THE IUCN MAMMAL. RED DATA BOOK PART 1 \\ I - eS ra | > a wa 1 ’ LS Raat a ae . = 4 " ae 5, a) eee a fo Se as a - + = Weed ; ie = wv = e ‘* r “Y at . \ ; .- % | ae a “ne a + eu g ‘ oat) Wi ie —_ oh Cikeak + i J ae, i \. ee = i Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge http://www.archive.org/details/iucnmammalreddat01 thor INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES PART |: Threatened mammalian taxa of the Americas and the Australasian zoogeographic region (excluding Cetacea) Published by IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, (IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219(c) Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 ODL, U.K.) THE IUCN MAMMAL RED DATA BOOK PART 1 Compiled by JANE THORNBACK and MARTIN JENKINS of the IUCN CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE with the help and advice of the Species Survival Commission of IUCN and other experts throughout the world. Prepared with the financial assistance of THE WORLD WILDLIFE FUND and THE UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME IUCN IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) is a network of governments, nongovern- mental organizations (NGOs), scientists and other conservation experts, joined together to promote the protection and sustain- able use of living resources. Founded in 1948, IUCN has more than 450 member governments and NGOs in over 100 countries. Its six Commissions consist of more than 700 experts on threatened species, protected areas, ecology, environmental planning, environmental policy, law and administration, and environmental education. IUCN @ monitors the status of ecosystems and species throughout the world; @ plans conservation action, both at the strategic level through the World Conservation Strategy and the pro- gramme level through its programme of conservation for sustainable development; @ promotes such action by governments, intergovernmental bodies and nongovernmental organizations; @ provides assistance and advice necessary for the achieve- ment of such action. © International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources ISBN No. 2-88032-600-1 First published 1982 Reprinted 1984 Cover drawing of a Jaguar (Panthera onca) by Sarah Anne Hughes Printed by Unwin Brothers Limited, The Gresham Press, Old Woking, Surrey, U.K. PREAMBLE IUCN has always had as one of its principal functions the gathering of data on species and habitats under threat, so that action can be taken. It has, over the years, initiated and solicited information throughout the world. For species, this has been mainly through the Specialist Groups of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) or particular contracted individuals. It was recognised some while ago that to handle and put to best advantage the amount of data being received, together with the requirement to present information in many different ways and to insure that action programmes be developed rapidly, there was a need for a full-time Monitoring Centre to be set up. This has now been possible with the moral and financial support of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), for which I am most grateful. It has been my pleasure and privilege to help create this Centre and watch it quickly grow. It is now coming to the production stage, having had to collate sufficiently all the previous scattered information. This, as all researchers know, is a most frustrating task; working hard but having little to show for one's efforts. We now see the beginnings of not just a whole new generation of the Red Data Books, but a computer-held data base with much wider information available. In time this will allow many different outputs for many different purposes as well as updated information on single or groups of sheets; either geographic or taxonomically arranged as needed. The present work is the result of this activity, involving the sustained attention of the compiler, support from the Centre's administrative staff and guidance from the Species Survival Commission's Specialist Group members and consultants. As will be evident from the Introduction, we rely heavily on the assistance and support of our own expert associates to ensure that our data is of the highest quality. May I count on your help? I would like to express my thanks and congratulations to all those who have contributed towards this work; in particular Jane Thornback who has compiled it, Martin Jenkins who assisted her, Carol Hovenden who was responsible for handling the text storage and processing equipment, and Tony Mence, the Centre's manager. G. LI. Lucas Chairman Species Survival Commission September 1981] ib fh se te igh oar iz = (inom Soren b weyegs ott se + Ly 4 gb r “as, Oi Pete Mer tri bstuailsavh Sate. Fs x2q2 pats ED awed eiteio Dees ria a: Pome eh. ici di betosn ines telus = rig tety oo) tat oi - 20h y bet “belief ie tea omb Stirtu Fes 4! Fee dicots ‘or Me re a a vie mas er cae ‘St a SSA 1 HOLT 35 hr tsi? oy * a roe 2G wt hk: A sims fr amnotivi pa a t : Juierig: TR ‘hi assaee bre. AD: ane steer alad- or yal vaca ‘bas eine Bids eB © ‘etailes or gr] Bride pagetannait: sotnedc sir bothgetiies ° . aaa, wORs =? ats IS BEST iges? WT Wholtncigsla pest ae eat iveny Girt "atrotte e'sqa tot etrie or Sirti! iipaive fue ae sre bas ait: de POTENT Y Wti! gore 6 Teivt Pio a ugidslisvs satan ap bev Shi -etuksen Ari wos atid aie 70 2 @e tee es sheatpudy waa eth — Sypris boi Sera PSURs ara a sal ii if F * ee aanigei Res * varie Sioa habs) Tee" eshyrag- fy *é Wischrwe : | ae mi? _ 2 amen ts irene Cea Sm te eee a ; ete a aon 6 yorHis Tea pewat ge tiviovau F ei Beet 7 ate ‘satiste eiean ‘sat i, ‘ivead nhs ow Helts 7 ie Eight ort Z.: ~dacieak WF Bok 37 kay. * Sy “essa a oven ontw sane u ow Snoisalut aqyac3 brn eisai , > SHE batiqones ‘ast oi fe adadaioaT otal yeluriF Teg Al _gailbnan ‘ot stdienoges 91 26Y) ‘oly Asbrovoh vibes Aer a cate warpage at 1 enced LunOT bin Js This book is dedicated to my mother, Doreen Thornback, whose love and encouragement made it possible. Jane Thornback. -olaeog zi ebam sorpiys git wih bn sya} sznrhw secon eat of boragsibeb ai soo eit Pair: mA - ie ‘ ‘ * had Mere’? By a, 4 yi aot is wet + i ee hy e : L L 3 + Tt ‘ i ‘ . "| te minh et 7 ’ te ‘al Sa Pty het a Soy —— Gow + os si \ ees. . hier ~. woponiodT wesw ay, 5 a net one CONTENTS Introduction Method Inventory report form Categories Threats and species and recommendations Taxonomic references Acknowledgements List of threatened mammals in systematic order List of threatened mammals arranged by country and zoogeographic region Taxa previously included in the Mammal Red Data Book but excluded from the present revision Data sheets Index Xvii XIX xxl XXV11 a % “ 4 yy ij a 3 4 y om t re at 78M i \ aad \ a / : > a ’ : a P te. — = ya \ ‘ ’ - , ‘. ag yy < = r : i ; % vw, y f 4 ; * : - ih =~ A “J ~- weg » Ke ‘ 7 a) a ar pe amiat HOG a7 Ob seas, ve toi n09% ; 5 a : , 7 . i ¢ ee Ged , ; | ; ek Cn Psy, tnolisdrsmimaae7 bis 2sl20q) Srv 28 “"h § 4 - : bau hh , i € . ™) j 7 IW rr = ] viernes i> ro, e “i: t VY, M i, 1 S 3 i . . mf — 5 i pe zie) FORE ay 5 1 te f “— — i ght aS Aer ae we todd nenaiyh tive 7 vik \ 2 ain 2 ii a r | } | | tab, og ditaansteye ni alam Mmnect pared rsesit ; i | AS Saahinnd 4 Begharns eleminsdr boqgstas 60 bait lapels ot bob INTRODUCTION The IUCN Mammal Red Data Book was published in 1966, as the first volume in what has become the authoritative international register of threatened species. Volumes on birds, amphibians and reptiles, fish and plants have followed, and a volume on invertebrates is in progress. The Red Data Book provides reliable data in synoptic form on species threatened throughout their range; it does not deal with taxa threatened within the boundaries of one nation but which are relatively abundant elsewhere. This reference work is the instrument of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). The SSC, one of six Commissions of IUCN, was established in 1949, and is concerned primarily with action to prevent the extinction of species, and to preserve viable wild populations in their native habitats. Information on the status of species is vital to, and forms the basis of, this work. To establish its data base with respect to mammals, the SSC concentrated initially on the revision and expansion of two works published in the 1940s by the American Committee for International Wildlife Protection - ‘Extinct and Vanishing Mammals of the Old World' published in 1942, and its companion volume, 'Extinct and Vanishing Mammals of the New World' published in 1945. By the early 1960s the information so far collected had been stored on data cards amalgamated into a loose-leaved book. Sir Peter Scott, then Chairman of the SSC, had the idea of publishing this information as a Red Data Book series aimed at drawing public attention to the global threats to species in order to gain support, funds, and most important, action in the fight to save them. The first volume - Mammalia - appeared in 1966 and was compiled by Noel Simon who continued the task until the end of 1971. In 1972 a major revision was undertaken by Harry A. Goodwin and Colin Holloway of the IUCN Secretariat; new and revised sheets were then issued in 1973, 1974, and 1976, with Holloway as the chief compiler. A further edition in 1978 was compiled by Jane Thornback. Prior to 1978 editions of the Red Data Book were compiled on a part time basis, relying heavily on voluntary assistance from the SSC's global network of wildlife experts. The books were loose-leaf in format, a single sheet being assigned to a single taxon, and different colours used to designate the degree of threat: red for Endangered, yellow for Vulnerable, white for Rare, grey for Indeterminate. This edition is a breakaway from that traditional format and has followed the example set by the IUCN Plant Red Data Book, published in 1978, which was the first to be published as a bound volume. Although a loose-leaf system was ideal for the private individual, many institutions found it difficult to maintain, for instance pages were easily removed, revisions were difficult to incorporate and the indexing system required a certain taxonomic knowledge to comprehend. These factors led to the decision to change to a bound format and, for the Mammal volume, covering at present over 320 taxa, this necessitated a split into two parts if the information was to be published whilst still current. Since a geographic split seemed the most sensible, this edition incorporates those threatened mammalian taxa to be found in the Americas and the Australasian Zoogeographic region (essentially Australia, New Zealand and the island of New Guinea). Threatened taxa of Africa, Europe and Asia will be detailed in subsequent editions, as will the Cetacea which are here excluded. Currently four species - the Wolf (Canis lupus), the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus), the Brown and Grizzly Bear (Ursus aig) and the Dugong (Dugong ong du dugon) occur in SEvenat zoogeographic regions. Information concerning their entire ranges will be given in each edition. As well as having a new published format, the actual compilation of all Red Data Books has changed markedly since 1979. This has been necessitated by the accelerating threats to species survival. Virtually everywhere the major threat to wild species is loss of habitat to a rapidly increasing human population requiring more space to build villages and cities and to grow food; and invading and disturbing once remote areas in the pursuit of both renewable resources such as timber, and non-renewable resources such as oil and minerals in the race for industrial prizes. The majority of species have not been recognized as having any role to play in a modern world in which much of the population is striving against poverty, whilst the rest makes ever-increasing demands on its resources. The World Conservation Strategy*, published in 1980, succinctly articulated the rationale for species conservation and absorbed it into the concept of conservation for development. Living resource conservation for sustainable development was seen to have three specific objectives: to maintain essential ecological processes and life support systems (such as soil regeneration and protection, the recycling of nutrients, and the cleansing of waters), on which human survival and development depend; to preserve genetic diversity (the range of genetic material found in the world's organisms), on which depend the breeding programmes necessary for the protection and improvement of cultivated plants and domesticated animals, as well as much scientific advance, technical innovation, and the security of the many industries that use living resources; to ensure the sustainable utilization of species and ecosystems (notably fish and other wildlife, forests and grazing lands), which support millions of rural communities as well as major industries. The increasing threats to species survival and the urgent need for conservation action thus made it essential that the updating of the Red Data Books be accelerated, that full-time staff be employed, and that modern methods of data collection, storage and processing be used. In response, IUCN in 1979 established the Species Conservation Monitoring Unit (SCMU) in Cambridge, England. This Unit, when joined at the end of 1980 by the International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP) which compiles the Bird Red Data Book, brought together under one roof the compilation of all animal Red Data Books. At the same time IUCN's Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit (WTMU) (formerly known as TRAFFIC) moved in to share the Cambridge premises. The enlarged operation demanded a new name, thus the IUCN's Conservation Monitoring Centre (CMC) came into existence as an umbrella title. The Centre also embraces IUCN's * World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation Strategy for Sustainable Development. Prepared by IUCN with advice, cooperation and financial assistance of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and in collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). Threatened Plants Committee (TPC) which compiles the Plant Red Data Book and is located at The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, England, and IUCN's Protected Areas Data Unit (PADU), established in 1981, also based at Kew. The latter is an instrument of IUCN's Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA) and compiles and maintains up-to-date lists of the world's protected areas. Some of this information is published in the United Nations List of National Parks and Equivalent Reserves and The World Directory of National Parks and other Protected Areas. PADU will assess the coverage by protected areas of each biogeographical province on land as identified by Udvardy, and biophysical province at sea. CNPPA will then be able to identify gaps-in the world-wide system of reserves and thus focus its attention on the establishment of protected areas where they are most required. Initially PADU plans to produce volumes on each of the eight biogeographical realms. All sections of the Centre have word-processing facilities which have greatly increased the efficiency of data compilation, and a computer has been installed at Kew to store and process the data base that is emerging. The establishment of a data base incorporating animal and plant status, wildlife trade, and protected area data is now the principal aim of the Centre. Close collaboration will also be maintained with IUCN's Environmental Law Centre in Bonn, Germany, which provides legislative data, and with the Global — Environment Monitoring System (GEMS) of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Red Data Books are seen as but one output of this data base. Data will also be made available to, for instance, national and regional endangered species programmes, conservation funding agencies, and conventions such as the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and the 1979 Convention on Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. Already the Centre has provided the European Economic Community (EEC) with draft lists, and detailed data sheets, of threatened mammals (excluding bats and cetacea), amphibians and reptiles, and plants, within its boundaries. The information will, in addition, be used by the SSC to produce and update its programme of Action to Prevent Extinction (APX) and this will provide an input into the overall IUCN and World Wildlife Fund programmes and will assist them in their task of screening project proposals submitted for funding. More importantly the availability of species, habitat and protected area information in the same data system will at last allow species conservation to take on a strategic aspect; reserves can be planned in areas where the maximum benefit to the maintenance of species diversity will accrue. Such information will be available to, for instance, development banks and technical assistance agencies so that the problems and needs of species conservation can be incorporated into land use and development planning at an early stage. A single data base will allow the processing of data and the chance for strategic conservation to take over from the opportunistic ‘fire brigade' conservation of the past. At last, land use planning will be able to take into account species' needs. The years ahead bring with them great challenges in the environmental debate. In the case of wildlife conservation it is essential that the arguments, efforts and action be based on the most accurate and up-to-date information iii available. With the establishment of the Conservation Monitoring Centre, IUCN hopes to provide that essential data base. Jane Thornback Compiler, IUCN Mammal RDB September, 1981. METHOD The list of 155 mammals inhabiting the Americas and the Australasian zoogeographic region included in this publication is derived from previous editions of the Mammal Red Data Book, supplemented and refined by reference to the United States Endangered Species List, the status reports of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), the Official List of Endangered Australian Vertebrate Fauna, the appendices of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and information from government wildlife departments, non-governmental organizations, and scientists and naturalists, many of whom belong to the Specialist Groups of the Species Survival Commission of IUCN. It is best described as the list of known threatened mammals; it would be wrong to assume that all threatened mammals are included as undoubtedly there are many taxa, particularly among the bats and rodents, which are threatened but about which nothing is known. The information presented on each taxon has been gathered by literature searches and correspondence. The literature search identifies and reviews the major field studies of the past and thus gives an indication of the degree of knowledge of the taxon and also of the gaps in that knowledge. It also identifies those individuals who are most familiar with the animal and who are therefore likely to be of assistance both in corrobating the information and in signposting possible new sources of data. However a data sheet based solely on a literature search would in most cases fail to provide the necessary information vital to conservation action. This is for two reasons: first, for many species, particularly in Central and South America, what little information is known about the status of an animal frequently never reaches the scientific or popular literature. It may be written up in reports with a small circulation e.g. governmental reports, WWF or United Nations reports, or it may never be written up at all but simply be the knowledge an experienced scientist or naturalist has developed after long experience and awareness of an area and/or a species. Second, reports appearing in scientific journals or popular natural history magazines are usually based on field work conducted several years previously. A data sheet to be of maximum benefit to conservation action must however be as up to date as possible. Thus information must be actively sought and this is done by correspondence. Two types of person or institution are approached: those familiar with the general status of wildlife in a particular area or country and those who are studying or have studied one taxon in particular. Over the years the Mammal Red Data Book has amassed an extensive network of correspondents; these comprise institutions, particularly government departments and wildlife societies, many of which are members of IUCN, and scientists and naturalists, many of whom belong to the SSC Specialist Groups. For example, Specialist Groups exist for Australian Mammals, Insectivores, Bats, Primates, Edentates, Lagomorphs, Rodents, the Wolf (Canis lupus), the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus), Mustelids and Viverrids, Otters, Cats, Marine Mammals, Tapirs, Pigs and Peccaries, South American Camelids, Deer and Caprinae. Thus every taxon, except Pronghorns, listed in this publication has a group of specialists who are requested by IUCN to suggest and coordinate conservation action for it. Other correspondents have been located from the literature, by attendance at conferences, and from a review of projects funded and/or administered by institutions such as IUCN and the World Wildlife Fund, the New York Zoological Society, the Fauna and Flora Preservation Society, Michigan State University, the Smithsonian Institution, United Nations agencies especially FAO, UNEP, UNESCO, and national overseas aid agencies. Thus a typical line of enquiry for a species endemic to a country would entail a literature search and compilation of a draft data sheet, then correspondence with the relevant government departments, local natural history, wildlife or conservation societies, the relevant IUCN/SSC Specialist Group, and any field workers known to be studying, or to have recently studied, the species in the wild. Not only does this approach lead to the most current data available but also serves as a cross-check that the best sources of information have indeed been identified. If the species is wide-ranging then the process is repeated for each country within its range. The limits of time and personnel dictate that within any one revision of the Mammal Red Data Book only a certain number of 'sweeps of the net! for information can be undertaken. Thus on some data sheets mention is made that concerning a particular item e.g. legal protection, no data have yet been located. Obviously work such as this by its very nature is in a continous state of review, thus it is hoped that the next revision will have filled in any lacunae. Several data sheets in this publication have been researched and written by an expert on that particular taxon, the RDB compiler editing the draft. For example George Heinsohn, the spokesman on Dugongs (Dugong dugon) on the IUCN Marine Mammal Committee, researched and wrote the Dugong account. Similarly Ian Stirling, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, aided by Wendy Calvert researched and wrote the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) sheet. The Primate sheets have been compiled in close collaboration with Russell A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. The Wolf (Canis lupus) account is largely based on the many publications of the IUCN/SSC Wolf Specialist Group. Many of the sheets relevant to United States species are based on correspondence with the official government 'Recovery Teams' which have been established, for instance for the Delmarva Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger cinereus), the Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi) and the Red Wolf (Canis rufus). Some of the Australian and New Guinea sheets are based on data sheets prepared by specialists for a symposium of threatened Australasian species held in Adelaide in 1978; recent correspondence has brought these accounts up to date. The information derived from many of these sources has, by its very newness, never been published (and may never be) and is cited.on the data sheets as 'In litt'. Acknowledgements to suppliers of data are given in the Remarks paragraph on the sheets and IUCN is greatly indebted to all those people who have willingly shared their time and knowledge. A few people have been especially helpful and are acknowledged on page xix. New information on the status of species is always most welcome and should adhere approximately to the headings outlined in the "Inventory Report Form! on page vii. As far as is possible, each data sheet is self explanatory and since each is designed to be self-sufficient, there is some repetition of information on many of the sheets, e.g. with regard to the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The data sheets themselves are arranged phylogenetically - by Order, Family, Genus, Species, and in some cases, Subspecies. Apologies must be made for the omission of accents from Spanish and Portuguese names which is unfortunately due to the limitations of our equipment. It is hoped to remedy this deficiency in future revisions. Vi INVENTORY REPORT FORM Report to be mailed to the SCMU, 219(c) Huntingdon Rd, Cambridge, CB3 ODL, U.K. 4, 10. ne Country Date Reporter Name: Address: Taxon Scientific Name: Common Name: - Distribution Present: Former: If possible, please include a map. (Is present range preferred, or enforced habitat?) Population Estimated numbers in the wild. Indicate date of estimate and describe method of estimation. Are numbers increasing, decreasing or stable? Habitat and Ecology Biome type. Elevation range. Brief notes about social structure, feeding habits and diet, reproduction (gestation, breeding season, number of young, age of sexual maturation), longevity etc. Threats to Survival Eg. habitat destruction, over-exploitation, hybridization, natural disasters, competition for food. Conservation Measures Taken Legal measures (international conventions, national laws); is law enforced? Protected areas - does it occur in national parks, reserves etc? If so, please list. Management programmes or research programmes in progress. Conservation Measures Proposed Same as for 9, but measures that are needed for the conservation of the taxon. Captive Breeding Numbers in captivity. Does it breed readily in captivity? 12. Vili Remarks Reference citations for description of animal. Comments about related taxa. If the above information concerns a subspecies then brief information should be given about the distribution and status of the species as a whole. Special acknowledgements etc. References Can be published papers, unpublished manuscripts, or references to correspondence (cited as In litt.). RED DATA BOOK CATEGORIES EXTINCT (Ex). Species not definitely located in the wild during the past 50 years (criterion as used by CITES). ENDANGERED (E). Taxa in danger of extinction and whose survival is unlikely if the causal factors continue operating. Included are taxa whose numbers have been reduced to a critical level or whose habitats have been so drastically reduced that they are deemed to be in immediate danger of extinction. Also included are taxa that are possibly already extinct but have definitely been seen in the wild in the past 50 years. VULNERABLE (V). Taxa believed likely to move into the 'Endangered' category in the near future if the causal factors continue operating. Included are taxa of which most or all the populations are decreasing because of over-exploitation, extensive destruction of habitat or other environmental disturbance; taxa with populations that have been seriously depleted and whose ultimate security has not yet been assured; and taxa with populations that are still abundant but are under threat from severe adverse factors throughout their range. RARE (R). Taxa with small world populations that are not at present 'Endangered' or Vulnerable’, but are at risk. These taxa are usually localised within restricted geographical areas or habitats or are thinly scattered over a more extensive range. INDETERMINATE (I). Taxa known to be ‘Endangered’, 'Vulnerable' or 'Rare' but where there is not enough information to say which of the three categories is appropriate. OUT OF DANGER (0). Taxa formerly included in one of the above categories, but which are now considered relatively secure because effective conservation measures have been taken or the previous threat to their survival has been removed. INSUFFICIENTLY KNOWN (k). Taxa that are suspected but not definitely known to belong to any of the above categories, because of lack of information. N.B. In practice, 'Endangered' and 'Vulnerable' categories may _ include, temporarily, taxa whose populations are beginning to recover as a result of remedial action, but whose recovery is insufficient to justify their transfer to another category. Cod * 7 Haima esihonatags 2OOH AIAG 8 | Lecararece citeliong' for trecrsition “Ok ‘wisceypeash, Commenh ne. Ave shee Gnfneatevicaw Sareea & Aabwpecios they ; ai 25 Mul yeh? asap HE Seaqt eee att eae “peri san Shes é Dhiehiey ra teclganain ts att, a. ets: athe 54 y 5 ‘i , st YW ¥ a t er} LA rect i £103 967 BRED oath qveditqusalcayv)iayatiadeed laine ties: Fe: ; Lori maitaegere (cling ey ine Itt tde\-e> 1 srode+0 daval laoitind ec ot pssubst ibaa SVE ESUMUN stortw sxe? +19 Sei +S od 5% bemeed oie yortt dant beouber yilasitemd obo need eee (eee pana - ~ylésaaog Sie 1617 axel ove bebuingl oelA uncdionisxs lo 7Sgeh -omiby : * | exeey O¢ teq Opin oh biiw ont? drnssd head sieht sve a nine _ . t. r * tar ‘, ne ti smtut Mien adit ri bis pie. bosagnaons? ‘prt oini svdem gt wtsatif {Nit BYSKO: SUHjINod pete ( = 40 severed anitasrseb ben gabiealsiced ott Ks vo aon! doit be exel Eat. _latnainnptivgs rite yo erided le obitpunesd/ bviawotes wold Shh bersiget ylides rasa seat sactr enmlselycjog yt BPM ous pens. tradtaludeg iw. axst tine dbo wees Weed doy por ag cone eg oon arena seyavba sysvee sath tases volts aa +o osreyneit va9t9%4 + Yon ans, ttt ‘lah ias9e9 phrow- ripen ks mais sane a : ¥ “wariaat > 10, i matal icici poriateay rides tazilsnal yi i | Nas esoies avlgnnexs we 4 V0 Ooms eae = - , f 3 Le = Ss ery i } ~~ A=) = 3 — ~ fa: oe ot enw Ted eA’ xo ‘etddreob Ne lady : aN Terns a peenavie panes hea ig ing yaaa route iy: * di) a ign. v6 ‘lite a eahagstaz “avods of? la shen nl bobulaat\ : ee ere “eeyursain: ‘noitariseneS ovisostia sevanad-oisse ylevine ee “stern ee saeoaateyen sion’ bleed ¢ ‘ s ote Wiss = a ®, . awit ‘ atts Ae ne rte ie Ad, > 086 bi to velo a anaes 9 dei: vienna Jon’ » i Ng ap 4 dhe. 5 jain ibibo ‘pet on Huse Bo ea YHYOoN gn aninn Eats ; ah hes ] wet: apse ok. ansis ni ei yipvoass seodw: 109% + RL? oes ae Tete ris eas Saea Pha Ps Re a cw pe UB aig 7, by t a > a; Phe a 27 Y wae | Aas ‘? > PA he | a THREATS AND SPECIES 145 threatened taxa are listed in this publication and _ include representatives of all thirteen orders of mammals excluding Cetacea which inhabit the Americas and the Australasian zoogeographic region. Of these 35 inhabit North America, 70 Central and South America, and 47 Australasia. Virtually everywhere the major threat to wild species is destruction and disturbance of the habitats on which their existences depend. Human activities have steadily modified wilderness areas into manmade landscapes of settlement, agriculture or industry, that preclude coexistence with many wild creatures. Disturbance has resulted from increased human intrusion into remote areas for timber, oil or mineral extraction, and from the introduction of exotics into native ecosystems. Today even the apparently remotest of areas may be afflicted by the effects of pollution. The problem of habitat loss exists in each of the three major regions addressed in this book, but it is particularly serious in the tropical forests of Central and South America where species diversity is greatest and thus where species losses can expect to be highest. For much of history these vast forests have been little disturbed, major changes essentially taking place only in the last few decades. Much forested land has now been totally cleared by timber extraction to make way for plantations, settlement, or cattle pasture, thus the forest animals which depended on them have become locally extinct. This scenario has been particularly prevalent in Central America, northwestern Colombia and southeastern Brazil. Most tropical countries have a large and rapidly expanding rural population which usually relies for its survival on subsistence agriculture. The traditional method is that of shifting cultivation - cropping one area for a few years, then clearing another area, leaving the first one fallow to revert to scrub and forest. The fallow period lasts from 8-12 years in tropical rain forests to 20-30 years in drier areas, and during this time the forest cover enables the soil to regenerate. This is a stable, productive practice if the human population itself is stable; but if populations are growing, which nowadays they usually are, the pressure on land increases, fallow periods shorten, and the soil has no chance to regenerate. Tropical soils are notoriously infertile, the luxuriant forests they support being deceptively fragile and reliant upon complex water, nitrogen and other mineral cycles to persist. Once these forests are cut, the soil is invariably rapidly leached of minerals by the heavy rains, and deprived of the holdfast supplied by the vegetation the soil itself is washed into the nearest stream or river. The land becomes exhausted and eroded and requires all too expensive fertilizers to return to its productive capacity. Wider and wider tracts of otherwise productive forest land are thus destroyed. Species which were once able to coexist with shifting cultivation now find their habitat fragmented, islands of forest being separated by vast seas of surrounding farmland or scrub. Not only have critical habitat requirements frequently been lost but the species are also more accessible to the hunter. Once a species has been eradicated from such island habitats it can usually no longer recolonise that area, except by human reintroduction. Such depletion of forest cover has been particularly severe in the Caribbean. For example in Haiti forest cover was reduced from 80% to 9% between 1958 and 1978. Such clearance is the most immediate threat to the endemic fauna of the island. These tropical countries tend to be economically poor, much of their populace lives at subsistence level, education standards are low and few funds have been allocated to their environment and wildlife departments. Thus even though the wealth of species diversity is greatest in the Tropics and the need for Xi habitat conservation and wise land-use planning is greatest and will be of utmost importance to the long term economic well-being of these nations, it is here that little has yet been achieved to preserve habitats and their array of species. It is here that the international community must assist in conservation with funds, expertise and encouragement. North America presents a somewhat different scenario. It is largely temperate in climate, species diversity is much lower and the ecosystems more resilient to modification. Thus, although vast regions such as the prairies were rapidly and almost totally transformed into agricultural areas the loss of actual species was much less than that predicted in the tropics under the same degree of environmental modification. A wealthy nation quickly developed with an educated populace who began to regret their loss of wilderness and, in response, to develop a highly sophisticated environmental control system. For wild species this culminated in the 1973 Endangered Species Act which provided legal protection and funds to enact conservation measures for the recovery of species. Also the 1972 Environmental Protection Act required that all land-use plans be subjected to an environmental impact statement which had to take into consideration the effect of the project on the taxa inhabiting the area, and if necessary, to be modified or abandoned if a taxon were found to be faced with extinction. However, even such sophisticated safeguards are all too vulnerable to the whims of a changing political climate, particularly in times of economic recession when governments wish to cut their spending programmes. Australasia is different again. The loss and decline of species in modern times has resulted principally from the introduction of livestock and exotic animals such as rabbits and foxes which have led to modification of ecosystems, outcompeted the native fauna for forage, or predated upon them. Australia, like North America, developed to a wealthy nation early in its history and, similarly to North America, is enacting a sophisticated programme of environmental and species protection. New Guinea is still relatively little disturbed, but as yet the human population is small. Fortunately however the development, in Papua New Guinea at least, which is now occurring is being made with the awareness of the needs for environmenal protection as a companion of development. Indeed butterfly and crocodile ranching, based on wildlife management principles, are in operation, providing industry and foreign exchange for the country. Apart from habitat destruction which is undoubtedly the major factor in species decline worldwide, the other threats are over-exploitation (both legal and illegal), the effects of introduced exotic species, hybridization, and pollution. Invariably these threats act in concert to cause the decline of species, but for the different mammalian orders represented in this publication, the importance of one or other of these threats is invariably greater. The following comments briefly describe the main factors affecting the different mammalian groups. Australian marsupials have been threatened chiefly by the introduction of exotics into their ecosystems. The introduced herbivores such as cattle, sheep, goats and rabbits have outcompeted the native species for forage, and in some instances have altered the floristic content of the vegetation such that it is no longer suitable for the indigenous fauna. For example, the endangered Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat, Lasiorhinus krefftii, reduced to a single colony in northeast Australia, is threatened chiefly by habitat damage caused by cattle, especially during drought. Similarly the Desert Bandicoot, Perameles eremiana, the Pig-footed Bandicoot, Chaeropus ecaudatus, the Western Barred Bandicoot, Xi Perameles bougainville, the Burrowing Bettong, Bettongia lesueur, and the Banded Hare-wallaby, Lagostrophus fasciatus, are all believed to have declined principally because of drastic alteration of vegetation by stock grazing and rabbits. Introduced predators, such as foxes and feral dogs and cats, have preyed on species which previously had few known enemies. For example predation is thought to have played a major role in the decline of the Crescent Nailtail Wallaby, Onychogalea lunata, last recorded in 1930 in Western Australia. Similarly the Toolache Wallaby, Macropus greyi, now extinct, was exterminated principally as a result of human persecution and predation by introduced foxes. The threatened marsupials of New Guinea are mainly those which have apparently specialized habitat requirements and are additionally affected by overhunting as game species e.g. Goodfellow's Tree-kangaroo, Dendrolagus goodfellowi shawmayeri, Doria's Tree-kangaroo, Dendrolagus dorianus notatus, Papuan Dorcopsis, Dorcopsulus macleayi, Black Dorcopsis Wallaby, Dorcopsis atrata, Woodlark Island Cuscus, Phalanger lullulae; this also applies to the monotreme, Zaglossus bruijni. The threatened insectivores, bats, lagomorphs and rodents tend to have very small ranges and to be subjected to habitat loss or disturbance within these limited areas. For example, the highly endangered Solenodons of Cuba and Hispaniola (Solenodon paradoxus and S. cubanus) are losing their habitat to the steady onslaught of slash-and-burn agriculture, bringing with it the increased risk of predation by domestic dogs; similarly affected is the endangered Volcano Rabbit, Romerolagus diazi, which inhabits the slopes of volcanoes surrounding Mexico City. The bats largely suffer from disturbance of their roosting and maternity sites by vandals, and cavers. Indeed the Gray Bat, Myotis grisescens, has actually been a victim of the very measures taken to preserve it: gates constructed across the entrance to its caves have raised the ambient temperature above that suitable for hibernation, resulting in a die-off of animals. The identification of threatened rodents and bats is in its infancy and those so far recognized tend to be confined to small areas in well-studied regions, e.g. the Morro Bay Kangaroo Rat, Dipodomys heermanni morroensis; Delmarva Fox Squirrel, Sciurus niger cinereus, and Vancouver Island Marmot, Marmota vancouverensis. The diverse Hutias of the Caribbean islands are threatened by habitat loss and hunting, compounded by small ranges and a slow breeding rate. Threatened Australian rodents seem to be mainly those susceptible to habitat degradation by stock-grazing and introduced herbivores such as rabbits, e.g. the Greater Stick-nest Rat, Leporillus conditor. Primates have become threatened by habitat loss and disturbance, combined for some species with over-exploitation for the pet, zoo and biomedical industries. For example the Cotton-top Tamarin, Saguinus oedipus oedipus, now confined to remnant forest patches in northwestern Colombia, and the Central American Squirrel Monkey, Saimiri oerstedi, with a limited area in Panama and adjacent Costa Rica, were both heavily traded in the 1960s principally for the biomedical industry. The southeastern forests of Brazil possess a rich array of primate species, some endemic, and many on the brink of extinction. Very few individuals now remain in the wild and in the forest islands they inhabit they are critically endangered. For example the Golden Lion Tamarin, Leontopithecus rosalia, is now (1981) reduced to less than 100 animals and survives precariously in only two areas. It has also been a popular zoo exhibit, widely sold in the pet trade, and occasionally used for research in biomedical laboratories. Between 200 and 300 were exported annually for these purposes from 1960 to 1965. Edentates are as yet little known but habitat loss and hunting for food seem to be emerging as possible deleterious forces. X11 The carnivores - the canids, bears, otters and cats have declined mainly because of hunting, either for their skins as with otters and cats, or because their predatory habits e.g. the Spectacled Bear, Tremarctos ornatus, on corn and the Maned Wolf, Chrysocyon brachyurus, on chickens, have continuously brought them into conflict with man. They are feared as dangerous to humans, e.g. Wolf (Canis lupus) (often based on myth), and hated because of predation on domestic livestock and poultry, and on the large herbivores and game birds favoured by the hunting fraternity. The human response has been to eradicate them. Sport hunting has played a minimal role. In addition, these predators tend to require large areas of land over which to hunt and populations therefore exist at low densities. It is thus easy to eradicate them from a large area by killing a seemingly small number, and their conservation, which usually entails the establishment of reserves, is difficult simply because of the extensive amount of land required to preserve a viable population. The aquatic species, the threatened seals and sirenians, declined largely as a result of over-exploitation, principally for their hides in the case of seals and for their meat in the case of the sirenians. Where protected from disturbance and hunting populations have tended to recover. Amongst the Artiodactyls, over-exploitation has been the principal threat. The deer and pronghorns declined largely because of uncontrolled hunting, with habitat loss being of relatively lesser importance. The tapirs have suffered from habitat loss plus hunting for food; the Chacoan Peccary, Catagonus wagneri, from hunting for meat and its hide, and the Vicuna, Vicugna vicugna, for its wool. Many taxa, for example the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus), the Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens), the Brush-tailed Bettong (Bettongia penicillata), the Morro Bay Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys heermanni morroensis) and the Vicuna (Vicugna vicugna), are the subject of extensive conservation programmes intended to bring about their recovery or security in the wild. Such programmes usually focus on legal protection, the establishment of reserves, education campaigns and etho-ecological studies. They may be funded nationally e.g. in Argentina by the Fundacion vida Silvestre Argentina (FVSA) and in Brazil by the Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas de Amazonica (INPA), and/or with financial support from foreign or international agencies such as IUCN/WWF, the New York Zoological Society, or United Nations Agencies such as UNEP, FAO, UNESCO etc. International cooperation with regard to threatened species may also be facilitated by conventions such as the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) which has helped to control trade in wildlife products and has undoubtedly assisted the conservation of the furbearers such as otters and cats. Such conservation actions have had, and are having, a beneficial effect on the status of wild taxa and some are well on the way to recovery e.g. the Vicuna, Polar Bear and Fur Seals. Others, although severely endangered, at least now have a chance e.g. the Hawaiian Monk Seal, (Monachus schauinslandi), and the Argentine Pampas Deer, (Ozotoceros bezoarticus celer); thus conservation can save species. However there is no time for complacency, the great majority of taxa listed in this publication are still declining and there are doubtless many others similarly under threat but which are as yet unrecognised. Indeed a number, for example the mammalian fauna of the Atlantic forests of southeastern Brazil, are doomed to extinction in the wild in a very short time unless major steps are taken for their survival. X1V Recommendations Each Red Data sheet includes a section on ‘Conservation Measures Proposed', which comprises recommendations on the action required to improve the taxon's prospects of survival. The proposals are primarily concerned with the protection of the animal and its habitat, and the elimination of threats to its survival, and/or the collection of etho-ecological data on which to base more specific and effective remedial measures. Below is a general check-list of conservation measures for threatened species, the original of which was compiled by the Species Survival Commission in 1966/67. 1 Fact-Finding (1). To conduct a survey to determine (a) the status of the taxon; (b) the current threats to its survival; (c) the remaining habitat suitable to its needs; (d) the legal and enforcement situation. (2). To launch a research project to ascertain its ecology, the factors limiting its population growth, and the relationship between it, its habitat, and the local human population. 2s Action Proposed (1). Legal (a) to promote or prompt new legislation, or make better use of powers under existing legislation; (b) to promote a special international convention; (c) to improve law enforcement: (i) within national parks or reserves; (ii) in the country generally; (iii) with regard to international trade; (d) to add a taxon to one of the Appendices of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), or to transfer it to a higher Appendix; (e) to improve the legal situation in any other way. (2). To promote the formation of a national park, nature reserve or wildlife refuge (a) by an official body; (b) by a voluntary organization. (3). To establish a continuing scientific presence (a) through a scientific research programme; (b) by establishing a research station; (c) by establishing a research foundation. (4). To undertake educational or public relations measures, (5). To encourage existing conservation effort. (6). To promote a programme of captive propagation (a) ina zoo; (b) in an institution designed for propagating threatened taxa; XV (7). (3). (9). (c) ona site in the taxons' own habitat. To re-establish a taxon in an area where it is either extinct or very rare (a) by translocation direct from the wild; (b) by release of captive bred stock; (c) by increasing the food supply or living space by habitat management. To offer bounties for successful rearing of young (chiefly applicable to birds). To contro! feral or introduced animals (a) predators; (b) competitors for the available forage. It is hoped that the Red Data Book will help to stimulate conservation action by individuals, by groups such as universities, schools and wildlife societies, and by governments. However individual and group action is only likely to be effective in the long term if backed by a full and integrated range of government policies favourable to species and habitat conservation. Since governments have the Capacity to be the biggest and most effective conservation agencies the following recommendations are suggested (1). (2). (3). (4). (5). (6). (7). The compilation of national threatened species lists and Red Data Books. Legal protection afforded to species included on these lists. The establishment of national parks and reserves for such species. The incorporation of safeguards in future planning strategies to protect all listed species, as the major threat to many species is created by changing land use. To stimulate, undertake or coordinate through competent organizations multidisciplinary research at national or international level concerning listed species. To give appropriate support to scientific institutions so that they have the facilities required to breed and distribute animals to other institutions and, where appropriate, for reintroduction to the wild. To ratify, if this has not already been done, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Conservation must be built into planning in both the short and long term, for it is upon natural renewable resources such as forests and rangelands that humans depend and must rely for continuing employment and income. TAXONOMIC REFERENCES The systems of classification and nomenclature principally follow the undermentioned authors: CABRERA, A. (1957-61). Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Rev. del. Mus. Argent. de Cienc. Nat. 'Bernardino Rivadavia', Cienc. Zool. 4(1,2): 1-732. CORBET, G.B. and HILL, J.E. (1980). A world list of mammalian species. British Museum (Natural History) and Cornell Univ. Press. HALL, E.R. and KELSON, K.R. (1959). The mammals of North America. The Ronald Press Co., New York. RIDE, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford Univ. Press, Melbourne. xVil fc} ens site bezhe eget = Fi. Vo re-esveehal 4 rs Per’. aa AN er? 24 poueibearien pater't) ‘eet he Ree . ‘= ' <6) Ay release ot captive bein otenier: ea ic ae ae tg aad oMiPe rene vale a) si aca wroritus b noi! 7 Me = efter. treuatitheig iu eaiciesitoll rodiing’ & posite: Seniot! iy w68 we ithe A sb aviatinuion zal sb aaelieay: pelt aio “A. elie i> papas pied’ 36H nino hy, aa seeehione a 7 sift oa | eta bas I My. as ey 7 Pott a 2 cea 7 dal iat Sy Giovewte bay: ese’ - vache 5 het oe, tegrated raiceoel Pa nl ~ Sareareile sae Ratton Roe Vater, “Sante ‘iottaotoeahe a ; eagles we Be sip ‘aries most etlectiv> iors pen tia caperaies he i saosin ats Ser athe hy = : cee ‘ ee a 7 1A = : 4 De Pas Leeson, of Ravianal swe Aref apie nid marty 7 oi tee ra Bon ie ee ; ater shee witrited to species qs Tinlad? on (thas tise bs infinvent Oi Ra lon OAT Rae e es in wang lon Saar ialis {4h Oba. ARP OeM thon ah. Saher erg Gal ret, tue pi AMS: ir Gary A. ‘pretect Bi dialed species, ad. he mayer ‘thereat te ir ~~ Cita ) Hentet hy changing ted uae SY a lage aK hi ativaiait, Las ars pice of .2oprdres capeouath 'g 200 esis _. Crenolmations: ubeidiac dst : Sener er: ai Adi ad atl int fae Semporting tate Spesties.. & «x eH i Fe eg ‘appropriate ee a to schevussis, Pari UdPotie! Be ‘ave the, Tac lities required ‘to Sneed sink sigteiute’ picverstes io: oidinettiied asd, hers apprdprists, tor rem pone be he @ See: Ta Collipe a) tly bas ns -adtady bear Date Tai iis _ Sbaeenesioned, Tradein Radanyetes Soest ah Sate ieee 3 rie Nie w seine “i ea v Si ire: teow walde get irces-avctt ad-kteesin aid ange B Sail igs igor di Nadine caring: SnPie er daw aayhie Te *% dae aes smite: Gul ior fea “w peih Aha: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many, many people have assisted in the compilation of this publication and without their generous help the end result would have been a far inferior product. Wherever appropriate these people have been acknowledged on the individual data sheets and to all of them we extend our sincere thanks and gratitude. However a particular thanks must also be extended to the following people who have been particularly helpful. Argentina Australasian zoogeographic region E.O. Gonzalez Ruiz A. Tarak A.A. Burbidge J.C. Calaby G.G. George T.H. Kirkpatrick A.K. Lee A.C. Robinson G.W. Saunders G.B. Sharman R. Strahan R.M. Warneke C.H.S. Watts G.R. Wilson The participants of the 1978 symposium on the status of endangered Australasian wildlife who provided draft red data sheets Brazil M. Ayres R. Best Bolivia G. Bejarano Chile J. Rottmann Colombia J. Hernandez-Camacho Cuba L. Varona Ecuador F.I. Ortiz-Crespo G. Orces J. Black El Salvador J. Boursot Peru M. Dourojeanni Ricordi Uruguay E. Gudynas R. Praderi L. Caviglia Tahier U.S.A. R. Nowak Polar Bear I. Stirling Wendy Calvert Dugong G. Heinsohn Primates R.A. Mittermeier A.F. Coimbra-Filho A. Rylands Hutias C. Woods Rodents J. Layne Canids D. Macdonald We would also especially like to thank the staff of the Mammal Section and Zoology Library of the British Museum (Natural History), and the Fauna and Flora Preservation Society for helpfulness and guidance. As compiler of the Mammal Red Data Book I also wish to give my particular thanks to my assistant, Martin Jenkins, for his support and hard work during the compilation of this document. LIST OF THREATENED MAMMALS IN THE AMERICAS AND AUSTRALASIAN ZOOGEOGRAPHIC REGION (IN SYSTEMATIC ORDER) The letter preceding each taxon refers to its status category (see page ix). Also included are seven taxa that are categorised as 'Insufficiently Known! and three categorised as 'Out of Danger'. MONOTREMATA TACHY GLOSSIDAE V Zaglossus bruijni MARSUPIALIA MACROPODIDAE Ex Macropus greyi E Onychogalea fraenata Ex Onychogalea lunata Ex Lagorchestes asomatus Lagorchestes hirsutus Lagorchestes leporides Lagostrophus fasciatus Petrogale sp. nova Dendrolagus goodfellowi shawmayeri Dorcopsis atrata Dorcopsulus macleayi Caloprymnus campestris Bettongia penicillata Bettongia lesueur Potorous platyops Potorous longipes PHALANGERIDAE eS mo < Bn yer) = a Phalanger interpositus Phalanger lullulae Phalanger rufoniger PETAURIDAE AwAD7 E Gymnobelideus leadbeateri VOMBATIDAE E Lasiorhinus krefftii PERAMELIDAE Ex Chaeropus ecaudatus R- Echymipera clara R Perameles bougainville Dendrolagus dorianus notatus Long-beaked Echidna Toolache Wallaby Bridled Nailtail Wallaby Crescent Nailtail Wallaby Central Hare-wallaby Rufous Hare-wallaby Eastern Hare-wallaby Banded Hare-wallaby Proserpine Rock-wallaby Doria's Tree-kangaroo Goodfellow's Tree-kangaroo Black Dorcopsis Wallaby Papuan Dorcopsis Desert Rat-kangaroo Brush-tailed Bettong Burrowing Bettong Broad-faced Potoroo Long-footed Potoroo Stein's Cuscus Woodlark Island Cuscus Black-spotted Cuscus Leadbeater's Possum Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat Pig-footed Bandicoot Clara Bandicoot Western Barred Bandicoot Ex Perameles eremiana THYLACOMYIDAE Macrotis lagotis Macrotis leucura DASY URIDAE Antechinus apicalis Phascogale calura Sminthopsis longicaudata Sminthopsis psammophila Sminthopsis douglasi MY RMECOBIIDAE Myrmecobius fasciatus THYLACINIDAE Thylacinus cynocephalus INSECTIVORA E E SOLENODONTIDAE Solenodon cubanus Solenodon paradoxus CHIROPTERA nal SS = “lool << MEGADERMATIDAE Macroderma gigas VESPERTILIONIDAE Myotis sodalis Myotis grisescens Lasiurus cinereus semotus Plecotus townsendii ingens Plecotus townsendii virginianus PRIMATES polis eee leet SS Ie lea ~ ~ CALLITRICHIDAE Callithrix flaviceps Callithrix argentata leucippe Callithrix aurita Callithrix humeralifer Saguinus oedipus oedipus Saguinus bicolor Saguinus imperator Saguinus leucopus Leontopithecus rosalia Desert Bandicoot Greater Bilby Lesser Bilby Dibbler Red-tailed Phascogale Long-tailed Dunnart Sandhill Dunnart Julia Creek Dunnart Numbat Thylacine Cuban Solenodon Haitian Solenodon Ghost Bat Indiana Bat Gray Bat Hawalian Hoary Bat Ozark Big-eared Bat Virginia Big-eared Bat Buffy-headed Marmoset White Marmoset Buffy-tufted-ear Marmoset Tassel-eared Marmoset Cotton-top Tamarin Bare-face Tamarin Emperor Tamarin White-footed Tamarin Golden Lion Tamarin Leontopithecus chrysomelas Leontopithecus chrysopygus Callimico goeldii Imm CEBIDAE Saimiri oerstedi Callicebus perso personatus Chiropotes albinasus Chiropotes satanas satanas Cacajao calvus Cacajao melanocephalus Alouatta fusca Alouatta villosa Lagothrix flavicauda Lagothrix lagothricha Brachyteles arachnoides Ateles belzebuth Ateles fusciceps Ateles geoffroyi Ateles paniscus EDENTATA SS ae la eee PP SS a MY RMECOPHAGIDAE V Myrmecophaga tridactyla BRADY PODIDAE E Bradypus torquatus DASYPODIDAE V Priodontes Priodontes giganteus I Tolypeutes s tricinctus K Chlamyphorus trunca: s truncatus K Burmeisteria retusa LAGOMORPHA LEPORIDAE EE Romerolagus diazi RODENTIA SCIURIDAE Sciurus niger cinereus Marmota vancouverensis Cynomys parvidens HETEROMYIDAE sy a i mat z ' i t -.] Pa 4 - : ee t ) a ty, oO % tailing: ip te tine Deira: seiietnn, Mi och. Lon | Pry 4 A .) or LOL 3 tag eae Ni eM. ° han a j ow) Bort v Guings Gee Ritch hae (yy Dany oA We rh: ey seein { sdniciercyte si): se yf vor MBlast ao bn reiutlei 2872 (U0 on t vf 9 eh k i oe een fois ‘s fed iris it KS doy tes &) 3 she re ive fun gy Me it ~ 2 miepunnpey art SG Cay Te: As bICw. Teed cas lp plow EER atts Biss - n he a ene, eer ¢ neilsyteu: met to “este + ani e : ee => f the ) , ‘ 34M 4 ’ koOS * pT ego i) cpr Oo ete Saas iy hel Lise aa ane soins oa ag sy rtd 2 ra y gation 7 Sit Tats ik ea qvyn lenevieds byt ‘ ‘abt. gona: belies botiaindlt» ADB Lad ; on ' Sale erie OaaAN Wop idws eal s s He fiFe we We Ww amit: Ao ne maki 0 ee pod ho "3 a BOGS 56) — pel { eo yyw e Shay Wt = pied lengiva 5 ¥ Ys ipa: : : : ‘pescerih Nexbeen cotfied< shai! 7 C4} hatte, irae — 25) lense J fa eherming: bet: wie ) ehirintes vont i eR te = a ree kale 6 mend ee broad he 1p Ae Lig Lents : Eoil Pahicn¢ mats ve sit heogttdde er Baik) yo ig 4 CRESCENT NAILTAIL WALLABY EXTINCT Onychogalea lunata (Gould, 1840) Order MARSUPIALIA Family MACROPODIDAE SUMMARY Extremely rare if not extinct. Last fully authenticated record, in inland Western Australia, was in 1930. Surveys are needed to discover if the species still persists and, if so, to define immediate effective protective measures. DISTRIBUTION Australia; where formerly distributed from the southwest, east of the Darling Range, through southern and central areas as far as the Alice Springs region, the northern limit being about 23°S, and to the east of the Lake Eyre Basin (1,3,6,7). It may also have been recorded from the junction of the Murray and Darling Rivers in Victoria and New South Wales (6). Populations are now most likely to survive in inland arid regions of Western and central Australia (8). POPULATION Unknown. If the species does still persist its numbers must be very low; the last fully accepted record is dated 1930 (8). There is a record from Western Australia in 1964, when a dead wallaby found near the Gahnda Rockhole in the Gibson Desert, apparently killed by a fox, was reportedly identified on the basis of a still greasy mandibular fragment (2); the veracity of this record has been questioned, however, and the specimen was not preserved (2). In 1979 it was reported that the Aborigines native to the Warburton region said that it was no longer found there (2). Finlayson in 1961 stated that it was still extant in central Australia east of the Warburton region and reported a specimen killed between the Tarlton and Jervois Ranges in 1956 (3). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY In the Warburton region it inhabited areas of mulga woodland and creek country where there were River Gums (Eucalyptus camuldensis) (2). According to Gould it rested up during the day in a hollow made in soft ground beneath a thick bush and would take shelter in hollow logs or burrows when pursued (4). Little else is known of the biology of the species. THREATS TO SURVIVAL Presumably susceptible to the same generalised threats -- exotic predators, habitat loss through conversion for agriculture and competition from introduced herbivores such as cattle, sheep and rabbits -- as have affected much of the Australian mainland fauna (1,5,6,7). Predation by feral cats and foxes has been particularly implicated in the decline of this species (3,7), though loss of habitat to cereal crops and persecution by farmers are likely to have been important factors in the Western Australian wheat-belt (1). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix |! of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products therefore being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Legally protected throughout its former range, and appears on the Official List of Endangered Australian Vertebrate Fauna. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Immediate protection of any areas found to hold populations of this species. CAPTIVE BREEDING No captive specimens exist though breeding potential is probably good (8). REMARKS For description see (1,6). The function of the horny growth at the end 11 of the tail which gives the genus its name is unknown. The common name used is that recommended by the Australian Mammal Society in 1981. This data sheet was compiled from a draft provided in 1978 by Dr A.A. Burbidge, Western Australian Wildlife Research Centre. REFERENCES 1. 2. Se 12 Anon. (1977). Crescent Nail-Tailed Wallaby Onychogalea lunata. Mammals No. 8. In Australian Endangered Species. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. Burbidge, A.A. and Fuller, P.J. (1979). Mammals of the Warburton Region, Western Australia. Res. West Aust. Mus. 8(1): 57-73. Finlayson, H.H. (1961). On Central Australian mammals Part IV. The distribution and status of Central Australian species. Rec. S. Aust. Mus. 14: 141-191. Gould, J. (1863). Mammals of Australia. Taylor and Francis, London. Poole, W.E.. (1979). The ‘status of the Australian Macropodidae. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal. Zool. Soc. S. Aust. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Troughton, E. (1941). Furred animals of Australia. Angus and Robertson Ltd. Sydney. Burbidge, A.A. (1978-81). In litt. CENTRAL HARE-WALLABY EXTINCT Lagorchestes asomatus Finlayson, 1943 Order MARSUPIALIA Family MACROPODIDAE SUMMARY Known from a single skull collected in 1931 in central Australia. The validity of the species is doubtful. DISTRIBUTION Australia. The only known specimen is a skull collected between Mt. Farewell in the Northern Territory and Lake Mackay on the Western Australian border in 1931. It was described by Finlayson in 1943 (1). POPULATION Unknown. Presumed extinct, and there is some doubt whether the species ever existed at all (2). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Unknown. THREATS TO SURVIVAL Unknown. CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Appears on the Official List of Australian Endangered Vertebrate Fauna. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Effective protection of any areas found to contain populations of this animal. CAPTIVE BREEDING None. REMARKS There are no details of external description. The common name is that recommended by the Australian Mammal Society. REFERENCES 1. Finlayson, H.H. (1943). A mew species of Lagorchestes (Marsupialia). Trans. R. Soc. S. Aust. 67: 319-321. 2. Kirkpatrick, T.H. (1977). In litt. 13 of Bae sll aes cfr fue THR iyarid & onsen al thal SacoMHiendad by the Aus tradian’ Mainined. Sacsety in 198), won Cogeptled fred: b drat pravided in Rae. besnhaia a soon d! \iefraban Witte Reiearch yet «. > F Lop oc age ia imet 7 Al. \AIqUaAAM REFLRENCES hon, (LS w - Creasey te vast. Taded ‘Wallaby On AS n iagnatos, ‘Shatept zit No. 8, int PT: ery == wt trian) “Nat! onk) Packs and j i 2 barb heey ahd Folie) 2.340579): ieee SAT .cilmtians Lest expt dehy ‘é Doirrelforadligre pire OO Oh SAT eine! qlatedgot ai ova Foggy lag eo), Tae? ool) i Serra Agave tia: mews od bet 2etion Mumar eM PeeWee aces re Ortakns Fa AAT ps ik OPC heey LT | masteeW “ort 00 youpettnsoAB ac DAG Aste, lara ni) ods alt Sw sa oidhgdnimiansk nevi AG bedindanh aie w 31 DE Rk tak Hb rereg rrsnpcis, todas. of et oe e, ate Tationa Iducb orto, one bad (jporlixe bereurey paworsund) t4 Mscroude aes Th oT yfer, ty {S) Hagabs os pnidange as My cist! ytd wijdiiie » ee eae =a Rise; UR. GHD 2 ‘pore 5 ME : > hae Austeal is, Degear'e Linkversity Press, eld Pitre han ji, Miah hess} urea 7ephh meals Rater thon Lae Sythe tt AORN. AWA RIAUEAT MOLL A Ga HOE) STAR dase > caguleneun to rele j ac) Yeats yn. Lo. noizos¥oxq- 21299822 Gx209089 ent ULASN AOrT Bo ee Oe eee a eG oming aint... - 0 shoite Ute § oto Sai EERE P “e omse nomen edT seoitgpraea lamaixe AS ellassh on 958- erat i 7 s¥P9i00¢.. lemme Hsilexyeun att. 9d bebr teorin1oaet, 20. sabaece: ion A ARBRE) “244 noeyeli iT De ISE-C1E3NS RUA .2 .202_, east] Asilsique 56M) 1 a * rit ies eNSEIY AAT TF. yesiveqaurl as ‘ it Ae, P| ei ; RUF OUS HARE-WALLABY RARE Lagorchestes hirsutus (Gould, 1844) Order MARSUPIALIA Family MACROPODIDAE SUMMARY Known populations confined to Bernier and Dorre islands, Western Australia and two small colonies in central Australia. Changes in fire regime have been implicated as a major cause of the species’ decline. Remaining populations seem secure at present (1981) but must be considered potentially at risk because of their very limited range. DISTRIBUTION Australia where it now has a highly disjunct distribution, being apparently confined to Bernier and Dorre Islands (about 10,560 ha combined) in Shark Bay, Western Australia, and the Tanami Desert, Northern Territory, where two small colonies are known (1,6,7). Formerly inhabited arid inland regions of western and central Australia, though the limits of its range were never precisely determined (3). POPULATION Numbers on Bernier and Dorre Island are unknown. The population appears to flucuate there, as succeeding visits to the islands have noted different relative abundances of this and the similar Banded Hare-wallaby, Lagostrophus fasciatus, also a Red Data Book species (6,7). In 1906 the Rufous Hare-wallaby was reportedly abundant but in 1910, following several years of drought was much less so. The 1959 expedition to the islands found it to be apparently rare whereas in 1969 it was readily observed (5,7). This may, however, simply reflect different emphasis on the two species' preferred habitats (tall scrub in the case of Lagostrophus s fasciatus as opposed to more open areas in the present species) by different investigators rather than real population changes (7), though this needs further investigation and in 1981 it was reported that numbers of Lagorchestes hirsutus had recently risen dramatically in an area burnt 5 years previously (2). In 1978 the two colonies in the Tanami Desert were estimated as holding possibly as few as 6 to 10 individuals each (1). A careful search of 2300 km of apparently suitable habitat in this region failed to reveal any further colonies (1). Reportedly formerly abundant where it did occur though Finlayson in 1961 noted that its pattern of occurrence was fluctuating and discontinuous, the wide separation of individual colonies making accurate estimates of population status difficult (3). He concluded, however, that there had been a major collapse in numbers in ‘the 1940s and 1950s, especially in the Musgrave, Mann and Tomkinson Ranges in southwest central Australia where it had been a major aboriginal food Source in the 1930s (3). It apparently disappeared from much of its former range ‘considerably earlier (8). : HABITAT AND ECOLOGY On Bernier and Dorre found in heath or open steppe association and in spinifex or porcupine grass (Triodia) areas (6,7). The colonies in the Tanami Desert are adjacent to a stock route; here the habitat is broadly described as sandplain interspersed with numerous smal! saltpans. Giant mounds of the termite Nasutitermes triodiae are characteristic. Ground cover is predominantly soft spinifex, Plectrachne spp. and Triodia pungens, with Melaleuca glomerata, Acacia spp. and other shrubs. The areas around the colonies are typified by a tight mosaic of different vegetative generative stages, brought about by the deliberate lighting of 'cool' low intensity winter fires. This fire pattern is considered to produce conditions of food supply and cover essential to the animal's survival. The centres of activity of the colonies are unburnt stands of spinifex of 0.5-0.8 sq. km, adjacent recently burnt patches are heavily used for foraging, as regrowths tends to be succulent and nutritious. Elsewhere the region 15 is subject to extensive hot summer fires started by lightning which cause almost total destruction of vegetation and would almost certainly wipe out any colonies in their path (1). Appears exclusively vegetarian; has a ruminant-like digestion, with a stomach adapted to a high-fibre diet (2). Feeds on spinifex seeds, sedges and perennial shrubs, the exact composition depending on season (1). It is nocturnal, resting in the day in forms hidden under bushes or in spinifex clumps (1,6), in summer short burrows up to 700 mm deep may be dug (2). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Bolton and Latz conclude from their 1978 study of the Tanami Desert population that changes in the fire regime this century may have been a principal factor in the population decline (1). Small scale, carefully controlled fire was very extensively used by nomadic Aborigines for a variety of purposes and would have resulted in large areas of habitat suitable for the species. Since the 1930s such firing has been reduced to negligible proportions with the congregation of Aborigines into settlements and missions. This has led to vegetative conditions developing which allow the establishment of wide-ranging ‘hot' summer fires started by lightning. These are now common and have destroyed the Hare-wallaby!s habitat over much of its range (1). The effect of introduced animals is difficult to guage. Foxes and cattle are mainly absent from the Tanami Desert and also from large areas of inland Western Australia. Feral cats are as common around the two colonies as they are elsewhere and it is thought likely that Hare-wallabies are largely able to elude them. Heavy rabbit infestations are liable to exclude the wallaby through general habitat deterioration but large areas of uninfested habitat still occur (1). The populations on Bernier and Dorre, although apparently secure at present (1981), are potentially very vulnerable to fire or the introduction of foxes, cats or rabbits (6). The vegetation on Bernier was formerly subject to damage from a feral goat population but an intensive eradication programme has alleviated this and allowed recovery of affected areas to begin (7). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products therefore being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Legally protected and appears on the Official List of Endangered Australian Verbetrate Fauna. The mainland colonies are in a desert wildlife sanctuary, where habitat is managed by controlled burning (2). Bernier and Dorre Islands are class 'A' faunal reserves with strictly controlled access (1,7). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Continued management and protection of the areas where it occurs are essential for the species’ survival. Any other areas where relict populations may be discovered should be afforded immediate protection. Reintroduction to suitable fire-managed areas using captive bred stock is planned (2). CAPTIVE BREEDING Five specimens were collected in the Tanami Desert during 1980 to establish a captive breeding colony at the Arid Zone Research Insitute of the Northern Territory Conservation Commission at Alice Springs (4). REMARKS For description see (8). The common name used here is that recommended by the Australian Mammal Society in 1980; the animal is also known the Western Hare-wallaby. This data sheet was compiled from a draft provided in 1978 by Dr A.A. Burbidge, Western Australian Wildlife Research Centre. REFERENCES 1. Bolton, B.L. and Latz, P.K. (1978). The Western Hare-Wallaby, Lagorchestes hirsutus (Gould) (Macropodidae), in the Tanami Desert. Aust. Wildl. Res. 5: 285-93. Burbidge, A.A. and Johnson, K.A. (no date). Lagorchestes hirsutus, Mala. Draft entry for 'Mammals of Australia’. Unpd. 4pp. Finlayson, H.H. (1961). On Central Australian mammals Part IV. The distribution and status of Central Australian species. Rec. S. Aust. Mus. 14: 141-191. George, G.G. (1981). In litt. Prince, R.I.T. (1978). Pers. comm. to A.A. Burbidge. Ride, W.D.L. and Tyndale-Biscoe, C.H. (1962). Mammals. In Fraser, A.J. (Ed.). The results of an expedition to Bernier and Dorre Islands, Shark bay, Western Australia in 1959. West. Australian Fisheries Dept. Fauna Bull. 2: 54-97. Robinson, A.C., Robinson, J.F.,. Watts, C.H.S: “and Baverstock, P.R. (1976). The Shark Bay Mouse Pseudomys praeconis and other mammals on Bernier Island, Western Australia. Western Australian Naturalist. 13 (7): 149-155. Troughton, E. (1941). Furred animals of Australia. Angus and Robertson Ltd. Sydney. te ie itn a cesenreipeaiansask taenaebaathis i) atten i] ay iB ons WAS germane baeeis te mS rber labs crarratye yates opie mn Lott eliste ve ptnele th i. Aoneats excltivelg vegetart pee aed ahhdihires tt unathontedit) Lettres D ri Shee Oe oe retest veiey weet Met ybte wend: den eens’ zutars he ratpddnaeinn ot De hbo © Ny Sa nominal, Hebel: bGk-iey Ot ipa atebiteg a sy ian siege tabicy i deewerner stort Gucrdwscpihll BOs WED haga: (3D ie iL wybitnedl A.A of «amon .2199 «(BVEL). TLS ponina se er ott oa sari: VALS) .aeciiest: wip? edb Ah; Wi pai weivat si ¢ 2 thins cbanitibageasomao enueatdeites (nahi, BORSA nl ns paeate wi re enge erares Wh shed cited § pte cpbat) eo hag alles enirol Me-Beess aerenber Ego) saranda, ety Pits i seas erty atte Davl.be Anemos | Pe eae “moe Tom YR Spree Booher ew aie dint CniTiry(anee). awe) ptenasero t66l rats gligtile rig ht ‘Qe qssin wed! dooelgmerminy a ediol dane wf: mera rep % ate IT re! tt PL ate et ell wir eagiagdor Wintes Wo pened: “ent i \ 9 water A. ¢ ho tinct 59; a RGR Ce gnotlguonls <8 re me me H aye ee OM oy. peetaest Ay Tats hi: abybeh ver tes ny Noa wo bak dS hasptinis Yojtt ‘ad ities bi , d anacnig oo & t 6 ye 4 a he { > oti Sea ‘ fy i bay be - e” ed Nicin * “iy =< ate + ns 4 } \y + aon” an) »F (RA 4 p vad . oF ” i? = | italAy Fr : i ‘een? % Pees: Ere je =a Ce 4 ne Vk Ro ek * u - a é wt Ze ets - ou ~ rs ‘ 7. e ' = Aa se a dis ‘hs, tx pes = = ny i ys 9 See eg ata ee A Hs ‘ a iY Pe ir 1 79) 1 * A vs esa ‘ 4 et S — kaa @ ath % ; i ‘ " we a ite Mates” 1s ee, mec ’ rc he ; * bi . > > - 7 J f ny by peste uaecl | ie bale A f f * hie vit, 4 60; the nally it Saat a hy Mar) tex! fay i cing role ty ‘AP th Are rans NA: St : - . Fe Sscarcn Be Sagi ri i cak eae 3 pm a 4 pepaates. ey : Ri ceaiok EASTERN HARE-WALLABY EXTINCT Lagorchestes leporides (Gould, 1841) Order MARSUPIALIA Family MACROPODIDAE SUMMARY Almost certainly extinct. Formerly occurred in southeastern Australia where declined rapidly following European settlement, the last known specimen being taken in 1890. DISTRIBUTION Australia, where formerly occurred in interior New South Wales, eastern South Australia and northwestern Victoria (3,4). In the 19th century Gould recorded it in the Liverpool! Plains and in the vicinity of the Namoi and Gwydir Rivers. He also found it tolerably abundant on grassy plains in the region of the Murray (1). The species then apparently declined rapidly throughout its range and the last known specimen was taken in 1890, 30 miles north of Booligal, New South Wales (3). POPULATION Probably extinct. Unrecorded for 90 years. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY 19th century observers found it to be generally solitary and nocturnal, resting under a bush in a 'form' during the day (1,4). Gould commented on its great speed and jumping ability when pursued (1). Diet and breeding biology are unknown, though Krefft in 1865 noted that individuals lived guite well on a diet of biscuits, bread and boiled rice when kept about the camp in the bush (4): THREATS TO SURVIVAL The specific causes of its presumed extinction are unknown, though its former range was in a part of Australia which had already been extensively cleared and settled by the mid-l9th century and it was undoubtedly affected by this and the introduction of exotic wild herbivores (principally rabbits) and predators (mostly feral cats at that time)(2). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Appears on the Official, List of Australian Endangered Vertebrate Fauna. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Immediate effective protection of any area found to hold a population of this species. CAPTIVE BREEDING None. REMARKS For description see (3). REFERENCES 1. Gould, J. (1863). The Mammals of Australia. Taylor and Francis, London. 2. Ovington, D. (1978) Australian Endangered Species. Cassell, Australia. 3. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford Univ. Press, Melbourne. 4, Troughton, E. (1941). Furred animals of Australia. Angus and Robertson Ltd. Sydney. 19 mae ss t “TOREPAA 2 a4 : % yo I Wee T , if) ee l 7 Ye aut rah : eo de, | he, ACHES PAGS) 20br aie . (> * BAGIOIORDAN — Ylitist SS wy , ; alatéesiiee ol perTia3e ont : 2Gnitxe gliders seblata i worn Jeai oy yinsmolise:' aesanye giiwotint elorgay vsttiosn -sisdw : ce ORR! a Sg s. tebe as ane ‘ (yeblew rifuce ane ‘Orme nl B71 NIMC! row silane A, Vinines ef or ab. (48) cate mateswnypoer bus 6) BYTEO AL pas ice ax lo yrinisiy strap ane enislt looqisv\ sen) & Melgst ons Al ening yreorg wo *nebsveds. yldarsior- 1 bmwot< odin on iat 2 ra ati Tuedguort \bbiqat boniloeb' yLinotaggs risitt pat tage ont. AN va ell RRS 28 pen zalim O© (0 nea a Healey 28) terioage Awordl sagh At)aaiae - ’ Ri ~ho J de alla mee eh Den, bP 41851 DE FOE habsosent vanities Gidea eue eileiar od-a2 i Mniot Bisvised> Ywiess WIT YooOsOoS a SBS AY, 1) es ofr ghiveD tol" s fi Reud 6 yebeu grisea laSOReR One 261Gb. Ai) Dewewg neiw Yrilida griquny| bas Deoge teeny ert me “bevil eleubivipnd hrs poten LOSE Ri aNetA dyuarte’ wwor rahi Te pels ea at gies ot Tuods ei fstiw si} peliod ont baer 2rivs2ie t 710 Li lis, : 7 oy ia si = =) se gol oaime bamuelt ar) Yo ésewar sttioage erie a3 HV HUR on ybseuls bet Haidw-silevievA Yo teq.a ri caw pgrs7 ‘ono! Gi Hau E eew di ban ywinen drel-binecenr ya belies pos osieslS tov Septovitnod baw. citexs, lo Mmpitsupotiny om) ona eit yd Sarsetp toe iy daria’ lady 12 eta ssh viteom) ertsbotg Drie eal j sf aailutreu ig rilslotiO a ne 27H v aK Az" easy) eA nav nants Say : shes : eae STR casa “uts te tohetorg S¥id>ets sraibomm) Ga2090HF 235 PAAM oe . 2G s5q8 ei ia Rolse. 3 - f A re ry » . aa Mae Gao meee 91) id “amen = “pas Sota ileviouh 6. sieeve ait] " (b381) a ohieD, : : Z : oonoT- ane yi é en =G. motynivo VS | " sileneuA fisega . MUA Eee ee Acoma guireit 07:03 ¢ =) ya raadien BANDED HARE-W ALLABY RARE Lagostrophus fasciatus (Péron, 1807) Order MARSUPIALIA Family MACROPODIDAE SUMMARY Almost certainly extinct on mainland Australia but good populations survive on Bernier and Dorre Islands off Western Australia. These are, however, potentially vulnerable to introduced predators or fire. A_ reintroduction programme was begun on Dirk Hartog Island in 1974. DISTRIBUTION Australia. Now confined as far as is known to Bernier and Dorre Islands (about 10,560 ha combined) in Shark Bay, Western Australia, and the nearby Dirk Hartog Island (about 62,000 ha), where a reintroduction programme was begun in 1974 (1,4). Recent records have all been confined to the southwest of Western Australia (A.A. Burbidge, In litt., 1981); an early record for South Australia is unsubstantiated by any specimen but remains of the the species have been found in deposits at an Aboriginal site on the lower Murray River (3). POPULATION In 1959 Bernier and Dorre Islands were found to support a large, stable population; it being the most abundant species on the islands (4). Absolute population levels have not been measured but the relative numbers of this and the other two macropod species present there, the Rufous Hare-wallaby, (Lagorchestes hirsutus) and the Boodie (Bettongia lesueur) (both in the Red Data Book) have appeared to fluctuate on succeeding visits to the islands - an expedition to Bernier in 1975 did not observe the Banded Hare-wallaby at all (4,5). This may reflect different emphasis on the species! preferred habitats by different investigators rather than real changes in abundance - the 1975 expedition examined very little of the Banded Hare-wallaby's preferred tall scrub habitat (5). Numbers at present on Dirk Hartog Island following the release of animals in 1977 are unknown. The species was formerly abundant there but became extinct around 1920 (1). On the mainland it was still abundant in some localities (e.g. near Pingelly and Wagin) in the early 1900s but apparently disappeared shortly afterwards, the last mainland specimen being taken in 1906 (3). Troughton in 1941 stated that it was said to occur at that time in a few isolated localities in southern Western Australia, east of the Great Southern Railway, but there has been no confirmation of this (3,6). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY On Bernier and Dorre the species was found to be nocturnal, sheltering during the day, often several together, under low divaricating shrubs of Acacia coriacea, Diplolaena dampieri, Pileanthus lirnacis and Eucalyptus spp. At night large numbers moved into Spinifex tussocks 5 of the coastal sand dunes to feed, diet consisting mainly of Spinifex and Eulalia. Single pouch young were found at any time from February to August, there being little indication of a definite breeding season. There is heavy juvenile mortality - partially through predation by owls, hawks and goannas (Varanus) - but adult mortality is low, leading to an apparently stable population structure (2,4). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Clearance of native vegetation for agriculture was undoubtedly one of the major factors in its extinction on the mainland. It may only ever have been locally abundant and its apparent dependence on thick scrub would make it especially vulnerable to bush clearing (3,6). It also appears intolerant of competition with introduced herbivores such as sheep and rabbits. On Dirk Hartog Island it rapidly disappeared from areas used for sheep grazing, persisting longest in the ungrazed northern region (1). The rapid spread of predators such as foxes and feral cats in the early 1900s would certainly have 21 accelerated its extinction on the mainland. The populations on Bernier and Dorre, although thought to be stable at present, are potentially very vulnerable to fire or the accidental introduction of foxes, cats or rabbits (4). An intensive programme to eradicate the formerly large feral goat population on Bernier has alleviated a major threat to the ecology of the island and allowed recovery of the natural vegetation to commence in areas that had suffered damage (5). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix |! of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products therefore being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Appears on the Official List of Endangered Australian Vertebrate Fauna. Protected under Western Australian law and Bernier and Dorre Islands are class 'A' fauna reserves with strictly controlled access. In 1974 a programme to reintroduce the species to Dirk Hartog Island was begun with the release of |! adults and 6 pouch young into pens on the island. These had increased to 33 adults and 3 young by December 1976 and the first release into the wild took place in May 1977 (1). A bounty system to eradicate goats on the island was began in the early 1970s with 800 killed in two years and attempts to reduce the feral cat population by poisoning were also undertaken with unknown success. The island is still used as a sheep station, though only the southern two-thirds is stocked and the number of sheep in 1972 was down to 4000, normal numbers in the past being !0,000-11,000 (1). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Continued protection of the islands where the wallaby occurs is an essential prerequisite for its long-term survival (4). Further reintroduction programmes to suitable areas are strongly recommended to mitigate against the possibility of the species being exterminated by any drastic changes occurring in its present very limited range. CAPTIVE BREEDING Does not appear to be held in any zoo at present. The 1959 expedition to Bernier and Dorre Islands found them very nervous and prone to damage themselves on fencing when penned (4), though the reintroduction programme on Dirk Hartog Island has evidently had considerable breeding success with animals in enclosures (1). REMARKS For description see (3). This data sheet was compiled from a draft provided in 1978 by Dr A.A. Burbidge, Western Australian Wildlife Research Centre, who also in 1981 kindly commented on the final draft. REFERENCES 1. Burbidge, A.A. and Fuller, P.J. (1979). The flora and fauna of Dirk Hartog Island, Western Australia. J.R. Soc. West. Aust. 60: 71-90. 2. Hughes, R.D. (1965). On the age composition of a small sample of individuals from a population of the Banded Hare Wallaby, Lagostrophus fasciatus (Peron & Lesueur). Aust. J. Zool. 13: 75-95. 3. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. 4, Ride, W.D.L. and Tyndale-Biscoe, C.H. (1962). Mammals. In Fraser, A.J. (Ed.), The results of an expedition to Bernier and Dorre Islands, Shark bay, Western Australia in 1959. West. Australian Fisheries Dept. Fauna Bull. 2: 54-97. 5. Robinson, A.C., Robinson, J.F., Watts, C.H.S. and Baverstock, P.R. (1976). The Shark Bay Mouse Pseudomys praeconis and other mammals on Bernier Island, Western Australia. West. Australian Naturalist. 13 (7): 149-155. 6. Troughton, E. (1941). Furred animals of Australia. Angus and Robertson Ltd. Sydney. 22 PROSERPINE ROCK-WALLABY RARE Petrogale sp. nova Order MARSUPIALIA Family MACROPODIDAE SUMMARY Discovered in 1976 in a small area of northeastern Australia. Surveys to determine the extent of distribution of the species and measures to conserve the known population are urgently required. DISTRIBUTION Australia, where only known from the Proserpine area on the east Queensland coast (2). It may be a relict species of limited distribution (2). POPULATION Total numbers unknown, though almost certainly low on account of the apparently small size of its range. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Occupies closed forest over rocky outcrops (2). THREATS TO SURVIVAL At risk because of its very limited distribution. CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Legally protected (1), and appears on the Official List of Endangered Australian Vertebrate Fauna. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Effective protection of the limited area in which the species is presently known to occur is the most urgent requirement (1). Surveys to determine its status and extent of distribution and to formulate more detailed conservation measures are recommended. CAPTIVE BREEDING No information. REMARKS The species was identified in 1976 during a comprehensive study of the distribution, habitat and taxonomy of rock wallabies (Petrogale spp. and Peradorcas concinna) undertaken by Professor G.B. Sharman and colleagues at Macquarie University (1,2). On cytological criteria it appears to be most closely related to Rothschild's Rock Wallaby (Petrogale rothschildi) from the Pilbara region of Western Australia and the widespread but uncommon Yellow-footed Rock Wallaby (Petrogale xanthopus) (2). REFERENCES 1. Anon. (1979). New Rock-wallaby species in Queensland. Wildl, Preservation Soc. of Queensland Newsletter 69: 2. 2. Poole, W.E. (1979). The status of the Australian Macropodidae. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal. Zool. Soc. S. Aust. 23 is : - “ah ‘ * J oT Cats wn if Tie Ase } . ae & Ginter bt Sas ai OE any ot Es Peithy # : é ; 1./€h Ese 4 ; ore ii +7 e ‘ : Ps “~ 4 ay® A > = ~¢ e 7 ee ADR SOA fil wih) - earl x ter : | ; , he . fhe ae ; eas ere syne em eregtn Pe = rm awe legen nari very pote a yt adc tee tellin et wih eee ee . a xe z é ay iu? i tbe as vy: rae enc 159 5. Re 22 ™ 6 Haag: its ’ re ¢. 7. ‘Scr f 1 \, = = % TESLA 4 ee DINE ts oia_toreeagiodiy? Riot Agios = er \ at pu Saocaats spe r 4 ) De PUP yeya ery OF) TO 6S -Ooimveee C4 » 96 ; (% f2+>.. ted tla: by ty i y ; ' ~ | ROMO AG pie NOD SMES IT IRS Se torn: 3 a =. “i + +s o a4 we Gas RE fs 3) eg @iuo hoo md oT pater bo} ais 5 as -.™ a . ; i: 'F Fag ¢ ‘ ¥ ‘oTin 4 ? e Die 4h) bet: yar +94 vile gs q ~ ee: 64 stawioissy 1 5 st ‘ ele ‘ » 9 ‘4 , * rae Pomgte tcl ia; e fatale Pei , - + 5 LAB Mies $29 ag eeiisel nite 9d Bak HAASE LAG Pi yo = in aye anton Sy ee os ey Sify Pi THIDO LO? MRO Khaste wm. 2)... 82 icici ‘St ee ren Seimei lo thet bes euTet2 ei ooimamash oe: pxo Tue a a a 7 ti x; iM: eer ae MMI" aie BO4AELS i GOMAVISEN LY bel shonin wa : ; ? 3 . ; ih 7 Pee ie a) othe ey “ae! Pict. &3 4 : ‘ * fIOg Aatr: 94s az > head § ba a a «op A abel tee , : ; r atia . hotfid Vive 4 ye , ; art tol Bete egge elagoys 9} ) sectigiion, “00. ler onenoxs er Rain gd: ~*. = ~ 26 ord. ¥¢ nerter vo! 6 -Pereou i Fy Data ies pris | 4. oT ca i > ip: Pe golc give no As,4) 7 r : - * [5 Red mmkiliplix ole: aa oe re 2 ae te en RRS welie Y soemmoany td nage a oe bseee daar Ws} bs sous) Rime oe eS ME 28:59Qe RPA > AGS oA be Meee FI bBiy ae bi one WiFaiaws A paper 3 jp rant net emmoeent Alabine \bee > “KnilaxtguA Sa to -aiedes: Br, NED Sg a aod t=: aT. 38 zwiate off LbRbetebeM ¢ GelyT Al Lamba eqewehs pget t leweh)y ah iNAd wt ¢ famecheniaus & ries at SRA G «Dee spol TAN (rade aw es stint Alert is alse UAL a ed ae cides | DORIA'S TREE-KANGAROO VULNERABLE Dendrolagus dorianus notatus Matschie, 1916 Order MARSUPIALIA Family MACROPODIDAE SUMMARY Still fairly common in central highlands of New Guinea although subject to strong hunting pressure. Legally protected in Irian Jaya but not in Papua New Guinea; reserves are recommended as is some form of contro! on traditional hunting. DISTRIBUTION New Guinea, where found above 2400 m in the central highlands of Papua New Guinea, extending westwards to those of Irian Jaya (2). POPULATION Numbers unknown. Still relatively abundant but declining under hunting pressure, especially on the lower and more accessible mountain slopes (2). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Montane and lower montane forest (2). Dendrolagus spp. are arboreal and predominantly nocturnal herbivores. Gestation period of the congeneric D. matschiei has been noted as 32 days in captivity with an average litter size of one (4). THREATS TO SURVIVAL It is very vulnerable to traditional hunting techniques using dogs. Depletion of game on the lower slopes is expected to lead to increased hunting pressure on once secure remote populations. Montane and lower montane forest in the central highlands has been, and continues to be, exploited for timber in areas where road access to a mill site is possible. However, suitable habitat still exists on ridges, mountain tops and steep slopes which would be difficult to exploit commercially and it is believed that decline due to hunting overrides that caused by habitat loss at present (2). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN None in Papua New Guinea (2). Legally protected in Irian Jaya (6). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Extension of the proposed Mt. Wilhelm National Park to include montane and lower montane forest would safeguard one population, as long as hunting within the park were controlled. Further protection of habitat on remote mountain peaks is also advocated, as is some control or restriction on traditional hunting e.g. limitation on taking females with pouch young or young at heel may be feasible (viz. restriction which already applies (1978) to taking of female Birds of Paradise in some areas ). Such measures would need to be supported by an extensive public education programme and be initiated and policed at local government level (2). CAPTIVE BREEDING A captive breeding colony at Baiyer River Sanctuary, Papua New Guinea, although having initial difficulties was reported in 1981 as having been more successsful in recent years (3). In 1978 it held 7 males and 11 females, of which | male and 9 females were captive bred. 19 individuals of D. dorianus (subspecies not known) were recorded held in zoos outside Papua New Guinea, of which 7 were bred in captivity (5). REMARKS For description see (1). The nominate subspecies D. d. dorianus occurs in the Owen Stanley Range in southeast Papua New Guinea, apparently at lower altitudes than D. d. notatus and may be sympatric with D. goodfellowi. Its status is unknown though it is thought unlikely to be under the same pressures as D. d. notatus (2). Populations in the mid-mountain regions of the Morobe and 25 Southern Highlands Provinces are intermediate between D. d. dorianus and D. d. notatus and appear to occupy an intermediate altitudinal range (4). This data sheet was compiled from a draft very kindly provided in 1978 by Graeme G. George, Director of the Sir Colin MacKenzie Fauna Park, Victoria, Australia. RERERENCES. «ls De 26 George, G.G. (1977). Up a tree with kangaroos. Animal Kingdom. May 1977. George, G.G. (1979). The status of endangered Papua New Guinea mammals. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The Status of endangered Australasian Wildlife. Roy. Zool. Soc. S. Aust. George, G.G. (1981). In litt. Olds, T.J. and Collins, L.R. (1973). Breeding Matschie's Tree Kangaroo (Dendrolagus matschiei) in captivity. In Duplaix-Hall, N. (Ed.), International Zoo Yearbook 13. Zool. Soc. London. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1979). International Zoo Yearbook 19. Zool. Soc. London. Indonesian Directorate of Nature Conservation and Wildlife Management. (1981). Appendix 3, CITES Report, 1980. GOODFELLOW'S TREE-KANGAROO VULNERABLE Dendrolagus goodfellowi shawmayeri Rothschild & Dollman, 1936 Order MARSUPIALIA Family MACROPODIDAE SUMMARY Still fairly widely distributed on forested slopes in Papua New Guinea but many populations have been seriously depleted through overhunting and others are expected to suffer similarly in the future. Reserves and control of hunting are advocated. DISTRIBUTION Papua New Guinea, where found at altitudes of 1200 to 2750 m on the northern slopes of the central cordillera and the northern and southern slopes of the Owen Stanley Range in the southeast (1). POPULATION Numbers unknown but has declined markedly since European settlement in the central highlands where former populations in the Kratke Ranges and the Sepik-Wahgi Divide have been considerably reduced or exterminated by hunting over the past 50 years. In 1977 it was reported as still relatively common in the remote and unsettled parts of its range in the northwest and southeast but populations here were also expected to decline (1). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Lower montane oak (Castanopsis) and beech (Nothofagus) forest, usually on rugged terrain. This rugged habitat may not be the preferred one and it is likely that populations on more accessible, less steep Slopes were exterminated prior to European settlement (1). Dendrolagus spp. are predominantly arboreal and nocturnal herbivores; gestation period of the congener D. matschiei has been measured at 32 days in captivity, with an average litter size of one (2). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Very vulnerable to hunting and is considered a prime game species. As traditional hunting extends to more remote areas and hunting with modern weapons increases, decline of formerly secure populations is expected. Suitable habitat in rugged areas is at present in little danger from agriculture or forestry, and habitat loss is not considered to be a significant factor in the current decline (1). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN None. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Reservation of suitable habitat and control of hunting to manage existing populations are necesssary. Reintroduction to accessible and secure national parks would be worthwhile to generate public support for conservation and the acceptance of management programmes in traditional hunting areas (1). CAPTIVE BREEDING A captive breeding population has been successfully established at the Baiyer River Sanctuary in the central highlands of Papua New Guinea. In 1978 this held 9 males and 12 females (4 males and 7 females bred in captivity). Outside New Guinea, 37 were reported from 13 collections in 1979, of which 12 had been bred in captivity (3). REMARKS For description see (4). The taxonomy of the species requires clarification. The nominate form D. g. goodfellowi is only known from the type specimen collected at 2400 m on Mt. Obree in the Owen Stanley Range before 1908. This differs from the widespread D. g. shawmayeri and may be an aberrant individual; specimens from the lower parts of the Owen Stanley Range are 27 referable to D. g. shawmayeri. D. spadix recorded from the remote lowland rainforest in the hinterland of the Gulf of Papua is probably also a subspecies of D. goodfellowi (1). Very few specimens have been collected and its status is unknown (1). This data sheet was compiled from a draft very kindly provided in 1978 by Graeme G. George, Director of the Sir Colin Mackenzie Fauna Park, Victoria, Australia. REFERENCES 1. George, G.G. (1979). The status of endangered Papua New Guinea mammals. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The Status of endangered Australasian Wildlife. Roy. Zool. Soc. S. Aust. 2. Olds, T.J. and Collins, L.R. (1973). Breeding Matschie's Tree Kangaroo (Dendrolagus matschiei) in captivity. In Duplaix-Hall, N. (Ed.), International Zoo Yearbook 13. Zool. Soc. London. 3. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1979). International Zoo Yearbook 19. Zool. Soc. London. 4. Walker, E.P. (1975). Mammals of the World. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. 28 BLACK DORCOPSIS WALLABY RARE Dorcopsis atrata Van Deusen, 1957 Order MARSUPIALIA Family MACROPODIDAE SUMMARY Endemic, as far as is known, to one island off eastern Papua New Guinea. Collected on only one occasion, in 1953; subject to hunting pressure. Surveys needed. DISTRIBUTION Known only from Goodenough Island (about 36 by 74 km), Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea. Could possibly also occur on the neighbouring islands of Fergusson and Normanby but this is unconfirmed (2). POPULATION Unknown but considered rare (1). Known only from seven skins and skulls, three skulls and 76 trophy mandibles (purchased from local hunters) collected during the Fourth Archbold Expedition to New Guinea in 1953 (2). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Recorded from mid-montane forests of oaks and Castanopsis spp. between 900 and 1600 m. Probably also ranges into more open Nothofagus forest between 1600 and 1800 m and may move into mixed rainforest below 900 m to feed although there was no evidence of this (2). Indications are it may be diurnal as all specimens were obtained with dogs during the day but were not seen during nocturnal spotlight collecting (2). THREATS TO SURVIVAL The species is considered at risk because of its very limited range and its size, which places it in the game species category - 90% of all known specimens were obtained from local hunters in 1953, though the extent of hunting pressure at present and its effect on the population is not known (1,2). Although most of the lowland rainforest had already been converted to secondary grassland by 1953, the montane forest which appears to be the species' prime habitat is on rugged terrain generally unsuitable for logging (1,2). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN None. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED A faunal survey of Goodenough to obtain more information on distribution, present population size and trends (1). CAPTIVE BREEDING None. REMARKS For description see (2). The species forms an interesting link between the mountain-dwelling Dorcopsulus and the lowland Dorcopsis species of mainland New Guinea (1). This data sheet was compiled from a draft very kindly provided in 1978 by Graeme G. George, Director of the Sir Colin Mackenzie Fauna Park, Victoria, Australia. REFERENCES 1. George, G.G. (1979). The status of endangered Papua New Guinea mammals. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The Status of endangered Australasian Wildlife. Roy. Zool. Soc. S. Aust. 2. Van Deusen, H.M. (1957). Results of the Archbold Expeditions No. 76. A new species of wallaby (Genus Dorcopsis) from Goodenough Island, Papua. Am. Mus. Nov. 1826. 29 en) Ph Somat atte ast ati t whey SECPEDD ' 5 Fe fzaod © ; ees Ona A yee ail F Re ae {°gA S de +) i - Jbné 2x60 16.2329 401 sranoditim” moyl Q2019029 “age Swi oA ‘eaee ar pela yidsoo4 ‘en VOo i reg Laley | Oxi or ait ; vt ths i, OORL tris eh ti S15. SCNT wate t: ak, S} eu O95 aS dat ‘ ew fud yab ent gniw e die banierde » z rw. x 6 ie 4 Cn me | ae 2 ‘ino : aN, 4 tS ; bbs 3 sali At : ee ; f th, ow ‘> ORD tee! lady: % ot RS ati 0 saudoad wen is barst Mieriod 21 e5i59qr ne s¢ < Sis oe ete ~ ee gyi bs ON. Sgt NES om nl Ji #9356 iG, foikw yesh ent te marx eni7 fi query etey ai esos ‘apt movi bedisigacm Now fe. 3% aorta! Son 2) moitelicog Si? no toate ¢e1 iunioes Tiebaons: | of bediavaas «ond yb: cota bar teoiellsy bi - garg ‘teinege ot? od. aed daliiw Testor stielnom st EXP 7 a ' rat a e ' ae ob cipal ol sidetiven “een ; { ¥ - 1 : 1 wt i his es | e 145 - : ; 7 ce gen, WAAAT . salenee marrage weeiye a ee 7 ie t 7 ‘s F ae + Gt, MgorebacD to gevane lamusl A d82090 > Binatoed YO segeuml spateyot th 9'Q 881) MbibethL.aVeeioiahl tor ial ores Gam easHOTPA. ¢ ene; CS) PTHsOrrpssns snohged. BOG: sino hs 2 Facet Wer soe! Salts a Taivenien “thd ti ABR yD 9 O29 wl dune Wadd gee (ise tthe grt 0h REIN mlomnes - Sole!” Seoehyth ots Fe pro iad foe in peter prescriptions: wae Shige, Fate teen chet 1h BATE te Wh Late! Ee ' in WA. etd on At 7 ee cs sunbes Pie hens ore: 2. A: ; ; eects a4 7 mY, . ‘CONSERVA THON CML AgtARE BROPOS At Ger petbions eet tions At Avex Or SULTAGIG JOrRET Neecs TH be Geez 45 Ti+ Bae fqyeren coe rte = Fts wonaer vial ie aeahoiot ) De rape: sot Ey SP eynordinn tee : on ao LiN i St Leet 40u 4 & are heolter (6 deve: Da ret i. . « cunehy . : : ; oe — RGerermeis anc * erie, of ‘bie sperohs Bae boaie (Tut snes r ; | Lie As ae ; ROG, neha ee a) fi Ven 0 oi ys ae ie bie aa "taVe BARE ban ma CA Hes fiotive ‘Pterd, ny cohony ‘Me i ngs right eth. at , Cte: orien the Wupervision of Wie he | Fisheries and Whi \ i ‘deriv ey) {ho m! ee Fh his: aye igh wh Hates canghs rhe | wie: iv tper aps pPaetwert ay is anit Se if (R72. Petanen Nowetnber 1979 aie are Bake Greedines of Te: 6 sie PARLE aaa) er alsepr ing aig tne third se Fs pee AS Chee: ee oe ei: ead « “min AER Ae ol iyiayh NSE) the AbeKK qe T wiideraugehe anasto ere we stachawecpaets part fred Sp awt and hi “Sex title tins lte tht We dibs oh ni sy Witee. Tie CRRIOYS Te the Rear Suter a trae Nfagality. ox — i Cuidens whe arta j Pte tie ina otee tte wilde iaigh? tpeteicn tt ke, meee sec tthe b gamantsl iets; dphiiee i> oa el Ape, hots, xt ones f Bi ae sae i hy rary F he 1 At! 4, NORTHERN HAIRY-NOSED WOMBAT ENDANGERED Lasiorhinus krefftii (Owen, 1972) Order MARSUPIALIA Family VOMBATIDAE SUMMARY Confined, as far as is known, to a single colony in northeast Australia, part of which is in a national park. Habitat is very sensitive to damage by cattle, especially during droughts, and this has been a major threat to the colony. From 198! onwards, however, no cattle grazing will be allowed in the colony area though the species continues to remain at risk because of its small numbers and very limited range. DISTRIBUTION Australia. The only known surviving population is in an area of about 15.5 sq. km on Epping Forest and Waltham Stations, approximately 130 km northwest of Clermont in mid-eastern Queensland (1,3). Formerly also recorded from two other widely separated localities in the semi-arid interior of eastern Australia: one, at Deniliquin, southern New South Wales was discovered in 1884 and exterminated by 1909; the second on Bullamon Station on the Moonie River, southern Queensland, is known only from the original three specimens collected there before 1891 although there were unconfirmed sightings of wombats over a relatively extensive area there in the early 1960s and they may thus possibly still survive (1,3,5,7). POPULATION Not known precisely. The Epping Forest and Waltham population is a single colony living in a system of just over 100 burrows, 60-70 of which normally show signs of occupation (1,3). The number of animals to a burrow, or burrows per animal, is unknown, though a report in 1979 stated that fewer than 40 individuals remained (4). In historic times the colony has withdrawn from about one quarter of its former range as estimated from abandoned and degraded outlying warrens (1,3). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Most of the occupied burrows at Epping Forest and Waltham are situated in semi-arid woodland (mixed Ecalyptus/Acacia) on the sides of a shallow sandy lens about 100 m wide in a clay plain. Burrow entrances are strengthened by roots of Bauhinia spp. and Bonoree (Heterodendron oleifolium) (1,3,6). Studies of the more widespread congeneric Lasiorhinus latifrons have shown that the genus is physiologically and behaviourally well adapted to an arid environment, remaining underground where the air is relatively humid during the day and concentrating waste products to lose a minimum of water in excretion (11,16). They are entirely vegetarian and can exist on very low protein, high fibre diets, possibly re-using waste urea, although abundant food is required at critical times of year for ovulation and lactation and they are very selective feeders in winter and spring (4,11). L. latifrons normally produces one young in late summer (11), and L. krefftii is probably similar. THREATS TO SURVIVAL L. krefftii has a relict distribution and was almost certainly already rare at the time of European settlement. Its present restriction to a small and compact population makes it highly vulnerable to environmental disturbance. Vegetation around the colony was reported in 1978 as relatively stable, although was subject to low intensity cattle grazing, occasional! bushfires and small scale clearing (1,3). It was however noted that cattle damage could be much more serious during droughts and in late 1979 the wombats were said to be threatened by competition for food and damage caused by the cattle (4). Permits have allowed cattle grazing within the National Park (see below) as well as in that part of the colony area outside Park boundaries (3,12); however these were issued 57 to May 1981 only and have not been renewed (7). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora as Lasiorhinus gillespiei (see remarks), trade in it or its products therefore being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Totally protected under the Fauna Conservation Act of 1952 (6) and the Queensland Fauna Conservation Act of 1974 and is on the Official List of Australian Endangered Vertebrate Fauna. In addition an area of 2633 ha was declared the Epping Forest National Park in late 1971 to protect part of the colony (1,2), and in 1980, with the help of a grant from WWF-Autralia, a fence was constructed to exclude cattle from the whole colony area (7,12). This and the cessation of cattle grazing from May 1981 should alleviate the most immediate threat. There is no evidence of any hunting or trade in the species (5). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED It is noted that similarly sized and isolated colonies of the Southern Hairy-nosed Wombat (L. latifrons) can remain viable in times of drought if protected from undue competition from livestock and rabbits, the latter being absent from the Epping Forest area (1). A single colony will however always remain vulnerable to disease or other catastrophe and it may be desirable after studying the biology of the species to establish additional colonies in suitable areas (6). In 1981 WWF-Australia was approached to fund a project to study the species, the work to be carried out by the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service (7,12). Should colonies be found elsewhere protection would be required against habitat destruction from _ pastoral development and competition by livestock for food. CAPTIVE BREEDING No specimens of L. krefftii are known to have been kept in Captivity. REMARKS For description see (2,9,10). The Epping Forest and Deniliquin populations were originally known as Lasiorhinus barnardi, that from Moonie River as L. gillespiei. These have now been shown to be conspecific, and distinct from the Southern Hairy-nosed Wombat, L. latifrons, and the name L. krefftii has been resurrected as an available senior synonym (5,8). The common name is that recommended by the Australian Mammal Society. Dr. T.H. Kirkpatrick of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service very kindly commented on this data sheet. REFERENCES 1. Aitken, P. (1979). The status of endangered Australian wombats, bandicoots and the marsupial mole. In Tyler, M.3J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal. Zool. Soc. S. Aust. 2. Anon. (1977). Queensland Hairy-nosed Wombat, Mammals No.5 In Australian Endangered Species. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. 3. Anon. (1978). Going! Going! Wildlife in Australia 15(4): 131-132. 4. Anon. (1979). Cattle grazing threatens survival of rare wombat. The Times, Dec 18. 1979. No. 60,503. P.6. 5. Anon. (1980). Submission to CITES Secretariat on Lasiorhinus krefftii. Unpd. 3pp. 6. IUCN. (1972). Queensland Hairy-nosed Wombat. Sheet Code 2.11.2.1. In Red Data Book Vol. | Mammalia. IUCN, Switzerland. 7. Kirkpatrick, T.H. (1977-81). In litt. 8. Kirsch, J.A.W. and Calaby, J.H. (1977). The species of living marsupials, an annotated list. In Stonehouse, B. and 58 Is TZ. Gilmore, D. (Eds), Biology of Marsupials. MacMillan, Melbourne. Longman, H.A. (1939). A Central Queensland wombat. Mem. Quld. Mus. 11: 282-7. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Wells, R.T. (1978). Field observation of the hairy-nosed wombat Lasiorhinus latifrons (Owen). Aust. Wildl. Res. 5(3): 299-304. WWF Australia. (1980-81). Project 29. Conservation measures for the Queensland Hairy-nosed Wombat. WWF Australia Newsletter. 4: 1-2.; 6: 6. 59 we : “ - rata Hanan 06? joie ; sPaBsitin ! bel ala oats . esha A A Corry ae Ohad | Fane ’ aititiy tS Sve re + Spe ent are ee oe — patie n= ew’ , 1 poe THE Rye v : ‘puebiis Orie. SETS nce bet Hehe sea Abi W ty i pruaastint zc faa si ed 5 aM ‘tpn EA iy tle ge coe ni paleo ievees’ scsi titite Wakao LS roo ! i eh 7 oat bans = ra ass a : Vedio w Wasdieytisht “ln slerben0 acl Jot a RW wag ee pant ba add ele weave’ etpetae A ne teed 4 sided ot mathe ere teat ay “Toes ee * } ods pa t it Re < a 7 pi > -* i . a oll AT + j , ae eee { ; or" vie ee } 4 pei fie huey é ie ee i wir? Lu - yNatronal Perks pnd Kite Me Harvie Qe should colonbes ie * est ; 9 tae x b-¢ “eal . a Agu af. wre DES PCLITNG hivests j i: a Goal : ag : Me ket ¥ We pn = Ac . + 4a a A 4 ! ° oy 2 GAP LY: Fela ekivttnG ~hNa SO jes OT hw kre ; is e, is re ¥' ’ 4 5 yt oe ee a ea — ars o- - a a fc ; Ove 1S, Ls ea ; A ; \ er nena 4 way +7) ; s ie ¢ ay” Ata ‘ By Ree We] “ « ‘Poe dle airy : *) age) ¥ (ota oF ip i ‘- eT, hs ? ( fagutes ted. 46 20 avaldable-2en t. - Peieeerdet te -tne we , r Wie ale > “ Channon Ga tiontd ParksnnG we ot 4! *, ‘ ' ? i/o VTL DA ‘ r ' gS } 4 _ by 5 AB DE if I c ty esiis Sook: ai ; F vie « ts ) : Sart 2 ty tits ; eee Me + ied ey = 7? x PW eG idee Nags ees Pz - a Shaky NG a ABN Cates ewe ar? wre (I9PR). Gs i eS) eee id yi va 7 a i te oe Peet wit F Ss rahe ‘gwite at PIG-FOOTED BANDICOOT EXTINCT Chaeropus ecaudatus (Ogilby, 1838) Order MARSUPIALIA Family PERAMELIDAE SUMMARY Probably extinct. Last recorded as seen by Aborigines in the 1920s. If rediscovered the location should be given immediate and effective protection. DISTRIBUTION Australia, where formerly recorded from a few widely scattered localities in semi-arid areas between Alice Springs in the Northern Territory (about 21°S), the Gawler Ranges in South Australia, Northam in Western Australia, and the Murray - Darling river junction in New South Wales (3,5). Whether the distribution was restricted to isolated pockets within this range or was more continuous is unknown (1). POPULATION Unknown; probably extinct. The only confirmed specimen this century was one collected on the west bank of North Lake Eyre in 1907 (4,5). The most recent unconfirmed. records are of one killed but not preserved between Miller's Creek and Coward Springs southwest of Lake Eyre in 1920, recorded by Wood-Jones, and a skin seen by A.S. Le Souef in 1927 at Rawlinna in South Australia (5). The Pitjanjarra Aborigines told Finlayson that it had persisted in the Musgrave Ranges until about 1926 (2). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY § Spinifex grasslands, saltbush, acacia or mallee shrublands, or plains with humid or semi-arid woodlands. Predominantly nocturnal, though Wood Jones stated it was more diurnal than most bandicoots, and constructed nests of dry grass in open burrows 30 cm long (4,5,6,7). He also recorded it as omnivorous though Krefft considered it to be largely vegetarian and noted that it, unlike other bandicoots, did not attack rodents in captivity (6,7). Breeding was thought to occur mainly in winter (May-July) and two young seemed to be the norm (5,6). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Specific reasons for decline are unknown, though vegetation throughout much of its range has been drastically altered by stock grazing, rabbits and feral goats in settled areas and, to a lesser extent, by rabbits elsewhere. The entire range is also infested with introduced foxes and feral cats (1). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix 1! of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products therefore being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Totally protected by legislation, and appears on the Official List of Endangered Australian Vertebrate Fauna. Some national and state reserves occur within its former range. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Surveys beyond the areas of current pastoral exploitation to locate any relict colonies. Any areas found to hold populations of this species should be afforded immediate protection. CAPTIVE BREEDING None. REMARKS For description see (5,6,7). Contrary to its specific name it does in fact have quite a long tail. This data sheet was compiled from a draft provided in 1978 by Mr. Peter Aitken, Curator of Mammals, South Australian Museum. 61 REFERENCES 62 l. Aitken, P. (1979). The status of endangered Australian wombats, bandicoots and the Marsupial Mole. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal. Zool. Soc. S. Aust. Finlayson, H.H. (1961). On Central Australian mammals Part IV. The distribution and status of Central Australian species. Rec. S. Aust. Mus. 14: 141-191. Frith, H.J. (1973). Wildlife Conservation. Angus and Robertson, Sydney. McKenzie, J. (1907). In litt. Unpd. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Troughton, E. (1941). Furred animals of Australia. Angus and Robertson Ltd. Sydney. Wood Jones, F. (1923-25). The mammals of South Australia. The Government Printer, Adelaide. CLARA or WHITE-LIPPED BANDICOOT RARE Echymipera clara Stein, 1932 Order MARSUPIALIA Family PERAMELIDAE SUMMARY Lowland rainforest in New Guinea north of the central cordillera. A relict species and apparently naturally rare. Considered potentially vulnerable to hunting and habitat loss. Surveys needed as the basis for a conservation plan. DISTRIBUTION New Guinea where it is widely though sparsely distributed. All specimens have been collected north of the central cordillera: from Yapen (Yobi) Island, Geelvink Bay, the Idenburg River basin and Djayapura in Irian Jaya, and from the drainage basins of the Sepik and Ramu Rivers in northern Papua New Guinea (1,2). It is considered likely that the range extends into the drainage basins of the Mamberamo and Rouffer Rivers between Yapen and the Idenburg River in Irian Jaya (2). POPULATION Unknown but apparently rare. Known from a total of 31 museum specimens, the first collected in 1931 (1,2). The 15 specimens collected from Papua New Guinea are all trophy skulls and mandibles purchased from villagers and represent a very small percentage of the total numbers of bandicoots (mainly Echymipera kalubu and E. rufescens) collected by hunters in these areas (1). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Lowland rainforest below about 1200 m. According to local inhabitants it is terrestrial and nocturnal and part of its diet consists of the fruits of a Ficus sp. and a Pandanus sp. Exhibits relatively massive dentition development, especially of the canine; this would be necessary to feed on Pandanus fruits but could also indicate more carnivorous habits (1,2). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Appears to be a relict form which is naturally rare, probably because of competition from its more successful and abundant congeners. This natural rarity will make it particularly vulnerable to hunting - which is carried out with bows and arrows or trained dogs (12). Much of its known range is currently inaccessible to commercial logging but is subject to disturbance by traditional agricultural practices (1). Although secondary rainforest rapidly re-establishes there is no evidence that E. clara (unlike E. kalubu and E. rufescens) occurs in disturbed areas and it may require primary rainforest (1). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN None in Papua New Guinea (1). Not protected in Irian Jaya (4). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Surveys to determine accurately the distribution, status and ecology are required as the basis of an effective conservation plan (1). REMARKS For description see (3). This data sheet was compiled from a draft very kindly provided in 1978 by Graeme G. George, Director of the Sir Colin Mackenzie Fauna Park, Victoria, Australia. REFERENCES 1. George, G.G. (1979). The status of endangered Papua New Guinea mammals. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The Status of endangered Australasian Wildlife. Roy. Zool. Soc. S. Aust. 2. Van Deusen, H.M. (1966). Range and habit of the bandicoot, Echymipera clara, in New Guinea. J. Mammal. 47(4): 721-723. 63 64 Walker, E.P. (1975). Mammals of the World. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. Indonesian Directorate of Nature Conservation and Wildlife Management. (1981). Appendix 3, CITES Report, 1980. WESTERN BARRED BANDICOOT or MARL RARE Perameles bougainville Quoy & Gaimard, 1824 Order MARSUPIALIA Family PERAMELIDAE SUMMARY Now apparently confined to Bernier and Dorre Islands off Western Australia, being unrecorded on the Australian mainland since 1922. Population appears stable but must be considered potentially at risk due to its limited range. DISTRIBUTION Australia; only known populations are now on Bernier and Dorre Islands (about 10,560 ha combined) in Shark Bay, Western Australia (1,4,5). Formerly occurred across a broad belt of arid to semi-arid territory in southern Australia from the islands in Shark Bay through central South Australia, along the length of the Murray River in northwestern Victoria to the Liverpool Plains in eastern New South Wales; probably now extinct on the mainland (1,2). POPULATION The 1959 expedition to Bernier and Dorre described it as extremely common on Bernier and probably as abundant on Dorre (4). It was still present in 1975 but no estimates of abundance were given (5). Elsewhere it was said to have been common along the length of the Murray River around 1857 but to have become extinct there shortly afterwards, the last known specimen from New South Wales being taken in 1867 near the Murray-Darling river junction. The last museum specimen from mainland Western Australia was from Onslow in 1909, and from South Australia at Ooldea in 1922 (1,4,7), though Troughton in 1942 stated it still survived at that time in sub-desert western South Australia (6). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY On Bernier and Dorre Islands it inhabits typical sandhill vegetation and open steppe associations (4,5). On the mainland occurred on plains and sand-ridges with woodland, shrubland or heath (1). Reported as extremely active and pugnacious, showing very high intra-specific aggression, and are presumed solitary though Troughton stated that in Western Australia they were normally found in pairs in nests (6). Nocturnal, and thought to feed principally on insects, bulbous roots and other plant matter though in captivity small rodents are also taken (6). Breeding has been recorded from May to August with litters of two, sometimes three. Females on Bernier had one or two pouch young (4,5,6). THREATS TO SURVIVAL The exact reasons for its decline are unknown, but vegetation throughout its mainland range has been now either cleared for crop production or drastically altered by stock grazing, rabbits and feral goats in pastoral areas and, to a lesser extent, by rabbits elsewhere. Its entire mainland range is also infested with such introduced predators as foxes, feral cats and, at its eastern end, feral pigs (1). Conditions on Bernier and Dorre Islands have remained much more pristine. Sheep were apparently never introduced to Dorre, and were only temporarily introduced to Bernier at the beginning of this century. Feral goats are also absent from Dorre, although a herd estimated at 150 was reported to be causing some vegetational damage on Bernier in 1959 (4). By 1975 these had been largely eradicated and the vegetation was recovering (5). The bandicoot populations there, although regarded as stable at present, will remain potentially very vulnerable to fire or the accidental introduction of foxes, cats or rabbits (4). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products therefore being subject to strict regulation by ratifying 65 nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Legally protected and Bernier and Dorre Islands are Class 'A' Fauna Conservation Reserves with strictly controlled access. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Continued protection of Bernier and Dorre from any form of unnecessary disturbance is vital for the survival of the species. Surveys to locate any possible relict colonies on the Australian mainland are also recommended and reintroductions to suitable areas (especially other off-shore islands) should be considered as part of a long-term conservation plan. CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1979 one female was reported as held at Perth Zoo, Western Australia (3). REMARKS For description see (2). Bernier and Dorre Islands also hold viable populations of four other Red Data Book species, - the Boodie (Bettongia lesueur), Banded Hare-wallaby (Lagostrophus fasciatus), Rufous Hare-wallaby (Lagorchestes hirsutus) and Shark Bay Mouse (Pseudomys praeconis). This data sheet was compiled from a draft kindly provided in 1978 by Peter Aitken, Curator of Mammals, South Australian Museum. REFERENCES 1. Aitken, P. (1979). The status of endangered Australian wombats, bandicoots and the Marsupial Mole. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal. Zool. Soc. S. Aust. 2. Anon. (1978). Barred Bandicoot. Perameles bougainville. Mammals No.18. In Australian Endangered Species. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. 3. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. 4, Ride, W.D.L. and Tyndale-Biscoe, C.H. (1962). Mammals. In Fraser, A.J. (Ed.). The results of an expedition to Bernier and Dorre Islands, Shark Bay, Western Australia in 1959. West. Aust. Fish. Dept. Fauna Bull. 2: 54-97. 5. Robinson, A.C., Robinson, J.F., Watts, C.H.S. and Baverstock, P.R. (1976). The Shark Bay Mouse Pseudomys praeconis and other mammals on Bernier Island, Western Australia. West. Aust. Naturalist. 13 (7): 149-155. 6. Troughton, E. (1941). Furred animals of Australia. Angus and Robertson Ltd. Sydney. 7. Wakefield, N.A. (1966). Mammals of the Blandowski Expedition to northwestern Victoria, 1856-1857. Proc. R. SOGWWict. 7 9(2)56 41-39; 66 DESERT BANDICOOT EXTINCT Perameles eremiana Spencer, 1897 Order MARSUPIALIA Family PERAMELIDAE SUMMARY Last definitely recorded in inland Western Australia in 1931. Probably extinct, though extensive surveys may show it to survive in remote areas. Any relict colonies discovered should be afforded immediate protection. DISTRIBUTION Australia. Formerly occurred across an arid belt of central Australia joining Alice Springs and Charlotte Waters, Northern Territory, in the east and the Rawlinson and Mclllwrath Ranges, Western Australia, in the west. The last museum specimen was taken at Gahnda, Western Australia, in 1931 (1). POPULATION Unknown; may well be extinct. Reports suggest that it was once plentiful throughout much of its range and according to Finlayson it had been fairly numerous in southwestern central Australia as late as 1932-35, though then became extremely rare or absent there (2,3). He stated in 1961 that it survived in the Tanami Desert region, though Parker considers that the only (vague) reports from there are referable to the Golden Bandicoot (Isoodon auratus), (2,4). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Occurred on both sand plain and sand-ridge desert with Spinifex grassland (1). Nocturnal, resting by day in a shallow hole scooped out of the surface and thatched over with grass (6). Diet presumably the same as in other Perameles, - principally invertebrates but also small mammals and some vegetable matter (5). Two young were thought to be the norm (7). THREATS TO SURVIVAL The exact reasons for its decline are unknown, but the vegetation in the eastern half of its range has been drastically altered by stock grazing and rabbits and, to a lesser extent, in the western half of its range by rabbits alone. Its entire range is also infested with introduced predators namely foxes and feral domestic cats (1). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Totally protected by legislation and appears on the Official List of Australian Endangered Vertebrate Fauna. Parts of the western edge of the range are on Aboriginal reserves with limited public access, CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Surveys, particularly in the western part of the range, to locate any possible relict colonies and define protective measures for them. CAPTIVE BREEDING None. REMARKS For description see (5,7). Systematic research is required to determine whether this is a valid species or merely an eremian race of the Lesser Barred Bandicoot, Perameles bougainville, itself a Red Data Book species. This data sheet was compiled from a draft provided in 1978 by Mr Peter Aitken, Curator of Mammals, South Australian Museum. REFERENCES 1. Aitken, P. (1979). The status of endangered Australasian wombats, bandicoots and the marsupial mole. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal. Zool. Soc. S. Aust. 2. Finlayson, H.H. (1961). On Central Australian mammals 67 68 Part IV. The distribution and status of Central Australian species. Rec. S. Aust. Mus. 14: 141-191. Glauert, L. (1933). The distribution of the marsupials in Western Australia. J. Roy. Soc. W. Aust. XIX: 23. Parker, S.A. (1973). An annotated checklist of tne native land mammals of the Northern Territory. Rec. S. Aust. Mus. 16(11): 1-57. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Spencer, B. (1897). Description of two New Species of Marsupials from Central Australia. Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict. IX (N.S.): 6-11. Troughton, E. (1941). Furred animals of Australia. Angus and Robertson Ltd. Sydney. GREATER BILBY, DALGYTE, or ENDANGERED GREATER RABBIT-EARED BANDICOOT Macrotis lagotis (Reid, 1837) Order MARSUPIALIA Family THYLACOMYIDAE SUMMARY Formerly widely distributed in Australia but now severely reduced in numbers and distribution, surviving only in small remote colonies. Decline mainly ascribed to predation by foxes and habitat destruction by cattle and rabbits, and in some parts of its range at least, the decline continues. Some colonies are in a desert wildlife sanctuary but more extensive habitat protection is urgently needed. DISTRIBUTION Australia; where now largely confined to the central Northern Territory within an area roughly bounded by Renner Springs in the north, Delmore Downs in the east, the MacDonnell Ranges in the south and Tanami in the west (1,9). Four small outlying populations are also known, one in southwestern Queensland between Boulia and Betoota and three in Western Australia at Dampier Land, around the Edgar Range, and in the Warburton region where main strongholds were reported in 1979 as to the north and northwest of Warburton, the west of the Jameson Range, and south of the Cavanagh Range (1,2,4,9,10). Possibly also still survives in the Great Sandy Desert of Western Australia but surveys are needed to confirm this (9). Formerly extremely widely distributed in mainland Australia south of 18°S and west of the Great Dividing Range, apparently except central Queensland and most of Victoria (1,9). It seems to have disappeared from New South Wales and southern South Australia rather suddenly around 1900 and from the southwest and northern South Australia in the 1930s (9,11). POPULATION No figures are available but it is now very rare in comparison with its former abundance and in 1978 was reported as apparently still declining, at least in Western Australia (6). Density where it does occur is apparently very low - Watts in the late 1960s discovered only 7 colonies, each estimated to hold an average of 3 individuals, in over 540 sq. km of suitable habitat around Yuendumu in the Northern Territory (9). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Recorded from a wide range of desert and sub-desert habitat, including Melaleuca and Mulga shrubland and spinifex grassland, wherever the ground is soft enough to burrow in and is not subject to waterlogging (8,9). Watts, who studied the species in the Northern Territory, described colonies of 7-30 burrows covering a usually elongate area of up to 16 ha apparently normally occupied by an adult pair and any offspring of the year. Burrows could be large and complex, up to 2 metres deep, and were normally in open areas or along water-courses (9). Diet has been reported as omnivorous, though in the population studied by Watts it consisted mainly of underground tap roots, bulbs (especially Cyperus bulbosus) and fungi (Endogone), along with unidentified seeds and fruit and some insect matter (1,2,9). In Warburton the termites Hamitermes rubriceps and Eutermes tumuli were the principal food source (8). Wood Jones noted breeding from March to May and litter size of | to 3, usually 2 (11). THREATS TO SURVIVAL The spread of the fox from the early 1900s onwards has been implicated as the principal cause of the Greater Bilby's disappearance from much of its former range as it persisted in many areas well after European settlement and the establishment of the feral cat (9). Wood Jones recorded that very large numbers were killed for pelts in South Australia and that the trade continued at least until 1923. Great numbers were also killed for sport at that 69 time. This would doubtless have contributed to its decline in heavily populated regions (11). Habitat alteration by rabbits has also been stated to have been an important factor and rabbits are uncommon in most of the present range (9). However where they are present and cattle are absent the Greater Bilby still survives in reasonable numbers (7). It has thus been suggested that the depletion of food supplies by grazing cattle which occur in about three quarters of its present range accounts for the low population density in such areas, although it can evidently survive in areas completely given over to pastoralization as in southwestern Queensland (7,10). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products therefore being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Totally protected by legislation and appears on the Official list of Endangered Australian Vertebrate Fauna. Part of its Northern Territory range is protected from cattle in the Tanami Desert Wildlife Sanctuary. It has been observed that the species is generally of great interest to and specifically protected by the sparse human population within its present range (5). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Additional reserves for the species are urgently required to protect habitat from further depredation by domestic stock, along with regular monitoring of all presently known populations and surveys to locate any further colonies, especially in the Great Sandy Desert, Western Australia. CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1981 one male and two females were held in captivity at Perth Zoo, Western Australia and a small colony was also being maintained at the Arid Zone Research Institute of the Northern Territory Conservation Commission at Alice Springs. The University of New South Wales had a captive breeding group from 1969 to 1977. Only males were born, however, and the colony died out (Graeme G, George, In litt., 1981). REMARKS For description see (2,11). This is the largest Australian bandicoot (2). The genus Macrotis is often included in the family Peramelidae. This data sheet was compiled from a draft kindly provided in 1978 by Mr Peter Aitken, Curator of Mammals, South Australian Museum. REFERENCES 1. Aitken, P. (1979). The status of endangered Australasian wombats, bandicoots and the Marsupial Mole. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal. Zool. Soc. S. Aust. 2. Anon. (1976). Rabbit-eared Bandicoot, Bilby, Dalgite. Mammals No.l In Australian Endangered Species. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. 3. Burbidge, A.F. and Fuller, P.J. (1979). Mammals of the Warburton Region, Western Australia. Rec. West. Aust. Mus. 8(1): 57-73. 4. Dent, M.K. (1972). Bilbies of Boulia. Mount Isa Mines Magazine: 12-16. 5. Kirkpatrick T.H. (1977). In litt. 6. Kitchener, D. (1978). In litt. to P. Aitken. 7. Newsome, A.E. (1971). Competition between wildlife and domestic livestock. Aust. Vet. J. 47: 577-586. 8. Smyth, D.R. and Philpott, C.M. (1968). A field study of the Rabbit Bandicoot. Trans. R. Soc. S. Aust. 92: 3-14. 9. Watts, C.H.S. (1969). Distribution and habits of the Rabbit Bandicoot. Trans. R. Soc. S. Aust. 93: 135-141. 70 10. Watts, C.H.S. and Aslin, H. (1974). Notes on the small mammals of north-eastern south Australia and south-western Queensland. Trans. R. Soc. S. Aust. 98 (2): 61-99. Wood Jones, F. (1923-25). The Mammals of South Australia. The Government Printer, Adelaide. 71 iv) are abby igs ge iiiag hei ns cA ude eat: Obits i cakes 63h yiteades ta NTR» BL ese a» s vf ; : ¥ wh BRindey i gla “abadeRSs § aver poow, sii wit rae pos pat a gh al, oy + ; . ; Fy j Western Mistralls axis well colon ay Cis: Cele oh vi na > a. S .* A v. at “ dpe. DL pe iia oo APE COTO tr ce Instinte of the Mery ferrites. {_onseeva : 44 ; . ‘ ets 25 ers ’ 4 i cy a ae s olaes 4. “ a7 .t7 ats, : aoe A t Pe i= bi : y \ a ; 3 Ry a°P mea +) Pee tre : 7 al, iva, - - | ¥ oF - aw Shp és dle sate t iF bss Ang LESSER BILBY, YALLARA EXTINCT or LESSER RABBIT-EARED BANDICOOT Macrotis leucura (Thomas, 1887) Order MARSUPIALIA Family THYLACOMYIDAE SUMMARY Probably extinct, being unrecorded alive in its former range in central Australia since 1931. Surveys are needed to determine whether relict populations still survive and, if so, to define effective conservation measures. DISTRIBUTION Australia. Formerly the northern half of the Lake Eyre Basin, central Australia. Very little information on its distribution is available, the species only having been collected six times in historic times, the first of these from an unknown locality (1). Subsequent specimens have been five from 65 km northwest of Charlotte Waters, Northern Territory in 1895; three from near Barrow Creek, N.T. in 1901; one from Mungerani, South Australia, in 1924; 12 from Cooncheri, South Australia in 1931; and a skull of undetermined age from an eagle's nest 23 km south-southeast of Steele Gap, N.T. in 1967 (1,4). POPULATION Unknown. It must now be extremely rare if not extinct, having not been recorded alive since 1931 when according to Finlayson it was plentiful in the Cooncheri district and was at that time evidently a widespread and well-known animal (2). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Recorded from sandridge desert with spinifex grassland (1,2). Nocturnal and probably solitary, in common with most other bandicoots, and dug twisting burrows up to 3m deep in sloping dune faces (2). Diet was recorded as mainly rodents and some seeds (2). Two young at once appeared to be the norm (2,5). THREATS TO SURVIVAL The exact causes for the decline are unknown. Even now the vegetation in the main part of its range has been relatively unmodified by cattle grazing or rabbits so it seems likely that the principle cause was invasion by introduced predators, namely feral cats in the nineteenth century and foxes during the first decade of the twentieth (1). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products therefore being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Protected by legislation throughout its former range and appears on the Official List of Australian Endangered Vertebrate Fauna. Pastoral exploitation is excluded from that part of the range covered by the Simpson Desert National Park. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Surveys, particularly in the Simpson Desert, to locate and define protective measures for any possible relict colonies. CAPTIVE BREEDING None. REMARKS For description see (2,4). The validity of this species has been questioned - it is allegedly virtually sympatric with the very similar Macrotis lagotis, itself an 'Endangered' species (3). The name ‘Lesser Bilby' is that recommended by the Australian Mammal Society. This data sheet was compiled from a draft provided in 1978 by Peter Aitken, Curator of Mammals, South Australian Museum. 73 REFERENCES 74 1. Aitken, P. (1979). The status of endangered AuStralasian wombats, bandicoots and the marsupial mole. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal. Zool. Soc. S. Aust. Finlayson, H.H. (1935). On mammals from the Lake Eyre Basin. Pt I]. The Peramelidae. Trans. R. Soc. S. Aust. 59: 227-236. Kirkpatrick, T.H. (1977). In litt. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Troughton, E. (1941). Furred animals of Australia. Angus and Robertson Ltd. Sydney. DIBBLER INDETERMINATE Antechinus apicalis (Grey, 1842) Order MARSUPIALIA Family DASYURIDAE SUMMARY Rediscovered in 1967 after more than 80 years when it was presumed extinct; has been recorded since then in only two areas of southwestern Western Australia. None have now (198!) been found since 1976 despite intensive searches in known and likely localities. Habitat has been determined in only one of the areas and is extremely limited in extent and potentially very vulnerable to fire. A survey was underway in 1981 to try to locate any surviving populations, which if found should be given immediate effective protection. DISTRIBUTION Australia, where has been collected this century (since 1967) only in two very limited areas on the south coast of southwestern Western Australia, at Cheyne Beach and about 225 km northeast at Jerdacuttup (7,8). At the former it has only been recorded from a 10 ha area of thick woodland, despite intensive trapping efforts in surrounding uncleared land (7,8). Records at Jerdacuttup are of a male caught by a cat on a farm in January 1976 and of another found dead on a farm 10 km northeast of this in December 1976 (8). However intensive searches in 1977, 1978 and 1981 in uncleared land in this vicinity have failed to find it (8,9); the species had been thought most likely to occur in a 900 ha area, formerly Government Requirements Reserve No.28110, roughly equidistant (ca. 6 km) from the two sites where the specimens were found and which contained areas of apparently suitable habitat (8). Searches in apparently suitable habitat in Stokes and Fitzgerald River National Parks since 1976 have also been unsuccessful (9). Formerly known from a much wider area; according to Gilbert it was universally distributed over the colony of Western Australia in the first half of the 19th century, with specific records from the Victoria Plains, Albany, Moore River and Salt River (3,5) The National Museum of Victoria has 22 specimens from Western Australia probably collected between 1875 and 1884 (3). Lundelius recorded it as fossil remains from caves along the west coast as far south as Yanchep, then inland to Albany, skirting the high rainfall area of the southwest corner, it being unknown from remains in the Margaret River caves (2,3,5). There are two specimens in the Queensland Museum recorded by Thomas in 1888 as from Rockhampton, Queensland, and Gould in 1863 also reported it from South Australia (1,3). For map of old and modern records in Western Australia see (9). POPULATION Unknown; none have now (1981) been recorded since 1976 despite intensive searches by Dr Patricia Woolley in known and likely localities (9). Only 11 specimens have been obtained in the wild this century, all since 1967 when the first four individuals recorded since the 1880s were trapped at Cheyne Beach (8). Of the remainder, two were from Jerdacuttup (see above) and the rest also from Cheyne Beach with two in 1975 and three in 1976 (8). This represents a very low trapping success rate. Since 1977 searches have been made by examination of prey hairs in predator (mainly fox and cat) scats, as well as by conventional trapping techniques - Dibbler hair is very distinctive and should be easily recognisable (9,10). Up to July 1981, over 700 scats had been examined from Cheyne Beach, Jerdacuttup, Fitzgerald River and Stokes National Parks; the failure to record Dibbler remains in any of these, along with the failure to trap any, is taken to indicate that the species is genuinely very rare (9). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Found at Cheyne Beach in a 10 ha area of very dense vegetation dominated by Banksia spp. to a height of 2.5 m. Ground litter was very thick and the area had not been burnt for many years (7,8). It is thought likely the 7) Dibbler may be dependent on such a vegetation type as it was not trapped in adjacent areas of recently burnt lower and less dense vegetation (7,8). Observations on captive specimens indicate that breeding is seasonal, taking place once a year, with mating in March and April and gestation of between 44 and 53 days (6). A litter of seven was recorded, with young dependent on the mother for approx. 4 months after birth and sexual maturity attained in 10-11 months (6). Gilbert in the 19th century described the nest, which was built on the ground below overhanging Xanthorrhoea (5). Appears to be predominantly crepuscular and diet insectivorous though nectar from Banksia and Eucalyptus flowers is readily taken in captivity (3,4,5,6). THREATS TO SURVIVAL The species is expected to be very vulnerable to disturbance, particularly to fire (8). The known distribution at Cheyne Beach was apparently confined to a very small area in close proximity to a fishing settlement and camping area (8); the evident decline and possible extinction of the population there may be due to habitat loss - by February 1981 many of the older, larger Banksia shrubs had died and much of the vegetation in the area where most Dibblers were originally caught had been destroyed by the surveying of a road and the clearing of firebreaks around the recently established reserve there (9). Adjacent areas of vegetation had grown up and by then constituted apparently suitable habitat but no Dibblers were trapped in them (9). At Jerdacuttup the area where Dibblers had been thought most likely to occur (Govt. Requirements Reserve No. 28110) is to be released for agriculture in December 1981. The area was intensively surveyed in January 1981, following a one-year suspension of release of the land, but no Dibblers were found (9). The reasons for the original decrease in range are unknown though bush-clearing for agriculture and the introduction of predators such as foxes and feral cats are likely to have been important. CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Legally protected. The habitat at Cheyne Beach was reported in 1980 as having been recently incorported into a 75 ha reserve, but the proximity of the camping site means the area will remain at considerable risk to fire (10). Fitzgerald River National Park lies between Cheyne Beach and Jerdacuttup and contains areas of vegetation very similar to known Dibbler habitat, although intensive attempts to trap them here in 1977-78 failed (8). In 1981 an ongoing project funded by WWF Australia and led by Dr Patricia Woolley was attempting to locate further Dibbler populations; to date this has been unsuccessful (see above) (9,10). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Protection of any populations which may be discovered by the survey. Fire prevention measures would be of particular importance, if it is discovered that Dibblers are indeed dependent on habitat which has not been recently burnt. CAPTIVE BREEDING One of the individuals captured in 1967 gave birth to seven young shortly afterwards and all were successfully raised to maturity. Mating was observed in these but no young were produced and the colony died out. Individuals do, however, seem to be relatively easy to maintain in captivity (6). REMARKS For description see (4). This data sheet was compiled from a draft provided in 1978 by Dr Michael Archer, Department of Zoology, University of New South Wales and Dr Patricia Woolley, Dept. of Zoology, La Trobe University, Victoria, kindly provided information and commented on the sheet in 1981. REFERENCES 1. Archer, M. (1979). The status of Australian dasyurids, thylacinids and myrmecobiids. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal Zool. Soc. South Aust. 76 10. Lundeluis, E. (1957). Additions to the knowledge of the ranges of Western Australian mammals. W. Aust. Naturalist. 10(5): 103-111. Morcombe, M.K. (1967). Rediscovery after 83 years of the Dibbler. Antechinus apicalis. W. Aust. Naturalist 10 (5): 103-11. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Wagstaff, R. and Rutherford, R. (1955). Letters from Knowsley Hall, Lancashire. Northwest. Naturalist. March 1955: 11-22. Woolley, P. (1971). Observations on the reproductive biology of the Dibbler, Antechinus apicalis (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae). J. R. Soc. West. Aust. Sua 99-107. Woolley, P. (1977). In search of the Dibbler, Antechinus apicalis (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae) J. R. Soc. West Aust. 59(4): 111-117. Woolley, P. (1980). Further searches for the Dibbler, Antechinus apicalis (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae). J. R. Soc. West. Aust. 63(2): 47-52. Woolley, P. and Valente, A. (1981). The Dibbler, Antechinus apicalis (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae): Failure to locate populations in four regions in the south of Western Australia. In prep. World Wildlife Fund Australia. (1980-81). Project 5. A further attempt to locate populations of the Dibbler. WWF Australia Newsletter 4: 5., 7: 4. 77 > ry shal outils ‘on enol sibOtA A ‘eatighenst Wane al seein arts pe cena is eines Thserent ie ‘On Caslive \npenbie pire 10 Pansiih! && yotts | yey nes eats Stra aay OS: pallette ah pen atirsee ate ts lara percent a 2 2 Fah iT ; ex .; rt; hor be te = 21 if} Bia. C w pps Si ei" PE AONE He st. ‘ho maey. (yal: ~~ ein nev it aks veHRO® ; egos sens ait 2 Baoan >. Sri, bie viriesoived, ie oie é \ } SSall Rel a segt7e Wi tess <5: pales Sti" wit BUT Lat Werte ee. ft ee) SBOE SCH . ; og re en i if “4 Le Aa: ened saat ieghsisds . ‘ie baat } te com aes OUR rer v7} Sees a ray ut ying deans deen ast LESery. oN 7 3 its, ters re prt “oF Leiter Koeritu, yaABop sé heatte #y ee ise Mesmeet Ho. Re RAR oH ranotg Bs ones! rill ele eee mer AT Rg oye a eT oss .. eN le ’ j I Loi sag vit: iat titi al fe hia taeRites BGS '2btg-VIeL PP fainaein BA ide Hilloliy ‘ed Wes ror lar: es sf nL a athe Yat arvoition lige si SSE oF — Hye Ay bbe . Bnet lafors suck As) hoe ‘90 EEL PS a the Ana many bitat, .alwmoush inteasive ntiemoc’ to tf ie ea af a oHtir rotection ef gay populé t gi ; ja eh bed Le ros, ‘gave Me Patsadte wah __ (Mice ibe ite. “pt BY, Ohi RED-TAILED PHASCOGALE INDETERMINATE Phascogale calura Gould, 1844 Order MARSUPIALIA Family DASY URIDAE SUMMARY Formerly widely distributed in southern Australia; now confined to a few isolated populations in reserves and State Forest in southwest Western Australia. Causes of the decline are unknown as apparently suitable habitat is still widespread in its former range; predation by feral cats has been implicated as a possible factor. Surveys and studies are needed to determine ecological requirements and the present status of the species so that detailed conservation plans can be drawn up. DISTRIBUTION Now confined to southwestern Western Australia (2,11,12). Surveys in the Western Australian wheatbelt in the 1970s recorded it in the following reserves 150 to 250 km southwest of Perth: Bendering (5119 ha), West Bendering (1602 ha), Yornaning (247 ha) and Dongolocking (1061 ha) (4,5,7,8). It also reportedly occurs in Dryandra State Forest and Tutanning Nature Reserve (1,5). Formerly also existed in southwestern New South Wales, northern Victoria, the Murray region of South Australia (there being one nineteenth century record from Adelaide), and the central Northern Territory where one was taken at Alice Springs in 1894 (2,6,10,11,13). In 1941 Troughton observed that the range already seemed to have contracted to the extreme southwest (13). POPULATION Unknown, though appears to be moderately abundant in the limited areas where it now occurs; 21 were trapped during surveys at Yornaning in 1975 (5). There are indications that it may never have been particularly common, as it represents a small but fairly constant fraction of Dasyurid remains in caves such as those on the Nullarbor plains in Western Australia (1,2,9). 7 HABITAT AND ECOLOGY A skilful climber and appears to show a preference for vegetation of trees, mallees or tall shrubs which allow easy passage through the foliage; other than this there is no indication of strong habitat selectivity (8). At Bendering and West Bendering, canopy cover in regions occupied by the species varied from sparse to dense and leaf litter was absent to moderately abundant (8). At Yornaning there was some indication of a preference for Causuarina huegeliana woodland, with Wandoo (Eucalyptus wandoo) also apparently important here and at Tutanning (5). Diet, from examination of stomach contents, appears predominantly insectivorous, though some individuals also contained bird feathers or mammalian hairs (5,8). Females apparently gave birth in early spring and were still suckling in September (8). THREATS TO SURVIVAL The very marked contraction of range and its apparent present restriction to a few small areas, some of which may not be subject to an appropriate management regime, are considered to place the species at risk (1,2,3,12). The precise causes of the decline are unkown. Apparently suitable habitat is still reportedly widespread within its former range (1,2); predation by feral cats and possibly foxes has been implicated as a possible factor (1,2). It is noteworthy that the very similar Brush-tailed Phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa) is still common and widespread (11). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Legally protected; present in several reserves and in Dryandra State Forest (see above). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED There is an urgent need for studies to identify factors affecting populations; in particular to determine the causes of the 79 range contraction. Once the species' requirements have been determined, management plans for existing populations can be formulated. The possibility of reintroduction to suitable areas should be considered. Many reserves, especially those in the wheatbelt, are now isolated by large areas of agricultural land and are extremely unlikely to be naturally recolonised by species which have died out; this applies especially to small animals such as the Phascogale (7). CAPTIVE BREEDING None. REMARKS For description see (11). This data sheet was compiled from a draft provided in 1978 by Dr Michael Archer, Department of Zoology, University of New South Wales. REFERENCES «jl: 2. 12. 13. Archer, M. (1981). In litt. Archer, M. (1979). The status of Australian dasyurids, thylacinids and myrmecobiids. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal Zool. Soc. S. Aust. Calaby, J.H. (1981). In litt. Chapman, A., Dell, J., Kitchener, D.J. and Muir, B.G. (1978). Biological survey of the Western Australian wheatbelt. Part 5: Dongolocking Nature Reserve. Rec. West. Aust. Mus. Suppl. No. 6. Dell, J., Harold, G., Kitchener, D.J., Morris, K.D. and Muir, B.G. (1979). Biological survey of the Western Australian wheatbelt. Part 7: Yornaning Nature Reserve. Rec. West. Aust. Mus. Suppl. No. 8. Kitchener, D.J., Chapman, A., Dell, J. and Muir, B.G. (1977). Biological survey of the Western Australian wheatbelt. Part 3: Vertebrate fauna of Bendering and West Bendering Nature Reserves. Rec. West. Aust. Mus. Suppl. No. 5. Finlayson, H.H. (1961). On central Australian mammals, - Part IV: the distribution and status of central Australian species. Rec. S. Aust. Mus. 14 (1): 141-191. Kitchener, D.J., Chapman, A. and Muir, G.B. (1980). The conservation value for mammals of reserves in the Western Australian wheatbelt. Biol. Cons. 18: 179-207. Lundelius, E.L. Jr. (1963). Vertebrate remains from the Nullarbor caves, Western Australia. J. Proc. R. Soc. West. Aust. 46: 75-80. Parker, S.A. (1973). An annotated checklist of the native land mammals of the Northern Territory. Rec. S. Aust. Mus. 16(1 1): 1-57. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Strahan, R. (1981). In litt. Troughton, E. (1941). Furred animals of Australia. Angus asnd Robertson Ltd., Sydney. LONG-TAILED DUNNART INSUFFICIENTLY KNOWN Sminthopsis longicaudata Spencer, 1909 Order MARSUPIALIA Family DASYURIDAE SUMMARY Known from only five specimens collected in Western Australia, the most recent in 1975. Studies are needed to determine status, distribution and population trends, and to formulate any necessary conservation plans. DISTRIBUTION Western Australia; exact distribution unknown. Only five specimens have ever been collected, the first (in 1908) and two subsequently from the Pilbara - Marble Bar region (approx. 21°20'S, 118°16'E), the most recent in 1974 approx 6 km east of Miss Gibson Hill (26°51'S, 126°23'E) in the Baker Lake area of the Gibson Desert (2,3,5). The origin of the other specimen is unknown (5). POPULATION Unknown. The small number of recorded specimens implies rarity but as little biological surveying has been carried out in large areas of inland Western Australia its true status and any population trends remain unknown (2,3). Its relative rarity in fossil records from, for example, Cape Range Caves in northwestern Western Australia does however suggest the species has alway been at least uncommon (3,4). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY The 1975 specimen was obtained in an area of low hummock grassland of Triodia and Plectrachne spp. with occasional emergent Hakea lorea and Acacia spp. (3). Other than this nothing is known of the ecology of the species. Sminthopsis are small, active predators, apparently principally insectivorous although birds and lizards may be taken, individual species showing markedly different dietary preferences (5). Nothing is known of the breeding biology of S. longicaudata. THREATS TO SURVIVAL Probably naturally rare. Archer has discussed the status and apparent decline of many of the Dasyurid marsupials. It is possible that the recent succession of years with good rains (since 1974) may have favoured introduced predators such as cats and foxes and disadvantaged native species of small Dasyurids such as S. longicaudata which are better able to cope with physiological stress in bad years (2). It is also possible that some Australian species undergo oscillations of population size and geographic range in synchrony with long term climatic changes. To test this however a much better Pleistocene-Recent mammal record than is currently available is required (2). The habitat in large areas of arid inland Western Australia is still relatively unmodified by pastoralisation or introduced herbivores. CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix 1 of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products therefore being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Legally protected in Western Australia. The 1975 specimen was taken within the proposed 10,529 sq. km Baker Lake Reserve (2). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Detailed study to determine the distribution and status of this species should be carried out, in particular investigation of the Pilbara region to discover if the species still exists there. Any populations found should be afforded protection. Effective control of introduced predators, particularly foxes and feral cats, would be highly desirable. 81 CAPTIVE BREEDING None are known to have been kept in captivity. REMARKS For description see (4). This data sheet was compiled from a draft kindly provided in 1978 by Dr Michael Archer, Department of Zoology, University of New South Wales. REFERENCES 82 i 2. Anon. (1973). Additional protection for rare fauna. State Wildlife Authority News Service (West. Australia) 4(2): 31-33. Archer, M. (1979). The status of Australian dasyurids, thylacinids and myrmecobiids In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal Zool. Soc. S. Aust. Burbidge, A.A., McKenzie, N.L., Chapman A. and Lambert, P.M. (1976). The wildlife of some existing and proposed reserve in the Great Victoria and Gibson Desert, Western Australia. Wildl. Res. Bull. West. Aust. 5: 1-16. Kéndrick, G. and Porter, J.K. (1973). Remains of a Thylacine (Marsupialia: Dasyuroidea) and other fauna from caves in the Cape Range, Western Australia. J. Proc. R. Soc. West Aust. 56: 116-112. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. SANDHILL DUNNART INSUFFICIENTLY KNOWN Sminthopsis psammophila Spencer, 1895 Order MARSUPIALIA Family DASY URIDAE eee ee SUMMARY Two populations were discovered in southern Australia in 1969. Prior to this the only known specimen was the type, collected in 1894 in the Northern Territory. Indications suggest it may have somewhat specific ecological requirements and thus be sensitive to habitat clearance for agriculture. A population may exist in the Hambidge Conservation Park. Status surveys and studies of this species in the wild are needed. DISTRIBUTION Australia. Exact range unknown. In 1969 five specimens were captured at two sites on the Eyre Peninsula, Southern Australia (11): one from the Hundred of Mamblyn and four from a site 80 km southeast in the Hundred of Boonderoo (1). The type specimen was collected at Lake Amadeus in the Northern Territory, 1000 km northwest of the above populations, by the Horn Expedition in 1894 (3). The only other record is of remains found in owl pellets in a cave at Ayers Rock, Northern Territory, reported in 1973 (3). POPULATION The paucity of records suggests that it is, and may always have been, rare (2), though further collecting may show it to be more common and widespread than is supposed - apparently suitable habitat is reported as very abundant in central Australia and the Eyre Peninsula and Northern Territory localities are widely separate. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY The Eyre Peninsula sites were both of similar habitat and topography, consisting of roughly parallel sand-dunes, 3-6 m high separated by wide valleys. Ground cover was sparse. Mallees (Eucalyptus spp.) were the predominant vegetation type on the valley flats but became more heavily mixed with Broombrush (Melaleuca uncinata) and other herbaceous and ephemeral plants on the dunes; semi-open areas of Porcupine Grass (Triodia lanata) occurred intermittently on the dune slopes (1). Annual rainfall was 30-36 cm (1). The Lake Amadeus specimen was taken from sandhill Porcupine Grass country with groves of Desert Oak (Casuarina decaisneana). Sminthopsis species in general are small, active and predominantly nocturnal predators, feeding principally on invertebrates, though small vertebrates are sometimes taken (4). Nothing is known of the breeding biology of this species. THREATS TO SURVIVAL Bush clearance for cereal growing is proceeding rapidly at both sites where the species is known on the Eyre Peninsula (1,2). jhe fact that the species has only been encountered in Porcupine Grass and brush-wood dune systems implies that its ecological requirements may be somewhat specific and thus it may be relatively intolerant of habitat disturbance. The effect of introduced predators, namely foxes and cats, is unknown. CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Included in Appendix 1 of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products therefore being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Protected under South Australian Legislation. The specimens from Boonderoo were collected in an area immediately adjacent to the 37,847 ha Hambidge Conservation Park where the topography and vegetation are essentially the same as the collecting site and it is thought likely that the species occurs there though this has yet to be demonstrated (1,2). 8&8 CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED If the species is shown to occur in the Hambidge Conservation Park then suitable management should ensure its survival there. Meanwhile, immediate acquisition of the Boonderoo collecting site and any other uncleared areas near the park is recommended, as are surveys to determine the full extent of the species' distribution. Any other populations discovered should be afforded immediate protection from habitat disturbance. CAPTIVE BREEDING As far as is known it has never been kept in captivity. REMARKS For description see (1,4). This is the largest Sminthopsis (1). This data sheet was compiled from a draft kindly provided by Dr Michael Archer, Department of Zoology, University of New South Wales. REFERENCES 1. Aitken, P. (1971). Rediscovery of the large Desert Sminthopsis (Sminthopsis psammophila Spencer) on Eyre Peninsula, South Australia. Vict. Nat. 88: 103-111. 2. Archer, M. (1979). The status of Australian dasyurids, thylacinids and myrmecobiids In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal Zool. Soc. S. Aust. 3. Parker, S.A. (1973). An annotated checklist of the native land mammals of the Northern Territory. Rec. S. Aust. Mus. 16(11): 1-57. 4, Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. 84 JULIA CREEK DUNNART INDETERMINATE Sminthopsis douglasi Archer, 1979 Order MARSUPIALIA Family DASY URIDAE SUMMARY A recently described species, known from only four specimens collected from a small area in northeastern Australia. The presumed range is in an area almost entirely given over to livestock grazing and the species is thus likely to be at considerable risk from habitat destruction. DISTRIBUTION North-central Queensland, Australia. Has been collected only from the vicinity of Julia Creek and Richmond, both in the watershed of the Cloncurry River (1,2,3). POPULATION Unknown, though appears to be rare (1,2). Only four specimens are known, the most recent collected around 1972 (1). The holotype was collected at Julia Creek in 1931, though was not recognised as a distinct species until the 1970s; the other two specimens are a male from Wyangarie Station, Richmond, collected before 1963, and a female from Julia Creek believed collected around P33 (3). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Unknown. The precise localities of the collecting sites are unknown, though the area in general has low annual rainfall (444-459 mm) (1,2,3). The species has a markedly fattened tail (3), which may be an adaptation to an unpredictable or sparse food supply. One of the females had six juveniles in the pouch, though the date of birth is unknown (3). THREATS TO SURVIVAL The species appears to have a very limited range in a region almost entirely cleared for grazing; it is thus expected to be at considerable risk from habitat destruction (1,2). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Legally protected in Queensland (1). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Surveys are needed to determine the localities and status of any surviving populations; suitably sized tracts of land should then be set aside for their protection (1). CAPTIVE BREEDING None. REMARKS For description see (3). This is the second largest Sminthopsis. This data sheet was compiled from a draft provided in 1978 by Dr Michael Archer, Department of Zoology, University of New South Wales. REFERENCES 1. Archer, M. (1978). In litt. 2. Archer, M. (1979). The status of Australian dasyurids, thylacinids and myrmecobiids. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal Zool. Soc. S. Aust. 3. Archer, M. (1979). Two new species of Sminthopsis Thomas, (Dasyuridae: Marsupiala) from Northern Australia, S. butleri and S. douglasi. Aust. Zoologist 20(2): 327-345. ! ever war a ' At at - pa » y. . + ’ ne rf ae he eh “eeman iaege pi baie : ' ace Sirvey ante e BN ws ' ARITA Sie \ a « ; turk PE me : a I K log ba i ax nll fie F ; p ' 2 x , i > 2, rey Darn Mir Stk uh 1s 7 ie es viaree ah egg 4 (ale tains : pinks th ne at eb sega iy” Qhishis Soeserit are o ysyin nyt rye ; 4 soirmsaes0 pation yrs ont bie side A ; mae ee > is tee hig praiwnk S G bea ¢ ae t ‘ pias a: a » 4 7 4 i 5 ’ S749 2° R94 optiisnalt oo \, e283 2 ARE RBRD) J lavi gtk \y iG a ad yam. “told vw = i ben: ilo ‘ibe: em, £ ieee is => xis dose : lO SN |. riaque box : re? bie 4o Sidstoit cae ara ‘ TREY pevvonpinat th fini to stab aM} rigcodt ASW2% or Reh yok Kee i? Gn ees nb opns¥ detinnl Hey & svavi OF Dasqge eotwge aril A S2 OT ae WB ad ‘or Derssgys aii? “zi. 31's ajesig < yr tr ndegey is” yee ne ww Fao ti : | ie Oey ripit Susesb t i 9 OL) brietenselt Ai -Borsatory eliewsJ Aa MAT 23 oe ae 23 Ti ia Bea WON Smee ne oraeme ay rrmap mee aie pis elones J grains ne ‘to auinee bag oft enitrieysb. oy bothers . y bygi to 250%; bebe Vidaiiwe er st ¥ A1) i aid pare rips 7! yoiew ta: Ny eet SO Be p ‘ . F: : y ; i nny eld 5 a: 1 a . ; : Pi EX eS y “on ove 1G 33. wag Rie is cater: od he 4 preety re eal: — “2 tea pistons tient 202 ose DHT et tT AQ) waa poudie ab % 7 a baliqende | G iter in) \Ygolne’. he & JH DSIOVOTE: 7 ofa Moriiuce #aVi Bier ees ttt Sh ae or fal, “agsety tien a Ly me rargee nedigwer fy te ey! te ~onT. Agee 1M et me 4 \ . ay gy ibe at to ‘Saint ’ a {hei ' sone «hoe ohne esi try Woes : pile ie +r vai NUMBAT ENDANGERED Myrmecobius fasciatus Waterhouse, 1836 Order MARSUPIALIA Family MY RMECOBIIDAE SUMMARY Apparently confined to Eucalypt woodland in southwest Western Australia though may conceivably still persist in arid inland regions further east. A survey in 1979 showed that a very marked decline in numbers had taken place in the 1970s and several former populations inhabiting reserves seemed to have disappeared. A research programme was underway in 1981 aimed at providing management data to conserve the species. DISTRIBUTION Now appears confined to southwestern Western Australia where a survey from 1954 to 1956 found it to occur in a region bounded by York in the north, Manjimup in the west and Ongerup in the east (5). Indications from a survey in 1979 were that the range had considerably contracted since the 1950s, though in 1973 there were unconfirmed reports of the species at Dragon Rocks near Hyden, northeast of Ongerup, which would represent an eastward extension of the known range in that part of Western Australia (3,7). Formerly widely but sparsely distributed throughout southern Australia, probably in a continuous belt from the southwest through Laverton and the Warburton Ranges in Western Australia and the Everard Range in northern South Australia, into southwest New South Wales, where the last specimen was recorded in 1857 (2,9). The only record outside Western Australia this century is one from the Everard Ranges reported by Finlayson (6). The eastern form is normally ascribed to a separate subspecies, M. fasciatus rufus, but only appears to have differed from the nominate race in pelage colour and is thought to have intergraded with it somewhere in the Kalgoorlie district in Western Australia (1,5). POPULATION Unknown, though reported to have drastically declined since the mid 1970s (1). Population density, even in optimal habitat, appears to be low. Calaby in 1954-56 recorded a maximum of five animals along a 6.4 km transect in his study area at Dryandra (5). M. t. rufus may be extinct; the most recent record is from the Warburton Ranges registered in the Western Australian Museum in 1950 (5). The Aborigines from this region were reported in 1979 as not having seen it for 25 years (4). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Open woodland dominated by Eucalyptus species susceptible to termite attack, and associated with an open shrub understorey and large numbers of hollow logs (1,5). Now principally occurs in Wandoo (Eucalyptus wandoo) forests which are heavily infested with the termite Coptotermes acinaciformis, and have an underbrush of Poison Shrub (Gastrolobium microcarpum) (1,5). The termite constitutes a primary food source and also creates the hollow logs which are important for shelter. Contrary to earlier reports the Numbat is also found in the much more extensive Jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) forests despite the lower abundance of termites (Jarrah having some resistance to termite attack), as well as in Wandoo pockets within the Jarrah, and in hilly areas with laterite soils where Powder-bark (E. accedens) is dominant (3,5). Diet consists of any termite species available, apparently eaten roughly in proportion to their actual abundance, and a small quantity of predatory ants which are believed to be ingested accidentally when they invade termite galleries being excavated by the Numbat. Apparently almost exclusively diurnal, Numbats rest in hollow logs at night and sometimes construct rough nests of bark, leaves and grass. Burrows are occasionaliy dug. Breeding in southwest Australia seems to be seasonal with up to four young normally born between January and April or May 87 (5). THREATS TO SURVIVAL The reasons for the overall population decline and very marked contraction of range over the present century are not understood in detail though are likely to involve a combination of habitat alteration and predation by introduced foxes and feral cats. Changes in the tire regime leading to a transition to unsuitable habitat types in parts of the Numbat's present range, have been implicated in the continued decline. Formerly, infrequent wildfires of high intensity occurred which allowed the accumulation of deep leaf litter and also led to a dense shrub understorey, often of plant species such as the leguminous Gastrolobium spp. which require hot fires for seed germination. Current management practices in some areas include the use of frequent, low intensity deliberate burns. These destroy much of the leaf litter and do not allow sufficient time for shrub-layer regeneration, especially inhibiting tire-dependent plants such as Gastrolobium, and leading to a much more open habitat which may be unsuitable for Numbats (1). The marked recent decline, however, is thought likely to be mainly due to a prolonged drought and an increase in fox numbers (1). Calaby in 1960 considered, however, that the role of predators had been overemphasised, as foxes and cats were abundant in all areas where the Numbat was still fairly common (5). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Legally protected. It is present in a number of mostly small nature reserves although much of the present range is in State Forest (3,5). In 1979 a six-month study in Western Australia demarcated the present range and estimated the population size (3). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED The Western Australian Department of Fisheries and Wildlife has commenced (1981) a research programme aimed at conserving the species and providing management data for reserves and State Forest (3). If a captive breeding colony can be established, reintroduction to areas formerly occupied should be considered (1). Calaby notes that it can survive well in bush blocks left when areas are cleared, as long as sufficient hollow logs are available, thus the number of potential reintroduction sites should be considerable (5). CAPTIVE BREEDING Does not appear to have ever bred in captivity. Its highly specialised diet makes captive maintenance very difficult, though a female was kept at Taronga Park, Sydney, for some years up to 1979 (1,8). REMARKS For description see (1,9). This data sheet was compiled from a draft provided in 1978 by Dr. Michael Archer, Dept. of Zoology, University of New South Wales and Dr. A.A. Burbidge of the Western Australia Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife kindly commented on the sheet. REFERENCES 1. Anon. (1979). Our diminishing heritage - the Numbat. State Wildl. Authority New Service (West. Aust.) 9 (2): 40-41. 2. Archer, M. (1979). The status of Australian dasyurids, thylacinids and myrmecobiids. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal Zool. Soc. S. Aust. 3. Burbidge, A.A. (1981). In litt. 4. Burbidge, A.A. and Fuller, P.J. (1979). Mammals of the Warburton Region, Western Australia. Rec. West. Aust. Mus. 8(1): 57-73. 5. Calaby, J.H. (1960). Observation on the Banded Ant-eater Myrmecobius f. fasciatus. Waterhouse (Marsupialia), with particular reference to its food habits. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 135(2): 183-207. Finlayson, H.H. (1961). On Central Australian mammals Part IV. The distribution and status of Central Australian species. Rec. S. Aust. Mus. 14: 141-191. McKenzie, N.L., Burbidge, A.A. and Marchant, N.G. (1973). Results of a biological survey of a proposed wildlife sanctuary at Dragon Rocks, near Hyden, Western Australia. Dept. Fish. Fauna, West. Aust. Report No. 12. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A_guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. ake uh Aad | PRY Ns ‘ent ‘Hialdgnrtis iP 48 sine a is : i -agites rah lexi J to tuted a Oboe ELLE ATS : RGR tain ets: ‘ Lj ; , 4 us 7 is ’ bed 4 7.4 a ‘ 4 J of us —_—— ‘ - Dita rtf be Pig ti mn Tat: ‘ ye ; y ar UE aA CH bem ng + "ws ; ; 4 f 1 Ce RS ES ‘ y cee re | mas A 3 ae ' ‘. _ = + i o ae . - ] ° ‘ Ms ci .* - ¥ re 5 i an ae 2 ~ rs ; ad 7 J ye | ‘ . . A q x > n° fe ss A od * f aba 1 - ‘ f ee ‘ ' a he ‘ i Ox * ~ Fi ‘ eee = - ‘ 1 t ‘ od a ‘ a) ; oe " ‘ rie 7 . ae: &, vag i ia : ee oe y th i a av 2 ‘ s , ap" on | Pa aoe 4th ae . - o. i ah ease icp ae Suites ate - Papert " . ee o, rt ih , pies: er : THYLACINE EXTINCT Thylacinus cynocephalus (Harris, 1808) Order MARSUPIALIA Family THYLACINIDAE SUMMARY May possibly still exist in Tasmania. Once moderately abundant and widespread on the island, it was hunted to extinction over most of its range by the early 1900s. The last recorded specimen was taken in 1933, since when numerous sightings have been reported though no definite proof of its survival obtained. Rigorously protected by law and large areas of habitat where it may still survive are protected. DISTRIBUTION Once widespread over mainland Australia and New Guinea but has only been recorded alive in Tasmania in historic times (4,6,10,13). A Thylacine humerus associated with bones dated at 0 + 80 BP from a cave deposit in the Napier Range in northwestern Western Australia is the most recent mainland record (4). All other documented non-Tasmanian records are of remains over 2500 years old (4). On Tasmania was apparently formerly scattered throughout, though probably never plentiful in the wet southwestern region (6). Reported sightings since the 1930s are not confined to any one part of Tasmania but are widespread with concentrations in the northeast and northwest (12). POPULATION Unknown, may be extinct. The last specimen taken in the wild was collected in 1933 in the Florentine Valley and died in the Hobart Zoo in 1936 (9,12). Since then there have been many reports, some considered reasonably reliable, of sightings scattered throughout Tasmania, though despite extensive expeditions to search for the species in 1938, 1945-46, 1963-64 1973, 1980-81 and numerous other smaller-scale attempts, no absolutely unequivocal evidence for its continued existence has yet been produced (3,11,12,13). Reports of the species have increased, however, since the early 1960s and some authorities believe that it may be slowly recovering in numbers (10). A lair was reported on the west coast in 1966 though the most recent date of occupancy does not appear known (7,10). In the 19th century it was common enough on Tasmania to be considered a pest by sheep farmers and analysis of bounty records shows there to have been good populations in the Central Highlands, Eastern Ranges and the northeast (6). Numbers appear to have dropped dramatically around 1905, probably for a variety of reasons (see below), though small numbers were trapped until the 1930s (6,11). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Preferred habitat appears to have been savannah woodland or open sclerophyll forests with nearby rocky outcrops, though also occurred in most other habitats in Tasmania (5,6,10). Predominantly nocturnal, resting up in a lair (often a cave) during the day and was apparently solitary, although there are reports of hunting in pairs or occasionally in small family groups (14). Exclusively carnivorous, its natural food appears to have been wallabies and smaller marsupials, rats, birds and possibly lizards (14). Following European settlement large numbers of sheep and poultry were also taken. Three or four young were produced and there is evidence of an extended breeding season though bounty records indicate most were born from May to August (6,10). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Human persecution appears to have been the principal cause of the decline in Tasmania (5,6,10,11,12,13). Because of its sheep and poultry killing habits it was hunted intensively and a bounty system was initiated by the Van Diemen's Land Company as early as 1840. This was taken over by the Government in 1888 and between then and 1909 2,184 Thylacines were officially recorded as killed, though the total number was certainly considerably higher (6). 91 The sudden drop in the number of bounties claimed around 1905, following many years of intense persecution, suggests that human predation was the critical factor, though a disease which attacked most of the Tasmanian Dasyurids at that time may also have been important (6,8). Competition and super-predation by introduced European dogs has also been suggested as a contributing factor - it is widely held that competition with the dingo, which was introduced to Australia during the Pleistocene, was responsible for its extinction on the mainland (4). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix 1 of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products therefore being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Fully protected by law since 1936 with especially heavy penalties for killing under any circumstances (1,2,12). The Thylacine is on the Official List of Endangered Australian Vertebrate Fauna. In 1966 a 647,000 ha region of southwest Tasmania between Low Rocky Cape, Sprent, Kallista and South West Cape was proclaimed a game reserve. Cats, dogs and guns are prohibited in the region (1). This is one of the areas where it is believed most likely to have survived. It could also conceivably occur in two national parks - Lake St. Clair (134,680 ha) and Frenchman's Gap (10,279 ha) (8). The Tasmania National Parks and Wildlife Service investigates all claimed sightings of the species (2), and with funding from WWF-Australia has gathered and analysed available information on the species (12). It is carrying out an ongoing field survey in conjunction with the University of Tasmania using infra-red automatically triggered cameras, though as of August 1981 no evidence of the species' survival has been obtained (15). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Once the _ species has _ been demonstrated to survive, detailed conservation plans can be drawn up. CAPTIVE BREEDING Does not appear to have ever bred in captivity, although individuals were exhibited in several zoos in the first part of the century (11). REMARKS For description see (1,10). This is the largest modern marsupial carnivore (10). This data sheet was compiled from a draft provided in 1978 by Dr Michael Archer, Department of Zoology, University of New South Wales, and Ian Eberhard of the Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Service kindly commented on the final draft. REFERENCES 1. Anon. (1966). Thylacine. IUCN Bulletin New Series 20: 4. 2. Anon. (1978). Thylacine. Mammals No.9. In Australian Endangered Species. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. 3. Anon. (1979). Submission to CITES Secretariat. Unpd. 4pp. 4. Archer, M. (1974). New information about the Quaternary distribution of the Thylacine (Marsupialia, Thylacinidae) in Australia. J. Proc. R. Soc. West. Aust. 57: 43-50. 5. Archer, M. (1979). The status of Australian dasyurids, thylacinids and myrmecobiids. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal Zool. Soc. S. Aust. 6. Guiler, E.R. (1961). The former distribution and decline of the Thylacine. Aust. J. Sci. 23(7): 207-210. 7. Guiler, E.R. (1966). Pers. comm. to IUCN. 8. IUCN. (1972). Thylacine. Sheet Code 2.14.11. Red Data Book Vol. 1, Mammalia. IUCN, Switzerland. 9. Pearse, R. (1976).. Thylacines in Tasmania. (Abstract). Bull. Aust. Mamm. Soc. 3: 58. 10. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of 92 Australia. Oxford Univ. Press, Melbourne. - Sayles, J. (1980). Stalking the Tasmanian Tiger. Animal Kingdom 82 (6): 35-40. - Smith, S.J. (1981). The Tasmanian Tiger - 1980. WWF - Nat. Parks and Wildl. Service, Tasmania. Stivens, D. (1973). The Thylacine Mystery. Animal Kingdom 76 (3): 18-23 Troughton, E. (1941). Furred animals of Australia. Angus and Robertson Ltd., Sydney. WWF-Australia. (1981). Project progress. Project 3: the Thylacine quest. WWF-Australia Newsletter 6: 4. bh, ’ Say oh ‘A ae t ies Lei ey tlh tok ek beta ete me ait es Buf. To tis ihe nea ut thee ASS (ep 4 : piri, Barat Beak ape shi * ~ ef eur CUBAN SOLENODON or ALMIQUI ENDANGERED Solenodon cubanus Peters, 1861 Order INSECTIVORA Family SOLENODONTIDAE SUMMARY Endemic to Cuba where it now only occurs in Oriente Province. Everywhere rare, and numbers believed to be declining and range contracting, mainly because of deforestation, although harassment by feral cats has also contributed. Legally protected. Two reserves have been established for its protection, and a third is under consideration. Continuing protection in the wild is essential to its survival. DISTRIBUTION Eastern Cuba where now confined to northeast, west central and southwest Oriente Province. Surveys in the mid 1970s have confirmed that in northeast Oriente it still occurs in the mountains to the west of Toa Baracoa, in the southwest in the Sierra Maestra mountain range, and in scattered localities in west central Oriente around Bayamo, the type locality (5,10,11,12,13,14,15). Pleistocene or Sub-Recent remains have been found in cave deposits in Pinar del Rio Province in western Cuba (10), and it was known to occur in Sierra del Escambray in Las Villas Province in south-central Cuba until the mid-19th century (10,11). POPULATION Numbers unknown but everywhere rare (5,10,13,14), Varona in 1981 reported that numbers were declining, and its range contracting slowly (10). In 1974, 14 individuals were counted on the western heights of Sierra Maestra (10,12). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Dense, humid, primary montane forests (5,13.16). Shelters in burrows or caves, seemingly in family groups (10,15). Solenodons are terrestrial and primarily nocturnal, feeding on vertebrates, and invertebrates such as snails (2,3,9,15) and obtaining their food by rooting in the ground with their snouts and tearing into rotten logs and trees with their foreclaws (15,17). One to two offspring is the norm (9). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Deforestation has been the principal cause of decline (5,10), although feral cats may also have contributed (16). Some authors attributed decline to dogs and mongooses (1,5,17) but neither occur in the Solenodon's habitat (10,16). Varona in 1976/77 reported that local farmers always knew where Solenodons could be found, although prior to the 1970s they had not tried to capture them, partly because the meat is inedible and partly because the habitat is difficult to penetrate. However because of increased scientific interest in Solenodons the farmers have been 'trying to capture almiquis so as to see their names and photographs on television and in newspapers and magazines' (13). However specimens captured in 1976 and 1980 were re-released in the dreas where they were caught (10,1 3,14). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Legally protected in Cuba and efforts are being made to ensure that protection is enforced. A new law, No. 21-79, has forbidden all hunting throughout the year in certain areas that are important for wildlife (16). The Cuban Academy of Sciences has established the Jaguani and the Cupeyal reserves for fauna and flora in the montane forest of northeastern Oriente Province, near Toa Baracoa, where both the Solenodon and the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis bairdii) occur. A third reserve in this area is planned at Duaba Arriba (10). IUCN/WWF Project 1268 aimed to investigate the status of the Haitian and Cuban Solenodons; Dr. Walter Poduschka, % Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Insectivore Specialist Group therefore visited Hispaniola in 1976, but was unable to obtain permission to visit Cuba (8). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Continuation of surveys in selected areas of the Solenodon's range to ascertain its distribution and ecology, as a basis for the establishment of further reserves or other action to ensure its survival. CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1974-75 a male and two females were captured near Baracoa. The male died in April 1975, one year after capture; by March 1976 the females were still alive and kept in Havana Zoo where they were being studied by the Vertebrate Department of the Institute of Zoology (10,13); by March 1981 one of the females still lived (10). There are no records of this species ever having bred in captivity. Canas Alcober decribes his experience of taking care of two captive Almiquis in the 1950s (5), and Bridges mentions a specimen kept at Philadelphia Zoological Garden from December 1886 to July 1892 (4). REMARKS For description of animal see (1,3,5,6,11,15,17); for photograph see (16). In 1925 Cabrera put the species in the genus Atopogale, however it is now usually placed in the genus Solenodon along with the Haitian Solenodon, Solenodon paradoxus, with Atopogale retained as the subgenus. Barbour describes two species of Solenodons on Cuba, based on colouration (3). However Varona points out that colouration is extremely variable and that probably only one species exists (10,11,15). Insectivores are considered the most primitive and oldest true mammals; the genus Solenodon is one of the most basic of the recent insectivores and its survival is therefore of fundamental interest to mammalian science (8). This data sheet was compiled with the assistance of Dr Luis S. Varona of Havana, Cuba. REFERENCES 1. Allen, G.M. (1942). Extinct and Vanishing Mammals of the Western Hemisphere with the marine species of all the Oceans. Spec. Publ. Amer. Comm. Int. Wildlife Protection. No.1 1. 2. Allen, J.A. (1908). Notes on Solenodon paradoxus Brandt. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 24: 505-517. 3. Barbour, T. (1944). The Solenodons of Cuba. Proc. New Engl. Zool. Club 23: 1-8. 4. Bridges, W. (1936). The Haitian Solenodon. Bull. New York Zool. Soc. 39 (1): 13-18. 5. Canas Alcober, R. (1971). The last Almiquis (Solenodon cubanus) in captivity. Zool. Garten N.F., Leipzig 40 (1-2): 1-3. 6. McDowell, S.B. Jr., (1958). The Greater Antillean Insectivores. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 115 (3): 113-214. 7. Peters, W.H.C. (1861). Notes in Mber. K. preuss. Akad Wiss. Berlin. 169. 8. Poduschka, W. (1977). Project 1268. Solenodon - Cuba, Haiti and Dominican Republic. World Wildlife Yearbook 1976-77: 197-198. WWF, Switzerland. 9. Poduschka, W. (1977-81). In litt. 10. Varona, L.S. (1969-1981). In litt. 11. Varona, L.S. (1974). Catalogo de los mamiferos vivientes y extinguidos de las Antillas. Academia de Ciencias de Cuba. 12. Varona, L.S. (1974). The Cuban Solenodon. Oryx 12 (5): 542. 13. Varona, L.S. (1976). The present status of the Almiqui Solenodon (Atopogale) cubana. Unpd. Report. 3pp. 14. Varona, L.S. (1977). Cuban Solenodon surveyed. Oryx 14 (1): The 15. Varona, L.S. (1980). Mamiferos de Cuba. Editorial Gente Nueva, Havana, Cuba. 16. Varona, L.S. (1980). Protection in Cuba. Oryx 15(3): 282-284. 17. Walker, E.P. (1975). Mammals of the World. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. | OE ACS aoc ne ERM Th at @aista: MEG FA | SPs tnagetivoren re conpiduted, (Ae toot: grimtlise art ‘ ‘WAVER TAS: the eenins ethony 7, OT Gh the Mast banish the meet ; ; : oe sen He avi ti i there(ore of th anteiee) wateres?T ta mh iTV ST REED *. x. \ 4 r : 4 i, feats ots ‘hens pen ee WIA RRE exsistance-ol Itc Lag Be r oe, ; a ox Rees Noe Tl Aller hai? 4 (p94 rds PM teppet sae SR hea. Leah al $0 } hn netenh re ¥ ‘bre ; Ore . i <¥ i Ui.) emma aerate: ae Bae eric: ape ae a kK i ‘i i.e. 4 7a A PAe auf Ati. AS bie atitt. ni Writ Mc i ges ahem 2 tele aa aE! Auk hia m 3 Me (i4 2h pieceas an ae rcxiay oe oe dae | 4 pth Eiarts NirSs. iAP hy Ss eo ek 6 See eae a3 iv had tary tn A (ryan . The mite an ed a, NE es sh Bev ety ee ¢ ie! / Diy ate ¢ Bnet Took ot ie a le f Foy hie ty PST ’ SAL. hart Mande ras Ss Ripe Ret il 4. pdeeay We iprthe: The Hadrian’ biohenti abe ey eng, 2c: . ss j A Z Revie Be aI "hs o¢ Ppl Ya? ot JOus tet vache i442, BMIGO Mim. PRU SOT oni rive fu sab ga hbes i weelia L aoa; “as gi pees et - eaves ; oe «| ) a) 9 >! CORRE oi tee? Bert by 7 VBL, ataeneck darabert iio 9aisn6 Yd shingle mete or Foe eos 5 east 24 hs far « , wee ; feat Ma ehe ke Ae rol wus en wal BQ yw 4 i a x ie ts , ai wr pris yak iy wi? DF LO) ait , "tk ag’ vay: % LATHE: Dae ye be {ts ou Ris it eed cee oh hati ary Min ae ae ote Sedpatiibnt vi pel Fa i ‘a ir, se ah. cond a, es ai cond? ato iva pry : ed h. vine Soe he Peak cai? phate vib? Iw ee bi vadhs Feeg te Vital 4S Di at, x =a ; 9 ACB te epi ae . eigen’ “bua T ede. oy! re oe ont ‘ i aS GHC $A RS, eh ms BE, nena ol u in ie sadaayt So ey Peer tite =| GRAY BAT ENDANGERED Myotis grisescens (Howell, 1909) Order CHIROPTERA Family VESPERTILIONIDAE SUMMARY Limited distribution in limestone areas of southeastern U.S.A. Possesses highly specific habitat requirements and is very intolerant of disturbance; total numbers are estimated to have now (1981) declined to less than 20% of the level in the early 1960s, mostly as a result of human disturbance of roosts, which still continues. 95% of the total population now winters in 9 caves, with over half in a single cave in northeastern Alabama. Adequate protection of these sites and the major maternity sites is essential for the species' survival. A Recovery Team has been appointed and a draft Recovery Plan produced. Listed as Endangered on the U.S. Endangered Species List. DISTRIBUTION Occupies a limited range in limestone karst areas of the southeastern United States (15,13). Populations are found mainly in Alabama, northern Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee, but a few occur in northwestern Florida (Jackson County), Western Georgia (Clarke and Polk Cos.), southeastern Kansas (Crawford Co.), southernmost Indiana, southern and southwestern Illinois (mainly Hardin Co.), northeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Mississippi (Tishomingo Co.), western Virginia and possibly western North Carolina (5,13). Distribution within this range has always been patchy, but fragmentation and isolation of populations is increasing (5,13). For map see (5). POPULATION In 1980 a rough estimate of the total was 1,575,000 of which about 95% winter in nine hibernacula and over half in a single cave (5). Alabama and Tennessee, with four major hibernacula held around one million individuals; Arkansas and Kentucky had one major hibernaculum each and estimated populations of 250,000 and 25,000 respectively; Missouri, with 3 main hibernacula, held an estimated 300,000 (5). Tuttle has noted, however, that estimation of Gray Bat population size is extremely difficult and it was thought that some estimates may differ from actual numbers by as much as 25 to 50% (5,13). A census in 1976 of 22 of the most important known remaining colonies in Alabama and Tennessee revealed an average population decline of 54% since 1970, with an overall decrease of 76% compared to 'recent' maximum estimates for the caves (5,13). It was estimated that the 1976 population represented in total less than 20% of that around 20 years ago (5,13). The species was declared 'Endangered' by the U.S. Department of the Interior in 1976. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY The Gray Bat, with rare exception, roosts in caves all year round and has highly specific roost and habitat requirements (1,5,9,13). Fewer than 5% of available caves are believed suitable for occupation (5). Almost all colonies move seasonally from unusually warm caves (14 - 25°C) summer to cold (6 - 11°C) winter caves (4,5,7,9,11,13). Most winter caves (hibernacula) are deep and vertical; all have a large volume below the lowest entrance and act as cold air traps (5,11). Summer maternity colonies are in caves that act as warm air traps or that provide restricted 'rooms' or domed ceilings that trap body heat from resident individuals which in some cases may have numbered at least 250,000 at previous population levels (5,8,11). Maternity caves are nearly always less than 1 km from rivers or reservoirs, over which the bats feed (5,10). During spring and autumn transient or migratory periods a much wider variety of caves is used and at all seasons males and yearling females seem less restricted than breeding females and young to specific cave and roost types (5,9,13). Mating takes place in autumn and adult females enter hibernation immediately, with juveniles and adult 107 males following several weeks later, most being in hibernation by early November. Adult females emerge in late March or early April, the rest between mid-April and mid-May; stored fat reserves must thus last for six or seven months (5,9,11). Sperm is stored over winter, fertilisation occurring on emergence from hibernation, and a single young is born in late May or early June (3,5,9). Growth rate of the flightless young is positively correlated with colony size, this being likely to be because increasing numbers of bats reduce the energy required by each individual for thermoregulation (5,8). Once young are flying, growth rates are inversely proportional to the distance from the roost to the nearest feeding areas (10). Females do not reproduce till they are two years old (5,9). THREATS TO SURVIVAL By far the most important cause of decline has been, and continues to be, disturbance to roosting sites by cavers and vandals (5,12,13). The restrictive habitat requirements of the species leads to the congregation of very large numbers in a few caves, making them very vulnerable to such disturbance, which is especially critical at maternity sites from late-May to mid-July and at hibernacula from mid-August to April (5,13). In the former, flightless young are present in the roosts and thousands may die from a single disturbance, while in the latter human activity will cause all bats within range of sound or light to rouse from hibernation leading to expenditure of fat reserves which cannot be replaced and thereby causing considerable mortality from starvation before spring (5,13). The popularity of caving ('spelunking') has increased enormously since the 1950s with a corresponding increase in the amount of disturbance (5,13). Several of the largest colonies were destroyed by cave commercialisation or by inundation following the construction of dams and reservoirs, which still continues. Other possible factors include mortality from pesticides (2), and water pollution, siltation and subsequent decline of insect populations, especially mayflies which are believed to be the major food source (5,13). The construction of badly designed gates, intended to protect the bats but leading to alteration in the cave microclimate, has also led to the loss of entire colonies, especially at maternity sites (5,12,13). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed as 'Endangered' by the U.S. Department of the Interior on 28 April 1976, and is therefore protected by law throughout its present and former range. A Recovery Team has been appointed and a detailed draft Recovery Plan for the Grey Bat was produced in December 1980 (5). By then the most important known summer cave (Souta Cave in Alabama), containing an estimated 127,000 bats had been purchased by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which was also considering other important acquisitions, including the only major hiberaculum in Kentucky, with an estimated 25,000 bats (5). Acquisition and management of other caves has been undertaken by a number of state and federal agencies, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Missouri Department of Conservation (5). Studies of ecological requirements and movement patterns have been published and others are in _ progress (6,7,8,9,10,11,12). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED The Recovery Team consider that the bat can be moved from ‘Endangered’ to 'Threatened' status when 90% of the major hibernacula are protected from disturbance and stable or increasing populations have been demonstrated in 75% of the associated maternity caves after a period of five years (5). This will entail the acquisition of at least some degree of control over the caves by government agencies and possibly private conservation bodies (5). Detailed suggestions have been made for the protection of known individual Gray Bat caves, including the construction of properly designed gates or fences, the erection of warning notices and regular patrols by conservation officials (all of which are already in use in some cases) (5,13). Such measures should be extended to recently abandoned caves as they are likely to be 108 recolonised if afforded protection from disturbance (5). It is noted that, as Gray Bat usage of caves is seasonal, protection efforts should be concentrated during periods of residence (5). The importance of educating cave owners, cavers and the public at large about the needs of bats and their ecological importance has been stressed (5,13). Further studies of the effects of pesticides and water pollution, which may have caused significant local declines, should be carried out as should monitoring of other forms of habitat modification such as forest clearance, channelization and siltation (5). In particular it is recommended that activities which may affect foraging habitat within 25 km of major Gray Bat caves should be carefully examined and modified, if necessary, to protect the habitat (5). In general, however, it appears that much of the foraging habitat in the bat's major population centres (the Ozark and Appalachian regions) has not as yet been seriously modified by man's activities and it is thought that the bat should be capable of holding its own if protected from disturbance of roosts (5). CAPTIVE BREEDING No information. REMARKS For description of animal see (1). Dr. Merlin D. Tuttle very kindly provided the information on which this data sheet is based. REFERENCES 1. Barbour, R.W. and Davis, W.H. (1969). Bats of America. Univ. Press of Kentucky, Lexington. 286 pp. 2. Clarke, D.R. Jr., Laval, R.K. and Swineford, D.M. (1978). Dieldrin-induced mortality in an endangered species, the Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens). Science 199 (4335): 1357-1359. 3. Guthrie, M.J. and Jeffers, K.R. (1938). A cytological study of the ovaries of the bats Myotis lucifugus and Myotis grisescens. J. Morph. 62: 528-557. 4. Hall, J.S. and Wilson, N. (1966). Seasonal populations and movements of the Gray Bat in the Kentucky area. Amer. Midland Nat. 75: 317-324. 5. Indiana Bat/Gray Bat Recovery Team (1980). Draft Gray Bat Recovery Plan. 6. LaVal, R.K., Clawson, R.L, LaVal, M.L. and Claire, W. (1977). Foraging behaviour and nocturnal activity patterns of the endangered bats Myotis grisescens and Myotis sodalis in Missouri. J. Mammal. 58(4): 592-599. 7. Myers, R.F. (1964). Ecology of three species of myotine bats in the Ozark Plateau. Ph.D. dissertation. Univ. of Missouri. 210 pp. 8. Tuttle, M.D. (1975). Population ecology of the Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens): Factors influencing early growth and development. Occ. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist., Univ. Kans., No. 36, pp. 1-24. 9. Tuttle, M.D. (1976). Population ecology of the Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens): Philopatry, timing and patterns of movement, weight loss during migration, and seasonal adaptive strategies. Occ. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist., Univ. Kans., 54: 1-38. 10. Tuttle, M.D. (1976). Population ecology of the Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens): Factors influencing growth and survival of newly volant young. Ecology 57: 587-595. 11. Tuttle, M.D. and Stevenson, D.E. (1977). An analysis of migration as a mortality factor in the Gray Bat based on public recoveries of banded bats. Amer. Midland Nat. 97: 235-240. 12. Tuttle, M.D. (1977). Gating as a means of protecting cave dwelling bats. In Aley, T. and Rhodes, D. (Eds), National 109 110 Cave Management Symposium Proceedings, 1976. Speleobooks, Albuquerque, N.M. Pp. 77-82. 13. Tuttle, M.D. (1979). Status, causes of decline, and management of endangered Gray Bats. J. Wildl. Manage. 43 (1): 1-17. HAWAHAN HOARY BAT INDETERMINATE Lasiurus cinereus semotus (Peale & Beauvois, 1796) Order CHIROPTERA Family VESPERTILIONIDAE SUMMARY Occurs only in the Hawaiian Islands, principally on the islands of Hawaii and Kauai. No precise information exists on present status but believed threatened by habitat loss. Protected by the 1973 Endangered Species Act and occurs in the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Studies are needed to learn more of its distribution, status and habits. DISTRIBUTION U.S.A. where it is restricted to the Hawaiian Islands (2,4,5,6,7,9). Major populations occur on the islands of Hawaii and Kauai (7). It is not known whether there is regular interchange between these two, over the stepping-stone islands in between (5,7,9). Bats are occasionally reported on Oahu and Maui but it is not known whether they are resident. No specific records exist for Molokai, Lanai and all the other smaller islands (4,7,10). POPULATION Numbers unknown but in 1981 P. Quentin Tomich considered it to be threatened because of past habitat loss and the threat of future losses (10). However the taxon is non-social, has a scattered population, and may appear rarer than it actually is. Walker in 1981 travelled round the Hawaiian Islands and discussed the status of the bat with the State field biologists on each island (12). Most of them related that they saw the taxon only occasionally but that they had made no concerted effort to determine status and/or distribution. Bats were reported 'common enough' on Kauai at all elevations and in a variety of habitats and as such were not considered 'Endangered' there (12). (Kramer mentions that records he has collected indicate bats appear on Kauai only during the months from August to December (4)). In 1974 Tomich reported that the total was probably a few thousand (9). He mentioned that only on Hawaii had extended efforts been made to assess the taxons abundance and distribution, and the available data suggested that stable numbers had existed on the island at least sincé the 1940s (9). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Able to utilize a variety of habitats - from natural forests to agricultural land (9). Typically solitary, tree-rogsting, occasionally recorded singly from rock crevices and buildings. Has been reported from sea level to 4600 m but believed most common up to 1200 m (1,4). Baldwin noted that it apparently preferred habitats of either open or mixed character and that bats living along the coast consistently ventured out over the open ocean (1,4). The species as a whole is strongly migratory but it is not known if the Hawaiian subspecies has lost this instinct (4,5,9). Insectivorous, and in upland regions forages solitarily in woodland clearings, open land at forest edges, or small glades in parks etc. in or near towns (9). These sites seem to be used habitually. Occasionally bats are attracted to insects that come to street lights, and will also feed high in the air in the open, over pasture or sugarcane fields, especially if the air is still (9). Some summer foraging in maturing Macadamia nut (Macadamia integrifolia) plantations has been recorded (10). As weather cools bats accumulate fat, adding 20-25% to body weight, and suggesting hibernation although no record of this is known (5,9). Two young are produced, between May and July, and are carried by the mother until almost full-grown (4,9), THREATS TO SURVIVAL Loss of habitat, especially native forest has been, and 1S, probably the greatest threat, but may be compensated, at least locally, in use of the now maturing Macadamia nut orchards (10). There is no evidence that the 111 bat is utilized or traded in, although there are occasionally rumours that it is shot for 'recreation' (9). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed as an Endangered Species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, giving complete Federal as well as State of Hawaii protection, plus some habitat protection (3,11). Walker, Chief Wildlife Biologist of the Division of Forestry and Wildlife, State of Hawaii reported in 1980 that plans for study of the bat are 'low key' and no immediate management actions are comtemplated until much more is known (12). The taxon ranges sparingly throughout the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park (9). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Any conservation action must await studies of status and distribution. Although preservation of native forest would seem necessary for the animal's survival. Tomich notes that preservation of even small tracts of native forest of a 100 ha or so at strategically located sites could provide enough support to maintain small local populations of the bat (9). CAPTIVE BREEDING None. REMARKS This subspecies is smaller and more reddish that the continental form, for description see (4,5,7,9). The species as a whole also occurs in North, Central and South America. It is strongly migratory and regularly reaches the Farallon Islands off California, the Bermudas, and the Galapagos Islands (2,5,7,9). Specimens have also been captured in Iceland (7). The Hawaiian population is derived from one or more chance arrivals that flew, probably aided by strong winds, the 3500 km from the Americas, possibly tens of thousands of years ago, and in their prolonged isolation have differentiated slightly from the continental populations (4,5,7,9). This bat and the 'Endangered' Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi) were the only mammals that preceded man to Hawaii (7,9). This account was compiled with the help of Dr. P. Quentin Tomich, Ronald L. Walker, and Ernest Kosaka. REFERENCES 1. Baldwin, P.H. (1950). Occurrence and behaviour of the Hawaiian Bat. J. Mammal. 31 (4): 455-456. 2. Hall, E.R. and Kelson, K.R. (1959). Mammals of North America. Ronald Press, New York. 3. Kosaka, E. (1980). In litt. 4, Kramer, R.J. (1971). Hawaiian Land Mammals. Charles E. Tuttle Company, Rutland, Vermont and Tokyo. 5. Tomich, P.Q. (1965). The Hoary Bat in Hawaii. The Elepaio. J. Hawaii Audubon Soc. 25(11): 85-86. 6. Tomich, P.Q. (1969). Mammals in Hawaii. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 7. Tomich, P.Q. (1972). Mammals. In Armstrong, R.W. (Ed.), Atlas of Hawaii. Univ. Press of Hawaii. 222pp. 8. Tomich, P.Q. (1972). Rare and endangered fish and wildlife of the United States. US Dept. Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Resources Publ. 34. 9. Tomich, P.Q. (1974). The Hawaiian Hoary Bat: Daredevil of the Volcanoes. National Parks and Conservation Magazine 48 (2): 10-13. 10. Tomich, P.Q. (1981). In litt. 11. United States Congress. (1973). Public Law 93-205 93rd Congress, S. 1983, Dec. 28 1973. U.S. Government Printing Office Washington D.C. 2Ip. 12. Walker, R.L. (1980). In litt. 112 OZARK BIG-EARED BAT INDETERMINATE Plecotus townsendii ingens (Handley, 1959) Order CHIROPTERA Family VESPERTILIONIDAE SUMMARY Known from only a few caves in the States of Arkansas, Oklahoma and Missouri, U.S.A. Numbered perhaps only in hundreds. First nursery colony was located in 1978 in Arkansas. Extremely intolerant of disturbance which causes it to desert favourite roosts. Listed as endangered on the 1973 U.S. Endangered Species List. A study was begun in 1978 in Arkansas to determine the distribution, status, and ecology of bats in the State including this species; information is required on its status in Missouri and Oklahoma. Greater protection of cave sites from disturbance is needed. DISTRIBUTION United States, where known from caves in a few localities in northwestern and north central Arkansas, southwestern Missouri and eastern Oklahoma (2,8,9). POPULATION Total numbers unknown. In the mid-1970s the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated the total to be less than 100 (5,10) but recent discoveries of colonies indicate it may be more abundant than previously thought (6,9). In 1981 Harvey reported that about 500 were known to occur in Arkansas, including 420 hibernating individuals in one cave (7). In 1978 the first maternity colony, comprising ca. 120 bats, was found in Marion County, north-central Arkansas (6,7,9,10).. Numbers in Missouri and Oklahoma are unknown, as is the population trend. The taxon is considered endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (12). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Inhabits caves throughout the year (8,9); studies indicating a preference for relatively cold areas (4°C to 9°C) for hibernation (9). The Ozark Mountains are mainly mixed hardwood forest, and caves are numerous throughout the region (6). Usually only one young is born and that in early summer (2). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Very intolerant of human disturbance, known to vacate caves if disturbed during hibernation (1,4,5,12,13). Loss of habitat, increased visitation of hibernacula and nursery caves, and vandalism have likely been influential in the demise of the taxon (5). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission as endangered (8,12,13). The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and the National Park Service began in 1978 a study of the distribution, status, and ecology of endangered bats in Arkansas including this taxon. It is hoped the results of the study will lead to protection of ‘Critical Habitat' for endangered bat species in the State (6). Continuing efforts to locate additional colonies are being made so that management plans can be formulated and implemented for the protection and recovery of this and other bat taxa in Arkansas (8). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Greater protection is advocated for caves housing hibernating and maternity colonies, and especially needed are gates at the entrances of such caves (6). CAPTIVE BREEDING None. 113 REMARKS For description of animal see (1,2). The species as a whole ranges from British Columbia south to Mexico (excluding Baja California) and east to West Virginia (2) and is not considered threatened. One other subspecies, the Virginia Big-eared bat, Plecotus townsendii virginianus is listed in the IUCN Red Data Book. This account was compiled with the help of Dr. Michael J. Harvey, who has been studying the species in Arkansas. REFERENGES . fs 2 10. Il. 114 Barbour, R.W. and Davis, W.H. (1969). Bats of America. Univ. Press of Kentucky. Lexington. Hall, E.R. and Kelson, K.R. (1959). Mammals of North America. Ronald Press, Co., New York. Handley, C.O. Jr. (1959). A revision of American bats of the genera Euderma and Plecotus. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 110: 95-246. Harvey, M.J. (1975). Endangered Chiroptera of the southeastern United States. Proc. 29th Ann. Conf. S.E. Assoc. Game and Fish Commissioners 1975. 29: 429-433. Harvey, M.J. (1976). Status of endangered bats in the eastern United States. Proc. 1976 Nat. Speleol. Soc. Ann. Convention 1976: 21-24. Harvey, M.J. (1978). Status of the endangered bats Myotis sodalis, M. grisescens and Plecotus townsendii ingens in the southern Ozarks. In Wilson, D.E. and Gardner, A.L. (Eds), Proc. 5th Int. Bat. Res. Conf. Texas Tech. Press, Lubbock, Texas. Harvey, M.J. (1980). In litt. Harvey, M.J., Cassidy, J.J. and O'Hagan, G.G. (1979). Status of the endangered bats, Myotis sodalis, M. grisescens and Plecotus townsendii ingens, in Arkansas. Arkansas Acad. Sci. Proc. 33: 81. Harvey, M.J., Kennedy, M.L. and McDaniel, V.R. (1978). Status of the endangered Ozark Big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii ingens) in Arkansas. Arkansas Acad. Sci. Proc. 32: 89-90. Sealander, J.A., Jr (1972). Rare and endangered fish and wildlife of the United States, U.S. Dept. eerie Fish —_ Wildlife Service Resource Publ. 34. U.S.D.I. (1973). Threatened wildlife of the United States. U.S. Dept. Interior. Resource Pub. 114. 280p. U.S.D.I. (1977). Two bat species proposed for endangered List. U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service New Release Dec. 2 1979. U.S.D.I. (1979). Listing of Virginia and Ozark Big-eared Bats as endangered species, and _ critical habitat determination; final rule. Federal Register 44 (232): 69206-69208. VIRGINIA BIG-EARED BAT ENDANGERED Plecotus townsendii virginianus (Handley, 1959) Order CHIROPTERA Family VESPERTILIONIDAE SUMMARY Cave-dwelling species found in eastern Kentucky, western Virginia and eastern West Virginia U.S.A. Less than 5000 estimated to survive in 1979 and numbers are apparently declining with many caves being abandoned. Intolerant of human disturbance. Listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973. Protection of important cave sites vital. DISTRIBUTION Eastern United States, in the Appalachian region where it occurs in three separate populations centred in Lee County, eastern Kentucky, southwestern Virginia and eastern West Virginia in Pendleton and Tucker counties (3,4,6,10). POPULATION In late 1980 there were estimated to be about 1500 hibernating bats in Kentucky (7) with a 1979 estimate of 2500 to 3000 in West Virginia and 'no more than a few hundred! in Virginia (10). Numbers are reported to be declining (5,6,10); since the early 1960s at least five wintering colonies in West Virginia, have disappeared. Only three nursery colonies are known to remain in West Virginia and one in Kentucky, the latter containing fewer than 500 bats by 1979 (10). Listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1979 (10). The taxon has a limited range and is highly susceptible to changes in its habitat, even minor disturbance or physical changes in the caves occupied may result in abandonment (10). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Inhabits caves all year round and occasionally found in buildings in summer. Hibernation requires temperatures of 12°C or less (but generally above freezing) (1,5,6). Some caves may be used both summer and winter; summer colonies are usually smaller and are maternity colonies of a few to 100+ individuals (6). Usually only one young is born, in early summer (3). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Colonies are very intolerant of disturbance being reputedly among the wariest of bats and if disturbed will readily abandon the cave site (1,3,4,5,10). Gates placed at cave entrances to deter disturbance have been broken down and bats found dead. Loss of habitat may also be a contributory factor in decline (6). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN In 1979 Listed as endangered on the U.S. Endangered Species List (9). Five caves in West Virginia have been determined as 'Critical Habitat', and thus all Federal Agencies are obliged by law to ensure that actions authorized, funded or carried out by them do not result in the destruction or adverse modification of this habitat. The National Speleological Society has a moratorium on visits to a cave which houses a colony of almost 1000 bats (5,9); but this has proved insufficient in preventing vandals entering the gated cave system (9). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Protection from disturbance of important cave sites is the principal requirement. CAPTIVE BREEDING None. REMARKS For description of animal see (1). The species as a whole ranges from British Columbia in Canada south to Mexico (excluding Baja California) and east 115 to West Virginia (3) and is not considered threatened. One other subspecies, the Ozark Big-eared Bat Plecotus townsendii ingens is listed in the IUCN Red Data Book. This account was compiled with the help of Dr. Michael J. Harvey. REFERENCES 116 Ie Ze 10. Barbour, R.W. and Davis, W.H. (1969). Bats of America. Univ. Press of Kentucky, Lexington. Conrad, L.G. (1961). Distribution and speciation problems concerning the long-eared bat, Plecotus townsendii virginianus. D. C. Speleograph 17: 49-52. Hall, E.R. and Kelson, K.R. (1959). Mammals of North America. Ronald Press Co., New York. Harvey, M.J. (1976). Virginia Big-eared Bat. In Hillestad, H.O. (Ed.), Endangered and threatened vertebrates of the southeast. Tall Timbers Res. Sta. Bull. Harvey, M.J. (1976). Status of endangered bats in the eastern United States. Proc. 1976 Nat. Speleol. Soc. Ann. Convention 1976: 21-24. Harvey, M.J. (1976). Endangered chiroptera of the southeastern United States. Proc. 29th Ann. Conf. S.E. Assoc. Game and Fish Commissioners 1975. 29: 429-433, Harvey, M.J. (1980). In litt. Rippy, C.L. and Harvey, J.M. (1965). Notes on Plecotus townsendii virginianus in Kentucky. J. Mammal. 46 (3): 499. U.S.D.I. (1977). Two bat species proposed for endangered list. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service News Release Dec. 2 1977. U.S.D.I. (1979). Listing of Virginian and Ozark Big-eared Bats as endangered species, and critical habitat determination; final rule. Federal Register 44 (232): 69206-69208. BUFF Y-HEADED MARMOSET ENDANGERED Callithrix flaviceps (Thomas, 1903) Order PRIMATES Family CALLITRICHIDAE SUMMARY Endemic to a very small area of southeastern Brazil where much of the forest has already been destroyed. Numbers unknown but certainly very few. Protected in two reserves, included on the Brazilian Endangered Species List and a captive breeding programme is planned. Effectively protected reserves will be essential to its continued survival in the wild. DISTRIBUTION Southeastern Brazil. Reduced to fragmented populations in Espirito Santo and eastern Minas Gerais (8). Its occurrence in the latter was confirmed in November 1979 when it was observed on the Fazenda Montes Claros, a private farm owned by Sr Feliciano Miguel Abdala and situated on the Caratinga - Ipanema road, 58 km from Caratinga. This record extends its known range some 125 km to the west and 115 km to the north of the two nearest Espirito Santo localities (Santa Teresa and Guacui) (4,8,14). Previously known only from a very small area in the mountains of southern Espirito Santo at altitudes over 400 m (1,2,3,4,11,13,14). For map see (4,11,14). POPULATION Numbers unknown, but considered endangered because of extensive habitat loss (5,8,10). Mittermeier et al, based on 1979/80 surveys, report that much of its habitat has already been destroyed, and remaining groups in isolated forest patches cannot be considered viable populations (10). Highest numbers occur in the Nova Lombardia Biological Reserve in Espirito Santo (10), plus about 20, perhaps as many as 50, on the Fazenda Montes Claros (8,9,10,14). These two areas will probably be the last strongholds of the species and provided they remain effectively protected will allow the continued survival of the animal (10). Ruschi considered it to be threatened even in the mid-1950s (12). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Mountainous forests above 400 m (3,8). All sightings of C. flaviceps in Montes Claros were in edge habitats, mainly along roads, and the animals range from the understorey at about 3 m to the upper part of the canopy at about 30 m (14). Callithrix species live in monogamous family groups (8,11). Diet consists mainly of fruit, tree exudates and insects (7,8). Gestation period is 140-150 days. Normally two young are born, occasionally one or three. The male takes a major part in carrying and caring for the infants (11). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Forest destruction throughout its very limited range has already eliminated much of its habitat (7,8,10,14). Any commercial exploitation of the animal itself would be disastrous (6). Since the 1800s the Atlantic coastal forests of eastern Brazil have suffered a tremendous increase in human population and widespread, largely uncontrolled forest destruction to make way for coffee plantations, sugar cane, cocoa, eucalyptus, cattle pasture and above all lumber extraction and charcoal production. In recent years industrial development has also taken its toll. As a result the forests have been devastated, especially during the rapid development and economic expansion from the 1960s onwards. Only a tiny fraction of the original forest cover remains (10,14). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; trade in it between acceding nations is therefore subject to severe restriction, trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Included on the Brazilian Endangered Species List (7,10). Protected in the Biological Reserve of Nova 117 Lombardia (4350 ha) and on the privately owned Fazenda Montes Claros (1000 ha); may also occur in Caparao National Park (10,435 ha) but this is unconfirmed (7,8,10). Mittermeier et al made preliminary surveys of this animal in 1979/80 as part of a general study of the status and conservation of eastern Brazilian primates (10). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED The IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group made the following recommendations in 1980: i) investigate the presence of C. flaviceps in Caparao National Park; ii) conduct rescue operations to remove isolated groups from remnant tracts of forest slated for destruction; iii) establish a captive colony, iv) encourage Brazilian students to conduct ecological studies in both Nova Lombardia and Montes Claros; facilities exist at both sites and students could be supported at minimal expense (10); v) urge that the privately protected Fazenda Montes Claros be made into a National Biological Reserve or an Ecological Station so that it can be preserved into the future. (The area also contains the critically endangered Brachyteles arachnoides) (8,9,14). CAPTIVE BREEDING As of 1980 there were none in captivity, however the Rio de Janeiro Primate Centre has experience with them and is planning a breeding programme. It is thought they will breed well in captivity (10). REMARKS For description of animal see (3,11,14). Some authorities consider flaviceps t s to be a subspecies of Callithrix jacchus Gs, 11). This data sheet has been compiled with the assistance of Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group and Dr. A.F. Coimbra-Filho. REFERENCES 1. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1971). Os saguis do genero Callithrix da regiao oriental brasileira e um caso de duplo-hibridismo entre tres de suas formas (Callithricidae, Primates). Rev. Brasil Biol. 31: 377-388. 2. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1972). Mamiferos ameacados de extincao no Brasil. In Especies de Fauna_Brasileira Ameacadas de Extincao. Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, Rio de Janeiro. Pp. 13-98. 3. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1973). New data on the taxonomy of the Brazilian marmosets of the genus Callithrix Erxleben, 1777. Folia Primat. 20: 241-264. 4, Hershkovitz, P. (1977). Living New World Monkeys (Platyrrhini) with an introduction to Primates, Vol.1. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. 5. Kleiman, D.C. (1976). Meeting held: the biology and conservation of the Callitrichidae. Lab. Primate Newsletter 15(1): 5. 6. Mittermeier, R.A. (1976). Preliminary assessment of the conservation status of New World Monkeys. Unpd. Report. 6 pp. 7. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. 8. Mittermeier, R.A., Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Constable, I.D. (1980). Range extension for an endangered marmoset. Oryx 15(4): 380-383. 9. Mittermeier, R.A. and Constable, I.D. (1980). Fazenda Montes Claros and its importance for the conservation of endangered southeastern Brazilian Primates. Unpd. Report. 10. Mittermeier, R.A., Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Constable I.D. (1980). Conservation of Eastern Brazilian Primates. WWF Project 1614. Report for the period 1979/80. 11. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Natural History). Part |: Families Callitrichidae 118 and Cebidae. British Museum (Natural History), London. Ruschi, A. (1954). Algumas especies zoologicas e botanicas em vias de extincao no Espirito Santo. Bol. Mus. Biol. Prof. Mello Leitao, Prot. Nat. 16A: 1-45. Vieira, C.C. (1955). Lista remissiva dos mamiferos do Brasil. Arg. Zool. Sao Paulo &: 341-474, - Coimbra-Filho, A.F., Mittermeier, R.A. and Constable, I.D. (1981). Callithrix flaviceps (Thomas, 1903) recorded from Minas Gerais, Brazil (Callitrichidae, Primates). Rev. Brasil. Biol. 41(1): 141-147. 119 a A ely es Te eae? | nleget 2 iano “Pd Tee bat far Pes i Cara Fiieic any eteangaces Btachy teles arachs VAMOS? § ) Pix é ' : zs as , ah CAPTIVE BREEDIN A Aol 19k mete were hoie a Ere ERY oo ne Finan ya ennpne 5 aS in ah eats 4 Be See IS Fe WITS C STtewe. ae hc keurs ei with They wre 2 ple } et ns ‘tite, Prt esa {tA thougl t Tey ek OF eee Wwe) Captevity Tit ee 7 te ae” 4 = i 3 : by ie "is ty ~~ : gE MARE hot, festitetion «a eaimal oF he ‘ ae he LS > be Faves ~m be HASpe (teh a CBE AN LAOCT 4 Rae ay er eens Coat tH! Rrxlehene titty Fore Prange 2 & : Nee ae the Ny 6 eimady, OK fi iD Ode Mame Siig: res ahs the tae ar ae Bic, Mitel, sh ve AS? “Aico Gieee ~ bbe Sa hibit tahacealeee habeas ie oli Bide betes Jandel X isjidiog SVESi LTO AW po ayeSam eA EGE OI], is Ww - eg houlh aul agit: .etrisk 3 iiiquilronisioriter eoyect? “shee Srutalan. {8s Sart of 2 eters) stidyeebl We locaBel pony polities allot 91 caer aoliwaspbiniels, 20b sviesinen -etld (eked - J) eusy WEF Ne) : OT 0-192 18 oiUs4 Be2 tool swIA. .tize%s, be VY BIE RAND Dae VK Mei ePIA ION | Saad MISS — Oe ne 7 monbchatemaye{ CORD 4, che ga ) YEZAy, Can mbraePuida, Ants one pe see Se + Raye mactepnaian for a eae me. mat fr gira oil A pk eee ene Oe Pr ead te Re Feet see WO OS AOR hat | ipestance rd sncangertal's Mea ‘Brapitian Orin -atien, WHITE MARMOSET VULNERABLE Callithrix argentata leucippe (Thomas, 1922) Order PRIMATES Family CALLITRICHIDAE SUMMARY Very restricted distribution in Brazilian Amazonia. Numbers unknown. Threatened by loss of habitat. The Trans-Amazonian Highway cuts right through its small range. Captive breeding programmes and a reserve or national park are needed. DISTRIBUTION Brazil. Occurs in a very small area of Brazilian Amazonia between the Rio Jamanxim and the Rio Cupari, east bank tributaries of the Rio Tapajos (2,4). POPULATION Total numbers unknown (6). Mittermeier reports this subspecies to be definitely 'Vulnerable' and possibly 'Endangered' (3,5,6). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Tropical rainforest (6). This subspecies has been observed in small groups of two to four animals (4). Diurnal and arboreal. Callithrix species live in monogamous family groups (7). Diet consists mainly of tree exudates, fruit and insects (6). Gestation period is 140-150 days. Normally two young are born; the male does most of the carrying and caring for the infants (7). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Habitat loss. The small range of this subspecies is bisected by the Trans-Amazonian Highway and is being subjected to much clear-felling to make way for cattle ranches. When Mittermeier was in the area in 1973, habitat destruction was already underway; it has undoubtedly increased since then and if it continues the survival of this race will be in jeopardy (4,5,6). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Included in Appendix 2 of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; trade in the subspecies between acceding nations is therefore subject to regulation and monitoring of its effects. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED A reserve or national park within the range of C. a. leucippe is essential and would also benefit Chiropotes albinasus, another Red Data Book species, as well as other primate species. The Trans-Amazonian Highway and associated development will make this difficult (6) but not necessarily impossible. CAPTIVE BREEDING As of March 1981 there were none in captivity; however captive breeding of C. a. argentata and C. a. melanura is successful and there is no reason to suppose aes taxon should differ (6). A captive breeding programme is planned at the Rio de Janeiro Primate Centre (6). REMARKS For description of animal see (1,2,7). Callithrix argentata is found south of the Amazon between the Rio Tapajos and the Tocantins-Araguaia, as far as the points where the Rio Tacuari and Rio Mamore, respectively, flow along or across the border of northern and southern Bolivia (4). Two other subspecies are recognized: C. a. argentata which is found between the Ric Tapajos and the Tocantins-Araguaia, its southwestern limit the Rio Cupari, a right bank tributary of the Tapajos (1), and does not appear to be in any danger at the present time (3,5); and C. a. melanura with a large range to the south of C. a. argentata (3), inhabiting the drier and cooler region of central Brazil, to the west of the Rio 121 Araguaia (Mato Grosso), and also adjacent parts of Bolivia as far the Rio Beni (1); there is no information on its current status, but much of its range is uninhabited and it is probably common (3,5). Callithrix spp. appear to survive well in close proximity to man and are usually not hunted for food (4). This data sheet has been compiled with the assistance of Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. REFERENCES I. 2. 122 Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1973). New data on the taxonomy of the Brazilian marmosets of the genus Callithrix Erxleben, 1777. Folio primat. 20: 241-264. Hershkovitz, P. (1977). Living New World Monkeys (Platyrrhini). With an Introduction to Primates. Vol.l. The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Mittermeier, R.A. (1976). Preliminary assessment of the conservation status of New World monkeys. Unpd. Report. 6 pp. Mittermeier, R.A. and Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1977). Primate Conservation in Brazilian Amazonia. In Prince Rainier and Bourne, G. (Eds), Primate Conservation. Acad. Press, New York. Mittermeier, R.A., Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Roosmalen, M.G.M. van (1978). Callitrichids in Brazil and the Guianas: Current conservation status and potential for biomedical research. Prim. Med. 10: 20-29. Mittermeier, R.A. (1981). In litt. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Natural History), Part |: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum (Natural History), London. BUFF Y-TUFTED-EAR MARMOSET ENDANGERED Callithrix aurita (E. Geoffroy, 1812) Order PRIMATES Family CALLITRICHIDAE i SUMMARY Southeastern Brazil, where it has an extremely small range and is considered endangered because of extensive habitat destruction. Not listed on the Brazilian Endangered Species List, and has disappeared from two national parks, perhaps because of epidemics. Thus far, the only adequately protected population located during the course of survey work has been in the privately protected Fazenda Barreiro Rico in Sao Paulo. Survival will depend on effective reserves. DISTRIBUTION Southeastern Brazil where it once occurred in southeastern Sao Paulo, western Rio de Janiero, and adjacent parts of Minas Gerais but has now disappeared from most of this area (6). POPULATION Numbers unknown. In 1980 the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group considered it 'Endangered' because of extensive habitat loss (6), they believed its long term survival would depend on its status in the parks and reserves of coastal Sao Paulo, and these remain to be investigated. Populations in the two known protected areas were thought probably inadequate to ensure survival (6). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Forests of Atlantic coastlands (6), at high altitudes in Rio de Janeiro; in both mountains and lowlands in Sao Paulo; and at low altitudes in Minas Gerais (1). Callithrix species live in monogamous family groups (7). Diet consists of fruit, tree exudates and insects (4). Gestation period is 140-150 days. Two young are the norm and the male plays a major part in carrying and caring for the infants (7). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Forest destruction has already destroyed most of its habitat. Since the 1800s the Atlantic coastal forests of eastern Brazil have suffered a tremendous increase in human population and widespread, largely uncontrolled forest destruction to make way for plantations of coffee, sugar cane, cocoa, and eucalyptus, also cattle pasture and above all lumber extraction and charcoal production. In recent years industrial development has also taken its toll. As a result the forests have been devastated, especially during the rapid development and economic expansion of the 1960s onwards. Only a tiny fraction of the original forest cover remains (5,6). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and traffic in it is therefore subject to severe restriction by signatory nations including a ban on trade for primarily commercial purposes. It is nevertheless, not yet included in the Brazilian endangered species list. Surveys in 1979/80 found it to occur in only two protected areas - the privately owned Fazenda Barreiro Rico in Sao Paulo, and the Estacao Experimental de Mogi-Gaucu, a tiny 50 ha forest belonging to the Institute Florestal of the State of Sao Paulo. The latter has one, possibly two, groups but is too small an area to be of any long-term significance to conservation (6). The species has apparently gone extinct in two national parks -- Serra dos Orgaos (10,000 ha) and Itatiaia (11,943 ha) -- in which it once definitely occurred. The reasons are unknown but the cause may possibly have been a series of epidemics (6). It may still exist in the Serra da Bocaina National Park on the Rio-Sao Paulo border (100,000 ha), and in the Jacupiranga 123 and Carlos Botelho State Reserves but confirmation is needed (6). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Inclusion in Brazil's Endangered Species List. The IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group made the following recommendations in 1980: i) conduct surveys in the parks, reserves and experimental stations of Sao Paulo, especially in Serra da Bocaina N.P. and Jacupiranga and Carlos Botelho State Reserves; ii) establish a captive colony, iii) encourage a Brazilian student to conduct an ecological study at Fazenda Barreiro Rico (6). CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1979 there were two males and two females (all captive bred) held in two zoo collections (8). Captive breeding is planned at the Rio de Janeiro Primate Centre (6). However additional captive breeding stocks are needed (6). Callithrix is an easy genus to breed in captivity (4). REMARKS Some authorities treat C. aurita as a subspecies of Callithrix jacchus (2,7) but for distinctions see (1,3). This data sheet was compiled from information supplied by Dr. A.F. Coimbra-Filho and Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. REFERENCES 1. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1973). New data on the taxonomy of the Brazilian marmosets of the genus Callithrix Erxleben, 1777. Folia primat. 20: 241-264. 2. Hershkovitz, P. (1968). Metachromism or the principle of evolutionary change in mammalian tegumentary colors. Evolution 22: 556-575. 3. Hershkovitz, P. (1977). Living New World Monkeys (Platyrrhini) with an introduction to Primates, Vol.1. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. 4. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. 5. Mittermeier, R.A., Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and van Roosmalen, M.G.M. (1977). Callitrichids in Brazil and Guianas: Conservation status and potential for biomedical research. In Marmosets in Experimental Medicine. Karger, Basel. 6. Mittermeier, R.A., Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Constable I.D. (1980). Conservation of eastern Brazilian Primates. WWF Project 1614. Report for the period 1979/80. 7. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Natural History). Part 1: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum (Natural History), London. 8. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. 124 TASSEL-EARED MARMOSET VULNERABLE Callithrix humeralifer (E. Geoffroy, 1812) Order PRIMATES Family CALLITRICHIDAE SUMMARY The three races of this species have restricted distributions on the south bank of the Amazon between the Rios Madeira and Tapajos in Brazil, and are highly vulnerable to habitat destruction within their small ranges. Anthony Rylands began studies on C. h. intermedius in 1978 and has reviewed the status of the whole species. Adequately protected reserves are the main requirement for the species conservation. DISTRIBUTION Brazil. Between the Rio Madeira and the Rio Tapajos, south bank tributaries of the Amazon. Of the three subspecies recognised, C. h. humeralifer occurs between the Rio Tapajos and the Rio Canuma extending south as far as Vila Braga. The southern limit is not exactly known but is certainly not below 10°S. C. h. chrysoleuca is found between the Rio Canuma and the Rio Madeira - Aripuana. The southernmost record is Prainha, a short distance north of the mouth of the Rio Roosevelt on the east bank of the Rio Aripuana, but the animal may range as far as the headwaters of the Rio Canuma. C. h. intermedius occurs between the Rio Roosevelt and the Rio Aripuana probably extending south to the headwaters of the Rios Aripuana and Guariba (1,7,9,10). For distribution map see £P,7,10). POPULATION No estimates of numbers have been made. In 1981 Rylands summarised the status of the species as: C. h. humeralifer: possibly vulnerable; Cc. h. chrysoleuca: vulnerable; C. h. intermedius: very restricted range of which more than half was destined for development (9). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Rylands observed C. h. intermedius in dense primary forest, secondary growth, and low white sand forest. Group size varied from 4 to 13, the larger groups comprised more than one adult pair. Principal foods included small fruits, flowers, tree and liana exudates, insects, small frogs and lizards (7,8,10). A pair of young are the norm after a gestation period of 140-150 days (5,7). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Habitat loss. Amazonian Callithrix appear to survive well in close proximity to man and are usually not hunted for food (3). However all three subspecies of C. humeralifer have very limited ranges so that habitat destruction could pose a major threat to their existence (2). There has already been roadbuilding within the areas they occupy (4,7,9). C. h. humeralifer in the north of its range is threatened by the Trombetas and Tapajos development programmes. The region immediately west of the Rio Tapajos is threatened by development and habitat destruction along the Transamazonian Highway between Itaituba and Jacareacanga (9). The range of C. h. chrysoleuca will be traversed by the planned Caceres - Manaus road and in the south is cut by the Transamazonian Highway. In the north of its range near the Rio Amazonas there has already been considerable human colonisation which may increase in future due to the proximity of the Tapajos and Trombetas development programmes. The Aripuana and Juruena development areas are close to its southern limits. More than half the range of C. h. intermedius is covered by the Aripuana development area (9). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN The species is listed in Appendix 2 of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; so that trade in it between acceding nations is subject to regulation and 125 monitoring of its effects. Protected by the 1967 Fauna Protection Law (4). C. h. humeralifer occurs in the Amazonia National Park, Para, but as yet there are no proposed reserves within the ranges of intermedius or chrysoleuca although it is possible that intermedius occurs in the Iqne-Aripuana Ecological Station to the south of its known range (7,8,9,10). Anthony Rylands began field studies on C. h. intermedius in May 1978 (7,8,9,10). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Adequately protected reserves are needed within the ranges of all three subspecies. Reserves on the Rios Canuma and upper Rio ee would protect C. h. aut eral ist and also the 'Vulnerable' Callithrix argentata leucippe as well as Go . Chrysoleuca. The latter would also benefit from an extension to the ee “Biological Reserve of Parintins, and from the establishment of reserves along the Transamazonica_ and Caceres-Manaus roadways and C. h. intermedius would be protected if reserves were sited in the region of the “Serra das Oncas and at the mouths of the Rios Guariba and Roosevelt (9). CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1979 there were three males in two zoo collections (6). Breeding colonies are to be set up in the Rio de Janeiro Primate Centre (4). REMARKS For description of animal see (1,5,7). Anthony Rylands very kindly assisted with the compilation of this data sheet, and both he and Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group commented on its final draft. REFERENCES 1. Hershkovitz, P. (1977). Living New World Monkeys (Platyrrhini). With an Introduction to Primates Vol. 1. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. 2. Hershkovitz, P. (1972). Notes on New World Monkeys. Int. Zoo Yb. Zool. Soc. London. 3. Mittermeier, R.A. and Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1977). Primate conservation in Brazilian Amazonia. In Prince Rainier and Bourne, G. (Eds), Primate Conservation. Acad. Press, New York. 4, Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. 5. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Natural History). Part 1: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum (Natural History), London. 6. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. 7. Rylands, A.B. (1979). Observacoes preliminares sobre o sagui Callithrix humeralifer intermedius (Hershkovitz, 1977) em Dardanelos, Rio Aripuana, Mato Grosso. Acta Amazonica 9 (3): 589-602. 8. Rylands, A.B. (1980). In litt. 9. Rylands, A.B. (1981). Conservacao de primatas Amazonicos: Una analise de parques, reservas e propostas para conservacao na Amazonia. In Press Boleim Tecnico do Instituto Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal (IBDF). 10. Rylands, A.B. (1981). Preliminary field observations on the Marmoset, Callithrix humeralifer intermedius (Hershkovitz, 1977) at Dardanelos, Rio Aripuana, Mato Grosso. Primates 22(1): 46-59. 126 COTTON-TOP TAMARIN or PINCHE ENDANGERED Saguinus oedipus oedipus (Linnaeus, 1758) Order PRIMATES Family CALLITRICHIDAE SUMMARY Endemic to northwest Colombia. Total numbers unknown. Main threat is habitat destruction within its small range; also populations were probably seriously depleted by the animal trade between 1960 and 1975. Trade has been curbed, but loss of habitat to agriculture continues unabated. Protected by law and two reserves have been established in areas where the tamarin could occur. Total elimination of trade and the creation of properly protected reserves are urgently required to ensure its survival. DISTRIBUTION Northwest Colombia; between the Rio Atrato in the west, and the lower Rios Cauca and Magdalena in the east; in the Departments of Cordoba, Bolivar, Sucre, Atlantico, northwest Antioquia and northeast Choco (2,3,7). For map see (2,3). Southern limits in the Andes foothills are poorly known (13). Hershkovitz believes that the original distribution was similar to today's (5,7). However, Struhsaker et al have obtained reports of the tamarin's possible previous occurrence in areas east of the Magdalena (as yet unconfirmed (14)) and suggest that the apparent control of distribution by major rivers may only be an artifact of agricultural patterns that obscure the true former distribution, and S. oedipus may in fact be characteristic of the drier forests of all northernmost Colombia (4). Neyman has also received sightings reports from local Indians which suggest that the species' range is not continuous up to 500 m in the Andes foothills as previously thought. It seems S. oedipus may not inhabit steep riverine habitat, such as the upper River Sinu, but rather is confined to broader valleys, i.e. in forest on river-edge sedimentry deposits such as along the Manso River (4,11). This is compatable with Struhsaker et al's distributional theory and if correct is of consequence because it implies a smaller distributional area than previously assumed (11,13). POPULATION Total numbers unknown (3), not possible to provide an estimate since there is only limited knowledge of the state and extent of the remaining forest, much less the tamarin numbers contained in the various isolated forest remnants (3). In 1975 Neyman believed it unlikely that there were many forests large enough to maintain sufficient tamarins for a viable long-term breeding population (3). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Deciduous forest in the northern part of its range to humid tropical forest in the Andes foothills (4,10,11). Altitudinal range from sea level to about 500 m (2,7). Survives well in secondary forests, and where this has recently replaced primary, some increase in numbers might even be temporarily expected (3). Average group size is unknown, but |! groups observed by Neyman all numbered between 3 and 13 (3,10); groups appear territorial (3,10). Feeds on fruit, vines, epiphytes, insects, newly sprouting leaves or buds, leaves, leaf stems, and in one instance a frog (3,10). May also lick nectar or gather pollen or insects from certain flowers or fruits (3,10). Twins are the norm after a gestation of about 125-140 days (7). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Its range occupies an area that supported an extensive indigenous pre-Colombian human population, and is today a densely inhabited region. By 1966 at least 70% of the original forest cover in its original range had been replaced with pasture and farmland (3). By 1973/74 the more densely settled northern three-quarters of the area accounted for only about 5% of remaining 127 forest, which was scattered in over 270 isolated tiny secondary forest patches. Some of these were known to lack tamarins even though they appeared to provide suitable habitat (3,4). In 1975 the future of these forest patches was described as at best uncertain, not only because wood and wildlife were constantly being extracted, but because in Colombia forested land not yielding cuttable timber is considered to be 'unexploited'. By law and custom such land may be colonised, a not uncommon event, and one which discourages private owners from maintaining naturally forested areas (3). The less accessible southern portions of the tamarin's range contain extensive forest tracts which were thought to contain the majority of remaining populations (3). However the 1973/74 studies documented widespread deforestation in the region and noted a great reduction in forest area compared to 1966, particularly in those foothills accessible by road (4). Even in remote areas such as the upper Sinu River, accessible only by river, a large proportion of riverine forest had already been cut or was secondary growth forest (11). Projected dam contruction along the Sinu in an area designated a reserve on 1976 Inderena maps will bring access by road and hasten the rate and permanency of deforestation (11,13). Neyman believed habitat destruction would continue at an even faster pace as the density of settlers increased. At best she considered it likely that any remaining forest would be reduced to tiny patches such as remain in the northern and central parts of the animal's range (3). Capture of this tamarin for the pet trade and for biomedical research has undoubtedly taken its toll (3). Between 1968-72 nearly 14,000 Cotton-tops were imported to the U.S.A. and it is likely that between 1960-1975 some 30,000-40,000 were exported from Colombia (2). The actual number taken from the wild is greater than these figures, since considerable mortality (3 to 33 per cent in marmosets (6)) undoubtedly occurs between capture and export, particularly as tamarins are delicate and difficult to maintain in captivity. Although the numbers exported were small compared to many other primates, they were large for an animal with such a restricted range (3). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Saguinus oedipus including geoffroyi is listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, so that trade in it between acceding nations is subject to strict control and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. All exports of primates from Colombia has been banned since 1974. Prior to then a total ban on the export of Cotton-top tamarins from Colombia was in effect from 1969-1972, but in spite of the ban appreciable numbers (2500-3500 a year) entered the U.S.A. during this period (3). Regulations were amended in 1972 to allow permit holders to export 25 specimens, each, per month to satisfy the demands of biomedical research (1,2). In 1973 all export of primates from Colombia was banned, exceptions being temporarily made for scientific use until 1974 when all exports were halted (3). Two reserves have been established in areas where S. oedipus could occur (3). Patricia Neyman studied this tamarin between 1973-75 (3). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Several, properly protected reserves are urgently required within its range (3,9) and are considered of 'highest priority' in IUCN's Global Strategy for Primate Conservation (1981-1983). Any trade that still persists should be eliminated; other more abundant callitrichid species should be used in its place in biomedical research (3). CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1979 there were at least 229 males, 219 females and 43 of undetermined sex held in 53 zoo collections, 224 captive bred (12). REMARKS For description of animal see (7). Most authors consider the Panamanian tamarin a separate species S. geoffroyi (2). However both Hershkovitz and Napier consider geoffroyi to be a subspecies of S. oedipus (7,15). The generic name Oedipomidas is also sometimes used. S. 0. geoffroyi is the only 128 callitrichid endemic to Central America, its range extends from the Colombian Province of Choco north to Panama and a bordering part of Costa Rica (7); Dawson has made a study of this animal (16). It is not as yet considered threatened. Patricia Neyman who has studied S. 0. oedipus very kindly assisted with the compilation of this data sheet; we are also grateful to Dr. G. Dawson for commenting about geoffroyi. REFERENCES 1. Phe 12. 13. 14. 15. Green, K.M. (1976). The nonhuman primate trade in Colombia. In Thorington, R.W. Jr. and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field Studies and Conservation. National Acad. of Sciences, Washington D.C. Hernandez-Camacho, J. and Cooper, R.W. (1976). The nonhuman primates of Colombia. In Thorington, R.W. Jr. and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field Studies and Conservation. National Acad. of Sciences, Washington, D.C. Neyman, P.F. (1978). Aspects of the ecology and social organization of free-ranging Cotton-top Tamarins (Saguinus oedipus), and the conservation status of the species. In Kleiman, D.G. (Ed.), The Biology and Conservation of the Callitrichidae. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Struhsaker, T.T., Glander, K., Chirivi, H., and Scott, N.J. (1975). A survey of primates and their habitats in Northern Colombia (May-August 1974). In Primate Censusing Studies in Peru and Colombia. Pan American Health Organisation, Washington, D.C. Hershkovitz, P. (1949). Mammals of Northern Colombia. Preliminary Report No.4: Monkeys (Primates) with taxonomic revisions of some forms. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 98: 323-427. Thorington, R.W. Jr. (1972). Importation, breeding and mortality of New World Primates. Int. Zoo Yb 12: 18-23. Hershkovitz, P. (1977). Living New World Monkeys (Platyrrhini). With an Introduction to Primates. Volume I. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Muckenhirn, N.A. (1976). Addendum to the nonhuman primate trade in Colombia. In Thorington, R.W. Jr. and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field Studies and Conservation. National Acad. of Sciences, Washington, D.C. Heltne, P.G. and Thorington, R.W. Jr. (1976). Problems and potentials for primate biology and conservation in the New World. In Thorington, R.W. Jr. and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field Studies and Conservation. National Acad. of Sciences, Washington, D.C. Neyman, P.F. (1979). Ecology and social organization of the Cotton-top Tamarin (Saguinus oedipus). Ph.D Thesis, Univ. of California, Berkeley. Neyman, P.F. (1977). Proteccion y manejo de los Primates de Sucre y Cordoba. Proyecto Primates Inderena_ - actividades adelantodas entre Junio y Septembre, 1977. Report to Inderena, Bogota, Colombia. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. Neyman, P.F. (1981). In litt. Hernandez-Camacho, J. (1981). Pers. comm. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Natural History) Part lI: Families Callitrichidae 129 and Cebidae. British Museum (Natural History), London. 16. Dawson, G.A. (1976). Behavioural ecology of the Panamanian Tamarin, Saguinus oedipus (Callitrichidae, Primates). Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State Univ. 130 BARE-FACE TAMARIN INDETERMINATE Saguinus bicolor (Spix, 1823) Order PRIMATES Family CALLITRICHIDAE SUMMARY Restricted distribution in the State of Amazonas, Brazil. Three subspecies, of which S. b. bicolor is highly endangered by habitat destruction associated with the rapid growth of the city of Manaus. The other two subspecies are as yet poorly known. A study of the species began in 1980 with the aim of establishing reserves, captive breeding programmes and educational campaigns. DISTRIBUTION Northern Brazil where it occurs only in the State of Amazonas. Confined to the north bank of the Amazon, between the lower Rio Negro and the lower Rio Paru de Oeste or Cumina (= Erepecuru) (3). Three subspecies recognized: S. b. bicolor occurs in the vicinity of Manaus, between the lower Rio Negro and the lower Rio Uatuma (3). Initial surveys in 1980 recorded the animal east as far as the town of Itacoatiara and north at least 45 km along the Manaus-Boa Vista Road. It may well extend as far north as the Jauaperi and as far east as the Uatuma but as yet there has been little or no collecting or primatological field work in these areas (1,2). S. b. martinsi is found at the eastern end of the range, between the Rio Nhamunda and the Paru de Oeste; and the intermediate S. b. ochraceus in the 100-200 km wide belt of country between the other two (2,3,4). See maps in (2,3,4). POPULATION Numbers unknown. In 1972 Hershkovitz considered the species as a whole to be endangered (4). The 1980 surveys of S. b. bicolor indicated that this subspecies was endangered (1,2). Highest concentrations were found in the immediate vicinity of Manaus. One group occurred on the main campus of the National Amazonian Research Institute (INPA) and at least two groups (ca. 12 animals) in a 20 ha forest in the grounds of the Hotel Tropical, 15 km west of Manaus centre (2). The other two subspecies are very poorly known. Although similarly restricted in range they do not occur near major urban centres and are therefore more secure than S. b. bicolor. Until further information is available their status is considered 'Indeterminate' (2). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY The recent surveys encountered S. b. bicolor in groups of 5-10 animals in the ‘campinarana' and primary forest near Manaus (2). However the species has also been observed in other forest types including secondary forest (7). Eats insects, fruit, small vertebrates and flowers and is arboreal and diurnal (2,6). Gestation period is 140-145 days. Twin births are usual; the male plays the major role in rearing the young (8). THREATS TO SURVIVAL The range of S. b. bicolor centres on Manaus, second largest city in Amazonia and growing ‘rapidly. Consequently the animal is severely threatened by habitat destruction. By 1980 much of the forest surrounding the city had been divided into tens of thousands of small housing lots which will be cut over by 1985. Still further forest destruction will be caused by a major industrial district planned for the city outskirts (1,2). Considerable habitat alteration and deforestation is also taking place elsewhere in the range, especially along the new roads heading out of Manaus. An analysis of deforestation between 54°-66° and 0°-4°S (which includes the entire range of all three subspecies) indicated that the rate was increasing tremendously: in the two-year period 1976-1978 some 146,550 ha. of forest had disappeared compared to 205,100 ha in the entire period from colonisation to 1975 (2). A possibility also exists that the Golden-handed Tamarin (Saguinus midas midas) is invading the range of S. b. 131 bicolor and that the habitat alteration along new roads is assisting the spread (2). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Included in Appendix | of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 1973, trade in the species between acceding nations being therefore subject to severe restriction, trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. As of 1980 S. b. bicolor occurred in only one protected area, the 10,000 ha Reserve Ducke located 25 km north of Manaus and belonging to INPA. José Marcio Ayres, in conjunction with INPA and the WWF - U.S. Primate Programme began studies on this species in 1980, the aims of which are to determine the precise range of S. b. 2icelt to locate the best possibie areas for a large reserve (at least 10,000 ha) and to investigate the ecological relationship between this subspecies and S. m. midas (2). A poster campaign advertising the plight of this subspecies is also planned in Manaus by INPA/WWF and the Rare Animal Relief Fund (1,2). Such measures are part of a general conservation action plan for the whole species and are considered of ‘highest priority' in IUCN's Global Strategy for Primate Conservation (1981-1983). Surveys of the ranges of S. b. ochraceous and S. b. martinsi to determine their status and possible threats to their survival are also planned (2). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Full legal protection for the species plus the establishment of well protected reserves. CAPTIVE BREEDING A captive breeding programme is planned by the Rio de Janeiro Primate Centre (1,7), which in 1981 held a young female (7). The conservation action plan suggests that such a programme should make use of individuals captured from forest tracts already slated for destruction (2). The International Zoo Yearbook (1980) also lists a male at Sao Paulo Zoo, Brazil (9). REMARKS For description of animal see (3,8). José Marcio Ayres and Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SCC Primate Specialist Group very kindly provided much of the information on which this data sheet is based. REFERENCES 1. Ayres, J.M. (1981). In litt. 2. Ayres, J.M., Mittermeier, R.A. and Constable, I.D. (1981). Distribution and status of the Brazilian Bare-Face Tamarins (Saguinus bicolor). Oryx in press. 3. Hershkovitz, P. (1977) Living New World Monkeys (Platyrrhini). With an Introduction to Primates Vol. 1. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. 4. Hershkovitz, P. (1972). Notes on New World Monkeys. Int. Zoo Yb. 12: 3-12. 5. Mittermeier, R.A. (1976). Preliminary assessment of the conservation status of New World monkeys. Unpd. Report. 6 pp. 6. Mittermeier, R.A. and Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1977). Primate conservation in Brazilian Amazonia. In Prince Rainier and Bourne, G. (Eds), Primate Conservation. Acad. Press, New York. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Natural History). Part 1: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum (Natural History), London. 9. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. coO™N eo 132 EMPEROR TAMARIN INDETERMINATE Saguinus imperator (Goeldi, 1907) Order PRIMATES Family CALLITRICHIDAE SUMMARY Occurs in the Amazon region of western Brazil, eastern Peru and northern Bolivia. Status and numbers unknown. Threatened by _ habitat destruction within its range. Protected in the Manu National Park in Peru. A survey is needed to determine its status and ecology. DISTRIBUTION Brazil, Peru and Bolivia in the region between the upper Rio Jurua and the Rio Madre de Dios, in particular in southwestern Brazilian Amazonia from the upper Rio Purus to the upper Rio Jurua (1,3,4,6,7,8,10). POPULATION No estimates, in 1981 reported to be scarce everywhere (9). Brazil: in 1981 Ayres considered it 'Vulnerable' (1). Bolivia: reported to be 'Endangered' in 1981 (2). Peru: no data on numbers or status. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY In eastern Peru, Gardner observed it in Amazonian lowland rainforest, away from rivers, and often 5 to 7 metres or higher in vine canopy vegetation (12). In Manu National Park it was usually observed in groups of about three (9). Saguinus spp. eat insects, fruit, small vertebrates, leaves, shoots, buds, and flowers (8). Gestation period is 140-145 days. Twin births are the usual. The male plays a major part in rearing the young (10). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Some habitat destruction is taking place within its range but the exent and effect is not known (9). In Brazil its range is increasingly occupied by large scale development projects (oil, rubber and agriculture etc.) (1), similarly in Bolivia where much of northwest Pando is being deforested to make way for cattle pasture (2). There is apparently some hunting in Bolivia (5). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Included in Appendix 2 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 1973; trade in these animals between acceding nations is subject to regulation and monitoring of its effects. Legally protected in Peru and by the 1967 Fauna Protection Law in Brazil, though not on the Brazilian Endangered Species List (9). Not protected by law in Bolivia (5). A population exists in the Manu National Park on a tributary of the Rio Madre de Dios in southwest Peru (4, C. Freese, in litt., 1977). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED A survey to investigate the status and ecology of this species. CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1979 there were 28 males, 23 females and two of undetermined sex held in 8 zoo collections (11 captive bred) (11). REMARKS For description of animal see (10). REFERENCES 1. Ayres, J.M. (1981). In litt. 2. Bejarano, G. (1981). In litt. 3. Freese, C. (1975). A census of non-human primates in Peru. In Primate censusing studies in Peru and Colombia. Report to the National Acad. of Sciences on the activities of project AMRO -- 0719. Pan-American Health Organization. Pp. 17-41. 4. Grimwood, I.R. (1969). Notes on the distribution and status 133 134 of some Peruvian mammals 1968. Spec. Pub. 21. Am. Comm. Int. Wildlife Protec. and New York Zool. Soc. Bronx, New York. Hanson Love, A. (1981). In litt. Heltne, P., Freese, C. and Whitesides, G. (1975). A field survey of non-human primates in Bolivia. Final report for the Pan-American Health Organization, Washington, D.C. Hershkovitz, P. (1977). Living New World Monkeys (Platyrrhini). With an Introduction to Primates Vol. 1. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Mittermeier, R.A. and Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1977). Primate conservation in Brazilian Amazonia. In Prince Rainier and Bourne, G. (Eds), Primate Conservation. Academic Press, New York. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Natural History). Part I: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum (Natural History), London.. - Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zoo. Soc. London. Wolfheim, J.H. (1974). The Status of Wild Primates. Unpublished Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 908 pp. WHITE-FOOTED TAMARIN VULNERABLE Saguinus leucopus (Gunther, 1876) Order PRIMATES Family CALLITRICHIDAE SUMMARY Restricted distribution in northern Colombia. Numbers unknown but habitat has been greatly reduced by forest clearance since the 1960s. A survey to locate a suitable reserve site is urgently needed. DISTRIBUTION Northern Colombia where it has a small range stretching from the confluence of the Rio Magdalena and the Rio Cauca in northern Bolivar (including Mompos Island) southwards into northeastern Antioquia (from Caceres and Valdivia on the Cauca to the Rio Nechi) and along the western bank of the middle Rio Magdalena in the Departments of Antioquia, Caldas and northern Tolima (2,6, F. Medem, in litt. 1977). For map see (2). POPULATION No estimates but has declined in recent years and in 1981 was considered 'Vulnerable' by the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group (5). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Forest, most frequently on the fringes, near streams or in secondary growth (1,2,8). Group size of 3 to !2 or more (2,8). Saguinus spp. eat insects, fruit, small vertebrates, leaves, shoots, buds and flowers (4). Gestation period. is 140-145 days. Twin births are usual and the male plays a major part in rearing the young (6). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Its very small range has been greatly reduced by extensive forest clearance, especially since the 1960s (2). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Included in Appendix | of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 1973, trade in the species between acceding nations therefore being subject to severe restriction, trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Protected by law in Colombia since 1969 (3). No existing parks or reserves are likely to contain a population (5). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED A survey to investigate the ecology of this tamarin is urgently needed as the basis for a sound approach to its conservation. CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1979 a pair were held at Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, the male being captive bred (7). REMARKS For description of animal see (2,6). This data sheet was compiled with the assistance of Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group, and Dr. P. Neyman. REFERENCES 1. Bernstein, I.S., Balcaen, P., Dresdale, L., Gouzoules, H., Kavanagh, M., Patterson, T. and Neyman-Warner, P. (1976). Differential effects of forest degradation on primate populations. Primates |7(3): 401-411. 2. Hernandez-Camacho, J. and Cooper, R.W. (1976). The non-human primates of Colombia. In Thorington, R.W. and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field Studies and Conservation. National Acad. Sciences, Washington, D.C. Pp.9-6on le 135 3. Hernandez-Camacho, J. (1981). Pers. Comm. 4, Mittermeier, R.A. and Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1977). Primate Conservation in Brazilian Amazonia. In Prince Rainier and Bourne, G. (Eds), Primate Conservation. Acad. Press, New York. 5. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81) . In litt. 6. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.). Part Il: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum (Natural History), London. 7. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. 8. Wolfheim, J.H. (1974). The Status of Wild Primates. Unpubd. Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 908 pp. 136 GOLDEN LION TAMARIN ENDANGERED Leontopithecus rosalia (Linnaeus, !820) Order PRIMATES Family CALLITRICHIDAE SUMMARY Southeast Brazil, where by 1980 the species survived only in two areas in the State of Rio de Janeiro one of the most densely inhabited parts of Brazil and which has suffered extensive forest destruction to make way for agriculture, pasture and urban devlopment. Less than 100 now survive in the wild and extinction is imminent unless the Poco d'Anta Reserve established for its protection is greatly improved. The reserve harbours few tamarins, the habitat has been greatly degraded and protection problems are severe. Captive colonies exist. Leontopithecus as a genus is highly endangered. DISTRIBUTION Southeast Brazil. Entirely restricted to remaining forests of the Sao Joao basin in the State of Rio de Janeiro. Surveys in 1979/80 by Mittermeier et al and Green found the species to be confined to the municipalities of Silva Jardim, Casimiro de Abreu and Cabo Frio, and they were able to document its continued existence in only two areas within these regions: the 5000 ha Poco d'Anta Biological Reserve located 100 km northeast of Rio de Janerio, and along a 15 km stretch of coast south of the mouth of the Rio Sao Joao (6,10). The species has always been restricted to the low-lying coastal region of the State of Rio de Janeiro, south of the Rio Praiba. Several dubious records exist from the southern part of the State of Espirito Santo, but if the species ever occurred there, it is now definitely extinct (6,10). POPULATION By 1980 numbered almost certainly less than 100 animals and was considered by Mittermeier et al to be 'the most endangered monkey in eastern Brazil and among the most endangered mammals in the world' (10). Green who surveyed the animal in the Poco d'Anta Reserve in June 1980 believed that the total number of Leontopithecus in the reserve did not exceed 75 animals (6,10) and, on the basis of actual sightings, was possibly as low as 20-25 (10). Actual sightings occurred on three occasions with one additional group detected by vocalization (6). Very few are believed to remain in the only other known habitat - along the coast - and virtually all this area is soon destined for deforestation (10). The only chance for its survival is in the Poco d'Anta and unless conditions improve there the species could well be extinct in the wild by 1985-90 (10). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Occurs in seasonal tropical forest of the Atlantic coast below 400-500 m altitude (3,4,10). Usually found between 3 and 10 m above the ground, where dense vines, epiphytes and interlacing branches provide cover for tamarins and their prey which sometimes includes small vertebrates; they are, however, primarily insectivorous and frugivorous. Group size varies from 2 to 8 with 3 or 4 the average. Gestation period is 126 to 132 days with twin births normal, although single birth and triplets have occasionally been recorded (3,4). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Because the home of this species is one of the most densely inhabited parts of Brazil, the major cause of decline has been, and remains, forest destruction for lumber, agriculture (sugar cane, cocoa, rubber, coffee and bananas), pasture and housing. Always relatively uncommon and restricted in range, habitat loss affects the species particularly severely. The entire basin of the Rio Sao Joao (about 210,000 ha) is included in a large-scale agricultural project which aims to make it one of the major sources of farm produce for Rio de Janeiro. The municipalities most affected are precisely those which contain the last remaining populations of L. rosalia and although the project 137 will take about 5-6 years to complete, it will ensure the destruction of what little remains of its forest habitat. The 1979/80 surveys found that the Poco d'Anta Reserve established specifically to ensure this animal's survival, was inadequately protected. Many areas had been deforested, slashed and burned, planted with pasture grass or reforested with eucalyptus. Squatters were still present and although part of the reserve had been fenced, cattle from neighbouring ranches regularly entered the reserve to find pasture, thus prohibiting the successional return of areas of abandoned pasture to forest. Thus much of the reserve was no longer suitable for the tamarin. Only about 30% of the reserve was forested (10% mature forest), a railroad and a road divided it into four sections, and a dam was being completed which would flood approximately 25% of the reserved area. A forested hill within the reserve had been levelled to provide land fill for the dam, and the continuous flow of large numbers of men and machines was sure to have a disturbing effect on all forested areas adjacent to the construction site. Only two of the six guards were able to actively patrol the reserve and the director who was based in Rio de Janeiro, 100 km away, rarely visited the place. Within the reserve, the existing Lion Tamarin population was dispersed in several forest islands and certainly could not be considered viable. The poor habitat and continued disturbance make any efforts at reintroduction highly inappropriate at the present time (1981). The coastal zone that the tamarin inhabits has already been divided into housing lots and will soon disappear (6,10). Lion Tamarins have long been popular zoo exhibits, occasionally used for research in biomedical laboratories and widely sold in the pet trade. Between 200 and 300 were exported annually for these purposes in the period 1960-1965 (4). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN All three Leontopithecus (= Leontideus) species are included in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora so trade in them or their products is subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes is banned. Completely protected in Brazil and included on the Brazilian Endangered Species List. As already noted the Poco d' Anta Reserve established in 1974 and increased in size to 5000 ha in 1975 for the protection of L. rosalia, has greatly deteriorated (6,10). The species may also occur in a small forest reserve belonging to the Brazilian navy, but confirmation is needed (8). A study of the distribution and status of all eastern Brazilian primates was undertaken in 1979/80 by R.A. Mittermeier, A.F. Coimbra-Filho and I. Constable (10). Ken Green conducted the first census of this animal in the Poco d' Anta Reserve between June | and 26, 1980; in addition, he hoped to study its ecology and behaviour and to compare this with behaviour exhibited in captivity (6). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Unless the Brazilian government makes a major effort to improve conditions in Poco d'Anta and to protect some of of the remaining forest south of the Rio Sao Joao, this species will become extinct in the wild before 1985-1990. The IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group made the following recommendations in 1980: a) Investigate the forest reserve belonging to the Brazilian navy to see if Lion Tamarins actually exist there. b) Investigate the remainder of the coastal region south of the Rio Sao Joao to see if there are any other tracts of forest sufficiently large for establishing a Lion Tamarin reserve. c) Urge the Brazilian Forestry Development Institute (IBDF) to substantially upgrade protection for the Poco d'Anta Reserve, and to initiate a large-scale habitat improvement program. Some ways in which this might be done are outlined in a report by Dr. K. Green. d) Add to the Poco d'Anta Reserve a 50 ha patch of forest continuous with it. The 1979/80 surveys found that this area included some of the best forest left in the Poco d'Anta area and harbored the only Leontopithecus group of any size (5+ individuals). e) Conduct rescue operations in any small tracts of forest that will definitely be cut down to make way for housing projects; this is especially urgent in the area south of the Rio Sao Joao (6,10). 138 CAPTIVE BREEDING The 198! unofficial update of the International Studbook for L. rosalia registered 211 animals in 25 collections (8). In 1981 there were 15 individuals in the Rio de Janeiro Primate Centre (A. F. Coimbra-Filho 1981, Pers Comm.), and none were lost when the entire colony was transferred from the old Tijuca Biological Bank to the new Centre. Five Lion Tamarins from the Rio Centre have also been sent, with authorization from IBDF, to the National Zoo in Washington in order to increase genetic diversity in the U.S. colonies. This was an important step in international cooperation on behalf of these monkeys and hopefully will pave the way for future efforts. Expansion of the captive breeding effort at the Rio Primate Centre is recommended. Research has shown it is important that offspring remain with the parental group during the birth and rearing of at least one set of younger siblings so that they can learn and copy parental behaviour patterns (4). chrysopygus are sometimes considered subspecies of L. rosalia (3,4), but recent comparative morphological work by Dr. A. Rosenberger indicates that these animals are distinct enough to be considered full species (9). The generic name Leontideus is occasionally used. This data sheet was compiled with the assistance of Dr. A.F. Coimbra-Filho, and of Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. REMARKS For description of animal see (2,7,11). L. chryosmelas and L. REFERENCES 1. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1972). Mamiferos ameacados de extincao no Brasil. In Especies de Fauna_Brasileira Ameacadas de Extincao. Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, Rio de Janeiro. Pp. 13-98. 2. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1972). The taxonomy of the genus Leontopithecus. In Bridgewater, D. (Ed.), Saving the lion marmoset. Wild Animal Propagation Trust, Wheeling, West Virginia. Pp. 7-22. 3. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1973). Distribution and ecology of the genus Leontopithecus Lesson, 1840 in Brazil. Primates 14(1): 47-66. 4. Coimbra-Filho, A.F., and Mittermeier, R.A. (1977). Conservation of the Brazilian Lion Tamarins (Leontopithecus rosalia). In Prince Rainier and Bourne, G. (Eds), Primate Conservation. Acad. Press, New York. 5. Coimbra-Filho, A.F., Magnanini, A. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1975). Vanishing Gold. Last chance for Brazil's lion tamarins. Animal Kingdom 78(6): 21-27. 6. Green, K.M. (1980). An assessment of the Poco das Antas Reserve, Brazil, and prospects for survival of the Golden Lion Tamarin, Leontopithecus rosalia rosalia. Unpd. Report. 19 pp. 7. Kleiman, D.G. (1981). Leontopithecus rosalia. Mammalian Species No. 148: 1-7. The American Society of Mammalogists. 8. Kleiman, D.G. (1981). 1981 International Studbook: Golden Lion Tamarin, Leontopithecus rosalia rosalia. Unofficial 1981 update. National Zool. Park, Washington D.C. 9. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. 10. Mittermeier, R.A., Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Constable, I. (1980). Conservation of Eastern Brazilian Primates. WWF Project 1614. Report for the period 1979/80. 11. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.). Part 1: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae British Museum (Natural History), London. 139 ’ a Wee Ss eed UP Atria hg.) |) ae if ane sok! eee dislemastesneoants acu \ eeu hese edrweskw otoits Weer al se ahoifieticd CH M-glormty Fig sta Rc hE CH eah teres | (HA) sees 59 nk Spastic rettsiats nies vik ort BOTIOR vere Gaur Yrreboss rgesccpee “Wetted ab éowt pind Be Oia aiid Poly arilvweité a UE auth « “yavtrre Ditws ooh jet? on Hane Leta fy oid © Bi we InRata tote os CMIRe eth ricipaltvartsse' ‘perien, Siree" nesdbekauelrgt 8 PPR CEE epi lptre, 2. charlene fo } Sitdne 4 eae ses! & ot sub ite vary BAS ay inwre ‘peas to) theron hn: Aeqoay ipewsi reuse sal Sic gute _ Rotigey yd wees ant op ‘ne vier ave Patrote o iites Mot yaw wrivoven: Live Si (OR Barter ees ek 20k shines Boris sgegatist 1417 ot at corset abides ipehpene parted peo her ny nte th eae ah TV: ia) we pstoag wolvasa ‘ ih we Tan BAe me * : ber) Seite nese bsrahisop) sei mil eee ; As “ti el ames iaoigofuety +} wivhge tit bos 4 hastos eed ‘ae “as Ore 4 sb Sth ft Wea eh fin drt urtliReer “4 F SIRHRDI Wires Y a 7 - : Sas Si cea _ PA kl | * Oy cz ’ rs . ob a - antsdynmtr : Ret) 5 2 apeee, (Gira IIe 4a me istics: 16 .2 eiivanicsoate tir iocliePd-) teO lononitxs _ * Te» 4 cee 3 ou iahie ere B74 eo ' Kf ah, 266s gsoart * pet OMe ayA LTR MEASURES 1 th Ss. PLAC Lad ae ices aah * asset chased, ; hs jarred is - bats: 1a. AS Plt ii re beat Pers! Besta ays “| 1 rained al! uot Pige ities ennd gy bets: te treoRoNsTs tp _ maaan ald the magia: DIPS ieee aac angie ati it sé ST ARR ET 05 TN py WEE Sah Deqgiy sBiaty puvpea jomient He gauy Dr eziy wee in ay FERRI? the rae RIPITAS TELS obslas RA As pont eandintoD Prat dt At fi npoiiittnehde.2S0eg: sir etecdyzolise (brs pe vga TTR eee “ ro Us Let, SpOaTW 41944 ‘cozernin4 like 14 eg Sa diesen ca pete Oaleriive rts: IPDS Lei Ase ait t-«€ ae wounbate Pomeotils +) lnnaigtiaces yeti! aoe aay al ' neitinerstn G2 Peay - OS nnd’ O1AlS ye dhusd vt D Kiawclacesaace prgS (obo 18 Tpeisatwesty tre ban Slariies erential wd wonerty< te roam , = s . ‘~* \v iS. aes * roman. Ee 55 a | athiarnaa ip “4 eS dF “yt ip tor Cris! ieee byes ‘is fu y Tage Ptah thea Rid f ct gare tarp a tivand vei sani yaTnbod}*) M u br ri 2 naetes hg Guiris yt wemoret ae to, py nm Boyt ; ul ee atlas #4) 774 idiot fs ee Be Jnanriond, (ibid si 5 i - mY = nae ceoe far tlic ‘ vee + up ee bee a te mt adye By Pine BIC SSeRR I eto Spe “feptthn aadek it biter ae hes sicih: LFS ge a. i a 2 nt ota? wyrsigda: tn aaa ifi gaky TASbe Pile ee ee Ayineetey heap ee fet: oh the > eye ty etetyal pvriake |: ok 18 ShsA( eBeay iat wiydelobr @ 2 pabehapes bie ss +84 yo ? SoRRoAs osceitgeor ) pene es teers meiak t nai ; AGM ve, “bid ag “alban in caw pS ‘ ri lars Dds say hy tat. soap { oe oh ni wi 8 45 am mbclae terwaT bre ik te Po eye bo 1 ~ —_ : 5 AW ay "dots ie lowes ei Utind sitar a SOSkRA Cit vi i ovis. bo certains: GOLDEN-HEADED LION TAMARIN ENDANGERED Leontopithecus chrysomelas (Kuhl, 1820) Order PRIMATES Family CALLITRICHIDAE SUMMARY Endemic to southeast Brazil, where restricted to a small area in southeast Bahia State and is critically endangered. By 1980 less than 200 were believed to survive and the only protected area inhabited, the 5268 ha Una Biological Reserve had already been extensively invaded by squatters. Throughout the rest of its very small range most of the forests have disappeared to make way for plantations, pasture and urban development. Survival of the species will depend on the complete protection of a suitable reserve. A captive colony is maintained at the Rio de Janeiro Primate Centre. The first field study of this animal was conducted by Anthony Rylands in 1980. Leontopithecus as a genus is highly endangered. DISTRIBUTION Southeast Brazil. Restricted to the southeast of Bahia State, between the Rio das Contas (14°S) and Rio Pardo (15°30'S), its western limit apparently the Rio Gongogi headwaters (40°W), a bare 100 km from the coast. Still found in forests in the municipalities of Una, Buerarema, Itabuna and perhaps Ilheus (8,9). The report of a population discovered in 1971 in northern Espirito Santo has proved erroneous. The range has always been small and has scarcely changed since the animal was first discovered, but the forests which originally stretched unbroken from the central Bahian plateau to within a few km of the coast, are now fragmented (1,3,4,8,9). POPULATION In 1977 considered to number about 200 (4), and by 1981 was almost certainly less. The only protected area it occupies has already been degraded by more than half. Rylands (1980) believes that considering the rate of forest destruction since 1975, little hope can be entertained for the survival of appreciable populations of chrysomelas outside the Una Reserve, except perhaps in the coastal forest immediately to the east of Una, from Ilheus to Canavieras, where soils are unsuitable for agriculture (9). However a road is planned to link these two cities and will no doubt stimulate development (9). Away from Una small populations still survive north of Ilheus and Itabuna; Rylands did not directly observe chrysomelas there but interviews with hunters in Banco Central and Pimenteira, north of Itabuna, west of BR 101 road indicate that chrysomelas survive in small numbers (9). Mittermeier et al consider the species will be extinct in the wild by 1990 unless a suitable reserve is established (8). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Inhabits Atlantic rainforest, little of which remains after development of cocoa and rubber plantations. However cocoa is grown under shade, thus in some areas large forest trees are left standing; hence to some extent the canopy is maintained even within plantations and L. chrysomelas can sometimes be observed in or near the shade trees, although how well it adapts to such habitat is not entirely known (3,4,8,9). Rylands noted that in such plantations it was always in close pEoeinni ty to stands of intact forest (9). Coimbra-Filho (in Rylands 1980) maintains that Leontopithecus is unable to survive outside of tall primary forest because of its dependence on holes in tree trunks and branches as sleeping sites. Rylands' studies confirmed this belief and also revealed the apparent importance of large epiphytes as foraging sites. Both of these resources are absent from second growth forest (9). Leontopithecus are usually found between 3 and 10 m above the ground, where dense vines, epiphytes and interlacing branches provide cover for tamarins and their prey which sometimes includes small vertebrates; it is however, primarily insectivorous and 141 frugivorous (3,4,9). Group size varies from 2 to 8 with 3 or 4 the average. Rylands estimated a home range of not more than 40 ha for the group of 5 chrysomelas he had under observation (9). Gestation period is 126 to 132 days with twin births normal, although single births and triplets have occasionally been recorded (3,4). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Because the home of this species is one of the most densely inhabited parts of Brazil, the major cause of decline has been forest destruction for lumber, agriculture (sugar cane, cocoa, rubber, coffee and bananas), pasture and housing. Always relatively uncommon and restricted in range, habitat loss affects it particularly severely. Surveys in 1979/80 by Mittermeier et al found L. chrysomelas to occur in an area where remaining forest was being cleared at a very rapid rate by logging and charcoal producing operations and, in areas of richer soil, was being converted to cocoa plantations and other agricultural projects (8). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN All three Leontopithecus (= Leontideus) species are listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora so trade in them or their products is subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Completely protected by law in Brazil and included on the Brazilian endangered species list. In 1976 the Brazilian Forestry Development Institute (IBDF) purchased 5268 ha in Una as a reserve for this species and other examples of the regional fauna. However since then little has happened, the reserve covering an area of 11,400 ha was finally officially decreed in December 1980 (10), but already approx. 3000 ha has been invaded by some 600 squatters who have clear-cut large areas in the west of the reserve, and almost all the invaded sector is no longer suitable habitat for this species or any other forest animal. In May 1980 squatters were observed on the outskirts of the remaining forest (8,9). Anthony Rylands studied this species at the Lemos Maia Experimental Station in 1980 (9). A study of the distribution and status of all eastern Brazilian primates was undertaken in 1979/80 by R.A. Mittermeier, A.F. Coimbra-Filho and I. Constable (8). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED In 1980 the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group made the following recommendations. a) The IBDF should protect that part of the Una Biological Reserve which is still intact, remove the squatters, and either excise the degraded areas or trade them for nearby tracts of forested land. The suggestion has also been made that IBDF turn over management of the reserve to CEPLAC, the Regional Cocoa Growing Authority, which is interested in research and conservation and, being on the scene, is better equipped to manage a protected area in southern Bahia. b) The 495 ha Lemos Maia Experimental Station, located on the edge of the town of Una and about 10 km from the Una Biological Reserve is suggested as an area which might be considered for designation as a wildlife reserve (8,9). c) Investigate some of the white sand forests extending about 30 km inland from Canavieras and also in the coastal region between Canavieras and Ilheus to locate possible sites for an additional reserve (much of this area has by 1981 been given over to cattle pasture). This area is not suitable for cocoa or other kinds of agriculture, but this tamarin and other primates occur in the forest. Since the future of the Una Reserve is uncertain, it would be wise to establish at least one other protected area in this faunally rich and interesting part of eastern Brazil. d) Conduct rescue operations in forests that are being clear cut to make way for alternative cocoa-growing methods and for lumber and charcoal! (8). CAPTIVE BREEDING A captive colony is maintained at the Rio de Janiero Primate Centre and in 1981 numbered 9 animals (A.F. Coimbra-Filho 1981. Pers. comm.). Mittermeier et al recommend the expansion of this facility and the 142 establishment of satellite colonies in other institutions. The future of captive populations depends on successful breeding from captive-born parents and control of disease outbreaks (4). REMARKS For description of animal see (2,7). L. chrysomelas has occasionally been considered a subspecies of L. rosalia, (3,4), but recent comparative morphological work by Dr. A. Rosenberger indicates that these animals are distinct enough to be considered full species (6). The generic name Leontideus is sometimes used. This data sheet was compiled with the assistance of Anthony Rylands, Dr. A.F. Coimbra-Filho and Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. REFERENCES 1. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1972). Mamiferos ameacados de extincao no Brasil. In Especies de Fauna_Brasileira Ameacadas de Extincao. Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, Rio de Janeiro. Pp. 13-98. 2. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1972). The taxonomy of the genus Leontopithecus. In Bridgewater, D. (Ed.), Saving the lion marmoset. Wild Animal Propagation Trust, Wheeling, West Virginia. Pp. 7-22. 3. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1973). Distribution and ecology of the genus Leontopithecus Lesson, !840 in Brazil. Primates 14(1): 47-66. 4. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1977). Conservation of the Brazilian Lion Tamarins (Leontopithecus rosalia). In Prince Rainier and Bourne, G. (Eds), Primate Conservation. Acad. Press, New York. 5. Coimbra-Filho, A.F., Magnanini, A. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1975). Vanishing Gold. Last chance for Brazil's lion tamarins. Animal Kingdom 78(6): 21-27. 6. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. 7. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.). Part 1: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae British Museum (Natural History), London. 8. Mittermeier, R.A., Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Constable, I. (1980). Conservation of Eastern Brazilian Primates. WWF Project 1614. Report for the period 1979/80. 9. Rylands, A.B. (1981). The behavioural ecology of the Golden-headed Lion Tamarin, Leontopithecus rosalia chrysomelas (Callitrichidae, Primates). Interim Report. Unpd. Report. 10. Rylands, A.B. (1981). In litt. 143 COT amie eat permeate OW ae va ) fret yee susoy, oF prea ‘.) RiGieD bnérateeysg 1 priecshety c > = cars ray otha he % “wr Oo th i = af Aner y venga pi oe 4 i Mth win Uritenormah s mia single } Brings aspeiboenies ht perl golomouryia-.t (SRY O22: wvesIeinio? Ino7s7 two CES Siigeot at "6. estore ar a - ge SRE ts mus an fs ie 48 28082 ul beri —: F- sagan he <} .. Na Obese: Seo : ‘pt Shoe Scion, anh weds) a Sea S air Liu bo ye bia anorgid od. Cguans a% rp ate = dyerdine 3 AB grit oc thw! ater es ategrte, cad ab, eee os Gap ra fe: aft nieling Sisexw hte (Av Bn Ih) dene He likcandenlgd wc ve ay $y! ringer, sexier | twe < artic rt nner Gileneaatien : lanes ecto tire esas td (th Me a ws WEF a: care = cothie atee i ’ \ a7) 4 a velo acai sot ea arrose , ars) Pa; cronies A a poe [tx £ e- ‘ot , Bic BABIES Poot A el 38EE! Paqt ouanel $b ob SL “ heise Patt 5 an rit < { Aa — J ee a efile 3B wah uxt brig ib treat <0 hie owe wach YRUBPR aan, Lain OK ee ere ba in f neseagonar Sa 7" cvs ¥ e pa ATM Pe 298s ackene. SABA Oe a - ‘$69 Oe AS strict eRe « sang 7 f2 oe rile Dt), he Orbe Ede RELS: peers Apelamernic ihintaietes sh om peas gears 0 29a . aii: ce setae: * Dews fan ited i yale eo . dhe ie pe pagunte: histone Boni\PR wo ie vi aid SRR ELIT dAne. uy Gm iseristriih ¢ hens BiH. = d ri, /\- 7S woth} +2 | ian * Repbearaey 7: ' roid & Aislin il om mas ht Yo... ores ay >a: ay afte S rehaonmiedt begs) Yeiniesi, pom ial pha Slagc Oe: Bed Mga ee ttt) nua ted: a bie tert nh al genet, ae dte, UTR Get BFE uniaet aa abaker ve ve oe LAr geile cers rd Ite buisaeiteisisinegenrasis GA TOO ene ae “ee Lesa baste a Senet | “at teed: trebloxes; pevirles ish vee’ AE Rid) |» re Y oe reat ¢ th ay NOMS MOLES rmagveay iit Jompiri®: eens mas the - Bay Paice er iiige al Sidi ibs te Ft iP ) A LRRRUT iy Aad: ymian rO2tiME 5 pagal | Sire ‘wits: ereansccbst sto ‘UAC pitas ehaXe $) LHe asiqe ee Bailisow eal Fos sai ear BP) savoeuN. |) Aas Sat ~ahdbrod! erofeirt Iam lente”) « —— MTtl sal C9) ‘came? ~ og bert oh ice GD) beh sé sly 26 tive GAR was Craps MEL : oF Ne Seat asa rsa Lik sib desieg3 “ison avierno BD, MOSRA)D eer sY parte i. tts SOBNBRC E sbittiege ; arid Roteod VL A iseongen ac + * Sertetres , Seb tec: tistcoleded codta: MIBEL) v & see ea i! a igiigten ieododrit eo fee ie nip’ (tbs igh! sheets oeride bigidt. ee | RaegeR nabs y- eer weet C (Stabucthintides Db ager ae : fe PTAC it Aspateniee tp xe9e (Oh und Sorserva tos asege at ites eT 6 BSE ie iT AWS es bs BOC sed #ttenio. (eRe hy Ranta a Nici Bt rime antal Biologie tocated on rhe chaeee or id: Lae ns 7 id a ner’ ary ilk c bes Reser . 15 Su wi rhe wou 4 es Riv. | #6 si ref tor an Mga nt 5 os itd liv Pas “re in win mA ata ¢ SAGE LOCH w tan my Best IO Soinland 7 : Oe eae aegicn--be. nen ie pl ark \Rigeeree i aut «ania toad t davinwity eke? i oneeaeto ne > Sone. atar: ; < mindy atict GOLDEN-RUMPED LION TAMARIN ENDANGERED Leontopithecus chrysopygus (Mikan, 1820) Order PRIMATES Family CALLITRICHIDAE SUMMARY Endemic to southeast Brazil where it is critically endangered in the wild. By 1981 could be found in only two areas, both reserves, and both in the State of Sao Paulo: Morro do Diabo which housed 4 or 5 groups and Caitetus which had one or two groups (a group is usually 3-4 animals). Inhabits a very densely populated part of Brazil and forest destruction for agriculture, pasture and urban development within its former range has been almost total. The Caitetus Reserve is well protected but there are plans to build an airport on the edge of Morro do Diabo and to flood one-eighth of it as part of a dam scheme. The survival of this animal in the wild is entirely dependent on its continued protection in the Morro do Diabo State Reserve. A captive colony is maintained at the Rio de Janeiro Primate Centre. Leontopithecus as a genus is highly endangered. DISTRIBUTION Southeast Brazil. By 1981 restricted to two tracts of forest in the State of Sao Paulo: in the 37,156 ha Morro do Diabo State Reserve in the extreme west of the State, and the 2000 ha Caitetus Reserve in central Sao Paulo (9). Formerly, it ranged much more widely, occupying a large part of the interior of the State, from the Rio Tiete in the north to Rio Paranapanema in the south, and west to the Rio Parana (1,2,4,5,7,10). POPULATION By 198! less than 100 survived and on the verge of extinction (9). Surveys in 1979/80 could account for only 4-5 groups in Morro do Diabo, based mainly on reports of guards who regularly patrolled the reserve. It was not known whether this constituted a viable population but it is certainly the only real hope for the long-term survival of the species in the wild (9). The same studies indicated that the Caitetus Reserve has only one, or at most, two groups (9). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Inhabits riparian forest, in effect an extension of Atlantic coastal forest up the major rivers. Usually found between 3 and 10 m above ground, where dense vines, epiphytes and interlacing branches provide cover for tamarins and their prey which sometimes includes small vertebrates; they are, however, primarily insectivorous and frugivorous. Group size varies from 2 to 8 with 3 or 4 the average. Gestation period is 126 to 132 days with twin births normal, although single birth and triplets have occasionally been recorded (4,5). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Because the home of this species is a very densely inhabited part of Brazil, the major cause of decline has been forest destruction for lumber, agriculture (sugar cane, cocoa, rubber, coffee and bananas), pasture and housing. Always relatively uncommon and restricted in range, habitat loss affects it particularly severely. In 1980 Mittermeier et al reported that plans were in progress to build an airport right on the edge of Morro do Diabo State Reserve, and that a dam which would flood about one-eighth of the reserve had been proposed for the Paranapanema River (9). The reserve is already traversed by a railroad and since 1969 bisected by a highway. Also in 1973 local farmers experimenting with defoliants (2,4,5-T and 2,4-D) destroyed many hectares of what little forest remained around the reserve. Such disturbances in the close proximity to the protected area could easily be fatal. The Caitetus Reserve contains a large population of Tufted Capuchins Cebus apella which certainly compete to some extent with the tamarins (9). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN All three Leontopithecus (= Leontideus) 145 species are listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora so trade in them or their products is subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Completely protected in Brazil and included on the Brazilian Endangered Species List. The Reserves of Morro do Diabo and Caitetus are both under the jurisdiction of the Instituto Florestal of Sao Paulo State. Caitetus, which until 1977 was privately-owned, is well-protected and Morro do Diabo is regularly patrolled (9), although faces problems (see THREATS). A study of the distribution and status of all eastern Brazilian primates was undertaken in 1979/80 by R.A. Mittermeier, A.F. Coimbra-Filho and I. Constable. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED The survival in the wild of L. chrysopygus depends mainly on effective management of the Morro do Diabo State Reserve. In 1980 the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group made the following recommendations. i) Encourage the Sao Paulo government to continue protection of the Morro do Diabo and Caitetus Reserves, and to consider alternate sites for the hydroelectric project on the Rio Paranapanema and the proposed airport. ii) Encourage Brazilian students to conduct long-term ecological studies of L. chrysopygus in both reserves. In Morro do Diabo, the investigation should concentrate on the distribution of groups and dietary and habitat requirements. In Caitetus, it should pay particular attention to the relationship between the Tufted Capuchin and the Lion Tamarin. iii) If a field study in Morro do Diabo indicates that some trapping might be feasible, several individuals should be translocated from the larger reserve to Caitetus and the introduced animals carefully monitored. iv) If the hydroelectric project on the Rio Paranapanema cannot be prevented, plans should be made to translocate any L. chrysopygus that might live in the area to be flooded (9). The conservation of endangered eastern Brazilian monkeys is considered of highest priority in the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group's Global Strategy for Primates (1981-1983). CAPTIVE BREEDING The 198! population at the Rio de Janeiro Primate Centre is 18 (A.F. Coimbra-Filho 1981, Pers. comm.), compared to six in 1973; the colony appears to be thriving, although inbreeding might eventually become a problem and thus the introduction of one or two individuals from Morro do Diabo might be desirable at some future date (9). Mittermeier et al recommend the expansion of the captive breeding facility at the Centre, and the establishment of satellite colonies in other institutions (9). The future of captive populations depends on successful breeding from captive-born parents and control of disease outbreaks (5). REMARKS For description of animal see (3,7,9). L. chrysopygus has occasionally been considered a subspecies of L. rosalia (4,5) but recent morphological work by Dr. A. Rosenberger indicates that these animals are distinct enough to be considered full species (8). The generic name Leontideus is sometimes used. This data sheet was compiled with the assistance of Dr. A.F. Coimbra-Filho and of Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. REFERENCES 1. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1972). Mamiferos ameacados de extincao no Brasil. In Especies de Fauna_ Brasileira Ameacadas de Extincao. Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, Rio de Janeiro. Pp. 13-98. 2. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1976). Leontopithecus rosalia chrysopygus (Mikan, 1823), 0 Mico-Leao do Estado de Sao Paulo (Callitrichidae - Primates). Silvic. S. Paulo 10: 1-36. 3. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1972). The taxonomy of the genus Leontopithecus. In Bridgewater, D. (Ed.), Saving the Lion Marmoset. Wild Animal Propagation Trust, Wheeling, West Virginia. Pp. 7-22. 4. Coimbra-Filho, A..F. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1973). 146 Distribution and ecology of the genus Leontopithecus Lesson, !840 in Brazil. Primates 14(1): 47-66. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1977). Conservation of the Brazilian Lion Tamarins (Leontopithecus rosalia). In Prince Rainier and Bourne, G. (Eds), Primate Conservation. Acad. Press, New York. Coimbra-Filho, A.F., Magnanini, A. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1975). Vanishing Gold. Last chance for Brazil's lion tamarins. Animal Kingdom 78(6): 21-27. Kleiman, D.G. (1981). Leontopithecus rosalia. Mammalian Species No. 148 1-7. The American Society of Mammalogists. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. Mittermeier, R.A., Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Constable, I. (1980). Conservation of Eastern Brazilian Primates. WWF Project 1614. Report for the period 1979/80. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.). Part 1: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum (Natural History), London. 147 ' 7 A i a an Coan ae eT ‘ c - Vig india’ stm oR ik Oe Oey E ; < “ihe the Heine eebiny roa Fe Png Td nae at a Tee . : apr errr ; a oly he tag ix toured and bd hess A i Rear ape varicose £ th. rhae"an: . Rr TOT HF a PPS edd 1d TOS We Pele lia pean Sao Poh thie mt Mette ae meee ey i REAT ; e tie aia sindagtnars> was unde tanh! - Asi tee ty fone aE ety ek dedefitetys 0! ‘ ic 4inoe — neplserdA ~48ad .Oo- RSID Te sete ! ms f hak cs : {- a ee me) EARS Mitioe ri oe : de i soy AUS ik Ki At TS jars sore. trhoy = 4 F © ase NMEA My LOR OR ken isle ress baiiiie ] iti tan dol beta Seetht kena remoes agnee cle LO: at a ie hate peeUTY ee gaa Fcouslav re aaa 2 Le 5 aelaet deternorste! A a Aes pri ef-yS} a iciphacdien MW) wei ant avery .M ‘i esi F: oy yan ind ein ont | teen “eee a egekany 32 4 seo aasid Be Soy BUASGEIA + a eguyt CENTRAL AMERICAN or ENDANGERED RED-BACKED SQUIRREL MONKEY Saimiri oerstedi (Reinhart, 1872) Order PRIMATES Family CEBIDAE eee SUMMARY Limited distribution in Panama and adjacent area of Costa Rica. Numbers unknown. Endangered by widespread habitat destruction. Trapped for export until recently. Reserves need to be established. DISTRIBUTION Western Panama, southern Costa Rica. Range in both countries restricted to the lowlands of the Pacific coast between about 80° and 85°W. Museum collections show that formerly the species ranged from Chiriqui, the westernmost Province of Panama, to latitude 10°N in Costa Rica. Surveys in 1968 and 1970 found that the range had become significantly smaller and limited to areas not yet cleared for agriculture because too remote or otherwise undesirable (1,2,8,1 1,13). POPULATION Numbers unknown but believed to have diminished greatly since the 1950s in both countries (1). In 1978 was considered in danger of extinction in Costa Rica (7). Freese believes the last big stronghold of the species will be the Reserva de Cuenca Corcovada (Corcovado National Biological Reserve) in southern Costa Rica (5). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Little data available. Lives in forests (1) but in Panama also observed in low bushy secondary growth (4,10,13) and according to another report only occupying shrubby areas or deciduous woodland and disturbed habitats (3,13). Arboreal and diurnal and lives in troops (1). Home range in the Baldwins' study area was 0.175 sq. km and was not a defended territory. Diet is thought to consist of fruit and insects. Saimiri spp. have a short digestive tract which is better suited to an insectivorous rather than a frugivorous diet (1). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Habitat destruction and trapping for export in combination with its limited distribution; but deforestation, mainly through clearing for banana plantations, cattle ranches, sugar cane and rice farms, undoubtedly constitutes the major threat (1,2,5,9) and in Costa Rica, banana planting and the continual slash and burn agriculture practised locally have eliminated much suitable habitat (13). In Panama, where most shrub cover has been removed for cattle fodder, the human population is growing rapidly (31% per decade) and the implementation of an old land reform law has led to increasing pressure by the government on land-owners to make profitable use of forested lands or forfeit their holdings: as a result, between 1950 and 1960, the forest cover in the State of Chiriqui was reduced from 61% to 50% (1,2,3,13). Extensive pesticide spraying against malaria and yellow fever are also reported to have had an adverse effect on Squirrel Monkey populations in Panama: in Chiriqui the monkey is said to have been much more plentiful before spraying began. Hunting for meat is not a major factor (1,13), although in Costa Rica it is said to be threatened by capture for the pet trade (8). Animal exporters took large numbers of Saimiri, mainly during the 1950s and early 1960s and especially from all the more accessible areas until the species became too scarce to make the business profitable (1). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN S. oerstedi is listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which makes trade in it between acceding nations subject to severe 153 restriction, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. It has legal protection in Costa Rica, which is difficult to enforce; it is not protected at all in Panama. The Reserva de Cuenco Corcovada on the Osa Peninsula in south-eastern Costa Rica (36,000 ha, established 1976) safeguards one population (5,9). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Legal protection in Panama. Creation of national parks and wildlife refuges for the coastal lowland Panamanian fauna, including S. oerstedi. CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1979 there were at least 55 animals (12 bred in captivity) held in eight zoo collections (12). REMARKS For description of animal see (6,11). S. oerstedi is considered by some authorities to be conspecific with Saimiri sciureus. Populations in Costa Rica and Panama are geographically isolated from the nearest S. sciureus populations in South America. This data sheet was compiled with the assistance of Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. REFERENCES 1. Baldwin, J.D. and Baldwin, J. (1972). The ecology and behaviour of Squirrel Monkeys (Saimiri oerstedi) in a natural forest in western Panama. Folia primat. 18: 161-184. 2. Baldwin, J.D. and Baldwin, J. (1976). Primate populations in Chiriqui, Panama. In Thorington, R.W. and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field Studies and Conservation. National Acad. of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 3, Bennett; “Ciks,” (1968): Human influences on_ the zoogeography of Panama. Ibero-Americana 51: 1-112. 4. Carpenter, C.R. (1935). Behaviour of Red Spider Monkeys in Panama. J. Mammal. 16(3): 171-180. 5. Freese, C.H. (1977). In litt. 6. Hill, W.C.O. (1962). Primates. Comparative Anatomy and Taxonomy, V Cebidae, Part B. Edinburgh Univ. Press. 7. Lopez, E. (1978). Informe sobre las actividades de la Direccion General de Recursos Pesqueros y Vida Silvestre de Costa Rica. In Morales, R., Macfarland, C., Incer, J. and Hobbs, A. (Eds), Memorias de la Primera Reunion Regional Centroamerican sobre Vida Silvestre. Matagalpa, Nicaragua 25-29 Julio 1978. Unidad de areas silvestres y cuencas del catie. 90-96. 8. Mena Moya, R.A. (1978). Fauna_y Caza en Costa Rica. R.M. Costa Rica. 9. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. 10. Moynihan, M. (1967). Comparative aspects of communication in New World Primates. In Morris, D. (Ed.), Primate Ethology. Aldine Publ. Co., Chicago. 11. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Natural History). Part I: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum (Natural History), London. 12. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. 13. Wolfheim, J.H. (1974). The Status of Wild Primates. Unpd. Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 908 pp. 154 MASKED TITI VULNERABLE Callicebus personatus (E. Geoffroy, 1812) Order PRIMATES Family CEBIDAE SUMMARY Occurs in coastal forests of eastern Brazil. Three subspecies described, two of which are considered 'Endangered' and the other 'Vulnerable' based on 1979/80 surveys. Habitat loss is the main threat and much of the forest within its range has already been cut. All three subspecies occur in protected areas but those harbouring C. p. melanochir are not well protected. Main needs are continued protection in reserves, long term ecological studies and a captive breeding programme. DISTRIBUTION Eastern Brazil. Ranges from the Rio Itapicuru in northern Bahia to the Rio Tiete in Sao Paulo (4). Kinzey has recently reviewed the taxonomy of the species (4). He recognises three subspecies: C. p- personatus from Espirito Santo and nearby Minas Gerais as far west as Teophilo Otoni, and the Rio Suacui; C. p. melanochir in Bahia as far soutn as the Rio Itaunas at the northern border of Espirito Santo; and C. p. nigrifrons in the States of Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and southwestern Minas Gerais as far north as the Rio Paranaiba (4). For map see (4). POPULATION Mittermeier et al's 1979/80 survey of primates in southeastern Brazil concluded that C. p. personatus and C. p. melanochir were 'Endangered' and C. p. nigrifrons 'Vulnerable' (7). They described the species as fairly adaptable and possibly locally abundant but distribution was patchy and much of its habitat had already been destroyed (7). C. p. personatus populations were said to to be ‘doing well' in the two Espirito Santo reserves in which they occur and the animal should continue to thrive and survive in the wild if protection remains adequate (7). C. p. melanochir was found to be either very rare or extinct in the northernmost part of its range where little or no habitat remains, but was still fairly common in remaining forested areas in southern Bahia. Nevertheless, forest destruction has increased tremendously in this area since 1975 and it is unlikely that much will remain outside the 'natural forest' cocoa plantations (cocoa is best grown under shade conditions and in some areas this is accomplished by leaving the large forest trees); however it is unclear whether this monkey is capable of adapting to such plantations (7). This subspecies will probably survive till 1990 in increasingly isolated forest patches in southern Bahia. However it will not survive over the long-term if existing protected areas are not greatly improved and new ones established soon (7). C. p. nigrifrons was the most abundant of the three subspecies and one of the few eastern Brazilian primates which still occurs in reasonable numbers outside parks and reserves. Nonetheless, habitat destruction, especially in areas such as the interior of the State of Sao Paulo, has been such that this animal has declined tremendously in the past few decades (7). HABITAT AN ECOLOGY Atlantic coastal forests (1). Kinzey has observed C. personatus in rather diverse habitats, from virtually primary forest (at Sooretama) to secondary forest (a grove of banana trees and Cecropia at Nova Lombardia), and from less than 100 m elevation (Sooretama) to over 1000 m elevation (Itatiaia Park). During 6 days of following a group they were observed to spend 82% of feeding time consuming fruits, 17% on leaves, and 1% on flowers (5). THREATS TO SURVIVAL The range of the species coincides with a very high human population density, thus habitat destruction, which is widespread and accelerating, and to a lesser extent hunting for food are serious threats. 155 Remaining forests are being cut down at a rapid rate for timber and charcoal production and to make way for agriculture and pasture; very little forest remains in the species' original range (6,7). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Included in Appendix 2 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 1973; trade in the species between acceding nations therefore being subject to regulation and monitoring of its effects. Not listed on the Brazilian Endangered Species List. C. Pp. personatus occurs in at least two protected areas, the Sooretama and Nova Lombardia Biological Reserves, both in Espirito Santo; and possibly in the Rio Doce State Park (although the subspecific identity of the Titi in this park remains to be determined) (5,7). C. p. melanochir occurs in the Monte Pascoal National Park, and perhaps in the Una Biological Reserve in southern Bahia but neither of these areas is especially secure. One-third of Monte Pascoal was given to the Pataxos Indians in August, 1980, and poaching will undoubtedly increase in the remainder of the park unless there is a major effort to increase protection above 1980 levels. Una is overrun with squatters and probably has little future as a reserve. This subspecies also occurs in the Lemos Maia Experimental Station on the edge of Una town. C. p. nigrifrons occurs in Itatiaia National Park, Fazenda Barreiro Rico, both of which have substantial populations. Also occurs in the Mogi-Guacu Experimental Station which has only two or three groups, and is reported to exist in several high altitude resort areas (e.g. Campas de Jordao); probably still abundant in the large reserves of coastal Sao Paulo (7). A study of the distribution and status of all eastern Brazilian primates was undertaken in 1979/80 by R.A. Mittermeier, A.F. Coimbra-Filho, and I. Constable (7), and a short ecological study of a single group was conducted in the Sooretama Reserve by Dr. Warren Kinzey and co-workers in 1977 (5). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED In 1980 the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group made the following recommendations: a) Conduct rescue operations to capture Titi groups still living in forest areas slated for destruction. b) Investigate some of the white sand forest inland from Canavieras and also the coastal region between Canavieras and Ilheus to locate other potential reserve sites for C. p. melanochir and other southern Bahian monkeys. c) Investigate the parks and reserves of coastal Sao Paulo to see if C. p- nigrifrons still occurs there. d) Urge the Brazilian government to officially decree the Una Biological Reserve. e) Discuss with CEPLAC, the Regional Cocoa Growing Authority, the possibility of declaring the Lemos Maia Experimental Staion an official Wildlife Sanctuary. f) Encourage Brazilian students to conduct long term ecological studies of Titi populations in Nova Lombardia, Monte Pascoal, Itatiaia and Barreiro Rico to a detailed population survey of the Sooretama Reserve and a study of C. p. melanochir and other southern Bahian monkeys in cocoa plantations belonging to CEPLAC (7). CAPTIVE BREEDING None are maintained in captivity at the present time (1981) but the Rio de Janeiro Primate Centre is interested in establishing colonies of all three subspecies as soon as possible (7). REMARKS For description of animal see (2,3,4,9). Hershkovitz's monograph on Callicebus does not include a detailed review of C. personatus (2). Previously four subspecies were recognised (3). This data sheet was compiled with information supplied by Dr. A.F. Coimbra-Filho and by Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. REFERENCES 1. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1977). In litt. 2. Hershkovitz, P. (1963). A systematic and zoogeographic account of the monkeys of the genus Callicebus (Cebidae) of the Amazonas and Orinoco River Basins. Mammalia 27: 1-80. 156 Hill, W.C.O. (1962). Primates. Comparative Anatomy and Taxonomy, IV Cebidae, Part A. Edinburgh Univ. Press. Kinzey, W.G. (1981). Distribution of some Neotropical Primates and the model of Pleistocene forest refugia. In Prance, G.T. (Ed.), Proc. Fifth International Symposium, Association for Tropical Biology, 'The Biological Model of Diversification in the Tropics'. Caracas, Venezuela, February, 1979. Columbia Univ. Press, New York. Kinzey, W. (1978). In litt. to R.A. Mittermeier. Mittermeier, R.A. (1976). Primate Conservation in South and Central America -- Research Priorities and Areas. Unpd. Report. 16 pp. Mittermeier, R.A., Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Constable, I. (1980). Conservation of Eastern Brazilian Primates. WWF Project 1614. Report for the period 1979/80. Napier, J.R. and Napier, P.H. (1967). A Handbook of Living Primates. Acad. Press, New York. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.). Part |: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum (Natural History), London. 157 oo cx rd ‘ Z . P 4a cnet enh eg siitueog] pil @asperc & T-orinigies wes under _- £27647 8 oka . 2 Oe foilep |e eg eee 5 ee be ked vee FIED ~} oink VES ime, A. Ss aR ; : 1 MOS TAT ni : ‘ pire eeto ye bee . we A ‘ roy ~ bagi a 5. re = h . - | pi iy ypge. 1c. godin Reh} ew ye rnd yaar saaters rl to shor ‘oes brie. prion lanaitemsini, din, »/ A’ debs... f WP ag GOON, PT spinel 2 eo ed eae a Fees ae Sy tia Weed, a, 3h OD Fina, 3 fh, ne ed ici 8 ‘Hpi ‘ yom tor ig RIO, watt. bre eo eb toe ABC ya. 4 i. es Specie k Sc adakorrianih AghoF til nl, ARSE i Kosta fe “an Li % aS Asa, | Payee: “at Mh AW IEA > aga px Phe eiaaae? ans Bhi % “ry 4 mu As nt FBI A» ping eat) BRIS, Aas S.. e ee AP Waa ig) me rv! Me oh aiifte Bate? AWE stead Oud, paldisee v magaee s, cS Sas Ne ria tig hing “ oe os et eg hate + Pn _ ip Lm val Barreicve AY it erie “a Mop: - alg a ole . e ‘ repeated 2 exist in acverat Aah seis; ; prone oiget i xOoPH en! th re teree veanee vi at Sia lint? So TAte sie sia} ‘ ‘wine mn i — , 4 wees | EOVIAR Cet Sra ' e Tarte age te a6 COMPO tad + DE a Ber Warret) Haney ane Ge-w ores i 1927 (4 . 7 wr = iee F ee é 4 ; : : - ie The = wo nt es nbs ‘ Dy sara & io ns Adare aay es CON : y* He - i> a a 2 . 3 J¥ Pais 7 re Oy The ' 38 ie : te D bes ea Ser ctxt: fhiveun woaee mie tellin hee. yous Tat } ‘+ s t vn onc a - : r) — a2 5 - u . 5 Operating. tb Castine, Atl arinde shi Veins i forest arene Cited fo $3 ih erie en an oo a ’ : vrs ate val mie Os e. wr «> ‘i a a tf avr & TAS val ¥ ye fe hee me ~~ as " bun be : . 5 alas hale a Ht is H “a ie? Det s Masih : f : EUay ef: seieikcie Siti rT ... bb, ire Litter yi ay & “a r woutterh hak One ‘0 et) a “PREkR Ric vende vey Of Ponstel San Pauic : % teres “henne wre Pie Sea vias gover ween to wtlictally @eeeRe Poe 4 _ oe Ge ~'t E a y Res yy 6) ‘Ih hee An CEPL Wo) FAST Ons! ats fowrn . ; é aie cS 2 SSeeseliky Gr ae lacie ried > ted Cx a fe aS baa va ee - = saad Risry, i OUI EC Caled tates Stes: ie Sort 'S Pi -ptegie tis a) Nave UGTigaraia, bes, has . t ry Cy fer ov. Oy 7 “er si la uM wri ely yey So? ; ‘ tT ve Gir wo: oth Sca) eer. Sat) P t ¢ r oS one: are Niditithines We Cary vity at . ree . + fet ire ras a prise ts erties ing im eet saa a3 ime emt 7? ~ 3 wai, = 7 % a . bd = ‘ } : - Bs Seats re pemae SS Pie | cen caper gt arial ‘gee U2, 8.9), joe 4 iene > nil tet, Oapiiedl 4 es a aes re ‘bstestinh 4 vith ay ba 4 ea, rs | Ls: hs fete aieien eat ‘az af / t a. wu (3 Bic ev Mi Tri ve cur ape ne Sa wn pier Meek o 7 7 biacner byy- tiv, Pes Byres By yi ; i Bice uy) oa ee am ‘1 $e ric at ~~ hE WHITE-NOSED SAKI VULNERABLE Chiropotes albinasus (I. Geoffroy & Deville, 1848) Order PRIMATES Family CEBIDAE SUMMARY Brazilian endemic, sparsely distributed over its range and decreasing in some areas. Threatened by loss of habitat and hunting. Protected by law and occurs in several reserve areas. Ecological studies were conducted by J.M. Ayres in 1979/80. More reserves and a captive breeding programme needed. DISTRIBUTION Brazil. Occurs south of the Rio Amazonas between the Rio Xingu and the Rio Madeira at least as far south as the Rio Jiparana in Rondonia (2,4,6,8), and the upper Rios Aripuana and Roosevelt (8). Avila Pires (1974 in Rylands 1980-81) includes the whole of Rondonia south to the Rio Guapore (8). POPULATION No estimates available. Ayres who studied the animal in 1979-80 considers it vulnerable (1). The species is sparsely distributed over its range and has now disappeared from parts of the lower Tapajos where it was collected in the 1930s (4). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Upland primary tropical rainforest (1,5) in unflooded areas and also sometimes in seasonally flooded forest along river banks (5). Ayres reports it to feed on the seeds of immature fruits, and on bark, fruits and flowers. Arboreal, diurnal and may live at low densities because of its specialised seedeating diet (1). One young is the norm (1). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Habitat destruction and hunting. Its range is now traversed by the Trans-Amazonian Highway and the Cuiaba-Santarem Highway where considerable development will take place in the future (8). Already extensive clear-felling of forest has occurred to create pasture land for cattle. The development schemes of Rondonia, Aripuana and Juruena completely cover the southern part of its range (8). Colonisers following the Highways not only destroy forests but are avid hunters of monkeys, including C. albinasus, for food, particularly in the Rio Tapajos area. This saki is also hunted to bait cat traps and sometimes killed for its tail, which is used as a duster (4). Such pressures are likely to increase as the Highways make the region more accessible (5). At Dardanelos, on the Rio Aripuana in the State of Mato Grosso it is the most hunted primate after Lagothrix and is thus locally scarce (8). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Included in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which makes it obligatory on countries ratifying the Convention to impose strict control on all trade in the species and ban trade for primarily commercial purposes. Protected by law in Brazil and on the Brazilian endangered species list, but enforcement of protective measures is difficult in remote areas. Early in 1974, a national park was created in Amazonia near Itaituba, on the west bank of the Rio Tapajos not far downstream of the Highway crossing, and includes part of the White-nosed Saki's range; it should provide some measure of protection for the species and its habitat (5). It also occurs in several other existing and proposed areas (8). J.M. Ayres has conducted ecological studies of the species. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED More reserves are needed within its range. CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1979, there were two males held in Cologne Zoo, Federal 159 Republic of Germany, and one male in Sao Paulo Zoo, Brazil (7). Captive breeding programmes are planned at the Rio de Janeiro Primate Research Centre (5). REMARKS For description of animal see (2,5). This data sheet was compiled with information supplied by Jose Marcio Ayres, Dr R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group, and by Dr A.F. Coimbra-Filho. The latter two also reviewed the final draft of this account. REFERENCES 74% 7 160 Ayres, J.M. (1981). In litt. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1972). Mamiferos ameacados de extincao no Brasil. In Especies de Fauna_ Brasileira Ameacadas de Extincao. Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, Rio de Janeiro. Pp. 13-98. Hill, W.C.O. (1960). Primates: Comparative Anatomy and Taxonomy, IV Cebidae, Part A. Edinburgh Univ. Press. Mittermeier, R.A. and Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1977). Primate Conservation in Brazilian Amazonia. In Prince Rainier and Bourne, G. (Eds), Primate Conservation. Acad. Press, New York. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.). Part I: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum (Natural History), London. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. Rylands, A. (1980-81). Conservation of Amazonian Primates. Unpd. Report. SOUTHERN BEARDED SAKI ENDANGERED or BLACK SAKI Chiropotes satanas satanas (Hoffmannsegg, 1807) Order PRIMATES Family CEBIDAE SUMMARY Limited distribution in one of the most densely inhabited parts of Brazilian Amazonia where much forest destruction has already occurred. Such habitat loss, combined with a partiality for undisturbed high forest, a specialized diet, and a naturally low density cause this taxon to be classified as 'Endangered'. Adequately protected reserves and a captive breeding programme are urgently required. DISTRIBUTION Brazil where it occurs south of the Amazon, from the Rio Xingu (3,6,8) to the northeastern part of the State of Maranhao, (3,8) probably to the 'Zona dos Cocais de Sampaio' (1,8). Southeastern limit is probably the dry transition forest of Murca to the east of the Rio Araguaia (8), and to the south, Hill (1960) and Avila Pires (1974 in Rylands 1980-81) limit the range to the mouth of the Rio Araguaia (4,8), and Clutton-Brock and Ayres mention the limit as the transition forest of northern Mato Grosso and Goias (3). POPULATION Noestimates. In 1981 considered endangered by both Mittermeier and Ayres because of its small range, specialised feeding behaviour and habitat preference, and the extensive habitat destruction within its range (1,2,5). Ayres who is studying the animal reported in 1977 that it was already extinct in many areas (1,8); in 1978 he and Clutton-Brock reported it to have disappeared from the 'Zona Bragantina' near Belem and to be rapidly decreasing in the southern part of its range and in areas close to the Trans Amazonian and Belem - Brasilia Highways (3). In the northeast they reported the only surviving population to be along the Guama River near Avila Araual (3). They also noted that preliminary observations suggested that population density may be naturally low - 15 per sq. km (3). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Tropical rainforest principally in unflooded areas (3,7) and on river banks (3) and preferably undisturbed (5). Habits little known. Chiropotes species are specialised seedeaters but will also eat bark, fruits, flowers and leaves (2,5). Possibly live in groups ranging in size from 30+ animals. In Suriname Mittermeier observed a group of C. s. chiropotes which contained at least 30 animals (6). THREATS TO SURVIVAL A small range in a part of Amazonia where much deforestation for development has occurred (3). The Transamazonica (BR 230) and Belem - Brasilia Highways bisect its range, east to west and north to south respectively. The development schemes of Carajas and development in the Rio Araguaia region threaten southern populations (1,8). Ayres (1977) estimated that about one-quarter of its range is covered by 'Polamazon' development schemes. The Tucurui Hydroelectric scheme, to be finished in 1983, will eliminate a large area of its habitat on the Rio Tocantins (8). The tails of this animal are used as dusters and in 1978 were reported to be commonly sold in Belem (3). Mittermeier describes this taxon as being one of the first to disappear in the face of human colonization (5). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix 2 of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, therefore any trade in it or its products is subject to regulation and monitoring by 161 ratifying nations. Not protected by law in Brazil (3). Although there are a number of Forest Reserves, National Forests and Indian Reserves within its range, these do not specifically protect wildlife and in some cases are already partly developed (8). J.M. Ayres has begun studies of the status and distribution of this subspecies. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Ayres (1977) has proposed three areas which would be suitable sites for reserves: a) to the east of the refuge area of Altamira between the Rios Tocantins and Xingu, to the north of the Transamazonica; b) to the northeast of the refuge area Bacia do Capim in the south of the Municipalities of Capitao Poco and Ourem; and c) the refuge area of Caxinduba which would incorporate part of the proposed Biological Reserve of Araraquara (1,8). The trade in tails for dusters should be eliminated (3). CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1979 there were 3 males held in 2 collections (9). REMARKS For description of animal see (4,7). C. satanas includes one other subspecies, C. s. chiropotes, which has a large range to the north of the mainstream of the Rios Amazonas from the Rio Negro to the Atlantic, and north to the Guianas and Venezuela. It is hunted for food along the Rios Negro and Trombetas, but very little information is available to determine its status (6), though there is no reason to suppose it is threatened (5). The only other species in the genus is C. albinasus which is listed in the IUCN Red Data Book as 'Vulnerable'. REFERENCES 1. Ayres, J.M. (1977). A situacao actual da ocorrencia do cuxiu preto, Chiropotes satanas satanas (Hoffmannsegg, 1807). Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazonia (INPA), Manaus, Unpd. Report. 40pp. 2. Ayres, J.M. (1981). In litt. 3. Clutton-Brock, T.H. and Ayres, J.M. (1978). In litt. 4. Hill, W.C.O. (1960). Primates: Comparative Anatomy and Taxonomy, Vol. IV, Cebidae Part A. Univ. Press, Edinburgh. 5. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. 6. Mittermeier, R.A. and Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1977). Primate Conservation in Brazilian Amazonia. In Prince Rainier and Bourne, G. (Eds), Primate Conservation. Academic Press, New York. 7. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Natural History). Part 1: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum (Natural History, London. 8. Rylands, A. (1980-81). Conservation of Amazonian Primates. Unpd. Report. 9. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. 162 UAKARI (RED AND WHITE) VULNERABLE Cacajao calvus (I. Geoffroy, 1847) Order PRIMATES Family CEBIDAE SUMMARY Two subspecies recognised: the White Uakari Cacajao calvus calvus, with a very small range and naturally rare, in upper Brazilian Amazonia where it is protected by law, and the Red Uakari Cacajao calvus rubicundus, which is vulnerable and has legal protection in Brazil and Peru, but not yet in Colombia where it also perhaps occurs. The total range of the White Uakari could and should be made into a reserve or national park. The Red Uakari still needs study to provide a basis for effective conservation. DISTRIBUTION Brazil, Peru and perhaps Colombia. Of the two subspecies the White Uakari C. c. calvus has an extremely small range in Brazil, being restricted to the large fluvial 'island' bordered by the Rio Solimoes (Upper Amazon), the Rio Japura, and the Rio Auati-Parana, an anastomosis between the Japura and Solimoes (8). The Red Uakari, C. c. rubicundus, occurs in the Upper Amazon region in Brazil, Peru, possibly Colombia, where Mittermeier now considers its eastern boundary may be the west bank of the Rio Purus and not as previously thought the Rio Jurua. In the west the Rio Ucayali in Peru appears to be the limit and in the north the Rio Putumayo-lIca, but this is uncertain (8,9). POPULATION No estimates available. In 1968 Grimwood found the Red Uakari to be rare and declining in Peru (4) and in 1981 Soini and Mittermeier considered it one of the three most endangered monkeys in Peruvian Amazonia (11). The Brazilian part of its range, especially south of the Amazon, may be its last major stronghold (9), but reliable evidence is lacking. The White Uakari, described by Bates in 1863 as 'rare in the limited district which it inhabits', still is so (1,2,4), and is considered by Mittermeier to be endangered because any adverse factor operating within its very restricted range could exterminate it very rapidly. In particular it is apparently an easy target for hunters (10). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY The entire known range of the White Uakari is within varzea forest (forest on the flood plain of silt-laden white-water rivers like the Rio Amazonas). Two groups of Red Uakaris encountered in a 1973 Brazilian survey were in igapo swamp forest (permanently flooded) and this is also the professed habitat in Amazonian Peru (11). All Uakaris seem to avoid the margins of larger rivers (4) and travel in large groups sometimes of more than 30 and even as many as 50 animals (9). Reported to associate with other primates including Squirrel Monkeys (Saimiri sciureus), Tufted Capuchins (Cebus apella) and White-fronted Capuchins (Cebus albifrons) (2,8). Diet is probably fruit, nuts and seeds (4). THREATS TO SURVIVAL When Mittermeier investigated its range in 1973 the White Uakari was rarely hunted and only occasionally shot for fish bait or human consumption; also its habitat had not been seriously disturbed (9,10). However, should hunting pressure increase or any habitat destruction occur within its limited range, it could be exterminated very rapidly (1,10). The current situation (1981) is unknown (10). The decline of the Red Uakari in Peru is attributed to hunting; it is easy to kill and its flesh is highly esteemed (4). Luscombe reported it to be greatly prized as a pet in Peru (7). 433 specimens were exported from Iquitos, Peru, between 1962 and 1968, but as far as is known none since (14). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN This Uakari is listed in Appendix | of the 163 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and therefore any trade in it or its products is subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, trade for primarily commercial purposes being banned. The Red Uakari is on the Peruvian Endangered Species List; specimens held as pets are confiscated. Both the Red and White forms are on the Endangered Species List of Brazil, and Dr. R.A. Mittermeier undertook a preliminary survey of the species in Brazil in 1973 (9). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED The entire fluvial island that comprises the range of the White Uakari should be made a biological reserve or national park. The area has suffered little human disturbance, has high densities of a large variety of monkeys and birds, and is an excellent sample of the regional fauna (9). Surveys of the Red Uakari and further detailed study of the White Uakari are needed (10), and such a study is planned for 1982-83 as part of the IUCN/SSC's Primate Specialist Groups Global Strategy for Primate Conservation (6). CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1979, there were eight male and 14 female Red Uakaris held in eight zoo collections and three male and four female White Uakaris in four collections (13). The Red Uakari has been breeding well for several years in the "Monkey Jungle', Miami, Florida (7). REMARKS For description of animal see (12). The White Uakari has a mainly white coat, the Red Uakari's being rusty red although in some parts of its range with a white admixture (9). Uakaris have a very short tail, which does not exceed one third of the length of the body (8,9,12). Cabrera (1957) and Napier (1976) regard the White and Red Uakaris as separate species Cacajao calvus and C. rubicundus (3). Hershkovitz and Mittermeier, whom we follow, regard them as conspecific (5,9). This data sheet was compiled with the assistance of Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. REFERENCES 1. Ayres, M. (1981). In litt. 2. Bates, H.W. (1863). A Naturalist on the River Amazon. John Murray, London. 3. Cabrera, A. (1957-1961). Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Rev. Mus. Argent. Cienc. Nat. 'Bernardino Rivadavia'. Cienc. Zool. 4(1,2): 1-731. 4. Grimwood, I.R. (1969). Notes on the distribution and status of some Peruvian mammals 1968. American Committee for International Wild Life Protection and New York Zool. Soc. Special Publication No. 21. 5. Hershkovitz, P. (1972). Notes on New World Monkeys. In Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.), International Zoo Yearbook 12. Zool. Soc. London. Pp. 3-12. 6. IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. (1981). Global strategy for primate conservation, 1981-1983. Report for IUCN's Species Survival Commission. 7. Luscombe, A. (1977). In litt. 8. Mittermeier, R.A. and Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1977). Primate conservation in Brazilian Amazonia. In Prince Rainier and Bourne, G. (Eds), Primate Conservation. Acad. Press, New York. 9. Mittermeier, R.A. (1978). The Weird Uakaris of Amazonia. Unpd. Report. 10. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. 11. Mittermeier, R.A. and Soini, P. (1981). Pers. Comm. 12. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.). Part |: Families Callitrichidae and 164 Cebidae. British Museum (Natural History), London. 13. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.), (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. 14. Soini, P. (1972). The capture and commerce of live monkeys in the Amazonian region of Peru. Int. Zoo Yb.12: 26-36. 165 waht “3; ve / xy BLACK-HEADED UAKARI VULNERABLE Cacajao melanocephalus (Humboldt, 1811!) Order PRIMATES Family CEBIDAE SUMMARY Restricted both in distribution and habitat, occurring mainly in the igapo forests of Brazilian Amazonia, though also recorded from Colombia and southern Venezuela. Total numbers unknown. Protected in Brazil and Colombia and occurs in a number of Refuge Areas. DISTRIBUTION Northern Brazil, southern Venezuela and Colombia. Principally found along small tributaries of the upper Rio Negro, on its left bank as far east as the Rio Araca, which joins the Rio Demini and flows into the Rio Negro opposite the township of Barcelos. The southern limit is definitely the Rio Solimoes, the western limit apparently the foot of the Cordillera Macarena, a spur of the eastern Andes some 200 km south of Bogota, Colombia. The northern limit is not definitely known but there are reliable records from the State of Amazonas in southern Venezuela (3,5,6). More specifically limits in Colombia are to the north the southern bank of the Rio Guaviare, to the southwest the Rio Yari and to the south the Rio Caqueta (2). For map see (3). POPULATION Total numbers unknown. In Brazil this is one of the more abundant primates along the small right bank tributaries of the Rio Negro (1,6) and the Rio Japura (1) but everywhere else it seems quite rare (6). In Venezuela it is apparently endangered (4). In Colombia local authorities consider it to be threatened on the grounds that it is rare, heavily hunted for food and restricted in choice of habitat (3,5). Overall Mittermeier classifies it as 'Vulnerable', but not tli 'Endangered' because of the remoteness of much of its Brazilian range Gh. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Lives primarily or exclusively in the igapo (seasonally or permanently flooded) forests of the small 'blackwater' rivers and lakes that are typical of the alluvial plains in the area bounded by the Rios Japura, Solimoes and Negro (6). All Uakaris avoid the margins of larger rivers (5) and seem to prefer the canopy of primary forest (2,3). They travel in groups of 20-40 animals (1,3,6). a) is still poorly known but appears to be primarily or exclusively fruits and nuts 3,5). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Hunted for food in Colombia (3,5), but not usually in Brazilian Amazonia. Occasionally shot for use as fish, turtle or cat bait (5). Mittermeier reports that attitudes towards monkey hunting can change quickly with the influx of new settlers and/or the disappearance of more desirable game species; such a shift could have a very rapid deleterious effect on the status of the Black-headed Uakari (6). Habitat destruction does not appear to pose any immediate problem in Brazil as the igapo has little commercial value and the region as a whole has a fairly low human population (6). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN All Cacajao species are included in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in them between acceding nations thus being subject to severe restriction, trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. C. melanocephalus is included in the Brazilian Endangered Species List and is protected by law in Colombia (2). It is not known to be present in any national parks or reserves. A four month survey of Cacajao spp. was undertaken by Dr. R.A. Mittermeier in 1973 (5,6). Rylands reports that in Brazil the species occurs 167 in the Jau Refuge Area (9,10) (2,272,000 ha) decreed in September 1980 and in the Pico da Neblina (2,200,000 ha) decreed in June 1979 (10). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Rylands suggests that a reserve between the Rios Negro and Japura in the region of the Rios Curicuriari, Marie and Inuixi would protect populations south of the Rio Negro (10). CAPTIVE BREEDING It has appeared in zoo collections on rare occasions but usually does not survive more than a few months (6). In 1979 Cologne Zoo had one male and Sao Paulo Zoo three males (8). REMARKS For description of animal see (6,7). Uakaris have a very short tail which is extraordinary in strictly arboreal monkeys and unique in New World monkeys (6). It appears likely that two subspecies exist (2,3). This data sheet was compiled with the assistance of Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. REFERENCES 1. Ayres, M. (1981). In litt. Hernandez-Camacho, J. (1981). Pers. comm. Hernandez-Camacho, J. and Cooper, R.W. (1976). The Nonhuman Primates of Colombia. In Thorington, R.W. Jr. and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field Studies and Conservation. National Acad. of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 4, Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. 5. Mittermeier, R.A. and Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1977). Primate Conservation in Brazilian Amazonia. In Prince Rainier and Bourne, G. (Eds), Primate Conservation. Acad. Press, New York. 6. Mittermeier, R.A. (1978). The Weird Uakaris of Amazonia. Unpd Report. 7. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.). Part 1: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum (Nat. Hist.), London. 8. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. 9. Rylands, A. B. (1980-81) Conservation of Amazonian primates. Unpd. Report. 10. Rylands, A. B. (1981). Pers. Comm. WN e e 168 BROWN HOWLER MONKEY INDETERMINATE Alouatta fusca (E. Geoffroy, |812) Order PRIMATES Family CEBIDAE SUMMARY Inhabits eastern Brazil where it is hunted for food and affected by widespread habitat destruction. Possibly also susceptible to epidemics. Protected in some reserves but more needed. Studies aimed at its long term conservation began in 1980. DISTRIBUTION Eastern Brazil where it is restricted to coastal forests from Bahia at about 12°S to Rio Grande do Sul at about 30°S. Two subspecies usually recognized (6,7), but their validity still has to be determined (4). A. £. fusca once occurred north of the Rio Doce in northern Espirito Santo, southern Bahia, and adjacent parts of Minas Gerais, and in some highland areas south of the Rio Doce, but has now disappeared from most of this area (4). A. f. clamitans has a large range, occurring from the Rio Doce south through Rio de Janeiro and adjacent parts of Minas Gerais to Sao Paulo, Parana, Santa Catarina and northeastern Rio Grande do Sul (4). A third subspecies A. f. beniensis has been described from Puerto Salinas on the Rio Beni in northern Bolivia (7), but it may actually belong to a different Alouatta species (2). POPULATION Numbers unknown (2). The species might quite possibly be in the ‘Endangered’ category (3,4). In 1980 A. f. fusca (if valid) was considered highly endangered and on the verge of extinction in most of its range. The 'best' population occurred on the Fazenda Montes Claros and this might ensure its survival. However the population may consist of hybrid animals, if so, then this subspecies will almost certainly go extinct in the wild before 1990 (4). A. f. clamitans, once very abundant, was by 1980 considered ‘Endangered’ in southeastern Brazil. Its status in the southern states is unknown and overall the species is therefore considered 'Indeterminate' (4). However since the only two protected areas in which the species is known to occur do not together exceed 8000 ha the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group believe it is a likely candidate for the 'Endangered!' category (4). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Recorded from undisturbed high forest; forested coastal lowlands, and in 'plains with small remnants of forest along rivers and creeks' (8). Known to be arboreal and diurnal. THREATS TO SURVIVAL Habitat destruction and hunting. Its size and the quality of its meat make this species a prized food item in some areas. Nonetheless, destruction of its forest habitat is the major factor in its decline (2,4). The east coast of Brazil has a dense human population, consequently habitat destruction has been widespread and recently accelerating, and remaining forests are being rapidly felled to make way for development projects, plantations, farms and even for the production of charcoal (3,4). Epidemics may also be a significant factor in its disappearance. Alouatta species in other parts of Soutn and Central America are known to be far more susceptible to periodic epidemics e.g. of Sylvan yellow fever, than other monkeys and this may have caused its decline in Itatiaia National Park. An epidemic in a small and isolated reserve like the majority of those in eastern Brazil is likely to have disastrous effects (4). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN The species is listed in Appendix 2 of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it between acceding nations being therefore subject to regulation 169 and monitoring of its effects. A 1979/80 survey of protected areas in southeastern Brazil made the following observations: A. f. fusca still exists in the Rio Doce State Forest Park where it is extremely rare, in the Nova Lombardia Biological Reserve in Espirito Santo which has 3 or 4 groups, and on the privately owned Fazenda Montes Claros which has at least 15 groups (4,5). However these latter two areas are south of its known southern limit and may, at least in Montes Claros, consist of hybrid animals. It is extremely rare, or already extinct, in Monte Pascoal National Park, and definitely extinct in the Biological Reserves of Una, Sooretama and Corrego do Veado, and Pau Brasil Ecological Station (4). The survey found A. f. clamitans to be thriving in the Cantareira Reserve on the outskirts of Sao Paulo city and in the privately owned Fazenda Barreiro Rico. It was however rare in the Morro do Diabo State Reserve and the Poco d'Anta Biological Reserve, extremely rare or extinct in the Itatiaia and Serra dos Orgaos National Park, and extinct in Tijuca National Park and the Caitetus Reserve (4). Espedito Cordeiro da Silva began studies in 1980 to examine the taxonomy of A. fusca to determine whether the two subspecies were valid, and also to develop a long term research programme to monitor the Cantareira and Barreiro Rico populations (4). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Survival will depend on adequately protected reserves. Surveys are also needed in the parks and reserves of coastal Sao Paulo, Parana, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul to determine its presence and status (4). CAPTIVE BREEDING A captive breeding stock is to be established in the Rio de Janeiro Primate Center (2,4). REMARKS For description of animal see (1,7). Another name for A. fusca, which is still often used, is Alouatta guariba (1,6). This data sheet was ‘compiled from information supplied by Dr. A.F. Coimbra-Filho and by Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. REFERENCES 1. Hill, W.C.O. (1960). Primates: Comparative Anatomy and Taxonomy. IV Cebidae. Part A. Edinbugh Univ. Press. 2. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. 3. Mittermeier, R.A. (1976). Primate Conservation in South and Central America -- Research Priorities and Areas. Ms. 16 pp. 4. Mittermeier, R.A., Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Constable I.D. (1980). Conservation of Eastern Brazilian Primates. WWF Project 1614. Report for the period 1979/80. 5. Mittermeier, R.A., Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Constable, I.D. (1980). Range Extension for an Endangered Marmoset. Oryx 15(4): 380-383. 6. Napier, P.H. and Napier, J.H. (1967). A Handbook of Living Primates. Acad. Press, London. 7. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) Part 1: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum (Nat. Hist.), London. 8. Wolfheim, J.H. (1974). The Status of Wild Primates. Unpd. Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 908 pp. 170 GUATEMALAN or BLACK HOWLER MONKEY INDETERMINATE Alouatta villosa (Gray, 1845) Order PRIMATES Family CEBIDAE SUMMARY Occurs in southern Mexico, northern Guatemala and Belize. Total numbers unknown but being depleted in Mexico by habitat destruction and hunting. Little known of its status in Guatemala and Belize, but protected in Tikal National Park, Guatemala. It used to be thought that villosa was a subspecies of Alouatta palliata, the Mantled howler, however A. villosa has been recognized as a distinct species since 1970 when Smith observed an apparent case of sympatry between it and A. palliata mexicana. Smith used the name pigra for this species because he believed that the name villosa was indeterminable. Napier (1976), however , examined the villosa material in the British Museum (Natural History), and indicated that the type specimen was from Mexico and that the name villosa therefore had priority over pigra and should be used in its place. DISTRIBUTION Mexico, Guatemala and Belize (1,3,4): in Mexico it occurs in the States of Tabasco, Chiapas, Yucatan, Campeche (2,3), and Quintana Roo (1); in Guatemala only in the north extending into adjacent parts of Belize (2). For map see (3). POPULATION Numbers unknown. Mittermeier reports it to be declining in the Mexican part of its range and to no longer occur in some localities where it was recorded earlier this century. Nothing is known of its status in Guatemala or Belize (1). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Tropical rainforest. Seems to prefer extensive, undisturbed and mesic or high plateau tropical forest (3), of which the general area it occupies contains one of the few remaining samples in Middle America. Howlers (Alouatta spp.), which are among the largest of the New World Monkeys (2) are arborea! and diurnal (!). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Habitat destruction and hunting have brought about the decline of the species in Mexico (1). The alteration of the habitat may be responsible for the sympatry of Alouatta palliata mexicana and A. villosa in Macuspana, Tabasco, observed by Smith (3), who postulates that A. p. mexicana can survive in disturbed and secondary forest but A. villosa not. Thus recent disturbance through road construction and increased agriculture of forested areas previously inhabited by A. villosa may have allowed A. p. mexicana to move in and colonize (3). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN 'Alouatta palliata (villosa)' is included in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, so that trade in it by countries which have ratified the Convention is subject to severe restriction, and trade for primarily commercial purposes is banned. However the listing needs clarification and the two would best be listed separately as A. palliata and A. villosa (= pigra). The species is afforded some protection by the Tikal National Park (57,600 ha) in northeastern Guatemala (1). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Surveys are needed to determine the status of this species throughout its range and especially in Mexico (1), to form the basis of a conservation plan. 171 CAPTIVE BREEDING None in captivity. A captive breeding programme would be desirable but howlers are difficult to keep in captivity (1). REMARKS For description of animal see (3). The taxonomy of Central American howlers is confusing (2,3). A. villosa is sometimes referred to as A. pigra e.g. by Smith (1970) (3). It is also on occasions treated as a subspecies of A. palliata, the Mantled Howler, however Smith observed an apparent case of sympatry between two supposed races of A. palliata - mexicana and villosa (which he called pigra) - in Mexico, and on this basis elevated villosa to specific status (3). Smith used the name pigra because he believed that the name villosa was indeterminable. However Napier (1976) examined the villosa material in the British Museum (Natural History) and indicated that the type specimen was from Mexico and that the name villosa therefore had priority over pigra and should be used in its place (2). Alouatta caraya is also given the vernacular name Black Howler Monkey (2), but is a totally different species. This data sheet was compiled with information supplied by Dr. A.F. Coimbra-Filho and Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. REFERENCES 1. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. 2. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.). Part 1: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum (Natural History), London. 3. Smith, J.D. (1970). The systematic status of the Black Howler Monkey, Alouatta pigra Lawrence. J. Mammal. 51(3): 358-369. 4. Wolfheim, J.H. (1974). The Status of Wild Primates. Unpd. Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 908 pp. 172 YELLOW-TAILED WOOLLY MONKEY ENDANGERED Lagothrix flavicauda (Humboldt, 1812) Order PRIMATES Family CEBIDAE SUMMARY Endemic to northern Peru where it has an extremeley limited range, occurring only in Amazon forest which intrudes in finger-like projections into the Andes. Believed extinct until rediscovered in 1974. Habitat destruction, hunting for food, a small range, and a slow breeding rate combine to make this an 'Endangered' species. Legally protected, and the subject of studies which by 1981 had identified two suitable reserve sites. A captive breeding programme would be desirable. DISTRIBUTION Northern Peru. Restricted to the forested slopes in both branches of the East Andes chain in the Dept. of Amazonas (between 5°30' and 6°30'S, 77°20! and 78°20'W) (3), and in October 1979 a small group were observed in cloud forest in the eastern part of La Libertad Dept. (9). This record extends the known range of the monkey southward some 200 km (9). Probably also survives in the Andes further north, in the Amazonas Department near the Ecuadorian border, in the mountains between the Chiriaco and Nieva rivers (between 5° and 5°30'S), in the Campanquis chain in Loreto Dept., and in the northern chain in San Martin Dept. (3). Limits of the range are not precisely known. First described by Humboldt from trimmed, flat skins used as saddle covers by Peruvian muleteers in the vicinity of Jaen, Dept. of Cajamarca. It is uncertain whether it actually occurs in that area since no other records are known; the skins could well have come from the Dept. of Amazonas, east of the Rio Maranon. Two specimens were collected in 1925 by Watkins at La Lejia (06°07'S, 77°28'W; alt. 230 m), Dept. of Amazonas, three more in 1926 by Hendee at Pucatambo (06°09'S, 77°11'W; alt 1555 m), Dept. of San Martin (1,5,7); more recently, in April/May 1974, an expedition searching for evidence of L. flavicauda's continued existence obtained four skins, three skulls, and a live specimen from Pedro Ruiz, an army engineers' outpost in the vicinity of Chachapoyas: it had originally been caught in the upper Rio Mayo area on the eastern edge of its currently known range (5,6,7). In 1976 the species was observed in the wild near Pedro Ruiz (2). Since then it has become the subject of studies (3). For map see (7). POPULATION Total numbers unknown, but undoubtedly declining. Leo Luna who is studying the species (1980) believes it will be extinct in the wild by 2030 unless effective reserves are established (3). Similarly Graves and O'Neill felt it 'could quickly become rare and endangered' if not protected (2). Mittermeier et al in 1977 rated the species 'Endangered' (7). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Humid and very humid montane rainforest of the Amazonian type, which probably represents an intrusion of the riverine rainforest into climatically suitable areas on the eastern slope of the Andes (3,5,7,9). Data on altitudinal range varies: over 1800 m (3); 500-2500 m (7); 2400-2500 m (9); Graves and O'Neill encountered it at 1670 m (2); Watkins' specimens were from 230 m and Hendee's 1555 m (1,7). Leo Luna who began a field study of the species in 1978 found its habitat to be one of steep gorges and ravines, with trees 20-40 m high depending on the zone; the trunks being usually under | m diameter, except for some Cedrela spp. and Ficus spp. In the lower zones the understorey was dense with many Palmaceae species; in the most humid areas were many vines, Bromeliaceae and Orchidaceae, and in the upper zones and on top 'suro', Chusquea sp., predominated. Although the study was in the dry season it drizzled almost every day and every morning the fog crept up the mountain, making the forest humid and cold (3). Groups consisted of 4-10 adults (3) (in 1926 a troop of about 20 was seen (7,10)). Diet was observed to be mainly fruit and flowers (2,3,9) and a stomach analysis of one individual showed no insect or other animal residue (2,3). Birth rate seemed low 173 with perhaps only one birth per year per group (3). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Hunting and habitat destruction within its restricted range (2,3,5,6,7,9). Leo Luna considered habitat destruction to be the worst danger. In all localities she visited the forest was being cut down, especially on the less steep slopes where humidity was high and which were the best places for Ficus spp., an important food tree. Although still on a relatively small scale cutting was bound to increase (3). Graves and O'Neill in their 1976 observations in the vicinity of Garcia noted that large sections of forest had been cleared on the lower slopes by settlers who had followed a newly opened road. At that time human disturbance above 800 m was limited to areas adjacent to the road, however the species was being increasingly hunted for food as settlers moved into its elevational range (2). Mittermeier et al, in the mid 1970s, believed it was primarily threatened by hunting for food and skins, with killing of females to obtain infants for sale as pets also a factor and that if hunting pressure continued the animals would disappear before the habitat (4,5,7). At that time hunting pressure from local people was greatly aggravated by that attributable to the army, which was constructing roads through parts of the species range and paid hunters to provide construction crews with fresh meat, regardless of whether it was derived from such threatened species as L. flavicauda and the Spectacled Bear (Tremarctos ornatus) and despite the fact that domestic animals were available (5,6,7). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed on Appendix 2 of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, so that trade in it between acceding nations is subject to regulation and monitoring of its effects. Listed as 'Endangered' in Peru, thus hunting and trapping of it are illegal, but enforcement is difficult in isolated areas. Does not occur in any protected area (3). Mariella Leo Luna began field studies on this species in 1977 (3). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED More effective enforcement of the legal protection. Mittermeier in March 1981 reported that Leo Luna's work had identified two suitable sites for reserves - one in the Venceremos region to the north near the Rio Mayo and one in the Pajaten region to the south. The latter is also an area of great archaeological importance and its likelihood of being declared a national park is therefore enhanced. The Venceremos area should also be established a 'zona reservada' and requires additional surveys to determine the limits of the area and to learn more of the L. flavicauda populations there (4). In Leo Luna's 1980 paper she mentions that a reserve in the Dept. of Amazonas (or between it and San Martin) would also protect the Spectacled Bear, the Cock of the Rock, Rupicola peruviana, and the Spatuletail Loddigesia mirabilis. L. flavicauda is the only large mammal endemic to Peru, and as such is recommended for inclusion in a set of postage stamps depicting endangered Peruvian wildlife, being issued by the Government to stimulate interest in national wildlife resources (4,5,7). CAPTIVE BREEDING As of March 1981 (4) the live specimen, a juvenile male, of L. flavicauda that was obtained during the April/May 1974 expedition (5,6,7) still survived and was on public exhibition at the Museum of Natural History in Lima, where it has been joined by another juvenile male captured in September 1978; Mittermeier in 198! reported both animals to be thriving (4). As the species has never before been publicly exhibited, some useful publicity for conservation has resulted (4). A captive breeding programme is desirable. REMARKS For description of animal see (1,7,8). This data sheet was compiled with the assistance of Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. REFERENCES 1. Fooden, J. (1963). A revision of the woolly monkeys (genus Lagothrix). J. Mammal. 44(2): 213-247. 174 Graves, G.R. and O'Neill, J.P. (1980). Notes on the Yellow-tailed Woolly Monkey (Lagothrix flavicauda) of Peru. J. Mammal. 61(2): 345-347. Leo Luna, M. (1980). First field study of the Yellow-tailed Woolly Monkey. Oryx 15(4): 386-389. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. Mittermeier, R.A., Macedo-Ruiz, H. de and Luscombe, A. (1975). A Woolly Monkey rediscovered in Peru. Oryx 13(1): 41-46, Mittermeier, R.A., Macedo-Ruiz, H. de and Luscombe, A. (1975). Special report: Mystery monkey. Animal Kingdom 78(3): 2-7. Mittermeier, R.A., Macedo-Ruiz, H. de, Luscombe, A. and Cassidy, J. (1977). Rediscovery and conservation of the Peruvian Yellow-tailed Woolly Monkey (Lagothrix flavicauda). In Prince Rainier and Bourne, G. (Eds), Primate Conservation. Acad. Press, New York. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.). Part 1: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum (Nat. Hist.), London. Parker, T.A. III and Barkley, L. J. (1981) New locality for the Yellow-tailed Woolly Monkey. Oryx 16(1): 71-72. Thomas, O. (1927). A remarkable new monkey from Peru. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 9 (19): 156-157. 175 “ee oeeraieobiy aloe Dy peel linet Py hrc ~ ah et a weoivel xiifitoge.t) esr “yliooW’ bs ve ml LE he state £57 1.4 LENT Al FU A 5th She deena tho 8 rbabakiyoll a 7 aor te bu ral disRictead HAC Dut thidiaanah, iw i} ou’ } mM lil , : ; syrve- ~ 1 BS che edveynelnay sairoth yalganlhy on “lly e Lier: “Wooes wiwery ravi ,GiRa! \@iio Wraitor te Gan Mi sot f ; aie a Dias ad ora aaa + a wASypdme Cre iLe Ket fre bi = ria nove id By fats ca Teese eg THe {dt DEE wee? (ist inicbsspyodelbel | yeticint yi on AR os Biv ARES Th: = para net | sécrichs ot faves had : Chedrethe ly ~ lower at eh gan Qeush Joie lamest) gldvst: opaaht: wee he _ Leigh roadie atA! temlad \inxothom wr aaewravoRem aioaadet SRB: Trea 2 Messi ° 41) Seay ; tires er ‘a 4, AEG oF ti oat oe wt erm “2 woe: very re, HonnvartiMre ‘ Sth berg) b vous iba® © SEVER ine uly whee 6a “a aoe eto alk FeeBoa neta Hj alow OaNS le: avant: McA Ah an) ening! been rien Fe decent en swabs va vie ano y wal sent deeOMetiS Fo ore fiat 4 4 ? SBE {aa brs tO\edd tt alGii: ntre cna : xars* ey “phe seit aed) Ms a et ano baai iagkia ram ras errr ' aN ii ie Nektinti | J so a ti tamad wewide Ear ae A Wal aii} bra it Ak oe ae SX EVAL xyvO peor Me y lige wi boligt : ff de a pele re phage Ph . LaMes spent 5 Parad) din eM Ta LAG Fen is nln = man if aa ts phere ~ Fi - A : Ms Gh. a e et ro 2%" ; ’ fe tr te, Ay MH VERSE a : . ice ) MITGan aver ar aren 1927 reported thet Lee Liane hae ; ie) | ork ie Sites ‘Tor céservas - 6 t (etc epaincs « ES | : p itt Ante tO theseean of CAL ai ocr ten ait ate i ees ind ae 4eCIS rs : e i Cry ae Ti nee ‘e Bos birgty “a s acd eats ¥t ae 33 ‘ ) iv thang) hist a BS ye Se tt te ~s > 2 that a i a tl ¥ Agr ¢ A he a aEAT OE + msiother joy ‘a ed BOtS aus ads” ° oe > ae + wild 4 , a Pee Store | aber wats ay eee eae OP ee ee Hetil tad Wy" A captive treet iam ba Soy ghectaiibns ot Me S/n WOOLLY MONKEY VULNERABLE Lagothrix lagothricha (Humboldt, 1812) Order PRIMATES Family CEBIDAE SUMMARY An inhabitant of the forests of northwestern South America. Four subspecies are recognized. Numbers unknown but threatened by hunting for food and for the pet trade, and because of its preference for undisturbed high forest which is fast disappearing. Tends to be the first primate to disappear following human encroachment. Legal protection, surveys, and the setting aside of reserve areas are needed. DISTRIBUTION Amazonian region west of the Rio Negro and Rio Tapajos in Brazil as far as the eastern slopes of the Andes in Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia (1,6). Four subspecies are recognized: L. |. lagothricha from northwestern Brazil, (1,2), southern Venezuela probably west of the Rio Casiquiare (23), southeastern Colombia, extrerne northern Peru and northeast Ecuador (1,2,23).. The northernmost record in Colombia is from the north bank of the Rio Guaviare, above the mouth of the Rio Mapripa (1,2) and its northwestern extension meets the southeastern extension of L. |. lugens approximately at the junction of the peidmont forest with lowland rainforest. Observations of animals in the region of Florencia and the Orteguaza River Basin suggest that the gradation from one subspecies to another is gradual rather than abrupt (2). Rylands (1980-81) notes that L. |. lagothricha probably has a more restricted distribution in Brazil than was thought by Fooden who included the whole of the area between the Rios Negro and Japura. Rylands reports that local people say it does not inhabit this region and occurs only above Sao Gabriel da Cachoeira on the upper Rio Negro and its tributaries - the Rio Tiquie, Icana, Xie and Uapes in the region of Tarauaca, and on the Rio Negro in the region of Cucui. Woolly Monkeys do however, occur in the region of the Rio Japura and local people also report that it occurs north of the Rio Negro on the upper Rio Curicuriari (7). L. 1. cana is found from west southwest Brazil, between the Rios Tapajos and Jurua, westward into southeastern Peru and thence northwards along the left bank of the upper Rio Ucayali to its confluence with the lower Rio Pachitea (1). It also occurs in the Pando region of Amazonian Bolivia in a small limited range in the head basin of the Rio Abuna on the frontier with Brazil (10), and in the 1960s quite likely still occurred east of a line linking Cobija and Porvenir i.e. on the right bank of the Abuna, however by 1981 it no longer occurred there (10). L. 1. poeppigii inhabits the upper Amazonian region west of the Rios Jurua, Aguarico and Napo, in west northwest Brazil south of the Rio Solimoes, northeastern Peru and eastern Ecuador (1). L. 1. lugens is almost entirely confined to Colombia, although a population has been reported from Venezuela and it may possibly occur in northern Ecuador (2). In Colombia Fooden describes it as occurring in the upper Rio Magdalena valley in the Department of Huila and on the eastern slope of the Cordillera Oriental from the upper Rio Caqueta to the upper Rio Arauca (1). Hernandez-Camacho and Cooper (1976) report a 'recently' discovered population in an area of dense piedmont forest in the Rio Sarare drainage in the State of Apure, adjacent to the Colombian border, in Venezuela, although Handley (1976) obtained no specimens (2,7,9). Its range continues south and west to the eastern slopes of the Andes, extending easterly to the plains along the Rio Ariari, to include the Macarena Mtns. It also occurs in southern parts of the Depts of Tolima and Cundinamarca (2). Also Hernandez-Camacho and Cooper (1976) report the discovery of two populations of Lagothrix in the upper San Jorge Valley in the Dept. of Cordoba, around San Pedro and in the Serrania de San Lucas in southeastern Bolivar. Only juvenile specimens had been obtained by the time of 177 their paper and these seemed similar to L. |. lugens (2). These populations are continuous with known populations of L. |. lugens along the eastern slopes of the Central Andes (2). For map of Colombian distribution of the species see (2). POPULATION In Peru, Bolivia, Colombia and Brazil, Lagothrix is severely threatened in any area occupied by man (2,3,7,8,10,11), and this is undoubtedly also true in Venezuela and Ecuador. Rylands (1980-81) reports that it is quite probable that in many areas Lagothrix is already extinct or seriously reduced in numbers, and distribution is discontinuous. The species is now probably absent from the Rio Negro in Brazil and the Rio Amazonas in Colombia. In Acre local people report that Lagothrix have disappeared east of the Rio Jurua between the Rios Valparaiso and Acuria except on the upper Rio Valparaiso (7). For Colombia, Hernandez-Camacho and Cooper (1976) describe L. lagothricha as probably the most persecuted species in the country because of hunting for its meat (2). For Peru Neville et al (1976) during surveys in Peru, found Lagothrix to be extensively hunted and requiring protection (11). In Venezuela Mondolfi (1976) describes it as very locally distributed and apparently rare (12). Hunting pressure combined with the Woolly Monkey's slow reproductive rate and its preference for undisturbed forest have placed it (and indeed the genus) in a precarious position throughout its range (3). Mittermeier (1981) considers some subspecies possibly endangered (5). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY In Colombia Lagothrix is always found in some type of humid forest e.g. the gallery and palm (Mauritia flexuosa association) forests of the eastern plains, flooded and non-flooded primary rain forest and cloud forest as high as 3000 m; and always in primary forest, not secondary forest (2,15). Reported to travel in groups of up to 50 animals (2,3,8,11,15,16) and 60-70 even recorded (17). Diet consists primarily of fruit, supplemented by leaves, seeds, berries and some insects (2,3,15). In Colombia the palm fruits Maximiliana elegans, Mauritia flexuosa and Jessenia polycarpa are particularly favoured (23). Single births are the usual after a gestation of 225 days. There is no evidence of a breeding season (14). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Hunting and habitat loss. Woolly monkeys are heavily hunted for their meat, which is highly esteemed (1,2,3,7,10,11,18,21), and to obtain infants for sale as pets; indeed they are the favourite monkey for both. They apparently make delightful pets and are more in demand locally than any other primate. The usual method of capture is to shoot the mother and remove the infant from her body after she falls to the ground. The infant is frequently killed as well (2,3,4,7,13). An international trade mainly for pets has also existed. Between 1968-1972 almost 13,000 were imported into the U.S.A. from Colombia, (19,20), and 16,500 were exported from Iquitos Peru between 1962 and 1971 (13). In the Amazonian region, the species is used to bait traps for spotted and other cats. These various hunting pressures, the Woolly Monkey's preference for undisturbed high forest, and its slow reproductive rate, make its status precarious throughout its range (2,3,4,7). In northern Colombia Bernstein et al (1976) reported that Lagothrix is the first to disappear following human encroachment and destruction of forests, and is usually absent from isolated forest pockets (8). Since much of the once extensive continuous forest is being reduced to disjunct remnants this has serious consequences for the species. CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Included in Appendix 2 of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it between acceding nations is therefore subject to strict regulation and monitoring of its effects. Regarding protected areas: L. |. lagothricha: the refuge area of Norte Napo covers part of its range in Colombia, and in Brazil it is possible that of all the refuge areas apparently within its range only Parana has viable populations. L. |. cana: despite its wide range is poorly represented in refuge areas. In Brazil the areas of importance are the Parecis and Serra das 178 Oncas refuge areas in the south of its range where the animal is threatened by three development centres. The Marmelos and Purus refuge areas are also important. It does occur in the Amazonia National Park but is not common there. L. 1. poeppigii has been observed in the Samiria National Reserve in Peru (11). A number of refuge areas occur within its range but only few proposed or existing reserves. Only the Eirunepe refuge area is within its Brazilian range. L. 1. lugens is protected in several reserves in Colombia (2,7,18) -- the Macarena National Park, the Paramo de Tama National Park and the Amacayacu National Park (23). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED The species should be transferred to Appendix | of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which would make trade in it subject to severe restriction, and prohibit trade for primarily commercial purposes. The species now needs full protection wherever it occurs and a series of thorough surveys to learn more of its ecology and to locate suitable sites for reserves (3). Rylands (1980-81) proposes the following: L. |. lagotricha: reserves should be considered on the Rio Japura and along the Colombian frontier, also a more detailed survey of its distribution in Brazil is required; L. 1. cana: reserves should be considered on the Rios Purus and Jurua as well as in the development areas of Acre; and L. |. poeppigii: reserves should be considered in the area between the Rios Jurua and Javari or on the Peruvian frontier. CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1979 there were 93 males and 133 females (58 captive bred) held in 50 zoological collections (22). REMARKS For description of animal see (1,6). Fooden's study of the taxonomy and distribution of Lagothrix led him to describe four subspecies (as above). However, although he clearly defines the ranges of these subspecies, the change from one to another is in fact gradual. For example, in Colombia, in the region of Florencia and the Rio Orteguaza (a tributary of the Rio Caguan), the change from L. |. lagotricha to L. 1. lugens is through a changing frequency of buffy brown coats to the characteristic greyish to blackish coat of L. |. lugens. Individuals of intermediate colour and those typical of one or other of the subspecies are to be observed in the same locality (2). The only other species in this genus, Lagothrix flavicauda from Peru is also listed in the IUCN Red Data Book, in the 'Endangered' category. This data sheet was compiled with the assistance of Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the {UCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. REFERENCES 1. Fooden, J. (1963). A revision of the Woolly Monkeys (genus Lagothrix). J. Mammal. 44(2): 213-247. 2. Hernandez-Camacho, J. and Cooper, R.W. (1976). The non-human primates of Colombia. In Thorington, R.W. Jr. and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field studies and Conservation. National Acad. of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 3. Mittermeier, R.A. and Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1977). Primate conservation in Brazilian Amazonia. In Prince Rainier and Bourne, G. (Eds), Primate Conservation. Acad. Press, New York. 4. Mittermeier, R.A., Macedo-Ruiz, H., Luscombe, B.A. and Cassidy, J. (1977). Rediscovery and conservation of the Peruvian Yellow-tailed Woolly Monkey (Lagothrix flavicauda). In Prince Rainier and Bourne, G. (Eds), Primate Conservation. Acad. Press, New York. 5. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. 6. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) Part 1: Families Callitrichidae and 179 180 18. 20. 21. 22. 23\- Cebidae. British Museum (Natural History), London. Rylands, A. B. (1980-81). Conservation of Amazonian Primates. Unpd. Report. Bernstein, I.S., Balcaen, P., Dresdale, L., Gouzoules, H., Kavanagh, M., Patterson, T. and Neyman-Warner, P. (1976). Differential effects of forest degradation on primate populations. Primates 17(3): 401-411. Handley, C.O. Jr. (1976) Mammals of the Smithsonian Venezuelan Project. Brigham Young Univ. Sci. Bull. 20 (5): 1-89. Izawa, K. and Bejarano, G. (1981). Distribution ranges and patterns of nonhuman primates in western Pando, Bolivia. Reports of New World Monkeys (1981): 1-12. Neville, M., Castro, N. and Marmol, A. (1976). Censusing primate populations in the reserved area of the Pacaya and Samiria Rivers, Department Loreto, Peru. Primates 17(2): 151-181. Mondolfi, E. (1976). Fauna silvestre de los basques humedas de Venezuela. Asociacion Nacional para la defensa de la Naturaleza Venezuela. Soini, P. (1972). The capture and commerce of live monkeys in the Amazonian region of Peru. Int. Zoo Yb. 12: 26-36. Williams, L. (1967). Breeding Humboldt's Woolly Monkey Lagothrix lagothricha at Murrayton Woolly Monkey Sanctuary. Int. Zoo Yb. 7: 86-89. Kavanagh, M. and Dresdale, L. (1975). Observations on the Woolly Monkey (Lagothrix lagothricha) in northern Colombia. Primates 16(3): 285-294. Izawa, K. (1976). Group sizes and compositions of monkeys in the Upper Amazon Basin. Primates 17(3): 367-399. Nishimura, A. and Izawa, K. (1975). The group characteristics of Woolly Monkeys (Lagothrix lagothricha) in upper Amazonian basin. Proc. 5th Int. Cong. Primat., Nagoya 1974, Karger, Basel. Klein, L.L. and Klein, D.J. (1976). Neotropical primates: Aspects of habitat usage, population density, and regional distribution in La Macarena, Colombia. In Thorington R.W., Jr. and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field studies and conservation. Nat. Acad. of Sciences, Washington, D.C. Green, K.M. (1976). The nonhuman primate trade in Colombia. In Thorington, R.W., Jr. and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field studies and conservation. Nat. Acad. of Sciences, Washington, D.C. Muckenhirn, N.A. (1976). Addendum to the nonhuman primate trade in Colombia. In Thorington, R.W., Jr. and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field studies and conservation. Nat. Acad. of Sciences, Washington, D.C. Heltne, P.G. and Thorington, R.W. Ir. (1976). Problems and potentials for primate biology and conservation in the New World. In Thorington, R.W., Jr. and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field studies and conservation. Nat. Acad. of Sciences, Washington, D.C. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. Hernandez-Camacho, J. (1981). Pers. comm. WOOLLY SPIDER MONKEY ENDANGERED Brachyteles arachnoides (E. Geoffroy, 1806) Order PRIMATES Family CEBIDAE SUMMARY Sparsely distributed in southeastern Brazil, this monotypic genus is on the verge of extinction. In 1980 total numbers were estimated at only a few hundred and decreasing. Decline caused by habitat destruction and hunting. Protected by law. Viable populations are only known to occur in two privately protected reserves totalling less than 3000 ha in area and containing less than 100 animals. Survival of the species will depend on continued protection of these areas and on its status in the coastal mountains of Sao Paulo which need surveying, although are unlikely to house more than a few hundred animals. A captive breeding programme is planned at the Rio de Janeiro Primate Centre. This species requires immediate conservation action to ensure its survival. DISTRIBUTION Southeastern Brazil. Very sparsely distributed in the States of Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais (2,3,6). According to P.E. Vanzolini (In litt., 1977), restricted to the eastern part of the State of Sao Paulo. Napier (1976) and Wolfheim (1974) describe the range as extending from the southern part of the State of Bahia to the State of Sao Paulo, which includes the States of Minas Gerais, Espirito Santo and Rio de Janeiro (7,12). Presumably once occurred in all Atlantic coastal forests of eastern and southeastern Brazil (9) and Hill (1962) believes it was even more widespread during the Pleistocene (4). Vieira (1944) suggests that before the destruction of the coastal forests began, Brachyteles occupied the entire region from Cabo de Sao Roque in the State of Rio Grande do Norte to Rio Grande do Sul, southernmost State in Brazil (9). Vieira (1955) lists the following as recent localities: southern Bahia (Rio Jucururu), eastern Minas Gerais (Rio Matipo), Espirito Santo (Rio Doce), Rio de Janeiro (Serra dos Orgaos, Itatiaia, Serra da Mantiqueira), and Sao Paulo (Ipanema, Itarare, Juquia, Piedade, Ubatuba, Alto da Serra) (10). POPULATION Highly endangered and threatened with extinction; by 1981! only a few hundred still survived (6). Surveys in 1979/80 by Mittermeier et al found it to persist in only two privately protected reserves together containing less than 100 animals. They believed tiny groups totalling less than 25 individuals might survive in three other protected areas. Coastal Sao Paulo has long been considered a stronghold for the species but surveys are urgently needed to determine if this is true as the area has been subjected to intense hunting pressure and the Woolly Spider Monkey is a prime target. In any case Mittermeier et al doubt wnether numbers in this area exceed a few hundred (6). In 1971 the estimated total was 3000 (1) and in 1972 2000 (2). When Prince Maximilian zu Wied explored southeastern Brazil in the early 1800s he found this species to be quite abundant and his expeditions frequently lived off Brachyteles meat (6). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Undisturbed high forest (3,6), including both lowland tropical and montane rainforest (7). Behaviour poorly known, as the species keeps to the crowns of the tallest trees and has never been observed on the ground. Diet, based on stomach contents of one specimen, consists of vegetable matter, including seeds, and some insects (7). Has been seen in bands of 6-12 individuals (7). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Habitat loss and hunting. This species has always been rare and is threatened by loss of forest habitat through clearance for fuel, settlement and agriculture. Being a large edible primate, it is hunted for food 181 (6). Since the 1800s the Atlantic coastal forest of eastern Brazil have suffered a tremendous increase in human population and widespread, largely uncontrolled forest destruction to make way for coffee plantations, sugar cane, cocoa, eucalyptus, cattle pasture and above all lumber extraction and charcoal production. In recent years industrial development has also taken its toll. Asa result the forests have been devastated, especially during the rapid development and economic expansion which began in the 1960s. Only a tiny fraction of the original forest cover remains (6). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Includea in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, so that trade in it between acceding nations is subject to severe restriction, trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Legally protected and included in the Brazilian Endangered Species List. Definitely known to occur in two privately protected areas totalling about 3000 ha, namely Fazenda Montes Claros in Minas Gerais (5,6) and Fazenda Barreiro Rico in Sao Paulo. May also still exist in the Biological Reserve of Nova Lombardia (Espirito Santo), and possibly in the National Parks of Itatiaia and Serra dos Orgaos (Rio de Janeiro), but populations are too small to have any long term conservation significance. May occur in Rio Doce State Forest Park but confirmation needed (6). A study of the distribution and status of all eastern Brazilian primates was conducted in 1979/80 by Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Dr. A.F. Coimbra-Filho, and I. Constable (6). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Survival to the 1990s will depend on its status in the Sao Paulo coastal mountains and continued protection on the two fazendas in which it still definitely occurs. In particular in 1980 the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group made the following recommendations: i) conduct a detailed survey of the three major parks and reserves in coastal Sao Paulo to determine whether Brachyteles still exists in the region and, if so, how it can best be protected; ii) urge the Brazilian government to take an active interest in Fazenda Montes Claros and assist them in purchasing this area and establishing it as a federal protected area; iii) encourage the owner of Fazenda Barreiro Rico to continue protecting the Woolly Spider monkey population on his land; iv) investigate several small, privately-protected forests in Minas Gerais, where remnant groups of Brachyteles are said to still occur. If populations exist, and if they do not appear to be viable over the long term, then thought should be given to translocating them: to other protected areas (6). CAPTIVE BREEDING It has never bred in captivity and in 1980 there was only one captive individual - a female at Sao Paulo Zoo (6,8). The Rio de Janeiro Primate Centre is planning a captive breeding programme (6). REMARKS For description of animal see (4,7,11). This data sheet was compiled from information supplied by Dr. A.F. Coimbra-Filho and Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. REFERENCES 1. Aguirre, A.C. (1971). O mono, Brachyteles arachnoides (E. Geoffroy). Acad. Brasil. Cienc. 53 pp. 2. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1972). Mamiferos ameacados de extincao no Brasil. In Especies de Fauna_ Brasileira Ameacadas de Extincao. Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, Rio de Janeiro. Pp. 13-98. 3. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1977). In litt. 4. Hill, W.C.O. (1962). Primates. Comparative Anatomy and Taxonomy. V. Cebidae. Part B. Edinburgh Univ. Press. 5. Mittermeier, R.A., Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Constable, I.D. (1980). Range extension for an endangered marmoset. Oryx 15(4): 380-383. 182 Mittermeier, R.A., Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Constable, I. (1980). Conservation of eastern Brazilian primates. WWF Project 1614. Report for the period 1979/80. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.). Part Il: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum (Nat. Hist.), London. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. Vieira, C.C. (1944). Os simios do Estado de Sao Paulo. Papeis Vaul. Dept. de Zool. Sec. de Agric. Sao Paulo 4(1): 1-31. Vieira, C.C. (1955). Lista remissiva dos mamiferos do Brasil. Arq. Zool. Sao Paulo 8: 341-474. Walker, E.P. (1975). Mammals of the World. The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore and London. Wolfheim, J.H. (1974). The Status of Wild Primates. Unpd. Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 908 pp. 183 ont fe (4) ve iba ie gas O¢ i tS {air ‘ Pa | i) ay? if Geades aie va jst) fe'té w heer odd aw bg SHOR, Hes 1 aes Wray EGe Fp ple SEpeeTT ey yas ar setanizceapon ave Ae teZav {Owe} insert ain . Reman nn # i rae Sareties veer a wn r rr yet oa 3+ oe e em o'bs HET Lite HUT KELL aOdse pal aa wee? ; Dials RN OBO) (ed) AS Ves t SLO) popacy 02 t stooS! fs sOlUBd one | 5. a ab ~oiMie® 2. As0e1)i Pada geval. ub as OD Bie bine; Hees Sb .sysar SE ae ; a LEE Sa ATES Rian! Sa ‘ 7" . Rhai-t a rome aa tevy Py Ssh wuss Wit Pol Pea imeyt “SIA fhinigchte >i anaes Hiei Bos eer amount é ¥ a mabe am rs - f a4 i re Tn ate , liad 3 : AE a " 1 tay sd 4 set i Pptavyty A. 2 ' el a , i a: oe ¢ p+ MOS le oe + «sate we Bhi oS PRI 2 5 i a i re nn rhs iy Pid ital Nok eee we aris Ola 6 ‘ F f hol oi? © ft f A ae t he 24 4 “ . tt \ , “ + ad poigrae3 : . ihe Aut rae holes ‘ oy ; : oe Re a tr ae eS ah ent £E titAge ee ig Wn r ; Md at ie Ae q a bs fue 4 24, He . 6 a) aa = eae | Z a att. = LONG-HAIRED SPIDER MONKEY VULNERABLE or WHITE-BELLIED SPIDER MONKEY Ateles belzebuth E. Geoffroy, 1806 Order PRIMATES Family CEBIDAE SUMMARY Occurs in Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil. Numbers unknown. Threatened by hunting and habitat destruction. Has been the subject of an ecological investigation. More reserves and surveys needed. DISTRIBUTION Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil (5,6,8,17). Three subspecies are recognised: A. b. belzebuth occurs in lowlands near the junction of the Rio Orinoco and Rio Caura in central Venezuela south to the valley of the Rio Negro, Brazil, westward to Colombia east of the Cordillera Oriental (Mambita), Ecuador east of the crest of the Andes, and to northeastern Peru (Sarayacu) (5,8,22). In Colombia its range includes the Amazon lowlands northwards at least to the Guaviare River and also a fingerlike projection to the Macarena Mountains and the piedmont forests (locally to 1300 m) northward to the Upia River drainage in southern Boyaca Dept. The subspecific identificaton of populations occurring in the piedmont north of the Upia River to the border of the Comisaria of Arauca is not yet known (6). For map see (6). In Peru it occurs north of the Rio Amazonas and Maranon but possibly also south of the Maranon to the west of the mouth of the Rio Huallaga (20). In Brazil it occurs north of the Rio Negro although local people report it to be confined to the upper reaches of the northern tributaries entering the Rio Negro, and absent from the Rio Uapes (possibly because of the large areas of white sand forests (caatingas) in this region. A skin obtained from Boa Vista, reportedly from the Serra Mucajai, indicates its presence as far east as the Rio Branco north of the Rio Negro where it abuts the range of Ateles paniscus paniscus (20). The range of A. b. hybridus includes the eastern bank of the lower Cauca River basin in Colombia, the Departments of Magdalena and Cesar (northward to the southernmost slopes of the Santa Marta Mtns), the northernmost extension of the Perija Mtns in the Dept. of Guajira, and the middle Magdalena River region at least to the northern Depts. of Caldas and possibly formerly to northwest Cundinamarca (6,19). There are also at least two additional populations in Colombia on both flanks of the eastern Andes on the border with Venezuela; one occurs in the Catatumbo River basin of North Santander Dept. and the other in the northeastern piedmont in the Comisaria of Arauca (6). In Venezuela, Mondolfi reports it to be widely distributed in tropical forests of the Cuenca del Lago de Maracaibo; also in piedmont forests of the Serra de Perija as far as the Rio Guasare, and in the llanos of Trujillo, Merida and Tachira up to the lake. In addition, it inhabits the Andean piedmont forest in the Depts. of Barinas (Ticoporo Forest), Portuguesa (Mijagual Forest and north of Aparicion), and in the Dept. of Apure (San Camilo Forest). In the Cordillera de la Costa, where it is rare and very locally distributed, it has been observed in the Guatopo National Park (22). A. b. marginatus is endemic to Brazil occurring on the south side of the Rio Amazonas between the Rio Tapajos and Rio Tocantins, State of Para (8,17). POPULATION Numbers unknown. No data located for Ecuador or Venezuela. In Peru A. belzebuth is described as much rarer than the closely related A. paniscus, another Red Data Book primate (12), has disappeared from many parts of its range (5) and is suffering greatly from hunting pressure (13). In Brazil, A. b. marginatus is described by Rylands as the most severely threatened of the Brazilian Ateles (20). In Colombia A. belzebuth is considered threatened in areas where once it was very abundant e.g. gallery forest of the Cesar River Valley, where it is now absent because of forest destruction (19). 185 HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Forest. Reported to be partial to undisturbed high forest and survive poorly, or not at all, if this habitat is destroyed (14), although in northern Colombia Bernstein et_al found that in response to logging A. belzebuth would persist, albeit in reduced numbers, if some large trees remained (1). In Colombia they are usually observed at middle or high-canopy levels, but are not uncommonly seen foraging on the ground. Diurnal and mainly frugivorous, favouring the palm Jessenia polycarpa, also Ficus insipida and the wild plum Spondias mombin (3,6,15,19). Ateles live in groups of 2-40, usually 15-20 (10,11,15,17,18), group size varying considerably with habitat and altitude (2,15). Groups tend to break into small subgroups rather than move together as a single cohesive unit (3,15). Ateles take 4-5 years to mature, have a long gestation of 226-232 days and produce a single infant only about once every 2-3 years (3). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Hunting and habitat destruction (1,6,14). Hunting is the main cause of decline in Peru, Amazonia, and large parts of Colombia (6,14). Ateles are large and very good to eat and have therefore been subjected to heavy hunting pressure throughout most of their range, even in areas where other primates are usually not molested (3,4,5,6,8,11,12,13,14,15,18). Their size and noisy habits make them easy to locate, follow and hunt. They are also persecuted by cat hunters who use them as bait. Infants are captured for sale as pets (although Ateles are not as popular as Lagothrix and Cebus) (15). Since Ateles is a slow breeder populations can be rapidly reduced with moderate hunting pressure (4,11). Hernandez-Camacho and Cooper (1976) also mention sylvatic yellow fever as a possible cause of Ateles decline in parts of Colombia (6). The relatively small range of A. b. marginatus is bisected by the Transamazonica along which there has been considerable settlement, and by the Cuiaba-Santarem Highway, around which extensive colonization is planned for the future (20). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed on Appendix 2 of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it between acceding nations being therefore subject to regulation and monitoring of its effects. Completely protected by law in Peru (12). Not known whether protected by law in the rest of its range. Occurs in La Macarena National Park, Colombia (11). The range of A. b. belzebuth in Brazil is 'relatively well represented' by proposed and existing reserves as well as by two refuge areas (20). The species has been the subject of an ecological investigation (10). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Legal protection throughout its range and data on numbers and distribution are required as the basis of a conservation plan (14). Rylands mentions that reserves on the Colombian and Venezuelan borders would be desirable to protect populations of A. b. belzebuth (20). He also suggests the need for surveys in the region of the Pico da Neblina and in the mountains north of the Rio Negro to determine the status and habitat requirements of A. b. belzebuth (20). For A. b. marginatus, the regions of the Rio Cupari and Altamira are of especial importance regarding the conservation of the taxon. Altamira is the only refuge area known to be within its range but the monkey is already rare or extinct in much of this area. Reserves are also needed in the regions of the Rios Xingu, Tapajos and Tocantins (20). CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1978 four were known to have been bred in captivity at four zoos (21). REMARKS For description of animal see (6,8,17). Kellogg and Goldman (8) recognise four species of Ateles but a number of recent authors (6,7,!6) have considered all Spider monkeys to be conspecific under the name A. paniscus. Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group very kindly reviewed this data sheet in June 1981. 186 REFERENCES 1. 2. Ii le 12. 13. 14, 13; 16. 17. 18. Bernstein, I.S., Balcaen, P., Dresdale, L., Gouzoules, H., Kavanagh, M., Patterson, T. and Neyman-Warner, P. (1976). Differential effects of forest degradation on primate populations. Primates 17: 401-411. Durham, N.M. (1971). Effects of altitude differences on group organisation of wild Black Spider Monkeys (Ateles paniscus). Proc. 3rd Int. Congr. Primatology, Zurich 1970. Vol. 3: 32-40. Eisenberg, J.F. (1976). Communication mechanisms and social integration in the Black Spider Monkey, Ateles fusciceps robustus and related species. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 213: 1-108. Freese, C. (1977). In litt. Grimwood, I.R. (1969). Notes on the distribution and status of some Peruvian mammals 1968. Special Publication No.2] American Committee for International Wild Life Protection and New York Zoological Society. Hernandez-Camacho, J. and Cooper, R.W. (1976). The Nonhuman Primates of Colombia. In Thorington, R.W. Jr. and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field Studies and Conservation. National Academy of Sciences. Washington D.C. Hershkovitz, P. (1972). The recent mammals of the Neotropical region: a zoogeographic and ecological review. In Keast, A., Erk, F.C. and Glass, B. (Eds), Evolution, Mammals and Southern Continents. State Univ. of New York Press. Albany. 311-432. Kellogg, R. and Goldman, E.A. (1944). Review of the Spider Monkeys. Proc. U.S. Nat. Museum 96 (3186): 1-45. Klein, L.L. (1971). Observations on copulation and seasonal reproduction of two species of Spider Monkeys Ateles belzebuth and A. geoffroyi. Folia Primatologica 15 (3-4): 233-248. Klein, L.L. (1972). The ecology and social organisation of the Spider monkey, Ateles belzebuth. PhD Thesis. Univ. of California, Berkeley. Klein, L.L. and Klein, D.J. (1976). Neotropical Primates: aspects of habitat usage, population density, and regional distribution in La Macarena, Colombia. In Thorington, R.W. Jr. and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field Studies and Conservation. National Academy of Sciences. Washington D.C. Luscombe, A. (1977). In litt. Macedo, H. de. (1977). In litt. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. Mittermeier, R.A. and Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1977). Primate conservation in Brazilian Amazonia. In Prince Rainier and Bourne, G.H. (Eds), Primate Conservation. Acad. Press. New York. Moynihan, M. (1970). Some behaviour patterns of Platyrrhine Monkeys. II Saguinus geoffroyi and some other tamarins. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. No. 28. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Natural History). Part l: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum (Natural History). Neville, M., Castro, N. and Marmol, A. (1976). Censusing primate populations in the reserved area of the Pacaya and 187 188 Y9. 20. 21. 22. Samiria Rivers, Department Loreto, Peru. Primates 17(2): 151-181. Hernandez-Camacho, J. (1981). Pers. comm. Rylands, A. (1980-81). Conservation of Amazonian Primates. Unpd. Report. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. Mondolfi, E. (1976). Fauna silvestre de los bosques humedos de Venezuela. Asociacion Nacional para la defensa de la Naturaleza Venezuela. BROWN-HEADED SPIDER MONKEY INDETERMINATE Ateles fusciceps (Gray, 1866) Order PRIMATES Family CEBIDAE SUMMARY A little known species ranging from Panama through Colombia to Ecuador. Numbers unknown, but believed threatened by habitat destruction and hunting. Surveys are required to determine its status and ecology before conservation measures can be proposed. DISTRIBUTION Panama, Colombia and Ecuador. Two subspecies are recognised: A. f. fusciceps on the Pacific side of the cordillera of Ecuador (10,13,18) and possibly in Colombia in the Mira River Valley of Narino Dept. on the border with Ecuador (16) and A. f. rufiventris inhabiting the western cordillera of the Andes from southwestern Colombia northward on the west side of the Rio Cauca to eastern Panama (Mt. Pirre) (9,10,11,13). In Colombia Hernandez-Camacho and Cooper described the latter's (which they call Ateles paniscus robustus) distribution as the entire Pacific lowlands (except the region around Jurado in northwestern Choco Dept.); the Uraba region of northwestern Antioquia Dept., the Departments of Cordoba, Sucre, and northern Bolivar eastward to the lower Cauca River and along the western bank to south-central Antioquia (the most southerly record is from Concordia). In recent times the northernmost limit was the southern bank of the Canal del Dique in the Caragena region; however, it probably formerly occurred northward to the Pendales region, where some luxurious hygrotropophytic (adapting to seasonal changes in moisture) forest still survives (11). For map see (11). POPULATION No information on numbers located, but considered threatened because of hunting and habitat loss (11,15,21). A 1978 list of Panamanian threatened species listed it as vulnerable (21), and for Colombia Hernandez-Camacho and Cooper note the disappearance of Ateles from areas where it used to occur, although they don't specify which Ateles (11). No information has been located concerning its status in Ecuador. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY No field data available (1,5), however all Ateles species are Closely related so the following comments probably also apply to A. fusciceps. Ateles inhabit forest and have been observed in evergreen, semideciduous, deciduous (7), tropical evergreen and cloud forest (14), and mangrove swamp (6). Reported to be partial to undisturbed high forest and to survive poorly, or not at all, if this habitat is destroyed (15). However some authors have recorded them in mature secondary forest (2,14) and Hernandez-Camacho and Cooper mention them occurring in remnant and degraded forest although noting a preference for more mature forest (11). A. f. rufiventris is reported as occupying the greatest range of habitat types of all the Colombian forms of Ateles, from hygrotropophytic through pluvial to cloud forest (11). Spider monkeys live in groups of 2-40, group size varying considerably with habitat and altitude (3,16). Groups tend to break up into small subgroups rather than moving together as a single cohesive unit (5,16). Diurnal and mainly frugivorous (5,11,16). Ateles take 4-5 years to mature, have a long gestation of 226-232 days and produce a single infant only about once every 2-3 years (4,5). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Hunting and habitat destruction (8,16,21). Ateles are large and very good to eat and have therefore been subjected to heavy hunting pressure throughout much of their range, even in areas where other primates are usually not molested (5,11,16). Their large size and nosiy habits make them easy 189 to locate, follow and hunt (11,16). Since Ateles are slow breeders, populations can be rapidly reduced with moderate hunting pressure (15). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed on Appendix 2 of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it between acceding nations being therefore subject to regulation and monitoring of its effects. No information located on whether protected in Ecuador, Colombia, or Panama or whether it occurs in any protected areas. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Legal protection is needed throughout its range if it does not already exist. Surveys are required to determine its status and ecology before conservation measures can be proposed (15). CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1978 Washington Zoo bred 2 males and | female (20). REMARKS For description of animal see (9,11,13,18). Kellogg and Goldman (13) recognise four species of Ateles but a number of recent authors (11,12,17) have considered all Spider monkeys to be conspecific under the name A. paniscus. A zone of hybridization exists in Panama between A geoffroyi panamensis and A. fusciceps rufiventris; (19). Kellogg and Goldman use the name A. f. robustus for A. f. rufiventris, Heltne and Kunkel (1975) have shown however that the latter name takes nomenclature precedence (10). REFERENCES 1. Baldwin, L.A., Patterson, T.L. and Teleki, G. (1977). Field research on Callitrichid and Cebid Monkeys: An historical, geographical and bibliographical listing. Primates 18(2): 485-507. 2. Bernstein, I.S., Balcaen, P., Dresdale, L., Gouzoules, H., Kavanagh, M., Patterson, T. and Neyman-Warner, P. (1976). Differential effects of forest degradation on primate populations. Primates 17: 401-411. 3. Durham, N.M. (1971). Effects of altitude differences on group organisation of wild Black Spider Monkeys (Ateles paniscus). Proc. 3rd Int. Congr. Primatology, Zurich 1970. Vol. 3: 32-40. 4. Eisenberg, J.F. (1973). Reproduction in two species of Spider monkeys, Ateles fusciceps and Ateles geoffroyi. J. ammal. 54(4): 955-957. 5. Ebsenberg, J.F. (1976). Communication mechanisms and social integration in the Black Spider Monkey, Ateles fusciceps robustus and related species. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. 213: 1-108. 6. Eisenberg, J.F. and Kuehn, R.E. (1966). The behaviour of Ateles geoffroyi and related species. Smithson. Misc. Coll. 151(8): 1-63. 7. Freese,°C. (1976). Censusing Aloutta palliata, Ateles geoffroyi and Cebus capucinus in the Costa Rican n dry forest. In Thorington, R.W. Jr. and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field Studies and Conservation. National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC. 8. Green, K.M. (1976). The nonhuman primate trade in Colombia. In Thorington, R.W. Jr. and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field Studies and Conservation. National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C. 9. Hall, E.R. and Kelson, K.R. (1959). The Mammals of North America. The Ronald Press Company. 10. Heltne, P.G. and Kunkel, L.M. (1975). Taxonomic notes on the pelage of Ateles paniscus paniscus, A. p. chamek (sensu 190 Whe 125 Ske 20). 21. Kellogg and Goldman, 1944) and A. fusciceps rufiventris (= A. f. robustus), Kellogg and Goldman, 1944. J. Med. Primatol. 4: 83-102. Hernandez-Camacho, J. and Cooper, R.W. (1976). The Nonhuman Primates of Colombia. In Thorington, R.W. Jr., and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field Studies and Conservation. National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC. Hershkovitz, P. (1972). The recent mammals of the Neotropical region: a zoogeographic and ecological review. In Keast, A., Erk, F.C. and Glass, B. (Eds), Evolution, Mammals and Southern Continents. State Univ. of New York Press, Albany. Kellogg, R. and Goldman, E.A. (1944). Review of the Spider Monkeys. Proc. U.S. Nat. Museum 96(3186): 1-45 Leopold, A.S. (1959). Wildlife of Mexico. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. Mittermeier, R.A. and Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1977). Primate conservation in Brazilian Amazonia. In Prince Rainier and Bourne, G.H. (Eds), Primate Conservation. Acad. Press. New York. Moynihan, M. (1970). Some behaviour patterns of Platyrrhine monkeys. II Saguinus geoffroyi and some other tamarins. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. No.28. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Natural History). Part I: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum (Natural History). Rossan, R.N. and Baerg, D.C. (1977). Laboratory and feral hybridization of Ateles geoffroyi panamensis Kellogg and Goldman 1944 and A. fusciceps robustus Allen 1914 in Panama. Primates |8(1): 235-237. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. Vallester, E. (1978). Informe de Panama sobre la situacion de la Fauna Silvestre. In Morales, R., Macfarland, C., Incer, J. and Hobbs, A. (Eds), Memorias de la Primera Reunion Regional Centroamerican sobre Vida Silvestre. Matagalpa, Nicaragua 25-29 Julio 1978. Unidad de areas silvestres y cuencas del catie. 191 ap r 7 he § a | ay = Rad Ye, , - =e af = bail Ys 1) 8) ng ly epost hs fOM Hoi peste J a: Bel 2 emma : sak tee UL Z ‘ - aban si Phy SPO. Bon 1 Bah panes i tic Jee Appt = oe ay ew aos OPK O13 7‘, a ys ¢ ; ibe ‘ptet ERY MTEL. th ePID so oe ore 1 emteetiiel. LEO CYT Oe. be La Mth de betel PDA a e} thiiekaes he eile os | ‘ ; 4 fh an ii sneeie | { Verte Ty REE AO earet ae as G8 cua neis Pie. Oley ) : asirien 2 é ies t nameia Nek had oe PSO (eo eles. | ae: is = a “re 7 if et ee - iavlunen lea) TeR dia V% . ess tiven re reat ‘ ys lees toch TERA RHOR 4 gis wet £6 ms ste orf utd. ates onAds riod tad ee chs ‘ai mY rhe ci a eee a ‘* SHA, abies A, 4 ne rr Neel hg Lays om PSANIEDS, 1 2 "aU ait US Pt spl eA 4% PURER v3 wh % iat GEOFFROY'S SPIDER MONKEY VULNERABLE or BLACK-HANDED SPIDER MONKEY Ateles geoffroyi Kuhl, 1820 Order PRIMATES Family CEBIDAE SUMMARY Ranges from Mexico to Panama. Numbers unknown. Threatened mainly by habitat destruction but hunting is an additional major threat in some regions. Found in several national parks and has been the subject of a number of ecological investigations. Effective legal protection is necessary throughout its range. DISTRIBUTION Mexico and Central America; from about 24°N in southern Tamaulipas, eastern Mexico, and 19°N in Jalisco on the west coast, through Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica to the valley of the River Tuira in eastern Panama (3,11,12,13,16,17,20). Nine subspecies are usually recognised. A. g. geoffroyi from the coastal region bordering San Juan del Norte or Matina Bay, southeastern Nicaragua; probably ranging through the lowlands to the Pacific coast. A. g. vellerosus in the forests of Veracruz and eastern San Luis Potosi and southeastward through Tabasco, across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in eastern Oaxaca, Mexico, to Honduras and El Salvador, except for the highlands of Guatemala. A. g. yucatanensis from the Yucatan Peninsula, northeastern Guatemala and probably adjoining parts of Belize; doubtless intergrading to the south with vellerosus. A. g. pan in the mountains of central Guatemala; also probably intergrading with vellerosus. A. g. frontatus from northwestern Costa Rica and extreme western and northern Nicaragua. A. g. ornatus from the eastern slope of the central cordillera of Costa Rica; probably intergrading with panamensis on the Pacific side of the central mountain range. A. g.- panamensis from Panama east of the Canal Zone (Cordillera de San Blas), and west through Chiriqui to central western Costa Rica (16). However during the primate census of Chiriqui Province in 1968-70 Baldwin and Baldwin neither located nor heard reference to Ateles inhabiting the region (1). Napier considers panamensis to be a synonym of ornatus (20). A. g. azuerensis from the Azuero Peninsula, Panama; probably extinct but did occur in the deeper forests on both slopes, but known only from the western (Veraguas) side from the vicinity of Ponuga southward, possibly ranging west to Burica Peninsula on Panama-Costa Rica frontier. A. g. grisescens presumably occurring in the valley of the Rio Tuyra and probably southeastward through the Serrania del Sapo of extreme southeastern Panama and the Cordillera de Baudo of northwestern Colombia (16). For map see (13,16). POPULATION Numbers unknown and very little detailed information available, however the species has declined throughout much of its range mainly because forest destruction in Central America has been extensive. Mexico: del Toro reported in 1979 that no reliable population estimates existed but the species was definitely rapidly declining and was in his opinion threatened (24). In 1959 Leopold reported that constant clearing of the forests and excessive shooting would probably soon cause the Spider Monkey to become rare (17). Guatemala: in 1975-76 Cant noted that an ‘adequately’ sized population was protected in Tikal National Park; he observed a density of 14.2-41.6 Ateles per sq. km (average 28 per sq. km) (4). In 1973 the same park gave a density of 45 per sq. km (6). Different census techniques were used. A 1950 U.S. Fish and Wildlife survey found that Ateles had formerly occurred throughout the more humid forest regions, including the highlands, where it was recorded on several of the volcanoes, but that by 1950 it could only be found in Peten, in the lowland forest 193 of both coasts and in the mountains of Quiche and Alta Vera Paz (30). Honduras: was not included in a 1978 threatened species list (25). Nicaragua: reported as 'Endangered' in 1978 (26). El Salvador: considered in danger of extinction in 1978 (27). Costa Rica: classified as 'Endangered' on a 1978 threatened species list (28). Freese censused the species in Santa Rosa National Park in 1971/72 and estimated a total of 110-160 animals. Outside the park the forest was rapidly being cut and Ateles was already scarce in the northwest (10). Panama: reported as 'Vulnerable' in 1978 (29). A 1935 study by Carpenter in the Coto Region of western Panama found it to be very plentiful - possibly more than 500 per sq. km (5). Mittermeier (1981) reports several subspecies to be certainly endangered, and A. g. azuerensis possibly already extinct (18). No information obtained from Belize. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Forest. In Costa Rica observed in evergreen, semi-deciduous and occasionally deciduous forests (10); in Mexico in tropical evergreen forest, rainforest, cloud forest (17) and mangrove-swamp (9). Leopold states that second growth forest, although not as desirable as primary forest, will sustain the species (17). In northern Colombia Bernstein et al found that the closely related Ateles belzebuth would survive in response to logging, albeit in reduced numbers, if some large trees remained (2). Social structure apparently varies with habitat (9). In the tall, evergreen forest of Panama Carpenter observed A. geoffroyi in large troops typically composed of smaller subgroups (5). Eisenberg and Kuehn found them living in small, cohesive groups in Mexican mangrove swamp (9) and in Costa Rican dry forest Freese observed both social structures (10). Diurnal and largely frugivorous (5,8,9,10,17). Ateles take 4-5 years to mature, have a long gestation of 226-232 days and produce a single infant only about once every 2-3 years (7,8). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Habitat destruction, and hunting for food, export and the local pet trade (4,11,17,18,24). In Central America habitat destruction is more of a threat than hunting which is the main cause of Ateles decline elsewhere, although in some areas hunting for food, and occasionally sport is an important threat (18). In 1971-72 Freese reported rapid cutting and clearing of the tropical dry forest in northwestern Costa Rica (10). In southern Mexico Ateles infants are popular pets (18). Since Ateles is a slow breeder, populations can rapidly be reduced with moderate hunting pressure (18). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN A.g. panamensis and A. g. frontatus are listed on Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, (CITES), and therefore any trade in them or their products is subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes is banned. This species as a whole is listed on Appendix 2, trade in it between acceding nations being therefore subject to regulation and monitoring of its effects. Protected by law in Mexico (24); not known whether protected by law elsewhere. Known to occur in Tikal National Park, Guatemala (4,16); and various Costa Rican parks including Santa Rosa (A. g. frontatus) (10), and Corcovado (A. g. panamensis) (18,23). An introduced but free-ranging population of A. g. panamensis occurs on Barro Colorado Island, Panama (8,9,21). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED The whole species should be listed in Appendix | of CITES. Legal protection throughout its range and a thorough survey of range and status in all countries is needed (18). CAPTIVE BREEDING No information. REMARKS For description of animal see (3,10,13,17,20). Kellogg and Goldman (10) recognise four species of Ateles but a number of recent authors (14,15,19) have considered all Spider Monkeys to be conspecific under the name A. paniscus. 194 A zone of hybridization exists in Panama between A. g. panamensis and A. fusciceps rufiventris (22). This data sheet was compiled with the assistance of Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. REFERENCES Ube 15. 16. Baldwin, J.D. and Baldwin, J.I. (1976). Primate populations in Chiriqui, Panama. In Thorington, R.W. Jr. and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field Studies and Conservation. National Academy of Sciences. Washington DGCt Bernstein, I.S., Balcaen, P., Dresdale, L., Gouzoules, H., Kavanagh, M., Patterson, T. and Neyman-Warner, P. (1976). Differential effects of forest degradation on primate populations. Primates 17: 401-411. Burt, W.H. and Stirton, R.A. (1961). The Mammals of El Salvador. Misc. Pub. Mus. of Zoo. Univ. of Michigan. No. M7 Cant, J.G.H. (1978). Population survey of the Spider Monkey Ateles geoffroyi at Tikal, Guatemala. Primates 19(3): 525-535. Carpenter, C.R. (1935). Behaviour of Red Spider Monkeys in Panama. J. Mammal. 16(3): 171-180. Coelho, A.M., Bramblett, C.A., Quick, L.B. and Bramblett, S.S. (1976). Resource availability and population density in primates: a socio-bioenergetic analysis of the energy budgets of Guatemalan Howler and Spider Monkeys. Primates 17(1): 63-80. Eisenberg, J.F. (1973). Reproduction in two species of Spider Monkeys, Ateles fusciceps and Ateles geoffroyi. J. Mammal. 54(4): 955-957. Eisenberg, J.F. (1976). Communication mechanisms and social integration in the Black Spider Monkey, Ateles fusciceps robustus and related species. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 213: 1-108. Eisenberg, J.F. and Kuehn, R.E. (1966). The behaviour of Ateles geoffroyi and related species. Smithsonian Misc. Collections 151(8): 1-63. Freese, C. (1976). Censusing Alouatta palliata, Ateles geoffroyi, and Cebus capucinus in the Costa Rican Dry Forest. In Thorington, R.W. Jr. and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field Studies and Conservation. National Acad. of Sciences. Washington D.C. Goldman, E.A. (1920). Mammals of Panama. Smithsonian Misc. Coll. 69(5): 1-309. Goodwin, G.G. (1946). Mammals of Costa Rica. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. Vol. 87 Article 5. Hall, E.R. and Kelson, K.R. (1959). The Mammals of North America. The Ronald Press Company, New York. Hernandez-Camacho, J. and Cooper, R.W. (1976). The Nonhuman Primates of Colombia. In Thorington, R.W. Jr. and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field Studies and Conservation. National Academy of Sciences. Washington D.C. Hershkovitz, P. (1972). The recent mammals of the Neotropical region: A zoogeographic and ecological review. In Keast, A., Erk, F.C. and Glass, B. (Eds), Evolution, Mammals and Southern Continents. State Univ. of New York Press. Albany. 311-432. Kellogg, R. and Goldman, E.A. (1944). Review of the Spider 195 196 17. 18. 19. 20. 21 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Monkeys. Proc. U.S. Nat. Museum 96 (3186): 1-45. Leopold, A.S. (1959). Wildlife of Mexico. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. Moynihan, M. (1970). Some behaviour patterns of Platyrrhine Monkeys. II Saguinus geoffroyi and some other Tamarins. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. No. 28. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Natural History). Part Il: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum (Nat. Hist.) London. Richard, A. (1970). A comparative study of the activity patterns and behaviour of Alouatta villosa and Ateles geoffroyi. Folia Primatol. 12(4): 241-263. Rossan, R.N. and Baerg,- D.C. (1977). Laboratory and feral hybridization of Ateles geoffroyi panamensis Kellogg and Goldman 1944 and A. fusciceps robustus Allen 1914 in Panama. Primates 18(1): 235-237. Thornback, L.J. (1979). Pers. observation. Toro, M.A. del (1979). In litt. Aguilar, W. (1978). El manejo de la Vida Silvestre en Honduras. In Morales, R., Macfarland, C., Incer, J. and Hobbs, A. (Eds), Memorias de la Primera Reunion Regional Centroamerican sobre Vida Silvestre. Matagalpa, Nicaragua 25-29 Julio 1978. Unidad de areas silvestres y cuencas del catie. Salas, J.B. (1978). Informe sobre las actividades que desarrolla el Departamento de Vida silvestre en Nicaragua. In Morales, R., Macfarland, C., Incer, J. and Hobbs, A. (Eds), Memorias de la Primera Reunion Regional Centroamerican sobre Vida Silvestre. Matagalpa, Nicaragua 25-29 Julio 1978. Unidad de areas silvestres y cuencas del catie. Serrano, F. (1978). Informe de actividades de la Unidad de Parques Nacionales y Vida Silvestre en El Salvador. In Morales, R., Macfarland, C., Incer, J. and Hobbs, A. (Eds), Memorias de la Primera Reunion Regional Centroamerican sobre Vida Silvestre. Matagalpa, Nicaragua 25-29 Julio 1978. Unidad de areas silvestres y cuencas del catie. Lopez, E. (1978). Informe sobre las actividades de la Direccion General de Recursos Pesqueros y Vida Silvestre de Costa Rica. In Morales, R., Macfarland, C., Incer, J. and Hobbs, A. (Eds), Memorias de la Primera Reunion Regional Centroamerican sobre Vida Silvestre. Matagalpa, Nicaragua 25-29 Julio 1978. Unidad de areas silvestres y cuencas del Catie. Vallester, E. (1978). Informé de Panama sobre la situacion de la Fauna Silvestre. In Morales, R., Macfarland, C., Incer, J. and Hobbs, A. (Eds), Memorias de la Primera Reunion Regional Centroamerican sobre Vida Silvestre. Matagalpa, Nicaragua 25-29 Julio 1978. Unidad de areas silvestres y cuencas de! catie. Saunders, G.B., Holloway, A.D. and Handley, C.O. (1950). A Fish and Wildlife Survey of Guatemala. U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Spec. Scient. Rep. Wild. No.5. BLACK SPIDER MONKEY VULNERABLE Ateles paniscus (Linnaeus, |758) Order PRIMATES Family CEBIDAE SUMMARY Brazil north to the Guianas, east to Peru and Bolivia. Numbers unknown. Threatened by hunting and habitat destruction. Needs effective legal protection throughout its range and surveys to determine the best areas for reserves. DISTRIBUTION Lower Amazonian Brazil north to Venezuela, Suriname, Guyana and French Guiana; east to Bolivia and Peru (7,13,18,22). Two subspecies are recognised: A. p. paniscus from the Rio Negro/Rio Branco to the Atlantic, and north to Venezuela and the Guianas (13,18,22), although neither Handley nor Mondolfi record its occurrence in Venezuela (8,19). A. p. chamek according to Kellogg and Goldman occurs in western Mato Grosso, eastern Bolivia, and northeastern Peru to the Rio Solimoes and Rio Jurua, Amazonas, Brazil (13). Napier describes its range as from Brazil, south of the Rio Japura, to Peru, east of the Rio Huallaga, extending to the southern tributaries of the Rio Madeira - Rio Beni, the Rio Guapore and the Rio Jiparana (22). Rylands (1980-81) reports it to be apparently absent south of the Rio Solimoes in the region of the lower Rio Purus, Madeira and Tapajos (26). However Ateles have been reported to occur in the northwest of the Amazonia National Park, Para, descriptions of which fit A. p- chamek (26). Local people also report it to be absent from the region south of the Rio Solimoes, opposite the Rio Negro (26). In Peru, Luscombe has observed it within 25 km of the border with Ecuador, and in the south almost into Brazil and Bolivia (14). Heltne et al (1976) are quoted by Rylands as stating that A. paniscus occurs south at least to 16°S, and possibly even further south in humid forest along the base of the Andes into Argentina, although not inhabiting the dry forest of the Chaco (26). POPULATION Numbers unknown. Has disappeared from many areas chiefly because of hunting, to which it is particularly susceptible. Shows little adaptability to human presence. Mittermeier reports A. p. paniscus to be still abundant in undisturbed and uninhabited areas of the interiors of French Guiana, Suriname and neighbouring parts of Brazil, and to be probably less threatened than any other Ateles (17), all of which however are considered threatened and are included in the IUCN Red Data Book. Suriname: Mittermeier (1977) considered Ateles to probably be the most vulnerable of Suriname monkeys because it exhibits little or no adaptability to human intrusion and was subject to considerable hunting pressure (16), but also added that Suriname was likely to remain a major stronghold for primates including Ateles for many years to come (16). Similarly Van Roosmalen who studied A. p. paniscus in Suriname in the late 1970s described it as ‘probably the most vulnerable of the Suriname monkey species' (25). Guyana: a primate survey in 1975 rated A. paniscus as the most vulnerable of the Guyanese monkeys (21). Bolivia: a preliminary survey in 1975 of primates in five different geographical areas found A. paniscus to have been hunted to extinction over large areas and to be presently rare throughout the Cobija and probably the entire Pando region; to be the most common monkey in the Ixiamas region; to be absent from Riberalta; to perhaps occur in the San Jose de Chiquitos area, although unconfirmed; and to be uncommon in El! Triunfo (9). Izawa and Bejarano who surveyed western Pando in 1978-80 similarly report A. paniscus to be almost certainly extinct between the Rios Acre and Tahuamanu because of hunting; the most recent record dating from 1975. The species is also oie close to extinction between the Rios Tahuamanu and Manuripi. Only to the south of the latter where few humans live and the forest is less disturbed, does this monkey occur extensively. However road construction between La Paz and Cobija via Ixiamas and Pto. Heath with its consequent disturbance will undoubtedly adversely affect Ateles populations (12). Brazil: Rylands (1980-81) describes A. p. paniscus as probably locally extinct or severely reduced in numbers wherever there is any extensive human settlement, although at present much of its range is relatively isolated (26); he considers hunting to be the main threat. He describes A. p. chamek as being also 'severely threatened’ by hunting (26). Peru: Ateles have disappeared from many areas where they used to occur and are considered rare and threatened throughout Amazonian Peru (6,7,23,27), and in 1981 Mittermeier rated them endangered in the country (17). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Van Roosrnalen, who has studied this species in the Raleighvallen-Voltzberg region of Suriname (25), notes that in this area it is confined exclusively to high forest, he observed it in high rain forest, mountain savanna forest, pina swamp forest and riverbank high forest; it infrequently entered edge habitats. It occurs primarily in the upper levels of the canopy in emergents, the understory being rarely visited and about 12 m seeming to be the lowest to which it will descend (25). Diurnal and mainly frugivorous (4,16,18), feeding primarily on mature fruit (25). Ateles appear to play an important role as dispersal agents for many plant species, and for some seem to be the only disperser (25). Spider Monkeys live in groups of usually 15-20 animals (25), group size varying considerably with habitat and altitude (2,18). Groups tend to break into small subgroups rather than move together as a single cohesive unit (4,16). Ateles take 4-5 years to mature, have a long gestation of 226-232 days and produce a single infant only about once every 2-3 (3,4) or 3-4 years (25). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Hunting and habitat destruction. Hunting is the main cause of decline in Amazonia (6,17,27). Ateles are large and very good to eat and have therefore been subjected to heavy hunting pressure throughout most of their range, even in areas where other primates are usually not molested (4,5,6,7,8,10,13,14,15,18,23,25). Their size and noisy habits make them easy to locate, follow and hunt (16,18,25). Groups that have not previously seen humans usually perform a branchshaking/branch-dropping display rather than trying to escape, a hunter is thus able to wipe out an entire group with little effort (16,25). They are also persecuted by cat hunters who use them as bait. Infants are captured for sale as pets (although Ateles are not as popular as Lagothrix and Cebus) (18). Ateles is also largely restricted to undisturbed high forest so habitat destruction has more effect on it than on most other primate species (16,25). Since Ateles is a slow breeder, populations can rapidly be reduced with moderate ea pressure (5,16,17,25), and it is poorly adapted to recover from exploitation 16,25). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed on Appendix 2 of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it between acceding nations being therefore subject to regulation and monitoring of its effects. Fully protected by law in Peru, where it is on the vulnerable species list, and in Suriname (16). In Brazil it is protected by the Fauna Protection Law but is not included on the Endangered Species List (17). Not known whether protected in any other country of its range. In Peru a ‘good! population occurs in Manu National Park (5), it also occurs in several other Peruvian national parks (14,16). In Suriname it is found in Brownsberg Nature Park, and the following Nature Reserves - Raleighvallen-Voltzberg, Tafelberg, Eilerts de Haan and Sipaliwini Savanna Nature Reserve (16). Rylands also mentions its occurrence in the Wia Wia N.R., the Galibi N.R., the Brinckheuveli N.R. and the Coppename River Mouth N.R. (25). For Brazil, he notes that A. p. paniscus occurs in the Trombetas N.R. in Para, the Anavilhanas N.R. in Amazonas 198 and the Rio Mapaoni, Amapa (25). A. p. chamek is well represented in refuge areas, but in Brazil a large part of its distribution is covered by development schemes. Proposed and existing reserves are concentrated to the east and south and further large reserves should be considered in the region of the development schemes of Acre, Aripuana, Rondonia and Juruena (25). In Bolivia it occurs in the Isiboro-Secure Reserve and the Pilan Lajas Reserve (25). In Guyana it occurs in the Kaieteur Nature Reserve (25). Van Roosmalen conducted an ecological study of the species in the late 1970s (25). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Legal protection and enforcement are required throughout its range. In Brazilian Amazonia, a thorough survey is needed to learn more about the status of Ateles and to find sites for the establishment of reserves (18). CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1978 at least 6 were bred in captivity in six different zoological gardens (24). REMARKS For description of animal see (13,22). Kellogg and Goldman (13) recognise four species of Ateles, but a number of recent authors (10,11,20) have considered all Spider Monkeys to be conspecific under the name A. paniscus. Dr. R.A. Mittermeier, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group reviewed this data sheet in June 1981. REFERENCES 1. Bernstein, I.S., Balcaen, P., Dresdale, L., Gouzoules, H., Kavanagh, M., Patterson, T. and Neyman-Warner, P. (1976). Differential effects of forest degradation on primate populations. Primates 17 (3): 401-411. 2. Durham, N.M. (1971). Effects of altitude differences on group organisation of wild Black Spider Monkeys (Ateles paniscus). Proc. 3rd Int. Congr. Primatology, Zurich 1970. Vol. 3: 32-40. 3. Eisenberg, J.F. (1973). Reproduction in two species of Spider Monkeys, Ateles fusciceps and Ateles geoffroyi. J. Mammal. 54 (4): 955-957. 4. Eisenberg, J.F. (1976). Communication mechanisms and social integration in the Black Spider Monkey, Ateles fusciceps robustus, and related species. Smith. Contr. Zool. 213: 1-108. 5. Freese, C. (1977). In litt. 6. Freese, C., Neville, M. and Castro, R. (1976). The conservation status of Peruvian primates. Lab. Primate Newsletter 15 (3): 1-9. 7. Grimwood, I.R. (1969). Notes on the distribution and status of some Peruvian mammals 1968. Special Publication No.2] American Committee for International Wild Life Protection and New York Zoological Society. 8. Handley, C.O. (1976). Mammals of the Smithsonian Venezuelan project. Brigham Young Univ. Sci. Bull. 20(5): 1-89. 9. Heltne, P., Freese, C. and Whitesides, G. (1976). A field survey of nonhuman primate populations in Bolivia. Unpd. Report. 10. Hernandez-Camacho, J. and Cooper, R.W. (1976). The nonhuman primates of Colombia. In Thorington, R.W. Jr. and Heltne, P.G. (Eds), Neotropical Primates: Field Studies and Conservation. National Academy of Sciences. Washington D.C. 11. Hershkovitz, P. (1972). The recent mammals of the 199 200 16. 18. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. neotropical region: A zoogeographic and ecological review. In Keast, A., Erk, F.C. and Glass, B. (Eds), Evolution, Mammals and Southern Continents. State Univ. of New York Press. Albany. 311-432. . Izawa, K. and Bejarano, G. (1981). Distribution range and patterns of nonhuman primates in western Pando, Bolivia. Reports of New World Monkeys (1981). 1-12. Kyoto Univ. Primate Research Institute. Kellogg, R. and Goldman, E.A. (1944). Review of the Spider Monkeys. Proc. U.S. Nat. Museum 96 (3186): 1-45. Luscombe, A. (1977). In litt. Macedo, H. de. (1977). In litt. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977). Distribution, synecology and conservation of Surinam monkeys. PhD. Thesis. Harvard Univ., U.S.A. Mittermeier, R.A. (1977-81). In litt. Mittermeier, R.A. and Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1977). Primate conservation in Brazilian Amazonia. In Prince Rainier and Bourne, G.H. (Eds), Primate Conservation. Acad. Press. New York. Mondolfi, E. (1976). Fauna silvestre de los bosques humedos de Venezuela. Asociacion Nacional para la defensa de la Naturaleza Venezuela. Moynihan, M. (1970). Some behaviour patterns of Platyrrhine monkeys. II Saguinus geoffroyi and some other tamarins. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. No. 28. Muckenhirn, N.A., Mortensen, B.K., Vessey, S., Fraser, C.E.O. and Singh, B. (1976). Report on a primate survey in Guyana, July-October 1975. Report to Pan American Health Organization. Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Natural History). Part |: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum (Natural History). Neville, M., Castro, N. and Marmol, A. (1976). Censusing primate populations in the reserved area of the Pacaya and Samiria Rivers, Department Loreto, Peru. Primates 17(2): 151-181. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. Roosmalen, M.G.M. van (1980). Habitat preferences, diet, feeding strategy and social organization of the Black Spider Monkey (Ateles paniscus paniscus Linnaeus 1758) in Surinam. Rijksintituut voor Natuurbeheer - rapport 80/13, Leersum. Rylands, A. (1980-81). Conservation of Amazonian Primates. Unpd. Report. Soini, P. (1979). In litt. GIANT ANTEATER VULNERABLE Myrmecophaga tridactyla (Linnaeus, 1758) Order EDENTATA Family MY RMECOPHAGIDAE “SUMMARY Inhabits savannas and open forest in Central and South America. In Central America has become extinct in several countries and is endangered in many others, principally because of habitat loss. In South America its status is not at all clear and although hunting is generally mentioned as a threat, whether it is so extensive as to cause the disappearance of the species over much of its range is difficult to determine. Protected by law in some countries and occurs in many protected areas. Studies are needed throughout its range to learn more of its distribution, status and ecology as the basis for conservation measures. A study is in progress (1981) in the Serra da Canastra National Park in Brazil. In 1980 the Species Survival Commission of IUCN established an Edentate Specialist Group to suggest and coordinate conservation action for this and other Edentates. DISTRIBUTION Central and South America from Guatemala, where now extinct, to northern Argentina (8,10,14,15,17,22,25). Three subspecies are recognised: M. t. tridactyla from Venezuela and the Guianas as far as Peru, Paraguay, southern Brazil, and northern Argentina in the Provinces of Salta, Formosa, Chaco and Misiones (8,17). In Peru occurs mainly in the low selva zone of the Amazon region -- within the basins of the Rios Ucayali, Maranon and Curanja in the Department of Loreto, in the north and south of the Department of San Martin, and in the Provinces of Tingo Maria and Pachitea (Huanuco), Tarma and Jauja (Junin), Paucartambo (Cuzco), Sandia (Puno) and Manu (Madre de Dios) (15). M. t. artata occurs in Colombia and the western part of Venezuela as far as the Cordillera of Merida (8). Farther north it is replaced by the Central American subspecies M. t. centralis which once ranged from Belize near Punta Gorda southward along the Caribbean coast to Colombia and up the Pacific coast to Guatemala (17), but has now disappeared from its most northerly range. POPULATION No surveys seem to have been conducted anywhere to determine numbers. Although the species has obviously declined in Central America because of habitat loss, its status over large areas of South America is unknown and although hunting is frequently mentioned as a threat, how much of an effect this has on populations is unclear. Only the following brief comments have been located, many of them years old. Argentina: in 1981 described as vulnerable by the Argentinian Dept. of Wildlife (13). Tarak in 1980 reported it to be very rare, and to occur with certainty only in Formosa Province where very low numbers persisted in Pilcomayo National Park (29); it has disappeared from Iguazu and Chaco National Parks (29). Erize in 1979 reported it to be very rare (12) and a 1965 report mentioned that it. had disappeared from areas of human settlement and was rare (10). Brazil: status little known; in 1974 reported to be sparsely distributed in the Amazon region and usually shot on sight (9). James Shaw and Tracy Carter who are studying the species in the Serra da Canastra National Park in Brazil's eastern highlands found it to be abundant there, they estimated a density of 3-5 per sq. mile (2.59 sq. km). They believed that this abundance was due to the area's remoteness and, more recently by protection as a national park (28). Bolivia: in 1981 described as endangered mainly because of hunting (4). Grimwood reporting in 1978 said it was nowhere common in Bolivia (16). French Guiana: no recent data, in 1972 said to be uncommon (19). Paraguay: in the mid 1970s reported to be still fairly common in some areas (9,21). Peru: appears to have always been uncommon and by 1968 had disappeared from many areas where 201 formerly known (15). In 1981 Dourojeanni stated that he believed that although the species had certainly been adversely affected by colonization, it could not be considered as especially threatened in Peru (11). Colombia: in 1970 described as vulnerable in the country as a whole although endangered along the Caribbean coast because of habitat destruction, and extinct in the upper Magdalena Valley. Also virtually absent from cultivated areas (6). Uruguay: unknown whether the species ever occurred in the country, however in 1971 it did not exist there (21). Central America: Guatemala: no recent data, a wildlife survey in 1950 reported it to probably have been exterminated, and that if it should still occur there it would be along the Pacific coast between San Jose and the border with El Salvador (25). El Salvador: extinct (7,27) searches have failed to locate the species and last reported sighting was in the southeast in the 1920s (7). In 1978 also reported as endangered in Nicaragua (3), Costa Rica (20) and Panama (30). No data located from the rest of its range. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Grasslands and open forests of the humid tropical lowlands, but may venture into denser vegetation (10,15,17,18,22,24,25,31). Schaller decribes it as essentially nocturnal but has sighted it in daylight hours (26). Terrestrial, and diet consists mostly of ants and termites (2). A single young is born after a 190 day gestation, the young is carried on the back of the mother and remains with her for more than a year (2). Solitary (26) (other than females with young (2,23,31)). Has been known to live in captivity for 14 years (31). THREATS TO SURVIVAL In Central America the main threat has undoubtedly been loss of habitat as human numbers have increased greatly and colonised once remote areas. In South America hunting seems to be the main cause of any decline. The species has little commercial value for its meat or skin but tends to be shot when encountered - for trophies, for protection of dogs and livestock which it is believed to attack, and out of curiosity for its strange appearance (4,5,6,15,19,21). Some capture for live animal dealers also occurs (9,21). Quite what effect such hunting pressure has on Myrmecophaga numbers is unknown. In some parts of its South American range habitat destruction has obviously caused its disappearance (5,6), but the extent of this threat is also unknown. CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed on Appendix 2 of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it between acceding nations being therefore subject to regulation and monitoring of its effects. Totally protected by law in Brazil (and listed on the Brazilian Endangered Species List) (9) and French Guiana. Colombia and Peru have placed an indefinite ban on hunting and capturing the species. Its legal Status in other countries is unknown. In Brazil occurs in at least ten national parks and three biological reserves (18). In Argentina occurs in the Pilcomayo National Park; in Costa Rica in the Tortuguero and Corcovada National Parks (1); in Hondurus in the Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (32); in Peru in Manu National Park (15); in Suriname in Sipaliwini Nature Reserve; and in Paraguay it was reported as common in Defensores del Chaco National Park in 1978 (16). The species is being studied in the Serra da Canastra National Park in Brazil by James Shaw and Tracy Carter (28). In 1980 the Species Survival Commission of IUCN established an Edentate Specialist Group to recommend and _ coordinate conservation measures for this and other Edentates; its Chairman is Dennis A. Meritt, Jr. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Studies are urgently required to clarify the status of this species in much of its South American range and to learn more of its behaviour and ecology. Also required is stricter enforcement of protection against hunting and establishment of reserves in areas of known occurrence. Coimbra-Filho and Mittermeier suggest that a campaign is needed to 202 convince rural populations of the importance of the Giant Anteater as a predator on termites and ants, and of its harmlessness to humans (9). CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1979 at least 39 males and 44 females and nine of unknown sex were held in 49 zoo collections; nine were captive bred (23). A studbook for the species was begun in 1979; the studbook keeper is Dr. W. Bartmann, Tierpark, Dortmund, 4600 Dortmund 50, Mergelteichstr. 80, West Germany (22). REMARKS For description of animal see (2,17,28). Dennis A. Meritt, Jr. kindly assisted with the compilation of this data sheet. REPERENCES / ds De 3. 17: 20. Anon. (1976). Costa Rica's new national park. Oryx 13(4): 325. Barlow, J.C. (1967). Edentates and Pholidotes. In Anderson, S. and Jones, J.K. Jr. (Eds), Recent mammals of the world: a synopsis of families. The Ronald Press Co., New York. Bautista Salas, J. (1978). Informe sobre las actividades que desarrolla El Departmento de Vida Silvestre de Nicaragua. In Morales, R., Macfarland, C., Incer, J. and Hobbs, A. (Eds), Memorias de la Primera Reunion Regional Centroamericanan _sobre__Vida ___ Silvestre. Matagalpa, Nicaragua 25-29 Julio 1978. Unidad de areas silvestres y cuencas del catie. Bejarano, G. (1981). In litt. Best, R. and Ayres, J.M. (1981). In litt. Blaine, A. (1970). Report on endangered species of South America - Colombia. Information supplied by J. Hernandez-Camacho. Unpd. Report. Boursot, J. (1979). In litt. Cabrera, A. (1957-61). Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Rev. del Mus. Argent. de Cienc. Nat. ‘Bernardino Rivadavia', Cienc. Zool. 4(1,2): 1-732. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1974). In litt. Dennler de la Tour, G. (1965). The present situation of wildlife conservation in Argentina and the prospects for the future. Unpd. Report. Dourojeanni R., M. (1981). In litt. Erize, F. (1979). Protecting Argentina's wildlife. Oryx 15(2): 138-139. Gonzales Ruiz, E.O. (1981). In litt. Goodwin, G.C. (1946). Mammals of Costa Rica. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. Bull. 87(5): 273-478. Grimwood, I.R. (1969). Notes on the distribution and status of some Peruvian mammals, 1968. ‘Amer. Comm. Inter. Wildlife Prot. Spec. Publ. No. 21: 1-86. Grimwood, I. (1978). In litt. Hall, E.R. and Kelson, K.R. (1959). The Mammals of North America. The Ronald Press Co., New York. Jorge Padua, M.T., Magnanini, A. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1974). Brazil's national parks. Oryx 12(5): 452-464. Leclerc, J. (1972). In litt. Lopez, E. (1978). Informe sobre las actividades de la Direccion General de Recursos Pesqueros y Vida Silvestre de Costa Rica. In Morales, R., Macfarland, C., Incer, J. and Hobbs, A. (Eds), Memorias de la Primera Reunion Regional Centroamerican sobre Vida Silvestre. Matagalpa, Nicaragua 25-29 Julio 1978. Unidad de areas silvestres y cuencas del 208 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32% catie. Mittermeier, R.A. (1971). Notes on some endangered and potentially endangered species of South American mammals. Unpd. Report. Mondolfi, E. (1976). Fauna silvestre de los bosques humedos de Venezuela. Asoc. Nacional para la defensa de la Naturaleza. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.), (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. Reichart, H. (1979). In litt. Saunders, G.B., Holloway, A.D. and Handley, C.O. (1950). A fish and wildlife survey of Guatemala. U.S. Dept. Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service, Spec. Scient. Rep. Wild. No. 5 Schaller, G.B. (1976). Report on a wildlife survey in southern Argentina and in the Emas National Park, Brazil. Unpd. Report. Serrano, F. (1978). Informe de actividades de la Unidad de Parques Nacionales y Vida Silvestre en El Salvador. In Morales, R., Macfarland, C., Incer, J. and Hobbs, A. (Eds), Memorias de la Primera Reunion Regional Centroamericanan sobre _Vida__ Silvestre. Matagalpa, Nicaragua 25-29 Julio 1978. Unidad de areas silvestres y cuencas del catie. Shaw, J.H. and Carter, T.S. (1980). Giant Anteaters. Natural History 89(10): 62-67. Tarak, A. (1580). Pers. Comm. Vallester, E. (1978). Informe de Panama sobre la situacion de la Fauna Silvestre. In Morales, R., Macfarland, C., Incer, J. and Hobbs, A. (Eds), Memorias de la Primera Reunion Regional Centroamericanan sobre Vida Silvestre. Matagalpa, Nicaragua 25-29 Julio 1978. Unidad de areas silvestres y cuencas del catie. Walker, E.P. (1975). Mammals of the World. The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore and London. WWF. (1980). Honduras establishes first biosphere reserve in Central America. WWF Monthly Report, November 1980. Project 1645. MANED SLOTH or BRAZILIAN THREE-TOED SLOTH ENDANGERED Bradypus torquatus (Illiger, 1811) Order EDENTATA Family BRADYPODIDAE SUMMARY Restricted to the Atlantic coastal forests of eastern Brazil and considered endangered because of extensive deforestation which has occurred in this habitat. Protected by law, occurs in a number of protected areas and is the subject of study by Sergio Maria Vaz. An Edentate Specialist Group was established in 1980 by the Species Survival Commission of IUCN and will be suggesting and coordinating conservation measures for this and other Edentates. DISTRIBUTION Eastern Brazil, in the States of Bahia, Espirito Santo and Rio de Janeiro (1,2,4). In Bahia it is reported to have disappeared from the area between Reconcavo de Bahia and the municipality of Ilheus (4). From Ilheus south to the State of Rio de Janeiro it occurs in fragmented populations in remaining areas of undisturbed forest, mainly in the south of Bahia, in a few forests in Espirito Santo and in the following muncipalities in the State of Rio de Janeiro: Santa Maria Magdalena, Cantagalo, Macae, Friburgo, Casimiro de Abreu, Silva Jardim, Mage and Petropolis (4). POPULATION Numbers unknown, but considered endangered because of extensive deforestation which has occurred within its range (6,8). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Atlantic coastal forest (4). The Maned Sloth is arboreal (although swims well) and is reported by Meritt to feed only on leaves, birds and blossoms (7). Solitary. Gestation period is 120 to 180 days and the usual number of young is one. The life span is thought to be less than 12 years (10). THREATS TO SURVIVAL The species inhabits an area of Brazil where extensive deforestation has occurred and is continuing (2,4,6). The east coast has a dense human population and consequently the Atlantic coastal forests have been subjected to widespread, largely uncontrolled destruction to make way for plantations of coffee, sugar cane, cocoa, and eucalyptus, also for cattle pasture and above all for lumber extraction and charcoal production. In recent years industrial development has also taken its toll. The forests have as a result been devastated, especially during the rapid development and economic expansion of the last twenty years. Only a tiny fraction of the original forest cover remains (9). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Protected by law in Brazil and included in the Brazilian Endangered Species List (4). Occurs in the Monte Pascoal National Park and in the Biological Reserves of Corrego de Veado, Sooretama and Nova Lombardia and possibly in Serra dos Orgaos National Park (4). Since 1969 twelve individuals have been reintroduced into Tijuca National Park in the city of Rio de Janeiro (2,3). Studies are being conducted by Sergio Maria Vaz (7). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Field studies are needed to determine if there are other suitable areas which should be reserved to ensure the sloth's survival. Data are needed on the behaviour and ecology of the species in the wild (4). CAPTIVE BREEDING This highly specialised animal has defied all efforts to keep it alive in captivity for more than a few months (5). REMARKS For description of animal see (10). 205 REFERENCES 206 1. Cabrera, A. (1957-1961). Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Vol. I and II. Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia", Ciencias Zoologicas, 4(1): 1-307; 4(2): 309-732. Buenos Aires. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1972). Mamiferos ameacados de extincao no Brasil. Especies de Fauna Brasileira Ameacadas de Extincao. Academia Brasileira de Ciencias: 13-98. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Coimbra-Filho, A.F., Aldrighi, A.D. and Ferreira Martins, H. (1974). Nova contribuicao ao restablecimento da fauna do Parque Nacional de Tijuca. Brasil Florestal 4(16): 7-25. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1974). In litt. Crandall, L.S. (1964). The management of wild mammals in Captivity. The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago. Maria Vaz, S. (1981). In litt. to D.A. Meritt Jr. Meritt, D.A. Ir. (1981). In litt. Mittermeier, R.A. (1981). In litt. to P. Sand. Mittermeier, R.A., Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Constable, I.D. (1980). Conservation of Eastern Brazilian Primates. WWF Project 1614. Report for the period 1979/80. Walker, E.P. (1975). Mammals of the World. The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. Baltimore and London. GIANT ARMADILLO VULNERABLE Priodontes giganteus (Geoffroy, 1803) Order EDENTATA Family DASY PODIDAE SUMMARY Widely distributed in eastern South America but populations have been reduced or exterminated in some areas by hunting, human settlement and agricultural development. Protected by law in most countries and occurs in a number of national parks, reserves and protected areas. Studies are urgently needed to learn more of its habitat requirements as a basis for formulating an appropriate conservation plan. In 1980 the Species Survival Commission of IUCN established an Edentate Specialist Group to suggest and coordinate conservation action for this and other Edentates. DISTRIBUTION Eastern South America. Ranges from southeastern Venezuela, the Guianas (Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana), southern Colombia and Peruvian Amazonia through Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay as far as Misiones, Formosa and Chaco in the far northeastern sector of Argentina (5,10,13). The boundaries of this range have probably altered little in recent decades, but the species' actual distribution is now broken and discontinous (5,15). POPULATION Numbers unknown. Brazil: in 1981 described by Best and Ayres as vulnerable in the Amazon region because of habitat destruction and subsistence hunting, although protected by food taboos in some areas (3). Mittermeier in 1971 reported it to be very rare (16); in 1957 it was said to be observed most commonly in southwest Brazil (and in the Guianas) (6). Included in the Brazilian Endangered Species List. Suriname: described in 1979 as not in danger (18). Peru: in 1981 reported by Dourojeanni to be very low in numbers and declining because of human colonisation (8). Colombia: in 1970 its status was reported to be fast becoming critical; at the time it was relatively common on the northern Llanos but had disappeared from the western Llanos, and was relatively scarce southeast of a line drawn from Arauca to Caqueta Department (4). In 1971 Mittermeier described it as very rare (16), and in 1981 Meritt reported it to be 'not common! (15). Paraguay: Meritt who studied various other armadillos in Paraguay in 1972 reported Priodontes to be nowhere common, and that areas of population concentrations were not apparent (14). He described the status of the species to be almost certainly critical (14). In 1971 Mittermeier reported it to be very rare (16), and in 1981 Meritt described it as 'not common! (15). Argentina: described in 1981 by the Argentinian Department of Wildlife as in danger of extinction (9). Tarak in 1980 described it as rare, as did Grimwood in 1978 (11) and Mittermeier in 1971 (16). Venezuela: in 1981 Meritt reported it to be locally common with ‘unstable populations' in certain areas (15). Bolivia: described by Meritt in 1981 as not uncommon in certain states, and not threatened in Bolivia (15). He reports similarly for the Guianas. No data located for Ecuador. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Inhabits continuous, relatively undisturbed forest and savannah (15). In Peru seems to be largely restricted to tropical forest in the low selva zone (below 500 m altitude) which does not flood (10). Usually solitary (6) and may be nocturnal if persecuted. A powerful and rapid digger, sheltering in burrows of its own construction and digging extensively for food. Diet consists of ants, termites, other insects, worms, spiders, larvae, snakes and carrion (1,20). Number of young is reported to be one (or two), the female has two mammae (20). THREATS TO SURVIVAL The species is a highly specialised animal that seems to be intolerant of disturbance; in many areas it is becoming locally extinct under 207 the impact of deforestation, settlement and agriculture. Construction of the Transamazonian Highway, and of other roads throughout Amazonia, is opening up large areas of previously undisturbed forest to human colonization (6,7). In Peru and Paraguay the flesh of the Armadillo is relished and it is hunted by man whenever encountered (15); the species is reported to have disappeared from the vicinity of all settlements (10). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and therefore any trade in it or its products is subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes is banned. Protected by law against hunting or capture in Argentina, Brazil (where it is included on the Endangered Species List), Colombia, Peru, northern Suriname, and Paraguay. In Brazil it is believed to occur in the national parks of Araguaia (Goias), Tocantins (Goias), Emas (Goias, Mato Grosso), Monte Pascoal (Bahia) and the Biological Reserves of Caracara (Mato Grosso) and Sooretama (Espirito Santo) (7). In Colombia, it occurs in the Sierra de la Macarena National Park and the El Tuparro Reserve and, in Peru, in the Manu National Park (10) and Pacaya National Reserve. In Suriname it occurs in all eight nature reserves (18). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Studies are needed to determine its habitat requirements before a sound conservation plan can be formulated. Stricter enforcement of protection against hunting is needed plus the establishment of reserves in suitable areas. Where habitat destruction is unavoidable, consideration should be given to the translocation of some animals to protected areas (7) or where such areas do not exist, to captivity for propagation efforts (15). CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1979 5 males and | female where held in 4 zoological collections (17). The species has not bred in captivity (15). REMARKS For description see (1,13,20). REFERENCES 1. Barlow, J.C. (1967). Edentates and Pholidotes. In Anderson, S. and Jones, J.K. Jr (Eds), Recent mammals of the world: a synopsis of families. The Ronald Press Co., New York. 2. Best, R. and Ayres, M. (1981). In litt. 3. Bejarano, G. (1981). In litt. 4. Blaine, A. (1970). Report on endangered species of South America - Colombia. Information supplied by J.Hernandez-Camacho. Unpd Report. 5. Cabrera, A. (1957-1961). Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Vol. I and II. Rev. del Mus. Argent. de Cienc. Nat. ‘Bernardino Rivadavia' Cienc. Zool. 4(1,2):1-7 32. 6. Carvalho, C.T. (1957). Algunos mamiferos do Acre occidental. Bol. Mus. Paraense E. Goeldi, N.S. Zool. 6: 1-22. 7. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1974). In litt. 8. Dourojeanni R, M.J. (1981). In litt. 9. Gonzales Ruiz, E.O. (1981). In litt. 10. Grimwood, I.R. (1969). Notes on the distribution and status of some Peruvian mammals in 1968. Special Pubn. 21. Am. Comm. Int. Wildl. Protec. and New York Zool. Soc., Bronx, New York 11. Grimwood, I. (1978). In litt. 12. Guillermo Staudt, J.P. (1976). In litt. 13. Husson, A.M. (1978). The Mammals of Suriname. E.J. Brill, Leiden. 208 Meritt, D.A. Jr. (1973). Observations on the status of the Giant Armadillo. Priodontes giganteus, in Paraguay. Zoologica 58(3-4): 103 Meritt, D.A. Ir. (1981). In litt. Mittermeier, R.A. (1971). Notes on some endangered and potentially endangered species of South American mammals. Unpd. Report. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. Reichart, H. (1979). In litt. Tarak, A. (1980). Pers. Comm. Walker, E.P. (1975). Mammals of the World. The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore and London. 209 sede: open: stn Hie aeatieni rane oA aN: viebduiteraM cicalygiae ‘ FRAMBE RED oa Hey | EOL a pre oe BE St eis Giuits sturbed-'t Tiedt) og “titi iywoha ! heap anebun. nai PIE POM ANE eiglhy aM ARIF aah. vaeaifey et vigisdaurieiniia’ eines: betgnabar. Gisitiereg laree areas ni aid Peraiay ti, : v Convulrtsin Un tate si aide saath ~ hte sepoie on the "Ea Ras SoeihD ee Reese gre aor stenh Srexil it 4 Pellnvdas Te occa ) The Bativnad SKS att (Cates Totantierd iGomah Liman (Co Vaio Nalhaiene.| DR te ascant aes the Riotog ital Reserve Sol * areaaia, Mai oO Gttste end honrg Samer it oonusy i bh: S (ort ade ia. Nic aren Natkinat Pers ang Tupary: Reeve jan ih or ety et avManu Mitinnas Park “TAs ; yy etor ined Rerser VS te ul hnodiie +h om uexin ai eiizint Aatwredente vid Use oH seRVATION bat, fequireenis ‘bets a af peer igre ratory ashes car hes: ri Fai w2eyi (77, fa © ‘oterenia, ogyp ; therttore we ‘4 PRR ECOS Balin Bio w « net a tacs SAHIN | irade of Whol ake etude: in Tt. oper bea ina trad: arene ANU KORE ptieelBar To iRhowes bg) xa eam. yinbaak a gir -and) « Yepes, «ds +0.(1940). Mamiferos Sud-Americanos. Compania Argentina de Editores, Buenos Aires. 3. Cei, J.M. (1967). Pichi ciego and Portulaca. Animals (London) 10(4): 176-177. 4, Gonzalez Ruiz, E.O., Director Nacional de Fauna Silvestre, Argentina. (1981). In litt. 5. Meritt, D.A. Jr. (1980). The Fairy Armadillo, Chlamyphorus truncatus, Harlan. In Montgomery, G.G. (Ed.), The Evolution and Ecology of Sloths, Anteaters, and Armadillos (Mammalia, Xenarthra = Edentata). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C., 6. Minoprio, J.D.L. (1945). Sombre el Chlamyphorus truncatus Harlan. Act. Zool. Lilloana 3:5-58 7. Rood, J.P. (1970). Notes on the behaviour of the Pygmy Armadillo. J. Mammal. 51(1): 179. 8. Walker, E.P. (1975). Mammals of the World. The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore and London. 9. Wetzel, R.M. (1980). Taxonomy and_ distribution of armadillos, Dasypodidae. In Montgomery, G. G. (Ed.), The Evolution and Ecology of Sloths, Anteaters, and Armadillos (Mammalia, Xenarthra = Edentata). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. 214 GREATER PICHI CIEGO INSUFFICIENTLY or BURMEISTER'S ARMADILLO KNOWN Burmeisteria retusa (Burmeister, 1863) Order EDENTATA Family DASY PODIDAE SUMMARY Precise distribution debatable but generally thought to occur in Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay. Very little is known about the species and data concerning its status are contradictory. It is considered by some to be threatened by habitat loss and for museum collecting. No conservation measures have yet been taken. Studies are urgently required to learn more of its ecology, distribution and status and to suggest appropriate conservation actions which undoubtedly will include the establishment of reserves. An IUCN/SSC Edentate Specialist Group was established in 1980 to initiate conservation efforts for this and other Edentates. DISTRIBUTION Cabrera describes it as occurring in Argentina, Bolivia, and Paraguay (2) however doubt has been expressed as to its occurrence in Bolivia (1) and Paraguay (6). Cabrera mentions two subspecies: B. r. clorindae definitely known only from the western part of the Province of Formosa, Argentina, but may also occur in the areas contiguous to Salta and the Chaco, as well as in the southern Paraguayan Chaco; B. r. retusa in central and southern Bolivia extending south through the north of the Argentine Provinces of Jujuy and Salta (2). POPULATION Unknown. Very little information exists concerning the status of this animal and the brief comments located tend to be contradictory. A status survey is urgently required to clarify the situation. Argentina: described in 1981 by the Argentinian Wildlife Dept. as 'vulnerable' @) and in 1978 Grimwood reported that it was thought probably extinct in Argentina (6). However Tarak in 1980 described the species as not uncommon there (8). Dennler de la Tour (1965) believes that prior to European settlement it was probably fairly abundant in the country (4). Bolivia: Cabrera mentioned it as inhabiting Bolivia (2) but Professor Bejarano in 1981 reported that it had not been proved to occur in the country (1). Rages Grimwood in 1978 noted that no information was available as to whether it in fact ever occured there (6). In general, Meritt believes the species was in all probability never common nor widely distributed, but that numbers were now (1980) probably stable (7). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Inhabits areas with dry, well drained soils (3). Little is known of its ecology. THREATS TO SURVIVAL Portions of its habitat are good agricultural land and have been utilised for such purpose, however whether the species can persist in such modified areas is unknown. It continues to be sought after for museum collections (7). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN None known. In 1980 IUCN's Species Survival Commission established an Edentate Specialist Group to initiate conservation efforts for this and other Edentates; its Chairman is D.A. Meritt Jr. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Studies are urgently needed to determine its ecology, distribution and status, and if necessary to establish reserves for its protection. CAPTIVE BREEDING None known to have been kept in zoological collections. 215 REMARKS For description of animal see (2,3,9,10). This data sheet was compiled with assistance from D.A. Merrit Jr. REFERENCES 216 1. Zs Bejarano, G. (1981). In litt. Cabrera, A. (1957-1961). Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Vol. I and II. Revista del Museo Argentino C de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia" iencias Zoologicas, 4(1): 1-307; 4(2): 309-732. Buenos Aires. Cabrera, A. and /Yepes, J. (1940). Mamiferos Sud-Americanos. Compania Argentina de Editores, Buenos Aires. Dennler de la Tour, G. (1965). The present situation of wildlife conservation in Argentina and the prospects for the future. Unpd. Report. Gonzales Ruiz, E.O. (1981) In litt. Grimwood, I.R. (1978). In litt. Meritt, D.A. Jr. (1980). In litt. Tarak, A. (1980). Pers. comm. Walker, E.P. (1975). Mammals of the World. The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore and London. Wetzel, R.M. (1980). Taxonomy and_ distribution of armadillos, Dasypodidae. In Montgomery, G.G. (Ed.), The Evolution and Ecolo of Sloths, Anteaters and Armadillos (Mammalia, Xenarthra = Edentata). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. VOLCANO RABBIT, TEPORINGO or ZACATUCHE ENDANGERED Romerolagus diazi (Ferrari-Pérez, 1893) Order LAGOMORPHA Family LEPORIDAE SUMMARY Limited distribution in subalpine areas on volcanoes in central Mexico. Numbers rapidly decreasing because of hunting for food and sport and habitat destruction. Nominally protected, though laws are not enforced, and part of its range is in a national park. Adequately guarded reserves are urgently needed. Captive breeding programmes are in progress in Europe and are proposed in Mexico. DISTRIBUTION Mexico; endemic to the Transverse Volcanic Axis, which lies between 18° and 22°N and runs west-east across the country from the states of Jalisco and Colima to Puebla and Veracruz. Presently known from three subalpine areas near Mexico City: the slopes of Iztaccihuatl and Popocatepetl, those of Ajusco, southwest of Mexico City, and a remnant population, discovered in 1977, on the Nevado de Toluca southwest of the Ajusco range (4,6). The combined area of the first two regions is about 150 sq. km. Granados in 1979 noted that no systematic surveys to determine the limits of the Teporingo's distribution had been carried out and he considered that it may also exist in other zones of the Volcanic Axis, possibly in close proximity to already established areas (4). POPULATION No recent reliable estimates. Granados in 1979 reported it to be relatively abundant in the Sierra de Ajusco and in decreasing order of abundance on the eastern slopes of Iztaccihuat! and Popocatepetl, the western slope of the same and the Nevado de Toluca where it had virtually disappeared (4). The populations in all these areas were said to be diminishing at an ever increasing rate (4). Curry-Lindahl visited the Iztaccihuatl-Popocatepet! National Park in 1974 and found the Teporingo to be very rare there, with considerably fewer than the 150-200 individuals per colony quoted in 1969 (1,2). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Subalpine regions between 2800 and 4000 m in the tussocky ‘zacaton’ grass (mainly Epicampes and Festuca) herb-layer of open forest, consisting mainly of Pinus - Abies associations on the upper slopes and Quercus - Garrya on the middle and lower slopes (4,12). Lopez-Forment and Cervantes studied it on the eastern slopes of the Cerro Pelado in the Ajusco region in an area of Pinus montezumae forest with Alnus arguta and a herb layer principally of Muhlenbergia macroura and Festuca amplissima. Altitude averaged 3100 m, yearly rainfall 1222 mm and temperature 9.7°C (9). The Teporingo constructs elaborate burrows in sandy, loamy, deep soils, those examined having a length of |.5 to 17 m and depths of 14.4 to 65 cm; entrances are hidden in the base of grass clumps. Abandoned pocket-gopher burrows, hollows between rocks and boulders and large boulder-strewn sinkholes are used as temporary daytime retreats and nesting chambers appear to be constructed in burrows up to |.2 m long amongst boulders, in old tree stumps, holes left by fallen trees or even in shallow depressions beneath the 'zacaton' (4,9). An intricate system of surface runways is maintained for moving through the thick grass (8). Herbivorous, they have been observed feeding on forbs and grasses, especially Cyrsium, Rumex and Eryngium spp. along with Stipa ichu, Muhlenbergia macroura and Festuca amplissima. Chiefly diurnal with an activity peak between 1100 and 1300 hours, though some nocturnal activity also observed (9). Most reproduction appears to occur between January and April, with extremes from December to July, although previous studies reported the breeding season as from March to June (9,12). Litter sizes of | to 5 have been recorded, although Cervantes-Reza and Lopez-Forment found captive litters were always of two young, and gestation 217 periods of 38 to 40 days have been measured in captivity (1,3,4,9,17). Felis (Lynx) rufus, Canis latrans and Buteo jamaicensis are all thought to predate on the Teporingo (9). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Habitat destruction, from a variety of reasons, and hunting are identified threats (4,6). The Teporingo is relentlessly hunted for food in many areas, contrary to earlier reports which stated its flesh was unpalatable (4,6,8). This is believed to be the major cause of its decline in the Nevado de Toluca (4), and the inhabitants of some towns in the Sierra de Ajusco (e.g. Parres) are reported to hunt rabbits daily. The two larger sympatric species, Sylvilagus cunicularis and S. floridanus, are principally sought after but as these are shot out hunters are increasingly turning to the Teporingo (6). Rabbits are also wantonly killed for sport, and nesting habits make the young particularly vulnerable to predation by dogs and man (4,6). The least remote Teporingo population is now within 30 minutes of Mexico City, a rapidly growing conurbation of 15 million people. Access to formerly remote regions is continually increasing and new towns are being built between Mexico City and Cuernavaca, an area including the Sierra de Ajusco (6). Agriculture is rapidly expanding up the slopes of the volcanoes and in many areas large expanses of 'zacaton' are burned annually to improve grazing for sheep and cattle. 'Zacaton' is also of considerable commercial value for its roots which are dug up in great numbers to make household brooms and brushes (4). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products therefore being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Nominally protected by law but most local inhabitants are unaware of this and there is no enforcement at all (6). 50 sq. km of the Iztaccihuatl-Popocatepetl area is a national park but hunting and grass-burning for livestock grazing still occurs within the boundaries (6). Studies on the animal both in the wild and in the laboratory have been carried out which should provide much-needed data for conservation plans (3,4,9,12,13,14,15,16). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED The Teporingo should be designated a National Treasure by the Government of Mexico (5). There is an urgent need for an adequately protected reserve in at least one part of the present range, preferably in the Sierra de Ajusco, though it is considered by some that the Iztaccihuatl-Popocatepetl region offers the best prospect for the long term survival of the animal in view of the area's already nominally protected status (4,6). Translocation to other suitable areas has been suggested (6). Enforcement of laws against killing, and grass-burning in some areas, would greatly enhance chances of survival. CAPTIVE BREEDING A captive breeding project was initiated at Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust in 1968; the animals reportedly settled down rapidly and were easy to maintain (3). However the colony died out and a new colony, constituted of imported animals, was found to be difficult to maintain. In May 1981 it consisted of 2 males and | female (J. Mallinson 1981, Pers. comm.). Antwerp Zoo initiated a captive breeding project in 1978 (3,4); in 1979 it held 3 males and 5 females (11) which by May 1981 was down to 2 pairs (J. Mallinson 1981, Pers. comm.). REMARKS For description see (8). The name Romerolagus diazi has been accepted for the Teporingo since 1911 (4,10). However the name of the describer cited is a matter of some controversy. The species was originally described under the name Lepus diazi by Ferrari-Pérez in 1893 and was independently named Romerolagus nelsoni by Merriam in 1896. Diaz de Leon proposed the combination 218 Romerolagus diazi in 1905 and this was upheld by Miller, since when the Teporingo has generally been known in full as Romerolagus diazi (Diaz, 1905). Granados following Rojas-Mendoza has concluded, however, the correct citation should be Romerolagus diazi (Ferrari-Pérez, 1893), as Diaz de Leon only introduced a new combination not a new specific name. Even if Diaz de Leon is accepted as describer, the correct citation should be Romerolagus diazi (Diaz de Leon, 1905) not Diaz, (1905) or even (Diaz, 1893) as it is sometimes known (4,10;12). Dr H. Granados very kindly provided information on which this data sheet was based and William Lopez-Forment commented on a draft in 1981. REFERENCES 1. Curry-Lindahl, K. (1980). In litt. Durrell, G. (1969). Pers. comm. Durrell, G. and Mallinson, J. (1970). The Volcano Rabbit Romerolagus diazi, in the wild and at Jersey Zoo. In Lucas, J. (Ed.), International Zoo Yearbook 10. 118-122. Zool. Soc. London. 4. Granados, H. (1979). Basic information on the Volcano Rabbit (Romerolagus diazi). Paper presented to the Ist World Lagomorph Conference, Guelph, August 1979. l4pp. 5. IUCN. (1972). Volcano Rabbit. Sheet 9.59.3.1. In: Red Data Book Vol | Mammalia. IUCN, Switzerland. 6. Lagomorph Specialist Group, IUCN/SSC. (1979). Minutes of Ist meeting, Guelph, 15th Aug. 1979. 13pp. 7. Lagomorph Specialist Group, IUCN/SSC. (1980). Report presented at 53rd SSC meeting, Kilaguni Lodge, Kenya. 26 April-2nd May, 1980. 2pp. 8. Leopold, A.S. (1959). Wildlife of Mexico: the game birds and mammals. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley. 9. Lopez-Forment, W. and Cervantes, F. (1979). Preliminary observations on the ecology of Romerolagus diazi in Mexico. Unpd. Report. 9pp. 10. Miller, G.S. (1911). The Volcano Rabbit of Mount Iztaccihuatl. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 24: 228-229. 11. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. 12. Rojas-Mendoza, P. (1951). Estudo biologico del Conejo de los Volcanes (Genero Romerolagus) (Mammalia, Lagomorpha). Tesis Profesional, Dpto. de Biologia, Facultad de Ciencias, U.N.A.M. Mexico 7|pp. 13. Granados, H., Zulbaran, R. and Juarez, D. (1980). Studies on the biology of the Volcano Rabbit (Romerolagus diazi Ferrari-Perez, 1893). I. First observations on captured wild animals. XXXIII Internat. Congr. Physiol. Scie., Budapest, Abstracts (Vol. XIV) p.443, Abstract 1604. 14. Granados, H., Zulbaran, R. and Juarez, D. (1980). Estudios sobre la biologia del conejo de los volcanes II. Periodos de reproduccion de los animales silvestres en su habitat natural. XXIII Congr. Nat. Cienc. Fisiol., Queretaro, Qro., Resumenes, p. 88. 15. Granados, H., Juarez, D. and Zulbaran, R. (1980). Estudios sobre la biologia del conejo de los volcanes III. Presencia de un triangulo de pelo color amarillo dorado en la nuca. VIII Congr. Latinoamer. Zool., Mérida, Ven., Resumenes, p. 105. 16. Granados, H. (1981). Studies on the biology of the Volcano Rabbit (Romerolagus diazi Ferrari-Perez, 1893). IV. Preliminary report on the presence in the skin of some pigmented formations. Fed. Proc. 40(3) p 558. Abstract 1872. Wn . e 219 220 "7. Cervantes-Reza, F. and Lopez-Forment, W. (1981). Observations on the sexual behavior, gestation period, and description of young of captive Mexican Volcano Rabbits, Romerolagus diazi. J. Mammal. 62(3). In press. DELMARVA FOX SQUIRREL ENDANGERED Sciurus niger cinereus Linnaeus, 1758 Order RODENTIA Family SCIURIDAE SUMMARY Extinct over most of its former range this subspecies is now confined to small, scattered populations on the Delmarva Peninsula, eastern U.S.A. Decline attributed to habitat destruction, hunting, and competition with the Grey Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). A Recovery Team was appointed in 1978 which has produced and begun implementation of a detailed Recovery Plan. Occurs in at least four wildlife refuges. DISTRIBUTION U.S.A., where in 1971 was confined to disjunct areas on the Delmarva Peninsula - in parts of Dorchester, Kent, Queen Annes and Talbot counties on the eastern shore of Maryland State (11). There is also an introduced population on Chincoteague Island, Virginia (6,11). Formerly ranged through the Delmarva Peninsula (Delaware State, the eastern shore of Maryland and Northampton and Accomack counties in North Virginia) also Chester, Delaware and Lancaster counties in Pennsylvania, and perhaps southern New Jersey (7,8,9,12). Evidence suggests that distribution within its range was always patchy and discontinuous (11). For map see (2,6,12). POPULATION Total numbers unknown. The most stable populations are thought to occur in the Blackwater and Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuges in Dorchester county which in 1978 had estimated populations of 450 and 250 respectively (6). Chincoteague island was believed to hold 80-100 individuals at that time (6). Detailed population trends are unknown though at least up to 1971 its numbers were considered to be rapidly declining and it was regarded by some authorities as in imminent danger of extinction (11). It appears to have always been less common than the largely sympatric Grey Squirrel and by the end of the 19th century it was already extremely rare in Pennsylvania and had been extirpated in New Jersey. It probably persisted in Delaware until the 1920s (8,9,11). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Shows a preference for mature, mixed timber with a minimum of undergrowth (2,6,7,11,12). Normally avoids large forest blocks with dense undergrowth and is most often found in savannah areas, oak openings, and in narrow belts of trees along streams and rivers (2,11). Formerly considered to be closely associated with the Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) though this has not been supported by recent work and much of the former range appears to be beyond the northern limit of the pine's distribution (3,11,12). Considerably more terrestrial than the Grey Squirrel, it will often forage in open agricultural areas exploiting cereal and fruit crops some distance away from tree cover (6,11). Diet otherwise consists of a large proportion of mast of trees such as oaks, hickorys, beech, walnut and Loblolly Pine, along with fungi, insects, fruit and occasionally birds' eggs and young. In spring it feeds extensively on tree buds and flowers (2,10). Fox squirrels have an extended breeding season with two peaks - in February-March and July-August. Average litter size is 3 (range 2-4), born after a gestation period of about 45 days; one or two litters a year are produced. Young open their eyes at approx. 5 weeks and are weaned after 9-12 weeks. Polygamous, the female raises the young alone, usually in a tree den though where these are not available leaf nests similar to those of Grey Squirrels may be constructed (2). THREATS TO SURVIVAL The reasons for the decline are not fully understood though are believed to involve a combination of habitat destruction, competition 221 with the Grey Squirrel and hunting (6,7,11). Lumbering and clearance for agriculture greatly increased in scale from 1860 onwards and removed much of the Fox Squirrel's preferred open mature woodland habitat (2,11). As forests regenerated or were replanted (often with pure Loblolly pine, itself a suboptimal habitat), dense undergrowth developed and relogging was carried out in most areas before the open park-like conditions of the Fox Squirrel's preferred habitat could develop or trees were sufficiently mature to provide adequate food or denning sites. In most marginal habitats the Fox Squirrel is thought to have been displaced by Grey Squirrels, which thrive in such regrowth areas and compete directly with it for food and nesting sites (7,11). Elsewhere in the U.S.A. the situation appears to be reversed and Fox Squirrels have increased in numbers and expanded their range, to the apparent detriment of the Grey Squirrel, in response to conversion of land for agriculture (11). Why this pattern has not been followed on the Delmarva Peninsula is unclear though it seems probable that hunting, logging and competition with Grey Squirrels, combined with a patchy initial distribution, caused local extinctions and, although much good Fox Squirrel habitat is thought to have now developed on the peninsula, there are no animals remaining in most areas to recolonise naturally (11). Despite legal protection some are probably still killed each year by hunters mistaking them for Grey Squirrels, but such mortality is not now believed significant. Natural predation and roadkills are also believed relatively unimportant (2). Mange (Cnemidoptes) is probably endemic and may cause heavy mortality in epidemic outbreaks in severe winters though the effect of this on long term population trends is not known (2). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed as 'Endangered' on the United States Endangered Species List. Legally protected. Maryland State closed the hunting season on this species in 1971 (6,11). Occurs in the following protected areas: Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, established in 1933; Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge, into which it is believed to have been introduced around 1920; Le Compte Wildlife Management Area, designated a refuge for this species in 1970; and Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge where it was introduced in 1968 (6). Studies on Grey Squirrels have shown that provision of nest boxes can nearly double the population under some conditions and large numbers of nest boxes for the Fox Squirrel have been constructed and put out on Chincoteague Island and in parts of Maryland (1,6). Distribution surveys were conducted in 1971 (11,12) and a Recovery Team appointed in 1978 which has produced a detailed Recovery Plan (2). Part of the Plan -- the acquisition of approx. 1000 ha of additional squirrel habitat for the Blackwater Refuge -- had been accomplished by the end of the 1978 financial year (2). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED The Recovery Plan aims to restore the squirrel to secure status throughout its former range. It considers this will have been achieved when the contraction of the present range has ceased and a minimum of 30. prospering colonies have been established outside this area. Action to achieve this includes: ecological and demographic studies, including radio-tracking; preservation and management of habitat within the existing range, possibly entailing control of Grey Squirrels, clearing of underbrush, provision of food and nest-boxes and acquisition of additional land for presently occupied refuges; re-establishment of colonies in suitable areas - many potential sites appear to be available, especially as the Fox Squirrel is tolerant of human activity and disturbance providing its basic habitat requirements are met; protection of squirrel populations through law enforcement; and promotion of public support and understanding (2). If the plan can be carried out in large measure, long term prospects are believed to be good as the taxon should respond well to management (2). CAPTIVE BREEDING No information. 222 REMARKS For description see (4,5,6,11). This subspecies is variously known in the literature as Sciurus niger bryanti, S. n. neglectus or S. n. cinereus (6). Sciurus niger is widely distributed through eastern U.S.A., extending in the north through most of Michigan and Wisconsin and as far as eastern Texas in the west. It is absent from most of New England, with scattered populations in New York State (4). There can be great variation between individuals in the same locality and although several subspecies have been described the taxonomy of the group is sorely in need of revision (5). The species as a whole has expanded its range and numbers considerably in some areas this century and is not considered threatened (11). This data sheet was compiled with information very kindly supplied by Mr. G.J. Taylor, Leader of the Delmarva Fox Squirrel Recovery Team, and R.M. McKee of the Maryland Wildlife Administration. REFERENCES 1. Burger, G.V. (1969). Response of Gray Squirrels to nest boxes at Remington Farms, Maryland. J. Wildl. Manage. 33: 796-801. 2. Delmarva Fox Squirrel Recovery Team. (1979). Recovery Plan for the Delmarva Fox Squirrel. 26pp. 3. Dozier, H.L. and Hall, H.E. (1944). Observations on the Bryant's Fox Squirrel, Sciurus niger bryantii (Bailey). Conserv. Maryland 21: 1-12. 4, Hall, E.R. and Kelson, K.R. (1959). Mammals of North America. Ronald Press, New York. >. Hamilton, W.J. Ir. and Whitaker, J.O. Jr. (1979). Mammals of the Eastern United States. 2nd Ed. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca and London. 6. National Fish and _ Wildlife Laboratory. (1980). The Delmarva Peninsula Fox Squirrel. FSW/OBS-80/01.37. In Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species of the Seacoast of the United States. Biological Services Programme. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 7. Paradiso, J.L. (1969). Mammals of Maryland. N. Am. Fauna. 66: 1-93. 8. Poole, E.L. (1944). The technical names of the northeastern fox squirrels. J. Mammal. 25: 315-317. 9. Rhoads, S.N. (1903). The mammals of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Philadelphia. 10. Smith, C. and Follmer, D. (1972). Food preferences of squirrels. Ecology 53: 82-91. 11. Taylor, G.J. (1973). Present status and habitat survey of the Delmarva Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger cinereus) with a discussion of reasons for its decline. Proc. 27th Ann. Conference of Southeastern Asscn. of Game and Fish Commissioners. 278-289, 12. Taylor, G.J. and Flyger, V. (1973). ‘Distribution of the Delmarva Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger cinereus) in Maryland. Chesapeake Sci. 14: 59-60. 223 oi) award ballin: atic satin tt iter . deimigapeip retire inc gutaslaancg oghein ‘GROF OOT Mh, BUIIO VF 5 Clometeam, (gue if steamed a pexete rig Ra we i day geet ek nO Kowa Ae. enoitsivqag Demet, 411 iMworaland: WOVk deateones a9 18 ado’ hia ae ais nt. eeehi en: HD th ALA He eels 2A.ai> MOR, ci quan biti ion twarnied, Silt Rediyab pd, ovarteaino quan, issovgadigue presonii aTk obec eer erties $e) eploegs. nid 2d netainen te bom ¢ Hoarsenmh bom olenon Roma, base Wine. aitt Oe thot nt yidawblane @ Sih, Yet, Dabs xlpniat db rasreaditen gt ai uit wi pallgnam aoe: Ande PID ® Muh rsrugene’y ‘Tinoon ae seit ‘79 ouipraleths oA) do. Abaed ng aiepuapided’ thal tases, tx BNE MBDA hough atssinimb sd pohiiphiw: acsiuno ning ; i Avereion of innd 9 Rae minire (a ih Wtiw vy Weeping: bey ove Mar Bi suc RRR De pwned hep ute a faen hos | siawipe err t din serio Oh ayngld de Peck, eee drain eM, APEC Tae Hi ARRON Git rh a pate his "Cased toket eFnttions: bo yb hee phe rah. “ieocmt pee ee ESET ee Dy yigwotewe tepals yon, ARIE naib are: ANE Ov, a fai: pe a a Ae arty) a Ae lee “tego oe nena areca HAC Retr ity (ht a Be une Sead. ciaS Wraed > Tea bynes sega Sis wide s analiielte matte 2 See . Maou its: aisar Delikw vd rehgeky bis] Subpal cra; v Mac Mnee (4 ; “BOM: Jorelonmald: ARSC eaNORer RNA Wiha: Res Sethi eay s i teed Ge Brain IE e406 bet seh ee Bl git A AiitaraAc is eheonmthe (ere) ae Oxt, eletitWebaS Al. .C.¥ wor liens “th = | css stay tinhiolir, SPURS ASF ea, tego J: 199 Ay oy aT a, | ie pe peeee vee. L cited» Opn) ae ed: Se hs = Be sh Ag BRED aX pebstvCo a Hea tijbtey| ee }) Medtbe athe re iphow fg, sant a SN AL) O8-BA W 8A- seni eoR -ahienl qa aaa “hd - 33 : Be ee De eee pc eee de, IAN 93 w icieytat ag YD oats Qitte <3 ry ‘aa ar BLS Sehr ant qaginalad " gat +2 spaigid PAVE t gages ra iy Hig (th vd PARRA RUS Nation abowivateas WebeL We tus rate {i= ws eS betes ae: jebeeomett tel AR do wd Fr geeis Ht bt : a cs ee SES! (auBngéel> ae cy eausnistse? PEON ate ee Yea : DRA OS ee MMe Ome Ty Rexel whet Piypeevetee Ree wigte picky : are add’ ko Wy a be Vi «Aa enemy woneny R | ie + wey ey! he gore : fy rere ter ae * cae oc <¢ ar Duh ’ “ wats Ms War ee feist a5 : er GAT to Ligies” a AOC +} LO peaeliaeM 's Sail ikteores ies eo. MBit Sv7928% 4 AOD i 19 Hino vine Srna eet dS Lig DRS 7 15 AS teat indst ide Rn E haps Wig bait wr THA hot Se Tt} at + aa gene nt ? 20 RE Deg DIR eRe Ai 5(S64. LOVE HE ethbeTOEY Wag! ee ee ee ee SHARC Mi w bepisiaonet, nei ate > berths Una 0+ a eninbal i Abc’ it a iv oT ae + TSE GY) SRM TADISL AG DONE 80) an jet & Hi tigattty oe Ste Oe, Hew. 6]foee Wollong) Bad pet iN finns, eRe oe MALY LR yang UTAH PRAIRIE DOG VULNERABLE Cynomys parvidens J.A. Allen, 1905 Order RODENTIA Family SCIURIDAE SUMMARY Endemic to Utah, U.S.A., where numbers drastically declined this century as a result of habitat alteration and eradication programmes. Transplant attempts to publicly-owned land were begun in 1972 and the population has now apparently stabilised although colonies on private land are still at risk from habitat loss to development. A draft Recovery Plan has been produced. DISTRIBUTION Southwestern Utah, U.S.A., where in 1980 was found in several disjunct areas in Beaver, Iron, Garfield and Wayne Counties, also extending just into Sevier and Kane Counties (10). Formerly ranged more widely, but still discontinuosly, in the same region from Pine and Buckskin Valleys in Beaver and Iron Counties in the west to Nephi in the north, Bryce Canyon National Park in the southeast, the eastern foothills of the Aquarius Plateau in the east and the northern borders of Kane and Washington counties in the south (10). POPULATION In 1979 a spring (pre-breeding) census of all known sites gave a total of 2887 individuals distributed in 84 prairie dog towns, of which 6 had been founded by artificial transplants (9,10). Most of these (1697 individuals in 31 towns) occurred in Cedar Valley with 287 in Panguitch Valley (21 towns), 223 in John's Valley/Bryce (6 towns) and 452 at Parker Mountain (12 towns). Of the remainder, 68 were in 4 towns at Loa and the rest were in 4 scattered colonies (9). These numbers were actual counts and may account for less than 60 per cent of the individuals present at a colony at the time (4). Spring censuses have been carried out since 1976 when 2160 individuals were counted in 51 towns. The apparent increase is at least in part attributed to the discovery of several already existing towns though the population is now believed to be actually increasing (9,10). Population trends in 1979 were upward at Parker Mountain and in the transplant colonies, stable at Cedar Valley and Loa and downward elsewhere (9). The most successful colonies are those on privately owned agricultural land under active irrigation, where they also come into most conflict with farming interests (4). Estimates of former numbers are difficult to make though a figure of 95,000 has been approximated for the population before the instigation of control programmes in the 1920s (2). The population is noted to have drastically decreased in the 1960s and early 1970s, following which active conservation measures were initiated (2,10). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Lives in colonial towns, preferred habitat of which appears to be swale type formations at low elevation (up to 2200m) where moist herbage is available even during drought periods (10). Habitat requirements include well-drained soil deep enough to accommodate burrows to provide protection from predators and temperature extremes without risk of flooding. Soil colour may be important in camouflage against predators on the surface (10). Predominant vegetation height within the colony must be low enough to allow prairie dogs to scan the environment for predators and thus controlled grazing can be compatible with prairie dog towns (3). Principally herbivorous, alfalfa and grasses are preferred food items during all seasons although forbs may be critical to survival during drought. Preference is shown for flowers, seeds and young leaves. Dead vegetation and cattle faeces are also consumed and are preferred to shrub leaves and stems. Cicadas (Cicadidae) are eaten when available (10). Individuals gain most weight and colony expansion is greatest when alfalfa and other cool season palatable forage are available. This occurs most often in low 229 elevation colonies (3). Breeding occurs in early spring with young reported born from early to late April after a gestation period of around 30 days. Litter size is variable (2-8 reported) and young appear above ground at an age of 5-7 weeks (10). A study reported in 1976 found an average of less than 4 young above-ground per successful female (10). Sexual maturity is reached at one year of age. Adult males cease surface activity some time from July to September, females follow some weeks later and juveniles remain above ground until about October. There is very little surface activity from the beginning of November until mid-February. Predation (primarily from badgers, coyotes and raptors) does not appear to control population density in established colonies but may have an effect on expanding or transplanted ones (1,10). THREATS TO SURVIVAL The decline in numbers this century can be attributed chiefly to habitat disruption and deliberate elimination campaigns. Loss of suitable habitat is of immediate concern to the surviving populations (10). Part of the range contraction can be attributed to climatological changes. The prairie dog once occurred nearly to the Utah-Nevada state line in Beaver and Iron counties. Most of this region (once the major part of the range) has become less favourable due to higher temperatures, drier climate and the development of salt-shrub vegetation. Drought has been significant and has caused the elimination of several colonies (2). Much remaining available habitat has been taken for farms and houses and in 1977, 74% of towns and 76% of dogs were located on private land which is thus subject to development (10). Overgrazing has resulted in a great reduction in habitat quality in many areas by leading to a transition from grass to shrub dominated vegetation and reducing forage. It has also led to erosion of preferred swale areas, transforming them to gullies, consequently lowering the water table and thus eliminating succulent forage which supplied summer food (10). Poisoning campaigns have been periodically conducted to eliminate competition with agricultural and ranching interests (10). Population reductions following intensive campaigns occurred around 1933, 1950 and 1960. Recovery in numbers followed each of these though some colonies were completely eliminated (2). Physiographic barriers prevent expansion of the range eastward and southward and the prairie dog faces competition from the Uinta Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus armatus) in the north (10). Diseases, such as sylvatic plague, have been reported in dog towns but there is little evidence that this has had any long term effect on the population (1). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Classified as 'Endangered' under the 1973 Endangered Species Act. Has been extensively studied, an ad hoc Recovery Team has been formed and a draft Recovery Plan drawn up (3,10). Conservation efforts so far have been centred on attempts to transplant animals from private agricultural lands, especially areas where they are causing damage, to suitable sites on public lands (4,6,9,10). Transplants were initiated in 1972 by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and up to 1979 a total of 4765 prairie dogs had been moved (9). Initial attempts met with only limited success due to a combination of factors - desertion of new colonies was very high and many suffered extensive predation, especially from badgers (9,10). Most animals were taken from low level sites and transplanted at considerably higher elevations which differed markedly in some aspects, particularly the composition of the grass community, and to which the individuals moved were probably not well adapted (4). By spring 1979, 6 colonies had been successfully established with an average of 16 prairie dogs in each. In that year, however, considerably improved transplant tehcniques and methods for evaluating and preparing transplant sites were tested and developed, leading to a markedly higher success rate which should be maintained in future years (4,6,9). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED The primary objective of the draft Recovery Plan is the establishment of 40-50 self-sustaining towns on public lands 230 (6). In 1980 it was estimated that this could be reached in 3-5 years under the present reintroduction programme (6). There is at present some conflict with agricultural interests on private lands, particularly in Cedar City valley where in 1975 up to 100 bales of alfalfa were estimated to have been lost to prairie dogs in one town alone (6). Mound materials from burrows can be picked up by balers causing considerable equipment damage and there is some loss of irrigation water to burrows. There is also some fear of outbreaks of sylvatic plague if the animals expand into rural or residential areas (6). Proposals have been made to reclassify some populations on private land in Cedar City valley as 'Threatened! rather than 'Endangered', to allow control measures to be adopted in this area while maintaining stringent protection of other populations (6). CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1979 Washington National Zoological park held 6 males and | female, all bred in captivity (7). REMARKS For description see (5,10). Cynomys parvidens is one of the White-tailed prairie dogs (subgenus Leucocrossuromys) and is closely related to C. leucurus which also occurs in Utah, and which has been considered conspecific with it in the past though recent investigations have supported their classification as separate species (8,10). Mr. Robert Hasenyager of the Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Team very kindly assisted with the compilation of this data sheet. REFERENCES 1. Collier, G.D. and Spillett, J.J. (1972). Status of the Utah prairie dog (Cynomys parvidens). Utah Acad. Sci. Arts and Letters 49: 27-39. 2. Collier, G.D. and Spillett, J.J. (1973), The Utah prairie dog--decline of a legend. Utah Sci. 34: 83-87. 3. Crocker-Bedford, D. (1975). Utah prairie dog habitat evaluation. Proc. Utah Wild. Tech. Mtg. 7pp. 4, Day, D.F. (1979). In litt. to L. Greenwalt 5. Hall, E.R. and Kelson, K.R. (1959). Mammals of North America. 2 vols. Ronald Press, New York. 6. Minnich, D.W. (1980). In litt to U.S. Fish and Wild. Service. 7. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. 8. Pizzimenti, J.J. and Nadler, C.F. (1972). Chromosomes and serum proteins of the Utah prairie dog. Cynomys parvidens (Sciuridae). S.W. Natur. 17: 279-286. 9. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. (1980). 1979 Annual Utah prairie dog progress report. Unpd. report 22pp. 10. Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Team. (1979/80). Utah prairie dog draft recovery plan (annotated). Unpd. report. !-19. 231 eth ley Sia amen eye Mg. i at te en ‘aaa iy i: ae en > %: arth ie08 erat: Peery ain wi ade + Aka tab Rigers Grows porten tg cies germ hl) carmipagnay | iitire ep llie y atl nubarcaay neal aboak jaay me teow “HL Bou sinkycre ser! nod Wratvanbarématengeray eeoncbepbe a y + aneiast otek sal tint: ec Tho ate wuch ern ala Detenn dua Nin i ahd _ yehdes mestegisar fe eeoltaieg anonordibestayenAmyomiiane: side job Sepa ti eh ET shiatry tds to hare ya 4D, werd dante paohaine.. rept ede chia eters ‘ie eth avedropazene tie ale: Roots Labaeatsanst: yy hth ia Pyrite: aarttaisborie Seay iD eeoynblarsy tio) dade Deal Meakietouiag eo: ates " es \ogisoucebiid ney Detan Rado mbr: 2ST eam eae oder cbr ie brartsinla sekaat ore. U1 ;. HOKE enoizstuqay 9 re. to eens | IoegnitzE | renlen are catia) eteis@prunt Baad isi Suiltenit hehitir is of Uprriedinte.< SSS 10-1h uf ease hives wuin tie {Gis | ath Aer vations teotonwl vIag Mie im ese pert: “Naika, | pt cekelat-jeeain a pria (ay TOMeapwONe RUINGEA e2Ob SALARGN By mae rien cure Fah ep Lelie ato LD Ht SAR tigate Piha ring Morte Henne ees ost Cowie giTRawrt dans: cSgnatie sree a > yett matida th, dketh rant, lo sogaknadelt edad sahil iiPkechtellnge sae hy i oe elTiris at patie? Be btn [Loc aehit S aMLIO-) anit We areca ag wy ang Teeny > Rast te¢ farcw-and housed ana iit)? ay wr bsi Pi, X hetch atta, PbS AeA Weak D si etaldlgnis Pete hides @taaer : bea hei neato unas Lean Pico PON» 2) gob; INRIA A ee by ss cnieliv t apadiine: aS, ow sal Se ne, s iehagiaiiade sot ae Pris Baie ce: a | i» 7 ee ¥: Trae FF w front ufessio Shred cominaled Ges barts: Pete LowJop, foe BEE Me watt) @atic af Sipe te dito Dhey alike 4 oe Tein eS ts wi 1 ebckequecitly peubea ct Void? se Aung? bn dogagil >a tynnieby) ro ppbonees get St wher tg, exc a Rica DIC Magee MNS TS) ys 9 Ei : SOT tet 2G re oat fined) oe Soha ghey city & Dopuilis ict Cea eta WOR a lial OR GIRL APRs. Beane og yi é oui S slept REREAD pHa, IG! Bde dtadion, yy, SWaphle tee eee peel WS AP Aege Ren lorie sb, sanbinne Spooiviercs aves sesahenae dei biewaal 2 abhi t iaibw (abe ees “hott fee st wits ie _ Biotin URN F cos eR. cl TI, ele {BRLLK sim) re eee.” Tike Sywe lawie, Tt age, beth repos tart ohnpnd ne ODS ‘heh engoRenore?D and Ab €iid Aakian onbdikeiicditmissis 22 i eeiebiveag eytnony) a6 eitie1g G@bHy pails lo enietoIg srl yee - if diirdst Biel so “yr HORSES T Fat ty 12 aM adllp Be sel estblitviod gecreit! une ae, eee ( MOMEL Ratsoh ce bea aH ry presale Aerld Lents Reco iad, Sieve hae AROS GHD? RINGGATY REDNBONG yet otek Ny AVS —onseevad , Bh jer slat, MRR OND cs earn Rites Cgecl @baieanl > Hy Dios tee ‘eer Dre BT RYN (UGG Abt Fs LOGAS) ss wend Teeny op = sikag a i Meas (4,6,8. 16), Trantpl pn! were. ieilinte a OP bs ie Digi OF, Wek ee FuemouToRs 4nd vp 1 197 FR abot 4745, cen ieee doe rupee 1: Stent ao voraine sy cet wate anly Lipton a6 one ce 19 » CoO a 4 einy ERE Tiegh ef fee solonies wed vety Sg dns Hy) aud feted “eros iy expo ay, Wena backers 0,10)” MORALS ee tL pwead | e Say bea AL Cxtatetably Jeger she wariqn, WG oer b x bite. wens Garticuinriy the covpespraa of ir: Seed Godden Kangarte Rat bopeaG, 7 al r ¢- me seer tt way cet r mv i } * ay > is eye toe a Boe eg MN X> okey 1h fiver sre’ i: RDI 2195 Teheh s Le dich Rte Ry Sn ag le em 5 : 7 “ewe baie nae SOC ees. jy FAlSGs Fie st QerOe 2 Sto; yor a t e& he chase Staal aes e Sr as ty ane . : * ra se tetris wreiice, Ald- manage eed Mgues mbit. 3 EE tales ms dit leeeey sites aby teers the. » TR Sy Bera eS aps #y ‘Deol Shualtay: Gy Uy e, Rite tures Spaeen ee. ee ~ qos sad} penoes isoisis ot Vel ieahetie2 beth Wener abitee Ww TTS, Oe Ng _ Seo Shea TT TEST VER aR Daa on! 700 Rt) Enepegeress es on wwnid, 5 eh ee Sarin ed tte oh) 1 GAM: hoch Biars et 0 wes r ap 3 ee o,f Tien Soe uPA Me need oenase hr) e-? i é g ee : i - - + 4 ny eek eae cescrsriony, set 1 ,4,3.1RE7 Gel ae ee j Spiebinsis $4. Levieli sngcecnomtingindet ‘dense pam aaaty sc a ee we yi UALS) Hb Tare ‘ni ond hos aps So Dalbrdeehdba reid ante edhe ls" Bs sab it es ‘eK dnOM) ody Scud pice riige Hii See eitubdiot tena), Of Hen w Fn kin fh itHs » GO = O45 OTe Oy Tq aor uy jfaroe: Rats. } Kitbiarthencladty Locborsr de LR PAA een toe Me gebynoted ike reve vie phon: EQOA ude rhs aan ahY et Tat} otibgheR 40, GSIOM sort vege ’ } EP UR VIR) CO regerA toenelaaawesy | hesdobaptbht yosnmiiaia «tee iz!- ot veg edt Anlesininatector Sdihenteys bus eons maf eOBt) eager: CRY Spt py aFi8S » Dy 0028 Feehan Wee FEST COMA NEN Be P Shiai 40 ra outs gaunt sitt- ve caer git CRs Tye Hip FERGIE VT Cob arigg so, Os Chia by. -OS1-i 78S food Jtdud simetiisd Ha .sintdtiledte est ~ oe HAASE: «Cell ahpeyeN® jae Se ayer LAED arta) Dix by mar Peder at age. Me te TARR f rattae pas Ge het aston! panes halitaes G06 IB Waka Ys or aneiryroxmgrseytOe tous Dt. dele... CRORE De JSUstiye 2eC NGI sOR Nog pL THON HOA CLP Ve grematl er eho ny, thal, ta tid TREAT OCH Bi WIRD Seat dle Ua) YP IIIA! sift ‘As Tox seqlleaine pear ve ve hate Agee TE. ‘3 agg fire Pore yes: tle: outs yey? ao fir 0 ie OO! SAB Ye Poo a Medi Bera. ONO a as Yo *onta) he i= PRM EPREIEE RISO Remcag he aby Peete sok IQry Cb RrROD! tive “caine i FAP evhni y Mine i ‘Lea iageniertt hs ae + TINE AVA iewa ates >, ‘Ss W tits > Pa rea ite Goh dive Ath LibaeQnigiees Hem ows Sets) endear mt Coma a NoBt A PERT RORORCL H. 8 SOME ETON y Tiare eLsh me teed! wher redar: Jnl untae geile: nF YHuc) Min how aeewed: i lie failo rdieat URE Mase ray .réinead Lotsyee escent bay: 10 rosa br Lenshires LOOT Or pbeqe oes RA: he te ‘a tintin}: LOSE Ve seen? « intiwetyolt eel aylaizae oo o2s bel aaitiage oe ee ee STB VS? thy tarps SZ Ti JER Ootagiin x ok. 2: “ nyo WY Aree bail ‘a sy je seHODaoe: wis ang baa oni3, MEARS eon Pie PTS aes yak paceiolsin of the rear | ot 9 Sie a q ste ther. devemoment an. the Boe: havi Me Voor Setads Raa ete: Men le LE ae ics th nh dn ac ae Cond che 4 many Geic ee. do iat upc HGOTM*y » eer ait Syttce aliv Bis ‘ . fy ae i 6 ha ster Pek “stealanea iy iPoaby tape y psi 44). IOS mo! BoB RRS, es Sd Cagle oh eS auth ard cae aa en eee ae Ce ateine | £9 )ec It was ‘formert 2a guess ata ek tue heat ae N ‘ ~y _ ee Ono yet ed three Aeomecle iP ow tiinare aiqskHad it Gra eae pe Aphis Gey peison? pam ¥ tae aiy TEXAS KANGAROO RAT RARE Dipodomys elator Merriam, 1894 Order RODENTIA Family HETEROMYIDAE SUMMARY Occupies a restricted range in south-central United States, where it apparently has somewhat specific habitat requirements, being confined to mesquite brushland on firm clay soils. Most of the range is on private land subject to uncontrolled habitat modification for agriculture. Although it can survive in cultivated areas as long as some Mesquite pastures or brushy fence rows are left, it does not apparently persist in areas treated with brush control chemicals. Studies are needed to determine critical habitat requirements and to ensure that land use practices do not conflict with these. Protected in Texas and is being considered (1981) for inclusion in the U.S. Endangered Species List. DISTRIBUTION U.S.A, where has been recorded from a small area in north-central Texas and southwestern Oklahoma. Known distribution was mapped out in 1972 (5) records encompass an overall range of about 14,000 sq. km ranging over the following counties: Archer, Baylor, Clay, Foard, Hardeman, Motley, Wichita and Wilbarger, all in Texas, and Comanche County, Oklahoma (5). All records for Comanche and Clay County are prior to 1905 and surveys in the 1960s and 1970 failed to find it there; the range thus appears to have contracted over the present century (5). It is thought likely that the sand floodplain and dune areas along the Red River immediately north of the species' range, occupied by Dipodomys ordii, may prevent its northward spread into Oklahoma (5). A disjunct record from Corywell County, Texas, some 250 km south-southeast of the range in northern Texas, is questioned by some authors (5). POPULATION Total numbers unknown. Although apparently locally abundant in Suitable habitat (3,5), the species is considered at risk because of habitat modification within its limited range. Live-trap surveys in the region of Iowa Park, Wichita Co. in the early 1970s estimated densities of 8.6 to 24.7 per hectare (7). Dalquest in 1968 noted that numbers appeared to have increased since 1965 (2), although there is no information on more recent trends. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Inhabits Mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) brushland with sparse short grasses in firm clay soils (3). Although the species will forage in agricultural areas, it appears to be always closely associated with Mesquite; extensive surveys by Martin and Matocha recorded no individuals further than half a mile (0.8 km) from Mesquite areas. A certain minimum clay content in the soil is apparently required for successful burrowing (3,7); burrows average 45 cm deep and are complex, with many interwoven tunnels, scattered: food caches, and a single nest in the lowest part of the system (7). The tunnels are probably important in temperature control - air temperature 60 cm inside a burrow at Iowa Park only varied from 15.5 to 18°C over one week in May whilst the outside temperature at ground level ranged from 8 to 36°C (7). Home range size, as estimated by trapping at Iowa Park, was small (averaging around 0.08 ha for both sexes, with largest estimated at 0.19 ha) though individuals were recorded travelling longer distances (over 300 m) along roads at night (7). Grass seeds were the principal component of the diet, especially cultivated oats (Avena sativa) and Johnson Grass (Sorghum halepense) (1). Stems of Panicum spp. were taken, possibly for their moisture content; also annual weeds, leaves and immature fruits of the Cranesbill Erodium cicutarium being especially sought; perennial plants were not greatly utilised (1). Little known about reproductive biology. The effects ot interspecific competition on populations of this species are unclear. 237 Roberts and Packard found seasonal decreases in the trapping rate of D. elator at Iowa Park, Wichita Co. to be associated with increases in the capture of other rodents though there was no actual evidence of interspecific competition (7). Martin and Matocha concluded on the basis of their study in Hardeman Co. that there would be minimal competition for food in typical D. elator habitat in years of normal food production (5). The species is, however, believed to avoid dense stands of grass inhabited by Cotton Rats Sigmodon hispidus (8). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Restricted distribution and apparent dependence on Mesquite grasslands are considered to place the species at risk; most of the present range is on private land subject to uncontrolled habitat modification (1,5). Although the animal persists in agricultural areas provide Mesquite pastures or bushy fence rows are left, it does not appear to survive in areas treated with brush control chemicals (e.g. 2,4-D) (1). Here floristic composition considerably alters, with an absence of Mesquite and annual species such as Cranesbill. D. elator is also apparently absent from agricultural areas where bushy fence rows have been removed (1). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN A protected nongame species in Texas (8). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED The species is being considered (1981) for inclusion in the U.S. Endangered Species List (9). There is an urgent need for ecological studies to more fully determine habitat requirements and population trends (5,8). In particular Martin and Matocha recommend that population studies be carried out in areas subject to various management practices (Mesquite controlled chemically, mechanically and uncontrolled) (5). The possible role of interspecific competition in limiting populations, especially in modified habitats, needs to be investigated. Once critical habitat requirements have been determined measures should be taken to ensure that management practices do not conflict with these. CAPTIVE BREEDING Limited attempts at breeding this species in the laboratory have proved unsuccessful (6). REMARKS For description of animal see (4). The species is also known as Loring's Kangeroo Rat. This data sheet was compiled from a draft kindly provided in May 1981 By Robert E. Martin, Departmant of Biology, University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, Texas. REFERENCES 1. Chapman, B.R. (1972). Food habits of Loring's Kangaroo Rat, Dipodomys elator. J. Mammal. 53(4): 877-880. 2. Dalquest, W.W. (1968). Mammals of north-central Texas. Southwest. Nat. 13(1): 13-21. 3. Dalquest, W.W. and Collier, G. (1964). Notes on Dipodomys elator, a rare Kangaroo Rat. Southwest. Nat. 9(3): 146-150. 4 Davis, W.B. (1974). The mammals of Texas, rev. ed. Texas Parks and Wildlife Bull. 41: 1-294. 5. Martin, R.E. and Matocha, K.G. (1972). Distributional status of the Kangaroo Rat, Dipodomys elator. J. Mammal. 53(4): 873-877. 6. Packard, R.L. and Roberts, J.D. (1973). Observations on the behaviour of the Texas Kangaroo Rat, Dipodomys elator Merriam. Mammalia 37(4): 680-682. 7. Roberts, J.D. and Packard, R.L. (1973). Comments on movements, home range and ecology of the Texas Kangaroo Rat, Dipodomys elator Merriam. J. Mammal. 54(4): 957-962. 8. Martin, R.E. (1981). In litt. 9. Nowak, R.M. (1981). In litt. 238 SALT-MARSH HARVEST MOUSE ENDANGERED Reithrodontomys raviventris (Dixon, 1908) Order RODENTIA Family CRICETIDAE SUMMARY Restricted to salt marshes bordering San Francisco Bay, California, U.S.A. More than 80% of its former habitat has been iost due to filling, diking, vegetational changes and flooding following subsidence, consequently the species is considered endangered. Some marshes have been preserved in federal and state wildlife refuges while others are being considered for protection and are detailed in a Recovery Plan being prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. DISTRIBUTION San Francisco Bay area of California, U.S.A. Main populations are in the Petalum and Napa marshes off the San Pablo Bay, the Contra Costa County coast of Suisun Bay and the marshes at the southern end of south San Francisco Bay. Scattered, small populations exist elsewhere around San Pablo and Suisun Bays but few remain between Richmond and the San Mateo Bridge in Central San Francisco Bay (1,5,7,9,13). For map see (4). Two distinct subspecies are recognised - Reithrodontomys raviventris raviventris in the southern part of the range as far north as Madera and Pt. San Pedro, and R. r. halicoetes further north (1). Overall limits of range are probably relatively unchanged but over 80% of the former habitat has been destroyed leading to a highly patchy and fragmented distribution (1,3,5). POPULATION Numbers unknown. A few thousand may make up the summer maximum; however the once continuous distribution is now very fragmented and individual populations are small (7,8,11). The nominate southern subspecies is considered most at risk, being confined to areas with very high human populations (4), though the whole species is considered 'endangered' at both federal and state levels (10). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Restricted to salt and brackish marshes bordering the San Francisco Bay system. Salt marsh is characterised by Salicornia spp. with Spartina foliosa at lowest levels and Grindelia cuneifolia in higher areas, while brackish marshes are dominated by Typha latifol: latifolia and Scirpus spp. with Salicornia and Distichlis in depressed areas (1 1. Both habitats provide dense cover, ideally 0.2 to 1.0 m high, with a network of spaces beneath; the mice very rarely venture into the open. Adjacent grasslands are used to escape the highest summer tides as long as they provide sufficiently dense cover (1). Diet appears to consist mainly of salt marsh plant stems and leaves, with a low proportion of seeds and insects; in winter a high proportion of grasses is consumed (1). The two subspecies differ notably in several behavioural and physiological characteristics (e.g. tolerance to varying levels of salinity in drinking water and diet) and it has been suggested that they may be in the final stages of speciation (1,6). They are largely nocturnal and R. r. halicoetes constructs nests of dry grasses or sedges on the ground or in hummocks; these are often inhabited by several individuals. R. r. raviventris does not appear to build nests outside the breeding season, sheltering under vegetation or using the abandoned nests of other species (e.g. Song Sparrows Melospiza melodia) as temporary shelters (1,4). Breeding season is from March to November in R. r. raviventris and May to November in R. r. halicoetes with an average of just under four young per litter in both (1). Females of R. r. halicoetes may only produce one litter per year though population turnover rate is generally high with most mice surviving less than six months and very few more than a year (1,2,12). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Habitat destruction. The species appears dependent on 239 the dense cover provided by salt and brackish marshes; 80% of the original marshes in the area have been filled. Most that remain have been backfilled such that grasslands and the upper marsh zone have been destroyed, depriving the mice of vital refuges in periods of high tides. Others have been managed for waterfowl by growing monocultures of plant species unusable by the mice; still others have changed because of increased tidal coverage following subsidence or salinity changes or both. The average size and quality of tidal marshes has declined such that most populations are now very small (1,3,7). Most concern is expressed for the southern subspecies (R. r. raviventris) as the few marshes where it still survives are in areas of extensive development and very high human population density (10). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN _ Classified as 'Endangered' by the Department of the Interior and the California Dept. of Fish and Game (4). A number of marshes are protected within several federal wildlife refuges while others have been protected by the State (4,10). Few efforts have been made to reconstitute the upper edges of any of these marshes (10). A Recovery Plan for the species is being developed in 1981 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (11). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Numerous marshes are proposed for acquisition and upgrading in the Recovery Plan. Emphasis is placed on enlarging marshes, making them more contiguous and returning more of them to a natural state, particularly by restoring upper edges (11). CAPTIVE BREEDING None at present (1981). Fisler maintained a captive colony for three years in the early 1960s, before the species was declared endangered (1). REMARKS For description of animal see (8,9). It is difficult to distinguish from the Western Harvest Mouse (R. megalotis) in the field (8). Prof. Howard S. Shellhammer of the Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose State University, kindly provided a draft of this data sheet in May 1981. REFERENCES 1. Fisler, G.F. (1965). Adaptations and speciation in Harvest Mice of the marshes of San Francisco Bay. Univ. of Calif. Pub. Zool. 77: 1-108. 2. Fisler, G.F. (1971). Age structure and sex ratio in populations of Reithrodontomys. J. Mammal. 52: 653-662. 3. Jones and Stokes et al. (1979). Protection and restoration of San Francisco Bay fish and wildlife habitat. Two volumes prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Dept. of Fish and Game. 4. National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory (1980). Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse. FSW/OBS-80101.28. In Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species of the seacoast of the United States. Biological Services Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 5. Pearson, O.O. (1960). Habitats of Harvest Mice revealed by automatic photographic recorders. J. Mammal. 41: 58-74. 6. Shellhammer, H.S. (1967). Cytotaxonomic studies of the Harvest Mice of the San Francisco Bay region. J. Mammal. 48: 549-555. 7. Shellhammer, H.S. (1977). Of mice and marshes. San Jose Studies, San Jose State University 3:23-35. 8. Shellhammer, H.S. (1981). Identification of Salt Marsh Harvest Mice, Reithrodontomys raviventris, in the field with cranial characteristics. California Department of Fish and Game, in press. 9. Shellhammer, H.S. (1981). Reithrodontomys raviventris. Mammalian Species, in press. American Society of 240 10. ll. Mammalogists. Shellhammer, H.S. (1981). In litt. Shellhammer, H.S. and Harvey, T. (1981). Recovery Plan for the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and the California Clapper Rail. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in prep. Wondolleck, J.T., Zolan, W. and Sterens, G.L. (1976). A population study of the Harvest Mice (Reithrodontomys raviventris Dixon) in the Palo Alto Baylands Salt marsh. Wesmann J. Biol. 34: 52-64. Zetterquist,, D. (1978). The Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris raviventris) in marginal habitats. Wasmann J. of Biology 35: 68-76. 241 ERD LPH ae WeaaMe Cy BPTI 9S robbed hos waste >3 theldtacth; eee aid + .ah atetios 1a yee ape | Oe NR AIRY” 9 yl Bere ie PREG -5 16 aw MM ate ivi bhnows» shih ae - Mh bee peiekt aitt. Se egies de seer : ‘ oF ADRES wilt Aontrbp = Paves wAates asd ‘ An olg-eatinah (ogKit, ‘elagne vivige ¢ iris ay “4 rt i ; 4 ae oe toric 5) BaF ites ise es a eh + 7" ‘ on t oi te . a . wi = a“ pavoli< taovtari;+tarh) éied CAB rahi aqtahupydd toa una : > x 4 i jailing ter; : hennpeyus fae 5, te trrovi WivGs-- aymornobesnsia.A >} ; % “a PBs “ yo Aad lo .C.saget metic ad i es : 4 5 4 ! _ it be a j “ 7 =~ 7 hams 4 a F i Oly OL | f ! : aD erty rl) Perera ry +: fe J <7 ~* te ‘fg ss Fle “as at £T my =e . ' vin hus i : ba Es ~ ¢ he he j * i2ot t 4 i 7 is 4 2 Jp — ~ ' RY oe i ws i pat ras f : Ce i Mite . 7" iy . N : iw : ¥ : dal aa ; =, P : oe ae ; ¥ ovidudt a Geass of thi 4 ta ¥ 7 ; f 3 pa : allie, re e : ; { ti ¢ an Ons : s . 4 o.¢ 1 it : . es) 1-B ete a oy, n tc tee Sh b Pw - ae Ide “| : f ope ceo Une le we ; i is C1431}. re ~ ot and » . ; i agit? 4 th; Fat ‘ ; © 7 pied chests + ot ton eee ~ - a ‘ne 4 ».< -. P aa i. A wees et +b ty + iP t f re i a P ‘ - 3 tO APs emg LA on . gaa ; e e¢ 4 « Ore t Ate BF, cise ANG ii i . : A Fee ents Sears Daa Berio " . ay : é : c, 42°94 2ad Lane, == } ib awe - ae einen Seer eS ee a Ae Sone i3sft an WLIGEtte , &ip errs es eTrk rT via y i ered 4 7 f Ve 1s ay efOUS-54 tt elO4 -Rt oT _ m te fo 4% me i ye fou ‘adda n 7 a oe y: Wales We: ares ao a 1 RABBIT-EARED TREE-RAT EXTINCT Conilurus albipes (Lichtenstein, 1829) Order RODENTIA Family MURIDAE SUMMARY Probably extinct. Formerly occurred in eastern Australia but was last recorded in 1875. Any populations which may be discovered should be afforded immediate protection. DISTRIBUTION Australia. Former distribution according to Gould was from the Darling Downs in southern Queensland to South Australia and the Port Phillip region of Victoria (1). Unrecorded since the last century, the last known specimen being about 1875 (2,3). POPULATION Almost certainly extinct (3). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Little known. It was apparently always associated with trees and according to Gould's observations was strictly nocturnal, sleeping during the day in a nest of dried leaves in a hollow log or branch (1). A female sent to Sir George Gray when he was Governor of South Australia had three young clinging firmly to its teats and in this position they were carried along with the female as she moved (1). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Unknown, though it seems likely that bush clearance during settlement and the introduction of feral predators, such as the cat in the 19th century and the fox in the early 1900s, were responsible for its presumed extinction. CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN _Included on the Official List of Endangered Australian Vertebrate Fauna. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Immediate protection of any areas where it is found to occur. CAPTIVE BREEDING None. REMARKS For description see (1,2,3). There are two specimens in Australian and a few in European Museums (2). Has also been known as the White-Footed Tree-rat or Rabbit-rat. The common name here used is that recommended in 1980 by the Australian Mammal Society. REFERENCES 1. Gould, J. (1863). The Mammals of Australia. Taylor and Francis, London. 2. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford Univ. Press, Melbourne. 3. Troughton, E. (1941). Furred animals of Australia. Angus and Robertson Ltd., Sydney. 243 ‘ ra. ed 3 oBhag 2 ' ra Sa FOMITRS An! ag TATA oe ? ae i ar : iis (SSE shiorenatigiS goal de By. * - SACHRUM eitings ; A AITAaOR cn : diana elena Se on ill, ee ee ser oe : " pieannrae hie hw fud_ issih *eizbe @ betiOs° ylraeniigt FOUTS Udeador " $4 Dipdda Bersyooelb od twat foiriw gnakmahxjeq Wma 218) «bebe i _ : te cad mary semis } Y “ brit quent 246 Sluoi) oF anibiosle rotsudiq2ib- ee blew AAG Tt Sig 104-S) bre aiisi2vA tHrv0t—or by elerisaui. mredtine nil a. hemizoge nwernd tel arlz “ynnes 328) eit! sonie/bebyosinll ).anets ; x [aye LS oan Ps ge gsayatehl } AE) som s49 vfaist99 teomnlA., ae a Se Wiethtonzey swls Urneiadge ew th “fAwona el ft. XX JOO iphiqoole yisuiaod yitolie zaw 2nolievisede e’DivoO af, i geubies 36 DAB? _ slemst A kL) Aeneid. wr yok. wrollort- a moves! beiT> yo team a nly \ gruoy Sadr bart: pileravA And to WMEVOD 25w of tty yan 8 a8 me feet gnely yal TIpS aww yor) MoOII2oq wiry it ‘one 2inST 23 OP Nae iar a = Kohl) benoehs # x on Paes me ey rhe * “pnb ast er tit igi ations 9 deuce! -qvrciiint? JA visti org TAL [SAT Aken 9H 26 dae rancid lexst to noltsubeomit oft BAS dna : cccanamaindas wl ines sags sve 200e! yee arty hi xe ot ~ ’ Te ‘ nt > yi ~ Na epee ome ann a bebvial VaNAT 2390209" ORI os belle ; SNUG ee roV tt nei whi REIS VE 46 naira, sigibomunt 93209089 Baan Nasa oF 0) ' - - ‘ ‘ | Feira sel ae 2 Laney vida aay a. a MeltearwA ci Pa oe out o16 ent 85,0) oe Adiiqindesb Wis . Patod To} oR 26 riword nodd cel 20H (8) msents ABoqoWs Ff ‘= hr sil sény 2) deen eed aivieer Pecopas* at ats on, LESSER STICK-NEST RAT EXTINCT Leporillus apicalis (Gould, 1853) Order RODENTIA Family MURIDAE SUMMARY Formerly widespread in Australia but not definitely recorded since 1933, though it may possibly still survive in arid inland regions such as the Gibson Desert. Surveys to try to locate this species would be desirable. DISTRIBUTION Australia. Former limits of range not precisely known though was originally widespread in central and southern Australia from Victoria west to the Gibson Desert in Western Australia. Separation of the remains of this species from those of the congeneric L. conditor (also an IUCN Red Data Book species) has proved difficult though it is generally accepted that the latter occurred further south and east (it is now believed extinct on the mainland) (9). In New South Wales and Victoria L. apicalis was recorded as common along the Darling and Murray Rivers (from about Euston westwards) in 1856-57 but was evidently exterminated there soon afterwards (5). Further west, nests were observed in 1872-73 near Mt. Peculiar in the northwest MacDonnells, central Australia, and the capture of two specimens of L. apicalis at Alice Springs in 1895 indicated that this was the species involved (3). In 1941 Finlayson thought the species probably still persisted in the Mt. Peculiar region (3). In 1903 Stick-nest Rats were described as plentiful in an area south of the Mann Range and were probably of this species (3). The most recent specimens were two collected in 1933 8 km west of Mt. Crombie south of the Mann and Musgrove Ranges in South Australia (3,5). There have been several reports in the 1970s of nests with fresh material in them from the arid inland regions of Western Australia, particularly from rocky areas to the north of the Leonora to Warburton Road, in the southern Gibson Desert (2,4,7). Their location suggests that they probably belong to L. apicalis and not L. conditor and remains from similar constructions in Western Australia have been positively identified as L. apicalis (2). However no definite proof of its survival has been obtained to date. POPULATION Unknown. If the species does indeed persist its population is likely to be very low. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Semi-arid shrubland in the southern portion of its distribution, and rocky ranges and dense mulga woodland in central Australia are described habitats (5,7). The genus Leporillus is notable for the construction of large, complex communal nests made from interwoven sticks. These are built in crevices and caves, or around bushes in the open, and may be up to | m high and 3 m across, though much larger nests were recorded in the 19th century (3,5,6,7,9). Krefft, who compiled habitat notes from the Murray plains in about 1864 stated that the rats were nocturnal and gregarious, living in hollow trees as well as in stick-nests (6). Watts and Eves analysed old faecal pellets found in northern South Australia, almost certainly from this species, and found a very high proportion (up to 70%) of remains of the succulent perennial Bassia eriacantha. Studies of captive L. conditor indicate that they cannot survive for long without free water and its is thought that Stick-nest Rats had to rely on a specialised diet of water-rich plants to survive in their arid or semi-arid habitat (9). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Habitat alteration by stock-rearing and agriculture, and by introduced rabbits, was almost certainly a significant factor in New South Wales and Victoria. Their probable dependence on succulent perennials is likely to have brought them into direct competition with introduced animals such as 245 rabbits, sheep and cattle leading to their rapid disappearance from areas as these invaders appeared, in contrast to other desert rodents (e.g. Rattus villosissimus, Pseudomys spp. and small Notomys spp.) whose less specialised diet allowed them to survive (9). However, in much of its range in central and possibly Western Australia the habitat remains largely undisturbed by these factors (2,3). Finlayson attributed its decline to hunting by aborigines, its communal and distinctive nesting habit making it especially susceptible (3), but this would not explain how it persisted in apparent abundance until the time of European settlement. The most likely cause outside areas of pastoralization would appear to be predation by feral cats and foxes, the former introduced in the nineteenth century, the latter in the early 1900s. CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Legally protected and appears on the Official List of Endangered Australian Vertebrate Fauna. At least some of the nests discovered in the Gibson Desert are in the proposed Baker Lake Conservation Area (2). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Any viable populations discovered should immediately be afforded full protection. CAPTIVE BREEDING Krefft described the species as easily tamed at his camps in the bush (6), and experience with Leporillus conditor indicates that maintenance in captivity should be straightforward (1). REMARKS For description see (5,6,8). This data sheet was compiled from a draft kindly provided in 1978 by Dr C.H.S. Watts. REFERENCES 1. Aslin, H.J. (1972). Nest-building by Leporillus conditor in captivity. S. Austr. Naturalist 47: 43-46. 2. Burbidge, A.A., McKenzie, N.L., Chapman, A. and Lambert, P.M. (1976). The wildlife of some existing and proposed reserves in the Great Victoria and Gibson Deserts, Western Australia. Wildl. Res. Bull. West. Aust. 5: 1-16. 3. Finlayson, H.H. (1941). On Central Australian mammals: Part I]. The Muridae. Trans. R. Soc. S. Aust. 63: 88-118. 4. Gratte, S. (1972). The Stick-nest Rat Leporillus conditor in the Gibson Desert. West. Australian Naturalist. 12(3): 50-51. 5. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. 6. Troughton, E. (1941). Furred animals of Australia. Angus and Robertson Ltd. Sydney. 7. Watts, C.H.S. (1979). The status of endangered Australian rodents. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal Zool. Soc. S. Aust. 8. Watts, .C.H.S; and.» Aslin,oHe» (1981)... Thes;rodents.s of Australia. Angus and Robertson Ltd., Sydney. 9. Watts, C.H.S. and Eves, B.M. (1976). Notes on the nests and diet of the White-tailed Stick-nest Rat Leporillus apicalis, in northern South Australia. S. Aust. Naturalist 51(1): 9-12. 246 GREATER STICK-NEST RAT RARE Leporillus conditor (Sturt, 1848) Order RODENTIA Family MURIDAE SUMMARY Only known population is confined to Franklin Island off South Australia, though it may conceivably still exist on the Australian mainland. The Franklin Island population is fully protected and apparently stable but must be considered potentially vulnerable to fire, introduced predators and herbivores. DISTRIBUTION Australia, where now only occurs with certainty on Franklin Island (about 500 ha) in the Nuyts Archipelago off the South Australian coast (1,6,10). Extant limits of its former range on the mainland are unknown; it is known to have ranged over central southern Australia, probably from the south bank of the Murray River in Victoria as far west as the eastern part of the Nullarbor Plain in Western Australia. Its northern limit seems to have been around latitude 28°S in the north of the Lake Eyre Basin, South Australia 655;9,10). POPULATION Unknown. In 1978 the only available estimate for the Franklin Island population was 5000 although Watts questions the accuracy of this figure. The 1970 population there was estimated at 1500-2000 with no apparent decrease a year later despite a very dry summer intervening (1). On the mainland it was said to have originally been locally very plentiful but declined rapidly following settlement and by 1856-57 had become very rare in the River Darling area and extinct south of the Murray River (6). Further north and west it persisted longer; the last mainland museum specimens were caught at Ooldea on the eastern edge of the Nullarbor Plain in 1921 (7,8), though Finlayson stated it had persisted up to around 1931 in the Lake Eyre Basin and in 1961 he considered it still present near the southern margin of the Nullarbor Plain (15). If it does still exist there, numbers must be very low. There have been several reports in the 1970s of fresh-looking nests in the Gibson Desert area of Western Australia but their locality suggests the congeneric L. apicalis rather than L. conditor and remains from at least one (old) nest have been ascribed to the former species (2,4,10). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY The genus Leporillus is remarkable for the construction of elaborate stick-nests which are usually built in shallow caves or crevices or around the base of bushes. Sticks up to 50 cm long are used and nests can be up to Im high and 3 m across with one or more interconnected nest chambers. The nests provide a refuge against predators and temperature extremes and may house several individuals (1,5,6,10,14,15). Habitat is semi-arid or arid shrubland, or low steppe (6,10). The diet of the Franklin Island population consists principally of succulents such as Tetragona implexicana, Carpobrotus rossii and Nitraria schoberi though in captivity the species is relatively unselective (1,6,15); captive specimens however cannot survive without free water for more than about six days and it is thought that the species is dependent in its arid natural environment on food plants with a high moisture content. Faecal pellets from northern South Australia, believed to be from L. apicalis, contained a very high proportion of the succulent perennial, Bassia eriacantha (14). The date of breeding appeared to vary throughout the species' range, probably being dependent on seasonal and climatic conditions (6). Gestation period is about 44 days and | to 4 well-developed young are born which are moved about attached to the nipples (6). On Franklin Island the rat is predated on by Barn Owls (Tyto alba) and Black Tiger Snakes (Notechis ater), though the intensity of such predation Is not known (6). ~ (eeRE, 247 THREATS TO SURVIVAL Reasons for decline on the mainland were probably habitat alteration by agriculture, stock raising and introduced herbivores, especially rabbits, and the introduction of predators such as foxes and feral cats. Watts and Eves have suggested that their apparent dependence on water-rich perennial plants may have brought the species into direct competition with cattle, sheep and rabbits and may have been an important factor in their rapid disappearance as the introduced species spread on the mainland in contrast to other desert rodents such as Rattus villosissimus, Pseudomys spp. and Notomys spp. whose less specialised diets may have allowed them to escape direct competition and thus persist (14). Wood-Jones additionally identified deliberate burning of nests, and trarnpling by cattle as important factors in settled areas (15). The small size of Franklin Island and of the population there makes it extremely vulnerable to fire and the introduction of rabbits or predators (10). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Included in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products therefore being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Legally protected and appears on the Official List of Endangered Australian Vertebrate Fauna. Since 1972 Franklin Island has been included in the Nuyts Archipelago Conservation Park. It is under the control of the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and is classified as a Prohibited Area (6). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Any population discovered on the mainland should be immediately protected. Monitoring of the population and habitat on Franklin Island is considered of great importance and Watts has noted that at present (1981) this is not being carried out (12). Possible sites for the establishment of new populations should be investigated; this would guard against complete extinction should the Franklin Island population be wiped out. CAPTIVE BREEDING The species has proved relatively easy to maintain in captivity (6). Watts succeeded in breeding from wild caught specimens in the 1970s but no captive-born females have raised litters (11). REMARKS For description see (13). The Franklin Island population was originally named a separate species, Leporillus jonesi, but is now recognised as L. conditor (5,6,13). This data sheet was compiled from a draft provided in 1978 by Dr C.H.S. Watts, and he, Dr A.K. Lee of the IUCN/SSC Rodent Specialist Group and Dr. A.C. Robinson of the SSC Australian Mammal Specialist Group kindly commented on the final draft. REFERENCES 1. Aslin, H.J. (1972). Nest-building by Leporillus conditor in Captivity. S. Austr. Naturalist 47: 43-46. 2. Burbidge, A.A., McKenzie, N.L., Chapman, A. and Lambert, P.M. (1976). The wildlife of some existing and proposed reserves in the Great Victoria and Gibson Deserts, Western Australia. Wildl. Res. Bull. West. Aust. 5: 1-16. 3. Finlayson, H.H. (1961). On Central Australian mammals Part IV. The distribution and status of Central Australian species. Rec. S. Aust. Mus. 14: 141-191. 4. Gratte, S. (1972). The Stick-nest Rat Leporillus conditor in the Gibson Desert. West. Australian Naturalist. 12(3): 50-51. 5. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. 6. Robinson, A.C. (1975). The Stick-nest Rat Leporillus conditor, on Franklin Island, Nuyts Archipelago, South Australia. Austr. Mammal. 1(4): 319-327. 7. Troughton, E. le G. (1923). A revision of the rats of the 248 15. 16. genus Leporillus and the status of Hapalotis personata Krefft. Rec. Aust. Mus. 14: 23-41. Troughton, E. le G. (1924). The stick-nest building rat of Australia. Aust. Mus. Mag. 11: 18-23. Troughton, E. le G. (1941). Furred animals of Australia. Angus and Robertson Ltd., Sydney. Watts, C.H.S. (1979). The status of endangered Australian rodents. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal Zool. Soc. S. Aust. Watts, C.H.S. (1980). Success rates in founding captive colonies of Australian rodents and marsupials. In Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.), International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. Watts, C.H.S. (1981). In litt. Watts, C.H.S. and Aslin, H.J. (1981). The Rodents of Australia. Angus and Robertson, Sydney. Watts, C.H.S. and Eves, B.M. (1976). Notes on the nests and diet of the White-tailed Stick-nest Rat, Leporillus apicalis in Northern South Australia. S. Austr. Naturalist 51(1): 9-12. Wood-Jones, F. (1923-25). The Mammals of South Australia. The Government Printer, Adelaide. Robinson, A.C. (1981). In litt. 249 P Lee eee) ae ee ——— 3 gear ie sad cows dus daOenS § Be oe Rr aiter ea or) aoe ee | COT aaa rm ars an up Pte OS4% ate xsi 2M en ai Gane But ui, wo thy > " is F RPT tT Pens eyo iano ofthat vipgsti : Ee Fie et \, a ¥ - eh PAE tee ye SE Bris saa At ere F os ? K ; : , é ly AORERBON 4994 arwoI4: de) Serbs ‘330? Tee UPS aes % hi ali a a nm . g > - p? hci » mig: ~ De sgn stit fe cOTUrs Yr VRE eat ‘ naire. fe) ame Sais IODA, oe MOOS, TEYOH STi ae elit ic ae to he ov iperadtnder Hiv esr Redode “Ae PRE: il eo epyat st pntuts ¥ aL my zi 1? eee 4n¥ t= TPAD mi erat isaenhh To Mtholoy ae ‘S$ Wy 406) AGS2 JOG) Xoddielely be Deabpaiiteedl nd ee peRpaticy’y mel’ Siok! re | LHS anew. ‘am ‘o ay igo ) ; ey : we o tty eS (Ht Lyte ee te ate ual mn he po MAES, BaW SE DAR Pee r. FiSe" e Wye 9 ria 4 4 ow SoC eopit Y ies 4 lal side's 1c VAG Vee treed ; apts Coe ‘a ~~, AX ats * Sf *? c; ; ‘ y “~ ry « a a | th SiniSva,y ait” ale) ys ( és “ ; : 5 sige t 4 Ro WIS Ms t sae sh v6 +e12e) " eas : : 4) i pit. Mesh a ra ¥a ri we . gyr (8) atid ie non being Wt é < Opa > Srv a” fe tore : wiry | an Es. ay ‘ > t r . ian r hie it hy rad ’ 4 ‘ ae b dation? = ; re Gear i is i gle Mis . ’ wir rg TAL t ght 1 at? ; ; ’ , 7 ’ at ‘ y Ie ik f oot Tice T Sly ‘ , < nd Yael met oe ‘ 5 i 4 v7 4g F i = 7 ° a “dd © = Oh Ne > ' = : a . a® é « ala ™ \ i , me ht evens 19 vera ie a} 4 i ~. j =a F or J 3 P ) te, io : : 4 = =i. = ~ 7 : Le.¢tr ; " sy ‘oP > J ‘ rl ~~ : he we « 4 & si ag e 8 MEPS SS. 1 - Shes ’ 7 x ay, : e ; i i» 7h oa A j . ‘ ea wwe live Cwatt ee and Cid | » , Thee ; tres —— ont. * Sao) ‘ t ‘ . SET eee we? 1, fous; Fhidh,. Bivens. Aust ere | \ c ' -~ “73 : hee 5 ete e' a wr oer eee ob —— = aN Zak q : ps yay > ir bvlte 42 9B t, im BAe AUViTe Snel : a lity, 4 hu: dhetcrtivelory. aed Aone aba BEACH VOLE RARE Microtus breweri (Baird, 1857) Order RODENTIA Family MURIDAE SUMMARY Endemic to the tiny island of Muskeget off the Massachusetts coast, U.S.A. A single population exists with a restricted habitat and is at risk to hurricanes and fires. No conservation measures have yet been taken but the rodent is the subject of studies by R.H. Tamarin. DISTRIBUTION Muskeget Island, 2.6 sq. km, 32 km south of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, U.S.A. (2,5). Two-thirds of the island is privately owned and the remaining third belongs to the County of Nantucket. For map see (5). POPULATION Apparently near extinction in the late 19th century (1,6), but R.H. Tamarin who has recently studied the species reported in 198! that the population had recovered and was now relatively stable. He noted that lowest numbers occur in late winter and early spring, though some areas of more suitable habitat maintain a steady high density (3). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Muskeget lies just within the terminal moraine of the last glaciation (5) and is a tiny area of a vanished sandplain which once extended along the Atlantic coast of North America from New Jersey to Newfoundland. Muskeget separated from nearby islands (Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard) and Cape Cod between one and three thousand years ago, due to glacial melt (2). The dominant vegetation on the island is Beach Grass (Ammophila breviligulata) and Poison Ivy (Rhus radicans), although fresh and salt water marsh areas and open dunes also exist. The island is a major breeding ground for Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus) and Great Black-backed Gulls (L. marinus). The only other terrestrial mammal on the island is the White-footed Mouse, Peromyscus leucopus. Predators of the vole are Marsh Hawks (Circus cyaneus) and Short-eared Owls (Asio flammeus) (4). In habits, the Beach Vole closely resembles the Meadow Vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Runways are constructed above ground through the Beach Grass, and nests are built both above and below ground. If no shelter is available, short (30-60 cm), steeply sloping burrows are constructed terminating in a bulky nest (5). The voles appear to prefer low wet grassy areas and during periods of low abundance can only be found in this habitat (1). Miller in 1896 reported breeding to occur throughout the 'warm season' with litters of four or five (1). He also reported that the voles fed on the tender bases of Beach Grass stalks and stored caches of this in the autumn (1). THREATS TO SURVIVAL According to Miller, M. breweri became extinct on Muskeget in 1891, probably because of feral cat predation (1). 26 voles were reintroduced in 1893 from Southwest Point Island which itself no longer exists (1,5). Tamarin reports the current principal threats to be hurricanes and fires (6), he does not mention the existence of feral cats on the island. Currently the isolated location of the island, its limited use and the abundance of Poison Ivy all contribute to minimal disturbance of the island's ecosystem. CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN No specific conservation measures have been taken. R.H. Tamarin is currently (1981) studying this species (3,4,5). The Species Survival Commission of IUCN established a Rodent Specialist Group in 1980 and they will be reviewing the status of this taxon with a view to recommending appropriate conservation action. This species is not included on the U.S. Endangered Species List. 251 CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Continued monitoring of the status of this species and the implementation of appropriate conservation measures should they become necessary. CAPTIVE BREEDING No information, but it would be advisable to establish a captive colony. REMARKS For description see (5). Interestingly, the Beach Vole does not exhibit the population cycles of its mainland counterparts. It has also shown adaptations to island isolation of larger body size and reduced litter size as compared to the Meadow Vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus, from which it evolved; the two are sometimes considered conspecific (4). This data sheet was compiled from a draft kindly provided in 1981 by Robert H. Tamarin. REFERENCES 1. Miller, G.S. Jr. (1896). The Beach Mouse of Muskeget Island. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 27: 75-87. 2. Starrett, A. (1958). Insular variation in mice of the Microtus pennsylvanicus group in southeastern Massachusetts. Ph. D. dissertation, Univ. Michigan, 137 pp. 3. Tamarin, R. (1977). Demography of the Beach Vole (Microtus breweri) and the Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) in southeastern Massachusetts. Ecology 58: 1310-1321. 4. Tamarin, R. (1978). Disperal, population regulation, and K-selection in field mice. Amer. Natur. 112: 545-555. 5. Tamarin, R.H. and Kunz, T.H. (1974). Microtus breweri. Mammal. Spec. 45: 1-3. The American Society of Mammalogists. 6. Wetherbee, D.K., Coppinger, R.P. and Walsh, R.E. (1972). Time lapse ecology, _Muskeget Island, _ Nantucket, Massachusetts. MSS Educational Publ. Co., New York, 173 PP- 252 SHORT-TAILED HOPPING-MOUSE EXTINCT Notomys amplus Brazenor, 1936 Order RODENTIA Family MURIDAE SUMMARY Known from two specimens collected in 1894 and from remains in owl pellets, all from northern South Australia. May be extinct but could survive in remote areas. DISTRIBUTION Australia. Limits of distribution unknown. Two specimens were collected by the Horn Expedition in 1894 in the Charlotte Waters district on the north central border of South Australia (2,3,5,6). Finlayson in 1961 noted that the Aborigines of the Musgrave Ranges, east of Charlotte Waters, had a name (‘Arruja') for a species of Notomys much larger than N. alexis ('Dargawarra'), though it seemed almost legendary by that time. This could have been N. amplus (2). Remains of the species have also been identified in owl pellets dated at 100 to 200 years BP from the Flinders Range, northern South Australia (4,6). POPULATION Unknown. Probably extinct. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Unknown. Notomys species in general are adapted to desert conditions. They are nocturnal, largely vegetarian and construct complex burrow systems (3,6). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Unknown, though predation by feral cats and competitive displacement by introduced rabbits and rodents have been suggested as factors which threaten all Notomys species (1). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN All Notomys species are legally protected in Australia and are included in Appendix 2 of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in them or their products is thus subject to monitoring by ratifying nations. N. amplus is included on the Official List of Endangered Australian Vertebrate Fauna. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED None, other than protection of any areas where a population may be discovered. CAPTIVE BREEDING None. REMARKS For description see (6). This is the largest of the genus Notomys, though is only very slightly larger than N. longicaudatus, another species listed in the IUCN Red Data Book, from which it differs in having a relatively shorter tail and longer ears (3). Dr. C.H.S. Watts kindly commented on a draft of this data sheet. REFERENCES 1. Anon. (1980). Australian submission to CITES. No.18-19. Unpd. 3pp. 2. Finlayson, H.H. (1961). On Central Australian mammals Part IV. The distribution and status of Central Australian species. Rec. S. Aust. Mus. 14: 141-191. 3. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. 4. Smith, M.J. (1977). The remains of mammals, including Notomys longicaudatus (Gould) (Rodentia: Muridae) in owl pellets from the Flinders Range, South Australia. Aust. 253 254 Wild. Res. 4: 159-170. Troughton, E. (1941). Furred animals of Australia. Angus and Robertson Ltd., Sydney. Watts, C.H.S. and Aslin, H.J. (1981). The Rodents of Australia. Angus and Robertson, Sydney. NORTHERN HOPPING-MOUSE INSUFFICIENTLY KNOWN Notomys aquilo Thomas,1921 Order RODENTIA Family MURIDAE SUMMARY Recorded from Groote Eylandt off northern Australia and at two sites on the north coast of Australia. May be moderately common in suitable sand-dune habitat but little collecting has beeen carried out in much of its presumed range and surveys are needed to establish its status and distribution. DISTRIBUTION Northern Australia. Occurs on Groote Eylandt in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Northern Territory, where 13 were collected in 1948 from the region of Umbakumba (1,2). In 1975 it was reported as still present in sandy areas there (4). In addition one specimen was caught near the Calvert River in western Arnhem Land, Northern Territory in 1979 and one somewhere on Cape York Peninsula, in northern Queensland around 1860 (4), though the reliability of the latter record has been questioned (6). POPULATION Present status unknown, though in 1978 it was reported that it may be moderately common in some areas (4). The Umbakumba population was described as 'flourishing' when discovered by the Arnhem Land expedition of 1948. Failure to find the species on Cape York Peninsula since the first record, if correct, may be owing to lack of searching in the right habitats (6). It is probably a rare animal in western Arnhem Land although only limited collecting has been carried out in appropriate habitat (4). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Found on light, sandy soils in coastal dunes, where it constructs complex burrows (2). Young were observed on Groote Eylandt in June in litters of 3 or 4 (2). Little else is known about its biology, though it is assumed to be similar to other Notomys species in being nocturnal and feeding principally on grass seeds and other vegetable matter supplemented by occasional insects (3). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Unknown. Much of Groote Eylandt is under mining leases (4), but the effect of this on the mouse's habitat is unknown. CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN All Notomys species are listed in Appendix 2 of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and trade in them or their products is thus subject to monitoring by ratifying nations. Fully protected by legislation in the Northern Territory (4) and appears on the Official List of Endangered Australian Vertebrate Fauna. Much of its presumed range is also within national parks or Aboriginal reserves (4). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Assessment of its status on Groote Eylandt and appropriate measures to protect populations there are recommended. Surveys of the presumed range in Arnhem Land would also be desirable. CAPTIVE BREEDING As far as is known this species has never been kept in Captivity. REMARKS For description see (2,4,5). The Groote Eylandt population was originally named Notomys carpentarius but is now included in N. aquilo, named in 1921 from the Cape York specimen (5). This data sheet was compiled from a draft provided in 1978 by Dr C.H.S. Watts, and G.W. Saunders, Director of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, kindly commented on the sheet. 255 REFERENCES 256 lle Johnson, D.H. (1959). Four new mammals from the Northern Territory of Australia. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 72: 183-187. Johnson, D.H. (1964). Mammals. In Specht, R.L. (Ed.), Records of the American-Australian Scientific Expedition to Arnhem Land 4: 427-515. Melbourne University Press. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Watts, C.H.S. (1979). The status of endangered Australian rodents. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal Zool. Soc. S. Aust. Watts, C.H.S. and Aslin, H.J. (1981). The Rodents of Australia. Angus and Robertson, Sydney. Winter, J.W. and Allison, F.R. (1979). The native mammals of Cape York Peninsula - changes in status since the 1948 Archbold Expedition. In Stevens, N.C. and Bailey, A. (Eds), Contemporary Cape York Peninsula. Roy. Soc. Queensland. LONG-TAILED HOPPING-MOUSE EXTINCT Notomys longicaudatus (Gould, 1844) Order RODENTIA Family MURIDAE SUMMARY Has been collected from two widely separate regions of Australia, most recently in 1901, though is also known from 'recent' owl pellet remains. Possibly extinct though may still survive in remote arid regions. DISTRIBUTION Australia. Limits of range are unknown. Has been collected from widely separated areas: in the region of New Norcia on the Moore River north of Perth, Western Australia, where the type specimen was collected in 1843, and in central Australia where over 30 specimens were collected around 1900 - on Bert Plains north of Alice Springs, at Mt. Burrel (northwest of Idracowra), in 1894, at Barrow Creek in 190! and in the Coonbaralba Range near Broken Hill (1,2,3,4,6). In 1973 it was reported that 'recent' ow! pellets from a cave in the Highland Rocks area of the Northern Territory contained remains of either this species or of N. fuscus (5), and owl pellets dated 100-200 years BP from the Flinders Range, northern South Australia, contained remains positively identified as N. longicaudatus (7). POPULATION Unknown; may be extinct, having not been definitely recorded for 80 years. In 1960 Finlayson stated that there were vague reports of the species in central Australia and it was possible that it still survived there (3) - Notomys species often show patchy and erratic, highly local distribution, occasionally becoming common in years following particularly favourable climatic conditions (as this species did in 1901), but being easily overlooked the rest of the time (3,6). N. longicaudatus was the fourth most abundant species identified in 3 owl pellet deposits from the Flinders Range (see above), after Rattus villosissimus, Notomys fuscus and Pseudomys gouldii, implying that some change of status may have occurred since the deposits were laid down (7). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Unknown. Notomys species in general are herbivorous, burrowing, nocturnal rodents well adapted to desert and semi-desert conditions (6,8,9). Gilbert noted that this species preferred to burrow in clay soil rather than sand in the Moore River region (8). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Unknown, though presurnably vulnerable to introduced predators such as foxes and feral cats, and to habitat modification by rabbits and domestic livestock. CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN All Notomys species are legally protected and are included in Appendix 2 of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, thus trade in them or their products is subject to monitoring by ratifying nations. N. longicaudatus is included on the Official List of Endangered Australian Vertebrate Fauna. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Immediate effective protection of any areas found to contain this species. CAPTIVE BREEDING None. REMARKS For description see (9). Dr. A.K. Lee of tne IUCN/SSC Rodent Specialist Group and Dr. C.H.S. Watts kindly commented in 1981 on a draft of this data sheet. 257 REFERENCES 258 Le Anon. (1973). Additional protection for rare fauna. State Wildlife Authority News Service (West. Australia) 4(2): 31-33. Brazenor, C.W. (1934). A revision of the Australian jerboa mice. Mem. Nat. Mus. Melb. 8: 74-89. Finlayson, H.H. (1961). On Central Australian mammals Part IV. The distribution and status of Central Australian species. Rec. S. Aust. Mus. 14: 141-191. Lee, A.K. (1981). In litt. Parker, S.A. (1973). An annotated checklist of the native land mammals of the Northern Territory. Rec. S. Aust. Mus. 16(11): 1-57. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Smith, M.J. (1977). The remains of mammals, including Notomys longicaudatus (Gould) (Rodentia: Muridae) in owl pellets from the Flinders Range, South Australia. Aust. Wildl. Res. 4: 159-170. Troughton, E. (1941). Furred animals of Australia. Angus and Robertson Ltd. Sydney. Watts, C.H.S. and Aslin, H.J. (1981). The Rodents of Australia. Angus and Robertson, Sydney. BIG-EARED HOPPING-MOUSE EXTINCT Notomys macrotis Thomas, 1921 Order RODENTIA Family MURIDAE SUMMARY Probably extinct; the only two specimens known were collected in Australia before 1850. DISTRIBUTION Australia. Known only from two specimens; one obtained at the Moore River, in the vicinity of New Norcia, Western Australia in 1843 and the other, of unknown date and locality, purchased from Gould by the British Museum some time after 1840 (2). POPULATION Unknown, probably extinct. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Unknown. Notomys species in general are herbivorous, burrowing, nocturnal rodents well adapted to desert and semi-desert conditions (3). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Unknown. CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN All Notomys species are listed in Appendix 2 of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and trade in them or their products is thus subject to monitoring by ratifying nations. N. macrotis is legally protected in Western Australia (1), and is included on the Official List of Endangered Australian Vertebrate Fauna as Notomys megalotis. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Effective protection of any areas found to hold populations of this species. CAPTIVE BREEDING None. REMARKS The only material available is in poor condition and external characteristics are not distinguishable (2). N. megalotis has been used in place of N. macrotis. Dr. C.H.S. Watts kindly commented on a draft of this data sheet. REFERENCES 1. Anon. (1973). Additional protection for rare fauna. State Wildlife Authority News Service (West. Australia) 4(2): 31-33. 2. Mahoney, J.A. (1975). Notomys macrotis Thomas, 1921, a poorly known’ Australian Hopping-mouse (Rodentia: Muridae). Aust. Mammal 1: 367-374. 3. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. 259 eae St apm 2 - ¥ { ran be “er . 7 oh 8. iA ith manag stg + Y bp ie eit ad 7a Dy, a) : Tes WROD. F airtel Ad Ba. . 3 } _ of) hi bara9sto5 srew Ay OTL By\! ime Adee 5 at sd io ag, 2: atrAe YEG - f es - é eat? ay AL : ; h = mf ar : A 4 7 his Of v hae Tet EE. ae art iat sail ran wind efi a hous ce | sof tigo Me? auartey Pak) | ont bas € TH Bp ae ag ae rh Vs: aw 4 ba peta age? fur Tak E asf even re ; he Pod eS Lr) ia Msi,’ te 48k kM) WHI4S YB bi warty ; id ee al fi MS a hee E = of 7 +z) tag - ie Genes of | eeibece | avira ee 271624b LL Crteae hey hae be ay T "‘SErr, Rip Vel es; eg eae ATTN, itt 320 Gl VOSGES Lis’ a ony" = : a i) = be es / nor iat hy pth het ‘bymbio “Wh WaAKT —easVAAaM y nedeae bs rrgceb nc BIT lenotismsini no deiinaver “e) kX rer 44 : oP: +99 Uwe Sits 2h are uot’ Sort 2@ Msnt oi obey ‘brs . Bolt! ons 2 ae wiateoW md beosiorq Yleysi ai. elyoxzse i .enowen cp ees vid j oat wrt IS TRBLSONE ‘Yo seit Jai: me 8 ito any. no thet file ab te Sabian TR te Ay me 2, dip@lagam ayin orev od na We iss, | s- . <' ee : ee a: ‘eASe (On ig. Tos sstow, svitoeity UStOdWORS . 20’ psig ni boaw nad bart givolByert se oF. lds lalugniteid tom 916.20! tty .feade ated eint to lew, 6 10 iin ai 30’ Vibniw ere 2.4 nd vA oo ot Ai be ; ; ta & } : Sthie . See? S187 Ww NOlssI on tanoisi bv sateen): aati RS7+ {aligrieuA teow) soivise ewol) _JioAuA «Stitt ips — = 2 Cn ee, ee ees et ee = ge pees ; ae 5 oS {So 6, 58@! aemod?l . eitowwet Eyin6 ov tes ei}. “AE “eanonats bea were wlinston). ON euomzgniggot nelle wey Awol > -—hood-._° Sere a ay cet . opXE b - + or) ,2 ‘ i i =A ey Ais a c wing ; » Seat 4 A P a , - . ; ; i. ‘ _ j ‘ © j : , ; es ‘° ’ ¢ s 2 eee a —~ nt oe ee and DARLING DOWNS HOPPING-MOUSE EXTINCT Notomys mordax Thomas, 1922 Order RODENTIA Family MURIDAE SUMMARY Probably extinct; known from a single specimen collected in Queensland some time prior to 1846. May be an invalid species. DISTRIBUTION Australia. The only known specimen is a damaged skull, among material stated to have come from the Darling Downs in Queensland, registered in the British Museum collection in 1846 (1). POPULATION Probably extinct. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Unknown; other Notomys species are burrowing, nocturnal and largely vegetarian. In general they are adapted to desert conditions (1). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Unknown. CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN All Notomys species are included in Appendix 2 of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and trade in them or their products is thus subject to monitoring by ratifying nations. N. mordax is on the Official List of Endangered Australian Vertebrate Fauna. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Any area where the species may be found should be afforded immediate protection. CAPTIVE BREEDING None. REMARKS There are no details of external description (1). REFERENCES 1. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford Univ. Press, Melbourne. 261 on! Wh, Sic. oe 4 - im) i a ie ' We ! x Lay ar = } aj ee FI Ry ec ey 4 Ue MIT XY ae | Wh aor: SACIRUM via of | i i ) i ae yee 4 ny * tiny! “pentane een nl pt qrempteheny to senate ak ee ethimtngemeyinbintedipiiee hori demi EE AE NG Caw Stee athe i py \ } t } i Mf ‘ y, , : Ne. as PY he ee pa Al. baervolton nainigeqe sinter’ ¢ niet Brae fadkiva eidsdoabes’ = eee bilsynt ng sd eM; PORE Ot ro bye ‘wend, smog res: ia a ty j UCME , tigst bagameb # ei ivi aaa woratel ann oat gtleiauA ue rn _ Hk Dowseige4 a oi > al anwoed patted eit (nary sbericr: Qi tht on 'Bet Apo ed mi ti eat toniay chia e sel ce aye aA on ow eae $a 5 "] a ee niece wis eoisege | “noIOVs, Sartre swansinis, epost eee Latolsibtes, ia of: baagebe 21 th ads ierasioy al ses a royal _— = r a Cs r * nftm gt — Ae 28 Hotolk WA. UaNAT. 2aHUe Ag Hon borane a | oka cobemesat ab fipkinsvios 'fel ss Boni berg vot 16 Hiss? Mm. sbean bos ,é10l4 San, é = aot 9 en Na a 4 ainditen eats i , ; . brn + en : giards ~ ca | Tepe Oi ; ; ae xe aha yk erat 6876 OA a ee De Ta n . owe ye ee ko - : . ; Pi f aie : 1 is ‘ : Fr Bi nigioen jeniores e aljstad ona SILVER RICE RAT INDETERMINATE Oryzomys argentatus Spitzer & Lazell, 1978 Order RODENTIA Family MURIDAE SUMMARY A recently described species, discovered in 1973 and known from very few specimens, apparently confined to freshwater marshes in the lower Florida Keys, U.S.A. Habitat is very vulnerable to destruction through drainage and filling in for development and only tiny remnants now remain. The species has been proposed for inclusion on the US. Endangered Species List. DISTRIBUTION U.S.A. where confined to the lower Florida Keys, Monroe County, Florida (1,2,3,4,7). By 1981 only 8 specimens had been collected, all since the winter of 1973 when 2 were collected from a small freshwater marsh (about 0.3 ha) on Cudjoe Key (5,7). A third specimen was rather close to the type locality in 1979 (7), and in winter 1980-81 five more were trapped in the Keys, though their precise locality is not given (5). POPULATION Unknown. Trapping over a period of five years up to 1979 in suitable habitat (totalling only about 2 ha) on Cudjoe, Little Torch, Middle Torch, Sugarloaf and Big Pine Keys failed to produce any specimens and Humphrey and Barbour concluded that the species was extinct (2). Since then, however, six additional individuals have been obtained (5,7). Spitzer and Lazell conclude that the very low success rate of live trapping may be because the species is trap-shy, requiring a considerable time before it will enter any traps set, and most trapping has been carried out only for short periods at a time (4). Humphrey and Barbour have noted that the species' home range size is likely to be similar to that of the closely related and widespread Oryzomys palustris which exhibits an average of 0.33 ha for males and 0.2! ha for females. This is relatively large compared to the total area of apparently suitable remaining habitat and implies that the overall population is likely to be low (2). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY The type locality is a small freshwater marsh (formed from a broad, shallow solution hole in the coral bedrock) in the centre of a 10 ha tropical hammock (1,2,3,4). It is bordered mostly by Red Mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) with Buttonwood (Conocarpus erecta), Black Mangrove (Avicennia erminans) and Sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) and is dominated by Cattails (Typha domingensis) along its edge; at the centre, where water depth varies from 0.5 to 2 m according to season, Cattails become sparse and vegetation is principally Cordgrass (Spartina spp.) (1,2,3,4). The rat is also reported as venturing into adjacent salt savannah and mangrove swamps (6). Life history details are poorly known, though are likely to be similar to Oryzomys palustris (1,2). The latter species is markedly amphibious and swims and dives well; it is nocturnal and diet appears to consist primarily of seeds and the succulent parts of available plants, though a study in coastal Georgia found animal matter, particularly insects and small crabs, to be of considerable importance in summer and autumn (1). In Louisiana breeding season is from February to November and litters of one to five, born after a gestation period of 25 days, have been recorded (1). A pair of O. argentatus captured in the winter of 1980/81 were reported in April 1981 as having produced a litter of three young (5). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Habitat destruction appears to be by far the most important threat (2,3,4,7). Freshwater marshes were once a common habitat on the lower Keys but have now mostly been destroyed either through drainage for development (which is rampant in the Keys) or road building, or for mosquito 263 control - in the latter case ditches are dug through the limestone bedrock which allows the marshes to be inundated wth salt-water thus killing the natural vegetation. Only very small areas of freshwater marsh remain on the Keys (2,3,4,7). The type locality is immediately adjacent to U.S. Route 1. which was reported in March 1980 as being re-bedded and widened and in 1979 it was stated that a plan had been formulated to fill and develop those parts of the marsh on private property (2,7). Spitzer has noted that the species appears 'dependent on a very tenuous system affected by the weather which causes environmental fluctuations in the marsh, and the whim of the landowner', and also that in especially dry seasons Cotton Rats (Sigmodon hispidus) invade the inner marsh and may compete with Rice Rats for food and nesting sites (3). Persistent herbicidal spraying of the marsh which destroys Cattails and poisons food supplies may in part explain the apparent present rarity of O. argentatus (3,4) and will pose a continuing threat. CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN The species is listed as State Endangered in Florida (3). In July 1980 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service accepted a petition to list the Silver Rice Rat in the U.S. list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the 1973 Endangered Species Act (6,7) and in 1980/81 status surveys were being undertaken by the Service in connection with this (5,7). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Preservation of remaining habitat is the foremost requirement. In particular it is recommended that the type locality be purchased and set aside as a refuge; the area also harbours populations of Key Deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium), Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais cooperi), Key Mud Turtle ie inctenhan bauri bauri) and several other Florida State listed species (7). The whole of Cudjoe Key has been recommended as 'Critical Habitat’ (7), which would legally require all Federal Agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded or carried out by them do not result in the destruction or adverse modification of this habitat. Two federal agencies are immediately involved: the Department of Transportation which owns much of the marsh at the type locality and may threaten the habitat by improvement work to the highway (see above), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which has authorization to prevent infill of freshwater wetlands dominated by Spartina, Juncus, Cladium and Typha (7). Much wetland on Cudjoe Key is within the Key Deer National Wildlife Refuge but construction of drainage ditches has led to most of it becoming brackish and is therefore considered likely to be unsuitable for this rodent (4). Spitzer and Lazell have suggested the filling of ditches on the Refuge which would thus allow large areas to eventually leach out and form fresh-water marshes again (4). CAPTIVE BREEDING Has bred in captivity (see above). REMARKS For description see (4). The status of this taxon as a full species has been questioned (2), though it is at present generally accepted as such. REFERENCES 1. Hamilton, W.J. IJr., and Whitaker, J.O. Jr. (1979). Mammals of the Eastern United States, 2nd Edition. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. 2. Humphrey, S.R. and Barbour, D.B. (1979). Status and habitat of eight kinds of endangered and threatened rodents in Florida. Special Sci. Rep. 2, Florida State Museum, Gainesville. 3. Spitzer, N. (1978). Cudjoe Key Rice Rat. In Layne, J. (Ed.), Rare and endangered biota of Florida, Vol 1: Mammals. University of Florida Presses, Gainesville. 4. Spitzer, N. and Lazell, J.D. Jr. (1978). A new rice rat (genus Oryzomys) from Florida Lower Keys. J. Mammal. 264 59(4): 787-792. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1981). Regional briefs, 4. Endangered Species Technical Bulletin 6(4): 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1980). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; acceptance of petition and status review. Federal Register 45(1 36): 47365. Wray, P., Lazell, J.D. Jr., and Spitzer, N. (1980). In litt to J.L. Spinks, Jr. Chief, Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 265 BEY Gy 1 fs: 610 | LY a ; y: aoe S iee pubis j soe had ; SAN ies caste of ie yb aa t° ooh seo a BL ps aa os ot this tex nay resent ger ath é ented as gic wt ae neyo a, Tein a en) >. nye (89h ‘i sbreat ALICE SPRINGS MOUSE EXTINCT Pseudomys fieldi (Waite, 1896) Order RODENTIA Family MURIDAE SUMMARY Probably extinct. Known from one specimen collected in central Australia in 1895. May not be a valid species, DISTRIBUTION Australia, known from one specimen collected at Alice Springs in the Northern Territory in 1895 (1,2,5). POPULATION Unknown, but is probably very rare if it does still exist (1,2). Tne area where it was collected has apparently been intensively surveyed by biologists but no additional specimens have been recorded (6). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Unknown though the area where it was collected is arid or semi-arid (4). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Unknown, though would presumably be vulnerable to introduced predators, and possibly to habitat modification by livestock and introduced rabbits. CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Included on the Offical List of Australian Endangered Vertebrate Fauna and is legally protected in the Northern Territory (6). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED None other than protection of any populations which may be discovered. CAPTIVE BREEDING None. REMARKS There is some doubt if this species is valid - the only known specimen has a badly crushed skull making comparison with other material difficult. It may be an aberrant individual of another species (1,2,5). Troughton thought it most closely resembled the Plains Mouse (Pseudomys australis), though Watts has stated that he strongly suspects it to be a specimen of the Shark Bay Mouse (Pseudomys praeconis)from Western Australia (5), also an IUCN Red Data Book Species. If so, this would extend the latter's distribution some 2000 km to the east. Dr C.H.S. Watts kindly commented on a draft of this data sheet in 1981. REFERENCES 1. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. 2. Troughton, E. (1941). Furred animals of Australia. Angus and Robertson Ltd., Sydney. 3. Watts, C.H.S. (1979). The status of endangered Australian rodents. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal Zool. Soc. S. Aust. 75-83. Watts, C.H.S. (1981). In litt. Watts, C.H.S. and Aslin, H.J. (1981). The Rodents of Australia. Angus and Robertson, Sydney. 6. Anon. (1980). Australian submission to CITES. Unpd. 2pp. wn - . e 267 ¢ . j i TOMITKA = | 4 ae uON conic 4 = 4 (ees. Sti) etoile HANOI irs 7 eee ek SATA SOOR, < 1901 ser) oe. ee ee meni tere ee le i il A ty i inne lal leo \ a4 7 on ¥ Wig ABTINeD ‘tl -betyalion Pantigeqe Sng inctl nwod rt) onthe: eae hee : Ws Avivo pilav a Fon (6M REE buf mH exatnr? SOA 36 bobselien iain j Dixy 5110 OT) nweiikeatti vain wort AGS. 1) SUB) iit pane, art 45,8) tains “tilne e90b Fit) int (29v idedor zi tz sauele MOrTa, uaIOT 7 . Siti xd nie ylavianasai nvad Wisi agge eaA_boipaling sswiti AW BOB: | | _ Ady peti0097 naad over PHOT ISGe phe. On tu . zi Dosis: Ball Hi arortw “—e rit iguani QW ORIN) Y201023 A x ac bitaz in Loe re 1 A LG ¥ r fv MS ; oF Fades! ney hia ian bey Agents womb re Kk WINE. ed on, rt ‘bne: apoteyis xd: Sscaee nate ced OI ybdletog rig: “eioige nk thsi 40 Felt ven aya bsndligi WaAAT #anue hat won rk Be shoe hoa chi bars Ab cis ames peer Ty hae ‘Wer S1s1Gs IETS >" ¥ ‘2 4: “ “paisves ai 3 ieee ey hee fe ay eg -. ancy DVT RSG _ Feaminege nwa yine pt? =, ite ti édipsage Bist M1 sdu0d BOE zi ar, Oh iam FhepiRti: taht Aen TO Miw Hor peqmon gay lide ones ite ey Hi yOeth netigunil (00,1) psiseqe isdions Ig: Joublvaorit 106 8¢ —betets can ea dguoty Cisvinies zyOdUS84) Seu0M anisit ore boiaits . Paevol ved wUINe sar 1G Aenlosye 2 9d ot Ii uSedepe Niam i 992 Hoot, sted) He? woul he Gels \(C) alley wees Wonot care. ee 42a9 Scr of FIR OOS simde iizudi walt erent, mat onetxe pth on Pore oh rid steel ni spades hab nists to Tanh & 99 . {- ae oe at spiua A (asenisck aw Abia 2 | aan ¥ Serviett J WIAD. riley Be — “iis et i Basis ~19@)) 3: merdgieit Ate Ve shi neemedos igiits ABEL) pte: revel ie on a fold Pee we rican ee,” cy 15y0R” wetilbliw 9 es exianes 04 Asien, er fi pia gph eats hon aa | ‘Mest SHARK BAY MOUSE RARE Pseudomys praeconis Thomas, 1910 Order RODENTIA Family MURIDAE a SUMMARY Recorded from Bernier Island, off Western Australia, and once on the adjacent mainland in 1858. Population on Bernier is probably secure as long as near-pristine conditions on the island can be maintained. Surveys are needed to establish whether the species still occurs on the mainland and steps should be taken to conserve any populations that may be found there. DISTRIBUTION Australia. Has only been recorded from Bernier Island (approx 5000 ha) in Shark Bay, Western Australia, and once from the mainland on Peron Peninsula, some 150 km south of Bernier, where the original specimen was collected in 1858 (5,7). POPULATION Unknown. In 1975 11 were trapped over two days in a small area of Bernier Island (5,7). The presence on the island of large areas of habitat similar to the trapping site implies the mouse is probably relatively common there (5,7). There are also large tracts of apparently suitable habitat on the adjacent Peron Peninsula where it could still exist (7). Up to 1975 only five specimens were known, all except one (qv) from Bernier, the most recent collected in 1959 (4). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY The mice trapped in 1975 were in sand dune areas with dense mats of Spinifex longifolius and Olearia axillaris with either scattered bushes of Atriplex paludosa and Rhagodia obovata or Zostera heaps and dead Salsola kali (5). Diet seems exclusively vegetarian, with most (about 60 per cent) comprising a dicotyledon flower, probably Olearia, and the rest principally leaves and stems, probably of a succulent (5). A pair sent to Adelaide produced two litters, one of four and the other of three young (5). THREATS TO SURVIVAL The population on Bernier appears to be reasonably secure under present conditions as long as cats or foxes do not become established on the island, and the risk of extensive fires is kept to a minimum (5,7). Feral goats are present but do not appear to cause much damage to the mouse's sandhill habitat (5) and their numbers were reported in 1978 as being reduced by an intensive eradication programme (7). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products therefore being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. The species is protected under Western Australian legislation and appears on the Official List of Endangered Australian Vertebrate Fauna (1). Bernier Island is a Class 'A' faunal reserve with strictly controlled public access (4,7). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Surveys of the mainland around Shark Bay, to determine whether the mouse is still present and, if so, the extent of its distribution, would be highly desirable (2). Any areas where the mouse is discovered should immediately be afforded rigorous protection (2). Continued protection of Bernier Island from any form of unnecessary disturbance is most important. CAPTIVE BREEDING Has bred in captivity (see above). 269 REMARKS For description see (2,3). Bernier and the adjacent Dorre Islands also hold viable populations of four other Red Data Book species, - the Boodie (Bettongia lesueur), Western Barred Bandicoot (Perameles bougainville) and Banded Hare Wallaby (Lagostrophus fasciatus), ali probably extinct on the Australian mainland, and the Rufous Hare Wallaby (Lagorchestes hirsutus), which is now extremely rare elsewhere, Watts has stated that the he strongly suspects that the Alice Springs Mouse (Pseudomys fieldi, Waite) known from only one specimen (with a badly damaged skull) collected at Alice Springs in 1895, is in fact P. praeconis. If so, this would extend the distribution of the species over 2000 km to the east. P. fieldi at present is included in the IUCN Red Data Book as a separate species. This data sheet was compiled from a draft kindly provided in 1978 by Dr C.H.S. Watts. REFERENCES 1. Anon. (1973). Additional protection for rare fauna. State Wildlife Authority News Service (West. Australia) ~4(2): 31-33. 2. Anon. (1978). Shark Bay Mouse Pseudomys praeconis. Mammals No.1l1l. In Australian Endangered Species. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. 3. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. 4, Ride, W.D.L. and Tyndale-Biscoe, C.H. (1962). Mammals. In Fraser, A.J. (Ed.), The results of an expedition to Bernier and Dorre Islands, Shark Bay, Western Australia in 1959. West. Australian Fisheries Dept. Fauna Bull. 2: 54-97. 5. Robinson, A.C., Robinson, J.F., Watts, C.H.S. and Baverstock, P.R. (1976). The Shark Bay Mouse Pseudomys praeconis and other mammals on Bernier Island, Western Australia. Western Australian Naturalist. 13 (7): 149-155. 6. Troughton, E. (1941). Furred animals of Australia. Angus and Robertson Ltd. Sydney. 7. Watts, C.H.S. (1979). The status of endangered Australian rodents. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal Zool. Soc. S. Aust. 270 HASTINGS RIVER MOUSE INDETERMINATE Pseudomys oralis (Thomas 1921) Order RODENTIA Family MURIDAE SUMMARY Recorded in the present century only from a small area of southeastern Queensland. Appears to be uncommon within its range and is expected to be at considerable risk from habitat modification as the area is good quality agricultural land subject to development. Not known to occur in any national park or reserve. Studies are needed to form the basis of conservation plans, which should include the setting aside of protected areas for the species. DISTRIBUTION Australia; where all specimens this century have been collected since 1969 from a few scattered localities in small valleys on the Darling Downs in the Warwick area of southern Queensland (1,2,4,5,). Prior to this it was only known from two specimens collected in the first half of the 19th century: one from Hastings River, northern New South Wales, is in the Gould Collection in the City of Liverpool Museum, England; the second, in the British Museum, was purchased in, or prior to, 1847 and has no locality attached (3). Subfossil remains indicate the species to have been formerly common in the Great Dividing Range (4,5). POPULATION Unknown. Extensive trapping since 1969 has revealed the presence of a few scattered, discrete colonies in suitable habitat in the Warwick district (2). Only a few specimens have been captured, indicating that the species is probably uncommon even within its limited range (4). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Recorded from areas of tall open eucalypt forest with a dense ground cover of False Bracken (2,4). THREATS TO SURVIVAL The species is expected to be at considerable risk from habitat modification (1,4). Its known range is in good quality agricultural land subject to development and it is not known to occur in any national park or reserve (1,4). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Legally protected since 1974 (4). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED There is an urgent need for studies to determine the habitat requirements and present status of the species (4). Efforts should be made to ensure that land-use practices do not conflict with its conservation; these should include the setting up of reserves. with an appropriate management regime to safeguard known populations. CAPTIVE BREEDING No information. REMARKS For description see (5). RERERENCES 1: —.Calaby,, J.-H. (931). In litt. 2. Kirkpatrick, T.H. and Martin, J.H.D. (1971). Uncommon native fauna. Queensland Agric. J. 97: 114-115. 3. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford Univ. Press, Melbourne. 4. Watts, C.H.S. (1979). The status of endangered Australian rodents. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered 271 Australasian wildlife. Royal Zool. Soc. S. Aust. 75-83. 5. Watts, C.H.S. and Aslin, H.J. (1981). The Rodents of Australia. Angus and Robertson, Sydney. 272 FALSE WATER-RAT INSUFFICIENTLY KNOWN Xeromys myoides Thomas, 1889. Order RODENTIA Family MURIDAE SUMMARY Has been collected in swampy habitat and mangrove forest along streams at scattered localities in northern Australia, most recently in 1978. It may not be as rare as the paucity of records suggests and surveys are needed to determine its distribution and status. DISTRIBUTION Australia. Limits of range unknown, but probably confined to coastal areas of Queensland and the Northern Territory. Seventeen specimens are known from widely scattered localities. Six are from the Mackay district on the central Queensland coast, collected in 1887 and 1935; three are from southeastern Queensland - two collected in 1975 in the Noosa River areas north of Brisbane, and one from Myora Spings on Stradbroke Island in Moreton Bay off Brisbane, collected in 1978; five are from the coast of the Arnhem Land region in the Northern Territory - two from the Tompkinson River collected in 1975, one from South Alligator River in 1903 and two from the Daly River in 1972; the remaining three are from the banks of Andranangoo Creek, Melville Island, off Arnhem Land, collected in 1975 (1,2,3,4,6,7). Much suitable habitat, most of it not yet surveyed by biologists, occurs along the coastline between southern Queensland and the Kimberley district of Western Australia and the species may well be more widespread and common than the paucity of records suggests (1). POPULATION Unknown; very few specimens known but this may be indicative of lack of collecting rather than a threatened status. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY All individuals have been obtained from swampy habitat of variable description, except the Beerwah specimen which was obtained in a five-year old stand of slash pine 25 m from a stream (2). The Mackay specimens were from a permanent reed swamp near the sea with thick cover of grass shrubs and Pandanus spp., those at Daly River from the margins of a freshwater lagoon encircled with Paperbark (Melaleuca nervosa) and Mangrove (Barringtonia acutangula); and the rest from closed canopy mangrove forest (e.g. Brugiera parviflora, Ceriops tagal), patches of salt-marsh grass in mangrove forest along tidal rivers 2,3,4,5,6), or in or near sedge swamps (2). Climbs well and seems well adapted to mangrove habitat, having a water-repellent pelage and a highly developed ritualised technique for capturing and consuming live crabs larger than itself (2). It does not appear to be aquatic, however, and is considered on the basis of morphological and behavioural evidence to be basically a terrestrial rat adapted for feeding on hard-shelled aquatic fauna (2,5). A Xeromys nest has been described, consisting of a mound of leaves and mud 60 cm high with a single opening near the apex leading to a nest chamber just below the surface with numerous interconnecting tunnels leading off, some extending up to 90 cm underground (2). Nothing is known of its reproductive biology. THREATS TO SURVIVAL Habitat destruction appears to be the principal long-term threat. Cattle, feral buffalo, and pigs are reported as seriously damaging the edges of lagoons, swamps and rivers in the Northern Territory (1). In Queensland swamp and mangrove areas are being drained and reclaimed for sugar cane production and urban and recreational development (1); this is particularly the case on Stradbroke Island which is a major recreational centre for Brisbane and where sand mining poses an additional severe threat (6). 273 CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Included in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products therefore being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. The species is fully protected under Queensland and Northern Territory legislation (1) and is on the official list of Endangered Australian Vertebrate Fauna. One of the specimens from southeast Queensland was trapped on the Cooloola Fauna Reserve (2). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Effective protection of areas of habitat where the species is found (1). CAPTIVE BREEDING There are no known captive specimens at present (1981) and potential for breeding in captivity remains unknown. REMARKS For description see (1,5). This data sheet was compiled from a draft provided in 1978 by Dr C.H.S. Watts, and G.W. Saunders, Director of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, kindly commented on the sheet. REFERENCES 1. Anon. (1978). False Water-rat Xeromys myoides. Mammals No.10. In Australian Endangered Species. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. 2. Dwyer, P.D., Hockings, M. and Willmer, J. (1979). Mammals of Cooloola and Beerwah. Proc. R. Soc. Queensld. 90: 65-84. 3. Magnusson, W.E., Webb, G.J.W. and Taylor, J.A. (1976). Two new locality records, a new habitat and a _ nest description for Xeromys myoides Thomas (Rodentia: Muridae). Aust. Wildl. Res. 3: 153-157. 4. Redhead, T.D. and McKean, J.L. (1975). A new record of the False Water-rat, Xeromys myoides from the Northern Territory of Australia. Aust. Mammal. 1(4): 347-354. 5. Troughton, E. (1941). Furred animals of Australia. Angus and Robertson Ltd. Sydney. 6. Van Dyck, S., Baker, W.W. and Gillette, D.D. (1979). The False Water Rat Xeromy myoides on Stradbroke Island, a new locality in southeastern Queensland. Proc. R. Soc. Queensland. 90: 84. 7. Watts, C.H.S. (1979). The status of endangered Australian rodents. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.), The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal Zool. Soc. S. Aust. Pp. 75-83. 274 CENTRAL ROCK-RAT INDETERMINATE Zyzomys pedunculatus (Waite, 1896) Order RODENTIA Family MURIDAE SUMMARY Confined to rocky outcrops in mountain ranges in central Australia. Collected on very few occasions, most recently in 1960. Studies are needed to determine its status and distribution. DISTRIBUTION Australia. Limits of range are unknown though all records are from the southern half of the Northern Territory. Six specimens were collected near Alice Springs and one from Illamurta on the south side of the James Range in 1894 (1,2). Finlayson has documented an unstated number of individuals (which he had not examined himself) at Hugh Creek in the MacDonnell Ranges in 1935, Napperby Hills in 1950 and the Davenport Range in 1953 (2). Recent records are from the Granites in the Tanami Desert (1952) and Haast's Bluff settlement in the MacDonnell Ranges (1960) (3). POPULATION Unknown, though certainly rare. Watts and Aslin note, however, that little systematic collecting has been done in its habitat and it may be more abundant than presently appears (6). There is no obvious reason to believe that it has declined in recent years (6). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Dry rocky outcrops in mountain ranges (1). Nothing known of its breeding biology or diet. THREATS TO SURVIVAL Unknown, though probably vulnerable to introduced predators such as cats and foxes (1). It may have been rare before European settlement (1). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products therefore being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Legally protected, and appears on the Official List of Endangered Australian Vertebrate Fauna. Only small areas of suitable habitat are found within national parks (5). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED The true status of this species should be established. The fact that rock-rats trap easily and are restricted to accessible rocky outcrops should make this task relatively easy (5). Appropriate steps should be taken to protect any areas where the species may be found (5). CAPTIVE BREEDING Has never been kept in captivity as far as is known. REMARKS For description see (6). The common name is that recommended by the Australian Mammal Society in 1980; the species is also known as the MacDonnell Range Rock=Rat. It is closely related to two other species, Zyzomys argurus and Z. woodwardi, which are found in rocky outcrops in mountain ranges in northern Australia (4); neither is considered threatened. This data sheet was compiled from a draft provided in 1978 by Dr C.H.S. Watts, and Dr. A.K. Lee of the IUCN/SSC Rodent Specialist Group kindly commented on the final version. REFERENCES 1. Anon. (1977). MacDonnell Range Rock-Rat, Central Thick-tailed Rat. Zyzomys pedunculatus. Mammals No.6. In Australian Endangered Species. Australian National 275 276 Parks and Wildlife Service. Finlayson, H.H. (1961). On Central Australian mammals Part IV. The distribution and status of Central Australian species. Rec. S. Aust. Mus. 14: 141-191. Parker, S.A. (1973). An annotated checklist of the native land mammals of the Northern Territory. Rec. S. Aust. Mus. 16(11): 1-57. Ride, W.D.L. (1970). A guide to the native mammals of Australia. Oxford Univ. Press, Melbourne. Watts, C.H.S. (1979). The status of endangered Australian rodents. In Tyler, M.J. (Ed.). The status of endangered Australasian wildlife. Royal Zool. Soc. S. Aust. 75-83. Watts, C.H.S. and Aslin, H.J. (1981). The Rodents of Australia. Angus and Robertson, Sydney. THIN-SPINED PORCUPINE INDETERMINATE Chaetomys subspinosus (Olfers, 1818) Order RODENTIA Family ERITHIZONTIDAE SUMMARY Has a restricted range in southeastern Brazil where habitats are being destroyed or modified by deforestation. Protected by law and occurs in some parks and reserves. Status surveys and determination of habitat requirements are urgently needed as the basis of a conservation plan. DISTRIBUTION Southeastern Brazil; apparently confined to southeastern Bahia and northern Espirito Santo (1,3,5,7,8). Cabrera, however, gives a considerably wider range, including northern, northeastern and central Brazil, and giving the type locality as Cameta, Para (in Amazonia) (2). This is now thought most likely to have been in error as there are no other records outside southeastern Brazil (1,3). Coimbra-Filho has noted that before the extensive forest destruction in this region it was probably widely distributed through almost all Espirito Santo and eastern Bahia, though Moojen in 1952 reported it only from the smaller area delimited above (3). Definite records in the 1970s are from the same forests as the critically endangered Golden-headed Lion Tamarin, Leontopithecus chrysomelas, in Una, Bahia, and from the Santa Tereza region in Espirito Santo (3). POPULATION Numbers unknown but apparently rare and expected to become increasingly so due to the wholesale habitat destruction within its limited range (1,3,4). In 1965 it was already regarded as a likely candidate for extinction (1). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Little known. Preferred habitat appears to be the edges of forests; Moojen recorded it as frequenting cocoa trees and feeding on their fruits while Ruschi noted it in granitic hills in Espirito Santo, almost always associated with Bombax (Bombaceae) trees. It is apparently nocturnal and, judging from other members of the family, can be expected to produce only one young at a time (3). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Its small range is within a region that has been subjected to considerable habitat destruction (4). Since the 1800s the Atlantic coastal forests of eastern Brazil have suffered a tremendous increase in human population and widespread, largely uncontrolled forest destruction to make way for coffee plantations, sugar cane, cocoa, eucalyptus, cattle pasture and above all lumber extraction and charcoal production. In recent years _ industrial development has also taken its toll. As a result the forests have been devastated, especially during the rapid development and economic expansion since the 1960s. Only a tiny fraction of the original forest cover remains (6). However if Chaetomys is indeed a forest-edge species which can survive in, for example, cocoa plantations, then its position may be somewhat less critical than that of other indigenous animals such as the Woolly Spider Monkey (Brachyteles arachnoides) and the Leontopithecus spp., which are completely tied to undisturbed, mature rainforest and are all listed as 'Endangered' in the IUCN Red Data Book. More research is required on this. CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Protected by law. Occurs in Monte Pascoal National Park in Bahia and in the biological reserves of Corrego do Veado, Nova Lombardia and Sooretama, all in Espirito Santo (6). May also exist in Caparao National Park (Espirito Santo and Minas Gerais) (4). In 1976 the Brazilian Forestry Development Institute (IBDF) purchased 5268 ha in Una, where this species and Leontopithecus chrysomelas occur, as a reserve. However since then 277 little has happened, the reserve covering an area of 11,400 ha was finally officially decreed in December 1980, but already approx. 3000 ha has been invaded by some 600 squatters who have clear-cut large areas in the west of the, and almost all the invaded sector is no longer suitable habitat for any forest ~ animals. In May 1980 squatters were observed on the outskirts of the remaining forest (5). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Ecological study needed as a basis for conservation plan. Further reservation of suitable habitat and increasing effort to ensure adequate protection of these areas. CAPTIVE BREEDING No information. REMARKS For description of animal see (3,8,9). Chaetomys is a monospecific genus. REFERENCES 1. Avila-Pires, F.D. de. (1967). The type-locality of Chaetomys subspinosus (Olfers, 1818). Rev. Brasil Biol. 27(2): 177-179. 2. Cabrera, A. (1957-1961). Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Rev. Mus. Argent. de Cienc. Nat. ‘Bernardino Rivadavia', Cienc. Zool. 4(1-2): 1-732. 3. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1972). Mamiferos ameacados de extincao do Brasil. Especies da Fauna Brasileira Ameacadas de Extincao. Academia Brasileira de Ciencias: 13-98. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 4. Coimbra-Filho, A.F and Mittermeier, R.A. (1974). In litt. 5. Mittermeier, R.A., Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Constable, I. (1980). Conservation of Eastern Brazilian Primates. WWF Project 1614. Report for the period 1979/80. 6. Moojen, J. (1952). Os roedores do Brasil. MEC, Inst. Nac. Livro, Rio de Janeiro. 7. Padua, M.T.J., Magnanini, A. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1974). Brazil's National Parks. Oryx 12(4): 452-464. 8. Vieira, C.C. (1955). Lista remissiva dos mamiferos do Brasil. Arg. Zool. Sao Paulo & 341-474. 9. Walker, E.P. (1975). Mammals of the World. The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore and London. 278 LONG-TAILED CHINCHILLA INDETERMINATE Chinchilla laniger (Molina, 1782) Order RODENTIA Family CHINCHILLIDAE SUMMARY Now confined as far as is known, to only one small area in the Coastal Cordillera of Chile. Numbers were severely depleted by hunting for the fur trade, especially around 1900, and illicit hunting continues although habitat destruction is now (1981) believed to be the most important threat. Legally protected and there is some active prevention of hunting, although establishment of a well-guarded reserve which would also protect habitat is of highest priority. IUCN/WWF Project 1297 aimed at the conservation and management of Chinchillas in Chile was approved in early 1981. The species was studies by C.K. Mohlis from 1975-1978. DISTRIBUTION Chile, where at present (198!) known to exist only in an area of around 4000 ha in the Coastal Cordillera between Illapel (31°40'S) and Combarbala (31°15'S) in Region IV (formerly Coquimbo Province) (2,6,7), though in 1977 Moblis noted unconfirmed reports from the southern part of Region IV as far as the northern border of Chile (6). Formerly widespread from around 25° to 32°S in the Aracama desert region, along the foothills of the Andes and in the Coastal Cordillera, with records in the latter from near Taltal (25°25'S) to around the Rio Choapa (32°S) (2,6,7). Some references mention a much more extensive southern distribution (Talca, 35°30'S) (6). POPULATION Mohlis in 1977 (6) made a rough estimate of 7000 to 10,000 in the colonies she had observed, though Rottmann in 1981 stated that numbers in the wild at present were unknown (7). He did however note that in optimal habitat densities of over 10 animals per hectare might be attained (7). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Altitudinal range quoted varies, with lower limits of from 400 to 800 m and upper limits of 1500 to 2500 m given (2,6,7). Colonial, inhabiting dry rocky areas, apparently favouring north-facing slopes and not found in valleys (7). Mohlis noted that shrub cover was dense and bunch grasses common in the immediate vicinity of many of the 'better' colonies (7). Live in dens in cracks and fissures in rocks or in nests under plants, especially the spiny ‘chaguales' (Puya berteroana) (2,7). Several pairs of Chinchillas may apparently share a den (2,7). Diet varies seasonally, consisting mainly of leaves, seeds and fruits; in very dry years principal food items seem to be Puya berteroana and leaves of shrubs (7). Drinking water is apparently not required (7). Sexual maturity may be reached in six months but may depend on the season of birth (2,8). Breeding is seasonal, with a litter of | to 3 (usually 2), born in spring after a gestation period of around !|10 days, and a second litter may be born in summer if conditions are good (2,7). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Hunting (now illegal) and habitat destruction (2,6,7). The near extinction of this species in the wild was brought about mainly by hunting for the fur trade in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 1899 over 400,000 Chinchilla pelts are believed to have been exported from Atacama Province alone (4), though what percentage of these were C. laniger as opposed to C. brevicaudata, the high altitude Andean species, is unknown. By 1915 this number had declined to around 3200 (4). The advent of large scale commercial Captive breeding in the 1920s brought about an intense demand from fur farms for live wild animals. These could command very high prices and led to hunters pursuing Chinchillas in the most remote of areas. Despite legal protection (since 1929) the demand for live animals, and for wild-taken furs, still continues - in 279 1981 it was reported that wild Chinchilla coats were on sale in Japan priced at $US 48,950 (7). Rottman has stated, however, that habitat destruction is now (1981) by far the most important threat (7). Overgrazing, especially by goats, degrades habitat and reduces food supply as does collection of firewood - Puya beteroana in particular burns easily and may be wantonly destroyed as it is usually simply considered a weed (2,6,7). Mining activities also cause severe habitat degradation (6,7). Grau has noted that the area where the species is known to survive is now surrounded by railroads, mining centres, roads and towns (2). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN All South American Chinchilla populations are included on Appendix |! of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in them between acceding nations being therefore subject to severe restriction, trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Has been legally protected in Chile since 1929 but enforcement is extremely difficult, athough in 1981 it was reported that two CONAF (Corporacion Nacional Forestal) guards were actively protecting the known colonies from poaching, though with very limited resources at their disposal (6,7). Preliminary information on the biology and distribution of the species was obtained by Connie Mohlis who studied it in 1975-1978 (6,7). She noted in 1977 that one relatively isolated colony had begun to show signs of growth following the initiation of protection in 1975 (6). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED The most urgent need is the establishment of an adequately protected reserve to cover the area where the species is known to occur, with habitat management to prevent overgrazing and desertification and effective control of hunting (2,7). However, the logistic problems involved are considerable as the land was reported in 1980 as owned by a cooperative of around 125 families (1), though Grau has stated that an attempt is being made to obtain the area by exchange (2). As of June 1981, IUCN/WWF Project No.1297 has been approved but not implemented (7). Its aim is to establish a national Chinchilla reserve and to develop a management programme for the species both in the reserve and elsewhere in the country (9). The need for further biological study, especially of reproduction and factors which limit population density, has been emphasised (7). Mohlis has stressed the need to develop and implement a public education programme in Chile on natural resource use and management that includes wildlife (6). CAPTIVE BREEDING Chinchillas were kept in semi-captivity by the Incas in pre-Columbian times, though these are likely to have been the higher altitude Chinchilla brevicaudata which occurred further north (2). Modern domestication reportedly started in 1885 in Santiago, Chile, with the first captive birth in 1896. In 1923 eleven animals bred in Potrerillos, Chile, were transported to San Pedro in California, U.S.A.; this was the start of large scale captive breeding (2). The species involved is believed to be almost exclusively C. laniger, as C. brevicaudata has proved extremely difficult to breed under captive conditions outside of its original range, with hybridisation between the two also only very rarely achieved (2). About a dozen colour mutations have been developed since the 1920s and Grau has noted that generations of inbreeding have led to domestic Chinchillas being very badly adapted to survival under natural conditions; attempts to naturalise them, (e.g. in the Darvaz Mountains in Tajikstan in the U.S.S.R.) in the 1960s, have all apparently failed (2). Grau has reported, however, that several pairs of recently caught wild Chinchilla are being maintained in Chile at an experimental breeding station in preparation for reintroduction into the planned Chinchilla reserve (2). REMARKS For description see (8). The other Chinchilla species now generally accepted (Gc; brevicaudata) has in the past often been regarded as a subspecies of C. laniger but is now considered separable on ecological and morphological 280 grounds (2,7). Much of the information for this data sheet was kindly supplied by Connie K. Mohlis in 1977 and Dr. Jurgen Rottmann of CONAF, Chile, in 1981. REFERENCES Ile 2. Andrews, M. (1980). In litt. to J.A. Burton. Grau, J. (no date). The extremely endangered wild Chinchilla. Unpd. report. Grimwood, I.R. (1978). In litt. Miller, S., Rottmann, J., Raedeke, K. and Taber, R.D. (1978). Endangered mammals of Chile. Status and conservation. Unpd. report prepared for II International Theriological Congress, Brno. Milliken, T. (1981). Wildlife in commerce survey - Tokyo 1981. Unpd. report. Mohlis, C. (1977). In litt. Rottmann, J.S. (1981). In litt. Walker, E.P. (1975). Mammals of the World. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. WWF/IUCN. (1981). List of approved projects. Gland, Switzerland. 281 Cegrasitioa $6,732 Grau Rad nye {eT saa BHI dasa: CPE: HBAS PES | Carne, Rosie (2) tthe bey Wwirelore Subpect) ‘ti SOE ROY GAIT Be tase, tot. fi 6mprercsal yiag ere bis ritged ; bias TASH IBERN C1 ; ' i iekeacovasan' eshiceriai ‘ nti 5 | nics erp Pusey onaters rae deed ; | UPR afar the mont Legon tant heme, mid ay CRANE rcolah by Mingle. Piateitay Ase ASAT Sac HEM cL ORETPIMG MTT Of) frp “DIL Gerd gers Yiorvsions: “ant onilsrae Dedrenbrosing SHIVA snply Monsicered 4 weds {7 67), . Yt SHEA UNS Seite Angated) We beOWTY sueciee s > te eotele sakT> to) elemimanm serxsgistint- (etel) ~ We@ ie ihayd bod sah Dery! thas. Rs h salah Adi fessarios | Lathe “alle pop ae. MOH on A Ri pe) al Gt ay aheO MB AROOPaAT herria toned Lister T= la oa thsinnioa nd Sb Pye we beer) retain 2267) wen wr ET sineey enfarcenmeay is dx tee naely a Tse ire) 2.0 Aakinboes gehen | BRMOO Hht OC DI ort NS ete ANE TART ORS FEY OMS WIN SRE prom baown colo UIA bres ioral year ero THN ehisigead YP esCUCeE a (Speen ) Bedding cbse tye: er re Fo PRE Hc UEC we trent ‘ Species - bia ob i hs Se -Motiis whe ‘upivahansiee! of 5-4978 5 — Wetted ie 14S thas vor feta tis ety colated pore € oF Kon | “i ae 7 ik sah fi Relbhey vid Ure (Al wath Ot Pot, ney ie > Pee i 2 b ayn ? d . % 1 “ee. J 7 ‘ a3 t CON» GRYATION. MEASURES RROPOSE} Pre ent” Anite CARH SNe? 1 ar aod ante! ype HMpeted rede o tgver the 5 3 Spacey i$. KPa SG FAO ASRS ey pti. vahat #1. ihe we CM Trg overt over > deaertifiecat: ma ood: 2tiectiwe Oomtrol sot hunri< . Obiow cer a a Pein Inveletd gre Cofmideratle an the land. Aero ted to ASS eRe Brlty tees Yeon erothasmes Ye Mobilis hae stnesaagic n * Lf f -" A a G Cariiop a A plenert 4 puny: Sbecation Prograitras 4 Kate Oa . (23 UT Be Ss bree rei Les ate th Bee Gdageirgs.y x, * i we. va 23 is i? rea bik + t ‘ E 4 + a (hata _ eine mace %2 cbt the aren ov excherre (2). fs Sure ORE /Prabers ae het been , approve Gr kbrt aut. sl orem Lekig Apes 3 ate Vans a we era) ~riventils ‘RSV E al La Ge Vien * tre agement ne Og Dive 14 a ae ret Beal do the seroered os: eisewhere on : "By erie tna aepty MEE tea: study, especially. of eDra Sat om. acct Secwness Leh een! commngerimnt that wectuses wildlide (4, oe 7 ‘ , - - a ; | ~— : ~ ot al ds TMs Rh bet versie 6, tL i sae WETe went if Seitil- Raptcqy thy th ry erepe ered oho —_— we DAD awh iA. my night Mesa. . atx likely “#9 have. beat the ; iY “A ~ " Gmiactite brovicaudeta which dcouteed tursher sagth 2b. Mondera anunig 7 re thei er tm i 1oa% in Santiago, CA ie, WE tha figse Cac ive bires i eons, List, Agi this wae ie atert cd, large AIS 4 caves ' SOG weowes céteved .to be sletrpat eee lust ely 1 eta i eareinivie aie ipa aye ae | at nee 8a Wy 329 eleven asinals bred in Coteariiias, Chile, were ve cea ng vi Be Dei a. fix new prevRY as ire; ely UMiiciAL «fo peau! tis Ry, ‘ ere al itv. otis Hiei Purge, w thy ‘ tiation between Thre raed, acres wi ie About m-riqgen - “hud tles: have boas hyp » “Va: 492s vind direk A ke OES tat perverstiogs vt ipreeding huye ledt-30 eo ebretatias ty ae ae adapted te tee oMeedor es rae pty eigen “#2y: ag) \c eal ee t feats iP hen CNetoabt Parente ia, Ya deadveues ap hae ‘Bhs yj, bene f \ tailed Crge tes tepy as ea do? Coc tent one ‘ er sed A AR ORDA NTR. Teeiget ; Fe pent SHORT-TAILED CHINCHILLA INDETERMINATE Chinchilla brevicaudata Waterhouse, 1848 Order RODENTIA Family CHINCHILLIDAE SUMMARY A high altitude Andean species, brought to the brink of extinction by hunting for the fur trade. Reportedly still survives in isolated localities around 23°S and possibly in Lauca National Park in northern Chile. Protection of any viable colonies is essential for the survival of the species. DISTRIBUTION Limits of former distribution unclear; Grau stated that it was recorded from the Andes at altitudes of over 3000 m between 7°5'S and 30°S in Peru, Bolivia, Argentina and Chile (2), while Rottman gives northern and southern limits as 10°S and 27°S (6), and Grimwood has noted that there appears to be no definite record for Argentina (3). According to Grau it still survives in very inaccessible localities near where the borders of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile meet (around 23°S) (2), while there have also been unconfirmed reports in the 1970s of a few individuals in Lauca National Park in Tarapaca Province in northern Chile (3). It could also conceivably survive in the contiguous Sajama National Park in Bolivia though there are no actual records (3). Pearson in 1951 reported it as extinct in Peru (5). POPULATION Unknown, though presumably very rare. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Very little known, has been recorded from rocky hillsides (6), or desert areas between 3000 and 4500 m (2). In captivity, sexual maturity is reportedly attained at six months and breeding may occur biannually, gestation period is 128 days and mean litter size 1.45 young (2). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Hunting for the fur trade, principally in the 19th and early 20th centuries, was responsible for the virtual extinction of Chinchillas in the wild. It has been estimated that 2 million Chinchilla pelts were exported from Chile to Europe between 1895 and 1900 (2,7), though what percentage of these were from C. brevicaudata is unknown. Despite protective legislation enacted in the early part of the century, hunting of Chinchillas still continues and it is noted that fur from C. brevicaudata is considerably more valuable, and hence sought after, than that from C. laniger (2,6). Rottmann has noted that habitat destruction does not seem a major threat for this species, collection of firewood seemed of no importance and there was little or no overgrazing in its habitat (6). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN All South American Chinchilla populations are included in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in them or their products therefore being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Chinchillas are legally protected in Bolivia (since 1906), Chile (since 1929) and Peru (1,2,6); current legal status in Argentina unknown. In 1910 the Governments of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Peru subscribed to an agreement banning Chinchilla hunting and selling of fur (2). Enforcement of such legislation is very difficult, however, in the isolated inaccessible areas where Chinchillas occur (2,4,6,7). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Adequate protection of any viable colonies is of primary importance; this should be carried out by trained permanent guards (6). Studies of ecology and distribution would be desirable to formulate further conservation plans. 283 CAPTIVE BREEDING Breeding of Chinchilla brevicaudata has _ proved considerably more difficult than with C. laniger (2). Grau noted that many unsuccessful attempts have been made since the late 19th century, when modern captive breeding of Chinchillas began (the Incas are known to have kept them in their homes in Pre-columbian times); successful captive breeding has occurred, however, within the species' original range (2). Hybrids between C. brevicaudata and C. laniger have been produced with great difficulty, the resulting offspring have brevicaudata size and fur-type. Males were found to be sterile, though females were fertile and could be crossed with either of the parent species (2). REMARKS For description see (2,7). Several species have been described, though the genus has also been considered monotypic, with this taxon a subspecies of Chinchilla laniger (7); two species are now generally recognised with C. brevicaudata distinguishable from C. laniger on ecological and morphological grounds (body weight 600 to 850 g as opposed to 400 to 450 g in C. laniger, smaller ears, shorter limbs and a shorter tail composed of 20 vertebrae compared to 23 in C. laniger) (2,6). Their karyotypes are identical (2n=64) (2). REFERENCE 1. Bejarano, G. (1981). In litt. 2. Grau, J. (no date). The extremely endangered wild Chinchilla. Unpd. report. 3. Grimwood, I.R. (1978). In litt. 4. Miller, S., Rottmann, J., Raedeke, K. and Taber, R.D. (1978). Endangered mammals of Chile. Status and conservation. Unpd. report prepared for II International Theriological Congress, Brno. 5. Pearson, O.P. (1951). Mammals of the highlands of southern Peru. Bull. Harvard Mus. Comp. Zool. 106 (3): 117-174. 6. Rottmann S., J. (1981). In litt. 7. Walker, E.P. (1975). Mammals of the World. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. 284 CABRERA'S HUTIA ENDANGERED Capromys angelcabrerai Varona, 1979 Order RODENTIA Family CAPROMYIDAE SUMMARY AQ recently described species, discovered in 1974 and apparently confined to a series of small islets and cays off southern Cuba. Numbers unknown, though believed to be very low, possibly even extinct. Legally protected. Surveys are needed to determine whether it still survives, and if so, to provide data as the basis for a conservation plan. DISTRIBUTION Cuba, where it has been recorded on several small cays and islets of the Cayos de Ana Maria south of Jucaro, Camagiiey Province (2). Its presence is also suspected in the Estero Las Characas, some 20 km west of Jucaro, and in the Estero Suavecito, both of which have suitable habitat but for which there are no actual records (2). POPULATION Varona in 1981 stated it was probably extinct or at least highly endangered (3). The species was described in 1979 from a series of fifteen or so specimens collected by Dr Rivero de la Calle in the Gulf of Ana Maria in 1974 and 1975 (2). No other specimens appear to have been recorded. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Typical habitat is recorded as mangrove, with Red Mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) predominating. Varona considered it likely that the Hutia depends exclusively on this species for its survival although little definite is known of the animal's biology (2). Communal nests similar to those of Capromys auritus have been described; they are circular, approximately | metre in diameter and 30-40 cm high, and are constructed of mangrove twigs heaped together to form a platform-like structure which is covered with leaves and has four or five openings to the interior (2). Hutias in general are vegetarian and characteristically produce small litters (one to three) of highly developed young (1,3). C. angelcabrerai is sympatric with the common, adaptable, Conga Hutia Capromys pilorides (2). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Principal threat to this and the three other recently described Cuban Hutias confined to small cays and islets (Capromys auritus, C. sanfelipensis and C. garridoi) appears to be hunting by fishermen, who land on the cays and can taken many hutias in a single raid (4). When disturbed C. angelcabrerai leaves the nest and takes refuge in the water, but being a slow and clumsy swimmer is easily caught (2). The slow reproductive rate of Hutias makes populations very vulnerable to disturbance (1). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN All Hutias are legally protected in Cuba, although enforcement has generally been inadequate in the past. Government Resolution No.21-79 was reported in 1980 as having recently forbidden all hunting in important wildlife areas, including all islets and cays in the Gulf of Ana Maria (4). It is hoped this will provide more effective protection (4). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Effective enforcement of existing legislation. More information is needed on the present status, distribution and biology of the species, in order to formulate detailed conservation plans. CAPTIVE BREEDING Not known to have ever bred in captivity. Two of the specimens captured in 1974 were alive but only survived a few days in captivity (2). 285 REMARKS For description see (2). It is apparently closely related to the Dwarf Hutia (Capromys nanus) another IUCN Red Data Book species, and the two are now included in a new subgenus Pygmaeocapromys (2). REFERENCES” PIs a5 4, 286 Oliver, W.L.R. (1977). The Hutias, Capromyidae, of the West Indies. In Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.), International Zoo Yearbook 17. Zool. Soc. London. Varona, L.S. (1979). Subgenero y especie nuevas de Capromys (Rodentia: Caviomorpha) para Cuba. Poeyana, Inst. Zool. Acad. Cienc. de Cuba 194: 1-33. Varona, L.S. (1980). Mamiferos de Cuba Editorial Gente Nueva, La Habana. Annotated by author, 1981. Varona, L.S. (1980). Protection in Cuba. Oryx 15(3): 282-2384. LARGE-EARED HUTIA ENDANGERED Capromys auritus Varona, 1970 Order RODENTIA Family CAPROMYIDAE SUMMARY A species discovered in 1970 and known only from the type locality, a small area of mangroves on an island off northern Cuba. Population is expected to be very small by virtue of its limited distribution, and is subject to predation by visiting fishermen. Adequate enforcement of existing legal protection is regarded as essential for its survival. DISTRIBUTION Cuba, where known only from one area of mangrove swamp on Cayo Fregoso, an island some 38 km long and 4 to 5 km wide at its broadest, off the central northern coast in the Sabana Archipelago, Las Villas Province. The population is apparently confined to the zone of shallow, mangrove-covered channels which traverse the centre of the island, known locally as El Bocoy, some 3 km northwest of Punta del Gallego which is on the south coast of the Cay (1). According to local fishermen the hutia is not found anywhere else (1). POPULATION Numbers unknown; Varona in 1980 described it as endangered. The total population is expected to be small by virtue of its very limited range. The description is based on three animals that were captured in May 1970 (1). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Habitat is an area of almost pure Red Mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) growing over inundated areas, with virtually no dry land (1). The hutia is an adept climber and apparently feeds exclusively on the mangrove shoots, leaves, fruit and bark (1). Nests are built which are communal, according to local fishermen, and are comprised of large accumulations of small intertwined sticks with a number of access holes that connect to galleries or central chambers. The nests may be up to four sq. m in area, of a roughly semi-spherical shape, and are usually constructed between mangrove roots about 30 cm above high water level (1). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Direct hunting by visiting fishermen is reported to be the major threat (1,3). The hutias are well known to the local fishermen as 'jutias ratas' (rat hutias) and are captured for food by disturbing the nest - either a sack is placed over the access holes or the animals are chased into the water where they are easily caught, being slow and clumsy swimmers. (1) CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN All hutias in Cuba are legally protected, though enforcement in the past has generally been inadequate (3). In 1980 the Cuban government declared all the Cays of the Sabana Archipelago, including Cayo Fregoso, as well as several other regions, protected areas where all hunting was banned throughout the year (Resolution No.21-79) (3). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Better enforcement and more stringent control of hunting in the area is required. More information is needed on the status and biology of the species as a basis for detailed conservation plans. CAPTIVE BREEDING No information. REMARKS For description see (1). Varona has proposed a new subgenus Mesocapromys) for this species and the Little Earth Hutia (Capromys sanfelipensis) also in the IUCN Red Data Book, and described by him in 1970 CL). 287 REFERENCGES\( ih. Varona, L.S. (1970). Neuva Especie y Neuvo Subgenero de Capromys (Rodentia: Caviomorpha) de Cuba. Poeyana, Instituto de Biologia, Cuba. Serie A. No.73. 2. Varona, L.S. (1980). Mamiferos de Cuba. Editorial Gente 3. 288 Nueva, Habana, Annotated by author. Varona, L.S. (1980). Protection in Cuba. Oryx 15(3): 282-284. GARRIDO'S HUTIA INDETERMINATE Capromys garridoi Varona, 1970 Order RODENTIA Family CAPROMYIDAE EE SUMMARY A recently discovered species about which almost nothing is known; described from a single specimen collected in 1967. Apparently confined to a few small cays off southern Cuba and believed threatened because of hunting for food by fishermen. It is hoped that recent legislation will prevent this occurring in the future (3). More information is required on status and ecology. DISTRIBUTION Cuba, where believed to occur on several islands and cays in the ‘Banco de los Jardins y Jardinillos' which form part of the Archipelago de los Cannaroes east of Isla de Pinos and some 40 km south of Peninsula de Zapata (1). Type locality is a small islet (less than | km square) known as Cayo Maja, off the northwestern extremity of Cayo Largo. In 1969 evidence for its existence, in the form of readily identifiable faeces, was also found on Cayo Largo, the largest island in the Banco, Cayo de la Piedra just north of the type locality and on at least two of the three islets also known as Cayo Maja immediately west of the type locality (1). POPULATION Unknown. The only known specimen consists of recent remains of a young adult collected in April 1967. An expedition in November 1969 failed to collect any further specimens but evidence of their continued existence was discovered in the localities listed above (1). Population is expected to be low and at risk by virtue of its very restricted distribution and the possible threat of hunting by fishermen, and Varona described it as 'highly endangered! in 1980 (2). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Cayo Maja is a small, dry, low-lying and sandy islet divided in two by a narrow sea channel. Channel and coast are densely covered with Red Mangrove Rhizophora mangle, 'yana' bushes Conocarpus erecta and 'yuraguanos' Thrinax sp. There is no permanent drinking water, small lagoons that form during the monsoons quickly disappear during the long dry season (1). Nothing is known of diet or breeding biology. THREATS TO SURVIVAL Varona has noted that the principal threat to this and the other recently described Cuban hutias confined to islets and cays (Capromys sanfelipensis, C. auritus and C. angelcabrerai) is hunting by fishermen who land on the cays and can take many individuals in a single raid (3). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN All Cuban hutias are legally protected. In 1980 Varona reported that the government had recently passed a resolution (no. 21-79) declaring the presumed range of C. garridoi and several other threatened Cuban vertebrates as protected areas where all hunting was forbidden throughout the year (3). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Adequate enforcement of legal protection. Surveys are needed to determine its present status and distribution to formulate detailed conservation plans. CAPTIVE BREEDING None. REMARKS For description see (1). This species resembles the relatively common and widespread Conga Hutia (C. pilorides) which is sympatric with it over at least part of its range, but is smaller and has a relatively longer tail and lighter pelage 289 (1). REFERENCES 290 ie 2s 3. Varona, L.S. (1970). Descripcion de una Neuva Especia de Capromys del Sur de Cuba. Poeyana Instituto de Biologia, Cuba. Serie A No.74. Varona, L.S. (1980). Mamiferos de Cuba. Editorial Gente Nueva, Habana, Annotated by author. Varona, L.S. (1980). Protection in Cuba. Oryx 15(3): 282-284. BUSHY-TAILED HUTIA INDETERMINATE or JURIA ANDARAZ Capromys melanurus (Poey in Peters, 1864) Order RODENTIA Family CAPROMYIDAE SUMMARY Limited distribution in eastern Cuba. Protected by law and may occur in two existing and one planned reserve. Threatened by deforestation, its survival appears dependent on preservation of a suitable area of habitat. DISTRIBUTION Cuba; confined to scattered parts of the five easternmost Provinces (Oriente) (1,2,4). POPULATION Unknown, but believed to be small in number (3); Varona in 1980 described it as 'rare' (4). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Dense forests. Gundlach in the 19th century noted that it was always found in the same areas as the Cuban Solenodon (Solenodon cubanus), which inhabits the humid primary montane forests of the eastern Provinces of Cuba (4). The hutia is nocturnal and arboreal, foraging in the tops of trees during the night and resting up by day in a hollow tree-trunk or other refuge (4). Gestation period in captivity has been measured as around three months (4). THREATS TO SURVIVAL At risk mainly through deforestation (3). Some reports have suggested that hunting and the introduced mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus) are also serious threats. The hutia's habitat, however, is dense and difficult to penetrate and those people in Cuba who eat hutias are reported to hunt mainly for the larger, relatively common, Conga Hutia (Capromys pilorides); also, the mongoose inhabits low-lying bush country and does not occur in the hutia's habitat (3). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN All hutias are legally protected in Cuba. A new Resolution (No.21-79), has forbidden all hunting in certain areas that are important for wildlife, including several parts of Oriente which may hold C. melanurus, and Varona in 1980 reported that efforts were being made to ensure that protection was enforced (5). The Cuban Academy of Sciences has established the Jaguani and Cupeyal Reserves for fauna and flora in eastern Oriente, near Toa Baracoa (3). Both the Solenodon and the Cuban Ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis bairdii) occur here (3) and the area is likely to support C. melanurus. A third reserve in the area is planned at Duaba Arriba (3). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Adequate enforcement of legal protection. The survival of the species essentially depends on the preservation of an adequate area of its habitat; if the hutia does not occur in the reserves detailed above, there will be an urgent need to create further reserves in areas where it is still found. REMARKS For description of animal see (1,4). Two subspecies have been described and sometimes recognized in the past, C. m. melanurus and C. m. rufescens. However, rufescens is now believed to be only an erythristic individual and not to represent a valid subspecies (2). REFERENCES 1. Hall, E.R. and Kelson, K.R. (1959). The Mammals of North America. Ronald Press, New York. 2. Varona, L.S. (1974). Catalogo de los mamiferos vivientes y 291 292 extinguidos de las Antillas. Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, Havana. Varona, L.S. (1969-81). In litt. Varona, L.S. (1980). Mamiferos de Cuba. Editorial Gente Nueva, Habana, Annotated by author. Varona, L.S. (1980). Protection in Cuba. Oryx 15(3): 282-284. DWARF HUTIA or JUTIA ENANA ENDANGERED Capromys nanus (G.M. Allen, 1917) Order RODENTIA Family CAPROMYIDAE SUMMARY Confined to the Zapata Swamp in southern Cuba, where the last specimen was taken in 1937, though evidence for its continued survival was obtained in 1978. Habitat loss and hunting by fishermen are potential threats. Legally protected and Zapata Swamp is a reserved area, though adequate enforcement of laws will be necessary to safeguard the species. DISTRIBUTION Southern Cuba, where found only in the swampy jungle of the Zapata Peninsula, Matanzas Province (formerly Las Villas Province) (1,2,4). Fossil remains have been recorded from several localities throughout mainland Cuba and on the Isla de Pinos, indicating a much wider former distribution (2,4). POPULATION Numbers unknown but population is likely to be very low and Varona in 1980 described it as 'very endangered' (4). No specimens have been taken since 1937, but in 1978 an intensive effort to locate the species found evidence that it still survived in extremely remote areas near the centre of the swamp where nests and faecal pellets were found and dogs chased a single individual (6). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Small, dry, bush-covered islands ('cayos de monte') which are dotted about the marshes; also reported from the mangroves that surround the swamp (4). Virtually nothing is known of its behaviour or ecology (4). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Agricultural development presents a potential menace to the habitat (3); the species is also likely to be hunted for food by fishermen visiting the swamps (5). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN All hutias are legally protected in Cuba. A reserved area has been established in the Zapata Swamp (3). Varona noted in 1980 that under a recent Resolution (No.21-79) several important wildlife areas in Cuba, including the whole of the Zapata Peninsula, had been declared protected areas where all hunting was forbidden throughout the year (5). Increased efforts were being made to enforce new and existing protective legislation (5). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Continued effective protection against disturbance. Surveys of the area to ensure that the species does indeed still survive and, if so, to determine distribution and ecology in more detail, are recommended. REMARKS For description of animal see (1,4). This is the smallest Cuban hutia (4). Charles A. Woods of Florida State Museum kindly provided a draft of this data sheet in 1981. REFERENCES 1. Hall, E.R. and Kelson, K.R. (1959). The mammals of North America. Ronald Press, New York. 2. Varona, L.S. (1974). Catalogo de los mamiferos vivientes y extinguidos de las Antillas. Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, Habana. 3. Varona, L.S. (1969). Pers. comm. 4. Varona, L.S. (1980). Mamiferos de Cuba. Editorial Gente Nueva, Habana,; annotated by author. 298 294 Varona, L.S. (1980). Protection in Cuba. Oryx 15(3): 282-234. Garrido, O.H. (1980). Los vertebratos terrestres de la Peninsula de Zapata. Poeyana 203: 1-49. LITTLE EARTH HUTIA ENDANGERED Capromys sanfelipensis Varona, 1970 Order RODENTIA Family CAPROMYIDAE SUMMARY A recently described species, discovered in 1970 on a small island off southern Cuba. May already be extinct and surveys are needed to determine whether it still survives. If so then effective prevention of (illegal) hunting will be necessary to ensure its survival. DISTRIBUTION Cuba, where recorded only from the type locality, the very small but inhabited Juan Garcia Cay where the species was discovered in 1970. Also believed likely to occur on the larger neighbouring Cayo Real, separated from Juan Garcia by a narrow sea channel, although there were no actual records (4). Both islets are part of the Cayos de San Felipe, the most westerly of the Canarroes Archipelago, Pinar del Rio, southern Cuba. POPULATION Varona in 1980 described it as probably extinct as a recent expedition to Juan Garcia had failed to record a single specimen (1,3). The 1970 expedition, which discovered the species, concluded that is was uncommon even within its very limited range (4). Four specimens were obtained (two captured alive) and only three or four others observed, despite frequent excursions with dogs into areas known to be inhabited (4). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY All specimens recorded in areas of 'Yerba de Vidrio' or samphire Salicornia perennis which grow in abundance in dense clumps up to waist-height along a three km beach next to a zone of mangroves (Rhizophora mangle and Avincennia nitada) (4). The hutias were found to be nocturnal, sheltering during the day in the samphire but foraging widely at night, fresh footprints and faeces being found at considerable distance from this habitat (4). Diet is presumably vegetarian as in other hutias. Captive individuals ate samphire stems but despite extensive searches no evidence of this plant being eaten in the wild was found, nor did the hutia appear to feed on Rhizophora mangle, unlike the closely related Capromys auritus, also in the Red Data Book, which is believed to feed exclusively on the mangrove (4). No nests or burrows were found and nothing is known of its breeding biology (4). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Principal threat to this, and the three other recently described Cuban hutias confined to small islets and cays (Capromys auritus, C. arridoi and C. angelcabrerai), appears to be hunting by fisherman and colonists 6, 7). Although there are no actual records of hunting of C. sanfelipensis, fishermen were said to catch 'rats and mice! on Juan Garcia and adjacent cays by placing bait in fish traps (4). Hernandez and Garrido, who in 1970 captured the only recorded specimens, noted that the samphire clumps where they sheltered were virtually impenetrable and the hutias were only captured after being flushed out by dogs (4). True rats occurred in the houses and shacks on Juan Garcia, but there was no evidence of them in the mangroves or elsewhere in the cay (9). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN All hutias in Cuba are legally protected. In 1980 the government was reported as recently having declared all islets and cays of the Canarroes Archipelago a wildlife protection area where all hunting is forbidden throughout the year (2). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Further investigations to determine 295 whether the species is extinct or not are required, especially surveys on Cayo Real and other islets and cays near Juan Garcia (4). Should any surviving population be found then effective enforcement of legal protection will be a prerequisite for its survival. CAPTIVE BREEDING Two of the original four specimens were captured alive and were apparently very docile in captivity (4), though it is not known how long they survived. REMARKS For description see (4). The species is similar to Capromys auritus, also described by Varona in 1970, differing in colouration and osteological characters, and a new subgenus (Mesocapromys) has been erected to contain the two (4). REFERENCES 1. Varona, L.S. (1980). Mamiferos de Cuba. Editorial Gente Nueva, Habana. Annotated by author. 2. Varona, L.S. (1980). Protection in Cuba. Oryx 15(3): 282-284. 3. Varona, L.S. (1980). In litt. 4. Varona, L.S. and Garrido, O.H. (1970). Vertebrados de los Cayos de San Felipe, Cuba, Incluyendo una Nueva Especie de Jutia. Poeyana, Instituto de Biologia, Cuba. Serie A No.75. 296 JAMAICAN HUTIA or INDIAN CONEY INDETERMINATE Geocapromys brownii (Fisher, 1830) Order RODENTIA Family CAPROMYIDAE a SUMMARY A Caribbean rodent with two insular subspecies of which one, formerly on Little Swan Island, is almost certainly extinct and the other occurs in very reduced numbers in hilly areas of Jamaica. Hunting, habitat destruction and the effects of predators such as feral cats, dogs and the introduced Mongoose Herpestes auropunctatus, are chief threats. Effective enforcement of legal protection and the setting up of adequately guarded reserves are required. DISTRIBUTION Jamaica. Two subspecies are recognised, Geocapromys brownil Dbrownili from Jamaica and the now almost certainly extinct G. brownii thoracatus which formerly occurred on Little Swan Island (ca 100 ha) 650 km southwest of Jamaica and 145 km northeast of the Honduras coast (1,2,3,10). Known range of the former at present is restricted to three areas: in the vicinity of Worthy Park, St. Catherine Parish in central Jamaica; the John Crow Mountains of St. Thomas and Portland Parishes in the east, and remote parts of the Hellshire Hills region west of Kingston in the southern section of St. Catherine Parish (U,256;9)s" There is a good possibility the animal survives in the heart of the Cockpit Country in Trelawny Parish in the north (12). From remains identified in kitchen middens it appears that Hutias occurred over most of the island in pre-Columbian times (6). POPULATION Unknown. Greatest numbers are believed to occur in the Worthy Park area, though even here the population was found to be apparently low in density in 1974 (2,13); however in 1972-73 Hutias were said to have caused considerable damage to Kola nut plantations in the region (verified by examination of stomach contents of captured individuals) and it was suggested that the animals involved represented an overspill from the resident population, thus in fact indicating an increase in numbers there at that time (6). In the John Crow Mountains the forest is being exploited and the population was reported in 1981 as rapidly diminishing (13), (although in 1976 Hutias were stated to be still well established there (9)). Information concerning the population in the Hellishire Hills is variable. The region is apparently arid and the animal has been said to be rare (13), though around 1973 it was reportedly abundant in one area near the south coast of this region (2). Also Mittermeier in 1973 reported that the species might be starting to make a comeback in some areas, for example around Great Salt Pond and Manatee Bay in the east and south of the Hellshire Hills, as records indicated their recent appearance in valley plantations as well as on hillsides (6,7). In general, however, it is now regarded as scarce in areas where it was common 30 years ago (1,2). On Little Swan Island Hutias were recorded as plentiful at least until the 1930s, and probably until the early 1950s. A survey in March 1960 failed to record any and in 1974 Clough and Howe found no evidence of its survival during a five day intensive search of the island (1,2). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY On Jamaica shows a preference for areas with limestone outcrops and numerous crevices. Predominantly terrestrial and does not build a nest, hiding in natural cavities and crevices under rocks or among roots of large trees. Diet is said to consist of grasses, leaves, twigs, bark, possibly fruit and fungi (4,9). Nocturnal or crepuscular and reportedly travels in pairs (male-female or female-young). Gestation period is about 123 days with usually two (range one to three) extremely precocial young in a litter; in captivity breeding occurs throughout the year with a minimum interbirth interval of about 132 days (9,11). Little Swan Island is a rugged, uplifted limestone reef with areas 297 of dense vegetation. Clough on his visit to the island in 1974 noted that suitable food plants were abundant, notably Strumpfia maritima and Phyllanthus epiphyllanthus two of the most preferred food items of the similar Bahamian Hutia (Geocapromys ingrahami) (2). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Hunting by man, depredation by introduced species, and habitat destruction are identified threats on Jamaica. Hutias were an important food source for the aboriginal Arawak Indians and hunting for food continued in some areas at least into the 1930s and was undoubtedly an important factor in the decline (2,6,7,9,10). Their present scarcity has meant that most hunting has ceased, though some continues (e.g. in the John Crow Mountains, and by pig-hunters in the Hellshire Hills), and domestic animals have taken over as the principal food supply (2,6,7,10). The impact of the Indian Mongoose Herpestes auropunctatus, introduced onto Jamaica in 1872 is not known for certain though it is believed to have adversely affected Hutia populations, probably by preying on the young (2,5,6,10). The two now appear to coexist however, and it has been suggested that an equilibrium has been reached between them (6). The most important threats at present appear to be predation by cats and dogs and habitat destruction through deforestation and the encroachment of agriculture as more of the slopes in the Hutia's hilly habitat are brought under cultivation (2,6,9,10). On Little Swan Island a very strong hurricane in 1955 may have caused an initial decrease in the population, the heavy rainfall drowning Hutias in their underground refuges, but the principal cause of their extinction is believed to have been predation by cats released from the adjacent Great Swan Island some time in the late 1950s or early 1960s. It has been suggested that rats may also have played a minor role, either in competition for food or predation on the young (1,2). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Totally protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act though enforcement is generally inadequate (6). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Enforcement of all conservation laws in areas where Hutias occur. Special care should be taken to eliminate dogs and cats from these areas (1,2). The proposed Hellshire Hills National Park should benefit this species, as should the Cockpit Country National Park if the Hutia does occur in this area (1,2). CAPTIVE BREEDING Births occurred at the Hope Zoo between 1962 and 1967. A successful breeding programme has been established at the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust (9). In 1979 this stood at 22 animals (10 males, 12 females) of which 17 had been bred in captivity (12). Animals have been distributed from this to form the nuclei of further breeding groups at West Berlin, Frankfurt, London and Philadelphia, U.S.A. (11). REMARKS For description see (3). The Swan Island Hutia, Geocapromys brown thoracatus may be a separate species (8) though is here retained as a subspecies of G. brownii. The genus Geocapromys has been regarded as a subgenus of Capromys but serological studies indicate the two genera are distinct (13). This data sheet was compiled from a draft kindly provided in 1981 by Charles A. Woods and James R. Bain, Florida State Museum, Gainesville. REFERENCES 1. Clough, G.C. (1975). Project 1169 Hutia - Status survey on Little Swan Island and Jamaica. In Jackson, P. (Ed.), World Wildlife Yearbook 1974-75. WWF, Switzerland. 2. Clough, G.C. (1976). Current status of two endangered Caribbean rodents. Biol. Conserv. 10(1): 43-47. 3. Hall, E.R. (1981). The mammals of North America. John Wiley, New York. 298 IZ. 13. Hayman, R.W. (1956). Mammals of the West Indies. Zoo Life 11(2): 41-45. Lewis, C.B. (1953). Rats and mongoose in Jamaica. Oryx 2: 170-172. Mittermeier, R.A. (1972). Jamaica's endangered species. Oryx 11(4): 258-262. Mittermeier, R.A. (1972). In litt. Morgan, G. (1981). Pers. comm. to C. Woods. Oliver, W.L.R. (1976). The Jamaican Hutia, Geocapromys brownii brownii. Rep. Jersey Wildl. Presev. Trust 12: 10-17. . Oliver, W.L.R. (1980). In litt. . Oliver, W.L.R. (1977). The Hutias, Capromyidae, of the West Indies. In Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.), International Zoo Yearbook !7. Zool. Soc. Lond. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. Woods, C.A. and Bain, J.R. (1981), In litt. aby ectotioph oii % as ait: iouglemsrtane Vid Ce: ERT | POOH. Oe ix:-7) rh >) GRE BE H ern Ste tihak a iba: tiers bes ays mung ar dr p father) st eRe Ge aes (2313908 Sees Wy) Tae sei) A a “sisi ti a a Mag AT Sup y ether yal) Saka BOS A bed HOG vane Ge ~RADRAT MeDtraotK ae | ASRS) GAR wwlon tasty were “oe jogs u LOOM GE) ion ein siete tee S ABP ua hoagnehtsd. 600K con ‘ MO HH Dives y Hale TS SEN LA asta AOte asl Wetyraaudo yitr : rat fe ar StI Worst dnl qm ysl cpoce wine Wd dipwosss: cet hy . 1) “haya Peary S77) E hotaisaras ‘ee ict (oats eA Ct Tap ie h8e K bye woi< ta ME WOE \iaioitanr sn, rT Vysrtioseart x seogoant me a LO) : Jenne d:202. fs Rd qhabeawa-f2 ae - Wieloxmsy c iy berioey anne perf i oA OBE heli Sy the , cz; cS now epaees oT ed p darts sik tdci BC hss Stok ST aR A 2 Gyaeen'y ciel be me sia 4 Of pean Cate an ce os oy ain (TAB: at Shc Aha (herenctosgiinens OF \c ee binaarhe ‘ < eas. @ ‘ P t : i * a] t * wea ‘ 2 he Tc. 9 a ve 4 ~ “4 i! ‘ yee v | £7 i DMPA Ra FFG! " wi > , Bae ! a MM 39 ot « ¥ eyes — ss a4 bie DT i i } \ by : & ‘ oe ‘ ; ion iad * @ i ‘ , 7 aes cragete r mm f nm bee | : or any 1's x 4h) i ] r ’ - y t ? : t =< - = b 7 ry [ * _ oe ~ ri . . t o ¢ %: : ‘ apes 4 Nis ig > ® - Purl — ee. i ° wae 43 : eo Ri the Hood, com between | O67 “| < — _ ~ Fi istiess ' be Nel > { re et eoy. BAHAMIAN HUTIA or INGRAHAM's HUTIA RARE Geocapromys ingrahami (J.A. Allen, 1891) Order RODENTIA Family CAPROMYIDAE a SUMMARY Once occurred throughout most of the Bahama Islands, now confined to East Plana Cay, and possibly two other islands where animals were released in 1973 and 1981. Population on East Plana Cay is relatively large and apparently stable, though is potentially at great risk from hurricanes, fire, disease and the introduction of predators. Legally protected. Captive breeding colonies have been set up to help safeguard the species against any disaster on East Plana Cay. DISTRIBUTION Bahama Islands. Occurs on East Plana Cay, a 465 ha coral island near the southeast end of the Bahamas Island chain (2,3,4,5); possibly also on two other cays where introductions were made in 1973 and 1981 (5)ocThext973 introduction was to an island in the Exuma Cays Land and Sea Park where there was a reported sighting of Hutias in 1978 (2). Fossil and subfossil Geocapromys remains are known from many Bahama Islands, but Hutias are believed to have been exterminated from most of them in pre-Colombian times. The only other island from which there are records of live Hutias is Atwoods Cay (Samana Island) about 32 km north of Plana Cays and Crooked Island, where they were recorded some time before 1929, apparently becoming extinct there by 1934, possibly as a result of severe hurricanes in 1929 and 1932 (4). POPULATION Clough estimated between 6000 and 12,000 animals on East Plana Cay in 1969 based on repeated counts of a measured area (4). The population appears stable as no significant change was detected between visits in 1973 and 1981 and it is possible that it has remained at this level since the first recorded visit to the island in 1891 (5). The animals are evenly distributed over the island at an estimated density of about 30 per ha; this is near the estimated maximum carrying capacity of the island (2). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY The island is semi-arid with sparse shrub thickets and scattered cacti growing on the sandy soil and limestone terraces (4). The Hutia lives in caves and fissures (with which the whole island is undermined) and under loose slabs of weathered coral; it is nocturnal, highly social and gregarious with complex marking behaviour. Breeding occurs at all seasons of the year, with a gestation period of between 85 and 220 days and normally one highly precocial young born (4). Diet consists of leaves, small twigs, bark and fruits. Clough identified six food plant species, with highest preference shown for Strumpfia maritima. There is no permanent fresh water supply on the island and the Hutias do not seem to require free water (4). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Although the population on East Plana Cay appears stable at present the small size of the island makes it potentially at great risk - hurricanes are the major threat and disease, which could be expected to spread rapidly through a dense population, is also a possibility. The introduction of cats or dogs could be disastrous - the former are believed to have been responsible for the extinction of the formerly abundant Swan Island Hutia (Geocapromys brownii thoracatus) on little Swan Island west of Jamaica within a few years of their arrival on the island in the early 1960s (6). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN The Bahamian Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries has declared the entire island a protected area, and controls the study and collection of the Hutia. The species is specified in the Wild Animals 301 (Protection) Act of 1968 as an animal which may be captured only under licence, and such licences are not usually issued (8). Small colonies of Hutias from the island have been transplanted to two other small islands (see above). East Plana Cay was surveyed in early 1981 and animals were taken to establish captive breeding colonies (1). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Continued protection and surveillance of East Plana Cay as well as of each transplanted population is of vital importance; establishment of populations elsewhere should also be considered. It has been suggested that a single organisation in the Bahamas, such as the Bahamas National Trust, should coordinate and control all activities concerned with the Hutia (9). CAPTIVE BREEDING Has bred at the Tacoma Zoo, the National Zoological Park and the University of Rhode Island, and appears to breed well in captivity. Animals were removed from the wild population in 1981 in order to establish two captive breeding colonies; one in the care of the Bahamas National Trust in Nassau and the second at the Florida State Museum in Gainesville (9). This should help safeguard the species in the event of disaster on East Plana Cay (9). REMARKS For description see (4). This data sheet was compiled from a draft kindly provided in 1981 by Charles Woods and Lauri Wilkins, Florida State Museum, and Garrett C. Clough, Department of Biology, Nassau College, Maine. REFERENCES 1. Bjorndal, K. (1981). In litt. to B. Groombridge. 2. Campbell, D.G. (1978). Tne Ephemeral Islands. A Natural History of the Bahamas. MacMillan, London. 3. Clough, G.C. (1969). Tne Bahamian Hutia; a rodent refound. Oryx 10: 106-108. 4, Clough, G.C. (1972). The biology of the Bahamian Hutia. J. Mammal. 53: 807-823. 5. Clough, G.C. (1974). Additional notes on the biology of the Bahamian Hutia, Geocapromys ingrahami. J. Mammal. 55(3): 670-672. 6. Clough, G.C. (1975). Project 1169. Hutia status survey on Little Swan Island and Jamaica. In Jackson, P. (Ed.), World Wildlife Yearbook 1974-75. WWF, Switzerland. 7. Howe, R. and Clough, G.C. (1971). The Bahamian Hutia in captivity. Int. Zoo Yearbook | 1: 89-93, Russel, O.S. (1971). In litt. to E. Baysinger. Wood, C., Wilkins, L. and Clough, G.C, (1981). In litt. \O 00 302 HISPANIOLAN HUTIA INDETERMINATE Plagiodontia aedium (Cuvier, 1836) Order RODENTIA Family CAPROMYIDAE eee See SUMMARY Confined to the island of Hispaniola in the Caribbean. Two subspecies are recognized which have in the past been considered separate species. In Haiti now extremely rare and threatened by hunting and destruction of the last few remnants of remaining habitat. Status in the Dominican Republic apparentaly less critical though surveys are needed. Occurs in two, possibly three, national parks in the Dominican Republic but reportedly unprotected in Haiti where there is an urgent need for reserves to be established. DISTRIBUTION Endemic to Hispaniola (7,10). Haiti: now confined to scattered areas in mountains in the southern peninsula (5,8,9,11). Dominican Republic: in 1981 said to occur in the southwest: the southwestern part of the Barahona peninsula, at moderate elevations of the Sierra de Bahoruco, Sierra de Neiba and Valley of San Juan in the foothills of the Cordillera Central. In the east reported at the following localities: Boca de Yuma, Higuey, el Seibo, Hato Mayor, Los Haitises, Sabana de Ia Mar and Miches in the south, and on the Peninsula de Samana and around Nagua further north. Other records suggest an additional population 45 kms north of Santo Domingo (5,6). Two subspecies are recognised, P. aedium aedium and P. aedium hylaeum, which have been considered separate species in the past (2,7,10). The distribution of the two forms is not precisely known, though it may reflect the boundaries of the old North and South Island masses of Hispaniola, with P. a. aedium found on the southern Peninsula of Haiti and the contiguous Barahona Peninsula of the Dominican Republic and P. a. hylaeum in the central and northern areas of the Dominican Republic (9). POPULATION Total numbers unknown, though everywhere rare. Haiti: extirpated from most areas and ‘extremely rare! in remaining habitat. A few scattered breeding populations are believed to persist in isolated ravines and mountainous slopes, principally in the Massif de la Hotte and Massif de la Selle (5,8,9,11). Dominican Republic: in 1981 said to be rare throughout its range; major populations were confined to two regions isolated by natural barriers and lowlands modified by agricultural activities (5). Both subspecies have been little collected and the animal was considered rare even at the beginning of the nineteenth century, though P. a. hylaeum is generally better known (8). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Occupies a variety of habitats from sea level to around 1800 m: mangrove, rain forest, subtropical dry forest, subtropical humid forest, low montane forest and a combination of conifers and hardwood. Those at higher altitudes reportedly move to lower areas during December and January. They are largely nocturnal, remaining in burrows, limestone crevices or hollow trees during the day, and are predominantly terrestrial though capable of climbing trees (3,5,6,11). Diet is presumably exclusively vegetarian as in other hutias; they are known to dig for root tubers and eat bark, leaves and garden crops, the most frequently eaten cultivated plants reportedly being stems and roots of Malanga (Xanthosoma sagittifolium), Mazumbella (Colocasia esculenta), cassava and yam (8). Gestation period is somewhere between 125 and 150 days, with one young born (8). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Habitat destruction and hunting, In Haiti the great majority of forest has been destroyed - in 1978 it was reported that the proportion of forest cover had dropped in the last 20 years from 80% to 9%, roughly half of 303 which was second growth shrub. The clearance of forested mountain slopes for gardens is reportedly the most immediate threat to the hutias - large areas are burned over and planted to crops and many are apparently killed by the fires. Although the gardens are good sources of food, they are much frequented by people and hutias are killed whenever encountered; they are considered pests because they raid crops and are also hunted with dogs for food and sport. Woods in 1977 noted, however, that hutias were so rare by then that very few people had specially trained dogs to hunt them. The gardens generally have a short life and heavy rains soon wash the soil away, causing widespread erosion and leading to dry slopes virtually free of vegetation with the only remaining suitable habitat in steep ravines unsuitable for cultivation. Woods believes that hutias may persist in this habitat for a number of years but that populations will inevitably drift down to critically low levels from which they will not recover (5,8,9). In the Dominican Republic the situation is believed to be somewhat less critical, though the same threats can be expected to apply (5). Predation by the introduced mongoose Herpestes auropunctatus is believed to be relatively unimportant (5). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Haiti: none at present (1981). Dominican Republic: fully protected by law with export forbidden. Occurs in the Parque Nacional del Este and Parque Los Haitises; may also exist in the Parque Nacional Jose del Carmen Ramirez (5). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Haiti has a large and widely distributed human population and can only afford minimal reserved areas; it has therefore been recommended that a careful evaluation of the minimum habitat requirements of the hutia be made and that all conservation efforts then be concentrated in a few carefully chosen Ireas. Woods and Rosen have made detailed recommendations for possible reserves and have advocated the setting up of at least two in the south: one in the western region of the Southern Penisula (preferably at Pic de Macaya near La Hotte) and one southeast of Port au Prince in the Massif de la Selle (preferably along the ridge from the Morne d' Enfer to the Morne La Selle). Dominican Republic: a survey of the species' status and habitat requirements is required. Long-term studies of its general biology are recommended to develop a strategy for conservation and management of its habitat (5). The setting up of a national park in the Sierra de Bahoruco, where the species is found, is also advised (5). CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1979 there were reported to be 15 in three zoos, of which nine had been bred in captivity (4). In 1981 there were proposals to establish a captive breeding colony at Florida State Museum and to transfer this to ZooDom in the Dominican Republic after 3-5 years (5). REMARKS For description see (2,3). This data sheet was compiled from a draft kindly provided in 1981 by J.A. Ottenwalder, Museo Nacional de Historia Natural and ZooDom, Santo Domingo, and C.A. Woods, Florida State Museum, Gainesville. REFERENCES 1. Anon. (1978). Haitian desert. Oryx 14(3): 209. 2. Anderson, S. (1965). Conspecificity of Plagiodontia aedium and P. hylaeum (Rodentia). Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 78: 95-98. 3. Hayman, R.W. (1956). Mammals of the West Indies. Zoo Life 11(2): 41-45. 4. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. Lond. 5. Ottenwalder, J.A. and Woods, C.A. (1981). In litt. 6. Salazar, L (1977). Notas Generales Sobre Plagiodontia sp. con comentarios sobre los especimenes obtenidos por ZooDom. ZooDom 2: 16-23. 7 Varona, L.S. (1974). Catologo de los mamiferos vivientes y extinguidos de las Antillas. Academia de ciencias de Cuba. Woods, C.A. (1977). The natural history of the Haitian Hutia. Unpd. report, | 5pp. Woods, C.A., and Rosen, R.C. (1977). Report on conservation work in southern Haiti. Unpd. report, 32pp. Woods, C.A. and Howland, E.B. (9179). Adaptive Radiation of Capromyid Rodents. J. Mammal. 60: 95-116. Woods, C.A. (In Press) Status of Plagiodontia and Solenodon in Hispaniola. Oryx. 305 eats matt ee ed ABSA ned Lenora TASonlain | ppeonelp anion a= itksing = fares regent | aged dod yearns iam nse oohnl ars wale | Although tte gaens aren ped sit bateratedtathewizue | rich. Lewques pine padre ot BSCi de Was nether bier tat DOOM a: even : bangs maaged advym tee ties eit Feige? AWOKE Tee soutte ‘Ue LAT worden peer de re Baill “Perms Eh shevgenae see Metays Acer CB Hottie) wid pie ssutheoge ORS eit he Sie: ape ‘ew fe Scie tprate fetly above he Adge Trot due bene oh her Miwrrwt! ? Aa. Deveviioun Republics @ survey oF the aphoingt € “Bellas radpitte iran if peared. Ler ~heroneeidien of ith qenecht fetal ) Cetin “a Ae os ~ ane ae bs Sob acer Wh io . ans Ty oT Py if Bi ipy-f3 % e's Tngh tr ’ nity ait wre j ree ol err ae ser atl ‘ . re, Dine Sies hash have been j ~.— fr i Bee. an Ls PRT op hap 4, A ital see TF bs Wee e- WNhe rh ae ~ : gt rae! : Ont ‘ ; : =, aan ‘ wary. we iL Wet BESIVSSY stows tha ays, Sy iT ot, ee ‘ és, 7 “4 ta re a " : , : Hi 4 ia. ; Le ; ’ 1 ‘3. ‘ ™ Th ee . ‘ os oa bP : : ve Lt) ee ee eer ear ioe = f 7 : Os gM RE Oy ant Co, bea), | Sc clasts lathes tnitisip stot abe : (a ae ee 7 t * , os mee Was ~ Pigs anorbel OMORT ae. SOTA ee wi ¥ Bet ae = er * oft ne & Re op art Pe PF ie r, ra Se i at eine ee ce a oe noi a SON ie ? Cetey, Cds LESLOM -Raeeere eee ae) eee a ay si, aa Sa . Stand Meek Acs! a SY ae Leck aa ly ee he t ia i ; eit pee ny On. th esr aves a A cart ef : ’ . ‘ Sean ty ok poet meer . “= : i a Prey - x «” ig Ny ¥r< + Cae Wr eras z aa ene ays a a Tepe tes Bite Sty Lodis, Ait ; ¢ uo t AN ‘ ’ ¥ 4 Ge eget | eS Se ari 2 th del i 7 Plime naire? sda Red ¥ ay eh . ae Ba. Tb? aes. Rae ) : oy Re - Eee, bias R e ee Sib. 2, SW tnads purses acunpee Ti we i be te a ame F 7 ok Rekk Ak A Ae Mea te. ; pve oe i. = SF Res Woigeg iG ry 2 ia ik pe ye "gee. Pagers me oY She. / sie th CAR e bbe ia Ae Ri Aine net et Shen SMALL*“EARED DOG INSUFFICIENTLY KNOWN Atelocynus microtis (Sclater, 1882) Order CARNIVORA Family CANIDAE SUMMARY A solitary, nocturnal and little known species with a _ sparse distribution in the Amazon and upper Orinoco river basins. Numbers and threats unknown but human disturbance may have a negative effect on its survival. Protected by law in Peru and Brazil. Distributional and ecological studies needed as the basis for a conservation plan, if required. DISTRIBUTION Amazon basin in Brazil, Peru, Ecuador and Colombia, thence into the upper Orinoco basin in Colombia and probably Venezuela (6,7). Carvalho states it is found only in the region between the Rios Madeira and Ucayali (3). Cabrera however, cites it from the entire region between the Rios Tapajos, Napo and Ucayali, and as far south as the Amazonian part of Mato Grosso and the Upper Parana Basin, also in the same state (3,7). The Peruvian range is usually given as that part of the Amazon region lying to the east of the Rios Napo and Ucayali (5). Grimwood found no record of its presence in northern Peru but saw specimens from the Rio Inuya (a tributary which joins the Rio Urubamba near its confluence with the Rio Apurimac), and from the Rio Curanja at approximately 71°50'W, 10°20'S (5). He was also reliably informed of its presence in the neighbourhood of Pucallpa, on the Rio Ucayali, and in the Manu Province of the Department of Madre de Dios (5). In 1981 David Macdonald, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group received reports of additional records of this species from J. Patton (10): in 1968 six specimens were collected near the village of Balta on the Rio Curanja in southeastern Peru where the habitat is low tropical forest not subject to flooding. In thicker forest in northern Peru one was shot while killing chickens in an area of broken topography (between the Rio Santiago and Rio Cenepa) but this was believed to constitute poorer habitat for the species (9). In Ecuador this canid is known only from the area surrounding the foot of Mt. Sumaco in Napo Province; four records exist of which two are prior to 1941 (12). No detailed information has been located for its distribution in the rest of its range. For distribution maps see (1,7,14). POPULATION Numbers unknown. Peru: in 1969 reported as certainly very rare, with most inhabitants of the Amazon region unaware of its existence (5). However in 1981 Macdonald was informed by J. Patton that according to Indian lore Small-eared Dogs may not be so rare, but that their nocturnal and solitary habits made them very elusive (10). Hershkovitz reported similarly: 'the wild adult shuns man and cultivated areas and is rarely encountered by hunters' (6). Only four records are known from Ecuador, of which two were prior to 1941 (12). No information has been received from the rest of its range. HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Tropical forest ranging from near sea-level to an altitude of about 1000 m (7). Little is known of its life history and habits but its sleek pelage suggests that it has more than a casual aquatic habit, or else that it is specially adapted to regions of high rainfall (7). Food habits unknown (9), although a captive specimen at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago ate raw meat and occasionally the shoots of Kikuyo grass (Pennisetum clandestinum) (7). Said to be nocturnal and solitary (10). No information on breeding habits. THREATS TO SURVIVAL Unknown but possibly at risk from indirect influence of human intrusion throughout its range (9). Grimwood in 1968 reported that the 321 skins of this species had no commercial value (a fact still true in 1981 (8)) although were occasionally bought as curiosities by fur dealers in Pucallpa (5). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Protected by law in Peru and Brazil and is included in the Brazilian list of Endangered Species. Probably occurs in the Manu National Park in Peru (5) but is not found in any national park or reserve within its known range in Brazil (4). An IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group was established in 1980 and will be monitoring the status of this animal with a view to suggesting and implementing any appropriate conservation measures. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Legal protection in all countries of its range needed. Ecological and distributional studies to determine what conditions must be provided in parks and reserves to ensure its survival. Such a study would however be difficult given the sparse occurrence of this species in the wild. CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1979 none were recorded in captivity (11). Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, at one time possessed three individuals but breeding was unsuccessful (13). REMARKS For description of animal see (1,6,7,9,14,15). This is a monotypic genus. REFERENCES 1. Bueler, L.E. (1973). Wild Dogs of the World. Constable, London. 2. Cabrera, A. (1957-1961). Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Vols. I and II Revista del Museo Argentina de Ciencias Naturales 'Bernardino Rivadavia', Cienc. Zool., Buenos Aires. 3. Carvalho, C.T. (1957). Alguns mamiferos do Acre ocidental. Bol. Mus. Paraense E. Goeldi, N.S., Zool. 6: 1-22. 4. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1974). In litt. 5. Grimwood, I.R. (1969). Notes on the distribution and status of some Peruvian mammals, 1968. Special Pubn. No.21 American Committee for International Wild Life Protection and New York Zoological Society, New York. pp 86. 6. Hershkovitz, P. (1957). A synopsis of the wild dogs of Colombia. Novedades Colombianas Mus. Hist. Nat. Univ. del Cauca No.3: 157-161. 7. Hershkovitz, P. (1961). On the South American Small-eared Zorro: Atelocynus microtis Sclater (Canidae). Fieldiana: Zool. 39(44): 503-523. 8. IUCN Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit. (1981). Pers. comm. 9. Langguth, A. (1975). Ecology and evolution in the South American Canids. In Fox, M.W. (Ed.), The Wild Canids. Their Systematics, Behavioural Ecology and Evolution. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. 10. Macdonald, D. (1981). In litt. 11. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. 12. Ortiz-Crespo, F.I. (1981). In litt. Including information supplied by Prof. Gustavo Orces and Juan Black. 13. Rabb, G.B. (1979). In litt. 14. Stains, H.J. (1975). Distribution and taxonomy of the Canidae. In Fox, M.W. (Ed.), The Wild Canids. Their Systematics, Behavioural Ecology and Evolution. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. 15. Walker, E.P. (1975). Mammals of the World. The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. Baltimore and London. 322 MANED WOLF VULNERABLE Chrysocyon brachyurus (Illiger, 1811) Order CARNIVORA Family CANIDAE SUMMARY An inhabitant ot grassland interspersed with open forest and swampy areas, mainly in Brazil but also reaching into neighbouring countries. Numbers unknown but the species is believed threatened by habitat loss and disturbance e.g. annual burning of grasslands to improve pasture, and by persecution because ot its poultry stealing habits. Protected by law in Brazil and Argentina and occurs in a number of national parks and protected areas. Was the subject of an ecological study in Brazil by James Dietz from 1978-80 as the basis for recommending conservation measures. He suggests an educational Campaign to promote awareness of the species threatened status, continued research to formulate specific conservation actions, coordination of captive breeding programmes, and increased documentation of its past and present distribution. An IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group was established in 1980 and will be suggesting and coordinating conservation action for this and other canids. DISTRIBUTION Central and southeastern Brazil, from the State of Piaui as far as Rio Grande del Sul and Mato Grosso, extending into northeastern Argentina and the eastern extremity of Paraguay, and Bolivia in the savannas of the Departments of Beni and Santa Cruz (5,13,16,17,19,22,25). Within Argentina Schaller and Tarak, after a 22 day status survey in 1976, reported it to be confined to the northern part of the country, mainly in the Provinces of Formosa, Chaco and Corrientes, and perhaps a few penetrating into Santa Fe and the southwestern corner of Misiones (22). Macdonald who spent a month in Argentina in 1979 looking for the species believed that it had perhaps already disappeared from Corrientes (18); farmers in the vicinity of Esteros del Ibera said they had not seen any since the late 1960s (18). Macdonald found the greatest number of signs of wolf presence in the wet Chaco (confluence of the Paraguay and Parana rivers) where a small island (Isla del Cerrito) was reputedly optimal Maned Wolf habitat (18). The northern limit of its range appears to be the Parnaiba River in northern Brazil. Until the 19th century it also occurred south of the Rio de Plata in Argentina and in the interior of Uruguay (5). POPULATION Total numbers unknown, but the species is believed to be declining because of habitat loss and disturbance, and persecution. Little detailed information is available“and only the following brief comments have been located. Argentina: described in 1981 by the Director Nacional de Fauna Silvestre as vulnerable (12). Macdonald made no comment concerning status after his 1979 trip (18). In October 1976 Schaller and Tarak conducted a 22 day status survey of the Maned Wolf in Argentina. They drove through much of its range in Chaco, Formosa and Corrientes, interviewing various ranch owners, officials, farmhands and others, and whenever possible searched for spoor in marshes and grasslands (22). They found the species to be uncommon except in a small area of eastern Formosa and they made a guessestimate of possibly 1000-1500 in Argentina (22) and believed that its survival would depend upon protection afforded it on private ranches (22). Similarly in 1981 Tarak described the Maned Wolf as rare throughout Argentina being most numerous in Formosa (24). Brazil: Dietz who studied the species in Brazil from 1978-80 reported in 1979 that it existed at low density throughout much of the country and that when not molested could coexist with humans (9). He noted that the drier perimeter of the Pantanal region of Mato Grosso State seemed to harbour larger numbers than the swamplands of the interior Pantanal (9). In 1976 Schaller and Carvalho reviewed its status in Brazil 323 and reported the species to be still widely distributed in Goias and Mato Grosso States and according to informants, to be often locally common (21). Also they were informed that good populations existed east of Paraiso do Norte in northern Goias, about 150 km north of Cuiabo in Mato Grosso, and on the higher ground bordering the northern Pantanal such as Fazenda Piquiri (21). They believed that the Maned Wolf was not yet endangered in Brazil but that its status would become increasingly vulnerable as its habitat was lost (21). The only estimate of numbers is a 1968 estimate by Silveira of 1500-2200 living in a total area of 650,000 sq. km, the main concentrations occurring in the central highlands and the Mato Grosso; 80-100 ot these animals were believed to live in 125,600 sq. km round the towns ot Luziania and Silvania and it was assumed that this population density was at least equalled in the other parts of the species' Brazilian range (8). However Coimbra-Filho and Mittermeier in 1974 considered 1500-2200 to be too low an estimate, having been based on a region already somewhat disturbed by man, so that densities were probably not quite as high as in less inhabited areas (6). They described Maned Wolves in Brazil as widely but sparsely distributed and to be fairly secure in the vast cerrados of the centre (6). Bolivia: in 1981 described as vulnerable (1). Peru: no data on status located but since its presence in Peru has only recently been documented it must presumably be very rare. Paraguay: no recent data; Meritt whilst investigating armadillos in Paraguay in 1974 noted that no reliable figures existed regarding numbers of Chrysocyon and that the species had a disjunct distribution. Despite several weeks spent in suitable habitat he did not observe any individuals, only several-day-old footprints (19). Mittermeier and Coimbra-Filho in 1974 thought it was fairly secure in the Chaco region (6). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Savannas with open forest and swampy, marshy areas (15,17,21,22); avoids dense and continuous forest (22). The Maned Wolves in Dietz's study area in Brazil were monogamous but socially interacted very little with their partner except during the breeding season. Communication within and between pairs was accomplished by howling and by strategic deposition of scats and probably of urine. Each pair occupied a home range of about 25 sq. km in area, usually including a variety of vegetation types, and not overlapping with the ranges of neighbouring wolves (10,26). Diet consists of small prey such as birds, frogs, lizards, rodents, insects, eggs, armadillos, fruit and _ roots (3,10,11,15,16,17,19,21,22); domestic chickens are also taken (10). Nocturnal or crepuscular and very shy (6,10,15,26). Usually two young per litter (25), gestation period of 60-65 days (15), and in South America births occur from June to August (8,10,15,26). Dietz in his study area recorded litters of up to five pups but never more than two juveniles survived to leave their den sites, the reason was not discovered (10,26). Longevity is about 12-15 years (8). Kleiman found captive Maned Wolves to be rather timid and fearful in the presence of humans (15). Maned Wolves suffer from two serious disease problems: cystinuria, a hereditary disease, and infestation by giant kidney worms Dioctophyma renale (4,10,26). Six of eight individuals in Dietz's study area in Brazil tested positive for cystinuria (10,26). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Habitat loss and disturbance, and persecution as a chicken thief. In Brazil the main threat has been reported to be conversion of its habitat into fields (21), this has already happened west of Brasilia and around Goiania in Goias (although huge tracts still remain in the northern half of Goias and in central and southern Mato Grosso) (21). The annual burnings of the grassland to improve pasture (6,9) and capture of specimens for zoos (6) are also believed to constitute threats. Dietz believed that it was not known what effect large scale habitat modifications had on Maned wolves although he did mention that the annual burning did cause pup mortality (9). Within his study area the major cause of mortality was encounters between rural landowners and wolves which preyed on domestic chickens; 22 out of 25 wolves had died this way (26). Dietz felt that provided wolves were not persecuted they could survive well in 324 areas of human habitation (9). In Argentina habitat modification has adversely affected the species by removing both cover and prey (22). Cattle ranching has had this effect, as has rice farming and draining of marshes (22). For Paraguay, Meritt cites disease as possibly the greatest detrimental force acting on wild populations (19). The species is neither hunted for its meat nor its fur (19,22). In Bolivia Bejarano reports it to be hunted by cattle farmers who accuse it of killing calves; also increased fencing of land limits its range (1). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix 2 of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it between acceding nations being therefore subject to regulation and monitoring of its effects. Protected by law in Argentina, (nevertheless Chaco promoted a hunt for this species, as well as for the protected Jaguar, Panthera onca, in 1975 (22)). Included on the Brazilian Endangered Species List, thus hunting, commercialization, transport, or export of this animal are prohibited by law (9). No information has been received concerning legal protection elsewhere. It occurs in a number of protected areas. In Argentina Tarak (1981) reported it to occur in the Parque Nacional Rio Pilcomayo in Formosa (24) although in 1975 this park was reported to be in a very bad state (22), and in Chaco National Park, but very rare in both (24). Given the Maned Wolf's propensity to travel widely and the fact that most land within its range is private property (22), there is no area large enough in Argentina to establish a park big enough to contain a viable population of Maned Wolves (22). The species survival in Argentina is thus dependent on the good will of private land owners, some of which (at least in 1975) already protected their wildlife (22). In Brazil it occurs in the national parks of Araguaia (6,21,22) and Tocantins (Goias) (6,16), Brasilia (Distrito Federal) (6,21,22), Emas (Goias, Matto Grosso) (6,21,22) and Serra da Canastra (Minas Gerais) (10,26). Also occurs in the Caracara Biological Reserve (6,21,22) and possibly in substantial numbers in Chapada dos Veadeiros Park (21). The species was the subject of an ecological study between 1978-80 by James Dietz in the Serra da Canastra National Park in Brazil (10,14,26). The objectives of the study were to identify major factors limiting population expansion, major problems associated with the species and to suggest solutions or necessary future studies to cope with these problems, and to evaluate necessary and essential criteria for the creation of a reserve for the species and its habitat (14). In 1980 an IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group was established to monitor the status of canids and to recommend and coordinate conservation measures. CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED A _ species conservation plan is needed. For Argentina, Schaller states that its survival depends on protection afforded it on private ranches (22). The Caracara Biological Reserve (700 sq. km) in Brazil needs enlarging to include the higher ground outside the reserve -- an area which animals have to retreat to for the part of the year when the reserve is flooded (21). Dietz's two year study in Brazil resulted in the following recommendations: i) a campaign to educate the general public particularly in rural areas, about the threatened status of the Maned Wolf; ii) new research projects to collect the data necessary for the formulation of specific conservation - oriented programmes for this species; iii) documentation of the species distribution, both past and present; iv) coordination of captive breeding efforts (10,26). CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1979 at least 52 males and 50 females, 55 captive bred, were held in 30 zoo collections (20). Successful captive breeding is becoming more common (7). A possible serious threat facing specimens in Zoological gardens is congenital cystinuria (4). Up to 1979 830% of zoo specimens tested were found positive for cystinuria (3). REMARKS For description of animal see (7,15,16,23,25). A monotypic genus. James Dietz very kindly supplied some of the information on which this data sheet 325 it based, and David Macdonald, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group commented on a draft in May 1981. REFERENCES 326 1. 22. 23. Bejarano, G. (1981). In litt. Brady, C.A. and Ditton, M.K. (1979). Management and breeding of Maned Wolves, Chrysocyon brachyurus at the National Zoological Park, Washington. Int. Zoo Yearb. 19: 171-176. Bush, M. (1979). Pers. comm. to J. Dietz. Bush, M. and Bovee, K.C. (1978). J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assn. 173 (9): 1159-1162. Cabrera, A. (1957-1961). Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Vols I and Il. Rev. Mus. Argent. Cienc. Nat., 'Bernardino Rivadavia'. Cienc. Zool. 4(1) 1957: 1-307; 4(2) 1960: 309-732. Buenos Aires. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1974). In litt. Crotty, M.J. (1979). The Maned Wolf - South America's largest canine. Zoo View 13(3): 6-7. Da Silveira, E.K.P. (1968). Notes on the care and breeding of the Maned wolf Chrysocyon brachyurus. Int. Zoo Yearb. 8: 21-23. Dietz, J.M. (1979). In litt. Dietz, J.M. (1980). Ecological studies of the Maned Wolf in the Serra da Canastra National Park, Minas Gerais State, Brazil, S.A. IUCN/WWF Project 1584. July 1978-June 1980. Final Report to IUCN/WWF. Encke, W., Gandras, R. and _ Bieniek, H. (1970). Beobachtungen am Mahnenwolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus). Zool. Garten (NF) 38: 49-67. - Gonzalez Ruiz, E.O. (1981). In litt. Hofmann, R.K., Ponce del Prado, C.F. and Otte, K.C. (1975-76). Revista Florestal del Peru. Vol. 6. (1-2). Ministerio de Agricultura, Lima. - IUCN/WWF Project 1584. Kleiman, D.G. (1972). Social behaviour of the Maned Wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus) and Bush Dog (Speothos venaticus): A study in contrast. J. Mammal. 53(4): 791-806. Krieg, H. (1940-41). Im Lande des mahnenwolfes. Zool. Gart. 12: 257-269. Langguth, A. (1975). Ecology and evolution in the South American Canids. In Fox, M.W. (Ed.), The Wild Canids. Their Systematics, Behavioural Ecology and Evolution. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York. Pp. 192-206. Macdonald, D. (1979-81). In litt. Meritt, D.A. Jr. (1973). Some observations on the Maned Wolf, Chrysocyon brachyurus, in Paraguay. Zoologica (New York) 58: 53. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. Schaller, G.B. and Carvalho de Vasconcelos, J.M. (1976). The status of some large mammals in Goias and Mato Grosso States of Brazil. Report to IBDF. Schaller, G.B. and Tarak, A. (1976). The Maned Wolf in Argentina. Part | of a Report on a wildlife survey in northern Argentina and in the Emas National Park, Brazil. Unpd. Rep. Stains, H.L. (1975). Distribution and taxonomy of the Canidae. In Fox, M.W. (Ed.), The Wild Canids. Their 24. 25. 26. Systematics, Behavioural Ecology and Evolution. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York. Pp. 192-206. Tarak, A. (1981). Pers. comm. Walker, E.P. (1975). Mammals of the World. The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore and London. WWF. (1980). The Wolf with the golden mane. WWF Project 1584. From a report by J.M. Dietz. WWE Monthly Report September 1980. 327 nl > on, apa OR a sl ne aia ieee cles aemariazed ani Sh Grongy Ohh aneti vit 1%, Arty: eReg phos 354 bret ad a 7 mena 10% ALREL) A ewe TAS a tL E RE OBO | Sith dee. bhaaticn at pode CEL aR A Deaisw ey ete ee BORN LIne earns eB Meestelge hag AY Sabi ee rior WW ens nablageass dive: Raed: el 89, cor act dsegorh iy A aw wera oe PRA NSRP Sot deg a - y 5 | a oh, (ro; eh ett LPT Tes tires, a eT eo ee poe, ‘Mgtin year he PANE * UNGAR UsGES. dae art Cabrera, Anos need 2 Ie Poe LD) - ATA Lao Bie AY ‘ ‘y Aer. ce as, Wiehe tie: Me ay i : \ Nat, Byer’) fpr cata away vegoelu’. ‘ eye Tie Boal, “AAHY 7 243 tek at?) ep itiry i a: Patines A! res, “Te ete3: Sepnt 6G, Coivnera Pithe . uk ante t Natrianlers Kak, 497 bp! fr or TO. a ee Nise’ aaa, Wout > Sout SR c SS id Fe hy my, Pe: ce Ry ta be Ai 6.49 foe pir Fan OSS w Toi OT es as aoe aes SS Notes ce see! Cla and bry pe \ pte 3 % he Apeetd wot eee oe Dd br Any eur Ie 5 “ ay Vs ‘ hoe’ ; a ey Zi iby ; oh es, a aFs Ib R iy 4 eigen ee io bebe, Fh APS). ty Ati at ny ; ase WO 2k Fo oP ty dt Vb TRO)s ‘Ex Magica ction ‘a 2 a fue) ‘ . a ta ta veri ae C ai de® dy “Ve 1301 rar ed cr ic: {. ee 4 nee hats ae a ie | nia Aue fee Pe route ma ios ke a, TUS, Fpl ast to IWC Meee. Sg A ae 4 Bo, es. Pog ra ay A> (ety Bevinate: = re | Seek eet ic. Reavis aio. Matin ge at yee Soya A Ed. UMPRCRAT NERNEY 3%: Meas cic Toke ae ae x Mee hie) 7 ae es {pica semis wits. GPa ek}. wre i Toe . a at a ye ir: Ve" eh An’ “ EIN, a ae rine “an { ¥ nite — ap? 2 ! Scie 7 ee ee 4307 5a 6), s<¢ ‘hth hal rior i Cz tes ee Q poe eae Win LE tetiede ree hs - ae ‘on ey hice A) i ie, AUS M/W WE Pr aies el be wen ar ify: Kieieh Re. 41572), Swokai, itso nek ob ec a é: . ah ms “IYO 2 ratty ueUp sire Wass Tee (Spendts ie ha eG inde! @ruity us “bien ts 3: Manu iatey Ho Ses | ae prods rar wee > oa ning Pasi he wie es A vabatey “ie - wy a 6 a Cenae ee i ry) Aus 5 ee i hs ie Le * as Coal ie Ran errs wieriy, el SFR. Boslnay DOR. ay ee ree Ls sie Re Gr hh eee ME oe Os, ey ng SOIT tor “i teal ith it A) 2, bib erica © Beh fe) Ea fj PR Fe aN Ug Fe Meatiane Reanwit? ne ig Ree | oe ee We re} ibaa eae iy 0.4 OPS- BSE ie Sy cer ney 2} Mat ro te m3 anal Shoestices bee Ge ae | ’ Dida ks Nahin be Sate, key ar a ie 1G ‘gees | nirh,” PecPuvieh al mee ba Americ 2B ox ayes ey tims (Hot tines ep mee buck GtOR Where SPOR anon bat Chiat eae: pvivtest Vi atv mes, dGirribers, ori ee ms ie EGP coches Ce ft 52 eek, ‘ ' + and : % ; J » Fi NSERY A A) tata te a eee Patt Sapa aed i pide Pa ; : va * - t ae he $% haeer aby: rep it Ar} ree ses Ve 7 “er ee we (4 AY ania “ Woe, preven hor US Medi e- Hye iF ebay 4 f = " * to + : Pscnte < uh Deere, br) tema: Re ees STeNee ated. Yt) a shin Caagall eke: Gr i 5 <1 pate a is ke fi | Sp eEerae hy 2 SR co ae ie Eth rhe, Mayes ALI Ge Beast Ys: x Soh tepauittiye) Meany ie: ese ins _ +t ‘ 5 O66 series ¢ vf inte alla at apt oe } , aa Abba ad ia lh ce : Ave igibes cr g ere ah "4 eer f “ireataneied eaten Th. agtn> “Amvorida, > ty pre c {ost brsarreat ted Epnpcess st ea = om tat POLAR BEAR VULNERABLE Ursus maritimus (Phipps, 1774) Order CARNIVORA Family URSIDAE SUMMARY Circumpolar distribution in the Arctic in association with the sea ice in coastal regions. World population in 1981 thought to be about 20,000 or more. Population declines could result from over-hunting or environmental degradation associated wth non-renewable resource exploration e.g. for oil. Recovery of populations would be slow because of the low reproductive rate. Polar bears are protected under an International Agreement which restricts hunting and requires research on the species and its environment. The main conservation need is for better analysis and modelling of field data to improve understanding of population dynamics and ecological relationships. DISTRIBUTION Northern hemisphere, circumpolar, in association with polar sea ice, i.e. U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Canada, Norway and Denmark (including Greenland). Polar Bears occur throughout most of the polar basin, as far north as 88°N (40) and about as far south as 52°N (14,30,46), but closely associated with coastal regions. In some areas, they undertake extensive movements related to seasonal movements and changes in the distribution of sea ice (7,42,56). For map see (4). POPULATION Estimates as low as 10,000 have been proposed (51), but a rough estimate of 20,000 was derived by Larsen in 1972 by summing the regional estimates of Polar Bear populations (17). The population trend is not known but is thought to be stable or increasing. Polar bears were all once thought to be part of one circumpolar population (28). However, the results of recent tagging studies indicate that they are divisible into relatively discrete populations (17,21,42,44,49,51). The sizes of the areas in which these populations exist vary from relatively small areas in the Canadian Arctic to relatively large areas in the Chukchi Sea. The relative discreteness of populations is greatly influenced by the distribution and movements of the sea ice (20,42,44,56). No information is currently available on hereditary or genetic differences between the various sub-populations, some data indicate a cline of increasing size from Svalbard west to the Bering Straits (26). The following rough estimates have been made of numbers in several areas where studies have been conducted. These give a range of about 18,500 to 27,000 total. However considerable variability exists in the methods used, and in the statistical reliability of the methods of analysis, furthermore to date there are no estimates for several large and significant areas (1). Barents and Greenland Sea, Svalbard, Franz Josef Land, Novaya Zemla: 4779-5750, based on ship: survey and observed harvest (1,19); Central East Greenland (resident): approximately 100, from mark-recapture studies (1,5,57,58); Northeast Greenland (resident): approximately 100, from aerial survey (1); Ellesmere, Jones Sound, Thule area (resident): 300+ based on sustained harvest (1); Canadian Arctic, Zone Al and A2: 1750, based on estimated cub production (1,14,45); Zone A3: 254, from mark-recapture (14); Zone B: (Labrador Coast): 60-90 from mark-recapture (46), (Ungava Bay): unknown; Zone C: unknown; Zone D: (south): 700, from mark-recapture (44), (north): unknown; Zone E: 1100, from mark-recapture (49); Zone F: 2008, from mark-recapture (33); Zone G: unknown; Zone H: 1800, from mark-recapture (2). Alaskan north slope: 1200-2500, from computer simulation of harvest and mark-recapture (1,23); Chukchi Sea: 2500-7000, from computer simulation of harvest and mark-recapture (1,23); Soviet Union (central): 1800-3600, from aerial survey (53). 343 HABITAT AND ECOLOGY The Arctic Ocean, from the ice edge to the permanent polar pack, and along its shores and islands. The preferred habitat is ice that is periodically active, where wind and sea currents cause movements and fracturing of the ice followed by refreezing. This process creates intermittent lanes or patches of recently refrozen ice (4,42). This may occur at the interface between landfast ice and drifting pack ice, across the mouths of bays, or in tidal zones along coastlines. It is in this habitat that hunting success is highest (43). In the polar basin and adjacent areas, Polar Bears spend the summer along the edge of the pack ice. Near islands or the mainland, they concentrate in bays that retain shore-fast ice. After breakup, most of the bears that are near islands spend the summer along the coastlines of these islands. Occasionally, adult males have been observed to climb snow-covered glaciers and ice caps (32). In Hudson Bay, bears go inland and endure the warmer weather by digging caves or pits down into the permafrost (13,45). In winter, Polar Bears move to the southern edge of the drift ice, to the coastlines of islands, and to the northern edges of the continents after the annual ice forms in these areas. On the basis of available data, it appears that most pregnant females do not winter along the ice edge, but return in October or November to coastlines where suitable habitat exists to make dens for bearing their young (4). Polar Bears feed primarily on Ringed seals (Phoca hispida) (43,50), but also prey on Bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus), Harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus), and Hooded seals (Cystophora cristata), and scavenge on whale, walrus, and seal carcasses (10,31). Occasional references (8,10) have been made to Polar Bears attacking Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) and Walruses (Odobenus rosmarus), but Polar Bear mortalities have also been attributed to the latter (15). Polar Bears occasionally eat small mammals, birds, eggs, and vegetation when other food is unavailable (31). Breeding takes place from February to May, and possibly into June (6,24,25). Implantation is delayed (29,51) and the cubs are born in dens in December and January (9,24,54,55). Litter size and reproductive rates vary geographically, but usually females attain maturity at 4 to 6 years, and have a mean litter size of about 1.6 to 2.0 every 3 to 4 years (3,14,24,25,42,44,45,49). The cubs usually stay with the female for 2-2.5 years (24,42,44). Other than family groups, and occasional groupings on the Hudson Bay shore while waiting for ice to form, Polar Bears are solitary. THREATS TO SURVIVAL Overexploitation, and habitat deterioration and disturbance. Recent analyses using a mathematical model indicate that sustained yield may be less than 2% of the total population (unpubl. data), but, for example, the Canadian harvest levels in some areas may exceed 5% (1). Hides taken in Canada and Greenland can be sold legally. The trade in Polar Bear hides in Canada 1972-78 has been summarized (34,35,36,37,38,39). In the case of a harvest, the number of bears that could be harvested from a population is variable depending on the age and sex composition of the bear in both the total population and the harvest (1). The variability in these calculations points out the urgency of continued work on population estimates and modelling of Polar Bear populations. Non-harvested portions of some populations may serve as reservoirs for replenishing subpopulations that have declined. The impact of harvesting immigrant animals should be evaluated. Without immigration, recovery time for depleted populations will be slow because of the low intrinsic rate of increase of Polar Bear populations. Similarly, it appears from the modelling done to date that Polar Bear populations may decline more slowly than can be readily detected by monitoring harvest (1). Although more difficult to evaluate than harvest, losses of animals and declines in productivity may result from environmental degradation (1) associated with the exploitation of minerals and fossil fuels, especially in offshore areas. Heavy metals and toxic chemicals have been found in tissue samples from bears checked for these contaminants. Their effect on the survival of Polar Bears is unknown. 344 CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN The Polar Bear is listed in Appendix 2 of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and trade in it or its products is thus subject to monitoring by ratifying nations. Since 1976, Polar Bears have also been protected under an International Agreement (22) that restricts their taking and directs the signatory nations (U.S.A., U.S.S.R, Canada, Norway, and Denmark) to conduct research to identify the status of populations and to protect those areas critical for survival and reproduction. The Polar Bear Specialist Group of the Species Survival Commission of IUCN meets every two years to discuss Polar Bear research and management on an international basis. In 1972, the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act banned the harvesting of Polar Bears in the U.S.A. but allowed native subsistence hunters an unlimited take (subject to the condition that populations do not become depleted). In Canada only Inuit and Indians are allowed to hunt Polar Bears. The total harvest (726 for 1980-81) is made up of individual guotas allocated to specific villages. In Greenland, only residents are allowed to hunt Polar Bears; the annual take is estimated to be between 125 and 150 bears. In the Soviet Union and Norway, moratoria on taking Polar Bears were initiated in 1955 and 1973, respectively (4). There have been several ongoing research programmes on the population dynamics, behaviour, and movements of the species (16,17,18,24,41,44,45,47,52,58) and recently, population modelling with computers has proven useful in evaluating the effect of harvesting different age and sex classes (48 and unpubl. data). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Continuation of current research and conservation efforts (e.g. protection of major denning and feeding areas as they are identified). Recent developments in population modelling indicate that changes in quotas should be made with extreme caution. Further research into methods of analysis and modelling of each Polar Bear population requires the following information as soon as possible to reduce the chance of overharvesting: estimates of population size, mortality rate and reproductive parameters; delineation of the geographical boundaries of the populations; degree of immigration and emigration from the population; and bias in the sex and age composition of the harvest. Other major conservation points include identification and protection from disturbance or destruction of critical denning and feeding areas, and protection of the marine ecosystem as a whole from the detrimental effects of human industrial activities (1). CAPTIVE BREEDING A total of 53 institutions world-wide reported the holding of 169 Polar Bears in captivity at the end of 1979 (11). Although there is a preponderance of females over 3 years of age, the number of captive births remains low and cub mortality high. Polar bears have been successfully bred and reared in captivity (12,27,59), but success depends on such factors as security, solitude, confinement to a small area, and a heated den. In 1979, only 7 cubs were born and, of these, 3 died within 30 days of birth. REMARKS For description of animal see (4,51). The draft of this data sheet was researched and written in May 1981 by Dr Ian Stirling, Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group and Wendy Calvert. The Red Data Book is greatly indebted to them. REFERENCES 1. Consultative Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. (1981). Report of the Meeting: Summary and Conclusions. Oslo, 20-22 January 1981. 2. DeMaster, D.P., Kingsley, M.C.S. and Stirling, I. (1980). A multiple mark and recapture estimate applied to Polar Bears (Ursus martimus) in the Western Canadian Arctic. Can. J. Zool. 58: 633-638. 345 346 ele 20. Zl. 22. 23. DeMaster, D.P. and Stirling, I. (In press). The estimation of annual survivorship and mean litter size of Polar Bear cubs. In Meslow, C. (Ed.), Bears - Their Biology and Management. IUCN New Series. DeMaster, D.P. and Stirling, I. (1981). Ursus maritimus. Mammalian Species 145: 1-7. American Society of Mammalogists. Erikson, E. (1976). Capture and investigation of 42 Polar Bears, North East Greenland, April-May 1974. In Proc. Fifth Working Meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group. IUCN Publ. New Series. Supp. Paper 42. 37-48. Erickson, A.W. (1972). Bear studies. Alaska Fed. Aid Wildl. Restoration. Seg. Report, Project W-6R3. 9 pp. Frame, G.W. (1972). Occurrence of Polar Bears in the Chuckchi and Beaufort Seas, Summer, 1969. J. Mammal. 53: 187-189. Freeman, M.M. R. (1973). Polar Bear predation on beluga in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic 26: 163-164. Harington, C.P. (1968). Denning habits of the Polar Bear. Canadian Wildl. Service Report Ser. 5: 1-30. - Heyland, J.D. and Hay, K. C1376). An attack by a Polar Bear ona juvenile beluga. Arctic 29: 56-57. - ISIS Species distribution summary. (1979). Jacobi, E.F. (1968). Breeding facilities for Polar Bears, (Thalarctos maritimus) (Phipps, 1774), in captivity. Bijdr. Dierk. 38: 39-46. - Jonkel, C.J., Kolenosky, G.B., Robertson, R.J. and Russell, R.H. (1972). Further notes on Polar Bear denning habits. In Herrero, S. (Ed.), Bears - Their Biology and Management. IUCN New Series 23: 142-158. - Jonkel, C., Smith, P., Stirling, I. and Kolenosky, G.B. (1976). Notes on the present status of the Polar Bear in James Bay and the Belcher Islands. Canadian Wildl. Service Occas. Paper 26: 1-40. Kiliaan, H.P.L. and Stirling, I. (1978). Observations on overwintering walruses in the eastern Canadian high arctic. J. Mammal 59: 197-200. - Larsen, T. (1968). Ecological investigations of the Polar Bear in Svalbard. Norsk Polarinst. Arbok 1966: 92-98. Larsen, T. (1972). Air and ship census of Polar Bears in Svalbard. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 36: 562-570. Larsen, T. (1976). Polar Bear den surveys in Svalbard, 1972 and 1973. In Pelton, M.R., Lentfer, J.W. and Folk, G.E. (Eds), Bears - Their Biology and Management. IUCN New Series 40: 199-208. Larsen, T. (1981). Distribution, numbers, and population characteristics of Polar Bears in Svalbard. Report to the 8th meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, Oslo, January 1981. Lentfer, J.W. (1972). Polar bear - sea ice relationships. In Herrero, S. (Ed.), Bears - Their Biology and Management. IUCN New Series 23: 165-171. Lentfer, J.W. (1974). Discreteness of Alaskan Polar Bear population. International Game Biol. 11: 323-329. Lentfer, J.W. (1974). Agreement on conservation of Polar Bears. Polar Record 17: 327-330. Lentfer, J.W. (1976). Polar Bear reproductive biology and denning. Final Report 5.4R. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game. 24, Zee 26. 2k 22pp. Lentfer, J.W., Hensel, R.J., Gilbert, J.R. and Sorensen, F.E. (1980). Population characteristics of Alaskan Polar Bears. In Martinka, C.J. and McArthur K.L. (Eds), Proc. of the Fourth Int. Conf. on Bear Res. and Manag. Kalispell, Mont. February 1977. Lono, O. (1970). The Polar bear in the Svalbard area. Norsk Polarinst. Skrifter 149: 1-103. Manning, T.H. (1971). Geographical variation in the Polar Bear, Ursus maritimus Phipps. Canadian Wildl. Service Report Ser. 13: 1-27. Nunley, L. (1977). Successful rearing of Polar Bears. Internat. Zoo Yearbook 17: 161-164. 28. Pederson, A. (1945). Der Eisbar; Verbreitung und 29% 30. al. 32. 33. 34, 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41, 42. 43, Lebenweise. E. Bruun and Co., Copenhagen. |66pp. Ramsay, M.A. and Stirling, I. (In press). Reproductive biology and ecology of female Polar Bears in western Hudson Bay. Naturaliste Canadien. Ray, C.E. (1971). Polar Bear and mammoth on the Pribilof Islands. Arctic 24: 9-19. Russell, R.H. (1975). The food habits of Polar Bears of James Bay and southwest Hudson Bay in summer and autumn. Arctic 28: 117-129. Schweinsburg, R.E. (1979). Summer snow dens used by Polar Bears in the Canadian High Arctic. Arctic 32: 165-169. Schweinsburg, R.E., Lee, J. and Latour, P. (1980). Polar Bear studies in eastern Lancaster Sound and Baffin Bay. NWTWS Final Report No. 6. 91 pp. Smith, P.A. (1977). Resume of the trade in Polar Bear hides in Canada, 1975-76. Canadian Wildl. Service Prog. Note 82: 1-8. Smith, P.A. (1978). Resume of the trade in Polar Bear hides in Canada, 1976-77. Canadian Wildl. Service Prog. Note 89: 1-5. Smith, P.A. (1979). Resume of the trade of Polar Bear hides in Canada, 1977-1978. Canadian Wildl. Service Prog. Note 103: 1-6. Smith, P.A. and Jonkel, C.J. (1975). Resume of the trade in Polar Bear hides in Canada 1972-73. Canadian Wildl. Serv. Prog. Note 43: 1-9. Smith, P.A. and Jonkel, C.J. (1975). Resume of the trade of Polar Bear hides in Canada, 1973-74. Canadian Wild. Service Prog. Note 48: 1-5. Smith, P.A. and Stirling, I. (1976). Resume of the trade in Polar Bear hides in Canada, 1974-75. Canadian Wild. Service Prog. Note 66: 1-7. Stefannson, V. (1921). The Friendly Arctic MacMillan, New York. 361 pp. Stirling, I. (1980). The biological importance of polynyas in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic 33: 303-315. Stirling, I., Andriashek, D., Latour, P. and Calvert, W. (1975). The distribution and abundance of Polar Bears in the eastern Beaufort Sea. A final report to the Beaufort Sea Project. Fisheries and Marine Service, Dept. of the Environment, Victoria, B.C. 59 pp. Stirling, I. and Archibald, W.R. (1977). Aspects of predation of seals by Polar Bears. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 34: 1126-1129. 348 44, 45. 46. 47. 43. 49. 50. ats a2 53. 54. 55. 56. Die 58. aos Stirling, I., Calvert, W. and Andriashek, D. (1980). Population ecology studies of the Polar Bears in the area of southeastern Baffin Island. Canadian Wildlife Service Occ. Pap. No.44. 33pp. Stirling, I., Jonkel, C., Smith, P., Robertson, R. and Cross, D. (1977). The ecology of Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) along the western coast of Hudson Bay. Canadian Wildlife Service Occ. Pap. No.33. 64pp. Stirling, I. and Kiliaan, H.P.L. (1980). Population ecology studies of the Polar Bear in northern Labrador. Canadian Wildlife Service Occ. Pap. No.42. 18pp. Stirling, I. and Latour, P. (1978). Comparative hunting abilities of Polar Bear cubs of different ages. Canadian J. Zool. 56: 1768-1772. Stirling, I., Pearson, A.M. and Bunnell, F.L. (1976). Population ecology studies of Polar and Grizzly Bears in northern Canada. Trans. 41st N. Amer. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf. 41: 421-430. Stirling, I., Schweinsburg, R.E., Calvert, W. and Kiliaan, H.P.L. (1978). Population ecology of the Polar Bear along the proposed Arctic Islands Gas Pipeline Route. Final Rep. Environ. Mgmt. Service, Dept. Environ. Edmonton, Alberta. 93pp. Stirling, I. and Smith, T.G. (1975). Inter-relationships of arctic ocean mammals in the sea ice habitat. Proc. Circumpolar Conf. North. Ecol., (Ottawa, Canada) 2: 129-136. Uspenskii, S.M. (1977). The Polar Bear. Nauka, Moscow. 107 pp. (English translation by Canadian Wild. Service, 1978). Uspenskii, S.M. and Belikov, S.E. (1980). Data on the winter ecology of the Polar Bear in Wrangel Island. In Martinka, C.J. and McArthur, K.L. (Ed.), Proc. of the Fourth Int. Conf. on Bear Res. and Manag. Kalispell, Mont. February 1977. Uspenskii, S.M. and Shilnikov, V.I. (1969). Distribution and the numbers of Polar Bears in the Arctic according to data aerial ice surveys. pp. 89-102. In The Polar Bear and its Conservation in the Soviet Arctic. Hydrometeriological Publishing House, Leningrad. 184 pp. Van de Velde, F. (1957). Nanuk, king of the arctic beasts. Eskimo 45: 4-15. Van de Velde, F. (1971). Bear stories. Eskimo, new ser. |: 7-11. Vibe, C. (1967). Arctic animals in relation to climatic fluctuations. Meddelelser om Gronland. 227 pp. Vibe, C. (1976). Preliminary report on the first Danish Polar Bear expedition to North East Greenland, 1973. In Proc. Fifth Working Meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group. IUCN New Series Supp. Paper 42: 74-81. Vibe, C. (1976). Preliminary report on the second Danish Polar Bear expedition to North East Greenland, 1974. In Proc. Fifth Working Meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group. IUCN New Series Supp. Paper 42: 91-98. Wemmer, C. (1974). Design for Polar Bear maternity dens. Int. Zoo Yearbook 14: 222-223. BLACK-FOOTED FERRET ENDANGERED Mustela nigripes (Audubon & Bachman, 1851) Order CARNIVORA Family MUSTELIDAE SUMMARY Now thought to be restricted to no more than a handful of localities within its former North American range. Total numbers are unknown and sightings are very infrequent. Depleted directly, or indirectly, by the poisoning of prairie dogs (its natural prey) and the destruction of its grassland habitat. Listed as endangered on the United States List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and a Recovery Team exists to promote conservation of the species. Has been the subject of extensive studies. DISTRIBUTION United States of America. During the century following its discovery its range has contracted considerably (11,14) and the Ferret is now believed to survive only in western North and South Dakota, eastern Montana, Wyoming and Colorado (being found up to altitudes of 3200 m in the Rockies)(13,16), in Nebraska, and possibly south to Oklahoma and New Mexico (13). Most of the recent records have been from western South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana (about 20 in total since 1970) (5,11,12), and the most recent sightings have been in Wyoming in September and October 1981 (19,20). Before colonization of the prairies the Ferret occurred throughout the Great Plains of North America from Alberta and Saskatchewan in southern Canada to Texas and Arizona in the United States, usually in association with prairie dog towns (9,11,14). It has not been recorded in Canada since 1937 and is now believed to be extinct there (1,17). For map see (14). POPULATION No figures available; last reported sightings were in September and October 1981! (19,20) (prior to that in 1979 (16) and prior to that in 1974 (16)). A Ferret was killed by dogs on September 25 1981 ona ranch near Cody (19). Asa result of this kill investigations led to the finding of a live individual on October 29, 1981, it was later captured and radio-tagged (20). Seven to eight skulls have been located in the past two years, none probably more than 20 years old (2,16,18). The Ferret has never been considered a common species, (8,11), is rarely seen (11,13), and since its discovery in 1851 only about 1000 sightings have been made. However, at the turn of the century the prairie dog population was estimated at 5000 million and it seems likely, but only a guess, that the Ferret must have existed in good numbers amidst such an abundance of its prey (4). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Short and mid grass prairies, in which prairie dog towns are the principal habitat; the Ferret has also been found living in ground squirrel colonies, haystacks and under buildings. Prairie dogs are undoubtedly its principal food. Very secretive and mainly nocturnal but also active during daylight hours, especially in summertime (11,14). Captive females enter breeding condition in late February to early March, proestrus lasts 21-28 days, copulation occurs in March and early April, and gestation of the female in two breeding seasons has been noted as 42-45 days. Litter size of wild females ranges from one to five (14). Longest recorded lifespan is at least nine years, in a captive specimen at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Centre (7). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Habitat destruction as a result of the prairies being ploughed and planted with domestic grasses. Poisoning campaigns directed at prairie dogs, which are regarded as pests by farmers and ranchers (4,11,14,15), have deprived the Ferret of its shelter and food supply and it may die from secondary poisoning (10,11,14). Prairie dog populations have increased in recent 349 years but Ferret sightings have been fewer (18). Vehicular traffic accounts for some losses each year and Ferrets are occasionally shot by people hunting prairie dogs for sport. Other predators may include the domestic dog and cat, coyote, badger, owls, hawks and eagles (11,14), and in some localities the surviving Ferrets may be too scattered to breed successfully (8). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN. Listed in Appendix |! of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products is therefore subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes is banned. It is also listed as endangered by the United States Department of the Interior under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and therefore protected in all States of its former and present range. Studies have been undertaken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and South Dakota Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, and a Recovery Team has been established to develop plans for the restoration of the Ferret (18). A full-time biologist at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Centre studied the species from 1965 to 1980 (7,18) and several other federal and state agencies are cooperating in surveys to determine its presence. Search dogs have been trained, scent lures developed, and in Wyoming a reward for sightings is offered (5,16). At Patuxent, specimens of the closely related Siberian Polecat (Mustela e. eversmanni) are being used for studies of captive propagation and radio tagging (18). Prairie dog towns must be determined to be 'Ferret-free' before a federal agency may undertake 'damage suppression' measures against the dog, but it is extremely difficult to make certain whether or not the Ferret is present. Several ten-year easements (payments to ranchers to leave prairie dog towns along) have been obtained on private lands in western South Dakota. There are also large prairie dog towns in three National Parks, all in the Dakotas -- Badlands, Wind Cave and Theodore Roosevelt -- and many more on Bureau of Land Management and United States Forest Service lands, where management programmes are being developed for the prairie dog and Ferret (13). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Since survival of the Ferret depends on preservation of prairie dog towns, establishment of additional sanctuaries in which such towns occur, through easement or purchase, is necessary. Steps should also be taken to ensure that Ferrets captured on private lands where prairie dog control is contemplated are released in suitable natural habitats in one of the several areas of federally-owned land where habitat preservation can be assured G61 513). CAPTIVE — BREEDING In 1977, two wild-caught male and two female Black-footed Ferrets were held in captivity at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Centre, Laurel, Maryland, but all have since died (R.Nowak 1981,Pers.Comm.) REMARKS For description of animal see (8,11,14). This data sheet was compiled with the assistance of C.N. Hillman, T.W. Clark, R.C. Erickson, F.R. Henderson, R.L. Linder and P.F. Springer, to whom we are most grateful. REFERENCES 1. Banfield, A.W.F. (1974). The Mammals of Canada. Univ. of Toronto Press. 2. Boggess, E.K.,. Henderson, F.R. and Choate, J.R. (1980). A Black-footed Ferret from Kansas. J. Mammal. 61(3): 571. 3. Cahalane, V.H. (1954). Status of the Black-footed Ferret. J. Mammal. 33: 418-424. 4, Clark, T.W. (1976). The Black-footed Ferret. Oryx 13(3): 275-280. 5. Clark, T.W. and Dorn, R.D. (1981). Rare and endangered vascular plants and vertebrates of Wyoming. In press. 6. Erickson, R.C. (1973). Some Black-footed Ferret Research 350 N 19. 20. Needs. In Proceedings of the Black-footed Ferret and Prairie Dog Workshop, Sept. 4-6, 1973. South Dakota State Univ., Brookings. Erickson, R.C. (1977). In litt. Fortenberry, D.K. (1972). Characteristics of the Black-footed Ferret. Resource Publication 109. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 8 pp. Hall, E.R. and Kelson, K.R. (1959). The Mammals of North America. Ronald Press, New York. Henderson, F.R. (1977-81). In litt. Henderson, F.R., Springer, P.F. and Adrian, R. (1974). The Black-footed Ferret in South Dakota. Technical Bulletin No. 4. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Hillman, C.N. and Linder, R.L. (1973). The Black-footed Ferret. In Proceedings of the Black-footed Ferret and Prairie Dog Workshop, Sept. 4-6, 1973. South Dakota State Univ., Brookings. Hillman, C.N. (1977). In litt. Hillman, C.N. and Clark, T.W. (1980). Mustela nigripes. Mammalian Species No. 126: 1-3. American Society of Mammalogists. Homolka, C.L. (1964). Our Rarest Mammal? Audubon 66(4): 244-256. Linder, R.L. (1980-81). In litt. Saskatchewan Department of Tourism and Renewable Resources. (1978). The status of the Black-footed Ferret Mustela nigripes (Audubon and Bachman) in Canada. Committee on the status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Status reports and evaluations Vol |. Springer, P.F. (1977). In litt. Anon. (1981). Positive sighting of a Ferret is first in more than 2 years. The New York Times Thursday, October 15th. Anon. (1981). Ferret, feared extinct, is found in Wyoming. New York Times Saturday, November 7th. Son sf RM? phd g} 4 Sed Mes. 8a 130 aE or Cet aia eee Pha plist e2he. be Re tr but ahciy't iter MELO: ero eat sag be Mor One or eee a eee ee nee Pica Foe i ital sites HEARD Gute G anya wT rye oe QM act} 201 Gi Ts Sic wore F spas Dayan i+ dowlA enor UR orca lsd ieae NO ApeIAE: seen TH Mo AOi x. 1, ot Mam CSavention ol Inter nati Sha rane hetwhe kh BARRE LHF iy? Fauna nd eae ORE. 8 Bia es oe Ni OCIA Ey Ap: del tay: : MPs se by ianéhaci! tate fo LPM RRO Hamer pene, iv iy alge eid ast Mt ech Tp ihe 7 4 Sat pa aha TARAD Dre GaeepTat ones cre fae ri , 7 ant BALLOU? i rere beeen i ATRHR I ahd < . Peceh Wits eta and: uaa A Laon, (BLOM VRS 12 NEC ORNATIRE eyes Mt DA | } ey IN ee ar iQ FROMM AD ibe ita cavers pmagostag fined vo Eat : aon ne reheat é P fie pone ‘cat By sn, Reet: is alee i a lla. clad aie irizet cicapee Ceisae ees { BPGS SURES | 32 ces Spee Tif. UP de veya: su yeaa Oe fe eae i bateh yep a”) NYS Co Be eat han deen pre Hi Fins tard te ae r Reais a2 yas" > gta mati? ray ites xy asl Pagid ene l a pey “pertained: richie id pt haba & apie amibee OG) on as aa 7 7. imate oxy tawis (t oe eee Lined 187 eiye SAT} HAM re eden : vs nl sa pane idee Perrot . Ff sp ech MH P ek a Tah Sey i. pe ise a OBE ol ct! dog hae a aC, smerg at ailees nen at iL at ae 3a gor ' ve A enirertaty wil yl; a he i ei he %, tbe PPE heh wn ering CoN Mirela SF te fue: nee baa ie i, eal Se sihag ages igen “ek itisle Heme hobain ay. =i eeweta pues: oi. mahitein oar eres Fi io ere Paaiy ot; reser rvasth gin peal! gh 18 e 5 a as se aay : i : f tn ; y i" es ee thes = if aoe ve i he e te ite. : shar hy hee mba: Sp vee Be mr ft a Tr. Dyer ec He oy iad: epg tis wiraitie's i ae i ‘gr hit Koy tats Wet te Bt Ray ea nscabid be af Vlg; an ¥ wal iol peer apd, bie da ESTER a: mt mee eeseriprien “i a ing eae HEU 3 Thies “Sita 2 EUGbtGS, WIRE The esac ot Ny Melina EMA otne Cs e Magi sia.) Bilin Ese: e! ha we a bela shad ‘polit ie a y iphatins ee re " at See w g ih mina oa ae MARINE OTTER or CHINGUNGO VULNERABLE Lutra felina (Molina, 1782) Order CARNIVORA Family MUSTELIDAE a SUMMARY Extensively but sparsely distributed along coasts of Peru and Chile. Numbers unknown. Persecuted for its fur in Chile, and because of alleged damage to freshwater prawn stocks in Peru. Fully protected by law in both countries but enforcement difficult. Occurs in the Paracas Nature Reserve, and the proposed conservation area of Morro de Sama in Peru and in Chepu Forest Reserve in Chile. Some studies have been carried out but more data is needed regarding ecology and seasonal distribution. Conservation will depend on effective protection from persecution. DISTRIBUTION Pacific coastline of Peru and Chile from at least 9°S, and possibly 6°S, to Cape Horn at approx. 56°S (3,4,5,6). In Chile it was reported in 1978 as virtually absent in the region from the Chile-Peru border south to the Canal de Chacao, though still known from isolated, inaccessible areas north of Coquimbo (around 29°S) and of Valparaiso (32°-33°S) (5). South of the Canal de Chacao, its range is believed to be more continuous though is not accurately known (5,6). Originally occurred more or less continously from northern Peru to Cape Horn, and possibly also in Argentinian waters (6,7). POPULATION No recent reliable estimates though a 1976 FAO report noted that ‘South American marine otters, once abundant, have been reduced to scattered remnant populations; unconfirmed estimates total less than 1000' (1). The basis of this estimate is unknown. Peru: there has been no detailed census though Grimwood estimated 200-300 in 1967/68 (8). A general assessment in 1977 indicated that it had become very scarce along the coast, the most important remaining areas being the Paracas Peninsula and Morro de Sama GB) MInv( 975-1 was also said to be seen regularly off the town of Ancon, north of Lima (14). In 1977 it was included among the 25 most endangered animals in Peru (3). Chile: no overall figures are available. A survey in progress in 1979 reported an apparently stable population on the Taitao peninsula in Aysen Province, an area considered secure because of its inaccessibility to hunters (12). Cabello in 1977 noted densities of one otter per 100m of shore on Chiloe Island, though he stressed that this was a purely provisional figure (5). By 1967/68 it had been virtually exterminated in the Cape Horn and southern Tierra del Fuego region where Darwin in the 1830's had found it to be very abundant in the Chonos Archipelago and the islands off southwest Tierra del Fuego (8,9,11,14). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Mainly littoral, occupying rocky coastal areas, secluded bays and inlets near estuaries, although Hernandez recorded that it sometimes ascended rivers in search of fresh-water prawns to their upper limit of distribution, given as 650m above sea level (4,6,8,10,14). Studied on the north end of Chiloe Island, Chile, in an area characterised by a rocky shore of irregular topography with a heavy swell and constant strong northeasterly, westerly or south westerly winds (5,6) a tidal range of 2-2.5m, and a dense cover of shrubs and small trees stunted by wind and poor soil extending down to the high-water-mark; below this there is heavy growth of seaweed and algae. The high productivity of the area leads to very high numbers and diversity of shellfish (bivalves, gastropods, crustaceans, echinoderms etc.) (5,6). Faecal analysis and direct observation indicate that diet consists mainly of crustaceans and molluscs with lesser amounts of fish. 72% of remains identified in spraints collected at Chiloe over 17 months were crustacean (mainly Homalapsis plana and Taliepus dentatus), 353 and 27% molluscan, (mainly Concholepas concholepas) (6). Fruits of the seashore bromeliads Greigia sphacelata and Fascicularia tricolor are also believed to be deliberately taken although small amounts of seaweed identified in spraints are probably accidentally ingested with shellfish (5,6). In Peru diet is said to include the freshwater prawn Criphiops caementarius and a specimen collected near the Paracas Peninsula contained remains of a toadfish (Aphos porosus) (4,8,14). Most observations are of single individuals, though occasionally seen in groups of three or more. The extent of nocturnal activity is unknown though most reports note it as chiefly diurnal (6,8). Preliminary observations indicate that breeding at Chiloe occurs in summer with matings observed in December-January. Gestation period lasts somewhere between 60 and 120 days with young born in autumn and winter. It is not known if delayed implantation occurs as has been observed in other Lutrinae nor is there any evidence for more than one litter per year (6). Normal litter size appears to be two although a figure of 4-5 has been quoted for populations in the Magallanes area (5,6,13). The Killer whale (Orcinus orca) is thought to be a likely predator and there may be competition for food with gulls Larus spp. and the Southern sea-lion (Otaria flavescens) (5). Nothing is known of any seasonal movements, though it is reportedly largely sedentary in Chile (15). THREATS TO SURVIVAL In Chile persecuted for its fur and in Peru because of alleged damage to prawn fisheries. In Peru there is very little hunting for its fur, which is not considered to have any commercial value, though it is persecuted by fishermen, especially in the Majes and Ocona Rivers, for the damage it is alleged to do to freshwater prawn stocks (3,8,14). It is also often shot by fishermen and owners of firearms as a convenient living target (8). In Chile considerable hunting occurs for its pelt, which is highly valued there; most is carried out from boats 9-10 m long (Chalupas) which have sails or oars and a crew of 4 men. These remain afloat for up to 5 months at a time, sailing up and down the coast harvesting whatever is available. The Chingungo is the most sought after prize and is shot, or hunted on the shore by dogs which are carried in the boats. In one voyage 30 or 40 pelts may be obtained. The value of a pelt to a hunter fluctuated around US$37 in 1979, over twice the figure quoted in 1977. At that time a local dealer would expect US$75 per skin. Most pelts are destined for Argentina and the principle centres for this (illegal) trade are Pto. Montt, Castro, Melinka, Pto. Aysen and Pta. Arenas (5,6). No damage to freshwater prawn stocks is known in Chile (5). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products therefore being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Legally protected in Peru since 1977, before which there was an annual closed-season from 15 December to 31 March (3,14). Present in Paracas National Reserve, Peru (3,4). Nominally protected in Chile, under law No. 4601 of 1929, but enforcement is hampered by a lack of trained and equipped officials, by the inaccessibility and complexity of the terrain in southern Chile, and by the largely nomadic nature of the hunters (6). Occurs in the Chepu Forest Reserve on Chiloe Island, where an 18 month study of the species finished in 1979 (6). A further study of this and Lutra provocax was underway in Chile in 1979 (12). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Effective enforcement of protection throughout its range, especially clamping down on illicit export of pelts to Argentina, would be of great benefit. The proposed conservation area of Morro de Sama in Peru harbours the species. It is not known whether populations remain within present or proposed conservation areas throughout the year and investigations are needed to determine any seasonal movements, so that marine parks can be established that would provide permanent protection for at least some populations. Re-establishment in parts of northern central Chile where it 354 has been exterminated is also advocated (6). CAPTIVE BREEDING None known in captivity. REMARKS For description see (6,9). Two subspecies are said to be described -- one from southern Chile which is reportedly slightly darker brown than that from northern Chile and Peru (2). However, elsewhere subspecific classification is described as 'not clear and external characteristics cannot be used for subspecific separation! (1). Cabello also notes that differences between northern and southern specimens are more likely to represent clinal variation over the species extensive distribution (more than 5000km) rather than subspeciation (6). REFERENCES , 1. 14, es Anon. (1976). Marine Otters. Scientific Consultation on Marine Mammals. Bergen, Norway, 31 August - 9 September, 1976. ACMRR/MM/SC/WG Rep 5. Anon. (1978). Marine Otter included under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service News Release, Levitt 202/343-5634. Brack Egg, A. (1978). Situacion actual de las nutrias (Lutrinae, Mustelidae) en el Peru. In Duplaix, N. (Ed.). Otters - Proceedings of the First Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Otter Specialist Group, Paramaribo, Suriname 27-29 March 1977. 76-84. Brownell, R.L. Jr. (1978). Ecology and conservation of the Marine Otter (Lutra felina). In Duplaix, N. (Ed.). Otters - Proceedings of the First Working Meeting of the IUC N/SSC Otter Specialist Group, Paramaribo, Suriname 27-29 March 1977. 104-106. Cabello, C.C. (1978). La Nutria de Mar (Lutra felina) en la Isla de Chiloe, Chile. In Duplaix, N. (Ed.). Otters - Proceedings of the First Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Otter Specialist Group, Paramaribo, Suriname 27-29 March 1977. 108-118. Cabello, C.C. (1979). La Nutria de Mar Lutra felina Mol. 1782, en la Isla de Chiloe (II). Corporacion Nacional Forestal, Ministerio de Agricultura, Chile. Cabrera, A. (1957-1961). Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Rev. Mus. Argent. Cienc. Nat. 'Bernardino Rivadavia'. Cienc. Zool. 4(1,2): 1-731. Grimwood, I.R. (1969). Notes on the distribution and status of some Peruvian mammals 1968. Spec. Pub. 21. Am. Comm. Int. Wildlife Protec. and New York Zool. Soc. Harris, C.J. (1968). Otters: A study of the recent Lutrinae. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London. Hernandez, J.E. (1960). Contribucion al conocimiento de camarois de rio. Pesca y Caza. Ministeria de Agricultura, Lima. 10: 84-106. Osgood, W.H. (1943). The mammals of Chile. Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Zool. Ser. 30: 1-268. Otter Specialist Group, IUCN/SSC. (1979). Report to SSC Meeting, Cambridge, Sept. 1979. Unpd. Sielfeld, . W.,,.. Venegas, .C... and Atalah, A. (1977). Consideraciones acerca del estado de los mamiferos marinos en Chile. An Inst. Patagonia 8: 297-315. South American Otter Sub-Group of IUCN Otter Specialist Group (1976). A report prepared by N. Duplaix-Hall. Ms. Rottman, J. (1977). In litt. 355 (ari es aD 4 > ate iti i Shri dts an ve 7 A) Gay — : joe seth gORa Sponenwesy! a ey Si YTB hay ite o Figs 15H vingehe" SHS te pre a mag EA é = hy ¥ Hie sea SPAR: i Pr er i] : Atel TORT wos tare bind bi Jere "wings, ‘wesmlly Rite! sit ste VA AN ared ie Sh Mele haat eae ves a ; * ‘i Pati > 4] nl or \ ? 4 pues RIM ley ~A wspies i4 wihiedeh 4 | g rhea nurs ak ag, “AN scare pheremanery ie - Sah guenmetnen ys ae reer SHG jhe, Gees ites » acter’ + beege See mod a haa) et a a ie ee tad = ” 4} i es = Bases et Jalal ae Lava pena y trem nares et LUSOPP Heel} GAB tee Be ARK, ; ioe Tat oii ne erie H- to . aera ee) TR et “> rv L ffl WHO? 1, axe wee iD: ei eM, — emi bd bills trdy er) pawic 2G See ane ae i cra Pra a hb iti sbisieh sce’ SNA ae rtm sae so rene pene oe vi win Ressati erty LA PLATA OTTER or LOBITO DE RIO VULNERABLE Lutra platensis (Waterhouse, 1838) Order CARNIVORA Family MUSTELIDAE SUMMARY Eastern South America. Numbers unknown but reportedly has declined because of over exploitation, and in some regions river pollution adversely affecting its main prey species. National and international controls on the otter skin trade have improved of late but continuing restrictions are required. Surveys needed as basis for effective conservation plan which must include establishment of further reserves and controls on river pollution. DISTRIBUTION Southern Brazil, Paraguay, northern Argentina and Uruguay (1). Also Grimwood believes this is the species that occurs in the Pilcomayo/Paraguay drainage of S.E. Bolivia (8); if true, this considerably extends its range. Argentina: a 1979 report noted three concentrations: the Parana river basin in Santa Fe between latitudes 28° and 31°5', an area of many small tributaries, streams and islands; the delta region at the confluence of the Rios Parana and Uruguay near the mouth of the Rio de la Plata (though not in that river itself (14)), between 32° and 34°5'S, in particular on the eastern bank of the Parana in Entre Rios; and along lake shores (especially Galaza and Ibera) in the Ibera Basin, Corrientes Province. Also small numbers in Formosa, Chaco and Misiones Provinces (6). Range has evidently contracted this century and a 1973 survey of Santa Fe found it absent in many areas, e.g. the Salado, Coronda and Carcarana Rivers, where it was known to have formerly occurred (7). Uruguay: still present though has been exterminated in the larger rivers (14). Grimwood in 1978 noted it as reportedly still occurring in a wide variety of habitats, especially in coastal lakes (8). Little detailed information available from Brazil and Paraguay. POPULATION Numbers unknown. In Argentina has decreased markedly since the 1930s (6,7). A 1973 field survey in Santa Fe classified it as 'scarce' in the Parana River basin; 36 records were noted, of which 20 were captures, along about 700 km of river (7). In Brazil it is on the Endangered Species List, and in Uruguay has disappeared from many areas (14). No information obtained for Paraguay. Cabrera and Yepes in 1940 noted it as a rare species even then, with numbers considerably reduced compared to its original abundance (2). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Poorly known. Inhabits large rivers, smaller tributaries and lakes (2). Usually solitary, quiet and primarily nocturnal, though is sometimes active in daylight (3). THREATS TO SURVIVAL The most immediate cause of decline is hunting for its valuable fur (2,7,14,16). In 1977 the value of a skin to a hunter in Santa Fe, Argentina was around US$40, nearly three-quarters of the average monthly income of a rural peasant (7); consequently the otter has been exterminated from areas near human settlements. However the incentive to hunt is strong and hunters are prepared to go to great lengths to obtain skins (7,16). Hunters mostly subsist by trapping Coypus (Myocastor coypus), but will move traps to any area where signs of otters are detected, using the traps by day and hunting the otter with lights by night; they are reputedly prepared to dedicate weeks to obtaining a single skin (7). Habitat destruction from increased agricultural exploitation is also said to be important, especially in Entre Rios and Corrientes Provinces, Argentina (6). Pollution of rivers in some areas has affected the fish on which it is believed to chiefly subsist (13). 357 CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed (within Lutra longicaudis) in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and trade in it or its products is therefore subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes is banned. Protected by law in Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Brazil and on the Brazilian Endangered Species List. A notable decrease in the illegal hide trade in Argentina was observed between 1975-79, a fact attributed to stricter regulations and enforcement by official wildlife and conservation inspectors rather than to a further decline in otter numbers (6). Hunting in Paraguay is said to be difficult due to the terrain (16). Attempts are being made in Uruguay to control the skin trade (14). In Argentina said to be present (or present in recent times) in Iguazu , Pilcomayo, El Rey, Baritu and El Palmar National Parks, but records not always reliable (7). In Brazil reportedly occurs in the National Parks of Emas, Iguag¢u, Itatiaia, Serra da Bicaina, Serra dos Orgaos, Monte Pascoal, San Joaquim and Aparados da Serra, also in the Biological Reserve of Cara-Cara (11,12,15). In Paraguay almost certainly occurs in Tinfunque National Park and possibly others (8). In Uruguay said to occur in Cabo Polonio, Arequita and possibly Santa Teresa National Parks but again records may not be reliable (8). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED In 1977 the IUCN/SSC_ Otter Specialist Group recommended the following actions: urge the governments of Paraguay, Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay to enforce existing protection and trade laws; ban the export and re-export of skins; establish reserves where it can be better protected; support status surveys; control river pollution (5,12). CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1979, there was | male in Sao Paulo Zoo, Brazil (10). In Argentina a research programme on this species in captivity was begun in 1973 at the Wildlife Reproduction Centre (12). Breeding has taken place though mortality, especially in pre-weaned young, was reportedly high (7,14). Recommendations for any further captive breeding programmes have been made (7). REMARKS For description of animal see (1,2,8). Six species of neotropical Lutra provocax and L. platensis, and the Marine Otter Lutra felina. However, van Zyll de Jong in his review of the nearctic and neotropical Lutrinae in 1972 lumped four of these (excepting Lutra provocax and L. felina) together as one species, L. longicaudis (17). Davis, following Hershkovitz, has gone further and considers these four, and also Lutra provocax, to be conspecific with the nearctic L. Canadensis, this name having priority over L. longicaudis (19,20). Full agreement over this has not yet been reached (18), and Lutra platensis is here retained as a species. REFERENCES 1. Cabrera, A. (1957-1961). Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Rev. Mus. Argent. Cienc. Nat. 'Bernardino Rivadavia'. Cienc. Zool. 4(1,2): 1-731. 2nety Gabretas eA... gadnd.\s-Vepesw sod. 1ai(l980): Mamiferos Sud-Americanos. Vols. | and 2. Buenos Aires. 3. Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1974). In litt. 4. Dennler de La Tour, G. (1965). The present situation of wildlife conservation in Argentina and the prospects for the future. Unpd. report. 5. Duplaix, N. (Ed.) (1978). Otters - Proceedings of the First Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Otter Specialist Grou Paramaribo, Suriname 27-29 March 1977. IUCN, Switzerland. 6. Garcia-Mata, R. (1979). Report on Lutra platensis and Lutra provocax in Argentina. In: Otter Specialist Group 358 20. Report to SSC Meeting, Cambridge, Sept. 1979. Griva, E.E. (1978). El Programa de Cria y Preservacion de Lutra platensis en Argentina. In Duplaix, N. (Ed.), Otters - Proceedings of the First Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Otter Specialist Group, Paramaribo, Suriname 27-29 March 1977. IUCN, Switzerland. Grimwood, I.R. (1978). In litt. Harris, C.J. (1968). Otters: a study of the recent Lutrinae. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. Padua, M.T1T.J. (no date). Pargues nacionais e reservas equivalentes. Instituto Brasiliero de Desonvolvimento Florestal. Padua, M.T.J., Magnanini, A. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1974). Brazil's National Parks. Oryx 12(5): 452-464. Pires, F.D.A. (1968). In litt. Praderi, R. (1981). In litt. Schaller, G.B. (1976). Report on a Wildlife Survey in northern Argentina and in the Emas National Park, Brazil. Unpd. report. South American Sub-Group of IUCN Otter Specialist Group. (1976). Report prepared by N. Duplaix-Hall. Unpd. report. Zyll de Jong, C.G. van (1972). A systematic review of the nearctic and neotropical river otters (genus Lutra). Contr. Life Sci. Div. R. Ontario Mus. 80: 1-104. Duplaix, N. (1979). In litt. Davis, J.A. (1978). A classification of the otters. In Duplaix, N. (Ed.), Otters - Proceedings of the First Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Otter Specialist Group, Paramaribo, Suriname 27-29 March 1977. IUCN, Switzerland. Hershkovitz, P. (1972). The recent mammals of the Neotropical region: a zoogeographical and_ ecological review. In Keast, A., Erk, F.O. and Glass, B. (Eds), Evolution, mammals and southern continents. State Univ. Press, New York. 359 Kee. od i tee Od RISE i a eee coal eo a Se shi % roll * ‘ . ; "Et ved] me eS STOP Buna debi 14 aD we SPURNS eh bow rt °° ; ‘ 5 F s y nee ’ a } ip? ri er ‘ a 7 ras SMA L oi F444 pts) r Pes Ae re bah eh ‘eh eRe py a ee - g _ ‘ oy shen Bit ‘Its St amee bf mareee™ ‘ Pere SERIO ice THAT WA iia ” a - ‘ ‘ 7 Lb’ ; rigs trepthrs ya Bris. 7 ee . - nN —_ Si . “ss 5 eB ~ 2 ’ ua f ae Ue eit oe ae. “ast < Gee Sti: Retieee ss 5 :Y tive Sa SOs SUC’ iy. mee = ie Don | £ J ie H - 2 SSE 3G Heckel ing ae th tee duke ee? bt. ats iat CY ne ees =a i a ee Ss st 2 Lt Sats: r%, My 2 ey: ~erey via < rf we Cee Pane a x at = es at ¥ Se * oF “ rhe te — ‘ {c4n - ‘ r - eh, et eee 1. ne et ; iy. 7 cs Ee re * ivf 19 te SOUTHERN RIVER OTTER or HUILLIN INDETERMINATE Lutra provocax (Thomas, 1908) Order CARNIVORA Family MUSTELIDAE SUMMARY Occurs in Chile and Argentina. Numbers unknown but reportedly drastically reduced due to overhunting for its fur. Protected by law in both countries but requires effective legal action. Studies also needed to determine ecology and distribution as basis of a conservation management plan which must include establishment of adequately protected reserves. DISTRIBUTION Central and southern Chile and western Argentina. Chile: in rivers and estuaries from Temuco in Cuatin Province (39°S) south to the Magallan straits (6). Northern limit in the 19th century was established as the Cauquenes and Cachapoal rivers (approx. 36°S). Argentina: recorded in the Andes in a north-south strip about 100km wide from 38°S to the border (2). Garcia-Mata noted in 1977 that it possibly occurred in rivers and lakes between Lake Alumine and the Barrancas River up to about 36°S in northern Nequen Province, but that as yet no detailed surveys had been conducted (4). No recent reliable records exist south of Los Alerces National Park (42°S), though again there have been no surveys. Over the last two centuries there have also been numerous reports from parts of Patagonia; this is well outside its normal range and up to 100km away from the Andes. At the beginning of this century specimens were hunted at the mouth of the Rio Negro on the Atlantic coast; these however are considered to have been vagrants washed down by flood waters (4). POPULATION Numbers unknown and information on its status is often conflicting. Chile: Grimwood (1978) considered it very rare in rivers and lakes in the Andes though much commoner along the coast from Chiloe Island south (6). In the late 1970s it was reported to have disappeared from most of its range (11), and was said to be less common than Lutra felina, itself a 'Vulnerable' species, and with which it is sympatric in coastal areas (6,12). Hawke, however, conducting a field survey in 1979 reported signs and trails of L. provocax in almost all the areas he surveyed, even near the busy port of Puerto Aguirre. He estimated it to be common in the Aysen area and sighted five individuals which showed little fear of man (10). Argentina: although it has been reported as extinct it is now known that reasonable numbers exist in remote and inaccessible areas, especially in some of the Andean national! parks (4,14). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Poorly known. Found in estuaries, rivers and lakes i.e. fresh and brackish waters (12). Preliminary investigations indicate it feeds almost entirely on crayfish and freshwater mussels (11). Local reports in Chile suggest that it breeds throughout the year (10). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Main cause of decline is hunting for its valuable fur (2,5). Water pollution may have been an additional factor (captive otters are very susceptible to bacillary enteritis) although by the time human populations are sufficiently high to cause serious pollution the otters would probably have already been hunted out (13). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and trade in it or its products is therefore subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes is banned. Fully protected by law in Chile since 1972 and almost certainly occurs in Bernardo O'Higgins, 361 Alberto M. de Agustino and Hernando de Magallanes National Parks in southern Chile, and could occur in 9-10 parks further north, however enforcement of protection is usually minimal (6). Hunting, trade and export of skins has been forbidden in Argentina since 1950 (4), though again enforcement is difficult and up to at least 1977 pelts were smuggled from Chile into Argentina for export (12). Most of the areas where it is known to occur in Argentina are in national parks tnough here increased tourist pressure appears to have forced it into the more remote and inaccessible areas (4). The total area of national parks within the delimited range in Argentina is 2,086,000 ha (4). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Effective legal protection throughout its range. Surveys needed to determine status, distribution and ecology as the basis of a sound management plan including establishment of suitable reserves (1 3). CAPTIVE BREEDING No information. REMARKS For description of animal see (7,9). Van Zyll de Jong reviewed the systematics of neartic and neotropical Lutra in 1972 and lumped four of the six previously recognised species (Lutra annectens, L. enudris, L. incarum and L. platensis) together as L. longicaudis. He considered L. provocax and the Marine Otter, L. felina, to be distinct species, the former principally on the basis of its isolated distribution (15). Davis, however, following Hershkovitz, considers all the American Lutra excepting L. felina, but including L. provocax and the nearctic L. canadensis, to be conspecific, the name L. canadensis having priority. Full agreement over this has not yet been reached (3), and L. provocax is here retained as a full species. REFERENCES 1. Davis, J.A. (1978). A classification of the otters. In Duplaix, N. (Ed.), Otters - Proceedings of the First Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Otter Specialist Group, Paramaribo, Suriname 27-29 March 1977. IUCN, Switzerland. 2. Dennler de La Tour, G. (1965). The present situation of wildlife conservation in Argentina and the prospects for the future. Unpd. report. 3. Duplaix, N. (1979). In litt. 4. Garcia-Mata, R. (1978). Nota sobre el status de L. provocax en la Argentina. In Duplaix, N. (Ed.), Otters - Proceedings of the First Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Otter Specialist Group, Paramaribo, Suriname 27-29 March 1977. IUCN, Switzerland. 5. Grimwood, I.R. (1967). In litt. 6. Grimwood, I.R. (1978). In litt. 7. Harris, C.J. (1968). Otters: A study of the recent Lutrinae. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London. 8. Hershkovitz, P. (1972). The recent mammals of the Neotropical region: a zoogeographical and _ ecological review. In Keast, A., Erk, F.O. and Glass, B. (Eds), Evolution, mammals and southern continents. State Univ. Press, New York. 9. Osgood, W.H. (1943). The mammals of Chile. Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Zool. Ser. 30. 268pp. 10. Otter Specialist Group, IUCN/SSC. (1979). Report to SSC Meeting, Cambridge, Sept. 1979. Unpd. Il. Rageot, R. de (1978). In litt. 12. Rottman, J. (1977). In litt. 13. South American Otter Sub-Group of IUCN Otter Specialist Group. (1976). A report prepared by N. Duplaix. Unpd. 362 14, we. Tarak, A. (1980). Pers. comm. Zyll de Jong, C.G. van (1972). A systematic review of the nearctic and neotropical river otters (genus Lutra). Contr. Life Sci. Div. R. Ontario Mus. 80: 1-104. / i ’ qh in “F fr 7 all es . Alerte Mi. de Aisne and deamwiaeciael \ eR eho si very 17 omtnae ¢e A= ASSES) rhe A , weed iM: Date) attra AY led fottidded ly Agrent ‘itl guise tye teat ST) onits gle sthugeeed Aro Cas, i Md o2 Wwe HOCH where.it 6 xriwGh Bo ofa pial ‘ihe CAtina ate ws iad tiymugh dere inckecsst tourist prepiaitappeery So Rave forcedit inte TeThGhe One: shatce sible’ eras (we The ital. wee at national raths _- Dehra: Gang’ in Arges taal sic gee bi he (#),) TYReniiok Jair FON SEAN RT TODE AME ASURESST. 0 eset ‘Ease — bapa prise vig it PANR Oe pur vevs vieeded, We sherherryi Ti a Riu soba cs ’ orat. scold Sh 4 wae tana gement Psi & aN die ates ihe my mayot ane oocyte 3 i ) ~ eer bes we = - geo aeere dy dy Ta ee A ‘ a By oe ee A TIVE She. denic Sites Fadel salle e _ a ro err mere i. i ; oe | ate > on! bs a f @EMe aks Rar sieserignien GL wniraat avent7, 9). a + yl cp Torig i té Sore tercwatey, w- by nlereatics of ness te gd ge rophral Lutein 49 qn Linnqeew pte Fact spel Senet PGS. S/T ak gAnac ess, t meeeyim 4 \..iae snr ty hi hi renee} toe dhier 88, bs levee’: aes He Sieriercas Lc prOeae a ae i" Ura % =. issih, wth ees! ‘Cute x Sec! Oty ihe’ 4, oa sei Tpahay on ‘fucked een ust 3 Poca HS, Howry er tii, Herth kota, “a RB cckija panty nats cms ate: 2 sb rity Gul ngludiss 1, atv ax ar} to /aee Cae me abr ares wire Mart ha By) i tht 4 rk q 7 = “ft? “2S Pett), : ? , shies 4! (th bela yar er pale a ace ir Sa 15 Agihnh wl ¥ SPT cites i Ricinabn FAN ia py ela e 22 5 ei} ese St BUD ed ea] Ts or in thea a) Sits ~y Chatawe Sram cat 20 oasile Si ARR “RY OL OS ite vey ina i [6°45 ibe | bush Turetia’: : . 53 ater AP is Shacaael ‘a “3th 2. Bar 380 Gi: ubact a a : Ted G 5 pea eae | er : en the tai tee Ge. Sei v ie aie ‘ oa irae TAsity octet lore apenas: 53 ie BRET} aie" ry i seh, 7 Mi ahingn aA mired Ge age : iS Kine due ee euduTt tiie FF S34 4 eAuT Sree a Mv S| wise ae Shi <2 Bila Sahn cies YORE! oa ot SiS Oe: et Mee ORs Pe Lis we gle JW BABE AP «241 8h :¢ reve Br nine Caer ot Maca’ OMe la pL Fe DAR Ss? tise sai WS BER wae EDA t hese Waite 3 ‘satiate Bie psoas ie: BlBSe (ASCE ¥ yank dei age yemr rae POTEET Tet a daa. TEN ah Teeyi Tet TH Leteoryi wie ort; a di Trae Bele eC hee ores ve SNF RAE’ BVT aaa te Pe NDC i ae bo ae e Petes L SMO ; ieatt i Hes RS y A Suit . | Sere ‘Wi ye > VAERSESND. rhe bet dS 6 (Slants ame eta 2 er ptist wart. ss Diy 1 Png t: aitg & | Ris BM ihefoghe ; cates eo Rae 1. MEPY dS I Eig ef) as af ae pain i aon ay ee ppg nae, we hih-paem = ye okt a Sa ee i VA t, ive Ae o: ~ Figy alas a, Ait ij ee y hey es ar any hie oo ‘- ms ; ; ave “0° “ehdete ory i ae a peste AZ se id ce Ti eae EP Fy J Sat is heist ORE ie A ; withing ore (N97, sje PY ah : Ah i * eam pe DIED! x ee ar wey “Boe irs if f ae RR om T ieee ry 504 S12 Cae a ede oiee t ap pees Gy ei 7 uhiecetaoil tay rata phy ne 2, a seri a Lat egesi Crs LAY © ed Vise ve Pes ae, il shea s4e shady Pirachne shells eam’ Abstlot dhe 2 SOOTSTA | nee) WA sopreniey 9 s Ssto8 q hy SA abewariolyne ta W\;nswteD Greer eoreT “pte 6. Balbus ‘kasi yolox} ‘ rol 7 Paes Beg y, ig Ket earns canis Soh eeetys GUADALUPE FUR SEAL VULNERABLE Arctocephalus townsendi (Merriam, 1897) Order PINNIPEDIA Family OTARIIDAE SUMMARY Only known breeding colony is on Guadalupe Island off northwest Baja California. Commercial sealing drastically reduced the species and by the 1920s it was thought extinct. A colony was found in 1954. A 1977 population estimate gave 1300-1500 animals and censuses indicate a gradual increase. Only probable threat is increased human disturbance from a fishermen's camp but the impact of tourism also needs monitoring. DISTRIBUTION Mexico. The one known breeding colony is on the east coast of Guadalupe (28°53'N and 118°18'W), 256 km west of the Baja California mainland (2,3,4). Has been recorded in United States waters, specimens being regularly reported on San Miguel Island southwest of Santa Barbara, California (7). In 1965, three individuals were seen off Cedros Island 300 km southeast of Guadalupe (11). Fleischer states that before exploitation of the seal began, the Channel Islands off Los Angeles were probably the northern breeding limit. It is also reported to have occurred on a nearby small volcanic islet, Islote Negro (5,7,9). POPULATION Estimated at between 1300 and 1500 and increasing, on the basis of the 1073 counted by Fleischer on an expedition to Guadalupe in June and July of 1977 (4,5). Accurate counting is however very difficult due to the inaccessibility of the habitat. Little information is available on numbers prior to commercial sealing, but the population is thought to have been large, Hubbs thinks possibly as many as 200,000 on Guadalupe Island alone (6), while Fleischer estimates 20,000 for the unexploited population (4). By 1928 it was believed to be extinct, but in 1949 Bartholomew found a single bull on one of the Channel Islands, San Nicolas (1). In 1954, C.L. Hubbs discovered a small breeding colony of 14 seals on Guadalupe (6). Since then, several censuses have been taken and indicate that the population is slowly increasing and the area occupied along the east coast of the island continually extending (2,7). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Rocky shorelines. Although the species seems to range widely, the smallness of its numbers means that it is seldom seen in the open ocean (2,4,7). Copulation and the birth of young occur in May, June and July, caves being favoured for the purpose (5). Males are territorial and usually have harems of 2 or 3 females, but occasionally as many as 6-8 (7). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Commercial sealing reduced the species to supposed extinction by the 1920s. Because of its innate tameness, it is exceedingly vulnerable to illegal hunting. A fishermen's camp was established on the west coast of Guadalupe in 1976 and in 1977 was moved to the east coast. Although the fishermen respect the fur seal, human activities with boats constantly coming to shore during the fishing season will almost certainly interfere with the seals' breeding (5). Cruise ships visit the island to observe the northern elephant seal in winter and the fur seal rookery in summer, with effects at present unknown but needing to be carefully monitored (2). Feral goats may also be having an adverse effect on breeding seals. In parts of the rookery goats continually wandering across the territories of breeding males have certainly reduced their number (5). However, the habitat remains relatively undisturbed and the presence of several Mexican families and a garrison of marines at the southwest tip of Guadalupe do not pose a threat (2,7). 407 CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and trade in it or its products is therefore subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations and trade for primarily commercial purposes is banned. Legally protected in Mexican waters and in United States waters by the Fur Seal Act of 1966 (80 stat. 1091) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, which prohibited taking of the seal by American citizens in any waters anywhere. Guadalupe Island was declared a wildlife sanctuary by President Obregon of Mexico in 1922 (4,7), confirmed by a new presidential decree in 1971 (5), and in May 1978 Mexico declared all the islands of the Baja California Peninsula and adjacent Sonoran Desert coast as wildlife reserve, this includes Guadalupe (12). Luis Fleischer studied this species between 1975 and 1977 (2,3,4,5). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Regular patrols to enforce legal protection. Resiting of the fishermen's camp. Prohibition of too close an approach to the shore by cruise ships and, in particular, of landing except under permit for scientific purposes. Regular population censuses and research into life history parameters and ecology. CAPTIVE BREEDING No information. REMARKS For description see (4,6,10). Some authorities regard A. townsendi as a synonym or subspecies of A. philippii of the Juan Fernandez Islands off the coast of Chile. Repenning et al. considers both to be good species though closely related (10). This data sheet has been compiled with the assistance of L. Fleischer. REFERENCES 1. Bartholomew, G.A. (1950). A male Guadalupe Fur Seal on San Nicolas Island, California. J. Mammal. 3(2): 60-71. 2. Fleischer, L. (1977). A Preliminary Report on the Expedition to the Guadalupe Island, Baja California, Mexico, Summer 1976. Unpd. Report. 21pp. 3. Fleischer, L. (1977). Guadalupe Fur Seal. In Marine Mammals in Eastern North Pacific and Arctic. Pacific Search Books, Seattle. 4. Fleischer, L. (1978). The distribution, abundance, and population characteristics of the Guadalupe Fur Seal, (Arctocephalus townsendi) (Merriam 1897). Master's degree thesis, College of Fisheries, Univ. of Washington, Seattle. 5. Fleischer, L. (1977). In litt. 6. Hubbs, C.L. (1956). Back from oblivion, Guadalupe Fur Seal: still a living species. Pacific Discovery 9: 14-21. 7. Kenyon, K.W. (1973). The Guadalupe fur _— seal (Arctocephalus townsendi). In Holloway, C.W. (Ed.), Seals. IUCN New Series Suppl. Paper 39: 82-87 8. Merriam, C.H. (1897). A New Fur Seal or Sea Bear (Arctocephalus townsendi) from Guadalupe Island, off Lower California. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 11: 175-178. 9. Peterson, R.S., Hubbs, C.L., Gentry, R.L. and DeLong, R.I. (1968). The Guadalupe a Seal: habitat, behaviour, population size and field identification. J. Mammal. 49: 665-675. 10. Repenning, C.A., Peterson, R.S. and Hubbs, C.L. (1971). Contributions to the systematics of the southen fur seals, with particular reference to the Juan Fernandez and Guadalupe species. In Burt, W.H. (Ed.), Antartic Research Series 18: Antartic Pinnipedia. Am. Geophys. Union, Nat. Acad. Sci., Nat. Res. Council, Washington, D.C. 408 ll. Rice, D.W., Kenyon, K.W. and Lluch, B.D. (1965). Pinniped populations of Islas Guadalupe, San Benito, and Cedros, Baja California, in 1965. Trans., San Diego Soc. of Nat. Hist. 14(7): 73-84. 12. Anon. (1979). New Parks and Reserves. Oryx 15(1): 24. 409 ; et ira Kations en rane © om ta 2 OS a “iF in Ving trai Legal . in rggeraind Wd haga veo brine a yaaa: oe Fey ie} and ihe hairlite: Math ale Pretec: fet Oe LRA, Bile peli damn: at the Beal by Amerinen citid@m2b any wintry: Any where, Cuadali i ol Ape eadlantidia wildtife dace cary -¥ i’ Prienictent Late Oth of exe ine ae 2 conticawid py @ nner ‘pratt eae en ee th) BORE" fa aod i Muy i 497858 —aecdared ire injands of .2he Baja California’ ‘Penida, ia! alee * Deeoieet “Caer es Wii ee ees Vey pli tans ten | et Chi Whartied tM pecios betavetets ere MID IFS L(G Pe a (a a wy, * ee By : . eh a Oe ae ‘ ‘yh i wa Ne OBNSE NAST ROS AGO saRES -pwcrpisie ty Netgaled. pote ols roan ibe prvtectioan. e raakteg ot the Tigiigr revain's. “4 bine haivnlaaserantt Of: tee MoTiOMete Se thes atresia irene Shire) aout; in partaette, (of \faridt ‘neg ) (pave for sasentitie oan ees 2. bh el iy i io el Car eu R ED and reas wh, a story parame are ara weidEEY: | ay ays a: Hie mae Nr er meee mae ae = Bee) CAE rive BRT EPING Ne So OT At er mie GEARS a = Mune pamaeKg tip foarte ee {2.6.50 Goa euthotstiee rex Mote Fy ne synonym. ow’ suibwi tthe wm Ay, prit yng aid Sh je Jar F errata tela ao “ihe Reaoatirn sty. ue # nc Roubrianchier 9 Revit ¢ Sat. "Bheties- Tf Pete no. Rak! BG: meee Hie: bari compl leds hip tie desks seayidehie a ae Nie es Ae ty a Dumiad aa, (9ST). A ret be i Sees tote) Rit) wid be vp ah diye ewithenoi i "Bigatioes ay irom ngewe? ram Lo¥ fregs A, 7 hz) fO adie eye att 4) A routes ; c quate ahh ofS 1 Mi aig pga -¢: ‘emt Simatvly, i rye ginny. if (#3 phe Powis | THM OUE fe = re i ptio} Q : FHooth I wdhiee she ya up ohh Snbd.q ’ Cnabial-caenneten TP vig ia on: ; of htt : Maktayter. M6 4 Ute 4 BRR SRP Pon nde a Ga | mlvae: t Pak Sgt eee 78% wa Ce pir oS eee et 8 bia Ms Ten Fiona, te She Lp heey RBS SEL 4 ‘mall he 4} dene pa e Ors wil pean i” aia xn teish ati 2 ARO} ~ Wal, voi b 8 ae Ml set ; 4} RPO sell i, tea tt e ya: Bid dt errs tase rf } Sot >2et aR ree , i sickly a a x eh areas Femi HE Coad eereRI OX 723. a tated As Mas 4 i AGROB A vege ste wise ania nes ~~ ; 7 ne 1h afr z = “? E 92; ih ye Cen Sag hte recwcich Upc tla & tx it. sifhy ¥ i ae fas hs Drm Aapoi; a it re Tr. ywann Weitere phere 3 ul heey at ave et eee (24) b RON.) peeort wiie } bx ie) aT. my erodioms A lapse aoom “nsliewsH ALBR) P| Bedsits os oe GaPoity LRRNENOaTaMAe olagsld® ofistel met no-sess tail Syilata WET alv.2 eran erty) tengisei 4 108 F NOME: A Rat} sin (22; Senig % et Asat g PS; HOSRBY poommwoT , aon ay A 5 geil FORE 5: wis, a Tented? + eSupide Ys Re phere thy (Rata ph yiddtelrep er) wolf Qhy ‘ i ‘tues; ‘se MED tea cial tau iltig a8 she ; ARGELD th ste OS 3s uw eet niadtawall ‘ott Fu yteriogg. 2 NV A 47 Olervae ee | : $ KOSS ALR ie Cryleoes AS oul iad) Seinaa heh brite. ae Lah, 14 matt baad shanti hyo *\ tala biang Atcirc ¥ i i nei. RE NOS is apes “Sai Fa Yikeigonais atae ER sities ibe DUGONG VULNERABLE Dugong dugon (Miiller, 1776) Order SIRENIA Family DUGONGIDAE SUMMARY Uncontrolled exploitation and incidental take has seriously depleted populations throughout most of its wide range along mainland and island coasts of the Indo-Pacific region. Local extinctions have occurred and may be occurring in coastal and island waters off Africa and Asia and in some western Pacific Island regions. The largest known populations occur in northern Australia. The main immediate threat is from direct hunting for food and other products, and from accidental capture in shark and fish nets. The Dugong has a low reproductive rate and therefore cannot recover easily from overexploitation. Long term threats may result from destruction of coastal habitats and pollution. Studies are required to determine numbers and distributions over most of its range and to monitor changes in abundance so that management plans can be formulated. Large sanctuaries, e.g. marine national parks, in which habitats are protected and net fishing excluded, need to be established in important Dugong areas. Hunting by indigenous peoples should be monitored and managed. Losses from illegal hunting and incidental catches in net fishing have to be reduced and habitats protected against destruction and pollution. DISTRIBUTION The shallow coastal and island waters of the Indian and western Pacific Oceans from Mozambique, Madagascar and the Comoro Islands north along the east African coast to the northernmost reaches of the Red Sea including the Gulfs of Suez and Agaba; east along the southern coast of Asia (Arabian Peninsula, Persian Gulf, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Burma, Andaman Islands, Mergui Archipelago, Thailand, Malaysia, Kampuchea, Viet Nam, and southern China), as far north as Taiwan and the Ryukyu Islands; south, west and east through the Philippines, Indonesia, Palau and Yap Islands, Guam, New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, New Hebrides, New Caledonia and Loyalty Islands; south and west to the northern, western and eastern coasts of Australia (from Shark Bay in Western Australia to Moreton Bay and occasionally as far south as Sydney in eastern Australia) (9,10,11,18,20,22,32,38,44,46,48,49,54,62,64,73). There is very little or no information on present distribution in China, Taiwan, the Philippines, the Santa Cruz Islands, Pakistan, Iran and Madagascar. The precise extent to which the range has contracted is unknown, but over much of it the species is now represented by relict populations with large intervening areas where it is close to extinction or in which there may be local extinctions, e.g. Red Sea, Arabian Gulf, Philippines, Ryukyu Islands, Palau, Yap, Guam (10,11,22,44,46,62,64). There have been unconfirmed reports from Kyushu in Japan and Gunsan in Korea (39). Dugongs are extinct in the Mascarene, Laccadive and Maldive Islands (44,46,49). POPULATION Total population size unknown, but now rare over most of its range, approaching extinction in some regions, and extinct in others. On the basis of local interviews and literature reports a very rough estimate has been made that there may be about 30,000 Dugongs left in the entire Indo-Pacific region, with those populations ranging from India and Sri Lanka westward along the west coast of India, Persian Gulf, Arabian Peninsula, Red Sea, East Africa and Madagascar being the most endangered. Herds of several hundred were reported in the past (e.g. Moreton Bay in Queensland, Australia, and Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay, India, and Sri Lanka) and also occasionally in recent years (e.g. Somalia and Queensland) (9,10,11,18,22,25,32,44,46,48,49,62,64). Australia: relatively large populations are still found in northern waters 417 (Queensland, Northern’ Territory and Western Australia) (5,8,9,10, 17,21,25,26,34,35,51,60,62,66). The estimated total number in Queensland is probably only a few thousand (26,51); and populations in the south may be increasing (37); a composite of maximum counts obtained by aerial surveys of sections of the coast (between 1974 and 1980) totals 2325 (26). During the surveys, a single herd of more than 200 was observed: in Moreton Bay and a herd of 500 to 600 along a 13 km stretch of coast on Cape York north of Cooktown (25,30,32). The most important Dugong areas in the State, where more than 100 have been seen in single aerial surveys, are: Moreton Bay, Great Sandy Strait and Hervey Bay, Port Clinton and Shoalwater Bay, Townsville to Cardwell area, eastern Cape York (Cape Flattery to Shelburne Bay), Torres Strait, the Gulf of Carpentaria (particularly between Archer Bay and Karumba), and the Wellesley Islands (25,26,60). Almost 60 hours of aerial survey covering virtually the entire Northern Territory coastline in November 1977 counted a total of 557 Dugongs. This was less than | per 27 sq. km of area surveyed. Group sizes were usually small with the largest being 27 (17). In Western Australia aerial surveys of Shark Bay in 1979 yielded a count of 496 with a minimum population estimate of 900; a maximum count of 152 was obtained for the coastal waters between Exmouth Gulf and the De Gray River with 138 of these being seen in Exmouth Gulf (5,66). Papua New Guinea: still present along the coasts and reported to be abundant in some regions (40,53). In 1976, 186 were counted during an aerial survey covering 1207 km of coastline and coral reefs. Two concentrations, of 28 and 39, were seen in the Warrior Reef area south of Daru (53). Southwestern Pacific: small numbers are thought to occur in the waters off New Caledonia, Vanuatu (formerly the New Hebrides) and the Solomon Islands (10,64). In Palau, a minimum of 15 were seen during an aerial survey in December 1977, and 34 in December 1978; the total population was estimated to be about 50 with an estimated 20 taken annually by poachers (11). They are very rare on Yap and Guam Islands (64). Small numbers occur throughout the Philippines including Luzon, Palawan, Panay, Cebu, and Mindanao (64). Japan: only known from the Ryukyus where it is very rare,(10,64), with about 10 captured over the last 30 years as far north as Anami Oshima (M. Nishiwaki, pers. comm., in Heinsohn, 1976). One young female was caught in 1979 (69,72). Occurs in at least small numbers off southern China and Taiwan (73). No recent information for Viet Nam and Kampuchea. Indonesia: scattered in small numbers throughout suitable habitat. Live catches of between | and 7 were made in several places between 1975 and 1978. Small numbers are confirmed from south Sulawesi, south Bali, west Java, Kalimantan, and Bangka Islands, and many Dugongs are known to occur off Timor (38). No information for western and northern Sumatra or Irian Jaya. Malaysia: small numbers occur in East Malaysia (northern Borneo); rare in West Malaysia (10). Rare in Singapore (10). Thailand: scarce (49,64). Burma: present in at least small numbers along the coast (49,64). Bangladesh: a resident population does not seem to exist although there are reports of Dugongs straying into the region from the northern coast of Burma (49). Indian Ocean: present in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands; present, but declining in the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay between India and Sri Lanka. India: the Gulf of Kutch in the northwest has a small population (49); probabaly rare along the west coast and none recorded along the east coast (64). The Pakistan coast extending from the Qatter Gulf at the Iranian border to the Rann of Kutch in India does not provide suitable habitat. However, individual Dugongs may stray into Pakistan waters from the Gulf of Kutch (49). Persian Gulf: seemingly very rare (10) but known at Bahrain (19). Apparently absent from Muscat and the south coast of the Arabian Peninsula (10). Present, but rare, in the Gulfs of Suez and Aqaba and the rest of the Red Sea (10,20,54). Generally scarce in East Africa and Madagascar, although there is one recent report of a large herd numbering in the hundreds off the south coast of Somalia (10,64). A total of 27 were observed during two hours of aerial surveys over the large estuary and mangrove lined channels at Antionio Enes, northern Mozambique in July 1970 (43). In October and November 1975, a 12.2 hour aerial survey was 418 flown in a grid pattern giving 25% coverage of the entire shallow water area along the 482 km long Kenya coast, only 8 Dugongs (4 individuals plus 2 cows with calves) were seen (52). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY A strictly marine species inhabiting sheltered, Shallow, warm (18°C and above), tropical and subtropical coastal mainland and island waters chiefly between latitudes 30°N and 30°S in areas where fine bottom sediments support extensive beds of seagrasses. Most abundant in the nutrient-rich inshore shoals and in the vicinity of inshore continental islands but also occurs on coral reefs and island fringing reefs and present in both turbid and clear water (4,27,32,37). Diet is almost exclusively seagrasses (Family Potamogetonaceae and Hydrocharitaceae), with little apparent selectivity for species. Dugongs usually uproot sparsely distributed seagrass to feed on the rhizomes and roots as well as on the stems and leaves (4,7,27,37), but in dense beds will graze on leaves (4,6). Marine algae are occasionally eaten, particularly when seagrasses are scarce. Invertebrates are sometimes consumed but are probably taken incidentally with seagrasses rather than being specifically sought after (25,29,37,54,59,67). Where undisturbed and not hunted Dugongs will feed at any hour of the day or night, with their daily movements and activities largely determined by tides and to a lesser extent by weather. They feed on intertidal seagrasses when the tide is high enough (over | meter deep) to allow them to swim. During calm weather they will move from protected into exposed water (7,32,37). Where hunted and where seagrass biomasses are high (e.g. Palau) Dugongs feed at night (4) and daytime resting areas are in locations isolated from human activities (4). Deeper water resting areas are utilized at low tide. Also where they are hunted, Dugongs seem to require calving areas (i.e. shallow water protected by sand bars) where they are safe from large sharks and other predators (32). Aerial surveys indicate considerable daily movements of up to 25 km as well as longer seasonal ones of up to 100 km or more (4,7,32). Long distance movements resulting in colonization of remote island groups are considered to be a rare event (4). Seemingly gregarious, although solitary individuals can often be seen. Herds of up to several hundred can be found in areas where they have not been disturbed or extensively hunted (25,30,32). Man is the most important predator, others being large sharks, the Estuarine Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) and the Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) (4,32,37). Cyclones and typhoons may also cause mortality (28,48). A very low reproductive rate makes the species very vulnerable to extinction. Both males and females are at least 9 to 10 years old before reaching reproductive maturity (32,55,57), and in some areas, 15 to 17 years (58). Males have a complex seasonal cycle of sexual activity with only about one third of mature males producing sperm at any one time during the May to November period of sexual activity, suggesting that there are behavioural or social factors suppressing sexual activity in some males (32,55,57). In females, the gestation period is believed to be about 12 months (58). A single young is usually born, but twins have been reported. Calves apparently stay with their mothers for at least a year and possibly up to two years. In addition to suckling milk calves start feeding on seagrasses a few weeks after birth. Birth interval is likely to be a minimum of 2 years (32), and the mean calving interval of several Queensland populations has been variously estimated to range from 3 to 6 years (58). Most births in the Townsville (Queensland) population are between September and December (58), and in Daru (Papua New Guinea), between October and April (42). The pregnancy rate is very low (13%) with only 23 of 174 females presumed to be mature from Daru (Papua New Guinea) being pregnant (42). Sixteen of 23 parous females (70%) examined from northern Australia were neither pregnant nor lactating, again suggesting a calving interval of several years (55,57). Individual Dugongs can be long-lived with a life span of 50 years or more (32,55,57). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Uncontrolled hunting, and netting primarily for meat 419 and oil has been conducted by local subsistence hunters, fishermen and small scale commercial fishermen throughout its range. A Dugong oil industry previously flourished in Queensland. Hides have been utilized and various parts of the body have been used for aphrodisiac and medicinal purposes (10,18,22,32,37,62). Dugongs are still hunted and fished for food over most of their range, with much of the hunting being illegal; only very limited data is available on numbers taken. In Australia, Dugongs are legally hunted by Aboriginals (17,26). For example at Numbulwar (Rose River), Northern Territory, a community of 250 Aboriginals killed at least 433 Dugongs for food between 1963 and 1969 (10); in the Wellesley Islands, Queensland, Aboriginals kill an estimated 40 annually, this being about one-tenth of the maximum number of 374 counted during aerial surveys (60); at Lockhart River Aboriginal Community on northeastern Cape York, Queensland, with 300 people, 18 Dugongs were taken during a highly favourable three month period (14); it is estimated that about 25 to 30 are killed every year by Aboriginal hunters at Hopevale Community near Cooktown, Queensland (28); it was suggested that about 500 are killed for food every year by Torres Strait Islanders and Papuans in the Torres Strait Region (64); and in this area Torres Strait Islanders at Mabuiag Island killed 47 for food from Septemer 19, 1976 to February 6, 1977; and between 1978 and 1981 more than 330 were brought into Daru, Papua New Guinea, 200 being taken in one year (41,71). Dugongs are also hunted illegally. In Palau, it is estimated that about 20 per year are poached out of a total of about 50, explosives sometimes being used; this number exceeds the recruitment rate and Dugongs will have disappeared from these islands by the year 2000 if poaching is not stopped (11). In Indonesia Dugongs are protected by law and many fishermen consider them to be sacred and avoid deliberate hunting. However some are taken incidently by fishermen who will eat the meat, and Dugong meat is sold on Bangka Island (38). Dugongs are netted along the coast of Kwangsi, China, north of Hainan Island (73). Between 1957 and 1970, it was estimated that 225 to 325 per year were taken for food from Palk Bay and the Gulf of Mannar between India and Sri Lanka; since 1979 the number caught per year has been declining (49). About 25 to 30 are netted for food every year in southern India (62) and they are still being taken by fishermen in this region (47). Netting is a major threat (33). Accidental deaths in nets employed in some tropical! fisheries (e.g. Sri Lanka, India, Kenya and northern Australia) and in shark nets used to reduce shark numbers near swimming beaches in Queensland have significantly reduced numbers locally (10,18,21,22,28,33,34,37,44,62,65). Pollution, sedimentation, dredging, cyclones and typhoons, and _ excessive freshwater runoff from land are major threats to the vital seagrass beds (18,21,22,34,36,37). The species is also subject to a wide range of diseases (e.g. pneumonia), and parasitic infections (e.g. enteritis from heavy trematode infections) (12). Iron and zinc occur naturally in exceptionally high concentrations in Dugong liver, and haemosiderosis in wild Dugongs is associated with a high natural intake of iron from seagrasses (15,16). Pollution from additional heavy metals and other toxic substances in even small concentrations in Dugong habitat may threaten animals already possibly under some physiological stress from naturally occurring heavy metals consumed with their food. Other threats may result from disturbance by human activities (e.g. use of power boats, seismic exploration and military activities) (22,36). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Except for Australian populations, the Dugong is listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, with any trade in it or its products being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations and trade for primarily commerical purposes being banned. Australian populations are listed in Appendix 420 2 of the Convention with commercial trade being subject to approval. The species is also included in Class A of the African Convention (1969), i.e. it may be hunted or collected only on the authorization of the highest competent authority, if required in the national interest or for scientific purposes. Totally protected by law in many of the countries in which it occurs, but with a few exceptions, protection is inadequately enforced (10,38,44,49,62). In some countries limited hunting is allowed, e.g. hunting by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in Australia, and traditional hunting by local people in Papua New Guinea (10,17,26,41). Dugongs are protected in the Paradise Island National Park in Mozambique which seems to be the only park in Africa in which they occur 944). Portions of some important habitat areas in Morteton Bay, Great Sandy Strait, Tin Can Bay and Hinchinbrook Channel in Queensland, Australia, are protected as 'Fish Habitat Reserves'. However net fishing which threatens Dugongs with accidental death is still permitted (28). In Papua New Guinea, Wildlife Management Areas are being established for the management and conservation of Dugongs and other marine life. The local inhabitants make rules, which become gazetted as laws, and they enforce these laws. Two 'Management Areas', one near Daru and the other in west New Britain, have been established (41). Established research programmes are presently being carried out at the following locations: James Cook University, Queensland, supported by the Australian Government (13,56); Wildlife Division, Papua New Guinea supported by the Papua New Guinea Government and the World Wildlife Fund (41,71), and Jaya Ancol Oceanarium, Jakarta, Indonesia (38,68). Considerable work is also being done in India (49,62) and various projects are being supported by the Japanese, United States, and Canadian governments, the Western Australian State Government and the World Wildlife Fund (5,6,11,66,70). In 1979 a Seminar/Workshop on Dugongs was held at James Cook University, Queensland (13,56), and a Symposium on Dugongs, at the University of Tokyo, Japan (70). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED There should be no commercial exploitation at present as all populations are too small. Where subsistence hunting is an important part of the traditional way of life of indigenous peoples, e.g. Australian Aboriginals, Torres Strait Islanders and Papuans, conservation measures including legislation and establishment of Dugong reserves should be discussed by wildlife and fisheries administrators with local communities likely to be affected, to ensure that the greatest possible agreement is achieved (2,17). Existing legislation with regard to the Dugong needs to be reviewed in relation to their status in the enforcement areas in which they occur (1). Protective legislation should have sufficient power and penalties to provide deterrents to poaching, disturbance and habitat destruction, and laws need to be rigorously enforced (1). Aircraft should be used for surveillance to apprehend poachers as well as to monitor Dugong numbers, distributions and habitats (25,32). An extensive series of marine reserves (marine national parks and management areas) based on a knowledge of numbers, distribution, movements and habits of Dugongs, that would include both resident populations and serve as refugia for migrating ones should be identified and established over the species’ entire range. Reserves need to provide all of the habitat required and thus include feeding grounds, resting areas and breeding and calving areas. Sanctuaries and management areas including important areas in which all net fishing is excluded need establishing (1,18). In Australia many of the important Dugong areas have been identified, and include parts of Moreton Bay, Shoalwater Bay and Port Clinton, parts of eastern Cape York (Cape Flattery to Shelburne Bay) and western Cape York (Archer Bay to Karumba), Torres Strait, and the Wellesley Islands in Queensland; Port Arthur and the Coburg Peninsula in the Northern Territory; and Shark Bay and Exmouth Gulf in Western Australia (1,17,26,66). Joint Dugong conservation efforts should be established between India and Sri Lanka including the establishment of a major Dugong sanctuary in the Palk Bay and Gulf of Mannar region (49). 421 Continued and expanded research on its biology and conservation is required. The most pressing research needs are: the determination of present distributions and abundance and levels of exploitation and accidental killing in relation to recruitment; assessment of the extents and periodicities of movements; the determination of basic habitat requirements for the maintenance and increase of present populations; and the determination of factors limiting or adversely affecting population sizes and distributions (e.g. siltation, pollution, various human activities). Important techniques to be used, and to be improved, are aerial survey, marking and tagging, behaviour studies, carcass studies (where carcasses are available from subsistence hunters or accidental killings), and historical studies (1,18). Public awareness and education on the biology, Significance and conservation of the Dugong should be fostered, especially in regions of particular importance (1). CAPTIVE BREEDING Dugongs have not bred in captivity and are very difficult and expensive to maintain in zoos and oceanaria. Two were successfully maintained in captivity at Mandapam Camp, India, for 11 years (49,62) and in 1981 two were held at the Toba Aquarium, Japan, and two in the Jaya Ancol Oceanarium, Indonesia. One of the Dugongs in the Toba Aquarium has been in captivity for more than 2.5 years, and the two in the Jaya Ancol Oceanarium for more than 469 days. Elsewhere they have been kept unsuccessfully for short periods of time (50,68). The Dugong is not suitable for farming as has been suggested, it being difficult to keep and breed in captivity and having a very low reproductive rate. REMARKS For description of the species see (3,10,23,24,31,32, 37,44,45,46,61,62). Dugongs are of importance to indigenous subsistence hunters as sources of high quality meat and other products. Also in many societies (e.g. Australian Aboriginal, Torres Stait Islander and Papua New Guinean), the Dugong is of important traditional significance in terms of ceremony, religion, economy and culture and has a highly important co-ordinating role, (2,13,14,18,40,60). Dugongs are of educational, scientific, and tourist value (18,22). They are active but gentle animals and, if not hunted or harrassed, show curiosity toward swimmers and divers and can be readily photographed (3,4,18,32). Dr. G.E. Heinsohn of the IUCN Marine Mammal Committee very kindly researched and wrote the draft of this data sheet in May 1981, the Red Data Book is greatly indebted to him. REFERENCES 1. Anon. (1981). Recommendations of the Seminar/Workshop on the biology and conservation of the Dugong. In Marsh, H. (Ed.), The Dugong. Proceedings of a Seminar/Workshop held at James Cook University, 8-13 May 1979. James Cook University, Queensland. pp. 205-214. 2. Anon. (1981). Additional recommendations relating to the involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in information gathering and conservation programs. In Marsh, H. (Ed.), The Dugong. Proceedings of a Seminar/Workshop held at James Cook University, 8-13 May 1979. James Cook University, Queensland. pp. 215-216. 3. Anderson, P.K. (1979). Dugong behaviour: On being a marine mammalian grazer. The Biologist 61(4): 113-144. 4, Anderson, P.K. (1981). Dugong behaviour: Observations, extrapolations, and speculations. In Marsh, H. (Ed.), The Dugong. Proceedings of a Seminar/Workshop held at James Cook University, 8-13 May 1979. James Cook University, Queensland. pp. 91-111. 5. Anderson, P.K. (In press). Studies of Dugongs at Shark Bay, 422 ee 12. Bs 14, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Western Australia. I. Analysis of population size, composition, dispersion, and habitat use on the basis of aerial survey. Australian Wildlife Research. Anderson, P.K. (In press). Studies of Dugongs at Shark Bay, Western Australia. II. Surface and subsurface observations. Australian Wildlife Research. Anderson, P.K. and Birtles, A. (1978). Behaviour and ecology of the Dugong Dugong dugon (Sirenia). Observations in Shoalwater and Cleveland Bays, Queensland. Australian Wildlife Research 5: 1-23. Anderson, P.K. and Heinsohn, G.E. (1978). The status of the Dugong and Dugong hunting in Australian waters: A survey of local perceptions. Biol. Conserv. 13: 13-26. Bertram, G.C.L. (1974). Conservation of Sirenia. IUCN Occ. Paper 12. 20 pp. Bertram, G.C.L. and Ricardo Bertram, C.K. (1973). The modern Sirenia: their distribution and status. Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 5(4): 297-338. Brownell, R.L. Jr., Anderson, P.K., Owen, R.P. and Ralls, K. (1981). The status of Dugongs at Palau, an isolated island group. In Marsh, H. (Ed.), The Dugong. Proceedings of a Seminar/Workshop held at James Cook University, 8-13 May 1979. James Cook University, Queensland. pp. 19-42. Campbell, R.S.F. and Ladds, P.W. (1981). Diseases of the Dugong in northeastern Australia: A preliminary report. In Marsh, H. (Ed.), The Dugong. Proceedings of a Seminar/Workshop held at James Cook University, 8-13 May 1979. James Cook University, Queensland. pp. 176-181. Caton, A. (1979). Dugong, like mermaids, are scarce but northern Australian population may _ be _ increasing. Australian Fisheries 38(7): 13, 15-17. Chase, A. (1981). Dugongs and Australian indigenous cultural systems, some introductory remarks. In Marsh, H. (Ed.), The Dugong. Proceedings of a Seminar/Workshop held at James Cook University, 8-13 May 1979. James Cook University, Queensland. pp. 112-122. Denton, G.R.W. (1981). The effect of diet on the unusual metal status of the Dugong (Dugong dugon (Miiller)). In Marsh, H. (Ed.), The Dugong. Proceedings of a Seminar/Workshop held at James Cook University, 8-13 May 1979. James Cook University, Queensland. pp. 169-174. Denton, G.R.W., Marsh, H., Heinsohn, G.E. and Burdon-Jones, C. (1980). The unusual metal status of the Dugong Dugong dugon. Marine Biology 57(3): 201-219. Elliott, M.A. (1981). Distribution and status of the Dugong in Northern Territory waters. In Marsh, H. (Ed.), The Dugong. Proceedings of a Seminar/Workshop held at James Cook University, 8-13 May 1979. James Cook University, Queensland. pp. 57-66. FAO. (1978). Annex B - Proceedings of the Scientific Consultation on the Conservation and Management of Marine Mammals and their Environment 6. Sirenians. In Mammals in the Seas. Volume |. FAO Fisheries Series. pp.! 36-138. Gallagher, M.D. (1976). The Dugong Dugong dugon (Sirenia) at Bahrain, Persian (Arabian) gulf. J. Bombay Natural History Society 73(1): 211-212. Gohar, H.A.F. (1979). Notes on the Red Sea Dugong. 423 424 243 22. 23% 24. 25. 26. Zif= 28. 29% 30. i U 32. 33. 34, 35. 36. B76 38. Unpublished paper given at Symposium on Biology of the Dugong, Ocean Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Japan, 6-7 Dec. 1979. 8pp. Heinsohn, G.E. (1972). A study of Dugongs (Dugong dugon) in northern Queensland, Australia. Biol. Conserv. 4(3): 205-213. Heinsohn, G.E. (1976). WG4 Sirenians - Draft Report. FAO ACMRR/MM/SC/WG4-1 (Scientific Consultation on Marine Mammals, Bergen, Norway, 31 August - 9 September 1981). 2\1pp. Heinsohn, G. (1977). Dugongs and turtles. Part |. Wildlife in Australia 14(4): 134-138. Heinsohn, G. (1978). Dugongs and turtles. Part 2. Wildlife in Australia 15(1): 26-30. Heinsohn, G.E. (1978). Marine mammals of the northern Great Barrier Reef Region. In Workshop on the Northern Sector of the The Great Barrier Reef. Papers and Proceedings of a Workshop held in Townsville, Australia, 20 and 21 April, 1978. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Workshop Series No.1. pp.315-335. Heinsohn, G.E. (1981). Status and distribution of Dugongs in Queensland. In Marsh, H. (Ed.), The Dugong. Proceedings of a Seminar/Workshop held at James Cook University, 8-13 May 1979. James Cook University, Queensland. pp. 55-56. Heinsohn, G.E. (1981). The Dugong in the seagrass ecosystem. In Marsh, H. (Ed.), The Dugong. Proceedings of a Seminar/Workshop held at James Cook University, 8-13 May 1979. James Cook University, Queensland. pp. 162-163. Heinsohn, G.E. (1981). Pers. comm. Heinsohn, G.E. and Birch, W.R. (1972). Foods and feeding habits of the Dugong, Dugong dugon (Erxleben), in northern Queensland. Mammalia 36(3): 414-422. Heinsohn, G.E., Lear, R.J., Bryden, M.M., Marsh, H. and Gardner, B.R. (1978). Discovery of a large population of Dugongs off Brisbane, Australia. Environmental Conservation 5: 91-92. Heinsohn, G. and Marsh, H. (1977). Sirens of tropical Australia. Australian Natural History 19(4): 106-111. Heinsohn, G., Marsh, H. and Anderson, P. (1979). Australian Dugong. Oceans 1|2(3): 48-52. Heinsohn, G.E., Marsh, H. and Spain, A.V. (1976). Extreme risk of mortality to Dugongs (Mammalia: Sirenia) from netting operations. Aust. J. Wildl. Res. 3: 117-121. Heinsohn, G.E. and Spain, A.V. (1974). Effects of a tropical cyclone on littoral and sub-littoral biotic communities and on a population of Dugongs (Dugong dugon (Miiller)). Biol. Conserv. 6(2): 143-152. Heinsohn, G.E., Spain, A.V. and Anderson, P.K. (1976). Populations of Dugongs (Mammalia: Sirenia): Aerial survey over the inshore waters of tropical Australia. Biol. Conserv. 9(1): 21-23. Heinsohn, G.E. and Wake, J.A. (1976). The importance of the Fraser Island region to Dugongs. Operculum 5: 15-18. Heinsohn, G.E., Wake, J., Marsh, H. and Spain, A.V. (1977). The Dugong (Dugong dugon (Miiller)) in the seagrass system. Aquaculture 12: 235-248. Hendrokusumo, S., Sumitro, D. and Tas'an. (1981). The distribution of the Dugong in Indonesian waters. In Marsh, H. (Ed.), The Dugong. Proceedings of a Seminar/Workshop held at James Cook University, 8-13 May 1979. James Cook University, Queensland. pp. 10-18. 39. Hirasaka, K. (1934). On the distribution of sirenians in the Pacific. Proc. 5th Pac. Sci. Congr. 5: 4221-2. 40. Hudson, B.E.T. (1976). Dugongs: Distribution, hunting, protective legislation and cultural significance in Papua New Guinea. FAO ACMRR/MM/SC/86 — (Scientific Consultation on Marine Mammals, Bergen, Norway, 31 August - 9 September 1976). 30pp. 41. Hudson, B.E.T. (1981). The Dugong- conservation, management and public education programme in Papua New Guinea: Working with people to conserve their Dugong resources. In Marsh, H. (Ed.), The Dugong. Proceedings of a Seminar/Workshop held at James Cook University, 8-13 May 1979. James Cook University, Queensland. pp. !23-140. 42. Hudson, B.E.T. (1981). Pers. comm. 43. Hughes, G.R. and Oxley-Oxland, R. (1971). A survey of Dugong (Dugong dugon) in and around Antonio Enes, northern Mozambique. Biol. Conserv. 3(4): 299-301. 44, Husar, S.L. (1975). A review of the literature of the Dugong (Dugong dugon). United States Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife Research Report 4. 30pp. 45. Husar, S.L. (1975). The Dugong: endangered siren of the south seas. Nat. Parks and Conserv. Magazine 49(2): 15-18. 46. Husar, S.L. (1978). Dugong dugon. Mammalian Species No.88. The American Society of Mammalogists. 7pp. 47. IUCN. (1980). Dugong killing. IUCN Bulletin 11(12): 103. 48. Jones, S. (1976). The present status of the Dugong, Dugong dugon (Miller) in the Indo-Pacific and problems of its conservation. FAO ACMRR/MM/SC/26 (Scientific Consultation on Marine Mammals Bergen, Norway, 31 August - 9 September 1976). 47pp. 49. Jones, S. (1981). Distribution and status of the Dugong Dugong dugon (Miiller) in the Indian region. In Marsh, H. (Ed.), The Dugong. Proceedings of a Seminar/Workshop held at James Cook University, 8-13 May 1979. James Cook University, Queensland. pp. 43-54. 50. Kataoka, T. and Asano, S. (1981). On the keeping of Dugong (Dugong dugon) in Toba Aquarium. In Marsh, H. (Ed.), The Dugong. Proceedings of a Seminar/Workshop held at James Cook University, 8-13 May 1979. James Cook University, Queensland. pp. 199-203. 51. Ligon, S.H. (1976). A survey of Dugongs (Dugong dugon) in Queensland. J. Mammal. 57: 280-282. 52. Ligon, S. (1976). Aerial survey of the Dugong in Kenya. FAO ACMRR/MM/SC/107 (Scientific Consultation on Marine Mammals, Bergen, Norway, 3! August - 9 Septemebr 1976). 2pp. 53. Ligon, S.H. and Hudson, B.E.T. (1976). Aerial survey of the Dugong (Dugong dugon) in Papua New Guinea. FAO ACMRR/MM/SC/89_ (Scientific Consultation on Marine Mammals, Bergen, Norway, 3! August - 9 September 1976). 5pp. 54. Lipkin, Y. (1975). Food of the Red Sea Dugong (Mammalia: Sirenia) from Sinai. Israel J. of Zoology 24: 81-98. 55. Marsh, H. (1980). Age determination of the Dugong (Dugong dugon (Miiller)) in northern Australia and its biological 425 426 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. implications. In Perrin, W.R. and Myrick, A.C. (Eds), Age Determination of Toothed Cetaceans and Sirenians. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. (Special Issue 3). pp. 181-201. Marsh, H. (Ed.) (1981). The Dugong. Proceedings of a Seminar/Workshop held at James Cook University, 8-13 May 1973. James Cook University, Queensland. 400pp. Marsh, H. (1981). The life history parameters of the Dugong and their implications for conservation. In Marsh, H. (Ed.), The Dugong. Proceedings of a Seminar/Workshop held at James Cook University, 8-13 May 1979. James Cook University, Queensland. pp. 88-90. Marsh, H. (1981). Pers. comm. Marsh, H., Channells, P.W., Heinsohn, G.E; and Morrissey, J. (In press). Analysis of stomach contents of Dugongs from Queensland, Australia. Australian Wildlife Research. Marsh, H., Gardner, B.R. and Heinsohn, G.E. (1981). Present-day hunting and distribution of Dugongs in the Wellesley Islands (Queensland): implications for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 19(4): 255-267. Marsh, H., Spain, A.V. and Heinsohn, G.E. (1978). Minireview. Physiology of the Dugong. Comp Biochem. Physiol. 61A: 159-168. Nair, R.V., Lal Mohan, R.S. and Satyanarayana Rao, K. (1975). The Dugong Dugong dugon. ICAR Bulletin of the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (Cochin, India) No.26. 44pp. Nietschmann, B. (1977). Torres Strait Islander hunters and environment. Work-in-Progress Seminar, Dept. of Human Geography, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. 1&pp. Nishiwaki, M., Kasuya, T., Miyazaki, N., Tobayama, T. and Kataoka, T. (1979). Present distribution of the Dugong in the world. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst., No.3! pp. 133-141. Paterson, R. (1979). Shark meshing takes a heavy toll of harmless marine animals. Australian Fisheries 38(10): 17-19, 21-23. Prince, R.I.T., Anderson, P.K. and Blackman, D. (1981). Status and distribution of dugongs in Western Australia. In Marsh, H. (Ed.), The Dugong. Proceedings of a Seminar/Workshop held at James Cook University, 8-13 May 1979. James Cook University, Queensland. pp. 67-87. Spain, A.V. and Heinsohn, G.E. (1973). Cyclone associated feeding changes in the Dugong (Mammalia: Sirenia). Mammalia 37(4): 678-680. Tas'an, Sumitro, D. and Hendrokusumo, S. (1979). Some biological notes on two male Dugongs in captivity at the Jaya Ancol Oceanarium, Jakarta. Gelanggang Samudra, Jaya Ancol (Oceanarium), Jakarta, Indonesia. 30pp. (To be published in Oceanol. Indonesia). Uchida, S. (1979). Dugongs kept in Okinawa. Abstract 2-1. Abstracts of the Symposium on Biology of the Dugong (Dugong dugon). Ocean Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Japan, 6-7 December 1979. pp 8-11. University of Tokyo. (1979). Abstracts of the Symposium on Biology of the Dugong (Dugong dugon). Ocean Research Institute, University of Tokyo, 6-7 December 1979. 46pp. World Wildlife Fund Australia. (1981). Project 19: Dugong conservation, management and public education programme 72. 73. in Papua New Guinea. World Wildlife Fund Australia Newsletter No.6. p.4-5. Yamaguchi, M. (1979). Distribution of sea-grass meadows in the Ryukyu Islands. Abstract 3-2. Abstracts of the Symposium on Biology of the Dugong (Dugong dugon). Ocean Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Japan, 6-7 December 1979. pp.25-26. Zhang, Zhou Man. (1979). About Dugong. The secret of mermaids. Natural History. (Shanghai Natural History Museum) |: 33-36. (In Chinese). 427 “No iterdse oT .gdayotsd wean!) NERCET oon: UeNee Res .28. Marsh, eh as he = rehirestlay, “tdant inet an: ah Se dinyttion ul Dug “i ‘ " he od eat A i mn A i MT oti gialery 4 Garey i Ss ie rupbaraely eh gue eh: Peewee » ta ‘ P| ris Pera. WS Ries ios, ty mn Pont Tht pak hd G pain, ARV an Minamata: ae. r ee a ao iis. changes: Ay: Sept Pagan Nay need Owe te Sah s, aie BIth de Pe BA hen wi A tele DN, sila ee at i Taga Ps OU aed iipdelinnn Sy ee: Teles > = ae: aes Concent ¢ oo 7 oe Sw sia, bate talbin Labia: sic. bit Wve), via Visi al: ae De ite RN 1 } SA» J TP. évobaom tb7h-b92 bo: vibirudicigia REET vistige i ie 8 #ipanedh Gat Ryo Ss a GP's) biti sAbHneb sooavd) SOS RICU rT a ShenNe tee ab EID vagy sie OHO T to Uibers rb, Stone id ruse A ated. ra 5 ba 5 oat aa% 9, > Sele Ae intel a he py on S/F ighyryt : a b - ‘ tren COLUMBIAN WHITE-TAILED DEER OUT OF DANGER Odocoileus virginianus leucurus (Douglas, 1829) Order ARTIODACTYLA Family CERVIDAE SUMMARY Occurs on floodplains and islands along the Lower Columbia River in Washington and Oregon States, and in southern Oregon, U.S.A. In 1977 was thought to number around 2400 including about 1900 head whose integrity as pure-bred O. v. leucurus was in doubt until recently. A secure population of at least 260 survives on the Columbian White-tailed Deer National Wildlife Refuge on the lower Columbia River which is under constant management, though hybridisation with sympatric Columbian Black-tailed Deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) may become a problem there. Habitat loss to agriculture and cattle ranching was the main reason for the original population decline and habitat deterioration continues outside the Refuge. A Recovery Team was appointed in 1975 to monitor the deer's status and to formulate management and conservation plans. DISTRIBUTION U.S.A. where now survives in scattered populations on islands and floodplains along the lower Columbia River in Oregon and Washington States, from Tenas Illahee Island, Clatsop Co., Oregon to Little Wallace and Kinnunen Cut Islands, north of Clatskanie, Columbia Co., Oregon, and in southern Oregon in the Roseburg Co. region where they inhabit the area around Roseburg, Glide and Sutherlin (3,5). Formerly inhabited a narrow north-south strip between the Pacific Ocean and the Cascade Mountains from southern Puget Sound south to the Roseburg-Winston area (4,5,9). Other small isolated populations may persist within the deer's former range, possibly as far north as the Willapa Bay area, Washington Co.; claimed sightings of which need to be investigated (5). POPULATION A 1977 estimated total of about 2400, most of which belong to the Roseburg herd which in 1975 numbered about 1900 head (4,5,8). In 1975 the population along the lower Columbia River as far east as Brown Island, off Puget Island in Clark Co. Washington was estimated at a minimum of 307 with at least 260 of these in the Columbia White-tailed Deer National Wildlife Refuge; this compares with estimates in 1939 of 507-710 for the same area (11). However the recent estimates are known to be conservative and the decrease may therefore not be as serious as would seem; less conservative estimates in 1976 were of 400-500 for this area (5,8). Greatest changes have occurred on Puget Island which in 1940 was a population stronghold with at least 150 deer; in 1977 it held about 30. On Tenas Illahee Island numbers rose from 2-5 in 1939 to more than 50 in 1975, though in 1976 dropped to an estimated 20 following floods due to dyke breakage (5). In 1976 an estimate of 25 was given for the Oregon (south) bank of the river between Rainier and Knappa (5). Some authorities reported estimates of 100-200 here in 1975 but this is possibly based on a 1936 estimate (4). The Columbia River from Wallace Island as far as the The Dalles was extensively surveyed for White-tailed Deer in 1978-79. Populations were discovered on five adjacent islands: Wallace, Little Wallace, Skull, Anundes and Kinnunen Cut. Total numbers were estimated as at minimum 68, probably 70-80, most of these (around 50) on Wallace Island (3). Historical accounts show the deer to have been relatively common throughout its range in the early nineteenth century; settlement then led to considerable decreases in number and by the early 1930s it was generally considered extinct (2,5). In 1939 Scheffer rediscovered the Columbia River population which was well known to local farmers and fishermen but it was not until the mid-1960s that attempts to conserve the population were initiated (2,11). 469 HABITAT AND ECOLOGY The original habitat is thought to have been forested swamps characterized by dense, tall shrub communities with scattered Picea sitchensis and, less frequently, other trees such as Alnus rubra, Populus trichocarpa and Salix spp. (3). The deer on Wallace and adjacent islands occupy habitat very similar to this, however on the Refuge only 17 per cent of the mainland area remains wooded (3) and preferred habitat appears to be pasture interspersed with cover (4,5). Large tracts of open area (improved pasture) or heavily wooded cover without interspersion appear much less favoured and deer densities are much reduced (4). The Roseburg herd occurs at higher elevations on hills 30-100 m above the Umpqua River, its place on the floodplain being occupied by Black-tailed Deer (4). The deer are good swimmers, resulting in noticeable mixing of subpopulations in the lower Columbia River area (4). Until recently it was believed to be principally a grazer, however preliminary results of a dietary study suggest that deer on the Refuge also utilize a wide variety of browse species throughout the year (2,3,4). This is borne out by the maintenance of a population of relatively high density on Wallace Island where large areas of pasture are unavailable (3). The predominantly grazing habit of deer on the mainland Refuge may reflect accommodation to a sparsely wooded habitat rather than actual dietary preference (3). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Principal threats at present (1981) appear to be habitat destruction, hybridisation with sympatric Columbia Black-tailed Deer and, in the case of the Columbia River population, vulnerability to extensive flooding and outbreaks of epidemic diseases (3). The original decline was due to drainage of swamps and conversion of riverside woodland to pasture for livestock and hay production (2,3,4,11). Woodland cover on the mainland (Washington State) portion of the Refuge decreased from 66 per cent to |7 per cent between 1938 and 1972 and on Puget Island from 43 per cent to | per cent between 1938 and 1978, witha corresponding decrease in deer numbers (3,6). Wallace Island stills retains much optimal woodland habitat but is scheduled as a site for future development by its present owners (3). The 1978-79 survey disclosed a growing economic interest in the development of Columbia River Islands, particularly for beef production, timber harvesting (cottonwood and alder species) and marina development (3). Habitat deterioration is thus certain to continue on land outside the Refuge (3,8). Originally improvement of pastures led to local population increases if sufficient woodland was left, however such increases in turn led to conflict with cattle graziers and farmers (2,4,11). In 1940 deer were accused of destroying garden crops and this resulted in retaliatory killing (2). The belief that the deer carried and transmitted cattle diseases also led to much poisoning and killing at that time (4,11). Some authorities, however, neither consider that this, nor subsistence poaching and sport hunting have been significant factors in the decline (4). Although the deer may benefit indirectly from the presence of cattle, by the latter maintaining pasture in optimal condition, they will not tolerate crowding by them and deer numbers are found to be negatively correlated with the presence of livestock (4,9). The genetic integrity of some of the deer has been the subject of controversy (1,3,5); the Roseburg herd was considered by some to be hybridised with Black-tailed Deer, though a recent study has indicated that they are in fact O. v. leucurus (3). This population was protected (though with intermittent open hunting seasons) until 1972 when protection was lifted. In 1972-73 hunting was noted as intense and uncontrollable in a 850 ha area of the range near Winston (4). However reports indicate that hunting has not significantly affected the population, though habitat disturbance through urbanisation and clearing may become of increasing importance (8). The 1978-79 survey discovered that 31 per cent of presumed O. v. leucurus observed on the mainland Refuge displayed hybrid tendencies, principally in the colouration and structure of the tail, though many deviated only slightly from typical O. v. leucurus (3). No deer showing hybrid characteristics were observed on Puget or Wallace Islands (3). A captive 470 hybridisation study carried out by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife from 1969-72 showed that O. v. leucurus and O. h. columbianus were capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring with the characteristics of the male parent predominating in the young (3). The Refuge deer are relatively safe from habitat deterioration and hunting but being confined to an area of approx. 2000 ha are considered vulnerable to outbreaks of disease and serious flooding (3). The latter is thought by some authorities to have been a factor in the original population decline and although construction of dykes and dams has decreased the probability of major flooding, the possibility still exists (3). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN The deer is protected in its lower Columbia River range by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Washington and Oregon State Wildlife Authorities (2,5). In 1972 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began land acquisition for the Columbian White-tailed Deer National Wildlife Refuge which by 1976 comprised 2105 ha; 790 ha on the Washington shore of the Columbia River near Cathlament, and the adjacent Prince (119 ha), Tenas Illahee (830 ha) and Hunting Islands (390 ha) (1). Some of the land is leased (1,2,5). Management of habitat includes retention of cattle to optimise pasture quality. The deer has been extensively studied and in 1975 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service appointed a Recovery Team to formulate and implement conservation plans and to continually monitor the status of the deer (3,4,5,6,8,9,12). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED The Recovery Plan has the stated aim of maintaining a minimum of 400 deer, distributed in at least four sub-populations as the basic requirement for safeguarding the taxon (3). The populations on Tenas Illahee Island and the Refuge mainland are considered viable and their habitats safe, though the importance of hybridisation in the latter needs further investigation (3). The acquisition of Wallace Island for the Refuge would secure a further population in what is considered to be nearly pristine habitat and is strongly recommended, as is the addition of land on Puget Island to safeguard the remaining deer there (3,7). Other islands on the Columbia River (e.g. Cottonwood, 344 ha and Crims, 295 ha) are potential reintroduction sites for captive-bred or excess refuge stock so long as habitat can be made secure by the acquisition of land for the Refuge, or by land-use agreements with current owners (3,5). The verification of the Roseburg deer as O. v. leucurus makes this latter measure somewhat less urgent, however, although it is now important that effective conservation and management plans for this population be drawn up. Continued studies of all aspects of the deer's biology, and management of the Refuge lands are both important for the long-term conservation of the deer. CAPTIVE BREEDING Antwerp Zoo, Belgium bred four males and one female in 1977, at least some of which were second or subsequent generation captive-bred stock (10). The total captive population is unknown; in 1976 Tacoma Zoological Society reportedly held one individual (4). REMARKS For description see (13). The full species has a very wide distribution in North America being resident in practically every state in the U.S.A. except Alaska, and possibly Utah. Northwards its range extends into southern Canada and southwards it occurs through Mexico and Central America into the northern half of South America. At least 38 subspecies are recognised; the validity of many of these, however, is questioned (14). Two are currrently listed in the Red Data Book, the taxon mentioned above and the Key Deer O. v. clavium (13) Gee. Martinsen, Leader of the Columbian White-tailed Deer Recovery Team provided information for this data sheet and Dr. E. Charles Meslow, Leader of the Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, kindly commented on a draft. REFERENCES 1. Buechner, H.K. and Marshall, D.B. (1975). Threatened 471 472 Ungulates of North America. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Endangered and Threatened Species of North America, 11-14 June 1974, Washington, D.C. The Wolf Sanctuary, St. Louis, Mo. Davis, R. (1976). Hope for Western White-tail. Defenders of Wildlife 51(6): 373-377. Davison, M.A. (1979). Columbian White-tailed Deer Status and Potential on Off Refuge Habitat. Completion Report, Project El, Study 2. Washington Game Department. Eaton, R.L. (1978). Status of the Columbian White-tailed deer (O. v. leucurus). Unpd. report. 10pp. Gavin, T. (1978). Status of Columbia White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus leucurus: some quantitative uses of biogeographic data. In Threatened Deer. Proceedings of a Working Meeting of the SSC Deer Specialist Group, Longview, Washington State, U.S.A., 26 Sept - | Oct 1977. IUCN, Switzerland. Pp. 185-202. Gavin, T.A. (1979). Population ecology of the Columbian White-tailed Deer. Ph.D. Thesis. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. IUCN. (1976). Columbia White-tailed Deer. Sheet code 19.125.8.1.2. Red Data Book Vol. | Mammalia. IUCN, Switzerland. Martinsen, C.F. (1980). In litt. Minutes of Columbian White-tailed Deer Recovery Team Meeting. Roseburg, Oregon, 7 May 1980. Unpublished. 2pp. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1979). International Zoo Yearbook 19. Zool. Soc. London. Scheffer, V.B. (1940). A newly located herd of Pacific White-tailed Deer. J. Mammal. 21(3): 271-282. Suring, L.H. (1974). Habitat use and activity patterns of the Columbian White-tailed Deer along the lower Columbia River. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. Whitehead, G.K. (1972). Deer of the World Constable, London. Whitehead, G.K. (1981). In litt. CEDROS ISLAND MULE DEER RARE or VENADO DE CEDROS Odocoileus hemionus cerrosensis (Merriam, 1898) Order ARTIODACTYLA Family CERVIDAE SUMMARY Confined to Cedros Island off Baja California, Mexico. A 1980 survey found the deer's status to be considerably better than previously thought, with a population possibly numbering several hundreds. Principal threat is believed to have been poaching, although this has apparently declined in recent years and outlook for the deer appears good, though human population pressure on the island is expected to increase in the future. A 4-month field study of the deer was completed in 1980. DISTRIBUTION Mexico; endemic to Cedros Island (approx. 350 sq. km in area) off the western coast of Baja California. Deer are absent from the extremely hot and dry southeastern region and from the southwest tip of the island (7,9). They appear to be scattered throughout the rest, though there are thought to be three areas of relatively high concentration with larger areas of moderate to low density (4). POPULATION An extensive survey in 1980 found the population to be substantially greater than previously thought, possibly numbering several hundreds (4). 42 deer were directly observed comprising 13 males, 23 does, and 6 fawns (9). More accurate population estimates are expected following analysis of survey results (4,9). Up to 1979 it was thought that fewer than 50 deer survived with estimates as low as a dozen in 1975 (3), and believed extinct in 1977 (11), though a survey by the Mexican Wildlife Service around that time estimated 69 on the basis of tracks and droppings (5). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY The island is very rugged and mountainous and is mostly covered with open desert scrub, the most conspicuous components of which are Copalquin (Pachycormus discolor) and the Century Plant, Agave shawii var sebastiana. At middle and high elevations the desert scrub occasionally gives way to other vegetation types, notably pine forest, chaparral and sage scrub and, on wet north facing slopes and cliffs in the centre and north of the island, pure stands of the Closed-cone Pine, Pinus muricata var. cedrosensis. The California Juniper (Juniperus californica) is abundant on higher peaks and ridges and extends well down in some canyons (9). The deer do not seem restricted to any particular habitat type (5,9). There is very little fresh water; a scattering of small springs is known in the northern hills and there is at least one major spring in the south (5). Average temperature is 18-20°C (range 15-22°C over a 20 year period) with mean rainfall of about 80 mm and a rainy season from late November to mid-February (9). Calving takes place in April (9). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Poaching has been generally considered the major threat, though by 1980 it had apparently been reduced to negligible proportions. Predation by feral dogs has been mentioned in the past as an important factor, though the 1980 study found them to be few in number and to occur in the southern part of the island, outside the deer's range (3,9). Fire is thought unlikely to have had any significant impact on the deer's habitat (6). Virtually all poaching was previously by lobster fishermen living in isolated camps at the north end of the island which is currently undergoing an economic boom due to thriving fishing and salt industries. Red meat is more widely available and affordable than previously and travel round the island by boat easier. There is thus less incentive 473 for the fishermen to supplement their seafood diet by poaching in the inhospitable hinterlands which constitute the deer's principal terrain (5). Commercial hunting seems non-existent and such killing as does occur at present appears to mainly involve young men who hunt for sport (5). However human pressure is predicted to increase in the near future as both the fish cannery and salt company have further expansion plans (9). Feral goats do not flourish on the island and have had no perceivable impact on the vegetation and the only feral asses present are restricted to lowland areas near villages (9). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Protected by law; the penalty for poaching is severe (5), and a recent increase in visits to the island by Mexican Wildlife Service personnel may have discouraged it (5). In May 1978 Mexico declared all the islands (including Cedros) off the Baja California Peninsula and the adjacent Sonoran Desert coast to be wildlife reserves (1). A January 1980 field trip was undertaken to determine the feasibility of a study and conservation project. It concluded that the prognosis for survival of the deer had improved in recent years (5). Following this IUCN/WWF funded a 4-month field project on the deer (Project No.1646) which was completed in 1980; it included an extensive survey of the island and more detailed study at chosen sites to determine habitat use, demography, behaviour and general ecology (5). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED The 1980 study should provide data to allow detailed conservation plans to be drawn up. Pérez Gil Salcido strongly advocates a campaign to encourage public awareness of the desirability of conserving the deer and its habitat. He reports that the island's inhabitants are keen to learn more about 'their' deer and local officials and enterprises are willing to co-operate in conservation (9). CAPTIVE BREEDING Not known to have ever been kept in captivity. REMARKS For description of animal see (2,9,12). The taxonomic rank of the Cedros Island Mule Deer is open to question - it is still a matter of doubt whether it is a subspecies of the Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) or a full species, though it is usually considered the former (7). The Mule Deer occurs in western Canada and western United States southward into northern Mexico (2) and as a species is not considered threatened. Dr. D.R. McCullough of the IUCN/SSC Deer Specialist Group, very kindly provided information on which this data sheet was based. REFERENCES 1. Anon. (1978). New Parks and Reserves. Oryx 15(1): 24. 2. Hall, E.R. and Kelson, K.R. (1959). The Mammals of North America. The Ronald Press Co., New York. 3. IUCN. (1973). Cedros Island Deer. Sheet Code: 19.125.8.1.3. Red Data Book. Vol. 1 Mammalia. IUCN, Switzerland. 4, McCullough, D.R. (1980). In litt. to S. Guignard, IUCN. 5. McCullough, D.R. (1980). Report on the feasibility of a study of the Cedros Island Mule Deer. Berkeley, California. Ms &pp. 6. McCullough, D.R. (1981). In litt. 7. McTaggart Cowan, I. (1980). In litt. 8. McTaggart Cowan, I. and _ Holloway, C.W. (1978). Geographical location and current conservation status of the threatened deer of the world. In Threatened Deer. Proceedings of a Working Meeting of the SSC Deer Specialist Group, Longview, Washington State, U.S.A., 26 Sept - | Oct, 1977. IUCN, Switzerland. 9. Perez-Gil Salcido, R. (1980). Cedros Island Deer, Project 474 Whe Ze No. 1646 Mexico. Annual Report 1980 to IUCN/WWF, Switzerland. Unpd. |3pp. U.S. Fish. and Wildlife Service. (1975). In Federal Register Vol. 40 (187): 44149-44150. Villa Ramirez, B. (1977). In litt. Whitehead, G.K. (1972). Deer of the World. Constable, London. 475 {art A WADUnGh REI, rene founds sate pga aw iectendt vee oc : 4! e ne 2199 Teta | St) lye sdaaeig a Slant «nt Watts } BV IAaw ih ae ath Pras invelue yung S RMN TOT: at al tahct dhe te #5 i it. inci ease IN th ; flrs F2ih i ts papers yi = a {i e : feoitetzens pet la er arty tor ie hoe % Shs oan werealva = rj ae he Sesetaescey mini oe ; ; j \ ia ro, P = = . + a ; it, oat. courage: thee bios ae be Py th ae. Ws y kewanlicty A a wee ~ 4 4s S07: Zurvived : eT ¢. 7 % * « thea sale 2, Ghee ; fy d he ere ee oy ot ‘ , . é ‘gta. ty ‘ FRO eg Gaw dete Ei pare te % thie ci ~ah te, Webel Hore il f 1 ru cit} ob Le t ; ¢ Wp oe tua ny a . | ‘ ie nt NOx Seat HM 7 eee ev / ; pet erd wh ; r i oom a + 4 4 e a zis a genes DRE ; : Led Oo ar eit Pas ' . K ws ’ ‘ ' ae. hy * i ba’ Beaye Serer S . aiden iy bails ich : Or de é “ vw of “ + é 7 . . ‘ ; Hy re Ae le \e fm bets es rl = pe, a: he . ? = es ; ES pared 7 5 ne «4 r { * iP » » + * 5 : . if Be 1 » : Re 4 - - — : - ¢ by + ‘ = a » D (oh "Shan 3 i) ¢ eam. ; : Go LGM te. Kiyey 4 tie: x zl ’ Pia! | pte 2) al) Rie f — x } 'e Deas 410. - A > ' ' } i , by nc 7 os tii : ud + Ore Shs ; ' , p rf 52 7 ‘ * WIP: * ear ar — aa are ear =, ae is (ak eeeget 5 t+ 419 a>). Sb ig ons ny ; ¢ ee Vik % a) J : Pay Y i 4 < a ‘ a ; TET i y c ta roAws) ‘ : Sete ' 7 "7 : Bo : me ‘ . 3 cr 5 b, rey : ’ 7 The Vix Z A, ar et pitas bf 4 v ial : : ‘ies sg Te At pe Me Na ade Y. a cireat: “J . od fui ’ 7 } f 2 ; ius \ al ie. tia a , ag } vt = aa a Hog tne: earorag ats ee ey ? ‘ rin rir BS BS p. worn at ; xt hh Ke a, 4 on vie Pil tata “fr ‘a iY i at Oe ates est” ovine = ue Grate Peat ar) bie Re 1d, Pa” Teo piles vy : mk Renn ane ie . : taf . ie 4 U a ’ t ohn us i" uf ha : Sa thes ies 8 be vere P 2 fds, Fates (30, re, a i f pis a . ty N es) » NORTH ANDEAN HUEMUL or TARUCA VULNERABLE Hippocamelus antisensis (d'Orbigny, 1834) Order ARTIODACTYLA Family CERVIDAE SUMMARY Widely but sparsely distributed at high altitudes in the northern Andes. Numbers unknown but declining, principally because of hunting, habitat destruction especially at lower altitudes, and competition with domestic livestock. Legally protected but enforcement usually inadequate, although in some areas increased protection of the Vicuna (Vicugna vicugna) appears to be directly benefitting the species. Occurs in several national parks and reserves. Field studies are required to formulate detailed conservation plans. DISTRIBUTION Northern Andes: in Peru, western Bolivia, northeastern Chile and northwestern Argentina (3). Only scattered populations now survive within this range. Argentina: in 1980 known to occur in Catamarca, Jujuy and Salta Provinces Cis). Bolivia: a 1975 report mentions isolated populations throughout the eastern Cordillera, some known localities being: north of La Paz, around Pelechuco (Cordillera de Apolobamba), Altura de Araca (Cordillera de Tres Cruzes), and around Cochabambe. Believed exterminated in the Altiplano. No data located for the western Cordillera (9). Chile: reportedly confined to the Cordillera de Arica, Province Tarapaca, mainly around Socoroma Zapahuira and Putre (18°15'S) (7). Peru: in 1969 recorded by Grimwood in the following areas: Dpto. de Puno, especially Azangaro, Carabaya, Melgar and Lampa Provinces, and almost certainly in the southwest; Dpto. de Cuzco on high ground in the south of Quispicanchis, Paucartambo and Calca Provinces, in many parts of Canchis, Canas and Urubamba Provinces, and almost certainly in Chumivilcas and Espinar in the south; Dpto. de Arequipa in suitable localities in the north and east; Dpto. de Apurimac in part of every Province; Dpto. Ayachucho - well known in Parinarochas and Lucanas Provinces; Dpto. de Huancavalica; Dptoes. de Junin and Pasco - several localities in the west; Dpto. de Lima - eastern part extending north as far as the Cordillera Blanca in Dpto. Ancash, to high ground both east and west of the Rio Maranon, Huamachuco Province in Dpto. de la Libertad (5). Ecuador: contrary to a 1977 report (12), there is no evidence of its present survival in Ecuador, if it ever existed there at all (18). POPULATION Total numbers unknown though certainly declining throughout much of its range. Argentina: rare; greatest numbers exist in Catamarca Province, principally in the Sierra de Ambarto, with small numbers in Jujuy and Salta Provinces (16). Bolivia: in 1981 considered rare and declining (19), and to have virtually disappeared from the area near Cochabamba (20). Some stable populations were reported in 1975 in isolated inaccessible localities (9). Chile: in 1977 400 were reported in Lauca National Park (17). Rottmann notes (1981) that Taruca seem to have recently become more numerous and tamer in this area (21). Peru: in 1969 Grimwood stated that although widespread, total numbers were small (5), however Jungius noted in 1975 that estimates varied from 10,000-15,000 (9). In 1977 the highest known concentrations occurred on the western slopes of the Andes in Ayacucho Department (2). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY A high altitude species although there is disagreement as to its preferred (or typical) habitat. Roe and Rees observed Taruca in an area 50 km northwest of Lake Titicaca in Puno Province, Peru in a semi-arid area with broad, flat, frequently marshy valley bottoms separating steep-sided, round-topped mountains (15). Taruca were observed there between 3950 and 4200 m on the tops and slopes of the mountains in areas of bare rocks and small 483 cliff-like outcroppings interspersed with dry grassland vegetation. Deer also utilised Polylepis thickets in some areas (15). However, in Bolivia Jungius observed Taruca in wet montane forest fringes and alpine grasslands, principally at elevations of 2500-5000 m, and concentrating in areas of low vegetation such as bramble ('matorrales'), high altitude swamps ('bofedales'), and grasslands ('hajios') (8). Tarak reported Taruca in Argentina to be confined to regions of rocky, wet grasslands ('puna') above 3500 m, and not known as a forest fringe species (16). For Peru Grimwood stated it was found above 4300 m, its presence being largely determined by the availability of cover (usually Polylepis spp.). He did not consider it a 'puna' species (5). Rottman reports that in Chile it is only known from the western slope of the Andes between 3500 and 4600 m, sometimes being found in lower valleys. The area has dry pastures, shrubs and some small Polylepis trees and the deer live on steep sided mountains and in deep canyons, and are not seen in swamps or 'bofedales' (21). Roe and Rees observed groups of 3-14 individuals, usually one adult male, one yearling male and several adult and yearling females. Taruca appear to graze on small, ground-hugging plants rather than on the taller grasses and hedges (15). THREATS TO SURVIVAL Principal causes of decline are hunting, habitat destruction and loss to agriculture especially at lower altitudes, and increased competition from domestic livestock (5,7,8,9,10,11,14). Reportedly a relatively easy animal to hunt, it has almost been eliminated from lower altitudes in Peru (5), and in Bolivia is subject to intense hunting pressure for local commercial meat markets (sold as 'Charque! - salted meat dried in the sun) (7,8). In Chile its liking for lucerne brings it into conflict with local Indians who readily kill it (7,11). In Dpto. Ayacucho, Peru, a 1977 report mentioned that increased mining activities had increased poaching pressure and was also destroying the aeer's habitat (2). Miller et al stress that in Chile destruction of cover by charcoal burners is an important threat, with conversion of stream bottom habitat to agriculture, and competition from sheep, cattle, llamas etc. probably also playing a part (11). Contagious livestock diseases may also affect the species (14). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products therefore being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Reportedly protected by law in all countries in which it occurs but enforcement is virtually non-existent in most areas (9,11). Argentina: plans were well advanced in 1980 for a national park of 300,000 ha of 'puna' upland at Sierra de Ambarto in Catamarca Province to protect the largest concentration of Taruca left in the country (16). Bolivia: protected on the 200,000 ha Ulla Ulla National Faunal Reserve (which also protects the threatened Vicuna), though in 1975 Taruca were still subject to some poaching within the reserve (9). Chile: occurs in Lauca National Park in Tarapaca Province (7,21). Rottmann reports (1981) that increased protection of Vicuna in this area has definitely benefitted Taruca (21). Peru: occurs in Huascaran (Dpto. de Ancash) and Manu (Deptoes. de Madre Dios and Cusco) National Parks. Also in the Pampa Galeras National Reserve (Dpto. de Ica) (9,14,22), the Salinas Aguada Blanca National Reserve in Dpto. Arequipa, founded in 1977 (1,22), the conservation area of Projecto Lago de Junin (Dpto. de Junin), and the projected Andean Nature Reserve in Lucanas and Parinacochas Provinces, Dpto. de Ayacucho (2,6,14,22). In 1978 the Peruvian Government installed guards to counteract increased poaching in the last named area, with financial support from IUCN/WWF Project 1609 (6). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Principal need is_ effective enforcement of legal protection (5,7). In Chile increased interest in the conservation of the Vicuna has apparently benefitted the Taruca and it is hoped this will also be the case elsewhere as the two species are sympatric over much of 484 their range (4,11,21). A Peruvian report mentions that Taruca should be incluaed in any management plans for the Altiplano (4). CAPTIVE BREEDING There is no record of Taruca ever having been successfully maintained in captivity. Establishment of a captive breeding herd would, however, be a valuable safeguard for the species. REMARKS For description of animal see (3,12). REEERENCES 1. Z Anon. (1976). New national parks. Oryx 15(2): 128. Anon. (1978). Peru - Guanaco and Andean Deer. WWE Monthly Report, December 1977, p. 5 Cabrera, A. (1957-1961). Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Revista del Museo Argentina de Ciencias Naturales 'Bernardino Rivadavia', Cienc. Zool. 4(1-2): 1-731. Dourojeanni Ricordi, M. (1977). Utilization of Vicunas in Peru. GTZ, Eschbom Pp. 48. Grimwood, I.R. (1969). Notes on the distribution and status of some Peruvian mammals, 1968. Special Pubn. No.2! Am. Comm. Int. Wildl. Protec. and New York Zool. Soc., New York. Hofmann, R. (1978). Project 1609 - Guanaco and Andean Deer. In Jackson, P. (Ed.), World Wildlife Yearbook 1977-78. WWF, Switzerland. p. 193. a IUCN. (1976). North Andean Huemul or Taruca. Sheet code 19.125.10.2. Red Data Book Vol | Mammalia. IUCN, Switzerland. Jungius, H. (1974). Beobachtungen am Weisswedehirsh und Anderen Cerviden in Bolivien. Zeit. fur Sdugetierkunde 39 (6): 373-383. Jungius, H. (1976). Project 960. Deer - International programme for conservation of threatened species. In Jackson P. (Ed.), World Wildlife Yearbook 1975-76. WWF, Switzerland. Pp 201-217. McTaggart Cowan, I. and Holloway, C.W. (1978). Geographical location and current conservation status of the threatened deer of the world. In Threatened Deer. Proceedings of a Working Meeting of the SSC Deer Specialist Group, Longview, Washington State, U.S.A., 26 Sept - | Oct 1977. IUCN, Switzerland. Miller, S., Rottmann, J. and Taber, R.D. (1973). Dwindling and endangered ungulates of Chile - Vicuna, Lama, Hippocamelus and Pudu. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf. 38. Perry, R. (1977). Lonely world of the Huemul. Wildlife 19(6): 256-257. Povilitis, T. (1976). A progress report on the Huemul project, Huemul biology and conservation. Unpd. report. pp.7. Roe, N.A. and Rees, W.E. (1976). The status and ecology of the Taruca (Hippocamelus antisensis) in Peru. Final Project proposal. Unpd. report pp.12. Roe, N.A. and Rees, W.E. (1976). Preliminary observations of the Taruca in southern Peru. J. Mammal. 57 (4): 722-730. Tarak, A. (1980). Pers comm. A Anon. (1977). Vicuna in Chile. Oryx 13 (5): 437. Ortiz-Crespo, F.I. (1981). In litt., including information supplied by Prof. Gustavo Orcés and Juan Black. 485 Bejarano, G. (1981). In litt. Hansen Love, A. (1981). In litt. Rottman, J. (1981). In litt. . Dourojeanni Ricordi, M. (1981). In litt. MARSH DEER or GUASU PUCU VULNERABLE Blastocerus dichotomus (Illiger, 1815) Order ARTIODACTYLA Family CERVIDAE SUMMARY Occurs in or near swampy habitat in central South America (northeast Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil south of the Amazon, Paraguay, southeast Peru and possibly western Uruguay). Total numbers unknown but certainly declining in all areas as a result of poaching, disease transmitted by domestic stock, and habitat loss to cattle ranching and agriculture. Legally protected throughout its range and occurs in several national parks and reserves but protection is almost always inadequate and no sizeable population appears to be secure. Highest numbers occur in the Pantanal marshland region in southwest Mato Grosso, Brazil, where a census in 1977 estimated a maximum of 7000. However recruitment to this population in 1975-1977 was nonexistent, possibly as a result of brucellosis following severe floods in 1974, which also caused many deer to die of starvation and drowning. Well protected reserves are essential for the survival of the species. DISTRIBUTION Central South America where only scattered populations now Survive throughout its former range. Argentina: mainly in the northeast where it occurs as far south as the Parana Delta 80 km north of Buenos Aires (4). A three week survey by Schaller and Tarak in 1975 (8) recorded Marsh Deer in the following Provinces: Formosa: in a few isolated large marshes on ranches in the south, possibly also along the lower Pilcomayo River and in areas south of Clorinda. Salta: a few possibly in the northeast along the Pilcomayo River and adjoining marshes. Chaco: Jungius (1975) thought it might exist in the western Chaco (4) but Schaller and Tarak could find no evidence for this and the habitat seemed unsuitable, being very arid (8). Corrientes: populations scattered throughout, mainly in marshlands of the del Batelito and adjoining Esteros del Ibera in the north. Misiones: a few possibly along the Parana River in the southwest adjoining Corrientes. Santa Fe: small numbers perhaps survive in the northeast where they were once common. Entre-Rios and Buenos Aires: a small population was said to exist north of Gualequaychu; and there were fair numbers in the vast marshy region along the Rio Parana between Santa Fe and Buenos Aires City particularly near the towns of Rosano and San Pedro and in the delta along the Parana de las Palmas (8). Bolivia: Jungius (1975) recorded it throughout eastern Bolivia in seasonally flooded savannah country from the foot of the Andes (from Punto Heath to Santa Cruz), southeast through wet savanna lowlands as far as the Brazilian border (4), It has been recorded as far north as the transit zone with the Amazon forest, the most northerly records being from Punto Heath (although a 1977 survey between Rios Beni and Marmore found no evidence of its existence there (11)) and Rio Madre de Dios. No deer were encountered in the northern part of the 1977 survey area (around Lakes Rogagua, Rogaguado, Huatunas, Grande and Aguas Claras) (11). Brazil: occurs south of the Amazon forest where largest aggregations are in the flood plains and swamps along the branches and tributaries of major rivers, such as Tocantins, Araguaia (Bananal Island), Paramaiba, Sao Francisco and Paraguay; especially in the huge Pantanal marshlands east of the Rio Paraguay in southwest Mato Grosso (4,12). A small population also exists along the Rio Uruguay, north of the Uruguayan border (4). A 1978 survey of Mato Grosso received reports of deer along the banks of the Parana and Araguaia Rivers; also along the Rio Guaporé, a tributary of the Madeira, particularly in a 10,000 sq. km area of marshlands along the north bank in the territory of Rondonia. Deer were recorded along tributaries of the Rio Xingu in northwest Mato Grosso and along the upper Rio Verde, a tributary of the 487 Tapajos west of the Xingu. Additional populations may exist in northern Mato Grosso between Cuiaba and the southern limit of the rainforest but are as yet unconfirmed (9). Paraguay: scattered distribution, main centres reported as Isla Yacyreta in the Rio Parana, around Lago Ypoa and Lago Vera (south of Asuncion) and along the Rio Pilcomayo (mainly the Estero Patino) (4). Also reported from the Rio Paraguay e.g. along the Brazilian border as far as Fuerte Olimpo (4). Peru: reported only from Pampa Heath near the Bolivian border (4,16). Uruguay: the last museum specimen is from Depto. Rocha in the southeast of the country dated 1958 and the Marsh Deer is thought by some to be extinct in Uruguay (13), though in 1981 it was reported that a few still persisted in the marsh of India Muerta and Esteros de Santa Teresa in Rocha (18,19), and in 1971 there were unconfirmed reports of about 80 deer on a private ranch in the province of Treinta-y-Tres and about 8-10 possibly in the Cabo Polonio National Park in Rocha (5). POPULATION Total numbers unknown. Argentina: populations very vulnerable, being small and scattered (8). Very few in Santa Fe, Misiones, Salta, Formosa and Chaco (8). In Corrientes which in the 1960s was considered a stronghold, an aerial survey in 1973 recorded very low population densities (8). In Entre Rios and Buenos Aires, 'fair numbers' were thought to exist in 1975 (8). In 1980 Tarak considered the deer to be 'faring badly' in Argentina; the situation not having improved since 1975 (14). Brazil: a 1977 aerial survey of the Pantanal produced an estimate of 5000-6000, possibly 7000 for the whole region, with most (about 4000) in the northern part, north and east of the Rio Sao Lourengo (9). There is no accurate information on the size of other populations, though it may be relatively common in the 10,000 sq. km marshy area on the northern bank of the Rio Guaporé (9). Bolivia: rare, with a very marked decline over recent years. Very small populations exist in a few isolated areas with difficult access, and on private landholdings of conservation-oriented owners (10,11). The 1977 survey recorded a total of only 12 specimens in nearly four weeks spent in the field and five hours aerial survey, covering most of the wet savanna (except Ixiamas) between the Beni and Marmore Rivers in the northwest, indicating that deer density was extremely low, with the highest believed to be between the Mattos and Diabolo Rivers. However the survey was carried out at a time when the high seasonal vegetation offered good cover to the deer and thus any conclusions about actual numbers are considered tenuous (11). Schuerholz and Mann nevertheless predicted in 1977 that the Marsh Deer was likely to become extinct in Bolivia in another decade, or sooner if steps to conserve it were not immediately taken (11). Peru: size of population at Pampa Heath unknown but thought unlikely to exceed 150-200 animals in 1976 (2). Paraguay: unknown but considered rare; most populations apparently declining although in 1975 said to be stable around Lago Ypoa and Isla Yacyreta (4). Uruguay: regarded as almost extinct in 1981 (18,19). HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Swampy habitat - marshes and seasonally flooded areas along rivers. Prefer to be in or near standing water not more than 60 cm deep, with low cover such as reeds or bunch-grasses nearby; avoid dense forest (9). Constantly change their range in accordance with their preferred water level (9). In Formosa (Argentina) they concentrate in dense Cyperus, 2m or more high, from where they spread into surrounding grasslands during the annual flooding (8). In Corrientes they were seen near the edges of large marshes, foraging and resting in standing water with a sparse reed cover. Here the deer preferred a habitat Similar to that of nesting Maguari Storks (Euxenura maguari). On some of the Parana islands the deer occupied a mosaic of tall, dense marsh vegetation and scrubby forest (8). In the Pantanal of Brazil the calving season was noted to last at least four months (May to September), while in Bolivia evidence for a specific calving season was conflicting (9,11). One fawn only is normally produced (11). Deer tended to be solitary or in groups of 2-4 unless forced into aggregations on islands during floods (9). Both a browser and grazer (9). 488 THREATS TO SURVIVAL Principal threats are poaching (for meat, trophies, hides and sport), habitat loss through drainage of marshland, seasonal competition with domestic stock for food and space, and disease transmitted by domestic bovids (4,8). The deer's rather limited habitat preference severely restricts its distribution and as more and more swamps are drained, its range will inevitably decrease; also its occurrence in small, scattered populations make it prone to local extinction. Marsh deer are particularly vulnerable during the rainy season when floods force them to take refuge on higher patches of ground from where cattle are likely to displace them and will outcompete them for limited forage, causing mortality if the floods are unusually prolonged, or the islands too small (4,9). At other times of year competition for food is thought unlikely to be important and Marsh Deer are considered generally better adapted to wet savanna than livestock (11). Deer are particularly vulnerable to human predation during the floods e.g. in the Parana delta in Buenos Aires Province, Argentina, where they are forced to the populated periphery of the marshes, and in the Esteros del Ibera in Corrientes, Argentina where they are excluded from the only dry land in the area by fishermen and poachers (8). Grass burning, carried out in many areas in the dry season deprives deer of the cover on which they are highly dependent and exposes them to hunters and predators (4,8). Habitat loss due to marsh drainage is also particularly important in areas such as the Parana Delta and along the lagoon zone of the southern Brazilian coast (e.g. Lago dos Patu, Taim Marsh) (4) and is reported to threaten the last few Marsh Deer in Uruguay (19). Deer in the Parana Delta near Ituzaingo are threatened by a dam (8), as are those on Isla Yacyreta in southern Paraguay (17). In Bolivia the preferred habitat of wet grassland interspersed with open forests is much favoured for cattle production and most is now ranched. Indiscriminate hunting by Indians (e.g. in Formosa, Argentina), or by ranch-hands poses a severe threat in many areas (8,10); in Bolivia the Marsh Deer is the principal source of meat for labourers on many of the cattle ranches (10). Schaller and Vasconcelos discovered virtually no recruitment in the Pantanal population in 1977, the years 1975-77 being effectively reproductive failures (9). This is attributed to brucellosis (spontaneous abortion) which is common in the Pantanal cattle, and particularly increased in frequency after heavy floods in 1974 which themselves also caused extensive mortality amongst the deer (9). There is evidence that the population is also affected by foot and mouth or a babesiosis-like disease, both of which are prevalent in local cattle (9), and two young animals examined in Bolivia in 1977 both had foot and mouth (11). Hunting is considered to be the single most immediate threat in Argentina (8), whereas habitat loss is thought to be the major factor in Bolivia (10). In the Pantanal, as outlined above, disease has almost certainly been the principle factor in the population decrease, though poaching may become increasingly important with the construction of the Transpantanal Highway opening the area up to motorised poachers; up to 1977 the deer were little hunted in this area (9). CONSERVATION MEASURES TAKEN Listed in Appendix | of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, trade in it or its products therefore being subject to strict regulation by ratifying nations, and trade for primarily commercial purposes banned. Legally protected in all countries of its range but enforcement is generally lacking (4). Argentina: although federally protected there is very little enforcement in most areas (8). In Formosa where many private landowners would like to protect the deer they are hampered by the large Indian population which is legally able to hunt on the ranches (8); though in 1975 it was stated that a population was protected in a provincial reserve (4). An attempt to establish a herd on an island in the Parana delta was made some years ago but failed, the four surviving deer out of the Original ten being transferred to a 4000 ha island near Santa Fe where the provincial Recursos Naturales hoped to reestablish the deer (8). Bolivia: 489 IUCN/WWF Project No.1587 initiated in 1977 to examine the feasibility of establishing a Marsh deer reserve near Lake Rogaguado had disappointing results, most of the area being already colonised and used for grazing under the Reforma Agraria (11). A few deer were reported as protected on some private ranches (11), and in 1975 they were said to occur in very low numbers in Isilboro Securé National Park (4). Brazil: in 1980 the principal reserves containing Marsh Deer were reported as: Emas (100,000 ha) and Araguaia (560,000 ha) National Parks in Goias State, the Guapore Reserve (ca. 15,000 ha) and Caracara Biological Reserve (ca. 70,000 ha) in Mato Grosso, the Jaru Reserve in Rondonia (350,000 ha), and the Sema Island reserve in the Pantanel (15). There was no real knowledge of deer numbers or distribution in any of these, although they have been reported as very scarce in Emas and as leaving Caracara seasonally (9,15). In 1977 there was reported to be a small but viable population in Araguaia N.P. but the park is beset with problems (ranches, Indian claims, poachers) and long term prospects are not good (9). In 1980 the Caracara, Sema Island and Jaru Reserves were noted as unguarded and possibly heavily hunted (15). Contrary to earlier reports, no deer are believed to exist in Chapada dos Veadeiros National Park, though they have been reported as occurring in Sierra Canastra National Park in Minas Gerais State (4), and in the 3000 ha Poco das Antas Federal Biological Reserve in the coastal foothills of Sierra do Mar (3). Paraguay: protected on some private ranches (e.g. west of Lago Ypoa, Isla Yacyreta on the Parana River though the latter is threatened with inundation (17)) (4). Peru: in 1976 said to be moderately secure in Pampa Heath, the area being inaccessible and little inhabited (4). CONSERVATION MEASURES PROPOSED Adequate enforcement of the laws protecting the species are needed plus the establishment of well guarded reserves in suitable areas, preferably as free as possible of foot and mouth and other introduced ungulate diseases. Unfortunately the deer's apparent need for a specific water regime means that it is liable to range over extensive areas following seasonal changes in water level, and protection of suitably large areas is therefore made especially difficult. The cooperation of ranchers on land surrounding any such reserves would have to be sought (9). Continued monitoring and ecological study of the deer is needed throughout its range especially in its Pantanal stronghold to try to accurately determine immediate causes of the population decline. Argentina: in 1976 the Servico Nacional de Parques Nacionales proposed a 9000 ha national park in the little disturbed southwestern part of the Estero del Ibera (8); some of the large undisturbed islands in the Parana delta were considered ideal for deer reserves (8). However by 1980 no specific habitat had been reserved for the species and no definite plans had been made (14). Brazil: in 1980 the government planned to extend the Caracara Biological Reserve by acquiring 200,000 ha of adjoining higher land to make it a suitable deer reserve and a further 200,000 ha was to be added to Sema Island Reserve (15). Bolivia: Schuerholz and Mann state that, despite the largely negative results of their 1977 survey, the search for a suitable area of at least 20,000 ha for a Marsh Deer reserve has to be continued as the only means to ensure its survival in the country. Logistic problems are great, however, and there is minimal governmental input into any form of conservation. They consider the best prospects to be to try to coordinate conservation efforts by private land-owners, with the possibility of establishing a reserve open to tourism, or to attempt to obtain land which has been registered under the Reforma Agraria but which has not been used according to the requirements of the act and thus returns to the possession of the Reforma after two years (11). Paraguay: in 1980 rescue projects had reportedly been proposed to try to save those deer on the threatened Isla Yacyreta (17). Peru: in 1981 it was reported that the Ministry of Agriculture had just evaluated a proposal to establish a conservation unit in the pampas of the Rio Heath which would encompass virtually the whole of the Marsh Deer's distribution in Peru (16). CAPTIVE BREEDING A breeding colony at Sao Paulo Zoo, Brazil, had dwindled to one female by 1978; in 1979 a pair was held at Berlin Zoo, West Germany; also there are recent reports of specimens at Bahia Blanca Zoo (Argentina) and Hellenthal in West Germany (4,6). Neto is quoted by Jungius as strongly advising against reintroduction programmes and capture of wild animals for captive breeding until more is known of the species' ecology (4). REMARKS For description of animal see (1); it is the largest deer in South America (8). REFERENCES 1. Cabrera, A. (1957-1961). Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Revista del Museo Argentina de Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadavia', Cienc. Zool., Buenos Aires. 4(1,2): 1-731. 2. IUCN. (1976). Marsh Deer. Sheet code: 19.125.11.1 Red Data Book Vol | Mammalia. IUCN, Switzerland. a: 3. IUCN. (1977). World Directory of National Parks and other Protected Areas. IUCN, Switzerland. 4, Jungius, H. (1976). Project 960 Deer - International programme for conservation of threatened species. In Jackson, P. (Ed.), World Wildlife Yearbook 1975-76. WWF, Switzerland. Pp 201-217. >). Mittermeier, R.A. (1977). Notes on some endangered and potentially endangered species of South American mammals. Unpd. Report. 10 pp. 6. Olney, P.J.S. (Ed.) (1980). International Zoo Yearbook 20. Zool. Soc. London. 7. Padua, M. (no date). Parques nacionais e reservas equivalentes. Instituto Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal, Brasilia. 35 pp. 8. Schaller, G.B. and Tarak, A. (1976). The Marsh Deer in Argentina. In Schaller, G.B. Report on a wildlife survey in northern Argentina and in the Emas National Park, Brazil. Unpd. Report. 17 pp. 9. Schaller, G.B. and Vasconcelos, J.M.C. (1978). A Marsh Deer census in Brazil. Oryx 14 (4): 345-351. 10. Schuerholz, G. (1978). Project 1587. Marsh Deer, Rogaguado Reserve. In Jackson, P. (Ed.), World Wildlife Yearbook 1977-78. WWF, Switzerland. Pp. 172-173. 11. Schuerholz, G. and Mann, G. (1977). Draft Final Report on IUCN/WWF_ Project No.1587/1977. Marsh Deer in Rogaguado Reserve. Unpd. Report to IUCN/WWF. 12. Autori, M.P (1972). Biological data and growth of the first horns of the Marsh Deer (Blastocerus dichotomus). Der Zool. Garten 42: 225-235. 13. Ximenez, A., Langguth, A. and Praderi, R. (1972). Lista sistematica de los mammiferos del Uruguay. Anal. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. de Montevideo 7(5): 1-49. 14, Tarak, A. (1980). Pers. comm. 15. Clutton-Brock, T.H. (1981). In litt. 16. Dourojeanni Ricordi, M. (1981). In litt. 17. Vershuren, J. (1980). Saving Paraguay's wilderness. Oryx 15(5): 465-470. 18. Praderi, R. (1981). In litt. 19. Gudynas, E. (1981). In litt. 491 2 : | y ray oF ' s Wh \ aR oe eee i firaees. NCL SBR ‘eaatoma ila aan ei98 atsih) 68 chee as i ; Sg DH NE wat ibe. Hs aaa (See ETE Vesenys Learnsttie-e siden wh’ pone ae free Betts, a ce Pia [paneer ye neko Bowell poe “Beedaanese: 8D. torts gnip 01 HOV GhBiiukal A AAI, He is Okh Ha ACwet ae arta ee Portis MOD > ae sulegs Sie aren “yak » Seen 4 ‘eliotn peers MU AR A figttiie oh ayes 4 if ae, Sileemlinjowrsasg- Syke Marre ‘of witeehd pronase Hanger ailembs bration: “Bese hte com ) ili. 2 Cel ee ator! AF hela ; om cats seas AS ai): . mpiirtedy DO BE dou Hlientee.c ont mL wi-yarwe ope Ua Rinie ke WetE Enagast ar 3 dinate is ae he ye eee peers - pnwibzannlea SETHE non ‘hubesy sradetey LOADER END) ate “eae eres ea © Gad Meso melee 3 SAB Nehrad ieye i einer Lactongh a . tet age desee: iat aac. bank (Oa wteltog By xis, Sa 2 ilndgte ARE tie She reheated OF a variate 7S wel taken 04 pees i ‘at eee, ae seh tear iseseton re kat J0 eos, Logbraunta? jus ever= ee WENGE