Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Taxa
Journal of
Threatened
OPEN ACCESS
www.threatenedtaxa.org
January 2015 | Vol. 8 | No. 1 | Pages: 83098420
DOI: 10.11609/jott.2016.8.1.8309-8420
96, Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641035, India
Ph: +91 422 2665298, 2665101, 2665450; Fax: +91 422 2665472
Email: threatenedtaxa@gmail.com, articlesubmission@threatenedtaxa.org
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. Ulrike Streicher, Wildlife Veterinarian, Danang, Vietnam
Ms. Priyanka Iyer, Coimbatore, India
Dr. Manju Siliwal, Dehra Dun, India
Dr. Meena Venkataraman, Mumbai, 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
Mr. Stephen D. Nash, Stony Brook, USA
Dr. Fred Pluthero, Toronto, Canada
Dr. Martin Fisher, Cambridge, UK
Dr. Ulf Grdenfors, Uppsala, Sweden
Dr. John Fellowes, Hong Kong
Dr. Philip S. Miller, Minnesota, USA
Prof. Dr. Mirco Sol, Brazil
Editorial Board
Subject Editors 20142015
A. Biju Kumar, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, India
A.J. Solomon Raju, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, India
Albert G. Orr, Griffith University, Nathan, Australia
Alessandre Pereira Colavite, Universidade Federal da Paraba, Brazil
Alexi Popov, National Museum of Natural History, Sofia, Bulgaria
Alexander Ereskovsky, IMBE, Marseille, France
Andreas Khler, Universidade de Santa Cruz do, Brazil
Angela R. Glatston, Rotterdam Zoo, The Netherlands.
Anjana Silva, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, Saliyapura, Sri Lanka
Annemarie Ohler, Musum national dHistoire naturelle, Paris, France
Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman, University of Pretoria, Queenswood, South Africa
Antonio D. Brescovit, Instituto Butantan, Brasil
Antonio A. Mignucci-Giannoni, Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico,
Puerto Rico
Anwaruddin Chowdhury, Guwahati, India
Aparna Watve, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Arthur Y.C. Chung, Sabah Forestry Department, Sandakan, Sabah, Malaysia
B.C. Choudhury (Retd.), Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India.
B. Ravi Prasad Rao, Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantpur, India
B. Shivaraju, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
B.A. Daniel, Zoo Outreach Organization, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
B.S. Kholia, Botanical Survey of India, Gangtok, Sikkim, India
Bolvar R. Garcete-Barrett, FACEN, Universidad Nacional de Asuncin, Paraguay
Brett C. Ratcliffe, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA
Brian Fisher, California Academy of Sciences, USA
C. Raghunathan, Zoological Survey of India, Andaman and Nicobar Islands
C. Srinivasulu, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India
Carl Ferraris, Smithsonian Institution, Portland, USA
Article
OPEN ACCESS
Abstract: We quantified pine-forested habitat suitable for Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis in the former historic range of the
species to assess the potential for possible re-colonization. We used a remotely-sensed image and geographic information systems (GIS) to
create a land-use/land (LU/LC) binary cover map, from which we calculated the habitat suitability index (HSI) based on an estimated home
range of 50ha. A sensitivity analysis revealed the necessity for more data to make an accurate estimate, but our analysis of landscape
metrics indicates more than 930ha of suitable habitat patches. These patches are heavily fragmented and mostly located on private lands.
They can be assessed for understory and herbaceous vegetation and can be restored for possible re-establishment of approximately 18
groups/colonies of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers.
Keywords: Accuracy assessment, Big Thicket National Preserve, global positioning system, habitat fragmentation, habitat suitability,
landsat image, metrics, patches.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.1735.8.1.8309-8322
Editor: K.A. Subramanian, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, India.
Manuscript details: Ms # 1735 | Received 31 December 2014 | Final received 10 January 2016 | Finally accepted 11 January 2016
Citation: Thapa V. & M.F. Acevedo (2016). Habitat quantity of Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis (Aves: Piciformes: Picidae) in its former historic landscape
near the Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, USA. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 83098322; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.1735.8.1.8309-8322
Copyright: Thapa & Acevedo 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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: U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) for partial funding for this study under the grant CNH BCS-0216722.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author contribution: VT conducted all field work, performed GIS and remote sensing analysis, and wrote the manuscript. MFA was graduate professor for VT at
the University of North Texas. He supervised all work of the study and the paper and performed sensitivity analysis.
Author Details: Vivek Thapa - Currently, he is working as a GIS Manager/CAD Drafter in a land surveying company called All American Surveying, located in North
Central Texas, USA. He uses GIS, remote sensing, AutoCAD, to create maps for clients. Miguel F. Acevedo - in addition to his departmental affiliations he is Faculty
in the Graduate Program in Environmental Sciences, University of North Texas. His work integrates environmental monitoring and modeling to understand the
dynamics of environmental and ecological systems, and to provide socially relevant results concerning pollutants, land use change and climate variability.
Acknowledgments: We thank U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) for partial funding for this study under the grant CNH BCS-0216722. We acknowledge
the feedback and help from several University of North Texas faculty members during the project: Drs. Pete A.Y. Gunter, and J. Baird Callicott, Department of
Philosophy and Religion Studies, and Dr. Pinliang Dong, Department of Geography.
8309
INTRODUCTION
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis is Near
Threatened (BirdLife International 2013) and nationally
an endangered species (USFWS 2014). The bird is
endemic to mature pine forests of the southeastern
United States, which once extended from Florida to
New Jersey and as far west as Texas, reaching inland to
Oklahoma, Missouri, Kentucky and Tennessee (Ligon
1970; Jackson 1971; Ferral 1998; USFWS 2005). During
the early 19th century the wide spread of agriculture and
timber harvesting led to severe habitat degradation and
substantially reduced the woodpecker habitat range,
which is currently scattered north from Florida to Virginia
and west to southeast Oklahoma and southeastern
Texas. The species is no longer found in New Jersey,
Maryland, Tennessee, Missouri and Kentucky, while in
southeastern Texas birds are mostly found in national
forests of Angelina, David Crockett, Sabine and Sam
Houston, but not in Big Thicket National Preserve (Conner
& Rudolph 1995). The drastic reduction of mature pine
forests coupled with modern forestry practices such as
a reduced timber-rotation period and fire suppression
proved detrimental to woodpecker populations, and
the species was listed as endangered in 1973 (Hooper
et al. 1980; Conner & Rudolph 1989, 1991, 1995; Costa
& Walker 1995).
Red-cockaded Woodpeckers are habitat specialists
that require large, old and living species of Longleaf
Pinus palustris, Shortleaf P. echinata, Loblolly P. taeda,
Pond P. serotina and Slash P. elliotii pine, preferring
Longleaf Pine for nesting and foraging (Hooper et al.
1980; Jackson 1994; Hedrick et al. 1998; Conner et al.
2004). The optimal tree age varies with species, i.e., 80
100 years for loblolly and shortleaf pine and 100120
years for Longleaf Pine with enough heartwood space
to support cavity chambers and little or no mid-story
hardwood vegetation (Hooper et al. 1980; Conner et al.
1994; Hedrick et al. 1998). Natural or prescribed fires
controlled the mid-story overgrowth for decades and
the result was open, park-like mature pine woodlands
and savannahs with abundant herbaceous ground cover
that provided an ideal habitat for these birds. Besides
age, the potential cavity tree has high rates of Redheart Fungal Phellinus pini infection that softens the
heartwood and facilitates cavity excavation (Conner
et al. 1976, 1994, 2004; Conner & Locke 1982; Hooper
1988; Walters 1990).
A colony or cluster is a collection of two to >12 cavity
trees in 510 acres (approximately 24 ha) of land, and
the cavity trees are normally located within a one-mile
8310
METHODS
Study Area
The study area is located near the Gulf coastal plains
of southeastern Texas between the Trinity River to the
west and the Neches River to the east, around the small
towns of Kountze, Silsbee, Lumberton and suburbs
north of Beaumont that adjoins the 39,338ha Big Thicket
National Preserve (BTNP) (3031 0N to 9495 0W) (Fig. 1).
Over the last five decades the landscape surrounding the
BTNP has been converted from continuous pine forest
to a matrix dominated by agriculture, pasture, timber
plantations and exurban and suburban development
(Wilcove et al. 1986). As a result the pine forests were
converted into small patches isolated by a matrix of
agricultural or other developed lands (Callicott et al.
2007). The study area was further subjected to intense
oil and gas exploration that continues today. While such
activities seem to have minimal effects on breeding,
proximity to roads and vehicular movement does
affect foraging activities of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers
(Charles & Howard 1996). Annual precipitation averages
1350mm (Marks & Harcombe 1981; Callicott et al.
2007) and is uniformly distributed throughout the year,
but because of its proximity to the Gulf of Mexico the
Big Thicket study area experiences a high frequency
of devastating tropical storms and hurricanes. Since
1900, 40 tropical storms and hurricanes have struck
the Gulf coast, with Rita in 2005 and Ike in 2008 being
the most recent big storms to hit Texas (NOAA 2008).
However, these hurricanes did not cause damage in the
study area as they did in the surrounding counties and
areas especially near Galveston Bay, Harris and Angelina
(NOAA 2005; Bainbridge et al. 2011). Nevertheless,
hurricanes and other extreme natural disturbances such
as severe winter can damage large portions of cavity and
foraging trees, thereby affecting breeding populations of
Red-cockaded Woodpeckers, which in turn leads to loss
of genetic diversity (Reed et al. 1988, Bainbridge et al.
2011).
The vegetation types of the study area can be
characterized by both community physiognomy and
physiographic position. Forests, savannas, and shrub
thickets are normally combined with important trees
such as pine, oak, and other hardwoods to characterize
community physiognomy while upland, slope, floodplain
and flatland indicates the physiographic position of the
8311
Figure 1. Study site - Portion of former historic habitat range of Red-cockaded woodpecker.
Accuracy Assessment
It is necessary to assess the accuracy of any thematic
classification to evaluate its intended application, and
high accuracy assures consistency and reliability of
derived landscape metrics (Xulong et al. 2005; Shao &
Wu 2008). Several factors related to the sensors as well
as to the classification process contribute to classification
errors (Lunetta et al. 1991). It is also critical to measure
8313
Reference
Totals
Classified
Totals
Number
Correct
Producers
Accuracy, %
Users
Accuracy, %
1. Grass
60.00
75.00
2. Pine plantation
13
11
10
76.92
90.91
3. Pine trees
53
59
44
83.02
74.58
4. Urban area
59
58
52
88.14
89.66
12
13
10
83.33
76.92
6. Water
100.00
100
7. Mixed forest
19
17
13
68.42
76.47
Totals
162
163
133
0.7449
Overall Accuracy, %
81.48
RESULTS
Image Processing
From a total of 287 GPS points, we used 162 points
for classification accuracy. The rest (125) were used
to classify the image. Use of GPS points and visual
interpretation of aerial photos proved effective in
Landsat ETM+ classification and facilitated the process.
Our results show pine trees and grass have the lowest
classification accuracy with 74.58% and 75% respectively.
For pine trees this might be due to insufficient GPS
points, because we could not gather data from private
land containing pure stands of old pine trees. For grass
it is possible to include agricultural lands, a common
problem with landsat images having 30m resolution.
In addition, short-grass areas (grazed pastures or
manicured lawns) and dirt roads had overlapping values
with other urban areas such as patches of bare soil
and asphalt roads. We classified pine plantations with
90.91% accuracy because they were easily identified
based on texture and pattern on aerial photos and GPS
data collected from within plantation areas. Similarly,
we classified urban areas with 89.66% accuracy as they
are also easily identifiable on aerial photos and GPS
data. Water pixels were classified with 100% accuracy.
And it is one of the geographic features that a user can
accurately classify in remote sensing applications as
water pixels exhibits the lowest reflectance property
when examined in a spectral profile. Profile Tools of
ERDAS allow the users to examine spectral behavior of
pixels of different features. Cypress trees on sloughs
Connectivity Metrics
COHESION = Patch
Cohesion Index
8315
Figure 3. Habitat suitability index(HSI) map with three habitat types - very unsuitable, unsuitable, and potentially suitable.
-10%
Nominal
+10%
0.3
0.333
0.366
0.599
0.666
0.733
Habitat Type
1
0-0.3
0.3-0.599
0.599-1
0-0.333
0.333-0.599
0.599-1
0-0.366
0.366-0.599
0.599-1
0-0.3
0.3-0.666
0.666-1
0-0.333
0.333-0.666
0.666-1
0-0.366
0.366-0.666
0.666-1
0-0.3
0.3-0.733
0.733-1
0-0.333
0.333-0.733
0.733-1
0-0.366
0.366-0.733
0.733-1
DISCUSSION
Image Processing
Overall, the LU/LC map derived from satellite imagery
was satisfactory because categories were adequately
mapped and resulted only in minor misclassifications.
CA/TA (ha)
PLAND (%)
NP
LPI
COHESION
Habitat Type
Habitat Type
Habitat Type
Habitat Type
Habitat Type
23275.08
26919.72
2177.1
44.44
51.40
4.16
261
201
72
29.39
32.26
0.42
99.69
99.82
96.43
28629.81
21562.99
2177.1
54.67
41.18
4.16
192
232
72
38.27
22.65
0.42
99.79
99.7
96.43
33379.29
16815.51
2177.1
63.73
32.11
4.16
158
247
72
57.24
16.05
0.42
99.91
99.56
96.43
23275.08
28163.34
933.48
44.44
53.77
1.78
261
197
67
29.39
34.49
0.17
99.69
99.82
94.18
28629.81
22808.61
933.48
54.67
43.55
1.78
192
229
67
38.27
24.78
0.17
99.79
99.70
94.18
33379.29
18059.13
933.48
63.73
34.48
1.78
158
243
67
57.24
17.94
0.17
99.91
99.57
94.18
23275.08
28752.21
344.61
44.44
54.90
0.66
261
196
28
29.39
35.55
0.1
99.69
99.82
93.07
28629.81
23397.48
344.61
54.67
44.67
0.66
192
228
28
38.27
25.76
0.1
99.79
99.70
93.07
33379.29
18648
344.61
63.73
35.61
0.66
158
242
28
57.24
18.74
0.1
99.91
99.56
93.07
8317
Figure 5. No perturbation.
CONCLUSION
We presented a method of quantifying composition
and configuration of possible habitats for the Redcockaded Woodpecker using GIS, remote sensing and
FRAGSTATS. We did not include other variables which
may impact habitat quality and HSI such as tree age, tree
diameter and tree species because these are difficult to
assess from a Landsat image and measure within private
8319
Figure 7. Distances amongst and acreages of potentially suitable habitat patches in hectares.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J.R., E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach & R.E. Witmer (1976). A land
use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor
data. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964, U.S. Geologic
Survey, Washington, DC, 28pp.
Baker, W.W. (1971). Progress report on life history studies of the Redcockaded Woodpecker at Tall Timbers Research Station. Progress
report on life history studies of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker at
Tall Timbers Research Station, pp. 4459. In: Thompson, R.L. (ed.).
The ecology and management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker,
May 26, 1971 - May 27, 1971, Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge,
Folkston, GA. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and Tall
Timbers Research Station, [Washington, DC].
Bernstein, R. (1983). Image geometry and rectification, pp. 873922.
In: Colwell, R.N. (ed.). Manual of Remote Sensing (2nd Edition).
American Society of Photogrammetry.
BirdLife International (2013). Leuconotopicus borealis. The IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T22681158A49307003.
Downloaded on 09 January 2016; http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.
UK.2013-2.RLTS.T22681158A49307003.en
Callicott, J.B., R. Rozzi, L. Delgado, M. Monticino, M. Acevedo & P.
Harcombe (2007). Biocomplexity and conservation of biodiversity
hotspots: three case studies from the Americas. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B 362: 321333.
Campbell, J.B. (1996). Introduction to Remote Sensing. 2nd Edition. The
Guilford Press, 622pp.
Charles, J.M. & H.E. Howard (1996). Foraging habitat of the Redcockaded Woodpecker on the DArbonne National Wildlife Refuge,
Louisiana. Journal of Ornithology 67: 511518.
Congalton, G.R. (1991). A review of assessing the accuracy of remotely
sensed data. Remote Sensing of the Environment 37: 3546.
Congalton, G.R. & K. Green (1999). Assessing the Accuracy of
Remotely Sensed Data: Principles and Practices. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, Florida, 137pp.
Conner, R.N. & D.C. Rudolph (1989). Red-cockaded Woodpecker
colony status and trends on the Angelina, Davy Crockett, and Sabine
National Forests. Res. Pap. SO-250, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 15pp.
Conner, R.N. & D.C. Rudolph (1991). Forest habitat loss, fragmentation,
and Red-cockaded Woodpecker population. Wilson Bulletin 103:
446457.
Conner, R.N., D. Saenz & D. C. Rudolph (2004). The Red-cockaded
Woodpecker: Interactions with fire, snags, fungi, rat snakes and
Pileated awoodpeckers. Texas Journal of Science 56: 415426.
Conner, R.N. (1981). Fire and cavity nesters, pp. 6165. In: Wood,
G.W. (ed.). Prescribed Fire and Wildlife in Southern Forests. Belle W.
Baruch Forest Science Institute of Clemson University, Georgetown,
South Carolina, USA.
Conner, R.N., R.G. Hooper, H.S. Crawford & H.S. Mosby (1975).
Woodpecker nestling habitat in cut and uncut woodlands in Virginia.
Journal of Wildlife Management 39: 144150.
Conner, R.N. & B.A. Locke (1982). Fungi and Red-cockaded
Woodpecker cavity trees. Wildlife Society Bulletin 94: 6470.
Conner, R.N., O.K. Miller & C.S. Adkisson (1976). Woodpecker
dependence on trees infected by fungal heart rots. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 88: 575581.
Conner, R.N. & D.C. Rudolph (1991). Effects of midstory reduction and
thinning in Red-cockaded Woodpecker cavity tree clusters. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 19: 6366.
Conner, R.N. & D.C. Rudolph (1995). Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
population trends and management on Texas National Forests.
Journal of Field Ornithology 66(1): 140151.
Conner, R.N., D.C. Rudolph, D. Saenz & R.R. Schaefer (1994).
Heartwood, sapwood, and fungal decay associated with Redcockaded Woodpecker cavity trees. Journal of Wildlife Management
58: 728734.
Dale, V.H., S.M. Pearson, H.L. Oferman & R.V. ONeill (1994). Relating
patterns of land-use change to faunal biodiversity in the central
Amazon. Conservation Biology 8: 10271036.
Dettki, H., R. Lofstran & L. Edenius (2003). Modeling habitat suitability
for Moose in coastal northern Sweden: Empirical vs. Processoriented Approaches. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Ambio
8(32): 549556.
DeLotelle, R.S., R.J. Epting & R.J. Newman (1987). Habitat use and
territory characteristics of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers in Central
8321
Threatened Taxa
8322
Communication
OPEN ACCESS
Abstract: The status of the Fishing Cat Prionailurus viverrinus in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal was assessed by camera trapping
and pugmark searches from 2011 to 2014. The reserve is a highly dynamic and unstable snow-fed braided river system with many
anabranches and islands. Evidence of Fishing Cats was found throughout most of the reserve. They were probably more abundant on the
eastern side, among the islands of the main river channel, and in the adjacent buffer zone where there was a chain of fishponds and marsh
areas fed by seepage from the main river channel. Evidence of Fishing Cats was found up to 6km north of the reserve on the Koshi River
but not beyond this. The population is probably small and may be isolated but given the endangered status of the species, is significant.
The main likely threats identified are wetland and riparian habitat deterioration caused by over exploitation and illegal grazing by villagers,
overfishing of wetlands and rivers within the reserve, and direct persecution arising from perceived conflicts with fish farming and poultry
husbandry. Required conservation actions are discussed.
Keywords: Conservation strategy, Fishing Cat, Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, survey, threats.
Manuscript details: Ms # 2034 | Received 04 June 2015 | Final received 10 August 2015 | Finally accepted 05 January 2016
Citation: Taylor, I.R., H.S. Baral, P. Pandey & P. Kaspal (2016). The conservation status of the Fishing Cat Prionailurus viverrinus Bennett, 1833 (Carnivora: Felidae)
In Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 83238332; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2034.8.1.8323-8332
Copyright: Taylor et al. 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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 project was funded primarily by the Taronga Foundation, Australia, Charles Sturt University, Australia and Chicago Zoological Society, USA.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author Details: See end of this article.
Author Contribution: All authors participated in field work. Prava Pandey and Prativa Kaspal were responsible for all aspects of the initial year of study. Iain Taylor
and Hem Baral were responsible for project planning and management. Iain Taylor was responsible for the analysis of data and writing the paper.
Acknowledgements: This project is funded by the Taronga Foundation, Charles Sturt University and Chicago Zoological Society. We would like to thank Rebecca
Spindler, Monique Van Sluys and Jo Wiszniewski of Taronga for their tremendous support and encouragement. Monique Van Sluys provided valuable and
constructive comments on the draft. From 2012 this was a joint project of Charles Sturt University, Australia and Himalayan Nature, Nepal. We thank the many
staff from both organisations who helped in various ways. Ashok Kumar Ram and Ganga Ram Singh of the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation,
Nepal provided assistance at Koshi Tappu. The Department also provided research permits. Camera traps were provided in the initial study period by Friends of
Nature, IdeaWild and Dr. Jim Sanderson. We also thank Suman Acharya, Neerej Rai, Sunita Phuyal, Shambhu Ghimire and Yadav Ghimirey for their assistance in
the field and Simon Macdonald of the Spatial Data Analysis Unit of Charles Sturt University for preparing the maps.
8323
INTRODUCTION
The wetland dependent endangered Fishing
Cat Prionailurus viverrinus (Bennett, 1833), once
widespread throughout Southeast and southern Asia,
now has a discontinuous distribution in Java, Thailand,
Cambodia, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and
Nepal (Pocock 1939; Cutter & Cutter 2010; Duckworth
et al. 2010; Mukherjee et al. 2010, 2012; Royan 2010).
Available evidence suggests a recent widespread and
continuing decrease in range and abundance, with
loss of wetland area and quality, overfishing and direct
human persecution most often cited as causes (Nowell
& Jackson 1996; Mukherjee et al. 2010, 2012).
In India the species distribution includes the
eastern states of West Bengal, Assam, Odisha, Andhra
Pradesh and the northern Terai wetlands bordering
Nepal (Sunquist & Sunquist 2002; Mukherjee et al.
2012; Sadhu & Reddy 2013; Janardhanan et al. 2014).
Information is absent for most other areas but recent
research failed to find any evidence of the species in
coastal Kerala in southwestern India where it had been
believed to occur (Janardhanan et al. 2014). Within
Nepal, although the Fishing Cat is known to occur within
all the protected areas of the Terai (Dahal & Dahal 2011;
Jnawali et al. 2011; Mishra 2013), there have been
no systematic surveys to assess abundance. There is
no quantitative information on population trends or
threatening processes in either India or Nepal.
The objective of this study was to assess the current
status of the species in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve,
Nepal and by conducting an intensive standardised
sampling programme, an attempt to establish a baseline
against which future changes may be assessed. The
species habitat was examined to determine likely
threatening processes or factors that may determine
future population viability. In addition, information was
gathered on local villagers knowledge and perceptions
of Fishing Cats, particularly those aspects that might
relate to the species population viability.
STUDY AREA
Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, established in 1976,
extends between 8605587005E & 2603426045N on
the flood plain of the Koshi River in the Terai of southeast
Nepal and consists of a core area of 175km with an
additional buffer zone of 173km. Between 1958 and
1964, a barrage was constructed across the Koshi River
at the Indian/ Nepal border 5km south of the reserve and
8324
Taylor et al.
Taylor et al.
Prakashpur
Madhuban
Figure 1. Map of Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve and buffer zone showing habitats and sampling sites for Fishing Cat surveys. Red spots show
camera trapping sample sites and green spots show pugmark sample sites.
METHODS
Camera trapping
During 2011 an initial study was conducted to
gain general information on the species distribution
along the eastern side of the reserve, within the buffer
zone (Image 1). Camera traps were set up in wetland
habitats between 19 April 2011 and 19 June 2011 in
the Prakashpur, Madhuban, Kushaha and Jabdi areas,
covering all of the eastern side of the reserve from north
to south. Six cameras were used over 1012 nights in
each area.
From February to December 2013 an intensive
programme of camera trapping was undertaken at 12
wetland sites in the eastern and western sectors of the
8325
Taylor et al.
Habitat
Farmland with active fish ponds, patches of scrub and marsh, clumps of
bamboo and banana, scattered trees
Koshi River
Trijuga River
Open grazed land with oxbow lake overgrown with Ipomea carnea
Taylor et al.
RESULTS
Distribution of Fishing Cats
Camera trapping: The presence of Fishing Cats was
confirmed by camera trapping along all of the eastern
buffer zone, from Kushaha northwards, and across the
western buffer zone (Fig. 2). Variations in the intricate
pelage patterns of Fishing Cats were used to identify
individuals from the photographs where possible,
but most of the images obtained were of cats moving
quickly and their patterns were not adequately clear for
identification. In the 2011 survey, nine separate Fishing
Cats were recognised, three in the Prakashpur area,
three in Madhuban, one in Kushaha and none in Jadbi. In
the latter case, no images of Fishing Cats were captured.
Table 2. Camera trapping effort at each sample site and numbers of independent Fishing Cat images obtained, 2013.
Site
Month
N Cameras
N
Nights
N Camera/
Nights
Fishing Cat
images
Images/10
camera nights
Pug marks
found
November
40
0.5
Yes
November
13
10
100
0.1
Yes
March
25
0.8
Yes
March
35
0.57
Yes
March
24
Yes
December
36
1.94
Yes
February
41
1.95
Yes
December
13
52
11
2.12
Yes
February
45
Yes
March
25
No
March
25
0.8
No
March
30
13
4.33
Yes
8327
Taylor et al.
30
N = 96
Jackal
Indian Fox
23
20
sunrise
Jungle Cat
48
sunset
Fishing Cat
Percentage of images
25
15
10
5
0
-2-0
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
8-10
Taylor et al.
DISCUSSION
8329
Taylor et al.
Taylor et al.
8331
REFERENCES
Brashares, J.S., L.R. Prugh, C.J. Stoner & C.W. Epps (2010). Ecological
and conservation implications of mesopredator release, pp. 221240.
In: Terborough, J. & J.A. Estes (eds.). Trophic Cascades: Predators, Prey
and the Changing Dynamics of Nature. Washington, Island Press.
Chhetri, D.T. & J. Pal (2010). Diversity of mammals in and around Koshi
Tappu Wildlife Reserve. Our Nature 8: 254257.
Chettri, N.K., U.S. Chaudhary & E. Sharma (2013). Linking spatiotemporal land cover change to biodiversity conservation in the Koshi
Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Diversity 5: 335351.
Cutter, P & P. Cutter (2010). Recent sightings of fishing cats in Thailand.
Cat News 51: 1213.
CSUWN (2009). Baseline Survey, Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve.
Kathmandu, Nepal.
Dahal, S. & D.R. Dahal (2011). Trapping of Fishing Cat in Chitwan
National park, Nepal. Cat News 55: 1011.
DNPWC. (2009). Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve and Buffer Zone
management Plan 20092013. Government of Nepal, Ministry of
Forests and Soil Conservation, Department of National parks and
Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Duckworth, J.W., T. Stones, R. Tizard, S. Watson & J. Wolstencroft
(2010). Does the fishing cat inhabit Laos? Cat News 52: 47.
Haque, N.M. & V. Vijayan (1993). Food habits of the Fishing Cat Felis
viveririna in Keoladeo national park, Bharatpur, Rajastan. Journal of
the Bombay Natural History Society 90: 498500.
Janardhanan, R., S. Mukherjee, P.V. Karunakaran & R. Athreya
(2014). On the occurrence of the Fishing Cat Prionailurus viverrinus
Bennet, 1833 (Carnivora: Felidae) in coastal Kerala, India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 6(3): 55695573; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.
o3780.5569-73
Jnawali, S.R., H.S. Baral, S. Lee, K.P. Acharya, G.P. Upadhyay, M. Pandey,
R. Shrestha, D. Joshi, B.R. Laminchhane, J. Griffiths, A.P. Khatiwada,
N. Subedi, & R. Amin (2011). The Status of Nepal Mammals: The
National Red List Series, Department of National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation Kathmandu, Nepal.
Karki, J.B. (2011). Distribution of some small cats in Chitwan National
Park, pp. 1015. In. Dahal, S. & S. Thapa (eds.). Proceedings of Second
Seminar on Small Mammals Issues. Small Mammals Conservation and
Research Foundation, New Baneshwor, Kathmandu, Nepal, 85pp.
Khatri, T.B., D.N. Shah, R.D.T. Shah & N. Mishra (2013). Biodiversity of
Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve: A post flood assessment. Journal of
Wetlands Ecology 4: 6982.
LaPoint, S.D., J.L. Belant & R.W. Kays (2014). Mesopredator release
facilitates range expansion in fisher. Animal Conservation 18: 5061.
Lynam, A.J., K.E. Jenks, N. Tantipisanuh, W. chutipong, D. Ngoprasert,
G.A. Gale, R. Steinmetz, R. Sukmasuang, N. Bhumpakphan, L.I.
Grassman, P. Cutter, S. Kitamura, D.H. Reed, M.C. Baker, W. McShea
N. Songsasen & P. Leimgruber (2013). Terrestrial activity patterns of
wild cats from camera-trapping. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 61(1):
407415.
Majumder, A., K. Sankar, Q. Qureshi & S. Basu (2011). Food habits and
temporal activity patterns of the Golden Jackal Canis aureus and
the Jungle Cat Felis chaus in Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh,
India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(11): 2221-2225; http://dx.doi.
org/10.11609/JoTT.o2713.22215
Melisch, R., P.B. Asmoro, I.R. Lubis & L. Kusumawardhani (1996).
Distribution and status of the Fishing Cat (Prionailurus viverrinus
rhizophoreus Sody, 1936) in West Java, Indonesia (Mammalia:
Carnivora: felidae). Faunistische Abhandlungen. Staatliches Museum
fur Tierkunde Dresden 20(17): 311319.
Mehner, T. (2012). Diel vertical migration of freshwater fishes-proximate
triggers, ultimate cuases and research perspectives. Freshwater
Biology 57: 13421359.
Mishra, R. (2013). Conservation status of the Fishing Cat in Chitwan
National Park, Nepal. MSc. Thesis, Tribhuvan University, Nepal.
Moreno, R.S., R.W. Kays & R. Samudio (2006). Competitive release in
the diets of Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) and Puma (Puma concolor)
8332
Taylor et al.
Threatened Taxa
Author details: Iain R. Taylor, PhD, BSc, has more than 40 years research
experience, mostly at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. His interests are
in the ecology and behaviour of predator-prey interactions, the conservation of
predators and also in wetland ecology and management. He has been involved
in projects in Nepal for the past 36 years. Hem Sagar Baral has a PhD in Ecology
from the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. He has been involved
in wildlife research and conservation for nearly three decades primarily birds
and mammals. In the past he has worked as CEO for BirdLife Nepal, founded
charities like Himalayan Nature and Nepalese Ornithological Union and
supported running of them for a number of years, and very recently appointed
as Country Manager for Zoological Society of London - Nepal Office. Prava
Pandey has MSc in Environmental Science from Tribhuvan University. She has
been involved in wildlife research and conservation for about six years especially
in endangered species of Nepal. In the past she has worked as research officer
for Himalayan Nature. Currently she has been worked as part-time teaching
assistant in Department of Environmental Science, Tribhuvan Univeristy as well
as consultant for other wildlife organization of Nepal. Mrs. Prativa Kaspal has
completed Masters Degree in Environmental Science from Tribhuwan University.
She has been involved in biodiversity conservation especially in wildlife research
and conservation education on the globally threatened species of mammals
and birds of Nepal for more than eight years. She worked as a conservation
officer in a nonprofit organization, Himalayan Nature for more than six years.
Currently together with the team members, she is publishing the first book on
the globally threatened and Critically Endangered Pangolins in Nepal. Besides,
she is working as a part time assistant lecturer in Bhaktapur Multiple Campus,
Tribhuwan University.
Communication
OPEN ACCESS
Abstract: The avifaunal diversity of Chamba District of Himachal Pradesh with emphasis on Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife Sanctuary and its
surrounding was observed for a period of one year between 2012 and 2013. We observed 95 species of birds belonging to 12 orders and
40 families. Of this diversity, 41 species were abundant to common, 34 occasional and 20 rare. Most species were resident (83 species,
including two species whose population increased during winters) and the rest were migrants (including nine winter migrating species and
three summer migrating species). A total of 302 species of birds have been reported from Chamba District between 1884 and present.
Analysis of recent published literature in conjunction with the present study reveals that 178 species of birds have been reported from
Chamba District since 2000. The present study reports 11 new records for the district.
Keywords: Avifauna, Chamba District, checklist, Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife Sanctuary, new records.
Manuscript details: Ms # 1774 | Received 19 January 2015 | Final received 15 January 2016 | Finally accepted 19 January 2016
Citation: Shah, T.A., V. Ahuja, M. Anandam & C. Srinivasulu (2016). Avifauna of Chamba District, Himachal Pradesh, India with emphasis on Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife
Sanctuary and its surroundings. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 83338357; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.1774.8.1.8333-8357
Copyright: Shah et al. 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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 study is an offshoot of the Himalayan Langur Project funded by CLP, MBZ and RSG.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Funding sources had no role in study design, data collection, results interpretation and manuscript
writing.
Author Details: Tariq A. Shah worked as a researcher in the Himalayan Langur Project funded by CLP, MBZ and RSG and is presently a doctoral student working
on the molecular phylogeny of Rhinopomatids of India at Department of Zoology, Osmania University. Vishal Ahuja worked as a researcher in the Himalayan
Langur Project funded by CLP, MBZ and RSG and is presently working as a Researcher in the conserving livelihood and Semnopithecus ajax project funded by
CLP. Martina Anandam was a researcher with WILD and worked with the Himalayan Langur Project. Her work centers primarily on langurs and community
conservation in the Himalayan biosphere. C. Srinivasulu heads the Wildlife Biology and Taxonomy Lab at Department of Zoology, Osmania University works on
molecular phylogenetics, taxonomy, ecology and biogeography of tetrapods of South Asia.
Author Contribution: CS conceived the study; TAS, VA, MA conducted the field work; CS and TAS identified the birds and wrote the paper.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Dr. Sanjay Molur, Zoo Outreach Organization and WILD Society, Coimbatore, India for encouragement. We
also thank the PCCF (Wildlife), Himachal Pradesh for study permit. The study is an offshoot of the Conservation Leadership Programme Grant on Himalayan Gray
Langur Project. We also acknowledge the funding received through Ruffords Small Grant Programme and Mohamad Bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund. TAS
and CS thank the Head, Department of Zoology, Osmania University, Hyderabad, Telangana State for facilities.
8333
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
INTRODUCTION
Birds play vital roles in an ecosystem as they control
pest populations through predation and scavenging,
pollinate, and disperse seeds, leading to increase in plant
coverage, and are also recognized as biological indicators
(Gregory et al. 2003). Of the 9026 species of birds
distributed across the world, India harbours about 1300
species, belonging to 88 families (Manakadan & Pittie
2001; Rasmussen & Anderton 2005). From the 1900s,
detailed surveys of the Himalayan foothills cataloguing
the birdlife were conducted. The oldest avifaunal surveys
in Chamba District of Himachal Pradesh were conducted
by Marshal (1884) and Littledale (1898), reporting a
number of game birds, like the Cheer Pheasant, Western
Tragopan, Himalayan Monal, Khalij Pheasant and the
Chukor Partridge. The most recent studies of this area
include that of Singh (2011) and Singh & Banyal (2013).
Tak (1987), Mahabal (1992), Thakur et al. (2002), Pandey
(1993) and Thakur (2008) also published notes on bird
diversity in some selected areas of the Chamba District.
The present study deals with the distribution and
status of avifauna of Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife Sanctuary
and its surroundings, with observation on birds from
other areas of Chamba District, Himachal Pradesh.
8334
Birds of Chamba
16
14
No. of species
Shah et al.
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
4
5
Family/Families
8335
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
8337
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
8339
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
(Temminck, 1824)
Common. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Gate, Talai
and Jot. This species has been earlier reported by all
recent workers, except Saikia et al. (2008).
80. Rock Bunting Emberiza cia (Linnaeus, 1766)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Talai and
Jot. This species has been earlier reported by all recent
workers.
81. Scarlet Rosefinch Carpodacus erythrinus (Pallas,
1770)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Jot,
Rathiyar and Talai. This species has been earlier reported
by all recent workers except Singh & Banyal (2013).
82. Pink-browed Rosefinch Carpodacus rhodochroa
(Vigors, 1831)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Talai,
Rathiyar and Jot. This species has been earlier reported
only by Singh (2011).
83. House Sparrow Passer domesticus (Linnaeus,
1758)
Abundant. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Gate, Talai,
Dugli and Saun. This species has been earlier reported
by all recent workers.
84. Sind Sparrow Passer pyrrhonotus (Blyth, 1844)
Common. Resident. Recorded in Chalei, Gajnui, Saun
and Gate. This is the first report of this species from
Chamba District.
85. Russet Sparrow Passer rutilans Temminck,
(1835)
Abundant. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Saun, Talai,
Dugli, Gate and Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife Sanctuary. This
species has been earlier reported by all recent workers
except Singh (2011).
86. Eurasian Tree Sparrow Passer montanus
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Abundant. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Jot, Talai,
Saun, Gate, Dugli and Jot. Saun has good population of
this species. This species has not been earlier reported
by any recent workers. Historically, Marshal (1884)
reported its occurrence in Chamba region.
87. Common Myna Acridotheres tristis (Linnaeus,
1766)
Abundant. Resident. Recorded in many areas of the
Chamba District. This species has been earlier reported
by all workers except Saikia et al. (2008).
88. Jungle Myna Acridotheres fuscus (Wagler, 1827)
Rare. Resident. Recorded in Chamba. This species
has been earlier reported by all recent workers except
Saikia et al. (2008).
89. Bronzed Drongo Dicrurus aeneus (Vieillot, 1817)
Common. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Rathiyar,
8340
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
Present
study
Singh
(2011)
Saikia et al.
(2008)
Thakur et al.
(2002)
Earlier reports
Marshal (1884)
Podicepidiformes: Podicepedidae
1
Pelecaniformes: Phalacrocoracidae
2
Marshal (1884)
Marshal (1884)
Ciconiiformes: Ardeidae
4
Marshal (1884)
Anseriformes: Anatidae
7
Marshal (1884)
Marshal (1884)
10
Marshal (1884)
11
Marshal (1884)
12
Marshal (1884)
13
Marshal (1884)
Falconiformes: Accipitridae
14
Marshal (1884)
15
Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1992)
16
Marshal (1884)
17
Marshal (1884)
18
Marshal (1884)
19
20
Marshal (1884)
21
Marshal (1884)
22
Marshal (1884)
23
Marshal (1884)
24
25
Marshal (1884)
26
Marshal (1884)
27
28
29
Mahabal (1993)
30
31
32
Marshal (1884)
Falconidae
33
Marshal (1884)
34
Galliformes: Phasianidae
35
Marshal (1884)
36
8341
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
Species
Present
study
Singh
(2011)
Saikia et al.
(2008)
Thakur et al.
(2002)
Earlier reports
37
Marshal (1884)
38
Marshal (1884)
39
40
Marshal (1884),
Littledale (1898),
Tak (1987), Katoch
et al. (1997)
41
42
43
Marshal (1884)
44
45
Littledale (1898),
Ripley (1961)
Marshal (1884)
Turnicidae
46
Gruiiformes: Rallidae
47
Marshal (1884)
48
Marshal (1884)
Marshal (1884)
Charadiriiformes: Jacanidae
49
Recurvirostridae
50
Charadriidae
51
Marshal (1884)
52
Marshal (1884)
Scolopacidae
53
Marshal (1884)
54
Marshal (1884)
55
Marshal (1884)
56
Marshal (1884)
57
Marshal (1884)
58
Marshal (1884),
Littledale (1898)
59
60
Marshal (1884)
61
Marshal (1884)
Marshal (1884)
63
64
Marshal (1884)
Laridae
Columbiformes: Columbidae
62
65
66
Marshal (1884)
67
Marshal (1884)
68
69
70
8342
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
Present
study
Singh
(2011)
Saikia et al.
(2008)
Thakur et al.
(2002)
Earlier reports
71
Marshal (1884)
72
Marshal (1884)
73
Marshal (1884)
Species
Psittaciformes: Psittacidae
74
Mahabal (1992)
75
Mahabal (1993)
76
Cuculiformes: Cuculidae
77
Mahabal (1993)
78
Marshal (1884)
79
Marshal (1884)
80
Mahabal (1993)
81
Marshal (1884)
82
Marshal (1884)
Strigiformes: Strigidae
83
Marshal (1884)
84
Marshal (1884)
85
Marshal (1884)
86
Marshal (1884)
87
Marshal (1884)
88
Marshal (1884)
89
Marshal (1884)
90
Marshal (1884)
Caprimulgiformes: Caprimulgidae
91
Marshal (1884)
92
Marshal (1884)
Apodiformes: Apodidae
93
94
95
96
Marshal (1884)
97
Marshal (1884)
98
Marshal (1884)
Marshal (1884)
100
Marshal (1884)
101
Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)
Mahabal (1993)
Coraciiformes: Alcedinidae
99
Meropidae
102
Coraciidae
103
Upupidae
8343
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
Species
104
Present
study
Singh
(2011)
Saikia et al.
(2008)
Thakur et al.
(2002)
Earlier reports
Piciformes: Megalaimidae
105
Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)
107
Marshal (1884)
108
Mahabal (1993)
109
Mahabal (1993)
110
Marshal (1884)
111
112
Mahabal (1993)
113
Marshal (1884)
114
Marshal (1884)
Marshal (1884)
106
Picidae
Passeriformes: Alaudidae
115
Hirundinidae
116
Marshal (1884)
117
Mahabal (1993)
118
Marshal (1884)
119
Marshal (1884)
120
Marshal (1884)
Motacillidae
121
122
Marshal (1884)
123
Marshal (1884)
124
125
126
Marshal (1884)
127
Mahabal (1993)
128
Marshal (1884)
129
130
Campephagidae
131
Marshal (1884)
132
Mahabal (1993)
133
134
Mahabal (1993)
Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)
Pycnonotidae
135
136
8344
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
Present
study
Singh
(2011)
Saikia et al.
(2008)
Thakur et al.
(2002)
Marshal (1884)
Species
137
Earlier reports
Laniidae
138
139
Marshal (1884)
140
141
Marshal (1884)
Cinclidae
142
Troglodytidae
143
Prunellidae
144
145
Marshal (1884)
146
Marshal (1884)
Marshal (1884)
Turdidae
147
148
Marshal (1884)
149
Mahabal (1993)
150
Marshal (1884)
151
Marshal (1884)
152
Marshal (1884)
153
Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)
154
155
156
Marshal (1884)
157
Muscicapidae
158
159
160
Marshal (1884)
161
162
163
164
165
Marshal (1884)
166
Mahabal (1993)
167
Mahabal (1993)
168
169
Mahabal (1993)
170
Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)
171
8345
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
Present
study
Singh
(2011)
Saikia et al.
(2008)
Thakur et al.
(2002)
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
Species
Earlier reports
180
Marshal (1884)
181
182
183
Mahabal (1993)
184
185
186
Marshal (1884)
187
188
189
190
Marshal (1884)
191
Marshal (1884)
Monarchidae
192
Rhipiduridae
193
194
Stenostiridae
195
Timaliidae
196
Marshal (1884)
197
Leiothrichidae
198
Marshal (1884)
199
Marshal (1884)
200
Marshal (1884)
201
202
203
Marshal (1884)
204
205
8346
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
Species
206
Present
study
Singh
(2011)
Saikia et al.
(2008)
Thakur et al.
(2002)
Earlier reports
Mahabal (1993)
Marshal (1884)
Pnoepygidae
207
Cisticolidae
208
209
Marshal (1884)
210
211
Marshal (1884)
212
Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)
Cettiidae
213
214
Marshal (1884)
215
216
Marshal (1884)
217
Marshal (1884)
Phylloscopidae
218
Mahabal (1993)
219
220
221
222
223
224
Marshal (1884)
225
226
Marshal (1884)
227
228
229
Marshal (1884)
230
231
232
Marshal (1884)
Acrocephalidae
233
Sylviidae
234
Regulidae
235
Aegithalidae
236
8347
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
Species
Present
study
Singh
(2011)
Saikia et al.
(2008)
Thakur et al.
(2002)
Earlier reports
Marshal (1884)
Paridae
237
238
Marshal (1884)
239
240
241
242
243
244
Marshal (1884)
Sittidae
245
Marshal (1884)
246
Marshal (1884)
247
Tichodromidae
248
Certhiidae
249
250
Dicaeidae
251
252
Mahabal (1993)
253
Family Nectariniidae
254
Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)
255
Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)
256
Marshal (1884)
Zosteropidae
257
258
Marshal (1884)
Emberizidae
259
260
261
Marshal (1884)
262
Fringillidae
263
264
265
266
267
Marshal (1884)
268
269
8348
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
Present
study
Singh
(2011)
Saikia et al.
(2008)
Thakur et al.
(2002)
270
271
Marshal (1884)
272
Marshal (1884)
273
274
275
Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)
Species
Earlier reports
Passeridae
276
277
278
279
Marshal (1884)
280
Marshal (1884)
Estrildidae
281
Mahabal (1993)
282
Mahabal (1993)
Sturnidae
283
Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)
284
Marshal (1884)
285
Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)
286
Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1992)
Oriolidae
287
Dicruridae
288
Mahabal (1993)
289
Marshal (1884)
290
291
292
293
294
295
Mahabal (1993)
296
297
Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)
298
299
300
Corvidae
301
Mahabal (1993)
302
8349
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
Tariq Ahmed Shah
Martina Anandam
8350
Vishal Ahuja
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
8351
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
Tariq Ahmed Shah
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
Martina Anandam
8353
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
Tariq Ahmed Shah
Vishal Ahuja
8354
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
Tariq Ahmed Shah
Vishal Ahuja
8355
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
Vishal Ahuja
Vishal Ahuja
Vishal Ahuja
Birds of Chamba
Shah et al.
Tariq Ahmed Shah
Martina Anandam
Vishal Ahuja
Mahabal, A. (1992). Avifauna of Chamba District (Himachal Pradesh) with emphasis on their
altitudinal distribution. Pavo 30(1&2): 1725.
Manakadan, R. & A. Pittie (2001). Standardised common and scientific names of the birds of
the Indian subcontinent. Buceros 6(1): 137.
MacKinnon, S. & K. Phillipps (1993). A Field Guide to the Birds of Borneo, Sumatra, Java and
Bali. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 491pp.
Pandey, S. (1993). Pheasant surveys and the conservation of protected areas in the Upper Beas
Valley, Himachal Pradesh, India, pp. 5861. In: Jenkins, D. (ed.). Pheasants in Asia 1992. World
Pheasant Association, Reading, UK.
Gregory, R.D., D. Noble, R. Field, J. Marchant, M. Raven & D.W. Gibbons (2003). Using birds as
indicators of biodiversity. Ornis Hungarica 12&13: 1124.
Rasmussen, P.C. &. J.C. Anderton (2005). Birds of South Asia. The Ripley Guide. 2 Volumes (Vol.
1 - Field Guide and Vol. 2 - Attributes and Status). Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC,
USA and Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain. Vol. 1, 378pp. and Vol. 2, 683pp.
Singh, V. & H.S. Banyal (2013). Avian fauna of Khajjiar Lake, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh,
India. Proceedings of the Zoological Society 66(2): 130136; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s12595-012-0049-9
Singh, A.P. (2011). Birds of the upper catchment of Ravi River, Chamba District, Himachal
Pradesh, India. Indian Birds 7(4): 97103.
Tak, P.C. (1987). On a rare sighting of Western Tragopan (Tragopan melanocephalus) in district
Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, India. Cheetal 28(4): 4245.
Thakur, M.L., R. Paliwal, R., P.C. Tak, H.S. Mehta & V.K. Mattu (2002). Birds of Kalatop-Khajjiar
Wildlife Sanctuary, Chamba (H.P.). Cheetal 41(3&4): 2936.
Thakur, M.L. (2008). Studies on status and diversity of avifauna in Himachal Pradesh. Ph.D.
Thesis. Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla, India, 306pp.
Thakur, M.L., V.K. Mattu, H. Lal, V.N. Sharma, H. Raj & V. Thakur (2010). Avifauna of Arki Hills,
Solan (Himachal Pradesh), India. Indian Birds 5(6): 162166.
Wildlife Institute of India (2015). National Wildlife Database as on 06 October, 2015. Available
online at http://www.wiienvis.nic.in/Database/Protected_Area_854.aspx
Threatened Taxa
8357
Communication
Ph.D. Scholar, PG Research and Department of Zoology, Government Arts College (affiliatted to Bharathiar
University), Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641018, India
2
PG Research and Department of Zoology, Chikkana Government Arts College (affiliated to Bharathiar University),
Tirupur, Tamil Nadu 641602, India
1
poojithvenkat@gmail.com (corresponding author), 2 papssi@yahoo.co.uk
1
OPEN ACCESS
Abstract: Four species of vultures were surveyed using road transects in two parts of the Moyar Valley, three of these are Critically
Endangered by IUCN criteria and one is Endangered. The vulture study was done for the first time in Nilgiri North Forest Division and
Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve of Moyar Valley to determine the flock size in the three species of vultures and also to get a rough
estimation of vultures. The results show higher flock size and higher densities in Nilgiri North Forest Division than in Sathyamangalam Tiger
Reserve and the most numerous of these was the White-rumped Vulture. There is also evidence of seasonal movements in Nilgiri North
Forest Division. These data represent the first systematic survey results from the area and demonstrate the significance of the Moyar
Valley for all four Endangered vulture species, probably the main stronghold remaining in southern India. They are White-rumped Vulture
Gyps bengalensis, Indian Vulture Gyps indicus, Red-headed Vulture Sarcogyps calvus and Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus. The
study recommends that immediate long-term conservation efforts should be taken to save the Critically Endangered vultures in the Moyar
Valley.
Keyword: Conservation, Flock size, Moyar Valley, population, seasonal variation, vultures.
Manuscript details: Ms # o4240 | Received 14 February 2015 | Final received 08 January 2016 | Finally accepted 13 January 2016
Citation: Venkitachalam, R. & S. Senthilnathan (2016). Status and population of vultures in Moyar Valley, southern India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 83588364;
http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2522.8.1.8358-8364
Copyright: Venkitachalam & Senthilnathan 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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 project was funded by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-India) small grant programme.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests. Funding sources had no role in study design, data collection, results interpretation and manuscript
writing.
Author Details: Dr. R. Venkitachalam is a Research Associate at Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Bangalore. He completed his
Ph.D on Status and Ecology of Threatened vulture species in Moyar Valley, Tamilnadu. He so far completed research projects on Hornbills in the Eastern Ghats,
one on Ecosystem monitoring (Component Ornithology) in Keoladeo National Park, involved captive management programme on vultures conservation in India
and two projects on in situ Conservation of vultures in Tamil Nadu. At present he is studying dynamics of ecosystem services in Western Ghats of Tamil Nadu.
Dr. S. Senthilnathan is working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Zoology, Chikkanna Government Arts College, Tirupur. He has more than twenty
years research experience and done a commendable work on environmental studies. He is an awarded of UGC Research Associateship and CSIR Scientist Pool
Officership in his credit. He has also worked with several research institutions like CAS in Marine Biology, Annamalai University, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology
and Natural History (SACON), Coimbatore and CEE, Ahmadabad. He completed the World Bank projects under PWD, Tamil Nadu and published several papers in
the national and international in the field of environmental science in reputed journals.
Author Contribution: RV conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments and analyzed the data.
RV and SS wrote the paper.
Acknowledgements: We thank the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change, Government of India and Tamil Nadu Forest Department, Critical
Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), Saving Asias Vulture Extinction (SAVE) and WWF-India. We are grateful to the Chief Wildlife Warden, Tamil Nadu for permitting
us to carry out the vulture survey. We also thank the Director, Mudumalai Tiger Reserve and Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve and the District Forest Officer, Nilgiri
North Forest Division for their cooperation and kind help throughout the study period. We thank Mr. J. Peter Prem Chakravarthi, WWF-India for helping me to
prepare map. We also thank Arulagam and field forest staff in Mudumalai Tiger Reserve, Sathyamanagalam Tiger Reserve and Nilgiri North Forest Division.
8358
INTRODUCTION
2001) and Gokula et al. (1996) reported that the Whiterumped Vulture and the Indian vulture are resident in
the Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary. The Indian vultures
were previously recorded breeding on cliffs in the
Nilgiri and Palani hills of Tamil Nadu (Sathyamurthi
1970). Hence, the study was undertaken to estimate
the population and distribution pattern of the vulture
species in detail in Nilgiri North Forest Division (NNFD)
and Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve (STR) of Moyar
Valley.
8359
Figure 1. Study Area showing vulture survey transect routes and vulture nest distribution in Moyar Valley
Tolstoy
RESULTS
Flock size of three vulture species was significantly
higher in NNFD when compared to STR of Moyar Valley
(Table 3). White-rumped Vultures showed a significant
difference in the flock size in NNFD and STR. This was
demonstrated statistically with a significant difference
in the flock size between the study sites for Whiterumped Vulture (c2=3.68; df =1; p < 0.05). Though there
is variation in mean encounter rate of White-rumped
Vulture, it was not statistically significant (c2= 0.86; df
=1; p > 0.05).
The flock size of the Indian Vulture was very low and
found insignificant between the NNFD and STR (Table 3).
There was no difference in the overall number of Redheaded Vultures sighted between NNFD and STR. In the
present observation, there is a significant variation in
the total number of vultures sighted between NNFD and
STR, hence an attempt was made to study the seasonal
variations of vulture abundance in Moyar Valley.
Seasonal variation in the flock size and encounter rate
of vultures in Nilgiri North Forest Division
Seasonal variations in the number of vultures sighted
and encounter rate of three species of vultures varied
in NNFD. The White-rumped Vulture population (Fig. 2)
and encounter rate (0.920.17) was highest during postmonsoon period compared to other seasons (Table 1).
Indian Vulture sightings were relatively higher during
monsoon period when compared to post monsoon and
summer (Fig. 2; Table 1). No seasonal variations were
noticed in Red-headed Vulture numbers across different
seasons in the NNFD.
Vulture species
8361
Table 1. Seasonal variations in the encounter rate of different species ofvultures in Nilgiri North Forest Division (NNFD)
Parameters
Encounter
rate (/km)
Seasons
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Monsoon
(August, September, October, November)
1.14
0.310
0.44
0.48
0.101
Post-Monsoon
(December, January, February, March)
0.92
0.179
0.33
0.00
0.46
0.069
Summer
(April, May, June, July)
0.50
0.130
0.37
0.061
Kruskal-Wallis Anova
c =5.79; df=2;p=0.055
c =4; df=2;p=0.046
c =0.91; df=2;p=0.636
- No value
Table 2. Seasonal variations in the encounter rate of different species of vultures in Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve (STR).
Parameters
Encounter
rate (/km)
Seasons
IndianVulture (n=15)
Red-headedVulture (n=11)
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Monsoon
(August, September, October, November)
0.79
0.253
0.41
0.140
0.43
0.066
Post-Monsoon
December, January, February, March)
0.41
0.120
0.36
0.084
0.21
0.017
Summer
(April, May, June, July)
0.60
0.233
0.41
0.124
0.33
0.087
c =0.23; df=2;p=0.89
Kruskal-Wallis Anova
c =0.77; df=2;p=0.68
c=4.88; df=2;p=0.087
Table 3. Flock size and encounter rate of Vulture comparison between the Nilgiri North Forest Division and Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve
Parameters
Study area
Flock size
Mean Encounter
rate
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
NND
18.51
2.863
1.25
0.250
1.66
0.143
STR
12.79
3.980
2.87
0.515
1.36
0.152
Kruskal-Wallis Anova
c =3.68; df=1;p=0.055
NND
0.81
0.120
0.36
STR
0.64
0.137
0.40
Kruskal-Wallis Anova
c2=0.86; df=1;p=0.35
c =0.755; df=1;p=0.39
2
0.028
0.43
0.043
0.080
0.32
0.042
c2=0.75; df=1;p=0.36
- No value
Max
Mean
crowding
95%
Confidence
Interval
White-rumped
Vulture (n=67)
79
38.27
29.9 to 47.8
31
Indian Vulture
(n=19)
08
3.88
2.65 to5.77
Red-headed
Vulture (n=40)
04
1.89
1.63 to 2.33
Species
Median
Vulture species
DISCUSSION
This is the first systematic survey of three species
of vultures, viz., White-rumped Vulture, Indian Vulture
and Red-headed Vulture in the NNFD and STR of Moyar
Valley of Tamil Nadu. Significantly larger vulture flocks
were recorded in NNFD than in the STR. The flock size
of Indian vulture and Red-headed Vulture was very low
and statistically non-significant between the study sites.
The present study results however reveal that there is
a significant variation in the total numbers of vultures
sighted between NNFD and STR, and we also attempted
to examine any seasonal variation of vulture numbers in
Moyar Valley.
The mean populations of the three species of
vultures varied according to the seasons in the both
study areas NNFD and STR of Moyar Valley although
these variations were only significant for White-rumped
Vulture. Population size of White-rumped Vulture
was found to be highest during post monsoon season
REFERENCES
Ali, S. & S.D. Ripley (eds.) (1983). Handbook of the Birds of India and
Pakistan together with those of Nepal and Ceylon, Vol. 1 to 10.
Oxford University Press, 3121pp.
BirdLife International (2001). Threatened Birds of Asia: The BirdLife
International Red Data Book. Birdlife International, Cambridge, U.K.,
8363
3038pp.
Fuller, M.R. & J.A. Mosher (1981). Methods of detecting and counting
raptors. Studies in Avian Biology 6: 235248.
Green, R.E., I. Newton S. Shultz, A.A. Cunningham, M. Gilbert, D.
Pain & V. Prakash (2004). Diclofenac poisoning as a cause of vulture
population declines across the Indian subcontinent. Journal of
Applied Ecology 41: 793800.
Gokula, V. & L. Vijayan (1996). Birds of Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary,
India. Forktail 12: 107116.
Indian Bird Conservation Network (2014). Vulture Special. MISTNET
15: 336.
Margalida, A., D. Oro, A. Corts-Avizanda, R. Heredia & J.A. Donzar
(2011). Misleading population estimates: biases and consistency
of visual surveys and matrix modelling in the Endangered Bearded
Vulture. PLoS ONE 6(10): e26784; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0026784
Newton, I. (1979). Population Ecology of Raptors. Buteo Books, Poyser
Ltd, England, 399pp.
Nie, N.H., C.H. Hull, J.G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner & D.H. Bent (eds.)
(1975). SPSS, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, McGrawHill, New York, 257pp.
Oaks, J.L., M. Gilbert, M.Z. Virani, R.T. Watson, C.U. Meteyer, B.A.
Rideout, H.L. Shivaprasad, S. Ahmed, M.J.I.Chaudhry, M. Arshad,
S. Mahmood, A. Ali & A.A. Khan (2004). Diclofenac residues as
the cause of vulture population declines in Pakistan. Nature 427:
630633.
Ogada, D.L. M.E. Torchin, M.F. Kinnaird & V.O. Ezenwa (2012).
Effects of vulture declines on facultative scavengers and potential
implications for mammalian disease Transmission. Conservation
Biology 26(3): 453460.
Ramesh, T., R. Kalle, K. Sankar & Q. Qureshi (2012). Dietary
Partitioning in Sympatric Large Carnivores in a Tropical Forests of
Western Ghats in India. Mammal Study 37(4): 313321; http://
dx.doi.org/10.3106/041.037.0405
Ryan, F.B., B.L. Joiner & A.T. Ryan (1992). MINITAB Handbook. Boston
PWS-KENT Publishing Company, 376pp.
Saving Asias Vultures from Extinction. http://www.save-vultures.org/
save latest news. Html # vialban.
SAVE (2014 a). Vulture Safe Zones: Objectives and Key Activities. June
2014. Available: www.save-vultures.org (Accessed 25 June 2014)
Sathyamurthi, S.T (1970). Guide to the Bird Gallery. Director of
Stationary and Printing, Madras, 95pp.
Sokal, R.R. & F.T. Rohlf (eds.) (1981). Biometry. W.H. Freeman and
Company, New York, 859pp.
Venkitachalam, R. & N. Senthilnathan (2015). Breeding Record of
Indian Vulture (Gyps indicus) in Moyar Valley, Tamil Nadu, India.
Current Science 109(2): 258259.
Zar, J.H. (eds.) (2003). Biostatistical Analysis. Pearson Education Pvt
Ltd, Singapore, 663pp.
Threatened Taxa
8364
OPEN ACCESS
Manuscript details: Ms # 2164 | Received 19 July 2015 | Final received 07 January 2016 | Finally accepted 10 January 2016
Citation: Dahal, D., S. Thapa & K. Basnet (2016). First record of Scotophilus kuhlii Leach, 1821 (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) from Nepal. Journal of Threatened Taxa
8(1): 83658368; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2164.8.1.8365-8368
Copyright: Dahal et al. 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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: Self funded.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: All identification processes were done in Ecology lab of the Central Department of Zoology, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu. We
owe a sincere gratitude to two anonymous reviewers for critical and constructive comments on the manuscript.
8365
Short Communication
Dahal et al.
Systematic review
Scotophilus kuhlii Leach, 1821
Asiatic Lesser Yellow House Bat
Scotophilus kuhlii Leach, 1821: 72. India.
Material
CDZ TU_BAT 032, 12.ii.2012, 1 adult male, Tikulia
tole, Pakali-8, Sunsari District, Nepal 2604220.82N &
870138.22E, elevation 107m.
Variation
Bates & Harrison (1997) refer specimens from Indian
Subcontinent as S. kuhlii following Hill & Thonglongya
(1972) and S.k. wroughtoni to subspecific form. The
present material differs from the description by Bates &
Harrison (1997) in colour of ventral pelage.
Diagnosis and description
Measurement of external body, cranial, and dental
parts (Table 1) and detail description of Scotophilus
kuhlii are the basis of diagnosis of the species. Tail
is long and its terminal tip projects 2mm from the
interfemoral membrane. Head has a broad and blunt
muzzle, characteristic crescent-shaped tragus and a
well-developed antitragus. Genus Eptesicus is also
identified by the shape of the tragus, but it is short and
blunt strikingly different from that of Scotophilus. The
antitragus is separated by a distinct notch at the posterior
end of the tragus. Forearm measures 47mm and the
total mass weighs 22g. The skull has an elongated and
profound braincase with distinct lambda which projects
above the posterior of supraoccipital. There are well
developed lamboid crests. The short and broad rostrum
has prominent lachrymal processes above the orbits. At
the inter-orbital region, the sagittal crest is bifurcated
and extends to the front of the orbits. Nasal aperture
is wide. Anterior of the palate (to the mid-point of
the first upper premolar (pm4)) is emarginated broadly
and intensely. Tympanic bullae are small and about
the breadth of basioccipital. Coronoid processes in
mandible are tall and triangular. The angular process is
broad and slightly deflected outward. Dental character
includes unicuspid upper incisor with a well-developed
cingulum. The left upper incisor is missing. The upper
canine which is in contact with upper incisor is large
(Image 1). The lower canine is tall and recurved (Image
2). The upper premolar (pm4) measures two-thirds the
height of the canine (Image 1). The first lower premolar
(pm2) is minute and is about one-third the crown area
and one-fourth the height of the second lower premolar
8366
Figure 1. Map depicting the collection site (red circle) of the Asiatic
Lesser Yellow House Bat with reference site Itahari (black hexagon)
in Sunsari District, Nepal.
67
2Ph3MT
21
41
WSP
374
TIB
17
10
HF
Tragus
FA
47
GTL
19.2
Thumb
CCL
17.2
5MT
43
BB
10.3
1Ph5MT
PC
3.4
2Ph5MT
10
C-M3
6.6
4MT
44
C-M3
7.3
1Ph4MT
12
13.5
2Ph4MT
13
C1-C1
6.3
3MT
45
M3-M3
7.5
1Ph3MT
15
ZB
13.2
(pm4). The second lower premolar measures about twothirds the height of the lower canine. The sizes of lower
first and second molars are equal (Image 2).
The specimen has brownish dorsal pelage on the
Dahal et al.
Sanjan Thapa
Dibya Dahal
Image 1. Lateral view of the skull of Asiatic Lesser Yellow House Bat
(CDZ TU_BAT 32) collected from Tikuliatol, Pakali V.D.C. ward # 8,
Sunsari District, Nepal.
Sanjan Thapa
8367
Dahal et al.
8368
Hill, J.E. & K. Thonglongya (1972). Bats from Thailand and Cambodia.
Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Zoology) 22(6):
173196.
Jnawali, S.R., H.S. Baral, S. Lee, K.P. Acharya, G.P. Upadhyay, M.
Pandey, M., R. Shrestha, D. Joshi, B.R. Laminchhane, J. Griffiths,
A.P. Khatiwada, N. Subedi & R. Amin. (compilers) (2011). The
Status of Nepal Mammals: The National Red List Series, Department
of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal,
viii+266pp.
Leach, W.E. (1821). The characters of three new genera of bats without
foliaceous appendages to the nose. Transactions of the Linnean
Society of London 13: 6972.
Khan, M.A.R. (2001). Status and distribution of bats in Bangladesh
with notes on their ecology. Zoos Print Journal 16(5): 479483;
http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.ZPJ.16.5.479-83
Korad, V., K. Yardi & R. Raud (2007). Diversity and Distribution of Bats
in the Western Ghats of India. Zoos Print Journal 22(7): 27522758;
http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.ZPJ.1563.2752-8
Molur S., G. Marimuthu, C. Srinivasulu, S. Mistry, A. Hutson, P.J.J.
Bates, S. Walker, K.P. Priya & A.R.B. Priya (eds.) (2002). Status of
South Asian Chiroptera: Conservation Assessment and Management
Plan (C.A.M.P.) Workshop Report. Zoo Outreach Organisation,
Conservation Breeding Specialist Group South Asia and Wildlife
Information & Liaison Development Society, Coimbatore, India.
Olson, D.M. & E. Dinerstein (2002). The Global 200: priority ecoregions
for global conservation. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 89:
199224.
Pearch, M.J. (2011). A review of the biological diversity and distribution
of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected
areas of Nepal. Zootaxa 3072: 286.
Shrestha, T.K. (1997). Mammals of Nepal. Bimala Shrestha, R.K.
Printers, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Simmons, N. (2005). Order Chiroptera, pp. 312529. In: Wilson D.E.
& D.M. Reeder (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic
and Geographic. Reference. 3rd Edition - Vol. 1. The John Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, xxxv+2142pp.
Srinivasulu, B., C. Srinivasulu & P. Venkateshwarlu (2010). First record
of Lesser Yellow House Bat Scotophilus kuhlii Leach, 1821 from
Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India with a note on its diet. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 2(10): 12341236; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/
JoTT.o1989.1234-6
Srinivasulu, C. & B. Srinivasulu (2012). South Asian Mammals, Their
Diversity, Distribution and Status. Springer, USA, xi+467pp+10 illus.
in color.
Suwal, R. & W.J.M. Verheugt (1995). Enumeration of Mammals of
Nepal. Biodiversity Profiles Project Publication No. 6. Department
of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Vanitharani, J. (2006). Noteworthy representatives of bat species
in Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve, Tamil Nadu. Journal of
Theoretical and Experimental Biology 2(2): 4759.
Threatened Taxa
OPEN ACCESS
Manuscript details: Ms # 2524 | Received 07 December 2014 | Final received 30 October 2015 | Finally accepted 23 December 2015
Citation: Chakdar, B., P. Choudhury & H. Singha (2016). Avifaunal diversity in Assam University Campus, Silchar, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 83698378;
http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2524.8.1.8369-8378
Copyright: Chakdar et al. 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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: None.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: We express our thanks to the Head of the Department Dr. Dulal Chandra Ray for his kind support. We are also thankful to all the non-teaching
staffs of our department and security guards of the University for their Cooperation. We also acknowledge with thanks the cooperation and support of Soumya
Dasgupta, Manab, Jayanta, Freeman, Anukul and Dipankar Debnath.
8369
Short Communication
Chakdar et al.
8370
Study area
River
District border
Town
Methods
Data collection
The study was carried out from February 2011
to June 2011. A 350m-long trail in each habitat was
followed until no addition of new species of birds to the
cumulative number of species was confirmed. Thus each
trail was walked 10 times during the study period. While
walking at a constant pace along the trail, the species
encountered within 30m on both sides of the trail were
recorded. Birds flying overhead were excluded, and
the birds that flew from behind the observers, were
not recorded to avoid double count. The bird species
were observed with a field binoculars (840) from 05:30
to 07:30 hr. and from 16:00 to 18:00 hr. Grimmett et
al. (1999) was followed for the identification of birds;
conspicuous bird calls were additionally used both
for identification and recording birds. In addition to
the fixed trails, opportunistic sightings of the birds
were also recorded in other parts of the campus. The
comprehensive checklist of the birds in the campus
was prepared by adding these species with the species
recorded on the fixed trails.
Data analyses
The cumulative number of species observed in
each habitat was considered as the species richness for
that habitat. A checklist of bird species found on the
university campus was prepared following Manakadan &
Chakdar et al.
Figure 2. Study area showing different habitats surveyed. Source: image@2011 GeoEye, Google Earth.
8371
Chakdar et al.
DISCUSSION
The diversity of birds and distribution with respect
to available habitat types represents the importance of
the university campus as a suitable bird habitat. The
university campus consists of a mosaic of habitats, which
supports good diversity of birds. Habitat heterogeneity
favours habitat specialist (through niche partitioning)
birds with broad niches (Surasinghe et al. 2010).
In addition to 53 bird species in the regular trails,
we recorded 20 more species in the university campus
(Appendix 1), which we encountered occasionally,
through opportunistic sightings. To prepare a checklist
of bird species, opportunistic records are also required
in addition to regular trail surveys.
The overall Shannon diversity index (2.90) in the
Assam University campus was high. The habitat
8372
No. of species
Chakdar et al.
Gorge
Eco-forest
Degraded area
Secondary growth
Overall
Dominance
0.120
0.156
0.097
0.107
0.106
Shannon index
2.558
2.529
2.573
2.594
2.896
Equitability or evenness
0.776
0.706
0.874
0.816
0.729
Table 2. Bird species recorded only in one particular habitat type in the Assam University, Silchar campus during 2011.
Gorge
Eco-forest
Degraded area
Secondary growth
Cattle Egret
Small Blue Kingfisher
Indian Pond-Heron
Common Snipe
White-breasted Waterhen
Grey-backed Shrike
Golden-fronted Leafbird
Common Hoopoe
Fulvous-breasted Pied Woodpecker
Coppersmith Barbet
Hodgsons Scimitar-Babbler
Scarlet-backed Flowerpecker
Alexandrine Parakeet
Black-naped Green Woodpecker
Crimson Sunbird
Large Cuckoo-Shrike
Indian Roller
Yellow-legged Green-Pigeon
Black-headed Oriole
Kaleej Pheasant
Large Yellow-naped Woodpecker
Red-breasted Parakeet
Common Hill-Myna
Spotted Munia
House Sparrow
Chestnut-headed Bee-eater
Emerald Dove
Pied Harrier
Spotted Owlet
Eco-forest &
Degraded area
Eco-forest &
Secondary growth
0.476
0.436
0.941
0.696
0.731
0.567
8373
Chakdar et al.
Table 4. The relative abundance and frequency of each species and its occurrence in four habitats.
Habitat
Species
1
Red-vented Bulbul
Gorge
+
Eco-forest
Degraded
area
Secondary
growth
Rel.
Abundance (%)
Frequency (%)
27.6
100.0
Spotted Dove
9.1
90.0
Red-whiskered Bulbul
7.5
80.0
Common Myna
4.3
60.0
Brown-flanked Bush-Warbler
4.4
60.0
Oriental Magpie-Robin
3.0
57.5
Rufous-necked Laughingthrush
5.8
45.0
Black Drongo
2.0
42.5
Jungle Crow
3.7
42.5
10
3.2
37.5
11
Jungle Myna
2.7
37.5
12
Blue-throated Barbet
1.5
32.5
13
Rose-ringed Parakeet
2.8
30.0
14
Common Tailorbird
1.5
30.0
15
Greater Coucal
1.3
30.0
16
Rufous-backed Shrike
0.8
25.0
17
Striated Babbler
2.8
22.5
18
Common Hill-Myna
2.1
22.5
19
House Sparrow
1.7
22.5
20
White-throated Kingfisher
0.7
20.0
21
Red-breasted Parakeet
2.2
17.5
22
Chestnut-headed Bee-eater
0.9
17.5
23
Asian Koel
0.6
17.5
24
White-rumped Munia
2.4
15.0
25
Common Snipe
0.4
10.0
26
Spotted Owlet
0.3
10.0
27
Bronze Drongo
0.3
10.0
28
Grey-backed Shrike
0.2
7.5
29
White-breasted Waterhen
0.3
7.5
30
Red Junglefowl
0.2
7.5
31
Pied Harrier
0.4
7.5
32
0.3
5.0
33
Grey-headed Starling
0.6
5.0
34
Large Cuckoo-Shrike
0.2
5.0
35
0.2
5.0
36
Common Iora
0.1
2.5
37
Indian Pond-Heron
0.1
2.5
38
0.1
2.5
39
Kaleej Pheasant
0.1
2.5
40
Black-headed Oriole
0.2
2.5
41
Yellow-legged Green-Pigeon
0.2
2.5
42
Indian Roller
0.2
2.5
43
Emerald Dove
0.1
2.5
8374
Chakdar et al.
Habitat
Species
44
Crimson Sunbird
Gorge
-
Eco-forest
Degraded
area
Secondary
growth
Rel.
Abundance (%)
Frequency (%)
0.1
2.5
45
Alexandrine Parakeet
0.1
2.5
46
Scarlet-backed Flowerpecker
0.1
2.5
47
Hodgsons Scimitar-Babbler
0.1
2.5
48
Spotted Munia
0.1
2.5
49
Coppersmith Barbet
0.1
2.5
50
Cattle Egret
0.1
2.5
51
Fulvous-breasted Pied
Woodpecker
0.1
2.5
52
Common Hoopoe
0.1
2.5
53
Gold-fronted Chloropsis
0.1
2.5
+ = present; - = absent;
8375
Chakdar et al.
REFERENCES
Acevedo, M.A. & T.M. Aide (2008). Bird community dynamics and
habitat associations in Karst, Mangrove and Pterocarpus forest
fragment in an urban zone. Caribbean Journal Science 44: 402416.
Ali, S. & S.D. Ripley (1987). Compact Handbook of the Birds of India
and Pakistan together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and
Sri Lanka. Oxford University Press, Delhi, India, 737pp.
Baker, E.C.S. (18941901). The birds of north Cachar, 12 parts. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society Volumes: 813.
Beehler, B.C., K.S.R. Krishna Raju & A. Shahid (1987). Avian use of
man-disturbed forest habitats in the Eastern Ghats, India. Ibis 129:
197211.
Choudhury, A.U. (2000). The Birds of Assam. Gibbon Books and World
Wide Fund for Nature-India, Guwahati.
Cramer, M.J. & M.R. Willig (2005). Habitat heterogeneity, species
diversity and null models. Oikos 108: 209218.
Deb, N. & A. Gupta (2010). Avian Community Analysis in Fragmented
Landscapes of Cachar District, Assam. Assam University Journal of
Science & Technology: Biological and Environmental Sciences 5(I):
7584
8376
Chakdar et al.
Appendix 1. Checklist of birds found in the Assam University, Silchar campus during 2011. Classification of birds is after Manakadan & Pittie
(2001).
Scientific name
Residential
status
Common name
Scientific name
Residential
status
Halcyon Smyrnensis
Ardeola grayii
Meropidae
2. Cattle Egret
Bubulcus ibis
Merops leschenaulti
3. Median Egret
Mesophoyx
intermedia
Coraciidae
Coracias
benghalensis
R, L
Upupa epops
R, W, L
Common name
Ciconiiformes: Ardeidae
1. Indian Pond-Heron
Ciconiidae
4. Asian Openbill-Stork
Anastomus oscitans
Falconiformes: Accipitridae
Upupidae
27. Common Hoopoe
5. Pied Harrier
Circus melanoleucos
M, W
6. Crested Serpent-Eagle
Spilornis cheela
Galliformes: Phasianidae
Piciformes: Capidonidae
28. Blue-throated Barbet
Megalaima asiatica
Megalaima lineata
Megalaima
haemacephala
7. Red Junglefowl
Gallus gallus
8. Kaleej Pheasant
Lophura
leucomelanos
Picidae
31. Eurasian Wryneck
Jynx torquilla
Picus flavinucha
Picus canus
Dendrocopos macei
Gruiformes: Rallidae
9. White-breasted Waterhen
Amaurornis
phoenicurus
Charadriiformes: Scolopacidae
Gallinago gallinago
Chalcophaps indica
Streptopelia chinensis
Treron phoenicoptera
Psittacula alexandri
Psittacula krameri
Psittacula eupatria
Cuculiformes: Cuculidae
17. Greater Coucal
Centropus sinensis
Eudynamys
scolopacea
R, L
Athene brama
Ketupa zeylonensis
Ninox scutulata
Apus affinis
R, L
Alcedo atthis
Strigiformes: Strigidae
Apodiformes: Apodidae
Coraciiformes: Alcedinidae
23. Small Blue Kingfisher
Lanius schach
R, W
Lanius tephronotus
Oriolus xanthornus
Dicrurus aeneus
Dicrurus macrocercus
Dicrurus paradiseus
Artamus fuscus
Artamidae
41. Ashy Woodswallow
Sturnidae
Strigidae
Psittaciformes: Psittacidae
Passeriformes: Laniidae
Acridotheres tristis
Sturnus contra
Acridotheres fuscus
Gracula religiosa
Sturnus malabaricus
Corvus splendens
Corvidae
47. House Crow
8377
Chakdar et al.
Common name
Scientific name
Residential
status
Common name
Scientific name
Residential
status
Corvus
macrorhynchos
Orthotomus
atrogularis
Dendrocitta
vagabunda
Coracina macei
Luscinia calliope
Copsychus saularis
Copsychus
malabaricus
Phoenicurus frontalis
Aegithina tiphia
Monticola solitarius
Chloropsis aurifrons
Dicaeidae
Dicaeum cruentatum
Campephagidae
50. Large Cuckoo-Shrike
Irenidae
Pycnonotidae
Pycnonotus cafer
Nectariniidae
Pycnonotus jocosus
Nectarinia asiatica
Pycnonotus
melanicterus
Aethopyga siparaja
R, L
Cettia fortipes
Passeridae
Muscicapidae
56. Brown-flanked Bush-Warbler
57. Hodgsons Scimitar-Babbler
Pomatorhinus
schisticeps
Turdoides earlei
59.Rufous-necked Laughingthrush
Garrulax ruficollis
Orthotomus sutorius
Passer domesticus
Passer montanus
Estrildidae
72. White-rumped Munia
Lonchura striata
Lonchura punctulata
R - Resident; L - Local and altitudinal migrant; W - Winter visitor; M - Migrant, but some breed here (Choudhury 2000).
Threatened Taxa
8378
OPEN ACCESS
Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation Division, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, Kerala 680653,
India
1,3
University of Calicut, Thenhipalam, Malappuram District, Kerala 673635, India
4
Ecologist, Periyar Tiger Conservation Foundation, Thekkady, Kerala 685536, India
1
rajkumarkp@kfri.res.in, 2 prasadambadyonline@gmail.com, 3 sandeep.koodu@gmail.com, 4 sree.forestry@gmail.com,
5
easaelephant@yahoo.com, 6 sreejith@kfri.res.in (corresponding author)
1,2,3,5,6
Manuscript details: Ms # 2139 | Received 09 July 2015 | Final received 05 January 2016 | Finally accepted 07 January 2016
Citation: Rajkumar, K.P., T.S. Prasad, Sandeep Das, R. Sreehari, P.S. Easa & K.A. Sreejith (2016). New locality record of the Travancore Bush Frog Raorchestes travancoricus Boulenger, 1891 (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 83798382; http://dx.doi.
org/10.11609/jott.2139.8.1.8379-8382
Copyright: Rajkumar et al. 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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: Kerala Forest Department, WL10-10886/2013 dated on 11/4/2013.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: The authors are thankful to the Chief Wildlife Warden, Kerala for providing permission to conduct the study (WL10-10886/2013) and
extending our gratitude to Kerala Forests and Wildlife Department for financial support. We express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Amit Mallick IFS, Mr. Sanjayan
Kumar IFS, Mr. C. Babu, Mr. M. Ajeesh, Mr. S. Sandeep and officials of Periyar Tiger Reserve Conservation Foundation for their support. We gratefully acknowledge
the Cornell Lab of Ornithology-Bioacoustics Research Program for supporting us with the Raven Pro v1.4 software. We acknowledge the support of the Director,
KFRI and Ms. Lilly Margaret Eluvathingal for reviewing the manuscript and Mr. Sanil Mohan for assistance in fieldwork.
8379
Short Communication
Rajkumar et al.
Sandeep Das
K.P. Rajkumar
Rajkumar et al.
Altitude
(m)
Latitude
Longitude
1.
Bodanaikanur, TN
350
9.97 N
77.480E
2.
Vandiperiyar, Idukki
800
9.87 N
77.170E
3.
Vagamon, Idukki
900
9.570N
77.080E
4.
Uppuppara, PTR
1188
9.470N
77.080E
5.
Gavi, PTR
1179
9.43 N
77.130E
6.
1495
9.550N
77.330E
7.
Eravangalar, PTR
1340
9.57 N
77.280E
8.
Mangaladevi, PTR
1234
9.590N
77.210E
9.
Moolavaiga, PTR
1315
9.40 N
77.320E
10.
Kumarikulam, PTR
1209
9.490N
77.280E
11.
Chokkampatti, PTR
1802
9.28 N
77.270E
0
0
8381
Rajkumar et al.
Threatened Taxa
8382
OPEN ACCESS
Manuscript details: Ms # 2523 | Received 31 December 2014 | Final received 08 January 2016 | Finally accepted 14 January 2016
Citation: Rameshkumar, A. & S. Manickavasagam (2016). Descriptions of four new species of Dicopomorpha Ogloblin (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Mymaridae)
from India with a key to Indian species. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 83838388; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2523.8.1.8383-8388
Copyright: Rameshkumar & Manickavasagam 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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: ICAR and Annamalai University, Chidambaram.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: The authors are grateful to Dr. John T. Huber, mymarid specialist, Ottawa, Canada and Dr. J. Poorani, ICAR - National Bureau of Agricultural
Insect Resources, Bangalore for their continuous support and encouragement. Thanks are also due to Dr. K. Rajmohana, Scientist C, Western Ghat Regional Station
(Zoological Survey of India), Calicut, Kerala for providing a specimen. The first author is thankful to the Indian Council of Agricultural Research for funding his work
under the Network Project on Insect Biosystematics.
8383
Short Communication
Dicopomorpha Ogloblin
Dicopomorpha Ogloblin, 1955: 387. Type species:
Dicopomorpha macrocephala Ogloblin, by original
designation.
Chromodicopus Ogloblin, 1955: 390. Type species:
Chromodicopus pulchricornis Ogloblin, by original
designation. Synonymy by Yoshimoto (1990: 27).
Dicopulus Ogloblin, 1955: 377. Type species:
Dicopulus stramineus Ogloblin, by original designation.
Synonymy by Yoshimoto (1990: 27).
Brief diagnosis
Antenna with funicle 7-segmented, sometimes
6-segmented, clava entire; mandibles pointing towards
each other, with two subequal teeth; frenum entire; fore
wing relatively narrow, with posterior margin slightly
curved towards apex but relatively straight medially;
petiole well over half as wide as propodeum; metasoma
broadly sessile (Lin et al. 2007; Huber 2009).
Dicopomorpha is closely related to Dicopus from
which it is distinguished by the following features: genae
in facial view much less convergent (strongly narrowing
in Dicopus) and mandibles crossing each other with
two equal sized teeth (not crossing, with two teeth of
unequal size in Dicopus).
Dicopomorpha albithorax sp. nov.
(Images 16)
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:2EF6C64F-5000-4012-9C4B-0B268C4E6763
Material examined
Holotype: Female, (EDAU/Mym 17/2016), 27.v.2012,
on slide labeled, India: Andaman & Nicobar Islands,
Diglipur, Ramnagar, Malaise trap, Forest floor, coll. A.
Rameshkumar.
Paratype:
Female
(ICAR/NBAIR/MYM
105),
23.iii.2013, on card, India: Tamil Nadu, Tiruchirappalli,
Thuraiyur, Green hills, Kanapadi, yellow pan trap, forest
floor, coll. A. Rameshkumar.
Female
Holotype. Length 260 micrometers. Head dark brown
to black above, median trabecula slightly paler below;
eyes reddish-brown; antenna light brown, darkening
towards apex; mesosoma whitish laterally and apically,
except mesoscutum basally light brown, fading towards
apex and merging with whitish scutellum; tegula white.
Legs pale brown; procoxa white, meso-and metacoxa
dark brown; femora and tibiae paler, tarsi brown;
metasoma dark brown.
Head: Wider than high (1.45). Face with shallow and
8384
Male: Unknown.
Etymology
The specific epithet is of Latin origin (alba= white;
+ thorax) and refers to the whitish thorax.
Comments
This species is distinct and can be easily differentiated
from the other species from India by its 6-segmented
funicle (7-segmented funicle in all other Indian species).
Dicopomorpha funiculata sp. nov.
(Images 713)
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:CCB645FF-3844-49DF-ABBF-02B396471FB3
Material examined
Holotype: Female, (EDAU/Mym 18/2016), 27.v.2012,
on slide labeled, India: Andaman & Nicobar Islands,
Diglipur, Ramnagar, Malaise trap, forest floor, coll. A.
Rameshkumar.
Female
Holotype. Length 420. Body uniformly dark brown;
eye reddish-brown; legs pale yellow; antenna pale
brown; apex of metasoma below cercal plate whitish.
Head: Wider than high; malar space 1.17 of eye
8385
Material examined
Holotype: Female, (EDAU/Mym 19/2016), 13.x.2010,
on slide labeled, India: Tamil Nadu: Cuddalore,
Chidambaram, Annamalai University premises, yellow
pan trap, mango orchard, coll. A. Rameshkumar.
Paratypes: 3 Females, (ICAR/NBAIR/MYM 106-108),
10.xii.2013, on card, India: Tamil Nadu, Cuddalore,
Chidambaram, Annamalai University premises, Malaise
trap, mango orchard, coll. A. Rameshkumar.
Female
Holotype. Length 250. Body more or less uniformly
yellowish-brown with metallic reflection; mesoscutum
with light bluish-green reflections; face above trabecula
with coppery blue reflection and below trabecula
yellowish; legs uniformly yellowish-brown.
Head: 1.13 as wide as high; vertex with deep
reticulate sculpture; eye 0.66 of head height and 2.23
as long as malar space, malar space with two setae on
each side; vertex, area between anterior ocellus and
eye margin with a single seta each; one pair of setae
between antennal toruli; two pairs of setae between
antennal toruli and mouth margin.
Antenna: Scape 7.9 as long as wide, 3.29 as long as
8386
Material examined
Holotype:
Female,
(EDAU/Mym
20/2016),
17.xii.2008, on slide labeled, India: Kerala, Calicut,
Malaise trap, paddy field, coll. K. Rajmohana.
Female
Holotype. Length 350. Body dorsally brown, antenna,
legs and rest of ventral side slightly paler.
Head: 1.3 as wide as high; face with shallow rugose
punctures; eye large, 0.6 of head height, more than
half malar space, latter with two setae; each posterior
ocellus with one long seta, two minute setae on anterior
ocellus.
Antenna: Scape 8.9 as long as wide, 3.5 as long
as pedicel; pedicel 2.2 as long as wide, longer than
fl1; funicle 7-segmented, fl2 shortest (ring-like) and fl3
longest segment; fl4, fl5 and fl6 equal; mps absent in
funicle segments; clava large, 3.5 as long as wide and
longer than preceding four segments, with two large
mps.
Mesosoma: Mesoscutum smooth with shallow
reticulate sculpture; scutellum not clearly divided, both
anterior scutellum and frenum with reticulate sculpture;
propodeum short.
Wings: Fore wing 10 as long as wide; longest
marginal fringe 3.2 as long as wing width; fore wing
disc with four microtrichia on middle and also usual two
8387
Antenna with funicle 6-segmented (Image 3); mesoscutum mostly whitish (Images 1 and 6) ....... D. albithorax sp. nov.
Antenna with funicle 7-segmented (Images 9, 16 & 22); mesoscutum yellow to dark brown (Images 7, 14 & 20) ......... 2
2
-
Fl2 not ring-like, as long as other segments (Image 9); scape about 4.5 as long as wide; fore wing 15 as long as wide
(Image 10) .......................................................................................................................................... D. funiculata sp. nov.
Fl2 ring-like, much shorter than other segments (Images 16 and 22); scape more than 4.5 as long as wide; fore wing less
than 15 as long as wide (Images 17 and 23) .................................................................................................................... 3
3
-
Scape 5 as long as wide; fore wing about 11 as long as wide; hind wing about 18 as long as wide (Rao 1989) ..........
............................................................................................................................................................ D. indica (Subba Rao)
Scape more than 7 as long as wide (Images 16 and 22); fore wing less than 11 as long as wide (Images 17 and 23); hind
wing more than 20 as long as wide .................................................................................................................................. 4
4
-
Ovipositor 1.2 as long as mesotibia; scape 7.9 as long as wide (Image 16); fore wing 10.8 as long as wide (Image 17);
hind wing 21 as long as wide ................................................................................................................. D. minuta sp. nov.
Ovipositor shorter than mesotibia; scape 8.9 as long as wide (Image 22); fore wing 10 as long as wide; hind wing
about 24 as long as wide ................................................................................................................ D. longiscapa sp. nov.
Etymology
The specific epithet is an adjective of Latin origin in
reference to the scape, which is longer than that in all
other known species.
Comments
This species is close to D. indica, but differs from the
following characters: scape about 9 as long as wide;
fore wing 10 as long as wide and hind wing about 25
as long as wide (in indica, scape 5 as long as wide; fore
wing 11 as long as wide and hind wing 21 as long as
wide).
References
Brown, B.V. (1993). A further chemical alternative to critical point
drying for preparing small (or large) flies. Fly Times 7: 10.
Enock, F. (1909). New genera of British Mymaridae (Haliday).
Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 1909: 449459.
Huber, J.T. (2009). The genus Dicopomorpha (Hymenoptera,
Mymaridae) in Africa and a key to Alaptus-group genera. Zookeys
20: 233244; http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.20.116
Huber, J.T. & J.W. Beardsley (2000). A new genus of fairyfly, Kikiki, from
the Hawaiian Islands (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). Proceedings of
the Hawaiian Entomological Society 34: 6570.
8388
Lin, N.Q., J.T. Huber & J. LaSalle (2007). The Australian genera of
Mymaridae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Zootaxa 1596: 1111.
Manickavasagam, S. & A. Rameshkumar (2011). First report of three
genera of fairyflies (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) from India with
description of a new species of Dicopus and some other records.
Zootaxa 3094: 6368.
Noyes, J.S. (2015). Universal Chalcidoidea Data Base. world wide web
electronic publication. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoid
Noyes, J.S. & E.W. Valentine (1989). Mymaridae (Insecta:
Hymenoptera) - introduction, and review of genera. Fauna of New
Zealand 17, 95pp.
Ogloblin, A.A. (1955). Los nuevos representantes de la fam. Mymaridae
(Hym.) de la Republica Argentina. Bollettino del Laboratorio di
Zoologia generale e agrarian Filippo Silvestri 33: 377397.
Rao, B.R.S. (1989). On a collection of Indian Mymaridae (Chalcidoidea:
Hymenoptera). Hexapoda 1: 168169.
Triapitsyn, S.V. & V.V. Berezovskiy (2003). Review of the Mymaridae
(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) of Primorskii Krai: genera Arescon
Walker and Dicopomorpha Ogloblin. Far Eastern Entomologist 124:
115.
Westwood, J.O. (1839). Synopsis of the genera of British insects. In:
An introduction to the modern classification of insects, founded on
the natural habits and corresponding organization of the different
families, 1158pp.
Yoshimoto, C.M. (1990). A review of the genera of new world
Mymaridae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Flora & Fauna Handbook
No.7, 166.
Threatened Taxa
Section of Entomology, Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh 202002, India
mikhanalig@gmail.com; 2usmanikamil94@gmail.com (corresponding author)
1,2
1
OPEN ACCESS
Manuscript details: Ms # 1709 | Received 22 December 2014 | Final received 05 January 2016 | Finally accepted 14 January 2016
Citation: Khan, M.I. & M.K. Usmani (2016). Taxonomic studies on Acridinae (Orthoptera: Acridoidea: Acrididae) from the northeastern states of India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 8(1): 83898397; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.1709.8.1.8389-8397
Copyright: Khan & Usmani 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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: University Grants Commission, New Delhi (Ref. no. 33-33/2007 (SR)).
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: We wish to extend our gratitude to the University Grants Commission, New Delhi for providing financial assistance during the tenure of a
major research project (Ref. no. 33-33/2007 (SR)) being carried out on Studies on taxonomy and diversity of northeastern states of India.
8389
Short Communication
8391
8393
8395
8396
Key to the genera of the subfamily Acridinae MacLeay, 1821 recorded from the northeastern states of India
1.
-
Head never elongate; Hind femur never very long and slender ......................................................................................... 2
Head elongate; hind femur very long and slender ........................................................................... Acrida Linnaeus, 1758
2.
-
Pronotum with lateral carinae straight, nearly parallel ............................ Phlaeoba Stal, 1860
Pronotum with lateral carinae diverging in metazoan ............................ Orthochtha Karsch, 1891
Key to the species of the genus Acrida Linnaeus, 1758
1.
-
Body greenish; lateral carina of pronotum not edged within with black line ........................... A. exaltata Walker, 1859
Body dry grass coloured; lateral carina of pronotum edged within with black line ..... A. gigantea Herbst, 1794
Key to the Indian species of Phlaeoba Stal, 1860
1.
-
2.
-
3.
-
Antennae ringed or tipped with obscure yellow .............................................. P. anqustidorsis Bolivar, I., 1902
Antennae unicolorous ................................................................................... P. infumata Brunner, 1893
Threatened Taxa
8397
Short Communication
OPEN ACCESS
1,2,3,4,5,7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2242.8.1.8398-8402
Editor: P. Lakshminarasimhan, Botanical Survey of India, Pune, India.
Manuscript details: Ms # 2242 | Received 27 August 2015 | Final received 07 December 2015 | Finally accepted 30 December 2015
Citation: Mir, A.H., V. Iralu, N.T. Pao, G. Chaudhury, C.G. Khonglah, K.L. Chaudhary, B.K. Tiwari & K. Upadhaya (2016). Magnolia lanuginosa (Wall.) Figlar & Noot.
in West Khasi Hills of Meghalaya, northeastern India: re-collection and implications for conservation. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 83988402; http://dx.doi.
org/10.11609/jott.2242.8.1.8398-8402
Copyright: Mir et al. 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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: State Forest Department, Government of Meghalaya
(No MFD/ThFC/2012-13/8289 dated 26 September 2014).
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: The authors are thankful to the State Forest Department, Government of Meghalaya for financial assistance (No MFD/ThFC/2012-13/8289
dated 26 September 2014). We are also thankful to the Head, Botanical Survey of India, Eastern Regional Centre, Shillong for allowing us to consult the herbarium.
The help and cooperation received from the Traditional Institution and the local people are also acknowledged.
8398
Mir et al.
8399
Mir et al.
Viheno Iralu
Image 1. Flowering twig (A), flower (B), fruit initiation (C) and mature fruits with seeds (D) of Magnolia lanuginosa
Mir et al.
Table 1. Site characteristics and population of Magnolia lanuginosa in different sites of West Khasi Hills in Meghalaya
Number of Individuals of M. lanuginosa
Site
Forest type
Seedling
Sapling
Adult
No. of cut
individuals
Current disturbances
Site-I
Broad leaved
forest
50
37
36
Site-II
21
18
Site-III
Site-IV
21
54
Threat status
The threat to the species is mainly anthropogenic
disturbances, which had a negative impact on its
performance. This is evident by a negative correlation
(Y = 212.2 - 5.67429X, R = 0.99, p = 0.008, n=4) between
the population size of the species and disturbance. Such
a disturbance-linked decline in population size of the
species has also been observed in Alphonsea sclerocarpa
from the Eastern Ghats (Kadaval & Parthasarathy 2001)
and Ilex khasiana from northeastern India (Upadhaya et
al. 2009). Disturbance in the form of timber extraction
drastically reduces the densities of naturally occurring
plants. Except site-I, all the sites were exposed to high
disturbances. A combined effect of all these factors
(Table 1) might have contributed to the very low
population of the species.
Site-I
Site-II
Site-III
Site-IV
18
16
Number of individuals
Regeneration status
The overall age structures of the population based
on the density of seedling, sapling and adult individuals
varied among the four sites. The highest seedling
density (50 individuals) was recorded at site-I, followed
by 21 individuals in site-II, 5 individuals insite -IV, and
only 1 individual in site-III. Similarly, the sapling density
was highest in site-I (37 individuals) followed by site-IV
(21), site-III (4) and site-II, which had no seedlings (Table
1). Based on the number of seedlings, saplings and adult
trees, the regeneration status was good only in site -I,
while in all other forests sites it was poor (Fig. 2).
20
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
515
1625
2635
Diameter class (cm)
3645
>45
8401
Percentage of individuals
60
Mir et al.
References
Seedling
Sapling
Adult
50
40
30
20
10
0
Site-I
Site-II
Sites
Site-III
Site-IV
Champion, H.G. & S.K. Seth (1968). A Revised Survey of the Forest
Types of India, Manager of Publications, Government of India,
Delhi.
Chettri, N., B. Shakya & E. Sharma (2008). Biodiversity Conservation
in Kangchenjunga Landscape. International Centre for Integrated
Mountain Development.
Haridasan, K. & R.R. Rao (1985). Forest Flora of Meghalaya - Vol I.
Bishen Singh and Mahendrapal Singh, Dehra Dun.
Iralu, V. & K. Upadhaya (2015). Notes on Magnolia punduana Hk. f.
& Th. (Magnoliopsida: Magnoliales: Magnoliaceae): an endemic
and threatened tree species of northeastern India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 7(9): 75737576; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/
JoTT.o4238.7573-6
Kadaval, K. & N. Parthasarathy (2001). Population analysis of
Alphonsea sclerocarpa Thw. (Annonaceae) in the Kalyaran Hills
of Eastern Ghats India. International Journal of Ecology and
Environmental Science 27: 5154.
Kanjilal, U.N. & N.L. Bor (1940). Flora of Assam. Omsons Publications,
New Delhi, India, 22pp.
Kumar, V.S. (2014). Magnoliaceae of Indian Region An Apprisal, pp.
5374. In: Panda, S. & C. Ghosh (eds.). Diversity and Conservation
of Plants and Traditional Knowledge. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal
Singh, Dehra Dun.
Mabberley, D.J. (2008). Mabberleys Plant-book: A Portable Dictionary
of the Vascular Plants: Their Classification and Uses: Utilizing
Kubitzkis The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants (1990). 3rd
Revised Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Parthasarathy, N. & R. Karthikeyan (1997). Population structure of
Grewia pandaica- a rare and endemic tree species of southwest
India. International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences
23: 8590.
Sukumar, R., H.S. Dattaraja, H.S. Suresh, J. Radhakrishnan, R.
Vasudeva, S. Nirmala & N.V. Joshi (1992). Long-term monitoring of
vegetation in a tropical deciduous forest in Mudumalai, Southern
India. Current Science 62(9): 608616.
Tang, C.Q., Y. Li & Z.Y. Zhang (2010). Species diversity patterns of
natural secondary plant communities and man-made forests in a
subtropical mountainous karst area, Yunnan, SW China. Mountain
Research and Development 30(3): 244251; http://dx.doi.
org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-10-00021.1
Tang, C.Q., Y. Yang, M. Ohsawa, A. Momohara, M. Hara, S. Cheng
& S. Fan (2011). Population structure of relict Metasequoia
glyptostroboides and its habitat fragmentation and degradation in
south-central China. Biological Conservation 144: 279289; http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.09.003
Uotila, A.& J. Kouki (2005). Understory vegetation in spruce-dominated
forests in eastern Finland and Russian Karelia: successional pattern
after anthropogenic and natural disturbances. Forest Ecology and
Management 215(13): 113137; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
foreco.2005.05.008
Upadhaya, K., S.K. Barik, D. Adhikari, R. Baishya & N.J. Lakadong
(2009). Regeneration ecology and population status of a Critically
Endangered and endemic tree species (Ilex khasianaPurk.) in northeastern India.Journal of Forestry Research 20: 223228; http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11676-009-0041-z
Wheeler, L. & M.C. Rivers (2014). Magnolia lanuginosa. The IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T15114022A15114029.
Downloaded on 09 January 2016; http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.
UK.2014-3.RLTS.T15114022A15114029.en
Threatened Taxa
8402
OPEN ACCESS
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2173.8.1.8403-8409
Editor: R.K. Verma, Tropical Forest Research Institute, Jabalpur, India.
Manuscript details: Ms # 2173 | Received 21 July 2015 | Final received 06 January 2016 | Finally accepted 11 January 2016
Citation: Kour, H., R. Yangdol, S. Kumar & Y.P. Sharma (2016). Three species of Phallus (Basidiomycota: Agaricomycetes: Phallaceae) from Jammu & Kashmir, India.
Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 84038409; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2173.8.1.8403-8409
Copyright: Kour et al. 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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: University Grants Commission, New Delhi UGC-SAP Grant No. F.3-14/2011 (SAP-II)- dated 19/03/2015;
and RGNF: F1-17.1/2013-14/RGNF-2013-14-ST-JAM-37362 Feb. 2014.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: The authors wish to thank the Head, Department of Botany, University of Jammu and UGC-SAP for providing laboratory facilities and financial
assistance. The second author (an RGNF fellow) also acknowledges the financial support received as a Senior Research Fellowship from the University Grants
Commission, New Delhi.
8403
Short Communication
Kour et al.
a
b
India
d
collection sites
Kour et al.
Image 1. Phallus macrosporus: (a) Expanded basidiomata in natural habitat; (b) Basidiospores in Congo red; (c) Pileus hyphae showing clamp
connections; (d) Stipe elements. Scale bars a= 2cm, b-d= 15m. Rigzin Yangdol
8405
Kour et al.
Image 2. Phallus rubicundus: (a) Mature Fruit bodies in natural habitat; (b) Uprooted fruit bodies and eggs; (c) Basidiospores; (d) Stipe cells.
Scale bars a-b= 3cm, c= 15m, d= 10m. Harpreet Kour
Kour et al.
a
b
c
d
e
e
Figure 3. Phallus rubicundus. Camera lucida drawings: (a)
Basidiospores; (b) Pileus hyphae; (c) Stipe cells; (d) Volval hyphae;
(e) Rhizomorph hyphae. Scale bars a,b,d,e= 10m, c= 15m.
Harpreet Kour
References
Abraham, S.P. (1991). Kashmir fungal flora - An overview. Indian
Mushroom Floristic Studies 13-24.
Arora, D. (1986). Mushrooms Demystified. Ten Speed Press, Berkeley,
California, USA, 936pp.
Bakshi, D. & N.C. Mandal (2006). Activities of some catabolic
and anabolic enzymes of carbohydrate metabolism during
developmental phases of fruit-bodies of Dictyophora indusiata and
Geastrum fornicatum. Current Science 90: 10621064.
Barrett, M. & B. Stuckey (2008). Phallus merulinus newly reported for
the top end. Fungimap Newsletters 36: 116.
Bhagwat, S.A., C.G. Kushalappa, P.H. Williams & N.D. Brown (2005).
The role of informal protected areas in maintaining biodiversity in
the Western Ghats of India. Ecology and Society 10: 140.
Calonge, F.D. (2005). A tentative key to identify the species of Phallus.
Bulletino del Circolo Micrologo 29: 918.
Dash, P.K., D.K. Sahu, S. Sahoo & R. Das (2010). Phallus indusiatus
Vent. & Pers. (Basidiomycetes) - a new generic record from Eastern
Ghats of India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 2(8 ): 10961098; http://
dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2305.1096-8
Demirel, K. & Y. Uzun (2004). Two new records of Phallalesfor the
mycoflora of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Botany28: 213214.
Dring, D.M. (1964). Gasteromycetes of West Tropical Africa.
Mycological Papers 98: 160.
Dutta, A.K., N. Chakraborty, P. Pradhan & K. Acharya (2012).
Phallales of West Bengal, India. II. Phallaceae: Phallus and Mutinus.
Researcher 4: 2125.
Hemmes, D.E. & D.E. Desjardin (2009). Stinkhorns of the Hawaiian
Islands. Fungi 2: 810.
Kirk, P.M., P.F. Cannon, D.W. Minter & J.A. Stalpers (2008). Ainsworth
and Bisbys Dictionary of the Fungi - 10th Edition. CAB International,
Wallingford, UK, 771pp.
Lee, W.S. (1957). Two new phalloids from Taiwan. Mycologia 49: 156
8407
Kour et al.
c
d
Image 3. Phallus hadriani: (a) Partially submerged egg; (b) Uprooted eggs showing colour change; (c) L.S of egg showing exoperidium,
mesoperidium, endoperidium and pseudostipe; (d) Fresh basidiome with gleba and volval remnants on receptacle; (e) Fully mature
basidiomata showing reticulated receptacle and conspicuous perforation at the tip; (f) Basidiospores in Congo red; (g) Basidia; (h) Pileus
hyphae showing clamp connection. Scale bars a-c= 2cm, e= 5cm, f- h= 10m. Harpreet Kour
8408
Kour et al.
158.
Li, T.R., B. Song & B. Liu (2002).Three taxa of Phallaceae in HMAS,
China. Fungal Diversity 11: 123127.
Liu, B., Z.Y. Li & F. Du (1980).Phallus macrosporusnew species.Acta
Microbiologica Sinica(in Chinese)20:124126.
Mohanan, C. (2011). Macrofungi of Kerala. Kerala Forest Research
Institute, Kerala, India.
Sridhar, K.R. & N.C. Karun (2013). On the Basket Stinkhorn Mushroom
Phallus merulinus (Phallaceae) in Mangalore, Karnataka, India.
Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(5): 39853988; http://dx.doi.
org/10.11609/JoTT.o3312.3985-8
Threatened Taxa
8409
Note
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.1887.8.1.8410-8411
Editor: C. Srinivasulu, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India.
Manuscript details: Ms # 1887 | Received 25 March 2015 | Final received 15 January 2016 | Finally accepted 17 January 2016
Citation: Pandya, P., V. Choursiya & J. James (2016). Dusky Warbler Phylloscopus fuscatus (Aves: Passeriformes: Sylviidae) in Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Maharashtra - a rare record for peninsular India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 84108411; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.1887.8.1.8410-8411
Copyright: Pandya et al. 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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: None.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: We wish to thank the staff of the Maharashtra State Forest Department at Sanjay Gandhi National Park; Shashank Dalvi for sharing sighting
details; Amey Ketkar, Pranad Patil, Saurabh Sawant, Viral Mistry and Varun Satose for identification confirmation and accompanying us on subsequent visits.
8410
Pandya et al.
Figure 1. Map of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai, India showing the sighting location of Dusky Warbler Phylloscopus fuscatus.
Vikrant Choursiya
Threatened Taxa
8411
Note
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.1816.8.1.8412-8414
Editor: Pankaj Kumar, Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden Corporation, Hong Kong.
Manuscript details: Ms # 1816 | Received 06 February 2015 | Final received 30 December 2015 | Finally accepted 02 January 2016
Citation: Bhatt, M.R. & P.S. Nagar (2016). Oberonia mucronata (D. Don) Ormerod & Seidenf. (Orchidaceae), new addition to the flora of Gujarat, India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 8(1): 84128414; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.1816.8.1.8412-8414
Copyright: Bhatt & Nagar 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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: Gujarat Biodiversity Board.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: The authors are thankful to Dr. A.P. Singh, Member Secretary, Gujarat Biodiversity Board (GBB) for financial assistance. The authors are
also thankful to Dr. Dinesh Agrawal (BSI Sikkim) and Dr. Jeewan S. Jalal (BSI Pune) for their assistance in the authentication of plant material. We are thankful
to the reviewers of the manuscript for their critical comments and suggestions. The laboratory studies were supported by Prof. Sandhya Kiran Garge, the Head,
Department of Botany, the Maharaja Sayajirao University Baroda.
8412
Locality in Gujarat
Figure 1. Distribution of Oberonia mucronata (D. Don) Ormerod & Seidenf in Gujarat.
Mital R. Bhatt
8413
Threatened Taxa
8414
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2449.8.1.8415-8416
Date of publication: 26 January 2016 (online & print)
Manuscript details: Ms # 2449 | Received 12 December 2015
Citation: Kumarran, R.P. (2016). Comments on the list of marine mammals from Kerala. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 84158416; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/
jott.2449.8.1.8415-8416
Copyright: Kumarran 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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.
8415
Response
Kumarran
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 Management10(3): 209216.
Jayasankar, P., B. Anoop, E. Vivekanandan, M. Rajagopalan, K.M.M.
Yousuf, P. Reynold, P.K. Krishnakumar, P.L. Kumaran, V.V. Afsal &
A.A. Krishnan (2008). Molecular identification of delphinids and
finless porpoise (Cetacea) from the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal.
Zootaxa1853: 5767.
Jeyabaskaran, R., S. Paul, E. Vivekanandan & K.S.S.M. Yousuf (2011).
First record of Pygmy Killer WhaleFeresa attenuataGray, 1874 from
India with a review of their occurrence in the world oceans.Journal
of Marine Biological Association India53(2): 208217.
Kumaran, P.L. (2002). Marine mammal research in India - a review and
critique of the methods. Current Science 83(10): 12101220.
Kumaran, P.L. (2003). First confirmed record of Striped Dolphin,Stenella
coeruleoalba(Meyen, 1883) from India.Journal of Marine Biological
Association of India45(1): 11520.
Kumarran, R.P. (2009). Whither marine mammal conservation in
India?Current Science97(11): 15211522.
Kumarran, R.P. (2012). Cetaceans and cetacean research in
India.Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 12(2): 159
172.
Nameer, P.O., J. Praveen, A. Bijukumar, M.J. Palot, S. Das & R.
Raghavan (2015a). A checklist of the vertebrates of Kerala State,
India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 7(13): 79617970; http://dx.doi.
org/10.11609/JoTT.1999.7.13.7961-7970
Nameer, P.O. (2015b). A checklist of mammals of Kerala, India. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 7(13): 79717982; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/
JoTT.2000.7.13.7971-7982
Threatened Taxa
8416
8417
Reply to Response
Steno bredanensis
Sousa chinensis
Stenella coeruleoalba
Stenella attenuata
Stenella longirostris
Tursiops aduncus
Tursiops truncatus
Rough-toothed Dolphin
Striped Dolphin
Spinner Dolphin
Bottle-nosed Dolphin
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
20
Sperm Whale
19
18
(Blainville, 1838)
(Owen, 1866)
Kogia sima
Linnaeus, 1758
Kogia breviceps
Physeter macrocephalus
Neophocaena phocaenoides
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Orcinus orca
Killer Whale
17
(Owen, 1846)
Pseudorca crassidens
(Gray, 1846)
Peponocephala electra
Fraser, 1957
Gray, 1875
Lagenodelphis hosei
Feresa attenuata
Gray, 1846
Globicephala macrorhynchus
kuiya Eatimigala
Kunnan Eatimigala
Ea Timigala
Eliyani
Kuppimkkan phin
DD
DD
VU
VU
LC
DD
in-pasiphik kuppimkkan
Dphin
DD
Meliyani
LC
LC
NT
LC
DD
DD
LC
LC
DD
DD
LC
LC
VU
IUCN
Pui phin
Varayan
Punnani
Parukkan Pallan
Kelayitimigala
Kapaa Kelayitimigala
Talayan Timigala
Phrserue phin
Kunnan Kelayitimigala
Kunnichiakan phin
Chra phin
Kaalpanni, Kaali
Kaal Pau
Vernacular name
(G.Cuvier, 1812)
Grampus griseus
Malayalam name
(Muller, 1776)
Linnaeus, 1758
Dugong dugon
Authority
Delphinus capensis
Order Cetacea
Species name
Order Sirenia
English name
END
Sch. II
Sch. II
Sch. II
Sch. I
Sch. II
Sch. II
Sch. II
Sch. II
Sch. II
Sch. II
Sch. II
Sch. II
Sch. II
Sch. II
Sch. II
Sch. II
Sch. II
Sch. II
Sch. II
Sch. I
WPA
App. II
App. II
App. II
App. II
App. II
App. II
App. II
App. II
App. II
App. II
App. II
App. II
App. II
App. II
App. II
App. II
App. II
App. II
App. II
App. I
CITES
8419
App. I
Sch. II
LC
Knan Timigala
EN
Chiakan Timigala
(Borowski, 1781)
Humpback Whale
31
Megaptera novaeangliae
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Fin Whale (Common Rorqual)
30
Balaenoptera physalus
App. I
App. I
App. I
Sch. II
Sch. II
EN
Nla Timigala
Braiane Timigala
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Anderson, 1879
Blue Whale
29
Balaenoptera musculus
Balaenoptera edeni
DD
Sch. II
App. I
App. I
Sch. II
LC
EN
Chra Timigala
Cheu Timigala
Lesson, 1828
Lacepede, 1804
Balaenoptera borealis
Sei Whale
27
Balaenoptera acutorostrata
Minke Whale (Lesser Rorqual)
26
LC
Kuviyaue Chuan
Timigala
Ziphius cavirostris
G. Cuvier, 1823
Cuviers Beaked Whale
25
DD
Lne Chuan
Timigala
(Longman, 1926)
Indopacetus pacificus
Longmans Beaked Whale
24
NE
Deraniyagalayue Chuan
Timigala
Deraniyagala, 1963
Mesoplodon hotaula
Deraniyagalas Beaked Whale
23
Sch. II
App. II
Sch. II
App. II
Sch. II
App. II
Sch. II
App. II
Sch. II
DD
Blainvilleyue Chuan
Timigala
(Blainville, 1817)
Mesoplodon densirostris
Blainville's Beaked Whale
22
DD
Jik Timigala
Authority
Species name
English name
Malayalam name
Vernacular name
IUCN
END
WPA
Sch. II
CITES
App. II
8420
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, National Academy
of Agricultural Sciences, NewJour, OCLC WorldCat, Stanford
University Libraries, Virtual Library of Biology, Zoological
Records.
NAAS rating (India) 4.72
Reviewers 20142015
Due to pausity of space, the list of reviewers for 2014-2015 is available online.
English Editors
Mrs. Mira Bhojwani,Pune, India
Dr. Fred Pluthero, Toronto, Canada
Mr. P. Ilangovan, Chennai, India
OPEN ACCESS
All articles published in the Journal of Threatened Taxa are registered under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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.
Threatened Taxa