabarti, 1980). But their abundance is variable in different blocks. Earlier, the tiger-occupancy in STR was reported to be 1,586 km2

(Jhala et al., 2008). The Sundarban is a unique habitat (Vyas, 2005), where the tiger occupies the pinnacle of both the aquatic and terrestrial food web. While the males change their territory more, the females tend to hold a territory for comparatively longer periods. The territory of a male also overlaps the territories of more than one female. The cubs are reared exclusively by the mother and they remain attached to her for up to two and half years. The female cubs often occupy territories or home ranges adjacent to that of their mother. During the daily activity, every tiger records its presence while walking on soil amenable to receiving its pugmarks. While the tiger pugmarks were found along the banks of the creeks and rivers, their scats (wet as well as dry) were found at Harinbhanga 3, Jhilla 1, 2 and 3, Arbesi 5, Chandkhali 2 and 3, Bagmara 3 and 8, Chamta 4, Matla 3, Chhotohardi 3, Panchamukhani 5, Khatuajhuri 2, Mayadwip 1, Pirkhali 2 and also near the sweet water ponds visited by the tigers like Dobanki camp (Pirkhali 5), Sajnekhali camp (Pirkhali 1), Choragazi (Panchamukhani 3), Jhingakhali (Arbesi 1), Tushkhali (Khatuajhuri 1), etc. The nail marks (scratching) of some tigers on the trees like X. granatum (males), S. apetala and Avicennia spp. (females) were also observed. The

tiger-roars were heard mostly between the pre-monsoon and the pre-winter, but rarely thereafter. These calls are generally related to the hunting, mating and sometimes while the mother moving with her cubs encounters an enemy. The habitat pattern in STR is uniformly monotonous, not broken by such landscape features that are known to provide specific cover for the tiger in other areas. The Heritiera and Phoenix thickets, which are not either regularly inundated or inundated for a short period, form a favoured tiger’s den and signs of its presence is commonly found in the plant consociations of Rizophora-Bruguiera, Avicennia-Oryzha, Excoecaria-phoenix, Exoecaria-Ceriops, pure Ceriops and pure Oryzha. The natural prey animals occupying the tiger niche are the cheetal, wild boar and rhesus monkey. During the study, the encounter rates of the cheetal was found to be high (3.8/km2) compared to those of the wild boar (0.14/km2) and rhesus macaque (1.2/km2). Large groups of the deer were seen on the higher grounds, which are generally not inundated during the high tides. The Rhesus monkeys were commonly found on the Keora (S. apetala) patches. The secondary predators are mainly the fishing cat and, to a small extent, the jungle cat and leopard cat. The fishing cats dwell amidst the dense vegetation associated with the marshes and mangroves (Mallick, 2010a). The encounter rate of the fishing cat was 0.03/km2. The pugmarks of the leopard cat were distinguished from those of the fishing cats on the basis of absence of any nail-imprint on the soil. Otters were rarely sighted (encounter rate 0.009/km2). Among the dolphins, the Gangetic dolphin is frequently found in the eastern side, particularly in the river Raimangal, the upper part of which is fed

63

MALLICK, 2011


by some freshwater flow. It descends during the monsoon season when salinity is low but appears to decrease in number during the summer (Mallick, 2011). This migration also seems to be associated with the migration and dispersal of fishes, which are their main prey. The Irrawaddy dolphins are not found in the more saline Matla-Hooghly estuary. Seventeen individuals were seen in the pre-monsoon and twenty two in the post-monsoon months. The Irrawaddy dolphins were recorded mostly in the lower reaches of the river Raimangal and a few were also observed at the Jhilla and Amlamati. There was no sighting record of this species in the river Matla, which is a habitat of the Ganges dolphin. The black finless porpoise were rarely found in the rivers near the estuary. The Sundarban tiger exhibits certain distinctive morphological adaptations that make it particularly suited to the mangrove habitat (Barlow et al., 2010). Unlike the mainlanders, these islanders are much smaller (suggesting insular dwarfism), more muscular with leaner frame and lesser body mass (±100 kg). The stress factor associated with changes in their natural habitat and the availability of the smaller prey species is often related to such phenomenon. In the study area, two adult female and three adult male tigers were captured, radio-collared and released back into the forests. Of them, a six-year old male (Netidhopani tiger) was captured, while straying into inhabited areas, and weighed only 97 kg. Its neck was measured 53 cm against the normal size of 65-75 cm. Another adult tiger (Khatuajhuri male), which was caught at Malmelia village of Basirhat range, was also found to be frail and underweight (108 kg) with the neck-size of 58 cm. The natural prey animals of the Sundarban tiger are also smaller (e.g., the Cheetal, wild boar and rhesus monkey), compared to the heavier sambar or gaur in the mainland. It is assumed that a smaller islander needs lesser food. Less body weight enables it to move through the muddy terrain with minimum loss of energy, otherwise the feet of a heavy-weight tiger would sink deep into the muddy soil during its movement along the banks. Besides, these islanders are capable of leading an almost amphibious life unlike the mainland tigers. Besides, its prey species like the cheetal and wild boar are also semi-aquatic. The rhesus macaques were also found to migrate in search of food. Hence, the predator has to change their territory following its prey species.

Garga (1948) recorded a tiger swimming over 6 miles in the river Hooghly. There were records of tiger swimming more than 20 km, negotiating from one island to another, crossing more than one river. A problem tiger, which was released in the southernmost limit of STR, came back to the capture area on the north by covering about 100 km and crossing a good number of channels within a month. Tigers were seen swimming at right angle parallel to the current and changing their course, when they felt disturbed. In April, a tiger swam of continuously in the morning for about three hours in the rivers Mayadwip and Bidya, before entering forests at a different location. The radio-collared tigers were recorded to cross, on the average, ten channels (mean width 25 m and maximum width 200 m) per day. In STR, the tigers have been recorded to cross larger (>5 km width) channels as well. From the sighting records, it appears that the tigers move even during the daytime in an undisturbed area. Apart from the long-stretch swimming, the tiger has adapted to changed food habits. An earlier study on the scats of the tiger at fifty three locations in STR has revealed that in addition to its natural terrestrial prey species like the cheetal (32.35%), wild boar (38.23%), rhesus macaque (2.94%), its food included the fish (2.94), crab (4.41%), water monitor lizard, Varanus salvator (7.35%), turtles (1.47%), fishing cat (1.47%), birds (2.94%) and Phoenix leaves (Sanyal, 1993 & 1999c). The tigers also ate honey and, before breaking the combs, smeared themselves with mud to avoid the stings. Remains of the venomous snakes (Ophiophagus hannah and Naja naja) were also detected in the stomach of a dead tiger at Netidhopani, after onslaught of the Aila. In case of the man-eating within the forest areas, the victims were mostly fishermen. Only 5% of the tigers were reported to be man-eaters (Sanyal, 1998). Its frequent straying into the villages for hunting the domestic animals often causes retaliatory killing by mobs. In STR, the deer is the most important herbivore in terms of number and biomass and their grazing and browsing is the main factor in structure of the vegetation cover. The fodder grass is limited in STR and includes the Dhani grass (Porteresia coarctata) as well as patches of Saccharum spp. grown on the sea-facing mud flats, which are good grazing grounds for the deer, but except for the newly generated succulent tips, the remaining parts are untouched. However, the cheetals prefer the Keora leaves, fruits and buds and also leaves of the

64



Baen, Genwa and Kankra. They were seen to stand erect on their hind legs and browse the Sonneratia leaves. The Keora fruits and leaves are also liked by the rhesus monkeys. The succulent leathery leaves of other mangrove trees are also taken by them. During June-July, the monkeys throw fruits on the ground, which are consumed by the cheetals. The monkey troops also drop the twigs and leaves, which are eaten by the deer. The habitat of the wild boar is the tangled mass of Garan, whose extensive breaks harbour the sounders. The freshwater ponds dug in the forests near the watch towers attract the deer, pigs and tigers. The monkeys, however, consume the dew drops from the leaves of Keora. Like the tigers, the rhesus macaques feed on hermit crabs to supplement their diet and for this purpose, they have even to dexterously manoeuvre their movements to avoid landing their feet on needle-like piercing pneumatophores, which speaks of their obligatory dependency on this diet. The size of a tiger’s home range depends on prey abundance and in case of the males, access to the estrus females. In the study area, the mean distance moved by the radio-collared tiger/tigress per day was found to be 4.64 km2, whereas the maximum distance covered/day was 13.5 km2. While following a tiger on the bank of the Nabanki khal, it was observed to move a distance of 1 km in ten minutes. A radio-collared tigress moved over a radius of c. 30 km2 during a week (Mallick, 2010b). However, it could move much faster while chasing its prey. The total mangrove forests of India and Bangladesh, having a viable tiger population, can potentially share their gene pool. Migration of the tigers between these two segments was anticipated, but there was no proof in the past. But during 2010, evidence of such territorial shifting was known. The straying Khatuajhuri male, blind on the right eye with signs of territorial fights, which was captured on 20th May, radio-collared and released in the nearby forests on 22nd May, crossed the river Harinbhanga and strayed into the Bangladesh Sundarban, where it remained in the island of Talpati till his collar stopped functioning on 5th August. Hence, no further information regarding its movement was available.

Recommendations Saving the tigers is essential not only for the biodiversity protection but also to safeguard the national identity. Project Tiger authorities should take immediate steps to conserve and expand mangroves, while preventing the poaching. The government should also take stringent measures to curb the immediate threats of environmental degradations for long-term survival of the floral and faunal resources through habitat improvement programmes. High priority for conservation, further infrastructural development and effective joint forest management are essential for saving this last stronghold of the Bengal tiger in India. The real challenge is to implement the tiger action plan by reconciling the competing interests of the multiple stakeholders and regulating the heavy biotic pressure, while making a safe and healthy habitat for the tigers and other species in this unique landscape with active participation of the local communities. Acknowledgements I am grateful to the local field staff and officers of the forest department as well as the respondents to the questionnaire survey for helping this study. I am also indebted to Indranil Mitra for providing the G.I.S. map of the study area and Somnath Chakraborti for retrieving relevant data. Literature cited Bahuguna, N. C. and J. K. Mallick, 2004. Ungulates of West Bengal and its adjoining areas including Sikkim, Bhutan and Bangladesh. In Ungulates of India, ENVIS Wildlife Protected Areas, 7 (1): 219-238. Bahuguna, N. C. and J. K. Mallick, 2010. Handbook of the mammals of South Asia. Natraj Publishers, Dehra Dun: 541. Banerjee, S., 2009. Effects of Aila on the mangroves. West Bengal, 40 (9 & 10): 29-31. Barlow, A. C. D., J. Mazάk, I. U. Ahmad and J. L. D. Smith, 2010. A preliminary investigation of Sundarbans tiger morphology. Mammalia, 74 (3): 329-331. Chakrabarti, K., 1979a. Sundarbans- A unique habitat for tiger- a scientific study. International Symposium on Tigers 1979- India: 141-145.

65

MALLICK, 2011


Chakrabarti, K., 1979b. Ecology of Sundarbans tigers with particular reference to range of habitats and adaptability to changes. International Symposium on Tigers 1979- India: 146-150. Chakrabarti, K., 1980. Successful tranquillization of a Sundarbans tiger. Tigerpaper, 7 (4): 10. Chakrabarti, K., 1984a. The Sundarbans tiger. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 81 (2): 459-460. Chakrabarti, K., 1984b. An eco-biometrical study on tiger in the estuarine eco-system of Sundarbans. Indian Forester, 110 (6): 540-549. Chakrabarti, K., 1984c. Statistical ecology of Sundarbans tigers. Tigerpaper, 11 (3): 29-31.

Chakrabarti, K., 1986. Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) in the mangrove forest of Sundarbans – an ecological study. Tigerpaper, 8 (2): 8-11. Chakrabarti, K., 1992. Man-eating tigers. Darbari Prokashan, Calcutta: 142. Chakrabarti, K., 1993a. An ecological review of otter in the mangrove ecosystem of Sundarbans (India). Tigerpaper, 20 (1): 19-21. Chakrabarti, K., 1993b. Biodiversity of Sundarbans vis-à-vis behaviour of tiger. Proceedings of International Symposium on tigers, February 1993, India. Chakrabarti, K. and A. B. Chaudhuri, 1973. Wildlife biology of the Sundarban forests: a study of the habit and habitat of the tigers. Bulletin of the Botanical Society of Bengal, 26 (1): 63-66. Chakrabarti, K. and A. B. Chaudhuri, 1974. Human casualties from man-eating tigers can be reduced. Scince and Culture, 40: 207-210. Chakrabarti, K. and A. B. Chaudhuri, 1977. A statistical approach to wild animal: Population analysis. Cheetal, 19 (1): 19-20. Chakrabarti, K. and A. B. Chaudhuri, 1979. Ecology of the Sundarban tigers with a particular reference to range and habitat and adaptability to changes. Cheetal, 20 (2&3): 3-15. Chakrabarti, K. and A. B. Chaudhuri, 1985. Sundarbans tiger: why are they man-eaters? Science Reporter, 22 (4): 239-240, 256.

Chakrabarti, K. and A. B. Chaudhuri, 1986. Tiger in the mangrove forest of Sundarbans: an ecological study. Tigerpaper, 13 (2): 8-11. Chakrabarti, K. and J. K. De, 2007. Irrawaddy dolphin in northern Sundarban. West Bengal, 49 (10 & 11): 59-62. Champion, H. G. and S. K. Seth, 1968. A revised survey of the forest types of India. Government of India Press, New Delhi: 404. Chaudhuri, A. B., 2007. Biodiversity of mangroves. Daya Publishing House, New Delhi: 332 Chaudhuri, A. B. and K. Chakrabarti, 1972. Wildlife biology of Sundarban forests- observations on tigrs. Cheetal, 15 (1): 65-68. Chaudhuri, A. B. and K. Chakrabarti, 1979a. A decade study on the behaviour pattern of tigers. Proceedings of the International Symposium of tiger of India: 119-125. Chaudhuri, A. B. and K. Chakrabarti, 1979b. Tiger and man- the Sundarban tiger as viewed by fisherman and others who eke out their livelihood from the area. International Symposium on Tigers- India: 129, 135. Chaudhuri, A. B. and K. Chakrabarti, 1979c. An ecological reconnaissance of tiger habitat and conservation of forest and wildlife. International Symposium on Tigers- India: 193-207. Chaudhuri, A. B. and K. Chakrabarti, 1979d. Project Tiger- A premier and intricate conservation project. Proceedings of International Symposium on Tiger: 262-264. Chaudhuri, A. B. and K. Chakrabarti, 1980. Wildlife biology of Sundarban forests- further study on the habitat and behaviour pattern of Sundarban tiger. Proceedings of the Workshop on Wildlife Ecology, Dehradun: 27-33. Chaudhuri, A. B. and K. Chakrabarti, 1989. Sundarbans mangrove. Surya Publication, Dehra Dun: 210. Chaudhuri, A. B. and A. Choudhury, 1994a. Mangroves of the Sundarbans. Volume 1: India. IUCN, Bangkok, Thailand: 247. Chaudhuri, A. B. and A. Choudhury, 1994b. Wildlife biology of Sundarban forests. Science and Culture, 40 (3): 93-99.

66



Chaudhuri, A. B. and D. D. Sarkar, 2004. Project Tiger Reserves: Resource diversity, sustainability, ecodevelopment. Daya Publishing House, Delhi: 341. Chowdhury, M. K. and P. Sanyal, 1985a. Some observations on man-eating behaviour of tigers of Sundarbans. Cheetal, 26 (3-4): 32-40. Chowdhury, M. K. and P. Sanyal, 1985b. Man-eating behaviour in the tigers of Sundarbans. Environment and Ecology, 3: 243-248. Chowdhury, M. K. and P. Sanyal, 1985c. Use of electroconvulsive shocks to control tiger predation on human beings in Sundarban Tiger Reserve. Tigerpaper, 12 (2): 1-5. Das, A. K. and N. C. Nandi, 1999a. Fauna of Sundarban Biosphere Reserve. Envis Newsletter, 5 (1-2): 4-9. Das, A. K. and N. C. Nandi, 1999b. Fauna of Indian Sundarbans Mangal and their role in the ecosystem. In: Guha Bakshi, D.N. et al. (Eds.) Sundarbans Mangal, Naya Prakash. Kolkata. Das, C. S., 2002. Tiger attack in Sundarban: nature and victims. Banabithi, October: 30-39. Das, C. S., 2003. Tiger straying hazards in Sundarban, causes and management. Banabibi Utsab Smaranika, Sundarban Development Board, Sundarban Affairs Dept, Govt. of WB. Das, C. S., 2005a. Rampant tiger poaching in Sundarban, Indian Journal of Landscape System and Ecological Studies, 28 (1): 111-117. Das, C. S., 2005b. Tiger straying hazards in Sundarban, West Bengal. Geographical Review of India, 67 (1): 80-87. Das, C. S., 2009. Spatio-temporal study of the hazards induced by tiger attack in Sundarban. West Bengal. Indian journal of landscape System & Ecological Studies, 32 (1): 330-338. De, R. N., 1990. The Sundarbans. Oxford University Press, Calcutta: 75. Dent, T. V., 1932. Tigers in the Sundarbans. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 38 (1): 178-179. Deuti, K. and B. Roy Choudhury, 1999. Possible causes for the straying of tigers in the Sundarbans and some suggested remedies. In Sundarbans Mangal,

Guha Bakshi, D. N., P. Sanyal and K. R. Naskar (eds), Naya Prakash, Kolkata: 460-465. Dwivedi, R., 2009. Tiger’s day out. Banabithi: 20-21. Garga, D. P., 1948. How far can a tiger swim? Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 47 (3): 545-546. Ghosh, A. and N. Mandal, 1988. Straying and abnormal behaviour of mating tigers of Sundarbans. Cheetal, 29 (2): 1-4.

Ghosh, A. K. (Ed.), 1995. Fauna of Tiger Reserve (Sundarbans, Manas, Palamau, Similipal). Fauna of Conservation Areas. 8. ZSI. Calcutta: 127. Gopal, B. and M. Chauhan, 2006. Biodiversity and its conservation in the Sundarban mangrove ecosystem. Aquatic Sciences – Research across boundaries, 68 (3): 338-354. Government of India (GOI), 2005. The report of the Tiger Task Force: Joining the dots. Ministry of Environment and Forests (Project Tiger), New Delhi: 206. Gupta, A. C., 1966. Wildlife of lower Bengal with particular reference to the Sundarbans. West Bengal Forests. Forest Directorate. Government of West Bengal. Centenary Commemoration Volume. Calcutta. Jhala, Y. V., R. Gopal, Q. Qureshi (Eds.), 2008. Status of tigers, co-predators and prey in India. TR 08/001. New Delhi: National Tiger Conservation Authority and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun: 164. Mandal, A. K., 1964. The Behaviour of the Rhesus Monkeys (Macaca mulatta Zimmermann) in the Sundarbans. Journal of Bengal Natural History Society, 33 (1):153-165.

Mandal, A. K., 1981. The Norway rat, Rattus norvegicus reappears in the Sundarban area in West Bengal. Rodent Newsletter, 5: 1-2. Mandal, A. K., 1990. Addition of the Fawn-coloured Mouse, Mus cervicolor Hodgson, 1845 [Rodentia: Muridae] in the fauna of Sunderbans in West Bengal, India. Records of Zoological Survey of India, 85: 363-365. Mandal, A. K. and N. C. Nandi, 1989. Fauna of Sundarban Mangrove Ecosystem West Bengal, India. Calcutta, Zoological Survey of India: 116.

67

MALLICK, 2011


Mallick, J. K., 2010a. Endangered fishing cats in human dominated landscape. Environ, 10 (3): 40-43. Mallick, J. K., 2010b. GPS tracking of the tigers in Sundarban Tiger Reserve. Annual Review ’09-’10, West Bengal State Office, WWF-India: 21-22. Mallick, J. K., 2011. The national aquatic animal Ganges dolphin. Environ, 11 (1): 54-60. Mukherjee, A. K., 1975. The Sundarbans of India and its biota. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 72: 1-20. Mukherjee, A. K., 1980. Wildlife in the Sunderban, West Bengal. Proceedings of the Workshop on Wildlife Ecology: 123-127. Dehradun, January 1978. Ed. Director, ZSI. Calcutta. Mukherjee, A. and S. Gupta, 1965. Habits of the rhesus macaque, Macaca mulatta (Zimmerman) in the Sundarbans, 24-Parganas, West Bengal. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 62: 145-146. Mukherjee, S., 2003. Tiger human conflicts in the Sundarban Tiger Reserve, West Bengal, India. Tigerpaper, 30 (2): 3-6. Mukherjee, S., 2006. Rhesus monkey and chital in the Sundarbans. Banabithi, Wildlife Issue, October 2006: 33-35. Mukherjee, S. and G. Tanti, 2001. Capture and release of a strayed tiger under the Sundarban Tiger Reseve area. Tigerpaper, 28: 18-20. Naskar, K. and R. Mandal, 1999. Ecology and biodiversity of Indian mangroves. Daya Publishing House, New Delhi. Raha, A. K. and B. K. Saha, 2004. A wonder that is Sundarban. Computronics, Kolkata: 88. Rishi, V., 1988. Man, mask and maneater. Tigerpaper 15 (3): 9-14. Rishi, V., 1993a. Tiger-proof energized fence in Sundarban Tiger Reserve. Proceedings of the International Symposium on tigers, India. Rishi, V., 1993b. The challenges of the man-eater. Proceedings of the International Symposium on tigers, India. Rookmaaker, L.C., 1998. Records of the Sundarban rhinoceros (Rhinoceros sondaicus inermis) in India and Bangladesh. Pachyderm, 24: 37- 45.

Saha, D., 1988. A study of the Sundarban Tiger Reserve. Environment and Ecology, 5: 430-434. Sanyal, P., 1981. Sundarban Tiger Reserve- an overview. Cheetal, 22 (4): 5-8. Sanyal, P., 1983. Mangrove tigerland: the Sundarbans of India. Tigerpaper, 10 (3): 1-4. Sanyal, P., 1987. Managing the man-eaters in the Sundarbans Tiger Reserve of India- a case study. In: Tilson, R. L. and U. S. Seal (Eds.), Tigers of the world: the biology, biopolitics, management, and conservation of an endangered species. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, NJ: 427-434. Sanyal, P., 1990. Tiger prey in the Sundarbans. Cat News, 13: 2. Sanyal, P., 1992. Sundarbans mangrove; wildlife potential and conservation. In Tropical Ecosystems: Ecology and Management, Singh, K. P. and J. S. Singh (Eds.), Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi: 309-314. Sanyal, P., 1993. Tiger’s food in the Sundarbans. Environ, 1 (1): 43-44. Sanyal, P., 1998. Maneaters of Sundarbans. Environ, 6 (1): 17-22. Sanyal, P., 1999a. Sundarban- The largest mangrove diversity on globe. In Sundarbans Mangal, Guha Bakshi, D. N., P. Sanyal and K. R. Naskar (Eds.), Naya Prakash, Kolkata: 428-448. Sanyal, P., 1999b. Man-eating tigers of Sundarbans. In Sundarbans Mangal, Guha Bakshi, D. N., P. Sanyal and K. R. Naskar (eds), Naya Prakash, Kolkata: 449-454. Sanyal, P., 1999c. Tiger-food in Sundarbans. Banabithi, Wildlife Special Issue, October: 10-12. Sanyal, P., 2001. Maneating tigers of Indian Sundarbans. West Bengal, 43 (20): 27-32. Seidensticker, J., R. K. Lahiri, K. C. Das and A. Wright, 1976. Problem tiger in the Sundarbans. Oryx, 13 (3): 267-273. Vyas, P., 2004. Tiger straying in Indian Sundarban: mystery and management. Environ, 9 (1): 43-46. Vyas, P., 2005. Sundarban Tiger Reserve- a mystique tiger kingdom. West Bengal, 47 (9): 25-29.

68

KARUNARATHNA & AMARASINGHE, 2011


A PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF THE REPTILE FAUNA IN NILGALA FOREST AND ITS VICINITY, MONARAGALA DISTRICT, SRI LANKA Sectional Editor: John Rudge Submitted: 30 July 2011, Accepted: 10 October 2011

D. M. S. Suranjan Karunarathna1 and A. A. Thasun Amarasinghe2

1 Young Zoologists' Association of Sri Lanka, Department of National Zoological Gardens, Sri Lanka. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Komunitas Konservasi Alam Tanah Timur, Jl. Kuricang 18 Gd.9 No.47, Ciputat 15412, Tangerang, Indonesia E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Nilgala Conservation Forest Area (NCFA) is an intermediate zone forest situated in the south east of Sri Lanka. During our four-year study we recorded 70 species of reptiles, which represents about 33% of the total Sri Lankan reptile fauna. This number includes eighteen species that are recorded from the NCFA for the first time and ten nationally threatened species. Ten unidentified species were also recorded during the survey period. The results of this study indicate that the Nilgala forest area supports a rich reptile faunal diversity. Unfortunately, this important forest is threatened by fire, illegal logging, chena cultivation, rubber plantation, granite rock blasting, gem mining and road kills. It should be considered an area of high conservation priority. Key words: Sri Lanka, Intermediate zone, savannah, reptiles, threats, ecology, conservation Introduction Based on published sources, a total of 210 species of reptiles (Lizards – 97 sp.; Turtles and tortoises – 9 sp.; Snakes – 102 sp. and Crocodiles – 2 sp.) have been recorded from Sri Lanka. Of these 210 species 120 (57%) are endemic to the island (de Silva, 2006; Maduwage et al., 2009; Manamendra-Arachchi et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2008; Somaweera, 2006; Somaweera & Somaweera, 2009; Wickramasinghe et al., 2007). To date, however, herpetofaunal diversity in the dry and

intermediate zone forest areas of the island have not been well studied. The present survey was undertaken to document the reptile fauna of the Nilgala Conservation Forest Area (NCFA), an intermediate zone forest that is one of the largest and most important forest areas in the Monaragala District. Extensive field surveys were conducted from 2004 to 2007. One of the major drawbacks to conserving reptile fauna in Sri Lanka is the lack of knowledge of their distribution and ecology. It is

TAPROBANICA, ISSN 1800-427X. October, 2011. Vol. 03, No. 02: pp. 69-76, 3 pls. © Taprobanica Private Limited, Jl. Kuricang 18 Gd.9 No.47, Ciputat 15412, Tangerang, Indonesia.

REPTILE FAUNA IN NILGALA FOREST – SRI LANKA


therefore essential to gather information on the diversity of the reptile fauna in different areas of the country, as a first step towards conservation. This paper will serve to enhance the current knowledge of the reptile diversity within the NCFA, an area that is at present poorly studied (de Silva et al., 2004; Karunarathna et al., 2006). Study Area NCFA is a forest ecosystem covering 12,432 hectares in the Bibile divisional secretariat. ‘Nilgala’ literally means ‘blue rock’. According to Gunatilleke & Gunatilleke (1990) the major vegetation type is lowland tropical dry mixed evergreen forest. Commonly found trees include Aralu (Terminalia chebula), Bulu (Terminalia bellirica) and Nelli (Phyllanthus emblica). Other trees such as Terminalia arjuna (Kumbuk), Schleichera oleosa (Kon) and Diospyros ebenum (Kaluwara) are also present. Common shrubs such as Carissa spinarum (Karamba), Zizyphus rugosa (Eraminiya), Lantana camara (Baloliya) and Eupatorium odoratum (Podisingchomaran) occur

(Karunarathna et al., 2008). NCFA is located between 7°08` – 7°14` N and 81°16` – 81°20` E, approximately 11 km east of Bibile town (Fig. 1). Eleven habitat types were identified and sampled during the survey and a brief description of these habitats is given (Table 1). The altitude ranges from 200 m to 700 m above sea level within the boundaries of the NCFA. The general climatic conditions in the Nilgala area can be described as moderately cool, turning humid during the northeast monsoon season. The average annual rainfall is around 1,750 mm, with most of the rainfall occurring from December to March, and only occasional rains in other months. The weather gradually becomes very dry from August to December with highest temperatures recorded in August. The mean annual temperature in the NCFA is 28°C with a maximum of 32°C and minimum of 24°C. NCFA is also important as a major watershed for Gal Oya and Panmedilla Oya throughout the year. There are several peaks within the NCFA with “Yakun Hela” being the highest (700 m).

Table 1: Description of major habitat types in NCFA and vicinity (see Plate 1 for figures)

Habitat Type Description of Habitat Type

1. Chena Trees belonging to the family Rutaceae are dominant and grow up to 5 m; scattered bushes present; main cultivation is maize, banana and finger millet. Leaf litter is very low.

2. Home Gardens Mixed cropping with woody plants like Mangifera indika, Chloroxylon swietenia, Schleichera oleosa, Tamarindus indika; trees grows up to 15 m; shade is about 50%; leaf litter content is high and wet.

3. Paddy fields Paddy fields are moderate in extent (about 1 acre); wallowing sites are frequent along the fields; field bunds are narrow; Oryza sativa dominant.

4. Riverine forests Shade 80% with large tall trees growing up to 20 m; Mangifera ceylanica, Maduca longifolia, Terminalia chebula Diospyros ebenum and Diospyros malabarica are the dominant species; thick wet leaf litter layer available; decaying logs are common.

5. Road Sides Generally consist of small bushes growing up to 2 m. Species such as Maduca longifolia, Terminalia bellirica and Mangifera zeylanica can also be found in several areas.

6. Rock-outcrops Large rock boulders and grassy areas with seasonally moist cascade habitats. Shade 20% with tall trees such as Ficus mollis, Diospyros ebenum and Terminalia bellirica.

7. Savannah forests Prominent trees Terminalia chebula, Terminalia bellirica and Phyllanthus emblica; forest mixed with 1 or 2m height grass (Cymbopogon nardus, C. winterianus and Imperata cylindrica).

8. Shrub-Bush areas 1m to 2m tall and randomly distributed on open soil. Common species are Stachytarpheta urticaefolia, Ipomoea batatas, Anacardium occidentale, Carissa spinarum, Zizyphus rugosa, Lantana camara and Eupatorium odoratum.

9. Small Ponds Seasonally flooded, mud ponds, gem pits, agricultural wells, drinking wells, mud pits, clay pits; shade is maximum 30%.

10. Streams Perennial flowing water bodies, 1m to 10m wide; visibility high, and turbidity low. Shade is about 40% and dominant trees are Diospyros malabarica, Terminalia arjuna and Cynometra species.

11. Tanks Open water bodies, covered by macrophytes (25 %). Maximum water-level April to October with low water level in other periods.



Fig. 1: Map of the Bibile Divisional Secretariat showing the study area. Nilgala Forest is in cross-bars. Material and Methods The present study was carried out from January 2004 to December 2007 with a total of 68 field days (8 hrs / day) covering both the wet and dry seasons. General area surveys were carried out in eleven different habitat types within the NCFA. Surveys were conducted by both day and night. Flashlights were used at night. All habitats including water bodies, under rocks, logs and decaying vegetation, and trees and bushes up to 5 m were thoroughly searched for the presence of reptiles. All collected specimens were examined carefully and recorded prior to being released back to their original point of capture. Basic environmental parameters such as temperature and humidity were recorded at locations where specimens were observed. Rainfall data were obtained from the nearest weather station (Welipitiya Coconut Plantation, Badulla) from the National Meteorological Department in Colombo. Road kills were examined but not collected. Most road kills were extensively damaged and thus are not included in the tables as they could not be identified to the species level. The specimens were identified through the use of field guides and

identification keys given by Boulenger (1890), Deraniyagala (1953 & 1955), Das & de Silva (2005), De Silva (1980), de Silva (1990), Greer (1991), Smith (1935 & 1943), Taylor (1950), Wall (1921), Whitaker & Captain (2004). Threat category was determined according to the National Red List (IUCNSL & MENR, 2007). Forest type, floral identification and nomenclature were done using Ashton et al. (1997); Gunatilleke & Gunatilleke (1990) and Senaratna (2001). Results and Discussion A previous study of the reptile fauna of NCFA was conducted over three months of 2003 by de Silva et al. (2004). Their study recorded 40 species of reptiles, but did not include several common species of reptile fauna from the area. Hettige et al. (2000) recorded 29 species of reptile in a survey of the fauna of Gal Oya National Park. The present four-year survey recorded 70 known species of reptile and a further 10 unidentified species. The results are presented in Table 2. The reptiles recorded belong to 17 families and 49 genera. The 10 unidentified species, all of which might be new to science, belong to the genera Calotes, Cnemaspis, Cyrtodactylus, Dendrelaphis, Hypnale, Nessia, Ramphotyphlops, Rhinophis, Typhlops and Xenochrophis. The following species were recorded for the first time in NCFA; Ahaetulla pulverulenta, Aspidura brachyorrhos, Boiga beddomei, B. trigonata, Chrysopelea taprobonica, Dendrelaphis bifrenalis, Dryocalamus nympha, Liopeltis calamaria, Oligodon sublineatus, Bungarus ceylonicus, Calliophis melanurus, Cylindrophis maculatus, Rhinophis oxyrhynchus, Cnemaspis podihuna, Geckoella yakhuna, Hemidactylus leschenaulti, Dasia halianus and Eutropis bibronii (see Karunarathna & Karunarathna, 2005; Karunarathna et al., 2005). These records show that at least 33% of Sri Lanka’s extant reptiles are present in the NCFA. There is also a significant representation of the country’s amphibians (see Karunarathna et al., 2008). We believe this high diversity in intermediate zone forest habitats is mainly due to the availability of a number of microhabitats, including man-modified habitats that are favorable to reptiles. According to these results, NCFA has the highest reptile richness in an Intermediate or Dry zone forest of Sri Lanka. Of the total of 70 species 25 (36 %) are endemic to Sri Lanka. The survey recorded 5 (7%) data

71



10

56

25

120

80

210

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

NSSL NSN ESSL ESN TSSL TSN

Category

Spec

ies

dive

rsity

deficient species, 13 (19%) near threatened species and 10 (14%) threatened species. The family with the largest number of species present is Colubridae (26 sp.), followed by Gekkonidae (13 sp.), Scincidae (7 sp.), Agamidae (5 sp.), Elapidae (4 sp.), Viperidae (3 sp.) and Varanidae (2 sp.). The leading number of endemic species is in Gekkonidae (9 sp.), Colubridae (6 sp.), Agamidae, Scincidae and Uropeltidae (2 sp. each), Elapidae, Viperidae, Trionychidae and Cylindrophidae (1 sp. each) respectively (Table 2). In NCFA aquatic colubrids are frequently found and 3 out of the 6 species recorded from the country occur. According to Vogel & David (2006), specimens of Xenochrophis cf. piscator from Sri Lanka are actually an undescribed species. When considering the 80 species (including undescribed) by their primary mode of living there are 34 (42.5%) terrestrial, 28 (35%) arboreal, 8 (10%) aquatic and 10 (12.5%) fossorial species. In terms of the species diversity in each habitat type, the highest species richness occurred in Home Gardens (45), followed by Rock-outcrops (33), Chena (30), Shrub/Bush habitats (30), Riverine forests (25), Road Sides (22), Savannah forest (21), Paddy fields (15). Small Ponds, Streams and Tanks (8 species each) showed the lowest species richness. The high species richness in the Home Gardens habitat may be due to the high amount of leaf litter, shade, micro-habitats and also the abundant availability of food items such as small vertebrates and invertebrates on which to feed. The highest number of endemic species was found in Home Gardens (14), followed by Rock-outcrops (13), Riverine forests (11), Shrub/Bush areas (8), Savannah forest (5), Chena (5), Road Sides (4), Paddy fields (3) and Tanks (2). Small Ponds and streams (1 species each) showed the lowest number of endemic species. Conclusion and Recommendation During the survey period several threats to the reptile fauna of the NCFA were observed and recorded. These included irresponsible forest fires, illegal logging, extensive use of chemicals for agriculture including rubber plantations, forest clearing for chena cultivation, gem mining, granite rock blasting and road kills. People living around the NCFA frequently use fire to clear the underbrush, prepare the ground for the next cultivation cycle and hunt for animals (Karunarathna et al., 2005). These fires are very frequent in the months of August and September and destroy the habitats suitable to the reptile fauna.

Illegal logging activities seriously impact the quality of the forests. The local communities are involved in paddy and chena cultivation in the vicinity of the NCFA. These people use chemical fertilizers, pesticides and weedicides. Another significant threat to the reptile fauna of the area is road kills. Many animals that attempt to cross the Bibile – Ampara main road, which cuts across the NCFA end up as road kills. The research team has observed and recorded that reptile mortality is particularly high on this road after rains (Karunarathna et al., 2006). This investigation into the reptiles of the NCFA and its vicinity clearly shows that the Nilgala Forest is an important location in terms of herpetofaunal diversity (Fig. 2). Formal and informal education should be developed, not only in primary and secondary schools but also in driving schools and in universities to promote knowledge of the natural environment of the area. It is also evident that the NCFA acts as an important refuge for endemic, rare and threatened reptiles in the Intermediate zone of the Uva province. The NCFA and its surrounding habitats have been understudied, a fact which is evident from the documenting of 18 species new to the NCFA during this survey. Our preliminary study clearly shows that there is a need to conduct a comprehensive reptile survey in the NCFA. Such a study will help in compiling a more complete list of reptiles and also aid in determining the status of the different species within the NCFA. The latter may be critical because of the imminent anthropogenic pressures within and around the NCFA. Fig. 2: Comparison of reptile diversity of Sri Lanka and NCFA. (Abbreviations: NSSL – total number of reptile species in Sri Lanka; NSN – total number of reptile species in Nilgala (including undescribed species); ESSL – number of endemic species to Sri Lanka; ESN – number of endemic species in Nilgala; TSSL – number of threatened species in Sri Lanka and TSN – number of threatened species in Nilgala).

72



Table 2: Reptile fauna recorded from the Nilgala Forest Area and their habitats. Abbreviations: Chena (CH); Home Gardens (HG); Paddy fields (PF); Riverine forests (RF); Road Sides (RS); Rock-outcrops (RO); Savannah forests (SF); Shrub / Bush areas (SB); Small Ponds (SP); Streams (ST); Tanks (TK); Endemic (E); Most Probably Endemic (E?); Threatened (T); Near Threatened (NT); Data Deficient (DD).

Scientific Names and Author citation Status CH HG PF RF RS RO SF SB SP ST TK

Family - Boidae 1 Python molurus (Linnaeus, 1758) + + + + + +

Family - Colubridae 2 Ahaetulla nasuta (Lacépède, 1789) + + + + + + + 3 Ahaetulla pulverulenta (Duméril et al., 1854) NT + + + 4 Amphiesma stolatum (Linnaeus, 1758) + + + + + 5 Aspidura brachyorrhos (Boie, 1827) E / NT + + 6 Atretium schistosum (Daudin, 1803) + + + + 7 Boiga beddomei (Wall, 1909) DD + + 8 Boiga ceylonensis (Günther, 1858) + + + 9 Boiga forsteni (Duméril et al., 1854) + + +

10 Boiga trigonata (Schneider, 1802) + + + 11 Chrysopelea ornata (Shaw, 1802) NT + + 12 Chrysopelea taprobonica Smith, 1943 E / T + + 13 Coelognathus helena (Daudin, 1803) + + + + 14 Dendrelaphis bifrenalis (Boulenger, 1890) E + + 15 Dendrelaphis tristis (Daudin, 1803) + + + + 16 Dendrelaphis cf. schokari E? + + 17 Dryocalamus nympha (Daudin, 1803) NT + + 18 Liopeltis calamaria (Günther, 1858) T + 19 Lycodon aulicus (Linnaeus, 1758) + + + + + 20 Lycodon osmanhilli Taylor, 1950 E + + 21 Lycodon striatus (Shaw, 1802) + + + + 22 Macropisthodon plumbicolor (Cantor, 1839) NT + + 23 Oligodon arnensis (Shaw, 1802) + + + 24 Oligodon sublineatus Duméril et al., 1854 E + + + + 25 Oligodon taeniolatus (Jerdon, 1853) + + 26 Ptyas mucosus (Linnaeus, 1758) + + + + + + + + 27 Sibynophis subpunctatus (Duméril et al., 1854) + + + + 28 Xenochrophis asperrimus (Boulenger, 1891) E + + + 29 Xenochrophis cf. piscator E? + + +

Family - Elapidae 30 Bungarus caeruleus (Schneider, 1801) + + + + + + + 31 Bungarus ceylonicus Günther, 1864 E / NT + 32 Calliophis melanurus (Shaw, 1802) NT + + 33 Naja naja (Linnaeus, 1758) + + + +

Family - Typhlophidae 34 Ramphotyphlops cf. braminus E? + + 35 Typhlops cf. mirus E? + + +

Family - Cylindrophidae 36 Cylindrophis maculatus (Linnaeus, 1758) E / NT + + + +

Family - Uropeltidae 37 Pseudotyphlops philippinus (Müller, 1832) E/DD + + + 38 Rhinophis oxyrhynchus (Schneider, 1801) E/DD + + 39 Rhinophis cf. punctatus E? +

Family - Viperidae 40 Daboia russelii (Shaw & Nodder, 1797) + + + + 41 Hypnale hypnale (Merrem, 1820) + + + 42 Hypnale cf. zara E? + + +

43 Trimeresurus trigonocephalus (Sonnini & Latreille, 1801) E + + +

73



Scientific Names and Author citation Status CH HG PF RF RS RO SF SB SP ST TK

Family - Crocodylidae 44 Crocodylus palustris Lesson, 1831 + +

Family - Bataguridae 45 Melanochelys trijuga (Schweigger, 1814) NT + + + +

Family - Testudinidae 46 Geochelone elegans (Schoepff, 1795) T + + +

Family - Trionychidae 47 Lissemys ceylonensis (Gray, 1856) E / T + + +

Family - Agamidae 48 Calotes calotes (Linnaeus, 1758) + + + 49 Calotes ceylonensis Müller, 1887 E / T + + + + 50 Calotes versicolor (Daudin, 1802) + + + + + + 51 Calotes cf. liolepis E? + 52 Otocryptis nigristigma Bahir & Silva, 2005 E + + 53 Sitana ponticeriana Cuvier, 1829 + + +

Family - Chamaeleonidae 54 Chamaeleon zeylanicus Laurenti, 1768 NT +

Family - Gekkonidae 55 Calodactylodes illingworthorum Deraniyagala,1953 E / T + +

56 Cnemaspis alwisi Wickramasinghe & Munindradsa, 2007 E/DD + + +

57 Cnemaspis kumarasinghei Wickramasinghe & Munindradsa, 2007 E/DD + + +

58 Cnemaspis podihuna Deraniyagala, 1944 E / T + 59 Cnemaspis cf. tropidogaster E? + 60 Cyrtodactylus cf. fraenatus E? + + 61 Geckoella triedrus (Günther, 1864) E / NT + + 62 Geckoella yakhuna (Deraniyagala, 1945) E + + + 63 Gehyra mutilata (Wiegmann, 1834) + + 64 Hemidactylus parvimaculatus Deraniyagala, 1953 + + + 65 Hemidactylus depressus Gray, 1842 E + + + 66 Hemidactylus frenatus Schlegel, 1836 + + + 67 Hemidactylus leschenaulti Duméril & Bibron, 1836 + + + 68 Hemidactylus hunae Deraniyagala, 1937 E / NT + + 69 Hemidactylus lankae Deraniyagala, 1953 E + + + +

Family - Lacertidae 70 Ophisops leschenaulti lankae (Deraniyagala, 1953) T + +

Family - Scincidae 71 Dasia halianus (Haly & Nevill, 1887) E / NT + + 72 Lankascincus fallax (Peters, 1860) E + + + + + 73 Lygosoma punctata (Gmelin, 1799) + + + 74 Eutropis beddomii (Jerdon, 1870) T + + 75 Eutropis bibronii (Gray, 1838) T + 76 Eutropis carinata lankae (Deraniyagala, 1953) + + + + 77 Eutropis macularia (Blyth, 1853) + 78 Nessia cf. sarasinorum E? + +

Family - Varanidae 79 Varanus bengalensis (Daudin, 1802) + + + + + + + 80 Varanus salvator (Laurenti, 1768) + + + + + + + + Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Asha de Vos (IUCN – Sri Lanka) for reviewing the manuscript. We would also like to thank Mendis Wickramasinghe, Vimukthi Weeratunga, Chamila Soysa, Dilshad

Jemzeed, Toshan Peiris, Asanka Udayakumara, Anushka Kumarasinghe, Ramyanath Sirimanna, Tiran Abeyawardena, Panduka Silva, Dimuthu Wickramasinghe, Nadeesh Gamage and Devaka Jayamanna (YZA) for their kind help during the

74


TAPROBANICA VOL. 03: NO. 02

field visits to NCFA. Finally, we would like to thank Somapala, Chaminda, Champika, Kulatunga, Thissami, Ukkumenika, Asanka, Samantha, Punchibanda, Tikiri, Raja and Lal (Villagers of Pitakumbura) for field activity accommodation in the Nilgala Area. Literature Cited Ashton, M., C. V. S Gunatileke, N. De Zoysa, M. D. Dassanayake, N. Gunatileke and S. Wijesundara, 1997. A field guide to the common trees and shrubs of Sri Lanka. Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka: 432. Boulenger, G. A., 1890. The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and Batrachia. Taylor and Francis, London: 541. Deraniyagala, P. E. P., 1953. A Colored Atlas of some vertebrates from Ceylon, Tetrapod Reptilia - Vol. II. National Museums of Sri Lanka: 101.

Deraniyagala, P. E. P., 1955. A Colored Atlas of Some Vertebrates from Ceylon, Serpentoid Reptilia - Vol. III. National Museums of Sri Lanka: 121. Das, I. and A. de Silva, 2005. Photographic guide to the Snakes and other Reptiles of Sri Lanka. New Holland Publishers: 144. de Silva, A., 1990. Colour Guide to the snakes of Sri Lanka. R and A Publishing Ltd., Avon: 130. de Silva, A., 2006. Current status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka, In: Fauna of Sri Lanka: Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation, Bambaradeniya, C. N. B. (ed.). IUCN Sri Lanka, Colombo: 134-163. de Silva, A., A. M. Bauer, C. C. Austin, S. Goonewardena, Z. Hawke and D. V. Vanneck, 2004. The diversity of Nilgala forest, Sri Lanka, with special reference to its herpetofauna. Lyriocephalus, 5(1&2): 164-182. De Silva, P. H. D. H., 1980. Snakes Fauna of Sri Lanka, with special reference to skull, dentition and venom in snakes. National Museums of Sri Lanka: 472. Greer, A. E., 1991. Lankascincus, a new genus of Scincid lizards from Sri Lanka with descriptions of three new species. Journal of Herpetology, 25 (1): 59-64. Gunatilleke, I. A. U. N. and C. V. S. Gunatilleke, 1990. Distribution of floristic richness and its conservation in Sri Lanka. Conservation Biology, 4 (1): 21-31.

Hettige, U. S. B., L. J. M. Wickramasinghe, T. G. M. Priyadarshana, K. Gunawardena, L. I Perera and A. Manorathna, 2000. Fauna of Gal Oya National Park. Sri Lanka Naturalist, 3 (4): 55–61. IUCNSL & MENR, 2007. The 2007 Red List of threatened Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka. IUCN Sri Lanka: 148. Karunarathna, D. M. S. S. and D. M. G. N. Karunarathna, 2005. An unusual behavior of Otocryptis nigristigma Bahir & Silva, 2005 (Reptilia: Agamidae) observed at Nilgala forest in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Naturalist, 7 (1&2): 21-22. Karunarathna, D. M. S. S., U. T. I. Abeywardena, M. D. C. Asela, D. M. G. N. Karunarathna, D. G. R. Sirimanna and A. A. T. Amarasinghe, 2005. First record of the Chamaeleo zeylanicus Laurenti, 1768 (Reptilia: Chamaeleonidae) from the Nilgala forest in Sri Lanka. Loris, 24 (1&2): 18-20. Karunarathna, D. M. S. S., A. A. T. Amarasinghe, U. T. I. Abeywardena, M. D. C. Asela and D. G. R. Sirimanna, 2006. Preliminary study on Herpetofauna diversity of Nilgala forest area in Monaragala district, Sri Lanka. Proceeding of the 11th International Forestry and Environment Symposium of University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Sri Lanka: 74. Karunarathna, D. M. S. S., U. T. I. Abeywardena, M. D. C. Asela and L. D. C. B. Kekulandala, 2008. A preliminary survey of the Amphibian fauna in Nilgala Forest area and its vicinity, Monaragala District in Sri Lanka. Herpetological Conservation and Biology, 3 (2): 264-272. Maduwage, K., A. Silva, K. Manamendra-Arachchi and R. Pethiyagoda, 2009. A taxonomic revision of the South Asian hump-nosed pit vipers (Squamata: Viperidae: Hypnale). Zootaxa, 2232: 1–28. Manamendra-Arachchi, K., S. Batuwita and R. Pethiyagoda, 2007. A taxonomical revision of the Sri Lankan day-geckos (Reptilia: Gekkonidae: Cnemaspis), with description of new species from Sri Lanka and India. Zeylanica, 7 (1): 9-122. Senaratna, L. M., 2001. A Check List of the Flowering Plants of Sri Lanka. National Science Foundation, Sri Lanka: 342. Smith M. A., 1935. The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and Amphibia - Vol. II Sauria. Taylor and Francis, London: 440.

75



Smith, M. A., 1943. The Fauna of British India, Ceylon and Burma, Including the Whole of the Indo-Chinese Sub-Region. Reptilia and Amphibia - Vol. III Serpentes. Taylor and Francis, London: 583. Smith, E. N., K. Manamendra-Arachchi and R. Somaweera, 2008. A new species of Coral snake of the genus Calliophis (Squamata: Elapidae) from the Central Province of Sri Lanka. Zootaxa, 1847: 19-33. Somaweera, R., 2006. Snakes of Sri Lanka (Sinhala text). Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka: 297. Somaweera, R. and N. Somaweera, 2009. Lizards of Sri Lanka: A colour guide with field keys. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, Germany: 303. Taylor, E. H., 1950. The Snakes of Ceylon. The University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 33 (2): 519-603. Vogel, G. and P. David, 2006. On the taxonomy of the Xenochrophis piscator complex (Serpentes, Natricidae), In: Herpetologia Bonnensis II: Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the Societas Europaea Herpetologica, Vences, M., J. Köhler, T. Ziegler & W. Böhme (eds.): 241-246. Wall, F., 1921. Ophidia Taprobanica or the Snakes of Ceylon. H.R. Cottle, Government Printer, Ceylon: 581. Wickramasinghe, L. J. M., R. Rodrigo, N. Dayawansa and U. L. D. Jayantha, 2007. Two new species of Lankascincus (Squamata: Scincidae) from Sripada. Zootaxa, 1612: 1–24. Whitaker, R. and A. Captain, 2004. Snakes of India, The field guide. Draco Publication Limited. India: 479.

76

VOGEL & VAN ROOIJEN, 2011


A NEW SPECIES OF Dendrelaphis (SERPENTES: COLUBRIDAE) FROM THE WESTERN GHATS - INDIA Sectional Editor: Indraneil Das Submitted: 07 October 2011, Accepted: 30 November 2011

Gernot Vogel1 and Johan Van Rooijen2 1 Society for Southeast Asian Herpetology, Im Sand 3, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany E-mail: [email protected] 2 Netherlands Centre for Biodiversity Naturalis (section ZMA), University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 94766, 1090 GT Amsterdam, The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected] Abstract A new species of the colubrid genus Dendrelaphis Boulenger 1890 is described from the Western Ghats, India. Dendrelaphis girii sp. nov. resembles Dendrelaphis bifrenalis (Boulenger, 1890) which inhabits Sri Lanka. It differs from the latter predominantly in the absence of a ventrolateral stripe, the much narrower and shorter postocular stripe and the broader snout. The description of D. girii sp. nov. underscores the notion that Sri Lanka and the Western Ghats are faunally more distinct than previously thought. Key Words: Dendrelaphis girii sp. nov., Dendrelaphis bifrenalis, taxonomy, reptilia, Sri Lanka Introduction The colubrid snakes of the genus Dendrelaphis Boulenger, 1890 are widely distributed, ranging from Pakistan in the West to the northern and eastern coast of Australia in the East and South and to southern China in the North (Ziegler & Vogel, 1999). Members of the genus Dendrelaphis are slender, diurnal species that are predominantly arboreal and feed mainly on lizards and amphibians. In 1858, Günther recorded a specimen of the genus Dendrelaphis with two loreal shields. It originated from Sri Lanka. He regarded it as a variety of Dendrophis picta (var. C.) (Gmelin, 1789) but pointed out that, in addition to the double loreal

shield, the muzzle is elongate in comparison to Dendrelaphis pictus. Boulenger later described the form represented by Günther’s specimen as Dendrophis bifrenalis (1890) on the basis of three syntypes. Four years later he elaborated on his initial description on the basis of the same three specimens (Boulenger, 1894). At some point, this species has again been regarded as a subspecies of Dendrelaphis pictus (Meise & Henning, 1932; Mertens, 1934). Ferguson (1895) was the first to record Dendrophis bifrenalis from India and stated that it is not


NEW Dendrelaphis FROM THE WESTERN GHATS


uncommon in Trevandrum (today Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala). Subsequently, Wall (1921) confirmed the occurrence of this species in India, namely in Trevandrum and in Travancore (today a part of Kerala). Subsequent works (Smith, 1943; Mahendra, 1984; Sharma, 2007) have not presented new locality records. However, Whitaker & Captain (2004) doubted the occurrence of this species in India, assuming it to be a Sri Lankan endemic. Thus, despite the fact that Ferguson considered this species to be common, it has been recorded only sparsely. Indeed, no Indian specimen could be located by the authors during investigations in the majority of collections in Europe and several collections in the United States. Recent species descriptions and revalidations suggest that levels of endemism harboured by Sri Lanka as well as the Western Ghats may be substantially higher than currently known (e.g. Mukherjee & Bhupathy, 2007; Van Rooijen & Vogel, 2008; 2009; Vogel & Van Rooijen, 2011a). This notion, as well as some observed differences in coloration between the Sri Lankan and Indian sister populations of Dendrelaphis bifrenalis, incited this study into the population systematics of this species. Materials and Methods Nineteen museum specimens were examined. This sample represented 13 specimens from Sri Lanka and 6 specimens from the Indian subcontinent. For each examined specimen, 21 characters including aspects of colour pattern, body proportions and scalation were recorded (Table 1). Eye-diameter and distance eye-nostril were measured with a slide calliper to the nearest 0.1 mm. These measurements were made on the left and right side and were subsequently averaged. Snout-vent length and tail-length were measured by marking the length on a piece of string and subsequently measuring the position of the mark to the nearest 0.5 cm. Snout-vent length was measured to the posterior margin of the anal plate. The number of ventrals was counted following Dowling (1951). Subcaudals were counted on one side, the terminal scute was excluded. The first sublabial was defined as the scale that starts between the posterior chin shield and the infralabials and that borders the infralabials (see Peters, 1964, fig. 7; Lillywhite, 2008). The last infralabial was defined as the infralabial still covered completely by the last supralabial. The posterior most temporal scales were defined as the scales of which more than half of the area lies in front of an imaginary line that runs from the apex of

the last supralabial to the posterolateral corner of the parietal. Characters were analyzed univariately using either χ2 (stripe2) or ANCOVA (all others). Characters exhibiting significant or near-significant differences (P<0.1) between the populations were included in a Principal Components Analysis (PCA, e.g. Cramer, 2003). For PCA, morphometric variables were adjusted to a common SVL of 50.5 cm to correct for potential ontogenetic variation between the samples of the species (e.g. Thorpe, 1975, 1983; How et al., 1996; Turan, 1999). The following allometric equation was applied: Xadj = X - β(SVL - SVLmean) where Xadj is the adjusted value of the morphometric variable; X is the original value; SVL is the snout-vent length; SVLmean is the overall mean snout-vent length; β is the coefficient of the linear regression of X against SVL. All statistical analyses were carried out with the software SPSS (2006; SPSS for Windows. Release 14.0.2. Chicago: SPSS Inc.). Museum abbreviations: BMNH: The Natural History Museum, London, UK; BNHS: Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, India; FMNH: Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, USA; MHNG: Muséum d'histoire naturelle, Geneve, Switzerland; NMW: Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Austria; SMF: Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany; USNM: United States National Museum, Washington, USA. Results Statistical analyses: Figure 1 shows the results of a PCA based on the characters VENT, SUBC, TAIL, INFR, TEMP, ATEMP, WSNT, STRIPE1, STRIPE2 and NECK. A clear separation of the two sister populations is in evidence. Table 2 gives descriptive statistics as well as significance-levels of the differences. The most important differences are the lower number of gular scales, the broader snout, the narrower postocular stripe and the rudimentary ventrolateral stripe in D. girii sp. nov. Taxonomic evaluation: Evidently, the two sister populations differ in several aspects of their morphology and coloration. In addition, the two populations are reproductively isolated due to an extrinsic geographic barrier (the Indian Ocean). Therefore, the two populations are considered to represent separately evolving lineages, and therefore species, in accordance with the general lineage species concept (De Queiroz, 1998, 2007)



-2

-1,5

-1

-0,5

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

-2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2

first principal component

seco

nd p

rinci

pal c

ompo

nent

D. girii sp. nov., maleD. girii sp. nov., femalesD. bifrenalis, malesD. bifrenalis, females

Fig. 1: Ordination of Dendrelaphis girii spec. nov and D. bifrenalis along the first two principal components, based on a PCA of the characters VENT, SUBC, TAIL, INFR, TEMP, ATEMP, WSNT, STRIPE1, STRIPE2 and NECK Table 1: List of morphometric, meristic and coloration characters used in this study and their abbreviations

Abbreviation Character Morphometrics SVL Snout-vent length TAIL Tail-length HL Head-length EYED Horizontal diameter of the eye EYEN Distance from centre of the eye to posterior border of the nostril WSNT Width of the snout Scalation VENT Number of ventrals SUBC Number of subcaudals DOR1 Number of dorsal scale rows at 1 head-length behind the head DOR2 Number of dorsal scale rows at the position of the middle ventral DOR3 Number of dorsal scale rows at 1 head-length before the tail TEMP Number of temporals (L+R) SL1 Number of supralabials (L+R) SL2 Number of supralabials touching the eyes (L+R) INFR Number of infralabials (L+R) SUBL Number of infralabials touched by the first sublabial (L+R) GUL Number of gulars LOR Number of loreals (L+R) POC Number of postoculars (L+R) VERT Vertebral scales not enlarged (0), enlarged (1) Coloration Stripe1 Percentage of temporal region covered by postocular stripe Stripe2 Light ventrolateral stripe present (1), absent/rudimentary (0) Neck Black oblique bars on the neck (yes: 1; no: 0)



Table 2: Morphological and coloration characters of Dendrelaphis girii spec. nov and D. bifrenalis. Values of snout-width are SVL-adjusted.

D. girii sp. nov. D. bifrenalis Significance Prelative tail-length 0.37 [0.36-0.37] 0.38 [0.37-0.39] 0.02 subcaudals 144 [140-147] 148 [141-158] 0.07 ventrals 170 [166-173] 164 [156-172] 0.02 infralabials 20 [19-20] 20 [19-23] 0.09 temporals 16 [6-18] 12 [6-15] 0.03 anterior temporals 2 [1-3] 1.5 [1-2] 0.09 snout width 4.5 mm [4.0-4.6] 3.2 mm [2.6-3.5] 0.0002 percentage of temporal region covered by postocular stripe 17% [10-25] 60% [40-80] 0.0001 clear ventrolateral line present 0% 100% 0.002 black bars on the neck 0% 67% 0.007

Dendrelaphis girii sp. nov. Dendrophis bifrenalis: FERGUSON, 1895, WALL, 1921 Ahaetulla bifrenalis: SMITH, 1943 Dendrelaphis pictus bifrenalis: MEISE & HENNING, 1932, MERTENS, 1934 Dendrelaphis bifrenalis: MAHENDRA, 1984, De Silva, 1980, SHARMA, 2007, WELCH, 1988. This chresonymy includes only citations based on specimens definitely identified as Dendrelaphis girii sp. nov. Holotype: BNHS 3494: adult male; Castle Rock, District Belgaum, Karnataka, India; Coll. Sameer Kehimkar & Varad Giri; Date. 30.IX.2004 Paratypes (5 specimens): (1) BNHS 3495: subadult female; near Keri Village, South Goa, Karnataka, India; 25.V.2003 (2) BNHS 3273: adult female; Khandige Estate, Sirumalai Hills, Tamil Nadu, India; unknown (3) BNHS 3493: adult female; Amboli, District Sindhudurg, Maharashtra, India; 8.VII.2008 (4) BNHS 3491: sex unknown; Amboli, District Sindhudurg, Maharashtra, India; 20.VI.2005 (5) BNHS 3423: adult female; from near Bhimashankar, Pune District, Maharashtra, India; unknown. Coll. the same as holotype. Diagnosis: A species of Dendrelaphis characterized by the combination of: 1) two loreal scales on each side of the head; 2) 15 dorsal scale rows at midbody; 3) enlarged vertebral scales; 4) 166-173 ventrals; 5) 140-147 subcaudals; 6) 8-9 supralabials, 2 supralabials border the eye; 7) 6-8 temporal scales; 8) a long sublabial that touches 2-5 infralabials; 9) 1-3 gular rows; 10) a divided anal shield; 11) relative tail-length 0.36-0.37; 12) a black postocular stripe that covers less than a quarter of the temporal region and that barely extends onto the neck; 13) an absent or rudimentarily present pale ventrolateral line.

Etymology: We want to dedicate this species to Varad Giri, the curator of the herpetological collection of the Bombay Natural History Society. He contributed enormously to the knowledge of the Indian reptiles by his own research and by making the BNHS collection easily available for all kind of researchers. Description of the holotype (Fig. 2 & 3): Adult male; dissected; body very slender; snout-vent length 65.3 cm; tail-length 37.3 cm; relative tail length 0.36; head distinct from neck; head-length 23.1 mm; snout width 5.5 mm; pupil round; eye-diameter 4.45 mm (left/right averaged); distance eye-nostril 4.85 mm (left/right averaged); 169 ventrals; 147 subcaudals; dorsal scales in 15-15-11 rows; 9 supralabials, 5th and 6th border the eye; 9/10 infralabials, infralabials 1–5 touch the first chinshield, infralabials 5 and 6 touch the second chinshield; 1 preocular; 2 postoculars; 2 loreals, anterior one larger than posterior one and more elongate; temporal formula 2:1:2:2 (L), 2:2:1:2 (R); first sublabial touches infralabials 6 through 9; vertebrals moderately enlarged, with straight posterior margin, width of the vertebral scale at the position of the middle ventral scale 2.8 mm; anal divided; parietal scales bordered posteriorly by 4 scales (not being temporal scales). Ground colour of body and tail bluish-grey mixed with brown (depending on the upper layer of the skin, which is partly damaged), the upper head brown (preservation artefact); supralabials whitish; 7th - 9th supralabials with dark dorsal margins, the preocular dark on its ventral part; a black postocular stripe starts behind the eye, covers only a small part of the temporal region, and extends to the upper jaw with a few spots behind the ankle of the jaw; no ventrolateral line present, belly and underside of the tail uniform whitish.

80



Fig. 2: BNHS 3494: adult male; Castle Rock, Belgaum District, Karnataka State, India; Holotype of Dendrelaphis girii sp. nov.

81



Fig. 3: Dendrelaphis girii (in life, specimen was not preserved); close-up of the head enlarged; Photos: Ashok Captain Description of the paratypes: A summary of morphological and coloration data of the paratypes is given in Table 3. Other important characters agree with features of the holotype. Table 3: Morphological and coloration characters of the types of Dendrelaphis girii sp. nov. Collection number BNHS 3494 3423 3495 3273 3493 3491 status Holotype Paratype Paratype Paratype Paratype Paratype Sex m f f f f ? Snout-vent length (cm) 65.3 57.3 46.5 51.5 74.3 64.7 Tail-length (cm) 37.3 33.4 27.1 29.8 - 37.5 Head-length (mm) 23.1 20.7 17.6 18.9 26.3 22.9 Eye-diameter (mm) 4.4/4.3 4.0/4.0 3.6/3.8 3.2/3.5 4.7/4.9 4.4/4.4 Eye-nostril distance (mm) 5.0/4.7 4.5/4.8 3.8/4.1 4.0/4.1 6.1/5.6 5.3/5.4 Snout-width (mm) 5.5 5.3 3.9 4.7 6.9 - Ventrals 169 166 167 173 171 170 Subcaudals 147 140 142 145 inc 144 Dorsal formula 15-15-11 16-15-11 15-15-11 15-15-11 15-15-11 17-15-11 Temporal formula 2122/2212 2222/22212 2221/2122 12/12 3221/22231 3222/3132 Supralabials 9/9 9/9 9/8 9/9 9/9 7/8 Supralabials touching the eye 5,6/5,6 5,6/5,6 5,6/5,6 5,6/5,6 5,6/5,6 4/4,5 Infralabials 9/10 10/10 10/10 10/10 9/10 10/10 Infralabials touched by first sublabial 6-9/6-9 6-8/7-9 6-9/6-9 6-10/6-9 6-8/6-8 6,7/6,7 Loreals 2/2 2/2 2/2 2/2 2/2 2/2 Postoculars 2/2 2/2 2/2 2/2 3/3 2/2 Vertebrals enlarged yes yes yes yes yes yes Anal shield divided yes yes yes yes yes yes Light ventrolateral stripe absent or rudimentary yes yes yes yes yes yes Percentage of temporal region covered by postocular stripe

10 20 25 20 10 15

Locality Castlerock,

Belgaum Dist., Karnataka

Near Bhimashankar,

Pune Dist., Maharashtra

Near Keri Village,

South Goa, Karnataka

Khandige Estate,

Sirumalai Hills,

Tamil Nadu

Amboli, Sindhudurg

Dist., Maharashtra

Amboli, Sindhudurg

Dist., Maharashtra

82



Range: Dendrelaphis girii sp. nov. inhabits the Western Ghats, South India. It was found in the states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra. Comparison with other species: Due to their double loreal shield, D. girii sp. nov. and D. bifrenalis occupy a unique position within the genus. A congeneric species with a double loreal shield has been described in the past, namely Dendrelaphis biloreatus (Wall, 1908). However, the presence of a double loreal in D. biloreatus appears to be based either on an anomalous specimen or on a misjudgement (Vogel & Van Rooijen, 2011b). Furthermore, D. biloreatus differs from D. girii sp. nov. and D. bifrenalis in its number of dorsal scale rows (13) and its number of ventral scales (190-199). There are several differences between Dendrelaphis girii sp. nov and D. bifrenalis. The most obvious one is the light ventrolateral line, which is present in D. bifrenalis and missing or very faint in Dendrelaphis girii sp. nov. (see Fig. 3, 4). Fig. 4: Dendrelaphis bifrenalis, live specimen from Kandy - Sri Lanka. Notice the conspicuous white ventrolateral stripe; Photo: Ruchira Somaweera The postocular stripe is much broader in D. bifrenalis. In D. bifrenalis there are black oblique bars in the neck region of some, but not all specimens (8 specimens out of 12 in our data) (see Fig. 3-5). This pattern is not sex related. It is absent in D. girii sp. nov. For Dendrelaphis girii sp. nov. we had only 1 male, so it is not possible to compare the sexual dimorphism in this character. The snout of Dendrelaphis girii sp. nov. is much broader than that of D. bifrenalis. Dendrelaphis girii sp. nov. has, on average, fewer subcaudals and more ventrals than D. bifrenalis, but the ranges broadly overlap.

Fig. 5: Dendrelaphis bifrenalis, live specimen from Kiriella (near Ingiriya); alt. 210 m a.s.l. - Sri Lanka; Photo: Suranjan Karunarathna Discussion Dendrelaphis girii sp. nov. is undoubtedly a sister species of D. bifrenalis. Both species exhibit a double loreal shield, a unique character within the genus, and are phenetically very similar in other aspects of morphology as well. Possibly, the common ancestor of both species dispersed across the land bridge between India and Sri Lanka that came into existence due to Pleistocene lowering of sea levels (e.g. Voris, 2000; Pethiyagoda, 2005). Subsequent isolation would have provided the opportunity for independent evolution of the sister populations. The Western Ghats and Sri Lanka together have been designated as one of the biodiversity hotspots of the world (Mittermeier et al., 2005) and are known to host a high level of endemism among reptiles (e.g. Das, 1996; Ishwar et al., 2001; Mittermeier et al., 2005; Gunawardene et al., 2007). Recent species descriptions suggest that biodiversity as well as the level of endemism harboured by this area may be substantially higher than currently known (e.g. Pethiyagoda, 2005; Wickramasinghe et al., 2007; Mukherjee & Bhupathy, 2007). This notion is underscored by recent insights into the taxonomy of the genus Dendrelaphis: one Sri Lankan endemic, D. schokari Kuhl, 1820 was resurrected from synonymy (Van Rooijen & Vogel, 2008), one South Indian species, D. chairecacos Boie, 1827, was resurrected from synonymy (Van Rooijen & Vogel, 2009), and two new species, D. ashoki Vogel & Van Rooijen, 2011a and D. girii sp. nov. (this report) have now been described from the Western Ghats. Furthermore, these results add to the notion that the faunas of Sri Lanka and the Western Ghats are more distinct than previously recognized (e.g. Bossuyt et al., 2004).

83



Specimens examined Dendrelaphis girii sp. nov.: BNHS 3423, Near Bhimashankar, District Pune, Maharashtra, coll. S. Kehimkar; BNHS 3495, Near Keri Village, South Goa, Karnataka, coll. S. Korajkar and team; BNHS 3273, Khandige Estate, Sirumalai Hills, Tamil Nadu, coll. S.P. Vijaykumar; BNHS 3494, Castlerock, District Belgaum, Karnataka, coll. V. Giri and S. Kehimkar; BNHS 3493, Amboli, District Sindhudurg, Maharashtra, coll. V. Giri and Team; BNHS 3491, Amboli, District Sindhudurg, Maharashtra; coll. V. Giri and S. Kehimkar Dendrelaphis bifrenalis MHNG 1553.9, Inde; MHNG 743.37b, 782.75, 743.36 “Ceylon”; NMW 23724, Kandy, Sri Lanka; SMF 25483 Polonaruwa, Ceylon; FMNH 142366, Ceylon; BM 1946.1.6., 1946. 1.10.194, 1946.1.10.20, Syntypes, BM 94.9.11.20, Ceylon; BM 1905.3.25.98, Pundaluoya, 4000 feet, Ceylon; USNM 267765, Labugama, Sri Lanka. A fourth specimen marked as type in the collection of the British Museum (BM 94.9.11.20), should not be regarded as part of the type series. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Suranjan Karunarathna (Sri Lanka), Ruchira Somaweera (Sri Lanka) and Ashok Captain (India) for their valuable pictures of these uncommon species. We are grateful to Varad Giri (BNHS) and two unknown reviewers for their critical reading of this manuscript and their constructive comments that greatly improved content and language of this paper. We thank Varad Giri and Asad Rahmahi (BNHS), Colin J. McCarthy and Patrick Campbell (BMNH), Gunther Köhler and Linda Acker (SMF), George Zug and Ron McDiarmid (USNM), Franz Tiedemann and Richard Gemel (NMW), Andreas Schmitz (MHNG), Alan Resetar (FMNH), for their assistance in sending us or letting us examine preserved specimens. Literature Cited Bossuyt, F., M. Meegaskumbura, N. Beenaerts, D. J. Gower, R. Pethiyagoda, K. Roelants, A. Mannaert, M. Wilkinson, M. M. Bahir, K. Manamendra-Arachchi, P. K. L. Ng, C. J. Schneider, O. V. Oommen and M. C. Milinkovitch, 2004. Local endemism within the Western Ghats – Sri Lanka Biodiversity Hotspot. Science, 306: 479.

Boulenger, G. A., 1890. The Fauna of British India, Including Ceylon and Burma.Reptilia and Batrachia. Taylor & Francis, London: xviii+541. Boulenger, G. A., 1894. Catalogue of the Snakes in the British Museum (Natural History). Volume II., Containing the Conclusion of the Colubridae Aglyphae. Taylor & Francis, London: xi+382. Cramer, D., 2003. Advanced quantitative data analysis. Open University Press, Philadelphia. Das, I., 1996. Biogeography of the Reptiles of South Asia. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, USA: vii+87+36pls. De Queiroz, K., 1998. The general lineage concept of species, species criteria, and the process of speciation: A conceptual unification and terminological recommendations. In: Endless Forms: Species and Speciation, Howard D. J., S. H. Berlocher (Eds). Oxford University Press, Oxford: 57-75. De Queiroz, K., 2007. Species concepts and species delimitation. Systematic Biology, 56 (6): 879-886. De Silva, P. H. D. H., 1980. - Snake fauna of Sri Lanka, with special reference to skull, dentition and venom in snakes. Spolia Zeylanica, 34 (1-2): xi+472+67pls. Dowling, H. G., 1951. A proposed standard system of counting ventrals in snakes. British Journal of Herpetology, 1: 97-99. Ferguson, H. S., 1895. List of snakes taken in Travancore from 1888 to 1895. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 10: 68-77. Günther A. C. L. G., 1858. - Catalogue of colubrine snakes in the collection of the British Museum. British Museum of natural History, London: xvi+281. Gmelin, J. F., 1789. Carola a Linné Systema Naturae. G. E. Beer, Leipzig. 1 (3): 1033-1516. Gunawardene, N. R., A. E. D. Daniels, I. A. U. N. Gunatilleke, C. V. S. Gunatilleke, P. V. Karunakaran, K. G. Nayak, S. Prasad, P. Puyravaud, B. R. Ramesh, K. A. Subramanian and G. Vasanthy, 2007. A brief overview of the Western Ghats- Sri Lanka biodiversity hotspot. Current Science, 93: 1567-1572. How, R. A., L. H. Schmitt and Maharadatunkamsi, 1996. Geographical variation in the genus Dendrelaphis (Serpentes: Colubridae) within the islands of south-eastern Indonesia. Journal of Zoology, 238: 351-363.

84



Ishwar, N. M., R. Chellam and A. Kumar, 2001. Distribution of forest floor reptiles in the rainforest of Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, South India. Current Science, 80(3): 413-418. Lillywhite, H. B., 2008. Dictionary of Herpetology. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida: 376. Mahendra, B. C., 1984. Handbook of the snakes of India, Ceylon, Burma, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Annals of Zoology (AGRA), 22 (B): xvi+412. Meise, W. and W. Henning, 1932. Die Schlangengattung Dendrophis. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 99 (11/12): 273-297. Wickramasinghe, L. J. M., R. Rodrigo, Nihal Dayawansa and U. L. D. Jayantha, 2007. Two new species of Lankascincus (Squamata: Scincidae) from Sripada Sanctuary (Peak Wilderness), in Sri Lanka. Zootaxa, 1612: 1-24. Mertens, R., 1934. Die Schlangengattung Dendrelaphis Boulenger in systematischer und zoogeographischer Beziehung. Archiv für Naturgeschichte, Berlin (N. F.), 3(2): 187-204. Mittermeier, R. A., P. R. Gil, M. Hoffman, J. Pilgrim, T. Brooks, C. G. Mittermeier, J. Lamoreux and G. A. B. da Fonseca, 2005. Hotspots Revisited: Earth's Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. Cemex, Conservation International and Agrupacion Sierra Madre, Monterrey, Mexico: 392. Mukherjee, D. and S. Bhupathy, 2007. A new species of Wolf Snake (Serpentes: Colubridae: Lycodon) from Anaikatti Hills, Western Ghats, Tamil Nadu, India. Russian Journal of Herpetology, 14: 21-26. Peters, J. A., 1964. Dictionary of herpetology: a brief and meaningful definition of words and terms used in herpetology. Hafner Publ. Co., New York: 392. Pethiyagoda, R., 2005. Exploring Sri Lanka’s biodiversity. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology Supplement 12: 1-4. Sharma, R. C., 2007. The fauna of India and the adjacent countries. Reptilia (Serpentes). Zoological Survey India, Kolkata: 410. Smith, M. A., 1943. The fauna of British India, Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and Amphibia. Vol.3 Serpentes. Taylor & Francis, London: 583. Thorpe, R. S., 1975. Quantitative handling of characters useful in snake systematics with particular reference to intraspecific variation in the Ringed

Snakes Natrix natrix (L.). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 7: 27-43. Thorpe, R. S., 1983. A biometric study of the effects of growth on the analysis of geographic variation: Tooth number in Green geckos (Reptilia: Phelsuma). Journal of Zoology, London, 201: 13-26. Turan, C., 1999. A note on the examination of morphometric differentiation among fish populations: the Truss System. Turkish Journal of Zoology, 23: 259-263. Van Rooijen, J. and G. Vogel, 2008. An investigation into the taxonomy of Dendrelaphis tristis (Daudin, 1803): revalidation of Dipsas schokari (Kuhl, 1820) (Serpentes, Colubridae). Contributions to Zoology, 77 (1): 33-43. Van Rooijen, J. and G. Vogel, 2009. A multivariate investigation into the population systematics of Dendrelaphis tristis (Daudin, 1803) and Dendrelaphis schokari (Kuhl, 1820): revalidation of Dendrophis chairecacos Boie, 1827 (Serpentes: Colubridae). The Herpetological Journal, 19: 193-200. Vogel, G. and J. van Rooijen, 2011a. Contributions to a review of the Dendrelaphis pictus (Gmelin, 1789) complex (Serpentes: Colubridae) - 3. The Indian forms, with the description of a new species from the Western Ghats. Journal of Herpetology, 45: 100-110. Vogel, G. and J. Van Rooijen, 2011b. Description of a new species of the genus Dendrelaphis Boulenger, 1890 from Myanmar (Squamata: Serpentes: Colubridae). Bonn Zoological Bulletin, 60: 17-24. Voris, H. K., 2000. Maps of Pleistocene sea levels in Southeast Asia: shorelines, river systems and time durations. Journal of Biogeography, 27: 1153-1167. Wall, F., 1908. Two new snakes from Assam. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 18: 272-274. Wall, F., 1921. Remarks on the Indian Species of Dendrophis and Dendrelaphis. Records of the Indian Museum, 22: 151-162. Welch, K. R. G., 1988. Snakes of the Orient: a checklist. Robert E. Krieger Publ. Co, Malabar, Florida: vii+183. Whitaker, R. and A. Captain, 2004. Snakes of India: A field guide. Draco Books, Chennai, India: 481. Ziegler, T. and G. Vogel, 1999. On the knowledge and specific status of Dendrelaphis ngansonensis (Bourret, 1935) (Reptilia: Serpentes: Colubridae). Russian Journal of Herpetology, 6: 199-208.

85


TAXONOMIC STATUS AND STUDIES OF THREE HIGH ALTITUDE BUTTERFLIES Polyommatus LATREILLE, 1804 AND A NEW RECORD OF P. florenciae (TYTLER, 1926) FROM INDIA Sectional Editor: Jeffrey Miller Submitted: 10 May 2011, Accepted: 24 November 2011

Avtar Kaur Sidhu1, Charn Kumar2 and H. S. Rose3 1 High Altitude Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Saproon, Solan 173211, Himachal Pradesh, India E-mail: [email protected] 2 Department of Biology, A. S. College, Khanna 141402, Punjab, India 3 SUS College of Research & Technology, Mohali 140306, Punjab, India Abstract The status of three species of high altitude butterflies, Polyommatus Latreille, 1804, from the Indian Himalayas has been assessed and the species P. florenciae (Tytler, 1926) has been recorded for the first time from India. Details of the genitalia for each species are illustrated and described for the first time. Key words: Lycaenidae, Polyommatinae, genitalia, Himalayas, taxonomy, Lepidoptera Introduction Hemming (1967) has explained how the genus Polyommatus Latreille, 1804 was originally established based on a misidentified type-species, P. argus Fabricius, a name never published by Fabricius as a new species. Owing to such a misconception in the initial stages, the name Polyommatus has been used in various incorrect circumstances since the nineteenth century. Rather than going too deep into the historical account of the genus, it seems appropriate to add here that the name P. icarus Rottemburg, 1775 (type-species) was placed on the Official List of specific names in Zoology as Name No. 1515. While dealing with Lycaenidae diversity from the Indian subcontinent,

Evans (1932), Peile (1937) and Wynter-Blyth (1957) have made use of the generic name Polyommatus Latreille, 1804 in its broad comprehensive sense, ignoring some earlier works. Tutt (1909), Hemming (1933) and Stempffer (1937) have made use of different generic names for easily recognizable divisions of the genus Polyommatus, as per arrangement in the Natural History Museum, London. In a major revision, Cantlie (1963) divided the genus, under reference (sensu Evans, 1932 loc. cit.), into thirteen genera viz., Polyommatus, Phengaris, Philotes, Plebejus, Aricia, Turanana, Vaccinina, Agriades, Albulina, Glaucopsyche, Iolana, Cyaniris and Lycaeides

TAPROBANICA, ISSN 1800-427X. October, 2011. Vol. 03, No. 02: pp. 86-92, 4 pls. © Taprobanica Private Limited, Jl. Kuricang 18 Gd.9 No.47, Ciputat 15412, Tangerang, Indonesia.

TAXONOMIC STATUS AND STUDIES OF THREE HIGH ALTITUDE BUTTERFLIES


(Eliot, 1973; Bridges, 1988; Smith, 1989). According to Varshney (1997), the taxon Polyommatus (sens. str.) is, in fact, a Palaearctic genus restricted to the Himalayan mountain range (Chitral, Hunza, Khyber, Kashmir, Ladakh, Kumaon, Sikkim) in India and neighboring countries like Nepal and Baluchistan (Pakistan). Further, due to frequent transfers of different species between allied genera, the total number of species in this genus at present remains fluid. However, about nine species viz., P. icarus Rottemburg, P. eros Ochsenheimer, P. florenciae Tytler, P. sarta Alpheranky, P. devanica Moore, P. stoliczkana Felder & Felder, P. sieversi Christoff, P. bogra Evans and P. nepalensis Forster are represented in the above mentioned areas/localities and out of these, the former five are represented in the Himalayan region in India (Evans, loc. cit.; Wynter-Blyth, loc. cit.; Cantlie, loc. cit.; Smith, loc. cit.). During the course of present surveys, three species i.e., P. icarus, P. eros and P. florenciae were collected from various localities in the North-West Himalaya Mountains between altitudes ranging from 2680 m a.s.l. to 4050 m a.s.l. Observations (scale of photos is 10 mm): Polyommatus Latreille, 1804 Common name: The Meadow Blues Latreille, 1804, Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle, 24 (Tab): 200; Stempffer, 1937, Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de France: 296. Polymaster Gaede, 1931, In Strand's Lepidoptera Catalogue, 46: 510. Bryna Evns, 1912, Journal of Bombay natural History Society, 21: 284.

Type-species: Papilio icarus Rottemburg, 1775 Rottemburg, 1775, Naturforscher, 6: 31. Generic diagnosis: Eyes and labial palpi hairy; antenna with well defined club, spatula-shaped, dorsally with a subapical patch of white scales; each leg with femur longer than tibia, the former hairy; forewing with 11 veins, vein Sc and vein R1 free, origin of the latter nearer to base than the origin of vein Culb; underside of both wings with all spots black, encircled white; hindwing tailless; male genitalia with uncus divided, each uncus lobe swollen apically, tip abruptly acute, each valvae spindle shaped; female genitalia with genital plate membranous, with a marginal strip of sclerotization and a median sclerotized area above ostium pouch. Remarks: Besides other already known morphological characters, the male and female genitalia of three species viz., P. icarus, P. eros and P. florenciae have been examined in considerable detail. Examination of the genitalia was essential for validating the determination of species. Accordingly, a consolidated key to the presently studied species was prepared by taking into account various morphological characters, including genitalia. Superficially the genitalia suggest the taxa may be conspecific. However, a critical examination shows that characters such as the shape and curves of uncus lobes, vinculum and valvae of the male genitalia and the genital plate in the female genitalia serve as diagnostic characters. The same general pattern of both the male and female genitalia indicates that all the three species viz., P. icarus, P. eros and P. florenciae are congeneric and form a natural group of species.

Key for differentiating Polyommatus: florenciae, eros, and icarus 1 a. Undersurface of forewings always without a spot in cell; undersurface of hindwings with the basal spot only

in space Sc+R1 prominent, others obscure; male genitalia with each brachium unevenly curved; female genitalia with ostium pouch lacking median sclerotization at caudal end ……….……....…. P. florenciae Tytler

b. Undersurface of forewings usually with a spot in cell; undersurface of hindwings with more than one equally prominent basal spot; male genitalia with each brachium evenly curved; female genitalia with ostium pouch bearing a median sclerotization at caudal end ………………………….……….………………..…………..…. 2

2 a. Undersurface of forewings with discal spots in R5; veins M1 and M2 arranged in a straight line; male

genitalia with vinculum abruptly tapering towards ventral end; lower edge of each valva curved; female genitalia with genital plate carrying an inverted U-shaped sclerotized area; ostium pouch present between the arms of this U-shaped sclerotization …………..……………………………..…..……..... P. eros Ochsenheimer

b. Undersurface of forewings with discal spots in R5; veins M1 and M2 arranged on a curve; male genitalia with vinculum gradually tapering towards ventral end; lower edge of each valva straight; female genitalia with genital plate carrying a W-shaped sclerotized area; ostium pouch situated beyond W-shaped sclerotized region …..................................................................................................................................…… P. icarus Rottemburg

SIDHU ET AL., 2011


Polyommatus florenciae (Tytler, 1926) (Figs. 1-3) Common name: The Silvery Meadow Blue Tytler, 1926, Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 31: 583 (Lycaena); Evans, 1932, Identification of Indian Butterflies (2nd ed.): 233 (Polyommatus); Cantlie, 1963, Lycaenidae portion of Butterflies (Revised): 61 (Polyommatus). Fig. 1: Dorsal view of Polyommatus florenciae male Fig. 2: Ventral view of Polyommatus florenciae male Fig. 3: Dorsal view of Polyommatus florenciae female Venation: Forewings: discal cell almost equal to half of the wing length, veins Sc and R1 free, briefly approximating; vein R4 wanting; stalk of

veins R3+R5 and vein M1 separated at their origin; vein R3 arising before middle of vein R5; vein M2 almost equidistant between vein M1 and vein M3; discocellulars incomplete; origin of vein Cu-la well before end cell. Hindwings: discal cell less than half of wing length; vein M2 closer to vein M1 than vein M3; discocellulars thin, complete; origin of vein Cu-la well before end of the cell. Male Genitalia: Symmetrical, well sclerotized, large sized; uncus divided into two lobes, each lobe elongated, compressed laterally, much broader in middle, apex acute, sparsely pilose; brachia short, slender, peg-shaped, unevenly curved, tapering to sharp apices; tegumen thick band-shaped, with posterior angles produced laterally; suspensorium present; vinculum with upper portion much broader, abruptly tapering into narrow ridge-like lower portion; saccus absent; each valva large, broader in middle, with curved dorsal and ventral edges; costa very narrow; sacculus broad, elongated flap-like; ampulla well separated from harpe, thin, inwardly curved; harpe broad with squarish apex; valva pilose along margins and inner surface; juxta U-shaped, with elongated arms; aedeagus short, straight, slender, ventrally placed, subzone much longer than suprazone, the latter narrower, subzone laterally produced at entry of bulbus ejaculatorius, the latter thin and membranous, ductus ejaculatorius entering cephalad. Female Genitalia: Lodix large, slightly arched, rectangular plate-shaped, with narrow anterior margin; genital plate comprising a W-shaped sclerotization with elongated lateral arms, otherwise membranous; ductus seminalis enters ductus bursae near base on dorsal side; ductus bursae membranous, opens exteriorly through on elongated ostium pouch, the latter lacking median sclerotization at caudal end, gradually broadens before imperceptibly entering into corpus bursae; corpuse bursae membranous, ovate, shorter than ductus bursae, signum absent; apophyses anteriores knob-shaped; apophyses posteriores narrow, moderate, curved rods; papilla analis somewhat rectangular, partly sclerotized, pilose. Forewing length: Male, 17 mm; Female, 17 mm. Material examined: Himachal Pradesh: 1 male (23.VI.1995), 3 males, 2 females (21.VI.1996), Kaza - Lahaul & Spiti (3600 m a.s.l.); 2 males, 1 female (26.VI.1995), Losar - Lahaul & Spiti (4079 m a.s.l.); 2 males (20.VI.1996), Ki - Lahaul & Spiti (4116 m a.s.l.); 3 males (21.VI.1996), Gulling -



Lahaul & Spiti (3500 m a.s.l.); 4 males, 1 female (16.VI.1996), Rakcham - Kinnaur (2900 m a.s.l.); 1 female (26.VI.1996), Puh - Kinnaur (2837 m a.s.l.); 1 male (24.VII.2009), 4 males, 3 females (25.VII.2009), Sural - Pangi (3234 m a.s.l.). Current distribution: 2837 - 4116 m a.s.l. Previous distribution: Baroghil Pass, Gilgit to Chitral, Hunza. Larval food plant: unknown Remarks: Following Cantlie (1963), Bridges (1988) and Varshney (1997), a sample consisting of twenty individuals (fifteen males and five females), has been identified as Polyommatus florenciae (Tytler, 1926). However, prior to this, Evans (1932) has erroneously treated this species as a subspecies of the species P. poseidon Herrich-Schäffer, 1851 which is now considered under the genus, Agrodiaetus Hübner, 1822 (Bridges, loc. cit.). While examining various individuals referable to this species, it has been observed that the number of basal spots on undersurface of the hindwings is variable. There may be two basal spots (three examples) or one (seventeen examples). Similarly, though a spot in the discal cell on the undersurface of the forewings is usually absent, such a spot has been observed in two individuals on the right side of the same insect. Accordingly, a series of four males and two females showing variations have been dissected in order to confirm their identity by examination of the genitalia. An illustrated account of the male and female genitalia is being given for the first time (Pl. 4, Fig. 11). The present surveys observed adults of P. florenciae to be common in localities such as Sural, Rakcham, Gulling, Losar, Kaza, Ki and Puh (Himachal Pradesh) in the North-West Himalaya, from where it is being reported for the first time from India. However, this species has been considered to be rare (Evans, 1932; Cantlie, 1963) or endangered (Varshney, 1997). Polyommatus eros (Ochsenheimer, 1807) (Figs. 4-7) Common name: The Common Meadow Blue Ochsenheimer, 1807, Schmetterlinge Europa 1 (2): 42 (Papilio); Bingham, 1907, Fauna of British India, Butterflies II: 340 (Lycaena); Evans, 1932, Identification of Indian Butterflies (2nd edition): 231 (Polyommatus). Lycaena amor Staudinger, 1886, Stettiner Entologische Zeitung, 47: 211. Lycaena amorata Alpheraky, 1897, In Romanoff Memoires Lepidoptera, 9: 113.

Fig. 4: Dorsal view of Polyommatus eros male Fig. 5: Ventral view of Polyommatus eros male Fig. 6: Dorsal view of Polyommatus eros female Fig. 7: Ventral view of Polyommatus eros female

89

SIDHU ET AL., 2011


Venation: Forewings: discal cell larger than half of the wing length; veins Sc and R1 free; vein R4 wanting; vein R3 arise before middle of vein R5; base of vein M2 nearer to vein M1 than M3 at base; discocellulars incomplete. Hindwings: discal cell less than half of wing length; vein M2 equidistant between veins M1 and M3. Male Genitalia: Uncus divided into two lobes, each lobe elongated, dorsovenrally flattened, apex broader, squarish, pilose; brachia short, slender, hook-like with sharp apices; tegument band like, suspensorium present; vinculum with upper half much broader; saccus absent; valve fusiform, costa narrow, diagonal, sacculus flap-like, from inner surface of the latter is a semi-membranous densely pilose fold; ampulla well separated from harpe, narrow, flattened; harpe broad, less sclerotized; margins and inner surface of the valve pilose; juxta U-shaped with narrow arms; aedeagus short, slender, straight, subzonal portion much larger than suprazonal portion; bulbus ejaculatorius cephalad. Female Genitalia: Lodix squarish, upper angles rounded, lower pointed, produced outwards; genital plate membranous with inverted U-shaped strip of scleotization and a median patch of sclerotization just above ostium pouch; ductus seminalis attached to base of ductus bursae; latter slender, opens into long, elongated, membranous ostium pouch, the tip of which well sclerotized; corpus bursae oblong; apophysis anterioris long, knob-like with apex rounded; apophysis posterioris narrow, moderate in length; papilla analis subtriangular, pilose. Forewing length: Male, 15.5-18.5 mm; Female, 15.5 mm Material examined: Himachal Pradesh: 2 males (14.VII, 1992), Kharapani - Lahaul Spiti (2850 m a.s.l.); 7 males (16.VII.1992), Trilokinath - Lahaul & Spiti (3000 m a.s.l.); 1 male (20.VII.1992), Kellar - Pangi (2900 m a.s.l.); 1 male (24.VI.1995), 1 female (27.VI.1996), Puh - Kinnaur (2837 m a.s.l.); 3 males, 1 female (16.VI.1996), Rakcham - Kinnaur (2900 m a.s.l.); 1 female (25.VI.1995), Hurling - Lahaul & Spiti (2885 m a.s.l.); 1 male (26.VI.1995), Losar - Lahaul & Spiti (4079 m a.s.l.); 3 males (20.VI.1996), Ki - Lahaul & Spiti (4116 m a.s.l.); 8 males, 1 female (21.VI.1996), Gulling - Lahaul & Spiti (3500 m a.s.l.); 1 male (21.VI.1996), Kaza - Lahaul & Spiti (3600 m a.s.l.); 1 male (24.VII.2009), Sural - Pangi (3234 m a.s.l.). Current distribution: 2837-4116 m a.s.l.

Previous distribution: Chitral-Gilgit, Baluchistan (1800-2400 m a.s.l.), Waziristan, Ladak, Kashmir (1500 m a.s.l.), Kangra, Kullu (above 2400 m a.s.l.), North Kumaon (3300 m a.s.l.), Sikkim, Nepal. Larval food plant: Unknown. Remarks: Based on the material examined, Polyommatus eros (Ochsenheimer) appears to be a very common species. Cantlie (1963) has reported as many as twelve subspecies: bilucha Moore,1884, shingara Evans,1932, wazira Evans,1932, drunela Swinhoe,1910 darshana Swinhoe,1925, janetae Evans,1927 hunza Grum - Grshimailo,1890, stoliczkana Felder & Felder, 1865, pseuderos Moore,1879, ariana Moore, 1865, dux Riley, 1926 and arene Fawcett, 1904. Due to an overlapping range in some of these subspecies, it is likely many subspecies designations are not valid. Moreover, the reporting of this taxon from all the above mentioned localities in the North-West Himalaya represents the first distribution records for that region. While undertaking field work in one of the toughest terrains in the snow desert area of Kaza, it has been observed that the flowers of Trigonella sp. are preferred as nectar source by the adults. Polyommatus icarus (Rottemburg, 1775) (Figs. 8-10) Common name: The Violet Meadow Blue Rottemburg, 1775, Neturforscher 6: 21 (Papilio); Bingham, 1907, Fauna of British India, Butterflies II: 339 (Lycaena); Cantlie, 1963,Lycaenidae portion of Butterflies (Revised) : 59 (Polyommatus). Papilio pampholyge Bergstrasser, 1779, Nomenclator und Beschreibung der Insecten, 2: pl. 47. Papilio candybus Bergstrasser 1779, Nomenclator und Beschreibung der Insecten, 2: pl. 48, f 1, 2. Papilio candiope Bergstrasser, 1779, Nomenclator und Beschreibung der Insecten, 2: pl. 48, f. 3, 4. Papilio candaon Bergstrasser, 1779, Nomenclator und Beschreibung der Insecten, 3: pl. 49. Papilio polyphemus Esper, 1780, Die (Europaischen) Schmetterlinge, 1 (2): pl. 50, 79. Papilio fusciolus Fourcroy, 1785, Entomologia parisiensis, 2: 245. Papilio icarinus Scriba, 1791, Journal fur die Liebhaber der Entomologie, 3: 216. Polyommatus labienus Jermynus, 1827, The Butterfly collectors Vademecus, Ipswich, Longman: 58. Polyommatus lacon Jermynus, 1827, The Butterfly collectors Vademecus, Ipswich, Longman: 58. Polyommatus thestylis Jermynus, 1827, The Butterfly collectors Vademecus, Ipswich, Longman: 58. Polyommatus iphis Meigen, 1830, Systematische Beschreibung der Europaischen Schmetterlinge 2 (1): 25.

90



Lycaena alexis Herrich-Schäffer, [1844], Systematische Bearbeitung der Schmetterlinge von Europa, 1: pl. 52. Lycaena pusillus Gerchard, 1853, Versuch eliner Monographie der europaeischen Schmetterlingsarten, pl. 28. Polyommatus caerulea Fuchs, 1877, Stettiner entologische Zeitung, 38 (4-6): 133. Lycaena celina Austaut, 1879, Petites Nouvelles Entomologiques, 2 (212): 293. Lycaena casanensis Krulikovskii, 1890, Bulletin de la Societe Imperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou (ns) 4: 223. Lycaena rufina Oberthür, 1894, Etudes dEntomologie Etudes d’Entomologie 19: 14. Lycaena septentrionalis Fuchs, 1901, Jahrbucher des nassauischen Vereinus fur Naturkunde Jahrbucher des nassauischen Vereinus fur Naturkunde, 53: 31. Polyommatus semipersica Tutt, 1907, Natural History of British Butterflies 2: 175. Lycaena taurica Venzmer, 1920, Deutsche entomologische Zeitschrift Deutsche entomologische Zeitschrift (Iris) 34: 49. Lycaena andreas Dannehl, 1925, Entomogische Zeitschrift, 39: 76. Lycaena analijuncta Beuret, 1926, Entomogische Zeitschrift 5 (3): 4. Fig. 8: Dorsal view of Polyommatus icarus male Fig. 9: Ventral view of Polyommatus icarus male

Fig. 10: Dorsal view of Polyommatus icarus female Venation: Forewings: discal cell larger than half of the wing length; veins Sc and R1 free, briefly approximating; stalk of veins R3+R5 and vein M1 widely separated at origin; vein R4 wanting; origin of vein R3 before middle of vein R5; vein M2 closer to vein M1 than vein M3; discocellulars complete; vein Cu-la from well before end of the cell. Hindwings: discal cell less than half of the wing length; vein M2 equidistant between vein M1 and vein M3; discocellulars complete; vein Cu-la arising before end of the cell. Male Genitalia: Symmetrical, well sclerotized, large sized; uncus divided into two lobes, each lobe narrow at base, broader posteriorly, with apex acute, sparsely pilose; brachia short, with broad bases, and evenly tapering arms with apices acute; tegumen rectangular, band-shaped, with laterally produced posterior angles; suspensorium present; vinculum with upper portion much broader, gradually tapering in lower portion; saccus absent; valva large, fusiform, costa narrow and ridge-like; sacculus elongated band-shaped, with an inner semimembranous lobe, the latter densely pilose; ampulla narrow, flat, apically curved; harpe broad, less sclerotized, lobe-shaped; lower edge of each valva straight, inner surface and margins pilose; juxta U-shaped, with gradually tapering narrow arms; aedeagus short, narrow, slender with subzone much longer than suprazone, subzone broader with laterally produced anterior end; bulbus ejaculatorius membranous, bulb-shaped; ductus ejaculatorius enters cephalad. Female genitalia: Lodix almost squarish with upper ends rounded, lower pointed, produced; genital plate membranous, with w-shaped ribbon of sclerotization, two eye-shaped median patches on either side of ductus bursae and a central patch above ostium pouch; ductus seminalis entering near base of ductus bursae; the latter slender, opens into

91

SIDHU ET AL., 2011


membranous; elongated ostium pouch with cresent-shaped sclerotization at apex; corpus bursae oval; apophysis anterioris longer, apex rounded; apophysis posterioris moderate; papilla analis subtriangular, pilose. Forewing length: Male, 19 mm; Female: 17-17.5 mm. Material examined: Himachal Pradesh: 4 females (16.VI.1993), Bharmour - Chamba (2950 m a.s.l.); 1 male, 2 females (19.VI.1995), Nako – Kinnaur (3800 m a.s.l.); 1 male (25.VI.1995), Kalpa – Kinnaur (2960 m a.s.l.); 1 female (25.VI.1995), Puh – Kinnaur (2837 m a.s.l.); 2 males, 3 females (16.VI.1996), Rakcham – Kinnaur (2900 m a.s.l.); 1 male (25.VI.1995), Kaza - Lahaul & Spiti (3600 m a.s.l.), 2 males (21.VI.1996), Gulling - Lahaul & Spiti (3500 m a.s.l.); 1 male (23.VI.1996), Hurling - Lahaul & Spiti (2885 m a.s.l.); 1 male (24.VII.2009), 1 male (25.VII.2009), Sural – Pangi (3234 m a.s.l.). Current distribution: 2885-3800 m a.s.l. Previous distribution: North-West Himalaya, Baluchistan, Chitral to Muree (2700 m a.s.l.). Larval food plant: Ononis spinosa Linn. (Papilionaceae) (Sevastopulo, 1973). Remarks: Upon an examination of various individuals of a phenon comprising fourteen individuals (eight males and six females), it has been observed that Polyommatus icarus (Rottemburg, 1775) shows certain variations in wing maculation. For instance, the number of basal spots on undersurface of the hindwings may be either two (one male example) or three (one male example) or four (twelve examples). Also, the first discal spot in Sc+R1 may be absent (two males) or present (twelve examples) in the respective number of individuals. In order to confirm the identity of these variable specimens, a series of four males was dissected and their genitalia found to be similar, hence conspecific. Workers like Evans (1932), Peile (1937), Wynter-Blyth (1957) and Cantlie (1963) have reported the species from Baluchistan, Chitral and Muree. Hence, reporting from the present localities i.e., Bharmour Rakcham, Hurling, Gulling, Kalpa, Nako, Kaza and Puh (Himachal Pradesh) represent the first distribution records in the North-West Himalaya. An illustrated account of the male genitalia is presented to provide more detail regarding this type-species.

Literature cited Bridges, C. A., 1988. Catalogue of Lycaenidae & Riodinidae (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A. Cantlie, K., 1963. The Lycaenidae portion (except the Arhopala group) of Brigadier Evans' The Identification of Indian Butterflies 1932 (India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma). Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay: vi+156. Eliot, J. N., 1973. The Higher Classification of the Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera): A Tentative Arrangement. Bulletin of the British Museum Natural History (Entomology), 28 (6):371-505. Evans, W. H., 1932. The identification of Indian butterflies. (revised 2nd edition). Bombay Natural History Society: x+454+32 pls. Hemming, A. F., 1933. Holarctic butterflies: Miscellaneous notes on nomenclature. Entomologist, 66 : 275-279. Hemming, A. F., 1967. The Generic names of the butterflies and their type-species (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). Bulletin of the British Museum Natural History (Entomology), Supplement: 509. Peile, H. D., 1937. A guide to collecting butterflies of India. Staples Press London: 523+72 pls. Sevastopulo, D. G., 1973. The food-plants of Indian Rhopalocera. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 70 (1): 156-187. Smith, C., 1989. Illustrated checklist of Nepal's butterflies. Craftsmen Press, Bangkok: 127. Stempffer, H., 1937. Contribution a l'etude des Lycaenides de 1' Afrique orientale. Revue Francaise de Lepidopterologie, 3: 134-142. Tutt, W. H., 1909. Natural History of British Lepidoptera, Volumes (1905-1914), 3 (6): 410+53 pls. Tytler, H. C., 1926. Notes on some new and interesting butterflies from India and Burma. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 31: 248-260+1 pl. Varshney, R. K., 1997. Index Rhoplocera Indica Pt III. Genera of Butterflies from India and neighbouring countries [Lepidoptera(C) Lycaenidae]. Oriental Insects, 31: 83-138. Wynter-Blyth, M. A., 1957. Butterflies of the Indian Region. Bombay Natural History Soceity, Bombay: xx+523 +72 pls.

92


A NEW SPECIES OF Sonerila (MELASTOMATACEAE) FROM THE WESTERN GHATS - INDIA Sectional Editor: Prasad Senadheera Submitted: 08 August 2011, Accepted: 30 November 2011

M. Murugesan1,2 and V. Balasubramaniam1,3 1 PG and Research Department of Botany, Kongunadu Arts and Science College, G.N. Mills (PO), Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India E-mails: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract A new species of Sonerila Roxburgh (Melastomataceae) is described and illustrated. Sonerila nayarana sp. nov. occurs in the Velliangiri hills, the Western Ghats in the Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu, India. It seems most similar to Sonerila parameswaranii Ravikumar & Lakshmanan, 1999. Key words: taxonomy, Sonerila nayarana, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu Introduction Sonerila Roxburgh (Melastomataceae) occurs with c. 43 species from India and Sri Lanka to China and through Malesia to New Guinea (Lundin & Nordenstam, 2009; www.tropicos.org). It is well represented in Southern India. In Tamil Nadu there are about 23 species and 2 varieties (Nair & Henry, 1983; Giri & Nayar, 1985; Ravikumar, 1999). It is the only trimerous genus (except for the monotypic Stussenia Hansen and Lithobium Bong.) and the stamens are in one or rarely two whorls. During a floristic study of the Velliangiri hills in the Western Ghats of the Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu, India, a species of Sonerila was collected that appeared not to be identifiable with any previously known species (Hooker, 1897; Gamble & Fischer,

1957; Nair & Henry, 1983; Giri & Nayar, 1985; Ravikumar, 1999; Lundin & Nordenstam, 2009). It is apparently most similar to S. parameswaranii Ravikumar & Lakshmanan from the Pachakumatchi Hills, Tamil Nadu, and is here described as new. Sonerila nayarana Murugesan & Balasubramaniam

sp. nov. (Pl. 1, Fig. 1) Type: Cat. no. KASCH 343A-C (Holotype), MH 2784 A-C (Isotype); Loc. Velliangiri hills (1800 m a.s.l.), Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu, India; Coll. M. Murugesan; Date. 18-IX-2004. Diagnosis: Sonerilae parameswaranii similissima, habitu herbaceo prostrato vel procumbenti ad 30 cm alto, foliis ovatis ad orbiculariter ovatis 0.5-3 cm

TAPROBANICA, ISSN 1800-427X. October, 2011. Vol. 03, No. 02: pp. 93-95, 1 pl. © Taprobanica Private Limited, Jl. Kuricang 18 Gd.9 No.47, Ciputat 15412, Tangerang, Indonesia.

A NEW SPECIES OF MELASTOMATACEAE FROM INDIA


longis 0.4-2.5 cm latis palminervatis, basi cordate rotundata raro truncata pilis paucis, marginibus serratis ciliatis, apice acuto, petiolo ad 2.5 cm longo, pedicellis ad 3 mm longis, filamentis 4—6 mm longis, antheris ovatis 2—4 mm longis, stylo 5—8 mm longo differt. Differentiae S. parameswaranii in tabula 1 datae. Sonerila nayarana is most similar to S. parameswaranii, but differs in the prostrate to procumbent up to 30 cm long habit, leaves ovate or orbicular-ovate, 0.5-3.0 x 0.4-2.5 cm, palminerved, base cordate-rounded or rarely truncate with a few hairs, margins serrate, ciliate, apex acute, petiole up to 2.5 cm long, pedicels up to 3 mm long, filaments 4-6 mm long, anthers ovate, 2-4 mm long, style 5-8 mm long. The differences with S. parameswaranii are given in Table 1. Description of the holotype: Procumbent, unbranched or rarely with 1 or 2 branches, deeply rooted, succulent, annual herbs, 8-17 cm high; often rooting in the lower nodes. Branches and branchlets densely bulbous based hirsute hairy; hairs 2-4 mm long. Leaves simple, opposite or clustered at middle, ovate, 1-2.7 x 1-2.3 cm, 6-8 nerved, truncate or cordate, rarely cuneate at base, crenate serrate rarely dentate at margins, serratures hairy; the hairs often glandular, apex acute or very shortly acuminate or rarely obtuse or rounded; sparsely hirsute hairy on both surfaces, especially on the nerves; petiole 0.7-2.5 cm long; hirsute hairy at apex especially at the vicinity of leaf base, glabrous towards base, flat. Inflorescence a terminal scorpioid cyme, 2-5-flowered, 2-3 cm long, pedunculate. Flowers ca 1.5 cm across, shortly pedicelled, 3-merous, purplish; pedicel up to

3 mm long. Calyx-tube campanulate, 0.9-1.2 x 0.3-0.5 cm, densely bulbous based hirsute hairy as that of branches and branchlets; teeth 3, ovate, 1.5-2 x 2.5-3 mm, sparsely hirsute, acute or shortly acuminate at apex. Petals 3, obovate or rarely spathulate, 0.5-1 x 0.9-1.2 cm, prominently 1-nerved, sparsely hirsute hairy on nerves, acute or rounded and apiculate at apex. Stamens 3; filaments 4-6 x 0.5-1 mm, broad at base, narrowed towards apex; anthers yellow, lanceolate, rarely oblong or ovate-lanceolate, 3-4 x 1.5-2 mm, obtuse at apex, with an apical pore; connective without appendages. Ovary inferior, globose or subglobose, 2-3 mm long; ovules many; style simple, 5-6 mm long; stigma capitellate. Capsule obovoid, rarely globose or ovoid, 5-7 x 3-4 mm, prominently ribbed, hairy, enclosed in persistent calyx-tube; seeds many, minute. Remarks: The species is present only during the South-west monsoon (August to September). Because the plants are so ephemeral and small, they are easily overlooked. We noticed only two well-separated populations, each of not more than 5 plants, one from under rocks and another one from rock crevices. Ecology: Rarely found along the crevices of moist rocks in open grasslands at about 1700 m a.s.l. on western slopes. It is always associated with species such as Eriocaulon spp. Impatiens clavicornu, I. goughii, Jansenella griffithiana, Parnassia mysorensis, Swertia minor, Tripogon anantaswamianus, T. bromoides, etc. Flowering & Fruiting: August-September.

Table 1: The major differences between the species

Sonerila parameswaranii Ravikumar & Lakshmanan, 1999

Sonerila nayarana Murugesan & Balasubramaniam, 2011

Plants erect. Plants prostrate-procumbent. Shrub up to 1.5 m high. Herb up to 17 cm high. Leaves ovate-lanceolate or oblong-lanceolate, 1.6-9.2 x 0.7-3.9 cm. Leaves ovate / orbicular-ovate, 0.5-3.0 x 0.4-2.5 cm.

Leaves oblique at base, acuminate at apex. Leaves cordate or rounded or rarely truncate at base, acute-very shortly acuminate or rarely obtuse or rounded at apex.

Leaves ciliate at margins. Leaves with ciliate at serrature only. Leaves pinninerved. Leaves palminerved.

Petiole up to 6 cm long, densely villous. Petiole up to 2.5 cm long, few hairy at the vicinity of leaf base only.

Pedicel up to 1.8 cm long. Pedicel up to 3 mm long. Anthers linear-lanceolate, 1-1.3 cm long. Anthers ovate, 2-4 mm long. Filaments 8-10 mm long. Filaments 4-6 mm long. Style 1.5-1.8 mm long. Style 5-8 mm long.

MURUGESAN & BALASUBRAMANIAM, 2011


Etymology: The new taxon is proposed in honour of Dr. M.P. Nayar, for his dedicated research in the field of Systematic Botany of Angiosperms. Abbreviations: KASCH, Kongunadu Arts and Science College Herbarium; MH, Madras Herbarium (Botanical Survey of India, Southern Circle) Acknowledgements The authors are thankful to G. V.S. Murthy (Joint Director, BSI, Southern Circle (MH) - Coimbatore) for permitting us to consult the Herbarium and to M. Aruchami (Secretary) and A. Sivakumar (Principal, Kongunadu Arts & Science College - Coimbatore) for facilities and encouragements. The second author is grateful to the UGC - Hyderabad for providing necessary financial support. Our sincere thanks are to V. B. Hosagoudar (TBGRI – Kerala) for Latin diagnosis and to Deepthi Yakandawala (UOP – Sri Lanka) for valuable comments. Finally J. F. Veldkamp (Netherlands Centre for Biodiversity – Naturalis, section National Herbarium of The Netherlands, Leiden University) is acknowledged for critically reading of the manuscript Literature cited Gamble, J. S. and C. E. C. Fischer, 1915-1936. The Flora of the Presidency of Madras: Melastomataceae Part 1-11. (Part 1-7 by Gamble and 8-11 by Fischer). Adlard & Sons Ltd., London: 488-505. Giri, G. S. and M. P. Nayar, 1985. A new species of Sonerila Roxb. (Melastomataceae) from southern India. Bulletin of the Botanical Survey of India, 27(1–4): 86–89. Hooker, J. D. (Ed.), 1897. The Flora of British India: Melastomataceae - II. Reeve & Co., London: 512-565. Lundin, R. and B. Nordenstam, 2009. Two New Species of Sonerila (Melastomataceae) from South India. Novon, 19 (1): 76-79. Nair, N. C. and A. N. Henry, 1983. Flora of Tamil Nadu, India: Melastomataceae - I: Analysis vol. 1: Botanical Survey of India, Coimbatore: 159-165. Ravikumar, K. 1999. Novelties from High Wavy Mountains, Southern Western Ghats, Theni District, Tamil Nadu, India. Rheedea, 9: 55-75. www.tropicos.org(http://www.tropicos.org/NameSearch.aspx?name=Sonerila&commonname=) Downloaded on 7th August, 2011.


TAXONOMY IN INDIA IN THE 21ST CENTURY: CALL FOR A DIGITAL REVIVAL Sectional Editor: Colin Groves Submitted: 29 June 2011, Accepted: 30 November 2011

V. M. Sathish Kumar* *Zoological Survey of India, Southern Regional Centre, 130 Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028, India E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The Biodiversity of the planet is under threat due to various reasons. For the conservation and management of the bio-resources we need to precisely identify a species, so that the species can be accessed and managed accordingly. This is the very first basic step every taxonomist has to take. Though Traditional taxonomy has been used in systematics for over 250 years with the identification of more than 1.75 million species, in many countries as in India, traditional taxonomy is yet to adopt the latest molecular techniques available for a better and accurate identification of taxa. Enhanced taxonomic infrastructure and research tools can certainly allow Indian taxonomists to speed up the process of species exploration, description and classification which will enable the World scientific community to get access to India's flora and fauna dynamically without excuses of reduced funding or dearth of taxonomists for not mapping the biological diversity of India. This article overviews the latest digital advancements to revolutionize taxonomical research in India in the current century. Keywords: biodiversity, molecular systematics, internet, ATI, CAT, Introduction The biological diversity of earth is estimated to harbour as many as 30 million species of which about 1.75 million have been described. With about 28.25 million species yet to be described, our gap in taxonomic understanding is truly an issue, especially considering that India, one of the 17 mega-diversity countries, contains global hotspots of biodiversity which are unusually enriched with endemic species. This is attributable to India’s unique biogeographical location and diversified

climatic conditions. India holds only 2% of the World's total land surface but harbours over 7.43% of the world's species of animals. As emphasised by Heywood (1995), this precious natural bio-richness is vulnerable; most species are yet to be described, and the majority of current extinctions are going unrecorded -- species are dying out before we even learn of their existence, and they need to be conserved and managed accordingly. Taxonomic information is essential to achieve this; the more


TAXONOMY IN INDIA IN THE 21ST CENTURY


complete our taxonomic knowledge, the better is the foundation for safeguarding our faunal wealth. Sampling, identifying, and making accurate identifications of biological specimens are among the compulsory first steps towards protecting and gaining from biodiversity. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) pointed out the challenges of taxonomists during the very long history of classification while discovering and describing the millions of species, with mounting pressure imposed through steep rates of species extinction and worldwide disturbance and degradation of ecosystems, and this is precipitated by the dearth/dwindling number of trained taxonomists, above all in India. This calls for the urgent participation of more taxonomists than ever, particularly given that an estimated 90 per cent of all species remain undescribed (Wilson, 2003), and retiring taxonomists are leaving numerous ‘orphan’ taxa behind and with few students entering into the field of taxonomy (Godfray, 2002; Wheeler et al., 2004). Seberg (2004) affirmed that for describing all the existing taxa on Earth, traditional taxonomy at the current rate will require more than 940 years before all species will be described. To a large extent taxonomy in India is practiced very ‘economically’ as it costs much less to procure collection nets, glass containers and dissecting microscopes than to fund an expensive molecular biology laboratory equipped with micro-centrifuges, thermal cyclers, gel documentation systems and high end DNA sequencers. Yet under the present circumstances, it is very essential that the traditional taxonomic community in India should incorporate these modern tools to speed up the process of describing and identifying species. In this way India's rich flora and fauna could well be managed and taxonomy in India can survive and flourish in the twenty first century. Use of Molecular Systematics: As noted by Blaxter et al. (2004), the present worldwide domination of molecular techniques over comparative morphology and the recent proposals for DNA-based taxonomy have indicated a way for describing species precisely. In the same year, Janzen (2004) proposed to identify species from their DNA, an exciting new tool for taxonomic research. The DNA barcode is a very short, standardized DNA sequence in a gene, and allows one to identify the species to which a plant, animal or fungus belongs. The Consortium for the Barcode of Life (CBOL) is encouraging international ventures that will facilitate people in

all countries to recognize and protect their biodiversity. The global library of DNA Barcodes has produced an open access library of reference barcode sequences which allows even non-taxonomists to identify specimens. The barcode of an unidentified specimen can be compared with the reference barcodes to pinpoint the identical species. Besides this, many other techniques such as Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP), Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD), Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (AFLP), Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs), Minisatellites and Microsatellites are also in practice today. The National Centre for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) is an excellent paradigm for the sequence library. The Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) finds regions of local similarity between sequences and so is extremely useful to find out various associations of a taxon. It has been suggested by Tautz et al. (2002 & 2003) that one way to remove the taxonomic impediment would be to convert to a taxonomy based on DNA sequences, rather than one based on morphology. The supporters of DNA barcoding (Tautz et al., 2003; Hebert & Gregory, 2005) argue that the remarkable rise in sequencing facility and reduction in sequencing cost make it more extensively acceptable; the detection of new species is incredibly easy via analyses of one or a few standardized sections of the DNA molecule. Such sections, of course, do not embody all the genetic variations that may exist among any two species, but are adequate to 'type' different subspecific, specific and superspecific groups on the basis of phylogenetic resemblance. Adoption of a DNA-based approach for taxonomy and identification should be regarded as a community-wide priority for systematists because such a research program will support quicker and better identifications. The vast majority of all species known to science have been described on the basis of the morphological and not molecular characteristics; the progression of molecular techniques not only offers better ways to define taxa precisely but has also confirmed many well-founded species that were considered to be closely related but have been shown not to be so, and assuredly things will never be the same as they were. The pros and cons of ‘DNA taxonomy’ have been argued efficiently (Lipscomb et al., 2003; Mallet & Willmott 2003) and it is not necessary to discuss them in detail here.

KUMAR, 2011


Use of Internet: Many would agree that the utilization of the Internet -- especially via the World Wide Web -- as proposed and first conceived in the 1980s by Berners-Lee (1999) is enormously helpful for making taxonomic decisions especially as of now; taxonomic information is certainly heading toward a Web-based system. For instance, a virtual, GenBank-like system for accessing morphological, audio and video data would be a fundamental step, because text-based descriptions alone will not deal with either the taxonomic hurdles or identification problems successfully. According to Scoble (2004), the internet is the fastest evolving medium for providing access to information currently distributed across the published paper-based literature, in unpublished archives, in curated collections and, increasingly, in personal or institutional databases. The Internet is no longer new to us early 21st century beings, but new internet technologies will continue to broaden access and render it more effective. New identification tools can allow anybody to make identifications, and numerous well-illustrated interactive online keys are now in use for a variety of taxa and the software for such practices is being rapidly enhanced and easily accessible to all.

Use of Automated taxon identification (ATI): As MacLeod (2008) noted that the automated identification of objects is not a new concept, only a concept that is new to many systematists, and this is part of computer-aided taxonomy. In reality, many active taxonomists still consider that automated identification systems are sort of fantasy story in science. Many users simply want to identify specimens accurately and discover which recognizable species it belongs to. Traditionally, systematists have not relied on molecular data to identify taxa, but have chosen the visual inspection of morphology and the comparison of these to type specimens. Thus, as noted by Riede (1993), with the use of automated identification systems, a taxon is identified automatically, so helping taxonomists in systematics and for the assessment of biodiversity monitoring and conservation. Katsinis et al. (1984) carried out the earliest ATI on marine zooplankton using image processing, and as recent as September of last year David et al. (2010) correctly identified 94.5% of benthic invertebrate images by using the BugID ATI system from 9 larval stonefly taxa, even though small or damaged specimens were included in testing. Farr & Chesmore (2005) did the same for Coleoptera; and it has been done for Orthoptera (Chesmore &

Nellenbach, 2001; Dietrich et al., 2003; Ohya & Chesmore 2003), cicadas (Ohya 2004) and mosquitoes (Campbell et al., 1996). Bacteria have also been used in ATI research (Walker & Kumagai, 2000; Foreroa et al., 2004). Comparatively little work has been carried out on "higher" animal groups such as vertebrates. Amphibians such as cane toads were identified with the help of acoustic inputs (Taylor et al., 1996). Birds were also identified (Mills, 1995) using acoustic ATI. Some such acoustic studies are currently under way by Indian taxonomists as well. Early this year ATI have been developed and tested successfully for teleost fishes using an otolith contour online database, in which 1480 images of left sacular otoliths (sagittae) from 420 species and 72% of specimens were correctly identified at species level, and this percentage increased to 90% at genus level and reached 94% at family level

(Parisi et al., 2010). Identification of mammals includes Roe deer (Reby et al., 1997, 1998a,b), domesticated cows (Jahns et al., 1997), and false killer whale (Murray et al., 1998a,b). Bats are another target for ATI; ultrasonic echolocation calls are generally species specific (Parsons & Jones 2000; Parsons 2001), and infrasound has recently been used for identification of elephant calls (Clemins & Johnson, 2002).

Use of computer-aided taxonomy (CAT): Over the past decade several renowned taxonomists and a number of organizations at both national and international levels entrusted with cataloguing biodiversity (e.g. BioNET and INBIO) have added their voices to the rising demand for computer-aided taxonomy (CAT), and now the biological community is gifted to use tools like DAISY, SPIDA (Do et al., 1999; Russell et al., 2005) and ABIS (Schroder et al., 1995) for the identification of various taxa. Such tools would have a profound impact on both taxonomy and biodiversity, and it is very simple to correlate hand held devices linked via satellite to database libraries of taxonomic knowledge and images. The extensive usage of portable computers and mobile phones with high-resolution cameras, large memory and efficient processing power, offers easy execution of ATI on these devices; this has several major advantages for use in the field, such as automatic location recording with GPS and the capability to pass on images or other relevant information regarding species identification. A single such device would make it easy for the naturalist to identify whatever species she/he comes



across in the forest, for a farmer to find out whether a strange insect is a pest, and for an ecologist to determine what species he has surprisingly come across (MacLeod 2008). All the devices necessary for the achievement of such practices are already obtainable with the latest communications technologies, already available in many countries and expanding in others, and utilization of such systems will certainly contribute towards the betterment of taxonomic research in India.

Conclusion Taxonomic research is speeded up with the advanced use of digital tools for species identification and to restructure many phylogenetic questions. A considerable number of potential applications are being realised by information revival. Easy to use interactive electronic keys with digital illustration, requiring no prior morphological vocabulary, are improving all the time and are downloadable to a laptop or handheld devices. Experts are easily accessed via the Web anywhere in the world to make crucial identifications, consult or learn (MacLeod 2008). Reviving taxonomy by no means indicates that its value should be negotiated, but it does denote that certain applications will be altered. For example, it will be possible to have high-quality taxonomy posted dynamically on the web without having to wait for a completed taxonomic revision and have it printed and published. The wish for a new systematics does not ignore the old system of classification. It has been classical taxonomy, with its scholarly resources stocked by morphological taxonomists for 250 years, which paved the way for new methods of analysis. Taxonomy as a discipline requires data from numerous sources like comparative morphology, developmental biology, palaeontology, molecular genetics and comparative ethology. Every phase of taxonomy can benefit from and be accelerated by the development, adoption and application of new digital tools, from field inventories to the study of specimens and characters, analysis of cladistic relationships, erection of formal classifications, collection, curation and species identifications (Wheeler, 2007). If most scientists agree upon anything pertaining to taxonomy, it is the lack of funding. Financial backing is necessary to educate fresh taxonomists and to offer facilities and resources to the taxonomists that already exist.

Finally, taxonomy should not remain at the level of only identifying dead specimens, and Indian taxonomists need to adapt to existing recent technologies and prepare for new developments; as we get through the twenty-first century, the demand for taxonomy is greater than ever before with impending impacts of global warming and accelerating rates of extinction. The managers of taxonomic institutes and universities in the country should encourage methods such as taxic identification within the field, essential data collection without killing specimens for study wherever possible. In addition alpha-taxonomists with adequate field experience and professional molecular expertise should be encouraged, and such facilities should be provided for solving taxonomic ambiguities. The backlog caused by reduced funding cannot serve as an excuse for long, especially when taxonomy is overdue for a revival from the way it is practiced in India, failing which thousands of species will remain unknown or unidentifiable, inaccessible to science and society. It is certain that some of thec innovations is going to influence taxonomy in the next decade or so. Thanks to information technologies and molecular genetics, we have innovative tools to do our work faster and better than ever before. At this juncture one simple question remains - are we the naturalists with adequate vision to tie together classical taxonomy with advanced digital tools for a better understanding of our biodiversity? I hope this article will hasten the process of revolution of taxonomic research in India. Future generations will look back with grief and anger if we fail.

Acknowledgements The author is thankful to Ted Taylor (University of Birmingham, UK), Domino Joyce (University of Hull, UK), K. Rema Devi (ZSI, Chennai) and K. Venkataraman (ZSI). Literature Cited Berners-Lee, T., 1999. Weaving the Web: The Original Design and the Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web, Harper-Collins Inc., New York: 256. Blaxter, M., B. Elsworth, and J. Daub, 2004. DNA taxonomy of a neglected animal phylum: An unexpected diversity of tardigrades. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 271: S189-S192.

99

KUMAR, 2011


Campbell, R. H., S. K. Martin, I. Schneider and W. R. Michelson,1996. Analysis of mosquito wing beat sound, 132nd Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Honolulu. Chesmore, E. D. and C. Nellenbach, 2001. Acoustic methods for the automated detection and identification of insects. Acta Horticulturae, 562: 223-231. Clemins, P. J and M. T. Johnson, 2002. Automatic type classification and speaker verification of African elephant vocalizations. Animal Behaviour, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. David A. L., G. Martínez-Muñoz, W. Zhang, N. Larios, L. Shapiro, R. Paasch, A. Moldenke, E. N. Mortensen, S. Todorovic and T. G. Dietterich, 2010. Automated processing and identification of benthic invertebrate samples. Journal of the North American Benthological Society Sep: Vol. 29, Issue 3: 867-874 doi: 10.1899/09-080.1. Dietrich, C., G. Palm and F. Schwenker, 2003. Decision templates for the classification of bioacoustic time series. Information Fusion, 4: 101-109. Do, M. T., J. M. Harp and K. C. Norris,1999. A test of a pattern recognition system for identification of spiders. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 89: 217-224. Farr, I. J. and E. D. Chesmore, 2005. Acoustic detection and recognition of wood-boring insects. Royal Entomological Society National Meeting: Entomology 2005, 12-14 September, University of Sussex, Royal Entomological Society. Foreroa, M. G., F. Sroubek and G. Cristobal, 2004. Identification of tuberculosis bacteria based on shape and color. Real Time Imaging, 10: 251- 262. Godfray, H. C. J., 2002. Challenges for taxonomy. Nature, 417: 17-19. Hebert, P. D. N. and T. R. Gregory, 2005. The promise of DNA barcoding for taxonomy. Systematic Biology, 54: 852-859. Heywood, V. (Ed.), 1995. Global Biodiversity Assessment. Published for the United Nations Environment Programme. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK: 1140. Jahns, G., W. Kowalczyk and K. Walter, 1997. An application of sound processing techniques for determining condition of cows. In 4th International Workshop on Systems, Signal and Image Processing, May 28-30, Poznan, Poland, Institution of Electrical and Electronic Engineers,1- 4.

Janzen, D. H., 2004. Now is the time. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 359: 731-732. Katsinis, C., A. D. Poularikas and H. P. Jeffries, 1984. Image processing and pattern recognition with applications to marine biological images. In SPIE 28th Annual International Technical Symposium on Optics and Electro-optics, San Diego, Society of Photo-optical Instrumentation Engineers: 150-155. Lipscomb, D., N. Platnick and Q. D. Wheeler, 2003. The intellectual content of taxonomy: A comment on DNA taxonomy. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 8: 65-68. MacLeod, N. (Ed.), 2008. Automated taxon identification in systematics: theory, approaches and applications. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300, Boca Raton: 368. Mallet, J. and K. Willmott, 2003. Taxonomy: Renaissance or Tower of Babel? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18: 57-59. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute. Washington, DC. Mills, H., 1995. Automatic detection and classification of nocturnal migrant bird calls. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97: 3370-3371. Murray, S. O., E. Mercado and H. L. Roitblat, 1998a. Characterizing the graded structure of false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) vocalizations. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104: 1679-1688. Murray, S. O., E. Mercado and H. L. Roitblat, 1998b. The neural network classification of false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) vocalizations. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104: 3626-3633. Ohya, E., 2004. Identification of Tibicen cicada species by a principal components analysis of their songs. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, 76: 441- 444. Ohya, E. and E. D. Chesmore, 2003. Automated identification of grasshoppers by their songs. Annual Meeting of the Japanese Society of Applied Entomology and Zoology, Iwate University, Morioka, Japan. Parisi-Baradad, V., A. Manjabacas, A. Lombarte, R. Olivella, Ò. Chic, J. Piera and E. García-Ladona, 2010. Automated Taxon Identification of Teleost

100



fishes using an otolith online database-AFORO. Fisheries Research, 105 (1): 13-20. Parsons, S., 2001. Identification of New Zealand bats (Chalinolobus tuberculatus and Mystacina tuberculata) in flight from analysis of echolocation calls by artificial neural networks. Journal of Zoology (London), 253: 447- 456. Parsons, S. G. and Jones, 2000. Acoustic identification of 12 species of echolocating bat by discriminant function analysis and artificial neural networks. Journal of Experimental Biology, 203: 2641-2656. Reby, D., S. Lek, I. Dimopoulos, J. Joachim, J. Lauga and S. Aulagnier, 1997. Artificial neural networks as a classification method in the behavioural sciences. Behavioural Processes, 40: 35- 43. Reby, D., A. J. M. Hewson, B. Cargnelutti, J. M. Angibault and J. P. Vincent, 1998a. Use of vocalizations to estimate population size of roe deer. Journal of Wildlife Management, 62: 1342-1348. Reby, D., J. Joachim, J. Lauga, S. Lek and S. Aulagnier, 1998b. Individuality in the groans of fallow deer (Dama dama) bucks. Journal of the Zoological Society of London, 245: 79-84. Riede, K., 1993. Monitoring biodiversity, analysis of Amazonian rainforest sounds. Ambio, 22: 546-548. Russell, K. N., M. T. Do and N. I. Platnick, 2005. Introducing SPIDA-web: an automated identification system for biologcial species. Taxonomic Database Working Group Annual Meeting. Schroder, S., W. Drescher, V. Steinhage and B. Kastenholz, 1995. An automated method for the identification of bee species (Hymenoptera, Apoidea). In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Conserving Europe's Bees, International Bee Research Association and Linnean Society, London, International Bee Research Association,6-7. Scoble, M., 2004. Unitary or unified taxonomy? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 359: 699-710. Seberg, O., 2004. The future of systematics: Assembling the Tree of Life. The Systematist–Newsletter of the Systematics Association, 2-8: 23. Tautz, D., P. Arctander, A. Minelli, R. H. Thomas and A. P. Vogler, 2002. DNA points the way ahead for taxonomy. Nature, 418: 479.

Tautz, D., P. Arctander, A. Minelli, R. H. Thomas, R. H. and A. P. Vogler, A. P, 2003. A plea for DNA taxonomy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18: 70-74. Taylor, A., G. Grigg, G. Watson and H. McCallum, 1996. Monitoring frog communities: An application of machine learning. In Proceedings of the 8th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference (AAAI), 1564 -1569. Walker, R. and M. Kumagai, 2000. Image analysis as a tool for quantitative phycology, a computational approach to cyanobacterial taxa identification. Limnology, 1 (2): 107-115. Wheeler, Q. D., 2007. Digital innovation and taxonomy’s finest hour. In Automated Taxon Identification in Systematics: Theory, Approaches and Applications (ed N. MacLeod), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 9-23. Wheeler, Q. D., P. H. Raven and E. O. Wilson, 2004. Taxonomy: impediment or expedient? Science, 303: 285. Wilson, E. O., 2003. The encyclopedia of life. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,18: 77-80.

101


First record of banded krait (Bungarus fasciatus) from Pilibhit District, Uttar Pradesh - India The banded krait, Bungarus fasciatus (Schneider, 1801) is one of the venomous elapids of the genus Bungarus Daudin, 1803, widely distributed in South and South-East Asia. It bears conspicuous equally spaced, wide yellow or pale brown and black bands. Uppermost scales on the back are hexagonal in shape and overall scales are glossy in appearance. Its head is slightly broader than neck and eyes entirely black. This snake is nocturnal in habit and prefers open plain areas (Whitaker & Captain, 2004). The snout is bluntly rounded. On the top of the head there is yellow ‘V’, the arms of which diverge backwards and passes over the temples to the throat. The crown is black except lips and lore which are yellow in colour. The triangular body shape in cross-section, bluntly ending finger like tail and peculiar banding pattern are the prominent identification keys to distinguish this snake. The young broods bear more pointed tails than adults and a modified colouring, the yellow colour being replaced by dirty white and the black colour by leaden hue. This snake is reported to be sluggish and timid even in the presence of provocation but able to devour other snakes, sometimes longer than its own body length (Wall, 1910 & 1912). In India, the banded krait is documented from north-eastern states, West Bengal, Orissa, Bihar (Smith, 1911), Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, parts of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh (Kinnear, 1913; Srinivasulu et al., 2009) and eastern part of Uttar Pradesh (Daniel, 2002; Deodars, 1978; Murthy, 2010; Sharma, 2003; Wall 1912; Whitaker & Captain, 2004). In the present communication, a banded krait was reported from the western most part of Terai of Uttar Pradesh. Banded krait has been reported from Gorakhpur (Masson, 1929), Bahraich and Kheri districts (Martin, 1913) while it was not recorded from Fyzabad (Wall, 1907) and Benaras Districts

(Acharji, 1946) of Uttar Pradesh. A well grown individual about 1 m on the basis of ocular estimation (Fig. 1) was sighted crossing the metalledroad near Mahof range of Pilibhit forest division at 20:55 hr on 15th June, 2010. Fig. 1: Banded Krait, Bungarus fasciatus There were crop fields on the both sides of the road bordered with a row of Syzygium cumini and some trees (Eucalyptus sp.). Depressions along the sides of the road meant for rain water storage for crop fields bears Lantana camara, Murraya koeinigii, Cassia sp. and Glycosmis pentaphylla - Shorea robusta dominated forest (Mahof range) is growing at a distance of 300 m from the sighting spot. Crop fields were witnessing the sowing of paddy at this time. These snakes have affinity with damp places, paddy fields and river sides. They are known to grow up to 180 cm (Wall, 1912), rarely up to 210 cm (Smith, 1911). The Terai region is known for forests inter-mixed with patchy grasslands and damp areas. This is the first report of this species from Pilibhit District which makes Pilibhit as its western most limits. Figure 1 shows the banding pattern, triangular body shape in cross-section and black crown, while Figure 2 shows the peculiar bluntly ending tail of the banded krait. Monocultures such as of Eucalyptus sp. and Tectona grandis, practiced in the grasslands of the Pilibhit forest threaten the natural habitats of the banded krait.


FIRST RECORD OF BANDED KRAIT FROM PILIBHIT DISTRICT, UTTAR PRADESH - INDIA


Fig. 2: The bluntly ending tail of the banded Krait Acknowledgements I wish to thank Ravi Singh, SG & CEO of WWF-India for providing resources, B. K. Patnaik, PCCF of Uttar Pradesh and V. K. Singh, D.F.O. of Pilibhit FD for permission and providing logistic support. We would like to acknowledge Dipankar Ghosh, Sejal Worah, Harish Kumar and Joseph Vattakavan for coordinating the tiger population monitoring exercise which provided me a chance to encounter this banded krait. Literature cited Acharji, M. N., 1946. A note on some snakes of Benaras. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 46: 344-347. Daniel, J. C., 2002. The book of Indian reptiles and amphibians. BNHS-Oxford University Press, Mumbai: 238. Deodars, P. J., 1978. Snakes of India. National Book Trust, India, New Delhi: 157. Kinnear, N. B., 1913. Banded krait (Bungarus fasciatus) in Hyderabad state. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 22: 635-636. Martin, S. J., 1913. Banded krait (Bungarus fasciatus) in Oudh. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 22: 635. Masson, J., 1929. The distribution of the banded krait (Bungarus fasciatus). Bombay Natural History Society, 34: 256-257. Murthy, T. S. N., 2010. The reptile fauna of India. B.R. Publishing Corporation, Delhi: 331. Sharma, R. C., 2003. Hand book - Indian Snakes. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata: 292. Smith, O. A., 1911. Large common and banded krait. Bombay Natural History Society, 21: 283-284.

Srinivasulu, G., D. Venkateshwarlu and M. Seethramaraju, 2009. Rediscovery of the Banded krait Bungarus fasciatus (Schneider 1801) (Serpentes: Elaspidae) from Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 1: 353-354. Wall, F., 1907. Notes on snakes collected in Fyzabad. Bombay Natural History Society, 18: 101-129. Wall, F., 1910. Notes on snakes collected in upper Assam. Part II. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 19: 825-845. Wall, F., 1912. A popular treatise on the common Indian snakes. Part 15. Bungarus fasciatus and Lycodon striatus. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 20: 933-953. Whitaker, R. and A. Captain, 2004. Snakes of India, Draco Books, Chennai: 481.

Submitted: 10 August 2011, Accepted: 22 August 2011 Sectional Editor: Gernot Vogel

Meraj Anwar World Wide Fund for nature-India,

172-B, Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110003, India

E-mail: [email protected]


First Report of a Cerambycid beetle (Capnolymma cingalensis) from India Lepturinae are a group of Cerambycidae that can be recognized by their peculiar form, especially the head being prolonged behind into a ‘neck’ (Pascoe, 1869). Genus Capnolymma was described by Pascoe with Capnolymma stygia from Borneo as the type species. In his epic work, better known as “Longicornia Malayana” Pascoe (1869) gave full diagnosis of the genus in Latin. In brief, these characters are: “head elongated, mandibles produced, eyes coarsely facetted and rounded; antennae situated away from the eyes and longer than the body, scape elongated and apically swollen, segments 3–4 short but rest long and subequal; prothorax campanuliform, laterally subtuberculate to dentate; elytra short, broader at base than prothorax; legs long, femora fusiform” Gahan (1906) also gave a detailed description of the genus Capnolymma and also described Capnolymma cingalensis, as a new species (along with illustration) from Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) in the ‘Fauna of British India’ volume. Some important characters of the species are: “body brown, varying to reddish brown on abdomen, legs and disc of the elytra; covered with dark grey pubescence (see Fig.1); prothorax brownish above, marked with some lines of ashy - white pubescence - one median, dividing just before the middle so as to enclose a lozenge– shaped area from the lateral angles of which two slightly curved lines run backwards about halfway to the base of prothorax; antennae of male more than half as long as body (see Fig. 2 & 3); prothorax finely rugulose-punctate; scutellum covered with dense white pubescence; elytra closely and rather strongly punctured; its apices truncate and unarmed. Total length 14 mm, breadth 5 mm, Hab. Ceylon”. Fig. 4 shows more or less rounded, coarsely facetted eyes.

Fig. 1: Dorsal view of Capnolymma cingalensis, note the overall Lepturinae habitus Fig. 2: Close up of head and prothorax of Capnolymma to show pubescence pattern Fig. 3: Close up of head in frontal view of Capnolymma


FIRST REPORT OF Capnolymma cingalensis FROM INDIA


Fig. 4: Close up of eye of Capnolymma showing coarse facets Subsequent to Pascoe (1869), Gressitt & Rondon (1970) divided the genus into two subgenera Capnolymma (sensu stricto) and Acapnolymma (Gressitt & Rondon, 1970). Ohbayashi (1994) presented a taxonomic study of the genus Capnolymma with compilation of seven described species, also added two new species and provided diagnostic key for all the species. A detailed study of the species Acapnolymma sulcaticeps Pic, prompted Vives (2003) to consider Acapnolymma as a separate genus rather than a subgenus of Capnolymma. With the removal of subgenus Acapnolymma, and with the addition of another species by Holzschuh (2006), the total number of species under Capnolymma stands at nine. The genus was placed in the tribe Xylosteini of the subfamily Lepturinae by Gahan (1906). Recent ‘Catalog and Bibliography of Longhorned Beetles from Borneo’ by Heffern (2005) also maintains this position. Both, Lepturinae and Xylosteini, are currently valid names, as per the ‘Catalogue of Family-Group Names in Cerambycidae (Coleoptera)’ (Bousquet et al., 2009). It may be noted here that some people have suggested that Capnolymma be included in the subfamily Dorcasominae and the tribe Dorcasomini (Ozdikmen, 2008). Following species of Capnolymma are known at present: C. stygia Pascoe, 1858 (type of the genus); C. cingalensis Gahan, 1906; C. capreola Pascoe, 1866; C. similis Gressitt & Raodon, 1970; C. laotica Gressitt & Rondon, 1970; C. brunnea Gressitt & Rondon, 1970; C. ishiharai Ohbayashi, 1994; C.

borneana Ohbayashi, 1994 and C. ohbayashii Holzschuh, 2006. We had the opportunity to study four specimens of Capnolymma cingalensis, collected in Karnataka State. At least two specimens were collected in Sandalwood forest and it is therefore likely that Sandal is the host plant. Details of the three specimens studied are given below (see Table 1 for measurements): Specimen 1: Cat. no. GKVK-CC1; female; Loc. Gandhi Krishi Vignyan Kendra (GKVK), University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka; Coll. unknown; Date. 22.VI.1995. Specimen 2: Cat. no. GKVK-CC2; female; Loc. near Bangalore; Coll. unknown; Date. 10.VI.2004. Specimen 3: Cat. no. GKVK-CC3; male; Loc. GKVK; Coll. Lokesha; Date. 28.VII.2002. Table 1: Measurement data of the three Capnolymma cingalensis specimens studied (all measurements are in mm)

Since the earlier record of the species C. cingalensis is only from Sri Lanka also only the original description by Gahan (1906); further, since we are not aware of any further published record of this species, this is the first report of its presence in India. Even Ohbayashi (1994), who studied the genus Capnolymma, also could not get to study this species. Recent checklist of Cerambycidae of Sri Lanka (Makhihara et al., 2008) also mentions C. cingalensis as occurring in Sri Lanka but the authors did not see any specimen. There are no fresh surveys reporting Cerambycidae of Sri Lanka, so the status of this species in Sri Lanka is uncertain. The species is perhaps established in India now, at least in Western Ghats of south India. Some photos

Specimen Number 1 2 3

Total length 17.4 15.7 11.3

Head length (including Mandibles) 4.2 4.0 2.8

Breadth at Humerus 5.3 4.4 3.0

Breadth at prothoracic spine 4.0 3.6 2.3

Prothorax length / breadth 3.2/4.0 2.7/3.6 2.0/2.3

Elytra length 10.0 9.0 6.5

GHATE ET AL., 2011


of the species are also provided to help naturalists in identification of the species. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the authorities of their respective institutions for facilities and encouragements. We thank Carolus Holzschuh (Austria) for confirming identity of our material and for continuous support to first author. We also thank Eduardo Vives (Barcelona, Spain) for providing the photograph of the types at BMNH. We acknowledge financial support from Ministry for Environment & Forests, New Delhi. We all thank H. M. Yeshwanth for habitus photo. Finally first author thanks to the Board of College and University Development - Pune University for financial support for this study. Literature cited Bousquet, Y., D. J. Heffern, P. Bouchard and E. H. Nearns, 2009. Catalogue of family-group names in cerambycidae (coleoptera). Zootaxa, 2321: 1-80. Gahan, C. J., 1906. The fauna of British India including Ceylon & Burma, Coleoptera - Vol. I. Taylor & Francis, London (Reprint by Today & Tomorrow’s printers & publishers, New Delhi): 329. Gressitt, J. L. and J. A. Rondon, 1970. Cerambycids of Laos (Disteniidae, Prioninae, Philinae, Aseminae, Lepturinae & Cerambycinae). Pacific Insects Monograph, 24: 1–314. Heffern, D. J., 2005. Catalog and bibliography of longhorned beetles from Borneo (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). http://www.zin.ru/animalia/Coleopter a/pdf/borneo_catalog_electronic_version_2005-1.pdf). downloaded on 13th April 2008. Holzschuh, C., 2006. Beschreibung von 51 neuen borkkaefen aus der palaearktischen und orientalischen region, vorwiegend aus Borneo und China. Entomologica Brasiliensia et Collectionis Frey, 28: 205–276. Makhihara, H., A. Mannakkara, J. Fujimura and A. Ohtake, 2008. Checklist of longicorn coleoptera of Sri Lanka: Vesperidae and Cerambycidae excluding Lamiinae. Bulletin of Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Matsunosato, Japan, 7 (407): 95–110. Ohbayashi, N. 1994. A taxonomic study of the genus Capnolymma, with descriptions of two new species (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), Transactions of the Shikoku Entomological Society, 20 (3&4): 271–284.

Ozdikmen, H. 2008. A nomenclatural act: some nomenclatural changes on palaearctic longhorned beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Munis Entomology & Zoololgy, 3(2); 707-715. Pascoe, F. P., 1869. Longicornia Malayana: or a descriptive catalogue of the species of the three longicorn families Lamiidae, Cerambycidae and Prionidae collected by A. R. Wallace in the Malay Archipelago. (Part VII). The Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, (3) 3: 553-712. Vives, E., 2003. Notes on Lepturinae (IX), new and interesting Lepturinae from East Asia (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Les Cahiers Magellanes, 31 : 1–16

Submitted: 15 October 2011, Accepted: 01 November 2011

Sectional Editor: Eduard Vives H. V. Ghate1, C. A. Viraktamath2 and R. Sundararaj3

1 Department of Zoology, Modern College, Shivajinagar, Pune, India.


2 Department of Entomology, Gandhi Krishi Vignyan Kendra, University of

Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India.

3 Wood Biodegradation Division, Institute of Wood Science & Technology, 18th cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore, India


Rare mammals recorded in Borneo – Malaysia While on a wildlife-watching trip to Sabah, Borneo, May 21 to June 5, 2011, Jeffrey Harding and I saw several rare and endangered mammal species whose distributions are not well known. Following is a list of the rarest ones with notes on location, elevation, and conservation status. Elevations were taken with a Barigo altimeter. Conservation status notes are based on IUCN (2011). Taxonomy follows Wilson & Reeder (2005). Evidence included field notes and photographs for most species mentioned below. I offer these notes in case they may be of use in future conservation efforts or distribution studies.

Order: Carnivora Small-toothed Palm Civet, Arctogalidia trivirgata stigmaticus: not listed as endangered, but population decreasing and range poorly known. I photographed (Fig. 1) one at night on the middle Kinabatangan River feeding on figs. Unlike the illustrations in Payne et al. (1985) and Francis (2008), this individual has thin, dark lateral bars on its sides and stripes on the side of its neck, in addition to the usual dark longitudinal stripes on the back.

Fig. 1: Small-toothed Palm Civet

Order: Erinaceomorpha Short-tailed Gymnure, Hylomys suillus dorsalis (endemic subspecies): Mesilau Resort, Kinabalu National Park, 1900 m (Fig. 2). Fig. 2: Short-tailed Gymnure

Order: Primates Besides the common and widespread Long-tailed Macaques (M. fascicularis) and Silvered Lutungs (Trachypithecus cristatus), we saw the following endangered species in the wild: Southern Pig-tailed Macaque, Macaca nemestrina (vulnerable, population decreasing). One troop in the Kabili-Sepilok Forest Reserve (Fig. 3) Fig. 3: Southern Pig-tailed Macaque


RARE MAMMALS RECORDED IN BORNEO – MALAYASIA


Orangutan, Pongo pygmaeus (endemic, endangered): two groups along the middle Kinabatangan River: a female with a juvenile, and a lone male. Bornean Gibbon, Hylobates müelleri funereus (endemic, endangered). One family group (male, female and juvenile) on the middle Kinabatangan River. Proboscis monkey, Nasalis larvatus (endemic, endangered): Six troops along the middle Kinabatangan River and one troop of the alpha male, at least three adult females and several infants and juveniles on the Klias River.

Order: Rodentia

Besides many widespread sciurids (Cream-coloured Giant-squirrel, Ratufa affinis; Plaintain Squirrel, Callosciurus notatus; Prevost’s Squirrel, Callosciurus prevostii; Ear-spot Squirrel, Callosciurus adamsi; Plain Pigmy Squirrel, Exilisciurus exilis; Jentink’s Squirrel, Sundasciurus jentinki; Lowe’s Squirrel, Sundasciurus lowii; and Bornean Mountain Ground-squirrel, Dremomys everetti), we saw or photographed: Shrew-faced Ground-squirrel, Rhinosciurus laticaudatus: There are few records on Borneo and only one in Sabah, near Sandakan (Payne et al. 1985). I photographed (Fig. 4) one at night in the Rainforest Discovery Centre, Sepilok. The difficulty of night photography is apparent in the poor focus. Fig. 4: Shrew-faced Ground-squirrel Spotted Giant Flying Squirrel, Petaurista elegans banksii (endemic subspecies): In Sabah, it is only known from the Gunung Kinabalu, where we photographed (Fig. 5) it at night at 1900 m a.s.l. elevation, and Crocker Range. The distance and difficulty of focussing at night resulted in a poor image.

Fig. 5: Spotted Giant Flying Squirrel We also saw the more widespread Red Giant Flying Squirrel, Petaurista petaurista, at Sepilok.

Order: Scandentia

Mountain Treeshrew, Tupaia montana baluensis (endemic subspecies): Ponduk Lowii, Kinabalu National Park, 2267 m (See the cover page of this journal). Slender treeshrew, Tupaia gracilis (endemic): Poring Hotsprings, Kinabalu National Park, 800 m. The species is difficult to separate from the Lesser Treeshrew, Tupaia minor, without taking foot or skull measurements, but a photograph (Fig. 6) shows a long, narrow tail and colouring exactly as pictured and described by Payne et al. (1985). We believe we saw both species at this location but obtained no photographs of T. minor. Fig. 6: Slender treeshrew

Order: Artiodactyla While not endangered, these species are rarely seen by outsiders: At night in the Rainforest Discover Centre, we saw a Mouse-deer that our guide identified as Lesser Mouse-deer, Tragulus kanchil.

HARDING, 2011


A highlight of our trip was a flood that put our camp on the middle Kinabatangan River and much of the surrounding lowlands under water, concentrating terrestrial wildlife on a hill behind our camp. Among them was a large herd of bearded pigs, Sus barbatus. Driving around Sabah by car, boat, and bus, it was easy to see why so many mammals are endangered. From Sepilok to the middle Kinabatangan River by car—a straight-line distance of about 80 km—the road was lined with palm oil plantations that often stretched to the horizon. Along the river itself, authorities, with cooperation of local people, have tried to protect a corridor of intact primary forest, with some success. Even so, in many places, the palm oil and logging companies have bull-dozed right to the river’s edge. Fig. 7: Riverbank logging Fig. 8: Riverbank palm oil plantations Orangutans and gibbons are obligate arborealists: neither can swim and gibbons almost never go to the ground. The several species of leaf monkeys are almost as restricted and rarely cross open ground. Even a small plot without tall trees across a connectivity corridor prevents migration and dispersal of these species. Without more rigorous protection of forest, especially in connectivity

corridors, populations of these and other large mammals will surely continue their dramatic declines. Fig. 9: Intact primary riparian dipterocarp forest on the Kinabatangan River Literature Cited Francis, C. M., 2008. A guide to the mammals of southeast Asia. Princeton and Oxford, Princeton University Press: 392. IUCN, 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. <www.iucnredlist.org <http://www.iucnredlist.org>>. Downloaded on 27 July 2011. Payne, J. B., C. M. Francis and K. Phillipps, 1985. A field guide to the Mammals of Borneo. Kuala Lumpur, Sabah Society and World Wildlife Fund: 332. Wilson, D. E. and D. M. Reeder, 2005. Mammalian species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Baltimore, M. D. (Ed.). The Johns Hopkins University Press: 2142.

Submitted: 29 July 2011, Accepted: 29 October 2011

Lee E. Harding SciWrite Environmental Sciences Ltd.,

2339 Sumpter Drive, Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada



Unusual affiliative behaviour in orang-utans (Pongo pygmaeus) - Sabah, Malaysia Adult male and female orang-utans are usually described as solitary (Delgado Jr & Van Schaik, 2000; Galdikas, 1985; Poole, 1987; Rodman & Mitani, 1987; Weiss et al., 2006), the female providing the only infant care, as far as is known. Adult males, which are twice the size of adult females, do not associate with females except for sex; adult males may associate with subadult males, but not for companionship: it usually involves competition for a receptive female (Delgado Jr & Van Schaik, 2000; Galdikas, 1985; Mitani et al., 1991; Schürmann & van Hooff, 1986). At least, this is the conventional wisdom. While on a wildlife-watching trip to Sabah, Borneo, May 21 to June 5, 2011, the orang-utan groups that Jeffrey Harding and I saw in the wilds of Borneo followed this pattern: mature males alone or unaccompanied females with young. But once, in a semi-wild setting (a large, protected primary forest with a population of orang-utans accommodated to humans), we were watching a female with an infant as they foraged in the trees (Fig. 1). After half an hour of quiet observation, we noticed a mature male approaching. We had seen him earlier about 100 meters away, approaching from a different direction. Although mature and larger than the female, the male was not an old one with flat cheek pads. The female, who was nursing and therefore could not have been in estrus, stopped foraging and watched the male approach with seeming casual interest. The male came on slowly, swinging from branch to branch and climbing with all four hands down the trunks to reach her elevation, which was just above the ground. Meanwhile, she moved down to a boardwalk for tourists that led to a feeding station. She turned her back to the approaching male, brought her infant up to her face and kissed and hugged it. As she cuddled the infant, the male came around in front of her, put both arms around her and the infant, and hugged them both for several

minutes. She then reached out and touched the male’s arm, still holding the infant between them with her other arm, and turned her face up to his. They kissed each other square on the lips: a long, lingering, seemingly romantic kiss. Then they separated a few centimetres and she looked straight at the male with a smile, still holding the infant between them, while the male looked down. I am trying not to be anthropomorphic about this, but the male looked bashful–there is no other way to describe it. Then the male turned and swung off into the forest. It is possible that these orang-utans’ behaviour was modified by provisioning: staff fed them fruit at a regular time each morning to attract them for tourists (these observations were not made at feeding time). However, provisioning of chimpanzees at Gombe National Park and Mahale National Park in Tanzania caused intense frustration leading to competition for food, aggression, and, ultimately, murder (Power, 1991). We saw no evidence of aggression at feeding time, when a dozen or so orang-utans were aggregated around the feeding platform. If provisioning had any effect here, it was evidently the opposite, since these two adults were friendlier than the commonly reported orang-utan behavioural repertoire; and the male was careful of the infant. Was this male an old friend of the female? A former or prospective, future mate? A brother? A son? It is impossible to say, but no one can observe an intimate incident like this and take at face value that male orang-utans are solitary with no regard for infants and no interest in females except sex.


A

UNUSUAL AFFILIATIVE BEHAVIOUR IN ORANGUTANS


Fig. 1: A partial photo sequence showing the adult female orang-utan noticing the approaching adult male, being hugged by him, kissing him, and then smiling at him; A: the female with infant, feeding on leaves, noticed the male, B: the female hugs the infant while the male hugs them both, C: they kiss, D: she smiles, he looks down Literature Cited Delgado Jr, R. A. and C. P. Van Schaik, 2000. The behavioral ecology and conservation of the orang-utan (Pongo pygmaeus): a tale of two islands. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 9: 201-218. Galdikas, B. M. F., 1985. Orang-utan sociality at Tanjung puting. American Journal of Primatology, 9: 101-119.

Mitani, J. C., G. F. Grether, P. S. Rodman and D. Priatna, 1991. Association among wild orang-utans: sociality, passive aggregations or chance?, Animal Behaviour, 42: 33-46. Poole, T. B., 1987. Social behavior of a group of orang-utans (Pongo pygmaeus) on an artificial island in Singapore Zoological Gardens. Zoo Biology, 6: 315-330. Power, M., 1991, The egalitarians-human and chimpanzee. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 290. Rodman, P. S. and J. C. Mitani, 1987. Orang-utans: Sexual dimorphism in a solitary species. In: Primate Societies (Smuts, B. B., D. L. Cheney, R. M. Seyfarth, R. W. Wrangham and T. T. Struhsaker (Eds.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 63-101. Schürmann, C. L. and J. A. van Hooff, 1986. Reproductive strategies of the orang-utan: new data and a reconsideration of existing sociosexual models. International Journal of Primatology, 7: 265-287. Weiss, A., J. E. King and L. Perkins, 2006. Personality and subjective well-being in orang-utans (Pongo pygmaeus and Pongo abelii). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90: 501.

Submitted: 29 July 2011, Accepted: 29 October 2011

Lee E. Harding SciWrite Environmental Sciences Ltd.,

2339 Sumpter Drive, Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada


B

C

D

Taprobanica (2011) Vol. 3. No. 2. Pages 50-111.

Documents

Transcript of Taprobanica (2011) Vol. 3. No. 2. Pages 50-111.