Journal of Threatened Taxa

Transcription

Threatened Taxa
Journal of
ISSN: 0974-7907 (Online), 0974-7893 (Print)
www.threatenedtaxa.org
November 2013 | Vol. 5 | No. 15 | Pages: 4913–5020 | Date of Publication: 26 November 2013
Threatened Taxa
Journal of
Published by Wildlife Information Liaison Development Society ISSN: 0974-7907 (Online), 0974-7893 (Print)
Typeset and printed at
Zoo Outreach Organisation
96, Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore 641035, Tamil Nadu, India
Ph: +91422 2665298, 2665101, 2665450; Fax: +91422 2665472
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Website: www.threatenedtaxa.org
EDITORS
Founder & Chief Editor
Dr. Sanjay Molur, Coimbatore, India
Managing Editor
Mr. B. Ravichandran, Coimbatore, India
Associate Editors
Dr. B.A. Daniel, Coimbatore, India
Dr. Manju Siliwal, Dehra Dun, India
Dr. Meena Venkataraman, Mumbai, India
Ms. Priyanka Iyer, Coimbatore, India
Editorial Advisors
Ms. Sally Walker, Coimbatore, India
Dr. Robert C. Lacy, Minnesota, USA
Dr. Russel Mittermeier, Virginia, USA
Dr. Thomas Husband, Rhode Island, USA
Dr. Jacob V. Cheeran, Thrissur, India
Prof. Dr. Mewa Singh, Mysuru, India
Dr. Ulrich Streicher, Oudomsouk, Laos
Mr. Stephen D. Nash, Stony Brook, USA
Dr. Fred Pluthero, Toronto, Canada
Dr. Martin Fisher, Cambridge, UK
Dr. Ulf Gärdenfors, Uppsala, Sweden
Dr. John Fellowes, Hong Kong
Dr. Philip S. Miller, Minnesota, USA
Prof. Dr. Mirco Solé, Brazil
Editorial Board / Subject Editors
Dr. M. Zornitza Aguilar, Ecuador
Prof. Wasim Ahmad, Aligarh, India
Dr. Sanit Aksornkoae, Bangkok, Thailand.
Dr. Giovanni Amori, Rome, Italy
Dr. István Andrássy, Budapest, Hungary
Dr. Deepak Apte, Mumbai, India
Dr. M. Arunachalam, Alwarkurichi, India
Dr. Aziz Aslan, Antalya, Turkey
Dr. A.K. Asthana, Lucknow, India
Prof. R.K. Avasthi, Rohtak, India
Dr. N.P. Balakrishnan, Coimbatore, India
Dr. Hari Balasubramanian, Arlington, USA
Dr. Maan Barua, Oxford OX , UK
Dr. Aaron M. Bauer, Villanova, USA
Dr. Gopalakrishna K. Bhat, Udupi, India
Dr. S. Bhupathy, Coimbatore, India
Dr. Anwar L. Bilgrami, New Jersey, USA
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Böhme, Adenauerallee, Germany
Dr. Renee M. Borges, Bengaluru, India
Dr. Gill Braulik, Fife, UK
Dr. Prem B. Budha, Kathmandu, Nepal
Mr. Ashok Captain, Pune, India
Dr. Cleofas R. Cervancia, Laguna , Philippines
Dr. Apurba Chakraborty, Guwahati, India
Mrs. Norma G. Chapman, Suffolk, UK
Dr. Kailash Chandra, Jabalpur, India
Dr. Anwaruddin Choudhury, Guwahati, India
Dr. Richard Thomas Corlett, Singapore
Dr. Gabor Csorba, Budapest, Hungary
Dr. Paula E. Cushing, Denver, USA
Dr. Neelesh Naresh Dahanukar, Pune, India
Dr. A.K. Das, Kolkata, India
Dr. Indraneil Das, Sarawak, Malaysia
Dr. Rema Devi, Chennai, India
Dr. Nishith Dharaiya, Patan, India
Dr. Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman, Queenswood, South Africa
Dr. William Dundon, Legnaro, Italy
Dr. Gregory D. Edgecombe, London, UK
Dr. J.L. Ellis, Bengaluru, India
Dr. Susie Ellis, Florida, USA
Dr. Zdenek Faltynek Fric, Czech Republic
Dr. Carl Ferraris, NE Couch St., Portland
Dr. R. Ganesan, Bengaluru, India
Dr. Hemant Ghate, Pune, India
Dr. Dipankar Ghose, New Delhi, India
Dr. Gary A.P. Gibson, Ontario, USA
Dr. M. Gobi, Madurai, India
Dr. Stephan Gollasch, Hamburg, Germany
Dr. Michael J.B. Green, Norwich, UK
Dr. K. Gunathilagaraj, Coimbatore, India
Dr. K.V. Gururaja, Bengaluru, India
Dr. Mark S. Harvey,Welshpool, Australia
Dr. Magdi S. A. El Hawagry, Giza, Egypt
Dr. Mohammad Hayat, Aligarh, India
Prof. Harold F. Heatwole, Raleigh, USA
Dr. V.B. Hosagoudar, Thiruvananthapuram, India
Dr. B.B.Hosetti, Shimoga, India
Prof. Fritz Huchermeyer, Onderstepoort, South Africa
Dr. V. Irudayaraj, Tirunelveli, India
Dr. Rajah Jayapal, Bengaluru, India
Dr. Weihong Ji, Auckland, New Zealand
Prof. R. Jindal, Chandigarh, India
Dr. A.J.T. Johnsingh, India
Dr. Pierre Jolivet, Bd Soult, France
Dr. Rajiv S. Kalsi, Haryana, India
Dr. Rahul Kaul, Noida,India
Dr. Werner Kaumanns, Eschenweg, Germany
Dr. Paul Pearce-Kelly, Regent’s Park, UK
Dr. P.B. Khare, Lucknow, India
Dr. Vinod Khanna, Dehra Dun, India
Dr. Cecilia Kierulff, São Paulo, Brazil
Dr. Shumpei Kitamura, Ishikawa, Japan
Dr. Ignacy Kitowski, Chelm, Poland
Dr. Ullasa Kodandaramaiah, Cambridge, UK
continued on the back inside cover
Article
Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 November 2013 | 5(15): 4913–4931
Western Ghats
Special Series
Raorchestes ghatei, a new species of shrub frog (Anura:
Rhacophoridae) from the Western Ghats of Maharashtra,
India
ISSN
Online 0974–7907
Print 0974–7893
OPEN ACCESS
Anand D. Padhye 1, Amit Sayyed 2, Anushree Jadhav 3 & Neelesh Dahanukar 4
Department of Zoology, MES’s Abasaheb Garware College, Pune, Maharashtra 411004, India
Wildlife Protection and Research Society, 40 Rajaspura Peth, Satara, Maharashtra 415001, India
4
Indian institute of Science Education and Research, Dr. Homi Bhabha Road, Pashan, Pune, Maharashtra 411008, India
4
Zoo Outreach Organization, 96 Kumudham Nagar, Villankurittchi Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641035, India
1
[email protected] (correspondence author), 2 [email protected], 3 [email protected],
4
[email protected]
1,3
2
Abstract: A new species of shrub frog Raorchestes ghatei is described from the Western Ghats of Maharashtra. The species differs from
its congeners based on a combination of characters including small to medium-sized adult males, snout mucronate in dorsal view, canthus
rostralis angular and sharp, snout slightly projecting beyond mouth ventrally, tympanum indistinct and one third of the eye diameter,
tongue without papilla but with a lingual pit, nuptial pad rudimentary to absent, a bony tubercle on humerus at the end of deltoid ridge
present in males and absent in females, skin finely granulated or smooth dorsally, lateral side marbled with white blotches on brown
to black background. Molecular phylogeny based on 16S rRNA gene sequence suggests that the new species is genetically distinct and
forms a monophyletic clade within Raorchestes. The species exhibits sexual dimorphism with males having single sub-gular vocal sac
and a tubercle on the humerus while females lack them. The species shows direct development. The species is widely distributed in the
Western Ghats of Maharashtra.
Keywords: Biodiversity hotspot, bony tubercle, molecular phylogeny, new species, Raorchestes.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3702.4913-31 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:F43734EB-1B67-48FC-949A-77DD7507056D
Editor: Anonymity requested.
Date of publication: 26 November 2013 (online & print)
Manuscript details: Ms # o3702 | Received 09 July 2013 | Final received 12 November 2013 | Finally accepted 13 November 2013
Citation: Padhye, A.D., A. Sayyed, A. Jadhav & N. Dahanukar (2013). Raorchestes ghatei, a new species of shrub frog (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the Western
Ghats of Maharashtra, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 4913–4931; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3702.4913-31
Copyright: © Padhye et al. 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction
and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: This work was partially supported by DST-INSPIRE Research Grant [IFA12-LSBM-21] to Neelesh Dahanukar.
Competing Interest: The authors declare no competing interests. Funding sources had no role in study design, data collection, results interpretation and manuscript writing.
Author contributions: ADP, AS, AJ and ND performed field studies. ADP and AJ performed morphometry. ADP, AJ and ND studied the type and comparative
material. ND perfoemed statistical and molecular analysis. ADP and ND wrote the paper.
Author Details: Anand D. Padhye is an Associate Professor in Zoology, Abasaheb Garware College, Pune. He works on systematics, ecology, diversity, distribution
and evolution of amphibians. Amit Sayyed is a naturalist working in Satara. He is interested in wildlife conservation, awareness, photography and research.
Anushree Jadhav has completed her Master of Science in Biodiversity and is interested in studying batrachology. Neelesh Dahanukar works in ecology and
evolution with an emphasis on mathematical and statistical analysis. He is also interested in taxonomy, distribution patterns and molecular phylogeny.
Acknowledgements: Anand Padhye is thankful to Nilesh Rane and Vivek Gaur-Broome for their help during the first collection of the female specimen of this
species in July 2002. Amit Sayyed is thankful to Datta Chawhan, Jitendra Patole, Akshay Bhagwat, Shriniwas Bhujbal, Abhijit Nale, Harshal Bhosle and Mujahid
Shaikh, the members of WLPRS for their valuable help in the fieldwork. We also thank Mandar Paingankar, Satish Pande, Sanjay Khatavkar, Rajgopal Patil, Nikhil
Modak, Sheetal Shelke, Sushil Chikne, Amod Zambre, Abhijeet Bayani, Pracheta Rana, Rohan Pandit, Rohan Naik and Vedant Dixit for their help in field work.
We thank Ashok Captain for the help in photography. We are grateful to Dr. Asad Rahmani, Director; Dr. Deepak Apte, COO; Rahul Khot, incharge Natural History
Collection department; Reshma Pitale, researcher and Vithoba Hegde, senior field assistant, for their help during study of the museum specimens and registration
of specimens in Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai. We thank the Director, Zoological Survey of India; Dr. K.A. Subramanian and Dr. Kaushik Deuti (Officerin-charge, Amphibia Section, ZSI, Kolkata) for providing the photographs of the type specimen. We also thank Dr. P.S. Bhatnagar, officer-in-charge, and Dr. Shrikant
Jadhav, ZSI, Western Regional Center, Pune, for their help in registering specimens in ZSI-WRC. Keerthi Krutha helped in molecular work and registration of
specimens in the Wildlife Information Liaison Development Museum, Coimbatore. We are grateful to the principal, Abasahab Garware College, Head Department
of Zoology and Biodiversity, Abasaheb Garware College and Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune for providing infrastructure facilities.
The publication of this article is supported by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), a joint initiative of l’Agence Française de Développement, Conservation
International, the European Commission, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank.
4913
Raorchestes ghatei - a new shrub frog
Padhye et al.
INTRODUCTION
The Western Ghats of India harbors a rich diversity
of amphibians with high levels of endemism (Dinesh
& Radhakrishnan 2011). With recent descriptions of
several new species and genera of amphibians from
the Western Ghats (Biju et al. 2011; Zachariah et al.
2011; Seshadri et al. 2012; Abraham et al. 2013), it is
clear that the amphibian diversity within this region is
subject to Linnean shortfall, where several species are
not yet formally described (Bini et al. 2006), and detailed
surveys and studies are essential to overcome it.
In the Western Ghats, tree frogs of the family
Rhacophoridae are grouped under seven genera,
namely Beddomixalus Abraham et al., 2013, Ghatixalus
Biju, Roelants & Bossuyt, 2008, Mercurana Abraham et
al., 2013, Polypedates Tschudi, 1838, Pseudophilautus
Laurent, 1943, Raorchestes Biju et al., 2010 and
Rhacophorus Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822. The genus
Raorchestes was recently erected to accommodate a
monophyletic clade of shrub frogs characterized by adult
snout-vent length between 15 and 45 mm, vomerine
teeth absent, large gular pouch transparent while
calling, nocturnal habit and direct development without
free-swimming tadpoles (Biju et al. 2010). Currently,
49 species are recognized under Raorchestes by Frost
(2013) and the genus is distributed in Western Ghats,
southern China, Laos and Vietnam (Biju et al. 2010).
Annandale (1919) described Ixalus bombayensis
(= Raorchestes bombayensis) from Castle Rock and
mentioned that the species is also present in Khas (=
Kaas) in Satara and Khandalla (= Khandala) in Poona (=
Pune). In this communication, based on morphological
and molecular analysis, we describe a new species
of shrub frog and show that the populations of the
Raorchestes from Satara District and Pune District,
earlier reported as R. bombayensis are those of the new
species. We further show that the character of tubercle
on the humeral bone, which was previously thought as
a specific character of R. tuberohumerus (Kuramoto &
Joshy, 2003), is a sexually dimorphic character possessed
by males but not by females.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area
The Western Ghats of Maharashtra state extend from
south of Amboli to north of Surgana covering around
600km of mountain ranges, parallel to the Arabian Sea
coast, extending east as well as west, at some places
4914
even up to the seashore. A formation of a series of 200–
300 m high cliffs, which extends almost throughout the
length of this part of the Western Ghats, forms a hurdle
in the way of southwestern monsoon clouds. This results
in a very high rainfall (average 6,000mm), with some
places like Tamhini, Mahabaleshwar and Bhimashankar
receiving rainfall up to 10,000mm. The major habitat
in this part of Western Ghats is scrub and grasslands,
both at the foothills and on the mountaintops. The hilly
regions show some primary evergreen forest patches
and comparatively more secondary evergreen and moist
deciduous forests. The Western Ghats of Maharashtra
is rich in biodiversity especially in that of amphibians
(Padhye & Ghate 2002).
Specimens of the new species of Raorchestes
were collected from the northern Western Ghats at
Chalkewadi (17.590N & 73.840E, 1082m), plateau near
Patan (17.450N & 73.830E, 1072m), Jaichiwadi (17.420N
& 73.850E, 1005m), Thoseghar (17.600N & 73.850E,
1000m), Kaas (17.700N & 73.820E, 1183m) in Satara
District and Dongarwadi (18.480N & 73.420E, 611m),
Mulshi (18.520N & 73.520E, 658m) and Taleghar near
Bhimashankar (19.080N & 73.640E, 1025m) in Pune
District, Maharashtra, India. A total of 22 specimens
were collected (nine males and 13 females). Six
specimens (four males and two females) of Raorchestes
bombayensis (Annandale, 1919) were collected from
the type locality at Castle Rock (15.3950N & 74.3370E,
577m). Collected specimens are deposited in the
museum collection of Bombay Natural History Society
(BNHS), Mumbai; Zoological Survey of India-Western
Regional Center (ZSI-WRC), Pune; Wildlife Information
Liaison Development (WILD) Society, Coimbatore and
Abasaheb Garware College-Zoology Research Laboratory
(AGCZRL), Pune.
Morphometry
Measurements were taken to the nearest 0.1mm
using a digital caliper and using a binocular microscope.
The following measurements, as defined by Biju &
Bossuyt (2009), were taken: snout-vent length (SVL);
head length (HL); head width (HW); rear of the mandible
to the nostril (MN); rear of the mandible to the anterior
orbital border of the eye (MFE); rear of the mandible
to the posterior orbital border of the eye (MBE); snout
length (SL); eye length (EL); inter upper eyelid width
(IUE); maximum upper eyelid width (UEW); internal
front of eyes (IFE); internal back of eyes (IBE); forelimb
length (FLL); hand length (HAL); third finger length
(TFL); disc width on finger III (FDIII); width of finger III
(FWIII); shank length (ShL); thigh length (TL); foot length
(FOL); distance from the heel to the tip of the fourth
toe (TFOL). Tympanum diameter was measured both
vertically (TYDV) and horizontally (TYDH).
Osteology
Two specimens WILD-13-AMP-104 (female) and
WILD-13-AMP-105 (male) were used for osteological
study following clearing and staining procedure
described by Potthoff (1984).
Genetic analysis
Muscle tissue was harvested from nine fresh
specimens of the new species (ZSI-WRC A/1484; WILD13-AMP-080, 100, 104, 105; AGCZRL-Amphibia-125, 127,
128, 130) collected from different localities and three
specimens of R. bombayensis (WILD-13-AMP-230, 231;
AGCZRL-Amphibia-172) collected from the type locality
of the species and was preserved in absolute ethanol.
The tissue was digested at 55°C for two hours using the
STE buffer (0.1M NaCl, 0.05 M Tris-HCl, 0.01M EDTA,
1%SDS) with 15µl proteinase K (20mg/ml) per 500ml
of STE buffer. DNA was extracted using conventional
phenol-chloroform method and re-suspended in
nuclease free water. Polymerase chain reaction was
performed to amplify partial 16S rRNA gene using primer
pair 16SF (5’-CGC CTG TTT ATC AAA AAC AT-3’) and 16SR
(5’-CCG GTC TGA ACT CAG ATC ACG T-3’) (Palumbi et al.
2002). PCR reaction was performed in a 25µl reaction
volume containing 5µl of template DNA (~200ng), 5µl
of 5X reaction buffer (100 mM Tris pH 9.0, 500 mM KCl,
15 mM MgCl2, 0.1% Gelatin), 3µl of 25mM MgCl2, 1µl of
10mM dNTPs, 1µl of each primer, 0.5µl Taq polymerase
(Promega) and 8.5µl nuclease free water. The thermal
profile was 10min at 950C, and 35 cycles of 1min at 940C,
1min at 500C and 2min at 720C, followed by extension of
10min at 720C. Amplified DNA fragments were purified
using the ‘Promega Wizard Gel and PCR clean up’
system and sequenced. The purified PCR products were
sequenced using ABI prism 3730 sequencer (Applied
Biosystems, USA) and Big dye terminator sequencing kit
(ABI Prism, USA). Sequences were analyzed by BLAST
tool (Altschul et al. 1990). These sequences have been
deposited in GenBank (accession numbers are provided
in Appendix A).
We retrieved additional sequences on other related
species from NCBI GenBank database (http://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/) details of which are provided in Appendix
A. Gene sequences were aligned using MUSCLE (Edgar
2004). Best fit model for nucleotide substitution was
selected from 24 models available in MEGA 5 (Takamura
et al. 2011) based on minimum Akaike Information
Padhye et al.
Criterion (AIC) value (Posada & Crandall 2001).
Maximum Parsimony analysis was performed in MEGA
5. General time reversal nucleotide substitution model
with gamma distribution (GTR+G), obtained as a best fit
model in the model test (AIC = 4653.9, lnL = -2204.2),
was used for constructing phylogenetic tree based on
maximum likelihood method in MEGA 5 and Bayesian
analysis using MrBayes (Huelsenbeck & Ronquist 2001)
integrated in TOPALi v2.5 (Milne et al. 2004). Reliability
of the phylogenetic tree using maximum likelihood
method was estimated using bootstrap values run for
1000 iterations. For Bayesian analysis two runs were
performed for 1,000,000 generations with sample
frequency of 10 and burn percentage of 25.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis of the morphometric data was
performed on size adjusted measurements by taking
all measurements as percent of SVL. For analysis, we
used the morphometry of related species Raorchestes
bombayensis and R. tuberohumerus given by Biju &
Bossuyt (2009) and data collected in the present study.
Multivariate normality of the data was checked using
Doornik & Hansen (2008) omnibus. Multivariate Analysis
of Variance/Canonical Variates Analysis (MANOVA/CVA)
was performed to understand whether related species
of Raorchestes form significantly different clusters
(Huberty & Olejnik 2006). We performed Pillay’s trace
statistic to find the significant difference between the
clusters (Harris 2001). Statistical analysis was performed
in PAST (Hammer et al. 2001).
RESULTS
Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov.
(Images 1, 2a, 2d, 2g, 5a, 6)
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:44621AF1-15D8-44AB-8246-676470B541F8
Type material
Holotype: BNHS 5579, 23.viii.2012, male, SVL
22.0mm, Chalkewadi (17.590N & 73.840E, 1082m),
Satara, Maharashtra, India, coll. A.D. Padhye, N.
Dahanukar and A. Sayyed.
Allotype1: BNHS 5582, female, SVL 25.5mm, Kaas
(17.700N & 73.820E, 1183m), Satara, Maharashtra, India,
coll. A. Sayyed, 1.viii.2012.
According to ICZN (Rec. 72A), allotype is a designated specimen (among paratypes) belonging
to the opposite sex of the holotype and the term has no name bearing function and is not
regulated by the code. In the absence of a female from the same locality as that of the
holotype, we have designated an allotype from one of the paratypes collected from a nearby
area (15km linear aerial distance).
1
4915
Padhye et al.
a
c
© Anand D. Padhye
b
10mm
Image 1. Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov. (holotype BNHS 5579)
a - dorsal view; b - ventral view; c - lateral view.
Paratypes (8 males and 12 females): BNHS 5580,
23.viii.2012, 1 male, SVL 24.3mm, Chalkewadi (17.590N
& 73.840E, 1082m), Satara, Maharashtra, India, coll.
4916
A.D. Padhye, N. Dahanukar and A. Sayyed; BNHS 5581,
23.viii.2012, 1 male, SVL 25.5mm, Jaichiwadi (17.420N &
73.850E, 1005m), Patan, Maharashtra, India, coll. A.D.
Padhye, N. Dahanukar and A. Sayyed; ZSI-WRC A/1485,
09.viii.2012, 1 male, SVL 21.9mm, Dongarwadi (18.480N
& 73.420E, 611m), Mulshi, Pune, Maharashtra, India,
coll. A.D. Padhye; ZSI-WRC A/1484, 19.ix.2011, female,
SVL 20.7mm, Mulshi (18.520N & 73.520E, 658m), Pune,
Maharashtra, India, A.D. Padhye; WILD-13-AMP-078 to
080, 02.iii.2013, 3 females, SVL 15.4-21.6 mm, Taleghar
near Bhimashankar (19.080N & 73.640E, 1025m), Junnar,
Maharshtra, India, coll. N. Modak; WILD-13-AMP-100,
16.ix.2011, 1 male, SVL 19.9mm, plateau near Patan
(17.450N & 73.830E, 1072m), Maharashtra, India, coll.
A.D. Padhye, N. Dahanukar and M. Paingankar; WILD13-AMP-101 and 102, 2 females, 07.vii..2010, SVL
23.4-29.8mm, plateau near Patan (17.450N & 73.830E,
1072m), Maharashtra, India, coll. N. Dahanukar and
M. Paingankar; WILD-13-AMP-103, 13.vi.2013, 1 male,
SVL 19.1mm, Taleghar near Bhimashankar (19.080N &
73.640E, 1025m), Junnar, Maharashtra, India, coll. A.
Jadhav; WILD-13-AMP-104, 01.viii.2012, 1 female, SVL
22.7mm, Kaas (17.700N & 73.820E, 1183m), Satara,
Maharashtra, India, coll. A. Sayyed; WILD-13-AMP-105,
1.viii.2012, 1 male, SVL 19.5mm, Kaas (17.700N &
73.820E, 1183m), Satara, Maharashtra, India, coll. A.
Sayyed; AGCZRL Amphibia 123, 14.viii.2011, 1 female,
SVL 28.9mm, Kaas (17.700N & 73.820E, 1183m), Satara,
Maharashtra, India, coll. A. Sayyed; AGCZRL Amphibia
125, 127 and 128, 17.ix.2011, 3 females, SVL 16.7–18.7
mm, Thoseghar (17.600N & 73.850E, 1000m), Satara,
Maharashtra, India, coll. A.D. Padhye, N. Dahanukar
and M. Paingankar; AGCZRL Amphibia 130, 16.ix.2011,
1 female, SVL 16.7mm, plateau near Patan (17.450N,
73.830E, 1072m), Maharashtra, India, coll. A.D. Padhye,
N. Dahanukar and M. Paingankar; AGCZRL Amphibia 167
and 168, 2 males, SVL 21.9 and 21.6 mm respectively,
13.vi.2013, Taleghar near Bhimashankar (19.080N &
73.640E, 1025m), Junnar, Maharashtra, India, coll. A.
Jadhav.
Diagnosis
Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov. can be distinguished from
all related taxa by following combination of characters:
(1) small to medium sized adult males (19.1–25.5 mm
SVL); (2) snout mucronate in dorsal view; (3) canthus
rostralis angular and sharp; (4) snout slightly projecting
beyond mouth ventrally; (5) tympanum small, indistinct
in live specimens but may appear distinct in specimens
stored in absolute ethanol, tympanum diameter is
almost one-third of the eye diameter; (6) tongue without
Padhye et al.
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
© Anand D. Padhye
Image 2. Ventral (a–c), dorsal (d–f) and lateral (g–i) view of head of Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov. holotype BNHS 5579 (a, d, g), R. bombayensis
typotye material 4589 (b, e, h) and R. tuberohumerus paratype BNHS 4194 (c, f, i).
papilla but with a lingual pit, (7) nuptial pad absent; (8)
a bony tubercle on humerus at the end of deltoid ridge
present in adult males but absent in females; (9) skin
finely granulated or smooth above; (10) lateral side
marbled with white blotches on brown background.
Description
Morphometric data are listed in Table 1. General
body shape as in Image 1. Dorsal, ventral and lateral
view of head as in Image 2. Maximum size 25.5mm SVL
in male and 29.8mm SVL in female.
Holotype (BNHS 5579, male) (all measurements in mm):
Medium sized frog (SVL 22.0), with robust body;
head length (HL 7.8) shorter than head width (HW 8.6;
MN 7.3; MFE 5.3; MBE 2.5); outline of snout in dorsal
view mucronate (Image 2d); snout length (SL 3.1)
shorter than horizontal diameter of eye (EL 3.2); canthus
rostralis angular, loreal region obtuse, concave; ratio
of distance between anterior margins of the eyes (IFE
5.1) to distance between posterior margins of eyes (IBE
6.0) 1:1.16; tympanum (TYD 1.1) indistinct, rounded,
almost one-third of the eye diameter; supratympanic
fold distinct, from posterior corner of upper eyelid to
shoulder; tongue bifid, without papilla but with a lingual
pit (Image 3); infratympanic fold distinct, from posterior
margin of lower jaw joining to the supratympanic fold;
interorbital distance (IUE 3.7) 2.4 times greater than
width of upper eyelid (UEW 1.5).
Fore limbs: hand length (HAL 6.2) > humeral length
(5.8) > forelimb (FLL 5.2); fingers with lateral (inner
as well as outer) dermal fringes (Image 4a), webbing
absent; subarticular tubercles prominent, rounded,
single; single palmer tubercles present; supernumerary
4917
4918
7.7
(0.8)
6.58.7
21.9
21.6
24.3
19.5
21.9
25.5
19.9
21.7
(2.1)
19.125.5
AGCZRL Amphibia 167
AGCZRL Amphibia 168
WILD-13-AMP-105 * +
Range
ZSI-WRC 1485
BNHS 5581
WILD-13-AMP-100 *
Avg (sd)
BNHS 5580
6.4
8.1
(1.4)
6.310.3
16.7
23.4
29.8
28.9
22.7
20.7
17.0
16.7
18.7
21.2
21.6
15.4
21.4
(4.6)
15.429.8
WILD-13-AMP-104 * +
ZSI-WRC 1484 *
AGCZRL Amphibia 125 *
Range
WILD-13-AMP-102
AGCZRL Amphibia 123
WILD-13-AMP-080 *
Avg (sd)
WILD-13-AMP-101
WILD-13-AMP-079
WILD-13-AMP-078
6.210.5
8.3
(1.5)
6.2
8.1
8.8
7.9
6.6
6.6
7.1
8.6
10.0
10.5
10.4
6.8
9.7
6.69.3
8.2
(0.8)
8.7
9.3
7.9
6.6
8.5
8.1
8.5
7.7
8.6
HW
* = used for molecular studies, + = used for osteology
7.8
8.6
7.6
6.5
6.3
7.6
8.6
10.3
9.9
9.5
6.9
25.5
8.9
8.4
8.7
6.5
8.0
8.5
7.8
BNHS 5582 (Allotype)
Females
7.0
19.1
6.9
22.0
7.8
HL
WILD-13-AMP-103
SVL
BNHS 5579 (Holotype)
Males
Accession number
5.39.0
7.0
(1.1)
5.5
7.3
7.3
6.6
5.3
6.0
7.3
7.2
9.0
8.1
8.2
5.8
8.0
6.07.4
6.7
(0.5)
6.5
7.3
6.5
6.2
7.4
6.7
6.0
6.3
7.3
MN
0.81.4
1.0
(0.2)
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
-
1.0
1.3
1.4
0.9
1.3
0.61.3
1.0
(0.3)
1.3
1.3
1.1
-
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.1
TYDV
0.81.4
1.0
(0.2)
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
-
0.9
1.3
1.4
0.8
1.3
0.61.3
1.0
(0.2)
1.2
1.3
1.0
- 1.1
0.7
0.6
0.8
1.1
TYDH
4.26.7
5.4
(0.9)
4.2
5.4
4.7
5.9
4.6
4.4
4.8
5.5
6.5
6.4
6.7
4.8
6.2
3.05.5
4.5
(0.8)
4.5
5.2
4.8
4.0
5.5
4.2
3.0
4.4
5.3
MFE
1.83.8
2.5
(0.6)
1.8
2.6
2.5
1.9
2.2
1.8
2.5
3.0
2.1
2.2
3.2
2.6
3.8
1.52.7
2.2
(0.4)
2.5
2.0
1.6
2.4
2.5
2.4
1.5
2.7
2.5
MBE
2.25.0
2.9
(0.7)
2.3
2.4
2.9
2.8
2.4
2.9
3.0
2.8
5.0
2.4
2.2
2.8
3.2
1.43.4
2.8
(0.6)
3.0
3.4
3.0
1.4
3.3
2.8
2.3
2.9
3.1
SL
2.23.8
2.8
(0.5)
2.2
2.8
3.0
2.6
2.4
2.6
2.4
2.3
3.6
3.8
3.6
2.5
3.0
2.13.3
2.9
(0.4)
2.8
3.3
3.2
2.1
3.1
2.6
3.0
2.7
3.2
EL
2.74.8
3.4
(0.5)
2.7
3.2
3.2
3.8
3.6
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.7
4.8
3.9
3.0
3.4
2.43.7
3.2
(0.4)
2.4
3.5
2.8
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.0
3.7
IUE
1.32.6
1.8
(0.4)
1.3
2.1
2.1
1.5
1.3
1.9
1.4
1.5
2.0
2.2
2.1
1.4
2.6
1.12.2
1.6
(0.4)
1.1
1.7
2.2
1.3
1.2
2.1
1.3
1.6
1.5
UEW
Table 1. Morphometry of holotype, allotype and paratypes of Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov. (measurements in mm).
3.36.9
4.6
(1.1)
3.3
4.9
4.0
4.5
4.0
3.3
4.0
4.9
5.5
6.9
6.4
3.7
4.3
3.75.7
4.5
(0.8)
4.4
5.5
3.7
4.0
5.7
4.0
4.3
3.9
5.1
IFE
4.48.4
5.7
(1.2)
4.5
5.4
5.0
4.8
5.6
4.4
4.8
5.9
8.4
7.7
6.5
4.8
6.0
4.46.1
5.4
(0.7)
5.7
6.0
5.0
4.4
6.1
5.6
5.0
4.6
6.0
IBE
3.76.3
4.9
(0.9)
4.0
4.5
5.4
5.2
3.9
4.2
4.5
4.8
6.2
6.3
6.0
3.7
5.5
4.55.9
5.2
(0.4)
5.1
5.4
5.9
4.5
5.5
5.5
5.3
4.8
5.2
FLL
4.17.2
5.6 (1)
4.1
6.1
6.0
5.8
4.5
4.8
4.6
5.3
6.1
7.2
6.8
4.7
6.9
5.56.5
6.0
(0.4)
6.0
6.2
6.2
5.5
6.2
6.5
5.6
5.5
6.2
HAL
1.77.3
3.3
(1.5)
2.3
3.5
2.7
2.3
4.6
2.5
1.7
2.6
2.5
7.3
4.2
4.4
3.6
1.93.8
3.0
(0.7)
1.9
3.5
2.0
2.9
3.3
3.4
3.8
2.8
3.5
TFL
0.71.7
1.1
(0.3)
0.8
1.1
0.7
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.7
1.7
0.9
1.1
0.91.4
1.1
(0.1)
1.1
1.1
0.9
-
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.0
FDIII
0.51.0
0.7
(0.1)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.60.8
0.7
(0.1)
0.6
0.6
0.6
-
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.6
FWIII
7.913.1
10.4
(1.8)
8.0
9.8
9.9
10.1
9.2
8.2
10.6
11.2
13.0
13.1
12.3
7.9
11.9
8.610.7
10.0
(0.6)
9.8
10.1
10.7
10.2
10.2
9.7
8.6
9.9
10.6
TL
8.412.8
10.8
(1.4)
8.4
10.4
10.6
10.5
9.7
10.1
11.3
9.9
12.7
12.8
12.7
9.4
11.4
9.010.2
9.7
(0.4)
9.8
10.2
10.1
9.0
10.0
9.6
9.5
9.2
10.0
ShL
11.218.2
14.1
(2.4)
11.2
14.9
14.0
13.0
11.4
11.4
13.6
15.1
15.4
18.2
18.2
11.4
15.9
13.015.7
13.9
(0.9)
13.0
15.7
13.0
13.4
14.6
14.6
13.7
13.3
14.4
TFOL
6.510.9
8.5
(1.5)
6.5
9.3
8.9
8.0
7.6
7.0
7.3
8.9
9.2
10.7
10.9
6.8
9.8
7.99.1
8.3
(0.4)
8.2
9.1
8.1
8.1
8.6
8.6
8.2
7.9
8.2
FOL
Padhye et al.
Padhye et al.
b
© Rohan Naik
© Ashok Captain
c
© Neelesh Dahanukar
a
c
© Anand D. Padhye
b
5mm
a
a
b
c
d
Image 3. Structure of tongue in Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov. (a), R. bombayensis (b) and R. tuberohumerus (c). In R. ghatei sp nov. and
R. tuberohumerus tongue devoid of papilla but with a lingual pit (pointed with red arrow), while in R. bombayensis a well-defined papilla is
present.
Image 4. Palm (a) and foot (b) of Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov.
Diagrametic representation of the webbing formula is depicted in (c).
tubercles indistinct, nuptial pad absent; finger length 3
(TFL 3.5) > finger length 2 (2.1) > finger length 4 (1.8) >
finger length 1 (1.0); bony tubercle on humerus at the
end of deltoid ridge as its extension in male (Image 5).
Hind limbs: moderately long, shank (ShL 10.0) shorter
than thigh (TL 10.6), longer than the distance from the
base of the inner metatarsal tubercle to the tip of the
fourth toe that is foot (FOL 8.2); distance from the heel
to tip of the fourth toe (TFOL 14.4) > thigh length (TL
10.6) > shank length (ShL 10.0) > distance from the base
of the inner metatarsal tubercle to the tip of the fourth
toe (FOL 8.2); webbing reduced (Image 4b); reaching up
to penultimate subarticular tubercle on either side of IV
toe; webbing formula (I2-2II2-2½III2-3IV2½-2V) (Image
4c); dermal fringe absent; subarticular tubercles single,
round; tarsal fold and tarsal fringe absent; toe length
4 (5.1) > toe length 3 (3.1) = toe length 5 (3.1) > toe
length 2 (1.9) > toe length 1 (1.3); toe discs prominent
with circum marginal groove; inner metatarsal tubercle
simple, oval; outer metatarsal tubercle absent (Image
4b); heels barely touch when legs are folded at right
angles to body.
Snout with granular dorsal skin, inter-orbital space
Image 5. Sexual dimorphic character in Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov.
Tubercle is present on the humerus in male (a-b) but not in females
(c-d). (a) holotype BNHS 5579, (b) WILD-13-AMP-102, (c) WILD-13AMP-105 and (d) WILD-13-AMP-104.
with smooth skin; skin on the back with minute sparsely
located horny spinules; less in number as well as less
conspicuous (Image 2d) as compared to R. bombayensis
(Image 2e). Some variants show tubercles on the back.
Outer margins of dorso-lateral bands with
inconspicuous dorso-lateral glandular folds, more
evident in live specimens. Skin coarsely granular
laterally. Gular skin rather smooth. Ventral skin in trunk
region coarsely granular from chest to groin. Granulation
extends up to thigh.
Colouration in life (Image 6): Dorsum greyish-brown
with dark brown marbling. Black dorso-lateral band
extending from tympanum converging in and then
diverging to groin is present. Fore limbs dark without
crossbars while thigh and shank with single cross
bar. Creamish-yellow spots on dark background near
the groin. Ventral skin in the trunk region is creamish
in colour. A few dark spots present near fore limbs.
4919
Padhye et al.
a
© Anand D. Padhye
© Anand D. Padhye
b
Image 6. Dorsal (a) and ventral (b) view of holotype of Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov. in life.
Yellowish-orange colour towards the posterior end of
trunk. Gular skin marbled with dark spots, sometimes
with reddish tinge.
In preservation (Image 1): Colour pattern in alcohol
preserved specimens as in live conditions albeit faded
Allotype (BNHS 5582, female) (all measurements in
mm):
Medium sized frog (SVL 25.5), with robust body;
head length (HL 8.9) shorter than head width (HW 9.7;
MN 8.0; MFE 6.2; MBE 3.8); outline of snout in dorsal
view mucronate; snout length (SL 3.2) slightly longer
than horizontal diameter of eye (EL 3.0); canthus
rostralis angular, loreal region obtuse, concave; ratio
of distance between anterior margins of the eyes (IFE
.4.3) to distance between posterior margins of eyes (IBE
6.0) 1:1.40; tympanum (TYD 1.3) indistinct, rounded,
almost one-third of the eye diameter; supratympanic
fold distinct, from posterior corner of upper eyelid to
shoulder; tongue bifid, without papilla but with a lingual
pit; infratympanic fold distinct, from posterior margin of
lower jaw joining to the supratympanic fold; interorbital
distance (IUE 3.4) 1.3 times greater than width of upper
eyelid (UEW 2.6).
4920
Fore limbs: hand length (HAL 6.9) > humeral length
(6.6) > forelimb (FLL 5.5); fingers with lateral (inner as well
as outer) dermal fringes, webbing absent; subarticular
tubercles prominent, rounded, single; single palmer
tubercles present; supernumerary tubercles indistinct;
finger length 3 (TFL 3.6) > finger length 2 (2.5) > finger
length 4 (2.2) > finger length 1 (1.9); bony tubercle on
humerus at the end of deltoid ridge absent.
Hind limbs: moderately long, shank (ShL 11.4)
shorter than thigh (TL 11.9), longer than the distance
from the base of the inner metatarsal tubercle to the tip
of the fourth toe that is foot (FOL 9.8); distance from the
heel to tip of the fourth toe (TFOL 15.9) > thigh length
(TL 11.9) > shank length (ShL 11.4) > distance from the
base of the inner metatarsal tubercle to the tip of the
fourth toe (FOL 9.8); webbing reduced; reaching up to
penultimate subarticular tubercle on either side of IV
toe; webbing formula (I2-2II2-2½III2-3IV2½-2V); dermal
fringe absent; subarticular tubercles single, round; tarsal
fold and tarsal fringe absent; toe length 4 (5.0) > toe
length 3 (3.7) = toe length 5 (3.7) > toe length 2 (2.3)
> toe length 1 (1.8); toe discs prominent with circummarginal groove; inner metatarsal tubercle simple, oval;
outer metatarsal tubercle absent (Image 4b); heels
Padhye et al.
200N
190N
180N
Holotype
Paratypes
Western Ghats
750E
740E
730E
720E
170N
Figure 1. Distribution map of Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov.
a
b
© Anand D. Padhye
© Anand D. Padhye
c
© Anand D. Padhye
Image 7. Dorsal (a), ventral (b) and lateral (c) view of Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov. female (allotype BNHS 5582).
4921
Padhye et al.
© Anand D. Padhye
© Anand D. Padhye
e
© Anand D. Padhye
d
c
© Anand D. Padhye
b
© Amit Sayyed
a
Image 8. Colour variation in live specimens of Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov. (a) specimen from Kaas, not collected, (b) WILD-13-AMP-100
(Paratype) from Thoseghar, (c) specimen from Thoseghar, not collected, (d) AGCZRL Amphibia 128 (Paratype) from Thoseghar and (e) female
from Kaynanagar photographed in July 2002 (specimen not collected).
barely touch when legs are folded at right angles to body.
Colouration in life (Image 7): Dorsum blackish with
creamish-white marbling. Black dorso-lateral bands
extending from tympanum converging in and then
diverging to groin are present. Fore limbs and hind limbs
dark with crossbars. Creamish-yellow spots on dark
background near the groin. Ventral skin in the trunk
region is creamish in colour. A few dark spots present
near fore limbs. Yellowish-orange colour towards the
posterior end of trunk. Gular skin creamish in colour
marbled with dark spots.
In preservation: Colour pattern in alcohol preserved
specimen more or less similar as in live condition except
for the creamish marbling on the back, which is lost in
preservation.
Colour variation
Variation in colour pattern is shown in Image 8.
Colour variation on the flanks and thigh region is shown
in Image 9. A faint white stripe between anterior
margins of upper eye lids (absent in holotype) may or
may not be present.
Sexual dimorphism
Males of the species have a bony tubercle on the
humerus at the end of deltoid ridge as its extension,
which is absent in females (Image 5); males also posses
single, sub-gular vocal sac, however, nuptial pads are
absent.
4922
Etymology
The species is named after Dr. H.V. Ghate for his
contributions to the herpetology of Western Ghats of
Maharashtra.
Common name: Ghate’s Shrub Frog.
Natural history
Distribution: The species is widely distributed in the
Western Ghats of Maharashtra (Fig. 1) and is currently
known from Jaichiwadi (17.420N & 73.850E, 1005m) in
the south and Taleghar near Bhimashankar (19.080N &
73.640E, 1025m) in the north.
Habitat: Usually inhabit semi-evergreen forests
and scrub patches (Image 10). Females usually found
underneath loose stones while males are found calling
on the branches of shrubs or even on trunks of trees, up
to 5m above ground.
Biology: The species has a direct development mode
without free-swimming tadpoles. The eggs are laid in
soil under loose stones on the forest floor (Image 11a).
Development occurs within the egg (inside the vitelline
membrane) (Image 11b) and fully metamorphosed
juvenile emerges from the egg (Image 11c).
Genetic analysis
Maximum likelihood analysis of 16S rRNA gene for all
species of Raorchestes available on NCBI suggested that
Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov. is genetically different from
known species of Raorchestes and forms a monophyletic
clade nested within the generic clade of Raorchestes
with high bootstrap value (Fig. 2, Appendix B and C).
Padhye et al.
Figure 2. Maximum likelihood analysis of partial 16S rRNA gene. Tree for all Raorchestes species for which 16S rRNA gene data is available
where the new species is depicted in red. Values on the node are percent bootstrap values for 1000 iterations. Pseudophilautus species from
Western Ghats are used as outgroup.
4923
Padhye et al.
a
© Amit Sayyed
b
Image 10. Habitat at the type locality of Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov.
a
c
b
f
© Anand D. Padhye
e
g
Image 9. Colour and pattern variation on the flank and thigh region of
Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov. in life. All specimens are from the single
population at Thoseghar. Specimens not collected.
4924
c
© Anand D. Padhye
d
Image 11. Developmental stages of Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov. (a)
Eggs clutches under the stone on forest floor in Dongarwadi, (b)
developing embryo in the egg and (c) newly hatched juvenile.
Pair wise distance between R. ghatei sp. nov. and the
two closest Western Ghats congener R. bombayensis
and R. tuberohumerus was 4.9% and 4.5% respectively,
while the distance between R. bombayensis and R.
tuberohumerus was just 2.2%. We could not include the
following species in the analysis as the 16S rRNA data
were not available: Raorchestes annandalii (Boulenger,
1906), R. flaviventris (Boulenger, 1882), R. kakachi
Seshadri et al., 2012, R. manipurensis (Mathew & Sen,
2009), R. parvulus (Boulenger, 1893), R. sahai (Sarkar &
Ray, 2006), R. shillongensis (Pillai & Chanda, 1973), R.
Padhye et al.
Figure 3. MANOVA/CVA of size adjusted morphometric data as percentage of SVL for adult males. Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov. forms a separate
cluster distinct from R. bombayensis and R. tuberohumerus on the first canonical axis.
terebrans (Das & Chanda, 1998) and R. thodai Zachariah
et al., 2011. However, these species are morphologically
distinct and have different geographical distributions.
The following species were included in the earlier draft
of the manuscript but are removed from the current
analysis as the sequences which were then available
in the public database were made unavailable while
the manuscript was in review: Raorchestes uthamani
Zachariah et al., 2011 (JX092722), R. agasthyaensis
Zachariah et al., 2011 (JX092723, JX092646), R.
chalazodes (Günther, 1876) (JX092676), R. crustai
Zachariah et al., 2011 (JX092677), R. johnceei Zachariah
et al., 2011 (JX092679), R. kadalarensis Zachariah et
al., 2011 (JX092702, JX092701), R. manohari Zachariah
et al., 2011 (JX092674), R. ochlandrae (Gururaja et
al., 2007) (JX092666) and R. theuerkaufi Zachariah et
al., 2011 (JX092693). Genetically, R. ghatei sp. nov. is
different from these species.
Statistical analysis
Size adjusted morphometric data was multivariate
normal (Doornik & Hansen omnibus, Ep = 29.19, P =
0.1395). Three species formed significantly different
clusters in MANOVA/CVA (Pillai’s trace = 1.593, F22,26
= 4.624, P = 0.0002). Fisher’s distances among the
three clusters were significant (R. ghatei sp. nov. vs. R.
bombayensis, F = 7.099, P = 0.001; R. ghatei sp. nov. vs.
R. tuberohumerus, F = 14.765, P<0.0001; R. bombayensis
vs. R. tuberohumerus, F = 3.929, P = 0.014). Raorchestes
ghatei sp. nov. differs from R. bombayensis and R.
tuberohumerus in having longer inter-upper eyelid width
(IUE), fore limb length (FLL) and head width (HW) (Fig. 3).
Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov. differs from R. bombayensis
in having lesser snout length (SL) to eye length (EL)
ratio (Fig. 4). Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov. differs from R.
tuberohumerus in having higher inter upper eyelid width
(IUE) (Fig. 4a) and snout the vent length (SVL) (Fig. 4b).
4925
Padhye et al.
220N
200N
180N
160N
140N
120N
Western Ghats
100N
Raorchestes bombayensis
800E
780E
760E
740E
720E
700E
80N
680E
Raorchestes tuberohumerus
Figure 5. Distribution of three species based on current study and
data provided in Biju & Bossuyt (2009).
Figure 4. Morphometric differences between males of Raorchestes
ghatei sp. nov., R. bombayensis and R. tuberohumerus. (a) ratio of
snout length (SL) and eye length (EL) vs. inter upper eyelid distance
(IUE) and (b) ratio of SL and EL vs. snout vent length (SVL).
DISCUSSION
Annandale (1919) described Ixalus bombayensis (=
Raorchestes bombayensis) from Castle Rock, and also
mentioned that the species is more common in Khas (=
Kaas) in Satara and Khandalla (= Khandala) in Poona (=
Pune). However, Biju & Bossuyt (2009) have restricted
the northern most distribution of R. bombayensis
to Amboli in Maharashtra. Biju & Bossuyt (2009) in
their revision of the taxa mentions that “Annandale’s
report of this species from ‘Khas, Satara district’ (ZSIC
18782–18813) and ‘Khandalla, Poona district’ (ZSIC
1814–1818), which are severely damaged specimens still
4926
available at ZSIC (Annandale 1919), was in error”. Our
genetic and morphometric analysis of populations of
Raorchestes found in Kaas and north up to Taleghar near
Bhimashankar suggests that the taxa found in this area is
indeed different from R. bombayensis, which is described
as R. ghatei sp. nov. in the current communication.
Distribution map for R. bombayensis, R. ghatei sp. nov.
and R. tuberohumerus, based on the current knowledge
of the distribution of the three species, as evident
from Biju & Bossuyt (2009) and the current study, is
shown in Fig. 5. It is essential to note that the previous
records of R. bombayensis from the northern Western
Ghats, based on morphological characters, especially
from the distribution range of R. ghatei sp. nov. need
verification. Based on the examination of vouchers, we
suggest that the records of R. bombayensis from Tamhini
(Dahanukar & Padhye 2005) and Taleghar (Dahanukar
et al. 2013), should be considered as R. ghatei sp. nov.
tuberohumerus from Thoseghar by Padhye & Ghate
(2012) should also be asigned to R. ghatei sp. nov.
Phylogenetically, Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov. is
nested within a monophyletic group consisting of R.
bombayensis and R. tuberohumerus from the Western
Ghats and R. gryllus, R. longchuanensis and R. menglaensis
from Viet Nam and China. Yu et al. (2009, 2010) have
already suggested that some species of Raorchestes
from China and Viet Nam are nested within the Western
Ghats radiation of Raorchestes. Raorchestes ghatei sp.
nov. has a distribution in between the southern most
member R. tuberohumerus in this clade and the species
in China and Viet Nam. Biogeographical significance of
this finding, however, needs further investigations.
Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov. can be differentiated
from the closely related species from the phylogenetic
tree as follows. Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov. differs
from R. bombayensis in absence of tongue papilla
(vs. presence), absence of nuptial pad (vs. presence),
dorsal skin finely granulated (vs. coarsely granulated)
and lower SL/EL ratio (vs. higher). Raorchestes ghatei
sp. nov. can be differentiated from R. tuberohumerus
in having robust body (vs. slender body), longer SVL
(vs. smaller), ventrally snout slightly projecting beyond
mouth (vs. projecting beyond mouth), wider IUE (vs.
narrow). Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov. differs from R.
gryllus in having round pupil (vs. horizontal), small
and indistinct tympanum (vs. big and distinct) relative
to eye diameter, ventral surface coarsely granular (vs.
slightly granular) and absence of dermal fringe (vs. well
developed dermal fringe). Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov.
differs from R. longchuanensis in ventrally snout slightly
projecting beyond mouth (vs. projecting beyond mouth)
and head wider than long (vs. longer or equal to wide).
Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov. differs from R. menglaensis
in having dorsal skin smooth or finely granulated (vs.
coarsely granulated) and snout mucronate (vs. acutely
pointed).
Osteological and genetic study of Raorchestes
ghatei sp. nov. has revealed that the tubercle on
the humeral bone, a character which was previously
considered specific for R. tuberohumerus, is in fact a
sexually dimorphic character present only in males.
In the description of R. tuberohumerus, Kuramoto
& Joshy (2003) mentioned that they failed to collect
females of the species. However, we believe that even
in R. tuberohumerus, the females may be devoid of the
tubercle on the humeral bone. Ecological significance of
this sexually dimorphic character is yet to be determined
but our initial observations suggests that it might be
used by males for clasping the females during amplexus.
Another possibility is that the tubercle might be useful in
clinging to the small shrubs in windy habitats in Western
Ghats. This is especially true for males who are found
on the trunks giving the advertisement calls, while the
females are mostly found on the ground.
Presence of a lingual pit in the case of Raorchestes
ghatei sp. nov. (Image 3a), apposed to a papilla in the case
of R. bombayensis is an interesting finding of our study. In
Padhye et al.
an extensive review on median lingual processes in frogs,
Grant et al. (1997) have suggested that the presence
of a median lingual pit does not necessarily mean the
presence of a median lingual process. While taking
an example from the museum collection of American
Museum of Natural History (AMNH), Grant et al. (1997)
argued that in R. bombayensis there is presence of a pit
rather than a retracted process. However, the specimen
(AMNH 40044) photographed by Grant et al. (1997) is
from Satara, which is within the distributional range of
R. ghatei sp. nov. Therefore, the arguments raised by
Grant et al. (1997) are for R. ghatei sp. nov. and not for
R. bombayensis. Raorchestes bombayensis has a welldefined papilla which can be seen in live specimens
(Image 3b) as well as the holotype of R. bombayensis
(Appendix D). In R. tuberohumerus an ill-defined pit is
present even though a papilla is absent (Image 3c).
Raorchestes ghatei sp. nov. is widely distributed in the
Western Ghats of Maharashtra and is common in most of
the forest patches. Even though no specific threats could
be identified for the species, continuous deforestation in
these areas leading to habitat fragmentation could be a
threat to the species. Several localities from which the
species is currently known are also subject to tourism
and recreational activities. There is a large wind farm
near the type locality at Chalkewadi and the other
localities are also potential wind farm sites. Pande et al
(2013) have discussed threat of wind farms to avifauna
wherein they discuss the windmill erection activity to be
a measured threat to general diversity as well. Recently,
Dahanukar et al. (2013) reported the presence of
chytrid fungal infection in morphologically identified R.
bombayensis from Taleghar, which should be attributed
to the R. ghatei sp. nov. based on the current study.
Therefore, it can be suggested that the species is prone
to chytrid infection. Even though the effect of chytrid on
this species is not available, further studies are essential
on this topic. Furthermore, a detailed study on the
ecology, distribution, population status and threats to
the populations is essential to evaluate the conservation
status of this species.
REFERENCES
Abraham, R.K., R.A. Pyron, BR Ansil, A. Zachariah & A. Zachariah
(2013). Two novel genera and one new species of treefrog (Anura:
Rhacophoridae) highlight cryptic diversity in the Western Ghats
of India. Zootaxa 3640: 177–189; http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/
zootaxa.3640.2.3
Altschul, S.F., W. Gish, W. Miller, E.W. Myers & D.J. Lipman (1990).
Basic local alignment search tool. Journal of Molecular Biology 215:
403–410; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2
4927
Padhye et al.
Appendix A. Voucher and GenBank accession numbers for sequences used in molecular analysis.
Species
Voucher
GenBank
Accession
number
Species
Voucher
GenBank
Accession
number
ZSI-WRC A/1484
KF366384
Raorchestes glandulosus
1369PhiGla*
EU450020
WILD-13-AMP-100
KF366385
Raorchestes glandulosus
0077PhiGla*
EU450006
AGCZRL-Amphibia-130
KF366386
Raorchestes graminirupes
BNHS 4266
EU450015
WILD-13-AMP-104
KF366387
Raorchestes griet
BNHS 4455
EU449997
WILD-13-AMP-105
KF366388
Raorchestes griet
-
AF536203
AGCZRL-Amphibia-125
KF366389
Raorchestes gryllus
ROM 38828
KC465838
AGCZRL-Amphibia-127
KF366390
Raorchestes gryllus
ROM 30288
GQ285674
AGCZRL-Amphibia-128
KF366391
Raorchestes jayarami
SDB 1379
EU450023
WILD-13-AMP-080
KF366392
Raorchestes kaikatti
BNHS 4557
EU450021
Raorchestes akroparallagi
0317Phi018b*
EU450010
Raorchestes longchuanensis
7Rao
KC465839
Raorchestes akroparallagi
0071Phi018*
EU450003
Raorchestes longchuanensis
5Rao
GQ285675
Philautus anili
1400PhiAni*
EU450024
Raorchestes luteolus
BNHS 4478
EU450005
Philautus anili
0307PhiAni*
EU450008
Raorchestes marki
BNHS 4537
EU450028
Philautus beddomii
0030PhiBed*
EU449998
Raorchestes menglaensis
KIZ060821286
EU924621
Philautus beddomii
1153PhiBed*
EU450013
Raorchestes munnarensis
BNHS 4481
EU450016
Raorchestes bobingeri
BNHS 4273
EU450014
Raorchestes nerostagona
BNHS 4244
EU450012
BNHS 4418
EU450019
Raorchestes ponmudi
1451PhiPonb*
EU450026
WILD-13-AMP-230
KF767502
Raorchestes ponmudi
1121PhiPon*
EU450011
WILD-13-AMP-231
KF767503
Raorchestes resplendens
SDB-2010
GU808563
AGCZRL-Amphibia-172
KF767504
Raorchestes signatus
-
GQ204684
Raorchestes charius
-
AF249062
BNHS 4489
EU450000
Raorchestes charius
-
AY141840
-
AY141841
Raorchestes charius
0081PhiCha_type*
EU450007
Raorchestes sushili
BNHS 4544
EU450027
Raorchestes charius
-
GQ204683
Raorchestes tinniens
BNHS 4548
EU450001
Raorchestes chlorosomma
BNHS 4426
EU450017
Raorchestes travancoricus
BNHS 4557
EU450029
Raorchestes chotta
BNHS 4429
EU450022
Raorchestes tuberohumerus
BNHS 4590
EU450004
Raorchestes chromasynchysi
BNHS 4433
EU450018
Pseudophilautus kani
BNHS 4472
EU449994
Raorchestes coonoorensis
BNHS 4446
EU449999
-
GQ204685
Raorchestes dubois
BNHS 5285
EU449996
Pseudophilautus
wynaadensis
Pseudophilautus amboli
BNHS 4399
EU450025
* Voucher numbers for these isolates cannot be determined based on the information given in Biju & Bossuyt (2009).
Annandale N. (1919). The fauna of certain small streams in the
Bombay presidency. Records of Indian Museum 16: 109–161.
Biju, S.D. & F. Bossuyt (2009). Systematics and phylogeny of Philautus
Gistel, 1848 (Anura, Rhacophoridae) in the Western Ghats of India,
with descriptions of 12 new species. Zoological Journal of the
Linnean Society 155: 374–444; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.10963642.2008.00466.x
Biju, S.D., Y. Shouche, A. Dubois, S.K. Dutta & F. Bossuyt (2010). A
ground-dwelling rhacophorid frog from the highest mountain peak
of the Western Ghats of India. Current Science 98: 1119–1125.
Biju, S.D., I.V. Bocxlaer, S. Mahony, K.P. Dinesh, C. Radhakrishnan, A.
Zachariah, V. Giri & F. Bossuyt (2011). A taxonomic review of the
Night Frog genus Nyctibatrachus Boulenger, 1882 in the Western
Ghats, India (Anura: Nyctibatrachidae) with description of twelve
new species. Zootaxa 3029: 1–96.
Bini, L.M., J.A.F. Diniz-Filho, T.F. Rangel, R.P. Bastos & M.P. Pinto
(2006). Challenging Wallacean and Linnean shortfalls: knowledge
4928
gradients and conservation planning in a biodiversity hotspot.
Diversity and Distributions 12: 475–482; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1366-9516.2006.00286.x
Dahanukar, N. & A. Padhye (2005). Amphibian diversity and
distribution in Tamhini, northern Western Ghats, India. Current
Science 88(9): 1496–1501.
Dahanukar, N., K. Krutha, M.S. Paingankar, A.D. Padhye, N. Modak
& S. Molur (2013). Endemic Asian chytrid strain Infection in
threatened and endemic anurans of the northern Western Ghats,
India. PLoS ONE 8(10): e77528; http://dx.doi.org//10.1371/journal.
pone.0077528
Dinesh, K.P. & C. Radhakrishnan (2011). Checklist of amphibians of
Western Ghats. Frog Leg 16: 15–21.
Doornik, J.A. & H. Hansen (2008). An Omnibus Test for Univariate and
Multivariate Normality. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics
70: 927–939; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2008.00537.x
Edgar, R.C. (2004). MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high
Padhye et al.
Appendix B. Maximum Parsimony based phylogenetic tree using 16S rRNA gene sequences of Raorchestes species. Pseudophilautus species
from Western Ghats are used as outgroup. Values on the node are percent bootstrap values for 1000 iterations.
accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Research 32(5): 1792–
1797; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh340
Frost, D.R. (2013). Amphibian Species of the World: an Online
Reference. Version 5.6 (9 January 2013). American Museum of
Natural History, New York, USA. Electronic Database accessible
at
http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html.
Accessed on 08 July 2013.
Grant, T., E.C. Humphrey & C.W. Myers (1997). The median lingual
process of frogs: a bizarre character of Old World Ranoids discovered
in South American dendrobatids. American Museum Norntates
3212: 1–40.
Hammer, Ø., D.A.T. Harper & P.D. Ryan (2001). PAST: paleontological
statistics software package for education and data analysis.
Palaeontologia Electronica 4(1): 1–9.
Harris, R.J. (2001). A Primer for Multivariate Statistics - Third Edition.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, London.
Huberty, C.J. & S. Olejnik (2006). Applied MANOVA and Discriminant
Analysis - 2nd Edition. Hohn Wiley and Sons, N.J. 488pp.
Huelsenbeck, J.P. & F. Ronquist (2001). MRBAYES: Bayesian inference
of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17(8): 754–755; http://dx.doi.
org/10.1093/bioinformatics/17.8.754
Kuramoto, M. & S.H. Joshy (2003). Two new species of the genus
Philautus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the Western Ghats,
southwestern India. Current herpetology 22(2): 51–60.
Milne, I., F. Wright, G. Rowe, D.F. Marshal, D. Husmeier & G. McGuire
(2004). TOPALi: Software for automatic identification of recombinant
4929
Padhye et al.
Appendix C. Unrooted phylogenetic tree of Raorchestes species using 16S rRNA gene based on Bayesian analysis. Posterior probabilities
given at the nodes are in percentages.
sequences within DNA multiple alignments. Bioinformatics 20(11):
1806–1807; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bth155
Orlov, N.L., N.A. Poyarkov, A.B. Vasilieva, N.B. Ananjeva, T.T. Nguyen,
N. N. Sang & P. Geissler (2012). Taxonomic notes on rhacophorid
frogs (Rhacophorinae: Rhacophoridae: Anura) of southern part of
Annamite Mountains (Truong Son, Vietnam), with description of
three new species. Russian Journal of Herpetology 19: 23–64.
Padhye, A.D. & H.V. Ghate (2002). An overview of amphibian fauna of
Maharashtra state. Zoos’ Print Journal 17(3): 735-740; http://dx.doi.
org/10.11609/JoTT.ZPJ.17.3.735-40
Padhye, A.D. & H.V. Ghate (2012). Amphibia. Zoological Survey of
India, Fauna of Maharashtra, State Fauna Series 20(1): 239–246.
Palumbi, S.R., A. Martin, S. Romano, W.O. McMillan, L. Stice & G.
Grabowski (2002). The Simple Fool’s Guide to PCR, Version 2.0.
Department of Zoology and Kewalo Marine Laboratory, University
4930
of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, 45pp. (Available online: http://palumbi.
stanford.edu/SimpleFoolsMaster.pdf)
Pande, S., A. Padhye, P. Deshpande, A. Ponkshe, P. Pandit, A.
Pawashe, S. Pednekar, R. Pandit & P. Deshpande (2013). Avian
collision threat assessment at ‘Bhambarwadi Wind Farm Plateau’
in northern Western Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(1):
3504–3515; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3096.210
Posada, D. & K.A. Crandall (2001). Selecting the best-fit model of
nucleotide substitution. Systems Biology 50(4): 580-601; http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/10635150118469
Potthoff, T. (1984). Clearing and staining techniques, pp. 35–37.
In: Moser, H.G., W.J. Richards, D.M. Cohen, M.P. Fahay, A.W.
Kendall, Jr. & S.L. Richardson (eds.). Ontogeny and Systematics of
Fishes. American Society for Ichthyology and Herpetology, Special
Publication No. 1., 760pp.
© Kaushik Deuti
a
b
© Kaushik Deuti
d
e
© Kaushik Deuti
© Kaushik Deuti
Padhye et al.
© Kaushik Deuti
c
Appendix D. Head in the dorsal view (a), lateral view (b) and ventral view(c) of Raorchestes bombayensis holotype (ZSIC 18287). The papilla
on the tongue is shown in (d) and (e).
Seshadri, K.S., K.V. Gururaja & N.A. Aravind (2012). A new species of
Raorchestes (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from mid-elevation
evergreen forests of the southern Western Ghats, India. Zootaxa
3410: 19–34.
Tamura, K., D. Peterson, N. Peterson, G. Stecher, M. Nei & S.
Kumar (2011). MEGA5: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis
using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum
parsimony methods. Molecular Biology and Evolution 28: 2731–
2739; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msr121
Yu, G., D. Rao, M. Zhang & J. Yang (2009). Re-examination of the
phylogeny of Rhacophoridae (Anura) based on mitochondrial and
nuclear DNA. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 50(3): 571–
579; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2008.11.023
Yu, G., M. Zhang & J. Yang (2010). Generic allocation of Indian and Sri
Lankan Philautus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) inferred from 12S and 16S
rRNA genes. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 38(3): 402–409;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bse.2010.03.011
Zachariah, A., K.P. Dinesh, E. Kunhikrishnan, S. Das, D.V. Raju, C.
Radhakrishnan, M.J. Palot & S. Kalesh (2011). Nine new species of
frogs of the genus Raorchestes (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae)
from southern Western Ghats, India. Biosystematica 5(1): 25–48.
COMPARATIVE MATERIAL
Raorchestes bombayensis: ZSIC 18287 (Holotype),
BNHS 4589, BNHS 4418, BNHS 4419, WILD-13-AMP-230,
WILD-13-AMP-231; AGCZRL-Amphibia-169, AGCZRLAmphibia-172,
AGCZRL-Amphibia-173,
AGCZRLAmphibia-174.
Raorchestes tuberohumerous:
BNHS 4193
(Holotype), BNHS 4194 (Paratype), BNHS 4512, BNHS
4590, BNHS 4498, BNHS 4499.
Raorchestes glandulosus: BNHS 4454, BNHS 1844-5
Raorchestes coonoorensis: BNHS 4444 (Holotype),
BNHS 4446 (Paratype).
Raorchestes charius: BNHS 4424, BNHS 4036, BNHS
4422, BNHS 4421.
Raorchestes griet: BNHS 4457, BNHS 4464.
Raorchestes ponmudi: BNHS 4484, BNHS 4483.
Raorchestes luteolus: BNHS 4476, BNHS 4477, BNHS
4478.
Raorchestes gryllus: data from Orlav et al. (2012).
Raorchestes longchuanensis: photographs of
holotype KIZ 74110046 available at http://www.
dwbwg.org /museum_ky/museum_ky3/museum_
ky35/201208/t20120827_3634228.html
Raorchestes menglaensis: photographs of live
specimen available at CallPhotos – http://calphotos.
berkeley.edu/cgi/img_query?where-taxon=Raorche
stes+menglaensis&rel-taxon=begins+with&wherelifeform=specimen_tag&rel-lifeform=ne
4931
Communication
Western Ghats
Special Series
Sahyadria, a new genus of barbs (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) from
Western Ghats of India
ISSN
Online 0974–7907
Print 0974–7893
OPEN ACCESS
Rajeev Raghavan 1, Siby Philip 2, Anvar Ali 3 & Neelesh Dahanukar 4
Conservation Research Group (CRG), St. Albert’s College, Banerji Road, Kochi, Kerala 682018, India
Department of Zoology, Nirmalagiri College, Nirmalagiri (P.O), Kannur, Kerala 670701, India
4
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Dr. Homi Bhabha Road, Pashan, Pune, Maharashtra 411008, India
1,4
Zoo Outreach Organization, 96 Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641035, India
1
[email protected] (corresponding author), 2 [email protected], 3 [email protected],
4
[email protected]
1,2,3
2
Abstract: Redline Torpedo Barbs (Teleostei: Cyprinidae), comprising of two species, Puntius denisonii and P. chalakkudiensis, and six
evolutionarily distinct lineages are endemic to the streams of the Western Ghats freshwater ecoregion in peninsular India. Based on
molecular and osteological evidence, we demonstrate that these barbs comprise a distinct genus, for which we propose the name
Sahyadria.
Keywords: Cypriniformes, freshwater fish, Puntius denisonii, Puntius chalakkudiensis, taxonomy.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3673.4932-8 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:ECAD0467-A6C7-4151-B4B3-66017B7B1159
Editor: Anjana Silva, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, Saliyapura, Sri Lanka.
Manuscript details: Ms # o3673 | Received 22 June 2013 | Final received 02 November 2013 | Finally accepted 13 November 2013
Citation: Raghavan, R., S. Philip, A. Ali & N. Dahanukar (2013). Sahyadria, a new genus of barbs (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) from Western Ghats of India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 5(15): 4932–4938; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3673.4932-8
Copyright: © Raghavan et al. 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction
Funding: Rajeev Raghavan is supported by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) - Western Ghats Program, and the North of England Zoological Society
(NEZS), Chester Zoo, UK. Neelesh Dahanukar is supported by the DST Inspire Faculty Fellowship of the Department of Science and Technology, Government of
India.
Competing Interest: The authors declare no competing interests. Funders had no role in study design, data collection, results interpretation and manuscript writing.
Author contributions: All authors contributed equally to the manuscript.
Author Details: Rajeev Raghavan is interested in interdisciplinary research focused on generating information and developing methods to support conservation
decision-making, especially in freshwater ecosystems. Siby Philip is interested in molecular phylogenetics, evolution and biogeography of freshwater fishes of
the South Asia region. Anvar Ali is interested in taxonomy and systematics of freshwater fishes of the Western Ghats. Neelesh Dahanukar works in ecology and
evolutionary biology with an emphasis on mathematical and statistical analysis. He is also interested in taxonomy, distribution patterns and molecular phylogeny
of freshwater fishes and amphibians.
Acknowledgements: The authors thank Sanjay Molur for his continuous support and encouragement; Mandar Paingankar for help with osteological studies,
and Unmesh Katwate for photographs. Rajeev Raghavan thanks Ralf Britz and Jörg Freyhof for photographs and useful discussions, Oliver Crimmen for his help
during visits to the Natural History Museum (NHM), London, Helmut Wellendorf (Natural History Museum, Vienna) for photographs, and Ambily Nair for her help
and support. Siby Philip thanks Mark McGrouther and Rohan Pethiyagoda (Australian Museum, Sydney) for photograph and measurements of the syntype. The
authors also thank Lukas Rüber, three anonymous reviewers, and the subject editor for their critical comments and suggestions on the manuscript.
This article forms part of a special series on the Western Ghats of India, disseminating the results of work supported by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
(CEPF), a joint initiative of l’Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the European Commission, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank. A fundamental goal of CEPF is to ensure civil society is engaged in biodiversity conservation.
Implementation of the CEPF investment program in the Western Ghats is led and coordinated by the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment
(ATREE).
4932
Sahyadria - a new genus from Western Ghats
INTRODUCTION
The Redline Torpedo Barbs, presently placed under
the polyphyletic genus Puntius Hamilton, 1822 (Teleostei:
Cyprinidae), are represented by two species, Puntius
denisonii (Day, 1865), its look alike P. chalakkudiensis
Menon, Rema Devi & Thobias, 1999, (Images 1,2,3),
and, six evolutionarily distinct lineages (John et al. 2013).
Endemic to the rivers of the Western Ghats freshwater
ecoregion in peninsular India, these barbs are extremely
popular in the aquarium trade with more than 300,000
individuals collected from the wild and exported via
airports in the last six years (Raghavan et al. 2013).
Both P. denisonii and P. chalakkudiensis are also listed as
‘Endangered’ in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
due to their restricted range, ongoing population decline,
and deterioration of the quality of their habitats (Ali et al.
2011; Raghavan & Ali 2011).
In spite of this popularity and conservation significance,
the taxonomy and systematics of these barbs, especially
their generic allocation, has been rather uncertain.
Since its description, P. denisonii has been placed under
several genera including Labeo (Day, 1865 p.299),
Puntius (Day, 1865 p.212; Jayaram, 1981, p.100), Barbus
(Günther, 1868, p.146; Day, 1878, p.573; 1889, p.320)
and Hypselobarbus (Rema Devi et al., 2005, p.1810).
Very recently, Pethiyagoda et al. (2012) suggested that P.
denisonii and P. chalakkudiensis warrant placement in a
separate genus due to the strikingly different coloration
and mouth shape compared to all other congeners.
Here, based on osteological and molecular evidence,
we demonstrate that the Redline Torpedo Barbs comprise
a distinct genus, for which we propose the name
Sahyadria.
Osteological descriptions are based on a cleared and
stained specimen (CRG-SAC.2009.21.7) following the
methods described in Potthoff (1984). Conway (2011)
was followed for osteological nomenclature, and the
results compared with published data of related genera
(Dawkinsia, Haludaria, Pethia, Puntius and Systomus; see
Pethiyagoda et al. 2012; Pethiyagoda 2013).
The DNA sequences (mitochondrial 16S rRNA and
Cytochrome b gene/cytb) were downloaded from NCBI
GenBank and used in conjunction with a dataset from
an earlier study (Pethiyagoda et al. 2012). These were
subsequently used to build the phylogenetic trees,
check for monophyly and determine the generic status
Raghavan et al.
of these barbs. Sequences were aligned using MUSCLE
(Edgar 2004). Protein coding gene (cytb) sequences
were translated, aligned, and back-translated prior to
the downstream analyses. Tree searches were carried
out using maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian
methodologies. Prior to the ML and Bayesian tree
searches, the best-fit nucleotide substitution model
was selected for the concatenated dataset using MrAIC
(Nylander 2004). Maximum likelihood searches were
carried out using Garli v2.0 (Zwickl 2006), ten runs of two
replicates (10 × 2) each were run, and the best tree (with
the best likelihood value), was selected. One hundred
bootstrap replicates were carried out in Garli v2.0, and
the bootstrap values were placed on the nodes of the best
ML tree (determined earlier) using the sumtrees program
from the Dendropy library (Sukumaran & Holder 2010).
A Bayesian tree was built in MrBayes v 3.2.1 (Ronquist
& Huelsenbeck 2003), and the analysis was performed
for 4×105 generations sampling every 100th tree. Split
frequencies between two independent runs of the four
chains were used to decide when to stop the analysis. The
Bayesian posterior probabilities (pp) were summarized
by building a majority rule consensus tree. The ML
bootstrap values and the Bayesian pp’s were mapped on
the best ML tree recovered earlier. In a second approach,
we used sequences from three previously published
Cypriniformes phylogeny datasets (Ruber et al. 2007;
Pethiyagoda et al. 2012; Dahanukar et al. 2013), and the
sequences for the Redline Torpedo Barbs (mentioned
above) to build an extended phylogeny to exactly discern
the phylogenetic position of the genus within the family
Cyprinidae. Maximum likelihood searches were carried
out using PHYML (Guindon et al. 2010) and aLRT branch
support (Anisimova & Gascuel 2006) values were mapped
on the nodes of the phylogeny. The ML phylogeny was
used to test for monophyly of the lineage of interest,
using Rosenberg’s P (Rosenberg 2007). The average pair
wise tree distance among members of the focal species,
and the average pairwise tree distance between the
members of the focal species versus the members of the
next closest clade were also calculated.
Voucher specimens referred to in this study are
deposited in the museum of the Conservation Research
Group at St. Albert’s College (CRG-SAC), Kochi, India.
4933
Raghavan et al.
RESULTS
a
Sahyadria gen. nov.
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:C96F727E-5224-400F-978D-A49208CAAE58
Type species: Labeo denisonii (Day, 1865).
Diagnosis: A genus of cyprinid fishes (Teleostei:
Cyprinidae) differing from all South and Southeast Asian
genera of Barbinae by the combination of characters
and character states including: adult size ranging from
85–190 mm SL; one pair of maxillary barbels; dorsal fin
with iii-iv unbranched and eight branched rays, where
the last branched ray can be bifurcated right at the base
giving appearance of the 9th branched ray; anal fin with
ii-iii unbranched and five branched rays; last unbranched
dorsal-fin ray weak, apically segmented, not serrated (Fig.
20mm
Image 2. Topotypic material of Sahyadria chalakkudiensis (formalin
preserved; CRG-SAC, Uncatalogued).
b
c
20mm
Image 1. Syntypes of Sahyadria denisonii (a) BMNH 1864.7.9.6 (b)
AMS B 7913 and (c) NMW 54059. (Photo credit: a - Natural History
Museum, London/Rajeev Raghavan; b - Australian Museum/
Rohan Pethiyagoda; c - Natural History Museum, Vienna/Helmut
Wellendorf)
1c); lateral line complete, with 26–28 pored scales on the
body; free uroneural absent (Fig. 1d); gill rakers simple,
acuminate (not branched or laminate), in two rows with
a
© Jorg Freyhof
b
© Ralf Britz
c
© Unmesh Katwate
d
© Unmesh Katwate
e © Neelesh Dahanukar
f
Image 3. Sahyadria and some related barbs. (a) Sahyadria denisonii (b) Sahyadria denisonii (c) Dawkinsia cf. filamentosa male, (d) Dawkinsia
cf. filamentosa female, (e) Puntius cf. bimaculatus and (f) Haludaria cf. fasciata.
4934
Raghavan et al.
Figure 1. Sahyadria denisonii, (CRG-SAC 2009.21.7), 51.0mm SL. (a) Circumorbital series (IO1-5, infraorbitals; So, supraorbital; Pop,
preopercle); (b) dorsal view of orbital region of cranium (F, frontal; Pa, parietal); (c) last unbranched dorsal-fin ray; and (d) caudal skeleton
(CC, compound centrum; Ep, epural; H1-6, hypurals 1-6; 1-5; ; Ph, parhypural; Pls, pleurostyle; PU2, PU3, preural centra 2, 3). Note that the
supraorbital sensory canal is not shown.
12 and 18 rakers respectively; antrorse predorsal spinous
ray absent; a post-epiphysial fontanelle absent (Fig. 1b);
supraneurals five; infraorbital IO3 slender not overlapping
preoperculum (Fig. 1a); pharyngeal teeth 5+3+2; 16
abdominal and 11 caudal vertebrae; and a distinct color
pattern (Image 3a,b) with a wide blackish lateral stripe
from snout to the base of caudal fin, black line along the
lateral line, and scarlet stripe starting from snout until the
mid body (varying by the species) above the black stripe.
A yellow stripe present between the black and the scarlet
stripes; starting from behind the operculum and ending
at the hypural region. Caudal fin lobes with oblique black
bands covering the posterior quarter towards the tip,
and subterminal oblique yellow bands. Dorsal fin with or
without a black blotch. In juveniles, a scarlet coloration
covers half the height of anterior rays of the dorsal fin.
Phylogenetically, Sahyadria gen. nov. forms a
monophyletic clade supported by high bootstrap value
and Bayesian posterior probability (Fig. 2). The closest
genus to Sahyadria is Dawkinsia, their separation also
supported by high bootstrap value and Bayesian posterior
probability. Further, in an extended analysis (Fig. 3)
using three previously published datasets (Ruber et al.
2007; Pethiyagoda et al. 2012; Dahanukar et al. 2013),
the phylogenetic position of the new genus Sahyadria is
similar to the small dataset (Fig. 2), closest group being
Dawkinsia. The test for monophyly, Rosenberg’s P, the
chance of obtaining monophyly stochastically, was not
significant (Rosenberg’s P = 4.2x10-4). The intra-clade
distance was 0.182 (Sahyadria) and inter-clade distance
was 0.317 (Sahyadria vs. Dawkinsia).
Distribution: Genus Sahyadria is endemic to the
Western Ghats of India, where they occur in 12 west
flowing rivers between 90–120N latitudes.
4935
Raghavan et al.
Figure 2. Phylogenetic tree based on concatenated mitochondrial cytochrome b (cytb) and 16s RNA gene sequences (accession numbers: see
Pethiyagoda et al. 2012, John et al. 2013 and GQ247528 - GQ247532). Bayesian posteriorprobabilities/ML bootstrap values shown at nodes.
Etymology
The new genus is named after ‘Sahyadri’, noun, the
vernacular name for the Western Ghats mountain ranges;
gender feminine.
DISCUSSION
The genus Sahyadria, currently comprises of two
species S. denisonii and S. chalakkudiensis, and six
evolutionarily distinct lineages (John et al. 2013) all
of which are endemic to the Western Ghats region. In
their revision of South Asian fishes referred to as Puntius,
Pethiyagoda et al. (2012) tentatively placed the Redline
Torpedo Barbs under the genus Puntius. However, they
mentioned that the two species have a “strikingly different
coloration and mouth shape to all other congeners and
are likely to warrant placement in a separate genus in the
future”.
4936
Sahyadria can be differentiated from its closest sister
taxa, Dawkinsia by slender frontal (vs. broader frontal),
infraorbital IO3 larger than IO4 (vs. almost equal sized
IO3 and IO4), IO4 short (vs. elongated), free uroneural
absent (vs. present), presence of 16 abdominal and 11
caudal vertebrae (vs. 15 abdominal and 14–17 caudal
vertebrae) and 26–28 lateral line scales (vs. 18–22). These
two genera are also morphologically different (Image
3a,b,c,d) where Sahyadria has a pointed snout projecting
beyond mouth, while Dawkinsia has a blunt snout and
terminal mouth. The color pattern of the two genera is
also distinctly different.
Sahyadria differs from the generic characters
diagnosing Puntius in having broad and stout IO5 and
IO4 (vs. large and slender), absence of post-epiphysial
fontanelle (vs. present), absence of free uroneural (vs.
present) and having 16 abdominal and 11 caudal vertebrae
(vs. 12–14 abdominal and 14–16 caudal vertebrae).
Additionally, from Puntius bimaculatus, which also lacks
Raghavan et al.
Figure 3. Exact phylogenetic position of Sahyadria. Genera currently considered in subfamily Barbinae are highlighted in grey and the clades
of interest Sahyadria and Dawkinsia are highlighted in red and blue respectively.
the presence of post-epiphysial fontanelle, Sahyadria
differs in pre-opercle non overlapping (vs. overlapping),
frontal long and slender (vs. short and stout), presence of
eight branched rays in the dorsal fin (vs. 7).
Sahyadria differs from Haludaria in pre-opercle non
overlapping (vs. overlapping), elongated frontal (vs. short
and stout), absence of rostral barbels (vs. presence).
Sahyadria also substantially differs from Haludaria in
the long and pointed head structure (Image 3a,b,e).
Morphologically, Sahyadria has a long and slender caudal
peduncle (vs. deep and short) and having a pointed
snout projecting beyond mouth (vs. terminal mouth)
(Image 3a,b,f). The color pattern in the two genera is also
different.
Sahyadria can be differentiated from Pethia and
Systomus based on the most prominent character of the
last unbranched dorsal fin ray being non osseous and non
serrated (vs. osseous and serrated). Sahyadria differs from
Pethia in having 16 abdominal and 11 caudal vertebrae
(vs. 11–13 abdominal and 13–16 caudal vertebrae) and
26-28 lateral line scales (vs. 19–24). Sahyadria also
differs from Systomus in the absence of free uroneural
(vs. presence), absence of rostral barbels (vs. presence)
and 16 abdominal and 11 caudal vertebrae (vs. 14–15
4937
Raghavan et al.
abdominal and 17–19 caudal vertebrae).
The phylogenetic tree (Fig. 2) retrieves a monophyletic
group comprising all the Redline Torpedo Barbs collected
throughout its range. Except for the position of Puntius
bimaculatus, our phylogeny resembles that of Pethiyagoda
et al. (2012). An additional extended phylogeny with
three previously published datasets (Ruber et al. 2007;
Pethiyagoda et al. 2012; Dahanukar et al. 2013) in
conjunction with the Sahyadria sequences revealed that
its phylogenetic position was within Barbinae and that the
closest genus was Dawkinsia. The Rosenberg’s P value
to test for monophyly (P-value <0.05) clearly showed
that the clade (Sahyadria) was indeed distinct with clear
separation from its sister group, the genus Dawkinsia. The
tests for intra and inter-clade differentiation also pointed
towards ample separation between the two groups and
supported the reciprocal monophyly of both clades. Larger
intra-clade distance values point towards higher diversity
in the clade, and a higher inter-clade diversity shows that
the two clades in comparison are increasingly distinct.
The intra/inter ratio (0.57 in the case of Sahyadria vs.
Dawkinsia) is another pointer towards the distinctness of
the clades, where smaller values points towards smaller
differentiation between the individuals of the focal clade
than the differentiation between the two tested clades.
Our study thus clearly demonstrates the separation
of Redline Torpedo Barbs from its congeners and its
monophyly, thus warranting its placement into a new
genus Sahyadria.
REFERENCES
Ali, A., N. Dahanukar & R. Raghavan (2011). Puntius denisonii. In: IUCN
2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. <www.
iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 04 October 2012.
Anisimova, M. & O. Gascuel (2006). Approximate likelihood-ratio test for
branches: A fast, accurate, and powerful alternative. Systematic Biology
55(4): 539–552; http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10635150600755453
Conway, K.W. (2011). Osteology of the South Asian genus Psilorhynchus
McClelland, 1839 Teleostei: Ostariophysi: Psilorhynchidae), with
investigation of its phylogenetic relationships within the order
Cypriniformes. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 163: 150-154;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00698.x
Dahanukar, N., S. Philip, K. Krishnakumar, A. Ali & R. Raghavan
(2013). The phylogenetic position of Lepidopygopsis typus (Teleostei:
Cyprinidae), a monotypic freshwater fish endemic to the Western
Ghats of India. Zootaxa 3700(1): 113–139; http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/
zootaxa.3700.1.4
Day, F. (1865). On the fishes of Cochin, on the Malabar Coast of India Part II. Anacanthini. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London
1865(1): 286–318.
Day, F. (1878). The Fishes of India; Being a Natural History of the Fishes
Known to Inhabit the Seas and Fresh Waters of India, Burma, and
Ceylon Part 4. Quaritsch, London, i-xx+553–779, pls. 139–195.
Day, F. (1889). Fishes. In: Blanford, W.T. (ed.) The Fauna of British India,
including Ceylon and Burma. Taylor & Francis, London, v.1: i–xviii+
4938
1–548pp.
Edgar, R.C. (2004). MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high
accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Research 32: 1792–1797;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh340
Guindon, S., J.F. Dufayard, V. Lefort, M. Anisimova, W. Hordijk, & O.
Gascuel (2010). New algorithms and methods to estimate maximumlikelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0.
Systematic Biology 59(3): 307–321; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/
syq010
Gůnther, A. (1868). Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum.
Catalogue of the Physostomi, containing the families Heteropygii,
Cyprinidae,
Gonorhynchidae,
Hyodontidae,
Osteoglossidae,
Clupeidae,... [thru]... Halosauridae, in the collection of the British
Museum. v. 7: i–xx+1–512pp.
Jayaram, K.C. (1981). The Freshwater Fishes of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh,
Burma and Sri Lanka - A Handbook. Zoological Survey of India. i–xxii+1–
475pp, pls. 1–13.
John, L., S. Philip, N. Dahanukar, A. Ali, J. Tharian, R. Raghavan & A.
Antunes (2013). Morphological and genetic evidence for multiple
evolutionary distinct lineages in the endangered Red-lined Torpedo
Barbs - highly exploited freshwater fishes endemic to the Western Ghats
Hotspot, India. PLoS ONE 8(7): e69741; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0069741
Menon, A.G.K., K. Rema Devi & M.P. Thobias (1999). Puntius
chalakkudiensis, a new colourful species of Puntius (family: Cyprinidae)
fish from kerala, south India. Records of the Zoological Survey of India
97(4): 61–63.
Nylander, J.A.A. (2004). MrAIC.pl. Program distributed by the author.
Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University.
Pethiyagoda, R. (2013). Haludaria, a replacement generic name for
Dravidia (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). Zootaxa 3646: 199; http://dx.doi.
org/10.11646/zootaxa.3646.2.9
Pethiyagoda, R., M. Meegaskumbura & K. Maduwage (2012). A synopsis
of the South Asian fishes referred to Puntius (Pisces: Cyprinidae).
Ichthyological Explorations of Freshwaters 23(1): 69–95.
Potthoff, T. (1984). Clearing and staining techniques, pp. 35–37. In:
Moser, H.G., W.J. Richards, D.M. Cohen, M.P. Fahay, A.W. Kendall, Jr. &
S.L. Richardson (eds.). Ontogeny and Systematics of Fishes. American
Society for Ichthyology and Herpetology, Special Publication No. 1,
760pp.
Raghavan, R., N. Dahanukar, M. Tlusty, A. Rhyne, K. Krishnakumar, S.
Molur & A. Rosser (2013). Uncovering an obscure trade: threatened
freshwater fishes and the aquarium pet markets. Biological Conservation
164: 158–169; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.04.019
Raghavan, R. & A. Ali (2011). Puntius chalakkudiensis. In: IUCN 2012.
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. <www.iucnredlist.
org>. Downloaded on 04 October 2012.
Rema Devi, K., T.J. Indra, M.B. Raghunathan & M.S. Ravichandran
(2005). Fish fauna of the Anamalai hill ranges, Western Ghats, India.
Zoos’ Print Journal 20(3): 1809–1811; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.
ZPJ.1164a.1809-11
Ronquist, F. & J.P. Huelsenbeck (2003). MRBAYES 3: Bayesian phylogenetic
inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19: 1572–1574; http://
dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180
Rosenberg, N.A. (2007). Statistical tests for taxonomic distinctiveness
from observations of monophyly. Evolution 61: 317–323; http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00023.x
Rüber, L., M. Kottelat, H.H. Tan, P.K. Ng, & R. Britz (2007). Evolution
of miniaturization and the phylogenetic position of Paedocypris,
comprising the world’s smallest vertebrate. BMC Evolutionary Biology
7(1): 38; http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-7-38
Sukumaran, J. & M.T. Holder (2010). DendroPy: a Python library for
phylogenetic computing. Bioinformatics 26(12): 1569–1571; http://
dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq228
Zwickl, D.J. (2006). Genetic algorithm approaches for the phylogenetic
analysis of large biological sequence datasets under the maximum
likelihood criterion. PhD Dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin.
Review
Western Ghats
Special Series
Meghamalai special section
Meghamalai landscape : a biodiversity hotspot
ISSN
Online 0974–7907
Print 0974–7893
Subramanian Bhupathy 1 & Santhanakrishnan Babu 2
OPEN ACCESS
Sálim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Anaikatti (PO), Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641108, India
Wildlife Information Liaison Development Society, 96 Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu
641035, India
1
[email protected] (corresponding author), 2 [email protected]
1,2
2
Abstract: The Meghamalai, also known as High Wavy Mountains, is
located in the Theni Forest Division of Tamil Nadu, Western Ghats. The
landscape is endowed with an array of vegetation types varying from
dry (thorn forests) in the eastern side to wet (evergreen) forests on
the western side due to wide elevation gradient (220–2000 m above
sea level) and varied rainfall pattern (wind ward and leeward zones).
The composition and configuration of this landscape facilitates diverse
species of vertebrates (18 species of fishes, 35 amphibians, 90 reptiles,
254 birds, 63 mammals). In the past, selected floral and faunal groups of
Meghamalai have been sporadically surveyed by the British explorers.
However, in-depth ecological studies on various biota have only been
initiated in recent years by SACON and WILD, which highlighted the
conservation importance of the area. It is hoped that the recently
declared Meghamalai Wildlife Sanctuary encompassing a part of the
landscape, and the proposal of the Srivilliputtur-Meghamalai Tiger
Reserve, if realized, would help conserving the diverse biota of this
landscape in the long run.
Keywords: Endemism, High Wavy Mountains, Meghamalai Wildlife
Sanctuary, Theni Forest Division, Western Ghats.
The Western Ghats, a chain of mountain ranges
(~1600km in length) that runs parallel to the west coast
from the river Tapti (Gujarat) in the north to Kanyakumari
(Tamil Nadu) in the south, is one of the 34 biodiversity
hotspots of the world (Mittermeier et al. 2005).
Meghamalai, is part of a larger landscape (ca. 800km2),
catchment area of Vaigai and Suruliar rivers. Periyar Tiger
Reserve, Grizzled Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary and Cumbam
Valley surround Meghamalai. Meghamalai in local
language (Tamil) denotes cloud covered mountains i.e.
Megha = cloud, Malai = hill. Among the locals, it is known
as Patchakumachi, (Patcha = green, Kumachi = jungle).
Meghamalai is also known as High Wavy Mountains due
to the general appearance (wavy) of these high hills from
the Cumbam Valley/Town (Image 1). The term High Wavy
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3592.4939-44 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:02F9F575-E31F-45C4-BB94-208915FFBACD
Editor: P.S. Easa, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, India.
Manuscript details: Ms # o3592 | Received 26 April 2013 | Final received 30 August 2013 | Finally accepted 10 October 2013
Citation: Bhupathy, S. & S. Babu (2013). Meghamalai landscape : a biodiversity hotspot. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 4939–4944; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/
JoTT.o3592.4939-44
Copyright: © Bhupathy & Babu 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction
Funding: The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Government of India and ATREE-CEPF and Rufford Small Grant.
Acknowledgements: We are grateful to G.V. Subramanian and Naseem Ahmad (MoEF), and Jack Tordoff and Bhasker Acharya (ATREE-CEPF) and Jane Reymond
(Rufford) for financial support. We thank the PCCF and Chief Wildlife Warden of Tamil Nadu for permission to work in the forest area, and to the staff of Theni
Forest Division for logistic support. Drs. P.A. Azeez (SACON) and Sanjay Molur (WILD) helped us at various levels.
(ATREE).
4939
Bhupathy & Babu
Mountains was largely used by British Explorers.
The landscape has been identified as an important
wildlife area by Rodgers & Panwar (1988). Meghamalai
is largely under the control of the Theni Forest Division
(Theni District), which was a part of erstwhile Travancore
Presidency prior to the Indian Independence. In 2009,
269.11km2 of the area was declared as Meghamalai
Wildlife Sanctuary (Tamil Nadu Government Gazette
2009). Considering its conservation importance, (the
landscape forms a buffer to the existing protected areas
such as Grizzled Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary and Periyar
Tiger Reserve); the area, along with the Grizzled Squirrel
Wildlife Sanctuary, has recently been proposed as a
Tiger Reserve (Fig. 1). In the present paper, we provide
a description of the Meghamalai area, especially with
respect to conservation of biodiversity based on collation
from published papers.
History
The Theni forests have a long and remarkable history.
The tract, in which the forests of this division lie, is the
heart of the legendary and famous Pandya kingdom
(ca. 1600 AD). Since the beginning of 1800, till the
independence of India (1947), the area was managed
and extensively exploited for revenue generation from
forest produce by the British Empire. Notable actions that
© S. Babu
Meghamalai landscape: A biodiversity hotspot
Image 1. The Meghamalai Mountain: A view from Cumbam mettu
helped conservation and management of forests in the
area are as follows:
- 1857: Report by Colonel Beddome indicating rapid
denudation of forests in High Wavy Mountains
- 1861: Formation of Madurai Forest Division
- 1871: Establishment of Forest Ranges, viz., Madurai
and Periakulam
- 1880: Committee formed with 21 Forest Blocks
(738.15km2)
- 1882: Promulgation of Madras Forest Act
Figure 1. Location of Meghamalai and adjoining areas, Western Ghats
4940
Bhupathy & Babu
- 1882–1890: Demarcation of various Reserve Forests
- 1888: Formation of Forest Ranges, viz., Kanavaipatti,
Sholavandan, Palamedu, Palani and Cumbam ranges
- 1951: Bifurcation of Madurai Forest Division as
Madurai West and East
- 1956: Prohibition of shifting cultivation
- 1957: Madurai North and Madurai South divisions
formed
- 1982: Formation of Theni Forest Division
- 2009: Declaration of Meghamalai Wildlife Sanctuary
-2013: Srivilliputtur-Meghamalai Tiger Reserve
(proposal pending decision)
originates from High Wavy Mountains and both join Periyar
at different locations. The Public Works Department, Tamil
Nadu has constructed five dams—High Wavys, Manalar,
Venniyar, Eravangalar and Shanmuganathi—for electricity
generation and for irrigation in and around Cumbam.
Tribes
Paliyar and Muthuvar are the two tribal communities
spread across various parts of Theni District (Jeyaprakash
et al. 2011).
Bhupathy et al. (2009) and Sukhla (2013) have reported
the forest types from Meghamalai and its environs
(Images 2–4). Besides these, teak plantations and cash
crops (cardamom, and coffee (Image 5)) raised during
the mid 19th Century are still being maintained, though
a few of them have been abandoned. Ailanthus excelsa,
Ceiba pentandra, Tamarindus indica, Eucalyptus grandis,
Schleichera oleosa were the plantations under practice in
Theni Forest Division.
The eastern fringe of the area (Varusanad) is covered
with tropical thorn forests. As per the working plan of the
Tamil Nadu Forest Department (2005), the following forest
types were identified (i) southern tropical west coast
semi-evergreen forests, (ii) southern tropical moist mixed
deciduous forests, (iii) southern tropical secondary moist
mixed deciduous forest, (iv) southern tropical dry mixed
deciduous forests (v) southern tropical carnatic umbrella
thorn forests (vi) southern dry deciduous scrub forests.
Terrain and Climate
The general area is rugged and mountainous with
elevation ranging from 220–2000 m. Digital elevation
model of landscape shows that the lower elevation
(<800m) contributed to about 44% of the area followed
by medium elevation (800–1400 m), which is about 38%
(Bhupathy et al. 2012). Rock formation of the area is
largely composed of charnockites, granite gneiss and pink
granites which have been deformed by folds and faults
(Palanivelu et al. 1988).
Fifty years of global climate data show variations in
annual mean temperature across elevations, i.e., 24.10C
(in 500m) and 180C (in 1700m). Monthly mean minimum
and maximum temperatures recorded in 500m were
21.80C and 30.60C respectively, whereas it was 16.10C
and 24.00C for 1700m (Bhupathy et al. 2009). Cumulative
annual rainfall of lower and higher elevations of the area is
1500 and 2161 mm respectively. Both in higher and lower
elevations, the lowest rainfall was recorded during January
and the maximum during July (Bhupathy et al. 2009).
© Harish
Rivers and Dams
Major rivers in the area are the Vaigai and the Suruliar.
The Vaigai originates from Varusanad Hills while Suruliar
Image 2. Scrub forests
© S. Bhupathy
Biodiversity
Flora: The flora and fauna of Meghamalai landscape
attracted several researchers during the 19th and early
20th centuries. The natural resources of this area were
exploited by the British since 1801. The first status report
on this forest was prepared by Colonel Beddome in 1857,
which indicated rapid denudation due to a large number
of commercial activities. Perhaps, this resulted in various
Image 3. Riparian forests
4941
Bhupathy & Babu
© G. Srinivas
© N. Sathishkumar
Image 4. Evergreen forests
conservation and management initiatives in the region as
well as in the erstwhile Madras Presidency.
The area was under dense montane rain forests
during early 1900 (Blatter & Hallberg 1918). The Botanical
Survey of India surveyed the area under District Flora
Scheme 1984–1991. Seven new species have been
reported by Ravikumar (1999). Syzygium zeylanicum var.
megamalayanum is endemic to the landscape. Sasidharan
et al. (1997) provided a brief description on the orchids of
this area.
Fauna: Eighteen species of fishes belonging to 11
genera and four families have been reported from the
area (Table 1). Among them, 10 (55.5%) are endemic to
Western Ghats. Puntius ophicephalus, a rare barb has
restricted distribution in the rivers originating/ flowing
through this landscape (Silas 1951; Arunachalam et al.
2004).
Boulenger (1891a) described Ixalus (=Philautus)
travancoricus based on a specimen deposited at the British
Museum (now Natural History Museum, London) by Mr. H.S.
Ferguson from Bodanaikanur (now Bodinayakanur). This
species (currently known as Raorchestes travancoricus),
which is endemic to Theni Forests, is listed as ‘Extinct’ as
the same was not recorded for over 100 years (IUCN 2011,
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2011. 2).
Bhupathy et al. (2012) reported 35 species of amphibians,
including 23 (65.7%) endemics from the landscape (Table
1) (Srinivas & Bhupathy 2013). Meghamalai is one of
Image 5. Plantations (Tea)
the two known localities for the Malabar False Tree Frog
Rhacophorus pseudomalabaricus (Srinivas et al. 2009).
Sporadic reptile collections were carried out in
this landscape by the British explorers which resulted
in descriptions of snake species such as Silybura liura
Günther, 1875, now Uropeltis liura (fide, Smith 1943),
Silybura madurensis Beddome, 1878, now Uropeltis
arcticeps madurensis (fide, Whitaker & Captain 2008) and
Xylophis indicus Beddome, 1878, now a putative synonym
of Xylophis stenorynchus (fide, Günther 1875). Based on
the collection of Harold S. Ferguson of the State Museum
at Trivandrum (1880–1904), Boulenger (1891b) described
Lygosoma subcaeruleum (Blue-bellied Tree Skink, now
Dasia subcaeruleum). A second specimen was collected
by Angus F. Hutton from High Wavy Mountains and the
same was reported by Smith (1949a). This species was
reportedly endemic to the area till recently (Harikrishnan
et al. 2012). Angus F. Hutton collected snakes from the
area during 1946–48. Most of these specimens are
housed in the Museum of the Bombay Natural History
Society and Natural History Museum, London (Hutton
1949a; Hutton & David 2009). Based on these collections,
Smith (1949b) described Hutton’s Pit Viper Trimeresurus
(=Tropidolameous) huttoni. This species has not been
recorded so far since its original description. In all, 90 taxa
belonging to 53 genera and 16 families were reported
from this landscape, including 30 (33.3%) endemic species
(Bhupathy & Sathishkumar 2013).
Table 1. Richness of selected taxa in Meghamalai, Western Ghats; percent in parenthesis.
Taxon/
Group
Family
Species in
Meghamalai
No. of species in the
Western Ghats
Fish
4
18
Amphibians
8
35
Reptiles
16
Birds
Mammals
4942
No. of species in
India
Endemic to the
Western Ghats
318 (05.7%)
930 (1.9%)
10 (55.5%)
120 (29.2%)
314 (11.1%)
23 (65.7%)
90
197 (45.7%)
518 (17.4%)
30 (33.3%)
55
254
508 (50.0%)
1305 (19.5%)
14 (05.5%)
24
63
137 (46.0%)
434 (14.5%)
09 (14.3%)
Nichols (1944a,b; 1945) surveyed the erstwhile
Madura District including Meghamalai, for birds. Biddulph
(1956) reported the occurrence of Red-faced Malkoha
Phoenicophaeus pyrrhocephalus from this mountain
range. Due to non-availability of specimens in the
museum and lack of records from the region for over 60
years, distribution of this species within India is considered
spurious, and currently this species is reportedly endemic
to Sri Lanka (Erritzoe & Fuller 1997; Hoffmann 1996;
Bhupathy et al. 2012). A most recent compilation showed
that the area harbors 254 species belonging to 18 orders
and 55 families of birds, and this includes 11% (18 of 159
species) of threatened bird species of India and 88% (14 of
16 species) of endemic birds of the Western Ghats (Babu
& Bhupathy 2013). There were a few intensive studies
on Grey Jungle Fowl Gallus sonneratii that addressed
habitat use, nesting seasonality and threats on the species
(Subramanian 2002; Ramesh 2007).
Meghamalai was included in the Mammal Survey
of India (1911–1923) organized by the Bombay Natural
History Society (BNHS). Stanley Hendry Prater carried out
surveys in Meghamalai during 1917 and the results were
reported by Wroughton (1917). Angus F. Hutton (1946–48)
collected mammals from this landscape (Hutton 1949b).
Thonglongya (1972) described a new species of bat, Sálim
Ali’s Fruit Bat Latidens salimalii from Hutton’s collection.
In recent years, a few researchers conducted surveys
in the High Wavy Mountains in search of the globally
threatened Latidens salimalii. Muni (1991) has described
the experience of mist netting the bat in the High Wavy
Mountains. After a lapse of a decade, Singaravelan &
Marimuthu (2003a,b) mist netted Sálim Ali’s Fruit Bat
and described habitat characteristics and morphometric
differences of the species with other closely related
species. Including all records, 63 species of mammals
belonging to 24 families were reported to occur in the
landscape, which include 24 globally threatened and nine
Western Ghats endemics (Babu et al. 2013).
Most of explorations and research on the biota of the
Meghamalai were carried out during pre-independence
era (Silas 1951; Boulenger 1891a; Smith 1943; Hutton
1949a; Nichols 1944a,b, 1945; Hutton 1949b). In recent
years, the study of flora and fauna of this region is being
carried out by several research institutions such as Sálim
Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (Bhupathy
et al. 2012) and Wildlife Information Liaison Development
Society, Coimbatore (Babu et al. 2013), and Madurai
Kamaraj University, Madurai (Singaravelan & Marimuthu
2003a,b). Several local NGOs such as VANAM, Wildlife
Association of Rajapalayam and Wildlife Association of
Ramnad District are interested in conserving this landscape
Bhupathy & Babu
(Kumara et al. 2011).
Conservation Issues
Conservation problems of this area are similar to that
of other landscapes of the Western Ghats. Major among
them are:
1. Encroachment and developmental activities—
About 5911ha of area has been encroached in 2896
encroachments. This includes 2060ha in Varusanad and
1721ha in Meghamalai Forest Ranges (Srinivas et al.
2013). Apart from these, leased forest land for tea and
coffee estates in the upper elevations also take a major
share of natural forests. The estate workers depend on
natural forests for their fire wood requirement and for
cattle grazing. New proposals on roads in this landscape
should be carefully studied and mortality of fauna due
to vehicular traffic needs to be assessed (Bhupathy et al.
2012)
2. Monoculture plantations such as Silk Cotton
(Ceiba pentandra) have been extensively planted in the
Varusanad Valley and the southern slopes of Koranganai.
Preliminary surveys show that these plantations are
devoid of vertebrates as the lower stratum is removed
periodically. A detailed study on vertebrate assemblages
in the plantation would help in managing biodiversity in
these man-modified landscapes.
3. Five hydro-electric projects are currently in
operation in this landscape. Apart from inundation of
natural forests, these dams might hinder the movement
of smaller vertebrates such as fishes and amphibians
(tadpoles). Investigations on the current capacities of
these hydro-electric projects and their utilization by
wildlife are required.
4. Hunting was reported as an issue for the wildlife
in the landscape (Kumara et al. 2011). In addition, ongoing studies on large mammals by WILD would provide
the baseline information about the hunting practices and
preferred species by hunters in the area.
The present review shows that the Meghamalai
landscape harbors rich diversity of several groups of
vertebrates including endemics (Table 1). Ecology of
many of these species is poorly known. Only a portion
(269.11km2) of the Meghamalai landscape has been
declared as Meghamalai Wildlife Sanctuary (MWS), and
efforts should be made to identify other important areas
holding rich biodiversity and proposals should be made
to include them in the existing protected area (MWS).
Recognizing this landscape as a nationally important area
such as a Tiger Reserve (Srivilliputtur-Meghamalai) and
Important Bird Area would help conserving the biota of
Western Ghats in a long run.
4943
Bhupathy & Babu
REFERENCES
Arunachalam, M., J.A. Johnson, C. Vijayakumar, P. Sivakumar, A.
Manimekalan, R. Soranam & A. Sankaranarayanan (2004). New record
of a rare and endemic species of Puntius ophicephalus from Tamil Nadu
part of Western Ghats. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society
101: 166–168.
Babu, S. & S. Bhupathy (2013). Birds of Meghamalai Landscape, southern
Western Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 4962–4972;
http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3594.4962-72
Babu, S., G. Srinivas, H.N. Kumara, K. Tamilarasu & S. Molur (2013).
Mammals of the Meghamalai landscape, southern Western Ghats,
India - a review. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 4945–4952;
Bhupathy, S. & N. Sathishkumar (2013). Status of reptiles in
Meghamalai and its environs, Western Ghats, Tamil Nadu, India.
Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 4953–4961; http://dx.doi.
org/10.11609/JoTT.o3595.4953-61
Bhupathy, S., G. Srinivas & N. Sathishkumar (2009) A study on
herpetofaunal communities of the Upper Vaigai Plateau, Western Ghats,
India. Final Technical Report submitted to Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Government of India.
Bhupathy, S., G. Srinivas, N. Sathishkumar, M. Murugesan, S. Babu, R.
Suganthasakthivel & P. Sivakumar (2012). Diversity and conservation
of selected biota of the Meghamalai landscape, Western Ghats. India.
Current Science 102(4): 590–595.
Biddulph, C.H. (1956). Occurrence of the Red-faced Malkoha
(Phaenicophaus pyrrhocephalus (Pennant)) in Madurai District, Madras
Presidency. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 53: 697–698.
Blatter, E. & F. Hallberg (1918). Preliminary notes on a recent botanical
tour to the Highwavy Mountains (south India). Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 25: 290–292.
Boulenger, G.A. (1891a). Description of a new species of frog obtained by
Mr. H.S. Ferguson in Travancore, southern India. Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 6(4): 450.
Boulenger, G.A. (1891b). Description of a new species of lizard obtained by
Mr. H.S. Ferguson in Travancore, southern India. Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 6(4): 449.
Erritzoe, J. & R.A. Fuller (1997). Little-known Oriental bird: Red-faced
Malkoha. Bulletin of the Oriental Bird Club 26: 35–39.
Forest Working Plan (2005). Theni Forest Division. Part I, II and III. Chennai.
Günther, A. (1875). Second report on collections of Indian Reptiles
obtained by the British Museum. Proceedings of Zoological Society
London 1875: 224–234.
Harikrishnan, S., K. Vasudevan, A. de Silva, V. Deepak, N.B. Kar, R.
Naniwadekar, A. Lalremruata, K.R. Prasoona & R.K. Aggarwal (2012).
Phylogeography of Dasia Gray, 1830 (Reptilia: Scincidae), with the
description of a new species from southern India. Zootaxa 3233: 37–51.
Hoffmann, T.W. (1996). New bird records in Sri Lanka and some connected
matters. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 93: 382–388.
Hutton, A.F. (1949a). Notes on the snakes and mammals of the High Wavy
Mountains, Madura District, south India. Part I - Snakes. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society 48: 454–460.
Hutton, A.F. (1949b). Notes on the snakes and mammals of the High Wavy
Mountains, Madura District, South India. Part II - Mammals. Journal of
the Bombay Natural History Society 48: 681–694.
Hutton, A.F. & P. David (2009). Notes on a collection of snakes from south
India, with emphasis on the snake fauna of the Meghamalai Hills (High
Wavy Mountains). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 105:
299–316.
IUCN (2011). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. Online
at www.iucnredlist.org
Jeyaprakash, K., M. Ayyanar, K.N. Geetha & T. Sekar (2011). Traditional
uses of medicinal plants among the tribal people in Theni District
(Western Ghats), Southern India. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical
Biomedicine 520–525.
Kumara, H.N., R. Sasi, R. Suganthasakthivel & G. Srinivas (2011).
Distribution, abundance and conservation of primates in Highwavy
4944
Mountains of Western Ghats, Tamil Nadu, India. Current Science 100:
1063–1067.
Mittermeier, R.A., R.G. Patricio, H. Michael, P. John, B. Thomas, G. Cristina,
J.L. Mittermeier & G.A.B. da Fonseca (2005). Hotspots revisited: Earth’s
Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Eco-regions.
Conservation International and Agrupacion Sierra Madre, Monterrey,
Mexico. CEMEX publications, 392pp.
Muni, M. (1991). Rarest of the rare: Latidens salimalii. Hornbill (1): 28–32.
Nichols, E.G. (1944a). Occurrence of birds in Madura District - Part I. Journal
of the Bombay Natural History Society 44: 387–407.
Nichols, E.G. (1944b). Occurrence of birds in Madura District - Part II
Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 44: 574–584.
Nichols, E.G. (1945). Occurrence of birds in Madura District - Part III. Journal
of the Bombay Natural History Society 45: 122–132.
Palanivelu, R., M. Jayaraman, C.M. Doss, R.A. Selvan & R. Mamallan
(1988). Geology and geomorphology of Cumbum Valley and Varshanadu
Hills, Madurai District, Tamil Nadu through remote sensing. Journal of
Indian Society for Remote Sensing 16: 73–78.
Ramesh, N. (2007). Breeding ecology of Grey Jungle-fowl (Gallus sonneratii)
at Gudalur Range, Theni Forest Division, Western Ghats, Tamil, south
India. Thesis submitted to Bharathidasan University, Trichy.
Ravikumar, R. (1999). Novelties from High Wavy Mountains, Southern
Western Ghats, Theni District, Tamil Nadu, India. Rheedea 9(1): 55–75.
Rodgers, W.A. & H.S. Panwar (1988). Protected Area Network of India Volume I. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun.
Sasidharan, N., K.P. Rajesh & J. Augustine (1997). Orchids of High Wavy
recollected. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 94: 473–477.
Silas, E.G. (1951). Fishes from high range of Travancore. Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society 50: 323–330.
Singaravelan, N. & G. Marimuthu (2003a). Discovery of a cave as the day
roost of a rarest fruit bat Latidens salimalii. Current Science 84: 1253–
1256.
Singaravelan, N. & G. Marimuthu (2003b). Mist net captures of the rarest
fruit bat Latidens salimalii. Current Science 84(1): 24–26.
Smith, M.A. (1943). The Fauna of British India, Ceylon and Burma, Including
the Whole of the Indo-Chinese Subregion. Reptilia and Amphibia - Vol. III
(Serpentes). Taylor & Francis, London, 583pp.
Smith, M.A. (1949a). Notes on a second specimen of the skink Dasia
subcaerulea from south India: Trimeresurus huttoni sp. nov. Journal of
the Bombay Natural History Society 48: 596–597.
Smith, M.A. (1949b). A new species of pit viper from South India:
Trimeresurus huttoni sp. nov. Journal of the Bombay Natural History
Society 48: 596.
Srinivas, G., S. Babu, & H. N. Kumara & S. Molur (2013). Assessing the
status and distribution of large mammals in High Wavy and its environs,
Southern Western Ghats. Technical Report Submitted to CEPF-ATREE
Small Grants, Coimbatore, India.
Srinivas, G. & S. Bhupathy (2013). Anurans of of Meghamalai Landscape,
Western Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 4973–4978;
Srinivas, G., S. Bhupathy & R. Suganthasakthivel (2009). Rhacophorus
pseudomalabaricus. Herpetological Review 40(3): 362.
Subramanian, C. (2002). Habitat Ecology of Grey Jungle-fowl (Gallus
sonneratii) at Theni Forest Forest Division, Managamalai, Western
Ghats, Tamil, South India. Thesis submitted to Bharathidasan University,
Trichy.
Sukhla, R.R. (2013). Tiger Conservation Plan 2012–2013. Periyar Tiger
Reserve. Kerala Forest Department.
Tamil Nadu Government Gazette (2009). Declaration of Meghamalai
Wildlife Sanctuary. Regd. No. TN/CCN/467/2009-11: 322–325pp.
Thonglongya, K. (1972). A new genus and species of fruit bats from South
India (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae). Journal of the Bombay Natural History
Society 69: 151–158.
Whitaker, R. & A. Captain (2008). Snakes of India - The Field Guide. Draco
Books, Chennai, 385pp.
Wroughton, R.C. (1917). Bombay Natural Histoty Society’s Mammal
Survey of India, Burma and Ceylon. Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society 15(2): 545–554.
Review
Western Ghats
Special Series
Mammals of the Meghamalai landscape, southern Western
Ghats, India - a review
Santhanakrishnan Babu 1, Gopalakrishnan Srinivas 2, Honnavalli N. Kumara 3,
Karthik Tamilarasu 4 & Sanjay Molur 5
ISSN
Online 0974–7907
Print 0974–7893
OPEN ACCESS
Śalim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Anaikatty (PO), Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641108, India
Wildlife Information Liaison Development Society, 96, Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore,
Tamil Nadu 641035, India
5
Zoo Outreach Organization, 96, Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641035, India
4
Department of Zoology, AVC College, Mannampandal, Mayiladuthurai, Tamil Nadu 609305, India
1
[email protected] (corresponding author), 2 [email protected], 3 [email protected],
4
[email protected], 5 [email protected]
1,3
1,2,5
Abstract: Reports on the concurrence of mammals in the Meghamalai
landscape were collated from published literature and also the
data obtained from a recent study spanning over 18 months (June
2011–December 2012). Sixty-three species belonging to 24 families
occur in the landscape, which include 24 globally threatened (one
Critically Endangered; seven Endangered; 11 Vulnerable and five
Near Threatened) species. Of the recorded species, four species
are endemic to India and nine are endemic to the Western Ghats.
The present study added five species, viz., Rusty-spotted Cat
Prionailurus rubiginosus, Malabar Spiny Tree Mouse Platacanthomys
lasiurus, Grizzled Giant Squirrel Ratufa macroura, Common Palm
Civet Paradoxurus hermaphrodites and the Indian Grey Mongoose
Herpestes edwardsii to the six decade old mammal list. But, 13 species
reported by Hutton were not recorded during the study. Among
them, occurrence of Malabar Civet Viverra civettina and Fishing Cat
Prionailurus viverrinus in southern India remains unresolved. During
our study, anthropogenic pressures such as conversion of natural
habitats, encroachment, hunting, cattle grazing and tourism were
observed to affect the distribution of mammals in the landscape.
Keywords: Arboreal mammals, conservation issues, endemism,
species richness, Western Ghats.
The Meghamalai landscape is situated in the
northeastern side of Periyar Tiger Reserve, encompassing
High Wavy Mountains, Varusanad Valley and Hill, and
Vellimalai. High Wavy Mountains is popularly referred
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3596.4945-52 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:8F2C191C-691F-4CD8-A019-587E8F9FA11E
Editor: Mewa Singh, Mysore University, Mysuru, India.
Citation: Babu, S., G. Srinivas, H.N. Kumara, K. Tamilarasu & S. Molur (2013). Mammals of the Meghamalai landscape, southern Western Ghats, India - a review.
Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 4945–4952; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3596.4945-52
Copyright: © Babu et al. 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction and
distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: This work is part of the ATREE-CEPF and Rufford Small Grant research project and we appreciate them for the financial support.
Competing Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: We thank Tamil Nadu Forest Department and Theni Forest Division for the permission to carry out this study; the directors and other colleagues in SACON and WILD for the facilities and support; VANAM and WAR for their logistic support during field work.
(ATREE).
4945
Mammals of Meghamalai Babu el al.
to as ‘Pachchaikoomachi’ and ‘Meghamalai’ by locals
that explicate dense forest and cloud covered hill
respectively (Fig. 1). Summit ridges of the landscape
receive high precipitation during the south-west and
north-east monsoons and have a narrow strip of wet
forests. Meghamalai forms an imperative wildlife
corridor with Periyar Tiger Reserve to the south-west,
Grizzled Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary to the south and the
Cumbum West forests to the north. Furthermore, it is
bestowed with certain remnant patches of wet forests
in high elevation plateaus (>1400m), which have been
severely fragmented and over-exploited for raising
commercial crops and plantations that have left the
natural forests as fragments or islands.
In spite of being an important wildlife corridor,
updated data on mammals of the landscape is lacking.
The earliest survey on mamals in the hill range was
started in the beginning of the 19th century by Prater.
He explored and collected mammals from the Cumbum
Valley and the northern slopes of High Wavy Mountains,
and these specimens were preserved in Bombay
Natural History Society (BNHS) Museum collections.
Subsequently, Wroughton (1917) wrote the descriptions
for collections made by Prater, from which he identified
24 species mainly of rodents and bats. After a lapse
of three decades, Hutton (1949) made collections and
described the behaviour, habitat and distribution of 56
mammalian species including a few range restricted and
threatened species. More than two decades later (1972),
while working on the specimens of megachiropterans
at BNHS, Thonglongya had noticed that the specimen
labelled Cynopterus sphinx, collected at the High Wavy
Mountains, was wrongly identified. He identified it as
a new genus Latidens and named the species Latidens
salimalii (Thonglongya 1972), which is endemic to
southern India. A subsequent survey by BNHS and
Harrison Zoological Museum rediscovered L. salimalii at
the High Wavy Tea and Coffee Estates (Kardana Coffee
Estate). In addition, a few short surveys were also
attempted to address the roost site characteristics of
the bat (Singaravelan & Marimuthu 2003a,b). Kumara
et al. (2011) highlighted that the landscape harbours
one of the largest populations of globally threatened
Lion-tailed Macaque Macaca silenus. Bhupathy et al.
(2012) have highlighted the conservation significance
of the landscape using select vertebrates. Although the
landscape has been well explored in terms of mammals
over the decades (1917–2012) through a series of shortterm studies at different time periods (1917–2012),
the updated list of mammals and their current status
Figure 1. Surveyed areas in Meghamalai landscape, southern Western Ghats
4946
(qualitative) in the landscape has not been attempted. In
this context, we update the mammals of the Meghamalai
landscape based on primary (June 2011–December
2012) and secondary information.
Materials and Methods
We carried out a study on the status and distribution
of large mammals in the landscape between June 2011
and December 2012. The entire landscape was gridded
into 133 grids on the base map and each grid was
sampled for the presence/absence of the mammals by
walking on pre-determined paths. During these walks
all sighted animals were recorded, droppings on trail
were recorded with species identity, and also animal
presence was recorded based on tracks and signs. We
also conducted night surveys using flash lights or by
using a motor vehicle with lights by driving slowly and
recording animals found on either side of the road. The
total sampling effort amounted to 85km. Further, we
also reviewed the literature to prepare a comprehensive
list of mammals for the landscape (Wroughton
1917; Hutton 1949; Thonglongya 1972; Muni 1994;
Singaravelan & Marimuthu 2003a,b). The status of each
mammal species observed by Hutton was compared
with the current population status (consolidated from
the study) to understand the influence of six decades of
disturbance on the distribution of large mammals (41
species). IUCN status, endemism and schedule category
in Indian Wildlife Protection Act (1972) were compiled to
highlight the conservation significance of the landscape
in terms of mammals.
Results and Discussion
Sixty three species of mammals belonging to 24
families were recorded from the landscape. The
family Muridae (rats and mouse) was recorded with
a maximum number of species (Fig. 2) followed by
Sciuridae (squirrels) and Felidae (cats). Among the
63 species, 24 are globally threatened (including one
Critically Endangered; seven Endangered; 11 Vulnerable
and five Near Threatened species), nine are endemic
to the Western Ghats and four to India (Fig. 3). The
number of species recorded as common (C) and very
common (VC) were lower than Hutton’s observation,
however uncommon (UC) and rare (RR) were higher
than the earlier observation (Fig. 4). Five species, viz.,
Rusty-spotted Cat, Malabar Spiny Tree Mouse, Indian
Grey Mongoose, Grizzled Giant Squirrel and Common
Palm Civet were added for the first time to the existing
list of mammals in Meghamalai. Further, three species
of bats, viz., Salim Ali Fruit bat Latidens salimalii, Lesser
Dog-faced Fruit Bat Cynopterus brachyotis and Rufous
Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus rouxii were not recorded by
Hutton though recorded by Singaravelan & Marimuthu
(2003a,b). Some of the sight records of earlier notes
raise doubts of its accuracy, in particular the sightings
of Malabar Civet and Fishing Cat. Detailed species
information, for each new site record, obtained from the
present study is presented here.
Rusty-spotted Cat Prionailurus rubiginosus: Four
observations of the Rusty-spotted Cat (RSC) were
obtained during the present study. This included two
direct sightings (June 2012; Vannathiparai of Gudalur
Range) and two indirect sightings (July 2012, a dead one
found at Manjanoothu of Varusanad Valley and a road
kill near Rajapalayam Town). The species presumably
prefers low elevation, leeward side and next to human
settlements in Meghamalai.
Malabar Spiny Tree Mouse Platacanthomys lasiurus:
A single individual was located at No. 29 coffee estate,
9
8
No. of species
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Viveriidae
Ursidae
Vesptilionidae
Tupaiidae
Suidae
Tragulidae
Soricidae
Sciurudae
Pteropodidae
Rhinolophidae
Muridae
Mustelidae
Manidae
Loridae
Leporidae
Hystricidae
Felidae
Herpestidae
Erinaceidae
Cervidae
Elephantidae
Cercopithecidae
Bovidae
Canidae
0
Family
Figure 2. Family wise species richness of mammals in Meghamalai
4947
18
CR 2%
16
14
No. of species
EN
11%
VU
17%
NT
8%
12
10
Hutton
Current
8
6
4
2
0
VC
C
UC
Distribution status
RR
Figure 4. Comparing the abundance status of mammals in two
different time periods in Meghamalai
LC
62%
Figure 3. Threat status of mammals recorded in Meghamalai
located in the south-eastern slopes of High Wavy
Mountains, at 20:00 hours on 21 December 2011 during
a night survey in the coffee estate areas. It was observed
on a shrub at 1.5m height from the ground.
Grizzled Giant Squirrel Ratufa macroura: At five
different occasions, seven individuals were observed
along the tributaries and the main river of Vaigai. The
western most location of the species in the Varusanad
Valley is Arasaradi, where the rain-shadow region starts.
The distribution of the species was confirmed down
towards Gandhigramam near Kadamalaikundu and in
other parts of Varusanad Valley. The hill ranges that
extend towards the eastern side require an intensive
survey. Although highly scattered in distribution, around
20 nests of the species were located in riparian forests in
low elevations (>400m)
Indian Grey Mongoose Herpestes edwardsii: It was
frequently seen in the dry zones of Varusanad Valley
and the eastern portions of Meghamalai. Mostly
single individuals were seen but occasionally they were
observed in pairs.
Common Palm Civet Paradoxurus hermaphrodites:
Although it is commonly seen along the foothills next
to coconut plantations, Hutton (1949) had not reported
the species during his survey. During the night survey
in January 2012 at Meghamalai Tea Estate, a single
individual was sighted. However, later it was found that
the species had frequently been sighted in the plains
than in the mountains. The species had been considered
as a pest in the coconut plantations downhill.
Arboreal mammals: We recorded eight arboreal
mammals including five primates, two giant squirrels
and one flying squirrel. The distribution of LionTailed Macaque Macaca silenus and Nilgiri Langur
4948
Semnopithecus johnii was restricted to the high
rainfall areas on the western side, viz., No. 29 Estate,
Vellimalai, Ammagajam and Jyothi estates, whereas
Bonnet Macaque
Macaca radiata was recorded from
all the elevation gradients while Tufted Grey Langur
Semnopithecus priam was recorded only from drier
forests mostly downhill. Grey Slender Loris Loris
lydekkerianus was sighted frequently in the low elevation
dry forests. Among giant squirrels, the Indian Giant
Squirrel Ratufa indica was found in the high canopied
forests of mid and high elevations, whereas a small
population of Grizzled Giant Squirrel (seven individuals)
was observed along the Vaigai River and its tributaries.
The Indian Giant Flying Squirrel Petaurista philippensis
was recorded during the night surveys in thick canopied
forests areas such as Vellimalai and High Wavy estates.
Large herbivores: About 12 herds of Asian Elephant
Elephas maximus were located during the survey, and
the maximum herd size recorded was 10. Frequent
sightings of Asian Elephants were made in Meghamalai,
High Wavy, Manalar estates, Manjanoothu, Vellimalai,
Vannathiparai and Arasaradi. Gaur Bos gaurus was
recorded across the hill range but direct sightings were
made in the Varusanad Valley i.e., the eastern slopes of
Vellimalai. Among the ungulates, Sambar Rusa unicolor
was observed widely across the landscape and indirect
evidence was recorded in all the sampled grids. Chital
Axis axis was recorded mostly in the dry eastern plains
of Varusanad Valley and northern slopes of Meghamalai.
Southern Red Muntjac Muntiacus muntjak was recorded
across the altitudinal gradients. Indian Chevrotain
Moschiola indica was recorded and found to be highly
selective in habitat utilization and during our survey
most of the sightings were made from the riparian
forests. Nilgiri Tahr Nilgiritragus hylocrius was recorded
in Varayattu Parai and the southeastern slopes of High
Wavy Mountains.
Carnivores: Although the landscape shares the
Mammals of Meghamalai western side with Periyar Tiger Reserve, direct and
indirect evidence of Tigers Panthera tigris were mostly
restricted to the western plateau of the landscape.
Indirect evidence was recorded in Maavadi, upper
Manalar, Vellimalai and along the forest road between
upper Manalar and Vellimalai. Indirect evidence of
Leopard Panthera pardus and Dholes Cuon alpinus
was frequently observed across the sampling grids.
Among other carnivore species, Jungle Cat Felis chaus,
Leopard Cat Prionailurus bengalensis, Rusty-spotted Cat,
Small Indian Civet Viverricula indica, Brown Palm Civet
Paradoxurus jerdoni, and Common Palm Civet were
seldom seen during the night surveys. Indian Grey and
Striped-necked Mongooses Herpestes vitticollis were
uncommon during the study but Ruddy (Herpestes
smithii) and Indian Brown Mongoose Herpestes fuscus
were observed occasionally. A single individual of
Nilgiri Marten Martes gwatkinsi was sighted near the
evergreen forests of Upper Manalar.
Sixty-three species of mammals are reported
hitherto from the landscape. However, it is presumed
that it is short of a few more species of mammals, in
particular rats, mice and bats. The high species richness
of mammals in the landscape can be attributed to wide
elevation gradients (200–2000 m), varied rainfall pattern
(rainfed and rainshadow) and highly mosaic vegetation.
These characteristics of landscape endowed with diverse
eco-climatic zones and niches act as a refuge for diverse
species of mammals. Further, the landscape shares the
corridor with important wildlife areas such as Periyar
Tiger Reserve and Grizzled Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary in
the western and southern side of the landscape, and so
it facilitates the mammals to utilize this area.
The scope of the present study (2012) was restricted
to large mammals. Hence, bats and small rodents (rats,
shrews and mice), were not considered for comparison
with Hutton’s (1949) anecdotal notes, as it involves
capturing for species identification. Six decade-old
data showed the distribution of 57 species of mammals
including 41 species of large mammals, of which the
persistence of 38 large mammals in the landscape was
observed, and three were not recorded during the study,
viz., Malabar Civet, Fishing Cat and Golden Jackal. The
species level status of Malabar Civet in India remains
unresolved but land-use practices in low elevations of
Varusanad Valley (cashew plantations) matches with
Elayur (Kozhikode District, Kerala) from where a dead
specimen of the species was collected during the
1990s (Ashraf et al. 1993). Moreover, Hutton (1949)
categorised the species as common in high elevations
but we were informed by locals that there was no large
Babu el al.
sized civet in the landscape. This raises the question
on the report by Hutton (1949). Furthermore, recent
surveys targeting the Malabar Civet had failed to locate
them in previously known distribution localities (Nandini
& Mudappa 2010). The distribution of the Fishing Cat in
southern India is another doubtful record; however, the
species is also reported from Periyar Tiger Reserve, the
southwestern boundary of the landscape. In addition,
Menon (2009) also sketched the southern Western
Ghats as the distribution limit of the species. More
intensive sampling employing camera traps may address
this unconfirmed distribution record. Although we have
not seen the Golden Jackal during our survey, locals and
forest department staff have reported that they seldom
see the jackal in the plains next to the foot hills. Though
we have not quantified threats on mammals, during
our study, anthropogenic pressures such as conversion
of natural habitats (to monoculture plantations such as
coffee, tea, silk cotton etc), encroachment, poaching,
cattle grazing and tourism were observed to affect the
distribution of mammals in the landscape.
Species richness of mammals in the Meghamalai
landscape is comparable with other protected areas/
reserved forests in the eastern slopes of the southern
Western Ghats with similar landscape features, viz.,
Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Grizzled Squirrel
Wildlife Sanctuary, Palani Hills and Anamalai Tiger
Reserve. The distribution of mammals in Meghamalai
is also comparable with a few key sites in the southern
Western Ghats such as Periyar Tiger Reserve and
Parambikulam Tiger Reserve.
As a positive sign in the conservation initiative of
the landscape, a portion of the landscape was recently
declared as a wildlife sanctuary. Although Vellimalai, the
entire stretch of High Wavy Mountains and high elevation
of Varusanad Hills are rich in terms of biodiversity, it
is still under the non-protected area category which
requires further consideration for management and
conservation initiatives.
REFERENCES
Ashraf, N.V.K., A. Kumar, & A.J.T. Johnsingh (1993). Two endemic
viverrids of the Western Ghats. Oryx 27(2): 109--114; http://dx.doi.
org/10.1017/S0030605300020640
Bhupathy, S., G. Srinivas, N. Sathishkumar, M. Murugesan, S.
Babu, R. Suganthasakthivel & P. Sivakumar (2012). Diversity and
conservation of selected biota of the Meghamalai landscape,
Western Ghats, India. Current Science 102(4): 590--595.
Hutton, A.F. (1949). Notes on the snakes and mammals of the High
Wavy mountains, Madura District, South India. Part II-Mammals.
Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 48: 681--694.
Kumara, H.N., R. Sasi, R. Suganthasakthivel & G. Srinivas (2011).
4949
Table 1. List of mammals observed in Meghamalai landscape, southern Western Ghats, India
Common name
Scientific name
Endemic
IUCN status
Source
Meghamalai
status
WG
VU
1,2
UC
Cercopithecidae
1
Nilgiri Langur
Semnopithecus johnii
2
Tufted Grey Langur
Semnopithecus priam
IN
NT
1,2
UC
3
Lion-tailed Macaque (Image 1)
Macaca silenus
WG
EN
1,2
RR
4
Bonnet Macaque
Macaca radiata IN
LC
1,2
C
Loris lydekkerianus
LC
1,2
UC
Loridae
5
Grey Slender Loris
Felidae
6
Tiger
Panthera tigris
EN
1,2
RR
7
Leopard
Panthera pardus
NT
1,2
UC
8
Jungle Cat
Felis chaus
LC
1,2
UC
9
Leopard Cat
Prionailurus bengalensis
LC
1,2
RR
10
Fishing Cat
Prionailurus viverrinus
EN
2
?
11
Rusty-spotted Cat (Image 2)
Prionailurus rubiginosus
VU
1
RR
1,2
UC
Canidae
12
Dhole (Image 3)
Cuon alpinus
EN
13
Golden Jackal
Canis aureus
LC
2
RR
14
Indian Fox
Vulpes bengalensis
LC
1,2
C
LC
1,2
UC
CR
2
?
LC
1
UC
LC
1,2
UC
Viverridae
15
Small Indian Civet
Viverricula indica
16
Malabar Civet
Viverra civettina
17
Common Palm Civet
Paradoxurus hermaphroditus
18
Brown Palm Civet
Paradoxurus jerdoni
WG
WG
Herpestidae
19
Indian Grey Mongoose
Herpestes edwardsii
LC
1
UC
20
Ruddy Mongoose
Herpestes smithii
LC
1,2
UC
21
Indian Brown Mongoose
Herpestes fuscus
VU
1,2
UC
22
Stripe-necked Mongoose
Herpestes vitticollis
LC
1,2
C
VU
1,2
UC
Mustelidae
23
Smooth-Coated Otter
Lutrogale perspicillata
24
Asian Small-clawed Otter
Aonyx cinerea
25
Nilgiri Marten
Martes gwatkinsi
VU
1,2
UC
WG
VU
1,2
RR
IN
LC
1,2
UC
Sciuridae
26
Indian Giant Squirrel
Ratufa indica
27
Grizzled Giant Squirrel (Image 4)
Ratufa macroura
NT
1
RR
28
Common Palm Squirrel
Funambulus palmaram
LC
1,2
VC
29
Western Ghats Striped Squirrel
Funambulus tristriatus
30
Dusky-Striped Squirrel
Funambulus sublineatus
31
Indian Giant Flying Squirrel
32
Travancore Flying Squirrel
WG
LC
1,2
C
VU
1,2
C
Petaurista philippensis
LC
1,2
UC
Petinomys fuscocapillus
NT
1,2
NE
Cervidae
33
Sambar (Image 5)
Rusa unicolor
VU
1,2
C
34
Southern Red Muntjac
Muntiacus muntjak
LC
1,2
C
35
Chital
Axis axis
LC
1,2
C
4950
Mammals of Meghamalai Common name
Babu el al.
Scientific name
Endemic
IUCN status
Source
Meghamalai
status
LC
1,2
C
Tragulidae
36
Indian Chevrotain
Moschiola indica
Bovidae
37
Nilgiri Tahr
Nilgiritragus hylocrius
EN
1,2
RR
38
Gaur
Bos gaurus
VU
1,2
UC
Sus scrofa
LC
1,2
C
Elephas maximus
EN
1,2
C
WG
Suidae
39
Wild Boar
Elephantidae
40
Asian Elephant
Soricidae
41
House Shrew
Suncus murinus
LC
2
NE
42
White-toothed Pygmy Shrew
Suncus etruscus
LC
2
NE
LC
1,2
C
Hystrix indica
LC
1,2
VC
Manis crassicaudata
NT
1,2
RR
Melursus ursinus
VU
1,2
UC
Lepus nigricollis
LC
1,2
VC
Erinaceidae
43
Madras Hedgehog
Paraechinus nudiventris
IN
Hystricidae
44
Indian Crested Porcupine
Manidae
45
Thick-tailed Pangolin
Ursidae
46
Sloth Bear
Leporidae
47
Indian Hare
Muridae
48
Greater Bandicoot Rat
Bandicota indica
LC
1,2
VC
49
House Rat
Rattus rattus
LC
2
NE
50
White-tailed Wood Rat
Madromys blanfordi LC
2
NE
51
Indian Bush Rat
Golunda ellioti
LC
2
NE
52
Asiatic Long-tailed Climbing Mouse
Vandeleuria oleracea
LC
2
NE
53
House Mouse
Mus musculus
LC
2
NE
54
Little Indian Field Mouse
Mus booduga
LC
2
NE
WG
VU
1
RR
IN
LC
2
NE
Platacanthomyidae
55
Malabar Spiny Tree Mouse (Image 6)
Platacanthomys lasiurus
Tupaiidae
56
Madras Treeshrew
Ananthana elliotti
Pteropodidae
57
Indian Flying Fox
Pteropus giganteus
LC
1,2,4
C
58
Lesser Dog-faced Fruit Bat
Cynopterus brachyotis
LC
3,4
NE
59
Greater Short-nosed Fruit Bat
Cynopterus sphinx
LC
2
NE
60
Sálim Ali Fruit Bat
Latidens salimalii
EN
1,3,4,5
RR
Rhinolophus rouxii
LC
5
NE
WG
Rhinolophidae
61
Rufous Horseshoe Bat
Vespertilionidae
62
Painted Woolly Bat
Kerivoula picta
LC
2,4
NE
63
Lesser Asiatic Yellow House Bat
Scotophilus kuhlii
LC
2,4
NE
Endemics: WG = Endemic to Western Ghats, IN = Endemic to India; IUCN Status: CR = Critically Endangered, EN = Endangered, VU = Vulnerable,
NT = Near-Threatened, LC = Least Concern; Sources: 1 = Present study (2012), 2 = Hutton (1949); 3 = Muni (1994); 4&5 = Singaravelan & Marimuthu (2003 a,b);
Meghamalai status: VC = Very Common, C = Common, UC = Uncommon, RR = Rare, NE = Not Evaluated, ? = Unconfirmed record.
4951
Babu el al.
© S. Babu
© H.N. Kumara
Mammals of Meghamalai Image 1. Lion-tailed Macaque
Image 2. Dead specimen of Rusty-spotted Cat
© G. Srinivas
© T. Karthik
Image 5. Sambar
Image 6. Malabar Spiny Tree Mouse
© H.P. Ashwin
Distribution, abundance and conservation of primates in High Wavy
Mountains of Western Ghats, Tamil Nadu, India. Current Science
100: 1063--1067.
Menon, V. (2009). Mammals of India. Princeton University Press,
200pp.
Muni, M. (1994). Rarest of the rare: Latidens salimalii. Hornbill (1):
28--32.
Nandini, R. & D. Mudappa (2010). Mystery or myth: a review of history
and conservation status of the Malabar Civet Viverra civettina Blyth,
1862. Small Carnivore Conservation 43: 47--59.
Singaravelan, N. & G. Marimuthu (2003a). Discovery of a cave as the
day roost of a rarest fruit bat Latidens salimalii. Current Science 84:
1253--1256.
Singaravelan, N. & G. Marimuthu (2003b). Mist net captures of the
rarest fruit bat Latidens salimalii. Current Science 84(1): 24--26.
Thonglongya, K. (1972). A new genus and species of Fruit Bat from
south India (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae). Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 69: 151--158.
Wroughton, R.C. (1917). Bombay Natural History’s Mammal survey
of India, Burma and Ceylon. Report No.33. High Wavy mountain
Madura district. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 27:
545--554.
© S. Babu
Image 3. Dhole
Image 4. Grizzled Giant Squirrel near the Vaigai River
4952
Communication
Western Ghats
Special Series
Status of reptiles in Meghamalai and its environs, Western
Ghats, Tamil Nadu, India
ISSN
Online 0974–7907
Print 0974–7893
OPEN ACCESS
Subramanian Bhupathy 1 & N. Sathishkumar 2
1,2
1
Abstract: We update the reptile fauna of Meghamalai area, Western
Ghats based on a literature review and a recent study (2006–2008)
by SACON. In all, 90 species of reptiles belonging to 53 genera and
14 families were reported from this area, which include 30 (33.3%)
species endemic to the Western Ghats. Reptiles of the area shared
distribution with all biogeographic zones of India, barring the TransHimalaya. High species richness in Meghamalai is due to its broader
elevation width, presence of both windward and leeward zones and
a variety of forest types. Studies conducted after 2006 added several
species to the faunal list of the area, but could not record 16 species
reported earlier including Hutton’s Pit Viper, Tropidolaemus huttoni
and the Blue-bellied Tree Skink Dasia subcaeruleum from the area
since 1949. Numerically, several species are currently rare, and
changes in land use and land cover could have led to reduction in their
abundance and local extinction. It is hoped that the recently declared
Meghamalai Wildlife Sanctuary would reduce further degradation of
habitats and help conserve biodiversity. Further studies are needed
for understanding the ecology of the several species of reptiles found
in this and the nearby areas of the Western Ghats.
Keywords: Abundance, endemic species, reptile distribution, threat
status, Western Ghats.
Meghamalai (also known as High Wavy Mountains)
has been sporadically surveyed for reptiles during the
19th and early 20th centuries by Harold S. Ferguson
(1880–1904) and Angus F. Hutton (1946–48). These
surveys resulted in the description of new species
such as Ashambu Shieldtail Uropeltis liura, Periyar
Shieldtail Uropeltis arcticeps madurensis, Striped
Narrow-headed Snake Xylophis stenorynchus, Hutton’s
Pit Viper Tropidolaemus huttoni and Blue-bellied Tree
Skink Dasia subcaeruleum. Specimens collected during
the above surveys have been deposited at the British
Museum Natural History (now the Natural History
Museum, London) and in the museum of the Bombay
Natural History Society, Mumbai. David & Vogel (1998)
and Hutton & David (2009) re-examined the collections
made by Hutton. Until recently, no serious attempt has
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3595.4953-61 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:576D340A-E0C5-495D-90B0-B5F827891041
Editor: Raju Vyas, Vishwamitri River Project, Vadodara, India.
Citation: Bhupathy, S. & N. Sathishkumar (2013). Status of reptiles in Meghamalai and its environs, Western Ghats, Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa
5(15): 4953–4961; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3595.4953-61
Copyright: © Bhupathy & Sathishkumar 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium,
reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Government of India.
Acknowledgements: We are thankful to G.V. Subramanian and Naseem Ahmad (MoEF) for financial support; R. Sundararaju (PCCF & Chief Wildlife Warden) and
Srinivas R. Reddy (District Forest Officer) for permission to work in the forest area and logistic support, and P.A. Azeez, G. Srinivas and other colleagues at the Sálim
Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (SACON) Coimbatore, for encouragement and support at various levels. We thank S. Babu of SACON for helping us
in preparing the study area map.
4953
Reptiles of Meghamalai Bhupathy & Sathishkumar
been made to study the reptiles of this area (Bhupathy et
al. 2009; Chandramouli & Ganesh 2010). In the present
paper, we update the reptile fauna of Meghamalai area
and provide data on species richness, composition,
distribution with respect to Indian biogeographic zones
and their threat status.
Methods
Meghamalai (9030’–10030’N & 770–78030’E) is
located in Theni Forest Division (Theni District) of Tamil
Nadu state (Fig. 1). Herpetofauna of the area was
studied by Sálim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural
History (SACON) during 2006–2008, wherein reptiles
were sampled in three belt transects (21km2; Bhupathy
et al. 2009; Fig. 1) using quadrat, and time constrained
visual encounter survey (TCVES) protocols (Campbell &
Christman 1982; Crump & Scott 1994) on seasonal basis
during day-light hours. However, specimen collection
was not done due to non-availability of permits. An
inventory of reptile fauna of the area was made based
on historic collections and reviews (Boulenger 1891;
Smith 1949a,b; Hutton 1949; David & Vogel 1998;
Hutton & David 2009) and findings of recent studies
(Bhupathy et al. 2009, 2011; Chandramouli & Ganesh
2010). Nomenclature followed herein is of Das (2003),
Whitaker & Captain (2008) and Aengals et al. (2011).
Distribution analysis for the species recorded from
Meghamalai was carried out following the biogeography
zone categorization of India proposed by Rodgers
& Panwar (1998): Trans-Himalaya, Himalaya, Indian
Desert, Semi-Arid, Western Ghats, Deccan Peninsula,
Gangetic Plain, Coasts, Northeastern India and Islands.
The numerical status of each species was assigned based
on the number of observations (Not observed = 0, Rare
= <5 observations, Uncommon = 6–20 and Common =
>20 observations) and relative abundance (number of
observations of a species/total number of observations
of all species X 100) of reptiles were determined
based on field data generated during December 2006–
November 2008 (Bhupathy et al. 2009). Categorization
of the threat status of reptiles of the area was based
on Conservation Assessment and Management Plan
workshop of the IUCN protocol (Molur & Walker 1998).
Results
Species Richness
Available reports showed the occurrence of 90
species of reptiles belonging to 53 genera and 14
families in Meghamalai and its environs. This included
two species (2.2%) of turtles and tortoises, 28 (31.1%)
lizards and 60 (66.7%) species of snakes. The most
diverse reptile family in terms of number of genera and
Figure 1. Map showing Meghamalai and adjacent areas of the Theni Forest Division, Tamil Nadu
4954
Bhupathy & Sathishkumar
Status
Of the 90 species of reptiles reported from
Meghamalai (Appendix 1), tortoises and turtles (Indian
Star Tortoise Geochelone elegans, Indian Black Turtle
Table 1. Composition of reptiles at family level in Meghamalai
landscape, Western Ghats.
Family
Genus
Species
Endemic
species (%)
1
0
1
Testudinidae
1
2
Bataguridae
1
1
0
2
Gekkonidae
4
10
2 (20)
3
Agamidae
5
9
4 (44.4)
4
Chamaeleonidae
1
1
0
5
Scincidae
4
6
3 (50)
6
Lacertidae
1
1
0
7
Varanidae
1
1
0
8
Typhlopidae
2
2
0
9
Uropeltidae
4
12
11(91.7)
10
Boidae
2
2
0
11
Pythonidae
1
1
0
12
Colubridae
17
32
8(25)
13
Elapidae
4
4
0
14
Viperidae
5
7
2 (28.6)
Total
53
90
30 (33.3)
ds
Isl
an
di
a
In
Co
as
ts
ste
rn
ea
No
rth
Pl
ai
n
ge
tic
in
su
la
Ga
n
Zo
ne
De
cc
an
Pe
n
se
rt
i-A
rid
De
Se
m
al
ay
a
In
di
an
Hi
m
s-H
im
al
ay
a
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Tr
an
Distribution
Among the reptiles reported from Meghamalai, 30
species (33.3%) were endemic to the Western Ghats.
This included the highest of 11/12 (91.7%) species
belonging to the family Uropeltidae. Reptiles of this area
shared distribution with all biogeographic zones of the
country barring Trans-Himalaya (Fig. 2). The highest of
61/90 (67.8%) species were found in Deccan Peninsula
followed by Coasts (36, 40%). This area shared only four
(4.4%) species with Islands found within Indian territorial
waters. However, 48 (53.3%) species had distribution
restricted to two biogeographic zones (Fig. 3). Only a
fourth of the reptile species reported from Meghamalai
had a wide distribution in 7-9 biogeographic zones of the
country.
Biogeographic Zone
Figure 2. Reptiles reported from Meghamalai area (Western Ghats)
sharing distribution with various biogeographic zones of India.
35
30
25
No. of species
species was Colubridae (Table 1). Among lizards, the
highest number of species was contributed by the family
Gekkonidae (10 species) followed by Agamidae (9). With
respect to snakes, the highest number of species was
contributed by Colubridae (32) followed by Uropeltidae
(12 species). In all, six reptile families were represented
by only one species (Table 1).
No. of species
Reptiles of Meghamalai 20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
No. of Biogeographic Zones
7
8
9
Figure 3. Reptiles reported from Meghamalai (Western Ghats)
sharing distribution with number of Biogeographic zones of India.
Melanochelys trijuga) were not reported earlier from
the area, but only found recently. Among 28 species of
lizards reported, 10 were (numerically) rare and 11 were
common (Fig. 4). The Blue-bellied Tree Skink reported
from the area was not observed since its first report
(1949) from this hill range. Among the 60 species of
snakes reported, only three (5%) were common and 31
species (52%) were rare (i.e., <5 individuals observed in
three years). Several species of snakes were numerically
rare compared to lizards (Figs. 4 & 5).
During recent field (2006–2008), 3,374 records of 55
species of reptiles were obtained in TCVES and quadrat
sampling; 3004 reptiles in 3600 hours of TCVES and 370
reptiles in 12ha of quadrat sampling, which empirically
worked out to 0.83 reptiles/man hour of search and 30.8
reptiles/ha respectively. Only 10 species had relative
abundance >1%. This typically included nine species of
lizards and one snake (Hump-nosed Pit Viper Hypnale
hypnale). The relative abundance of Bronze Grass Skink
Eutropis macularia was the highest (34.7%) followed
by a species of Day Gecko Cnemaspis sp1. (18.6%) and
4955
Not recorded
4%
Common
5%
Uncommon
18%
Common
39%
Rare
36%
Uncommon
21%
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Rare
52%
Figure 5. Status of snakes (N = 60 species) observed in Meghamalai
during 2006–2008 based on number of observations (Not observed
= 0, Rare = <5, Uncommon = 6–20, Common = >20 observations).
Not Assessed
13%
Pit V
iper
en F
ores
t Liz
ard
Ellio
t ’s F
ores
t Liz
ard
Indi
an G
arde
n Liz
ard
Spo
tted
Sup
ple
Skin
Trav
k
anco
re G
roun
d Sk
ink
Kee
led
Gras
s Sk
ink
Blan
dfor
d’s R
ock
Aga
ma
Mys
ore
Day
Gec
ko
Bron
ze G
rass
Skin
k
Low Risk-Near
Threatened
43%
Critically
Endangered
36%
Gre
p-no
Hum
Species
Figure 6. Relative abundance of 10 most common species of reptiles
observed in Meghamalai, Western Ghats during 2006–2008.
Blanford’s Rock Agama Psamophilus blanfordanus (Fig.
6).
Highly threatened species of Meghamalai included
two ‘Critically Endangered’ (Hutton’s Pit Viper, Dindigal
Shieldtail Uropeltis cf. dindigalensis) which were not
sighted in the present study and eight ‘Endangered’
species (Appendix 1). Four species were considered
as ‘Data Deficient’. In all, only 16 (18%) species were
categorized as ‘Lower Risk- Least Concerned’ (Fig. 7).
Discussion
A record of 90 species of reptiles including two
subspecies of Coelognathus helena (C.h. helena, C.h.
monticollaris) in Meghamalai, is the highest number of
species reported so far for any specific landscape of the
Endangered
9%
Vulnerable
10%
sed
No. of species abundance %
Figure 4. Status of lizards (N = 28 species) observed in Meghamalai
during 2006–2008 based on number of observations (Not observed
= 0, Rare = <5, Uncommon = 6-20, Common = >20 observations).
4956
Not recorded
25%
Data Deficient
5%
Low Risk - Least Concerned
18%
Figure 7. Threat status of reptile species reported from Meghamalai,
Western Ghats (based on Molur & Walker 1998).
Western Ghats. As both the subspecies of Coelognathus
helena were found in the same location (i.e., sympatric),
we tentatively considered them distinct species in the
present analysis. We suggest further studies to determine
the taxonomic status of the subspecies of Coelognathus
helena. A compilation by Aengels et al. (2011) showed
the occurrence of 518 reptile species in India, and Das
(1996) reported 165 species from the Western Ghats.
The present report of 90 species is about 17.4% of
reptiles of the country and about 54.5% of species of
the Western Ghats. Based on a review, Bhupathy (2004)
reported 177 species of reptiles from Tamil Nadu State
and the present report of 90 species (50.8%) from
Meghamalai alone shows the conservation importance
of the area. High species richness in the area is due to
Reptiles of Meghamalai its broader elevation width, various climatic conditions,
and the presence of windward and leeward sides and
occurrence of a variety of forest types (Bhupathy et
al. 2009,2012). Records of species such as sand boas
Gongylophis conicus and Eryx johnii, Saw-scaled Viper
Echis carinatus, Fan-throated Lizard Sitana ponticerina
as well as Anaimalai Spiny Lizard Salea anamallayana,
shieldtails, Uropeltis spp. and Large-scaled Pit Viper
Trimeresurus macrolepis from Meghamalai (Srinivas et
al. 2008; Bhupathy et al. 2009) indicate the continuum
from dry to wet (thorn-dry deciduous- moist deciduousevergreen-montane shola grasslands) forests in the
landscape.
Among the 90 species of reptiles reported from
Meghamalai, 30 species (33.3%) were endemic to the
Western Ghats. This is much lower compared to the
reported endemism (53.3%) of the reptiles of the Western
Ghats (Das 1996). Occurrence of endemic species such
as Ashambu Shieldtail Uropeltis liura, Periyar Shieldtail
Uropeltis arcticeps madurensis, Hutton’s Pit Viper and
Blue-bellied Tree Skink in Meghamalai is poorly known
even today. Hutton’s Pit Viper is apparently endemic to
the area, but has not been observed since its description
despite intensive surveys in recent years (Bhupathy et al.
2009; Chandramouli & Ganesh 2010). Boulenger (1891)
described the Blue-bellied Skink based on a specimen
from Bodanaikanur (now Bodinayakanur, a part of the
present Theni Forest Division). Further, this species was
reported from Meghamalai by Smith (1949a) though
no report of this species is available since then. It was
considered endemic to this hill range till its recent
collection from over ca. 600km (straight-line distance)
northwards, in Kudremukh National Park, Karnataka
(Harikrishnan et al. 2012).
The higher sharing of fauna of Meghamalai with
that of the Deccan Peninsula and Coasts might be
due to a similarity in bio-climate and habitats of these
landscapes. However, no commonality was found with
respect to the reptile fauna between Meghamalai and
the Trans-Himalaya. Difference in the age, geological
position, and variation in elevation, climate and perhaps
the distance between these landscapes might have led
to distinct reptile assemblages. It is to be noted that 48
species (53.3%) of reptiles found here were restricted
to only one or two biogeographic zones of the country
(Fig. 3). This shows that the reptiles of the Western
Ghats (Meghamalai) are highly vulnerable to habitat
alterations and climate change, if any.
Several species of reptiles found in Meghamalai were
numerically rare, and 16 of them (one lizard species
and 15 snakes) were not observed in recent studies
(Bhupathy et al. 2009; Chandramouli & Ganesh 2010),
which were reported earlier (Boulenger 1891; Hutton
1949; Hutton & David 2009). Tortoises and turtles
and most of the species of lizards observed have been
recorded for the first time from the area. However,
Meghamalai lies within the distribution range of many
of these newly recorded species (Smith 1931, 1935,
1943; Das 1995; Whitaker & Captain 2008). Comparison
of past (Hutton 1949 reviewed recently in Hutton &
David 2009) and recent data (Bhupathy et al. 2009;
Chandramouli & Ganesh 2010) showed the occurrence
of 60 species of snakes in the area; 22 species were
common to both past and recent studies, 15 only to the
earlier and 23 to the latter respectively. Land use and
land cover changes between the historical and recent
studies could have possibly led to a local extinction
of several species that might have contributed to the
above disparity. According to Blatter & Hallberg (1917),
this area was covered with dense montane rain forests
during the early 20th century. However, presently, most
parts of the landscape along 1000–1500 m have been
altered for commercial plantations.
As can be expected, a higher number of snake
species was (numerically) rare when compared to lizards
(Figs. 4–6) and only one species of snake got a place in
the top 10 relatively common reptiles of Meghamalai.
This might be due to their difference in trophic and
spatial niches occupied by these species (most of the
snakes are predators and lizards are insectivores).
Species such as the Bronze Grass Skink, a species of Day
Gecko Cnemaspis sp.1 and Blanford’s Rock Agama are
specific to microhabitats such as forest floor with leaf
litter, trees with larger trunk and open rocks respectively
(Daniel 2002). Availability of suitable microhabitats
in Meghamalai could have resulted in their higher
abundance here.
Among the ‘Critically Endangered’ species of
Meghamalai, Hutton’s Pit Viper has not been sighted
since its description (Smith 1949b), despite serious
attempts to locate the species since then (Bhupathy
et al. 2009; Chandramouli & Ganesh 2010; but see
Boundy 2008). Similarly, the Blue-bellied Tree Skink
has not been reported from Meghamalai since 1949
(Harikrishnan et al. 2012). Extensive field work in the
region by Bhupathy et al. (2009) and Chandramouli &
Ganesh (2010) did not locate the aforesaid species, and
we doubt their continued existence in Meghamalai. As
mentioned earlier, changes in land use might have taken
a toll on these and several other species. Despite all
these taxonomic uncertainties and doubtful occurrence
of obscure endemic forms, this landscape is undoubtedly
4957
one of the most important reptile areas of India. It is
hoped that habitat alterations and degradation of this
landscape will be under control as a portion of the area
comes under the recently declared Meghamalai Wildlife
Sanctuary (Tamil Nadu Government Gazette 2009).
Collection-based studies on reptiles would provide more
insights on faunal distribution of the area (Ganesh et
al. in press) and potentially reduce the disparity in the
number of species observed in the area during the 1940s
and in recent years (2006–2008).
REFERENCES
Aengals, R., V.M.S. Kumar & M.J. Palot (2011). Updated Checklist
of Indian Reptiles. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, India, www.
zsi.gov.in/checklist/Checklist%20of%20Indian%20Reptiles.pdf
(downloaded on 22 July 2013).‎
Bhupathy, S. (2004). Reptiles, pp. 62–75. In: Annamalai, R. (ed.). Tamil
Nadu Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan - Chordate Diversity.
Tamil Nadu Forest Department, Chennai.
Bhupathy, S., G. Srinivas & N. Sathishkumar (2009). A study on the
Herpetofaunal communities of the Upper Vaigai Plateau, Western
Ghats, India. Final Report submitted to the Ministry of Environment
and Forests, Government of India. Sálim Ali Centre for Ornithology
and Natural History, Coimbatore, 75pp.
Bhupathy, S., G. Srinivas, N. Sathishkumar, T. Karthik & A. Madhivanan
(2011). Herpetofaunal mortality due to vehicular traffic in the
Western Ghats, India: a case study. Herpetotropicos 5(2): 119–126.
Western Ghats. India. Current Science 102(4): 590–595.
Blatter, E. & F. Hallberg (1917). Preliminary notes on a recent botanical
tour to the High Wavy Mountain (S. India). Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 25(2): 290–292.
Boulenger, G.A. (1891). Description of a new species of lizard obtained
by Mr. H.S. Ferguson in Travancore, Southern India. Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society 6(4): 449.
Boundy, J. (2008). A possible third specimen of the pitviper genus
Tropidolaemus from India. Hamadryad 32 (1): 59–62.
Campbell, H.W. & S.P. Christman (1982). Field techniques for
Herpetofaunal Community Analysis, pp. 193–200. In: Scott, N.J. Jr.
(ed.). Herpetological Communities. Wildlife Research Report 13. U.
S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C.
Chandramouli, S.R. & S.R. Ganesh (2010). Herpetofauna of southern
Western Ghats, India - reinvestigated after decades. Taprobanica
2(2): 72–85; http://dx.doi.org/10.4038/tapro.v2i2.3145
Crump, M.L. & N.J. Scott (1994). Visual encounter survey. pp. 8496.In: Heyer, W.R., M.A. Donnelly, R.W. Mcdiarmid, L.C. Hayek &
M.S. Foster (eds.). Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity,
Standard Methods for Amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press.
USA.
4958
Daniel, J.C. (2002). The Book of Indian Reptiles and Amphibians. Oxford
University Press, Mumbai, India, 238pp.
Das, I. (1995). Turtles and Tortoises of India. WWF-India/Oxford
University Press, Bombay, 195pp.
Das, I. (1996). Biogeography of the Reptiles of South Asia. Krieger
Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida.
Das, I. (2003). Growth of knowledge on the reptiles of India, with an
introduction to systematics, taxonomy and nomenclature. Journal
of the Bombay Natural History Society 100(2&3): 446–501.
David, P. & G. Vogel (1998). Redescription of Trimeresurus huttoni,
Smith, 1949 (Serpents, Crotalinae), with a discussion of its
relationships. Hamadryad 22(2): 73–87.
Ganesh, S.R., S. Bhupathy, P. David, N. Sathishkumar & G. Srinivas (in
Press). Snake Fauna of High Wavy Mountains, Western Ghats, India:
Species Richness, Status and Distribution Pattern. Russian Journal
of Herpetology..
Harikrishnan, S., K. Vasudevan, A. de Silva, V. Deepak, N.B. Kar, R.
Naniwadekar, A. Lalremruata, K.R. Prasoona & R.K. Aggarwal
(2012). Phylogeography of Dasia Gray, 1830 (Reptilia: Scincidae),
with the description of a new species from southern India. Zootaxa
3233: 37–51.
Hutton, A.F. (1949). Notes on the snakes and mammals of the High
Wavy Mountains, Madura District, south India. Part I—Snakes.
Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 48: 454–460.
Hutton, A.F. & P. David (2009). Notes on a collection of snakes from
south India, with emphasis on the snake fauna of the Meghamalai
Hills (High Wavy Mountains). Journal of the Bombay Natural History
Society 105: 299–316.
Molur, S. & S. Walker (1998). Note book for Reptiles. CAM P. CBSG
South Asian Reptile Special Interest Group / South Asian Reptile
Network, Taxon Data Sheets from the Reptiles of India Report,
226pp.
Rodgers, W.A. & H.S. Panwar (1998). Wildlife Protected Areas in India
- Vol. 1. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, 341pp.
Smith, M.A. (1931). The Fauna of British India, Ceylon and Burma,
including the whole of the Indo-Chinese subregion. Reptilia and
Amphibia. Vol. I. Testutines. Taylor & Francis, London.
Smith, M.A. (1935). The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and
Burma. Reptilia and Amphibia - Vol. II. Sauria. Taylor and Francis,
London, 440pp.
Smith, M.A. (1943). The Fauna of British India, Ceylon and Burma,
including the whole of the Indo-Chinese subregion. Reptilia and
Amphibia. Vol. III, Serpentes. Taylor & Francis, London, 583pp.
Smith, M.A. (1949a). Notes on a second specimen of the skink Dasia
subcaerulea from south India. Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society 48: 596–597.
Smith, M.A. (1949b). A new species of pit viper from South India:
Trimeresurus huttoni sp. nov. Journal of the Bombay Natural History
Society 48(3): 596.
Srinivas, G., S. Bhupathy & A. Madhivanan (2008). Occurrence of
Salea anamallayana Beddome, 1878 in High Wavy Mountains,
Western Ghats. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society
105(3): 193–194.
Tamil Nadu Government Gazatte (2009). Declaration of Meghamalai
Wildlife Sanctuary. Regd. No. TN/CCN/467/2009-11: 322–325.
Whitaker, R. & A. Captain (2008). Snakes of India - The Field Guide.
Draco Books, Chennai, 385pp.
Appendix 1. Reptiles of Meghamalai and their status.
Global
distribution
Threat
status
Numerical
status
Reference
Geochelone elegans
NE
VU
R
7
Indian Black Turtle (Image 1)
Melanochelys trijuga
NE
LR-NT
R
3
Day Gecko
Cnemaspis sp.1
EI
NA
C
3
4
Ornate Day Gecko
Cnemaspis ornata
E
VU
R
3
5
Day Gecko
Cnemaspis sp.2
E
NA
R
3
6
Kollegal Ground Gecko
Geckoella collegalensis
EI
DD
UC
3
7
Brooke's House Gecko
Hemidactylus cf. brookii
NE
LR-LC
R
3
8
Asian House Gecko
Hemidactylus frenatus
NE
LR-LC
C
3
9
Bark Gecko
Hemidactylus leschenaultii
NE
LR-LC
UC
3
10
Spotted Rock Gecko
Hemidactylus maculatus
EI
LR-LC
R
3
11
Termite-hill Gecko (Image 2)
Hemidactylus triedrus
NE
LR-LC
R
3
12
Oceanic Worm Gecko
Hemiphyllodactylus aurantiacus
EI
VU
UC
3
13
Fan-throated Lizard
Sitana ponticeriana
NE
LR-LC
R
3
14
Western Ghats Flying Lizard
Draco dussumieri
E
LR-NT
UC
3
15
Anaimalai Spiny Lizard
Salea anamallayana
16
Indian Garden Lizard
Calotes versicolor
17
Large-scaled Forest Lizard
Calotes grandisquamis
18
Green Forest Lizard (Image 3)
Calotes calotes
19
Roux's Forest Lizard
Calotes rouxii
20
Elliiot's Forest Lizard
Calotes ellioti
21
Blandford's Rock Agama
22
South Asian Chamaeleon
23
24
Common name
Scientific name
1
Indian Star Tortoise
2
3
E
EN
R
3
NE
LR-NT
C
3
E
LR-NT
R
3
NE
LR-NT
C
3
EI
LR-NT
UC
3
E
LR-NT
C
3
Psammophilus blanfordanus
NE
NA
C
3
Chamaeleo zeylanicus
NE
VU
R
3
Spotted Supple Skink
Lygosoma punctata
NE
LR-LC
C
3
Blue-bellied Tree Skink
Dasia subcaeruleum #
E
DD
NR
5
25
Beddome's Grass Skink
Eutropis beddomei
E
NA
R
3
26
Keeled Grass Skink
Eutropis carinata
NE
NA
C
3
27
Bronze Grass Skink
Eutropis macularia
NE
NA
C
3
28
Travancore Ground Skink
Scincella travancoricum
E
VU
C
3
29
Leschenault's Lacerta (Image 4)
Ophisops leschenaulti
EI
LR-LC
C
3
30
Bengal Monitor Lizard
Varanus bengalensis
NE
VU
UC
3
31
Brahminy Worm Snake
Ramphotyhlops braminus
NE
LR-NT
C
3
32
Beaked Worm Snake
Grypotyphlops acutus
NE
NA
R
3
33
Pied-belly Shieldtail
Melanophidium punctatum
E
VU
R
1,3
34
Perrotet's Shieldtail
Plecturus perroteti
E
LR-LC
NR
1
35
Red-bellied Shieldtail
Rhinophis sanguineus
E
DD
NR
1
36
Travancore Shieldtail
Rhinophis travancoricus
E
DD
NR
1
37
Kerala Shieldtail
Uropeltis ceylanica
E
LR-LC
NR
1
38
Elliot's Shieldtail
Uropeltis ellioti
EI
LR-NT
NR
1
39
Palni Shieldtail
Uropeltis pulneyensis
E
EN
NR
1
40
Red-spotted Shieldtail
Uropeltis rubromaculatus
E
EN
NR
1
41
Ashambu Shieldtail
Uropeltis liura
E
EN
NR
6
42
Dindigul (?) Shieldtail
Uropeltis cf. dindigalensis
E
CR
NR
2
43
Black-bellied Shieldtail
Uropeltis woodmasoni
E
EN
NR
4
44
Periyar Shieldtail
Uropeltis arcticeps madurensis #
E
LR-NT
R
2,3
#
4959
Common name
Scientific name
Global
distribution
Threat
status
Numerical
status
Reference
45
Rock Python
Python molurus
NE
LR-NT
R
1,3
46
Common Sand Boa
Gongylophis conicus
NE
NA
R
3
47
Red Sand Boa
Eryx johnii
NE
LR-LC
R
3
48
Gunther's Vine Snake
Ahaetulla dispar
E
LR-NT
UC
1,2,3
49
Common Vine Snake
Ahaetulla nasuta
NE
LR-NT
UC
2,3
50
Bronze-headed Vine Snake
Ahaetulla perroteti
E
EN
R
1,3
51
Brown Vine Snake
Ahaetulla pulverulenta
NE
LR-NT
R
1,3
52
Banded Racer
Argyrogena fasciolata
NE
LR-NT
NR
1
53
Ceylon Cat Snake
Boiga ceylonensis
NE
NA
R
1,2
54
Collared Cat Snake
Boiga nuchalis
NE
LR-NT
R
3
55
Common Cat Snake
Boiga trigonata
NE
LR-LC
R
3
56
Yellow-Green Cat Snake
Boiga flaviviridis
EI
NA
R
3
57
Ornate Flying Snake
Chrysopelea ornanta
NE
LR-NT
UC
3
58
Common Trinket Snake
Coelognathus helena helena
NE
NA
R
3
59
Montane Trinket Snake
C. h. monticollaris
E
NA
R
1,2,3
60
Common Bronzeback Tree Snake
Dendrelaphis tristis
NE
LR-LC
R
3
61
Bridel Snake
Dryocalamus nympha
NE
VU
R
1,3
62
Lesser Stripe-necked Snake
Liopeltis calamaria
NE
LR-NT
UC
3
63
Common Wolf Snake
Lycodon aulicus
NE
LR-LC
R
3
64
Barred Wolf Snake
Lycodon striatus
NE
LR-NT
R
3
65
Travancore Wolf Snake
Lycodon travancoricus
EI
LR-NT
UC
1,2,3
66
Common Kukri Snake
Oligodon arnensis
NE
LR-LC
R
3
67
Striped Kukri Snake
Oligodon brevicauda
E
LR-NT
R
1,3
68
Russell's Kukri Snake
Oligodon taeniolatus
NE
LR-NT
UC
1,3
69
Travancore Kukri Snake
Oligodon travancoricus
EI
EN
R
1,2
70
Black Spotted Kukri Snake
Oligodon venustus
E
LR-NT
R
2
71
Indian Rat Snake
Ptyas mucosa
NE
LR-NT
UC
1,2,3
72
Dumeril's Black-headed Snake
Sibynophis subpunctatus
EI
LR-NT
R
3
73
Gunther's Narrow-headed Snake
Xylophis stenorhynchus E
EN
NR
6
74
Beddome's Keelback
Amphiesma beddomei
E
LR-NT
R
1,2,3
75
Hill Keelback
Amphiesma monticola
E
VU
R
3
76
Striped Keelback (Image 5)
Amphiesma stolatum
NE
LR-NT
UC
1,3
77
Olive Keelback
Atretium schistosum
NE
LR-NT
NR
1
78
Green Keelback
Macropisthodon plumbicolor
NE
LR-NT
C
1,2,3
79
Checkered Keelback
Xenochrophis piscator NE
LR-LC
R
1,2,3
80
Common Krait
Bungarus caeruleus
NE
LR-NT
R
3
81
Striped Coral Snake
Calliophis nigrescens
EI
LR-NT
R
1,2,3
82
Spectacled Cobra
Naja naja
NE
LR-NT
R
1,3
83
King Cobra
Ophiophagus hannah
NE
LR-NT
NR
1
84
Russell's Viper
Daboia russelii
NE
LR-NT
UC
1,3
85
Saw-scaled Viper
Echis carinatus
EI
LR-NT
UC
3
86
Hump-nosed Pit Viper (Image 6)
Hypnale hypnale
NE
LR-NT
C
2,3
87
Bamboo Pit Viper
Trimeresurus gramineus
EI
LR-NT
NR
1
88
Large-scaled Pit Viper
Trimeresurus macrolepis
EI
LR-NT
R
1,2,3
89
Malabar Pit Viper
Trimeresurus malabaricus
E
LR-NT
UC
1,2,3
4960
#
Reptiles of Meghamalai 90
Common name
Scientific name
Hutton's Pit Viper
Tropidolaemus huttoni #
Global
distribution
Threat
status
Numerical
status
Reference
E
CR
NR
1
© N. Sathishkumar
© N. Sathishkumar
# = Meghamalai landscape is type locality
Global distribution: NE - Non endemic to India, EI - Endemic to India, E - Endemic to Western Ghats
Threat status: CR - Critically Endangered, E - Endangered, VU- Vulnerable, LR/NT - Lower Risk Near Threatened, LR/LC - Lower Risk Least
Concerned, DD - Data Deficient, NA - Not Assessed (Molur & Walker 1998)
Numerical status: R - Rare, UC - Uncommon, C - Common; NR - Not Recorded
Reference: 1 - Hutton & David (2009), 2 - Chandramouli & Ganesh (2010), 3 - Bhupathy et al. (2009), 4 - Hutton (1949), 5 - Boulenger (1891),
6 - Smith (1943), 7 - S. Babu pers. comm.
Image 1. Indian Black Turtle
© N. Sathishkumar
© N. Sathishkumar
Image 2. Termite-hill Gecko
© N. Sathishkumar
© N. Sathishkumar
Image 4. Leschenault’s Lacerta
Image 3. Green Forest Lizard
Image 6. Hump-nosed Pit Viper
Image 5. Striped Keelback
4961
Communication
Western Ghats
Special Series
Birds of Meghamalai Landscape, southern Western Ghats,
India
OPEN ACCESS
Santhanakrishnan Babu 1 & Subramanian Bhupathy 2
1
ISSN
Online 0974–7907
Print 0974–7893
Wildlife Information Liaison Development Society, 96 Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641035, India
1,2
1
Abstract: Species composition of birds in the Meghamalai landscape
with respect to threat status, foraging guild and biome-restricted
assemblage were assessed based on data collected opportunistically
during two research projects: first one spanned 36 months (2006–
2009) the other for 18 months (June 2011–December 2012) and from
literature published during mid 1940s. A total of 254 species belonging
to 55 families and 18 orders were recorded, which include 11% (18 of
159 species) of globally threatened birds reported from India, 88% (14
of 16 species) of endemic birds of the Western Ghats and a higher
proportion of biome-restricted species (56% of Indo-Malayan tropical
dry zone and 80% of Indian Peninsula inhabited by tropical moist
forest birds). Among the foraging guilds, insectivorous birds (51%)
dominated the bird composition followed by frugivores and carnivores.
The present data shows that Meghamalai deserves to be recognized as
an Important Bird Area of International Bird Conservation Network.
This would enhance the conservation prospects of the landscape in a
long run. The present study also highlights the importance of the area
for conserving the birds of the Western Ghats.
Keywords: Endemic birds, foraging guild, High Wavy Mountains, IBA,
Theni forests.
Around 1340 bird species have hitherto been
reported from India (Manakadan & Pittie 2001). As
per IUCN (2012), 159 (12%) bird species of the country
are globally threatened (16 Critically Endangered, 17
Endangered, 54 Vulnerable, 69 Near Threatened and
three Data Deficient), and they are distributed in a wide
range of eco-regions (Ali & Ripley 1983). The Western
Ghats is one of the important eco-regions of India (Myers
et al. 2000). It is a continuous mountain range (~1600
km in length and 1,60,000km2 in area) along the western
side of peninsular India, across six states, viz., Kerala,
Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Goa, Maharashtra and Gujarat.
A large extent of this mountain stretch has been altered
for raising commercial plantations such as tea, coffee,
cardamom and orchids (Nair 1999). Wide variation
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3594.4962-72 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:F0A320C2-FD20-4D04-B976-6A753DE4CCF7
Editor: V. Santharam, Institute of Bird Studies & Natural History, Chittoor, India.
Manuscript details: Ms # o3594 | Received 26 April 2013 | Final received 31 October 2013 | Finally accepted 04 November 2013
Citation: Babu, S. & S. Bhupathy (2013). Birds of Meghamalai Landscape, southern Western Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 4962–4972; http://
dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3594.4962-72
Copyright: © Babu & Bhupathy 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction
Funding: ATREE-CEPF, Rufford Small Grant and Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.
Competing Interest: Authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: We thank Tamil Nadu Forest Department for research permission. Our sincere thanks are due to Dr. P.A. Azeez and other colleagues at SACON
and WILD for the facilities and support. Help rendered by WAR and VANAM during the surveys is highly appreciated.
(ATREE).
4962
Birds of Meghamalai
in elevation (up to 2695m in Anaimudi of Eravikulam
National Park) and intensities of annual rainfall and
pattern (rain-shadow and rain-fed found in the eastern
and western side of plateau respectively) form diverse
floral (dry thorn forests to tropical montane shola and
grasslands) and faunal assemblages. The Western
Ghats has been recognized as one of the eight hottest
hotspots of global biodiversity for having a high degree
of endemic animals/km2 (Myers et al. 2000). Recently,
39 locations of the Ghats have been declared as World
Heritage Sites by the UNESCO as an appreciation of
their diverse and unique flora and fauna (Downloaded
from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1342/ on 23 July
2013). Daniels (2003) reported 508 bird species from
the Western Ghats including 16 endemics, and BirdLife
International has identified the Western Ghats as an
Endemic Bird Area (Statersfield 1998). Rasmussen &
Anderton (2005) reported 26 endemic species from the
Western Ghats, but this is currently being debated. In
the present paper, we consider 16 species as endemic to
the Western Ghats.
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) program
has accredited the Western Ghats and site-specific
locations therein as high priority sites for protecting
highly threatened ecosystems (CEPF 2007). One such
site-specific location is Meghamalai. In a conservation
Babu & Bhupathy
perspective, the landscape acts as an important corridor
linking Periyar Tiger Reserve and Grizzled Squirrel
Wildlife Sanctuary.
Nichols (1944a,b; 1945) reported the occurrence
of the birds of erstwhile Madura District including
Meghamalai. After a lapse of over six decades, Bhupathy
et al. (2012) collated some information on the birds
of Meghamalai area. Subsequently, the first author
while carrying out a CEPF-ATREE and Rufford Small
Grant project systematically recorded birds of the area
during June 2011–December 2012. The present study
highlights the importance of the area for conserving
birds in the Western Ghats.
The Meghamalai landscape (9031’–90 51’N & 77010–
77030’E; ~480km2) comes under the administrative
control of the Theni Forest Division of Tamil Nadu State
(Fig. 1). The area has been included under the PeriyarAgastiyamalai Corridor by Critical Ecosystem Partnership
Fund (CEPF 2007). The major vegetation types include
montane shola and grasslands, tropical wet evergreen,
moist deciduous, dry deciduous forests, riparian and dry
thorn forests, and economic crops (tea, coffee, cardamom
etc) and plantations (softwood and hard wood). A major
portion of the landscape receives precipitation from
Figure 1. Surveyed areas in Meghamalai landscape, southern Western Ghats.
4963
Birds of Meghamalai
Babu & Bhupathy
Results
In total, 254 bird species belonging to 55 families and
18 orders were recorded in Meghamalai (Table 1), which
consist of 10 migratory, 53 resident migratory and 191
resident species. This works out to be 19% of the bird
fauna of India. Fourteen of them are endemic to the
Western Ghats. Considerable populations of the Grey–
breasted Laughingthrush Garrulax jerdoni (6 individuals/
km in tea estates), Malabar Grey Hornbill Ocyceros
griseus (flocks with over 30 individuals) and White-bellied
Shortwing Brachypteryx major (0.8 individuals/km in tea
estates) were found. Out of 55 families, Muscicapidae
(47 species) had the highest representation of species
followed by Accipitridae (19) and Columbidae (12).
In all, 199 species of birds were added during recent
studies and 23 recorded only in the past (1944–45). The
Red-faced Malkoha Phaenicophaeus pyrrhocephalus
could not be located during recent studies. Around 50%
and 19% of species reported from the Western Ghats
and India were recorded from Meghamalai respectively.
Coraciiformes recorded from Meghamalai accounted for
46% of species reported to occur in India followed by
Cuculiformes (42%) and Ciconiiformes (40%).
All (14 species) endemics excluding Small Sunbird
Nectarinia minima, Blue-winged Parakeet Psittacula
columboides, Malabar Grey Hornbill and Grey-headed
Bulbul Pycnonotus priocephalus were observed in
upper reaches (<1000m) forests. White-bellied Treepie
Dendrocitta leucogastra was commonly observed in the
coffee estates of Vellimalai and northwestern sides of
4964
Varusanad Hills. Black-and-Orange Flycatcher Ficedula
nigrorufa was recorded infrequently in Vellimalai and
Manalar estates. Grey-breasted Laughingthrush was one
of the most common species in the high elevations and
a notable number were seen in Meghamalai Mountains,
which starts from Gardana Estate in the east to Upper
Manalar in the west. Nilgiri Pipit Anthus nilghiriensis
and Broad-tailed Grass-Warbler Schoenicola platyura
were seldom observed in grasslands between Maharaja
Mettu and Mavadi Estate. Nilgiri Wood-Pigeon Columba
elphinstonii was observed in the upper elevation (i.e.,
>1000m) wet evergreen tracts of Upper Manalar and
Vellimalai Estates.
Forty (15.7%) species of birds recorded in the
landscape were wetland associated while 214 species
were forest dependent. Insectivores dominated the bird
assemblage (130 species, 51%) followed by frugivores
(34 species, 13%) and carnivores (28 species, 11%).
Aquatic (herbivores) and nectarivores contributed the
least (each 5 species, Fig. 2).
In all, 18 globally threatened birds were recorded from
this landscape and included the Critically Endangered
Long-billed Vulture Gyps indicus; and White-bellied
Shortwing; Vulnerable Broad-tailed Grass-Warbler
Schoenicola platyura, Yellow-throated Bulbul Pycnonotus
xantholaemus, Nilgiri Pipit Anthus nilghiriensis and Nilgiri
Wood–pigeon and 11 Near Threatened species (Fig. 3).
Out of the 11 Near Threatened, four were aquatic while
the other seven were terrestrial species. Among the
threatened species of the area, Long-billed Vulture and
Grey-headed Fish-Eagle (Lesser/Greater) were historical
reports.
Discussion
Species richness of birds and number of endemics
recorded in Meghamalai landscape is comparable to
140
120
Number of species
the north-east monsoon, but the plateaus (hill tops)
receive higher rainfall during the south-west monsoon.
The northern slope of the landscape has recently been
declared as “Meghamalai Wildlife Sanctuary” (Tamil
Nadu Government Gazette (2009).
The occurrence of birds in the area was
opportunistically recorded during field work by Sálim
Ali Centre for Ornithology Natural History (2006–2009)
and Wildlife Information Liaison Development Society
(2011–2012). In addition, we also collated secondary
data from published works (Nichols 1944a,b, 1945;
Biddulph 1956). The nomenclature and details on
distribution status (resident, resident migrant, migrants),
endemism and feeding guild (aquatic vegetarian,
granivore, frugivore, piscivore, carnivore, omnivore and
nectarivore) were gleaned from Ali & Ripley (1983).
Threat status of each species observed/reported from
the landscape was extracted from IUCN Red List (IUCN
2012). Biome-restricted assemblages of birds were
categorized following (Islam & Rahmani 2004).
100
80
60
40
20
0
A
C
F
G
I
Foraging guild
N
O
P
Figure 2. Composition of birds belonging to various foraging guilds
in Meghamalai landscape.
I - Insectivores, N - Nectarivores, O - Omnivores, P - Piscivores,
A - Aquatic (herbivores), C - Carnivores, F - Frugivores, G - Granivores
Birds of Meghamalai
VU
22%
Babu & Bhupathy
CR
5%
EN
6%
NT
67%
Figure 3. Composition of threatened birds in Meghamalai as per
IUCN criteria.
NT - Near Threatened, VU - Vulnerable, EN - Endangered,
CR - Critically Endangered
other forest areas located largely on the leeward side
of the southern Western Ghats such as the Mudumalai
Wildlife Sanctuary (266 species, nine endemics; Gokula
& Vijayan 1996), Palni Hills (277 species, 13 endemics;
Balachandran et al. 2005), Anamalai Tiger Reserve
(218 species, 12 endemics; Kannan 1998), KalakkadMundanthurai Tiger Reserve (273 species 15 endemics;
Johnsingh 2001) and Grizzled Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary
(220 species, 14 endemics; Islam & Rahmani 2004).
Vegetation composition, altitudinal gradient of the above
areas, and sampling efforts in previous studies were
different compared to the present study. The record
of 254 species in the landscape is around 50% of 508
recorded birds of the Western Ghats. It is to be noted
that the present bird list of Meghamalai is incomplete
and further intensive studies would add more species.
High species richness of birds in the landscape could
be attributed to terrain (wide altitudinal gradient: 200–
2000 m), rainfall pattern (leeward and windward zones)
and vegetation characteristics (highly mosaic habitats
under different disturbance levels). Further, diverse
order and family representations of birds in the area
indicate the availability of diverse and abundant food
resources, which is an important factor determining the
community structure (Recher & Davis 2002).
One vulture species (Long-billed Vulture Gyps indicus)
has been reported during the 1940s from the erstwhile
Madura District (Nichols 1944a,b, 1945), however,
recent surveys were unsuccessful in locating the same.
The dramatic decline of Gyps vultures in the Indian
subcontinent has been reported by Prakash et al. (2012).
Twenty species of birds reported by Nichols (1944a,b,
1945;) were not recorded all in recent surveys (2006–
2012; Table 1). This could be due to the disappearance
of species such as vultures from the area. Furthermore,
one carnivorous, four granivorous, 12 insectivorous
and three piscivorous birds reported earlier were also
not recorded during recent studies (Table 1). Endemic
species, Grey-breasted Laughing-thrush, Nilgiri-Wood
Pigeon, Nilgiri Pipit and Nilgiri Flycatcher, recorded
during the present studies were not reported earlier.
Incomplete spatial and temporal coverage in these
surveys and habitat changes due to plantations, and
other anthropogenic activities over the years might have
caused these variations. This indicates our incomplete
understanding on the bird fauna of Meghamalai. The
only sight record of Red-faced Malkoha Phaenicophaeus
pyrrhocephalus is reported from low elevation forests
of Meghamalai (Biddulph 1956). However, Hoffmann
(1996) reported this as a spurious record. Furthermore,
this species was not observed during the recent studies.
The high proportion of endemics in this area is
accredited to the large extent of high elevation (<1400m)
forests, south of Anamalais (see Bhupathy & Babu
2013). High elevation forests are reported to harbor
relatively larger number of endemics in the Western
Ghats. Furthermore contiguous patches of evergreen
forests still persist on the western side of the landscape,
where it is merges with Periyar Tiger Reserve. With
respect to feeding guilds, insectivores dominated the
bird composition of Meghamalai followed by frugivore
and carnivores. A similar pattern of guild structure was
observed in Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary (Gokula &
Vijayan 1996), Palni Hills (Somasundaram & Vijayan
2008), Mundanthurai plateau (Johnsingh & Joshua
1994) and Anaikatty (Nirmala 2002) of Western Ghats.
Representation of major foraging guilds in the area
indicated that the area holds wide food resources.
The high degree of globally threatened (18 species
= 11% of India’s threatened birds), range restricted (14
species = 88% of Western Ghats endemics) and biomerestricted species (i.e., 33 species (56%) of 59 species
of Indo-Malayan tropical dry zone and 12 of 15 species
(80%) of Indian peninsula tropical moist forest) in
Meghamalai fulfill criteria set for recognizing a location
as an Important Bird Area (IBA; Islam & Rahmani 2004).
Recognition of Meghamalai as one of the IBAs of the
country would pave the way for further conservation
initiatives in the landscape for wildlife, especially birds.
4965
Birds of Meghamalai
Babu & Bhupathy
Table 1. Checklist of birds recorded in Meghamalai landscape, southern Western Ghats, India. Names after Manakadan & Pitte (2001).
Family / Common
Name
Scientific Name
IUCN
Status
Guild
Source
Podicipedidae
Little Grebe
Tachybaptus
ruficollis
LC
R
P
2,3
Pelecanidae
Spot-billed Pelican
Pelecanus
philippensis
NT
RM
P
3
Phalacrocoracidae
Little Cormorant
Phalacrocorax
niger
LC
RM
P
1,2,3
Indian Shag
Phalacrocorax
fuscicollis
LC
RM
P
3
Anhingidae
Family / Common
Name
Scientific Name
IUCN
Status
Guild
Source
Jerdon's Baza
Aviceda jerdoni
LC
R
C
2
Black-shouldered
Kite
Elanus caeruleus
LC
R
C
2,3
Black Kite
Milvus migrans
LC
R
O
2,3
Brahminy Kite
Haliastur indus
LC
R
O
2,3
Grey-headed
Fish-Eagle (Lesser/
Greater)
Ichthyophaga
ichthyaetus / I.
humilis
NT
R
P
1
Short-toed SnakeEagle
Circaetus gallicus
LC
R
C
3
Long-billed Vulture Gyps indicus
CR
R
C
1
Crested SerpentEagle
Spilornis cheela
LC
R
C
2,3
Black Eagle
Ictinaetus
malayensis
LC
R
C
4
Booted Eagle
Hieraaetus
pennatus
LC
RM
C
4
Anhinga
melanogaster
NT
RM
P
3
Purple Heron
Ardea purpurea
LC
RM
P
1,3
Grey Heron
Ardea cinerea
LC
RM
P
3
Shikra
Accipiter badius
LC
R
C
1,2,3
Large Egret
Casmerodius albus
LC
RM
P
3
Bubulcus ibis
Spizaetus cirrhatus
Cattle Egret
LC
RM
P
2,3
Changeable HawkEagle
LC
R
C
2
Yellow Bittern
Ixobrychus sinensis
LC
RM
P
1
Rufous-bellied
Eagle
Hieraaetus kienerii
LC
R
C
1
Chestnut Bittern
Ixobrychus
cinnamomeus
LC
RM
P
1
Falconidae
Little Egret
Egretta garzetta
LC
R
P
2,3
Falco tinnunculus
LC
RM
C
2,3
LC
R
C
2
Darter
Ardeidae
Indian Pond-Heron
Ardeola grayii
LC
R
P
2,3
Black-crowned
Night-Heron
Nycticorax
nycticorax
LC
R
P
1,2
Painted Stork
Mycteria
leucocephala
NT
RM
P
3
Asian OpenbillStork
Anastomus oscitans
LC
R
I
3
White-necked
Stork
Ciconia episcopus
LC
R
P
3
Ciconiidae
Threskiornithidae
Oriental White Ibis
Threskiornis
melanocephalus
NT
R
I
3
Black Ibis
Pseudibis papillosa
LC
R
I
3
Anatidae
Lesser WhistlingDuck
Dendrocygna
javanica
LC
R
A
3
Spot-billed Duck
Anas
poecilorhyncha
LC
RM
A
3
Accipitridae
Black Baza
Aviceda leuphotes
LC
RM
C
3
Oriental HoneyBuzzard
Pernis
ptilorhynchus
LC
RM
C
1,2,3
Pallid Harrier
Circus macrourus
NT
M
C
2
Montagu's Harrier
Circus pygargus
LC
M
C
2
Eurasian
Sparrowhawk
Accipiter nisus
LC
RM
C
2
4966
Common Kestrel
Red-headed Falcon Falco chicquera
Phasianidae
Rain Quail
Coturnix
coromandelica
LC
RM
G
2
Grey Francolin
Francolinus
pondicerianus
LC
R
G
3
Jungle Bush-Quail
Perdicula asiatica
LC
R
G
3
Blue-breasted
Quail
Coturnix chinensis
LC
R
G
1
Red Spurfowl
Galloperdix
spadicea
LC
R
G
2,3
Grey Junglefowl
Gallus sonneratii
LC
R
G
2,3
Indian Peafowl
Pavo cristatus
LC
R
G
2,3
Turnix suscitator
LC
R
G
1
Slaty-legged Crake
Rallina
eurizonoides
LC
RM
I
1
Ruddy-breasted
Crake
Porzana fusca
LC
R
I
1
White-breasted
Waterhen
Amaurornis
phoenicurus
LC
R
I
3
Purple Moorhen
Porphyrio porphyrio
LC
R
A
3
Hydrophasianus
chirurgus
LC
R
A
3
Turnicidae
Common
Buttonquail
Rallidae
Jacanidae
Pheasant-tailed
Jacana
Birds of Meghamalai
Family / Common
Name
Babu & Bhupathy
Scientific Name
IUCN
Status
Guild
Source
Rostratulidae
Greater PaintedSnipe
Rostratula
benghalensis
LC
R
G
1
Charadriidae
Yellow-wattled
Lapwing
Vanellus
malabaricus
LC
R
I
3
Red-wattled
Lapwing
Vanellus indicus
LC
R
I
2,3
Scolopacidae
Common
Sandpiper
Scientific Name
Indian Plaintive
Cuckoo
IUCN
Status
Guild
Source
Cacomantis
passerinus
LC
R
I
3
Drongo Cuckoo
Surniculus lugubris
LC
R
I
3
Small Green-billed
Malkoha
Phaenicophaeus
viridirostris
LC
R
I
2,3
Sirkeer Malkoha
Phaenicophaeus
leschenaultii
LC
R
I
2,3
Greater Coucal
Centropus sinensis
LC
R
I
2,3
Tyto alba
LC
R
C
2,3
Bubo nipalensis
LC
R
C
1,2,3
Oriental Scops-Owl Otus sunia
LC
R
C
2,3
Eurasian Eagle-Owl Bubo bubo
LC
R
C
2,3
Collared Scops-Owl Otus bakkamoena
LC
R
C
2,3
Ketupa zeylonensis
LC
R
C
3
LC
R
C
2,3
Tytonidae
Actitis hypoleucos
LC
RM
I
1,3
Barn Owl
Strigidae
Pteroclididae
Chestnut-bellied
Sandgrouse
Family / Common
Name
Forest Eagle-Owl
Pterocles exustus
LC
R
G
1
Blue Rock Pigeon
Columba livia
LC
R
G
2,3
Nilgiri WoodPigeon
Columba
elphinstonii *
VU
R
F
3
Oriental Turtle
Dove
Streptopelia
orientalis
LC
RM
G
4
Little Brown Dove
Streptopelia
senegalensis
LC
R
G
2,3
Spotted Dove
Streptopelia
chinensis
LC
R
G
2,3
Eurasian CollaredDove
Streptopelia
decaocto
LC
R
G
2,3
Emerald Dove
Chalcophaps indica
LC
R
G
2,3
Orange-breasted
Green-Pigeon
Treron bicincta
LC
R
F
3
Columbidae
Pompadour GreenTreron pompadora
Pigeon
Brown Fish-Owl
Mottled Wood-Owl Strix ocellata
LC
R
F
1,3
Yellow-legged
Green-Pigeon
Treron
phoenicoptera
LC
R
F
3
Green ImperialPigeon
Ducula aenea
LC
R
F
1,3
Mountain ImperialDucula badia
Pigeon
LC
R
F
3
Brown Wood-Owl
Strix
leptogrammica
LC
R
C
1,3
Jungle Owlet
Glaucidium
radiatum
LC
R
C
2,3
Spotted Owlet
Athene brama
LC
R
C
2,3
Brown Hawk-Owl
Ninox scutulata
LC
R
C
1,3
Indian Jungle
Nightjar
Caprimulgus
indicus
LC
RM
I
2,3
Jerdon’s Nightjar
Caprimulgus
atripennis
LC
RM
I
1
Common Indian
Nightjar
Caprimulgus
asiaticus
LC
R
I
2,3
Indian Edible-nest
Swiftlet
Collocalia unicolor
LC
R
I
4
House Swift
Apus affinis
LC
RM
I
3
Asian Palm-Swift
Cypsiurus
balasiensis
LC
R
I
3
Harpactes fasciatus
LC
R
I
2,3
Caprimulgidae
Apodidae
Psittacidae
Rose-ringed
Parakeet
Psittacula krameri
LC
R
F
2,3
Indian HangingParrot
Loriculus vernalis
LC
R
F
2,3
Plum-headed
Parakeet
Psittacula
cyanocephala
LC
R
F
2,3
Alcedo atthis
LC
RM
P
2,3
Blue-winged
Parakeet
Psittacula
columboides *
Small Blue
Kingfisher
LC
R
G
2,3
Black-capped
Kingfisher
Halcyon pileata
LC
R
P
3
Pied Crested
Cuckoo
LC
R
P
2,3
LC
RM
I
2,3
White-breasted
Kingfisher
Halcyon smyrnensis
Clamator jacobinus
Common Cuckoo
Cuculus canorus
LC
RM
I
3
Stork-billed
Kingfisher
Halcyon capensis
LC
R
P
1
Banded Bay
Cuckoo
Cacomantis
sonneratii
LC
R
I
3
Lesser Pied
Kingfisher
Ceryle rudis
LC
R
P
3
Asian Koel
Eudynamys
scolopacea
LC
R
I
2,3
Brainfever Bird
Hierococcyx varius
LC
R
I
2,3
Merops philippinus
LC
RM
I
1,2
Cuculidae
Trogonidae
Malabar Trogon
Alcedinidae
Meropidae
Blue-tailed Beeeater
4967
Birds of Meghamalai
Babu & Bhupathy
Family / Common
Name
Scientific Name
Blue-bearded Beeeater
IUCN
Status
Guild
Source
Nyctyornis
athertoni
LC
R
I
3
Small Bee-eater
Merops orientalis
LC
R
I
2,3
Chestnut-headed
Bee-eater
Merops
leschenaulti
LC
R
I
2,3
Family / Common
Name
Scientific Name
Jerdon’s Bush-Lark
Rufous-tailed
Finch-Lark
IUCN
Status
Guild
Source
Mirafra affinis
LC
R
I
1
Ammomanes
phoenicurus
LC
R
I
2
Malabar Crested
Lark
Galerida
malabarica
LC
R
I
2
Eastern Skylark
Alauda gulgula
LC
R
I
1
Dusky Crag-Martin
Hirundo concolor
LC
R
I
4
House Swallow
Hirundo tahitica
LC
R
I
4
Red-rumped
Swallow
Hirundo daurica
LC
RM
I
3
Common Swallow
Hirundo rustica
LC
RM
I
2
Wire-tailed
Swallow
Hirundo smithii
LC
R
I
3
Forest Wagtail
Dendronanthus
indicus
LC
RM
I
1,2,3
Yellow Wagtail
Motacilla flava
LC
RM
I
3
Capitonidae
White Wagtail
Motacilla alba
LC
RM
F
2
White-cheeked
Barbet
Megalaima viridis
LC
R
F
1,2,3
Grey Wagtail
Motacilla cinerea
LC
M
I
2,3
Brown-headed
Barbet
Megalaima
zeylanica
Large Pied Wagtail
R
I
3
R
F
2,3
Motacilla
maderaspatensis
LC
LC
Paddyfield Pipit
Anthus rufulus
LC
R
I
3
Crimson-throated
Barbet
Megalaima
rubricapillus
LC
R
F
2,3
Nilgiri Pipit
Anthus nilghiriensis
*
VU
R
I
3
Coppersmith
Barbet
Megalaima
haemacephala
LC
R
F
2,3
Campephagidae
Black-headed
Cuckoo-Shrike
Coracina
melanoptera
LC
RM
I
2,3
Coraciidae
Indian Roller
Coracias
benghalensis
LC
Upupa epops
LC
RM
I
2,3
Upupidae
Common Hoopoe
RM
I
2,3
Bucerotidae
Malabar Pied
Hornbill
Anthracoceros
coronatus
NT
R
F
2
Great Pied Hornbill
Buceros bicornis
(Image 1)
NT
R
F
1,2,3
Indian Grey
Hornbill
Ocyceros birostris
LC
R
F
2
Malabar Grey
Hornbill
Ocyceros griseus *
LC
R
F
2,3
Hirundinidae
Motacillidae
Picidae
Rufous
Woodpecker
Celeus brachyurus
LC
R
I
1,2
Pied FlycatcherShrike
Hemipus picatus
LC
R
I
3
Browncapped Pygmy
Woodpecker
Dendrocopos nanus
LC
R
I
3,4
Large CuckooShrike
Coracina macei
LC
R
I
3
Yellow-fronted
Pied Woodpecker
Dendrocopos
mahrattensis
LC
R
I
4
Scarlet Minivet
Pericrocotus
flammeus
LC
R
I
2,3
Little Scaly-bellied Picus
Green Woodpecker xanthopygaeus
LC
R
I
3
Large Woodshrike
Tephrodornis
gularis
LC
R
I
4
Small Yellow-naped
Picus chlorolophus
Woodpecker
I
2,3
I
1
Tephrodornis
pondicerianus
R
R
Common
Woodshrike
LC
LC
Common
Golden-backed
Woodpecker
Dinopium
javanense
LC
R
I
3,4
Black Bulbul
Hypsipetes
leucocephalus
LC
R
F
3
Lesser Goldenbacked
Woodpecker
Dinopium
benghalense
Pycnonotus
melanicterus
LC
R
F
2,3
LC
Black-crested
Bulbul
Pycnonotus jocosus
LC
R
F
2,3
Heart-spotted
Woodpecker
Red-whiskered
Bulbul
Hemicircus canente
LC
R
I
1,3
Pycnonotus
luteolus
R
F
3
Chrysocolaptes
festivus
White-browed
Bulbul
LC
Black-shouldered
Woodpecker
LC
R
I
1
Red-vented Bulbul
Pycnonotus cafer
LC
R
F
2,3
LC
R
F
2,3
LC
R
I
1,2,3
Yellow-browed
Bulbul
Iole indica
Pitta brachyura
Grey-headed
Bulbul
Pycnonotus
priocephalus *
NT
R
F
2,3
Yellow-throated
Bulbul
Pycnonotus
xantholaemus
VU
R
F
2
R
I
1,2,3
Pittidae
Indian Pitta
Alaudidae
Ashy-crowned
Sparrow-Lark
4968
Eremopterix grisea
LC
R
I
2
Pycnonotidae
Birds of Meghamalai
Family / Common
Name
Babu & Bhupathy
Scientific Name
IUCN
Status
Guild
Source
Irenidae
Family / Common
Name
Scientific Name
Indian Rufous
Babbler
IUCN
Status
Guild
Source
Turdoides subrufus
*
LC
R
I
1,3
Common Iora
Aegithina tiphia
LC
R
I
2,3
Asian FairyBluebird
Irena puella
LC
R
F
2,3
Greenish LeafWarbler
Phylloscopus
trochiloides
LC
M
I
3
Jerdon's Chloropsis
Chloropsis
cochinchinensis
LC
R
I
2,3
Large-billed LeafWarbler
Phylloscopus
magnirostris
LC
M
I
1,3
Gold-fronted
Chloropsis
Chloropsis
aurifrons
LC
R
I
3
Blyth's ReedWarbler
Acrocephalus
dumetorum
LC
RM
I
2,3
Western Crowned
Warbler
Phylloscopus
occipitalis
LC
RM
I
1
Ashy Prinia
Prinia socialis
LC
R
I
2,3
Streaked FantailWarbler
Cisticola juncidis
LC
R
I
1
Indian Great ReedWarbler
Acrocephalus
stentoreus
LC
R
I
3
Common Tailorbird
Orthotomus
sutorius
LC
R
I
2,3
Broad-tailed Grass- Schoenicola
Warbler
platyura *
VU
R
I
1,3
Hume’s Lesser
Whitethroat
Sylvia althaea
LC
M
I
4
Laniidae
Brown Shrike
Lanius cristatus
LC
M
I
2,3
Southern Grey
Shrike (?)
Lanius meridionalis
LC
RM
I
3
Rufous-backed
Shrike
Lanius schach
LC
R
I
2,3
Bay-backed Shrike
Lanius vittatus
LC
R
I
2,3
Blue-headed RockThrush
Monticola
cinclorhynchus
LC
RM
I
1,2
Blue Rock-Thrush
Monticola solitarius
LC
RM
I
3
Indian Blue Robin
Luscinia brunnea
LC
RM
I
1,3
Orphean Warbler
Sylvia hortensis
LC
M
I
1
Scaly Thrush
Zoothera dauma
LC
RM
I
1
Verditer Flycatcher
Eumyias thalassina
LC
RM
I
2,3
Oriental MagpieRobin
Copsychus saularis
LC
R
I
2,3
Asian Brown
Flycatcher
Muscicapa
dauurica
LC
RM
I
2,3
Orange-headed
Thrush
Zoothera citrina
LC
R
I
3
Brown-breasted
Flycatcher
Muscicapa muttui
LC
RM
I
3
White-rumped
Shama
Copsychus
malabaricus
LC
R
I
2,3
Rusty-tailed
Flycatcher
Muscicapa
ruficauda
LC
M
I
1
Malabar Whistling- Myiophonus
Thrush (Image 2)
horsfieldii
LC
R
I
1,2,3
Grey-headed
Flycatcher
Culicicapa
ceylonensis
LC
R
I
2,3
Indian Robin
Saxicoloides
fulicata
LC
R
I
2,3
Tickell's BlueFlycatcher
Cyornis tickelliae
LC
R
I
2,3
Pied Bushchat
Saxicola caprata
LC
R
I
2,3
White-bellied
Shortwing (Image
3)
Brachypteryx
major*
R
I
2,3
R
I
2,3
Ficedula nigrorufa
*
NT
EN
Black-and-Orange
Flycatcher (Image
4)
Spotted Babbler
Pellorneum ruficeps
LC
R
I
2,3
Nilgiri Flycatcher
Eumyias
albicaudata *
NT
R
I
3
Indian ScimitarBabbler
Pomatorhinus
horsfieldii
LC
R
I
2,3
Cyornis pallipes *
LC
R
I
1,2,3
Yellow-eyed
Babbler
Chrysomma
sinense
White-bellied
Blue-Flycatcher
(Image 5)
LC
R
I
3
Turdoides caudatus
I
2,3
R
I
1,2
Terpsiphone
paradisi
RM
LC
Asian ParadiseFlycatcher
LC
Common Babbler
Rufous-bellied
Babbler
Dumetia
hyperythra
LC
R
I
3
Hypothymis azurea
LC
R
I
2,3
Jungle Babbler
Turdoides striatus
Black-naped
MonarchFlycatcher
LC
R
I
2,3
Black-headed
Babbler
Rhopocichla
atriceps
LC
R
I
3
White-browed
Fantail-Flycatcher
Rhipidura aureola
LC
R
I
2
Large Grey Babbler Turdoides malcolmi
LC
R
I
3
White-headed
Babbler
Turdoides affinis
LC
R
I
3
Black-lored Yellow
Tit
Parus xanthogenys
LC
R
I
3
Alcippe
poioicephala
Great Tit
Parus major
LC
R
I
2,3
Quaker Tit-Babbler
LC
R
I
1,3
Jungle Prinia
Prinia sylvatica
LC
R
I
4
Sitta frontalis
LC
R
I
2,3
I
3
Muscicapidae
Grey-breasted
Laughingthrush
Garrulax jerdoni *
NT
R
Paridae
Sittidae
Velvet-fronted
Nuthatch
Dicaeidae
4969
Birds of Meghamalai
Babu & Bhupathy
Family / Common
Name
Scientific Name
Thick-billed
Flowerpecker
Dicaeum agile
Plain Flowerpecker Dicaeum concolor
IUCN
Status
Guild
Source
LC
R
N
3
LC
R
N
3
Nectariniidae
Family / Common
Name
Scientific Name
Jungle Myna
Acridotheres fuscus
Southern Hill-Myna Gracula indica
IUCN
Status
Guild
Source
LC
R
I
2,3
LC
R
F
2,3
Brahminy Starling
Sturnus pagodarum
LC
RM
F
1,2,3
Rosy Starling
Sturnus roseus
LC
M
F
1,3
Grey-headed
Starling
Sturnus
malabaricus
LC
R
F
1,3
Common Myna
Acridotheres tristis
LC
R
O
2,3
Purple-rumped
Sunbird
Nectarinia
zeylonica
LC
R
N
2,3
Purple Sunbird
Nectarinia asiatica
LC
R
N
3
Loten’s Sunbird
Nectarinia lotenia
LC
R
N
3
Little Spiderhunter
Arachnothera
longirostra
LC
R
I
2,3
Black-naped Oriole
Oriolus chinensis
LC
RM
F
3
2,3
Eurasian Golden
Oriole
Oriolus oriolus
LC
RM
F
2,3
Black-headed
Oriole
Oriolus xanthornus
LC
R
F
2,3
Ashy Drongo
Dicrurus
leucophaeus
LC
RM
I
3
Black Drongo
Dicrurus
macrocercus
LC
R
I
2,3
Small Sunbird
Nectarinia minima
*
LC
R
N
Zosteropidae
Zosterops
Oriental White-eye
palpebrosus
LC
R
I
2,3
Fringillidae
Carpodacus
Common Rosefinch
erythrinus
LC
RM
G
3
Estrildidae
Oriolidae
Dicruridae
White-throated
Munia
Lonchura
malabarica
Bronzed Drongo
Dicrurus aeneus
LC
R
I
3
LC
R
G
2,3
Dicrurus paradiseus
LC
R
I
2,3
White-rumped
Munia
Greater Rackettailed Drongo
Lonchura striata
LC
R
G
2,3
White-bellied
Drongo
Dicrurus
caerulescens
LC
R
I
2,3
Spotted Munia
Lonchura
punctulata
LC
R
G
3
Corvidae
Black-headed
Munia
Lonchura malacca
LC
R
G
3
Indian Treepie
Dendrocitta
vagabunda
LC
R
O
2,3
White-bellied
Treepie (Image 6)
Dendrocitta
leucogastra
LC
R
O
1,2,3
House Crow
Corvus splendens
LC
R
O
2,3
Jungle Crow
Corvus
macrorhynchos
LC
R
O
1,2,3
Passerinae
House Sparrow
Passer domesticus
LC
R
G
2,3
Ploceus philippinus
LC
R
G
2,3
Ploceinae
Baya Weaver
Sturnidae
© H.P. Ashwin
© H.P. Ashwin
Endemic birds are marked with asterisk.
IUCN Status: CR - Critically Endangered, EN - Endangered, VU - Vulnerable, NT - Near-threatened, LC - Least Concern
Status: R - Resident, RM - Resident Migratory, M - Migratory
Feeding guild: A - Aquatic vegetarians, G - Granivores, F - Frugivore, P - Piscivores, C - Carnivore (including carrion feeders), O - Omnivores, N - Nectarivores
Source: 1 - Nichols (1944a,b; 1945), 2 - Bhupathy et al. (2009 & 2012), 3 - Babu (pers. obser.), 4 - Rajah Jayapal (pers. comm.)
Image 1. Great Pied Hornbill
4970
Image 2. Malabar Laughing-thrush
Babu & Bhupathy
© Dilan Mandanna
© Dilan Mandanna
Birds of Meghamalai
Image 4. Black-and-Orange Flycatcher
© H.P. Ashwin
© Ashok Mansur
Image 3. White-bellied Shortwing
Image 5. White-bellied Blue Flycatcher
Image 6. White-bellied Treepie
REFERENCES
hotspot. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 4939–4944; http://
dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3592.4939-44
Biddulph, B.H. (1956). Occurrence of the Red-faced Malkoha
(Phaenicophaeus pyrrhocephalus) Pennant in Madurai District:
Madras presidency. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society
53(1): 697–698.
CEPF (2007). Ecosystem profile: Western Ghats and Sri Lanka
biodiversity hotspot, Western Ghats region, 95pp.
Daniels, R.J (2003). Biodiversity of the Western Ghats - an overview.
In: Gupta, A.K., A. Kumar & V. Ramakantha (eds.). ENVIS Bulletin:
Wildlife & Protected Areas, Conservation of Rainforests in India,
4(1): 229–242.
Gokula, V. & L. Vijayan (1996). Birds of Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary,
India. Forktail 12: 143–152.
Hoffmann, T.W. (1996). New bird records in Sri Lanka and some
connected matters. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society
96: 382–388.
IUCN (2012). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1.
Electronic database accessible at http://www.iucnredlist.org/
Ali, S. & D. Ripley (1983). Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan.
Compact Edition, Oxford University Press, Mumbai, 737pp.
Balachandran, S., A.R. Rahmani, N. Ezhilarasi, S. Babu, J.P.P.
Chakravarthy & T. Ramesh (2005). Revaluation of bird community
structure of Palni Hills with special reference to threatened and
endemic species. Final Report. Bombay Natural History Society,
Mumbai, 105pp.
Bhupathy, S., G. Srinivas & N. Sathishkumar (2009). A Study on the
Herpetofaunal Communities of the Upper Vaigai Plateau, Western
Ghats, India. Final Report Submitted to the Ministry of Environment
and Forests. Sálim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History,
Coimbatore, 75pp.
Bhupathy, S., G. Srinivas., N. Sathishkumar, M. Murugesan, S.
Western Ghats, India. Current Science 102(4): 590–595.
Bhupathy, S. & S. Babu (2013). Meghamalai landscape : a biodiversity
4971
Birds of Meghamalai
Babu & Bhupathy
captured on 25 July 2012.
Johnsingh, A.J.T (2001). The Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve: A
global heritage of biological diversity. Current Science 80(3): 378–
388.
Johnsingh, A.J.T. & J. Joshua (1994). Avifauna in three vegetation types
on Mundanthurai Plateau, south India. Journal of Tropical Ecology
10(3): 323–335; http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266467400007999
Kannan, R. (1998). Avifauna of the Anamalai Hills (Western Ghats) of
southern India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 95(2):
193–214.
Manakadan, R. & A. Pittie (2001). Standardized common and scientific
names of the birds of the Indian subcontinent. Buceros 6(1): 1–37.
Myers, N., B.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonesca
& J. Kent (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.
Nature 403: 853–858; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35002501
Nair, S.C. (1999). The southern Western Ghats. A biodiversity
conservation plan. New Delhi, 92pp.
Nichols, E.D (1944a). Occurrence of birds in Madura District, Part I.
Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 44(3): 387–407.
Nichols, E.D (1944b). Occurrence of birds in Madura District, Part II.
Nichols, E.D (1945). Occurrence of birds in Madura District, Part III.
Nirmala, T. (2002). Ecology of bird communities in the Anaikatty Hills,
4972
Coimbatore. PhD Thesis, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, 274pp.
Prakash, V., M.C. Bishwakarma, A. Chaudhary, R. Cuthbert, R. Dav,
M. Kulkarni, S. Kumar, K. Paudel, S. Ranade, R. Shringarpure & R.E.
Green (2012). The Population Decline of Gyps Vultures in India and
Nepal Has Slowed since Veterinary Use of Diclofenac was Banned.
PLoS ONE 7(11): e49118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0049118
Recher, H.F. & W.E. Davis (2002). Foraging profile of a Salmon Gum
woodland avifauna in Western Australia. Journal of Royal Society of
Western Australia 85: 103–111.
Islam, M.Z. & A.R. Rahmani (2004). Important Bird Areas: Priority
sites for conservation. Indian Bird Conservation Network, Mumbai,
1133pp.
Rasmussen, P.C. & J.C. Anderton (2005). Birds of South Asia. The Ripley
Guide. Smithsonian Institution and Lynx Editions, 1072pp.
Somasundaram, S. & L. Vijayan (2008). Foraging behavior and guild
structure of birds in the Montane wet temperate forests of the Palni
Hills, south India. Podoces 3(1/2): 79–91.
Statersfield, A.J., M.J. Crosby., A.J. Long & D.C. Wege (1998). Endemic
Bird Areas of The world: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation.
Birdlife International, Cambridge, 846pp.
Tamil Nadu Government Gazette (2009). Declaration of Meghamalai
Wildlife Sanctuary. Regd. No. TN/CCN/467/2009-11: 322–325.
Western Ghats
Special Series
Anurans of the Meghamalai landscape, Western Ghats, India
G. Srinivas 1 & Subramanian Bhupathy 2
Wildlife Information Liaison Development Society, 96 Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641035, India
1
1
ISSN
Online 0974–7907
Print 0974–7893
OPEN ACCESS
1,2
Globally 7,044 species of amphibians have been
reported (Frost 2013), and 342 species are known from
India (Dinesh et al. 2012). Of the 157 species reported
from the Western Ghats, 135 (85.99%) are endemic to
the hill range (Dinesh & Radhakrishnan 2011). Though
there are few studies that have looked at the ecological
aspects of the amphibians in the Western Ghats,
inventories of amphibians are available for many parts
of the Ghats; 33 species from the Kerala part of the
Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve (Easa 1998), 35 from Kalakad
Wildlife Sanctuary (Cherian et al. 2000), 32 from KalakadMundanthurai Tiger Reserve (Vasudevan et al. 2001),
and 40 from Anamalai Hills (Kumar et al. 2001) which
are adjacent or in close vicinity to the Meghamalai area.
Meghamalai landscape is situated in the southern
Abstract: Meghamalai landscape, southern Western Ghats was
surveyed for anurans from March 2006 to January 2009. Including
published data, a total of 35 species of anurans belonging to 19 genera
and eight families have been reported from the area. This includes 23
(65.7%) species endemic to the Western Ghats. New locality records
for four species namely, Fejervarya mudduraja, Raorchestes griet,
R. ponmudi and Rhacophorus pseudomalabaricus were obtained.
Several species recorded from the area are listed under various threat
categories of IUCN Red List. Further studies are required to understand
the ecological requirements of the anurans of the landscape.
Keywords: Anuran diversity, conservation status, endemic species,
High Wavy Mountains.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3593.4973-8 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:5A2884C3-B85B-414A-958F-1233FB0253A2
Citation: Srinivas, G. & S. Bhupathy (2013). Anurans of the Meghamalai landscape, Western Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 4973–4978; http://
dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3593.4973-8
Copyright: © Srinivas & Bhupathy 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Government of India.
Competing Interest: Authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: This paper is an offshoot of a research project funded by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Government of India. We are
thankful to G.V. Subramanian and Naseem Ahmad (MoEF) for financial support; R. Sundararaju (PCCF & Chief Wildlife Warden) and Srinivas R. Reddy (District
Forest Officer) for permission to work in the forest area and logistic support, and P.A. Azeez and N. Sathish Kumar and other colleagues at the Sálim Ali Centre for
Ornithology and Natural History, Coimbatore, for encouragement and support at various levels. We thank K.V. Gururaja for helping us in species identification; and
Yesudoss, Kumar and Munusamy for helping us in the fieldwork.
4973
Short Communication
Anurans of Megamalai
Srinivas & Bhupathy
Western Ghats, which is also known as High Wavy
mountains. An understanding of its biodiversity is very
crucial, this has been highlighted by Bhupathy et al.
(2012). However, no such exploration was carried out
in the Meghamalai landscape especially on amphibians.
A study on the herpetofaunal mortality due to vehicular
traffic along the interstate National Highway Cumbum–
Kumuly (NH 220), that cuts across the landscape is
available (Bhupathy et al. 2011). In the present paper,
we provide data on the amphibian fauna of Meghamalai
landscape based on a study from March 2006 to January
2009 and published literature.
Time-constrained visual encounter surveys (TCVES)
and quadrat search (size: 10x10 m) as described in
Heyer et al. (1994) were used for data collection in
three belt transects for a period of two years between
December 2006 and November 2008 on a seasonal
basis; dry (December–May) and wet (June–November)
seasons (also see Bhupathy et al. 2009; Bhupathy &
Sathishkumar 2013). These transects (fixed width of
1000m) were located in Mavadi, Suruli and Vellimalai
areas of Meghamalai (Fig. 1), and they measured
8.00km, 6.86km and 6.31km in length respectively. On
each belt transect, 100 hours (x 3 men), i.e., 300 man-
hours of visual encounter survey and 100 quadrats of
1ha were sampled during each dry and wet season. In
all, 3600 man-hours of TCVES and 1200 auadrats (12ha)
were examined. In addition, opportunistic observations
of anurans in the area during March 2006 to January
2009 and data on anuran mortality in a 6km length of
the Cumbum-Kumuly National Highway 220 that cut
across Meghamalai landscape (see Bhupathy et al. 2011)
were considered for analysis.
The anurans observed were identified based on
keys and other publications (e.g., Vasudevan & Dutta
2000; Bossuyt 2002; Biju & Bossuyt 2005; Daniels 2005;
Kuramoto et al. 2007), further the species identity was
confirmed by K.V. Gururaja (Centre for infrastructure,
Sustainable Transport and Urban planning CISTURB).
Nomenclature followed herein is of Frost (2013), and the
assessment of threat status of anuran species observed
in the area was based on IUCN Red List (2013).
A total of 3166 of anurans belonging to 21 species,
of 12 genera and eight families was recorded within
these transects (Table 1). No caecilian was observed
in Meghamalai during this study. The transect Mavadi
had the highest record of 19 species and the least in
Suruli (15 species). Thirteen species were observed in
Figure 1. Map of Meghamalai showing belt transects used for sampling anurans.
4974
Srinivas & Bhupathy
all transects, whereas three species were found only in
two transects. Five species were recorded only in one
transect; three species in Mavadi and two in Vellimalai
(Table 1). Indirana beddomii (731 individuals) is the
most common species observed followed by Hylarana
temporalis (647) in all transects sampled.
Mavadi and Vellimalai transects had a higher
number of anuran species and exclusive species (herein
referred as restricted to one transect). Higher anuran
species richness in the above transects could be due
to the presence of wet forests (tropical evergreen
forest) and many streams. Suruli area is relatively dry
and has a few seasonal streams (Srinivas unpublished
data). Vasudevan et al. (2001) reported that amphibian
distribution in the Western Ghats is largely restricted to
forests adjoining streams.
In the present study, 19 species were recorded in
TCVES, 14 in Quadrats, 26 in opportunistic observations
(during random walks, night surveys) and six species
during monitoring of roads for assessing herpetofaunal
mortality due to vehicular traffic. These findings show
that adoption of various sampling methods is required
to make a reasonable inventory of anurans.
Including a past record (1 species), a total of 35
anuran species are known to occur in the Meghamalai
landscape, among them 23 (65.7%) are endemic to
the Western Ghats. Boulenger (1891) described Ixalus
travancoricus based on a specimen collected from
Bodanayakkanur by Ferguson during 1891, deposited at
the British Museum Natural History (now Natural History
Museum, London). This species is currently known as
Raorchestes travancoricus (Dinesh et al. 2012), which
has not been recorded during the present study, and no
report on its occurrence till the report by Biju & Bossyut
(2009) from Vandiperiyar and Vagaman. However, this
species is still categorized under ‘Extinct’ category in
IUCN Red List (2013).
Four recently described species namely, Raorchestes
Table 1. Anuran recorded in various transects surveyed in Meghamalai landscape, Western Ghats between December 2006 and November 2008.
Species
Transect
Mavadi
Transect
Suruli
Transect
Vellimalai
Total
145
90
196
431
1
Duttaphrynus melanostictus
2
Duttaphrynus microtympanum
0
0
15
15
3
Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis
3
19
41
63
5
Fejervarya brevipalmata
31
15
65
111
4
Fejervarya mudduraja
97
53
15
165
6
Sphaerotheca breviceps
2
80
0
82
7
Ramanella montana
1
10
3
14
8
Micrixalus fuscus
28
10
24
62
9
Nyctibatrachus beddomii
13
0
0
13
10
Nyctibatrachus major
30
16
3
49
11
Indirana beddomii
224
293
214
731
12
Indirana leptodactyla
4
139
19
162
13
Indirana semipalmata
15
305
2
322
14
Indirana sp.1
11
0
4
15
15
Hylarana temporalis
147
54
446
647
16
Raorchestes beddomii
24
27
68
119
17
Raorchestes griet
27
40
63
130
18
Raorchestes ponmudi
0
0
1
1
19
Raorchestes sp.1
1
0
0
1
20
Pseudophilautus wynaadensis
28
4
0
32
21
Ghatixalus variabilis
Number of species
1
0
0
1
19
15
16
21
Exclusive species
3
0
2
5
Number of individuals
832
1155
1179
3166
4975
Srinivas & Bhupathy
griet, R. ponmudi, Rhacophorus pseudomalabaricus and
Fejervarya mudduraja were recorded the landscape
(Srinivas 2011). Raorchestes ponmudi was described
from Ponmudi Hills, Kerala by Biju & Bossuyt (2005).
Raorchestes griet was described by Bossuyt (2002)
from Munnar, Kerala. Subsequently, Biju & Bossyut
(2009) reported both Raorchestes ponmudi and
Raorchestes griet from Valparai, Anamalai Hills, Tamil
Nadu. Rhacophorus pseudomalabaricus was described
by Vasudevan & Dutta (2000) from Anamalai Hills, Tamil
Nadu. This species was recorded in Sakkulathumedu,
Kerala, which is about 60km from Valparai (Srinivas et
al. 2009). Kuramoto et al. (2007) described Fajervarya
mudduraja based on specimens collected from Coorg,
Karnataka. Srinivas (2011) reported this species as
common in the landscape.
Meghamalai landscape with 35 species of anurans
is comparable with the richness of other localities of
the Western Ghats such as Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve
(29 species; Easa 1998), Kalakad Wildlife Sanctuary
(32 species; Cherian et al. 2000), and KalakadMundanthurai Tiger Reserve (29 species; Vasudevan et
al. 2001) and Anamalai Hills (40 species; Kumar et al.
2001). Naniwadekar & Vasudevan (2007) reported that
intensive surveys in any hill range of the Western Ghats
documented only 30–50 amphibian species. The species
richness of Meghamalai landscape is on par with the
other sites in the Western Ghats, thus the landscape is
equally important for the anurans and its conservation.
High richness of various biota including anurans in
Meghamalai area is due to availability of various forest
types and wider elevation gradient (Bhupathy et al.
2012).
In Meghamalai, the highest number (18 species)
of anurans was recorded from dry deciduous forests,
followed by evergreen (15), and shola and grassland
and moist deciduous forests (each 13 species). the
lowest of six species were recorded in riverine forests.
Dry deciduous forests in the landscape are contiguous
with human habitations and agricultural fields. Greater
habitat diversity has resulted in high species richness.
Species inhabiting plains such as Duttaphrynus
melanostictus, D. scaber, Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis, E.
hexadactylus, Microhyla ornata, M. rubra, Sphaerotheca
breviceps, Kaloula taprobanica, Uperodon systoma and
Polypedates maculates were found in the area (Srinivas
2011 pers.obser.). Though, the species richness was high
in dry deciduous forests, a higher number of endemics
was observed in wet forests such as evergreen forests
and montane shola-grasslands.
Of the 35 species recorded from the landscape,
4976
threat status assessment is available for only 31 species
(Table 2). Fajervarya mudduraja is a recently described
species, and one species of the genus Raorchestes and
Indirana could not be identified up to species level.
Threat status of anurans recorded from Meghamalai
landscape is given in Table 2. R. travancoricus is listed
as ‘Extinct’, despite the report of this species by Biju
& Bossyut (2009) in recent years. Several anurans
of the area are listed under ‘Critically Endangered’
(Rhacophorus pseudomalabaricus, Raorchestes griet,
R. ponmudi) and ‘Endangered’ (Nyctibatrachus aliciae,
N. beddomii, Indirana leptodactyla, Pseudophilautus
wynaadensis, Ghatixalus variabilis). The actual threat
status of recently described species (see above), and
Fejervarya brevipalmata evaluated as ‘Data Deficient’
will be known only after further studies.
REFERENCES
Bhupathy, S. & N. Sathishkumar (2013). Status of reptiles in
Meghamalai and its environs, Western Ghats, Tamil Nadu, India.
Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 4953–4961; http://dx.doi.
org/10.11609/JoTT.o3595.4953-61
Bhupathy, S., G. Srinivas & N. Sathishkumar (2009). A study on
herpetofaunal communities of the Upper Vaigai Plateau, Western
Ghats, India. Final Technical Report submitted to Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Government of India.
Bhupathy, S., G. Srinivas, N. Sathishkumar, T. Karthik & A. Mathivanan
(2011). Herpetofaunal mortality due to vehicular traffic in the
Western Ghats, India: A case study. Herpetotropicos 5(2): 119–
126.
Biju, S.D. & F. Bossuyt (2005). A new species of frog (Ranidae,
Rhacophorinae, Philautus) from the rainforest canopy in the
Biju, S.D. & F. Bossuyt (2009). Systematics and phylogeny of Philautus
Gistel, 1848 (Anura, Rhacophoridae) in the Western Ghats of India,
with descriptions of 12 new species. Zoological Journal of the
Linnean Society 155(2): 374–444; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.10963642.2008.00466.x
Bossuyt, F. (2002). A new species of Philautus (Anura: Ranidae) from
the Western Ghats of India. Journal of Herpetology 36(4): 656–661;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1670/0022-1511(2002)036[0656:ANSOPA]2.0
.CO;2
Boulenger, G.A. (1891). Description of a new species of frog obtained
by Mr. H.S. Ferguson in Travancore. Southern India. Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society 6(4): 450.
Cherian, P.T., K.R. Devi & M.S. Ravichandran (2000). Ichthyo and
herpetofaunal diversity of Kalakad WildlifeSanctuary. Zoos’
Print Journal 15(2): 203–206; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.
ZPJ.15.2.203-6
Daniels, R.J.R. (2005). Amphibians of peninsular India. Indian Academy
of Sciences, Universities Press, Hyderabad.
Dinesh K.P. & C. Radhakrishnan (2011). Checklist of amphibians of
Western Ghats. Frog leg 16: 15–21.
Dinesh, K.P., C. Radhakrishnan, K.V. Gururaja, K. Deuti & G. Bhatta
(2012). A Checklist of Amphibia of India with IUCN Red list
Status. Updated till September 2012. <http://zsi.gov.in/checklist/
Srinivas & Bhupathy
Table 2. Anuran fauna of Meghamalai landscape, Western Ghats and
their threat status as per IUCN Red List 2013.
Family / Species
IUCN status
Bufonidae
1
Duttaphrynus melanostictus (Image 1)
LC
2
Duttaphrynus microtympanum*
VU
3
Duttaphrynus scaber
LC
Dicroglossidae
4
Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis
5
Euphlyctis hexadactylus
LC
6
Fejervarya brevipalmata*
DD
7
Fejervarya mudduraja*
NA
8
Hoplobatrachus tigerinus
LC
9
Sphaerotheca breviceps
LC
© G. Srinivas
LC
Image 1. Duttaphrynus melanostictus
Microhylidae
10
Kaloula taprobanica (Image 2)
LC
11
Microhyla ornata
LC
12
Microhyla rubra
LC
13
Ramanella montana*
NT
14
Uperodon systoma
LC
Micrixalidae
15
Micrixalus fuscus*
NT
16
Nyctibatrachus aliciae*
EN
17
Nyctibatrachus beddomii*
EN
© G. Srinivas
Nyctibatrachidae
Ranixalidae
18
Indirana beddomii*
LC
19
Indirana leptodactyla*
EN
20
Indirana semipalmata*
LC
21
Indirana sp1*
NA
Image 2. Kaloula taprobanica
Ranidae
22
Clinotarsus curtipes*
NT
23
Hylarana temporalis (Image 3)
NT
Raorchestes beddomii*
NT
25
Raorchestes griet*
CR
26
Raorchestes ponmudi*
CR
27
Raorchestes travancoricus*
EX
28
Raorchestes sp1*
NA
29
Raorchestes sp2*
NA
30
Pseudophilautus wynaadensis*
EN
31
Ghatixalus variabilis*
EN
32
Polypedates maculatus
LC
33
Polypedates pseudocruciger*
LC
34
Rhacophorus malabaricus* (Image 4)
LC
35
Rhacophorus pseudomalabaricus* (Image 5)
CR
© G. Srinivas
Rhacophoridae
24
Image 3. Hylarana temporalis
* Species endemic to Western Ghats; IUCN Threat Category as in Red List 2013:
EX - Extinct from wild; CR - Critically Endangered; EN - Endangered;
VU - Vulnerable; NT - Near Threatened; DD - Data Deficient; LC - Least Concern;
NA - Not Assessed.
4977
Srinivas & Bhupathy
© G. Srinivas
© G. Srinivas
Image 4. Rhacophorus malabaricus
Image 5. Rhacophorus pseudomalabaricus
Amphibia_final.pdf> downloaded on 25 December 2012.
Easa, P.S. (1998). A report on the herpetofauna of the Periyar Tiger
Reserve. KFRI Research Report No. 148, 40pp
Frost, D.R. (2013). Amphibian Species of the World: an Online
Reference. Version 5.6 (9January2013).ElectronicDatabase
accessible at <http://research.amnh.org/ herpetology/amphibia/
index.html> American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA.
Downloaded on 1 March 2013.
Heyer, W.R., M.A. Donnelly, R.W. McDiarmid, L.C. Hayek & M.S.
Foster (1994). Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity:
Standard Methods for Amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington.
IUCN (2013). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.
<www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 02 August 2013.
Kuramoto, M., S.H. Joshy, A. Kurabayashi & M. Sumida (2007). The
Genus Fejervarya (Anura: Ranidae) in central Western Ghats,
India, with descriptions of four new Cryptic Species. Current
Herpetology 26(2): 81–105; http://dx.doi.org/10.3105/18811019(2007)26[81:TGFARI]2.0.CO;2
Kumar, A., R.Chellam, B.C. Choudhury, D.Muddappa, K. Vasudevan,
N.M. Ishwar & B.Noon (2001). Impact of rainforest fragmentation
4978
on small mammals and herpetofauna in the Western Ghats, south
India. A summary of research findings. Wildlife Institute of India,
Dehra Dun.
Naniwadekar, R. & K. Vasudevan (2007). Patterns in diversity of
anurans along an elevational gradient in the Western Ghats, south
India. Journal of Biogeography 34(5): 842–853; http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01648.x
Srinivas, G., S. Bhupathy & S.R. Suganthan (2009). Rhacophorus
pseudomalabaricus (False Malabar Tree Frog). Herpetological
Review 40(3): 362.
Srinivas, G. (2011). Distribution Pattern of Amphibians in Megamalai
Landscape, Western Ghats, Tamil Nadu. PhD Thesis. Submitted to
the Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, 144pp.
Vasudevan, K. & S.K. Dutta (2000). A new species of Rhacophorus
(Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the Western Ghats, India. Hamadryad
25(1): 21–28.
Vasudevan, K., A. Kumar & R. Chellam (2001). Structure and
composition of rain forest floor amphibian communities in Kalakad–
Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve. Current Science 80: 405–412.
Communication
Western Ghats
Special Series
Fishes of River Bharathapuzha, Kerala, India: diversity,
distribution, threats and conservation
ISSN
Online 0974–7907
Print 0974–7893
OPEN ACCESS
A. Bijukumar 1, Siby Philip 2, Anvar Ali 3, S. Sushama 4 & Rajeev Raghavan 5
Department of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695581, India
Department of Zoology, Nirmalagiri College, Koothuparamba, Kerala 670701, India
2,3,5
Conservation Research Group (CRG), St. Albert’s College, Kochi, Kerala 682018, India
4
Department of Zoology, N.S.S. College, Ottapalam, Kerala 679103, India
5
Zoo Outreach Organization (ZOO), 96, Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641035, India
1
[email protected], 2 [email protected], 3 [email protected], 4 [email protected],
5
[email protected] (corresponding author)
1
2
Abstract: We present here a comprehensive account of the diversity, distribution, threats, and suggest conservation measures for the
fishes of Bharathapuzha, the largest west flowing river in the southern Indian state of Kerala. A total of 117 species under 43 families and
81 genera were recorded from the river, of which 98 were primary freshwater and 19 were secondary freshwater and/or diadromous
species. Six species of non-native fish were also recorded, of which three were exotic to the country and three were transplanted from the
gangetic plains. Twenty-eight percent (S = 33) of species that occur in the Bharathapuzha are endemic to the Western Ghats, while three
species (Balitora jalpalli, Mesonoemacheilus remadevii and Pseudolaguvia austrina) are restricted in their distribution to the river system.
A little more than one-tenth (11%; S = 13) of species that occur in the river are listed under various threatened categories on the IUCN
Red List. As part of this study, we also extend the distribution range of Osteochilichthys longidorsalis to the Bharathapuzha River system,
based on its collection from the Thoothapuzha tributary. Several anthropogenic stressors including deforestation and loss of riparian
cover, dams and other impoundments, pollution, sand mining, non-native species and destructive fishing practices are threatening the
rich ichthyofaunal diversity and endemism in the Bharathapuzha. There is hence an urgent need to develop and implement conservation
plans, some of which are discussed.
Keywords: Osteochilichthys longidorsalis, Nila, river conservation, Silent Valley National Park, Western Ghats.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3640.4979-93 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:724397D3-D300-46AF-9CC2-ABDF419384E2
Manuscript details: Ms # o3640 | Received 26 May 2013 | Final received 08 November 2013 | Finally accepted 10 November 2013
Citation: Bijukumar, A., S. Philip, A. Ali, S. Sushama & R. Raghavan (2013). Fishes of River Bharathapuzha, Kerala, India: diversity, distribution, threats and conservation. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 4979–4993; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3640.4979-93
Copyright: © Bijukumar et al. 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction
Funding: A. Bijukumar thanks the Department of Science, Engineering and Research Council (SERC), Govt of India (No. SR/FT/L-21/2003) and the University Grants
Commission (UGC) (No.F.1.15/97 (MINOR/SRO) for financial assistance. Rajeev Raghavan thanks the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) - Western Ghats
Program through the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment (ATREE), Bangaluru, India for funding.
Author contributions: AB, SP, AA, SS & RR carried out the field surveys; AB and RR analyzed and interpreted the data; AB, SP & RR wrote the manuscript.
Author Details: See end of this article.
Acknowledgements: Field work benefitted from the help and support of Josin Tharian, Fibin Baby, Benno Pereira, K. Krishnakumar, M.R. Ramprasanth, Sanjay
Molur and Nibha Namboodiri. Field work in the Silent Valley National Park was conducted with official permits from the Kerala State Forest and Wildlife
Department to A. Bijukumar (WL12-3423/2004) and Rajeev Raghavan (WL12-8550/2009). The authors thank two anonymous reviewers and the subject editor for
their constructive comments and suggestions that greatly improved the manuscript.
(ATREE).
4979
Fishes of Bharathapuzha River
Bijukumar et al.
INTRODUCTION
Information on diversity and distribution of species
is crucial for appropriate and timely decision making in
biodiversity conservation. Collation and dissemination
of such information is especially important for poorly
known yet threatened taxa such as freshwater fish, and
for critical biodiversity areas such as ‘Hotspots’. The
Western Ghats part of the Western Ghats - Sri Lanka
Biodiversity Hotspot in peninsular India is an exceptional
region of freshwater biodiversity (Dahanukar et al.
2011), where in spite of more than 200 years of research
the ichthyofauna continues to be influenced by both
the Linnaean and Wallacean shortfall (Dahanukar et al.
2011; Raghavan 2011). Although there are hundreds
of papers including checklists on freshwater fishes of
Kerala, in both peer-reviewed and gray literature, few
provide data that can be validated. Most checklists from
this region are not supported by voucher specimens,
photographs and/or taxonomic notes and are mere
compilations of secondary information from some of the
earlier ‘dated’ papers/checklists.
The Bharathapuzha River, also known as ‘Nila’ and
‘Perar’, originates from the northern and southern tips
of the Palakkad gap in the Western Ghats, as well as from
the gap. The minor tributaries join together to form
four major tributaries: Gayathripuzha, Chitturpuzha,
Kalpathipuzha, and Thoothapuzha (Image 1). It is the
second longest (209km) and largest (annual discharge of
3.94km3) among the west flowing perennial rivers in the
state of Kerala (Raj & Azeez 2012), as well as the river
with the most extensive basin area, second in length
and third in yield by thousand million cubic feet (TMCF;
Anon 1998). The Bharathapuzha watershed lies between
10025’–11015’N and 75050’–76055’E, and is located in the
Palakkad, Thrissur and Malappuram districts of Kerala
State. Bharathapuzha has a total basin area of 6,186km2,
of which 4,400km2 is in Kerala and the remaining in Tamil
Nadu (Raj & Azeez 2012).
The earliest ichthyological investigations in the
Bharathapuzha drainage (then Ponnani drainage of
erstwhile Malabar state in India) were carried out by
Jerdon (1849) and Day (1865). This was followed by
the works of Herre (1942, 1945), Silas (1951, 1958)
and subsequently Indra & Devi (1981), Devi & Indra
(1984; 1986), Easa & Basha (1995), Easa & Shaji (1997),
Bijukumar & Sushama (2001), Shaji (2002), Kurup et al.
(2004), Sushama et al. (2004) and Devi et al. (2005).
However, most of these studies were restricted to one or
a few regions and/or tributaries of the Bharathapuzha,
and a comprehensive study has not yet been realized.
4980
Here, we provide a comprehensive and consolidated
checklist of fishes of the Bharathapuzha River system
(backed by voucher specimens) and discuss their
distribution, threats and conservation. We also report
on the extension of range of an endemic cyprinid,
Osteochilichthys longidorsalis Pethiyagoda & Kottelat
1994, and a new site record for Pseudolaguvia austrina
Radhakrishnan, Kumar & Ng 2010, in the Bharathapuzha
River system.
Study area
Bharathapuzha has four major tributaries,
Gayathripuzha, Chitturpuzha (Kannadipuzha or
Amaravathipuzha), Kalpathipuzha and Thoothapuzha
(Image 1). From the confluence of Kalpathipuzha and
Chitturpuzha at Parali, the river acquires the name
‘Bharathapuzha’. The flow regime of the river includes
highlands (>76m), midlands (76–8 m) and lowlands
(<8m) (Raj & Azeez 2009). A series of large dams have
been constructed across the Bharathapuzha River
and its tributaries; two dams are located in Tamil
Nadu (Thirumoorthy and Aliyar) and seven in Kerala
(Kanjirapuzha, Malampuzha, Walayar, Meenkara,
Chulliar, Pothundy and Mangalam). Further, there
are two major diversion schemes, Moolathara and
Cheerakkuzhy, in addition to a Thrithala-Velliyamkallu
regulator-cum-bridge. A series of check dams are built
across the lower reaches of Bharathapuzha in order to
retain water temporarily.
The Reserved Forest area in the Bharathapuzha
Basin in Kerala is around 625km2, while it is 800km2
including forest vegetation in Tamil Nadu (Image 2).
While Chitturpuzha watershed has forest cover in the
Anamalai hills of Tamil Nadu State (Aliyar tributary),
the forest patches in Kalpathipuzha, Gayathripuzha and
Thoothapuzha are represented by 177km2, 196km2,
and 252km2 of forest areas respectively in the State of
Kerala. The Bharathapuzha and its tributaries also drain
three important protected areas, the Indira Gandhi Tiger
Reserve, the Parambikulam Tiger Reserve, and the Silent
Valley National Park, apart from many areas declared as
reserved forests.
Sampling sites and methods
As part of the present study, surveys were carried
out in all the four tributaries, viz., Gayathripuzha,
Chitturpuzha,
Kalpathipuzha
(Image
3)
and
Thoothapuzha (Image 4) of the Bharathapuzha River and
Bijukumar et al.
Image 1. Bharathapuzha River basin showing the major tributaries and streams
Image 2. Extent of forest cover in the Bharathapuzha River basin
4981
Bijukumar et al.
© Rajeev Raghavan
© Rajeev Raghavan
Image 3. Stream in the upper reaches of the Kalpathipuzha tributary
of Bharathapuzha River
© Rajeev Raghavan
Image 4. A cascade in Meenvallam in the Thoothapuzha tributary of
Bharathapuzha River
Image 5. Kunthipuzha stream inside the Silent Valley National Park
the Kunthipuzha stream (of Thoothapuzha tributary)
flowing through the Silent Valley National Park (Image
5) at multiple intervals from January 2004 to February
2013. Fishes were collected using a variety of active and
passive gears such as scoop nets, drag nets, cast nets, gill
nets and specially designed and fabricated net made of
mosquito nets. Random surveys were also carried out
in the major markets and landing centers along all the
five tributaries. Voucher specimens were preserved in
4% formaldehyde and whenever possible tissue samples
were preserved in 95% ethanol, and transferred to the
laboratory for further identification.
Species identification and morphometry
Fishes were identified by comparing measurements
and counts of the voucher specimens, with those of the
type/type series and/or as mentioned in the original
4982
description. All measurements were taken point to
point using dial calipers to the nearest 0.1mm. Voucher
specimens of all species recorded in this paper are
deposited at the Museum of the Department of Aquatic
Biology and Fisheries, University of Kerala (DAB-UoK),
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India and the Conservation
Research Group, St. Albert’s College (CRG-SAC), Kochi,
India. All species names except for the members of
the super family Cobitoidea, adhere to the Catalog of
Fishes (Eschmeyer 2013) unless otherwise mentioned.
For species within the super family Cobitoidea, a recent
checklist by Kottelat (2012) has been followed.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Diversity and distribution
A total of 117 species under 42 families and 81
genera were recorded from the Bharathapuzha River
system (Table 1). Of these, 98 species were primary
freshwater, and 19 were secondary freshwater and/
or diadromous species. Six species of non-native fish
were also recorded of which three (Cyprinus carpio,
Oreochromis mossambicus and O. niloticus) are exotic
to the country; while the rest were the Indian major
carps (Catla catla, Cirrhinus mrigala and Labeo rohita)
transplanted from the gangetic plains.
The main channel of the Bharathapuzha from Parali
to Purathoor estuary had the highest species richness
(S=75) followed by the Thoothapuzha (S=57) and
Kalpathipuzha (S=40) (Fig. 1). Of the 75 species found in
the main channel, 19 were secondary freshwater species.
Thoothapuzha tributary (excluding the Kunthipuzha
stream) has the highest species richness, when only
primary freshwater fish species are considered.
Although Kunthipuzha stream of the Thoothapuzha
tributary flowing through the Silent Valley National Park
had the lowest species richness (S=25), it has very high
conservation value, as two endemic species, Balitora
jalpalli and Mesonoemacheilus remadevii are restricted
to this stream.
Thirty-three species (28%) that occur in the
Bharathapuzha River are endemic to the Western Ghats,
eight species are endemic to the rivers of Kerala, and
three species (Balitora jalpalli, Mesonoemacheilus
remadevii and Pseudolaguvia austrina) are endemic to
the river system. One more species (listed as Garra sp.
in Table 1; see also appendix 1) may be endemic to the
Western Ghats, once its taxonomic identity is cleared.
All three species endemic to the Bharathapuzha River
have a restricted distribution in the Thoothapuzha
tributary. While B. jalpalli and M. remadevii are found
in the Kunthipuzha stream, P. austrina occurs as small
fragmented populations in the Kanjirapuzha and
Thoothapuzha streams.
A little more than one-tenth of species (11%; S=13)
that occur in the Bharathapuzha are listed as threatened
in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Fig. 2). This
Bijukumar et al.
Table 1. Fishes of the Bharathapuzha River, their micro-level
distribution, endemism and IUCN threat status
Family/Species
Distribution
IUCN Status
S3
LC
S5
LC
S5
DD
S4, S5
LC
S5
LC
S4, S5
LC
S5
NE
Stolephorus commersonii Lacepède,
1803S/D
S5
NE
Thryssa dussumieri (Valenciennes,
1848)S/D
S5
NE
S5
NE
Catla catla (Hamilton, 1822)
S1, S3, S5
LC
Cirrhinus mrigala (Hamilton, 1822)
S1, S3, S5
LC
Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, 1758
S1, S3
-
Hypselobarbus kurali Menon &
Remadevi, 1995¶¶
S1
LC
Labeo fimbriatus (Bloch, 1795)
S1
LC
Notopteridae
Notopterus notopterus (Pallas, 1769)
Elopidae
Elops machnata (Forsskål, 1775)S/D
Megalopidae
Megalops cyprinoides (Broussonet,
1782)S/D
Anguillidae
Anguilla bengalensis (Gray, 1831)
A. bicolor McClelland, 1844
Clupeidae
Dayella malabarica (Day, 1873)¶
Ehirava fluviatilis Deraniyagala, 1929
Engraulidae
Chanidae
Chanos chanos (Forsskål, 1775)S/D
Cyprinidae
L. rohita (Hamilton, 1822)
S1, S3, S5
LC
Osteochilichthys longidorsalis
Pethiyagoda & Kottelat, 1994¶
S4
EN
O. nashii (Day, 1869) (Image 11)
S6
LC
Barbodes carnaticus (Jerdon, 1849)¶¶
(Image 12)
S6
LC
S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
LC
¶¶
Dawkinsia filamentosa
(Valenciennes, 1844)
D. assimilis (Jerdon, 1849)
S4
VU
Haludaria fasciata (Jerdon, 1849) ¶¶
(Image 13)
S4, S6
LC
Pethia conchonius (Hamilton, 1822)
S2
LC
S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
LC
S1, S3, S4
DD
S4, S5
LC
¶¶
P. ticto (Hamilton, 1822)
Puntius amphibius (Valenciennes,
1842)
P. chola (Hamilton, 1822)
P. mahecola (Valenciennes, 1844)
¶¶
P. parrah Day, 1865¶¶
P. sophore (Hamilton, 1822)
P. vittatus Day, 1865
Figure 1. Fish species richness in different tributaries of the
Bharathapuzha River and the Kunthipuzha stream in the Silent
Valley National Park
S1, S4
DD
S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
LC
S2
LC
S1, S2, S4, S5
LC
Sahyadria denisonii (Day, 1865) ¶¶
S4
EN
Systomus sarana (Hamilton, 1822)
S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
LC
S4, S5
EN
Tor malabaricus (Jerdon, 1849)¶¶
4983
Bijukumar et al.
Family/Species
Distribution
Laubuca dadiburjori Menon, 1952
¶¶
IUCN Status
Family/Species
S5
LC
Ompok bimaculatus (Bloch, 1794)
Distribution
IUCN Status
S1, S3, S4
NT
S1, S4, S5
LC
S4
EN
S4, S6
VU
O. malabaricus (Valenciennes, 1840)
S1, S2, S3, S4
LC
Schilbeidae
S5, S6
LC
Pseudeutropius mitchelli Günther,
1864¶
S5
LC
Sisoridae
S2, S3, S4, S5
LC
S4, S5
EN
S1, S6
LC
Glyptothorax anamalaiensis Silas,
1952¶¶
S3, S4, S5
LC
G. annandalei Hora, 1923
S4, S6
LC
S4, S6
LC
Pseudolaguvia austrina
Radhakrishnan et al. 2010Ʃ
S4
NE
S1, S2, S4, S5, S6
LC
S1, S3, S4, S5
LC
Clarias dussumieri Valenciennes,
1840¶¶
S1, S3
NT
S5
LC
Heteropneustidae
S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
NE
S1, S2, S3, S5
LC
Garra menoni Indra & Rema Devi,
1984¶ (Image 14)
S6
VU
Ambassis ambassis (Lacepède,
1802)S/D
S5
LC
G. mullya (Sykes, 1839) (Image 15)
S1, S2, S3, S4,
S5, S6
LC
Parambassis dayi (Bleeker, 1874)
S4, S6
EN
P. thomassi (Day, 1870)¶¶
S6
-
L. fasciata Silas, 1958
¶
Salmophasia balookee (Sykes, 1839)
S. boopis (Day, 1874) ¶¶
Amblypharyngodon melettinus
A. microlepis (Bleeker, 1853)
Barilius bakeri (Day, 1865)
¶¶
B. bendelisis (Hamilton, 1807)
B. gatensis (Valenciennes, 1844) ¶¶
Devario malabaricus (Jerdon,
1849)¶¶
D. aequipinnatus (McClelland, 1839)
Esomus danricus (Hamilton, 1822)
Rasbora dandia (Valenciennes,
1844)
G. joshuai Silas, 1954¶¶
Garra sp
a
¶¶
Clariidae
Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch, 1794)
Ambassidae
S1, S5
LC
S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
LC
S5
LC
S1, S5
LC
S5
VU
S4
LC
Aplocheilus blockii Arnold, 1911
S4, S5
LC
A. lineatus (Valenciennes, 1846)
S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
LC
S5
LC
S5
NE
S5
NE
S5
NE
S5
NE
S5
LC
S5
NE
S5
LC
¶¶
Scatophagidae
Scatophagus argus (Linnaeus, 1766)
Balitoridae
S/D
Balitora jalpalli Raghavan et al.,
2013Ʃ
S6
NE
Hemirhamphidae
Bhavania australis (Jerdon, 1849)
S4, S6
LC
Homaloptera menoni Shaji & Easa,
1995¶
Hyporhamphus limbatus
S6
LC
H. pillai Indra & Remadevi, 1981
(Image 16)
H. xanthopterus (Valenciennes,
1847)
S6
LC
Belonidae
¶¶
¶
Nemacheilidae
Xenentodon cancila (Hamilton, 1822)
Mesonoemacheilus guentheri Day,
1867¶¶ (Image 17)
Aplocheilidae
S4, S5, S6
LC
M. remadevii Shaji, 2002Ʃ
S4, S6
LC
M. triangularis Day, 1865¶¶
S2, S4, S5
LC
S6
LC
S4, S6
LC
Platycephalidae
S6
LC
Grammoplites scaber (Linnaeus,
1758)S/D
Lepidocephalichthys thermalis
S2, S4, S6
LC
Pangio goaensis (Tilak, 1972)¶¶
S5
Nemacheilus monilis Hora, 1921¶¶
(Image 18)
Schistura denisoni Day, 1867¶¶
S. semiarmatus Day, 1867¶¶ (Image
19)
Cobitidae
Syngnathidae
Microphis cuncalus (Hamilton, 1822)
Centropomidae
LC
Bagridae
Lates calcarifer (Bloch, 1790)S/D
Sillaginidae
Sillago sihama (Forsskål, 1775)S/D
Carangidae
Batasio travancoria Hora & Law,
1941¶
S5
VU
Hemibagrus punctatus (Jerdon,
1849)¶¶
S4
CR
Mystus seengtee (Sykes, 1839)
S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
NE
S5
LC
S1, S2, S3, S4
NT
S1, S2, S5
LC
Lutjanus argentimaculatus (Forsskål,
1775)S/D
S3
LC
Gerreidae
M. gulio (Hamilton, 1822)
M. malabaricus (Jerdon, 1849)¶¶
M. montanus (Jerdon, 1849)
M. oculatus (Valenciennes, 1840) ¶¶
Siluridae
4984
Carangoides malabaricus (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801)S/D
Leiognathidae
Leiognathus equulus (Forsskål,
1775) S/D
Lutjanidae
Gerres filamentosus Cuvier, 1829S/D
Bijukumar et al.
Family/Species
Distribution
IUCN Status
S5
LC
S3, S4, S5
LC
S4
LC
1
Teraponidae
Terapon jarbua (Forsskål, 1775)S/D
Nandidae
Nandus nandus (Hamilton, 1822)
Pristolepis marginata Jerdon, 1849¶¶
4
16
6
CR
6
3
EN
VU
NT
Cichlidae
Etroplus maculatus (Bloch, 1795)
S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
LC
E. suratensis (Bloch, 1790)
S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
LC
Oreochromis mossambicus (Peters,
1852)
S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
-
S5
-
Chelon parsia (Hamilton, 1822)S/D
S5
NE
Mugil cephalus Linnaeus, 1758
S5
LC
S5
LC
S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
LC
S5
LC
S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
DD
S1, S3, S5
LC
S3
LC
O. niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758)
LC
DD
77
NE
Mugilidae
S/D
Eleotridae
Eleotris fusca (Forster, 1801)
Gobiidae
Glossogobius giuris (Hamilton, 1822)
Sicyopterus griseus (Day, 1877)
Anabantidae
Anabas testudineus (Bloch, 1792)
Osphronemidae
Pseudosphromenus cupanus (Cuvier,
1831)
Osphronemus goramy Lacepede,
1801
Channidae
Channa marulius (Hamilton, 1822)
S5
LC
S4, S6
LC
S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
LC
Macrognathus guntheri (Day,
1865)¶¶
S1, S3, S4, S5
LC
Mastacembelus armatus (Lacepède,
1800)
S1, S2, S3, S4,
S5, S6
LC
S5
NE
S5
NE
S1, S3, S4, S5
VU
C. gachua (Hamilton, 1822)
C. striata (Bloch, 1793)
Mastacembelidae
Cynoglossidae
Cynoglossus macrostomus Norman,
1928S/D
Soleidae
Brachirus orientalis (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801)S/D
Tetraodontidae
Carinotetraodon travancoricus (Hora
& Nair, 1941)¶¶
Secondary freshwater/diadromous;
Endemic to Western Ghats; ¶Endemic to Kerala; ƩEndemic to Bharathapuzha
river system
Distribution: S1: Kalpathipuzha; S2: Chitoorpuzha; S3: Gayatripuzha;
S4: Thoothapuzha; S5: Bharathapuzha (Parali to Purathoor estuary); S6:
Kunthipuzha/Silent Valley National Park
IUCN Status: CR - Critically Endangered, EN - Endangered, VU - Vulnerable, NT Near Threatened, LC - Least Concern, DD - Data Deficient, NE - Not Evaluated
a
See Appendix 1 for a discussion on Garra sp.
S/D
¶¶
Figure 2. Conservation status of fish species occurring in
Bharathapuzha River (only 113 species are listed here as 3 species
were exotic to the country and the identity of 1 species needs
confirmation).
includes one species listed as ‘Critically Endangered’
(CR) (Hemibagrus punctatus - however, see discussion in
Ali et al. 2013), six species listed as ‘Endangered’ (EN)
(however, see note on Garra joshuai) and six species
listed as ‘Vulnerable’ (VU). Majority of species (65%;
S=77) are listed as ‘Least Concern’ (LC). Thoothapuzha
tributary had the highest number of threatened species
(S=10) (Fig. 2).
Fishes of the Silent Valley National Park
The Silent Valley National Park (NP) (core area
of 89.52km2 and a buffer zone of 14.70km2), and an
altitude ranging from 200–2383 m) (Hosagoudar & Riju
2013) is one of the most important conservation areas
in the Western Ghats. Two streams, the west flowing
Kunthipuzha draining the core area and the east flowing
Bhavani draining the eastern segment of the buffer zone
of the Silent Valley National Park (see Easa & Basha
1995) comprise the type locality of four species, viz.,
Balitora jalpalli (Image 6), Garra menoni (Image 14),
Homaloptera pillaii (Image 16) and Mesonoemacheilus
remadevii (Image 7).
The Kunthipuzha stream of the Silent Valley National
Park has been surveyed in the past by Devi & Indra (1986)
and Easa & Basha (1995) who both recorded 11 species.
During our surveys carried out in 2010, we recorded
25 species (Table 1), thereby increasing the number
of freshwater fishes known from the Silent Valley NP.
However, this number cannot be considered as the actual
diversity of the National Park because several additional
species are found in the east flowing Bhavani River and
the Kadalundi River (draining the western segment of
the buffer zone), which is not mentioned herein.
4985
Bijukumar et al.
Range extension of Osteochilichthys longidorsalis
Pethiyagoda & Kottelat, 1994
Osteochilichthys longidorsalis was hitherto known
to be endemic to the Chalakudy and Periyar river
systems where it had a very restricted distribution (see
Raghavan & Ali 2011). During recent (February 2013)
field work in the Thoothapuzha tributary, we collected
a single specimen (CRG-SAC.2013.01; 79.98mm SL)
(Image 8) of a fish that resembled O. longidorsalis.
Detailed examination of the specimen indicated that
the measurements and counts (Table 2) were within the
range of topotypic material collected from Vettilapara,
Chalakudy River, and those mentioned in the original
description of Pethiyagoda & Kottelat (1994). We
therefore extend the range of O. longidorsalis to the
Bharathapuzha River system.
We believe that O. longidorsalis could have had a
much more extensive range of distribution north and
south of the Palakkad Gap in stream habitats providing
a very specific niche. But over time, the continuity in
the range of distribution was broken and inadequacy
of geographical coverage during surveys left isolated
Image 6. Balitora jalpalli, a balitorid loach endemic to the
Kunthipuzha stream of Silent Valley National Park [adapted from
Raghavan et al. 2013b]
© Fibin Baby/Josin Tharian
Image 7. Mesonoemacheilus remadevii, a balitorid loach endemic to
the Bharathapuzha River system.
Table 2. Morphometric characteristics of Osteochilichthys
longidorsalis collected from Bharathapuzha River
CRG.SAC.2013.01
Standard length (SL) in mm
Pethiaygoda &
Kottelat (1994)
79.9
102-235
Total length
136.5
126.8 - 138.1
Depth of body
30.9
29.2 - 33.2
Depth of caudal peduncle
13.2
11.3 - 13.1
Length of caudal peduncle
15.7
na
Lateral head length
25.0
20.8 - 25.3
Dorsal head length
21.4
20.7 - 23.4
Pre dorsal length
48.3
na
Pre anal length
75.8
na
Pre pelvic length
51.2
na
Maximum head width
16.1
14.2 - 16.8
Maximum body width
20.8
16.0 - 19.5
Pectoral fin length
24.4
22.7 - 26.3
Pelvic fin length
24.5
23.1 - 26.2
Dorsal fin length
28.4
24.1 - 46.6
Snout length
37.2
37 - 45
Eye diameter
31.9
22 - 29
Inter orbital distance
43.8
36 - 51
Inter nares distance
26.2
28 - 36
% SL
% lateral HL
4986
© Anvar Ali
Image 8. Specimen of Osteochilichthys longidorsalis, collected from
the Bharathapuzha River system.
© Anvar Ali
Image 9. Pseudolaguvia austrina, a sisorid catfish endemic to the
Bharathapuzha River system.
Image 10. Specimen of Hemibagrus cf punctatus recorded from
Kanjirapuzha tributary of Bharatapuzha River in 2008. [Scale in cm]
[Adapted from Ali et al. 2013]
Bijukumar et al.
© Josin Tharian
© Fibin Baby
Image 12. Barbodes carnaticus
Image 11. Osteochilichthys nashii © Fibin Baby
Image 14. Garra menoni
© Fibin Baby
Image 13. Haludaria fasciata
© Josin Tharian
Image 16. Homaloptera pillaii
© Fibin Baby
Image 15 . Garra mullya © Rajeev Raghavan
Image 17. Mesonoemacheilus guentheri
© Josin Tharian
Image 18. Nemacheilus monilis
populations unreported. Thus, there is also a possibility
that this species might occur in the upper reaches of the
neighbouring Chaliyar basin.
We prefer to retain the generic name Osteochilichthys
instead of Osteochilus as mentioned in the Catalog of
Fishes (Eschmeyer 2013). The reason being that no
© Rateesh
Image 19. Schistura semiarmatus
4987
Bijukumar et al.
taxonomic revision of this species has taken place and
Eschmeyer (2013) merely cites Thomas et al. (2002),
who, without any justification and discussion, chose to
use the name Osteochilus over Osteochilichthys in their
paper on the fishes of southern Kerala (see additional
discussion in Appendix 1).
New site record for Pseudolaguvia austrina
Radhakrishnan, Suresh Kumar & Ng, 2010
Pseudolaguvia austrina (Image 9) was the first
member of this genus described from peninsular India
near the town of Mannarkad (Kunthipuzha stream) in the
Bharathapuzha River system (Radhakrishnan et al. 2010).
During a recent survey (February 2013), one specimen
of P. austrina (CRG-SAC-2013. 11.1 30.34mm SL) was
collected from Thoothapuzha (~20km downstream of
the type locality). This forms a new site record.
Threats to the riverine ecosystem and biodiversity
Bharathapuzha comprise one of the 16 catchments
in the southern Western Ghats that has the highest
species richness and endemism of freshwater taxa
including fish, mollusc and odonates (Molur et al.
2011). It is also one of the five catchments along with
Periyar, Pamba, Manimala and Chaliyar that qualify as
potential freshwater ‘Key Biodiversity Areas’ (KBAs)
(Molur et al. 2011). In spite of this, Bharathapuzha is
one of the most degraded and threatened river systems
in the region. Several anthropogenic stressors including
deforestation and loss of riparian cover, dams and other
impoundments, pollution, sand mining, non-native
species, climate change and destructive fishing practices
are threatening the fish diversity of Bharathapuzha River
system.
Deforestation and loss of riparian vegetation: The
Bharathapuzha River basin has undergone large-scale
deforestation due to construction of several dams (Raj
& Azeez 2011). Deforestation is prominent in several
catchment areas such as Mangalam, Nelliyampathy,
Walayar, Malampuzha, Nellipuzha, Dhoni and
Kalladikode. Forest lands have been transformed
into largely monoculture plantations (Raj & Azeez
2010a). During the period 1973–2005, the natural
vegetation cover in the river basin declined by 31%, as
a result of the increase in area under plantations (Raj
& Azeez 2010b). The riparian vegetation along the
Bharathapuzha and its tributaries are severely disturbed
or in some cases totally destroyed. In addition, there is
also a threat from invasion by exotic plants all along the
river basin. The loss of forest cover at such high rates
impact freshwater fishes since a significant proportion of
4988
the riverine species in the Western Ghats region exploit
allochthonous food resources (Arunachalam 2000).
Increased sedimentation as a result of deforestation
changes the river bed habitat and thus degrades the
breeding substrate of many fish species (Dahanukar et
al. 2011). In this way, the deforestation in the upstream
catchments of the Bharathapuzha can impact several
hill stream loaches of the family Balitoridae, Cobitidae
and Nemacheilidae which require pebbles and gravel in
their microhabitats for breeding (Dahanukar et al. 2011).
There are at least 10 species of loaches inhibiting the
various hill streams tributaries of Bharathapuzha.
Dams and other impoundments: Dams are a major
threat to freshwater biodiversity (Vorosmarty et al. 2010).
Dams remove turbulent river sections and create tranquil
water bodies, thereby affecting flow and temperature
regimes, sediment transport, and species communities
(Liermann et al. 2012). Several dams worldwide now
impair habitat and migration opportunities for many
freshwater fish species (Liermann et al. 2012) including
those that are endemic and threatened (Xie et al. 2007).
Bharathapuzha has been dammed extensively,
mainly for irrigation and water diversion purposes.
Eleven irrigation projects and several surface dams in
the river basin cater to 493.06km2 agriculture lands
(Raj & Azeez 2010a). In addition, there are many check
dams - temporary or permanent small impoundments
for regulating water flow, on the Bharathapuzha. These
small dams retain excess water flow during monsoon
rains in a small catchment area behind the structure,
thereby replenishing nearby groundwater reserves and
wells. The dams and other impoundments along the
Bharathapuzha River have impacted the movements of
diadromous and catadromous species such as eels as
evident from the lesser abundance of eels in the river in
the recent past (A. Bijukumar & R. Raghavan pers. obser.
2012). The check dams in the river are also reported
to affect the water quality in upstream and downstream
areas (Bijukumar & Kurian 2008).
Pollution: Asian rivers are heavily polluted and
degraded (Dudgeon 2000). Pollution has also been
identified as the important threat to the fish fauna of the
Western Ghats (Dahanukar et al. 2011). Bharathapuzha
River basin supports extensive area under agriculture
and plantations. Agro-based pollutants such as chemical
fertilizers, pesticides, weedicides and nutrients are
frequently washed down into the river, constituting a
major ecological problem. Eutrophication has resulted
in the abundance of filamentous algae and weeds
in the lower reaches of the river, particularly from
Chamravattom to Purakkad. In addition to agro-based
pollutants, Bharathapuzha and its tributaries also receive
substantial amount of urban sewage. For example, the
town of Pattambi is one such polluted area along the
river, where the urban sewage canals directly open into
the river, through which the municipal waste is dumped.
Such large scale pollution not only degrades the habitat
but also causes endocrine disruptions and several other
physiological imbalances in fish including breeding
failure which could ultimately lead to their extirpation.
Limestone mining is being carried out in the
catchment areas of Malampuzha in the Kalpathipuzha
tributary, leading to siltation and pollution in the
streams and the reservoir. Silicate content of water
in this area has been found to be very high (Sushama
2003). Massive dumping of mining debris and wastes
has also completely destroyed the Seemanthinipuzha,
one of the streams joining the Malampuzha.
Sand mining: Over the years, indiscriminate sand
mining has caused irreparable damages to several river
systems on the southwestern coast of India (Sreebha
& Padmalal 2011). Indiscriminate sand mining from
Bharathapuzha has contributed immensely to the
destruction of the river, and is now the dominant threat
to the ecosystem and biodiversity of the river basin. The
entire river bed is dug up, and a large number of trucks
ply through the river bed daily to collect river sand.
The situation is most alarming between Pattambi and
Thirunavaya, where both legal and illegal sand quarrying
goes on unabatedly. We observed that in the Ottapalam
Revenue Division, in addition to the 18 stations (kadavus)
fixed by the Kerala Government for sand quarrying,
there are several ‘private’ kadavus operating in parallel
possibility with the connivance of authorities. The
quantity of sand collected from these private kadavus
exceeds those from legal ones. In addition, small-scale
removal of sand by local people is also damaging the
river bed in many areas. In Navalin Kadavu near the
village of Peringottukurussi, sand is collected in large
quantities from within the check-dams using large rafts
made of rubber tubes. The sand thus collected is then
loaded on to trucks and transported. In many places
small-scale removal of sand is not to cater for the local
demands, but for supplying the big contractors. Studies
conducted by Centre for Earth Science Studies (CESS),
Thiruvananthapuram (CESS 1997) have shown that the
rate of sand removal from the Bharathapuzha is several
times more than the natural rate of replenishment. Such
massive sand removal will have a highly detrimental
impact on ichthyofauna of the river as sand is the
preferred breeding substrate for many fish species. In
addition, sand mining alter aquatic food web as well
Bijukumar et al.
as nutrient cycles, and is a direct threat to the survival
of several species such as Glossogobius giuris and
Sicyopterus griseus that prefer sand substratum.
Non native species: Six species of non-native fish
occur in the Bharathapuzha (Table 1) of which three
(Cyprinus carpio, Oreochromis mossambicus and O.
niloticus) are exotic to the country, while the remaining
three are the Indian major carps (Catla catla, Cirrhinus
mrigala and Labeo rohita) which were transplanted
from the gangetic plains for stock enhancement and
aquaculture. Many reservoirs in the Bharathapuzha
basin have been stocked with the non-native carps as
well as the giant freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium
rosenbergii) during the last several decades and have
even been considered to be one of the success-stories of
capture based culture fisheries (Peters & Feustel 1998;
Kutty et al. 2008). Collections of these non-native carps
from the lower reaches of the river indicate their escape
from the reservoirs.
The first record of the Nile Tilapia, O. niloticus from
the rivers of Kerala was made from Bharathapuzha
(Bijukumar 2008). In addition, the Mozambique Tilapia,
O. mossambicus has established viable populations
throughout the river, including the estuarine areas. The
African catfish, Clarias gariepinus is being clandestinely
cultured in many regions of the Bharathapuzha basin and
may have found its way into the river system. However,
we have not been able to record any specimens as yet
from the wild.
Climate change: Freshwater fish are known to
be at an increasing risk to climate change especially
given the inextricable link between fish physiology and
temperature (see Ficke et al. 2007). The Bharathapuzha
watershed experiences an average annual rainfall of
2500mm, which is about 17% less than the state average
(Anon 1998). Recent studies have observed changes
in both rainfall and temperature in the river basin (Raj
& Azeez 2010a, Raj & Azeez 2011). An overall upward
trend in annual and daily temperature was observed
in the river basin during 1969 to 2005 (Raj & Azeez
2011). The impacts of climate change phenomena
on the ichthyofauna of Bharathapuzha remains to be
investigated further.
Unregulated aquarium fish exports: Unmanaged
aquarium fish collection and exports is an emerging
threat to the endemic fish diversity of Western Ghats
(Raghavan et al. 2013a). In Thoothapuzha tributary,
the endangered Sahyadria denisonii is being collected
in massive quantities for the ornamental fish trade,
even by government supported agencies such as Kerala
Aquatic Ventures Private Limited (KAVIL). In addition,
4989
Bijukumar et al.
species such as Mesonoemacheilus remadevii, restricted
to the Silent Valley National Park have been found to
be occurring in the trade (Raghavan et al. 2013a). This
shows a clear lack of co-ordination between various
government departments highlighting a serious lapse in
policy decisions.
Destructive fishing practices: The destructive fishing
methods recorded in the river basin include use of plant
poisons, dynamiting and the use of small mesh nets.
Dynamiting is more prevalent in the tributaries where
traditional fishermen are less in number.
Conservation measures
Like in other parts of the Western Ghats (see
Dahanukar et al. 2011), the multi-stakeholder issues
related to the use of fresh water in the Bharathapuzha
basin has meant that indigenous fish species are
least valued, and their conservation has never been a
priority. Dudgeon et al. (2006) considers the protection
and management of freshwater biodiversity as a
conservation challenge and suggests that a combination
of strategies and action plans would be highly essential
to conserve freshwater ecosystems and their resources.
Based on local conditions, we suggest a set of strategies
that will help protect the ecosystem and facilitate the
conservation and management of the native aquatic
fauna of Bharathapuzha.
Integrated watershed development programs
should be given top priority. To stop further ecological
degradation of the river and to ensure sufficient water
discharge downstream, any proposals for new check
dams should be treated with caution. Similarly, we
suggest that clearance should not be given to any new
medium or large dam in the Bharathapuzha River basin.
Ecorestoration activities should be taken up in several
stretches of the river using the River Management Fund
available with district authorities. The ecorestoration
activities can also be integrated into ongoing government
assisted programmes such as Mahatma Gandhi National
Rural Employment Generation Programme (MGNREGP)
and Western Ghats Development Programme. We
also suggest that all local self governments within the
river basin should include ecorestoration of river as
an integral component in their project planning and
implementation.
As sand mining is one of the most important threats
to the ecological integrity of the Bharathapuzha River
system, effective enforcement mechanisms should be
put into place to curb this menace. Suitable eco-friendly
alternatives to sand should also be popularised by
adopting awareness campaigns. Large scale cultivation
4990
and farming activities should be prohibited within the
river basin, and mechanisms should be adopted to
spread awareness to minimize the use of pesticides and
other agro-chemicals in the plantations located in the
upstream areas.
Spatial conservation options such as ‘aquatic
biodiversity management zones’ (ABMZ) and ‘fish
refugias’ should be declared for conserving important
areas rich in endemic and threatened species. The
thootha tributary is a potential site for consideration as
ABMZ as it harbours several endemic and threatened
species, and the habitat is subjected to considerable
illegal fishing including collection of endemic and
threatened fishes for the aquarium trade.
There is also a need to revise the Red List status
of several species of fishes including those that are
endemic to the Silent Valley National Park. Many
endemic species of this protected area were categorised
as ‘Least Concern’ in view of the absence of any current
or plausible future threats. However, recent studies (for
e.g., Raghavan et al. 2013a) have revealed that endemic
and restricted range species such as Mesonoemacheilus
remadevii are being collected and exported for the
aquarium pet trade thereby raising concerns on the
wild populations of the other endemic balitorid and
nemacheilid loaches as well.
Regulations should be brought into place to stop
the unmanaged collection of endemic and threatened
aquarium fishes from many areas in the river basin.
Stronger enforcement is also required to prohibit the use
of destructive fishing practices, especially dynamiting.
Though the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India
has issued “Guidelines for the Import of Ornamental
Fishes into India” based on the recommendations
of the National Committee on Introduction of Exotic
Aquatic Species into India, it has failed to prevent the
entry of exotic fishes into the natural ecosystems of the
country including the Bharathapuzha. A legally binding
strategy is therefore required to regulate exotic fish
into the country, and to restore the ecosystems already
debilitated by the invasion of alien species.
Finally, there is a need for increased education
and awareness programs to improve the conservation
needs and profile of the Bharathapuzha River system.
Since information on the river and its ecology is
lacking, students and teachers from local schools and
colleges within the river basin can be employed for data
collection, monitoring and eco-restoration activities.
The Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs)
at the local Panchayaths formed as per the Biological
Diversity Act of India (2002), as well as the traditional
Bijukumar et al.
Appendix 1: Taxonomic notes
For the sake of clarity, we provide notes on some of the generic/species names mentioned in this paper, which may be different from
previous papers published from the Western Ghats/Kerala region.
Garra sp (listed in table 1). This pertains to a species of Garra that has been routinely identified in the literature as Garra gotyla stenorhynchus.
Until the identity of Garra gotyla Gray is established with a neotype, and the species validity of the materials identified as Garra gotyla and
G. stenorhynchus from the Western Ghats is validated, we prefer to treat the Bharathapuzha material as Garra sp.
Hypselobarbus: There is considerable taxonomic ambiguity on the generic name (Gonoproktopterus vs. Hypselobarbus) of this group. We
follow Arunachalam et al. (2012) and Yang et al. (2012) and use the name Hypselobarbus instead of Gonoproktopterus.
Horalabiosa: Horalabiosa is a genus with a complex taxonomic history. For several years, Horalabiosa was considered to be a hybrid
between Garra and Rasbora (See Jayaram 2010). Subsequently, the type species, H. joshuai was considered to be a synonym of Garra
mullya (Talwar & Jhingran 1991). Devi (1993) established the validity of, and re-described H. joshuai based on the examination of more
than 500 individuals. However, recent molecular studies have re-proposed Horalabiosa as a junior synonym of Garra (Yang et al. 2012),
which we follow.
Osteochilichthys: We follow Pethiyagoda et al. (2012) and Karnasuta (1993) and use the generic name Osteochilichthys (for O. longidorsalis)
instead of Osteochilus as mentioned in the Catalog of Fishes (Eschmeyer 2013). The reason being that Eschmeyer (2013) merely cites
Thomas et al. (2002) who without any justification and discussion, chose to use the name Osteochilus over Osteochilichthys in their paper
on the fishes of southern Kerala.
Barbodes: Pethiyagoda et al. (2012) mentions that Jerdon’s (1849) description of B. carnaticus is uninformative, and there is no known
surviving type material; and as a result, subsequent authors have followed Day’s (1878: 563, pl. 137) conception of the species. However,
Pethiyagoda & Kottelat (2005) suggested that the figure of Barbus carnaticus in Day (1878: pl. 137) possibly illustrates a species of
Neolissochilus. However, examination of Day’s materials in the Australian Museum (see Pethiyagoda et al. 2012) reveals that they differ from
Neolissochilus. The exact generic status of this taxon is therefore uncertain (Pethiyagoda et al. 2012), and we retain the name Barbodes,
pending detailed taxonomic investigations. Although Arunachalam et al. (2012) placed Barbodes carnaticus into another unresolved genus
‘Hypselobarbus’, this was not based on taxonomical evidence and/or range wide sampling. In addition, there is no mention whether they
had used topotypic material of B. carnaticus. There are also several inconsistencies in the results of Arunachalam et al. (2012) as they
illustrate a specimen of Gonoproktopterus dubius and wrongly identify it as B. carnaticus (Arunachalam et al. 2012; Fig 1. p 64).
Sahyadria: A new genus, Sahyadria has been proposed to include the two species of Redline Torpedo Barbs, Sahyadria denisonii and S.
chalakkudiensis (see Raghavan et al. 2013)
fishing communities, students involved in the National
Green Corps (NGC) and eco-club networks could be
effectively used to monitor and conserve fish habitats. in
the Bharathapuzha River basin.
REFERENCES
Ali, A., N. Dahanukar, A. Kanagavel, S. Philip & R. Raghavan (2013).
Records of the endemic and threatened catfish, Hemibagrus
punctatus from the southern Western Ghats with notes on its
distribution, ecology and conservation status. Journal of Threatened
Taxa
5(11):
4569–4578;
http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.
o3427.4569-78
Anonymous (1998). Watershed Atlas of Kerala. Vol. I and II. Kerala
State Land Use Board, Kerala State Remote Sensing & Environment
Centre, Department of Space and Soil Conservation Wing.
Arunachalam, M., M. Raja, M. Muralidharan & R.L.
Mayden (2012). Phylogenetic relationships of species
of Hypselobarbus (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae): an enigmatic clade
endemic to aquatic systems of India. Zootaxa 3499: 63–73.
Arunachalam, M. (2000). Assemblage structure of stream fishes
in the Western Ghats. Hydrobiologia 430: 1–31; http://dx.doi.
org/10.1023/A:1004080829388
Bijukumar, A. (2008). First record of Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus
L. (Pisces: Cichlidae) from Kerala. Journal of Inland Fisheries Society
of India 40(2): 68–69.
Bijukumar, A. & K.A. Abraham (2008). Impact of check dams on
the hydrography of a tropical river, Bharathapuzha, Kerala, India.
Екологія та ноосферологія 19(1–2): 11–18.
Bijukumar, A. & S. Sushama (2001). The fish fauna of Bharathapuzha
river, Kerala. Journal of the Bombay Natural History of India 98(3):
464–468.
Center for Earth Science Studies (CESS). (1997). A report on
Bharathapuzha River. Submitted to the Government of Kerala by
Centre for Earth Science Studies, Thiruvananthapuram, June, 1997.
Dahanukar, N., R. Raghavan, A. Ali, R. Abraham & C.P. Shaji (2011). The
status and distribution of freshwater fishes of the Western Ghats,
pp. 21–48. In: The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity
in the Western Ghats, India. In: Molur, S., K.G. Smith., B.A. Daniel.
& W.R.T. Darwall (eds)., International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland and Zoo Outreach Organization
(ZOO) Coimbatore, India.
Day, F. (1865). The Fishes of Malabar. London. i-xxxii+293pp, 20pls.
Day, F. (1878). The Fishes of India; Being a Natural History of the Fishes
Known to Inhabit the Seas and Fresh Waters of India, Burma, and
Ceylon Part 4. Quaritsch, London, i-xx+553–779, pls. 139–195.
Devi, K.R. (1993). Fishes of Kalakkad Wildlife Sanctuary, Tirunelveli
District, Tamil Nadu, India, with a redescription of Horalabiosa
joshuai Silas. Records of the Zoological Survey of India 92 (1–4):
193–209.
Devi, K.R. & T.J. Indra (1984). Garra menoni a new Cyprinid fish from
Silent Valley, Kerala, South India. Bulletin of Zoological Survey of
India 5: 121–122.
Devi, K.R. & T.J. Indra (1986). Fishes of Silent Valley. Records of
Zoological Survey of India 84(1–4): 243–257.
4991
Bijukumar et al.
Devi, K.R., T.J. Indra, M.B. Raghunathan & M.S. Ravichandran (2005).
Fish fauna of the Anamalai hill ranges, Western Ghats, India. Zoos’
Print Journal 20(3): 1809–1811; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.
ZPJ.1164a.1809-11
Dudgeon, D., A.H. Arthington, M.O. Gessner, Z.I. Kawabata, D.J.
Knowler, C. Leveque, R.J. Naiman, A.H Prieur-Richard, D. Soto,
M.L.J. Stiassny & C.A. Sullivan (2006). Freshwater biodiversity:
importance, threats, status and conservation challenges.
Biological Reviews 81: 163–182; http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S1464793105006950
Dudgeon, D. (2000). The ecology of tropical Asian rivers and streams
in relation to biodiversity conservation. Annual Reviews of Ecology
and Systematics 31: 239–263; http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
ecolsys.31.1.239
Easa, P.S. & S.C. Basha (1995). A survey of the habitat and distribution
of stream fishes in the Kerala part of Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve.
Kerala Fisheries Research Institute No. 104.
Easa, P.S. & C.P. Shaji (1997). Freshwater fish diversity in Kerala part of
the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve. Current Science 73: 180–182.
Eschmeyer, W.N. (Ed). Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of
Sciences (http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/
catalog/fishcatmain.asp). Electronic version accessed 21 May 2013.
Ficke, A.D., C.A. Myrick. & L.J. Hansen (2007). Potential impacts of
global climate change on freshwater fisheries. Reviews in Fish
Biology and Fisheries 17(4): 581–613; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11160-007-9059-5
Herre, A.W.C.T. (1942). Glyptothorax housei, a new sisorid catfish from
south India. Stanford Ichthyological Bulletin 2 (4): 117–119.
Herre, A.W.C.T. (1945). Notes on fishes in the zoological museum of
Stanford University XX. New fishes from china and india - A new
genus and a new Indian record. Journal of the Washington Academy
of Science 35: 399–404.
Hosagoudar, V.B. & M.C. Riju (2013). Foliicolous fungi of Silent Valley
National Park, Kerala, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(3): 3701–
3788; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3302.01-88
Indra, T.J. & K.R. Devi (1981). A new species of the genus Homaloptera
from Silent Valley, Kerala, South India. Journal of the Bombay
Jayaram, K.C. (2010). The Freshwater Fishes of the Indian Region.
Narendra Publishing House, New Delhi, India, 616p+XXXIX plates.
Jerdon, T.C. (1849). On the fresh-water fishes of southern India.
(continued from p. 149.) Madras Journal of Literature and
Science 15(2): 302–346.
Karnasuta, J. (1993). Systematic revision of southeastern Asiatic
cyprinid fish genus Osteochilus with description of two new species
and a new subspecies. Kasetsart University Fishery Research Bulletin
19: 105.
Kottelat, M. (2012). Conspectus cobitidium: an inventory of the
loaches of the world (Teleostei: Cypriniformes: Cobitoidea). The
Raffles Bulletin of Zoology Suppl 26: 1–199.
Kurup, B.M., K.V. Radhakrishnan & T.G. Manojkumar (2004).
Biodiversity status of fishes inhabiting rivers of Kerala (south India)
with special reference to endemism, threats and conservation
measures. In: Welcomme, R.L. & T. Petr. (eds). Proceedings of the
Second International Symposium on the Management of Large
Rivers for Fisheries 2 (LARS2), Cambodia, 310pp.
Kutty, M.N., C.M. Nair & K.R. Salin (2008). Reservoir fisheries of
freshwater prawn - success story of an emerging culture-based
giant freshwater prawn fishery at Malampuzha Dam in Kerala, India.
Aquaculture Asia Magazine, April–June 2008: 40–41.
Liermann, C.R., C. Nilsson, J. Robertson, R.Y. Ng (2012). Implications
of Dam Obstruction for Global Freshwater Fish Diversity. Bioscience
62(6): 539–548; http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.6.5
Molur, S., K.G. Smith, B.A. Daniel & W.R.T. Darwall (compilers)
(2011). The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in
the Western Ghats. International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN), Gland, Switzerland and Zoo Outreach Organization (ZOO)
Coimbatore, India.
Peters, D.M. & C. Feustel (1998). Social and economic aspects of
4992
fisheries enhancements in Kerala reservoirs. In: Petr, T. (ed.). Inland
Fishery Enhancements. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 374, 463p.
Pethiyagoda, R., M. Meegaskumbura & K. Maduwage (2012). A
synopsis of the South Asian fishes referred to Puntius (Pisces:
Cyprinidae). Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters 23(1): 69–95.
Pethiyagoda, R. & M. Kottelat (1994). New species of fishes of the
genera Osteochilichthys (Cyprinidae), Travancoria (Balitoridae) and
Horabagrus (Bagridae) from the Chalakudy River, Kerala, India.
Journal of South Asian Natural History 1: 97–116.
Pethiyagoda, R. & M. Kottelat (2005).The identity of the south Indian
barb Puntius mahecola (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). Raffles Bulletin of
Zoology, Supplement, 12: 145–152
Radhakrishnan, K.V., S. Sureshkumar & H.H. Ng (2010). Pseudolaguvia
austrina, a new species of sisorid catfish (Osteichthyes: Siluriformes)
from Peninsular India. Ichthyological Explorations of Freshwaters
21(4): 377–383.
Raghavan, R. (2011). Need for further research on the freshwater
fish fauna of the Ashambu Hills landscape: a response to Abraham
et al. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(5): 1788–1791; http://dx.doi.
org/10.11609/JoTT.o2755.1788-91
Raghavan, R., N. Dahanukar, M. Tlusty, A. Rhyne, K.K. Kumar, S. Molur
& A. Rosser (2013a). Uncovering an obscure trade: threatened
freshwater fishes and the aquarium markets. Biological Conservation
164: 158–169; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.04.019.
Raghavan, R., S. Philip, A. Ali & N. Dahanukar (2013). Sahyadria, a
new genus of barbs (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) from Western Ghats of
India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 4932–4938; http://dx.doi.
org/10.11609/JoTT.o3673.4932-8
Raghavan, R., J. Tharian, A. Ali, S. Jadhav & N. Dahanukar (2013b).
Balitora jalpalli, a new species of stone loach (Teleostei:
Cypriniformes: Balitoridae) from Silent Valley, southern Western
Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(5): 3921–3934; http://
dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.o3277.3921-34
Raj, P.P.N & P.A. Azeez (2009). Spatial and temporal variation in surface
water chemistry of a tropical river, the river Bharathapuzha, India.
Current Science 96(2): 245–251.
Raj, P.P.N. & P.A. Azeez (2010a). Changing rainfall in the Palakkad
plains of South India. Atmosphera 23(1): 75–82.
Raj, P.P.N. & P.A. Azeez (2010b). Land use and land cover changes
in a tropical river basin: a case from Bharathapuzha River basin,
southern India. Journal of Geographic Information System 2: 185–
193; http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jgis.2010.24026
Raj, P.P.N. & P.A. Azeez (2011). Temperature rise in the Bharathapuzha
river basin, southern India. Current Science 101(4): 492.
Raj, P.P.N. & P.A. Azeez (2012). morphometric analysis of a tropical
medium river system: a case from Bharathapuzha River southern
India. Open Journal of Modern Hydrology 2: 91–98; http://dx.doi.
org/10.4236/ojmh.2012.24011
Shaji, C.P. (2002). Mesonoemacheilus remadevii (Pisces: Balitoridae.
Nemeacheilinae) from Silent Valley National Park, Kerala. Indian
Journal of Fisheries 49(2): 217–221.
Silas, E.G. (1958). Studies on cyprinid fishes of the oriental
genus Chela Hamilton. Journal of the Bombay Natural History
Society 55(1): 54–99+2pls.
Silas, E.G. (1951). On a collection of fish form the Annamalai and
Nelliampathi Hill ranges (Western Ghats) with notes on its
zoogeographical significances. Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society 49: 670–681.
Sreebha S. & D. Padmalal (2011). Environmental Impact Assessment
of sand mining from the small catchment river in the southwestern
coast of India. Environmental Management 47: 130–140; http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9571-6
Sushama, S. (2003). Ecology and Biodiversity of Nila River. PhD Thesis,
University of Kerala, India
Sushama S., R. Tresa & A. Bijukumar (2004). Distribution of fishes in
the Nila River. Indian Journal of Fisheries 51(3): 385–387.
Talwar, P. K. & A. G. Jhingran. (1991). Inland Fishes of India and
Adjacent Countries (in two volumes). Oxford & IBH Publishing Co.,
New Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta. v. 1-2: i-xvii+36 unnumbered+1-1158,
1pl, 1 map.
Thomas, K.R., M.J. George & C.R. Biju (2002). Freshwater fishes of southern Kerala with notes on the
distribution of endemic and endangered species. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society
99 (1): 47–53.
Vorosmarty, C.J., P.B. McIntyre, M.O. Gessner, D. Dudgeon, A. Prusevich, P. Green, S. Glidden, S.E.
Bunn, C.A. Sullivan, C.R. Liermann & P.M. Davies (2010). Global threats to human water security
and river biodiversity. Nature 467: 555–561; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09440
Xie, S., Z. Li, J. Liu, S. Xie, H Wang & B.R. Murphy (2007). Fisheries of the Yangtze River Show
Immediate Impacts of the Three Gorges Dam. Fisheries 32(7): 343–344.
Yang, L., M. V. Hirt, T. Sado, M. Arunachalam, R. Manickam, K.L. Tang, A.M. Simons,
H.-H. Wu, R.L. Mayden & M. Miya (2012). Phylogenetic placements of the barbin
genera Discherodontus, Chagunius, and Hypselobarbus in the subfamily Cyprininae (Teleostei:
Cypriniformes) and their relationships with other barbins. Zootaxa 3586: 26–40.
Bijukumar et al.
Author Details: A. Bijukumar is interested
in biodiversity documentation and
taxonomy, and involved in biodiversity/
environmental education activities to
facilitate conservation. Siby Philip is
interested in molecular phylogenetics,
evolution and biogeography of freshwater
fishes of the South Asia region. Anvar Ali
interested in taxonomy and systematics of
freshwater fishes of the Western Ghats.
S. Sushama is interested in ecology of
freshwater systems. Rajeev Raghavan is
interested in interdisciplinary research
focused on generating information
and developing methods to support
conservation
decision-making
in
freshwater ecosystems.
4993
Communication
Diversity of medium and large sized mammals in a Cerrado
fragment of central Brazil
Felipe Siqueira Campos 1, Alexandre Ramos Bastos Lage 2 & Paulo Henrique Pinheiro Ribeiro 3
Instituto de Pesquisas Ambientais & Ações Conservacionistas (IPAAC), Goiânia GO, 74805-370, Brazil
Post-graduate Program in Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz (UESC), Ilhéus
BA, 45662-000, Brazil
2
Post-graduate Program in Ecology and Evolution, Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG), Goiânia GO, 74001-970, Brazil
3
Post-graduate Program in Zoology, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz (UESC), Ilhéus BA, 45662-900, Brazil
1
[email protected] (corresponding author), 2 [email protected], 3 [email protected]
1,2
1
ISSN
Online 0974–7907
Print 0974–7893
OPEN ACCESS
Abstract: Studies related to community ecology of medium and large mammals represent a priority in developing strategies for conservation
of their habitats. Due to the significant ecological importance of these species, a concern in relation to anthropogenic pressures arises
since their populations are vulnerable to hunting and fragmentation. In this study, we aimed to analyze the diversity of medium and large
mammals in a representative area of the Cerrado biome, located in the National Forest of Silvânia, central Brazil, providing insights for
future studies on the biodiversity and conservation of Cerrado mammals. Sampling was carried out by linear transects, search for traces,
footprint traps and camera traps. We recorded 23 species, among which three are listed in threat categories (e.g., Myrmecophaga tridactyla,
Chrysocyon brachyurus and Leopardus tigrinus). We registered 160 records in the study area, where the most frequently recorded species
were Didelphis albiventris (30 records) and Cerdocyon thous (28 records). Our results indicated that a small protected area of Cerrado can
include a large and important percentage of the diversity of mammals in this biome, providing information about richness, abundance, spatial
distribution and insights for future studies on the biodiversity and conservation of these biological communities.
Keywords: Brazil, Cerrado, conservation, medium and large mammals, threatened species.
Portuguese Abstract: Resumo: Estudos relacionados à comunidade ecológica dos mamíferos de médio e grande porte são prioritários no
desenvolvimento de estratégias para conservação de seus habitats. Devido à grande importância ecológica dessas espécies, uma preocupação em
relação às pressões antropogênicas surge, uma vez que suas populações são vulneráveis à caça e fragmentação. O objetivo do presente estudo
foi analisar a diversidade de mamíferos de médio e grande porte em uma área do bioma Cerrado, localizada na Floresta Nacional de Silvânia,
Brasil central, proporcionando informações para futuros estudos sobre biodiversidade e conservação de mamíferos no Cerrado. As coletas foram
realizadas através de transectos lineares, busca por vestígios, armadilhas de pegadas e armadilhas fotográficas. Registramos 23 espécies, entre
as quais três estão listadas em categorias de ameaça (Myrmecophaga tridactyla, Chrysocyon brachyurus e Leopardus tigrinus). Foram obtidos
160 registros para a área de estudo, sendo que as espécies mais frequentes foram Didelphis albiventris (30 registros) e Cerdocyon thous (28).
Nossos resultados indicam que uma pequena área protegida do Cerrado possui uma importante porção da diversidade de mamíferos desse bioma,
provendo informações sobre riqueza, abundância, distribuição espacial e subsídios para futuros estudos sobre biodiversidade e conservação destas
comunidades biológicas.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3342.4994-5001 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:663DE02A-CDBC-4E24-8EB9-890F03E5AD10
Editor: Daniel Brito, Federal University of Goiás, Goiânia, Brazil.
Manuscript details: Ms # o3342 | Received 13 September 2012 | Final received 30 May 2013 | Finally accepted 10 October 2013
Citation: Campos, F.S., A.R.B. Lage & P.H.P. Ribeiro (2013). Diversity of medium and large sized mammals in a Cerrado fragment of central Brazil. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 4994–5001; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3342.4994-5001
Copyright: © Campos et al. 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction
Funding: Initial funding for this work was generously provided by the Instituto de Pesquisas Ambientais e Ações Conservacionistas (IPAAC) and the Instituto Chico
Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio).
Competing Interest: None.
Author Contributions: ARBL designed and conducted the fieldworks, conceived the ideas and wrote the paper. FSC helped with the design of the project and in
the conduction of the fieldworks, analysed the data and helped to write the paper. PHPR helped in the fieldworks, identified the relevant biological questions and
contributed to the writing.
Author Details: Felipe Siqueira Campos is postgraduate in Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation by the State University of Santa Cruz and researcher of the
Instituto de Pesquisas Ambientais & Ações Conservacionistas (IPAAC), Brazil. His line of research involves methods in ecology and conservation of amphibians,
reptiles and mammals. Alexandre Ramos Bastos Lage is postgraduate in Ecology and Evolution by the Federal University of Goiás and researcher of the Instituto
de Pesquisas Ambientais & Ações Conservacionistas (IPAAC), Brazil. His line of research involves methods in ecology and conservation of medium and large
mammals. Paulo Henrique Pinheiro Ribeiro is postgraduate in Zoology by the State University of Santa Cruz, Brazil. His line of research involves methods in
ecology and conservation of mammals.
Acknowledgements: We thank Caio Stuart Amorim Pereira, Rodolfo Cabral and Renato Cézar de Miranda for logistical support in the fieldworks. We are also grateful
to Mirco Solé and Marilia Bilu Rodrigues for the comments and suggestions to improve this manuscript.
4994
Diversity of mammals in Cerrado Fragment
INTRODUCTION
The medium and large sized mammals carry a crucial
influence on their ecosystems, performing important
tasks as pollinators (Mora et al. 1999), seed dispersers
(Fragoso & Huffman 2000; Galetti et al. 2001; AlvesCosta & Eterovick 2007) and predators (Bodmer 1991;
Pedó et al. 2006; Weckel et al. 2006), maintaining the
balance of populations and communities associated with
them (Asquith et al. 1999; Herrerias-Diego et al. 2008).
Brazil has the richest mammal fauna in the world,
represented by 701 species (Paglia et al. 2012). In
Brazilian Cerrado, the occurrence of around 250 species
of mammals has already been registered, of which 32
are endemic and 17 are included in the Red Book of
Threatened Brazilian Fauna (Machado et al. 2008).
Due to the significant ecological importance that
these species have, a concern in relation to anthropogenic
pressures arises since they are vulnerable to hunting
and population fragmentation (Cullen Jr. et al. 2000).
These factors directly influence the requirements of
these species in terms of living space, food, shelter and
specialized modes of reproduction (Henle et al. 2004).
The study of these animals involves a different set
of techniques that can be direct or indirect (Cullen Jr.
et al. 2000). Direct techniques are often unfeasible
due to crepuscular and nocturnal habits (Pardini et al.
2003). Indirect techniques (e.g., tracks, vocalizations and
other sounds, bones and feces) are widely used because
they provide a precise indication of medium and large
mammals and their use of habitats (Smallwood &
Fitzhugh 1993; Becker & Dalponte 1999; Scoss et al.
2004).
Available information on the ecology of various
mammalian species emphasizes the importance of
these animals in a series of ecological processes related
to the dynamics of natural environments (Cardillo et
al. 2006). Herbivorous mammals such as deer, tapirs,
peccaries, collared peccaries and large rodents perform
important roles in maintaining the diversity of plants
via seed dispersal and eating seedlings (De-Steven
& Putz 1984; Dirzo & Miranda 1990; Fragoso 1994).
Carnivores regulate populations of herbivores (Redford
1992), and they serve as key indicators of habitat quality
(Schonewald-Cox et al. 1991). Thus studies related to
community ecology of medium and large mammals are
central to developing strategies for the conservation of
species and habitats (Loyola et al. 2009).
This study aimed to analyze the species composition
of the community of medium and large mammals that
inhabit a representative area of the Cerrado biome in
Campos et al.
different environmental situations, covering both well
preserved areas, such as areas potentially affected
by the advancement of human activities, providing
information about richness, abundance, types of baits
used to attract species and insights for future studies on
the biodiversity and conservation of Cerrado mammals.
Study area
The National Forest of Silvânia (16039’32”S &
48036’29”W, 900m), located in the municipality of
Silvania, state of Goiás, central Brazil (Fig. 1). This is
an area of environmental protection with sustainable
use (IUCN Protected Area Category VI) of 466.55ha,
managed by Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity
Conservation (ICMBio), located entirely in the Cerrado
biome. However, some anthropogenic changes observed
in other portions of this biome (see Machado et al.
2004) are found around this National Forest, highlighting
mainly pastures and fields of soybeans and corn.
Following the Köppen classification system (see
Lutgens & Tarbuck 1995), the regional climate is classified
as tropical savanna (Aw), with two well defined seasons,
one wet and one dry. According to Eiten (1993) and
Oliveira-Filho & Ratter (2002), the Cerrado “sensu lato”
is composed of different types of vegetation. Ribeiro &
Walter (2008) identified 25 different vegetation types
for this biome. In the National Forest of Silvânia can be
found two of these vegetation types (i.e., Cerrado “sensu
strict” and Gallery Forests), as well as anthropogenic
environments with invasive species like Pinus sp. (pine),
Eucalyptus sp. and Melinis minutiflora (Poaceae).
Sampling design
Six areas were selected inside the National Forest
of Silvânia and a number was used to represent each
diferent vegetation type within the study area, where
the Cerrado “sensu stricto” areas were represented by
the numbers 1 and 4, the Gallery forest areas by the
numbers 2 and 5, the anthropogenic environments by
the number 3 and the transition areas between Cerrado
“sensu stricto” and Gallery forest number 6 (see Fig. 1).
Four sampling methods were used to record the species
of medium and large mammals in the study area, which
were carried out by linear transects, search for traces
(i.e., tracks, trails, feces, etc.), footprints traps and
camera traps (Images 1–3).
Data collection through the linear transect methods
was performed according to the model proposed by
4995
Campos et al.
a
b
© Felipe Siqueira Campos
© Alexandre Ramos Bastos Lage
Figure 1. (a) Location of the municipality of Silvânia in the state of Goiás, Central Brazil. (b) Aerial view of the National Forest of Silvânia
(Source: Erdas Viewfinder). The Cerrado “sensu stricto” areas were represented by the numbers 1 and 4, the gallery forest areas by the
numbers 2 and 5, the anthropogenic environments by the number 3 and the transition areas between Cerrado “sensu stricto” and Gallery
forest by the number 6.
Image 2. Camera trap installation.
Image 3. Linear transect in a Gallery Forest.
Burnham et al. (1980), recording the species names,
the number of individuals and location of the sighting
for each animal seen. Transects traveled about 30km
per sampling day, which corresponds to 5km per each
one of the six sampled areas. During the fieldwork,
various types of environments were inspected in order
to identify the species of mammals in the region and
analyze their ecological aspects, through indirect data
such as footsteps, feces, sounds, tracks, trails and
damage that could lead to the diagnosis of the local
species.
The footprints were obtained by the method of sand
plots, represented by 60 wooden boxes with dimensions
of 1m² filled with fine sand (2–4 cm), which were
Image 1. Footprints trap (sand plots).
4996
Data Analysis
To estimating the number of records of mammal
species, we used a Jackknife 1 procedure (Colwell
& Coddington 1994), that corrects the sub-sample
inclination, allowing estimation of confidence intervals,
and hypothesis testing. We evaluated the Jackknife
1 using the EstimateS program (Colwell 2006), which
also produced a collector curve from the output of the
Jackknife analysis.
To check what type of bait attracted the largest
number of species, was performed similarity analysis
between the types of baits used in the sand plots through
the Jaccard coefficient (Magurran 1988), generated by
the software “Biodiversity Professional”, version 2.0.
(McAleece et al. 1997). In addition, we also analyzed
the frequency of records obtained for each kind of bait.
Specimens were monitored under collecting permit
No. 15458-2 ICMBio/SISBIO (Instituto Chico Mendes de
Conservação da Biodiversidade/Sistema de Autorização
e Informação em Biodiversidade).
No voucher
specimens were collected. Nomenclature of mammal
species followed Wilson & Reeder (2005).
RESULTS
We found 23 mammals species in National Forest of
Silvânia classified in eight orders, among which included
three species that are listed in threat categories (e.g.,
Myrmecophaga tridactyla, Chrysocyon brachyurus and
Leopardus tigrinus; Table 1). We registered 160 records
in the study area, where the most frequently recorded
species were Didelphis albiventris (30 records) and
Cerdocyon thous (28 records).
The total sampling effort was 144 traps/day for
the sand plots, 144 traps/day for the camera traps
and 280km transected inside the National Forest. The
curve constructed from data collected shows that the
collection method shows the same tendency of the
richness accumulation curve observed to the Jackknife
1 diversity estimator. The template bit upward, with
a low slope is a robust indication that the curve has a
stabilization tendency (Fig. 2).
Comparing the species records/bait type by pairwise
relationships were found the following results: 60% of
similarity between the pairs salt-none and pineapplenone; 50% of similarity between the pair banananone; 55% of similarity between the pair bacon-none;
75% between the pair pineapple-salt; 62,5% between
banana-salt; 33% between the pairs bacon-salt and
pineapple-bacon; 44% between the pair banana-
30
25
Number of species
baited daily with salt, pineapple, banana and bacon,
and distributed in equitable proportions among the six
different sampling areas defined in the study area, with
each area containing 10 plots with a distance of 10m
among them. The baits were put separately among the
sand plots, so that each sampled area had two plots
without bait, two with salt, two with pineapple, two
with banana and two with bacon.
In addition to the linear transect methods and sand
plots, six camera traps (TIGRINUS Conventional 6.0c)
were installed in each of the six sampled areas in the
study area to carry out the record of the species. For
the independent records of camera traps, the records
with one hour of interval were used, avoiding the same
animal records (see Silveira et al. 2003; Srbek-Araujo &
Chiarello 2007).
We carried out eight samplings between October
2008 and August 2009, contemplating the dry and rainy
periods, providing a total of 24 sampling days over eight
months. The field trips lasted three days per trip, where
were established 72 hours of exposure to footprints traps
and camera traps in each trip. The field observations
were conducted during eight hours a day and four hours
at night, comprising 12 hours per sampling day. During
the night, the environments were inspected with the aid
of powerful flashlights, thus enabling a better view of the
nocturnal animals. The sampling effort was conducted
by two researchers and focussed only on medium and
large mammals (>1kg), thus disregarding the presence
of small mammals (<1kg), such as bats, small rodents
and small marsupials.
Campos et al.
20
15
10
Collector curve
Jacknife 1
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Number of sampled months
7
8
Figure 2. Cumulative number of mammal species observed and
estimated by Jackknife 1 procedure built from the months sampled
in the National Forest of Silvânia, state of Goiás, Brazil.
4997
Campos et al.
Table 1. Record types, IUCN Red List categories and population
trends of the medium and large mammals recorded in the National
Forest of Silvânia, state of Goiás, Brazil.
Taxon
Record types
Red List
categories
Population
trends
Jaccard Cluster Analysis (Single Link)
Bacon
Banana
Pineapple
Order Didelphiomorphia
Chironectes minimus
Sightings
Least
Concern
Decreasing
Didelphis albiventris
(Image 4)
Sightings/
Footprints
Least
Concern
Stable
Myrmecophaga tridactyla
(Image 5)
Sightings/
Footprints/
Camera trap
Vulnerable
Decreasing
0 % similarity
Tamandua tetradactyla
Sightings
Least
Concern
Unknown
Figure 3. Similarity dendrogram between the bait types used in the
sand plots sampled in the National Forest of Silvânia, state of Goiás,
Brazil
Euphractus sexcinctus
Sightings/
Footprints
Least
Concern
Stable
Dasypus novemcinctus
Sightings/
Footprints
Least
Concern
Increasing
Cabassous unicinctus
Sightings/
Footprints
Least
Concern
Unknown
Sightings
Least
Concern
Increasing
Sapajus libidinosus
Sightings
Least
Concern
Decreasing
Alouatta caraya
Sightings
Least
Concern
Decreasing
Sightings
Least
Concern
Unknown
Sightings/
Footprints
Near
Threatened
Unknown
Procyon cancrivorus
Footprints
Least
Concern
Decreasing
Eira Barbara
Footprints
Least
Concern
Decreasing
Cerdocyon thous
(Image 7)
Sightings/
Footprints/
Camera trap
Least
Concern
Stable
Puma concolor
Footprints
Least
Concern
Decreasing
Conepatus semistriatus
Footprints
Least
Concern
Decreasing
Nasua nasua (Image 8)
Sightings/
Footprints
Least
Concern
Decreasing
Puma yagouaroundi
Sightings
Least
Concern
Decreasing
Leopardus tigrinus
Sightings/
Footprints
Vulnerable
Decreasing
Mazama americana
Sightings/
Camera trap
Data
Deficient
Unknown
Mazama gouazoubira
Sightings/
Footprints
Least
Concern
Decreasing
Sightings/
Footprints
Least
Concern
Stable
Salt
None
Order Pilosa
Order Cingulata
Order Primates
Callithrix penicillata
(Image 6)
Order Lagomorpha
Sylvilagus brasiliensis
Order Carnivora
Chrysocyon brachyurus
Order Artiodactyla
Order Rodentia
Coendou prehensilis
4998
50
100
pineapple and 57% between the pair banana-bacon (Fig.
3).
DISCUSSION
The predominantly nocturnal habits of the most
mammalian species, associated to the low population
densities and very extense home ranges, hamper the
study of many species of medium and large mammals
(Pardini et al. 2003). However, our results indicated that
a small protected area of Cerrado can include a large and
important percentage of the diversity of medium and
large mammals of this biome. The species recorded in
the National Forest of Silvânia corresponds to about 40%
of all species of medium and large mammals distributed
in the Brazilian Cerrado, which total is 52 species (see
Paglia et al. 2012). Among the sampled mammals, three
species (Myrmecophaga tridactyla, Leopardus tigrinus
and Chrysocyon brachyurus) are mencioned in the IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2012) and the
Brazilian Red Book of Threatened Fauna (Machado et al.
2008), which further emphasizes the importance of this
region for the conservation of mammals in the Brazilian
Cerrado.
The number of species detected (i.e., 23) can be
considered high when compared to the small size of
the National Forest of Silvânia (i.e., only 466ha), which
indicated that a small protected area of Cerrado can
include a large and important percentage of the richness
of mammals of this biome, in this case, corresponding to
about 40% of all species of medium and large mammals
that occur in the Brazilian Cerrado (see Paglia et al.
2012).
In regard to the use of baits for the studies of
Campos et al.
Image 5. Myrmecophaga tridactyla (Linnaeus, 1758).
Image 4. Didelphis albiventris (Lund, 1840).
Image 6. Callithrix penicillata (É. Geoffroy, 1812).
Image 7. Cerdocyon thous (Linnaeus, 1766).
medium and large mammals, we suggest the use of
bacon, pineapple and banana as baits. These presented
the lowest similarity values when compared pair to pair.
According to Astúa et al. (2006), many factors may be
considered before choosing the best bait type, including
weather conditions, durability, local availability and
invertebrate attacks. Bacon, pineapple and banana
probably attract mammals due to their strong odor,
which also attracts many invertebrates. If this type of
bait is chosen, we recommend the researcher to replace
the bait daily or make it inaccessible to invertebrates.
Pineapples and bananas lose their odor quickly when
exposed to sunlight in open areas and dry weather, so
the ideal is put these baits in shaded places for a better
sampling effect.
The value attributed to mammal fauna by society in
general and people who have direct contact with nature
(e.g., as farmers) largely depends on their perceived
relationship with these animals. One way to obtain
support from communities surrounding protected areas
in species conservation is to demonstrate how mammals
contribute to the maintenance of environmental
balance, and how this is favorable and profitable. This
can be done via local environmental education programs,
dealing with issues such as damage caused by carnivores
to farm animals. Puma concolor generally attacks cattle,
horses and goats, while species like Cerdocyon thous,
Chrysocyon brachyurus and Leopardus tigrinus are
responsible for attacks against chickens and smaller
animals. Simple prevention measures could be taken by
land owners and could extirpate or considerably reduce
the damage caused by wild mammals (see Pitman et al.
2002).
Another important measure for the management
and preservation of wild mammals is to control the use of
fire. It is known that prolonged periods without passage
of fire in the Cerrado can cause an excessive increase
in leaf litter or native pasture and the accumulation of
4999
Campos et al.
Image 8. Nasua nasua (Linnaeus, 1766).
organic material can cause very harmful fires to wildlife
and also the restoration of the original flora due to
high temperatures and speed dispersion achieved by
fire (Klink & Moreira 2002). That is why a strategy to
control the fire within the area of the conservation area
is very important. It is necessary to construct fire breaks
in certain places, conducting controlled burns and
also opening strategic roads that can serve to shift fire
brigade. Such measures are likely to avoid disastrous
events as the burning of 1994 happened in the Emas’
National Park that devastated almost the entire park,
as can be seen in França & Setzer (1997) and França &
Setzer (1999).
Being one of the smallest protected areas in Brazil
(ICMBio 2013), the National Forest of Silvânia shelters
mammal species that have great need for living area
such as Puma concolor and Chrysocyon brachyurus,
which require a living area greater than that existing
in this forest. This reinforces the importance of
the maintenance of the native forest even in small
conservation units, which need to maintain the areas
of legal reserve and permanent preservation areas of
neighboring farms, which also are used by the native
mammal species.
REFERENCES
Alves-Costa, C.P. & P.C. Eterovick (2007). Seed dispersal services by
coatis (Nasua nasua, Procyonidae) and their redundancy with other
frugivores in southeastern Brazil. Acta Oecologica 32(1): 77–92;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2007.03.001
Asquith, N.M., J. Terborgh, A.E. Arnold & C.M. Riveros (1999).
The fruits the agouti ate: Hymenaea courbaril seed fate when its
disperser is absent. Journal of Tropical Ecology 15(2): 229–235.
Astúa, D., R.T. Moura, C.E.V. Grelle & M.T. Fonseca (2006). Influence of
baits, trap type and position for small mammal capture in a Brazilian
lowland Atlantic Forest. Boletim do Museu de Biologia Mello Leitão
5000
19(1): 31–44.
Becker, M. & C.J. Dalponte (eds.) (1999). Rastros de Mamíferos
Silvestres Brasileiros: um guia de campo, 2nd Edition. Universidade
de Brasília, Brasília (DF).
Bodmer, R.E. (1991). Strategies of seed dispersal and seed predation in
Amazonian ungulates. Biotropica 23(3): 255–261.
Burnham, K.P., D.R. Andreson & J.L. Laake (1980). Estimation of
density from line transect sampling of biological populations.
Wildlife Monographs 72(1): 1–201.
Cardillo, M., G.M. Mace, J.L. Gittleman & A. Purvis (2006).
Latent extinction risk and the future battlegrounds of mammal
conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA
103(11): 4157–4161; http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0510541103
Colwell, R.K. & J.A. Coddinhgton (1994). Estimating terrestrial
biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society Lond B. 345(1): 01–118.
Colwell, R.K. (2006). EstimateS: statistical estimation of species
richness and shared species from samples, version 8.2.0. University
of Connecticut, Storrs (CT). <http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/
estimates> Downloaded on 10 June 2012.
Cullen, L. Jr., R.E. Bodmer & C.V. Pádua (2000). Effects of hunting
in habitat fragments of the Atlantic forests, Brazil. Biological
Conservation
95(1):49–56;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S00063207(00)00011-2
De-Steven, D. & F.E. Putz (1984). Impact of mammals on early
recruitment of a tropical canopy tree, Dipteryx panamensis, in
Panama. Oikos 43(1): 207–016.
Dirzo, R. & A. Miranda (1990). Contemporary neotropical defaunation
and the forest structure, function, and diversity - a sequel to John
Terborgh. Conservation Biology 4(4): 444–447; http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00320.x
Eiten, G. (1993). Vegetação do cerrado, pp. 9–65. In: Pinto M.N. (eds.).
Cerrado: Caracterização, Ocupação e Perspectivas. Universidade de
Brasília, Brasília (DF)
Fragoso, J.M. (1994). Large mammals and the dynamics of an
Amazonian rain forest. PhD Thesis, University of Florida (FL).
Fragoso, J.M. & J.M. Huffman (2000). Seed-dispersal and seedling
recruitment patterns by the last neotropical megafaunal element
in Amazonia, the tapir. Journal of Tropical Ecology 16(3): 369–385.
França, H. & A. Setzer (eds.) (1997). Regime de Queimadas no Parque
Nacional das Emas, GO: 1973–1995. 1st edition, Relatório de
Pesquisa FAPESP, São Paulo (SP).
França, H. & A. Setzer (1999). A história do fogo no Parque Nacional
das Emas. Ciência Hoje 66(153): 69–73.
Galetti, M., A. Keuroghlian, N. Hanada & M.I. Morato (2001).
Frugivory and seed dispersal by the lowland tapir (Tapirus terrestris)
in Southeast Brazil. Biotropica 33(4): 723–726; http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2001.tb00232.x
Henle, K., K.F. Davies, M. Kleyer, C. Margules & J. Settele (2004).
Predictors of species sensitivity to fragmentation. Biodiversity
and Conservation 13(1): 207–251; http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/
B:BIOC.0000004319.91643.9e
Herrerias-Diego, I., M. Quesada, K.E. Stoner, J.A. Lobo, Y. HernandezFlores & G.S. Montoya (2008). Effect of forest fragmentation
on fruit and seed predation of the tropical dry forest tree Ceiba
aesculifolia. Biological Conservation 141(1): 241–248; http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.09.017
ICMBio (2013). Unidades de Conservação - Biomas Brasileiros. <http://
www.icmbio.gov.br>. Downloaded on 06 March 2013.
IUCN (2012). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, version 2012.1.
<http://www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 22 June 2012.
Klink, C.A. & A.G. Moreira (2002). Past and current human occupation,
and land use, pp. 373. In: Oliveira, P.L. & R.J. Marquis (eds). The
Cerrados of Brazil: Ecology and Natural History of a Neotropical
Savanna. Columbia University Press, New York (NY).
Loyola, R.D., L.G.R. Oliveira-Santos, M. Almeida-Neto, D.M. Nogueira,
U. Kubota, J.A.F. Diniz-Filho & T.M. Lewinsohn (2009). Integrating
economic costs and biological traits into global conservation
priorities for carnivores. PloS ONE 4(8): e6807; http://dx.doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006807
Lutgens, F.K. & E.J. Tarbuck (eds.) (1995). The Atmosphere. Toronto:
Prentice Hall Canada, 462pp.
Machado, R.B., M.B. Ramos-Neto, P.G.P Pereira, E.F. Caldas, D.A.
Gonçalves, N.S. Santos, K. Tabor & M. Steininger (eds.) (2004).
Estimativas de perda da pec do Cerrado brasileiro. Conservação
Internacional, Brasília (DF).
Machado, A.M.B., G.M. Drommond & A.P. Paglia (eds.) (2008). Livro
Vermelho da Fauna Brasileira Ameaçada de Extinção. Fundação
Biodiversitas, Brasília (DF).
Magurran, A.E. (ed.) (1988). Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement.
Chapman & Hall, London (UK).
McAleece, N., P.J.D. Lambshead, G.L.J. Paterson & J.G. Gage (1997).
Biodiversity Professional, version 2.0. The Natural History Museum
and the Scottish Association for Marine Sciences, London (UK).
<http://www.sams.ac.uk/research/software>. Downloaded on 10
June 2012.
Mora, J.M., V.V. Méndez & L.D. Gómez (1999). White-nosed Coati
Nasua narica (Carnivora: Procyonidae) as a potential pollinator of
Ochroma pyramidale (Bombacaceae). Revista de Biología Tropical
47(4): 719–721.
Oliveira-Filho, A.T. & J.A. Ratter (2002). Vegetation physiognomies and
woody flora of the cerrado biome, pp. 91-120. In: Oliveira P.L. & R.J
Marquis (eds). The Cerrados of Brazil: Ecology and Natural History of
a Neotropical Savanna. Columbia University Press, New York (NY).
Paglia A.P., G.A.B. Fonseca, A.B. Rylands, G. Herrmann, L.M.S. Aguiar,
A.G. Chiarello, Y.L.R. Leite, L.P. Costa, S. Siciliano, M.C.M. Kierulff,
S.J. Mendes, V.C. Tavares, R.A. Mittermeier, J.L. Patton (eds.)
(2012). Annotated Checklist of Brazilian Mammals, 2nd edition.
Conservation International, Arlington (VA).
Pardini, R., H.E. Ditt, L. Cullen Jr., C. Bassi & R. Rudran (2003).
Levantamento rápido de mamíferos terrestres de médio e grande
porte, pp. 181–201. In: Cullen, Jr. L., R. Rudran, C. Valladares-Padua
(eds). Métodos de estudos em biologia da conservação e manejo da
vida peciese. Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba (PR).
Pedó, E., A.C. Tomazzoni, S.M. Hartz & A.U. Christoff (2006). Diet
of Crab-eating Fox, Cerdocyon thous (Linnaeus) (Carnivora,
Canidae), in a suburban area of southern Brazil. Revista Brasileira
Campos et al.
de Zoologia 23(3): 637–641; http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S010181752006000300005
Pitman, M.R.P.L., T.G. Oliveira, R.C. Paula & C. Indrusiak (eds.) (2002).
Manual de identificação, prevenção e controle de predação por
carnívoros, 1st Edition. Edições IBAMA, Brasília (DF).
Redford, K.H. (1992). The empty forest. Bioscience 42(6): 412–423.
Ribeiro, J.F. & B.M.T. Walter (2008). As Principais Fitofisionomias do
Bioma Cerrado, pp. 151–212. In: Sano, S.M., S.P. Almeida & J.F.
Ribeiro (eds). Cerrado: Ecologia e Flora. Embrapa Cerrados, Brasília
(DF).
Schonewald-Cox, C., R. Azari & S. Blume (1991). Scale, variable density
and conservation planning for mammalian carnivores. Conservation
Biology 5(4): 491–495; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.
tb00356.x
Scoss, L.M., P. De-Marco Jr, E. Silva & S.V. Martins (2004). Uso de
parcelas de areia para o monitoramento do impacto de estradas
sobre a riqueza de pecies de mamíferos. Revista Árvore 28(1): 121–
127.
Silveira, L., A.T.A. Jácomo & J.A.F. Diniz-Filho (2003). Camera
trap, line transect census and track surveys: a comparative
evaluation. Biological Conservation 114(3): 351–355; http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00063-6
Smallwood, K.S. & E.L. Fitzhugh (1993). A rigorous technique for
identifying individual mountain lions Felis concolor by their
tracks. Biological Conservation 65(1): 51–59; http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/0006-3207(93)90196-8
Srbek-Araujo, A.C. & A.G. Chiarello (2007). Armadilhas fotográficas
na amostragem de mamíferos: considerações metodológicas e
comparação de equipamentos. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 24(3):
647–656;
Weckel, M., W. Giuliano & S. Silver (2006). Jaguar (Panthera onca)
feeding ecology: distribution of predator and prey through time and
space. Journal of Zoology 270(1): 25–30; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1469-7998.2006.00106.x
Wilson, D.E. & D.M. Reeder (eds.) (2005). Mammal Species of The
World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference - 2nd Edition.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington (DC).
5001
Short Communication
Sightings and behavioral observations of Indo-Pacific
Humpback Dolphins Sousa chinensis (Osbeck, 1765) along
Chennai coast, Bay of Bengal
Rahul Muralidharan
OPEN ACCESS
E4/253, 5th Street, D.S. Nagar, Vandalur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600048, India
[email protected]
Abstract: Boat-based surveys were used to investigate the presence
of Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphins Sousa chinensis along the coast of
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. Notes were collected on behavior, group
size, coloration patterns and group composition on sighting cetaceans
during the surveys. Four groups of Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphins
were sighted near-shore in the month of February 2011, between
10–25 m depth with an average group size of 20 individuals of which
10 individuals were photo-identifiable. Dominant group behavior was
aerial display, feeding and traveling. This study gives a basic idea of
presence, threats and habitat use of Humpback Dolphin areas along
Chennai coast.
Keywords: Bay of Bengal, behavior, Chennai coast, habitat use, photo
identification, sightings, Sousa chinensis, Tursiops sp.
Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphins Sousa chinensis have
been recorded all along the Indian coast, from vesselbased and shore-based sightings, stranding records,
incidental catch data, and museum specimens (Parsons
1998; Kumarran 2002; Parsons 2004; Sathasivam 2004;
Sutaria & Jefferson 2004; Afsal et al. 2008; Anoop et al.
2008; Reeves et al. 2008; Yousuf et al. 2008; Muralidharan
2011; Kumaran 2012; Vivekanandan & Jeyabaskaran
2012). S. chinensis is placed under ‘Near Threatened’
(NT) category on the IUCN Red List (Reeves et al. 2008),
ISSN
Online 0974–7907
Print 0974–7893
but very few ecological studies on cetaceans have been
carried out in India. Sutaria & Jefferson (2004) studied
the density and distribution of humpback dolphins
along the Gujarat and Goa coasts of western India and
provided records of strandings, sightings and incidental
catches from India. The species has also been recorded
from the coastal waters of Maharashtra (K. Jog & M. Sule
pers. comm. February 2012), from Kerala (Bijukumar et
al. 2012; D. Panicker pers. comm. February 2012), from
Karnataka (Sutaria pers. comm. February 2012) on the
western coast, and Orissa (Sutaria 2009), Andhra Pradesh
(Tripathy & Choudhury 2004) and Tamil Nadu (S. Dharini
pers. comm. February 2011) on the eastern coast.
Being one of the four predominant delphinids and most
recorded species in incidental catches in fishing gears in
India (Afsal et al. 2008), research on humpback dolphins
is urgently needed (Sutaria & Jefferson 2004). In this
study, we surveyed the Chennai coast for presence and
behavior of S. chinensis, in relation to depth, distance
from the shore and time of the day.
Study area: Chennai city is located in the state of
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3454.5002-6 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:24BC1AD1-48DC-4469-A97D-BB6527D6DA52
Editor: Kumaran Sathasivam, Marine Mammal Conservation Network of India.
Manuscript details: Ms # o3454 | Received 23 December 2012 | Final received 20 October 2013 | Finally accepted 24 October 2013
Citation: Muralidharan, R. (2013). Sightings and behavioral observations of Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphins Sousa chinensis (Osbeck, 1765) along Chennai coast,
Bay of Bengal. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 5002–5006; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3454.5002-6
Copyright: © Muralidharan 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction
Funding: TREE Foundation, Chennai, India.
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank TREE Foundation for funding this study and my supervisor Dr. Thirunavukkarasu for supporting me through the study
period. I would also like to thank Mr. R.P. Kumarran and Mr. Nithyanandan Manickam for their encouragement and initial assistance. The surveys would not have
been possible without the assistance of my friend Pugalarasu, who took me into the sea and brought me back safe to the shore. Thanks to Abdul Saeef for his
excellent photos of dolphins during the survey, Sudharshan, Siddharth and Kaushik for assisting me with the software. I thank Dipani Sutaria for helping me write
this note and the anonymous reviewers for their critical comments.
5002
Observations of Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphins
Marina Beach
Adyar Estuary
Tamil
Nadu
Chennai Coast
Coromandel
coast
Chennai
Muralidharan
Neelankarai
Injambakkam
Panayr/Akkarai
A
Bay of
Bengal
B
Muttukadu
backwaters
C
D
Map not to scale
Image 1. Map of the study area
Tamil Nadu, which lies on the southeastern Coromandel
Coast adjoining the Bay of Bengal (Image 1) of India.
Approximately 300km2 area between Adyar Estuary
and Muttukadu Estuary was surveyed during this study
(Image 1). The mouth to the estuaries where brackish
water empties into the sea is considered the preferred
habitat for S. chinensis (Jefferson & Karczmarski 2001).
The coast is surf beaten and interspersed with rocky
reefs. The mean spring and neap tides are 1.21m and
0.61m, respectively.
Field Methods: Surveys were carried out in the
morning between 07:00 and 11:00 hr (Table 1). The
survey tracks were perpendicular to the shore and
were placed between Adyar Estuary in the north and
Muttukadu backwaters to the south (Images 1 & 2). All
the surveys originated from and ended at Neelangarai.
Surveys were carried out using 10m long FRP (FiberReinforced Plastic) boat with 12hp outboard engine.
The average speed of the boat was maintained at 10km/
hr. Three observers, one at the bow and two on either
E
Image 2. Maps and dates of survey transects
A - Neelangarai 15 Feb 2011; B - Injambakkam 17 Feb 2011;
C - Panayur 18 Feb 2011; D - Injambakkam/Muttukadu 21 Feb 2011;
E - Neelangarai 22 Feb 2011
sides of the boat-searched for dolphins with naked
eyes. When dolphins were sighted, the survey boat
approached the group at a slower speed. Parameters
such as depth, time, beaufort scale (BS), GPS coordinates,
distance from shore, group size and associated species
were noted. Bathymetry profile data for 25m depth
mark along Chennai coast were ascertained with GPS
coordinates (Institute of Ocean Management, Anna
University). We used Nikon D70 digital single-lens reflex
camera 6.1 megapixel with 55–200 mm Nikkor lens and
Canon Power Shot SX20 IS Digital Camera, with 12.1
Megapixels 20x Wide-Angle Zoom Lens (28–560 mm) to
Table 1. Sighting records of Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphins along Chennai coast
Sighting no./
Time
Date of
sightings
Time of sighting
(hr)
Location
Depth
(m)
Beaufort
scale
No. of dolphins
observed
Min
Max
1 - 07:45–9:45
15 Feb 2011
NS
Neelangarai
NA
2
-
-
2 - 07:20–11:00
17 Feb 2011
09:35–09:50
Injambakkam
20
2
6
10
10:00–10:10
Akkarai
25
2
10
10
3 - 08:00–10:30
18 Feb 2011
NS
Panayur
NA
2
NA
NA
4 - 08:00–10:30
19 Feb 2011
NS
Neelangarai
NA
1
NA
NA
5 - 07:00–12:00
21 Feb 2011
11:10–11:15
Injambakkam
20
2
20
30
6 - 07:00–11:00
22 Feb 2011
08:10–10:30
Neelangarai
10
2
10
35
NA - not applicable; NS - no sightings
5003
Muralidharan
photograph dorsal fins of individuals whenever possible.
The survey consisted of a total of 12 hours and
120km of survey effort. The sea state was calm during
early morning hours of the survey and changed gradually
during the end of the survey period.
Four groups of humpback dolphins and two groups
of Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops sp.) were sighted. All
groups were sighted between 07:00am and 11:30am.
Indo-pacific humpback dolphins were identified based
on the coloration pattern and hump under the dorsal
fin (Jefferson et al. 1993). Bottlenose dolphins were
identified using body shape, triangular fin, shape and
size of their snout, shape of rostrum, and relative length
of the dolphin to the boat (Jefferson et al. 1993).
The observed bottlenose dolphins may be the IndoPacific Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops aduncus, a distinct
morphotype of Tursiops truncatus, which is an off-shore
form. T. aduncus have been recorded before, during a
near-shore research survey in the Bay of Bengal (Afsal
et al. 2008) but further studies are required to ascertain
1 the Tursiops species sighted in our surveys.
The estimated size of the S.chinensis groups ranged
between 10–30 individuals with an average of 20
individuals in a group. A “group” here is defined as an
aggregation of more than one dolphin, including all age
classes or dolphin individuals within 20m of each other,
visible from the survey boat (Karczmarski 1999; Sutaria
2 & Jefferson 2004). S. chinensis are usually found in
group sizes of 25 and less, but groups of less than 10
are most common (Jefferson & Karczmarski 2001). All
S.chinensis sightings were at depths less than 25m with
maximum and minimum depth recorded at 25m and
10m, respectively (Table 1). S. chinensis groups were
sighted around 100–200 m from the shore, however,
3 mixed groups of S. chinensis and Tursiops sp. were
sighted nearly 5km from the shore. S. chinensis have
been frequently sighted in the study area in the years
2012 and 2013, after this study was completed.
Photographs with dorsal fins were analyzed based
on picture quality (Excellent, Good, Medium). Of the
4 totally usable photographs only 14% (good and excellent
pictures) were used to identify individual fins. We
photo-identified 10 individuals from 70 photographs
(Images 3 & 4). We used DARWIN software, Eckerd
College, to produce a database for photo-identification
based studies. We hope to build this database in the
future to estimate population size and study movement
1 patterns.
5004
Behavior observations
On two occasions, mixed groups of S. chinensis and
Tursiops sp. were encountered. On 17 February 2011,
09:35–09:50 hr, S. chinensis and Tursiops sp. were
observed milling, i.e., swimming in a directionless fashion,
but in the same location, off shore of Injambakkam.
Again, the same mixed group was observed milling,
diving randomly and circling in the same location, from
10:00–10:10 hr. Such milling behavior is seen during
a foraging state in most cetaceans (Perrin et al. 2009).
Short-term associations between humpback dolphins
and bottlenose dolphins are known to occur elsewhere,
in feeding areas that overlap or during foraging events
(Karczmarski et al. 1997; Sayaman & Tayler 1979). This
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
Image 3. (A to J) Humpback dolphins individual recorded during the
study, Chennai coast, Bay of Bengal (February 2011). © Abdus Saeef
Muralidharan
© Abdus Saeef
© Abdus Saeef
a
© Abdus Saeef
b
c
Image 4. Photographs of observed behaviors, Chennai coast
(February 2011).
a - Tail slapping behavior; b - Humpback Dolphin breaching;
c - Humpback dolphins’ unique surfacing behavior, beak steeply
emerges from water before forehead hits the surface
kind of behavioral association between the two species
has also been well documented in South Africa and
Australia (Jefferson & Karczmarski 2001).
On 21 February 2011, at 11:10 hr, S. chinensis and
Tursiops sp. were observed traveling perpendicular
to the coast into deeper waters, near Injambakkam.
However, the survey boat could not follow the group
due to unfavorable sea conditions. We hypothesize
that S. chinensis might swim farther offshore till the
20m bathymetry line, or alternatively upriver due to
tidal changes as these are predicted to have influence
on distribution of S. chinensis (Parsons 1998; Sutaria &
Jefferson 2004).
A group of humpback dolphins, ranging from 10–35
individuals, predominantly traveling with occasional
aerial displays (Image 4), were followed from Neelangarai
to Marina Beach covering a parallel shore distance
of 7km and a total of 02:20 hr, on 22 February 2011.
Interestingly, two calves of 1m length were noticed
travelling with the adult dolphins. Calves are defined
as animals two-thirds or less the length of an adult,
regularly accompanying a larger animal, presumed to
be the mother (Karczmarski 1999). Calves are usually
more active in aerial displays and we hypothesize this
large group, to be two ‘mother-calf’ groups meeting and
socializing. Saayman & Tayler (1979) interpreted aerial
behavior as greeting displays when different groups of
humpback dolphins meet.
S. chinensis and near-shore Tursiops sp. are
susceptible to coastal gillnet fisheries (Jayasankaran et
al. 2009). In our study area, both species have been
reported as incidental catch by fishermen (S. Dharini
pers. comm. February 2011). During this study, we
observed the interactions between the dolphin groups
and fisheries, in cases where both were present at a
sighting. Most of S. chinensis sightings were observed
in concurrence with shore seine fishing activity along
the Chennai coast but direct feeding was not observed.
It is probable that S. chinensis follow schools of fish to
the shore, which the shore seiners also target. We also
noticed that S. chinensis groups carefully avoided shore
seine nets by swimming around them. Fishermen in
the study area perceive that the presence of S. chinensis
in their fishing grounds has reduced over the years.
However, the exact reasons are unknown and studies
are required to ascertain the conservation status of
coastal cetaceans along the Chennai coast.
Conclusion
Due to the limited survey effort in our study area,
we cannot ascertain if humpback dolphins are resident
along the Chennai coast or are local migrants from
close-by estuaries, but we hypothesize the latter
based on scattered reports from fishers and from our
observations. The Injambakkam area seems to be an
important foraging habitat that overlaps for both S.
chinensis and Tursiops sp. and is important for such
mixed species groups. An increase in the number of
records of S. chinensis off Chennai, in the months of
Jan–Mar and May–Aug, suggests an overlap with an
increase in near-shore prey. But, fishery interaction is
recognized to be a primary threat to humpback dolphin
population and needs to be assessed immediately to
5005
Muralidharan
conserve the species (Mohan 1994; Kumarran 2002;
Sutaria & Jefferson 2004; Yousuf et al. 2008; Kumarran
2012). Long term seasonal observation and further
investigation will yield critical information to understand
the species and their range in detail, to mitigate threats.
REFERENCES
Afsal, V.V., K.S.S.M. Yousuf, B. Anoop, A.K. Anoop, P. Kannan, M.
Rajagopalan & E. Vivekanandan (2008). A note on cetacean
distribution in the Indian EEZ and contiguous seas during 2003–07.
Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 10(3): 209–216.
Anoop, A.K., K.S. Yousuf, P.L. Kumaran, N. Harish, B. Anoop, V.V.
Afsal, M. Rajagopalan, E. Vivekanandan, P.K. Krishnakumar
and P. Jayasankar. (2008). Stomach contents of cetaceans
incidentally caught along Mangalore and Chennai coasts of India.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 76(4): 909–913; http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecss.2007.08.004
Bijukumar, A. & R. Smrithy (2012). Behaviour of Indo-Pacific
Humpback Dolphin, Sousa chinensis (Osbeck) in the Ashtamudi
Estuary, southwest coast of India. Journal of Marine Biological
Association of India 54(2): 5–10; http://dx.doi.org/10.6024/
jmbai.2012.54.2.01699-0x
Jayasankar, P., B. Anoop, M. Rajagopalan, K.S.S.M. Yousuf, P. Reynold,
P.K. Krishnakumar, V.V. Afsal & A.K. Anoop (2009). Indian Efforts on
the inventorization of marine mammal species for their conservation
and management. Asian Fisheries Science 22: 143–155.
Jefferson, T.A. & L. Karczmarski (2001). Sousa chinensis.
Mammalian Species 655: 1–9; http://dx.doi.org/10.1644/15451410(2001)655<0001:SC>2.0.CO;2
Jefferson, T.A., S. Leatherwood & M.A. Webber (1993). FAO species
Identification Guide. Marine Mammals of the World. FAO, Rome,
134–135pp.
Karczmarski, L. (1999). Group dynamics of Humpback Dolphins
Sousa chinensisin the Algoa Bay region, South Africa.
Journal of Zoology (London) 249(3): 283–293; http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1999.tb00765.x
Karczmarski, L., M. Thornton & V. Cockroft (1997). Description of
selected behaviours of Humpback Dolphins, Sousa chinensis.
Aquatic Mammals 23: 127–134.
Karczmarski, L., P.E.D. Winter, V.G. Cockcroft & A. McLachlan (1999).
Population analyses of Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphins Sousa
chinensis in Algoa Bay, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Marine Mammal
Science 15: 1115–1123.
5006
Kumaran, P.L. (2002). Marine mammal research in India - a review and
critique of the methods. Current Science 83(10): 1210–20.
Kumarran R.P. (2012). Cetaceans and cetacean research in India.
Journal of Cetacean Research Manage 12(2): 159–172.
Mohan, R.S.L. (1994). Review of gillnet fisheries and cetacean
bycatches in the northeastern Indian Ocean. Report International
Whaling Commission (special issue) 15: 329–43.
Muralidharan, R. (2011). A Pilot Study on the Environmental
Preference of Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphins along the Chennai
Coast, MSc Thesis. Madras Christian College, Madras University,
Chennai, India.
Parsons, E.C.M. (1998). Observations of Indo-Pacific Humpback
Dolphins, (Sousa chinensis), from Goa, Western India. Marine
Mammal Science 14(1): 166–170.
Parsons, E.C.M. (2004). The Behavior and Ecology of the Indo-Pacific
Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis). Aquatic Mammals 30(1):
38–55.
Reeves, R.R., M.L. Dalebout, T.A. Jefferson, L. Karczmarski, K. Laidre,
G. O’Corry-Crowe, L. Rojas-Bracho, E.R. Secchi, E. Slooten, B.D.
Smith, J.Y. Wang & K. Zhou (2008). Sousa chinensis. In: IUCN
iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 17 February 2013.
Saayman, G.S. & C.K. Tayler (1979) The socioecology of Humpback
Dolphins (Sousa sp.), pp. 165–226. In: Winn, H.E. & B.L. Olla (eds.).
Behavior of Marine Animals; Cetaceans - 3. Plenum Press, New York,
438pp.
Sathasivam, K. (2004). Marine Mammals of India. Universities Press
(India), Private Limited, Hyderguda, India, 180pp.
Sutaria, D. (2009). Species conservation in a complex socio-ecological
system: Irrawaddy Dolphins, Orcaella brevirostris in Chilika Lagoon,
India (Doctoral dissertation, James Cook University)
Sutaria, D. & T.A. Jefferson (2004). Records of Indo-Pacific Humpback
Dolphins (Sousa chinensis, Osbeck, 1765) along the coasts of India
and Sri Lanka : an overview. Aquatic Mammals (Special Issue) 30:
125–136.
Tripathy, B. & B.C. Choudhury (2004). Occurrence and mortality of
marine mammals along the Andhra Pradesh coast, east coast of
India. Indian Forester 130(10): 1132–1140.
Vivekanandan, E. & R. Jeyabaskaran (2012). Marine Mammal
Species of India. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi,
India,228pp+146pls.
Yousuf, K.S.S.M., A.K. Anoop, B. Anoop, V.V. Afsal, E. Vivekanandan,
R.P. Kumarran, M. Rajagopalan, P.K. Krishnakumar & P. Jayasankar
(2008). Observations on incidental catch of cetaceans in three
landing centres along the Indian coast. Journal of Marine Biological
Association (JMBA) Biodiversity Records 2: 1–6.
Western Ghats
Special Series
Caralluma bicolor Ramach. et al.,
(Apocynaceae: Asclepiadoideae) - a rare
and little known endemic plant as a new
record from Palakkad District, Kerala
State, India
K.A. Anilkumar 1, K.M. Prabhu Kumar 2 & P.S. Udayan 3
Centre for Medicinal Plants Research (CMPR), Arya Vaidya Sala,
Kottakkal P.O., Malappuram District, Kerala 676503, India
3
P.G. Department of Botany and Research Centre, Sree Krishna
College Guruvayur, Ariyannur P.O., Thrissur District, Kerala 680102,
India
1
[email protected], 2 [email protected],
3
1,2
The name Caralluma R. Br. is derived from ‘Car-allum’, the vernacular name of the Telingas for the type
species C. adscendens (Roxb.) Haw. originally described
as Stapelia adscendens Roxb. (Roxburgh 1795; Meve &
Liede 2002). While Ramachandran (1992)mention “Karalluma”, Gravely & Mayuranathan (1931: 5–6), mention
many other vernacular names.
The genus ranges from the Mediterranean,
Macaronesia to Somalia, northeastern Tanzania to
Burma. It belongs to the subtribe Stapeliinae G. Don.
of the tribe Ceropegieae Decne ex Orb. of the subfamily
Asclepiadoideae R. Br. ex Burnett (Endress & Bruyns
Note
2000; Meve & Liede 2004; Bruyns
et al. 2010).
This subfamily
has traditionally been treated
as the family Asclepiadaceae,
ISSN
Online 0974–7907
but molecular evidence has
Print 0974–7893
demonstrated that the group,
monophyletic though it is, is
OPEN ACCESS
included in the Apocynaceae Juss.
(Angiosperm Phylogeny Group 2009).
Caralluma bicolor V.S. Ramach., S. Joseph, H.A. John
& Sofiya in Nordic J. Bot. 29: 447-450. 2011.
Holotype: CAL, isotypes: MH 1501, 13.viii.2009, ca.
450m, Bharathiar University Campus, Coimbatore, Tamil
Nadu, India, Siljo Joseph.
Local Name: ‘Bokkal’ (Malayalam)
Plants up to 60–80 cm tall, stems fleshy, growing
in dense clumps, branchlets unbranched, ascending,
quadrangular, acute; internodes 1.5–3.5 cm long and
glabrous. Racemes subterminal, 15–20 cm long; flowers
pentamerous, 7–12, distant, solitary or paired; pedicel
up to 1.5cm long. Bracts and bracteoles minute.
Calyx lobes 1.4x1 cm, ovate, apex acuminate. Corolla
glabrous, 1.8–2.5 cm long, greenish yellow with reddish
brown striations; tube up to 0.2cm long, lobes rotate,
lanceolate-oblong, 7x2.5 mm, apex cuspidate. Corona
biseriate; the outer linear, 0.8–1cm long, lobes slightly
curved with small projections between the lobes; the
inner corona basally united with the outer corona, slightly
keeled near the base, 7–9 mm long, reddish brown with
small projections between the lobes. Anthers 0.5mm
long, yellowish, basally united with inner surface of the
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3274.5007-9
Editor: N.P. Balakrishnan, Retd. Botanical Survey of India, Coimbatore, India.
Manuscript details: Ms # o3274 | Received 28 July 2012 | Final received 12 October 2013 | Finally accepted 29 October 2013
Citation: Anilkumar, K.A., K.M.P. Kumar & P.S. Udayan (2013). Caralluma bicolor Ramach. et al., (Apocynaceae: Asclepiadoideae) - a rare and little known endemic
plant as a new record from Palakkad District, Kerala State, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 5007–5009; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3274.5007-9
Copyright: © Anilkumar et al. 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction
Funding: University Grands Commission, (UGC), New Delhi., Government of India
(Awarding letter No. F.16-541(SC)/2007(SA-III) 31st March 2008)
Acknowledgements: The authers are thankful to the authorities of Arya Vaidya Sala, Kottakkal for support; thanks are to Dr. Vidyasagaran, College of Forestry, Kerala
Agricultural University, Vellanikara for various help; Dr. Indira Balachandran, CMPR, Arya Vaidya Sala Kottakkal for her constant encouragement and support; Attappady Hill Area Development Society (AHADS), Palakkad and to the authorities of Kerala Forest Department, Mannarkkad Division for granting collection permission.
5007
Anilkumar et al.
© K.A. Anilkumar
Caralluma bicolor range record
India
a
Kerala
b
A
c
Attappady
Figure 1. Distribution of Caralluma bicolor in Attapaddy Hills
a - Ranganathapuram; b - Cheerakadavu; c - Mattathukadu
middle corona. Pollen masses ca. 1mm long, solitary
in each anther cell, yellow round, waxy attached by
the reddish brown caudicle. Gynostegium 1mm long.
Follicle cylindrical with tapering ends, green with black
stripes, 8–12 cm long; seeds oblong-obovoid, 5x2 mm;
coma silky-white.
Specimens examined: 3918, 08.x.2009, ca. 900m,
Cheerakadavu Eastern Attappady Hills, Palakkad District,
Kerala, P.S. Udayan & K.A. Anilkumar; 2005, 11.viii.2007,
ca. 850m, Ranganathapuram, Eastern Attappady Hills,
Palakkad District, Kerala, (Fl & Fr). P.S. Udayan & K.A.
Anilkumar, CALI, CMPR, and MH (Images 1 & 2; Fig. 1).
Distribution: Endemic to the eastern slopes of the
Western Ghats of the Coimbatore District of Tamil Nadu.
In the Attappady area the distribution of Caralluma
bicolor is restricted to Mattathukadu (recorded),
Ranganathapuram and Cheerakadavu localities (with
flowers and fruits) where only 20 individuals were noted
(Image 2).
Habitat: Rocky crevices in scrub jungles.
Flowering & Fruiting: August–December.
Status: The conservation status of C. bicolour was
not mentioned by Ramachandran et al. (2011). The
species is endemic to Tamil Nadu in a small number of
populations. Our study confirmed that the distribution
is restricted and the plants are very rare. Detailed field
studies will help to understand the threat status.
Uses: The whole plant is used as a vegetable by the
5008
B
C
Image 1. Caralluma bicolor Ramachandran et al.
A - flowering twing; B - close up of flower; C - follicle
tribals of Attappady. The dried parts of C. acutangula
(Decne.) N.E. Br. and C. retrospiciens Ehrenb. ex N.E.
Br. are used as a dish in the drier parts of western and
eastern Africa, Egypt and Saudi Arabia (Sanogo 2010).
Notes: Caralluma bicolor is similar to C. adscendens
(Roxb.) Haw. and C. sarkariae Lavranos & R. Frandsen, but
differs in its larger size, unbranched branchlets, sagittate
leaves, glabrous petals and large seeds. This species was
so far known only from the scrub forests of the eastern
slopes of the Western Ghats of Coimbatore District,
Tamil Nadu (Ramachandran et al. (2011). The present
collection from Ranganathapuram and Cheerakadavu
forests of Eastern Attappady Hills, Palakkad District
extending its distribution further towards western slopes
of Western Ghats and form a new record for Kerala.
REFERENCES
Anonymous (1971). Village Survey Monographs: Tribal Areas. Vol. VII,
part VI, G. Census of India, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (2009). An update of the Angiosperm
Caralluma bicolor range record
Anilkumar et al.
Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families
of flowering plants: APG III. Botanical Journal of the Linnean
Society 161(2): 105–121; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.10958339.2009.00996.x
Bruyns, P.V., A. Farsi & T. Hedderson (2010). Phylogenetic relationships
in Caralluma R. Br. (Apocynaceae). Taxon 59: 1031–1043.
Endress, M.E. & P.V. Bruyns (2000). A revised classification of the
Apocynaceaes. l. The Botanical Review 66(1): 1–56; http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/BF02857781
Gravely, F.H. & P.V. Mayuranathan (1931, “1930”). The Indian species
of the genus Caralluma (Fam. Asclepiadaceae). Bulletin of Madras
Government Museum 4(1): 1–28.
Karthikeyan, S., M. Sanjappa & S. Moorthy (2010). Flowering Plants of
India: Dicotyledons, Acanthaceae: Avicenniaceae. Botanical Survey
of India 1: 159–167.
Meve, U. & S. Liede (2002). A molecular phylogeny and generic
rearrangement of the stapelioid Ceropegieae (Apocynaceae:
Asclepiadoideae). Plant Systematic and Evolution 234(1–4): 171–
209; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00606-002-0220-2
Meve, U. & S. Liede (2004). Subtribal division of Ceropegieae
(Apocynaceae – Asclepiadoideae). Taxon 53(1): 61–72.
Ramachandran, K. (1992). The Wealth of India Edition 2. Council of
Scientific & Industrial Research, New Delhi, 267pp.
Ramachandran, V.S., S. Joseph, H.A. John & C. Sofiya (2011). Caralluma
bicolor sp. nov. (Apocynaceae, Asclepiadoideae) from India. Nordic
Journal of Botany 29: 447–450; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.17561051.2011.01041.x
Roxburgh, W. (1795). Plants of the coast of Coromandel - Vol. 1.
Bulmer & Co., London, vi+100pp.
Sanogo, R. (2010). Caralluma adscendens (Roxb.) R. Br. [Internet]
Record from Protabase. Schmelzer, G.H. & Gurib-Fakim, A. (Editors).
PROTA, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Sasidharan, N. (2004). Biodiversity documentation for Kerala – part 6:
Flowering Plants. Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, Kerala.
Image 2. Herbarium sheet of Caralluma bicolor
5009
Note
A note on the occurrence of Cucumis
sativus L. forma hardwickii (Royle) W.J.
De Wilde & Duyfjes (Cucurbitaceae) in
peninsular India
Mandar N. Datar 1, Girish Pathak 2 & Hemant V. Ghate 3
Scientist B, Agharkar Research Institute, GG Agarkar Road, Pune,
Maharashtra 411004, India
2
MSc (Biodiversity) Student of A. Garware College, Pune, Maharashtra
411 004, India
3
Department of Zoology, Modern College, Shivajinagar, Pune,
Maharashtra 411005, India
1
[email protected], 2 [email protected],
3
1
The genus Cucumis L. (Cucurbitaceae) is distributed
in the tropical region with about 52 species (Mabberley
2008). This genus is of horticultural importance as it has
many cultivated species with a large diversity of wild
germplasm. There are six species in India (Chakravarty
1982), of which Cucumis sativus L. (Cucumber) is
cultivated widely for its edible fruits. Additionally, one
wild variant of Cucumis sativus is also found to grow in
wild, which was collected during our routine field work
in Tikona Fort area of Pune District (Image 1). This wild
form was compared with cultivated form of Cucumis
sativus L. for morphological characters.
The differences between these wild growing plants
and cultivated ones are quite significant and are given
in Table 1. To understand the distribution of this wild
form, specimens deposited in Herbarium of Botanical
Survey of India, Western Regional Centre (BSI), Pune
were scrutinized. The scrutiny revealed that this wild
form of Cucumis sativus L. occurs
widely throughout peninsular India.
In many Indian floras, this wild
population of cucumber is treated
ISSN
Online 0974–7907
only under Cucumis sativus L. But
Print 0974–7893
from the above characteristics
it appears to be unjustified to
OPEN ACCESS
keep the wild as well as cultivated
populations under a single species.
This issue has been discussed by various authors
(Duthie 1903; Kirkbride 1993; Jeffrey 2001; de Wilde
& Duyfjes 2010). Most of them have treated the
cultivated form as Cucumis sativus L. var. sativus
and the wildly occurring form as Cucumis sativus L.
var. hardwickii (Royle) Alef. The latter was originally
described as a distinct species by Royle (1835) as C.
hardwickii Royle. Duthie (1903) considered Cucumis
sativus var. hardwickii (Royle) Alef. just as the wild form
of the cultivated cucumber, as both have all essential
characteristics in common. De Candolle considered
C. hardwickii Royle as a weedy form of C. sativus that
escaped from cultivation, rather than assuming it as
the ancestor of this species (de Wilde & Duyfjes 2010).
Kirkbride (1993), while describing Cucumis sativus L.,
added a note for this distinct form stating “smaller, more
delicate plants with bitter fruits have traditionally been
identified as C. sativus var. hardwickii”. Jeffrey (2001), in
support of Kirkbride (1993), stated that typical members
of the var. hardwickii can be easily identified but that no
morphological characteristics clearly separate it.
It is quite clear from the above discussion, that the
taxa occurring in the wild should be treated separately
from the cultivated one. Some authors have treated it
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3415.5010-2
Editor: P. Lakshminarasimhan, Botanical Survey of India, Howrah, India.
Manuscript details: Ms # o3415 | Received 21 November 2012 | Final received 21 July 2013 | Finally accepted 19 October 2013
Citation: Datar, M.N., G. Pathak & H.V. Ghate (2013). A note on the occurrence of Cucumis sativus L. forma hardwickii (Royle) W.J. De Wilde & Duyfjes (Cucurbitaceae) in peninsular India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 5010–5012; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3415.5010-2
Copyright: © Datar et al. 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction and
Funding: None.
Acknowledgements: We sincerely thank Willem de Wilde and Brigitta Duyfjes (Netherlands Center for Biodiversity Naturalis / Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden
University, Leiden, The Netherlands) for their valuable help in settling the identity of this plant on the basis of pictures sent to them. We also thank them for critically commenting on the first draft of this short note. We also thank the Director, Agharkar Research Institute, Pune and authorities of Modern College, Pune for
facilities and encouragements. We are also thankful to In-charge, BSI, Pune for allowing us to consult the herbarium.
5010
© Hemant Ghate
a
© Mandar Datar
Datar et al.
c
© Hemant Ghate
© Mandar Datar
Occurrence of Cucumis sativus in peninsular India
© Girish Pathak
d
b
e
Image 1. Cucumis sativus L. forma hardwickii (Royle) W.J. De Wilde
& Duyfjes
a - leaves; b - twing with flower and fruits; c - flower; d - immature
fruit; e - mature fruit.
as C. sativus forma hardwickii (de Wilde & Duyfjes 2010)
while some have treated it as a variety, i.g., C. sativus var.
hardwickii. Kirkbride (1993) in his monograph placed four
species and one variety of Cucumis from South East Asia
in the synonymy of C. sativus, viz. C. hardwickii Royle, C.
muricatus Willd., C. rumphii Hassk., C. setosus Cogn. and
C. sativus L. var. sikkimensis Hook. f. This synonymy was
partly accepted by de Wilde & Duyfjes (2007) except for
C. hardwickii which they retained as the separate wild
variety. But recent detailed studies by the same authors
(de Wilde & Duyfjes 2010) have resulted in the wild form
being treated as C. sativus forma hardwickii (Royle) W.J.
de Wilde & Duyfjes and not as a separate variety.
This wild form has not been reported in earlier major
floras on peninsular India as the authors treated it only
in Cucumis sativus L. (Matthew 1983; Saldanha 1984;
Sharma et al. 1984; Rao 1985; Pullaiah 1997; Almeida,
1998; Rao 2001). But Jeffrey (2001) described the
distribution of this forma hardwickii from peninsular
India to Sri Lanka. In addition to wild and cultivated
forms, there are some forms found as an escape from
cultivation. We, therefore, suggest that these escaped
forms along with cultivated ones need to be treated
under Cucumis sativus L. proper while the wild population
occurring in peninsular India is to be treated as C. sativus
forma hardwickii (Royle) W.J. de Wilde & Duyfjes (Image
Table 1. Differences between cultivated and wild forms of Cucumis
sativus L.
Character
Cultivated form of
Cucumis sativus
Wild form of Cucumis
sativus
Inflorescence
Many flowered
1–3 flowered
Fruiting season
Almost throughout the
year
September to January. On
many occasions fruits are
seen even on dried plants
Fruit shape
Ellipsoid or cylindrical
Ovoid to slightly ellipsoid
Fruit color
Yellowish-green without
stripes
Green with white stripes
Fruit surface
Less scabrid, more or less
smooth
Scabrid, with deciduous
spine like structures on
the surface
Fruit Taste
Neutral, not bitter
Bitter
Seed length
7–11 mm long
6–7 mm long
1) and not under C. sativus. A good description and
illustration of C. sativus forma hardwickii (Royle) W.J. de
Wilde & Duyfjes are provided by the authors (de Wilde
& Duyfjes 2010).
Specimens studied: Dadra-Nagar Haveli: 127095A
(BSI), 14.xi.1970, Sindhoni Forest, Nagar Haveli, coll. M.
Y. Ansari.
Karnataka: 73565(BSI), 04.ix.1961, Katedevargudi,
Mysore District, coll. R.S. Rao.
Kerala: 62279 (BSI), 20.vi.1960, Hereford Estate, coll.
K.C. Kanodia.
Maharashtra: 101065 (BSI), 28.x.1964, Ambavane,
District Pune, coll. B.V. Reddi; 111329 (BSI), 12.ix.1967,
Peint, District Nasik, John Cherian; 27429 & 27430
(AHMA) (Images 2 & 3), 20.ix.2011, Tikona Fort, Taluka
Maval, District Pune, coll. M.N. Datar; 99196 (BSI),
26.ix.1964, near Valvan Dam, District Pune, coll. B. V.
Reddi.
REFERENCES
Almeida, M.R. (1998). Flora of Maharashtra - Vol. II. Blatter Herbarium,
Mumbai, 316pp.
Chakravarty, H.L. (1982). Fascicles of Flora of India. Fascicle 11.
Cucurbitaceae. Botanical Survey of India, Howrah, 73 pp.
de Wilde, J.J.O. Willem & B.E.E. Duyfjes (2007). The wild species of
Cucumis L. (Cucurbitaceae) in South-East Asia. Adansonia. 29(2):
239–248.
de Wilde, J.J.O. Willem & B.E.E. Duyfjes (2010). Cucumis sativus L.
forma hardwickii (Royle) W. J. de Wilde & Duyfjes and feral forma
sativus. Thai Forest Bulletin (Bot) 38: 98-107.
Duthie, J.F. (1903). Flora of the Upper Gangetic plain and of the
adjacent Siwalik and sub-Himalayan tracts. Calcutta 374pp.
Jeffrey, C. (2001). Cucurbitaceae. In: P. Hanelt (ed.), Mansfeld’s
Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops. Springer
verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. 3: 1510–1557.
Kirkbride, J.H. (1993). Biosystematic monograph of the genus Cucumis
(Cucurbitaceae). Parkway publishers, Boone, North Carolina, 159pp.
Mabberley, D.J. (2008). Mabberley’s Plant Book A portable dictionary
5011
Occurrence of Cucumis sativus in peninsular India
Datar et al.
Image 3. Herbarium sheet of Cucumis sativus l. Forma hardwickii
(Royle) (27430 AHMA)
Image 2. Herbarium sheet of Cucumis sativus l. forma hardwickii
(Royle) (27429 AHMA)
5012
of plants, their classification and uses 3rd ed. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, 235pp.
Matthew, K.M. (1983). The Flora of the Tamilnadu Carnatic: Vol. III.
Rapinath Herbarium Tiruchirapally, 642pp.
Pullaiah, T. (1997). Flora of Andhra Pradesh: Vol. I. Scientific publishers,
Jodhpur. 409pp.
Rao, K.M. (2001). Cucurbitaceae. In Singh, N.P., P. Lakshminarasimhan,
S. Karthikeyan & P.V. Prasanna (eds.) Flora of Maharashtra State.
Dicotyledones. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta 2: 51–75.
Rao, R.S. (1985). Flora of Goa, Diu, Daman, Dadra & Nagarhaveli. Vol.
1 Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta, 185pp.
Royle, J.F. (1835). Illustrations of the Botany of the Himalayan
Mountains. W.H. Allen & Co., London, 1: 220; 2: tab. 47: 3.
Saldanha, C.J. (1984). Flora of Karnataka: Vol. I. Oxford and IBH
Publishing Co., 308pp.
Sharma, B.D., N.P. Singh & R. Sundararaghavan (1984). Flora of
Karnataka Analysis. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta, 112pp.
Golden Langur Trachypithecus geei
(Khajuria, 1956) feeding on Cryptocoryne
retrospiralis (Roxb.) Kunth (Family:
Araceae): a rare feeding observation in
Chirang Reserve Forest, Assam, India
Raju Das ¹, Hilloljyoti Singha 2, Hemanta Kumar Sahu 3 &
Kushal Choudhury ⁴
Nature’s Foster, P.O. Box No. 41, Shastri Road, Bongaigaon, Assam 783380,
India
² Centre for Biodiversity & Natural Resources Conservation, Department of
Ecology & Environmental Science, Assam University, Silchar, Assam 788011, India
1, ,4
³ P.G. Departments of Zoology, North Orissa University, Sri Ramchandra Vihar,
Takatpur, Baripada, Odisha 757003, India
⁴ Department of Zoology, Science College, Kokrajhar, Assam, India
1
[email protected], 2 [email protected] (corresponding author),
3
[email protected], 4 [email protected]
1
The Golden Langur Trachypithecus geei Khajuria,
1956 is one of the rarest primates of South Asia.
Because of its restricted distribution and numbers, it is
listed under Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act of
India (1972), assessed as Endangered on the IUCN Red
List (Das et al. 2008), and under Appendix I of CITES. It is
a leaf-eating, arboreal, canopy-dwelling langur endemic
to India and Bhutan. It is found only in a small pocket of
forests of north-western Assam, India and south-central
Bhutan at the Indo-Bhutan border. It is distributed in
India between the rivers Manas in the east, Sankosh in
the west and Brahmaputra in the south.
A rare feeding behaviour of Golden Langur was
observed in Chirang Reserve Forest (26.300–26.520N &
90.150–90.250E), Assam, during 2010 on four occasions;
two in October and two in December. The Chirang
Note
Reserve Forest is bounded on the
west by the Saralbhanga River,
on the north by the international
boundary with Bhutan, on the east
ISSN
Online 0974–7907
by the river Bhur, and on the south
Print 0974–7893
it is bounded at present by National
OPEN ACCESS
Highway 31. The Chirang Reserve
Forest is in the buffer area of the
Manas Biosphere Reserve and Ripu-Chirang Elephant
Reserve.
We observed a group of Golden Langurs feeding
on Cryptocoryne retrospiralis (family: Araceae) in
Samukha River. The group was composed of a total of
10 individuals consisting of two adult males, five adult
females, two infants and one juvenile. The langurs
would go down to the river, get a portion of the plant,
and eat it as they moved on. The feeding bout lasted
for two to three minutes, extending up to five minutes.
On all these four occasions, langurs were found actively
seeking the plant. On exposed stream beds, they would
sit digging the plant until a piece was chosen and eaten.
Movement to the site was direct, with clear intent. In
eight cases, some bits of the plant that had been picked
up were tasted, smelled and subsequently rejected.
They fed on the stalks, leaves and flowers of the plant.
In one instance a male went down to the water to feed
on the whole plant (Image 1a). They purposefully fed
on this plant species among other aquatic macrophytes.
Adult males were the most frequent users of the plant.
Abbreviations: CITES - Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; IUCN - International
Union for Conservation of Nature; RF - Reserve Forest.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3535.5013-5 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:20AFFD4E-2A7A-4E5B-A824-A68B28666D64
Editor: Mewa Singh, Mysore University, Mysuru, India.
Manuscript details: Ms # o3535 | Received 20 February 2013 | Final received 28 August 2013 | Finally accepted 14 October 2013
Citation: Das, R., H. Singha, H.K. Sahu & K. Choudhury (2013). Golden Langur Trachypithecus geei (Khajuria, 1956) feeding on Cryptocoryne retrospiralis (Roxb.) Kunth
(Family: Araceae): a rare feeding observation in Chirang Reserve Forest, Assam, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 5013–5015; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/
JoTT.o3535.5013-5
Copyright: © Das 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: The first author is grateful to Dr. Nowel Rowe, Primate Conservation Inc., USA, for financial grants.
Acknowledgements: The authors wish to thank the Department of Forests and Tourism, Bodoland Territorial Council for granting the permission and logistic support. Sincere thanks are also due to Dr. Awadhesh Kumar, Department of Forestry, NERIST (Deemed University), Arunachal Pradesh, India for providing literature.
The first author is grateful to Dr. R.H. Horwich, CC, USA for constant advice and support.
5013
Das et al.
5014
b
© Raju Das
a
c
© Raju Das
Cryptocoryne retrospiralis (Roxb.) Kunth., also known
as water trumpet, a submerged herb, is native to India,
Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar, Lao PDR, Vietnam
and Thailand. It is commonly found all over India as a
submerged herb (Gupta 2011). The plant is perennial,
occurs mostly in streams and rivers with not too rapidly
flowing water, and in lowland forest, where it often
forms turf-like communities (Image 1b). The rhizomes
of the plant grow up to 1.5cm thick and knotty, with
stolons, bearing long, thick, contractile roots, leaves
linear to narrowly oblong, narrowly cartilaginous,
sometimes minutely toothed near base. Spathe is pale
green on the outside, with white spotted purple inside
(Image 1c) (Noltie 1994). Flowering of the plants has
been observed from November until March. However,
this plant species is rare in Chirang Reserve Forest and
is localized only in this part of the reserve forest. The
water at the locality had a pH of 5–5.4.
Das (2012) reported 91 plant species as food species
for Golden Langur comprising both trees and climbers in
Chirang RF. Floristic composition of the habitat appears
to determine the spectrum of food plant species in their
diet. The proportion of foliage in the overall diet of
Golden Langur is 70% (Biswas et al. 1996). Consumption
of young leaves probably meets the requirement of
essential nutrients and protein for langurs because they
contain a high percentage of crude protein (Struhsaker
1975; Krishnamani 1994; Kumar & Solanki 2004).
Golden Langurs get about 65% of their diet from leaves,
25% from fruits, and 10% from flowers (Das 2012). The
selectivity and preferences of primates for specific plant
species are viewed as strategies for dealing with the
nutrient and secondary compound content variation
in these foods (Das 2012). However, it is not clear why
the Golden Langur select Cryptocoryne retrospiralis
to feed on among other aquatic plant species. The
chemical analyses have demonstrated that plant parts of
Cryptocoryne sp. contain carbohydrates, glycosides and
alkaloids, and very specifically contain oxofattyacid esters
like ethyl 14-oxotetracosonoate and 15-oxocicosanyl
14-oxoheptadecanoate together with hentriacontane
(Rastoji & Mehrotra 1980). There are also reports of
consumption of Cryptocoryne species as greens by
the tribes in the Western Ghats of India (Narayanan &
Kumar 2007). Ethnobotanically this plant is used locally
in medicine (Cook 1996). The fresh tuber paste is applied
twice a day for relief from boils and burns (Kamble et al.
2010); used as antiperiodic, febrifuge, tonic, beneficial
in infantile vomiting, cough and for abdominal troubles
(Chatterjee & Prakashi 2001). Therefore, further
investigation is needed regarding the consumption of
© K. Chaudhury
Rare feeding of Golden Langur
Image 1. a - Golden Langur feeding on the Cryptocoryne
retrospiralis; b - habitat of the plant species; c - inflorescence of
Cryptocoryne retrospiralis
Cryptocoryne retrospiralis by the Golden Langur.
REFERENCES
Biswas, J., R. Medhi & S.M. Mohnot (1996). Behavior and ecology of
introduced pair of Golden Langur to Umananda River Island, Assam
(abstract) IPS/ASP Congress Abstracts. Madison, WI, USA, 041.
Chatterjee, A. & S.C. Prakashi (2001). The Treatise on Indian Medicinal
Plants - Vol. 6. NISCIR, New Delhi, 33–34pp.
Cook, C.D.K. (1996). Aquatic and Wetland Plants of India. Oxford
Rare feeding of Golden Langur
University press Inc., New York, 385pp.
Das, R. (2012). Nutritional ecology of Golden Langur Trachypithecus
geei (Khajuria, 1956) in Chirang Reserve Forest, Assam, India.
Unpublished PhD Thesis. North Orissa University, Baripada, Orissa,
xxii+305pp.
Das, J., R. Medhi & S. Molur (2008). Trachypithecus geei. In: IUCN
iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 12 November 2013.
Gupta, A.K. (2011). Cryptocoryne retrospiralis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. <www.iucnredlist.
org>. Downloaded on 26 August 2013.
Kamble, S.Y., S.R. Patil, P.S. Sawant, S. Sawanth, S.G. Pawar & E.A.
Singh (2010). Studies on Plants used in traditional medicine by
Bhillatribes of Maharashtra. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge
9(3): 591--598.
Khajuria, H. (1956). A new langur (Primates: Colobidae) from Goalpara
District, Assam. Annual Maga-zine Natural History 12: 86--88.
Das et al.
Krishnamani, R. (1994). Diet composition of the Bonnet Macaque
(Macaca radiata) in a tropical dry evergreen forest of southern
India. Tropical Biodiversity 2(2): 285--302.
Kumar, A. & G.S. Solanki (2004). A rare feeding observation on water
lilies (Nymphaeaalba) by the Capped Langur (Trachypithecus
pileatus). Folia Primatologica 75: 157--159.
Narayanan, R.M.K. & N.A. Kumar (2007). Gendered knowledge and
changing trends in utilization of wild edible greens in Western
Ghats, India. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 6(1): 204--216.
Noltie, H.J. (1994). Flora of Bhutan - Volume 3, Part 1. Royal Botanic
Garden, Edinburgh, 155pp.
Rastoji., P.R. & B.N. Mehrotra (1980). Compendium of Indian
Medicinal Plants - Vol.3, 1980-1984. CDRI Lucknow and NISCI, New
Delhi, 214pp.
Struhsaker, T.T. (1975). The Red Colobus Monkey. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, 311pp.
5015
Rejoinder
On the identification of Indian butterflies
in the book on Butterflies of the Garo
Hills
Monsoon Jyoti Gogoi
Bokakhat East Dagaon, Dist.Golaghat, Assam 785612, India
[email protected]
I was requested to review the book ‘Butterflies of the
Garo Hills’ (Sondi et al. 2013a), which I duly did, pointing
out some errors as was my duty (Gogoi 2013). In the
rebuttal (Kunte et al. 2013b), the authors questioned
my competence to distinguish concerned species
(Clearly, Gogoi’s observations on the seasonal variation
in these two species are limited….). So, I present here
photographic clarification and notes primarily for the
benefit of users of the book as well as for the authors.
In the book, the authors have used image of Jamides
pura which is clearly J.celeno. However, in the rebuttal
(Kunte et al. 2013b), they have used a separate image
for J. pura. I produce here the images of both wet
season form (WSF) and dry season form (DSF) of J. pura
(Images 1 & 2). Both photographs show the thread like
black border to the upper side forewing not dilated at
apex (Evans 1932), which is a dependable distinguishing
character for this species. The cilia is dilated at apex in
the museum specimen cross checked which shows that
this cannot be J. pura but should be J. celeno.
Regarding the Melanitis, in my review (Gogoi 2013), I
have already mentioned the underside key to M. zitenius
and M. phedima. Kunte et al. (2013b) have provided the
upper side images of M. phedima and M. zitenius but
the upper side markings have a high degree of seasonal
variation. In Evans (1932) it is clearly mentioned for
M. phedima bela, DSF forms are larger and darker and
DSF male costal bar present, absent in WSF and for M.
zitenius zitenius, WSF white spots usually absent and in
DSF black and white spots prominent.
Kunte et al. (2013b) claimed
my image of Tarucus theophrastus
indica marked as ‘male’ is actually
female and image marked as
ISSN
Online 0974–7907
‘female’ is male. However, I have
Print 0974–7893
personally observed males and
females from the Brahmaputra
OPEN ACCESS
Valley. My confirmation of female
is on the basis of egg laying individuals. I am adding
photograph of the egg laying female for further
clarification (Images 3 & 4).
In my review (Gogoi 2013), I mentioned that cilia
chequered with white in the hindwing for N. namba
but not in N. ananta (Inayoshi 2012). My competence
was questioned by the authors (….distinguishing
between N. ananta and N. namba is more complex than
suggested by Gogoi). Neptis namba Tytler, 1915 has more
darker yellow bands and flies in low elevation, whereas
N. ananta flies in higher elevation (Tytler 1915a). The
image in the book has dark yellow bands and Garo Hills
itself is low elevation. I have used photographs of N.
ananta and N. namba for further clarification (Images
5 & 6). In my review (Gogoi 2013), I have already mentioned
the distinguishing characters of Seseria dohertyi and
S. sambara. The base of hind wing is clearly bluish in
Garo Hills book and hence cannot be sambara. I have
used photographs along with identification keys of both
the species for further clarification. Again, the image of
Matapa cresta in the book is actually M. druna as the
photograph is clearly pale ferruginous on the underside.
M. cresta lacks the ferruginous tinge (Evans 1949). M.
druna male is ferruginous dark than female (Jong de
1983) and hence it is a female M. druna. I have added
photographs of both the species for further clarification
(Images 9 & 10). The image of Matapa sasivarna used
in the book is purple below. However, M. sasivarna
is fuliginous (Evans 1949) and hence, should be
M.purpurescens. I have used both upper and underside
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3855.5016-8 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:2D49B36B-5B22-4069-8A97-F3A29DDAD3EE
Manuscript details: Ms # o3855 | Received 21 November 2013
Citation: Gogoi, M.J. (2013). On the identification of Indian butterflies in the book on Butterflies of the Garo Hills. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 5016–5018;
Copyright: © Gogoi 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction and
5016
© Monsoon J. Gogoi
© Rajkamal Goswami
Image 1. Jamides pura, WSF.
Image 2. Jamides pura, DSF.
Image 3. Tarucus theophrastus
indica, female, egg laying.
© Monsoon J. Gogoi
Gogoi
© Monsoon J. Gogoi
Rejoinder: On the identification of Indian butterflies
Image 4. Tarucus theophrastus
indica, female, basking after
egg laying.
© Monsoon J. Gogoi
outer spot in 7 is nearer to spot
in 6 than spot near base 7
© Monsoon J. Gogoi
Image 7. Seseria dohertyi
Image 6. Neptis namba
© Monsoon J. Gogoi
© Monsoon J. Gogoi
Image 5. Neptis ananta
unh hindwing base
bluish
© Monsoon J. Gogoi
Locality: Mishmi Hills, Arunachal Pradesh
Image 9. Matapa druna
Image 10. Matapa cresta
Locality: Jeypore-Dehing, Assam
© Monsoon J. Gogoi
© Monsoon J. Gogoi
outer spot in 7 is in the middle of spot
in 6 than spot near base 7
unh hindwing base
brownish
Image 8. Seseria sambara
© Monsoon J. Gogoi
Image 11. Matapa sasivarna
Image 12. Matapa sasivarna
image of M. sasivarna for further clarification (Images
11 & 12).
Hence, Garo Hills book, in its present form, contains
misidentified specimens of some complex species of
butterflies.
5017
Rejoinder: On the identification of Indian butterflies
Gogoi
REFERENCES
Evans, W.H. (1932). The Identification of Indian Butterflies—2nd Edition.
Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay, x+454pp+32pl.
Evans, W.H. (1949). A Catalogue of the Hesperiidae from Europe,
Asia and Australia in the British Museum (Natural History). British
Museum (Natural History), London, 502pp.
Gogoi, M.J. (2013). Book Review: Butterflies of the Garo Hills. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 5(10): 4527–4528.
Inayoshi, Y. (2012). A Check List of Butterflies in Indo-China (chiefly from
Thailand, Laos and Vietnam). http://yutaka.it-n.jp/lim1/720360001.
html (accessed 31.7.2013).
Jong de, R. (1983). Revision of the Oriental genus Matapa moore
(Lepidoptera, Hesperiidae) with discussion of its phylogeny and
geographic History. Zoologische Mededelingen 57(21): 243–270.
5018
Kehimkar, I. (2008). The Book of Indian Butterflies. Bombay Natural
History Society and Oxford University Press, New Delhi, xvi+497pp.
Kunte, K., G. Agavekar, S. Sondhi, R. Lovalekar & K. Tokekar (2013b).
On the identification and misidentification of butterflies of the Garo
Hills. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(11): 4616–4620; http://dx.doi.
org/10.11609/JoTT.o3710.4616-20
Sondhi, S., K. Kunte, G. Agavekar, R. Lovalekar & K. Tokekar (2013a).
Butterflies of the Garo Hills. Samrakshan Trust (New Delhi), Titli
Trust (Dehradun) and Indian Foundation for Butterflies (Bengaluru),
200pp.
Tytler, H.C. (1915a). Notes on some new and interesting butterflies
from Manipur and the Naga Hills. Part II. Journal of the Bombay
Final notes on the identification and
misidentification of butterflies of the
Garo Hills
Krushnamegh Kunte 1,2, Sanjay Sondhi 2,3, Gaurav Agavekar1,2,
Rohan Lovalekar 2 & Kedar Tokekar 2
National Center for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental
Research, GKVK, Bellary Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560065, India; 2 Indian
Foundation for Butterflies, Bengaluru; 3 Titli Trust, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
[email protected], [email protected] (corresponding
author)
1
We are glad that Gogoi’s book review and the
rejoinder are attracting much needed attention to the
identification and taxonomic status of Indian butterflies.
We have explained our identifications in our previous
response; here we will only briefly attend to points raised
in Gogoi’s rejoinder.
Gogoi has produced a partial seasonal form of
Jamides pura, claiming that this is the dry season form of
pura. However, this is one variation among the seasonal
forms of pura. Seasonal forms of pura matching our Garo
Hills male, of which we had checked the upperside and
confirmed the diagnostic features, are now available
on the Butterflies of India website (http://www.
ifoundbutterflies.org/228-jamides/jamides-pura).
Distinguishing features on the undersides of Melanitis
leda, M. phedima and M. zitenius mentioned by Gogoi
neither conform to Evans’s key nor to variation wellestablished from various important pictorial guides and
taxonomic books (cited in our previous response). Evans’s
key to the dry season forms of these species is highly
inadequate, and it is a challenge to anybody to accurately
distinguish between these seasonal forms using
undersides and Evans’s key alone. Identification of the
dry season forms of these species is best done with close
inspection of upper and undersides of adults, early life
stages (eggs and caterpillars of phedima and zitenius are
quite distinct; see http://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/427-
Reply
melanitis/melanitis-phedima and
http://www.ifoundbutterflies.
org /427-melanitis/melanitiszitenius), and genitalia. Relying
ISSN
Online 0974–7907
purely on external morphology of
Print 0974–7893
adults will lead to some uncertainty
in species identity.
OPEN ACCESS
Gogoi’s claims about sexual
forms and identification of Tarucus are incorrect. We
have discussed this in our previous response, here we will
only point out for the record that what he believes are
male and female of Tarucus indica (Image 1) are actually
T. venosus. Reference images of both sexes of T. indica
and T. venosus are now available online (http://www.
ifoundbutterflies.org/250-tarucus/tarucus-venosus and
http://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/250-Tarucus/Tarucusindica). KT’s image from the Garo Hills closely matches
the phenotype and description of male T. venosus. We
also point out once again that “Tarucus theophrastus
indica” is a long outdated scientific name combination for
indica.
We are well aware of the correctly identified specimens
of Neptis namba illustrated on Yutaka Inayoshi’s website.
Our previous comments were based not only on these
specimens but also on dozens of specimens of N. namba
and N. ananta from the Natural History Museum, London,
including the types of both the species (included in our
previous response and on the species pages: http://www.
ifoundbutterflies.org/153-Neptis/Neptis-ananta
and
http://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/153-Neptis/Neptisnamba). It is evident from the page of N. namba that
there is considerable variation in the saturation of redorange discal bands and white cilia in this species, and
that the type of N. ananta ochracea also has white cilia,
especially on the underside of forewing. Our point about
the caution required to distinguish between these two
species and the overlap in their wing patterns remains.
As we acknowledged in our previous response, the image
used in our book may well be N. namba, but without
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3856.5019-20 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:0375E5D6-4E43-446E-A3E9-9130C3055054
Manuscript details: Ms # o3856 | Received 21 November 2013
Citation: Kunte, K., S. Sondhi, G. Agavekar, R. Lovalekar & K. Tokekar (2013). Final notes on the identification and misidentification of butterflies of the Garo Hills.
Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 5019–5020; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3856.5019-20
Copyright: © Kunte et al. 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction and
5019
Final notes on the identification and misidentification of butterflies of the Garo Hills
Kunte et al.
Image 1. Gogoi’s misattribution of male and female phenotypes of Tarucus venosus, given by him as “Tarucus theophrastus indica” (Images by
Monsoon Jyoti Gogoi, taken from http://www.flutters.org, used under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License).
images of the underside, we cannot be absolutely certain.
We await for further sightings of this Neptis species pair
from the Garo Hills to confirm or change our tentative
identification.
Images of the museum specimens of Seseria sambara
and Seseria dohertyi are now available online (http://
www.ifoundbutterflies.org/358-seseria/seseria-sambara
and
http://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/358-seseria/
seseria-dohertyi). Readers can compare the images to
understand the distinguishing features between these
two species. According to Evans in 1949, which was a
comprehensive update on the Hesperiidae in his previous
book in 1932, and the museum specimens that we
have seen, the bluish tinge at the base of the hindwing
underside of some specimens is not a criterion to
distinguish between this species pair.
Gogoi’s conception of the color “ferruginous” is
incorrect, and he has misidentified our male Matapa
cresta as female M. druna. KK’s identification of M. cresta
male was based on investigation of the male brand (media
codes ag592 and av691, which was the same individual, on
5020
http://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/301-matapa/matapacresta). The brand of this male specimen matches closely
with the brands seen in museum specimens (see the
above link) as well as the sketches of brands given by de
Jong. As far as we are concerned, both the specimens
identified and presented in his rejoinder by Gogoi are M.
cresta, one more prominently marked than the other.
However, Gogoi has correctly identified one of them as
M. cresta and misidentified the other as M. druna. The
brand on the male shown in his image (provided to us
by Gogoi for reference but not included in his response)
matches the brand of cresta, not druna. Similarly, we
believe that our identification of M. sasivarna matches
the description of Evans, de Jong and museum specimens.
Images of museum specimens of Indian Matapa, including
males showing brands, are now online (http://www.
ifoundbutterflies.org/#!/tx/301-Matapa-dp3).
We appreciate Gogoi’s adamant belief in his (mis)
identifications. However, we think that we have provided
sufficient evidence to support our identifications.
Dr. Pankaj Kumar, Tai Po, Hong Kong
Dr. Krushnamegh Kunte, Cambridge, USA
Prof. Dr. Adriano Brilhante Kury, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Dr. P. Lakshminarasimhan, Howrah, India
Dr. Carlos Alberto S de Lucena, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Dr. Glauco Machado, São Paulo, Brazil
Dr. Volker Mahnert, Douvaine, France
Dr. Gowri Mallapur, Mamallapuram, India
Dr. George Mathew, Peechi, India
Dr. Rudi Mattoni, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Prof. Richard Kiprono Mibey, Eldoret, Kenya
Dr. Lionel Monod, Genève, Switzerland
Dr. Shomen Mukherjee, Jamshedpur, India
Dr. Shomita Mukherjee, Coimbatore, India
Dr. Fred Naggs, London, UK
Dr. P.O. Nameer, Thrissur, India
Dr. D. Narasimhan, Chennai, India
Dr. T.C. Narendran, Kozhikode, India
Mr. Stephen D. Nash, Stony Brook, USA
Dr. K.S. Negi, Nainital, India
Dr. K.A.I. Nekaris, Oxford, UK
Dr. Tim New, Melbourne, Australia
Dr. Heok Hee Ng, Singapore
Dr. Boris P. Nikolov, Sofia, Bulgaria
Prof. Annemarie Ohler, Paris, France
Dr. Shinsuki Okawara, Kanazawa, Japan
Dr. Albert Orr, Nathan, Australia
Dr. Geeta S. Padate, Vadodara, India
Dr. Larry M. Page, Gainesville, USA
Dr. Arun K. Pandey, Delhi, India
Dr. Prakash Chand Pathania, Ludhiana, India
Dr. Malcolm Pearch, Kent, UK
Dr. Richard S. Peigler, San Antonio, USA
Dr. Rohan Pethiyagoda, Sydney, Australia
Mr. J. Praveen, Bengaluru, India
Dr. Mark R Stanley Price, Tubney, UK
Dr. Robert Michael Pyle, Washington, USA
Dr. Muhammad Ather Rafi, Islamabad, Pakistan
Dr. Rajeev Raghavan, Cochin, India
Dr. H. Raghuram, Bengaluru, India
Dr. Dwi Listyo Rahayu, Pemenang, Indonesia
Dr. Sekar Raju, Suzhou, China
Dr. Vatsavaya S. Raju, Warangal, India
Dr. V.V. Ramamurthy, New Delhi, India
Dr (Mrs). R. Ramanibai, Chennai, India
Prof. S.N. Ramanujam, Shillong, India
Dr. Alex Ramsay, LS2 7YU, UK
Dr. M.K. Vasudeva Rao, Pune, India t
Dr. Robert Raven, Queensland, Australia
Dr. K. Ravikumar, Bengaluru, India
Dr. Luke Rendell, St. Andrews, UK
Dr. Heidi Riddle, Greenbrier, USA
Dr. Anjum N. Rizvi, Dehra Dun, India
Dr. Leif Ryvarden, Oslo, Norway
Prof. Michael Samways, Matieland, South Africa
Dr. Yves Samyn, Brussels, Belgium
Dr. V. Shantharam, Chittor, India
Prof. S.C. Santra, Kalyani, India
Dr. Asok K. Sanyal, Kolkata, India
Dr. K.R. Sasidharan, Coimbatore, India
Mr. Kumaran Sathasivam, Madurai, India
Dr. S. Sathyakumar, Dehradun, India
Dr. M.M. Saxena, Bikaner, India
Dr. Hendrik Segers, Vautierstraat, Belgium
Dr. R. Siddappa Setty, Bengaluru, India
Dr. Subodh Sharma, Towson, USA
Prof. B.K. Sharma, Shillong, India
Prof. K.K. Sharma, Jammu, India
Dr. R.M. Sharma, Jabalpur, India
Dr. Tan Koh Siang, Kent Ridge Road, Singapore
Dr. Arun P. Singh, Jorhat, India
Dr. Lala A.K. Singh, Bhubaneswar, India
Dr. K.G. Sivaramakrishnan, Chennai, India
Prof. Willem H. De Smet, Wilrijk, Belgium
Mr. Peter Smetacek, Nainital, India
Dr. Brian Smith, Iverson Blvd, USA
Dr. Humphrey Smith, Coventry, UK
Dr. Hema Somanathan, Trivandrum, India
Dr. C. Srinivasulu, Hyderabad, India
Dr. Ulrike Streicher, Danang, Vietnam
Dr. K.A. Subramanian, Pune, India
Mr. K.S. Gopi Sundar, New Delhi, India
Dr. P.M. Sureshan, Patna, India
Prof. R. Varatharajan, Imphal, India
Dr. Karthikeyan Vasudevan, Dehradun, India
Dr. R.K. Verma, Jabalpur, India
Dr. W. Vishwanath, Manipur, India
Dr. Francesco Vitali, rue Münster, Luxembourg
Dr. E. Vivekanandan, Cochin, India
Dr. Gernot Vogel, Heidelberg, Germany
Dr. Dave Waldien, Austin, USA
Dr. Ted J. Wassenberg, Cleveland, Australia
Dr. Stephen C. Weeks, Akron, USA
Prof. Yehudah L. Werner, Jerusalem, Israel
Mr. Nikhil Whitaker, Mamallapuram, India
Dr. Jerald Wilson, Jeddah, Soudi Arabia
Dr. Andreas Wilting, Berlin, Germany
Dr. Hui Xiao, Chaoyang, China
Dr. April Yoder, Little Rock, USA
Dr. Nathalie Yonow, Swansea, UK
Prof. Reuven Yosef, Eilat, Israel
English Editors
Mrs. Mira Bhojwani, Pune, India
Dr. Fred Pluthero, Toronto, Canada
Mr. P. Ilangovan, Chennai, India
Journal of Threatened Taxa is indexed/abstracted in Bibliography of Systematic Mycology, Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS
Previews, CAB Abstracts, EBSCO, Google Scholar, Index
Copernicus, Index Fungorum, JournalSeek, NewJour, OCLC
WorldCat, Stanford University Libraries, Virtual Library of
Biology, Zoological Records.
NAAS rating (India) 4.5
Threatened Taxa
Journal of
ISSN: 0974-7907 (Online), 0974-7893 (Print)
November 2013 | Vol. 5 | No. 15 | Pages: 4913–5020 | Date of Publication: 26 November 2013
Article
CEPF Western Ghats Special Series
Raorchestes ghatei, a new species of shrub frog (Anura:
Rhacophoridae) from the Western Ghats of Maharashtra, India
-- Anand D. Padhye, Amit Sayyed, Anushree Jadhav & Neelesh
Dahanukar, Pp. 4913–4931
Communications
Sahyadria, a new genus of barbs (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) from
Western Ghats of India
-- Rajeev Raghavan, Siby Philip, Anvar Ali & Neelesh Dahanukar,
Pp. 4932–4938
Meghamalai special section:
Reviews
Meghamalai landscape : a biodiversity hotspot
-- Subramanian Bhupathy & Santhanakrishnan Babu,
Pp. 4939–4944
Mammals of the Meghamalai landscape, southern Western
Ghats, India - a review
-- Santhanakrishnan Babu, Gopalakrishnan Srinivas,
Honnavalli N. Kumara, Karthik Tamilarasu & Sanjay Molur,
Pp. 4945–4952
Communications
Status of reptiles in Meghamalai and its environs, Western
Ghats, Tamil Nadu, India
-- Subramanian Bhupathy & N. Sathishkumar, Pp. 4953–4961
Birds of Meghamalai Landscape, southern Western Ghats,
India
-- Santhanakrishnan Babu & Subramanian Bhupathy,
Pp. 4962–4972
Short Communication
Anurans of the Meghamalai landscape, Western Ghats,
India
-- G. Srinivas & Subramanian Bhupathy, Pp. 4973–4978
Diversity of medium and large sized mammals in a Cerrado
fragment of central Brazil
-- Felipe Siqueira Campos, Alexandre Ramos Bastos Lage & Paulo
Henrique Pinheiro Ribeiro, Pp. 4994–5001
Short Communication
Sightings and behavioral observations of Indo-Pacific Humpback
Dolphins Sousa chinensis (Osbeck, 1765) along Chennai coast,
Bay of Bengal
-- Rahul Muralidharan, Pp. 5002–5006
Notes
Caralluma bicolor Ramach. et al., (Apocynaceae:
Asclepiadoideae) - a rare and little known endemic plant as a
new record from Palakkad District, Kerala State, India
-- K.A. Anilkumar, K.M. Prabhu Kumar & P.S. Udayan Pp. 5007–
5009
A note on the occurrence of Cucumis sativus L. forma hardwickii
(Royle) W.J. De Wilde & Duyfjes (Cucurbitaceae) in peninsular
India
-- Mandar N. Datar, Girish Pathak & Hemant V. Ghate, 5010–5012
Golden Langur Trachypithecus geei (Khajuria, 1956) feeding on
Cryptocoryne retrospiralis (Roxb.) Kunth (Family: Araceae): a
rare feeding observation in Chirang Reserve Forest, Assam, India
-- Raju Das, Hilloljyoti Singha, Hemanta Kumar Sahu & Kushal
Choudhury, Pp. 5013–5015
Rejoinder
On the identification of Indian butterflies in the book on
Butterflies of the Garo Hills
-- Monsoon Jyoti Gogoi, Pp. 5016–5018
Reply
Final notes on the identification and misidentification of
butterflies of the Garo Hills
-- Krushnamegh Kunte, Sanjay Sondhi, Gaurav Agavekar, Rohan
Lovalekar & Kedar Tokekar, Pp. 5019–5020
Fishes of River Bharathapuzha, Kerala, India: diversity,
distribution, threats and conservation
-- A. Bijukumar, Siby Philip, Anvar Ali, S. Sushama & Rajeev
Raghavan, Pp. 4979–4993
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License unless otherwise
mentioned. JoTT allows unrestricted use of articles in any medium,
reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors
and the source of publication.

Journal of Threatened Taxa

Transcription

Similar documents

to do a look - Stay@matthuga

PDF (Author`s version) - OATAO (Open Archive Toulouse Archive

Full Paper - Centre for Ecological Sciences

Mr. Anand Banarjee visits Dandeli shared his experience as Editor

25 things to do in kerala

Endangered Animals in India, Presentation

Bactrian Camel

Fisher Cat Martes Pennanti

Mumbai to Varanasi - China Travel Service

APA Cheat Sheet