Presbytis Rubicunda,: Assessment By: Cheyne, S., Ehlers-Smith, D.A., Nijman, V. & Traeholt, C

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ISSN 2307-8235 (online)

IUCN 2020: T18131A17953935
Scope(s): Global
Language: English
Presbytis rubicunda, Red Langur

Assessment by: Cheyne, S., Ehlers-Smith, D.A., Nijman, V. & Traeholt, C.
View on www.iucnredlist.org
Citation: Cheyne, S., Ehlers-Smith, D.A., Nijman, V. & Traeholt, C. 2020. Presbytis rubicunda. The
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T18131A17953935.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T18131A17953935.en
Copyright: © 2020 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written
permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale, reposting or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written
permission from the copyright holder. For further details see Terms of Use.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN
Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State
University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe;
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.
If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with
feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™

Taxonomy
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
Animalia Chordata Mammalia Primates Cercopithecidae
Scientific Name: Presbytis rubicunda (Müller, 1838)
Infra-specific Taxa Assessed:

• Presbytis rubicunda ssp. carimatae
• Presbytis rubicunda ssp. chrysea
• Presbytis rubicunda ssp. ignita
• Presbytis rubicunda ssp. rubicunda
• Presbytis rubicunda ssp. rubida
Common Name(s):
• English: Red Langur, Maroon Langur, Maroon Leaf Monkey, Maroon Sureli, Red Leaf
Monkey
• French: Semnopithèque Rubicond
• Spanish; Castilian: Langur Rubicundo
Taxonomic Notes:
Currently, five sub-species are recognised on the IUCN Red List though the basis for this split appears to
be arbitrary and all must thus be listed as DD.
• Presbytis rubicunda rubicunda • Presbytis rubicunda rubida • Presbytis rubicunda ignita •

Presbytis rubicunda chrysea • Presbytis rubicunda carimatae
Subspecies are disputed as there is much inter-gradation between them, as well as variation within
them. The separation is to do with the shape of the crescent and the extent of the whorl on the
forehead, and the extent of black(ish) hair around the hands and feet, for the separation of P. rubida and
P. rubicunda. P. chrysea and P. ignita are more obviously different because of their hair colour, moving to
orange-red upwards along the north-south gradient. P. carimatae has an orange nape. Most of the
justification for this split is based on pelage rather than differences in call or genetic data. These
morphological subspecies are currently not supported by genetic data.
Assessment Information
Red List Category & Criteria: Vulnerable A4acd ver 3.1
Year Published: 2020
Date Assessed: September 17, 2015
Justification:
The charismatic Red Langur is found only on the island of Borneo and the adjacent offshore island of
Karimata. It exists at a range of population densities and density appears to be highly habitat-specific.
The Red Langur may be adaptable, as it is found in a range of forest types, elevations and levels of
disturbance. However, population densities above ~800 m asl may be so low as to be non-viable
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Presbytis rubicunda – published in 2020. 1
(Marshall 2010). Despite the species’ apparent habitat plasticity, the Red Langur is forest dependent,
and is not known to readily use oil palm Elaeis guineensis plantations. The forests of Borneo are
undergoing some of the world’s highest deforestation rates, largely as the result of the expansion of oil
palm plantations, and thus such development and consequent loss of habitat, likely constitute the
greatest threat to this species. Deforestation is largely occurring in the lowland regions where viable
populations exist; remnant forests at elevations above ~800 m asl may not support viable populations,
further exacerbating the conservation threat. Furthermore, much remnant habitat is under logging
concession (mean 37% across all subspecies; Ehlers-Smith 2014a), which although may maintain as
much forest cover as Protected Areas, the loggers may target the tallest trees with the greatest DBH,
upon which Red Langurs are dependent for achieving their feeding (Ehlers Smith et al. 2013) and
sleeping (Ehlers-Smith 2014b) requirements.
This species inhabits the same forests as Hylobates albibarbis and H. muelleri sp of gibbons, both of
which are listed as Endangered. Red Langurs should be considered Endangered based on an estimated
population reduction of over 50% when considering the past 30 years and projected future habitat
change due to draining of peat swamps, logging and burning into the next 15 years (totalling 45 years
which is approximately 3 generations). Between 2000 and 2010 the species experienced a mean 10%
habitat occupancy reduction across all subspecies; P. r. chrysea experienced a ~21% habitat occupancy
reduction (Ehlers-Smith 2014a). Where the species persists there is hunting and collection for the
wildlife trade and for human consumption. A large part of the species range is in peat swamp - an
extremely threatened ecosystem. This species may qualify for Critically Endangered in the future if rates
of habitat change increase, and thus should be carefully monitored. While currently unwarranted at the
species level (overall P. rubicunda spp still occupy ~270,000 km2) P. r. chysea and P. r. carimatae are
candidates for CR at this stage.
In addition, the effectiveness of the protected areas should be considered, as these areas seem to be
strongholds for the species. Furthermore, the majority land-use classification for remnant habitat is
logging concession, which under selective extraction of the largest trees may further negatively impact
their persistence given their reliance on the largest trees in the environment.
As the suggested sub-species are genetically unconfirmed, and their ranges uncertain, we feel that
assessing the proposed sub-species is not meaningful. Additional data genetic and call data are needed
to determine if sub-species do exist.
Previously Published Red List Assessments

2008 – Least Concern (LC)
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T18131A7667504.en
2000 – Lower Risk/least concern (LR/LC)
1996 – Lower Risk/least concern (LR/LC)
Geographic Range
Range Description:
This species occurs through most of the island of Borneo, in Indonesia (Kalimantan and Karimata Island),
Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak), and possibly Brunei (Groves 2001).
• Presbytis rubicunda rubicunda: occurs in Indonesia (southeastern Kalimantan). Found roughly east of
the Barito River and south of the Mahakam River (Groves 2001).
• Presbytis rubicunda rubida: occurs in Indonesia (southwestern Kalimantan). Found roughly south of
the Kapuas River and west of the Barito River (Groves 2001).
• Presbytis rubicunda ignita: occurs in Indonesia (Kalimantan), Malaysia (Sarawak), and possibly Brunei.
Found south of the Kapuas River into Sarawak, as far as the Baram River (Groves 2001).
• Presbytis rubicunda chrysea: occurs in Malaysia (Sabah). Confined to a very small area in eastern
Sabah near Kinabatangan (Groves 2001).
• Presbytis rubicunda carimatae: confined to Karimata Island off Western, Indonesian Borneo (Yanuar et
al. 1993).
Country Occurrence:
Native, Extant (resident): Indonesia (Kalimantan); Malaysia (Sabah, Sarawak)
Native, Presence Uncertain: Brunei Darussalam
Distribution Map
Population
Presbytis rubicunda is endemic to Borneo and adjacent Karimata Island (Davies 1991). Twenty-five
studies were compiled to show that average density is 2.6–6.92 (+/- 1.4) groups/km2, and 12.45 (+/- 8.5)
individuals/km2 (Bersacola et al., 2014). Density does not change with elevation up to 1,200 m; above
this point, however, it quickly drops (Marshall et al. 2014). Surveys in Balikpapan Bay, Sungai Wain
Forest, Indonesia estimated density as 5.35 groups/km2 and a group size of 5.2 individuals. Population
appears stable as the density is comparable to earlier estimates by Nijman and Nekaris (2012). In
Sabangau, central Kalimantan, Indonesia population density of 17.5 individuals/km2 and group size of
6.95 individuals (Smith and Smith 2013).
Population density estimates of Red Langurs on Borneo is derived from targeted line transect surveys
using DISTANCE analysis across a range of forest types and elevations, and gradients of disturbance. Red
langur density ranges from 1.24–10.5 ind/km2 (Gunung Palung National Park, West Kalimantan (Marshall
2004, 2010)); 5.4-21.5 ind/km2 (Landjak Entimau Wildlife Sanctuary, Sarawak (Blouch 1997)); 8.4
ind/km2 (Barito Ulu, Central Kalimantan (McConkey and Chivers 2004)); 9.8 ind/km2 (Tanjung Puting
National Park, Central Kalimantan (Supriatna et al. 1986)); Sepilok, Sabah (Davies 1984); 17.5 ind/km2
(Sabangau Forest, Central Kalimantan (Ehlers-Smith and Ehlers-Smith 2013)) to 27.1 ind/km2 (Nijman
and Nekaris 2012) and 27.8 ind/km2 (Bersacola et al. 2014) in Sungai Wain Protection Forest,
Kalimantan.
Current Population Trend: Decreasing
Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)

Presbytis rubicunda is predominantly arboreal, though it spends significant amounts of time on the
ground (SMC, DAES and AJM pers. obs.). This species has a preference for primary forest but is found in
degraded habitat as well. It has never been reported in oil palm plantations. It is also found in swamp
forests (Chivers and Burton 1988), and evergreen forests (Davies and Oates 1994). It occasionally visits
native gardens in search of food (Yanuar et al. 1993). It is found in primary and secondary lowland
forests, not above 2,000 m, and is able to tolerate forests that have regenerated after logging has taken
place (Ehlers-Smith and Ehlers-Smith 2013).
This colobine species’ annual diet is variable and habitat-specific, dependent upon the availability of
fruit (Davies 1991, Ehlers Smith et al. 2013). It may comprise folivory on young leaves (36%), seeds
(30%), and combined frugivory on pulpy, seedy fruits and leaves (34%). This diet varies throughout the
year as availability of food sources, particularly fruit, shifts (Davies 1991), and there is pronounced
frugivory during fruiting periods (Hanya and Bernard 2012; Marshall et al. 2009). In Sabah, a group of P.
rubicunda was found to rely on lianas for about 32% of their total diet; the rest were tree species and
hemiepiphytes. In Central Kalimantan this species was found to have a very high level of granivory:
mean annual diet comprised 76.4% seeds and 7.3% other fruit parts; 7.7% young and 2.5% mature
leaves; 2.8% flowers; 2.6% piths, and <1% on other minor food items (Ehlers-Smith et al. 2013). In a
dipterocarp forest in Sabah, a single group exploited over 102 plant species over a single year, where the
majority of dietary items were considered rare in the environment (Davies 1984).
Annual activity budget in Sabangua Peat Swamp forests 48 ± SD 4.0% resting; 29.3 ± SD 3.9% feeding,
14.2 ± SD 2.5% travelling, and 0.4 ± SD and 0.4% social behaviour. Monthly day range in the same site
1645 ± SD 220.5 m/d. (Smith et al. 2013). High level of granivory was recorded in the ‘non-masting’
Sabangua Peat Swamp Forest of 76.4% seeds, 7.3% fruit parts; 7.7% young leaves, 2.5% mature leaves;
2.8% flowers; 2.6% piths, and <1% on other minor food items and therefore was no falling back to ‘fall
back’ foods (Smith et al. 2013). Hanya and Bernard (2010) report of fall back behaviour in Danum Valley,
where they feed on Spatholobus macropterus,during food scarcity. During times of abundance, the
feeding budget was made 46% on young leaves, 38% on seeds, 12% on whole fruits, 2.0% on flowers,
1.0% on bark, and 1.2% on pith (Hanya and Bernard 2012).
Home range of P. rubicunda in Gunung Palung National Park, West Kalimantan 17.87 ha with an overlap
of 34.21% with H. albibarbis (Santosa et al. 2012). The leaf monkeys use tall trees and high canopy to
move, feed (Bersacola et al. 2014). In Sabangua Tropical Peat Swamp Forest, Central Kalimantan,
Indonesia, the leaf monkeys were absent from low pole forests with low density of forests and low
mean canopy height (Smith and Smith, 2013), while supporting significant density and population in
peat swamp forests.
No seasonality in birthing. Sexual maturity in females c.2 years of age. Diurnal and almost entirely
arboreal. One group contains 2-12 individuals of one male and 2-4 females. All male groups are also
found. Daily travel distance ranges from 200m to 900m and home range of 30-90 ha.
Adult female langurs descend to the ground to consume mushrooms, spending 20% on ground feeding.
Mushrooms could possibly be a supplementary food for the female langurs as camera trap data from
2010 to 2018 in Sebangau forest, Central Kalimantan, indicates increased consumption in April-
November (Cheyne et al. 2019).
Systems: Terrestrial
Use and Trade

The species is threatened by hunting for meat and traditional “medicine”.
Threats (see Appendix for additional information)

Habitat loss due to commercial logging and conversion to oil palm plantations and the increasing threat
from poaching pose the greatest threats to the red langur. Oil palm plantations are likely to expand in
the future as a result of the push for biofuels, and forest cover on the island of Borneo, if current
deforestation rates continue, is projected to decline from 50% to less than one-third by 2020. The
species is threatened by hunting for meat and traditional “medicine”, as well as loss of habitat due to
deforestation. Much habitat is being lost to expanding oil palm plantations. Nevertheless, it may be
reasonably adaptable, and can occur in some secondary habitats. Further research is required to
determine its persistence in logging concessions where the removal of large trees may negatively affect
it. The fires of 2015 have resulted in significant forest loss across Kalimantan and this trend will continue
unless steps are taken to address forest fires, especially on peatlands.
Expanding oil palm plantations result in habitat loss but the langur is known to survive and tolerate, and
adapt to secondary habitat. Hunting is another serious issue as they are hunted for meat and bezoar
stones of commercial value. Logging affects the preferred tall trees and increases proximity to human
habitation (Bersacola 2014).
The population is estimated to have reduced over 50% when considering the past 30 years and
projected future habitat change due to draining of peat swamps, logging and burning into the next 15
years (totalling 45 years which is approximately 3 generations). Between 2000 and 2010 the species
experienced a mean 10% habitat occupancy reduction across all subspecies; P. r. chrysea experienced a
~21% habitat occupancy reduction (Ehlers Smith 2014a). Where the species persists there is hunting and
collection for the wildlife trade and for human consumption. A large part of the species range is in peat
swamp - an extremely threatened ecosystem.
Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)

This species is protected in Sarawak and Sabah (Malaysia), and Kalimantan (Indonesia) and is listed on
CITES Appendix II. It is found in at least 10 protected areas including Betung Kerihun National Park, Bukit
Baka Bukit Raya National Park, Gunung Palung National Park, Kayan Mentarang National Park, Kutai
National Park, Sabangau National Park, Pleihari Martapuri Nature Reserve, Tanjung Puting National Park,
and the Sungai Wain Protection Forest (Indonesia); Sapagaya Forest Reserve, Ulu Segama Reserve
(Malaysia) (M. Richardson pers. comm.). In addition, this species is found in Belantikan Protected Forest,
Bawan Forest, Lesan Community Forest, Wehea Community Forest and the ex-Mega Rice Project. It is
worth noting that 80% of Protected Areas in Indonesia(n Borneo) are degraded and under threat – new
PAs, or corridor extensions are likely to be necessary for habitat connectivity for this species.
• P. r. rubida: Betung Kerihun National Park; Bukit- Baka Bukit-Raya National Park, Gunung-Palung
National Park, Tanjung-Puting National Park, Sabangau Catchment (including Sebangau National Park
and Natural Laboratory for Peat-Swamp Forest).
• P. r. rubicunda (Maroon Red Langur): Kutai National Park, Pleihari Martapura Nature Reserve, Sungai
Wain protected Forest.
• P. r. ignita (Orange-naped Red Langur) (and/or related undescribed subspecies): Sungai Kayan Sungai
Mentarang National Park- Kalimantan; Sapagaya Forest Reserve, Danum Valley Conservation Area in
Sabah Malaysia.
• P. r. carimatae (Red-naped Red Langur): restricted to 176km2 Karumata Island. Not found in any
protected area-a suggestion that they might be CR.
• P. r. chrysae (Orange backed Red Langur): known only from type series and not found in any protected
area.
Large contiguous forests as the Sabangau need be protected to cater to the large range of P. rubicunda
and the preferred lowland forests are often subject to clearance for palm oil cultivation (Smith et al.,
2013)
Credits
Assessor(s): Cheyne, S., Ehlers-Smith, D.A., Nijman, V. & Traeholt, C.
Reviewer(s): Molur, S. & Mittermeier, R.A.
Contributor(s): Boonratana, R., Marshall, A.J., Setiawan, A. & Meijaard, E.
Authority/Authorities: IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group
Bibliography
Bersacola E, Ehlers Smith DA, Sastramidjaja WJ, Rayadin Y, Cheyne SM. 2014. Population denisty of
Presbytis rubicunda in a small primary dipterocarp forest in East Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo. Asian
Primates 4: 16-26.
Blouch R. 1997. Distribution and abundance of orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) and other primates in the
Lanjak Entimau Wildlife Sanctuary, Sarawak, Malaysia. Trop Biodivers 4: 259-274.
Chivers DJ, Burton KM. 1988. Some observations on the primates of Kalimantan Tengah, Indonesia.
Primate Conservation 9: 138-146.
Davies, AG. 1984. An ecological study of the red leaf monkey (Presbytis rubicunda) in the dipterocarp
forests of Sabah, northern Borneo. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge.
Davies, AG. 1991. Seed-eating by red leaf monkeys (Presbytis rubicunda) in dipterocarp forest of
northern Borneo. International Journal of Primatology 12(2): 119–144.
Davies GA, Oates JF. 1994. Colobine monkeys: Their ecology, behaviour and evolution (GAD and JFO,
Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ehlers Smith DA, Ehlers Smith YC. 2013. Population Density of Red Langurs in Sabangau Tropical Peat-
Swamp Forest, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Am J Primatol 75: 848-859.
Ehlers Smith DA, Husson SJ, Ehlers Smith YC, Harrison ME. 2013. Feeding ecology of red langurs in
Sabangau tropical peat-swamp forest, Indonesian Borneo: extreme granivory in a non-masting forest.
Am J Primatol 75: 848-859.
Groves C.P. 2001. Primate Taxonomy. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA.
IUCN. 2020. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.
(Accessed: 13 June 2020).
Marshall AJ. 2004. Population ecology of gibbons and leaf monkeys across a gradient of Bornean forest
types. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachussets.
Marshall AJ. 2010. Effect of habitat quality on primate populations in Kalimantan: gibbons and leaf
monkeys as case studies. In: Gursky-Doyen S, Supriatna J (eds) Indonsian Primates. Springer, New York, :
157-177.
Marshall, A.J., Boyko, C.M., Feilen, K.L., Boyko, R.H. and Leighton, M. 2009. Defining fallback foods and
assessing their importance in primate ecology and evolution. . American Journal of Physical
Anthropology. 140: 603-614.
Marshall, A. J., L. Beaudrot, and H. U. Wittmer. 2014. Responses of primates and other frugivorous
vertebrates to plant resource variability over space and time at Gunung Palung National Park.
International Journal of Primatology 35: 1178-1201.
Marshall, A. J., L. Beaudrot, and H. U. Wittmer. 2014. Responses of primates and other frugivorous
vertebrates to plant resource variability over space and time at Gunung Palung National Park.
International Journal of Primatology 35: 1178-1201.
McConkey KR, Chivers DJ. 2004. Low mammal and hornbill abundance in the forests of Barito Ulu.
Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. . Oryx 38: 439-447.
Nijman V, Nekaris KAI. 2012. Loud Calls, Startle Behaviour, Social Organisation and Predator Avoidance in
Arboreal Langurs (Cercopithecidae: Presbytis ). Folia Primatol 83: 274-287.
Supriatna J, Manullang BO, Soekara E. 1986. Group composition, home range, and diet of the maroon
leaf monkey (Presbytis rubicunda) at Tanjung Puting Reserve, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Primates
27: 185-190.
Yanuar, A., Bekti, D. and Saleh, C. 1993. The status of the Karimata primates Presbytis rubicunda
carimatae and Macaca fascicularis carimatensis in Karimata Island, Indonesia. Tropical Biodiversity 1(3):
157-162.
Citation
Cheyne, S., Ehlers-Smith, D.A., Nijman, V. & Traeholt, C. 2020. Presbytis rubicunda. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2020: e.T18131A17953935. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-
2.RLTS.T18131A17953935.en
Disclaimer
To make use of this information, please check the Terms of Use.
External Resources
For Supplementary Material, and for Images and External Links to Additional Information, please see the
Red List website.
Appendix
Habitats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Major
Habitat Season Suitability
Importance?
1. Forest -> 1.6. Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland Resident Suitable Yes
1. Forest -> 1.9. Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Montane Resident Suitable Yes
5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.4. Wetlands (inland) - Bogs, Marshes, Swamps, Resident Suitable Yes
Fens, Peatlands
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.4. Artificial/Terrestrial - Rural Gardens - Marginal -
Use and Trade

End Use Local National International
Food - human No Yes Yes
Medicine - human & veterinary No Yes Yes
Threats
Threat Timing Scope Severity Impact Score
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual & Ongoing Majority (50- Slow, significant Medium
perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.1. Shifting 90%) declines impact: 6
agriculture
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual & Ongoing Minority (50%) Slow, significant Low impact: 5
perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.2. Small-holder declines
farming
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual & Ongoing Minority (50%) Slow, significant Low impact: 5
perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.3. Agro-industry declines
farming
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.2. Wood & pulp Ongoing Majority (50- Slow, significant Medium
plantations -> 2.2.2. Agro-industry plantations 90%) declines impact: 6

5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping Ongoing Majority (50- Slow, significant Medium
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.1. Intentional use (species is 90%) declines impact: 6
the target)
Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
5. Biological resource use -> 5.3. Logging & wood Ongoing Majority (50- Slow, significant Medium
harvesting -> 5.3.5. Motivation 90%) declines impact: 6
Unknown/Unrecorded
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
7. Natural system modifications -> 7.1. Fire & fire Ongoing Minority (50%) Slow, significant Low impact: 5
suppression -> 7.1.1. Increase in fire declines
frequency/intensity
7. Natural system modifications -> 7.1. Fire & fire Ongoing Minority (50%) Slow, significant Low impact: 5
suppression -> 7.1.3. Trend Unknown/Unrecorded declines
Conservation Actions in Place

Conservation Action in Place

In-place research and monitoring
Action Recovery Plan: No
Systematic monitoring scheme: No
In-place land/water protection
Conservation sites identified: No
Area based regional management plan: No
Occurs in at least one protected area: Yes
Invasive species control or prevention: Not Applicable
In-place species management
Harvest management plan: No
Successfully reintroduced or introduced benignly: No
Subject to ex-situ conservation: No
In-place education
Subject to recent education and awareness programmes: No
Included in international legislation: Yes
Subject to any international management / trade controls: Yes
Conservation Actions Needed

Conservation Action Needed
1. Land/water protection -> 1.1. Site/area protection
1. Land/water protection -> 1.2. Resource & habitat protection
2. Land/water management -> 2.1. Site/area management
3. Species management -> 3.1. Species management -> 3.1.1. Harvest management
4. Education & awareness -> 4.3. Awareness & communications
5. Law & policy -> 5.1. Legislation -> 5.1.2. National level
5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.2. National level
5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.3. Sub-national level
Research Needed
Research Needed
1. Research -> 1.1. Taxonomy
1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends
1. Research -> 1.3. Life history & ecology
1. Research -> 1.4. Harvest, use & livelihoods
1. Research -> 1.5. Threats
1. Research -> 1.6. Actions
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends
Additional Data Fields

Distribution
Lower elevation limit (m): 0
Upper elevation limit (m): 2,000
Population
Continuing decline of mature individuals: Yes
Extreme fluctuations: Unknown
Population severely fragmented: No
Continuing decline in subpopulations: Unknown
Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations: Unknown
All individuals in one subpopulation: No
Habitats and Ecology
Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat: Yes
Generation Length (years): 13-15
The IUCN Red List Partnership
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species
Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership.
The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens
Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew;
Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™

Presbytis Rubicunda,: Assessment By: Cheyne, S., Ehlers-Smith, D.A., Nijman, V. & Traeholt, C

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Presbytis Rubicunda,: Assessment By: Cheyne, S., Ehlers-Smith, D.A., Nijman, V. & Traeholt, C

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™

ISSN 2307-8235 (online)

Presbytis rubicunda, Red Langur

THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™

Animalia Chordata Mammalia Primates Cercopithecidae

Scientific Name: Presbytis rubicunda (Müller, 1838)

Infra-specific Taxa Assessed:

• Presbytis rubicunda rubicunda • Presbytis rubicunda rubida • Presbytis rubicunda ignita •

Year Published: 2020

Date Assessed: September 17, 2015

Previously Published Red List Assessments

2000 – Lower Risk/least concern (LR/LC)

1996 – Lower Risk/least concern (LR/LC)

Native, Presence Uncertain: Brunei Darussalam

Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)

Use and Trade

Threats (see Appendix for additional information)

Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)

Contributor(s): Boonratana, R., Marshall, A.J., Setiawan, A. & Meijaard, E.

Authority/Authorities: IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group

14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.4. Artificial/Terrestrial - Rural Gardens - Marginal -

Use and Trade

End Use Local National International

Food - human No Yes Yes

Medicine - human & veterinary No Yes Yes

Threat Timing Scope Severity Impact Score

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

Conservation Actions in Place

Conservation Action in Place

Action Recovery Plan: No

Systematic monitoring scheme: No

In-place land/water protection

Conservation sites identified: No

Area based regional management plan: No

Occurs in at least one protected area: Yes

Invasive species control or prevention: Not Applicable

In-place species management

Harvest management plan: No

Successfully reintroduced or introduced benignly: No

Subject to ex-situ conservation: No

Subject to recent education and awareness programmes: No

Included in international legislation: Yes

Subject to any international management / trade controls: Yes

Conservation Actions Needed

1. Land/water protection -> 1.2. Resource & habitat protection

2. Land/water management -> 2.1. Site/area management

4. Education & awareness -> 4.3. Awareness & communications

1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends

1. Research -> 1.3. Life history & ecology

1. Research -> 1.4. Harvest, use & livelihoods

1. Research -> 1.5. Threats

1. Research -> 1.6. Actions

3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends

Additional Data Fields

Upper elevation limit (m): 2,000

Extreme fluctuations: Unknown

Population severely fragmented: No

Continuing decline in subpopulations: Unknown

Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations: Unknown

All individuals in one subpopulation: No

Generation Length (years): 13-15

THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™