Skip to main content

Full text of "Significant trade in wildlife : a review of selected species in CITES appendix II = Commerce important des especes sauvages : enquete au sujet de certaines especes inscrites a l'annexe II de la CITES = commercio significativo de vida silvestre : estudio de determinadas especies incluidas en el appendice II de CITES"

See other formats 


NIE UN 


Significant Trade in Wildlife: 
A Review of Selected Species | 


in CITES Appendix II 


Volume 1: Mammals | A 


a aa y LE 


RO ¢ 
MEN E \ 
Re. 


SIGNIFICANT TRADE IN WILDLIFE: 


A REVIEW OF SELECTED SPECIES IN CITES APPENDIX Il 


COMMERCE IMPORTANT DES ESPECES SAUVAGES: ENQUETE AU SUJET 


DE CERTAINES ESPECES INSCRITES A L’ANNEXE Il DE LA CITES 


COMMERCIO SIGNIFICATIVO DE VIDA SILVESTRE: ESTUDIO DE 


DETERMINADAS ESPECIES INCLUIDAS EN EL APPENDICE Il DE CITES 


VOLUME 1: MAMMALS 
VOLUME 1: MAMMIFERES 


VOLUMEN 1: MAMIFEROS 


Edited by Publié par Publicado por 
Steven Broad, Richard Luxmoore and Martin Jenkins. 


IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, UK. 


1988 
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 


Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 
of Wild Fauna and Flore 


A joint publication of the International Union for Conservation of Nature end 
Natural Resources (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and the 
Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of 


Wild Faune and Flora, Lausanne, Switzerland. 
1988. 


The publishers acknowledge the financial support of the governments of Canada, 
Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and 
the United States of America and of WWF-USA, WWF-Switzerland, Pet Industries 
Joint Advisory Council. 


This report was prepared under contract to the Secretariat of the Convention 
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora by IUCN 
Conservation Monitoring Centre, which is supported by the United Nations 
Environment Programme and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). 


O 1988. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural 
Resources and the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. 


ISBN 2-88032-953-1 


Printed in Canada by the Canadian CITES Management Authority (Canedian 
Wildlife Service), Ottawa. 


Cover photo: Colobus guereza WWF/Metro Toronto Zoo 


The designations of the geographical entities in this book and the 
presentation of the material do not imply the expression of any opinion 
whatsoever on the part of IUCN or the CITES Secretariat concerning the legal 
status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or 
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 


The views of the authors expressed in this publication do not necesserily 
reflect those of IUCN or the CITES Secreteriat. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 


This report was prepared with the assistance of many of the staff at IUCN 


Conservation Monitoring Centre. The first drafts of the species accounts 

were written by the following authors: 

Steven Broad Felis colocolo, Felis geoffroyi, Felis lynx, Felis 
manul, Felis pardalis, Felis tigrina and Felis 
wiedii; 

Martin Jenkins Dusicyon culpaeus, Dusicyon giseus, Conepatus 
humboltii, Lutra perspicillata, Lama guanicoe and 
Manis spp.; 

Richard Luxmoore Macaca fascicularis; 

Nicholas Payne Monodon monoceros; 

Jane Thornback Saguinus labiatus, Saguinus mystax and Saimiri 
sciurius; 

Jane Williamson Cercopithecus petaurista, Colobus guereza and Colobus 
polykomos. 


Tim Inskipp was responsible for the overall co-ordination of the contract and 
assisted with the literature research. Douglas Fuller carried out initial 
literature research for a number of species. John Caldwell produced the basic 
trade tabulations from the Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit computerised 
database and Wendy Coombes carried out some of the analysis of the trade 
data. The accounts for Felis pardalis, Felis tigrina and Felis wiedii 
were based on the accounts written for the IUCN Mammal Red Data Book, Part 1 
by Jane Thornback and Martin Jenkins (1982) and the account for Equus zebra 
hartmannae was based on a recently updated version of the sheet for Equus 
zebra included in the IUCN Red Data Book, Volume 1: Mammalia, new edition 
compiled by Harry A. Goodwin and Colin. W. Holloway (1972) and revised in 1978 
by Jane Thornback. 


We should like to thank all those who responded to requests for information 
sent out by ourselves and the CITES Secretariat, and to those who reviewed the 
earlier drafts of this report. They include: W. Aguilar; J.B. Alvarez; 
P.A. Anadu; T. Bangjie; J.M. de Benito; M.A. Bereteh; H.H. Berry; S.S. Bist; 
Dr Blanke; L. Blomquist; R. Bodmer; E. Boomker; E.W. Born; D.M. Botello; 


S.D. Budd; M.K. Cheung; J.A. Crespo; T.C. Dauphiné; R. Dipouma; P. Dollinger; 
S.T. Einarsson; J.F. Eisenberg; S. Eldoy; L. Emmons; Dr Fischer; A.L. Gardner; 
E.O. Gonzalez Ruiz; M. Griffin; H. Hemmer; J. Heppes; V. Herrenschmidt; 
R. Hoogersteijn; P. Jackson; S. Johansson; C.J. Kalden; H. Klingel; 
M. Klinowska; P. Leyhausen; P.H. Lloyd; A.R. Martin; E.J. Martinez; 
E.D. Mitchell; R.M. Mitchell; R. Mittermeier; D. Momo; D. Navarro Se 
F.H.O. Opolot; A.W. Owadally; H.S. Panwar; A.L. Peal; W.F. Perrin; G. Peters; 
F. Postma; S.A. Prainsson; H. Quigley; J. Rabinovich; San-Wei Lee; 
N.M. Sarker; K. Shirazi; P. Singsouriya; R. Souter; M. Sunquist; Syafii Manan; 
H. Thing; M. Tillman; K. Trolle; E. Vallester; J. Villalba-Macias; 
M.A. Vincent; D.E. Wilson; R. Wirth; U. Wotschikowsky. 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2010 with funding from 
UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge 


http://www.archive.org/details/significanttrade88broa 


INTRODUCTION - English 
INTRODUCTION - Francais 
INTRODUCCION - Espagnol 


MAMMALS 


Saguinus labiatus 
Saguinus mystax 
Saimiri sciurius 
Cercopithecus petaurista 
Colobus guereza 
Colobus polykomos 
Macaca fascicularis 
Dusicyon culpaeus 
Dusicyon griseus 
Conepatus humboldtii 
Lutra perspicillata 
Felis colocolo 
Felis geoffroyi 
Felis lynx 

Felis manul 

Felis pardalis 
Felis tigrina 

Felis wiedii 

Monodon monoceros 
Equus zebra hartmannae 
Lama guanicoe 

Manis spp. 


CONTENTS 
iii 
viii 


Xiv 


SPECIES ACCOUNTS 


ii 


INTRODUCTION 
Background 


The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 
Flora (CITES) was drawn up in 1973 to control trade in wildlife. It does so 
by affording to species either of primarily two levels of protection. Those 
species (or smaller geographical populations) which are threatened with 
extinction are listed in Appendix I, and are thereby banned from international 
commerce under most circumstances. Species which are not currently threatened 
with extinction, but which may become so unless their trade is regulated, are 
listed in Appendix II. Such species may be traded internationally, but 
nations must ensure that the levels of trade do not endanger the remaining 
wild populations. This requirement is expressed formally in the text of the 
Convention in Article IV, paragraph 2a, which demands that the authorities in 
exporting countries must have advised that the export of specimens of such a 
species "will not be detrimental to the survival of that species". Article 
IV, paragraph 3 indicates that the trade in a species "should be limited in 
order to maintain the species throughout its range and at a level consistent 
with its role in the ecosystem in which it occurs and well above the level at 
which that species might become eligible for inclusion in Appendix I". The 
authorities in the exporting country must monitor the exports and take steps 
to limit them whenever they determine it to be necessary. 


At the fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, held in 1983 
in Gaborone, Botswana, it was recognised that many countries exporting 
Appendix II wildlife were unable, on their own, to determine whether the 
levels of trade were having a detrimental effect on the wild populations. 
Therefore it was recommended (CITES Resolution Conf. 4.7) that the CITES 
Technical Committee should provide assistance by identifying those Appendix II 
species which were currently being traded internationally in significant 
quantities, but for which there was insufficient scientific information on the 
capacity of the species to withstand such levels of trade to satisfy "the 
requirements of Article IV, paragraph 3, of the Convention as determined by 
the range states". It was recommended that once the species of particular 
concern had been identified, the Technical Committee, together with the range 
states involved, importing states and organisations experienced in the 
Management of wildlife, "develop and negotiate measures required to ensure 
that continued trade in these species is within the terms of Article IV, 
paragraph 3". 


Initial discussions of the means by which the Technical Committee could 
identify those species of particular concern (as recommended by Resolution 
Conf. 4.7) were based on the premise that a high volume of trade was 
sufficient evidence alone to justify concern. However, an unpublished report 
produced in 1984 by WIMU for the CITES Secretariat, on the perception of the 
issue of high trade-volume, came to the following conclusions: 


- The concept of high trade-volume may be approached in two ways: high 
volume may be considered in absolute terms (i.e. large numbers), or in 
relative terms (i.e. large numbers in relation to the population and 
biology of the species). 


- Absolute high trade-volume does not alone have any bearing on whether a 
species is threatened by trade. However, species traded in high absolute 
numbers are likely to be of considerable ecological significance. 


- Relative high trade-volume is of direct relevance to the survival of the 
species involved, but there is no evidence that this is correlated with 
absolute high trade-volume. By virtue of their designation on the 


iii 


Appendices, trade in all CITES-listed species is of concern, and should be 
monitored. 


- Consideration of absolute high trade-volume as a major criterion for 
selecting species for special attention is thus not only irrelevant in 
terms of species conservation, but may divert attention from more 
important cases. 


The Technical Committee Working Group on Significant Trade in Appendix II 
Species produced a paper, based on its meeting in Switzerland in December 
1984, which aimed to formulate a procedure or course of action to enable the 
Technical Committee to fulfil the recommendations of Resolution Conf. 4.7. It 
was decided that the Group should restrict its attention to fauna, as a Plant 
Working Group was already in existence. The conclusions of the WIMU report on 
high trade-volume were endorsed, in that the Working Group agreed that it was 
not possible to identify those Appendix II taxa of greatest concern on the 
basis of trade data alone. Information on biological status, population 
trends and a whole range of other factors was needed in order to assess 
properly the impact of the trade in those taxa. 


A five-part procedure was established as the most appropriate mechanism for 
implementing Resolution Conf. 4.7. This plan was presented to the fifth 
meeting of the Conference of the Parties which was held at Buenos Aires, 
Argentina in 1985 (Doc. 5.26). Steps 1-3 have already been carried out. 


Step 1: Production of list "A" 


It was acknowledged that, with a very few exceptions, all taxa listed in 
Appendix II should be able to withstand some degree of exploitation for 
international trade. The Working Group chose an arbitrary "safe" level of 
trade for any such taxon of an average of 100 individuals taken from the 
wild (globally) and entering trade per year. By eliminating all taxa 
traded at a level within that considered "safe", a list of "potential 
candidate" taxa could be produced (List "A"). These taxa were defined as 
those that might be the subject of significant international trade. 


List A was prepared by WIMU on the basis of average trade volume over the 
period 1980-1982. Figures relating to live specimens (excluding those 
recorded as captive-bred), whole or substantially whole skins, skin 
flanks/sides, furskin plates, shells, trophies and other worked material 
were included in the analysis. Species never recorded in trade, with the 
exception of those included in Appendix II as part of a higher taxon or 
for look-alike reasons, were listed separately in order that consideration 
could be given to their deletion from the Appendices. 


Step 2: Production of list "B" 


The Working Group agreed that some taxa might be eliminated from 
consideration as “significant trade" species on the basis of knowledge 
readily available to the Group regarding their status. After this 
process, the remaining taxa constituted list "B", which contained those 
taxa which could be classified as a “possible problem". In addition, two 
species (Tupinambis rufescens and Papustyla pulcherrima) were added to 
this list under special circumstances where there was evidence of a 
problem despite only a low volume of trade being recorded. 


Step 3: Production of list "Cc" 


The next phase in the procedure was to assess the information available 
for each of the species in list "B", and to eliminate those species which 


iv 


were, on the basis of expert knowledge, known not to be a problem. This 
part of the operation entailed the collection of information on as many 
aspects of each species as possible and the assessment of the impact of 
the known trade on the known population. The Working Group agreed that 
for each species the global situation should be of paramount importance, 
but that if a species were apparently being affected by trade on a 
national or regional scale, this fact should be noted in an addendum to 
the list. List "C" was to be divided into two groups: those species for 
which current information or knowledge of their biology and/or management 
indicated that the population was being detrimentally affected by 
international trade (List 1), and those species for which there is 
insufficient information available on which to base such a judgement (List 
20% 


Step 4: Development of remedial measures 


The Technical Committee, or a working group of the Technical Committee, 
was to examine the lists "1" and "2" and establish priorities within each 
list. For species of high priority in list "1", workshops were to be 
convened to formulate recommendations for remedial measures. Such 
measures would include, but not necessarily be limited to: preparing 
proposals for transfer to Appendix I; establishment of additional 
Management procedures both for wild populations (hunting quotas, seasons, 
size limits, etc.) and for trade controls (such as export quotas); and 
listing of taxa for look-alike reasons. 


For species of high priority in list "2", projects were to be established 
to collect information on the biology and management of the species. 
Where such information indicated the need, the species were to be 
transferred to list "1". 


Step 5: Implementation of remedial measures 


The remedial measures identified were to be carried out by the range 
states involved on the basis of the recommendations arising from the 
workshops. 


This five-step procedure was approved at the Buenos Aires meeting in 1985 and 
steps 1-3 were implemented by the IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre. List 
"C" was prepared in time for the second meeting of the Technical Committee, 
held in June 1986 in Lausanne, Switzerland. For each species in list "C", a 
draft report was prepared presenting a summary of all available information, 
including a detailed analysis of available trade data and information on the 
population status and other factors thought to be of relevance. On the basis 
of this information, each species was assigned to the two recommended lists 
(list 1, problem species; list 2, possible problems). At this stage it was 
also discovered that some species, originally included in list "C", were 
probably not being significantly affected by the current levels of trade. 
These were assigned to a third group (list 3, no problem). The Significant 
Trade Working Group reviewed the information provided by CMC and the suggested 
listings, and made a number of recommendations for further action which are 
outlined below. The Technical Committee also decided that, after further 
review, the report prepared by CMC should be published. 


Further action 

The Significant Trade Working Group presented a paper at the second Technical 
Committee meeting outlining proposals for further action (WGR.TEC. 2.2). _The 
recommendations of this report, some of which were amended at the Technical 
Committee meeting, are detailed below for the mammal species involved. 


v 


List 1 (No taxa) 
List 2 (19 taxa) 


The Working Group recommended that the following taxa should receive attention 
as priority species or groups of species for the collection of information (in 
order of importance): 


1. South American cats (five species, i.e. Felis colocolo, Felis 
geoffroyi, Felis pardalis, Felis tigrina and Felis wiedii) - noting 
that some work has already started. 


2. Asian pangolins (three species, i.e. Manis crassicaudata, Manis 
javanica and Manis pentadactyla). 


List 3 (3 taxa) 


It was agreed that available information indicated that these taxa were 
essentially unaffected by international trade. 


METHODS 


This report comprises the review of the biological and trade status of species 
included in list "C". It was carried out by the IUCN Conservation Monitoring 
Centre under contract to the CITES Secretariat over the period September 1985 
to April 1986. As a first step, the CITES Secretariat circulated a request 
for information to all of the countries in which the species occurred, 
contacting the CITES Management Authorities in the countries party to CITES 
and designated wildlife management or equivalent authorities in others. The 
responses to this request were passed to CMC and are referenced in the 
following format: Name of country CITES MA, 1987. Comments received from 
wildlife management authorities in non-Party states are referenced by the name 
of the government department involved. Information was also solicited from 
relevant specialists (individuals or agencies), and amongst the major sources 
were the specialist groups of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. Trade 
Organisations and other interested parties were also approached. A draft 
report was presented to the 2nd meeting of the CITES Technical Committee in 
June 1986. This report was discussed and amended by the Committee and review 
copies were again circulated by the CITES Secretariat to all range states and 
interested parties, including the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council. Final 
modifications to the text and recent trade data were added by CMC during 1987. 


In a small number of cases the designation of category of a species at the 
time of the second Technical Committee meeting has subsequently been amended 


in the light of new information, in particular the 1985 trade data which have 
been added to the reports. 


Information was collected and collated under the following headings: 
distribution; population; habitat and ecology; threats to survival; 
international trade; conservation measures; and captive breeding. 


CITES trade data were analysed for the years 1980 to 1985 using the Annual 
Reports of Parties to the Convention for which the statistics are held on 
computer at CMC. These data contain records of imports and exports of species 
listed in the CITES Appendices and of their products. They contain 
information on the species involved, a description of the type and quantity of 
product and, in the case of imports, the exporter or re-exporter and primary 
source country, and, for exports, the destination and original source. For 
trade between two CITES Parties, each transaction should therefore be reported 


vi 


twice, once by the importer and once by the exporter. As suggested by the 
Significant Trade Working Group, the analysis was largely restricted to trade 
in live animals and unworked products, however, in a small number of 
exceptional cases worked products were included. 


Various problems impair the value of CITES trade data in the assessment of 
levels of world trade. For example: not all trading nations are CITES 
Parties; not all CITES Parties produce annual reports; and the reports of 
those that do, vary in quality and regularity of submission. Some countries 
may report the number of specimens covered by the permits issued, while others 
report the actual number for which the permit was used. Furthermore exports 
from a country at the end of one year may arrive in the importing country 
early in the next and in such cases it is possible that the same transaction 
may be recorded in the trade tables for both years. These factors and others 
have to be taken into account when analysing CITES data, but for most species 
these statistics are the only detailed source of information on their 
international trade and generally CITES reports are of great value in 
assessing approximate levels of legal trade, the geographical patterns in 
such trade and the trends in volume and commodity preference over time. 


In most cases the trade data are presented, in the following accounts, in two 
tables. The first (usually Table 1) details the net imports of importing 
countries, the total of which gives an estimate of the minimum volume of world 
trade for each year. The second (usually Table 2) shows the origin, or where 
no origin was given, the exporter, of specimens in trade. When specimens have 
been exported to an intermediate country and subsequently re-exported, the 
minimum net trade was calculated, ensuring that the numbers were only recorded 
once. The table therefore shows, for each year, the minimum number of items 
in trade from each country of origin. However, because some items may be 
re-exported without the country of origin being specified, they may be 
recorded twice in Table 2. The totals are therefore usually higher than those 
in Table 1. 


od to ere PA 
ca MANIA TUE + Lis 


EI 
APTE 


ne PA Re Reed | Eu Lee 


ahaa ore ee et we 


a Shei 
: = “wey. LA 
Se A y 
ae ae Rue 
y a RA 


att 
ae 
EL 


Mi sh us pe eres à 
E boat sue vi et 
bas ota =" ALA dl 
bus 
a rd #4 5 } 
| oa Per pee» 24 
ey pene SM: œuf a + : 
î cha ¿e 7 À din PTE Mod: ir BSE, TRI 253 
CE y ba! Kinito dr goals ) OUR “hr 
000 re hed ween te “Serer gee de 
“Wes Pl ar TEA AA à 
ne ES 


e ren 


INTRODUCTION 


Informations générales 


La Convention sur le commerce international des espéces de faune et de flore 
sauvages menacées d'extinction (CITES) a été élaborée, en 1973, pour contróler 
le commerce des espéces de faune et de flore sauvages. Elle agit en offrant a 
ces espéces deux niveaux principaux de protection. Les espéces (ou de plus 
petites populations géographiquement isolées) qui sont menacées d'extinction 
sont inscritent à l'Annexe I, ce qui signifie que leur commerce international 
est interdit dans la plupart des cas. Les espéces qui ne sont pas actuellement 
menacées d'extinction, mais qui pourraient le devenir si leur commerce n'était 
pas réglementé, sont inscritent à l'Annexe II. Le commerce international de 
ces derniéres espéces est autorisé, á condition que les pays s'assurent que le 
volume du commerce ne mette pas en danger la survie des populations sauvages 
restantes. Cette exigence est formellement énoncée à l'Article IV, 
paragraphe 2 a, du texte de la Convention, qui prévoit que les autorités des 
pays d'exportation émettent l'avis que l'exportation de spécimens de ces 
espèces "ne nuit pas à la survie de l'espèce intéressée”. Le paragraphe 3 de 
l'Article IV indique que le commerce d'une espèce “devrait être limité pour la 
conserver dans toute son aire de distribution, à un niveau qui soit à la fois 
conforme à son rôle dans les écosystèmes où elle est présente, et nettement 
supérieur à celui qui entraînerait l'inscription de cette espèce à 
l'Annexe I". Les autorités des pays d'exportation doivent surveiller les 
exportations de façon continue et prendre les mesures qui s'imposent pour les 
limiter lorsqu'elles le jugent nécessaire. 


Lors de la quatrième session de la Conférence des Parties à la CITES, tenue en 
1983 à Gaborone, Botswana, il fut reconnu que maints pays exportateurs 
d'espèces de faune et de flore sauvages figurant à l'Annexe II étaient dans 
l'incapacité de déterminer par eux-mêmes si les niveaux de commerce avaient un 
effet nuisible sur les populations sauvages. C'est pourquoi, il fut recommandé 
(résolution CITES Conf. 4.7) que le Comité technique de la CITES assiste ces 
pays en identifiant les espèces de l'Annexe II faisant actuellement l'objet 
d'un commerce international important, mais pour lesquelles, selon l'avis des 
Etats de l'aire de répartition, les données scientifiques portant sur leur 
capacité à supporter le commerce à un tel niveau sont insuffisantes au regard 
des exigences de l'Article IV, paragraphe 3, de la Convention. 11 fut 
recommandé que, une fois les espèces présentant un intérêt particulier 
identifiées, le Comité technique, en collaboration avec les Etats de l'aire de 
répartition intéressés, les Etats importateurs et les organisations ayant une 
expérience en gestion de la faune et de la flore sauvages, “mette au point et 
négocie les mesures nécessaires pour assurer le maintien du commerce continu 
de ces espèces dans les limites prévues à l'Article IV, paragraphe 3, de la 
Convention". 


Les discussions initiales sur les moyens à utiliser par le Comité technique 
pour identifier les espéces représentant un intérét particulier (selon la 
recommandation de la résolution Conf. 4.7) ont été fondées sur le principe 
qu'un volume de commerce important est, à lui seul, une indication suffisante 
pour justifier un intérét. Toutefois, un rapport non publié, produit en 1984 
par le WIMU pour le Secrétariat CITES et traitant de la maniére dont il 
percevait la question du volume important du commerce, parvenait aux 
conclusions suivantes: 


- Le concept du volume important du commerce peut étre abordé de deux 
maniéres: un important volume peut étre considéré en terme absolu (soit de 
grandes quantités) ou en terme relatif (soit de grandes quantités par 
rapport à la population et à la biologie de l'espèce). 


viii 


- Un important volume de commerce, au sens absolu du terme, n'a pas en soi 
de rapport avec le fait qu'une espèce soit menacée ou non par le commerce. 
Toutefois, il est probable que les espéces dont de grandes quantités de 
spécimens, en terme absolu, sont commercialisés aient une importance 
écologique considérable. 


- Un important volume de commerce, au sens relatif du terme, a un rapport 
direct avec la survie de l'espèce en question, mais rien ne prouve qu'il y 
ait corrélation avec un important volume de commerce au sens absolu du 
terme. Le seul fait que ces espèces soient inscrites aux annexes à la 
CITES signifie que leur commerce est motif à préoccupation et qu'il 
devrait faire 1'objet d'une surveillance continue. 


- Considérer un important volume de commerce au sens absolu du terme comme 
critére majeur de sélection des espéces nécessitant une attention 
particuliére est donc non seulement hors de propos en ce qui concerne la 
conservation des espéces mais, qui plus est, risquerait de distraire 
l'attention de cas plus importants. 


Le Groupe de travail du Comité technique sur le commerce important d'espéces 
de l'Annexe II a élaboré un document, fondé sur sa session tenue en Suisse en 
décembre 1984, session dont l'objectif était de formuler une procédure ou une 
ligne de conduite permettant au Comité technique de remplir ses obligations au 
titre des recommandations de la résolution Conf. 4.7. Il fut décidé que le 
groupe devait limiter ses discussions á la faune en raison de l'existence d'un 
Groupe de travail sur les plantes. Les conclusions du rapport du WIMU sur le 
volume important du commerce furent endossées, en ce sens que le groupe de 
travail convint qu'il n'était pas possible d'identifier les taxons les plus 
préoccupants de l'Annexe II sur la base des seules données commerciales. Des 
informations sur l'état biologique des taxons, sur les tendances de leurs 
populations et sur toute une série d'autres facteurs sont nécessaires pour 
évaluer correctement l'effet du commerce sur ces taxons. 


Une procédure en cing étapes, constituant le mécanisme le plus favorable pour 
l'application de la résolution Conf. 4.7, fut établie. Ce plan d'action fut 
présenté á la cinquiéme session de la Conférence des Parties qui eut lieu a 
Buenos Aires, Argentine, en 1985 (document Doc. 5.26). Les étapes 1 á 3 ont 
déja été réalisées. 


lére étape: Production de la liste “A” 


Il fut reconnu que, à très peu d'exceptions près, on peut raisonnablement 
assumer que tous les taxons inscrits à l'Annexe II peuvent supporter un 
certain niveau d'exploitation pour le commerce international. Le groupe de 
travail choisit un niveau de commerce arbitraire et "sfir" pour tout taxon, 
soit en moyenne 100 individus prélevés dans la nature (globalement) et 
entrant dans le commerce chaque année. En éliminant tous les taxons dont 
le commerce était considéré d'un niveau “sfir", une liste de taxons 
“candidats potentiels" (liste "A") put alors être établie. Ces taxons sont 
définis comme étant ceux qui peuvent faire l'objet d'un commerce 
international important. 


La liste A a été établie par le WIMU sur la base d'un volume de commerce 
moyen couvrant la période 1980-1982. Les chiffres ayant trait aux 
spécimens vivants (sauf les spécimens enregistrés en tant qu'élevés en 
captivité), aux peaux entières ou substantiellement entières, aux flancs, 
aux nappes de peaux, aux carapaces, aux trophées et à d'autres articles 
travaillés ont été inclus dans cette analyse. Les espèces qui n'ont jamais 
été enregistrées dans le commerce, à l'exception de celles inscrites à 
l'Annexe II en tant que partie d'un taxon supérieur ou pour des raisons de 


ix 


ressemblance, ont été énumérées séparément en vue de leur éventuelle 
élimination des annexes. 


2e étape: Production de la liste "B" 


Le groupe de travail convint que, sur la base des connaissances dont le 
groupe pouvait disposer aisément au sujet de leur état, certains taxons ne 
devaient plus étre considérés comme des espéces faisant l'objet d'un 
“commerce important". Aprés cette opération, les taxons restants ont 
constitués la liste "B", laquelle contient les taxons qui pourraient étre 
classés en tant que “problème possible". En outre, deux espèces 
(Tupinambis rufescens et Papustyla pulcherrima) ont été ajoutées à la 
liste dans des circonstances particuliéres: la mise en évidence d'un 
probléme en dépit de l'enregistrement d'un faible volume de commerce. 


3e étape: Production de la liste "C" 


L'étape suivante de la procédure revenait à évaluer les informations 
disponibles pour chacune des espéces de la liste "B" et á éliminer les 
espéces qui, sur la base des connaissances des experts, ne posent pas de 
probléme. Cette partie de l'opération fut réalisée en rassemblant des 
informations sur autant d'aspects que possible relatifs à chaque espèce et 
en évaluant l'effet du commerce connu sur la population connue. Le groupe 
de travail convint que, pour chaque espéce, la situation globale devait 
avoir une importance primordiale, mais que, si une espèce était 
apparemment affectée par le commerce à l'échelle nationale ou régionale, 
ce fait devait figurer dans un supplément à la liste. Les espèces de la 
liste "C" devaient être réparties en deux groupes: d'une part les espèces 
pour lesquelles les informations courantes ou la connaissance de leur 
biologie et/ou de leur gestion montrent que la population est affectée par 
le commerce international (liste 1) et d'autre part les espèces pour 
lesquelles les informations disponibles sont insuffisantes pour servir de 
base à un tel jugement (liste 2). 


4e étape: Mise au point de mesures correctives 


Le Comité technique, ou un groupe de travail du Comité technique, devait 
examiner les listes "1" et "2" annotées et établir des priorités au sein 
de chaque liste. Pour les espéces de la liste "1" ayant un ordre de 
priorité élevé, des sessions de travail devaient étre convoquées dans le 
but de recommander des mesures correctives. De telles mesures devaient 
comprendre, sans nécessairement s'y limiter: la préparation de 
propositions de transferts de taxons à l'Annexe I; la mise en place de 
procédures de gestion supplémentaires, aussi bien en faveur des 
populations sauvages (telles que quotas de chasse, saisons de chasse, 
tailles limites des spécimens, etc.) qu'en ce qui concerne les contrôles 
du commerce (telles que quotas à l'exportation), et l'inscription de 
taxons pour des raisons de ressemblance. 


Pour les espèces de la liste "2" ayant un ordre de priorité élevé, des 
projets devaient étre élaborés afin de collecter des informations sur leur 
biologie et leur gestion. Lorsque ces informations en montraient la 
nécessité, l'espèce devait être transférée à la liste "1". 


5e étape: Mise en vigueur des mesures correctives 


Les mesures de correction identifiées devaient être prise par les Etats de 
l'aire de répartition intéressés, sur la base des recommandations 
formulées lors des sessions de travail. 


Cette procédure en cing étapes a été approuvée á la session de Buenos Aires, 
en 1985, et les étapes 1 à 3 ont été réalisées par le Centre UICN de 
surveillance continue de la conservation de la nature (CMC). La Liste "C" a 
été élaborée pour la deuxiéme session du Comité technique, qui s'est tenue a 
Lausanne, Suisse, en juin 1986. Pour chaque espèce de la liste "C", un projet 
de rapport a été rédigé, lequel présentait un résumé de toutes les 
informations disponibles, dont une analyse détaillée des données sur le 
commerce et des informations sur l'état des populations et d'autres facteurs 
jugés pertinents. Sur la base de ces informations, chaque espéce a été 
assignée à l'une deux listes recommandées (liste 1, espèces à problèmes; 
liste 2, problèmes possibles). A ce stade, on a également découvert que 
certaines des espèces figurant à l'origine sur la liste “C" n'étaient 
probablement pas affectées de manière significative par les niveaux actuels de 
commerce. Celles-ci furent assignées à un troisième groupe (liste 3, sans 
problème). Le Groupe de travail sur le commerce important d'espèces de 
l'Annexe II a étudié les informations fournies par le CMC, ainsi que les 
listes proposées, et a fait un certain nombre de recommandations quant aux 
activités futures qui sont décrites ci-après. Le Comité technique a également 
décidé que, après un nouvel examen, le rapport élaboré par le CMC devait être 
publié. 


Activités futures 


Le Groupe de travail sur le commerce important d'espèces de l'Annexe II a 
présenté un document à la deuxième session du Comité technique, document qui 
ébauchait des projets d'activités futures (WGR. TEC. 2.2). Les recommandations 
de ce rapport, dont certaines ont été modifiées lors de la session du Comité 
technique, sont présentées ci-dessous de façon détaillée en ce qui concerne 
les reptiles. 


Liste 1 (Aucun taxon) 
Liste 2 (19 taxons) 


Le groupe de travail recommandé que l'on porte attention aux taxon suivants en 
tant qu'espêces prioritaires quant à la collecte d'informations (par ordre 
d'importance): 


1. Félins d'Amérique du Sud (cing espèces, soit Felis colocolo, Felis 
geoffroyi, Felis pardalis, Felis tigrina et Felis wiedii) - il est pris 
note du fait que certaines activités ont déja commencé. 


2. Pangolins d'Asie (trois espèces, soit Manis crassicaudata, Manis 
javanica et Manis pentadactyla). 


Liste 3 (3 taxons) 


Le groupe admet que les informations disponibles montrent que ces taxons, pour 
l'essentiel, ne sont pas affectés par le commerce international. 


METHODES 


Ce rapport comprend l'examen de l'état biologique des espèces contenues dans 
la liste "C" et des données commerciales les concernant. Il a été élaboré par 
le Centre UICN de surveillance continue de la conservation de la nature, sur 
la base d'un contrat avec le Secrétariat CITES, au cours de la période 
septembre 1985 - avril 1986. Dans un premier temps, le Secrétariat CITES a 
adressé, par l'intermédiaire des organes de gestion CITES des pays Parties à 
la Convention ou des autorités responsables de la gestion de la faune ou 


xi 


équivalentes des pays non-Parties, une demande d'informations à tous les pays 
dans lesquels se rencontrent les espéces de la liste "C". Les réponses recues 
ont été envoyées au CMC et il y est fait référence en indiquant le nom de 
l'organe de gestion de la Partie CITES en 1987. Il est fait référence aux 
commentaires recus des autorités responsables de la gestion de la faune dans 
les pays non-Parties en indiquant le nom du département gouvernemental 
intéressé. Des informations ont également été demandées aux spécialistes 
(personnes ou organisations), et les groupes de spécialistes de la Commission 
de sauvegarde des espèces de 1'UICN en furent parmi les principales sources. 
Il a également été fait appel aux organisations du commerce et autres parties 
intéressées. Un projet de rapport a été présenté à la deuxième session du 
Comité technique CITES en juin 1986. Ce rapport a été examiné et amendé par 
lecomité et des versions révisées ont été transmises par le Secrétariet CITES 
aux Etats de l'aire de répartition et aux personnes intéressées, dont le Pet 
Industry Joint Advisory Council. Les modifications finales et des données 
commerciales récentes ont été ajoutées au texte, par le CMC, au cours de 1987. 


Dans un petit nombre de cas, la catégorie á laquelle une espéce avait été 
attribuée lors de la deuxiéme session du Comité technique a, par la suite, été 
modifiée sur la base des nouvelles informations reçues, en particulier les 
données commerciales de 1985 qui ont été ajoutées aux rapports. 


Les informations ont été recueillies et rassemblées sous les titres suivants: 
répartition; population; habitat et écologie; menaces pour la survie; commerce 
international; mesures de conservation; et élevage en captivité. 


Les données commerciales CITES ont été analysées pour les années 1980 a 1985, 
sur la base des rapports annuels des Parties à la Convention dont les 
statistiques sont conservées sur ordinateur par le CMC. Ces données 
comprennent les importations et exportations des espèces figurant aux annexes 
à la CITES et de leurs produits. Elles contiennent des informations sur les 
espèces en question, une description du type de produits et leur quantité et, 
dans le cas des importations, mentionnent l'exportateur ou le ré-exportateur 
et le premier pays producteur, et, pour les exportations, la destination et la 
source d'origine. En ce qui concerne le commerce entre deux pays Parties à la 
CITES, chaque transaction devrait donc être enregistrée deux fois, une fois 
par l'importateur et une fois par l'exportateur. Ainsi que le Groupe de 
travail sur le commerce important d'espèces de l'Annexe II l'avait suggéré, 
l'analyse a été, pour l'essentiel, limitée au commerce des animaux vivants et 
aux produits non-travaillés; cependant, dans un petit nombre de cas 
exceptionnels, des produits travaillés y ont été inclus. 


Divers problèmes réduisent la valeur des données commerciales CITES pour 
l'évaluation des niveaux du commerce mondial. Par exemple: toutes les nations 
faisant du commerce ne sont pas Parties à la CITES; les Parties à la CITES ne 
présentent pas toutes des rapports annuels; et les rapports présentés sont de 
qualité variable et le sont de manière irrégulière. Certains pays font état du 
nombre de spécimens couverts par les permis émis, tandis que d'autres 
indiquent le nombre réel de spécimens pour lesquels le permis a été utilisé. 
En outre, il se peut que des exportations ayant lieu en fin d'année arrivent 
dans le pays d'importation au début de l'année suivante et, dans de tels cas, 
il est possible que la même transaction soit enregistrée dans les tableaux 
relatifs aux données commerciales des deux années. 11 s'agit de tenir compte 
de ces facteurs, et d'autres encore, dans l'analyse des données de la CITES; 
toutefois, pour la plupart des espèces, ces statistiques constituent l'unique 
source d'informations détaillées sur leur commerce international, et les 
rapports CITES sont en général précieux pour évaluer les niveaux approximatifs 
du commerce légal, la répartition géographique des voies empruntées par le 
commerce international et les tendances, au cours des ans, en ce qui concerne 
le volume du commerce et l'évolution des préférences à l'égard des produits. 


xii 


Dans la plupart des cas, les données commerciales sont présentées en deux 
tableaux dans les exposés qui suivent. Le premier (le tableau 1 en régle 
générale) énumére, dans le détail, les importations nettes des pays 
d'importation dont le total donne une estimation du volume minimal du commerce 
mondial pour chaque année. Le second (le tableau 2 en règle générale) indique 
l'origine ou, dans les cas où l'origine n'a pas été indiquée, l'exportateur 
des spécimens commercialisés. Lorsque des spécimens ont été exportés vers un 
pays intermédiaire et réexportés par la suite, le commerce net minimal est 
alors calculé, en s'assurant que les quantités n'ont été enregistrées qu'une 
fois. Ainsi, le tableau indique, pour chaque année, la quantité 
minimaled'articles commercialisés à partir de chaque pays d'origine. 
Cependant, certains articles pouvant être réexportés sans que le pays 
d'origine ne soit spécifié, il est possible qu'ils soient enregistrés deux 
fois dans le tableau 2. C'est la raison pour laquelle les totaux du tableau 2 
sont généralement plus élevés que ceux du tableau 1. 


xiii 


INTRODUCCION 


Antecedentes 


La Convención Sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna 
y Flora Silvestres (CITES) fue elaborada en 1973 con el objeto de controlar el 
comercio de vida silvestre. Ese control se efectua asignando a las especies 
dos niveles de protección. Aquellas especies (o pequeñas poblaciones 
geográficas) que se encuentran amenazadas de extinción están incluidas en el 
Apéndice I de la Convención, y su comercio internacional está prohibido, 
excepto bajo circunstancias excepcionales. Aquellas especies que no corren 
peligro de extinción, pero que podrían estar amenazadas si su comercio no 
estuviera reglamentado, se incluyen en el Apéndice II de la Convención. Dichas 
especies pueden comercializarse a nivel internacional, pero las naciones 
concernidas deben asegurarse de que los niveles de comercio no representan una 
amenaza para las poblaciones silvestres remanentes. Este requisito se explica 
formalmente en el texto de la Convención, Artículo IV, párrafo 2 a), que exige 
que las autoridades de los países exportadores informen que la exportación de 
especímenes de esas especies "no perjudicará la supervivencia de esa especie". 
En el artículo IV, párrafo 3 se indica que el comercio de esas especies "debe 
limitarse a fin de conservarlas, a través de su hábitat, en un nivel 
consistente con su papel en los ecosistemas donde se hallan y en un nivel 
suficientemente superior a aquel en el cual esa especie sería susceptible de 
inclusión en el Apéndice I". Las autoridades del país exportador deberán 
controlar las exportaciones y tomar medidas para limitarlas cuando así se lo 
estime conveniente. 


Durante la cuarta reunión de la Conferencia de las Partes en CITES, realizada 
en 1983 en Gaborone, Botswana, se reconoció que varios países exportadores de 
especímenes de especies del Apéndice II no podían determinar por sí solos si 
los niveles de comercio perjudicaban a las poblaciones silvestres. Por lo 
tanto, se recomendó (por medio de la Resolución Conf. 4.7) "que el Comité 
Técnico de CITES identifique las especies del Apéndice II que son objeto de un 
comercio internacional considerable, para las cuales la información científica 
disponible sobre su capacidad de resistir a tales niveles de comercio resulta 
insuficiente como para satisfacer los requisitos estipulados en el Artículo 
IV, párrafo 3 de la Convención, según la opinión de los Estados involucrados 
en el area de distribución". Se recomendó que, una vez que determinadas 
especies se hayan identificado, el Comité Técnico, junto con los Estados 
involucrados en el área de distribución, los Estados importadores y las 
organizaciones que poseen una experiencia en el manejo de la fauna y de la 
flora, "elaboren y negocien las medidas necesarias para asegurar el 
mantenimiento del comercio continuo de esas especies dentro de los límites 
previstos en el Artículo IV, párrafo 3, de la Convención”. 


Las discuciones iniciales respecto a la manera como el Comité Técnico 

identificaria las especies en cuestión (tal como se recomienda en la 

Resolucién Conf. 4.7) se basaron en la premisa de que un importante volumen de 

comercio era evidencia suficiente como para justificar la preocupación. Sin 

embargo, un informe no publicado, que fue realizado en 1984 por el WIMU para 
la Secretaria CITES, llegó a las siguientes conclusiones en lo que se refiere 

a la percepción del problema relativo al volumen significativo de comercio: 

- El concepto de volumen significativo de comercio puede definirse de dos 
maneras: el volumen significativo puede considerarse en términos absolutos 
(i.e. grandes cantidades), o en términos relativos (i.e. grandes 
cantidades en relación con la población y la biología de la especie). 


- El volumen de comercio significativo absoluto no implica por sí solo que 
la especie esté amenazada por el comercio. Sin embargo, la 


xiv 


comercialización de especies en números significativos absolutos puede 
tener un significado ecológico importante. 


- El volumen de comercio significativo relativo está directamente ligado a 
la supervivencia de las especies concernidas, pero no se tienen pruebas de 
que esto este correlacionado con el volúmen de comercio significativo 
absoluto. Debido a su designación en los Apéndices, todo comercio de 
especies incluidas en CITES es de interés y debe ser vigilado. 


- Considerar el volumen de comercio significativo absoluto como un criterio 
para la selección de especies para un cuidado especial es por lo tanto no 
solamente irrelevante en términos de conservación de especies, sino que 
puede también distraer la atención de casos más importantes. 


El Grupo de Trabajo del Comité Técnico sobre el comercio significativo de 
especies del Apéndice II produjo un documento, basado en su reunión en Suiza 
en Diciembre de 1984, cuyo fin consistía en formular un procedimiento o una 
línea de conducta que permitiera al TEC cumplir con sus obligaciones en virtud 
de la Resolución Conf. 4.7. Se decidió que el Grupo debía limitar sus 
discusiones a la fauna, pues ya existía un Grupo de Trabajo para las plantas. 
Las conclusiones del informe del WIMU sobre gran volumen de comercio fueron 
endosados, y el Grupo convino en que no era posible identificar los taxa del 
Apéndice II más preocupantes basándose solamente en los datos comerciales. 
Para evaluar correctamente el efecto del comercio sobre esos taxa era 
necesario poseer información sobre la situación biológica, sobre la tendencia 
de las poblaciones y sobre toda una serie de otros factores. 


Se convino en un procedimiento de cinco etapas como siendo el mecanismo más 
favorable para la aplicación de la Resolución Conf. 4.7. Dicho procedimiento 
se presentó durante la quinta reunión de la Conferencia de las Partes que se 


realizó en Buenos Aires, Argentina, en 1985 (Doc. 5.26). Los pasos 1-3 ya han 
sido realizados. 


lra. etapa: Elaboración de una lista "A" 


Se reconoció que, salvo algunas pocas excepciones, se puede razonablemente 
asumir que un taxón incluido en el Apéndice II puede soportar un cierto 
grado de explotación con fines de comercio internacional. El Grupo decidió 
fijar una cantidad a un nivel "prudente" de comercio para todos los taxa 
del Apéndice II, en término medio, de menos de 100 ejemplares por año de 
un taxón incluido en el Apéndice II, que son obtenidos de la naturaleza 
(en forma global) y que entran anualmente en el comercio. 

De esta forma, eliminando todos los taxa que no están concernidos por el 
comercio internacional o que están concernidos solamente a un nivel 
mínimo, se obtiene una lista de taxa "candidatos potenciales” (lista 
"A"). Esos taxa se definen como aquellos que podréan ser objeto de un 
comercio internacional significativo. 


Le lista "A" fue preparada por la WIMU, utilizando el promedio de las 
estadísticas comerciales CITES ofrecidas por las Partes en el período 
1980-1982. Se incluyeron en el análisis los datos relativos a los 
especímenes vivos (excluyendo los especímenes criados en cautividad), las 
pieles enteras O substancialmente enteras, las pieles de los 
flancos/lados, las napas de pieles, los caparazones, los trofeos y otros 
artículos no trabajados, etc. Las especies que nunca fueron registradas 
en el comercio, con excepción de aquellas incluidas en el Apéndice II 
como parte de un taxón superior o por razones de semejanza, fueron 


listadas separadamente para que se tomara en consideración su retiro de 
los Apéndices. 


xv 


2da. etapa: Elaboración de una lista "B" 


El Grupo convino que algunos taxa pueden ser eliminados de las especies 
de "comercio significativo" basándose en los conocimientos disponibles 
relativos a su situación. Luego de este proceso, los taxa remanentes 
constituyen la lista "B", formada por aquellos taxa con "posibles 
problemas". Además, agregaron a esa lista dos especies (Tupinambis 
rufescens y Papustyla pulcherrima) bajo circunstancias especiales, donde 
se pone en evidencia un problema, a pesar del bajo volumen de comercio 
registrado. 


3ra. etapa: Elaboración de una lista "C" 


El paso siguiente del procedimiento consistía en evaluar las 
informaciones disponibles para cada una de las especies de la lista "B" y 
en eliminar las especies que, sobre la base de la opinión de expertos, no 
presentan problemas. Esta parte de la operación significaba tener que 
reunir el máximo de información posible con respecto a cada especie y 
evaluar el efecto del comercio conocido sobre la población conocida. El 
Grupo convino que, para cada especie, se debía acordar una importancia 
primordial a la situación global, pero que, si una especie estaba 
aparentemente afectada por un comercio a nivel nacional o regional, se lo 
debía mencionar en un suplemento anexado a la lista. Las especies de la 
lista "C" deberían distribuirse en dos grupos: en primer lugar las 
especies para las cuales las informaciones corrientes o el conocimiento 
de su biología y/o de su manejo demuestran que la población se halla 
afectada por la explotación debido al comercio internacional (Lista 1) ; 
y, en segundo lugar, las especies para las cuales las informaciones 
disponibles o los conocimientos son insuficientes como para servir de 
base a un juicio de ese tipo (Lista 2). 


áta. etapa: Elaboración de medidas correctivas 


El TEC, o un grupo de trabajo del TEC constituido a ese efecto, debía 
examinar las listas "1" y "2", y establecer prioridades dentro de cada 
lista. Para las especies o grupos de especies de la lista "1" de gran 
prioridad, se debían convocar sesiones de trabajo con el objeto de 
recomendar medidas correctivas. Las medidas correctivas examinadas debían 
comprender, sin necesariamente limitarse a esto: la preparación de 
propuestas para transferir las especies en cuestion al Apéndice I, la 
elaboración de procedimientos de manejo suplementarios ya sea en favor de 
las poblaciones silvestres (tales como cupos de caza, temporadas de caza, 
tamaños límites de los especímenes, etc.) o bien en lo que se refiere a 
los controles del comercio, y la inclusión de taxa por razones de 
semejanza. 


Para las especies de la lista "2", de gran prioridad, se deberían 
establecer proyectos con el objeto de recabar información sobre su 
biología y manejo. Cuando esas informaciones demuestren la necesidad, la 


especie debería transferirse a la lista "1". 


Sta. etapa: Aplicación de las medidas correctivas 


Las medidas correctivas deberían ser desarrolladas por los Estados del 
área de distribución concernida, sobre la base de las recomendaciones 
formuladas en las sesiones de trabajo. 


Este procedimiento de cinco etapas fue aprobado en la reunión de Buenos Aires 
en 1985 y las etapas 1-3 ya fueron desarrolladas por el Centro UICN de 
Vigilancia Continua de la Conservación. La lista "C" fue preparada a tiempo 


xvi 


para la segunda reunión del Comité Técnico realizada en Junio 1986 en 
Lausanne, Suiza. Para cada especie incluida en la lista "C", se preparó un 
borrador presentando un resúmen de toda la información disponible, incluyendo 
un análisis detallado de referencias e información disponible sobre el 
comercio y sobre el estado de la población y otros factores que se 
consideraron importantes. Basado en esta información, cada especie fue 
asignada a las dos listas sugeridas (lista 1, especies con problemas; lista 2, 
problemas posibles). En esta etapa se descubrió también que era posible que 
algunas especies, originalmente incluidas en la lista "C", no se vieran 
afectadas en forma significativa debido a los presentes niveles de comercio. 
Dichas especies fueron incluidas en un tercer grupo (lista 3, sin problemas). 
El Grupo de Trabajo del Comité Técnico sobre el comercio significativo de 
especies revisó la información proporcionada por el CMC, así como los listados 
presentados, y preparó recomendaciones para una acción ulterior, las cuales se 
ennumeran a continuación. El Comité Técnico decidió asimismo que, después de 
revisión ulterior, el informe preparado por el CMC debía ser publicado. 


Acción ulterior 


El Grupo de Trabajo sobre el Comercio Significativo de Especies presentó un 
documento durante la segunda reunión del Comité Técnico en el que se 
delineaban propuestas para acciones ulteriores (WGR.TEC. 2.2). A continuación 
se describen las recomendaciones de dicho informe para las especies de 
reptiles concernidas, las cuales fueron modificadas durante la reunión del 
Comité Técnico. 


Lista 1 (Sin taxa) 


Lista 2 (19 taxa) 


El Grupo de Trabajo recommendó que se diera priorided a las especies o al 
grupo de las siguitas tax con el objeto de recolectar información (en orden de 
importancia): 


1. Felinos de Sudamérica (cinco especies, i.e., Felis colocolo, Felis 
geoffroyi, Felis pardalis, Felis tigrina y Felis wiedii - tomando en 
cuenta que ya se ha comenzado una parte del trabajo. 


2. Pangolines Asiaticos (Las especies, i.e., Manis crassicaudata, Manis 
javanica y Manis pentadactyla. 


Lista 3 (3 taxa) 


Se acordó que la información disponible indicaba que estos taxa no se 
encuentran fundamentalmente afectados por el comercio internacional. 


METODOS 


Este informe incluye la revisión del estado biológico y comercial de especies 
que aparecen en la lista "C". Este informe ha sido realizado por el Centro 
UICN de Vigilancia Continua de la Conservación, bajo contrato con la 
Secretaría CITES, cubriendo el periodo Septiembre de 1985 a Abril de 1986. 
Como paso inicial, la Secretaría CITES circuló, a traves de las Autoridades 
Administrativas CITES de los Estados miembros en la Convención, o a traves de 
las Autoridades Administrativas responsables de fauna u otras autoridades 
equivalentes en los estados no Partes en la Convención, una solicitud de 
información a todos los países en los que se encuentran las especies de la 
lista "C". Los comentarios recibidos fueron enviados a la CMC y se 
clasificaron de la siguiente manera: Nombre del pais de la Autoridad 


xvii 


Administrativa CITES, 1987. Los comentarios recibidos de las autoridades 
responsables de los Estados no Partes fueron clasificados por nombre de la 
autoridad gubernamental concernida. También se solicitó información de 
especialistas concernidos (personas © agencias), y entre las fuentes 
principales se encontraban los grupos de especialistas de la Comisién de 
Supervivencia de Especies de la UICN. También fueron consultadas algunas 
organizaciones comerciales y otras Partes interesadas. Un informe borrador se 
presentó en la segunda reunión del Comité Técnico CITES en Junio de 1986. Este 
informe fue discutido y corregido por el Comité y las copias, una vez 

revisadas, fueron nuevamente enviadas por la Secretaria CITES a todos los 
paises concernidos y a las partes interesadas, incluyendo el Pet Industry 
Joint Advisory Council. Las modificaciones finales al texto, asi como la 
información sobre el comercio reciente, fueron incluidas por el CMC durante 
1987. 


Por lo tanto, en la minoría de los casos, la designación de la categoría de 
una especie al realizarse la segunda reunión del Comité Técnico ha sido 
modificada a la luz de nueva información, en particular la información 
comercial de 1985 que ha sido agregada a los informes. 


Se recolecté e incluyó la información bajo los siguientes títulos: 
distribución; población; habitat y ecología; amenazas a la supervivencia; 
comercio internacional; medidas de conservación; y cría en cautividad. 


Los datos sobre el comercio CITES fueron analizados para los años 1980 a 1985, 
utilizando los Informes Anuales de las Partes de la Convención, cuyas 
estadísticas han sido procesadas en el computador del CMC. Esta información 
incluye el registro de importaciones y exportaciones de especies de los 
Apéndices de CITES, así como sus productos, y contienen información sobre las 
especies concernidas, una descripción del tipo y la cantidad del producto, y, 
en el caso de importaciones, el exportador o re-exportador y los principales 
países de origen, y, para las exportaciones, el destino y la fuente de origen. 
En lo que concierne al comercio entre dos Partes en CITES, cada transacción 
debería por lo tanto registrarse dos veces: una vez por el importador y otra 
por el exportador. Tal como sugirió el Grupo de Trabajo sobre el Comercio 
Significativo, el análisis se restringió al comercio de animales vivos o de 
productos no trabajados, sin embargo, también se incluyeron productos 
terminados en un número pequeño de casos excepcionales. 


Varios problemas reducen el valor de la información comercial de CITES en la 
evaluación de los niveles del comercio mundial. Por ejemplo: no todas las 
naciones que realizan comercio son Partes en CITES; no todas las Partes en 
CITES elaboran informes anuales, y la presentación de los informes varían en 
calidad y regularidad. Algunos países pueden proporcionar información sobre 
lacantidad de especímenes que cubren los permisos expedidos, mientras que 
otros proporcionan información sobre la cantidad real por la cual se utilizó 
el permiso. Más aún, las exportaciones de un país al finalizar un año pueden 
arrivar al país importador al comienzo del año siguiente, y en tales casos es 
posible que, por la misma transacción, se registren en los cuadros comerciales 
para ambos años. Estos factores y otros deben tomarse en cuenta cuando se 
analizan los datos de CITES, pero para la mayoría de las especies, estas 
estadísticas representan la única fuente detallada de información respecto a 
su comercio internacional y generalmente los informes CITES son de gran 
utilidad al evaluar los niveles aproximados de comercio legal, así como los 
patrones geográficos en tal comercio y las tendencias relativas a los 
volúmenes de productos preferenciales, en un determinado lapso de tiempo. 


En la mayoría de los casos, los datos comerciales son presentados en los dos 
cuadros siguientes. En el primero (normalmente Cuadro 1), se detallan las 
importaciones netas de países importadores, cuyo total nos proporciona una 


xviii 


cifra estimada del volumen mínimo de comercio mundial anual. El segundo 
(normalmente Cuadro 2) muestra el origen, o en los casos en los que el origen 
no se menciona, el exportador de los especímenes en cuestión. Cuando los 
especímenes han sido exportados a un país intermediario y posteriormente 
reexportados, el comercio mínimo neto ha sido calculado, asegurándose de que 
los números sólo fueron registrados una sola vez. Por lo tanto, el cuadro 
muestra, anualmente, la cantidad mínima de artículos de comercio de cada país 
de origen. Sin embargo, ya que algunos artículos pueden ser reexportados sin 
que necesariamente aparezca especificado el país de origen, éstos pueden ser 
registrados dos veces en el Cuadro 2. Por lo tanto, los totales son 
usualmente más altos que los que aparecen en el Cuadro 1. 


xix 


RED-CHESTED MOUSTACHED TAMARIN Recommended list: 2* 
OR RED-BELLIED TAMARIN [Possible problem] 


Saguinus labiatus (E. Geoffroy, 1812) 


Order PRIMATES Family CALLITHRICIDAE 


* but see last sentence of summary 


ESSE 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Found in the Amazonian region of South America in 
western Brazil, north-western Bolivia, and south-eastern Peru. May also occur 
in southern Colombia, but this requires confirmation. Two subspecies are 
recognised. No estimates of population size are available, though it is 
considered common near to Cobija in Bolivia. Hunting has been reported from 
Peru, and capturing for export from Bolivia; whether these threaten the 
species is not known. The amount and effect of habitat destruction is also 
undocumented. Protected by law in all the countries of its range, but does 
not occur in any reserve or national park. Used in biomedical research mainly 
for studies on Hepatitis A virus. Bred in small numbers in research 
institutes. Reports of a ranching operation in Bolivia require confirmation. 


International trade reported to CITES fell from a peak of 2052 in 1981 to only 
7 in 1985. The only source country known to have exported this species since 
1980 is Bolivia, but direct exports appear to have ceased since 1982. The 
chief importer has been the USA. 


No studies have been conducted on this species in the wild and little is known 
of its conservation status. The levels of trade reported in 1980 and 1981 may 
have been excessive, but if the reduced levels reported since 1982 are 
sustained no problems need arise. 


DISTRIBUTION Not precisely known, but confirmed from western Brazil, 
north-western Bolivia, and south-eastern Peru. It may exist in Colombia, but 
confirmation is needed. Two subspecies are generally recognised: 


S. 1. labiatus 


Bolivia Occurs in the north-west of the country in the departments of Pando 
and La Paz in the basins of the rivers Madre de Dios, Acre, Heath, Manuripi 
and Tahuamana south to the River Madidi (Bejarano, 1980). 


Brazil Occurs south of the Rio Amazonas (Solimoes) between the Rios Purus 
and Madeira in the states of Amazonas and Acre, extending southward to the 
Bolivian border (Hershkovitz, 1977). 


Peru Limited to Madre de Dios in south-eastern Peru between the upper Rios 
Madre de Dios and Purus (Hershkovitz, 1977; Encanacion and Castro, 1979, cited 
in Soini, 1982). 


S. 1. thomasi 


Brazil Known only from the type locality in Amazonas State, the Rio 
Tonantins on the north bank of the Rio Amazonas below the mouth of the Rio I¢a 
and a small area called Berreirinha on the west bank of the Rio Auati-Parana 
between the Rios Solimoes and Japura (Hershkovitz, 1977; Rylands and 
Mittermeier, 1982). 


Saguinus labiatus 


Colombia Hernandez-Camacho and Cooper (1976) in their review of Colombian 
primates mention that it is possible, although not too likely, that 
S. 1. thomasi exists in Colombia; confirmation is needed. 


POPULATION No estimates of population size are available. Since 
S. 1. thomasi is only known from the type locality in Brazil, it may be 
quite rare, though nothing certain is known of its status (Mittermeier, 


Coimbra-Filho and Roosmalen, 1978). It may also occur in Colombia (see 
Distribution). 


S. 1. labiatus is believed to be common (Mittermeier, Bailey and 
Coimbra-Filho, 1978), though its status in Brazil (Mittermeier, Coimbra-Filho 
and Roosmalen, 1978) and Peru (Soini, 1982) remains unknown. It has been 
found to be common near to Cobija in Bolivia (Heltne et al., 1976). 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Forest. In Bolivia the species has been observed in 
evergreen, mesophytic, broadleaf forest on high ground in a white-water 
drainage (Freese et al., in Wolfheim, 1983), whereas in Peru it seems to 
prefer high non-flooding forest with scarce underbrush (Encarnacion and 
Castro, 1979, see Wolfheim, 1983). No reports were located regarding its 
habitats in Brazil (Wolfheim, 1983). 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL The species has been reported as heavily hunted in Peru 
(Encarnacion and Castro, 1978 in Wolfheim, 1983), though it is apparently 
seldom hunted in Bolivia (Freese et al. in Wolfheim, 1983). Bolivia is known 
to serve as an outlet for primates smuggled illegally from Brazil (Kavanagh 
and Bennett, 1984). 


Heltne et al. (1976) noted that the species had recently been collected for 
export in fairly large numbers in Bolivia, but that populations there were 
abundant enough to supply 250 to 500 per year without significant reduction. 
Coates and Poole (1983) noted that S. 1. Jabiatus was becoming increasingly 


important as a laboratory primate as a result of its high susceptibility to 
human Hepatitis A virus. 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE A review of primate trade in the USA (Mack and Eudey, 
1984) revealed that total imports of S. labiatus rose from 101 between 1968 
and 1972 to 4296 between 1976 and 1980. CITES reports from 1980 to 1985 are 
summarised in Tables 1 and 2. 


Table 1. Minimum net imports of live S. labiatus reported to CITES. 


A A eee 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
PR AAA SPSS AEREA TEE 
Australia 16 = = = = be 
France = 3 1 = = = 
Japan - 11 - 12 - 6 
New Zealand - 1 = = = a 
Saudi Arabia = = 1 2 E = 
Sweden = = 2 ES 3 ps 
Thailand = E = = 2 = 
UK - 16 = = = = 
UAE = = = = = = 
USA 926 2018 270 - - 1 
TOTAL 942 2052 274 12 5 7 


Saguinus labiatus 


Table 2. Reported countries of origin (or exporting country if no original 
source reported) and quantities of transactions in live S. labiatus reported 
to CITES. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


Countries having populations of S. labiatus 
Bolivia 942 2052 271 12 2 - 


Countries without wild populations of S. labiatus 


Canada - - - _ = 1 * 
Finland - - al - 1% = 
Netherlands - - 1 - = = 
UK * = 3 1 - 2 1 
USA 12 - - = = 


* reported as captive-bred. 


The estimated minimum volume of world trade (Table 1) fell from a peak of 2052 
in 1981 to 7 in 1985. The only range country to export this species was 
Bolivia (see Table 2), and direct exports reported from there have ceased 
since 1982. 


CONSERVATION MEASURES The legal protection status of primates in source 
countries is summarised below (Fuller et al., 1987; Kavanagh and Bennett, 
1984). Since 1984, the species has been protected in all its countries of 
origin. 


Bolivia All exports of live wildlife were banned in 1984. Prior to that the 
legislation was confused and large numbers of primates were exported. 


Brazil The export of all wildlife has been illegal since 1967. 


Colombia Capture and export of primates has been banned since 1974. Export 
licences can be granted for scientific purposes, but none has so far been 
issued. 


Peru All hunting, capture of, and trading in, primates from the La Selva 
region (the Amazonian lowlands east of the Andes) have been illegal since 1973 
except for scientific purposes. Since 1976 all legal exports have been carried 
out under the auspices of the Pan American Health Organisation. 


S. 1. labiatus occurs in Biological Reserve Abufari in Brazil on the east 
bank of the Rio Purus, whilst S. 1. thomasi occurs in Ecological Station 
Juami-Japura (Rylands, 1985). No information was located as to the species's 
presence in reserves in Peru or Bolivia. 


More precise information is needed on distribution, population size and 
conservation status. 


CAPTIVE BREEDING The species is maintained in several zoological 
institutions (Olney, 1984) and laboratories, and is said to breed easily 
(R. Mittermeier, pers. comm., 1976). Small numbers are bred for biomedical 


w 


Saguinus labiatus 


research in various user institutes. A survey of EEC countries recorded a 
total of 12 births in 1977/78 (Caldecott and Kavanagh, 1983). Only 20 young of 
all Saguinus spp. were born in biomedical institutes in the USA in 1981. 
Breeding of other species (Saguinus mystax and Saguinus oedipus) is 
reported to be difficult (Eudey and Mack, 1984). 


A major primate ranching programme on an island in Bolivia was reported to 
have been established in 1981, receiving funds from an American breeding 
centre. Seven species of primate were said to be kept, including 
S. labiatus, and captive-bred animals were expected to be available by 1985 
(Anon., 1984). No further confirmation of this scheme has been received, and 
it is thought unlikely that projected breeding and production targets have 
been achieved. 


REFERENCES 


Anon. (1984). A survey of wildlife farming operations. Confidential report by 
the Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit, IUCN, Cambridge. 

Bejarano, G. (1980). Status y distribucion de las familias Cebidae y 
Callitrichidae en Bolivia. I Reunion Iberoamer. Zool. Vert., La Rabida, 
1977, pp. 685-701. 

Caldecott, J.0. and Kavanagh, M. (1984). Use of primates and captive breeding 
programs outside the United States. In: Mack, D. and Mittermeier, R.A. 
(eds), The international primate trade, Volume 1. Traffic(USA), 
Washington, pp. 137-152. 

Coates, A. and Poole, T.B. (1983). The behaviour of the Callitrichid Monkey, 
Saguinus Jlabiatus labiatus, in the laboratory. International Journal 
of Primatology 4(4): 339-371. 

Eudey, A and Mack, D. (1984). Use of primates and captive breeding programmes 
in the United States. In: Mack, D. and Mittermeier, R.A. (eds), The 
international primate trade, Volume 1. Traffic(USA), Washington, pp. 
153-180. à 

Fuller, K.S., Swift, B., Jorgensen, A. and Brautigam, A. (1987). Latin 
American wildlife trade laws, Second edition (Revised), World Wildlife 
Fund (US), 418 pp. 

Heltne, P., Freese, C. and Whitesides, G. (1976). A field survey of nonhuman 


primate populations in Bolivia. Pan American Health Organization, 
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 Academy of Sciences, 
Washington, D.C., pp. 35-69. 

Hershkovitz, P. (1977). Living New World Monkeys (Platyrrhini). Volume 1. 
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1117 pp. 

Kavanagh, M. and Bennett, E. (1984). A synopsis of legislation and the 
primate trade in habitat and user countries. In: Mack, D. and 
Mittermeier, R.A. (eds), The International Primate Trade. Volume 1. 
Legislation, Trade and Captive Breeding. TRAFFIC (U.S.A.), WWF-U.S. 
Primate Program and the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. Washington, 
D.C., pp. 19-48. 

Mack, D. and Eudey, A. (1984). A review of the U.S. primate trade. In: Mack, 
D. and Mittermeier, R.A. (eds), The international primate trade, Volume 
1. Traffic(USA), Washington, pp. 91-136. 

Mittermeier, R.A., Bailey, R.C. and Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1978). Conservation 
status of the Callitrichidae in Brazilian Amazonia, Surinam, and French 


Guiana. In: Kleiman, D.G. (ed.), The Biology and Conservation of the 
Callithricidae. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 
pp. 137-146. 


Saguinus labiatus 


Mittermeier, R.A., Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Roosmalen, M.G.M. van (1978). 
Conservation status of wild callitrichids. In: Rothe, H., Wolters, H.-J. 
and Hearn, J.P. (eds), Biology and Behaviour of Marmosets. Gottingen, 
West Germany, pp. 17-39. 

Napier, P.H. (1976). Catalogue of Primates in the British Museum (Natural 
History). Part 1: Families Callitrichidae and Cebidae. British Museum 
(Natural History), 121 pp. 

Olney, P.J.S. (ed.) (1984). International Zoo Yearbook 23. The Zoological 
Society of London. 

Rylands, A.B. (1985). Conservation areas protecting primates 
Amazonia. Primate Conservation 5: 24-27. 

Rylands, A.B. and Mittermeier, R.A. (1982). Conservation of primates in 
Brazilian Amazonia. In: Olney, P.J.S. (ed.). International Zoo Yearbook 
22. The Zoological Society of London, pp. 17-37. 

Soini, P. (1982). Primate conservation in Peruvian Amazonia. In: Olney, P.J.S. 
(ed.). International Zoo Yearbook 22. The Zoological Society of London, 


in Brazilian 


pp. 37-47. 

Wolfheim, J.H. (1983). Primates of the World. Distribution, Abundance, and 
Conservation. University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 
831 pp. 


BLACK-CHESTED MOUSTACHED TAMARIN Recommended list: 3 
[No problem] 
Saguinus mystax (Spix, 1823) 


Order PRIMATES Family CALLITHRICIDAE 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Occurs in upper Amazonia in western Brazil and 
eastern Peru. Numbers unknown, though generally considered abundant. Three 
subspecies are recognised, of which only one, S. m. mystax, is used in 
biomedical research. Prefers primary forest, and is thus susceptible to 
habitat disturbance. Protected by law in all countries of origin. 
S. m. mystax has been the subject of considerable effort to establish 
captive and semi-captive breeding colonies in Peruvian Amazonia. To date, 
only the cropping of wild populations has proved successful, and studies have 
been undertaken to determine the effects of trapping and removal on resident 
populations and thus to discover the best cropping regime for sustainable 
yield. Occurs in a number of protected areas. 


International trade reported to CITES from 1980 to 1985 fluctuated between 80 
and 350 a year, all originating in Peru. The temporary ban on primate exports 
from Peru, imposed in 1973, appears to have been successful in curtailing the 
high levels of trade previously reported. 


Given the abundance of the species, and the studies in progress of its 
numbers, behaviour, and effects of cropping programmes, it is considered that 
the species can sustain the existing trade. 


DISTRIBUTION Western Brazil and eastern Peru south of the Rio Amazonas. 
Three subspecies are recognised. 


S. m. mystax 


Brazil South of the Rio Amazonas in western Brazil; from the left bank of 
the Rio Jurua in Brazil to the Peruvian border (Hershkovitz, 1977). 


Peru South of the Rio Amazonas in eastern Peru; west to the right bank of 
the lower Rio Huallaga, thence south along the base of the Andes to the 
junction of the Urubamba and Ucayali (Hershkovitz, 1977). 


S. m. pileatus 


Brazil Western Brazil, south of the Rio Amazonas (Solimoes), between the 
Rios Jurua and Purus, State of Amazonas (Hershkovitz, 1977). 


S. m. pluto 


Brazil Western Brazil, south of the Rio Amazonas (Solimoes) on the right 
bank of the lower Rio Purus. According to Hershkovitz (1977), the range 
probably incorporates the entire basin between the Rios Purus and Madeira from 
their mouths at the Solimoes to at least 6°, possibly 8° or farther south. 
Hershkovitz (1977) mentions that specimens, including the type, reported from 
localities on the left bank of the Purus are regarded as having originated on 
the opposite bank. 


POPULATION Total numbers have not been estimated. S. m. mystax, the 
subspecies used in biomedical research, is relatively abundant and adaptable 


Saguinus mystax 


(Mittermeier and Coimbra-Filho, 1983; Mittermeier et al., 1978). Dawson (in 
Mittermeier and Coimbra-Filho, 1983) found it to be common along the edges of 
fields in terra firme habitat around Fonte Boa in Brazilian Amazonia, and 
members of the Peruvian Primate Project have also found it to be common in 
several river basins in Peruvian Amazonia (Moya et al., 1979). Nothing is 
known of the status of S. m. pileatus and S. m. pluto (Mittermeier et 
al., 1978). 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY S. mystax seems to prefer tall, mature and relatively 
undisturbed forests (Castro and Soini, 1978; Ramirez, 1984). In Brazil it has 
been observed in primary varzea forest (periodically flooded by a 
white-water river) (Mittermeier and Coimbra-Filho, 1977). In many areas the 
species lives in permanent, or semi-permanent association, with Saddle-back 
Tamarins, Saguinus fuscicollis (Castro and Soini, 1978; Ramirez, 1984). 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL The apparent preference of this species for primary 
forest makes it particularly susceptible to the effects of habitat 
destruction, and it is unlikely to survive in secondary forest (Ramirez, 
1984). Hunting pressure on the animal is light, owing to its small size 
(Glander, 1983). 


S. m. mystax is an important species in biomedical research, primarily in 
virology. The two other subspecies, S. m. pileatus and S. m. pluto have 
never been used in biomedical research. All commercial export of 
S. m. mystax temporarily ceased with the Peruvian export ban in 1973; 
however prior to that time large numbers had been exported (see below). The 
ban led to a working agreement between the Peruvian Ministry of Health and the 
Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). The resultant ‘Peruvian Primate 
Project', initiated in 1975, aimed to combine local captive-breeding efforts, 
free-ranging island colonies, and cropping of wild populations in an attempt 
to develop a programme that would ensure a future supply of biomedically 
important species such as S. m. mystax (Dawson, 1975). The project has also 
conducted censuses and studies to determine basic ecological and behavioural 
data on as many primates as possible, and also attempts to evaluate the 
effects of trapping and removal of animals on wild populations (Mittermeier 
and Coimbra-Filho, 1983). Information on S. m. mystax has been gathered 
both in detail, and by census. In 1982 a two-month census of S. m. mystax 
was undertaken by Glander (1983) to determine the impact that previous 
trapping and removal efforts might have had on the resident population of a 
study area. His results led him to believe that S. mystax can be cropped on 
a regular basis (every three years) without affecting the population size or 
the interspecific relationships between S. mystax amd S. fuscicollis. A 
later 18-month detailed study by Ramirez (1984) slightly modified this 
conclusion since density of the pre-cropping population seemed to affect the 
recovery time. She concluded that if sustained yield at reduced densitites 
were to be adopted, then cropping a population of average to high density 
every three years was likely to give the best results. 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE Intenational trade in S. mystax is much reduced since 
the levels prevailing in the 1960s and early 1970s. Imports of this species to 
the USA totalled 3706 from 1968 to 1972, but only 1683 from 1976 to 1980 (Mack 
and Eudey, 1984). A total of 24 077 were exported from Peru from 1964 to 1974 
(Wolfheim, 1983). CITES reports of trade in S. mystax are summarised in 
Table 1. From 1980 to 1985, minimum world trade fluctuated between 80 and 350 
animals, all reported as having originated in Peru, with the exception of one 
animal exported from the USA in 1985 which was recorded as captive-bred. 


Saguinus mystax 


Table 1. Minimum net imports of live S. mystax reported to CITES. 
(All reported as origin Peru) 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
Australia 4 - - - - - 
Cameroon - - - 8 6 - 
Japan 50 - 69 - 20 - 
Sweden - - - - 2 1 * 
USA 246 100 161 72 122 96 
USSR 50 - - - 40 - 
TOTAL 350 100 230 80 190 97 


* - captive-bred 


CONSERVATION MEASURES The legal protection status of primates in source 


countries is summarised below (Fuller et al., 1985; Kavanagh and Bennett, 
1984). 


Brazil The export of all wildlife has been illegal since 1967. 


Peru All hunting, capture of, and trading in, primates from the La Selva 
region (the Amazonian lowlands east of the Andes) has been illegal since 1973 
except for scientific purposes. Since 1976 all legal exports have been carried 
out under the auspices of the Pan American Health Organisation. 


In Brazil, S. m. mystax is found in the Ecological Station Jutai-Solimoes. 
S. m. pileatus occurs in Biological Reserve Abufari on the west bank of the 
Rio Purus, whilst S. m. pluto occurs in the same reserve but on the east 
bank (Rylands, 1985). In Peru, Ramirez (1984) reports that the species is not 
yet protected in a natural reserve, and recommends the establishment of a 
nature reserve of about 500 sq. km. along the Blanco Stream, a small tributary 
of the Rio Tahuayo, which would protect not only S. mystax, but also the Red 


Uakari (Cacajao calvus rubicundus) and the Saddle-back Tamarin 
(S. fuscicolis nigrifrons). 


The species was the subject of a detailed ecological-behavioural study by 
Ramirez (1984), from June 1981 to November 1982, at two sites in Peru: Blanco 
Stream and Rio Yarapa. Earlier less detailed studies (mainly censuses) were 
conducted by Castro and Soini (1978) in the early 1970s and by Glander (1983) 
in 1982. As an important species in biomedical research, S. m. mystax has 
been the subject of considerable effort to establish captive and semi-captive 


breeding programmes in Peruvian Amazonia, so far with little success (see 
above). 


CAPTIVE BREEDING The species is reported to be difficult to breed in 
captivity (Eudey and Mack, 1984). None was reported to have been bred in 
research institutes in the EEC in 1977/78 (Caldecott and Kavanagh, 1984), 
although Spiegel (1981) reported that one institute in F.R. Germany had a 
colony of 6 breeding females which produced 10 offspring in 1982. In the USA, 
the Interagency Primate Steering Committee recommended in 1978 that 200 should 
be bred annually. Small-scale breeding programmes were initiated, with a goal 


Saguinus mystax 


of producing 40-50 animals in 1982 and 1983 (Eudey and Mack, 1984). In 1981, a 
breeding colony of 54 S. mystax was kept at a viral research laboratory in 
the USSR (Balayan and Lebedeva, 1981). 


The captive-breeding programme initiated in Peru to supply S. m. mystax for 
export has not been successful, and most of the animals exported up to 1983 
were wild-caught; it has become clear that the cropping of wild populations 
will be the most important aspect of the project (Mittermeier and 
Coimbra-Filho, 1983). 


REFERENCES 


Balayan, M.S. and Lebedeva, E.G. (1981). A colony of Moustached Tamarins 
intended for studies in virology. Primate Report (6): 30-31. 

Caldecott, J.0. and Kavanagh, M. (1984). Use of primates and captive breeding 
programs outside the United States. In: Mack, D. and Mittermeier, R.A. 
(eds), The international primate trade, Volume 1. Traffic(USA), 
Washington, pp. 137-152. 

Castro, R. and Soini, P. (1978). Field studies on Saguinus mystax and other 
callithricids in Amazonian Peru. In: Kleiman, D.G. (ed.), The Biology 
and Conservation of the Callitrichidae. Smithsonian Institution Press, 
Washington, D.C., pp. 73-78. 

Dawson, G.A. (1975). The Delta Regional Primate Research Center's Saguinus 
mystax trapping project: A field report. Unpublished report to the 
National Institutes of Health. 

Eudey, A and Mack, D. (1984). Use of primates and captive breeding programmes 
in the United States. In: Mack, D. and Mittermeier, R.A. (eds), The 
international primate trade, Volume 1. Traffic(USA), Washington, pp. 
153-180. 

Fuller, K.S., Swift, B., Jorgensen, A. and Brautigam, A. (1987). Latin 
American wildlife trade laws, Second edition (Revised), World Wildlife 
Fund (US), 418 pp. 


Glander, K.E. (1983). The effects of ‘trapping and removal on tamarin 
populations in Peru. IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group Newsletter 
3: 19-20. 


Hershkovitz, P. (1977). Living New World Monkeys (Platyrrhini). Volume 1. 
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1117 pp. 

Kavanagh, M. and Bennett, E. (1984). A synopsis of legislation and the 
primate trade in habitat and user countries. In: Mack, D. and 
Mittermeier, R.A. (eds), The International Primate Trade. Volume I. 
Legislation, Trade and Captive Breeding. TRAFFIC (U.S.A.), WWF-U.S. 
Primate Program and the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. Washington, 
D.C., pp. 19-48. 

Mack, D. and Eudey, A. (1984). A review of the U.S. primate trade. In: Mack, 
D. and Mittermeier, R.A. (eds), The international primate trade, Volume 
1. Traffic(USA), Washington, pp. 91-136. 

Mittermeier, R.A. and Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1977). Primate conservation in 
Brazilian Amazonia. In: Prince Rainier and Bourne, G.H. (eds), Primate 
Conservation. Academic Press, New York. pp. 117-166. 

Mittermeier, R.A. and Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1983). Distribution and 
conservation of New World primate species used in biomedical research. 
In: Hearn, J. (ed.), Reproducion in New World Primates. MTP Press Ltd, 
Lancaster, 233 pp. 

Mittermeier, R.A., Coimbra-Filho, A.F. and Roosmalen, M.G.M. van (1978). 
Conservation status of wild callithricids. In: Rothe, H., Wolters, H.-J. 
and Hearn, J.P. (eds), Biology and Behaviour of Marmosets. Gottingen, 
West Germany, pp. 17-39. 


Saguinus mystax 


Moya, L., Olivares, L.V., Peralta, G.B. and Inga, J.E.R. (1979). Analisis 
poblacional de Saguinus mystax (Spix, 1823) (Callitrichidae) en la 
cuenca del Rio Yarapa, Loreto, Peru. Bol. Comite Regional de 
Coordinacion Proyecto Primates 2(1): 1-44. 

Ramirez, M. (1984). Ecology and conservation of the Moustached Tamarin in 
Peru. JUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group Newsletter 4: 22-23. 


Rylands, A.B. (1985). Conservation areas protecting primates in Brazilian 
Amazonia. Primate Conservation 5: 24-27. 


Spiegel, A. (1981). Information about the larger primate breeding facilities 
in Europe. Primate Report, No. 8. 


Wolfheim, J.H. (1983). Primates of the World. Distribution, Abundance, and 
Conservation. University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 831 pp. 


10 


SQUIRREL MONKEY Recommended list: 2 
[Possible problem] 
Saimiri sciureus (Linnaeus, 1758) 


Order PRIMATES Family CEBIDAE 


————— eee 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Squirrel Monkey is widely distributed in South 
America from 17°S northwards. It is particularly prevalent in the lowland 
forests of the Amazon basin. The species is not threatened and is perhaps the 
most abundant monkey in all of Amazonia. It adapts well to the presence of 
Man and may even prefer the secondary formations resulting from slash-and-burn 
agriculture. It is occasionally kept as a pet but total numbers involved are 
small; however it is extensively collected for use in biomedical research. 


Numbers exported annually in the 1960s and early 1970s probably exceeded 
40 000 animals, but export is now vastly reduced. Since 1980, total exports 
reported to CITES have been between 1786 and 5045 a year. Prior to 1984 the 
Majority of exports were declared as originating in Bolivia, but in 1984 
Guyana emerged as the major supplier, possibly as a result of the ban imposed 
on exports from Bolivia. The chief importers have been the USA, Japan and 
South Africa. Captive-breeding occurs in a number of user countries, and a 
ranching programme is in operation in Peru. 


Monitoring of the trade in Saimiri spp. is complicated by the fact that the 


taxonomy of the genus has recently been revised twice. These revisions 
postdate the adoption by CITES of the standardised taxonomy of Honacki 
et al. Up to five species are now recognised, with numerous subspecies. 


There is a geographically disjunct population in Central America 
(S. oerstedii), but the distribution of the South American species is more 
or less continuous, and it is possible that the treatment of these as all S. 
sciureus (following Honacki et al.) is the simplest to implement for 
control purposes. However there is need for CITES to clarify its position 
with regard to the revised taxonomy. The South American populations are 
probably capable of sustaining a substantial level of trade, but the recent 
switch in supply from Bolivia to Guyana should be investigated. Further 
studies are needed to conduct accurate censuses of exploited populations and 
to assess sustainable harvest levels. 


DISTRIBUTION The taxonomy of Central and South American squirrel monkeys 
has been in need of revision for some time. Honacki et al. (1982) recognised 
two species, Saimiri oerstedii from Central America, and Saimiri sciureus 
from South America. There have been two subsequent reviews of the genus. 
Hershkovitz (1984) published a new taxonomy in which he described four species 
of Saimiri: S. sciureus, S. oerstedii, S. ustus and S. boliviensis. 
Thorington (1985) recognised only two species, S. sciureus and 
S. madeirae, including oerstedii as a subspecies of S. sciureus. Since 
then, a new species from Brazil has been described by Ayres (in press). These 
revisions and discoveries postdate Honacki et al. (1982) and thus are not 
recognised by CITES; if recognised they would have implications for trade 
statistics. The following distribution refers to S. sciureus (sensu 
Honacki et al.), and therefore corresponds to S. sciureus, S. ustus, and 
S. boliviensis (sensu Hershkovitz) or S. madeirae and S. sciureus, 
excluding S. s. oerstedii (sensu Thorington). The distribution covers most 
of Amazonian Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia, in Suriname, Guyana 
and French Guiana, and south of the Rio Orinoco in Venezuela (Mittermeier and 
Coimbra-Filho, 1983). It also crosses the eastern Cordillera of the Andes to 
enter Huila, Colombia, extending as far south as Bolivia and possibly Paraguay. 


11 


Saimiri sciureus 


Bolivia S. boliviensis boliviensis occurs in the upper Rio Madeira basin 
in the departments of Pando, Cochamba, El Beni, and Santa Cruz (Hershkovitz, 
1984). (equivalent to S. sciureus boliviensis sensu Thorington). 


Brazil S. boliviensis boliviensis occurs in the upper Amazon region, 
south of the Rio Amazonas-Solimoes, between the Rios Purus and Jurua in the 
States of Amazonas and Acre (Hershkovitz, 1984). (equivalent to S. sciureus 
boliviensis sensu Thorington). 


S. s. sciureus is found north of the Rio Amazonas from the Rio Demini-Negro 
eastwards to the coast, and on the South bank from the Rio Xingu to the Rio 
Pindare; southern limits unknown, not beyond 6°S (Hershkovitz, 1984). 


S. s. macrodon occurs in the upper Amazon, from the Rios Jurua and Japura 
westwards (Hershkovitz, 1984). (equivalent to S. sciureus sciureus sensu 
Thorington). 


S. s. cassiquiarensis occurs north of the Rio Amazonas, from west of the Rio 
Demini-Negro into the Rio Orinoco-Cassquiarensis basin (Hershkovitz, 1984). 


Saimiri ustus occurs south of the Rio Solimoes between the Rios Xingu-Iri 
and Purus, south through Amazonas, Para, Rondonia, and probably into Mato 
Grosso (Hershkovitz, 1984). (equivalent to S. sciureus madeirae sensu 
Thorington). 


The new species described by Ayres (in press) is known only from three islands 
at the confluence of the Rio Japura with the Rio Solimoes near Tefé. 


Colombia S. s. macrodon occurs in the Amazonian region, from the Rio 
Apaporis south, and the right side of the Rio Magdalena valley in Huila 
(Hershkovitz, 1984). (equivalent to S. sciureus sciureus sensu Thorington). 


S. s. cassiquiarensis occurs in the east of the country, between Rios 
Apaporis and Inirida in the Intendencias of Vaupes, Guaviare and Guainia 
(Hershkovitz, 1984). 


S. s. albigena occurs in the gallery forests of the Colombian Llanos, from 
the eastern slope of the Cordillera Oriental in the Intendencias of Arauca, 
Casanare and Guaviare and Guainia, and the departments of Boyaca, Cundinamarca 


and Meta (Hershkovitz, 1984). (equivalent to S. sciureus sciureus sensu 
Thorington). 


Ecuador S. s. macrodon occurs in the Amazonian region (Hershkovitz, 
1984). (equivalent to S. sciureus sciureus sensu Thorington). 


French Giuana S. s. sciureus is found throughout the country 
(Hershkovitz, 1984). 


Guyana S. s. sciureus is found in the East; western limits unknown 
(Hershkovitz, 1984). 


Paraguay Saimiri sp. may possibly occur in Paraguay (Mittermeier and 


Coimbra-Filho, 1983), but this was not mentioned by Hershkovitz (1984) and 
requires confirmation. 


Peru S. boliviensis peuviensis occurs in the Amazonian region, south of 
the Rio Maranon-Amazonas from the west bank of the Rio Tapiche to the lower 
Rio Huallaga basin, and South to about 10°S. Sympatric with S. s. macrodon 
between the Rios Ucayali and Tapiche (Hershkovitz, 1984). (equivalent to 
S. sciureus boliviensis sensu Thorington). 


12 


Saimiri sciureus 


S. boliviensis boliviensis occurs in the Amazonian region from the 
departments of Madre de Dios and Cuzco north to the Rio Ucayali basin at about 
10°S (Hershkovitz, 1984). (equivalent to S. sciureus boliviensis sensu 
Thorington). 


S. s. macrodon occurs in the Amazonian region, in the departments of 
Amazonas, San Martin and Loreto. Sympatric with S. b. peruviensis between 
the Rios Ucayali and Tapiche (Hershkovitz, 1984). (equivalent to S. sciureus 
Sciureus sensu Thorington). 


Suriname S. s. sciureus is found throughout the country (Hershkovitz, 
1984). 


USA There are at least four introduced populations of squirrel monkeys in 
Florida, at Silver Springs, Monkey Jungle near Miami, Crystal River/Homosassa 
Springs tourist attraction and Bok Tower Gardens (USA CITES MA, 1987). 


Venezuela S. s. cassiquiarensis occurs in the Rio Orinoco- Cassquiarensis 
basin (Hershkovitz, 1984). 


POPULATION Saimiri is not considered threatened, and is perhaps the most 
abundant monkey in all of Amazonia. It adapts well to the presence of man, 
and like the callitrichids, it makes use of, and may even prefer, the 
secondary formations resulting from slash-and-burn agriculture, which is still 
the most common form of agriculture in much of Amazonia (Mittermeier and 
Coimbra-Filho, 1983). No estimates of numbers exist. No status information 
is available for Brazil, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana or Paraguay. 


Bolivia Not affected by opening of forests, but populations have been much 
reduced and they appear to be already extinct in some areas of their past 
distribution owing to recent over-exploitation for trade (Tello, 1986). 


Colombia Several researchers reported a decline of Saimiri populations in 
the immediate vicinity of Leticia, where trapping for export had been heavy 
(Mittermeier and Coimbra-Filho, 1983). 


Peru At the beginning of the 1980s, the species was said to be abundant on 
Isla Iquitos, a large island right across from Iquitos itself, a major centre 
for export (Mittermeier and Coimbra-Filho, 1983). 


Suriname Common, widespread and abundant (Baal et al., 1988). 


Venezuela Said to be very abundant in the wooded zones around the Orinoco 
and its tributaries (Venezuela CITES MA, 1987). 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Saimiri is almost exclusively an animal of lowland 
forests, and rarely ranges higher than a few hundred metres in altitude 
(Mittermeier and Coimbra-Filho, 1983). The maximum altitude record is 800 m 
for S. boliviensis, or possibly up to 1000 m for S. sciureus (Hershkovitz, 
1984). Throughout Amazonia, it is the characteristic species of the densely 
Overgrown river margins and coastal swamp forests. Inland, it shows a strong 
preference for liane forest and secondary formations that are structurally 
Similar to river edges, though it can be found at lower densities in many 
other forest types as well. The preference for this kind of densely-vegetated 
habitat appears to be closely linked to its diet, which includes high 
percentages of insects and other arthropods that abound in such formations 
(Mittermeier and Coimbra-Filho, 1983). It is diurnal, arboreal and occurs in 
troops ranging from several dozen to several hundred animals (Dukelow, 1983). 


13 


Saimiri sciureus 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL As with all other New World monkeys, the Squirrel 
Monkey is affected by widespread clear-cutting of forest, but it adapts well 
to the presence of man and is one of the few species that regularly can be 
seen in forests at the edge of villages and towns in Amazonia. It is a small 
species (mean weight about 700 g) and consequently is far less persecuted as a 
food source than the larger monkeys (but more so than the callitrichids) 
(Mittermeier and Coimbra-Filho, 1983). It is occasionally kept as a pet in 
Amazonia, but is far less popular than Cebus or Lagothrix, and total 
numbers involved are quite small (Mittermeier and Coimbra-Filho, 1983). 
Over-exploitation for trade had reportedly been a major influence on 
population decline in Bolivia (Tello, 1986). 


Table 1. Minimum net imports of live S. sciureus reported to CITES. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
Argentina - 20 - - - - 
Australia 10 3 - - 2 - 
Austria - - - - - 31 
Belguim - - - 35 17 - 
Canada 93 87 54 39 35 25 
Chile - 50 - - - - 
China - - - 4 - - 
Cuba - - - 8 - - 
Czechoslovakia 2 - - 5 - 2 
Dominican Republic - - - - - 7 
Egypt = - - 4 - = 
France 48 14 - - 2 126 
German D.R. - - - - - 4 
Germany F.R. 110 132 103 107 64 2 
Greece - 2 - - - 2 
Hong Kong 8 - - 3 - - 
Indonesia - - - - 3 6 
Irish Republic 3 - - - - - 
Italy 700 739 430 310 232 - 
Japan - 1072 99 1109 108 734 
Korea Rep. - - - 10 - 3 
Mexico 1 20 - - - - 
Netherlands - - - - 5 14 
New Zealand - - 2 - - - 
Romania - - - - - 2 
Saudi Arabia - - - 10 - 6 
Singapore 6 - - - - 6 
South Africa 1046 982 - - - - 
Spain - - - 4 - - 
Sri Lanka - = _ 8 - - 
Sweden 6 - - - _ 20 
Switzerland 60 10 - - 125 53 
Taiwan - - 50 140 - 3 
Thailand - = - 6 10 - 
UK 566 241 39 113 198 138 
USA 1647 1673 1109 1338 985 1789 
Country unknown - 2 = = = = 
TOTAL 4306 5047 1886 3253 1786 2983 


14 


Saimiri sciureus 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE For as long as 400 years, Squirrel Monkeys have been 
captured and traded as pets for homes in Europe and America (Dukelow, 1983). 
They were used in behavioural research in the 1930s; the first captive births 
were in the early 1940s, but it was only comparatively recently that the 
species has been extensively used in biomedical research, for a wide variety 
of uses, including, reproduction, cardiovascular and nutritional research. 
The subspecies occurring near Leticia and Iquitos are the most in demand for 
research because of the extensive baseline data on them (Eudey and Mack, 1984). 


Some 20 000 to 40 000 Saimiri were exported annually during the 1960s from 
Iquitos in Peru alone, similar numbers went out from Leticia in Colombia 
(Dukelow, 1983). Imports of S. sciureus to the USA totalled 173 049 from 
1968 to 1972, making it the most commonly imported primate, and constituting 
37.5% of all primate imports. By 1976-1980 attention had switched to the 
Macaques, and the proportion of Squirrel Monkeys had dropped to 9%, totalling 
12 512 animals in the five years (Mack and Eudey, 1984). 


CITES reports of trade since 1980 are summarised in Tables 1 and 2. The 
minimum volume of world trade (Table 1) has fluctuated between 1786 and 5045. 
The USA has been the major exporter, but most of the annual variation is 
attributable to varying imports to Japan and South Africa. 


Table 2. Reported countries of origin (or exporting country if no original 
source reported) and quantities of transactions in live S. sciureus reported 
to CITES. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


Countries with wild populations of S. sciureus 


Bolovia 2902 4465 1484 2199 224 = 
Brazil = = = = 1 - 
Colombia 82 - - - 1 - 
French Guiana - - 27 - - 
Guyana 1263 364 264 709 1368 2587 
Peru 75 215 100 210 205 306 
Suriname - 3 - - - 75 


Countries without wild populations of S. sciureus 


Argentina = = = 100 Re E 
Australia = = 2 2 = 
Canada = = = = = 
Germany, F.R. - = = = = 
Guatemala - 
Israel 3 = = = = 
Japan 1 

Netherlands - - 14 = 3 9 
South Africa = = = 
Sweden - = = = 11 pe 
Switzerland = = = = cs 6 
UK = 2 = = 2 = 
USA 5 3 = 18 10 26 


1 nr | 


= 
' 
' 


Country unknown 61 1 - 12 - = 
A Ps ay E PA AA AN ro E NI eo dS Ese ee ae 


15 


Saimiri sciureus 


The major countries of origin (Table 2) have been Bolivia and Guyana. Exports 
from Bolivia fell in 1984, possibly owing to the export ban imposed in 1984, 
and there is some indication that the exports from Guyana may have risen in 
compensation for this. The only other range country to be reported as an 
exporter of significant quantities is Peru, which has consistently been the 
source of 75-215 a year. Guyana is said to have an export quota in the region 
of 1000 a year, but this total was significantly exceeded in 1985. 


Bans on export of primates from Peru and Colombia were instituted in the early 
1970s. It is difficult to assess the long-term effect of the Saimiri trade 
because demographic data have never been collected. It seems, however, that 
upper Amazonian populations were remarkably resistant even to the heavy 
trapping pressure to which they were exposed during the peak years of the 
trade, although population declines were reported near Leticia, where trapping 
was heavy. Nonetheless, Mittermeier and Coimbra-Filho (1983) comment that, 
without adequate demographic data, it is impossible to determine how long such 
resistance and flexibility could have been maintained. The quantity of 
Squirrel Monkeys exported from South America is now much reduced. 


The ban on export of the valued Squirrel Monkey led to a working agreement 
between the Peruvian Ministry of Health and the Pan American Health 
Organization (PAHO). The resultant Peruvian Primate Project, initiated in 
1975, attempts to combine local captive-breeding efforts, free-ranging island 
colonies (see below), and cropping of wild populations in an attempt to 
develop a programme that will ensure a future supply of biomedically important 
species such as S. sciureus (Mittermeier and Coimbra-Filho, 1983). 
Considerable field work has been conducted but has consisted mainly of 
short-term surveys and experimentation with different trapping methods and 
with few exceptions there has been little emphasis on long-term field studies 
(Mittermeier and Coimbra-Filho, 1983). 


CONSERVATION MEASURES The legal protection status of primates in source 
countries is summarised below (Fuller et al., 1987; Kavanagh and Bennett, 
1984). 


Bolivia All exports of live wildlife were banned in 1984. Prior to that, 
the legislation was confused and large numbers of primates were exported. 


Brazil The export of all wildlife has been illegal since 1967. 


Colombia Capture and export of primates has been banned since 1974. Export 


licences can be granted for scientific purposes, but none has so far been 
issued. 


Ecuedor Export of indigenous wildlife has been prohibited since 1981. Prior 
to that, temporary bans on primate exports were in force. 


French Guiana Listed in Article 2 of the Arrété of 15 May 1986, which 
prohibits the purchase, sale, transport or taxidermy of certain mammals 
throughout the French national territory, allowing their transport within 
French Guiana but not their export. Professional hunting may be controlled 
under Arrété Préfectoral No. 172 1D/2B. French Guiana is an Overseas 


Department of France and is therefore included in the EEC's joint ratification 
of CITES. 


Guyana Guyana banned the export of all wildlife specimens in February 1987 
but this measure was lifted in October 1987 and replaced by a quota system. 


The 1987/1988 quota for exports of Saimiri sciurius was 3000 animals (CITES 
Secretariat, pers. comm.). 


16 


Saimiri sciureus 


Paraguay The hunting, commerce, importation and exportation of wildlife are 
prohibited. 


Peru All hunting, capture of, and trading in, primates from the La Selva 
region (the Amazonian lowlands east of the Andes) have been illegal since 1973 
except for scientific purposes. Since 1976, all legal exports have been 
carried out under the auspices of the Pan American Health Organisation. 


Suriname All primate species (except Cebus apella) have been protected 
since 1954, and they cannot be hunted, captured or traded. 


Venezuela All hunting and trade in native species has been prohibited since 
1970. 


CAPTIVE BREEDING S. sciureus is bred in a number of biomedical institutes 
for research purposes. In 1977-78, the EEC countries were reported to have 
bred a total of 39 of this species and to have used a total of 462 in research 
(Caldecott and Kavanagh, 1984). The numbers bred in the USA increased steadily 
from 121 in 1972 to 518 in 1981. The total number required for research was 
estimated to be 1800 in 1982, and the Interagency Primate Steering Committee 
recommended that a total of 600 should be bred annually (Eudey and Mack, 
1984). Other user countries breeding S. sciureus include Switzerland, which 
bred 59 in 1980 (Caldecott and Kavanagh, 1984), Israel, which planned to breed 
5 in 1981, Japan, which bred at least 6 in 1982 (Anon., 1984), and Argentina, 
which had a breeding colony of 170 in 1979 (Caldecott and Kavanagh, 1984). 


In Peru, the Primate Reproduction and Conservation Station was built at 
Iquitos in 1976. By 1981 the stock amounted to 587 primates, mostly 
S. sciureus and Saguinus mystax. A free-ranging colony was also 
established in the adjacent Proyecto Islas. Few, if any, of the 300 or so 
primates exported annually by 1982 were believed to be captive-bred (Caldecott 
and Kavanagh, 1984). 


A major primate ranching programme on an island in Bolivia was reported to 
have been established in 1981, receiving funds from an American breeding 
centre. Seven species of primate were said to be kept, including S. 
sciureus, and captive-bred animals were expected to be available by 1985 
(Anon., 1984). No further confirmation of this scheme has been received, and 
it is thought unlikely that projected breeding and production targets have 
been achieved. 


REFERENCES 

Anon. (1984). A survey of wildlife farming operations. Confidential report by 
the Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit, IUCN, Cambridge. 

Ayres, J.M. (in press). On a new species of Squirrel Monkey, genus Saimiri, 
from Brazilian Amazonia (Primates, Cebidae). 

Baal, F.L.J., Mittermeier, R.A. and van Roosmalen, M.G.M. (1988). Primates and 
protected areas in Suriname. Oryx 22(1): 7-14. 

Caldecott, J.O. and Kavanagh, M. (1984). Use of primates and captive breeding 
programs outside the United States. In: Mack, D. and Mittermeier, R.A. 
(eds), The international primate trade, Volume 1. Traffic(USA), 
Washington, D.C., pp. 137-152. 

Dukelow, W.R. (1983). The Squirrel Monkey (Saimiri sciureus). In: 
Hearn, J. (ed.), Reproduction in New World primates. MIP Press, Ltd. 
Lancaster, pp. 3-37. 

Eudey, A and Mack, D. (1984). Use of primates and captive breeding programmes 
in the United States. In: Mack, D. and Mittermeier, R.A. (eds), The 
international primate trade, Volume 1. Traffic(USA), Washington, D.C., 
pp. 153-180. 


17 


Saimiri sciureus 


Fuller, K.S., Swift, B., Jorgensen, A. and Brautigam, A. (1987). Latin 
American wildlife trade laws. Second edition (Revised), World Wildlife 
Fund (US), 418 pp. 

Hershkovitz, P. (1984). Taxonomy of Squirrel Monkeys genus Saimiri 
(Cebidae, Platyrrhini): a preliminary report with description of a 
hitherto unnamed form. American Journal of Primatology 7: 155-210. 

Honacki, J.H., Kinman, K.E. and Koeppl, J.W. (1982). Mammal species of the 
world. Allen Press and the Association of Systematics Collections, 
Kansas. 

Kavanagh, M. and Bennett, E. (1984). A synopsis of legislation and the 
primate trade in habitat and user countries. In: Mack, D. and 
Mittermeier, R.A. (eds), The international primate trade. Volume I. 
Legislation, trade and captive breeding. TRAFFIC (U.S.A.), WWF-U.S. 
Primate Program and the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. Washington, 
D.C., pp. 19-48. 

Mack, D. and Eudey, A. (1984). A review of the U.S. primate trade. In: Mack, 
D. and Mittermeier, R.A. (eds), The international primate trade, Volume 
1. Traffic(USA), Washington, D.C., pp. 91-136. 

Mittermeier, R.A. and Coimbra-Filho, A.F. (1983). Distribution and 
conservation of New World primate species used in biomedical research. 
In: Hearn, J. (ed.), Reproduction in New World primates. MPT press, 
Ltd. Lancaster, pp. 3-37. 

Tello, J.L. (1986). The situation of the wild cats (Felidae) in Bolivia, 
including notes on other wildlife species and on general aspects of the 
conservation and utilization of natural resources. Unpublished report 
prepared for the CITES Secretariat, 60 pp. 

Thorington, R.W. (1985). The taxonomy and distribution of Squirrel Monkeys 
(Saimiri). In: Rosenblum, L.A. and Coe, C.L. (eds). Handbook of 
Squirrel Monkey research. Plenum, New York, pp. 1-33. 


18 


SPOT-NOSED OR LESSER WHITE-NOSED MONKEY Recommended list: 3 


[No problem] 
Cercopithecus petaurista (Schreber, 1774) 


Order PRIMATES Family CERCOPITHECIDAE 


_ ________—_—_—__==- eee ees 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Found along the southern coast of West Africa from 
Senegal through Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Ivory Coast, 
Ghana, Togo to Benin. No population estimates exist, though it is described 
as common in parts of Ghana and Ivory Coast. Although forest loss is 
prevalent throughout its range, this species is able to live in secondary 
forest, and may even reach highest densities there. It is hunted, but is not 
actively sought after. Also killed as an agricultural pest. It occurs in 
several reserves and national parks. Listed in Class B of the African 
Convention. 


In the period, 1980-1985, the international trade in the species was minimal: 
the only: appreciable quantity occurred in 1982, when there was a reported 
trade of 94 live animals and 225 skulls. The skulls were all reported as 
re-exports from the Federal Republic of Germany in two consignments. 


Were it not for this apparently isolated trade in skulls, the species would 
never have been included in the analysis of significant trade. The available 
information suggests that the species can sustain the small trade that exists, 


DISTRIBUTION 
Cercopithecus petaurista buttikoferi Jentink (1886) 


Guinea Recorded in the north near the borders of Guinea-Bissau and Senegal 
(Booth, 1958). Dupuy (1971) mentioned it as occurring in the country. 


Guinea-Bissau Reported to occur (Dupuy, 1971). 


Ivory Coast Booth (1958) recorded C. p. buttikoferi from the Cavally 
River westwards, being sympatric with C. p. petaurista along the Guiglo-Tai 
road. Reported from the Tai (Struhsaker, 1972; Anon., 1977). 


Liberia Recorded throughout the country (Booth, 1958). Coe (1975) recorded 
it from the Mount Nimba area in the north-east. 


Senegal Mapped by Booth (1958) as occurring in Casamance, south of the 
Gambia River. Dupuy (1972; 1973) recorded C. nictitans at Seleti, in 
Casamance; but Wolfheim (1983) believed these to be C. petaurista. 


Sierra Leone Booth (1958) recorded it from a small area in the north-west 
and, in the south, from Freetown to the border with Liberia. Also recorded 
from the Kasewe Forest, 160 km east of Freetown (Tappen, 1964); and from 
Duguta in the Bombali District (Wilkinson, 1974); from the Kilimi region in 
the north-west (Harding, 1983); and from Tiwai Island in the Moa River near 
the Gola Forest (J.F. Oates, in litt., 1983). 


Cercopithecus petaurista petaurista (Schreber), 1774 


Benin Few details. Booth (1958) mapped it occurring in this country. 
Sayer and Green (1984) note that it occurs in forest patches near Abomey. 


19 


Cercopithecus petaurista 


Ghana Recorded throughout the south from the Ivory Coast in the west to 
Togo in the east (Booth, 1958), occurring in the Digya, Bia, Nini-Suhien 
National Parks; in the Shai Hills and Ankasa Game Production Reserves; in the 
Bomfobiri Wildlife Sanctuary and the Kogyae Strict Nature Reserve and at Willi 
Falls (Asibey, 1978). 


Ivory Coast Booth (1958) recorded C. p. petaurista from the south of the 
country, from the Sassandra River eastwards to the border with Ghana. 
Reported from the south of the Comoe National Park (Geerling and Bokdam, 1973) 
and in the Banco National Park (Asibey, 1978). 


Togo Mapped as occurring in the country (Booth, 1958). 


POPULATION Very little information on abundance exists. It has been 
decsribed as common in parts of Ghana and Ivory Coast, but also rare in 
regions of these countries. 


Benin No information. 


Ghana Recorded as common in the Digya, Nini-Suhien and Bia National Parks, 
the Shai Hills and Ankasa Game Production Reserves, the Bomfobiri Wildlife 


Sanctuary and at Willi Falls and as rare in the Kogyae Strict Reserve (Asibey, 
1978). 


Guinea No information. 
Guinea-Bissau No information. 


Ivory Coast Recorded as ‘abundant’ in Tai National Park and 'rare' in the 
Banco National Park (Asibey, 1978). 


Liberia No overall comment on status available. Apparently declining in 


the Mount Nimba area: described as rare by Coe (1975) although previously 
regarded as common. 


Senegal No information. 
Sierra Leone No information. 
Togo No information. 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY A forest species which seems to prefer secondary forest 
(J.F. Oates, pers. comm., 25 March, 1986). Also noted as occurring in high 
forest and coastal scrub (Booth, 1956, see Wolfheim, 1983); and seen in, or 
near, cultivation (Oates, 1980). No studies have yet been conducted on this 
species and consequently little is known of its ecology. 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL 
Benin Sayer and Green (1984) mention a small export trade in the species. 


Ghana Forests are rapidly disappearing and have been reduced by two thirds 
since the beginning of the century. Trees are felled for timber, and land 
cleared for agriculture (Asibey, 1978). Access roads built by timber 
Operators open up forest, making it easy for farmer-settlers to move in. 
Hunting C. petaurista for food is common and widespread (Asibey, 1974). 
There was, in 1970, little awareness of the need for conservation and laws 
protecting game were almost totally ignored (Jeffrey, 1970). The species is 
considered a pest in maize crops (Jeffrey, 1975). 


20 


Cercopithecus petaurista 


Guinea No information. 
Guinea-Bissau No information. 


Ivory Coast Forests are rapidly being destroyed and, by 1972, almost all 
valuable timber had been removed. Such exploitation is known to upset the 
primate species composition in the forests. Hunting is also a threat 
(Struhsaker, 1972). 


Liberia In 1978-1979, hunting was extensive and there were no laws or 
regulations controlling it. Rifles and ammunition were easy to obtain and 
hunters killed everything they could, mainly for food (Jeffrey, 1977; 
Verschuren, 1983). At Mount Nimba, people working in the mines hunted 
monkeys; as a result all species had declined in number (Coe, 1975). 
Deforestation for farming and shifting cultivation is increasing; transport 
roads open up previously inaccessible areas for hunters (Jeffrey, 1977). 
Verschuren (1982) noted that the central strip, from Monrovia to Nimba, had 
been deforested and that large forest blocks remained only in the north-west 
and central south-east; subsequently (1983) he predicted that all monkeys 
would soon be extinct in Liberia. 


Senegal No information. 


Sierra Leone Habitat destruction appears to be the major threat (Wilkinson, 
1974); Tappen (1964) noted that forests had been reduced to less than 4% of 
the country, and that arboricides were used on non-economic species. Oates 
(in litt., 1983) noted that the Gola Forest, the largest remaining rain 
forest area in the country, was being severely damaged by timber exploitation 
and by heavy commercial hunting, mainly by Liberians. Davies (1984) reported 
that plans were being made to dam the Moa River and that settlers were moving 
into Gola West. The species was hunted for its meat, but not by the muslims, 
who predominate in the north of the country (Wilkinson, 1974); it used to be 
a common victim in monkey extermination drives in coffee and cacao growing 
regions (Tappen, 1964) and has lately been regarded as a pest (Oates, 1980). 
In the past, monkey meat was exported illegally to Liberia by poachers 
(Robinson, 1971). 


Togo A few primates have been exported; it is not known if this includes 
C. petaurista (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). 


Table 1. Minimum net imports of C. petaurista reported to CITES. (All 
figures refer to live animals unless otherwise stated). 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
Australia = = 2 = = e 
Belgium - = 160 skulls - = = 
Czechoslovakia 2 = = = = E 
Germany F.R. - al = = = 2, 
Italy = = 2 = = 2 
Japan = - 65 skulls - = = 
Mexico 3 = = 2 z E 
Switzerland = = = 1 = = 
UK = = 90 = = = 
USA - = - = 1 trophy 2 
TOTAL 5 1 94 1 1 trophy 2 

- = 225 skulls - - 


A A A A A a 


21 


Cercopithecus petaurista 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE Minimum net trade reported to CITES for the years 1980 
to 1985 was extremely small. The only appreciable quantity occurred in 1982, 
when there was a reported trade of 94 live animals and 225 skulls (Table 1). 
The skulls were all reported as re-exports from the Federal Republic of 
Germany in two consignments, one of 65 to Japan, with Liberia being stated as 
the country of origin, the other of 160 to Belgium, country of origin unknown. 
Were it not for this apparently isolated trade in skulls, the species would 
never have been included in the analysis of significant trade. 


Table 2. Reported countries of origin (or exporting country if no original 
source reported) and quantities of transactions of C. petaurista reported to 
CITES. (All figures refer to live animals unless otherwise stated). 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


Countries having populations of C. petaurista 


Ghana = os] - 92 1 - - 
Liberia - - 65 skulls - 1 trophy - 
Togo - - = = = 2 


Countries without wild populations of C. petaurista 


Austria 2 - - - = = 
USA - = 2 = - - 
Country unknown - 1 160 skulls - - - 


CONSERVATION MEASURES All of the range states except Guinea Bissau, Sierra 
Leone and Ivory Coast are Parties to CITES. 


Benin All primates except baboons are protected (Kavanagh and Bennett, 
1984). 


Ghana Export of most primates is illegal, though C. petaurista may be 
exported under licence (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). Occurs in the Digya, 
Bia, Nini-Suhien National Parks; in the Shai Hills and Ankasa Game Production 
Reserves; in the Bomfobiri Wildlife Sanctuary and the Kogyae Strict Nature 
Reserve and at Willi Falls (Asibey, 1978). 


Guinea No information. 


Guinea-Bissau Totally protected under LE/0029044 Hunting Regulations, dated 
12 May 1980. 


Ivory Coast Hunting, capture, and export of all wild animals is illegal 
except under special licence (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). 


Liberia All primate exports are illegal unless a special permit has been 
issued (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). The species is not known to occur in any 
protected area. Partially protected under Wildlife Conservation Regulation. 


There are many national forests, but these have virtually no protection 
(Verschuren, 1982). 


Senegal All primates other than chimpanzees may be trapped and exported for 
commercial and scientific purposes with a permit (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). 


22 


Cercopithecus petaurista 


Sierra Leone Export of all wildlife and wildlife products was banned in 
1982 (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984), but this temporary ban was never 
constituted by written legislation (Sierra Leone Ministry of Agriculture, 
1987). In the Bombali District, in the north, monkeys were considered not to 
be acceptable food and so were not hunted (Wilkinson, 1974). 


Togo Not known if protected by law. Not known to occur in any protected 
area. 


CAPTIVE BREEDING At least 10 were bred in captivity in 1982; these were in 
collections in the Soviet Union, the United States and in Europe (Olney, 1984). 


REFERENCES 

Anon. (1977). Ivory Coast park studies. Oryx 13(5): 456. 

Asibey, E.O.A. (1974). Wildlife as a source of protein in Africa south of the 
Sahara. Biological Conservation 6(1): 32-39. 

Asibey, E.O.A. (1978). Primate conservation in Ghana. In: Chivers, D.J. and 
Lane-Pretter, W. (eds), Recent advances in primatology Vol. 2: 
Conservation. Academic Press, London, pp. 55-74. 

Booth, A.H. (1958). The zoogeography of West African primates: A review. 
Bulletin de l'Institut Fondamental de l'Afrique Noire 20: 587-622. 


Coe, M. (1975). Mammalian ecological studies on Mt Nimba, Liberia. 
Mammalia 39(4): 523-587. 
Davies, G. (1984). A review of forest and wildlife management in the Gola 


Forests, Sierra Leone. Unpublished report. 12 pp. 

Dupuy, A.R. (1971). Statut actuel des Primates du Sénégal. Bulletin de 
l'Institut Fondamental de l'Afrique Noire 33(1-2): 467-478. 

Dupuy, A.R. (1972). Une nouvelle espéce de Primate pour le Sénégal: Le 


Cercopitheque hocheur, Cercopithecus nictitans (L.) Mammalia 
36(2): 306-307. 

Dupuy, A.R. (1973). Premier inventaire des mammiferes du Parc National de 
Basse Casamance (Sénégal). Bulletin de l'Institut Fondamental de 


l'Afrique Noire 35: 186-197. 
Geerling, C. and Bokdam, J. (1973). Fauna of the Comoe National Park. 
Biological Conservation 5: 251-257. 


Harding, R.S.O. (1983). A survey of endangered primates in Sierra Leone. 
IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group 3: 22. 
Jeffrey, S.M. (1970). Ghana's forest wildlife in danger. 


Oryx 10(4): 240-243. 

Jeffrey, S.M. (1975). Notes on mammals from the high forest of western Ghana 
(excluding Insectivora). Bulletin de l'Institut Fondamental de l'Afrique 
Noire 37: 950-972. 

Jeffrey, S.M. (1977). How Liberia uses wildlife. Oryx 14(2)): 168-173. 

Kavanagh, M. and Bennett, E. (1984). A synopsis of legislation and the 
primate trade in habitat and user countries. In: Mack, D. and 
Mittermeier, R.A. (eds), The international primate trade, Volume 1, 
Legislation, trade and captive breeding. Traffic (U.S.A.), WWF-U.S. 
Primate Program and the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. Washington, 
D.C., pp. 19-48. 

Martin, C. (1976). Bia National Park, Ghana - Conservation Programme. World 
Wildlife Fund Monthly Report. Project No. 1251, August, pp. 6-8. 

Oates, J.F. (1980). Report on a pilot study of Colobus verus and other 
forest monkeys in southern Sierra Leone with comments on conservation 
problems. Unpublished report. 25 pp. 

Olney, P.J.S. (ed.) (1984). International Zoo Yearbook 23. Zoological 
Society of London. 

Robinson, P.T. (1971). Wildlife trends in Liberia and Sierra Leone. Oryx 
11(2/3): 117-122. 

Sayer, J.A. and Green, A.A. (1984). The distribution and status of large 
mammals in Benin. Mammal Review 14(1): 37-50. 


23 


Cercopithecus petaurista 


Struhsaker, T.T. (1972). Rain-forest conservation in Africa. Primates 
13(1): 103-109. 

Tappen, N.C. (1964). Primate studies in Sierra Leone. Current Anthropology 
5(4): 339-340. 

Verschuren, J. (1982). Hope for Liberia. Oryx 16: 421-427. 

Verschuren, J. (1983). Conservation of tropical rain forest in Liberia. 
Recommendations for wildlife conservation and national parks. Report to 
IUCN/WWF. 28 pp. 

Wilkinson, A.F. (1974). Areas to preserve in Sierra Leone. Oryx 
12(5): 596-597. 

Wolfheim, J.H. (1983). Primates of the world. Distribution, abundance and 
conservation. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 


24 


GUEREZA or BLACK AND WHITE COLOBUS Recommended list: 2 


[Possible problem] 
Colobus guereza Rüppell 1835 


Order PRIMATES Family CERCOPITHECIDAE 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Guereza is a very widespread species occurring 
in forests of Central Africa from Cameroon and Nigeria in the west to Ethiopia 
in the east: in Gabon, Congo, Central African Republic, Zaire, Sudan, Uganda, 
Tanzania, Kenya and possibly Equatorial Guinea. Formerly in Rwanda but 
probably extinct there now. Population size is difficult to determine because 
of the dense forests it inhabits. 


The species has long been hunted for its attractive pelt, which is sought as 
decoration both locally and internationally. It is thought that at the height 
of the international trade, around the turn of the century, many thousands of 
skins were exported to Europe and North Africa, almost solely for the fashion 
market. More recently, the export of Colobus skins has been primarily to 
foreign tourists in the form of rugs. Oates in 1974-75 made a ‘very crude' 
estimate that the annual turnover in Nairobi was about 20 000 skins. In Addis 
Ababa, Ethiopia, which with Nairobi and Mombasa was the chief market for 
Colobus skin sales to tourists, it was estimated in 1975 that there were 
200 000 skins in shops, probably accumulated over five years. Shortly after 
these studies, the skin trade was largely curtailed, and in the six-year 
period 1980-1985 CITES parties recorded an annual international trade of 
between 1 and 314 skins. The annual live animal trade in the same period was 
between 5 and 86 individuals. 


It is tempting to assume that the levels of trade following such a drastic 
cutback in trade can easily be sustained by the species; however there are no 
studies or population figures to support this. It is true that the species is 
very widespread and in some areas is quite common; however, in other areas, 
e.g. Ethiopia, it has greatly declined. Habitat destruction is now its 
greatest threat. 


DISTRIBUTION Widespread in the forests of Central Africa from Cameroon and 
Nigeria in the west to Ethiopia in the east: in Gabon, Congo, Central African 
Republic, Zaire Sudan, Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya and possibly Equatorial 
Guinea. Formerly in Rwanda but probably extinct there now (Oates, 1977a). 


Six sub-species have been described (Dandelot, 1971). C. g. caudatus occurs 
in montane forest on Mount Kilimanjaro and Mount Meru, Tanzania; 
C. g. gallarum in Galla country in Ethiopia; C. g. guereza in mountainous 
districts of Ethiopia and Kenya; C. g. kikuyensis on Mount Kenya and in the 
Aberdares, Kenya; C. g. matschiei on the Mau Escarpment, Mount Elgon, west 
of the Rift Valley, Kenya; C. g. occidentalis, in the western and 
north-western range of the species. Species and sub-species of Colobus 
monkeys are usually separated on variations in pelage, cranial morphology and 
geographical distribution. Oates and Trocco (1983) studied vocalizations and 
showed that these can be used to assess phylogenetic relationships; they 
concluded that C. guereza is a valid species. 


Cameroon Found over most of Cameroon except in the western coastal area and 
the extreme north (Jeannin, 1936). 


Central African Republic Once widespread in the west and south and in the 
Manova-Gounda-St Floris National Park in the north (S. Bahuchet in litt. to 


25 


Colobus guereza 


J.F. Oates, 1975; Fay, 1985). Also in the Zone de Conservation de 
Bamingui-Bangoran (Anon., 1987). 


Congo Formerly found in the north and east: in the Alima, Sangha and 
Likouala River Basins (Malbrant and Maclatchy, 1949; G. Bernard in litt. to 
J.F. Oates, 1975). 


Equatorial Guinea Reported from the Mikomeseng area, but this needs 
confirmation (Oates, 1977a). 


Ethiopia Scattered distribution in parts of the west, south-west and south 
(Dunbar and Dunbar, 1974a). Occurs from the border with Sudan northwards to 
the Simen Mountains and south-eastwards to the Awash River at least as far as 
Awash. Also found in the Arussi Mountains near the headwaters of the Webi 
Shebele southwards to Lakes Shamo and Abaya and to Lake Stefanie near the 
border with Kenya, and around Lake Rudolf and the Omo River. Probably once 
existed in Tigre and Eritrea Provinces in the north but forests in these areas 
were destroyed many years ago. Tolerates presence of man in some areas, 
frequently being seen near such towns as Jimma. Has disappeared from the 
environs of Addis Ababa (Bolton, 1973; Yalden et al., 1977). 


Gabon Formerly occurred over the north-east of the country; as far south as 
the Ivindo Basin and as far west as the Voung (Mvoung) River, and south to the 
confluence of the Ivindo and Ogooué River (Malbrant and Maclatchy, 1949). 
Also found on the Liboui River (Quris, 1976). Recently reported to occur in 


the east of the country (Gabon Direction de la faune et de la Chasse, in 
litt., 1985). 


Kenya Found in central and western parts of the country; at Limuru, 
Kekamega Forest, Mount Warges, Masai-Mara Game Reserve and in the national 
parks of Lake Nakuru, Aberdare, Mount Elgon and Mount Kenya (Oates, 1977a); 
also in the forests around the Kikuyu escarpment: at Kerita, Kinale (Kinare) 
and Molo (Kingston, 1971). 


Nigeria Found only in the east in the Upper Benue River valley and nearby 
drainage (Oates, 1977a; Nigeria CITES MA, 1987). 


Rwanda Once occurred in the north (Oates, 1977a); but probably now extinct. 


Sudan Recorded in the south, south-west and south-east. Also found in the 


Imatong and Dindinga Mountains in the south-east and across to Lui (30°w) 
(Butler, 1966; Oates, 1977a). 


Tanzania Occurs in the west and central parts, of the country (Kingdon, 
1971). 


Uganda Found in the west, south-west and in a small area along the border 
with Tanzania. Noted in the Bwamba, Semliki (Lumsden, 1951), Kibale 
(Struhsaker and Oates, 1975) and Budongo (Albrecht, 1977) forests in the west; 
on Mount Elgon Mount Zulia and Mount Kadam in the east (Uganda Game 
Department, in litt., 1987). Also in the Kabalega (formerly Murchison 
Falls) National Park (Leskes and Acheson, 1971). 


Zaire Widespread in the north and east (Rahm and Christiaensen, 1960). 


POPULATION 


Cameroon Reported in 1974 to be declining (J.S. Gartlan, pers. comm. to 
J. H. Wolfheim, 1974). Considered rare in the Dja Reserve (T.E. Rowell, pers. 
comm. to J.H. Wolfheim, 1978), and infrequent in the Bouba-Ndjida National 


26 


Colobus guereza 


Park (Lavieren and Bosch, 1977). No recent population estimates available 
(Cameroon CITES MA, 1987). 


Central African Republic Not often seen, but probably not rare 
(S. Bahuchet, in litt. to J.F. Oates, 1975). ‘Common' in the gallery forest 
system in the south of the Manova-Gounda-St Floris National Park; also ranges 
to the isolated patches of dry forest along the major rivers in the north of 
the park. Population of the park numbers ‘in the thousands'; on the Koumbala 
River drainage alone there were probably over 1000 in 1985 (Fay, 1985). 


Congo No recent information. Malbrant and Maclatchy (1949) reported it to 
be ‘locally abundant’ in the north and east. 


Equatorial Guinea No information. 


Ethiopia Dunbar and Dunbar (1975) reported Guereza to be declining overall 
and considered that it might become extinct in Ethiopia by 1990. ‘Abundant’ 
in the south and south-west in the early 1970s (Bolton, 1973); ‘abundant’ on 
Mount Abaro, east of Lake Awasso (Bolton, 1974). In June 1972 there were 120 
in the Bole Valley; this population was increasing at a rate of 7.6% per annum 
(Dunbar and Dunbar, 1974a). ‘Very common' near the Godare Mission 7°26'N, 
35°2'E (Brown and Urban, 1970). Reported to be 'common' in the proposed Mago 
National Park (Anon., 1977). In 1969, the total population was estimated to 
be 500 000 (Brown and Urban, 1970); this was based on a very small sample and 
is now thought to have been either too high (Oates, 1977a) or too low (Dunbar 
and Dunbar, 1975). Densities for the Bole Forest were calculated to be about 
50-140 per sq. km (Dunbar and Dunbar, 1974a). 


Gabon Population size unknown, but not thought to be under immediate 
threat (Gabon Direction de la faune et de la Chasse, in litt., 1985) 


Kenya In 1972 reported to be ‘rather numerous' in the Kakamega Forest 
(Zimmerman, 1972). Kingston (1971) calculated population density at 40 groups 
per sq. km; mean group size was 4.47-5.47 resulting in a density of 2 
individuals per ha (Oates, 1977a) or 180 per sq. km (Kingston, 1971). 


Nigeria Reportedly rare and severely threatened (Nigeria CITES MA, 1987). 
Rwanda Probably extinct. 


Sudan No recent information. Butler (1966) considered it to be locally 
common in the Imatong and Dindinga Mountains and across to Lui; however the 
population was declining and believed to be in danger of extinction. 


Tanzania No recent information. In the western Serengeti National Park, 
hundreds were reported in 1958 by Swynnerton (1958). 


Uganda Oates (1977a) reported it to be declining in some areas; Struhsaker 
(1972) considered it to be ‘common' in the Kibale forest. Tappen (1960) 
reported it to be ‘locally common'. Population densities have been calculated 
for various areas; e.g. in the Kibale Forest Struhsaker (1972) gave a 
population density of 11.9 individuals per sq. km, whilst Oates (1977a) gave a 
density of 50-100 individuals per sq. km. 


Zaire No recent information. Heymans (1975, cited in Wolfheim, 1983) 
reported it as common throughout the east and north-east Haut-Zaire Province. 


27 


Colobus guereza 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Found in a variety of different forest types including 
riverine, primary, mature, swamp and flooded rain forest and less frequently 
in montane forest, Acacia and Combretum brushland, bamboo forest and 
thickets (Wolfheim, 1983). Particularly well adapted to relatively young 
secondary forest (Struhsaker and Oates, 1975). Densities are highest in 
colonizing and riparian forest situations (Oates, 1977a). In Ethiopia found 
at altitudes between 400 m to 3300 m (Yalden et al., 1977). Guereza are 
herbivorous and eat leaves, fruits and shoots; Celtis durandii is the most 
commonly eaten species in the Kibale Forest, Uganda (Oates, 1977b; Struhsaker 
and Oates, 1975). Groups are cohesive (Oates, 1977a). A variety of studies 
reviewed by Wolfheim (1983) found group sizes between 2 and 18, the mean was 
usually in the range 4-10. There is usually only one adult male in a group, 
with several females, subadults and a few juveniles and infants. Solitary 
males and all male groups also occur (Marler, 1969; Dunbar and Dunbar, 1976). 
Studies summarised by Wolfheim (1983) showed home range to vary from 1.5 to 
39 ha. Guereza move little on average during a day; e.g. 535.1 m/day (range 
288-1004 m) (Struhsaker and Oates, 1975), 200-300 m (Dunbar and Dunbar, 
1974a). Colobus monkeys communicate by a variety of different calls; these 
have been studied in four species in Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, Ghana, Cameroon 
and Ivory Coast (Oates and Trocco, 1983). Only one young is born; and may be 
carried by other members of the troop as well as the mother. Adult females 
have one young about every 20 months (Leskes and Acheson, 1971). Birds of 
prey, particularly Crowned Hawk-Eagle (Stephanoaetus coronatus) are the main 
predators (Oates, 1977a). 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL 


Cameroon In the early 1970s intensive logging was destroying Colobus 
habitat. The species was reportedly not hunted extensively (J.S. Gartlan, 
pers. comm. to J. Wolfheim, 1974). More recently reported not to occur in 
trade owing to its legal protection (Cameroon CITES MA, 1987). 


Central African Republic Deforestation has reduced suitable habitat in the 
south (Oates, 1977a); in the north the drought in 1985 and the unrest in Chad 
resulted in large numbers of people and livestock encroaching on Manova-Gounda 
St Floris Park (Sayer, 1985). Poaching of Guereza in the park was not, 
however, considered a threat although it was thought that hunting had almost 
exterminated the species in the south of the country (Fay, 1985). 


Congo In 1949 reported not to be extensively hunted (Malbrant and 


Maclatchy, 1949), though by 1977 was hunted for its fur and meat (Oates, 
1977a). 


Equatorial Guinea Struhsaker (1972) reported that virtually all 
commercially valuable timber had been removed from the country by 1972. The 


disturbance this caused is known to have upset the primate species composition 
of the forests (Oates, 1977a). 


Ethiopia Habitat destruction was one of the major threats in the 1970s. 
Trees were felled and coffee and agricultural crops planted; overgrazing was 
also a problem (Bolton, 1970; Oates, 1977a). The species disappeared from the 
environs of Addis Ababa as indigenous forest was replaced with exotic 
Eucalyptus (Yalden et al., 1977). Shooting for skins was also a major 
threat in the 1970s; many of the skins sold in Kenya were smuggled in from 
Ethiopia (Mittermeier, 1973; Ghiglieri, 1981, Oates, 1977a). The numbers of 
skins on sale in Ethiopia in the early 1970s were calculated to indicate a 
total of 40 000 animals killed each year. At this rate of hunting it was 
calculated that the species would become extinct in Ethiopia in 10-25 years 
(Dunbar and Dunbar, 1975). Severely hunted in the Illubabor Province in the 


28 


Colobus guereza 


1970s (Duckworth, 1974). Ethiopia has been a major primate exporting country 
since at least 1964 (Kavanagh, 1984). 


Gabon Thirty years ago it was reported not to be hunted extensively 
(Malbrant and Maclatchy, 1949). However, by 1977 it was commonly hunted 
(Oates, 1977a). The Direction de la faune et de la Chasse in Gabon reported 
in 1985 that the species's habitat was not threatened in the immediate future. 


Kenya Habitat destruction appears to be the major threat; forests are 
decreasing rapidly and those below 2700 m in, or near, potential agricultural 
land are the most threatened. The forest on the Mau escarpment has been 
reduced by 30% since 1970 (Anon., 1984). In the 1970s, natural vegetation in 
much of the Kenyan Highlands was being replaced by exotics (Kingston, 1971); 
forests were also being cleared for tea plantations (Redfern, 1985). Logging 
and the activities of charcoal burners and agriculturalists have reduced 
Guereza habitat in the Kakamega Forest; its area has decreased from 230 
sq. km. to only 100 sq. km. by 1984 (Anon., 1984; Zimmerman, 1972). Charcoal 
exports from Kenya increased from 2500 tons in 1967 to 32 300 tons in 1970 and 
to 80 000 tons in 1974, most going to Saudi Arabia (Anon., 1976). Guereza 
have also been shot for their skins in Kenya. As long ago as 1936 Guereza had 
been exterminated by Bugishu hunters in the Sipi Forests north-west of Mount 
Elgon (Leskes and Acheson, 1971). A survey of tourist shops in 1972 revealed 
rugs on display representing over 5000 Guereza; when undisplayed stock was 


taken into account, the total was about 27 500 animals. Many of these 
reportedly came from the Wajiri District in northern Kenya; with many smuggled 
in from Ethiopia (Mittermeier, 1973). In 1974 fewer skins were on sale 


(Oates, 1977a). Many Guereza were shot for allegedly damaging crops; in fact 
they probably do not do this, but associate with species (Cercopithecus 
mitis) which do (Mittermeier, 1973). Guereza are hunted for their meat in 
some areas (Leskes and Acheson, 1971). Many live 'monkeys' were exported in 
the early 1970s; these probably included some Guereza (Oates, 1977a). 


Nigeria Hunting of all forest animals is common (Oates, 1977a). 


Sudan No recent information. In 1966 Butler stated that it was in danger 
of extinction through overhunting for meat and skins (for ceremonial dress) 
(Butler, 1966). 


Tanzania Poaching for its skins (used in traditional ceremonies) still 
occurred in 1977 (Oates, 1977a). Mittermeier (1973) did not find any for sale 
in curio shops. In 1982 less than 2% of the country had a natural closed 
forest cover, and this was decreasing, there was great pressure on these areas 
by the increasing human population (Rodgers, 1982). 


Uganda In the early 1970s selective felling was practised in Ugandan forest 
reserves; if regeneration was permitted this practice may actually have 
benefited Guereza by promoting secondary growth and hence increasing its food 
supply (Struhsaker, 1972); but in many felled areas arboricides were used to 
kill undesirable trees (Oates, 1977a). Much of the Guereza habitat has now 
been cultivated and parts of the forest reserves planted with exotics. 
Guereza habitat in the Kabalega National Park is threatened by elephant 
(Loxodonta africana), and forests are disappearing. Many people in East 
Africa (such as the Batoro who live around the Kibale Forest) do not eat 
monkey meat (Oates, 1977a). During Amin's rule (1971-1979) poaching and human 
encroachment on reserves and national parks increased steadily (Malpas, 1980; 
Malpas, 1982); the impact this had on Guereza populations is not known. The 
Tanzanians, who moved in after Amin left, also exterminated much wildlife 
(Anon., 1979; Van Orsdol, 1980). Despite full protection the species 
continues to be threatened by local hunting for its skin to be used as 


29 


Colobus guereza 


trophies or in traditional ceremonies (Uganda Game Department, in litt., 
1987). 


Zaire No recent information. Hunting, rather than habitat destruction was 
the main threat in 1975. Hunting was most severe along roads and rivers and 
was largely uncontrolled (Verschuren, 1975). 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE Between 1980 and 1985 an average of approximately 150 
C. guereza per annum were reported in trade by CITES parties (Table 1). 
Trade was in live specimens (approx. 30/year) and in individual skins (approx 
125/year). Many of the live specimens were reportedly captive-bred. The 
major importers during this period were Denmark, F.R. Germany, UK, Italy, 
Switzerland and the USA. A small number of trophies and manufactured skin 
items were recorded in trade, but they are excluded from the tables. 


Imports of live specimens were mainly to the UK and the USA. These two 
countries accounted for over 75% of the live trade in the years 1980-1985. 
Imports of skins were largely accounted for by Denmark, F.R. Germany, Italy, 
Switzerland and the USA. Little use can be made of the data in Table 2 for 
years prior to 1983 when the majority of exports reported did not indicate the 
country of origin. However, since 1983 the export data has improved and 
suggests that Kenya and the Sudan were the major exporters. The overall level 
of reported trade shows a downward trend, but further years' data are required 
to confirm the validity of this impression. 


Table 1. Minimum net imports of live animals (L) and skins (S) of 
C. guereza reported to CITES. pl. = skin plate 
1980 1981 1982 - 1983 1984 1985 
Australia L - 5 - - - 
Austria S - - 20 - - - 
Belguim s - 14 - - - - 
Canada L - - - - - 1 
China L - - - - - 3 
Denmark s 216 - - - al - 
Finland Ss - - - 20 - - 
France L 2 2 - - - 1 
Ss - 16 - - - - 
Germany F.R. L - - - - 5 - 
S - - 73 - - - 
Hong Kong L - 2 - - - 
Italy s - = = 55 = E 
Japan L - - - = 7 = 
Korea Rep. L - - - 2 = Z 
Sweden L - = = = 8 = 
Switzerland Ss 54 _ 32 = 1 ae 
UK L 8 - - 28 13 2 
Ss - - 1 - - 1 pl. 
USA L 2 - - 10 53 3 
S 44 = = - 66 - 
Totals CT? 9 5 40 86 10 
S 314 30 126 75 68 1 pl. 


30 


Colobus guereza 


Table 2. Reported countries of origin (or exporting country if no original 
source reported) and quantities of transactions in live animals (L) and skins 
(S) of C. guereza reported to CITES. pl. = skin plate 


KA A Ez aa AA 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


A.  __ ___ EE———e 


Countries with wild populations of C.guereza 


Ethiopia s 2 - 1 - 12 = 
Kenya L = = - 40 86 2 
s = = = = 1 1 pi. 
Nigeria s - - = 15 = x 
Sudan Ss - - 20 60 = = 
Tanzania L 10 - - = = 3 
Countries without wild populations of C.guereza 
Canada L 2 - - - = = 
Chad Ss 1 - - = ~ = 
Germany F.R. L - - - - 2 = 
Somalia Ss - - = = 60 = 
UK L 2 7 5 2 - - 
USA re = 2 = = = 3 
Ss 54 - = = = = 
Unknown S 257 30 125 - = a 


CONSERVATION MEASURES 


Cameroon Fully protected from hunting but laws are difficult to enforce 
(Oates, 1977a). Totally protected under Order No. 2513/A/DGTOUT/DFPN of 
29 July 1983. Found in the Dja Reserve (Gartlan and Struhsaker, 1972), the 
Faro, Benue (Oates, 1977a) and Bouba-Ndjida National Parks (Lavieren and 
Bosch, 1977). The Dja Reserve, the Korup and Panger-Djerem areas have been 
proposed as national parks (Gartlan, 1982). Guereza should be found in all 
these areas. The species is not reported from the Douala Edea Reserve (along 
the Sanaga River) where C. satanas is found (Struhsaker, 1972). 


Central African Republic Totally protected by law, licences are needed for 
trapping or export (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). Occurs in the St Floris 
National Park (S. Bahuchet, in litt. to J.F. Oates, 1975) and in the Zone de 
Conservation de Bamingui-Bangoran (Anon., 1987). 


Congo Not known to occur in any protected area. Has been protected by law 
since 1962, but is still hunted (Oates, 1977a). 


Equatorial Guinea There appears to be no legal protection for this species 
(Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). 


Ethiopia Guereza are protected by law, but trapping licenses could be 
bought at least until 1975 (Wolfheim, 1983). All skins sold should be 
stamped; in 1973, 7000 unstamped skins were confiscated (Anon., 1974). Skins 
can be exported under licence. Occurs in the Simen Mountains and Awash 
National Parks (Oates, 1977a), and occur in at least four of the national 
parks proposed in the mid-1970s; however, these did not include the best 
habitat for the species (Dunbar and Dunbar, 1975). In 1977, reportedly 
*common' in the proposed Mago National Park in the eastern Rift (Anon., 1977). 


Gabon May be exported under permit (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). Not known 
to occur in any protected area. 


31 


Colobus guereza 


Kenya Protected by law. Exports are allowed only with permission from the 
Minister of the Environment and Natural Resources (Kavanagh and Bennett, 
1984). Occurs in the national parks of Lake Nakuru, Aberdare, Mount Elgon and 
Mount Kenya and in the Masai-Mara Game Reserve (Oates, 1977a). 


Nigeria Totally protected under Endangered Species (Control of 
International Trade and Traffic) Decree, 1985. Not known to occur in any 
protected area. 


Rwanda Partially protected under Hunting Regulations (251/01) dated 31 
December 1974. 


Sudan A special license is required for export (Preservation of Wild 
Animals Act 1935); not known to occur in any protected area. 


Tanzania Primates may be exported only under license, but no licences were 
issued after 1972 (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). Occurs in the Serengeti and 
Arusha National Parks and in the Kilimanjaro, Mount Meru and Ngurdoto Game 
Reserves (Groves, 1973; Oates, 1977a; Swynnerton, 1958). 


Uganda Colobus monkeys are totally protected (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). 
In 1970-1974 found in several forest reserves (e.g. Kibale, Itwara, Budongo, 
Bugoma, Kalinzu and Kasyoha-Kitomi in the west; Bwindi in the south-west; and 
Mount Elgon and Mount Kadam in the east); two national parks (Ruwenzori and 
Kabalega) and in the Toro Game Reserve, Debasien Animal Sanctuary and Kigezi 


Gorilla Sanctuary. The forest reserves are exploited and when trees are 
felled, exotics are planted in their place, thus the structure and composition 
of many forests has changed in a very short time (Oates, 1977a). Several 


studies have been done: in the Kabalega (Murchison Falls) National Park in 
1967 (Leskes and Acheson, 1971), and in the Kibale Forest Reserve in 1969-1970 
(Dunbar and Dunbar, 1974b). In 1982 a survey was underway to develop 
conservation policies for Uganda (Malpas, 1982). 


Zaire Legally protected, cannot be exported except under license (Kavanagh 
and Bennett, 1984). Occurred in 1971 in the Garamba National Park (on the 
border with Sudan) (Anon., 1971); Colobus spp. were recorded in the same 
area in 1985 (Anon., 1987). Probably in the Virunga National Park and the 
Huri Forest (Oates, 1977a). 


CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1982 the following were bred in captivity in zoological 
collections in the United States and Europe: 25 C. guereza, 6 


C. g. caudatus, 17 C. g. kikuyensis and 2 C. g. occidentalis (Olney, 
1984). 


REFERENCES 


Albrecht, H. (1977). Chimpanzees in Uganda. Oryx 13(4): 357-361. 

Anon. (1971). United Nations List of National Parks and Equivalent Reserves. 
IUCN, Hayez, Brussels, 601 pp. 

Anon. (1974). Confiscation in Ethiopia. Oryx 12(3): 304. 

Anon. (1976). Rain forest destruction. Africana 6 (1): 7. 

Anon. (1977). The proposed Mago National Park. Ethiopian Natural History 
Society Newsletter. June, July, August. 121:6 

Anon. (1979). Uganda bans hunting - but can poaching be stopped? Swara 
2(4): 22. 

Anon. (1984). Endangered Resources for Development. Strategy conference for 
the management and protection of Kenya's plant communities: Forests, 
woodlands, bushlands, savannahs, and aquatic communities. 

Anon. (1987). IUCN Directory of Afrotropical Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, 
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 1034 pp. 


32 


Colobus guereza 


Bolton, M. (1970). Conservation in Ethiopia's Rift Valley. Biological 
Conservation 3(1): 66-68. 

Bolton, M. (1973). Notes on the current status and distribution of some large 
mammals in Ethiopia (excluding Eritrea). Mammalia 37(4): 562-586. 

Bolton, M. (1974). Mount Abaro, Shashemenne District. Walia 5: 15-16. 

Brown, L.H. and Urban, E.K. (1970). DeBrazza's Monkey Cercopithecus 
neglectus Schlegel, in the forests of south west Ethiopia. Bast African 
Wildlife Journal 7: 174-175. 

Butler, H. (1966). Some notes on the distribution of primates in the Sudan. 
Folia primatologica 4: 416-423. 

Dandelot, P. (1971). Order Primates. In: Meester, J. and Setzer, H.W. (eds), 
The Mammals of Africa: An Identification Manual. Smithsonian Institution 
Press, City of Washington. 

Duckworth, F. (1974). Hunting to destroy. Oryx 10(3): 306-307. 

Dunbar, R.I.M. and Dunbar, E.P. (1974a). Ecology and population dynamics of 
Colobus guereza in Ethiopia. Folia Primatologica 21(3/4): 188-208. 

Dunbar, R.I.M. and Dunbar, E.P. (1974b). Ecological relations and niche 
separation between sympatric terrestrial primates in Ethiopia. Folia 
Primatologica 21: 36-60. 

Dunbar, R.I.M. and Dunbar, E.P. (1975). Guereza monkeys: Will they become 
extinct in Ethiopia? Walia 6: 14-15. 

Dunbar, R.I.M. and Dunbar, E.P. (1976). Contrasts in social structure among 
Black and White Colobus monkey groups. Animal Behaviour. 24: 84-92. 

Fay, J.M. (1985). Range extensions for four Cercopithecus species in the 
Central African Republic. Primate Conservation. The Newsletter and 
Journal of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. 6: 63-68. 

Gartlan, J.S. (1982). Forest conservation in Cameroon: The current situation. 
IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group Newsletter, 2: 20. 

Gartlan, J.S. and Struhsaker, T.T. (1972). Polyspecific associations and niche 
separation of rain-forest anthropoids in Cameroon, West Africa. Journal 
of Zoology 168: 221-266. 

Ghiglieri, M.P. (1981). Wildlife log on the-Omo River. Oryx 16(2): 142-143. 

Groves, C.P. (1973). Notes on the ecology and behaviour of the Angola Colobus 
(Colobus angolensis P.L. Sclater 1860) in N.E. Tanzania. Folia 
Primatologica 20: 12-26. 

Jeannin, A. (1936). Les mammiferes sauvages du Cameroun. Paul Lechevalier, 
Paris. 

Kavanagh, M. (1984). A review of the international primate trade. In: Mack, D. 
and Mittermeier, R.A. (eds), The International Primate Trade. Volume 1. 
Legislation, Trade and Captive Breeding. Traffic (U.S.A.), WWF-U.S., 
Primate Program and the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. Washington 
D.C., pp. 49-89. 

Kavanagh, M. and Bennett, E. (1984). A synopsis of legislation and the primate 
trade in habitat and user countries. In: Mack, D. and Mittermeier, R.A. 
(eds), The International Primate Trade. Volume 1. Legislation, Trade and 
Captive Breeding. Traffic (USA), WWF-U.S., Primate Program and the 
IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. Washington D.C., pp. 19-48. 

Kingdon, J. (1971). Bast African mammals. An atlas of evolution in Africa. 
Vol 1. Academic Press, London, 446 pp. 

Kingston, T.J. (1971). Notes on the Black and White Colobus Monkey in Kenya. 
Bast African Wildlife Journal 9: 172-175. 

Lavieren, L.P. and Bosch, M.L. (1977). Evaluation des densités de grands 
mammiféres dans le Parc National de Bouda Ndjida, Cameroun. La Terre et 
la Vie 31: 3-32. 

Leskes, A. and Acheson, N.H. (1971). Social Organisation of a free-ranging 
troop of Black and White Colobus monkeys (Colobus abyssinicus). 
Proceedings of the Third International Congress of Primatologists 
3: 22-31. Karger, Basel. 

Lumsden, W.H.R. (1951). The night nesting habits of monkeys in a small area on 
the edge of the Semliki Forest, Uganda. Journal Animal Ecology 20: 11-30. 


33 


Colobus guereza 


Malbrant, R. and Maclatchy, A. (1949). Faune de l'Equateur Africain Français. 
Encyclopédie Biologique 36: 217. 

Malpas, R. (1980). Conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitats in Uganda. 
Project proposal submitted to New York Zoological Society and the 
WWF/IUCN, 6 pp. 

Malpas, R. (1982). Rehabilitating conservation in Uganda. World Wildlife Fund 
Monthly Report. Project 1942. January, pp. 21-23. 

Marler, P. (1969). Colobus guereza: Territoriality and group composition. 
Science 163: 93-95. 

Mittermeier, R.A. (1973). Colobus monkeys and the tourist trade. Oryx 
12(1): 113-117. 

Oates, J.F. (1977a). The Guereza and Man. How man has affected the 
distribution and abundance of Colobus guereza and other Black Colobus 
monkeys. In: H.S.H. Prince Rainier III of Monaco and Bourne, G.H. (eds), 
Primate Conservation. Academic Press, London. 

Oates, J.F. (1977b). The Guereza and its food. In: Clutton-Brock, T.H. (ed.), 
Primate Ecology. Academic Press, London, pp. 276-321. 

Oates, J.F. and Trocco, T.F. (1983). Taxonomy and phylogeny of Black-and-white 
Colobus Monkeys. Inferences from an analysis of loud call variation. 
Folio Primatologica 40: 83-113. 

Olney, P.J.S. (ed.) (1984). International Zoo Yearbook 23. Zoological 
Society of London, London, 395 pp. 

Quris, R. (1976). Données comparatives sur la socio-écologie du huit espéces 
de Cercopithecidae vivant dans une même zone de fôret primitive 
périodiquement (nord-est du Gabon). La Terre et la Vie 30: 193-209. 

Rahm, U. and Christiaensen, A.R. (1960). Note sur Colobus polycomos cordieri 
(Rahm) du Congo Belge. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines 
61(3-4): 215-220. 

Redfern, M. (1985). Kenya's forests uprooted for tea plantations. New 
Scientist, 21st February, p. 8. 

Rodgers, A. (1982). WWF/IUCN Tropical Forests and Primates Programme, 
Tanzania. Report to WWF/IUCN, 24 pp. 

Sayer, J. (1985). Report on a mission to the Central African Republic: 
13th-14th January 1985. Unpublished report. 2 pp. 

Struhsaker, T.T. (1972). Rain-forest conservation in Africa. Primates 
13(1): 103-109. 

Struhsaker, T.T. and Oates, J.F. (1975). Comparisons of the behaviour and 
ecology of Red Colobus and Black and White Colobus Monkeys in Uganda: A 
summary. In: Tuttle, R.H. (ed.), Socioecology and Psychology of 
Primates. Mouton, The Hague, pp. 103-123. 

Swynnerton, G. (1958). Fauna of the Serengeti National Park. Mammalia 
22: 435-450. 

Tappen, N.C. (1960). Problems of distribution and adaptation of the African 
monkeys. Current Anthropology 1: 91-120. 

Van Orsdol, K.G. (1980). Slaughter of the innocents. Animal Kingdom 
82(6): 19-26. 

Verschuren, J. (1975). Wildlife in Zaire. Oryx 13(1): 25-33. 

Wolfheim, J.H. (1983). Primates of the World. Distribution, Abundance and 
Conservation. University of Washington Press, Seattle, 831 pp. 

Yalden, D.W., Largen, M.J. and Kock, D. (1977). Catalogue of the Mammals of 
Ethiopia 3. Primates. Monitore Zoologico Italiano N.S. Supplement 
9. 1:1-52. 

Zimmerman, D.A. (1972). The avifauna of the Kakamega Forest, western Kenya, 


including a bird population study. Bulletin of the American Museum of 
Natural History 149: 255-339. 


34 


WESTERN BLACK-AND-WHITE COLOBUS Recommended list: 2 


[Possible problem] 
Colobus polykomos (Zimmerman, 1780) 


Order PRIMATES Family CERCOPITHECIDAE 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A forest species found in West Africa: in 
Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Togo, Benin, 
and Nigeria (where now probably extinct). No population estimates exist but 
the species is thought to be declining and has disappeared from parts of its 
range, e.g. Nigeria. Forest loss has been extensive throughout West Africa 
and although the species can adapt to secondary forest, it seems to prefer 
older, mature forests. It is especially sought by hunters for its skin, which 
is exported or used in traditional ceremonies, and for its meat. It receives 
full protection in some countries, partial protection in others, and no 
protections in some. Listed in Class B of the African Convention. Occurs in 
several protected areas. 


In the six-year period, 1980-1985, trade in live animals was insignificant, 
and the main international trade was in skins. The estimated minimum trade 
volume declined from 993 in 1980 to 10 in 1985. Most of the skins were 
declared as re-exports from the UK, country of origin unknown, but in 1980, 
389 were declared as originating in Kenya, suggesting possibly that the skins 
were of Colobus guereza rather than C. polykomos. 


The level of trade in skins reported in 1984 and 1985 cannot be considered 
Significant, and if this continues no problems need arise. Habitat loss and 
hunting for meat are likely to be greater threats, but as the species is 
declining in some of its range the international skin trade should not be 
encouraged. If further skins appear in trade, efforts should be made to 
ascertain their true source and specific identity. 


DISTRIBUTION Widespread in West Africa, from Benin to Guinea Bissau and 
possibly Gambia and Senegal. Possibly extinct in Nigeria. 


Species and subspecies of Colobus monkeys are usually separated on variations 
in pelage or cranial features. Oates and Trocco (1983) studied vocalizations 
and argued that these can also be used to assess phylogenetic relationships. 
Some authors include populations of Colobus guereza in C. polykomos 
(Napier and Napier, 1967 cited in Wolfheim, 1983) but generally these two taxa 
are treated as separate species (Rahm, 1970; Oates and Trocco, 1983). Within 
C. polykomos, three subspecies are usually recognised: C. p. dollmani from 
the Ivory Coast; C. p. polykomos from Gambia to the Ivory Coast; and 
C. p. vellerosus from Ivory Coast to Benin, Togo and Nigeria (Dandelot, 
1971). Oates and Trocco (1983) concluded that C. vellerosus is a distinct 
species and suggested that it is an intermediate form between C. polykomos 
and C. guereza, but it is treated here as conspecific with C. polykomos. 


Benin Occurs in the south (Rahm, 1970; Booth, 1958). In 1984 reported from 
most forested areas and gallery forests up to at least 10°N. A record does 
exist from 11°25'N, along the Alibori River, well to the north of previous 
records. Probably once occurred in the north but now exterminated (Sayer and 
Green, 1984). (C. p. vellerosus) 


Burkina Protected but no definite evidence that it occurs. 
Gambia The species has been noted as occurring in Gambia (Dupuy, 1971), 


however J.F. Oates (In litt., 1986) noted that there is no reliable evidence 
of its occurrence in the country. (C. p. polykomos) 


35 


Colobus polykomos 


Ghane Originally found over much of the country, but now extinct or rare in 
Many areas (Booth, 1954; Asibey, 1978), particularly where human population 
density is high (Oates, 1977). (C. p. vellerosus) 


Guinea In the south and east (Rahm, 1970; Booth, 1958). (C. p. polykomos) 
Guinea-Bissau Monard (1938) recorded its presence. (C. p. polykamos) 


Ivory Coast Reported to occur in the south and central parts (Rahm, 1970) 
though in 1973 recorded from the north-east, in the Comoé Valley (Geerling and 
Bokdamm 1973). (C. p. dollmani between the Sassandra and Bandama rivers, 
C. p. polykomos west of the Sassandra river and C. p. vellerosus east of 
the Bandama river (Dandelot, 1971)) 


Liberia In the 1950s was reported to occur throughout the country (Booth, 
1958). Robinson (1971), however, noted that it was ‘seldom seen except in 
remote areas’. More recently reported to be found in all high forest areas of 
the country, ranging from Grand Gedeh, Sinoe, and Maryland Counties in the 
east and south-east, to Lofa County in the west (Liberia CITES MA, 1986). 
(C. p. polykomos) 


Nigeria In the 1970s some reports claimed it could still be found in the 
western part of the southern forest zone (Henshaw and Child, 1972; Rahm, 1970; 
Oates, 1977) although Happold (1972) reported that there had been no definite 
records ‘for several years'. The species was not recorded during a survey in 
Bendel State in 1982 (Anadu and Oates, 1982); it may therefore to be extinct 
in Nigeria (J.F. Oates, In litt., 1986); however the CITES M.A. reported 
that it still occurred in the west of the country. (C. p. vellerosus) 


Senegal The species is occasionally noted as occurring in Senegal (Booth, 
1958; Dupuy, 1971); however Oates (In litt., 1986) noted that there is no 
reliable evidence of its occurrence in the country. (C. p. polykomos) 


Sierra Leone No recent information. Formerly found in suitable habitat 
throughout the country (Booth, 1958; Robinson, 1971). In 1964 found in the 
Kasewe Forest (south central) (Tappen, 1964). Later recorded from the 


Outamba-Kilimi National Park in the north-west, on the border with Guinea 
(Harding, 1983). Reported from Tiwai Island, on the Moa River, in the 
south-east on the edge of the Gola Forest (Teleki, 1980) and in the Gola 
Forest Complex (Davies, 1987). (C. p. polykomos) 


Togo Found only in the south (Booth, 1958). (C. p. vellerosus) 


POPULATION The species has disappeared from parts of its former range (e.g. 


Nigeria), and is rare in others; however in some countries it is still 
regarded as abundant. 


Benin No information. 


Burkina No information. 


Ghana In 1976, was reported to be abundant in areas of primary forest and 
in forest reserves which were undisturbed; however such areas were stated to 
have been disappearing (Olson, 1976). Locally common in 1970 along the Bia 
Tributaries North and South and the Sukusuku Forest Reserves; rare in other 
areas (Jeffrey, 1970). Abundant in the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary; common 
in the Bia and Nini-Suhien National Parks and the Ankasa Game Production 
Reserve; rare in the national parks of Mole, Digya, Bui and in the Kogyae 
Strict Nature Reserve, Kalakpa Game Production Reserve, Bomfobiri Wildlife 
Sanctuary and Willi Falls Reserve (Asibey, 1978). 


36 


Colobus polykomos 


Guinea No information. 
Guinea-Bissau No information. 


Ivory Coast Common in the Tai National Park in 1972 (Struhsaker, 1972). 
Common in the southern forests of the Comoé National Park (Geerling and 
Bokdam, 1973). Asibey (1978) recorded it as abundant in the Tai National 
Park, rare in the Banco National Park and the Asagny Reserve. 


Liberia ‘Seldom seen except in remote areas’ (Robinson, 1971). This was 
apparently still the case in 1982 (Verschuren, 1982) and sightings of monkeys 
were ‘extremely rare’ in 1983 (Verschuren, 1983). 


Nigeria In 1972 reported to be ‘nowhere abundant’ (Henshaw and Child, 
1972). Possibly extinct, but reported by the CITES MA (1987) to be rare and 
severely threatened. 


Sierra Leone Little information. In the Kilimi region they have been 
reported as not abundant (Harding, 1983). Reported to be ‘rare’ in 1980 
(Lowes, 1970), but not critically endangered (Teleki, in litt., 1980). 


Togo Rare in the Keran and Malfacassa Reserves (Asibey, 1978). 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY A forest species, occupying all types of closed forest 
formations except thickets (Booth, 1958); found in fringing, gallery and rain 
forest (Geerling and Bokdam, 1973; Tappen, 1960); also in patches of riverine 
forest in the savanna zone (Asibey, 1978; Harding, 1983), and in wet 
evergreen, moist evergreen, moist semi-deciduous and dry semi-deciduous forest 
(Olson, 1976), also occurs in roadside secondary bush (Jeffrey, 1974), though 
according to Oates (in litt., 1986) it seemed to prefer older, mature 
forests. Climbers are an important part of the diet all year (Olson, 1976). 
Very sociable and has a wide variety of troop sounds (Jeffrey, 1974). Group 
size 5-21; range size about 20 ha in Ghana (Olson, 1976). 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL 


Benin Very little forest remains in the south due to Jogging and 
agricultural settlement (Martin, 1976). 


Ghana Habitat destruction is the major threat. Forests in Ghana have been 
reduced by two-thirds since the beginning of the century, (from 78 046 sq. km 
to 28 489 sq. km) and are under continual pressure. Trees are felled for 
their timber, and the land cleared for agriculture and cocoa (Asibey, 1978). 
Roads to felling sites encourage settlement and this leads to destruction of 
the forest (Jeffrey, 1970). Hunted for its skin (Asibey, 1972) and its meat 
(Asibey, 1978). Also killed as an agricultural pest in some areas although it 
reportedly does not damage crops (Robinson, 1971) but it associates with 
species that do. Hunted illegally in the Bia Tributaries National Park 
(Martin, 1976). This park was gazetted in May 1974 and covered 118 sq. miles; 
by 1976 this had been reduced to 30 sq. miles (Olson, 1976). 


Guinea No information. 
Guinea-Bissau No information. 


Ivory Coast Habitat destruction through logging and slash and burn 
cultivation is one of the major threats (Lanley (1969) cited in Wolfheim, 
1983). The meat of colobus monkeys (C. polykomos and C. badius) was a 
staple item of diet in the early 1950s (Booth, 1954). In 1982 settlement 
along the boundaries of the Tai National Park was increasing. Poaching was 


37 


Colobus polykomos 


heavy in the park and difficult to control and illegal timbering also occurred 
(Roth, 1983). 


Liberia Hunted for its meat (Leutenegger, 1976; Robinson, 1983) almost to 
total extermination (Curry-Lindahl, 1969; Verschuren, 1983; Oates and Davies, 
1985) and its skin (which fetched $3-$5 each in 1977) (Jeffrey, 1977). Monkey 
hunting, in 1986, was commercial, large-scale and well-organized (Oates and 
Davies, 1985), but primarily for local consumption. A trade in dried monkeys 
exists from Sierra Leone to Liberian mining camps and markets in Monrovia 
(Robinson, 1971) though this has been impeded by closure of the border (J.F. 
Oates, in litt., 1986). Firearms are easily obtained and almost all adult 
men own one; ammunition is also easy to obtain (Verschuren, 1983). 
Deforestation for farming and shifting cultivation is increasing; transport 
roads open up previously inaccessible areas for hunters (Curry-Lindahl, 
1969). The central strip, from Monrovia to Nimba, had been deforested by 
1982; large forest blocks occurred only in the north-west and central 
south-east, both were diminishing (Verschuren, 1982). 


Nigeria Heavily hunted for its skin (Happold, 1972). In the early 1970s 
game laws were devised for regulating sport hunting though were not very 
effective against hunting for bushmeat which was the major drain on wildlife 
populations. In 1972, however, the laws were reportedly due to be revised 
(Henshaw and Child, 1972). 


Sierra Leone Hunted for its skin (Wilkinson, 1974), and also its meat 
(Lowes, 1970); particularly intensively in the south (J.F. Oates, in litt., 
1983). The country was once well forested but forest cover has been much 


reduced (Tappen, 1964). By 1983-84 the Gola Forest, the largest remaining 
rain forest area in the entire country, was being severely damaged by timber 
exploitation and by heavy commercial hunting, mainly by Liberians and diamond 
extraction. In 1984, plans were being made to dam the Mona River; at the same 
time, settlers were moving into Gola West. The species had reportedly been 
eliminated by hunting in some areas of the Gola forest by 1984 but it had 
survived moderate hunting levels in primary forest areas. It was thought 
probable that this species could adapt to live in logged forests, and that its 
abscence from logged forest in the Golas was more likely to have been a 
consequence of hunting than alteration of habitat (Davies, 1987). In the 
early 1960s there was a large export trade in monkeys (25 000-50 000 p.a.); 
C. polykomos was not usually captured however (Tappen, 1964). 


Togo No information. 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE CITES reports record trade in both skins and live 
animals of C. polykomos. These are summarised in Tables 1 and 2. Skins were 
the main commodity in trade; the minimum trade volume (Table 1) has fallen 
from 993 in 1980 to only 10 in 1985. Very few live animals have been reported, 
the peak trade being 34 in 1981. The main importing countries for skins were 


France, F.R. Germany, Liechtenstein, Japan and, to judge from reported 
re-exports, the UK. 


The reported countries of origin are shown in Table 2. With the exception of 
two skins from Guinea, the only range country to export skins was Nigeria, 
where the species is believed to be extinct. 389 skins were reported as 
originating in Kenya in 1980, but the great majority were reported as country 
of origin unknown on re-export from the UK. The source of these is unclear, as 
the UK has never reported imports of comparable quantities of skins. They may 
have been old stock. C. polykomos does not occur in Kenya, and so it is 
possible that the skins reported in 1980 were of Colobus guereza. The level 
of trade reported in 1984 and 1985 cannot be considered significant, but it is 
too early yet to say whether this represents more than a temporary decline. 


38 


Colobus polykomos 


Table 1. Minimum net imports of live animals (L) and skins (S) of C. 
polykomos reported to CITES. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
Argentina 100 S - - = = = 
Austria 100 S - - = = = 
Denmark - - 38 S - = - 
Ethiopia - - - = = 10 S 
France 598 S - - = = 2 
Germany D.R. - - - 2 L 2G - 
Germany F.R. - 365 S - 276 S - - 
Hong Kong - 2 L - - - - 
Italy 4 L 30 L 2 L 15s - - 
Japan 40 S 200 S - - - - 
Kenya 110 S 110 S - - = E 
Korea Rep. - - - 4 L - - 
Liechtenstein - - 200 S - - - 
Spain 45 S 20 S - - 30 S - 
Sri Lanka - 2 E - - = = 
Taiwan - = = = = iL Sth 
UK BL - - - - - 
USA - - 158 LES CS - 
- - 10 L - - - 
Total DE 34 L P21 6 L (208 1L 
993 S 695 S 240 S 292 S 32 S 10 S 


Table 2. Reported countries of origin (or exporting country if no original 
source reported) and quantities of transactions in live animals (L) and skins 
(S) of C. polykomos reported to CITES. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


Countries having populations of C. polykomos 

Guinea - - 15 1 
Nigeria - - - 15 
Togo 4 L 14 L - - - = 


u mm 
! 
' 


Countries without wild populations of C. polykomos 

Canada - - 158 - = = 

Ethiopia - - - - 1s 10 S 

Germany D.R. 3 L - 

Germany F.R. - ase 2 L - - = 
1 


Switzerland - 1 
Tanzania - 1 
USA - 2 
Unknown * 604 S 695 

- 15 


en A A A A __z_5¿5¿<<amx 5_E____Q_ E EEEEX+ + << mm A 0 


rurar 
! 

1H E&eI NN 1! 
Fr 
! 
' 


* All skins declared as country of origin unknown were re-exports from the UK. 


39 


Colobus polykomos 


CONSERVATION MEASURES Information on legislation has been extracted from 
IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Occasional Paper No. 3, African Wildlife 
Laws unless otherwise indicated. 


Benin All primates (except baboons) are protected by law (Kavanagh and 
Bennett, 1984). Does not occur in any national park or game reserve. 


Burkina Totally protected under Hunting Regulations dated December 1985. 


Ghana Completely protected by law (Asibey, 1978) but still widely poached 
(Jeffrey, 1970; Asibey, 1978). Export is illegal (Kavanagh and Bennett, 
1984). Around Boabeng and Fiema in the Ashanti Region, all animals have been 
protected by the local villagers for more than 100 years; monkeys benefit most 
from this protection and have become very tame. The area is now a national 
nature reserve (Laidler, 1982). Also protected by traditional beliefs, at 
least until 1976, in the Nkabin Hills (1150 acres), about 12 km north of . 
Kumasi, capital of Ashanti. This area was proposed as a wildlife sanctuary, 
but present status not known (Merz, 1976a). Protected in the Bia Tributaries 
National Park, declared in 1974 (Jeffrey, 1975) where it has been studied 
(Martin, 1976; Olson, 1976). Recorded in the Ankasa Forest Reserve in 1976 
(Merz, 1976b). Sport-hunting was banned 1974-1978, this led to an increase in 
poaching in the hunting reserves (Martin, 1976). 


Guinea No information. 
Guinea-Bissau Totally protected under Hunting Regulations 21/1980. 


Ivory Coast Hunting, capture and export of all wild animals is illegal, 
except under special licence (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). Occurs in the 
national parks of Comoé, Banco (Geerling and Bokdam, 1973) and Tai (Monfort 
and Monfort, 1973), and in the Asagny Reserve (Asibey, 1978). 


Liberia All primate exports are illegal unless covered by a special permit 
(Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). Occurs in the Sapo National Park in the 
south-east (Robinson, 1983). Totally protected under the Wildlife 
Conservation Regulation. 


Nigeria Totally protected under the Endangered Species (Control of 
International Trade and Traffic) Decree 1985. Occurred in Olokemeji Forest 
Reserve in 1970 (Hopkins, 1970) and in the Upper Ogun Game Reserve in 1974 
(Geerling 1974); both of these are in the south-west. 


Sierra Leone All exports of primates are banned (Kavanagh and Bennett, 
1984), but this temporary ban was never constituted by written legislation 
(Sierra Leone Ministry of Agriculture, 1987). Traditional Muslim beliefs 
protect this species in some areas (Lowes, 1970; Robinson, 1971). In 1970 it 
was one of the species proposed for protection; at that time there were no 
active game laws and no conservation measures existed (Lowes, 1970). Occurs 
in the 12-sq. mile wildlife reserve set up in 1979 around Mamunta in the 
northern province, and occurs in the Outamba-Kilimi National Park (Harding, 
1983). Enforcement of the 1972 Wildlife Conservation Act is weak (J.F. Oates, 
in litt., 1983). Tiwai Island has been proposed as a sanctuary (Oates and 
Davies, 1985), and the species has been studied there (J.F. Oates, in litt., 
1983). Davies (1987) recommended the establishment of two strict nature 
reserves in the Gola Forest where hunting should be prevented. 


Togo Partially protected under Ordinance on wildlife protection and 


hunting, dated 16 January 1968. Reported to occur in the Keran and Malfacassa 
Reserves where it is considered rare (Asibey, 1978). 


40 


Colobus polykomos 


CAPTIVE BREEDING: At least six were bred in captivity in 1982 in the USA, UK 
and Switzerland (Olney, 1984). 


REFERENCES 


Anadu, P.A. and Oates, J.F. (1982). The status of wildlife in Bendel State, 
Nigeria, with recommendations for its conservation. Unpublished report, 
41 pp. 

Asibey, E.O.A. (1972). Ghana's progress. Oryx 11(6): 470-475. 

Asibey, E.O.A. (1978). Primate conservation in Ghana. In: Chivers, D.J. and 
Lane-Pretter, VW. (eds), Recent Advances in  Primatology. Vol.2. 

Conservation. Academic Press, London, pp. 55-74. 

Booth, A.H. (1954). A note on the Colobus Monkeys of the Gold and Ivory 
Coasts. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 7(12): 857-860. 

Booth, A.H. (1958). The zoogeography of West African primates: A review. 
Bulletin de l'Institut Fondamental de l'Afrique Noire Series A. 
20: 587-622. 

Curry-Lindahl, K. (1969). Report to the Government of Liberia on Conservation, 
Management and Utilization of wildlife resources. International Union for 
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Morges. 

Dandelot, P. (1971). Order Primates. In: Meester, J. and Setzer, H.W. (eds), 
The Mammals of Africa: An Identification Manual. Smithsonian Insitution 
Press, Washington. Part 3. 

Davies, A.G. (1987). The Gola Forest Reserves, Sierra Leone: Wildlife 
conservation and forest management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and 
Cambridge, UK, 126 pp. 

Dupuy, A.R. (1971). Statut actuel des Primates au Sénégal. Bulletin de 
l'Institut Fondamental de 1'Afrique Noire 33 (1-2): 467-478. 

Geerling, C. (1974). Upper Ogun and Opara Game Reserves gazetted in Western 
State, Nigeria. Environmental Conservation 1(4): 304. 

Geerling, C. and Bokdam, J. (1973). Fauna of the Comoé National Park, Ivory 
Coast. Biological Conservation 5: 251-257. 

Happold, D.C.D. (1972). Mammals in Nigeria. Oryx 11(6): 469. 

Harding, R.S.O. (1983). A survey of endangered primates in Sierra Leone. 
IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group Newsletter 3: 22. 

Henshaw, J. and Child, G.S. (1972). New attitudes in Nigeria. Oryx 11(4): 
275-283. 

Hopkins, B. (1970). The Olokemeji Forest Reserve IV. Check lists. Nigerian 
Field 35: 123-144. 

Jeffrey, S.M. (1970). Ghana's forest wildlife in danger. Oryx 10(4): 240-243. 

Jeffrey, S.M. (1974). Primates of the dry high forest of Ghana. Nigerian 
Field 39(3): 117-127. 

Jeffrey, S.M. (1975). Ghana's new forest national park. Oryx 13 (1): 34-36. 

Jeffrey, S.M. (1977). How Liberia uses wildlife. Oryx 14(2): 168-173. 

Kavanagh, M. and Bennett, E. (1984). A synopsis of legislation and the primate 
trade in habitat and user countries. In: Mack, D. and Mittermeier, R.A. 
(eds), The International Primate Trade. Volume 1. Legislation, Trade and 
Captive Breeding, Traffic (U.S.A.), WWF-U.S. Primate Program and the 
IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. Washington, D.C, pp. 19-48. 

Laidler, K. (1982). Children of the Gods. Animal Kingdom 85(5): 12-17. 
Leutenegger, W. (1976). Metric variability in the anterior dentition of 
African colobines. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 45: 45-52. 

Lowes, R.H.G. (1970). Destruction in Sierra Leone. Oryx 10(5): 309-310. 

Martin, C. (1976). Bia National Park, Ghana - Conservation programme. World 
Wildlife Fund Monthly Report. Project No. 1251. August, pp. 6-8. 

Merz, A. (19768). Conservation at the local level. Oryx 13(3): 274. 

Merz, A. (1976b). Visit to the Ankasa Forest Reserve 18th-21st May 1976. 
Unpublished report, 2 pp. 

Monard, A. (1938). Résultats de la mission scientifique du Dr Monard en Guinée 
Portugaise. Arq. Mus. Bocage 9: 121-150. 


41 


Colobus polykomos 


Monfort, A. and Monfort, N. (1973). Quelques observations sur les grands 
mammifères du Parc National de Tai (Cote D'Ivoire). La Terre et La Vie 
27(4): 499-505. 

Oates, J.F. (1977). The Guereza and man: How man has affected the distribution 
and abundance of Colobus guereza and other Black Colobus Monkeys. 
In: Prince Rainier and Bourne, G.H. (eds), Primate Conservation. 
Academic Press, London, pp. 420-467. 

Oates, J.F. and Davies, A.G. (1985). Primate conservation in West Africa. In: 
Stevenson, M.F., Chivers, D.J. and Ingram, C. (eds), Current issues in 
primate conservation. Primate Society of Great Britain. 

Oates, J.F. and Trocco, F. (1983). Taxonomy and phylogeny of Black-and-white 
Colobus Monkeys. Inferences from an analysis of loud call variation. 
Folia Primatologica 40: 83-113. 

Olney, P.J.S. (ed.) (1984). International Zoo Yearbook 23. Zoological 
Society of London. 

Olson, D.K. (1976). Colobus polykomos vellerosus. Unpublished report to J.H. 
Wolfheim. 7 pp. 

Rahm, U. (1970). Ecology, zoogeography and systematics of some African forest 
monkeys. In: Napier, J.R. and Napier, P.H. (eds), Old World Monkeys. 
Academic Press, New York, pp. 589-626. 

Robinson, P.T. (1971). Wildlife trends in Liberia and Sierra Leone. Oryx 
11:(2/3): 117-122. 

Robinson, P.T. (1982). Sapo Forest to be Liberia's first national park. World 
Wildlife Fund Monthly Report. Project No. 1567. October, pp. 285-288. 

Robinson, P.T. (1983). Birth pains for Sapo National Park in Liberia. 
IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group Newsletter 3: 23-24. 

Roth, H.H. (1983). We all want trees - case history of the Tai National Park, 
Ivory Coast. Unpublished report, 5 pp. 

Sayer, J.A. and Green, A.A. (1984). The distribution and status of large 
mammals in Benin. Mammal Review 14(1): 37-50. 

Struhsaker, T.T. (1972). Rein-forest conservation in Africa. Primates 13(1): 
103-109. 3 

Tappen, N.C. (1960). Problems of distribution and adaptation of the African 
monkeys. Current Anthropology 1: 91-120. 

Tappen, N.C. (1964). Primate studies in Sierra Leone. Current Anthropology 
5(4): 339-340. 

Teleki, G. (1980). Hunting and trapping wildlife in Sierra Leone: Aspects of 
exploitation and exportation. Unpublished report. 86 pp. 

Verschuren, J. (1982). Hope for Liberia. Oryx 16: 421-427. 

Verschuren, J. (1983). Conservation of tropical rain forest in Liberia; 
recommendations for wildlife conservation and national parks. Report to 
IUCN/WWF. 29 pp. 


Wilkinson, A.F. (1974). Areas to preserve in Sierra Leone. Oryx 12(5): 
596-597. 


Wolfheim, J.H. (1983). Primates of the World. Distribution, Abundance and 
Conservation. University of Washington Press, Seattle and London 831 pp.. 


42 


CRAB-EATING MACAQUE Recommended list: 3 


[No problem] 
Macaca fascicularis (Raffles, 1821) 


Order PRIMATES Family CERCOPITHECIDAE 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Probably the commonest macaque in South East Asia, 
ranging from Bangladesh to Timor and the Philippines. Particularly associated 
with coastal, lowland and riverine habitats, but also recorded from mountains. 
The highest densities are achieved in disturbed forests, particularly along 
their margins, where it often comes into conflict with agricultural interests. 
It is primarily arboreal, and usually lives in groups of 10-48. It is 
omnivorous, eating principally fruits and foliage, but also taking crustacea 
and molluscs. One young is usually born; the gestation period is 160-170 days, 
and breeding may occur all year round. 


It is traded mainly for biomedical research, CITES reports indicating a 
Minimum world trade volume between 16 000 and 28 000 a year, averaging almost 
23 000 a year over the period 1980-1985. The main exporting countries are 
Indonesia, the Philippines and formerly Malaysia, although the latter banned 
exports in 1984. Captive-breeding facilities are in operation in most of the 
consumer countries, and have recently been set up in Indonesia and the 
Philippines. It is thought that there is considerable potential for ranching 
operations in semi-wild conditions. 


The current levels of trade do not seem excessive in view of the estimated 
population size. If any primate is to be trapped for biomedical research, this 
species is probably the best choice. It may even benefit from limited habitat 
disturbance, and is killed for crop-raiding. These animals could well be 
diverted into the live trade. Captive-breeding and particularly ranching 
should be encouraged. 


DISTRIBUTION Widespread in in South East Asia from Bangladesh to Indonesia. 
Introduced to various islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. 


Bangladesh Confined to a small area in Chittagong district at Whykeong and 
Jolirdia Island and along the River Naaf on the Burmese border (Khan, 1985). 


Brunei Occurs all along the coast and up the major rivers (K.S. Mackinnon, 
pers. comm., 1986). Recorded from the nipa-mangrove islands off Bandar Seri 
Begawan (Mittermeier, 1982) and Ulu Temburong (Bennett et al., 1984). 


Burma Found in the south and on the Peninsula; also on Moscos Island, 
Mergui Archipelago (Wolfheim, 1983). Fooden (1971) provides records from 
Arakan, Elephant Point and the Pegu District. 


China The species has not been recorded from China (Yong-Zu Zhang et al., 
1981) although it was erroneously reported to be present by Wolfheim (1983). 


Hong Kong Introduced (Marshall, 1967). The majority of the population is 
congregated in one location with M. mulatta (UK, Hong Kong CITES MA, 1987). 


India A separate subspecies, M. fascicularis umbrosa, is found in the 
Nicobar Islands, on the islands of Great Nicobar, Little Nicobar and Katchall, 
from the coast to an altitude of 1000 ft (300 m) (Devaraj, 1983). 


Indonesia Found on Sumatra, Kalimantan, Java, Bali and throughout Nusa 
Tenggara eastwards to Timor (probably introduced by man to Timor); absent from 


43 


Macaca fascicularis 


Sulawesi, Irian Jaya and surrounding islands (MacKinnon, 1983), although Roots 
(1976) reported erroneously that they have been introduced to Sulawesi. A 
distinct subspecies, M. fascicularis fuscus, inhabits Simeleue Island, 
Sumatra (Mitchell, 1983). Other subspecies have been recorded from other parts 
of the range, but their validity is questioned. 


Kampuchea Found in the southern half of the country (Boonsong Lekagul and 
McNeely, 1977). 


Laos Recorded from the southern half of the country. A specimen from the 
Plateau des Bolovens was recorded by Fooden (1971). The distribution is said 
to extend to the north of the country, especially the evergreen forest of the 
Annamite Chain and surrounding areas (Laos Forest Department, in litt., 
1986), but it seems likely that this results from a confusion with M. 
mulatta. 


Malaysia Occurs throughout the Peninsula and also on many islands including 
Langkawi, Penang, Tioman, Pemanggil, Aur, Tinggi, and the Redang group 
(Medway, 1978). In Sarawak it ranges from the coast to 4500 ft (1400 m) on 
Gunung Penrisen (Medway, 1977). Recorded from many localities in Sabah, 
including the island of P. Banggi (Medway, 1977; Davies and Payne, 1982). 


Mauritius Introduced prior to the Seventeenth Century. The pelage suggests 
that the original stock derived from Java (Sussman and Tattersall, 1980). 


Palau Introduced to Ngeaur (Angaur) Island, at the southern end of the 
Palau Island chain, and subsequently to Babeldaop, Oreor (Koror) and Beliliou 
(Pelilu). It is thought that all derive from a single pair introduced from 
Indonesia or Mindanao between 1900 and 1914 (Poirier and Farslow, 1984). No 
resident populations occur on Babeldaop, Oreor or Beliliou but occasionally 
pets do occur (USA CITES MA, 1987). 


Philippines Widely distributed; found on Luzon, Mindanao, Basilan, Mindoro, 
Samar, Leyte, Bohol, Siquijor, Camiguin, Cayagan, Sulu and Negros Islands 
(Napier and Napier, 1967; Rabor, 1968; Anon., 1979). There is a wide range of 
morphological variation in macaques in the Philippines and Alcasid (1970) has 
listed five separate species. These are now normally regarded as subspecies of 


M. fascicularis. The form occurring in the south is a distinctive grey 
colour. 


Singapore Occurs truly wild, scattered throughout the island (Harrison, 
1974; Medway, 1978). 


Thailand Distributed throughout peninsular and coastal Thailand, and 
northwards into the Kamphengphet Province; also on the islands of Ko Tarutao, 
Ko Kut, Ko Chang, Ko Kram, Ko Phangan and Ko Samui. Said to be most common 
along the coast and on offshore islands. The population on Ko Kram is 
sometimes recognised as a separate subspecies, M. fascicularis atriceps 
(Napier and Napier, 1967; Boonsong Lekagul and McNeely, 1977; Bain and 
Humphrey, 1982). 


USA Introduced to Guam from the Palau Islands (Poirier and Farslow, 1984). 
Free-ranging colonies have been established in North America on several 
occasions for tourism and research. One such colony is established in the 
Monkey Jungle near Miami, Florida, for tourism (Lever, 1985). 


Viet Nam Found in the south of the country, including Con Son Island 
(Wolfheim, 1983). 


44 


Macaca fascicularis 


POPULATION M. fascicularis is common throughout much of its wide range, 
often being described as the most abundant primate in the region. In several 
areas, such as Sumatra, populations may have declined, while in others, such 
as Sabah, increases are indicated. This could be associated with ability of 
the macaque to colonise recently disturbed and cultivated land, making it 
highly visible, and bringing it into conflict with farmers. Habitat alteration 
is often beneficial in allowing higher populations to develop, but this also 
increases the macaques' conflict with man, and therefore tends to promote 
their destruction. The world population is well in excess of four million, but 
habitat loss is proceeding at such a rate in much of the range that continued 
vigilance is considered necessary. 


Bangladesh The most localised primate in Bangladesh (Khan, 1985). The 
population is estimated to be 500 in an area of about 20 km? (Bangladesh 
CITES MA, 1986). 


Brunei There is reported to be a substantial population on the mangrove 
islands off Bandar Seri Begawan (Mittermeier, 1982). The population density in 
Ulu Temburong is low (Bennett et al., 1984). 


Burma No information. 


Hong Kong Stable. Only a few dozens and some hybrids (M. fascicularis 
xM. mulatta) amongst a population of 200 M. mulatta (UK, Hong Kong CITES 
MA, 1987). 


India A total of 136 macaques was counted in 1982 on three islands. The 
population had been reported to be declining rapidly (Devaraj, 1983). 


Indonesia The total population in Indonesia is conservatively estimated to 
be 3 726 860, occurring in 112 121 km? of habitat at densities of 30 km-2 
in primary habitat, and 40Km-2 in secondary forest. The density in good 
habitat ranges from 12 to 144 km~?, with a mean of 55.6 km?. A 
conservative working density for the whole range would be 20 km-2 The 
original area of habitat in Indonesia has been reduced by an average of 66%; 
population estimates for the different provinces are as follows. Sumatra: 
remainin habitat 29 906 km?, habitat loss 66%, population density 
30.6 km” estimated population 1 437 420. Kalimantan: remaining habitat 

56 807 ene, habitat loss 54%, population density 35.0 km”?, estimated 
population 1 988 175. Java and Bali: remaining habitat 1257 km?, habitat 
loss 96%, population density 40 km-2, estimated population 50 530. Nusa 
Tenggara: remaining habitat 4986 km?, habitat loss 80%, population density 
28 km-?, estimated population 140 415. The population protected in reserves 
is estimated to be 310 040. Mackinnon's (1983) estimate of the population on 
Sumatra is substantially lower than that reported by Wilson and Wilson (1976), 
but this may be due to differing survey techniques. 


Kampuchea No information. 


Laos The species has become quite rare in the country, although there have 
been no population surveys (Laos Forest Department, in litt., 1986). 


Malaysia By far the commonest monkey in Malaysia (Tweedie, 1978). On the 
mainland, M. fascicularis is often common, ranging from beaches to hilltops, 
including forests, agricultural and built-up areas. May be a serious pest to 
crops (Medway, 1978). The population on the peninsula decreased by 23% between 
1958 and 1975, from 415 000 to 318 000 (Khan, 1978). The density of 
M. fascicularis in Peninsular Malaysia in swamp and riverine forest was 
estimated to be 4.8 groups km? (mean group size was 23), and in other 
lowland forest sites 1.4 km"? (Marsh and Wilson, 1981). In Sarawak, on the 


45 


Macaca fascicularis 


Kelabit uplands it is common, and a serious pest to the rice crop (Medway, 
1977). In Sabah the species range appears to be stable, and may be increasing 
in some recently cultivated areas, where it has become sufficiently common to 
be considered a pest. Its main habitat, riverine forest, is little damaged 
during logging, but there is no evidence to suggest that its numbers increase 
in logged forest. It is very rare above 1000 ft (300 m). It was thought that 
the species would persist at fairly constant densities throughout most of its 
current range (Davies and Payne, 1982). The population in Sabah is estimated 
to be in excess of 50 000, in a minimum of 20 000 km? of available habitat. 
In disturbed areas, the preferred habitat, the density is about one group in 
20-30 ha. In tall dipterocarp forests, the most extensive natural habitat, the 
density is only about one group in 500 ha (Malaysia CITES MA, 1985). 


Mauritius The introduced stock thrived and had become exceedingly abundant 
by the end of the Eighteenth Century, and it is now considered a pest species. 
The numbers have since declined, owing to human destruction of some of the 
natural vegetation (Sussman and Tattersall, 1980). The population is estimated 
to be between 25 000 and 35 000, spread over an area of 40 000 ha of suitable 
habitat. The population density ranges from 0.33 to 1.3 ha-l, being higher 
at low altitudes than on the plateau (Mauritius CITES MA, 1985). 


Palau The introduced population has increased markedly, and is considered a 
threat to crops in the South of Ngeaur Island. The population was estimated to 
be between 480 and 600 in 1973 (Poirier and Smith, 1974). An attempt to 
eradicate the macaques in 1975 did not succeed (Poirier and Farslow, 1984). 


Philippines Listed as "threatened" in 1965, and said to have been greatly 
depleted in numbers by hunting for export to the USA (Rabor, 1968). In 1979, 
Macaques were said to be common and to cause damage to crops (Anon., 1979). 


Singapore Small troops are scattered throughout the catchment area and 
among the mangroves. There was an enormous community in the Botanic Gardens, 
maintained by food from visitors, which caused much damage to the gardens 
(Harrison, 1974), but this has now been eradicated by control measures. There 


are still animals left in the north of the Island (K. MacKinnon, pers. comm., 
1986). 


Thailand There are no estimates of the total population, but 
M. fascicularis is common over much of its wide range, and is the most 
abundant monkey in Thailand (Bain and Humphrey, 1982). The species appears to 
have been eradicated from Samui Island by intensive human colonisation, and is 
absent from much of its former range on the mainland. It has been forced into 
marginal mountainous areas (Wolfheim, 1983). 


USA The introduced population at the Monkey Jungle establishment numbers 
about 100 (USA CITES MA, 1987). No other information. 


Viet Nam Populations are thought to be declining. Near Mount Sontra the 


species was "common" in 1965-66 but “unusual" in 1967-69 (Peenen et al., 
1971). 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY An opportunistic species, M. fascicularis inhabits a 
very wide variety of habitats, from virgin forest to cities, and from the sea 
shore to the mountains. It has been described as an “edge” species, adapted to 
living on the periphery of forests, particularly riverine habitats, and 
thrives in secondary, logged forest and in agricultural areas. It is not 
common in high mountains, but may spread up river valleys and forage in the 
surrounding areas. Population densities are generally greatest near rivers 
(Boonsong Lekagul and McNeely, 1977; MacKinnon, 1983). It is primarily 
arboreal, but likes water and swims well. It is highly gregarious, and groups 


46 


Macaca fascicularis 


of over 100 animals are sometimes seen, although 10-48 is more usual 
(Wolfheim, 1983). MacKinnon (1983) reported a mean group size of 20.8 in 
Indonesia, while Marsh and Wilson (1981) gave a value of 23 in Malaysia. 


Longevity in captivity may be up to 27 years. The species is markedly sexually 
dimorphic; adult females usually weigh 3-4 kg, and males, 5-7 kg. Maximum 
adult head and body lengths are in the range 350-550 mm (tail lengths of 
400-565 mm) (Boonsong Lekagul and McNeely, 1977; Medway, 1978). 


M. fascicularis is omnivorous, preferring fruits, but also feeding on 
vegetative growth, including crop plants. Its name, the crab-eating macaque, 
derives from its liking for crustacea and molluscs, found particularly in 
Mangroves and other coastal environments (Bain and Humphrey, 1982). Fishing 
behaviour has been described in the Nicobar Islands (Devaraj, 1983). 


Breeding occurs all year round, but there is some evidence of seasonality, 
births peaking in June-July in Malaysia (Kavanagh and Laursen, 1984), and in 
March-May in Thailand. The menstrual cycle is 24-52 days, gestation lasting 
for 160-170 days. One young is usually born, which is carried by the mother 
until weaning (Bain and Humphrey, 1982). 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL M. fascicularis tolerates and may even benefit from 
many forms of habitat disturbance, even colonizing cities (Bain and Humphrey, 
1982). However in some areas, habitat destruction is a major cause of 
population decline. Where macaques colonise agricultural land they inevitably 
face pressure from the farmers as they are regarded as pests. MacKinnon (1983) 
points out that in Java over 90% of the forest habitat has been lost, and that 
although this species has previously been regarded as common, it will not 
remain so for long if current rates of deforestation are continued. 


M. fascicularis is hunted both for food and for export. Consumption of 
monkeys is widespread, but may be restricted by religious beliefs, Hindus 
being forbidden to eat them (Ahmad, 1981) and most Moslems also reject them. 
They are considered sacred on Bali (Wolfheim, 1983), although this does not 
protect them from persecution where they conflict with man. Trapping for 
export is often combined with crop-pest control measures, and can be conducted 
in a sustainable manner. However there is evidence that it has led to the 
decline of M. fascicularis populations in Malaysia, Thailand and the 
Philippines. There are many reports of this species causing damage to 
agricultural crops, and they are frequently killed for this reason. This may 
be achieved by traps, shooting or poison (MacKinnon, 1983; Wolfheim, 1983). 


Bangladesh There is said to be no trade in the species, and it is not used 
locally (Bangladesh CITES MA, 1986). 


Brunei No information. 
Burma No information. 
Hong Kong No threat (UK, Hong Kong CITES MA, 1987). 


India The main threat in the Nicobar Islands is habitat destruction. The 
islanders rarely harm the macaques, although animals are occasionally killed 
in response to crop-raiding (Devaraj, 1983). 


Indonesia Although M. fascicularis can live in secondary forest, the 
areas of this cannot make up for the destruction of the original habitat, 
which has declined in area by 66%. It is particularly susceptible to habitat 
loss, as it normally inhabits riverine areas and alluvial plains, which are 
preferred for agricultural expansion. Forest is also lost to logging 


47 


Macaca fascicularis 


operations. Clear-felling is particularly damaging, but selective logging may 
have less effect, as the fruit trees, preferred by the macaques, are often 
left. Initially even selective logging usually reduces primate population 
densities and the animals are dispalced to die in neighbouring habitats. The 
extensive transmigration schemes in Indonesia usually result in_ the 
large scale destruction of habitat and eradication of its primates. 1t is 
planned to open another 2.5 million hectares fur transmigration schemes 
between 1984 and 1989, which would result in the loss of some 500 000 
M. fascicularis (MacKinnon, 1983). 


Macaques are trapped as agricultural pests and also for export. Many of the 
exporters have their own trapping teams as they are able to supply animals of 
a consistently high quality. They trap whole troops at night and release the 
unwanted animals. Others obtain macaques from farmers, whom they pay US$1-5 an 
animal. This method is wasteful, as unwanted sized or sex animals are killed. 
There are three main dealers in Jakarta who often obtain animals from 
subsidiary dealers in Sumatra. Some of the dealers in Sumatra also export 
directly, mainly to Singapore. The main provinces supplying macaques are 
Lampung (4 registered suppliers supplying 250-300 M. fascicularis a month) 
and Sumatra Selantan (7 registered suppliers supplying 300 400 
M. fascicularis a month in Palembang) with considerable numbers of animals 
coming from north and west Sumatra and a few from west Kalimantan. The 
Department of Forest Protection and Conservation of Nature (PHPA) sees 
primates as an important ulilisable resource, and is keen Lo encourage the 
trade on a sustained- yield basis. IL regulates the trade and decides a quota 
for each province. The quota for M. fascicularis declined from 50 000 in 
1978 to 15 000 in 1982/83, 10 450 in 1984, 10 000 in 1985 and 8300 in 1987 
(Indonesia CITES MA, 1987). Wastage in the form of deaths of captured 
primates is usually about 37% but may be as high as 71% in the case of 
trapping by farmers. As this accounts for the majority of primates trapped, it 
was estimated that in 1978, the 14 600 macaques exported represented a total 
of almost 60 000 captured. 1t has been argued that one of the chief factors 
wich contributes to this wastape is the low price of primates, and that this 
should be increased by international agreement. Crop-pest control measures 
also include poisoning, which is highly indiscriminate. Some of the macaques 
trapped may be eaten (MacKinnon, 1983), but this is not common, as most of Lhe 
people are Moslems (Wolfheim, 1983). 


Kampuchea No information. 


Laos The chief threats to macaques are habitat destruction, animal trade, 
hunting for food and bombing during the war. Local people readily consume 
macaques, and they are also used for medicinal purposes. The is a large, 
illegal trade in monkeys (Laos Forest Department, in litt., 1986). 1t is 
believed that Laos provides a route for smuggling wildlife out of Thailand 
(Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). 


Malaysia In Sabah, the chief threat is from hunting, as the species is 
little affected by logging or agricultural development. A few may be killed as 
pests of plantations and gardens (Davies and Payne, 1982). There is no 
evidence of illegal export (Malaysia CITES MA, 1985). There was formerly a 
large export trade of M. fascicularis from Peninsular Malaysia, but this was 
prohibited in 1984 (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). The species is most commonly 
kept as a pet (Harrison, 1974), and is occasionally hunted fur food. 1t causes 
damage to crops, and is persecuted for this reason (Wolfhcim, 1983). 


Mauritius Habitat destruction is believed to have reduced the range and 
numbers of macaques on the island (Sussman and Tattersall, 1980). Some have 
been trapped for breeding and export, and the potential for expanding these 
aclivilies is recognised (Caldecott and Kavanagh, 1984). The numbers exported 


48 


Macaca fascicularis 


so far have been low. A negligible number of animals are killed for food, and 
a few may have been caught for breeding in captivity (Mauritius CITES MA, 
1985). Antipathy to the introduced population of macaques derives from its 
depradation on the sugar cane plantations, and on its disputed role in eating 
the eggs of rare endemic birds, especially Nesoenas mayeri and Falco 
Punctatus (Sussman and Tattersall, 1980; Lever, 1985). 


Palau Legislation was introduced in 1975 "to effectively control the 
population of monkeys to the point of extinction". This attempt at eradication 
did not succeed, but the situation in Ngeaur is still precarious. It is 
illegal to introduce female monkeys to other islands. The forest habitat on 
Ngeaur Island has been devastated once by bombing, and twice by typhoons since 
1941, but the macaque population survived. The gravest threat currently is 
hunting with guns. Usually mothers with infants are shot so that the young can 
be sold as pets in Oreor (Poirier and Farslow, 1984). 


Philippines Said to have been greatly depleted by hunting for the export 
trade, aggravated by Government apathy in enforcing conservation practices 
(Rabor, 1968). Kavanagh (1984) pointed out that the numbers of 
M. fascicularis exported had risen dramatically since the Indian ban on the 
export of primates, imposed in 1978, and so this pressure is likely to have 
become worse. Habitat destruction is proceeding at alarming rates in the 
Philippines. It has been estimated that 80 000 ha of forest are destroyed 
annually, half of which is illegal. At this rate all lowland forest of 
commercial value will have been lost by the early 1990s (Anon., 1983). 


Singapore The population of macaques in the Botanic Garden has been 
eradicated by poisoning (K. MacKinnon, pers. comm., 1986). There is no 
information indicating any trade in macaques originating in Singapore, 
although it is known to act as an entrepot for much wildlife trade from South 
East Asia. 


Thailand Said to be the least threatened primate in Thailand, although it 
is susceptible to depletion by the export trade (Bain and Humphrey, 1982). It 
has been reported that this form of exploitation has resulted in population 
declines in the country (Nordin and Samian, 1981, fide MacKinnon, 1983). 
Until 1976, Thailand was a major exporter of primates. Since this was made 
illegal in 1975, the trade has continued at very much reduced rates (Kavanagh 
and Bennett, 1984). M. fascicularis is often trapped for pets and to star in 
the local "monkey shows" (Boonsong Lekagul and McNeely, 1977), and is 
occasionally hunted for food. It is widely blamed and periodically persecuted 
for crop raiding (Wolfheim, 1983). 


Habitat loss and human population pressure has been blamed for the reduction 
in numbers of M. fascicularis in both mainland and island sites (Wolfheim, 
1983). 


Viet Nam There is some internal trade in macaques, mainly for biomedical 
research (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE An analysis of the international trade in primates has 
recently been published by Kavanagh (1984), with additional information on 
imports to the USA by Mack and Eudey (1984). The bulk of the information comes 
from Annual Reports to CITES, but a few additional export figures are 
available. All the reported trade was in live animals, and the great majority 
of this is believed to have been destined for biomedical research (Kavanagh, 
1984). 


The CITES reports are summarised in Tables 1 and 2; only trade in live animals 
was considered. The minimum volume of world trade in M. fascicularis, 


49 


Macaca fascicularis 


indicated by CITES reports, fluctuated between about 16 000 and 28 000 in the 
years 1980 to 1985 (Table 1). The major net importing countries were Canada, 
France, F.R. Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden, Taiwan, UK, USA, USSR and 
Yugoslavia. Many of the macaques originating in the Philippines are reported 
as having been re-exported from the USA. Formerly M. mulatta was the most 
important macaque used in biomedical research, and India was the chief 
exporter. This trade effectively ceased in 1978 when India banned the export 
of live primates, and the trade switched to A. fascicularis, whereupon 
Indonesia became the largest supplier (Kavanagh, 1984). From 1968-72 AM. 
mulatta formed 28% of all primate imports to the USA and M. fascicularis 
only 2%. From 1976-1980 the respective proportions were 20% and 39% (Mack and 
Eudey, 1984). 


Table 1. Minimum net commercial imports of live M. fascicularis reported to 
CITES. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
area ree ne Fee seen | ees ee ee eee 
Australia 222 100 200 175 - 50 
Belgium 40 170 160 15 - 292 
Canada 1102 725 1302 1832 1248 1128 
China - - - - 1 = 
Colombia - - - - - 30 
Cuba - - - - - 2 
Cyprus - - - - - 1 
Denmark - - - - 8 - 
France 18457 1701 1542 1062 532 1310 
Gabon - 64 - - - - 
Germany F.R. 280 227 610 411 123 280 
Hong Kong - - - 44 - 3 1 
Hungary - - - - - 4 
India - - - - - 2 
Ireland 4 - - - - - 
Iraq 20 - - - - - 
Iceland 3 - - - - - 
Italy 625 1385 720 1292 717 474 
Japan 710 1715 1855 2977 1631 2239 
Malta - - - - - 31 
Mexico - 100 - - - - 
Netherlands - 300 - 230 - - 
Poland - - - - 2 - 
Romania - - 110 150 14 6 
Singapore - - 10 15 9 - 
S. Africa - 32 - - - - 
S. Korea - - - 2 - - 
Spain - 40 33 46 60 80 
Sweden 783 1020 523 375 451 512 
Switzerland 12 20 12 26 - - 
Taiwan - 762 1204 3857 3745 3206 
UK 2185 929 2628 1596 1619 3729 
USA - 11731 7056 9414 5313 7781 
USSR - 990 430 830 325 320 
Yugoslavia - 550 640 660 370 600 
Unknown 3104 2927 - 50 75 5 
Total 28177 25491 19035 25059 16246 22020 


50 


Macaca fascicularis 


Table 2a. Reported countries of origin or export for commercial exports of 
live M. fascicularis reported to CITES. 


eee —SSSsSeSFSeFeF 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


¡€_XÉo-_——_ 0000 


Countries with wild populations of M. fascicularis 


Bangladesh 3 - - = = es 
Hong Kong - - - - 1 - 
India 50 475 - - 41 _ 
Indonesia 7787 13337 10055 14419 7937 8508 
Malaysia 4844 4757 3949 3150 568 2 
Mauritius - - - - - 50 
Philippines 19185 7261 4033 7490 7698 13485 
Singapore 7 - - - 1 - 
Thailand - - 50 - = = 
USA 62 18 259 1897 1352 1393 
Countries without wild populations of M. fascicularis 

Canada - - 5 27 - 154 
Ethiopia - 10 - ~ - - 
Germany F.R. - - 150 - - - 
Japan - - 27 3 - - 
Kenya - - - - - 15 
Netherlands - - - - 16 8 
Sweden - - - - 8 13 
Switzerland 17 - - - 25 30 
UAE - - - - - 1 
UK 460 398 298 - - 50 
Unknown 719 640 2125 527 15 4 


Table 2b. Exports of M. fascicularis reported from other sources. 


1 - Department of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation, Indonesia 
(in litt. to CITES, 27 January 1986) 
2 - MacKinnon (1983) 
3 - Malaysian Federal Department of Wildlife and National Parks (Kavanagh, 
1984) 
4 - Ministry of Natural Resources, Philippines (in litt. to CITES, 10 
March 1986) 
5 - Ministry of Natural Resources, Philippines (Kavanagh, 1984). 
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
A A e: PE a RARA AA eee eee 
Indonesia 1 - 11568 7806 6830 8340 - 
2 14379 13263 14790 - - = 
Malaysia 3 3104 2928 - - = = 
Philippines 4 - - - - 11025 13399 
5 6138 5959 - - = = 


ae EE EEE Eee ee eee 


Macaca fascicularis 


The reported countries of origin for M. fascicularis in trade are shown in 
Table 2a. The major exporting countries were the Philippines, Indonesia and 
Malaysia, although exports from the latter dropped sharply in 1984 after a ban 
was imposed. Exports apparently originating in countries without wild 
populations probably represent re-exports not specified as such, as do those 
Originating in the USA. Very few of the animals in trade in any year were 
recorded as captive-bred. 


Figures for exports of M. fascicularis have also been obtained from other 
sources, and these are shown in Table 2b. These indicate that the numbers of 
M. fascicularis exported may be even higher that those reported to CITES, 
particularly in the case of the Philippines. The CITES Management Authority 
of Mauritius (1987) stated that about 500 animals a year are trapped from the 


wild for export from there to the United Kingdom, but this trade is not 
reflected in the CITES data. 


CONSERVATION MEASURES 


Bangladesh The Bangladesh Wildlife (Preservation) Order 1973 bans the 
capture, possession and trade of all primates, but the ban is occasionally 
relaxed to allow export of Macaca mulatta (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). 


Brunei M. fascicularis is not a protected species in Brunei, but the 


export of all primates is forbidden except under licence (Kavanagh and 
Bennett, 1984). 


Burma The export of all live animals requires a licence, which is only 


granted for the purposes of exchange with foreign zoos (Kavanagh and Bennett, 
1984). 


Hong Kong Macaques are totally protected. The import, export and possession 
of all primates requires a licence (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). 


India There has been a blanket ban on the export of all primates from India 
since 1978 (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). M. fascicularis is protected under 
the local Wildlife Act in the Nicobar Islands. It was suggested that 
conservation efforts should be initiated in the South of Great Nicobar Island 
to prevent further destruction of the rich evergreen forest (Devaraj, 1983). 


Indonesia M. fascicularis is not protected in Indonesia, but permits are 
required for local transport and export (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). The 
Department of Forest Protection and Conservation of Nature (PHPA) sets quotas 
for the export of primates from different provinces, and issues permits to the 
dealers (MacKinnon, 1983). M. fascicularis occurs in most of the reserves 
within its range. Sumatra: occurs in several reserves, including Gunung 
Leuser, Kerinci and Way Kambas, total area of suitable habitat in reserves, 
3542 km?. Kalimantan: occurs in several reserves, including Kutai and 
Tanjung Puting, total area of suitable habitat in reserves, 3474 km?. Java: 
occurs in several reserves, including Ujung Kulon, Pangandaran and Baluran, 
total area of suitable habitat in reserves, 179 km?. Nusa Tenggara: occurs 
in several reserves, including Bali Barat, total area of suitable habitat in 
reserves, 330 km? (MacKinnon, 1983). 


Kampuchea No information. 
Laos A ban on all wildlife exports was imposed on 28 October 1986. 
Malaysia Peninsular: M. fascicularis is protected and licences were only 


granted for export for scientific purposes (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). From 
June 1984, exports of all live primates have been banned (Anon., 1984a). 


52 


Macaca fascicularis 


Sabah: trapping is regulated, and exports of primates are not allowed. 
Sarawak: primates may not be exported without a licence. No licences have been 
issued in recent years (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). 


Mauritius Exports of M. fascicularis require a permit (Kavanagh and 
Bennett, 1984). It is felt that the macaque deserves protection especially 
because it provides an interesting example of genetic adaptation of a small 
founding stock to a new environment (Sussman and Tattersall, 1980; Lever, 
1985). 


Palau The islands, as part of the Pacific Trust Territory, are covered by 
the US accession to CITES. Official attitudes to the introduced macaques are 
broadly adverse, although the earlier attempts at eradication have been 
suspended. It is illegal to introduce female monkeys to other islands. It is 
thought that the macaques deserve protection as they provide an interesting 
subject for a genetic study of a colonising popularion (Poirier and Farslow, 
1984). 


Philippines M. fascicularis may be trapped and exported under licence 
(Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). 


Singapore Wildlife exports are allowed under permit (Kavanagh and Bennett, 
1984). 


Thailand The hunting, trading and export of all primates has been banned 
since 1975, except for approved scientific research. Individuals are allowed 
to keep a maximum of two animals of any indigenous species as pets, and this 
makes it difficult to prosecute wildlife traders (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). 


Viet Nam No information. 


Table 3. Legal prohibition on the hunting, internal trade and commercial 
export of M. fascicularis. Dates are those on which the legislation came 
into force. A - All live animals & parts; L - Live animals only; P - Allowed 
under permit; Z - Permits issued for zoological purposes only; ? - no 
information (Kavanagh and Bennett, 1984). 


Entry into Hunting Internal Commercial 
force trade export 
a eee EE EE A A A 
Bangladesh 1982 A A A 
Brunei - ? ? A 
Burma - ? ? Z 
Hong Kong 1976 A A P 
India 1976 A A A 
Indonesia 1979 - - P 
Kampuchea - ? ? ? 
Laos - ? ? A 
Malaysia (Peninsular) 1978 ? P P 
Malaysia (Sarawak) 1978 ? P P 
Malaysia (Sabah) 1978 ? ? A 
Mauritius 1975 ? ? P 
Palau 1975 ? P P 
Philippines 1981 ? P P 
Singapore = ? ? P 
Thailand 1983 ? A A 
USA 1975 P P P 
Viet Nam = ? ? ? 


EL A A A A A A SS ed 


53 


Macaca fascicularis 


CAPTIVE BREEDING M. fascicularis is one of the primates most widely used 
for biomedical research, and since the ban on exports of live primates from 
India, imposed in 1978, it has been steadily supplanting Macaca mulatta, as 
the most commonly used Old World monkey. The numbers of M. fascicularis used 
and bred in biomedical research institutes in consumer countries are 
summarised in Table 4. It is clear that the great majority of macaques used 
are obtained from the wild, but there is perceived to be a trend towards 
increased breeding. Many research institutes breed their own primates, but 
surplus animals are often sold to other organisations. There are also a small 
number of organisations which specialise in the import or breeding of primates 
for resale. Most research institutes express a preference for captive-bred 
primates, because the quality is usually higher, they have fewer diseases, and 
they can be from known genetic strains. Captive-bred primates generally 
command higher prices than wild-caught animals for this reason, although there 
is still a substantial demand for much cheaper wild animals. In Japan, a 
captive-bred M. fascicularis costs US$5000. Even in Indonesia it is thought 
that captive-bred animals should fetch US$1250 as compared with US$40-100 for 
a wild-caught animal (MacKinnon, 1983; Caldecott and Kavanagh, 1984; Eudey and 
Mack, 1984). Macaques from the Philippines are generally cheaper, and even 
captive-bred ones may sell for as little as US$500. However the fact that many 
institutes are changing from M. mulatta to M. fascicularis, in spite of 
the fact that several breeding centres in the USA had already started large 
breeding programmes for M. mulatta, indicates that a steady and substantial 
supply of cheap wild-caught animals is more important. The USA is the world's 
largest user of primates for biomedical research, but so far has very few 
breeding facilities for M. fascicularis. In 1978 the Interagency Primate 
Steering Committee recommended establishing colonies capable of producing 
3000-6000 animals annually, but this has not been implemented, probably 


because the ready supply of wild animals makes it unnecessary (Eudey and Mack, 
1984). 


Primate breeding centres exist in several producer countries to supply the 
export market. The centres all combine breeding with the supply of animals 
direct from the wild. Often the animals are held in captivity for a period 
prior to export for quarantine purposes and to allow them to gain condition. 
The operations are summarised below. 


Indonesia There are thought to be three primate centres in Indonesia, all 
near Jakarta. Breeding is planned at one of these, located near Jakarta 
airport, which trades under the name of Cenkareng Primelab. In 1983, all the 
primates were wild-caught from near Lampung, but a breeding programme was 
expected to start later in the year. The centre had a stock of 200 
M. fascicularis, 20 Macaca nemestrina, 10 Presbytis cristata, and 10 
Presbytis melalophus (Anon., 1984b). 


It has been suggested that macaques are very suitable for ranching operations 
in semi-wild conditions, as they can achieve high densities if provided with 
supplementary food. Costs of producing four-year-old animals can be as low as 
US$100 each. Small islands or areas of selectively logged forest, unsuitable 


for agriculture where proposed as potential sites for ranching in Indonesia 
(MacKinnon, 1983). 


Malaysia There was only one primate breeding centre in Malaysia, Research 
Primates at Selangor. The operation started in 1976 and had a stock of 571 
M. fascicularis in 1983. An average of 178 were bred annually at the centre 
from 1980 to 1982, and additional wild-caught macaques were also exported 
(Anon., 1984b). The operation is believed to have closed when the ban on 
primate exports from Malaya was implemented in 1984, and all the stock was 
released into the wild (Caldecott and Kavanagh, 1984). 


54 


Macaca fascicularis 


Philippines A breeding centre for M. fascicularis was started in 1983, 
taking a stock of breeding females from the wild in 1983 and 1984. Additional 
wild-caught macaques were to be exported after a 6- to 8-week quarantine and 
conditioning period. Located at Tanay, SICONBREC (Simian Conservation Breeding 
and Research Centre) is owned by a British Company, Intersimian, which breeds 
and imports primates (Anon., 1984b). A commercial publicity brochure 
indicated that the stock at the end of 1986 comprised 1300 animals. Full 
capacity of 7000 females was expected to be attained by 1990. 


Table 4. Approximate numbers of M. fascicularis used and bred in biomedical 
research institutes in consumer countries. a 1977; b 1978; c 1980; d 1981; e 
1982; ? present, numbers unknown; - no information. Sources: Caldecott and 
Kavanagh, 1984; Eudey and Mack, 1984; Anon., 1984b. 


Country No used No bred 

Pe AAA AAA AA A 
Australia >52 e >14 e 
Belgium <200 a Oa 
Canada ca 2400 b ?.b 
Denmark ca 90 a Oa 
France 2100 a >95 e 
Germany, F.R. ca 475 a 371 a 
Greece ?.b - 
Ireland 3 b 0b 
Italy ca 450 c ? 
Japan 2046 e 357 e 
Mexico ? - 
Netherlands ca 700 a 114 d 
Sweden 1645 b 43 b 
Switzerland >64 c 2d 
Taiwan ? 0 

UK 568 b 68 d 
USA 6005 d 433 d 
AE AA A A A A A  — 

REFERENCES 
Ahmad, A.M. (1981). Forest as a source of food: Malaysia. Tigerpaper 8(3): 


9-16. 

Alcasid, G.L. (1970). A checklist of Philippine mammals. National Museum of 
the Philippines, Manilla, 51 pp. 

Anon. (1979). Philippine mammals: nature's treasures. Ministry of Natural 
Resources, Quezon City. 

Anon. (1983). Philippine National Conservation Strategy. A strategy for 
sustainable development. Haribon Society, Manilla. 

Anon. (1984a). Malaysia bans monkey exports. Traffic Bulletin 5(5/6): 51. 

Anon. (1984b). A survey of wildlife farming operations. Confidential report by 
the Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit, IUCN, Cambridge. 

Bain, J.R. and Humphrey, S.R. (1980). A profile of the endangered species of 
Thailand. Report No. 4. Office of Ecological Services, Florida State 
Museum, 604 pp. 

Bennett, E.L., Caldecott, J.0. and Davison, G.W.H. (1984). A wildlife survey 
of Ulu Temburong, Brunei. Unpublished, 61 pp. 

Boonsong Lekagul and McNeely, J.A. (1977). Mammals of Thailand. 
Association for the Conservation of Wildlife, Bangkok, 758 pp. 

Caldecott, J.0. and Kavanagh, M. (1984). Use of primates and captive breeding 
programs outside the United States. In: Mack, D. and Mittermeier, R.A. 
(eds), The international primate trade, Volume 1. Traffic(USA), 
Washington, pp. 137-152. 


55 


Macaca fascicularis 


Davies, G. and Payne, J. (1982). A faunal survey of Sabah. WWF Malaysia, 
Kuala Lumpur, 279 pp. 

Devaraj, B.V. (1983). Distribution study of the Nicobar Crab-eating Macaque. 
IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group Newsletter 3: 27-28. 

Eudey, A and Mack, D. (1984). Use of primates and captive breeding programmes 
in the United States. In: Mack, D. and Mittermeier, R.A. (eds), The 
international primate trade, Volume 1. Traffic(USA), Washington, pp. 
153-180. 

Fooden, J. (1971). Report on primates collected in western Thailand, 
January-April, 1967. Fieldiana Zoology 59(1): 1-62. 

Harrison, J. (1974). An introduction to the mammals of Singapore and 
Malaysia (2nd impression). Singapore Branch, Malayan Nature Society, 
340 pp. 

Kavanagh, M. (1984). A review of the international primate trade. In: Mack, D. 
and Mittermeier, R.A. (eds), The international primate trade, Volume 1. 
Traffic(USA), Washington, pp. 49-89. 

Kavanagh, M. and Bennett, E. (1984). A synopsis of legislation and the primate 
trade in habitat and user countries. In: Mack, D. and Mittermeier, R.A. 
(eds), The international primate trade, Volume 1. Traffic(USA), 
Washington, pp. 19-48. 

Kavanagh, M. and Laursen, E. (1984). Breeding seasonality among Long-tailed 
Macaques, Macaca fascicularis, in Peninsular Malaysia. International 
Journal of Primatology 5(1): 17-29. 

Khan, M.A.R. (1985). Mammals of Bangladesh. Nazma Reza, Dhaka, 92pp. 

Khan, M.K.b.M. (1978). Man's impact on the primates of Peninsular Malaysia. 
In: Chivers, D.J. and Lane-Petter, W. (eds), Recent advances in 
primatology, Volume 2, Conservation, Academic Press, London, pp. 41-46. 

Lever, C. (1985). Naturalized mammals of the world. Longman, Harlow, UK, 
487 pp. 

Mack, D. and Eudey, A. (1984). A review of the U.S. primate trade. In: Mack, 
D. and Mittermeier, R.A. (eds), The international primate trade, Volume 
1. Traffic(USA), Washington, pp. 91-136. à 

MacKinnon, K.S. (1983). WHO primate resources programme. Feasibility study: 
phase II. WHO Unpublished Report, 67 pp. + appendices. 

Marsh, C.W. and Wilson, W.L. (1981). A survey of primates in Peninsular 
Malaysian forests. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and University of 
Cambridge, UK. 107 pp. 

Marshall, P. (1967). Wild mammals of Hong Kong. Oxford University Press, UK, 
64 pp. 

Medway, Lord (1977). Mammals of Borneo. Monographs of the Malaysian Branch of 
the Royal Asiatic Society 7: 1-172. 

Medway, Lord (1978). The wild mammals of Malaya (Peninsular Malaysia) and 
Singapore, 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press, UK, 128 pp. 

Mitchell, A. (1983). Conservation of the Simalur Island Macaque, Indonesia. 
IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group Newsletter 3: 32-33. 

Mittermeier, R.A. (1982). Brunei protects its wildlife. Oryx 16(1): 67-70. 

Napier, P.H. and Napier, J. (1967). A handbook of living primates. Academic 
Press, London, 456 pp. 

Nordin, M. and Samian, H. (1981). The primate trade in Malaysia. Malaysian 
Applied Biology 10(2): 183-196. 

Peenen, P.F.D. van, Ryan, P. and Light, R. (1969). Preliminary identification 
manual for mammals of South Vietnam. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 
320 pp. 

Poirier, F.E. and Farslow, D. (1984). Status of the crab-eating macaque on 
Angaur Island. IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group Newsletter 4: 42-43. 

Poirier, F.E. and Smith, E.O. (1974). The crab-eating macaques of Angaur 
Island. Folia Primatologia 21: 258-306. 


56 


Macaca fascicularis 


Rabor, D.S. (1968). Threatened species of small mammals in tropical south east 
Asia: The problem in the Philippines. In: Talbot, L.M. and Talbot, M.H. 
(eds), Conservation in Tropical South East Asia. IUCN Publication 
(N.S.), No. 10, pp. 272-274. 

Roots, C. (1976) Animal invaders. David and Charles, Newton Abbot. 

Sussman, R.W. and Tattersall, I. (1980). A preliminary study of the 
Crab-eating Macaque (Macaca fascicularis) in Mauritius. Mauritius 
Institute Bulletin 9(1): 31-51. 

Tweedie, M.W.F. (1978). Mammals of Malaysia. Longman Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 
87 pp. 

Wilson, C.C. and Wilson, W.L. (1976). Behavioural and morphological variation 
among primate populations in Sumatra. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 
20: 207-233. 

Wolfheim, J.H. (1983). Primates of the world, distribution, conservation and 
abundance. University of Washington Press, Seattle, 832 pp. 

Yong-Zu Zhang, Sung Wang and Gou-Qiang Quan (1981). On the geographical 
distribution of primates in China. Journal of Human Evolution 10: 
215-226. 


57 


CULPEO Recommended list: 2 
[Possible problem] 
Dusicyon culpaeus (Molina, 1782) 


Order CARNIVORA Family CANIDAE 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A widespread species, occurring in the Andean and 
Palagonian regions of South America from Ecuador and possibly Colombia as far 
south as Tierra del Fuego, from sea level to around 4500 m. Although il is 
generally reported to favour open habitats, in Patagonia it is apparently more 
an animal of wooded areas, its place on the open plains being taken by 


Dusicyon griseus. A study in central Argentina found the Culpeo to be 
monoestrous, with births (3-8 young recorded, mean 5) in October-December 
after a gestation of c. 55-60 days. It is principally carnivorous, in 


Argentina feeding particularly on intoduced hares (Lepus capensis) and 
rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus); the extent to which it hunts larger prey is 
unclear, though in most parts of its range it is intensively persecuted 
(sometimes with official sanction) as an alleged killer of livestock, 
especially sheep. Despite such persecution, it appears to remain widespread 
and moderately abundant, though no detailed population figures are available. 
Although it has been argued that clearance of forests and woodland in 
Patagonia to increase areas of pasturage for livestock (principally sheep) has 
been detrimental to the species, elswhere land use changes may have actually 
favoured it, by increasing populations of hares and rabbits. 


Virtually all trade reported to CITES since 1980 originated in Argentina; 
numbers traded were relatively low (maximum of c. 3500 in 1982), especially 
when compared with trade in the congeneric D. griseus (up to 150 000 per 
year). Argentinian customs statistics for the 1970s indicate a somewhat 
higher volume of trade (c. 12 600 per year) though this is also small compared 
to that in D. griseus; there was also some export from Chile until the late 
1970s, but the species has been protected there since 1980. 


From these figures, and the apparent absence of exports from other countries 
of its range, it seems very unlikely that international trade is a significant 
threat to the species, or even that the present level of trade has any 
deleterious effect on the population in Argentina, although it has been argued 
that its local scarcity (e.g. on Isla Grande of Tierra del Fuego) is a result 
of intensive hunting for the fur trade. 


DISTRIBUTION Andean and Patagonian regions of South America in Ecuador, 
Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina and possibly Colombia. 


Members of the genus Dusicyon are sometimes included in Canis (Pine et 
al., 1979; Langguth, 1975). 


Argentina Recorded throughout mainland Patagonia (Chubut and Santa Cruz 
Provinces) and on Isla Grande of Tierra del Fuego, and further north 
throughout western Argentina on the slopes and foothills of the Andes 
(Cabrera, 1957; Crespo and DeCarlo, 1963; Olrog and Lucero, 1980). There 
appears to be a small disjunct population east of this in the Sierras Grandes, 
part of the Sierra de Cordoba, Cordoba Province at around 31°S (Cabrera, 1957; 
Crespo and DeCarlo, 1963). In Neuquen Province the fox was found down to an 
altitude of c. 700 m; the factors limiting its extension eastwards into the 
arid lowlands here were not known, though Crespo (1975) noted that during the 
past 40 years the species appeared to extend its range eastwards after seasons 
of high rainfall. Overall, its distribution in Argentina was estimated to 
encompass perhaps 1 100 000 sq. km (Argentina CITES MA, 1986). 


58 


Dusicyon culpaeus 


Bolivia Apparently occurs in the Andean region though no details are 
available (Cabrera, 1957). 


Chile The species is widespread, occurring from the extreme south, 
including Cabo de Hornos (Cape Horn) to the northern border with Peru. Found 
on Isla Grande of Tierra del Fuego and Isla Hoste in the Cabo de Hornos 
Archipelago, though apparently absent from Isla Navarino (Cabrera, 1957; 
Fuentes and Jaksic, 1979; Osgood, 1943). Within Chile, as in the rest of the 
its range, the species appears to be found at increasingly lower altitudes 
towards the south. Thus in central Chile it is recorded mainly from 
mountainous areas in the Cordillera de los Andes, though also in coastal hills 
near Valparaiso - north of this it appears absent from the coastal plains 
(Crespo and DeCarlo, 1963; Fuentes and Jaksic, 1979; Osgood, 1943). Further 
south, in Malleco, Greer (1965) stated it was found in the central valley as 
well as in more mountainous regions. 


Colombia Honacki et al. (1982) give its distribution as extending into 
Colombia, and it is listed on Colombian legislation, though no other reference 
to its presence there has been located. 


Ecuador Found in the Andean region, at least as far north as Cotopaxi in 
Pichincha Province (Cabrera, 1957). 


Peru Grimwood (1969) reported it as ubiquitous throughout the Andean region 
up to at least 4500 m, being also found on the upper parts of the western 
slopes of the Andes, where it is known to descend to at least 1000 m. On the 
eastern slopes the species apparently never descended to true forest though 
was found in the drier parts of the 'ceja de selva' region (upper limit of 
forested areas down to around 2500 m). 


POPULATION No figures are available, though the species appears to remain 
widespread and sometimes common; there is no evidence that it is threatened 
with extinction at present. 


Argentina Overall estimates of abundance are not available, though Crespo 
(1975) noted that in general the species appeared to have maintained dense 
populations despite intensive persecution for many years. In 1986 it was 
described as most abundant in the south of the country (Argentina CITES MA, 
1986). Crespo and DeCarlo (1963) estimated a density of 0.72 foxes per sq. km 
(over an area of 18 sq. km) at their study site in southern Neuquen in the 
early 1960s. They noted that, on the basis of anecdotal information, the 
species appeared to have undergone a significant and sustained increase in 
density in the province around 1910-1915 when there was a change in land use 
from intensive horse-rearing and a small amount of cattle-rearing to 
sheep-grazing, this coinciding with a marked increase in abundance of the 
introduced European Hare which, along with sheep, has become the most abundant 
food item (see Habitat and Ecology). To what extent this is paralleled 
elsewhere in the species's range is unclear. In 1981 it was described as rare 
and possibly in danger of extirpation in Salta Province, northern Argentina 
(Mares et al., 1981) and it is apparently scarce on Isla Grande of Tierra 
del Fuego, though has been so at least since the 1930s (Jaksic and Yanez, 
1983; Osgood, 1943). 


Bolivia No information. 


Chile It has been stated as becoming generally scarce in Chile, though 
there is little detailed information (Anon., 1978; Fuentes and Jaksic, 1979). 
Osgood (1943) noted that D. culpaeus appeared to be relatively scarce in the 
extreme south, where it had been persistently pursued for the fur market, and 
was very scarce on Tierra del Fuego; it did however seem to be quite common in 


59 


Dusicyon culpaeus 


central Chile, while Greer (1965) stated it to be the most widespread canid in 
Malleco and Olrog (1950) described it as common on Isla Hoste in the Cabo de 
Hornos Archipelago. Pine et al. (1979) reported that the northern 
subspecies D. c. andinus did not appear to be abundant on the altiplano. 


Ecuador No information. 


Peru Grimwood (1969) reported it as abundant throughout its range, despite 
heavy persecution; he considered it to be in no need of protection at that 
time. 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY The species has been the subject of studies in both 
Argentina (Crespo and DeCarlo, 1963) and Chile (Fuentes and Jaksic, 1979; 
Jaksic et al., 1980). The Culpeo is found in a wide variety of habitats. 
It has been stated to prefer more open country from the Patagonian plains al 
or near sea level in the far south to the Andean altiplano, at up to 4500 m, 
further north, where indications are it is absent from low-lying regions 
(Crespo, 1975; Fuentes and Jaksic, 1979; Grimwood, 1969; Osgood, 1943). 
Crespo (1975) notes that it may be found in dense forests of the Patagonian 
region though this is not a characteristic habitat, although Duran et al. 
(1985) considered Culpeo habitat in Southern Chile to be exploited or virgin 
forest and hill areas, open lowland areas being inhabited by the Argentine 
Grey Fox (Dusicyon griseus). Greer (1965) noted that in Malleco Province, 
central Chile, it was found in open or cultivated lands and wooded areas in 
the central valley and rocky slopes in mountainous regions. The species is 
very largely carnivorous. Crespo and DeCarlo (1963) found in their study site 
at Neuquen that diet consisted of c. 62% rodents and lagomorphs, 27% domestic 
animals (almost all sheep) and 6% wild birds. Hares (Lepus europaeus) were 
the most important single items, comprising c. 35% of the total diet, followed 
by sheep. Jaksic et al. (1980) in central Chile found that rodents were the 
most important prey items, accounting for 70-75% of the total, though rabbits 
(Oryctolagus cuniculus) were also important, comprising 18% of the total. 
Berries of the bushes Cryptocarya alba and Lithraea caustica were 
identified in around 12% of scats examined. It was thought likely the Culpeos 
fed on these opportunistically, although the proportion of berries consumed 
increased from spring to autumn, possibly compensating for a coincident 
decrease in availability of rodents. To what extent the Culpeo is a predator 
of larger animals, including domestic livestock, is unclear. Grimwood (1969) 
noted that in Peru its scats often contained large amounts of Vicuna wool, 
though it was not known if the Culpeos were actively hunting or feeding on 
carrion. In many parts of its range it is certainly regarded as a dangerous 
stock-killer, especially with regard to sheep, and particularly lambs (Allen, 
1905; Crespo, 1975; Grimwood, 1969); Greer (1965), however, observed that 
local people in Malleco considered it did little harm to livestock except 
occasionally eating chickens. Crespo and DeCarlo (1963) found Culpeos to be 
monoestrus at their study site in Neuquen, with oestrus from August to October 
and births generally from October to December following a pregnancy of 55 to 
60 days. In six pregnant females, from 3 to 8 embryos were recorded (mean 
5.16). They found that 7-month-old young had the same weight and measurements 
as adults and that males were sexually mature at less that one year old, so 
can presumably breed the first season after they are born. 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL The overall consequences of land-use changes on Culpeo 
populations are unclear. Duran et al. (1985) have argued that burning and 
clearing of forest areas in Chilean Patagonia for conversion to grazing lands 
for sheep has benefitted the Argentine Grey Fox (Dusicyon griseus) to the 
detriment of the Culpeo; however as noted above, change of stock in some areas 
from horses to sheep appears to have positively benefitted it, as does the 
increase in range and abundance of introduced hares and rabbits. Crespo 
(Argentina CITES MA, 1986) noted that in Argentina habitat condition in large 


60 


Dusicyon culpaeus 


parts of its range was eminently suitable for the species. In areas where the 
Culpeo is reported scarce this is usually attributed to intensive persecution 
because of its (real or alleged) depradations on livestock or for the fur 
trade - its tameness and curiosity, attested to by early writers (Allen, 1905; 
Osgood, 1943), have apparently made it somewhat vulnerable in this regard, 
although whether this is the case throughout its range is unclear. In Chubut 
Province in Argentina poisoned carcasses are reportedly used as part of an 
officially sanctioned campaign against the Culpeo (Anon., 1985). 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE This species is used extensively in the fur trade. 
Mares and Ojeda (1982) record that in the period 1972-79, 101 251 pelts of 
this species were legally exported from Argentina, an average of 12 656 per 
annum. They quote an export value of US$76 per pelt for 1979, when 4278 were 
exported. Figures provided by the Chilean CITES Management Authority in 
support of the proposal to list this species in Appendix II in 1979 detailed 
skin exports for 1975-77 as follows: 1975: 1400; 1976: 2800; and 1977: 5000. 
Since 1980 the species has been protected in Chile (see below); export figures 
for 1978-79 are not available. All CITES-recorded trade for 1980-83, except 
one transaction with country of origin unknown and one skin from Chile, 
originated in Argentina (Tables 1 and 2 below). 


Table 1. Apparent minimum net imports of skins of Dusicyon culpaeus 
reported to CITES, 1980-85 [excluding the relatively few transactions recorded 
as plates]. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
Chile - 25 9 - - 15 
France - - 1000 - - - 
Germany, F.R. - 221 851 1040 - 120 
ltaly - 1512 34 - - - 
Japan - - - - 1 - 
Peru - - 9 - - - 
Spain - 500 1460 100 300 - 
Switzerland 3 - - - - - 
USA - - 211 40 44 52 
Total $I 2258 3574 1180 345 187 


Table 2. Reported countries of origin (or exporting country if no original 
source reported) and quantities of transactions in skins of Dusicyon 
culpaeus reported to CITES, 1980-85. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


Country of origin within range of D. culpaeus 


Argentina 2 2258 3526 1180 345 187 
Chile 5 E E = te 


Country of origin unknown 


Unknown = ë 48 = be 


D'ELLES A ee eee ee A A A A 


61 


Dusicyon culpaeus 

Although these figures are clearly substantially lower than those quoted above 
for the whole period 1972-79, quantities for 1981 and 1982 are the same order 
of magnitude as that for 1979. 


CONSERVATION MEASURES Reported to occur in several protected areas within 
its range (IUCN, 1982). 


Argentina Not protected. 


Bolivia Not protected, although Bolivia has introduced a blanket ban on all 
wildlife exports (Decreto Supremo No. 21312) valid until June 1989. 


Chile Protected under Decreto No. 354 of 10 Dec 1980; hunting of this 


species for scientific purposes may be authorised by the Servicio Agricola y 
Ganadero. 


Colombia Legally protected under Resolucion No. 848, 6 August 1973. 


Ecuador Legal status unknown, though in 1985 it was reported that Ecaudor 
did not allow any commercial export of wildlife (Fuller et al., 1987). 


Peru Not protected. 


CAPTIVE BREEDING No information. 


REFERENCES 
Allen, J.A. (1905). Mammalia of southern Patagonia. Reports of the 
Princeton University Expeditions to Patagonia 1896-1899. Vol. III. 


Zoology, Part I. Princeton, New York. 

Anon. (1978). Enmiendas a los Apendices 1 y 11 de la convencion [CITES], 
Propuestas de la Republica de Chile. Unpublished. 

Anon. (1982). IUCN Directory of Neotropical Protected Areas. Tycooly 
International for IUCN, Dublin. 

Anon. (1985). Help, 1 am the Patagonian Red Fox in great danger of 
annihilation. Fundacion Vida Silvestre Argentina, Buenos Aires. 

Cabrera, A. (1957). Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del sur, vol. I, 
Metatheria, Unguiculata, Carnivora. Revista del Museo Argentino de 
Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadavia', Ciencias Zoologicas 4(1): 


1-307. 

Crespo, J.A. (1975). Ecology of the Pampas Gray Fox and the Large Fox 
(Culpeo). In: Fox, M.W. (Ed.), The wild canids, their systematic 
behavioural ecology and evolution. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 
pp. 179-191. 


Crespo, J.A. (1986). In litt. to CITES Secretariat, Sth March. 

Crespo, J.A. and DeCarlo, J.M. (1963). Estudio ecologico de una poblacion de 
zorros colorados. Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales, 
"Bernadino Rivadavia", Ecologia 1(1): 1-53. 

Duran, J.C., Cattan, P.E. and Yanez, J.L. (1985). The Grey Fox Canis 
griseus (Gray) in Chilean Patagonia (Southern Chile). Biological 
Conservation 34(2): 141-148. 

Fuentes R.E. and Jaksic, F.M. (1979). Latitudinal size variation of Chilean 
Foxes: tests of alternative hypotheses. Ecology 60(1): 43-47. 

Fuller, K.S., Swift, B., Jorgensen, A. and Brautigam, A. (1987). Latin 
American wildlife trade laws. Second edition (Revised), World Wildlife 
Fund (US), 418 pp. 

Greer, J.K. (1965). The mammals of Malleco Province, Chile. Publications of 
the Museum of Michigan State University, Biology Series 3(2): 49-152. 

Grimwood, 1.R. (1969). Notes on the distribution and status of some Peruvian 
mammals. Special publication No. 21, American Committee for International 
Wildlife Protection and New York Zoological Society, 86 pp. 


62 


Dusicyon culpaeus 


Honacki, J.H., Kinman, K.E. and Koeppl, J.W. (1982). Mammal species of the 
world, a taxonomic and geographic’ reference. The Association of 
Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas, 694 pp. : 

Jaksic, F.M. and Yanez, J.L. (1983). Rabbit and fox introductions in Tierra 
del Fuego: history and assessment of the attempts at biological control of 
the rabbit infestation. Biological Conservation 26: 367-374. 

Jaksic, F.M., Schlatter, R.P. and Yanez, J.L. (1980). Feeding ecology of 
central Chilean foxes, Dusicyon culpaeus and Dusicyon griseus. Journal 
of Mammalogy 61: 254-260. 

Langguth, A. (1975). Ecology and evolution in the South American canids. In: 
Fox, M.W. (ed.), The wild canids, their systematic behavioural ecology 
and evolution. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 192-206. 

Mares, M.A., Ojeda, R.A. and Kosco, M.P. (1981). Observations on the 
distribution and ecology of the mammals of Salta Province, Argentina. 
Annals of the Carnegie Museum 50: 151-206. 

Ojeda, R.A. and Mares, M.A. (1982). Conservation of South American mammals: 
Argentina as a paradigm. In: Mares, M.A. and Genoways, H.H. (eds), 
Mammalian biology in South America. Vol. 6: Special Publication Series. 
Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology, University of Pittsburgh, 539 pp. 

Olrog, C.C. and Lucero, M.M. (1980). Guia de los mamiferos Argentinos. 
Ministerio de Cultura y Educacion. Fundacion Miguel Lillo, Tucuman. 

Osgood, W.H. (1943). The mammals of Chile. Field Museum of Natural History 
Zoology Series 30: 1-268. 

Pine, R.H., Miller, F.D. and Schamberger, A.M.L. (1979). Contributions to the 
mammalogy of Chile. Mammalia 43: (3): 339-375. 


63 


ARGENTINE GREY FOX or PATAGONIAN FOX Recommended list: 2 
[Possible problem] 
Dusicyon griseus (Gray, 1837) 


Order CARNIVORA Family CANIDAE 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A small, predominantly Patagonian, South American 
canid found in Chile and Argentina in open areas and arid regions generally at 
low elevations. Overall population figures are not available, though a 1982 
field study in southern Chile estimated around 37 000 to 66 000 in a total of 
c. 28 000 sq. km of suitable habitat. The species appears to be relatively 
Opportunistic with respect to diet; a study in central Chile found rodents to 
be by far the most important prey, though it was also markedly frugivorous and 
will scavenge on carcasses of larger animals. Litters of five to six young 
have been observed. 


The animal is extensively hunted as an alleged predator of livestock and for 
the fur trade. It is legally protected in Chile (where illegal hunting 
continues) and virtually all declared international trade originates in 
Argentina, which exported an average of some 100 000 per year for 1980-85. 
Exports during 1984 and 1985 were considerably smaller in volume than those 
recorded in earlier years. There is no evidence that habitat changes have 
adversely affected the species, and indeed clearance of forest and woodland in 
Patagonia to increase pasturage areas for livestock (principally sheep) is 
believed to have benefitted it. 


In the absence of population data for Argentina it is not possible to comment 
with certainty on the effects of trapping for the fur trade on this species; 
however the area of suitable habitat is far larger than in Chile and if 
comparable population densities occur, the population in Argentina must be 
substantial (several hundred thousand at least). It seems certain that the 
population here can withstand a considerable harvest. 


DISTRIBUTION Argentina and Chile; also introduced to the Falkland Islands 
(Islas Malvinas). 


The classification of the Canidae at supraspecific level is controversial. 
Many authors prefer to include species normally designated Dusicyon in 
Canis (Langguth, 1975; Pine et al., 1979); the generic epithet 
Pseudalopex has also been used for some species, including griseus (Nowak 


and Paradiso, 1983). Dusicyon is here retained, following Honacki et al. 
(1982). 


Argentina Widespread throughout Patagonia from the Straits of Magellan 
north to Chubut Province and northwards, apparently in a relatively narrow 
strip (Crespo, 1975), in the lowlands of western Argentina, as far as Santiago 
del Estero and Catamarca (c. 26-28°S) (Cabrera, 1957) and possibly Salta 
Province (Mares et al., 1981), though there do not appear to be any definite 
records from there. Introduced to Isla Grande of Tierra del Fuego (Jaksic and 
Yanez, 1983; Pine et al., 1979). It has been estimated that the range 
covers perhaps 1 200 000 sq. km overall (Argentina CITES MA, 1986). 


Chile Widespread from the Straits of Magellan northwards as far as the 
southern part of Atacama Province (28-29°S), mainly in lowlands and foothills 
of the coastal range (Osgood, 1943; Greer, 1965). Occurs on Chiloe Island - 
this population has been referred to a separate species (D. fulvipes), 
though is now considered a subspecies of D. griseus (Pine et al., 1979). 


Introduced to Isla Grande of Tierra del Fuego (Jaksic and Yanez, 1983; Pine 
et al., 1979). 


64 


Dusicyon griseus 


Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) Following a release in the 1930s, this 
species is now found on several small islands (Weddell, Statts, Beaver, Tea, 
River and Split) off the west coast of West Falkland (Lever, 1985). 


POPULATION Although no overall population estimates are available, harvest 
rates in Argentina and population density estimates in southern Chile indicate 
there must be several hundred thousands. 


Argentina Olrog and Lucero (1983) described it as locally common although 
recently recorded as generally scarce (Argentina CITES MA, 1986). There are 
indications that in northern parts of its range, it is generally less common 
than the larger Culpeo (D. culpaeus), while in the south the reverse is true 
(Crespo and DeCarlo, 1963, Crespo, 1975). The species appears to be abundant 
on Isla Grande of Tierra del Fuego where 24 young animals were reportedly 
introduced in 1951 (Jaksic and Yanez, 1983; Pine et al., 1979). If even 
half of the species's range in Argentina is occupied at similar densities to 
those estimated for southern Chile (c. 2 per sq. km - see below), the 
population will number at least several hundreds of thousands. 


Chile Duran et al. (1985) produced population estimates of from 37 250 to 
65 837 (favouring the latter) for southern Chile (the Magallanes region) on 
the basis of an estimated 28 310 sq. km of D. griseus habitat and a mean 
density of from 1.3 to 2.3 foxes per sq. km, depending on the estimating 
technique used. This was extrapolated from 1982 field surveys at 7 sites when 
a total of 165 individual foxes were observed. Highest density was on Riesco 
Island with a calculated average of 4.4 foxes per sq. km. There is little 
recent information for northern parts of its range, although in 1977 the 
species was said to be generally scarce throughout the country except in the 
extreme south (Anon., 1978). Osgood (1943) stated that it was very abundant 
in central Chile, even surviving within the City of Santiago. The species 
appears to be abundant on Isla Grande of Tierra del Fuego (see above) (Jaksic 
and Yanez, 1983) but very scarce on Chiloe Island (Pine et al., 1979). 


Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) No information. 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Preferred habitat is generally agreed to be grasslands 
and arid areas at low altitudes (Allen, 1905; Crespo, 1975; Duran et al., 
1985; Osgood, 1943). Osgood (1943) noted that it was quite strictly limited 
to open grasslands and beaches, and scarcely even entered the foothills of the 
Andes, although it has been reported to occur at least as high as 1220 m in 
Malleco Province in Central Chile (Greer, 1965). In northern parts of its 
range in Argentina it occurs in what are essentially desert areas (Crespo, 
1975), though Osgood (1943) observed that it did not penetrate the extremely 
arid Atacama desert in north-central Chile, which appeared to act as the 
northern limit of its distribution on the west of the Andes. They appear to 
be opportunistic feeders; Allen (1905) reported that in southern Patagonia 
they were chiefly scavengers, feeding mainly on sheep and guanaco carcasses, 
though also preying on smaller mammals and the eggs and young of birds. They 
would apparently take young lambs, but never attacked grown sheep, and were 
very fond of rhea eggs. A study in central Chile found rodents to be by far 
the most important animal prey, accounting for from 87% to 98% of prey items 
in scats examined; they were also markedly frugivorous, especially in autumn, 
with 39% of all scats examined containing berries, mostly of Cryptocarya 
alba and Lithraea caustica (Jaksic et al., 1980). Rabbits (Oryctolagus 
cuniculus) and birds only accounted for some 3% each of animal prey. Allen 
(1905) observed litters of 5 to 6 young in earths dug under bushes or under 
rocks along rivers and on the coast; there appears to be no further 
information on breeding. 


65 


Dusicyon griseus 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL Persecution as an alleged predator of livestock and for 
its fur appear to be the factors which have affected the species. Much of the 
habitat alteration in Chilean Patagonia, most notably clearing and burning of 
forest to increase areas of pasturage for sheep, appears to have benefitted 
the Grey Fox, although has brought it into increasing conflict with sheep 
farmers (Duran et al., 1985). In Argentina habitat conditions are described 
as generally favourable for the species throughout much of its range 
(Argentina CITES MA, 1986). 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE There is considerable trade in Grey Fox skins for fur, 
almost all from Argentina. The minimum trade recorded by CITES Parties for 
the years 1980-83 amounted to 600 174, or an average of 100 129 per year 
(Table 1). Virtually all (96%) of this was declared as originating in 
Argentina, with exports originating in Chile only accounting for 2%. The 
remainder were declared with country of origin unknown or outside the range of 
D. griseus, with most from Paraguay; it is likely that many of these also 
originated in Argentina. The export of over 7000 skins from Chile in 1983 was 
recorded, and therefore presumably authorised by, the Chilean Management 
Authority, although the species is apparently legally protected. None of the 
skins recorded in trade in 1984, declared as having originated in Chile, were 
reported to have been exported from Chile during that year. 


Table 1. Apparent minimum net imports of skins of Dusicyon griseus reported 
to CITES, 1980-85. : 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
Austria 3 107 159 429 273 90 
Belgium 64 - 712 183 - 500 
Canada - 717 4368 2100  . 1000 1531 
Chile = - 42 - - 44 
China - - - - - 3 
Denmark - - - 60 - - 
France - 1362 2648 1305 85 1349 
Germany, F.R. 65125 96621 108496 96588 48457 37201 
Greece 847 - - - - - 
Hong Kong - 96 5500 3 = = 
Hungary - - - 1 - - 
Israel - 1530 1380 332 - - 
Italy - 11687 8982 1016 194 709 
Jamaica = 30 = a = E 
Japan ~ 2517 304 1 60 12 
Korea, Rep. of - - - - - 4 
Malta 360 - - 1207 - - 
Netherlands - 1077 26 = = = 
Norway - - - 12 - - 
Peru - = 42 = a = 
Spain 41 - - 11989 11272 2848 
Sweden — 3 = = = - 
Switzerland 67 4308 14288 18094 1496 704 
UK - 4719 1831 1 - - 
USA = 3714 1491 9597 - 3012 
Uruguay - - 300 308 - = 
Yugoslavia 500 = = = 2 = 
Total 67007 128488 150569 143226 62837 48007 


66 


Dusicyon griseus 


The declared destination of over 70% of skins was F.R. Germany and a large 
proportion of the remainder were channelled through that country - in 1980 all 
trade transactions concerned F.R. Germany. Switzerland and Italy were the two 
next largest importers. 


Ojeda and Mares (1982) record a trade in ‘Zorro Gris' (Grey Fox) of 5 789 011 
in the period 1972-79, giving an average of 723 626 per annum. The name Zorro 
Gris was applied to 3 species - Dusicyon griseus, D. gymnocerus and 
D. thous; it was assumed that most pelts were of D. gymnocerus. 


Table 2. Reported countries of origin (or exporting country if no original 
source reported) and quantities of transactions in Dusicyon griseus reported 
to CITES, 1980-85. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


Countries with wild populations of D. griseus 


Argentina 63477 126994 162399 133012 61669 48007 
Chile - - - 9703 2217 - 


Countries without wild populations of D. griseus or country unknown 


Greece - - - 511 - - 
Korea, Rep of - 1 - - - - 
Paraguay 3530 6254 - - - - 
UK 331 - - - - - 
Unknown - 307 - - - - 


A A A A AA A A AAA A _ a  —_————  —— === — 


CONSERVATION MEASURES 
Occurs in several protected areas within its range (Anon., 1982). 


Argentina The species is not protected by Federal legislation. Hunting is 
banned throughout the year in Catamarca, Neuquen, Salta, Entre Rios, Tucuman 
and La Rioja, but it is listed as a harmful species in Ninguna and as a 
commercially important species in Rio Negro and Tierra del Fuego (Rabinovich 
et al., 1987). 


Chile The species is legally protected under Decreto No. 40 of 22 February 
1972. 


CAPTIVE BREEDING No information. 


REFERENCES : 

Allen, J.A. (1905). Mammalia of southern Patagonia. Reports of the 
Princeton University Expeditions to Patagonia 1896-1899. Vol. III. 
Zoology, Part I. Princeton, New York. 

Anon. (1978). Enmiendas a los Apendices I y 11 de la convencion [CITES], 
Propuestas de la Republica de Chile. Unpublished. 

Anon. (1982). IUCN Directory of Neotropical Protected Areas. Tycooly 
International for IUCN, Dublin. 

Cabrera, A. (1957). Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del sur, vol. 1, 
Metatheria, Unguiculata, Carnivora. Revista del Museo Argentino de 
Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadavia', Ciencias Zoologicas 4(1): 
1-307. 


67 


Dusicyon griseus 


Crespo, J.A. (1975). Ecology of the Pampas Gray Fox and the Large Fox 


(Culpeo). In: Fox, M.W. (ed.), The wild canids, their systematic 
behavioural ecology and evolution. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 
pp. 179-191. 
Crespo, J.A. and DeCarlo, J.M. (1963). Estudio ecologico de una poblacion de 
zorros colorados. Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales, 


"Bernadino Rivadavia", Ecologia 1(1): 1-53. 

Duran, J.C., Cattan, P.E. and Yanez, J.L. (1985). The Grey Fox Canis 
griseus (Gray) in Chilean Patagonia (Southern Chile). Biological 
Conservation 34(2): 141-148. 

Greer, J.K. (1965). The mammals of Malleco Province, Chile. Publications of 
the Museum of Michigan State University, Biology Series 3(2): 49-152. 

Honacki, J.H., Kinman, K.E. and Koeppl, J.W. (1982). Mammal species of the 
world, a taxonomic and geographic reference. The Association of 
Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas, 694 pp. 

Jaksic, F.M. and Yanez, J.L. (1983). Rabbit and fox introductions in Tierra 
del Fuego: history and assessment of the attempts at biological control of 
the rabbit infestation. Biological Conservation 26: 367-374. 

Jaksic, F.M., Schlatter, R.P. and Yanez, J.L. (1980). Feeding ecology of 
central Chilean foxes, Dusicyon culpaeus and Dusicyon griseus. Journal 
of Mammalogy 61: 254-260. 

Langguth, A. (1975). Ecology and evolution in the South American canids. In: 
Fox, M.W. (Ed.), The wild canids, their systematic behavioural ecology 
and evolution. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 192-206. 

Lever, C. (1985). Naturalized mammals of the world. Longmans, London. 

Mares, M.A., Ojeda, R.A. and Kosco, M.P. (1981). Observations on the 
distribution and ecology of the mammals of Salta Province, Argentina. 
Annals of the Carnegie Museum 50: 151-206. 

Nowak, R.M. and Paradiso, J.L. (1983). Walker's Mammals of the World. 4th 
edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 

Ojeda, R.A. and Mares, M.A. (1982). Conservation of South American mammals: 
Argentina as a _ paradigm. In: Mares, M.A. and Genoways, H.H. (eds), 
Mammalian biology in South America. Vol. 6: Special Publication Series. 
Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology, University of Pittsburgh, 539 pp. 

Olrog, C.C. and Lucero, M.M. (1980). Guia de los mamiferos Argentinos. 
Ministerio de Cultura y Educacion. Fundacion Miguel Lillo, Tucuman. 

Osgood, W.H. (1943). The mammals of Chile. Field Museum of Natural History 
Zoology Series 30: 1-268. 

Pine, R.H., Miller, F.D. and Schamberger, A.M.L. (1979). Contributions to the 
manmalogy of Chile. Mammalia 43: (3): 339-375. 

Rabinovich, J., Capurro, A., Folgarait, P., Kitzberger, T., Kramer, G., 
Novaro, A., Puppo, M. and Travaini, A. (1987). Estado del conocimiento de 
12 especies de la fauna silvestre Argentina de valor comercial. Documento 
presentado para su estudio y discusion al 2° taller de trabajo: 
"Elaboracion de propuestas de investigacion orientada al manejo de la 
fauna silvestre de valor comercial”, Buenos Aires, 154 pp. 


68 


PATAGONIAN HOG-NOSED SKUNK Recommended list: 2 
[Possible problem] 
Conepatus humboldtii Gray, 1837 


Order CARNIVORA Family MUSTELIDAE 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A largely Patagonian species, found at low 
altitudes in southern Chile and Argentina. Taxonomy of the genus Conepatus 
is the subject of controversy and the limits of the range depend on the 
classification adopted. Biology little known; apparently prefers open country 
and is expected to be similar to other Conepatus species in being primarily 
nocturnal and insectivorous. Litters are probably small (two to four young). 
Little recent information on status is available and the species has recently 


been variously described as ‘scarce’ or ‘locally common'. There are no strong 
indications that habitat destruction is an important factor affecting 
Conepatus. The species has been protected in Chile since 1972 and in 


Argentina since 1983. 


Considerable numbers of skins appear to have been exported from Argentina up 
to 1983, although most available figures relate to Conepatus species in 
general, with c. 155 000 per year in the 1970s; the proportion of these being 
C. humboldtii is unknown. According to CITES data, the declared number of 
skins of C. humboldtii exported from Argentina in 1983 and 1984 was far 
lower (2000-3000) than that for 1982 (c. 44 000), coinciding with the 
instigation of legal protection for the species; there should theoretically 
have been no export of skins after 1983. 


The other two or three Conepatus species occurring in Argentina are neither 
protected there nor listed on CITES and as the species are virtually 
indistinguishable it is possible that C. humboldtii skins are being exported 
as these species. This should be investigated, as there are indications that 
the species has been adversely affected by hunting. If such investigations 
indicate that such a problem does exist, it has been suggested that it may be 
useful to list the whole genus on Appendix II of CITES. This would allow the 
possible trade threat to be monitored more closely. 


DISTRIBUTION Chile and Argentina. 


Honacki et al. (1982) include C. castaneus (D'Orbigny & Gervais, 1847) in 
C. humboldtii; if this is followed, the range of the species is increased 
considerably northward. Several authorities consider all members of the genus 
Conepatus to be conspecific (Howard and Marsh, 1982; Hershkovitz, 1959). 
The range of the species would then extend from south-west USA through much of 
central and south America as far as Patagonia (Cabrera, 1957; Howard and 
Marsh, 1982). Kipp (1965) considered that humboldtii was not clearly 
seperable from castaneus and that existing morphological variation between 
the two is clinal. 


Argentina Range of C. humboldtii excluding C. castaneus given by Osgood 
(1943) and Cabrera (1957) as from the Straits of Magellan north to Chubut 
Province and western Rio Negro, although Osgood notes that the northern limit 
of the range is unclear. The area of the range has been estimated to be 
around 550 000 sq. km (Argentina CITES MA, 1986). Absent from Tierra del 
Fuego. Cabrera (1957) gives distribution of C. castaneus as the sub-Andean 
region in the western part of Argentina, from Rio Negro and extreme south 
Buenos Aires as far north as La Rioja (c. 29°S). 


Chile Southern part of the country from the south of Chiloe Province (Ge 
43°S) south to the Straits of Magellan (Cabrera, 1957). Absent from Tierra 


69 


Conepatus humboldtii 
del Fuego (Osgood, 1943). 
POPULATION No quantitative population data are available. 


Argentina Olrog and Lucero (1983) state that it is locally common. Noted 
as possibly scarce, but there was no concrete recent information (Argentina 
CITES MA, 1986). Allen wrote in 1905 that at that time it had become quite 
rare in southern Patagonia, having been affected by a contagious disease some 
years previously, although Osgood (1943) found it to be fairly numerous in the 
1930s. 


Chile In 1978 it was reported to have become scarce, as a result of 
intensive hunting for its pelt (Anon, 1978.); Osgood (1943) found it to be 
fairly numerous. 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Conepatus species are generally found in open 
country, mainly pampas and rocky areas; they also occur in wooded areas but 
generally avoid dense forests. They are largely nocturnal, sheltering during 
the day in small burrows or among rocks or tree-roots, and are principally 
insectivorous, feeding especially on beetles and also on spiders and 
millipedes, though will also take small rodents and nestling birds and are 
known to raid hen houses for eggs and chicks; they may also take some fruit 
(Cabrera and Yepes, 1940; Howard and Marsh, 1982). Little is known of the 
breeding biology of Conepatus spp. although the presence of only three pairs 
of mammae in females implies that litters are small; meagre records of the 
North American Conepatus mesoleucus indicate a litter size of two to four 
young (Howard and Marsh, 1982). Gestation period in the latter species is 


reported as 42 days. No information on population density or dynamics has 
been located, though a study of the closely related Spotted Skunk (Spilogale 
putorius - considered by some to be congeneric with Conepatus) in North 


America estimated a density of 8.8 per sq. km (Howard and Marsh, 1982). 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL The species does not appear to be threatened at present 
although there are no data on population trends. Its preference for open 
areas implies it is unlikely to be severely affected by habitat destruction; 
general habitat conditions could still be considered favourable for the 
species (Argentina CITES MA, 1986). There appear to be no further references 
to the disease which reportedly affected the species in southern Patagonia in 
the nineteenth century (see above). The effect of harvesting for the skin 
trade is unknown, though as noted below considerable numbers are reported in 
trade and overhunting has been blamed for its reported scarcity in Chile 
(Anon., 1978). There is some evidence that the fur quality of humboldtii is 


superior to that of the other Conepatus taxa (R. Wirth, in Jlitt., 23 
November 1987). 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE 


Conepatus spp. are, or have been, used extensively in the fur trade. During 
the period 1972-79, 1 243 129 hog-nosed skunks were legally exported from 
Argentina, representing four commonly recognized species (C. castaneus, C. 
chinga, C. humboldtii and C. rex) (Ojeda and Mares, 1982); it is not known 
what proportion of these were C. humboldtii. The export value of the 1979 
trade was US$2 156 187, representing 269 523 skins at US$8 each. Ojeda and 


Mares calculated that the hunter would probably receive the equivalent of 
US$0.50 per skin. 


Osgood (1943) notes that dealers in raw furs in Punta Arenas in southern Chile 
reported handling c. 15 000 skins of this species in 1939. Iriarte and Jaksic 
(1986) noted skunk skin exports from Chile in the periods 1910-14 and 
1930-1959 but no exports were recorded between 1959 and 1984. 


70 


Conepatus humboldtii 


Table 1. Apparent minimum net imports of skins of Conepatus humboldtii 
reported to CITES, 1980-85. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 

Austria - - - 500 = = 
Chile - - 45 - = = 
Denmark - 603 - = = a 
France - - - 324 _ = 
Germany, F.R. - 1010 13520 505 10 250 
Italy - 1000 4585 2250 1300 = 
- - - - [+680 kg] - 

Japan - 2 668 8 - = 
Spain - - 6400 - 20 - 
Switzerland - - 18329 - - 2317 
USA - - 768 - 90 = 
- [+18 kg] - - - - 

Total 0 2615 44315 3587 1420 2567 
- [+18 kg) - - [+ 680 kg] = 


All skins of C. humboldtii reported in trade by CITES Parties for 1980-85 
were recorded originating in Argentina. Over 95% of these were recorded by 
Argentina as exports; only Italy recorded imports. Conepatus humbodltii has 
been protected in Argentina since September 1983; this would explain the 
dramatic drop in numbers of skins exported between 1982 and 1983. The low 
numbers declared in 1980-1981 reflect the fact that CITES did not enter into 
force in Argentina until April 1981. 


The 1982 figures, of over 44 000 represent only a fraction of Conepatus 
exports reported in the 1970s, with an average of some 155 000 per year. This 
implies either that C. humboldtii only comprised a small proportion of 
Conepatus trade in the 1970s, or that there was a significant decrease in 
trade in the early 1980s, or (perhaps most likely) that a large part of the 
trade in 1982 went unreported (possibly because skins were ascribed to one of 
the three other commonly recognized Argentinian species which are not listed 
on the Appendices to CITES). Suggestions that the fur of humboldtii may be 
more valuable than that of the other taxa in trade (R. Wirth, in litt., 23 
November 1987), imply that the latter explanation may be correct. 


A small declared trade has evidently persisted since 1983; these may be skins 
declared as taken before legal protection was imposed. Considering the 
similarity in appearance of Conepatus species, it is possible that C. 
humboldtii skins are being exported illegally identified as one of the other 
species generally accepted as occurring in Argentina; this should be 
investigated. 


CONSERVATION MEASURES 


Argentina Conepatus humboldtii has been protected in Argentina since 
11 March 1983 (Resolucion No. 144 in accordance with Ley No. 22.421 Of 
12 March 1981). Known to occur in Los Glaciares National Park (Anon., 1982). 


Chile All Conepatus spp. are protected in Chile under Decreto No. 40 of 
22 February 1972. Known to occur in Torres del Paine National Park (Anon., 
1982). 


Conepatus humboldtii 
CAPTIVE BREEDING No information. 


REFERENCES 
Anon. (1978). Enmiendas a los Apendices I y II de la convencion [CITES], 
Propuestas de la Republica de Chile. Unpublished. 


Anon. (1982). IUCN Directory of Neotropical Protected Areas. Tycooly 
International for IUCN, Dublin. 
Allen, J.A. (1905). Mammalia of southern Patagonia. Reports of the 


Princeton University Expeditions to Patagonia 1896-1899. Vol. III. 
Zoology, Part I. Princeton, New York. 

Cabrera, A. (1957). Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del sur, vol. I, 
Metatheria, Unguiculata, Carnivora. Revista del Museo Argentino de 
Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadavia', Ciencias Zoologicas 4(1): 
1-307. 

Cabrera, A. and Yepes, J. (1940). Mamiferos Sud Americanos. Ediar, Buenos 
Aires. 

Hershkovitz, P. (1959). Nomenclature and taxonomy of the Neotropical mammals 
described by Olfers, 1818. Journal of Mammalogy 40(3): 337-353. 

Honacki, J.H., Kinman, K.E. and Koeppl, J.W. (1982). Mammal species of the 
world, a taxonomic and geographic reference. The Association of 
Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas, 694 pp. 

Howard, W.E. and Marsh, R.E. (1982). Spotted and Hog-nosed Skunks. In: 
Chapman, J.A. and Feldhamer, G.A. (eds), Wild mammals of North America. 
The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 

Iriarte, J.A. and Jaksic, F.M. (1986). The fur trade in Chile: An overview of 
seventy-five years of export data (1910-1984). Biological Conservation 
38: 243-253. 

Kipp, H. (1965). Kenntnis der Gattung Conepatus Molina. Zeitschrift fir 
Sdugetierkunde 30: 193-232. 

Ojeda, R.A. and Mares, M.A. (1982). Conservation of South American mammals: 
Argentina as a paradigm. In: Mares, M.A. and Genoways, H.H. (eds), 
Mammalian biology in South America. Vol. 6: Special Publication Series. 
Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology, University of Pittsburgh, 539 pp. 

Olrog, C.C. and Lucero, M.M. (1980). Guia de los mamiferos Argentinos. 
Ministerio de Cultura y Educacion. Fundacion Miguel Lillo, Tucuman. 

Osgood, W.H. (1943). The mammals of Chile. Field Museum of Natural History 
Zoology Series 30: 1-268. 


72 


ASIAN SMOOTH-COATED OTTER Recommended list: 2 
[Possible problem] 
Lutra perspicillata Geoffroy, 1826 


Order CARNIVORA Family MUSTELIDAE 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A large otter, widespread in the Indo-Malayan 
region, including Java and Sumatra and possibly Borneo. A disjunct population 
occurs in the Tigris marshes in southern Iraq. The species is semi-aquatic 
and apparently largely confined to lowlands, being mainly found in large 
rivers, though also in resevoirs, canals, creeks and in the open sea. 
Carnivorous, feeding largely on fish, though a variety of other prey will be 
taken. It has been hunted by man for its fur, for food and also as an alleged 
competitor for fish stocks. Tamed individuals are used by fishermen to catch 
fish in some areas. Many populations have been reportedly depleted though no 
population estimates are available. However the species does not appear to be 
threatened at present. It occurs in several national parks and reserves. 


There is a negligible reported trade in live animals. Trade in skins (all 
recorded through CITES) in the period 1980-83 amounted to around 1300 per 
year, with no discernible trend and virtually all to F.R. Germany; three 
quarters of these were declared as origin Bangladesh, with a large proportion 
being re-exported by China. Export from Bangladesh is reportedly banned; thus 
a large proportion of trade in this species is likely to be illegal. Since 
1983 no skins have been recorded in trade. 


With most declared trade apparently originating in one country, comprising a 
small fraction of its range, it is unlikely that international trade is a 
significant factor in the conservation of the species, although it may be a 
cause of some concern with regard to populations in Bangladesh. 


DISTRIBUTION Widely distributed in the Indo-Malayan region in Bangladesh, 
Bhutan, Burma, China, India, Indonesia (Java, Sumatra, perhaps Kalimantan), 
Kampuchea, Laos, Malaysia (Peninsular and perhaps Sabah), Nepal, Pakistan, 
Thailand, and Viet Nam; also found in the Tigris marshes in southern Iraq. 


The species has been placed in a separate genus Lutrogale, though is now 
generally included in Lutra (Harris, 1968; Honacki et al., 1982). 


Bangladesh Said by Khan (1985) to be found in all parts of the country. 


Bhutan No information, though has apparently been recorded (Ellerman and 
Morrison-Scott, 1951; Pocock, 1941). 


Burma According to Salter (1983) the species is widely distributed. Yin 
(1967) notes records from Pegu, Toungoo, Kindat, the Chin Hills and Myitkyina 
District. 


China Allen (1938) stated that it almost certainly occurred in south-west 
China (western Yunnan), though virtually nothing was known of it. 


India Reported by Prater (1971) as widely distributed from the Himalaya and 
Sind to the extreme south at low elevations. 


Indonesia Reported to occur in Java, Sumatra and perhaps Kalimantan - 
Medway quotes a record from Badang, S. Bahau, East Kalimantan; other writers 
have questioned the occurrence of this species in Borneo (Corbet, 1978; van 
der Zon, 1977). 


73 


Lutra perspicillata 


Iraq A disjunct population, described in 1956 (Hayman, 1957) is found in 
the marshes of southern Iraq in the region of the Tigris River. Harrison 
(1968) quotes records from Abusakhair, 35 miles south-east of Amara (Al 
Amarah), and from the region of El Azair (Al'Uzayr). This population is some 
2000 km west of the rest of the species's range which stretches to the Indus 
River in eastern Pakistan. 


Kampuchea No information, though its presence in the Mekong basin in Laos 
and Thailand implies it undoubtedly occurs in Kampuchea. 


Leos The species is found in the Mekon river basin (Delacour, 1940; Osgood, 
1932; Laos Forest Department, in litt., 1986; Van Peenen et al., 1969). 


Malaysia Recorded in estuaries and large rivers on the mainland of West 
Malaysia as far south as Selangor and also from Pulau Salanga in Malacca 
(Medway, 1969). Medway (1977) records the species from Sabah in Borneo on the 
basis of a nineteenth century specimen from the vicinity of Sandakan and 
reports from Darvel Bay; some authors however regard its presence on Borneo as 
doubtful (Corbet, 1978). Furthermore surveys in 1979 found no definate 
evidence of this species in Sabah (Malaysia, Sabah CITES MA, 1985). 


Nepal Apparently confined to low altitudes (500-1000 m, maximum 1500 m) 
(Frick, 1968; Mitchell, 1975). 


Pakistan Noted by Roberts (1977) as essentially a plains species found 
throughout the lower Indus riverine system and up to the outer foothills of 


the Punjab, sometimes also entering tidal waters, having been seen at 
Keti-bunder. 


Thailand Reportedly occurs throughout (Bain and Humphrey; 1980; Boonsong 
Lekagul and McNeely, 1977). 


Viet Nam No recent information, though is definitely recorded from Annam 
(Pocock, 1941). 


POPULATION No population estimates are available. 


Bangladesh Noted by Khan (1985) as being commoner in southern and eastern 
areas than in the north and west, west of Jamura. 


Bhutan No information. 
Burma No information. 
China No information. 


India Depleted in certain regions and almost exterminated from areas of 
human settlement and agricultaural areas (India CITES MA, 1987). 


Indonesia No information. 
Iraq No information. 
Kampuchea No information. 


Laos The species had reportedly become fairly rare as a result of the heavy 


human settlement of the Mekong basin (Laos Forest Department, in litt., 
1986). 


74 


Lutra perspicillata 


Malaysia Wayre (1978), on the basis of a brief study in 1974, concluded 
that the species did not appear to be in any way threatened at that time. 
Reportedly rare in Sabah (Malaysia, Sabah CITES MA, 1985). 


Nepal Dinerstein (1979) found it to be common along the Gerwa and Khoraha 
Rivers in the Royal Karnali-Bardia Wildlife Reserve. 


Pakistan Although Pilleri (1980) described the species as ‘very common' on 
the Indus, Roberts (1977) observed that it had become comparatively rare 
through increased human settlement and reduction in habitat as a result of 
irrigation barrages across the Indus and drawing off of water for irrigation 
schemes. He had found it plentiful in recent years only on the Chenab River 
upstream of Marala, and around Sundari Lake (Dhand) in the east Nara swamps of 
Sind, as well as about 25 km upstream of Sukkur Barrage and near Tando 
Muhammad Khan. 


Theiland Said to be generally commoner than the Eurasian Otter 
(Lutra lutra) (Boonsong Lekagul and McNeely, 1977) although in 1979 all 
otters were declared to be threatened in Thailand, having undergone a dramatic 
reduction in numbers since the mid-1960s, almost all of this attributed to 
overhunting (Pong Leng-EE, 1979). Osgood (1932) had stated it to be the most 
abundant otter on the Mekong. 


Viet Nam No information. 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY In the western part of its range at least, 
L. perspicillata appears to be essentially a plains animal though is also 
found in hills at low elevation (Roberts, 1977; Prater, 1971); it can 
reportedly adapt to arid and semi-arid regions, such as the north-western 
Indian desert and the dry zone of central India and the Deccan (Prater, 
1971). Generally it lives by the margins of lakes and streams and in large 
tanks and canals, though also along the coast, hunting in flooded fields, 
creeks and estuaries and in the open sea (Boonsong Lekagul and McNeely, 1977; 
Prater, 1971; Roberts, 1977; Wayre, 1978). Roberts (1977) noted that it was 
generally found in conditions where the water was heavily silt-laden and 
smooth-flowing. According to Prater the species can apparently adopt a 
terrestrial lifestyle in dry regions, at least seasonally when pools and 
streams dry up, hunting on land and lying up in burrows in hill-sides. Wayre 
(1978), however, stated that in Malaysia the species required undisturbed 
forest, scrub or mangrove swamp in the immediate vicinity of water, and was 
confined to the coast or large river systems, being absent from small streams, 
paddy fields and irrigation canals, its place here being apparently taken by 
the smaller  Short-clawed Otter (Aonyx cinerea). Like all otters, 
L. perspicillata is carnivorous, feeding mainly on fish - Roberts (1977) 
noted that in the Indus these otters would hunt for every species of fish 
occurring there, though were particularly fond of Murrel (Ophiocephalus 
striatus) and Cat Fishes (Siluridae species); a wide variety of other prey 
will also be taken - in the Indus the crayfish Machrobrachium malcolmsonia 
is sought after and Wayre (1978) noted that crabs formed an important part of 
the diet of those living on the coast in Malaysia. The species is social, 
hunting in family groups which may occasionally join together to form large 
hunting parties. Wayre (1978) considered that a pair may require from 7 to 12 
km of river for its territory and a longer stretch of coastline if living 
along the shore. Individuals may reportedly travel extensive distances, often 
over dry land, during the year, except the female when she has young cubs. 


Little is known of breeding in the wild, though Wayre (1978) notes that in 
this, unlike in most other otters, the male appears to play an important part 
in rearing the young, both in collecting bedding material for the breeding 
holt and in bringing food to the young. Prater observed that in India most 


75 


Lutra perspicillata 


young appeared to be born in the early part of the year, though Roberts (1977) 
quotes a record of young estimated to have been born in late August in 
Pakistan; gestation in captivity has been measured as 61-63 days (Yadav, 
1967), with delayed implantation apparently not occurring. There appear to be 
few records of litter sizes, though Roberts refers to a litter of five kittens 
captured in southern Sind. A female born in captivity first opened her eyes 
at 10 days, weaning began at 3 months, first mating at 3 years and first 
offspring were born at 4 years (Yadav, 1967). Captive individuals have lived 
as long as 16 years (Dover, 1932). 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL The species is still widespread and does not appear to 
be threatened overall at present. It has, however, undoubtedly been affected 
by many adverse factors in different parts of its range and many populations 
have evidently been reduced. Large rivers such as the Indus and Mekong tend 
to be very heavily settled and used by people and are thus generally 
disturbed. As well as being hunted for its fur (Roberts, 1977; Laos Forest 
Department, in litt., 1986; Pong Leng-EE, 1979), and, in Laos at least, for 
food (see below) it is also sometimes persecuted by fishermen as an alleged 
competitor (Bain and Humphery, 1980; Roberts, 1977). There appear to be few 
concrete data on the effects of disturbance and possible depletion of food 
sources through over-fishing on this species, although Bain and Humphrey 
(1980) report that destructive fishing methods such as the use of explosives, 
electric shocks and poisons (usually pesticides) are a serious threat to 
otters in Thailand, and may be expected to be so elsewhere in the species's 
range. 


Trained otters of this species are used for fishing in various regions; the 
practice certainly still continues in the Sind (lower Indus valley) in 
Pakistan (Pilleri, 1980) and in the Sunderbans region in Bangladesh (Whitaker, 
1984); earlier reports also mention Orissa (Prater, 1971), Cochin and part of 
Bengal (Kipling, 1891) in India, and also Malaysia (Cantor, 1846). Murray 
(1884) implies that along the Indus considerable numbers were used, as they 
observed them tethered in 20s and 30s near fishermen's boats; Roberts (1977) 
noted that more recently only occasional individuals were encountered. 
Whether this practice has a significant effect on wild population levels is 
unknown, though it appears unlikely. Singsouriya (Laos Forest Department, in 
litt., 1986) notes that otters are actually eaten in Laos, and they are 
hunted for their fur in many parts of their range (see below). No records of 
trade in this species in Indonesia (Indonesia CITES MA, 1986). 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE 


All information on international trade in Lutra perspicillata is derived 
from annual reports to CITES and is summarised in Tables 1 and 2 below. 


Table 1. Apparent minimum net imports of Lutra perspicillata reported to 
CITES, 1980-85 [skins unless otherwise stated] L = live 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
Australia - = = - {1 L] [2 L] 
Austria - 210 - - - = 
Germany, F.R. 3558 - 427 1100 - = 
Italy - [10 L) - - = = 
Total 3558 220 427 1100 1 2 
1 


76 


Lutra perspicillata 


Table 2. Reported countries of origin (or exporting country if no original 
source reported) and quantities of transactions in Lutra perspicillata 
reported to CITES, 1980-85 [skins unless otherwise stated] L = live 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


Country of origin within range of L. perspicillata 


Bangladesh 3558 - 427 - = = 
China - 210 - = = 2 
India - - - 1100 {1 L) [2 L) 
Pakistan - [10 L] - = = = 


———————_—_—_—_—_—_—…—…—…—…—…—…—…—…—…—…—…—…—…——…—…—…—…—…—…—…—…—…—…—…"…"…"”"—"…"—"—"……—……—…———…——_—…—…——_— 


The destination of the great majority of skins (96%) was F.R. Germany; the UK 
and Belgium feature as re-exporting or processing countries. 


Trade in skins reported to CITES during the period 1980-85 involved a minimum 
of 5295 skins and 13 live individuals. Three-quarters of these were declared 
as originating in Bangladesh, though none was reported by Bangladesh (which 
has submitted annual reports to CITES for 1982 and 1983) and all bar 350 were 
reported as re-exports by either the exporting or importing country. China 
was reported in 1980 as a major re-exporter of skins originating in 
Bangladesh; it is thus possible that those reported in 1981 as origin China 
also originated in Bangladesh. 


Export of Lutra perspicillata from Bangladesh and India is banned. If the 
declared country of origin of skins in trade is accurate, then a large 
proportion of this trade is evidently illegal. However, after 1983 reported 
trade has been negligible. 


CONSERVATION MEASURES The species occurs in a number of protected areas 
within its range. 


Bangladesh The species is protected; internal and external trade, and local 
consumption, are banned (Bangladesh CITES MA, 1986). 


India All Indian otter species are included under Part II of Schedule II 
(special game) of the revised list of schedules to the Wildlife Protection Act 
1972 and may be hunted under licence but may not be traded in. 


Indonesia Otters are not protected by law in Indonesia. 


Melaysia Otters are classified as Protected Wild Animals under the 
Protection of Wildlife Act 1972 (laws of Malaysia Act 76). 


Pakistan Legally protected (Pakistan CITES MA, 1986). 


Thailand All otters in the genera Lutra, Lutrogale (= Lutra) and 
Amblonyx (=Aonyx) are classified as Protected Wild Animals of the first 
category in Thailand. Capturing live animals is allowed, but killing of them 
is not except under authorisation of a collecting permit issued only for 
educational or scientific purposes (Jintanugool et al., 1982). 


Legal status elsewhere in its range unknown. 


Lutra perspicillata 


CAPTIVE BREEDING The species appears to be relatively easy to maintain in 
captivity and has bred (Harris, 1968; Yadav, 1967) though it is not known how 
Many are held in zoos at present. 


REFERENCES 

Allen, G.M. (1938). The mammals of China and Mongolia, Part 1. American 
Museum of Natural History, New York. 

Anon. (1981). Rare and endangered animals of India. Government of India, 
82 pp. 

Bain, J.R. and Humphrey, S.R. (1980). A profile of the endangered species of 
Thailand. Report No. 4. Office of Ecological Services, Florida State 
Museum, 604 pp. 

Boonsong Lekagul and McNeely, J.A. (1977). Mammals of Thailand. Association 
for the Conservation of Wildlife, Bangkok, 758 pp. 

Cantor, T. (1846). Catalogue of mammalia inhabiting the Malayan Peninsula and 
islands. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 15: 195-196. 

Corbet, G.B. (1978). The mammals of the Palaearctic Region: a taxonomic 
review. British Museum (Natural History), Cornell University Press, 314 
Pp. 

Delacour, J. (1940). Liste provisoire de mammifères de l'Indochine française. 
Mammalia 4: 20-29. 

Dinerstein, E. (1979). An ecological survey of the Royal Karnali-Bardia 
Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Part II: Habitat/Animal interactions. 
Biological Conservation 16: 265-320. 

Dover, C. (1933). The duration of life of some Indian Mammals. Journal of 
the Bombay Natural History Society 36(1). Miscellaneous notes No. 11. 

Ellerman, J.R., and Morrison-Scott, T.C.S. (1951). Checklist of Palaearctic & 
Indian mammals 1758-1946. British Museum (Natural History), 810 pp. 

Frick, F. (1968). Die Hôhenstufenverteilung der Nepalesischen Säugetiere. 
Sdugetierkundliche Mitteilungen 17: 161-173. 

Harris, C.J. (1968). Otters. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 397 pp. 

Harrison, D.L. (1968). The mammals of Arabia, Vol. II, Carnivora, 
Artiodactyla and Hyracoidea. Benn, London, pp. 193-381. ~ 

Hayman, R.W. (1957). A new race of the Indian smooth-coated otter from Iraq. 
Annals and Magazine of Natural History (12) 9: 710-712. 

Honacki, J.H., Kinman, K.E. and Koeppl, J.W. (1982). Mammal species of the 
world, a taxonomic and geographic reference. The Association of 
Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas, 694 pp. 


Jintanugool, Po Eudey, A.A. and Brockelman, W.Y. (1983). Species 
conservation priorities in the tropical forests of Thailand. In: 
Mittermeier, R.A. and Konstant, W.R. (eds) Species conservation 


priorities in the tropical forests of Southeast Asia. Occasional Papers 
of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC). No. 1. 

Khan, M.A.R. (1985). Mammals of Bangladesh. Nazma Reza, Dhaka, 92pp. 

Kipling, J.L. (1891). Beast and man in India. MacMillan, London. 

Medway, Lord, (1969). The wild mammals of Malaya and Singapore. Oxford 
University Press, UK, 128 pp. 

Medway, Lord, (1977). Mammals of Borneo. Monographs of the Malaysian Branch 
of the Royal Asiatic Society 7: 1-172. 

Mitchell, R.M. (1975). A checklist of Nepalese mammals. Sáugetierkundliche 
Mitteilungen 23: 152-157. 

Murray, J.A. (1884). The vertebrate zoology of Sind. Richardson, London. 

Osgood, W.H. (1932). Mammals of the Kelley-Roosevelts and Delacour Asiatic 
expeditions. Field Museum of Natural History, Zoological Series 18: 
193-339. 

Pilleri, G. (1980). The secrets of the Blind Dolphins. Sind Wildlife 
Management Board, Karachi. 

Pocock, R.I. (1941). The fauna of British India. Mammalia Vol. 2. Taylor 
and Francis, London. 


78 


Lutra perspicillata 


Pong Leng-EE (1979). Status of the Otters in Thailand. In: Otter Specialist 
Group Report to IUCN/SSC meeting, Cambridge, Sept. Unpublished. 

Prater, S.H. (1971). The book of Indian animals. Bombay Natural History 
Society, 323 pp. 

Roberts, T.J. (1977). The mammals of Pakistan. Benn, London, 361 pp. 

Salter, R.E. (1983). Summary of currently available information on 
internationally threatened wildlife species in Burma. FAO Field Document 
7/83 FO: BUR/80/006, 76 pp. 

van der Zon, A.P.M. (1977). Mammals of Indonesia. Unpublished. 

Van Peenen, P.F.D., Ryan, P. and Light, R. (1969). Preliminary identification 
Manual for mammals of South Vietnam. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 
D.C., 320 pp. 

Wayre, P. (1978). Status of Otters in Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Italy. 
Otters. IUCN Publications, New Series. 

Whitaker, R. (1984). Sunderbans. Hamadryad 8(4): 1-5. 

Yadav, R.N. (1967). Breeding of the smooth-coated Indian Otter at Jaipur Zoo. 
International Zoo Yearbook 7: 130-131. 

Yin, U Tun (1967). Wild animals of Burma. Rangoon Gazette, Rangoon, 301 pp. 


79 


PAMPAS CAT Recommended list: 2 
[Possible problem] 
Felis colocolo Molina, 1782 


Order CARNIVORA Family  FELIDAE 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS An inhabitant of western and southern South 
America, found in a variety of habitat types. Very little specific 
information is available describing the size and status of populations of this 
species and the threats to its future survival have only been described in 
general terms. Habitat alteration and destruction has been reported as a 
major threat in some areas; however the extent of this has been poorly 
documented. Hunting pressure has also been mentioned as a threat although 
skins have been reported to have been of little value in at least one area. 
Protected throughout most of its range by legislation. 


In the late 1970s, exports from Argentina averaged almost 20 000 skins each 
year. The number of skins reported in trade by CITES Parties was 11 000 in 
1980 and 4299 in 1981; however the volume of trade decreased sharply after 
1981 and in later years, trade involving this species seems to have been 
negligible. Considerable old stocks of skins of this species were exported 
from Argentina in early 1987, but otherwise exports from that country have 
ceased. In the past the major market for skins of this species was western 
Europe. 


In light of the lack of population information and the large number of skins 
traded in the past, it is not possible to state that the threat of 
exploitation for the skin trade has ceased, despite the apparent decline of 
the volume of trade reported in recent years. Imports into the EEC of skins 
of all of the commercially important neotropical cat species, with the 
exception of F. colocolo were banned in late 1986. Therefore, if a legal 
source of these skins does reopen, this species may be of particular interest 
to the European market. i 


DISTRIBUTION Mountain areas of Ecuador and northern Peru; inland regions of 
Brazil, at least as far north as the Matto Grosso plateau; southern Peru, west 
of the Andes; parts of Bolivia; central Chile from Coquimbo to Concepcion; 
Paraguay; Uruguay; Argentina from Jujuy, Salta and the Chaco to southern 
Patagonia (Guggisberg, 1975). 


Sometimes classified as generically distinct from Felis, as Lynchailurus 
pajeros (P. Leyhausen, in Jitt., 1987), but included within Felis by 
Honacki et al. (1982). Cabrera (1957) identified seven subspecies of Felis 
colocolo; an eighth Felis colocolo munoai, was described more recently and 
may be valid. 


Felis colocolo braccata Cope, 1889. The southern interior of Brazil as 
far north as the Mato Grosso plateau and district of Goias, extending into 
Paraguay (Cunha Vieira, 1955). 


Pelis colocolo budini Pocock, 1941. Montane zone of north-west 
Argentina, from Jujuy to the centre of La Rioja, possibly extending north 
into the south of Bolivie (Cabrera, 1957). 


Felis colocolo colocolo West central Chile from Coquimbo south to 
Concepcion, (Osgood, 1943). 


Felis colocolo crespoi Cabrera, 1957. North-west Argentina in the humid 
selva zone of eastern Salta and Tucuman, perhaps extending into the west of 


80 


Felis colocolo 


the southern chaco in the areas adjoining Bolivia (Cabrera, 1957). 


Felis colocolo garleppi Matschie, 1912 The Andes of southern Peru 
(Grimwood, 1969), western Bolivia (Cabrera, 1957), and probably the extreme 
north of Chile (Miller et al., 1983). 


Felis colocolo munoai Ximenez, 1961. Described as separate from the 
northern range of F. c. pajeros, inhabiting the subtropical zone including 
Uruguay (Ximenez, 1970), and by implication the far south of Brazil in the 
Rio Grande do Sul and the north-east of Argentina, where the population had 
formerly been referred to as F. c. pajeros by Cunha Vieira (1955). 


Felis colocolo pajeros Desmarest, 1816. In Argentina from the Pampas 
region to southern Patagonia (Cabrera, 1957), and perhaps southern Chile in 
the Patagonian/Fuegian forest (Taber, 1974). 


Felis colocolo thomasi Lónnberg, 1913. The sierra zone of Ecuador and 
northern Peru (Cabrera, 1957). The boundary in Peru between this subspecies 
and F. c. garleppi is unknown. 


POPULATION There are no population estimates for any of the countries where 
this species occurs; only general comments on status and abundance are 
available. 


Argentina Rare to endangered in Salta province in the north-west (Mares et 
al., 1981), and generally scarce although widespread in other regions 
(Argentina CITES MA, 1986). Listed as vulnerable in national wildlife 
protection legislation (Resolution No. 144). 


Bolivia Widely distributed, but information on status has proved difficult 
to obtain. Recorded as "insufficiently known" by Tello (1986). 


Brazil Population and status unknown. 


Chile Increasingly uncommon in Chile; both F. c. garleppi and F. c. 
colocolo were reported to be rare (Miller et al., 1983) and F. c. pajeros 
was inadequately known (Taber, 1974). 


Ecuador Population and status unknown. 
Paraguay Population and status unknown. 


Peru Reported to have been unaffected by commercial hunting owing to the 
low value of skins, and, although it was thought likely that the increase of 
the human population had depleted the natural food supply in some areas, the 
species was reported to survive in significant numbers in all areas (Grimwood, 
1969). 


Uruguay Reported to have been scarce in the early part of this century 
(Sanborn, 1929), no more recent information available. 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Found in a variety of habitats. In Argentina it was 
reported to inhabit open grasslands in most parts of the country, hiding in 
the pampas or "pajero" grass, while in northern regions it was found in humid 
forests (Guggisberg, 1975). In Peru it was reported to be typically an animal 
of Andean valleys, but it was also found in the ceja de selva zone and on the 
western slopes of the Andes in the coastal region at elevations of 100 m to 
200 m (Grimwood, 1969). In the montane zone of north-west Argentina the 
species was found at an altitude of 2000 m (Ximenez, 1970). It is a mainly 
terrestrial and nocturnal animal, preying on small mammals, especially guinea 


81 


Felis colocolo 


pigs, and ground-inhabiting birds. It has also been known to attack domestic 
poultry (Guggisberg, 1975). 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL Very little information available. 


Argentina Thought to have been naturally quite rare; however hunting 
pressure was believed to be a major threat and the species was becoming 
increasingly uncommon (Ojeda and Mares, 1982). The extent of habitat 
destruction and alteration varied considerably from region to region 
(Argentina CITES MA, 1986). Significant numbers of skins were exported from 
Buenos Aires during the 1970s, although this trade represented less than one 
percent of the total value of wildlife exports (Mares and Ojeda, 1984). 


Bolivia No information. 
Brazil No information. 


Chile Threatened primarily by loss of habitat and also by exploitation for 
meat and skins, sport hunting and predator control (Miller et al., 1983). 


Ecuador No information. 
Paraguay Potentially threatened by the skin trade (Acevedo, 1987). 


Peru Not subject to commercial hunting owing to the low value of skins, 
thought to be quite tolerant of the effects of human population increase 
(Grimwood, 1969). 


Uruguay No information. 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE This species was not included in the recent study of 
the trade in neotropical cat skins (Melquist, 1984). However considerable 
numbers are known to have entered international trade. A total of 78 239 
specimens was reported to have been exported from Buenos Aires, Argentina, 
between 1976 and 1979 inclusive, with a value of US$1.8 million; this 
represented less than one percent of the total value of wildlife exports 
during this period (Mares and Ojeda, 1984). The trade reported by CITES 
Parties is detailed below. 


Table 1. Apparent minimum net imports of F. colocolo skins reported to 
CITES, 1980-85. A skin plate (pl.) is made up of an unspecified number of 


skins which may, from examples involving other species, include about ten 
skins. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
Germany, F.R. 9150 4296 - 361 - = 
Spain 1240 - 11 pl. = = A 
Switzerland 649 2 42 - - - 
USA 7 1 = E = e 
Total 11046 4299 42+11 pl. 361 0 0 


FW ee A q  _ qq 


Felis colocolo 


It can be seen that the number of skins in trade decreased sharply over this 
period. The only skins reported to have been traded after 1982 were 361 which 
were re-exported from France to the Federal Republic of Germany and then 
apparently returned to France in 1983. After 1981 the number of skins 
reported to have been traded was negligible. 


Table 2. Reported countries of origin (or exporting country if no original 
source reported) and quantities of transactions in skins of Felis colocolo 
reported to CITES. The figures in parentheses show for countries with wild 
populations of the species, the number of specimens reported to have been 
exported directly by that country. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


Countries with wild populations of Felis colocolo 


Argentina 2180 3866 42 + 11 pl - - - 
(2132) (3866) (0) 
Bolivia 7 - - = = = 
(7) 
Paraguay 8201 433 - = = = 
(8201) (433) 
Uruguay 10 - - = = = 
(0) 


Countries without wild populations of Felis colocolo 


Canada 648 - 3° = a = 
Unknown 1388 2 - = = = 


Table 2 shows that after 1981 the number of skins reported to have been traded 
was negligible. This is coincident with the instigation of legal protection 
in Argentina. Before this the main sources of skins were Argentina and 
Paraguay. The main importing countries were Federal Republic of Germany and, 
to a lesser extent, Switzerland and Spain. 


Although it is likely that a large number of skins of this species did enter 
trade during the 1970s, there is no evidence that large scale commercial trade 
existed before that time and the trade seems to have declined sharply since 
the species was protected in Argentina. In early 1987, the trade ban in 
Argentina was lifted for three months to allow traders to dispose of old 
stocks of felid skins (Villalba-Macias, in litt., 1986). During that period 
exports of 15 865 F. colocolo skins were authorised, but the actual number 
which left the country remains unknown (Broad, 1987). Two sources of 
information in the German skin trade reported that this species had never been 
of great importance to the fur trade (Fehns, in litt., 1986; Langenberger, 
in litt., 1986). However, the import into the EEC of all of the commonly 
traded small neotropical cats except Felis colocolo was prohibited in 
October 1986 (Anon., 1987). Therefore, if exports from Argentina are resumed 
in the future, this species may be subject to increased demand from the 
European market. 


83 


Felis colocolo 


CONSERVATION MEASURES 


Table 4. Legal prohibition on the hunting, internal trade and commercial 


export of Felis colocolo. Dates are those on which the legislation came 
into force. ? - no information (Fuller et al., 1987). 

CITES Hunting Trade Export 
Argentina 1981 1981 1981 1981 
Bolivia 1979 1979 1979 1979 
Brazil 1975 ? 1967 1967 
Chile 1975 1972 1972 1972 
Ecuador 1975 - - 1972 
Paraguay 1977 1975 1975 1975 
Peru 1975 1973* 1977 1977 
Uruguay 1975 1978 1978 1978 


* - within the Selva region only. 


The effectiveness of these controls varies greatly from country to country. 
The enforcement of the export ban in Paraguay, in particular, was erratic for 
a number of years; however controls improved significantly in 1982 (Fuller et 
al., 1987). The species is known to occur in a large number of protected 
areas (Anon., 1982). 


CAPTIVE BREEDING An total of 8 animals were bred between 1972 and 1981 in 
collections reporting to the International Zoo Yearbook. In 1982 there were 
19 animals in 7 collections, 10 of which were stated to have been captive-bred 
(Duplaix-Hall, 1974-1975; Olney, 1976-1983). 


- 


REFERENCES 


Acevedo G., C. (1987). Especies de fauna amenazadas por comercio en el 
Paraguay. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia, Paraguay, Unpublished 
report, 7 pp. 

Anon (1982). IUCN Directory of Neotropical Protected Areas. Commission on 
National Parks and Protected Areas, IUCN, Tycooly Int. Dublin, 436 pp. 

Anon. (1987). EEC import restrictions. Traffic Bulletin 8(4): 57-58. 

Broad, S. (1987). The harvest of and trade in Latin American spotted cats 
(Felidae) and otters (Lutrinae). IUCN Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit, 
Cambridge, UK, 139 pp. 

Cabrera, A. (1957). Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del sur, vol. I. 
Metatheria, Unguiculata, Carnivora. Revista del Museo Argentino de 
Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadavia', Ciencas Zoologicas 4(1): 1-307. 

Cunha Vieira, C. da (1955). Lista remissiva dos mamiferos do Brasil. Arquivos 
de Zoologia do Estado de Sao Paulo 8(2): 341-474. 

Duplaix-Hall, N. (ed). (1974-1975). International Zoo Yearbook. Volumes 
14-15, Zoological Society of London, London. 

Fuller, K.S., Swift, B., Jorgensen, A and Brautigam, A. (1987). Latin 
American wildlife trade laws. Second Edition (Revised). World Wildlife 
Fund-US, 418 pp. 

Grimwood, I.R. (1969). Notes on the distribution and status of some Peruvian 
Mammals in 1968. Special Publication 21. American Commitee for 
International Wildlife Protection and New York Zoological Society, Bronx, 
New York, 86 pp. 

Guggisberg, C.A.W. (1975). Wild cats of the world, David and Charles, 
London, 328 pp. 


84 


Felis colocolo 


Honacki, J.H., Kinman, K.E. and Koeppl, J.W. (1982). Mammal species of the 
world: A taxonomic and geographic reference. Allen Press Inc. and the 
Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas, USA, 694 pp. 

Mares, M.A. and Ojeda, R.A. (1984). Faunal commercialization and conservation 
in South America. BioScience 34(9): 580-584. 

Mares, M.A., Ojeda, R.A. and Kosco, M.P. (1981). Observations on the 
distribution and ecology of the mammals of Salta Province, Argentina. 
Annals of the Carnegie Museum 50: 151-206. 

Melquist, W.E. (1984). Status survey of otters (Lutrinae) and spotted cats 
(Felidae) in Latin America. Contract completion report, IUCN, Switzerland, 
269 pp. 

Miller, S.D., Rottmann, J., Raedeke, K.J. and Taber, R.D. (1983). Endangered 
Mammals of Chile: Status and conservation. Biological Conservation 25: 
335-352. 

Ojeda, R.A. and Mares, M.A. (1982). Conservation of South American mammals: 
Argentina as a paradigm. In: Mares, M.A. and Genoways, H.H. (eds). 
Mammalian biology in South America, Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology 
Spec. Publ. No. 6, Linesville, PA. pp. 505-521. 

Olney, P.J.S. (ed) (1976-1983). International Zoo Yearbook. Volumes 16-23, 
Zoological Society of London, London. 

Osgood, W.H. (1943). The mammals of Chile. Field Museum of Natural History, 
(Zoology Series) 30: 1-268. 

Sanborn, C.C. (1929). The land mammals of Uruguay. Zoological Series, Field 
Museum of Natural History Publication 265, 17(4): 147-165. 

Taber, R. (1974). Endangered wildlife of Chile. World Wildlife Yearbook 
1973-74: 247-251. 

Tello, J.L. (1986). The situation of the wild cats (Felidae) in Bolivia. 
Including notes on other wildlife species and on general aspects of the 
conservation and utilization of natural resources. CITES Secretariat, 60 
Pp. 

Ximenez, A. (1970). Notas sobre félidos neotropicales, I. Felis colocolo 
braccata y sus relaciones con Felis colocolo munoai y Felis colocolo 
pajeros. Communicaciones Zoologicas del Museo de Historia Natural de 
Montevideo 10(130): 1-7. 


85 


GEOFFROY'S CAT Recommended list: 2 
(Possible problem] 
Felis geoffroyi D'Orbigny and Gervais, 1844 


Order CARNIVORA Family FELIDAE 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A mainly terrestrial, nocturnal inhabitant of scrub 
woodland and open bush country, with a varied diet of small mammals and 
birds. Its distribution is largely within Argentina and it has been described 
as quite common throughout much of its range. Population sizes are however 
unknown, and status information is largely based on general comments. 
Reportedly threatened by habitat destruction and alteration and to a lesser 
extent over-harvest. The species is protected throughout its range although 
the extent to which these controls are effective is difficult to assess. 


Exports from Argentina in the late 1970s averaged over 80 000 skins each 
year. Large numbers of skins have been reported in trade by CITES Parties in 
recent years, averaging almost 55 000 each year between 1980 and 1984, 
although the number reported as direct exports from countries with wild 
populations of the species decreased significantly over the period. By 1984 
the number of skins in trade with origin Paraguay, previously the major source 
country, had decreased considerably, however large numbers of skins were 
reported to have been exported from Bolivia. The number of skins reported in 
trade by CITES Parties in 1985 dropped to under 2000, therefore it seems 
likely that the trade is in decline. A large stock-pile of skins was exported 
from Argentina in early 1987, but otherwise no legal source of skins of this 
species remains. 


There are no detailed assessments of the population inhabiting any of the 
countries in the range of this species, therefore the effect of such trade 
cannot easily be assessed. The 1986 ban on imports of this species into the 
EEC effectively cuts off the major market from the source countries. The 
volume of trade is likely to continue to decline and, at present, insufficient 
information us available upon which to assess the potential for sustainable 
harvest and trade. 


DISTRIBUTION From the Bolivian Andes and the mountains of north-western 
Argentina, through the Gran Chaco to Uruguay and southern Rio Grande do Sul in 
Brazil, south through the length of Argentina to the Rio Gallegos in Patagonia 
(Guggisberg, 1975). A great deal of confusion has surrounded the designation 
of subspecies. Ximenez (1975) recognises four, distributed as follows. 


Pelis geoffroyi euxantha Pocock, 1940. Andes of Bolivia (Cabrera, 1957) 


Felis geoffroyi geoffroyi In Argentina from south of Azul in the 
province of Buenos Aires south through pampas and forest areas to the far 
south of Patagonia (Ximenez, 1975). Marginally in the pampas of southern 
Chile along the border with Argentina (Miller et al., 1983). This 
includes the fifth subspecies leucobapta claimed by Cabrera (1957). 


Felis geoffroyi paraguae Pocock, 1940. Substantially extended by Ximenez 
(1973) to include the chaco of northern Argentina and the areas of Santa Fe 
and Entre Rios west of the border with Uruguay. The far south of the state of 
Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil (Cunha Vieira, 1955). Throughout the chaco 
(Wetzel and Lovett, 1974) and southern regions (Ximenez, 1975) of Paraguay 
and the whole of Uruguay (Ximenez, 1973). 


Felis geoffroyi salinarum Thomas, 1903. Montane zone of north-west 
Argentina from Jujuy and Salta to Mendoza and San Luis (Cabrera, 1957). 


86 


Felis geoffroyi 


POPULATION There are no estimates of the population inhabiting any of the 
countries where this species occurs; only general comments on status and 
abundance are available. Melquist (1984) reported that the species was 
generally considered common and widespread in all countries except Chile, 
although it was also recognised that populations were decreasing throughout 
the range. Koford (1973) described the species as fairly common. 


Argentina Uncommon in Salta province in the north-west (Mares et al., 
1981) and in general scarce but widespread (Argentina CITES MA, 1986), 
although Melquist (1984) reported it to be quite common throughout most of the 
country and the national wildlife conservation legislation (Resolution 144) 
lists this species as ‘in no danger’. 


Bolivia Population and status unknown. 


Brazil Described by Koford (1973) as generally common. However the 
population size and status are otherwise unknown. 


Chile Status inadequately known although possibly vulnerable due to 
intensive hunting in the past (Miller et al., 1983). The amount of 
favourable habitat was reported to be minimal (Melquist, 1984). 


Paraguay The most common spotted cat in the chaco (Melquist, 1984). 


Uruguay Relatively common throughout the country, certainly the most common 
cat species (Ximenez, 1973). 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY An inhabitant of mountainous terrain (Denis, 1964), of 
scrub woodlands and open bush country in both plains and foothill areas 
(Guggisberg, 1975). It is mainly, but not exclusively, terrestrial (Koford, 
1973) and has few predators other than man. Reported to be largely nocturnal, 
preying on birds such as Myiopsitta monachus and Nothura maculosa and 
mammals such as Oryzomys and Cavia. Recorded between sea level and 3300 m 
in Bolivia. A single litter is produced each year usually of two or three 
young, births having been recorded between December and May in Uruguay 
(Ximenez, 1975). 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL Reported to be versatile and tolerant of moderate 
deforestation (Koford, 1973). Respondents to a questionnaire survey covering 
most South American countries suggested that habitat disturbance, followed by 
overharvest and human disturbance, were the main threats to the species. The 
clearing of large tracts of Chaco forest for cattle ranches in Paraguay was 
emphasised as a problem. Heavily harvested in the past throughout its range, 
however hunting has reduced in recent years (Melquist, 1984). Melquist 
concluded that sustainable harvesting of Felis geoffroyi was probably 
feasible. 


Argentina A total of 341 558 specimens of this species were exported from 
Beunos Aires between 1976 and 1979 inclusive, with e value of US$8.7 million; 
this represented about four percent of the total value of wildlife exports 
during this period (Mares and Ojeda, 1984). Gonzalez (Argentina CITES MA, 
1986) reported that the species inhabited a wide variety of habitat types and 
that the extent of habitat destruction and alteration varied from region to 
region. 


Brazil Likely to be dependent on gallery forests in Rio Grande do Sul; 
poaching and habitat loss were the major threats (Melquist, 1984). 


Chile Reported to have the most valuable pelt of the Chilean cats; 
intensively hunted in the past wherever it occurred (Miller et al., 1983). 


87 


Felis geoffroyi 


Paraguay Hunting and commercial trade were extensive until the late 1970s. 
It has been suggested that Paraguay may remain a centre of illegal trade 
although the harvest was believed to have reduced considerably. Habitat loss 
remained a problem, especially in the east of the country (Melquist, 1984). 
Potentially threatened by the skin trade (Acevedo, 1987). 


Uruguay A number of garments made of skins of this species were identified 
in shops in Montevideo. Retailers stated that the skins were obtained in the 
north and north-east of the country (Melquist, 1984). In March 1986 large 
numbers of skins were confiscated from fur shops in Motevideo when it was 
found that identification stamps were false (Anon., 1986). 


INTERNATIONAL _ TRADE Exports from Argentina of skins of this species 
totalled over 341 000 between 1976 and 1979 (Mares and Ojeda, 1984). A study 
of the German trade reported that Felis geoffroyi seemed to have been 
increasingly heavily exploited since 1978, when Paraguay began to replace 
Brazil as the main supplier of cat skins to the world market. In 1981 over 
70 000 skins of this species were imported into F.R. Germany alone. The 
report noted that in 1982 there was a marked decrease in the number of these 
skins reported by CITES Parties as imports from Paraguay (Celdwell, 1984). 


Table 1. Apparent minimum net imports of F. colocolo skins reported to 
CITES, 1980-85. Figures represent numbers of skins unless otherwise indicated. 


—— 5 5 5 5 AAAAAA<áÁ 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
ES A en E ee es AAA 
Argentina - 3491 - - - - 
Austria 79 237 318 331 66 67 
Belgium 2327 - 79 - 1000 - 
Cyprus - - 22 - - - 
France 5 - - - 14844 1683 
Finland - - - 10 - - 
Germany, F.R. 51612 76802 15874 77605 3544 - 
Greece 3819 - 5412 - - - 
Italy 6470 2861 32 - 2365 - 
Japan - - - 1 363 kg - 
Luxembourg - - 32 - - - 
Malta 7 - - - - - 
Monaco - - - 25 - - 
Netherlands - - - 2 - - 
Singapore - - - al - - 
Spain 424 908 761 302 653 - 
Switzerland - - - - - 1 
UK 1871 - - - - - 
USA 1 601 3 1 1 - 
Total 66615 84900 22533 78278 22473 1751 

- - - - + 363 kg 


According to CITES data (tables 1 and 2), the volume of world trade during 
these years can be seen to have fluctuated considerably. The number of skins 
recorded in trade in 1985 was far lower than that recorded in any of the other 
years. Further years' data are required to assess whether this indicates a 
real decline in the trade in this species. The major source of the skins in 
trade was Paraguay and to a lesser degree Argentina. The decline to 1982, 
noted by Caldwell (1984), was mot sustained, and large numbers of skins of 
Paraguayan origin were reported in trade in 1983. 


88 


Felis geoffroyi 


Table 2. Reported countries of origin (or exporting country if no origin 
reported) and numbers of skins of F. colocolo reported to CITES. The 
figures in parentheses show, for countries with wild populations of the 
species, the number of skins reported to have been exported directly by that 
country. 


e 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


a ——K<KÁ—Á— 


Countries with wild populations of Felis geoffroyi 


Argentina 8124 1233 3126 8 2024 = 
(7351) (1233) (1) (8) (0) 
Bolivia - 1 - 3310 13844 1751 
(1) (3310) (13844) (1683) 
Paraguay 58767 81871 21137 84921 4500 - 
+ 363 kg 
(58667) (72725) (8500) (3000) (363 kg) 


Countries without wild populations of Felis geoffroyi 


Belize - - 2 - - = 
Canada 151 10 - - - _ 
France 28 - - - - - 
Germany, F.R. 349 14 - - - - 
Nicaragua - - - - - 
UK - 2079 - - - - 
United States - - - - 1000 - 
Unknown 1388 1633 843 10130 4319 - 


8 


Since 1982 the number of skins reported each year as direct exports from 
countries with wild populations of the species has decreased considerably, 
despite a large number having been exported from Bolivia in 1984. 


It can be seen that the Federal Republic of Germany was the major consumer of 
skins during these years. The decrease in the numbers of skins imported in 
1984 and 1985 reflects the lack of legal sources to supply the trade in those 
years. In early 1987 Argentina authorised exports of old stocks of felid 
skins, including over 65 000 skins of Felis geoffroyi. However the number 
of skins which were finally exported is not known (Broad, 1987). 


CONSERVATION MEASURES 


Table 4. Legal prohibition on the hunting, internal trade and commercial 
export of Felis geoffroyi. Dates are those on which the legislation came 
into force. ? - no information (Fuller et al., 1987). 


CITES Hunting Trade Export 
AAA A AAA AAA eS 
Argentina 1981 1981 1981 1981 
Bolivia 1979 1979 1979 1979 
Brazil 1975 ? 1967 1967 
Chile 1975 1972 1972 1972 
Paraguay 1977 1975 1975 1975 
Uruguay 1975 1978 1978 1978 


RÉ ees ee AA A A 


89 


Felis geoffroyi 


The effectiveness of these legislative controls varies greatly from country to 
country. The enforcement of the export ban in Paraguay was erratic for a 
number of years; however controls improved significantly in 1982 (Fuller et 
al., 1987). On the basis of the declared countries of origin of skins in 
trade (Table 2), the majority of the trade has been illegal. In October 1986 
the EEC prohibited the import of skins of Felis geoffroyi (Anon., 1987). 


Known to occur in a large number of protected areas (Anon., 1982). 


CAPTIVE BREEDING An annual average of 12 animals were bred between 1972 and 
1981 in collections contributing to the International Zoo Yearbook 
(Duplaix-Hall, 1974-1975; Olney, 1976-1983). 


REFERENCES 


Acevedo G., C. (1987). Especies de fauna amenazadas por comercio en el 
Paraguay. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia, Paraguay, Unpublished 
report, 7 pp. 

Anon. (1982). IUCN Directory of Neotropical Protected Areas. Commission on 
National Parks and Protected Areas, IUCN, Tycooly Int., Dublin, 436 pp. 

Anon. (1986). Skins seized in Uruguay. Traffic Bulletin 8(2): 32. 

Anon. (1987). EEC import restrictions. Traffic Bulletin 8(4): 57-58. 

Broad, S. (1987). The harvest of and trade in Latin American spotted cats 
(Felidae) and otters (Lutrinae). IUCN Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit, 
Cambridge, UK, 139 pp. 

Cabrera, A. (1957). Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del sur, vol. I. 
Metatheria, Unguiculata, Carnivora. Revista del Museo Argentino de 
Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadavia', Ciencas Zoologicas 4(1): 1-307. 

Caldwell, J.R. (1984). South American cats in trade: The German connection. 
Traffic Bulletin 6(2): 31-32. 

Cunha Vieira, C. da (1955). Lista remissiva dos mamiferos do Brasil. Arquivos 
de Zoologia do Estado de Sao Paulo 8(2): 341-474. 

Denis, A. (1964). Cats of the world. Constable, London, 119 pp. 

Duplaix-Hall, N. (ed). (1974-1975). International Zoo Yearbook. Volumes 
14-15, Zoological Society of London, London. 

Fuller, K.S., Swift, B., Jorgensen, A and Brautigam, A. (1987). Latin 
American wildlife trade laws. Second Edition (Revised). World Wildlife 
Fund-US, 418 pp. 

Guggisberg, C.A.W. (1975). Wild cats of the world. David and Charles, 
London, 328 pp. 

Koford, K.B. (1973). Spotted cats in Latin America: An interim report. Oryx 
12(1): 37-39. 

Mares, M.A. and Ojeda, R.A. (1984). Faunal commercialization and conservation 
in South America. BioScience 34(9): 580-584. 

Mares, M.A., Ojeda, R.A. and Kosco, M.P. (1981). Observations on the 
distribution and ecology of the mammals of Salta Province, Argentina. 
Annals of the Carnegie Museum 50: 151-206. 

Melquist, W.E. (1984). Status survey of otters (Lutrinae) and spotted cats 
(Felidae) in Latin America. Contract completion report, IUCN, Gland, 
Switzerland, 269 pp. 

Miller, S.D., Rottmann, J., Raedeke, K.J. and Taber, R.D. (1983). Endangered 
mammals of Chile: Status and conservation. Biological Conservation 25: 
335-352. 

Olney, P.J.S. (ed) (1976-1983). International Zoo Yearbook. Volumes 16-23, 
Zoological Society of London, London. 

Wetzel, R.M. and Lovett, J.W. (1974). A collection of mammals from the Chaco 
of Paraguay. The University of Connecticut Occasional Papers, Biological 
Science Series 2(13): 203-216. 


90 


Felis geoffroyi 


Kimenez, A. (1973). Notas sobre félidos neotropicales, III. 
conocimiento de Felis geoffroyi D'Orbigny and Gervais, 1844 y sus formas 
geograficas (Mammalia, Felidae). Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia, Sao Paolo 
27(3): 31-43. 

Kimenez, A. (1975). Felis geoffroyi. 
American Society of Mammologists. 


Contribucion al 


Mammalian Species No. 54, pp. 1-4. 


91 


EURASIAN LYNX Recommended list: 2 
[Possible problem) 


Felis lynx Linnaeus, 1758 


Order  CARNIVORA Family  FELIDAE 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A widely distributed forest predator found 
throughout large areas of Europe and temperate Asia restricted in many parts 
of its range by human activity to remaining mountainous and wooded areas. 
Extensively persecuted by man for its valuable fur and because it has been 
considered a pest of game animals and livestock. It has been over-hunted in 
the past in many areas, especially in Europe, where remaining and reintroduced 
populations are small but now largely protected and stable. 


Between 1980 and 1984 the number of skins in trade averaged just over 2000 
each year. However, net trade reported for 1985 totalled over 12 000 skins. 
The main source countries were China and the USSR; exports from both of these 
countries increased markedly in 1985. A small number (< 30) of live animals 
were recorded in trade each year, mostly for zoological purposes and many 
recorded as captive-bred. 


In most areas hunting, both legal and illegal, has been identified as a threat 
to the species; however most of the skins in international trade originated in 
China and USSR, where the population sizes are unknown but probably large, 
while the number of skins traded has been comparatively small. The population 
in the USSR has been described as stable while the Chinese population is 
thought to have declined somewhat. Little is known of the management of the 
harvest of the species in either country. Considering the decreasing number 
of felid species now available to the fur trade and the apparent increase in 
the number of Felis lynx skins in trade in 1985, the harvest of and trade in 
this species should be closely monitored in the future. 


DISTRIBUTION Distribution encompasses the entire taiga forest from 
Scandinavia to east Siberia, montane forest in Europe (formerly widespread but 
now confined to Balkans and Carpathians), Caucasus, Asia minor, Kopet Dag and 
east to Manchuria, Kansu, Tsaidam and south-east Tibet; the island of Sakhalin 
and perhaps Sardinia (Corbet, 1978). 


The taxonomy of the lynx is a matter of some controversy, both at specific and 
generic level. Many authorities include lynx in the genus Felis (subgenus 
Lynx) (Corbet, 1978) though others consider Lynx a separate genus (Honacki 
et al., 1982; Werdelin, 1981). The lynx has generally been considered 
monospecific, as Felis lynx or Lynx lynx, (Corbet, 1978; McCord and 
Cardoza, 1982), although both the Nearctic and Iberian populations are 
sometimes treated as separate species, canadensis and pardina respectively 
(Honacki et al., 1982). Recent research by Werdelin (1981) supports the use 
of these separate species. CITES recognizes three species, all as Felis, 
and therefore this usage is followed here, Felis lynx thus being taken to 
comprise Eurasian Lynx populations except that in Iberia. 


A large number of subspecies have been described by a variety of authors and 
there is certainly a good deal of evidence to suggest that clear 
differentiation between geographical populations should be possible 
CH. Hemmer, in litt., 1987). However, a satisfactory review of the 
nomenclature is not yet available, therefore Corbet (1978) is followed here. 
Excluding pardina, Corbet tentatively recognizes three subspecies: Felis 
lynx lynx (boreal forest and Carpathians); Felis lynx sardiniae Mola, 1908 
(Sardinia); and Felis lynx isabellina Blyth, 1847 (Mountains of Central 
Asia); however he considers F. 1. isabellina to be possibly invalid, and the 


92 


Felis lynx 


existence of any lynx on Sardinia is considered doubtful by many (Festetics, 
1978). 


Felis lynx lynx 


Albania Occurring in mountainous areas along the eastern border 
(Kratochvil, 1968c). 


Austria Not found in the province of Vorarlburg in the past century. The 
most recent record for Oberôsterreich was in 1980 but it is generally 
considered extirpated from the country (Austria CITES MA, 1986). 
Reintroduction was attempted in the Steiermark area (Festetics, 1978). 


China Bangjie (1984) reported that in the north the lynx was found in the 
Greater and Lesser Xinan-ling ranges in the northern parts of Inner Mongolia 
and Manchuria; to the west it was found in the Altai and Tianshan mountains in 
Xinjiang; to the south it occurred in the Himalayas in Tibet and the mountains 
in western Sichuan. It was also found in Chinghai, Gansu, Ningxia, Shanxi, 
Shaanxi, Habei and eastwards to Jilin (this description included Felis lynx 
isabellina). Some controversy surrounds the designation of the populations 
in China. Some Chinese zoologists believe that all of the animals in the 
country are F.l. isabellina while others state that the populations in 
Manchuria, Inner Mongolia and north-west China should be F.1. lynx. 


Czechoslovakia Reported to occur in eastern regions in the Carpathians, 
Slovakia (Kratochvil, 1968a). Reintroduced into the south-west of the country 
in the early 1980s (U. Wotschikowsky, in litt., 1987). 


Federal Republic of Germany Occasional occurence reported in Bavaria of 
animals from Czechoslovakia, but no resident population remains (F.R. Germany 
CITES MA, 1986). There have been a number of unsuccessful reintroduction 
attempts, most recently in the Bayerischer Wald National Park, Bavaria (Kempf 
et al., 1979). 


Finland Occurred sporadically throughout much of the country (Pulliainen, 
1968). The main population was reported to occur in the eastern and north 
eastern parts of the country (L. Blomquist, in litt., 1987). 


France A few isolated populations have been reported in the Pyrenees 
(Fayard et al., 1984). Reintroduced in 1983 and 1987 in Vosges 
(V. Herrenschmidt, in litt., 1987; U. Wotschikowsky, in litt., 1987). The 
species also occurs in the Jura region (départements of Haute-Savoie, Ain, 
Jura and Douns) and in the French Alps (départements of Savoie and 
Haute-Savoie); these animals are thought to have originated from the 
reintroduced population in Switzerland (V. Herrenschmidt, in litt., 1987). 


German Democratic Republic A few were reported to remain in the south and 
east of the country (Festetics, 1978), but no recent records are known and it 
is unlikely that the species still occurs in the country (U. Wotschikowsky, 
in litt., 1987). 


Greece A few remained in the northern areas bordering Albania and 
Yugoslavia (Festetics, 1978). 


Iran Believed to occur, as skins were abundant in the Tehran fur market 
(Lay, 1967). 


Iraq It was reported to be found in the mountains of Kurdistan in the north 
(Harrison, 1968). 


93 


Felis lynx 
North Korea Reported to occur (Won Pyong-Oh, 1976). 
Norway Widely distributed (Myrberget, 1968). 


Poland Described as occurring in restricted areas of the north-east and 
more abundantly in areas along the south-eastern border (Haber and 
Matuszewski, 1968). 


Romania Found throughout the Carpathian mountain areas (Kratochvil, 1968b). 


Spain Possibly found in the Pyrenees (Festetics, 1978). This record was 
reportedly based upon observations of tracks and its validity is open to 
question (Spain CITES MA, 1987). It has been suggested that, if a relict 
population does occur in the Pyrenees, it may represent an intermediate race 
between Felis lynx and Felis pardina (H. Hemmer, in litt., 1987). 


Sweden Recorded in 1968 as present throughout most of the country 
(Curry-Lindahl, 1968). More recently described as fairly widespread but 
declining (Sweden CITES MA, 1986). 


Switzerland Reintroduced populations now exist in the Jura and Alpine 
regions (Switzerland CITES MA, 1985). 


Syria Possibly present (Harrison, 1968), though not listed by Kumerloeve 
(1975) for that country. 


Turkey Widespread but thinly distributed, more common in the east of the 
country (Mursaloglu, 1981). Reported by Turan (1987) to occur in regions 
south of the Sea of Marmara, in central and eastern regions bordering the 
Black Sea, in northern and western parts of central Anatolia, in the 
Mediterranean region and in southern Anatolian forests. Perhaps also found in 
west Anatolia and north Anatolia. 


USSR Throughout the whole forest area, from the western border to the 
Pacific coast, although not always to the northern forest limit, and also in 
some areas of the Soviet Carpathians and Caucasus mountains (Novikov, 1968). 


Yugoslavia Reported to occur sporadically in the south (Kratochvil, 
1968c). Lynx were reintroduced in 1973 in Kocevje in the north-west (Kempf 
et al., 1979). This reintroduced population now covers parts of Slowenia, 
Croatia and Bosnia (U. Wotschikowsky, in litt., 1987). 


Felis lynx sardiniae 


This subspecies was based on a report in 1908 in Sardinia (Mola, 1908); 
however some authors suggest that the specimen may have been misidentified, 
being in fact Felis libyca sarda, Sardinian wild cat (Festetics, 1978). 


Felis lynx isabellina 


Afghanistan Reported to occur in the Hindu Kush, Nuristan, Wakhan and the 
Pamirs (Anon, 198la). Naumann and Niethammer (1973) noted two skins of Felis 
lynx from south of Sarhad, Wakhan and near Shaur, Greater Pamir. 


Bhutan Reported to occur (Festetics, 1978). 


China Reported as occurring in the Qiangtang plateau region of Tibet (Zheng 
Zuoxin et al., 1981), however the division northwards with Felis lynx lynx 
was unclear. Bangjie (in litt., 1987) reported that many Chinese zoologists 
treat the whole Chinese population as F.1. isabellina but that others 


94 


Felis lynx 


believe that only the southern populations should be classified as this 
subspecies. 


India Reported to occur in Gilgit and Ladakh in North Kashmir (Anon, 1981b). 


Mongolia Stated to be distributed in the taiga forest of the Hentei and 
Hovsgol and the Hangaii mountains, the mountains of Transaltai, Gobi and 
Hinguan (Mallon, 1985). 


Nepal Reports were restricted to the Dhauligiri region (Fox, 1985) and 
Mustang district (Mitchell and Derksen, 1976). 


Pakistan Described as very thinly distributed throughout the northern 
regions of Chitral and inhabiting most districts of Gilgit as well as 
Balistan; it was also reported to probably occur in the Indus Kohistan regicn 
and into the northern alpine region of Hazara district (Roberts, 1977). 


USSR Map in the USSR Red Data Book shows it as occurring in the highlands 
of eastern Turkestan, extending into the Tien Shan and the Pamirs (Bannikov 
and Sokolov, 1984). 


POPULATION There are no estimates of the total world population of Felis 
lynx, and the availability and quality of information for each country vary 
considerably. 


Afghanistan No population estimate, lynx were reported to be rare and in 
some areas severely threatened. Although reported to be of relatively minor 
importance to the skin trade (Rodenburg, 1977), populations have been depleted 
by hunting (Habibi, 1977). 


Albania Miric (1978) estimated a combined total of 100 animals in Albania 
and Greece and Kempf et al. (1979) estimated a population of about 100 
individuals. No other status information is available. 


Austria A reintroduction of nine animals in 1977 in the Steiermark area 
(Kempf et al., 1979) has been reported to be near failure due to 
over-hunting of the lynx and their dispersal into neighbouring countries 
(Wotschikowsky, 1983). 


Bhutan No information. 


China No overall population estimate. Bangjie (in litt., 1987) reported 
that illegal hunting was not a great threat and that, although the population 
had undoubtedly declined, the species was not seriously endangered. The 
overall level of decline was thought to have decreased in recent years. 


Czechoslovakia Hell (1968) stated that the lynx was not endangered in 
Czechoslovakia; that on the contrary, the population had increased excessively 
and losses to lynx of domestic livestock had increased. Kempf et al. (1979) 
reported a population of 500. The European Lynx Group stated that the 
Carpathian forests were fully inhabited with a total population in the country 
of about 400, now increasing following a decline in the early 1970s (Jackson, 
1984). The reintroduced population of 5 animals in the south-west was 
reportedly doing well (U. Wotschikowsky, in litt., 1987). 


Federal Republic of Germany Lynx were reintroduced in 1970/71 in Bavaria 
but this population has reportedly declined due to illegal hunting and 


dispersal into Czechoslovakia (Kempf et al., 1979). Occasional] single 
animals reportedly enter Bavaria from Czechoslovakia (F.R. Germany CITES MA, 
1986). In 1986 and 1987 one or two specimens were recorded in the Bavarian 


95 


Felis lynx 


Forest National Park which were thought to have originated in Czechoslovakia 
(U. Wotschikowsky, in litt., 1987). 


Finland The most recent population estimate was 550-600 in 1986, the 
population having recovered under protection from only about 100 animals in 
the late 1960s (L. Blomquist, in litt., 1987). Some animals are thought to 
have migrated into Finland from the east due to a healthy population in the 
USSR (Pulliainen, 1968), but the numbers are thought to have been very small. 
The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry hopes to allow the population to 
increase to 900-1000 animals (L. Blomquist, in litt., 1987). 


France The population in Jura is estimated as 5-15 animals, and a very 
small population remains in the Pyrenees. The growing Jura population was 
thought to have originated from reintroductions in Switzerland. In 1987 there 
were 7 animals in Vosges (V. Herrenschmidt, in litt., 1987), about 5 were 
reintroduced in 1983 and 4 more in 1987 (U. Wotschikowsky, in litt., 1987). 


German Democratic Republic Festetics (1978) estimated the population to 
have been 10-15 in 1972; Kempf et al. (1979) reported 10-20 individuals, but 
no records are known from recent years and it is doubtful that the species 
still occurs in the country (U. Wotschikowsky, in litt., 1987). 


Greece Population size and status is unknown. Reportedly very rare in 
Greece with a combined total population of 100 in north-west Greece and 
eastern Albania (Miric, 1978). Kempf et al. (1979) estimated a population 
of no more than 20. 


India No population estimate is available. Lynx were reported to be rare 
in Ladakh and Gilgit due to habitat destruction and human persecution (Anon, 
1981b). Osborne et al. (1983) stated that lynx were local and rare in 
Ladakh, few live animals were observed but some pelts were on sale. A recent 
Survey found evidence of lynx in Markha Valley, Ladakh; sizeable areas of 
suitable habitat reportedly remained (H.S. Panwar, in litt., 1987). 


Iran No population estimate. In the 1960s pelts were abundant in the 
Tehran fur market (Lay, 1967). 


Iraq No information. 
North Korea No information. 


Mongolia Reported as rare in some parts of its range, although the 
population size was unknown (Mallon, 1985). 


Nepal No information available. 


Norway Lynx were practically extinct in 1930 (Merberget, 1968). Recent 
estimates of population size vary from 150 to 700 animals (Jackson, 1984). 


Pakistan No estimate of the population size is available. Described as 
rare (Pakistan CITES MA, 1986). Roberts (1977) reported that lynx were 


uncommon, even in remote regions, and that the skins were highly prized by 
hunters. 


Poland Population estimates vary; Haber and Matuszewski (1968) reported an 
increase from extreme rarity in the 1940s up to about 330 individuals twenty 
years later; Kempf et al. (1979) estimated the population to be around 
400-500 and more recently Jackson (1984) described a ‘healthy’ population of 


600 animals. However, Wotschikowsky (in Jitt., 1987) thought that the 
latter estimate was too high. 


96 


Felis lynx 


Romania The population size was thought to be about 1000 individuals by the 
1960s, and in 1962 hunting was permitted to control the growing population 
(Kratochvil, 1968b). No recent population estimates are available. 


Spain The occurrence of Felis lynx in the Spanish Pyrenees is uncertain 
(Festetics, 1978). 


Sweden The population was reported to have increased from near extinction 
in 1930 to 400 animals in the early 1960s owing to total protection during the 
1930s and 1940s and more recently up to about 700 (Jackson, 1984). A recent 
report, however, suggested that the population had probably declined somewhat 
in the early 1980's (Sweden CITES MA, 1986). 


Switzerland Two reintroductions of animals from Czechoslovakia in the 1970s 
are thought to have been succesful (Wotschikowsky, 1983). Dollinger 
(Switzerland CITES MA, 1985) estimated the population in the Jura region to be 
30-50, with a further 50-100 animals in the Alps. However, Wotschikowsky (in 
litt., 1987) cited an estimate of 50 for the alpine population and claimed 
that 30-50 in Jura was an over-exaggeration. 


Syria No information. 
Turkey No information. 


USSR The USSR has the largest lynx population, spread from the Pacific 
coast to the western border, with isolated populations in the Carpathians and 
central Asia. The total population size was estimated as 36 000 animals with 
the bulk of of this number distributed in Asia (Festetics, 1978). Novikov 
(1968) detailed the distribution and population of lynx in the western regions 
of the USSR, and stated that the species often reached high population density 
and did not seem to have been declining in overall numbers despite 
exploitation for the fur trade. 


Yugoslavia Kempf et al. (1979) estimated a natural population of 220-300 
in the south-east which was reported by Wotschikowsky (in litt., 1987) to be 
increasing because the poisoning of wolves had been stopped. A reintroduction 
attempt in 1973 in Slovenia has been reported to have been successful, the 
population in the area was reported to have reached 40-50 animals (Kempf et 
al., 1979) despite over 100 animals having been hunted, trapped or killed by 
traffic by 1985 (U. Wotschikowsky, in litt., 1987). 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY The lynx is a forest predator reported to have a 
preference for old high-timbered forest with dense undergrowth, however it is 
known to colonize a variety of other habitat types (Guggisberg, 1975). In 
Pakistan, for example, the lynx is associated with alpine slopes above the 
treeline in mountainous areas (Roberts, 1977). A solitary animal, pair 
formation only taking place for a brief period during the mating season. It 
is territorial, territories ranging in size between 1000 ha and 10 000 ha 
(Kempf et al., 1979) and sometimes as large as 20 000 ha (Pfeffer, 1979), 
depending on prey abundance and habitat type. Telemetry studies in the Alps 
indicated that territories may be far larger than previous reports had 
suggested; certainly larger than 100 000 ha (Haller and Breitenmoser, cited by 
Wotschikowsky, U., in litt., 1987). In the Carpathian mountains of eastern 
Europe the species has been seen at altitudes ranging from 150 m to 2000 m, 
however 700-1100 m was thought to be optimal (Kempf et al., 1979). In the 
Gobi Altai range it is not found much higher than the timberline at 1800 m 
(Guggisberg, 1975); however in Tibet, northern India, and Pakistan Felis lynx 
isabellina is reported to migrate in summer to high alpine slopes up to 
4500 m (Guggisberg, 1975; Roberts, 1977). The lynx is very discreet, largely 
nocturnal and rarely seen. Peak activity is in the early morning and late 


97 


Felis lynx 


evening, lynx are rarely seen in broad daylight (Kempf et al., 1979). Diet 
seems to vary greatly, including hares, rabbits, other carnivores such as 
foxes, feral cats, pine and stone martens, rodents and larger mammals 
especially roe and fallow deer (Pfeffer, 1979) and chamois (Wotschikowsky, U., 


in litt., 1987). In northern Sweden, the main prey was the reindeer 
(Bjárvall and Lindstrom, 1984). Birds make up a significant proportion of the 
diet in some cases. It is also widely recognised that domestic sheep and 


goats make up part of the diet of some animals, the extent of this habit is 
reported to be minimal (Pfeffer, 1979); however this is one of the main 
reasons for human persecution. Breeding takes place from the end of February 
to early April. Gestation takes 67 to 74 days and one to four, usually two, 
young are produced. Sexual maturity is reached after 21-30 months and the 
average life-span in the wild is 10-15 years (Kempf et al., 1979). 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL Felis lynx was formerly distributed over all of 
Europe and most of temperate Asia (Guggisberg, 1975), however in many parts of 
its range populations have been restricted by human activity to remaining 
Mountainous and wooded areas. Prey abundance related population trends are 
reported to be common, although mainly on a local scale (Guggisberg, 1975) 
The lynx, being mainly a forest dweller, is sensitive to deforestation, and 
has lost a large amount of habitat due to clearance for agriculture, 
construction and fuel. It has also been hunted extensively for its valuable 
fur and persecuted by hunters and farmers, being considered a pest of game 
animals and livestock (Smit and Wijngaarden, 1976). Hunting is reported to 
involve shooting, steel leg-hold traps and poisoning (Hell, 1968; Festetics, 
1978). In many of the northern and eastern European countries where natural 
lynx populations survive, hunting, where allowed, seems to have been mainly a 
control stategy rather than a large scale collection of furs (Kratochvil, 
1968; Myrberget, 1968). Internal trade within many countries, for example the 
USSR, is significant (Novikov, 1968) but cannot easily be quantified. There 
have been various reports descibing trade in individual countries. 


Afghanistan A survey in 1976 of skin dealers in Kabul found skins and 
garments thought to represent 111 animals. One shop owner estimated a total 
annual trade in the area of 200-250 skins. Afghanistan exported 943 skins 
between 1971 and 1974, when a three year export ban was implemented 
(Rodenburg, 1977). 


Austria Reintroduction attempts have been disrupted by illegal hunting 
(Wotschikowsky, 1983). 


China Furs were reported to command higher prices than those of other small 
felids, the annual collection in the early 1950s was estimated to have been 
1000-1500 skins (Bangjie, 1984), which is quite similar to the more recent 
gross exports from the country reported by CITES Parties. Despite legal 
protection, illegal hunting is reportedly widespread. Bangjie (in litt., 
1987) found at least 10 skins on sale in December 1986 near Xining, Qinghai 
Province. Prices varied between Y800 to Y1000 (US$220-270). 


Czechoslovakia In recent years about 30 animals were reported to have been 


shot legally each year, however this number sometimes reached 100 per year 
(Wotschikowsky, 1983; in litt., 1987). 


Federal Republic of Germany Reintroduction attempts have been threatened by 
illegal hunting (Wotschikowsky, 1983). 


Finland Special hunting licences are granted in some areas where 


over-population is diagnosed; controlled hunting of an average of 10-20 
animals is allowed each year (L. Blomquist, in litt., 1987). 


98 


Felis lynx 


India Reportedly threatened by hunting and widespread removal of scrub for 
fuel in Ladakh (Osborne et al., 1983). 


Mongolia The annual trade was reported to involve 450 skins (Mallon, 1985). 


Norway Wotschikowsky (1983) reported that licensed hunting was allowed of 
about 50 animals each year. More recently only about 20 animals a year have 
been killed during the hunting season (Norway CITES MA, 1987). 


Pakistan Skins are highly prized by traders, and hunting is reported in the 
Gilgit and Chitral areas (Roberts, 1977). 


Poland About 35 animals are hunted legally each year; the numbers allowed 
are based on local population estimates (Wotschikowsky, 1983). 


Romania Legal hunting amounted to about 100 animals annually ¡in the 1970s 
(Festetics, 1978). 


Sweden Legal hunting during the open season numbers about 50 animals each 
year (Wotschikowsky, 1983; Sweden CITES MA, 1987); however in the early 1980s 
only 10-20 animals were shot annually. Hunting pressure and perhaps sarcoptic 
mange, which is common in the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), were reported to be 
the main causes of the recent population decline (Sweden CITES MA, 1986). A 
10-year study in the northern boreal region of Norrbotten, which started in 
1974 concluded that the main cause of the decline in that area had been 
hunting pressure; no evidence of sarcoptic mange was found. It was hoped that 
the reduced hunting season introduced in 1983 might remedy the decline 
(Bjarvall and Lindstrom, 1984). 


Switzerland About 15 animals died during the late 1970s as a result of 
poaching, defence of property and road and rail accidents (Switzerland CITES 
MA, 1985). 


Turkey Hunted for its valuable fur. Such hunting is allowed throughout the 
year (Turan, 1987). 


USSR Novikov (1968) described a considerable skin trade in the western 
regions of the USSR, concluding that on the whole the population was not 
declining as a result. Advertisements in Fur Review of the skins on sale at 
the Leningrad International Fur Auctions, held three times each year, indicate 
that in 1986 and 1987 between 1000 and 1500 lynx skins were offered at each 
auction. These skins may have been obtained in other countries as well as 
within the USSR; the actual number sold at each auction is unknown. 


Yugoslavia The poisoning of wolves was a considerable threat to the 
population in the south-east however this practice was stopped 
(U. Wotschikowsky, in litt., 1987). 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE The only information obtained on trade involving 
F. lynx was contained in the reports of CITES Parties. Owing to changes of 
the adopted nomenclature, CITES trade data for Felis lynx for the years 
1980-83 include many transactions which in fact refer to Felis Canadensis. 
To exclude these, all transactions with Canada or the United States as the 
reported exporter or origin were deleted from the data analysed. It is, 
however, possible that some transactions could still refer to this taxon. 


Recorded trade included live specimens, skins and skin plates of this 
species. Only the trade in skins has been analysed in detail in this account. 
An average of approximately 25 live animals were recorded in trade each year, 
most of which were reported to be for zoological purposes and many were 


99 


Felis lynx 


reported to have been captive-bred. Skin plates were excluded from the 
analysis as they were quite small in number. 


Table 1. Net skin imports reported for the years 1980-1985. The total of 
these net imports can be used as an estimate of the minimum volume of world 
trade. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
Australia - - - 17 - - 
Austria 46 45 - 34 - 44 
Belgium - - 421 74 - 11 
Bulgaria - 53 - - - - 
Canada - - - - 590 2547 
China - - - - 228 - 
Denmark 10 32 - 4 7 85 
Finland 85 - 227 - 615 2108 
France 162 95 67 25 44 256 
Germany, F.R. 94 642 1424 666 256 725 
Greece 42 - - - - - 
Hong Kong - - - - 242 758 
Ireland - - - 1 - - 
Italy 62 48 980 172 143 254 
Japan - 6 - - - 201 
Luxembourg - E 9 - - - 
Norway = - - 80 1 1 
Panama 75 - _ = = = 
South Africa - - 8 - - - 
Spain - - 23 - - - 
Sweden = 18 = = = 79 
Switzerland 107 - - - - 2385 
Taiwan = = = - 1 866 
UK 238 508 - 241 - - 
USA 30 609 86 419 1372 1775 
Unknown = = = = a 44 
Total 951 2087 3245 1733 3499 12139 


Net imports in the years 1980-1984 fluctuated below 3500 skins per year but 
the numbers recorded in trade increased markedly in 1985. Over the six-year 
period the major importers were the USA, Canada and a number of western 
European countries (F.R. Germany, Italy, the UK and Switzerland). 


The volume of trade reported was far smaller than that recorded for Felis 
Canadensis by CITES Parties in recent years. 


The main source countries were China and the USSR. Small numbers of skins 
Originated in other countries with wild populations of the species. The 
increase in the volume of world trade in 1985 was apparently caused by 
Significant increases in exports from both China and the USSR. 


Some trade was reported to sub-specific level but as there was no obligation 
for Parties to do so, it is not worthwhile analysing these data seperately to 


any greater extent than recognising that skins of Felis lynx isabellina were 
in trade. 


Felis lynx 


Table 2. Recorded origin, or where no origin was given, the exporter, of the 
skins in trade. When skins have been exported to an intermediate country and 
subsequently re-exported, the minimum net trade was calculated, ensuring that 
the numbers were only recorded once. The table therefore shows, for each 
year, the minimum number of skins in trade from each country of origin. The 
figures in parentheses show, for countries with wild populations of the 
species, the number of skins reported to have been exported directly by that 
country. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


Countries with wild populations of Felis lynx 


Albania - - - 8 1 1 
(4) (1) (1) 
China - 1253 936 769 2355 7860 
(375) (936) (769) (2034) (7632) 
Finland 8 - - - 1 wal 
(4) (1) (11) 
German D.R. 13 - - - - - 
(0) 
Germeny, F.R. - 41 - - - - 
(41) 
Mongolia 183 73 20 - 20 - 
(0) (0) (9) (0) 
Sweden 1 - - - 39 1 
(1) (39) (50) 
Switzerland 1 - 1 - 555 - 
(1) (0) (0) 
Turkey - - - - - 2 
$ (2) 
USSR 864 800 1488 337 1051 4114 
(833) (687) (1388) (255) (1015) (4114) 


Countries without wild populations of Felis lynx 


Belgium - 332 - 71 - - 
Denmark - 23 - - 213 121 
Italy 156 747 Es = = = 
UK - - - - al 54 
USA = = 7 = = = 
Unknown 59 119 1168 715 361 233 


CONSERVATION MEASURES In much of Europe the main conservation measure for 
lynx has been reintroduction into suitable areas. Such projects have created 
considerable interest in lynx conservation. Several symposia have been held 
covering surviving populations and reintroduction schemes (Wotschikowsky, 
1978; Festetics, 1978; Magniny, 1979). Opposition to reintroduction projects 
has mainly come from local hunters, due to traditional distrust of big game 
and its effects on other game populations (Novakova, 1979) and from farmers 
fearing loss of livestock (Pfeffer, 1979). Participants at symposia, and a 
number of government hunting authorities, have however stressed the fact that 
the presence of lynx has minimal effect on game populations and little effect 
on domestic livestock. Furthermore the susceptibility of lynx to rabies is 
believed to be low (Pfeffer, 1979). The lynx has been protected to varying 
degrees in a number of countries, those measures that are known are detailed 
below. 


Felis lynx 


Afghanistan A three-year ban on the sale and export of predator species and 
their remains was introduced in 1973 under Presidential Decree 628 of 26 
December. It was reported that trade continued despite this ban (Rodenburg, 
1977). No further controls since this ban are known. 


Albania No information. 


Austria Fully protected in Oberôsterreich (Austria CITES MA, 1986). 
Reintroduction has been attempted in the Steiermark region (Kempf et al., 
1979). 


Bhuten No information. 


China The lynx was included on the list of protected species, however 
hunting has been reported to have continued without intervention as the 
protected status lacks legislative back-up (Jackson, 1984). 


Czechoslovakia The lynx was reported to have been originally protected in 
1934, in 1955 a closed season from 1 March to 31 July was declared in Slovakia 
(Hell, 1968). 


Federal Republic of Germany Protected by the Game Law, with a closed season 
all year (Smit and Wijngaarden, 1976). 


Finland The lynx has been protected since 1962 except in communes along the 
eastern border (Pulliainen, 1968). In 1968 the species was fully protected 
throughout the country and the population has recovered significantly since 
then. Special hunting licences may be obtained from the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Forestry in cases where local over-population is apparent 
(L. Blomquist, in litt., 1987). 


France Protected by law throughout the country (V. Herrenschmidt, in 
litt., 1987). A number of groups are reported to be actively involved in 
promoting reintroductions (Kempf et al., 1979). One reintroduction project 
was implemented in 1983 in Vosges (V. Herrenschmidt, in litt., 1987). The 
4500 ha Pyrenees National Park covers part of the range of lynx in the area 
(Fayard et al., 1984). 


German Democratic Republic No information. 


Greece The lynx does not seem to be legally protected but it is reported to 
occur in the 450ha Paranest-Dramas National Park (Festetics, 1978). 


India Fully protected from hunting by inclusion in Schedule I of the 
Wildlife Protection Act 1972. The hunting ban was reported to be difficult to 
enforce in Ladakh. A number of protected areas have been proposed in the 
area, which if implemented would provide further protection for the lynx 
(Osborne et al., 1983; H.S. Panwar, in litt., 1987). 

Iran No information. 


Iraq No information. 


Mongolia Hunting was reported to be allowed from October 15 to March 1 
under the Game Law of 1962 (Hibbert, 1967). 


Nepal Protected from hunting and trade under an amendment to the National 
Parks and Wildlife (Protection) Act 1973. 


Norway Lynx could be hunted throughout the year, although leg-hold traps 


102 


Felis lynx 


were not allowed. A bounty was reported to be paid for all lynx killed 
(Myrberget, 1968) but such payments are no longer made (Wotschikowsky, U., in 
ate. 1987). Since 1982 hunting has only been allowed between 1 November 
and 15 April (Norway CITES MA, 1987). 


North Korea No information. 
Pekistan Totally protected from hunting (Pakistan CITES MA, 1986). 


Poland Protected throughout the year by an order of the Minister of 
Forestry of 17 August 1954, with an open season from 1 November to 10 
February, extended since 1961 to 31 March. Poison baits were reported not to 
be allowed (Haber and Matuszewski, 1968). 


Romania The lynx was fully protected in 1933, however in 1962 as a result 
of increasing numbers, hunting authorities permitted shooting again 
(Kratochvil, 1968b). 


Spain No information. 


Sweden The lynx was totally protected from 1928 to 1942 and from 1943 it 
was protected by a ten-month closed season (Curry-Lindahl, 1968). The hunting 
season was moved forward and reduced to 1.5 months in 1983 (Sweden CITES MA, 
1987) and from 1986 hunting was limited to reindeer herding areas (Sweden 
CITES MA, 1986). 


Switzerland Reintroduction was reported to have been succesful. The lynx 
is totally protected under the Federal Hunting Law (Dollinger, In litt. 
1985). 


Syria No information. 


Turkey Unprotected. Turan (1987) suggested that the species should be 
protected in the country. 


USSR Hunting is controlled in some areas (Bannikov and Sokolov, 1984). 


Yugoslavia Reintroduction schemes were reported to have been succesful 
(Kempf et al., 1979). 


CAPTIVE BREEDING An annual average of 56 lynx were bred between 1972 and 
1981 in collections contributing to the International Zoo Yearbook 
(Duplaix-Hall, 1974-1975; Olney, 1976-1983). 


REFERENCES 


Anon (198la). National parks and wildlife management, Afghanistan. A 
contribution to a conservation strategy, Volume II: Appendices. UNDP, 
FAO, Rome, 153 pp. 

Anon (1981b). Rare and endangered mammals of India. Government of India, 
82 pp. 

Bangjie, Tan (1984). The status of the felids in China. Report prepared for 
the Cat Specialist Group Workshop, Kanha National Park, India, 9-12 April 
1984, Unpublished. 

Bannikov, A.G. and Sokolov, V.I. (1984). Krasnaya Kniga SSSR. (Second 
edition), Lesnaya Promiishlyennost, 390 pp. In Russian. 

Bjärvall, A. and Lindstrôm, D. (1984). Lodjuret 1974-83 i Norrbottens 
fjallvarld, samt nagot om rôd-och fjällräven i samma omrade. Fauna och 
Flora 79: 213-226. 


103 


Felis lynx 


Corbet, G.B. (1978). The mammals of the Palaearctic region: A taxonomic 
review. British Museum of Natural History and Cornell University Press, 
London and Ithaca. 

Curry-Lindahl, K. (1968). The lynx population in Sweden. In: Kratochvil, J. 
(ed.), Recent distribution of the lynx in Europe. Academia, Prague, pp. 
21-26. 

Duplaix-Hall, N. (ed.), (1974-1975). International Zoo Yearbook. Volumes 
14-15, Zoological Society of London, London. 

Fayard, A., Saint Girons, M.C. and Maurin, H. (eds), (1984). Atlas des 
mammifères sauvages de France. Ministère de L'Enivironnement. Société 
Française pour l'Etude et la Protection des Mammifères, 299 pp. 

Festetics, A. (1978). Die verbeitung des Luches in Europa, In: Festetics, A. 
(ed.), Der Luchs in Europa. 1. Internationales Luches-Kolloquium, 
Murau/Stiermark, 7-9 Mai 1978, Kilda Verlag, Greven, FRG. pp. 89-161. 

Fox, J.L. (1985). An observation of lynx in Nepal, Journal of the Bombay 
Natural History Society 82: 394. 

Guggisberg, C.A.W. (1975). Wild cats of the world. David and Charles, 
London, 328 pp. 

Haber, A. and Matuszewski, G. (1968). The lynx population in Poland. In: 
Kratochvil, J. (ed.), Recent distribution of the lynx in Europe. 
Academia, Prague, pp. 53-56. 

Habibi, K. (1977). The mammals of Afghanistan, their distribution and 
status. Ministry of Agriculture, Kabul, 91 pp. 

Harrison, Deki (1968). The mammals of Arabia, Vol. II, Carnivora, 
Artiodactyla and Hyracoidea. Benn, London, pp. 193-381. 

Hell, P. (1968). Population density of lynx in the Czechoslovakian 
Carpathians. In: Kratochvil, J. (ed.), Recent distribution of the lynx in 
Europe. Academia, Prague, pp. 57-64. 

Hibbert, R.A. (1967). Wildlife protection in Mongolia. Oryx 9(3): 196-210. 

Honacki, J.H., Kinman, K.E. and Koeppl, J.W. (1982). Mammal species of the 
world, a taxonomic and geographic reference. The Association of 
Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas, 694 pp. y 

Jackson, P. (1984). The plight of the cats. A summary report on the Cat 
Specialist Group workshop, Kanha National Park, India, 9-12 April 1984, 
Cat News 1: 1-15. 

Kempf, C., Balestreri, A., Wotschikowsky, U. and Fernex, M. (1979). Chez nous, 
le lynx? Mythes et réalité. Les Guides Gesta, Paris, 152 pp. [In French]. 

Kratochvil, J. (1968a). Changes in the distribution of the lynx and its 
protection in Czechoslovakia, In: Kratochvil, J. (ed.), Recent 
distribution of the lynx in Europe. Academia, Prague, pp. 4-16. 

Kratochvil, J. (1968b). The lynx population in Romania, In: Kratochvil, J. 
(ed.), Recent distribution of the lynx in Europe. Academia, Prague, 
pp. 65-70. 

Kratochvil, J. (1968c). The lynx population in Yugoslavia, In: Kratochvil, J. 
(ed.), Recent distribution of the lynx in Europe. Academia, Prague, 
pp. 71-74. 

Kumerloeve, H. (1975). Die Säugetiere (Mammalia) Syriens und des Libanon. 
Veróffentlichungen der Zoologischen Staatssammlung, Múnchen 18: 159-225. 
rite each (1967). A study of the mammals of Iran, Fieldiana: Zoology 54: 
Magniny, B. (ed.), (1979). Le lynx. Proc. Int. Colloque sur le lynx, 5-6 
Octobre, 1978, Strasbourg, Office National de la Chasse, Bulletin Mensuel, 

numero spécial scientifique et technique. 

Mallon, D.P. (1985). The mammals of the Mongolian Peoples Republic. Mammal 
Review. 15: 71-102. 

Miric, D. (1978). Ausrottungsgeschichte des luches auf der Balkanhalbinsel, 
In: Wotschikowsky, U. (ed.), Der luchs, erhaltung und wiedereinbirgerung 


in Europa. Symposium der 'Luchsgruppe' am 14-15 Juli, 1978, Spiegelau, 
Bayerischer Wald. 


104 


Felis lynx 


Mitchell, R.M. and Derksen (1976). Additional new mammal records from Nepal, 
Mammalia 40(1): 55-61. 

Mola, P. (1908). Ancora della Lince della Sardegna. Bollettino Societa 
Zoologia Italiana Roma 9: 46-48. 

Mursaloglu, B. (1981). The recent status and distribution of Turkish 
furbearers. In: Chapman, J.A. and Pursley, M.S. (eds), Worldwide 
Furbearer Conference Proceedings, Volume 1. August 3-11, 1980, Frostburg, 
Maryland, USA. 

Myrberget, S. (1968). The lynx population in Norway. In: Kratochvil, J. (ed.), 
Recent distribution of the lynx in Europe. Academia, Prague, pp. 17-20. 
Naumann, C. and Niethammer, J. (1973). Zur säugetierfauna des afghanischen 

Pamir under des Wakhan. Bonner Zoologische Beitrage 24(3): 237-248. 

Novakova, E. (1979). The role of information and animation with regard to the 
reintroduction of lynx, In: Magniny, B. (ed.), Le lynx. Proc. Int. 
Colloque sur le lynx, 5-6 Octobre, 1978, Strasbourg, Office National de la 
Chasse, Bulletin Mensuel, numero spécial scientifique et technique. 

Novikov, G.A. (1968). Contemporaneous distribution of the lynx in the western 
part of the USSR. In: Kratochvil, J. (ed.), Recent distribution of the 
lynx in Europe. Academia, Prague, pp. 35-48. 

Olney, P.J.S. (ed.), (1976-1983). International Zoo Yearbook. Volumes 16-23, 
Zoological Society of London, London. 

Osborne, B.C., Mallon, D.P. and Fraser, S.J.R. (1983). Ladakh, threatened 
stronghold of rare Himalayan mammals. Oryx 17(4): 182-189. 

Pfeffer, P. (1979). Situation of the lynx within the European ecosystems. An 
attempt to present a synthesis, In: Magniny, B. (ed.), Le lynx. Proc. 
Int. Colloque sur le lynx, 5-6 Octobre, 1978, Strasbourg, Office National 
de la Chasse, Bulletin Mensuel, numero spécial scientifique et technique. 

Pulliainen, E. (1968). The lynx population in Finland. In: Kratochvil, J. 
(ed.), Recent distribution of the lynx in Europe. Academia, Prague, pp. 
27-34. 

Roberts, T.J. (1977). Mammals of Pakistan. Benn, London, 361 pp. 

Rodenburg, W.F. (1977). The trade in wild animal furs in Afghanistan, 
UNDP/FAO, Kabul, 37 pp. E 

Seidensticker, J., Eisenberg, J.F. and Simons, R. (1984). The Tangjiahe, 
Wanglang and Fengtongzhai giant panda reserves and biological conservation 
in the Peoples Republic of China, Biological Conservation 28(3): 217-251. 

Smit, C.J. and Wijngaarden, A. van (1976). Threatened mammals of Europe. 
Nature and Environment Series, Number 10, Council of Europe, Strasbourg. 

Turan, N. (1987). Grosswild der Tiirkei: Hevtiger Zustand und Die Probleme. In: 
International Symposium: “Wildlife Fauna in Turkey and in the Balkan 
Countries. (in Turkisk, English, French and German), 16-20 September 
1987, Istanbul, Turkey, General Directorate of Forestry, Turkey and 
International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC), France, 


pp. 55-76. 
Werdelin, L. (1981). The evolution of lynxes. Annales Zoologici Fennici 18: 
37-71. 


Won Pyong-Oh (1976). Checklist of the Mammals of Korea. Institute of 
Ornithology, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea. 

Wotschikowsky, U. (ed.), (1978). Der luchs, erhaltung und wiedereinbirgerung 
in Europa. Symposium der 'Luchsgruppe' am 14-15 Juli, 1978, Spiegelau, 
Bayerischer Wald. 

Wotschikowsky, U. (1983). Situation of the lynx in Burope. Wildbiologische 
Gesellschaft Miinchen e.V., September, pp. 199-202. 

Zheng Zuoxin, Feng Zuojian, Zhang Yongzu and Hu Shugin (1981). On the 
land-vertebrate fauna of Qinghai-Xizang plateau with considerations 
concerning its history of transformation. Memoirs of Beijing Natural 
History Museum 9: 1-21. 


105 


PALLAS' CAT, MANUL Recommended list: 2 
(Possible problem] 
Felis manul Pallas, 1776 


Order CARNIVORA Family FELIDAE 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Distributed sporadically in the steppes and deserts 
of Central Asia. It is a solitary and secretive animal, population size and 
status are largely unknown throughout its range. Reported to be rare in a 
number of countries, mainly threatened by hunting and trapping however the 
relative importance of habitat destruction is poorly documented and therefore 
difficult to assess. 


Annually, around 2000 skins have been reported in international trade in 
recent years, the vast majority of these originating in Mongolia, with a few 
from USSR and China. 


No details of the size of the population in Mongolia are available; however 
the species has been reported as widespread in the country and the volume of 
recent exports is considerably lower than that reported in the 1960s. The 
extent of domestic exploitation and the success or otherwise of protective 
measures are largely unknown in countries where the species has been 
identified as rare. 


DISTRIBUTION Steppe and semi-desert, especially montane, from the eastern 
shoreline of the Caspian Sea through Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, eastern and 
central Kazakhstan, Tibet and Dzungaria to the Altai, Tuva, Transbaikalia, 
Mongolia, Kansu and Szechwan, south to Iran, Afghanistan and eastern Ladakh 
(Guggisberg, 1975). Three sub-species have been suggested: F. m. manul in 
Mongolia and China other than Tibet, F. m. ferruginea (Ognev, 1928) in 
south-west Turkestan, Afghanistan and Iran, and F. m. nigripecta (Hodgson, 
1842) in northern India and Tibet; however their validity is doubtful and they 
were not recognised by Corbett (1978). 


Afghanistan Montane steppes and deserts, stony plateaus and rocky slopes in 
central and north-east highlands (Rodenburg, 1977). Skins brought to the 
Kabul fur market were reported to have mainly come from the Salang Pass and 
Panjsher Valley of the central Hindu Kush range. In northern Badakhshan it 


was reported to occur in the Wakhan Corridor and the Zebak valleys (Habibi, 
1977). 


China From Xinjiang, Chinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Inner Mongolia up to the 
western border of Manchuria, where it has been identified in Jilin province 


and in the vicinity of Manchouli; also reported to occur in Tibet and Kashmir 
(Bangjie, 1984). 


India Only found in Ladakh, northern Kashmir (Anon., 198la), where it was 
apparently restricted to the lower Indus valley (Osborne et al., 1983). 


Iran Reported to occur only in the Mashhad area in the north-east of the 
country (Lay, 1967). 


Mongolia Widespread throughout the country except in the taiga, alpine and 
desert zones; reported to be most common on the steppes (Mallon, 1985). 


Pakistan It was reported that Felis manul may be extinct in Pakistan 
(Nawaz, 1983). Roberts (1977) reported that it could occur in two areas: in 
Balistan in the extreme north of the country occurrence was suggested by fur 
traders and the proximity of the known population in Ladakh, India, and there 


106 


Felis manul 


were a number of unconfirmed sightings in Baluchistan, near the western border 
with Afghanistan. In 1977 a specimen was captured near Ziarat in Baluchistan 
suggesting that a very small population still survived (Roberts, 1984). Also 
reported to occur in Chitral (Pakistan CITES MA, 1986). 


USSR Distributed sporadically in arid, treeless uplands, deserts and 
steppes from Zakavkaz, western Turkmenii, on the eastern shore of the Caspian 
Sea, to Zabaikal on the Chinese border east of Mongolia. Discontinuous, 
fragmented areas of distribution merge along the southern border of the 
country. Reported to occupy areas least affected by human activities. The 
most densely populated areas were southern parts of Kazohsk, south-eastern 
Altai and certain regions of Tuve and Zabaikal; however it was thought to be 
close to extinction near the western and north-western limits of its 
distribution in western Turkmenii and Priaral'e (Bannikov and Sokolov, 1984). 


POPULATION There is very little specific information available on 
populations of Felis manul; however there are some general accounts 
describing population trends and status. 


Afghanistan Nowhere abundant (Rodenburg, 1977) but, according to a 
representative of Kabul Zoo, it was not uncommon in the vicinity of Kabul 
(Roberts, 1977). Formerly common in montane habitats but hunting and trapping 
were reported to have caused its retreat to isolated valleys, where 
Significant populations remained. Its status was described as vulnerable 
(Habibi, 1977). 


China No information on population or status. Reported to be much more 
numerous than the Chinese Desert Cat (Felis bieti), which was itself 
reported not to have been particularly rare, although the number of skins of 
F. manul in trade seemed to be declining (Bangjie, 1984). Although the 
population was generally thought to be declining the species was described as 
not seriously endangered (Tan Bangjie, in litt., 1987). 


India Included in an account of the rare and endangered animals of India, 
although nothing definite was known and its status was reported as 
‘Indeterminate’ (Anon., 1981b). A survey in the early 1980s in Ladakh found 
Felis manul to be very rare and restricted to the lower Indus valley. 
Recent records include one skin for sale in Leh and two live captures (Osborne 
et al., 1983). No more recent information is available on the status of 
this species in India, but sizeable areas of suitable habitat are reported to 
remain (H.S. Panwar, in litt., 1987). 


Iran No information. 


Mongolia Reported to be widespread and most common on the steppes (Mallon, 
1985); however no details of population or status are available. 


Pakistan The rarest cat in Pakistan, a very small population was thought to 
survive (Roberts, 1977). Not sighted at all during surveys over a five-year 
period in the 1980s; described as very rare (Pakistan CITES MA, 1986). 


USSR Generally rare although locally quite common in some areas. Owing to 
its secretive nature, investigations into the population size were reported to 
be impractical. It was estimated, from the annual take of skins and the 
species's wide distribution, that the population was probably in the 
thousands; however the sharp decline in state purchases of skins in the 1970s 
was thought to suggest a decrease in population size (Bannikov and Sokolov, 
1984). 


107 


Felis manul 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY An inhabitant of steppes and deserts, especially rocky 
plateaus and treeless, rocky mountain-sides. Found up to 3000 m altitude and 
in some cases in Ladakh, India as high as 4000 m (Guggisberg, 1975). In 
Afghanistan, Felis manul was reported to occur between 1500 m and 3500 m 
(Habibi, 1977). It is reported to be a solitary and secretive animal, mainly 
nocturnal, but sometimes encountered in daylight (Guggisberg, 1975). In 
Ladakh, however, it was described as a diurnal hunter, pikas (Ochotona spp.) 
being the main prey, while in Baluchistan it was thought probable that Rock 
Partridges (Alectoris graeca) would form a large part of the diet (Roberts, 
1977). In China, Felis manul was found to consume large numbers of rodents 
(Bangjie, 1984), and in Transbaikalia the diet was made up mostly of pikas and 
to a lesser degree murines, ground squirrels, hares, insectivores and birds 
(Guggisberg, 1975). Reproduction was reported to take place in April and May 
in Transbaikalia, and captive specimens have produced litters of five to six 
kittens (Guggisberg, 1975). 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL Very little has been written concerning the threats to 
this species. It has, however, been reported to be subject to hunting and 
trapping for skins in most of the countries in which it occurs. 


Afghanistan Trapping has caused its retreat to isolated valleys (Habibi, 
1977). A census in late 1976 of the furs for sale in shops in Kabul, thought 
to account for 50% of the local trade, found skins and products estimated to 
represent 463 animals. At the time, the total annual harvest was estimated to 
be 7000 animals, 1.8% of the total national annual production of furs. The 


price per skin asked by furriers was 250-400 afghanis ($US5-8) (Rodenburg, 
1977). 


China Known to be hunted for skins, but no details of the extent or affect 
of this or other threats are available. The total annual catch was estimated 
in 1953 to have been about 5000 animals in south-west China, and about 5000 in 
north-west China excluding Inner Mongolia and Manchuria. In 1980 the catch in 
Sichuan was ‘about 100' (Bangjie, 1984). Although illegal hunting continued 


it was not thought to be a major threat to the species (Tan Bangjie, in 
litt., 1987). 


India Threatened by trapping, shooting and probably by the widespread 
removal of scrub (for use as fuel) which supports prey populations (Osborne 
et al., 1983). 


Iran No information. 


Mongolia Between 1958 and 1968 the annual production of skins was estimated 


to have been about 6500, mostly from regions in the east of the country 
(Mallon, 1985). 


Pakistan Exploited in large numbers in the past for its fur (Pakistan CITES 
MA, 1986). Little recent information; however the few live animals that have 
been captured in recent years are reported to have entered trade, and hunters 


in northern regions seemed to have been familiar with the species (Roberts, 
1977). 


USSR Shooting, trapping and hunting with dogs have been stated as the main 
threats to surviving populations, which have been restricted to areas which 
have not been substantially altered by human activities. The number killed 


annually was estimated rarely to amount to hundreds (Bannikov and Sokolov, 
1984). 


108 


Felis manul 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE The trade reported by CITES Parties mainly involved 
skins; however a total of 15 live animals was recorded in trade during the 
period 1980-1985. 


Table 1. Net imports of skins and skin plates, 1980-1985. A skin plate is 
made up of an unspecified number of skins which may, from examples involving 
other species, include about ten skins. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
Austria - - - - 998 37 
Canada - - - 218 - = 
Denmark - - 49 pl. - - = 
Finland - - - - 938 = 
France - - - 200 - = 
Germany, F.R. 290 2806 - 3431 - 348 
Italy 849 - - - 415 alabal 
Switzerland - - - - 65 = 
UK - - - - 585 - 
Total 1139 2806 49 pl. 3849 3001 496 


Table 2. Origin, or where no origin is given, the exporter, of the skins 
recorded in trade 1980-1985. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


Countries with wild populations of F. manul 


China - - 49 pl. - 20 - 
Mongolia 625 2562 - 3849 2964 459 
USSR 239 244 - - 37 37 


Countries without wild populations of F. manul 


Unknown 275 - - - - - 


The average minimum world trade during these years can be estimated (Table 1) 
as about 2000 skins per year. The main net importing country was the Federal 
Republic of Germany, however Austria, Finland and Italy also imported 
significant numbers of skins in some years. 


It can be seen from Table 2 that Mongolia was consistently the largest source 
of skins in trade. The live animals reported in trade were exported by 
Mongolia, China and the USA. Most of these animals were reported to be in 
trade for zoological purposes and some were stated to have been captive-bred. 


CONSERVATION MEASURES The species is largely unprotected by legislation in 
the source countries. It is included in CITES Appendix Il, and all of the 
countries in which it occurs except Mongolia have ratified the Convention. 
These controls entered into force in 1976 for all of the other countries 
except Afghanistan (January 1986) and China (April 1981). Other conservation 
measures taken by individual countries are detailed below. 


109 


Felis manul 


Afghanistan A three-year ban on the sale and export of predator species and 
their remains was introduced in 1973 under Presidential Decree 628 of 26 
December. It was reported that trade continued despite this ban (Rodenburg, 
1977). No further controls since this ban are known. 


China Reported to be included on the protected list as a second class 
protected animal, owing to its consumption of large numbers of rodents 
considered to be agricultural pests. Hunting was reported to continue owing 
to poor implementation of the legislation (Bangjie, 1984). 


India Fully protected from hunting by inclusion in Schedule I of the 
Wildlife Protection Act 1972. The hunting ban was reported to be difficult to 
enforce in Ladakh (Osborne et al.; 1983). 


Iran No information. 


Mongolia Hunting was reported to be allowed from October 15 to March 1 
under the Game Law of 1962 (Hibbert, 1967). 


Pakistan Protected from hunting for any purpose (Pakistan CITES MA, 1986). 


USSR Hunting has been banned in some areas since 1976. It was recommended 
that a number of sanctuaries should be created in southern Altaya, Tuve, 
Zabaikal'e, and southern Siberia (Bannikov and Sakalov, 1984). 


CAPTIVE BREEDING An annual average of 9 animals were bred between 1972 and 
1981 in collections contributing to the International Zoo Yearbook. In 1982 
there were 57 animals in 20 collections, 38 of which were stated to have been 
captive-bred (Duplaix-Hall, 1974-1975; Olney, 1976-1983). 


REFERENCES 

Anon (198la). National parks and wildlife management, Afghanistan. A 
contribution to a conservation strategy, Volume II: Appendices. UNDP, 
FAO, Rome, 153 pp. 

Anon (1981b). Rare and endangered mammals of India. Government of India, 
82 pp. 

Bangjie, Tan (1984). The status of the felids in China. Report prepared for 
the Cat Specialist Group Workshop, Kanha National Park, India, 9-12 April 
unpublished. 

Bannikov, A.G. and Sokolov, V.I. (1984). Krasnaya Kniga SSSR. (Second 
edition), Lesnaya Promiishlyennost, 390 pp. In Russian. 

Corbet, G.B. (1978). The mammals of the Palaearctic region: A taxonomic 
review. British Museum of Natural History and Cornell University Press, 
London and Ithaca. 

Duplaix-Hall, N. (ed.). (1974-1975). International Zoo Yearbook. Volumes 
14-15, Zoological Society of London, London. 

Guggisberg, C.A.W. (1975). Wild cats of the world. David and Charles, 
London, 328 pp. 

Habibi, K. (1977). The mammals of Afghanistan, their distribution and 
Status. Ministry of Agriculture, Kabul, 91 pp. 

Hibbert, R.A. (1967). Wildlife protection in Mongolia. Oryx 9(3): 196-210. 

Lay, D.M. (1967). A study of the mammals of Iran, Fieldiana Zoology 54: 
1-282. 

Mallon, D.P. (1985). The mammals of the Mongolian Peoples Republic. Mammal 
Review 15: 71-102. 

Nawaz, M. (1983). The endangered mammals of Pakistan. Tigerpaper 10(3): 
15-20. 

Olney, P.J.S. (ed.), (1976-1983). International Zoo Yearbook. Volumes 16-23, 
Zoological Society of London, London. 


110 


Felis manul 


Osborne, B.C., Mallon, D.P. and Fraser, S.J.R. (1983). Ladakh, threatened 
stronghold of rare Himalayan mammals, Oryx 17(4): 182-189. 

Roberts, T.J. (1977). Mammals of Pakistan. Benn, London, 361 pp. 

Roberts, T.J. (1984). Comments prepared for the Cat Specialist Group Workshop, 
Kanha National Park, India, 9-12 April unpublished. 

Rodenburg, W.F. (1977). The trade in wild animal furs in Afghanistan, 
UNDP/FAO, Kabul, 37 pp. 


111 


OCELOT Recommended list: 2 
[Possible problem] 
Felis pardalis Linnaeus, 1758 


Order CARNIVORA Family FELIDAE 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Widely distributed from southern Texas to northern 
Argentina, although depleted in many areas due to over-harvest and habitat 
loss. No population estimates are available; however general comments on 
status throughout much of its range indicate that populations have declined. 
Large areas of habitat have been destroyed but the effect of this on Ocelot 
populations is poorly documented. Knowledge of Ocelot ecology was very poor 
until recent years when a number of research projects have produced new 
information. The species has been heavily exploited for the skin trade, and 
in many areas it has been the most frequently hunted cat. Protected by 
legislation throughout much of its range; however the level of implementation 
of these controls has varied considerably. 


The main spotted cat species in trade until the mid-1970s but replaced by 
other species during the latter half of that decade. Recent CITES data, 
totalling over 130 000 skins during 1980-1985, suggest that the number of 
skins of this species in trade has reduced since the heavy exploitation in the 
late 1960's. The number of skins in trade declined steadily from over 30 000 
in 1980 to 4500 in 1984 and only 550 in 1985, with the exception of 1983 when 
large numbers were re-exported by France. Paraguay has been the major source 
of skins, but the number reported to have been directly exported from Paraguay 
each year had decreased significantly by 1985. The population size in 
Paraguay has not been estimated, and, as the only subspecies reported to occur 
in the country is included in CITES Appendix 1, no skins of this origin should 
have been traded. 


Melquist (1984) concluded that, if properly controlled, the harvest of this 
species was probably feasible. Certainly the species occurs over a wide area 
and in a wide variety of habitats, however without population data and more 
detailed knowledge of the extent of habitat loss, the feasibility of a 
sustainable harvest is difficult to assess. The concensus of Opinion among 
experts with knowledge of this species is that far more data are required 
before such decisions can safely be made. Ecological and population data are 
being gradually collected by a number of research projects, but, if 
sustainable trade is to be envisaged in the near future, considerable 
resources must be committed to the coordinated collection of further 


information as soon as possible. The listing of subspecies in CITES Appendix 
I should be reviewed. 


DISTRIBUTION Widely distributed from Arizona and south-west Texas to 
Paraguay and northern Argentina (Guggisberg, 1975). Many subspecies have been 
described; at least eleven are currently recognised (Cabrera, 1957; Hall, 
1981). However they have been largely based on the pelage of limited numbers 
of specimens and geographical evidence. A study of the cranial dimensions of 
individuals assigned to a number of subspecies found that they were virtually 
indistinguishable (Ximenez, 1974), thus the validity of many of them seems 
doubtful. F. p. mearnsi and F. p. mitis are listed in CITES Appendix I. 


Felis pardalis aequatorialis Mearns, 1902. Northwest South America, 
throughout the montane zone of Colombia, Ecuador (Cabrera, 1957) and Peru 
in the low selva Amazon zone south towards the Bolivian border (Grimwood, 
1969). Populations in Panama and Costa Rica which have been referred to 
aequatorialis are generally included in F.p. mearnsi. 


112 


Felis pardalis 


Felis pardalis albescens Pucheran, 1855. Eastern and southern Texas, 
USA, south along the Gulf coast into the north-eastern states of Mexico 
(Hall, 1981). However a recent study concluded that this subspecies was 


probably extinct and that the Texas population probably represented another 
subspecies, F. p. limitis, previously treated as a synonym of F. P. 
albescens. It was thought likely that the species was restricted in Texas to 
habitat south of 30°N (Navarro, 1985). 


Felis pardalis maripensis Allen, 1904. North-east South America, from the 
Orinoco basin to the lower Amazon (Cabrera, 1957), including by implication 
northeast Brazil, French Guiana, Guyana, Suriname and eastern Venezuela. 


Felis pardalis mearnsi Allen, 1904. Nicaragua (Hall, 1981), most of 
Costa Rica (Vaughan, 1983) and Panama, almost certainly extending into 
Colombia (Hall, 1981). 


Felis pardalis mitis Cuvier, 1920. Central and eastern Brazil, south of 
the Amazon basin to the Rio Grande do Sul (Cunha Vieira, 1955), the Chaco of 
Paraguay (Wetzel and Lovett, 1974) and Argentina from Misiones and 
Corrientes to Tucuman (Cabrera, 1957). 


Felis pardalis nelsoni Goldman, 1925. Tropical strip along the western 
Pacific coast of Mexico, from Puerto Angel, Oaxaca north to Escuinapa, 
southern Sinaloa (Hall, 1981). 


Felis pardalis pardalis From northern Veracruz and Oaxaca to the Yucatan 
Peninsula, Mexico, through Belize, Guatemala and El Salvador into 
Honduras (Hall, 1981). 


Felis pardalis pseudopardalis Boitard, 1842. Northern Colombia and 
Venezuela (Cabrera, 1957). The population of Trinidad and Tobago (Bacon 
and ffrench, 1972) may be of this subspecies. 


Felis pardalis pusaea Thomas, 1914. South-west Ecuador in coastal 
regions (Cabrera, 1957), extending into coastal north-west Peru (Grimwood, 
1969). 


Felis pardalis sonoriensis Goldman, 1925. Southern Sonora, Mexico, 
north into south-eastern Arizona, USA, although absent in the arid plains of 
western Sonora (Hall, 1981). 


Felis pardalis steinbachi Pocock, 1941. Known only in central Bolivia, 
however it may well extend north into Brazil (Cabrera, 1957). 


POPULATION A study in 1972 of the status and distribution of the spotted 
cats in Central and South America reported, that although no precise 
population estimates existed, the species was known to be threatened in parts 
of its range. It had become rare where heavily hunted, along rivers, roads 
and near towns, and where forest and scrub had been replaced by grasslands and 
crops. Populations were reported to survive in a wide variety of habitats, 
such as large areas of the Amazon rainforest (Koford, 1973b). Listed as 
‘Vulnerable’ in the IUCN Mammal Red Data Book (Thornback and Jenkins, 1982). 
Very little specific information is available describing the populations of 
individual countries. 


Argentina Rare to uncommon (Anon., 1976); listed as endangered in the 
national wildlife protection legislation (Resolution No. 144). 


Belize More common than Felis wiedii, the population of which was 
described as fairly high (Florence, 1986). 


113 


Felis pardalis 


Bolivia Described in 1981 as endangered (Thornback and Jenkins, 1982). 
However, Tello (1986) reported that the species was widely distributed and by 
then "out of danger". He considered that, if the species had indeed been 
endangered in the past, populations must have increased considerably in recent 
years. Vargas (cited in Tello, 1986) of the Centro de Desarrollo Forestal 
reported that the species was scarce in the provinces of Cercado, Marban and 
Vacadiaz and abundant in the provinces of Itenes, Mamoré, Yacuma and Vallivan. 


Brazil The population was thought to have remained stable despite heavy 
hunting pressure (Smith, 1976), although it was described as vulnerable by 
Ayres and Best (1981 cited in Thornback and Jenkins, 1982). 


Colombia No information. 


Costa Rica Numbers greatly reduced, listed as endangered (Mena Moya, 
1978). Population estimates vary from 200 (Lopez, cited in Melquist, 1984) to 
2000-3000 in large forest areas alone (Vaughan, 1983). 


Ecuador All of the spotted cats were considered rare (Melquist, 1984). 


El Salvador Endangered (Serrano, 1978). A report in 1979 indicated that 
the species was rare and confined to two forests: Montecristo and El Imposible 
(Boursot, 1979 cited in Thornback and Jenkins, 1982). 


French Guiana Probably similar to Suriname (q.v.) (Melquist, 1984). 
Reported to be slowly declining by Berger and Portal (1982). 


Guatemala No information. 
Guyana Probably similar to Suriname (q.v.) (Melquist, 1984). 


Honduras All of the felids were considered threatened or endangered 
(Aguilar, 1978). The population was described as small and available habitat 
had declined markedly (Honduras CITES MA, 1985). 


Mexico Endangered (Ceballos and Navarro, in prep.). 
Nicaragua Endangered (Salas, 1978). 
Panama Endangered (Vallester, 1978) 


Paraguay Field scientists noted a reduction in numbers in the Chaco region 
during the 1970s owing to the rapid destruction of native vegetation in favour 
of introduced pasture grass, and the great increase in the number of roads, 


which allowed easier access by hunters and settlers to once remote areas 
(Thornback and Jenkins, 1982). 


Peru Reported to have been under considerable threat owing to over-harvest, 
however it was still plentiful in some areas (Grimwood, 1969). Although 
relentlessly hunted in the 1960s, populations were thought to have recovered 
somewhat after the introduction of protective legislation in the Amazon region 


in 1973 (Pacheco, 1983). Reported to be common in the Cocha Cashu area of the 
Manu National Park (Terborgh et al., 1984). 


Suriname Melquist (1984) was informed that the species was still reasonably 
common, with extensive areas of suitable habitat remaining. Described in 1977 
as not endangered (Thornback and Jenkins, 1982). 


Trinidad and Tobago Of uncertain status although considered common in some 
areas (Anon., 1984). 


114 


Felis pardalis 


USA Population estimates vary, but the total number is probably less than 
100, mostly in Texas; the species was reported to be very rare (Anon., 1980b) 
and possibly extinct (Emmons pers. comm., 1987) in Arizona . Reported. to have 


been a quite popular pet in the USA, although there was no indication of the 
numbers involved (Guggisberg, 1975). 


Venezuela Considered moderately common by several Venezuelan biologists 
(Melquist, 1984). Hoogersteijn (in litt. 1987) described the species as 
still common in forests and on private ranches with good gallery forest, and 
in some heavily forested national parks north of the Orinoco. South of the 
Orinoco there is reportedly little human settlement or habitat disturbance and 
populations were expected to be good. 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Found in a variety of habitats including humid tropical 
and subtropical forests, savannas, semi-arid thorn scrub, coastal mangroves, 
swamp forests and other kinds of dense cover (Koford, 1973b). Often 
associated with gallery forest around streams and rivers (J.F. Eisenberg, in 
litt., 1987). Described as more adaptable than the Jaguar (Panthera onca), 
persisting in partly-cleared forests, dense cover near large towns, secondary 
growth woodland and abandoned settlements (Koford, 1973a). It is generally 
but not exclusively nocturnal, normally solitary and territorial (Navarro, 
1985). 


Estimates of home range size vary from 252 ha for males and 207 ha for females 
(Navarro, 1985), to 600 ha for males and 150 ha for females (Sunquist and 
Ludlow, 1985). These areas are considerably smaller than those estimated for 
Lynx (Felis canadensis) and Bobcat (Felis rufus) (Navarro, 1985). Adult 
females defend an exclusive territory, while the territories of males overlap 
one or more female territories. In riparian habitats with high carrying 
capacity, it can exist at densities of approximately three per square 
kilometer (J.F. Eisenberg, in litt., 1987), but it only reaches such high 
densities in areas of dense vegetation cover. Other density estimates include 
0.4 per square kilometer in the mosaic of habitats in Venezuela and 1 adult 
per square kilometer in forests in Reru (M. Sunquist, in litt., 1987). 


It will rest in trees, but most hunting is terrestrial (J.F. Eisenberg, in 
MEE, 1987): Certainly less arboreal than the Margay (Felis wiedii) 
(Koford, 1973a). Diet has been found to consist of mainly of small rodents 
under 1 kg (L. Emmons, in litt., 1987), but reptiles, birds and small 
Mammals such as young deer and peccaries, monkeys, coatis, agoutis and pacas 
are also taken (Guggisberg, 1975). A study of scats in Venezuela indicated 
that it fed primarily on rodents but maintained a flexible diet (Sunquist and 
Ludlow, 1985). The species has been identified as a pest of poultry 
production in the Amazon basin (Smith, 1976), but in Venezuela it has been 
recognised as a predator of pest species such as rodents (Zawisza, 1984). 


There does not seem to be a fixed breeding season in the tropics (Denis, 
1964). Young have been recorded to have been born at different times of the 
year in different areas, June to November in Texas, USA, January in Yucatan, 
Mexico, and April in South America (Navarro, 1985). Gestation lasts about 70 
days (Guggisberg, 1975), and litter size varies from one to two, usually one 
(L. Emmons, in litt., 1987). The interbirth interval is thought to be at 
least one year. One of the major unknowns in present knowledge of Ocelot 
ecology is the dispersal ability of sub-adults. If mortality among dispersers 
is high then the number of animals recruited into the population each year may 
be far smaller than might be suggested by the basic reproductive data 
(M. Sunquist, in litt., 1987). Sexual maturity has been estimated at 16 to 
18 months in the wild, but in captivity this may occur after 10 to 12 months 
(Navarro, 1985). 


115 


Felis pardalis 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL Hunting and habitat loss. The most frequently hunted 
cat in Latin America, supplying the demand of the fur trade, this species has 
provided the majority of spotted cat skins in trade except in some southern 
areas, such as Argentina, where Felis geoffroyi has been most heavily 
exploited (Koford, 1973a). Smith (1976) estimated that, in the 1960s, around 
80 000 animals were killed each year in the Amazon region for the skin trade, 
but that by the early 1970s the take had reduced by half to approximately 
30 000-40 000. The USA was importing over 100 000 skins each year in the late 
1960s (Smith, 1976). The species has also been reported to have been utilised 
for the pet trade, animals fetching as much as US$800 (Domalain, 1977). The 
animals entering the pet trade are usually kittens obtained after the female 
has been killed for its skin (USA CITES MA, 1987). 


Prime ocelot habitat has been eliminated by cultivation of coastal lowlands, 
largely for cotton, cane and bananas, notably in Central America, Colombia and 


Venezuela (Koford, 1973a). In many areas clearing of suitable habitat for 
agriculture has been described as a major threat to the species (Thornback and 
Jenkins, 1982). Often persecuted because of alleged livestock (mainly 


poultry) depredation (USA CITES MA, 1987). 


Argentina Garments made from skins of this species continued to appear in 
fur shops in Buenos Aires during 1986 (J. Villalba-Macias, in litt., 1987). 


Belize Although relatively large areas of habitat remain, pressure for land 
was reportedly increasing in Belize (Florence, 1986). 


Bolivia Reportedly not threatened by habitat loss, except, perhaps, locally 
in areas of intensive farming, where natural vegetation is totally destroyed. 
Large-scale professional hunting was thought to be the greatest potential 
threat, but no such activity was thought to continue in the mid-1980s (Tello, 
1986). 


Brazil Poaching and habitat loss remain major threats despite legal 
protection (Melquist, 1984). 


Colombia Formerly a major exporter of skins of this species, but commercial 
hunting ceased in the early 1970s (Foote and Scheuerman, 1973). No 
information available on recent threats. 


Costa Rica Illegal skin trade had greatly reduced numbers (Mena Moya, 
1978). From 1940 to 1977 over 50% of the suitable dense forest habitat was 
destroyed (Vaughan, 1983). 

Ecuador No information. 


El Salvador No information. 


French Guiana There is a flourishing trade in wildlife products with French 
Guiana (J. Villalba-Macias, in litt., 1987), but there is no evidence to 
Suggest that this poses any threat to the native fauna at present. 


Guatemala No information. 
Guyana Persecuted by farmers (Melquist, 1984). 


Honduras Subject to intense hunting pressure in the past (Barquero, 1976). 
More recently there has been no large-scale commercial hunting, but occasional 
animals are captureed as pets (Honduras CITES MA, 1985). 


116 


Felis pardalis 


Mexico Ramos (1986) indicated that hunting of spotted cats remained a major 
problem in Mexico. 


Nicaragua Reported in 1977 to have been a source of live animals for the 


pet trade. Young were captured by killing the mother (Thornback and Jenkins, 
1982). 


Panama No information. 


Paraguay Hunting and commercial trade were extensive until the late 1970s. 
It has been suggested that Paraguay may remain a centre of illegal trade 
although the harvest was believed to have reduced considerably. Habitat loss 
remained a problem, especially in the east of the country (Melquist, 1984). 


Peru Relentlessly hunted for its valuable pelt. Over 138 000 skins were 
exported from Iquitos between 1946 and 1966 (Grimwood, 1969). Around 12 000 
skins were reported to have been exported each year in the 1960s. Hunters 
reported that it was becoming more difficult to obtain skins (Hvidberg-Hansen, 
1970). Melquist (1984) reported that some commercial trade, although illegal, 
was believed to continue and habitat had been threatened by as a consequence 
of extensive oil exploration. Furthermore Pacheco (1983), noting some 
recovery in wildlife populations since the introduction of protective 
legislation in 1973, reported that illegal trade persisted. 


Suriname No information. 
Trinidad and Tobago No information. 


USA Habitat destruction and degradation from brush-clearing operations were 
thought to have been primarily responsible for the status of the population. 
Also affected by predator control activities and persecution (Anon., 1980b). 
Venezuela Decline caused by over-harvest and loss of habitat (Melquist, 
1984). Hoogersteijn (in litt., 1987) reported that trade was not a problem 
in Venezuela, although some small scale smuggling persisted. The main problem 
was thought to be loss of habitat, on the scale of 50 000 ha per year in the 
western plains and 100 000 ha per year in the country as a whole. This land 
is largely being converted to agriculture. Ocelot are sometimes hunted as 
chicken raiders, but there is no active hunting, such as formerly existed in 
the past. 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE During the 1960s this species supplied the vast 
majority of the spotted cat skins in international trade (Broad, 1987). In 
the late 1960s over 100 000 skins were imported into the USA each year, most 
of which were from Brazil and Colombia, however virtually every country with a 
population of the species was involved in the trade to some extent (Paradiso, 
1972). In 1975, the United Kingdom alone imported 76 838 skins (Burton, 
1976). Most of these skins supplied the market for exotic furs, for the 
production of expensive fashion articles such as coats and collars. In 1980 
coats of this species sold for up to us$ 40 000 in the Federal Republic of 
Germany (Anon., 1980a). CITES trade data provide evidence of recent trends in 
the trade in skins of this species. The only significant trade involving this 
species was in skins. A small number of live animals were traded, many of 
which were declared to have been in trade for zoological purposes, however 
some were traded commercially and as personal items. 


117 


Felis pardalis 


Table 1. Apparent minimum net imports of F. pardalis skins reported to 
CITES, 1980-85. Figures represent numbers of skins unless otherwise indicated. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


Argentina 300 - - - - - 
Australia - 1 - - - - 
Austria 1851 843 150 62 11 16 
Belgium 4887 59 17 95 - - 
Brazil 28 - - - - - 
Canada - 72 140 301 111 - 
China - - 54 - - - 
Denmark 574 - - 2 - - 
Finland 24 - 14 - 1 - 
France 48 14 - - 4100 - 
Germany, F.R. 16418 7885 7941 67281 - - 
Greece 202 - - - - - 
Hong Kong 180 108 416 395 - 140 
Ireland 4 4 - - - - 
Israel 140 12 68 24 124 = 
Italy 4680 4639 657 593 - 195 
Japan 98 587 84 40 5 120 
Lebanon - - 26 - - - 
Liechtenstein 765 - - - - - 
Luxembourg - 98 12 12 - - 
Mexico 39 - - - - - 
Netherlands 59 - - - - - 
Norway - 29 14 - - - 
St Lucia = - - 2 2 - 
Spain 227 3292 - 201 14 - 
Switzerland - - - 128 99 - 
Turkey - - - 41 18 26 
USA 39 87 77 117 89 - 
Unknown - = = = = 58 
Total 30563 17730 9676 69294 4574 556 


The CITES data show a general decline after 1980. An analysis of CITES data 
for earlier years (Broad, 1987) indicated that the trade had been decreasing 
Since 1978. The total net trade of almost 70 000 skins recorded in 1983 is 
notable discrepancy in the general decline in trade; in fact this is the 
highest nuber of skins of this species reported to CITES in any year since 
1976. 


The Federal Republic of Germany was the major importer of skins during this 
period, although in 1984 and 1985 it was a net exporter and France emerged as 


the main importer. Generally the majority of the trade went to western 
European countries. 


118 


Felis pardalis 


Table 2. Reported countries of origin (or exporting country if no origin 
reported) of skins of F. pardalis reported to CITES. The figures in 
parentheses show, for countries with wild populations of the species, the 
number of skins reported to have been exported directly by that country. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


Countries with wild populations of Felis pardalis 


Argentina 47 1 1 - = e 
(0) (0) (0) - 
Belize 181 - 68 28 1 - 
(181) (1) (2) (1) 
Bolivia - 2 - 4 1500 = 
(2) (4) (1500) 
Brazil - 114 50 10 - - 
(2) (0) (0) 
Colombia 6 15 12 13 1 - 
(6) (15) (12) (9) (1%) 
Costa Rica L - - = E 2. 
(1) 
Ecuador 3 8 23 3 3 - 
(3) (7) (21) (2) (1) 
El Salvador - 1 - = = = 
(1) 
Guatemala 1 - - = 1 ES 
(1) (1) 
Guyana - 1 - al = E 
(1) (1) 
Honduras aus) S Zee 2 2 - 
(1) (3) (2) (2) (2) 
Mexico 2 15 14 6 3 - 
(2) (3) (0) (4) (2) 
Nicaragua - 2 7 - al - 
(22) (975) (1) 
Panama 2765 - - 3 - - 
(2765) (1) 
Paraguay 25390 17069 9370 68928 2741 315 
(25390) (9414) (3199) (2500) (2600) (0) 
Peru 1884 38 2 9 - - 
(1884) (20) (2) (6) 
Venezuela - - - - - 9 
(9) 
South America 299 103 - - 196 112 
(0) (0) (0) 
Countries without wild populations of Felis pardalis 
Austria 152 - - - - = 
Belgium - 450 35 69 - = 
Canada 99 14 - = 79 - 
France 1250 - - - = = 
Germany, F.R. - 12 - 40 = = 
Italy 158 - - - = = 
South Africa - 1 - 16 - = 
Switzerland = = = = - 120 
UK 191 - - - = = 
Unknown 494 740 1518 398 208 = 


AAA ETE A AAA A a AS AA AAA 


119 


Felis pardalis 


Paraguay can be seen to have been the major source of skins in trade. The 
number of skins reported as direct exports from countries with wild 
populations of the species decreased significantly over these years. The 
large number of skins traded in 1983 were exported from France to the Federal 
Republic of Germany, these may have been in stock for some time and certainly 
without these skins a steady decline of the number in trade over this timespan 
is clear. 


An important point to be made about this trade is that the only Ocelot which 
occurs in Paraguay is Felis pardalis mitis which is listed on CITES Appendix 
I. Therefore if the skins really did originate in Paraguay they should not be 
in trade. Paraguay is known to feature as a re-exporter for large numbers of 
wildlife skins smuggled out of Brazil, and, in any case, all exports of 
wildlife products have been illegal in Paraguay since 1975 (Fuller et al., 
1987). 


CONSERVATION MEASURES 


Table 4. Legal prohibition on the hunting, internal trade and commercial 


export of Felis pardalis. Dates are those on which the legislation came 
into force. R - Regulated; * - This territory is an Overseas Département of 
France; # - This legislation only covers the northern settled region of the 


country; ? - no information. 


Sources - Latin America (Fuller et al., 1987), Trinidad and Tobago (James, 
1983), United States (Anon., 1982a). 


Those countries in parentheses are only inhabited by the subspecies included 
in CITES Appendix I. 


CITES Hunting Trade - Export 
(Argentina) 1981 1981 1981 1981 
Belize 1981 1981 1981 1981 
Bolivia 1979 1979 1979 1979 
Brazil 1975 - 1967 1967 
Colombia 1981 1973 1973 1973 
(Costa Rica) 1975 1984 1984 1984 
Ecuador 1975 - - 1981 
El Salvador 1987 - - - 
French Guiana * 1978 1975 1975 1975 
Guatamala 1980 1970 1970 1970 
Guyana 1977 - - 1987 
Honduras 1985 - 1978 1978 
Mexico - R 1951 ? 1982 
(Nicaragua) 1977 1977 1977 1977 
(Panama) 1978 1980 1980 1980 
(Paraguay) 1977 1975 1975 1975 
Peru 1975 R 1977 R 1977 1977 
Suriname 1981 # 1970 # 1970 # 1970 
Trinidad and Tobago 1984 1933 1933 ? 
USA 1975 1982 1982 1982 
Venezuela 1975 1970 1970 1970 


The effectiveness of these controls varies greatly from country to country. 
The enforcement of the export ban in Paraguay was erratic for a number of 
years however controls improved significantly in 1982 (Fuller et al. 


, 


120 


Felis pardalis 


1987). On the basis of the declared countries of origin of skins in trade 
(Table 2) the majority of exports in recent years have been illegal. In 
October 1986 the EEC prohibited the import of skins of Felis pardalis 
(Anon., 1987). 


Known to occur in a large number of protected areas (Anon., 1982b). 

CAPTIVE BREEDING An annual average of 22 animals were bred between 1972 and 
1981 in collections contributing to the International Zoo Yearbook. In 1982 
194 animals were held in 71 collections, of which 125 were reported to have 
been captive-bred (Duplaix-Hall, 1974-1975; Olney, 1976-1983). 

REFERENCES 


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. 

Anon. (1976). Conservation, Argentina. Cat Specialist Group Newsletter 2: 4. 
IUCN/SSC. 

Anon. (1980a). Multi-million forgeries in fur trade documents uncovered. 


IUCN/WWF News Release No. 8/80. 

Anon. (1980b). The Ocelot. In: Selected vertebrate endangered species of the 
seacoast of the United States. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S.Dept. of 
the Interior. 

Anon. (1982a). Endangered classification extended to Ocelot in the United 
States, Endangered Species Technical Bulletin 7(8): 1. 

Anon. (1982b). IUCN Directory of Neotropical Protected Areas. Commission on 
National Parks and Protected Areas, IUCN, Tycooly Int., Dublin, 436 pp. 
Anon. (1984). Evaluation and development of wildlife resources, Trinidad and 

Tobago. Project findings and recommendations, UNDP, FAO, 22 pp. 

Anon. (1987). EEC import restrictions. Traffic Bulletin 8(4): 57-58. 

Broad, S. (1987). The harvest of and trade in Latin American spotted cats 
(Felidae) and otters (Lutrinae). IUCN Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit, 
Cambridge, UK, 139 pp. 

Bacon, P.R. and ffrench, R.P. (1972). The wildlife sanctuaries of Trinidad 
and Tobago, Wildlife Conservation Committee, Ministry of Agriculture 
Lands and Fisheries, 78 pp. 

Barquero, J.I. (1976). La vida silvestre en Nicaragua, Encuentro, Revista de 
la Universidad Centroamericano 10: 57-66. 

Berger, D. and Portal, C. (1982). Dossier: Especies animales Guyanaises 
menacees. Unpublished report, 49 pp. 

Burton, J.A. (1976). Wildlife imports in Britain 1975. Oryx 13(4): 330-331. 

Cabrera, A. (1957). Catalago de los mamiferos de America del sur, vol. I. 
Metatheria, Unguiculata, Carnivora. Revista del Museo Argentino de 
Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadavia', Ciencas Zoologicas 4(1): 1-307. 

Ceballos, G. and Navarro L., D. (in prep.). Endangered mammals of Mexico. In: 
Ceballos, G. and Navarro L., D. (eds). The endangered and extinct 
vertebrates in Mexico. 

Cunha Vieira, C. da (1955). Lista remissiva dos mamiferos do Brasil. Arquivos 
de Zoologia do Estado de Sao Paulo 8(2): 341-474. 

Denis, A. (1964). Cats of the world. Constable, London, 119 pp. 

Domalain, J.-Y. (1977). Confessions of an animal trafficker. Natural 
History 86(5): 54-66. 

Duplaix-Hall, N. (ed). (1974-1975). International Zoo Yearbook, Volumes 
14-15, Zoological Society of London, London. 

Florence, A. (1986). Small emerald, uncut. BBC Wildlife 4(4): 174-178. 


121 


Felis pardalis 


Foote, R.W. and Scheuerman, R.G. (1973). Reptilian and mammalian hides 
exported from Leticia, Amazonas, Colombia during 1972 and January, 
February and March of 1973. Unpublished report, 6 pp. 

Fuller, K.S., Swift, B., Jorgensen, A and Brautigam, A. (1987). Latin 
American wildlife trade laws. Second Edition (Revised). World Wildlife 
Fund-US, 418 pp. 

Grimwood, I.R. (1969). Notes on the distribution and status of some Peruvian 
Mammals in 1968. Special Publication 21. American Committee for 
International Wildlife Protection and New York Zoological Society, Bronx, 
New York, 86 pp. 

Guggisberg, C.A.W. (1975). Wild cats of the world, David and Charles, 
London, 328 pp. 

Hall, E.R. (1981). The mammals of North America, 2nd edition. 2 vols. Wiley, 
New York, 1358 pp. 

Hvidberg-Hansen, H. (1970). Utilization of skins from wild animals, Peru, FAO 
Forestry Research and Training Project, La Molina, 18 pp. 

James, C. (1983). Game mammals and hunting. In: James, C. (ed.). Highlighting 
wildlife. Basic information on wildlife conservation in Trinidad and 
tobago. Forestry Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Lands and Food 
Production, Trinidad and Tobago, pp. 57-60. 

Koford, K.B. (1973a). Project 694. Status survey of Jaguar and Ocelot in 
tropical America. World Wildlife Yearbook 1972-73: 215-219. 

Koford, K.B. (1973b). Spotted cats in Latin America: An interim report. Oryx 
7(1): 37-39. 

Melquist, W.E. (1984). Status survey of otters (Lutrinae) and spotted cats 
(Felidae) in Latin America. Contract completion report, IUCN, Switzerland, 
269 pp. 

Mena Moya, R.A. (1978). Fauna y caza en Costa Rica. R.M. Costa Rica. 

Navarro L., D. (1985). Status and distribution of the ocelot (Felis 
pardalis) in South Texas, MSc Thesis for Texas A & I University. 

Olney, P.J.S. (ed.), (1976-1983). International Zoo Yearbook, Volumes 16-23, 
Zoological Society of London, London. 

Pacheco, T. (1983). Effectos positivos y negativos de la veda de caza de 1973 
en la Amazonia Peruana. Report for the Universidad Nacional Agraria la 
Molina, Lima, Peru, 45 pp. 

Paradiso, J.L. (1972). Status Report on Cats (Felidae) of the World, 1971. 
Spec. Sci. Report 157, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 
Service (Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife), Washington, D.C. 

Ramos, M.A. (1986). Mexico: Caught in a labyrinth of natural resource 
problems. Traffic (USA) 6(4): 5/9. 

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. 

Smith, N.J.H. (1976). Spotted cats and the Amazon skin trade. Oryx 13(4): 
362-371. 

Sunquist, M. and Ludlow, M. (1985). Ocelots in Venezuela, Cat News 3: 11-12. 

Tello, J.L. (1986). The situation of the wild cats (Felidae) in Bolivia. 
Including notes on other wildlife species and on general aspects of the 
conservation and utilization of natural resources. CITES Secretariat, 
60 pp. 

Terborgh, J.W. Fitzpatrick, J.W. and Emmons, L. (1984). Annotated checklist of 
bird and mammal species of Cocha Cashu biological station, Manu National 
Park, Peru. Fieldiana Zoology New Series, Number 21: 1-29. 


122 


Felis pardalis 


Thornback, J. and Jenkins, M. (1982). The IUCN Mammal Red Data Book, Part 1. 
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 516 pp. 

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. 

Vaughan, C. (1983). A report on dense forest habitat for endangered wildlife 
species in Costa Rica. United States Department of the Interior and the 
National University, Heredia, Costa Rica, 99 pp. 

Wetzel, R.M. and Lovett, J.W. (1974). A collection of mammals from the Chaco 
of Paraguay, The University of Connecticut Occasional Papers, Biological 
Science Series 2(13): 203-216. 

Kimenez, A. (1974). Notas sobre felidos neotropicales 6. Contribucion a la 
elucidacion de las variaciones individuales de Felis pardalis Linné, 
1758 (Mammalia: Felidae). Communicaciones del Museo Argentino de Ciencias 
Naturales Bernardino Rivadavia (Zoologie) 4(7): 41-55. 

Zawisza, T. (1984). Guia ecologica de la fauna de Venezuela, Caracas. 


123 


LITTLE SPOTTED CAT, TIGER CAT Recommended list: 2 
or ONCILLA [Possible problem] 


Felis tigrina Schreber, 1777 


Order CARNIVORA Family FELIDAE 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS An inhabitant of subtropical forests, widely 
distributed from southern Central America to northern Argentina. Poorly known 
throughout its range, diet and habitat preference are thought to be varied. 
The species seems to be quite rare and threatened by deforestation and heavy 
exploitation for the skin trade. Protected by legislation throughout much of 
its range. 


Large numbers of skins were reportedly traded in recent years, averaging over 
50 000 each year between 1980 and 1984, and although the number originating 
from Paraguay, the major source country, declined significantly after 1982, 
the number reported to have been exported in 1984 from there, and from 
Bolivia, where the occurence of the species has never been confirmed, was 
still considerable. By 1984 there were reportedly still over 35 000 skins of 
this species in trade, more than of any of the other spotted cats, despite the 
fact that the species is apparently protected in Paraguay. Trade in this 
species reported to CITES in 1985 decreased to only just over 2000 skins, but 
further years’ data are required to confirm this decline. 


Melquist (1984) concluded that, if properly controlled, a sustainable harvest 
of this species was probably feasible. At present there seems to be 
insufficient information describing the size and status of populations to 
ensure a sustainable harvest, and, in light of the large number of skins 
recently in trade, and of the fact that they all appear to have been illegally 
exported, there seems to be considerable need for better implementation of 
present national and international trade controls. The decline in trade 
volume in 1985 may indicate delayed response to such legislative measures; 
furthermore the recent ban on imports into the EEC effectively cuts of the 
major market for skins of this species. However, the lack of biological 


information must be redressed before legal trade in this species can sensibly 
be envisaged. 


DISTRIBUTION From Costa Rica to the Andean zone of western Venezuela, 
Colombia and Ecuador, possibly northern Peru and through eastern Venezuela, 
the Guianas and Brazil to Paraguay and northern Argentina (Guggisberg, 1975). 
Throughout this range the species is poorly known and often confused with the 
Margay (Felis wiedii) (Cabrera, 1957). 


Four subspecies are recognised (Hall, 1981; Cabrera, 1957), although in a 
study of Felis tigrina oncilla Gardner (1971) stated that he would hesitate 
to distinguish this subspecies from Felis tigrina pardinoides were it not 
for the apparent absence of the species in the intervening area of Panama. 
Melquist (1984) suggested that the species probably occurred in Bolivia in 
tropical moist forest areas, although it has never been confirmed as a 
resident of the country and a recent survey could find no evidence whatsoever 


of its occurrence in the country (Tello, 1986). Felis tigrina oncilla is 
listed in CITES Appendix I. 


Felis tigrina guttula Hensel, 1872. Central to southern Brazil (Cunha 
Vieira, 1955), Paraguay and northern Argentina from Misiones to the Chaco 
of Salta province (Cabrera, 1957). 


124 


Felis tigrina 


Felis tigrina oncilla Thomas, 1902. Throughout most of Costa Rica, 
except the Atlantic zone (Mena Moya, 1978) and probably northern Panama 
(Hall, 1981). It was also included in the list of the endangered mammals of 
Nicaragua (Salas, 1978), but is not recorded by Hall (1981) as occurring in 
that country. 


Felis tigrina pardinoides Gray, 1867. The Andean zone from the Coastal 
Cordillera and Andes of western Venezuela (Mondolfi, 1976), Colombia 
(possibly confined to the montane and cloud forests of the Andean slopes 
(Melquist, 1984)), and Ecuador (Cabrera, 1957) and possibly as far as 
northern Peru (Grimwood, 1969). Probably extending north into southern 
Panama (Gardner, 1971). 


Felis tigrina tigrina North-east Brazil (Cunha Vieira, 1955), ana 
French Guiana, through Suriname and Guyana (Cabrera, 1957) to eastern 
and southern Venezuela (Zawisza, 1984) 


POPULATION No estimates available. In 1973 the species was described as 
rare in most areas and common in none (Koford, 1973b). Very little specific 
information describing the status of populations exists. 

Argentina Reported to be rare to endangered in Salta province in the 
extreme north-west of the country (Mares et al., 1981). Listed in the 
national wildlife protection legislation (Resolution No. 144) as endangered. 
Brazil Probably declining in most regions, with the exception of isolated 
areas and large protected areas (Melquist, 1984). Koford (1973b) described it 
as rare in most parts of its range. 

Colombia No information. 

Costa Rica Listed as endangered (Mena Moya, 1978). 

Ecuador All of the spotted cats were considered rare (Melquist, 1984). 

French Guiana Reichart (cited in Melquist, 1984) described it as rarer than 
the other small spotted cats in Suriname and reported that this was probably 


also true for French Guiana. 


Guyana Reichart (cited in Melquist, 1984) suggested that this was probably 
the least common of the small spotted cats throughout the Guianas. 


Nicaragua Endangered (Salas, 1978). 
Panama Very rare (Koford, 1975). 
Paraguay No information. 


Peru Grimwood (1969) found no definite record of the occurrence of this 
species, but expected it to occur in the Amazon region. 


Suriname Perhaps rarer than the other spotted cats, but large areas of 
undisturbed habitat remain (Reichart cited in Melquist, 1984). 


Venezuela Endangered (Zawisza, 1984). Much rarer than the Ocelot (Felis 
Pardalis (R. Hoogersteijn, in litt., 1987). 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Largely unknown, the species apparently favours 
subtropical forests (Koford, 1973b). Reported to occur in a variety of 
habitat types in Venezuela, including dense humid forests within a wide 


125 


Felis tigrina 


altitude range from low plains to montane areas up to at least 2500 m 
(Zawisza, 1984). In Colombia the species has been recorded at elevations up 
to 4500 m (Melquist, 1984). Diet was thought to consist of birds and small 
mammals (Zawisza, 1984). Analysis of stomach contents suggests that this cat 
takes smaller vertebrate prey than does the Ocelot (Felis pardalis); thus 
some resource partitioning may occur where the two species live in sympatry 
(J.F. Eisenberg, in litt., 1987). 


In captivity the gestation period averaged 75 days, and litters of one or two 
young were produced (Leyhausen and Falkena, 1966). 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL Deforestation has greatly reduced the area of suitable 
habitat available. Furthermore the species has been widely hunted for the fur 
trade throughout its range (Koford, 1975), despite the low value of skins 
compared with those of the Ocelot (Felis pardalis) (Koford, 1973b). Listed 
as ‘Vulnerable’ in the IUCN Red Data Book (Thornback and Jenkins, 1982). 


Argentina A survey of the spotted cats in the early 1980s found no evidence 
of recent commercial skin trade, although the species had been exploited in 
the past (Melquist, 1984). Threatened by human destruction and degradation of 
favourable habitat (Argentina CITES MA, 1986). 


Brazil In 1971 about 28 000 skins of this species were counted in Brazilian 
warehouses. Much of the area of favourable habitat in subtropical forests had 
been largely destroyed to grow coffee (Koford, 1973a). Poaching and habitat 


loss were identified as the major causes of decline, despite legal protection 
(Melquist, 1984). 


Colombia It was reported that the montane and cloud forests of the Andean 
slopes were rapidly being destroyed for agricultural use, especially for 
coffee plantations (Melquist, 1984). 


Costa Rica From 1940 to 1977 over 50% of the suitable dense forest habitat 
was destroyed (Vaughan, 1983). 


Ecuador No information. 


French Guiana There is a flourishing trade in wildlife products with French 
Guiana (J. Villalba-Macias, in litt., 1987), but there is no evidence to 
Suggest that this poses any threat to the native fauna at present. 


Guyana Persecuted by farmers (Melquist, 1984). 


Nicaragua The spotted cats were subject to intense hunting for their skins 
during past decades (Barquero, 1976). 


Panama No information. 


Paraguay Hunting and commercial trade were extensive until the late 1970s. 
It has been suggested that Paraguay may remain a centre of illegal trade 
although the harvest was believed to have reduced considerably. Habitat loss 
remained a problem, especially in the east of the country (Melquist, 1984). 


Peru Some commercial trade was believed to continue and habitat was 
threatened as a consequence of extensive oil exploration (Melquist, 1984). 


Suriname No information. 


126 


Felis tigrina 


Venezuela Decline caused by over-harvest and loss of habitat; some poaching 
was thought to continue (Melquist, 1984). Hoogesteijn (in litt., 1987) 
reported that habitat loss has been the main threat to the native spotted cats 
in Venezuela in recent years. 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE Skins of this species have often been confused with 
other spotted cat skins in trade, especially those of Margay (Felis 
wiedii). It is however quite certain that large numbers of these skins were 
traded among the vast quantities of other small spotted cat skins in trade in 
the 1960s and 1970s (Paradiso, 1972). 


Analysis of CITES annual reports for 1977 showed that the trade comprised at 
least 13 000 skins (Anon., 1980). A report on South American cats in trade 
between 1976 and 1982 showed that this species was one of the four most 
heavily exploited small cats. Around 20 000 skins were reportedly exported 
from Paraguay in 1978, and the number increased each year since then. By 1982 
this species apparently supplied the great majority of the spotted cat skins 
in trade, replacing Felis geoffroyi which had been most heavily exploited 
until then (Caldwell, 1984). 


Recent CITES data are summarised below. The only significant trade reported 
involved skins; a small number of live animals did appear in trade, most of 
them recorded as zoological specimens. 


Table 1. Apparent minimum net imports of F. tigrina skins reported to 
CITES, 1980-85. Figures represent numbers of skins unless otherwise indicated. 


See 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
A A A ee A AA AA AAA 
Austria 80 1998 288 1423 269 417 
Belgium 22624 242 1050 - - - 
Canada - - - - - - 
France - - - - 22647 1635 
Germany, F.R. 811 31128 65645 80068 11274 - 
Greece 9588 - - - - - 
Italy 376 58 1000 2850 - - 
Japan - - - - 606 kg - 
Luxembourg 7 10 - 13 - - 
Mexico - 92 - - - - 
Netherlands - - - 36 - - 
Spain - 186 180 - 815 - 
Sweden 3 - - - 2 - 
Switzerland - 1295 - 102 - 1 
UK - - - 1 - - 
USA - 49 - - - - 
Total 33489 35058 68163 84493 35007 2053 

= = = = + 606 kg 


127 


Felis tigrina 


Table 2. Reported countries of origin (or exporting country if no origin 
reported) of skins of F. tigrina reported to CITES. The figures in 
parentheses show, for countries with wild populations of the species, the 
number of skins reported to have been exported directly by that country. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


Countries with wild populations of Felis tigrina 


Argentina 1450 1377 - - - - 
(1450) (0) 
Bolivia - - - - 15482 2039 
(15482) (1635) 
Brazil - 1 live - - - - 
(1) 
Panama 145 - - - - - 
(145) 
Paraguay 32675 35068 68163 84492 19167 7 
+ 606 kg 
(31894) (34986) (51560) (28375) (606 kg) (0) 
Venezuela - 1 - - - - 
(1) 
South America - - - - - - 
Countries without wild populations of Felis tigrina 
Germany, F.R. - 40 - 1 live - - 
UK 3 - - = = = 
Unknown 1 body 7fal 1197 2084 358 - 


The number of skins in trade reached a peak in 1983 when the total net trade 
reported was 84 493 skins; this number declined to 35 007 in 1984 and 2053 in 
1985. The vast majority of the skins in trade were imported into western 
Europe, with F.R. Germany the major importing country. Belgium imported a 
large number of skins in 1980, and France imported a large number in 1984 and 
1985, most of which were reported to have been imported from Bolivia, which 
probably does not have a wild population of the species. 


Paraguay was the reported source of the majority of the skins in trade. 
Although the total number of skins in trade each year reported as originating 
in Paraguay increased until 1983, the number of skins reported as direct 
exports from Paraguay in each year decreased. After 1982 a large number of 
the skins reported with this origin were in fact re-exports from third 
countries. Those recorded by weight (606 kg in 1984 imported by Japan from 
Paraguay) are likely to comprise part of the 12 000, reported by number of 


skins, as re-exported from Japan to F.R. Germany in that year, in which case 
they can be deducted from the total. 


An important point to note is the emergence of Bolivia as a major source of 
skins in 1984 and 1985 as there is no evidence that the species even occurs 
there, and in any case, all cat species are protected in the country (Fuller 
et al., 1987). Exports of stockpiled skins authorised in Argentina in early 
1987 included 1010 skins of Felis tigrina (Broad, 1987). 


128 


Felis tigrina 


CONSERVATION MEASURES 


Table 4. Legal prohibition on the commercial hunting, internal trade and 
commercial export of Felis tigrina. Dates are those on which the 
legislation came into force. * - This territory is an Overseas Département of 
France; # - This legislation only covers the northern settled region of the 
country; ? - no information (Fuller et al., 1987). Those countries in 
parentheses are only inhabited by the subspecies included in CITES Appendix I. 


CITES Hunting Trade Export 
ee ee ee eee eee ee 
Argentina 1981 1981 1981 1981 
Brazil 1975 - 1967 1967 
Chile 1975 1972 1972 1972 
Colombia 1981 1973 1973 1973 
(Costa Rica) 1975 1984 1984 1984 
Ecuador 1975 - - 1981 
French Guiana * 1978 1975 1975 1975 
Guyana 1977 - - 1987 
(Nicaragua) 1977 = = - 
(Panama) 1978 ? ? ? 
Paraguay 1977 1975 1975 1975 
Peru 1975 - - - 
Suriname 1981 # 1970 # 1970 # 1970 
Venezuela 1975 1970 1970 1970 


The effectiveness of these controls varies greatly from country to country. 
The enforcement of the export ban in Paraguay was erratic for a number of 
years; however controls improved significantly in 1982 (Fuller et al., 
1987). On the basis of the declared countries of origin of the skins in trade 
(Table 2), all exports of this species since 1981 appear to have been 
illegal. In October 1986 the EEC prohibited the import of skins of Felis 
tigrina (Anon., 1987). Known to occur in a large number of protected areas 
(Anon., 1982). 


CAPTIVE BREEDING An total of 6 animals were bred between 1972 and 1981 in 
collections contributing to the International Zoo Yearbook (Duplaix-Hall, 
1974-1975; Olney, 1976-1983). 


REFERENCES 


Anon. (1980). The International Trade in Felidae 1977. In: Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. 
Proceedings of the second meeting of the conference of the parties. San 
José, Costa Rica, 19 to 30 March 1978. Vol.1. Secretariat of the 
Convention, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 1980. 264-293. 

Anon. (1982). IUCN Directory of Neotropical Protected Areas. Commission on 
National Parks and Protected Areas, IUCN, Tycooly Int., Dublin, 436 pp. 

Anon. (1987). EEC import restrictions. Traffic Bulletin 8(4): 57-58. 

Broad, S. (1987). The harvest of and trade in Latin American spotted cats 
(Felidae) and otters (Lutrinae). IUCN Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit, 
Cambridge, UK, 139 pp. 

Barquero, J.I. (1976). La vida silvestre en Nicaragua. Encuentro. Revista de 
la Universidad Centroamericana October/December, Managua, Nicaragua, pp. 
57-66. 

Cabrera, A. (1957). Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del sur, vol. I. 
Metatheria, Unguiculata, Carnivora. Revista del Museo Argentino de 
Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadavia', Ciencas Zoologicas 4(1): 1-307. 


129 


Felis tigrina 


Caldwell, J.R. (1984). South American cats in trade: The German connection. 
Traffic Bulletin 6(2): 31-32. 

Cunha Vieira, C. da (1955). Lista remissiva dos mamiferos do Brasil. Arquivos 
de Zoologia do Estado de Sao Paulo 8(2): 341-474. 

Duplaix-Hall, N. (ed). (1974-1975). International Zoo Yearbook, Volumes 
14-15, Zoological Society of London, London. 

Fuller, K.S., Swift, B., Jorgensen, A and Brautigam, A. (1987). Latin 
American wildlife trade laws. Second Edition (Revised). World Wildlife 
Fund-US, 418 pp. 

Gardner, A.L. (1971). Notes on the little spotted cat, Felis tigrina oncilla 
Thomas, in Costa Rica. Journal of Mammalogy 52(2): 464-465. 

Grimwood, I.R. (1969). Notes on the Distribution and status of some Peruvian 
Mammals in 1968. Special Pubn. No.21 Am. Comm. Int. Wildlife Protec. and 
New York Zoological Society, Bronx, New York. 

Guggisberg, C.A.W. (1975). Wild cats of the world, David and Charles, 
London, 328 pp. 

Hall, E.R. (1981). The mammals of North America, 2nd edition. 2 vols. Wiley, 
New York, 1358 pp. 

Koford, C. (19734). Project 694. Status survey of Jaguar and Ocelot in 
tropical America, World Wildlife Yearbook 1972-73: 215-219.8. 

Koford, K.B. (1973b). Spotted cats in Latin America: An interim report. Oryx 


7(1): 37-39. 

Koford, C.B. (1975). Felids of Latin America: Importance and Future 
Prospects. In Symposium on ‘Wildlife and its Environments in the 
Americas' June 25th 1973. Publicaciones Biologicas Instituto de 


Investigaciones Cientifcas O.A.N.L. Vol 1. No.7 Julio 10 1975. 

Leyhausen, P. and Falkena, M. (1966). Breeding the Brazilian Ocelot-cat 
Leopardus tigrinus in captivity. In: Olney, P.J.S. (ed.), The 
International Zoo Yearbook 6. Zoological Society of London. 

Mares, M.A., Ojeda, R.A. and Kosco, M.P. (1981). Observations on the 
distribution and ecology of the mammals of Salta Province, Argentina. 
Annals of the Carnegie Museum 50: 151-206. 

Melquist, W.E. (1984). Status survey of otters (Lutrinae) and spotted cats 
(Felidae) in Latin America. Contract completion report, IUCN, Gland, 
Switzerland, 269 pp. 

Mena Moya, R.A. (1978). Fauna y caza en Costa Rica. R.M. Costa Rica. 

Mondolfi, E. (1976). Fauna silvestre de los bosques humedos de Venezuela. 
Asociacion Nacional Para la Defensa de la Naturaleza, Venezuela. 

Olney, P.J.S. (Ed). (1976-1983). International Zoo Yearbook, Volumes 16-23, 
Zoological Society of London, London. 

Paradiso, J.L. (1972). Status report on cats (Felidae) of the world, 1971. 
Special Scientific Report Wildlife No. 157, U.S. Department of the 
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 
Wildlife, Washington D.C. 43 pp. 

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. 99-110. 

Tello, J.L. (1986). The situation of the wild cats (Felidae) in Bolivia. 
Including notes on other wildlife species and on general aspects of the 
conservation and utilization of natural resources. CITES Secretariat, 
60 pp. 

Thornback, J. and Jenkins, M. (1982). The IUCN Mammal Red Data Book, Part 1. 
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 

Vaughan, C. (1983). A report on dense forest habitat for endangered wildlife 
species in Costa Rica. United States Department of the Interior and the 
National University, Heredia, Costa Rica, 99 pp. 

Zawisza, T. (1984). Guia ecologica de la fauna de Venezuela, Caracas. 


130 


MARGAY Recommended list: 2 


[Possible problem] 
Felis wiedii Schinz, 1821 


Order CARNIVORA Family FELIDAE 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Widely distributed from Mexico to northern 
Argentina. No population estimates exist but the species is generally 
regarded as rare. Little is known about its habits in the wild although it is 
thought to be more arboreal than the other spotted cats and therefore more 
sensitive to deforestation. Habitat loss and alteration are believed to 
represent threats, and the species has been heavily exploited for the skin 
trade in the past. The levels of exploitation in the past are difficult to 
estimate as the Margay has not often been distinguished from the other spotted 
cats in trade. Protected by legislation in most countries where it occurs. 


Traded in large numbers in the late 1970s. CITES data show that the number of 
skins reported in trade decreased during the period 1980-1985 from 19 918 
skins in 1980 to 138 skins in 1985. The major source country was Paraguay, 
although by 1985 there were very few skins reported to have been exported from 
countries with wild populations of the species. No information has been found 
describing the size or status of the population in Paraguay. 


A report on the status of the spotted cats concluded that, if properly 
controlled, the harvest of this species was probably feasible (Melquist, 
1984). Although the trade in this species seems to have responded to 
legislative controls and there is little evidence that illegal trade 
continues, a large amount of biological and population information should be 
collected before consideration is given to the relaxation such trade 
controls. The listing of subspecies in CITES Appendix I should be reviewed. 


DISTRIBUTION From Mexico through Central and South America to Patagonia, 
Argentina; not recorded in Chile. Eleven subspecies were described by Cabrera 
(1957) and Goldman (1943) although in general their ranges were poorly 
defined. Felis wiedii nicaraguae and Felis wiedii salvinia have both been 
listed in CITES Appendix I. 


Felis wiedii amazonica Cabrera, 1917. Inhabiting the upper Amazon area of 
Brazil, in the basins of the Solimoes and Maranon Rivers and their 
tributaries (Cabrera, 1957), perhaps extending into the low Selva of Peru 
(Grimwood, 1969). 


Felis wiedii bolivae Pocock, 1941. The Department of Santa Cruz, 
Bolivia, Mato Grosso state, Brazil and probably the north of Paraguay 
(Cabrera, 1957). 


Felis wiedii cooperi Goldman, 1943. Known only from a single specimen 
taken at Eagle Pass, Texas, USA, prior to 1852 (Goldman, 1943). This animal 
was probably an aberrant vagrant in which case the subspecies would be invalid 
(Thornback and Jenkins, 1982). 


Felis wiedii glaucula Thomas, 1903. Western Mexico from Jalisco north 
to Sinaloa and Chihuahua (Hall, 1981). 


Felis wiedii nicaraguae Allen, 1919. Much of Costa Rica, Nicaragua and 
into adjoining areas of Honduras (Hall, 1981). 


Felis wiedii oaxacensis Nelson and Goldman, 1931. In Mexico from Oaxaca 
north through Veracruz to Tamaulipas (Hall, 1981). 


131 


Felis wiedii 


Felis wiedii pirrensis Goldman, 1914. The Sixaola region of Costa Rica 
(Mena Moya, 1978), Panama (Hall, 1981) then through the Andean zone of 
Colombia (Cabrera, 1957), the coastal side of the Andes of Ecuador (Baker, 
1974) and into Peru where a specimen was recorded as far south as the 
Department of Puno (Grimwood, 1969). 


Felis wiedii salvinia Pocock, 1941. Little known. Recorded from Vera 
Paz, Guatemala (Hall, 1981) and perhaps Belize (Goldman, 1943). Specimens 
taken in 1961 from Mt Cocaguatique and Colinas de Jucuaran, El Salvador were 
also ascribed to this subspecies (Hall, 1981). 


Felis wiedii vigens Thomas, 1904. North-east South America from the 
Orinoco basin to the lower Amazon including by implication Guyana, Suriname 
and possibly French Guiana (Cabrera, 1957). Recorded from the east of the 
state of Para, Brazil (Cunha Vieira, 1955), scattered lowland localities in 
north and south Venezuela (Handley, 1976). 


Felis wiedii wiedii Northern Argentina from Misiones to Tucuman 
(Cabrera, 1957), southern and eastern Brazil from Bahia, and perhaps further 
north, south to the Rio Grande do Sol (Cunha Vieira, 1955), eastern 
Paraguay (Cabrera, 1957) and throughout much of Uruguay (Ximenez et 
al., 1972). 


Felis wiedii yucatanica Nelson and Golman, 1931. Recorded near Uaxactun, 
Belize, in northern Guatemala, and the Yucatan Peninsula, northern Chiapas 
and eastern Oaxaca, Mexico (Hall, 1981), 


POPULATION No details available. A general survey of the status of the 


spotted cats concluded that the species was rare in most areas and common in 
none (Koford, 1973). 


Argentina Rare to uncommon (Anon., 1976). Reported to be rare to 
endangered in Salta Province in the north-west (Mares et al., 1981). 

Considered by national authorities to be too poorly known to justify legal 
exploitation (Melquist, 1984) and the species was listed as vulnerable in the 
national wildlife protection legislation (Resolution No. 144). 


Belize The population is still fairly high, though lower than that of 
Felis pardalis (Florence, 1986). Although little known, it had been found 
to be extremely common in a number of locations (Weyer, 1982). 


Bolivia Reported as endangered in 1981 (Thornback and Jenkins, 1982). 
Tello (1986) considered that the species had made a very good recovery in 
sub-tropical and tropical areas, and he strongly believed that it was out of 
danger in rural areas and common in forest areas, including the savanna-forest 
mosaic country, particularly below 1500 m. 


Brazil Considered by respondents to a questionnaire survey as common and 
widespread in the Amazon basin, but rare with isolated populations in the 
central and southern parts of the country (Melquist, 1984). 


Colombia No population information available but significant areas of 
suitable habitat remain for the spotted cats (Melquist, 1984). 


Costa Rica Endangered (Lopez, 1978). 
Ecuador All spotted cats were generally considered rare (Melquist, 1984). 


El Salvador Boursot (cited by Thornback and Jenkins, 1982) reported in 1979 
that this species was much more common than Felis pardalis. Described as 


132 


Felis wiedii 


vulnerable (Serrano, 1978). 


French Guiana Status probably similar to Suriname (q.v.) (Melquist, 1984). 
Reported by Berger and Portal (1982) to be slowly declining. 


Guatemala The species has apparently always been very rare (Saunders et 
al., 1950). 


Guyana Status probably similar to that in Suriname (q.v.) (Melquist, 1984). 


Honduras No specific information though in 1978 all felidae were reported 
as reduced in number or threatened (Aguilar, 1978). 


Mexico Rare in Mexico (Guggisberg, 1975). 
Nicaragua Recorded as endangered (Salas, 1978). 


Panama In imminent danger of extinction (Vallester, 1978). Reportedly the 
rarest wild cat in Panama (Panama CITES MA, 1985). 


Paraguay No information. 
Peru Largely unknown, but generally regarded as uncommon (Grimwood, 1969). 


Suriname Still reasonably common, extensive areas of suitable habitat 
remain (Melquist, 1984). 


United States Record of occurrence based upon a single specimen (Hall, 
1981). 


Uruguay Probably very rare (Melquist, 1984), described in 1981 as 
endangered, the least abundant Uruguayan cat (Thornback and Jenkins, 1982). 


Venezuela Quite restricted and threatened (Zawisza, 1984). Much rarer than 
the Ocelot (Felis pardalis) (R. Hoogersteijn, in litt., 1987). 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Largely arboreal and thus restricted to forest habitat 
(Guggisberg, 1975). Found in humid forests up to 1500 m elevation in 
Venezuela (Zawisza, 1984), and in arid regions in Oaxaca and the Yucatan 
Peninsula, Mexico (Hall, 1981). Most strogly associated with moist forest 
habitats (J.F. Eisenberg, in litt., 1987). The extent of the dependence of 
this species on dense forest cover is a matter for further investigation. 
Sunquist (in litt., 1987) reported that it had more specialised habitat 
requirements than any of the other small neotropical cats, but Tello (1986) 
found it to be reasonably tolerant of habitat disturbance in Bolivia. Thought 
to be primarily nocturnal (Alvarez del Toro, 1952), although possibly more 
diurnal than the ocelot. Generally appears to have a lower population density 
than the Ocelot (Felis pardalis), but in areas of prime habitat it can more 
nore abundant than the Ocelot. Hunting is almost exclusively arboreal (J.F. 
Eisenberg, in litt., 1987); prey consists of small and medium-sized mammals, 
birds and perhaps lizards (Guggisberg, 1975). Data from Belize indicates that 
about 10% of the diet consists of fruit (J.F. Eisenberg, in litt., 1987). 
Very little reproductive information available. 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL Likely to be particularly sensitive to deforestation, 
Owing to its arboreal habits (Koford, 1973). However, in Bolivia, Tello 
(1986) found it to be far more tolerant of habitat disturbance than previously 
considered. One of the four most heavily exploited spotted cats (Caldwell, 
1984). The species has been heavily exploited for the fur trade and this, 
combined with habitat alteration and destruction, was believed to have caused 


133 


Felis wiedii 


populations to decrease throughout much of its range. However, it was thought 
probable that this effect may have stabilized recently owing to a reduction in 
commercial trade (Melquist, 1984). Listed as ‘Vulnerable’ in the IUCN Mammal 
Red Data Book (Thornback and Jenkins, 1982). 


Argentina Threatened by human destruction and degradation of favourable 
habitat (Argentina CITES MA, 1986). 


Belize Although relatively large areas of habitat remain, pressure for land 
was reportedly increasing in Belize (Florence, 1986). 


Bolivia Tello (1986) found that it survived well in forests subject to 
selective cutting for timber, on farms with patches of forest and thicket as 
well as in regions of shifting farming where the forests are partially 
destroyed in a mosaic pattern. In conclusion he stated that the species did 
not seem to be endangered by habitat changes, with the exception of areas 
where forest and thickets had been totally destroyed. The major threat in 
Bolivia was thought to be professional hunting. 


Brazil Poaching and habitat loss remain major threats despite legal 
protection (Melquist, 1984). 


Colombia Formerly a major exporter of skins of this species, but commercial 
hunting ceased in the early 1970s (Foote and Scheuerman, 1973). No 
information available on recent threats. 


Costa Rica From 1940 to 1977 over 50% of the suitable dense forest habitat 
was destroyed (Vaughan, 1983). 


Ecuador It was reported that the best habitats for this species had 
virtually disappeared because of massive deforestation, particularly in the 
Costa region (Melquist, 1984). 


El Salvador No information. 


French Guiana There is a flourishing trade in wildlife products with French 
Guiana (J. Villalba-Macias, in Jitt., 1987), but there is no evidence to 
Suggest that this poses any threat to the native fauna at present. 


Guatemala No information. 
Guyana Persecuted by farmers (Melquist, 1984). 


Honduras No information. 


Mexico Ramos (1986) indicated that hunting of spotted cats remined a major 
problem in Mexico. 


Nicaragua No information. 


Panama The population has been severely reduced by human destruction and 
alteration of suitable habitat (Panama CITES MA, 1985). 


Paraguay Hunting and commercial trade were extensive until the late 1970s. 
It has been suggested that Paraguay may remain a centre of illegal trade 
although the harvest was believed to have reduced considerably. Habitat loss 
remained a problem, especially in the east of the country (Melquist, 1984). 


Peru Some commercial trade was believed to continue and habitat has been 
threatened as a consequence of extensive oil exploration (Melquist, 1984). 


134 


Felis wiedii 


Suriname No information. 
United States No information. 


Uruguay Threatened by deforestation and illegal hunting (Thornback and 
Jenkins, 1982). 


Venezuela Decline caused by overharvest and loss of habitat (Melquist, 
1984). 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE An analysis of the international trade in felidae in 
1977, found that the trade during that year involved at least 30 000 skins of 
Felis wiedii, though the precise number was impossible to estimate owing to 
the large amount of unrecorded trade and smuggling (Anon., 1980). Large 
numbers of skins of this species were believed to have been traded during the 
1960s and 1970s although the actual volume involved cannot be estimated as 
these skins were not distinguished from those of other spotted cats (Paradiso, 
1972). In 1976 Margay skins from Brazil were less than a quarter the 
individual value of Ocelot (Felis pardalis) skins (Smith, 1976). Data based 
on imports from Paraguay during 1978 to 1982 illustrated an overall decline in 
the trade in skins of this species (Caldwell, 1984). CITES data are analysed 
below. A few live animals were recorded, but the majority of reported trade 
concerned skins. 


Table 1. Apparent minimum net imports of F. wiedii skins reported to CITES, 
1980-85. Figures represent numbers of skins unless otherwise indicated. 


EEE EEE EE a 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
A AA A AA A A A 
Argentina 774 - -. - - - 
Australia - - - - = - 
Austria 773 789 110 1399 811 138 
Belgium - - 102 42 - - 
Canada - 630 500 809 3 - 
Denmark 936 - - 2377 - - 
Finland - - - - - - 
France 286 116 - - 3257 - 
Germany, F.R. 5655 6363 7079 - - - 
Greece 1373 - - - - - 
Hong Kong 435 46 - - 70 - 
Israel 24 44 - - - - 
Italy 8496 8375 5379 3062 - - 
Japan 68 128 - - - - 
Luxembourg - - - - - - 
Mexico 111 - - - - - 
Morocco - - - - - - 
Netherlands 24 - - - - - 
Norway 24 - - - = = 
St Lucia = - - - 2 - 
Spain 990 1016 12 838 - - 
South Africa - - - - - = 
Switzerland - - - - = = 
Turkey - - - 40 = = 
UK = - - - = = 
USA 12 19 18 23 12 - 
Total 19981 17526 13200 8590 4155 138 


A A A A AA AA AAA 


Felis wiedii 
Table 2. Reported countries of origin (or exporting country if no origin 
reported) of skins of F. wiedii reported to CITES. The figures in 


parentheses show, for countries with wild populations of the species, the 
number of skins reported to have been exported directly by that country. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


Countries with wild populations of Felis wiedii 


Belize 160 2 - - - - 
(160) (2) 
Brazil 1 - - 1 - - 
(1) (1) 
Colombia 286 116 5 2 - - 
(0) (0) (5) (2) 
Costa Rica - - - al 1 - 
(1) (1) 
Ecuador - 1 3 - - - 
(1) (3) 
Honduras 1566 7 - - - - 
(0) (7) 
Mexico 3 2 2 6 9 - 
(3) (2) (2) (4) (9) 
Nicaragua - 1 - - - - 
(1) 
Panama 1171 20 - - - - 
(1171) (20) 
Paraguay 16693 17488 13071 8558 4068 138 
(14902) (8534) (7200) (500) (0) (0) 
Peru 1638 _ Tl = > = 
(625) (1) 
South America _ = = = 72 = 
(0) 
Countries without wild populations of Felis wiedii 
Belgium = = 2 8 = a 
Canada 910 = = ~ = = 
UK 916 = = = = = 
Unknown 303 5 156 15 507 - 


Over 20 000 skins of this species per year were reported in trade in 1977 and 
1978 (Broad, 1987), but data for the following years show a steady decline to 
the total of only 138 skins recorded in 1985. The main source of skins in all 
years is reported to have been Paraguay. 


The bulk of the skins in trade were imported by western European countries. 
Up to 1982 the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy were the major importing 
countries, however in 1983 the number of skins in trade decreased 
considerably. In 1984 France was the main importer and in 1985 Austria was 
the only recorded importer. 


136 


Felis wiedii 


CONSERVATION MEASURES 


Table 4. Legal prohibition on the hunting, internal trade and commercial 


export of Felis wiedii. Dates are those on which the legislation came into 
force. R - Regulated; * - This territory is an Overseas Département of 
France; # - This legislation only covers the northern settled region of the 
country; ? - no information (Fuller et al., 1987). Those countries in 


parentheses are only inhabited by the subspecies included in CITES Appendix I. 


CITES Hunting Trade Export 
Argentina 1981 1981 1981 1981 
Belize 1981 1981 1981 1981 
Bolivia 1979 1979 1979 1979 
Brazil 19:75 2 1967 1967 
Colombia 1981 1973 1973 1973 
Costa Rica 1975 1984 1984 1984 
Ecuador 1975 - - 1981 
(El Salvador) 1987 = - = 
French Guiana * 1978 ? ? ? 
Guatamala 1980 1970 1970 1970 
Guyana 1977 - - 1987 
(Honduras) 1985 - 1978 1978 
Mexico - R 1951 ? 1982 
(Nicaragua) 1977 1977 1977 1977 
Panama 1978 1980 1980 1980 
Paraguay 1977 1975 1975 1975 
Peru 1975 R 1977 R 1977 1977 
Suriname 1981 # 1970 # 1970 # 1970 
USA 1975 - - - 
Uruguay 1975 1978 1978 1978 
Venezuela 1975 1970 1970 1970 


The effectiveness of these controls varies greatly from country to country. 
The enforcement of the export ban in Paraguay was erratic for a number of 
years, however controls improved significantly in 1982 (Fuller et al., 
1987). In October 1986 the EEC prohibited the import of skins of Felis 
pardalis (Anon., 1987). 


Known to occur in a large number of protected areas (Anon., 1982). 

CAPTIVE BREEDING An annual average of 6 animals were bred between 1972 and 
1981 in collections contributing to the International Zoo Yearbook 
(Duplaix-Hall, 1974-1975; Olney, 1976-1983). 

REFERENCES 


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. 


Alvarez del Toro, M. (1952). Los animales silvestres de Chiapas. Ediciones 
del Gobierno del Estado, Tuxtla Gutierrez, Chiapas. 

Anon. (1976). Conservation. Argentina, Cat Specialist Group Newsletter 2: 4, 
IUCN Survival Service Commission. 


137 


Felis wiedii 


Anon. (1980). The international trade in Felidae. Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Proceedings of the 
second meeting of the Conference of the Parties. San Jose, Costa Rica, 19 
to 30 March 1979. Volume 1, Secretariat of the Convention, IUCN, Gland, 
Switzerland. 

Anon. (1982). IUCN Directory of Neotropical Protected Areas. Commission on 
National Parks and Protected Areas, IUCN, Tycooly Int., Dublin, 436 pp. 

Anon. (1987). EEC import restrictions. Traffic Bulletin 8(4): 57-58. 

Baker, H.R. (1974). Records of Mammals from Ecuador. Pubns. of the Michigan 
State University Museum 5(2): 1-142. 

Berger, D. and Portal, C. (1982). Dossier: Especies animales Guyanaises 
menacees. Unpublished report, 49 pp. 

Broad, S. (1987). The harvest of and trade in Latin American spotted cats 
(Felidae) and otters (Lutrinae). IUCN Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit, 
Cambridge, UK, 139 pp. 

Cabrera, A. (1957). Catalago de los mamiferos de America del sur, vol. I. 
Metatheria, Unguiculata, Carnivora. Revista del Museo Argentino de 
Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadavia', Ciencas Zoologicas 4(1): 1-307. 

Caldwell, J.R. (1984). South American cats in trade: The German connection. 
Traffic Bulletin 6(2): 31-32. 

Cunha Vieira, C. da (1955). Lista remissiva dos mamiferos do Brasil. Arguivos 
de Zoologia do Estado de Sao Paulo 8(2): 341-474. 

Duplaix-Hall, N. (ed). (1974-1975). International Zoo Yearbook, Volumes 
14-15, Zoological Society of London, London. 

Florence, A. (1986). Small emerald, uncut. BBC Wildlife 4(4): 174-178. 

Foote, R.W. and Scheuerman, R.G. (1973). Reptilian and mammalian hides 
exported from Leticia, Amazonas, Colombia during 1972 and January, 
February and March of 1973. Unpublished report, 6 pp. 

Fuller, K.S., Swift, B., Jorgensen, A and Brautigam, A. (1987). Latin 
American wildlife trade laws. Second Edition (Revised). World Wildlife 
Fund-US, 418 pp. 

Goldman, E.A. (1943). The races of the Ocelot and Margay- in Middle America. 
Journal of Mammalology. 24 (1): 372-385. 

Grimwood, I.R. (1969). Notes on the distribution and status of some Peruvian 
Mammals in 1968. Special Publication 21. Am. Comm. Int. Wildl. Protec. 
and New York Zool. Soc., Bronx, New York, 86 pp. 

Guggisberg, C.A.W. (1975). Wild cats of the world, David and Charles, 
London, 328 pp. 

Hall, E.R. (1981). The mammals of North America, 2nd edition. 2 vols. Wiley, 
New York, 1358 pp. 

Handley, C.0O. (1976). Mammals of the Smithsonian Venezuelan Project. 
Brigham Young University Scientific Bulletin Biological Series 20 (5): 


1-89. 

Koford, C.B. (1973). Spotted cats in Latin America: An interim report. Oryx 
12(1): 37-39. 

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 cuancas del 
catie. 


Mares, M.A., Ojeda, R.A. and Kosco, M.P. (1981). Observations on the 
distribution and ecology of the mammals of Salta Province, Argentina. 
Annals of the Carnegie Museum 50: 151-206. 

Melquist, W.E. (1984). Status survey of otters (Lutrinae) and spotted cats 
(Felidae) in Latin America. Contract completion report, IUCN, Gland, 
Switzerland, 269 pp. 

Mena Moya, R.A. (1978). Fauna y caza en Costa Rica. R.M. Costa Rica. 

Olney, P.J.S. (ed.), (1976-1983). International Zoo Yearbook, Volumes 16-23, 
Zoological Society of London, London. 


138 


Felis wiedii 


Paradiso, J.L. (1972). Status Report on Cats (Felidae) of the World, 1971. 
Spec. Sci. Report 157, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 
Service (Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife), Washington, D.C. 

Ramos, M.A. (1986). Mexico: Caught in a labyrinth of natural 


resource 
problems. Traffic (USA) 6(4): 5/9. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Smith, N.J.H. (1976). Spotted cats and the Latin American skin trade. Oryx 
13(4): 362-370. 

Tello, J.L. (1986). The situation of the wild cats (Felidae) in Bolivia. 
Including notes on other wildlife species and on general aspects of the 
conservation and utilization of natural resources. CITES Secretariat, 
60 pp. 

Thornback, J. and Jenkins, M. (1982). The IUCN Mammal Red Data Book, Part 1. 
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 

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 cuancas del catie. 

Vaughan, C. (1983). A report on dense forest habitat for endangered wildlife 
species in Costa Rica. United States Department of the Interior and the 
National University, Heredia, Costa Rica, 99 pp. 

Weyer, D. (1982). Preliminary jaguar survey: Belize. Unpublished report. 

Ximenez, A., Langguth, A. and Praderi, R. (1972). Lista sistematica de los 
Mamiferos del Uruguay. Anales Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Montevideo 7 (5): 
1-49. 

Zawisza, T. (1984). Guia ecologica de la fauna de Venezuela, Caracas. 


139 


NARWHAL Recommended list: 2 
[Possible problem] 
Monodon monoceros (Linnaeus, 1758) 


Order CETACEA Family MONODONTIDAE 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Narwhal inhabits circumpolar arctic seas 
principally between 70°N and 80°N. The best studied stock, west of Greenland 
and in the Canadian Arctic, is estimated to number 29 000. The number of 
population units within the region is not resolved, this having implications 
for management as it affects the calculation of mortality rates caused by 
hunting. Narwhals east of Greenland are believed to constitute a distinct 
population; knowledge of them is poor and studies are needed. There is no 
indication of any population decline, in spite of the long history of 
traditional exploitation. 


Narwhals are exploited mainly for human consumption and as food for dogs. In 
the eastern Canadian Arctic, they are hunted only by Inuit in support of a 
subsistence economy. Annual hunting mortality in the Canada/West Greenland 
stock totals approximately 1000 animals. Tusks are sold as ornaments, either 
whole or carved. From 1975-1984 an estimated 313 Narwhal were landed each 
year in Canadian Inuit communities, of which approximately half are estimated 
to be tusk-bearing males. Quotas set by the Canadian Department of Fisheries 
and Oceans (DFO) are not generally exceeded. During the same period an 
estimated 454 Narwhals were landed annually in Greenland. Between 1980 and 
1985 (inclusive), an average of 113 Narwhal tusks a year have been reported in 
international trade by CITES parties. The majority have come from Canada 
(mean 79 per annum), but in 1985 Greenland was the reported source of the 
largest number of tusks in trade. 108 tusks were exported from Greenland in 
1986, and the lower exports prior to 1984 are probably artefacts of inadequate 
reporting. A ban on Narwhal imports to the EEC from all countries except 
Greenland was imposed in January 1984 and yet CITES still recorded 40 Narwhal 
tusks imported to EEC countries from outside Greenland in 1984. No such 
apparently illegal imports were recorded in 1985. 


Estimates of natural mortality and recruitment rates are not sufficiently 
precise to predict reliably whether the current exploitation rate is 
Sustainable and opinions are divided. Nevertheless, the two Management 
Authorities involved believe that net recruitment is positive on the basis of 
available information. Better data on parameters of population biology are, 
however, required to confirm this; the collection of such data is the 
objective of ongoing Canadian research. 


DISTRIBUTION Largely confined to arctic waters between 70°N and 80°N. 
Within this range the species is best known to the west of Greenland, in the 
Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, Hudson Strait and eastern Canadian arctic region, 
frequenting both coastal and pelagic waters. During the summer months, 
Narwhals are common along the west coast of Greenland, north from Kuvdlorssuaq 
(c. 74° 30'N) (Denmark, Greenland CITES MA, 1986) to Kane Basin, located 
between Greenland and Ellesmere Land. From Kane Basin the summer distribution 
extends westwards to Cornwallis Island and thence south to Foxe Basin, 
Southampton Island and Hudson Strait (Mansfield et al., 1975; Sergeant, 
1978). In the summer, concentrations of Narwhals occur in separate areas of 
the region described above. It has been Suggested that these aggregations 
remain segregated in the winter months, when the distribution contracts owing 
to the advancing ice but there is no evidence to substantiate such an 
hypothesis (Anon., 1979c). Precise locations of the wintering animals remain 
vague but they have been seen in the close pack ice of the Davis Strait and 
Baffin Bay (McLaren and Davis, 1981; 1982; 1983). Small numbers may also 


140 


Monodon monoceros 


winter in eastern Hudson Strait (Anon., 1979a; 1979b). Narwhals also occur 
north of the drifting ice boundary off the coast and in the fjords of east 
Greenland during the summer months (Kapel, 1977; Boyd, 1932; Pedersen, 1931). 
They may well also occupy the fjords of Kialineq and Kangerdlugssuaq 
throughout the year (Dietz et al., 1985). Their distribution is believed to 
be continuous between Scoresbysund and Nordost Rundingen but they are rarely 
seen in the Dove Bugt area (Dietz et al., 1985). From the coast of East 
Greenland their range extends eastwards to Svalbard, Franz Josef Land, 
Novaya Zemlaya, Severnaya Zemlya and the New Siberian Islands, USSR. 
Distribution of the populations east and west of Greenland is thought to be 
disjunct; Narwhals are very rarely seen south of Sukkertoppen (65°N c.) on the 
west Greenland coast (Kapel, 1977). However, exchange between stocks could 
theoretically occur via the Polar Basin (Reeves and Tracey, 1980) but there is 
no evidence to support this hypothesis. 


Few sightings between 70°N and 80°N exist for the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea 
areas but occasional strandings have been reported (Geist et al., 1960; 
Tomilin, 1957). 


Outside the 70°N to 80°N circumpolar region, records of the species are 
infrequent but include sightings to the north of 85°N, including the birth of 
a calf at this latitude (Rutilevski, 1958). To the south, there are records 
of sightings and strandings off the coasts of north and west Norway 
(Collett, 1911-12), north-west (Saemundsson and Degerbol, 1939) and south-west 
(Einarsson and Jonsson, 1976) Iceland, the Netherlands (Aguayo, 1978), the 
UK (Fraser, 1974) and in the mouth of the Elbe River in F.R. Germany 
(Aguayo, 1978). Confirmed as an extremely rare visitor to these countries 
(Iceland, Nature Conservation Council, A ate, 9 February 1987, 
Netherlands CITES MA, 1986; UK CITES MA, 1986; F.R. Germany CITES MA, 1986; 
Norway CITES MA, 1986). One doubtful record exists from the Baltic coast of 
F.R. Germany (Mohr, 1931). A stranding (Geist et al., 1960) and entrapment 
by ice (Mercer, 1973) have also occurred on the Alaskan and Newfoundland 
coasts respectively, both well south of 70°N: 


POPULATION Recent population surveys have concentrated mainly on the Baffin 
Bay-Davis Strait stock that summers in north-western Greenland, in the Smith 
Sound-Kane Basin region and in the Canadian high Arctic. In 1984 almost 
simultaneous surveys were conducted in these areas (Anon., 1986). In 
north-west Greenland daily movements of Narwhal were seen from a 78-m 
cliff-top observation post on the north-west of Qegertat Island at the head of 
Inglefield Bay. Observations were made between 31 July and 1 September 1984 
and the highest daily count was on 18 August, when a minimum of 4043 Narwhals 
were seen (Born, 1985). In the eastern Canadian Arctic aerial surveys were 
conducted between 15 and 29 August 1984 over Peel Sound, Prince Regent Inlet, 
Admiralty Inlet and Eclipse Sound where an estimated 23 700 Narwhals were seen 
(95% c.1. 18 100-29 500). Similar aerial surveys were conducted between 27 
and 29 July 1984 in the Repulse Bay-Frozen Strait area of northern Hudson Bay 
giving an estimate of 1200 Narwhals (95% c.1. 700-1600) giving a best estimate 
of 24 900 (95% c.l. 18 800-31 100) for the eastern Canadian Arctic. This 
estimate coupled with the minimum population of 4043 Narwhals from Inglefield 
Bay, Greenland gives a best estimate for summering populations in these two 
areas of approximately 29 000 Narwhals in 1984. This number does not include 
any Narwhals that may have been in the Foxe Basin, other regions of the 
Canadian archipelago or along other sections of the west and north-west coasts 
of Greenland. 


Long-term population trends in the Canadian Arctic are elucidated by two 


related studies on Narwhals migrating westwards through Lancaster Sound in the 
summers of 1957 (Tuck, 1957) and 1976 (Greendale and Brousseau-Greendale, 


141 


Monodon monoceros 


1976). The number of Narwhals seen in each survey was approximately 6000 but 
the data need statistical analysis for periods during both surveys when 
inclement weather obscured visibility. Similarly, 9700 Narwhals were reported 
in Admiralty Inlet in July 1975 (Fallis et al., 1983) which concurs with the 
DFO surveys in 1984 cited above. 


The first estimate of abundance for Narwhals from the East 
Greenland-Spitzbergen stock was made in September 1983 when an estimate of 176 
Narwhals was determined for the Scoresbysund Sound area (Anon., 1985a). A 
smaller number was recorded in 1984 possibly due to the Narwhals having 
started to migrate out of the area prior to the survey (Anon., in press). A 
kayak expedition recorded 194 Narwhals north of Scoresbysund between 16 July 
and 29 August 1984 (Dietz et al., 1985). 


Yablokov (1979) quoted earlier estimates of the size of the Narwhal stock from 
northern Europe to eastern Siberia as being several thousand. 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY Circumpolar arctic seas. Seasonal movements of the 
species occur and are controlled by sea ice conditions and currents (Vibe, 
1950; Vibe, 1967). Entrapment by ice also occurs (Reeves and Tracey, 1980) 
restricting movement to a limited open water area or 'savssat' that is kept 


open by the animals for breathing. Predators include man, Killer Whales 
(Orcinus orca) (Steltner et al., 1984), and Polar Bears (Ursus 
maritimus) (Reeves and Tracey, 1980). Greenland Sharks (Somniosus 


microcephalus) are known to scavenge on carcasses (Denmark, Greenland CITES 
MA, 1986). 


Diet consists of a variety of fish (Tomilin, 1957), cephalopods and 
crustaceans. When close to shore the staple diet consists of Polar Cod 
(Boreogadus saida), Greenland halibut (Rheinhardtius hippoglossoides) and 
decapod crustaceans (Mansfield et al., 1975; Pedersen, 1931; Vibe, 1950). 


The tusk of male Narwhals is an eruption of the left anterior tooth. It is 
reportedly used in aggressive encounters between males (Silverman, 1979; 
Silverman and Dunbar, 1980) and consequently may be of secondary sexual 
Significance. It was previously suggested that it might be important as a 
focusing mechanism for echolocation signals for navigation and food location 
and could be used in breaking ice to provide breathing holes (Mansfield et 
al., 1975; Reeves and Mitchell, 1981; Best, 1981). Tusks up to 315 cm in 
length (Bruemmer, 1971) and weighing 9 kg (Silverman, 1979) have been 
recorded. Occasionally females with tusks have been reported and animals with 
two tusks have been recorded (Mitchell and Reeves, 1981). 


Narwhals are gregarious and normally observed in small groups. A group size 
of 3-8 was most commonly observed in the migrations of Narwhals at Bylot 
Island in 1976 (range: 1-21) (Greendale and Brousseau-Greendale, 1976). The 
composition of groups is variable; comprising single sex groups (Scoresby, 
1820; Scoresby, 1823; Greendale and Brousseau-Greendale, 1976) to mixed groups 
of males, females and juveniles (Pedersen, 1931; Vibe, 1970) and females with 
juveniles only (Greendale and Brousseau-Greendale, 1976). 


Limited data are available on breeding biology (Hay, 1984) although ageing 
techniques are not reliable. Males are sexually mature at lengths exceeding 
3.9 m and when 16-17 growth layers of dentine and mandibular bone are 
deposited in the teeth and jaw respectively. Females are sexually mature at 
lengths exceeding 3.4 m and when 12 growth layers are deposited. The 
gestation period is estimated at 15.3 months with mating in March-May and 
calving in July-August the following year. Lactation exceeds 12 months and 
the interval between successive conceptions is normally three years, though 


142 


Monodon monoceros 


about 20% of females conceive at their first breeding season following birth 
of their calves. 


The birth rate has never been satisfactorily determined and there is 
disagreement on techniques for assessing recruitment rates. Information can 
be inferred from extrapolations of inter-species relationships between 
physical measurements such as brain weight or body length and the value of 
life history variables. Results from the closely related White Whale 
(Delphinapterus leucas) may also be applicable to Narwhal. Hay (1984) 
estimated Narwhal population birth rate from analyses of 79 female sexual 
organs collected over a wide span of years to be between 0.06 and 0.15, but 
assigned a representative figure of 0.07. However, Born (Denmark, Greenland 
CITES MA, 1986) questioned this conclusion and offered an alternative estimate 
based on the neonate to all-age-group ratio observed subsequent to the peak 
birth period, citing the following observations of neonate percentages: 10% 
in August (Silverman, 1979), 11% in September (Larsen, 1984), 9% in late 
August/early September (Koski, 1980) and 9-10% also in late August/early 
September (Koski and Davis, 1979). In the White Whale, annual population 
birth rates have been calculated at 9% (Brodie, 1971) and 11-14% (Sergeant, 
1973) and aerial surveys after the birth period showed that 12% of populations 
were neonates (Heyland, 1974). This leads Born to the conclusion that the 
annual birth rate in Narwhals is nearer 0.1 and could be higher. Kingsley 
(1986) also suggested 10% gross reproductive rate (neonates/Narwhal). 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL There is little evidence of threats to Narwhal 
populations other than human predation. The Narwhal is currently hunted by 
Inuit people in both Canada and Greenland for its nutritional value, providing 
for human consumption the prized skin, known as muktuk, which is high in 


vitamin C (Davis et al., 1980) and dark red meat, which is normally used as 
dog food. In Greenland, the intestines are also eaten either fresh or, 
commonly, after drying (Denmark, Greenland CITES MA, 1986). In the past oil 


from the head end blubber was used as a fuel but this use is now discontinued 
in Canada (Reeves and Mitchell, 1981). Other products include sinew which is 
used as thread for sewing or binding. The tusk is also an item of value and 
trade records pre-date the 12th Century (Mitchell and Reeves, 1981). 


Canada A quota system operates in the 21 Inuit communities where Narwhal 
are regularly encountered and hunt statistics have been kept by the Department 
of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) since the 1950s with quotas and regulations in 
effect since 1976. The total number of Narwhal landed are reportedly recorded 
(see tag scheme under Conservation Measures) and the 10-year average to 1984 
was 313 Narwhals, well within the quota of 542 set by the DFO for the 
21 communities. If the figure of 313 is corrected for animals killed but lost 
during the hunt, the average annual mortality due to hunting by Canadian 
Communities is estimated as 492 Narwhals (Canada CITES MA, 1986). This 
correction is determined through an analysis of the three hunt types: floe 
edge, ice crack and open water, their respective kill-landed to kill-lost 
ratios, and their relative frequency of use amongst the 21 communities. 


In recent years, Inuit hunters are said to have become increasingly conscious 
of world opinion and of the high kill-lost ratios associated with floe edge 
hunts in particular, and to be modifying hunting practices to reduce losses 
(Canada CITES MA, 1987). 


Individual community quotas have been exceeded on 10 occasions in the 21 
communities since the inception of regulations in 1976 (Canada CITES MA, 
1986), usually when Narwhals have been killed at breathing holes in fast ice, 
known as 'savssat'. For example, 120 and 53 animals were killed at ‘savssats' 
in 1979 and 1981 respectively and there are instances of large kills prior to 
the DFO's recordings (Mitchell and Reeves, 1981; Anon., 1983). 


143 


Monodon monoceros 


Of the Narwhals landed, it is reported that 30% may be females and 20% may be 
tuskless juveniles of either sex leaving approximately 50% of the catch as 
tusk-bearing males (Mitchell and Reeves, 1981). Tusk yield therefore averages 
150-160 a year. 


Greenland The catch statistics for Greenland have been split into three 
regions, (Table 1) north, west and east. Catches from the north and west are 
deemed to be taken from the Baffin Bay-Davis Strait stock that also summers in 
the Canadian Arctic. The methods and sources of data collection are outlined 
below. 


(a) Reported catches (R). In each settlement one person is responsible for 
collecting information on each hunter's catch; recorded by the hunter on a 
special recording form. These data comprise the Hunters' Lists of Game. 

(b) Other sources on catches (0). Not all hunters complete the forms; so 
the individual charged with the task of collating data in (a) also records 
his own observations and information from other informants and sources 
such as newspapers and scientists. 

(c) Estimates (E). Where no information relating to (a) or (b) is received 
an estimate is often made after consultations between the Statistical 
Department of the Ministry for Greenland (SDMG) and an official of the 
Greenland Fisheries and Environment Research Institute. From 1985 the 
Statistical Department of the Home Rule Government (SDHRG) will undertake 
the task in place of the SDMG. 


Table 1. Reported Narwhal catches in Greenland from 1975-84 (Anon., in press; 
Anon., 1983; Anon., 1984; Anon., 1985b; Denmark, Greenland CITES MA, 1986; 
Anon., 1975-1984). Figures in parentheses are upgraded estimates (Anon., 1983). 


1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1975-19841 


NORTH GREENLAND (Thule) 


R 1 9 2 - - - 88 77 17 233 43 

E - - - 90 10 130 - - 25 20 

0) - - 14 20 110 - 30 87 93 31 

Total 1 9 16 110 120 130 118 164 135 284 109 
(150) (150) (150) (151) 

WEST GREENLAND (All districts) 

R 116 106 222 5022 239 193 400 207 230 339 255 

E - - - - - 98 10 45 40 25 

lo) - - 15 - 18 41 81 45 34 18 

Total 116 106 237 502 257 332 491 297 304 382 302 

EAST GREENLAND (All districts) 

R 4 9 21 3 7 48 22 48 23 55 24 

E = - - - 10 10 15 35 20 10 

(o) 8 15 - - 1 - 106 16 10 - 

Total 12 24 21 3 18 s8 143 99 53 65 50 


1. Annual Average 2. 199 taken at 'savssat' 


Monodon monoceros 


Table 1 demonstrates that reporting from Thule District has been particularly 
poor (Denmark, Greenland CITES MA, 1986) and as such the figures may be 
under-representative. Estimates for the Thule District have been assigned for 
the years 1975, 1976 and 1977 in a report to the International Whaling 
Commission (Anon., 1983), when each annual catch was upgraded to 150. Without 
the upgraded estimates for Thule in Years 1975-1977 the average annual catch 
(R+E+0) for North and West Greenland is 411 Narwhals but with upgraded 
estimates, as in Anon. (1983), the annual average catch is 453 Narwhals. The 
latter figure is adopted here. 


The figures in Table 1 do not include Narwhals killed-but-lost and, unlike 
Canada, detailed assessments of kill-lost to kill-landed ratios do not exist. 
Until such information is provided it is impossible to provide anything other 
than a rough estimate of total mortality due to hunting. A tentative overall 
loss rate of 20% is proposed for the North and West Greenland hunt (Born and 
Reimers Olsen, 1986). This figure is based on the reported loss rates in the 
Canadian open water and ice crack hunts (predominately employed in Greenland) 
which are scaled down due to more traditional and animal-efficient hunting 
techniques used in Greenland (see Conservation Measures below). Therefore, 
annual hunting for North and West Greenland of 454 Narwhals/year should be 
increased by 20% to give total estimated hunting mortality of around 550 
Narwhals/year. 


For East Greenland, the comparable total hunting mortality is around 60 
Narwhals/year. Population estimates for the Scoresbysund Sound area of East 
Greenland (Anon., 1985a; Anon., in press) are available; however, there is not 
sufficient information for the whole East Greenland-Spitzbergen stock with 
which to produce estimates of mortality rates due to hunting. 


Figures are not available for the proportion of the catch that is tusk- 
bearing; so it is not possible to assign an annual tusk yield from the Narwhal 
hunt of Greenland, although it may be similar to the 50% yield suggested for 
Canada. 


Summary of Canada/West Greenland utilization The annual estimated hunting 
mortality for a Baffin Bay-Davis Strait-Hudson Bay stock (est. pop. 29 000) is 
the combined total of Canadian and West Greenland kills, or around 1000 
animals. Therefore an estimate of the proportion of the population killed per 
annum as a result of hunting activities is 0.034. The worst-case estimate 
based on a population of 22 800 (Anon., 1986) would be an annual hunting 
mortality rate of 0.044. However, as both population estimates are based on 
incomplete coverage of the summer range of narwhals, particularly in West 
Greenland, the true hunting mortality will probably be lower. An alternative 
approach is to consider separately the Canadian population, for which more 
complete surveys were carried out. The reported kill of 492 Narwhals would 
represent 2% of the estimated population of 24 900. However, this calculation 
may not be justified as Born (Denmark, Greenland CITES MA, 1986) has pointed 
out that some of the West Greenland harvest is conducted in the winter and may 
have been taken from populations included in the Canadian survey. Assessing 
the impact of the West Greenland hunt separately is much more difficult, owing 
to the less complete population estimates; however Born suggested that it 
might be more appropriate to apply the average annual catch in Thule (i.e. 
150/yr) to the estimate of the summering stock (i.e. minimum 4000 animals) 
The annual hunting mortality would then be at maximum 0.04, on the unsupported 
assumption that the Narwhals summering in the Thule area represent an isolated 
stock. 


It is impossible to assess the impact of hunting on the Narwhal population 
without accurate data on birth rate and natural mortality, neither of which is 
available. If one assumes a birth rate of 0.1 as argued by Born (Denmark, 


145 


Monodon monoceros 


Greenland CITES MA, 1986) and a worst-case hunting mortality of 0.044 then 
natural mortality would need to be less than or equal to 0.056 for harvesting 
to be sustainable. Such a level of natural mortality is consistent with those 
determined for other relatively long-lived small cetaceans (i.e. in the region 
of 0.04-0.05), although Kingsley (1986) considered that adult mortality of 
Narwhals probably lay in the region of 0.05-0.08. However, if the annual 
population birth rate is as low as was indicated by Hay (1984) (0.07), even 
the lower estimates of natural mortality would predict a population decline. 
It must be stressed that there is no field evidence for population declines, 
and all arguments about the sustainable hunting rate must remain speculative 
in the absence of firm biological data. On the basis of their calculations 
the Canadian CITES Management Authority (1986) consider that the harvest is 
sustainable and that net recruitment is positive. Confirmation of this view 
must await the results of further research. 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE 


CITES reports of trade in Narwhal tusks are summarised in Tables 2 (imports) 
and 3 (origin). These transactions do not necessarily relate to tusks taken 
from Narwhals in the year stated, as many refer to re-exports, but they do 
give some idea of the volume and pattern of international trade. Table 2 
shows that the minimum net trade has declined from a peak of 250 in 1980 to 
fewer than 100 in 1985. Most of the 1980 trade was attributable to the UK 
having imported 211 tusks from Canada. 


Table 2. Minimum net imports of tusks of Monodon monoceros reported to CITES. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
Australia - - 3 - - - 
Austria - - - - 2 3 
Belgium - - - 2 - - 
Canada 1 al - - 1 - 
Chile = = 4 - - = 
Denmark - 1 - - - 40 
France 5 4 1 4 3 E 
Germany, F.R. - 1 1 1 4 - 
Guadeloupe - - = - 2 EE 
Ireland - = 1 = 3 = 
Italy 26 13 11 21 1 - 
Japan 3 6 10 20 18 19 
Monaco - = 1 = = = 
New Caledonia = = E = 1 = 
New Zealand = = = 1 = = 
Saudi Arabia 1 - = = = = 
Spain 1 = = = = = 
Switzerland = 3 13 10 6 2 
UK 211 36 39 63 37 - 
USA 2 5 6 1 3 4 
Total 250 70 90 123 78 68 


146 


Monodon monoceros 


Table 3. Reported countries of origin, or exporter where no country of origin 
is given, of Monodon monoceros tusks reported to CITES. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
Canada 221 41 49 91 58 15 
Denmark - - 1 5) - = 
France - - 3 - - = 
Greenland 3 5 8 6 14 50 
United States - - - - 2 - 
Unknown 11 8 6 1 3 3 


Table 3 shows the declared origin of the tusks; exports from Denmark probably 
originated in Greenland. More recent reports show that exports from Greenland 
in 1986 totalled 108 whole tusks, 79 carvings, 3 skulls and 1 fur (Denmark, 
Greenland CITES MA, 1987). The apparently low numbers of exports from 
Greenland before 1985 (fewer than ten per annum) are a result of the lack of 
reporting of trade between Greenland and Denmark during those years. 
Greenland withdrew from the EEC in February 1985 and since that time trade 
between Greenland and Denmark has been subject to regulation and monitoring 
(Denmark, Greenland CITES MA, 1987). The increase in exports from Greenland 
in 1985 and 1986 therefore represents the introduction of a new recording 
procedure rather than an increase in actual trade. 


It should be noted that exports of tusks in any one year are not necessarily 
representative of the number of Narwhal tusks harvested in that year. Exports 


depend on import demands. In Canada, the major exporters, Arctic Enterprises 
and the Hudson Bay Company buy all tusks offered locally through the Inuit 
Cooperatives. All tusks purchased from the Inuit may not necessarily be 


re-sold or exported in the year of the original purchase and both companies 
carry inventories of tusks that are represenative of the harvest of several 
years. For example in 1985 over 100 tusks were stockpiled by these companies, 
representing surplus of purchases over sales from 1981-1984. Any previous 
surplus was cleared in 1980 when there was an unusually high demand for 
Narwhal tusks. 


The volume of trade in ivory carvings, skin products and meat was so low that 
transactions in these items were excluded from Tables 2 and 3. Although 
several transactions in ivory carvings may have occurred in any one year, the 
number of Narwhal tusks required is low as several carvings may originate from 
one tusk. 


International trade in tusks therfore appears to be in the order of 50-100 a 
year from Canada and probably about 100 a year from Greenland. As the annual 
recovered harvest in these two countries is around 700 Narwhals a year, of 
which 350 may bear tusks, it must be assumed that the remainding tusks are 
consumed in domestic trade, because logic dictates that no tusk will be thrown 
away, even if it is the by-product of a subsistence hunt. Therefore domestic 
and international trade may account for about equal proportions of the world 
supply of tusks. 


CONSERVATION MEASURES Conservation measures affecting the trade and hunting 
of the Narwhal consist of the following. 


Canada Narwhal Protection Regulations under the Fisheries Act exist to 
limit hunting to permit-holding Inuit on a quota system for each settlement 


147 


Monodon monoceros 


where Narwhal regularly occur. The regulations also set minimum fire power 
for weapons and confer complete protection for mothers and calves. The quota 
system is operated by the DFO which issues hunter's tags which have to be 
attached to each tusk or carcass of tuskless females and immature males 
(Reeves and Mitchell, 1981). Export of any part or derivative (i.e. tusk) 
from the North West Territories of Canada requires a Marine Mammal Export 
Permit. Export from Canada requires a CITES export permit. 


Inuit communities involved in Narwhal hunting work cooperatively with the 
Department of Fisheries and Oceans to assist in the development of management 
regimes for Narwhals and other marine mammals. Negotiations with Greenland 
are being undertaken to establish joint management and research plans for the 
Baffin Bay/Davis Strait stock of Narwhals and the Department of Fisheries and 
Oceans is continuing research on the species to improve the knowledge on 
population structure and dynamics. Moreover Inuit have voluntarily undertaken 
conservation measures to reduce the kill-lost ratio. 


Greenland 


(a) General. When animals are trapped in 'savssat' any wounded or killed 
Narwhals must be harpooned immediately. No one is allowed to kill more 
animals at a ‘savssat' than can be transported back to the villages 
immediately after the hunt. All meat and blubber must be removed from a kill 
and flensing should begin as soon as the animal is hauled up on the ice 
(Anon., 1958). Commercial export from Greenland of whalemeat (from all 
species) is prohibited. This ban was previously issued by the Danish state 
and it has since been restated under Greenland Home Rule Law: Bekendtgorelse 
nr. 33, December 19, 1985 (Denmark, Greenland CITES MA, 1987). 


(b) Thule District, North-west Greenland. The use of motor boats for Narwhal 
hunting is prohibited in the summer (Rudge et al., 1981). Animals must be 
harpooned before killing. 


(c) North Upernavik District, West Greenland. Use of motorised vessels when 
Narwhal hunting is prohibited (Anon., 1980). 


(d) Uummanaak District, West Greenland. Harpoon guns are forbidden when 
hunting Narwhals and White Whales. Boats longer than 30 ft (9.1m) are 


prohibited. All animals killed must be transported back to the villages 
(Anon., 1981). 


European Economic Community Commercial importation of Narwhal products is 
banned from all countries except Greenland, under EEC regulation No: 3626/82. 


Norway Under the Act of 16 June 1939 on the Taking of Whales (Amended), the 
Narwhal may be hunted without a permit (Marashi, 1982). | 


United Kingdom In theory protected by the Whaling Industry (Regulation) Act 
1934, which makes it illegal to take any cetacean in British waters. In 
addition, stranded whales usually belong the the Crown further restricting 
exploitation (UK CITES MA, 1986). 


United States of America Importation of Narwhal products into the USA is 
prohibited under the Marine Mammal Protection Act 1972. However, exemption is 


Biven to U.S. Aboriginal people of the Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea and Arctic 
Ocean. 


Monodon monoceros 


CAPTIVE BREEDING Narwhals have been captured and kept in aquaria on several 
occasions but with little success (Breummer, 1969; Newman, 1971; Newman, 
1977), death resulting within at most four months. No attempts have been made 
to breed the species in captivity. 


REFERENCES 


Aguayo, A. (1978). Smaller cetaceans in the Baltic Sea. Reports of the 
International Whaling Commission 28: 131-146. 

Anon. (1958). Landsradsvedtaegt af 18. januar 1958 om savssat. 
Nalunaerutit-Gronlandsk Lovsamling-Serie A, nr.1-1958. 

Anon. (1975-1984). Hunters' Lists of Game, Ministry for Greenland supplied by 
E.W. Born. 

Anon. (1979a). Report on aerial surveys of marine mammals and birds in the 
southern Davis Strait and eastern Hudson Strait in March 1978. Rept. for 
Esso Resources Canada Ltd., Aquitaine Co. of Canada Ltd. and Canada Cities 
Services Ltd., Arctic Petroleum, MacLaren Marex Inc. 

Anon. (1979b). Report on aerial surveys of birds and marine mammals in the 
southern Davis Strait between April and December 1978. Rept. for Esso 
Resources Canada Ltd., Aquitaine Co. of Canada Ltd. and Canada Cities 
Services Ltd., Arctic Petroleum, MacLaren Marex Inc. 

Anon. (1979c). Report of the Small Cetaceans Sub-Committee. International 
Whaling Commission, IWC/SC/31. 

Anon. (1980). Vedtaegt for Upernavik kommune om fangst af narhvaler nord for 
Kuvdlorssuaq. Nalunaerutit-Gronlandsk Lovsamling-Serie B -1980. 

Anon. (1981). Vedtaegt for Ummannak kommune vedrorende hvidfiske-og narhval 
fangst. Nalunaerutit-Gronlandsk Lovsamling-Serie B, Nr.2-1981. 

Anon. (1983). Reports of the International Whaling Commission 33: 203-208. 
SC/34/Prog Rep Denmark. 

Anon. (1984). Reports of the International Whaling Commission 34: 191-196 
SC/35/Prog Rep Denmark. 

Anon. (1985a). Report of the small Cetaceans Sub-Committee. IWC/SC/36. 
International Whaling Commission. 

Anon. (1985b). Reports of the International Whaling Commission 35: 162-166 
SC/36/Prog Rep Denmark. 

Anon. (1986). Draft report of the small Cetaceans Sub-Committee. IWC/SC/37, 
International Whaling Commission. 

Anon. (in press). SC/37/Prog Rep Denmark, International Whaling Commission. 

Best, R.C. (1981). The tusk of the Narwhal (Monodon monoceros L.): 
interpretation of its function (Mammalia: Cetacea). Canadian Journal of 
Zoology 59: 2384-2393. 

Born, E.W. (1985). Observations of the narwhal (Monodon monoceros) in the 
Thule area, Northwest Greenland, August 1984. Reports of the 
International Whaling Commission 37, SM14 (in press). 

Born, E.W. and Reimers Olsen, L. (1986). Er narhvalen truet? [Is the narwhal 
threatened?]. Naturens Verden 1986(2):65-80. [In Danish]. 

Boyd, L.A. (1932). Fiords of East Greenland. Geographical Review 22: 529-561. 

Breummer, F. (1969). The sea unicorn. Audubon 71(6): 58-63. 

Breummer, F.(1971). Notes on sea mammals. Thule district, Greenland 1971. 
Unpublished MS. 29 pp. (mimeo). 

Brodie, P.F. (1971). A reconsideration of aspects of growth, reproduction and 
behaviour of the White Whale Delphinapterus leucas with reference to the 
Cumberland Sound, Baffin Bay population. Journal of the Fisheries 
Research Board of Canada 28(9): 1309-1318. 

Collett, R. (1911-12). Norges patted yr. Forlagt af H. Aschehong, 
Kristiania, 744 pp. 

Davis, R.A., Finley, K.J. and Richardson, R.J. (1980). The present status and 
future management of Arctic Marine mammals in Canada. Scientific Advisory 
Board of the North West Territories, Yellowknife, Report No. 3. 


149 


Monodon monoceros 


Dietz, R., M.P. Heide-Jorgensen and Born, E.W. (1985). Havpattedyr i 
Ostgronland: en litteraturundersogelse (Marine mammals in east Greenland: 
a literature survey). Rapport to Rastofforvaltningen for Gronland og 
Gronlands Fiskeri-og Miljoundersogelser fra Danbiu. ASpS.: 277 pp. (In 
Danish with an English summary). 

Einarsson, S.T. and Jonsson, E. (1976). Nahveli hlaupa a land i nagrenni 
Reykjavikur. Natturufraedingurinn 46(1-2): 22-24. 

Fallis, B.W., Klenner W.E. and Kemper, J.B. (1983). Narwhal surveys and 
associated marine mammal observations in Admiralty Inlet, Navy Board Inlet 
and Eclipse Sound, Baffin Island, N.W.T., during 1974-76. Canadian 
Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1211. 

Fraser, F.C. (1974). Report on cetacea stranded on British coasts from 
1948-1966. British Museum of Natural History Report, Cetacea 14: 1-65. 
Geist, O.W., Buckley J.L. and Manville, R.H. (1960). Alaskan records of the 

narwhal. Journal of Mammalogy 41: 250-253. : 

Greendale, R.G. and Brousseau-Greendale, C. (1976). Observations of marine 
mammal migrations at Cape Hay, Bylot Island during the summer of 1976. 
Fisheries and Marine Service (Canada) Technical Report No. 680. 25 pp. 

Hay, K.A. (1984). The life history of the narwhal (Monodon monoceros) L. in 
the eastern Canadian Arctic. Ph.D. thesis, McGill University, Montreal, 
P.Q. 

Heyland, J.D. (1974). Aspects of the biology of the beluga (Delphinapterus 
leucas Pallas) interpreted from vertical aerial photographs. In: G.E. 
Thompson (ed.). Proceedings of the Second Canadian Symposium on Remote 
Sensing: 374-390. 

Kapel, F.O. (1977). Catch of belugas, narwhals, and harbour porpoises in 
Greenland, 1954-1975, by year, month and region. Reports of the 
International Whaling Commission 27: 507-520. 

Kingsley, M. (1986). Scientific status of the Narwhal, Monodon monoceros. 
Unpublished research paper, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, 
Manitoba, Canada, 15 pp. 

Koski, W.R. (1980). Distribution of marine mammals in the Canadian central 
high Arctic, July-September 1979. Unpublished Report by LGL Ltd. for 
Petro-Canada and Arctic Biological Station, 107 pp. 

Koski, W.R. and Davis, R.A. (1979). Distribution of marine mammals in 
Northwest Baffin Bay and adjacent waters, May-October 1978. Unpublished 
report by LGL Ltd. for Petro-Canada, Calgary Canada, 304 pp. 

Larsen, F. (1984). Distribution and abundance of narwhals in Scoresby Sund 
area, off Liverpool and in Kong Oscar Fjord in September 1983. Reports of 
the International Whaling Commission SC/36/SM11. 

Mansfield, A.W., Smith, T.G. and Beck, B. (1975). The Narwhal, Monodon 
monoceros in eastern Canadian waters. Journal of the Fisheries Research 
Board of Canada 32: 1041-1046. 

Marashi, S.H. (1982). National legislation concerning the conservation, 
management and utilization of marine mammals. Report prepared for FAO. 
McLaren, P.L. and Davis, R.A. (1981). Distribution of wintering marine mammals 
in southern Baffin Bay and northern Davis Strait, March 1981. Report to 

Arctic Pilot Project by LGL Ltd., October 1981, 85 pp. 

McLaren, P.L. and Davis, R.A. (1982). Winter distribution of arctic marine 
mammals in ice-covered waters of eastern North America. Rept. for 
Petro-Canada Exploration Inc., Calgary, Alberta. 

McLaren, P.L. and Davis, R.A. (1983). Distribution of wintering marine mammals 
off West Greenland and in southern Baffin Bay and northern Davis Strait, 
March 1982. Report to Arctic Pilot Project by LGL Ltd., October 1981, 98 
Pp. 

Mercer, M.C. (1973). Observations on distribution and intra-specific variation 
in pigmentation patterns on odontocete cetacea in the western North 


Atlantic. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 30: 
1111-1130. 


150 


Monodon monoceros 


Mitchell, E.D. and Reeves, R.R. (1981). Catch history and cumulative 
catch-estimates of initial population size of cetaceans in the eastern 
Canadian Arctic. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 
31: 645-682. SC/32/016. 

Mohr, E. (1931). Wale, Cetacea. In: Die Saugetiere Schleswig-Holsteins. Hgg. 
vom Nat. Wis. Ver. Altona-Elbe, pp. 105-126. 

Newman, M.A. (1971). Capturing narwhals for the Vancouver Public Aquarium, 
1970. Polar Record 15: 922-923 

Newman, M.A. (1977). Hunting narwhals for the aquarium. International Zoo 
Yearbook 10: 154-155. 

Pedersen, A. (1931). (Mammals and birds along the east coast of Greenland: 
Monodon monoceros L.). Medd. Gronland 77(5): 412-416. Fisheries 
Research Board of Canada Translation Service 1206: 1-7, 1969. 

Reeves, R.R. and Mitchell, E.D. (1981). The whale behind the tusk. Natural 
History 90(8): 50-57. 

Reeves, R.R. and Tracey, S. (1980). Monodon monoceros. American Society of 
Mammalogists Mammalian species No. 127: 1-7. 

Rudge, A.J.B., Klinowska, M. and Anderson, S.S. (1981). Preliminary status 
report on the marine mammals of major relevance to Europe. Environment 
and Consumer Protection Service, Commission of the European Communities. 
Report Enu. 7317 EN. 

Rutilevski, G.L. (1958). (A Narwhal in the region of drifting station North 
Pole 5). Probl. Arktiki 3: 116-119. American Meteorological Society 
Translations 182: 1-4, 1959. 

Saemundsson, B. and Degerbol, M. (1939). Mammalia. In: The Zoology of 
Iceland 4: 1-76. 

Scoresby, W. (1820). An Account of the Arctic Regions. A. Constable, 
Edinburgh, Vol. I, 633 pp. 

Scoresby, W. (1823). Journal of a Voyage to the Northern Whale-fishery. 
A. Constable, Edinburgh, 472 pp. 

Sergeant, D.E. (1973). Biology of white whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in 
western Hudson Bay. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 
30: 1065-1090 

Sergeant, D.E. (1978). (Ecological isolation in some Cetacea). In: Novoe v 
Izuchenii kitoobraznykh i Lastonogykh (Recent advances in the study of 
whales and seals). A.N. Severtsov Institute of Evolutionary Morphology and 
Ecology of Animals, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Moscow, pp. 20-34 

Silverman, H.B. (1979). Social organisation and behaviour of the narwhal, 
Monodon monoceros L., in Lancaster Sound, Pond Inlet, and Tremblay 
Sound, North West Territories. M.Sc. thesis, McGill University, Montreal, 
147 pp. 

Silverman, H.B. and Dunbar, M.J. (1980). Aggressive tusk use by the narwhal 
(Monodon monoceros L.). Nature (London) 284: 57-58. 

Steltner, H., S. Steltner and Sergeant, D.E. (1984). Killer whale, Orcinus 
orca, prey on narwhals, Monodon monoceros: an eyewitness account, 
Eclipse Sound, Northwest Territories, Canada. Canadian Field Naturalist 
98(4): 458-462. 

Tomilin, A.G. (1957). Mammals of the USSR and adjacent countries, Vol. 9, 
Cetacea. Israel Program for Sci. Transl., Jerusalem 1967, 717 pp. 

Tuck, L.M. (1957). Wildlife investigations in the Cape Hay region, Lancaster 
sound. 39 pp. (Unpublished MS, Can. Wildl. Serv., Ottawa) 

Vibe, C. (1950). The marine mammals and the marine fauna in the Thule District 
(Northwest Greenland) with observations on ice conditions in 1939-1941. 
Medd. Gronland 150(6): 1-113. 

Vibe, C. (1967). Arctic animals in relation to climatic fluctuations. Medd. 
Gronland 170(5): 1-227. 

Yablokov, A.W. (1979). History of Soviet exploitation of narwhals, Monodon 
monoceros, and White Whales, Delphinapterus leucas, and approximate 
population estoimates for Soviet waters. IWC/SC/31/SH/13. 


HARTMANN'S MOUNTAIN ZEBRA Recommended list: 2 
[Possible problem] 


Equus zebra hartmannae Matschie, 1899 


Order PERISSODACTYLA Family EQUIDAE 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This subspecies occurs in Namibia in the 
mountainous escarpment along the eastern boundary of the Namib Desert, 
extending north just into south-west Angola. Furthermore a small number of 
animals have been introduced into the Hester Malan Nature Reserve, near 
Springbok, South Africa marginally within the former range of the subspecies. 
In 1987 total numbers were estimated at 6000-7000, nearly all in Namibia, and 
the species was generally believed to be well managed. This population size 
represents a serious decline from that of over 50 000 estimated for this 
subspecies in 1950. This reduction was apparently caused by widespread 
persecution by farmers, owing to the competition between’ zebras and domestic 
livestock for water resources and grazing. Population estimates indicate that 
the population has been reasonably stable since 1970. 


International trade in skins of this subspecies reported to CITES in the 
six-year period 1980-1985 fluctuated between 97 and 1565 specimens a year. 
Between 9 and 117 trophies were reported in trade in different years; small 
numbers of live animals were also recorded. Other sources indicate that the 
annual take of this subspecies in Namibia in recent years has been 500-1000 
animals a year. 


Various reports indicate that the population is stable and that utilisation is 
under strict control. The estimated take represents between 8% and 17% of the 
population each year. Without some indication of whether the granting of 
permits is carried out under a management plan, it is impossible to state 
whether the existing harvest and trade is sustainable. 


DISTRIBUTION Formerly had a continuous range from about 130 km north of 
Mocamedes in Angola southwards along the mountainous transition zone of 
Namibia to the northern Cape Province, South Africa (Joubert, 1972b). Its 
southern limit was probably the Kamiesberg Highland, RSA (Sidney, 1965) but 
all zebra had disappeared from this region by 1931 (Gill, 1931 cited in 
Shortridge, 1934). Smithers (1983) states that it is impossible to say 
whether the zebras formerly found in the Kamiesberg region, were one of the 
two subspecies or an intermediate between them. Their recent distribution 
from north to south has been described as discontinuous and largely restricted 
to Namibia, with a marginal extension into the arid south-west of Angola; they 
have been introduced to two reserves in South Africa (Smithers, 1983). The 
only other subspecies is the nominate form which numbers only a few hundred 
and is restricted to a small number of protected areas in South Africa. 


Angola In the early 1980s found in the Iona National Park (on the border 
with Namibia) and the Mocamedes Game Reserve (Horsten, 1982). 


Namibia Discontinuous distribution in the mountainous escarpment along the 
eastern boundary of the Namib desert from the Kaokoland border with Angola 
south to about the Ugab River and eastwards to farms in the Outjo District. 
South of this there is an isolated occurrence in the Erongo Mountains of 
north-western Damaraland. Further south still there is a much more extensive 
Occurrence, on the escarpment, south from the Swakop River to the Naukluft 
Mountains and eastwards along the Kusieb and Gaub drainages to the Khomas 
Highland. There is another break in the distribution before they occur again 
in the Fish River Canyon and the Huns Mountains near the Orange River, and the 
border with South Africa (Smithers, 1983). Recently introduced to the 


152 


Equus zebra hartmannae 


northern and eastern parts of the country in the Groontfontein, Tsumeb and 
Gobabis districts. These animals were mainly obtained from the Etosha 
National Park (Namibia Department of Agriculture and Nature Conservation, in 
litt., 1987). 


South Africa Re-introduced into the Hester Malan Nature Reserve near 
Springbok, north-western Cape Province and introduced into the Cape Point 
Nature Reserve, from which they have recently been removed. There are several 
extra-limital populations on private nature reserves and game farms in various 
areas of the country (South Africa CITES MA, 1987). 


POPULATION The population size has apparently reduced considerably since 
the early 1950s when it was estimated at over 50 000 animals (Joubert, 1973). 
Estimates since then have declined to 15 000 in 1960 (Joubert, in litt., 
1974) and 7000 in 1968 (Joubert, 1973) and 1977 (de la Bat, in litt., 
1979). The most recent report obtained stated that there was a widespread and 
stable population of 6000-7000 animals (South Africa CITES MA, 1987). 


Angola Reportedly common on the plains near Mocademes in the late 19th 
Century (Bocage, 1890 cited in Sidney, 1965). Recently the only significant 
numbers in Angola were reported to occur in Iona National Park which was 
within a war-zone, therefore it was thought probable that few animals remain 
in the area (R. Souter, pers. comm., 1986). 


Namibia In the early 1950s the main concentration of the population was in 
Namibia and thought to number 50 000-75 000 (Joubert, 1973), but by 1960 the 
estimate was only 15 000, 10 700 of which were in agricultural areas (Joubert; 
in litt., 1974). A survey carried out in 1968 indicated a total population 
in Namibia of approximately 7000 animals, 75% of which were concentrated in 
the Khomas highland escarpment. 5500 of these animals were found in farming 


areas (Joubert, 1973). Questionnaire surveys in 1972 and 1982 were used to 
estimate populations on farmland of 16 400 and 13 300 respectively (Namibia 
Department of Agriculture and Nature Conservation, in litt., 1987) 


However, Boomker (South Africa CITES MA, 1987) reported that the authorities 
in Namibia had given a conservative total population estimate of 6000-7000 
animals in 1987. 


Recent population estimates for Nature reserves in Namibia 


Source: Namibia Department of Agriculture and Nature Conservation, in litt., 
1987. Year of estimate given in parentheses. 


Etosha National Park (1984) - 620 
Namib Naukluft Park (1985) - 1793 
Daan Viljoen Nature Reserve (1985) - 40 
Von Bach Nature Reserve (1984) - 56 
Hardap Nature Reserve (1985) - 109 
TOTAL - 2618 


Berry (Namibia Department of Agriculture and Nature Conservation in litt., 
1986) stated that a maximum limit of 800 specimens of this subspecies had been 
stipulated in the 1985 management plan for Etosha N.P. 


South Africa Never likely to have been particularly numerous in South 
Africa (Joubert, 1973). Small populations occurred in the Hester Malan 
(Provincial) Nature Reserve and extralimitally in the Thomas Baines 
(Provincial) Nature Reserve in 1979, from the latter of which they have 
subsegently been removed. There are several other extralimital populations on 
private nature reserves and farmland, inluding about 100 animals in the 
Transvaal (South Africa CITES MA, 1987). 


ra 
un 
Ww 


Equus zebra hartmannae 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY The principal habitat is the Arid mountainous 
escarpment zone which is rich in permanent waterholes (Joubert, 1973). 
Seasonal use of sand flats was reported by Smithers (1983). Hartmann's Zebra 
are gregarious, their social organisation usually based on a family group of 
one stallion with a small number of mares and foals (Penzhorn, 1979). 
Stallion groups and solitary stallions occur less frequently (Joubert, 
1972b). Under certain circumstances family groups may come together to form 
herds cf over 30 animals (Smithers, 1983). Shortridge (1934) reported the 
occurrence of groups of over 50 individuals. Zebras are predominantly grazers 
but will browse occasionally. They graze primarily in the mornings or late 
afternoons and rest in the shade during the heat of the day (Joubert, 1972a). 
Females reach maturity at three years of age and one foal is born after a 
gestation period of about 12 months (Millar, 1968). Joubert (1972b) found 
that most foals were born from November to April and that their survival rate 
was high, probably owing to the protection afforded by other members of the 
family group. 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL Competition with man and his livestock has resulted in 
increasing habitat loss and persecution. Zebra compete with domestic stock 
for grazing and water holes, especially during drought years; much land is now 
fenced, often cutting off access to preferred grazing or waterholes. In 
attempts to reach these, zebra will break down fences and be classed as a 
nuisance by farmers. Much former grazing land has now been cultivated. As a 
consequence of such conflict Hartmann's Zebra was systematically hunted 
throughout much of its range and was described as having been, since the 
1950s, the most ruthlessly persecuted large mammal in southern Africa 
(Joubert, 1973). In the 1960s and 1970s water extraction schemes in the Namib 
Desert, particularly from the Kuiseb River, threatened the future of the 
Hartmann's Zebra population of the area. It was realised that tapping of 
underground water supplies was affecting the habitat; this had most impact on 
the zebra, the most water-dependent species occurring in the Namib. 
Restrictions on the utilization of underground water have subsequently been 
introduced and the situation is being monitored (Nussey, 1979). The 1982/1983 
drought in Namibia reportedly resulted in heavy mortality among the Hartmann's 
Zebra; many migrated from the Kaokoveld to the Etosha National Park where they 
were captured and removed to other areas. Some were sent to the Canyon 
Colorado Equid Sanctuary, USA for captive breeding (Anon., 1983). Disease, 
for example anthrax which broke out in Namibia in the late 1970s (Anon., 
1978), is also a major threat. 


Hunting and culling has been strictly controlled in Namibia by a permit system 
since 1933 (Joubert, 1973). These controls, which depend on farmers 
submitting reliable estimates of the zebra population on their land, have 
reportedly been difficult to police. Over-exploitation in the 1950s and 1960s 
was aggravated by abuse of the permit system and illegal culling (Baxter, 
1967). These controls have reportedly been improved in recent years and 
Boomker (South Africa CITES MA, 1987) reported that the annual legal take in 
Namibia during the 1980s was around 1000 animals a year. Records supplied by 
the Namibian Department of Agriculture and Nature Conservation indicated that, 
in 1985, 40 animals were taken live by game dealers, 63 were shot by farmers 


for their own use, 207 were shot or sold for protection of pastures and 170 
were used for trophy hunting. 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE During the period 1980-1985 an average of just over 550 
Hartmann's zebra per year can be estimated to have been involved in 
international trade either as skins (c. 500 per year), trophies (ca 50 per 
year) or live animals (c. 10 per year) (Tables 1 and 2). The estimate of the 
Minimum number of animals in trade each year varied from 124 in 1980 to 1575 
in 1982. No obvious trend appeared in the data. 


154 


Equus zebra hartmannae 


Table 1 Minimum net imports of live animals (L), skins (S), and trophies (T) 
of Equus zebra hartmannae reported to CITES, 1980-1985. Small numbers of 
skin plates and skulls were recorded in trade but they are not included below. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
Argentina Sar - 4 = = 2 
Australia Ss - 2 1 3 1 2 
Ge = - - - 4 
Austria L - - - 2 = E. 
Ss al - 1 1 1 7 
FAR = = - - 3 
Belgium s - - il 2 - 3 
Botswana S - - 735 - 336 - 
Brazil Ss  = - = = 1 es 
Canada Ss - 1 - 11 2 5 
T = = = = - al 
China ce = - - = 2 a 
Cuba L - - - = 2 = 
Denmark Ss - - 4 = pe 
Dominican Rep. L - - - 2 = = 
Finland Ss - i 1 14 = = 
France S - - 3 1 1 18 
T = - - - - 4 
Germany D.R. Ss - - = 8 pe 
ge - - = 1 = 
Germany F.R. L - 2 - - 3 4 
s 61 72 82 54 17 87 
al - 8 1 1 6 
Greece Ss - - - 1 8 7 
Ireland Ss - - = 2 = = 
Israel Ss - - 3 10 - a 
Italy L 2 - = = = = 
Ss - al 675 - 2 16 
Japan S - - 6 = 1 = 
Mexico S 3 - = = ES E 
T - - - 2 = = 
Netherlands E 1 - = = = = 
Norway S - - 2 = = 
Peru Ss - - 1 = = 1 
Singapore Ss - = = 1 = Es 
South Africa s - = = = = 230 
Soviet Union S - - - = 1 = 
Spain Sa - = 60 1 1 
Sweden S 1 1 - - - 1 
Switzerland S 3 12 16 2 6 1 
The = = 4 3 
Thailand Ss - = - - = 1 
UK je = = 1 = Ns 2 
Ss 1 6 1 2 3 14 
USA | = = 23 = 4 
S 85 29 16 30 148 
TE ZA 67 1 36 27 96 
Total it 5 4 1 27 7 4 
S97 181 1565 180 419 549 
qT 22 67 9 39 35 117 


155 


Equus zebra hartmannae 


Table 2. Reported countries of origin (or exporting country if no origin 
reported) and quantities of transactions in live animals (L), skins (S) and 
trophies (T) of E. zebra hartmannae reported to CITES. 


E A _. A _ _— > 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


Countries having or possibly having wild populations of the species 


Namibia L 2 1 - 22 - = 
s 70 103 107 170 418 607 
T 18 57 8 10 7 79 
S. Africa L - - - 2 - - 
s 12 81 1456 21 35 194 
T 4 9 1 3 > 5 48 


Countries without wild populations of the species 


Botswana S - al 1 25 - 8 

y = = = 1 = = 
Canada L - - - 1 2 - 

Ss = = 1 = = = 
Czechoslovakia L - - - - 3 1 
Germany, F.R. L 1 1 - 2 - - 
Hong Kong Ss - - - - = 1 
Indonesia Ss = = = 1 = a 
Japan L - - - = 1 = 
Malaysia T - - = 1 = = 
Nepal Ss - = 2 = 2 = 
Netherlands L - 1 = = = re 
Switzerland L 1 4 = = = 3 
Tanzania T = = = 1 = = 
UK L 1 - El = = Z 
USA 1G = = 1 = = 
Zaire S = 4 = = = 
Zambia s 15 1 - - 1 

T - = = 1 2 ES 
Zimbabwe Ss = = = 1 =: 1 

T = 1 - - 1 2 
Unknown L = 2 = = 1 CE 

S = - ab 7 1 - 

T = = = - 4 2 


Major net importers during the period included Botswana, F.R. Germany, Italy, 
United States and in 1985 alone South Africa. In most years the original 
source of most of the animals was recorded as Namibia. However, substantial 
Quantities of specimens, including 1456 skins in 1982, were recorded as having 
Originated in South Africa where the species reportedly occurs only in very 
small numbers. As the majority of the trade from Namibia, in both skins and 
trophies, is routed through South Africa (Namibia Department of Agriculture 
and Nature Conservation, in litt., 1987), it seems likely that the large 
numbers of specimens originating in South Africa were in fact from Namibia, 
but incorrectly recorded in CITES reports. Importing countries may not have 
recognised Namibia as a politically separate entity, recording imports from 
there as having originated in South Africa. The Customs Union applying to 
all of southern Africa may also cause confusion. One other explanation is 
that the specimens may have been mis-identified, as other species of zebra, 


which are not listed in the CITES Appendices, do occur in South Africa in 
large numbers. 


156 


Equus zebra hartmannae 


CONSERVATION MEASURES Included in Class B of the African Convention (1969) 
(i.e. it may be hunted, killed, captured or collected only under special 
authorisation granted by the competent authority). 


Angola Totally protected from hunting trade and export by the statutory 
Hunting Regulations of 1957 (Anon., 1986). Reported from the Iona National 
Park and the Mocamedes Game Reserve in 1982 (Horsten, 1982). 


Namibia Listed as ‘specially protected game' in 1933, thus hunting requires 
a special permit, normally granted by the administration only if crops or 
grazing are endangered (Joubert, 1973). Occurs in a number of protected areas 
in the country (see Population section). 


South Africa Reported to occur in the Hester Malan Provincial Nature 
Reserve. Those which were introduced to the Thomas Baines (Provincial) Nature 
Reserve and the Cape Point Nature Reserve were removed as they were 
extralimital to the former range (South Africa CITES MA, 1987). 


CAPTIVE BREEDING In 1982, 30 male and 85 female Hartmann's Zebra were held 
in 26 zoological collections; most had been bred in captivity (Olney, 1983). 
A group of 15 captured in Djivasandu in 1982 are reported to be breeding well 
at the Canyon Colorado Equid Sanctuary in New Mexico, United States (Lloyd, 
in litt., 1986). 


REFERENCES 

Anon. (1978). Anthrax in Namibia. Oryx 14(4): 309. 

Anon. (1983). African Equids. IUCN Species Survival Commission Newsletter 
(New Series) 2: 9. 

Anon. (1986). African wildlife laws. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law 
Occasional Paper, No. 3., IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 1712 pp. 

Baxter, J. (1967). The Mountain Zebra in South West Africa. African Wild 
Life 21(1): 5-10. 

Horsten, F. (1982). Os Parques Nacionas e as outras zonas de proteccao da 
natureza de Angola. Ministério da Agricultura, Direccao Nacional da 
Conservacao da Natureza, Angola. 69 pp. 

Joubert, E. (1972a). Activity patterns shown by Mountain Zebra Equus zebra 
hartmannae in South West Africa with reference to climatic factors. 
Zoologica Africana 7(1): 309-332. 

Joubert, E. (1972b). The social organisation and associated behaviour in the 
Hartmann Zebra. Madogua 1(6): 17-56. 

Joubert, E. (1973). Habitat preference, distribution and status of the 
Hartmann Zebra Bquus zebra hartmannae in South West Africa. Madoqua 
1(7): 5-15. 

Millar, J.C.G. (1968). The Mountain Zebra. Mammalogy Seminar, University of 
Pretoria. Unpublished report. 43 pp. 

Nussey, W. (1979). Namib-Naukluft Park. African Wildlife 33(1): 25-28. 

Olney, P.J.S. (ed.), (1983). International Zoo Yearbook 23. Zoological 
Society of London. 


Penzhorn, B.L. (1979). Social organization of the Cape Mountain Zebra, 
Equus z. zebra in the Mountain Zebra National Park. Koedoe 22: 
115-156. 


Shortridge, G.C. (1934). Mammals of South West Africa. Volume 1. William 
Heinemann Ltd., London. 

Sidney, J. (1965). The Past and Present Distribution and Status of some 
African Ungulates. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London 
30: 1-397. 

Smithers, R.H.N. (1983). The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion. 
University of Pretoria, Pretoria. 


GUANACO Recommended list: 2 
[Possible problem] 


Lama guanicoe (Muller, 1776) 


Order ARTIODACTYLA Family CAMELIDAE 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The most widespread of the South American camelids, 
occurring in the Andean and Patagonian regions from Peru south to Tierra del 
Fuego in a wide variety of habitats from sea level to around 4250 m altitude. 
Most characteristic habitat is the cool shrubland or grassland of Patagonia. 
Total world population estimated at around 600 000, 95% of these in Argentina, 
though it is noted that the status of the species in Argentina has yet to be 
fully clarified; this represents a tiny fraction of the estimated pre-Hispanic 
population as vast areas of the species's range have been appropriated for 
stock raising. The species has been ruthlessly hunted for its pelt 
(particularly that of the young or chulengos), for meat and as an alleged 
competitor with livestock and has become rare in the northern parts of its 
range. Outside Argentina, the largest population is believed to be on the 
Chilean side of Isla Grande of Tierra del Fuego, where some 12 000 were 
believed to survive in 1982. It is fully protected in all countries in which 
it occurs other than Argentina where it is only protected in some provinces. 


In Argentina the species is still intensively hunted and up to 86 000 pelts 
are exported annually, either as skins or as worked items; the population is 
believed to be declining in some areas. There are indications that the level 
of exports has fallen since 1982 but it is unclear whether this reflects a 
real decline in numbers taken or not. 


Preliminary modelling on the basis of population studies in Chile indicates 
that sustained harvesting could be maintained at the rate of 15% of young and 
40% of males from adult and sub-adult bachelor groups each year. At present 
harvesting in Argentina appears to be unselective and is unlikely to be 
sustainable at present levels in the long term. 


DISTRIBUTION South and south-west South America in Argentina, Bolivia, 
Chile, Peru and perhaps Paraguay. Two subspecies are generally recognised, 
Lama guanicoe cacsilensis from the montane zone of southern Peru and 
adjacent areas in Bolivia and L.g. guanicoe from the Andean zone of southern 
Bolivia to Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego (Cabrera, 1960). 


Lama guanicoe cacsilensis 


Bolivia According to Franklin (1982) Guanaco still existed in Bolivia 
though no breeding population survived. Torres (1985) reported that a very 
small number were located on the Mochara Range and in the zone comprising the 
Estancia Perforacion Chaco. 


Peru The species is rare and thinly distributed. The principal and 
northernmost population is on the Hacienda Calipuy in the District and 
Province of Santiago de Chuco, Department of la Libertad at ca 8°S (Franklin, 
1975; Grimwood, 1969). Grimwood (1969) noted other, small populations from 
around 12°S southwards, scattered through the Departments of Lima, Ayacucho, 
Ica, Apurimac, Arequipa and Taina. 


Lama guanicoe guanicoe 


Argentina Guanaco appear to be widespread in Patagonia, south of c. 42°S 
and also further north along the eastern slopes of the Andes as far north as 
Salta Province (Franklin, 1982; Olrog and Lucero, 1982). 


158 


Lama guanicoe 


Chile The species survives in two distinct regions in Chile - in the north 
on the western facing slopes and coastal ranges of the Andes Chain south to 
around 35°S and in the Magallanes region including Tierra del Fuego in the 
extreme south, south of 50°S (Franklin, 1982). Torres (1985) indicated that 
the population of the extreme northern tip of Chile may be of 
L.g. cacsilensis. 


Paraguay Guanaco have been reported as occurring in the Chaco region, 
though Verschuren (1980) regarded this as unlikely. A more recent account by 
Torres (1985) indicated that a small population was indeed located in the 
northern part of the boreal Chaco in the Paulo Lagerenza area, Nueva Asuncion 
Department. 


POPULATION In 1982 estimated to be over half a million, the great majority 
in Argentina. This is a tiny fraction of the likely original (pre-Hispanic) 
population, which Raedeke (1979) considered could have been as high as 30-50 
million, based on the numbers of domestic livestock currently supported on 
original Guanaco habitat. Franklin (1982) considered the species to be still 
declining (Franklin, 1982) but Torres (1985) described the population as 
reasonably stable. 


Argentina Franklin (1982) notes that the status of Guanaco in Argentina has 
yet to be clearly and fully defined; he quotes an estimate of around 550 000 
for 1981, this constituting over 95% of the estimated world population. The 
species is under heavy pressure in Argentina and was definitely declining 
(Franklin, 1982). Cajal (1983, cited in Torres, 1985) estimated the 
Argentinaian population at 578 700 animals. 


Garrido (1985 cited in Rabinovich et al., 1987) gave the following estimates 
for the populations of various provinces. 


Tierra del Fuego 14 000 - 20 000 
Santa Cruz 130 000 - 170 000 
Chubut 160 000 - 200 000 
Rio Negro 90 000 - 140 000 
Neuquen 75 000 - 110 000 
Mendoza 50 000 - 80 000 
San Luis 9 000 - 15 000 
La Pampa 12 000 - 20 000 
Rest of country 12 000 - 16 000 

TOTAL 552 000 - 771 000 


Overall national population trends have yet to be ascertained, however some 
studies have indicated a net increase in some areas, while other reports 
suggest continuing decline (Rabinovich et al., 1987). 


Bolivia Franklin (1982) reported that perhaps 200 survived; however Cardozo 
(1985, cited in Torres, 1985) estimated a total of only 54. 


Chile An estimate of 20 000 was made in 1982, some 12 000 of these being on 
the Chilean side of the island of Isla Grande, Tierra del Fuego; this was 
stated to be one of the largest remaining Guanaco populations (Franklin, 
1982). An estimate given by Rottmann (cited in Torres, 1985) indicated a 
population size of 22 500 in 1985. The species had reportedly been declining 
rapidly in Chile until the mid-1970s when a protection programme was initiated 
for populations at Torres del Paine National Park and on Isla Grande, Tierra 
del Fuego (Franklin, 1982). Recorded as ‘Vulnerable’ by Miller et al. 
(1983). 


159 


Lama guanicoe 


Paraguay Torres (1985) stated that the population consisted of about 53 
animals in 1982. 


Peru Grimwood (1969) thought there may have been perhaps 5000, though 
certainly decreasing in number. However, Franklin (1982) also quoted an 
estimate of 5000 but a more recent estimate totalled only 1600 animals (Ponce 
del Prado, 1985 cited in Torres, 1985). The largest single population was 
reportedly at Hacienda Calipuy which, in 1975, was thought to number 400-500, 
having maintained itself at this level since the mid-1960s. A population near 
Pampa Galeras was reported in 1982 as increasing (Franklin, 1982). 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY The Guanaco occupies the widest range of habitat types 
of any of the South American camelids, occurring from sea level to nearly 
4250 m altitude in hardpan deserts, semi-deserts, shrublands, grasslands, 
Savanna and scrublands, on plains, high pampas, plateaus, foothills and 
mountains. It avoids areas of steep slopes, cliffs and rock (Franklin, 1982; 
Grimwood, 1969). The most characteristic habitat, or at least that in which 
Guanacos have been most abundant, is that of the cool Patagonian shrubland or 
grassland. 


The Guanaco is both a grazer and a browser, though appears to be 
preferentially the former - Franklin observed in the Andean foothills of 
northern Peru that Guanacos there highly preferred grasses and forbs over the 
more abundant shrubs, while Raedeke (1979), working in Tierra del Fuego, found 
annual diet in meadow-forest areas to be 62% grasses, 15% browse, 11% forbs, 
7% epiphytes and 5% lichens and fungi. Selectivity indices suggested that 
forbs, lichens, epiphytes and fungi were most highly preferred, followed by 
grasses and grass-like plants with browse least preferred at all seasons. He 
also showed that Guanacos adjust their diet when competing with sheep, by 
moving off preferred meadowlands into the forest where they fed mainly on 
browse and other non-grasses. They appear to be more efficient at digesting 
forage than domestic livestock. 


Although Gaunaco are found in extremely arid areas (such as the Peruvian 
Atacama desert), they apparently require at least occasional access to free 
water in such regions, and have been observed drinking from saline lagoons and 
ocean tidepools. In damper areas such as Tierra del Fuego they can apparently 
satisfy water needs from moisture in the vegetation. 


Guanaco populations can be sedentary or migratory, the latter showing either 
altitudinal or lateral shifts in range owing to snow cover or drought. Social 
ecology of Guanaco has been studied in southern Chile and northern Peru 
(Franklin, 1982; Fritz and Franklin, 1985); they may form a variety of social 
units, including family groups, male groups, female groups, solo males and 
mixed groups. Family groups consist of one adult male with females and their 
young less than 15 months of age. In sedentary populations, such groups have 
a territory (varying in size from 2 to 46 ha and averaging 29.5 ha at study 
sites in Tierra del Fuego) stongly defended by the male throughout the year; 
however many of the females, both with and without young, leave these areas in 
winter. During summer months, family groups are likely to be relatively 
spread out and fragmented on the territories, in contrast to Vicuna which show 
much greater social cohesion. Young males and females are forcibly evicted 
from the groups by the adult male at around 13 to 15 months of age. Male 
groups are mostly immature and non-territorial males; solo males may or may 
not have territories. Female groups consist of females with their young in 
sedentary populations that stay together during the winter months while the 
territorial males remain on their territories. Mixed groups are aggregations 
of males and females of all ages in migratory populations that have come 
together during the winter months (Franklin, 1982). 


160 


Lama guanicoe 


Fritz and Franklin (1985) carried out a detailed study of population dynamics 
of a population of Guanaco in Torres del Paine National Park in southern 
Chile, in an attempt to obtain estimates for sustainable harvests. Mean 
natality rate was 0.74 offspring per female over 2 years old. Of males over 
one year old, 37% possessed territories; of these, 45% had family groups and 
55% were solitary. Most 1- to 3-year-old males spent the summer in male 
groups and became territorial when 4 years old. Females reach maturity at one 
year while males are sexually mature at 3 or 4 years (Raedeke, 1979). 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL Guanaco numbers have declined dramatically in 
historical times - vast areas of their range have been settled for agriculture 
and stock-raising and Guanacos have been rigorously hunted for their skins and 
for alleged competition with livestock (Franklin, 1982). In the early 1900s 
they were still sufficiently numerous in Patagonia that sheep ranchers in 
Santa Cruz called for their complete eradication on the grounds that they were 
detrimental to sheep raising and thus a national plague; wholesale hunting 
reportedly still continues in much of Patagonia. Traditional Guanaco 
Migration routes have reportedly been disrupted by the construction of 
livestock fences (Franklin, 1982). Disease has certainly affected populations 
locally - for example at Hacienda Calipuy (qv) in nothern Peru where 
foot-and-mouth is reported to have halved the Guanaco population in the early 
1960s (Grimwood, 1969); it is unclear, however, whether disease has had a 
serious impact on populations on a larger scale. 


Gilmore (1955, cited in Torres, 1985) equated the relationship between the 
South American Indians and the Guanaco with that which developed between the 
North American Indians and the Bison and Caribou, ‘an ethnozoological culture 
without domestication’. The Guanaco was exploited for a wide variety of 
products, forming an integral part of the early culture of South America. 
This relationship changed considerably after colonisation when utilisation 
became almost exclusively focussed on hunting for pelts, especially those of 
‘chulengos' (young Guanacos). 


Franklin (1982) described studies from Chile that concluded that Guanacos are 
best utilized for production of meat, because of their wide distribution, 
adaptablility to marginal habitats and production of good quantities of usable 
meat (55% dressed weight from 120-kg animals). Pelts were considered of 
secondary commercial value, while the short length and very low production 
rate of wool (250 g per animal) limited its commercial applications. Guanaco 
leather was of similarly limited interest and regarded as best used for 
durable shoe products where appearance was not important. Cunazza (1984) 
described studies carried out in the Magallanes region of Chile which 
indicated that sustainable utilisation of Guanaco was technically feasible. 
In addition to exploitation for meat and pelts, tourist viewing was indicated 
as significant economic factor. 


The Guanaco is widely recognised as a species with potential for sustainable 
harvest. However, Fritz and Franklin (1985) have concluded, on the basis of 
their study of population dynamics of the species, that unselective harvesting 
cannot be realistically sustained. Preliminary modelling indicated that 15% 
of juveniles (chulengos) and 40% of males from male groups could be harvested 
while maintaining the population at a constant level. Further research on 
sustainable harvest was described by Rabinovich et al. (1987). 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE Large quantities of Guanaco pelts were exported from 
Chile in the early 20th Century. Iriarte and Jaksic (1986) detailed legal 
exports between 1910 and 1944 of a total of 38 263 skins. The majority of 
these skins were exported in the period 1925-1929, after which the species was 
legally protected. No legal exports of Guanaco skins from Chile were recorded 


161 


Lama guanicoe 


after 1944. Tens of thousands of pelts have been exported annually from 
Argentina: during the period 1972-79, 443 655 (not including wool) were 
legally exported from Buenos Aires, generating some 3 million dollars (U.S.) 
of tax revenue (Ojeda and Mares, 1982). Official statistics describing 
exports of Guanaco skins from Argentina for 1976 to 1984 were compiled by 
Cajal (1986, cited in Rabinovich et al., 1987) (numbers of skins): 1976 - 
22 397; 1977 - 42 894; 1978 - 86 062; 1979 - 86 324; 1980 - 35 256; 1981 - 
73 875; 1982 - 30 978; 1983 - 13 157; 1984 - 10 250. 


CITES annual report data describing trade involving Guanaco is categorised 
into: live animals; bodies; skins; worked items. Trade in the first two 
categories is insignificant compared to that in the second two. Trade in live 
animals is almost certainly all of captive-bred specimens and the highest 
volume in one year totals fewer than 40 (in 1983), all except 4 declared as 
captive bred, and none originating in countries with wild Guanaco 
populations. Trade in bodies is presumably for the meat trade; the highest 
volume in one year (1982) totalled just over 300, or less than 1% of the 
overall trade for that year. (Interestingly most of these were recorded as 
originating in Argentina and being re-exported to Argentina from 
F.R. Germany.) These two categories are excluded from the tables below and 
are not discussed further. 


Accurate analysis of trade figures is somewhat hampered by the number of 
different categories used in records, aside from evident errors and 
inconsistencies in annual reports to CITES. Skins are recorded by number, 
weight and as plates, with no information available to allow conversion of the 
last two into numbers of skins; worked items are generally recorded as items 
of cloth or garments, again by number or weight. The recorded trade in ‘skin 
or leather items' is sufficiently small to be excluded from the discussion. 
Although items of cloth and garments have been lumped together in tables 2a 
and 2b, transactions recorded under these categories were kept separate for 
the purposes of calculating net trade figures. It is likely that the same 
items may have been differently recorded by importing and exporting countries 
on some occasions. 


Overall, recorded trade was largest in 1981 and 1982 (see tables la and 1b). 
The increase in apparent trade volume from 1980 to 1982 probably reflects the 
improvement of reporting by CITES Parties rather than a real increase in 
trade. After 1982, a steady decline in net trade of both skins and cloth 
items is apparent. 


Until 1984 virtually all trade in Guanaco skins, items of cloth and garments 
was reported to have originated in Argentina (see tables 2a and 2b). The only 
Major exception was in 1980, when 5340 of the skins in trade skins apparently 
Originated in Paraguay. As the species is considered unlikely to occur in 
Paraguay, these skins almost certainly originated elsewhere, and Argentina is 
the most likely source, holding as it does over 90% of the world population. 
30 skins were recorded as originating in Peru in that year. For the years 
1981-1983, almost 100% of the skins, cloth items and garments recorded in 
trade can be accounted for as originating in Argentina. The relatively large 
number of skins recorded as origin unknown (Table 2a) can clearly be almost 
entirely accounted for as re-exports of skins originating in Argentina. 


In contrast to the data for years up to 1984, records for 1984 and 1985 
include large numbers of skins and cloth items originating in Bolivia and 
records for 1984 include substantial trade in cloth items which reportedly 
Originated in Peru. Such trade is extremely surprising, considering the small 
population remaining in Peru and the almost near extinction of this species in 
Bolivia. Furthermore Guanaco have been fully protected in Bolivia and Peru 


162 


Lama guanicoe 


for many years. Almost all of records of trade from Bolivia and Peru were 
reported as imports into the USA. It is likely that these skins and garments 
in fact originated in Argentina and were incorrectly recorded by the USA, but 
it is also possible that the transactions represent illegal exports or 
re-exports from Bolivia and Peru. CITES data indicate exports from Argentina 
Significantly smaller in number than those indicated in the official export 
statistics which were quoted by Cajal (1986, cited in Rabinovich et al., 
1987). This discrepancy remains unexplained. 


The great majority of recorded trade was with Europe, and F.R. Germany was by 
far the most important net importing country (see tables la and 1b), 
accounting for over 40% of skins and almost 60% of garments and items of cloth 
(excluding plates and those recorded by weight). Switzerland and Italy 
together accounted for a further 40% of skins and almost 30% of garments and 
cloth. Of the remaining countries, only France, Malta and the USA accounted 
for substantial numbers of skins and cloth items. Trade involving Malta was 
entirely with F.R. Germany and it is likely that skins and cloth are sent to 
Malta from F.R. Germany for processing and are then re-exported to F.R. 
Germany. 


Table 1. Apparent minimum net imports of Lama guanicoe products reported to 
CITES. 


a. Skins 

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
Austria 65 - 86 60 44 40 
Belgium - 90 - 30 - - 
Chile - - 10 - - - 
Denmark - 100 - - - - 
France 677 219 775 1036 25 383 
Germany, F.R. 2894 7161 14944 3269 3122 - 
Hong Kong - 26 - - - - 
Ireland - - 1 - - - 
Israel - - - - 500 - 
Italy 4994 7455 2525 2 977 20 
Japan - 2 - - 1 57 
Korea 60 - - - - - 
Malta 1018 779 774 70 - - 
Monaco - - 1 - 2 - 
Norway - - 2 - - - 
Portugal 22 - - - - - 
Spain - 38 - 15 63 40 
Sweden 1 1 - - - - 
Switzerland 132 767 9843 - - 42 
UK - 218 - - - - 
USA - 3 1670 519 999 47 
Total 9863 16859 30631 5001 5733 629 


163 


Lama guanicoe 


Table 1. (continued) Apparent minimum net imports of Lama guanicoe products 
reported to CITES. 


b. Garments and items of cloth 


i 5 5 ——=——=  ___—— 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
RUE PS al E ERAS A A A A Á 
Australia - - - = 1 = 
Austria 49 90 17 2 4 6 
Belgium 18 3 1 - - - 
Canada 1 76 - 18 , - - 
8 kg 
Denmark - 12 8 1 - - 
Finland - 20 - - - - 
France 5 3725 2243 579 93 260 
38 kg 
Germany, F.R. - 18599 8310 7154 621 - 
1589 kg 
Hong Kong - 27 - - - - 
Israel - - 20 - - - 
Italy 99 7589 - - 51 79 
750 kg 150 kg 
Japan 2 97 197 62 - 14 
444 kg 332 kg 400 kg 300 kg 
Luxembourg - - 1 16 - - 
Mali 5 - - - - - 
Malta - 82 - 3 - 
Netherlands 26 - 2 - - 
Norway - 6 8 3 = = 
Peru - = 26 = = £ 
Portugal - 4 - = E = 
Saudi Arabia - - - - 1 = 
Spain = = = 10 E Bo, 
67 kg 105 kg 
Sweden 2 5 18 2 - - 
Switzerland 95 2080 2992 2873 - 56 
885 kg 
UK = 174 = A = = 
USA 62 95 796 586 9457 1703 
3 kg 49 m 
Total 364 32684 14638 11308 10249 2118 
560 kg 2911 kg 400 kg 750 kg 450 kg 
49 m 


TO —— —…———"— ——…—"”"— —…—"—…"—"—…"…"—"—"—"—"…"…"…"…"…"—"—"…"—"—"—"—"—"—"—…—…—…—…—…—"—— —…—"—".—"— —"…"…"…"—"—"…"…"…"…"…"”…"”" "—"…"—" "…"—"…"—…" —"—"—…"…—"—"—"…"…"—"—"_—_—.—_—— 


164 


Lama guanicoe 


Table 2. Reported countries of origin (or exporting country if no original 
source reported) and quantities of transactions in Lama guanicoe products 
reported to CITES. 


a. Skins 


[nn ——___=___—__ — —.——…—"——— 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


nnn ————Á_ Í _ _  _—_ __——K<KÁáúá. 


Countries with wild populations of L. guanicoe 


Argentina 4473 16859 30606 5001 4751 581 
Bolivia - - - - 958 63 
Peru 30 - - - 24 3 


Countries without wild populations of L. guanicoe or country unknown. 


Canada 52 - - - - = 
Germany, F.R. 74 26 - - - = 
Paraguay 5340 - - - - = 
Unknown 66 283 4107 2 - = 


83858888“ eee 


b. Garments and cloth 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


AAA A a 


Countries with wild populations of L. guanicoe 


Argentina 239 32678 14618 11295 904 546 
2716 kg - 750 kg 450 kg 
49 m 
Bolivia 1 - al - 6686 1650 
Peru - - 30 - 2015 - 


Countries without wild populations of L. guanicoe or country unknown 


Belgium - 444 kg - 
Canada - 16 1 
Denmark - - 1 
France - 5 - - - = 
German D.R. - al - 

Germany, F.R. 8 - 1 - - = 
Korea 45 - - - = = 
Paraguay - 2 5 - = = 
Puerto Rico = = - - - 3 
Switzerland - - 39 - - = 
UK - - 332 Kg - - = 
Uruguay al - - = = = 
USA 20 - - - = a 
Unknown = 22 2 - 82 9 


Le LE A tl A A A A A A ee 


pai 
! 
1 


CONSERVATION MEASURES Occurs in a total of 21 protected areas in Argentina, 
Chile and Peru which cover a total of 4 446 682 hectares (Torres, 1985). All 
of the range states are CITES Parties. 


165 


Lama guanicoe 


Argentina The Guanaco is not protected under national Argentinian law, 
although export of raw skins is forbidden under Resolucion No. 134 of 13 May 
1976. It is, however, fully protected in the provinces of Catamarca, Chubut, 
Salta, Tucuman and Tierra del Fuego, but listed as a pest species in Ninguna 
(Rabinovich et al., 1987). 


Bolivia Protected under Decreto Supremo No. 11238 of 3 December 1973. 
Chile Fully protected since 1929 (Iriarte and Jaksic, 1986). 


Paraguay All wildlife is protected from commercial or sport hunting under 
Decreto No. 18.796 of 1975. 


Peru Protected since 1940 by Law No. 9147 which prohibited hunting and 
exportation. Listed as an endangered species under Resolucion Ministerial No. 
01710-77-AG/DGFF of 4 October 1977. 


CAPTIVE BREEDING The Guanaco breeds readily in captivity and many are held 
in zoos throughout the world. In 1980, at least 130 were successfully bred in 
over 100 different collections (Anon., 1981). An experimental herd of about 
70 is kept at Trelew, Chubut Province, by INTA (Instituto Nacional Tecnologico 
Agropecuario) (Anon., 1984). Breeding was successful in 1983. 


REFERENCES 

Anon. (1981). Mammals bred in captivity and multiple generation births, 
1979. International Zoo Yearbook 21: 304-335. 

Anon. (1984). A survey of wildlife farming operations. Wildlife Trade 
Monitoring Unit, unpublished report, 294 pp. 

Cabrera, A. (1960). Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del sur, Vol. II., 
Sirenia, Perissodactyla, Artiodactyla, Lagomorpha, Rodentia, Cetacea. 
Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadavia', 
Ciencias Zoologicas 4(2): 309-732. 

Cunazza, C. (1984). El Guanaco, nuevamente un Recurso para los Magallanicos. 
Informese 3(16): 12-15. 

Franklin, W.L. (1975). Guanacos in Peru. Oryx 13: 191-202. 

Franklin, W.L. (1982). Biology, ecology and relationship to man of the South 
American camelids. In: Mares, M.A. and Genoways, H.H. (eds), Mammalian 
biology in South America. Vol. 6: Special Publication Series. Pymatuning 
Laboratory of Ecology, University of Pittsburgh, 539 pp. 

Fritz, M.A. and Franklin, W.L. (1985). Population dynamics and preliminary 
estimates of harvestability of the Patagonia Guanaco. Poster Paper at 4th 
International Theriological Congress, Edmonton 14-21 August 1985. 

Grimwood, I.R. (1969). Notes on the distribution and status of some Peruvian 
mammals. Special publication No. 21, American Committee for International 
Wildlife Protection and New York Zoological Society, 86 pp. 

Iriarte, J.A. and Jaksic, F.M. (1986). The fur trade in Chile: An overview of 
seventy-five years of export data (1910-1984). Biological Conservation 
38: 243-253. 

Mares, M.A., Ojeda, R.A. and Kosco, M.P. (1981). Observations on the 
distribution and ecology of the mammals of Salta Province, Argentina. 
Annals of the Carnegie Museum 50: 151-206. 

Miller, S.D., Rottmann, J., Raedeke, K.J. and Taber, R.D. (1983). Endangered 
mammals of Chile: status and conservation. Biological Conservation 25: 


335-352. 
Ojeda, R.A. and Mares, M.A. (1982). Conservation of South Amercian mammals: 
Argentina as a paradigm. In: Mares, M.A. and Genoways, H.H. (eds), 


Mammalian biology in South America. Vol. 6: Special Publication Series. 
Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology, University of Pittsburgh, 539 pp. 

Olrog, R.A. and Lucero, M.M. (1980). Guia de los mamiferos Argentinos. 
Ministerio de Cultura y Educacion. Fundacion Miguel Lillo, Tucuman. 


166 


Lama guanicoe 


Pearson, O. (1951). Mammals in the highlands of southern Peru. Bulletin of 
the Museum of Comparative Zoology 106: 117-174. 

Rabinovich, J., Capurro, A., Folgarait, P., Kitzberger, T., Kramer, G., 
Novaro, A., Puppo, M., and Travaini, A. (1987). Estado del conocimiento 
de 12 especies de la fauna silvestre Argentina de valor comercial. 
Documento presentado para su estudio y discusion al 2 taller de trabajo 
*Elaboracion de propuestas de investigacion orientada al manejo de la 
fauna silvestre de valor comercial', Buenos Aires. 154 pp. 

Raedeke, K.J. (1979). Population dynamics and socioecology of the Guanaco 
(Lama guanicoe) of Magallanes, Chile. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, University 
of Washington, Seattle. 

Torres, H. (1985). Distribution and conservation of the Guanaco (Lama 
guanicoe). Special report No. 2 of the IUCN/SSC South American Camelid 
Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 37 pp. 

Verschuren, J. (1980). Saving Paraguay's wilderness. Oryx 15(5): 465-470. 


167 


INDIAN PANGOLIN Manis crassicaudata Recommended list: 2 


Gray, 1827 [Possible problem] 
MALAYAN PANGOLIN Manis javanica Recommended list: 2 

Desmarest, 1822 [Possible problem] 
CHINESE PANGOLIN Manis pentadactyla Recommended list: 2 

Linnaeus, 1758 [Possible problem] 
Order PHOLIDOTA Family MANIDAE 


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The three species of Asian pangolins occupy 
together much of the Indo-Malayan region from Pakistan to southern China, the 
Philippines and the Greater Sundas. The limits of the ranges of the three 
species in northern South East Asia are ill-defined and should be clarified. 
Details of the distribution and population status ‘of each species are 
presented separately in the text of the present account; habitat and ecology, 
threats to survival, international trade and conservation measures are 
described for all three species together. 


M. crassicaudata occurs in the Indian sub-continent from eastern Pakistan, 
through much of India south of the Himalaya, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, 
possibly also in Burma and extreme western China. 


M. javanica occupies tropical South East Asia including much of Indonesia, 
Malaysia, Palawan in the Philippines, at least the southern half of Indo-China 
and north through Thailand and Burma, possibly as far west as Bangladesh and 
conceivably into south-west China. 


M. pentadactyla is found in the Himalayan foothills in Nepal, Bhutan and 
northern India, across Burma to northern Indo-China and through southern China 
(south of the Chiangjiang) to Hainan and Taiwan. 


These species are nocturnal, solitary and secretive; their habits are little 
known and the scanty available information appears to apply equally to all 
three. They are found in a wide variety of habitats, including primary and 
secondary forest and cultivated areas, such as gardens and plantations; in 
some areas they are apparently recorded more frequently in secondary than 
primary forests, though it is not clear if this represents a true habitat 
preference or simply increased frequency of encounter. However it does seem 
that habitat destruction is unlikely to be a major threat to any of the 
species. Diet consists of termites and ants. One (occasionally two) young is 
the norm; births may be seasonal. No quantitative information on population 
levels or trends is available, though pangolins are thought to have decreased 
in many areas through hunting. They are sought after for their meat, which is 
apparently eaten locally (there is no evidence for trade); for their scales, 
which are very widely used in traditional (particularly Chinese) medicine, and 
in which there is substantial trade; and for their skins which are used for 
leather goods, primarily in the USA. 


There is evidence that skins in trade are misidentified as to species, and it 
appears that scales in trade are not generally ascribed to individual species; 
it is thus impractical to consider trade in the three species separately. 
There is, or has been, a substantial trade in scales originating in Kalimantan 
(Indonesian Borneo); scales collected here are smuggled across the border to 
Sarawak (Malaysia) and exported to Singapore and Hong Kong, it is believed 
largely for re-export to China. This trade has involved several thousand 
pangolins per year. Trade in Asian Manis species in 1980-85 reported to 
CITES amounted to some 185 000 skins, almost all (90%) to the USA. There was 


168 


Manis spp. 


a marked decline in trade from 1981 (over 60 000) to 1984 (fewer than 6 000). 
However, reported trade in 1985 increased to over 30 000 skins. Thailand and 
Indonesia are the two most important declared countries of origin (despite 
pangolins being protected in both these). If country of origin is accurate, 
the great majority of skins in trade are likely to be M. javanica. 


In the absence of adequate population data for any of the three species and 
the lack of certainty regarding the origin and identification of skins in 
trade, it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the effect of trade on 
the Asian pangolins. More information is required on: the geographical origin 
and identification of pangolin skins in trade; pangolin population levels; the 
relation between trade in pangolin products for traditional medicines, in 
skins for the leather trade and in collecting for food. Furthermore, 
considering the increase in reported trade in 1985, it is important to clarify 
how such large quantities of pangolin products continue to appear in trade, 
with reported countries of origin where populations are protected by national 
legislation or are too small to account for the numbers appearing in CITES 
reports. 


INDIAN PANGOLIN Manis crassicaudata 
DISTRIBUTION The Indian sub-continent, Sri Lanka, perhaps Burma and China. 


Bangladesh Khan (1985) stated that the species was widely distributed over 
the country excluding the coastal parts of Khulna, Barisal, Pauakhali, 
Noakhali and Chittagong Districts. It had possibly disappeared from Kushtia, 
Jessore, Pabna, Bogra, Rangpur, Dinajpur, Rajshahi and most parts of Dhaka and 
Comilla. 


Burma Allen (1938) quotes nineteenth century sources which record it as 
occurring in low country around Bhamo and outlying spurs of the Kakhyen 
Mountains in north-east Burma and the adjacent part of China (see below); this 
appears to be considerably to the east of other records of this species and it 
is not mentioned as occurring in Burma by Salter (1983) or Yin (1967). It 
seems possible that these records in fact refer to Manis javanica. 


China Allen (1938) stated that this species extended into extreme western 
Yunnan, but see above. 


India Reportedly widely distributed through the plains and lower slopes of 
hills south of the Himalaya to the southern extremity of India (Tikader, 1983). 


Pakistan The species is apparently very locally distributed in Pakistan 
and, according to Roberts (1977), prefers more barren, hilly areas. He 
recorded it as found in Sialkot, Jhelum and Gujrat Districts in the north-west 
of the Punjab, extending across the Salt Range into Kohat District, and from 
Campbellpur District up to Mardan and Peshawar in the North West Frontier 
Province; it was found in the Potwar Range and extended up to 750 m elevation 
in the Rawalpindi foothills. Further south it appeared to be absent from the 
Indus riverine plain but did occur on the right bank of the Indus in the hilly 
regions in the western part of the Dadu and Larkana deserts (Baluchistan) and 
extended southward through Las Bela and Mekran; it also occurred east of the 
Indus in Hyderabad district and Tharparkar, extending eastwards to Kutch 
(Roberts, 1977). 


Sri Lanka Reported by Phillips (1981) as locally distributed throughout the 
whole of the lowlands, ascending to around 3500 feet (1100 m) in hill 
regions. Its range appeared to coincide with that of the termites on which it 
fed. 


169 


Manis spp. 


POPULATION Virtually no information is available on population levels of 
this species or any of the other Asian pangolins. Being highly secretive, 
solitary and nocturnal they are rarely observed, and certainly not regularly 
enough to allow assessment of population densities. 


Bangladesh The species was reported in 1985 as currently found in small 
numbers in sal, evergreen and semi-evergreen forests (Khan, 1985). Described 
in 1986 as rare (Bagladesh CITES MA, 1986). 


Burma No information. 
China No information. 


India Tikader (1983) noted its status as indeterminate, but considered that 
the population had been greatly reduced by hunting. 


Pakistan Roberts (1977) stated that judging from the limited records of its 
occurrence the Pangolin seemed relatively uncommon in Pakistan. Described by 
Shirazi (Pakistan CITES MA, 1986) as rare. 


Sri Lanka Has been reported to be of variable abundance, but to be nowhere 
common (Phillips, 1981). 


MALAYAN PANGOLIN Manis javanica 


DISTRIBUTION South East Asia, including Palawan and much of Indonesia. 
Western and northern limits of the range are unclear, although western limit 
is likely to lie in Burma; may perhaps occur marginally in China. 


Bangladesh Khan (1985) noted that the species could possibly occur in 
Bangladesh, though there were no specimens or site records; Husain (1974) 
listed it for the country but gave no details. Sarker (Bangladesh CITES MA, 
1986) suggested that it was likely to occur but no reliable records were known. 


Burma Noted by Salter (1983) as probably widespread, though no recent data 
on status were available. 


China Although there are no definite records, reference in Allen (1938) to 
the presence of M. crassicaudata (see above) in the region of Bhamo and 
adjacent mountains in north-east Burma and extreme western Yunnan seems more 
likely to refer to this species. 


Indonesia Van der Zon (1977) notes its distribution in Indonesia as: 
Sumatra, Kiau and Lingga archipelago, Bangka and Belitung, Nias and Pagi 
islands, Kalimantan, Java and Bali. Habitat was given as lowland rainforest 
but also near human settlements, up to 1000 m. 


Kampuchea Although no definite records have been located, the species 
almost certainly occurs there, being recorded from all adjacent countries. 


Laos There are records from throughout the Mekong Valley at least as far 
north as Luang-Prabang Province (Deuve and Deuve, 1963); it is not clear 
whether the range overlaps in northern Laos with that of M. pentadactyla. 
Singsouriya (Laos Forest Department, in litt., 31 January 1986) noted that 
pangolins were generally confined to the plains and lower slopes of hills. 


Malaysia Medway (1977) stated it to be widespread throughout the mainland 
of West Malaysia, primarily in forest but also in gardens and plantation, 
including rubber; also on the island of Penang. The species is reportedly 


170 


Manis spp. 


widespread on Borneo, from sea level to an altitude of at least 4500 m on 
Gunung Kinabalu in Sabah, though Proud (in litt. to N. Duplaix, 9 May 1981) 
noted that it appeared to be absent from the extensive peat swamp forests of 
Sawarak. In Sabah, Davies and Payne (1982) note that the species is rarely 
seen though was evidently widely distributed, being known by local people 
throughout Sabah. In particular it was reliably reported to be present in the 
cultivated areas between Tawau and Merotai (to the south-west of the Tawau 
Hills national park) and sightings were made in gardens in the Sandakan area 
and in Sepilok Nature Reserve. 


Philippines Occurs on the main island of Palawan and on the islands of 
Busuanga and Culion in the Calamian Group in northern Palawan Province (Anon., 
1979; J.B. Alvarez, in litt. to R.L. Jachowski, 19 October 1982). Confirmed 
in 1986 as endemic within the Philippines to Palawan (Philippines CITES MA, 
1986). 


Singapore According to Doggett (in litt. to N. Duplaix, 24 June 1981) the 
species was still found in the wild in Singapore though in very small numbers. 


Thailand M. javanica occurs throughout Thailand, preferring forest but 
also found in rubber plantations and other more settled areas (Boonsong 
Lekagul and McNeely, 1977). 


Viet Nam There are locality records from Kontum Province, Tay Ninh Province 
and Quang Nam Province (van Peenen, 1969); Bourret (1942) noted that the 
species was often found in Cochinchina. 


POPULATION Virtually no information is available on population levels of 
this species or any of the other Asian pangolins. Being secretive, solitary 
and nocturnal they are rarely observed, and no population estimates appear to 
have been derived. 

Bangladesh Khan (1985) noted that the species could possibly occur in 
Bangladesh, though there were no specimens or site records. 


Burma Noted by Salter (1983) as probably widespread, though no recent data 
on status were available. Previously described as common (Hopwwod, 1929). 


China No information. 
Indonesia Reported by van der Zon (1977) as common. 
Kempuchea No information. 


Laos Singsouriya (Laos Forest Department, in litt., 31 January 1986) 
stated that, although no surveys had been carried out, experienced observers 
agreed that pangolins had become rare due to trapping and hunting for food and 
for its scales. 


Malaysia Medway (1969) considered it to be widespread and not uncommon in 
suitable habitats in Peninsular Malaysia. On Sabah the species was nowhere 
reckoned to be common; although more often recorded in cultivated areas than 
forest, it is not clear whether it was more abundant in the former, or simply 
more often seen (Davies and Payne, 1982). Large areas of suitable habitat 
reportedly remained (Malaysia, Sabah CITES MA, 1985). 


Philippines No information. 


Singapore According to Doggett (in litt. to N. Duplaix, 24 June 1981), 
the species was still found in the wild in Singapore though in very small 


171 


Manis spp. 
numbers. 
Thailand No information. 


Viet Nam No information. 


CHINESE PANGOLIN Manis pentadactyla 


DISTRIBUTION Southern China and the northern part of the Indo-Malayan 
region from northern India to Laos and Viet Nam; also Taiwan. 


Bangladesh Khan (1985) stated that the species was possibly present, though 
noted that there were no sight records or specimens. If present the most 
likely areas were the forest of Sylhet, Comilla, Chittagong and Hill Tracts 
districts. Sarker (Bangladesh CITES MA, 1986) confirmed that it was likely to 
occur, but no records were known. 


Bhutan The species may be expected to occur in Bhutan, being recorded from 
adjacent countries (Nepal and India) (Ellerman and Morrison-Scott, 1951). 


Burma Noted by Salter (1983) as probably widespread though with no recent 
data on status. 


China Described by Allen (1938) as found throughout south-east China from 
the southern border as far north as Changjiang (the Yangtze River); also found 
on the island of Chusan at the mouth of the Changjiang. Further west the 
northern limit of the range appeared to follow the Changjiang Valley, though 
the species apparently did not extend to eastern Sichuan (Szechwan). It was 
generally absent from higher country in western China but did occur in 
southern Yunnan. Also occurs on Hainan (Allen, 1938). 


Hong Kong Marshall (1967) noted that it was found on Hong Kong Island, 
Kowloon Peak and various other places in the New Territories. Proud (in 
litt. to N. Duplaix, 9 May 1981) stated that the species was extant in the 
New Territories at least up to 1975 and Cheung (Hong Kong CITES MA, 1987) 
stated that it occurs in many parts of Hong Kong. 


India Recorded from north-eastern India (Assam and Sikkim) (Prater, 1971; 
Tikader, 1983). 


Laos Occurs in the northern part of the country (Delacour, 1940; Deuve and 
Deuve, 1963; Ellerman and Morrison-Scott, 1951). It is not clear if the range 
overlaps with that of M. javanica. 


Nepal Recorded as present, though apparently confined to elevations below 
around 1500 m (Frick, 1968, Mitchell, 1975). 


Taiwan Recorded as present (Ellerman and Morrison-Scott, 1951). 


Thailand The only record is from Doi Inthanon in Changwat Chiang Mai 
sometime in the 1930s (Allen and Coolidge, 1940). 


Viet Nam All records located are from the northern half of the country, as 
far south as Quang Tri Province (Bourret, 1942; van Peenen, et al., 1969). 


POPULATION Very little information is available on status anywhere in the 
species's range. 


Bangladesh No information. 


172 


Manis spp. 
Bhutan No information. 
Burma No information. 


China Believed to have suffered to some extent from overhunting for its 
meat and scales (Wang Sung, in litt. to R.L. Jachowski, 8 October 1982). 


Hong Kong No information. 


India Tikader (1983) considered its status indeterminate, noting that it 
was rarely seen but that it had certainly been reduced in numbers by hunting. 


Laos Singsouriya (Laos Forest Department, in litt., 31 January 1986) 
stated that, although no surveys had been carried out, experienced observers 
agreed that pangolins had become rare due to trapping and hunting for food and 
for its scales. 


Nepal No information. 
Taiwan Stated in 1974 to be in need of complete protection (Anon., 1974), 
but San-Wei Lee (Taiwan Council of Agriculture Executive Yuan, in litt., 14 


February 1986) stated that a ‘good size of population’ remained. 


Viet Nam No information. 


HABITAT AND ECOLOGY All Asian pangolins are little known, there appearing 
to have been no autecological study of any of the three species. Such 
information as is available seems to be based largely on incidental 
observation. Pangolins are reported to occur in a wide variety of habitats, 
including. primary and secondary forest and cleared and cultivated areas 
including gardens and rubber plantations (Boonsong Lekagul and McNeely, 1977; 
Davies and Payne, 1982; Foenander, 1953; Harrison, 1974; Medway, 1969; Medway, 
1977; Prater, 1971; K. Proud, in litt. to N. Duplaix, 9 May 1981). Roberts 
(1977) noted that in Pakistan, M. crassicaudata seemed to prefer more 
barren, hilly districts. Asian pangolins appear to be generally nocturnal, 
spending the day in shelters among rocks and boulders or burrows which they 
dig themselves; such burrows may reach down for 6 m or more (Boonsong Lekagul 
and McNeely, 1977; Prater, 1971; Roberts, 1977). They are reportedly largely 
terrestrial, though are fully capable of climbing trees, making use of their 
prehensile tails. Food consists of the eggs, young and adults of termites and 
ants; there is evidence that they are selective in their choice of food 
species - Phillips (1981) noted that a specimen kept in semi-captivity would 
‘not eat those termites which live under logs and stones, or touch the small 
red ants commonly found in gardens, but black ants were licked up....It was 
particularly attracted by the large leaf nests of the big red tree ant which 
hold swarms of adults, young and eggs.' Allen (1938) noted that in China 
there appeared to be a close correlation between the distribution of two 
termite species (Coptotermes formosanus and Termes (Cyclotermes) 
formosanus) and that of M. pentadactyla; it was assumed that these formed a 
major component of the pangolin's diet. Where water is available, pangolins 
are reported to drink freely. Allen (1938) quotes reports stating that in 
Hainan (China), M. pentadactyla may be largely inactive during the winter 
season. Little is known of breeding, though young (one, occasionally two) 
appear to be produced at different times of year. In China, young (of A. 
pentadactyla) are reportedly born in spring (Allen, 1938) while in central 
peninsular India (the ‘Deccan’ region) the season for M. crassicaudata is 
given as between January and March and there is a record of one born in July 
in southern India (Prater, 1971). A large female from Sri Lanka killed in 


173 


Manis spp. 


early July contained a medium-sized embryo (Phillips, 1981). Gestation may be 
around 65-70 days (Roberts, 1977). 


THREATS TO SURVIVAL Evidence suggests that pangolins can adapt well to 
modified habitats provided their termite food source remains abundant and they 
are not unduly persecuted. In some areas (e.g. Borneo and West Malaysia), 
they appear to be recorded more frequently in such habitats than in primary 
(Davies and Payne, 1982; Foenander, 1953), though it is not clear if they are 
seen more often here or are actually more abundant. From this it would seem 
that the principal factor affecting the species is exploitation for meat, for 
medicinal purposes or for the leather trade (see below). 


Pangolin scales are highly valued, especially by Chinese communities, for 
their alleged medicinal value, particularly for treating a wide variety of 
skin diseases (Harrisson and Loh, 1965). They are believed to be antiseptic, 
effective in reducing high body temperature induced by septic wounds or skin 
trouble and in stimulating blood flow to diseased areas; they also reportedly 
act as catalysts, increasing the effectiveness of other medicines. Scales may 
be used externally or internally. In the former, raw scales are used for 
scratching the skin; in the latter, scales are ground to powder and then mixed 
with herbs boiled in water to form a decoction which when drunk is said to be 
particularly effective at curing skin trouble caused by venereal disease 
(Harrisson and Loh, 1965). In Hong Kong charms made from four particular 
pangolin scales are used to scare away ghosts and in India the scales are made 
into rings as a charm against rheumatic diseases (Webster, 1977). In 
Pakistan, Hakims (practitioners of country medicine) consider various parts of 
its body to be a valuable source of medicines (Roberts, 1977). In the 1970s 
there were unconfirmed reports that the Chinese had discovered a cancer cure 
from a pangolin derivative (Webster, 1977). 


Pangolins are also much sought-after as food by indigenous peoples in most of 
S.E. Asia; they are a favoured food of the Dayak in Borneo and the Orang Asli 
in West Malaysia and of hill tribes in India (J. McNeely, in litt. to N. 
Duplaix, 18 May 1981; S.M. Md. Idris, in litt. to N. Duplaix, 1982; Prater, 
1971; K. Proud, in litt. to N. Duplaix, 9 May 1981). Groombridge (pers. 
comm.) noted that the Kadars of the Anaimalai Hills in Kerala, southern India, 
regard pangolins as a favourite food, though catch them infrequently. In Laos 
many local people depended largely on wildlife for their daily nourishment, 
and many game species, including pangolins, have become scarce (Laos Forest 
Department, in litt., 31 January 1986). Furthermore it is regularly 
collected in hill forest areas of Bangladesh for consumption of the meat and 
collection of scales (Bangladesh CITES MA, 1986). 


INTERNATIONAL TRADE Trade in Pangolin products generally involves two 
commodities - skin and scales. Scales, as noted above, are used for medicinal 
Purposes, largely by Chinese communities, while skins are imported into Europe 
and the USA (mainly the latter) for the manufacture of leather goods, 
principally boots. Trade in live animals appears negligible by comparison. 


1. Skins Virtually all information on trade in pangolin skins is derived from 
annual reports to CITES. Over 99% of trade in pangolins recorded in annual 
reports to CITES for the period 1980-84 is ascribed to one of the three Asian 
species; summaries of each of these are given in A to C below. 


The great majority of the trade is reported either as individual skins or as 
linear measurements of skins. A conversion rate of 0.3 m per skin has been 
used to derive numbers of skins from lengths, this being the rate used by 
traders in a series of transactions between Japan and the USA. 


174 


Manis spp. 


Some 879 kg of pangolin skins were recorded by weight during 1980-84; no 
conversion factor is available for estimating number of skins from this and 
such transactions are not included below. This is very unlikely to introduce 
significant distortions into the analyses; even a parsimonious estimate of 
0.2 kg per skin leads to a total of just over 4000 skins, or less than 3% of 
the minimum total in trade. As some or all of these will almost certainly 
have already been recorded under numbers of skins or lengths of skin, the 
percentage of skins completely unrecorded by ignoring transactions by weight 
will be even lower than this, although there may be some distortion in 
declared final destinations. 


Transactions involving worked products have been ignored; most of these 
involved exports of leather goods (mainly shoes) from Mexico to the USA, 
evidently made from skins exported to Mexico from the USA for the purpose. 


A. M. crassicaudata 


Table la. Apparent minimum net imports of skins of Manis crassicaudata 
reported to CITES, 1980-1985. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
France - - - 6 = = 
Japan - - = 694 = = 
USA 2810 1818 395 - - - 
TOTAL 2810 1818 395 700 0 0 


Table 2a. Reported countries of origin (or exporting country if no original 
source reported) and quantities of transactions in Manis crassicaudata skins 
reported to CITES, 1980-1985. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


Country of origin within range of M. crassicaudata 
India - 252 - - - = 


Country of origin outside range of M. crassicaudata or origin unknown 


Indonesia 1553 - = = E eS 
Japan 400 817 _ = = = 
Malaysia - 673 395 = = es 
Singapore 385 76 = = = = 
Thailand _ = = 700 = E 
Unknown 472 = _ 6 us = 


NS AAA == 


All CITES-reported trade ascribed to M. crassicaudata from 1980 to 1983 was 
in skins and involved a minimum of c. 5700 skins (Table la). All reported 
transactions involved Japan, with, in almost all cases (c. 88% of skins 
reported in trade) Japan exporting to the USA. The exception was in 1983 when 
700 skins were recorded as having been imported to Japan from Singapore and 6 
skins were reported as having been exported from Japan to France; no imports 


175 


Manis spp. 


to the USA were reported in that year. Only 252 skins (originating in India, 
recorded in 1981) or 4.4 % of the minimum total give a country of origin 
within the range of the species (Table 2a). No trade in skins of this species 
was reported by CITES Parties in 1984 or 1985. 


B. M. javanica 


Table 1b. Apparent minimum net imports of skins of Manis javanica reported 
to CITES, 1980-1985. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
France - - 5 - 5 12 = 
Italy - - 1200 1500 - - 
Japan - - 13377 - - 8310 
Mexico - - - - - 431 
Thailand - - - - - 171 
USA 20179 40885 12055 8949 5938 20787 
Total 20179 40885 26637 10449 5950 29699 


Table 2b. Reported countries of origin (or exporting country if no original 
source reported) and quantities of transactions in Manis javanica skins 
reported to CITES, 1980-1985 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


Country of origin within range of M. javanica 


Indonesia 6636 9013 1106 448 1079 3570 
Malaysia 4631 5290 4624 422 500 500 
Philippines - 391 4212 - 407 1570 
Singapore 757 3300 1285 3947 - 10725 
Thailand 114 20379 19893 3361 1740 14180 


Country of origin outside the range of M. javanica or origin unknown 


India - - - 250 - - 
Japan 5582 1623 505 835 500 - 
Korea 1 - - - - = 
Taiwan = = - = - 3500 
Togo = = = - - 500 
USA - 400 - - - 
Unknown 2908 7200 1863 2140 3056 50 


—_—_—_——__vccvcvValal“wrn—_ a O 


The great majority (84%) of net imports of M. javanica for 1980-85 were to 
the USA (Table 1b). 1982 was somewhat anomalous as in this year almost 
exactly half net imports were to Japan. As Japan otherwise featured very 
largely as a net re-exporting nation for Manis skins, it is possible that a 
large number of exports from Japan were not recorded in 1982 or that skins or 
records of exports were held over until subsequent years - in 1983 Japan 
recorded export of 3819 skins, but import of only 660. 


176 


Manis spp. 


A far higher percentage of the reported trade in this species, compared with 
that in the other two Asian pangolins, was recorded with country of origin 
within its range (Table 2b). Singapore, however, although strictly within the 
range of M. javanica, acts as a re-exporting nation and could not possibly 
sustain apparent exports from its wild population (see M. javanica 
population above). The 1985 data include a very large number of skins from 
Singapore, which probably originated elsewhere. Most declared trade in this 
species is channelled either through Singapore or Japan, though analysis of 
trade through Singapore is hampered by that country having been a 
non-signatory to CITES before 1987. As pangolin exports are banned from 
Thailand, Indonesia and West Malaysia, a large proportion of this trade 
(assuming declared country of origin is accurate) must be illegal. 


C. M. pentadactyla 


Table ic. Apparent minimum net imports of skins of Manis pentadactyla 
reported to CITES, 1980-1985. 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
A ee AA A A A A —— 
Canada - 2) - - - - 
France - - 1 1 14 = 
Italy - 185 - = = = 
Japan - - - 466 - - 
Korea - - - - 320 - 
Mexico - = = = 400 = 
USA 9951 19290 3862 3365 3072 1498 
Total 9951 19478 3863 3832 3806 1498 


A o ——_—_—_—_—_—K<É— 


Table 2c. Reported countries of origin (or exporting country if no original 
source reported) and quantities of transactions in Manis pentadactyla skins 
reported to CITES, 1980-1985. 


A AAA ee Eee 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


pe a eee eee 


Country of origin within the range of M. pentadactyla 


China - 2040 900 - - - 
India - 300 - - - - 
Taiwan 598 2815 1250 1500 - 1000 
Thailand - 1375 150 800 2861 1002 


Country of origin outside known range of M. pentadactyla or origin unknown 


Indonesia 7421 3350 926 - 720 - 
Japan 1382 7718 - - - = 
Malaysia - 1436 - - - - 
Singapore - 1 150 1531 520 496 
Unknown 550 450 837 346 5 - 


A A A A A A A == 


There was a small declared trade in live M. pentadactyla (30 in total for 
1980-1985), all except three given as originating in China (two of these 
three, to Hong Kong in 1983, were illegal imports); these are not included in 


177 


Manis spp. 
the tables above. 


Virtually all (98%) of declared trade in skins of M. pentadactyla was to the 
USA (Table 1c). A large proportion of the trade was through Japan and a 
considerable number of skins were exported to Mexico from the USA being then 
apparently re-imported, largely as shoes. The total number of skins in Table 
2c for 1985 exceeds the total of all net imports for that year as indicated in 
Table lc. This discrepancy is caused by the fact that Japan was a net 
exporter in 1985, but the imported skins reportedly originated in Taiwan, 
while those exported were recorded as originating in Thailand and Singapore. 


Only just over 30% of the total number of skins (from Table 1c) had a declared 
country of origin within the range of the species (Table 2c); c. 40% of these 
apparently originated in Thailand, which appears to be marginal to the 
Species's range, while 50% are reported as originating in Taiwan, which 
featured as an importing nation in Taiwanese customs statistics in 1981-82 and 
as a re-exporting nation for 2380 M. pentadactyla skins in 1984. In the 
early 1970s a number of pangolins, presumably of this species, were apparently 
imported to Hong Kong from China. Records from the Department of Agriculture 
and Fisheries totalled: (1972) 2271; (1973) 7004; (1974) 3426; (1975) 10. The 
virtual cessation of imports in 1975 is attributed to a Chinese ban on exports 
due to the alleged discovery that a cancer cure may be derived from part of 
its body (Webster, 1977). If countries of origin reported to CITES are 
accurate, then this ban has evidently either been rescinded or is not 
effective as nearly 3000 skins were reported as exported in 1982-83; none of 
these were reported by China and most were reported as re-exports originating 
in China. 


D. Trade in all Asian Manis species 


It is impractical to consider trade in each of the three Asian Manis species 
in isolation. That misidentification of skins occurs is demonstrated by, for 
example, a shipment of 298 skins from Japan to the USA in 1982, described in 
the customs documentation as M. javanica by the importers and 
M. pentadactyla by the exporters. 


Combined trade in Asian Manis regardless of species as recorded by CITES for 
the period 1980-1985 can be summarised in Tables 1d and 2d below. These 
tables represent as simple summation of the tables in sections A to C above, 
with the addition of 1236 skins reported as ‘Manis spp'. If many shipments 
have been reported to CITES as different species by the importer and exporter, 
totals in these tables will be inflated. 


Table 1d. Apparent minimum net imports of skins of Asian Manis spp. 
reported to CITES, 1980-1985. 


—_———_e_ere ee 5 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 
Canada = 3 = = 3 = 
France - = 6 7 28 - 
Italy - 185 1200 1500 - - 
Japan - - 13377 1160 - 9310 
Mexico = = = - 400 431 
Thailand = = = = - 171 
USA 32940 61993 17530 12314 9010 22285 
Total 32940 62178 32113 14981 9761 32197 


178 


Manis spp. 


Table 2d. Reported countries of origin (or exporting country if no original 
source reported) and quantities of transactions in Asian Manis skins 
reported to CITES, 1980-1985. 


nnn ————  Á_—— __ —_—_»=»zE-=-=--———_—_————————<—<K<Á<Á 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 


e o K—K—<K<KÉKÉ<KÉÁá 


Countries with wild populations of Manis spp. 


China (P,?J,?C) - 2040 900 - = - 
India (C,P) - 300 - 250 - _ 
Indonesia (J) 15610 12363 2032 448 1799 3570 
Malaysia (J) 4631 7399 5019 422 500 500 
Philippines (J) - 391 5430 4 407 1570 
Taiwan (P) 598 2815 1250 1500 - 4500 
Thailand (J,P) 114 21754 20018 4861 4601 15182 
Singapore (J) 1142 3377 1435 5478 520 11221 
C = M. crassicaudata; J = M. javanica; P = M. pentadactyla; 

Countries without wild populations of Manis spp, and origin unknown. 

Japan 7836 1058 505 841 - - 
Korea 1 - - - - - 
USA = 400 = = = = 
Unknown 3458 7650 2700 2486 3064 50 


EE TE 


Minimum trade in Asian Manis species in 1980-1985 reported to CITES (taken 
from Table 1.) amounted to some 185 000 skins, the great majority of these 
(almost 90%) being imported by the USA. After a peak of over 60 000 skins in 
1981, there was a marked decline in recorded trade, to fewer than 10 000 in 
1984. However, trade in 1985 apparently increased substantially in 1985 to 
over 32 000 skins, a similar number to that recorded in 1982. Some of this 
trade was made up of re-exports of skins obtained from their countries of 
origin in earlier years but at least half of the total trade reported in 1985 
was direct trade from the original source. 


Almost 80% of the total minimum trade was declared as originating in countries 
which support wild pangolin populations (Table 2a), excluding Singapore (for 
reasons explained above). As there is evidence that Taiwan is an importer of 
pangolin products on a relatively large scale, it is likely that a proportion 
(perhaps all) of those given as origin Taiwan in fact originated elsewhere. 
If declared countries of origin are accurate (rather than identification of 
species), and Taiwan and Singapore are excluded, and it is assumed that 
pangolins originating in Thailand are HA. javanica rather than 
M. pentadactyla, then at least 95% of the total are likely to be 
M. javanica, rather than the other two species. 


Thailand and Indonesia were the most important originating countries, 
accounting for 45% and 30% respectively of the total in Table 2a (excluding 
Singapore and Taiwan). 


Inspection of trade records for 1982 imports (mainly of Manis javanica) to 
the USA from Japan indicate a mean wholesale value of US$79 per skin, based on 
just over 5000 skins in 15 different transactions concerning a total of 7 
importing companies in the USA and 7 exporting companies in Japan. Trade to 
the USA in 1982 is thus estimated at a total value of c. US$1 400 000 at point 
of import. On the assumption that this value per skin has remained constant 


179 


Manis spp. 


over the five years (1980-84), total value of pangolin imports to the USA for 
that period exceeds US$10.5 million, again at point of import. 


2. Scales Considerable quantities of pangolin scales (of M. javanica) have 
been exported from Sarawak (Malaysia) in the past. Harrison and Loh (1965) 
reported that during the period 1958-64, 126 061 katis, or over 60 tons, of 
scales were exported under license through Kuching, through the agency of nine 
different traders; on the basis of an average of 2.5 katis (= c. 1.5 kg) of 
scales per pangolin this was calculated to involve over 50 000 pangolins. The 
great majority (99%) of these were stated to have come from Kalimantan 
(Indonesian Borneo), being smuggled over the border to towns mainly in the 
First Division. The political events of ‘Confrontation’ between Indonesia and 
Malaysia, starting in September 1963, had a marked effect on the trade, which 
fell from a peak of 26 675 katis in 1962 (representing over 10 000 animals) to 
15 570 katis in 1963 and 5650 katis in 1964. A small proportion of the trade 
came as a by-product of hunting for food by Dayak peoples in Sarawak, who sold 
the scales to local Chinese shopkeepers. Most of the scales were exported to 
Singapore and were believed likely to be re-exported from there to mainland 
China. 


Proud (in litt. to N. Duplaix, 9 May 1981) reported that during the late 
1970s around 4 export applications were made a year in Sarawak, with each 
shipment varying between 1 and 7 tons; all were to Singapore for medicines and 
Proud believed a large proportion originated in Kalimantan. Assuming 1.5 kg 
per pangolin, this would represent at least 6500 individuals. The Indonesian 
Directorate of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (1986) further note 
that at least 2170 kg of ‘skin specimens' were smuggled from West Kalimantan 
to East Malaysia during 1983-1984. 


In Sabah, one trader accumulated 468 kg of scales (representing at least 300 
pangolins) in a 3-year period (1981-1984) from the western half of Sabah, 
buying from village people. No other stock of scales approaching this size 
had been detected in recent years, and exploitation in eastern Sabah was very 
much less than that along the west coast. It was thought that the number 
killed might therefore be about 100-200 per year, though decreasing as it 
became more widely known that export was not permitted (Malaysia, Sabah CITES 
MA, 1986). This harvest rate, if it is accurate, represents less that one 
percent of the average annual trade in pangolin skins reported to CITES (see 
below). 


Both Taiwan and South Korea include Pangolin scales in their Customs reports 
of imports. These figures are given in Table 3. Taiwan imported 1-10t a year 
between 1980 and 1985, mostly from Singapore, while South Korea imported 
between 2 and 6t, mostly from Indonesia. It is likely that many of the scales 
from Singapore actually originated in Indonesia. Assuming an average weight 
of 1.5kg per animal, these imoprts combined represented the scales of between 
3000 and 8000 pangolins a year. 


Summary of international trade As Manis javanica is protected in Thailand 
and has been protected in Indonesia since 1931, most of the overall trade in 
pangolins would appear to be illegal, again assuming declared countries of 
origin are accurate. Skins from Indonesia may follow the same trade route as 
scales, described above, with a large number originating in Kalimantan 
(Indonesia) and being smuggled into Sarawak (East Malaysia), from where they 
may be legally exported. In 1983-84, at least 2100 kg of ‘skin specimens' 
were reportedly smuggled along this route (Indonesia CITES MA, 1986), though 
it is not clear if these were scales or skins. It is also not clear whether 
scales and skins are obtained from the same individuals - no trade in scales 
is reported in CITES annual reports and if these represent different animals, 
then obviously considerably more individuals are in trade than are revealed in 


180 


Manis spp. 


Table 3. Exporters of pangolin scales (kg) as recorded in the customs import 
statistics of Taiwan and South Korea. 


—————_——_—_—_—_——— 


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 


e —_—…—_…——…—…—…—_——….—_…—…—_…—_……—……—…—.….…—.—.——— 


Imports reported by Taiwan ("Manis scales" 05090210) 


Hong Kong - - 659 - 650 = 
Indonesia - - - - 200 - 
Malaysia - - - - 500 3000 
Singapore 1070 2090 4800 6630 8437 1246 
Total 1070 2090 5459 6630 9787 4246 


Imports to South Korea ("Pangolin shells and scales” 0509.0502) 


Burma - - - - - - 100 
China - - 300 - = - = 
India 400 - - - - - - 
Indonesia 2700 2060 3480 3740 948 2145 2019 
Malaysia 300 - - - - 400 110 
Taiwan - - - - - - 100 
Thailand - 300 - 702 795 2202 - 
USA - - 300 758 460 420 577 
Others - - 300 758 460 420 571 
Total 3400 2360 4080 5501 2203 5167 2906 


a 


CITES statistics. It is conceivable that pangolin skins for the leather trade 
are essentially a by-product of those collected for medicinal purposes, though 
in view of the high wholesale price of these skins, in the USA at least (see 
above), this is unlikely. 


In the absence of adequate population data for any of the three species and 
the lack of certainty regarding the origin and identification of skins in 
trade, it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the effect of trade on 
the Asian pangolins. 


Clearly more information is required on: 


+” Pangolin population densities. 

ii. The geographical origin and identification of pangolin skins in trade. 

iii. The relation between trade in pangolin products for traditional 
medicines, in skins for the leather trade and in collecting for food. 

iv. More recent trends in the number of skins in trade and the causes 
behind them. 


CONSERVATION MEASURES 
Bangladesh All pangolins are legally protected (Bangladesh CITES MA, 1986). 


China Reportedly banned from export in the mid-1970s, but it is not known 
how long this measure continued (Webster, 1977). 


Hong Kong Hunting and export of Manis pentadactyla is totally banned 
under the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance and the Animals and Plants 
(Protection of Endangered Species) Ordinance (UK, Hong Kong CITES MA, 1985). 


181 


Manis spp. 


India Manis crassicaudata and MM. pentadactyla are totally protected, 
being included in Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972. 


Indonesia Manis javanica has been a protected species since 1931 under 
the Wildlife Protection Ordinance (Indonesia CITES MA, 1985). 


Malaysia Manis javanica is a totally protected animal in West Malaysia 
under the Protection of Wild Life Act, 1972; it is not protected in East 
Malaysia. 


Philippines Manis javanica is protected under a blanket ban on the 
collection of any form of wildlife in the Province of Palawan, the entire 
province having been declared a game refuge and bird sanctuary in 1969 
(Proclamations 219 and 530-B) (Philippines CITES MA, 1986). 


Taiwan Hunting has been prohibited since 1972, but adherence to this 
Measure has been poor (Taiwan Council of Agriculture Executive Yuan, in 
litt., 14 February 1986). 


Thailand All Manis spp. are classified as Protected Wild Animals of the 
first category in Thailand. Capturing live animals is allowed, but killing of 
them is not except with authorisation of a collecting permit issued only for 
educational or scientific purposes (Jintanugool et al., 1982). The export 
or re-export of live Manis spp. or parts and derivatives of these species 
from Thailand for commercial purposes is prohibited (Thailand CITES MA, 1985). 


Legal status elsewhere unknown. 


CAPTIVE BREEDING Pangolins are difficult to maintain in captivity, it 
appears principally on account of their specialized diet (Roberts, 1977). 
However, captive births of both M. crassicuadata and M. pentadactyla have 
occurred (Masui, 1967; Ogilvie and Bridgewater, 1967). It is not known how 
many of any of the species are held in captivity at present. 


REFERENCES 

Anon. (1974). Wildlife in Taiwan. Oryx 12(5): 543. 

Anon. (1979). Philippine mammals: nature's treasures. Ministry of Natural 
Resources, Quezon City. 

Allen, G.M. (1938). The mammals of China and Mongolia, Part 1. American 
Museum of Natural History, New York. 

Allen, G.M. and Coolidge, H.J. (1940). Mammal collections of the Asiatic 
Primate Expeditions. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 
Harvard 97(3): 131-166. 

Boonsong Lekagul and McNeely, J.A. (1977). Mammals of Thailand. Association 
for the Conservation of Wildlife, Bangkok, 758 pp. 

Bourret, R. (1942). Les mammiféres de la collection du Laboratoire de Zoologie 
de l'Ecole Supérieure des Sciences. Notes et Travaux de l'Ecole 
Supérieure, Université Indochinoise No. 1. 

Davies, G. and Payne, J. (1982). A faunal survey of Sabah. WWF Malaysia, 
Kuala Lumpur. 

Delacour, J. (1940). Liste provisoire de mammifères de l'Indochine francaise. 
Mammalia 4: 20-29. 

Deuve, J and Deuve, M. (1963). Contribution à la connaissance des mammifères 
du Laos. Bulletin de la Société des Sciences Naturelles de Laos 8: 49-62. 

Ellerman, J.R. and Morrison-Scott, T.C.S. (1951). Checklist of Palaearctic & 
Indian mammals 1758-1946, British Museum (Natural History), 810 pp. 

Foenander, E.C. (1953). The elephant's terror. Malayan Nature Journal 8: 
23-24. 

Frick, F. (1968). Die Hôhenstufenverteilung der Nepalesischen Säugetiere. 
Säugetierkundliche Mitteilungen 17: 161-173. 


182 


Manis spp. 


Harrison, J. (1974). An introduction to the mammals of Singapore and 
Malaysia (2nd impression). Singapore Branch, Malayan Nature Society, 
340 pp. 

Harrisson, T. and Loh Chee Yin (1965). To scale a pangolin. Sarawak Museum 
Journal 12: 415-418. 

Hopwood, S.F. (1929). Some notes on the pangolin (Manis pentadactyla) in 
Burma. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 33(2): 439-440. 

Husain, K.Z. (1974). An introduction to the wildlife of Bangladesh. 
F. Ahamed, Dacca, 81 pp. 

Jintanugool, J., Eudey, A.A. and Brockelman, W.Y. (1983). Species conservation 
priorities in the tropical forests of Thailand. In: Mittermeier, R.A. and 
Konstant, W.R. (eds) Species conservation priorities in the tropical 
forests of Southeast Asia. Occasional Papers of the IUCN Species Survival 
Commission (SSC). No. l. 

Khan, M.A.R. (1985). Mammals of Bangladesh. Nazma Reza, Dhaka, 92 pp. 

Marshall, P. (1967). Wild mammals of Hong Kong. Oxford University Press, UK, 
64 pp. 

Masui, M. (1967). Birth of a Chinese Pangolin Manis pentadactyla at Veno 
Zoo, Tokyo. International Zoo Yearbook 7: 114-115. 

Medway, Lord, (1969). The wild mammals of Malaya and Singapore. Oxford 
University Press, UK, 128 pp. 

Medway, Lord, (1977). Mammals of Borneo. Monographs of the Malaysian Branch 
of the Royal Asiatic Society 7: 1-172. 

Mitchell, R.M. (1975). A checklist of Nepalese mammals. Säugetierkundliche 
Mitteilungen 23: 152-157. 

Ogilvie, P.W. and Bridgewater, D.D. (1967). Notes on the breeding of an Indian 
Pangolin (Manis crassicaudata) at Oklahoma Zoo. International Zoo 
Yearbook 7: 116-117. 

Peenen, P.F.D. van, Ryan, P. and Light, R. (1969). Preliminary identification 
manual for mammals of South Vietnam. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 
320 pp. 

Phillips, W.W.A. (1981). Manual of the mammals of Sri Lanka. Part 2. 
Wildlife and Nature Protection Society of Sri Lanka, 267 pp. 

Prater, S.H. (1971). The book of Indian animals. Bombay Natural History 
Society, 323 pp. 

Roberts, T.J. (1977). The mammals of Pakistan. Benn, London, 361 pp. 

Salter, R.E. (1983). Summary of currently available information on 
internationally threatened wildlife species in Burma. FAO Field Document 
7/83 FO: BUR/80/006, 76 pp. 

Tikader, B.K. (1983). Threatened Animals of India. Zoological Survey of 
India, Calcutta. 

Van der Zon, A.P.M. (1977). Mammals of Indonesia. Unpublished. 

Webster, M. (1977). China's back door. Oryx 14(1): 61-66. 

Yin, U Tun (1967). Wild animals of Burma. Rangoon Gazette, Rangoon. 


183 


re RAE pe: At at 


ey Su Peers 
RS IA LAP: AURA 
¿pa A Ad e ‘Lae ee P / 
Mea or Ge CEE. 
ra PL" LU PF 
o he | y 


i Oe ne 
wi co ae 


ay 4 : 
A és % * 
O > 4 D 
en ee Men? ? E 
y sa 
' 
sie ; f 
/ y A XN 
0 
' \ 
\ 4 
\ » 
x | Le 
. f ELA 
À 
‘ 
= 
d z e : x 
\ 3 a 
\ 
on 
À AP 
« ES . 
, > Ÿ 
=~ 
+ 
= 4 = » "3 
3 - ¡2 É 
- re . vi 
gx 
Sn 4 
“Sua ys N 
LE 3 - 
ï E Re > SA % = N 
RD à x e À 
TE 
/ 
d y S ON 
: = FERA ESS 
¿ NX ae 
A 
CR E E 
0 
x