: Me MryA WN net ps ae Ya

t 4h BE eik te gh TN atl teton that

ie Pe ots om ears ora aed Fahad aa Y be eg 8 4 oy iM RD

o Sy Vypesth hae VOR TET Cy ge tome Sete ny ey wt

Sa Ae ee ca y oe elias %

Aah Sia Ses eee, Wn 4 areas ries hatch bead tas Brean eh os an

* Lye a VAR UL AS a & { sap See.

irene caries

es Le olla bedankt ng tt

“f ita WES pY sid ay) all WAHT Sea chs Y

Fe eb aeo aate ie iat oe 8 ee at, a

fen NEPAL ENA Sy AES ST piisraes ease suet ale at

aN aa ee, Agar eae “aie eye ae

aayd ait

ici vireo Precis aoe

Ved cok alfa gay Tea Tet a

eae oF gh A A a8 ht

Sv ea AU SE aa ant a

Ms ay aig ae GREE dy

LEW eR ds Hi ah Mee

Hh de MP YOR § lt Via Wa Ore:

Vorosiy ters ay

Shak sf

ahaa #78 .

Lge sd ay at ale

PEA BF fae at VE aH nae

ae pbs

Seo} diag

asguen yg Paar hes

DRTTeaeerant tae ai eat asp

eS astegiatcy thet a :

vats! See tN a

enue ee VG sits wt aE ae Mgt SIME

pa od Oa wiyNek aby cas bins ray MP ete!

seg ci ab ant Or LE SUEUEE AN Prete as Aah aie af ait Date ve Sr ost

6 Paes ad 47%

shaw Yeat 3

2 aia ey Se et caah ca oak sigan at Wass

rat ak svat aite abe eta whey

Nk a aaa wet a xi wiaG ate yee

Tea Ta Grae

cee SEAT FF rine ALS oh as

RH Siar sitar sealants Shatin cath ae Ses

Mig tal arate tt

gist GP aT SE Hye araay

i 1 gh ae RAE gee retro! XI

Be eg oor NMI ut achat oy DART

ciel ni arail he ae y Seed y ag atvanh

neath aie

ait “i a avd

sie np Mie

ay ys mig aE OF: pee

‘Rie sat

Vaya sMar

Eh ta hat a WV a>

Reet

Piet at ov ss tee

Vera

abot, PP AVANeRe Gs wy

Gh it ets nae as uo at

Z ae Tet

SUM digs ar enaryaiiy sere

CMM ah TEER AN LEE

vag Gee hye es y

ain EM aye toyed she

CNTR TT

i ; i Erne nit) Moy tee eye

ora

ba Pa bay ate

ye ayn SPR

Pera sap vay et eters

eget

Nahays

ponte ahs

Keak

ie eee + ah sion ira

MPs EY

wading hint

wee

frat.

vasa dy a

Geese

yee Haart

yeayavarat

watiait ates si ain

Pe ees

Sata oa

vig gee

Paeee tics

era tala

Sevetsisa ee Soe coe

pig OER IG EEE yaa

Sacer

aye nt

crate te dbap arate ArGh eras

aaa,

Bea sh A AIST =

hers, Pere ces

6 tal

ere vad WE nr eenhey

vat ghey ey,

iis Brae ihr as

6 fea ae were Pine dat =

ese er

2 RA WORN wh Ob

ag tsboniatat ake

eee

yavathed a

2b ghegira sag oo) ae

ahs

aa aS Vee

Meta INGA

ahetay unt al

eae es

cbt Pie a a

ig hyde Nei

vp yaad terleane BVAHE waits pias

eae Deby Heater ay fab atid ay sear pntak

op ys ee

BEY AVES yeas

ryt

chageh GRE Sein FACT

CURA!

bari sthear

ft wh GRE A ao oe

Hare kemet at

at ANE ihe an au Vera ath ot att

se ere ars

gue cairns xe fy akash ad Sta we ras

fla ae) Pea Ae Ct ra See wise

eg ee ohare Ce) ars EAS

eieety Fae sses

a eT ore aa

alfa ale ded

Lee

eer

eh HAE S

et eieihe ss

vay seat aie als OE 8 aie

Sp eanis i eats

“Hew Te tee

atts

Senta

wie oxtionre)

Prey nt ae

pahae wae reite

Serer ea eee Ce

: . pea aims ar coset A

wera beater ays es

Lavy “ rae: ‘ A ated

LV EIN Soa

aie site y,

; — : 5 Rita e vera Wael Beat

4 + 2 ee * 3 hay ECA

: Jali race eae

bp) SE FEIT

Sone ty Sek

: ie

Pr ee ee od

FONT re ee tbody

eee yes reat’

- : Hanh ies ; ANE aba 8s

Ane seats

fey id ee Ge

Peete ar toes

gpk oARSA te:

sem pea ae

z pereacsti ‘

cater g ba

ae Bat sts

‘

com lnost ga a Tet

aaetes st

Pre os aT

Seater eae SOT

fee bese

Spee ee OF

SDSL. bs agree cng Teale PANS Crit eee

fe — : > ae od sree f.

1 SSeS aes a oe ei fa ie Tein

prigeltirs ct his Nema ben ere = ‘ 3

‘Goma - > na aah dt ae Mad EoD este TUE Palin ah

i , f Pte 4

. ea raat hark eR e

Sa “og - ine a eee Vien cee

ie , kp reste pt one : pS ctintelind! Sonn

- ‘ . % e ad -

eee eo

Ph ‘eo

Bh,’ L

it ae

z . ‘

ei eet

a’

“hy wilene

CHA

Cina

A :

r H ¥ \ a

{ Me ae n

Dae ie

Rene | AY

Das is eat

‘¥ f

By et 4)

BOMBAY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIE

AVON 2013 a

User "

INDI CONSERVING | Cone a ae is ! ! we

} NATURE SINCE 1883 3 ! | | ie : : Ee iE ge

JOURNAL OF THE BOMBAY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY

Hornbill House, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai 400 001.

Executive Epitor

Asad R. Rahmani, Ph. D.

Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai

Copy Epitor

Ranjit Manakadan, Ph. D.

Bombay Natural History Society

Copy AND PrRopuctTion Epitor

Vibhuti Dedhia, M. Sc.

Bombay Natural History Society

Editorial Board

Ajith Kumar, Ph. D. Aasheesh Pittie, B. Com.

__ National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bird Watchers Society of Andhra Pradesh,

GKVK Campus, Hebbal, Bengaluru, Karnataka Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh

C.R. Babu, Ph. D. GS. Rawat, Ph. D.

Professor, Centre for Environmental Management Wildlife Institute of India,

of Degraded Ecosystems, University of Delhi, Dehradun, Uttarakhand

New Delhi

J.D. Marcus Knight, Ph. D.

Chennai, Tamil Nadu

J.S. Singh, Ph. D..

Professor, Banaras Hindu University

Indraneil Das, D. Phil. Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh

Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation,

Universiti Malaysia, Sarawak,

Malaysia

Y.V. Jhala, Ph. D.

Wildlife Institute of India,

Dehradun, Uttarakhand

Anwaruddin Choudhury, Ph. D., D. Sc.

The Rhino Foundation for Nature,

Guwahati, Assam

S. Subramanya, Ph. D.

University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK,

Hebbal, Bengaluru, Karnataka

R. Sukumar, Ph. D.

Professor, Centre for Ecological Sciences,

Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, Karnataka

Romulus Whitaker, B. Sc.

Madras Reptile Park and Crocodile Bank Trust,

Tamil Nadu

K. Ullas Karanth, Ph. D.

Wildlife Conservation Society — India Program,

Bengaluru, Karnataka

T.C. Narendran, Ph. D., FASc.

Professor, Department of Zoology,

University of Calicut, Kerala.

S.R. Yadav, Ph. D.

Shivaji University, Kolhapur,

Maharashtra

Consultant Editors

Gayatri W. Ugra, Ph. D.

Bombay Natural History Society

Raghunandan Chundawat, Ph. D.

Wildlife Conservation Society, Bengaluru

Nigel Collar, Ph. D.

BirdLife International, UK

Rhys Green, Ph. D.

Royal Society for Protection of Birds, UK

Qamar Qureshi, M. Phil.

Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun

T.J. Roberts, Ph. D.

World Wildlife Fund, Pakistan

Editorial Assistant: Sonali V. Vadhavkar, M. Sc.

Layout and Typesetting: V. Gopi Naidu

recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS). Enquiries concerning

reproduction outside the scope of the above should be addressed to the Honorary Secretary, BNHS at the address given above.

PET T OOPRUA LL «6g 8 ee ore Mrs atten wire IR AR drench een sean sacar man eam nasee eee estanbann rasan se eee

VOLUME 110(1): APRIL 2013

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

BU Mave lelare re tes lalmete (pol Wie ce =t2 nF PST ( a) «MRA oR ae ORL en ate a ere aio ee cae ene a a ee ee

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF THE GREAT INDIAN BUSTARD ARDEOTIS NIGRICEPS (VIGORS 1831)

Pramod Patil, Asad R. Rahmani and Sara Hallager

CONTENTS

EMITHSONTAe

FEB 20 2014

1B R ARIES: sages acide Siew hac

BIRD RECORDS FROM TAWANG DISTRICT, ARUNACHAL PRADESH, INDIA

OM atTal) WANES WIA 270 sco. ez ean cuca a reteeh eh ewe id REM IN HC ey Sra cota alg etal atta galactica ata radaabered cals

DIVERSITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF ACRIDID PESTS (ORTHOPTERA: ACRIDIDAE) OF PURVANCHAL REGION,

UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

Lizina Patiand Wich arniU Sia coiled ee ee ce ee ean eek, errs cn cat yen alla eh hes Be ne det elma om hetae. ce ned Aer eee es te.

FLORISTIC DIVERSITY OF THE KUNJAPURI SACRED GROVE, GARHWAL HIMALAYA, INDIA

Megha Rawat, H.B. Vasistha, R.K. Manhas and Mridula Negi

NEW DESCRIPTION

A NEW SPECIES OF NOTASPIDIELLA BOUCEK (HYMENOPTERA: CHALCIDIDAE) WITH A KEY TO SPECIES AND

NOTES ON KNOWN SPECIES

T.C. Narendran, Abhilash Peter, K. Nikhil and Minu Mohan

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

MAMMALS

ily:

First photographic record of the Indian Mouse Deer

Moschiola indica in Kanha Tiger Reserve, confirming its

occurrence in Central India

Ujjwal Kumar, Neha Awasthi, Anup Pradhan,

Gamat Qureshiand: YN; UMalerit hates eselcalerleeasnurg:

2. Status of Irrawaddy Dolphin Orcaella brevirostris Gray,

1866 and Ganges River Dolphin Platanista gangetica

Roxburgh, 1801 in the water channels of Sundarban Tiger

Reserve, India

Manas P. Manjrekar and Charles Leo Prabu.................

BIRDS 3

3. Nesting of the White-rumped Vulture Gyps bengalensis

_ in Orchha Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh, India

Aditya Moy and Kartik Shaswis. ict. 2. Gee dees

4. Record of the Bridled Tern Sterna anaethetus in

Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

TSS STRANI NEY 2 ccics erst ah Soaivaasslieagias camtaanen naan vateiaelt aia

5. Record of Sooty Tern Sterna fuscata in Pune,

Maharashtra, India

RATAN OLGA 85 i anay prvanhoneieqsesesaent pene uot exueieyae ee

6. First record of the Blue-and-White Flycatcher Cyanoptila

cyanomelana in India

Perea AGH Gea cM ee See ke rere cae lces ivixatiagetasvenresietees

7. Sighting of Jerdon’s Bushchat Saxicola jerdoniin Pilibhit,

Uttar Pradesh, India

Kea aD SO GUNA csc adernisaanaeeaiiarivay ures

8. Second record of the Tricolored Munia Lonchura malacca

from southern Rajasthan, India

Chhaya Bhatnagar, Deependra Singh Shekhawat and

SITE OUTS Co | a an i ee eee Pe

AMPHIBIANS

9. Catalogue of Salamander and Newt (Amphibia: Urodela/

Caudata) specimens in the collection of the Zoological

Survey of India |

Kaushik Deutl and P.G'S. Sey ...-.cisc.cnstccsceeseasseucsessaess

es)

_ FISH

10.

Sexual dimorphism in Hypselobarbus kurali

(Pisces: Cyprinidae)

E. Sherly Williams, J. Jean Jose, P.V. Vijayalakshmi,

L. Razeena Karim and M.S. Vishnu Nair ............::00

OTHER INVERTEBRATES

11.

12.

Observation on a collection of Tawny Coster Acraea

terpsicore (Pieridae: Lepidoptera) in the web of the

Social Spider Stegodyphus sarasinorum (Eresidae:

Araneae)

INN eNEe OIPONUEE iis hatsolest ss daqstaten! «tenscaeaeabectassaubeaee ea pet at

Heteropoda fischeri Jager, 2005: A Huntsman spider

hunting on fellow cavernicoles in the caves of

Meghalaya, India

Jayant Biswas and Siddharth Biswas ...................0:06

BOTANY

13.

14.

15.

TS.

A step further to the correct identification of Ceropegia

bulbosa Roxb. in Kachchh, Gujarat, India

A.R. Badheka, M.J. Parmar and Y.T. Jasrai .................

An annual flowering population of Neelakurinji

Strobilanthes kunthianus (Nees) T. Anders. — A plietesial

species from the Nilgiri sholas, India

Prankiin Charles JOSS... sa... Cae ieicctivibedsvceacetere

Rediscovery of Cinnamomum travancoricum Gamble

(Lauraceae) from the Southern Western Ghats,

India

M.P. Geetha Kumary, A.G. Pandurangan and

Ems Santos eureka hele erasers. Leas eat

Two new records of mosses for the Indian mainland from

the Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve in the Western

Ghats, India

AED. Daniets: and: bk. Mapel sc cto ae kiohGcesdiansd:

Cover Photograph: Lion Panthera leo

By Y.V. Jhala

3/7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

WE ARE GRATEFUL TO THE MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

GOVT. OF INDIA,

FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE JOURNAL.

Editorial

Our neglected sanctuaries

mong the 645 odd protected areas of India, only a few are well-known and regularly highlighted,

namely those that have large mega-vertebrates and/or high profile visitors. Even amongst them, tiger

eserves receive most of the funding. The rest remain in neglect and oblivion, except perhaps those that

are locally known. These neglected Protected Areas (PAs) are generally resented by politicians, administrators,

and villagers due to the restrictions placed on extraction of natural resources from them. They are also under-

staffed and under-funded. They come to the attention of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of

India, and the National Board for Wildlife, dominated by the tiger lobby, only when a forest village road has to be

repaired or a pipeline has to be laid! The media pays attention only when a villager is killed by a predator, or

poachers are caught.

India has signed the Convention of Biological Diversity and we have the Indian Wildlife Protection Act, but

we forget that biological diversity/wildlife also resides beyond the few well-known tiger reserves and national

parks, and even outside PAs. Sometimes higher biodiversity is found outside PAs. There are numerous examples

from all over India, but I will restrict this editorial to PAs that I happen to visit.

In Uttar Pradesh, Dudhwa National Park is well-known and regularly highlighted by the government and

media. Not many know that there is an equally, or possibly, a more ecologically diverse sanctuary called Katerniaghat

that was once connected with the Dudhwa forest — a tenuous nocturnal corridor still exists for some animals.

Katerniaghat has all the habitat types that Dudhwa has, and the large, meandering Girwa river which hosts the

Gangetic Dolphin, Gharial, and river-island breeding birds that Dudhwa does not have. With the addition of a

10 sq. km former seed farm, Katerniaghat can now boast of a large grassland that is a potential habitat for the

critically endangered Bengal Florican. Its Swamp Deer population is reviving, thanks to good protection in recent

years. As far as birdlife is concerned, Katerniaghat perhaps has more bird species than Dudhwa. The same can be

said of reptile, fish, amphibian, and plant taxa. Similarly, the adjoining Suhelwa Wildlife Sanctuary on the Indo-

Nepal border perhaps represents the best bhabhar forest left in Uttar Pradesh. This 80 km long and 4 to 7 km wide

sanctuary is even more neglected than Katerniaghat. One reason: absence of the glamorous big cat! If given

enough administrative attention and funds, Suhelwa can be revived and can become a major tourist attraction in

this poor part of the state. Its colonial era rest houses, nestled amongst thick forests, can also revive one’s nerves,

which are battered by living in over-crowded, polluted cities.

In Assam, most people do not think beyond Kaziranga and Manas. Most tourist brochures of the Assam

government mention only Kaziranga, it is as if the natural world does not exist beyond this World Heritage Site.

No doubt, Kaziranga is marvellous; thanks to good protection for the last 100 years, but Assam has other magnificent

sanctuaries. For instance, Dibru-Saikhowa National Park is perhaps as good as Kaziranga and at one time had all

the animals that Kaziranga can boast of. But Dibru-Saikhowa is a neglected national park, ravaged by ever-

increasing human encroachment and it has a pathetically under-staffed forest force. Dibru-Saikhowa lost its rhinos

decades ago, and now the Bengal Florican is on verge of local extinction. The White-winged Duck survives in a

few undisturbed forest pools, while the Black-breasted Parrotbill barely exists in the Park as its grassland habitat

is almost gone. The most unfortunate part is that the floodplain grasslands that have some of the most threatened

bird species of India are overlooked even by the forest authorities. The famous Amarpur grassland of Dibru-

Saikhowa is now dotted by cattle herders, leaving very little habitat for grassland-dependent species.

Laokhowa and Bura Chapori sanctuaries of Assam face a similar fate as Dibru-Saikhowa. Laokhowa Wildlife

Sanctuary (7,011 ha), located in Nagaon district, was declared as a game reserve way back in 1907 because of its

population of Indian One-horned Rhinoceros. Bura Chapori Wildlife Sanctuary (4,406 ha) is contiguous with

Laokhowa, and is located on the southern bank of the Brahmaputra. During summer, Bura Chapori virtually

becomes an island. Both Laokhowa and Bura Chapori are on the floodplains of the Brahmaputra. In Bura Chapori,

about 20% is forest, 65% grassland, and the rest waterbodies and scrub forest. Laokhowa is similar to Kaziranga

in terrain and situated further downstream on the southern bank of the Brahmaputra. Roughly 35% of Laokhowa

is grassland, 30% comprise of wetlands, and the remaining area is under natural forest or plantations of Bombax

ceiba, Dalbergia sissoo, and Albizzia procera. Marasuti, a tributary of the Brahmaputra, flows along the north-

western part of the Sanctuary. : |

The Laokhowa-Bura Chapori complex was recognised as an Important Bird Area in 2004 by BNHS and BirdLife

International due to the presence of 16 globally threatened bird species. Laokhowa-Bura Chapori continues to be

one of the important potential habitats of the Indian One-horned Rhinoceros. Laokhowa had about 60 rhinos

before they were killed in the 1970s, and finally exterminated during the political upheaval in the 1980s. Even

now, rhinos appear occasionally after the rains, but they become victims of poachers. Nevertheless, the situation

can be improved with strict management, and rhinos can be reintroduced as the habitat is still extant. Elephants are

still found here, resulting in human-animal conflict as a large number of villages surround the forests and grasslands.

The Wild Buffalo population is cross-bred with domestic buffalo thanks to numerous khuties (cattle sheds) scattered

in the Sanctuary. These sanctuaries have great potential to become excellent habitats for the fauna of the Brahmaputra

floodplain grasslands, much like the famous Kaziranga. The only step required is to follow the Wildlife Protection

Act, under which these two sanctuaries were declared. There is urgent need to clear all encroachments and stop

illegal activities. | | |

Similar examples can be given for Rajasthan (and all other states of India). When we think of wildlife of

Rajasthan, automatically the wetland birds of Keoladeo National Park, the tigers of Ranthambhore and Sariska

come to mind. These over-crowded and over-rated PAs are in every brochure and tourist advertisement. Numerous

articles and many books have been written on them. How many people know that Rajasthan wildlife goes beyond

Ranthambhore and Keoladeo. The magnificent Desert National Park, home to the largest number of critically

endangered Great Indian Bustard, the State Bird of Rajasthan, has been neglected since the establishment of the

Park in the 1980s. It does not have sufficient staff to look after this sprawling 3,162 sq. km area. In the ancient

Aravalli mountains, Kumbhalgarh, Sitamata, and Phulwari-ki-Naal sanctuaries are waiting for attention. They

perhaps represent the best forest types that are now left on these geologically important mountains, but who cares

when you do not have large glamorous felines!

Incidentally, we talk of biodiversity conservation ad nauseum, and have made a strong National Biodiversity

Act to protect India’s natural biological wealth, but when it comes to protecting neglected sanctuaries, neglected

ecosystems (e.g. grasslands and mudflats), and neglected species, funds suddenly become a problem. More than

lack of funds, it is administrative neglect that is killing these biodiversity hotspots. The earlier we come out of this

attitude, the better it would be for all biodiversity, all habitats, and all ecosystems.

Asad R. Rahmani

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

3-21

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

DIVYABHANUSINH! AND M.K. RANIITSINH?

‘President, WWF-India, 172-B, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi 110 003, India. Email: sawaj_cheetah @rediffmail.com

*Former Director, Wildlife Preservation, Govt. of India, 5 Tiger Lane (W6-C lane), Sainik Farms, New Delhi 110 062, India.

Email: mkranjitsinh @ gmail.com

The book propounds a theory that both the lion and the cheetah were exotic aliens on the Indian subcontinent, as they

were imported by humans from Africa in the historical past. The book, however, makes assumptions but fails to

provide any valid proof for the theory, which palpably panders to the authors’ preconceived notions. This critique

challenges this theory on the basis of paleontological finds of lion and cheetah remains and cave paintings of the

chalcolithic/neolithic period. Subsequent historical records and current genetic studies of Asiatic lions establish that

they are nearer to North African lions than to those of East Africa, from where they were purported to have been

imported, and that the cheetah of Iran are a distinct subspecies from those of Africa, but closest to the North African

cline of cheetah, which also conclusively proves the surmise of import and introduction of these species by humans to

be baseless, and confirms that the lion and cheetah did move out of Africa on the Africa—West Asia land bridge and

then into India, like so many other mammals.

Key words: Lion, cheetah, exotic, alien, impostor, mongrel, “khichdi”

The authors of this paper have been asked to comment

on an interesting theory propounded in a recently published

book that the lion and the cheetah are “exotic aliens’ in India.

The said publication is Exotic Aliens: The Lion and The

Cheetah in India, Aleph, New Delhi, 2013, pp. 304, Rs. 595.

Its authors are Valmik Thapar, known for his numerous

publications on the tiger, Professor Romila Thapar, a doyenne

amongst Indian historians, and Yusuf Ansari, also a historian.

At the outset, it would be imperative to examine the

implications of the words ‘exotic’ and ‘alien’. The word

‘exotic’ according to The Shorter Oxford Dictionary and The

New Webster’s Dictionary means, “Alien; introduced from

abroad... a plant or animal of foreign extraction...’; ‘not fully

naturalized or acclimatized’. The word ‘alien’ implies, inter

alia, ‘Foreign in nature, character or origin...’; ‘Not a citizen

or entitled to the privileges of a citizen’. The two words are,

therefore, somewhat interchangeable and the use of both in

tandem is apparently to give emphasis to the alleged foreign

origin of the two cats in question: the lion and the cheetah.

Valmik Thapar also calls the lion an ‘imposter’ in the land of

the tiger. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines the word

‘Impostor’ as ‘one who imposes on others, a deceiver, a

swindler, cheat... one who passes himself as someone other

than he is’.

It is an accepted fact in both history and natural history

that many of the more than 500 mammalian species found in

India, including humans, have come from outside of the Indian

subcontinent. The lion, the cheetah, the oryx, the ostrich, and

a host of others came into Asia from Africa; the tiger, the

gaur, the serow Capricornis sumatrensis and numerous others

moved into India from other parts of Asia itself. The title and

the theme of the book under review raises two pertinent

questions. Firstly, does an alien/exotic species always remain

alien/exotic, or does it ever ‘get naturalized/become

indigenous’ and if so, what would be the criteria/period of

residence in India for the species to be deemed Indian and

non-alien/non-exotic? Secondly, does the title exotic and alien

have derogatory or priority implications, and if so, does a

species which has come to India earlier have a precedence or

priority over another which came later? If that be the case,

then species which, indeed, did evolve in the Indian

subcontinent such as the nilgai Boselaphus tragocamelus, the

blackbuck Antilope cervicapra, and the unique four-horned

antelope Tetracerus quadricornis, should take precedence

over both the tiger and the lion, and if it can be proved that

the lion came into India prior to the tiger, would it be less

exotic/alien than the latter and hence more important? Are

we to reduce natural history to a parochial farce?

The tiger too evolved in northern Asia and came to

India. Does that make it an alien? Why is the book silent on

the evolution and arrival of the tiger in India?

As the eminent palaeontologist Dr. GL. Badam says,

‘*’..most of the larger animals migrated from Egypt, Arabia,

Central Asia and North America on routes across Alaska,

Siberia and Mongolia... Between India and Africa the

interchange of faunas took place more easily. There is

sufficient evidence for the existence of a land bridge across

the straits at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. A corresponding

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

bridge across the Red Sea would have provided a ready means

of communication between India and Africa through Arabia.”

(Badam pers. comm. 2013) Both the lion and the cheetah

evolved in southern Africa, and considerable time elapsed by

the time they reached northern Africa. This is proven by the

genetic differences between the lion and cheetah of southern

and northern Africa, as will be mentioned later. The animals

then moved out of the land bridge of the Sinai Peninsula and

occupied Mesopotamia and neighbouring lands, including

Iran, from where they moved westwards into the Indian

subcontinent and elsewhere. The ecological and chronological

separation has resulted, therefore, in both the Asiatic lion and

the Asiatic cheetah being morphologically closer to their North

African counterparts than their southern and East African

ones.. Both the lion and the cheetah are the inhabitants of

grasslands and open forests, which were prevalent in western,

north-western and central India and which, being suitable

habitats of these two species, were occupied by them

when they moved into the Indian subcontinent on their

westward march from Iran. According to the noted scientist

Dr. Y.V. Jhala, species normally achieve their highest densities

in the central portion of their distribution range. The Indian

subcontinent being at the extreme distributional end of their

faunal range that originated from Africa, it is likely that the

cheetah and the lion did not attain a high degree of abundance

in India (SJhala pers. comm. 2013).

The earliest civilizations that practiced agriculture —

Harappan and the Vedic — occupied and cultivated the same

short grasslands and open forest areas of western and north-

western portions of the Subcontinent, shrinking the habitat

of the cheetah and of the lion, and their prey. With the spread

of civilization and its attendant increase of agriculture and

demographic pressures, especially after the establishment of

the Mughal Empire from the 16th century onwards and the

relative peace that ensued, together with considerably

increased hunting pressure, both these predators and their prey

suffered a drastic decline. Lions were a threat to man and

livestock and living in relatively open countryside, both the

lion and the cheetah could be easily seen and pursued, unlike

the leopard and the tiger. By the time the British hunters came

to record their exploits in the early decades of the 19th century,

the distribution of both the cheetah and lion had been reduced

to a handful of isolated enclaves and their numbers were

perilously low.

The lion occurred in Iran (Persia) till the middle of the

last century and the cheetah still survives in that country. It

has never been suggested, not even by the authors of the book

in question, that the lion and the cheetah were introduced

there by some bygone monarch. These species obviously

emanated from Africa. The earliest known hunting record, of

the great Egyptian Pharaoh Ahmenhotep III (1406-1370 sce),

mentions his having killed a hundred lions in the first ten

years of his reign, between the Nile and the Euphrates

(Guggisberg 1962, p.159). The Arabian Oryx Oryx leucoryx,

recently rendered extinct in the wild, was reintroduced into

the Arabian Peninsula from captive populations. The Arabian

Ostrich Struthio camelus syriacus made extinct in the last

century, had its counterpart in India, as is proved by the

prehistoric paintings in the Adamgarh rock shelter near

Hoshangabad in Madhya Pradesh and by the discovery of |

ostrich egg shells in over 30 sites in India (Chakravarty 1984,

pp. 266-67). On the other hand, the wild equids for which

Africa is so famous, evolved in North America and crossed

over not only into north-eastern Asia, but eventually also into

Africa over the same land bridge of the Sinai (Denzau and

Denzau 1999, p. 12). The Arabian Tahr Arabitragus jayakari,

a totally montane species, has its nearest relatives, the Aoudad

Ammotragus lervia occurring in the mountains of North Africa

and the Himalayan Tahr Hemitragus jemlahicus of the

Himalaya, living thousands of kilometres away. If we can

accept the natural occurrence of the lion and the cheetah in

western Iran and indeed, the reports of cheetah occurring

in Baluchistan in recent times (Divyabhanusinh 2006,

pp. 195-197), and the fact that a single species of a small

nocturnal mammal like the Ratel Mellivora capensis can live

all the way from South Africa to South India, should there be

a mental embargo on the acceptance of the natural ‘invasion’

of the far more free-ranging lion and of the cheetah into India,

when there is so much empirical evidence to support it? Even

the authors of the book do not suggest that the lion and the

cheetah which they claim became feral in India, then spread

to Iran and westwards.

It would be appropriate for the reader to see some of

the excerpts of the text in support of the theme of the book,

followed by our comments. In the Prologue of the book,

commenting on Dunbar Brander’s statement that only three

cheetahs were procured in the last 20 years in Central India

and that the animal had almost entirely disappeared from the

province, Valmik Thapar says, “It is likely that what Brander

referred to must have been three trained cheetahs imported

from Africa.” Is there any basis of proof or is it just a mere

guess? He goes on to state, “Be that as it may, I believe the

cheetah in India has been imported from other countries.”

Which countries and when? For the lion, he says, “What

I believe ... is that lions from Persia and Africa were being

imported into the country [India] 2,500 years ago [and then

on] to meet the demand of Indian royals, and being bred and

propagated as court symbols and for hunting; this imported

animal was erroneously called the Asiatic lion. The story of

the cheetah is much the same but its inability to breed in

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

captivity meant that many more had to be imported. Both the

species in India were genetic mixtures of animals brought in

from elsewhere, and their own inbreeding. Their genetic

makeup can be best described as a khichdi of genes.” On

what evidence is this assumption of import and captive

breeding made? The author rightly admits that cheetahs are

very poor breeders in captivity and therefore suggests that a

much larger number had to be imported. But not an iota of

evidence of import is ever cited. Jahangir mentions that Akbar

had 1,000 cheetahs in captivity at one time. As it would be

difficult to say without any proof that 1,000 cheetahs could

be imported in Akbar’s era, the book resorts to claiming that

Akbar’s chroniclers and Jahangir were liars. Valmik Thapar

goes on to say in the Prologue: “I believe that the lion came

to India just before or with Alexander’s invasion of India

around the third or fourth century BcE. It was from this time

onwards that lions were bred, either in designated hunting

parks or royal zoos, just like the Gir lion was bred in the late

nineteenth century.” Which contemporary chronicler or even

a later one mentions Alexander bringing over the lion from

Persia to India, let alone releasing them in this country? The

erudite book Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the

Macedonian Army states that ‘... the Macedonian army [was]

the fastest, lightest and most mobile force in existence ... Even

when the size of his army increased, Alexander took great

pains to retain its lightness and mobility by destroying wagons

and excess baggage and by eliminating followers. Only

horses, mules, and camels were used in Alexander’s baggage

train because they have greater speed and endurance than

oxen or donkeys.’ (Engels 1978, p. 23) Would such a lean

and peripatetic army transport lions? Since Alexander was

not carrying wagons, lions could not have come in cages.

Did they arrive on horseback?

Which original source mentions that imported lions

were bred in captivity by the monarchs of India prior to the

19th century? As for the statement that the Gir lion was bred

in captivity in the 19th century, it is another assumption

without the citing of any evidence whatsoever. We are familiar

with the conservation and captive breeding of the Gir lion

from the 19th century onwards and can categorically state

that though the Gir lion was bred in the Sakkarbaug Zoo in

Junagadh and elsewhere for zoological purposes, not a single

captive-bred lion was introduced into the wild, nor is there

any record of a lion escaping from captivity and establishing

itself in the wild.

Valmik Thapar quotes Laszlo Bartosiewicz that

“Craniological traits of the now extinct North African Barbary

lion (Panthera leo leo Linnaeus, 1758) and Asiatic lon

(Panthera leo persica Meyer, 1826) are very similar. There

must have been a contiguous population inhabiting North

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Africa and Asia.” Of course there was such a contiguous

population linking the North African lion with the Asian one,

as mentioned earlier. Are we to presume that the lion

colonization westwards stopped on the borders of Iran, despite

all the evidence there is to the contrary, because some of us

wish it that way?

Valmik Thapar goes on to say “I think it is extremely

unlikely that a genetically distinctive subspecies could have

existed in the subcontinent... I believe there was never an

“Asiatic” cheetah... that the Indian (or Asiatic) lion and the

Indian (or Asiatic) cheetah are not distinctive subspecies but

are exotic aliens that live (or lived) in the land of the tiger...

Till the end of the nineteenth century, there were more lions

seen in royal menageries than in the wild and hundreds (if not

thousands) of cheetahs on leashes were recorded as being

readied for coursing on bullock carts, but not even a handful

were encountered in the wild... I believe that, in the absence

of wild populations, hundreds of cheetahs were brought to India

as gifts and tributes from visiting dignitaries (1590—1600).”

Except for the critical first decade of the 20th century, there

were always more Indian lions in the wild than in captivity,

which applies for the present as well, and today, there are more

tigers in captivity the world over than in the wild. But what

does all this prove — that the captive animals have been

imported? As for the hundreds (if not thousands) of captive

cheetahs being prepared for the hunt, this is during the Mughal

period and ‘not even a handful — encountered in the wild’ refers

to the British era two centuries later. If the tiger could suffer a

100% decline in one century, cannot the cheetah and the lion

suffer a larger decline in four? Besides, if Valmik Thapar admits

that there were, indeed, thousands of cheetah in captivity and

that they are poor breeders in captivity, were they imported in

thousands without a single record of import being found prior

to 1918? As for the ‘visiting dignitaries’ that are purported to

have given gifts and tributes of cheetahs to Akbar during 1590

and 1600, it could only have been the Portuguese and Oriental

dignitaries, as the East India Company was founded only in

1599 and its representatives and the French came later. Is there

a single mention of any imported cheetah given as a gift or

tribute mentioned in the chronicles of the meticulous Abul Fazl

or in any other contemporary source? Neither history nor natural

history can be founded upon surmises based upon wishful

thinking.

Before considering the possibility of imported lion and

cheetah escaping captivity and establishing sizeable

populations over a large range in India, which is the theme of

the book, it would be appropriate to consider certain basic

issues. If the lion was brought into India first with or before

the invasion of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BCE as

is purported by the authors of the book, they would have

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

become highly domesticated over the long period of over-

land travel and entirely dependent on their captors for their

food. Could they have survived an existence in the wild after

becoming free and able to hunt wild prey on their own? We

are all familiar with the difficulties in establishing captive

carnivores in the wild and the fatalities that they suffer in the

process. The expertise that man has developed in this regard

was not known then. Furthermore, even if some escapee lion

and cheetah survived recapture and were able to capture wild

prey, could they have survived the competition that they would

have had to face from the large populations of large carnivores

already in occupation of the country’s wild lands, and then to

have multiplied to the numbers that are recorded in history

and to have spread so widely? The only record that exists of

imported animals being released in the wild in India, in this

case African lions introduced in the early part of the last

century by Maharaja Madho Rao Scindia of Gwalior, met

with failure. The predicament of the cheetah would have been

much worse, as it is a much smaller and a far more timid

predator. Besides, cheetahs are notoriously poor breeders in

captivity, a fact which is highlighted by Emperor Jahangir

himself in his memoirs and is admitted by Valmik Thapar,

who circumvents this factor by conjecturing that these cheetah

must, therefore, have been imported into India in their

hundreds (if not thousands).

The only other record of imports that exist are of a few

African lions being imported as exhibits in zoos and there is

no record of any of these escaping into the wild.

Divyabhanusinh makes a generous estimate that less than

200 cheetahs were imported between 1918 and 1950 by Indian

princes for the sport of coursing blackbuck (Divyabhanusinh

2006, p. 155). However, Valmik Thapar ventures that “my

research shows that at least 1,200—1,500 cheetahs could have

been imported into India in the 20th century.” No evidence

cited. Our extensive research over three decades has not

thrown up a single record of either of the two cats escaping

their handlers to go feral and proliferate in the wild.

The first chapter of the book “The Lion: From Pride to

Metaphor’ by Professor Thapar is a fine exposition of the

lion’s position in Indian culture and tradition. She begins with

the disarming statement that “I am not a specialist in the

history of wildlife in India let alone the lion’, and that her

“intention is not to prove or disprove India being the natural

habitat of the lion or the cheetah, but rather to consider when

their presence came to be recorded and how they were

perceived.” Yet she goes on to question whether the Indian

subcontinent was a natural habitat of the lion, in ‘contrast

with the tiger whose indigenous habitat being India, apart

from elsewhere in the East, cannot be questioned.’ Any layman

naturalist would agree that the lion habitats of southern and

eastern Africa are very similar to the present and past habitats

of the lion in India. As for the tiger having its ‘indigenous

habitat’ in India, does Professor Thapar claim that the tiger

evolved in India, a premise that even Valmik Thapar does not

assert? We presume not, and therefore, do not put forth for

the present the voluminous and incontrovertible evidence that

proves beyond doubt that the tiger evolved in northern and

north-eastern Asia and is an entrant into the Indian

subcontinent, like the lion and the cheetah.

Professor Thapar mentions the lack of depiction of the

lion on Harappan seals and in the rock art of Central India,

including Bhimbetka. However, the lion has been depicted

in the rock art of Bhimbetka (Badam and Sathe 1992, p. 190).

In an exhaustive study of the cave paintings of Bhimbetka,

Yashodhar Mathpal has reported three lions from there, the

one in shelter C-21 executed in transparent vermilion and

two in shelter C-50 painted in opaque colour. One of these

three paintings he assigns to the pre-historic period and the

other two to the historical period. He also identifies a painting

in shelter C-9 as a cheetah in the historical period (Mathpal

1984, pp. 103, 104, 206, 210). Lions are also depicted in cave

paintings in the districts of Bhilwada, Bundi, and Tonk in

Rajasthan.

Professor Thapar points out further that the lion is

conspicuous by its absence, unlike the tiger, on the seals,

pottery, etc. found in Harappan cities, including in areas of

Gujarat where the Harappans had settled and where lions are

still to be found. The Harappan script has defied interpretation.

We do not know why depictions of some animals have so far

not been found and we have no answer yet as to why a

mythical animal, the unicorn, is so commonly shown. We

also do not know, for example, why the ubiquitous leopard

and gazelle are also absent. Are we, therefore, to conclude

that these animals too, did not exist in India at that time, like

the lion? After all, the absence of an animal in the pictorial or

sculptural record is not proof that it never existed. Such

artifacts are about cognition and perception, as much as about

real life presence. Professor Thapar also states that lions were

imported in recent times in Gujarat where they thrived. There

is no record of such imports resulting in feral populations of

lions and she gives no evidence of any imports actually having

been carried out.

Though the lion is not depicted in the exquisite seals of

the Harappan period (c. 2600-1700 BcE), it makes its

appearance in Indian art in the form of terracotta figurines a

little later. A coin dating from 2nd century BCE recovered from

Taxila, Pakistan, also illustrates a lion (Gorakshkar 1979,

p. 12). They are also carved in terracotta bricks and figurines

of the 5th century ce, found both in Sindh, Pakistan and in

Mathura of the Gupta period (Gorakshkar 1979, pp. 7-11). It

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

is indeed significant that when the great warrior king Samudra

Gupta (c. 335-376 cE) conquered the Gangetic valley, the

abode of the tiger, he issued his tiger-slayer coins and when

his successor Chandra Gupta II (c. 376-415 ce) conquered

Malwa and Saurashtra where the lion lived, he commemorated

his victory by striking his lion-slayer coins (Iyer 1977,

p. 63). Are we to presume that all these lions were the progeny

of lions imported in ancient India?

It is contended that the lion makes its appearance in

ancient art forms only with the Mauryan pillars. This is only

partly true, as discussed above. Besides, prior to the Maurya-

Satvahana period the medium of artistic expression was wood,

which has not survived. Sculptures on stone appear during

this period and it would be incorrect to say that the lion is

only confined to Mauryan sculptures. The animal is

commonly depicted on the gateways of the stupas of Bharhut

and Sanchi. Indeed, the lion occurs far more frequently than

the tiger in ancient Indian plastic art, but that is not a proof

that there were no tigers or that they were far fewer than the

lion. Rather, the lion with its mane showed more impressively

than the tiger in such art forms.

Professor Thapar and her co-authors have largely based

their theory of the lion and the cheetah being aliens and

‘imported impostors’ on the grounds of lack of their depiction

in art and of mention in literature. When the lion does appear

in sculpture and otherwise, it is labeled as stylized and

unnatural and possibly adopted from Achaemenid Iran and

Assyria. Professor Thapar does say that the Rig Veda, the

earliest Aryan (Vedic) text dating from their first settlements

in the land of the five rivers (Punjab) in India, prior to the

last millennia BCE, mentions the lion but not the tiger, which

is first referred to in the subsequent Vedas when the Aryans

moved eastwards into the valley of the Ganga and the abode

of the tiger. But significantly, the lion is also mentioned in

these later Vedas, together with the tiger. Professor Thapar

tries to explain the mention of the lion in the Rig Veda, perhaps

because it would be ridiculous to claim that the Rig Vedic

lions could be imported escapees, by suggesting that the lion

could have been a memory of the Aryans from their Iranian

past, while they were settled in the Punjab when the Rig Veda

was written. And she postulates that the memory of the

franian lion perhaps still persisted with the Aryans when they

moved into the lower Ganga valley, millennia later! She goes

on to mention that the historian Arrian, writing in the 2nd

century cE but describing Alexander’s campaign in India in

the 4th century BcE, does not mention a lion hunt, but

Alexander is mentioned hunting lions in the trans Oxus area

of Balkh. She presumes, therefore, that lions could have been

imported from Balkh and Bactria, which were in close contact

with north-western India. How? Were they captured and

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

brought over high passes of the Wakhan Pamirs, the Himalaya

and the Hindu Kush, and released/escaped in India? Were

these the lions which were the progenitors of the lions which

Professor Thapar mentions are cited in the chronicles of Pliny

and Aelian writing in the early years of the Christian era?

Professor Thapar does not venture to clarify. Where did these

lions found in Balkh and northern Afghanistan originally come

from? Obviously from Iran, Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan.

Could not lions from the same Iranian population cross into

India through Baluchistan on their own, this being far nearer

and easier than the arduous trek that the lions themselves

admittedly undertook to reach Balkh from Iran? Do lions have

to be captured and carried over some of the most rugged and

high terrain in the world, in the 4th century BcE, under some

ostensible lion introduction programme, to be found in India?

As for the cheetah, Professor Thapar rightly points

out that references to it are rare. She refers to the work of

Erwin Neumayer on prehistoric rock art in India and says

that it does not depict this animal, nor the lion. She however,

omits mention of what was a pioneering and seminal work

on rock art by V.S. Wakankar and R.R.R. Brooks, which

clearly shows a Neolithic/Chalcolithic (2500—2300 BcE)

painting at Kharvai, east of Bhopal in Raisen district, Madhya

Pradesh, identified by the authors as that of the cheetah

(Wakankar and Brooks 1976, p. 45). Though the painting

(Fig. 1) is somewhat stylized and the depth of the body is

enhanced to show the large spotted cartouche within it, it is

obviously that of a cheetah and not of a leopard, which has

been depicted in other rock shelters in the Satpura National

Park and elsewhere in the neighbourhood, showing the head,

heavy thighs, and other features characteristic of the leopard

(Fig. 2). In the Kharvai painting, the thin, hound-like legs,

the small bullet-shaped drooping head with a short neck, the

tell-tale arched withers, and the concave spine whose elasticity

gives the cheetah its speed, are unmistakable. In the Karad

(Karabad) rock shelter west of Bhopal, a small and a large

cheetah trailing it (a cub and its mother?) are painted in a

style almost identical with the Kharvai cheetah and belong to

the same Chalcolithic/Neolithic period of c. 2500—2300 BcE

(Fig. 3). A spotted felid greatly resembling a cheetah, about

to be shot by a hunter with a bow and arrow, has been found

in the rock shelter at Chaturbhujnath in the Chambal valley.

There is another slightly crude painting but clearly that of a

cheetah, in the nearby rock shelter at Silajit, also in Raisen

district. Incidentally, paintings of leopard and tiger in these

profusely illustrated numerous rock shelters of this region,

are relatively rare. But that does not imply that these two

carnivores were rare in these forests, which even today hold

some of the highest populations of the tiger and of the leopard

in India.

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

Fig. 1: Cheetah painting from rock shelter at Kharvai, Raisen district, Madhya Pradesh. Chalcolithic/Neolithic period, c. 2500-2300 sce.

The characteristic small drooping head, short neck, arched withers, concave spine, and thin, hound-like legs are unmistakable

Fig. 2: Leopard painting from rock shelter at Baghbani, Raisen district, Madhya Pradesh. Chalcolithic/Neolithic period, c. 2500-2300 Bce.

Note the difference in physical configuration compared to the Cheetah above, especially the heavier limbs and head shape

8 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

Fig. 3: A pair of Cheetah, perhaps mother and cub;

Chalcolithic/Neolithic period, c. 2500—2300 sce.

Karad (Karabad) rock shelters near Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh

Equally significant are the archaeological bones of the

cheetah of the Mature Harappan Period (c. 3000-2500 Bce),

discovered at Kanmer, Gujarat (Goyal and Joglekar 2012) and

again at Raja Nal ka Tila, Uttar Pradesh, dated 700-200 BcE

(Joglekar, unpubl.). Are we to assume that cheetahs were

imported into India in the Harappan era?

Professor Thapar examines the Manasollasa which is

a 12th century compilation by Someshwara III, the Chalukya

king of western Deccan, which describes various methods of

hunting deer, one of them being vyaghraja. The description

here is that of a chitraka, a cheetah, also referred to as vyala

vyaghra, trained to hunt krishnasara (blackbuck) or harina

or mriga. Though there is multiplicity of names for both the

hunter and the hunted, the description of the process leaves

no doubt as to the identity of both (Divyabhanusinh 2006,

p. 27). She points out that the Chalukyas could well have

learnt this art from Arab contacts on the western coast. Once

again what evidence do we have of this?

Professor Thapar goes on to add “Unfortunately, the

texts that speak of trade between various parts of India and

places to the west and the north do not mention the coming

and going of large animals... However, animals such as the

one-horned rhinoceros and tiger, together with peacock and

parrot, are mentioned as common to the Deccan. These

animals find their way to the Mediterranean... If such large

animals could be transported, then so could the lion. But there

are no references to lions, neither coming to India nor being

sent out of India in these times.” The emphasis (italics) above

is added, but is a clear admission of the absence of evidence

for the core thesis of the book.

Yusuf Ansari states at the beginning of the chapter

‘Animals of the Chase’ that Persian, Greek, and Assyrian

accounts suggest that lions were exported or found their way

through trade into new ranges and this could be how the

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Asiatic lion came to India. He does not cite the authorities on

which this statement is based and goes on to state that this

holds more water than theories of Indus drying up and

allowing the lions to come from Persia. Lion dispersal through

Asia as a natural process is part of a much larger process of

mammalian migration over millennia. If this dictum has to

be challenged it cannot be done by propounding a theory

without any evidence to support it.

Yusuf Ansari, like his co-authors, expostulates that as

the lion was kept in game parks and hunting reserves

throughout its former range “Where the animal was enclosed,

bred and stocked to be hunted and as material for diplomatic

tribute and spectacle... This could be how the Asiatic lion

(Panthera leo persica) arrived in India”. Again this is an

assumption. Yusuf Ansari is a historian like Professor Thapar.

Yet neither cite concrete proof nor sources for their surmises.

In his second chapter in the book, Ansari states that “The few

instances in the Akbarnama which describe Akbar’s personal

capture of cheetahs occurred in or near imperial hunting

grounds, suggesting that the “captured” cheetahs were either

escapees or feral animals.” Firstly, hunting reserves and game

parks which are repeatedly mentioned by all three authors,

were reserves of the Mughals or other Indian royalty which

were strictly protected for hunting by the kings and their

family and guests. They were not stockades into which exotic

animals were introduced. If there was an encirclement of these

reserves, it was a temporary one with nets or barriers to

facilitate hunting for a given period, during the Mughal period.

If there was any captive breeding, it was only of lions, it

occurred only in cages, and there is no record and none cited

by the authors that lions were bred in large, stockaded game

reserves, or that any captive-bred lion was ever released into

any game park or reserve. Even assuming the surmise of the

authors that the lions were bred in captivity, where did the

parent stocks come from — imported and for which there is

no record? And for the cheetah which admittedly could not

be bred in captivity, where were they imported from in

thousands? The Asiatic cheetah is closer genetically to the

North African counterpart, as mentioned earlier. By the time

of the Mughals, there were few cheetahs left in North Africa

and the trade, such as it was, was with eastern Africa, from

where the celebrated Burchell’s zebra was imported to the

court of Jahangir. The Asiatic lion too is similar to the North

African animal, as discussed earlier. Is it claimed that the

Indian lion and the Indian cheetah in thousands were imported

from northern Africa? Were there any organized capture

undertakings prevalent in this region to enable such a mass

capture and translocation programme and transport over the

Indian Ocean thereafter? Is it purported that the lion and the

cheetah were captured in the Maghreb area of North Africa,

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

transported over land to Egypt and then shipped out through

the Red Sea? A theory must have some proof and practicality.

Ansari quotes Nizami that Qutb-ud-din Mubarak

(1316-1320) had two to three thousand deer-hunting panthers.

This he claims to be an exaggeration by Nizami to glorify

the king and his reign. But such an exaggeration would surely

be based on large royal menageries of cheetahs. Nizami’s

description is complemented by Shams Siraj Afif’s description

of Firoz Shah Tugluq’s menageries, which had so many

cheetahs that one could not count them. Is this too intended

to flatter the king? The statement could not have been made

if the royal court did not have a large number of these animals

for the chase in the first instance. Ansari goes on to assert

that the acquisition of lions appears to “astonish even the

court chronicler... In any case, the narrative undermines the

notion that lions commonly ranged all over north India in the

fourteenth century, and states the actual rarity of the animal.”

Let us examine Afif’s other statement, which Ansari

surprisingly does not quote: “Indeed, during his reign, by the

inspiration of the Lord God, Sultan Firoz Shah acquired a

number of lions (shir). And baz, turumti, bahri, shahin,

simtans and the like there came to be so many that it cannot

be brought within the grasp of human comprehension or

imagination.” (Hussain 1891, pp. 326-327; Divyabhanusinh

2006, p. 22). Clearly, the invocation of God and/or

astonishment is with reference to the entire menagerie, rather

than to the lions alone. Where did these lions and cheetahs

come from? Were they imported?

Ansari quotes A.L. Basham that the practice of hunting

with cheetahs may have been learnt from the Muslims. This

is no more than a suggestion and is in line with Professor

Thapar’s statement in the earlier chapter. One must then ask

as to how the Indians were taming pardalis and panthera

2000 years ago, as noted by Strabo the geographer and Aelian

the chronicler of animals?

As to the parks for hunting which Firoz Shah

maintained like many of his predecessors and successor, he

reserved areas including ‘wastelands’ for hunting, which he

improved by supplying water to increase the prey species.

But where is the evidence of the lion’s and the cheetah’s

imports and release into these hunting reserves?

In his chapter “Shahanshah’s Shikar’, Ansari points out

that Babar does not give any details of the lion or cheetah in

his memoirs (Beveridge 1979, pp. 488-92). This is correct.

But does Babar mention the lion in Afghanistan, where the

authors of the book themselves admit the presence of lion and

where Babar spent far more time than his four years in India?

If not, would the absence of the mention of the lion in Babar’s

memoirs prove that the lion did not exist either in India or in

Afghanistan?

Abul Fazl’s description of cheetahs and their

management in his Ain-i Akbari, is a part of the description

of the Empire and its administration. This work clearly

mentions the large numbers of cheetahs at court. Abul Fazl

does not mention the import of any lion or cheetah.

Ansari points out that the record of 1,000 cheetahs of

Emperor Akbar has always been doubted and needs

‘conclusive burial’. Jahangir writes in his autobiography

that during his reign in 1613, a cheetah from his menagerie

mated with a female of its own accord and two and a half

months later three cubs were born and grew up. “This has

been recorded because it is strange’. The point he was

making was that though his father Akbar had 1000 captive

cheetahs at one time and he tried mating them, reproduction

did not happen (Rogers and Beveridge 1978, p. 240).

Jahangir was recording a very unusual event and it was in

this context that he records that his father had 1,000 cheetahs.

It was, therefore, not a statement boasting of his father’s

vast collection of cheetahs and must, therefore, be taken at

face value.

Ansari cites Raghu Chundawat, who gives an estimation

of the number of blackbuck required to sustain 1,000 and

9,000 cheetahs — the latter being the figure Akbar collected

in his reign of half a century.

It is worth noting that around 1600 cg, not more than

one fourth of the land mass was under permanent cultivation

and the density of the population at 35 to a square kilometre,

was half that of 1881 (Guha 2001, p. 60). In the late 19th

century, Rangarajan shows that the number of tigers killed

each year was 1600, leopards 2000 (Rangarajan 2001b,

p. 32). We are today reluctant to accept the incredible numbers

of ungulates and their predators that once roamed this country.

The authors of this paper were privileged to have witnessed

in their youth numbers which would appear fictitious to most,

and yet this was at the very end of the era of plenty. The

earlier hunting records of the princes and of the British speak

of much larger numbers and the hunting records of the

Mughals mention Qamargahs in which thousands of animals

were encircled and slaughtered. There is a mention of

one such Qamargah in 1567 near Lahore in which over

15,000 animals were killed (Ranjitsinh 1989, p. 2). So why

should we doubt the numbers of prey and predator species

that are quoted to us in medieval records?

Ansari quotes an instance of Raja Bir Singh Deo of

Orchha shooting one of Akbar’s cheetahs which had escaped

from captivity. However, the Raja was soon caught by the

people who were looking for the cheetah. This is not indicative

of cheetahs escaping in large numbers to found a wild

population. The point is: it took a strict, long, and painstaking

regimen to train a cheetah to hunt for man. It was an expensive

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

proposition. An escaped animal would be immediately

followed and brought back, as was the attempt in the instant

case. While there is no evidence of cheetahs being imported

during this time, an imported animal would have been even

more costly — too costly to let it roam free!

Mirat-i Ahmadi of Ali Muhammad Khan, a treatise on

administration during Aurangzeb’s time, states that cheetahs

found in north Gujarat ‘were better and superior’ in relation

to those from elsewhere and, therefore, the empire maintained

a special department in Gujarat ‘to catch, train and tame them’.

The treatise goes on to describe the organization of the

department in detail. Among several others there were

20 cheetah catchers in this department who were paid

Rs. 80 each (Ali 1930, p. 187). Jean de Thevenot visited

Ahmedabad about this time and he records that the governor

of the Suba does not allow anyone else to catch cheetahs

from jungles surrounding Ahmedabad (Sen 1949, p. 16).

Muhib Ali Khan Khass Mohalli, Akbar’s governor of

the Delhi Suba wrote a remarkable Baznama in which there

is a chapter on cheetahs. He writes: “It should be understood

that just as colour of hawks varies, so the colour of the cheetah

varies too. There are desert (rigi) cheetahs and mountain

cheetahs. Mountain cheetahs are ash grey (ramadi?) and some

of them red too. A true desert cheetah which has not... is not

very red in colour. (They are?) powerful and strongly built...

The mountain cheetah favours the shade and runs little. It

favours the shade because it always hunts in the shade. It

runs little because in the midst of the mountain jungle it takes

the gazelle unawares and catches it easily. But the desert

cheetah is not lazy when it is hot, but runs well. It knows

running well” (Mohalli). If Akbar’s cheetahs had indeed been

imported, such differentiation would never have been there.

There is a manuscript of the incomplete Baznama from

Tonk, Rajasthan, which is a 19th century copy of an earlier

document according to Professor Muzaffar Alam (pers. comm,

1994). According to this source, the cheetah is ‘found

everywhere and specially at five places: Multan (Punjab), Lakhi

Jungle (Sindh), Ajmer (Rajasthan), Gujarat, and Deccan. The

Yuz found in Multan and the forest of Lakhi is short and swift,

those found in Gujarat, are tall in height, while they are of

medium height in the Deccan.’ (Anon. undated)

James Forbes, the British traveller and chronicler of

the early 19th century, also records that the cheetahs of

‘Gujarat are the most esteemed’ though they are found all

over India (Forbes 1813, Vol. I, pp. 272-77).

Ansari refers to the Mughal scholar Annemarie

Schimmel, who makes an ‘intriguing assertion that cheetahs

had become thoroughly “acclimatized’’, especially in Gujarat’,

which could well imply their getting accustomed to captivity

while being trained, Gujarat being a well established source

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

of capture and training of cheetah. What Ansari does not quote,

from the same passage, is that the cheetahs ‘were caught in

the jungle, usually in pits, and then transported blindfolded,

in wicker covered carts to the stable for training’ (Schimmel

2005, p. 220). Is this another instance of selective referencing

where only convenient passages are quoted from a source?

The eminent historian Irfan Habib has meticulously

examined Mughal period records and has identified several

areas from where cheetahs were caught for the imperial court.

They were the environs of Pattan, Bhatnair, Bhatinda, and

Hissar in the Punjab and Haryana; Jodhpur, Nagaur, Merta,

Jhunjhunu, Amarsar, and Dholpur in Rajasthan; Jamnagar and

Sidhpur in Gujarat; and Alapur and Gwalior in Central India

(Habib 1986 sheets 4B, 6B, 7B, and 8B). If cheetahs were

indeed imported in huge numbers as alleged by the authors,

where was the need to resort to such extensive and expert

capture operations?

The only conclusion one can draw from the foregoing

is that cheetahs were in India for thousands of years to have

been found all over the Mughal Empire and to have acquired

sufficiently noticeable morphological and behavioural

differences, to enable the Mughals to identify them from

different regions and select the best for coursing blackbuck.

It is pertinent to record that the cheetahs had become a

nuisance to humans, like the lion, tiger, leopard, wolf, and

others, even as late as the British period. They too carried a

bounty on their heads and between 1872 and 1903, bounty

hunters accounted for 77 cheetah from various parts of India

(Rangarajan 1998).

Valmik Thapar has authored all the subsequent chapters.

In the chapter ‘In the Court of the Emperors’, he asserts that

the behaviour of Gir lions resembled large dogs. He describes

the calls of the forest department staff which attract them. He

neglects to note that owing to a large cattle population of the

Gir, lions prey on them, and they account for a substantial

part of their diet. Maldharis’ calls to their cattle naturally

attract lions, which the wildlife guards mimic. The behaviour

of lions in the Gir away from Sasan is not so tolerant of

humans. We remember photographing wary lions at dusk from

hides in the 1950s and early 1960s. Lion behaviour has

changed, as that of the tigers in Ranthambhore, and elsewhere.

Protection, and constant, close contact with humans have

made tigers diurnal and we and Valmik Thapar as well have

spent hours with tigers sitting (dog-like) in water and out of

it. The lions of the Gir are very tolerant of human presence

for various reasons. However, a recent study by a field

zoologist and a well-known lion expert who has studied

human-lion conflict for years, has found that lions attacked

humans 21.8 times (annual average) between 2000 and 2005

each year, and these attacks increased to 30.25 annually

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

between 2006 and 2010. In the latter period, there were

13 attacks (annual average) in the Gir West (Venkatraman

2012), which is the tourist epicentre. Lion behaviour has

undergone changes in times. There are also the well-known

works of Saberwal et al. (1994) of the late 1980s and early

1990s period and Rangarajan (2001a) for the 1899-1901

epoch, the latter referred to by contemporaries as a time of a

“reign of terror” by lions that hunted humans. To refer to

these large cats as mongrels, or dogs of mixed pedigree, is

indicative of a prejudice and bias and does not behove any

nature lover.

Valmik Thapar argues that since the nilgai was not the

lion’s natural prey, India did not have ‘the millions of

blackbuck that would have been needed for the “indigenous”

lions and cheetahs to feed on’. Firstly, India did have millions

of blackbuck, at least in the Mughal times. The eminent

scientist, C.P. Groves, estimated that the Indian subcontinent

had as many as four million blackbuck (Ranjitsinh 1989,

p. 44). T.C. Jerdon speaks of 10,000 blackbuck at a

government cattle farm at Hissar, Haryana (Jerdon 1874,

p. 277) where Ranjitsinh has also seen a thousand in 1956.

Jahangir records that in a 12 day hunt with cheetahs ‘within

the limits of Palam’ where Delhi’s airport is now situated,

426 antelope were caught (Rogers and Beveridge 1978,

p. 109). Ranjitsinh who has done his doctorate on the

blackbuck, has reason to believe that the Saurashtra Peninsula

alone had over 80,000 blackbuck as late as 1947 (Ranjitsinh

1989, p. 44) and Rajasthan had even more. He has seen over

3000 in one morning and records over 1000 in the Bhal area,

where the Velavadar National Park in Gujarat is situated

(Ranjitsinh 1997, p. 169). Secondly, cheetahs did not live on

blackbuck alone but also preyed on gazelle, pig, young nilgai,

primates, hare, peafowl, cheetal, and four-horned antelope

which were far more widespread than they are today. The

blackbuck was no prey of the lion, and it is absurd to say that

they were dependent on this antelope and the nilgai. Wild

pig, sambar, and cheetal were also their prey then as they are

now. Valmik Thapar mentions that there are very few records

of encounters with prides of lion in India, whilst in Africa a

pride of lions can have as many as 30 beasts. Apparently, the

author is not very familiar with the Indian lion. We have seen

a pride of 26 members and several with over 10.

Valmik Thapar asserts that “it is inconceivable that lions

could have swum across the Indus (unlike tigers, they hate

water).” Recent radio telemetry on Gir lions has revealed that

lions often swim across large stretches of water. A pride of

eight lions was recorded swimming across a 2 km stretch of

deep water on several occasions and this pride was observed

to make use of deep water to make a kill by driving the prey

into the water and killing it there. Thus, the proposition that

Indus would have been a formidable barrier for lions to cross

and that it needed to dry up for lions to cross it naturally, is

not an acceptable theory (Jhala pers. comm. 2013) Anyone

who has watched the National Geographic documentary

‘Swamp Lions’ of the Okavango in Africa, where lions live

almost an amphibious existence for a part of the year, would

not believe that lions ‘hate’ water. Valmik Thapar cites that

there is no proof of the occurrence of lions in Afghanistan

and Baluchistan, and hence, how could they have migrated

into India. But the lion need not and perhaps did not cross

into India over the Hindu Kush from Afghanistan, as the more

obvious route would have been from Iran through southern

Baluchistan and the Mekran coast. This inhospitable and arid

tract is not conducive to the preservation of any evidence

and has no record of the passage of any animal movement of

the past, including that of the ostrich and others. The Sinai

Peninsula also does not record the passage of the lion and

others, but that does not imply that the Sinai and the Mekran

coast/southern Baluchistan were not land bridges of animal

migrations. It would be pertinent to mention that cheetahs

which must have also used the Mekran-Baluchistan passage

into India, were reported in that area till as late as 1997

(Divyabhanusinh 2006, pp. 194-197). Thapar goes on to say

that lions were trafficked, especially to Rome from about the

3rd century BCE to about the 5th century ce. This export was

from the Barbary coast of North Africa, which was already a

part of the Roman Empire and ships regularly plied the

Mediterranean. Bringing the lions to India from the North

African coast would have meant a trans-shipment to the Red

Sea, as there was no Suez Canal then. Is there any report of

this anywhere?

Valmik Thapar then goes on to say that in the 20th

century when the Indian lion had almost become extinct, ““The

Nawab of Junagarh decided to manage the population in Gir

(his then designated hunting ground) through intensive

artificial feeding and protection. Did the Mughal emperors

do the same in their time? Was the “Royal Lion House” a

breeding and holding station to train lions for the court and

release them into the stage-managed hunting grounds of the

emperors?” The Nawabs of Junagarh fed lions in only the

Sasan area of Gir and that too only when they had to shoot or

show lions to their guests. Valmik Thapar, however,

conclusively claims “Whatever might be the truth about

Ashoka’s lion pillar, one fact is certain... the lion in it did not

come from lions in the natural landscape of India but from

connections across the seas.” Again he asserts “Whichever

way you look at it, exotic animals were brought in from across

the seas, be it from Mombassa, Zanzibar or Mozambique and

all of them were dropped off on the western coast,” and “as

far as am concerned cheetah in India came into the country

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

as gifts or tributes and were imported by land and sea from

Africa and Persia’. The absence of proof and the dogmatic

assertions continue.

Valmik Thapar quotes Guggisburg to assert that there

were no lions in Afghanistan. This is contrary to Professor

Thapar’s assertion that this was the Rig Vedic land and it

held lions. Joslin reports that there were lion reports from

Afghanistan till 1888, from Sindh up to 1847 and from Iran

up to 1942 (Joslin 1973). Baluchistan was a difficult place

then as it continues to be today, and no one has recorded

lions there in the 19th and 20th centuries, apart from one

probable instance from Las Bela in 1920. Further, Valmik

Thapar comments that the Nawab of Junagadh decided to

‘manage’ the lion population. What does he mean? They

protected them certainly, but there is no record of breeding

them for releasing them in the wild. He goes on to state

that because of royal privilege, anything to do with lions

“was always kept secret and that is one of the reasons why

there are so many missing links in our understanding of

this species”. This is not a responsible claim or statement

and such conjectural assertions cannot be accepted as

fact.

Again we have Guggisburg being quoted: He ‘thinks’

Indian princes may occasionally have trained lions for the

chase. No authority has been cited either by Guggisburg or

by Valmik Thapar. The latter writes “while others have

described lions at Jahangir’s court, it is odd that the emperor’s

own memotr do not mention a single lion... the reason Jahangir

does not dwell on lions or lion hunts is because the animal

was so rare...”. If anyone reads the Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, he

will be impressed at Jahangir’s description of his lion hunts.

He records shooting of two lions which were making a

nuisance of themselves between Panipat and Karnal in 1608;

the Anup Rai incident of 1610; demonstrating his skill to

Prince Karan of Mewar at Ajmer in 1615; the famous Noor

Jahan’s shikar of 1617 near Mandu, when she shot four lions,

when he gave her a fabulous gift, and there are other such

instances. In fact, two of these incidents have been

immortalized in two remarkable paintings. Jahangir goes on

to record that in a span of 39 years he had shot 86 lions. In

1610, he records having shot seven lions near Rupbas in a

hunt of 56 days, when he also shot 70 nilgai, 51 blackbuck,

and 82 other animals (Thackston 1999, pp. 108, 216). Valmik

Thapar quotes Tavernier to illustrate how lions were tamed

and made safe for display at court. But where did the lions

come from?

Valmik Thapar mentions that the inveterate Arab

traveller Ibn Batuta, who traversed India between 1324 and

1354, never mentions the lion. But does he mention the tiger

and if he does not mention either the tiger or the lion, are we

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

to presume that neither existed in India in his time? Valmik

Thapar states that Jahangir does not mention the lion, because

this animal was so rare. But then what happened to the

numerous lions which Valmik Thapar and his co-authors claim

were in royal menageries and were regularly released in royal

hunting reserves? More of this later.

Both the translators, Rogers and Beveridge, of the

Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri and others including Valmik Thapar have

been misled by the confusion over the words Shir and Babr.

The Persian word shir means a lion, whereas the word babr

means a tiger (Humphrys and Kahrom 1995, pp. 75, 77;

Firouz, 2005, pp. 65, 66). In popular Hindi or Urdu parlance,

just the opposite is the case. Emperor Jahangir wrote his

memoirs in Persian and in his own hand. He knew what he

was observing and writing. The confusion is ours. Mughal

miniature paintings are full of lions. The tiger on the other

hand is prominent by its near total absence during the reign

of the Great Mughals.

Valmik Thapar repeatedly mentions the flourishing

trade in exotic animals, especially lions. But quotes no record

of any imports of lion and cheetah in India in the medieval

period, nor during the existence of the East India Company.

Neither of us, both being students of history, have ever come

across any such record either. As the entire thesis that the

lion and the cheetah are exotic imports 1n India is based upon

the paucity of mention in ancient records and of portrayal in

prehistoric art, should not the total absence of mention of

this purported import in medieval and modern records also

indicate that such imports never occurred?

Valmik Thapar quotes F.G. Careri, who mentions

countless tigers near Diu on the coast of Saurashtra, to claim

how domesticated and ‘dog-like’ the captive lions were in

India and therefore “appear to have been bred in hunting

grounds as they seem tame enough to be jumped on and beaten

to death.” The relevant quote from Careri states that when

the African slaves of the Portuguese saw a lion astray in the

woods, one slave would distract the lion while the next Black

(slave) “very dexterously takes the Beast by the Testicles and

then they beat him to death”. Does Valmik Thapar really

believe that even a most decrepit tame lion, let alone a wild

one, would allow anyone to catch it by its testicles and then

to beat it to death?

Careri also describes a lion hunt which he confesses

he had not seen, but “was generally told to me by the

Portuguese: The Reader may believe what he pleases”. On

this basis Valmik Thapar chooses to believe and conclude

that the lions appear to have been bred in hunting grounds

“as they seem tame enough to be jumped on or beaten to

death”.

Valmik Thapar goes on to rely on the same Francis

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

Gemeldi Careri, who records a lion brought to Goa from

Mozambique, which was being sent to the king of China.

Careri asserts that there were very few lions on the coast of

Gujarat or Goa. But, there were never any lions near Goa in

recent times. Its coastline indeed held tigers as indeed did the

coast of present day Gujarat near Daman. But at Diu, which

is close to Gir, Careri claims he saw tigers. Are we expected

to give credence to this? The Saurashtra Peninsula has never

had tigers. The occurrence of tigers in Daman on the south

coast of Gujarat does not imply that lions should also have

been there as the lion habitat in Saurashtra is not far away, as

Valmik Thapar claims. A look at an atlas would show that a

wide stretch of the Gulf of Cambay lies between Daman and

the Saurashtra coast. Valmik Thapar goes on to say that there

were Dutch, British, and Portuguese vessels, and the Mughal

fleet which carried lions and cheetahs along with zebras and

giraffes. He, however, as usual does not give the source of

his information.

Valmik Thapar quotes R.G. Burton to show that 19 lions

were shot between 1847 and 1872 in Gwalior and Guna, the

territories of the Scindia rulers of Gwalior, which boasted

not only large menageries ‘but also restocked their forests

with African lions’. But African lions were only imported in

Gwalior in the 20th century and there is no record whatsoever

of any captive lions having been released by Gwalior in the

Wer

i |

19th century. So, where did the 19 lions shot between 1847

and 1872 come from? The portrayal of lions in the Kotah

School of Art is explained by “There were probably large

animal menageries in Kotah, and Bundi, and it is likely that

lions were released into the forests of that kingdom as a result

of the numerous battles between the British and Indian rulers

at the time.” But there were no battles between the rulers of

Kotah, Bundi, and neighbouring princes with the British. If

there is no evidence of existence of lion or cheetah, it is

presumed that they never existed. If they are in evidence, then

it is presumed that that was ‘probably’ because of breeding in

menageries! There could possibly never have been non-feral

non-escapee lions and cheetahs in India, is the gist of the

argument. To support the repeated contention that lions were

in stockades and bred in captivity, Valmik Thapar mentions

in the caption below the illustration of a lion hunt in Kotah,

opposite p. 11 of the book, a ‘thick wooden fence in the

foreground and background’. A cursory look would show that

these so-called wooden fences are in fact lines of trees painted

in a stylized fashion. Is this an attempt to deliberately mislead

the gullible?

Valmik Thapar again avers that the lion ‘had always

been rare, which in turn can only mean it was never an

indigenous species that had established itself in this country.’

How much time does a species require to be regarded as

Fig. 4: “Lion at a water hole.” Attributed to Emperor Jahangir’s painter Nanha, c. 1618

(courtesy Maharaja Sawai Mansingh Il Museum, Jaipur). The young lion’s moderate mane growth over its head exposes its ears

and it has a prominent black tassel on its tail. These are noticeable morphological characteristics of the Asiatic subspecies

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

established in the country or indigenous? Certain species such

as the caracal, which possibly also came from Africa like the

lion and the cheetah, were always rare and had very restricted

distribution in the country. But that does not make them non-

indigenous.

Valmik Thapar goes on to say that the last decades of

the 19th century were “a time when there were endless

rumours that African lions were being brought on dhows from

Africa to facilitate hunting, especially by princes who took it

as arite of passage.” Can he quote the source of the rumours?

Is the belief that Indian lions were imported from Africa even

as late as the end of the 19th century, be based on mere

rumours?

Then, there are statements by Valmik Thapar which are

untrue. He claims that Maharaja Ganga Singh of Bikaner shot

3,300 sandgrouse in one shoot in 1925. This was the bag of

the entire hunting party and not of one individual. No single

person has ever shot on record 3000 birds in a single shoot.

Thapar goes on to say that palaces like the one in Dungarpur

in Rajasthan “had wall paintings that depicted numerous

African animals, mostly boasting their presence in their private

forests”. Being closely related to the erstwhile ruler of

Dungarpur and having therefore lived in the Palace there,

Ranjitsinh can firmly assert that there are no such paintings

in the Palace in Dungarpur. Further, Valmik Thapar, quoting

from Kailash Sankhala and V.D. Sharma, says that “Among

the princely states of Saurashtra (now Gujarat) Bhavnagar

and Wankaner were equally famous for organizing the hunting

of blackbucks by using cheetahs. Bhavnagar had its agent in

Mombassa, Kenya, who regularly supplied the menageries

with African cheetahs. The same is true of Wankaner.” Valmik

Thapar goes on to add that the Kutch and Jamnagar princely

states also ‘Had royal menageries overflowing with cheetahs”.

The State of Bhavnagar did have cheetah imported from Africa

in the first half of the 20th century. However, since one of the

authors of this paper belongs to the erstwhile princely family

of Wankaner and the other is closely related to it, we can

positively affirm that the State of Wankaner never possessed

cheetah for purposes of blackbuck hunting or otherwise, and

never imported any cheetah from anywhere. They can also

affirm that neither Kutch nor Jamnagar kept any captive

cheetahs for coursing at any time, and the statement of Valmik

Thapar in this regard is also false.

Valmik Thapar says he has examined several paintings

and it struck him “that the painters were unfamiliar with the

animal depicting it in all manner of strange shapes and

sizes...” However, he himself has reproduced accurate

renderings such as on pages 121 and 122 and there are scores

more, such as Mansur’s in the St Petersburg Muraqqa

(album); a painting which came in the public domain recently

titled ‘Landscape with Lions and Figures’. There is a lioness

in it sitting by the remnants of a human skeleton while a

male lion is killing a nilgai; one entitled “Jahangir showing

his hunting skill”; “Lion at a water hole” (Fig. 4;

Divyabhanusinh 2008, pp. 96, 103, 106, 247) and many

more. One has to allow some leeway to the painters who

were rendering the animals in a particular style, but there

are precise studies such as the one in St. Petersburg

Muragqga, where the lion’s rendering is as realistic as any

by a modern day artist.

Quoting Bernier, Valmik Thapar says that “Except in

Kathiawar, lions are now never met with in any part of India”

in the mid-17th century. We are indeed most surprised to read

this. We have checked Travels in the Mughal Empire AD 1656-

1668 by Francois Bernier, translated by Archibald Constable

and revised by Vincent A. Smith, published by Oxford

University Press, p. 378. The quoted sentence is a footnote

by Vincent Smith or Archibald Constable, dated c. 1934 and

not by Bernier himself!

Valmik Thapar quotes Professor Helen Basu: “In fact

when the Nawab brought African lions to the Gir forest he

also settled some sidis to take care of them.” Sidis (Indians

of African origin) are spread over in Saurashtra peninsula

and elsewhere in Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Karnataka. When

did the Nawab import lions and which Nawab of Junagadh

did so from Africa to stock the Gir? What is the source of her

assertion? Divyabhanusinh has made an extensive search in

the Junagadh State records, but he has not come across any

document pertaining to imports of African lions to stock the

Gir or of the arrival of Sidis to take care of them.

It must be borne in mind that state records of the

Junagadh state are available and the state affairs of the

Sultanate and Mughal periods of medieval Indian history have

been recorded by chroniclers of the likes of Abul Fazl and

scores of others, in some detail. When the ruler in question

was interested in hunting, as in the case of Firoz Shah Tughlaq,

Akbar, Jahangir, and others, details pertaining to the hunt are

more in evidence in the various Jarikhs and Namas. Only a

prince keenly interested in hunting could have ‘imported’ lions

or cheetahs for sport. Would such an event of importance in

what was a passion or a prime pastime of the ruler not be

recorded in his chronicles, especially when one considers that

the import of exotic specimens such as the zebra, dodo, and

the Barbary falcon not only find special mention, but were

recorded in specially commissioned paintings?

The chapter ‘The Last Lions’ opens with a quote from

Capt. Thomas Williamson’s Oriental Field Sports and from

its page 130 ‘As for lions there are none in Hindustan...’

And only lion seen was the one from Ghod in 1781, presented

to Governor-General Warren Hastings. The work was

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

published in 1807 by Edward Orme. The reference says,

“(New York printed for Edward Orme) P. 130”. The

bibliography on the other hand simply says, ‘Edward Orme,

1807’. On checking the latter’s facsimile reprint of 1987 by

Anthony Atha Publishers Ltd., it was found that the said page

deals with ‘Plate XXXVI Killing Game at the Inundation of

An Island’. The referred quote does not find place on it. The

word lion does not appear in the index either. Thus, we are

unable to check the context of the statement. It is hoped that

this is not another attempt to mislead the reader. Incidentally,

Valmik Thapar states in the epilogue of the book that

Williamson did not come across any cheetahs and lions while

out pig-sticking in Bengal. He was not likely to, as the two

cats preferred a different kind of landscape and did not exist

in Bengal during that period. Valmik Thapar, however, does

not point out the fact that Williamson also gives a fairly long

account of hunting with cheetah and caracal in the same work

(Williamson 1807, p. 144). Atwo volume edition of the same

book was published the next year, 1808, in which a drawing

of a pair of cheetahs by Samuel Howett appeared as the

frontispiece of the second volume (reproduced in

Divyabhanusinh 2006, p. 82).

Valmik Thapar quotes Thomas Pennant who says that

the environs of Rohtas and Gur (Gir?) have numerous lions.

Pennant does not deny the existence of lions but refers to

those who deny their existence and says that “here was a royal

menagerie, and that the breed was propagated from the beasts,

which had escaped’. Who were these persons in denial?

Referring to Ain-i Akbari which “is silent whether they had

or had not been aborigines of Hindustan’, Valmik Thapar

thereby once more casts serious doubts about lions being

‘aborigines’ of Hindustan. The question: would Abul Fazl

have neglected to record imports of lions? His work is a

detailed description of the administration under Emperor

Akbar and the Mughal Empire would have had to spend

considerable sums to import them on a regular basis.

Sir Charles D’Oyly, the renowned Company School

artist, painted a two volume album of shikar indulged in by

the British, in what is now Bihar, Jharkhand, and West Bengal.

It contained 63 water colour paintings, which had among

others nine paintings of hog hunting, seven of tiger shooting,

six of lion shooting, three of leopard shooting, and one of

hunting with cheetahs (D’Oyly 1810-15). Valmik Thapar

omits mention of this source, though his work is

contemporaneous of Williamson.

Valmik Thapar quotes James Forbes’s description of a

lion shoot in 1781, which took place on the banks of Sabarmati,

fifteen ‘coss’ from Cambay (Khambhat) in Gujarat. Yet, in his

very next paragraph Valmik Thapar says, Forbes was convinced

that lions existed only on the borders of Persia!

Valmik Thapar and Yusuf Ansari do not even surmise

as to when they believe the imported cheetahs and lions

escaped, as they claim, from captivity in ancient India, or if

in the mediaeval period, whether during the Delhi Sultanate

or the Mughal era. If Akbar did have the thousands of cheetahs

in captivity as the records show and had they indeed been the

progeny of feral animals, they must have become feral

millennia ago to have bred in such large numbers to have

become so widespread by the Mughal period. So were the

lion and cheetah imported in ancient India and if so, in

approximately what period and from where? This would also

raise the question of trade and communication between India

and Africa and the efficacy of vessels to transport large and

dangerous carnivores such as the lion and cheetah, in that

ancient era. Professor Thapar states categorically that there

is no record of lions being traded in the ancient period. The

same goes for the cheetah. We have also found no such record

in the later periods as well, as noted earlier.

There is no doubt that in comparison with the tiger or

the leopard whose numbers go into thousands being shot, the

number of lions being killed is small. However, between 1820

and 1860, one can account for 494 lions killed for sport outside

of Saurashtra (Kathiawar). These are the shikar records of

Frazer, Smith, and in Bundi and Kotah (Divyabhanusinh 2008,

p. 123). Joslin’s figure of lions shot outside Kathiawar

between 1863 and 1888, is another 37. There is no argument

on this score, though there would have been several more

lions killed and other encounters which would have gone

unrecorded. But does this low number mean that the lions

were non-existent or imported?

Valmik Thapar goes on to take the case of a “Colonel

A. Smith’. Presumably, he means Colonel George Ackland

Smith. He says that he claims to have shot between 50 and

300 lions around 1857-58 around Delhi and Haryana. As

usual, there is no reference to where the information came

from. Actually, the story is somewhat different. Norman B.

Kinnear, who was curator of the Bombay Natural History

Society, wrote an authoritative paper in the Society’s Journal

in which he says, “Central India in these early days [early

19th century] was one of the strongholds of the lion and to

give an idea of its numbers we may mention that Lydekker

was informed that during the Mutiny [1857-58], Colonel

George Ackland Smith killed upwards of 300 Indian lions

and out of this number 50 were accounted for in the Delhi

District” (Kinnear 1920).

Anyone is free to challenge this figure with proper

research, but Valmik Thapar goes on to say that “during this

period of unrest, many menageries were looted and scores of

lions fled and that Smith may have succeeded in killing most

of this tame and captive population. Some may have been

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

Fig. 5: A pair of mature black maned lions in the Gir, refutes the belief that Indian lion had only a sparse, light-coloured mane.

Photograph: Divyabhanusinh. Reproduced from The Story of Asia’s Lions, Marg Publications, Mumbai,

revised and enlarged edition, 2008

killed in the private hunting parks of the local kings. There

was a definite link between the bloody conflict and the death

of lions”. Again there is no mention of the source for this

Sweeping statment, or the grounds of his surmise.

Valmik Thapar also refers to animal traders like

Hagenbeck (though the book of Rothenfeld from which he

refers to Hagenbeck, is on the beginnings of modern zoos).

The enormity of the trade in wild animals is mentioned, but

there is no mention of supply of lions to the menageries of

the princes in India, which were then allegedly used for release

and shikar. He goes on to say “I believe Indian Royalty

continued to import, tame and release lions into their game

parks.” No evidence is cited again.

Further on, Valmik Thapar says that few considered

lion as an important part of India’s natural world. This he

says in spite of all natural history works of Jerdon, Blanford,

Stuart-Baker, Sterndale, Finn, Lydekker, Pocock, Prater, and

others, which include the lion as a natural habitant of India!

Valmik Thapar goes on to state that when Prince Albert

Victor, the Duke of Clarence went to Gir to shoot a lion in

1890, he was offered East African lions which would be made

available and two lions were said to have come from Junagadh,

sent by the Diwan of Junagadh, but the offer was declined.

We are at a loss to find the source of this information.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Col. L.L. Fenton, who was present during this shoot simply

records that the Diwan Haridas Viharidas of Junagadh

suggested that the two lions sent from Junagadh during the

night, may be shot. In the event, the offer was refused. There

is no mention of these animals being from East Africa (Fenton

c. 1924, pp. 21-22).

The chapter ends with the statement that “At this point

the 15—20 lions that were left in the Gir were intensively

managed and reared by the Nawab of Junagadh in his private

hunting grounds. As a result of this, their population slowly

rose.” To start with, the figure of 12 to 20 was misleading

and has been challenged by the official historians of Junagadh

State. In fact, Nawab Rasulkhanji himself contradicted the

rumours (Edwards and Fraser 1907, p. 173; Divyabhanusinh

2008, pp. 178-179). L.L. Fenton who was in the Gir and in

Kathiawar (Saurashtra) in 1899 during the great famine,

expressed no such alarm except to say that the lions were by

then found only in the Gir (Fenton c. 1924, pp. 1-30). There

is no evidence whatsoever of the Nawab ‘rearing’ lions. In

view of the intense pressure on the Junagadh Darbar to issue

lion shooting permits to British and princely hunters who

wanted lion trophies, Junagadh usually pronounced

exaggerated lowly numbers of the lion to turn down the

requests (Divyabhanusinh 2008, pp. 180-181).

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

The chapter ‘The Age of Slaughter’ deals at length with

the depredation of the British and the Princes. There is,

however, a detailed account of Maharaja Madho Rao Scindia’s

failed attempts to introduce African lions in the wilds of

Gwalior state. This is the only such attempt known in India,

yet the author insists that it was “like many others had

probably done before him’! Further, he goes on to say that

Gwalior was not interested in Junagadh’s “leftovers” but

wanted the black maned lions from Africa. This 1s false.

Actually, Maharaja Madho Rao Scindia caused the British

Political Agent at Gwalior to write to the Political Agent in

Kathiawar for help in obtaining lions from Junagadh. The

latter made the request to Rasulkhanji. The Nawab personally

wrote back to the Political Agent to say that “the number of

the noble animals which was never very large has been so

much reduced of late...” because of various reasons including

the great famine of 1899-1900, illegal shooting, etc., he was

not in a position to spare his lions for Gwalior. It was only

after this rejection that Gwalior brought African lions

(Divvyabhanusinh 2008, pp. 190-191). Besides, Gir lions also

have spectacular black manes (Fig. 5). In the footnote to

Valmik Thapar’s reference on page 255 of the book for page

169, on which the Gwalior account appears, he says, “I believe

the regions between Agra and Gwalior are areas in which

lions have been bred since the Mughal era’. What is the basis

of this belief? The point to be noted is that Gwalior was one

of the largest states in India with an area of over 26,000 square

miles. Yet, it failed to introduce African lions in spite of its

vast forests and resources. Were the other princes, almost all

of whom were smaller and less resourceful, likely to succeed

where Scindia failed?

Further on, Valmik Thapar refers to Jean de Thevenot

and says that he is very clear that cheetahs were trained in

Gujarat, etc. This has been examined earlier, along with

Mirat-i Ahmadi. Then he goes on to say “J am sure they were

unloaded, at the harbor, acclimatized [Schimmel’s word

examined earlier] and trained there.” The question is where

is the Mughal period record of the cheetah trade for the court,

with the animals landing at a harbour in Gujarat or elsewhere?

Of course, cheetahs were caught from the wild in Gujarat,

trained and sent to court at Delhi. There were sufficient

cheetahs in the wild in India for a profession to develop for

catching them and selling them for purposes of hunting. The

Pardhi tribe took to it. These tribal people were known by

their trade and divided into professional groups. For example,

‘shikar pardhis’ were ones who used firearms to hunt; ‘phase

pardhis’ or ‘hiranshikaris’ were hunters of antelopes; ‘tilwale

pardhis’ were ones who sold crocodile oil; ‘cheetawale

pardhis’ were ones who trapped cheetahs in the wild, to supply

them to royalty and, therefore were also known as ‘raj pardhis’

(Kennedy 1908, pp. 133-134; Russell and Lal 1916, pp. 360,

366-367). The question to be asked is how many cheetahs

were in the wild and how long and how many generations of

the pardhi profession it took, to evolve into these specific

profesional groups?

Valmik Thapar refers to the cheetah book of

Divyabhanusinh, which states that Tipu Sultan’s cheetahs

could have been imported but was unlikely. He quotes the

same book further to state that trained cheetahs along with

caracals, lynxes, falcons, and hawks may definitely have

reached the menageries of Muslim invaders from Central Asia

or Persia. The emphasis is on the word ‘may’. It is a conjecture

and there is no evidence to support it.

It would be important to consider some other evidence.

A recent paper by Manamendra—Arachchi et al. (2005) has

reported new fossil evidence. To quote from the abstract of the

paper: ‘Tigers appear to have arrived in Sri Lanka during a

pluvial period during which sea levels were depressed,

evidently prior to the last glacial maximum c. 20,000 years

ago. The lion appears to have become extinct in Sri Lanka prior

to the arrival of culturally modern humans, c. 37,000 ybp’

(Manamendra et al. 2005). Another source too has recorded a

single fossil lion tooth in Sri Lanka (Sunquist and Sunquist

2002, p. 286; Deraniyagala 1958). A fossil broken mandibular

ramus containing a molar and the fourth premolar of a lion

(Panthera cf. leo), together with the fossil remains of the spotted

hyena (Crocuta cf. sivalensis), have been found in the oldest

alluvial Pleistocene deposits (c. two million years old), near

Susunia, Bankura district, West Bengal (Dutta 1976).

A study of the evolutionary dynamic of the lion

concludes that by the Mid Pleistocene, lions had already

occupied Europe, having proliferated from Africa and by the

Late Pleistocene (c. 130,000—10,000 years ago), lions had

the greatest intercontinental distribution for a large mammal

(excluding man), ranging from Africa into Eurasia and the

Americas (Antunes 2008). It is essential to look at the climatic

conditions and aridity of Sindh and Punjab during this period,

before concluding that the Indus was a barrier to lion dispersal.

This brings us to the cheetah. A recent study by

Charruau et al. (2011) has concluded that the genetic variation

in the current global cheetah population is more than

previously described. It goes on to state “The total nuclear

(microsatellite) diversity (H,,-0.766) is comparable with that

of other out bred felid species... The lower H,0.397 observed

in the Iranian cheetahs might be the consequence of ancestral

population divergence or a recent effective population size

reduction in this population... Remarkably, the North Eastern

African cheetahs were highly differentiated (nuclear

F.=0.170) from the Southern African individuals and

clustered independently and monophyletic’. From this, the

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

study concludes that “Iranian cheetah are an autochthonous

monophyletic population and the last representatives of the

Asiatic subspecies” (Charruau et al. 2011). Ignoring this study,

Valmik Thapar states, as we have noted earlier, that it would

be ‘facile’ to consider Asiatic cheetah to be indigenous to

Iran. How is it that the book does not take into account and

challenge these and other such studies on the two large cats,

but ignores them to reach what, apparently, are preconceived

conclusions?

Regarding the genetic evolution of the Asiatic cheetah,

the remarks of Dr. Y.V. Jhala are very pertinent: “The authors

of Exotic Aliens thankfully do not doubt the indigenous nature

of India’s endemic antelope, the blackbuck. The blackbuck is

the fastest land mammal on the Indian soil and this speed is

believed to have co-evolved to keep pace with predation

pressure from a faster predator, the Asiatic Cheetah. A similar

coevolution occurred between the Pronghorn and the North

American Cheetah (which became extinct about 15,000 years

ago), the pronghorn evolved its high speed under predation

pressure from the cheetah. With the extinction of the cheetah

in North America and India, the blackbuck and the pronghorn

do not have any predators that can match them in speed. Such

coevolution takes place over millennia where natural selection

shapes such traits in species.” It is unlikely that coursing by

captive tame imported cheetah was responsible for evolving

the speed of blackbuck over the few hundred years!

Considering the evolution and range expansion pattern of

cheetah based on latest genetic research (Charruau et al. 2011),

the Iranian and Indian cheetah form a monophyletic clade

along with cheetah from the Arabian peninsula and

Egypt that separated from their African cousins some

10-35 thousand years ago. Thus, the Asiatic cheetah has

distinct mitochondrial and nuclear DNA signature closer to

cheetah from North Africa but distinct from lineages in the

rest of Africa. The North African and Asiatic cheetah were

similar both for nuclear and mitochondrial markers and seem

to have been derived directly from the ancestral populations

in southern Africa. The East African cheetah form a cluster

distinct from the North African and Asiatic cheetah (Charruau

et al. 2011). If cheetah were imported into India from Africa

by sea as proposed by the authors of Exotic Aliens, their DNA

would align them with the East African lineage and not with

the Asian lineage. Thus, molecular taxonomy identifies the

Indian cheetah to have originated from the Asiatic lineage.

“Understanding of biogeography, ecology and genetics

suggests that a) Ethiopian fauna and flora including leopards,

lions, cheetahs, striped hyenas, honey badger, caracal, acacias,

and antelopes came into India from Africa through Persia,

b) distances between Persia and India could easily be traversed

by highly mobile species like the lion and cheetah. A Gir lion

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

tracked by satellite telemetry covered over 150 km in 3 days.

Dispersing individual cheetah from Iran have been recorded well

into the western border of Afghanistan and into Pakistan until

recently. There are no physical barriers to dispersal for these

species into India, as even plant communities and antelopes came

into India via this route” (Jhala pers. comm. 2013).

Valmik Thapar calls Asiatic lions a ‘khichdi’. We all

know it means a mixture. Actually, all the phylogenetic and

geographical evidence suggests that the Asiatic lion is a

distinct sub-species, reflecting an ecological separation of

many millennia, which also shows some features of

inbreeding, according to Stephen O’ Brien. So how are they a

‘khichdi’? Let us look at O’ Brien’s statement which finds no

place in Valmik Thapar’s book: »

‘Around twenty-five hundred years ago the Gir

[Saurashtra] peninsula was actually an island surrounded by

rising waters. The ancestral founders of the Gir lion population

were isolated from the larger mainland lion population, and

due to small numbers they suffered inbreeding over several

generations. Hunting and habitat occupation by human

developments had effectively extirpated the larger lion

populations over this period, leaving only Gir lions to occupy

once the peninsular water receded’ (O’Brien 2003, p. 51).

Apart from the lions not being ‘khichdi’, they were part of a

larger population twenty-five hundred years ago, in the

Saurashtra peninsula.

The question arises that if the lion in India was indeed

imported as is claimed, there should be no genetic difference

between the African and Indian lion, which today are

classified zoologically as Panthera leo leo (nominate African

subspecies) and Panthera leo persica, the Asian lion. If this

genetic difference is accepted, that would be a death-knell to

the whole contention that the lions were imported, because

even if the postulation of lion import from the era of Alexander

the Great is accepted, genetic changes that would warrant

the evolution of a new subspecies are not possible in a span

of 2000 years. So Valmik Thapar circumvents this obstacle

by stating that “The superficial differences between the Asiatic

or Indian lion and the North African lion are probably an

adaptation to the Indian climate, environment and inbreeding;

there is little possibility of it qualifying as a distinct

subspecies.’

In this regard, the observation of Dr. Y.V. Jhala is

significant: ‘The Indian lion differs in its skeletal (Skull) and

body morphology from its African counterpart (O’Brien

et al. 1987). Such differences occur in nature when

populations are separated for several thousands of years.

Occasional mixing of the populations resulting in exchange

of genetic material between populations does not permit such

traits to diverge between populations. Studies on lions show

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

that modern lions evolved from East and southern Africa about

200,000 years ago and spread to the north in two separate

waves, about 100,000 and 10,000 years ago. During the first

wave of dispersal, the lions crossed the current Sahara barrier

(which was then forested) to Northern Africa and into Persia

and then onto India, some 28,000 to 100,000 years ago. This

theory is supported by data from allozyme electrophoresis

(O’Brien et al. 1987) and mitochondrial and nuclear genes

of lions (Antunes et al. 2008; Barnett et al. 2006). There is

no evidence of genetic mixing between the North African-

Asian Lineages with those found in other parts of Africa

(Antunes et al. 2008). The authors of Exotic Aliens postulate

that lions were brought into India as human imports that

went feral and that such events occurred on several occasions

in historical times, resulting in a “khichdi” or a “mongrel”

breed of Indian lions. If that were the case, then Indian lions

should either have East African genetic lineage or be a

mixture of North African-Persian and East African lineages.

However, all Indian lions analyzed till date form a distinct

genetic cluster with their closest living relatives being the

lions from the Atlas Mountains and Morocco, the only living

relicts of the North African clade. They are distinct from East

African lineages and nor do they have a mixed lineage. Also,

the Indian lions have unique mitochondrial haplotypes that

have been derived from African lions but differ by several

mutational steps. The mutation rate of mitochondrial markers

is considered to be about one in 7000 years and this

molecular clock puts the time of divergence of Indian lions

from their African cousins to be between 70 to 130 thousand

years ago. This data clearly shows that Indian lions are relics

of a natural colonization event that occurred much before

human imports of lions could have started and that they

represent a unique evolutionary trajectory of lion lineage that

is ancient and merits serious conservation efforts. The genetic

data also rules out the proposed hypothesis that imported lions

from Africa became feral and interbred, as the current Gir

lions are a pure and distinct lineage and not a “khichdi” as

proposed by Exotic Aliens. Though closely related to the North

African lion, they do form a distinct and unique clade by

themselves.’ (Jhala, pers. comm. 2013).

It is evident that the authors of the book have not studied

in any detail the biogeography of the Indian subcontinent,

nor do they put forth compelling evidence or cite irrefutable

original sources to support their contentions. Merely stating

‘I believe...’, ‘Iam sure...’, ‘as far as 1am concerned...’ and

such like without adequate proof to support their surmises, is

neither scientific nor adequate, especially if the authors wish

to establish their theory in the face of empirical evidence to

the contrary, including fossil and archaeological bone data.

Besides, giving demeaning titles like ‘mongrels’, ‘“khichdi’,

‘impostor’, ‘facile’ and others to the purported ‘exotic aliens’

can give no credit either to the book or to its authors.

Denigrating a species in comparison with another does not

elevate the status of the preferred species and no species, let

alone the magnificent tiger, requires such contrived one-

upmanship. Propounding a theory merely on the basis of

surmises repeated ad nauseum, unsupported by any valid

proof, cannot be deemed to be a treatise on natural history,

let alone a scientific document.

After careful perusal of the book Exotic Aliens: The

Lion and the Cheetah in India we have come to the conclusion

that it has been written to support a preconceived notion and

to buttress the image of one iconic species. Raising a

controversy is a good way of ensuring success of a publication

and of garnering publicity. With the evidence placed forth in

this paper, the question would arise as to who is the ‘imposter’,

the book Exotic Aliens or the lion or the cheetah in India? Let

the reader decide.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are very grateful to all who have helped in

the writing of this critique, especially Dr. GL. Badam,

Dr. R. Mohanty, Dr. Y.V. Jhala, Smt. Chandra Chari,

Dr. Mahesh Rangarajan, Dr. P.P. Joglekar, Shri Ravi Singh,

and Shri Sundar Kanwal.

REFERENCES

Aut, SAYED NAwaB (Ep.) (1930): Mirat-i Ahmadi of Ali Muhammad

Khan. Oriental Institute, Baroda.

ANON. (UNDATED): Baznama. Manuscript from Oriental Institute, Tonk.

AGOSTINHO ANTUNES, JENNIFER L. TROYER, MELODY E. ROELKE, JILL PECON-

SLATTERY, CRAIG PACKER, CHRISTIAAN WINTERBACH, HANLIE

WINTERBACH, GRAHAM HEMSON, LAURENCE FRANK, PHILIP STANDER,

Lupwic SIEFERT, MARGARET DRICIRU, PAUL J. FUNSTON, KATHY A.

ALEXANDER, KATHERINE C. PRAGER, GUS MILLs, DAviIpD WILDT, MitTcH

Bus, STEPHEN J. O’ BRIEN, WARREN E. JOHNSON (2008): The

Evolutionary Dynamics of the Lion Panthera leo Revealed by

Host and Viral Population Genomics. PLoS Genetics 4(11).

BapaAM, G.L. & V.G. SaTHE (1992): Animal depictions in rock art and

palaeoecology: case study at Bhimbetka, Madhya Pradesh, India.

Pp. 196-208. Jn: Pager, S.A., B.K. Swartz Jr. and A.R. Willcox

(Eds): Proceedings of Rock Art: the way ahead. International

Conference on Rock Art conservation, Natal, South Africa.

BarNeTT, R., N. YAMAGUCHI & I. BARNES (2006): Lost populations

and preserving genetic diversity in the lion Panthera leo:

Implications for its ex situ conservation. Conservation Genetics

7(4): 507-514.

BEVERIDGE, ANNETTE SUSANNAH (TR.) (1979): Babur-Nama (Memoirs of

Babur), Vols I & II. Oriental Reprints, New Delhi.

CHAKRAVARTY, K.K. (Ep.) (1984): Rock-Art of India: paintings and

engravings. Arnold Heinemann, India.

CHARRUAU, P., C. FERNANDES, P. OROZCO-TERWENGEL, J. PETERS,

L. Hunter, H. Zrate, A. JoURABCHIAN, H. Jowkar, G. SCHALLER,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

S. Ostrowski, P. VERCAMMEN, T. GRANGE, C. SCHLOTTERER,

A. Kotze, E-M GEgIcL, C. WALZER & P.A. BurGeR (2011):

Phylogeography, Genetic Structure and Population Divergence

Time of Cheetahs in Africa and Asia: Evidence for Long-term

Geographic Isolates. Molecular Ecology 20(4): 706-724.

DENZAU, GERTRUD & HELMUT DENZAU (1999): Wildessel. Jan Thorbecke

Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.

DERANIYAGALA, P.E.P. (1958): The Pleistocene of Ceylon. Ceylon

National Museum, Columbo.

DIVYABHANUSINH (1987): Record of Two Unique Observations of the

Indian Cheetah in Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

84(2): 264-274.

DIVYABHANUSINH (2006): The End of a Trail: The Cheetah in India.

Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

DIVYABHANUSINH (2008): The Story of Asia’s Lions. Marg Publications,

Mumbai.

D’ Oy ty, Sir CHARLES (1810-15): Indian Sports. Vols I & II. British

Library, 010C Acc. No. WD 4405 & WD 4406.

Dutta, ARUN Kumar (1976): Occurrence of Fossil Lion and Spotted

Hyaena from Pleistocene Deposits of Susunia, Bankura District,

West Bengal. Journal of the Geological Survey of India 17(3):

386-391.

Epwarps, S.M. & L.G. Fraser (1907): Ruling Princes of India, Junagadh

State. Times of India Press, Bombay.

ENGELS, D.W. (1978): Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the

Macedonian Army. University of California Press, Berkeley, USA.

FENTON, Cot. L.L. (c. 1924): The Rifle in India. W. Thacker & Co.,

London.

Frrouz, ESKANDAR (2005): The Complete Fauna of Iran. I.B. Taurus,

London.

ForseEs, JAMES (1813): Oriental Memoirs. White, Cochran & Co.,

London.

GORAKSHKAR, SADASHIV (ED.) (1979): Animals in Indian Art. Prince of

Wales Museum, Bombay.

GoyAL, P. & P.P. JoGLEKAR (2012): Archaeozoological Remains from

the Site of Kanmer. Pp. 767-794. In: Kharakwal, J.S.,

Y.S. Rawat and T. Osada (Eds): Excavation at Kanmer

2005—06-2008-09. Research Institute for Humanity and Nature,

Kyoto, Japan.

Groves, C.P. (1972): Blackbuck. Encyclopaedia of the Animal World

B 22a:

GuGaisBurG, C.A.W. (1962): Simba. Baily Bros. & Swinfen, London.

Guna, Sumit (2001): Health and Population in South Asia. Permanent

Black, New Delhi.

HaABI, IRFAN (1986): An Atlas of Mughal India. Oxford University Press,

Delhi.

Humpureys, P.N. & E. KAnrom (1995): The Lion and the Gazelle:

The Mammals and Birds of Iran. Comma International

Biological Systems, Lower Coed Morgan, Nr. Abergavenny,

Gwent, UK.

Hussain, Mautvi Vitayat (1891): Shams Siraj Afif, Tarik-i Firoz Shahi.

The Asiatic Society, Calcutta.

Iyer, K. BHARATHA (1977): Animals in Indian Sculpture.

D.B. Taraporevala Sons & Co., Bombay.

JERDON, T.C. (1874): The Mammals of India. John Wheldon, London, UK.

JOGLEKAR, P.P. (UNPUBL.): Faunal Remains from Raja Nal ka Tila,

Uttar Pradesh.

JosLin, PAUL (1973): The Asiatic Lion: A Study of Ecology & Behaviour.

Ph.D. thesis. University of Edinburgh.

KELUM MANAMENDRA-ARACHCHI, ROHAN PETHIYAGODA, RAJITH

DISSANAYAKE & MADHAVA MEEGASKUMBURA (2005): A Second

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Extinct Cat from the Late Quaternary of Sri Lanka. The Raffles

Bulletin of Zoology 12: 423-434.

KENNEDY, M. (comp.) (1908): Notes on Criminal Classes in Bombay

Presidency. Government Central Press, Bombay.

KINNEAR, N.B. (1920): The Past and Present Distribution of the Lion in

South Eastern Asia. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 27(1): 34-39.

MANAMENDRA—ARACHCHI, K., ROHAN PETHIYAGODA, RAJITH DISSANAYAKE

& MADHAVA MEEGASKUMBURA (2005): A Second Extinct Cat from

the Late Quaternary of Sri Lanka. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology

12: 423-434.

MATHPAL, YASHODHAR (1984): Pre-historic Rock Paintings of Bhimbetka,

Central India. Abhinav Publications, New Delhi.

MOodaALLi, Munip ALI KHAN KHAss (UNDATED): Baznama. MS. Egerton

1013, British Library, London, UK.

O’ BRIEN, STEPHEN J. (2003): Tears of the Cheetah. Thomas Dunn Books/

St. Martin’s Press, New York.

O’BrIEN, STEPHEN J., JANICE S. MARTENSON, CRAIG PACKER, LAWRENCE

HERBST, VALERIUS DE Vos, PAUL JOSLIN, JANIS OTT-JOSLIN, DAVID

E. Witpt & MiTcHELL BusH (1987): Biochemical genetic variation

in geographic isolates of African and Asiatic lions. National

Geographic Research 3: 114-124.

RANGARAJAN, MAHESH (1998): The Role of Administration in

Extermination of the Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) in India.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 95(2): 328-332.

RANGARAJAN, MAHESH (2001a): From Princely Symbol to Conservation

Icon: A Political History of the Lion in India. Pp. 399-442.

In: Mushirul Hassan and Nariaki Nakazato (Eds): The Unfinished

Agenda: Nation Building in South Asia. Manohar Publishers

and Distributors, New Delhi.

RANGARAJAN, MAHESH (2001b): India’s Wildlife History. Permanent

Black, New Delhi.

RANIJITSINH, M.K. (1989): The Indian Blackbuck. Natraj Publishers,

Dehradun.

RANJITSINH, M.K. (1997): Beyond the Tiger: Portraits of Asian Wildlife.

Brijbasi Printers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

RoGERS, ALEXANDER & HENRY BEVERIDGE (1978): Tuzuk-i Jahangiri.

Munshiram Manoharlal Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

RUSSELL, R.V. & RAI BAHADUR Hira LAL (1916): The Tribes and Castes

of Central Provinces of India. Vol. [1V. Macmillan & Co. London.

SABERWAL, V ASANT K., JAMES P. Gipps, RAVI CHELLAM & A.J.T. JOHNSINGH

(1994): Lion-Human Conflict in the Gir Forest, India.

Conservation Biology 8(2): 501-507.

SCHIMMEL, ANNEMARIE (2005): The Empire of the Great Mughals. Oxford

University Press, New Delhi.

SEN, SURENDRANATH (ED.) (1949): Indian Travels of Thevenot and Careri.

National Archives of India, New Delhi.

SuNnquIst, MEL & FIONA SuNQUIST (2002): Wildcats of the World. The

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

THACKSTON, WHEELER M. (1999): The Jahangirnama: Memoirs of

Jahangir, Emperor of India. Freer Gallery of Art/Arthur M.

Sackler Gallery, Washington DC and Oxford University Press,

New York.

VENKATRAMAN, MEENA (2012): Managing Success: Asiatic Lion

Conservation, Interface Issues and Attitudes of Local

Communities in Greater Gir Landscape. Report submitted to

Rufford Small Grants Foundation for Nature Conservation

(RSGs), UK.

WAKANKAR, VISHNU S. & ROBERT R.R. Brooks (1976): Stone Age.

Painting in India. D.B. Taraporevala Sons & Co. Ltd., Bombay.

WILLIAMSON, Capt. THOMAS (1807): Oriental Field Sports. Edward Orme

London.

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF THE GREAT INDIAN BUSTARD

ARDEOTIS NIGRICEPS (VIGORS 1831) —

PrAmop Patit!*, ASAD R. RAHMAN? AND SARA HALLAGER?

‘Department of Physiology, Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University Medical College, Pune 411 043, Maharashtra, India.

* Address for correspondence: P|. No. 26, Padma Housing Society, Near old N.C.C. Office, Mangalwar Peth, B-Ward, Datta Colony,

Kolhapur 416 012, Maharashtra, India. Email: gibpramod @ gmail.com

*Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, S.B. Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001, Maharashtra, India.

Email: rahmani.asad @ gmail.com

*Department of Animal Care Sciences, Smithsonian National Zoological Park, Washington, D.C., USA. Email: HallagerS @si.edu

The Great Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps, a large ground-dwelling bird of India and Pakistan, is declining throughout

its entire range. Little has been published in detail on the behaviour of this species. This work presents an ethogram of

the species describing 63 individual behaviours grouped under 11 broad categories: alert, resting, comfort and

maintenance, locomotion, ingestive and excretory, antagonistic, interspecific response, sexual, maternal, vocalizations,

and reflexes.

National and site-specific recovery action plans for Great Indian Bustard are in process and ex situ conservation is one

of the proposed measures. A better understanding of Great Indian Bustard behaviour is essential for both ex situ and

in situ conservation. Precise descriptions of behaviours presented here provide a standard that can be used for systematic

and quantitative study of behaviours of the species and which could be of significance in ex situ breeding.

Key words: Great Indian Bustard, ethogram, in situ conservation, conservation breeding, ex situ conservation,

22-34

behaviours, captive breeding

INTRODUCTION

The Great Indian Bustard (GIB) Ardeotis nigriceps is

endemic to the Indian subcontinent, distributed in India and

Pakistan (Ali and Ripley 1980; Rahmani 1989). The species

typically inhabits arid and semiarid landscapes dominated by

open grasslands interspersed with short shrub and extensive

agriculture. Sexual dimorphism in size is very evident in the

GIB, with adult males standing up to 1.1 m. The female is

smaller at 0.9-0.92 m. It is a polygynous species. It breeds

principally between March and September, differing regionally,

based on rainfall (Ali and Ripley 1980; Rahmani 1989).

Breeding males establish territories using an exploded lek

mating system (Ali and Ripley 1980; Dutta et al. 2010; Morales

et al. 2001; Rahmani 1989). The GIB was subjected to an in-

depth, long-term study by the BNHS in the 1980s, which

provided information on the population, distribution, and

ecology of the species and its conservation issues (Rahmani

1989). However, over the years, its population has been

dwindling rapidly, with a decline approaching 75% within three

generations (Dutta et al. 2010). With a current population of

not more than 300 birds, the predicted extinction probability is

very high within the next three generations (Dutta et al. 2010).

Additionally, the low diversity of mitochondrial DNA across

the Indian population suggests a strong population bottleneck

event in the past (Ishtiaq et al. 2011).

For the above reasons, the International Union for

Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and BirdLife International

uplisted the status of GIB to Critically Endangered (CR)

category (BirdLife International 2012). The various identified

threats to GIB survival are habitat loss, mismanagement of

habitat, agricultural changes, overgrazing, hunting, failure of

breeding because of increased disturbance (BirdLife

International 2012; Dutta et al. 2010; IUCN 2008; Rahmani

1989, 1996, 2006), and heavy poaching in Pakistan (Khan

et al. 2008). Even though the GIB has been the subject of

intensive studies, little has been published on the behaviour

of the species. To fill this lacuna, we present a description of

various behaviours of GIB with the use of ethograms. A

greater understanding of behaviour is important in the

development of effective in situ and ex situ conservation

strategies for the GIB and will be invaluable for any captive

breeding programme. Ethograms help in the comparison of

various behaviours between related species (Xiao and Wang

2005). The need to interpret the evolution of adaptive life

history strategies and reproductive systems within the

framework of phylogenetic history (Pitra et al. 2002) can be

fulfilled by comparing various ethograms.

METHODS

The behaviours described in this paper are based on

published sources (Bhushan and Rahmani 1992; Manakadan

and Rahmani 1990; Rahmani and Manakadan 1987, 1988;

Rahmani 1989, 1996; Vyas et al. 1983) and from incidental

observations on behaviour carried out by the first author at

Nannaj, Maharashtra, totalling 1,400 ha, from 2004 to 2010.

Observations were made from 06:00 to 19:30 hrs throughout

the daylight period. The focal individual was observed with

binoculars for durations of five minutes, and during the

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF GREAT INDIAN BUSTARD

intervals, the behaviour seen was documented in detail with

the help of sketches. Information from literature was used to

supplement descriptions. Courtship calls of male GIB were

recorded with a microphone ME 62 and Telinga universal

parabolic dish. Marantz PMD 222 cassette recorder and

Maxell type II cassette were also used.

RESULTS

We describe 63 individual behaviours, grouped under

11 broad categories: alert, resting, comfort and maintenance,

locomotion, ingestive and excretory, antagonistic, interspecific

response, sexual, maternal, vocalizations, and reflexes.

1. ALERT BEHAVIOUR

GIB in alert mode remains stationary, either sitting or

standing with eyes open and neck extended (Fig. 1). On rare

occasions, one foot is raised slightly off the ground.

ge ;

HHH Lib!

Fig. 1: Alert

2. RESTING BEHAVIOUR

Four types of resting behaviour were observed:

i. Resting: The bird either sits on the ground or stands,

with eyes closed. The neck may be tucked into the back or just

lowered (Fig. 2). Resting is done during the hotter part of the

day under the shade of bushes (Ziziphus sp. or Carissa sp.),

small trees (Acacia sp.), or in isolated clumps of tall grass.

Fig. 2: Resting

AKG (re,

ii. Roosting: The bird squats with its tarsi and belly on

the ground. The neck is raised initially and then tucked into

the back. Roosting was seen on the ground in comparatively

bare areas.

iii. Hock-sitting: The bird sits with its tarsi and feet on

the ground, tibio-tarsal joint flexed and tibiae vertical. The belly

is raised above the ground (Fig. 3). Birds usually hock-sit while

drinking (see Drinking) and when sitting amidst tall grass.

Fig. 3: Hock-sitting

iv. Sheltering during rain/bad weather: During

periods of moderate to heavy rain, birds stand still with neck

partially lowered or tucked into the back. During stormy

weather, birds often stand under a bush.

3. COMFORT AND MAINTENANCE BEHAVIOUR

This includes behaviour related to personal maintenance

and comfort. Comfort behaviour can be divided into

15 categories.

i. Scratching: While standing on one leg, the upper neck

and head areas are rubbed using a toe with three to five rapid

strokes, at one instance. Neck and head are lowered to bring

them close to the toe (Fig. 4). When scratching, the eyes are

often closed and there is partial erection of head and neck

feathers.

<\ My" Wh . C080 evel gohe!

Fig. 4: Scratching

ii. Wing and leg stretching: The wing and leg on the

same side of the body are extended together in a downward

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF GREAT INDIAN BUSTARD

direction (Fig. 5). Stretching was often observed after a

prolonged rest, or after incubation in females (see Incubation).

ay Behe , ey MOE epee”

Fig. 5: Wing and leg stretching

- iii. Bow stretching: Both wings and neck are stretched

together, the neck is extended horizontally forward, the body

and tail are slightly lowered and the wings are raised above

the body (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6: Bow stretching

iv. Jump stretching: The bird leaps slightly into the

air, extending and flapping its wings at the same time.

v. Body fluffing: The feathers on the crest, neck, wings,

and back are erected and then smoothed down (Fig. 7). Body

fluffing lasts only for two to three seconds, and is often

followed by a gentle ruffling of the feathers (see Ruffling).

Fig. 7: Body fluffing

vi. Ruffling: With a wave-like movement passing from

head to tail, the bird shakes its body with simultaneous fanning

of tail feathers. ) ,

vii. Wing flapping: The bird extends its wings and

flutters them several times. The neck is stretched vertically,

along with erection of crest and neck feathers (Fig. 8).

award head Wotden

Fig. 8: Wing flapping

viii. Preening: It grooms the feathers on the neck,

breast, belly, back, tail, legs, and wings, using a closed bill

and moving down through the feathers, sometimes with short

and rapid biting movements (Fig. 9). The eyes are usually

closed during preening. Eyes are opened as soon as the bill

is taken out of the feathers. Preening is often done during

resting.

are aa eo be gee: AT pf be

Fig. 9: Preening

ix. Toe cleaning: While standing on one leg, the bird

pecks at a toe or nail of the other leg using its bill (Fig. 10).

CUE ELL, a4

Fig. 10: Toe cleaning

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF GREAT INDIAN BUSTARD

x. Dust bathing: The bird rubs its belly, neck, and

wings, and ruffles feathers in a dry dusty area (Fig. 11).

Fig. 11: Dust bathing

xi. Wing-spread sunning: The bird sits in short grass

clumps in the sun with both wings horizontal to the ground

(Fig. 12). This appears to have a thermoregulatory function

as it was observed only after ambient temperature had risen.

Wing-spread sunning is sometimes accompanied by panting

(see Panting). It is often followed by preening.

Fig. 12: Wing-spread sunning

xii. Bill gaping: The mouth is briefly opened wide as

if the bird is yawning.

xiii. Bill open: The bill is held partially open for several

seconds, the function of which is unclear.

xiv. Panting: The bill is slightly open, while the gular

skin moves back and forth (also known as gular flutter) (Fig.

13). Panting is mostly observed in resting birds during hot

weather. It is a thermoregulatory behaviour.

Fig. 13: mavicin

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

xv. Drying: Drying happens soon after the rains stop.

The tail is raised vertically and is accompanied with fanning

of the tail feathers. Both wings are drooped (Fig. 14). Body

feathers are ruffled yee (see Ruffling).

fe Auth e,

Fig. 14: Drying

4. LOCOMOTION

Locomotion can be divided into five categories:

i. Walking: The bird strides about at an easy pace while

moving about (Fig. 15). Walking is the primary mode of

locomotion in the GIB.

ull

Figo 15: Walking

ii. Brisk walking: GIB moves away quickly from a

perceived threat, e.g., humans, cattle, or stray dogs. The head

is raised in order to observe the intruder constantly while

walking. Brisk walking continues until the bird no longer

perceives a threat.

iii. Running: The bird moves at a faster pace than brisk

walking. Its head may be held high and extended. The wings

may be extended or held close to the body (Fig. 16). The run

is short and if the threat persists, it takes to flight.

an)

Fig. 16: Running

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF GREAT INDIAN BUSTARD

iv. Flying: Flying occurs following a short runora the beak is submerged to draw the water. The head is then

jump. Usually a short run consists of four to five steps, raised to gulp down the water (Fig. 19).

followed by the opening of wings and stretching of neck.

The body is lifted into the air with strong rapid wing

movements. Once in the air, GIB is a strong flyer. While

flying, the neck is fully extended and the legs are held

extended in line with the body. GIB flies with constant

and steady wingbeats. No soaring, hovering or gliding was

observed (Fig. 17). Though GIB is a strong flyer, it prefers

to walk and flies only when disturbed.

% 8 4, Fig. 19: Drinking

ii. Foraging and feeding: GIB searches for food while

walking, looking down at the ground (Fig. 20).

Fig. 17: Flying

v. Jumping and flying: Jumping followed by flying

with rapid wingbeats occurs when the bird takes to the air

Fig. 20: Foraging and feeding

(Fig. 18) to escape terrestrial predators, e.g., Wolf Canis lupus, While walking, various types of insects are flushed from

Golden Jackal Canis aureus, and village dogs encountered at — the ground. Once detected, the bird pecks at the food within

close distance. reach. Jumping, running, or flying prey is chased and grabbed

with the bill (Fig. 21).

Fig. 21: Foraging and feeding

ili. Eating grit: GIB eats gravel and small pebbles to

Wav Ain WME vaya He aid digestion, pecking at and then swallowing the stones.

Fig. 18: Jumping and flying iv. Bill wiping: GIB rubs the sides of its bill along a

stone or a boulder, removing any food attached to the bill.

5. INGESTIVE AND EXCRETORY BEHAVIOUR Bill wiping is seen more frequently during the rainy season

Ingestive and excretory behaviours are dividedintofive as the bill is more often soiled with mud during this time.

types: Bill wiping was never seen against the bark of a tree or bush.

v. Defecation: Faecal matter is excreted throughout the

i. Drinking: The GIB drinks while hock-sitting, using day. Birds defecate mainly while walking, pausing slightly

a sucking method. Keeping the neck parallel to the water level, —_as the faeces are egested.

26 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF GREAT INDIAN BUSTARD

6. ANTAGONISTIC BEHAVIOUR

Four types of antagonistic behaviours were recorded:

i. Aggressive displacement: Aggressive displacement

involves one bird chasing the other. It starts with the aggressor

stretching its neck, raising its crest, erecting the neck feathers,

lifting its tail with a slight ruffling of body feathers, and

running towards the other bird (Fig. 22). Both sexes show

aggressive displacement. Aggressive displacement was often

observed when birds congregate for feeding or drinking.

Females do not chase adult males.

Neary ath, RO

Fig. 22: Aggressive displacement

ii. Non-aggressive displacement: In non-aggressive

displacement, a bird walks towards another, causing the

second bird to leave its position and to move elsewhere.

iii. Tail fanning: The tail is lifted perpendicular to the

back, the feathers are fanned out and the tail is lowered

(Fig. 23). This may be repeated many times. It is performed

while standing as well as sitting. Tail lifting is an alert reaction

and may be accompanied by erection of the crest feathers

(see Crest up). Females may tail-lift when approached by a

male or a female. Tail fanning was never observed in adult

males, when approached by a female.

iv. Tail cocking: During tail cocking, the tail lies

completely on the back. In adult individuals, the tail may

touch the back of the neck. Tail cocking is seen only in males

(Fig. 24). Isolated tail cocking is done during aggressive

displacement, or as an alarm reaction to a perceived threat.

Jes dy iy yi pest

Fig. 24: Tail cocking

7. INTERSPECIFIC RESPONSE

Many species coexist in the same habitat as the GIB,

and in its interaction with various species, the GIB shows

fear of some, antagonism to others, and a neutral attitude to

some (Rahmani and Manakadan 1987). GIB exhibits the

following behaviours in response to perceived predation of

self, egg, or young.

i. Threat display: Threat display is performed in a

standing position with tail up and fanned, wings spread and

outstretched, along with ruffled plumage and head extended

forward or lowered. Simultaneous erection of crest feathers

along with vigorous shaking of wings and tail may be seen

(Fig. 25).

Fig. 23: Tail fanning

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Fig. 25: Threat display

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF GREAT INDIAN BUSTARD

ii. Skyward looking: An alert bird extends its head v. Freezing: While sitting motionless on the ground,

upwards, and tilts the head sideways, thus only oneeye faces _ the neck is tucked against the back and the head is sunk

skyward (Fig. 26). between the shoulders (Fig. 29). Freezing is more commonly

seen in juveniles and females.

Fig. 29: Freezing

8. SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR

Sexual behaviour has been subdivided into male

Fig. 26: Skyward looking territorial, male courtship, and copulation behaviours.

iii. Crest erection: The crest feathers of the head are

erected as a response to a potential threat (Fig. 27). Crest

erection is often preceded by neck fluffing.

i. Male territorial behaviour: During the breeding

season, two adult males sometimes interact with each other at

one of the bird’s territory. Initially, the males perform what

may be termed as the ‘territorial march’. With tails fully cocked,

gular pouch inflated, crown feathers erected, wings pointed

downward, males aggressively walk parallel to each other with

their inflated gular pouches swinging sideways (Fig. 30).

Fig. 27: Crest erection

iv. Neck fluffing: The neck and body are stretched

vertically, the head is raised and the neck feathers are erected hnesaitans

(Fig. 28). Neck fluffing is done in response to predators or other Fig. 30: Male territorial behaviour

objects of concern. Neck fluffing can last for several minutes.

Territory owner chases the intruder male in cocked up

posture with erection of crest feathers (Fig. 31) what may be

termed as the ‘territorial chase’.

Fig. 28: Neck fluffing Fig. 31: Territorial chase

28 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF GREAT INDIAN BUSTARD

If the dispute is not resolved through the territorial

march, a fight occurs. Fighting posture is similar to courtship

display, with the addition of the erection of crest and crown

feathers (Fig. 32a). While facing each other, both ‘males

simultaneously jump towards each other, bumping their chests

and kicking at each other. Once they land, both hold onto

each other by locking their necks and grasping beaks

(Fig. 32b), and may peck at each other (Fig. 32c). Females

have not been reported to engage in such physical combat.

MAA Vt) PL eg Ne, tte ax ‘ta Fl ida;

ef Wf ara

Fig. 32: Territorial fight

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

ii. Male courtship behaviour: Courtship display is

performed to attract females and keep away rival males from a

cock’s territory. An adult cock selects a secluded but prominent

area for display, and often uses traditional display areas. The

female appears to be uninterested in displaying males and often

deliberately avoids their advances, except when she is ready

to mate. Male courtship behaviours consist of:

a. Complete courtship display: At the beginning of the

display, the male holds its head high, stretching the neck

vertically. Initially, it puffs its chin feathers. After repeatedly

gulping air, the gular pouch starts inflating, becoming

pendulous until it hangs like a balloon in front of the legs.

Inflation of the gular pouch coincides with cocking of the

tail (Fig. 33). In this complete courtship display posture, the

male starts producing booming calls (see Vocalization) and

turns in all directions to advertise itself. This helps to deliver

visual as well auditory signals in all directions. If the hens

are >100 m away, the male faces them, showing his white

pouch. When a hen nears <10 m, the male turns his back

towards her, revealing his cloaca by spreading out the feathers

around the cloaca.

Fig. 33: Complete courtship display

b. Partial courtship display: During partial courtship

display, the tail is cocked but the gular pouch is not inflated

or may be slightly inflated (Fig. 34). This position precedes

or follows a complete courtship display.

Fig. 34: Partial courtship display

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF GREAT INDIAN BUSTARD

c. Hanging pouch display: During the hanging pouch iii. Copulation behaviour: Copulation behaviour

display, the gular pouch is fully inflated (sometimes touching consists of the following phases:

the ground), but there is no cocking of the tail (Fig. 35). |

— a. Initiation to copulation: Copulation occurs with a

receptive female during the peak courtship display, and on

the display grounds. If the female is receptive, she sits down

near the displaying male (Fig. 38), indicating that she is ready

for mating.

Fig. 35: Hanging pouch display

d. Female chasing: The male chases a female with

erected crest and cocked tail. The gular pouch may or may w

not be hanging (Fig. 36). Unreceptive females show no interest ie Maaltal one

and move away from the approaching male. Fig. 38: Initiation to copulation

b. Head nibbling: Moving on both sides of the female,

the male pecks at the back of the female’s head (Fig. 39).

This is repeated several times. The female remains seated

throughout the entire bout of head pecking, recoiling each

time the male pecks her. Nibbling can be rough, causing

bleeding in some cases, and even death in captive birds in the

case of the Australian Bustard Ardeotis australis.

acs NR cee 0s Be x phcccgun te Re

| ee ae ef”

Fig. 36: Female chasing

e. Walking with inflated gular pouch: The male walks

with gular pouch inflated and hanging in front without lifting

the tail (Fig. 37). This posture is often seen intermittently

between courtship display or when disturbed. If the male needs

to fly, he deflates the pouch. |

Fig. 39: Head nibbling

c. Bill clasping: The male grabs the female’s beak with

its bill (Fig. 40). This occurs intermittently during nibbling.

Fig. 37: Walking with inflated gular pouch : Fig. 40: Bill clasping

30 | J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF GREAT INDIAN BUSTARD

d. Mounting: The male mounts the female from behind, ili. Egg turning: While standing over the nest, the

spreading his wings for balance while bringing his cloacato female rotates the egg with her bill several times throughout

the female’s cloaca (Fig. 41) to copulate. the day (Fig. 44).

f. €.. ¢

ike “tthes, 4 . re

ae €

Fig. 44: Egg turning

iv. Debris tossing: While incubating, the female

occasionally picks up small stones and throws them onto her

Fig. 41: Mounting back or from one place to other. Similar behaviour in Kori

e. Post-copulation feather shaking: After copulation, Bustard Ardeotis kori has been proposed as displacement

the male dismounts. Both birds rise and vigorously shake

their feathers. The female runs or walks briskly away from

behaviour for the absence of nest building activity or as a

strategy to improve the female’s camouflage and make her

less visible to predators (Lichtenberg and Hallager 2006).

the male, while the male remains in his territory, and may ; “4:

Debris tossing could be displacement behaviour, arising out

start displaying again.

of boredom or on seeing some disturbance.

9. MATERNAL BEHAVIOUR v. Tarsal walking: A nesting female moves towards the

Maternal behaviour includes the following: nest in hock-sitting position by walking on her tarsi. Tarsal

walking is seen in incubating hens in response to a perceived

i. Egg straddling: Just before sitting for incubation, threat or a predator at a close distance from the nest. It makes

the female sits on her tarsi, and moves her body to adjust her

position (Fig. 42).

the female less conspicuous in the surroundings, in order to

not reveal the nest location.

vi. Distraction display: A nesting female or female with

a chick sometimes feigns injury by flying low with outstretched

wings and dangling its legs as if wounded (Fig. 45).

Fig. 42: Egg straddling

€ eee

oe Ae ¢ ye

fgese f Qt ol cs

ii. Incubation: The posture commonly adopted by

incubating females is shown in Fig. 43.

vii. Predator chasing and pecking attack: Small to

medium-sized predators of eggs and chicks, e.g., Indian Fox

Vulpes bengalensis, Golden Jackal Canis aureus, House Crow

Corvus splendens, and Monitor Lizard Varanus bengalensis

that come close to the nest or juvenile are chased away by the

female. The female uses her bill to strike at a perceived predator

of her egg and chick. Females have been seen pecking at House

Fig. 43: Incubation Crow, Indian Fox, and Monitor Lizard (Rahmani 1989).

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013 St

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF GREAT INDIAN BUSTARD

viii. Bill to bill feeding: The female picks up food and

bending her head and neck down, presents it to the chick,

while holding it in her bill (Fig. 46). Large insects are broken

into a size suitable for feeding the chick.

‘ af ‘ rs 1 Vale atte (fe; * te

F ye M Ms teh “* £ :

. #&%

Fig. 46: Bill to bill feeding

10. VOCALIZATIONS

Adult GIB vocalizations include:

i. Barking: Barking calls are given by both sexes

(Neginhal 1983; Vyas et al. 1983) and have been reported in

incubating females (Neginhal 1983) and females with a chick.

Barking serves as a form of communication, and is often done

along with a threat display, probably as an alarm call.

ii. Growling: This vocalization consists of a soft rrrrrr

sound, similar to a cat’s growl. It is seen in response to a

predator or perceived threat.

iii. Male courtship vocalization: During the courtship

display, three distinct calls are produced in sequence by the

male.

a. Chuck: During the initial states of inflation of the

gular pouch, a low feeble clicking sound is produced when

the bill is opened to gulp air.

b. Boom: Males emit a low-pitched booming call during

the breeding season. It is produced only at peak display. The

booming call can be heard up to a kilometre or more away,

depending on the direction of wind (Rahmani 1989). The

booming call is likely produced by the forcible ejection of air

from the gular pouch, rather than from any syringeal

apparatus, as in other large bustard species (Collar 1996).

The frequency of booming calls was from 100-200 Hz, with

an average duration of 0.9 sec, and an average pause of

14 sec between two calls.

c. Burr: Aslow, long, murmuring call after the booming

call, it is produced only after the initial 10-15 booming calls,

and probably occurs when the air is expelled from the pouch

(Rahmani 1989).

11. REFLEXES

i. Sneezing: This is as implied. Sneezing is a protective

reflex against nasal irritation.

ii. Coughing: This is as implied. Coughing is a

protective reflex against respiratory irritation.

DISCUSSION

This first published ethogram on the GIB provides an

important foundation for further quantitative study of GIB

behaviour. Behavioural research can directly contribute to

various conservation programmes such as captive breeding

(Angeloni et al. 2008; Curio 1996; Swaisgood 2010).

Ethographic studies of juveniles can be used to assess health,

growth patterns, and to predict chances of survival in the

wild, as well as to assess different chick rearing practices

(van Heezik and Seddon 1998). Captive rearing and

documentation of the growth and behaviour of a GIB till about

one year old was done by Manakadan and Rahmani (1996).

This ethogram provides standard definitions of various

common behaviours that could be valuable for captive

breeding programmes of the GIB.

Various behavioural patterns are distinctly related with

specific habitat needs, e.g., open short grass plains and open

scrublands are preferred for nesting, display, foraging, and

roosting (Rahmani 1989; Rahmani and Manakadan 1988).

Hence, studying various behaviours with respect to habitat

utilisation could be of importance for habitat management of

GIB.

Comparison of behaviour of GIB with that of other

species can emphasise traits potentially shared by specific

groups of bustards. Many of the behaviours described for GIB

are also reported for other bustard species. Resting behaviour

appears similar in Kori Bustard Ardeotis kori (Lichtenberg

and Hallager 2006), Houbara Bustard Chlamydotis undulata

(Launay and Paillat 1990), Great Bustard Otis tarda (Hellmich

1987), and Australian Bustard Ardeotis australis (Ziembicki

2010). Dust bathing is seen in Kori Bustard (Lichtenberg and

Hallager 2006), Houbara Bustard (Hinz and Heiss 1989), and

Australian Bustard (Ziembicki 2009). Bill open behaviour is

also seen in Kori Bustard (Lichtenberg and Hallager 2006).

Drinking is similar in Kori Bustard (Lichtenberg and Hallager

2006), Australian Bustard (Fisher et al. 1972), and Buff-crested

Bustard Eupodotis ruficrista (Hallager 1994). Head jerking

behaviour which was seen in Houbara Bustard (Launay and

Paillat 1990) and Kori Bustard (Lichtenberg and Hallager 2006)

was not seen in GIB. Head jerking has been proposed to serve

a social function for Houbara Bustard (Launay and Paillat

1990). Tail lifting has been seen in Little Bustard Tetrax tetrax

(Schulz 1986), Houbara Bustard (Launay and Paillat 1990),

and Kori Bustard (Lichtenberg and Hallager 2006).

Threat display is seen in Great Bustard (Hellmich

1987), Houbara Bustard (Launay and Paillat 1990), Kori

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF GREAT INDIAN BUSTARD

Bustard (Lichtenberg and Hallager 2006), and Australian

Bustard (White 2012). Predator defence display is similar in

Houbara Bustard (Launay and Paillat 1990), Kori Bustard

(Lichtenberg and Hallager 2006), and Australian Bustard

(White 2012). Debris tossing has also been observed in White-

bellied Bustard Eupodotis senegalensis, Buff-crested Bustard

and Houbara Bustard (F. Launay pers. comm.), and Kori

Bustard (Lichtenberg and Hallager 2006). Tail up posture is

seen in Great Bustard (Hidalgo de Trucios and Carranza 1991)

and Kori Bustard (Lichtenberg and Hallager 2006).

Partial courtship display is also seen in Great Bustard

(Hidalgo de Trucios and Carranza 1991) and Kori Bustard

(Lichtenberg and Hallager 2006). Balloon display is seen in

Great Bustard, Denham’s Bustard Neotis denhami and

Australian Bustard (Osborne 1984), and Kori Bustard

(Lichtenberg and Hallager 2006). Booming call is seen in

Australian Bustard (Ziembicki 2010) and Kori Bustard

(Lichtenberg and Hallager 2006). Chasing females is seen in

Little Bustard (Schulz 1986), Kori Bustard (Lichtenberg and

Hallager 2006), and Australian Bustard (Ziembicki 2009).

Head nibbling is similar in Kori Bustard (Hallager

2003) and Australian Bustard (White 2012). Territorial march

and territorial chase are reported in Australian Bustard

(Ziembicki 2010). Skyward looking is reported in Kori

Bustard (Lichtenberg and Hallager 2006). It has been

suggested that it increases the field of vision and bustards in

this posture are probably more attentive to their surroundings

(Lichtenberg and Hallager 2006).

Maternal behaviours seen in GIB — predator chase,

threat display, distraction display, and bill to bill feeding —

are similar in Australian Bustard (White 2012; Ziembicki

2010). Freezing in response is seen in Australian Bustard

(White 2012), and serves to camouflage the bird against a

perceived threat.

The duration of the male courtship display increases in

the presence of hens, in the peak breeding season, and in

cloudy weather (Rahmani 1989). In GIB, the longest duration

of continuous display was reported at 240 minutes (Rahmani

1989). Male courtship displays are variable among different

bustard species. Larger bustard species such as Kori Bustard

(Lichtenberg and Hallager 2006), Australian Bustard

(Ziembicki 2010), and GIB (Rahmani 1989) have ground

displays. Males of smaller species, such as Lesser Florican

Sypheotides indicus (Ali and Ripley 1980), Little Bustard

(Schulz 1986), and Black Korhaan Eupodotis afraoides

(de Swardt 1992) perform aerial displays. According to

Sankaran (1997), there is a direct correlation between body

size and display type in bustards. Wingspread sunning is

similar in Kori Bustard (Lichtenberg and Hallager 2006) and

Houbara Bustard (Launay and Paillat 1990).

The categories of behaviour discussed in this paper are

the ones most commonly exhibited by GIB in the wild.

Additional detailed studies on age-specific behaviour and

interspecific behaviour are needed. Better understanding of

behaviour is the necessary first step towards improving the

husbandry and management of future captive populations.

Understanding GIB behaviour will also help in designing

conservation strategies. Precise descriptions of behaviours

and the ethograms presented here provide a standard that can

be used for systematic and quantitative study of behaviour of

this Critically Endangered species.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are thankful to the Pune Forest Department

(Wildlife Division), Mr. Bhagwat Maske, and staff of

Nannaj Range Forest Office for their support during field

work.

REFERENCES

Au, S. & S.D. RipLey (1980): Handbook of the Birds of India and

Pakistan. Vol. 2. Megapodes to Crab-plover (2nd Edition). Oxford

University Press, Bombay. Pp. 188-198.

ANGELONI, L., M.A. SCHLAEPFER, J.J. LAWLER & K.R. Crooks (2008): A

reassessment of the interface between conservation and

behavior. Anim. Behav. 75: 731-737.

BuusHan, B. & A.R. RAHMANI (1992): Food and feeding behaviour of

the Great Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps (Vigors). J. Bombay

Nat. Hist. Soc. 89(1): 27-A0.

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2012): Species factsheet: Ardeotis nigriceps.

http://www. birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=2767.

Accessed on 22 July 2012.

Coar, N.J. (1996): Otididae (Bustards). Pp. 240-275. Jn: del Hoyo,

J., A. Elliott and J. Sargatal (Eds): Handbook of Birds of the

World. Hoatzin to Auks. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.

Curio, E. (1996): Conservation needs ethology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22:

260-263.

DE SwarptT, D.H. (1992): A behaviour study of the Black Korhaan

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Eupodotis afraoides. Navors. nas. Mus., Bloemfontein 8:

237-258.

Dutta, S., A.R. RAHMANI & Y.V. JHALA (2010): Running out of time?

The Great Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps — status, viability,

and conservation strategies. Eur J. Wild. Res. 57: 615-625.

FIsHER, C.D., E. LINDGREN & W.R. DAwson (1972): Drinking patterns

and behavior of Australian desert birds in relation to their ecology

and abundance. Condor 74: 111-136.

HALLaGer, S. (1994): Drinking methods in two species of Bustards.

Wilson Bulletin 106(4): 763-764.

HALLAGER, S. (2003): A description of copulation in the Kori Bustard

Ardeotis kori struthiunculus. Bulletin British Ornithologist’s Club

123: 125-129.

HELLMICH, J. (1987): A step towards an ethogram of the Great Bustard.

Poster, First Congress on Estepatic Birds, Le‘on.

HIDALGO DE TRucios, S.J. & J. CARRANZA (1991): Timing, structure and

function of courtship display in male Great Bustard. Ornis Scand.

22: 360-366.

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF GREAT INDIAN BUSTARD

Hinz, C. & E.M. Heiss (1989): The activity patterns of Houbara

bustards: aspects of a field study in the Canary Islands. Bustard

Studies 4.

IsHTIAQ, F., S. Dutra, B. YUMNAM & V.Y. JHALA (2011): Low genetic

diversity in the endangered Great Indian Bustard (Ardeotis

nigriceps) across India and implications for conservation.

Conserv. Genet. 12: 857-863.

IUCN (2008): IUCN Red List of threatened species. IUCN, Gland.

Available at http://www.redlist.org. Accessed 24 Nov. 2008.

Kuan, A.A., I. KHAtio, M.J.I. CHoupury, A. FARoog & N. HUSSAIN

(2008): Status, threats and conservation of the Great Indian

Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps (Vigors) in Pakistan. Curr Sci. 95:

1079-1082.

Launay, F. & P. PamLiat (1990): A behavioural repertoire of the adult

Houbara bustard (Chlamydotis undulata macqueenii). Rev. Ecol.

45: 65-87.

LICHTENBERG, E.M. & S. HALLAGER (2006): A description of commonly

observed behaviors for the Kori Bustard (Ardeotis kori). J. Ethol.

26: 17-34.

MANAKADAN, R. & A.R. RAHMANI (1990): Growth and development of

a captive Great Indian Bustard chick. Avicultural Magazine 96:

133-140.

Mora.es, M.B., F. Jicuer & B. Arroyo (2001): Exploded leks: What

bustard can teach us. Ardeola 48: 85-98.

NEGINHAL, S.G. (1983): Ecology and behavior of the Great Indian Bustard

(Choriotis nigriceps). Pp. 155-163. In: Goriup, P.D. and

H. Vardhan (Eds): Bustards in Decline. Tourism and Wildlife

Society of India, Jaipur, India.

OspBorne, P. (1984): Bustards. Dubai Wildlife Research Centre. Pp. 31.

Pitra, C., D. LIECKFELDT, S. FRAHNERT & J. FICKEL (2002): Phylogenetic

relationships and ancestral areas of the bustards (Gruiformes:

Otididae), inferred from mitochondrial DNA and nuclear intron

sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 23: 63-74.

RAHMANT, A.R. (1989): The Great Indian Bustard. Final Report. Bombay

Natural History Society, Mumbai, India. Pp. 26-138.

RAHMANI, A.R. (1996): Strategies for long-term conservation of the Great

Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps in India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.

Soc. 93(3): 442-458.

RAHMANI, A.R. (2006): Need to start Project Bustards. Bombay Natural

History Society, Mumbai. Pp. 20.

RAHMANTI, A.R. & R. MANAKADAN (1987): Interspecific behaviour of the

Great Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps (Vigors). J. Bombay Nat.

Hist. Soc. 84(2): 317-331.

RAHMANT, A.R. & R. MANAKADAN (1988): Bustard Sanctuaries of India.

Strategies for their conservation and management. Bombay

Natural History Society and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Mumbai. Pp. 40.

SANKARAN, R. (1997): The relation between bustard body size and display

type. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 94(2): 403-406.

ScHuLz, H. (1986): Agonistic behavior, territorial behavior and courtship

display of the Little Bustard (Tetrax tetrax). J. Ornithol. 127:

125-204.

Swaiscoop, R. (2010): Conservation and Animal Behavior.

Pp. 359-365. In: Breed, M.D. and J. Moore (Eds): Encyclopedia

of Animal Behavior. Elsevier Ltd.

VAN HEEZIK, Y. & P.J. SEDDON (1998): Ontogeny of Behavior of Hand-

reared and Hen-reared Captive Houbara Bustards. Zoo Biol. 17:

245-255.

Vyas, D.K., K.M. Matruur & D. Jacos (1983): Some aspects of the

ecology, behaviour and breeding biology of the Great Indian

Bustard. Pp. 184-192. Jn: Goriup, P.D. and H. Vardhan (Eds):

Bustards in Decline. Tourism and Wildlife Society of India,

Jaipur, India,

Wuite, D. (2012): The Australian Bustard Ardeotis australis, breeding

and management in captivity plus notes on the bustards of the

“Big Desert” in north western Victoria. Pp. 22-80.

X1A0, J.Q. & D. WANG (2005): Construction of ethogram of the captive

Yangtze finless porpoises, Neophocaena phocaenoides

asiaeorientalis. Acta. Hydrobiol. Sin. 29: 253-258.

ZIEMBICKI, M. (2009): Ecology and Movement of the Australian Bustard

in a dynamic landscape. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Adelaide,

Adelaide, Australia. Pp. 168-194.

ZIEMBICKI, M. (2010): Australian bustard. CSIRO Publishing,

Collingwood, Australia. Pp. 45-58.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

35-49

BIRD RECORDS FROM TAWANG DISTRICT, ARUNACHAL PRADESH, INDIA

GoPINATHAN MAHESWARAN!

‘Zoological Survey of India, Arunachal Pradesh Regional Centre (APRC), Senki valley, Itanagar 791 113,

Arunachal Pradesh, India.

Present address: Zoological Survey of India, M-Block, New Alipore, Kolkata 700 053, West Bengal, India.

Email: gmaheswaran @ yahoo.com

Arunachal Pradesh is known for its rich biodiversity, including avifauna. However, some areas in Arunachal Pradesh

still need to be surveyed to document its biodiversity and avian diversity. In order to document the avian diversity in

high altitude areas, especially in the north-western region bordering Myanmar and southern China, I carried out

surveys in Tawang district, an important eco-region selected for the proposed Biosphere Reserve, which has similarity

in bird assemblages with those of neighbouring Bhutan and southern China. Studies were carried out in four phases

from November 2007 to March 2012, with more than three surveys of 14 days durations covering 24 localities of

Tawang district. The main aim of the surveys was to document the seasonal bird diversity of Zimmithang-Nelya, an

Important Bird Area (IBA) in the Eastern Himalaya. The surveys recorded 113 species of birds, including 25 migrant

species. Significant records include the Snow Partridge Lerwa lerwa, Eurasian Woodcock Scolopax rusticola, and

Broad-billed Warbler Tickellia hodgsoni.

Key words: Arunachal Pradesh, bird surveys, endemics, Tawang district, IBA

INTRODUCTION

Arunachal Pradesh (26° 28'—29° 30' N; 91° 30'-97°

30' E) covers a geographical area of 83,743 sq. km. It is the

largest of the seven states comprising the north-eastern region

of India. It is flanked by China in the north and north-east

(1,080 km) and separated by the McMahon Line; by Bhutan

(9,160 km) in the west; by Myanmar (440 km) in the east;

and by the Indian states of Assam and Nagaland in the south.

Arunachal Pradesh, one of the world’s toughest mountainous

terrains (encompassing c. 83,500 of the state’s 83,743 sq. km

area), rises in mighty convulsions of ridges and spurs from

the foothills across the north bank of the Brahmaputra, also

known as Sri Lohit in ancient literature. The heights gained

by the mountain peaks along the crestline from the extreme

western end to the easternmost corner show great variation,

ranging from 1,829 to 6,400 m. The main ridges and spurs of

what has sometimes been described as the Sub-Himalayas

fan out to the plains mostly in transverse directions, 1.e., in

the north-south direction, rather than parallel to each other,

except possibly in the present West Kameng and Tawang

districts, where the prominent ridges run more or less parallel

to each other from west to east. Arunachal Pradesh is ranked

second among the states and union territories in terms of area

under forest cover (Ministry of Environment and Forests

2001). According to the Forest Survey of India (2003), the

forest cover area is 68,019 sq. km, constituting 61.5% of the

total geographical area of the state and 6.7% of India. The

state has broadly six forest types: tropical wet evergreen (rain

forest), subtropical broadleaf, subtropical conifer, temperate

broadleaf, temperate conifer, and subalpine forests/alpine

scrub. Small savanna grassland patches occur along the major

rivers.

Recently, the State and Central governments have

decided to create another Biosphere Reserve (Tsangyang

Gyatso) in the western part of the State, particularly in the

Tawang district. Tawang district is located at the north-west

extremity of Arunachal Pradesh, encompassing an area of

2,172 sq. km, and is in the tri-junction of south-eastern Bhutan,

southern China and northern Assam -— all these three regions

are known for their rich avian diversity. Elevations range from

1,714 to 6,280 m, and the inhabitants occupy lower altitudes,

where they enjoy a cool temperate climate. The vegetation of

Tawang district is primarily tropical evergreen, subtropical

evergreen, temperate forest, subalpine fir vegetation, alpine

vegetation, and secondary scrub. The secondary scrub

vegetation is dominated by Erythrina arborescens and

Elaeagnus parvifolia. Tawang district was a part of the large

Balipara Frontier Tract of Assam along with the present day

West Kameng, East Kameng, Upper Subansiri, Lower

Subansiri, and Papum Pare districts of Arunachal Pradesh.

Tawang district was carved out of West Kameng district,

which adjoins it to the south, and Bhutan lies to the east.

Zimmithang valley, which is part of Zimmithang-Nelya (27°

42' N; 92° 23' E) Important Bird Area of the Eastern Himalaya

(Islam and Rahmani 2004), is also located in the district.

As a part of the Endemic Bird Areas (EBA) of the

Eastern Himalaya identified by BirdLife International, the

region boasts of a rich array of Restricted Range species.

Arunachal Pradesh has five Critically Endangered species,

BIRD RECORDS FROM TAWANG, ARUNACHAL PRADESH

namely Oriental White-backed Vulture Gyps bengalensis,

Slender-billed Vulture Gyps tenuirostris, Long-billed Vulture

Gyps indicus, White-bellied Heron Ardea insignis, and Bengal

Florican Houbaropsis bengalensis, besides the Endangered

White-winged Duck Cairina scutulata. Arunachal Pradesh

is one of the topmost birding areas in the world. However,

this region, especially the Tawang-Chu valley of western

Arunachal Pradesh, still needs to be explored in order to

document its faunal wealth (Kumar 2008).

A total of 215 bird species were recorded from eastern

Arunachal Pradesh by Katti et al. (1992), largely from four

protected areas. According to Choudhury (2006), more than

700 species of birds are reported from Arunachal. It is one of

the few areas in India where new avian species may still be

discovered. For instance, in 1998, a new taxon of monal

pheasant (Lophophorus sp.) was discovered (Kumar and

Singh 2004) from western Arunachal Pradesh. In 2006,

Athreya (2006) described a new species Liocichla bugunorum,

family Timaliidae, from Eaglenest Wildlife Sanctuary. Kumar

(2008) recorded 81 species of birds from Tawang district,

including the Rusty-tailed Flycatcher Muscicapa ruficauda,

probably a new record for the state. Sangha and Naoroji (2007)

conducted surveys in Tawang district in December 2005 and

obtained many significant records.

Faunal surveys are being undertaken throughout

Arunachal Pradesh as part of Zoological Survey of India’s

(ZST) Annual Research Plan funded by the Ministry of

Environment & Forests, Government of India. As a part of

these surveys, I surveyed the birds of Tawang district,

especially the Important Bird Area of Zimmithang-Nelya. As

the study area is adjacent to south and south-eastern Bhutan

and southern China, the sightings were compared with bird

records in the literature from these regions (Ali et al. 1996;

Ludlow 1937; Ludlow and Kinnear 1944; Shing et al. 2006).

The special reference on the birds of Bhutan was Ali et al.

(1996), which was based on surveys/collections of birds

between February 1966 and December 1973. The reference

on the birds of southern China was Shing et al. (2006) who

conducted rapid biodiversity surveys in 54 forest areas in the

provinces of Guangdong, Guangxi, and Hainan and recorded

372 species of birds between 1997 and 2004.

METHODS

The surveys were mostly carried out between November

2007 and March 2012 in the Tawang-Chu valley, especially

around Tawang, Lumla, and Zimmithang, besides the other

areas mentioned in Appendix 1. Four surveys covering all

the seasons were carried out, an average of 14 days being

spent on each survey. The areas surveyed varied in altitude

from 1,194 m (Thonglanlong) to 4,328 m (Klemthang).

Observations were made using 10 x 50 binoculars, and efforts

were made to photograph all the species encountered. Field

trips were conducted during early mornings immediately after

the onset of daylight, which is much earlier in the north-

eastern states than in the rest of India. Observations were

usually terminated at around 08:30 hrs and resumed after

15:00 hrs, to continue till dusk. The areas and the distances

covered in each locality varied, but each site was surveyed

twice to record birds in the morning and evening. The bird

nomenclature used in this paper follows Rasmussen and

Anderton (2012).

RESULTS

A total of 113 bird species were recorded during the

surveys of Tawang district (Appendix 1). The majority of the

species recorded were insectivores, followed by some raptors.

Few frugivores were recorded, obviously due to the scarcity

of fruiting trees at these relatively high altitudes. Discussed

below are some significant records. Some bird species

common to Arunachal Pradesh also figure in the discussion,

as little literature is available on their distribution and

population in western Arunachal Pradesh.

Indian Spotted Eagle Clanga hastata

On October 13, 2009, an individual was seen soaring

near Zimmithang Tourist Lodge. The Indian Spotted Eagle

has been reported as common in the woodlands of Kaziranga

National Park (Barua and Sharma 1999). The last nest

recorded was in Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, in 1986.

Prior to that, there were only three records of nesting more

than 80 years ago. However, it is now believed to have a

separate population in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra

Pradesh; recent reports with photographic evidence have

come from other states, namely Gujarat, Maharashtra, and

West Bengal (Rahmani 2012).

Mountain Hawk-Eagle Nisaetus nipalensis

On October 9, 2009, one bird was recorded near

Zimmithang. Singh (1994) had recorded the species in Seijosa

(Pakke Tiger Reserve), Arunachal Pradesh. According to Ali

et al. (1996), several hawk-eagles, either Mountain or Crested

Hawk-Eagle (Spizaetus cirrhatus) were recorded on several

occasions in Bhutan, especially at Mangdechu, Babase, and

Gedu in 1967 and 1968. It has also been recorded in Eaglenest

and Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuaries of Arunachal Pradesh

at c. 2,700 m (Choudhury 2003). The species is recorded

occasionally as a migrant in Kaziranga National Park, Assam,

mostly in woodlands (Barua and Sharma 1999), and is rare

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

BIRD RECORDS FROM TAWANG, ARUNACHAL PRADESH

or occasional in secondary forests of Nameri National Park,

Assam (Barua and Sharma 2005). It was listed as rare in

northern Myanmar during ornithological expeditions in 1998

and 1999, mostly at c. 980—2,400 m (King et al. 2001). It

was recorded in 11 different localities in southern China by

Shing et al. (2006).

‘Steppe’ Buzzard Buteo buteo

I sighted two birds soaring over a big patch of disturbed

shrub forest opposite the Lumla Circuit House during

February 2009. Singh (1994) recorded the species at

Hotspring and at Talley valley from c. 2,500—3,600 m. Ali

et al. (1996) had recorded the species, mostly singly on bare

branches of trees, and collected specimens at Rongthung

(c. 1,740 m), Kanglung, Balfai, and Gomchu in eastern Bhutan

in March 1966 and April 1973. In Kaziranga National Park,

Assam, it was recorded in deciduous and woodland forests,

mostly as a migrant. It was reported as uncommon in northern

Myanmar from 850-—2,900 m during ornithological

expeditions in 1999 by King et al. (2001).

Upland Buzzard Buteo hemilasius

On October 6, 2009, on the way to Bumla, I saw a bird

perched on an electric pole near Klemtang (27° 41' 08.2" N;

91° 52' 21.4" E) at 4,328 m in alpine scrub forest. The Upland

Buzzard is a winter visitor to the Himalaya, with confirmed

(specimen) records only from E. Kashmir, Nepal, Sikkim,

and Darjeeling, and sight records from Himachal Pradesh,

Punjab, and Delhi (Rasmussen and Anderton 2012). This is

the first record for the species in Arunachal Pradesh.

Oriental Honey-Buzzard Pernis ptilorhynchus

On October 10, 2009, on the way to Y-Junction from

Zimmithang, I recorded an Oriental Honey-Buzzard soaring

above a patch of evergreen forest. Singh (1994) had recorded

the species at Khari (Pakke Tiger Reserve) in Arunachal

Pradesh. Ali et al. (1996) sighted a single bird at Gaylegphug

(c. 250 m) on April 27, 1967, in Bhutan. It has been recorded

as common and resident in Kaziranga National Park, Assam,

by Barua and Sharma (1999), inhabiting grasslands and

woodlands. Barua and Sharma (2005) had recorded it in

Nameri National Park, Assam, as a common and widespread

resident in secondary forest, grasslands, and deciduous forests.

It was recorded as rare and uncommon in northern Myanmar

by King et al. (2001) during ornithological surveys in 1999.

It was recorded in seven different sites in southern China

mostly in Guangxi province (Shing et al. 2006).

Himalayan Vulture Gyps himalayensis

Two birds were sighted flying near Ptiso lake near

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Tawang on October 6, 2009. Singh (1994) had recorded the

Himalayan Griffon at Thingbu (c. 3,300 m). Ali et al. (1996)

recorded a bird soaring over a ridge at c. 2,896 m above

Kha Ling in eastern Bhutan in March 1966. It has been

recorded above c. 2,800 m in Eaglenest and Sessa Orchid

Wildlife Sanctuaries, Arunachal Pradesh (Choudhury 2003).

It is listed as an uncommon migrant in Kaziranga National

Park, Assam (Barua and Sharma 1999) and Nagaland

(Choudhury 2001).

Snow Partridge Lerwa lerwa

A flock of Snow Partridge (8—10 birds) was recorded

on the route (3,342 m; 27° 29' 5.7" N; 92° 06' 29.4" E) to

Sela Top (3,914 m) from Dirang on February 22, 2009. No

snowfall had occurred at that time in most of Tawang (except

Sela Top area) in 2009. However, the next day (February

23, 2009), belated snowfall started in the entire region and

continued for more than 10 days. From this, it appears that

the partridges spend their summer at much lower elevations,

and as the snowfall occurs, they start ascending the

mountains. The area used by the birds before the onset of

snowfall in such lower altitudes needs to be ascertained.

The only protected area from where the species has been

reported from Arunachal Pradesh is Dibang Wildlife

Sanctuary; however, its status is uncertain (Choudhury

2006). Singh (1994) had not recorded it in Tawang district,

but from Tipi and also once from Mehao Wildlife Sanctuary

in Upper Siang district of Arunachal Pradesh. Ali et al.

(1996) mentioned it as ‘scarce’ in Bhutan and collected one

specimen from Juitang (c. 4,300 m) in central Bhutan in

October 23, 1973. Ludlow (1937) found it common on Me

La (c. 4,572 m) in eastern Bhutan, from where he collected

four specimens.

Common Hill-Partridge Arborophila torqueola

On October 9, 2009, around 10:00 hrs, I saw two

partridges, probably a male and a female on a secluded road

(27° 41' 33.2" N; 91° 43' 18.1" E) going to Y-Junction from

Zimmithang. This area was a thick evergreen forest patch

with a valley on one side and high mountain on the other.

Choudhury (2003) had observed a bird on December 12, 1999,

near Lama Camp of Eaglenest Wildlife Sanctuary, Arunachal

Pradesh at c. 2,500 m. Singh (1994) recorded the species from

Chakoo road, Talley valley, and Mayodia in Arunachal

Pradesh, from c. 2,000—2,800 m. Ali et al. (1996) mentioned

it as “not uncommon’ in Bhutan, but very shy and seen in

coveys of three to six birds in dense undergrowth. Ludlow

(1937) had often seen, and more often heard it, at various

places in eastern Bhutan, especially Yonpu La (c. 1,829-—

3,048 m) during July, September, and November.

BIRD RECORDS FROM TAWANG, ARUNACHAL PRADESH

Eurasian Woodcock Scolopax rusticola

On October 10, 2009, I recorded an individual in a

primary wet evergreen forest patch on the way to Y-Junction

from Zimmithang. Singh (1994) recorded the species only at

Orak (c. 1,100 m) in Arunachal Pradesh. According to Ali

et al. (1996), a bird was caught on March 5, 1969, while

foraging in a small swampy glade at Gedu (c. 1,829 m) in

western Bhutan. Ludlow (1937) found a nest with four eggs

at Sharithang in west Bhutan; there are no reported sightings

of the species from eastern Bhutan. In Nagaland, it was

recorded by Godwin-Austen in 1876 as a winter visitor. Also

recorded in Nameri National Park of Assam as a rare winter

visitor and mostly observed in Assam between December and

April (Barua and Sharma 2005). It was reported from two

localities in southern China by Shing et al. (2006) during

their ornithological expedition.

Ashy-headed Green-Pigeon Treron phayrei

I had seen a flock of 8-10 birds once c. 7 km from

Lumla on Zimmithang road on October 3, 2009. It is probably

rare at such heights due to the lack of fruiting trees. Singh

(1994) recorded it only at Khari (Pakke Tiger Reserve),

Arunachal Pradesh. It is reported at c. 2,700 m elevation in

Eaglenest and Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuaries, Arunachal

Pradesh (Choudhury 2003). Since it is a local migrant, it has

been recorded occasionally in woodlands of Kaziranga

National Park (Barua and Sharma 1999). Barua and Sharma

(2005) reported that it was rarely recorded from November

to March in Nameri National Park, though it is a resident

species in the Park. It is also reported from Mouling National

Park, Arunachal Pradesh, and Palak lake in south-west

Mizoram (Birand and Pawar 2004).

Wedge-tailed Green-Pigeon Treron sphenurus

I recorded the Wedge-tailed Green-Pigeon on many

occasions between Nelya and Zimmithang areas, especially

in a primary broadleaf forest. Singh (1994) recorded it from

Talley valley and Jengging area of Arunachal Pradesh.

According to Ali et al. (1996), it was fairly common and

recorded in flocks of about 12 to 20 birds in suitable patches

of forest from c. 610—2,100 m throughout Bhutan. Ludlow

(1937) found it fairly plentiful in eastern Bhutan. It is also

reported below 1,800 m in Eaglenest and Sessa Orchid

Wildlife Sanctuaries, Arunachal Pradesh (Choudhury 2003).

It is an uncommon resident species in Kaziranga National

Park, Assam, in secondary and woodland forests (Barua and

Sharma 1999), and is ‘locally common’ in Nagaland

(Choudhury 2001). According to Barua and Sharma (2005),

it is a rare species, probably a winter visitor, to Nameri

National Park, Assam. In Meghalaya, it has been recorded

only from Balpakram National Park in the Garo Hills (Birand

and Pawar 2004). It was listed as uncommon in northern

Myanmar at 800—1,135 m during an ornithological expedition

by King et al. (2001). The species was not recorded in southern

China by Shing et al. (2006).

Asian Barred Owlet Glaucidium cuculoides

I recorded only one individual at Loudung village

between Sherbang and Zimmithang around 12:30 hrs on

October 4, 2009. Singh (1994) recorded it at Upper Dikroi,

Itanagar, Yachuli, and Deban in Arunachal Pradesh. Ali et al.

(1996) mentioned that Holmes found it to be fairly common

in West Bhutan, and also in East Bhutan, especially at

Rongthung (c. 1,830 m) during March 1966. According to

Abdulali (1972), Bhutan appears to be the meeting ground of

cuculoides, rufescens, austerum, and whitely races of the

species. It was recorded by Allen (2002) from Dibru-

Saikhowa Biosphere Reserve, Assam. There are also a few

sightings from Eaglenest and Sessa Orchid WLS, Arunachal

Pradesh, but below 2,500 m (Choudhury 2003). Recorded as

common from various habitats inside Kaziranga National Park

(Barua and Sharma 1999), itis one of the most common owlets

in nine protected areas of north-east India (Birand and Pawar

2004). It is reported to be an uncommon, resident species in

northern Myanmar below 1,200 m (King et al. 2001).

Golden-throated Barbet Megalaima franklinii

My only record of the Golden-throated Barbet was along

the roadside near Zimmithang on October 13, 2009. Singh

(1994) had recorded it at Chakoo road, Limeking, Sessa, and

Ramsingh areas of Arunachal Pradesh. Ali et al. (1996) recorded

it commonly in small feeding parties of 6—8 birds in eastern

Bhutan, especially Gomchu (c. 2,286 m) and Langsaran

(c. 1,250 m). It has been recorded in Eaglenest and Sessa Orchid

WLS, Arunachal Pradesh, at c. 1,800 m, and in Nagaland as a

common resident (Choudhury 2001). However, Birand and

Pawar (2004) did not record it during their extensive surveys

in north-east India in 2001 and 2002. King et al. (2001) found

it ‘uncommon’ at c. 980—2,000 m during their expedition in

North Myanmar in 1998 and 1999. It is reported in four different

localities in southern China (Shing et al. 2006).

Grey-faced Woodpecker Picus canus

On February 26, 2009, I recorded a male Grey-faced

Woodpecker gleaning food material on the floor of the

secondary forest between Lumla and Shakti in Tawang

district. Singh (1994) had recorded it at Khellong, Khari,

Itanagar, and a few other sites in Arunachal Pradesh, mostly

from 150—1,500 m. Ali et al. (1996) mentioned that it is

common in pairs in forests between the foothills and up to

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

BIRD RECORDS FROM TAWANG, ARUNACHAL PRADESH

2,286 m, especially from Rongthung, Kanglung, and Gomchu

areas of eastern Bhutan. Choudhury (2003) recorded it at

Eaglenest WLS, Arunachal Pradesh, below 1,900 m. Barua

and Sharma (1999) recorded it as a common species in

secondary forests in Kaziranga National Park. Choudhury

(2001) also recorded it in Nagaland during his surveys in

1990s. Barua and Sharma (2005) saw it sometimes in

association with Greater Necklaced Laughingthrush

(Garrulax pectoralis) and Lesser Necklaced Laughingthrush

(Leucodioptron monileger) in Nameri National Park. It has

also been recorded in Namdapha Tiger Reserve (Arunachal

Pradesh), and in Balpakram National Park and Barail Reserve

Forest in Mizoram (Birand and Pawar 2004).

Bay Woodpecker Blythipicus pyrrhotis

A lone bird was observed on October 3, 2009, between

Lumla and Zimmithang. Singh (1994) had recorded the Bay

Woodpecker from Pange and Deban-Hornbill of Namdapha

Tiger Reserve, mostly from 160—1,500 m in Arunachal

Pradesh. Ali et al. (1996) occasionally recorded pairs in forests

from 380—2,240 m in Gomchu area of eastern Bhutan. It has

also been recorded in Eaglenest and Sessa Orchid WLS of

Arunachal Pradesh from c. 350—2,400 m (Choudhury 2003).

It is resident in Kaziranga National Park, sighted occasionally

and mostly in secondary forests (Barua and Sharma 2005). It

has also been reported in northern Myanmar (King et al. 2001)

and in 22 sites in three provinces (Guangdong, Guangxi, and

Hainan) of southern China (Shing et al. 2006).

Rufous-breasted Accentor Prunella strophiata

On February 26, 2009, I recorded two individuals on

the roadside between Lumla and Bomdir foraging on a grassy

slope; this was the only record for the species during the

surveys. Singh (1994) found it to be common in Tenga-Bomdi

La road, Chiri La (Sela Pass in Tawang district), and Talley

valley from 1,850—3,800 m. Ali et al. (1996) saw it frequently

in pairs or small parties in bushes, fallow fields, and scrub.

Ludlow (1937) reported it to be common in summer,

especially in Rongthung, Gomchu, Wamrong, and Narphung

in eastern Bhutan during February and March, 1966.

Choudhury (2003) recorded it from Eaglenest and Sessa

Orchid WLS, Arunachal Pradesh, from c. 2,500—2,800 m.

Alpine Accentor Prunella collaris

On March 3, 2009, I recorded two individuals along with

Russet Sparrow Passer rutilans near Lumla Circuit House. Singh

(1994) had recorded it only from Mayodia (near Sange) at

c. 2,400 m, but could not ascertain its abundance there. Ludlow

(1937) found it to be common at high altitudes, collecting one

each at c. 4,572 m at Me La and Kang La in eastern Bhutan.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Long-billed Ground-Thrush Zoothera monticola

On October 2, 2009, while returning from Loudung

village, I recorded and photographed two birds foraging on a

roadside stream in a moist forest patch, which is the typical

habitat for this elusive species. Singh (1994) had recorded it

in Eaglenest WLS and Dujbun in Arunachal Pradesh.

According to Ali et al. (1996), the species was scarce in

Bhutan and observed singly in damp, dark, narrow, wooded

ravines; it was not recorded in eastern Bhutan. Newton (2002)

recorded an individual foraging in vegetable gardens and

hillside streams at Mankota in Siang River valley of Arunachal

Pradesh. We also caught an individual near Firmbase in

evergreen forest above the River Namdapha in Namdapha

Tiger Reserve, Arunachal Pradesh, on October 11, 2009.

Small-billed Scaly Thrush Zoothera dauma

I saw the Small-billed Scaly Thrush foraging in a

roadside forest patch between Lumla and Zimmithang. on

October 9, 2009. Singh (1994) recorded the species in Anini,

Wakro, Suchung, Mayodia, and Namdapha National Park,

mostly from c. 300—2,700 m. According to Ali et al. (1996),

itis ‘moderately common’ in Bhutan, and usually seen singly

hopping about on the forest floor. Ludlow (1937) encountered

it from 2,438—3,353 m in Bhutan, especially at Donga Pemi

(c. 3,200 m) and Wamrong (3,386 m) in eastern Bhutan, where

Ali et al. (1996) had collected a few specimens. Barua and

Sharma (1999) recorded it mostly in woodlands in Kaziranga

as uncommon and migratory. In Nagaland, it has been

observed to be migratory (Choudhury 2001). It is reported to

be an uncommon winter visitor to Nameri National Park

(Barua and Sharma 2005). In southern China, the species was

found to be not widespread in the survey regions during the

warm and wet seasons, and was recorded only in three of the

54 sites surveyed in Jiangxi, Hainan, and Guangxi provinces

(Shing et al. 2006).

Grey-winged Blackbird Turdus boulboul

I recorded the Grey-winged Blackbird on two occasions

around Zimmithang in October 2009. Singh (1994) reported

it from Jang (near Tawang) in temperate broadleaf forests

from 120—2,450 m, and also in Seijosa, Pakke Tiger Reserve.

I also recorded two birds on February 12, 2010, near the north

bank (Seijosa) of Pakke Tiger Reserve, Arunachal Pradesh.

According to Ali et al. (1996), it was not uncommon in Bhutan

and seen singly or in pairs in thick forest feeding on the

ground. Ludlow (1937) had recorded it throughout Bhutan

from 1,829-—2,743 m. Choudhury (2003) saw an individual

on May 14, 2000, at Alubari (c. 1,900 m) during his surveys

in Eaglenest and Sessa Orchid WLS, Arunachal Pradesh.

Bishop (1996) recorded a bird in March 1996 inside Kaziranga

BIRD RECORDS FROM TAWANG, ARUNACHAL PRADESH

National Park. Interestingly, Birand and Pawar (2004) and

Barua and Sharma (2005) did not record the species from

many states of north-eastern India, including Nameri National

Park (adjacent to Pakke Tiger Reserve). King et al. (2001)

recorded it as ‘uncommon’ in northern Myanmar in 1999.

Shing et al. (2006) sighted this species only once in southern

China’s Guangxi province, but confirmed it breeding there.

Little Forktail Enicurus scouleri

I recorded only one bird near a stream along the roadside

between Bomdir and Zimmithang during the survey, unlike

Singh (1994), who recorded it in many localities in Arunachal

Pradesh, finding it fairly common at c. 400-3,500 m. Ali

et al. (1996) occasionally saw it singly or in pairs, along

torrential rocky hill-streams in eastern Bhutan’s Gomchu

(2,286 m) in March 1968. Choudhury (2003) recorded it in

Eaglenest and Sessa Orchid WLS at 1,900—2,500 m. Barua

and Sharma (2005) sighted it during winter in Nameri National

Park, especially in Nameri river and along the Chotai nala.

Birand and Pawar (2004) found it in Namdapha National Park,

Arunachal Pradesh. Shing et al. (2006) recorded it from eight

out of 54 sites surveyed in southern China.

Rufous-chinned Laughingthrush Janthocincla rufogularis

On October 1, 2009, I recorded four birds near Gispu

village foraging probably on berries near a crop field. In

Arunachal, the species has been recorded at Hayliang (Singh

1994) and Eaglenest WLS (Choudhury 2003). Ali et al. (1996)

mentioned that Ludlow (1937) recorded it in summer

throughout Bhutan from c. 2,134—3,353 m, more commonly

in bushes and shrubs than trees.

Rufous-winged Fulvetta Pseudominla castaneceps

I recorded this species only once on the way to

Y-Junction from Zimmithang on October 9, 2009. Singh

(1994) recorded it as common in many areas of Arunachal

Pradesh, including Bomdi La and Namdapha National Park.

During ZSI’s expedition in Namdapha Tiger Reserve, I

recorded it in many places, including Hornbill Camp and

Firmbase. Ali et al. (1996) saw flocks of one to three dozen

birds in the forest from c. 500—3,200 m. Choudhury (2003)

recorded it from 2,400—2,500 m in Eaglenest and Sessa Orchid

WLS, Arunachal Pradesh. King et al. (2001) found it to be

common in 1998 and 1999 during surveys in northern

Myanmar at c. 760—2,400 m. It had been reported from only

one site (Cenwanglaoshan Nature Reserve, c. 110—1,800 m)

in Guangxi province, southern China.

Blue-winged Minla Siva cyanouroptera

On October 10, 2009, I recorded five to seven

individuals perched on a tree along with a Red-tailed Minla

near Zimmithang Tourist Lodge. Singh (1994) frequently

recorded this species from Pange, Upper Dikroi (Pakke Tiger

Reserve), Miao-Deban (Namdapha Tiger Reserve), Arunachal

Pradesh. According to Ali et al. (1996), it is common in flocks

of about 6-12 birds, usually in mixed feeding parties with

other small babblers from the foothills to about 2,300 m in

the whole of Bhutan. However, Ludlow (1937) found it to be

scarce and obtained specimens during November and

February from c. 610—1,219 m in eastern Bhutan. Choudhury

(2003) recorded it from c. 2,200—2,500 m in Eaglenest and

Sessa Orchid WLS, Arunachal Pradesh. Recorded as a winter

visitor to Nagaland (Choudhury 2001), and an uncommon

winter visitor to Nameri National Park, Assam; often seen

singly and sometimes in mixed hunting parties (Barua and

Sharma 2005). It is an uncommon resident in northern

Myanmar from c. 460—1,100 m (King et al. 2001).

Himalayan Aberrant Bush-Warbler

Horornis flavolivaceus

On September 29 and 30, 2009, I recorded this species

between Lumla and Sherbang villages in Tawang district near

roadside vegetation at c. 2,333 m, and this was the only record

of the species during the survey. Singh (1994) recorded it in

Talley valley, Arunachal Pradesh, but did not give information

on its abundance. Ali et al. (1996) recorded it in western

Bhutan, especially Gasa but not in eastern Bhutan, but Ludlow

(1937) found it to be common in long grass and thick scrub

in eastern Bhutan at c. 3,600 m. It was reported as an

‘uncommon winter visitor’ to Nagaland (Choudhury 2001).

Humes’s Leaf-Warbler Phylloscopus humei

I recorded this species only once in February 2009. Ali

et al. (1996) had captured an individual at Samchi (305 m),

western Bhutan, and Ripley (1952) had collected an individual

from Naga hills during his surveys in the 1950s.

Grey-hooded Warbler Phylloscopus xanthoschistos

I recorded this species once in February 2009. Singh

(1994) recorded it from four localities (c. 150—2,000 m),

especially in Khari (Pakke Tiger Reserve), Chakoo Road,

Pange, and Anini in Arunachal Pradesh. Ali et al. (1996) found

it to be common, frequenting taller shrubs and small trees,

singly or in pairs, in spring and winter, in mixed hunting

parties in eastern Bhutan’s Tashiyangche, Chasam, Tashigang.

Allen (2002) recorded it in Amarpur area of Assam during

March 1998. Choudhury (2003) recorded it at c. 2,700 m in

Eaglenest and Sessa Orchid WLS, Arunachal Pradesh. Barua

and Sharma (1999) recorded it occasionally in secondary

forests and woodlands during winter in Kaziranga National

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

BIRD RECORDS FROM TAWANG, ARUNACHAL PRADESH

Park, Assam. Choudhury (2001) reported it from Nagaland.

Barua and Sharma (2005) recorded it as rare in Nameri

National Park, Assam. Birand and Pawar (2004) recorded it

from Namdapha and Mouling National Parks, Arunachal

Pradesh.

Broad-billed Warbler Tickellia hodgsoni

I recorded the species only once on October 4, 2009,

between Lumla and Zimmithang in Tawang district. Singh et

al. (1994) recorded it from Talley valley (c. 2,400 m).

According to Ali et al. (1996), Holmes observed it only a

few times in western Bhutan in November 1968 and 1969.

Choudhury (2003) recorded it at c. 2,800 m in Eaglenest and

Sessa Orchid WLS, Arunachal Pradesh. However, this species

is rare and localised in NE India, and its status is poorly known

(del Hoyo et al. 2006). In northern Myanmar, King et al.

(2001) recorded it rarely from c. 1,050—1,800 m. Shing et al.

(2006) recorded it four times in Cenwanglaoshan Nature

Reserve (c. 1,320-1,550 m), north-west Guangxi on July 31,

1999, and May 23, 2002.

Dark-sided Flycatcher Muscicapa sibirica

In October 2009, I recorded this species around

Zimmithang. Singh (1994) had recorded it from various sites

in Arunachal Pradesh, including Bomdi La, Sessa, and Talley

valley at 600—2,700 m. According to Ali et al. (1996), it was

not common in Bhutan and was seen singly or in loose parties

of three to four birds, especially in spring. Ludlow (1937)

found it breeding at 2,438—3,300 m in forested areas of

Bhutan, and common in east and west Bhutan, including

Naningphu and Deothang. Choudhury (2003) recorded it in

Eaglenest and Sessa Orchid WLS below 1,900 m. It is an

uncommon winter visitor to Kaziranga National Park, Assam,

and seen mostly in woodlands of the Park (Barua and Sharma

1999).

Fire-capped Tit Cephalopyrus flammiceps

I sighted the species in February 2009, in Lumla and

surrounding areas. I recorded it again there during my survey

in September 2009, and also near the Lumla Circuit House

and Zimmithang. Singh (1994) found it to be ‘abundant’ in

Bomdi La (c. 2,500 m). Ali et al. (1996) mentioned it as

‘scarce’ in Bhutan, recording only two males from Gomchu

(2,286 m) in eastern Bhutan on March 7 and 9, 1966.

Coal Tit Periparus ater aemodius

On October 9, 2009, I recorded the Coal Tit (probably

a male and a female) on shrubs near the shores of Madhuri

lake near Zimmithang. Singh (1994) recorded this species

from Talley valley and Redding-Taksing areas in Arunachal

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Pradesh. Ali et al. (1996) did not record it from eastern Bhutan,

but obtained records from central and western Bhutan in 1973.

King et al. (2001) recorded it to be quite common in northern

Myanmar in 1999, from c. 2,800—3,100 m.

Spotted Nutcracker Nucifraga caryocatactes

Only one individual was sighted near Bomdir (Tawang

district) in February 2009. Singh (1994) had recorded it along

the Sela-Jang road of Tawang district in Arunachal Pradesh

from c. 1,800—3,100 m. Ali et al. (1996) record it as common,

occurring in parties of four to six birds or in pairs in coniferous

forests from 1,500—3,200 m. Ludlow (1937) reported that it

was common throughout Bhutan from 1,830 m, and the tree-

line in eastern Bhutan, especially at Donga Pemi, where Ali

et al. (1996) had collected six specimens in November 1973.

Choudhury (2003) recorded it in Eaglenest and Sessa Orchid

WLS in West Kameng district, Arunachal Pradesh, from

1,800—3,200 m. It is reported as an uncommon resident in

northern Myanmar, north-west of Putao at c. 2,600—3,100 m

(King et al. 2001).

Wallcreeper Tichodroma muraria

On October 3, 2009, an individual was found emerging

from a crevice in a wall stacked with boulders at Lumla Circuit

House. Singh (1994) recorded it from Anini, Kibitho, and

Mayodia in Arunachal Pradesh. Ali et al. (1996) had observed

it singly, especially in newly built road-cuttings, usually at

c. 1,000 m and above. Ali et al. (1996) had observed it on

March 6, 1966, at Kha Ling (2,134 m), eastern Bhutan. It

was also recorded in Ramalingam area of Eaglenest and Sessa

Orchid WLS in West Kameng district, Arunachal Pradesh, at

c. 1,600 m. According to Barua and Sharma (1999), it has

been recorded during winter in Kaziranga National Park,

Assam, where the individuals recorded could be stragglers.

Himalayan Beautiful Rosefinch Carpodacus pulcherrimus

In February 2009, I recorded five birds at the outskirts

of Tawang city, perched on tall shrubs on the roadside, calling

constantly. Singh (1994) found it to be common at Churna

(near Sela Pass in Tawang district) at c. 3,700 m.

Scarlet Finch Haematospiza sipahi

On October 10, 2009, on the way to Y-Junction from

Zimmithang, I recorded a male perched on the top of a tall

tree and calling constantly.This was our only record of the

species during the surveys. Singh (1994) had rare sightings

from Broksar-Jang and Glao Lake track (Tawang district) from

600—2,300 m. Ali et al. (1996) recorded it as generally

uncommon throughout Bhutan, but very common in loose

parties in some localities, or singly feeding on berries

BIRD RECORDS FROM TAWANG, ARUNACHAL PRADESH

especially at Mathangarh (c. 1,524 m) and Deohang

(c. 823 m) in eastern Bhutan. However, Ludlow (1937) found

it to be uncommon, occurring in open forest. Choudhury

(2003) recorded it in June 2001 at Eaglenest Wildlife

Sanctuary of Arunachal Pradesh. Choudhury (2001) found it

uncommon and noticed its local movement pattern in

Nagaland. Birand and Pawar (2004) recorded it in Mouling

National Park, Arunachal Pradesh. King et al. (2001) recorded

an individual at c. 1,160 m in northern Myanmar, and stated

that it was uncommon and rare throughout.

Eurasian Jay Garrulus glandarius

In February 2009, I came across the species near

Sherbang village between Lumla and Zimmithang. Similarly,

on October 9, 2009, while going to Bumla from Zimmithang

via Tawang, I recorded it between Y-Junction and Tawang.

Singh (1994) recorded it from Anini, and Helmet Top from

c. 2,000-2,550 m. According to Ali et al. (1996), it was not

uncommon, occuring in pairs or small parties of four to six

birds at 1,200—3,658 m, sometimes in mixed feeding parties

with treepies and Spotted Nutcracker. Ludlow (1937) had

reported it to be moderately common and widely distributed in

open and dense forest. Specimens were collected from eastern

Bhutan, at Younpu La, Gomchu, and Narphung. Choudhury

(2003) recorded it from Eaglenest and Sessa Orchid WLS

at 2,000—2,600 m. It is rare in northern Myanmar from

c. 2,400 m and c. 2,700 m (King et al. 2001). It has been

recorded from only one locality (Dawuling Nature Reserve

(1,000—1,700 m) in southern China (Shing et al. 2006).

DISCUSSION

Despite the work of many birders (Athreya et al. 1997;

Birand and Pawar 2004; Choudhury 2003; Datta 2001; Datta

et al. 1998; King and Donahue 2006; Kumar and Singh 1999;

Newton 2002; Sangha and Naoroji 2005; Sangha et al. 2007;

Singh 1994, 1999; Kumar 2008) on the avifauna of Arunachal

Pradesh, a complete list of birds of the state is lacking because

of its remoteness and difficult accessibility (Sangha and

Naoroji 2007). According to Srinivasan et al. (2010),

Arunachal Pradesh is poorly surveyed and the avifauna of

many areas remains inadequately documented. Due to these

reasons, there are possibilities of recording new bird species

and species not earlier recorded in the state.

In Zimmithang valley (a part of Zimmithang-Nelya IBA

of the Eastern Himalaya), which was covered during this

study, no avian surveys have been undertaken except by

Kumar (2008). Thus, this survey of Tawang district, during

which a total of 113 species of birds was recorded, helps fill

the gaps in our knowledge of the avifauna of the state.

However, I was not able to reach many high altitude areas

due to logistic problems, and may have missed birds like the

pheasants and the Black-necked Crane Grus nigricollis,

besides some migratory storks and ducks, as the area is a

stopover or passage site for many species which migrate from

southern China and Mongolia to the plains of India. Hence,

there is further need to survey the district, especially the higher

reaches, where species which are common with Bhutan and

southern China may occur.

The bird surveys revealed that the predominantly

temperate forests of Tawang district (from 1,800 to 3,500 m)

support relatively fewer species (113), compared to the rest

of Arunachal Pradesh (>680 species). The bird diversity is

lower in the subalpine fir and alpine vegetation found at

altitudes of c. 3,500—4,500 m and c. 4,500-—5,500 m

respectively, and only 117 species were recorded in these two

vegetation types during four visits, each of 15—20 days. Katti

et al. (1992) recorded only 30 odd species above 2,700 m

in the Arunachal Pradesh hills, compared to a much higher

diversity of 174 species in the forests situated from

200—1,000 m. Kumar (2008) had recorded 81 bird species

between December 2005 and November 2007 from Tawang

district, including some of the areas surveyed by me.

The high altitude forests in the district are affected by

various agricultural practices that could impact the bird

diversity. Though more than 80% of the areas in the district

are too remote for locals to cultivate, some of them have the

active presence of the Indian Army. Fortunately, the entire

district is dominated by the Buddhist community, so hunting

is not prevalent as it is in the rest of the State.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank the Director, Zoological Survey of India,

for encouragement and permission to conduct the

surveys. I also thank my fellow staff at ZSI, Itanagar,

especially Mr. D.B. Tamang, Mr. P.K. Chakraborty, and

Mr. D. Bhowmick who assisted me in various ways. My

sincere thanks are also due to the Arunachal Pradesh Forest

Department for support, and to the local officials posted at

various places in Tawang district, for extending cooperation

and support during the surveys.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

BIRD RECORDS FROM TAWANG, ARUNACHAL PRADESH

REFERENCES

ABDULALI, H. (1972): A catalogue of the birds in the collection of the

Bombay Natural History Society-11. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

69(1): 102-109.

ALI, S., B. Biswas & S.D. RipLey (1996): Birds of Bhutan. Rec. zool.

Surv. India. Occ. Paper 136: 1-207.

ALLEN, D. (2002): A bird survey of the Amarpur area of the Dibru-

Saikhowa Biosphere Reserve, Assam, India. Forktail 18:

87-91.

ATHREYA, R. (2006): A new species of Liocichla (Aves: Timaliidae)

from Eaglenest Wildlife Sanctuary, Arunachal Pradesh, India.

Indian Birds 2(4): 82-94.

ATHREYA, R., A. CAPTAIN & V. ATHREYA (1997): A faunal survey of

Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Arunachal Pradesh, India: notes on

some of the more interesting species. Unpublished Report

submitted to the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Department.

Barua, M. & P. SHARMA (1999): Birds of Kaziranga National Park,

India. Forktail 15: 47-60.

Barua, M. & P. SHARMA (2005): The birds of Nameri National Park,

Assam, India. Forktail 21: 15-26.

BiRAND, A. & S. Pawar (2004): An ornithological survey in north-east

India. Forktail 20: 15-24.

BisHop, K.D. (1996): Victor Emanuel Nature Tours. Unpublished trip

report. March 14—20.

Cuoupuury, A.U. (2001): Some bird records from Nagaland, north-

east India. Forktail 17: 91-103.

CuoupuHury, A.U. (2003): Birds of Eaglenest Wildlife Sanctuary and

Sessa Orchid Sanctuary, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Forktail 19:

1-13.

CuoupuHury, A.U. (2006): A Pocket guide to the Birds of Arunachal

Pradesh. Gibbon Books and The Nature in the NE India,

Guwahati. 109 pp.

Datta, A. (2001): An ecological study of sympatric hornbills and fruiting

patterns in a tropical forest in Arunachal Pradesh. Ph.D. thesis,

Saurashtra University, Rajkot.

Datta, A., P. SINGH, R.M. ATHREYA & S. KARTHIKEYAN (1998): Birds of

Pakhui Wildlife Sanctuary in western Arunachal Pradesh.

Newsletter for Birdwatchers 38: 91-96.

DEL Hoyo., A. ELLior & D.A. Curistre (2006): Handbook of the Birds

of the World. Vol. 11. Old World Flycatchers to Old World

Warblers. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. 798 pp.

ForEST SURVEY OF INDIA (2003): State of forest report 2003. Forest Survey

of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Dehradun.

IsLAM, M.Z. & A.R. RAHMANI (2004): Important Bird Areas in India:

Priority sites for Conservation. Indian Bird Conservation

Network: Bombay Natural History Society and BirdLife

International (UK). xviii + 1133 pp.

KartTI, M., P. SINGH, N. MANJREKAR, D. SHARMA & S. MUKHERJEE (1992):

An ornithological survey in eastern Arunachal Pradesh. Forktail

7: 715-89.

KING, B. & J.P. DONAHUE (2006): The rediscovery and song of Rusty-

throated Wren-Babbler Spelaeornis badeigularis. Forktail 22:

113-115.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Kina, B., H. Buck, R. Fercuson, T. FisHer, C. Gosiet, H. NICKEL &

W. SUTER (2001): Birds recorded during two expeditions to North

Myanmar (Burma). Forktail 17: 29-40.

Kumar, A. (2008): Observations on the avifauna of Tawang Chu valley,

Arunachal Pradesh along with a new record Muscicapa ruficauda

(Rusty-tailed Flycatcher) for Arunachal Pradesh. Bulletin of

Arunachal Forest Research 24(]1 &2): 54-62.

Kumar, S. & P. SincH (1999): A study on pheasant distribution in

Arunachal Pradesh, Eastern Himalaya, India. Wildlife Institute

of India, Dehradun.

Kumar, S.R. & P. SINGH (2004): A new subspecies of Sclater’s Monal

Lophophorus sclateri from western Arunachal Pradesh, India.

Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 124: 16-28.

Lup.ow, F. (1937): The birds of Bhutan and adjacent territories of Sikkim

and Tibet. [bis 14(1): 146, 249-293, 467-504.

Lup_Low, F. & N.B. KINNEAR (1944): The birds of south-eastern Tibet.

Ibis 86: 43-86, 176-208, 348-389.

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND Forests (2001): State of the Forest Report

2001. Forest Survey of India, Dehradun. Pp. 159.

Newton, P.N. (2002): Bird records from the Siang River valley,

Arunachal Pradesh, India. Forktail 18: 156—157.

RAHMANI, A.R. (2012): Threatened Birds of India — Their Conservation

Requirements. Bombay Natural History Society, Indian Bird

Conservation Network, Royal Society for the Protection of

Birds, Birdlife International and Oxford University Press.

861 pp.

RASMUSSEN, P.C. & J.C. ANDERTON (2012): Birds of South Asia. The

Ripley Guide. Vols. 1 and 2. Second edition. National Museum

of Natural History — Smithsonian Institution, Michigan State

University and Lynx Edicions, Washington, D.C., Michigan and

Barcelona. 684 pp.

Rey, S.D. (1952): A collection of birds from the Naga Hills. J. Bombay

Nat. Hist. Soc. 50(3): 475-514.

SANGHA, H.S. & R. Naorom (2005): Slender-billed Babbler Turdoides

longirostris in Arunachal Pradesh. Mistnet 6: 12.

SANGHA, H.S. & R. Naorost (2007): New and significant records of

birds in Arunachal Pradesh, north-east India. Forktail 23:

179-181.

SANGHA, H.S., R. NAorosl & M. SHARMA (2007): The Crested Titbabbler

Leptopoecile elegans in north-west Arunachal Pradesh: an

addition to the Indian avifauna. Indian Birds 3(1): 23-25.

SuinGc, L.K., M.W. Lau., J.R. Fettowes & C.B.P. Lok (2006): Forest

bird fauna of South China: notes on current distribution and

status. Forktail 22: 23-38.

SINGH, P. (1994): Recent bird records from Arunachal Pradesh. Forktail

10: 65-104. Published 1995.

Sincu, P. (1999): Bird surveys in selected localities of Arunachal Pradesh,

India. Wildlife Institute of India, Unpublished report.

SRINIVASAN, U., S. DALviI, R. NANIWADEKAR, M.O. ANAND & A. Datta

(2010): The birds of Namdapha National Park and surrounding

areas: recent significant records and a checklist of the species.

Forktail 26: 108-132.

BIRD RECORDS FROM TAWANG, ARUNACHAL PRADESH

Vo €¢

€

snieis

sdodsa edndn

9s0doopH (ueiseing) uowWWwoy

‘ds sn6jnwudey

JehyBin peynuepiuy

saplojnono wnipione|5

18|MCO peweg ueisy

si]Su] snaeydooiuaeyd

BYOB P9l|!Q-USSJE)

sninuayds Uuosed

uoebig-udsa/5 payie}-s6pa,

laiAeyd uosed

uoebig-usel5 pepeseu-Ayusy

si/e]UauO eIjadojdaljs

8A0QG-8|UN | Je}USUO

eBjouogne| Bquinjoy

uoebig MOUS

PjOollsn Xedojooas

yOoopoo;A ueiseing

souejawoona einydo7

jueseaud lasjey

Pjoenbio] ejiydoloqiy

ebpuyed-||IH UOWWOD

PMI9] PMIAT

ebpuued MOUS

sisueXejewiy sdA5

anna UeAReWIH

snjnounuulj o2/e4

|O41S8y UOWWOD

snyouAysojiyd Siulad

piezzng-AsuoH Je}UsuO

snisejimey oajng piezzng pueda

oajng oaing piezzng ,eddajs,

sisuajediu snjaesin

9/6e4-ymeH urelunoy|

Blejsey ebue/D

9|6e3 peyods uelpu|

sisueAejew SNjJaeuljo]

ejbeq yorlg

sai0eds

seseujuased ul xipueddy Jo pus au} 7e UBAIH SI peASAINS O}IS YORE Jo (SeuJEWW Ul) BPNII\y ‘~Papsooe saideds Jo jsI| aU} PUe JOUN}SID Hueme| Ul PeAS/UNS So}Is Jo s]le}9q ‘|, xIPUeddy

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

BIRD RECORDS FROM TAWANG, ARUNACHAL PRADESH

Puinep BIaYyJOOZ

= 5 : i - ; . = : - ? : ate : = ; 7 s . = . Y ysniy | Ajeog paj|iq-|fews

| BJODNUOW BIBYJOOZ

- - - - - - - - - - - : - - - - - + - - - - - Y yusniy]-PuNoIy payjig-buo07

| | SUJUBAINI BJOD]UOW]

2 2) eee st Oe eee tee Be Se ee a ee ae eee YSMy |-490Y pai|jaq-jnujseyo

snajniaeo snuoydosyp

- - - + - - . - - - ~ . - + - - ~ : - - : + - 9 usniy | -Buisiu,A anig

SUeBI[OO e/JaUNId

= - - - - - - - - - - + . - - - - - - - - - - WN ‘O Jo|Uusd0Y SUId|V

| BeIYdos ejauUNd

- - - + - - - - - . - ~ ; : - : : : - - - . - 6 Jo\Us.0Y pejseaig-snojny

snjouo/yde] sniuez

os SY i eS ee ee ee Si ee ee oe ee 5 ayUUS peyoeg-AeH

JOJOOL yoeyos sniuez

a. De ee ee ye SS oy sr ee Oe So OD = SUS palle}-Buo7 pepeey-4e|g,

sAuaboonea] snjououdhy

- « - - - - - - - - + - : ; + - - - + - - + - 9 Inqing ueAeyewiy

snjeydas0ana| sajedisdAH

- - - - ” + - - + - - + - - ~ : - : + - - + - 9 Inging yoelg ueAReWIH

sajeo snjououdkg

- - - - - - - - + - - + - - + - - - + - - ~ - a) INgINg pe]UsA-peYy

SLUBIOS SN]ODOIOUBd

- - - - - - - - - - - ; - - - - - - - . - + - 9 JOAIUIP POUUIYO-AdJ5)

SLIISOMABIG SNJODOIOLAG

- . F ; = : = 5 = . 5 P $ + Ss 2 = a = - : a JOAIUII PSI |!G-HOUS

snsolgeds SNjODI0ILag

: . : z : : , : : g ae 2 Sa oe - : - — : : fe) JOAIUIY 19[L29S

snoyLAd snoidiyjAjg

sig Seas Le a SO : Soe a ee a Oe a a lg O | sayoedpoom Aeg

snueo snaid

- - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - 5) Jayoedpoo; peder}-Aal5

Bjeaul) ewiejebay

= + : - - - - - - - - - - - + - - : - : - ~ - 9 jequeg peyeeulq

Nulpyuel euleyebayy

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - ; : - - - - - O jequeg peyeoiu}-uspjoyH

SUaJIA eUejebayy

- - - : 3 ° - - - - - + - af ae - - - - - - + - 9 jequeg }ealyH

a 2 F ; x = ‘ = : + y : 5 5 x + ; + A Oo sjuye sndy YIMS eT

So oc lc OC 6+ St LE Qt St Ft Sk «eb Ek OF G 8 Z 9 G Gy G L Snyeys sal9eds

(joJU0) seseujuesed ul UBAIB si paASAINS aIS YOO JO (SOujJOW Ul) BPN ‘Psps0091 SaIdeds Jo jsI| BU} PUe JOLNJSID BueMe| UI PaAS/UNS SOLIS JO Sjle}]9q :L xipueddy

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

BIRD RECORDS FROM TAWANG, ARUNACHAL PRADESH

vo €6 co Ie Oc 61

snyeis

BajN| XUYJO!IOT]

XUYJOI9] PS |!q-P9y

sijooyns snuiysojewodebayy

Ja|Qqeg-JeWWIDS pa}Sealg-yxealIS

sKuebosyj/Ala snuiyslojewogd

1a|Qqeg-JeYWWIDS pexseyo-Ajsny

BIBLIS B/NdoJeUWeID

ysmuujburyGne7 payeuys

winjeaul| Uo1a]dojeyool]

yusniubuiubne7 peyeeais

eulye UoJa]dojeyool]

ysniujbuiyhne7 peorj-yorlg

sueinboge xejnuey

ysn:yjburyhne7 peyeoiyj-ay1yM

sueinbojns Bjouls0yjue|]

yusniuyGulyhne7 peuuiyo-snojny

winjeydesoiyyAua uosajdojeyool|

usniujbuiubne7 pepesy-pey

Pallay B/IYAOPOYY

yeyousng Aal5

snineul BjOIIXeS

JEYDSUOIS UBLAQIS

uajnoos sninoiuz

Epos 9aiH]

snjejnoew sninoiuz

|fepyio4 peyods

S//2]UOd SRINDIUBOYd

Ue\SPSy PsjuolJ-9n|q

snaeshiyo sabisse]

UuIqoy-ysng Usp|Of)

snjeydas0ana| snuinaiueoyd

JEUD-JOAIY peddeo-ayiy

SOJNIYIO SNINDIUBOY

Uespsy 4oe/q

snsoulbijnj snindIuaoyd

UeISpeY JayeAA SNOSquuN|d

luos6poy sninoiuaoyd

ueispey s,uoshpoy

/noginog snpinL

puiqyoer|g pebuim-Aal5

saldeds

(‘p]JuOD) seseujuesed ul UBAIB si peAesuNs ays YORS Jo (SeijeW Ul) BPN ‘Paps0des salads jo jsI| 94} PUe JOLN|SID HuemeL Ul peAs/UNS Seis JO sjiejeq ‘| xIpueddy

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

BIRD RECORDS FROM TAWANG, ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JOJOD] BINDEII4

sayoyeoA|4 anig-Aye|S

snuissejey] seiAWINF

JaYoedA| 4 JAUPJOA

JUUBLU9]SaM BINPIII-+4

JayoyeoA|4 Pal a/7

juosbhpoy BI//A¥OLL

JB|QIEM Psl|ig-peoig

Ssnuojns SNWOJOYUC

PIIQUO}Ie| UOWWLUOD

sojsiyosoyjuex sndoosoyj|Ayd

Ja|qie\\ pepoou-Aal5

lawiny sndoosojjAYq

JajqueM-yee] S,sewny

SNBICAIJOAR]J SIUJOJOH

Ja|qQieny usng jueUEgy ueAR|ewWIH

snsoigaajed sdoiajsoz

3ha-a}14M |e}USUO

SUeIIOIBANS PIU

BIUUd IIH

JOJODIUN SILIOXOpele

IqVoe 4 UMOIG

snjeisideo seioejeyy

BIQIS snyny

sdaaiuerjseo epiydejs

BUIYNA PS}ELIS

SIJJODIAB|J BUIYNA

BUIUNA PSlBySIUM

SITBUAINIO BUIUNA

BUIUN,A Pe}]UsA-SNojny

sdadeuejseo ejulwopnasY

eyaain4 pebulm-snojny

BIajdosnoueAd BAIS

elu pebuim-enjg

BIOUIOUB) BUI

BUI] P9l!e]-Poy

pinbujs ejulmosfiyy)

BUI) Peyeoiy}-1eg

ve to co te Oc GE St Zt SE St ve etl ck TE OL 6 § LZ 9 S yo G | snyeys saldeds

(jpjuoo) seseujuesed ul UBAIB si peASAINS SIs YOR Jo (SOJ}JeW Ul) BPN “Pepsooe. Saldeds jo }sI| 94} pue JOL\sIP Bueme_ ul peAsAINs Seis jo sjlejoq :, xIpueddy

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

BIRD RECORDS FROM TAWANG, ARUNACHAL PRADESH

snaeydoona sniyjopz

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - + - 9) o6uoig Ausy

eyjuexodhy xuAyopijayD

z E " ” : = 3 . : B 3 = : sf - ? 3 . #) |FEJUBS PSl||OQ-MO]|BA

eubew elayj]OUyIely

- - - - - - : - - - - - - - + - - - - - - + - 9 Ja}UNWEpIds peyeajs

sisuajediu ebAdoyjey

+ - - “ - - - - - - - - - : - - - - - - - - ; 9 PJIQUNS pesyle}-usaIH

epneoiubi ebAdoyjey

5 See Sa to A ab] a St BS Be es le paiqung peiie}-9114

ewbijsouobiu] wineesiq

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - + : - - - - - - - WY JayoedsaMo| paljjaq-abuesO

PUBINW BWOJPOYI! |

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - O Jaedaainjeny

JOJOISIP BIYLVAD

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - O Jed90J990I] WIYXIS

SISUBAB/CWUIY BLS

Ae am ne es a ie ee ee Te me eS oe ee 3. YOJEYINN Pallel-SUUM

- - - - - - - + . - - - : - - - - - - - - - - O snipoweer Jaye snieduagd WI jeod

snosyolp saueydoydo7

- - - - - - - - - - - - - ” + - - - - - - - - 5 HL peysaso-Ag5

sdesimwey snixdojeyday

- - - - - : - - - - - - - : - - - - - - - + - IN ‘O i peddeo-aii4

snuulouod sojeyjyibey

i A 5 z 3 i + 2 7 t . 7 te 5 : ‘ ; : - + 7 D, WH] peyeosy}-yoe|q

snjooljuow snied

- - - . - - - - “ - - - : - + : . - : ; - - - S HL peyoeg-usel5

BIJEPUNS PABIJIN

_ Se Ce te fe res 3 tee SS eee oe > BAP}IIN Pallieq-snoyny

BOUIGIS Edeoiosnyy

- " ; ; - - - - - - ; - - = + - ~ ” - - = - - W‘O JayoyeoA|4 popis-yeq

snjeoid sndiwey

es Sf Se Sh oe Te OS a a a ae a ie nS Se > OMUYS-9YOeOA| 4 PAld

sisuauUojA9ao edeainljing

: : - - - - - - - - - - - - + ; - - : - + - - ) Jayoyeod|4-Areued pepeey-Ael5

sueiiosdns ejnpedl4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - ; - - - ; - W‘O JayoyeoA|4 SULeWeY)

te co te O06 6 St ZL OF SEL PL. EL ct tt OL & 8 Z 9g 5 F & G SS) salseds

(jp]U0D) seseujuaed ul UdAIB Ss} peAd/UNS 9}IS YOR JO (SOujOW Ul) APN Peps0de. sa!deds Jo jsI| 9y} PUe JOLNISID Bueme| Ul peAe/UNs sels JO s]le]}9q :, xIpueddy

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

BIRD RECORDS FROM TAWANG, ARUNACHAL PRADESH

‘skeains au} Buunp papsooes sem Saldeds 3y} BJBYM Se}IS 9]OUeP +

AyoyesBi-\ ‘uey-Y ‘JeEUOISC0ND-CO ‘UOWWOD-9D :snjye]S

‘(WzZ19'e) Bydwod {| “72 :(W

yes‘Z) 4Ipwog “eg ‘(Ww Zpp'z) Nou ‘zz +(w Eos‘) Bue Lz ‘(WLLL ‘y) eiInBen ‘og ‘(wi ze7‘y) uoHOUNP-A 6} :(W 6Or‘'Z) FEYONW “g} -(W pEg‘z) OduiN7 *Z} ‘(WwW L69°E) exe7 Nnypeyy

‘Q| ‘(WW 20'S) ansyesNy “G} ‘(WW 120‘Z) Buequeys “pI ‘(Ww 6Z2‘z) NdsId “e} ‘(WW 9ZO'Z) HHeUS “ZL “(WOLO'L) MLA LE -(W 6Sz‘e) CAION “OL -(W O6L‘Z) BueYyWWIZ “6 ‘(WU 9E6‘e)

exe] OSNd ‘(Wi gze‘y) Buewey ‘2 ‘(Ww peg‘L) Bunpno7 ‘9 ‘(w 6zo‘Z) NdsI5 *g ‘(Ww y6}‘}) BuojbueGuoyL “y -(w Eee’z) Buequeyus ‘e :(wW Z/¢E'Z) B]wNT “Zz ‘(W OLL‘y) dol Bag *}

snoiuodel [soyouAylosoeul] SNAIOD

+ - - - - - - - a - - - - - : - + - + : : + : 9) MOJID pajjiq-ebie7

sajoRjec0hied ebeyIONN

a 2 : “ ; b “ a 3 3 A r 2 : ws 2 “ 4 : “ ‘ - - fe) JeyOeJOINN peyods

snuepue|b snjinued

. J x F : + ri : : r 4 a : . < ‘ : : 2 : “ - - a) Aer ueiseing

BPSOUUOY PLIDOJPUIG

r “ F 5 r r Hu “ : Z 2 2 é & = —. = : “= + - - + - 9 aideel| Ae

SLIJSOIIACY. CSSIDOIN

—y 8 : . . P 3 3 s é . + iG - = . - - = - - ny aidbeyy enjg pal|iq-Mojje,

snjeasol snyjuy

BF fe ws c s z % . : : : : = = =m Be - - ~ ae - - 9 dig AsoYy

BQ/? B//l9BjO

- - - : : - + + - - - ~ + «= = ae - Sl Tape . W‘O eye SWUM

BAJAUIO BI/IOBJO/

: c & : ‘ - 2 7 : : + - - - - - ; : ~ - + + ~ - W‘D weyBena Aoi

SUBIINI JASSCd

wai & ‘ “ : x : . : 2 4 — o a is . - - — - - 9 Modeds UOWeUUID

SNUBJUOW JASSCd

a & A 5 u : 2 : es as 5 a : + x - : - - 7 - - - : 9 MOJJeds 8ea1] ueIseINy

sisuajediu sijanpledold

- - - - + - - - - - - - ; ; - - - - - - - - : WN ‘O UYOUIaSOY pejseaig-yWeg

lyedis ezidsojewaey

- - - - - + - - - “ - - - = . ca 5 % F . . ; ic z W ‘O YOUly JOeYBIS

snuiueygind snoepodied

oe < : x 2 : H ws . : : ‘ine ce a ~ & : : : - - - - N‘O YOUNSSOY |nyiyneseg ueAPyeWIH

asua/ediu UuoYyoIjag

: , 5 3 4 : . 2 2 d a e R + = : : : : - - - 9 UIUeY-9SNoH jeden

snaia901NeW Ssnijopyz

- + - + - - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - + . , ofuolq 49eIg

Vo €6 Go lé iC: -6t -St Zk Bk ¢Sir SP seievrer “fie Or GA 8 Z 9 G vy S r L Snyeys seldeds

(jo]JU0D) seseujuesed ul UBAIB si paAsAUNs 91S YORS JO (SOJ}EWW Ul) BPNI|\V Pepso0de saldeds Jo jsI| 9y} pue JOLN\SID HBueme] Ul PeASAINs Solis Jo sjlejoq :}, xipueddy

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

50-56

DIVERSITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF ACRIDID PESTS (ORTHOPTERA: ACRIDIDAE) OF

PURVANCHAL REGION, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

UzMA Rart** AND Moub Kamit UsMant!?

‘Section of Entomology, Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh 202 002 Uttar Pradesh, India.

*Email: rafiuzma@ gmail.com

-Email: usmanikamil94 @ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

Acridids were collected from 17 districts of Purvanchal region, eastern Uttar Pradesh, from 2010 to 2012. A total of

975 specimens belonging to 38 species representing 21 genera of 10 subfamilies were collected from crop fields, and

natural habitat. The maximum number of species was recorded from Mau district and the least from Gorakhpur

district. Observations made on the hosts and habitats of the 38 species is discussed.

Key words: Acrididae, pests, distribution, Purvanchal region, Uttar Pradesh

INTRODUCTION

The family Acrididae (Orthoptera) includes most of the

economically important species of grasshoppers and locusts.

They constitute an important group of pests and pose a

constant threat to agriculture like cereal crops, pulses,

vegetables, orchards, and also to grasslands and forest

plantations all over the world. Locusts are the main pests in

countries bordering deserts, and the devastation caused by

migratory swarms of locusts is well-known. They are also an

important component of the biodiversity in grassland

ecosystems and food for many bird species. Most grasshoppers

are oligophagous and exhibit definite host preferences, while

some are polyphagous and have a wide range of food

preference (Joern 1979; Mulkern 1967). Accordingly

grasshoppers are classified as grass-feeders (graminivorous),

forb-feeders (forbivorous) or a mix of the two (ambivorous

or mixed feeders). Some grasshopper species have been

reported to cause significant damage to tree seedlings (Joshi

et al. 1999).

Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) is one of the largest states of India,

presenting a very suitable climatic zone for the diversity

of Acridids. Geographically, Uttar Pradesh includes eight

sub-regions, namely Upper Doab, Middle Doab, Lower Doab,

Rohilkhand, Bundelkhand, Baghelkhand, Awadh, and

Purvanchal. Purvanchal is at the eastern end of Uttar Pradesh

state, bounded by Nepal to the north, Bihar to the

east, Baghelkhand region of Madhya Pradesh to the south, the

Awadh region of Uttar Pradesh to the west, and Lower

Doab (at Allahabad) in Uttar Pradesh to its southwest. It lies

in the Indo-Gangetic Plains, one of the most fertile belts of

the world, and most of the countryside is under

intensive agriculture. In summer, temperature rises up to’

40 —45° C, while in winter temperature drops down to 6—7° C or

sometimes below that. The annual rainfall is about 1,025 mm.

The major rivers of this region are Ganga, Ghagra, Rapti,

and Son. Wheat and rice are the main crops. Besides these,

sugarcane, chick pea, pigeon pea, mustard, lentil, urad, and

moong are also grown. It includes 17 districts: Basti, Siddharth

Nagar, Sant Kabir Nagar, Maharajganj, Jaunpur, Azamgarh,

Gorakhpur, Deoria, Kushinagar, Sant Ravidas Nagar

(Bhadohi), Mirzapur, Varanasi, Ghazipur, Mau, Chandauli,

Sonbhadra, and Ballia.

A number of studies have been conducted on acridids

in different states or regions of India. Tandon and Shishodia

(1969) worked at Nagarjuna Sagar dam in Andhra Pradesh,

Tandon and Khera (1978) in Arunachal Pradesh and Julka

et al. (1982) in Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Mondal et al. (1999)

described 19 species of acridids infesting various field and

vegetable crops of West Bengal, and discussed some

ecological aspects. They made detailed notes on the nymphal

taxonomy of five important species, Acrida exaltata,

Spathosternum prasiniferum prasiniferum, Aiolopus

thalassinus tamulus, Phlaeoba infumata, and Atractomorpha

crenulata. Other studies were carried out by Chitra et al.

(2000) from rice fields of Coimbatore; Ingrisch (2002) from

Bhutan, Nepal and North India; Kandiben et al. (2004) from

rice ecosystem in Madurai; while Dey and Hazra (2003)

described the diversity, distribution, and ecology of

grasshoppers of Greater Kolkata. Mayya et al. (2005) reported

24 species from Dakshina Kannada district of Karnataka.

Saini and Mehta (2007) reported 73 species of Acrididae

from Himachal Pradesh. Ananthasevi et al. (2009) reported

25 species from agricultural ecosystems in some districts of

Tamil Nadu. Chandra and Gupta (2009) reported from

Veerangana Durgavati Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh.

Paulraj et al. (2009) recorded 21 species of Acrididae and

observed their distribution on different host plants and habitats

in two districts of Tamil Nadu. Senthilkumar (2010) surveyed

the Acrididae of Kaziranga National Park, Assam, reporting

DIVERSITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF ACRIDID PESTS OF PURVANCHAL REGION

elled

eipeyquos

+ +

\INepueYD

new

indizeyy

ISBUBIE/,

Indezil,

+ - - = = + — = - -

ote + - = ae — + - + -

. re aE a io S ws is - is

= = Sf = - a + = + -

- ~ Su + ~ = + = - =

My . fe = . + - = “ n

¢ Pi =e - rs 7 ‘ a é .

: “ 3 “ me - “ - . .

z = = 2 = = = = ne pl

_ = a = + a r= “ = :

‘ + a ~ + s * o - ‘.

of = a - = + - = = 3

= = = “ < = = ote = ss

= = as “4 = as 4 ait = =

c; = 2 = = - = a a0 33

= of = 2 = * = - + =

a — + + a3 S + + <P ss

= ae =a 7 - = an - 5 =

a op)

=D ZZ CJ 2) > D = = ” w

> 2 c - fe) N = ry) = Q 4

Sa~ ES a = 2 ® ©

= © Pe Oo feb)

pe) jab) Oo sab) = 2. a pan

<. © S = Ke} i 2

o © = al © =

re) & a | ray) =

(dp) — Oo =

x ©

‘dN Jo uoiBay jeyouening Jo sjouisip peAsvuns au} Ul Salads jo UOHINqUISIG :} sIqeL

BIBUIAING BLISU]

aeuljodopidouy :Ajiweyqns

SIJIGOU SUDCIAJOY

suoee suoeje simiaus0daidAZ

SIUJODUBA SnipidojojA

aeuipimeud0daidAQ :Ajiwmeyqns

eoueje] suseyjueIeUAD

aeuIploeUuUeDeLAY :Ajimejqns

snjsngos sno0pec/oyy

SUISNI|I sNI0pedIOYD

sijiqejouul sinbuld sdojuejeoojogeiq

[Ausey sdojueje20ua xX

aeuidojuejey :Ajimeyqns

smoaizhio snydA/bosaly

siusooljnuue snydsjbosai}y

Jojoouo2 snydAjboiaipy

snjajdaiosbiu snydAjbosaiy

ueiueg snydA/bosaipy

SPUIPLOBIWdH :Ajiweyqns

wnaiuisesd

winaiuiseid winusajsoyjeds

aeulusajsoujeds :Ajimeyqns

SISUAUIYD PAXO

XO/AA PAXO

sipuel6 PAxO

eoiuodel eoiuodel eAxo

Bjeoujul ejAy CAXO

PjAy ejAy ePAxO

PIEYIAOOSNY PAXO

aeulAxo :Ajiweyqns

saideds piopuoy

rN Oo yw oO bs

ON’S

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

DIVERSITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF ACRIDID PESTS OF PURVANCHAL REGION

r ¥ . ‘ p - c + , z 2 Z : ~ - essolb e1ogaojy) fers

. s + + - - ; - - - - - - euojeibiw evojeibiw e]sno07 Ze

: Es : #£ = 2 2 = - + - - - - - snueoye snbiewijsey 9¢

A : + : : + : - : - + - : - : eJe|UIW Bpodipad Ge

3 = E r : ¢ 2 : = + - - - - - sisuajebauas snajepac ve

+ + + - - - - - - - + - - - - snjdnuge snajepao ee

+ » Z f ‘ a : - - = + + -- “ snjnwe] snuissejey)] sndojoiy Ze

’ = : iS : = 2 + - - + - - + - snulssejey] snulsse/ey] sndojoiy Le

2 : “ + + - + + + + + + + + + XLIJBINUIS XUJe|NWIS sndojoly oe

f z : z : : . : : + . : - - - Bjajdas elpiydoji1) 62

+ + + + + + - - - + + - + - + ejejnuue eIpiyaojis) 8c

SeUIPOUIP|aGC :AjlWeyqnSs

P £ : i = + “ 3 : : - - - - - Sadiajn| sadiajn| sniyjogooejny te

SPULIBDOYdWIOY :AjIWeyqns

3 : * = : - - - - = - : - - : ajued eqoaejyd 92

= - + + + + - - - + + = : : BJBWN{UI EQOVE/Yd STA

c - Bs _ : : + + + + - + - + + eajuebib epuoy v2

" a : : = - + + - + + = -- + + B]e/exa POLIO €Z

aeulploYy :Ajiwmeyqns

(ep) oO ) <= = zo x O Q > q s (ap) w

eee es ee eee Me ee = ® 6 N 2 = 2. «f fs saioads plopuoy —«ONS

7 ee Se. ae SSS ee Teo cet Se be re PE Gas Be Le

> rol 3S © 3) =—i) | ~ x oO e = = oy

D o = O. = a my 2 © = 2, 2 .

Q eS = = < © 2 Ss ol 5 =

pe) =) pa)

” =: Oo pad)

2 33

(p1U0D) ‘df Jo UOIBaY jeyoUeAUN, JO S}OLIISID peAe/UNS OU} Ul SElDeds JO UOIINGLISIG :, BIQeL

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

DIVERSITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF ACRIDID PESTS OF PURVANCHAL REGION

19 species. Shishodia and Gupta (2009) listed 81 species ina

checklist of Acrididae of Himachal Pradesh. Nayeem and

Usmani (2011, 2012) reported 31 species of superfamily

Acridoidea, including family Acrididae, from southern and

southwestern Bihar, and 41 species from Jharkhand.

From Uttar Pradesh, Usmani et al. (2012a) discussed

the diversity, distribution, and taxonomy of 29 species of

Acridoidea of Aligarh Fort, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh. Usmani

et al. (2012b) studied the diversity and taxonomy of Acridoid

pests of pulses from Uttar Pradesh. Akhtar et al. (2012)

reported the species diversity and abundance of grasshoppers

in rice ecosystem of Uttar Pradesh. However, there has been

no specific study of the Acrididae of Purvanchal region, and

this paper is the first such report.

METHODOLOGY

Grasshopper specimens were collected from all the

districts of Purvanchal region, Uttar Pradesh, during 2010-

2012, from various agricultural and non-agricultural areas.

Specimens were collected by net sweeping and hand picking

methods and killed in a bottle with ethyl acetate. The

grasshoppers were identified through their morphological and

genitalic characters, using stereo-microscope.

Table 2: Species richness of grasshoppers in the districts of

Purvanchal region of Uttar Pradesh

S.No. Districts No. of No. of No. of

genera subfamilies species

1 Basti 5 4 8

2 Siddharth Nagar 5 5 11

3 Sant Kabir Nagar 4 Sg 9

4 Maharajganj 5 5 10

5 Jaunpur 9 5 11

6 Azamgarh 10 6 16

7 Gorakhpur 4 4 6

8 Deoria 8 8 14

<) Kushinagar 5 5

10 Sant Ravidas Nagar 8 6

(Bhadohi)

11 Mirzapur ye 5 7

12 Varanasi 13 9 ee

13 Ghazipur ? 5 10

14 Mau 13 8 17

15 Chandauli 6 11

16 Sonbhadra 7 10

17 Ballia 4 a

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

RESULTS

A total of 975 specimens of grasshoppers (Acrididae)

were collected from 17 districts of Purvanchal region

representing 38 species, 21 genera, and 10 subfamilies of

Acrididae (Table 1). The maximum numbers of species were

recorded from Mau district (17) followed by Azamgarh (16),

Varanasi (15) and Deoria (14), while the minimum number

(6) was from Gorakhpur district (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

The diversity and distribution of the species greatly

depends on abiotic as well as biotic factors. Abiotic factors

like temperature, humidity, and rainfall affect the population

of acridids in nature. Population of grasshoppers may also

depend on the vegetation of the cultivated and uncultivated

areas. In this study, 16 species were collected only from

agricultural (cultivated) areas, 9 only from natural habitats,

and 13 species were recorded in both cultivated and natural

habitats.

District Mau represents the maximum diversity and

species richness (17) of acridids, followed by Azamgarh (16),

while the minimum number of species (6) was recorded in

Gorakhpur district (Table 2).

Among the species recorded, maximum numbers belong

to subfamily Oedipodinae (29%) followed by Oxyinae (18%),

Hemiacridinae (13%), Acridinae, Catanopinae (10% each),

and Eyprepocnemidinae (8%) while the minimum numbers

of species belong to Cyrtacanthacridinae, Gomphocerinae,

Spathosterninae, and Tropidopolinae (3% each) (Table 3).

Spathosternum prasiniferum is the most dominant species in

this area, followed by Acrida exaltata and Oxya hyla hyla

(Table 3). Out of these three species, Oxya hyla hyla is a

common and destructive pest of paddy, while the other two

species are polyphagous and can cause harm to many crops

like paddy, wheat, maize, jowar, bajra, oilseed plants, and

many vegetable and pulse crops, thus it is found in both

cultivated and uncultivated areas (Table 4).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We extend our gratitude to the Council of Science and

Technology, U.P., for providing financial assistance during

the tenure of a major research project carried out on “Ecology

and Distribution of Acridoid Pests (Orthoptera: Acridoidea)

with observations on their natural enemies in Uttar Pradesh”’.

Thanks are also due to Prof. Irfan Ahmad, Chairman,

Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh,

for providing the necessary facilities.

DIVERSITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF ACRIDID PESTS OF PURVANCHAL REGION

Table 3: List of species recorded in the Purvanchal region of Uttar Pradesh .

S. No. Species No. of No.of No.of Total S. No. Species No. of No.of No.of Total

males females Nymphs males females Nymphs

Subfamily: Oxyinae Subfamily: Eyprepocnemidinae

i Oxya fuscovittata 13 oo - 50 19. Tylotropidius varicornis - 1 - 1

2. Oxya hyla hyla 40 80 - 120 20. Eyprepocnemis alacris 10 10 - 20

3. Oxya hyla intricata 2 4 - 6 21. Heteracris nobilis 7 12 - 19

4. Oxya japonica japonica 4 8 - 12

ea ee Subfamily: Tropidopolinae

5. Oxya grandis 1 1 - 2 ‘-_

22. Tristria pulvinata 6 6 - 12

6. Oxya velox 1 4 - 5

7. Oxya chinensis - 1 - 1 Subfamily: Acridinae

' ; 23. Acrida exaltata 56 42 53 151

Subfamily: Spathosterninae '

24. Acrida gigantea 25 20 28 73

8. Spathosternum 67 73 46 186

7 tae 20: Phlaeoba infumata 11 15 - 26

prasiniferum prasiniferum

26. Phlaeoba panteli 5 7 - 12

Subfamily: Hemiacridinae |

wer j Subfamily: Gomphocerinae

9. Hieroglyphus banian 11 31 - 42

ie ar. Aulacobothrus 3 Za - 5

10. Hieroglyphus 5 4 - 9

luteipes luteipes

nigrorepletus

He Hieroglyphus 1 1 “ 2 Subfamily: Oedipodinae

concolor 28. Trilophidia annulata 19 23 32 74

12. Hieroglyphus - 1 - 1 29. Trilophidia repleta 1 1 3 5

annulicornis 30. Aiolopus simulatrix 24 23 - 47

13. Hieroglyphus 1 - - 1 or Aiolopus thalassinus 5 3) - 10

oryzivorus thalassinus

32. Aiolopus thalassinus 9 9 - 18

Subfamily: Catantopinae ee re

14. Xenocatantops karnyi 1 2 - 3

oo: Oedaleus abruptus 7 12 : 19

15. Diabolocatantops 4 5 - 9

iho oie - 34. Oedaleus senegalensis - 2 - 2

pinguis innotabilis , or

35. Oedipoda miniata 6 2 - 8

16. Choroedocus illustris 2 1 - 3 36 ee ee 3 6

174 Choroedocus robustus 4 3 - 7 3 @

37. Locusta migratoria 5 - = 5

Subfamily: Cyrtacanthacridinae migratoria

18. Cyrtacanthacris tatarica 1 1 - 2 38. Chloebora grossa - 1 - 1

Total 360 453 162 975

Table 4: Distribution of grasshopper species in different habitats

S. No. Species Host Plant — Habitat S.No. Species Host Plant —_— Habitat

Subfamily: Oxyinae Subfamily: Hemiacridinae

9. Hieroglyphus banian Paddy/Grass Agriculture field

ip Oxya fuscovittata Paddy Agriculture fields 10 6: ii en eraak pea ee

2. Oxya hyla hyla Paddy Agriculture fields af ome : :

e Oxya hyla intricata Paddy Agriculture fields © o

ria 11. Hieroglyphus concolor Paddy/Grass_ Agriculture fields

4. Oxya japonica japonica Paddy Agriculture fields ; en © ;

' 12, Hieroglyphus annulicornis Paddy/Grass_ Agriculture fields

fab Slabs a rao POE SME TNS 13 Hieroglyphus oryzivorus Paddy/Grass_ Agriculture fields

U. icu i

6. Oxya velox Paddy Agriculture fields pe ” ¢ a

i Oxya chinensis Padd Agriculture fields

‘ y 3 Subfamily: Catantopinae

Subfamily: Spathosterninae 14. Xenocatantops karnyi Grass/bushes Non-agricultural

8. Spathosternum Grass Both (agricultural area

prasiniferum and non-agricultural 15. Diabolocatantops Grass/bushes Non-agricultural

prasiniferum areas) pinguis innotabilis area

54 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

DIVERSITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF ACRIDID PESTS OF PURVANCHAL REGION

Table 4: Distribution of grasshopper species in different habitats (contd.)

S. No. Species Host Plant Habitat

16. Choroedocus illustris | Bushes Non-agricultural

area

17. Choroedocus robustus Bushes Non-agricultural

area

Subfamily: Cyrtacanthacridinae

18. Cyrtacanthacris tatarica Bushes Non-agricultural

area

Subfamily: Eyprepocnemidinae

19. Tylotropidius varicornis Grass Agriculture fields

20. Eyprepocnemis alacris Bushes Non-agricultural

area

21. Heteracris nobilis Grass Agriculture fields

Subfamily: Tropidopolinae

22. Tristria pulvinata Grass Agriculture fields

Subfamily: Acridinae

23: Acrida exaltata Grass Both

24. Acrida gigantea Grass Both

25. Phlaeoba infumata Grass Both

26. Phlaeoba panteli Grass Both

S.No. Species Host Plant Habitat

Subfamily: Gomphocerinae

27. Aulacobothrus Grass Agriculture fields

luteipes luteipes

Subfamily: Oedipodinae

28. Trilophidia annulata Grass Both

29. Trilophidia repleta Grass Both

30. Aiolopus simulatrix Grass Both

oir Aiolopus thalassinus Grass Both

thalassinus |

32. Aiolopus thalassinus Grass Both

tamulus

Grass/Bushes Both

3a: Oedaleus abruptus

34. Oedaleus

senegalensis

35: Oedipoda miniata Grass/Bushes Both

36. Gastrimargus africanus Grass/Bushes Non-agricultural

area

37. Locusta migratoria Grass/Bushes Non-agricultural

migratoria area

38. Chloebora grossa Grass Non-agricultural

area

REFERENCES

AKHTAR, M.H., M.K. UsMANI, M.R. NAYEEM & H. Kumar (2012): Species

diversity and abundance of grasshopper fauna (Orthoptera) in

rice ecosystem. Annals of Biological Research 3(5): 2190-2193.

ANANTHASEVI, R., P. SURESH, S. JANARTHANAN, K.A.M. KARTHIKEYAN &

I. VUAYAKUMAR (2009): Acridid (Orthoptera) fauna of agricultural

ecosystems in some southern districts of Tamil Nadu, India. JoTT

1(9): 491-492.

CHANDRA, K. & S.K. Gupta (2009): On a collection of orthopteran fauna

from Veerangana Durgavati Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh,

India. Biological Forum — An International Journal 1(1):

69-74.

CHITRA, N., R.P. SAUNDARARAJAN & K. GUNATHILAGARAJ (2000):

Orthoptera in rice fields of Coimbatore. Zoos’ Print Journal

15(8): 309-311.

Dey, A. & A.K. HAzra (2003): Diversity and distribution of grasshopper

fauna of Greater Kolkata with notes on their ecology. Memoirs

of the Zoological Survey of India 19(3): 1-118.

INGRISCH, S. (2002): Orthoptera from Bhutan, Nepal, and North India in

the Natural History Museum Basel. Entomologica Basiliensia.

24: 123-159.

JOERN, A. (1979): Feeding patterns in grasshoppers (Orthoptera:

Acrididae): Factors influencing diet specialization. Oecologia

38(3): 325-347.

Josui, P.C., J.A. Lockwoop, N. VASHISHTH & A. SINGH (1999):

Grasshopper (Orthoptera: Acridoidea) community dynamics in

a moist deciduous forest in India. Journal of Orthoptera Research

8: 17-23. :

JULKA, J.M., S.K. TANDON, P. HALDER & M.S. SuisHopia (1982): Ecological

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

observation on grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acridoidea) at Solan,

Himachal Pradesh, India. Oriental Insects 16(1): 63-75.

KANDIBEN, M., S. RAGURAMAN, N. GANAPATHY & K. GUNTHILAGARAJ

(2004): Diversity and relative abundance of Orthoptera in an

irrigated rice ecosystem in Madurai, India. Zoos’ Print Journal

19(10): 1663-1664.

Mayya, S., K.S. SREEPADA & M. JAYARAMA HEGDE (2005): Survey of

Short Horned Grasshoppers (Acrididae) from Dakshina Kannada

District, Karnataka. Zoos’ Print Journal 20(9): 1977-1979.

MULKERN, G.B. (1967): Food selection by grasshoppers. Annual Review

of Entomology 12: 59-78.

Monpat, S.K., A.K. Hazra & S.K. TANDON (1999): Studies on taxonomy,

biology & ecology grasshoppers infesting field crops and

vegetables with notes on nymphal taxonomy of some species in

West Bengal. Rec. Zool Surv. India, Occ. paper no.173: 1-178.

NAYEEM, M.R. & M.K. UsMani (2011): Diversity of Acridoidea

(Orthoptera) from southern and southwestern region of Bihar,

India. Folia Heyrovskyana, series A 19(1—4): 5-12.

NAYEEM, M.R. & M.K. Usmant (2012): Taxonomy and field observations

of grasshoppers and locusts fauna (Orthoptera: Acridoidea) of

Jharkhand, India. Munis Entomology and Zoology 7(1):

391-417.

PauLrAJ, M.G, V. ANBALAGAN & S. IGNACIMUTHU (2009): Distribution

of Grasshoppers (Insecta: Orthoptera) among different host plants

and habitats in two districts of Tamil Nadu, India. JOTT 1(4):

230-233.

SAINI, K. & H.S. Menta (2007): An Inventory of the Orthopteran Insect

of Himachal Pradesh. Bionotes 9(3): 76-78.

DIVERSITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF ACRIDID PESTS OF PURVANCHAL REGION

SENTHILKUMAR, N. (2010): Orthopteroids in Kaziranga National Park,

Assam, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 2(10): 1227-1231.

SuisHopiA, M.S. & S.K. Gupta (2009): Checklist of Orthoptera (Insecta)

of Himachal Pradesh, India. JoTT 1(11): 569-572.

TANDON, S.K. & P. KHerRA (1978): Ecology and distribution of

grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acridoidea) in Arunachal Pradesh,

India and impact of human activities on their ecology and

distribution. Memoirs of the School of Entomology Agra 6:

73-92.

TANDON, S.K. & M.S. SHIsHopIA (1969): On a Collection of Acridoidea

(Orthoptera) from Nagarjuna Sagar Dam Area. Oriental Insects

3(3): 265-267.

Usmanl, M.K., M.H. AKHTAR & M.R. Nayeem (2012a): Diversity,

Distribution and Taxonomic studies of Acridoid fauna

(Orthoptera) of Aligarh Fort, Uttar Pradesh, India. Advances in

Life Sciences 1: 34-38.

Usmanl, M.K., M.H. AKHTAR & M.R. NAYEEM (2012b): Diversity and

taxonomic studies of Acridoid Pests (Acridoidea: Orthoptera)

of Pulses from Uttar Pradesh, India. Munis Entomology and

Zoology 7(2): 837-846.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

57-64

FLORISTIC DIVERSITY OF THE KUNJAPURI SACRED GROVE,

GARHWAL HIMALAYA, INDIA

MEGHA Rawat!:*, H.B. VASISTHA!*, R.K. MANHAS? AND MripuLa Negcr?

‘Forest Ecology and Environment Division, Forest Research Institute, Dehradun 248 006, Uttarakhand, India.

*Department of Botany, Sri Pratap College, Srinagar 190 001, Jammu & Kashmir, India. Email: manhasrk @rediffmail.com

7Email: megha.fri@ gmail.com

‘Email: vasisthahb @icfre.org

"Email: mridula @icfre.org

*Corresponding author

The floristic diversity of the Kunjapuri sacred grove in Garhwal Himalaya was studied from 2006 to 2007. A total of

239 plant species belonging to 78 families and 207 genera were recorded. The representation of dicotyledons, monocots,

and gymnosperms was 84.62%, 14.10%, and 1.28%, respectively. Asteraceae was the most dominant family with

23 genera and 24 species, followed by Poaceae (20 genera and 22 species), Lamiaceae (13 genera and 16 species), and

Acanthaceae and Fabaceae (9 genera and 11 species each). In recent years, due to increasing pressures on natural

resources there has been a weakening of religious beliefs, affecting the survival of sacred groves. Sacred groves,

which were maintained in the form of untouched ecosystems, dedicated to a deity, are nowadays being looked upon as

important sources of natural resources or revenue. Hence, they cannot survive on the basis of spiritual beliefs, unlike

in the past, and there is an urgent need to implement rural participatory management practices with the help of the

village community, temple authorities, and forest committees to conserve them.

Key words: Kunjapuri, sacred forest, floristic diversity, Garhwal Himalaya

INTRODUCTION

India is a land of diversity of natural resources and

traditions. Since time immemorial, conservation of natural

resources has been part of the religious traditions of several

Indian communities. One such significant tradition of nature

conservation is that of sacred forest or groves. A sacred grove

is a patch of forest protected by the local people, surrounding

a temple or dedicated to some deity, and being virgin forests,

generally harbouring rich biodiversity. Besides being centres

of high species richness (Dash and Chauhan 2002; Jamir and

Pandey 2002, 2003; Upadhaya et al. 2003), these act as gene

pools and provide refuge to a large number of endemic,

endangered, and threatened species (Dash and Chauhan 2002;

Jamir and Pandey 2002, 2003), and render ecological services,

such as being a source of perennial water, maintaining local

micro-environmental conditions, and helping in

biogeochemical cycles (Upadhaya 2002).

Set amidst a mosaic of landscape elements like shifting

cultivation, fields and fallows, permanent agricultural areas,

savannah and secondary forests, sacred forests protected

several valuable food plants and scores of medicinal plants.

Despite rising human pressures, sacred groves shelter many

elements of the biota, which may have vanished elsewhere

in the local landscape (Chandran et al. 1998). Their role in

the conservation of biodiversity has been recognised by

several workers (Chandrakanth et al. 2004; Chandrakanth

and Romm 1991; Dash 2005; Dash and Chauhan 2002; Gadgil

and Vartak 1976; Haridasan and Rao 1985; Khan et al. 1997;

Kosambi 1962; Sukumaran and Jeeva 2008; Sukumaran

et al. 2008).

In the past few years, the demands on natural resources

have resulted in a weakening of religious beliefs. There has

been an increase in the number of reports of degradation

activities, affecting the institutional foundations of sacred

forests in India. This is due to several reasons like fading

institutional identity of these traditional forests with the advent

of national forest policies (Chandrakanth and Romm 1991),

commercial agriculture, changing demographics, and weak

property rights (Chandrakanth et al. 2004).

Garhwal Himalaya is referred to as Land of the Gods

due to the numerous important religious shrines located here,

besides the confluence of five tributaries of the sacred river

Ganga. Although, biological diversity of the Himalaya is rich,

little is known about the sacred forests of this region (Anthwal

et al. 2006). To know about these sacred forests there is an

urgent need for extensive research studies on the diversity

and conservation status of their precious plant wealth. This

will help in developing appropriate strategy for the

conservation of sacred groves. Keeping these things in view,

the present study was conducted in the Kunjapuri sacred grove

to document its floristic diversity.

STUDY AREA

The study was carried out in the Narendra Nagar Forest

FLORISTIC DIVERSITY OF KUNJAPURI SACRED GROVE, GARHWAL HIMALAYA

Division (30° 10'-30° 52" N; 78° 8' 15"—79° 2' 45" E) of Tehri

district in the Garhwal region of Himalaya. The total area of

the forest division is 62,023.26 ha having three distinct forest

ranges, (i) Maniknath Forest Range, (11) Saklana Forest Range,

and (111) Shivpuri Forest Range. The study site — Kunjapuri

(30° 10'—-30° 52" N; 78° 8' 15"—79° 2' 45" E) — falls in the

Shivpuri Forest Range. The total area of this range is

c. 19,427.56 ha. The entire forest division is mountainous hilly

with precipitous slopes. Kunjapuri is situated at an altitude of

1,645 m above msl and is located at about 35 km from Rishikesh

on the Rishikesh-Gangotri road (Rawat et al. 2011).

Kunjapuri is one of the 52 Siddhapeeths of India,

dedicated to goddess Kunjapuri Devi, and the Kunjapuri

temple is situated on the highest peak of the region. It lies in

the temperate region encompassing three major ecosystems,

forest, grassland, and hill terrace. It lends a panoramic view

of the snow-clad Himalayan range in the north (Chaukhamba

ranges) and an exhilarating view of the rivers Ganga,

Rishikesh, Haridwar, Doon Valley, and Shiwalik hills in the

south. About 150—200 pilgrims and 10—25 foreign tourists

visit the temple every day (Rawat et al. 2011).

METHODS

The entire Kunjapuri forest was surveyed at monthly

intervals during 2006—2007. Plant specimens collected were

processed following Jain and Rao (1977) and were identified

at the Systematic Botany Discipline of Forest Research

Institute (FRI), Dehradun and Wildlife Institute of India

(WII), Dehradun. Identified plants were mounted on

herbarium sheets and deposited at the Forest Ecology and

Environment Division, Forest Research Institute, Dehradun.

All the identified species were arranged according to Bentham

and Hooker’s system of classification (Bentham and Hooker

1862-1883).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 239 plant species belonging to 78 families

and 207 genera were recorded (Table 1). Of these, 66 families

(84.62%) are dicotyledonous and 11 families (14.10%) are

monocotyledonous. Gymnosperms contributed only 1.28%

(one family) to the total families and 0.84% (two species) to

the total species of the area. Only 43 monocotyledonous

species (17.99%) from 37 genera (17.87%) were reported

as compared to 194 (81.17%) dicotyledonous species from

168 genera (81.16%).

Species richness of the present study site is within the

range of 80 and 388 plant species reported for various sacred

forests of India (Bhakat 2009; Bhakat et al. 2008; Dash and

Table 1: Floristic features of the study area

Components Family Genus Species

ANGIOSPERMS

Dicotyledons 66 168 194

Percent Contribution 84.62 81.16 81.17

Monocotyledons 11 37 43

Percent Contribution 14.10 17.87 17.99

GYMNOSPERMS 1 2 2

Percent Contribution 1.28 0.97 0.84

Total 78 207 239

Chauhan 2002; Laloo et al. 2006; Sukumaran and Jeeva 2008;

Sukumaran et al. 2008). Contribution of monocots (17.87%) |

in the present study is slightly higher than these studies, which

averages c. 11.23%. The reason for this may be that all these

studies are from tropical forests and Kunjapuri is a temperate

forest having more harsh environmental conditions, which is

not favourable for tree growth as snowfall prevents the growth

and establishment of tree saplings.

Asteraceae was the most dominant family with

23 genera and 24 species followed by Poaceae (20 genera

and 22 species), Lamiaceae (13 genera and 16 species), and

Acanthaceae and Fabaceae (9 genera and 11 species each).

Other important contributing families were Euphorbiaceae,

Rosaceae, Rubiaceae, Verbenaceae, and Urticaceae (Table 2).

Clematis of the family Ranunculaceae was the most dominant

genus (5 species), followed by Rhamnus (4 species) of

Rhamnaceae, Rubus (3 species) of Rosaceae, and Plectranthus

(3 species) of Lamiaceae. Gadgil et al. (1996) and Sukumaran

et al. (2008) reported Fabaceae as the most dominant family

and Ficus the most common genus (as no species of Ficus is

traditionally felled) in the sacred groves. But, being a

temperate forest Ficus is not common in Kunjapuri forest.

Further, the dominance of Asteraceae and Poaceae shows that

the study site is highly disturbed.

The majority of the plants recorded from the Kunjapuri

forest are economically important. The medicinal plants

ranked first with 130 species; 64 species were used as fodder

and 11 species were used as fuel-wood species. Some species

are multi-use. Quercus leucotrichophora (Oak), a worshipped

multi-use tree, was the most dominant tree of the study site.

It is an important component of the mountain forest ecosystem

due to its use as fodder, fuel-wood, and wood-charcoal.

Itis also used for thatching. Ecologically, Q. leucotrichophora

helps in improving the soil fertility through efficient nutrient

cycling, and conserving soil moisture through humus build-

up in the soil and partly through a deeply placed root system

(Anthwal et al. 2006). Other 40 species, regarded as multi-

use species, includes timber, non-timber forest produce,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

FLORISTIC DIVERSITY OF KUNJAPURI SACRED GROVE, GARHWAL HIMALAYA

Table 2: Species reported from the Kunjapuri Siddhapeeth as per Bentham and Hooker Classification

Family Species Habit Local names; Uses

ANGIOSPERMS

Dicotyledons

Ranunculaceae Anemone vitifolia Buch.-Ham. ex DC. H Mudeela; M, Fd

Clematis grata Wall. C Laguli; Fd

Clematis barbellata Edgew. C Kanrya; Fd

Clematis montana Buch.-Ham. ex DC. C Kujju; Mu

Clematis roylei Rehder C Konia; Mu

Clematis buchananiana DC. C Kanguli; M

Delphinium denudatum Wall. ex Hook. f. & Th. H Nirbisi; M

Thallictrum foliosum DC. H Mamira; M

Menispermaceae Cissampelos pariera L. C Parha; M

Cocculus laurifolius DC. ST. Tilfada; Fw

Stephania glabra (Roxb.) Miers C Gindaru; M

Berberidaceae Berberis asiatica Roxb. ex DC. S Kilmora; M, Fw

Brassicaceae Brassica campestris L. H Laiya, Mu

Flacourtiaceae Flacourtia indica (Burm. f.) Merrill S Kandai; M, Fd

Violaceae Viola serpens Wall. H Kauru; M

Polygalaceae Polygala abyssinica R. Br. ex Fresen H Fd

Caryophyllaceae Stellaria media (L.) Villars H Bandyalu; Fd, M

Hypericaceae Hypericum uralum Buch.-Ham ex D. Don S Bhatla; M

Malvaceae Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L.* S Gudhal; M

Sida cordifolia L. H Balu; M, Mu

Tiliaceae Grewia optiva Drumm ex Burret ii Bhimal; Fw, Fd

Linaceae Reinwaratia trigyna Planch. S Phiunli; Mu

Geraniaceae Geranium nepalense Sweet H Phori; M

Oxalidaceae Oxalis corniculata L. H Bhilmori; M

Balsaminaceae Impatiens balsamina L. H Phyaktuli; Mu

Impatiens scabrida DC. H Ban-til; Mu

Rutaceae Boenninghausenia albiflora (Hook.) Reichb. ex Meisn. H Pissumar, Upniyaghas; M

Murraya koenigii Spreng. S Gandela; M, Mu

Zanthoxylum alatum Roxb. S/ST Timru; M, Mu

Meliaceae Toona serrata M. Roem. Wi Tun; Fw, Mu, M

Rhamnaceae Berchemia edgeworthii Lawson S Angari; M

Helinus lanceolatus Brandis S Kukriya; Fd

Rhamnus persica Boiss. S$ Chirla; Fd

Rhamnus procumbens Edgew. S$ Dadmiya; Mu

Rhamnus triquetra (Wall.) Lawson ST Ghauta; Fw, Mu

Rhamnus virgatus Roxb. ST Chentuli; Fw, M

Sageretia filiformis (Roth. ex Schult) G Don ST Gonta; Mu

Vitaceae Cissus repanda Vahl C Bhel chapru; Fd, M

Parthenocissus semicordata Planch. C Bhunera; Fd

Sapindaceae Dodonaea viscosa Jacq.* S Sinatha; Fw, M

Hippocastanaceae Aesculus indica (Colebr. ex Camb.) Hook.* T Pangar; Fd, M

Aceraceae Acer oblongum Wall. ex DC. F Kirmoli; Mu

Anacardiaceae Rhus parviflora Roxb. S Tungla; M

Fabaceae Astragalus leucocephalus Graham H Rudravanti; Fd

Atylosia scarabaeoides (L.) Benth. Tw Bandal; Fd

Crotalaria albida B. Heyne ex Roth H Chunchni; M

Desmodium tiliaefolium G. Don S) Chamlai; M

Indigofera heterantha Wall. S Kathi; Fd, M

Indigofera tinctoria L. S Sakina; Fd

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

FLORISTIC DIVERSITY OF KUNJAPURI SACRED GROVE, GARHWAL HIMALAYA

Table 2: Species reported from the Kunjapuri Siddhapeeth as per Bentham and Hooker Classification (conid.)

Family

Caesalpiniaceae

Mimosaceae

Rosaceae

Saxifragaceae

Melanostomaceae

Lythraceae

Onagraceae

Begoniaceae

Apiaceae

(Umbelliferae)

Caprifoliaceae

Rubiaceae

Valerianaceae

Dipsacaceae

Asteraceae

Species

Lespedeza sericea (Thunb.) Mig.

Lespedeza gerardiana Graham

Shuteria involucrata Wight & Arn.

Tephrosia candida DC.

Uraria lagopus DC.

Bauhinia variegata L.

Caesalpinia bonduc (L.) Roxb.

Caesalpinia pulcherrima (L.) Sw.

Mimosa himalayana Gamble

Mimosa pudica L.

Duchesnea indica (Andrews) Focke

Prunus cerasoides D. Don

Prunus persica (L.) Batsch*

Spiraea canescens D. Don

Pyrus communis L.*

Pyrus pashia Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don

Rubus ellipticus Sm.

Rubus paniculatus Sm.

Rubus niveus Thunb.

Fragaria indica Andrews

Bergenia ciliata (Haw.) Sternb

Osbeckia stellata Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don

Lagerstroemia indica L.

Woodfordia fruticosa Kurz

Oenothera rosea Aiton

Begonia picta Sm.

Bupleurum falcatum L.

Centella asiatica (L.) Urb.

' Pimpinella diversifolia DC.

Selinum tenuifolium Wall.

Selinum vaginatum C.B. Clarke

Abelia grandiflora (Andre) Rehd.*

Galium rotundifoliumL.

Leptodermis lanceolata Wall.

Hamiltonia suaveolens Roxb.

Randia tetrasperma Benth. & Hook. f. ex Brand.

Randia uliginosa Poir.

Rubia cordifolia L.

Valeriana jatamansi Jones

Dipsacus inermis Wall.

Ainsliaea aptera DC.

Ageratum conyzoides L.

Anaphalis cinnamomea C.B. Clarke

Anaphalis contorta Hook. f.

Artemisia vulgaris L.

Bidens biternata (Lour.) Merr. & Sherff

Blumea aromatica DC.

Cirsium argyracanthum DC.

Conyza stricta Willd.

Dichrocephala latifolia DC.

Erigeron acuminatus (Wall.) Wall. ex Nees

Habit Local names; Uses

US Khunju

US Khunya; M

C Fd

S Ban-tor; Fd

US Pithari; M

Guiral; Fd

Karvaunj; M, Fd

Golutora; M

Kingrei; M, Fd

Chui-mui; M

Bhium-kaphal; M

Payan; Mu, Fd

Aaru; M, Mu

Jhair-mairala; Fd, Mu

Nashpati; Mu

Mehul; Fd, M

Hinssar; Mu

Kala hinssar; M

Anchu; Mu

Kaphal; M

Sipara; M

Kuktia-makuri; M

Gulbahar; M, Fd

Dhaula; M, Fd

Patharchatta; M

Lito nNoOrt Ee Oe Oo aa no] ea OOD @ a

Jangli-jeera; M

Brahmi; M

Teroi; M

Moor; M

Bhulkeshi; M

Kamera; Fd

Kuri; M

Padera; Fd, M

Padar; M, Fd

Ghara; Fw, M

Pindru; M, Fd

Lichkuru; M

Balchhari; M

Phulee; M

Kauru; M

Gundrya; M

Bugliya; M

Bugla; M

Kunjoa; M

Kuria; M

Kardra; M

i ae a B. St Be eG) Sl O OO OS ta es =

op)

a 2h. 2S

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

FLORISTIC DIVERSITY OF KUNJAPURI SACRED GROVE, GARHWAL HIMALAYA

Table 2: Species reported from the Kunjapuri Siddhapeeth as per Bentham and Hooker Classification (contd.)

Family

Ericaceae

Myrsinaceae

Oleaceae

Apocynaceae

Gentianaceae

Boraginaceae

Cuscutaceae

Convovulaceae

Solanaceae

Scrophulariacee

Gesneriaceae

Acanthaceae

Verbenaceae

Lamiaceae

Species

Galinsoga ciliata S.F. Blake

Gerbera lanuginosa Sch. Bip.

Echinops echinatus Roxb.

Eupatorium adenophorum Spreng

Inula cuspidata C.B. Clarke

Launaea procumbens (Roxb.) Ramayya & Rajagopal

Myriactis wallichii Less.

Parthenium hysterophorus L.

Saussurea heteromalla (D. Don) Hand.-Mazz.

Senecio nudicaulis Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don

Sonchus asper (L.) Hill

Tridax procumbens L.

Xanthium strumarium L.

Lyonia ovalifolia (Wall.) Drude

Myrsine africana L.

Jasminum humile L.

Fraxinus micrantha Lingelsh.

Olea glandulifera Desf.

Ichnocarpus frutescens (L.) R. Br.

Nerium odorum Soland.*

Thevetia neriifolia Juss. ex Steud.*

Plumeria rubra L.*

Tabernaemontana divaricata R. Br. ex Roem. & Schult*

Swertia chirayita (Roxb. ex Fleming) Karsten

Cynoglossum zeylanicum Thunb. ex Lehm.

Cuscuta reflexa Roxb.

|pomoea purpurea (L.) Roth

Solanum nigrum L. .

Nicandra physalodes Scop.

Lindenbergia urticifolia Lehm.

Lindernia crustacea (L.) F. Muell.

Striga asiatica (L.) Kuntze

Rhynchoglossum obliquum Blume

Aechmanthera gossypina Nees

Barleria cristata L.

Dicliptera roxburghiana Nees

Hemigraphis rupestris T. Anderson

Justicia adhatoda L.

Lepidagathis incurva Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don

Lepidagathis cuspidata Nees

Rungia pectinata (L.) Nees

Strobilanthes atropurpurea Nees

Strobilanthes dalhousieana C.B. Clarke

Thunbergia erecta T. Anders.*

Caryopteris grata Benth. & Hook.f.

Caryopteris wallichiana Schauer

Holmskioldia sanguinea Retz.*

Lantana camara L.

Verbena officinalis L.

Vitex negundo L.

Calamintha umbrosa Fisch. & C.A. Mey.

Colebrookea oppositifolia Smith

J.. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

OA. =. © ao OO. 2a he toh hee ROO. eR Es

Habit

CO 2 Ze = eo oO = Be 2 Bez = BD eS

op) op) op)

ozo too @ Ww

Local names; Uses

Kapasi; M

Gandela; M

Jhuri; M

Gajar-ghas;

Neelkanthi; M

Pili dudhi; M

Kumra; M

Kurou

Aanyar; Fw, M

Chupra; M

Surmarhi; M

Angu; M

Gaid; Fd, M, Mu

Kali Dudhi; M

Kaner; M

Pili kaner; Mu

Parijat; Mu

Chandni; M

Chirayita; M

Andhahuli; M

Aakash laguli; M

Kaphjlagla; Fd, M

Kirmoi; M

Tamburkya; M

Makria ghas; M

Agia; M

Jaundela; Mu

Saundi; M

Kuthhi; Fd, M

Basingu; M

Kalela; M

Kangdai

Karwi; Fd, M

Fd, M

Ramkatori; M

Kuri, Fw

Samalu; M, Mu

Birchee; M

Bindu; M

FLORISTIC DIVERSITY OF KUNJAPURI SACRED GROVE, GARHWAL HIMALAYA

Table 2: Species reported from the Kunjapuri Siddhapeeth as per Bentham and Hooker Classification (contd.)

Family

Amaranthaceae

Chenopodiaceae

Polygonaceae

Lauraceae

Proteaceae

Santalaceae

Euphorbiaceae

Urticaceae

Myricaceae

Ulmaceae

Cannabaceae

Moraceae

Corylaceae

Fagaceae

Monocotyledons

Orchidaceae

Zingiberaceae

Haemodoraceae

Amaryllidaceae

Agavaceae

Species

Craniotome versicolor Reich.

Coleus forskohlii Briq.

Coleus barbatus (Andr.) Benth.

Leucas /anata Benth.

Mentha piperita L.

Micromeria biflora Benth.

Nepeta discolor Royle ex Benth.

Ocimum sanctum L.

Plectranthus coetsa Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don

Plectranthus gerardianus Benth.

Plectranthus rugosus Wall.

Salvia officinalis L.

Scutellaria linearis Benth.

Teucrium royleanum Wall. ex Benth.

Achyranthes aspera L.

Chenopodium ambrosiodes L.

Rumex hastatus D. Don

Fagopyrum esculentum Moench

Cinnamomum tamala (Buch.-Ham.) T. Nees ex C.H. Eberm.*

Machilus odoratissima Nees

Grevillea robusta A. Cunn.

Osyris arborea Wall.

Andrachne cordifolia Muell.-Arg.

Bridelia retusa Spreng

Jatropha curcas L.* —

Ricinus communis L.

Euphorbia helioscopia L.

Emblica officinalis Gaertn.

Flueggea microcarpa BI.

Boehmeria platyphylla D. Don

Debregeasia hypoleuca (Steud.) Wedd.

Girardinia heterophylla Decne

Pilea scripta (Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don) Wedd.

Urtica dioica L.

Myrica nagi Thunb.*

Celtis australis L.

Cannabis sativa L.

Ficus roxburghii Wall. ex Steud.

Ficus rumphil Bl.*

Morus alba L.*

Carpinus viminea Wall. ex Lindl.

Quercus leucotrichophora A. Camus

Goodyera procera Hook.

Habenaria pectinata D. Don

Nervilia aragoana Gaud.

Zingiber officinale Roscoe

Ophiopogon intermedius D. Don.

Allium cepa L.

Allium sativum L.

Agave cantula Roxb.

Habit

an OO SS Sl =! 2 ae a Se a a Me WM a Se Be ee ee ee ae ee Se

NnnoArTNAD

ep}

HHAAATAATrIC

Ome es 2 LS ek |

Local names; Uses

Gumma; M

Pudina; M

Ban-ajwain; M

Tulsi; M

Latjiri, Lichkuri; M

Kilmora; M

Kotu; Mu

Dalchini, Tejpat; M

Kaula; Fd

Gwiral; Mu

Bakroliya; M

Bhatla; M

Gauli; Fd, M

Pahari arand; M, Fw

Arand; M

Dudhya; M

Aonla; M, Mu

Khagsa; M, Fd

Syanru; Fd, M

Jhir Kandali, M

Chailu

Kandali; M

Kafal; Mu

Kharik; Fd, M, Mu

Bhangla; M

Timla; Fd

Kobar; Fd

Tutri; Fd, Fw

Putli; Fd, Mu

Banj; Fd, Fw

Adrak; M

Paiz; M, Mu

Lehsun; M, Mu

Rambans

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

FLORISTIC DIVERSITY OF KUNJAPURI SACRED GROVE, GARHWAL HIMALAYA

Table 2: Species reported from the Kunjapuri Siddhapeeth as per Bentham and Hooker Classification (contd.)

Family Species Habit Local names; Uses

Dioscoreaceae Dioscorea belophylla Voigt C Tairu, Tarur; M, Fd

Liliaceae Asparagus racemosus Willd. S Jhiran, Satawar; M

Smilacaceae Smilax glaucophylla Klotzsch C Kukurdara; Fd, M

Araceae Arisaema flavum Schott H Meen; M

Colocasia esculenta Schott H Pindalu; Mu

Sauromatum guttatum Schott H Bhasmakhand; M

Cyperaceae Carex setigera D. Don Sg -

Carex filicina Nees Sg -

Carex wallichiana Presc. Sg -

Cyperus iria L. Sg -

Cyperus niveus Retz. Sg Murya-ghas

Eriophorum comosum Nees Sg | Babula

Kobresia sp. Willd. Sg -

Gramineae

(Poaceae) Apluda mutica L. G Tashila; Fd

Arthraxon lancifolius Hochst. G Kangulya; Fd

Arthraxon prionodes (Steud.) Dandy G Fd

Arundinella nepalensis Trin. G fae

Arundinaria falcata Nees G Ringal; Mu

Bothriochloa bladhii (Retz.) S.T. Blake G Fd

Capillipedium parviflorum (R. Br.) Stapf G Nigalia ghas; Fd

Chrysopogon serrulatus Trin. G Golda; Fd

Cymbopogon distans (Nees ex Steud.) Will. Watson G Dubda; Fd

Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. G Dubla; M

Digitaria setigera Roth G Fd

Dendrocalamus strictus Nees G Bans; Mu

Erianthus filifolius Nees ex Steud. G -

Eulaliopsis binata (Retz.) C.E. Hubb. G Sabai ghas; Fd, Mu

Heteropogon melanocarpus Benth. G -

Neyraudia arundinacea (L.) Henrard G Bichhroo; Fd

Oplismenus compositus (L.) P. Beauv. G Gharia ghas; Fd

Paspalidium flavidum (Retz.) A. Camus G Fd

Pennisetum orientale Rich. G Fd

Setaria glauca P. Beauv. G Ban kauni; Fd

Setaria homonyma Chiov. G -

Sporobolus diander P. Beauv. G Sitya; Fd, Mu

GYMNOSPERMS

Cupressaceae Cupressus torulosa D. Don* ia Surayi, Luiri; Mu

Thuja orientalis L.* il Morpankhi; Mu

*Planted Species

Abbreviations used are H = Herb; S = Shrub; US = Under Shrub; C = Climber; T = Tree; ST = Small Tree; G = Graminoid; Sg = Sedge;

P = Parasite; Fw = Fuel-wood; Fd = Fodder; Tm = Timber; M = Medicinal and Mu = Multi-use

household and agricultural purposes. Uses of 32 species were

not known.

CONCLUSION

The sacred forest of Kunjapuri Siddhapeeth is rich in

plant diversity. The role of sacred groves in the maintenance

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

of biodiversity is significant, as discussed earlier. However,

the area under sacred forest is depleting due to the interplay

of an array of factors. Sacred forests were originally

maintained in the form of untouched ecosystems dedicated

to a deity, but are in recent years, looked up on as an important

source of revenue, and hence, they cannot be expected to

survive on the basis of spiritual beliefs. Therefore, there is

FLORISTIC DIVERSITY OF KUNJAPURI SACRED GROVE, GARHWAL HIMALAYA

an urgent need to implement rural participatory management

practices with the help of the village community, temple

authorities, and forest committees to conserve such forest

patches. The area adjacent to the grove could be developed

as a supply reserve forest to cater the needs of the locals, to

reduce pressures on the sacred grove. Generation of awareness

and participatory management are the key aspects for

conservation of sacred groves, which are the repositories of

biological diversity of the region.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are highly thankful to GB. Pant Institute of

Himalayan Environment & Development, Kosi-Katarmal,

Almora (Uttarakhand), for funding the research project

no. GBPI/IERP/03-04/07/17. We are also grateful to

the two anonymous reviewers who have made a

significant contribution to the improvement of this

manuscript.

REFERENCES

ANTHWAL, A., R.C. SHARMA & A. SHARMA (2006): Sacred Groves:

Traditional Way of Conserving Plant Diversity in Garhwal

Himalaya, Uttaranchal. The Journal of American Science 2(2):

35-43.

BENTHAM, G. & J.D. Hooker (1862-1883): Genera Plantarum. Vol. I-III.

Weldon and Wesley, Ltd. and Verlag Von J. Gramer, New York.

Pp. 644.

BuHaKAT, R.K. (2009): Chilkigarh Kanak Durga Sacred Grove,

West Bengal. Current Science 96: 185.

Buakat, R.K., U.K. SEN & P.K. PAnopir (2008): Role of a sacred grove

in conservation of plants. Indian Forester 134: 866-874.

CHANDRAKANTH, M.G. & J. Romm (1991): Sacred forests, secular forest

policies and people’s actions. Natural Resources Journal 31(4):

741-756.

CHANDRAKANTH, M.G., M.G. Boat & M.S. Accavva (2004): Socio-

economic changes and sacred groves in south India: Protecting

a community based resource management institution. Natural

Resources Forum 28(2): 102-111.

CHANDRAN, M.D.S., M. Gapom & J.D. HuGues (1998): Sacred groves

of the Western Ghats of India. Pp. 211-231. Jn: Ramakrishnan,

P.S., K.G. Saxena and U.M. Chandrashekhara (Eds): Conserving

the Sacred for Biodiversity Management. Oxford and IBH

Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Dash, S.S. (2005): Kabi sacred grove of North Sikkim. Current Science

89: 427-429.

Dasu, S.S. & A.S. CHAUHAN (2002): Kabi Sacred Grove in Sikkim —

relevance to conservation. Pp. 713-731. In: Das, A.P. (Ed.):

Perspectives of Plant Biodiversity. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal

Singh, Dehradun.

GapoiL, M. & V.D. VARTAK (1976): Sacred groves in Western Ghats in

India. Economic Botany 30: 152-160.

GapaiL, M., G UTKARSH & P. PRAmop (1996): Genus Ficus — Trees of

Life. The Hindu Sur Env. 13: 171-175.

HARIDASAN, K. & P.R. RAo (1985): Forest Flora of Meghalaya. Vols 1 &

2. Bishen Singh and Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehradun. 937 pp.

JAIN, S.K. & R.R. Rao (1977): A Handbook of Field and Herbarium

Methods. Today and Tomorrow’s Printers and Publishers,

New Delhi. 157 pp.

Jamir, S.A. & H.N. PANDEY (2002): Status of biodiversity in the sacred

groves of Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya. The Indian Forester 59(5):

738-744.

JAMIR, S.A. & H.N. PANDEY (2003): Vascular plant diversity in the sacred

groves of Jaintia Hills in northeast India. Biodiversity and

Conservation 12(7): 1497-1510.

KHAN, L.M., S. MENon & K.S. Bawa (1997): Effectiveness of the

protected area network in biodiversity conservation: A case-study

of Meghalaya state. Biodiversity and Conservation 6: 853-868.

KosamsI, D.D. (1962): Myth and Reality. Popular Press, Bombay.

Pp. 72)

LaLoo, R.C., L. KHARLUKHI, S. JEEVA & B.P. Misura (2006): Sacred

forests of Meghalaya as a treasure house of medicinal plants:

Effect of disturbance on population structure and natural

regeneration of important species. Current Science 90(2):

225-2372.

Rawat, MEGHA, H.B. VASISTHA, R.K. MANHAS & M. Neci (2011): Sacred

forest of Kunjapuri Siddhapeeth, Uttarakhand, India. Tropical

Ecology 52(2): 219-221.

SUKUMARAN, S. & S. JEEvA (2008): A floristic study on miniature sacred

forests at Agastheeshwaram, southern peninsular India. Eur Asia

J. Bio Sci. 2: 66-72.

SUKUMARAN, S., S. JEEVA, A.D.S. Rar & D. KANNAN (2008): Floristic

diversity, conservation status and economic value of miniature

sacred groves in Kanyakumari district, Tamil Nadu, southern

Peninsular India. Turk J. Bot. 32: 185-199.

Upapnaya, K. (2002): Study on plant diversity and ecosystem function

in sacred groves of Meghalaya. Ph. D. Thesis, NEHU, Shillong,

India.

Upapuaya, K., H.N. PANbDEy, P.S. LAw & R.S. Tripatut (2003): Tree

diversity in sacred groves of Jaintia hills in Meghalaya, north-

east India. Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 583-597.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

65-70

NEW DESCRIPTION

A NEW SPECIES OF NOTASPIDIELLA BOUCEK (HYMENOPTERA: CHALCIDIDAE)

WITH A KEY TO SPECIES AND NOTES ON KNOWN SPECIES

T.C. NARENDRAN!*”, ABHILASH PeTer!*, K. Nikuit!* AND Minu Mouan!”

!All India Coordinated Project on Taxonomy & Capacity Building (AICOPTAX); Western Ghats Regional Centre, Zoological Survey

of India, Kozhikode 673 006, Kerala, India.

*Email: drtcnrendran @ yahoo.com

3Email: abhilashpeter@ gmail.com

‘Email: kizhakayilnikhil @ gmail.com

-Email: minumohan86 @rediffmail.com

“Corresponding author

The genus Notaspidiella Bouéek (Hymenoptera: Chalcididae) is briefly reviewed with description of a new species

N. shyamagatra Narendran sp. nov. from India. A key to species of Notaspidiella is also provided. The genus

Neoirichohalticella Narendran is downgraded as a subgenus of Notaspidiella Bouéek.

Key words: Notaspidiella, Chalcidoidea, Hymenoptera, Key, new species, review

INTRODUCTION

The genus Notaspidiella was erected by Bouéek (1988)

based on the type species Irichohalticella tirathabae Ferriére.

The genus consists of three species, namely N. tirathabae

(Ferriere) (1933) from Java, N. frater (Masi 1917) from

Seychelles, and N. clavata Narendran and Konishi (2004)

from Thailand. In this paper, a new species N. shyamagatra

Narendran is described and the species Neoirichohalticella

sringeriensis Narendran (Narendran et al. 2006) is transferred

to Notaspidiella Bouéek (comb. nov.). Diagnoses of all the

known species and a key to species are provided. Bouéek

(1988) stated that the genus Notaspidiella is known from

Seychelles, Mauritius, Sarawak, and east Malaysia. The

holotype of the new species described in this paper is deposited

in the Regional Centre of Zoological Survey of India,

Kozhikode (ZSIK).

Abbreviations used: AOL = distance between anterior

ocellus and a posterior ocellus; F1 to F7 = funicular segments

1 to 7; L= length; MS = Malar space; MV= Marginal vein;

OOL = minimum distance between eye and posterior ocellus;

POL = minimum distance between posterior ocelli; T1 to T6

= tergites of gaster 1 to 6; W= width.

Acronyms of depositories: BMNH = The Natural

History Museum, London; ZSIC = Zoological Survey of India,

Kolkata; ZSIK = The Western Ghats Regional Centre of

Zoological Survey of India, Kozhikode.

Notaspidiella Bouéek

Notaspidiella Bouéek, 1988: 56. Type species

Trichohalticella tirathabae Ferriére (1933: 87).

Neoirichohalticella Narendran 2006 (Narendran et al.

2006). (Type species Neoirichohalticella sringeriensis

Narendran). Downgraded here to subgenus: syn. nov. and stat.

nov.

Diagnosis: Head with antennae inserted close to

mouth; clypeus usually turned down ventrally (Fig. 4)

[in N. sringeriensis produced forward (Fig. 22)]; scutellum

dorsally almost flat, its apex distinctly produced posteriorly

(Figs 11 and 12) jutting over propodeum; propodeum

horizontal; gaster broadly sessile; T1 and T2 fused in nominal

subgenus Notaspidiella and not fused in subgenus

Neoirichohalticella Narendran (stat. nov.). T1 with anterior

cross carina and behind it with at least 2 submedian carinae

and 2 sublateral carinae or with several carinae or occasionally

with additional striae; apex of gaster in female acuminate; in

male T6 with strong dorsal tooth or tubercle (Boucek 1988).

Hosts: N. tirathabae is parasitic on Tirathaba rufivena

Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Java (Ferriére 1933).

N. clavata is recorded from Sitophilus sp. (Coleoptera) from

Thailand (Konishi et al. 2004).

Distribution: Seychelles, Thailand, Mauritius,

Malaysia (Boucek 1988; Konishi et al. 2004), India (present

record).

Remarks: As a result of discovery of more variation in

the characters of Notaspidiella, the genus Neoirichohalticella

Narendran must be considered as a subgenus of Notaspidiella

Bouéek. Hence, the genus Neoirichohalticella Narendran

(Narendran et al. 2006) is hereby downgraded (stat. nov.) as a

subgenus of Notaspidiella Boucéek.

The genus Notaspidiella comes very close to

Trichohalticella Cameron (1912) in having T1 with anterior

cross carina and behind it with at least 2-4, or rarely more

longitudinal carinae. However, it differs from Jrichohalticella

NEW DESCRIPTION

in having apex of scutellum angulate and produced over the

propodeum, whereas in /richohalticella the scutellum has a

rounded apex. It is also close to Notaspidium (Dalla Torre

1897), but differs in having hind femur with long comb of

teeth starting from a subbasal tooth, whereas in Notaspidium

the comb of teeth starts from the middle with larger tooth.

It resembles Nearretocera Girault (1913) in having the

comb of hind femur long, beginning from proximal tooth

situated in about basal third of ventral edge but differs from

Nearretocera in having: MV short and situated away from

anterior margin (Figs 8, 12), in Nearretocera MV long

[Fig. 52 of Boucek (1988)] and virtually on the margin. Besides

this, the forewing is without infuscate band (in Nearretocera

forewing with double bands); and apex of scutellum produced

over the propodeum as a horn (in Nearretocera apex of

scutellum is not produced over propodeum as a horn or

projection).

It resembles Nipponochalcidia Habu (1976) in having

T1 anteriorly with raised cross-carina and behind it

longitudinal carinae or striae, but Nipponochalcidia differs

from Notaspidiella in having apex of scutellum not produced

over propodeum and MV almost close to anterior margin of

wing, almost touching it; and propodeum with distinct

submedian and sublateral carinae.

Key TO SPECIES OF NOTASPIDIELLA BOUCEK

(Based on females)

ik T1 distinctly delimited or separately marked (Figs 9, 21),

(iguliform), not reaching middle of gaster. Subgenus

Neoirichohalticella Narendran (stat. NOV.) .............s00000000 2

— TI fused with T2 (Fig. 19) (not liguliform). Nominal

subgenus: NOtaspidielld BOUCEK q. gesi.i.csccsussnomscnecobaelens A.

iz: Clypeus and mandibles produced forward (Fig. 22); antenna

reddish-yellow with median part of funicle pale blackish (Fig.

21); width of lower margin of head 0.51x width of head in

anterior view. India ....... ee N. sringeriensis (Narendran)

— Clypeus and mandibles not produced forward; antenna

(Fig. 4) black with base and apex of scape and clava dark

brown with reddish tinge; width of lower margin of head

narrower than in alternate (Figs 2, 14). India................... 3

Be T1 with dense striae besides longitudinal carinae (Figs 9,

10); T2 sparsely pitted (Figs 9, 10); propodeum without

longitudinal carinae; antenna (Fig. 4) black with base and

apex of scape and clava dark brown with reddish tinge. India

ae euinish sauce Sue sas neEa N. shyamagatra Narendran, sp. nov.

— TI with 8 to 10 longitudinal carinae, but not densely striate

as above; T2 with large close pits (Fig. 20); propodeum with

submedian and sublateral carinae; antenna mostly blackish

with scape and pedicel reddish-yellow. Seychelles............

BU cateere meee eg tpiat 2s pitas seed dul gu ule eae Res N. frater (Masi)

4. Antennal clava undivided; MS almost as long as eye height;

metapleuron strongly reticulate; metasoma as long as

mesosoma; projected apex of scutellum 0.2x remaining

length of scutellum. Java, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Sumatra

Me Satin Mee R By Rie: 2 DARN CRE AD N. tirathabae (Ferriére).

— Clava distinctly three segmented; MS (Fig. 12) shorter than

height of eye (7:11); metapleuron densely pitted and not

reticulate; metasoma longer than mesosoma; projected part

of scutellum 0.31x remaining length of scutellum. Thailand

ati said aici dae ee cencee ts N. clavata Narendran & Konishi

1. Notaspidiella (Neoirichohalticella) shyamagatra

Narendran, sp. nov. (Figs 1-11)

Female (holotype): Length 4.08 mm. Body black

except as follows: base and apex of scape and clava dark

brown with reddish tinge; fore and mid trochanters, apices of

fore and mid femora, bases and apices of fore and mid tibiae

reddish brown; all tarsi brown; wings hyaline with yellowish

tinge, veins brown; pubescence of wings brown; pubescence

of body silvery.

Head: Head width (Fig. 2), in anterior view, 1.21x its

height (104:86); head width (Fig. 3) in dorsal view, 2.3x its

length (103:45); MS 0.7x eye height in profile (28:39); eye

length equal to MS (28:28); POL 1.93x OOL (27:14); AOL

shorter than OOL (12:14); with close umbilicate pits,

interstices carinate; scrobe reaching anterior ocellus, with

17-21 cross carinae; interantennal projection protruding

anteriorly (Fig. 4); preorbital carina reaching vertex but not

curving behind anterior ocellus. Antennal formula 11173;

inserted far below lower ocular line (Fig. 4); length between

apex of clava and apex of scape longer than head width in

dorsal view (113: 103); relative L:W of antennal segments:

scape = S7-1l; pedicel = 18-9: anellus = 7:9 Fl-= 540:

F2=CG1P Po HO Foe Lae FS Sal 12: POS Fri

FY = 1d? clayva = 26212,

Mesosoma: Mesosoma (Fig. 5) 3.5x as long as wide

(185:53); pronotum 1.73x as wide as its length (104:60), with

close umbilicate pits, interstices carinate; mesoscutum with

similar sculpture to pronotum, but interstices ecarinate and

rugulose in posterior median part and in middle area of

scapula; scutellum 1.1x as long as wide, with close umbilicate

pits, interstices ecarinate, space between pits shorter than half

diameter of a pit; apex of scutellum projecting over

propodeum (Fig. 11); tegula densely pubescent; propodeum

horizontal, coarsely and irregularly pitted (Fig. 6); width of

propodeum 1.93x its length (77:40); mesepisternum concave

with pits and striae; mesepimeron (Fig. 1) closely pitted with

interstices carinate. Forewing (Fig. 8) 2.7x as long as wide

(250:92), pilose which becomes sparse basally, with two white

streaks (Fig. 8); MV distinctly removed from anterior wing

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

NEW DESCRIPTION

Figs 1-11: Notaspidiella shyamagatra Narendran sp. nov. Female: 1. Body profile; 2. Head anterior view; 3. Head and pronotum dorsal view;

4. Antenna and head side view; 5. Mesosoma dorsal view; 6. Propodeum; 7. Hind leg; 8. Forewing; 9. Gaster dorsal view;

10. T1 and part of T2 dorsal view; 11. Scutellum side view

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013 67

NEW DESCRIPTION

margin. Hind coxa 2.5x as long as width (42:17), dorsal side

smooth, remaining part with micropits and pubescence; hind

femur length 2.2x its width (107:48), with dense minute pits

(Fig. 7), interstices smooth and shiny, lower edge with

subbasal sharp tooth behind which dense comb of teeth

slightly curves before ascending on subapical lobe; length of

subbasal large tooth 0.33x width of hind tibia. Hind tibia 5.4x

as long as wide (98:18), apex with 2 spurs, each spur as long

as hind metatarsus. Hind metatarsus equal in size to second

tarsal segment, third tarsal segment shorter than second but

equal to fourth; fifth tarsal segment 1.9x as long as fourth;

each claw shorter than fourth tarsal segment (8:9).

Metasoma: Gaster broadly sessile (Fig. 9); T1 not fused

to T2, with dense longitudinal striae and carinae (Figs 9, 10),

length of striated area 0.84x length of T1 (52:62). T2 longer

than TI (112:62). Relative L:W of ‘tergites : Tl = 62:85;

T= Pas ts = eee. 14 = 12:54, 15 =] 1041.

T6 = 14:32; epipygium = 13:18; ovipositor sheath = 17:9.

Male: Unknown.

Host: Unknown.

Distribution: INp1A: Kerala.

Material examined: Holotype, female: INp1a: Kerala,

Kannur district, Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary [11° 54'-11° 9'N

and 75° 47'-75° 57' E], 12.x.2012, malaise trap set by Abilash,

Nikhil, and Minu (ZSIK).

Etymology: The species name ‘shyamagatra’ is taken

from Sanskrit meaning black body.

Remarks: This is a unique species with T1 delimited

and with strong striae and carinae (Figs 9, 10) by which this

species can be separated from all other known species of

Notaspidiella. Irichohalticella pilosella Cameron (1912), the

type (Male: No.5.300 B.M.) of which one of us (TCN)

examined in 1980 at BMNH, shows close resemblance to this

species in having similar type of striae and carinae on base of

gaster but differs from N. shyamagatra in having T1 fused

with T2 (in N. shyamagatra T1 not fused); apex of scutellum

rounded and not jutting out over propodeum (generic

difference) (in N. shyamagatra apex of scutellum produced

posteriorly and jutting over propodeum (generic difference).

2. Notaspidiella (Notaspidiella) clavata Narendran &

Konishi (Figs 12-18)

Notaspidiella clavata Narendran & Konishi, in Konishi

et al., 2004: 34. Holotype Female, Thailand (ZSIC)

(examined).

Diagnosis: Female: Length 2.65—3.1mm. Black except

the following: base and apex of scape brown; all trochanters,

bases and apices of fore and mid femora and tibiae, apical

dorso-lateral part of hind tibia dark yellowish-brown with a

slight reddish tinge; apical part of hypopygium yellowish

brown; all tarsi yellowish brown. Scrobe (Fig. 14) cross

reticulate; POL 3-4x OOL (Fig. 15); MS 0.5—6x eye height

in profile (Fig. 12). Pedicel 2.25x as long as Fl. Mesosoma

(Fig. 17) with distinct close setigerous pits, interstices smooth

Figs 12-18: Notaspidiella clavata Narendran & Lambert: Female: 12. Body profile; 13. Dorsal view of body; 14. Head anterior view;

15. Head and pronotum dorsal view; 16. Hind leg; 17. Scutellum and propodeum dorsal view; 18. Fused T1 and T2 dorsal view

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

NEW DESCRIPTION

and shiny except an anterior marginal area of mesoscutum,

where pits are relatively smaller (Fig. 13) and interstices

rugulose; apex of scutellum narrow and acuminate, projecting

over propodeum (Figs 13, 17); propodeum (Fig. 18) with

submedian and sublateral carinae; Metasoma broadly sessile,

approximately 1.1x length of mesosoma; Tl and T2 fused

(Fig. 18), with 2 submedian and 2 lateral carinae; all carinae

separated from each other with deep depression at base;

hypopygium exceeding well beyond middle of Metasoma.

Male: Length 2.05 mm. Similar to female. T6 with

strong dorsal tooth directed posteriorly.

Host: Collected from Sitophilus sp. in rice storage.

Probably secondary parasite (Konishi et al. 2004).

Distribution: Thailand.

Remarks: This species approaches N. tirathabae

(Ferriére) in general appearance but differs from N. tirathabae

in having: 1. clava distinctly 3-segmented (clava undivided

in N. tirathabae); 11. MS 0.5—0.6x height of eye in profile

(an N. tirathabae MS almost as long as eye height);

11. metapleuron closely pitted (Fig. 13) (in N. tirathabae

metapleuron strongly reticulate); and iv. metasoma distinctly

longer than mesosoma (in WN. tirathabae metasoma as long as

mesosoma).

3. Notaspidiella (Notaspidiella) tirathabae (Ferriére)

Irichohalticella tirathabae Ferriére, 1933: 87.

Holotype Female (BMNH No.5-301) Java (examined)

Notaspidiella tirathabae (Ferriére). Bouéek, 1988: 87.

Diagnosis: Female: Length 2.6—2.8 mm. Black except

the following: apex of fore femur, apices of all tibiae, all tarsi,

brownish; remaining parts of legs blackish brown. MS almost

as long as eye height; OOL shorter than diameter of a posterior

ocellus; pedicel 1.75x as long as F1; F2 a little longer than

F2 (4:3.5). F4, F5, F6, and F7 of equal length; Fl to F7

gradually widening; clava 3x as long as F7 and longer than

combined length of F6 and F7 (12:8). Mesosoma 1.6x as long

as its width; mesoscutum length 0.71x length of scutellum;

scutellum length including apical projection 1.14x its width,

apical projection length 0.2x of remaining length of scutellum;

apical projection of scutellum jutting over metanotum and

slightly over base of propodeum; propodeum with submedian

and sublateral carinae, horizontal with weak cross carinae;

propleuron and mesopleuron rugulose; metapleuron strongly

reticulate. Metasoma as long as mesosoma, 2.4x as long as

its width; Tl fused with T2, with 2 submedian and 2 lateral

carinae, all carinae separated by depressions at base; length

of a submedian carina 0.46x length of fused Tland T2; one

cercal seta longer than next longer seta on each side.

Male: Length 2.2 mm. Similar to female except pedicel

not longer than its width; clava as long as F6 and F7 combined.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Host: Recorded breeding on cocoons of Apanteles

tirathabae Walker (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), from pupa

of Tirathaba rufivena Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae).

Distribution: Sri Lanka, Philippines, and Sumatra

(Boucek 1988; Ferriere 1933; Noyes 2013).

Remarks: This species comes near N. clavata in general

appearance but differs from it in having: i. Clava unsegmented

(in N. clavata clava 3 segmented); 11. MS almost as long as

eye height in profile (in NV. clavata MS distinctly shorter (7:11)

than height of eye; i11. Metasoma as long as mesosoma

(in NV. clavata metasoma longer than mesosoma); iv. projected

apex of scutellum 0.2x remaining length of scutellum

(in N. clavata projected part of scutellum 0.31x remaining

length of scutellum).

4. Notaspidiella (Neoirichohalticella) frater (Masi),

comb. nov. (Figs 19, 20)

Hybothorax frater Masi, 1917, 1917: 134. Holotype

Female, Seychelles (BMNH) (examined) Notaspidiella frater

(Masi): Boucek, 1988: 57.

Diagnosis: Female: Length 2.6 mm. Black except for

the following: eyes chestnut brown (Masi 1917), scape,

pedicel, fore and mid legs (except coxae), base and apex of

femora, apex of hind tibia and entire tarsi reddish yellow.

Head not wider than mesosoma (19:20) (excluding tegula);

scrobe cross striate with upper part minutely strigulose;

occiput with tibia. Metasoma as long as mesosoma; T1

distinctly delimited with 10 longitudinal carinae; T2 distinctly

pitted with large close pits (Figs 19, 20).

Host: Unknown

Distribution: Seychelles.

Figs 19-20: Notaspidiella frater (Masi) Female:

19. Body dorsal view; 20. Scutellum, T1 and T2.

NEW DESCRIPTION

Remarks: This species comes close to Notaspidiella

shyamagatra Narendran, sp. nov. in having T1 delimited, apex

of scutellum similar, and sculpture on mesoscutum similar.

However, N. frater differs from N. shyamagatra in having:

i. T1 not striate but carinate with 10 longitudinal carinae

(in N. shyamagatra T1 striate and carinate); 11. T2 with

large close pits (Figs 20, 21) (in N. shyamagatra T2 weakly

and sparsely pitted as in Fig. 9), and iii. length of large

subbasal tooth of hind femur 0.6x width of hind tibia

(in N. shyamagatra subbasal tooth of hind femur 0.33x width

of hind tibia).

5. Notaspidiella (Neoirichohalticella) sringeriensis

(Narendran) comb. nov., stat. nov. (Figs 21, 22)

Neoirichohalticella sringeriensis Narendran 2006 (in

Narendran et al. 2006), Holotype female, India (ZSIK)

(examined).

Diagnosis: Length 4 mm. Body black except as follows:

Clava pale brownish yellow; pedicel pale reddish brown;

scape reddish brown with base and apex pale brownish yellow;

radicula pale brownish yellow; fore and mid trochanters,

Figs 21-22: Notaspidiella sringeriensis (Narendran) Female:

21. Head side view; 22. Head anterior view

apices of fore and mid femora, bases and apices of fore and

mid tibiae brownish yellow; apex of hind tibia pale brown;

all tarsi yellow. Head width in anterior view 1.12x its height

(84:75); head width in dorsal view 2x its length (8:4); POL

2x OOL (20:10); AOL 2.5x OOL (25:10); MS 0.7x eye height

(27:41); eye length 0.96x eye height (27:28); clypeus and

mandibles projecting forward (Fig. 21); antenna as in Fig.

21. Mesosoma tegula pubescent; sculpture on mesoscutum,

and scutellum projecting over propodeum; propodeum with

irregular pits; plicae and submedian carinae weakly distinct.

T1 with dense distinct longitudinal carinae (not striate).

Male: Unknown.

Host: Unknown.

Distribution: tNp1IA: Karnataka (Sringeri).

Material examined: Holotype.

Remarks: This species resembles N. shyamagatra

in general appearance but differs from it in having:

i. Clypeus and mandibles projecting forward (Fig. 22)

(in N. shyamagatra clypeus and mandibles hidden beneath

and not projecting; 11. Tl more carinate and not striate

(in N. shyamagatra T1 more striate than carinate).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to the Ministry of Environment and

Forests, Government of India, New Delhi, for a grant under

AICOPTAX. We thank the Director, Zoological Survey of

India and Officer in Charge of the Western Ghats Regional

Centre of ZSIK for facilities to work. We thank Dr. Natalie

Dale-Skey Papilloud (BMNH, London) and Dr. S. Sheela

(ZSIC, Kolkata) for sending photographs of N. frater and

N. clavata respectively. We thank Prof. M. Hayat (Aligarh)

for critically going through the paper .

REFERENCES

Boucexk, Z. (1988): Australasian Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). A

biosystematic revision of genera of fourteen families, with a

reclassification of species. CAB International, Wallingford,

Oxon, U.K.; Cambrian News Ltd, Aberystwyth, Wales. 832 pp.

CAMERON, P. (1912): On a collection of parasitic Hymenoptera (chiefly

bred) made by Mr. Walter W. Froggatt F.L.S., in New South

Wales, with descriptions of new genera and species. Part ii.

Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 36: 637.

Da.iLA Torre, K.W. van (1897): Zur Nomenclatur der Chalcididen-

Genera. Wiener Entomologische Zeitung 16: 87.

FERRIERE, C. (1933): Chalcidoid and proctotrupoid parasites of pests of

the coconut palm. Stylops 2(4): 86-96.

GiRAULT, A.A. (1913): Some chalcidoid Hymenoptera from north

Queensland. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte (A) 79(6): 84.

Hau, A. (1976): A new species of Euchalcidia from the Ogasawaras,

Japan, with the description of a new genus (Hymenoptera,

Chalcididae). Mushi 49(2): 22-23.

KonlisHI, K., T.C. NARENDRAN, T. IMAMURA & P. VISARATHANONTH (2004):

Chalcididae (Hymenoptera) from rice stores in Thailand, with

description of two new species. Entomological Science 7(1):

34-36.

Mas, L. (1917): Chalcididae of the Seychelles Islands. (With an

appendix by J.J. Kieffer) Novitates Zoologicae 24: 121-230.

NARENDRAN, T.C., K. SUDHEER, P.A. SINU & D. PRIYADARSHAN (2006): A

new genus of Chalcididae (Hymenoptera: Chalcididae) from

Karnataka, India. Journal of Ecobiology 18(2): 157-159.

Noyes, J.S. (2013): Universal Chalcidoidea Database. World Wide Web

electronic publication. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

71-92

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

1. FIRST PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD OF THE INDIAN MOUSE DEER MOSCHIOLA INDICA

IN KANHA TIGER RESERVE, CONFIRMING ITS OCCURRENCE IN CENTRAL INDIA

UsswaL Kumar!**, Nena Awastut!?, ANUP PRADHAN!*, QAMAR QurRESHI’? AND Y.V. JHALA’®

‘Wildlife Institute of India, P.O. Box # 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, Uttarakhand, India.

7Email: ujjwal @ wii.gov.in, ujjwalsinha00 @ gmail.com

7Email: neha @ wii.gov.in

‘Email: anup @ wii.gov.in

-Email: qnq@ wii.gov.in

°Email: jhalay @ wii.gov.in

*Corresponding author

Mouse deer are poorly known ungulates due to their

nocturnal, rare, and elusive nature. They are taxonomically

classified under Family Tragulidae, an ancient group of

primitive ruminants, with history dating back to the Miocene

(Gentry and Hooker 1988; Groves and Meijaard 2005; Webb

and Taylor 1980). There are two extant genera, Moschiola

and Tragulus, which occur in the South and Southeast Asian

region (Meijaard and Groves 2004). Recent taxonomic

revision by Groves and Meijaard (2005) has separated the

Indian species of mouse deer as Moschiola indica. Based on

phylogenetic species concept, it has been segregated from

Moschiola memina, which is now restricted to parts of

Sri Lanka.

The Indian Mouse Deer Moschiola indica 1s one of the

smallest ungulate species. It is found in tropical moist

deciduous and evergreen forests of peninsular India. Its

distribution is still uncertain due to poor sighting records.

The present distribution, based largely on anecdotal

@ Mouse Deer Capture

* Camera Trap Locations

[| Kanha National Park

[__] Ranges(Kanha Tiger Reserve ) FOR AT ei

20 Kilometers

Fig. 1: Camera trap locations at study site

observations by authors, or through interaction with forest

officials, is said to be Tamil Nadu and Kerala in the south,

and north to at least 24° N, i.e., southernmost parts of

Rajasthan, central Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, and Odisha

(formerly Orissa) (Prater 1971). Champion (1929) strongly

doubted its occurrence in northern India and Nepal, and

originated a common view on its northern limit being at about

24° N. However, Mitchell and Punzo (1976) later recorded

its occurrence in Nepal by direct observation of a live

specimen in a Sal Shorea robusta patch in Banke district,

and obtained a partial skeleton from a hunter. However, this

record was overlooked by Groves and Meijaard (2005) in

their paper on the species.

Recent reliable information to confirm its presence in

central India is lacking, where it has not been photographed

for the last 100 years. The last record and photograph of the

species was taken by Brook (1906) in January 1905 in Raipur

district of the Central Provinces, which now lies in

Chhattisgarh state. However, Champion (1929) and

Krishnan (1972) had confirmed its presence in Mandla

district, Madhya Pradesh — through information generated

by interaction with the locals and forest guards. Ghose and

Bhattacharya (1995) made an inventory of fauna of Kanha

Tiger Reserve, but gave the status of Indian Mouse Deer as

unknown, with no evidence recorded. During a survey in

Kanha, in 2010, we gathered that forest and other locals

had never seen the Indian Mouse Deer Moschiola indica in

and around Kanha Tiger Reserve. However, subsequently

on camera-trapping from 2010 to 2013 we obtained four

photographs of the species in four ranges of Kanha Tiger

Reserve.

We used 140 camera traps with an average trap distance

of 1.8 km in the Tiger Reserve, covering all the ranges, a

total of 700 sq. km (Fig. 1). The first photograph (ed.:

photographic evidence provided) was obtained in the

Dhawajhandi, Kisli range (22° 14' 3.8" N; 80° 34' 57.4" EB),

on June 29, 2010, but the photograph was not clear. After

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Fig. 2: Moschiola indica photographed on March 12, 2012,

in Deotalai, Kanha range

that, we got clear photographs on March 12, 2012, (Fig. 2) in

Deotalai, Kanha range (22° 17' 58.0" N; 80° 42' 21.4" E), and

again on January 19, 2012 (ed.: photographic evidence

provided) in Pongapani, Bhaisanghat range (22° 8'51.14" N;

80° 45' 22.17" E). These records confirm the presence of the

Indian Mouse Deer in Kanha Tiger Reserve, and suggest the

potential of the moist deciduous forest of Central India as a

stronghold for the species and its habitat if there is good

protection.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to acknowledge National Tiger

Conservation Authority for providing funding support.

Shri H.S. Negi and Shri J.S. Chauhan, Field Directors,

Dr. Rakesh Shukla, Research Officer, Kanha Tiger Reserve,

for providing logistic support. Director of Wildlife Institute

of India is acknowledged for providing permission to carry

out the study.

REFERENCES

Brook, FE. (1906): The Indian Chevrotain or Mouse Deer (7ragulus

meminna). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 16(4): 739.

CHAMPION, S.W. (1929): The distribution of the mouse-deer (Moschiola

meminna). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 33(4): 985-986.

GENTRY, A.W. & J.J. HOOKER (1988): The phylogeny of the Artiodactyla.

Pp. 235-272, Chapter 9. In: Benton, J. (Ed.): The phylogeny

and classification of the tetrapods, Volume 2. Systematics

Association special volume 35B. Clarendon Press, Broadbridge.

GuosE, R.K. & T.P. BHATTACHARYA (1995): Fauna of Kanha tiger reserve,

Madhya Pradesh. Pp. 93-117. In: Ghose, A.K. (Ed.): Fauna of

conservation area No. 7. ZSI, Calcutta.

Groves, C.P. & E. MEWAARD (2005): Interspecific variation in Moschiola,

the Indian Chevrotain. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 12: 413-442.

KRISHNAN, M. (1972): An ecological survey of the larger mammals of

peninsular India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 69: 322-349.

MEIAARD, E. & C.P. Groves (2004): A taxonomic revision of the

Tragulus mouse-deer (Artiodactyla). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 140:

63-102.

MITCHELL, R. & F. Punzo (1976): New mammal records from Nepal.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 73(1): 54-58.

Prater, S.H. (1971): The Book of Indian Animals. 3rd Edn. Bombay

Natural History Society and Oxford University Press, Bombay,

India. Pp. 296.

Wess, S.D. & B.E. TayLor (1980): The phylogeny of hornless ruminants

and a description of the cranium of Archaeomeryx. Bull.

American Mus. Nat. Hist. 167:121—154.

2. STATUS OF IRRAWADDY DOLPHIN ORCAELLA BREVIROSTRIS GRAY, 1866 AND

GANGES RIVER DOLPHIN PLATANISTA GANGETICA ROXBURGH, 1801

IN THE WATER CHANNELS OF SUNDARBAN TIGER RESERVE, INDIA

MAnas P. MANIJREKAR!’* AND CHARLES LEO PRABU!?

‘Wildlife Institute of India, PO. Box No. 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun, 248 001, Uttarakhand, India.

"Email: charlesleo.prabu @ gmail.com

*Address for correspondence: 303, B-wing, Manorama Apt, Gurumandir Road, Dombivli (East) 421 201, District Thane,

Maharashtra, India. Email: manas.manas86@ gmail.com

The Sundarbans are the world’s largest mangrove forest

situated in the delta of the Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna river

systems (Chakrabarti 1992). They comprise innumerable

islands with a huge network of small rivers and channels.

Around 38% of the area of Sundarbans lies in India and the

rest in Bangladesh (Mitra 2000). There are historical reports

of the presence of Ganges River Dolphin (Platanista

gangetica Roxburgh, 1801) and Irrawaddy Dolphin (Orcaella

brevirostris Gray, 1866) in the water channels of the Indian

Sundarbans (Anderson 1879; Jones 1982), but for the Indian

Sundarbans, there has been no detailed study on the status,

distribution or abundance of these cetaceans. The situation is

somewhat different for Bangladesh Sundarbans, as the

distributional patterns and abundance estimates for these two

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

cetacean species are available for the entire delta (Smith et

al. 2006).

In February 2010, a study was initiated in the Sundarban

Tiger Reserve (STR) of India to estimate its tiger population.

As a part of this exercise, boat transects were carried out to

estimate the animal sign encounter rates along the banks of

the forested islands from February to mid-May 2010.

Sundarban Tiger Reserve is divided into a buffer zone and

core zone. The buffer zone comprises two ranges, namely the

Sajnekhali Wildlife Sanctuary and the Bashirhat Range. The

core zone comprises the National Park, which also consists

of two ranges, namely National Park West and National Park

East. Together the Sajnekhali range and the National Park

West range comprise the western part of STR. Surveys were

carried out only in the western part of STR due to logistic

constraints. During the transect surveys, dolphin sightings

were also recorded. The boat transects were conducted during

the early morning, late afternoon, and evening hours, during

which the speed of the mechanised boat was maintained at

around 4.5 km/hr, and at any time there were two observers

looking out for signs. A total of 237.8 km of boat transects

were done: 117.3 km in Sajnekhali Wildlife Sanctuary and

120.5 km in National Park West range.

During the surveys, eight groups of Irrawaddy Dolphin

totalling 14 individuals were sighted and there was only one

sighting of the Ganges River Dolphin, a single individual.

Among the Irrawaddy Dolphin groups sighted, three were

sighted in Sajnekhali Range (Dattar beat) and five in National

Park West range (four in Netidhopani beat and one in Haldibari

beat). The single sighting of a lone Ganges River Dolphin

was in the Matla river area that adjoins Netidhopani beat.

During the survey, a group of three dolphins was also sighted

which could not be identified. For the Irrawaddy Dolphin,

the mean group size was 1.75 (SE = 0.25, range = 1-3)

and the encounter rate was 0.06 dolphins/linear kilometre

(SE = 0.02). Since these transects were concerned with tiger

signs (Signs of Tiger and its prey species) on the mud banks

of the islands and were not specifically designed for a cetacean

survey, it is possible that some of the cetacean surfacing was

not recorded. Hence, the encounter rates estimated are likely

to be negatively biased.

Apart from the survey, while passing through the

National Park East range (eastern part of STR) two groups of

Irrawaddy Dolphin were sighted; one sighting of three animals

in Chamta, and two in Baghmara. There was also a single

sighting of the Indo-Pacific Hump-backed Dolphin (Sousa

chinensis Osbeck, 1765) in the water channels of the National

Park West range (Haldibari beat).

In the past few decades, the freshwater inflow in the

western parts of Sundarbans has declined considerably due

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

to the silting-up of the sources of all the rivers that flow

into this region of the delta (Gopal and Chauhan 2006). The

Farakka Barrage, built in 1974 on the River Ganga in India,

has significantly contributed to this problem (Rahman 1986),

and the increased salinity of the river waters in the

Sundarbans has decreased the habitat for the Ganges River

Dolphin (Reeves et al. 1993). A study conducted in the

Bangladesh Sundarbans reported that Irrawaddy Dolphins

occur in the western, high-salinity part of Bangladesh

Sundarbans, while the Ganges River Dolphin occurs in the

eastern low-salinity part, mostly in the upstream regions

which received freshwater inflows (Smith et al. 2006). A

study in STR (Mallick 2011) reported the occurrence of the

Ganges River Dolphin in the upper reaches of the River

Raimangal (eastern part of Indian Sundarbans) and that the

animals descend to the lower portions of the river during

the monsoon, as the salinity decreased. The presence of

Irrawaddy Dolphin has been recorded in River Raimangal,

Jhilla, and Amlamati, which comprise the north-eastern part

of the Indian Sundarbans (Chakraborty and De 2007;

Mallick 2011). Chakraborty and De (2007) reported the

absence of Irrawaddy Dolphin from the northern part of the

Indian Sundarbans in the monsoon season and attributed

this to the decrease in salinity in the river waters. Over the

past few decades, the changes in the salinity regimes of the

Indian Sundarbans has most likely affected the distribution

pattern of both Irrawaddy and Ganges River Dolphin. The

data collected during this study suggests that the Irrawaddy

Dolphin has a wide distribution in the waterways of the

western portion of Sundarban Tiger Reserve, and that the

presence of Ganges River Dolphin seems to be very low in

this part of the Sundarban delta. It may also be pointed out

that the single sighting of the Ganges River Dolphin was

recorded in late May in this region, when the rains had

started. It is possible that the distribution of Ganges River

Dolphin in this part of Sundarbans is influenced by the rainy

season since the salinity of the water channels 1s low during

this season. But the data collected during this survey is not

enough to draw a concrete conclusion about the status and

distribution of these cetaceans. Hence, there is an urgent

need to carry out an extensive status survey of these two

cetaceans in the waters of the Indian Sundarbans.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to acknowledge Field Director,

Sundarban Tiger Reserve, for granting us permission to carry

out the study, Director and Dean of Wildlife Institute of India

for their support, our colleagues Manjari Roy and Dipanjan

Naha and our field assistants.

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

REFERENCES

ANDERSON, J. (1879): Anatomical and zoological researches: Comprising

an account of zoological results of the two expeditions to western

Yunnan in 1868 and 1875; and a monograph of the two cetacean

genera, Platanista and Orcaella. Bernard Quaritch. London,

Vol. I & II.

CHAKRABARTI, K. (1992): Man-eating Tigers. Darbari Prokashan,

Calcutta. 142 pp.

CHAKRABORTY, R. & J.K. DE (2007): Irrawaddy Dolphin in northern

Sunderban. Zoological Survey of India, West Bengal. October

& November 2007.

GoPAL, B. & M. CHAUHAN (2006): Biodiversity and its conservation in

the Sundarban mangrove ecosystem. Aquatic Sciences —

Research across boundaries 68(3): 338-354.

JONES, S. (1982): The present status of the Gangetic susu Platanista

gangetica (Roxburgh), with comments on the Indus susu

P. minor Owen. FAO Adivsory Committee on Marine Resources

Research Working Party on Marine Mammals. FAO Fish Ser.

4: 97-115.

MALLIck, J.K. (2011): Status of the mammal fauna in Sundarban Tiger

Reserve, West Bengal, India. Taprobanica 3(2): 52-68.

Mirra, A. (2000): The northwest coast of the Bay of Bengal and deltaic

Sundarbans. Pp. 145-160. Jn: Sheppard, C.R.C. (Ed.): Seas at

the millennium: An environmental evaluation (A Report): 2.

Regional chapters: The Indian Ocean to the Pacific. Pergamon

Press, Amsterdam. XXI, 920 pp.

RAHMAN, M.G. (1986): Reducing the flow of the Ganges: The

consequences for agriculture in Bangladesh. Pp. 267-275.

In: Goldsmith. E. and N. Hilyard (Eds): The Social and

Environmental Effects of Large Dams. Wadebridge Ecological

Centre, Cornwall, UK.

REEVES, R.R., S. LEATHERWOOD & R.S.L. MOHAN (1993): A Future for

Asian River dolphins (Report from a seminar on the conservation

of river dolphins in the Indian subcontinent). Whale and Dolphin

Conservation Society, Bath, UK.

SMITH, B.D., G. BRAULIK, S. STRINDBERG, B. AHMED & R. MANsurR (2006):

Abundance of Irrawaddy dolphins (Orcaella brevirostris) and

Ganges river dolphins (Platanista gangetica gangetica) estimated

using concurrent counts made by independent teams in

waterways of the Sundarbans mangrove forest in Bangladesh.

Marine Mammal Science 22(3): 527-547.

3. NESTING OF THE WHITE-RUMPED VULTURE GYPS BENGALENSIS

IN ORCHHA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, MADHYA PRADESH, INDIA

ApIryA Roy!*AND KARTIK SHASTRI

'2/B Haritej Society, Opposite AMA/ATIRA, Dr. V.S. Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad 380 015, Gujarat, India.

Email: feathered.bipeds @ gmail.com

*Ashokwadi, Panchwati, Ahmedabad 380 006, Gujarat, India. Email: kartikgyps @ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

Orchha Wildlife Sanctuary (46 sq. km; 25.35° N;

78.64° E) lies in Tikamgarh district of Madhya Pradesh, and

is drained by the Betwa river. Orchha is a known nesting site

for the Long-billed or Indian Vulture Gyps indicus. Unlike

this species, there is lack of information on the breeding of

the White-rumped or White-backed Vulture Gyps bengalensis

in and around the Sanctuary in the past 10 years, according

to the Forest Department and Dr. Munir Virani of the Peregrine

Fund who has been monitoring the area for the last few years.

During a vulture census in Orchha Wildlife Sanctuary

organised by the Forest Department from December 17-19,

2012, we sighted around 35 White-rumped Vultures and

15 active nests in trees on the banks of the River Betwa, which

had a low density of trees, near the Orchha Wildlife Sanctuary,

i.e., the Koti Gulena area. All the nests were on Arjuna

Terminalia arjuna trees. The average height of the nests was

15.9 m (10-23 m range) and there were one to three nests per

tree. All the eggs were in the incubation stage and there were

two adults at each nest. With this observation, it is established

that the White-rumped Vulture also breeds in Orchha Wildlife

Sanctuary, and that the sanctuary is an important site for the

breeding of two Critically Endangered vulture species.

We also recorded five other White-rumped Vultures,

besides four Long-billed Vultures and two Indian Griffon

Gyps fulvus, during the census.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Mr. Vikas Yadav, Mr. Singhal (Conservator of

Forests, Orchha), Dr. J. Rawat (Game Range Officer, Orchha),

Dr. Amita Kanaujiya (Lucknow University), and Ms Sonika

Kushwaha for inviting us for the workshop and census.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

4. RECORD OF THE BRIDLED TERN STERNA ANAETHETUS IN AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT, INDIA

YASSER RAFIQUE!

‘GYAN Manzil, 5/A Prabhupark, Near NID, Paldi, Ahmedabad 380 007, Gujarat, India. Email: yasserafique @ yahoo.com

On Friday, August 3, 2012, while returning from the

airport, I saw a tern lying on the road near Nehru Bridge (72°

34' 70" N; 23° 37' 75" E). I picked up the bird and drove

home. I was skeptical if it would survive, but offered live

guppies and was surprised to see it eat three of them on its

own. However, it died the next day.

Referring to field guides of Indian birds, I checked

images of terns which had black wings, a white belly, and

forked tail. I first felt that it was a Sooty Tern Sterna fuscata,

but it lacked the long white supercilium. However, on

checking Grimmett et al. (1999), I saw that the tern resembled

the Bridled Tern S. anaethetus. The Bridled Tern is generally

seen on sea coasts. This is probably the first record of the

species inland, i.e., Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The bird could

probably have come here by following the River Sabarmati

from the Gulf of Khambat (as suggested by Ketan Tatu of

Geer Foundation, Gandhinagar), or it got caught in strong

winds and was blown inland.

REFERENCES

GRIMMETT, R., C. INskipp & T. INskipp (1999): Birds of the Indian Subcontinent. Christopher Helm, London.

5. RECORD OF SOOTY TERN STERNA FUSCATA IN PUNE, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA

VIKRAM POTDAR!

'Sigma One, Near Swapnapurti Hall, Off Paud Road, Kothrud 411 038, Pune, Maharashtra, India. Email: vikram.potdar @ gmail.com

On August 1, 2012, at around 16:00 hrs, I received a

call from my neighbour that a few crows were trying to attack

a bird near our housing society in Kothrud, Pune. I asked

him to protect the bird, and on rushing to the spot, saw that it

was not a bird seen in Pune area. I took some pictures of the

bird and mailed them to friends; the bird was identified as a

juvenile Sooty Tern Sterna fuscata by experts Kishor

Gumaste, Asad R. Rahmani, and Rahul Rao.

The Sooty Tern is a pelagic species that is known to

breed in Lakshadweep, Vengurla Rocks (southern

Maharashtra), and probably Maldives, Andamans, and west

and south Sri Lanka (Manakadan et al. 2011). It has been

reported to stray inland to Tamil Nadu, Bihar, and Assam

(Manakadan et al. 2011), but this is probably the first record

of the species from Pune, which is about 200 km off the

Maharashtra coast. I took the bird to the Katraj Animal

Orphanage in Pune, but it died next morning. The specimen

was handed over to the Zoological Survey of India, Pune.

REFERENCES

MANAKADAN, R., J.C. DANIEL & NIKHIL BHOPALE (2011): Field Guide to the Birds of the Indian Subcontinent. Bombay Natural History Society,

Mumbai and Oxford University Press, Delhi. 409 pp.

6. FIRST RECORD OF THE BLUE-AND-WHITE FLYCATCHER CYANOPTILA CYANOMELANA IN INDIA

PRAVIN KAWALE!

"Vrindavan C.H. Society, Raiwadi Complex, Chendhare, At-Post-Tal: Alibag 402 201, Maharashtra, India. Email: kawale.pravin@ gmail.com

On the morning of March 10, 2012, while birding on

the western slopes of the Siddheshwar Hill, about six

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

kilometres north-west of Alibag, Raigad district, Maharashtra,

I saw a bird sitting on the branch of a Bombax ceiba tree. The

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

bird was bright blue with white underparts, resembling some

of the blue flycatchers (Cyornis spp.) found in Maharashtra.

As I was not able to identify it, I took some photographs, and

posted them on the internet. The bird was sighted at a location

18° 39' 37.13" N and 72° 56' 09.25" E, and the elevation was

about 118.8 m above msl. I got many replies, including those

of well-known ornithologists Krys Kazmierczak, Craig

Robson, and Pamela Rasmussen, who identified it as the Blue-

and-White Flycatcher Cyanoptila cyanomelana. This is the

first record of the species in India (ed.: photographic evidence

provided), as it has not been previously reported from the

Indian subcontinent (see Ali and Ripley 1983; Grimmett

et al. 2011; Rasmussen and Anderton 2012).

The Blue-and-White Flycatcher breeds in Japan, Korea,

parts of China and Russia, and winters in Southeast Asia

(Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Sumatra, and Borneo). It inhabits

wooded areas in lowlands and submontane forests, wooded

slopes, and gullies up to 1,200 m. It can also be found in scrub,

bushes, and plantations. During migration or in wintering areas,

it can be found in coastal woodlands, parks, and gardens. It may

winter at high altitudes in Borneo, up to 2,000 m.

The adult male Blue-and-White Flycatcher has most

of its upperparts cobalt blue, including upper wing-coverts,

flight feather edges, and tail. The head, crown, and nape

are shiny cobalt blue. The lower part of the forehead

and face are black. The primaries are black. Secondary

feathers show black inner webs. The outer tail feathers are

white at the base, only visible in flight. The chin, throat,

breast, and flanks are black, whereas the belly and vent are

white. Eyes dark brown; bill black, and legs and feet are

dusky.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank Dr. Vaibhav Deshmukh from Alibag who

accompanied me. Sincere thanks to Mr. Krys Kazmierczak,

Craig Robson, and Dr. Pamela Rasmussen for help in

identification of the species, besides other birdwatchers who

indicated that the species was different from the other blue

flycatchers. Thanks to Dr. Asad R. Rahmani, Director, BNHS,

and Dr. Raju Kasambe for encouraging me to write a scientific

note on this finding in JBNHS. |

REFERENCES

Aul, S. & S.D. RipLey (1983): Handbook of the birds of India and

Pakistan. Compact Edition. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

GRIMMETT, R., C. Inskipp & T. INskipp (2011): Birds of the Indian

Subcontinent. Second Edition. Oxford University Press,

New Delhi. 528 pp.

RASMUSSEN, P.C. & J.C. ANDERTON (2012): Birds of South Asia. The

Ripley Guide. Vols. 1 and 2. Second Edition. National Museum

of Natural History — Smithsonian Institution, Michigan State

University and Lynx Edicions, Washington, D.C., Michigan and

Barcelona.

7. SIGHTING OF JERDON’S BUSHCHAT SAXICOLA JERDONI

IN PILIBHIT, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

KAAJAL DASGUPTA!

'SA, Narayan Awas, Delapeer, Bareilly 243 122, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Email: aquarius 14 @rediffmail.com

Jerdon’s Bushchat Saxicola jerdoni is an uncommon

resident bird of tall grasslands of the sub-Himalayan plains

from east Bihar and west Bengal to north-east India in the

Brahmaputra watershed, lower parts of south Assam hills

and north-east Bangladesh (Rasmussen and Anderton 2005).

Although it has been reported as far west as the Uttar Pradesh

and western Nepal border, there have been no recent records

from the Terai of Uttar Pradesh. Javed and Rahmani (1998)

during their study of birds in Dudhwa National Park from

1991 to 1994 did not record the species.

On the morning of April 28, 2013, while surveying and

photographing the birds of Haripur Forest Range, 60 km from

Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh, I sighted two adult Jerdon’s Bushchat

in tall open dry grassland in a forest clearing. They were

calling loudly, which drew my attention. They had white

underparts and were completely black above. I managed to

take a few photographs before they flew away. The birds were

seen with Blue-tailed Bee-eater Merops philippinus, Black

Drongo Dicrurus macrocercus, and Grey Bushchat Saxicola

ferreus, another uncommon bird.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am grateful to Dr. Asad R. Rahmani, Director, for

confirming the identity and also for comments on the original

manuscript.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

REFERENCES

JAVED, S. & A.R. RAHMANI (1998): Conservation of the avifauna of Dudwa National Park, India. Forktail 14: 55-64.

RASMUSSEN, P.C. & J.C. ANDERTON (2005): Birds of South Asia: The Ripley Guide. 2 vols, Smithsonian Institution and Lynx Edicions, Washington,

D.C. and Barcelona. .

8. SECOND RECORD OF THE TRICOLORED MUNIA LONCHURA MALACCA

FROM SOUTHERN RAJASTHAN, INDIA

CHHAYA BHATNAGAR!”, DEEPENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT!*** AND ViJAY KUMAR Ko.Li#

‘Aquatic Toxicology and Wildlife Research Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University College of Science,

Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur 313 001, Rajasthan, India.

*Email: bhatnagarchhaya@ yahoo.co.in

3Email: sdeependrasingh @ yahoo.com

‘Email: vijaykoli87 @ yahoo.in

*Corresponding author

The Chestnut Munia Lonchura malacca consists of two

subspecies, namely malacca which has a white belly, and

atricapilla which has a chestnut belly. The white-bellied race

is now largely considered as a separate species, 1.e., Tricolored

Munia Lonchura malacca (see Rasmussen and Anderton

2012). The Tricolored Munia is endemic to the Indian

subcontinent, and is distributed in the Peninsula roughly south

of Gujarat and southern Orissa, and in Sri Lanka (Ali and

Ripley 1987; Grimmett et al. 1999; Manakadan et al. 2011;

Rasmussen and Anderton 2012).

On August 30, 2012, while birding in the morning at

Menar pond, Udaipur (24° 35' 16" N; 74° 06' 43" E; 1,563 m

above sea level), we noticed a bird in the thicket of Prosopis

juliflora near an agricultural field, and photographed it. It

had a black head, throat, and nape, while the rest of the

upperparts were rufous-chestnut. The ventral surface was

white. The bird was identified as the Tricolored Munia with

the help of field guides. The area of sighting of the bird was

characterised by agricultural fields surrounded by the local

vegetation, the common species being Acacia senegal, Grewia

tenax, Grewia flavescens, Cassia auriculata, Prosopis

Juliflora, Diospyros montana, Heteropogon contortus, Sehima

nervosum, Lannia grandis, and Euphorbia caducifolia.

August is the monsoon season in southern Rajasthan,

and the heavy rainfall creates a lush green environment.

According to Ali and Ripley (1987), May to November is the

breeding season of this species.

Studies on the avifauna in Rajasthan (Abudulali and

Panday 1978; Shahabuddin et al. 2006), including southern

region (Chhangani 2002; Koli et al. 2011; Sangha and

Devarshi 2006; Saxena 2003; Sharma 1998; Sharma and

Tehsin 1994), did not report the presence of this species in

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

southern Rajasthan. The only other report of the species in

Rajasthan was by Sharma (1999), who had seen a flock of

seven birds in November 1998 in the same district as our

sighting. Our observation was in August 2012 at the peak of

the monsoon, but Sharma (1999) recorded it towards the end

of the monsoon season. The rainy season generally starts in

July and ends in October; the peak is from July to September.

Other munias like Scaly-breasted Munia Lonchura punctulata

and Red Avadvat Amandava amandava are also seen from

July to October.

The Tricolored Munia has been reported from Jasdan,

Gujarat (Ali and Ripley 1987), which is about 450 km from

the site recorded in Udaipur. It appears that the recent

occurrence of the Tricolored Munia in southern Rajasthan

is not a result of escapees, but a case of range extension

(from Gujarat). Munias are neither sold nor kept as cage

birds in southern Rajasthan and adjoining areas of

Banaskantha and Sabarkantha districts of northern Gujarat.

Additionally, southern Rajasthan has suitable habitat for

munia species as it has a variety of grasslands and now

sugarcane is also grown, especially in the Jhadol, Kotra,

Gogunda, Sayra, and Kumbhalgarh areas. Additionally,

paddy is cultivated in the low-lying areas during the rainy

season, which also attracts munias. These changes must

have attracted munia species, including the Tricolored

Munia, to inhabit the area.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We thank Dr. Satish Kumar Sharma, Assistant

Conservator of Forests, Udaipur, for his valuable comments

on the manuscript.

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

REFERENCES

ABUDULALI, H. & J.D. PANDAy (1978): Checklist of the Birds of Delhi,

Agra and Bharatpur. Popular Press, Bombay.

Aut, S. & S.D. RipLey (1987): Compact Handbook of the Birds of India

and Pakistan together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan

and Sri Lanka. 2nd Edn. Oxford University Press, Delhi.

CHHANGANT, A.K. (2002): Avifauna of Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary,

in the Aravalli hills of Rajasthan. Zoos’ Print Journal 17(4):

764-768.

GRIMMETT, R., C. INskipp & T. INskipp (1999): Birds of the Indian

Subcontinent. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Kou, V.K., C. BHATNAGAR & M. YASEEN (2011): Urban birds of Udaipur

city (Rajasthan) and their conservation problems. Cheetal 49(2):

33-38.

MANAKADAN, R., J.C. DANIEL & NIKHIL BHOPALE (2011): Field Guide to

the Birds of the Indian Subcontinent. Bombay Natural History

Society, Mumbai and Oxford University Press, Delhi.

RASMUSSEN, P. & J.C. ANDERTON (2012): Birds of South Asia. The Ripley

Guide. Vols. 1 and 2. Second Edition. National Museum of Natural

History — Smithsonian Institution, Michigan State University and

Lynx Edicions, Washington, D.C., Michigan and Barcelona.

SANGHA, H.S. & D. DeEvarsui (2006): Birds of Mount Abu Wildlife

Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India. Indian Birds 2(2): 26-32.

SAXENA, M.M. (2003): Birds of tribal and hilly district of Dungarpur.

Newsletter for Birdwatchers 43(4): 54-55.

SHAHABUDDIN, G, R. Kumar & A. VERMA (2006): Annotated checklist

of the birds of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan. Indian Birds 2(3):

71-76.

SHARMA, S.K. (1998): Avian fauna of Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary.

Newsletter for Birdwatchers 38(2): 25-27.

SHARMA, S.K. (1999): Range extension of southern Black-headed Munia

Lonchura malacca malacca. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 38(2):

25-27.

SHARMA, S.K. & R. TEHSIN (1994): Birds of southern Rajasthan.

Newsletter for Birdwatchers 34(5): 109-113.

9. CATALOGUE OF SALAMANDER AND NEWT

(AMPHIBIA: URODELA/CAUDATA) SPECIMENS IN THE COLLECTION OF

THE ZOOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA

KAUSHIK Deutt!"* AND P.G.S. SeTuy!”

‘Zoological Survey of India, Amphibia Section, Herpetology Division, FPS Building, Indian Museum Complex,

27 Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata 700 016, West Bengal, India.

*Email: kaushikdeuti @ gmail.com

7Email: priyadassi @ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

Salamanders and newts, belonging to the amphibian

Order Urodela/Caudata, are characterised by the presence of

a tail in the adult stage. Most salamanders have four equal

sized limbs, and those with aquatic swimming larvae have

external gills and limbs from an early stage. However, in some,

metamorphosis is delayed and the larvae become sexually

mature (neotenous and paedomorphic) (Duellman and Trueb

1986). There are 619 species in nine recognised families

worldwide, most living in North America, Europe, and

northern Asia (Frost 2011). Only one species — Tylototriton

verrucosus — is known from India (Deuti and Hegde 2007).

Over the years, a substantial collection of Urodelan

specimens from all over the world have accumulated in the

Zoological Survey of India (ZSI), which were either handed

over from the old British era collections of the Asiatic Society

of Bengal to the Indian Museum, and subsequently to the

ZSI when it was established in 1916, or by exchange with

other museums. The Indian species was obtained during

collection surveys by ZSI and from donations received from

two individuals from Manipur and Nepal.

The collections of 206 Urodelan specimens belonging

to 23 species, 18 genera, and 7 families existing in the

Zoological Survey of India Collection as on March 31, 2012,

are catalogued in Table 1.

Table 1: Catalogue of 206 Urodelan specimens belonging to 23 species, 18 genera, and 7 families,

in the collection of Zoological Survey of India as on March 31, 2012

Labelled name Current Registration Locality Collector and Remarks

Nomenclature Number Date of Collection

Family: Ambystomatidae

Ambystoma jeffersonianum Ambystoma jeffersonianum 12305 Huron Lake, J.H. Garnier 4 specimens

(Green, 1827) (Green, 1827) 12306 USA and Canada

12307

12308

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Table 1: Catalogue of 206 Urodelan specimens belonging to 23 species, 18 genera, and 7 families,

Labelled name

Ambystoma mavortium

Baird, 1850

Axolotl larvae

Ambystoma punctatum Hay,

1892

Family: Cryptobranchidae

Megalobatrachus maximus

Boulenger, 1882

Cryptobranchus

alleghaniensis

(Daudin, 1803)

Family: Sirenidae

Siren lacertina

Linnaeus, 1766

Family: Hynobiidae

Hynobius nebulosus

(Temminck & Schlegel, 1838)

Onychodactylus japonicus

(Houttuyn, 1782)

Family: Plethodontidae

Batrachoseps attenuatus

(Eschscholtz, 1833)

Batrachoseps major Camp,

1915

Desmognathus niger Baird,

1850

Plethodon cinereus

(Green, 1818)

Family: Proteidae

Proteus anguinus

Laurenti, 1768

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

in the collection of Zoological Survey of India as on March 31, 2012 (contd.)

Current

Nomenclature

Ambystoma mavortium

Baird, 1850

Ambystoma mexicanum

(Shaw and Nodder, 1798)

Ambystoma maculatum

(Shaw, 1802)

Andrias japonicus

(Temminck, 1836)

Cryptobranchus

alleghaniensis

(Daudin, 1803)

Siren lacertina

Linnaeus, 1766

Hynobius nebulosus

(Temminck & Schlegel, 1838)

Onychodactylus japonicus

(Houttuyn, 1782)

Batrachoseps attenuatus

(Eschscholtz, 1833)

Batrachoseps major Camp,

1915

Desmognathus

quadramaculatus

(Holbrook, 1840)

Plethodon cinereus

(Green, 1818)

Proteus anguinus

Laurenti, 1768

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Registration

Number

12195

A 11366

12309

20484

11377

11378

11472

11474

12765

12295

12296

12984

12985

12986

12987

12988

12989

12994

12992

A 4055

A 4056

10400

12298

12299

12300

12301

12302

12303

10423

Locality

Kansas, USA

Not mentioned

Lake Erie, USA

Japan

Pennsylavania,

USA

South Carolina,

USA

Lousiana, USA

Yezo, Japan

Hukona, Japan

Pasadena County,

California, USA

Pasadena County,

California, USA

North Carolina, USA

Ontario, Canada

Not mentioned

Collector and

Date of Collection

1850

Maria Jordan,

Polish Academy,

Poland

J.H. Garnier

W. Reetledge

Schneider

Schneider,

J.H. Garnier

John Anderson

S.B. Emerson,

November 1970

S.B. Emerson,

November 1970

F. Fitzgerald

J.H. Garnier

Not mentioned

Remarks

1 specimen

3 specimens by

exchange

1 specimen

3 specimens

were presented

1 specimen

were presented

1 specimen by

exchange

2 specimens

8 specimens

3 specimens

2 specimens

1 specimen

6 specimens

1 specimen

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Table 1: Catalogue of 206 Urodelan specimens belonging to 23 species, 18 genera, and 7 families,

in the collection of Zoological Survey of India as on March 31, 2012 (contd)

Labelled name Current Registration Locality Collector and Remarks

Nomenclature Number Date of Collection

Family: Salamandridae

Diemictylus pyrrhogaster Cynops pyrrhogaster 12969 Lake Biwa, Japan John Anderson 14 specimens

Stejneger, 1907 (Boie, 1826) 12970

12973

12974

12975

12976

12977

12978

12979

12980

12981

12982 Hanchow, China Shanghai Museum

18059 Kyoto, Japan

18215 Nelson Annandale

Molge rusconii Euproctus platycephalus 13378 Sardinia, Italy Prof. Giglioli 2 specimens by

Boulenger, 1882 (Gravenhorst, 1829) 13379 (Florence Museum) exchange

Molge wolterstorffi Hypselotriton wolterstorffi 15752 Yunnan fu, China G.A. Boulenger 1 specimen by

Boulenger, 1905 (Boulenger, 1905) exchange

Molge palmata Merrem, 1820 Lissotriton helveticus 10418 Brussels, Belgium GA. Boulenger 13 specimens

(Razoumovsky, 1789) 10419

10420

10421

13046

13047

13048

13049

13373 Corsica, France Prof. Giglioli

13374 (Florence Museum)

13375

13376

13377

Diemictylus viridescens Notopthalmus viridescens 12289 Ontario, Canada J.H. Garnier 4 specimens

Gill, 1907 (Rafinesque, 1820) 12290

12291

12292

Salamandra maculosa Salamandra salamandra 10391 France Malherbe, 3 specimens

Laurenti, 1768 (Linnaeus, 1758) 10407 Lake Como, Italy Prof. Cornalia

10408

Molge cristata Triturus cristatus 10403 Lombardy, France _ Prof. Cornalia 2 specimens

Boulenger, 1882 (Laurenti, 1768 10405

Molge marmorata Triturus marmoratus 13038 Bordeaux, France GA. Boulenger 3 specimens by

Boulenger, 1882 (Latreille, 1800) 13039 exchange

13040

80 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Table 1: Catalogue of 206 Urodelan specimens belonging to 23 species, 18 genera, and 7 families,

Labelled name

Tylototriton verrucosus

Anderson, 1871

Tylototriton verrucosus

Anderson, 1871

Tylototriton verrucosus

Anderson, 1871

Tylototriton verrucosus

Anderson, 1871

Tylototriton verrucosus

Anderson, 1871

Tylototriton verrucosus

Anderson, 1871

Tylototriton verrucosus

Anderson, 1871

Tylototriton verrucosus

Anderson, 1871

Tylototriton verrucosus

Anderson, 1871

Tylototriton verrucosus

Anderson, 1871

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

in the collection of Zoological Survey of India as on March 31, 2012 (contd.)

Current

Nomenclature

Tylototriton verrucosus

Anderson, 1871

Tylototriton verrucosus

Anderson, 1871

Tylototriton verrucosus

Anderson, 1871

Tylototriton verrucosus

Anderson, 1871

Tylototriton verrucosus

Anderson, 1871

Tylototriton verrucosus

Anderson, 1871

Tylototriton verrucosus

Anderson, 1871

Tylototriton verrucosus

Anderson, 1871

Tylototriton verrucosus

Anderson, 1871

Tylototriton verrucosus

Anderson, 1871

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

Registration

Number

10366

10368

10374

10375

10377

10378

10970

10971

10972

10380

10381

A 1883

A 1884

A 1885

A 4269

A 11367

A 11368

A 11369

A 11370

A 11371

A 11372

A 11459

A 11460

A 11461

A 11462

Locality

Momein, Yunnan

(China)

Ponsee,

Kakhyen hills,

Myanmar

Dingla Pokhari,

Bhojpur district,

Nepal

Tihun, Lohit district,

Arunachal Pradesh

Manipur, India

Tibetan Nayabasti,

Sonada

(alt. 1,965 m),

Darjeeling district,

West Bengal

Pacheng, Sonada

(alt. 1,815 m),

Darjeeling district,

West Bengal

Mirik, Darjeeling

district,

West Bengal

Hima falls, 2 km

north of

Ghum Bhanjan,

Darjeeling district,

West Bengal

Sonada

(alt. 1,815 m),

Darjeeling district,

West Bengal

Lake inside

Margaret Hope

Tea Estate

(alt. 1,610 m),

Darjeeling district,

West Bengal

Collector and

Date of Collection

John Anderson

Dambar

Bahadur

Pradhan

21.v.1965

J.M. Julka

14.xii.1969

Ekendra Singh,

November 1976

A.R. Bhaumik

7.V.1971

A.R. Bhaumik

9.v.1971

M.R. Mansukhani

24.v.1972

M.R. Mansukhani

26.V.1972

A.K. Sarkar

K. Deuti &

V.D. Hegde

18.vii.2006

Remarks

11 syntypes

of the species

3 specimens

donated

1 specimen

4 specimens

donated

17 specimens

81 specimens

4 specimens

1 specimen

4 specimens

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to Dr. K. Venkataraman, Director, Zoological Survey of India, for laboratory facilities and for

permission to publish the paper.

REFERENCES

DUELLMAN, W.E. & L. TRuEB (1986): Biology of Amphibians. McGraw

Hill Book Company, New York. 670 pp.

Deut, K. & V.D. HEGDE (2007): Handbook on Himalayan Salamander.

Nature Books India, Dehradun. 43 pp.

Frost, D.R. (2011): Amphibian species of the World: an Online

Reference. Version 5.5. Electronic Database accessible at http:/

/research.amnh.org/vz/herpetology/amphibia American Museum

of Natural History, New York, USA.

10. SEXUAL DIMORPHISM IN HYPSELOBARBUS KURALI (PISCES: CYPRINIDAE)

E. SHERLY WILLIAMS!*, J. JEAN Jose!3, P.V. VIJAYALAKSHMI'*, L. RAZEENA KaArim!? AND M.S. Visunu Nair!°

‘Environmental Sciences, Aquaculture and Fish Biotechnology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, Fatima Mata National College,

Kollam 691 001, Kerala, India.

*Email: sherlyrobin @rediffmail.com

*Email: jeanlincy @ gmail.com

‘Email: vichubio @ gmail.com

"Email: razeenashibili @rediffmail.com

°Email: msvishnunair @ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

Hypselobarbus kuraliis distributed in the south-western

rivers of peninsular India, and the species is protected in the

Kulathupuzha Temple Sanctuary, Kollam, Kerala.

Hypselobarbus kurali was described by Menon and Rema

Devi (1995) on the basis of the following characteristics: four

barbels, a weak articulated last undivided ray with nine

branched rays in the dorsal fin, 41-43 scales along the lateral

line, 32 to 4% rows of scales between the lateral line and

pelvic origin; silvery with somewhat greyish black body, a

deep black bar behind the gill opening, and caudal tipped

black.

While examining the monthly fish collections during

2012 (January to December) from Kulathupuzha hill streams,

an obvious sexual dimorphism in the length of the anal fin in

specimens of H. kurali was observed throughout the year,

besides the nuptial tubercles noted in males during the

post-monsoon season extending from October to December.

The females have greater anal fin length (ranging from

23.40—28.00%) than males (14.04—-16.80%), calculated as a

percentage of the standard length of fish from the detailed

examinations and dissections carried out on 200 specimens

consisting of 113 females and 87 males. In females, the anal

fin extends the whole length of the caudal peduncle and ends

subsequent to the caudal fin base. However, in males it extends

almost to the middle of the caudal peduncle (Fig. 1).

Morphological differences in fish families reporting

sexual dimorphism are with regard to body size, coloration,

fin length, nuptial tubercles, and intromittent organs (Scott and

Crossman 1973), and according to them, the most common

sexual dimorphic characters for Cyprinids are the coloration

and presence of nuptial tubercles. Various studies have been

carried out on sexual dimorphism in fish giving importance to

fin length such as in Rhinichthys osculus, Gilia bicolor, Relictus

Fig. 1: a. Hypselobarbus kurali, 6. Sexual dimorphism in H. kurali

(Scale bar = 1.5 cm)

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

solitarius (Hubbs et al. 1974; Sigler and Sigler 1987), Notropis

hubbsi (Bailey and Robinson 1978), and Hybognathus placitus

(Kenneth et al. 2001). In H. kurali, we found that those with

longer anal fin were females in the case of specimens ranging

from 15-26 cm. The collections mainly depend on the mesh

size of the fishing gear. The one used by us was the Sardine

Gill Net (mesh size 3.5 cm), which is commonly used in the

midstreams of the Kulathupuzha region. On the basis of these

collections, it was concluded that sexual dimorphism is present

in H. kurali having a size >15 cm (and up to 26 cm) — the

species grows up to a length of 31 cm (which was the maximum

length caught till date in the present study). This is the first

information on fin length related sexual dimorphism in a

Hypselobarbus species which is distributed along the Western

Ghats region of India. The voucher specimens of H. kurali

were deposited in the Bombay Natural History Society’s

Collections and the details are as follows:

Hypselobarbus kurali: 3.1.2013, 1 ex. Female, 224 mm

SL, Kulathupuzha, BNHS FWF 11

Hypselobarbus kurali: 3.1.2013, 1 ex. Female, 198 mm

SL, Kulathupuzha, BNHS FWF 12

Hypselobarbus kurali: 3.1.2013, 1 ex. Male, 177 mm

SL, Kulathupuzha, BNHS FWF 13

Hypselobarbus kurali: 3.1.2013, 1 ex. Male, 186 mm

SL, Kulathupuzha, BNHS FWF 14

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the University Grants Commission (UGC),

New Delhi, for financial support in the form of a sponsored

project. The authors also thank Sr. Dr. Soosamma

Kavumpurath (Principal) and Rev. Fr. Anil Jose (Manager),

Fatima Mata National College, Kollam, Kerala, for

facilities.

REFERENCES

BalLey, R.M. & H.W. Rosinson (1978): Notropis hubbsi, anew cyprinid

fish from the Mississippi River Basin. Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool.

Univ. Mich 683: 1-21.

Husss, C.L., R.R. MILLER & L.C. Husss (1974): Hydrographic history

and relict fishes of the North Central Great Basin. California

Academy of Sciences of San Francisco. 460 pp.

KENNETH, G.O., G.R. WILDE, R.E. Strauss & R.R. Youn (2001): Sexual

Dimorphism in Plains Minnow, Hybognathus placitus. Copeia

2: 563-565.

Menon, A.G.K. & K. Rema Devi (1995): Hypselobarbus kurali

(Pisces: Cyprinidae) a new large barb from the southwestern

rivers of Peninsular India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 92(3):

389-393.

Scott, W.B. & E.J. CrossMaAN (1973): Freshwater fishes of Canada.

Bull. 184. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.

966 pp.

SIGLER, W.F. & J.W. SIGLER (1987): Fishes of the Great Basin: A Natural

History. University of Nevada Press, Reno. 424 pp.

11. OBSERVATION ON A COLLECTION OF TAWNY COSTER ACRAEA TERPSICORE

(PIERIDAE: LEPIDOPTERA) IN THE WEB OF THE SOCIAL SPIDER

STEGODYPHUS SARASINORUM (ERESIDAE: ARANEAE)

NryatTi S. PATEL!

'B-445, Kribhco Nagar, Hazira Road, Surat 394 515, Gujarat, India. Email: niyu.145 @ gmail.com

Social spiders live in communal webs where there are

no individually defended territories (D’ Andrea 1987). They

cooperate in capturing prey which is then shared by

individuals of the group, even by those that did not participate

in the actual prey capture (Bradoo 1980). This way they can

handle larger prey than most similar sized solitary spiders.

Most social spiders feed on whatever is captured in their webs,

especially insects such as grasshoppers, butterflies, wasps,

moths, flies, and beetles (Sebastian and Peter 2009).

During a morning birding visit, on January 29, 2011, to

a lake at Gavier village (21° 07' 36.45" N; 72° 44' 10.53" BE),

near Surat, Gujarat, I had an unusual sighting of a large

number of butterflies in a spider web. The web was an

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

irregular ball, situated at the tip of a Ziziphus jujuba tree about

6-8 feet (above the ground). On close inspection, I found

that there were around 20—25 butterflies (ed.: photographic

evidence provided), and interestingly, all of them were Tawny

Coster (Acraea terpsicore, Pieridae: Lepidoptera). Along with

them were some beetles and dragonflies and three or four

dead individuals of Stegodyphus sp. spiders. I was able to

photograph the two species of spiders seen on the web, which

were later identified as Stegodyphus sarasinorum (Family

Eresidae) and Drassodes sp. (Family Gnaphosidae). I also

found three Tawny Coster butterflies in a similar smaller web

on a branch adjacent to the first.

The web structure and presence of the species confirmed

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

that both the webs belonged to S. sarasinorum (Sebastian and

Peter 2009). S. sarasinorum is one of three permanently

cooperative species of the genus Stegodyphus, and is

distributed in India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Myanmar (Platnick

2013). It is frequently accompanied by spiders belonging to

Salticidae, Arenidae, and Gnaphosidae families (G. Vankhede

pers. comm.). The Tawny Costers were probably present in

large numbers at the site due to the abundance of flowers of

Passiflora foetida, one of their favoured host plants. Other

than the Tawny Coster, Small Salmon Arab Colotis amata,

Common Grass Yellow Eurema hecabe, Plain Tiger Danaus

chrysippus, Striped Tiger Danaus genutia, and Common Gull

Cepora nerissa were also found in abundance at the site.

Although butterflies form a considerable part of the

diet of genus Stegodyphus (Bradoo 1980; Willey and Jackson

1993), such unusual incidents of capture and collection of

individuals belonging to a single species is rare, and thus is

worth recording. The possible reason why only this species

of butterfly, among the others seen in the area, was caught in

the web is interesting and also puzzling.

REFERENCES

Brapoo, B.L. (1980): Feeding behaviour and recruitment display in

the social spider Stegodyphus sarasinorum Karsch (Araneae:

,Eresidae). Tijdschr. Entomol. 123: 89-104.

D’ AnpREA, M. (1987): Social behaviour in spiders (Arachnida: Araneae).

Monit. Zool. Ital. Monogr. 3: 1-156.

PLATNICK, N.I. (2013): The world spider catalog, version 14.0. American

Museum of Natural History, online at http://research.amnh.org/

entomology/spiders/catalog/index.html DOI: 10.5531/

db.iz.0001.

SEBASTIAN, P.A. & K.V. PETER (2009): Spiders of India. Universities

Press (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. 614 pp.

WILLey, M.B. & R.R. JAcKson (1993): Predatory behavior of a social

spider, Stegodyphus sarasinorum (Araneae: Eresidae): Why

attack first? Can. J. Zool. 71(11): 2220-2223.

12. HETEROPODA FISCHERI JAGER, 2005: AHUNTSMAN SPIDER HUNTING ON FELLOW

CAVERNICOLES IN THE CAVES OF MEGHALAYA, INDIA

JAYANT Biswas!”* AND SIDDHARTH Biswas!

‘Central Laboratory, National Cave Research and Protection Organization, Raipur 492 001, Chhattisgarh, India.

"Email: jayant @cave-biology.org

7Email: sid @caves.res.in

*Corresponding author

Huntsman spiders, members of the family Sparassidae,

are carnivorous, feeding mostly on insects and other

invertebrates (Harries et al. 2008; Nyffeler and Symondson

2001; Wise 1993); they hunt by pouncing on the prey and

killing it with the venom injected. It seems a natural transition

for such a group of small predators to gravitate toward

subterranean habitats where they have access to easily

available prey (Biswas 2010).

Heteropoda fischeri, a species of huntsman spider, was

first identified from the caves of Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya

(Jager 2005), and later from other caves of the region (Biswas

and Harries 2011; Harries et al. 2008). Early reports document

H. fischeri preying upon brown Rhaphidophorid cave crickets

in the Jaintia Hills (Harries et al. 2008) and other caves in

Meghalaya. Predator-prey relationships

Rhaphidophorid crickets and huntsman spiders were later also

reported from other areas (Biswas and Shrotriya 2011; Culver

and White 2005; Gunn 2004).

Meghalaya has vast tracts of limestone deposits up to a

depth of 500 m. The combination of significant limestone

deposits and high rainfall have produced several water carved

subterranean caves of notable length and depth here, though

between

only a fraction of these have been explored and mapped. Even

among the caves explored, biospeleological surveys have been

limited (Biswas 2009; Biswas and Harries 2011; Disney 2009;

Harries et al. 2008; Kottelat et al. 2007). As part of International

Cave Expedition — 2011, organised by Meghalaya Adventurers’

Association, India, we explored a few caves in the Pala range

of Jaintia Hills district, Meghalaya. Most of these caves were

river caves and reflect the same biotic components which have

been previously reported by Harries er al. (2008). We found

the initial shallow corridors of almost all the caves to be

occupied by some species of Pulmonata (snails and slugs),

besides other cavernicolous organisms such as crickets, spiders,

and harvestmen. During the trip to the Hostage Cave, we

witnessed an interesting predator-prey relationship involving

a huntsman spider and slug, which is discussed in this note.

Hostage: Cavex(25" 25 (2216) (Ns 92°35) 05.7" BE) sis

small subterranean cave that opens through a narrow and

twisted opening. The twilight and transitional zones of this

cave are quite shallow in nature, whereas the inner passageway

is more of a substantial river conduit. The water-swept side-

walls of the cave suggest that most parts of the cave associated

with the river remain submerged during the rains. During one

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

of our visits to the cave, we saw an unidentified pulmonate

slug moving on the wall of the cave that was being targeted by

the huntsman spider Heteropoda fischeri. The spider grabbed

the slug, and on this, the slug tried to escape by expanding and

contracting its body, but it was apparent that the spider’s venom

was paralyzing the slug. Finally the prey was rendered

paralyzed, and the spider started masticating at a slime-free

part of its body.

Slugs have been reported as prey of several invertebrate

species, including beetles, centipedes and harvestmen (Breure

2011; Symondson 2004). A recent review by Nyffeler and

Symondson (2001) reported 12 Araneae families to be among

the 53 reported predators of snails and slugs. However, ours

is the first report of predation by a spider on a pulmonate

slug in a hypogean ecosystem.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The team members of the International Cave Expedition

are thanked for their cooperation during the survey. Thanks

are due to the Meghalaya Adventurers’ Association for

organising the expedition.

REFERENCES

Biswas, J. (2009): The biodiversity of Krem Mawkhyrdop of

Meghalaya, India, on the verge of extinction. Current Science

96(7): 904-910.

Biswas, J. (2010): Kotumsar Cave Biodiversity: a review of cavernicoles

and their troglobiotic traits. Biodiversity and Conservation 19(1):

275-289.

Biswas, J. & D.B. Harries (2011): Krem Bylliat: The Harbour of

Precedent Cavernicolous Representatives from the Jaintia Hills,

Meghalaya, India. Journal of Biological Sciences I1(7): 459-465.

Biswas, J. & S. SHrotriyA (2011): Dandak: a mammalian dominated

cave ecosystem of India. Subterranean Biology 8: 1-7.

Brevure, A.S.H. (2011): Dangling shells and dangerous spiders:

malacophagy and mimicry in terrestrial gastropods.

Folia conchyliologica 7: 7-13.

CuLver, D.C. & W.B. WuiTE (2005): Encyclopedia of Caves. Elsevier

Academic Press, Burlington/California USA, London UK.

661 pp.

Disney, R.H.L. (2009): Scuttle flies (Diptera: Phoridae) from caves in

Meghalaya, India. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 71(1):

81-85.

Gunn, J. (2004): Encyclopedia of Caves and Karst Science. Fitzroy

Dearborn, An imprint of the Taylor and Francis Group, New York

London. 1940 pp.

Harries, D.B., EJ. WaArz, C.W. Fiscuer, J. Biswas & B.D. KHARPRAN-

Da ty (2008): A review of the biospeleology of Meghalaya, India.

Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 70: 163-176.

JAGR, P. (2005): New large-sized cave-dwelling Heteropoda species

from Asia, with notes on their relationships (Araneae: Sparassidae:

Heteropodinae). Revue Suisse de Zoologie 112: 87-114.

KoTTELAT, M., D.R. Harries & GS. PROUDLOVE (2007): Schistura

papulifera, a new species of cave loach from Meghalaya, India

(Teleostei: Balitoridae). Zootaxa 1393: 35-44.

NYFFELER, M. & W.O.C. SYMoNDSON (2001): Spiders and harvestmen

as gastropod predators. Ecological Entomology 26: 617-628.

Symonpson, W.O.C. (2004): Coleoptera (Carabidae, Staphylinidae,

Lampyridae, Drilidae and Silphidae) as predators of terrestrial

gastropods. Pp. 37-84. Jn: Barker, G.M. (Ed.): Natural Enemies

of Terrestrial Molluscs. CABI Publishing.

Wis, D.H. (1993): Spiders in Ecological Webs. Cambridge University

Press, London. 342 pp.

13. A STEP FURTHER TO THE CORRECT IDENTIFICATION

OF CEROPEGIA BULBOSA ROXB. IN KACHCHH, GUJARAT, INDIA

A.R. BADHEKA!~*, M.J. PARMAR!? AND Y.T. JASRAr'4

‘Department of Botany, University School of Science, Gujarat University, Anmedabad 380 009, Gujarat, India.

*Email: amibadheka@ yahoo.com

3Email: munjalsinh @ gmail.com

‘Email: yjasrai@ yahoo.com

*Corresponding author

Introduction

Ceropegia Linn. is one of the most fascinating genera

in the milkweed family (Asclepiadaceae) and has variable

and highly unusual flowers. Ceropegia is derived from ‘keros’

meaning wax, and “‘pege’ meaning fountain, as the flowers

are said to look like a fountain of wax. They are twining,

rarely erect herbs, glabrous, rarely pubescent, with tubers.

Leaves membranous or fleshy, at times reduced. Flowers

sessile or pedunculate, solitary to many-flowered in

sub-umbellate cyme, and seeds comose (Jagtap and Singh

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

1999). Asclepiadaceae is characterised by bicarpellary,

syncarpous, superior ovary (Santapau and Irani 1960) and its

specialised corolla (Jagtap et al. 2004). The family is well-

known for endemism — the most elaborate and complicated

flower among all dicots — and for contrivances for pollination

(Kamble and Yadav 2004).

Intensive survey of Ceropegia spp. was done for three

years in Kachchh — the northernmost district of Gujarat. In

past studies from Gujarat, Ceropegia bulbosa Roxb. was

classified up to species level. The present manuscript deals

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Fig. 1: a. Ceropegia bulbosa Roxb. var. bulbosa Hook f.;

b. Ceropegia bulbosa Roxb. var. lushii (Grah) Hook f.;

c. Leaf of Ceropegia bulbosa Roxb. var. bulbosa Hook f.;

d. Leaf of Ceropegia bulbosa Roxb. var. /ushii (Grah) Hook f.

with its detailed key characters for further identification, and

gives an account of two different varieties in the State.

Observations

On the basis of floral characters, the collected plants

were identified as Ceropegia bulbosa Roxb. in the field

survey. It was noticed that the leaf characters of two plants

among the specimens collected were different from each other,

Table 1: Length and width of Ceropegia leaves and petiole in the

field (average of at least 100 specimens)

Plant Leaves (cm) (Petiole cm)

(Mean + S.E.) (Mean + S.E.)

Length Width

Ceropegia 4.05+0.16 1.92 + 0.07 1.06 + 0.05

bulbosa

Roxb. var. bulbosa

Ceropegia 10.09+0.04 0.64+0.05 0.45 + 0.03

bulbosa

Roxb. var. /ushii

though their flowers were the same. Both plants (Figs La, b)

were found growing together in natural conditions in

association with Euphorbia neriifolia L. and/or Salvadora

oleoides Decne. Leaves of one of the specimens are orbicular

and elliptic-oblong (Fig. 1c), while those of the other

(Fig. 1d) are narrowly linear (Table 1). According to the

FLORA OF GUJARAT STATE (Shah 1978), three species of

genus Ceropegia are found in Gujarat: C. bulbosa Roxb.,

C. candelabrum L., and C. odorata Hook f. The floral

characters of the collected specimen match the species

Ceropegia bulbosa Roxb., except leaf characters.

The specimens were sent for further opinion to

Professor S.R. Yadav (Shivaji University, Kolhapur). Based

on the characteristics and his expert opinion, the specimens

were assigned to the same genus and species Ceropegia

bulbosa Roxb., but two different varieties. Therefore, the

correct identification of these two specimens is Ceropegia

bulbosa Roxb. var. bulbosa Hook f. (Fig. 1a ) and Ceropegia

bulbosa Roxb. var. lushii (Grah) Hook f. (Fig. 1b). The key

to the two varieties is given (Yadav and Sardesai 2002):

I. Climbing herbs, Stem twining. Leaves fleshy ...........

AT LOR EI HEE Re MN 2: 1 C. bulbosa

— Leaves exceeding one inch long, never wanting . 2, 3

Dee Leaves subsessile to petiolate, the lowest almost

orbicular, upper ones elliptic oblong or obovate, usually

BG, Ee a a C. bulbosa var bulbosa

ey Leaves petiolate, narrowly linear-lanceolate .............

Boose a sap binauandoent, Soe hase mae ga C. bulbosa var lushii

Ceropegia bulbosa Roxb P1. Corom. 1; 11.t.7.1795 var.

bulbosa Hook f. Fl. Brit. India 4:67.1883; Cooke, FI. Pres.

Bombay 2: 240. 1958 (Repr.); Jagtap & Das Das in Singh

et al., Fi. Maharashtra St. Dicot. 2: 349. 2001.

Tuberous twining herbs. Leaves subsessile to petiolate,

glabrous, the lowest almost orbicular, the upper ones elliptic-

oblong or obovate, rarely elliptic-lanceolate, usually apiculate,

base rounded, truncate, subcordate or acute. Cymes shortly

pedunculate. Corolla greyish purple; inflated at the base,

narrowed in the middle, funnel-shaped above, glabrous

within; lobes hairy inside and on margins. Outer corona

Table 2: Occurrence of Ceropegia in Lakhpat district, Kachchh

Variety Place Longitude Latitude

Ceropegia bulbosa

Roxb. var. bulbosa Dayapar 23° 37'04.3"N 68° 53'22.5"E

Dayapar 23°37'06.0"N 68° 53'19.5"E

Virani 23° 39' 06.0" N.. 68° 50' 56.3" E

Virani 23° 39' 04.8" N. 68° 50' 58.1" E

Ceropegia bulbosa Dayapar 23°37'05.8"N 68° 53'19.4"E

Roxb. var. lushii Virani 23° 39'06.0"N 68° 50'56.3" E

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

saucer-shaped, entire or broadly shallow; inner sickle-shaped.

Fl. & Fr.: August-November.

Frequent amidst bushes in grasslands.

Ceropegia bulbosa Roxb. var. lushii (Grah) Hook f.

Fl. Brit. India 4: 68. 1883; Cooke, Fl. Pres. Bombay 2: 241.

1958 (Repr); Jagtap & Das Das in Singh et al., Fl. Maharashtra

St. Dicot. 2: 249. 2001.

Tuberous twining herbs. Leaves petiolate, fleshy,

narrowly linear-lanceolate, glabrous, acuminate. Corolla

greyish purple, inflated at the base, narrowed in the middle,

funnel-shaped above, glabrous within; lobes hairy inside and

on the margins. Outer corona saucer-shaped, entire or broadly

shallow; inner sickle-shaped.

Fl. & Fr.: August-November.

Rare, along with C. bulbosa var. bulbosa Hook f.,

amidst bushes in grasslands.

Discussion

The FLORA OF GUJARAT STATE (Shah 1978) is a broadly

accepted source describing the plant diversity of Gujarat State.

This FLorA reported the occurrence of three species of Ceropegia,

namely C. bulbosa from Kachchh (Table 2), Saurashtra, and

throughout in plains; C. candelabrum from Pavagadh hill; and

C. odorata from Pavagadh. Moreover, in the FLORA OF THE

PRESIDENCY OF BOMBAY (Cooke 1958), C. bulbosa var. bulbosa

Hook f. was reported from Konkan: Malabar Hill and C. bulbosa

var. lushii (Grah) Hook f. was reported from Kanara: Kasersai

jungle, which was part of the Presidency of Bombay but has

never been part of Gujarat State. In the FLORA OF GUJARAT STATE,

C. bulbosa Roxb. is described till the species level and there is

no mention of its varieties. Kachhch, from where the authors

have collected Ceropegia, has never been part of Bombay

Presidency. The present compilation is thus the first report of

C. bulbosa vat. bulbosa Hook f. and C. bulbosa var. lushii (Grah)

Hook f. from Gujarat State.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors thank Professor S.R. Yadav, Shivaji

University, Kolhapur, for support in plant identification.

REFERENCES

Cooke, T. (1958): The Flora of the Presidency of Bombay. Botanical

Survey of India, Kolkata. Vol. 2. Pp. 238-243.

Jactap, A. & N.P. SINGH (1999): Fascicles of Flora of India 24. Botanical

Survey of India, Kolkata. Pp. 211-241.

Jactap, S., S. DEOKULE & A. WATVE (2004): Occurrence of threatened

fragrant Ceropegia in Toranmal forests, Maharashtra. Curr. Sci.

87: 253-254.

KAMBLE, M.Y. & S.R. YapDAv (2004): Asclepiadaceae of Maharashtra.

Bull. Bot. Surv. India 46: 34-49.

SANTAPAU, H. & N.A. IRANI (1960): The Asclepiadaceae and Periplocaceae

of Bombay. University of Bombay, Bombay. Pp. 1-35.

SHAH, GL. (1978): Flora of Gujarat State. Sardar Patel University,

Vallabh Vidhyanagar. Pp. 423-424.

SINGH, N.P., S. KARTHIKEYAN, P. LAKSHMINARASIMHAN & P.V. SHARMA

(2001): Flora of Maharashtra State. Botanical Survey of India,

Kolkata. Vol. 2. Pp. 239.

YADAV, S.R. & M.M. Sarpesali (2002): Flora of Kolhapur District. Shivaji

University, Kolhapur. 284 pp.

14. ANANNUAL FLOWERING POPULATION OF NEELAKURINJI STROBILANTHES KUNTHIANUS

(NEES) T. ANDERS. — A PLIETESIAL SPECIES FROM THE NILGIRI SHOLAS, INDIA

FRANKLIN CHARLES JosE!

‘Department of Botany, Government Arts College, Stone House Hill P.O., Udhagamandalam 643 002, Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu, India.

Email: fcjooty @ yahoo.com

Strobilanthes kunthianus (Nees) T. Anders. (Family

Acanthaceae) is an endemic undershrub that grows above

1,800 m in the sholas of the Western Ghats (Jomy 2008).

Plants that bloom at long intervals like Neelakurinji are called

plietesials. Bremekamp (1944) used the term plietesial in

reference to perennial monocarpic plants. Plietesial life history

includes: gregarious flowering, seed setting, and supra-annual

synchronized semelparity. Sharma et al. (2008) commenting

on reproductive ecology reported that this species is

semelparous or monocarpic, which means that it can flower

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

once in a life time and die.

The Indian subcontinent is home to nearly 150 species

of Strobilanthes of which 59 are seen in peninsular India,

and of these, 39 are endemic to the Peninsula (Venu 2006).

S. kunthianus is a small undershrub reaching a height of 30

to 60 cm; it can grow well beyond 180 cm under congenial

conditions. This plant is an important understorey component

of tropical evergreen forest (Bhat and Murali 2001).

Considerable variation in the life history and mass-flowering

of Strobilanthes has been reported (Wood 1994). Generally,

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Strobilanthes spp. take between 10—15 years (usually 12;

rarely 4-9 year cycles have also been seen) to flower

gregariously. Mass flowering (covering all individuals) is

extremely rare, and flowering of some plants in non-mass

flowering years is not uncommon.

The Nilgiris, which literally means Blue Mountains,

got its name from the purplish-blue flowers of Neelakurinji

that blossoms gregariously on the slopes. It is generally

believed that Neelakurinji blossoms only once in 12 years

(Anitha and Prasad 2007). The last mass flowering in the

Nilgiris was reported in 2005. In 2006, after a gap of 12 years,

Neelakurinji flowered in other parts of Tamil Nadu and Kerala

(Ian 2006). Neelakurinji once used to cover the Nilgiri hills

like a blue carpet during its flowering season. Large parts of

the Nilgiris are now occupied by tea plantations and dwellings

(Ranjit 2003).

This communication reports observations on annual

flowering of Neelakurinji in a shola forest (11° 24' 25.80" N,

76° 43' 18.34" E; 2,410 m) near Doddabetta peak in the Nilgiri

hills (Fig. 1). Eight flowering individuals of the fifteen in the

study area were studied for flowering phenology for three

years. It was found that the same plants blossomed in October

2009 and again in September 2010. Variations in flowering

phenology have been reported in other species of Strobilanthes

and allied genera (Daniel 2006). Wood (1994) observed that

S. wallichii flowers annually in eastern Himalaya and

plietesially in western Himalaya. Robinson (1935) noted a

12-year plietesial cycle for S. consanguineus, while Bowden

(1950) suggested that this species flowers every year.

In contrast to the cases discussed above, I recorded

both annual flowering and non-flowering populations in the

same area. Moreover, contrary to the general belief that the

igs

Fig. 1: Non-flowering and flowering plants of Neelakurinji

plant dies after flowering, I observed that not only the plant

but even the flowering branch does not die after flowering,

and flowering was observed on the same branch in the

subsequent year. These findings indicate that the life history

of plietesial taxa is not well understood. Janzen (1976)

suggested that timing of reproduction in plietesials is set by

an internal physiological calendar rather than by external

weather cues, which could explain the isolated cases of

flowering of Strobilanthes kunthianus recorded by me in

the Nilgiris. Or it is associated with the local climatic and

edaphic factors?

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was made possible through a grant from the

UGC South Eastern Regional Office (SERO), Hyderabad,

India in the form of Minor Research Project (MRP-2659/08

(UGC-SERO) Link No.2659, 2008—2010) to the author.

REFERENCES

ANITHA, K. & S.N. PRASAD (2007): Mass flowering and pollinators of

Strobilanthes consanguinea in the Western Ghats, South India.

Curr. Sci. 92: 1680-1681.

Buat, D.M. & K.S. Murati (2001): Phenology of understorey species

of tropical moist forest of Western Ghats region of Uttara

Kannada district in South India. Curr. Sci. 81: 799-805.

Bownpen, E. (1950): The flowering of Strobilanthes. J. Bombay Nat.

Hist. Soc. 49(3): 576.

BREMEKAMP, C.E.B. (1944): Materials for a monograph of the

Strobilanthinae (Acanthaceae). Verhandelingen der

Nederlandsche Akademic van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling

Natuurkunde. Tweede Sectie. 41: 1-306.

DANIEL, T.F. (2006): Synchronous flowering and monocarpy suggest

plietesial life history for neotropical Stenostephanus chiapensis

(Acanthaceae). Proc. California Acad. Sci. 57: 1011-1018.

Ian, L. (2006): Kurinji crown. Frontline. September 8. Pp. 66—72.

JANZEN, D.H. (1976): Why bamboos wait so long to flower. Ann. Rev.

Ecol. Syst. 7: 347-391.

Jomy, A. (2008): Genus Strobilanthes in High Ranges of

Kerala: Diversity, Distribution and Endemism. Pp. 136-146.

In: Rawat, GS. (Ed.): Special Habitats and Threatened Plants of

India. ENVIS Bulletin: Wildlife and Protected Areas. Vol. 11(1).

Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

Ranaut, D.R.J. (2003): Impact of tea cultivation on anurans in the Western

Ghats. Curr. Sci. 85(10): 1415-1422.

RoBINsON, M.E. (1935): The flowering of Strobilanthes in 1934.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 38(1): 117-122.

SHARMA, M.V., G KuriAKosE & K.R. SHIVANNA (2008): Reproductive

strategies of Strobilanthes kunthianus, an endemic, semelparous

species in southern Western Ghats, India. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 157:

155-163.

VENU, P. (2006): Strobilanthes Blume (Acanthaceae) in Peninsular India.

Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata.

Woop, J.R.I. (1994): Notes relating to the flora of Bhutan: XXIX.

Acanthaceae, with special reference to Strobilanthes. Edinb.

J. Bot. 51: 175-273.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

15. REDISCOVERY OF CINNAMOMUM TRAVANCORICUM GAMBLE

(LAURACEAE) FROM THE SOUTHERN WESTERN GHATS, INDIA

M.P. GEETHA Kumary!”*, A.G. PANDURANGAN!? AND E.S. SANTHOSH KUMAR!“

'Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute, Palode, Karimancode P.O., Thiruvananthapuram district, Kerala 695 562, India.

"Email: geethatbgt@ gmail.com

"Email: agpandurangan @ gmail.com

“Email: santhoshkumares @ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

Introduction

The genus Cinnamomum Schaeffer with about

250 species is distributed from Southeast Asia to Australia

(Mabberley 1990). Of the 16 species reported from southern

India, 14 are endemic to the region (Kostermans 1983; Manilal

and Shailaja 1986; Mohanan and Henry 1991; Santhosh

et al. 2003), one of these being Cinnamomum travancoricum.

The species was described by J.S. Gamble based on

T.F. Bourdillon’s collections from Chemunji (=Chemunjee)

near Ponmudi in the erstwhile Travancore state in 1895.

Chemunji hill (1,717 m) is the second highest peak in the

Agasthyamala Biosphere Reserve, next to Agastyarkoodam

(1,865 m), the type locality of this species is considered as

part of India’s biodiversity hotspots. Bourdillon had

commented that C. travancoricum is a small tree common at

higher elevations in the evergreen forests of Travancore.

However, repeated search by several flora workers in the type

locality proved futile, and hence the species was treated under

the Vulnerable category (Nayar 1996; Vajravelu and Daniel

1983). In this paper, we discuss and describe our collection,

obtained from the Munnar area of Idukki district, Kerala, after

a gap of 113 years. Perusal of literature reveals that

Bourdillon’s specimen was the only known collection of this

species and Chemunji near Ponmudi the only known locality

(Kostermans 1983). The present finding of this species from

Munnar, which is about 250 km north of the type locality, is

significant from both the phytogeographical and conservation

point of view.

Cinnamomum travancoricum Gamble in Kew Bull.

1925: 128. 1925 & in Fl. Pres. Madras 1224. 1925; Bor, Man.

Ind. For. Bot. 52, 1953; Kostermans, Bibl. Laur. 358. 1964 &

in Bull. Bot. Surv. India 119. 1983. (Fig. 1)

Tree, 5—6 m tall. Bark and leaves aromatic. Branchlets

slender, angular, densely appressed pilose when young.

Leaves opposite or sub-opposite, 7.5—12 x 3-6.5 cm, ovate

or broadly ovate, elliptic or subovate elliptic, acute or shortly

acuminate at apex, acute at base, thinly coriaceous, smooth,

glossy; 3- basal nerves are thin, reaching below the acumen

of leaves, prominulous in their basal part, impressed above,

densely sericeous hairy when young, glabrous at maturity,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

secondary nerves prominent, parallel; petioles slender, up to

1.5 cm long. Racemes axillary and pseudo terminal, 3—9 cm

long, light brown, sub-appressed pubescent, peduncles

slender, densely tomentose; pedicels thick, up to 1-2 mm long,

sub-obconical. Flowers 3—5 per raceme, rarely up to 12 by

the proliferation of peduncle. Perianth tube funnel-shaped,

1 mm long. Tepals up to 4 mm long, oblong, acute, densely

and sub-appressed brown pilose, appressed pilose within.

Stamens 2.2—3 mm long, elliptic; anthers 4-celled, the

filaments pilose; glands large, attached to the basal part of

the filament; staminodes up to 2 mm long, upper part sagittate,

stipe pilose. Ovary ovoid, 1.7 mm long, glabrous; style as

long as ovary; stigma large, peltate. Fruits not seen.

Flowering: November—March.

Distribution: Endemic to the southern Western Ghats.

Fig. 1: Cinnamomum travancoricum Gamble, a. Twig; b. Flower;

c. Outer perianth (outer view); d. Outer perianth (inner view);

e.—g. Stamens; h. Staminode; i. Pistil

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Habitat and Ecology: The species is found in the shola

forests of Munnar in Idukki district, Kerala at an altitude of

2,000 m. The associated species in the community are

Cryptocarya anamalayana, Phoebe wightii, Vernonia

arborea, and Symplocos laurina.

C. travancoricum is apparently similar to or even

confused with C. sulphuratum at a glance. This may be the

reason for workers to erroneously treat C. sulphuratum Nees

as C. travancoricum Gamble in their respective floras

(Mohanan and Henry 1994; Ramachandran and Nair 1988).

Mohanan and Sivadasan (2002) treated C. filipedicellatum

Kosterm. collected from Athirumala as C. travancoricum

Gamble by oversight. On close observation these species can

be differentiated by the differences in leaf shapes, ending of

lateral nerves to leaf apex, and inflorescence, and can be

distinguished by the following key.

la. Leaves ovate or linear lanceolate; lateral nerves not

reaching the apex of leaves, raceme axillary or

OSC MGIOLE MATA 9 a.) cchaee seaertae opraon were ae oa meee Z

lb. Leaves ovate-elliptic to lanceolate elliptic to elliptic;

the basal lateral nerves reaching the apex of the leaves;

panicle always in the axils of terminal leaves ............

Ps ROR at Ne io) ae ee C. sulphuratum

2a. Young leaves sericeous beneath; peduncle 3—7cm long,

Stout, 3—5 flowered ccs. xc. ...cccsess-5s C. travancoricum

2b. Young leaves glabrous beneath, peduncle 3—3.5 cm

long, slender, 3—9 flowered ........... C. filipedicellatum

Specimens Examined: Kerala: Idukki district, Munnar,

+2,000 m, 20.11.2006, fl., Geethakumary & A.G. Pandurangan

48491 (TBGT); Travancore, Chemunji near Ponmudi,

alt. 1,200 m. Apr., fl., Bourdillon 545 (TBGT).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the Director, TBGRI, for

facilities and constant encouragement; the Joint Director,

Botanical Survey of India, Coimbatore, for permitting us to

consult the herbarium (MH); and to Mr. S. Sureshkumar,

Asst. Artist, TBGRI, for the illustration.

REFERENCES

GAMBLE, J.S. (1925): Flora of the Presidency of Madras. Adlard & Sons,

London. 1224 pp.

KosTERMANS, A.J.GH. (1983): The South Indian species of Cinnamomum

Schaeffer (Lauraceae). Bull. Bot. Surv. India 25: 90-133.

MABBERLEY, D.J. (1990): The Plant Book. (Ed. 2) Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, U.K. Pp. 126—127.

MANILAL, K.S. & M. SHAILAJA (1986): A new species of Cinnamomum

Schaeffer (Lauraceae) from Malabar. Bull. Bot. Surv. India

28(1-4): 111-113.

MouANnaN, M. & A.N. Henry (1991): Cinnamomum chemungianum

(Lauraceae) — a new species from Kerala, Southern India.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 88(1): 97-98.

Mouanan, M. & A.N. Henry (1994): Flora of Thiruvananthapuram.

Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta. 392 pp.

Monanan, N. & M. StvapasaN (2002). Flora of Agasthyamala. Bishen

Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehradun, India. 568 pp.

Nayar, M.P. (1996): Hotspots of Endemic Plants of India, Nepal and

Bhutan. Tropical Botanic Garden & Research Institute, Palode.

189 pp.

RAMACHANDRAN, V.S. & V.J. Nair (1988): Flora of Cannanore. Botanical

Survey of India, Coimbatore. 393 pp.

SANTHOSH Kumar, E.S., M.P. GEETHA Kumary, A.G. PANDURANGAN &

T. SHasu (2003): Rediscovery of Cinnamomum heyneanum Nees

(Lauraceae) — a rare and endangered species from the Western

Ghats. Indian Journal of Forestry 26: 409-411.

VAJRAVELU, E. & P. DANtEL (1983): Materials for a catalogue of

Threatened Plants of India. Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata.

34 pp.

16. TWO NEW RECORDS OF MOSSES FOR THE INDIAN MAINLAND FROM

THE AGASTHYAMALAIT BIOSPHERE RESERVE IN THE WESTERN GHATS, INDIA

A.E.D. DANtIELS'’”* AND J.L. MABEL'”

'Bryology Laboratory, Botany Department & Research Centre, Scott Christian College (Autonomous), Nagercoil 629 003,

Tamil Nadu, India.

*Email: dulipdaniels @ yahoo.co.uk

7Email: jlenshamabel @ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

Introduction

Studies on the bryoflora of the Agasthyamalai Biosphere

Reserve were first initiated about a decade ago by the senior

author (Daniels 2003). Among the work done, Daniels and

Daniel (2004) added the liverwort Leptolejeunea balansae

to the Indian mainland, and subsequently, the mosses

Calymperes motleyi, Fissidens robinsonii, Leucophanes

glaucescens, and L. nicobaricum (Daniels and Daniel 2005).

In this paper, we report the occurrence of two mosses,

Taxithelium vernieri and Trichosteleum punctipapillosum,

earlier known to be distributed only in the Andaman and

Nicobar Islands in India, in the Indian mainland from the

Agasthyamalai region of the Western Ghats. Each of these

Species is provided with the correct name, basionym/

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

synonyms, if any, a detailed description, notes on the habitat

and distribution and an illustration. Specimens cited are

deposited at SCCN (Herbarium, Botany Department, Scott

Christian College, Nagercoil).

Taxithelium vernieri (Duby) Besch., Bull. Soc. Bot.

France 45: 123. 1898; Gangulee, Moss. E. India 8: 1922, f.

985. 1980; Vohra & Kar, Bull. Bot. Surv. India 38: 58. 1996;

J. Lal, Checklist Indian Moss.: 130. 2005. Hypnum vernieri

Duby, Flora 58: 285. 1875. Type: Tahiti Isl., D. Vernier (PC?).

Trichosteleum lindbergii A. Jaeger, Ber. Thatigk. St.

Gallischen Naturwiss. Ges.: 412. 1878. T: vernieri (Duby) A.

Jaeger, Ber. Thatigk. St. Gallischen Naturwiss. Ges.: 414.

1878. Isopterygium lindbergii A. Jaeger, Ber. Thatigk. St.

Gallischen Naturwiss. Ges.: 433. 1878. Taxithelium lindbergii

(A. Jaeger) Renauld & Cardot, Rev. Bryol. 28: 111. 1901;

Bruehl, Rec. Bot. Surv. India 13(1): 107. 1931. (Fig. 1).

Plants corticolous, forming tufts, delicate, glossy, pale

green. Stem creeping, 2—6 cm long, pinnately branched.

Leaves spreading, concave, ovate-lanceolate, 1-1.3 x

0.2—0.4 mm, revolute on one side at base, toothed at margin

for 2/3 above, faintly deflexed and acute at apex, ecostate;

cells linear, papillate at tip, sometimes with a few, fine papillae

Fig. 1: Taxithelium vernieri (Duby) Besch.: a. Habit, b.—c. Leaves,

d.—e. Leaf apical cells, f. Leaf median cells, g. Leaf basal cells

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

in a row in lumen; apical cells 8-48 x 4-8 um; median ones

60-100 x 4—6 um; basal ones 12-40 x 4—8 um; alar cells

quadrate, 20-32 x 8—12 um, hyaline. Sporophyte not seen.

Habitat: Corticolous on Syzigium sp. and terricolous,

in evergreen forests, c. 820 m.

Distribution: Southeast Asia and India (Nicobar Islands

and W. Ghats of Tamil Nadu).

Specimens Examined: Western Ghats, Tamil Nadu,

Kanyakumari dist., Seafield, c. 820 m, 18.x1.2008,

A.E.D. Daniels & J.L. Mabel 86, 94.

Trichosteleum punctipapillosum Paris [Index Bryol.:

1314. 1898, nom. nud.] ex Gangulee, Moss. E. India 3(8):

1913, f. 980. 1980. J. Lal, Checklist Indian Moss.: 138. 2005.

Type: India, Andamans, Port Blair, 1892, Man s.n. Herb.

Levier. 483 (BM). Hypnum punctipapillosum Mill. Hal. in

Paris, Index Bryol.: 1314. 1898, nom. nud. (Fig. 2).

Plants monoecious, forming mats, glossy, yellow-green.

Stem creeping, 0.5—2 cm long; branches pinnate, 3-8 mm

high. Leaves imbricate, erectopatent, concave, 0.9-1.2 x

0.40.6 mm, ovate-lanceolate, crenulate at margin, acute and

faintly toothed at apex, ecostate; apical cells 28-42 x

4-6 mm, narrow, rhomboid, elongate, papillate on cell tip;

Fig. 2: Trichosteleum punctipapillosum Paris ex Gangulee: a. Habit,

b.—c. Leaves, d. Leaf apical cells, e. Leaf median cells, f. Leaf basal

cells, g. Capsule, h. Peristome teeth, i.—j. Spores

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

median ones 52-64 x 4-8 mm, rhomboid, elongate, with

papillae in centre and tip; alar region with 3, inflated, oblong,

54-68 x 16-32 mm hyaline cells, with a few smaller, 12-48

x 4-12 mm irregular ones above them. Sporophytes on main

stem. Setae c. | cm high, erect, slender, faintly papillose above.

Capsules horizontal to drooping, c. 0.65 x 0.4 mm, ovoid.

Peristome teeth 2-tiered, c. 240-320 x 40-48 mm; outer tier

horizontally striate, papillose towards apex; inner tier

membranous, segmented, faintly horizontally striolate,

papillose throughout. Spores 8—12 x 8-11 mm globose, faintly

papillose, pale brown.

Habitat: Corticolous on Elaeocarpus venustus Bedd.

in evergreen forests, c. 1,100 m.

Distribution: inp1A: Andaman Islands and W. Ghats of

Tamil Nadu.

Specimens Examined: Tamil Nadu, Kanyakumari dist.,

W. Ghats, Muthukuzhivayal, c. 1,100 m, 31.11.2009,

A.E.D. Daniels & J.L. Mabel 268.

Discussion

Taxithelium vernieri can be readily distinguished from

T. kerianum (Broth.) Broth. and T: nepalense (Schwagr.)

Broth. by the presence of unipapillate leaf cells against the

seriate-papillate ones present in the latter two. Taxithelium

laeviusculum Dixon, a closely allied species, differs from

T. vernieri in possessing a single papilla in the centre of the

leaf cells, whereas the latter has it at cell apex.

Trichosteleum punctipapillosum can be readily

distinguished from T: boschii (Dozy & Molk.) A. Jaeger,

T. glaucovirens (Mitt.) Broth., 7 hamatum (Dozy & Molk.)

A. Jaeger and T: luxurians (Dozy & Molk.) Broth. in the

absence of a row of oblong, tinted cells at leaf attachment

with a few cells at alar region inflated, whereas in

T. punctipapillosum, the alar region is differentiated by

3 inflated, oblong, hyaline cells. Trichosteleum

stereodentoides Broth. ex Gangulee, which has the same

feature, can be distinguished from the former by the presence

of pluripapillate cells at midleaf. Trichosteleum stissophyllum

(Hampe) A. Jaeger, a very closely allied species, differs from

T. punctipapillosum in having unipapillate leaf cells and only

2 inflated cells at the alar region which are tinted.

Trichosteleum luxurians and T. stissophyllum are now

Papillidiopsis luxurians (Dozy & Molk.) W.R. Buck &

B.C. Tan (vide Buck & Tan, 1990) and P. stissophylla (Hampe)

B.C. Tan & Y. Jia (vide Tan & Yu, 1999) respectively, and

Trichosteleum hamatum is Radulina hamata (Dozy & Molk.)

W.R. Buck & B.C. Tan (vide Buck & Tan, I.c.).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the Tamil Nadu Forest Department for

permission to explore the area and help in the field;

Dr. P. Daniel, formerly Joint Director, BSI, Coimbatore, for

going through the original manuscript; and Dr. S.C. Rose,

Principal, Scott Christian College, for encouragement. The

financial assistance from Ministry of Environment and Forests

(All India Coordinated Project on Taxonomy), Government

of India, New Delhi, is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

BRUuEHL, P. (1931): A census of Indian mosses with analytical keys to

the genera. Rec. Bot. Surv. India 13(1): 1-135.

Buck, W.R. & B.C. TAN (1990): The Asiatic genera of Sematophyllaceae

associated with Trichosteleum. Acta Bryol. Asiat. 1: 5-19.

DanigELs, A.E.D. (2003): Studies on the Bryoflora of the Southern

Western Ghats, India. Ph.D. dissertation, Manonmaniam

Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, India. (Unpublished).

DANIELS, A.E.D. & P. DANIEL (2004): Leptolejeunea balansae (Hepaticae:

Jungermanniales) — a new record to the bryoflora of the Indian

mainland. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 101(2): 333-334.

DANIELS, A.E.D. & P. DANIEL (2005): Additions to the moss flora of the

Indian mainland. Bull. Bot. Surv. India 47(1-4): 93— 100.

GANGULEE, H.C. (1969-1980): Mosses of Eastern India and Adjacent

Regions. Fasc. 1-8. Calcutta. 2142 pp.

LAL, J. (2005): A Checklist of Indian Mosses. Bishen Singh Mahendra

Pal Singh, Dehradun. India. 162 pp.

Tan, B.C. & J. Yu (1999): A preliminary revision of Chinese

Sematophyllaceae. J. Hattori Bot. Lab. 86: 1-70.

VourA, J.N. & B.D. Kar (1996): On a collection of mosses from Great

Nicobar Island. Bull. Bot. Surv. India 38: 55-59.

Printed by Onlooker Press, 16, Sasoon Dock, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 and published on December 19, 2013

by Ms. Sumaira Abdulali for Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Dr. Salim Ali Chowk,

Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001, Maharashtra, India.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(1), Jan-Apr 2013

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

The Journal welcomes concise reports of original research in natural history,

taxonomy and other aspects of zoology and botany of general interest.

SUBMISSION OF MANUSCRIPT

A hard copy of manuscript (including illustrations), typewritten

in double space on one side of the paper and a copy of the MS

on a CD using MS Word, should be submitted to the Editor,

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House,

Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001. Submission

of a manuscript to the Journal implies that it has not been

submitted for publication elsewhere.

A copy of the manuscript may also be emailed to us at

publications @ bnhs.org.

PREPARATION OF MANUSCRIPT

Main Papers and New Descriptions

Manuscripts of papers for the Main section and New Descriptions

should be as concise as possible. Pages should be numbered

consecutively, and the matter on Page 1 should be arranged in

the following order: Title of the paper; Name(s) of Author(s),

Department(s) and Institution(s); Footnote containing address

of Author for correspondence with e-mail id, followed by the List

of Abbreviations used in text. A short running title derived from

the original title may also be given for main papers. Page 2

should contain the Abstract. The text may be arranged in the

following order: Introduction; Material and Methods or

Methodology; Results; Discussion; Acknowledgements;

References. Abstract, Key Words, Tables and Captions for

Figures should be typed separately.

Title: The title should be such as to be useful for indexing and

information retrieval.

Abstract: The abstract, not exceeding 200 words, should

indicate the scope and significant content of the paper,

highlighting the principal findings and conclusions.

Introduction: The introductory part should bear no heading,

should be brief and state precisely the objective of the study in

relation to the present status of knowledge in the field. Review

of literature should be restricted to the essential references.

Material and Methods or Methodology: The nomenclature,

sources of materials and the procedures should be clearly stated.

New methods should be described in detail, but if the methods

are well known, a mere reference to them will do; any modifications

made in the methods should be stated.

Results: Only data relevant to the objectives of the study and

main conclusions emerging from the study should be included.

The data should be arranged in a unified and coherent sequence

for clarity and readability. The same data should not be presented

in both tables and figures, and such data as can be easily and

briefly stated in the text should not be depicted diagrammatically.

Only such tables and figures as are necessary should be given.

Tests of statistical significance should be identified and

references used should be cited. Statements about the statistical

significance of the results must be borne out by the level of

significance, preferably provided in the tables and legends. The

use of the word “significant” should be restricted to “statistically

significant”.

Discussion: The discussion should provide an interpretation of

the results of the study, without repeating information already

presented under Results. It should relate the new findings to

the known and include logical deductions. Where necessary,

the Results and Discussion can be combined.

Illustrations: The number of illustrations should be kept to the

minimum and numbered consecutively in Arabic numerals.

Simple linear plots or linear double reciprocal plots that can be

easily described in the text should be avoided. Extension of

graphs beyond the last experimental point is permissible only

while extrapolating data.

Line drawings should be either laser prints of computer

generated illustrations or manually prepared in Indian ink on

tracing paper, drawn to approximately twice the printed size.

The drawings are usually reduced to the page width or column

size, and care should be taken that the size of letters,

numerals, dots and symbols is relatively uniform and

sufficiently large to permit this reduction.

Photographs: Photographs for reproduction must be clear, with

good contrast. Prints should be at least 9x12 cm and on glossy,

glazed paper.

Please note that illustrations and photographs need to be

submitted as image files (.jpeg or .tiff format at 300 dpi with

legible text).

Image files incorporated in MS Office will not be considered as

submissions.

Tables: Each table should have an explanatory title and should

be numbered in Arabic numerals. Units (metric) of measurement

should be abbreviated and placed below the headings. Negative

results should be indicated as Nil (0) and absence of a datum

by a dash.

Acknowledgements: Acknowledgements should be brief and

relevant.

References: Responsibility for the accuracy of references rests

with the author(s). Abstracts of papers presented at scientific

meetings may be cited. References to literature should be

alphabetically arranged under author’s name, with the abridged

titles of journals or periodicals in italics and titles of books or

papers in Roman type, thus:

Aturi, Rau J.S. & C. SuBHa Repp! (1995): Ecology of the pollination

in two cat-mint species. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 91(1): 63-66.

Prater, S.H. (1971): The Book of Indian Animals. 3rd Edn.

Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai. pp. 35-48.

Species names should carry the Author’s name and subspecies

(trinomials) should only be used where identification has been

authentically established by comparison of specimens actually

collected.

For the standardised common and scientific names of the birds

of the Indian subcontinent refer to Buceros Vol. 6, No. 1 (2001).

Miscellaneous Notes: The section accommodates incidental

observations on flora and fauna of the Asian region, and need not

follow strictly the above section headings. No abstract is required,

but key words may be included and references must be cited as

in the rest of the Journal.

The Editors reserve the right, other things being equal, to

publish a member’s contribution before that of a non-

member. The Editors also reserve the right to publish invited

papers on priority.

Registered with the Registrar of Newspapers under RN 598

MITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIE

wid

EDITORIAL Petr EE hoe a eeal ay cmercahsdr tm adda ancl ara elec roe Pe mr atc an ees a eae clearence aa ces icine eae

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

EDiiay abst cara eataTe cata AWK, PRAIA TNA i oe aks es omnes Nee nd aanca shaved ees cvapsnnes anggnatvedsenesedanucasee

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF THE GREAT INDIAN BUSTARD ARDEOTIS NIGRICEPS (VIGORS 1831)

Pramod Patil, Asad R. Rahmani and Sara ANAQ OL eset eee ete steeeceeseeeennsentenseenenseaton ci eenetiesssensenenesnenes

- BIRD RECORDS FROM TAWANG DISTRICT, ARUNACHAL PRADESH, INDIA

Gopinathan GPrW eit a ee Oe eee ed i OR ee

DIVERSITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF ACRIDID PESTS (ORTHOPTERA: “ACRIDIDAE) OF PURVANCHAL

REGION, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

[SAAS FRAN Ba VOWS AGIAN I GIVAANTT Soo cos wit arada pata caves cdc ccacancccevylenndyon sett lin cls Sesmotvalitues ivigabaReveauoaglesvesdashyusteeds

FLORISTIC DIVERSITY OF THE KUNJAPURI SACRED GROVE, GARHWAL HIMALAYA, INDIA

Megha Rawat, H. B. Vasistha, R.K. Manhas and Mridula Negi

CONTENTS

ee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee ee eee eee eee ey

NEW DESCRIPTION

A NEW SPECIES OF NOTASPIDIELLA BOUCEK i a WITH A KEY.

7 TO SPECIES AND NOTES ON KNOWN SPECIES |

— 7.C. Narendran, Abhilash Peter, K. Nikhil and Minu Mohan

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES.............> on rr cme ie Sema ie oP iu leeee eae See ee eee

Printed by Onlooker Press, 16, Sasoon Dock, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 and published by Ms. Sumaira Abdilali

for Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Dr. Salim Ali Chowk, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001.

_ Website: www. bnhs. org; Email: publications @ bnhs. org/publications, bnhs @ gmail.com

~ JOURNAL

ee OFTHE | 2

BOMBAY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY

AUGUST 2013 | | VOL. 110 (2)

BNHS

TADIA ite since 1883

JOURNAL OF THE BOMBAY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY

Hornbill House, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai 400 001.

ExecuTIveE Epbitor

Asad R. Rahmani, Ph. D.

Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai

Copy Epitor

Ranjit Manakadan, Ph. D.

Bombay Natural History Society

Copy AND PropuctTIOoN Epitor

Vibhuti Dedhia, M. Sc.

Bombay Natural History Society

Editorial Board

Ajith Kumar, Ph. D. Aasheesh Pittie, B. Com.

National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bird Watchers Society of Andhra Pradesh,

GKVK Campus, Hebbal, Bengaluru, Karnataka Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh

C.R. Babu, Ph. D. GS. Rawat, Ph. D.

Professor, Centre for Environmental Management Wildlife Institute of India,

of Degraded Ecosystems, University of Delhi, Dehradun, Uttarakhand

New Delhi

J.D. Marcus Knight, Ph. D.

Chennai, Tamil Nadu

J.S. Singh, Ph. D.

Professor, Banaras Hindu University

Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh

Anwaruddin Choudhury, Ph. D., D. Sc.

The Rhino Foundation for Nature,

Guwahati, Assam

Indraneil Das, D. Phil.

Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation,

Universiti Malaysia, Sarawak,

~ "Malaysia |

YM. Jhala, Ph. Do

'. Wildlife Institute of India,

“Dehraduin;Uttarakhand-~

K. Ullas Karanth, Ph. D.

Wildlife Conservation Society — India Program,

Bengaluru, Karnataka

S. Subramanya, Ph. D.

University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK,

Hebbal, Bengaluru, Karnataka

R. Sukumar, Ph. D.

Professor, Centre for Ecological Sciences,

Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, Karnataka

Romulus Whitaker, B. Sc.

Madras Reptile Park and Crocodile Bank Trust,

Tamil Nadu

S.R. Yadav, Ph. D.

Shivaji University, Kolhapur,

Maharashtra

T.C. Narendran, Ph. D., FASc.

Professor, Department of Zoology,

University of Calicut, Kerala

Consultant Editors

Gayatri W. Ugra, Ph. D.

Bombay Natural History Society

Raghunandan Chundawat, Ph. D.

Wildlife Conservation Society, Bengaluru

Nigel Collar, Ph. D.

BirdLife International, UK

Rhys Green, Ph. D.

Royal Society for Protection of Birds, UK

Qamar Qureshi, M. Phil.

Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun

T.J. Roberts, Ph. D.

World Wildlife Fund, Pakistan

Editorial Assistant: Sonali V. Vadhavkar, M. Sc.

Layout and Typesetting: V. Gopi Naidu

recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS). Enquiries concerning

reproduction outside the scope of the above should be addressed to the Honorary Secretary, BNHS at the address given above.

VOLUME 110(2): AUGUST 2013

CONTENTS

EE) RG) 1 7.' Raa em Ree mete ean Pe Se SEAR oy IEE RESO, es retort On Se ee On hee ES 8 93

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW OF EXOTIC ALIENS FROM ROMILA THAPAR, YUSUF ANSARI, AND VALMIK THAPAR

Vaimik Thapar, Roradarisapar amd YUSUE ANSON sec.ccc on cccecs BBE Socece ces cceseceses nnsanreeeuine- BB RC, eee eee wee 95

EXOTIC ALIENS — LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A REJOINDER TO AUTHORS’ RESPONSE TO OUR REVIEW

MK. Raniitsinh and! DivgaRcaSiaig 00 eet eee See ak eae, Boyd eri iene eh Pal rete, and het cor Saererr iit, 105

THE “EXOTIC ALIENS” CONTROVERSY: A VIEW FROM AFAR

Slepheni sO Brien 5 ee ae i Sy ah ie ee OR aindites 4 Teg oh attend 108

THE MAMMALS OF SRIHARIKOTA ISLAND, SOUTHERN INDIA, WITH INSIGHTS INTO THEIR STATUS, POPULATION,

AND DISTRIBUTION

Ranjit Manakadan, S. Sivakumar, Patrick David and B. Senthil Murugan ................:eceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeeees 114

DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE OF RODENTS IN THE SEMI-ARID LANDSCAPE OF SARISKA TIGER RESERVE,

WESTERN INDIA

Shilpi Gupta, Krishnendu Mondal, K. Sankar and Qamar Qureshi ...............:::::ceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees SE hee eae a eee 122

THE STATUS OF THE GANGES RIVER DOLPHIN PLATANISTA GANGETICA GANGETICA IN THE RIVER BARAK,

ASSAM, INDIA

Ta P. Singha: 6.1. Duge and: SP) Biswas este se as tet wares cl eo ah ee ere Be 129

PTERIDOPHYTIC DIVERSITY OF BAROT, MANDI DISTRICT, HIMACHAL PRADESH, INDIA

alice dca: Farin t Ghai tO raKasy osccssccren och eta 8 ah ete Mears reac iP eee A RS eat oh pte ee Aare er Re eo 135

TERRITORIALITY IN KERALA LAUGHINGTHRUSH STROPHOCINCLA FAIRBANK! MERIDIONALIS

Vivek-CRandtan- A ane Praveen setae 8 2B. Vette he Ah Nie NLA Ss Beh oh rise Mes Bae niet an OE ee ons eae 142

REVIEWS EMITHSON/ 4

i, BIRDS OF CENTRAL ASIA JUN 0 4 2014

Reviewed by RanjitManakadan:: 265,52. ALA ea AA ee ee oe eae Deg BE oi 147

2. ELEPHANT — THE LADY BOSS: ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT LIBRARIES

Reviewed ty Fart Niatveaacain 1 7tsct ceccettoctn ster amt etree te oe ee eens ain ea gr ath cate i Ree 147

3. ROMANCING THE ELEPHANT — A STRATEGY TO MITIGATE HUMAN-ELEPHANT CONFLICT

Reviewed by Raniit ManakaGart: 1.0... eh alls oo Brees FN eel RR et ae, he eis 148

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

MAMMALS

1. | The Hoolock Gibbon Hoolock hoolock in Saiha, Mizoram,

India: Historical records, recent sightings, and conservation

issues

PRERREE SO WC seicasn ise dendycanatsiionds ayes Tass ber one eae ees ees

2. Records of the melanistic Leopard Panthera pardus

(Linnaeus) from Western Ghats area of Maharashtra and

Karnataka, India

Amit Sayyed, Saurabh Takalkar and Anil Mahabal ........

3. Lesser Dawn Bat Eonycteris spelaea: the first record for

Bangladesh

NI a ICRU a. secictes sich ve rngeimacnn iseevaewuane thea ate eee

4. Reappearance of the Wild Pig Sus scrofa cristatus in

Dachigam National Park, Kashmir, India

Khursheed Ahmad, Parag Nigam, Bilal Habib, M. Sadiq

Mir, Zaffar Rais, Mehraj-u-Din Shah and N.A. Malik ......

BIRDS

5. Record of the Great White Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus

in Mysore, Karnataka, India

M.K. Sapthagirish and Honnavalli N. Kumara ...............

6. Sighting of Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis in

Gharana wetland, Jammu & Kashmir, India

CEPTS 10 Ra nt, Sn, Sere ene a

149

151

152

153

154

REPTILES

7. Banded Krait Bungarus fasciatus feeding on Common

Krait Bungarus caeruleus

PT DATA RNS oe avrg tevin sctienntn ir ip esi silent nie 155

FISH

8. Marine ornamental ichthyofauna of Thoothukudi coast,

Gulf of Mannar, India

P. Jawahar, G Brucelee and T. Umamaheswari ............ 156

AMPHIBIANS

9. Khare’s Stream Frog Pterorana khare —a new record for

Bangladesh

BRS A: a | Sr ae eee ne eee cee I eae 162

OTHER INVERTEBRATES

10. Onarecord of Rhynchocinetes durbanensis Gordon, 1936

(Decapoda, Caridea, Rhynchocinetidae) in the Gulf of

Mannar, Tamil Nadu, India

Sanjeevi Prakash and

Thipramalai Thangappan Ajith Kumar .............. ee 163

BOTANY

11. Closterium tortitaenioides Coesel — an interesting new alga

to the Asian continent

Jose John end NES: FIOnGIS Ah ok aabsaiiiges 165

12:

13.

Bhesa robusta (Roxb.) Ding Hou, Celastraceae: a new 14. Range extension for critically endangered plant, Crinum

distributional record from Tripura, India woodrowii Baker

Koushik Majumdar, B.K. Datta and Uma Shankar ........ 166 Si SEAS AIC FAUTANE UNION | Pe cud testi abit uderte ben cd ade Hau digas

Dopatrium junceum (Roxb.) Buch.-Ham. ex Benth. — a

new record for the flora of Tripura, India Cover Photograph: Great Pied Hornbill Buceros bicornis

Somnath Bhowmik and B.K. Datta .......... eee eee 168 By Mohan Thomas

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

WE ARE GRATEFUL TO THE MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Govt. OF INDIA,

FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE JOURNAL.

Editorial

Asiatic Lion: Reintroduction or Assisted Dispersal?

| Peds rnat has been recognised all over the world as one of the ultimate forms of conservation action as it involves a

large number of conservation steps. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)

has a very active Reintroduction Specialist Group that advises and monitors reintroduction programmes. IUCN (www.iucn.org)

has prepared Reintroduction Guidelines that are regularly updated as conservation science develops. There are strict protocols

to be followed before, during, and after the reintroduction of a species.

Reintroduction, and in some cases introduction, is done when natural colonisation by a species 1s not possible, the factors

that exterminated the species from a particular area are effectively removed, and habitat has been restored to receive the

species. As reintroduction involves a long-term commitment, it is generally done by the government with the help of experts.

It also involves long-term planning and removal of all those factors that had originally exterminated the species from the

area. Reintroduction is one of the finest forms of human values — in that we want to rectify earlier mistakes and restore the

natural balance. |

Species are reintroduced to their earlier distribution range when it is not possible for them to colonise naturally due to

human-created barriers. If they can re-colonise the habitat on their own, reintroduction is not required — we just have to

restore the habitat and wait for re-colonisation to happen. This is possible when corridors are intact or the species is very

mobile, for example, birds. Even many birds have been reintroduced or introduced to similar habitat (in case the original

habitat is totally destroyed).

There are hundreds of examples in the world where locally exterminated species have been reintroduced successfully. I suggest

that readers visit Reintroduction Specialist Group website of IUCN (IUCN/SSC 2013). Arabian Oryx Oryx leucoryx became

extinct in 1973 due to excessive hunting. Oman was the first range country to ban its hunting and brought back this iconic animal

to its former habitat (Price 1989), followed by Saudi Arabia where the first reintroduction of Arabian Oryx was started in 1989 in

a fenced protected area called Mahazat as-Sayd Protected Area (2,400 sq. km) in central Saudi Arabia. In 1995, a number of

Arabian Oryx were reintroduced in Rub al Khali or Empty Quarter (without fence). Both the areas now have significant self-

sustaining breeding populations (Islam et al. 2011). Przewalski’s Horse Equus ferus przewalskii is another good example of

reintroduction of a large mammal. It was declared extinct in the wild in the 1960s, but fortunately some animals were present in

western zoos where they were bred meticulously. In the 1980s, 11 were transferred from western zoos to the Wild Horse Breeding

Centre (WHBC) in Xinjiang, China, where a captive population of more than 150 horses was eventually established. In 2001,

55 were reintroduced to the 1.7 million hectare Kalameili Nature Reserve. These are two examples of conservation breeding and

successful reintroduction. Closer to home, we have a good example of the reintroduction of Tiger in Sariska (Rajasthan) and Panna

(Madhya Pradesh). Tiger reintroduction in Panna is quite successful and in approximately six years, the tiger population has

increased to more than 25.

There are many examples of ‘wild to wild’ introduction: a species is still present in the wild, a small number are caught and

released in their former range which has been prepared in advance for receiving them, as the Government of India wants to do

for the Asiatic Lion in Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary of Madhya Pradesh. The Asiatic Lion Panthera leo persica was once

widely distributed from the Middle East to Persia to India. Excessive hunting almost exterminated it, except for a small population

left in the Gir forest of Saurashtra, Gujarat that was meticulously protected by the Nawab of Junagadh (Divyabhanusinh 2005).

After Independence, the Government of Bombay Presidency and later the Government of Gujarat played a stellar role in

protecting the animals so much so that it has now become the ‘pride of Gujarat’, with very few cases of Lion poaching by locals.

From a small population of a few dozen individuals hiding in the 1,400 sq. km jungles of Gir, the Asiatic Lion has now spread

out to nearly 40,000 sq. km, some prides living in Prosopis thickets near villages: the last official count of 2010 shows that there

could be 411 lions, spread across Junagadh, Amreli, and Bhavnagar districts. They are now found in the coastal areas (Una,

Kodinar, Sutrapada, and Chhara) and Savarkundla, Liliya, and adjoining areas of Amreli and Bhavnagar districts. According to

the last census, about 64 Asiatic Lions are found in these areas. This natural spread is due to the fact that the Gir forest cannot

hold more lions, and secondly there was no barrier, physical or social, to prevent the dispersal of lions in Saurashtra. This is a

case of natural dispersal of a species to its former range.

During the last 20 years, the Madhya Pradesh government has prepared Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary to receive Asiatic

Lion, so that a second home can be developed for this species. There are two major reasons: first, to reintroduce the species in

its former range, and secondly to act as a secure gene pool in the event of an epidemic spreading in the Gir region which could

wipe out most of the population It makes perfect conservation sense to spread the species widely and develop smaller populations

in the former range of the Asiatic Lion. But, we have a problem here.

A few local conservationists have convinced the Gujarat government not to allow transfer of even a small pride of 8—10

Asiatic Lions living outside the Gir Forests to Kuno-Palpur (or anywhere outside Gujarat). Their argument is based on

emotions, not on science, but let us see what they say.

First, the people of Gujarat have been protecting the Asiatic Lion extremely well, so there is no need to transfer some of

them to an area where they may not remain protected. No doubt, the people and government of Gujarat have been protecting

the Asiatic Lion well, but this is not a strong argument to oppose taking a pride that is living on the fringe (please remember,

no Lion from the Gir forest will be taken) to reintroduce to Kuno-Palpur which has been very well protected by the Madhya

Pradesh Forest Department to receive the species. There is abundant prey and habitat for the Asiatic Lion in Kuno-Palpur.

Each Lion will be radio-tagged to follow its movement, so the chances of poaching will be reduced. All the Guidelines of

IUCN and Government of India have been and will be followed by the Madhya Pradesh government. Successful transfer of

One-horned Rhinoceros from Assam to Dudhwa National Park in 1984 is a classical case of reintroduction of a species in its

former range. The Uttar Pradesh Forest Department needs to be congratulated that not a single rhino has been poached from

Dudhwa till now. Why would it be different in Madhya Pradesh when such high stakes are involved?

The second argument is that the earlier reintroduction experiment of Asiatic Lion in Chandraprabha Wildlife Sanctuary

(96 sq. km) in 1959 failed, therefore, this experiment will also not succeed. India has a come a long way since the 1950s, and

conservation science is now well-developed, so the chances of failure in Kuno-Palpur are minimal. Moreover, one failure

_ does not mean that we should not try again. Science cannot develop if we stop experimenting and trying.

The third argument put forward by some local conservationists of Saurashtra is that Kuno-Palpur is a tiger habitat and lions

and tigers cannot live together. This argument has no scientific basis. Even a few hundred years ago, when Asiatic Lion and

Tiger were more widespread in India, there must have been many areas where both were living in the same forest, maybe in

different ecological niches. Animals have their own ways of spatial and temporal separation. Even three or four large carnivores

can live in the same area, maybe eating the same prey but avoiding each other through time and space. Serengeti in Africa is a

well-known example where the African Lion, African Cheetah, and Leopard can be found in the same area, but avoiding each

other. Two other major carnivores are also found there: Hyena and African Wild Dog. In the past, when large natural areas were

intact in India, the Asiatic Lion, Bengal Tiger, Asiatic Cheetah, Leopard, and Wild Dog or Dhole would have been sharing the

same landscape. |

In conclusion, we assert that there is no scientific basis for opposing the reintroduction of Asiatic Lion in Kuno-Palpur

Wildlife Sanctuary (or any other area which is made suitable to them), by transferring 8—10 animals initially, and a few later

if the need arises.

The Gujarat government and Gujarati people need to be praised for protection of Wild Ass, so much so that the species is

even attempting to colonise its former range in neighbouring Rajasthan (Sangha 2003). This re-colonisation is possible only

because the Wild Ass habitat and corridors are still intact, while in the case of Asiatic Lion there is no corridor left between

Saurashtra and Kuno-Palpur. Can we create this ‘corridor’ by lifting a few Asiatic Lions from Saurashtra and taking them to

Kuno-Palpur? I call this human-assisted dispersal. We have been doing this for many species, so why not for the Asiatic

Lion? Weren’t tigers reintroduced in the isolated Sariska Reserve where natural colonisation was not possible due to lack of

corridors? If we follow the argument that a species belongs to a state as it has protected it well, will the Government of

Gujarat stop the Wild Asses from recolonising their former range in Rajasthan? Actually it should be a pride of any state to

give its animals to other states so they can flourish in more areas. Giving is a part of our Indian culture, which some people

appear to have forgotten.

Asad R. Rahmani

REFERENCES

DIvVYABHANUSINH, C. (2005): The Story of Asia’s Lions. Pp. 260. Marg Publications, Mumbai.

IsLam, M.Z., K. IsMAEL& A. Bouc (2011): Restoration of the endangered Arabian Oryx Oryx leucoryx, Pallas 1766 in Saudi Arabia: lessons

learnt from the twenty years of reintroduction in arid fenced and unfenced protected areas. Pp. 125-140. Jn: Knight, M., D. Mallon

& P. Seddon (Eds): Biodiversity Conservation in the Arabian Peninsula. Zoology in the Middle East Supplementum 3. Pp. 212.

Germany.

IUCN/SSC (2013): Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. Version 1.0. . Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species

Survival Commission, viii + 57 pp.

Price, M.R.S. (1989): Animal Reintroductions: The Arabian Oryx in Oman. Cambridge Studies in Applied Ecology and Resource Management.

Cambridge University Press, UK. Pp. 316.

SANGHA, H. (2003): Sighting of the Indian wild ass Equus onager in Rajasthan: A northward range extension. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

100(2&3): 617-621.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(2), May-Aug 2013

95-104

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW OF EXOTIC ALIENS FROM ROMILA THAPAR,

YUSUF ANSARI, AND VALMIK THAPAR

VALMIK THAPAR!**, ROMILA THAPAR? AND YUSUF ANSARI?

'19 Kautilya Marg, New Delhi 110 021, India. Email: valmikt@ gmail.com

*B-23, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi 110 065, India. Email: romilathapar@ gmail.com

>c/o Mr. Idris Ahmad, Leatherage, 79-103 Bansmandi, Kanpur 208 001, Uttar Pradesh, India.

*Corresponding author

This is a response to the review of EXOTIC ALIENS: THE LION AND THE CHEETAH IN INDIA, Carried in the Journal of the

Bombay Natural History Society, No. 110(1), dated January-April 2013. The book is written by Valmik Thapar

with chapters by Romila Thapar and Yusuf Ansari. The review under discussion here is by Divyabhanusinh and

M.K. Ranjitsinh. It is a long-winded review that will be responded to by each of the authors.

PROFESSOR ROMILA THAPAR

On the meaning of the title, the dictionary meaning of

exotic refers to that which is not indigenous and adds that it

is unusual and interesting; and alien refers to that which comes

from a different place. In neither case is the primary meaning

derogatory, nor does it reflect the unimportance of what is

described as exotic and alien. These latter meanings given by

the reviewers, change the focus of what is being argued in

the book.

In the criticism of Chapter One, may I say that even

though I wrote it in as simple a manner as possible, my

argument has been given an emphasis that is not there in the

original. Perhaps the reviewers are unaware that arguments

are not made only in black-and-white terms and that there

are large areas of grey in every field of knowledge. The

intention of the book was to raise questions about certain

species of animals being either indigenous or not so, to India.

Even though there was no definitive answer for all periods of

time, it was perhaps worthwhile to raise the questions.

My chapter was intended as a historical overview

of early periods and therefore I went step by step,

chronologically. But this review is historically unsystematic.

It jumps back and forth over a span of even thirty centuries

and makes historical comparisons that show little control over

the data. This is surprising coming from reviewers who

presumably understand the systematic procedures of research

in the natural sciences. Nevertheless I will go through it in

the order in which the arguments are made in the review.

Page 4

The reviewers state that because the Indian subcontinent

was at the extreme distributional end of their faunal range

that originated from Africa, it is likely that the cheetah and

the lion did not attain a high degree of abundance in India.

If this was so, its non-application to the western and southern

extremities of the faunal range needs an explanation. The

question asked in the chapter does not relate to the degree of

abundance in India but as to when the lion and cheetah became

a normal part of the Indian landscape.

The reviewers are incorrect in saying that the Harappan

and Vedic civilisations “occupied and cultivated the same

short grasslands and the open forest areas of western and

north-western portions of the subcontinent...” The northern-

most outpost of the Harappan culture was in the Pamirs, the

southernmost in northern Maharashtra, extending westwards

to Baluchistan and eastwards to the upper Doab, with

settlements in Oman in Arabia. Much of this area was

unknown to Vedic civilization. The extent of the Vedic

civilization is difficult to map since there are no definitive

archaeological equivalents of the culture. But drawing

information from the Rigveda, the earliest text of the Vedic

corpus, it extended from the north-western borderlands,

through Punjab and into the fringes of the Doab. From this

area it moved to the Ganges plain but not into western India.

Western India does not come onto the Vedic horizon until the

mid-first millennium Bce. Only some parts of the river valleys

of the north-west and of the Punjab would have had grasslands

and open forest under continuous cultivation. Given the

demography of the Harappan settlements, the pressure from

agriculture would hardly have resulted in the shrinking of

the habitat. If at all this happened, it was limited to a relatively

small area as compared to the area covered by the Harappa

culture, and which areas would have continued to host lions

and cheetahs had there been any. This would not have denuded

the lion and cheetah of their prey if they had lived in this

habitat.

Judging by the sources, the greater frequency of the

lion in Persia would have been the area to the north in the

Oxus plain. This is a more likely location for entry into

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW OF EXOTIC ALIENS FROM AUTHORS

north-western India rather than the Makran coast, for which

there is also no evidence. The huge numbers of lions hunted

and killed, as I have mentioned, are recorded in Egypt and

Mesopotamia, where they were hunted partly in hunting parks

but also in the wild, as they were in the Oxus plain. The

location of lions, therefore, was not limited to Africa. The

“mental embargo” is obviously in the minds of those who

limit the source to only one place.

Page 5

The sarcasm in the question of whether Alexander’s

armies transported lions is misplaced. It suggests that the

reviewers are unfamiliar with the role of armies in earlier

times. As has been well-established by now, one of the results

of military campaigns was to strengthen connecting routes

between areas, and if need be to forge new ones. Alexander’s

army was no exception as is evident from the increase in the

volume of trade between northern India and west Asia,

subsequent to his campaign. These routes were used for

carrying items of trade or gifts for presentation. The armies

did not transport cargo but the resulting improvement in routes

assisted in the transportation of goods of various kinds. That

was the argument being made in the book.

Page 5

The Kautilya Arthashastra does not refer to lions being

imported but it does imply that they were bred in captivity.

The text — as I have quoted it — states that in certain parks the

teeth and claws of the animals have to be removed, and the

list of such animals includes the lion. This could only be done

if the lions were bred in captivity. The lions that may have

been imported would not have been let loose in the wild but

would certainly have inhabited the hunting parks and the areas

cordoned off for hunting. Their numbers would be nowhere

near those referred to in Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources,

as lions killed both in the wild and in hunting parks.

Page 6

The reviewers pose the question that by referring to

tigers having an indigenous habitat in India, am I maintaining

that India was where they evolved? Does it require a historian

to point out to naturalists that the two are not necessarily the

same?

The identification of the lion at Bhimbetka is not a

definitive identification and that is why it was omitted. There

is also a problem with dating rock paintings in India in the

absence of associated excavations, and dating methods for

rock art remain controversial. The absence of the lion on

Harappan seals has been skirted round by the reviewers in

their argument that lack of depiction on the seals does not

mean that the animal is absent. But the crucial point raised in

the chapter is not just the absence of the lion on the seals, but

more interestingly, that in the so-called “Gilgamesh scene”

there is a near identical representation on a Mesopotamian

and a Harappan seal, of a man grappling with two animals,

one on each side. In the Mesopotamian version the animals

are lions, but in the Harappan version they have been replaced

with tigers. The statement this makes is obvious.

The reviewers then proceed to refer to terracotta

figurines, coins, sculptures at stupa sites and so on, where

the lion has been depicted. This is merely a repetition of what

I have said in Chapter 1. But what the reviewers do not seem

to understand is the chronology of this evidence. I am arguing

that the lion arrived in India sometime just before the Mauryan

period. Obviously, subsequent to that, it would be depicted

in all kinds of ways. So what is the point of stating that it

occurs on post-Mauryan objects when that has already been

stated in the chapter, and stated in order to suggest that it is a

late arrival.

I have said in the chapter that the representation of the

lion on the Mauryan pillars is its earliest appearance (p. 40).

This does not mean that I am saying it is the only appearance

as the reviewers state. There is a big difference of meaning

between the two words. Once the lion becomes the symbol

of majesty — as it was in many parts of the ancient world —

then its depiction on monuments is to be expected. If one

wants to make a comparison with the depiction of the tiger,

then it is not just a matter of counting numbers, as one has to

consider the context of the object on which the animal is

depicted, as well as its authorship and purpose.

Page 7

Another chronological confusion occurs in the review

with reference to lions in the Rigveda. I am not linking these

references to Afghanistan but to the BMAC (Bactria Margiana

Archaeological Complex). Small-scale migration from north-

eastern Iran or from the BMAC to the Punjab and from there

to the Ganges plain, would have taken two or three centuries

and certainly not millennia. These are contiguous areas with

archaeological settlements. Memories would certainly be

handed down in such a short span of time.

With reference to lions in Persia, two well-established

references to hunting lions in the wild by Darius and later by

Alexander, which I have mentioned, both locate the lions in

the Oxus plain. If there were lions to be hunted further south

in Iran, it is unlikely that the royal hunt would have gone as

far north as Balkh. Alexander had to make a sizeable deviation

to take in this hunt. If one is looking at the migration of

animals, lions occurred in the wild in Upper Egypt around

the Nile delta. They were also found in the land between the

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW OF EXOTIC ALIENS FROM AUTHORS

Tigris and Euphrates in Mesopotamia. Was there a migration

from here to the Oxus plain or were the latter indigenous to

the area? If lions were needed as royal gifts, transportation to

north-west India would not have involved crossing high

mountains as the reviewers assert. There are multiple river

valleys in the region linked through relatively low-elevation

passes. This was what encouraged the movement of people

and goods over many centuries. Lion cubs would have made

very presentable gifts.

Turning to the cheetah, if it existed in the rock art of the

Neolithic-Chalcolithic of the third millennium BcE, it does seem

odd that there is no evidence of it in the intervening thirty-six

centuries to the early second millennium ce. Do species

disappear and resurface in such erratic ways after so many

centuries? and how should one explain the sudden resurfacing

of this animal? Rock paintings from Kharvai and Karad are

reproduced and are identified as cheetahs. These depict heavily

built animals, almost bovine. The reviewers list what they take

to be characteristic marks of the cheetah, but apart from the

spots there is little else to specifically recognize them as such.

The characteristic of rock art, on the other hand, is that only

the most familiar animals are so depicted as to be clearly

recognisable. There is a world of difference between the

so-called cheetah and the recognisable leopard in the

reproductions included with the review.

My reference to Arabs on the western coast of India is

questioned. But again, as all students of history know,

settlements of Arab traders all along the west coast of India

from the eighth-ninth centuries onwards, are well-attested.

Arabs working in the administration of the Rashtrakuta rulers

are referred to in royal inscriptions. Ships’ captains, seamen,

and traders from west Asia are present in the settlements all

along the west coast of India, handling the huge import of

horses into India, together with other kinds of commerce,

from the first millennium CE.

Taming animals to hunt is something that goes back to

the time when hunting was invented and a range of animals

were used. The point that is being made here is the use of a

specific animal, the cheetah. This is not referred to in early

times.

Page 12

The reviewers disallow trans-shipment from North

Africa to the Red Sea and ask disbelievingly if there is any

report of this anywhere. Here again there is overwhelming

evidence from Greek and Latin texts and from archaeology,

of a substantial trade — commonly referred to as the Indo-

Roman trade — during the period from the second century

BCE to the fifth century ce. Cargo of large dimensions travelled

from Alexandria down the Nile to Koptos, from where it was

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

trans-shipped across the desert to the ports of the Red Sea

such as Berenike, and then loaded onto ships that sailed with

the monsoon wind to the west coast of India, and to ports

such as Muziris in Kerala. Cargo from southern Egypt was

sent by ship up the Nile to Koptos also for trans-shipment

across the seas. This route continued to be used, as also the

more northerly route via the Gulf, into the late second

millennium ce. The southerly mid-ocean route from east

Africa was linked to the 12 degree Latitude, later continued

by the Portuguese. There was far more communication in the

ancient world than is dreamt of by people today.

I am quoted as having said that Afghanistan was the

land of the Rigveda. This is not correct (p. 37). However,

even if it was, it is utterly anachronistic to compare what is

said in two texts 2,500 years apart, the Rigveda and that of

Guggisburg. This is the kind of casual treatment of historical

evidence by non-historians that makes historians despair. Such

comparisons are chronologically and historically irrelevant.

Page 16

I am quoted as saying:

“Professor Thapar states categorically that there is no

record of lions being traded in the ancient period. The same

goes for the cheetah.”

A trade in items means a regular flow of a certain item

from a source to a commercial outlet. To this extent there

was no trade in lions and cheetahs being brought regularly to

commercial centres in India. But this does not preclude the

sending of lions, cheetahs, and other animals as gifts to those

able to look after them in their parks or menageries or

whatever. This was the way lions came to Rome, not as part

of trade. They were captured in the grasslands, transported to

the North African ports, shipped to Rome where they stayed

as part of the gladiatorial activity and in circuses. Transporting

them was no big deal. But they do not feature as part of

big-game hunting in Europe. And we know of them today

because there is mention of them in gladiatorial fights and

circuses. They could similarly have been transported to India

and kept in the hunting parks, as they are known to have

been. Their presence was marked although their numbers were

few — as in Rome. There being no record of trade, does not

mean that no lions could have been brought. Once again let

us not underestimate what came and went in times past.

Page 20

The final sentence of the review is a give away. It says,

“With the evidence placed forth in this paper, the question

would arise as to who is the “imposter”, the book ExoTIC

ALIENS: or the lion or the cheetah in India. Let the reader

decide.” Since a book cannot be an imposter, this remark can

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW OF EXOTIC ALIENS FROM AUTHORS

YUSUF ANSARI

1. The analysis is based on a presumption that as an

historian it is my prejudiced intention to disprove the existence

of the lion as an ‘Indian species’. That is far from the objective

of my study. The aim in both my chapters has been to offer an

alternative to accepted schools of thought, which itself is based

on sketchy evidence and a misreading or weak translations

of historical texts, particularly Persian texts in the Mughal

period.

2. A significant premise for calculating the presence

of the lion in the Indo-Islamic narrative is the oft

misunderstood lack of distinction between the terms shir

and babr, an aspect I have devoted a considerable part of

my essays to, but which appears to have been ignored in

this critique. In the same vein, one of my earliest posers at

what stage does a species become ‘naturalised’? And

the consequent theme of the naturalisation of species

has also been totally cast away in this criticism posing as

critique.

3. My narrative, particularly on the gifts of tribute,

which included animals of the chase, has also been left aside

while a parallel droning for no evidence of imports is

sounded through the criticism.

4. Finally, nowhere in my narrative have I in a

single instance made any ‘denigrating’ remarks about a

particular species and I would be grateful to the critics of

this narrative to point out a single instance that buttresses

their charge of ‘contrived one-upmanship’, anywhere in my

piece.

In my mind, the aim of this work was and continues to

be an encouragement of debate around the subject of the

provenance of the lion and the cheetah. Contrary to the

assertions by the critics, at no point have I drawn definite

conclusions, only laid out historiographical posers, which

question the viability of the accepted view that both species

have been indigenous to India. While accusing me of ‘selective

referencing’, the selective analysis of my essays ignores a

fundamental thrust of my argument and that is the linguistic

confusion pertaining to the classification of big cat species.

Most notably the interchangeable use of sher for tigers and

lions in the Mughal narrative, as a result of which the lines

between the two, in historical accounts, have been blurred.

This in turn has led to an exaggerated estimate of lion numbers,

because more often than not the Mughal sher was in fact the

tiger, though it was translated to mean the lion.

Furthermore, as a big cat enthusiast with an abiding

passion for history there is no question of a disparaging or

condescending attitude towards a magnificent creature like a

lion or indeed a cheetah, both of which I have observed at

close quarters in the wild. The critics have ascribed a

prejudiced notion to my motive for being part of this book:

the preference for one species over another. I am surprised

by this and can only submit that this is not the case. My aim

has been to examine the historical record and stir a debate on

the subject to contribute to and inform existing perspectives

on the matter. From their response, I have the satisfaction of

knowing I have succeeded in some measure.

VALMIK THAPAR

As principal author of EXOTIC ALIENS, I am very surprised

to have seen a book review of nearly 20 pages devoted to a

critique of the abovementioned book. If such a critique is

thought to be significant, the normal procedure in serious

journals is to send it to the authors of the book for their

response, and then both the critique and response are

published together. Sadly not only was the review published

without our responses, but the Director, BNHS has circulated

this review, calling it a “paper” and “interesting and

scientific’. Since the language used in the review by its

authors Divyabhanusinh and Ranjitsinh is in our opinion

rather unbecoming, and judgemental, and questions the very

premise of the book and the objectives of the authors in

following this premise, we would like to respond. There are

also serious errors and misinterpretations by the reviewers

in what has been published and circulated as an “interesting

and scientific paper” even though it is clearly a book review.

We hope our responses to this book review will be published

in the next issue of JBNHS.

1. On page 3 of this review, the authors ask the question

— Why is the book silent on the evolution and arrival of the

tiger in India? My answer is very simple. The book explores

what is called recent history, and therefore had never intended

to get into the evolutionary history of either lion or tiger in

India. This fact should be clear to anyone reading the second

author Romila Thapar’s section. It is also clearly stated by

me on page 14 of EXOTIC ALIENS: THE LION AND THE CHEETAH IN

INDIA where I ask the question “ Is there an evolutionary or

genetic basis to my thesis that goes beyond the historical

record?” The book is silent on this issue because it was never

our intention to examine that aspect.

2. From the last paragraph on page 4 of this review to

the second para on page 6, the authors make a persistent effort

to state that many of my statements are based on “wishful

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW OF EXOTIC ALIENS FROM AUTHORS

thinking” and are not supported by evidence. They are

absolutely correct. If I had evidence of large bulk imports of

both lion and cheetah in the Mughal period then not only

would scores of history books have to be rewritten but we

would not even be having this discourse! I have stated very clearly

on page 12, last para and page 20, last para that the “premise” I

suggest should at least “stir debate” and “provoke research’.

My part of the book is speculative but based on a massive amount

of information that points to the premise that I believe in.

3. The authors of the review (pp. 4-6) therefore need

to see the information provided on page 21 of EXOTIC ALIENS,

where a miniature painting of the 16th century reveals two

Jesuit priests laden with gifts for a Mughal prince including

two cheetahs, which clearly establishes that the cheetah was

gifted as tributes to the kings! How many were gifted is a

question that will be answered when other scholars unearth

records that are hugely difficult to find.

4. Furthermore the authors of the review (pp. 4—6)

should look at the successes of hand reared cubs in

Ranthambhore in the last 12 years and the introduction of a

hand reared cub from Kanha into the wilds of Panna. In my

opinion, the time and expertise to conduct experiments in the

private hunting grounds of the royals in recent history was

not only greater than today, but was not governed by any

laws whatsoever, so anything and everything was possible.

5. As far as African lions are concerned, it was not just

the Maharaja of Gwalior trying to introduce them in the 20th

century but also the King of Nepal (see page 179 of Exoric

ALIENS). In 1938, on the Viceroy’s shoot in Chitwan, Nepal

there is a fascinating quote “Many reports had been coming

from the villages of damage and destruction to their herds of

cattle by two new and ferocious animals, which from the

descriptions given, were clearly the two African lions that had

been released in the valley a month before. His Highness

therefore decided to kill them, or they might turn into man-

eaters in the future.” (Page 115, BIG GAME SHOOTING IN NEPAL by

E.A. Smythies, 1942, Thacker Spink & Co., Calcutta). The

two lions were killed and I believe many Royals followed this

practice throughout history. Lions were introduced before a

ceremonial shoot and then killed, and as more people dig out

records it is likely that startling information will be revealed.

In fact this was the endeavour of the book and I hope it provokes

research into records that are closely guarded. For the moment,

the authors Divyabhanusinh and Ranjitsinh should correct their

statement on page 6 of their review that “The only record that

exists of imported animals being released in the wild in India...”.

The African lions released in Gwalior’s forests were not the

only record. By the way, I understand that there were many

cases of imported Red Deer being introduced in India, but this

will be a subject of another paper!

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

6. On page 11 of the review, the reviewers

Divyabhanusinh and Ranjitsinh cast aspersions on the

terminologies I use. I leave it to the readers to decide what

their experiences of the Gir lion have been and I have given

enough narratives of its tameness on pages 173-177 of EXOTIC

ALIENS. Early narratives are full of what appears to be “the

strange nature of the Gir lion”. Millions love dogs and

mongrels across the world. My use of these words is to

emphasize their domesticated nature from the time the

narratives about them started, and I will elaborate on this,

since unlike tigers in Ranthambhore and what changed them

(page 11, second paragraph of the review), the lion in history

(unlike the tiger) is described by some early travellers in its

true state. Francois Bernier provides one of the first

descriptions of how lions were hunted in the private hunting

grounds of the Mughal emperors, dating to the period between

1656 and 1668. “As a preliminary step, an ass is tied near the

spot where the gamekeepers have ascertained the lion retires.

The wretched animal is soon devoured, and after so ample a

meal the lion never seeks for other prey, but without molesting

either oxen, sheep or shepherds, goes in quest of water, and

after quenching his thirst, returns to his former place of

retirement”. For several days he is fed asses and when they

know that the king is coming they start to tie an ass “down

whose throat a large quantity of opium has been forced. This

last meal is of course intended to produce a soporific effect

upon the lion’. (TRAVELS IN THE MOGUL EMPIRE AD 1656—1668

Francois Bernier, an improved edition by Archibald

Constable, first published 1891, page 378.) He then goes on

to describe how this dazed, opium sodden lion is surrounded

by huge nets which are drawn closer and closer. The lion is

fully surrounded and then the king appears on an elephant

and fires at the lion through the net, etc! Bernier’s descriptions

are very valuable as unlike the chroniclers of those times there

is no bias. The lion is shown as doped and shot without any

risk and the process totally stage managed. The chroniclers

would narrate the same encounter describing “the ferocious

lion” and the story of “bravery and courage” of the great

emperor in its dispatch. They were like public relations

managers for the kings. This was written for the public in

order that they believe in the power of the king over the king

of the jungle. I leave it to Divyabhanusinh and Ranjitsinh to

decide which version they want to believe. They seem to have

great faith in the descriptions associated with the chroniclers!

I do not. The tameness associated with the lion in India goes

back into history. That is not so with the tiger. Just the first

hand description by Bernier should cast doubts on the natural

presence of lions in India! Surely anyone with common sense

will ask the question — Was this a wild lion or one introduced

in an enclosure for the hunt?

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW OF EXOTIC ALIENS FROM AUTHORS

7. On page 12, the reviewers contest my estimates of

Blackbuck in India. This has to be at best speculative. And

while speculating about what they consider that the thousands

of lions and cheetahs ate, they should not forget the tens of

thousands of wolves and hyenas, etc.

8. On page 12, the authors of the JBNHS review state

that they have seen prides of 26 lions in Gir. I do not doubt

that, as Ihave seen a pride of 18 there. If the authors had read

our book carefully they would have noted that my interest in

prides and their numbers concerned pre-1890 observations!

So this comment has nothing to do with our book.

9. On page 12, the reviewers discuss the issue of lions

crossing rivers. I have been fortunate to watch lions in Africa

including the Okavango for more than six months and still

am convinced that the lion could not have crossed the Indus.

But again all this is my opinion and the speculation by all of

us (including the reviewers) is without any scientific evidence!

10. In the last paragraph, page 12 and the first

paragraph, page 13, the authors claim that my conjectures on

what the Nawab of Junagadh did cannot be accepted as fact.

I have never asked anyone to accept it as fact. It is however

what all the information collected points to and is therefore a

credible conjecture. The chroniclers of the Mughals never

discussed the fact of opium sodden lions being killed by kings!

Should anyone investigating lion hunting believe solely in

the chroniclers’ “facts”? The narratives of the past all point

to a high degree of domestication of the lion in India,

especially after 1890 and in Junagadh. I have no reason to

doubt this even if the records of the Nawab of Junagadh state

it differently. Anyone who studies these issues must keep in

mind the bias of the chroniclers.

11. In the second paragraph, page 13, the reviewers

talk of Jahangir’s lion hunts. I have read Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri

and I am not impressed because the chroniclers’ accounts are

questionable. As far as Iam concerned, the reality of the lion

hunt is how Francois Bernier described it between 1656 and

1668, as stated in point 6 of this response. The authors further

mention the Anup Rai incident of 1610. This has been dealt

with in detail by Yusuf Ansari and shows how easily the

chroniclers interchanged lion for tiger and vice versa

(See text and ‘pictures on pp. 87, 88, and 96, 97; 98:

Divyabhanusinh and Ranjitsinh state that “Jahangir goes on

to record that in a span of 39 years he had shot 86 lions.”

Archibald Constable is very clear in 1891 in his improved

edition of TRAVELS IN THE MOGUL EMPIRE by Francois Bernier

(page 379) that this record is of 86 tigers and not lions. Iam

more inclined to believe him. There are several scholars who

believe that it was tigers that were mainly shot, though much

confusion was caused by the chroniclers on this issue of lions

and tigers and I can understand the confusion of the authors

100

of this review. But it is clear that such records were not based

on fact and had different interpretations by different people.

Lions were also much more precious than tigers and this fact

is abundantly clear in early hunting narratives referred to in

the book.

12. On page 13, paragraph 4, the reviewers discuss the

words Shir and Babr and the confusion that results from this.

Yusuf Ansari has dealt with this issue in detail from pages

95-99.

13. On page 13 the reviewers discount all the amazing

information that Giovanni Francesco Gemeli Careri, the

Italian traveller provides and instead of enquiring into the

reasons for hand to hand combat with lions, or how many

lions entered Goa from Africa, the authors choose to ignore

and dismiss some fascinating nuggets of information from

the 17th century. I believe that any historical enquiry requires

an open mind in order to pursue information. How many lions

arrived from Africa on India’s coastline? Subsequent to the

publication of the book, I have found records of the 15th

century where the Chinese used Calicut as a transit point

where they even landed giraffes and lions! The Chinese

returned with “sundry unusual commodities, as well as

ostriches, lions, and yet another giraffe; such animals were

easily transported across the Red Sea from Ethiopia’. Could

any of these lions have been destined for India and not just in

transit to China? We know giraffes were found in the stone

sculpture of the Sun Temple in Konark.

14. On page 14, the reviewers state that my captions of

lions in a fenced area could be an attempt to “deliberately

mislead the gullible”. If Divyabhanusinh and Ranjitsinh

believe that the painting on page 10 [of the review] with a

foreground and background of what appears to be a wooden

fence is actually stylized trees, then that is their choice. What

about the paintings on pages 122 and 129 [ExoTIc ALIENS]?

There are scores of miniature paintings of lion hunts in India

during the Mughal period where lions are killed in enclosures

and the authors of this review need to examine them in much

greater detail. The entire concept of the royal hunt in Mughal

India was stage managed to perfection and there are endless

visuals depicting this both in EXOTIC ALIENS and in scores of

other Mughal paintings.

15. On page 15, the reviewers claim that some of my |

statements are untrue, e.g., The Maharaja of Bikaner shot

3,300 sandgrouse in one shoot. This shoot is credited to him

even though it is obvious that other members participated. I

am not suggesting that the person singly killed 3,300

sandgrouse himself! In any case, this example is illustrated

to reveal the extent to which the royals stage-managed shoots.

In a way, they were massacres that took place in the guise of

sport and till the ban on hunting was enforced in 1970 this

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW OF EXOTIC ALIENS FROM AUTHORS

royal tradition continued. The killing was done to acquire

records and compete with others. The same is true about

paintings of African animals that are found in palaces across

India — and not only paintings in places like Dungarpur but

stuffed animals from Africa are also found in many palaces.

Again the context of this is to reveal the connection that

existed between the continents and no one can deny either of

the above points. So these comments of the reviewers are

unnecessary.

16. On the second para of page 15, the reviewers discuss

the use of cheetahs. It is not my concern whether Wankaner

had or did not have cheetahs since I am quoting from

V.D. Sharma and K. Sankhala. I am given to understand that

Kutch and Jamnagar had coursing cheetahs in the 19th century,

as did endless other princely states. Is there any denying that

scores of states used hunting cheetahs and that it was an all

prevalent fashion at that time? Would the reviewers consider

this to be false or true? That is the question.

17. On page 15, it is Archibald Constable (1891), who

when discussing Bernier’s descriptions of lions and lion

hunting states categorically that “Except in Kathiawar lions

are very rarely met with in any part of India now.”

18. On page 15, the reviewers suggest that one of my

critical quotes from ORIENTAL FIELD SPORTS by Thomas

Williamson may not be true or could be an effort to mislead.

It shocks me that these two wildlife conservationists have

not read this book based on hunting in India in the late 18th

century. It would reveal to them what people who traversed

India thought about the presence of lions in that time. The

quote states “As to lions there are none in Hindoostan... the

only one ever seen in that country was that sent from Ghod in

1781, as a present to Mr. Hastings, then Governor General of

India. It was considered as a unique animal and has been

brought from the north of Persia, where it’s said to abound.”

It is surprising that the authors of the review have missed this

vital fact. Do they believe that Williamson’s statement of the

state of affairs is misleading or false? Not only is he categoric

that there are no lions in Hindoostan but goes on to say that it

was considered a unique animal and the only one imported in

1781 was from the north of Persia. He covers not just their

absence but also their import and this book was one of the

first epics to cover hunting across India in a span of 20 years

during the last part of the 18th century. And this at a moment

of time in the 18th century when the decimation of lions by

the British as many would like to believe had not even started!

So did the British hunt lions when they were none to hunt?

How could they be responsible for the near absence of lions

in the 19th century? Do the reviewers consider Williamson a

liar? Are they not at least suspicious that lions may have been

absent? I am not given to misleading people and any genuine

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

errors in my book will be corrected in the new edition and

more information added to my hypothesis. At the same time

that Williamson wrote this, Thomas Pennant referred to the

debate that raged in India about lions “Here was a royal

menagerie, and the breed had propagated from the beasts that

had escaped.” Pennant was a very well-known naturalist of

the 18th century. If Pennant, with others in the 18th century,

could reflect suspicions of the origins of wild lions and

whether they were escapees from a royal menagerie, surely

Divyabhanusinh and Ranjitsinh can at least be suspicious

225 years later. After all, there has to be in all of us a sense of

historical enquiry which we pursue without bias, and no one

who claims to be a student of history could ignore or not read

what Williamson said. My hypothesis was not a figment of

my imagination. The very basis of it was being discussed in

the 18th century! I will spell out the quote for the reviewers.

This statement by Williamson is made in a chapter entitled

‘Jackals Rescuing a Hunted Brother’ and is on page 116,

paragraph 1 of the 1984 edition edited by Antony Atha

Publishers Ltd, of which 350 copies were printed. I have in

my possession copy 224. The book is a reprint of ORIENTAL

FIELD SPORTS: “being a complete, detailed, and accurate

description of the wild sports of the East and exhibiting in a

novel and interesting manner the natural history of the

elephant, the rhinoceros, the tiger, the leopard, the bear, the

deer, the buffalo, the wolf, the wild hog, the jackall, the wild

dog, the civet, and other undomesticated animals...’’. It goes

on to say on the title page “original, authentic, and curious

anecdotes” with a “FAITHFUL REPRESENTATION OF THAT

PICTURESQUE COUNTRY” by Williamson who in the 18th century

spent “upwards of 20 years” in India. Please note that the

lion is not mentioned in the list of animals on the title page,

and is relegated to oblivion in this narrative. At least

Divyabhanusinh and Ranjitsinh should ask the question —

Why did Williamson say what he did on lions? This book is

based on Williamson’s first hand information of India’s wild

animals in the last three decades of the 18th century. This is

when if there were any numbers of wild lions in India they

would have figured in his narrative. Why were lions not a

part of his descriptions? Why do they not figure? The only

answer I have is that they did not exist and no one in the 18th

century talked of them! Can you just arbitrarily dismiss vital

clues and information like the above that come from the past?

Was Williamson a liar and falsifying information on India’s

wildlife? Anyone with a sense of enquiry into the natural

history of animals would be very suspicious of the presence

of lions in India after reading this book. I also have the

1819 edition of the book in which this quote appears on

paragraph 2, page 130, volume 1. I hope that the authors of

this “scientific paper’, as it has been portrayed, will find time

101

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW OF EXOTIC ALIENS FROM AUTHORS

to read the vital para and I hope it triggers in them at least a

suspicion regarding the absence of the lion in India,

irrespective of Sir Charles D’Oyly’s paintings of lion hunts,

for which we have no evidence whether they took place in an

enclosure or elsewhere (paragraph 2, page 16 of the review).

19. A premise of the book is that such lion hunts as

took place were staged and when they were not, they surprised

the hunters who were expecting to kill tigers and not lions.

The appearance of the lion could shock locals and even the

hunter, who had not seen it before and therefore people like

James Forbes in 1781 believed that they existed on the borders

of Persia. Paragraph 3, page 16 of the review refer to pages

136-138 of ExoTic ALIENS. The authors of the review suggest

that my statements are contrary. They are not.

20. In paragraph 6 of page 16, the reviewers maintain

records of lions shot in Delhi and Haryana during the mutiny.

THE BOOK OF THE TIGER, with a Chapter on The Lion in India

by R.G. Burton, 1933, makes fascinating reading where he

states on pages 273 and 274 that “The Bengal Sporting

Magazine for 1833 contains a good account of a lion hunt in

Harriana...”. The lion hunt is then described. Burton goes on

to state “This hunt must have taken place before 1830 for in

the same magazine in 1831 Major Brown had written that the

lion was ‘once very numerous in Harriana but there is not

one to be found now; the whole of the most favoured tract for

them was travelled last year by a gentleman who did not hear

of one’.” Obviously there was much confusion about the lion’s

presence and Burton goes to the extent of discounting the

date of the hunt since the area was recorded as having no

lions in 1930! This would make anyone suspicious and as far

as I can see these hunts must have been preplanned and staged,

otherwise all these contradictions could not have taken place.

Burton goes on to state that “The naturalist Blyth, writing in

The India Sporting Review in 1856 says that a lion was killed

in Shekawat in 1834. A year later, he remarks that “It is curious

that not even a tradition remains of the former existence of

that grand and most prominently conspicuous animal in the

Harriana territory. The lapse of centuries will sufficiently

account for all remembrances of the Rhinoceros having long

ceased on the banks of the Indus, where the Mogul Emperor

Babar hunted it, and has left so clear a description of the

huge beast in his memoirs that there can be no doubt whatever

on the subject... It is indeed strange that the King of Beasts

should in so very few years have been utterly lost to

recollection of the native inhabitants of Harriana.” This is

the naturalist Blyth writing in 1856, and clearly saying that

not a tradition remains of its existence and it is utterly lost to

the recollection of the natives. Blyth finds this curious and

strange. He had the same seeds of suspicion that I have, and

in 1856, just before the so-called records of lions killed from

102

1857-1858 in Haryana and Delhi by Col. A. Smith. And then,

there is Major Brown who states that there is not one lion to

be found in Haryana in 1831. In fact those who travel these

tracts do not even hear of one. Burton only quoted Blyth and

Brown because it was strange and pointed to the lion’s absence

in areas where it should have flourished. Surely

Divyabhanusinh and Ranjitsinh should at least have doubts

and suspicions about this issue when so many did in the 18th

and 19th centuries! I for one question the records of lions

killed by Col. A. Smith.

21. On page 17, the reviewers have published a picture

of two lions and make the comment “A pair of mature black

maned lion in the Gir, refutes the belief that Indian lion had

only a sparse, light coloured mane’. They should read what

Sir J. Fayrer K.C.S.1., M.D., F.R.S. stated in a paper entitled

“Destruction of Life by Wild Animals and Venomous Snakes

in India”. The paper was read at the Society of Arts on

February 1, 1878. Fayrer says of the lion in India “It seems to

belong now more to the African than the Asiatic fauna, and

probably attains a greater size in Africa. It is of various tints

of colour; in India it is of a pale tawny hue, wanting the dark

rufous tinge, and has a comparatively scanty mane, which is

not so dark in colour than the African variety, and has the

median line of hair on the abdomen less developed.” He goes

on to say “some of the male Indian lions are nearly devoid of

mane; the female is always maneless”. And further “Its range

in India is now very limited, and it would appear to gradually

becoming extinct.” J. Fayrer was not even able to ascertain

records of how many lions were killed by man or how many

men were killed by lions and only because of the tiny numbers

of lions that existed! For tigers and leopards, the figures are

in thousands. For lions, the figures for years on end cannot

be ascertained. Surely Divyabhanusinh and Ranjisinh should

be asking questions about the lion’s presence since so many

that ruled both forest and country in the 19th century were

talking about maneless lions, a paucity of records, and

near extinction! For me the whole matter is questionable and

it is information like this that builds the premise of what I

believe about lions and cheetahs in EXOTIC ALIENS. After all,

Sir J. Fayrer could not have been misleading his reading public

on the facts of those times!

22. On page 17, the reviewers speculate on the number

of lions left in Gir at the end of the century. I will not join this

speculation. I have quoted in EXOTIC ALIENS (pages 155-156)

an official record of the British Government from a book

entitled THE INDIAN EMPIRE, ITS PEOPLE, HISTORY, PRODUCTS, by

Sir William Wilson Hunter, which states clearly “In 1893

when the Durbar became alarmed at the extinction of lions, a

rough census was taken... there are now estimated to be only

20 lions remaining in Gir of which 8 are cubs.” I don’t think

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW OF EXOTIC ALIENS FROM AUTHORS

anyone can be more specific. In 1869, Hunter was responsible

for a statistical survey of India and its dominions which were

later reduced and formed the volumes of The Imperial

Gazetteer of India. In the present volume Hunter distilled the

essence of all his work on India, and in an earlier edition of

THE INDIAN EMPIRE (1886) he states “The Lion is now confined

to Gir, or rocky hill-desert and forest of Kathiawar. A peculiar

variety is there found marked by the almost total absence of

a mane; but whether this variety deserves to be classed as a

distinct species, naturalist have not yet determined. The lion

has now almost entirely disappeared; and the official Gazetteer

of Kathiawar states that there are [1884] probably not more

than ten or a dozen lions and lionesses left in the whole Gir

forest tract.” (page 652). I cannot doubt Hunter. Can there be

a more credible person to listen to? Do Divyabhanusinh and

Ranjitsinh think that this statistician is misleading his readers

or falsifying facts? Would they like to correct him? He has

called the lion “peculiar” and “maneless”’!

23. On page 19, paragraph 4, the reviewers again have

got their facts wrong. O’ Brien’s statement is very much in the

book on page 18 of ExoTIC ALIENS. In fact, in paragraph 3 of the

said page, Professor Romila Thapar comments on this fact!

24. ADDITIONAL points (a) Divyabhanusinh and

Ranjitsinh seem convinced that lions were plenty and roamed

northern India and this irrespective of what others in those

times felt. Let us look at Francois Bernier’s first hand

description of a lion that escaped the enclosure in which he

was being hunted. Firstly the fact that “during the last hunt,

that the enraged animal leaped over the net, rushed upon a

trooper whose horse he killed and then effected his escape

for a time”. If there were plenty of lions why were they

escaping and to where? The word escape in a hunt can only

mean that there were so few that each one was looked after!

In this firsthand description, the lion is hunted within a netted

enclosure and there are no “stylized trees” as backdrops!

“Being pursued by the huntsmen he was at length found and

again enclosed in nets.” He goes on to add “The whole army

was on that occasion subjected to great inconveniences and

thrown into a considerable degree of confusion. We remained

three or four days patrolling in a country intersected with

torrents from the mountains, and covered with underwood,

and long grass that nearly concealed the camels.” Can you

imagine thousands of people chasing a single lion over a few

days and if lions were free ranging and plentiful could this

ever happen? Why was the army going out to catch the escapee

and net it again when hundreds of other lions were supposed

to roam in the area? Was it for the next hunt? Was it to return

it to the royal menagerie? Does it not reveal how precious

each lion was and how few they were? Bernier believed that

any escaped lion was a signal of a bad omen but his entire

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

description on pages 378 and 379 can only point to the very

few lions that existed in the 1660s! The reviewers need to

ask themselves whether Bernier was misleading the public,

lying, or falsifying what he saw with his very own eyes or...

[TRAVELS IN THE MOGUL EMPIRE by Francois Bernier.] As far as

escaped coursing cheetahs are concerned, it is clear that great

care was taken by the handlers to prevent their escape and

many must have escaped. See page 214 of EXOTIC ALIENS. The

authors of the review mention cheetah catchers and their role.

I have clearly shown on page 194 a painting of cheetah

catching in a fenced enclosure and this clearly is not of

‘stylized trees’! They were therefore caught regularly when

they managed to escape in these enormous hunting grounds

after a hunt. To me this is plain and simple common sense.

(b) If the reviewers had glanced at the fascinating paper

“A Lion’s Share of Attention: Archaeozoology and the

Historical Record” by L. Bartosiewicz (2009, Institute of

Archaeological Sciences, Budapest, Hungary) where the

author states “Craniological traits of the now extinct North

African Barbary Lion (Panthera leo leo Linnaeus) and Asiatic

Lions (Panthera leo persica Meyer, 1826) are very similar.

There must have been a contiguous population inhabiting

North Africa and Asia.” He then goes on to say “It is possible,

that the lion populations of Asia were not contiguous in recent

historical times, since no lions were reported either from

eastern Iran or Afghanistan”. I ask the question that could the

North African lion have been imported into India? Would

such imports explain the near absence of them and the lack

of numbers in their natural state? It might explain why

Afghanistan had none.

Let’s see what Bartosiewicz says about imports. He

states “Stocks of Barbary Lion, the largest of all subspecies,

had served as a steady supply to Europe throughout Antiquity:

for example Sulla staged 100 “maned” lions in Rome in the

2nd century Bc, a gift of King Bocchus of Mauretania. It was

certainly from Africa that Claudian believed that Stilicho

would obtain the “superb lions” (eximii leones) for display at

his consular games.” He goes on to say “In a number of

AD 3rd-4th century mosaics, mostly from North Africa, great

hunting parties are depicted, with animals being captured,

packed, and shipped to various destinations so that they could

be put on stage.” Is it so unbelievable to consider that one of

the destinations was also India where local rulers could boast

on a stage about their “royal” acquisitions? Throughout ExoTIc

ALIENS, both in text and visual, there is enough information to

suggest that from the 16th to 20th century, lions were kept in

royal menageries for use in the royal court and for possible

ceremonial hunts. Menageries were holding and breeding

stations for animals like lions and surely it is possible that

small numbers of lions were imported from time to time to

103

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW OF EXOTIC ALIENS FROM AUTHORS

replenish stocks. Should we not be open to this? Is it so

unbelievable when the trafficking in live lions was all

pervasive across the world? I believe in this premise. It only

makes for common sense!

Bartosiewicz also talks of supply from the reedy

marshlands around the Tigris and Euphrates “The area had a

long tradition of exporting lions. Those captured in Northern

Mesopotamia were sent to Constantinople (mid 4th century

CE) especially for the games organized by the emperor’. Why

is it so difficult to believe that some lions entered India because

of the same reasons? And even more fascinating is the

hijacking of lions in transit! Bartosiewicz states “Gaius

Cassius (?85 BCE-42 BCE) quaestor of Syria ordered the

shipment of live lions (presumably of local, Syrian origins)

to Italy but the transport was hijacked at the ancient city of

Megara in Attica (northern section of the Isthmus of Corinth)

on the way to Italy.” Live lions were moving all over the

world and anything was possible! Bartosiewicz goes on to

state “Following their extinction in Antiquity, therefore, lions

would have been very costly beasts in most places and the

expense members of the elite were willing to go through just

to put them on display illustrates the hypothetical kudos

attached to these animals”.

He goes on to discuss the confusion such imports can

create “Finally, in light of the copious historical record, one

must also reckon with encountering the skeletons of imported,

live lions during the later periods of Antiquity and beyond.

This is what makes the latest known lion finds identified at

Hellenistic colonies in the studied regions so difficult to

interpret. It is not really possible to tell, whether later [ron

Age finds are the last survivors of the East European

population, or the first imports by new settlers.” Frankly as

far as India is concerned such research should prove

fascinating! That imports of lions took place in recent history

I have no doubt. I hope that from all this information serious

observers at least approach this issue with an open mind.

Bartosiewicz goes on to state “To date, the medieval lion skulls

from the Tower provide the most unambiguous osteological

104

evidence for historic trafficking in lions.” All the information

I have collected points to the trafficking of live lions in India’s

recent history and I hope further investigation will add new

light to this premise.

25. The unsavoury remarks on page 20 of the review

on the content of the book and the fact that it was created as

part of a one-upmanship in the interest of the tiger in order to

“buttress the image of one iconic species” does not even deserve

a reply as it is so ridiculous. I am the first one to admit that I

am not an academic or that this book EXOTIC ALIENS was not put

together as a scholarly work (see first para on page 228 of

EXOTIC ALIENS). | am also clear that if my premise is proved

wrong I am happy to be corrected (page 20, last paragraph

EXOTIC ALIENS). I hope that such critiques which skip over the

facts and are without any sense of curiosity, enquiry, or even

suspicion of the past history of the lion and cheetah in India,

are not the basis of further research and debate. May I suggest

to Divyabhanusinh and Ranjitsinh that they explore the

narratives of the past in much greater detail than they have

done, because staring them in the face are all the questions

about lions that have been raised by Linschoten, Careri, Bernier,

Williamson, Pennant, Major Brown, Blyth, and many others.

Could all of them have been misleading the public? Yes, it is

correct that we have no evidence of bulk imports of lions and

cheetahs. But we never claimed to have! If we did then the

issue would be a closed chapter. Our hope is that the future

unravels some more information from both the sense of

curiosity in others and an openness on these issues, unlike what

this so called critique claims it is doing. I know that over

hundreds of years some of these people mentioned above kept

open minds in order to question the presence of lions in India.

If Divyabhanusinh and Ranjitsinh did the same, they would

agree that EXOTIC ALIENS may be seen as a starting point drawing

attention to an information base for further research and

investigation into the near absence of the lion and cheetah in

India’s recent natural history. That, in fact, was the very simple

objective of all three authors. We hope this book will be a

catalyst in that endeavour.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(2), May-Aug 2013

EXOTIC ALIENS

105-107

TION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A REJOINDER

TO AUTHORS’ RESPONSE TO OUR REVIEW

M.K. RANoITSINH! AND DivYABHANUSINH2’*

'Former Director, Wildlife Preservation, Govt. of India, 5 Tiger Lane (W6-C lane), Sainik Farms, New Delhi 110 062, India.

Email: mkranjitsinh @ gmail.com

*President, WWF-India, 172-B, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi 110 003, India. Email: sawaj_cheetah @rediffmail.com

*Corresponding author

In response to our critique appearing in the Journal of

the Bombay Natural History Society 110(1): 3-21, Jan—Apr

2013, the authors of EXOTIC ALIENS: THE LION AND THE CHEETAH

IN INDIA have come forth with a response to be published in

the May—August 2013 issue. We have been asked to give our

rejoinder to the same.

At the outset, we do not wish to enter into a sparring

debate with the authors, especially since they have not brought

forth any additional proof, nor given any incontrovertible

evidence to support their contention that lions and cheetahs

were introduced into India by humans. However, since they

have given a lengthy rebuttal to our critique, it would be

appropriate to briefly discuss some of the salient issues raised.

Firstly, ours is not a review of the book in question, as

its authors contend, but a critique of the theory of lions and

cheetahs being introduced in India by man, which is the very

raison d’étre of the book and indeed, its main purport. We

will, therefore, mainly confine our rejoinder to this central

issue, rather than delve into semantics revolving around

conjectures and the veracity or the lack of it, of the various

authors quoted.

We have cited specific fossil evidence of lion in

Sri Lanka and in the Bankura district of West Bengal

(page 18), and of archaeological finds of bones of the cheetah

of the Mature Harappan Period (c. 3000-2500 Bcg), found in

Kanmer, Gujarat, and also in Uttar Pradesh of a later date

(page 7). All the three authors in their response have chosen to

simply avoid any mention of this incontrovertible proof. Is

this how evidence is to be treated, in either history or science?

In response to our mention of lion and cheetah being

painted in rock art during the Neolithic/Chalcolithic period

(2500-3000 sce), Professor Romila Thapar states that the

dating method of rock art remain controversial. Not entirely.

We would draw attention to the work done to analyze samples

of rock art from the Bhopal region, to determine their

mineralogical and chemical composition, 14C dating, micro-

erosion analysis, and optically stimulated luminescence

dating. Prof. Thapar further claims that lions were brought

into India just before the Mauryan period. Under no

circumstances are these rock paintings of a period as late as

that. Of the ostensible cheetah import, the authors do not

venture to offer a date. Are we to presume that cheetahs were

imported in the Sultanate/Mughal period when they came

into “fashion” and that these rock paintings of cheetah

therefore, belong to the medieval period of Indian history?

Prof. Thapar describes rock paintings of cheetah and

leopard depicted in figures 1 and 2 of our critique, as almost

bovine. Of course, the paintings are slightly stylized. But

whether the stilt-like legs of the cheetah and the paws and

tails depicted in both paintings are characteristics of bovids

or of felids, we would let the viewers decide. Prof. Thapar

goes on to say that “There is a world of difference between

the so-called cheetah and the recognizable leopard in the

reproductions.” That is precisely why the two paintings have

been reproduced in our critique — to show the world of

difference between the two spotted cats, between the cheetah

and the leopard depicted in the paintings.

We had mentioned in our critique that whilst the

lion and cheetah are labelled as exotic aliens in the book,

Prof. Thapar mentions India as the indigenous habitat of the

tiger. What does this imply — that the tiger is indigenous to

India and therefore has evolved here? Our query is deftly

circumvented by her statement “Am I maintaining that India

was where they (tigers) evolved?” Since the entire book EXxoTIC

ALIENS is dedicated to prove the exotic origin of the lion and

cheetah in India and the tiger is deemed to be indigenous, the

readers of the book as much as ourselves, would be eager to

know whether the authors of the book believe the

“indigenous” tiger to have evolved indigenously in India, or

to have come from outside of India and hence an exotic alien

like the lion and cheetah. This question remains evaded and

unanswered in the response of the three authors.

The authors, neither in the book ExoTIC ALIENS nor in

their rejoinder, mention as to how the cheetah came to Iran.

It must, therefore, be presumed that they accept that the animal

arrived in Iran on its own and where it continues to exist

even today. Indeed, the cheetah survived in Baluchistan in

Pakistan, at least till the last decade of the last century. If the

cheetah could still survive in the Saharan Desert and cross

all the way from southern Africa where it evolved, right

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A REJOINDER TO AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

through the length of Africa and the deserts of the Middle

East and Iran, could it not have travelled a few more miles

from arid Baluchistan to Sindh and the rest of India? Cheetah

were reported in Turbat (S.E. Baluchistan) in 1968, in Chagai

(N.E. Baluchistan) in 1997 and in Ormara right on the Mekran

coast of Baluchistan, some distance west of Karachi, also in

1997 (Divyabhanusinh 2006, page 197). Could the cheetah

not have emulated and followed the dispersal routes of the

spotted hyena, the gazelle, the lugubrious little pangolin, and

even the tiny ratel (honey badger) and the even smaller hares?

If these species could have crossed the deserts and the Indus,

could not the lion and the cheetah? Or did these smaller and

more water-averse species, according to the hypothesis of

the authors vis-a-vis the arrival of lions in India, all arrive in

India transported by man, from Balkh, Badakhshan,

Afghanistan or elsewhere? Or were they also brought in on

sea-faring vessels, as the cheetah has supposed to have come?

Or is it expostulated that the gazelles, pangolins, ratel,

and the rest went through Afghanistan and then crossed the

Indus upstream? If the waters of the lower Indus, according

to the authors, posed an insurmountable barrier, would not a

crossing upstream in upper Sindh and the Punjab where the

Indus flows much deeper and faster, be even more difficult?

Yet arrive in India they did, these species. So how? In the

past millennia, the Indus flowed much more eastwards than

it does now and was broader and shallower. Besides, the

climate of the world has been different in the past. Sahara

held giraffes even till historical times, as rock carvings in the

Niger Sahara and rock paintings in the Libyan Sahara, prove.

This implies the existence of tree flora, without which giraffes

could not have survived. This biota would have greatly

facilitated the lion and the cheetah to live in the Sahara and

to cross over into North Africa. Would not there have been

more vegetation then also in the Middle East and in

Baluchistan? On their long, long journey from southern

Africa, did the lion and cheetah not have to cross large rivers

other than the Indus? The authors of the book are perhaps

aware of these facts. But then the acceptance of them, and of

the natural passage of the lion and cheetah from Baluchistan

into Sindh and across the Indus into India like the gazelle,

pangolin, ratel, and the rest, would make the book ExoTICc

ALIENS redundant.

The book EXOTIC ALIENS does not give a single citation

of an import before the 20th century, or release or escape

from captivity of imported lion or cheetah, at any point of

time. Neither does the lengthy response from the authors of

the book. Indeed, they have admitted the lack of evidence in

this regard. At one point Valmik Thapar admits that his surmise

is based upon “a credible conjecture’. Are the readers to accept

a theory based upon “credible conjectures” without the

106

support of valid evidence and in contradiction of

incontrovertible evidence to the contrary? If the absence of

some species in Harappan seals or in some art forms, or the

lack of evidence of lions having occupied the Mekran coast

in Baluchistan in the past, is to be regarded as proof of the

absence of those species on Indian soil, should not by the

same token the absence of the mention of any import of lion

and cheetah into India, in any account, contemporary or

otherwise, even medieval or modern prior to the 20th century,

be accepted as proof that no such import was carried out? It

is surprising that a historian of the repute of Prof. Thapar

should choose to come to conclusions without the support of

historical evidence.

Prof. Thapar and Valmik Thapar state that it was never

their intention to refer to the cheetah and the lion in derogatory

terms, the latter going on to say that “Millions love dogs and

mongrels across the world”. Are we then to assume that

epithets such as dogs, mongrels, “khichdi’, imposters, etc.,

are terms of endearment, or are apt descriptions of lion,

cheetah, or for that matter of any wild animal, in writings

pertaining to history, science, or literature?

The authors repeatedly mention the gift of cheetahs to

Indian nobility. But there is no evidence of import of cheetahs

for gift. Valmik Thapar cites page 21 of the book on which

there is a reproduction of a painting of Jesuit priests

“presenting” cheetahs to Jahangir. The cheetahs in the picture

are being handled by Mughal retainers and could have

belonged to Emperor Jahangir himself, whose love for the

animal is well-known and the depiction of cheetahs at the

Mughal court is a common subject in numerous Mughal

paintings. Even if it be accepted that they were being brought

by the priests to court for presentation, could they not have

been acquired in India where the Mughals themselves and

others were capturing and taming cheetah in large numbers?

Where is the evidence of cheetah import? Thomas

Williamson’s statement that there are no lions in “Hindoostan”’

in the last decades of the 18th century, is regarded by Valmik

Thapar as the final verdict on the absence of the animal in

India. Did Williamson travel to Gujarat or to the Gwalior

region of Madhya Pradesh, in both of which areas lions were

still to be widely found in this very period, the proof of which

has been given in a book written by Divyabhanusinh?

Williamson’s entire work is a vignette of his shikar

experiences in Bengal only, which was not the habitat of the

lion or of the cheetah. Valmik Thapar also chooses to ignore

Sir Charles D’Oyley’s work, which is contemporaneous and

has in it lions, cheetahs, tigers, and others, all of which are

prominently portrayed in the work.

Mr. Valmik Thapar in his response says that the two of

us are correct in saying that many of his statements are not

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A REJOINDER TO AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

supported by evidence, are based upon wishful thinking and

that his desire was to stir a debate and to provoke research.

This standpoint is also endorsed by Prof. Yusuf Ansari, who

goes on to say that at no point has he drawn definite conclusions

and has only laid out “historiographical posers” and wanted to

stir a debate, and that from our response he has the satisfaction

of knowing that he has succeeded in some measure in this

regard. This, indeed, is a very refreshing approach. If the book

EXOTIC ALIENS had posed a hypothesis for consideration, it could

have given an impetus to research and to elucidation of available

evidence, historical and scientific. By that token, the authors

should have welcomed our response and accepted the

palaeontological and other evidence that we have put forth, or

given valid reasons for their non-acceptance.

Instead, the book comes to a definite conclusion on a

hypothesis based upon no credible evidence, to support a

preconceived notion, and when confronted with

incontrovertible proof, the authors, instead of addressing the

adduced evidence in an academic spirit, react angrily, indulge

in more obfuscations to further confuse the reader, and

continue to dogmatically adhere to an untenable surmise and

to defend an indefensible theory.

ERRATA

JBNHS 110(1) Jan-Apr 2013 pp. 3-21: ‘Lion and Cheetah in India: A Critique’

Page 4, left column 10th line from top:

For ... from where they moved westwards into the Indian subcontinent.

Read ... from where they moved eastwards into the Indian subcontinent.

Page 4, left column 20th line from top:

For... westward march from Iran.

Read ... eastward march from Iran.

Page 5, right column 4th line from top:

For ... colonization westwards stopped on the borders of Iran, ...

Read ... colonization eastwards stopped on the borders of Iran, .

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

107

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(2), May-Aug 2013

108-113

THE “EXOTIC ALIENS” CONTROVERSY: A VIEW FROM AFAR

STEPHEN J. O’ BRIEN!

'Theodosius Dobzhansky Center for Genome Bioinformatics, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia 199004.

Present Address: Oceanographic Center, Nova Southeastern University, Ft Lauderdale, Florida 33004, USA.

Email: lgdchief @ gmail.com

It seems that that the publication of EXOTIC ALIENS: THE

LION AND THE CHEETAH IN INDIA by noted historians and

chroniclers of natural history Valmik Thapar, Romila Thapar,

and Yusuf Ansari (henceforth referred to collectively as

Thapars and Ansari) last year has caused a bit of a stir, at

least in the conservation community in India. Thapars and

Ansari’s (2013) principal thesis reasons that there is now

compelling historical evidence to support the proposition that

both the wild lions and the now extinct cheetahs of India

derive from human assisted importation as far back as 2,000

to 3,000 years ago and subsequent release (or escape). Across

time, wildlife naturalists presumed they were native since

records of their introductions were scant and the species were

there. Today approximately 400 Asiatic Lions survive in the

Gir National Park in Gujarat State, while the last wild cheetah

record in India can be traced to 1968 (Divyabhanusinh 2006).

Thapars and Ansari have presented a learned, detailed,

and scholarly historical review of the amazing art, writings,

and science about the occurrence of the lion and cheetah in

India over recent years that was for myself delightful and

informative to read. They suggest that in contrast to tigers,

the paucity of reference to lions and cheetahs in literature

and art in historic times, since the printing press was invented,

raises the question of whether the two species were imported

from Africa by regal potentates as trophies or treasures. They

conclude that if that were true, it probably means there were

few if any wild populations of the two species in India, and

the myth of indigenous ancient Indian origins was propagated

by scribes simply restating conventional wisdom in their time.

EXOTIC ALIENS has been read and digested by many

wildlife lovers including experts of various perspectives. One

view published in the Journal of the Bombay Natural History

Society by wildlife conservation experts Dr. Divyabhanusinh

and Dr. M.K. Ranjitsinh (2013), disputes the conclusions of

the book strenuously and takes some offence at what they

consider a polemic with little supporting evidence. They refer

to important monographs on both species, including ones

penned by Divyabhanusinh (2006, 2008), and lay out a

detailed rebuttal to the book’s evidence (or rather lack thereof)

and conclusions. In some spots they impugn motives of the

authors’ using of pejorative, even inflammatory label-

“...exotic aliens, dogs, mongrels, imposters, khichdi, etc.”,

as a not so veiled strategy to deflect limited conservation

resources from cheetahs and lions to the entitled indigenous

tigers of India.

Perhaps in some part because either side of the debate

has cited my own works including “Tears of the Cheetah”

(O’Brien 2003), the editors of the Journal of the Bombay

Natural History Society have solicited my views, hoping to

offer an outside disinterested opinion on the flap. My own

background comes from a rich career employing genetic data

in wildlife species, including interpreting genomic footprints

in modern species’ DNA sequences that descend from the

silence of prehistory. I admit that I am interested in the

question, having studied lions, cheetahs, and tigers with my

students and fellows for many years.

Thapars and Ansari write that they believe lions and

cheetahs arrived in India for the first time 2,500 to 3,000

years ago, just before or during Alexander’s invasion of India

at 326 BceE (Thapar et al. 2013). Divyabhanusinh and

Ranyjitsinh (2013) argue that the bulk of the data suggests

otherwise that cheetahs and lions were here much earlier and

that labeling them as exotic aliens is both inaccurate and

misleading. They mention that Thapars and Ansari fail to

produce a single citation (aka no evidence) of any cheetah or

lion imports before the 20th century, and that Thapars and

Ansari actually admit to that. Divyabhanusinh and Ranjitsinh

(2013) resurrect the spirit of Carl Sagan’s timeless quotation:

“Absence of evidence in not evidence of absence!” Indeed,

they wonder how Thapars and Ansari can conclude that the

absence of historical records of cheetahs and lions indicates

they were not there, and at the same time ignore the absence

of documented evidence for cheetah or lion importation or

wild-release before the 20th century.

To resolve such a question boils down to reviewing

the substantiation offered for each side. To me, compelling

evidence can derive from three general areas: 1) Historical

records as those detailed by Thapars and Ansari;

2) Archaeological and palaeontological remains and their

dates; and 3) Molecular genetic inference based upon

molecular clock calibrated by fossil dates. Each of these

aspects is discussed in some detail by the provocateurs, so

how can they arrive at such polarized endpoints? The devil is

in the details. Every species comes from some place; this is

EXOTIC ALIENS CONTROVERSY: A VIEW FROM AFAR

the lesson of evolutionary history. Two precise questions may

be stated: when did cheetahs and lions appear in India, and

was their origin anthropogenic? Because the relevant data or

evidences are somewhat different for lions and cheetahs, I

shall discuss each species separately.

Lions: Lions are a member of the family Felidae, genus

Panthera that includes the great roaring cats (tiger, leopard,

snow leopard, and jaguar). The origin of Panthera is traced

to Asia 5-7 MYBP (million years before the present) according

to molecular and palaeontological evidence (Johnson et al.

2006; O’ Brien and Johnson 2007; Werdelin et al. 2009). Lion

precursors made it to Africa where the palaeontological record

reveals the first lions approximately 2MYA in Olduvai

deposits. Approximately 300,000 YBP, lion remains begin to

appear in northern and eastern Asia. Shortly thereafter,

enabled by lower ocean depths, lion precursors traversed the

Bering Strait into North America, where they flourished until

the end of the last ice age (10-12,000 YBP).

Thapars and Ansari (2013) detail written studies and

art that demonstrate the paucity of reference to wild lions in

the face of abundant descriptions of wild tiger encounters in

historic times. They also argue that lions cannot swim across

the Indus, based on their observation of the swimming lions

of Botswana Okavango. Divyabhanusinh (2008) presents an

equally detailed and learned account of lion references during

these periods as well.

No one disputes that Indian rulers treasured and held

lions, and I for one would not be surprised if they had imported

African lions on a few or multiple occasions. But does

importation and release preclude the existence of relict ancient

indigenous populations? Probably not. There occur to me

other examples where presumed absent or extinct fauna were

rediscovered. Florida panthers, black-footed ferrets, northern

elephant seals all were presumed extinct and reappeared. A

glaring re-emergence was the African elephant genus

Loxodonta, which was virtually absent from Africa palaeo-

fauna during most of the Pleistocene, while Elephas, the Asian

elephant genus, was predominant in palaeontological remains

in African savannahs (Maglio 1973; Sanders et al. 2010).

During the lower Pleistocene, Elephas fossils abruptly

disappeared from Africa, to be replaced by relict populations

of Loxodonta africana - savannah and Loxodonta cyclotis -

forest elephants that survive today (Maglio 1973; Roca et al.

2001; Sanders et al. 2010).

The fossil record clearly shows lions in Asia during

the Pliocene and Pleistocene. Divyabhanusinh and Ranjitsinh

(2013) quote several references that describe lion specimens

in Sri Lanka, India, and West Bengal during the Pleistocene

(~2MYBP) (Deraniyagala 1958; Dutta 1976; Manavendra-

Arachchi et al. 2005; Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). I should

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

mention that these lion pronouncements in recent archaeology

may be dicey, since it is quite difficult to discriminate lion

from tiger skulls, skeletons, or teeth morphologically.

Today around 400 wild lions live in the Gir Forest in

India and have been studied for genetic, ecological, and

taxonomic considerations. Their molecular genetic diversity

is dramatically reduced due to extreme population bottleneck

or founder effect in their recent history (Driscoll et al. 2002;

Gilbert et al. 1991; O’Brien et al. 1987a; Wildt et al. 1987) .

The two groups cite and acknowledge our genetic-based

estimate of the timing of the founder event (i.e., when Gir

lion ancestors dropped to very low number) at approximately

2,100 years ago (Driscoll et al. 2002). Thapars and Ansari

(2013) take this dating as support to their reasoning that the

modern Gir lions got there by human provenance around the

time Alexander’s army invaded India in 326 BCE.

Though at this stage you might believe here there is a

stalemate, the last data bits are revealing. A comprehensive

analysis of lion subspecies molecular genetic distance led by

Agostinho Antunes (Antunes et al. 2008) made two interesting

peints. First, the mass of all lion DNA diversity today in

Africa and Asia points to an origin of lion populations at

250,000 years ago (169,000-324,000 YBP) in Africa. Second,

there exists an appreciable genetic distance between

modern Gir and African lion populations, indicating they have

been separate populations (no gene flow between them)

for approximately 100,000 years. This means that for

100,000 years the Gir lions have been isolated from African

populations completely. This genetic distance approaches the

genetic distance between African and Asian leopards (169,000

YBP) and is greater than the genetic distance separating tigers

subspecies (approximately 72,000 YBP), which no one

suggests were human assisted (Table 1). The simplest

explanation would be that the Gir lions’ progenitors reached

Asia 97,000 years before Alexander, but were out-competed

by tigers, relegating the lions to small refugia or states outside

Table 1: Times of separation estimated by molecular genetics*

Species/subspecies/groups Dates Citations

Clouded leopard species 1.4 MYA Buckley Beason et al.

2006

Orangutan species 1.1-1.7MYA Lu et al. 1996

Asia vs. Africa lions 100,000 yrs. Antunes et al. 2008

Asia vs. Africa leopard 169,000 yrs. Uphyrkina et a/. 2001

5 living tiger subspecies 72,000 yrs. Luo et al. 2004

Asia vs. Africa cheetahs 4500-6500 yrs. O’Brien et al. 2014

Asia vs. Africa people 70,000 yrs. Forest and Matsumer

2005

* There are multiple additional citations supporting these dates

109

EXOTIC ALIENS CONTROVERSY: A VIEW FROM AFAR

of India that percolated until historic times. If something like

that did not separate Gir lion ancestors from Africa, I have no

explanation for the large genetic difference between African

and Asian lions living today.

Perhaps also of interest is the written science record

that consistently describes the range of the Asiatic lion

subspecies across Asia in prehistoric and historic times. Many

authors believed and wrote that lions had wide range in Asia

from northern Greece across south-west Asia to eastern India

(Guggisberg 1963; Joslin 1973; Neff 1983; Nowell and

Jackson 1996; Sunquist and Sunquist 2002; CSG-IUCN). I

am not sure if this qualifies as written evidence of sightings

or encounters, but these experts list explicit archaeological

evidence (see caveat above) and clearly believed the historic

range was occupied by lions for millennia before Alexander’s

adventures. Lastly, the prospect of Gir lions being “hybrids

or mongrels” would be easily revealed and apparent by genetic

inspection if it were so; but it was not. Gir lions are

homogeneous, genetically reduced, and a great genetic

distance from African cousins.

I should mention that the captive breeding programme

of Asiatic lions among world zoos in the 1980s was indeed

demonstrated to comprise subspecies hybrids, as two of seven

founder lions were shown to be of African origin (O’ Brien et

al. 1987b). This African “imposter” founder lion very likely

derived from captive zoo lions, since no African genetic

lineage was ever discovered among wild caught Gir lions

sampled in recent decades. This captive programme was

quickly halted by “pure subspecies” advocates, and that sordid

history may have been the source of the Thapars and Ansari’s

suggestion that Gir-Asian lions may be hybrids. Sorry for

that, but it did not impugn the ancestry of wild lions in the

Gir forest of Gujarat.

Cheetah: The fossil record is rather clear in

demonstrating that the cheetah genus Acinonyx developed in

North America during the Pliocene, 2-SMYBP (Neff 1983;

Johnson et al. 2006; O’ Brien and Johnson 2007; Werdelin et

al. 2009). Combined molecular, palaeontological, and

geological data imputed that the predecessors of American felid

species (puma, cheetah, and jaguarundi) traversed the Beringia

[now Bering] Straits from Asia to America in the late Miocene,

5—6.6 MYBP. Cheetah forbears appeared in Asia during the

Pleistocene, product of an earlier migration from North America

back across Alaska and Siberia to Central Asia, from which

they would migrate southward to colonise Africa in the late

Pleistocene (Johnson et al. 2006; O’ Brien and Johnson 2007;

Werdelin et al. 2009). The cheetah’s fossil record includes

specimens throughout Asia, plus the continued survival of

approximately 100 cheetahs in Iran parsed into seven or more

small isolated relict populations (National Conference on

110

Iranian Cheetah 2013; Nowell and Jackson1996). The last free-

ranging Indian cheetah died in 1948.

Cheetahs disappeared suddenly in the North American

Lower Pleistocene, part of the most extreme species extinction

in the 100 million years history of mammals. That cataclysmic

event eliminated 75 percent of large mammals from North

America, including mastodons, mammoths, giant ground

sloth, short-faced bears, saber-toothed tiger, American lions,

pumas, and cheetahs (Neff 1983). Modern cheetah species’

genetic depletion, debated, validated, and replicated on

multiple levels, was the consequence of a severe demographic

reduction, a population bottleneck, that occurred over time

and space within the past 10-20,000 years (Menotti-Raymond

and O’Brien 1993; O’Brien et al. 1983,1985, 1987c; O’ Brien

2003). We have suggested that the American extinction,

combined with the earlier geographic dispersal back to Asia

and Africa, likely precipitated demographic and genetic

reduction through behaviour reinforcement of large range

boundaries, leading to the derivative African cheetahs’

remarkable reduction in overall genic diversity. _

Thapars and Ansari present a detailed account of the

fascination that Indian Mughals, particularly Akbar, enjoyed

with captive menageries of cheetahs. Much of Thapars

and Ansari’s chapter on cheetahs is devoted to direct

quotations of recent writings describing cheetah occurrence.

Divyabhanusinh (2006) presented a learned account of these

historic periods as well. There can be no doubt that cheetahs

lived in India in historic times, that they were held in royal

compounds, and that they were trained to hunt in game

reserves. But were they African imports - imposters or native

indigenous species or perhaps both? In this case, the question

of evidence comes from two areas. First, archaeological and

palaeontological descriptions which suggest ample remains

that put cheetahs in Asia throughout the Pleistocene before

Alexander’s campaign (Guggisberg 1975; Nowell and

Jackson 1996; Sunquist and Sundquist 2002; Werdelin et al.

2009). Second is the molecular data, also informative but

requiring a bit of interpretation, which I shall attempt

(Charruau et al. 2011; O’Brien et al. in press).

With the existence of the Iranian cheetahs, there was a

nattering question even before EXOTIC ALIENS was published

that wondered, like Thapars and Ansari, whether the Iranian

cheetahs were an indigenous Asiatic population or possible

derivative of African imports. We knew that African cheetahs

were all descended from the putative population bottleneck

of the late Pleistocene,!0—20,000 YBP. But the Iranian

question was tricky because no one knew if the Iranian

animals descend from a pre-bottleneck cheetah ancestor or a

post-bottleneck cheetah ancestor. If it were pre-bottleneck,

i.c., they would show large genetic distances from African

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

EXOTIC ALIENS CONTROVERSY: A VIEW FROM AFAR

populations, similar to leopards, tigers, major human ethnic

groups on the order of 100,000 years (Table 1). If post-

bottleneck Iranian cheetahs descend from the same population

bottleneck, we expect that modern Asian cheetah genetic

diversity would be nested within overall African diversity at

<10-12000 years. Also if it were the latter, how could we tell

whether the Iranian cheetah was a post-bottleneck indigenous

Asian cheetah or a post bottleneck import from Africa? One

answer came when the genomic data were examined.

We examined mtDNA sequences from 21 African and

Iranian-Asia cheetah specimens representing four genes

(ATPase, ND5,12s-RNA,16S-RNA; 1498 BP). DNA

sequences of these genes showed distinct phylogenetic

separation for cheetah specimens from East Africa, South

Africa, Somalia, and Iran (O’ Brien et al. in press). The Iranian

cheetahs did show clear divergence, meaning isolation for

some time interval; but for how long? The genetic measures

indicated that the Iranian cheetah genes were about the same

genetic distance from African cheetahs as were isolated

African cheetah populations from each other. The African

populations and Iranian populations were all rather close,

i.e., approximately 4,500 and 6,500 years (Table 1). An

independent group (Charruau et al. 2011) published a similar

study where they report the same patterns, good separation

of the Iranian and African populations, but equivalent distance

between African populations as for Iranian versus any African

population. This equivalence of inter-population genetic

distance means that the Iranian cheetah, like African groups,

derives from survivors of the 10,000+ years old population

bottleneck.

Charruau et al. (2011) make a strong argument for the

distinctiveness of the Iranian cheetah, e.g., meriting separate

subspecies status and unique unit of conservation, etc.

Nonetheless, their data are clearly near identical to our

findings, albeit with one important wrinkle. Charruau et al.

(2011) include one museum specimen of a purported “Indian

cheetah” from the Natural History Museum in London. That

individual very closely aligned with the Iranian cheetah

population. If this result is affirmed (and it should be), then it

means that the Iranian and Indian cheetah specimens share a

common ancestor somewhat more recently than either does

with Africa. To me, the simplest explanation here is that

Asiatic cheetahs in Iran and India were both founded around

the same time modern African cheetahs originated (10—20,000

YBP), but they remained behind in Asia (i.e, Iran, India, and

thereabouts) and split apart a few thousand years later, perhaps

in historic times. This indicates that the Indian and Iranian

cheetahs are indigenous and recently founded before

Alexander by the Asian cheetah survivors of the late

Pleistocene bottleneck.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

Of course I wasn’t there at the time, and it is not

inconceivable that both Iran and Indian cheetah populations

could descend from an African Import, but that import would

have evolved some place in Africa undiscovered by the two

independent molecular studies (Charruau et al. 2011; O’ Brien

et al. in press). By molecular means alone, we cannot exclude

prehistoric imports of cheetahs to India (there probably were

some), but neither can we reject (I tend to accept) the

traditional view that Asian cheetahs, like African cheetah,

were founded 10—20,000 years earlier when the survivors of

the cheetah Pleistocene bottleneck passed through Asia and

into Africa. As for the paucity of sighting in India, this was

also true of very elusive cheetahs in Namibia or pumas in

North America which are seldom if ever encountered in bushy

habitat without a trap or trained dogs to sniff them out.

Conclusions and Implications

The provocative challenge of EXOTIC ALIENS to stimulate

a spirited debate and discussion around the prospect of

unacknowledged anthropogenic introductions of cheetahs and

lions during recent historic times has been accomplished.

Many in our field have read and reacted to the ideas and I

have had a chance to weigh in here. My own conclusions

remain tentative. However, the bulk of the credible evidence

would support the indigenous Asian origin for the lions that

live today in the Gir Forest. This does not, of course, preclude

the possible import, release, or escape of African lions, but in

our admittedly limited sample we see no genomic traces of

African lion in the Gir lions today.

The cheetah’s natural history is a bit less certain,

largely because discriminating between an import-release

3,000 years ago and a founder effect 10—12,000 years ago

is near impossible with molecular chronometers. That said,

since cheetahs clearly originated from a 10—20,000 founder

effect in Asia, and Asian cheetahs from India and Iran display

a genetic consanguinity, I cannot exclude the possibility that

distinctive Asiatic cheetahs descend from the recent founder

event for both continents and lingered in Asia while the

African cheetahs were radiating across Africa during the

recent millennium. This cautious speculation does not

preclude any historic importation of African cheetahs, yet

as for the lions, so far we see no relict genomic footprints

of African heritage in Asian animals tested to date. Finally,

although no one can say for certain that Asian cheetahs were

present in India 3—10,000 years ago, how important is the

answer? We know cheetahs arrived in Asia 3,00,000 years

ago and remained until the 10—12,000 YBP bottleneck and

then also from 3,000 years ago until 1968. If cheetahs were

present 293,000 years in Asia, missing the 7,000 years

according to Thapar et al. (2003), then they were occupying

111

EXOTIC ALIENS CONTROVERSY: A VIEW FROM AFAR

Asian habitats for 98% of the last 300,000 years. To me,

that should be enough for native indigenous Indian

citizenship!

The conservation imperative for lions and cheetahs in

India seems a worthy and justifiable cause. Asian lions once

roamed across southern Asia in numbers and populations

limited by the advantaged tigers. Yet they survived in at least

one population that should in my view be restored to other

suitable habitats with sufficient prey to increase the hope of

sustaining the Asiatic lion for the future. The restoration of

cheetahs into Indian reserves selected recently would double

the continental range of this fragile and highly adapted species.

The close kinship of Asian to African cheetahs speaks

_ volumes, offering irrefutable evidence that there is no credible

genetic reason to preclude the use of modern African (Namibian

or South African) founders, as these two groups did surely

exchange genes very very recently (Table 1) .The squabble

among nature conservationists will continue, but action to

stabilize and maintain species like the cheetah to their former

habitat seems a wonderful goal that should be accomplished

very soon, as the genetic and natural history evidences clearly

point to the feasibility and urgency of such a cause.

REFERENCES

ANTUNES, A., J.L. TROYER, M.E. RoELKE, J. PECON-SLATTERY, C. PACKER,

‘C. WINTERBACH, H. WINTERBACH, G. HEMsOoN, L. FRANK, P. STANDER,

L. SIEFERT, M. Driciru, P.J. FUNston, K.A. ALEXANDER, K.C.

PRAGER, G Minis, D. Witpt, M. Busu, S.J. O’ BRIEN & W.E. JOHNSON

(2008): The evolutionary dynamics of the lion Panthera leo

revealed by host and viral population genomics. PLoS Genet. 4(11):

e1000251.

BUCKLEY-BEASON, V.A., W.E. JOHNSON, W.G. Nasu, R. STANYON,

J.C. MENNINGER, C.A. DRISCOLL, J. Howarp, M. Busu, J.E. PAGE,

M.E. ROoELKE, G. STONE, P.P. MARTELLI, C. Wen, L. LING,

R.K. DuralsIncaM, P.V. Lam & S.J. O’ BRIEN (2006): Molecular

Evidence for Species-Level Distinctions in Clouded Leopards.

Curr. Biol. 16: 2371-2376.

Cat SPECIALIST GRouP IUCN: http://www.catsg.org/catsgportal/cat-

website/20_cat-website/home/index_en.htm.

CHARRUAU, P., C. FERNANDES, P. OROZCO-TERWENGEL, J. PETERS,

L. Hunter, H. Zia, A. JOURABCHIAN, H. JowkKar, G SCHALLER,

S. OsTROWSKI, P. VERCAMMEN, T. GRANGE, C. SCHLOTTERER,

A. Korze, E.M. GgIGL, C. WALZER & P.A. BurGER (2011):

Phylogeography, genetic structure and population divergence

time of cheetahs in Africa and Asia: evidence for long-term

geographic isolates. Mol. Ecol. 20: 706-724.

DERANIYAGALA, P.E.P. (1958): The Pleistocene of Ceylon. Ceylon

National Museum, Columbo.

DIVYABHANUSINH (2006): The End of a Trail: The Cheetah in India.

Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

DIVYABHANUSINH (2008): The Story of Asia’s Lions. Marg Publications,

Mumbai.

DIVYABHANUSINH & M.K. RANJITSINH (2013): Lion and Cheetah in India:

A Critique. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 110(1): 3-21.

Drisco.i, C.A., M. MENoTTI-RAYMoND & S.J. O’ BRIEN (2002): Genomic

microsatellites as evolutionary chronometers: A test in wild cats.

Genome Res. 12: 414-423.

Dutta, ARUN Kumar (1976): Occurrence of Fossil Lion and Spotted

Hyaena from Pleistocene Deposits of Susunia, Bankura District,

West Bengal. Journal of the Geological Survey of India 7(3):

386-391.

Forster, P. & S. Matsumura (2005): Did Early Humans Go North or

South? Science 308: 965-966.

GILBERT, D.A., C. PACKER, A.E. Pusey, J.C. STEPHENS & S.J. O’ BRIEN (1991):

Analytical DNA fingerprinting in lions: Parentage, genetic

diversity, and kinship. J. Hered. 82: 378-386.

GUGGISBERG, C.A. (1963): Simba: The Life of the Lion. Chilton Books.

Philadelphia

GUGGISBERG, C.A.W. (1975): Wild Cats of the World. Taplinger, New

York.

JOHNSON, W.E., E. Eizirik, W.J. MurpHy, J. PECON-SLATTERY, A. ANTUNES,

112

E. TEELING & S.J. O’ BRIEN (2006): The late Miocene radiation of

modern Felidae: A genetic assessment. Science 311: 73-77.

JOSLIN, PAUL (1973): The Asiatic Lion: A Study of Ecology & Behaviour.

Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.

Lu Zul, KArisH, W.B., D.N. JANCZEWSKI, H. FRAzIER-TAyLor, D. SAJUTHI,

F. GomsBek, M. ANbDAUu, J.S. MARTENSON & S.J. O’ BRIEN (1996):

Genomic differentiation among natural populations of orang-utan

(Pongo pygmaeus). Curr. Biol. 6: 1326-1336.

Luo, S.-J., J.-H. Kim, W.E. JoHNson, J. VAN DER WALT, J. MARTENSON,

N. Yuuki, D.G. MIQUELLE, O. UPHyRKINA, J.M. Goopricu,

H.B. QuIGLEY, R. TILSon, G Brapy, P. MARTELLI, V. SUBRAMANIAM,

C. McDouaa., S. HEAN, S.-Q. HUANG, W. PAN, U.K. KARANTH,

M. SunoulstT, J.L.D. Smity & S.J. O’ BRIEN (2004):Phylogeography

and genetic ancestory of tigers (Panthera tigris). PLoS Biology 2:

2277-2293.

Macuio, V.J. (1973): Origin and evolution of the Elephantidae. Trans.

Am. Phil. Soc. Philad., New Series 63: 1-149.

MANAMENDRA-ARACHCHI, K., R. PETHIYAGODA, R. DISSANAYAKE &

M. MEEGASKUMBURA (2005): A Second Extinct Cat from the Late

Quaternary of Sri Lanka. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology

Supplement No. 12, pp. 423-434.

MEeEnotTti-RaymMonpb, M. & S.J. O’Brien (1993): Dating the genetic

bottleneck of the African cheetah. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90:

3172-3176.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON IRANIAN CHEETAH (2013): http://

Wave oe Moc Gt aa .O; boo ad a) -O. ied eee

ICS_Conference_of_Iranian_Cheetah_October_2013.pdf.

Accessed on October 13, 2013.

Nerf, N. (1983): The Big Cats: The Paintings of Guy Coheleach. Publ.

57. Harry N. Abrams, New York.

Nowak, R.M. (1999): Walker’s Mammals of the World, Sixth Edition.

Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD.

NowELL, K. & P. Jackson (1996): Status Survey and Conservation Action

Plan, Wild Cats. Gland, Switzerland, International Union for

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

O’Brien, S.J. (2003): Tears of the Cheetah and Other tales from the

genetic frontier, St Martin’s Press, New York.

O’ BRIEN, S.J., D.E. Witpt, D. GOLDMAN, C.R. Merrit & M. BusH (1983):

The cheetah is depauperate in genetic variation. Science 221]:

459-462.

O’Brien, S.J., M.E. ROELKE, L. MARKER, A. NEWMAN, C.A. WINKLER,

D. ME tzer, L. Cotty, J.R EVERMANN, M. BusH & D.E. Witpr

(1985): Genetic basis for species vulnerability in the cheetah.

Science 227: 1428-1434.

O’ BrRIEN, S.J., J.S. MARTENSON, C. PACKER, L. HERBST, V. DE Vos, P. Josuin,

J. Orr-JosLin,-D.E. Witpt & M. BusH (1987a): Biochemical genetic

variation in geographic isolates of African and Asiatic lions. Natl.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

EXOTIC ALIENS CONTROVERSY: A VIEW FROM AFAR

Geo. Res. 3: 114-124.

O’Brien, S.J., P. Jostin, GL. Smitu, II, R. Woire, N. SCHAFFER,

E. Heatu, J. Ott-Josiin, P.P. RAWAL, K.K. BHATTACHERJEE &

J.S. MARTENSON (1987b): Evidence for African origins of founders

of the Asiatic lion species survival plan. Zoo Biol. 6: 99-116.

O’Brign, S.J., D.E. Witpt, M. Busy, T.M. Caro, C. FitzGisson,

I. AGGUNDEY & R.E. LEAKEY (1987c): East African cheetahs:

Evidence for two population bottlenecks? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

USA 84: 508-511.

O’BrRIEN, S.J. & W.E. JOHNSON (2007): The evolution of cats. Genomic

paw prints in the DNA of the world’s wild cats have clarified the

cat family tree and uncovered several remarkable migrations in

their past. Sci. Am. 297: 68-75.

OBRrIEN,S.J., W.E. JOHNSON, C.A. DRISCOLL, P. DOBRYNIN & L.L. MARKER:

(in press): A Role for Genetic Technologies in Species

Conservation- From the Cheetah to Beyond-2013. Proceedings

of the Beijing Forum-2013 The Harmony of Civilizations and

Prosperity for All — Retrospect and Prospec, Ed.: Academic

Committee of Beijing Forum, Peking University Press, Peking.

Roca, A.L., N. GeorGiapis, J. PECON-SLATTERY, & S.J. O’ BRIEN (2001):

Genetic evidence for two species of elephant in Africa. Science

293: 1473-1477.

SANDERS W.J., E. GHEERBRANT, J.M. Harris, H. SAEGUSA & C. DELMER

(2010): Proboscidea. In: (Eds: Werdelin, L. and W.J. Sanders):

Cenozoic mammals of Africa. University of California Press,

Berkeley.

SUNQUIST, MEL & FIONA SUNQUIST (2002): Wildcats of the World. The

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

THAPAR, V ALMIK, ROMILA THAPAR & YUSUF ANSARI (2013): Exotic Aliens

- The Lion and Cheetah in India. Aleph, New Delhi. 304 pp.

UPHYRKINA, O., W. JoHNSON, H. QuiGLEy, D. MIQUELLE, L. MARKER,

M. Busu, & S.J. O’ BRIEN (2001): Phylogenetics, genome diversity

and the origin of modern leopard, Panthera pardus. Mol. Ecol. 10:

2617-2633.

WERDELIN, L., S.J. O’ BRIEN, W.E. JOHNSON & N. YAMAGUCHI (2009):

Phylogeny and evolution of cats (Felidae). Pp. 59-82.

In: (Eds: Macdonald, D. and A. Loverage): Biology and

Conservation of Wild Felids. Oxford University Press.

Wit, D.E., M. Busy, K.L. Gooprowe, C. PACKER, A.E. Pusey, J. BRown,

P. Jostin & S.J. O’BRIEN (1987): Reproductive and genetic

consequences of founding isolated lion populations. Nature 329:

328-331.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

113

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(2), May-Aug 2013

THE MAMMALS OF SRIHARIKOTA ISLAND, SOUTHERN INDIA,

WITH INSIGHTS INTO THEIR STATUS, POPULATION, AND DISTRIBUTION

RAnNtiT MANAKADAN!2*, S, STVAKUMAR!?, Patrick Davip!“, AND B. SENTHIL MuruGan!”

‘Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, S.B. Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001, Maharashtra, India.

?Email: ransan5 @rediffmail.com

3Email: sivaprema3sep @ yahoo.com

‘Email: patdavid28 @ gmail.com

"Email: sentrogon @rediffmail.com

*Corresponding author

Inventory surveys, transect surveys (day), and roadside surveys (night) were carried out from November 2001 to

October 2007, to document the mammalian fauna of Sriharikota and assess their population and distribution in the

island. The surveys covered four habitat types, namely tropical dry evergreen forest (TDEF), open scrub, eucalyptus,

and casuarina plantations.

Twenty-eight species of mammals were recorded; most of which are common or widely distributed in India. The

records of the Rusty-spotted Cat Prionailurus rubiginosus and Grey Slender Loris Loris lydekkerianus in Sriharikota

are of conservation interest. The Bonnet Macaque Macaca radiata and the nocturnal Small Indian Civet Viverricula

indica were not recorded in plantations. The encounter rate of the Three-striped Palm Squirrel Funambulus palmarum

was higher in forests than in plantations (Mann-Whitney U=1067, p<0.001), and within the natural habitat, it was

more in TDEF than in open scrub (Mann Whitney U=288.0, p<0.05). The encounter rates of the Golden Jackal Canis

aureus and Indian Hare Lepus (Indolagus) nigricollis were higher in natural habitat than in plantations (Mann-Whitney

U=1390, p<0.01 and U=1536, p<0.05, respectively).

The takeover of the Island by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and its high security status has overall

been a boon for the wildlife and their habitats. However, the issue of plantations, and expansion plans of the spaceport

that will involve loss of forests are threats that call for a long-term conservation plan.

Key words: Sriharikota, mammals, Loris lydekkerianus, Prionailurus rubiginosus, tropical dry evergreen forest, open

114-121

scrub, plantations, eucalyptus, casuarina

INTRODUCTION

Sriharikota Island, off the south-eastern coast of India,

is important from the biodiversity point of view as it has the

last remaining, largest, and best-preserved tract of coastal

Tropical Dry Evergreen Forest in India (Meher-Homyi 1974;

Suryanarayana et al. 1989, 1998). The Indian Space Research

Organisation (ISRO) took over the Island in 1969 to develop

it as India’s spaceport, and ISRO also made efforts to protect

the forests and its wildlife.

As part of a BNHS-ISRO project to document the

biodiversity of Sriharikota Island, we undertook an exercise

to document the mammals of the Island (Manakadan and

Sivakumar 2004). The objective of the study was to make a

checklist and assess the status and distribution of the mammals

on the Island. Additionally, we also estimated the encounter

rates in different habitat types, to investigate the impact of

plantations on the different species. The data obtained was

supplemented by information obtained on some of these

species during two other studies carried out from November

2004 to May 2008 (David et al. 2008; Sivakumar and

Manakadan 2008).

STUDY AREA

Sriharikota (13° 71' N; 80° 20' E) is a spindle-shaped

island (181 sq. km) situated in Nellore and Tiruvallur districts

of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu respectively (Fig. 1). The

island is bordered to the east by the Bay of Bengal and on the

north, south, and west by Pulicat Lake. The Island comprises

of low ridges of sand, marine and aeolian in origin, rising

4.5—6 m above msl and sloping from west to east. The water

table is at a depth of c. 2—5 m.

The rainfall is largely from the North-east monsoon

(October—December). Some rainfall is also received from the

South-west monsoon (June—September). The area is prone to

cyclones, usually in the early part of May and October, prior

to the onset of the two monsoons. The annual rainfall is

c. 1,200 mm. December to February is the winter season with

temperatures as low as 10° C; March to September is the

summer season with temperatures soaring over 40° C. Relative

humidity is lowest during May (18%), and maximum during

October (99%).

Prior to the takeover of the Island by the Indian Space

Research Organisation (ISRO) between 1969 and 1972, there

MAMMALS OF SRIHARIKOTA ISLAND WITH INSIGHTS INTO THEIR STATUS, POPULATION, AND DISTRIBUTION

Moolthangal 7 |

\4 A He Karimanal

| an KU 9

To Chennai

Fig. 1: Sriharikota Island

were around 20 villages in the Island with a total population of

around 10,000 individuals. At present, besides the

establishments of the Satish Dhawan Space Centre (SDSC-

SHAR), there are colonies established by ISRO for the former

settlers and tribals of the Island, many of whom are employed

by ISRO. Access to and movements on the Island are restricted.

The SDSC-SHAR has a Conservation and Landscape Division

for the conservation and management of the forests.

Sriharikota Island is important from the biodiversity

point of view as it has the last remaining, largest and best-

preserved tracts of coastal Tropical Dry Evergreen Forest in

India. The forest has had a long history of systematic clear-

felling for fuel wood and timber, starting with the British Era.

Plantations of Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), Casuarina

(Casuarina equisetifolia), and Cashew (Anacardium

occidentale) have been raised over the years by the Forest

Department and settlers, now covering approximately more

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

than 20% of the landmass. After the establishment of the

SDSC-SHAR in 1969, its Conservation and Landscape

Division continued raising plantations for afforestation in bare

and degraded areas, creation of shelter belts, revenue, and for

work generation for the tribals. Acacia auriculiformis was

also introduced on a small scale in the 1970s. The invasive

Prosopis juliflora has proliferated in some areas, especially

along the western edge of the Island that borders Pulicat Lake

and towards the southern parts of the Island. Another invasive,

cane Calamus rotang, introduced during the late 19th century

by the British, has colonised the edges of freshwater bodies

and water courses. Patches of abandoned coconut, tamarind,

mango, and palmyra (now overgrown with native vegetation)

planted by the former settlers are seen, especially in the

southern tracts of the Island. Besides these, there are extensive

grasslands with scattered shrubs and trees in the southern part

of the Island, and remnants of mangrove and salt marsh

vegetation along the western edge of the Island. Due to the

varied ecological conditions, and past and present

anthropogenic factors, the structure of the vegetation is

diverse. Information on the four habitat/vegetation types

where the mammals were sampled is given below:

Tropical Dry Evergreen Forest: Tropical Dry

Evergreen Forests (TDEF) are largely found in the central

and northern part of the Island, stretching from south of

Urugayya lake till north of Beripeta, except in sandy tracts or

areas under plantations. The tree species include Syzygium

cumini, Pterospermum canescens, Manilkara hexandra,

Garcinia spicata, Strychnos nux-vomica, Pongamia pinnata,

Tamarindus indicus, and Cordia dichotoma. The shrub layer

includes Memecylon umbellatum, Glycosmis pentaphylla,

Eugenia bracteata, Grewia rhamnifolia, and Breynia vitis-

idaea. Climbers such as Abrus precatorius, Asparagus

racemosus, Cissus vitiginea, Jasminum spp., Carissa

spinarum, Olax scandens, Coccinia grandis, and Ziziphus

oenoplia make the forest dense and impenetrable. Herbs are

mainly restricted to the open patches in the forests. Along

streams and shallow basins, which are inundated during the

monsoon, Jerminalia arjuna, Barringtonia acutangula, and

Pongamia pinnata are dominant; T: arjuna occurs in pure

stands at some sites. Canebrakes line most of the waterways.

The overall mean canopy cover in TDEF is c. 69%, and the

shrub cover is c. 59% (Manakadan and Sivakumar 2004).

Open Scrub: Open scrub is largely present in the sandy

tracts of the Island, which occur in the northern, eastern, and

southern fringes of the Island. There is also a sandy tract in

the central part of the Island. The soil is sandy and much

exposed, with predominance of shrubs like Gmelina asiatica,

Diospyros ferrea, Securinega leucopyrus, Catunaregam

spinosa, Canthium parviflorum, Maytenus emarginatus,

115

MAMMALS OF SRIHARIKOTA ISLAND WITH INSIGHTS INTO THEIR STATUS, POPULATION, AND DISTRIBUTION

Dodonea viscosa, Capparis spp., Carissa spinarum, Pavetta

indica, and Atalantia monophylla. Scattered trees of Syzygium

cumini, Sapindus emarginatus, Lannea coromandelica,

Ficus spp., Azadirachta indica, Albizzia amara, Walsura

trifolia, Pamburus missionis, and Ochna obtusata occur. The

overall mean canopy cover in open scrub is c. 1%, and the

shrub cover is c. 37% (Manakadan and Sivakumar 2004).

Eucalyptus Plantation: Eucalyptus plantations are

mainly seen from about Urugayya lake to the north of

Beripeta. Shrubby elements, such as Memecylon umbellatum,

Securinega leucopyrus, Catunaregam spinosa and Atalantia

monophylla, form the undergrowth. An understorey of

Strychnos nux-vomica, Garcinia spicata, and Ochna obtusata

has come up in some of the more open plantations. Eucalyptus

plantations have a high mix (80%) of native vegetation,

considering the density of both trees (middle storey) and

shrubs. This high proportion of native species in eucalyptus

is because the plantations in Sriharikota are primarily raised

as part of afforestation schemes and not for revenue

generation, and hence, are not strictly managed as in

commercial plantations. The overall mean canopy cover in

eucalyptus plantation is c. 55%, and the shrub cover is

c. 33% (Manakadan and Sivakumar 2004).

Casuarina Plantation: Casuarina plantations are

mostly seen as a narrow belt along the coast. Unlike

eucalyptus, casuarina plantations form dense, pure stands

without much mixture of native species. In open patches,

shrubs and trees like Securinega leucopyrus, Azadirachta

indica, Pavetta indica, Ochna obtusata, Calotropis gigantea,

Cassia auriculata, and Borassus flabellifer occur. Olax

scandens is acommon climber, while Dendrophthoe falcata

(=Loranthus longiflorus) is a common stem parasite on

casuarina trees. Remnants of groves of casuarina (planted by

the former settlers) are seen in some of the interior areas of

the Island and in the southern part from Tettipeta to Karimanal.

Unlike eucalyptus, casuarina occurs in almost pure stands

with low (35%) mix of native vegetation, these almost totally

constituting the shrub layer. The growth of native vegetation

is poor in casuarina plantations, as besides the lack of shade

due to dense planting, the litter of bristles forms a dense carpet

on the forest floor, restricting the growth of seedlings. The

overall mean canopy cover in casuarina is c. 80%, and the

shrub cover is c. 15% (Manakadan and Sivakumar 2004).

METHODS

Inventory Surveys: During the first three months

(November 2001 to January 2002) of the study, we carried

out extensive surveys throughout the Island on foot and

motorcycle during the day and night to make a checklist of

116

mammals, and record general information on species and their

habitats. The locals, especially the Yanadi tribals, were

interviewed, mainly to obtain information on the past status,

distribution, and populations of mammals in the Island.

Further to this, regular day and night sampling (discussed

below) was carried out in the northern and central areas of

the Island; the southern areas were subject to only occasional

surveys due to difficult logistics.

Diurnal Mammals: Transects were used for surveying

diurnal mammals. Sampling was carried out between 07:30-

08:30 hrs in 10 one km transects in each of the four habitat

types (namely tropical dry evergreen forest (TDEF), open

scrub, eucalyptus, and casuarina). All the 10 transects were

walked during the summer and winter/wet seasons of 2002-—

2003, and only five of these were covered during 2003—2004

seasons. Animals seen on either side of transects were recorded

and encounter rates (number/km) of species was calculated

for each habitat type.

Nocturnal Mammals: Surveys of nocturnal mammals

were carried by roadside counts along a 21.2 km stretch of

road covering TDEF (5.1 km), open scrub (3.9 km), eucalyptus

(3.6 km), casuarina (3.0 km), and also mixtures of some of

these, namely TDEF-open scrub (2.7 km) and TDEF-

eucalyptus (2.9 km). The extent of each vegetation type was

estimated using the kilometre reading in the motorcycle’s

speedometer. This stretch was sampled between 20:00 hrs

and 21:00 hrs once a fortnight from March 2003 to February

2004, thus sampling it 24 times. Only animals seen in the

headlights of the motorbike within a distance of 3 m on either

side of the road were recorded. The pillion rider carried a

4-cell torch for confirmation of the identity of the animal.

Encounter rates (number/km) of species was calculated for

each habitat type.

Statistical Analysis: We used the Mann-Whitney non-

parametric test (SPSS, Version 13) to determine the

significance of differences in encounter rates of common

species in the different habitat types, mostly pooled for natural

habitat and plantation. Due to low records for the other species,

statistical tests were not carried out and only their encounter

rates are given.

RESULTS

A total of 28 species of mammals were recorded in

Sriharikota through the inventory surveys, transect surveys,

and roadside surveys (Table 1). These consisted of 2 species

of primates, 3 species of cats, 1 species of canid, 2 species of

shrews, 7 species of bats, 8 species of rodents, and | species

each of mongoose, civet, deer, pig, and anteater. The record

of the anteater was based on reports of locals.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

MAMMALS OF SRIHARIKOTA ISLAND WITH INSIGHTS INTO THEIR STATUS, POPULATION, AND DISTRIBUTION

Table 1: Checklist of the mammals of Sriharikota

S.No. Species

1c Bonnet Macaque Macaca radiata (Geoffroy)

2 Grey Slender Loris Loris lydekkerianus (Linn.)

3. Leopard Panthera pardus (Linn.)

4. Jungle Cat Felis chaus (Guldenstaedt)

5: Rusty-spotted Cat

Prionailurus rubiginosus (Geoffroy)

6. Small Indian Civet

Viverricula indica (Desmarest)

7. Common Indian Mongoose

Herpestes edwardsi (Geoffroy)

8. Golden Jackal Canis aureus (Linn.)

9. Asian House Shrew Suncus murinus (Linn.)

10. Etruscan Shrew

Suncus etruscus (Savi)

1. Indian Flying Fox

Pteropus giganteus (Brunnich)

az. Greater Short-nosed Fruit Bat

Cynopterus sphinx Vahl

ile Dusky Leaf-nosed Bat

Hipposideros ater (Templeton)

14. Schneider’s Leaf-nosed Bat

H. speoris (Schneider)

1. Greater False Vampire

Megaderma (Lyroderma) lyra (Geoffroy)

16. Greater Asiatic Yellow House Bat

Scotophilus heathii (Horsfield)

17, Little Pipistrelle

Pipistrellus (Pipistrellus) coromandra (Gray)

18. Indian Palm Squirrel

Funambulus (Funambulus) palmarum (Linn.)

19. Lesser Bandicoot Rat

Bandicota bengalensis (Gray & Hardwicke)

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

Remarks

Common in TDEF and abandoned village forest. Rare in eucalyptus and especially

Casuarina plantations, and in the southern grassland areas.

Not uncommon in TDEF and casuarina plantations. Very rare in open scrub and the

southern grassland areas.

Record based only on pugmarks recorded during April and May 2007. A dead animal

found in the adjoining Pulicat lake during June 2001 (Kannan and Manakadan 2004).

The species is otherwise not known to occur in the Island. These two animals probably

came from the Eastern Ghats forests.

Record based only on a road-kill in December 2002. Yanadi tribals report it to be much

less common than the Rusty-spotted Cat, and is said by locals to prey on domestic fowl.

Occasional. Five records. A road kill near the former Penubakkam Colony, a sighting

during night census in eucalyptus plantation during October 2002, two sightings of a

male on consecutive days at the same site in TDEF during October 2002, and sighting of

an immature in a casuarina plantation during night census in November 2002. Traditionally

hunted by Yanadis for the pot as in the case of the Small Indian Civet.

Common and traditionally hunted by Yanadis. About a dozen sightings spread almost

throughout the Island (except casuarina plantations) during night census. The only record

during the day was of an individual sleeping under low dense foliage of a cashew tree.

Common and recorded in all the habitat types; sightings more common in open habitat in

the southern areas of the Island. Species recorded during day and night census, indicating

it is both diurnal and nocturnal in habits.

The most commonly seen large mammal in Sriharikota, even wandering near residential

areas. Taken to scavenging canteen wastes of facilities after nightfall. Cubs were recorded

on a few occasions during summer. A major predator of sea turtle nests on the beach.

Not uncommon in residential areas; recorded thrice in forest areas.

Frequently caught in pitfall traps; more common in eucalyptus plantations. Not recorded

in residential areas.

Adecades old colony of about 400-500 bats recorded east of the bridge over the Malliplate

Wagu. The bats occasionally shift to nearby areas (including casuarina plantations on

the coast) when disturbed by the activities of fishermen. More than 3,000 counted and

another roost with 350—400 bats recorded in the central part of the Island Telemetry-|

during the second project, these are probably seasonal migrants to the Island.

Regularly recorded feeding on fruit trees in residential areas. Yanadis report it to roost in

small groups in palm trees in the forest.

Roosts (c. 25 animals) recorded at two culverts near Penubakkam.

Roosts (c. 200 animals) recorded in an abandoned temple on the road to Rayadurg and

in an underground cable junction box (20—30 animals) along the SRC road.

Roosts (c. 200 animals) along with the Schneider’s Leaf-nosed Bat in an abandoned temple

on the road to Rayadurg.

A dead specimen collected in the Phase-! residential area. Many individuals were seen

emerging in the evenings from the Phase-ll residential areas and foraging in adjoining

open areas.

Regularly observed flying and hawking for insects under floodlights of residential areas,

sometimes entering houses.

Common throughout the Island with high densities in TDEF and in trees in open scrub.

Also common in residential areas.

Yanadis, who traditionally hunt the species for food, say that it was much

more common earlier when crops were grown on the Island. A few burrows recorded

near the edges of the Penubakkam Badava.

MAMMALS OF SRIHARIKOTA ISLAND WITH INSIGHTS INTO THEIR STATUS, POPULATION, AND DISTRIBUTION

Table 1: Checklist of the mammals of Sriharikota (contd.)

S. No. Species

20.

Little Indian Field Mouse

Mus (Mus) booduga (Gray)

Remarks

Record based on a pair caught by a Yanadi near an abandoned irrigation pond on the

outskirts of the former Penubakkam Colony.

Nests recorded twice, once in the peeling bark of a eucalyptus tree and another inside

the half-peeled bark of a dead Acacia auriculiformis tree. Also frequents human dwellings.

Appears to be common judging by frequent records of road kills and sightings during

roadside census at night. Eaten by Yanadis.

Recorded twice in residential colonies; reported to have been common in the former

Common in residential areas and is also reported to occur in forest areas.

Recorded largely in open scrub habitats and is probably more abundant in the southern

Reported by locals to have entered the Island during the 1984 major cyclone. Population

estimated at >200 animals. Four sightings, the largest of a herd of more than a dozen

Widely distributed in all habitats, but partial to the edges of water bodies. It is a major

predator of sea turtle nests on the beach. The species was a favourite quarry of Yanadis

21. Indomalayan Vandeleuria

Vandeleuria oleracea (Bennett)

22. Indian Gerbil Tatera indica (Hardwicke)

22: Roof Rat Rattus rattus (Linn)

settlement colonies in the forest.

24. Greater Bandicoot Rat

Bandicota indica (Bechstein)

25. Indian Hare

Lepus (Indolagus) nigricollis F. Cuvier open grassland areas.

26. Chital Axis axis (Erxleben)

animals.

CL Wild Boar Sus scrofa (Linn)

and former settlers.

28. Indian Pangolin

Manis (Manis) crassicaudata Gray

Reported by locals to have entered the Island during the major cyclone of 1984. Only

two records: one killed by Yanadis immediately after the cyclone, the other a sighting

by an ISRO employee, of an animal crossing a forest road during the 1990s.

Mammals recorded from transect surveys during the

day: A total of nine species of mammals were recorded in the

four habitat types (Table 2). The Bonnet Macaque Macaca

radiata and Common Indian Mongoose Herpestes edwardsii

were recorded only in the natural habitat (TDEF and open scrub)

and not in plantations (eucalyptus and casuarina). The encounter

rate of the Indian Palm Squirrel Funambulus palmarum was

significantly higher in natural habitat than in plantations (Mann-

Whitney U=1067, p<0.001), and within the natural habitat, it

was significantly higher in TDEF than in open scrub (Mann-

Whitney U=288.0, p<0.05). There were a few records of the

other species, some of which were more frequently recorded

during the night surveys (Table 2).

Mammals recorded from roadside surveys at night:

A total of nine mammal species were recorded during roadside

surveys at night in the six habitat types (Table 3). The Indian

Hare were encountered more in open scrub than in the other

three habitat types (Table 3). The Small Indian Civet

Viverricula indica and Common Indian Mongoose were only

recorded in natural habitats. The encounter rates of the Golden

Jackal Canis aureus and Indian Hare Lepus Undolagus)

nigricollis were higher in natural habitat than in plantations

(Mann-Whitney U=1390, p<0.01 and U=1536, p<0.05,

respectively), but within the natural habitat, the Indian Hare

118

Table 2: Encounter rate (no./km) of mammal species in the

vegetation types recorded during transect surveys during the day

(n=30 transects/habitat type)

Species TDEF Open Eucalyptus Casuarina

Scrub

Bonnet 0.30 (0.08) 0.03 (0.03) : -

Macaque 9 1

Grey Slender - - - 0.03 (0.03)

Loris 1

Small Indian 0.03 (0.03) - - -

Civet 1

Common Indian 0.20 (0.10) 0.01 (0.07) - -

Mongoose 4 1

Golden Jackal 0.10 (0.07) 0.07 (0.07)

Z 1

Indian 2.0(0.33) 1.1(0.24) 0.43(0.12) 0.63 (0.13)

Palm Squirrel 24 16 9 9

Indian - 0.07 (0.05) 0.03 (0.03) -

Hare 2 1

Spotted Deer 0.06(0.05) 0.07 (0.05) -

3 S - -

Wild Boar 0.1 (0.06) 0.27 (0.23) 0.06 (0.05)

2 : 2 2

Values are encounter rates with standard error (in parenthesis),

followed by frequency of occurrence (n=30 transects/habitat type)

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

MAMMALS OF SRIHARIKOTA ISLAND WITH INSIGHTS INTO THEIR STATUS, POPULATION, AND DISTRIBUTION

Table 3: Encounter rate (no./km) of mammal species in the vegetation types during roadside surveys at night (n=24)

Habitat / Species TDEF TDEF-Open Scrub

Slender Loris 0.008 0.03

(0.008) (0.02)

Rusty-spotted Cat - -

Small Indian Civet 0:03)... 0.11

(0.01) ( 0.05)

Common Indian Mongoose - 0.02

(0.02)

Golden Jackal 0.19 Oa

(0.08) (0.10)

Indian Gerbil 0.07 0.62

(0.03) (0.16)

Indian Hare - 0.06

(0.04)

Wild Boar - 0.22

(0.16)

Values are the encounter rates with standard error (within parenthesis)

was not recorded in dense TDEF stands. There was no clear

trend in the encounter rates of Indian Gerbil between the natural

habitat and plantations (Mann-Whitney U=1697, p=0.86).

There were a few records of the other species (Table 3) — these

require specific sampling to obtain sufficient records for

meaningful analysis.

DISCUSSION

The surveys revealed the presence of 28 mammal

species in Sriharikota Island, almost all of which are common

and widely distributed in India. The study also revealed that

the Island has a good population of the Grey Slender Loris

Loris lydekkerianus. The Grey Slender Loris is endemic to

India and Sri Lanka; its distribution range in India is in the

peninsular region south of rivers Tapti in the west and

Godavari in the east (Groves 2001; Manakadan and

Sivakumar 2005; Roonwal and Mohnot 1977). The species

has been classified under Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife

(Protection) Act 1972 and in the Vulnerable category by IUCN

(2000). The population of the species in Sriharikota was

estimated at 250-300 individuals (Sivakumar and Manakadan

2008). Another species of interest is the arboreal Rusty-spotted

Cat Prionailurus rubiginosus. Earlier considered to be

confined to south-western India, there have been sightings

from other areas, since the 1970s. Very little is known of its

ecology and habitat, which is reported to range from grassland,

scrub and forest, rocky outcrops, areas around human

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

Open Scrub TDEF-Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Casuarina

0.02 “ 0.01 -

(0.01) (0.01)

- - 0.01 0.01

(0.01) (0.01)

0.02 - - -

(0.01) - -

0.01 - -

(0.01) - -

Oe 0.14 0.07 -

(0.06) (0.06) (0.03) -

0.47 0.47 0.30 0.36

(0.09) (0.18) (0.07) (0.08)

0.10 0.01 - .

(0.04) (0.01) - -

0.03 - - 0.23

(0.02) - (0.03)

habitation, and even in house attics (Jackson1998; Manakadan

and Sivakumar 2005; Mukherjee 1998).

Overall, the study revealed that the encounter rates of

mammals were higher in natural habitats than in plantations.

Mammalian species that seem to be directly affected by

replacement of TDEF with plantations are the Bonnet

Macaque and Indian Palm Squirrel, which mostly feed on

fruits, seeds, and shoots. TDEF and open scrub, due to the

diversity of herbs, shrub, climber and tree species, offer a

variety of food plants for these and other mammal (and bird)

species during different seasons (David et al. 2008). The

Bonnet Macaque was not recorded in plantations. Among the

nocturnal mammals, the encounter rates of most of the

relatively common nocturnal mammals (namely, Golden

Jackal, Common Mongoose, Small Indian Civet, and Indian

Hare) were higher in natural forest than in plantations. Though

the encounter rate for Grey Slender Loris was low in TDEF

during the road surveys at night, the maximum incidental

records obtained of the species during herpetofaunal sampling

at night was in TDEF (Manakadan and Sivakumar 2004).

This suggests that roadside surveys are not effective for

sampling of Grey Slender Loris, probably since it avoids

habitats near roads, perhaps due to the break in canopy

contiguity and human disturbance.

A number of studies (Evans 1992; Fogarty and Vilella

2003; Gandhi 1986; Singh et al. 1999) have shown that

plantations are detrimental to wildlife. However, the Grey

Slender Loris was recorded to inhabit mature casuarina

119

MAMMALS OF SRIHARIKOTA ISLAND WITH INSIGHTS INTO THEIR STATUS, POPULATION, AND DISTRIBUTION

plantations in Sriharikota that had snags, fallen logs, and litter

— probably as these conditions provided rich habitat for its

prey species. The Grey Slender Loris is predominantly

insectivorous, with ants and termites constituting a

considerable proportion of its diet (Nekaris and Jayewardene

2004; Radhakrishna and Singh 2002a, b). Our studies on

herpetofauna (Sivakumar and Manakadan 2004) in Sriharikota

revealed significantly higher abundance of skinks and geckos

in mature casuarina plantations, suggesting a higher

abundance of insect fauna in them. Casuarina plantations also

have good canopy contiguity, which is vital for the survival

of this slow, arboreal species.

The Wild Boar Sus scrofa was recorded occasionally

venturing into and around casuarina plantations along the

coast to feed on crabs and sea turtle nests — as indicated by

their digging. The Golden Jackal also raids turtle nests and

scavenges on the shore, and probably got recorded in the

adjoining casuarina plantations primarily for this reason. There

was no clear trend in the encounter rate of the Indian Gerbil

between natural habitats and plantations. It was mostly

recorded at night along roads during the roadside surveys — it

also topped the numbers of road-kills for mammals in

Sriharikota (Sivakumar and Manakadan 2010). In casuarina

plantations, it was recorded only at sites which were bare and

had the cover of Ziziphus mauritiana shrubs. Otherwise, all

the above mentioned three species appeared to be scarce in

casuarina plantations.

A major reason for mammals occurring in the plantations

in Sriharikota is that these are not actively managed since they

were raised primarily for afforestation and shelter-belts. Thus,

the mature plantations have a mix of native species, especially

as the shrub and understorey layers. In many areas, eucalyptus

trees have declined in numbers (uprooted during cyclones) and

the gaps have been filled by native plants. Another factor that

may have contributed to higher than expected abundances of

mammal species in plantations is the impact of edge effects,

since plantations have contiguity with either TDEF or open

scrub. Plant and animal diversities are known to be higher at

the edges (compared to interiors) of remnant vegetation

(Angelstam 1992; Yahner 1988). Edge effects were greater in

casuarina as these plantations comprise a narrow strip (c. 300

m wide) along the seashore and are largely bordered by scrub

vegetation on the west.

Another reason for higher encounter rates in casuarina

plantations (and also in open scrub) than in TDEF (and to a

lesser extent in eucalyptus plantations) was the dense cover

in TDEF. Ideally, we should have carried out distance

sampling, which would have addressed the issue of variable

detection probability across habitat types, and arrived at

120

comparable abundance/density estimates (vs. encounter rates)

of species, but the project involved enumerating the faunal

diversity of taxa ranging from butterflies, fish, herpetofauna,

birds to mammals, and had manpower and time constraints

for undertaking this. As stated earlier, the objective of the

project was to make an inventory of the faunal diversity of

the Island and to provide basic information on their status,

population, and distribution.

CONCLUSION

Sriharikota, vy virtue of having one of the last

remaining, largest, and well-protected tract of tropical dry

evergreen forest in India, serves as an important biodiversity

conservation site for this forest type. Moreover, with India’s

rapid and alarming biodiversity loss in recent times, sites like

Sriharikota with limited human pressures could become

especialiy significant for biodiversity conservation in the

future. However, the general trend in India, and in Sriharikota

(till our studies), is that formations lacking in timber species

are as a rule considered useless and felled or replaced with

plantations, little realising that these have rich diversity and

are repositories of economic-medicinal plants and natural

habitat for wildlife (Meher-Homji 1997, 2001). Besides the

issue of plantations, the rapid expansion of the spaceport in

recent years, which has involved and will further involve the

cutting down of forests for construction of buildings and other

facilities, is a cause of concern. ISRO needs to take a judicious

view of future expansion and development of the spaceport

to ensure that the conservation of the forests of Sriharikota

and its wildlife are also addressed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the Indian Space Research Organisation for

funding two projects under the RESPOND scheme, and

especially late Prof. Satish Dhawan, former Chariman, ISRO,

whose love for the wilderness was instrumental in the

association of the BNHS with ISRO and Sriharikota. We also

thank ISRO authorities at the SDSC-SHAR Centre,

Sriharikota, for providing us the necessary permission and

other facilities for stay and to carry out field surveys. We

extend our thanks to Dr. M.S. Pradhan and S.S. Talmale,

Zoological Survey of India, Pune, for identification of bat

and rodents. We also thank M. Parandamaiah for assistance

during fieldwork. And lastly, we thank the anonymous referee

for the comments and exhaustive corrections on the earlier

drafts of this paper, which improved the quality of the paper

tremendously.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

MAMMALS OF SRIHARIKOTA ISLAND WITH INSIGHTS INTO THEIR STATUS, POPULATION, AND DISTRIBUTION

REFERENCES

ANGELSTAM, P. (1992): Conservation of communities — the fd me

of edges, surroundings and landscape mosaic structure.

Pp. 9-70. In: Hansson, L. (Ed.): Ecological Principles of Nature

Conservation. Elsevier Applied Science, London.

Davin, P., B. SENTHIL MuRUGAN & R. MANAKADAN (2008): Plant-animal

interrelationships with special reference to food plants of birds

and mammals. Pp. 6—52. Jn: Investigations into some ecological

aspects of Sriharikota Island. Final Report (2004—2007). Bombay

Natural History Society, Mumbai.

Evans, J. (1992): Plantation Forestry in the Tropics (Second Edition).

Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, United Kingdom.

Focarty, J.H. & FJ. VILeELLA (2003): Use of native and eucalyptus

plantations by Eleutherodactylus frogs. J. Wildl. Manage. 67(1):

186-195.

GANDHI, T. (1986): A comparative study of birds in monoculture

plantations and natural scrub near Madras. M.Sc. Thesis.

University of Bombay, Bombay.

Groves, C.P. (2001): Primate Taxonomy. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington DC.

IUCN (2000): IUCN Red Data List of Threatened Species. Gland, IUCN

— The World Conservation Union.

JACKSON, P. (1998): Conserving the smaller cats, 1-4. ENVIS Newsletter

(Wildlife & Protected Areas): Vol.1, No.1. Wildlife Institute of

India, Dehradun.

KANNAN, V. & R. MANAKADAN (2004): A record of the leopard Panthera

pardus in Pulicat Lake. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 101(2): 304.

MANAKADAN, R. & S. SIVAKUMAR (2004): An ecological account of faunal

diversity of Sriharikota Island and its environs. Final Report:

Part I. Birds and Mammals. Bombay Natural History Society,

Mumbai.

MANAKADAN, R. & S. SIVAKUMAR (2005): Occurrence of the Rusty Spotted

Cat Prionailurus rubiginosus in Sriharikota, Nellore district,

Andhra Pradesh, India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 102(3): 336.

MEHER-Homil, V.M. (1974): On the origin of the tropical dry evergreen

forest of South India. Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 1: 19-39.

MeEHER-Homiui, V.M. (1997): Biodiversity conservation priorities. Indian

Journal of Forestry 20 (1): 1-7.

MeEHER-Homir, V.M. (2001): Conservation of Forests in Peninsular India.

Part I: Forest Cover. In: Meher-Homji, V.M. (Ed.):

Bioclimatology and Plant Geography of Peninsular India.

Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

MUKHERJEE, S. (1998): Cats: Some large, many small. Pp. 5—13. ENVIS

Newsletter (Wildlife & Protected Areas): Vol. 1, No. 1. Wildlife

Institute of India, Dehradun.

NEKaRIS, K.A.I. & J. JAYEWARDENE (2004): Survey of the Slender Loris

(Primates, Lorisidae Gray, 1821: Loris tardigradus Linnaeus,

1958 and Loris lydekkerianus Cabrera, 1908) in Sri Lanka.

J. Zool., Lond. 262: 327-338.

RADHAKRISHNA, S. & M. SINGH (2002a): Activity schedule and habitat

use of the Slender Loris Loris tardigradus lydekkerianus.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 99(3): 400-407.

RADHAKRISHNA, S. & M. SINGH (2002b): Home range and ranging pattern

in the Slender Loris Loris tardigradus lydekkerianus. Primates

43(3): 237-248.

RoonwaL, M.L. & S.M. Mounor (1977): Primates of South Asia:

Ecology, Sociobiology and Behaviour. Harvard University Press,

London.

SINGH, M., D.G. LinpBurG, A. UDHAYAN, M.A. Kumar & H.N. KUMARA

(1999): Status survey of Slender Loris Loris tardigradus

lydekkerianus in Dindigul, Tamil Nadu, India. Oryx 33(1):

31-37.

SIVAKUMAR, S. & R. MANAKADAN (2004): An ecological account of the

faunal diversity of Sriharikota Island and its environs. Final

Report: Part II — Herpetofauna. Bombay Natural History Society,

Mumbai.

SIVAKUMAR, S. & R. MANAKADAN (2008): Ecology of the Slender Loris

Loris lydekkerianus (Cabrera) with special reference to

vegetation types. Pp. 53-63. In: Investigations into some

ecological aspects of Sriharikota Island. Final Report (2004—

2007). Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai.

SIVAKUMAR, S. & R. MANAKADAN (2010): Wildlife mortality from

vehicular traffic in Sriharikota Island, southern India. J. Bombay

Nat. Hist. Soc. 107(1): 53-55.

SURYANARAYANA, B., A.S. Rao, A.M. Rao & V. VEERARAIU (1989):

Report on the flora of Sriharikota Island (2 Volumes). Visvodaya

Government College, Venkatagiri and SHAR Centre,

Sriharikota.

SURYANARAYANA, B., A.S. RAo, A.M. RAo & V. VEERARAJU (1998): Flora

of Sriharikota Island. Indian Space Research Organisation,

Bangalore.

YAHNER, R.H. (1988): Changes in wildlife communities near edges.

Conservation Biology 2(4): 333-339.

t2)

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(2), May-Aug 2013

122-128

DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE OF RODENTS IN THE SEMI-ARID LANDSCAPE OF

SARISKA TIGER RESERVE, WESTERN INDIA

Suitpi Gupta!”, KRISHNENDU MoNnDAL!?, K. SANKAR!*** AND QAMAR QurREsHI?

‘Wildlife Institute of India, PO. Box 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, Uttarakhand, India.

"Email: guptashilp @ gmail.com

3Email: krishtigris @ gmail.com

‘Email: sankark @ wii.gov.in

-Email: qng@ wii.gov.in

*Corresponding author

The diversity and abundance of rodents were estimated in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, from November 2007 to

June 2009. A total of 41 Sherman traps were deployed at twelve sites under different vegetation types for 10 days

during winter and summer, which amounted to a total effort of 4,920 trap nights and recorded eleven species of small

rodents. The diversity of rodents was found to be highest in open scrub in winter, and in summer it was highest in

Ziziphus mixed forest. Overall (combining both summer and winter), Mus platythrix was found to be most abundant

(6.26 individuals/ha), followed by Golunda ellioti (3.41 individuals/ha). The overall rodent density was 22.92 +4.65

(SE) animals/ha in winter, and 7.81 +2.25 (SE) animals/ha in summer.

Key words: Rodents, density, semi-arid landscape, Sariska Tiger Reserve, Web trapping design

INTRODUCTION

The rodents of the Indian subcontinent are represented by

46 genera and 128 species (Ellerman 1961; Roonwal 1987).

They are generally viewed as pests due to the economic losses

caused to agriculture and the prospect of their being carriers

of disease (Mukherjee et al. 2004). However, the importance

of rodents in the diet of many large and small carnivores has

been documented by various studies (Comman and Brunner

1972; Gupta 2006, 2011; Jones and Smith 1979; Kitchener

1991; Ludlow and Sunquist 1987; Moehlman 1986; Mondal

et al. 2011; Mukherjee 1998; Palmer and Fairall 1988; Pearson

1964; Sankar and Johnsingh 2002; Sankar et al. 2009; Sillero-

Zubiri and Gottelli 1995). In the recent past, many workers

have contributed to an understanding of the distribution

pattern of rodents in India. Chakraborty (1983) studied the

rodent distribution in Jammu & Kashmir region. Mahajan

and Mukherjee (1972, 1974) prepared a checklist of rodents

in Himachal Pradesh. Sood and Dilber (1977) documented

the rodent species of Punjab. Sheiker et al. (1983) and Jain

(1975) studied the rodents of Uttar Pradesh. The rodents of

the Thar Desert in Rajasthan was studied in detail by Agarwal

(1976), Biswas and Ghose (1968), Ghose (1976), and Prakash

(1959, 1963, 1972, 1974, and 1981). Hill (1958), Jain (1985),

and Khajuria and Ghosal (1981) documented the rodent fauna

of Madhya Pradesh. Pradhan (1975) provided an account of

the rodents of Maharashtra. Agarwal (1973) gave a detailed

account of the rodent species of the Goa region. Agarwal and

Bhattacharyya (1987) supplemented our knowledge of rodent

distribution in West Bengal. Agarwal and Bhattacharyya

(1977) and Roonwal (1949, 1950) made remarkable

contributions to the rodent distribution of North-east India.

A sum total of these efforts came out as compilations and

Ellerman and Morrison Scott (1966) published a checklist of

Indian rodents. But these were taxonomic studies and have

not assessed the ecological aspects of species assemblage,

co-existence, and diversity in the natural habitat.

Although numerous studies have investigated the

distribution, behaviour, ecology, and management of rodents

in agricultural fields (Advani and Mathur 1982; Alibhai 1985;

Chopra and Gupta 1987; Chopra et al. 1996; Davis 1953;

Prakash and Prakash 1985; Prakash and Mathur 1987; Rana

1992; Santra and Manna 2008; Spillett 1968; WHO 1974),

only a few studies had investigated population of rodents in

forested landscape in Rajasthan deserts (Prakash 1981, 1995).

In this paper, we discuss the diversity and abundance of

rodents in different vegetation types in the semi-arid landscape

of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, assessed by the web

trapping design method.

STUDY AREA

Sariska Tiger Reserve (STR), (25° 5'-27° 33' N; 74° 17'-

76° 34' E) is situated in the Aravalli Hills range and lies in

the semi-arid region of Rajasthan (Fig. 1). The Reserve is

spread over 881 sq. km, of which 274 sq. km is notified as a

national park. There are 30 villages in the Reserve and 10 in

the National Park. The vegetation is tropical dry deciduous

forest and tropical thorn forest (Champion and Seth 1968).

The climate is subtropical, characterised by a distinct winter

DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE OF RODENTS IN SEMI-ARID LANDSCAPE OF SARISKA TIGER RESERVE

Individual trap location

Pe Trapping sites

aa Grids for rodent trapping

Sariska beat map

Kilometers

0 3 6 12 18 4

Fig. 1: Location of Sariska Tiger Reserve and the sampling

sites in Intensive Study Area

(October—February), summer (March—June), and monsoon

(July-September). The average annual rainfall is 700 mm,

mostly received during July-September. Large carnivores are

Tiger Panthera tigris, Leopard Panthera pardus, and Striped

Hyena Hyaena hyaena, while the small carnivores include

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

Caracal Caracal caracal, Golden Jackal Canis aureus, Jungle

Cat Felis chaus, Common Mongoose Herpestes edwardsi,

Small Indian Mongoose Herpestes auropunctatus, Ruddy

Mongoose Herpestes smithi, Palm Civet Paradoxurus

hermaphroditus, Small Indian Civet Viverricula indica, Ratel

Mellivora capensis, and Desert Cat Felis silvestris.

METHODOLOGY

The study was conducted in an area of 120 sq. kmof the

National Park, divided into six blocks of 20 sq. km (Fig. 1).

The diversity and abundance of rodents was estimated using

the web trapping design (Anderson et al. 1983), which

requires rodent captures to be collected from the trapping

web, and treats the data (capture occasions and locations) as

distance measures from the centre of the web.

Two trap points were randomly selected in each block.

Thus, there was a total of 12 trapping sites for the six blocks.

Forty-one standard Sherman live traps (5 x 6.5 x 16.5 cm)

were placed at each trap points encompassing different

vegetation types. Each Sherman live trap ran for ten

consecutive trap nights (a trap night denoting the use of one

trap/night), and thus, the total sampling amounted to 4,920

trap nights/season. The traps were operated in 0.79 ha, having

concentric rings of 5 traps each at intervals of 10 m covering

50 m radius (Fig. 1). Traps were placed on the forest floor

and concealed with bushes and dry leaves. All traps were

painted brown, and placed near bushes, trees, rocks, fallen

logs, or any other possible runways of rats. All the traps were

baited with peanut butter, placed between 17:30—18:30 hrs,

and checked for animals between 5:30—7:30 hrs. Equal efforts

were made in all the blocks in both the seasons. Trapping

success was calculated from the number of rodents captured

divided by the number of trap nights.

The trapped rodents were photographed and identified,

weighed and measured for tail length and body to head length

(HBL). Rodents were identified up to species level using field

guides (Corbett and Hill 1992; Menon 2003; Prater 1980).

Sex was identified based on their genitalia; adults, subadults,

and pregnant females were not identified separately. The

animals were released at the spot where they had been trapped.

Simpson’s Index (d) was used to evaluate species richness

at the different trap sites. The Shannon Wiener diversity and

evenness indices were used to estimate the species diversity

across the trap sites (Shannon and Wiener 1963). The trapping

web design was used for estimation of abundance of different

rodent species (Burnham et al. 1980), while the program

DISTANCE 5.0 (Laake et al. 1994) was used for computations

of seasonal (summer and winter) densities in the different

sites. Each dataset was analysed by three different models

123

DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE OF RODENTS IN SEMI-ARID LANDSCAPE OF SARISKA TIGER RESERVE

9 = (3)

(3) sseuuang

000'|

VIO}

GO8'€

8LL'C

000°S

L99°¢

LZS°¢

L99°¢

662’ |b

000°!

O€6'e

000°0

08¢'0

ool 0

Ov9'0

008°0

Gc9'0

LL9°0

Gc9'0

vvv'0

000°0

9720

(P/L)=xepul (p-|)=AysJaAIp

jeOO1dIN9 JO xepul

S,UOSACWIS S$ UOSGWIS

SSOUYOU SelDedS

JEWIWWNS

000°0

829°0

O09" |

GSO'l

969’ |.

OvO'L

LLO'L

OvO'l

9€9'0

000°0

8SV'l

6cZ'0

0260

Gl8°0

y8Z0

000'|

097°0

€€6 0

0¢8'0

v8Z'0

686°0

968°0

oG9'0

[9) tate CN OD OG Ee Ke Ge a So eS a=

(H-X9pUl JOUSI/A\

uouueYs)

AjIssAIp

S310eds

(S) seloeds 8 = (3)

S/H

joJequny | sseuuesAy

O8e'l

89E'E

VSL'9

EloV

000'|

€6E' |

LE9°?e

Selo

y8e'l

096'|

O€Z'S

L06°¢

(P/L)=xepul

jed01d199

S,UOSCUWIS

(p- ,)=AYSIaAIp

S,UOSACWIS

6c 0

€0Z°0

Ze8°0

€8Z'0

000°0

€8¢0

0¢9°0

Les‘0

8220

8670

9¢8°0

9S9°0

JO x9pul

SSOUUOL Sa1INedS

JO\UIM

600Z eunr—Z00Zg JequisAoN Huunp ssuesey sabi eYsUeS

Ul SOUS des} JUBIOYIP Ul SBIOeds JUBPOI Jo (xOpU| JBUBIAA UOUULYS) AjISJOAIP SBIOeds puke (xepU| S,UOSdWIS) SSeUYOI SBINedS :} aIqeL

}SO10} POX! =A ‘PUe|POOM =M ‘}Se104 =4

LLE0

c0e'l

€66 |

6821

000°0

019°0

O&0'l

L06°0

LSv'0

€89°0

ZE8'L

VIE |

(H-x@pu!

Jaual\\ UOUUeYS)

AUSJOAIP

S910edsS

Om ele SOUR Coy YOO. So OO" Gan oN oa GN

(S) seloeds

JO JOQUINN

AW snydiziz-eaing

AW B91ng

M Bl0eoy-puer|qnios

puerlqnios uedO

M snydiziz

AW snydiziz

dW snissobouy

NM snissebouy

AW Bey

M B0eoy

4 snydiziz7-sueAly

4 SUuLeATY

sols des

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

124

DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE OF RODENTS IN SEMI-ARID LANDSCAPE OF SARISKA TIGER RESERVE

Table 2: Overall density estimates of rodent species during

November 2007—June 2009 in Sariska Tiger Reserve

Overall

S.No Species N Density’ SE Encounter SE

ha rate

1 Golunda ellioti 67 3.41 066 0.279 0.044

2 Vandeleuria oleracea 12 0.61 0.26 0.050 0.021

Mus booduga 24: - 1205 "O20" 0087" O22

4 Mus musculus 1 0:82 8827 ‘O:075 » 6:020

5 Mus platythrix 123 6.26 221707 (0580. O:665

6 Millardia gleadowi 11 052 019 0.045 #£40.014

4 Millardia meltada 4 0:20: » 6.10,,. 0.016 -,0:008

8 Rattus norvegicus 25 1.27 0.30 0.104 0.022

9 Rattus rattus 14 O71 °O23" 0058) GOs

10 Tatera indica 16° 0.81 ~ O27" * 0066+ G26

11 Gerbillus nanus indus 5 O25 eet 0.020 0.009

N = Total number of captures

(uniform, half-normal, and hazard) with three possible model

adjustments (cosine, polynomial, and hermite). Akaike’s

information criterion was used to select the model that best

fit the present dataset (Buckland et al. 1993). Z test was used

to check for any significant difference in the densities of

rodents between seasons (Zar 2004). Rodent biomass was

calculated by multiplying the mean species body weight by

estimated density of the species (Nichlos et al. 1975).

RESULTS

Species diversity and richness: The Shannon Wiener

diversity and Simpson richness indices indicated high rodent

species diversity in Open Scrubland, followed by Acacia

woodland and Riverine Forest in winter (Table 1). In summer,

the diversity and richness indices indicated high rodent species

diversity in Ziziphus mixed forest and Riverine forest (Table 1).

Species wise: Vandeleuria oleracea was captured only in

Anogessius dominant forest; three species of Mus were

recorded in open scrubland, Ziziphus woodland, and

Anogessius mixed forest; two species of gerbils were captured

in Ziziphus woodland and scrubland; Rattus rattus,

R. norvegicus, and Millardia meltada were found in Butea

mixed forest; Millardia gleadowi was captured only in Butea-

Ziziphus mixed forest; and Golunda ellioti was largely

captured in open scrubland.

Overall density: A total of 316 individuals belonging to

11 species of rodents were recorded during the study. The

overall weight of male and female, average HBL, and average

tail length of species is given in Table 3. The overall rodent

density was 16.15 +2.76 animals/ha, and their estimated total

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

Table 3: Weight and body measurements of rodent species in

Sariska Tiger Reserve

Average weight Headtobody Tail length

(gm) length (cm) (cm)

Species Female Male Min. Max. Min. Max.

Golunda ellioti 41.7 S37 NG UV 12 OFS 1209

Vandeleuria oleracea 16.0 18.9 45 7.0 9.0 eee

Mus booduga 8.3 7:3, 4:3, 6.8... 50 8.5

Mus musculus 7.8 So! He 72-47 TS

Mus platythrix 15.3 137 43,726. 5.1 9.1

Millardia gleadowi 54.5 520 S82 11:5 65 15.5

Millardia meltada 66.8 6e:0° Fal 1715 “9B 17.0

108.8 12499.2 200 16.0 21.0

Rattus rattus 135.1 134.9 125 17.3 186 23.5

Tatera indica 54.3 562 s2 15.5 J02 205

Gerbillus nanus indus 23.5 145. £0 82-195 oo lSs

Rattus norvegicus

* Min. = minimum; Max. = maximum

biomass was 612.9 gm/ha. Global detection model was fitted

using the abundance of all species. Half normal detection

function with cosine adjustment of order two was the best

fitted model for all species. Mus platythrix was found to be

the most abundant species (6.26 individuals/ha) in the study

area, followed by Golunda ellioti (3.41 individuals/ha) and

Rattus norvegicus (1.27 individuals/ha) (Table 2).

Seasonal density: Least trap success was recorded in

summer (0.89%) and maximum trap success in winter (2.6%)

(Table 4). The species detection was explained by half normal

detection function with cosine adjustment of order two in

summer and uniform with cosine of order two in winter, based

on lowest Akaike information criterion. The overall rodent

density in winter was 22.92 +4.65 (SE) animals/ha, and

7.81 +2.25 (SE) animals/ha in summer. Z test revealed

significant difference in the densities of rodents between

seasons (Z=2.915, P=0.0039). Gerbillus nanus indus was

captured (n=5) only in summer, and Millardia meltada (n=5)

only in winter.

Of the 316 captures of 11 species, Mus platythrix (n=127)

was found to be the most abundant rodent species in both the

seasons followed by Golunda ellioti (5.56 individuals/ha) in

winter, Golunda ellioti (1.01 individuals/ha) and Rattus

norvegicus (0.92 individuals/ha) in summer (Table 4).

DISCUSSION

The overall density of rodents in Sariska Tiger Reserve (STR)

was low compared to those reported in some other tropical

125

DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE OF RODENTS IN SEMI-ARID LANDSCAPE OF SARISKA TIGER RESERVE

Table 4: Density estimates of rodent species during winter and summer (2007-2009) in Sariska Tiger Reserve

Winter (Nov—Feb)

N Density/ha SE EDR

Golunda ellioti 56 5.56 1.2 0.466

Vandeleuria oleracea 11 1.09 0.5 0.091

Mus booduga 17 1.69 0.54 0.141

Mus musculus 12 1.29 0.45 0.108

Mus platythrix 91 9.04 MATA 0.758

Millardia gleadowi 5 0.49 0.22 0.041

Millardia meltada 4 0.39 0.2 0.033

Rattus norvegicus 13 1.49 0.47 0.125

Rattus rattus 7 0.69 0.33 0.058

Tatera indica 12 1.19 0.46 0.1

Gerbillus nanus indus — ae en -

EDR= Effective distance radius; N = Total number of captures

deciduous forest areas in India: Kerala in Western Ghats (Jayahari

2008); upper Nilgiris, southern India (Shanker 2000, 2001, 2003;

Shanker and Sukumar 1999). However, the trapping success of

murid rodents in this study was high (2.8%) compared to an

earlier study in Sariska (0.9%) by Mukherjee (1998).

There was a higher abundance of rodents in the study area

during winter (6.33 animals/ha) than in summer (2.32 animals/

ha), and this may be due to the congregation of rodents in the

areas due to availability of seasonal fruits like Ziziphus

mauritiana, Z. nummularia, and Balanites aegyptiaca that were

observed to be consumed by them during winter. Prakash (1995)

reported low abundance of rodents in summer in semi-arid areas

of the Thar Desert in Rajasthan, where gerbils switch over their

diet to insects when the vegetation is without water content.

Prakash (1995) recorded spectacular fluctuation in feeding on

various plant parts over the year (depending on their

availability) for some rodent species in the desert ecosystem.

Summer (Mar—June)

SE N Density/ha SE EDR SE

0.08 11 1.01 0.4 0.091 0.028

0.04 1 0.09 0.09 0.008 0.008

0.041 4 0:37 0.2 0.033 0.016

0.035 6 0.46 0.26 0.041 0.021

0.11 32 2.95 0.99 0.266 0.064

0.018 6 0.55 0.28 0.05 0.023

0.016 0 _ - - -

0.036 10 0.92 0.35 0.083 0.025

0.027 ul 0.64 0.31 0.058 0.024

0.036 4 0.36 0.24 0.033 0.02

- 5 0.46 0.23 0.042 0.018

Rodents were found to play an important role in the diet

of large, medium, and small-sized carnivores in STR,

contributing 4.4% in the diet of Golden Jackal and 34.3%

in Jungle Cat (Gupta 2011), and about 3—7% in the Leopard

(Mondal 2011). Along-term study using web trapping design

may give better understanding of rodent abundance in

different habitat types and seasons in the study area, and also

their contribution in small carnivores’ diet in different seasons.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the Rajasthan Forest Department for granting

permission to work in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, under

the research project ‘Ecology of Leopard’; the Director and

the Dean, FWS, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, for

their support and guidance; and our field assistants, Jairam,

Omi, and Ramesh for their help in field data collection.

REFERENCES

ADVANI, R. & R.P. MatHur (1982): Experimental reduction of rodent

damage to vegetable crops in Indian villages. Agro Ecosystems

8: 39-45.

AGARWAL, V.C. (1973): Notes on collection of mammals from Goa. Rec.

Zool. Surv. India 67: 261-280.

AGARWAL, V.C. (1976): New mammal records from Rajasthan. Journal

of Science and Technology 5: 342-344.

AGARWAL, V.C. & T.P. BHATTACHARYYA (1977): Reports on collection of

mammals from Tripura. Reports Zool. Surv. India. 73: 135-157.

AGARWAL, V.C. & T.P. BHATTACHARYYA (1987): New mammal records

from West Bengal. Bulletin Zool. Surv. India 8: 221-222.

ALIBHAI, S.K. (1985): Effect of diet on reproductive performance of the

bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus). J. Zool. (Lond.) 205(3):

445-452.

126

ANDERSON, D.R., K.P. BURNHAM, G.C. WuitE & D.L. Oris (1983): Density

estimation of small-mammal populations using a trapping web

and distance sampling methods. Ecology 64: 674-680.

Biswas, B. & R.K. GHOSE (1968): New record of mammal from

Rajasthan, India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 65(2): 481-482.

BUCKLAND, S.T., D.R. ANDERSON, K.P. BURNHAM & J.L. LAAKE (1993):

Distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological

populations. Chapman and Hall, London, UK. 446 pp.

BuRNHAM, K.P., D.R. ANDERSON & J.L. LAAKE (1980): Estimation of

density from line transect sampling of biological populations.

Wildlife Monographs 72: 1-202.

CHAKRABORTY, S. (1983): Contribution to the knowledge of mammalian

fauna of Jammu and Kashmir. Record Zool. Surv. India Occ.

« Pap: ISA 28.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE OF RODENTS IN SEMI-ARID LANDSCAPE OF SARISKA TIGER RESERVE

Cuampion, H.G. & S.K. SeTH (1968): A revised survey of forest types of

India. Manager of Publications, Government of India, New Delhi.

404 pp.

Cuopra, G. & R.C. Gupta (1987): Strategic use of single dose

anticoagulants for rodent control in paddy. Ninth International

Conference of Tropical Ecology. BHU, Varanasi, December.

CuHoprA, G., P. KAuR & S.S. GuRAYA (1996): Rodents: Ecology, Biology

and Control. R. Chand and Co., New Delhi. 202 pp.

ComMaNn, B.J. & H. BRUNNER (1972): Food habits of the feral house cat

in Victoria. J. Wildlife. Manage. 36: 848-853.

CorBETIT, G.B. & J.E. Hitt (1992): The Mammals of Indo-Malayan

Region. A Systematic Review. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

496 pp.

Davis, D.E. (1953): The characteristics of rat populations. Q. Rev. Biol.

28: 373-401.

ELLERMAN, J.R. & T.S.C. Morrison Scott (1966): Checklist of

Palaearctic and Indian Mammals, 1758-1946. British Museum

(Natural History), London. 810 pp.

ELLERMAN, J.R. (1961): The Fauna of India including Pakistan, Burma

and Ceylon. Mammalia. 2nd edn, Vol. 3 (Rodentia), Parts 1 & 2.

Manager of Publications, Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta.

884 pp.

GuosgE, R.K. (1976): Further new records of mammals from Rajasthan,

India. Journal Zool. Soc. India 26: 149-150.

GupTA, S. (2006): Prey abundance and feeding habits of jackal (Canis

aureus) in Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. M.Sc.

dissertation submitted to Department of Wildlife Sciences,

Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. 72 pp.

Gupta, S. (2011): Ecology of medium and small sized carnivores in

Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan. Ph.D. Thesis, Saurashtra

University, Rajkot, Gujarat. 192 pp.

Hit, J.E. (1958): Some observations on the fauna of Maldives Islands.

II. Mammals. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 55(1): 3-10.

Jain, A.P. (1975): Determination of bait preference of Rodents. Proc.

Summer Inst. Rodentol., Jodhpur, India. Pp. 81-87.

Jain, A.P. (1985): A note on the field rodents of Mandsaur District,

Madhya Pradesh. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 82(2): 397-407.

JAYAHARI, K.M. (2008): Ecology and behavior of small mammals in the

Western Ghats of Kerala, southern India with special reference

to rodents. Ph.D. Thesis, Forest Research Institute, Dehradun.

167 pp.

Jones, J.H. & N.S. Smit (1979): Bobcat density and prey selection in

Central Arizona. J. Wildlife. Manage. 43: 666-672.

KuasuriA, H. & D.K. GuHosaL (1981): Studies on Wildlife of Narbada

Valley, Part IV. Mammals. Rec. Zool. Surv. India 79: 235-257.

KITCHENER, A. (1991): The Natural History of the Wild Cats. Christopher

Helm Publishers, London. 70 pp.

LAAKE, J.L., S.T. BUCKLAND, D.R. ANDERSON & K.P. BURNHAM (1994):

DISTANCE User’s Guide. Colorado State University, Fort

Collins, CO. 84 pp.

LupLow, M.E. & M.E. Sunquist (1987): Ecology and behaviour of

ocelots in Venezuela. Nat. Geogr. Res. 3: 447-461.

ManaJAn, K.K. & R.N. MUKHERJEE (1972): Checklist of mammal of

Himachal Pradesh with a district wise distribution. Proc. 59th

Indian Sci. Congr. Pt. 3, Abstrs, Calcutta. Pp. 473-474.

ManaJAn, K.K. & R.N. MUKHERJEE (1974): A checklist of mammals

Himachal Pradesh with notes on distribution in the area.

Hippocampus, Chandigarh 5: 40-47.

Menon, V. (2003): A Field Guide to Indian Mammals. Dorling

Kindersley (India) Pvt. Limited. 200 pp.

MOokEHLMAN, P.D. (1986): Ecology of co-operation in Canids. Pp. 64-86.

In: Roubenstein, D.I. and R.W. Wrangham (Eds): Ecological

aspects of social evolution in birds and mammals. Princeton

University Press, Princeton.

Monpat, K. (2011): Ecology of leopard (Panthera pardus) in Sariska

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan. Ph.D., Thesis, Saurashtra University,

Gujarat, India. 233 pp.

Monbat, K., S. Gupta, Q. Qureshi & K. SANKAR (2011): Prey selection

and food habits of leopard (Panthera pardus) in Sariska Tiger

Reserve, Rajasthan. Mammalia 75: 201-205.

MUKHERJEE, S. (1998): Ecological separation of three sympatric

carnivores in Keoladeo Ghana National Park, Rajasthan, India.

M.Sc., Dissertation, Saurashtra University, Rajkot. 60 pp.

MUKHERJEE, S., S.P. GoyaL, A.J.T. Jonnsincu & L. Prrman (2004): The

importance of rodents in the diet of jungle cat (Felis chaus), caracal

(Caracal caracal) and the golden jackal (Canis aureus) in Sariska

Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. J. Zool. (Lond.) 262: 405-411.

NicHLos, D.W., H.D. Smita & M.F BAKER (1975): Rodent population,

biomass and community relationship in Artemisia tridentata

Rush valley, Utah. Great Basin Naturalist 35: 191-202.

PALMER, R. & N. FairRALL (1988): Caracal and African wildcat diet in

the Karoo National Park and the implications thereafter for hyrax.

S. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 18: 30-34.

PEarSON, O.P. (1964): Carnivore mouse predation: an example of its

intensity and bioenergetics. J. Mammal. 45: 177-188.

PRADHAN, M.S. (1975): Studies on Bombay Rats. Ph.D. Thesis, Bombay

University, Bombay. 180 pp.

PRAKASH, I. (1959): Food of some Indian desert mammals. J. Biol. Sci.

2: 100-109.

PRAKASH, I. (1963): Taxonomical and ecological account of mammals

in Rajasthan Desert, India. J. Mammal. 41: 386-389.

PRAKASH, I. (1972): Extension of the range of Suncus stoliczkanus in

the Rajasthan desert. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 69(3): 643-644.

PraKASH, I. (1974): The Ecology of vertebrates in Indian desert.

Pp. 369-420. In: Mani, M.S. (Ed.): Ecology and Biogeography

in India. Dr. W. Junk, The Hague, Netherlands.

PRAKASH, I. (1981): Ecology of Indian Gerbil (Meriones hurrianae).

Monograph. Central Arid Zone Res. Inst., Jodhpur 10: 1-87.

PRAKASH, I. (1995): Invasion of peninsular small mammals towards the

Aravalli ranges and the Thar Desert. Int. J. Ecol. Env. Sci. 21:

17-24.

PRAKASH, B.G. & K.S. PRAKASH (1985): Estimation of rodent damage in

a hybrid rice trial. Rodent Newsl. 9(2—4): 12-13.

PRAKASH, I. & R.P. MaTHurR (1987): Management of rodent pests. ICAR

Publ. 133 pp.

PraTER, S.H. (1980): The Book of Indian Animals. Bombay Natural

History Society and Oxford University Press, Bombay, India.

324 pp.

Rana, B.D. (1992): The soft-furred field rat, Rattus meltada. Pp. 127.

In: Prakash, I. and P.K. Ghosh (Eds): Rodents in Indian

Agriculture. Vol. 1, Chap. 10. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur,

India.

RoonwaL, M.L. (1949): The geographical and geological aspects of

migration in animals. Bull. Natl. Geogr. Soc. India 11: 1-33.

Roonwa, M.L. (1950): Contributions to the fauna of Manipur State

Assam. Part III - Mammalia with special reference to the

family Muridae (Order Rodentia). Records of Indian Museum.

47: 1-64.

RoonwaL, M.L. (1987): Records of the Zoological Survey of India:

Recent Advances in Rodentology in India. Zoological Survey of

India, Calcutta, Miscellaneous Publication. 105: 126.

SANKAR, K. & A.J.T. JOHNSINGH (2002): Food habits of tiger (Panthera

tigris) and leopard (Panthera pardus) in Sariska Tiger Reserve,

Rajasthan, India, as shown by scat analysis. Mammalia 66:

285-289.

SANKAR, K., Q. QURESHI, K. MONDAL, D. WorAH, T. SRIVASTAVA, S. GUPTA

& S. Basu (2009): Ecological studies in Sariska Tiger Reserve.

Report submitted to National Tiger Conservation Authority, Govt.

of India, New Delhi, and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

145 pp.

127

DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE OF RODENTS IN SEMI-ARID LANDSCAPE OF SARISKA TIGER RESERVE

SANTRA, K.B. & C.K. MANNA (2008): Studies on some aspects of rodent

ecology in four districts of Gangetic plains of West Bengal, India.

Univ. J. Zool. Rajshahi Univ. 27: 85-90.

SHANKER, K. (2000): Small mammal trapping in tropical montane forests

of the Upper Nilgiris, southern India: an evaluation of Capture-

Recapture models in estimating population size. Journal of

Biosciences 25: 99-111.

SHANKER, K. (2001): The role of competition and habitat in structuring

small mammal communities in a tropical montane ecosystem in

southern India. J. Zool. (Lond.) 253: 15-24.

SHANKER, K. (2003): Small mammal communities in montane

ecosystems in the Nilgiris, southern India: their ecology and

natural history. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 100(1): 46-57.

SHANKER, K. & R. SuKUMAR (1999): Synchrony in small mammal

populations of montane forest patches in southern India. Journal

of Animal Ecology 68: 50-59.

SHANNON, C.E. & W. WIENER (1963): The Mathematical Theory of

128

Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.

11 pp.

SHEIKER, C., C.S: MALuI, N.S. RAwATH & R. SINGH (1983): Murids of

Garhwal Himalayas. Rodent Newsl. 7(4): 17.

SILLERO-ZuBIRI, C. & D. GoTTELLi (1995): Diet and feeding behavior

of Ethiopian wolves (Canis simensis). J. Mammal. 76:

531-541.

Soop, M.L. & D.S. DiLBER (1977): The composition and fluctuation of

population of sympatric Murid in PAU fields. J. Bombay Nat.

Hist. Soc. 74(3): 521-524.

SPILLETT, J.J. (1968): The ecology of the lesser bandicoot rat in Calcutta.

Unpubl. Sc.D. Dissertation, School of Hygiene and Public

Health, Johns Hopkins University. Pp. 23.

WHO (1974): Ecology and control of rodents of public health

importance. WHO Technical Report. Series No. 553: 1-2.

ZAR, J.H. (2004): Biostatistical analysis. Pearson Education, Inc.

Pp. 130.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(2), May-Aug 2013

THE STATUS OF THE GANGES RIVER DOLPHIN

PLATANISTA GANGETICA GANGETICA IN THE RIVER BARAK, ASSAM, INDIA

Tu. P. Sincua!*, B.K. Dutta? AND S.P. Biswas?

‘Department of Chemistry, Cachar College, Silchar 788 001, District Cachar, Assam, India. Email: thpawlensingha @ gmail.com

*Department of Ecology and Environmental Science, Assam University, Silchar, Assam, India. Email: bimankdutta @rediffmail.com

’Department of Life Science, Dibrugarh University, Dibrugarh, Assam, India. Email: spbsdu@ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

The Ganges River Dolphin Platanista gangetica gangetica, once common in the River Barak in southern Assam, is

now rarely sighted. Currently, the dolphins in winter (December—February) congregate in a 14 km stretch of the Barak

centring on two sites. During the rainy season (mainly June—August), they frequent tributaries and flooded paddy

fields. The population in the 135 km stretch of the Barak, before its bifurcation near the Indo-Bangladesh border, was

estimated at 14, 12, 10, 9, 9, 8, and 8 in 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, respectively. About 60%, 31%,

and 9% of the population was made up of adults, subadults and calves respectively. Information on 29 dolphin mortalities

in the Barak comprised 28% adults, 34% subadults and 38% calves. Fishing activities were responsible for 90% of the

mortalities; 37% of deaths of calves were due to entanglement in gill-nets. Direct and indirect hunting, uses of dolphin

oil as fish attractant and medicine, habitat loss and degradation, depletion of prey fish, water development projects,

lack of people’s awareness, and poor law enforcement threaten the dolphins. Among others, notification of Barak

129-134

Dolphin Sanctuary and strict enforcement of laws are required to conserve the dolphins in the Barak.

Key words: Ganges River Dolphin, River Barak, population, mortality, habitat loss, conservation

INTRODUCTION

The Ganges River Dolphin Platanista gangetica

gangetica and the Indus River Dolphin Platanista gangetica

minor are two subspecies of the River Dolphin Platanista

gangetica (Rice 1998). The Indus River Dolphin is found in

the rivers of the lower Indus basin in Pakistan (Smith and

Braulik 2008) and in the river Beas in Punjab, India (Behera

et al. 2008). The Ganges River Dolphin is distributed in the

Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna and Karnaphuli river systems

of India, Nepal, and Bangladesh (Anderson 1879; Kasuya

and Haque 1972; Jones 1982; Mohan 1989; Reeves and

Brownell 1989; Reeves et al. 1993; Singha et al. 2007;

Shrestha 1989; Wakid 2005). The Ganges River Dolphin is

categorised as Endangered in the IUCN Red List (version

2009.1), and placed in Appendix I of CITES and in Schedule

I of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. A total of

about 1,200—1,800 animals is a reasonable estimate of the

lower range of its global population (Smith and Braulik 2008).

River Barak, the largest river of Manipur and southern

Assam and the second largest river of north-east India, is the

head stream of the Meghna and is, therefore, an integral part

of the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) river system.

As in many other rivers of the GBM river system, the dolphin,

known to the people of Barak Valley (Cachar, Karimganj,

and Hailakandi districts of Assam) as Suins in Hindi, Foo

Maachh or Hoohn in the local dialect of Bengali, Susuma in

Dimasa, and Nasubi in Manipuri, was once common, but is

now rarely sighted in the Barak.

Published work on the dolphin in the Barak is scanty.

Biswas (1995) reported its absence from its past strongholds

in an 80 km length of the Barak. Choudhury (1997) mentioned

its occurrence in the Barak in the checklist of the mammals

of Assam. In November 1999, Singha (Anon. 1999) found

dolphins of the Barak to congregate at Lalmati Dahr. Singha

(2005) presented an overview of the dolphin and its

occurrence in the Barak. Singha and Biswas (2005) reported

on dwindling numbers of this dolphin in the rivers of southern

Assam. Singha et al. (2007) gave insights into the past,

present, and future survival of the species in the River Barak

in Assam.

For planning and adoption of conservation measures,

very few accounts on the whereabouts and population trend

of the dolphin in the Barak are available. Therefore,

population studies on the dolphins in the River Barak were

done from 1999 to 2008, which form the basis of this paper.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study covered a stretch of 135 km (12 km in hill

areas and 123 km in the plains) of the River Barak from Narain

Dahr (24° 43' N; 93° 04' E), near the Assam-Manipur border

to Tiganga (24° 52' N; 92° 29' E), the point of its bifurcation

near the Indo-Bangladesh border (Fig. 1). The River Barak,

STATUS OF THE GANGES RIVER DOLPHIN IN THE RIVER BARAK

( " KARIMGAN,

) bistRICT

| Longai f

( ery

| Dhaleswari

} River

: Hg % Barak River

. Other river

Dolphin congregation sites (past)

Dolphin congregation sites (present) |

Past congregation sites |

often visited by dolphins at present |

Fig. 1: Past and present distribution of the Ganges River Dolphin in the River Barak

after flowing for about 400 km in its hill course, starts its

course in the plains at Fulertal, and after flowing for about

123 km entirely within India on a serpentine route reaches

Tiganga in India. The important right-bank tributaries of the

river include the Makru and the Jiri in Manipur, and the Chiri,

Madhura, Jatinga, Dalu (a tributary of the Jatinga), and Larang

in Barak Valley of Assam. The major left-bank tributaries are

the Irang and the Tuivai (Tipai) in Manipur and Sonai, Rukni

130

(a tributary of the Sonai), Ghagra, Katakhal, Dhaleswari,

Singla, and Longai in Barak Valley. Banks and basin area of

the Barak river system are thickly populated and this leads to

enormous pressure on the land and water resources.

To locate dolphin localities in the Barak, information

of such possible sites were first collected from Biswas (1995),

Anon. (1999), and boatmen, fishermen, and other locals. With

this information, 1:50,000 toposheet maps of Survey of India

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

STATUS OF THE GANGES RIVER DOLPHIN IN THE RIVER BARAK

and satellite images from the internet were referred to know

the accessibility to these sites. These sites were surveyed

regularly throughout the study period (1999-2008).

Unlike the Brahmaputra and the Ganges, the River

Barak, in the dry months, flows in a single channel of less

than 200 m width, and thus ‘rolling’ of dolphins can be easily

observed from a boat, shore, or bank. The surveys for the

assessment of population were carried out during November

to May, when the water levels were low and when dolphins

were expected to remain in the main river. For assessment of

population, two sets of surveys were carried out. The first

set (7 surveys) covered the whole study area. The second set

(6 surveys) covered the dolphin congregation area from

Niyairgram to Lalmati Dahr (Fig. 1). The first set of surveys

were carried out in 1999 (November), 2001 (December), 2003

(December), 2005 (December), 2006 (December), 2007

(December), and 2008 (April). The second set of surveys were

carried out in 2000 (May), 2001 (April), 2004 (March), 2004

(December), 2006 (April), and 2007 (April). Surveys during

and after 2001 were done following the method of Smith and

Reeves (2000). It involved three observers sitting on a high

platform in the extreme front of a country boat or a low-

sound emitting motorboat moving at a slow speed (<9 km

per hour), so that dolphins were not likely to be missed.

Among the observers, the one in the middle acted as secondary

observer and data recorder, while the others acted as primary

observers. At every potential dolphin site, about 15 minutes

were spent to look out for their presence. At known or

observed dolphin congregation centres, more time was

devoted. Measures to minimise both upward and downward

bias in dolphin counts were adopted. In this respect, the size,

colour, vicinity, and distance, and periodicity of rolling of

the dolphins were considered. As determination of sex at the

time of their surfacing from the water was extremely difficult,

only categorisation of animals in terms of their age groups

(adult, subadult, and calf) was done following Biswas and

Boruah (2000). Accordingly, a specimen slate-grey and of a

length of about 1.2 m or above was considered as adult; a

specimen blackish in colour with a length of about 0.7 m or

less was considered as calf; and a specimen of intermediate

colour and length between 0.7—1.2 m was considered as

subadult. The linear density (number of dolphins per km),

within the dolphin congregation area (14 km), outside the

congregation area (121 km), and the stretch of the River Barak

surveyed (135 km), was calculated by dividing the number

of dolphins encountered within the concerned area by 14,

121, and 135 — these being the length in kms of the river

stretches surveyed respectively.

To collect information on occasional sighting of

dolphins, their entanglement in fishing gear and their

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

mortality, a semi-quantitative and qualitative questionnaire

was prepared and people were interviewed. Information on

reported mortality of dolphins was cross-checked with more

than one source. Visits were also made on receiving specific

information from the locals.

RESULTS

During the period of low water levels in the river

(November—May), the dolphins were recorded to congregate

at Lalmati Dahr (24° 49' N; 92° 51' E) and Niyairgram Dahr

(24° 47' N; 92° 50' E), and forage there and in the 14 km

stretch between these two sites. Almost every year, after a

few pre-monsoon showers in March—May, newborn calves

were recorded in this Lalmati Dahr—Niyairgram Dahr section.

Calves were not seen in this stretch during January and

February.

In a year’s first flooding (May-June), individual

dolphins and mother-calf pairs were sighted moving upstream.

Dolphins coming from downstream (the Meghna, Kalni,

Kushiyara, and elsewhere) were also seen to visit various

parts of the Barak during this time. During the monsoon

(mainly June-August), one or two dolphins were observed

to visit and forage in the tributaries of the Barak: a subadult

was found dead in the River Katakhal (at Lalachhera-

Barnarpur near Lalaghat) in 1998; another adult drowned due

to entanglement in fishing gear in the River Longai near

Longai Ghat in 2005; a mother and calf were seen by the

local people moving upstream in the swelling waters of the

River Katakhal at Laishramkhun, Gaglachhera and

Leihoupokpi (Madhabpur) near Lala in Hailakandi district

in June, 2004. Dolphins still move out from the rivers to

adjoining water bodies, if the situation permits. During the

floods in 2007, three dolphins foraged for a whole day in an

inundated paddy field of Roypur, a village 5 km to the north-

west of Silchar town.

The surveys carried out to assess the dolphin population

gave counts of 14, 12, 10, 9, 9, 8, and 8 in 1999, 2001, 2003,

2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, respectively (Table 1). The

population was made up of 59.32% adults, 31.36% subadults,

and 9.32% calves. Among the dolphins encountered within

the congregation area, 61.32%, 29.25%, and 9.43% were adults,

subadults, and calves respectively. Among those encountered

outside the congregation area, 41.66%, 50%, and 8.33% of the

population were adults, subadults, and calves respectively.

During the first set of surveys, 82% of the population

was encountered between Niyairgram Dahr and Lalmati Dahr.

The others were found moving and foraging solitarily within

a distance of 15 km from the congregation area. Out of a total

of 118 sightings of dolphins during the surveys, 11 sightings

131

STATUS OF THE GANGES RIVER DOLPHIN IN THE RIVER BARAK

were of calves. Of these 11 calves, 9 were observed in March—

May and 2 in November—December.

During 1999 to 2004, there were three cases of

mortalities in the Lalmati Dahr area: in February 1999, April

2000, and November 2000. Two of the dolphins were

juveniles. The dolphins were reported to be killed after getting

entangled in fishing gear. A fourth entanglement in 2005

resulted in the death of an adult in the Longai (a southern

tributary of the Kushiyara) at Longai Ghat near Karimganj

town.

A total of 29 mortalities of dolphins were recorded in

the Barak river system. Double-boat operated nets caused

27.59%, single-boat operated nets 17.24%, gill nets 17.24%,

hook and lines 17.24%. Opportunistic killing of dolphins that

entered creeks and shallow areas constituted 6.9%. Others

casualties were 3.45% by harpoon and spear, 3.45% by seine

net, and 3.45% fishing traps. Accidental piercing of the

forehead by the dorsal fin of the catfish Sperata seenghala,

while being caught and handled by the dolphins accounted

for 3.45% of the mortalities.

DISCUSSION

According to elderly locals and fishermen, the Lalmati

Dahr—Niyairgram Dahr dolphins have inhabited this stretch

for many generations; their presence and calving have also

been observed since the last ten years. During the surveys

covering the whole study area, 82% of the population was

encountered between Niyairgram Dahr and Lalmati Dahr. Of

the dolphins seen within Niyairgram Dahr and Lalmati Dahr,

41.50%, 8.49%, 0.94%, 4.7%, and 42.45% were encountered

at Niyairgram Dahr, Uttar Krishnapur Dahr, Badrimukh,

Bhagador, and Lalmati Dahr respectively. Uttar Krishnapur

Dahr, Badrimukh, and Bhagador lie between Niyairgram Dahr

and Lalmati Dahr. This shows that Niyairgram Dahr and

Lalmati Dahr are the primary congregation sites at present

for the dolphins of the River Barak.

Linear density was found to be 0.30 dolphins per km

in 113.0 km part in Kalni-Kushiyara river (Smith et al. 2001),

and 0.08 dolphins per km in the section of the River Kushiyara

located between the Bangladesh-India border and the

confluence of the River Korangi (Smith et al. 1998). The

density rose slightly on moving up the Barak (0.1 per km in

1999, 0.09 per km in 2001 (Table 1). But, in a span of ten

years (1999-2008) during our study, the overall population

and linear density of the dolphins in the Barak and within the

congregation area decreased by at least 40% (Fig. 2). The

adult population decreased till 2005, but has remained stable

for three years after that. Although new-born calves were

recorded in the Lalmati Dahr—Niyairgram Dahr section in

March—May of each year, neither the population of adults

nor of subadults were recorded to increase during the study

period. Rather, a decline was seen — the population of adults

reduced to 5 from 8, and subadults to 2 from 5. This indicates

Table 1: Population of the Ganges River Dolphin in the River Barak

Month Inside congregation area Outside congregation area

& Year (i) (ii)

Adult Subadult Calf Total Linear Adult Subadult Calf Total Linear Total Overall linear density:

density density —_ ((I) + (II) dolphins/km in Barak

dolphin/km dolphin/km river

Nov. 1999 F 4 1 12 0.86 1 0 2 0.017 14 0.1

May 2000 4 2 2 8 0.57 - - ~ -

Apr. 2001 6 4 2 12 0.86 - - - - ”

Dec. 2001 7 5 0 12 0.86 0 0 0.00 12 0.09

Dec. 2003 5 2 0 7 0.50 1 : 0.025 10 0.074

Mar. 2004 5) 1 2 8 0.57 - - -

Dec. 2004 6 2 0) 8 O57. - - -

Dec. 2005 4 2 0 6 0.49 1 0 6) 0.025 9 0.067

Apr. 2006 4 2 1 7 0.50 - - - -

Dec. 2006 5 2 0 PA 0.50 0 1 2 0.017 9 0.067

Apr. 2007 3 1 1 5 0.36 - - - - -

Dec. 2007 5 2 0 q 0.50 1 1 0.008 8 0.06

Apr. 2008 4 2 1 7 0.50 1 1 0.008 8 0.06

Total 65 31 10 106 - 5 1 12 118

132 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

STATUS OF THE GANGES RIVER DOLPHIN IN THE RIVER BARAK

—- Sub-adult

—O— Total

—@— Outside congregation area

—e— Adult

—f— Calf

—*-— Within congregation area

oie

oOo

No.of dolphins

Nh Oo ho oa iay) OO

1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008

Fig. 2: Dolphin population in the River Barak (1999-2008)

a current zero survival rate of calves in the River Barak.

According to Jefferson et al. (1993), calving of the Ganges

River Dolphin apparently can occur at any time of the year,

with peaks in December to January and March to May. In the

River Barak, the peak was found to be during March—May,

the months of pre-monsoon rains. The reason for not sighting

calves in the congregation area in January—February could

be that by January—February, the calves might have died or

been killed.

In contrast to the Ganges, Brahmaputra, and Meghna,

the width of the River Barak is much smaller (<200 m in dry

season), and therefore, dolphins are more likely to get

entangled in fishing gear and also more easily netted in the

River Barak. In general, meaningful quantitative data on the

magnitude of (river dolphin) catches, either deliberate or

incidental, are unavailable and unlikely to become available

in the absence of a well-organised, adequately funded, and

incorruptible fishery/wildlife management system (Smith et

al. 2008). However, riverside people in Barak Valley who

saw entanglement, catching, killing, and selling of dolphin

in their locality, were found to fairly well recollect such

incidents because of the unusual and exceptional nature of

the incidents. The data on mortality obtained from them

indicate that calves suffered maximum casualties (38%),

followed by subadults (34%) and adults (28%). Among the

casualties of calves, 37% were due to entanglement in gill

nets, 36% in single-boat operated fishing nets, 18% in double-

boat operated drag nets and 9% in seine nets. Except for one

or two cases of death that might have occurred due to

drowning after entanglement in gill nets or others, almost all

the other deaths were due to deliberate killing by fisherman

and other locals. In some parts of the River Barak, from a

little upstream of Katakhalmukh to the bifurcation point of

the Barak in general, and sites near Banaimolla Dahr, Padri

Ghat, Srigauri, and Malua Dahr (Fig. 1) in particular, some

fishermen go for community hunting of dolphins, especially

calves and subadults. They surround and chase the dolphins

using nets, forcing them to enter a creek to kill them.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

The consumption of dolphin meat by some locals,

and the use of its oil as a fish attractant, as medicine for a

variety of diseases (e.g., arthritis, rheumatism),

aphrodisiac, and ointment for humans and livestock

encourage the hunting of dolphins. The price of 100 ml of

dolphin oil (not sold openly) in the Barak Valley in 2008

was more than Rs. 100. Apart from killing of dolphins

during fishing as direct catch and by-catch, habitat

degradation in the form of loss of dahrs (pools) as a result

of change in river course and siltation of bed, depletion of

prey fish, loss of foraging grounds due to the erection of

embankments, dams, and sluice gates, and aquatic pollution

pose threats to dolphins in the River Barak.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Since 1999, the district and state level authorities have

been approached from time to time to adopt measures for the

conservation of dolphins and their habitat in the River Barak.

Some conservation measures have already been adopted, and

these include:

1. Exemption of the dolphin congregation area from

leasing out to public for fishery and earning of government

revenue;

2. Clamping of Section 144, Cr.P.C. at Lalmati Dahr

area to restrain any form of fishing there;

3. Submission of Feasibility Report of Dolphin

Sanctuary by the DFO, Cachar, to the Chief Conservator of

Forests, Assam;

4. Issue of order for demarcating the proposed area of

Dolphin Sanctuary.

To make people aware and involve them in

conservation, all forms of locally available media (audio,

video, print) were explored. Doordarshan Kendra, Silchar,

has produced documentaries, entitled ‘Endangered dolphins

of the Barak’, in Bengali and in English. These documentaries,

scripted by the present corresponding author, have already

been telecast more than 10 times since the first telecast in

2000. Talks, campaigns, meetings, workshops, and nature

camps have also been organised. These initiatives have

probably helped arrest the decline in the dolphin population

since 2007. However, unlawful fishing continues unabated

in various parts of the River Barak, its tributaries and other

water bodies throughout the Barak Valley and also at the

dolphin congregation sites jeopardising, directly or indirectly,

the life and security of the few surviving dolphins.

To conserve the dolphins of the Barak, the following

measures are suggested:

1. Notification of Lalmati Dahr—Niyairgram Dahr section

of the River Barak as Barak Dolphin Sanctuary. During

133

STATUS OF THE GANGES RIVER DOLPHIN IN THE RIVER BARAK

the interim period, prior to notification and proper

functioning of the Dolphin Sanctuary, promulgation and

strict enforcement of Section 144 Cr.P.C. to stop any form

of fishing in the dolphin congregation sites, removal of

any encumbrances in the dolphin foraging/congregation

area, and keeping a 24-hour vigil on congregating dolphins

and their movements at least during post-monsoon to

pre-monsoon period, are required.

2 Monitoring, maintenance, and enhancement of the

habitat at dolphin congregation sites, and establishment

of similar conditions at nearby river meanders for

habitat expansion and alternative congregation sites

3. Sensitisation of riverside people to act as local guardians

of the dolphins of their localities. Panchayats may be

involved in this aspect.

4. Engaging fishermen of Lalmati Dahr—Niyairgram Dahr

section in conservation and eco-tourism, and/or

providing them alternative livelihoods.

5. Inclusion of the safety and security of life and habitat

of dolphin in all assessment, reassessment, planning,

and execution of river development works.

6. Exploring the possibility of developing selected anuwas

(oxbow lakes) of the River Barak for ex situ

conservation, dolphin studies, and ecotourism.

7. Strict enforcement of fishery and wildlife protection

acts and rules throughout the Barak sub-basin.

REFERENCES

ANDERSON, J. (1879): Anatomical and Zoological Researches:

Comprising an Account of Zoological Results of the Two

Expeditions to Western Yunnan in 1868 and 1875; and a

Monograph of the Two Cetacean Genera, Platanista and

Orcella|sic]. Bernard Quaritch, London. Two volumes.

ANoNn. (1999): Baraker Hariye Jaowa Shishuk Khuje Paowa Gelo

Lalmati Dahare (the lost dolphins of the Barak River found at

Lalmati Dahr, in Bengali). Dainik Jugasangkha. December 2,

1999. Pp: 2.

BEHERA, S.K., A. NAwaB & B. RAJKUMAR (2008): Preliminary

investigations confirming the occurrence of Indus River Dolphin

Platanista gangetica minor in River Beas, Punjab, India.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 105(1): 90.

Biswas, S.P. (1995): Barak Noit Bartamaan Hihoor Sthiti (Present

condition of the river dolphin in the Barak River, in Assamese).

Endangered River Dolphin (Bipanna Hihoo, in Assamese).

Souvenir published on the occasion of Workshop on River Dolphin.

River Dolphin Protection Committee, Assam, 1995. Pp. 14-15.

Biswas, S.P. & S. BoruAH (2000): Ecology of river dolphin (Platanista

gangetica) in the upper Brahmaputra. Hydrobiologia 430:

97-111.

CuHoupuury, A.U. (1997): Platanista gangetica. Checklist of the

Mammals of Assam. Gibbon Books with ASTE Council.

Pp. 62-63.

JEFFERSON, T.A., S. LEATHERWOOD & M.A. WEBBER (1993): Marine

mammals of the world: FAO Species Identification Guide. United

Nations Environment Programme, Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 320 pp.

Jones, S. (1982): The present status of the Gangetic susu, Platanista

gangetica (Roxburgh), with comments on the Indus susu,

P. minor Owen. FAO Advisory Committee on Marine Resources

Research, Working Party on Marine Mammals. FAO Fisheries

Series 5(4): 97-115.

Kasuya, T. & A.K.M.A. HAQuE (1972): Some information on the

distribution and seasonal movement of the Ganges dolphin. Sci.

Rep. Whales Res. Inst. (Tokyo) 24: 109-115.

Mouan, R.S.L. (1989): Threatened Gangetic River Dolphin.

Whalewatcher 23: 6-8.

REEVES, R.R. & L. BROWNELL Jr. (1989): Susu Platanista gangetica

(Roxburgh, 1801) and Platanista minor (Owen, 1853).

Pp. 69-99. In: (Eds: Ridgway, S.H. and R. Harrison): Handbook

of marine mammals, River dolphins and the larger toothed whales

4. Academic Press, London, UK.

REEVES, R.R., S. LEATHERWOOD & R.S.L. MouHAn (1993): A Future for

Asian River Dolphins. Report from a Seminar on the

134

Conservation of River Dolphins of the Indian Subcontinent,

18-19 August, 1992, New Delhi, India. Whale and Dolphin

Conservation Society, Bath, Avon, England.

Rice, D.W. (1998): Marine mammals of the world: Systematics and

Distribution. Special Publications of the Society for Marine

Mammalogy, No. 4. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas. USA. 231 pp.

SHRESTHA, T.K. (1989): Biology, status and conservation of the Ganges

River Dolphin, Platanista gangetica, in Nepal. Pp. 70-76.

In: (Eds: Perrin, W.F., R.L. Brownell Jr., Z. Kaiya and

L. Jiankang): Biology and Conservation of River Dolphins. [UCN

Species Survival Commission Occasional papers No. 3.

SINGHA, TH.P. (2005): The river dolphin (Platanista gangetica) in the

Barak River, Assam. Abstracts - UGC Sponsored National Level

Seminar on ‘Environment Management’. Abhayapuri College,

Abhayapuri, Assam. Pp. 21-22.

SINGHA, Tu.P. & S.P. Biswas (2005): A brief note on freshwater dolphin

(Platanista gangetica) in the Barak River, south Assam. Abstracts

— UGC Sponsored Seminar on Germplasm Conservation & —

Sustainable Development. Dept. of Life Sciences, Dibrugarh

University, Assam. Pp. 14.

SINGHA, TH.P., B.K. Dutta & S.P. Biswas (2007): Some observations on

the past, present and future of the river dolphin (Platanista

gangetica) in the Barak River, Assam. Pp. 52—58. In: (Eds: Dutta,

B.K., A.K. Das and P. Choudhury): Biodiversity Conservation:

The Post Rio Scenario in India. Assam University, Silchar, Assam.

SmiTH, B.D. & GT. BRAULIK (2008): Platanista gangetica. In: IUCN

2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.1.

<http://www.iucnredlist.org/>. Downloaded on September 23,

2009.

SmiTH, B.D. & R.R. Reeves (2000): Survey methods for population

assessment of Asian river dolphins. Pp. 97-115. In:

(Eds: Reeves, R.R., B.D. Smith and T. Kasuya): Biology and

Conservation of Freshwater Cetaceans in Asia. IUCN Species

Survival Commission Occasional Paper No. 23.

SmitH, B.D., A. HAqug, M.S. Hossain & A. KHAN (1998): River dolphins

in Bangladesh: conservation and the effects of water

development. Environ. Manage. 22: 323-335.

SMITH, B.D., A. BENAziR, A.M. EprisE & G. BRAULIK (2001): Status of

the Ganges River Dolphin or shushuk Platanista gangetica in

Kaptai Lake and the southern rivers of Bangladesh. Oryx 35(1):

61-72.

Wakip, A. (2005): Status and distribution of a newly documented

residential Gangetic Dolphin (Platanista gangetica gangetica

Roxburgh 1801) population in eastern Assam. J. Bombay Nat.

Hist. Soc. 102(2): 158-161.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(2), May-Aug 2013

135-141

PTERIDOPHYTIC DIVERSITY OF BAROT, MANDI DISTRICT,

HIMACHAL PRADESH, INDIA

ALKA KuMart)?, Bru LAL!** AND OM PaRKASH!*

‘Biodiversity Division, CSIR-Institute of Himalayan Bioresource Technology, Palampur 176 061, Himachal Pradesh, India.

*Email: kumarialkasanjay @rediffmail.com

3Email: [email protected], brijihbt@ yahoo.co.in

‘Email: parkash.om3 @ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

This communication provides an inventory of the pteridophytes of Barot in the Uhl Valley of Mandi district, Himachal

Pradesh, based on extensive field surveys carried out during 2010-2011. Ninety species of pteridophytes (85 ferns and

5 fern-allies) belonging to 31 genera and 14 families were recorded, which represents about 95% of the pteridophytic

flora of Mandi district, and 35% of fern and fern-allies of Himachal Pradesh. Information on the species diversity,

habitat, and current status of the taxa based on the survey are provided in this paper. Besides collecting voucher

specimens of all the 90 species encountered for herbarium, live collections of 80 species of ferns and fern-allies were

collected and introduced in the fernery of the institute for conservation and multiplication purposes, and most have

been successfully established ex-situ. Strategies for bioprospection of selective species, and conservation of some rare

threatened species are also discussed.

Key words: Diversity, pteridophytes, ferns, Barot, Mandi district, Himachal Pradesh

INTRODUCTION

The Himalayan region is one of the most varied and

richest phytogeographical regions of India. The history of

exploration of pteridophytes in the western Indian Himalaya

goes back to the early 19th century, when John Forbes Royle,

Nathaniel Wallich, and various other plant collectors initiated

plant collection activities for the East India Company’s

herbarium, now known as the Central National Herbarium,

Kolkata (CAL). Extensive field studies carried out by various

workers in the recent past has revealed that the western

Himalaya is one of the richest regions for pteridophytes in

India (after east Indo-Himalaya and southern India),

harbouring around 385 species (Fraser-Jenkins 2010) and

representing nearly 40% of the pteridophytic flora of India.

Based on the collections of early British plant collectors,

ferns of this region were mentioned in the British fern floras

of India (Beddome 1883; Clarke 1880; Hope 1899-1904).

Subsequently, significant contributions were made by

Bir (1964, 1968); Dhir (1980); Dhir and Datta (1976, 1977a,b,

1979); Fraser-Jenkins (1992, 1997, 2008); Khullar (1994,

2000); Schelpe (1954); and Sharma and Khullar (2004).

Recent comprehensive accounts of the pteridophytes of

Kangra and Sirmaur districts of Himachal Pradesh (HP) have

been published by Khullar et al. (2008, 2009).

Himachal Pradesh, a part of western Himalaya, is a land

of deep valleys and lofty snow mountains with great altitudinal

variations from 300 m in the foothills to high snow covered

peaks of the greater Himalaya. Barot, in Mandi district of

HP, is situated in the Uhl river valley, which is covered by

thick forests of Cedar and Himalayan Oak. The hilly tract

of Barot rises from Jhatingri to Tikkan, and into Barot

tehsil. The thick forest cover is mainly composed of

78°0'0"E

machal Pradesh

76°0'6"E 78°0'O"E

Fig. 1: Map showing study area

PTERIDOPHYTIC DIVERSITY OF BAROT

"SWUeOIIS

9EE9l-dld OOZ‘I-009‘I paieyjeyus deep pure sjjeuayem Jeou sedojs daejs uo ‘auey ueyyl] pue uBuneur = soo “|. (“YOOH Xe “|;eA\) BIgeos eI)peR]SUUaGg We,

eeodel}perjsuuag ‘Ajiwe4

88E9l-d1d 008" | “ayAydoun|/eyAudide ‘erey joueg 0} UEMHLL AWeYUSAOH (|S81d *O) BSosod eIsouiAY ‘02

LVEIIL-d1id O00S‘L-OOL‘L “ayAydoyn|/eyAudide ‘uowwoo Ae, lueseyeys) Bulyd (uog “q) esojnac0y eIsoUAg ‘6h

Bulyo (Wayeg Xe ayeID “g’D)

L8E9l-d1d 008‘l-00Z'‘1 “aAydoup|/eyAydide ‘jeuoiseo09 joueg 0} UeyyIL —— BWIOZIYJOJIIW Sapo|podsjod 134

GLEQI-d1d 008° I “aAydoun/eiAydide ‘erey joueg OJ Ueyy1] = BUIYD (“YOOH xe |JeMA) SNdouyoe| sapolpodsjog oa:

Q98E9l-d1ld O0Z‘l-002' “ayAydoyn|/eyAydide ‘uowwos Ayres ueyyI] pue UBulyeur Bulyd (‘HE Xe “|;eM) BUBOWe sapolpodsjog ‘Ol

"S]EM "WI@S “Did

GGE9Il-d1d 009‘l-00S'1 pepeys ‘Yyol-snuuny uo eyAydoyp|/eyAydide ‘uowWooun UBuneur 0} lueseyey (eZUNY Xe “|/2M) Bqo/Axo suajdojewiAYd ‘Gk

"$90J1] UO ajAUdida se UsAP ‘sWe=dJ)S JO

G8E9l-d1d 009‘ | syueg Huoje Sy90J 18M UO SiNDDO ‘ayAydou}l| aseY ubuneur o} lueseyeyuy Bulud (uog ‘q) WinaseueIqWiaW WINJOSOIOIy eral

SUIMUSP-JOSEI 4

LGE9l-d1d 009'l-009‘1 “ayAydoyy|/eAydide uowwoo UBuneur 0} lueseyey (UIILUS “P) s7epedinbas snioside7 EL

VVEIL-d1d 008‘l-009'1 “ayAudoun|/eiAudide ‘arey -youeg 0} UeyyIL Bulyd snpnuopnasd sniosideT ice

LvE9l-dd 008" I “ayAydouy|/eyAydida ‘uowwoD joueg 0} UeyYIL Bulyd (400H) snpnu snoside7 “LL

OvE9l-d1d OOZ‘l-009'1 “ayAydouy|/eyAydide ‘uowwooun, UeyyLL "yueP-Jases4 ae/YaW sniosideT ‘OL

aevooripodAjog :Ajime-

P8E9l-d1ld 009‘l-00S‘L ‘JOQUIIID JUBPUBDS SB Sj[IUJOO} UO SUNDDO Ajyensfp “UOWWLUOD uBuneur oO} lueseyeyus "MS (‘qunuU |) Wnaiuodel winipobAT 6

6EEIl-d1ld O0Z‘L-009'1 "$99J} UO JOQUII|D ‘UOWWOOU/ UeyyLL "MS (77) wnsonxey WnipoBAT 8

aesoe!pobA :Ajime-

CVEII-d1ld OO08‘l-009‘l ‘sedojs ureyUnoW pure ‘s}jem ‘SyoO1 pepeUs ‘ISIOW UO “aJeY jOJeg O} UBYHIL “‘quny | eajuodel epunwiscC 2

"8AQ] C8 AQT “Y (PII X2 “112M)

EvE9l-dld 008‘I-009‘I ‘JOO|J JSO1O} BY} UO JO SMOPBOW Ul UOWWLUOD UBueur seen eJNISOA ‘dsqns | eueiuojAejo epuNWISEC ‘9

aeooepunwso :Ajiwe

LEEOL-dd 00S‘ l-OSZ ‘syueg aulAes Buojy }euoIsed90Q lueseyeyuds ‘Iseq Wnuwissisowes winjasinbZ ¢

ZcEII-dld 009‘l-O00S‘I "Se0R|d JOM JOUJO pue SWeALjs ‘s]jeyayem Huojye UOWWOD = uUbuleur pue UeYyI] ‘IUeSeTeUD uog ‘q wnsnyip winjasinbZ LD

eeooejesinbgz :Ajiwe

“Snuuny UI YOU |IOS

OLEQL-d1d 009‘ | UIIM SOO JO Sued Apeus ‘}sioW Ul UOWWWOD Al38/\ uBuneur oO} 1ueseyeyuy Buds eueydeipgns ejjaulbejas €

“SUUBOIIS JO

ZLEQIL-d1d 009‘l-00S‘I syueq pue sijjiy jo sedojs Apeus pure jsiow Uo UOWLUOD uBbuneur 0} 1ueseyeyuy Buuds soziyuosfiyo eyjauibejas oF

‘sous Apeus jsiow uo snjjeyy SSow YM Huoye Huimoib .

LLEQL-d1ld 009‘l-00S‘I puNno} Os] ‘Sedojs epispeo Huoye UOWWOD Al8/\ UBueur oj lueseyeyy BHuuds (‘Ad 9 “YOOH) sojnesosAiyo ejjauibejas +

eeaoR|jaulbeyjas :Ajiwe

ON ‘00

wunueqieH = (W) epniniy BOUdIINIDIO BUS UONDA|OD SOWPN seloeds 9 Ajlwe4 “ONS

YSEpeid JeEYOeWIPH ‘ease joueg Jo AeAins 9) HuuNnp pepi0o0es saljye-Us9} PUe Wd 7, BIqey

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

136

PTERIDOPHYTIC DIVERSITY OF BAROT

60E9l-d 1d

LGE9l-dl|d

8LEQL-d 1d

6ZE9l-d ld

VIEIL-dld

8SE9l-dld

6SE9l-d ld

6VEIl-d Id

8VE9l-d1d

c8t91l-d Id

V9IEIl-dl1d

OLE9L-d1d

GLE91l-d1d

GVEIl-d ld

c8E9l-d 1d

C9EYl-d Id

L9E9l-d1d

S9EIlL-d 1d

EGE9l-d1d

cGe9l-d Id

OSE9l-d1d

LVEIL-dl1d

8VE9l-d1d

S8E9l-d Id

COEIl-d1d

ON ‘00

wuNWeqieH

009'1

009"

0091

008' |

009° 1—-00S"|

009'1—00S'1

008'|

008"

009'1—00S' 1

008"

0081

008'1—00S'1

0081

009'1—00S' 1

008‘ 1-009"

008° 1-009"

008"

0081

009'1

00s'‘I

008'I

008‘1-00S'1

0021-009" |}

(Ww) epnyyy

‘SQDIAGIO-YOOI

JO Sadojs/s|jem JSIOW S}Hqeuyul ‘UOWWWOD AJe/\

‘sjods \siow ‘spequueass Ap ‘}Sos0j ul ‘UOWWOD Aye

“Sjfem UO ‘SaepispeosJ UBdO UO ‘UOWWWOD

"SWIB9I]S/]SOJO} OU} Ul

seorid dwep pepeus ‘sease piuuny Ajybiy ul ‘uowwWwooUA

“SOlledO| pepeus JO usdo UI

‘JOO}J JSOJO} YOU-SNuuNY UO ‘UOWLUOD fu9/\

‘sebpe jsaJo] ye ‘UOWWOD Al3/\

“SODIABIO-YOO ‘SAdojs/s|jem JSIOW Syiqeuu! ‘asey

‘JOO]} 1S91OJ YOU-SNuNyY UO ‘UOWWOD Arey

“seare UadO PUe ‘OO}J 1S8JO) YOU-SNuNy UO ‘UOWWWOD AjIe4

‘Sepispeos Huoye

Seale Pasodxs UI! SYOOJ J@M JO JSIOW UO ‘aIeY

“seaie Apeus ‘jSIOW Ul SijI4 jo Sedojs uO ‘UOWWOD

‘sease Apeus ‘jSIOW UI Sj||Iy JO Sedojs UO ‘UOWWOD

"SEpISPeOI JeOU ‘SIIIU JO Sedojs sioW UO ‘aJeY

“Sedojs |jIy DUS SYDOJ 18M UO ‘aJeY

"JSOJO} Ul S4OOJ UO ‘JUeNbal+

"SQDIAGJO-YOOI Ul

‘sjyem UO ‘sepispeos Huoye ‘sadojs uo ‘UOWWWOD ua),

"S8DPUNS YOOJ pue Sadojs }SaJOj UO ‘auey

‘JOO}} IS81OJ pue ‘spue|ssesb

‘Spjaly payeanjno ‘sedojs epispeos Huoye ‘uowWWOD

“sapnyye YUbiy ye sedojs

S910} PUL JOO}J ISOs} YOU-SNuUNY syiqeuyu ‘UOWWOOUN

‘sepa jsos0} Huoye pue JO0}} JSEs0} UO ‘UOWLWUOD

‘seose pepeyus

pue piluny ul ‘Sepispeol ‘suees1s Buoje ‘uoWWOo Aye

“sjyem ‘Saedojs uo

‘SQDINBJO-YOOI Ul ‘SapIspeos Huoye ‘UOWWOS ANa/\

“Sedojs S910} YOU-SNuny UO ‘pesi|eo07

‘Sedojs pue ‘sjeueod ‘sasinoo

JayeM ‘SyOOJ ‘SeoR|d 18M Ul ‘S]/eEM UO ‘UOWWWOS A3/\

“SWeOJIS

Jo sease pesodxe ul seuoyed ul uses ‘UOWWON AjIe4

VOUBIINIIO

"YOOH ae/snoyjep wniuejdsy ‘Or

evooviusajdsy :Ajime

uBuneur Oo} j1ueseyeyy

uBuneur 0} j1ueseyeyy ypseby ‘f BUBIYIII/EM SHA}q "GY

uBuneur o} lueseyeud "yuaer-JESeJ4 JOOWA “ASS 7] BJEYIA SUA] Sra

joleg O} UeyHI] ypreby f Xe |TEM SI/BUILIA] SUA} ‘EV

WBulyeyr pue ‘ueyy!) ‘lueseyeyd | BONBID SUAld A]

uBuiyeur pue ‘ueyy!] ‘lueseyeuy ypieby ‘f xe “|;eNA SIINeOUedSe SUAa]dq ‘LY

joleg 0} UeyyI] seyeg (OOH Xe *|/eM\A) B/NPIIU BAel//adq ‘OV

jOeg O}] ULI] ezuny (‘quny |) wnaiuodel wniyo{uQ "6E

UBuneur pue ueyyl] ‘iueseyeyuy ISUUD sepiowwelbojdso winiyohuQ nets)

joreg O} UeyyIL MJEPUN) (“||2M) BSAA SUa}dOUWAS ‘LE

IpJeYO] 0} JOIeG 994 (auN|g) Bejnues awwesboluoyD ‘OE

IpseUO] 0} OLeEG snwAuolealyH suaosagnd awwesboiu0y “Ge

SNWAUOJSIH P/PAUWajU!

IpseYyOo] 0} JOLeG JEA BIDBUE]UI awWwelboIuoD "pe

ueyyLL pue UBulyeur Bulyd (uog ‘q) Bnd suajdoyineay ‘ee

JOG O}] UCI] emebe| (eyeAeH) PUBPSOWWOY SLIaj]doynaly es

uBuneur pue ueyYyI] ‘lUeseyeyy ‘yuar-1esel4 (“"GxOY) JO/OIIg sUajdojuNnaly "Ee

ueyyl] ‘uBuneur iuesbiued (‘jue|gG) Sdaoue suajdojunajy OF

uBuiyeur pue ‘ueyy!) ‘IUeseyeys Bulyo (e41e|D “g’O) Byeu/Brewog/e siajdojyneayy ‘62

seyinyy (‘uuly “XA 8 BulyD) wnoyeqH

‘dsqns uog ‘gq WN]snudA winjueipy "82

uog ‘Gq WN}snuaA winjuelpy t2

joleg

joreg

WBuyeur 0} jueseyeys "7 asuadadljiyd winjueipy ‘92

lueseyeyd

Joueg 0} UeYHIL

"YSSIO4 WNsioul WNjuelpYy "Ge

“MOOH /yOMebpe Wnjuelpy Ve

1o1eg Jeddn 0} JaMo7 "7 suauan-snijideo winjueipy OZ

eesdeplial, :Ajime-

ueyyl] pue UBuleur ‘YOOH (ewnjg) sapioipodsjod sidajodAH ae

BIS UOI]DE}|OD SOWPN Saloeds 9 Ajlue4 “ON'|S

(pJUOD) YSEepeid |EYOeUWIH ‘eave youeg jo Aenins au} Buuinp pepsooel Saljje-Wi98} pue W984 :} ajqey

137

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

PTERIDOPHYTIC DIVERSITY OF BAROT

O6E91-d1d

VOEIL-d1d

LOE9L-d1d

ELEIIL-d1d

8EE9l-d1d

80€91-d1d

LOE91-d1d

VLEQL-d1d

LGE91-did

LEEIIL-d1d

9LE9l-d1d

C9EOL-d 1d

90E9l-di1d

8ZE9l-dl1d

VLEQL-d1d

69E9l-d1d

89E9l-di1d

68E91-dl1d

99E9l-d1d

G9E9lL-d1d

O9E9l-di1d

9GE9l-d1d

VSEIL-d1d

ON ‘00

winueqiaH

009‘ 1-00" I

008'I<

009° t—-00r't

008" |-009'1

009°1—00S't

008"

009° t—00S' 1

009° t—-00S"t

008"

008" I<

008"

009‘

009"

008"

0091

009"

00s*t

OOZ't

0091

00S"

008"

008" I

(ww) epniiy

"|SOJ0} ul Osje ‘AjUa\d UI

SI JOJEM JOABJOUM ‘S]ejWead}s Hucye ‘UoWWOD Aye

‘JOO}J JSOJO} UO ‘BIeY

“sedojs apispeos uO ‘UOWWWWO4)

‘sjauueYo 19};eM Huoje JOO) }SE10} YOU-SNuuNyY syiqeuul ‘esey

“SQUIAC POPPUS-||OM

JO Speq pue syueq Buoye ‘seorjd yam ul ‘UOWWOD Ayes

‘sjajweeds Huoje seaie papeys ul ‘uoWWWOOU

‘sebpe jsol0j

‘ papeys BHuoye Yoo} }ses0} YOU-SnuuNny UO ‘UOWWOD Ayes

‘saebpe soso} usdo ye syeyiqey elsjSse19}

ul osje ‘ayAydouj/ayAudide ‘uoww0d Ale/\

“smopeew pue Se6J0b JeAU UsdO Ul UdAP ‘SIO

pepeyus dwep ‘syo0/ pajeA00-Ssow ‘Jam UO ‘aleY

“@peuUs UI ‘Ss|;ea}yem Huoye ‘jse10} dwiep ‘uoWWOoUp

“apnyye YUbiy ye ‘uowWwOd Aprey

"SyOO1

Buiddupfjsiow uo moj6 pue Huey spuoyy ‘usej areY

"SWIBOIIS JeOU ‘UOWWWOO Ayes

“sepispeos Huoje pue

‘SjajWWeaJ}S 1S8J0} Huoye seorjd jam suqeuul ‘aiey

“seoRid Yyou-Ssnuuny ul

‘SasINODETeM ‘Sweds}s Huoje ‘UOWLUOD

‘SesinodayeM/Syueg JBAU Huoye sured 3u} ul

PUNO} VEquuljo ‘us9J BpNyyye Mo] ‘UOWWWOD ANa/,

"SOUIABI JEOU ‘SapIspeOd ‘s]jeLayem BHuoye ‘uowWwoy

"SOY JSIOW Pue SE8suNnooJEyeEM BHuoye ‘UOWWOD AeA

‘Suead}s Buoye ‘UOWWOD AJa/\

“SOUP ISIOW pue

‘SO@SINODIE}JEM ‘SyuUe JOA Huoye ‘UOWLUOD ANa/,

“SOYOUP JSIOW

pue ‘sesunooeyem ‘syueg JOA Buoye ‘UOWLUOO A193),

“sedojs S810}

JSIOW JO BPBUS UI ‘SBDIABIO-YyOOI S}Iqeyu! ‘UOWWWOOUN

"Syund} 994} JO aseg ye UBAD

‘sebpe seo) ‘Syoo) papeus-j]siow UO ‘UOWWOOUN

90U81INDIO

uBuneur oO} lueseyeyd

jo1eg

jueseyeyy

ueyyLL 0} UBuNeur

uBuneyr 0} 1ueseyeyy

joleg

uBuneur o} lueseyeyy

wBuneur oO} lueseyey

joleg

ueyyLL

1O1eg

UeyylL

uBuneyr 0} lueseyeyd

uBuryeur

UeyyLL

jueseyeyuy

uBuryeur

lueseyey

uBunyeur

uBuneur 0} lueseyey

lueseyeuyy

IPAeYO] O} Joe

IpseYyO] 0} Joe

ONS UONDE}|OO

IUD *D (U0g ‘q) Wnuwixew wnizedig

oyey ‘W (PIIIM) BueAiog euedaq

o}ey Hluasiajad

‘dsqns ojey ‘"W (ezuny) luaesiajad euedag

oyey ‘W (Pppeg) saplolpojuele euiedeq

uowWjeS (8MO7] ‘f°4) Wnsoyibujs wnuAy)y

IUD ‘OD winayyes wnudyiy

994 x9 ‘Bnoy vadwiyos wnuAyjy

BIOOW “| CHOW XO “]eAA) WNjeuoed winuAyiy

‘yuer-JeSei4 Lunajdosoiw winuAyy

JOO “| X98 “YOOH (‘YOOH) wnjeuquiy wnuAyjy

ewoppeg /uosUje WNuAyy

JSUUD Wnajdosiue winuAyjy

aeaoRispoo;, :Ajiwie-

Bulyuy (ezuny) sapojA] suajdAjay

"syem| y (@dOH 9D) ojided suajdAjay

ezuny siyoeywoywdd suajdAjay |

PeeHY 4D (238y) Blayljoid suajdAjay |

Bulud (“YOOH Xa “|JeAA) SUBDSaeqrua sUaldAjay |

UYOL 1S ‘d‘y (“4SS104) BJe]Uap suajdAjey J

Bulyyd (Wayeg) Pues suajdAjay |

"syem| "Y (‘WS ‘f) Beinoune suajdAjay |

UOHOW AD (UOg ‘q) Bpue suajdAjayL

eeaoRepla}dAjauL :Ajiwe4

"7 SQUBWOYOL)] Winiue|dsy

uoqg ‘q wnjeluioey wniuajdsy

SowWweN saineds 9 Ajiue

(jpjJU0D) ysepeid JeyoeRWIP ‘ease youeg Jo AeAins ou) Huunp pepi00es saljje-Us9e) PU W984 :} BIqeL

‘69

"89

‘G9

‘v9

"€9

‘39

‘09

‘6S

"8S

Be oS)

‘SS

‘VS

"ES

‘6S

‘0S

‘60

“87

‘ON'IS

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

138

PTERIDOPHYTIC DIVERSITY OF BAROT

GCEIl-d1d

cOE9l-d1d

96E9l-d Id

L8E9l-d1d

Lc€9l-d1d

GOE9l-d Id

G6E9lL-dl1d

O€e9l-d Id

V6E9l-d1d

OcE9l-d ld

6cE9l-d1d

O8E9l-dld

€6E9l-d1d

c6E9l-d Id

SEE9lL-dld

SeE9l-d Id

c&E9l-d Id

Lct9l-di1d

LLEQl-d1d

L6E9lL-d ld

cLE9l-d ld

ON ‘00

wNWeqlioy

008'|

009}

008° 1-002"

00Z't—-009'

009'1

008"

009'1

0081

009"!

009'1

0081

008" 1

009'1

O0Z'1

0091

009° l—-00S'}

008"

009"

(Ww) spnyiy

"JSOJOJ UI pue

‘saepispeos Huoye ‘Ssaiyyedo] 39M Ul ‘UOWLUOD Aye 4

"SY9OJ/S|JEM PEPeUsS ]SIOW

‘Sseyoueig puke SyUNJ} 8eJ} UO ByAUdida ‘UOWWOD

‘alKudide ‘arey

"JSOJOJ Ul

SUN} 99} “SBDELNS YOO JOM POpeyYs UO ‘aJeY

“SjauUeYo

Ja}EM JESU S8DIABJO-YOOI UI PU SyOOI jsHUOWe ‘aleYy

‘SUueadIS Buoje SedRd JSIOW OO} JSe10} UO ‘UOWWOD

‘sebpe jsos0) Huoye “OO}} JSes0} UO ‘UOWWOD Al38/\

‘aBpe Jsas0j ye SedR|d JSIOW UI! ‘OO}} JSQ0J UO ‘UOWWWIOD

“SOODIAGIO-YOO Ul ‘Bley

“@PeUS UI SY9OJ JO Sedojs JsIOW yep UO ‘UOWWOD AJa/\

‘seoejd uado Jo sebpe ye Sowijawos

‘JOO}} JS91O} YOU-SNwNyY syiqeuyu! ‘UOWWOD Are 4

‘JOO|J JSOJO} UO ‘BIeY

‘JOO}} JSO1OJ UO ‘QueY

"Syoos jsHuOWe JOO}J JSQ1O} SUQeyuU! ‘quey

"JOO|J ISOJO] JO SeaJe YOU-SNuwNy Ul ‘UOWLUOD A198),

“seoejd Ayoos ul smos6 Ajurew ‘auey/uoWWwooUN

‘JOO|J ISOJO] UO ‘QueY

‘Sepispeol Huoje

pue “JOO 1S8J0} YOU-Snuuny ‘jsIOWW UO ‘UOWWOD Ale

“SUUBOIS/S|/ea}yem BHuoye

pue ‘sepispeos Huoye saijeo0] papeus dwep ul ‘arey

“SWUBOIIS PUR ‘S];eLIO}eEM

‘saepispeos Huoje saiijeoo) papeyus dwep ul ‘UOWWOD

“sedojs uo

‘SQDIAGJO-YOOJ UI SUOI}IDUOD pesodxe UI ‘UOWWWWOOUN

BOUSIINIIO

IPAeYO] O} Joe

ueyy!] pue WHulyeur

joreg pue UeyyI)

wHunyeur

uBuryeur

UeyyLL

lueseyeuyy

uBuryeur 0} lueseyeyy

jo1eg

wBuiyeur 0} lueseyey

wGuryeur

joleg

IpseYO] 0} Joleg

1o1eg

ueyy!| -UBuneur

ueyyLL

uBuryeur

uBuleur pue lueseyeuy

101eg

Ipreyor] O} Joreg

uBuiyeur

AUIS UON}DA1]OD

lEHeN (OUlyeW\) BIeWWabUN BIpseMpOO/

eeooeuUdsalg :Ajiwe

jedoy (uog ‘q) B/ygjnd elbajsoleiy

Bulyd Yexeg 8 ey1e/D “g’D Xe ‘ppeg)

IAeaejap eibajsoieiy

aeooejearg :Ajiwe

|SQ1d *D (4@YOOH) /YII//EM B/pUuea/C

aeooRipueao :Ajimey

IUD “OD (‘ABD 9 “OOH Xe *|/2/M)

PJBUNDBOD BLUIEJIA

ISUUD asueueUUNA Wnyodijshjog

998+ (U0g ‘q) Wnsouenbs winyoishjog

emebe| wnadeajedosaid winyoishjod

Je\INUY B “MUSeP-JEeSel4 ee/yewW LUNYONSAJ]Od

BIOOW ‘| (UOGg *q) WiNjua Wnyoishsjog

UIILUS “(UO *q) WNjasosip WNyoNssjOd

JapuejAyH (‘buesds) eueyaiyjem suajdosig

iuesHiued 9 Nseg "y’S BjBUuUIAdOJIepa/ sUajdoAIG

IUD “D (edOH *D) PSowe suajdohig

‘yuer-Jeses4 (“yuer-Jesel)

eaoevajedoibiu suajdohsig

ISUUD eBysodejxn! suajdoAig

JUD “OD (uoq ‘q Xe “WweH-"Yyong)

B]ea/YI09 SsUajdohig

‘yuer-JEsel4 Jadoy-ijoseo suajdoAig

ISQd "D (‘ABD BY “OOH XO “|/EM)

winapyoAued WINIWOLAD

‘yuer-Jesel4 (dayUus7Z) WnyjAYdowoue winiwiopAD

eesoepiiajdoAig :Ajiwe-

ueyoeq ¥ UUNY (“YSSIO4) WN}eUaJD

‘dsqns winjeua/o wnijewapodAH

SOWeN saioeds 9 Ajiwe

(jp]U0D) Ysepeid JeEYDeWIH ‘ease 1Oueg Jo AdAins 9y} HuLinp pepsooel saljje-Uie} pue Wd : 1, aIqeL

‘06

‘68

‘88

‘L8

‘98

‘G8

‘V8

‘€8

‘68

“L8

‘08

‘62

‘BL

Bo 7

"GL

‘EL

‘OL

‘ONS

139

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

PTERIDOPHYTIC DIVERSITY OF BAROT

Himalayan Cedar Cedrus deodara and Banj or Himalayan

Oak Quercus leucotrichophora. The natural and perennial

deep gorges, along with Uhl river, provide favourable

conditions for the growth of pteridophytes. Barot area, which

harbours a good number of pteridophytes, is largely

unexplored from the pteridophytic point of view, though

sketchy information is available (Beddome 1865-70, 1883;

Clarke 1880; Hope 1899-1904). In the recent past, a few

species of pteridophytes from Mandi district have been

reported (Chandra 2000; Khullar 1994, 2000). However, there

has been no comprehensive account on the fern flora of the

Mandi district in general and the Barot area in particular.

Hence, we carried out this work to document the fern and

fern-allies (pteridophytes) diversity of the Barot area, which

covered an area ranging from 30°22"—33°12" N and 75° 47"—

79° 40" E, with altitudes ranging between 1,500 and 1,820 m

(Fig. 1).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Extensive field visits were made to different sites in

Barot during 2010—2011 to cover the study area thoroughly.

Voucher specimens of each species were collected along with

field notes for identification and documentation. All the

specimens collected were identified and processed following

standard herbarium techniques (Jain and Rao 1977). Later, all

the specimens were deposited in the herbarium of the CSIR-

Institute of Himalayan Bioresource Technology, Palampur

(PIEP).

In this paper, the recorded taxa are categorised into two

major groups, namely ferns and fern-allies. In each group,

enumeration is made family-wise as per the classification of

Fraser-Jenkins (2008, 2009). The genera within the family and

species within each genus are arranged in alphabetical order,

giving details of localities, collection number, and habitat.

RESULTS

Ninety species of pteridophytes (85 ferns and 5 fern-

allies) belonging to 31 genera and 14 families were recorded

(Table 1).

DISCUSSION

Our explorations revealed that the Barot area is rich in

fern diversity, harbouring c. 95% of the pteridophytic flora

of Mandi district, and 35% of Himachal Pradesh. Ninety

species were recorded (85 ferns and 5 fern allies), belonging

to 31 genera and 14 families. Of these, 25 species are

lithophytic and epiphytic in nature, growing luxuriantly on

140

the trunks of cedar, rhododendron, and oak, and on rocky

slopes. The rest (65 species) are terrestrial, mostly found

growing in moist, shady slopes in the forests. Two straggling

ferns, Lygodium flexuosum and L. japonicum were also

recorded. The dominant families are Pteridaceae (23 species),

Dryopteridaceae (16 species), Woodsiaceae (13 species),

Polypodiaceae (11 species), Thelypteridaceae (9 species), and

Aspleniaceae (3 species). Equisetaceae, Osmundaceae,

Lygodiaceae, Dennstaedtiaceae, and Davalliaceae are

represented by two species each. Oleandraceae and

Blechnaceae are represented by a single species each.

Coniogramme, Onychium, Polystichum, Pteris, and

Thelypteris were common and widespread, while Osmunda

japonica, Phymatopteris oxyloba, Oleandra wallichii,

Pyrrosia porosa, Pellaea nitidula, and Gymnopteris vestita

were rare or uncommon ferns in the area.

Ferns are well-known for their ornamental value and

find a place in gardens, conservatories, and ferneries. There

are also a number of species with therapeutic values. Genera

like Adiantum, Aleuritopteris, Asplenium, Diplazium,

Equisetum, Lepisorus, Oleandra, Onychium, Osmunda, and

Polystichum that occur in the Barot region are also known

for their food and medicinal value (Singh 2003). Diplazium

maximum is used by the locals as a seasonal vegetable and is

sold in the local markets.

Ferns are also important from the ecological point of

view. Keeping in view their economic and ecological

importance, propagatory material of 80 rare and uncommon

ferns was collected and planted in the fernery of the institute .

for conservation, cultivation, and for other studies. These

species include Diplazium maximum, Equisetum

ramosissimum, Onychium contiguum, Oleandra wallichii,

Osmunda claytoniana, O. japonica, Phymatopteris oxyloba,

Pyrrosia porosa, Pellaea nitidula, and Gymnopteris vestita,

which are now established in the fernery, and available for

biochemical and other investigations.

In Barot, certain localities harbour high populations of

Cyrtomium, Coniogramme, and Osmunda species, and these

should be protected as in-situ sites for the conservation of

these species. There is also a need for the cultivation/

propagation of some pteridophytes by applying modern tools

for potential sustainable use. Considering the rich fern

diversity, there is a need for more field explorations of

pteridophytes in and around Barot area to look for rare and

new taxa, and also to prepare a conservation plan for these

and other fern species.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank Dr. P.S. Ahuja, Director, CSIR-

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

PTERIDOPHYTIC DIVERSITY OF BAROT

Institute of Himalayan Bioresource Technology, for providing

necessary facilities and encouragement. Thanks are also

due to Mr. C.R. Fraser-Jenkins, Kathmandu, for identifying

some critical ferns. Financial assistance from the Department

of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science & Technology,

Govt. of India, is duly acknowledged. The authors are also

grateful to their colleagues in the Biodiversity Division for

cooperation during field studies.

REFERENCES

BEDDOME, R.H. (1865-1870): The Ferns of British India. Gantz Bros,

Madras.

BEDDOME, R.H. (1883): Handbook to the ferns of British India, Ceylon

and the Malay Peninsula. Thacker Spink & Co., Calcutta.

Pp. 1-501.

Bir, S.S. (1964): Taxonomic notes on some Himalayan Ferns. J. Indian

Bot. Soc. 43: 556-570.

Bir, S.S. (1968): Pteridophytic flora of Shimla hills (North-western

Himalayas): Introduction and general account. Nova Hedwigia

16: 439-447.

CHANDRA, S. (2000): The Ferns of India (Enumeration, Synonyms and

Distribution). International Book Distributors, Dehradun. 459 pp.

CLARKE, C.B. (1880): A review of the ferns of Northern India. Trans.

Linn. Soc. London, ser. 2 Bot. 1: 425-611.

Duir, K.K. (1980): Ferns of the North-Western Himalayas.

In: Cramer, J. (Ed.): Biblio. Pteridologica I: 1-158. J. Cramer,

Vaduz.

Dur, K.K. & K.S. Dutra (1976): Ferns of Dharamshala Hills-2 (North-

western Himalayas). Families: Woodsiaceae, Aspidiaceae,

Athyriaceae. Nova Hedwigia 27: 393-424.

Duir, K.K. & K.S. Dutta (1977a): Ferns of Dharamshala Hills-1 (North-

western Himalayas). Ophioglossaceous [sic] and Schizaeceous

[sic], and Hymenophyllaceous series. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

74(3): 459-480.

Dur, K.K. & K.S. Dutta (1977b): Ferns of Dharamshala Hills-3 (North-

western Himalayas). Families: Thelypteridaceae, Aspleniaceae

and Blechnaceae. Nova Hedwigia 28: 137-154.

Duir, K.K. & K.S. Dutta (1979): Ferns of Dharamshala Hills-4 (North-

western Himalayas). Family: Polypodiaceae. Nova Hedwigia 29:

105-120.

FRASER-JENKINS, C.R. (1992): The ferns and allies of the far west

Himalaya — some additions and corrections. Bot. Helvetica

102(2): 143-157.

FRASER-JENKINS, C.R. (1997): New species syndrome in Indian

pteridology and the ferns of Nepal. International Book

Distributors, Dehradun. Pp. 1-403.

FRASER-JENKINS, C.R. (2008): Taxonomic revision of three hundred

Indian subcontinental pteridophytes with a revised census-list.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehradun. 685 pp.

FRASER-JENKINS, C.R. (2009): A brief comparison of modern pteridophyte

classifications (families and genera in India). Indian Fern J. 26:

107-127.

FRASER-JENKINS, C.R. (2010): Nepal’s little known pteridophytes, the

hidden work of David Don, and the geography and distribution

of Indo-Himalayan ferns. Website version. Dec. 1, 2010, updated

Oct. 04, 2011, on www. groups. yahoo.com/group/Indian-Ferns

and https://sites.google.com/site/efloraofindia/files

Hopes, C.W. (1899-1904): The ferns of North-Western India including

Afghanistan, the Trans-Indus protected states and Kashmir.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 12(2): 315-325 (1899); 12(3):

527-538 (1899); 12(4): 621-633 (1899); 13(1): 25-36 (1900);

13(2): 236-251 (1900); 13(3): 443-461 (1901); 13(4): 657-671

(1901); 14(1): 118-127 (1902); 14(2): 252-260 (1902); 14(3):

458-480 (1902); 14(4): 720-749 (1903); 15(7): 78-111 (1903);

15(3): 415-419 (1904).

Jain, S.K. & R.R. Rao (1977): A Handbook of Field and Herbarium

Methods. Today & Tomorrows Printers & Publishers, New Delhi.

Pp. 1-157.

KHUuLLaR, S.P. (1994): An illustrated fern flora of west Himalaya-1.

International Book Distributors, Dehradun. 506 pp.

KHULLAR, S.P. (2000): An illustrated fern flora of the west Himalaya-2.

International Book Distributors, Dehradun. 544 pp.

KHULLAR, S.P., S. SHARMA & I.B. PARASHER (2008): Diversity in the

Pteridophytes of Kangra districts (Himachal Pradesh). Proc. Nat.

Acad. Sci. India, sect. B 78(1): 1-36.

KHULLAR, S.P., J. CHADHA, A. BAGHLA & S.K. VERMA (2009): Annotated

inventory of the Pteridophytes of district Sirmour (Himachal

Pradesh), West Himalaya. Indian Fern J. 26: 79-106.

SCHELPE, EACLE (1954): Ecological observations on Pteridophyta in the

Kangra Himalaya Amer. Fern J. 44: 49-65.

SHARMA, S. & S.P. KHULLAR (2004): Fern hybrids from Kangra Himalaya.

J. Indian Bot. Soc. 83: 54-60.

SINGH, H.B. (2003): Economically viable pteridophytes of India.

Pp. 421-426. In: (Eds: Chandra, S. and M. Srivastava):

Pteridology in the New Millennium. Kluwer Academic

Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London.

141

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(2), May-Aug 2013

142-146

TERRITORIALITY IN KERALA LAUGHINGTHRUSH STROPHOCINCLA FAIRBANKI MERIDIONALIS

VIVEK CHANDRAN, A.!* AND PRAVEEN, J.”

'T.C-36/473, Ayyappa Nagar, Punkunnam, Thrissur 680 002, Kerala, India. Email: avivekchandran @ gmail.com

7B303, Shriram Spurthi, ITPL Main Road, Brookefields, Bengaluru 560 037, Karnataka, India. Email: paintedstork @ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

The Kerala Laughingthrush Strophocincla fairbanki is a Near Threatened, endemic species of the Western Ghats of

southern India, south of the Palakkad Gap (=Palghat Gap). Within its restricted range, it has two subspecies — the more

widespread nominate race found in the high ranges north of the Shencottah Gap; and meridionalis, occurring south of

the Gap. A study on territoriality was carried out on the latter at four study sites, namely Pandipath, Pandimotta,

Kodayar, and Mahendragiri, in the Agasthyamalai hills from January 2011 to March 2011 after a pilot study in December

2010. Territory size of 30 pairs was estimated by following them and marking their locations using a GPS unit. The

territories were found only in shola forests above 1,200 m above msl. Territories were not recorded in tea plantations,

grasslands, scrub dominated rocky areas, bare rocky areas, forest patches adjoining reservoirs, and in large swathes of

Ochlandra. The average territory size was estimated to be about 2 ha. No overlap of territories was observed and the

territories were separated by an average distance of 66.04 m. Pairs were formed and territories defended only in the

breeding season. Habitat loss and deterioration were identified as serious threats to the subspecies.

Key words: Kerala Laughingthrush, Strophocincla fairbanki, endemic, territory, Western Ghats, Ochlandra

INTRODUCTION

The Kerala Laughingthrush Strophocincla fairbanki

(Blanford 1869) and Black-chinned Laughingthrush

Strophocincla cachinnans are two species of montane

laughingthrushes found in the Western Ghats, which are

endemic to the high altitude habitats of the region above

c. 1,200 m, namely subtropical montane forests known locally

as sholas (Rasmussen and Anderton 2005; Sashikumar et al.

2011). The Black-chinned Laughingthrush is distributed in the

sholas north of the Palakkad Gap (=Palghat Gap), while the

Kerala Laughingthrush is restricted south of the Palakkad Gap.

The Kerala Laughingthrush has two subspecies, of

which S.f. meridionalis (Blanford’s or Travancore

Laughingthrush) has a disjunct and restricted distribution

confined to the Agasthyamalai (Ashambu) hills (Sashikumar

et al. 2011). It is separated from the more widely distributed

S.f. fairbanki by the Shencottah/Achenkovil Gap, a 7.5 km

gap at 9° N. The present taxonomic status of these two

allopatric forms as subspecies is in contention (Rasmussen

and Anderton 2005), and they have been proposed for full

species status (Praveen and Nameer 2011) subject to further

molecular and acoustic (vocalisation) studies. Work in the

‘sky-islands’ of the Western Ghats have found that some

subspecies that showed morphological differences also had a

genetic distance higher than the acceptable limits for a species

(Robin et al. 2010), and subsequently, these subspecies were

re-evaluated by Birdlife International and their IUCN Red

List status uplisted.

Despite being Near Threatened (BirdLife International

2010), the Kerala Laughingthrush, and especially the

population of S.f. meridionalis, has not received much

scientific attention and little is known about its ecology.

Strophocincla spp., in general, are known to occur in parties

of about a dozen individuals (Ali and Ripley 1987; del Hoyo

et al. 2007); but their flock composition during the breeding

season and the size of their breeding territories were not

known. However, our pilot surveys in December 2010

revealed that breeding birds occurred in pairs during the

breeding season, and collected nesting material and defended

territories aggressively by calling and patrolling.

Strophocincla spp. are known to have an association

with understorey plants of Rubus spp. (Ali and Ripley 1987)

of the Rosaceae family, but the influence of other plant species

on its distribution and habits is not known. S.f. meridionalis

was believed to preferentially inhabit Ochlandra travancorica

aggregations (Ali 1969), but recent observations suggest that

Ochlandra dominated habitats may have a negative effect on

its populations (Praveen et al. 2011; Sashikumar et al. 2011).

Ochlandra (reed bamboo), locally known as Eeta, is

represented by nine species in the Western Ghats (Sashidharan

2007). They are light-demanding species belonging to the

Poaceae family and occur in places where there are gaps in

the canopy (Adriel 1975), quickly colonising high-altitude

forests that are lost to clear felling or forest fires. While other

evergreen species and their saplings are damaged by fire,

Ochlandra overcomes the effect of fire with its underground

rhizomes and the forest evolves into Ochlandra brakes (Giriraj

TERRITORIALITY IN KERALA LAUGHINGTHRUSH

Fig. 1: Agasthyamalai (Ashambu) Hills of southern Western Ghats with samples sites

et al. 2008; Mohanan and Henry 1994). Ochlandra brakes

are one of the major habitats in Agasthyamalai hills, with

Ochlandra travancorica vat. hirsuta, the largest species of

Ochlandra in the Western Ghats, being dominant

(Sashidharan 2007). Though all the Ochlandra species that

occur in the Agasthyamalai hills are indigenous, it is unclear

how such large stretches of Ochlandra dominated hilltops

evolved in the region. Local enquiries indicate that this trend

is rather recent, and is probably a result of anthropogenic

disturbances during the last 50 years.

Climate change models have predicted a most-likely

reduction in the area of montane habitats in the southern

Western Ghats by 3.1% by 2020 and 7.3% by 2050 (Sukumar

et al. 1995). It has been predicted that extinction risk due to

climate change is higher for species with restricted elevation

range and small Extent of Occurrence (EOO) (Sekercioglu

et al. 2008) — both premises true for this subspecies of

Laughingthrush. Responses to climate change on endemic

birds of Western Ghats are largely unstudied, and

Strophocincla spp. with their very restricted range are

candidates for potential extinction in the future.

STUDY AREA

The Agasthyamalai (Ashambu) hills lie at the southern

end of the Western Ghats along the western coast of

peninsular India with its crest-line forming the boundary of

Kerala and Tamil Nadu (Fig. 1). The hills fall in the districts

of Kollam and Thiruvananthapuram in Kerala, and

Tirunelveli and Kanyakumari in Tamil Nadu. The highest

peak in this range is Agasthyarkoodam (1,868 m above msl).

These hills receive up to 2,000 mm rainfall annually from

both the south-west and north-east monsoons (Sashidharan

2012). The topography is rugged with many perennial hill

streams originating in the tropical rain forests on the upper

slopes, which merge to form several important rivers. The

Agasthyamalai hills have Tropical Wet Evergreen Forest in

the mid-elevation zone (700—1,400 m) and shola-grassland

complex above 1,400 m (Champion and Seth 1968). The

forests fall in the Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve

(KMTR) and Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary (WLS) of

Tamil Nadu, and Neyyar WLS, Peppara WLS, Shendurney

WLS, and Kulathupuzha Reserve Forest of Kerala. The

entire region has been designated as Agasthyamalai

Biosphere Reserve (ABR), with 1,828 sq. km in Kerala and

1,672 sq. km in Tamil Nadu, for the protection of its unique

flora and fauna (Tamil Nadu Forest Department 2007).

METHODOLOGY

Site Selection

Literature indicates that S. £ meridionalis does not occur

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

143

TERRITORIALITY IN KERALA LAUGHINGTHRUSH

2.50 —— Area in hectares (morning)

«@- Area in hectares evening}

2.00

1.50

1.00

Area in Hectares

G.50

0.00

5 40 15 20 25 30 35 40

No. of Observations

Fig. 2: Observation-area curve for a pair of

Strophocincla fairbanki meridionalis

below an altitude of 1,200 m (Ali and Ripley 1987;

Rasmussen and Anderton 2005; Sashikumar et al. 2011), and

pilot studies carried out on the species (as part of a survey on

the birds of high-altitude habitats of the region — Praveen et

al. 2011) also revealed that the subspecies S.f. meridionalis

does not frequent grasslands and rocky areas for breeding.

Hence, based on altitudinal and habitat preferences of this

subspecies, the focus of studies on territory were largely

confined to suitable habitats in the high altitude regions of

this range above the demarcating contours of 1,200 m, 1,400 m,

and 1,600 m, as discussed further on.

In December 2010, the entire crest line from Pandipath

(8° 40' N; 77° 11' E) in Peppara WLS till Varayattumudi

(8° 34' N; 77° 16' E) in the border of Neyyar WLS and

KMTR was walked by a 10-member team to survey S_f.

meridionalis. This was followed with another survey in

select areas to understand the ecology of the subspecies and

Area in Hectares

£}

Py “

Fig. 3: Average maximum territory-size of

S.f. meridionalis across the study sites

assess the suitability of different survey techniques to detect

it. Based on this survey and GIS information, four areas

with contiguous stretches of high-altitude zones with

altitudes over 1,200 m were identified. Four sites (Table 1)

were selected within these four areas for intensive studies

from January 2011 to March 2011, one of the main

considerations being easy accessibility to enable repeated

Visits. |

Thirty pairs, which could be followed on foot in

contiguous habitat, were selected for the study from the four

sites. As each pair showed fidelity towards a perch or its

immediate surroundings in its territory, from where they

called at dawn, individual identification of pairs was

apparently possible. Apart from the four sites and 30 pairs

observed, random surveys were carried out in other high-

altitudinal regions of the hills to record the taxon and

check if the sightings obtained from these sites adhered

to the known preferred altitude and vegetation type of

Sf. meridionalis.

Kstimation of Territory Size

Estimation of territory size was based on ‘maximum

territory-size’ (Odum and Kuenzler 1955), adapted from the

method of ‘Minimum Convex Polygon’ (Mohr 1947), which

is still in use for effectively estimating breeding territories of

Table 1: Details of the sampling sites

Altitude Range Habitat

Site - Forest Zone Coordinates

Pandimotta Shendurney WLS, Kerala 8° 49'N

Ar Ae

Pandipath Peppara WLS, Kerala 8° 40'N

V7 Ee

Kodayar KMTR, Tamil Nadu 8°31" N

11, 200

Mahendragiri Kanyakumari WLS, Tamil Nadu 8° 22'N

TPO 2O ts

144

1,300—1,585 m

1,300—1,550 m

1,350—1,600 m

1,200-1,755m_ Tropical Wet Evergreen Forests, sholas, montane

grasslands with large congregations of Ochlanadra.

Tropical Wet Evergreen Forests, sholas, montane

grasslands with some Ochlandra patches.

Tropical Wet Evergreen Forests, sholas, montane

grasslands, some Ochlandra patches, tea plantations.

Tropical Wet Evergreen Forests, sholas, montane

grasslands.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

TERRITORIALITY IN KERALA LAUGHINGTHRUSH

birds (Collister and Wilson 2007). Instead of carrying maps

to the field and marking locations of the pairs on the maps, as

has been practised, latitude-longitude readings of the locations _

were taken using a GPS to estimate territory size. The selected

pairs were followed during their peak activity period, inferred

from the pilot surveys as early morning (06:30—09:45 hrs)

and evening (15:00—18:15 hrs). GPS readings were taken at

five-minute intervals. To ensure that the pairs were followed

for sufficient time to arrive at their maximum territory-sizes,

‘observation-area’ curves were used (Dudley and Saab 2007;

Odum and Kuenzler 1955). After every 5 GPS points, the

outermost points were connected to form a polygon and its

area calculated. As the number of observations (GPS points)

increased, the area increased to a point where continued

observation resulted in no observed increase in area. A total

of 80 GPS points (40 in the morning and 40 in the evening)

were obtained per pair to estimate territory size. To calculate

the maximum territory-size of a pair, the extreme outermost

points of the separate polygons obtained from observations

in the mornings and evenings were joined to get the final

polygon and its area.

Analysis

The territory-size of each of the 30 pairs was calculated

using the software Google Earth Pro, and means and standard

deviations of territory-size were also computed. One-way

ANOVA was used to test if the territory-size showed

significant variations across different sites. Grubb’s test

(Extreme Studentized Deviate or ESD) was used to determine

if the most extreme estimated maximum territory-size value

is a significant outlier from the rest. Distance between the

closest GPS points of two adjacent territories was taken as

the distance (in m) between them.

RESULTS

The territories were located only in sholas above an

altitude of 1,200 m above sea level. Ochlandra patches were

concluded to be devoid of territories as birds were not detected

during searches at these sites. Territories were also not

recorded in tea plantations, but a few non-breeding individuals

were seen actively foraging at the fringes.

The average territory-size of Sf meridionalis was

2.16+0.68 ha (n=30). No overlap of territories was observed

for the 30 pairs tracked and the average distance between

adjacent territories was 66.04 m. Grubb’s test showed that

the maximum territory-size of a pair at Pandipath (0.4183 ha)

was furthest from the rest, but was not a significant outlier

(p<0.05). The estimated maximum territory-sizes did not vary

significantly across the study sites (p<0.07). The four sites

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

were characterised by similar habitat type, and hence little

difference in the territory-sizes across the four sites could be

expected.

DISCUSSION

The territorial behaviour of the Strophocincla

laughingthrushes has not been studied earlier. Though it is

well-known for its flocking behaviour in the non-breeding

season, this study revealed that Strophocincla fairbanki

meridionalis is highly territorial and forms pairs during the

breeding season. The territorial pairs had given up their

territories and were seen in flocks of 6—12 individuals when

the sites were revisited in May 2011. This observation leads

us to conclude that the taxon, which is otherwise known to

occur in flocks, forms pairs and establishes territories during

the breeding season that starts from December and continues

till April.

Though there has been sporadic work on the

nidification of Strophocincla spp. of southern India (Bates

1931; Islam 1994), their breeding territories had not been

documented. The average territory-size estimated for the

subspecies was 2.16 +0.68 ha during nest-building and

incubation stage. This probably varies during the nestling-

feeding stage, but could not be determined during the present

study. Though no study was undertaken, observations

indicate that the home ranges of the flocks were much larger

than the territories defended by pairs in the breeding

season.

The Agasthyamalai hills have an established network

of protected areas, including a tiger reserve and four wildlife

sanctuaries, and hence this subspecies of the Kerala

Laughingthrush and its habitat is legally well-protected.

Additionally, c. 275 sq. km, accounting for more than 90%

of the Extent of Occurrence (EOO) of the subspecies, falls

within the protected area network. This is a boon, as

conservation actions that could be taken for the species can

be routed through the management plans of these protected

areas. However, the habitat faces threats such as the spread

of Ochlandra, as discussed under Introduction. The

continuing impact of man-made fires in its range,

particularly areas around Agasthyarkoodam peak, besides

illegal felling of trees, will have an adverse impact on the

shola forests and pave the way for further proliferation of

Ochlandra brakes, resulting in adverse effects on the

Laughingthrush. Other threats, which have been detrimental

to other Strophocincla populations in southern India, like

the booming eco-tourism (Praveen and Nameer 2011)

and spread of tea plantations (Somasundaram and Vijayan

2007) have not been evaluated as major concerns in this

region.

145

TERRITORIALITY IN KERALA LAUGHINGTHRUSH

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The first author would like to thank Dr. Priya Davidar

wholeheartedly for her guidance and advice throughout the

study. We are thankful to the forest departments of Kerala

and Tamil Nadu states for permission to carry out the study.

We would like to thank the many people who generously

provided assistance and advice in the field and during the

preparation of the manuscript: Dr. Shankar Raman,

Dr. P.O. Nameer, C. Sashikumar, E. Kunhikrishnan, Dr. Giby

Kuriakose, Dr. Robin Vijayan, C.K. Vishnudas, Dr. S. Kalesh,

Dr. Bindu Kaimal, Sindhu Kaimal, and Pratheesh Mammen.

The help rendered by Kiran M.C. at ATREE with GIS data

and analysis is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

ADRIEL, D. (1975): Working plan for Trivandrum forest division 1964—65

to 1973-74. Kerala Forest Department.

Au, S. (1969): Birds of Kerala. Oxford University Press, Madras, India.

Pp. 328-330.

Aul, S. & S.D. RipLey (1987): Handbook of the Birds of India and

Pakistan. Vol. 7 Laughingthrushes to the Mangrove Whistler.

Oxford University Press, Delhi, India. Pp. 40-44.

Bates, R.S.P. (1931): A note on the nidification and habits of the

Travancore Laughing-Thrush (Trochalopterum jerdoni fairbanki).

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 35(1): 204-207.

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2010): Species fact sheet: Kerala

Laughingthrush Strophocincla fairbanki http://www.birdlife.org/

datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=32500. Accessed on November

30, 2011:

CHAMPION, H.G. & S.K. SETH (1968): A Revised Survey of Forest types

of India. Manager of Publications, Government of India,

New Delhi. 404 pp.

CoLLisTER, D.M. & S. WiLson (2007): Territory size and foraging habitat

of Loggerhead Shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus) in south-eastern

Alberta. Journal of Raptor Research 41: 130-138.

DEL Hoyo, J., A. ELLiot, J. SARGATAL & D. CuristiE (2007): Handbook

of the Birds of the World. Vol. 12: Picathartes to Tits and

Chickadees. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain. Pp. 527-628.

Dub_ey, J.G & V.A. Saas (2007): Home range size of Black-backed

Woodpeckers in burned forests of south-western Idaho. West. North

Amer. Nat. 67: 593-600.

GirIRAJ, A., M. [IRFAN-ULLAH, M.S.R. Murtruy & C. BEIERKUHNLEIN

(2008): Modelling spatial and temporal forest cover change

patterns, 1973-2020: A case study from Southern Western Ghats,

India. Sensors 8: 6132-6153.

IsLaM, M.A. (1994): Breeding habits of the Nilgiri Laughing Thrush

Garrulax cachinnans (Jerdon). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 91(1):

16-28.

IUCN (2008): Redlist of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org/

apps/redlist/static/categories_criteria_2_3. Accessed on November

SO 2014.

Mouanan, M. & A.N. Henry (1994): Flora of Thiruvananthapuram,

Kerala. Botanical Survey of India, Howrah.

Monrr, C.O. (1947): Table of equivalent populations of North American

small mammals. Amer Mid. Nat. 37: 223-249.

OpuM, E.P. & E.J. KUENZLER (1955): Measurement of territory and home-

range size in birds. The Auk 72: 128-137.

146

PRAVEEN, J. & P.O. NAMEER (2011): Strophocincla Laughingthrushes

of South India: A Case of Allopatric Speciation and Impact on

their Conservation. Pp. 301. In: Bhupathy, S., B.A.K. Prusty,

H.N. Kumara, R.S.C. Jayaraj, G Quadros, and P. Pramod (Eds):

Status of Indian Birds and their Conservation. Proceedings of the

First International Conference on Indian Ornithology. Salim Ali

Centre for Ornithology and Natural History.

PRAVEEN, J., P.O. NAMEER & M.B. RAmegsH (2011): Bird diversity of

Neyyar and Peppara Wildlife Sanctuaries. Report to Kerala Forest

Department. Thiruvananthapuram.

Ramesh, B.R., D. DE FRANCESCHI & J.P. PAscaL (1997): Forest Map of

South India, Thiruvanthapuram-Tirunelveli. In collaboration with

the Kerala and Tamil Nadu forest departments and the French

Institute, Pondicherry.

RASMUSSEN, P.C. & J.C. ANDERTON (2005): Birds of South Asia: The

Ripley Guide. Smithsonian Institution and Lynx Edicions,

Washington DC and Barcelona. Pp. 414-415.

Rosin, V.V., A. SINHA & U. RAMAKRISHNAN (2010): Ancient Geographical

Gaps and Paleo-Climate Shape the Phylogeography of an Endemic

Bird in the Sky Islands of Southern India. PLoS ONE 5(10):

e1332U

SASHIDHARAN, N. (2007): Flowering plants of Kerala: an interactive CD

ROM, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, Kerala, India.

SASHIDHARAN, N. (2012): Working plan for Trivandrum forest division

2004-05 to 2013-14. Kerala Forest Department,

Thiruvananthapuram.

SASHIKUMAR, C., J. PRAVEEN, M.J. PALoT & P.O. NAMEER (2011): Birds

of Kerala — status and distribution. DC Books, Kottayam,

833 pp.

SEKERCIOGLU, C.H., S.H. SCHNEIDER, J.P. Fay & S.R. LOARIE (2008):

Climate change, elevational range shifts, and bird extinctions

Conservation Biology 22(1): 140-150.

SOMASUNDARAM, S. & L. VIJAYAN (2007): An assessment of the population

and habitat use of the Grey-breasted Laughingthrush. Annual

Report 2006—2007. Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural

History, Coimbatore. Pp. 19-20. |

SUKUMAR, R., H.S. SuRESH & R. RAMESH (1995): Climate change and its

impact on tropical montane ecosystems in Southern India.

J. Biogeo. 22(2&3): 533-536.

TamiL Napu Forest DEPARTMENT (2007): Agasthyamalai Biosphere

Reserve http://www.forests.tn.nic.in/wildbiodiversity/

br_agasthiyar.html. Accessed on November 30, 2011.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(2), May-Aug 2013

147-148

REVIEWS

1. BIRDS OF CENTRAL ASIA by Manuel Schweizer, Raffael Aye, and Tobias Roth. Published by

Christopher Helm, London. 2012. Size: 14.5 x 21.5 cm. Pages: 336 with 143 plates. Price: Not mentioned.

This is the first-ever field guide to the birds of Central

Asia, here referring to the countries of Kazakhstan,

Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and

Afghanistan. The first five countries used to be collectively

referred to as Turkestan till this region was annexed to the

former Soviet Union. Afghanistan, though not part of Central

Asia, is included since a major part of its landscape and birds

are similar to those of Central Asia. With the fall of the Iron

Curtain that restricted access to ‘Turkestan’ and the influx of

foreign tourists, this book has come at the right time for birders

and naturalists touring the country.

The publication covers 618 species of birds, including

residents, migrants, and vagrants, all illustrated in 143 excellent

and well-designed plates. Two major plus points for the

publication are that the common names of species also figure

in the plate and that the text for each species faces the relevant

plate. These should be the norm for field guides, but may be a

bit difficult to follow in regions that have a high diversity of

species, as it would make the publication too bulky for the

field. The fact that the distribution of species is shown solely

by way of distribution maps (and not ideally also in text) make

details of these records unavailable for those wanting more

information. The status of the species (e.g., common,

uncommon, rare) provided for species does compensate for

this to some extent. Even in such cases, I feel it would have

been better if the status of a species is given at the beginning of

the text for one to know its status at the outset.

One thing that strikes a birder from the Indian

subcontinent (and this is relevant especially to those from

the tropics) on looking at the plates is the overall drabness of

the birdlife of the region, not surprising since these are mostly

inhabitants of desolate steppes, semi-desert, and stark

mountains. This is probably why an image of the lowly and

drab Saxaul Sparrow Passer ammodendriis used for the cover,

with a more drab background to match! It is only the pheasants

and some of the few other relatively more colourful species

that brighten up the plates. But then, there will always be

birders who are more fascinated by Plain Janes!

Besides birds, the publication has the introductory

chapters describing the coverage of the book, ‘how to use the

book’, a map of the region, notes on the region’s geography

and biogeography (with photographs), besides other essential

information. Overall, it is an attractive field guide and a must

buy for birders of the Central Asian region.

M@ RANJITMANAKADAN

2. ELEPHANT — THE LADY BOSS: ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT by C.H. Basappanavar.

Published by Vanasuma Prakashana, Bengaluru. 2012. Size: 18.5 x 25 cm. Pages: Ixxi + 243 + 52 colour

plates. Price: Rs. 1,450/-

The author (C.H. Basappanavar) is a retired Forest

Department official of the Karnataka Forest Department, and

judging by his writings, he must have been the typical forester

of the past generation who lived much more simple lives

than the officers of today, who are plagued by the alarming

loss of forests, people versus forest issues, belligerent and

no more docile villagers and tribals, and troublesome

politicians. Having been associated with such officers as a

wildlife biologist in the 1980s, it would not be wrong to say

that they lived the lives of small kings, especially those who

forsook the towns and cities and stayed in and around forest

areas. Dr. Basappanavar is one of these fortunate souls, plus

one of the rare ones who decided to put down his observations

and experiences in print.

ELEPHANT — THE LADY BOSS, is the second edition of the

book first published in 1998. The suffix ‘lady boss’ alludes to

the social organization of elephants that is matriarchal and

where granny is the boss. The loner adult bulls are allowed

into the herd only when one of her daughters/granddaughters

is ready to mate. This publication provides a wealth of

information on the Asian Elephant, its biology, ecology,

behaviour, food and feeding habits, breeding biology, and

management in captivity. There is also a chapter on myths,

legends, folklore, and other such beliefs that are associated

with the Asian Elephant. The book is replete with plates on

elephants, other wildlife, and habitats. There is also an

annexure containing checklists, tables, figures, and other data

concerning elephants, and on Bandipur National Park, where

REVIEWS

the author served as the Field Director for quite a few years.

The style of writing is a mix of scientific and popular, which

will appeal to both the naturalist and elephant biologist. The

author, in some passages, narrates his own field experiences

and observations of nature and elephants. He tends to go a bit

overboard when the issue of sex in elephants crops up, even to

the extent of ‘mind-reading’ the amorous thoughts of a cow

elephant during one sexual encounter he witnessed! Wish I

had this gift with humans, leave alone animals or elephants!

The book is overall quite informative and a good read.

@ RANJITMANAKADAN

3. ROMANCING THE ELEPHANT — A STRATEGY TO MITIGATE HUMAN-ELEPHANT CONFLICT

by C.H. Basappanavar. Published by Vanasuma Prakashana, Bengaluru. 2012. Size: 18.5 x 25 cm.

Pages: xli + 156 + 52 colour plates. Price: Rs. 1,250/-

ROMANCING THE ELEPHANT — A STRATEGY TO MITIGATE

HUMAN-ELEPHANT CONFLICT by Dr. Basappanavar, a retired

Forest Department official of the Karnataka Forest

Department, deals with the subject of human-elephant

conflict, which is becoming a major issue in elephant

conservation. This book is largely based on his work on

human-elephant conflict for his doctoral thesis in Nagarhole

and Bandipur National Parks. Because of this, the book largely

provides information on the elephants of these areas, and

particularly on human-elephant conflict. There is extensive

information and statistical data, in the form of tables and

figures, on the two parks and their wildlife, which could serve

as reference material for future researchers and foresters

working in these areas. Overall, the book is informative,

makes interesting reading, and will be of interest to elephant

148

biologists and foresters working in elephant areas, especially

in Bandipur, Nagarhole, and Karnataka.

Extremely bizarre was the full-page plate of a painting

of an ancient sculpture of Ganesha and Shakti in pre-conjugal |

ecstasy in this book on human-elephant conflict! It could have

been more suited for the author’s other publication ELEPHANT

— THE LADY BOSS: ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, specifically in

the chapter on myths, legends and folklore of elephants.

However, even if here, it should figure as a much smaller

image ‘hidden’ among the other illustrations. Wonder why

this plate has not caught the eye of Hindu purists and

fundamentalists yet?

M@ RANJITMANAKADAN

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(2), May-Aug 2013

149-170

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

1. THE HOOLOCK GIBBON HOOLOCK HOOLOCK IN SAIHA, MIZORAM, INDIA:

HISTORICAL RECORDS, RECENT SIGHTINGS, AND CONSERVATION ISSUES

NIMESH VED!

‘Srinivas Nagar, Padma Rao Nagar, Secunderabad 500 061, Andhra Pradesh, India. Email: Nimesh.ved@ gmail.com

Introduction

The Hoolock Gibbon Hoolock hoolock occurs in the

westernmost extreme of the distribution range of the

16 gibbon species currently recognised (Geissmann 2007;

Kakati et al. 2009). Its range between the Brahmaputra and

Chindwin rivers encompasses three countries — Bangladesh,

India, and Myanmar (Groves 1967). It is the only ape

represented in the Indian subcontinent (Geissmann et al.

2009). The species has been on the list of the World’s

25 Most Endangered Primates since 2006 (Walker et al.

2007), with the global population estimated to be about 5,000

animals, of which 2,600 to 4,450 are in India (Choudhury

2006; Molur et al. 2005) and about 200 in Bangladesh

(Kakati et al. 2009; Molur et al. 2005). Zonunmawia and

Pradhan (2004) state its Mizo name as hauhuk, and Lorrain

(1951) mentions the Mara name as veitu; Mizo and Mara

are the two languages used in Saiha.

Mizoram (21,081 sq. km) is part of the north-eastern

hill states of India that include Meghalaya, Nagaland,

Manipur, and Tripura. Some of the best rainforests of north-

east India are found in southern Mizoram, covering parts of

Lawngtlai and Saiha districts (Choudhury 2006). The forests

of Mizoram are broadly classified as ‘Cachar Tropical

Evergreen (IB/C3)’ and ‘Cachar Semi-evergreen (2B/C2)’

(Champion and Seth 1968).

Saiha is one of the eight districts of Mizoram, situated

at its extreme south and covering an area of 1,965.81 sq.

km. Saiha’s forests are contiguous with the Blue Mountain

National Park (22° 39' N; 93° 02' E; 50 sq. km) of Lawngtlai

district (Mizoram) located close to the Myanmar border and

the Chin Hills.

Hoolock Gibbons in Saiha

Historical records: Lorrain (1912) provides the

earliest records of the occurrence of Hoolock Gibbon in

Saiha: “The Gibbon Ape is seen swinging from branch to

branch, calling out with its weird, hollow sound... The trees

were swarmed with long-tailed monkeys and Gibbon Apes,

the latter making no end of noise as the boats approached.

The cries of the Gibbon Apes were on every hand, and the

experience was indeed a pleasant one to those of an

adventurous mind.” Parry (1932) in his seminal work on

Saiha stated: “Where there is no moon, gibbons are said not

to call in the daytime, but as soon as the moon reappears

they start shouting again.” |

Recent records: Hoolock Gibbons occur in all the

districts of Mizoram, namely: Aizawl, Champhai, Kolasib,

Lawngtlai, Lunglei, Mamit, Saiha, and Serchhip. The main

populations, however, survive in the districts of Champhai,

Lawngtlai, Lunglei, Mamit, and Saiha (Choudhury 2006).

Gupta and Sharma (2005) recorded a total of 72 gibbon

groups in seven different populations in Mizoram, in an area

of about 298 sq. km. Their survey included all the existing

and proposed protected areas and reserve forests. Of the

72 groups recorded in the study, 37 (51.4%) were outside

protected areas or reserve forests. There are sizeable

populations in southern Saiha and Lawngtlai districts

(Choudhury 2006).

My records: During February and March 2009, I was

part of a team that undertook surveys towards the formation of

Tokalo Wildlife Sanctuary in the area south of Palak lake. In

the course of this survey, we recorded the gibbon at three

different locations. The call was heard at Lomasu village

(22° 6.172' N; 92° 50.859" E) on the banks of Kolodyne river

at 10:00 hrs on February 14. The landscape was a mosaic of

forest and orchards (primarily banana). The second location

(22° 3.048' N; 92°51.977' E) was adjacent to the Kumai river,

where the gibbons were sighted at 08:30 hrs on February 17.

The gibbons were calling in a dense forest with good canopy

cover. The third location (22° 1.307' N; 92° 52.391' E) was

near Rala river at 15:30 hrs, where a juvenile and its mother

were seen by colleagues in a dense forest with good canopy

cover on February 19. They may be part of a group that was

heard the subsequent morning about 200 m further south. Each

of these sightings was near a river — the survey was done along

these rivers as they would form the boundary of the then

proposed wildlife sanctuary.

In addition to the survey results, a juvenile gibbon was

seen at the residence of a villager in Saiha. The family had

been given the ape by a relative, who had reportedly captured

it in the forests of Saiha south of Palak lake.

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Conservation Issues

In Mizoram, people believe that possessing a gibbon

tooth and a piece of bone will keep them safe from misfortune

(Gupta and Sharma 2005). Many Lakhers (Maras) wear

bracelets made of gibbon bones to prevent rheumatism, for

good health, and to ward off black magic. It is claimed that

there would be no smallpox where gibbons occur and that there

have never been cases of smallpox in Lakher country for this

reason (Parry 1932). Two more prevalent myths in Saiha make

the gibbon particularly vulnerable: 1) The forelimbs of the

gibbon are placed over a pregnant woman’s abdomen to lessen

her pains during child birth, and 11) Its blood is considered an

effective cure for blood pressure and malaria. These myths and

other beliefs in the Mara society exacerbate the pressures on

wildlife (Ved and Lalramnuna 2008).

Poaching of wildlife, including gibbons, for food and

trade is common among the hill tribes of north-east India

(Choudhury 2006; Kakati et al, 2009; Srivastava 2006).

Hunting is culturally sanctioned and widely practiced across

the landscape, and hunting pressure has increased with

increase in the use of guns and the growing human population.

The gibbon faces a higher threat on account of changes in

land use. Talks with people in Saiha revealed that the decrease

in numbers of large trees in recent years has lead to a decline

of the Hoolock Gibbon and hornbills in particular.

Most of the sites with gibbon populations (and other wildlife

species) in Mizoram are not under the direct control of the forest

authorities, which suggests that a participatory community-based

conservation approach, including conservation education, is of

utmost importance for wildlife conservation (Gupta and Sharma

2005). Regular programmes focusing on the need for conservation

of wildlife, especially charismatic species such as the Hoolock

Gibbon, in these remote forested lands is essential. These

programmes need to be sensitive to local cultural values and should

involve school students, youth associations, village council

members, and others that are an integral part of these societies

(Ved and Lalramnuna 2008).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to the Forest Department of Mara

Autonomous District Council for support and encouragement.

Acknowledgements are due to the entire survey team and

the local people for sharing their vast knowledge of the region

and its wildlife, and for help and cooperation during the

survey. Sincere gratitude is due to donors who supported

Samrakshan’s efforts in Mizoram: Rufford Small Grants,

Columbus Zoo, Kidendran Nature Conservation Fund, and

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. I thank Kashmira

Kakati for discussing gibbons and sharing literature, and

two anonymous reviewers for comments on the

manuscript.

REFERENCES

CHAMPION, H. & S.K. SETH (1968): A Revised Survey of the Forest Types

of India. Manager of Publications, Govt. of India, New Delhi.

404 pp.

CHoupuHury, A.U. (2006): The distribution and status of Hoolock Gibbon,

Hoolock hoolock in Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram and

Nagaland in north east India. Primate Conservation 20: 79-87.

GEISSMANN, T. (2007): Status reassessment of the gibbons: results of the

Asian Primate Red List Workshop. Gibbon Journal 3: 5-15.

GEISSMANN, T., M. GRINDLEY, F. Mompera, N. Lwin & S. Moses (2009):

Hoolock gibbon and biodiversity survey and training in southern

Rakhine Yoma, Myanmar. Gibbon Journal 5: 7-27.

Groves, C.P. (1967): Geographic variation in the hoolock or White-

browed Gibbon (Hylobates hoolock Harlan, 1834). Folia

Primatologica 7: 276-283.

GupTA, A.K. & N. SHARMA (2005): Conservation status of Hoolock

Gibbon in Mizoram. Jn: Conservation of Hoolock Gibbon

Bunopithecus hoolock in northeast India. ENVIS Bulletin:

Wildlife and Protected Areas. 8(/): 27-86.

KAKaTI, K., R. RAGHAVAN, R. CHELLAM, Q. QuRESHI & D.J. CHIVERS

(2009): Status of Western Hoolock Gibbon Hoolock hoolock

Populations in Fragmented Forests of Eastern Assam. Primate

Conservation 24: 127-137.

Lorrain, R. (1912): 5 Years in Unknown Jungles. Lakher Pioneer

Mission, London. Pp. 264.

150

Lorrain, R. (1951): Grammar and Dictionary of the Lakher or Mara

Language. Guwahati. Pp. 372.

Movvr, S., S. WALKER, A. ISLAM, P. MILLER, C. SRINIVASULU, P.O. NAMEER,

B.A. DANIEL & L. RAvikUMAR (Eds) (2005): Conservation of

Western Hoolock Gibbon Hoolock hoolock in India and

Bangladesh. Population and Habitat Viability Assessment

(P.H.V.A.) Workshop Report, Coimbatore, India.

Parry, N.E. (1932): The Lakhers. Firma KLM Private Limited, Calcutta.

Pp. 613.

SRIVASTAVA, A. (2006): Conservation of threatened primates of Northeast

India. Primate Conservation 20: 107-113.

Vep, N. & S. LALRAMNUNA (2008): Yellow-bellied Weasel Mustela

kathiah records from Mizoram, India. Small Carnivore

Conservation 39: 35-36.

WALKER, S., S. MoLur & W.Y. BROCKELMAN (2007): Western Hoolock

gibbon Hoolock hoolock In: (Eds: Mittermeier, R.A.,

J. Ratsimbazafy, A.B. Rylands, L. Williamson, J.F. Oats,

D. Mbroa, J.U. Gazhorn, E. Rodriguez-luna, E. Palacios,

E.W. Heymann, M. Cecilia, M. Kierulff, L. Yongcheng,

J. Supriatna, C. Roos, S. Walker and J.M. Aguiar) Primates in

peril; the world’s 25 most endangered primates, 2006-2008.

Pp. 18, 30. Primate Conservation 22: 1-40.

ZONUNMAWIA, A. & N. PRADHAN (2004): Mizoram and its wildlife. Center

for Environment Protection, Aizawl. Pp. 69.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

2. RECORDS OF THE MELANISTIC LEOPARD PANTHERA PARDUS (LINNAEUS)

FROM WESTERN GHATS AREA OF MAHARASHTRA AND KARNATAKA, INDIA

Amit SAYYED!*, SAURABH TAKALKAR? AND ANIL MAHABAL?

"Wildlife Protection and Research Society Satara, Satara 415 002, Maharashtra, India. Email: amitsayyedsatara @ gmail.com

*Sahakar Nagar, Parvati, Pune 411 044, Maharashtra, India. Email: saurabhtakalkar @ gmail.com

>Zoological Survey of India, W.R.C. Akurdi, Pune 411 044, Maharashtra, India. Email: mahabal.anil@ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

The Leopard Panthera pardus (Linnaeus) (Family

Felidae, Order Carnivora) is a sleek, short-haired animal, with

fulvous coat marked with small close-set black rosettes,

distributed all over the sides of body and tail (Prater 1971).

The body colour of the animal is highly variable (Prater 1971)

from pale yellow, warm grey, rich tawny, to bright rufous

fawn. In general, the variations in colour appear due to

different environmental conditions like temperature, dryness

or humidity, an increase or decrease of light, and/or

combinations of these with latitudinal differences from the

equator (Prater 1971). Rare occurrences of abnormally black-

coloured leopards are of melanistic individuals. A few such

instances of the melanistic leopards have been reported in

the Western Ghats area of Maharashtra and Karnataka states,

which are discussed in this note.

The first author (AS) and members of WLPRESS

(Wildlife Protection and Research Society, Satara) have been

undertaking systematic research on the reptiles and mammals

of Western Ghats of Satara and Kolhapur districts in

Maharashtra, since 2006. During these surveys, a “black leopard’

was sighted on three different occasions: December 8, 2010 at

18:30 hrs; March 21, 2012 at 19:00 hrs; and April 13, 2012 at

06:30 hrs. All these sightings were from the same locality — a

forested area of the Kaas Plateau (17° 06' N; 73° 08' E) of the

Western Ghats in Satara district, Maharashtra, which has been

declared as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO.

The fur of this leopard had a dense deposit of melanin

and the typical close-set black rosettes were present but hidden

beneath the black pigmentation. During the first two instances,

it was not possible to take photographs, however, on April

13, 2012, the first author (AS) managed to photograph it using

a night vision camera (ed.: photographic evidence provided).

We are not sure if the sighting on December 8, 2010, and

March 21, 2012, are of the same animal as the one sighted on

April 13, 2012.

Other than these records, there is a record of a melanistic

leopard in the hilly areas of Western Ghats near Manohar—

Mansantosh twin forts between Amboli and Padgaon,

Sindhudurg district, Maharashtra on June 3, 2009 (June 14,

2009, DNA newspaper, Pune edition). These sightings were

by Sachin Kandekar and Abhijit Yadav of Kolhapur. Further,

locals and Forest Department personnel had sighted

individuals in Chandoli National Park, Sangli district,

Maharashtra and in Amboli on a few occasions, but there are

no published records available.

In Karnataka, there is a recent sighting of a black leopard

in forest along the banks of Bhadra reservoir in Bhadra Tiger

Reserve, Chikmagalur district, Karnataka. This leopard was

spotted and photographed (ed.: photographic evidence

provided) in Bhadra Tiger Reserve by the second author (ST)

on February 22, 2012, along with a forest guide, Mr. Girish.

Later on, Girish informed ST that he saw the leopard in the

same area in April and May, 2012.

Melanism in the leopard is not an uncommon

phenomenon. It has been noticed in many animals including

mammals. A perusal of literature revealed that there have been

reports of melanistic leopards from various parts of India (Ali

1927; Bedi 1998; Pizey 1932; Sinha 1996).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Mr. Aman Adsul, Mr. Kiran Ahire, Mr. Kanhatya

Purohit, and Mr. Ohol Sir, members of Wildlife Protection

and Research Society Satara (WLPRESS), Maharashtra, for

participation in the fieldwork, and the Forest Department,

Satara for help and cooperation during the surveys. We thank

Dr. R.M. Sharma, Zoological Survey of India, W.R.C., Pune,

for his valuable suggestions on the manuscript.

REFERENCES

ALI, S. (1927): Black Leopards. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 31(4): 1027.

Bent, R. (1998): Kala Tendua — Durlabh Prani (in Hindi); Black Panther — Rare animal. Cheetal 37(1 & 2): 58-67.

Pizey, R.M. (1932): Black Leopards. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 36(1): 236-238.

Prater, S.H. (1971): The Book of Indian Animals. 3rd (revised) edn. Bombay Natural History Society and Oxford University Press, India. 324 pp.

SINHA, KUMAR TARANAND (1996): Glimpses of Black Leopard. Cheetal 35(1 & 2): 19-21.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

151

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

3. LESSER DAWN BAT EONYCTERIS SPELAEA: THE FIRST RECORD FOR BANGLADESH

M. Monirut H. Kuan!

‘Department of Zoology, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka 1342, Bangladesh. Email: mmhkhan @hotmail.com

Bangladesh harbours diverse species of wildlife in

different habitat types ranging from forested hills to low-lying

wetlands (Khan 2008; Khan 2010). Occasionally, first records

of species are added to the nation’s checklist. Recently a bat

species, i.e., Lesser Dawn Bat Eonycteris spelaea, was

recorded in the hilly area of south-eastern Bangladesh (Daily

Prothom Alo newspaper, August 30, 2012) (Fig. 1). There is

no previous report of its occurrence in Bangladesh (Ahmed

et al. 2009; Khan 2008; Khan 2010).

- The roost of around 100 bats was first recorded in a

cave called Kudum (21° 05.553' N; 92° 10.166' E; 78 m

above msl) in Teknaf Wildlife Sanctuary, Cox’s Bazar

district, on July 15, 2012. Cox’s Bazar is situated in the

extreme south-eastern hilly area of Bangladesh. The area

was previously covered by rich mixed evergreen forests,

which were mostly logged in the course of time, and today,

the hills are dominated by bush and plantations. The

existence of the bats in the cave was known to many people,

including me, for the last several years, but the species was

not correctly identified.

This medium-sized bat has an elongated muzzle, which is

a key character of the species. Presence of claw only on the

thumb (not on the second digit) in the forearm and absence of

pale ‘fingers’ (i.e. pale lines along the digits in dark wings) have

helped to differentiate it from similar species that occur in the

region, namely Fulvous Fruit Bat Rousettus leschenaulti and

Short-nosed Fruit Bat Cynopterus sphinx (Bates and Harrison

1997; Francis 2008; Menon 2003; Prater 1980). Other than Lesser

Dawn Bat, several Blyth’s Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus lepidus

were seen in the cave. In July 2006, an Intermediate Roundleaf

Bat Hipposideros larvatus was seen roosting inside the cave.

The Lesser Dawn Bat occurs widely in neighbouring

India and Myanmar extending to most parts of Southeast

Fig. 1: Lesser Dawn Bat Eonycteris spelaea photographed on

July 15, 2012, in Kudum Cave, Cox’s Bazar,

south-eastern Bangladesh

Asia, so it was expected to occur in Bangladesh (Khan 2008).

Kudum Cave is close (7 km) to the Myanmar border, where

the species is known to occur. Based on the pattern of its

regional distribution, it is assumed that the species might

also occur in the north-eastern and northern areas of

Bangladesh, which need to be verified by field surveys.

The existence of Lesser Dawn Bat in Kudum Cave is

threatened due to rapid deforestation in the area, which

contributes to the decline of food resources since it feeds

on pollen and nectar (Francis 2008). Additionally, the

existence of the cave is threatened due to frequent landslides

during the monsoon. It was observed that the bat population

in the cave has declined to nearly half since June 2008

(when counts were done prior to its identity being

confirmed).

REFERENCES

AHMED, A.T.A., S.M.H. Kasir, M. Anmap, Z.U. Aumep, Z.N.T. BEGUM,

M.A. HAssan & M. KHONDKER (Eds) (2009): Encyclopedia of

Flora and Fauna of Bangladesh, Vol. 27: Mammals. Asiatic

Society of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh. 264 pp.

Bates, P.J.J. & D.L. HARRISON (1997): Bats of the Indian Subcontinent.

Harrison Zoological Museum, Kent, U.K. 258 pp.

FRANCIS, C.M. (2008): A Field Guide to the Mammals of South-East

Asia. New Holland Publishers Ltd., London, U.K. 392 pp.

KHAN, M.M.H. (2008): Protected Areas of Bangladesh — A Guide to

152

Wildlife. Nishorgo Program, Bangladesh Forest Department,

Dhaka, Bangladesh. 304 pp.

Kuan, R. (2010): Wildlife of Bangladesh from Amphibia to

Mammalia — A Checklist. Shahitya Prakash, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

128 pp.

Menon, V. (2003): A Field Guide to Indian Mammals. Dorling

Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 200 pp.

Prater, S.H. (1980): The Book of Indian Animals. Bombay Natural

History Society and Oxford University Press, India. 324 pp.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

4. REAPPEARANCE OF THE WILD PIG SUS SCROFA CRISTATUS

IN DACHIGAM NATIONAL PARK, KASHMIR, INDIA

KHURSHEED AHMAD!**, PARAG NIGAM~®, BILAL HABIB~’, M. SADIQ Mir”, ZAFFAR Ratis”*®, MEHRAJ-U-DIN SHAH!”

AND N.A. MALIK?!®

‘Centre for Mountain Wildlife Science, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology of Kashmir (SKUAST-

Kashmir), Shuhama Campus, Shuhama, Alusteng 190 006, Post Box 135, GP.O. Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India.

*Wildlife Institute of India, RO. Box. 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, Uttarakhand, India.

’Department of Wildlife Protection, Jammu & Kashmir Government, Srinagar 190 001, Jammu & Kashmir, India.

‘Email: khursheed47 @ gmail.com

>Email: mehrajruhaan @ gmail.com

SEmail: nigamp @ wii.gov.in

7Email: bh @wii.gov.in

SEmail: mirzaffar786 @ yahoo.co.in

"Email: mirsadiq786 @ gmail.com

10 mail: nazirmalik.1314@ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

Dachigam National Park (34° 05'-34° 11' N; 74° 54'—

74° 09' E; 141 sq. km), is located 22 km from Srinagar and

lies in the Zanskar mountain range of the North-West

Himalayan Biogeographic Zone (2A) [Rodgers and Panwar

(1988): Planning a wildlife protected area network in India.

Wildlife Institute of India Press, Dehradun]. Dachigam

National Park (DNP) was established by the then Maharaja

of Jammu & Kashmir Hari Singh by evacuating ten villages

to serve exclusively as a hunting preserve for his guests. It

was declared as a Game Sanctuary in 1951 and notified as

National Park in 1981. DNP is significant as being home to

the last surviving population of the highly endangered and

endemic deer of Kashmir, the Kashmir Red Deer or Hangul.

The other major mammal species found in Dachigam are

Musk Deer Moschus chrysogaster, Serow Capricornis

sumatraensis, Himalayan Grey Langur Semnopithecus ajax,

Asiatic Black Bear Ursus thibetanus, Brown Bear Ursus

arctos, Leopard Panthera pardus, Red Fox Vulpes vulpes,

Jackal Canis aureus, Small Indian Civet Viverricula indica,

and Pine Marten Martes flavigula. The Snow Leopard

Panthera uncia is also reported.

According to Walter Lawrence (1895), in his book THE

VALLEY OF KASHMIR (p. 117), the Wild Pig was introduced in the

mountains of Kashmir and in Dachigam forests during the time

of the Dogra ruler of Jammu & Kashmir, Maharaja Gulab Singh

(1846-1857). After its introduction, it became very common

in the preserves and along the foothills of the mountains on the

eastern side of the valley [Lawrence (1895): “The Valley of

Kashmir’. London H. Frowde Publishers. 478 pp.]. After

independence in 1947, the people of Kashmir expressed concern

over the presence of the Wild Pig, especially in Dachigam

Sanctuary, and due to mass agitations by the locals steps were

taken to eradicate the alien species from the Kashmir forests.

The last population of Wild Boar is reported to have been wiped

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

out from Dachigam during the 1980s, and according to the

State Wildlife Department, it has never been reported from

Dachigam National Park or its adjoining forests since 1984.

On April 07, 2013, at 16:00 hrs, we came across a

sighting of the Wild Pig on the main road in the lower

Dachigam near Lelchamb at 1,750 m elevation during a survey

for Hangul. This sighting was recorded after an absence of

nearly 30 years. The animal was moving towards the woods

along the main Dachigam nullah. One of our team members,

Nazir Malik, the Wildlife Forest Guard, managed to

photograph the animal. On April 9, we again sighted probably

the same animal at 17:00 hrs in a riverine patch of Wasantpora

in Lower Dachigam. On May 30, 2013, at 04:39 hrs, we got

a picture of the species, probably a male, in a camera trap in

the riverine patch near the Rescue Centre, close to the Park

gate. Earlier last year, a solitary individual was sighted in the

forests of Ajas Conservation Reserve in Bandipora.

These sightings indicate that the Wild Pig is making a

comeback in Dachigam. However, like other introduced

species, its recurrence may have long-term ecological

implications, especially for endemic faunal species,

particularly the Kashmir Red Deer or Hangul, and hence the

species needs to be eradicated or its population controlled. It

will be interesting to find out where these individuals have

come from, and a study could be undertaken to monitor its

population and the impacts of its reappearance on the habitat

and local fauna.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to the Ministry of Environment

and Forests, Govt. of India, and Department of Science and

Technology, Govt. of India, New Delhi, for funding the

research projects on Kashmir Red Deer/Hangul and Common

Leopard, respectively, in Dachigam National Park.

153

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

5. RECORD OF THE GREAT WHITE PELICAN PELECANUS ONOCROTALUS

IN MYSORE, KARNATAKA, INDIA

M.K. SAPTHAGIRISH!* AND HONNAVALLI N. KUMARA?

'F/34, New Sayaji Rao Road, Fort Mohalla, Mysore 560 004, Karnataka, India. Email: sapthanature @ gmail.com

Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Anaikatti P.O., Coimbatore 641 108, Tamil Nadu, India.

Email: honnavallik @ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

The Great White Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus 1s

distributed through Eastern Europe, Middle East, Africa, and |

parts of Asia (BirdLife International 2014). In the Indian

subcontinent, it is recorded as a common winter visitor to

Pakistan and northern India (Punjab to Assam and Gujarat)

(Ali and Ripley 1987; Lahkar and Deka 2001; Talukdar et al.

1998; Tatu 1992; Urfi 1996; Varu and Khatri 1992; Varu and

Tiwari 1994). The species was once recorded breeding in the

Great Rann of Kachchh (Ali 1960).

There have been occasional sight records in Andhra

Pradesh (Law 1925; Nanjan and Vijayan 2009; Taher and

Mani 2008), Kerala (Jacob et al. 1994; Nair 1993), and Tamil

Nadu (MigrantWatch 2009). It is also been reported to breed

in parts of Gujarat (Ali 1960; Pandya and Vachhrajani 2010)

and Delhi (Urfi 1996). In Karnataka, the species been reported

from Udupi (Bhatt and Pushpalatha 2003). It is vagrant in

Sri Lanka (Harrison 2011).

During the course of our routine field visits for

birding, we came across a lone Great White Pelican in

Kukkarahalli tank in Mysore on February 04, 2012. We

could distinguish it from Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanus

philippensis, which is resident in the tank, by the

white plumage and black marginal feathers. The colour of

the pouch beneath its beak was yellow and the feet

were pinkish. We observed this bird for more than

15 minutes and managed to get some photographs too.

Kukkarahalli tank is a medium sized water body and

designated as an Important Bird Area, where about

207 species of birds have been recorded (MAN 1997).

Some of the important species include the Spot-billed

Pelican, Oriental Darter Anhinga melanogaster, Painted

Stork Mycteria leucocephala, and Oriental White Ibis

Threskiornis melanocephalus, all of which breed in the

tank.

REFERENCES

Aut, S. (1960): ‘Flamingo City’ re-visited: nesting of the Rosy Pelican

(Pelecanus onocrotalus Linnaeus) in the Rann of Kutch.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 57(2): 412-415.

Aut, S. & S.D. Riptey (1987): Compact handbook of the birds of India

and Pakistan together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan

and Sri Lanka. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Delhi.

Buart, G. & B. PUSHPALATHA (2003): Rare sighting of Great White Pelican

in Udupi district of Karnataka state. Newsletter for Birdwatchers

43(6): 92.

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2014): Species factsheet: Pelecanus onocrotalus.

Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 26/02/2014.

Harrison, J. (2011): A Field Guide to the Birds of Sri Lanka. 2nd edn.

Oxford University Press.

Jacos, T.T., P. PRamop, K. GANGADHARAN & M. MAHESH (1994): First

record of the Rosy Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus Linnaeus in

Kerala. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 91(3): 452.

LaHKAR, B.P. & B. DeKA (2001): Occurrence of Rosy Pelican in

Deepor Beel Bird Sanctuary, Assam. Newsletter for Birdwatchers

41(1): 12.

Law, S.C. (1925): Occurrence of Pelecanus roseus in the Vizagapatam

District, J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 30(2): 483-484.

MAN (Mysore AMATEUR NATURALISTS) (1997): Checklist of the Birds

of Kukkarahalli Lake. Mysore Amateur Naturalists, Mysore.

MiIGRANTWatTcH (2009): Great White Pelican (Pelecanus

onocrotalus), Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary, Tamil Nadu. http://

154

www.migrantwatch.in/sighting.php?id=3259. Downloaded on

June 07, 2013.

Nair, M.V. (1993): Rosy Pelican at Aakkulam. News/letter for

Birdwatchers 33(1): 7-8.

NANIAN, S. & L. VurAyan (2009): Record of the Great White Pelican

Pelecanus onocrotalus from Uppalapadu, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Indian Birds 5(1):17-18.

PanpyA, P.J. & K.D. VACHHRAJANI (2010): Birds of Mahi river estuary,

Gujarat, India. J. Threatened Taxa 2(6): 994-1000.

TAHER, H. & U. Mant (2008): Sighting of the Great White Pelican

Pelecanus onocrotalus at Kolleru Wildlife Sanctuary, Andhra

Pradesh, India. Indian Birds 4(1): 14.

Tatu, K.S. (1992): Rosy Pelican, White Stork and Black Tern at Thol

Wildlife Sanctuary, N. Gujarat. Newsletter for Birdwatchers

32: 17-18.

TALUKDAR, B.K., R. BARMAN & R.K. Das (1998): Records of Rosy

Pelican in Assam during summer. Newsletter for Birdwatchers

36(5): 87,

Urn, A.J. (1996): On some new breeding records of water birds from

the Delhi region. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 93(1): 94-95.

Varu, S.N. & M.B. KHatri (1992): Recovery of a Russian-ringed Rosy

(White) Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus Linn. in Kutch, Gujarat.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 89(2): 246.

VARU, S.N. & J.K. Trwart (1994): The Great White Pelican in Kutch,

Gujarat. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 34(6): 133-134.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

6. SIGHTING OF LONG-TAILED DUCK CLANGULA HYEMALIS

IN GHARANA WETLAND, JAMMU & KASHMIR, INDIA

GuULDEV Ray!

'518/2, Narwal Pain (Ward No. 2), Satwari, Jammu 180 003, Jammu & Kashmir, India. Email: gvrx @rediffmail.com

Gharana Wetland, a winter refuge for migratory birds,

is important as a staging site and flyway route. It is a small

wetland, spread over 0.75 sq. km, just 28 km away from

Jammu City. Gharana Wetland got its name from Gharana

village which is very close to the Indo-Pak border at

Ranbirsinghpora tehsil in Jammu district in the state of Jammu

& Kashmir. Gharana Wetland has been declared as an

Important Bird Area (IBA), based on BirdLife criteria A411

(hosts more than 20,000 waterbirds). It is protected as a

Wetland Conservation Reserve (Rahmani et al. 2012).

A part of this wetland lies across the border in Pakistan.

During March 2013, Tufted Pochard Aythya fuligula was

reported in Gharana Wetland, close to the Indo-Pakistan

border in Ranbirsinghpora. To capture pictures of these birds,

I visited the wetland a number of times. During one such

trip, I spotted a small bird in the camera viewfinder (and

photographed it), which I had never seen there before. It had

white on the flanks and face, and the rest of the body was a

mixture of black, and brown. I spotted the bird again the next

day and took more photographs.

On my queries to BNHS for help in its identification, I

got a prompt reply that it was a female Long-tailed Duck

Clangula hyemalis in non-breeding plumage. This species is

listed as Vulnerable (IUCN 2013). I was also informed that

there were only four records of the species from the Indian

region, one each from Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, Nepal, and

Arunachal, and so this would be another rare record of this

straggler for India and for Jammu & Kashmir.

REFERENCES

IUCN (2013): IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2.

<www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 05 March, 2014.

RAHMANI, A.R., ZAFAR-UL ISLAM, KHURSHEED AHMAD, INTESAR SUHAIL,

PANKAJ CHANDAN & A.A. ZARRI (2012): Important Bird Areas of

Jammu & Kashmir. IBCN-BNHS, RSPB and BirdLife

International. OUP. Pp. xii +152.

7. BANDED KRAIT BUNGARUS FASCIATUS FEEDING ON

COMMON KRAIT BUNGARUS CAERULEUS

ARUN M.K. BHaros!

'B-101, Gayatrinagar, P.O. Shankar Nagar, Raipur, CG, 492 007, Chhattisgarh, India. Email: cwsraipur@ yahoo.co.in

The Dainik Bhaskar (a Hindi daily), Raipur edition,

dated September 04, 2012, published a news item with

photographs, describing a Banded Krait Bungarus fasciatus

feeding on a Common Krait Bungarus caeruleus. This incident

was observed by villagers of Tapkara (22° 44' 52" N; 83° 57’

24" E), 45 km from Jashpurnagar, Chhattisgarh, and the

newspaper’s correspondent-videographer Shri Shashikant

Pandey at Jashpurnagar, who filmed it. The film showed

the c. 2 m long Banded Krait catching hold of the metre

long Common Krait near the head, subduing it, and

swallowing it completely within 25 minutes.

The diet of the Banded Krait in the accounts in

available literature are: “small mammals, lizards, snakes and

toads” (Gunther 1864); “mainly snakes and among those

taken are Rat Snake, Indo-chinese Rat Snake, Cat Snake,

Checkered Keelback, Buff-striped Keelback, also skinks,

eggs of snakes and occasionally fish” (Daniel 2002; Deoras

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

1981); “eats water snakes, rat snakes, pythons, and vine

snakes, besides lizards, frogs and fish” (Das 2002); “feed

on other snakes including venomous snakes, show

cannibalism as they can also devour other kraits under the

conditions of food scarcity, also feed on small lizards”

(Maurice 2009).

The video recording discussed in this note confirms

that the Banded Krait feeds on snakes as reported by other

workers, and also on other krait species, which is in this

reported case was the Common Krait.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am thankful to Mr. Mohan Tiwari, Sushil Mutha, and

Sadhna TV News Channel for making available the video

clip. My thanks are also due to Mr. Varad Giri and Mr. Eric

D’Cunha for encouragement.

155

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

REFERENCES

GUNTHER, ALBERT C.L.G. (1864): The Reptiles of British India. Arment

Biological Press, Landisville PA. 404 pp.

DanrEL, J.C. (2002): The Book of Indian Reptiles & Amphibians.

Bombay Natural History Society and Oxford University Press,

India. 134 pp. |

Das, INDRANEIL (2002): A Photographic Guide to Snakes and other

Reptiles of India. Om Books International, New Delhi. Pp. 51.

Deoras, P.J. (1981): Snakes of India. National Book Trust, India.

124 pp.

Maurice, Navopita (2009): Kraits are more dangerous than Cobras,

(http://EnzineArticles.com/?expert=Navodita Maurice). 10th

May, 2009.

8. MARINE ORNAMENTAL ICHTHYOFAUNA OF THOOTHUKUDI COAST,

GULF OF MANNAR, INDIA

P. JAwAHAR!*, G, BRUCELEE!* AND T. UMAMAHESWARI'*

'Fisheries College and Research Institute, Thoothukudi 628 008, Tamil Nadu, India.

"Email: jawaharphd @ gmail.com

_ *Email: jaibruce @rediffmail.com

‘Email: t_umaselvam @ yahoo.co.in

*Corresponding author

Introduction

Coral ecosystems are one of the most important coastal

life support systems, and support a variety of economically

important marine organisms. With its 21 coral islands, the

Gulf of Mannar (GoM) has a heterogeneous assemblage of

fauna and flora. Nearly 3,600 species are reported from this

coral ecosystem (Ramadhas et al. 1999). Tuticorin coast, a

part of GoM, is bestowed with unique fishery resources, such

as Pearl Oyster Pinctada fucata and Sacred Chank Turbinella

pyrum. The Tuticorin coastal habitat consists of four coral

islands, seagrass beds, and mangroves. A large number of

colourful animals from all phyla are represented in this region,

including fish of vibrant and attractive colours, which have a

high demand in the international ornamental fish market.

In terms of commercial value, marine ornamental fish

are priced at US$ 1,000 per kg, which is nearly 330 times

higher than the price of food fish and ten times higher than

freshwater ornamental fish (Surtida 1999). Though the world

wholesale market value of live ornamental fish is estimated

as US$ 900 million (Bassleer 1994), only 10% volume comes

from marine ichthyofaunal collections. Organised fishing for

marine ornamental fish has recently started in some Southeast

Asian countries. Presently, marine ornamental fish represent

a small percentage of the ornamental fish trade in India.

However, their high market value makes it economically

attractive for creating sustainable livelihood resources for

coastal fisherman communities. With the increasing expansion

of the global marine ornamental fish trade, studies on these

resources are vital for optimally exploiting these under-

utilised resources and to preserve the biodiversity.

The fishery wealth of the coral reefs of Tuticorin has

been studied earlier by Bennet and Arumugam (1991), Kasim

et al. (1989), Mahadevan and Nayar (1967), Manikandavelu

156

(1996), and Mathew (1994). However, specific studies on

the ornamental fish fauna in Tuticorin waters are limited. With

levelling or decline in production from many capture fisheries

in this region, other ways of using the valuable aquatic

resources is the need of the hour. In this regard, a study was

initiated to document the ornamental marine ichthyofaunal

resources of Tuticorin.

Methods |

Colourful fish species recorded at different fish landing

centres of Tuticorin district were collected regularly from April

2000 to March 2001. The catches of both mechanised boats

and traditional crafts were examined, and the fish species were

categorised as rare, frequent, and abundant based on the fish

landings. The specimens were identified based on Fischer and

Bianchi (1984), Jones and Kumaran (1980), and Munro (1955).

Results

The collections consisted of 107 ornamental fish

species under 37 families (Table 1). Manikandavelu (1996)

had recorded 222 coral reef fishes from this region, 76 falling

under the marine ornamental fish category. Of the 138 species

of marine ornamental fishes reported by Murthy et al. (1989)

from the Lakshadweep region, 47 species occur in the

Tuticorin area. Of the 107 species recorded during our

collections, 53.3% were rare, 35.5% frequent, and 11.2% were

abundant. Twelve families are represented by single species

while nine families are represented by two species.

Acanthuridae was the most dominant family,

represented by 12 species. Of the five genera of Acanthurids

recorded from the region (Fischer and Bianchi 1984),

Acanthurus and Naso represented the ornamental fishes.

Acanthurus leucosternon, A. lineatus, and Naso lituratus are

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

Table 1: Marine ornamental ichthyofauna found in Tuticorin Coast

SI. No. Scientific Name

1. F: Acanthuridae

oa mB UO grag NOT

Acanthurus blochii

Acanthurus gahhm

Acanthurus leucosternon

Acanthurus lineatus

Acanthurus mata

Acanthurus nigricaudus

Acanthurus nigrofuscus

Acanthurus tennenti

Acanthurus triostegus

Naso brevirostris

Naso lituratus

Naso unicornis

2. F: Ambassidae

Ambassis commersonii

3. F: Balistidae

Sa SN

Balistapus undulatus

Balistoides viridescens

Odonus niger

Pseudobalistes fuscus

Sufflamen chrysoptera

Sufflamen fraenatus

4. F: Canthigasteridae

Canthigaster solandri

5. F: Carangidae

Gnathanodon speciosus

Alectis indicus

6. F: Chaetodontidae

I. Se

Chaetodon auriga

Chaetodon collare

Chaetodon unimaculatus

Chaetodon vagabundus

Ctenochaetus strigosus

Heniochus acuminatus

7: F: Cichlidae

—

Etroplus maculatus

Etroplus suratensis

8. F: Diodontidae

Diodon hystrix

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Common Name

Surgeonfishes

Tailring surgeonfish

Black surgeonfish

Powder-blue surgeonfish

Blue-banded surgeonfish

Elongate surgeonfish

Epaulette surgeonfish

Brown surgeonfish

Double band surgeonfish

Convict surgeonfish

Spotted unicornfish

Orange-spined unicornfish

Blue-spined unicornfish

Glassfishes

Glassy perchlet

Triggerfishes

Orange lined triggerfish

Titan triggerfish

Black triggerfish

Blue lined triggertfish

Halfmoon triggerfish

Masked triggerfish

Pufferfishes

Spotted sharp-nosed puffer or Toby

Travellies

Golden-toothed travelly

Indian threadfin travelly

Butterflyfishes

Threadfin butterflyfish

Red tail butterflyfish

One spot butterflyfish

Vagabond butterflyfish

Spotted surgeonfish

Pennant coral fish

Chromide

Orange chromide

Green chromide or pearlspot

Porcupinefishes

Spotted porcupinefish

Abundance

Rare

Frequent

Rare

Frequent

Rare

Frequent

Rare

Frequent

Abundant

Rare

Frequent

Rare

Frequent

157

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Table 1: Marine ornamental ichthyofauna found in Tuticorin Coast (contd.)

SI. No. Scientific Name Common Name Abundance

9. F: Drepanidae Sicklefishes

1". Drepane punctata Spotted sicklefish Frequent

10. Ephippidae Spadefishes and batfishes

alt Ephippus orbis Orbfish Rare

la F: Gerreidae Mojarras

A Gerres erythrourus Deep bodied mojarra Frequent

2 Gerres filamentosus Whipfin silverbelly Frequent

Soe Gerres oyena Common silver-biddy Frequent

12. F: Haemulidae Grunts and Sweetlips

s Plectorhinchus flavomaculatus Lemon sweellips Rare

2. Plectorhinchus orientalis Oriental sweetlips Rare

3 Plectorhinchus polytaenia Ribboned sweetlips Rare

4. Diagramma pictum Painted sweetlips Abundant

be F: Holocentridae Squirrelfish

af Myripristis botche Black tip soldierfish Rare

2. Myripristis murdjan Pine cone soldierfish Rare

3. Sargocentron rubrum Red coat fish Frequent

14. F: Labridae Wrasses

i Pseudocheilinus hexataenia Pyjama wrasse Rare

2. Cheilinus chlorourus Floral wrasse Rare

3: Coris angula Clown coris Rare

4. Coris formosa Queen coris Frequent

B: Coris gaimard Yellowtail coris Rare

6. Iniistius pavo Peacock wrasse Frequent

15. F: Lutjanidae Snappers

ah Lutjanus fulviflammus Dory snapper Frequent

La Lutjanus fulvus Black tail snapper Abundant

3 Lutjanus kasmira Blue-striped snapper Frequent

4. Lutjanus sebae Red emperor Frequent

5. Macolor niger Black and white snapper Rare

16. F: Malacanthidae Blue whitting

1. Malacanthus latovittatus Blue whitting Rare

A, F: Menidae Moonfishes

1 Mene maculata Moonfish Frequent

158 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

Table 1: List of marine ornamental ichthyofauna found in Tuticorin Coast (contd.)

SI. No. Scientific Name

18. F: Monocanthidae

1. Pervagor tomentosus

2. Cantherhines pardalis

19. F: Monodactylidae

als Monodactylus argenteus

20. F: Mullidae

is Upeneus tragula

z. Upeneus vittatus

3 Parupeneus indicus

21. F: Muraenidae

a Echidna nebulosa

2; Gymnothorax favagineus

22. F: Nemipteridae

1 Nemipterus bipunctatus

2 Nemipterus japonicus

3 Scolopsis bimaculatus

4 Scolopis vosmeri

23. F: Ostraciidae

1 Tetrosomus gibbosus

2 Lactaria cornuta

a. Lactoria fornasini

4 Ostracion cubicus

24. F: Platacidae

f.. Platax orbicularis

2. Platax teira

25. F: Pomacanthidae

1 Pomacanthus annularis

2 Pomacanthus imperator

3. Pomacanthus semicirculatus

4 Centropyge multispinis

26. F: Pomacentridae

Amphiprion clarkii

Amphiprion sebae

Amphiprion percula

Chromis caerulea

Dascyllus trimaculatus

Abudefduf saxfasciatus

>. et eee

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Common Name

Filefishes

Red-tailed filefish

Honeycomb filefish

Fingerfishes

Silver batfish or Ceylon angel

Goatfishes

Black-striped goatfish

Yellow-striped goatfish

Indian goatfish

Moray eels

Snow flake moray

Laced moray

Threadfin breams

Delagoa threadfin bream

Japanese threadfin bream

Thumbprint monocle bream

Whitecheek monocle bream

Boxfishes

Hump-backed turretfish

Longhorn cowfish

Throneback cowfish

Yellow boxfish

Batfishes

Orbicular batfish

Long-finned batfish

Angelfishes

Blue ring angelfish

Emperor angelfish

Semi circle angelfish or Koran angelfish

Dusky angelfish

Damselfishes

Yellow-tailed anemonefish

Sebae anemonefish

Orange clownfish

Blue green damselfish

Three spot damselfish

Scissortail sergeant major

Abundance

Rare

Frequent

Abundant

Rare

Abundant

Frequent

Rare

Frequent

Rare

159

Table 1: Marine ornamental ichthyofauna found in Tuticorin Coast (contd.)

SI. No. Scientific Name

PAIS F: Scaridae

q: Scarus gibbosus

2. Scarus rivulatus

28. Scatophagidae

A! Scatophagus argus

29. F: Scorpaenidae

te Dendtrochirus zebra

2. Pterois volitans

Sie Pterois radiata

30 F: Serranidae

; Groupers

Epinephelus undulosus

1. Epinephelus flavocaeruleus

2. Epinephelus hexagonatus

S Epinephelus malabaricus

4. Epinephelus merra

o1., F: Siganidae

te Siganus canaliculatus

Z. Siganus javus

3. Siganus vermiculatus

o2: F: Syngnathidae

ils Hippocampus kuda

2. Corythoichthys flavofasciatus

33. F: Synodontidae

ite Synodus variegatus

34. F: Theraponidae

if Therapon buta

2. Therapon jarbua

35. F: Tetradontidae

i Arothron hispidus

2. Arothron nigropunctatus

36. F: Triacanthidae

i Triacanthus biaculeatus

OT; F: Zanclidae

1. Zanclus cornutus

160

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Common Name

Parrotfishes

Parrotfish

Rivulated parrotfish

Scats

Spotted scat

Scorpionfishes

Zebra turkeyfish

Red lionfish

Radial firefish

Blue and yellow reef-cod

Star-spotted grouper

Malabar reef-cod

Honeycomb grouper

Wavy-lined reef-cod

Rabbitfishes

White-spotted spinefoot

Streaked spinefoot

Vermiculated rabbitfish or Jigsaw puzzlefish

Sea Horses and Pipefishes

Spotted sea horse

Banded pipe fish

Lizardfish

Variegated lizardfish

Tiger perches

Small-scaled terapon

Target perch

Bufferfish

White-spotted bufferfish

Black-spotted bufferfish

Triplespines or Tripodfishes

Black-finned triplespine

Moorish Fishes

Moorish Idol

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

Abundance

Frequent

Rare

Frequent

Rare

Abundant

Rare

Frequent

Abundant

Frequent

Rare

Frequent

Abundant

Frequent

Rare

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

the most colourful species collected from this family.

Chaetodontidae, usually found in reef areas and renowned

for their multihued colour patterns (Allen and Steene 1987),

are represented by six species. This is the most important

group of ornamental fishes on the coast in terms of demand

for aquarium keeping, but they were found to be rare in the

Tuticorin waters. Other families recorded and represented by

six species each are Balistidae, Labridae, and Pomacentridae.

Among triggerfish, reasonable catches of Odonus niger were

reported from both trawl and traditional gear. Some of the

triggerfish species fetch as much as $200 for a live specimen.

Labridae is also fairly represented in this region. These

wrasses exhibit a range of colour patterns and are best suited

for aquariums. Of the estimated 120 species belonging to

27 genera found in the Indo-Pacific (Allen and Steene 2000),

six were recorded in the study area. Among the Pomacentrids,

the damselfishes are found in shallow seas, living in close

association with sea anemones, and are easily collected by

skin diving. There are six species represented from this family,

three belonging to genus Amphiprion and one each

representing genera Chromis, Abudefduf and Dascyllus. The

Pomacanthidae (marine angelfishes) were represented by four

species. The best-suited, easy maintenance marine aquarium

fish, the pygmy angelfishes of the genus Centropyge of this

family were rarely observed. Nearly 200 species of Lutjanids

are commonly kept in aquarium tanks and in public aquariums

(Burgees et al. 1990). Of the 22 Lutjanid species listed from

the coral reef regions of Tuticorin by Manikandavelu (1996),

only five species could be treated as marine ornamental fish

— all the 22 species were recorded during this study.

Goatfishes, the mullids, bearing two chin barbels were

represented by three species.

Turkeyfish or lionfish are very attractive, with long

filamentous extension to the dorsal and pectoral fin rays and

spines. Three species known for their hardiness were recorded,

but were rare. Among the eels, moray eels — particularly

Echidna nebulosa and Gymnothorax favagineus — were

recorded. Other eels like Congridae, Moringuidae, and

Ophichthidae were not recorded in the landings; this may be

due to the selective gear operated by the fishermen.

Gymnothorax undulatus and G. punctatus of Muraenidae,

though reported earlier by Mahadevan and Nayar (1967), were

not recorded during this study.

Of the 12 species of seahorses (Hippocampus) found

in the Indian Ocean (Allen and Steene 1987), only

Hippocampus kuda is fairly common in this region. They

can be easily collected and kept in aquariums. However, as

per the Ministry of Environment and Forests notification,

seahorses are listed under the Schedule I category and

collecting them from the wild is strictly prohibited. The

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

pipefish Corythoichthys falvofasciatus was another rare

species collected under family Syngnathidae, which includes

seahorse and pipefishes.

Most of the groupers (Serranidae) are favourite food

fish. Though most of them are colourful, only four can be

considered as ornamental due to their relatively small size;

all are hardy species of the genus Epinephelus. While juveniles

of grunts (Hemulids) show bright colours, the colour pattern

gradually fades with growth. Young specimens of batfish,

particularly Platax teira exhibit spectacularly elongated dorsal

and anal fins. With growth, these fins become proportionately

shorter. Relatively slow moving, the sluggish boxfishes

(Ostraciidae) are represented by four species. The

squirrelfishes (Holocentridae), represented by four species

are usually brightly coloured. They are carnivorous and

nocturnal in nature. Canthigasteridae, the bufferfishes, are

usually sluggish, and were represented by a single species

Canthigaster solandri. Zanculus (Zanclidae), a universally

favoured marine ornamental fish with highly contrasting

pattern and graceful shape, is also represented, but was

recorded to be rare.

Other than marine species, brackish-water species such

as Etroplus, Monodactylus, Scatophagus, Ambassis, and

Gerres, were reported to be collected from nearby brackish-

water areas and coastal areas by minor gears and sold for the

aquarium trade.

Discussion

Based on the collections made, it appears that nearly

107 species can be collected with the gear currently used by

the fishermen. Species living in crevices and caves, such as

Pseudochromidae, Plesiopidae, and Priacanthidae were not

recorded, which points to the need for specific gear to catch

such species, and if done so, the species diversity of

ornamental fishes from Tuticorin will be higher than recorded

during this study. However, most of the species of ornamental

fish species recorded (107 species) were found to be low in

numbers. At present a limited number of ornamental fish

species have been exploited from Gulf of Mannar region,

particularly the Chinna Ervadi, Keelakarai, and Thoothukudi.

The following measures are suggested to document and

conserve the ichthyofaunal diversity of the region:

® Encourage the fishermen to responsibly exploit the high

valued ornamental fishes from this region.

e Studies need to be taken up to assess the relative

abundance, distribution, habitat requirements, and

biology of the marine ornamental fishes.

® Fishing has to be regulated to ensure that the critical

viable stock level is maintained, with regulation of mesh

161

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

size of gill nets and hook size for long line to prevent

large scale capture of juvenile fish. The mesh size of

the entrance to traps should also be increased.

e Strengthening the existing Gulf of Mannar Marine Park

and Biosphere Reserve by expanding the ecologically

importance areas of marine ornamental fishery

resources.

e Strict implementation of WPA (1972) to protecting

coral, seagrass, and other important marine resources

and ecosystems.

e Rehabilitating fishermen who are engaged in unlawful

fishing methods to ecofriendly methods.

e Establishment of closed areas, especially to protect the

spawning aggregation sites of ornamental fishes.

e Creating awareness on the importance of conservation

of marine ornamental ichthyofauna among fishermen

and villagers living along the coast.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge Dr. R. Santhanam,

former Dean and Dr. G. Sugumar, Dean I/C, Fisheries College

and Research Institute, Thoothukudi, India, for their constant

encouragement and constructive criticism.

REFERENCES

ALLEN, G.R. & R.C. STEENE (1987): Reef fishes of Indian Ocean.

A pictorial guide to the common reef fishes of the Indian Ocean.

T.F.H. Publications, Inc., New Jersey. 240 pp.

BASSLEER, G. (1994): The international trade in aquarium/ornamental

fish. Infofish International. Sept-Oct. 1994. Pp. 15-17.

BENNET, P.S. & G. ARUMUGAM (1991): The present status of small scale

traditional fishery at Tuticorin. Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv., T & E.

Ser, No. 113: 1-16.

BurGEES, W.E., H.R. AXEDLROD & R.E. HuNZIKER III (1990): Dr. Burgees

Atlas of marine aquarium fishes. T.F.H. Publications, Inc.,

New Jersey. 240 pp.

FIscHER, W. & G. BIaNcut (1984): FAO species identification sheets for

fishery purposes. Western Indian Ocean (Fishing area 51).

Vols I-VI, FAO, Rome.

Jones, S. & M. KuMARAN (1980): Fishes of the Laccadive Archipelago.

The Nature Conservation and Aquatic Science Service,

Trivandrum, India. 756 pp.

Kasim, H.M., K.M.S.A. Hamsa & P.S. BENNET (1989): Present status of

perch fishery resources in India and its prospects. National Symp.

Res & Dev. in Marine Fisheries, 1987. Mandapam. Bull. Cent.

Mar. Fish. Res. Inst. 44(1): 226-237.

MAHADEVAN, S. & K.N. Nayar (1967): Underwater ecological

observations in the Gulf of Mannar off Tuticorin VI. General

topography and ecology of rocky bottom. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India

9: 147-163.

MANIKANDAVELU, D. (1996): Biodiversity of coral reef fishery resources

of Tuticorin coastal waters. Ph.D. thesis. TANUVAS, Chennai,

India. 168 pp.

Matuew, G. (1994): On the perch fishery of Tuticorin during 1978-

1980. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India. 36(1/2): 28-33.

Munro, I.S.R. (1955): The Marine and Freshwater Fishes of Ceylon.

Soni Reprints, Delhi. 351 pp.

Mourtuy, V.S., M. KUMARAN & R.S. LALMOHAN (1989): Resources of

ornamental fishes. Jn: Marine Living Resources of the Union

Territory of Lakshadweep. An indicative survey with suggestions

for development. Bull. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res. Inst. 43: 46-64.

Ramapuas, V., R. SANTHANAM, V.K. VENKATARAMANI & V. SUNDARARAJ

(1999): Gulf of Mannar — A profile. Released on the occasion of

coastal pollution awareness meet. 27 Aug 1999. Fisheries College

and Research Institute, TANUVAS, Tuticorin 8. 92 pp.

SuRTIDA, P. (1999): The International Trade in Marine Ornamental Fish.

SEAFDEC, Asian Aquaculture XXI(2): 20-21.

9. KHARE’S STREAM FROG PTERORANA KHARE — A NEW RECORD FOR BANGLADESH

M. Monirut H. Kuan!

Department of Zoology, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka 1342, Bangladesh. Email: [email protected]

On October 3, 2012, at 19:30 hrs, an individual of

Pterorana khare was found in a rocky hill stream at 580 m

altitude in Rumana (21° 57' 562" N; 92° 32' 853" E), Ruma,

Bandarban, situated in the south-eastern hill range of the

Chittagong Hill Tracts, close to the border of Mizoram state

of India. The area has a mosaic of patchy, mixed evergreen

forests and shifting cultivation. The specimen was collected

for study and was preserved as a permanent voucher specimen

(Registration No. JUHG-0337) in the Animal Museum of the

Department of Zoology, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka.

162

The specimen revealed the unique skin flap on the

flanks, which is a unique character for the species. A skin

flap was also present along the inner border of the thighs. Its

snout-vent length was 68 mm. Tibio-tarsal articulation reached

to snout tip. A distinct tubercle was present at the angle of

jaws. Forelimbs were short and hind limbs were long. Fingers

were free and toes were fully webbed; each of the digits had

oblong disc at the terminal end. It had greenish-slaty

upperparts and white (anterior) to yellowish (posterior)

underparts. Dark tympanum was nearly half the diameter of

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Fig. 1: Pterorana khare from Bandarban, south-eastern

Bangladesh, on October 3, 2012

eye. Iris was golden in colour and pupil was horizontal. Pale -

dorso-lateral line was present. Hind limbs had dark cross-

bands. The characteristics match the published characteristics

of Pterorana khare (Chanda 2002; Kiyasetuo and Khare

1986). The local Bawm tribesmen, who occasionally catch

frogs for meat, report that this species is rare in the area,

referring to it as ‘vun-dor’, which means ‘loose skin’,

indicating its unique skin flap.

Pterorana khare, listed as Vulnerable by the IUCN, is

known from a few localities in north-eastern India (Nagaland

and Assam) between 200—1,600 m altitude. Its distributional

range was presumed to be wider (IUCN 2012), which is now

proved by its occurrence in Bangladesh. A thorough survey

on its distribution and population status in the hilly areas of

south-eastern and north-eastern Bangladesh is required to

ascertain its status in the country.

REFERENCES

CHANDA, S.K. (2002): Handbook — Indian Amphibians. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata. 335 pp.

IUCN (2012): The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Accessed on December 26, 2012.

Kryasetuo & M.K. KHareE (1986): A new genus of frog (Anura: Ranidae) from Nagaland at the north-eastern hills of India. Asian Journal of

Experimental Sciences I: 12-17.

10. ON A RECORD OF RHYNCHOCINETES DURBANENSIS GORDON, 1936 (DECAPODA,

CARIDEA, RHYNCHOCINETIDAE) IN THE GULF OF MANNAR, TAMIL NADU, INDIA

SANJEEVI PRAKASH!”* AND THIPRAMALAI THANGAPPAN AJITH KUMAR!

'Centre of Advanced Study in Marine Biology, Faculty of Marine Sciences, Annamalai University, Porto Novo 608 502, Tamil Nadu, India.

7Email: [email protected]

7Email: ttajith87 @ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

Introduction

The family Rhynchocinetidae consists of reclusive,

small, red and white shrimps that are often seen in large

associations, and characterised by their upward hinged

foldable rostrum. It comprises 25 species under two genera

Cinetorhynchus (11 species) and Rhynchocinetes (14 species)

(Ahyong et al. 2011; De Grave and Fransen 2011). The genus

Rhynchocinetes is easily recognisable by the movable rostrum,

which is jointed with the carapace by an articulation and by

its vivid red and white colour patterns. The male is easily

distinguishable by the presence of elongated maxillipeds

above the rostral tip and larger chela of first pereiopods

(Gordon 1936).

The family Rhynchocinetidae has not been much

reported from Indian waters. Kemp (1925) contributed to the

first occurrence of this taxa in Indian waters, namely

Rhynchocinetes hendersoni Kemp from the Gulf of Mannar,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Kemp 1925; Radhakrishnan

et al. 2012), which was recently re-designated as

Cinetorhynchus hendersoni (Kemp, 1925). After this, and a

gap of many decades, Dinesh and Zacharia (2007) and

Zacharia et al. (2008) reported the presence of another species,

namely R. durbanensis Gordon off the Karnataka coast.

A recent checklist on caridean shrimps of Indian waters

(Radhakrishnan et al. 2012) reports only single species from

both the genus Cinetorhynchus and Rhynchocinetes.

In this note, we provide details of specimens of

Rhynchocinetes durbanensis, based on five individuals,

collected by us from the coasts of Tuticorin. The shrimps

were collected around submerged rocks by hand nets at a

depth of 2-3 m while snorkelling. They were carefully

transferred to the laboratory without causing damage to the

body and pereiopods. The specimens were preserved in 5%

sea water formalin and deposited in the National Zoological

163

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Fig. 1: Rhynchocinetes durbanensis Gordon, 1936. Total length 6.6 cm, carapace length 1.5 cm, MBRC/ZSI M,-57.

(a) female, dorsal view; b) female, lateral view

Collections of Marine Biological Regional Centre (MBROC),

Zoological Survey of India (ZSI), Chennai, Tamil Nadu.

Identification up to species level was done using

standard literature (Gordon 1936; Okuno and Takeda 1992).

Size is expressed as total length (tl in mm) from the tip of the

rostrum to the posterior margin of the telson, and carapace

length (cl in mm) from the posterior orbital margin to the

posterior margin of the carapace.

Rhynchocinetes durbanensis Gordon, 1936 (Fig. 1)

(Order: Decapoda Latreille, 1802; Infra order: Caridea

Dana, 1852; Family: Rhynchocinetidae Ortmann, 1890;

Genus: Rhynchocinetes Milne Edwards, 1837)

Common names: Camel shrimp, Dancing shrimp,

Hinge-beak shrimp, Candy shrimp.

Five individuals (2 males and 3 females) (total length:

6.26.6 cm, carapace length: 1.1—1.5 cm) collected near the rocks

at a depth of 2-3 m, from Tuticorin coast, Tamil Nadu, 8° 50!

12.59" N; 78° 14' 08.85" E, 16.1.2013, MBRC/ZSI M,-57.

Body slender with humped abdomen. Rostrum with nine

teeth on the upper margin and 16 teeth on lower margin.

Carapace with Y-shaped white mark on each side on the dorsal

surface. Outer margin of antennular peduncle slightly rounded,

antennules with distal spine; third maxillipeds are elongated

in males with spines near apex of ultimate segment. Carapace

bearing two teeth in midline posterior to rostral juncture and

sharp supra-orbital spine present. Telson with three pairs of

dorsolateral as well as posterior spines. First pair of pere1opods

with larger chela and shorter dactylus with absence of setae,

appendix interna broad distally and longer than appendix

masculina. Colour of body covered with vivid red irregular

lines, white spots or lines in interspaces of each red line.

164

Distribution: This species has a circum-tropical

distribution throughout the Indo-Pacific, but has been

recorded only from South Africa, Ryukus, Philippines, and

Indonesia (Chace 1997). In India, it was reported from Netrani

Island, Karnataka coast (Dinesh Babu and Zacharia 2007;

Zacharia et al. 2008), and it has now been recorded by us

from Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu.

Rhynchocinetes durbanensis is readily separated

from the other species of the same group by having

three equidistant teeth on proximal to median parts of the

rostral upper margin (Okuno and Takeda 1992). Presence

of Y-shaped markings on the dorsal surface of the carapace

is distinct in R. durbanensis, compared to its similar

species R. uritai, R. durbanensis is also distinguished from

the other genus Cinetorhynchus hendersoni by the presence

of three teeth on carapace behind rostral articulation; no

supra-orbital spine; a tooth on either side of the fifth

abdominal somite above the posterior edge of pleuron.

Rostrum with two teeth on upper border and nine teeth on

the lower border; carapace and abdomen feebly striate

(Kemp 1925).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to the local fishermen of

Tuticorin for the help rendered during the survey. They are

also grateful to the Dean, Faculty of Marine Sciences,

Annamalai University, for constant support and

encouragement, and the authorities of Annamalai University

for the facilities provided. SP also acknowledges Council of

Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, for

granting a fellowship (SRF).

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

REFERENCES

AHYONG, S.T., J.K. Lowry, M. ALonso, R.N. BAmMBER, G.A. BOXSHALL,

P. Castro, S. GERKEN, G.S. KARAMAN, J.W. Goy, D.S. JONEs,

K. MELAND, D.C. Rocgrs, J. SVAVARSSON (2011): Subphylum

Crustacea Briinnich, 1772. In: Zhang, Z.-Q. (Ed.): Animal

biodiversity: An outline of higher-level classification and survey

of taxonomic richness. Zootaxa 3148: 1-237.

Cuace, F.A. Jr. (1997): The Caridean Shrimps (Crustacea: Decapoda)

of the Albatross Philippine expedition, 1907-1910, Part 7:

Families Atyidae, Eugonatonotidae, Rhynchocinetidae,

Bathypalaemonellidae, Processidae, and Hippolytidae.

Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 587: 1-106, figs 1-29.

DE GravVeE, S. & C.H.J.M. FRANSEN (2011): Carideorum Catalogus: The

Recent Species of the Dendrobranchiate, Stenopodidean,

Procarididean and Caridean Shrimps (Crustacea: Decapoda).

Zoologische Medelingen, Leiden 85(9): 195-589, figs 1-59.

DinesH Basu, A.P. & P.U. ZAcHARIA (2007): An assemblage of marine

ornamental shrimp Rhynchocinetes durbanensis off Karnataka

coast. Mar. Fish. Inform. Serv., T & E ser., No. 192.

Gorpon, I. (1936): On the macruran genus Rhynchocinetes with

the description of a new species. Proc. Zool. Soc. London.

75— 88, 7 figs.

Kemp, S. (1925): Notes on Crustacea Decapoda in the Indian Museum

XVII. On various Caridea. Records of Indian Museum 27(4):

249-343, 24 figs.

Oxuno, J. & M. TAKEDA (1992): Distinction between Two Hinge-beak

Shrimps, Rhynchocinetes durbanensis Gordon and R. uritai

Kubo (Family Rhynchocinetidae). Revue fr. Aquariol. 19:

85-90.

RADHAKRISHNAN, E.V., V.D. DESHMUKH, G. MAHESWARUDU, JOSE JOSILEEN,

A.P. DINESHBABU, K.K. PHILIPOSE, P.T. SARADA, S. LAKSHMI PILLAI,

K.N. SALEELA, REKHADEVI, CHAKRABORTY, GYANARANJAN DASH,

C.K. SaseEV, P. THIRUMILU, B. SRIDHARA, Y. MUNIYAPPA,

A.D. SAWANT, NARAYAN G. VaipyA, R. DiAs JoHNy, J.B. VERMA,

PK. Bay, C. UNNIKRISHNAN, N.P. RAMACHANDRAN, A. V AIRAMANI,

A. PALANICHAMY, M. RADHAKRISHNAN & B. Raju (2012): Prawn

Fauna (Crustacea: Decapoda) of India — An Annotated Checklist

of the Penaeoid, Sergestoid, Stenopodid and Caridean Prawns.

J. Mar, Biol. Assoc. India 54(1): 50-72.

ZACHARIA, P.U., P.K. KRISHNAKUMAR, A.P. DINESHBABU,

K. VIUAYAKUMARAN, PRATHIBHA ROHIT, SUJITHA THOMAS, GEETHA

SASIKUMAR, P. KALADHARAN, R.N. DURGEKAR & K.S. MOHAMED

(2008): Species Assemblage in the Coral Reef Ecosystem of

Netrani Island off Karnataka along the Southwest Coast of India.

J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. India 50(1): 87-97.

11. CLOSTERIUM TORTITAENIOIDES COESEL — AN INTERESTING NEW ALGA TO THE

ASIAN CONTINENT

Jose JoHN!* AND M.S. FRANCIS?

'Centre for Post Graduate Studies and Research, Department of Botany, Sacred Heart College, Thevara,

Kochi 682 013, Kerala, India. Email: jthuravackal @ hotmail.com

2Mannancheril, Maradu P.O., Pandothu Road, Kochi 682 304, Kerala, India. Email: msfrancisman @ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

An extensive survey for algae of the Western Ghats

(biodiversity hotspot) region of Idukki district, Kerala, India,

was carried out from 2005 to 2010, during which a species

of Closterium, namely Closterium tortitaenioides Coesel was

recorded. It was recorded from a village pond (Collection

site No. 243) [09° 50' 46.32" N; 77° O1' 07.72" E; pH 8.1;

Temp. 22 °C]. This is the first report of the species from

India and Asia.

This taxon had been described by Coesel (2002) as

Tortitaenia closterioides. It was only recently described from

a series of moorland pools near Oisterwijk, Netherlands,

where it has been encountered abundantly in the last couple

of years (Coesel 2002). It was possibly, in former years,

erroneously treated as Closterium cornu or Closterium

navicula (Ruzicka 1977). But recently in 2007, Coesel

himself renamed it as Closterium tortitaenioides. In this

manuscript, we describe the species based on the specimens

collected during the survey.

Taxonomy: Cells singular, free, straight from centre

Figs 1-6: Closterium tortitaenioides Coesel. : 1-2 Vegetative cell,

3—4 Twisted chloroplast in the central region of the cell,

5-6 Orange-red coloration (carotenoid pigmentation) at either pole

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

165

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

to the ends gradually narrowed, at the ends bluntly

rounded. Cells 7—9 um wide, 65—80 um long (Figs 1 and 2).

Cell wall thin, hyaline, smooth. Chloroplast parietal, with a

characteristic prominent twisting at the central region

(Figs 3 and 4); chloroplast without pyrenoid, with

prominent orange-red coloration (carotenoid pigmentation)

at either poles (Figs 5 and 6); not reaching up to the ends of

the cells. Protoplast with frequent oil droplets, usually

prominent on either poles. Reproductive structures not

observed.

REFERENCES

CokgsEL, P.F.M. (2002): New intriguing desmid taxa from The Netherlands. — Algol. Studies 104: 69-79.

CoEsEL, P.M. (2007): Taxonomic notes on Dutch desmids IV. - Syst. Geogr. Pl. 77: 5—14.

Ruzicka, J. (1977): Die Desmidiaceen Mitteleuropas. Band 1, Lief. 2. — E.Schweizerbart, Stuttgart. Pp. 292.

12. BHESA ROBUSTA (ROXB.) DING HOU, CELASTRACEAE:

A NEW DISTRIBUTIONAL RECORD FROM TRIPURA, INDIA

Kousuik Masumpar!?, B.K. Dattra!** AND UMA SHANKAR?

‘Department of Botany, Tripura University, Suryamaninagar 799 022, Tripura, India.

"Department of Botany, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong 793 022, Meghalaya, India. Email: arshuma@ yahoo.com

-Email: majumdark80@ gmail.com

*Email:dattabadal2008 @ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

Introduction

Celastraceae R. Br. with nearly 100 genera and 1,300

species (Mabberley 2009) is a diverse plant family in tropical

and temperate climatic zones. In India, the family is represented

by 10 genera and 84 species (Ramamurthy 2000). Only two

species of this family were known from Tripura: Celastrus

monospermus Roxb. and Maytenus hookeri Loes (Deb 1981),

till we recorded the occurrence of another species, Bhesa

robusta (Roxb.) Ding Hou, from Trishna Wildlife Sanctuary

(TWLS), Tripura. The APG III system of plant classification

places genus Bhesa Buch.-Ham. ex Arn.along with the only

other genus Centroplacus Pierre (formerly in Euphorbiaceae)

in a new family, Centroplacaceae Doweld & Reveal (Chase

and Reveal 2009). The genus Bhesa comprises seven accepted

species (WCSP 2011), namely B. archboldiana (Merr. & Perry)

Ding Hou, B. ceylanica (Arn. ex Thwaites) Ding Hou, B. indica

(Bedd.) Ding Hou, B. nitidissima Kosterm., B. paniculata Arn.,

B. robusta (Roxb.) Ding Hou, and B. sinica (H.T. Chang &

Liang) H.T. Chang & Liang.

Globally, Bhesa robusta is known to occur in

Bangladesh, Bhutan (uncertain), Borneo, Cambodia, India,

Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Singapore,

Thailand, and Vietnam (Ding Hou 1958, 1962; Mu Shu et al.

2008; Sosef et al. 1998; WCMC 1998). In India, it is recorded

from the Andaman Islands, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, and

Meghalaya (WCMC 1998). A single tree of Bhesa robusta is

known to occur in Hepu, SE Guangxi, China (Mu Shu et al.

2008).

166

In north-eastern India, U. Kanjilal initially collected

B. robusta in 1913 from Nowgong and subsequently from

Lakhimpur, Sibsagar, Darrang, Goalpara, and Tura. A. Das

collected it from Cachar valley, Assam, and R.N. De from

Dawki forest, Meghalaya (Table 1). We recorded its

presence at two sites in Tripura: at the buffer zone of TWLS

(23° 16' 38.30" N; 91° 22' 45.4" E) and the adjoining

Golachiba (23° 22° 18.0" Ne? 91" 25° 27.9" FE). These

locations range between 35-62 m in altitude and experience

tropical climate. The annual rainfall is 2,109 mm, and mean

daily temperature ranges between 10.4 °C and 25.5 °C

(Majumdar et al. 2012).

We recorded a total of five individuals: two from TWLS

with a girth of 43 and 82 cm, and three from Golachiba with

a girth of 33, 88, and 206 cm. The height of these trees was

between 5—23 m. The identity of collected specimens was

determined by a critical isotype examination (Cachar, Assam,

10.x1.1932; A. Das 5636) at the Botanical Survey of India,

Shillong, and study of taxonomic descriptions in floras

(Brandis 1906; Hooker 1875; Kanjilal et al. 1936; Mu Shu et

al. 2008; Prain 1963; Ramamurthy 2000). The voucher

specimens (Trishna Wildlife Sanctuary, Tripura, 21.11.2010;

K. Majumdar 0879) were deposited in the herbarium of the

Department of Botany, Tripura University.

We have developed a detailed diagnostic description

of Bhesa robusta from the collected specimens and from

taxonomic literature (Brandis 1906; Hooker 1875; Kanyilal

et al. 1936) as below:

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Table 1: Inventory of the specimens of Bhesa robusta collected by different workers from north-eastern India

Sl # BSI sheet number Collection Date

1 5634 31.xii.1913

2 5630 11.11.1914

3 5629 25.11.1914

4 5627 10.1.1915

5 5625 06.ii1.1915

6 5621 20.1.1919

7 5636 10.xi.1932

8 5647 28.vii.1939

9 5619 26.ix.1939

10 This study 21.ii. 2010

(Source: Botanical Survey of India, Shillong)

Bhesa robusta (Roxb.) Ding Hou in Blumea, Suppl. 4:

152. 1958; Fl. Jowai 1: 129. 1981. Celastrus robustus Roxb.

in Fl. Ind. 1: 626-627. 1824. Kurrimia calophylla Wall. in

Wall. Cat. 4335. 1828. Kurrimia paniculata Wall. in Wall.

Cat. 4336. 1828. Kurrimia pulcherrima Wall. in Wall. Cat.

4334. 1828; Lawson in FI. Brit. Ind. 1: 622. 1875; non. Wall.

in J. Bot. Suppl. 22. 1924; Lawson in FI. Ass. 1: 270. 1936.

B. moja Ham. ex Arn. in Ham. mss.; Ed. Phil. Jour. 16: 315.

1834. Nothocnestis sumatrana Miq. in Fl. Ind. Bat. Suppl. 1:

531. 1861. Kurrimia robusta (Roxb.) Kurz. in J. Asiat. Soc.

Bengal, Pt 2, Nat. Hist. 34(2): 73. 1870. K. maingayi

M.A. Lawson in FI. Brit. India 1: 622. 1875. K. sinica Hung

T. Chang & S. Ye Liang. in Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Sunyatseni

1: 100. 1981. |

Large evergreen tree up to 30 m tall; crown oval; bark

smooth, brown inside and grey outside; petiole short, 1—2 cm;

leaves alternate, sometimes subopposite; leaf blade elliptic,

oblong-elliptic, narrowly ovate, 10—20 x 3-6 cm, glossy, base

rounded or broadly attenuate, margin repand, apex acuminate

or acute, lateral nerves 12—15 pairs, prominent abaxially;

inflorescence raceme, axillary, shorter than leaves, peduncle

rudimentary; flower small, red; calyx lobes broadly ovate to

subrotundate, 1 x 2 mm, acuminate at apex; petals obovate-

oblong, 2—3 x 1 mm, subrotund at apex; stamens 4, 2 mm

long, attached beneath the outer margin of the disc; anthers

deltoid, obtuse; ovary superior, subglobose, 2-celled with two

ovules in each cell, base surrounded by puberulous 5-lobed

nectary disc; style 2, filiform, free, basally with tufted

hairs; stigma small, headed, pubescent; fruit capsule, narrowly

ellipsoid to ovoid-oblong, 0.8-1.2 x 2.5-3.5 cm, with

2 vertical grooves, tapering to apex, beaked, glabrous,

1-celled, 2-valved, 1—2 seeded; seeds arillate, oblong, brown,

shiny; aril fleshy, bright yellow or orange.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

Collection number

Collector's name Locality

4323 U. Kanjilal Nowgong, Parokhowa

3389 U. Kanjilal Joypore RF, Lakhimpur

6825 U. Kanjilal Sibsagar

5367 U. Kanjilal Darrang, Cherduar RF

5247 U. Kanjilal Tura Forest, Garo Hills

7472 U. Kanjilal Goalpara

10584 A. Das Cachar

18442 R. N. De Dawki Forest

19038 R. N. De Dawki Forest

0879 K. Majumdar Tripura

Flowering: November—January.

Fruiting: February—April.

Discussion

The habitat of B. robusta was dominated by

Dipterocarpus turbinatus in association with Artocarpus

chama, Artocarpus lakoocha, Dillenia pentagyna, Careya

arborea, Carallia brachiata, Gardenia resinifera, Schima

wallichii, and Xantolis assamica. It is also found interspersed

in bamboo brakes (Bambusa tulda, Bambusa balcooa, and

Melocanna baccifera). These habitats encompass the

international border between the State of Tripura (India) and

Bangladesh, and experience human disturbance. A large number

of trees, including those of B. robusta, have been felled illicitly

for timber, fuel-wood, and house construction, underlining the

threat to the conservation of these habitats. Although B. robusta

has been included in IUCN Red List of threatened plants with

category LC (Least Concern), its local extinction is inevitable

in the face of unabated felling and habitat loss.

Remarks

B. robusta was found to be an important feeding and

nesting habitat for the Common Hill-Myna, Gracula religiosa

L. (Family Sturnidae). A pair was observed nesting and

feeding on its ripe fruits. We also observed it dispersing seeds

after consuming the fleshy aril. Hence, the interaction between

B. robusta and Hill-Myna is mutually beneficial. The ability

of the Hill-Myna to imitate speech makes it a favourite cage

bird. Hence, sizeable marketed quantities are taken from the

wild, depleting their populations greatly (Archawaranon

2003). Due to the heavy trade, Hill-Myna was included in

CITES Appendix II in 1992 and was subsequently included

in Appendix II in 1997 (UNEP-WCMC 2011).

167

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to Dr. K.N. Ganeshaiah, UAS,

Bengaluru, for encouragement. Financial support for this

work was received through grant #BT/PR7928/NDB/52/9/

2006 from the Department of Biotechnology, Government

of India, New Delhi. Thanks are due to the Wildlife Warden,

Tripura, for permission to undertake the survey in Trishna

Wildlife Sanctuary, the Botanical Survey of India (BSD),

Eastern Circle, Shillong, for access to their herbarium, and

to the Head, Department of Botany, Tripura University for

facilities.

REFERENCES

ARCHAWARANON, M. (2003): The impact of human interference on Hill

Mynahs Gracula religiosa breeding in Thailand. Bird Conserv.

Int. 13: 139-149.

Branpis, D. (1906): Indian Trees: an account of trees, shrubs, woody

climbers, bamboos and palms indigenous or commonly cultivated

in the British Indian Empire. Archibald Constable & Co. Ltd.

Pp. lo7.

CHASE, M.W. & J.L. REvEAL (2009): A phylogenetic classification of

__ the land plants to accompany APG III. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 161(2):

122-127.

Des, D.B. (1981): The Flora of Tripura State. Today and Tomorrows’

Printers and Publishers, New Delhi. Vol. 1. Pp. 394.

Dinc Hou (1958): Bhesa robusta (Roxburgh) Ding Hou. Blumea Suppl.

Vol. 4. Pp. 152.

Dinc Hou (1962): Celastraceae I. Pp. 227-291. In: Steenis, C.GG. (Ed.):

Flora Malesiana, series 1, Flora Malesiana Foundation, Leiden,

Netherlands. Vol. 6.

Hooker, J.D. (1875): The Flora of British India. L. Reeve & Co., London.

Volk ta Bps625:

KANIILAL, U.N., BC. KAnmLAL, A. Das, R.N. DE & N.L. Bor (1936):

Flora of Assam. Government Press, Shillong. Vol. 1. Pp. 284.

MaBBERLEY, D.J. (2009): Mabberleys Plant Book (3rd edn). Cambridge

University Press, New York. Pp. 163.

Masumpar, K., B.K. Datta & U. SHANKAR (2012): Ten new additions of

tree species to the Flora of Tripura state, North East India:

Distributional range extension and geographic map. NeBIO 3(1):

17-24.

Mu Suu, X.B., M. JINSHUANG & A.M. FuNSTON (2008): eFlora of China.

Vol. 11. Pp. 479. |

Prain, D. (1963): Bengal Plants. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta.

Volk 2 -Pp, 330.

RAMAMURTHY, K. (2000): Celastraceae. Pp. 75 — 137. In: (Eds: Singh, N.P.,

J.N. Vohra, P.K. Hajra, and D.K. Singh): Flora of India. Botanical

Survey of India, Calcutta. Vol. 5.

SoseF, M.S.M., L.T. Hone & S. PRAwIROHATMODIO (1998): Plant

Resources of South-East Asia No. 5(3) Timber trees: Lesser-

known timbers. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Pp. 105-107.

UNEP-WCMC (2011): UNEP-WCMC Species Database: CITES-Listed

Species. On the World Wide Web: http://www.unep-wemc-

apps.org/isdb/CITES/ Taxonomy/tax-species-result.cfm/isdb/

CITES/Taxonomy/tax-species-result.cfm?

Genus=Gracula&Species=religiosa&source=animals&tabname=status.

WCMC (World Conservation Monitoring Centre) (1998): Bhesa robusta.

In: TUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version

2011.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on October 04,

2011.

WCSP (World Checklist of Selected Plant Families) (2011): Kew Royal

Botanic Gardens. http://www.apps.kew.org/wcsp. Accessed on

October 14, 2011.

13. DOPATRIUM JUNCEUM (ROXB.) BUCH.-HAM. EX BENTH. —

A NEW RECORD FOR THE FLORA OF TRIPURA, INDIA

SOMNATH BHowmMIK!”* AND B.K. Datta!?

'Plant Taxonomy and Biodiversity Laboratory, Department of Botany, Tripura University, Suryamaninagar 799 022, Tripura, India.

*Email: sombhowmik @ gmail.com

-Email: dattabadal2008 @ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

The genus Dopatrium belongs to the tribe Gratioleae

of family Plantaginaceae. It is represented by 14 species in

the world, of which four occur in Asia, namely Dopatrium

junceum (Roxb.) Buch.-Ham.ex Benth., D. acutifolium

Bonati, D. nudicaule Benth., and D. lobeliodes Benth. (Fischer

1997). In India, it is represented by three species, namely

Dopatrium junceum (Roxb.) Buch.-Ham. ex Benth.,

D. nudicaule Benth., and D. lobeliodes Benth. (Cook 1996).

During field survey in different regions of Tripura, we

collected some specimens of this genus from the West district

of Tripura. On critical examination and consultation with a

herbarium (CAL), the specimens were identified as

168

Dopatrium junceum. A perusal of relevant literature

(Bhowmik et al. 2008; Cook 1996; Deb 1981-83; Prain 1996)

revealed that the species is not hitherto known from Tripura.

Dopatrium junceum (Roxb.) Buch.—Ham. ex Benth.

Gratiola juncea Roxburgh, Pl. Coromandel 2: 16. 1798.

Dopatrium junceum Ham. Benth., Scroph. Ind. 31.1846;

Hook.f., Fl. Brit. Ind. 4.274.1874; Dopatrium junceum Ham.

Prain Beng. Pl. 2. 765. 1903; Cook, C.D.K. Aquatic and

Wetland Plants of India. 342.1996.

Annual, slender, glabrous herb; Leaves few, opposite,

succulent, oblong-ovate or elliptic-ovate, lowest ones 2—3 cm

long, 0.3—0.6 cm wide, upper ones scale-like, 0.3—0.5 cm long,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

sessile; Flowers small axillary, solitary; Bracteoles absent;

Pedicels capillary, 10-25 mm long; Calyx campanulate, calyx

1-1.5 mm long; lobes 5, apex obtuse; Corolla pale purple,

3 mm long. lower lip lobes spreading, flat; upper lip erect,

short; Stamens glabrous, filament 0.5 mm, anthers equal,

0.5 m long, bearded; Staminodes 2, small, inserted on anterior

side; Style short, stigma 2-lamellate, ovary 2-loculed, ovules

numerous in each locules; Capsules globose to ovoid, 2-lobed,

2-3 mm long; Seeds ovoid, 0.2 mm long, numerous,

transversely and laterally ribbed.

Habitat: Paddy fields.

Local Occurrence: Occasionally reported from paddy

fields.

Specimens Examined: Bhowmik & Datta 256,

Anandanagar, 11.vi11.2008; Datta and Bhowmik, Nagichara,

458, 18.1x.2009.

Phenology: August-September.

Distribution: GLOBAL: Africa, Australia, China,

Hong Kong, India, Japan, Java, Korea, Nepal, Philippines,

Russia, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam.

INDIA: Andaman and Nicobar, Assam, Gujarat, Goa,

Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh,

Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are thankful to Prof. A. Mukherjee, Department of

Botany, University of Burdwan, for kindly confirming the

identity of the specimens. We also thank Additional Director,

Central National Herbarium (CAL), Botanical Survey of

India, Howrah, for permission to consult the herbarium and

library.

REFERENCES

BENTHAM, G. (1846): Scrophulariaceae. Pp. 186—586. In: De Candolle, A.

(Ed.): Prodromus Systematis Naturalis Regni Vegetabilis. Paris.

BHowmik, S., R. SAHA & B.K. Datta (2008): Aquatic and marshland

plants in West Tripura, India. Pleione 2(/): 3-11.

Cook, C.D.K. (1996): Aquatic and Wetland Plants of India. Oxford

University Press. Pp. 342.

Des, D.B. (1981-1983): Flora of Tripura State. Vols 1&2. Today and

Tomorrow Printers and Publishers, New Delhi.

FISCHER, E. (1997): A revision of the genus Dopatrium

(Scrophulariaceae-Gratioloideae). Nord. J. Bot. 17: 527-555.

Hooker, J.D. (1874): The Flora of British India. Vol IV. Reeve & Co.

Ltd. Ashford, Kent, London. Pp. 274.

Prain, D. (1996): Bengal Plants. Vol. 2. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal

Singh, Dehradun. Pp. 765. Reprint Edn.

14. RANGE EXTENSION FOR CRITICALLY ENDANGERED PLANT,

CRINUM WOODROWI BAKER

Jui PeTue!’* AND AmIT TILLU?

'NAIP-ICAR Project, Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik 422 222, Maharashtra, India.

Email: juipethe @ gmail.com

71, Shripad, Vakratund R.H., Opp. Rama Raman Apt, Vrindavan Nagar, Nashik 422 010, Maharashtra, India. Email: amittillu@ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

Crinum woodrowii Baker, an IUCN red listed plant

species (Punekar et al. 2004) was presumed to be restricted

to the Mahabaleshwar region (Bachulkar 1993; Punekar

et al. 2001) of Maharashtra. We recorded the species in

June 2012 on the banks of Vaitarna river in Vihigaon, Thane

districty 19° 42’ 57” N; 73° 28’ 39” EF). alter the firstiew

showers of the monsoon. The plants (about 50 in number)

were recorded in the forest, growing in association with

Curculigo orchioides Gaertn., Chlorophytum tuberosum

Baker, Pancratium sp., Tectona grandis L.f., and

Terminalia tomentosa W.&A. This new location is the

second known locality for this critically endangered plant

species, other than Mahabaleshwar. However, this

population is in danger of being lost due to impacts from

the Middle Vaitarna Dam that is coming up in the area,

which will submerge the forest where these plants were

recorded.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

A detailed description of the species 1s given below for

its easy identification:

C. woodrowii Baker is a tall herb which grows from

globose bulbs. The bulbs are 8.6—16.2 cm in diameter,

globose-spheroidal, outer tunics brown, membranous. The

plant bears leaves and flowers at the same time, which is

typical phenomenon for bulbous and rhizomatous plants.

There are 8—17 sword-shaped hairless leaves, which are flat,

bright green, with a sharply-pointed apex and have a white

waxy texture. The leaves are 45.5—80 x 4.5—14 cm long. The

leaf sheaths form a pseudostem. A single scape (leafless flower

stalk), arising from the bulb outside the tuft of leaves, is stout

and 53.5-82.5 cm x 1-3 cm tall. The scape was faintly

channelled. Spathe valves (involucral bracts) two, opposite,

8.7-10 cm x 2.7—3.9 cm, deltoid, obtuse or acute at apex,

margin inflexed, often green, purple tinged, nervate,

coriaceous. 10—20 fragrant flowers are borne in an umbel.

169

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

REFERENCES

BACHULKAR, M.P. (1993): Endangered endemic taxa of Satara District,

Maharashtra. Rayat Res. J. 1: 114.

Cooke, T. (1967): The Flora of the Presidency of Bombay. Vol. 3. Taylor

& Francis, London. Pp. 750—751

DESHPANDE, S., B.D. SHARMA & M.P. Nayar (1993): Flora of

Mahabaleshwar and Adjoinings, Maharashtra, Vol. 2. Botanical

Survey of India, Calcutta. Pp. 591

Hooker, J.D. (1892): The Flora of British India. Vol. 6. L. Reeve &

Co., London. Pp. 280-284.

KARTHIKEYAN, S., S.K. JAIN, M.P. Nayar & M. SANsApPA (1989): Florae

Indicae Enumeratio: Monocotyledonae. Flora of India Series 4.

Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta. Pp. 4.

LAKSHMINARASIMHAN, P. (1996): Monocotyledons. Jn: (Eds: Sharma, B.D.,

S. Karthikeyan and N.P. Singh): Flora of Maharashtra State,

Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta. Pp. 97.

Misura, D.K. & N.P. SINGH (2001): Endemic and Threatened Flowering

Plants of Maharashtra. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta.

Pp. 221-222.

PUNEKAR, S.A., M.N. Datar & P. LAKSHMINARASIMHAN (2001): Crinum

brachynema Herb, (Amaryllidaceae), an endemic species found

again in Mahabaleshwar, Maharashtra State. J. Econ. Taxon. Bot.

25: 629-630.

PUNEKAR, S.A., S.P. KAvVADE, M.N. Datar, P. LAKSHMINARASIMHAN &

P.S.N. Rao (2004): Crinum woodrowii Baker (Amaryllidaceae),

hitherto assumed to be extinct, rediscovered after a century from

Mahabaleshwar, India. Curr. Sci. 87: 1049-1051.

Printed by Onlooker Press, 16, Sasoon Dock, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 and published on March 25, 2014

by Ms. Sumaira Abdulali for Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Dr. Salim Ali Chowk,

Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001, Maharashtra, India.

170

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(2), May-Aug 2013

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

The Journal welcomes concise reports of original research in natural history,

taxonomy and other aspects of zoology and botany of general interest.

SUBMISSION OF MANUSCRIPT

A hard copy of manuscript (including illustrations), typewritten

in double space on one side of the paper and a copy of the MS

on a CD using MS Word, should be submitted to the Editor,

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House,

Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001. Submission

of a manuscript to the Journal implies that it has not been

submitted for publication elsewhere.

A copy of the manuscript may also be emailed to us at

publications @ bnhs.org.

PREPARATION OF MANUSCRIPT

Main Papers and New Descriptions

Manuscripts of papers for the Main section and New Descriptions

should be as concise as possible. Pages should be numbered

consecutively, and the matter on Page 1 should be arranged in

the following order: Title of the paper; Name(s) of Author(s),

Department(s) and Institution(s); Footnote containing address

of Author for correspondence with e-mail id, followed by the List

of Abbreviations used in text. A short running title derived from

the original title may also be given for main papers. Page 2

should contain the Abstract. The text may be arranged in the

following order: Introduction; Material and Methods or

Methodology; Results; Discussion; Acknowledgements;

References. Abstract, Key Words, Tables and Captions for

Figures should be typed separately.

Title: The title should be such as to be useful for indexing and

information retrieval.

Abstract: The abstract, not exceeding 200 words, should

indicate the scope and significant content of the paper,

highlighting the principal findings and conclusions.

Introduction: The introductory part should bear no heading,

should be brief and state precisely the objective of the study in

relation to the present status of knowledge in the field. Review

of literature should be restricted to the essential references.

Material and Methods or Methodology: The nomenclature,

sources of materials and the procedures should be clearly stated.

New methods should be described in detail, but if the methods

are well known, a mere reference to them will do; any modifications

made in the methods should be stated.

Results: Only data relevant to the objectives of the study and

main conclusions emerging from the study should be included.

The data should be arranged in a unified and coherent sequence

for clarity and readability. The same data should not be presented

in both tables and figures, and such data as can be easily and

briefly stated in the text should not be depicted diagrammatically.

Only such tables and figures as are necessary should be given.

Tests of statistical significance should be identified and

references used should be cited. Statements about the statistical

significance of the results must be borne out by the level of

significance, preferably provided in the tables and legends. The

use of the word “significant” should be restricted to “statistically

significant”.

Discussion: The discussion should provide an interpretation of

the results of the study, without repeating information already

presented under Results. It should relate the new findings to

the known and include logical deductions. Where necessary,

the Results and Discussion can be combined.

Illustrations: The number of illustrations should be kept to the

minimum and numbered consecutively in Arabic numerals.

Simple linear plots or linear double reciprocal plots that can be

easily described in the text should be avoided. Extension of

graphs beyond the last experimental point is permissible only

while extrapolating data.

Line drawings should be either laser prints of computer

generated illustrations or manually prepared in Indian ink on

tracing paper, drawn to approximately twice the printed size.

The drawings are usually reduced to the page width or column

size, and care should be taken that the size of letters,

numerals, dots and symbols is relatively uniform and

sufficiently large to permit this reduction.

Photographs: Photographs for reproduction must be clear, with

good contrast. Prints should be at least 9x12 cm and on glossy,

glazed paper.

Please note that illustrations and photographs need to be

submitted as image files (.jpeg or .tiff format at 300 dpi with

legible text).

Image files incorporated in MS Office will not be considered as

submissions.

Tables: Each table should have an explanatory title and should

be numbered in Arabic numerals. Units (metric) of measurement

should be abbreviated and placed below the headings. Negative

results should be indicated as Nil (0) and absence of a datum

by a dash.

Acknowledgements: Acknowledgements should be brief and

relevant.

References: Responsibility for the accuracy of references resis

with the author(s). Abstracts of papers presented at scientific

meetings may be cited. References to literature should be

alphabetically arranged under author’s name, with the abridged

titles of journals or periodicals in italics and titles of books or

papers in Roman type, thus:

Aturi, Rasu J.S. & C. SuBHA Reppi (1995): Ecology of the pollination

in two cat-mint species. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 91(1): 63-66.

Prater, S.H. (1971): The Book of Indian Animals. 3rd Edn.

Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai. pp. 35-48.

Species names should carry the Author’s name and subspecies

(trinomials) should only be used where identification has been

authentically established by comparison of specimens actually

collected.

For the standardised common and scientific names of the birds

of the Indian subcontinent refer to Buceros Vol. 6, No. 1 (2001).

Miscellaneous Notes: The section accommodates incidental

observations on flora and fauna of the Asian region, and need not

follow strictly the above section headings. No abstract is required,

but key words may be included and references must be cited as

in the rest of the Journal.

The Editors reserve the right, other things being equal, to

publish a member’s contribution before that of a non-

member. The Editors also reserve the right to publish invited

papers on priority.

Registered with the Registrar of hewesapers under RN 5685/57 ISSN 0006- 6982

SMITHSONIAN INST:

| iN

Mil

CONTENTS

EDITGMIAL ce eae A OetIES Ne Corccat gs epeN ed San eer 93

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW OF EXOTIC ALIENS FROM ROMILA THAPAR, YUSUF ANSARI, AND

VALMIK THAPAR | on |

Valmik Thapar, Romila Thapar and Yusuf Ansari A, ey ROHS SES es eo Sa eee nau Ne ed INO RIN ae Rok 95

EXOTIC ALIENS — LION AND CHEETAH IN INDIA: A REJOINDER TO AUTHORS’ RESPONSE TO OUR |

~ REVIEW | | : |

M.K. Ranjitsinh and Divyabhanusinh Piet te Ree fe ade oa See oI EGR he tee a NED epraigtearney 105 ©

THE “EXOTIC ALIENS” CONTROVERSY: A VIEW FROM AFAR | | |

Fea EDYMI IR Sc d> AO MIDIND IR 5 Eo srt a eatai fult ets ade Sinope Laon aaa i dorG nan teinny ese nr apme seats ataarnntrls bas Sa oquitiee - 108

THE MAMMALS OF SRIHARIKOTA ISLAND, SOUTHERN INDIA, WITH INSIGHTS INTO THEIR STATUS,

POPULATION, AND DISTRIBUTION :

Ranjit Manakadan, S. Sivakumar, Patrick David and B. Senthil Murugan ...............::ccccceeeeeeeeeenees aw 114

DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE OF RODENTS IN THE SEMI-ARID LANDSCAPE OF SARISKA TIGER

-~ RESERVE, WESTERN INDIA

Shilpi Gupta, Krishnendu Mondal, K. Sankar and Qamar Qureshi ..............:::c:eeeeeeees anode ee ada 122

| THE STATUS OF THE GANGES RIVER DOLPHIN PLATANISTA GANGE TICA GANGETICA INTHE RIVER

BARAK, ASSAM, INDIA | |

Th. Sinaia, Bs. Dilla aA SIG WaS ois ccvse ceeds ssecerge sen cadbasvedvageeng ras ivunseidesasegeerensiacseuesersereenenne ~ hee

PTERIDOPHYTIC DIVERSITY OF BAROT, MANDI DISTRICT, HIMACHAL PRADESH, INDIA

Pllc Waianae, eral Toa) rae a PPAR oie cece hoco sce ce caeeeetvcnes<aleudes teen veies cece bad dbeewdacore maces Meanentaaearners 125

TERRITORIALITY IN KERALA LAUGHINGTHRUSH STROPHOCINCLA FAIRBANKI MERIDIONALIS ;

WIEN RAPT IY, GNI RANT Nea colsigaircs Sao canditecuvidscnnzves ooup svn nants eccentohdandinens thane Soncdanenanstngteonsedens 142

nC ala Ra OO ao er Oa a ee eae een tel: tees Pe

- MISCELLANEOUS NOTES... .sscsesccsssesceee a en SUA enie Later to bate Sead Pec is 149

Printed by Onlooker Press, 16, Sasoon Dock, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 and published by Ms. Sumaira Abdulali

for Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Dr. Sélim Ali Chowk, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001.

Website: www.bnhs.org; Email: publications @ bnhs.org/publications.bnhs @ gmail.com ;

— $s an. E

BOMBAY NATURAL HISTOR

CONSERVING . a es me

NATURE SINCE 1883 . ;

JOURNAL OF THE BOMBAY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY

Hornbill House, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai 400 001.

Executive Epitor

Asad R. Rahmani, Ph. D.

Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai

Copy Epitor

Ranjit Manakadan, Ph. D.

Bombay Natural History Society

Copy AND PrRopucTION Epitor

Vibhuti Dedhia, M. Sc.

Bombay Natural History Society

Editorial Board

Ajith Kumar, Ph. D. Aasheesh Pittie, B. Com.

National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bird Watchers Society of Andhra Pradesh,

GKVK Campus, Hebbal, Bengaluru, Karnataka Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh

C.R. Babu, Ph. D. GS. Rawat, Ph. D.

Professor, Centre for Environmental Management Wildlife Institute of India,

of Degraded Ecosystems, University of Delhi, Dehradun, Uttarakhand

New Delhi

J.D. Marcus Knight, Ph. D.

Anwaruddin Choudhury, Ph. D., D. Sc. Chennai, Tamil Nadu

The Rhino Foundation for Nature,

J.S. Singh, Ph. D.

Guwahati, Assam

Professor, Banaras Hindu University

Indraneil Das, D. Phil. Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh

Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation,

Universiti Malaysia, Sarawak,

Malaysia

Y.V. Jhala, Ph. D.

Wildlife Institute of India,

Dehradun, Uttarakhand

S. Subramanya, Ph. D.

University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK,

Hebbal, Bengaluru, Karnataka

R. Sukumar, Ph. D.

Professor, Centre for Ecological Sciences,

Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, Karnataka

Romulus Whitaker, B. Sc.

Madras Reptile Park and Crocodile Bank Trust,

Tamil Nadu

S.R. Yadav, Ph. D.

Shivaji University, Kolhapur,

Maharashtra

K. Ullas Karanth, Ph. D.

Wildlife Conservation Society — India Program,

Bengaluru, Karnataka

T.C. Narendran, Ph. D., FASc.

Professor, Department of Zoology,

University of Calicut, Kerala

Consultant Editors

Gayatri W. Ugra, Ph. D.

Bombay Natural History Society

Raghunandan Chundawat, Ph. D.

Wildlife Conservation Society, Bengaluru

Nigel Collar, Ph. D.

BirdLife International, UK

Rhys Green, Ph. D.

Royal Society for Protection of Birds, UK

Qamar Qureshi, M. Phil.

Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun

Editorial Assistant: Sonali V. Vadhavkar, M. Sc.

Layout and Typesetting: V. Gopi Naidu

recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS). Enquiries concerning

reproduction outside the scope of the above should be addressed to the Honorary Secretary, BNHS at the address given above.

VOLUME 110(3): DECEMBER 2013

CONTENTS

FOR Ae ee ae ee See rene ae Ot SENN Nr Se SRM aah wth aa ag evans gad ol cee deside les auma te ee cu Meee eee meee eae ae Eee Meet 171

THE BIRDS OF SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA

V.B.. paljaperkar, VAs Bia cme ee.) ALUN pe 5 lee cre tiucp Bea tenn peapiet eek day cata n stile gee dles nan Si aliatniatnanich am enente caagaane rss ON 172

NOTES ON THE NEWLY DISCOVERED POPULATION OF SIND JERDON’S BABBLER CHRYSOMMA ALTIROSTRE

SCINDICUM IN HARIKE WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, PUNJAB, INDIA

Saurablt Sawantand Wy Suahiagar (ry. cx, toh, Sas. sche coe evo a seed os eet edit cee rat ene ence ay ab haa epbila Seete Pot uc{s7

A PRELIMINARY OVERVIEW OF THE SUBSPECIES OF RED FOX AND TIBETAN SAND FOX IN THE HIMALAYA,

INDIA

Aishwarya Maheshwari, Neha Midha, Ambica Paliwal, Basant Kumar Sharma, Partha Sarathi Ghose,

Priyadarshinee Shreshthacand Sirisha eae aes ora rc atosis weliec te ae athe Ss sa Guec sacs Ran sg atsegae ign ad oq eee eta n cag eager aie 193

DORYLAIMID AND TYLENCHID NEMATODES ASSOCIATED WITH BANANA PLANTATIONS IN PASCHIM MEDINIPUR

DISTRICT, WEST BENGAL, INDIA

Viswa Venkat Gantait, Amalendu Chatterjee and Tanmay Bhattacharya .......... 0c. cceececccseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenaeeeeeseeeaeeeeeeeees 197

SIGNIFICANCE OF PHALLIC COMPLEX IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF INDIAN PYRGOMORPHIDAE (ORTHOPTERA:

PYRGOMORPHOIDEA)

Hirdesh Kumar, Mohd. Kamil Usmani, Uzma Rafi and Reenu Kumar ................ cece eeeeeee eee e sees sees eeseeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeees 204

THE TRADE, TRAPPING, AND UTILIZATION OF LORISES IN INDIA

PS Giese tI 0c! 6 Se ann ot Monee MeL Se ER CL Lal? Oe. CSU cc, OM SMR, ecto meant tte dbaetariec en ee fa a> OMS eae 210

OBITUARY

7d) ROBERGS (192422043): x. Sc Fes cas oo Cero ices ha ak Sie ee ALA i, PR oe Ad Rok Ag ak Saat eee ge nage st 214

ZAFAR FUTBRALEY ED ZO-20 1S )cie sa hd .teckihe SRGRcnOA, abteed chan CemeNe be. SawnnasMQEES uehe tage eradelr ak Leia mee aes Mere ge ene 215

REVIEWS

a BUTTERFLIES OF THE GARO HILLS os

Reviewed by:Peter Siietacelen. 2 ieee tre treed es ceed mettre anntrates ftteeteees CED--2--P) Aerie Jpreesssensnsee 216

2. HIMALAYA: MOUNTAIN OF LIFE

Reviewed by Asad: Ri Rahwmanliss 526515 i084 cacti deat aeee Oo seeded} me LIBRARVE RO eee ot

3. | FAUNAL HERITAGE OF RAJASTHAN, INDIA Spies

Reviewed bi Paiait Mama Kaan jcc. cesta pati ces aera dea anata ae ac sus ok canis week Ce meneame a Spey oe 218

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

MAMMALS 6. Use of Red-rumped Swallow Cecropis daurica nest by

1. First record of melanistic Indian Wolf Canis lupus pallipes

from the Indian subcontinent

Amolkumar S. Lokhande and Sameer B. Bajaru ...........

BIRDS

2. First breeding record of the Lesser Adjutant Leptoptilus

javanicus (Horsfield, 1821) from Bokaro district, Jnarkhand,

India

Mithilesh Dutt Dwivedi, Satya Prakash, Anil Kumar Mishra,

Vibhu Prakash, Gurudutta Dwivedi and

PAGANS PIG ZIG CHING ia, sac anaclas giaersnsas voeacibate ean reeoes

3. First record of Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser

erythropus from Gujarat, India

aah E Te ARTEL 2 hie i hc ams PB a a ree a

4. — Sighting of Baillon’s Crake Porzana pusilla near Chennai,

India

GTO 8 SIO ois eke actrrarvakacnsaiatunt-aeh Qes ee arienetate

5. Photographic record of the Buff-breasted Sandpiper

Tryngites subruficollis in Kerala — fifth record from the

Indian subcontinent

P.C. Rajeevan and Jayan Thomas ...........cccccceeeeeeeeeees

220

222

224

Yellow-throated Sparrow Gymnoris xanthocollis

Satish Kumar Sharma and Vijay Kumar Koli ................. 226

7. Record of a Black-legged Kittiwake Aissa tridactyla in

south-eastern Rajasthan, India

ial ANA PG PDS cis vakinscckecsvcvg apenas OAS eek wana ts 227

FISH

8. | Pangasianodon hypophthalmus (Sauvage, 1878) —an alien

catfish in Muvattupuzha river, Kerala, India

K.V. Zeena and K.S. Jameela Beevi............cceeeeeeeeees ees 228

INSECTS

9. Ypthima kedarnathensis Singh — new synonym of Ypthima

sakra Moore (Nymphalidae: Satyrinae) from Garhwal

Himalaya, India

ETOP aT oan J sudhevinis taxa onsen 230

BOTANY

10. Cucumis dipsaceus Ehrenb. ex Spach (Cucurbitaceae):

a new record for Karnataka, India

Shrikant P. Sutar, Tushar M. Dixit, S.R. Yadav and

BR NA RBs, gcc e ate ate ncaa panne tea crs emanation wekease line

11. Spigelia anthelmia L. (Spigeliaceae): new record to the 13. Dipcadi montanum (Dalzell) Baker — an addition to the

flora of Gujarat state, India flora of Kerala, India

Rinku J. Desai and Vinay M. Raole ...................cc0ceeeeees 234 Sojan Jose, V. Suresh, R. Prakash Kumar and

12. Luisia trichorrhiza (Hook.) Blume — an addition to the Ec IMAGhuisSO@Ga tian ssc. heres ate ces rre cigheascsteerateclssanseons

Orchid flora of Maharashtra, India 14. Absence of Ulva reticulata Forsskal from the coast of Goa,

GD. Muratkar, R.S. Govekar and India

Mi SANGO Sia a sn Oi uetnndehaar Be oaacdacl sn abiuntea Rae 236 N. Pereira and M.R. Almeida ................::ccsseeceeeceeeeseeeeees

Cover Photograph: Cricket Schizodactylus monstrosus By Dnarmendra Khandal

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

WE ARE GRATEFUL TO THE MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

GOVT. OF INDIA,

FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE JOURNAL.

Editorial

he Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society was first published in 1886, three years after the

& dacconiiens of BNHS. The objective of this first publication of the Society was to collate and

disseminate information on natural history of the Indian subcontinent and beyond. The Journal has been

printed uninterrupted (with some delays during the World Wars due to paper shortage) since. In its

journey of over a century the JBNHS changed with changing times and achieved a number of milestones.

In today’s age of information shared worldwide, with speed appropriate to the information highway, it is

time for one more change.

We live in an era of digitization; the internet has changed our habits and also our expectations.

Today we want timely availability and easy access to information. JBNHS recently widened the scope

(political boundaries for papers published in the JBNHS are no longer limited to the Subcontinent) of its

publication; it now aims to increase its visibility. The first step in this direction is to go digital. Therefore,

from 2014, besides its print version JBNHS will also be available online.

The groundwork for this change has been initiated, but much more needs to be done. In the first

phase of this process, we shall make the peer review process of articles submitted to the JBNHS completely

online. The JBNHS website will have all operational tasks such as manuscript submission, peer review,

archiving, and indexing. Both authors and reviewers will now be able to track online their submissions

to the JBNHS.

All articles published in the JBNHS will now have a digital object identifier (DOD, i.e. a unique

digital identification code which will help identify an article. Simply put, the DOI for a document remains

fixed over the lifetime of the document, whereas its location and other metadata may change. Referring

to an online document by its DOI is simpler than referring to it by its URL, as the URL may change, but

the DOI will never.

What does not change? The JBNHS will remain a subscribed journal. However, subscribers will

now have a choice of buying either the print or online version, or both. Alternatively, there will also be

facility to purchase a single paper.

We hope that the online version of the JBNHS will expand the outreach of the journal and meet our

readers’ present and future needs.

Editors’

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 110(3) Sept-Dec 2013

172-186

THE BIRDS OF SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA

V.B. TULJAPURKAR!*, V.R. BHAGWAT? AND G.A. JATHAR?

'Shalmalee, Shivajinagar, Miraj 416 410, Maharashtra, India. Email: [email protected]

5a, Suyognagar, Wadi Bhokar Road, Devpur, Dhule 424 002, Maharashtra, India. Email: bhagwatvr @ gmail.com

3*Sunath’, 848/1, Plot No. 12, Vrindavan Park, Kalamba Road, Kolhapur 416 007, Maharashtra, India. Email: girishjathar @ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

Surveys were undertaken over a period of 20 years to document the birds of Sangli district, which included 430 field

visits from 1985. The surveys resulted in a checklist of 297 bird species for the district, which included 191 resident,

77 winter migrants, 9 local migrants, 4 breeding migrant, 3 vagrant bird species, 3 resident as well as migrant,

1 passage migrant and status of 9 could not be determined. There were 5 threatened and 19 endemic species amongst

all the avifauna. The information obtained on the birds of the district from this survey is compared with records of

Butler (1881).

Key words: Sangli district, birds, Deccan Plateau, Western Ghats

INTRODUCTION

Sangli is one of the southernmost districts of

Maharashtra in peninsular India. Though botanists and

birdwatchers have documented the flora and salient features

of the birdlife of the district, much of this data remains

unpublished or has not been summarised. In an endeavour to

fill in this lacuna, we bring out this paper on the birds of the

district, which is based on records maintained by us during

surveys and incidental field visits since the last two decades.

The records of species obtained are compared with old (Butler

1881) and recent records of birders from the area.

STUDY AREA

Location and Boundaries: Sangli district’ (16° 43'—

17° 38' N, 73° 41'-75° 41' E; 8,572 sq. km) shares the

boundaries of following districts in Maharashtra and

Karnataka: Satara in the north-west, Solapur in the north-

east, Kolhapur in the south-west, Belgaum in the south, and

Bijapur in the south-east. A part of the district includes a

section of the Sahyadri (Western Ghats) range in the west,

beyond which is Ratnagiri district of the Konkan. Till 1948,

part of the present Sangli district came under the former

princely states of Aundh, Jath, Sangli, Miraj, Kurundwad,

and Wadi. A segment of it was in the old Satara district. In

1949, the area was reorganised and named as South Satara

district with six talukas namely, Tasgaon, Khanapur, Shirala,

Walwa, and the erstwhile princely states of Miraj and Jath. In

1960, it was renamed as Sangli district, with Sangli city as

the district headquarters.

Terrain and Forests”: Sangli is bordered in the west

by the ranges of the Western Ghats that reach a height of

1,044 m. The western slopes receive heavy rainfall, and hence,

the forest is dense and covered with evergreens, which

includes the Chandoli National Park (318 sq. km). The eastern

slopes consist of a series of scattered hills, which has mixed

deciduous, and dry mixed deciduous forests (Champion and

Seth 1968). The forests in the central part of the district east

of River Krishna are scrub forests and bush covering small

hills. In the extreme east of the district, which falls under the

Deccan Plateau, the landscape is ‘barren’ with scattered trees.

Drainages and Wetlands: The main rivers that traverse

the district are Krishna, Warana, and Yerla. There are small

rivers such as Agrani, Manganga, Korda, Bor, and Patna that

join the main river systems of the district, but most of these

(and the other seasonal streams) dry up in summer. River

Warana originates in the Western Ghats near Prachitgad in

Patan taluka of Satara district and flows through Shirala taluka

to join River Krishna at Haripur near Sangli. A dam has

been constructed on River Warana at Chandoli, the backwaters

of which extend up to 30 km and form a huge lake called

Vasant Sagar with a waterspread of 45 sq. km. Rajewadi tank

(13.56 sq. km) was constructed in 1879 during the British

Raj, with part of it falling in Satara district. Besides these

waterbodies, there are others lakes at Banpuri, Lingnur, and

Bhose.

Climate: Except for April and May, the climate is

pleasant over the year with generally dry weather. The

southwest monsoon commences in June and ends in

September. There is a short spell of hot weather in October.

The cold weather begins in November, which is followed by

spring in February and March. Overall, the climate does not

have extremes of cold and hot weather. The rainfall shows

considerable discrepancy. In the west, the area of Chandoli

Dam receives around 3,500 mm; the crest of Western Ghats

gets even higher rainfall of 4,000—6,000 mm. As the

‘Gazetteer of Sangli district - 1969a: Climate

*Gazetteer of Sangli district - 1969b: Forests

BIRDS OF SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA

clouds move eastwards, the rainfall gradually decreases.

While Shirala taluka and surrounding areas receive around

1,016 mm, it is around 508 mm in the Tasgaon and Khanapur

talukas. The twin cities of Sangli and Miraj receive around

457 mm; the Kavathemahankal and Jath talukas get even less

rainfall, ranging from 254 to 381 mm.

Land Use’: The human population of the district is

2,820,575 (District Socio-Economic Review of Sangli 2012),

an increase of 9% in ten years from 2,583,524 (District Socio-

Economic Review of Sangli 2012). The geographic area of

the district (8,572 sq. km) can be broadly divided into

cultivable land (5,950 sq. km), forests (450 sq. km), and barren

uncultivable land (380 sq. km), besides others. Sugarcane,

rice, pulses (moong, masoor, and cowpea), sorghum, pearl

millet, cotton, and tobacco are the major crops in the area.

Grapes and pomegranate are the important fruit crops grown

in the region. The livestock density in the district is 125.40/

sq. km, which includes cattle, sheep, and goats, and there is

hardly any control on grazing.

Historical records of the avifauna of the district

Capt. E.A. Butler published a paper “Birds of the Deccan

and South Mahratta Country’ in Stray Feathers (Butler 1881).

The region covered (16° to 19° N; 73° to 76° E) encompasses

the areas of Satara, Ahmednagar, Bombay (Mumbai), Poona

(Pune), Solapur, Ratnagiri, Sawantwadi, and Khandala of

present day Maharashtra, and some areas of Goa and northern

Karnataka. There is no mention of Sangli as such in his paper,

even though it was covered, as this district came into existence

in 1960. Hence, we treat Butler’s statement “occurs

throughout the region” for a species to denote that it also

occurs in Sangli district. Butler also states that some of the

districts were not covered, especially those in the Western

Ghats areas, and hence, there is a high possibility of him

having missed some of the species that we recorded in this

region due to less coverage.

METHODOLOGY

The data was collected by various birdwatchers, some

working singly and others in pairs or groups. The specific

sites surveyed and the field visits undertaken are described

below:

Eastern part of Sangli district: The eastern part of

Sangli district mainly comprises two talukas —

Kavathemahankal and Jath. The rainfall is scanty and

agricultural development is less compared to the western part

of the district. The tree cover is poor, and there are vast areas

of open scrub interspersed with grasslands. Tuljapurkar and

District Socio-Economic Review of Sangli (2012)

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

Bhagwat surveyed this area from 1984 to 2001. A range of

low elevations called Dandoba Hills Forest Preserve is located

about 20 km from Miraj on the road to Pandharpur. The tree

cover is fair on the slopes, but the top has only scattered

bushes. There is not much human movement and hence

disturbance is less. The vegetation surrounding the hills and

stretching further to Kavathemahankal and Jath talukas is

mainly open scrub with the exception of a few pockets of

cultivation. Tuljapurkar visited the areas up to Dandoba Hills

for studying and photographing ground-nesting birds from

1984 to 1996. Bhagwat also covered this area, and also visited

the nearby villages of Savali, Tanang, Siddhewadi, Bhose,

Alkud, and some others from 1991 to 2001. The barren

uncultivated land in Kavathemahankal and Jath talukas were

not covered.

River Krishna at Mhaisal village: Mhaisal is a village

on the banks of River Krishna, south of Miraj near the border

of Karnataka. There is a low level bund on the river which

supports a small reservoir of water all year round. Deepak

Shinde, a resident of Mhaisal, has been keeping records of

his observations and photographs of birds of this area (Shinde

2008a,b). The images posted on his blog have been of great

help in establishing the presence of certain bird species in

this area.

Waste Disposal Site, Miraj: Built in 1968, the Waste

Disposal Site (WDS) for Miraj town is located about 5 km

on the Arag road. It covers an area of 4.4 ha that includes

eight oxidation tanks of 0.4 ha each. A large section of the

site is used to dump solid waste. Two of the authors covered

this site from 1985 to 1995 (Tuljapurkar and Bhagwat 2007).

Sagareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary: Sagareshwar

Wildlife Sanctuary (10 sq. km; 900 m above msl) is situated

about 50 km north of Sangli. It consists of deciduous forest

and grasslands in an undulating terrain; the annual rainfall

averages 400 mm. In the early 1990s, one of the authors

(Tuljapurkar 1992) had visited the sanctuary frequently,

documenting the habitat, flora, birds, and mammals. Sharad

Apte made a more detailed study of the avifauna in the

sanctuary, visiting it on 50 occasions during three years from

August 1997—October 2000.

Dabhai Kuran: Atpadi is a small town situated about

100 km north of Miraj. At the outskirts of Atpadi (6 km),

there is a reservoir that serves as a source of water to the

town. The reservoir is surrounded by a large expanse of

grassland. The grasslands to the south-west of the wetland is

reserved grassland, Dabhai Kuran (11.43 sq. km), and is

protected by the Forest Department with restrictions on cattle

grazing. There are a few scattered bushes and trees, namely

Ziziphus, Acacia, Cassia, agave, and neem. The annual rainfall

is about 470 mm. Bhagwat visited the grassland on eight

E73

BIRDS OF SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA

occasions over a five year period from March 1992 to mid

February 1997. Sharad Apte visited Dabhai Kuran on several

occasions from 1990 to 1994.

Chandoli National Park: Chandoli National Park is

situated in the western part of the district and includes part of

Sahyadri range. River Warana originates in the Chandoli area.

A dam was constructed on this river and the huge expanse of

the reservoir prohibits easy access to the Park, and hence,

disturbance to wildlife is minimal. People who earlier lived

in villages within the forests were later relocated out of the

sanctuary.

Members of Green Guards, an NGO from Kolhapur,

have visited Chandoli National Park on several occasions and

have documented the avifauna. From March 1995 to

November 2007, these birdwatchers visited the area on

35 occasions in groups, staying for various periods of time.

During these visits, the sightings of birds were recorded and

a comprehensive list was prepared — which has not been

published. A large part of the Park was covered, except for

sites that were difficult to access. The sites visited by Green

Guards (with the number of visits for each site given within

parenthesis) are: Lotiv (1), Rundiv (7), Gave (2), Nivale (8),

Nivale sada (1), Kandhar Doh (4), Zolambi (19), Zolambi

sada (2), Ram-nadee (4), Siddheshwar (4), Ambole (3),

Ghotane (4), Prachitgad (4), Kundi (1), Chandel (10), Dhakale

(10), Udgiri (1), Khundalapur (1), Khundalapur dara (1),

Bhogiv (5), Jinti (1), Jawali (4), Kotharwadi (4), Tanali (1),

Durgawadi (1), Takale (6), Karambali dara (6), Chandoli

khurd (3), Vetti (5), Valmik sada (1), Sonarli (1), Aloli (1),

Vagh-kada (1) and Pandhar pani (1).

Other information available on the birds of Chandoli

are from Jathar and Kulkarni (2005), who visited the Park in

March 2005 to photo-document the avifauna, and Gole

(1998), who visited the Park from December 1994 to April

1996. Prakash Gole’s birding was confined to the eastern part

of the hills, and he also commented on the inaccessibility of

some sites.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This study reports the occurrence of 297 bird species

from Sangli district, comprising of 191 resident species,

77 winter migrants, 9 local migrants, 4 breeding migrants,

3 vagrants, 3 species that had populations that were resident

and local migrants, 1 passage migrant (Table 1). The status

of 9 bird species could not be determined. There is much

diversity in the avifauna due to the assemblage of various

habitats and transition zones. Sixty-seven species are

associated with wetlands, 44 with grasslands, 95 with forests,

and the rest (91 species) are habitat generalist. Other than

174

Table 1, which lists all the species found in the district, given

below are accounts of some species, which are threatened or/

and endemic species, and of the heronries and roosts recorded

in the area.

Threatened Species*

Five Threatened species were recorded, and of these,

three are Critically Endangered, and one each is Endangered

or Vulnerable. Seven Near Threatened species were also

recorded (Table 1).

Long-billed Vulture Gyps indicus: The Long-billed

Vulture was reported as “not uncommon in districts where

there are high cliffs to which it resorts to breed” (Butler 1881).

The species was recorded at Chandoli National Park, where

it was found on a western cliff till 1995, but sightings are

now rare. The Long-billed Vulture was sighted in flight near

Prachitgad area in 2005 and 2006 by Green Guards, and locals

reported the presence of nests in the 1990s.

White-rumped Vulture Gyps bengalensis: The White-

rumped Vulture was once abundant in the district. Butler (1881)

recorded it as a commonly sighted permanent resident

throughout the area. The species was occasionally seen in Sangli

district two decades back; however in subsequent years its

numbers have declined rapidly and the sightings are now scarce.

Our observations are mainly around Miraj. Five birds were

seen at Miraj feeding on the carcass of a horse on the Miraj-

Sangli road on May 1, 1985. A flock of more than 25 birds was

seen feeding on a carcass on the Miraj-Jaysingpur road

(Bhagwat 2002). The sightings at WDS were more common.

About 50 vultures were observed in March 1994 (Tuljapurkar

and Bhagwat 2007); a pair was observed feeding on a carcass

on September 29, 1993, and a flock of more than 20 birds was

seen perched on coconut trees, all three sightings at WDS.

Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus: Butler

(1881) reported that the species was a common resident

throughout the region. The species was only recorded at

Chandoli National Park by Green Guards in 2007, however

they did not record the number of individuals observed.

Great Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps: Butler (1881)

mentioned that the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) was probably a

resident species and usually observed in the plains, and was

common around Miraj (Sangli district). He also mentions its

presence near Solapur, Ahmednagar, and Pune. We did not

obtain records of the species during our surveys. As the eastern

part of Sangli district appears to be suitable habitat for the GIB,

additional efforts were made to obtain information on the last

sightings of the species in the Jath area. Enquiries made at a

few places revealed that the species occurred in the past. An

octogenarian school teacher mentioned seeing birds near

‘BirdLife International (2014)

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

Sr. No

31.

Species

Little Grebe

Tachybaptus ruficollis

Little Cormorant

Phalacrocorax niger

Grey Heron

Ardea cinerea

Purple Heron

Ardea purpurea

Indian Pond Heron

Ardeola grayii

Eastern Cattle-Egret

Bubulcus coromandus

Great Egret

Egretta alba

Intermediate Egret

Egretta intermedia

Little Egret

Egretta garzetta

Western Reef-Heron

Egretta gularis

Black-crowned Night-Heron

Nycticorax nycticorax

Chestnut Bittern

Ixobrychus cinnamomeus

Painted Stork

Mycteria leucocephala

Asian Openbill

Anastomus oscitans

White-necked Stork

Ciconia episcopus

European White Stork

Ciconia ciconia

Black-headed Ibis

Threskiornis melanocephala

Indian Black Ibis

Pseudibis papillosa

Glossy Ibis

Plegadis falcinellus

Eurasian Spoonbill

Platalea leucorodia

Greater Flamingo

Phoenicopterus roseus

Bar-headed Goose

Anser indicus

Lesser Whistling-Duck

Dendrocygna javanica

Ruddy Shelduck

Tadorna ferruginea

Northern Pintail

Anas acuta

Common Teal

Anas crecca

Indian Spot-billed Duck

Anas poecilorhyncha

Eurasian Wigeon

Anas penelope

Garganey

Anas querquedula

Northern Shoveller

Anas clypeata

Common Pochard

Aythya ferina

BIRDS OF SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA

Table 1: Checklist of the birds of Sangli district

Status

= ee | ee

a aa a

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

Status

IUCN

Endemic Occurrence

to India

- Common

- Occasional

: Common

- Common

- Occasional

* Common

e Uncommon

: Common

- Rare

: Common

- Rare

= Occasional

ou Common

= Occasional

= Common

- Occasional

: Common

- Rare

: Common

- Common

- Occasional

- Common

Location

WDS, DK, CNP

DK, CNP, TR

WDS, DK, MHL, TR

SMK, CNP

WDS, DK, TR, CNP, MHL

WDS, DK, CNP, MHL, SMK,

DK, SMK, TR

_ WDS, DK

WDS, DK, CNP, MHL, SMK

SMK

DK, SMK, CNP

CNP

DK, SMK, MHL

WDS, DK, MHL, SMK

WDS, DK, MHL, SMK, TR

DK, MHL, SMK, TR

DK, TR

WDS, DK, TR

DK, TR

WDS, DK, TR

WDS, DK, SMK, TR

WDS, DK,MHL, SMK

WDS, SMK

DK, SMK

175

BIRDS OF SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA

Table 1: Checklist of the birds of Sangli district (contd.)

Sr.No Species Status Status Endemic Occurrence Location

IUCN to India

32: Tufted Duck : |

Aythya fuligula M LC - Rare DK

33: Comb Duck

Sarkidiornis melanotos M LC - Rare SMK, TR

34. Black-winged Kite

Elanus caeruleus R LC - Occasional WDS, SGW, DK, CNP

35. Oriental Honey-Buzzard

Pernis ptilorhynchus NK LC - Rare CNP

36. Black Kite

Milvus migrans R LC -. Common WDS, SMK, DK, CNP, MHL

37. Brahminy Kite

Haliastur indus R LC - Common CNP, MHL, SMK

38. Shikra |

Accipiter badius R LC - Common SGW, SMK, CNP

39. Crested Goshawk

' Accipiter trivirgatus NK LC - Rare CNP

AO. Eurasian Sparrowhawk

Accipiter nisus M LC - Occasional DK, CNP

41. Besra Sparrowhawk

Accipiter virgatus NK LC - Occasional CNP

42. White-eyed Buzzard

Butastur teesa R LC - _ Occasional SGW, CNP

43. Crested Hawk-Eagle

Spizaetus cirrhatus R LC - Uncommon CNP

44. Bonelli’s Eagle

Hieraaetus fasciatus R LC - Uncommon CNP

45. Booted Eagle }

Hieraaetus pennatus M LC - Rare Atpadi

A6. Tawny Eagle

Aguila rapax R LC - Common WDS, DK

47. Steppe Eagle

Aquila nipalensis M LC - Uncommon CNP

48. Black Eagle

Ictinaetus malayensis R LC - Common CNP

49. White-bellied Sea-Eagle :

Haliaeetus leucogaster V LC - Common CNP

50. Long-billed Vulture

Gyps indicus R CR - Rare CNP

Si. White-backed Vulture

Gyps bengalensis R CR - Rare WDS, SMK

D2. Egyptian Vulture

Neophron percnopterus R EN - Rare CNP

53. Pallid Harrier

Circus macrourus M LC - Occasional SGW, DK

54. Montagu’s Harrier

Circus pygargus M LC - Occasional SMK

5D. Western Marsh-Harrier

Circus aeruginosus M LC - Common WDS, DK, CNP, TR

56. Short-toed Snake-Eagle

Circaetus gallicus R LC - Uncommon CNP

BY, Crested Serpent-Eagle

Spilornis cheela — R LC : Common CNP

58. Osprey

Pandion haliaetus M LC - Rare SMK, CNP

59. Peregrine Falcon

Falco peregrinus R LC - Rare SGW, CNP

60. Red-headed Falcon

Falco chicquera R LC : Rare SMK, CNP

61. Lesser Kestrel

Falco naumanni M LC - Rare SMK

62. Common Kestrel

Falco tinnunculus M LC - Occasional SGW, CNP

176 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

Sr. No

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

rer.

Ve:

TA.

hey

76.

77.

78.

ipo:

80.

oul

82.

83.

84.

G5:

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

oT.

92.

93.

Species

Painted Francolin

Francolinus pictus

Grey Francolin

Francolinus pondicerianus

Rain Quail

Coturnix coromandelica

Blue-breasted Quail

Coturnix chinensis

Jungle Bush-Quail

Perdicula asiatica

Rock Bush-Quail

Perdicula argoondah

Painted Bush-Quail

Perdicula erythrorhyncha

Red Spurfowl

Galloperdix spadicea

Grey Junglefowl

Gallus sonneratii

Indian Peafowl

Pavo cristatus

Small Buttonquail

Turnix sylvaticus

Barred Buttonquail

Turnix suscitator

Demoiselle Crane

Grus virgo

White-breasted Waterhen

Amaurornis phoenicurus

Common Moorhen

Gallinula chloropus

Purple Swamphen

Porphyrio porphyrio

Eurasian Coot

Fulica atra

Great Indian Bustard

Ardeotis nigriceps

Pheasant-tailed Jacana

Hydrophasianus chirurgus

Greater Painted-Snipe

Rostratula benghalensis

Red-wattled Lapwing

Vanellus indicus

Yellow-wattled Lapwing

Vanellus malabaricus

Little Ringed Plover

Charadrius dubius

Kentish Plover

Charadrius alexandrinus

Black-tailed Godwit

Limosa limosa

Common Redshank

Tringa totanus

Marsh Sandpiper

Tringa stagnatilis

Common Greenshank

Tringa nebularia

Green Sandpiper

Tringa ochropus

Wood Sandpiper

Tringa glareola

Common Sandpiper

Actitis hypoleucos

BIRDS OF SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA

Table 1: Checklist of the birds of Sangli district (contd.)

Status

oe eae See Se ee ee Se ee

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

Status

IUCN

Endemic

to India

Endemic

Occurrence

Common

Rare

Common

Rare

Common

Occasional

Common

Not seen

presently

Uncommon

Rare

Common

Location

WDS, SGW, DK, CNP

WDS, SGW, DK

SGW, DK, CNP

CNP

SGW, DK, SMK, CNP

WDS

DK, CNP

CNP

SGW, DK, CNP, SMK, MHL

CNP

SGW, DK, SMK

WDS, SGW, DK, CNP, MHL, SMK

SGW, DK

DK, SMK

DK, MHL

Jath area

SMK, MHL

WDS, SMK

WDS, SGW, DK, CNP, MHL, SMK

WDS, SMK, DK

WDS, DK, CNP, TR

WDS, DK

WDS, DK, SMK

WDS, DK, CNP

WDS, DK

WDS, DK, CNP, TR

WDS, DK, TR, CNP

WDS, DK, CNP, TR

177

Sr. No

94.

95.

96.

oF,

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

~ 103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

110.

pat

Tt.

113.

114.

115:

116.

117.

118.

1712.

120.

tea.

122.

123:

178

Species

Common Snipe

Gallinago gallinago

Little Stint

Calidris minuta

Ruff

Philomachus pugnax

Black-winged Stilt

Himantopus himantopus

Indian Stone-Curlew

Burhinus indicus

Great Thick-knee

Esacus recurvirostris

Indian Courser

Cursorius coromandelicus

.Brown-headed Gull

Larus brunnicephalus

Whiskered Tern

Chlidonias hybridus

Gull-billed Tern

Gelochelidon nilotica

River Tern

Sterna aurantia

Chestnut-bellied Sandgrouse

Pterocles exustus

Grey-fronted Green-Pigeon

Treron affinis

Yellow-footed Green-Pigeon

Treron phoenicopterus

Green Imperial-Pigeon

Ducula aenea

Rock Pigeon

Columba livia

Nilgiri Wood-Pigeon

Columba elphinstonii

Oriental Turtle-Dove

Streptopelia orientalis

Eurasian Collared-Dove

Streptopelia decaocto

Red Collared-Dove

Streptopelia tranquebarica

Spotted Dove

Streptopelia chinensis

Laughing Dove

Streptopelia senegalensis

Emerald Dove

Chalcophaps indica

Alexandrine Parakeet

Psittacula eupatria

Rose-ringed Parakeet

Psittacula krameri

Plum-headed Parakeet

Psittacula cyanocephala

Malabar Parakeet

Psittacula columboides

Vernal Hanging-Parrot

Loriculus vernalis

Jacobin Cuckoo

Clamator jacobinus

Common Hawk-Cuckoo

Hierococcyx varius

BIRDS OF SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA

Table 1: Checklist of the birds of Sangli district (contd.)

Status

5. = SS

Status

IUCN

Endemic Occurrence

to India

- Common

ae Rare

a Rare

- Common

- Occasional

~ Occasional

= Common

: Common

Endemic Rare

3 Common

- Rare

- Common

Endemic Uncommon

- Common

= Common

- Common

: Common

. Common

“ Rare

- Common

. Common

Endemic . Uncommon

3 Common

- Common

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

Location

WDS, SGW, DK

WDS, DK

WDS, SMK

WDS, DK, MHL, SMK

SGW, CNP, SMK

SMK

CNP

DK, MHL

CNP

WDS, DK, CNP

CNP

SGW, DK

DK, SGW, CNP

DK, CNP, MHL

WDS, SGW, DK, CNP, MHL

CNP |

CNP

WDS, DK, CNP, MHL

SGW, CNP

CNP

SGW, DK, CNP

SGW, DK, CNP, MHL, SMK

Sr. No

124.

125.

126.

127.

128.

zo.

130.

seedle

132.

133.

134.

135.

136.

137.

138.

139.

140.

141.

142.

143.

144.

145.

146.

147.

148.

149.

150.

151.

152.

153.

BIRDS OF SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA

Table 1: Checklist of the birds of Sangli district (contd.)

Species Status Status Endemic Occurrence

IUCN to India

Grey-bellied Cuckoo

Cacomantis passerinus BR LC : Common

Asian Koel

Eudynamys scolopaceus R LC - Common

Sirkeer Malkoha

Taccocua leschenaultii R LC - Uncommon

Greater Coucal

Centropus sinensis R LC - Common

Common Barn-Owl

Tyto alba R LC - Occasional

Oriental Scops-Owl

Otus sunia R LC - Common

Indian Scops-Owl

Otus bakkamoena R LC - Common

Indian Eagle-Owl

Bubo bengalensis R LC - Occasional

Dusky Eagle-Owl |

Bubo coromandus R LC - Rare

Brown Fish-Owl

Ketupa zeylonensis R LC - Common

Jungle Owlet

Glaucidium radiatum R LC - Common

Spotted Owlet

Athene brama R LC “ Common

Mottled Wood-Owl

Strix ocellata R LC Endemic Rare

Short-eared Owl

Asio flammeus M LC - Occasional

Ceylon Frogmouth

Batrachostomus moniliger R LC - Rare

Indian Jungle Nightjar

Caprimulgus indicus R LC < Uncommon

Indian Little Nightjar

Caprimulgus asiaticus R LC - Common

Savanna Nightjar

Caprimulgus affinis LM LC - Occasional

Alpine Swift

Tachymarptis melba R LC - Rare

House Swift

Apus affinis | R LC - Common

Asian Palm-Swift

Cypsiurus balasiensis R LC - Uncommon

Crested Tree-Swift

Hemiprocne coronata R LC - Common

Malabar Trogon

Harpactes fasciatus R LC - Uncommon

Pied Kingfisher

Ceryle rudis R LC - Common

Common Kingfisher

Alcedo atthis R LC - Common

Stork-billed Kingfisher

Pelargopsis capensis R LC - Rare

White-throated Kingfisher

Halcyon smyrnensis R LC - Common

Blue-tailed Bee-eater

Merops philippinus PM LC - Uncommon

Small Green Bee-eater

Merops orientalis R LC Common

Indian Roller

Coracias benghalensis R LC - Common

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

Location

SGW, CNP

WDS, DK, CNP, MHL

SGW

WDS, SGW, DK, CNP, MHL

SMK

CNP, SMK

CNP

SGW

CNP

SMK

SMK, CNP

SGW, CNP

CNP

SGW, CNP

SGW, DK, CNP

SGW, CNP

CNP

SGW, DK, CNP

CNP

WDS, DK, CNP, MHL, TR

WDS, SGW, DK, CNP, MHL, SMK

CNP

WDS, SGW, DK, CNP, MHL, SMK

CNP

WDS, SGW, DK, CNP, MHL, SMK

WDS, DK, CNP, SMK

BIRDS OF SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA

Table 1: Checkiist of the birds of Sangli district (contd.)

Sr.No Species Status Status Endemic Occurrence Location

IUCN to India

154. Common Hoopoe

Upupa epops R LC - Common WDS, SGW, DK, CNP, MHL

155. Indian Grey Hornbill

Ocyceros birostris R LC - Common WDS, DK, MHL, SMK

156. Malabar Grey Hornbill

Ocyceros griseus R LC Endemic Uncommon CNP

17. Malabar Pied Hornbill

Anthracoceros coronatus R NT - Common CNP

158. Great Pied Hornbill

Buceros bicornis R NT - Rare CNP

159. Brown-headed Barbet

Megalaima zeylonica R LC - Common CNP

160. White-cheeked Barbet

Megalaima viridis R LC Endemic Common CNP

161. ‘Coppersmith Barbet

Megalaima haemacephala R LC - Common DK, CNP, SMK

162. Eurasian Wryneck |

Jynx torquilla M LC - Rare SMK

163. Rufous Woodpecker

Celeus brachyurus R LC - Uncommon CNP

164. Black-rumped Flameback

Dinopium benghalense R LC - Common CNP

165. Yellow-fronted Pied Woodpecker

Dendrocopos mahrattensis R LC - Occasional SGW, DK, CNP

166. Indian Pygmy Woodpecker

Dendrocopos nanus R LC - Occasional CNP

167. White-naped Flameback

- Chrysocolaptes festivus R LC - Rare SMK

168. Greater Flameback

Chrysocolaptes guttacristatus R LC - Uncommon CNP

169. Indian Pitta |

Pitta brachyura BR LC - Common CNP

178: Singing Bushlark

Mirafra cantillans R EG - Common DK, SMK

rae Indian Bushlark

Mirafra erythroptera R LC ~ Common DK, SMK

172. Ashy-crowned Finch-Lark

Eremopterix griseus R LC - Common WDS, SMK, SGW, DK, CNP

173: Rufous-tailed Lark

Ammomanes phoenicurus R EC - Common WDS, DK, SGW, SMK

174. Malabar Lark

Galerida malabarica R LC Endemic Common CNP

75. Syke’s Lark

Galerida deva R LC Endemic Common DK, SMK

176. Oriental Skylark

Alauda gulgula R LC - Occasional DK, SMK

177. Grey-throated Sand Martin

Riparia chinensis M LC - Rare CNP

178. Eurasian Crag-Martin

Ptyonoprogne rupestris M LC - Rare SGW

179. Dusky Crag-Martin

Ptyonoprogne concolor R LC - Common SGW, DK, SMK, CNP

180. Barn Swallow

Hirundo rustica M LC - Common WDS, DK, CNP, SMK

181. Wire-tailed Swallow

Hirundo smithii R LC - Common WDS, SGW, DK, CNP, MHL, SMK

182. Streak-throated Swallow

Hirundo fluvicola R LC - Uncommon CNP

183. Red-rumped Swallow

Hirundo daurica R/M LC - Common WDS, SGW, DK, CNP, SMK

180 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

BIRDS OF SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA

Table 1: Checklist of the birds of Sangli district (contd.)

Sr.No Species Status Status Endemic Occurrence

IUCN to India

184. Olive-backed Pipit

Anthus hodgsoni M LC - Common

185. Tree Pipit

Anthus trivialis M LC - Common

186. Paddyfield Pipit

Anthus rufulus R LC - Common

187. Tawny Pipit

Anthus campestris M LC - Occasional

188. Forest Wagtail

Dendronanthus indicus M LC - Rare

189. Western Yellow Wagtail

Motacilla flava M LC - Common

190. Black-headed Yellow Wagtail

Motacilla flava melanogrisea M LC - Occasional

191. Citrine Wagtail

Motacilla citreola M LC - Common

192. Grey Wagtail

Motacilla cinerea M EC - Common

193. White Wagtail

Motacilla alba M LC - Common

194. White-browed Wagtail

Motacilla maderaspatensis R LC - Common

195. Pied Flycatcher-Shrike

Hemipus picatus NK LC : Rare

196. Common Woodshrike

Tephrodornis pondicerianus R LC - Common

197. Large Cuckooshrike

Coracina macei NK LC - Uncommon

198. Black-headed Cuckooshrike

Coracina melanoptera R LC - Occasional

199. Scarlet Minivet

Pericrocotus flammeus R LC - Common

200. Small Minivet

Pericrocotus cinnamomeus R LC - Common

201. Red-whiskered Bulbul

Pycnonotus jocosus R LC - Common

202. Red-vented Bulbul

Pycnonotus cafer R LC - Common

203. White-browed Bulbul

Pycnonotus luteolus R LC - Occasional

204. Yellow-browed Bulbul

lole indica R LC - Common

205. Square-tailed Black Bulbul

Hypsipetes ganeesa R LC - Common

206. Common lora

Aegithina tiphia R LC - Common

207: Golden-fronted Leafbird

Chloropsis aurifrons R LC - Common

208. Asian Fairy Bluebird

Irena puella R LC - Rare

209. Southern Grey Shrike

Lanius meridionalis R LC - Common

210. Bay-backed Shrike

Lanius vittatus R LC - Common

211. Isabelline Shrike

Lanius isabellinus M LC ~ Rare

212. Long-tailed Shrike

_ Lanius schach R/M LC - Common

ea, Brown Shrike

Lanius cristatus M LC - Common

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

Location

CNP

SGW, DK, CNP, SMK

WDS, DK, SMK

SGW, DK, SMK

CNP

WDS, SGW, DK, CNP, MHL

WDS, CNP, SMK

SMK, MHL

DK, SMK, CNP

WDS, DK, SMK, MHL

WDS, DK,CNP, SMK

CNP

SGW, DK, CNP

CNP

SMK, CNP

CNP

SGW, DK, SMK

CNP

WDS, SGW, DK, CNP, MHL, SMK

SMK, CNP

CNP

SGW, DK, CNP

CNP

SMK

WDS, SQW, DK, CNP, SMK

SGW

WDS, SGW, DK, CNP, MHL, SMK

CNP

181

BIRDS OF SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA

Table 1: Checklist of the birds of Sangli district (contd.)

Sr.No Species Status Status Endemic Occurrence

IUCN to India

214. Bluethroat

Luscinia svecica M LC - Occasional

215. Indian Blue Robin

Luscinia brunnea M LC - Uncommon

216. Oriental Magpie-Robin

Copsychus saularis R LC - Common

217. White-rumped Shama

Copsychus malabaricus R LC - Rare

218. Black Redstart

Phoenicurus ochruros M LC - Common

219. Common Stonechat

Saxicola torquata M LC - Common

220. Pied Bushchat

Saxicola caprata R LC - Common

221. = Indian Black Robin

Saxicola fulicata R LC - Common

222. Blue-headed Rock-Thrush

Monticola cinclorhynchus M LC - Uncommon

223. Blue Rock-Thrush

Monticola solitarius M LC - Occasional

224. Malabar Whistling-Thrush

Myophonus horstfieldii R LC Endemic Common

Z2LS. Orange-headed Thrush

Zoothera citrina R LC - Common

226. Indian Blackbird

Turdus simillimus R LC - Common

CEA hp Puff-throated Babbler

Pellorneum ruficeps R LC - Common

220: Indian Scimitar Babbler

Pomatorhinus horstfieldii R LC Endemic Uncommon

229. Tawny-bellied Babbler

Dumetia hyperythra R LC - Common

230. Yellow-eyed Babbler

Chrysomma sinense R LC - Common

Zot: Common Babbler

Turdoides caudata R LC - Common

232. Large Grey Babbler

Turdoides malcolmi R LC - Uncommon

235: Indian Rufous Babbler

Turdoides subrufa R LC Endemic Rare

234. Jungle Babbler

Turdoides striata R Ee - Common

Zoo. Brown-cheeked Fulvetta

Alcippe poioicephala R LC - Uncommon

236. Asian Brown Flycatcher

Muscicapa Oaurica M LC - Occasional

237. Rusty-tailed Flycatcher

Muscicapa ruficauda M LC - Occasional

238. Red-throated Flycatcher

Ficedula parva M LC - Common

299. White-bellied Blue Flycatcher

Cyornis pallipes’ R LC - Rare

240. Tickell’s Blue Flycatcher

Cyornis tickelliae R LC - Occasional.

241. Verditer Flycatcher

Eumyias thalassina R LC - Occasional

242. White-browed Fantail

Rhipidura aureola R LC - Uncommon

243. White-throated Fantail

Rhipidura albicollis R LC Endemic Common

Location

SMK, WDS, CNP

CNP

WDS, DK, SGW, CNP, SMK

CNP

SGW, CNP

WDS, DK, CNP, SMK

WDS, SGW, DK, CNP, MHL

CNP

SGW, CNP

CNP

SGW, CNP

CNP

DK, CNP

WDS, SMK, SGW, DK, CNP

WDS, SGW, DK

SGW, DK, CNP

CNP

SGW, CNP

CNP

WDS, SMK

WDS

SGW, DK, CNP

CNP

SGW, CNP

CNP

WDS, SGW, DK, CNP, SMK

182 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

Sr. No

244.

245.

246.

247.

248.

249.

250.

Zou

252.

253.

254.

(eee

2056.

Zor.

258.

259.

260.

201.

262.

263.

264.

205,

266.

267.

268.

269.

270.

261;

Fe,

273.

Species

Asian Paradise-Flycatcher

Terpsiphone paradisi

Black-naped Monarch

Hypothymis azurea

Zitting Cisticola

Cisticola juncidis

Grey-breasted Prinia

Prinia hodgsonii

Plain Prinia

Prinia inornata

Ashy Prinia

Prinia socialis

Jungle Prinia

Prinia sylvatica

Common Tailorbird

Orthotomus sutorius

Indian Reed-Warbler

Acrocephalus stentoreus

Blyth’s Reed-Warbler

Acrocephalus dumetorum

Booted Warbler

Hippolais caligata

Eastern Orphean Warbler

Sylvia hortensis

Lesser Whitethroat

Sylvia curruca halimodendri

Siberian Chiffchaff

Phylloscopus (collybita) tristis

Greenish Warbler

Phylloscopus trochiloides

Great Tit

Parus major

Indian Yellow Tit

Parus aplonotus

Indian Nuthatch

Sitta castanea

Velvet-fronted Nuthatch

Sitta frontalis

Thick-billed Flowerpecker

Dicaeum agile

Pale-billed Flowerpecker

Dicaeum erythrorhynchos

Nilgiri Flowerpecker

Dicaeum concolor

Purple-rumped Sunbird

Leptocoma zeylonica

Small Sunbird

Leptocoma minima

Loten’s Sunbird

Cinnyris lotensis

Purple Sunbird

Cinnyris asiatica

Vigors’s Sunbird

Aethopyga vigorsii

Oriental White-eye

Zosterops palpebrosa

Black-headed Bunting

Emberiza melanocephala

Grey-necked Bunting

Emberiza buchanani

BIRDS OF SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA

Status

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

Status

IUCN

Endemic

to India

Endemic

Table 1: Checklist of the birds of Sangli district (contd.)

Occurrence

Common

Uncommon

Common

Occasional

Common

Occasional

Common

Occasional

Common

Rare

Common

Rare

Common

Uncommon

Location

CNP

SGW, DK, CNP

SGW, CNP

SGW, DK, SMK, CNP

WDS, DK, SMK, CNP

SGW, DK, CNP

SGW, DK, SMK, CNP

SGW, DK

CNP

WDS, DK

WDS, Saw. DK

WDS, SGW, CNP

CNP, SGW

SMK, SGW, CNP

CNP

SMK, MHL, SGW

CNP

CNP, SMK, WDS

CNP

CNP, WDS, SMK

SMK, SGW DK

SGW, CNP

183

BIRDS OF SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA

Table 1: Checklist of the birds of Sangli district (contd.)

Sr.No Species Status Status Endemic - Occurrence Location

IUCN to India

274. Crested Bunting

Melophus lathami R LC - Common CNP

275, Common Rosefinch

Carpodacus erythrinus M LC - Common SMK, MHL, CNP

276. Red Avadavat

Amandava amandava R LC - Uncommon WDS, CNP, MHL

277. Indian Silverbill

Lonchura malabarica R LC : Common DK, SMK, MHL

278. Scaly-breasted Munia

Lonchura punctulata R LC - Common SMK, SGW, DK, MHL

279. Tricoloured Munia

Lonchura malacca R EG - Rare SMK, WDS, CNP

280. House Sparrow

Passer domesticus R LC - Common SMK, SGW, WDS, MHL

281. Yellow-throated Sparrow

Petronia xanthocollis R te : Common CNP, SGW

282. Baya Weaver

Ploceus philippinus R LC - Common SMK, DK, MHL, SGW

283. Grey-headed Starling

Sturnus malabaricus LM LC - Rare CNP

284. Brahminy Starling

Sturnia pagodarum R LC - Common SMK, SGW, WDS

285. Rosy Starling

Sturnus roseus M LC - Common SMK, SGW’

286. Common Myna

Acridotheres tristis R LC - Common WDS, SMK, SGW

gor. Jungle Myna

Acridotheres fuscus R LC - Common CNP, SGW, SMK

288. Indian Golden Oriole

Oriolus kundoo R LC - Common CNP, SGW

289. Black-hooded Oriole

Oriolus xanthornus R LC - Common CNP

290. Black Drongo

Dicrurus macrocercus R LC - Common WDS, SMK, SGW

291. Ashy Drongo

Dicrurus leucophaeus R LC - Common CNP

292. Bronzed Drongo

Dicrurus aeneus NK LC - Rare CNP

293. Greater Racket-tailed Drongo

Dicrurus paradiseus R LC - Rare CNP

294. White-bellied Drongo

Dicrurus caerulescens R LC - Common CNP

295. House Crow

Corvus splendens R LC - Common WDS, SMK, SGW

296. Jungle Crow

Corvus macrorhynchos R LC - Common CNP, WDS, SMK, SGW

297. Rufous Treepie

Dendrocitia vagabunda R LC - Common CNP

LC — Least Concern, NT — Near Threatened, VU — Vulnerable, EN — Endangered, CR — Critically Endangered

R: Resident, M: Migrant, BR: Breeding Migrant, LM: Local Migrant, NK: Status Unknown, PM: Passage Migrant, V: Vagrant, R/M: Resident as

well as migrant

Common: Species observed repeatedly in suitable habitat, Uncommon: Species occurs on a regular basis, but not frequently in suitable

habitat, Occasional: Species that were recorded occasionally in suitable habitat, Rare: Species was sporadically/rarely sighted in suitable

habitat

WDS — Waste Disposal Site, SGW — Sagareshwar Sanctuary, DK—Dabhai Kuran, CNP — Chandoli National Park, SMK — Sangli, Miraj, Kupwad

city and nearby areas, MHL — Mhaisal, TR — Tanks and Reservoirs.

Note: The Municipal Corporation of Sangli includes three towns, namely Sangli, Miraj, and Kupwad which were separate municipalities earlier.

Observations recorded under the abbreviation SMK indicate the sightings of birds within the corporation limits, and in the villages and the hills

within a radius of approximately 20 km around Miraj.

184 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

BIRDS OF SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA

Kumbhari village (13 km from Jath) until 1960, which was

corroborated by two of his colleagues.

Endemic Species°

Nineteen of the species that occur in the district are

endemic to India (Table 1), and the status and distribution of

some of these species are discussed below:

Nilgiri Wood-Pigeon Columba elphinstonii: The Nilgiri

Wood-Pigeon, endemic to the Western Ghats, was reported from

Chandoli National Park by Green Guards (Gole 1998). Being

nomadic, this species is irregularly seen in the Park.

Malabar Parakeet Psittacula columboides: The

Malabar Parakeet, endemic to the Western Ghats, was

recorded from Chandoli National Park by Green Guards

(Jathar and Kulkarni 2005; Kulkarni 2012). The species was

seen in flocks of 10-15 birds in March on trees such as

Bombax ceiba, Butea monosperma and Erythrina sp., feeding

on nectar and flowers (Jathar and Kulkarni 2005)

Malabar Trogon Harpactes fasciatus: The Malabar

Trogon was occasionally recorded in well-wooded areas along

the Sahyadri range by Butler (1881). It has been sighted in

Chandoli National Park by Green Guards.

Nilgiri Flowerpecker Dicaeum concolor: The Nilgiri

Flowerpecker is a common resident in Chandoli National Park

(Gole 1998), and was also reported by Green Guards. This

bird was often seen feeding on Loranthus when the plants

bloom (Jathar pers. comm.). The Nilgiri Flowerpecker is not

recognised as a separate species by BirdLife International,

but is lumped under Plain Flowerpecker D. concolor, which

also has populations in the Himalaya, northeastern India,

Northeastern Hill states, Bangladesh, and the Nicobars.

Vigors’s Sunbird Aethopyga vigorsii: Vigors’s Sunbird

is endemic to the northern parts of Western Ghats from

Mumbai to Goa. This bird has been reported from the western

seaward slopes of Chandoli National Park by Green Guards.

Vigor’s Sunbird is not recognised as a separate species by

BirdLife International, but is lumped under Crimson Sunbird

A. siparaja, which also has populations in the north-east India,

Bangladesh, and Myanmar.

Heronries and Roosts

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax:

Butler (1881) stated that the Black-crowned Night-Heron

was not uncommon throughout the region. We found the

species to be acommon resident species in the district. Apte

(1995) reported it at Dabhai, where it is a resident and seen

occasionally. Green Guards reported it from Chandoli

National Park (Green Guards, unpublished data). Apte reports

a breeding colony in L.B. Shastri Udyan in Sangli city. The

°Endemic bird species of the district defined by following Jathar and Rahmani (2006)

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

birds have been nesting at this site since 2007. The breeding

season is from April to September, and around 60 nests and

120-150 birds were recorded. After September, the birds use

the same trees for roosting (Sharad Apte pers. comm.).

Eastern Cattle-Egret Bubulcus coromandus: A small

roosting colony of the Eastern Cattle-Egret was reported from

Miraj by Bhagwat and Ramteerthkar (1991). The roosting is

heterospecific, with Little Egret Egretta garzetta, House Crow

Corvus splendens, and Common Myna Acridotheres tristis.

Cattle egrets dominate the roost and prefer the central Ficus

benghalensis tree, while the others use the surrounding trees

such as Cassia and Rain tree. An average count of 540 roosting

birds was reported (Bhagwat 1991). Several attempts by locals

to drive away the birds proved to be unsuccessful and the site

has been the roosting colony in the campus of Government

Medical College, Miraj for several years.

Rose-ringed Parakeet Psittacula krameri: The Rose-

ringed Parakeet has a wide distribution in Sangli. It is a

common resident at the WDS area (Tuljapurkar and Bhagwat

2007). At Sagareshwar, it is a local migrant and not sighted

much (Apte, unpublished). It is a common, breeding resident

in the Dabhai area (Apte 1995; V.R. Bhagwat unpublished

data). Itis also seen in Chandoli National Park (Green Guards)

and Mhaisal (Deepak Shinde pers. comm.). Another major

site where thousands of birds congregate in peepul trees Ficus

religiosa is at Haripur, a small village near Sangli situated at

the confluence of Krishna and Warana rivers.

Rosy Starling Sturnus roseus: It is a common winter

migrant seen near cultivation through out Sangli district. The

earliest date of arrival recorded was December 22, and last

date of departure was March 27 (Bhagwat 2002). In the peak

season, more than 5000 birds were recorded (Bhagwat,

unpublished). It is often sighted at WDS (Tuljapurkar and

Bhagwat 2007) and Dabhai (Apte 1995). In early March, Rosy

Starlings are seen in Sangli city. There are two huge trees in

the heart of the town near the Municipal Corporation building.

Hundreds of birds congregate on these trees in the evening

and fly in large circles with loud calls before they settle down

to roost. Somewhere in the third week of March, they take

off en masse on their northward journey, after which the trees

are a roost site for crows and mynas till the starlings return

the following year.

CONSERVATION ISSUES

Based on our 20 odd years of birding in the district and

from other accounts, there appears to be an overall decline in

the birdlife of the area especially in the last decade. Species

such as Indian Courser Cursorius coromandelicus and Yellow-

wattled Lapwing Vanellus malabaricus, which were common

185

BIRDS OF SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA

earlier, are disappearing. The White-eyed Buzzard Butastur

teesa Was a common species according to Butler (1881), but

now its sightings are rare. The House Sparrow Passer

domesticus also appears to have undergone a decline since

the past ten years. There are many factors responsible for the

decline of these and other bird species, the major cause being

changes in land use. However, a few species appear to have

increased in numbers. Butler (1881) reported that the Indian

Peafowl Pavo cristatus is essentially a jungle bird and people

killed it in large numbers, but it is now widely distributed in

Sangli district. Bhagwat (2002) reported an increased number

of Indian Cattle-Egret Bubulcus coromandus at WDS and at

the roosting site in Miraj, compared to his observations in

1991 (Bhagwat and Ramteerthkar 1991).

The western part of the district, which is dominated

by the hills of Western Ghats, faces different challenges,

the major challenge being clearance of forests for

agricultural expansion. Major chunks of forest belonging

to private land owners have been converted into sugar cane

fields. Another major threat is bauxite mining, which is

taking place in all the laterite plateaux that are the breeding

ground for the endemic Malabar Lark Galerida

malabarica. Commercial extraction of firewood from

private forests, forest fires, rampant cattle grazing, and

collection of medical plants are other threats. The industries

that have come up on the banks of River Krishna are

causing pollution, impacting waterbirds.

To save the forests and other habitats, a network of

protected and intact habitats of the region needs to be created.

Places such as Dabhai Kuran, Jath, Kavathe Mahankal

(grasslands), Banpuri and other tanks in Atpadi (wetlands),

and Dandoba hill (forests) needs special protection. These

are important sites for the biodiversity of the region, and can

play a significant role in conservation of the avifauna and

other wildlife.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank the following persons:

Members of Green Guards, Kolhapur for sharing their data of

Chandoli National Park, and especially to Farukh Mhetar,

Raman Kulkarni, Suhas Wayangankar, Dhananjay Jadhav,

and Parag Choudhari; the late Dr. Prakash Gole for providing

information and data of Chandoli National Park, and for

encouragement to write this paper; Sharad Apte for his

checklists of birds from Sagareshwar and Dabhai, and for

discussions; Deepak Shinde, an engineer by profession,

permitted us to use photographs from his blog and this was

an important record from Mhaisal, an area which we had

covered superficially; Amol Jadhav for data on some bird

species of Sangli city; Mr. Raste, Librarian, Willingdon College,

Sangli, for providing us with books and literature; the staff

at Irrigation Department for information about the lakes in

Sangli district.

REFERENCES

Apts, 8.D. (1995): Birdlife in Sagareshwar Sanctuary. Paper presented

in 15" Maharashtra Rajya Pakshi Mitra Sammelan, Miraj (15"

Maharashtra State Friends of Birds Meet, Miraj 1995).

Buacwat, V.R. & N.A. RAMTHEERTHKAR (1991): Roosting of Egrets.

Newsletter for Birdwatchers 30(10, 11): 10.

Buacwat, V.R. (1991): Lapwings and snake. Newsletter for Birdwatchers

31(5-6): 10-11.

Buacwat, V.R. (2002): Status of avifauna around Miraj in Sangli District

of Maharashtra. Oral paper presented in 3rd National symposium

on “Avian Biodiversity — Issues and Conservation Strategies”

at ANGR Agriculture University, Hyderabad, 7-8 February,

2002.

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2014): http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/

speciessearchresults.php?cty=99 &cri=CR+EN+VU &rec=N&

vag=N&hdnAction=ADV_SEARCH#. Downloaded in February

2014.

But er, E.A. (1881): A Tentative Catalogue of the Birds of the Deccan

and South Mahratta Country. Stray Feathers 9: 367-442.

CHAMPION, H.G. & S.K. SETH (1968): The Forest Types of India. Manager

Publications, Delhi.

District SociIo-ECONOMIC REVIEW OF SANGLI (2012): Economic &

Statistical Directorate, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.

GAZETTEER OF SANGLI District (1969a): Climate: https://

186

cultural.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/Sangli/

gen_climate.html.

GAZETTEER OF SANGLI District (1969b): Forests: https://

cultural.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/Sangli/

gen_forests.html.

Go eg, P. (1998): Birds of the Sahyadris. Jour. Eco. Society 11: 5-28.

JATHAR, G A. & R. KULKARNI (2005): Rush hour at Chandoli. Hornbill

(Jul-Sep): 12-15.

JATHAR, G. A. & A. R. RAHMANI (2006): Endemic Birds of India. Buceros

IT (2&3): 54.

KULKARNI, R. (2012): One tree, a Universe. Sanctuary Asia 32(2): 10-18.

SHINDE, D. (2008a): Mhaisal Birds: Retrieved from http://

mhaisalmusings.blogspot.com/2008/04/mhaisal-birds.html.

Accessed on November 21, 2012.

SHINDE, D. (2008b) Mhaisal Birds: Retrieved from http://

mhaisalmusings.blogspot.com/2008/05/mhaisal-birds-ii.html.

Accessed on November 21, 2012.

SHINDE, D. (2010): Mhaisal Birds: Retrieved from http://

mhaisalmusings.blogspot.com/2010/02/mhaisal-birds-iii.html.

Accessed on November 21, 2012.

TULJAPURKAR, V.B. (1992): Sagareshwar. Sanctuary Asia 12(1): 40-49.

TULJAPURKAR, V.B. & V.R. BHAGwat (2007): Avifauna of a Waste Disposal

Site. Indian Birds 3(3): 87-90.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

187-192

NOTES ON THE NEWLY DISCOVERED POPULATION OF

SIND JERDON’S BABBLER CHRYSOMMA ALTIROSTRE SCINDICUM

IN HARIKE WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, PUNJAB, INDIA

SAURABH SAWANT! AND M. SUDHAGAR (IFS)”

"B/103, New Haridas Park, Santoshi Mata Road, Dahisar (W), Mumbai 400 068, Maharashtra, India. Email: mastermind.neo @ gmail.com

*Malwal Road, Opposite Bhagat Singh Colony, Ferozepur City, Punjab, India. Email: drsudhagarifs @ gmail.com

Jerdon’s Babbler Chrysomma altirostre is native to India, Pakistan, and Myanmar, and is classified as Vulnerable by

IUCN. The western race of the species, namely scindicum, was known only from a few localities in the floodplains of

the Indus river and its tributaries in Pakistan, till it was recorded in Harike Wildlife Sanctuary, Punjab, India, in

October 2012. During a follow-up study in Harike in December 2012, 33 individuals were recorded, which suggested

that Harike wetland could have a significant population of this species and the subspecies scindicum in India. The

assemblage of tall, dense, long, and unbroken grass stands of Phragmites-Saccharum-Imperata were found to be

important for the species. This paper discusses the observations and localities where the birds were recorded, and the

sonograms of their calls and songs.

Key words: Jerdon’s Babbler, Chrysomma altirostre, Timaliidae, babblers, Harike

INTRODUCTION

Jerdon’s Babbler Chrysomma altirostre (Jerdon 1862)

is native to India, Pakistan, and Myanmar, inhabiting tall

grasslands and reed beds of river floodplains and marshes

(Ali and Ripley 1987). It has three subspecies, altirostre,

griseigularis, and scindicum, which show plumage

differences. C. a. griseigularis is reported from India in the

Brahmaputra and Gangetic floodplains (Terai). C. a. altirostre

is known from the Irrawaddy-Sittang plains of Myanmar.

C. a. scindicum was known only from its small populations

spread in a few localities across the Indus river and its

tributaries in Pakistan (Ali and Ripley 1987; Harington 1915;

Roberts 1992).

The known sites of scindicum in Pakistan are Dadu,

Khairpur, Larkana, and Shaheed Benazeerabad districts in

Sind; Dera Ghazi Khan, Dera Ismail Khan, Mianwali, and

Muzaffargarh districts between the southern part of the NW

Frontier and SW Punjab provinces. The type specimen is from

Mangrani, between Sukkur and Shikarpur in Sind province.

Old records are from near Bhamb (Mianwali district), Jampur

(Dera Ghazi Khan district) and Khanwah (Muzaffargarh

district). Recent records (more than a decade old) are from

the Dera Ismail Khan district, Dhap Shumali, Taunsa Barrage,

and Chashma Barrage, which is the northernmost known site

for this subspecies (Showler and Davidson 1999). Even in its

strongholds, the species is very rare and the overall population

trend is stated to be rapidly declining, primarily due to habitat

loss, and is therefore classified as Vulnerable (Vulnerable

A2c+3c+4c) by IUCN (BirdLife International 2012).

In October 2012, while birdwatching in Harike Wildlife

Sanctuary, Punjab, which is about 350 km from the nearest

known locality (Bhamb, Mianwali district, Pakistan), we

(Saurabh Sawant, Shashank Dalvi, and Gunjan Arora)

obtained sightings of C. a. scindicum. Our sighting is the

first record of this subspecies from India. Based on its earlier

known distribution and global status (Vulnerable), the sighting

is significant, and thus a study of this population was

undertaken in Harike from December 18-26, 2012.

The status and other aspects of the Sind Jerdon’s Babbler in

this newly discovered locality are discussed in this paper.

STUDY AREA

Harike Wildlife Sanctuary is situated in Kapurthala,

Ferozepur, and Amritsar districts of Punjab. It is a Ramsar

site and a very important habitat for a large number of

migratory waterfowl and many resident birds, and is

recognised as an Important Bird Area of India (Islam and

Rahmani 2004). Rich in aquatic flora and fauna, the wetland

used to have a spread of over 86 sq. km, with about 50% of

the area under submergence. However, over the years, the

waterspread has declined to about 8—10 sq. km due to siltation

and encroachment. The wetland is formed by the coalescence

of the rivers Satluj and Beas that originate from the Himalaya

before flowing towards the barrage.

Extensive growth of Typha elephantina and Phragmites

karka occurs along the margins of Harike lake, in surrounding

low-lying areas, and in the upstream area of Mand. Free

floating Azolla occurs in patches on the open water. The tall

grasses Saccharum spontaneum and S. bengalense are

common along the higher ground of the wetlands and on the

slopes and margins of the surrounding bunds and dykes.

Tamarix dicola is the only woody plant seen in the aquatic

NOTES ON THE NEWLY DISCOVERED POPULATION OF SIND JERDON'S BABBLER

Table 1: Sites where Jerdon’s Babbler was recorded during the survey

Site No. of points Seen Heard Total birds

Kiriyan-l 6 - 3 3

Kiriyan-ll 13 5 8 13

Riyasat 16 6 4 10

LMB 3 serait 2 2

Bhootiwala 10 2 3 5

Total 48 13 20 33

zone, the rest of the tree species occur at the borders of the

wetland (Chandigarh Bird Club (2010): Harike Wetland

Survey Report)

The climate is influenced by the Himalaya and has a

direct bearing on the ecosystem. The temperature varies from

43°C in June to 0.6°C in January. The annual rainfall is about

670 mm, 70% received from the Southwest Monsoon (Chopra

et al. 2001). Harike supports 7 species of turtle and 26 species

of fish, and the larger mammals include Smooth-coated Otter

Lutrogale perspicillata, Jungle Cat Felis chaus, Golden Jackal

Canis aureus, Wild Pig Sus scrofa, and Common Mongoose

Herpestes edwardsii. Harike attracts a large number of

migratory birds in winter (Chandigarh Bird Club (2010):

Harike Wetland Survey Report)

METHODS

The Sanctuary was surveyed prior to data collection

for potential habitat of the species. Google Earth map and a

boat map of Harike Wetland, obtained from WWF-India and

Punjab Forest Department, were used to select and visit

different locations in the Sanctuary. Through these, suitable

habitats were identified, namely Kiriyan-I, Riyasat,

Bhootiwala, LMB (Lower Marginal Bund), and Kiriyan-II,

and these sites were visited by rowboat or motorboat.

As Jerdon’s Babbler inhabits dense and marshy

grasslands, it is difficult to sight them, and hence, only point

counts were carried out at identified sites. The distances

between points were kept at a minimum of 100—150 m, taking

into account the farthest distance of response detection to

playback calls, which was from our earlier observations.

Though a great skulker, this species is very responsive to

playback calls, and detection was determined based on its

response to playback calls. A 26 sec. recording of C. a.

griseigularis, converted at 128 kbps was used for the

playbacks. It consisted of single bird singing at four intervals

spread over 26 seconds of the typical chi-chi-chi-chew-chew-

chew song. Complete recording was played for 26 sec.,

stopped for the next two minutes, and then played back again

for the same length of time if no response was obtained. This

188

procedure was not repeated more than twice for a site. On

response, the number of individuals heard or sighted was

counted and the GPS readings recorded. The birds were

observed with binoculars and observations of habits, activity,

and habitat were noted down. Photographs were taken and

calls were also recorded whenever possible.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Population and Distribution

Jerdon’s Babbler was detected at 20 of the 48 points

sampled, with 33 birds detected (Table 1). The majority of

the birds (23) were detected at the Kiriyan-II and Riyasat

areas, both located in the Sanctuarv with large islets having

extensive stands of tall and dense grasslands at the core. The

rest of the birds were detected in the Kiriyan-I, Lower

Marginal Bund and Bhootiwala areas. Bhootiwala has a good

expanse of suitable habitat, but is surrounded by fields on the

bank of Satluj. The other areas/regions of the Sanctuary,

namely Harike Marar, Churian, Makhu, and Kot Khaim Khan

appear to have unsuitable habitat for the species.

Habitat

Jerdon’s Babbler was observed to frequent tall and

dense grass stands of mainly Phragmites, Saccharum, and

Imperata on islets in the wetland. The species recorded were

Phragmites karka, Saccharum bengalense, Saccharum

spontaneum, and Imperata cylindrica. The bird was never

seen if these grasses occurred as small patches. Another

species of tall grass Arundo donax grows mostly on the

margins of the islands, but the bird was not recorded there. It

also appears to prefer marshier and wetter areas than relatively

dry, hard ground, perhaps due to the denser and extensive

reed beds occurring in the former (Fig. 1).

Habits

The babblers were mostly seen singly or in pairs, and

in small flocks, on a few occasions, consisting of 5—10 birds.

At one location, a flock of five was observed moving on one

side of a water channel and two birds were calling from the

other side of the channel, not wider than 90-120 cm. Birds in

the flocks are sparsely spread out. The babblers always

remained in the grass. As detection was based on playback

response, feeding habits could not be observed.

Plumage

The observed birds were paler on the upperparts

including crown and upper tail, matching the descriptions of

C. a. scindicum rather than C. a. griseigularis, which sports

much warmer, darker ferruginous tones on the upperparts.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

NOTES ON THE NEWLY DISCOVERED POPULATION OF SIND JERDON’S BABBLER

Fig. 1: Habitat of Chrysomma altirostre scindicum

On the underparts, most birds were observed to be a little

paler than C. a. griseigularis. The chin and throat were paler

(whiter). The sides of the throat, which have a grey wash in

adult griseigularis, were also observed to be considerably

paler. Though the young birds of both species (identified by

their fleshy pink lower mandibles) have a whitish throat, it is

overall paler in scindicum than in griseigularis (Sawant 2012,

pers. obs. in Harike and Dibru Saikhowa, Assam) (Figs 2, 3)

Vocalization

Jerdon’s Babbler was found to be very responsive to

playback, but became uninterested and stopped responding

if the playback was repeated a number of times. Therefore,

Fig. 3: Chrysomma altirostre scindicum, Harike, Punjab,

India (2012)

Fig. 2: Chrysomma altirostre griseigularis from Dibru Saikhowa,

Assam

one must be careful while using playback for detailed

observations, and a strict protocol must be followed. C. a.

scindicum responded without any hesitation to the recordings

of C. a. griseigularis (see Sonogram s3). C. a. scindicum was

observed to sing in the early mornings and evenings. The call

was delivered while perching around 30 cm below the tip of

3—4 m tall reeds. Two types of calls were heard and recorded.

The first appears to be a contact or alarm call, consisting

of short notes of tsik-tsik-tsik-tsik and ts-tsik ts-tsik ts-tsik

continuously repeated. These notes are produced continuously

as the bird moves through the dense reeds, around a height of

1.5—2.5 m above the ground. It moves among the closely

placed strands by hopping and perching in a slanting or almost

Fig. 4: Rufous-vented Prinia Prinia burnesii, Harike, Punjab,

India (2012)

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

189

NOTES ON THE NEWLY DISCOVERED POPULATION OF SIND JERDON’S BABBLER

igo -aepapayRO: <8 >

seam oe BE, RE ee ob

BD RRR FRE ORE he BRR RI Be ie RRETRIE AR 8B. Ke

cad

a a ee

tot ee ee meee Sinan oe

&> ok BNA BE oo BR oon, 00c, e0e

2 et ee

2 & Bie ae gs AX eg €

po eek eal 4 pile

ae . oa

phe

“a

= &

oO rg

e © E

Lf A y~

Bio St 5 i

8 ;

: Pea Acedia satin: citdnianaa balea ae. dbl peat eps + = oe

2: Seer Aer. tS S aioe

we re

a :

— Ke

a ee

x &

= :

o as

S “. o

2 at

wa ‘e)

7p)

Poe

OS ~Bseaiiecommamane >

Semen

©)

ep)

iva)

CN]

STEER RR: IPR BY

PORE OS RRR S| ‘

ee.

2 BH

i] “ge x

> =

6 kHy

4AkHz

? kHy

0 kHz

6 kHz

4 kHz

2 kHz

0 kHz

20 sec

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

15 sec

10 sec

Sonogram s2: Chrysomma altirostre scindicum. Song

5 sec

Sec

190

NOTES ON THE NEWLY DISCOVERED POPULATION OF SIND JERDON’S BABBLER

Sonogram s3: Chrysomma altirostre griseigularis: Song

perpendicular position. The brushing sound created by its

movements against the reeds is clearly heard even from a

distance, and is very helpful in locating the bird. Another

similar call consists of notes of tsk-tew..., tsk-tsk-tew...,

or tew-tew... with the long last note drawn out and low pitched

[see Sonogram sl]. This is mostly followed by a short

song described below. The overall tone is weaker and

slower than its congener Yellow-eyed Babbler Chrysomma

sinense.

The second is presumably a flock-territorial call. A |

short, weak song with a series of 6—8 notes tew-tew-tew-tew.-

tew. chew..., Starting with quick notes and slowing down

towards the end, with rapid six notes; the last two notes drawn

out and lasting the longest (see Sonogram s2). This song can

be heard best in the mornings and is delivered from the tops

of grasses in a vertical position with head extended a little

and held up. At this time, the bird can be observed for long as

it holds its position for at least some time.

CONCLUSION

The survey revealed that Harike Wildlife Sanctuary

supports a good population of the scindicum subspecies of

Jerdon’s Babbler. The assemblage of tall, dense, long and

unbroken grass stands of Phragmites-Saccharum-Imperata

and other associated species are important for this bird. The

same habitat is shared by the Near Threatened Rufous-vented

Prinia Prinia burnesii, which is quite common in Harike (Fig.

4). Other birds observed in this habitat were White-tailed

Stonechat Saxicola leucurus and the White-crowned

Penduline Tit Remiz coronatus. Jerdon’s Babbler and its

associated species face threats from grass cutting and burning,

grazing by livestock, fragmentation, and drying up of the

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

wetland areas (BirdLife International 2001; Rahmani 2012).

As earlier studies suggest, the bird is probably a resident

of the region, and is most likely breeding in the Sanctuary.

There is a need to carry out a study throughout the year to

determine its seasonality and confirm its breeding status. Such

information would be important to assess the population and

global status of the species. Overall, Harike WLS being a

wetland of great importance and falling on the north-eastern

boundary for many rare wintering and vagrant species holds

a lot of potential and needs to be further explored and

documented.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was. possible due to the full support of the

Punjab Forest Department. The authors are thankful to

all the senior officials of the Forest Department for generous

help and support. Thanks to all the range officers, guards,

and field staff of Harike Wildlife Sanctuary for providing all

help and information. The authors are grateful to Dr. Asad R.

Rahmani, Director, BNHS, without whom the project would

not have been initiated, for all support and encouragement.

The first author specially thanks all the boatmen for taking

him around in boats during the survey and assisting in field

work; he thanks Mr. Shahnawaz Khan and Ms. Geetanjali

Kanwar for their time, concern, and help throughout the

survey; the Chandigarh Bird Club, especially Mr. Narbir

Kahlon, Mr. Navjit Singh, and Mrs. Rima Dhillon for their

continuous support, help, and access to older survey

reports; Mr. Shashank Dalvi for his guidance all along. He

also thanks Dr. Raju Kasambe, Project Manager, Important

Bird Areas Programme and Indian Bird Conservation

Network, BNHS.

191

NOTES ON THE NEWLY DISCOVERED POPULATION OF SIND JERDON’S BABBLER

REFERENCES

Aut, S. & S.D. RipLey (1987): Handbook of the Birds of India and

Pakistan. Compact edition. Oxford University Press, Delhi.

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2001): Threatened Birds of Asia. The BirdLife

International Red Data Book. 2 volumes. BirdLife International,

Cambridge, UK.

BirDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2012): Chrysomma altirostre. In: TUCN 2012.

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

www.iucnredlist.org.

CHANDIGARH BirbD CLus (2010): Harike Wetland Survey Report submitted

to the Department of Forests, Punjab.

Cuopra, R., V.K. VERMA & P.K. SHARMA (2001): Mapping, monitoring

and conservation of Harike wetland ecosystem, Punjab, India,

through remote sensing. International Journal of Remote Sensing

22(1): 89-98.

HarIncTon, H.H. (1915): Notes on the Indian Timellides and their allies

192

(Laughing Thrushes, Babblers, &c.). Part III. J. Bombay Nat.

Hist. Soc. 23(3): 417-453.

IsLaM, M.Z. & A.R. RAHMaANI (2004): Important Bird Areas in India:

Priority sites for conservation. Indian Bird Conservation

Network: Bombay Natural History Society and BirdLife

International (UK).

RauMANT, A.R. (2012): Threatened Birds of India — Their Conservation

Requirements. IBCN, BNHS, BirdLife International and RSPB.

Oxford University Press, Mumbai.

Roserts, T.J. (1992): The Birds of Pakistan, 2. Karachi: Oxford

University Press.

SHOWLER, D.A. & P. Davipson (1999): Observations of Jerdon’s Babbler

Chrysomma altirostre and Rufous-vented Prinia Prinia burnesii

in Punjab and North-West Frontier Provinces, Pakistan. Forktail

15: 66-76.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

A PRELIMINARY OVERVIEW OF THE SUBSPECIES

OF RED FOX AND TIBETAN SAND FOX IN THE HIMALAYA, INDIA

AISHWARYA MAHESHWARI!>*, NEHA MIDHA”*, AMBICA PALIWAL”’, BASANT KUMAR SHARMA°?®,

PARTHA SARATHI GHOSE*”, PRIYADARSHINEE SHRESHTHA”!? AND SRUSHTI PARANJPE*

'TRAFFIC, 172-B, Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110 003, India.

*WWF-India, 172-B, Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110 003, India.

3WWFE-India, Khangchendzonga Landscape Programme, Deorali (Near Forest Secretariat), Gangtok 737 102, Sikkim, India.

‘Flat 6, Atharva Apts., Prabhat Road, Lane 11, Pune 411 004, Maharashtra, India. Email: srushti.1993 @ gmail.com

Email: amaheshwari @ wwfindia.net

Email: nmidha@ wwfindia.net

7Email: apaliwal @ wwfindia.net

’Email: sharmabasant1 @ gmail.com

*Email: ghose.ps1 @ gmail.com

'ORmail: pshrestha@ wwf.panda.org

*Corresponding author

We conducted extensive surveys for the Red Fox Vulpes vulpes and Tibetan Sand Fox V. ferrilata in the Greater and

Trans-Himalaya of north and north-east India between 2008 and 2013, with opportunistic camera trapping done in

Kargil, Jammu & Kashmir. In this paper, we provide an update on the distribution of V. v. griffithii in the Himalaya,

discuss our observations on V. v. montana, and support the claim of the occurrence of V. ferrilata in India. We also

discuss the distribution overlap of V. v. montana with V. v. griffithii in the Western Himalaya; V. v. montana with

V. ferrilata in the Eastern Himalaya; and V. v. montana with Indian Fox V. bengalensis in the foothills of the Himalaya.

193-196

Key words: Vulpes, Himalaya, Red Fox, Tibetan Sand Fox, Indian Fox, distribution

INTRODUCTION

Historically, four species of foxes were recognised from

the Indian subcontinent, namely Indian Fox Vulpes

bengalensis; Red Fox V. vulpes (with three subspecies:

V. v. montana, V. v. griffithii and V. v. pusilla); Tibetan Sand

Fox V. ferrilata; and Blanford’s Fox V. cana (Pocock 1936,

1941; Kumara and Singh 2012). Many of the accounts indicate

the occurrence of only two or three species. Prater (2005)

documented Indian Fox and all the three subspecies of Red

Fox in India. Gurung and Singh (1996) mentioned the

occurrence of only two species, namely Indian Fox and Red

Fox without any reference to the subspecies of the latter.

Menon (2014) listed three species: Indian Fox, Red Fox with

three subspecies (V. v. montana, V. v. griffithii, and

V. v. pusilla), and Blanford’s Fox. The IUCN Canid Action

Plan recognises the presence of Indian Fox, Red Fox (with a

single subspecies V. v. montana), and Tibetan Sand Fox in

India (Sillero-Zubiri et al. 2004). However, Alfred et al.

(2002) and recent documentation by Pradhan and Talmale

(2012) include all the four species, with two subspecies for

Red Fox excluding V. v. griffithii. The sighting of Tibetan Sand

Fox by Namgail et al. (2005) and Chanchani et al. (2010) in

Ladakh region, Jammu & Kashmir, and Sikkim areas of India

support the earlier views of its occurrence within Indian limits.

CITES places V. bengalensis, V. v. montana, V. v. griffithii

and V. v. pusilla in Appendix HI. IUCN listed them as species

of Least Concern in the Red List of Threatened Species.

In this paper, we update the distribution of V. v. griffithii in

India by providing evidence of its occurrence within Indian limits;

support the claim of Chanchani et al. (2010) of the presence of

V. ferrilata in India; and present data on V. v. montana. The

distribution maps of these species are also provided.

METHODS

The assertions in the present paper are based on surveys

and preliminary results of camera trapping. The surveys were

carried out as part of an ecological study on Snow Leopard

Panthera uncia, and the areas surveyed were the Great and Trans-

Himalaya of north and north-east India, which were covered

from 2008 to 2013. Owing to the topography and remoteness

of the area, fieldwork was done during camping expeditions in

the different areas for periods of 5—25 days each. More than

3,000 km was traversed on foot in five states of India, namely

Jammu & Kashmir (from 2009 to 2013), Himachal Pradesh

(2008), Uttarakhand (2008), Sikkim (2012 and 2013), and

Arunachal Pradesh (2011 and 2012) covering an altitudinal zone

of 2,100 to 5,200 m. Opportunistic camera trapping was done in

Kargil, Ladakh in Jammu & Kashmir from 2010 to 2012.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Red Fox V. v. griffithii

During the photo trapping sessions, V. v. griffithii was

camera trapped six times from an area in Kargil close to the

OVERVIEW OF FOX SPECIES IN THE HIMALAYA

border with Pakistan (Figs la, b). Additionally, it was sighted

on two occasions during the surveys in Kargil. The species

was not recorded in areas of the Himalaya of other states

covered during the survey. The distribution of V. v. griffithii

in Jammu & Kashmir, based on the surveys and camera

trapping, is given in Fig. 2.

2012-02-04 S353:50 AM

Figs 1a and b: Camera trap photographs of V. v. griffithii from Kargil,

Jammu & Kashmir in February 2012

Current range of Vv. oriffithil

Fig. 2: Distribution of V. v. griffithii

in Jammu & Kashmir, India (Himalaya)

184

Roberts (1997) describes V. v. griffithii in Pakistan to

be smaller than V. v. montana, with a thick and luxuriant winter

coat. The backs of ears are always jet black and the longer

hairs in the dorsal region are banded with white and rusty-

orange, giving the fur a very handsome appearance. The inside

of the ears are thickly fringed with white hair. The throat and

chest region varies from dark grey to black and the dorsal

part of the tail has an admixture of black guard hair. The

outer fur of the limbs is generally dark grey.

V. vy. montana

A total of 109 sightings of V. v. montana were obtained

during the surveys (Fig. 3). The distribution of V. v. montana

in the Himalaya, based on the surveys, is given in Fig. 4.

Menon (2014) states V. v. montana to be the common fox of

Ladakh and Himalaya, and describes it as foxy-red in colour,

with thick luxuriant under fur during the winters. Ears are

2010-11-08 7 730i Ah Zw

Fig. 3: Camera trap photograph of V. v. montana from Kargil,

Jammu & Kashmir, in October 2010

ae | States with V.v. montana presence

lott India states boundary

Current ae (1500-5000 m)

Fig. 4: Distribution of V. v. montana in the Himalaya

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

OVERVIEW OF FOX SPECIES IN THE HIMALAYA

Fig. 5: Tibetan Sand Fox V. ferrilata photographed in Tso Lhamo

Plateau, Sikkim, in August 2013

large and fringed with white hair. The chest, belly, muzzle,

and cheeks have white fur mixed with red.

As both the subspecies (V. v. montana and V. v. griffithii)

overlap and share the same habitats in Kargil,

misidentification is quite possible but there are some very

prominent characters to distinguish them, which was evident

from the camera trap images and sightings obtained of

the two species during our study. These are: the winter

coat of V. v. griffithii is paler than that of V. v. montana

(Figs la, 3); white patches from cheeks to throat are

quite prominent in V. v. montana compared to V. v. griffithii

(Figs la, 3); and tail is relatively thicker and more bushy in

V. v. montana than in V. v. griffithii (Figs 1b, 3).

Tibetan Sand Fox Vulpes ferrilata

We sighted the Tibetan Sand Fox on four occasions in

the Tso Lhamo Plateau, North Sikkim (Fig. 5). Chanchani et

al. (2010) reported it from the same area of Sikkim. Namgail

et al. (2005) reported it from Changthang, Ladakh, Jammu &

Kashmir. We recorded it excavating Pika (Ochotona) burrows,

as reported by Chanchani et al. (2010) in the Tso Lhamo

Plateau, and by Schaller and Ginsberg (2004) in the Tibetan

Plateau. The distribution of the Tibetan Sand Fox in the

Himalaya, based on the surveys, is given in Fig. 6.

Distribution Overlap

We recorded the distribution of V. v. montana to overlap

with V. v. griffithii in Kargil in the Western Himalaya. In the

Eastern Himalaya, we sighted V. ferrilata in North Sikkim

sharing the habitat with V. v. montana. Recently, V. v. montana

has been camera trapped from an elevation as low as 505 m

in the foothills of the Western Himalaya (WWE unpubl.),

which indicates overlap with the Indian Fox also.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

CHINA

(TIBET)

NEPAL

be India states boundary

ome Current range of V feriata

in Changthang, Ladakh >4,000 m; In North Sikkim >4,800 m}

a ee ey } fi

Fig. 6: Distribution of V. ferrilata in Jammu & Kashmir and Sikkim

Future Studies

The Red Fox is a well-studied species across the

world (Macdonald and Reynolds 2004), but information

regarding its distribution, ecology, and subspecies remains

rather limited in India. The species in India, which is

relatively better studied among the fox species, is the Indian

Fox (Home 2005; Johnsingh 1978; Kumara and Singh

2012; Manakadan and Rahmani 2002; Maurya et al. 2012;

Vanak 2005). There is, therefore, an urgent need to gather

baseline information on the status, distribution, and

ecology of the other fox species (and subspecies) in India,

which is crucial in developing conservation management

strategies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research was conducted at WWF-India with

funding support from Rufford Small Grant and USAID.

Thanks are due to Mr. Ravi Singh, Dr. Sejal Worah,

Dr. Dipankar Ghose, and Ms. Lak Tsheden Theengh from

WWF- India, and Dr. Shekhar Kumar Niraj from TRAFFIC

India for their encouragement and support. Our sincere

thanks are also due to Mr. Vivek Menon from Wildlife

Trust of India for mentoring the idea on subspecies of

Red Fox. Special thanks to Department of Wildlife

Protection, Government of Jammu & Kashmir, Forest

Departments of Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and

Arunachal Pradesh, and Department of Forest,

Environment and Wildlife Management, Government of

Sikkim, for providing necessary permissions to conduct

surveys and logistic support. We thank Dr. Mark Statham,

Dr. Kamlesh K. Maurya, and anonymous reviewers, for

their help and valuable inputs on the manuscript.

195

OVERVIEW OF FOX SPECIES IN THE HIMALAYA

REFERENCES

ALFRED, J.R.B., N.K. SinnA & S. CHAKBRABORTY (2002): Checklist of

Mammals of India. Records of Zoological Survey of India, Occ.

Paper 199. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.

CHANCHANI, P., G. Rawat & S.P. Goya (2010): Unveiling a wildlife

heaven: status and distribution of four Trans-Himalayan

ungulates in Sikkim, India. Oryx 44: 366-375.

GuRUNG, K.K. & R. SINGH (1996): Mammals of the Indian Subcontinent.

Academic Press, San Diego. Pp. 15.

Home, C. (2005): Resource utilization by Indian Fox (Vulpes

bengalensis) in Kutch, Gujarat. M.Sc. Thesis, Saurashtra

University, Rajkot, Gujarat, India.

JOHNSINGH, A.J.T. (1978): Some aspects of the ecology and behaviour

of the Indian Fox Vulpes bengalensis. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

75(2): 397-405.

Kumara, H.N. & M. SINGH (2012): Distribution, den characteristics

and diet of the Indian Fox Vulpes bengalensis (Mammalia:

Canidae) in Karnataka, India: preliminary observations. Journal

of Threatened Taxa 4: 3349-3354.

MacpbonaLp, D.W. & J.C. REYNoLps (2004): Red fox Vulpes vulpes

Linnaeus, 1758. Pp. 129-134. In: (Eds: Sillero-Zubiri, C.,

M. Hoffmann & D.W. Macdonald): Canids: Foxes, Wolves,

Jackals and Dogs. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan.

IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group. Gland, Switzerland and

Cambridge, UK.

MANAKADAN, R. & A.R. RAHMANI (2002): Population and ecology of

the Indian Fox Vulpes bengalensis at Rollapadu Wildlife

Sanctuary, Andhra Pradesh, India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

97(1): 3-14.

Maurya, K.K., I.P. BopANNA & Y.V. JHALA (2012): Estimating food intake

from scats in the omnivorous Indian Fox (Vulpes bengalensis).

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 109(3): 177-181.

Menon, V. (2014): A Field Guide to Indian Mammals. Hachette Book

196

Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. Pp. 282-285.

NamGAltL, T., S. BaGcui & Y.V. BHATNAGAR (2005): Occurrence of the

Tibetan Sand Fox Vulpes ferrilata Hodgson in Ladakh: A new

record for the Indian Subcontinent. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

102(2): 217-220.

Pocock, R.I. (1936): The foxes of British India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.

Soc. 39(1): 36-57.

Pocock, R.I. (1941): Fauna of British India, including Ceylon

and Burma. Mammalia. Volume II. Carnivora (contd from

Volume I), Suborders Aeluroidea and Arctoidea. Taylor and

Francis, London.

PRADHAN, M.S & S.S. TALMALE (2012): Indian Mammals: Checklist

with Comments on Type Locality, Distribution, Conservation

Status and Taxonomy. Nature Books India. Kolkata.

Pp. 281-284.

Prater, S.H. (2005): The Book of Indian Animals. Bombay Natural

History Society, Bombay. Pp. 111-130.

Roberts, T.J. (1997): The Mammals of Pakistan. Oxford University

Press, Karachi. Pp. 143-152.

SCHALLER, G.B. & J.R. GinsBerG (2004): Tibetan sand fox Vulpes

ferrilata. Pp. 148-151. In: (Eds: Sillero-Zubiri, C., M. Hoffmann

& D.W. Macdonald): Canids: Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs.

Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Canid

Specialist Group. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

SILLERO-ZUBIRI, C., M.-HOFFMANN & D.W. MAcbDoNALbD (2004): Canids:

Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs. Status Survey and

Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group.

Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

VaANAK, A.T. (2005): Distribution and status of the Indian Fox (Vulpes

bengalensis) in southern India. Canid News 8.1 (Online) URL:

http://www.canids.org/canidnews/8/

Indian_fox_in_southern_India.pdf

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

197-203

DORYLAIMID AND TYLENCHID NEMATODES ASSOCIATED WITH BANANA PLANTATIONS

IN PASCHIM MEDINIPUR DISTRICT, WEST BENGAL, INDIA

Viswa VENKAT GANTAIT!**, AMALENDU CHATTERJEE!* AND TANMAY BHATTACHARYA?

'Nemathelminthes Section, Zoological Survey of India, M-Block, New Alipur, Kolkata 700 053, West Bengal, India.

"Department of Zoology, Vidyasagar University, Medinipur 721 102, Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal, India.

Email: tanmaybhattacharya@ yahoo.com

*Email: v.gantait @rediffmail.com

“Email: chatterjeeamalendu @rediffmail.com

*Corresponding author

We recorded 46 species of soil and plant parasitic nematodes belonging to the Orders Dorylaimida and Tylenchida

from rhizospheric soil and roots of banana plantations in Paschim Medinipur district, West Bengal from March 2004

to February 2006. Dorylaimida is represented by 29 species under 21 genera of 8 families; 8 species are new to

science. Tylenchida is represented by 17 species belonging to 11 genera under 7 families; 4 species are new to science.

Among the 46 species, 15 species (13 dorylaimids and 2 tylenchids) were reported for the first time from West Bengal

and 5 species (3 dorylaimids and 2 tylenchids) for the first time from India. Sixteen species (12 dorylaimids and

4 tylenchids) were recorded for the first time from the rhizosphere of banana.

Key words: Paschim Medinipur, banana, nematode, dorylaimids, tylenchids

INTRODUCTION

Banana Musa paradisiaca is an economically important

crop, which has been extensively cultivated in tropical and

subtropical regions of the world (Gowen and Queneherve

1990). It is one of the major fruit crops forming an important

item in the diet of millions across the globe (Harish and Nanje

Gowda 2001). India has emerged as the largest banana

producer in the world, with a total production of 23.2 million

tonnes per annum from 6.47 lakh ha, which is 32% of the

total fruit production of India (Singh 2009). Banana covers

25.73 thousand ha in West Bengal, with total production of

502.11 thousand tonnes per annum. Paschim Medinipur is

one of the major banana growing districts of West Bengal.

Nematodes constitute one of the major pests of banana.

Tylenchids — plant parasitic nematodes — are a major constraint

in banana production and yields losses (Sundararaju 2006).

Dorylaimids, besides causing direct root damage, act as causal

agents and vectors, transmitting various soil-borne bacterial,

fungal, and viral pathogens to this important crop. Thus,

members of the Orders Dorylaimida and Tylenchida have

direct or indirect impacts on this valuable fruit crop. In this

context, an investigation was carried out on the soil and plant

parasitic nematodes of the Orders Dorylaimida and Tylenchida

associated with banana in Paschim Medinipur district of West

Bengal, the findings of which could be useful in agriculture.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was carried out in Paschim Medinipur district

(22° 40' 37". IN; 87° 38 72" E),. West Bengal (Fis. 1), from

March 2004 to February 2006. Soil and root samples were

collected randomly from banana fields cultivated with

Kanthali variety from all the 29 blocks of the district in two

seasons, namely wet season (July/August) and dry season

(December/January). During each season, four soil and root

samples were collected from four banana fields in each of

the 29 blocks. Thus, a total of 464 samples each of soil and

root were collected. Soil sample (250 gm) was taken with the

help of a scooping hand-shovel from the rhizosphere, up to a

depth of 20 cm, at a distance of 25 cm from the banana orchard.

» 28): Number of species = 1

486° 40’ E 87°\00" E

Fig.1: Map of Paschim Medinipur district, showing the species

richness of dorylaimid and tylenchid nematodes in banana

plantations in the 29 blocks of the district

SI. No.

20.

20:

ee.

23.

24.

25.

ZO:

7 i

28.

Zo.

30.

31.

32.

198

DORYLAIMID AND TYLENCHID NEMATODES OF BANANA PLANTATIONS

Table 1: Records of nematodes in the banana plantations of Paschim Medinipur district (March 2004—February 2006)

Species

Dorylaimus innovatus Jana and Bagri 1982

D. neominimus Gantait et a/. 2009a

Mesodorylaimus sushili Gantait et al. 2007a

Prodorylaimus jihuai Anmad and Ahmad 2001

P. sukuli Baksi and Bagri 1985

Laimydorus minutus Gantait et al. 2011a

L. siddiqii Bagri and Jana 1982

Thornenema garhwalicum Srivastava et al. 2000

Lagenonema thornei Gantait et al. 2010a

Aporcelaimellus conicaudatus (Altherr 1953) Monteiro 1970

A. heynsi Baqri and Jairajpuri 1968

A. subhasi Gantait et al. 2006

Makatinus siddigii Gantait et al. 2011b

Sectonema procta Jairajpuri and Bagri 1966

Labronema glandosum Rahaman et al. 1986

Crassolabium garhwalensis (Ahmad et al. 1986)

Pena-Santiago & Ciobanu 2008

Discolaimus dhanachandi Gantait et al. 2009b

Discolaimium parweiji Siddigi 2003

Discolaimoides teres Khan and Laha 1982

Oriverutus lobatus Siddiqi 1971

O. parangulatus Baaqri 1991

Paractinolaimus aruprus Khan et al. 1994

P. shamimi Gantait et al. 2006

Tylencholaimus (Tylencholaimus) obscurus Jairajpuri 1965

T. (Opisthotylencholaimus) pakistanensis Timm 1964

Promumtazium elongatum Ahmad and Jairajpuri 1984

Dorylaimoides (Longidorylaimoides) filicaudatus Jana

and Baqri 1991

Aquatides aquaticus (Thorne 1930) Thorne 1974

Laevides laevis (Thorne 1939) Thorne 1974

Polenchus shamimi Bagri 1991

Nothotylenchus hexaglyphus Khan & Siddiqi 1968

Hoplolaimus (Basirolaimus) indicus Sher 1963

Block

Daspur-2

Sankrail

Sabang

Debra

Jambani

Sabang

Daspur-1

Kharagpur-2

Sabang

Pingla

Gopiballavpur-2

Mohanpur

Garhbeta-3

Ghatal

_ Pingla

Daspur-1

Sabang

Sankrail

Keshpur

Gopiballavpur-1

Sabang

Jambani

Sabang

Dantan-1

Pingla

Debra

Kharagpur-1

Sabang

Dantan-2

Jhargram

Chandrakona-1

Sabang

Daspur-2

Garhbeta-1

Nayagram

.Garhbeta-2

Sabang

Binrur-2

Chandrakona-2

Ghatal

Kharagpur-2

Narayangarh

Ghatal

Salbani

Garhbeta-2

Keshiwari

Sabang

Jhargram

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

Village

Kashimpur

Dumuria

Murarichak

Balichak

Alampur

Murarichak

Sagarpur, Uttarbarh

Amlichak

Murarichak

Maligram

Jahanpur

Borai

Damodarpur

Lakshmanpur

Jamna, Jalchak

Sitapurh

Murarichak

Dumuria

Mamudpur, Anandapur

Lutijhuri

Murarichak

Hijli

Laro

Sonkania

Bagnabarh

Loada

Narayanpur

Murarichak

Khandrui

Manikpara

Basulia

Murarichak

Rajnagar

Jamdova

Dokra

Gowaltorh

Murarichak

Dumuria

Raghunathpur

Gangadaspur

Madpur

Radhanagar, Ranipur

Gangadaspur

Pathardaha

Amlasuli

Danapur

Murarichak

Ghoradhara

DORYLAIMID AND TYLENCHID NEMATODES OF BANANA PLANTATIONS

Table 1: Records of nematodes in the banana plantations of Paschim Medinipur district (March 2004—February 2006) (contd.)

SI. No. Species Block Village

oo: Helicotylenchus crenacauda Sher 1966 Sabang Murarichak

Mohanpur Kusumda

Pingla Maligram, Jamna

Salbani Pathardaha

34. H. dihystera Sher 1961 Garhbeta-1 Amlasuli

35. H. hydrophilus Sher 1966 Keshpur Amalda

36. H. medinipurensis Gantait et al. 2007b Kesiwari Srirampur

Debra Satyapur

Se H. wasimi Gantait et al. 2010b Salbani Pathardaha

38. Rotylenchus (Rotylenchus) alii Maqbool and Shahina 1986 Gopiballavpur-2 Kajla

Nayagram Jugisol

39. Varotylus jairajourii Gantait et al. 2011c Kharagpur-2 Amlichak

AO. Rotylenchulus reniformis Linford and Oliveira 1940 Sabang Murarichak, Uchitpur

Dantan-2 Dhaneswarpur

41. Pratylenchus coffeae (Zimmermann 1898) Filipjev Sabang Murarichak

and Schuurmans Stekhoven 1941 Khargpur-2 Dhitpur

Garhbeta-3 Chandmura

42. Hirschmanniella gracilis (De man, 1880) Luc and Goodey 1964 Sabang Murarichak, Dubrajpur

; Daspur-1 Sagarpur, Kamalpur

43. H. mannai Gantait et al. 2007b Gopibalavpur-1 Balarampur

44. Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid and White, 1919) Chitwood 1949 Sabang Murarichak

Ghatal Mandaria

45. Tylenchorhynchus coffeae Siddiqi and Basir 1959 Sabang Murarichak

Medinipur Depara

Sankrail Laudaha

46. T. mashhoodi Siddiqi and Basir 1959 Binpur-1 Shilda

Garhbeta-1 Amlagorh

Root sample (5 gm) was taken from the orchard. Nematodes

were extracted from the soil by Cobb’s sieving technique

(Cobb 1918) and from the root by Mechanical maceration

technique (Reddy 1983), decanting method by Modified

Baermann’s funnel technique (Christie and Perry 1951),

processed by Seinhorst’s slow dehydration method

(Seinhorst 1959). Dehydrated nematodes were mounted

permanently on glass slides and identified up to species level

following the keys of Jairaypuri and Ahmad (1992) for Order

Dorylaimida and Siddiqi (2000) for Order Tylenchida. All

the specimens were deposited in the National Zoological

Collections of the Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, West

Bengal, India.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 46 species of soil and plant parasitic

nematodes belonging to 32 genera of 15 families under the

Orders Dorylaimida and Tylenchida were recorded from

different localities of Paschim Medinipur district, West

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

Bengal, India. Of these, 29 species were of Order Dorylaimida

belonging to 21 genera of 8 families. Order Tylenchida was

represented by 17 species belonging to 11 genera under 7

families. Amongst these, 8 species of dorylaimids and 4

species of tylenchids were new to science and have already

been published (Gantait et al. 2006, 2007a,b, 2009 a,b, 2010

a,b, 2011a,b,c). Fifteen species (13 dorylaimids and 2

tylenchids) were reported for the first time from West Bengal

and 5 species (3 dorylaimids and 2 tylenchids) for the first

time from India. Sixteen species (12 dorylaimids and 4

tylenchids) were recorded for the first time from the

rhizosphere of banana. A systematic list of the species is given

below.

Systematic list of the nematode taxa

Class: Nematoda

Order: Dorylaimida Pearse, 1942

Suborder: Dorylaimina Pearse, 1936

Superfamily: Dorylaimoidea de Man, 1876

Family: Dorylaimidae de Man, 1876

199

DORYLAIMID AND TYLENCHID NEMATODES OF BANANA PLANTATIONS

Subfamily: Dorylaiminae de Man, 1876

1. *Dorylaimus innovatus Jana and Bagri, 1982

De $ D. neominimus Gantait, Bhattacharya and Chatterjee,

2009a

Subfamily: Laimydorinae Andrassy, 1969

3. $ Mesodorylaimus sushili Gantait, Bhattacharya and

Chatterjee, 2007a

4. “#Prodorylaimus jihuai Ahmad and Ahmad, 2001

*P. sukuli Baksi and Bagri, 1985

6. $ Laimydorus minutus Gantait, Bhattacharya and

Chatterjee, 201 1a

7. L. siddigii Bagri and Jana, 1982

Subfamily: Thornenematinae Siddiqi, 1969

8. “'Thornenema garhwalicum Srivastava, Rawat and

Ahmad, 2000

9. $ Lagenonema thornei Gantait, Bhattacharya and

Chatterjee, 2010a

Family: Aporcelaimidae Heyns, 1965

Subfamily: Aporcelaiminae Heyns, 1965

10. “*Aporcelaimellus conicaudatus (Altherr, 1953)

Monteiro, 1970

11. A. heynsi Baqri and Jairajpuri, 1968

12. $A. subhasi Gantait, Bhattacharya and Chatterjee,

7 2006

13. $ Makatinus siddigii Gantait, Bhattacharya and

Chatterjee, 2011b

Subfamily: Sectonematinae Siddiqi, 1969

14. “Sectonema procta Jairajpuri and Baqri, 1966

Family: Qudsianematidae Jairajpuri, 1965

Subfamily: Qudsianematinae Jairajpuri, 1965

15. “Labronema glandosum Rahman, Jairajpuri, Ahmad

and Ahmad, 1986

16. “Crassolabium garhwaliensis (Ahmad et al. 1986)

Pefia-Santiago & Ciobanu, 2008

Subfamily: Discolaiminae Siddiqi, 1969

17. $Discolaimus dhanachandi Gantait, Bhattacharya and

Chatterjee, 2009b

18. “*Discolaimium parweizi Siddiqi, 2003

19. **Discolaimoides teres Khan and Laha, 1982

Family: Nordiidae Jairajpuri and Siddiqi, 1964

Subfamily: Actinolaimoidinae Jairajpuri and Ahmad, 1992

20. “Oriverutus lobatus Siddiqi, 1971

21. *O. parangulatus Bagqri, 1991

200

Superfamily: Actinolaimoidea Thorne, 1939

Family: Actinolaimidae Thorne, 1939

Subfamily: Paractinolaiminae Thorne, 1967

22. *Paractinolaimus aruprus Khan, Ahmad and Jairajpuri,

1994

23. $P. shamimi Gantait, Bhattacharya and Chatterjee,

2006

Superfamily: Tylencholaimoidea Filipjev, 1934

Family: Tylencholaimidae Filipjev, 1934

Subfamily: Tylencholaiminae Filipjev, 1934

24. *Tylencholaimus (Tylencholaimus) obscurus Jairajputi,

1965

25. *T: (Opisthotylencholaimus) pakistanensis Timm, 1964

Subfamily: Mumtaziinae Andrassy, 1976

26. *Promumtazium élongatum Ahmad and Jairajpuri,

1984

Family: Mydonomidae Thorne, 1964

Subfamily: Mydonominae Thorne, 1964

27. *Dorylaimoides (Longidorylaimoides) filicaudatus Jana

and Bagri, 1991

Suborder: Nygolymina Ahmad and Jairajpuri, 1979

Superfamily: Nygolaimoidea Thorne, 1935

Family: Nygolaimidae Thorne, 1935

Subfamily: Nygolaiminae Thorne, 1935

28. *Aquatides aquaticus (Thorne, 1930) Thorne, 1974

29. *Laevides laevis (Thorne, 1939) Thorne, 1974

Order: Tylenchida Thorne, 1949

Suborder: Tylenchina Chitwood in Chitwood and Chitwood,

1950

Superfamily: Tylenchoidea Orley, 1880

Family: Tylenchidae Orley, 1880

Subfamily: Tylenchinae Orley, 1880

30. **Polenchus shamimi Baaqri, 1991

Superfamily: Anguinoidea Nicoll, 1935

Family: Anguinidae Nicoll, 1935

Subfamily: Anguininae Nicoll, 1935

31. **Nothotylenchus hexaglyphus Khan and Siddiqi,

1968

Superfamily: Hoplolaimoidea (Filipjev, 1934) Paramonov,

1967

Family: Hoplolaimidae (Filipjev, 1934) Wieser, 1953

Subfamily: Hoplolaiminae Filipjev, 1934

32. Hoplolaimus (Basirolaimus) indicus Sher, 1963

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

DORYLAIMID AND TYLENCHID NEMATODES OF BANANA PLANTATIONS

Subfamily: Rotylenchoidinae Whitehead, 1958

33. Helicotylenchus crenacauda Sher, 1966

34. H. dihystera Sher, 1961

35. “*"H. hydrophilus Sher, 1966

36. $ H. medinipurensis Gantait, Bhattacharya and

Chatterjee, 2007b

37. $H. wasimi Gantait, Bhattacharya and Chatterjee, 2010b

38. “*Rotylenchus (Rotylenchus) alii Magbool and Shahina,

1986 |

39. §$ Varotylus jairajpurii Gantait, Bhattacharya and

Chatterjee, 201 1c

1976

Subfamily: Rotylenchulinae Husain and Khan, 1967

40. Rotylenchulus reniformis Linford and Oliveira, 1940

Family: Pratylenchidae (Thorne, 1949) Siddiqi, 1963

Subfamily: Pratylenchinae Thorne, 1949

41. Pratylenchus coffeae (Zimmermann, 1898) Filipjev and

Sc Stekhoven, 1941

Subfamily: Hirschmanniellinae Fotedar and Handoo, 1978

42. Hirschmanniella gracilis (de man, 1880) Luc and

Goodey, 1964

43. $H.mannai Gantait, Bhattacharya and Chatterjee, 2007b

Family: Meloidogynidae (Skarbilovich, 1959) Wouts, 1973

Subfamily: Meloidogyninae Skarbilovich, 1959

44. Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid and White, 1919)

Chitwood, 1949

Superfamily: Dolichodoroidea (Chitwood and Chitwood,

1950) Siddiqi, 1986 |

Family: Telotylenchidae Siddiqi, 1960

Subfamily: Telotylenchinae Siddiqi, 1960

45. Tylenchorhynchus coffeae Siddiqi and Basir, 1959

46. T. mashhoodi Siddiqi and Basir, 1959

$ = New to Science

* = First report from West Bengal

** = First report from India

# = First report from banana

Family: Rotylenchulidae (Husain and Khan, 1967) Husain,

The number of dorylaimid species (29) recorded were

relatively more than tylenchids. The lower species richness

in tylenchids is probably because they are typically plant

parasitic in nature, and hence cannot survive long when the

fields are bare. Conversely, dorylaimids are accustomed to

many life modes, and can survive even when the fields are

fallow (Ghosh and Manna 2008), which puts the dorylaimids

ahead of tylenchids in respect of survival capacity (Chatterjee

and Gantait 2000). Having various modes of life not only

ensures easier food supply but reduces intra-specific

competition significantly (Chatterjee and Sen 1998). Among

the 32 nematode genera and the 11 genera of tylenchids

recorded, the genus Helicotylenchus had the maximum

number of species. This may be due to its known wide range

of hosts (Taylor 1960, 1961) of more than 200 host plants

(Chatterjee and Gantait 2000). A parasitic genus having rigid

host specificity (viz., having one or very few host plants)

would get less chances to radiate in different phyletic lines to

ultimately produce a variety of species (i.e. speciation),

compared to a plant parasitic genus that is polyphagous in

nature (i.e. with a wide range of host species) (Siddiqi 1979).

Chatterjee and Sen (1998) revealed that polyphagous genera

tend to have higher number of species.

Most of the species recorded were represented by

females, males being relatively rare. Similar observations

have been made in some other lower invertebrate groups

like insects (Suomalainen 1940, Vandel 1931). This is

mainly due to the uncertainty of females encountering

males at the time of breeding, which compels them to adopt

parthenogenetic reproduction (Vandel 1931). This should

be more true for nematodes because they live in soil habitat

and have poor mobility through the soil granules and

particles, and hence are more uncertain to find mates

(Siddiqi 1983). This may have led them to adopt

parthenogenesis, resulting in an abundance of females

compared to males.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to the Director, Zoological

Survey of India, Kolkata and the Vice Chancellor, Vidyasagar

University, Paschim Medinipur, for providing laboratory and

other facilities.

REFERENCES

AHMAD, W. & A. AHMAD (2001): Two new and a known species of the

genus Prodorylaimus (Nematoda: Dorylaimida). International

Journal of Nematology 11(2): 247-252.

AHMAD, W. & M.S. JarrAspuRI (1984): Three new species of

Tylencholaimoidea (Nematoda: Dorylaimida) from India.

Nematologica 29: 367-374.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

AHMa~AD, W., R.P. NatH & M.G Hamer (1986): A new and a known

species of Thonus Thorne, 1974 (Aporcelaimidae: Dorylaimida)

from India. Indian Journal of Nematology 15(2): 152-154.

ALTHERR, E. (1953): Nématodes du sol du Jura vaudois et francais.

Bulletin de la Sociéte Vaudoise des Sciences naturelles 65:

429-460.

201

DORYLAIMID AND TYLENCHID NEMATODES OF BANANA PLANTATIONS

BaksI, R. & Q.H. BAgri (1985): Nematodes from West Bengal (India)

XVII. A new species of the genus Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959

(Dorylaimidae: Dorylaimida). Bull. Zool. Surv. India 7(2-3):

199-202.

Baari, Q.H. (1991): Contribution to the fauna of Sikkim: Nematodes

associated with citrus from Sikkim, India. Records of the

Zoological Survey of India, Occasional paper No. 128: 103 pp.

Baagrl, Q.H. & A. JANA (1982): Nematodes from West Bengal (India)

XIII. Four new species of Dorylaimidae, with a key to the species

of Laimydorus Siddiqi, 1969 (Dorylaimoidea). Nematologica

28: 192-205.

Bagri, Q.H. & M.S. Jarraspuri (1968): On six new species of

Dorylaimida (Nematoda). Journal of Helminthology XLII (3/4):

243-256.

CHATTERJEE, A. & D. SEN (1998): Polyphagy in plant-parasitic

nematodes: a favourable force for speciation and biodiversity.

Pp. 218-221. In: (Eds: Aditya, A.K. & P. Haldar): Proceedings

of National Symposium on Environmental Biology. Daya

Publishing House, New Delhi.

CHATTERJEE, A. & V.V. GantaiT (2000): Plant parasitic nematodes

(Tylenchida). Jn: Fauna of Tripura; State Fauna Series 7(4):

79-100. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.

Cuitwoop, B.G. (1949): “Root-knot nematodes’ Part I. A revision of

the genus Meloidogyne Goeldi, 1887. Proceedings of

Helminthological Society of Washington 16: 90-104.

Curistig, J.R. & V.G Perry (1951): Removing nematodes from soil.

Proceedings of Helminthological Society of Washington 18:

106-108.

Coss, N.A. (1893): Nematodes, mostly Australian and Fijian. Linn.

Soc. New South Wales, Macleay Memorial Volume. 59 pp.

Coss, N.A. (1918): Estimating the nema population of the soil. Pp. 1-48.

In: Agricultural Technology Circular I: Bureau of Plant Industry,

Department of Agriculture, United States.

Fiuipyev, I.N. & J.H. SCHUURMANS STEKHOVEN Jr. (1941): A manual

of Agricultural Helminthology. E.J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands.

878 pp.

GantalT, V.V., T. BHATTACHARYA & A. CHATTERJEE (2006): Two new

species of Dorylaims (Nematoda: Dorylaimida) associated with

banana from India. Nematologia Mediterranea 34: 129-134.

GANTAIT, V.V., T. BHATTACHARYA & A. CHATTERJEE (2007a): A new species

of the genus Mesodorylaimus (Nematoda: Dorylaimida)

associated with banana from India. Proceedings of Zoological

Society, Calcutta 60(1): 27-30.

GantalT, V.V., T. BHATTACHARYA & A. CHATTERJEE (2007b): Two new

species of plant parasitic nematodes associated with banana

plantations from West Bengal, India. Journal of Environment

and Sociobiology 4(2): 139-147.

Gantalr, V.V., T. BHATTACHARYA & A. CHATTERJEE (2009a): Dorylaimus

neominimus sp. n. (Nematoda: Dorylaimida) from West Bengal,

India. International Journal of Nematology 19(2): 173-176.

GANTAIT, V.V., T. BHATTACHARYA & A. CHATTERJEE (2009b): A new species

of the genus Discolaimus Cobb, 1913 (Qudsianematidae:

Dorylaimida) from West Bengal, India with revised key to species

of the genus. Proceedings of Zoological Society 62(1): 67-73.

GANTAIT, V.V., T. BHATTACHARYA & A. CHATTERJEE (2010a): A new species

of the genus Lagenonema Andrassy, 1987 (Nematoda:

Dorylaimidae) from West Bengal, India. Opuscula Zoologica

Budapestiensis 41(1): 77-81.

GanrtalT, V.V., T. BHATTACHARYA & A. CHATTERJEE (2010b): One new

and three known species of the genus Helicotylenchus Steiner,

1945 associated with banana from West Bengal, India. Records

of Zoological Survey of India 110 (Part-3): 7-12.

GAnmTaIT, V.V., T. BHATTACHARYA & A. CHATTERJEE (201 1a): Description of

Laimydorus minutus sp. n. (Nematoda: Dorylaimidae) from India

with revised key to species. Fragmenta Faunistica 54 (1): 1-9.

202

Ganrtalr, V.V., T. BHATTACHARYA & A. CHATTERJEE (2011b): Description

of Makatinus siddiqgii, new species (Dorylaimida:

Aporcelaimidae: Aporcelaiminae) from Paschim Medinipur,

West Bengal, India with key to its world species. Pakistan

Journal of Zoology 43(1): 171-174.

Ganrtalr, V.V., T. BHATTACHARYA & A. CHATTERJEE (2011c): Description

of Varotylus jairajpurii, new species (Tylenchida:

Hoplolaimidae: Hoplolaiminae) from Paschim Medinipur, West

Bengal, India with key to its world species. Pakistan Journal of

Zoology 43 (4): 789-792.

GuosH, S.C. & B. MAnna (2008): Studies on nematode parasites

associated with paddy crop of West Bengal, India. Records

of the Zoological Survey of India, Occasional Paper No. 287:

1-144.

Gowen, S.R. & P. QUENEHERVE (1990): Nematode parasites of bananas,

plantains and abaca. Pp. 431-460. Jn: (Eds: Luc, M., R.A. Sikora

& J. Bridge): Plant Parasitic Nematodes in Subtropical and

Tropical Agriculture. CABI Publishing, CAB International,

Wallingford, England.

Haris, M. & D. NANJE Gowpa (2001): Management of the burrowing

nematode, Radopholus similis (Cobb, 1893) Thorne, 1949

infesting banana. Indian Journal of Nematology 31(1): 23-25.

JAIRAJPURI, M.S. (1965): Three new species of the genus Tylencholaimus

de Man, 1876 (Nematoda: Dorylaimoidea) from India.

Nematologica 10: 512-518.

JAIRAJPURI, M.S. & Q.H. Bagri (1966): Sectonema procta n. sp. and

Pungentus angulatus n. sp., soil-inhabiting nematodes.

Nematologica 12: 396-402.

JAIRAJPURI, M.S. & W. AHMAD (1992): Dorylaimida: Free-living,

Predaceous and Plant Parasitic Nematodes. Oxford and IBH

Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi, India. 458 pp.

JANA, A. & Q.H. Bagri (1982): Nematodes from West Bengal (India

XII). Dorylaimus innovatus sp. n., Thonus confusus sp. n. and

Indokochinema ekramullahi sp. n. (Dorylaimoidea). Indian

Journal of Nematology 12(2): 263-271.

JANA, A. & Q.H. BAgri (1991): Nematodes from West Bengal (India)

XI. Studies on the species of the superfamily Leptonchoidea

(Dorylaimida). Journal of Zoological Society, India 33(1 & 2):

1-24.

KHAN, A.M. & M.R. Sippiai (1968): Three new species of

Nothotylenchus (Nematoda: Neotylenchidae) from India.

Nematologica 14: 369-376.

KHAN, E. & S.K. LAHA (1982): Seven new Dorylaimid nematodes from

Indian Agricultural Research Institute Farm, Delhi, India. Indian

Journal of Nematology 12(2): 232-249.

KHAN, M.R. & M.A. HASAN (2010): Nematode diversity in banana

rhizosphere from West Bengal, India. Journal of Plant Protection

Research 50(3): 263-268.

KHAN, Z., W. AHMAD & M.S. JArRAsPURI (1994): Three new species of

actinolaim nematodes from India. Nematologica 40: 494-502.

KRISHNAPPA, K. & B.M.R. Reppy (1993): Integrated management of

nematode complex on banana. Indian Journal of Nematology

28h,

LINFoRD, M.B. & J.M. OLIverrA (1940): Rotylenchulus reniformis, nov.

gen., n. sp., a nematode parasite of roots. Proceedings of

Helminthological Society of Washington 7: 35-42.

Luc, M. & J.B. Goopey (1964): Hirschmanniella nom. nov. for

Hirschmannia. Nematologica 9: 471.

Magsoot, M.A. & F. SHAHINA (1986): Four new species of the family

Hoplolaimidae: (Nematoda) with notes on Rotylenchus

cypriensis Antoniou from Pakistan. Nematologia Mediterranea

14: 117-128.

Mon tErro, A.R. (1970): Dorylaimoidea de cafezais Paulistas (Nemata,

Dorylaimida). Thesis, Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de

Queiroz”, Sao Paulo.137 pp.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

DORYLAIMID AND TYLENCHID NEMATODES OF BANANA PLANTATIONS

MUKHERJEE, B. & M.K. DasGupta (1983): Community analysis of

nematodes associated with banana plantations in the Hooghly

District, West Bengal, India. Nematologia Mediterranea II:

43-48.

Mukuopapuyay, M.C. & M.S. HAQue (1974): Nematodes associated with

field crops, fruits and fodder crops in West Bengal. Indian

Journal of Nematology 4: 104—107.

RAHMAN, M.E., M.S. Jarraspurt, I. AHMAD & W. AHMAD (1986): Two

new species of Labronema Thorne, 1939 (Nematoda:

Dorylaimida) from India. Nematologica 32: 367-373.

Reppy, P.P. (1983): Plant Nematology. Agricole Publishing Academy,

New Delhi. 287 pp.

SARAH, J.L., J. PINOCHET & J. STANTON (1996). The burrowing nematode

of bananas, Radopholus similis Cobb. Musa pest fact sheet no.

I. Montpellier, France, INIBAP: 1.

SEINHORST, J.W. (1959): A rapid method for the transfer of nematodes

from fixative to anhydrous glycerin. Nematologica 4: 67-69.

SHER, S.A. (1961): Revision of the Hoplolaiminae (Nematoda). I.

Classification of nominal genera and nominal species.

Nematologica 6: 155-169.

SHER, S.A. (1963): Revision of the Hoplolaiminae (Nematoda). II.

Hoplolaimus Daddy, 1905 and Arolaimus n. gen. Nematologica

9: 267-295.

SHER, S.A. (1966): Revision of the Hoplolaiminae (Nematoda) VI.

Helicotylenchus Steiner, 1945. Nematologica 12: 1-56.

Sippiai, M.R. (1971): Oriverutus lobatus gen. n., sp. n. and Sicaguttur

sartum gen. n., sp. n. (Nematoda : Dorylaimoidea) from

cultivated soils in Africa. Nematologica 16: 483-491.

Sippiqi, M.R. (1979): The origin and phylogeny of the nematode order

Tylenchida. Nematropica 9: 109.

Sippial, M.R. (1983): Evolution of plant parasitism in nematodes.

Pp. 113-129. In: (Eds: Stone, A.R., H.M. Platt & L.F. Khalil):

Concepts in Nematode Systematics. Academic Press, London

& New York.

Sippiai, M.R. (2000): Tylenchida: Parasites of Plants and Insects. CABI

Publishing, CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 833 pp.

Sippiai, M.R. (2003): Four new species of Discolaimium Thorne

(Nematoda: Dorylaimida) from Houston, USA. International

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

Journal of Nematology 13(1): 87-92.

Sippiql, M.R. & M.A. Basir (1959): Proceedings of 46th Indian Science

Congress: 35.

SINGH, H.P. (2009): Scenario of banana production, utilization and

trade. Souvenir. National Conference on Banana and Plantain,

held at Jalgaon, Maharashtra during 2—5 October, 2009.

Pp. 1-17.

SPEIER, P.R. & C. KasumBA (2000): Yield loss from plant parasitic

nematodes in East African highland banana (Musa spp.). Acta

Horticulturae 540: 453-459.

Srivastava, N., V.S. Rawat & M. Aumap (2000): Description of three

new species of dorylaims (Nematoda: Dorylaimida) associated

with Litchi fruit trees in Doon Valley (U.P.), India. Indian Journal

of Nematology 30(1): 46-52.

SUNDARARAJU, P. (2006): Community structure of plant parasitic

nematodes in banana plantations of Andhra Pradesh, India. Indian

Journal of Nematology 36(2): 226-229.

SUOMALAINEN, E. (1940): Polyploidy in parthenogenetic Curculionidae.

Hereditas 26: 51-04.

TayLor, D.P. (1960): Host range study of the spiral nematode,

Helicotylenchus microlobus. Pl. Dis. Reptr. 44: 747-750.

Tay or, D.P. (1961): Biology and host-parasitic relationship of the spiral

nematode Helicotylenchus microlobus. Proc. Helminthol. Soc.

Wash. 28: 60-66.

TuHorng, G. (1930): Predacious nemas of the genus Nygolaimus and a

new genus Sectonema. J. Agric. Res., USDA 41: 445-466.

THORNE, G. (1974): Nematodes of the Northern Great Plains. Part II.

Dorylaimoidea in part (Nematoda: Adenophorea). Tech. Bull.

Agric. Exp. Sta. South Dakota State Univ. 41: 120 pp.

Timm, R.W. (1964): Nematodes of the superfamily Dorylaimoidea from

East Pakistan. Proc. Helminth. Soc. Wash. 31: 144-153.

VANDEL, A. (1931): La parthenogenese, Paris. 412 pp.

WEHUNT, E.J. & D.I. Epwarp (1968): Radopholus similis and other

nematode species on banana. Pp. 1-19. In: (Eds: Smart, G.C. &

V.G. Perry): Tropical Nematology. University of Florida Press,

Gainesville, Florida.

ZIMMERMANN, A.W.P. (1898): De nematoden der koffiewortels. Deel I.

Mededeel. ‘s Lands Plantentuin (Buitenzorg) 27: 64 pp.

203

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013 204-209

SIGNIFICANCE OF PHALLIC COMPLEX IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF

INDIAN PYRGOMORPHIDAE (ORTHOPTERA: PYRGOMORPHOIDEA)

HirpesH Kumar!?*, Moup. Kamit Usmant!?, Uzma Rart'* AND REENU KumMart'”

‘Section of Entomology, Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh 202 002, Uttar Pradesh, India.

*Email: entomologist1985 @ gmail.com

7Email: usmanikamil94 @ gmail.com

‘Email: rafiuzma@ gmail.com

"Email: rtomar28d @ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

A study of phallic complex — internal genitalic structures in males — was undertaken in twelve species of grasshoppers,

representing six genera under four tribes of the family Pyrgomorphidae. The study revealed that the shape of epiphallus,

presence and absence of ancorae, direction of lophi, and comparative size of central membrane of cingulum are stable

characters in the identification, and are of significance at each and every taxonomic level. The species studied are

_ arranged under their respective tribes, along with Keys to their tribes and genera.

Key words: Pyrgomorphidae, phallic complex, epiphallus, classification

INTRODUCTION

Pyrgomorphidae is a family of grasshoppers of the order

Orthoptera and comes under the suborder Caelifera, commonly

known as gaudy grasshoppers. It is the only family in the

superfamily Pyrgomorphoidea. Pyrgomorphidae is closely

related to the family Acrididae, under which earlier workers had

placed it as subfamily Pyrgomorphinae. Later, its status was raised

to the family level (Pyrgomorphidae) under the superfamily

Acridoidea. Currently, it is treated as the only family under

Pyrgomorphoidea (Flook et al. 1999). Pyrgomorphidae are

represented in all the tropical and subtropical parts of the world

by a large number of genera. They are characterised by the

presence of acutely conical head, fastigial furrow, prosternal

process; elytra and wings fully developed, reduced or absent;

tympanum normally present; lower basal lobe of hind femur

normally longer than upper lobe; ectophallus differentiated;

cingulum capsule-like; valves of penis paired, undivided;

spermatophore sac in dorsal position; epiphallus bridge-shaped

with dorsolateral appendices; ancorae absent; lophi hook-like;

oval sclerites absent (Fig. 1).

The system of classifying grasshoppers by earlier

workers was mainly based on easily recognisable externally

visible characters. Another distinguishing character is the

internal genitalic structures in males, termed as phallic

complex. Epiphallus is a part of the phallic complex. It is a

strongly sclerotised and complex structure lying on the

cingulum. Roberts (1941) made a comparative study of phallic

complex in different subfamilies of Acrididae. Dirsh (1956)

made taxonomic studies on phallic complex in Acridoidea,

and a comparative study of epiphallus in various families and

subfamilies of Acridoidea. Ajaili and Usmani (1990) have

shown the taxonomic significance of epiphallus in some

Libyan species of Acridoidea. Kevan et al. (1972, 1974) made

extensive studies on phallic complex in all known genera of

Pyrgomorphidae in order to establish the relationship existing

between them. Recently Usmani et al. (2011) explained the

get

C D

Fig. 1: A. Dorsal view of Phallus, B. Lateral view of Phallus,

C. Bridge-shaped Epiphallus, D. Anchor-shaped Epiphallus

List of abbreviations: [Adopted from Dirsh terminology (1956)]

AC = apodemal plate of cingulum; AE = aedeagus; AP = anterior

projection; AV = aedeagal valve; B = bridge of epiphallus; BC = basal

thickening of cingulum; BE = basal emargination of cingulum;

CM = central membrane of ectophallus; CV = valve of cingulum;

DC = dorsal cleft of cingulum; L = lophus; LP = lateral plate of

epiphallus; LA = lateral appendices; SZ = suprazygomal plate of

cingulum; VP = ventral process of cingulum; Z = zygoma of cingulum

PHALLIC COMPLEX IN INDIAN PYRGOMORPHIDAE

taxonomic significance of phallic complex in ten species of

Acridoidea.

In this paper, we discuss the phallic complex in twelve

species of Pyrgomorphidae collected from various localities

of different states of India, namely Punjab, Uttar Pradesh,

Rajasthan, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu &

Kashmir during 2009 to 2012. These species were also studied

through conventional taxonomy.

METHODOLOGY

Adults of both sexes of twelve species of grasshoppers

were collected from different localities, and their general

taxonomy studied. In males, the terminal part of the abdomen

was cut off and boiled in 10% potassium hydroxide till the

material became transparent (usually about 10 minutes) to

remove unsclerotized and non-chitinous tissues. It was then

thoroughly washed under tap water for complete removal of

KOH and examined in 70 percent ethyl alcohol on a cavity

slide. Later, every specimen was dissected under a binocular

microscope with the help of fine needles to separate various

components of the phallic complex, namely the epiphallus

and phallus. The normal process of dehydration was adopted,

and clearing was done in clove oil. The genital structures

were mounted separately on cavity slides in Canada balsam.

The phallic complex was mounted in Canada balsam on a

cavity slide oriented to the required position without cover

glass. The slides were kept in a slide drier at a temperature of

c. 40°C for about a week to dry completely. These permanent

slides were examined under the microscope to study the

genital structures. Drawings were initially made with the help

of Camera Lucida. Details were filled in after studying the

slide under a conventional microscope.

RESULTS

TAXONOMIC ACCOUNT

Family Pyrgomorphidae Brunner Von Wattenwyl, 1882

Key TO TRIBES OF THE FAMILY PYRGOMORPHIDAE

BRUNNERVON WATTENWYL, 1882

i Body never depressed; prosternum without reflexed, collar-

We ate Or asAnOiy 57 oe 2501 oe, ocean ees Re eee 2

— Body depressed; pronotum with reflexed, collar-like anterior

margin; tegmina with small nodules on main veins; antennae

cylindrical; Epiphallus bridge-shaped with strongly curved

ICY) wl ee ene ol ebeee ene” SR eee es Som Chrotogonini Bolivar, 1904

Z. Body small, never large and heavy; tegmina and hind wing

ustialty Rullyedev epee 217 5s Phe atte & octave ee 3

— Body large and heavy; antennae filiform with basal segments

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

as long as wide; pronotum with metazoan convex, much

widened distad, posterior margin somewhat rounded; tegmina

and hind wing well-developed; Epiphallus bridge-shaped

with large hook-like lophi and anterior projection..............

PANO PASE E Leas A SEE SE ASE ree ge telat Poekilocerini Burmeister, 1840

a Tegmina if fully developed never tapered and pointed;

epiphallus bridge-shaped with excurved anterior margin and

lophi with curved hook ....... Pyrgomorphini Brunner, 1882

— Tegmina usually fully developed and usually very tapered

and pointed; epiphallus anchor-shaped, dorsolateral

appendices with small nodules on dise-=.....028.0e. nts

psnetes tease Senne pM amt eee eR Atractomorphini Bolivar, 1905

I. Tribe Chrotogonini I. Bolivar, 1904

Key TO GENERA OF THE TRIBE CHROTOGONINI I. BOLtvar, 1904

le Body strongly depressed; dorsum of pronotum strongly

tuberculate; middle femur short, much shorter than head and

pronotum together; hind femur with lower basal lobe longer

than upper lobe; hind tibial spurs shorter than basal tarsal

segment; arolium large; valve of cingulum narrow.............

ERD hE IEEE Fh, REL ED TSA ot Chrotogonus Serville, 1838

— Body slightly depressed; dorsum of pronotum never strongly

tuberculate; middle femur thin and strongly elongated, as

long as or longer than head and pronotum together; hind

femur with lower basal lobe shorter than upper lobe; hind

tibial spurs longer than basal tarsal segment; arolium large;

valve of cingulum broad.............. Tenuitarsus Bolivar, 1904

a. Genus Chrotogonus Serville, 1838

KEY TO SPECIES OF CHROTOGONUS SERVILLE, 1838

is Tegmina slightly reaching near apex of hind knee; wings

hyaline: shahtly shorter than tegmunaso..:... 2a ee 2

— Tegmina surpassing the apex of hind knee; wings dark, much

shorter than the length of tegmina; aedeagus broad with

selérites-and’ valves blunt apically i052). ek. ae

Pare Ack oe Ae Chrotogonus oxypterus (Blanchard, 1836)

ys Body yellowish-brown with metazoan of pronotum and mid

hind femur outer and upper surface white; aedeagus narrow

with sclerites: and valves Dblunt-amiealty vos cc. ern on eee

Pil ghactaashcal Or tase Chrotogonus armatus Steinmann, 1965

— Body uniformly yellowish-brown without white marking;

aedeagus very narrow with sclerites and valves pointed

apically ....... Chrotogonus trachypterus (Blanchard, 1836)

1. Chrotogonus oxypterus (Blanchard, 1836)

Epiphallus (Fig. 2A): Bridge-shaped, bridge

moderately slender, slightly wider and long; anterior

projection prominent with angular tip; lateral plates separated

205

PHALLIC COMPLEX IN INDIAN PYRGOMORPHIDAE

medially, lophi with curved apices, apex acute; lateral

appendices rod-shaped and hooked at the end, apex pointed

and reaching the tip of lophi.

Phallus (Figs 3A, 4A): Deep and concave basal

emargination with shallow basal thickening, suprazygomal

plate narrow, dorsal cleft broad and rounded at the base, valve

of cingulum short and rame narrow, ventral process long and

narrow, apodemal plates slightly wider; aedeagus broad with

sclerites and valves blunt apically in dorsal view and regularly

curved upward in lateral view.

2. Chrotogonus armatus Steinmann, 1965

Epiphallus (Fig. 2B): Bridge-shaped, bridge more

slender, slightly narrow and elongated; anterior projection less

prominent; lateral plates separated medially, lophi with curved

apices, apex acute; lateral appendices rod-shaped and hooked

at the end, apex expanded and crossing the tip of lophi.

Phallus (Figs 3B, 4B): Deep and concave basal

emargination with light basal thickening, suprazygomal plate

wide, dorsal cleft wider and angular at the base, valve of

cingulum much longer, ventral process comparatively smaller.

and broad, rame narrow, narrow apodemal plates; aedeagus

narrow with sclerites and valves blunt apically in dorsal view

and regularly curved upward in lateral view.

3. Chrotogonus trachypterus trachypterus

(Blanchard, 1836)

Epiphallus (Fig. 2C): Bridge-shaped, bridge more

slender, wider and long; anterior projection prominent with

obtusely conical apex; lateral plates separated medially, lophi

with curved apices, apex acute; lateral appendices rod-shaped

and hooked at the end, apex slightly expanded and crossing

the tip of lophi.

Phallus (Figs 3C, 4C): Deep and concaved basal

emargination with broad basal thickening, suprazygomal plate

narrow, dorsal cleft small and rounded at the base, valve of

cingulum long and narrow apically, ventral process small and

narrow, rame comparatively wider, very narrow apodemal plates,

aedeagus very narrow with sclerites and valves pointed apically

in dorsal view and slightly curved upward in lateral view.

b. Genus Tenuitarsus Bolivar, 1904

4. Tenuitarsus orientalis Kevan, 1959

Epiphallus (Fig. 2D): Bridge-shaped, bridge small and

slightly wider than long; anterior projection less prominent

with conical apex; lateral plates separated medially, lophi with

curved apices, apex obtusely conical; lateral appendices rod-

shaped and pointed at the apex and crossing the tip of lophi.

Phallus (Figs 3D, 4D): Deep and concave basal

emargination with shallow basal thickening, suprazygomal

Fig. 2: Epiphallus: A. Chrotogonus oxypterus Blanchard, 1836,

B. Chrotogonus armatus Steinmann, 1965, C. Chrotogonus trachypterus

trachypterus Blanchard, 1836, D. Tenuitarsus orientalis Kevan, 1959,

E. Poekilocerus pictus (Fabricius, 1775), F. Pyrgomorpha conica

(Olivier, 1791), G. Zarytes squalinus brachycerus (Kirby, 1914),

H. Atractomorpha angusta Karsch, 1888, |. Atractomorpha burn Bolivar,

1905, J. Atractomorpha crenulata (Fabricius, 1793), K. Atractomorpha

psittacina psittacina (Haan, 1842), L. Atractomorpha sinensis sinensis

Bolivar, 1905

plate broad, dorsal cleft broad and flat at the base, valve of

cingulum long and broad, rounded apically, ventral process

small and narrow, rame narrow, apodemal plates slightly wider;

aedeagus broad and short with sclerites and valves pointed

apically in dorsal view and curved upward in lateral view.

II. Tribe Poekilocerini Burmeister, 1840

c. Genus Poekilocerus Serville, 1831

5. Poekilocerus pictus (Fabricius, 1775)

Epiphallus (Fig. 2E): Bridge-shaped, bridge long and

a ne neat e eSR T

206

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

PHALLIC COMPLEX IN INDIAN PYRGOMORPHIDAE

Fig. 3: Dorsal view of Phallus: A. Chrotogonus oxypterus Blanchard,

1836, B. Chrotogonus armatus Steinmann, 1965, C. Chrotogonus

trachypterus trachypterus Blanchard, 1836, D. Tenuitarsus orientalis

Kevan, 1959, E. Poekilocerus pictus (Fabricius, 1775),

F. Pyrgomorpha conica (Olivier, 1791), G. Zarytes squalinus brachycerus

(Kirby, 1914), H. Atractomorpha angusta Karsch, 1888, |. Atractomoroha

burri Bolivar, 1905, J. Atractomorpha crenulata (Fabricius, 1798),

K. Atractomorpha psittacina psittacina (Haan, 1842), L. Atractomorpha

sinensis sinensis Bolivar, 1905

narrow, has a small median process on the posterior margin;

anterior projection prominent with conical apex; lateral plates

separated medially, lophi triangular; lateral appendices closely

applied to lateral plates, rod-shaped and expanded at the apex

and just reaching the tip of lophi.

Phallus (Figs 3E, 4E): Pear-shaped, basal emargination

distinct and fairly deep with collar-like basal thickening,

suprazygomal plate large, broadly tongue-like, dorsal cleft

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

broad and rounded at the base, valve of cingulum distinct,

flat, narrow, ventral process triangular, rame wider, apodemal

plates wider and curved apically; aedeagus broad and short

with sclerites and valves pointed apically in dorsal view and

slightly curved upward in lateral view.

Ill. Tribe Pyrgomorphini Brunner, 1882

KEY TO GENERA OF PYRGOMORPHINI BRUNNER, 1882

“We Head abruptly convex dorsally in lateral view; frons strongly

concave; pronotum with lateral carinae irregular; lateral

pronotal lobes with posterior angles rounded or truncate;

tegmina completely developed or moderately shortened,

reaching the middle of the abdomen or still longer, sometimes

contiguous on the medio-dorsal line; wings not shorter or

hardly shorter than the tegmina; aedeagus straight, narrow,

short and stout with sclerites, and valves blunt apically in

dorsal view and slightly curved upward in lateral view .....

Bela Cet caaigcs a ROM cesieathe Pyrgomorpha Serville, 1838

— Head less abruptly convex dorsally in lateral view; frons less

strongly concave; pronotum with lateral carinae well-

developed and straight, lateral pronotal lobes with posterior

angles rectangular; aedeagus with broad sclerites and valves

short and upwardly curved in lateral view .................:0608

eta ceo apm tie ere cA UL be Nasa AY RD les Zarytes Bolivar, 1904

d. Genus Pyrgomorpha Serville, 1838

6. Pyrgomorpha conica (Olivier, 1791)

Epiphallus (Fig. 2F): Bridge-shaped, bridge narrow

and posteriorly concave; anterior projection not prominent

and straight; lateral plates separated medially, broader at basal

half, lophi hooked with pointed apex; lateral appendices rod-

shaped, much expanded at the apex, and just reaching the tip

of lophi. .

Phallus (Figs 3F, 4F): Basal emargination shallow

and concave in dorsal view with moderate basal thickening,

suprazygomal plate broad, dorsal cleft narrow and rounded

at the base, valve of cingulum short and distinct, ventral

process small and narrow, rame wider and pointed at apex,

apodemal plates wider; aedeagus straight, narrow, short and

stout with sclerites and valves blunt apically in dorsal view

and slightly curved upward in lateral view.

e. Genus Zarytes Bolivar, 1904

7. Zarytes squalinus brachycerus (Kirby, 1914)

Epiphallus (Fig. 2G): Bridge-shaped, bridge broader;

anterior projection not prominent; lateral plates separated

medially, broader at basal half, lophi hooked with pointed

apices; lateral appendices rod-shaped, slightly expanded at

the apex, and just reaching the tip of lophi.

207

PHALLIC COMPLEX IN INDIAN PYRGOMORPHIDAE

Fig.4: Lateral view of Phallus: A. Chrotogonus oxypterus

Blanchard, 1836, B. Chrotogonus armatus Steinmann, 1965,

C. Chrotogonus trachypterus trachypterus Blanchard, 1836,

D. Tenuitarsus orientalis Kevan, 1959, E. Poekilocerus pictus

(Fabricius, 1775), F. Pyrgomorpha conica (Olivier, 1791),

G. Zarytes squalinus brachycerus (Kirby, 1914), H. Atractomorpha

angusta Karsch, 1888, |. Atractomorpha burri Bolivar, 1905,

J. Atractomorpha crenulata (Fabricius, 1793), K. Atractomorpha

psittacina psittacina (Haan, 1842), L. Atractomorpha sinensis sinensis

Bolivar, 1905

Phallus (Figs 3G, 4G): Basal emargination narrow and

concave in dorsal view with shallow basal thickening,

suprazygomal plate broad, dorsal cleft narrow, elongated and

obtusely conical at the base, valve of cingulum short and

distinct, ventral process small and narrow, rame narrow,

apodemal plates wider; aedeagus with broad sclerites and

valves short and upwardly curved in lateral view.

IV. Tribe Atractomorphini Bolivar, 1905

f. Genus Atractomorpha Saussure, 1862

Key TO SPECIES OF ATRACTOMORPHA SAUSSURE, 1862

1. Byes CloneaciOval ......i. 2. udontno as ee ys

pore: 1s Ee TOUMCHST OVAL OF OV OIG Hh einai Ae eds ess. 3}

Ze Build short and moderately stout; head and pronotum

relatively short; fastigium of vertex short; lateral pronotal

lobe fairly deep, without a membranous area in metazoan;

aedeagal valve long and slender, curved upwardly in lateral

SAC Senate Atractomorpha burri Bolivar, 1905

208

— Build very slender; head and pronotum relatively long;

fastigium of vertex narrower and longer; lateral pronotal lobe

shallower, sometimes with a small membranous area in the

metazoan; aedeagal valves longer and more strongly curved

5 Me Sele eee Atractomorpha psittacina (Haan, 1842)

5. Generally small; membranous area in metazoan of lateral

pronotal lobe usually very distinct in female and well-

indicated in male; hind wings normally tyrian pink to light

mallow purple or pale magenta at base, but quite often heavily

infumated; aedeagal valve small and shott............0..e ee

Petes eee Atractomorpha crenulata (Fabricius, 1793)

— Size range variable; membranous area in metazoan of lateral

pronotal lobe variably developed; hind wings pinkish to rose

red or rose at base, less frequently infumated .................. 4

4. Size as a rule a little smaller, body length often less than

20 mm in male or 30 mm in female; fastigium of vertex

generally narrower apically and less flat dorsally; hind wings

rose red, frequently infumated, at least basally; aedeagal

sclerites and aedeagal valves slightly shorter and less

PACA TY AACS el 15 Be. Richer hel We sak hoc doe MS -sbaed adhe ck obec

BE epee secs Wc rec eek Atractomorpha angusta Karsch, 1888

— Size generally a little larger, body length usually more than

20 mm in male or 30 mm in female; fastigium of vertex

usually broad and generally very flat dorsally; hind wings

rose red or rose, not frequently infumated; aedeagal sclerites

and aedeagal valves slightly longer and more gradually

tapered ws... cies. Atractomorpha sinensis Bolivar, 1905

8. Atractomorpha burri Bolivar, 1905

Epiphallus (Fig. 2H): Anchor-shaped, bridge small,

anterior projections not prominent; lateral plates broad and

fused medially, broader at the base, middle piece much wider,

lophi hooked with conical apex; lateral appendices rod-shaped,

slightly expanded at apex, reaching up to the apex of lophi.

Phallus (Figs 3H, 4H): Capsule-shaped, basal

emargination concaved in dorsal view with shallow basal

thickening, supra zygomal plate slightly narrow, dorsal cleft

broad and rounded at the base, valve of cingulum longer,

ventral process long and narrow, rame broad, apodemal plates

narrow; aedeagal valve long and slender and curved upwardly

in lateral view.

9. Atractomorpha psittacina psittacina (Haan, 1842)

Epiphallus (Fig. 21): Anchor-shaped, bridge very

narrow; anterior projections not prominent, with rounded

apex; lateral plates fused medially, middle piece narrow, lophi

hooked with pointed apex; lateral appendices rod-shaped,

expanded at apex, slightly far from the apex of lophi.

Phallus (Figs 31, 41): Capsule-shaped, basal

emargination concave in dorsal view with shallow basal

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

PHALLIC COMPLEX IN INDIAN PYRGOMORPHIDAE

thickening, suprazygomal plate slightly narrow, dorsal cleft

broad and dome-shaped at base, valve of cingulum moderate,

ventral process long and narrow, rame narrow, apodemal

plates narrow; aedeagal valves long and more strongly curved.

10. Atractomorpha crenulata (Fabricius, 1793)

Epiphallus (Fig. 2J): Anchor-shaped, bridge broadt,

anterior projections prominent with pointed apex, lateral

plates fused medially, middle piece with subparallel margins,

lophi hooked with pointed apex; lateral appendices rod-

shaped, slightly expanded at apex, slightly far from the apex

of lophi.

Phallus (Figs 3J, 4J): Capsule-shaped, basal

emargination concave in dorsal view with shallow basal

thickening, suprazygomal plate narrow, dorsal cleft broad and

rounded at the base, valve of cingulum long, ventral process

long and narrow, rame narrow and rounded at the end,

apodemal plates broad; aedeagal valve small and short.

11. Atractomorpha angusta Karsch, 1888

Epiphallus (Fig. 2K): Anchor-shaped, bridge narrow;

anterior projections prominent with pointed apex; lateral

plates fused medially, broader at base, middle piece slightly

wider, lophi hooked with obtusely conical apex; lateral

appendices rod-shaped, expanded at apex, usually reaching

the apex of lophi.

Phallus (Figs 3K, 4K): Capsule-shaped, basal

emargination concave in dorsal view with shallow basal

thickening, suprazygomal plate slightly wider, dorsal cleft

broad and rounded at the base, valve of cingulum short, ventral

process long and narrow, rame narrow and rounded at the

end, apodemal plates broad, aedeagal sclerites and aedeagal

valves slightly short and less gradually tapered.

12. Atractomorpha sinensis sinensis Bolivar, 1905

Epiphallus (Fig. 2L): Anchor-shaped, bridge wider,

anterior projections prominent with hook like apex; lateral

plates fused medially, broader at base, middle piece slightly

narrow, lophi hooked with obtusely conical apex; lateral

appendices rod-shaped, much expanded at apex, slightly far

from the apex of lophi.

Phallus (Figs 3L, 4L): Capsule-shaped, basal

emargination concave in dorsal view with shallow basal

thickening, suprazygomal plate form a triangular plate-like

structure, dorsal cleft broad and rounded at the base, valve of

cingulum short, ventral process long and narrow, rame narrow

and rounded at the end, apodemal plates less extensive,

aedeagal sclerites and aedeagal valves slightly long and more

gradually tapered.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to extend our gratitude to the Department of

Science and Technology, New Delhi, for providing financial

assistance during the tenure of a major research project (Ref.

No. SR/SO/AS 32/2008), being carried out on Biosystematics

and Biodiversity of Acridoidea (Orthoptera) in North India.

Thanks are due to Prof. Irfan Ahmad, Chairman, Department

of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, for providing

necessary facilities.

REFERENCES

AJAILI, A.A. & M.K. UsManr (1990): Epiphallus in some Libyan

grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acridoidea). Annals Agric. Ain Shams

Uni. Cairo Sp. Issue: 511-519.

Dirsu, V.M. (1956): The phallic complex in Acridoidea (Orthoptera)

in relation to taxonomy. Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 108:

223-356.

FLook, P.K., S. KLEE & C.H.F. RowELL (1999): Combined molecular

phylogenetic analysis of the Orthoptera (Arthropoda, Insecta)

and implications for their higher systematics. Syst. Biol. 48(2):

233-253.

Kevan, D.K. Mce., S.S. AKBAR & Y.C. CHANG (1972): The concealed

copulatory structures of Pyrgomorphidae (Orthoptera:

Acridoidea). Part IV. Tribes Desmoptrini, Monistriini,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

Chlorizeinini, Poekilocerini and Phymateini. Eos, Madrid

47(1971): 137-234.

Kevan, D.K. Mce. & D.C. Eapes (1974): The phallic musculature of

Pyrgomorphidae, with particular reference to Atractomorpha

sinensis sinensis Bolivar, and notes on the Family Tristiridae

and the Subfamily Pyrgacridinae, nov. (Orthoptera: Acridoidea).

Extracts of Acrida 3: 247-265.

Roserts, H.R. (1941): A comparative study of the subfamilies of the

Acrididae (Orthoptera) primarily on the basis of their phallic

structure. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. 93: 201-246.

Usman, M.K., H. Kumar & S.M. Narku (2011): Taxonomic significance

of phallic complex in some Indian species of Acridoidea

(Orthoptera). Biosystematica 5(1): 55-63.

209

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

210-213

THE TRADE, TRAPPING, AND UTILIZATION OF LORISES IN INDIA

ABRAR AHMED!

"TRAFFIC India, WWF-India Secretariat, 172-B, Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110 001, India. Email: abrar_bird @ hotmail.com

Slow Loris Nycticebus bengalensis and Slender Loris Loris lyddekerianus are much favoured species in the illegal live

mammal trade. Lorises are small sized furry primates, having large round eyes. They are easy to keep due to their

omnivorous diet and a solitary lifestyle. Lorises rank high on the cute-and-cuddly scale and are much sought after as

pets worldwide. This paper discusses the more or less covert trade, trapping and organised wildlife trafficking, and

utilisation of lorises in India.

Key words: Slow Loris, Nycticebus bengalensis, Slender Loris, Loris lyddekerianus, live mammal trade, primate, pet

trade

INTRODUCTION

Indian primates are totally protected under the Wildlife

(Protection) Act, 1972 (WPA), but most are still illegally

exploited in one way or another. Primates are the most popular

group in the live mammal trade, and illegally traded, both

domestically and internationally, for the biomedical and

pharmaceutical markets, the entertainment and pet industries.

Primates are also much sought after by zoological parks and

private animal collections (Ahmed 2001; Malik et al. 1997;

Srivastava 1999). Until 1978, India was a leading exporter

of monkeys to various countries (Ahmed 2001). Primates are

also hunted by several forest tribes and their meat is relished

in certain regions. The body parts are used in traditional

medicine, sold as curios, or the skin is used as casing. On

rare occasions, primate parts are also used in black magic

and sorcery (Bhel 1998).

Among the Indian primates, lorises are much favoured

in the live mammal trade, and are often sold as pets in Indian

and international markets (Ahmed 2012; Menon and Kumar

1998). I have been monitoring bird markets across India

since 1992, and during the more than 300 field surveys

across all the Indian states, I have encountered the sale of

lorises in some animal markets, especially at village haats

in the distribution areas of the species. This manuscript

discusses the trade, trapping methods, and utilisation of

lorises in India.

Lorises of India, their distribution and legal status

India is home to two species of nocturnal prosimians

(lorises) belonging to the Suborder Strepsirrhini, namely Slow

Loris Nycticebus bengalensis (Boddaert) and Slender Loris

Loris lyddekerianus (Linnaeus). The Slow Loris can be

differentiated from the Slender Loris by its distinctive brown

stripe, marking the middle line of its back, and is

comparatively larger than the Slender Loris. The Slow Loris

is found in dense, moist deciduous, semi-evergreen, and

evergreen forests throughout north-east India, more

commonly south of the River Brahmaputra, while the Slender

Loris is distributed throughout southern India, south of the

Rivers Tapti and Godavari up to 800 m above msl (Menon

2003).

The Slow Loris is listed as Vulnerable in the IUCN

Red List of Threatened species due to loss of habitat and

severe hunting pressures, and in Appendix I of CITES

(Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

of Wild Fauna and Flora). The Slender Loris is listed by [UCN

as Near Threatened, and is listed in Appendix II of CITES.

Trade and utilisation of lorises

Lorises are furry, have large, round eyes, omnivorous

diet, a solitary lifestyle, and unique behaviour — they can hang

upside down. For these and other reasons, they rank high on

the cute-and-cuddly scale, and have been long in demand as

pets worldwide. Trade is considered a major threat to most

loris species, especially in Southeast Asian countries. The

Slow Loris remains a common sight in wildlife markets of

Indonesia, Thailand, and Singapore (TRAFFIC n.d.). In India,

main reasons for trade in lorises are the small size, silent

behaviour (they do not ‘cry’ in captivity), being easy to keep

due to their omnivorous diet, their easy availability, and less

difficulty faced by animal traders in transporting them

compared to other primates. Their exotic and “cute look’ make

them a favourite trade commodity, yielding high profits to

the organised wildlife traffickers who target farm owners and

animal enthusiasts interested in rare, exotic pets. In India,

lorises have been known to be captured for years. Prater

(2005) states “As with lemurs in all countries, a wealth of

superstitious beliefs centre around these animals. The eyes

are said to be a potent love charm, and are also used as a cure

for certain eye diseases. Hence, the capture and sale of these

animals, which are cruelly hawked about to the blinding glare

TRADE, TRAPPING, AND UTILIZATION OF LORISES

of sunlight, to which by nature they are so ill-accustomed.”

Lorises were exported worldwide from India along with

birds until the blanket ban in 1990—1991. Prior to the ban,

the Slender Loris, locally called Lajwanti in Hindi by animal

dealers, was brought to north India from Bengaluru (earlier

Bangalore) animal dealers. The Slow Loris, locally called

Sharmili billi in Hindi by animal dealers in north India, was

sourced from Patna for exporters in Uttar Pradesh. Until a

decade ago, the Slow Loris was regularly sold at the famous

Sonepur fair in Bihar, while the Slender Loris was a common

mammal for sale at the Shivaji bird market in Bengaluru

(Ahmed 2001). I recorded 28 Slow Loris during eighteen

surveys between 1994 and 2011 in 11 sites in four states, and

not less than 22 Slender Loris in six sites in four southern

Indian states between 1994 and 2002. These numbers may

not look significant, but these records were not from a specific

survey for these species, but incidental to one on documenting

the bird trade.

In India, lorises are utilised in various ways. The Slow

Loris is poached for food in Meghalaya (Radhakrishna et al.

2010) and Mizoram (Joydeep Bose pers. comm. 2012). They

are hunted in north-east India by the Angamis, Apatanis,

Nishis, and Mizos for bushmeat (Hilaluddin et al. 2005), and

also kept commonly as pets (Nandini et al. 2009). In southern

India, roadside astrologers use Slender Loris for picking up

fortune cards (Ahmed 2001). Tribals in Kerala claim that

keeping a Slender Loris can ward off evil spirits. Though

lorises are used in traditional medicine, they are more common

in the pet trade. Lorises are also sold to zoos and private

collections, and were formerly used as exhibits in travelling

ZOOS, a practice that is now almost over due to the ban on

travelling zoos.

The pet trade in lorises in India is done in a covert

manner, and it is not openly offered or displayed as in several

Asian countries. There is a growing demand for exotic pets

in India, and exotic birds are the major attraction in most

private collections, since there is no ban on the domestic trade

and possession of exotic birds. Many large collections also

have a number of small exotic mammals, such as Sugar

Gliders Petaurus breviceps, marmosets (Callitrichidae), and

bush babies (Galagidae), each of which may cost more than

Rs. 100,000 for a pair. On many occasions, new or ignorant

buyers are conned into buying Slow or Slender Loris and

Giant Squirrel (Ratufa indica) as exotic pets at exorbitant

prices. Unlike most Southeast Asian countries where the Slow

Loris has its teeth cut or extracted for the pet trade to avoid

being bitten, this is not practiced in India, and the animals

are invariably kept in cages. However, I was told that one

can get tame lorises with their teeth removed. The animal

traders also said that the lorises are not sold as ‘toy pets’ but

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

to serious animal collectors. Due to the strong odour emitted,

most of the buyers who are rich and finicky about keeping

such animals in their houses return them. To avoid the

problem due to foul odour of these species, traders offer them

instead as outdoor pets for which they can command high

prices.

There are tribes or village-level trappers who make

collection trips almost thrice a week in forests, who on

chance encounters with lorises often capture and covertly

sell them at the village level. Even if the animal dies (from

starvation mostly), the body is dried and parts sold for

traditional medicine. There is some international demand

for lorises, mainly in Thailand, and the lorises are

transported to Bangkok (via Dhaka) or to Karachi by animal

dealers. Earlier, Kathmandu was the main transit point, from

where the Slow Loris were smuggled to Thailand by

subdealers and middlemen, but due to increased vigilance,

the centre is now Dhaka. In India, the main collection centres

are Patna and Burdwan from where the lorises are routed to

these countries. Recent surveys in north-east India suggest

that these animals may also be routed to Myanmar via Moreh

(Manipur).

Loris Trappers and Traders

The organised countrywide trade is either carried by

Mirshikar traders from Patna or by certain tribals from

southern India, such as the Narikorava and Hakki pikki.

Mirshikars do not catch the Slow Loris on their own, but

obtain them from subdealers from the North-East, who buy

them from village-level trappers in Assam, Meghalaya, and

Nagaland, and bring them to the Mirshikar traders based in

Patna and Siliguri (collection centres). The tribals of north-

east India such as Garo, Nishi, and Karbi occasionally sell

Slow Loris in the village markets. The Mirshikar traders of

Patna or Burdwan send the Slow Loris to dealers and pet

keepers throughout India.

The Narikorava and Hakki pikki mostly live a nomadic

life and seasonally hunt wildlife at forest peripheries.

Pakshirajpuram (a tiny settlement of professional animal

trappers) near Hosur on the Nagarhole road used to be one of

the primary collection centres from where Slender Lorises

were sent to the Bengaluru and Chennai markets on demand.

Historically, the animal markets at Benson town in Bengaluru

and Moore Market in Chennai openly displayed and sold these

animals, a practice that has completely gone underground.

Now a few animals are delivered only through known

customers on request.

The organised trade of Slender Loris in Kerala takes

place through middlemen in Malayttur and Angamali, who

may send the animals to the Coimbatore, Alvaye, and Madurai

211

TRADE, TRAPPING, AND UTILIZATION OF LORISES

markets on specific demand. The collection is done by the

Kani tribe or city-based organised trappers. Some Slender

Lorises are collected near the Wayanad forest and the stock

is send to Thrissur and Kozhikode dealers. Slender Lorises

are also collected by travelling Narikoravas of Villipuram in

Tamil Nadu, who at times sell their catch in Chennai, and to

animal traders from southern India.

The Pardhi tribe of Central India, who hunt and deal

with many wildlife products, also sell the Slender Loris’s

body parts for their supposed medicinal value in Indian

Cities.

Collection Methods of Lorises

Lorises are slow and silent. Once disturbed, they

immediately freeze, and are docile. Their nocturnal habits,

and at times choice of sleeping sites on exposed branches,

make them easy targets for trappers. In the case of the Slender

Loris, trappers use powerful torches to immobilise them when

they come to feed on lower branches. Using poles with curved

knives, used for bringing down leafy branches for livestock,

the animals are caught by cutting off the branches. If the

branches are not reachable, a rope (with a stone) is used to

pull down the branch.

In north-east India, the Slow Loris is reported to be

collected in a similar fashion by bringing the branch down

or by felling the tree. However, my interviews with grassroots-

level trappers suggested that the majority of Slow Loris are

collected from tree cavities or crevices, when the trappers

search for chicks of mynas, parakeets, and hornbills. This

appears to be true as I recorded the loris mainly during my

surveys for trade in hornbills and mynas in north-east India.

Major Trade Routes and Trade Centres in India

Some collection centres for organised loris trade were

recorded during my surveys. Live Slow Lorises collected

from the north-eastern states are transported via Siliguri

either to Mirshikar-toli in Patna or the animal traders in

Burdwan, from where they are distributed to various

domestic and international animal markets, depending on

the demand from city-based retailers. The lorises are

transported in small iron cages measuring less than one

cubic foot. They are mainly fed munia birds and sometimes

infant food mixed with egg, banana, and sometimes rice.

The collection at the primary level is by the Karbi

people, who bring their catch for sale at the weekly haat

(village market) such as Balipathar and Silonijan on the

Assam-Nagaland highways, while the actual collection

takes place from peripheral forest areas. Some animals are

taken by subdealers from Dimapur and Kohima for local

sale. Stocks from Meghalaya reach Bijoynagar (or

212

Boko) from Adokgre and Dudpdara (east Garo Hills), which

is routed to Nepal via Jogbani or to Patna via Katihar.

Comparing my surveys in the early 1990s with the ones

in 2007 and 2011, it appears that most Slow Loris are now

sold locally near collection centres, rather than bulk animals

being transported to the organised markets due to fear of

seizures. The lorises are now transported hidden with domestic

animals, especially pigeons. To calm and make the animal

drowsy, crushed onions are reportedly kept in boxes, a practice

which needs verification.

Prices of Lorises

According to information based on a recent seizure

in Karnataka, the price quoted for each Slender Loris is

Rs. 35,000. Based on my surveys, I found the price of a

Slow Loris at village-level markets in Assam was between

Rs. 300-600. In the Nagaland food markets, the prices

ranged from Rs. 500—1,000, and in the villages it was about

Rs. 200-300 at the collection level. In Patna, the Slow Loris

can easily sell between Rs. 3,000—8,000 for a pair. In

southern India, near Bengaluru, a Pakshirajpuram dealer

quoted a price of Rs. 1,500 for a pair of Slender Loris in

1997, and in Bengaluru and Kozhikode markets, a pair at

retail level could cost up to Rs. 20,000. In tribal areas, the

same can be obtained for Rs. 200-300.

Conservation

The recent seizures of lorises from India are indicators

of their ongoing trade in India. In June 2012, a Slow Loris

kept as a pet in South Garo Hills, Shillong, was rescued (Anon.

2012). Two Slender Loris were seized in Goa on the way to

Karnataka in September 2011 (Wildlife Crime in India n.d.).

In March 2011, two Slow Loris were rescued in Karbi

Anglong from locals (Wildlife Trust of India n.d.). In July

1996, three Slender Loris skins were seized from Narikorava

tribals in Karnataka (Anon. 1996).

Hence, despite Indian lorises being included in

Schedule I of the WPA and in Appendices I and II of CITES,

both species are threatened by illegal trade and need greater

law enforcement at the grassroots level. Studies to determine

the impact and extent of such illegal activities affecting local

populations, and stringent enforcement of laws and

punishment for poachers need to be undertaken. There is also

a need for education and awareness programmes to highlight

the plight of lorises in the species distribution areas.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am thankful to TRAFFIC India/WWF-India for their

continued support for the bird-trade study. I owe special thanks

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

TRADE, TRAPPING, AND UTILIZATION OF LORISES

to Mr. Ravi Singh, Secretary General and CEO, WWF-India,

and Dr. Shekhar Kumar Niraj, Head TRAFFIC India, for all

their help and support. I am grateful to Dr. Asad R. Rahmani,

Director, BNHS, for his guidance and support throughout my

studies, and Dr. Ranjit Manakadan for editorial help and useful

discussion on this article. I also thank Dr. Joydeep Bose,

WWE-India, for his suggestions. Lastly, I would like to

collectively thank all those who helped me in the field and

all indigenous bird trappers who shared their knowledge with

me during my surveys.

REFERENCES

Aumep, A. (2001): Illegal Trade, and Utilization of Primates in India.

Envis Bulletin: Wildlife and Protected Areas 1(1): 177-184.

AHMED, A. (2012): Future of Indian lorises hangs upside down. TRAFFIC

Post 15: 8-9. TRAFFIC India, New Delhi.

Anon. (1996): Summary of seizures poaching incident in India since

May—December 1996. Retrieved from http://scstsenvis.nic.in/

index4.aspx’?ssslid=556&subsubsublinkid=128&langid=1 &mid=1

ANOon. (2012): Endangered Bengal Slow Loris rescued. Retrieved from

http://www. business-standard.com/generalnews/news/

endangered-bengal-slow-loris-rescued/20248/.

BHEL, T. (1998): Tantrik-mantra Shastra. Randhir Prakashan, Haridwar.

Pp. 131.

HILALUDDIN, R. Kau & D. GHosE (2005): Conservation implications of

wild animal biomass extractions in Northeast India. Animal

Biodiversity and Conservation 28(2): 169-179.

Matutk, I., B.K. Gupta, B. RATHINASABAPATHY & P.B. Kumar (1997):

Plundering of Nilgiri Bioreserve Area. A Vatavaran report.

New Delhi. Pp. 30-33.

Menon, V. (2003): A Field Guide to Indian Mammals. Dorling Kindersley

(India) Pvt. Ltd. and Penguin Book India (P) Ltd. Pp. 28.

MeENon, V. & A. Kumar (1998): Wildlife Crime: an Enforcement Guide.

Wildlife Protection Society of India, New Delhi. Pp. 68-69.

NANDINI, R., K. Kakatr & N. VeEp (2009): Occurrence records of the

Bengal Slow Loris (Nycticebus bengalensis) in north-eastern

India. Asian Primates Journal 1(2): 12-18.

PRATER, S.H. (2005): The Book of Indian Animals. Bombay Natural

History Society and Oxford University Press, Mumbai.

Pp. 43-45.

RADHAKRISHNA, S., A. DaTTA-Roy, N. Swapna & A. SINHA (2010):

Population Survey of the Bengal Slow Loris Nycticebus

bengalensis in Meghalaya, Northeast India. Primate

Conservation 25: 105-11.

SRIVASTAVA, A. (1999): Primates of Northeast India. Mega Diversity

Press, Bikaner. 208 pp.

TRAFFIC (n.p.): Loris trade not so slow. Retrieved from http://

www.traffic.org/home/2012/4/3/loris-trade-not-so-slow.html

WILDLIFE CRIME IN INDIA (N.D.): Information on Wildlife Poaching and

illegal wildlife Trade/ Wildlife Trafficking in India. Retrieved

from http://wildlifecrimeinindia.blogspot.in/2011/09/Slender-

loris-seized-in-goa.html.

WILDLIFE TRUST OF INDIA (N.D.): Wild Rescues. Retrieved from http://

www.wti.org.in/oldsite/pages/wild-rescues-in-mar2011.html.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

213

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

214-215

OBITUARY

T.J. Roberts

(1924 — 2013)

Dr. Thomas Jones Roberts, popularly

known as Tom Roberts, was one of the finest _

amateur ornithologists and naturalists of the -

Indian subcontinent. Although he worked —

mainly in Pakistan for almost 30 years, his

knowledge of the Subcontinent’s fauna and _ a ee

flora was phenomenal, as reflected in his |

monumental books. Tom Roberts wrote 40 ©

research papers, numerous popular articles |

on nature, and seven books. His two-volume #

THE BIRDS OF PAKISTAN, based on his extensive 7

travels in the country for 28 years, covering

all 660 recorded species, came out in 1991-

92, and became an instant success. I had the

privilege to have a signed copy. I first met Tom and his lovely

wife Frances during the BNHS Centenary seminar in 1983.

Along with Dr. Salim Ali, Mr. Humayun Abdulali, and

Dr. B. Biswas, they made a formidable group — the stalwarts of

the ornithology of South Asia.

Tom Roberts was an accomplished artist — this is proved

from the wonderful illustrations in his books. During the

writing of his book, THE BIRDS OF PAKISTAN, he came twice to

India in the 1980s to consult the BNHS bird collection. Along

with his wife, he would come to BNHS at 08:30 a.m. sharp

and work till late evening, meticulously going from specimen

to specimen, making notes of plumage, beak, tarsus, and

illustrating when necessary. I was eager to help him in getting

specimens, but he politely refused my help as he wanted to

concentrate fully on the work that he had planned in his short

trip. Job done, we went to dinner one evening when he told

me about the birdlife of our neighbouring country. He also

promised to send me a signed copy of his book, which he did

when it came out in 1991-92.

Tom Roberts was a complete naturalist. In 1977, he wrote

and illustrated THE MAMMALS OF PAKISTAN. For his second

revised edition published by the Oxford University Press in

1999, he also used some mammal images sent by me from

India. His other books are HANDBOOK OF VERTEBRATE PEST

CONTROL IN PAKISTAN (1981), THE BUTTERFLIES OF PAKISTAN

(2001), FIELD GUIDE TO THE SMALL MAMMALS OF PAKISTAN (2005),

and FIELD GUIDE TO THE LARGE AND MEDIUM-SIZED MAMMALS OF

PAKISTAN (2005).

, Tom Roberts was born on September 2,

1924 in North Wales, UK. His father had a

business in Pakistan, which he visited in

1946 and fell in love with the Subcontinent.

He went to Canada as a young man to study

Agricultural Economics, then a new

subject, in the University of British

fF Columbia. He met Frances and soon

married her. In 1952, he returned to

Pakistan to join his father’s company

Roberts Cotton Associates Ltd. In 1966, he

took over as Managing Director of the

company and retired in 1984, shifting to

UK after some years.

For his pioneering work in Pakistan, in 1994 he was

awarded Sitara-e-Imtiaz by the Government of Pakistan. One

year before that, Queens’ College, Cambridge, awarded him

a doctorate. Later, he received many awards for his work on

birds, butterflies, insects, and mammals. Tom was also a

member of many societies and committees. He was the

founding father of WWF-Pakistan and a strong pillar of

International Council for Bird Preservation (renamed BirdLife

International in 1994). He was also a founding member of

the Oriental Bird Club, UK. Dr. Roberts served as a member

of the board of governors of World Wide Fund for Nature-

Pakistan from 1985 to 1991 and the organisation’s scientific

committee. Thrice he was awarded the WWF-International

Award for Conservation Merit.

Even at an advanced age, in his 80s, Roberts was active in

studying the local wildlife of his beloved Anglesey, North

Wales, where he had settled with Frances.

With the passing away of Dr. Thomas Jones Roberts, the

Indian subcontinent has lost one of the stalwarts of oriental

ornithology. His books will educate and delight us for many

more years. I hope the conservation message given in his

writings will stir our neighbour, not known for its

conservation record. If a societal change takes place there,

it will be the finest tribute to the great man who spent the

better part of his life documenting the fauna and flora of the

country.

M@ ASAD R. RAHMANI

OBITUARY

Zafar Futehally

(1920 — 2013)

Zafar Futehally was elected to the

Executive Committee of the Bombay

Natural History Society in 1962, and soon

thereafter took up the post of Vice President,

and perhaps held this post longer than

anyone else in the Society’s history.

His phenomenal capacity for work is well

illustrated by the fact that while steering the | -

affairs of the Society, he also co-edited the F

Society’s Journal for 10 years from April

1963.

Ata time when ‘conservation’ was a new

buzzword in India, Zafar started WWEF-

India, and was its Founder Trustee and Vice

President for over a decade. Zafar was also elected to the

Executive Board of the IUCN in 1966. He served as a member

of the National Committee for Environment Planning, and

along with M. Krishnan, was appointed as a ‘non official’

member of the Steering Committee of Project Tiger when it

was launched in 1973. He was also closely involved with the

International Ornithological Congress.

Zatar started the Newsletter for Birdwatchers with the

active encouragement of Dr. Salim Ali in 1959, with the aim

of promoting birdwatching and ornithology in India. The

Newsletter went on to become an important forum for amateur

and professional ornithologist to exchange notes and

information, with Zafar as its Editor for 45 years!

Tall in stature and slight of build, Zafar was an excellent

field person, though he came into his own as an effective

‘committee man’ with a penchant for striving to reach

consensus, and eliminate conflicts.

This, along with his integrity and a deep commitment to

the causes that he espoused for, not only stood the Society in

good stead during a difficult period, but also contributed

positively to the effective functioning of various national and

international organisations that he was associated with.

He was a part of the effort that organised the 10th General

Assembly and the 11th technical meeting of the [UCN that

took place at New Delhi from 24th November to 1st December

1969 — a memorable Assembly in many ways, particularly

for India, because it was the first instance when an IUCN

Conference had been convened in Asia.

Zatar’s report on this was published in the Society’s

Journal |Futehally, Zafar (1970): JBNHS 67(1): 30-39].

Among the many resolutions passed during the 10th GA,

the crisis enveloping the Tiger was finally recognised. “The

assembly was generally alarmed by the position of the tiger

in India, and generally in other countries. It decided quite

rightly that in view of the grave threat to the tiger populations

in the countries where the animal occurs, due to direct and

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

indirect methods of destruction ... the

Governments of these countries (declare)

a moratorium on killing of this animal until

such time as censuses and ecological

studies ... reveal the correct position as

regards population trends”

Zafar Futehally wrote in the Society’s

Journal “Looking back on the Conference

in the light of the experience of those held in

other countries it must be acknowledged that

the organization by and the hospitality of

|) the Government of India left little to be

desired. The presence of the Prime Minister,

Dr. Karan Singh, the Minister of Tourism,

and the Chairman of the Indian Board for Wildlife, and other

senior Ministers and Members of the Planning Commission at

several Sessions, both formal and informal, left the delegates

with the quite justifiable impression that conservation will in

future form an important item in the deliberations of the

Government of India. It will, however, be left to institutions

like the BNHS, the Wildlife Preservation Society of India, the

World Wildlife Fund — Indian National Appeal and others, to

see to it that the resolutions which are passed and which

engaged the attention of the leading conservationists of the

world are implemented as quickly as possible.”

The JBNHS, Vol. 68, April 1971, proudly carried under

‘Notes & News’ the following:

“Padma Shri - The President of the Republic of India has

been pleased to award Padma Shri to Mr. Zafar Futehally,

for his services to the Conservation of Indian Wildlife.”

Zafar was presented with the Order of the Golden Ark by

Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands in 1981, and made

‘Member of Honour World Wildlife Fund’ in 1994. In 1997,

he was conferred with the Salim Ali International Award for

Nature Conservation in recognition of his efforts towards the

conservation of Karnala and Borivali, Mumbai.

All these achievements and awards sat lightly on the

shoulders of Zafar, with his only concern being to do his duty.

After moving to Bangalore in 1973, he did “his duty as a

responsible citizen’ to work for saving the trees and revitalising

the lakes. In recognition of his tireless efforts, the Government

of Karnataka presented him the Rajyotsava Award in 1983. He

believed that: “Conservation would become the Religion of the

Future because men can only survive on renewable natural

resources — air, water, soil, flora and fauna.”

Zafar Futehally’s sterling contribution to the Bombay

Natural History Society, and to the conservation of nature

and natural resources has set high standards for us to emulate

and live up to.

M@ ASHISH AND SHANTHI CHANDOLA

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

216-219

REVIEWS

1. BUTTERFLIES OFTHE GARO HILLS By Sanjay Sondhi, Krushnamegh Kunte, Gaurav Agavekar, Rohan

Lovalekar, and Kedar Tokekar (2013). Published by Samrakshan Trust (New Delhi), Titli Trust (Dehradun),

and Indian Foundation for Butterflies (Bengaluru). Size: 13.5 cm x 21cm. 200 pp. Price: Rs. 500/-. Paperback.

Today, the study of butterflies has become a passion

for many. The availability of excellent digital cameras,

improved transportation and the increasing availability of

information has largely contributed to the spurt of interest in

the subject. This is a boon for biodiversity documentation, as

remote corners of our country have begun to be explored by

both professionals and amateurs.

BUTTERFLIES OF THE GARO HILLS is a Welcome addition to

the growing literature on the subject, covering 320 species of

the 350 species recorded so far from the Garo Hills. It is aimed

specifically at an audience intending to visit the area. This

book is the result of years of man-days of fieldwork by the

authors, working together and separately; it has all the

attributes of a good field guide, that is, a handy size, resilient

binding, good paper, and clear illustrations.

The book opens with an encouraging Message and

Foreword by two senior officials of the Meghalaya Forest

Department — both hope that the book will help butterfly

tourism, research, and conservation in the area. There is a

small introduction to the Garo Hills, a section on conserving

butterflies, and “How to use this book’, explaining the sense

behind the format and the meaning of terms used. This section

contains a surprising assertion, in the ‘Description’ subsection:

“Each species description starts with the butterfly wingspan,

in millimetres measured as twice the forewing length from

apex to wing base at the point of attachment to the thorax.

The wingspans in the book are primarily from Evans (1932)

and Talbot (1939-1947). However, Evans (1932) had stated,

‘After the name of the butterfly there follows... the expanse

of the butterfly in millimetres, obtained by measuring from

the centre of the thorax (the pin) to the tip of the forewing

and doubling the result...” Clearly, Evans’ measurements

include the thorax, which in some species such as the Rajahs

(Charaxes), comprise a substantial proportion of the

measurement. It is also true that the forewing length is

nowadays often used in measuring butterflies. But anyone

who has the slightest familiarity with butterflies or moths

will know that ‘twice the forewing length’ is a meaningless

measurement.

This method used for measurement is all the more

astounding because the wingspan/forewing length is the only

measurement used in studying butterflies and moths. In fact, a

few months prior to the present publication, I had drawn the

attention of some of the authors to this matter, in a previous

book by one of the authors Krushnamegh Kunte BUTTERFLIES

OF PENINSULAR INDIA (2000).

The next section is ‘Identifying Butterflies’. It is

correctly stated that in the case of some genera and species

groups, one needs to hold the butterfly in the hand and

examine normally obscured features like brands, which are

situated between the fore and hind wings, in order to correctly

place the species. The next sentence baffled me. It reads, “It

is possible to catch butterflies using butterfly nets to observe

these features, and release the butterfly unharmed, but the

written permission of the State Forest Department is necessary

before this can be attempted, especially within protected

areas.” This factoid is reinforced in the next paragraph with

the assertion that “This requires collection of specimens

which, too, requires written permission of the Chief Wildlife

Warden of the State Forest Department.” While the State

Forest Departments are authorised to issue permission to

collect specimens within protected areas and it is necessary

to seek permission before using a net in such areas, written

permission of the State Forest Department is certainly not

required outside government forests and protected areas for

resident Indian citizens. The only permission the State Forest

Department can issue outside government forests and

protected areas regarding butterflies is permission to collect

species listed on Schedule 2 and 3 of the Wildlife (Protection }

Act 1972. For Schedule 1, Central Government permission

is required, but for species off the schedules, no permission

is required. To take a net outside protected areas and

government forest, catch butterflies, examine them, and

release them unharmed is perfectly legal under current laws.

Similarly, taking such specimens for scientific research within

the country also does not require permission from anyone,

unless the research is undertaken with the intent of

commercialisation, in which case the State Biodiversity Board

would need to receive prior intimation.

Proceeding to the systematic section, the families have

been arranged alphabetically, as a result of which Riodinidae

comes after Pieridae and far from Lycaenidae, which is not in

consonance with their commonly accepted relatedness. The

arrangement of species in the systematic section appears to

follow no particular pattern, and differs from the arrangement

in the section titled “Checklist of the Butterflies of the Garo

Hills” (pp. 181-186). The authors also appear to be uncertain

about the classification of Lycaenidae, as there is wrong

REVIEWS

placement of species in the subfamilies. The systematic

section recognises the subfamily Polyommatinae (p. 34) with

36 species, but this subfamily is not listed in the Checklist

(pp. 182-183), where these species are listed under the

subfamily Lycaeninae. Clearly, the book very democratically

incorporates divergent opinions, which unfortunately, leaves

readers puzzled.

Of interest is the section called “Similar Species”. This

is meant to help separate butterflies that look similar. I tried

using this section, but ran into a bit of trouble. For example,

if I had a dark brown Skipper to be identified, I might look

up Dark Velvet Bob K. butleri on page 7, where it would be

suggested that I check Chocolate Demon A. nigrita on page

11. However, if I had turned to the Chocolate Demon first, I

would not be referred back to the Dark Velvet Bob on page 6,

but to Watson’s Demon S. swinhoei, which, after due

diligence, I discovered is not included in the book (it has not

been recorded from the area so far).

Most species are represented by a single photograph,

which is often adequate to recognise the species in the case

of distinctive species. However, in the case of similar looking

species, like the Sergeants, the book is extremely unhelpful.

For example, on page 92, the females (not illustrated) of the

Staff Sergeant and the very similar Small Staff Sergeant have

been described in nearly identical terms. Beginners will find

it challenging to imagine what they look like and to distinguish

between the two.

For whatever reasons, some species that do not occur

in the Garo Hills and are also not described in the book figure

in the checklist. It would have been better if these had not

been included in the checklist or marked.

The lack of records of some common butterflies like

the Spotless Grass Yellow Eurema herla laeta, Small Grass

Yellow Eurema brigitta, Club Beak Libythea myrrha, and

Common Beak Libythea lepita in the Garo Hills is surprising.

Similarly, it seems unusual that only two members of the Rings

Ypthima sp. have been recorded from these hills. Clearly, much

more work needs to be done.

The systematic section is followed by “Butterfly

Hotspots in the Garo Hills’, which includes 7 useful maps of

the area. The Suggested Reading and Websites section is a

useful compilation of books and sites that would take one

beyond the scope of the present book. The Glossary and

Abbreviations might have been more profitably placed at the

beginning of the book, for the convenience of users. The

“Checklist of the Butterflies of the Garo Hills” is a list of all

butterflies recorded so far from the area. Finally, there are

the Common Name and the Scientific Name indices. The latter

should more appropriately have been called the Generic

Names Index (for that is what it is), for if one is searching for

a species name, it is not available. Given the irritating

frequency with which genera are re-assigned, the species

names index would have been extremely useful.

The inside of the back cover lists the organisations

represented by the authors and sponsors. Interestingly, there

is the Indian Foundation for Butterflies, which is described

as a group of professional butterfly biologists and amateur

naturalists who are involved in research on the natural

history, ecology, conservation needs, and other aspects of

the biology of Indian butterflies. Nowhere does it state that

the organization has anything to do with the Government

of India or state governments. If it is not a governmental or

at least quasi-governmental organization, I am curious to

know how the use of the name “Indian” was permitted.

Normally, private organizations are not permitted to use

“Indian” or “National” in their names, since this gives the

impression of official sanction to the activities of that

organisation.

In conclusion, the book is a useful addition to existing

literature and it is hoped that the authors will look into the

matters outlined above in the next edition of the book.

@ PETER SMETACEK

REFERENCES

Evans, W.H. (1932): The Identification of Indian butterflies. Bombay

Natural History Society, Bombay. x + 454 pp., 32 pl.

Kunte, K. (2000): Butterflies of Peninsular India. Universities Press,

Hyderabad. 254 pp.

TALBot, G. (1939-47): The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon

and Burma. Butterflies, Vols 1 & 2. Taylor & Francis, London.

2. HIMALAYA: MOUNTAIN OF LIFE by Kamal Bawa and Sandesh Kadur (2013). Ashoka

Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bangalore. Size: 30.5 cm x 27.5 cm. 308 pp.

Price not given. Hardback.

There are some areas in this world which will never

stop fascinating you, and there are some people who will

never stop impressing you with their knowledge, dedication,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

and single-minded pursuit of excellence. When the two come

together, the results are expectedly of high quality. The book

HIMALAYA: MOUNTAIN OF LIFE proves this on every page. Kamal

217

REVIEWS

Bawa is a distinguished Professor of Biology at the University

of Massachusetts-Boston and a Founder-President of the

Bengaluru-based Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and

the Environment (ATREE). He has published nearly 200

scientific papers and authored or edited 10 books and

monographs. Prof. Bawa’s primary interest is plant life. The

other author, the much younger Sandesh V. Kadur is an award-

winning wildlife photographer and cinematographer, with a

passion for outdoors, wildlife, and conservation.

This lavish coffee-table book starts with a picture of a

pensive-looking Golden Langur, one of the last large primates

to be discovered in the Indian subcontinent, and perhaps the

most beautiful species amongst its peers. The first 32 pages

introduce you to the landscape, people, plants, and animals,

not through any technical description but through wonderful

images by Sandesh. Although titled HiImALaya, the book mainly

focuses on the eastern portion of this 2,400 km chain of

mountains, considered to be the youngest mountain chain in

the world. The Himalaya is the result of slow-motion collision

of the Indian tectonic plate, part of the massive

Gondwanaland, with the southern coastal edge of the Asian

plate, resulting in the slow upward thrust of the land. This

happened nearly 70 million years ago — a short time in the

geological time frame. What it lacks in geological history is

compensated by its rich biological wealth. The book celebrates

the biological and cultural diversity of these majestic and

mysterious mountains. It covers the region from central Nepal

through Darjeeling Hills, Sikkim, Bhutan, and into the north-

eastern Indian states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, and

Nagaland — a subset of the whole Himalaya.

The Eastern Himalaya, which the book mainly deals

with, is considered to be one of the 34 biodiversity hotspots

of the world. These hotspots are the cradle of evolution and

diversification of plant and animal life. Sadly, these hotspots

are also areas that have lost 90% or more of their original

habitats. Through large landscape images, this book

showcases the spectacular richness of life in these mountains,

and also points out to the destruction that is going on in the

area mainly through human-related activities. The area that

harboured and nurtured more than 200 distinct ethnic groups

now faces an extinction crisis on an unprecedented scale.

Thanks to large-scale cultural osmosis, many ethnic groups

with their own traditions, dress, food, and languages are

disappearing, and some are more threatened than the species

on the IUCN Red List!

The book not only has wonderful pictures of habitats,

species, people, landscapes, and rivers, it has superb maps

and illustrations to add value to the document. Each habitat

picture has an extended caption, full of scientific information

written in layman’s language. This book further proves that

the best of science is written in simple language. I would say

the images and captions complement each other, vastly

improving the appeal of the book.

The book covers almost all major taxa, from flowers to

fish, to birds and mammals. I am particularly delighted that

the book includes fish diversity. Out of over 14,000 species

of freshwater fishes of the world, more than 900 are recorded

here. Fish diversity is the highest in lowland rivers, with

species richness declining with increase in altitude.

Unfortunately, Himalayan fish diversity is under tremendous

biotic pressure from overfishing, pollution, and introduction

of invasive species. Strangely, the protection of local fish

heritage 1s an issue that does not come to the minds of decision

makers and conservationists, although the fish gene pool is

one of the most important components of our biological

wealth. It is a classic case of ‘out of sight, out of mind’.

As can be expected from two committed conservationists,

the book ends with a chapter Threats to Biodiversity. It makes

sad reading, but all is not lost yet. Given a chance, nature can

bounce back and heal some of the damage that we have inflicted

on the Himalaya. The question is: Will the decision makers

who think only of 10% GDP growth, allow this?

Although large in size, I think this book is a “must buy”

for anyone interested in the protection of this fragile corner

of the world. Composite pictures of the Mount Everest’s East

Rongbuk Glacier (pages 280-281) showing that between 1921

and 2008, the glacier has lost 380 vertical feet of snow, should

convince any decision maker that the Himalaya is crying out

for conservation attention. Books like this show that

emergency actions are required to save what is appropriately

called the Mountain of Life.

@ ASAD R. RAHMANI

| 3. FAUNAL HERITAGE OF RAJASTHAN, INDIA Edited by B.K. Sharma, Seema Kulshreshtha,

and Asad R. Rahmani (2013). Published by Springer. Volume 1: General Background and Ecology

of Vertebrates; Volume 2: Conservation and Management of Vertebrates. Size: 15.5 cm x 24.5 cm.

313 pp. Price: Rs. 1,450/-. Hardback.

The state of Rajasthan is fascinating due to its history,

culture, palaces of former kingdoms, and its peace-loving and

colourful people with the elaborate and multihued turbans of

218

the men and the catchy embroidery on the clothes of the

women. Likewise, the landscape is enchanting, especially of

the stark and beautiful Thar, the hills of the Aravallis, and the

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

REVIEWS

ravines and forest areas along the course of the Chambal river,

some with unique flora and fauna. In spite of the arid and

semi-arid harsh landscape, the wildlife of the state has

managed to survive through the years due to the low human

population density and the proactive protection afforded by

certain communities, especially the Bishnois. However, since

the last three to four decades, the wilderness and the wildlife

have been facing increasing and severe threats, largely due

to the increase in human population, the growth of towns and

cities, mining, oil and gas exploration/extraction, and other

human-related factors. |

The publication under review is a document on the

faunal wealth of the state and the conservation issues of the

landscape and the wildlife — written by a number of authors,

and edited by three editors. The publication comprises two

volumes. The first is in four parts, the first of which gives a

general introduction to the state, its physical and climatic

features, biogeography, biodiversity (including fossil records),

and the history of past and present conservation ethos in the

state. The next three parts cover a range of taxa of the state,

ranging from fish to mammals. There are also species-specific

chapters, such as those on the Great Indian Bustard, Lesser

Florican, White-naped Tit, and the Tiger. The second volume

deals with the conservation and management issues of various

taxa and their habitats, the taxa/sites covered are the Tiger in

Sariska, small mammals of the hilly tracts, Aravalli Hills,

Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Thar Desert, the Gharial

and Ganges River Dolphin in the Chambal, the two Ramsar

sites of the state (Sambar Lake and Keoladeo National Park),

wetland birds, Demoiselle Crane, Sarus Crane, and Smooth-

coated Otter.

Though the purpose and quality of production is

overall good, there are serious errors and flaws in the book,

some being: a] the illustrations of all the fish species from

numbers 12 to 36 do not match the names given in Table

6.1 (Volume 1). The first two of the eleven are correct, but

I suspect there are mistakes in the rest from what I know of

fish with my amateur knowledge, b) Again, as far as my

knowledge of botany goes, the photographs in Figures 2.18

and 2.19 (Volume 1) have probably been interchanged, as

the one in the former is definitely not Commiphora wightii

(which has been wrongly spelt as weighttii), c) The

photograph in Figure 10.2 (Volume 1) is that of the Common

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

Sand Boa and not the Indian Rock Python, d) Though not a

clear image, the image in Figure 2.94 (Volume 1) appears

to be the Dalmatian Pelican (as the ones above) and not the

Spot-billed, and e) the genus of Cassia fistula has been

wrongly written as Casia in Figure 2.24 (Volume 1).

Considering the errors detected from a casual perusal, and

since I largely scanned those that are familiar or interests

me, there is the possibility of more such errors.

When I picked up the publication to peruse it for review,

I expected it to be basically a treatise on the different faunal

groups of the state. Instead, in addition to some of this nature,

there are chapters with accounts of single species, as

mentioned earlier. Considering the title, I feel these should

not have been included, and instead, more authoritative and

extensive accounts of the different faunal groups could have

been written. As for layout, there is quite a bit of waste of

space by having larger than necessary figures and

photographs, and having those which are unnecessary. For

example, the 53 distribution maps for the raptors in Chapter

13 of Volume | occupy half a page each — these could instead

be thumb-sized images positioned at the side of the text for

each species as is the case in field guides. The need for having

profile images of raptors, and also the many images of birds

and other fauna in Chapter 2 is also questionable. A few

representative ones and those of high quality could have been

used, thus saving on paper and reducing the bulk of the book.

Even if the inclusion of profile images was felt necessary,

these could have been reduced to many small ones in each

page/plate. I also found many of the maps of the state too

gaudy for my liking (e.g., Fig. 1.1, in which the font sizes of

the districts differ). What was the need to repeat the Foreword

and Acknowledgments in the second volume? There is also

scope for cutting down on text (with better editing), and

images in Volume 2, for example the photos of the temples of

the state and the movie star being taken to court/jail.

In spite of the errors and drawbacks, the publication is

definitely an important contribution to the literature on the

wildlife of the state, and its value will be enhanced once the

errors and changes suggested in this review are addressed

through a revised reprint or at least ‘a reprint with

corrections’. With all these, there could also be scope to reduce

the two volumes into one compact volume.

M@ RANJITMANAKADAN

219

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

220-238

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

1. FIRST RECORD OF MELANISTIC INDIAN WOLF CANIS LUPUS PALLIPES

FROM THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT

AMOLKUMAR S. LOKHANDE! AND SAMEER B. BAJARU”*

'Dept. of Zoology, Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Mahavidyalaya, Pandharpur 413 304, Maharashtra, India.

Email: amolkumar4u @ gmail.com

Natural History Collection Department, Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, $.B.S. Road, Mumbai 400 001,

Maharashtra, India. Email: sameerbajaru @ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

Aberrant colorations among animals are not

uncommon. Two such most commonly recorded unusual

colour phenomena are melanism and albinism. Melanism, a

phenomenon of excessive synthesis of the melanin pigment,

results in melanistic (black or dark brown) morphs of the

animals, frequently observed in the wild (Anderson ef al.

2009; Delibes et al. 2012). On the contrary, partial or total

lack of the synthesis of melanin (leucism and albinism) is

rare among wild animals, but commonly observed in

domesticated or zoo animals. The white phenotypes lack

evolutionary adaptive significance in nature (except in snow

covered regions), and are therefore, usually eliminated from

the natural populations (Caro 2005).

Recent advances in molecular genetics have revealed

the evolutionary and ecological significance of colour

polymorphism. Certain colour polymorphism even sheds light

on the history of the lineages. For example, the gene

mutations, introduced by dogs in the natural populations of

Grey Wolf Canis lupus in North America resulted in evolution

of melanistic morphs in the population. These dark-coloured

wolves are common in boreal forests and extremely rare in

tundra — where light coat coloured wolves are common. It

seems to suggest the adaptive significance of dark coat colour

in concealment during predation in the forests or indirect

effect of some other important adaptations (Anderson et al.

2009).

The occurrence of melanistic phenotypes in mammals

of the Indian subcontinent has been regularly reported in

species such as Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra, Leopard

Panthera pardus, Woolly Flying Squirrel Eupetaurus

cinereus, Red Muntjac Muntiacus muntjak, Jungle Cat Felis

chaus, Asian Golden Cat Catopuma temminckii, and Dhole

Cuon alpinus (Bashir et al. 2011; Chakraborty and Agrawal

1977; Chakraborty et al. 1988; Hauxwell 1904; Inglis 1952;

Morris 1936; Smith 1906). Although melanism has been

frequently documented in canids, especially in Grey Wolves

in North America (Anderson et al. 2009), no record of

220

occurrence of melanistic C. Jupus has been reported from the

Indian subcontinent (Jhala 2013; Pocock 1941). Here, we give

the first record of melanistic Indian Wolf C. lupus pallipes

from the Indian subcontinent. |

On September 26, 2012, the first author (AL) observed

a black dog-like animal moving about 300 m from him in

agricultural fields located at c. 5 km south-east of

Mangalwedha (17° 30' N and 75° 26' E), Solapur district,

Maharashtra. After brief observation, he realised that the

behaviour of the animal was quite different from the usual

behaviour of dogs. This increased the curiosity of AL, and

he moved c. 40—50 m towards the animal, and crouched

behind a tree to observe the animal, which was resting in a

puddle. Except its black colour, with a white patch on the

upper jaw and on the lower part of the chest between the

forelimbs, the other features such as the longer snout in

proportion to its head, the large, blunt upright ears, and tail

almost straight with slight curvature at the middle to the

distal end indicated that it was a wolf. Eventually, the wolf

became aware of the presence of the author; it stood up and

started moving away from him. During this time, another

animal arrived at the scene — a wolf with normal coat colour.

Both the animals engaged themselves in chasing and

mounting, with the black wolf once attempted to mount

the other wolf. These observations made the author

more confident about his identification of the melanistic

wolf.

Subsequently, we visited the area on November 13

and 14, 2012, to collect additional information. The area

represents a typical Deccan plateau, where the terrain is flat

with deep black cotton soil. The landscape is a mosaic of

dryland and irrigated agriculture fields with scattered trees,

such as Neem Azadirachta indica and Babul Acacia nilotica

and thickets of Prosopis juliflora. Thickets of P. juliflora

provide ideal resting and denning sites for the wolves. We

interviewed three randomly selected shepherds and three

farmers by showing photographs of the black wolf taken

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Fig. 1: The melanistic Indian Wolf Canis lupus pallipes with a

normal coloured wolf in an agricultural field

Inset: a closer view of the black wolf

from the same area by the first author. They all agreed on

the rarity of the occurrence of the black wolf. One of the

shepherds, a very old man, said that this was the first time

he was seeing black wolves in his 65—70 years of experience

of shepherding in this region, and also mentioned the

presence of two individuals — a male and a female in this

area. The shepherds said that they had seen melanistic

wolves frequently hunting blackbuck along with normal

coloured wolves.

Anderson et al. (2009) have discussed in greater detail

the evolution and adaptive significance of melanism in the

North American Grey Wolf. They have revealed that the

mutation in K locus in dogs gave rise to dominant K® allele,

leading to inheritance of black coat colour. They also

postulated that this mutation might have arisen in Old World

wolves before domestication, and then was lost from that

gene pool and was again introduced in North American gray

wolves through native American dogs. However, the

occurrence of melanistic wolves in the Indian subcontinent,

which is the oldest lineage of wolves (Sharma et al. 2004),

challenges the hypothesis of complete disappearance of the

gene responsible for the black coat colour from the gene

pool of the Old World wolves. It may indicate the recent re-

introduction of the gene from dogs to Indian wolves through

hybridisation, or recurrence of an independent mutation in

Indian wolves.

This report of melanistic wolf in the Indian subcontinent

is of crucial scientific importance to reveal the mystery of

the origin of K® allele responsible for black coat colour in

wolves and it could also provide deeper insight into the

evolution of wolf-dog lineage.

REFERENCES

ANDERSON, T.M., B.M. VoNHo pt, S.I. CANpiILLe, M. MusiAnr, C. Greco,

D.R. STAHLER, D.W. SmitH, B. PADHUKASAHASRAM, E. RANDI,

J.A. LEONARD, C.D. BUSTAMANTE, E.A. OSTRANDER, H. TANG,

R.K. Wayne & GS. Barsu (2009): Molecular and evolutionary

history of melanism in North American Gray Wolves. Science

323: 1249-1390.

Basuir, T., T. BHATTACHARYA, K. PoupDyAL & S. SATHYAKUMAR (2011):

Notable observations on the melanistic Asiatic Golden Cat

(Pardofelis temminckii) of Sikkim, India. NeBIO 2(1): 2-4.

Caro, T. (2005): The adaptive significance of colouration in mammals.

BioScience 55: 125-136.

CHAKRABORTY, S. & V.C. AGRAWAL (1977): A melanistic example of

woolly flying squirrel, Eupetaurus cinereus Thomas (Rodentia-

Sciuridae). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 74(2): 346.

CHAKRABORTY, S., R. CHAKRABORTY, V.C. AGRAWAL & M. Mount (1988):

Melanism in the jungle cat, Felis chaus Guldenstaedt (Felidae -

Carnivora). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 85(1): 184.

Devipes, M., V. Mé&zAn-Muxart & J. CALZADA (2012): Albino and

melanistic genets (Genetta genetta) in Europe. Acta Theriol.

DOI 10.1007/s13364-012-0088-7. Accessed on December 16,

2012.

HAuXwELL, T.A. (1904): Melanism amongst panthers. J. Bombay Nat.

Hist. Soc. 15(4): 723.

INcIis, C.M. (1952): Melanism in the barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak).

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 50(3): 648.

JHALA, Y.V. (2013): Indian Wolf. Pp. 377-391. In: (Eds: Johnsingh, A.J.T.

& N. Manjrekar): Mammals of South Asia. University Press,

Hyderabad, India.

Morris, R.C. (1936): Melanism in wild dogs. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.

Soc. 38(4): 813.

Pocock, R.I. (1941): The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and

Burma. Mammalia. Vol. II. Carnivora. Taylor and Francis Ltd.,

London. 503 pp.

SHARMA, D.K., J.E. MALDONADO, Y.V. JHALA & R.C. FLEISCHER (2004):

Ancient wolf lineages in India. P. Roy. Soc. Lond. B271 (Suppl.

3): S1-S4.

Smith, J.M. (1906): Melanism in black buck. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

FO(2)) SOT

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

221

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

2. FIRST BREEDING RECORD OF THE LESSER ADJUTANT LEPTOPTILUS JAVANICUS

(HORSFIELD, 1821) FROM BOKARO DISTRICT, JHARKHAND, INDIA

Miruicesu Dutr Dwrvept!., Satya PRAKASH!®*, ANIL KUMAR MISHRA’, VIBHU PRAKASH’,

GURUDUTTA Dwivepi’ AND MOHAMMAD RAZIUDDIN!”

‘University Department of Zoology, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag 825 301, Jharkhand, India.

Palamu Tiger Reserve (Buffer Area), Medininagar, Daltonganj 822 101, Jharkhand, India. Email: anilkrmishral 1 @ gmail.com

3BNHS, Vulture Conservation Breeding Centre, B-3, Forest Complex, Pinjore 134 102, Haryana, India. Email: vibhu.mathur@ gmail.com

4XISS, Ranchi 834 001, Jharkhand, India. Email: guruduttadwivedi @ gmail.com

Email: dwivedi_biologist@ yahoo.co.in

SEmail: nhfsatya@ hotmail.com

7TEmail: mrazi.vbu @ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

Introduction

The Lesser Adjutant Leptoptilus javanicus is placed

in Vulnerable category of the IUCN Red List for Birds

(IUCN 2013). Its global population is decreasing rapidly,

mainly because of habitat loss, anthropogenic pressures,

decreasing wetland feeding areas, intensive fishing, and

increased use of pesticides (Rahmani 2012). Earlier estimate

of its global population was 5,000 (BirdLife International

2001; Hancock 1992), but based on extensive surveys it is

now estimated between 6,500—8,000 or possibly more

(BirdLife International 2013).

The Lesser Adjutant has an extensive distributional

range across South and Southeast Asia. It is now

presumed to be extinct in China (BirdLife International

2001, 2011). In India, it has been reported from many

areas (Rahmani 2012), but its largest population is in

Assam, West Bengal, and Bihar where it is found in fair

numbers (BirdLife International 2013; Chaudhury 2000;

Mishra et al. 2004).

In India, breeding of Lesser Adjutant has been

recorded from Assam, West Bengal, Bihar, Odisha, Tamil

Nadu, and Karnataka (Rahmani 2012). However, the

maximum reports of breeding are from Assam (Barua and

Sharma 2005; Choudhury 2000, 2006; Pawar and Birand

2002). A few (maximum of four in 2011) adult individuals

of this adjutant have been sighted at Udhuwa Lake Bird

Sanctuary in Sahibganj district, Jharkhand (Mishra 2004;

Prakash et al. 2012), but there are no records of its breeding

from the area. Other than these, there are only two sightings

of L. javanicus from Jharkhand: Lohardaga district in

western Jharkhand (Ball 1874) and a single individual in

2012 from Rangamatia, Saraikela-Kharsawan district (The

Telegraph, June 13, 2010). In recent years, breeding of the

species has been recorded from the states neighbouring

Jharkhand, namely Bihar (Kumar and Choudhary 2010;

Mishra et al. 2004), West Bengal (Jha 2006), and Odisha

(Gopi and Pandav 2007).

During a road survey of the birds of Bokaro district,

Jharkhand, between February 10-25, 2013, we recorded a

total of 15 adult Lesser Adjutants and five nestlings in

Ambadih Tola (23° 38' 54" N; 85° 53' 02" E) of Uttasara

village, 6 km north of the Peterwar block. A small breeding

Fig. 1: 1st and 2nd nest of Lesser Adjutant on

Ficus benghalensis in Uttasara village of Peterwar, Jnarkhand

222

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

colony of three pairs had constructed three massive platform

nests on the top of ac. 15 m tall Ficus benghalensis tree,

located very close to human habitations. Local villagers said

that nesting started in October 2012. Two nests had two

nestlings each (Fig. 1), and the third had one nestling (Eds:

photographic evidence provided). These nestlings were

approximately three months old. Fledging was observed on

February 20, 2013. There are bamboo plantations a few

hundred metres away from the nesting site and the River

Khajo flows about 5 km from the breeding site. There is

also a large waterbody, Tenughat dam (38.13 sq. km), to the

north of the nesting site with stretches of mudflats and

wetlands, which would provide suitable feeding grounds

for the species.

The species is known to the locals by the name

Khat-Khat. They say that there used to be about 50 nests

every year in the area prior to 1970, the birds mainly nesting

on Bombax ceiba, but all of them suddenly left the

place. About 20 individuals again started nesting in 2011,

mainly on Tamarind Tamarindus indicus. The nesting

site of the Lesser Adjutant needs to be protected, and also

the wetlands of the area, so that this area becomes an

important nesting and foraging site for the species in

Jharkhand.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to Shri Hublal Mahato,

President, Village Forest Management and Protection

Committee, Shri Ganga Bhuiya, Shri Tulsi Mahato,

Shri Taleshwar Mahato, Shri Vinod Nayak, and other residents

of village Uttasara and Ambadih, Peterwar, Bokaro for

valuable help rendered during the survey and for sharing

their observations on the species. We are also indebted to

Dr. Manish Ranjan, Director, NRHM, Jharkhand, for support

and discussions.

REFERENCES

BaLL, V. (1874): Avifauna of Chuti (Chhota) Nagpur division, Sw.

frontier of Bengal. Stray Feathers 2: 355-440.

Barua, M. & P. SHARMA (2005): The Birds of Nameri National Park,

Assam, India. Forktail 21: 15-126.

BirDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2001): Threatened Birds of Asia: The

BirdLife International Red Data Book. BirdLife International,

Cambridge, UK.

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2011): Species factsheet: Leptoptilos javanicus.

Downloaded from http://www. birdlife.org on 26.6.2010.

BirDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2013): Leptoptilos javanicus. The [UCN Red

List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.1.<http://

www.iucnredlist.org>.

CuoupuHury, A. (2000): The Birds of Assam. Gibbon Books and WWF-

India, Guwahati, India.

CuHoupHury, A. (2006): Birds of Dibru-Saikhowa National Park and

Biosphere Reserve, Assam, India. Indian Birds 2(4): 95-105.

Gort, GV. & B. PANpAv (2007): Observation on breeding biology of

three stork species in Bhitarkanika mangroves. Indian Birds

3(2): 45-50.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (1972): The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972,

Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India, New Delhi.

Hancock, J.A., J.A. KUSHLAN & M.P. Kaui (1992): Storks, ibises and

spoonbills of the world. Academic Press, London & New York.

Pp. 301.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

IUCN (2013): IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (ver. 2013.2).

Available at: http://www.iucnredlst.org/. (Accessed on

November 13, 2013).

JHA, S. (2006): Records of some rare birds from Farakka Barrage (West

Bengal, India). Indian Birds 2(4): 106.

Kumar, B.N. & S.K. CHoupuary (2010): Avifauna of Jagatpur wetland

near Bhagalpur (Bihar, India). Indian Birds 6(1): 15-17.

Misura, A., J.N. MANDAL & T.K. GHosH (2004): Breeding of Lesser

Adjutant from an unexplored area of Kosi region of

N. Bihar. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 44: 84.

Pawar, S. & A. BiraAnp (2002): A survey of amphibians, reptiles and

birds in north east India. OBC Bulletin 35: 11-13.

PRAKASH, S., A. MisHrA, M. Dwivepi, A.K. MisHra, M. RANJAN &

M. RazruppIn (2012): Avian diversity of Udhuwa Lake Bird

Sanctuary (IBA), Sahibganj, Jharkhand, India. Columban J. Life

Sci. 13(1&2): 57-71.

RAHMANTI, A.R. (2012): Threatened Birds of India — Their Conservation

Requirements. Indian Bird Conservation Network, Bombay

Natural History Society, Royal Society for the Protection of

Birds, BirdLife International and Oxford University Press.

Pp. 358-363.

THE TELEGRAPH (2010):Villager rescues stork. Jamshedpur, June 13.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100614/jsp/jharkhand/

story_12561650.jsp#

223

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

3. FIRST RECORD OF LESSER WHITE-FRONTED GOOSE ANSER ERYTHROPUS

FROM GUJARAT, INDIA

AsiF N. KHAN!

‘Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001, Maharashtra, India.

Email: khanasif36 @ gmail.com

The Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus 1s

globally threatened (BirdLife International 2013); it breeds

in the Taiga and Tundra, and winters in Iraq and in the southern

and eastern lowlands of China. In India, it is a rare and vagrant

winter visitor with sporadic records from Kashmir, Uttar

Pradesh, West Bengal, Bihar, Assam, Rajasthan (Keoladeo

National Park), and Maharashtra (Rahmani 2012). More

recently, there have been single records from Maharashtra,

Odisha, and Andhra Pradesh (Manakadan et al. 2011). There

are no reports of the species from Gujarat (Rahmani 2012;

Sen 2008; Tiwari 2013).

During a BNHS camp to the Little Rann of Kutch in

December 2013, while exploring the north-eastern end of

Nawa Talaw area (23° 13.47' N; 071° 45.39' E), [saw a gaggle

of five geese at about 300 m distance that resembled Greylag

Goose Anser anser, but were smaller and darker. On viewing

through 10x42 binoculars and later spotting scopes (20x and

48x), it was identified to be Lesser White-fronted Goose based

on two (adult) individuals that had white coloration at the

margins of the bill. The birds were photographed (Eds:

photographic evidence provided). This species was separated

from the Greater White-fronted Goose based on the smaller

size, Shorter neck, smaller and shorter bill, the presence of a

clear yellow eye-ring, and white at the base of the bill

extending up to the forehead (see Grimmett et al. 2011;

Manakadan et al. 2001; Rasmussen and Anderton 2012).

REFERENCES

BirDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2013): Species Factsheet. Anser erythropus.

http://www. birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=377

Referred on December 16, 2013.

GRIMMETT, R., C. INskipp & T. INskipp (2011): Birds of the Indian

Subcontinent 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

MANAKADAN, R., J.C. DANIEL & NIKHIL BHOPALE (2011): Field Guide to

the Birds of the Indian Subcontinent. Bombay Natural History

Society and Oxford University Press. 409 pp.

RAHMANI, A.R. (2012): Threatened Birds of India — Their Conservation

Requirements. Indian Bird Conservation Network: Bombay Natural

History Society, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and

BirdLife International, UK. Oxford University Press. Pp. 351-354.

RASMUSSEN, P.C. & J.C. ANDERTON (2012): Birds of South Asia, The

Ripley Guide. Vols. 1 & 2. 2nd edn. National Museum of Natural

History - Smithsonian Institution, Michigan State University and

Lynx Edicions, Washington, D.C., Michigan and Barcelona.

SEN, SumiT K. (2008): Kutch, Gujarat Checklist of Birds. http://

www.kolkatabirds.com/gujarat/gujaratclist.htm. Referred on

December 16, 2013.

TIWARI, JUGAL KisHor (2013): Checklist of Birds of Kutch. http://

www.cedobirding.com/index_files/checklist.htm. Referred on

December 16, 2013.

4. SIGHTING OF BAILLON’S CRAKE PORZANA PUSILLA NEAR CHENNAI, INDIA

Jency SAMUEL!

'31/16, Tailors Estate II Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024, Tamil Nadu, India. Email: jencysamuel @ gmail.com

We have been visiting Thenneri lake, 60 km south-west

of Chennai, for the last six years. There is a small pond at

Ayimicheri, about a kilometre off Thenneri. Pheasant-tailed

Jacana Hydrophasianus chirurgus, White-breasted Waterhen

Amaurornis phoenicurus, Common Moorhen Gallinula

chloropus, Yellow Bittern Ixobrychus sinensis, Cinnamon

Bittern Ixobrychus cinnamomeus, Black Bittern Dupetor

flavicollis, and herons Butorides striatus and Ardeola grayii

are commonly seen at this pond that rarely dries up. Towards

the end of March 2012, we obtained a new record for the

224

area. It was a small brown bird with dark brown and white

spots on the upperparts, white bands on the rear underparts,

and red eyes. Photographs were taken, and on checking field

guides, it was identified as Baillon’s Crake Porzana pusilla.

Baillon’s Crake is mentioned as a scarce or occasional

winter visitor in the Field Guide by Kazmierczak (2006).

Baillon’s Crake Porzana pusilla (RM) Quail+ 19 cm.

Occurrence: Reed-beds and irrigated crops. Breeding: Gilgit

and Kashmir; breeding reports(?) from Simla, Uttar Pradesh,

Bihar, Nepal, and Kerala. Winter: Subcontinent; S. Andamans,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Sri Lanka. ID: Male like male Little Crake, but has white

paint-like smears above, barring on posterior underparts more

extensive and distinct, and lacks red base to bill. Female duller

(Manakadan et al. 2011).

REFERENCES

KAZMIERCZAK, K. (2006): A Field Guide to the Birds of India, Sri Lanka,

Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and the Maldives. Om Book

Service, New Delhi.

MANAKADAN, R., J.C. DANIEL & NiIkHIL BHOPALE (2011): Birds of the

Indian Subcontinent — A Field Guide. Bombay Natural History

Society and Oxford University Press, Mumbai. 409 pp.

5. PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD OF THE BUFF-BREASTED SANDPIPER

TRYNGITES SUBRUFICOLLIS IN KERALA —

FIFTH RECORD FROM THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT

P.C. RAJEEVAN! AND JAYAN THOMAS”*

'Pandanchira, Kizhuthally, Kannur 670 007, Kerala, India. Email: sandpiper99 1 @ yahoo.in

*Cannanore Eye Hospital, S.N. Park Road, Kannur 670 001, Kerala, India. Email: jayanthomas7080@ yahoo.in

*Corresponding author

The Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis

breeds in the Arctic region of Canada and Alaska, and migrates

to South America in winter. This species is a vagrant nearly

worldwide, and records in the United Kingdom are attributed

to windblown birds due to hurricanes in the West Atlantic

(Mike Prince, pers. comm. November 2011). The species has

been reported on four occasions from the Indian subcontinent:

a specimen collected from Kalametiya lagoon, near

Hambantota in Southern Province, Sri Lanka (Norris 1960);

sight record from Trincomalee, Sri Lanka, in November 1974

by J.C. Sinclair (Phillips 1978); exceptional spring sighting

from Harike, Punjab, India, in May 1996 (Robson 1996); and

sighting of a single bird by Paul Holt from Santa Cruz, Goa,

India, in November 2000 (Holt and Heil 2003).

The population of the Buff-breasted Sandpiper has

undergone a decline due to widespread conversion of natural

grasslands to agriculture. The Canadian Wildlife Service

estimates that there are only about 15,000 birds in the world,

and hence, it is classified as Near Threatened by the IUCN.

In this note, we report a record of the species from

Madayipara, Kannur district, Kerala, India. Madayipara (12°

01'46" N; 75° 15'29" E) is a laterite hillock, situated at Madayi

village near Payangadi town. To the north of Madayipara is

the Ezhimala Naval Academy, to the west is the Arabian Sea,

and to the south is a meandering river. Madayipara is a plateau,

almost dry with a few trees and shrubs, a few rock pools, and

two large ponds. It is known for its rich diversity of endemic

and endangered flora, and also for migratory birds, some of

which are known to overwinter.

While watching waders at Madayipara on October 30,

2011, we saw a small wader with yellow legs and pearly edged

wings (Fig. 1), along with c. 200 Lesser Sand Plover

Charadrius mongolus. The bird was smaller and slimmer than

the plovers, with a short, pointed, stint-like bill. It was feeding

along the side of some rock pools, not associating with the

plover, and bobbing its head occasionally. The bird was not

shy and we could approach it as close as 15 m, so we managed

to get a few decent pictures. We watched the bird for about

30 minutes on that day, and again spotted it from November

1-3, 2011. The bird was not seen after these dates, despite

several visits and intensive searches by us.

The bird resembled the Ruff Philomachus pugnax, but

was smaller and had a shorter neck. The dove-like plain

Fig. 1: Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis spotted

at Madayipara on October 30, 2011

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

225

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

unmarked face showed a pale eye-ring; it had spots on the

sides of the breast; and in flight, the underwing was white;

there was no hint of white on the upperwings, tail, or rump.

These features, in addition to the short and straight bill that

was almost equal to the length of the head, and the yellow

legs, were sufficient to shortlist it as the Buff-breasted

Sandpiper, which was later confirmed by Indian and foreign

expert birders to whom the photographs were circulated.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Mr. J. Praveen, C. Sashikumar,

Aasheesh Pittie, Suhel, Dr. V. Santharam, Dr. Khaleel Chovva,

Mike Prince, Bill Harvey, Rex De Silva, and Krys

Kazmierczak who helped to identify the bird from the

photograph and provided information on prior records of the

species.

REFERENCES

Hott, Paut I. & Rick Hem (2003): A sight record of Buff-breasted

Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis in Goa. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.

Soc. 100(1): 123-126.

Norris, C.E. (1960): The Buff-breasted Sandpiper: An addition to the

avifauna of India and Ceylon. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 57(2):

411-412.

Puitiies, W.W.A. (1978): Annotated checklist of the birds of Ceylon

(Sri Lanka) 1978. Revised edition. Wildlife and Nature Protection

Society of Ceylon & Ceylon Bird Club, Colombo. Pp. 1-xix,

1-93.

Rosson, C. (1996): From the field. India. Oriental Bird Club Bull.

23750.

6. USE OF RED-RUMPED SWALLOW CECROPIS DAURICA NEST

BY YELLOW-THROATED SPARROW GYMNORIS XANTHOCOLLIS

SATISH KUMAR SHARMA!* AND VIJAY KUMAR KoLr

‘Wildlife Sanctuary Jaisamand, Jaisamand P.O., Udaipur 313 905, Rajasthan, India. Email: sksharma56@ gmail.com

*Wildlife Research Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University College of Science, Mohanlal Sukhadia University,

Udaipur 313 001, Rajasthan, India. Email: vijaykoli87 @ yahoo.in

*Corresponding author

During summer, on May 30, 2009, while wandering

near Beda village (25° 00' 52.7" N; 73° 09' 45.11" E) close to

the southern end of Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Pali

district, Rajasthan, we observed a nest of the Red-rumped

Swallow Cecropis daurica occupied by a Yellow-throated

Sparrow Gymnoris xanthocollis on the underside of a large

rock in a hill. The nest was pitcher-shaped and sheltered

against rain and sunlight by the overhanging rock. The bird

was resting in the nest and remained inside for nearly five

minutes. When we approached closer, it flew off and perched

on a nearby leafless Butea monosperma tree. We observed it

through binoculars and found it had a conspicuous chestnut

patch on each shoulder. Since the yellow throat-patch was

missing, it was identified as a female. She came back to the

nest within ten minutes of our leaving and entered it with

some hesitation. We conducted a survey of the surrounding

area and recorded two more mud nests within a 10 ha area,

which were occupied by Yellow-throated Sparrows. In one

case, around 16:00 hrs, a female sparrow was noticed entering

a nest with an insect — an indication that the swallow’s nest

was being used by the sparrow to raise youngs.

‘The study area is a scrubby-woodland type habitat, with

Euphorbia caducifolia, Anogeissus pendula, Butea

monosperma, Azadirachta indica, Acacia leucophloea, and

Cassia auriculata being common. There is a scarcity of old

and large trees with cavities, which are the natural nesting

sites of the Yellow-throated Sparrow (Ali and Ripley 2007;

Ghose 1969). Probably for this reason, birds such as the

Yellow-throated Sparrow are compelled to use alternative sites

such as the nests of the Red-rumped Swallow for nesting.

The nest location on the lower surface of large rocks in hills

makes it difficult for snakes to approach the nests. The large

size of the rocks and shade probably provide insulation against

high temperatures.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are very grateful to the officials of

Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary for providing assistance

during the course of study.

REFERENCES

AI, S. & S.D. RipLey (2007): Handbook of the Birds of India and

Pakistan. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press.

226

Guose, R.K. (1969): Behaviour of the Yellow-throated Sparrow Petronia

xanthocollis. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 9(7): 8.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

7. RECORD OF A BLACK-LEGGED KITTIWAKE

RISSA TRIDACTYLA IN SOUTH-EASTERN RAJASTHAN, INDIA

Jim LAWRENCE!

‘BirdLife International, Welbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge, CB3 ONA, UK. Email: Jim.Lawrence @ birdlife.org

On December 11, 2012, I (along with my wife and

two others) made an early morning visit to Soorwal dam,

7 km from Ranthambhore, Rajasthan. On arrival, we drove

along the dam scanning for waterbirds, and also looking

out for birds in the surrounding fields and those passing by.

Except for several River Tern Sterna aurantia, one adult

and one Ist winter Pallas’s Gull Larus icthyaetus, there

appeared to be no other waterbirds on this part of the lake.

At around 09:00 hrs, I noticed a small gull flying

towards us that had a distinctive black ‘W’ pattern across

the wings and a black tail tip indicating it was a Ist winter

bird. I immediately thought this bird was interesting and

merited close scrutiny. Of the smaller gulls that occur in the

Indian region, I knew that Ist winter Mew Larus canus,

Brown-headed L. brunnicephalus, Black-headed

L. ridibundus, and Slender-billed Gull L. genei all had a

very different upperwing pattern. Little Gull Larus minutus,

which also has a black “W’ pattern on the wings in I st winter

plumage was a possibility. However, as it lacks the black

nuchal collar, is a distinctly smaller bird, and has a very

different flight action, I quickly discounted it. I instinctively

felt the bird I was watching was a Black-legged Kittiwake,

a gull that I was quite familiar with from my experience in

the Western Palearctic. But it was strange that the bird was

in inland Rajasthan, since Black-legged Kittiwake is a

pelagic/maritime species. As the bird came closer, I was

able to take a few pictures as it flew past and before it flew

off from the area.

From the observations through binoculars and

telescope, and from reviewing the images captured on camera,

I noted the following features: a small and slender dark bill,

dark legs and feet, and a dark eye with a slight grey smudge

above it and a black crescent smudge behind it fading at the

top and bottom. The bird had a black collar and behind that

an all-light grey mantle which continued onto the base of the

wings, forming a grey triangle. Contrasting with the grey back,

the tail was white and slightly forked and tipped black. The

upperwing pattern was a white triangle formed from the inner

primaries and secondaries bordered on the leading edge by

black outer primaries, which narrowed from the black primary

tips to the carpal joint. Here the black of the leading edge of

the wing continued as a quite thick dark bar running

diagonally back towards the base of the trailing edge of the

inner secondaries. However, it stopped short of the trailing

edge of the secondaries, which was all white. The grey of the

mantle continued out to the leading edge of the wing and ran

back to the rump bordered by the black diagonal bar. The

secondary coverts running inside the black diagonal bar were

also the same tone of grey as the mantle. The underwing

appeared all white, apart from black primary tips.

On referring to Grimmett et al. (2011), I found that

none of the smaller gulls regularly recorded in India had this

suite of features, and also found that the Black-legged

Kittiwake was a vagrant coastal species to the Indian region.

Later, I was able to go online and confirm that my earlier

tentative identification was correct. On returning to UK,

I tried to find out how frequently vagrant Black-legged

Kittiwake were recorded in India, and my limited desk

research suggested they were very infrequent and almost

always coastal. Further enquiries led to the discovery that

there were two other recent sightings of the species in India

and several pictures of them were featured on the Oriental

Bird Club Images database (www.orientalbirdimages.org):

On November 25, 2012, a Ist winter bird was seen at

Alibag, Maharashtra, (http://orientalbirdimages.org/

search.php?Bird_ID=966&Bird_Image_ID=69327&p=12)

and on November 30, another was seen near Majuli

Island, Assam. (http://orientalbirdimages.org/

search.php?Bird_ID=966&Bird_Image_ID=68197&p=13).

In addition, I was later advised that Little Gull has also

been photographed in Goa — with the record featured in Ali

and Ripley (1987).

REFERENCES

ALI, S. & S.D. RipLtey (1987): Compact Handbook of the Birds of India

and Pakistan together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan

and Sri Lanka. 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press, Delhi.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

GRIMMETT RICHARD, CAROL INsSkipp & TIM INskipp (2011): Birds of the

Indian Subcontinent. Helm Field Guides, Oxford University

Press, Oxford. 496 pp.

227

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

8. PANGASIANODON HYPOPHTHALMUS (SAUVAGE, 1878) —

AN ALIEN CATFISH IN MUVATTUPUZHA RIVER, KERALA, INDIA

K.V. ZEENA!** AND K.S. JAMEELA BEEvr!?

'P.G. and Research Centre, Department of Zoology, Maharaja’s College, Ernakulum, Kochi 682 011, Kerala, India.

*Email: zeenasalim @ gmail.com

3Email: jameelaks @ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

Introduction

While conducting surveys on fish diversity in

Muvattupuzha river, Kottayam district, Kerala, an exotic catfish

Pangasianodon hypophthalmus (Order Siluriformes, Family

Pangasiidae), was collected through cast net from

Brahmamangalam (9° 48' 58" N; 76° 25' 26" E) during June

2011. Catfishes of the genus Pangasianodon are abundant

in the natural waterbodies in Southeast Asia (Gustiano 2003;

Roberts and Vidthayanon 1991). The natural range of

P. hypophthalmus 1s limited to the lower Mekong Basin, which

includes Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic

(=Laos), Thailand, and Vietnam, and the Chao Praya river in

Thailand (Thuong 2008). It 1s commonly called ‘Tra’ in

Vietnam and Basa or Pangas catfish in the world market.

P. hypophthalmus is cultured and marketed as an economically

important food fish. Young fish are also kept in home aquaria

and known by the trade name of Iridescent Shark.

P. hypophthalmus has been introduced to different countries

like China, Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Guam,

Bangladesh, and India for aquaculture (www.fao.org). It is an

omnivore, feeding on crustaceans, molluscs, plant debris, and

small fishes. It is well-adapted to low O, water and can survive

on a diet low in fish meal.

According to Lakra and Singh (2010), P. hypophthalmus

was introduced to India during 1997. West Bengal is the main

centre of P hypophthalmus seed production in India and a

bulk of it is being sent to Andhra Pradesh and the rest to

Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Kerala; Karnataka, Bihar,

Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh for aquaculture and aquarium

trade. According to Lakra and Singh (2010), the culture and

hatchery sites of P. hypophthalmus in India have been found

to be close to open waters, and hence there exists a chance

of its escape. Escapee fish have been recorded from wetlands

of West Bengal, as well as Kolleru lake area of Andhra

Pradesh. Fish culture is spreading quickly in India, and it is

not restricted to Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal, but has

extended to other coastal areas, including hotspots of the

Western Ghats, and in the northern and north-eastern parts

of the country. P. hypophthalmus has the potential to mature

and breed naturally in the wild, and hence, escapee fish may

colonise and form feral populations in different agro-climatic

228

Scale: 1cm = 2.7 cm

Fig. 1: Pangasianodon hypophthalmus

conditions, impacting the ecosystem and in turn affecting

the biodiversity. Alien fish species have been brought into

India intentionally or otherwise for the purpose of

aquaculture, aquarium trade, therapeutic value, research, and

biological control. Oreochromis mossambicus, Clarias

gariepinus, Gambusia affinis, and Poecilia reticulata are

some of the introduced forms in Kerala. The spread of alien

fish is associated with habitat alterations, trophic alterations,

introduction of parasites, pathogens and diseases, genetic

deterioration, and a drop in local fish biodiversity (Benigno

2001; Lakra et al. 2008; Singh and Lakra 2006). According

to Casal (2006), very few reports emphasise the importance

of alien species in aquacultural production enhancement on

a sustainable basis, and most have highlighted irreparable

losses that can adversely impact fish production and food

security at large. In view of the above facts, there is an

urgent need to regulate the introduction of alien species into

our country.

Below, we provide the morphometrics of a single

specimen of Pangasianodon hypophthalmus collected from

the Muvattupuzha river in Kerala.

Description

Body elongated and compressed. Head relatively small.

Head Length (HL) 4 cm in Standard Length (SL). Mouth

subterminal. Eyes large, placed in anterior half of head, partly

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Table 1: Biometrics of Pangasianodon hypophthalmus (Sauvage 1878)

SI. No. Morphometric Characters incm

1 Total Length 37.3

2 Standard Length 29.2

3 Body Depth 8.5

4, Head Length fae

5 Head Depth 5.9

6 Head Width 5a

F Snout Length 2.2

8 Eye Diameter 1.3

9 Inter Orbital Width 4.4

10 Pre Dorsal Length 12

11 Post Dorsal Length 176

12 Pre Pectoral Length 6.5

13 Pre Ventral Length ; 1333/

14 Pre Anal Length ar

1S Caudal Length 4.5

toy Caudal Depth 3.6

uP Dorsal Fin Length 6.1

18 Dorsal Fin Base zal

a Pectoral Fin Length 4.6

20 Pectoral Fin Base 1.4

21 Ventral Fin Length 4.2

22 Ventral Fin Base 1.4

23 Anal Fin Length 3.7

24 Anal Fin Base Grr

25 Caudal Fin Length Rel

26 Caudal Fin Base 3.6

Meristic Characters Numbers

Fin rays

1 Dorsal /7

2 Pectoral I/9

3 Ventral i/7

4 Anal 30

5 Caudal 19

on the lower surface of the head behind corner of mouth. Eye

Diameter (ED) 5.62 cm in HL and Inter Orbital Width TOW)

1.66 cm in HL. Snout bluntly pointed and its length 3.1 cm in

HL. Nostrils widely separated. Depth of body 3.44 cm in SL.

There are two pairs of barbels. Maxillary barbel nearly

1.6 times longer than mandibular and runs along lower margin

of eye, extending to operculum; black in colour. Mandibular

barbel smaller, extends to middle of eye. From anterior tip of

dorsal fin base, body is slightly arched. Operculum extends

to pectoral fin base.

Dorsal fin commencing slightly in front and opposite

to pelvic fin, with a serrated spine and 7 soft rays. First

dorsal ray longest. Adipose dorsal fin short, a little anterior

to caudal peduncle. Pectoral fin with strong serrated

spine and 9 rays. Pectoral spine stronger than dorsal

spine. Ventral fin has 8 rays, and its origin is opposite

the 3rd dorsal fin ray. Anal fin long with 30 rays, extending

up to caudal peduncle. Caudal fin forked, with 19 rays.

In specimens preserved in formalin, dorsal and lateral

sides of Pangasianodon hypophthalmus are grey. Belly

silvery. Dorsal fin grey. Base of pectoral, anal, and caudal

fins yellow. Anal fin rays dark.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the Head, Department of

Zoology, Maharaja’s College, Ernakulam, for providing

necessary facilities to carry out the research. The authors

also express their heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Atul K. Singh,

Senior Scientist, NBFGR (Lucknow), and Dr. K. Rema

Devi, Scientist E & Officer-in-Charge of Zoological

Survey of India, Chennai, for confirmation of fish

identification. One of the authors, Zeena K.V., extends her

sincere gratitude to the UGC for granting her Teacher

Fellowship.

REFERENCES

BENIGNO, ELvira (2001): Identification of non-native freshwater fishes

established in Europe and assessment of their potential threats

to the biological diversity. Convention on the Conservation of

European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. Standing Committee.

21st Meeting. Strasbourg. November 26—30, 2001 [Bern\T-PVS

2001\ tvps06e_2001].

Casa, C.M.V. (Eb.) (2006): Global documentation of fish introductions:

the growing crisis and recommendations for action. Biological

Invasions 8: 3-11.

GUSTIANO, R. (2003): Taxonomy and Phylogeny of Pangasiidae catfishes

from Asia. Ph. D. thesis. Leuven University, Belgium. 296 pp.

JAYARAM, K.C. (1999): The Freshwater Fishes of the Indian Region.

Narendra Publishing House, Delhi. 551 pp.

LakRA, W.S. & A.K. SINGH (2010): Risk analysis and sudtainability of

Pangasianodon hypophthalmus culture in India. Aquaculture

Asia 15(1): 34-37.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

LakRA, W.S., A.K. SINGH & S. AYYAPPAN (Eps) (2008): Fish introduction

in India: Status, Potential and Challenges. Narendra Publishing

House, Delhi.

NELSON, J.S. (2006): Fishes of the World. 4th edition. John Wiley &

Sons Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. 624 pp.

Roserts, T.R. & C. VIDTHAYANON (1991): Systematic revision of the

Asian catfish family Pangasiidae, with biological observation

and description of three new species. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad.

143: 97-144.

SinGu, A.K. & W.S. LAKRA (2006): Impact of alien fish species in India:

emerging scenario. Journal of Ecophysiology and Occupational

Health 6 (3-4): 165-174.

THounNG, N.V. (2008): Classification of the Pangasianodon

hypophthalmus in the Mekong River. Scientific Journal of Can

Tho University, Specific issue on Aquaculture and Fisheries

2008(1): 84-89.

229

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

9. YPTHIMA KEDARNATHENSIS SINGH — NEW SYNONYM OF YPTHIMA SAKRA MOORE

(NYMPHALIDAE: SATYRINAE) FROM GARHWAL HIMALAYA, INDIA

NARENDER SHARMA!

‘Zoological Survey of India, Northern Regional Centre, 218 Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun 248 195, Uttarakhand, India.

Email: [email protected]

Introduction

The genus Ypthima Hubner 1s represented by about 100

species distributed in the Palaeotropical and East Palaearctic

regions. Most of the species of this genus are known to exist

in Western China, Burma (now Myanmar), Assam, Bhutan,

Sikkim, Nepal, and Taiwan, some are distributed in Africa,

including Madagascar, and a few extend to the South Pacific

Islands and Australia (Shirozu and Shima 1979). Marshall

and de Niceville (1883) separated the Indian species into two

groups on the basis of presence or absence of the male brand.

Besides male brand, Moore (1890, 1892) also took into

consideration the number of ocelli on the underside of the

hindwings and assigned various species in the genera

Thympia, Kolasa, Nadiria, Pandima, and Lohana. Elwes and

Edwards (1893) revised the genus Ypthima and gave an

account of the valva of male genitalia of 47 species. Evans

(1932) divided the genus Ypthima into four groups to

accommodate Indian species. His grouping was mainly based

on wing markings on the underside of the hindwings. Talbot

(1947) followed Evans for the grouping of Indian Ypthima.

Shirozu (1960) made an attempt to distinguish the natural

group of the Formosan Ypthima by taking into account the

structure of the male genitalia. Eliot (1967) published an

account of 14 species of the sakra section of this genus,

whereas Hiura (1969) discussed natural groups of Japanese,

Korean, and Formosan Ypthima based on the male genitalia.

Shirozu and Shima (1979) examined 73 species from Asia,

South Pacific Islands, and Australia, and studied the male

and female genitalia of 53 described species, besides the

morphological characters of all the 73 species.

Results and Discussion

Sharma (1998) studied 54 species of the Subfamily

Satyrinae (Nymphalidae) of north-west India, out of which

16 species belong to genus Ypthima Hibner. The 16 species,

represented by 560 examples, are referable to seven species

groups, namely philomela-group (lisandra Cramer, singala

Felder, marshalli Butler, baldus Fabricius, indecora Moore,

sarkaghatensis Rose & Sharma), sakra-group (nikaea Moore,

uemurai Rose & Sharma, hannyngtoni Eliot, sakra Moore),

huebneri-group (kasmira Moore, huebneri Kirby), obscura-

group (inica Hewitson), asterope-group (asterope Klug),

230

nareda-group (nareda Kollar), and newara-group (newara

Moore). Ypthima species are highly variable in wing

maculation, and the conspecificity of all the species is verified

on the basis of genitalic studies (Rose and Sharma 1998).

Elwes and Edwards (1893) pointed out that owing to a

lot of variations, different species of the genus Ypthima

Hiibner were difficult to identify/separate and the genus

remained for many years a stumbling block to lepidopterists.

Eliot (1992) has also recommended that the males admit of

ready identification from the characteristic forms of their

genitalia.

Singh (2007) mentioned that the three apical ocelli on

the underside of hindwing in Ypthima kedarnathensis Singh

have an intervening yellow band which is a common

characteristic of Ypthima nikaea Moore. However, Rose and

Sharma (1999) segregated 29 males and 2 females as Y. nikaea

Moore on the basis of distinct brown submarginal transverse

fascia and apical ocelli having intervening yellow band on

underside of the hindwings. The whole sample was collected

from Mussoorie where this species shares its habitat with a

closely allied species Y. sakra. Fujioka (1970) reported that

these two species fly together in Nepal. Besides female

genitalic differences, these two species can be separated on

the basis of androconia, and uncus and tegumen of the male

genitalia.

Singh (loc. cit.) described a new

Y. kedarnathensis from Kedarnath Musk Deer Reserve in

Species

Garhwal Himalaya and compared wing maculation of the

species with Y. sakra Moore and Y. nikaea Moore (Table 1),

on which I have remarked. Singh (loc. cit.) has found

additional ocellus in interspace 4 (M,) on the dorsal side of

the hindwing, and minute ocellus in interspace 4 (M.) attached

to the inner side of the ocellus in interspace 5 (M_) on the

ventral side of the hindwing. All the three apical ocelli in

interspaces 4 (M,), 5 (M,) and 6 (Rs) are attached and have

an intervening yellow band. Rose and Sharma (1999) have

also found such individuals having additional ocellus in

interspace 4 (M,) on the dorsal side of the hindwing and on

the ventral side a minute ocellus in interspace 4 (M,) attached

to the inner side of the ocellus in interspace 5 (M._ ). According

to Moore (1857), absence of a yellow intervening band

between the apical ocellus on the underside of the hindwings

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

‘paylidndiq

SN|J9OO |eUJO} ‘ajHue yeue

WOJJ SOU9S JesUl]| e Ul pebuee

IJ]200 € JOUA}SOd “I||J9D0 JOIN}SOd

9914} 9} JO SNjje90 appl se Hig

se pue ‘(peonpei aie YoIyM) 1];890

jedide OM) JOUJO 9} Ue) JebIe|

SNjJG00 jeoIde a|pPpILW AAeMOH

"I|J200 JOU9}SOd 99JU} JOYLO BU}

"Biyes “A JepUN ueY} JaH1e] 1\;900 jeoIde Badu} pay|idndiq snjjaoo ;euso}

pesiuiAuouAs eq Aew SISU@YJPUIePEy “A 9} JO SUON ‘Wey} UsEeMjeq ‘payjidndig ‘SeBpu JOUIISIP UUM ‘1]900 yeoIlde Z ou}

pue ‘adAjojoy Jo elyeyiueb ayew Jo siseq uO pueq Moja & aAey |||900 yeoIde ~ —s SN|jaD0 seu} ‘ajHue seue WO) Seles UUM UOJPBY9 U! ||]]200 € JOUA}SOg ‘(Wd

POWUIJUOD ‘UONBIA & SI (p BdedsJEqU!) “YJ 99/1} [|e ‘xede spyemo} pejoaip sedul| e Ul PeHuBeUe 1I]200 ¢ 1OLIE]SOd UsEMIeq Ppueg MO\|aA e BAeU

Ul SN|J99O peonpsl UIQ Pure G SI BpIs ;es]USA 9|bue saiBbap se} e WO] sjidnd "Wey}] UGEeMjeg pueq MO}|eA OU OP) Hull-mojjeA UOWWOD B® UI PejosIOUS

UO I||[990 JO JOquuNU jenjoR ‘xe|dwW00-B1yeSs U| Jay} Pue JUBSaJd 11]990 jeoIde ¢ eB aney pue ahue| 11/900 jeoide Z ‘oyeulwab ‘abse| 1\;a00 ;eolde-aud Z

adAjojoy jo eljeyueb ayew jo siseq

UO POLWUJUOD ‘UOIBUIBA & SI SISUBYJBLUCDAEY *A

Ul SN|JB9O SyNullW |eUOIPPY I||]890 9=|+g I]]990 G I[]990 G BulmpulH 42

jUeseld

Bull JO apis ;esuop oO} SI SN|J900 UBIPeW BiNOSgoO ‘Ja];ewWsS

peaiedwood se psuyap Ajdueus pue Japeoig ‘poauyap Ajdueus snjjaoo ‘peuyep Ajdueys snijeo00 §=yonw AlaA puodes & SAWIeWOS Japeolg

xe|dwoo-evyes ul Bull Moya HBulyjosuiouy yeoide-aid jo Huis MoyaA Bulosiouy jeoide-aid Jo Bull MOyJaA Buljoulouy =snjjeoo yeoide-aid Jo Buy Mo|JeA Buljosiouy Buimeso4 2

(8661 eels UMOIG

BUUPYUS) PaeyIU ‘A pue BIYeS ‘A Ul UMOIG ses UMOIG yep-yoys ‘asieAsued Aq payesou Ajyoiy, weed pue

USIMO]|9A YIM peTelys Ajesie0o SpisuspUur UOYUS SNOJOLWNU YUM YSIMO}]|9,, 9eLUIS UMOJG SNOJEWUNU UM Addy ‘UMOIG SNOBDEIYOO 0} MOJJ@A BpisuspUA, ~=—s INOJOO Huy “t

episapun S

‘ainuiw SsAemje juaseJd UBYM 1ng

(666 | BWUeUS 9 BSOY ‘g66} BuUUeYS) AjuO ‘peyew Ajjurel 10 JUesqe AjjJUeNbed (9A pue GA UsEeM\eq) G adeds [(QA pue SA UsemMjeq) s soeds

Selpnjs o1/ey1USH Jo siseq OY} UO PELUIJUOD 1||]200 JeEUJO] “(GA pUue PA UBEMjeq) UO SI jJUeSeid UBYM SNI|900 JeoIde-a/g UO SI JUeSaid UBYM SNnjj9a00 jeolde-31 4]

eq ued UO}eE;NoOeW Hulm ul SUOITEUeA v eoeds uo Juesaid sAemje = ‘aynuiww SAemje jUaseid USM jSe] 9U} ‘ainuiw sAemye jusseid UsUM jse|

BHuimoys sjenpiAipul Jo Ayoiioadsuoy “jsebue| ing peyew Ajdueys Jo Ajjurey ‘peyew Ajjurey Jo Juesqe Ajjuenbe.j ou} ‘peysew Ajjures 10 JUuesge AjjUenbey

@LND ul snjjeoo0 “(G WNnWIxewW) Jequinu —sn|ja00 jeolde-a1q ‘JUaSdJd 1|]290 —I|]900 JeUJO} pUe JedIde-aq ‘(QUO sey I|J200 JeUIO} pue jeolde-aud ‘jueseid

pue azis ul AJA I1]990 ‘x98|dWod-B1yes Ul pepunol payidndiun sejiwis ino4 Sewijewos syeU) 1/;a00 ;eue-qns OM] I|J200 pepunos peyjidndiun seyjiwis no4 BuImpuIH c

soioeds ewes du} pey|idndig jeAao ‘eyes ‘4 payjidndig jeAo ‘euyes “4 ul Ue} anbijqo Ajpyubijs Alaa

UIUJIM USAS OZIS UI SOUCA SNjja00 yealde-qnsS —_ ul UBY} Ja|;eWS SNjj900 jeoIde-qns Ja|JeWs Snjjeoo jeoide-qns = ‘pay|idndiq jeAo ‘abe] snjjao0 jeoide-qns Buimeso4 Z

(866} Buueys) JoyJep

PaeyIU ‘A Y BIYeS “A Ul UMOIG BpIsiBddA UMOIg yeG umMolg Weg Bum jo sulbsew jeulwu9} ‘uMoJg JequiA) = INOJOO Hui i

episieddy q

(8661) BUUeYS

(Se ‘£6c) Ww O'9g=ekeeyIU ‘A

(5 oe ‘PEZ) WW OG—-Bp=B1yeS “A Gy-vY cS-Gr GS-8P ueds Bul V

SWIBWUSY SJOUINY UBuIS sisuaYyJBUepey “4 BIOOW CABYIU ‘A BIOOW\| BLES “A Ja}yoeJeyD ‘ON 'S

ybuls sisuayjeuepey ‘A pue eaeyiU ‘A ‘elyes PWIIYJdA UBsEMjeg UJe}ed Bulm Ul Seunyea) BulysinBunsig 21 ajqey

231

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Fig. 1: Male genitalia of Holotype of Y. kedarnathensis

is a test character of Y. sakra as has also been stated by

D’ Abrera (1985) and mentioned by Singh (loc. cit.). Rose

and Sharma (Joc. cit.) observed that geminated condition of

these apical ocelli on the underside of the hindwings is quite

variable, even in individuals collected from the same locality

(Mussoorie) on the same date. In 62 individuals, there is a

single outer ring, while these ocelli are split in the remaining

33 individuals on the hindwing underside. In four individuals

there is an additional ocellus in interspace 4 (M,) attached to

the inner side of the ocellus in interspace 5 (M,). When the

genitalia of these variable individuals were studied, it was

found conspecific with Y. sakra. Singh (loc. cit.) has not

studied the genitalia of the new species, which is

recommended by the abovementioned authors to confirm the

conspecificity of the species.

I studied the male genitalia of the holotype specimen

of Ypthima kedarnathensis Singh in the laboratory of

Entomology Department, Forest Research Institute, Dehradun,

where the holotype and paratypes of Y. kedarnathensis are

deposited. I found the structures such as uncus, tegumen,

vinculum, appendices angulares, saccus, juxta, aedeagus, and

valva of the male genitalia (Fig. 1) of Y. kedarnathensis to

resemble the male genitalia of Y. sakra. Hence, I suggest that

the newly described species, Y. kedarnathensis may be

synonymised under Y. sakra.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author is grateful to Dr. K. Venkataraman, Director,

Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, for encouragement, and

to Dr. P.C. Tak, Officer-in-Charge, Northern Regional Centre,

Zoological Survey of India, Dehradun, for facilities. The

author is also thankful to Dr. Mohd. Yousuf, Head of

Entomology Department, Forest Research Institute, Dehradun,

for granting permission to study types and Dr. Sudhir Singh,

Scientist-F, Forest Research Institute, Dehradun, for laboratory

facilities.

REFERENCES

D’ ApreraA, B. (1985): Butterflies of the Oriental Region. Part II.

Nymphalidae, Satyridae and Amathusiidae. Hill House, Victoria.

Pp. 295-534.

Exot, J.N. (1967): The sakra Moore, 1857, section of the Satyrid genus

Ypthima Hiibner. Entomologist 97: 49-61.

Exot, J.N. (1992): The Butterflies of the Malay Peninsula. A. Steven

Corbet & H.M. Pendlebury, 4th edn. Malaysian Nature Society.

Pp. viti + 595, pls 69.

Extwes, H.J. & J. Eowarps (1893): A revision of the genus Ypthima with

special reference to the characters afforded by the male genitalia.

Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. Pp. 1-54, pls 1-3.

Evans, W.H. (1932): The Identification of Indian Butterflies. 2nd edn.

Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay. Pp. x + 454, pls 32,

9 figs. |

Funoka, T. (1970): Butterflies collected by the Lepidopterological

Research Expedition to Nepal Himalaya, 1963. Part 1.

Papilionoidea. Spec. Bull. Soc. Japan 4: 1-125, 15 figs, 31 pls.

HiurA, I. (1969): Butterflies of the Japanese Islands in the Osaka Museum

of Natural History. Spec. pub. Osaka Mus. nat. Hist. 1: 120.

MarSHALL, G.EL. & L. DE NICEVILLE (1883): Butterflies of India, Burma

and Ceylon. Vol. I. Calcutta Central Press. Pp. 327.

Moorg, F. (1857): In Horsfield and Moore. Cat. Lep. Ins. E. India Co.

Toca,

Zo2

Mookrg, F. (1890): Lepidoptera Indica. L. Reeve, London. /: 1-144.

Moore, F. (1892): Lepidoptera Indica. L. Reeve, London. /: 233-317.

Rose, H.S. & N. SHARMA (1998): Two new species of the genus Ypthima

Hiibner from the West and N-West Himalaya, India

(Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea: Satyridae). Geobios new Reports

17: 105-112.

Rose, H.S. & N. SHARMA (1999): Butterflies of the genus Ypthima Hiibner

(Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) from North-Western India. Zoos’

Print Journal 14(9): 97-115.

SHARMA, N. (1998): Taxonomic studies on the family Satyridae

(Lepidoptera: Ditrysia: Papilionoidea) of north-west India with

emphasis on external genitalia. Ph. D. thesis, Punjabi University,

Patiala, 260 pp., 878 figs. & photos.

SHiRozU, T. (1960): Butterflies of Formosa in colour, Hoikusha, Osaka

(In Japanese with English description).

SHirozu, T. & H. Suma (1979): On the natural groups and their

phylogenetic relationships of the genus Ypthima Hiibner mainly

from Asia (Lepidoptera, Satyridae). Sieboldia 4: 231-295.

SINGH, A.P. (2007): A new butterfly species of the genus Ypthima Hiibner

(Nymphalidae: Satyrinae) from Garhwal Himalaya, India.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 104(2): 191-194.

TALBoT, G. (1947): The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and

Burma, Butterflies, Vol. 2. Taylor & Francis, London. 506 pp.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

10. CUCUMIS DIPSACEUS EHRENB. EX SPACH (CUCURBITACEAE):

A NEW RECORD FOR KARNATAKA, INDIA

SHRIKANT P. SutTar!**, TusHar M. Drxit!*, S.R. YAapav!* AND K.V. Buat?

‘Department of Botany, Shivaji University, Kolhapur 416 004, Maharashtra, India.

*National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, Pusa campus, New Delhi 110 012, India. Email: kvbhat2001 Sas: com

3Email: shrikantsutar55 @ gmail.com

‘Email: dixit_85tushar@ yahoo.co.in

°Email: sryadavdu @rediffmail.com

*Corresponding author

Introduction

Genus Cucumis L. is represented by 32 species

worldwide (Kirkbride 1993). Chakravarty (1982) reported six

species for India, after which Sarvalingam et al. (2010) added

one more species, i.e., C. dipsaceus from Maruthamalai

foothills, Tamil Nadu. Ghebretinsae et al. (2007) merged five

genera, namely Dicaelospermum C.B. Clarke, Cucumella

Chiov., Mukia Arn., Myrmecosicyos C. Jeffrey, and Oreosyce

Hook. f. under Cucumis on the basis of molecular phylogenetic

studies. With this enlarged circumscription of the genus,

Cucumis is now represented by 52 species worldwide

(Mabberley 2008). Of the five merged genera, Cucumella,

Mukia, and Dicaelospermum are found in India. In India,

Cucumella is represented by two species, namely C. ritchiei

(Chakrav.) C. Jeffrey and C. silentvalleyi Manuilal, T. Sabu &

P. Mathew (Kirkbride 1994). The genus Mukia is represented

by three species, namely M. javanica (Miq.) C. Jeffrey,

M. leiosperma (Wight & Arn.) Wight, and M. maderaspatana

(L.) M. Roem (De Wilde and Duyfjes 2006). The genus

Dicaelospermum with one species, D. ritchiei C.B. Clarke, is

endemic to the Western Ghats. The merging of the above species

in Cucumis increases the species count to thirteen (Sutar et al.

2013).

Cucumis dipsaceus is possibly native to Sudan and

southern Egypt, and occurs widely in different parts of Africa,

America, and West Indies (Kirkbride 1993). We collected it

from two sites in India, along the road around Mysore (12°

20' 875" N, 76° 40' 207" E; 716 m), Karnataka, and at the

foothills of Maruthamalai hill in Tamil Nadu (11° 02' 660" N

76° 51' 649" E; 573 m). The specimens were deposited in the

herbarium of the Botany Department, Shivaji University,

Kolhapur (SUK). The collection from Mysore forms the first

record for Karnataka, which extends the distribution of this

species northwards. We give a detailed description and

illustration of the species below for easy identification.

Cucumis dipsaceus Ehrenb. ex Spach, Hist. Nat. Vég.

(Spach) 6: 211. 1838.

Annual, climbing, monoecious, scabrous herb. Stem

weak, quadrangular, grooved, herbaceous, branched, hairy.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

Leaves simple, alternate, exstipulate, cordate-orbicular,

petiolate; petiole 4-9 cm long; lamina 8-14 x 5-14 cm,

angular to shallowly-lobed, hairy on both surfaces, base

cordate, apex acute, margin serrate-denticulate. Tendril

simple, pubescent. Inflorescence: male flowers borne in

cluster of 3—5 per axil on main branch; female flowers borne

solitarily on secondary branch from Ist—3rd node. Male

flower: 1.2—1.3 x 2.42.5 cm, actinomorphic, yellow; pedicel

10-13 mm long. Hypanthium c. 7 mm long, turbinate to

Fig. 1: Cucumis dipsaceus Ehrenb. ex Spach

A. Twig; B. Female flower; C. L.S. of female flower; D. Stamen;

E. Male flower, F. L.S. of male flower, G. Fruit; H. Seed

233

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

campanulate, pubescent on both sides; calyx teeth c. 3 mm.

Corolla yellow, campanulate; lobes 12 x 7 mm, ovate, apex

obtuse, wavy margin, hairy on both sides. Stamens three:

one monothecous, two bithecous, attached to the calyx tube

0.5—1 mm above the base, coherent to each other; anther lobes

c. 3 mm long, straight, dorsifixed, ciliate, dehiscing

longitudinally, extrorse, appendaged; filament c. 1 mm long,

hairy; connective projection c. 1 mm long, bilobed. Pistillode

c. 1 x 1 mm, globular. Female flower: 2.3—2.5 x 2—2.2 cm,

actinomorphic; pedicel c. 5 mm long; hypanthium tube

c. 3 mm long, turbinate to campanulate, hairy on both sides;

calyx teeth c. 2 mm long. Corolla same as of male flower.

Ovary c. 1.2 x 1 cm, ovoid to oblong, densely aculeate,

3-locular with many horizontal ovules; style c. 1 mm long,

glabrous; stigma c. 2 x 2 mm, 3-lobed, papillate; disc c. I x

2 mm. Staminodes 3. Fruit: 5—7 x 3.5—4 cm, non-dehiscent,

oblong, apex blunt, initially green turns pale yellow after

maturity, many-seeded, densely aculeate, aculei 5—7 mm long.

Seed: 4—5 x 2 mm, oblong-obovate, compressed, non-beaked,

emarginate, grey-white, apex acute, funicle caduceus

(Fig. 1).

Chromosome number: 2n = 24 (Kirkbride 1993; Singh

and Yadava 1984).

Flowering & Fruiting: July to January.

Specimens examined: INDIA: Tamil Nadu, Coimbatore

dist, Maruthamalai hill, 12.x1.2009, Sutar 68 (SUK);

Karnataka, Mysore, 24.x1.2010, Sutar 95 (SUK).

Distribution: Africa, North and South America, Saudi

Arabia, West Indies, and India.

Note: It grows along roadsides in wastelands. It is

cultivated for ornamental purposes in West Indies, Africa, North

and South America, and Saudi Arabia. It was used in a

hybridization programme at Jodhpur (Singh and Yadava 1984).

It is probably a garden escape and has run wild in southern

India.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are thankful to the Head, Department of Botany,

Shivaji University, Kolhapur, for laboratory facilities.

We are grateful to Dr. R.V. Gurav for encouragement and

Mr. S.S. Kambale for valuable help. We also thank World

Bank for financial assistance to National Agricultural

Innovative Program (NAIP), Government of India,

New Delhi, under which this work was completed.

REFERENCES

CHAKRAVARTY, H.L. (1982): Fascicles of Flora of India. Fascicle 11.

Pp. 30-48. Botanical Survey of India, Howrah.

De WILDE, W.J.J.O. & B.E.E. DuyFies (2006): Mukia Arn.

(Cucurbitaceae) in Asia, in particular in Thailand. Thai For. Bull.

(Bot.) 34: 38-52.

GHEBRETINSAE; A.G., M. THULIN & J.C. BARBER (2007): Relationships of

cucumbers and melons unraveled: Molecular phylogenetics of

Cucumis and related genera (Benincaseae, Cucurbitaceae). Amer.

J. Bot. 94(7): 1256-1266.

KiRKBRIDE, J.H. (1993): Biosystematic monograph of the genus Cucumis

(Cucurbitaceae). Parkway Publishers, Boone, North Carolina, USA.

KIRKBRIDE, J.H. (1994): Revision of Cucumella (Cucurbitaceae,

Cucurbitoideae, Melothrieae, Cucumerinae). Brittonia 46: 161-186.

MABBERLEY, D.J. (2008): Mabberley’s Plant Book — A portable dictionary

of plants, their classification and uses. 3rd edn. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge. 235 pp.

SARVALINGAM, A., R. SIVALINGAM, A. RAJENDRAN & C. Ka ipass (2010):

Cucumis dipsaceus Ehrenb. ex Spach. (Cucurbitaceae) — A new

record for India. International Journal of Biological Technology

1 (Special issue): 37-39.

Sincu, A.K. & K.S. YapAva (1984): An analysis of interspecific hybrids

and phylogenetic implications in Cucumis (Cucurbitaceae).

PI. Syst. Evol. 147: 237-252.

SuTar, S.P., K.V. Boat & S.R. Yapav (2013): Palynological

investigations in the genus Cucumis L. [Cucurbitaceae] from

India. Plant Sciences Feed 3(5): 50-53.

11. SPIGELIA ANTHELMIA L. (SPIGELIACEAE): NEW RECORD TO THE FLORA OF

GUJARAT STATE, INDIA

Rinku J. Desa? AND Vinay M. RAoLe!**

‘Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara 390 002, Gujarat, India.

*Email: desairnk_3 @yahoo.co.in

>Email: vinaysar @rediffmail.com

*Corresponding author

During a recent botanical excursion to South Gujarat,

the authors noticed a plant on the Karjan river bank at

Kolivada (21° 41.050’ N; 73° 29.025' E; 168.85 m). Perusal

of literature suggested that it belonged to the family

234

Loganiaceae sensu lato. After critical observations of the

flower and fruit, the species was identified as Spigelia

anthelmia L., family Spigeliaceae Mart., which has been

segregated from Loganiaceae sensu strict (Struwe et al. 1994;

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Fig. 1. Spigelia anthelmia: A. Habit; B. Close-up of inflorescence; C. Close-up of floral buds; D. Close-up of fruits

Watson and Dallwitz 1992). Morphologically, Spigeliaceae

can be recognised by their opposite or whorled leaves, often

in false whorls towards the stem tips, one-sided cymose

inflorescences, often brightly coloured pentamerous flowers

with usually funnel-shaped or tubular corollas, articulated

styles, gynaecium eu-syncarpous, strongly bilobed capsules,

capsule compressed contrary to the septum, circumscissile

(the cupular base of the fruit remaining in the persistent calyx).

Spigelia L. is a neotropical genus of c. 60 species,

distributed from South to Central America, Mexico, and the

Caribbean, into the warm-temperate southern United States

and tropical Asia to North Australia (Zappi 2005). High

diversity of Spigelia has been reported from South America

(Zappi et al. 2010). In India, S. anthelmia L. was first reported

from Madhya Pradesh by Oomachan and Shrivastava (1987)

around the forests of Jabalpur. Later, it was recorded from Tamil

Nadu and Maharashtra (Kamble and Chaturvedi 2010; Pardeshi

and Srinivasu 2006; Uma Maheswari et al. 2000). After perusal

of literature (Cooke 1902—08; Shah 1978), the collected

specimen was found to be new to the flora of Gujarat state.

Pradeepkumar (1994) and Pradeepkumar and

Prathapasenan (2003) did not report the presence of Spigelia

anthelmia from the Rajpipla, Dediapada, and Shoolpaneshwar

Wildlife Sanctuary, but we recorded it during our recent visit

to these sites. The first report of S$. anthelmia was by Oomachan

and Shrivastava (1987) from Jabalpur forest along the Narmada

river in Madhya Pradesh. It was later reported from Nagpur by

Kamble and Chaturvedi (2010). It appears that the species may

have been introduced through rivers or road (via transport).

The details of the specimen collected are given below:

Spigelia anthelmia L., Sp. Pl. 149, 1753;

S. multispica Steudel, Flora 26: 764, 1843.

Distribution: Karjan river bank at Kolivada (21°

41.050' N; 73° 29.025' E; 168.85 m), Shoolpaneshwar

Wildlife Sanctuary, Dediapada Tehsil, Narmada District,

Gujarat, India; BARO/RJD 933, 954.

Flowering and Fruiting: July—October.

Habitat: Moist places in the forest, near streams and

river banks.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The first author is grateful to UGC, New Delhi, for

providing financial assistance.

REFERENCES

Cooke, T. (1902-08): The Flora of the Presidency of Bombay. London.

Repr. 1958. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta. Vols 1-3.

KAMBLE, R.B. & A. CHATURVEDI! (2010): Spigelia anthelmia L.

(Spigeliaceae) — a new record from Eastern Maharashtra.

Bioinfolet 7(4): 306-308.

OoMAcHAN, M. & J.L. SHrivastava (1987): Spigelia anthelmia Linn. —

A new record for India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 84(3): 730.

PaRDESHI, S.N. &.T. Srinivasu (2006): Spigelia anthelmia L. — a new

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

record from Maharashtra. Bull. Bot. Surv. India 48(1-4):

201-204.

PRADEEPKUMAR, G. (1994): Vegetational and ecological studies of

Shoolpaneshwar Wildlife Sanctuary. Ph.D. Thesis. The M.S.

University of Baroda, Vadodara, Gujarat.

PRADEEPKUMAR, G. & G. PRATHAPASENAN (2003): Ethnobotany of

Shoolpaneshwar Wildlife Sanctuary of Gujarat: A preliminary

survey. Indian Forester 129(11): 1322-1328.

235

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

SHAH, G.L. (1978): Flora of Gujarat State. Vols 1 & 2. Sardar Patel

University, Vallabh Vidyanagar.

STRUWE, L., A.A. ALBERT & B. BREMER (1994): Cladistics and family

level classification of the Gentianales. Cladistics 10: 175-206.

Uma Maueswari, P., S.A. MuTHUKUMAR & P. DANrEL (2000): Spigelia

anthelmia L. (Spigeliaceae): new to the flora of Peninsular India.

Bull. Bot. Surv. India. 37(1-4): 133-137

Watson, L. & M.J. DALLwirz (1992): The families of flowering plants:

descriptions, illustrations, identification, and information

retrieval. Version: 19th December 2012. http://delta-intkey.com.

Zari, D. (2005): Loganiaceae. Pp. 261—271. In: (Eds: Wanderley, M.G.L.,

GJ. Shepherd, T.S. Mehlem & A.M. Giulietti): Flora Fanerogamica

do Estado de Sao Paulo 4. FAPESP/RiMa, S4o Paulo.

ZApPI, D., E.A. MANOEL & E.F. GuiMarAgs (2010): Loganiaceae.

Pp. 1168-1172. In: (Eds: Forzza, R.C., J.F.A. Baumgratz,

C.E.M. Bicudo, A.A. Carvalho Jr., A. Costa, D.P. Costa,

M. Hopkins, P.M. Leitman, L.G. Lohmann, L.C. Maia,

G. Martinelli, M. Menezes, M.P. Morim, M.A. Nadruz Coelho,

A.L. Peixoto, J.R. Pirani, J. Prado, L.P. Queiroz, V.C. Souza,

J.R. Stehmann, L.S. Sylvestre, B.M.T. Walter & D. Zappi):

Catalogo de Plantas e Fungos do Brasil 2. Jardim Botanico do

Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro: Andrea Jakobsson Estudio.

12. LUISIA TRICHORRHIZA (HOOK.) BLUME — AN ADDITION TO THE ORCHID FLORA OF

MAHARASHTRA, INDIA

G.D. MuratxKar', R.S. GOVEKAR? AND M.M. SarpeEsar**

'Department of Botany, Arts, Science & Commerce College, Upper Plateau, Chikhaldara 444 807, Maharashtra, India.

Email: gmuratkar@ gmail.com

*National Tiger Conservation Authority, Regional Office, Nagpur 440 001, Maharashtra, India. Email: govekiran@ yahoo.com

“Department of Botany, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad 431 004, Maharashtra, India.

Email: sardesaimm @rediffmail.com

“Corresponding author

Introduction

During our field visits to the Vidarbha region of

Maharashtra, an interesting epiphytic orchid was found, which

was identified as Luisia trichorrhiza (Hook.) Blume. This

Species is a new record for the state, from which five species

of the genus have been recorded earlier (Almeida 2009;

Lakshminarasimhan 1996). The voucher specimens were

deposited in the Herbarium of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar

Marathwada University, Aurangabad (BAMU), and below,

we provide an account of the species.

Luisia trichorrhiza (Hook.) Blume Mus. Bot. 1: 63.

1849; Saxena and Bramham in FI. Orissa 3: 1840. 1995. Vanda

trichorrhiza Hook. Exot. Fl. 1(5): t. 72. 18235.

Erect stout herb. Roots with minute hairs. Stems stout,

dark green in colour. Leaves 13-15 cm long, terete.

Inflorescence 3-4 flowered, extra-axillary. Flowers 3-4 mm

across, drooping. Bracts 1-nerved, scabrid. Sepals greenish-

yellow, tinged with purple, entire, glabrous, 3-nerved; dorsal

sepal slightly incurved at apex; lateral sepals keeled, acute at

apex. Petals 3-nerved, 2 short nerves from the sides of lateral

nerves, pale green. Lip panduriform in outline; hypochile

subquadrate, concave, yellowish-green; epichile rhomboid, _

rounded at apex. Capsule narrowly spindle-shaped, tapering

towards the base.

Flowering: July—August

Fruiting: Fruits mature up to the next season.

Notes: The species is an epiphyte on Cleistanthus

collinus (Roxb.) Benth., Madhuca longifolia (Koen.) Mac.

var. latifolia (Roxb.) Chevalier, Mangifera indica L., and

Terminalia elliptica Willd. Very rare in distribution and found

as single individuals in the habitat studied. It is often difficult

to locate the species amidst the green foliage of trees.

Distribution: Amravati and Gadchiroli districts of

Vidarbha, Maharashtra.

Specimens Examined: Amzari (21°23' 0.001" N; 077°

6' 1.6" E) 25.x1.2011, GD Muratkar 2433 (flowering)

(BAMU) and 29.x.2012 GD Muratkar 2433 (fruiting)

(BAMU) in Amravati District; Bhamaragad range 2.x.2007

RS Govekar 197 (fruiting) (BAMU), Murumgaon-Sawargaon

Road 18.11.2011 RS Govekar 764 (fruiting) (BAMU) and

Besewada hills of Gatta range, 26.v.2011 RS Govekar 967

(flowering) (BAMU) of Gadchiroli district.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to Dr. Pankaj Kumar, Kadoorie

Farm and Botanic Garden (KFBG) Corporation, Hong Kong,

for confirmation of the identity and to the Principal, Arts,

Science, and Commerce College, Chikhaldara, for providing

facilities.

REFERENCES

ALMEIDA, M.R. (2009): Flora of Maharashtra State. Blatter Herbarium, Mumbai 5A: Pp. 18-93.

LAKSHMINARASIMHAN, P. (1996): Orchidaceae. Pp. 1-793. In: (Eds: Sharma, B.D., S. Karthikeyan & N.P. Singh): Flora of Maharashtra State:

Monocotyledons. Fl. India Ser. 2. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta.

236

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

13. DIPCADI MONTANUM (DALZELL) BAKER —- AN ADDITION TO THE FLORA OF KERALA, INDIA

SoJAN Jose!**, V. SuResH!*, R. PRAKASH KUMAR”? AND P.V. MADHUSOODANAN~®

'Department of Botany, Govt. Victoria College, Palakkad 678 001, Kerala, India.

*Malabar Botanical Garden, Kozhikode 673 014, Kerala, India.

*Email: sojanchakkalackal @ gmail.com

“Email: sureshmagnolia@ gmail.com

*Email: rprak62 @ gmail.com

°Email: pymadhu @ gmail.com

*Corresponding author

Introduction

The genus Dipcadi Medik. (Family: Hyacinthaceae)

with about 30 species is distributed in the Mediterranean

region, Africa, and south-west Asia (Mabberley 1997). The

greatest diversity is found in South Africa, where about 13

Species are present (Stedje and Nordal 1987). Medikus (1790)

described the genus Dipcadi using Hyacinthus serotinus L.

from Spain as the type species. Later, Ker-Gawler (1816)

described another genus Uropetalon and he moved several

species placed under Dipcadi to Uropetalon. Baker (1871)

resurrected Dipcadi and treated Uropetalon as its synonym.

In India, the genus was earlier represented by nine species,

including four varieties (Deb and Dasgupta 1981; Karthikeyan

et al. 1989). A new species was reported later by

Prabhugaonkar et al. (2009).

Dipcadi was not reported from Kerala till we recorded

the occurrence of Dipcadi montanum from a rocky area of

Kollengode, Palakkad district, Kerala. The voucher specimens

were deposited in the Calicut University Herbarium (CALI)

and the herbarium of Malabar Botanical Garden (MBGS). In

this manuscript, we provide a description of the species with

notes.

Dipcadi montanum (Dalzell) Baker. Baker in Journ.

Linn. Soc. 11: 398. 1871; Hook.f. Fl. Brit. Ind.6: 346. 1892;

Cook, Fl. Pres. Bomb., 2: 769. 1907; Bamber. Pl. Punj. 441.

1916; Deb and Das Gupta, J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 75: 57.

1976,

Scapigerous herb with small globose tunicate bulbs,

12-20 x 10-15 mm; Leaves 3-8, shorter than the scape,

15-20 x 0.2 cm, narrowly linear, glabrous, acuminate at the

apex; Scapes 15—30 cm x 2—3 mm, subterete, smooth, glabrous,

erect, stiff; Inflorescence 5—15 cm long, 7—15 flowered racemes;

Bracts small 5-8 mm; Flowers mildly fragrant, white with

various degrees of red tinge, 11-13 mm long, small; pedicels

3-8 mm long, filiform; Perianth tubular, cylindric with six

segments united up to 1/3rd of the length, the outer recurved

from the middle and inner bent at the tip. Stamens 6, inserted

in the throat of perianth, included; filaments adherent to the

perianth tube except at the tip. Anthers 2—3 mm, linear-oblong,

versatile, introrse. Ovary stipitate, 3-celled with many ovules;

Style short and straight; Stigma 3-lobed. Fruit broader than

long, narrowed at the base, 5—10 x 10-15 mm, deeply trilobed;

Seeds 3—5 in each locule, compressed, 3.5—5 x 3—4 mm

orbicular, wrinkled, brownish-black.

Flowering and Fruiting: July to September.

Distribution: INDIA: Karnataka, Tamil Nadu,

Maharashtra, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and

rarely in the western Himalaya.

Specimens Examined: INp1A: Kerala, Palakkad district,

Kollengode (10° 34' 31.18" N; 76° 42' 48.92" E; 108 m above

msl), 12.viii.2012 Sojan and Suresh 9200 (MBGS).

Notes: An erect, seasonal herb that grows on rocky

slopes. Usually found in groups of various sizes. The typical

associates were Rhamphicarpa longiflora, Centranthera

indica, Chamaecrista kleinii, Indigofera uniflora, and

Parasopubia delphiniifolia.

REFERENCES

Baker, J.G. (1871): Revision of the genera and species of herbaceous

capsular gamophyllous Liliaceae. J. Linn. Soc. 11: 395-400.

Des, D.B. & S. DasGupta (1981): Liliaceae: Tribe — Scilleae. Fascicles

of Flora of India. Fascicle 7. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta.

KARTHIKEYAN, S., S.K. JAin, M.P. NAyAR & M. SANJApPA (1989): Florae

Indicae Enumeratio: Monocotyledonae. Flora of India Series 4.

Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta.

Ker-GAWwLeR, J.B. (1816): Uropetalon glaucum grey leaved Uropetalon.

Bot. Reg. 2: 12 156:

MABBERLEY, D.J. (1997): The Plant-Book. A Portable Dictionary of the

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

Vascular Plants. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Mepikus, F.K. (1790): Uber den gynanndrischensitus der staubfaden

und Pistilleeinigerpflanzen. Act. Acad. Theod. Palat. 6: 431.

PRABHUGAONKAR, A., U.S. YADAV & M.K. JANARTHANAM (2009): Dipcadi

goaense (Hyacinthaceae), a new species from the foothills of

the Western Ghats, India. Kew Bulletin 64: 743-746.

STEDJE, B. & I. NorDAL (1987): Cytogeographical studies of

Hyacinthaceae in Africa south of the Sahara. Nordic J. Bot. 7:

53-65.

237

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

14. ABSENCE OF ULVA RETICULATA FORSSKAL FROM THE COAST OF GOA, INDIA

N. PeRErRA!* AND M.R. ALMEIDA?

1203 Govinda, Holy Cross Road, IC Colony extn, Borivali West, Mumbai 400 103, Maharashtra, India.

Email: neelam.pereira@ gmail.com

Towers, Opp. Patel Petrol Pump, Goregaon West, Mumbai 400 062, Maharashtra, India. Email: thomaspaul5 @hotmail.com

*Corresponding author —

Ulva reticulata Forsskal was first reported by

Boergesen (1935) from Mumbai in Maharashtra, followed

by Krishnamurthy and Joshi (1969) from Diu in Gujarat.

Later, Dhargalkar (1978) reported it from the Chapora Bay

in Goa. The growth of U. reticulata was found to be optimum

during periods of high salinity from December to May and

would diminish during the monsoon. This particular species

of Ulva is known to favour polychaete tubes as its substratum,

and its growth was found to correspond with sewage discharge

(Dhargalkar 1978). Reticulate form of thallus and the presence

of air bladders make this species unique among the species

of genus Ulva.

In earlier studies, at Chapora Bay, this taxon was found

to occur with edible bivalves such as Meretrix casta. Though

the rocky substrate exhibited growth of oysters and green

mussels, surveys by us during October 2008—December 2010

did not reveal the presence of U. reticulata in the Bay. The

absence of this species points towards probable ecological

changes that could have occurred in more than last two

decades. The surveys revealed the presence of several algae,

barring this mesh-forming alga. Increased sedimentation

resulting from sand-mining activities in Chapora river may

have led to the depletion of polychaete tubes from the area,

resulting in the wiping out of this species.

REFERENCES

BOeRGESEN, F. (1935): A list of marine algae from Bombay. Del. Kgl.

Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Biologiske Meddelelser XII:

1-64.

DHARGALKAR, V.K. (1978): Ecological studies on marine algal species

Ulva reticulata Forsskal from Chapora Bay. M.Sc. Thesis.

Bombay University.

KRISHNAMURTHY, V. & H.V. Josut (1969): The species of Ulva L. from

Indian waters. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 62: 123-130.

Printed by Printania Offset Pvt. Ltd., D-20/21, Shalimar Industrial Estate, Matunga, Mumbai 400 019 and published on July 22, 2014

by Ms. Sumaira Abdulali for Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Dr. Salim Ali Chowk,

Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001, Maharashtra, India.

238

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 110(3), Sept-Dec 2013

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

The Journal welcomes concise reports of original research in natural history,

taxonomy and other aspects of zoology and botany of general interest.

SUBMISSION OF MANUSCRIPT

A hard copy of manuscript (including illustrations), typewritten

in double space on one side of the paper and a copy of the MS

on a CD using MS Word, should be submitted to the Editor,

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House,

Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001. Submission

of a manuscript to the Journal implies that it has not been

submitted for publication elsewhere.

A copy of the manuscript may also be emailed to us at

publications @ bnhs.org.

PREPARATION OF MANUSCRIPT

Main Papers and New Descriptions

Manuscripts of papers for the Main section and New Descriptions

should be as concise as possible. Pages should be numbered

consecutively, and the matter on Page 1 should be arranged in

the following order: Title of the paper; Name(s) of Author(s),

Department(s) and Institution(s); Footnote containing address

of Author for correspondence with e-mail id, followed by the List

of Abbreviations used in text. A short running title derived from

the original title may also be given for main papers. Page 2

should contain the Abstract. The text may be arranged in the

following order: Introduction; Material and Methods or

Methodology; Results; Discussion; Acknowledgements;

References. Abstract, Key Words, Tables and Captions for

Figures should be typed separately.

Title: The title should be such as to be useful for indexing and

information retrieval.

Abstract: The abstract, not exceeding 200 words, should

indicate the scope and significant content of the paper,

highlighting the principal findings and conclusions.

Introduction: The introductory part should bear no heading,

should be brief and state precisely the objective of the study in

relation to the present status of knowledge in the field. Review

of literature should be restricted to the essential references.

Material and Methods or Methodology: The nomenclature,

sources of materials and the procedures should be clearly stated.

New methods should be described in detail, but if the methods

are well known, a mere reference to them will do; any modifications

made in the methods should be stated.

Results: Only data relevant to the objectives of the study and

main conclusions emerging from the study should be included.

The data should be arranged in a unified and coherent sequence

for clarity and readability. The same data should not be presented

in both tables and figures, and such data as can be easily and

briefly stated in the text should not be depicted diagrammatically.

Only such tables and figures as are necessary should be given.

Tests of statistical significance should be identified and

references used should be cited. Statements about the statistical

significance of the results must be borne out by the level of

significance, preferably provided in the tables and legends. The

use of the word “significant” should be restricted to “statistically

significant’.

Discussion: The discussion should provide an interpretation of

the results of the study, without repeating information already

presented under Results. It should relate the new findings to

the known and include logical deductions. Where necessary,

the Results and Discussion can be combined.

Illustrations: The number of illustrations should be kept to the

minimum and numbered consecutively in Arabic numerals.

Simple linear plots or linear double reciprocal plots that can be

easily described in the text should be avoided. Extension of

graphs beyond the last experimental point is permissible only

while extrapolating data.

Line drawings should be either laser prints of computer

generated illustrations or manually prepared in Indian ink on

tracing paper, drawn to approximately twice the printed size.

The drawings are usually reduced to the page width or column

size, and care should be taken that the size of letters,

numerals, dots and symbols is relatively uniform and

sufficiently large to permit this reduction.

Photographs: Photographs for reproduction must be clear, with

good contrast. Prints should be at least 9x12 cm and on glossy,

glazed paper.

Please note that illustrations and photographs need to be

submitted as image files (.jpeg or .tiff format at 300 dpi with

legible text).

Image files incorporated in MS Office will not be considered as

submissions.

Tables: Each table should have an explanatory title and should

be numbered in Arabic numerals. Units (metric) of measurement

should be abbreviated and placed below the headings. Negative

results should be indicated as Nil (0) and absence of a datum

by a dash.

Acknowledgements: Acknowledgements should be brief and

relevant.

References: Responsibility for the accuracy of references rests

with the author(s). Abstracts of papers presented at scientific

meetings may be cited. References to literature should be

alphabetically arranged under author’s name, with the abridged

titles of journals or periodicals in italics and titles of books or

papers in Roman type, thus:

Aturi, Rauu J.S. & C. SuBHA Repp! (1995): Ecology of the pollination

in two cat-mint species. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 91(1): 63-66.

Prater, S.H. (1971): The Book of Indian Animals. 3rd Edn.

Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai. pp. 35-48.

Species names should carry the Author’s name and subspecies

(trinomials) should only be used where identification has been

authentically established by comparison of specimens actually

collected.

For the standardised common and scientific names of the birds

of the Indian subcontinent refer to Buceros Vol. 6, No. 1 (2001).

Miscellaneous Notes: The section accommodates incidental

observations on flora and fauna of the Asian region, and need not

follow strictly the above section headings. No abstract is required,

but key words may be included and references must be cited as

in the rest of the Journal.

The Editors reserve the right, other things being equal, to

publish a member’s contribution before that of a non-

member. The Editors also reserve the right to publish invited

papers on priority.

Registered with the ee of Newspapers under RN 5685/57 ISSN 0006-6982

CONTENTS

7 EDITORIAL .ssesesnse Pat it alt ire cn 2 ect oe Pee Pap ig eae TS gen M Roan RGAE oN 0 Sones oe Seat te

THE BIRDS OF SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA | : | :

_V.B. Tuljapurkar, V.R. Bhagwat and SA ee cha oe ak See ah oe aes 172

NOTES ON THE NEWLY DISCOVERED POPULATION OF SIND JERDON’S BABBLER CHRYSOMMA _

ALTIROSTRE SCINDICUM IN HARIKE WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, PUNJAB, INDIA ee :

Saurabh Sawant and M. Sudhagar (OUR ee et ae oe A ce eee et ee eae Me i: eee

A PRELIMINARY OVERVIEW OF THE SUBSPECIES OF RED FOX AND TIBETAN SAND FOX IN" : ee

THE HIMALAYA, INDIA »

Aishwarya Maheshwari, Neha Midha, Ambica Paliwal, Basant Kumar Sharma, eu ot | :

Partha Sarathi Ghose, Priyadarshinee Shreshtha and Srushti Paranijpe .......... Pee emcee eS a

DORYLAIMID AND TYLENCHID NEMATODES ASSOCIATED WITH BANANA PLANTATIONS IN |

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR DISTRICT, WEST BENGAL, INDIA

Viswa Venkat Gantait, Amalendu Chatterjee and Tanmay Bhattacharya...........ccccccccceceeeeeees oe peor ee

SIGNIFICANCE OF PHALLIC COMPLEX IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF INDIAN PYRGOMORPHIDAE |

(ORTHOPTERA: PYRGOMORPHOIDEA)

Hirdesh Kumar, Mohd. Kamil Usmani, Uzma Rafi and Reenu Kumari site aomemncetmntak ree eae — 204

THE TRADE, TRAPPING, AND UTILIZATION OF LORISES IN INDIA a

Mian ee eS as ee ye i PR 210

| OBITUARY 5 Me are CEA Sater a ee, eos ese ee | a ats hai) Rae me OHA

REVIEWS =. Se EME ee Nie care ly ek ers 9 ti, (eo Mn ge ee ts 216

"MISCELLANEOUS NOTES ec cccsees Rees AC eee el ie a ee TA eee 220

Printed by Printania Offset Pvt. Ltd.. D-20/21, Shalimar Industrial Estate, Matunga, Mumbai 400 019 and published by ©

Ms. Sumaira Abdulali for Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Dr. Salim Ali Chowk, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road,

Mumbai 400 001. Website: www.bnhs.org; Email: publications @ bnhs.org/publications.bnhs @ gmail.com

. 111 (1)

VOL

BOMBAY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY

014

“

RIL 2

JOURNAL OF THE BOMBAY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY

Hornbill House, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai 400 001.

Executive Epitor

Asad R. Rahmani, Ph. D.

Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai

Copy Epbitor

Ranjit Manakadan, Phe

Bombay Natural History Society

Copy AND PropucTION EpItor

Vibhuti Dedhia, M.Sc.

Bombay Natural History Society

Ajith Kumar, Ph. D.

National Centre for Biological Sciences,

GKVK Campus, Hebbal, Bengaluru,

Karnataka

C.R. Babu, Ph. D.

Professor, Centre for Environmental Management

of Degraded Ecosystems,

University of Delhi,

New Delhi

Anwaruddin Choudhury, Ph. D., D. Sc.

The Rhino Foundation for Nature,

Guwahati, Assam

Indraneil Das, D. Phil.

Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation,

Universiti Malaysia, Sarawak,

Malaysia

Editorial Board

Aasheesh Pittie, B. Com.

Bird Watchers Society of Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh

G.S. Rawat, Ph. D.

Wildlife Institute of India,

Dehradun, Uttarakhand

J.D. Marcus Knight, Ph. D.

Chennai, Tamil Nadu

J.S. Singh, Ph. D.

Professor, Banaras Hindu University

Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh

S. Subramanya, Ph. D.

University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK,

Hebbal, Bengaluru, Karnataka

R. Sukumar, Ph. D.

Professor, Centre for Ecological Sciences,

Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, Karnataka

Romulus Whitaker, B. Sc.

Madras Reptile Park and Crocodile Bank Trust,

Tamil Nadu

S.R. Yadav, Ph. D.

Shivaji University, Kolhapur,

Maharashtra

Y.V. Jhala, Ph. D.

Wildlife Institute of India,

Dehradun, Uttarakhand

K. Ullas Karanth, Ph. D.

Wildlife Conservation Society — India Program,

Bengaluru, Karnataka

Consultant Editors

Gayatri W. Ugra, Ph. D.

Bombay Natural History Society

Raghunandan Chundawat, Ph. D.

Wildlife Conservation Society, Bengaluru

Nigel Collar, Ph. D.

BirdLife International, UK

Rhys Green, Ph. D.

Royal Society for Protection of Birds, UK

Qamar Qureshi, M. Phil.

Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun

Editorial Assistant: Sonali V. Vadhavkar, M. Sc.

Layout and Typesetting: V. Gopi Naidu

recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS). Enquiries concerning

reproduction outside the scope of the above should be addressed to the Honorary Secretary, BNHS at the address given above.

EDITORIAL

VOLUME 111(1): APRIL 2014

CONTENTS

ROLE OF MOTHER AND ALLOMOTHERS IN INFANT INDEPENDENCE IN CAPPED LANGUR TRACHYPITHECUS

PILEATUS

Awadhesh Kumar and G-< Solanki. vc sage oe Bae es ee ec eect hE Bie cecdhs sc ecnsdictchdbesile ealaravred

FORAGING BEHAVIOUR OF THE NEAR THREATENED GREY-HEADED BULBUL PYCNONOTUS PRIOCEPHALUS

IN RELATION TO SEASONS AND BREEDING STAGES

PAS IART ISHN yt, 1 cereale seattle ncaa eg a eR a a alra crag ya Rite es eae ce ok cc a oa ie or ps ae hak an gear

THYSANOPTERA (INSECTA) FAUNA OF THE KEIBUL LAMJAO NATIONAL PARK, MANIPUR, NORTHEAST INDIA

K. Nishikanta Singh and R. Varatharajan ................:cccceeeceeee ee ae ee ee ee ee ee ah. Tr ee

AEROBIC CULTURABLE BACTERIAL MICROFLORA IN RESIDENT GYPS VULTURE SPECIES OF INDIA

Rohan N. Shringarpure, Mandar D. Kulkarni, Chhaya Sawant, Ashok Bhagwat, Toby H. Galligan

an VIDNU PRARASHY ads iad aes ete eee ale Pe ee SR Boat cc nating RR Aw OE eee Eh sh aoe

OBITUARY

TG» NARENDRAN (1O44220 13); STUER, JR PORN S.A A CO PAD. ae rre. Totes CO ON Te ees ond oe, Le

REVIEWS PE\THSON AY

l, INDIAN MAMMALS — A FIELD GUIDE

Reviewed by Anwaruddite Choudhury. ae ae Ae ee! MAR 3.12015 egy mite ©

i BIRDS AND PEOPLE LIBRARIES

Reviewed byiGayatn Wiora 7 2 oe, Ua ee BUA A A errr cre MPEG EPS DY:

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

MAMMALS REPTILES

1. Dietary opportunism in Desert Fox or White-footed Fox 9. Capturing problem Saltwater Crocodiles Crocodylus

Vulpes vulpes pusilla porosus Schneider using indigenous techniques in the

Farkirat Singh Sangha sce sete. eo ee ee eee 40 Andaman Islands, India

2. Ferret-Badger records from Mizoram, Meghalaya, and Viswakannan, P., C. Sivaperuman, S. Senthil Kumar and

Nagaland, India Sheer mer

Nimesh Ved and Laltlanhlua Zathang ...................cc008 41 10. Record of the rare Bibron’s Coral Snake Calliophis bibroni

3. On the occurrence of dark-coloured Indian or Red

from Nelliyampathy hills, Kerala, India

Muntjac Muntiacus muntjak Zimmermann in Sikkim- os,

ae ot es Jospeh J. Erinjery, Sayantan Das, Ram Subramanian

Paneelng atede With a Teen nih townuree. Muthuvarmadam and Mewa SingN..............:::::sesceeeeeeees

Sikkim, India

Anwaruddin Chowdhutiew:.2 aco. cake al sole 43 FISH

11. Apogon hyalosoma Bleeker (Pisces: Percoidei:

AVES ,

ee ann Fina Racin naaRaniewid Baath rs Apogonidae) — a new report to Kerala, India

, iti < i pre es eat a a en M.H. Shyla and K.S. Jameela Beevi .............:.ccccscseereee

ssi de Sein panes e ‘: ict 12. First report of three Surgeon fishes (Family: Acanthuridae)

Avisek Chatterjee and Dipabali Paul...................0006. 44 ;

en aon cei at oy ete hea df from the north of east coast of India

: rey-faced Buzzard Butastur indicus: first record from

a Dipanjan Ray, Prasad C. Tudu and Anil Mohapatra ......

130 0 b | cimen of Lutj fohnii (Bl

Shirish Manchi, Asad R. Rahmani and a Panta ae santion : shot tes eae aa

isces: Perci : Lutjanidae) fr

Dhritiman Mukherjee .....sssssssssssssesssssssssssssevsssssssssssseseeee 45 P ANIA Patan

, India

6. — First record of Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos and is oe :

. nae ; R.P. Barman, A. Das:and S:S Meter ievseacateoxsn ln eteeas

Caspian Plover Charadrius asiaticus from Kerala, India

P.C. Rajeevan, K.M. Khaleel and Jayan Thomas.......... 45 INSECTS

7. Firstrecord of Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 14. Newrecord of Lesser Blue Wing Rhyothemis triangularis

from Kerala, India Kirby, 1889 (Odonata: Libellulidae) from Odisha, India

Muhamed Jafer Palot, Dipu Karuthedathu, Praveen J., S.K. Sajan and Pratyush P. Mohapatra..........0.......0.

Mike Prince and E. Kunhikrishinan ................:00::e:seseee 46 15. Species diversity of butterflies (Insecta: Lepidoptera:

8. Oriental Skylark Alauda gulgula nesting in Elephant dung Rhopalocera) on two trees of south Andaman,

in Corbett Tiger Reserve, India India

Fh TOTES PT ee Ten nea ES pen 47 Pes WAIERN ays csrcas eatin tes bae ean Nua cen Cem eee adore eee

OTHER INVERTEBRATES

16. A note on the occurrence of Sternaspis scutata (Renier

1807) — a sternaspid polychaete from Sundarban

mangroves, West Bengal, India

H.M. Preetha Mini Jose, S. Muthuvelu, S. Sivaraj and

PPS Shas serene nant yeve di iaatmnersesa ea cqeoneetincaden merece rat et

BOTANY

17. Plagiochila duthiana Steph. — a poorly known species

discovered from Western Ghats, India

Praveen Kumar Verma and Krishna Kumar Rawat.......

18.

20.

Begonia integrifolia Dalzell — an addition to the flora of

Goa, India

Makarand M. Aitawade and Shrirang R. Yadav............. 66

Artemisia santolinifolia Turcz. ex Besser (Asteraceae) —

an overlooked species in Indian flora

Bhaskar Datt, Meena Baleshwar and T.S. Rana........... 67

Physalis pruinosa L. (Solanaceae) — a new record

for the flora of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand,

India

SCvsinghand-Bhaskab Dattani. st hvac leet eeteest 69

Cover Photograph: Sambar Rusa unicolor By Aditya Singh

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

WE ARE GRATEFUL TO THE MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

GOVT. OF INDIA,

FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE JOURNAL.

Editorial

Unique amphibians of the Western Ghats:

a plea for their protection

The Western Ghats is one of the 25 biodiversity hotspots of the world, due to which it was given

World Heritage status recently. Richness of species and endemicity at family, genus, or species level is

typical of the biodiversity of this region. For example, in India there are reports of about 335 species

of amphibians and 520 species of reptiles, of which about 200 amphibian and 120 reptile species are

endemic or confined to the Western Ghats. In the last decade, around 100 new species of amphibians

and reptiles have been described from the Western Ghats (Abraham ef al. 2013; Biju and Bossuyt 2003;

Byu et al. 2011; Nair et al. 2012; Vijayakumar et al. 2014). The formidably named Nasikabatrachus

sahyadrensis 18 one such example, described in 2003 by India’s well-known amphibian expert

Dr. S.D. Byu. Its English name 1s Pig-nosed Frog due to its protruding nose. Interestingly, the tadpole

was described nearly 100 years ago, but no one had seen the adult which generally lives under soft

mud and appears only during the monsoon for mating. As the tadpoles live in torrential streams, they

have developed suckers, much like hill-stream fishes. It is found on both sides of the Palghat Gap in

Kerala near forest streams and rivers.

The smallest known amphibian in the Western Ghats 1s Nyctibatrachus minimus at a mere 15 mm

length. The largest is the Indian Bull Frog Hoplobatrachus tigerinus, which is sometimes seen feeding

on small snakes. The other important groups of amphibians which are limbless and predominantly

burrowing are called caecilians. Of the 39 known species of caecilians in India, about 25 species are

endemic to the Western Ghats. The smallest among them is Gegeneophis krishni (200 mm) and longest

is Ichthyophis bombayensis (640 mm).

As of now, ten genera of Anurans are known to be endemic to the Western Ghats. The genus

Indirana is one of them, with 11 species, including the newly-described /ndirana chiravasi (Padhye

et al. 2014) from the northern Western Ghats, which the authors named Amboli Leaping Frog. According

to the IUCN (2014), two species of this genus are Critically Endangered, three are Endangered, one

is Vulnerable, two are Data Deficient, and two are Least Concern. The true status of Amboli Leaping

Frog needs to be studied through extensive surveys of its habitat.

Pollution, over-extraction of natural resources, invasive species, infrastructural developments

particularly dams, habitat fragmentation, agricultural expansion, and lack of appreciation of the

ecological role of amphibians (and other taxa) are some of the reasons for their decline. On top of this,

amphibians are dying of infections and diseases (Dahanukar et al. 2013; Stuart et al. 2004). Climate

change is another long-term threat that will alter their fragile habits and allow spread of diseases in

new places.

With a population of 400 million people, the Western Ghats is no doubt one of the most populated

biodiversity hotspots of the world. Biodiversity Hotspot is described as an area rich in biodiversity

but also under a high degree of threat. In view of the ecological significance of the Western Ghats and

increasing threats, as well as possible impacts of climate change, the Ministry of Environment, Forests

and Climate Change, Government of India, in March 2010, constituted a Western Ghats Ecology Expert

Panel (WGEEP), led by Prof. Madhav Gadgil. The expert panel submitted their report on August 31,

2011, which was debated and finally rejected by the Government of India. The WGEEP had suggested

that the entire Western Ghats be treated as Ecological Sensitive Area (ESA) which the government was

not willing to do. To water down the report, the government set up a High Level Working Group on

Western Ghats under the chairmanship of Mr. K. Kasturirangan. The Committee came up with its own

recommendations, diluting many recomendations of the WGEEP. It is beyond the scope of this editorial

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56556

to discuss the merits and demerits of these two reports. I would like to bring to the readers’ attention

that WGEEP used a new term Ecologically Sensitive Localities (ESL) that was mainly identified by

civil society. This was to distinguish it from the term Ecological Sensitive Area (ESA) that they have

used for the whole Western Ghats. While it will not be possible to give details of these ESLs, many of

them are important for conservation of amphibians and other taxa.

In order to identify sites for short and long term conservation of birds and their habitats, BirdLife

International, UK, came up with the concept of Important Bird Area. The IBA concept has been well-

tested and now accepted the world over, resulting in identification and protection of nearly 12,000

IBAs in the world. The concept has recently been expanded to include biodiversity other than birds,

therefore now the full form of IBA is Important Bird and Biodiversity Area. The BNHS, being BirdLife

Partner in India, has a major IBA Programme. Ten years ago, we brought out an IBA inventory called

Important Bird Areas in India: Priority Sites for Conservation (Islam and Rahmani 2004). This inventory

is being revised and by the end of this year (2014) we will bring out a revised and updated edition in

which non-bird taxa, particularly amphibians and reptiles, will be highlighted wherever necessary. The

Western Ghats also has many endemic and threatened fish species that need to be protected. Several

genera such as Travancoria, Dayella, Horabagrus, and Lepidopygopsis are restricted to the Western

Ghats. A few species are restricted to the west flowing rivers, and others to east flowing rivers. We need

to identify and protect rivers and streams where the endemic fish gene pool survives. Many of these

rivers are outside the present Protected Area Network of India. Dams, pollution, overharvesting, and

invasive species have already devastated the neglected fish fauna of the Western Ghats. _

The IUCN has come up with its own concept of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs). Many botanists

have come up with the idea of identifying Important Plant Areas (IPAs), and WWF-India is working on

the landscape level. Perhaps all these concepts can be brought together for identification and protection

of areas that are really important for the survival of all types of taxa, and not only mega-vertebrates

which have hogged the limelight all these years in India. Although larger landscape level protection

is beneficial to keep meta-populations and allow gene flow, it is always not possible to have large

landscape level protected areas. Focusing conservation action on key areas is one of the most effective

means to reduce biodiversity loss.

Asad R. Rahmani

REFERENCES

ABRAHAM, R.K., R.A. Pyron, B.R. AnsiL, A. ZACHARIAH & A. ZACHARIAH (2013): Two novel genera and one new species of

treefrog (Anura: Rhacophoridae) highlight cryptic diversity in the Western Ghats of India. Zootaxa 3640(2): 177-189.

Buu, S.D. & F. Bossuyt (2003): New frog family from India reveals an ancient biogeographical link with the Seychelles.

Nature 425: 711-714; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature02019.

Buu, S.D., I. van Bocxtagr, S. MAHony, K.P. DinesH, C. RADHAKRISHNAN, A. ZACHARIAH, V. Girt & F. Bossuyt (2011):

A taxonomic review of the Night Frog genus Nyctibatrachus Boulenger, 1882 in the Western Ghats, India (Anura:

Nyctibatrachidae) with description of twelve new species. Zootaxa 3029: 1-96.

DAHANUKAR, N., K. Krutua, M.S. PAINGANKAR, A.D. PADHYE, N. Mopak & S. Mo tur (2013): Endemic Asian chytrid strain

infection in threatened and endemic anurans of the northern Western Ghats, India. PLoS One 8: e77528; http://dx.doi.

org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077528.

IsLaM, M.Z. & A.R. RAHMANI (2004): Important Bird Areas in India: Priority sites for conservation. Indian Bird Conservation

Network, Bombay Natural History Society, and BirdLife International (UK). Pp xvi + 1133.

IUCN (2014): The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded in October

2014.

Nair, A., S.V. GopALAN, S. GEorGE, K.S. Kumar, A.G.F. TEACHER & J. MERILA (2012): High cryptic diversity of endemic

Indirana frogs in the Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot. Anim. Conserv. 15: 489-498.

Papuye, A.D., N. Mopak & N. DAHANUKAR (2014): Jndirana chiravasi, a new species of Leaping Frog (Anura: Ranixalidae)

from Western Ghats of India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 6(10): 6293-6312; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.04068.6293-

S21

Stuart, S.N., J.S. CHANson, N.A. Cox, B.E. Youna, A.S.L. Ropricugs, D.L. FISCcHMAN & R.W. WALLER (2004): Status and

trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306: 1783-1786.

VIJAYAKUMAR, S.P., K.P. Dinesu, V.P. MRUGANK & S. Kartik (2014): Lineage delimitation and description of nine new species

of bush frogs (Anura: Raorchestes, Rhacophoridae) from the Western Ghats Escarpment. Zootaxa 3893(4): 451-488.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014 3-9

ROLE OF MOTHER AND ALLOMOTHERS IN INFANT INDEPENDENCE

IN CAPPED LANGUR TRACHYPITHECUS PILEATUS

AWADHESH KUMAR! AND G.S. SOLANKI?’*

'Department of Forestry, North Eastern Regional Institute of Science & Technology, (Deemed University) Nirjuli 791 109, Itanagar,

Arunachal Pradesh, India. Email: [email protected]

"Department of Zoology, Mizoram University, Aizwal 796 004, Mizoram, India. Email: [email protected],

[email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56506

We investigated the mother-infant relationship and allomothering in Capped Langur Jrachypithecus pileatus in

Pakhui Wildlife Sanctuary, Arunachal Pradesh, India, from July 2001 to June 2003, based on observations of five

mother-infant pairs. Infants spent 75% of the time on ventro-ventral contact during the first three months, 71% of

which was on nipples in the first month, which decreased gradually thereafter. The time of contact with mother varied

significantly (p< 0.01) across the months. A significant negative correlation (Pearson: r = -0.963, p <0.01) was found

between the time infants spent with mother with increase in age (n=5 mother-infant pairs; 60 observations). Infants

started straying away from mothers at around 16 days of age, and moved away as far as 3 m at the age of 30 days.

The distance away from the mother increased up to 5 m at the age of 3 months, and they spent about 20% of their

time away from the mother at the age of a year. Neonates spent 9.2% of the day with allomothers, and this increased

to 25% for the next 15 days. It decreased gradually from the second month, and allomothering was not observed

from the eighth month. The process of infant’s independence started at the age of 6-8 months and was completed by

12 months, with infants spending 80% of their time away from the mother.

Key words: Allomothering, Capped Langur, mother-infant relationship, maternal rejections, ventro-ventral contact

INTRODUCTION

Primate infants are born dependent on their mothers

(Strier 2007) and mothers play a significant role throughout

the offsprings’ lives (Hrdy 1999). The mother-infant

relationship and parental care has special significance in

mammals because it ensures the survival of infants and sets

the stage for relations among the members of the troop.

A long period of postnatal development is a characteristic

feature of primates. Newborns depend on their mothers for

nutrition, transport, protection, and mothers also help them

to develop skills to become independent and integrate within

the society (Forster and Cords 2002; Harlow and Harlow

1965; Hinde and Spencer-Booth 1967; Jensen et al. 1967;

Xi et al. 2008).

The other important aspect of social behaviour in

colobines is an affiliation between allomothers and infants

(Horwich and Manski 1975; Jay 1963; Kumar et al. 2005;

McKenna 1979, 1981; Stanford 1992; Vogel 1984). The

relationship of mothers and allomothers with infants in the

group leads to the growth and development of an infant

in a socially coordinated manner (Kumar ef a/. 2005). It

has been argued that allomothers provide assistance to the

mother so that she can have time for foraging (Stanford 1992;

Vogel 1984; Xi et al. 2008); infants learn to manage in the

absence of their mothers, which ensures proper socialization

with others members of the troop (McKenna 1981); and

immature females of the troop also get an opportunity to

handle infants (Hrdy 1976; Lancaster 1971). The mother

may derive benefits from the allomothers’ cooperation in

territorial defence, in anti-predation, and save on time and

energy that can be devoted for infant care (Garber et a/. 1984;

Koenig and Rothe 1991). Allomothering thus increases the

chances of the infant’s survival. The development of mother-

infant relationship in nonhuman primates also influences the

ontogeny of social behaviour (Nicolson 1987).

Studies on mother-infant relations and infant

development in captive and free-ranging Old World

monkeys have concentrated mainly on Macaca mulatta

(Berman 1980a, b, 1990, 1992; Berman and Kapsalis 1999;

Maestripieri 1994a, b, 2001; Simpson 1985; Stevenson-

Hinde and Simpson 1981), M. silenus (Krishna et al. 2008),

M. radiata (Singh et al. 1980) and M. fuscata (Schino et al.

1993, 1995, 2003; Schino and Troisi 2001). Other primate

species studied are Papio spp. (Altmann 1980; Nash 1978),

Cercopithecus aethiops (Fairbanks and McGuire 1985;

Lee 1984; Struhsaker 1971), C. mitis stuhlmannii (Forster

and Cords 2002), Cercopithecus neglectus (Kirkevold and

Crockett 1987), Presbytis entellus (Dolhinow and Murphy

1982), Cebus capucinus (Manson 1999), and Callimico

goeldii (Schradin and Anzenberger 2001). Studies on mother-

infant relationships and behaviour development of infants are

scarce on colobine monkeys (Horwich 1974a, b; Horwich and

Manski 1975; Jay 1963; Medhi 2004; Sugiyama 1965). To

ROLE OF MOTHER AND ALLOMOTHERS IN INFANT INDEPENDENCE IN CAPPED LANGUR

help fill in this lacuna, we undertook a study on the mother-

infant relationship and allomothering in the Capped Langur

in Pakhui Wildlife Sanctuary, Arunachal Pradesh, India.

The Capped Langur Trachypithecus pileatus 1s

restricted to Northeast India, Bangladesh, north-western

Myanmar, Bhutan, and southern China (Ahsan 1994; Khan

and Ahsan 1986; Roonwal and Mohnot 1977; Srivastava

1999; Zhang et al. 1981). It is largely folivorous and a

canopy dweller (Choudhury 1989; Stanford 1991), lives

in a troop of 5—8 individuals, mainly with one-male multi-

females composition. The Capped Langur is designated

an endangered species in India (Walker and Molur 2007)

because the population and troop size are becoming smaller

due to fragmentation and loss of habitat, and use of its flesh

and body parts in traditional healthcare and socio-cultural

practices (Kumar and Solanki 2004). The Capped Langur

falls under the Vulnerable category (A2cd+3cd, ver 3.1) as

per IUCN (2013) Red List.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Study Site

Pakhui Wildlife Sanctuary (26° 3.7’—27° 16.2’ N;

92° 7.5'-92° 22' E; 862 sq. km) is located in East Kameng

district of Arunachal Pradesh. The Sanctuary is surrounded

_ by rivers on three sides, namely Kameng in the north and

west, and Pakke in the east, and shares a common boundary

with Nameri National Park, Assam. It receives an average

annual rainfall of 2,545 mm. The annual mean maximum

temperature is 31° C, and the mean minimum temperature

is 18° C. Average relative humidity is 84%. The altitudinal

variation ranges from 100 m to 2,040 m above sea level

(Solanki et al. 2008). The Sanctuary harbours different

vegetation types, namely tropical evergreen forest, tropical

semi-evergreen forest, and subtropical forests (Champion

and Seth 1968). A total of 234 woody species of flowering

plants (angiosperms) have been recorded from the lowland

areas of the Sanctuary.

Several rare and endangered species of fauna inhabit

the Sanctuary. There are four species of primates: Macaca

mulatta, M. assamensis, Trachypithecus pileatus, and

Nycticebus bengalensis. The ungulates comprise Gaur Bos

frontalis, Barking Deer Muntiacus muntjak, Sambar Cervus

unicolor, Goral Naemorhedus goral, Wild Goat Capricornus

sumatraensis, and Wild Pig Sus scrofa. The Asian Elephant

Elephas maximus and Tiger Panthera tigris also occur. The

Sanctuary is also rich in avifauna with 257 bird species,

including four species of hornbills (Datta et al. 1998; Singh

1991, 1994).

Study Animals

Two well-habituated troops of Capped Langur (HP 1

and HP2) were observed for a period of two years (July

2001 to June 2003). Initially, group HP1 comprised eight

individuals (1 adult male, 5 adult females, 1 subadult

female and | infant) and HP2 comprised seven individuals

(2 adult males, 4 adult females and 1 juvenile). Five infants

(2 females and 3 males) were born between December 2001

and March 2002 in these troops. All the five infants were

selected and observed for 12 months to understand their

social interactions and activity patterns with their mothers

and allomothers in the troop. Each mother and her infant were

identified on the basis of facial, physical and other features

like the shape of the tail hairs. A summary of the age and sex

of the selected infants is provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Name of infant/mother, and sex and date of birth of infant

Infant’s name / Sex of infant Date of Birth

Mother’s name

HP1-1/ HP1A Female Bose 200 te

HP1-ll / HP1B Female 02.02.2002 (- 2days)**

HP1-Ill / HP1C Male 05.03.2002 (- 4days)**

HP2-| / HP2A Male 18.01.2002 (- 5days)**

HP2-I] / HP2B Male 11.02.2002*

*Birth observed; **Estimated birth date — based on sighting date of

newborn.

Table 2: Types of interaction recorded between mother and infant, and infant and allomothers

Interaction categories Description

1. Time in mother’s contact

| contact).

2. Time off <3 m away from mother

3. Time off >3 m away from mother

Maternal restriction

back after it strayed.

Maternal rejection

6. Allomothering

Time an infant spent in ventro-ventral or in any other type of body contact (including nipple

Time that infant remains within 3 m of the mother.

Time that infant remains more than 3 m away from the mother.

Number of times/hour the mother restrained the infant from moving away, or pulled the infant

Number of times/hour the mother pushed the infant away from her or denied nipple access.

Infants being taken care of by non-mother females

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

ROLE OF MOTHER AND ALLOMOTHERS IN INFANT INDEPENDENCE IN CAPPED LANGUR

Data collection and analysis

The observations were recorded by the first author with

binoculars from a distance of 10—30 m. The data on mother-

infant relationships and allomothering were collected through

focal sampling with a 5-min sampling interval (Altmann

1974) for all the five mother-infant pairs for 12 months from

the birth of the infants. Total 660 scans were collected for the

selected pairs per month.

Instantaneous recording included noting the number of

times the mother prevented her infant from moving away, and

rejecting the infant when it tried to access her nipples (Martin

and Bateson 1993). At each sampling interval, we recorded

6 types of behavioural interactions between the mother

and infant, and infant and allomothers (Table 2). These

behavioural interactions are well-described by Horwich and

Manski (1975), Berman (1980a), Forster and Cords (2002),

and Schino et al. (2003).

RESULTS

Pattern of infant-mother contact

Infants (n=5) spent about 75% of their time in

contact with the mother during the first three months

(Fig. 1). Subsequently, contact time with the mother decreased

gradually with increase in age. When infants were 12 months

old, the average time spent with the mother was 18% (43.1).

A significant negative correlation (Pearson: r = -0.963,

p < 0.01) was found between the time infants spent with

mother with increase in age (n=5 mother-infant pair;

60 observations). On the 16th day, infants started straying

away from their mothers. When about 30 days old, infants

spent about 3% of their active time straying (< 3 m) away

from mothers. This distance increased with the age, with

the distance strayed away from the mother increasing to

5 mat the age of 3 months. The incidences of straying for the

100

% Time spent in contact with mother

ONT geet y

Dy, ht Bind himBe' 40

Age of infant (months)

10614 912

Fig. 1: Time infants spent (%) in contact with mother with age

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

50:

A5 <3 metre (> 3 metre

n=5

46 (n=5)

No. of occurrence

Tice oe Ge SOM Ft he ey ig

Age of infant (months)

Fig. 2: Distances infants strayed away from mothers with age

TO. it #2

<3 mand>3 m distance categories analysed showed an increase

with the months (Fig. 2), which were statistically significantly

(t test; t=2.3; p<0.05). Infants, by the age of 12 months, spent

about 32% of their active time away from mothers.

Maternal restrictions and rejections

Mothers restricted the movements of infants in their

early stages of life. Such restrictions were observed on

22 occasions, when infants were a month old. These restrictions

reduced gradually with age, and mothers hardly restricted the

infants when they were about six months old (Fig. 3).

Soe

5 30

ae a ~~ Maternal rejection ~~ «~~ Maternal restriction

a a n=5

eames | (n=)

~” 3

5 N

ho 20 4 a

® \

oO \

2 45 ig

m 10 \ )

6 N ‘i .——t —/—— * i

Few 4

- yy .

a ‘ K at

y at ft

Y :

Cee ¢ AS © Foo. Tosatti

Age of infants (months)

Fig. 3: Maternal restriction and rejections with age of infant

Mothers also discouraged infants’ access to their

nipples with age. The rejections started at the age of 2 months,

and gradually reached around 7.4 (+ 1.3) rejections/hour at

9 months of age. Thereafter, rejections were stable at between

8.8—9.2 rejections/hour until 12 months of age (Fig. 3).

Allomothering

We observed two live parturitions during the study, and

allomothering was observed three hours after these births.

ROLE OF MOTHER AND ALLOMOTHERS IN INFANT INDEPENDENCE IN CAPPED LANGUR

% Time spent on allomthering

Ze Ske Se Ona oe,

Age of infant (days)

MO 12 oe IAS

Fig. 4: Mean time spent (%) /day by neonates with allomothers

(n=5)

ine tt

% Time spent with allomothers

eon

Oe PD BD A eG OPM SM WSR a eM aD

Age of infants (months)

Fig. 5: Mean time spent (%) /month by infants with allomothers

Neonates were tended by three allomothers (individually)

for an average of 9.2% (n=2) of the day during the first

15 days, and allomothering increased gradually till 15 days

(Fig. 4). Considering the data on all five infants, it was

found that the average time infants spent with allomothers

constituted one-fourth of the daylight hours (25.34 +2.84 %)

during the first month (Fig. 5). After this, the association with

allomothers decreased gradually, constituting about 5% in

the fourth month, and was observed only on rare occasions

in the seventh month; allomothering was not recorded in the

eighth month (Fig. 5).

DISCUSSION

The early relationship between infants and their

mothers is determined through the mothering style that

varies among the individuals within a group, and also with

different primate species. The difference is derived from the

mother’s prior experience in rearing infants and her rank in

the group (Forster and Cords 2002). In this study on Capped

Langur, maternal attachment and protection lasted about

three months, and during this period, infants spent 75% of

their time in ventro-ventral contact. During this period, the

mother kept her newborn in close physical contact and never

refused the infant’s demands for contact and access to her

nipples, and frequently restrained the attempted movements

of the infant away from her during the first two months. Wild

primate mothers carry their neonate wherever they move

individually or in a social troop (Simonds 1974), barring

members of Strepsirrhini. The neonate is generally too weak

and physically uncoordinated in holding the mother when

she walks. Therefore, the mother either holds it on her lap

while sitting, or clinches it to her belly when she moves.

In the Capped Langur, the mother holds the neonate in a

ventro-ventral position with one forelimb and walks on three

limbs during the 10 initial days after parturition (Kumar et al.

2005). To move between trees separated by some distance, the

mother comes down to the ground instead of jumping.

Hinde and Atkinson (1970), Hinde and Spencer-

Booth (1967), and Berman (1980b) related the degree of

independence of the infant with the duration an infant remains

away from the mother. We observed a similar trend with

the degree of independence being related to the time spent

away from the mother, and also by the distance kept away

from her with age. Zothansiama (2013) also reported on the

variations in distances kept away from the mother with age

in captive Stump-tailed Macaque Macaca arctoides in India.

The independence of an infant is controlled by the mother’s

behaviour to seek contact and proximity with the infant

(Berman 1980a). With increase in age of the infant, the mother

actively participates in developing independence in her infant

by rejecting its attempts to contact her. In our study, Capped

Langur mothers were recorded to reject the infants’ demand

for contact nine times in an hour at the age of 12 months,

and they took a progressively smaller role in maintaining

proximity and contact. The restrictions on moving away

were more stringent in the early stage of the infant. Forster

and Cords (2002) also recorded a similar pattern of maternal

restriction in Blue Monkey. Thus, the mother ensures safety

and also provides an opportunity to the infant to learn about

the natural environment.

Kumar et al. (2005) observed live parturition in Capped

Langur and recorded frequent allomothering of newborn that

was of a few minutes duration only. However, Fairbanks

(1989) and Berman (1990) indicated that mothers were

less possessive and protective, and allowed allomothers to

hold older infants longer than smaller ones. The mother’s

role in the infant’s independence is often measured by the

number of rejections an infant receives from the mother

at the time of suckling (Altmann 1980; Forster and Cords

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

ROLE OF MOTHER AND ALLOMOTHERS IN INFANT INDEPENDENCE IN CAPPED LANGUR

2002; Maestripieri 1995). Maternal rejections in our study

were observed from the second month of the infant, and the

frequency of rejections increased with the age of the infant,

which is similar to Rhesus Macaque Macaca mulatta (Berman

1980a, 1990) and Blue Monkey Cercopithecus mitis (Forster

and Cords 2002). In Bonnet Macaque Macaca radiata, the

frequency of nipple contact drops by 50% after the second

week of birth and the process for environment exploration

begins at this stage, which gets completed at 12—15 months

(Singh et al. 1980). However, in Lion-tailed Macaque Macaca

silenus, there is sudden increase in nipple contact till the age

of five and a half months; thereafter, there is a sharp decline

in infants making nipple contact (Krishna et al. 2008).

Allomothering or infant transfer among the females

of a troop is a prominent feature of several colobine species

(Agoramoorthy 1991; Bernstein 1968; Hill 1972; Hrdy

1976; Jay 1962, 1963; Kumar et al. 2005; Prakash 1961;

Poirier 1968; Quiatt 1979; Riedman 1982; Sugiyama 1965,

1967; Tanaka 1965; Wooldridge 1969), and allomothering is

more common in colobine species than in Cercopithecines

(Newton and Dunbar 1994). In the Capped Langur, maternal

ambivalence phenomenon was observed on the first day of

infant’s life, yust after three hours of postpartum (Kumar et

al. 2005). Studies on several colobine species, including

Presbytis entellus (Dolhinow 1982; Scollay and DeBold 1980;

Sugiyama 1965; McKenna 1981), P. johnii (Poirier 1968),

P. pileata (Stanford 1992), and Colobus guereza (Horwich and

Manski 1975) have shown maximum allomothering occurring

in the first month of the infant’s age. We found it to be frequent

(25%) in the Capped Langur in the first few months, gradually

declining, and allomothering was not observed after the sixth

month. Allomothering in the youngest stage does not occur

normally among Cercopithecines, and newborn infants are

only allowed to be touched or groomed by other members

of the troop in later stages of life (Lancaster 1971; Rowell

et al. 1964; Sugiyama 1965), but in Capped Langur, other

members of the troop are also allowed contact with infants

immediately after birth (Kumar et al. 2005). Capped Langur

allomothers frequently interact with infants when they are

with their mothers, the mothers passing on their infants

mostly to adult females and occasionally sub-adult females of

the troop. Infant handling by allomothers is primarily decided

by the mother of the infant. Capped Langur mothers rarely

attempted to retrieve infants from allomothers, which helps

socialization in the infant. It appears that in this way, mothers

try to cultivate a sense of independence in the infants. The

mother’s reinforcement behaviour is noticed in the form of

rejection of nipple contact and relaxing restrictions on the

infant’s movement away from her, making the infant

independent at the age of 6-8 months. At 12 months,

infants remain 80% of time away from mothers and move

away up to five metres, and spend 20% of the time with

mothers. Thus, infants build their confidence by being

independent in the natural environment, and can explore it

for better survival.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We sincerely thank the Ministry of Environment,

Forests & Climate Change, Government of India, for

providing financial support for the study. We are also thankful

to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Dept. of Forest,

Arunachal Pradesh, for necessary permission and facilities

extended to work in the Pakhui Wildlife Sanctuary and also

to the officials of the Sanctuary for logistic support during the

study. Sincere thanks are also recorded to the Director, North

Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology, and

Head, Department of Forestry, for providing all the facilities

required for the study. We thank the reviewers for suggestions

and comments on the manuscript for its improvement.

REFERENCES

AGorAmMoortHy, G. (1991): Reproductive biology of the Hanuman

Langur Presbytis entellus in Jodhpur, western India. J. Bombay

Nat. Hist. Soc. 89(1): 85-93.

AHSAN, M.F. (1994): Feeding ecology of the primates of Bangladesh.

Pp. 79-86. In: Thierry, B., J.R. Anderson, J.J. Roeder &

N. Herrenschmidt (Eds): Current Primatology Volume 1: Ecology

and Evolution. Universite Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg.

ALTMANN, J. (1974): Observational study of behaviour: Sampling

methods. Behaviour 49: 227-267.

ALTMANN, J. (1980): Baboon mothers and infants. Harvard University

Press. Cambridge.

BERMAN, C.M. (1980a): Mother-infant relationship among free-ranging

rhesus monkeys on Cayo Santiago: a comparison with captive

pairs. Anim. Behav. 28: 860-873.

BERMAN, C.M. (1980b): Early agonistic experience and rank acquisition

among free-ranging infant rhesus monkeys. Int. J. Primatol.

I: 153-170.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

BERMAN, C.M. (1990): Consistency in maternal behaviour within

families of free-ranging rhesus monkeys: An extension of the

concept of maternal style. Am. J. Primatol. 22: 159-169.

BERMAN, C.M. (1992): Immature siblings and mother-infant relationships

among free-ranging rhesus on Cayo Santiago. Anim. Behav.

44: 247-358.

BERMAN, C.M. & E. Kapsa.is (1999): Development of kin bias among

rhesus monkeys: maternal transmission or individual learning?

Anim. Behav. 58: 883-894.

BERNSTEIN, I.S. (1968): The lutong of Kuala Selangor. Behaviour

32: 1-16.

Cuampion, H.G. & S.K. SETH (1968): Revised Survey of the Forest Types

of India. Govt. of India, New Delhi. 404 pp.

Cuoupuury, A. (1989): Ecology of the Capped Langur (Presbytis

pileatus) in Assam, India. Folia Primatol. 52: 88-92.

Datta, A., P. SINGH & S. KARTHIKEYAN (1998): Birds of Pakhui Wildlife

Sanctuary in western Arunachal Pradesh. Newsletters for

ROLE OF MOTHER AND ALLOMOTHERS IN INFANT INDEPENDENCE IN CAPPED LANGUR

Birdwatchers 38(6): 91—96.

DoLutnow, P. (1982): Primate strategies of early attachment to caregivers:

A case study. Int. J. Primatol. 3: 277.

Do uinow, P. & G. Murpuy (1982): Langur monkey (Presbytis entellus)

development: the first 3 months of life. Folia Primatol. 39:

305-331.

FAIRBANKS, L.A. (1989): Early experience and cross-generational

continuity of mother-infant contact in vervet monkeys. Dev.

Psychobiol. 22: 669-681.

FAIRBANKS, L.A. & M.T. McGurre (1985): Relationship of vervet

mothers with sons and daughters from one through three years

of age. Anim. Behay. 33: 40—50.

Forster, S. & M. Corps (2002): Development of Mother-Infant

relationship in wild blue monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis

stuhlmanni). Pp. 245-272. In: Glenn, M.E. & M. Cords (Eds):

The Guenons: Diversity and Adaptation in African Monkeys.

Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

GARBER, P.A., L. Moya & C. MALaGa (1984): A preliminary field study

‘of the Moustached Tamarin Monkey (Saguinus mystax) in

northeastern Peru: Questions concerned with the evolution of a

communal breeding system. Folia Primatol. 42: 17-32.

Hariow, H.F. & M.K. Hartow (1965): The affectional systems.

Pp. 287-334. In: Schrier, A.M., H.F. Harlow & F. Stollnitz

(Eds): Behavior of nonhuman primates. Vol. 2. Academic Press,

New York.

Hix, C. (1972): Infant sharing in the family Colobidae emphasizing

Pygathrix. Primates 13 (2): 195-200.

Hinpe, R.A. & S. ATKINSON (1970): Assessing the roles of social partners

in maintaining mutual proximity, as exemplified by mother-infant

relations in monkeys. Anim. Behav. 18: 169-176.

Hinpe, R.A. & Y. SPENCER-Bootu (1967): The behaviour of socially

living rhesus monkeys in their first two and a half years. Anim.

Behav. 15: 169-196.

Horwicu, R.H. (1974a): Regressive periods in primate behavioral

development with reference to other mammals. Primates

15(2—3): 141-149.

Horwicu, R.H. (1974b): Development of behaviors in a male spectacled

langur (Presbytis obscurus). Primates 15: 151-178.

Horwicu, R.H. & D. Manski (1975): Maternal care and infant transfer

in two species of Colobus monkeys. Primates 16(1): 49-73.

Hrpy, S.B. (1976): Care and exploitation of nonhuman primate

infants by conspecifics other than the mother. Pp. 101-158.

In: Rosenblatt, J., R.A. Hinde, E. Shaw & C. Beer (Eds):

Advances in the study of behavior, Vol. 6. Academic Press,

New York.

Hrpy, S.B. (1999): Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and

Natural Selection. Pantheon Books, New York.

IUCN (2013): IUCN Red List of Threatened species version 2013.2.

Downloaded on 4" December, 2013, www.iucnredlist.org

Jay, P.C. (1962): Aspects of maternal behavior among langurs. Ann.

New York Acad. Sci. 102: 468-477.

Jay, P.C. (1963): Mother-infant relations in langurs. Pp. 282—304.

In: Rheingold, H.L. (Ed.): Maternal behavior in mammals.

Wiley, New York.

JENSEN, G.D., R.A. Bospitt & B.N. Gorbon (1967): The development

of mutual independence in other-infant pigtailed monkeys

(Macaca nemestrina). Pp. 43-53. In: Altmann, S.A. (Ed.): Social

communication among primates. University of Chicago Press.

KHAN, M.A.R. & M.F. AHSAN (1986): The status of the primates in

Bangladesh and a description of their forest habitats. Primate

Conser. 7: 102—108.

KIRKEVOLD, B.C. & C.M. Crockett (1987): Behavioural development

and proximity patterns in captive De Brazza’s monkeys.

Pp. 39-65. In: Zucker (Ed.): Comparative behavior of African

Monkeys. Alan R. Liss, Inc. New York.

Koenic, A. & H. Rotue (1991): Social relationships and individual

contribution to cooperative behavior in captive common

marmosets. Primates 32: 183-195.

KRisHNA, B.A., MRIDULA SINGH, MEwa SINGH & WERNER KAUMANNS

(2008): Infant development and weaning in Macaca silenus

in natural habitats of the Western Ghats, India. Curr. Sci.

94: 347-355.

Kumar, A. & G.S. SoLanki (2004): Ethno-sociological Impact on

Capped Langur (7rachypithecus pileatus), and suggestions for

conservation: A Case Study of Reserve Forest in Assam, India.

J. Nat. Conser. 16(1): 107-113.

Kumar, A., G.S. SOLANKI & B.K. SHARMA (2005): Observation on

parturition behaviour of Capped Langur (T7rachypithecus

pileatus). Primates 46: 215-217.

LANCASTER, J. (1971): Play-mothering: The relations between juveniles

females and young infants among free-ranging Vervet Monkeys

(Cercopithecus aethiops). Folia Primatol. 15: 161-187.

Leg, P.C. (1984): Early infant development and maternal care in free-

ranging Vervet monkeys. Primates 25: 36—47.

MAESTRIPIERI, D. (1994a): Mother-infant relationships in three species

of macaques (Macaca mulatta, M. nemestrina, M. arctoides).

I. Development of the mother-infant relationship in the first three

months. Behaviour 131: 75-96.

MAesTRIPIERI, D. (1994b): Mother-infant relationships in three species

of macaques (Macaca mulatta, M. nemestrina, M. arctoides). II.

The social environment. Behaviour 131: 97-113.

MAESTRIPIERI, D. (1995): Assessment of danger to themselves and their

infants by Rhesus Macaque (Macaca mulatta) mothers. J. Comp.

Psy. 109: 416-420.

MAESTRIPIERI, D. (2001): Is there mother-infant bonding in primates?

Dev. Rey. 21: 93-120.

Manson, J.H. (1999): Infant handling in wild Cebus capucinus: Testing

bonds between females? Anim. Behav. 57: 911-921.

Martin, P. & P. BaTEson (1993): Measuring behaviour: An Introductory

Guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Ppr222:

McKenna, J.J. (1979): The evolution of allomothering behavior among

colobine monkeys: function and opportunism in evolution. Am.

Anthro. 81: 818-840.

McKenna, J.J. (1981): Primate care-giving behavior: origins,

consequences and variability with emphasis upon the common

India langur. Pp. 389-416. Jn: Gubernick, D. & P. Klopfer (Eds):

Parental care in mammals. Plenum Press, New York.

Meput, R. (2004): Development of Parent-offspring relation in Golden

Langur (7rachypithecus geei). Ph. D. Thesis, Gauhati University,

Guwahati, Assam, India.

Nasu, L. (1978): The development of the mother-infant relationship in

wild baboons (Papio anubis). Anim. Behav. 26: 746-759.

Newton, P.N. & R.I.M. Dunbar (1994): Colobine monkey society.

Pp. 311-342. In: A.G. Davies & J.F. Oates (Eds): Colobine

Monkeys: Their ecology, behaviour and evolution. Cambridge

University, Cambridge.

Nicotson, N.A. (1987): Infants, mothers and other females. Pp. 330-342.

In: Smuts, B.B., D.L. Cheney, R.M. Seyfarth, R.W. Wrangham &

T.T. Struhsaker (Eds): Primate Societies. University of Chicago

Press, Chicago.

Porrter, F.E. (1968): The Nilgiri Langur (Presbytis johnii) Mother-infant

Dyad. Primates 9: 45-68.

Prakash, I. (1961): Mutual assistance between mother langurs (Presbytis

entellus Dufresne). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 58(3): 570.

QuiaTt, D. (1979): Aunts and mothers: Adaptive implications of

allomaternal behaviour of non-human primates. Am. Anthro.

81: 310-319.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

ROLE OF MOTHER AND ALLOMOTHERS IN INFANT INDEPENDENCE IN CAPPED LANGUR

RiEDMAN, M.L. (1982): The evolution of alloparental care and adoption

in mammals and birds. Quart. Rev. Biol. 57: 405-435.

RoonwaL, M.L. & S.M. Mounor (1977): Primates of South Asia:

Ecology, Sociobiology, and Behavior. Harvard University Press,

Cambridge, MA. Pp. 421.

RoweELL, T.S., R.A. HINDE & Y. SPENCER-Bootu (1964): ‘Aunt’-infant

interaction in captive rhesus monkeys. Anim. Behav. 12:

219-226.

SCHINO, G. & A. Troisi (2001): Relationship with the mother modulates

the response of yearling Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata) to

the birth of a sibling. J. Comp. Psychol. 115: 392-396.

ScCHINO G., F.R. D’Amato & A. Trorsi (1995): Mother-infant

relationships in Japanese macaques: sources of inter-individual

variation. Anim. Behav. 49: 151-158.

ScHino G., L.R. SPERANZA, A. VENTURA & A. Trois! (2003): Infant

handling and maternal response in Japanese macaques. Jnt. J.

Primatol. 24: 627-638.

SCHINO, G., F.R. D’Amato, N. DE ANGELIS, N. Mari & A. TROISI

(1993): Development of mother-infant relationships in Japanese

macaques. Bollettino di zoologia 60: 301-306.

SCHRADIN, C. & G. ANZENBERGER (2001): Infant carrying in family groups

of Goeldi’s Monkeys (Callimico goeldii). Am. J. Primatol. 53:

57-67.

ScOLLAY, P.A. & P. DEBoLp (1980): Allomothering in captive colony

of Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus). Ethol. Sociobio.

1: 291-299.

Simonps, P.E. (1974): The Social Primates. Harper and Row Publishers,

New York. Pp. 258.

Simpson, M.J.A. (1985): Effects of early experience on the behaviour

of yearling rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) in the presence

of a strange object: classification and correlation approaches.

Primates 26: 37-172.

SinGH, P. (1991): Avian and mammalian evidences in Pakhui Wildlife

Sanctuary in East Kameng district, Arunachal Pradesh.

Arunachal Forest News 9(2): 1-10.

SINGH, P. (1994): Recent bird records from Arunachal Pradesh. Forktail

10: 65-104.

SINGH, M., P. PRAKASH & R.S. Pirta (1980): Changing patterns of

behavior during the early stages of Bonnet Monkey Macaca

radiata. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Anim. Sci). 89: 101-108.

SOLANKI, G.S., AWADHESH KuMAR & B.K. SHARMA (2008): Feeding

ecology of the Capped Langur (7rachypithecus pileatus) in India.

Int. J. Primatol. 29(1): 173-182.

Srivastava, A. (1999): Primates of Northeast India. Megadiversity

Press, Bikaner, Rajasthan, India. Pp. 207.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

STANFORD, C.B. (1991): The diet of the Capped Langur (Presbytis

pileata) in a moist deciduous forest in Bangladesh. Jnt. J.

Primatol. 12(3): 199-216.

STANFORD, C.B. (1992): Costs and benefits of allomothering in wild

Capped Langurs (Presbytis pileata). Beh. Ecol. and Sociobiol.

30: 29-34.

STRIER, K.B. (2007): Primate Behavioural Ecology. Allyn and Becon.

452 pp.

STEVENSON-HiInpDE, J. & M.J.A. Simpson (1981): Mothers’ characteristics,

interactions and infants’ characteristics. Child Develop. 52:

1246-1254.

STRUHSAKER, T.T. (1971): Social behavior of mother and infant

Vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops). Anim. Behav. 19:

233-250.

SUGIYAMA, Y. (1965): Behavioral development and social structure in

two troops of Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus). Primates

6: 213-247.

SuGIYAMA, Y. (1967): Social organization of Hanuman langurs

(Presbytis entellus). Pp. 221-236. In: Altmann, S.A. (Ed.):

Social communication among primates. Chicago University

Press, Chicago.

TANAKA, J. (1965): Social structure of Nilgiri langurs. Primates 6:

107-122.

VoGEL, C. (1984): Patterns of infant transfer within two troops of

common langurs (Presbytis entellus) near Jodhpur: testing

hypotheses concerning the benefits and risks. Pp. 361-379.

In: Roonwal, M.L., S.M. Mohnot & N.S. Rathore (Eds):

Current Primate Research. Jodhpur University Press, Jodhpur.

627 pp.

WALKER, S. & S. MoLur (CompiLer & Epitor) (2007): Guide to South

Asian Primates for Teachers and students of all Ages. Zoo

Outreach Organization, PSG South Asia and WILD, Coimbatore,

India. Pp. 64.

WOOLDRIDGE, F.L. (1969): Behavior of the Abyssinian Colobus monkey.

Anim. Behav. 6: 107-122.

Xi, W., B. Li, D. ZHao, W. Jt & P. ZHANG (2008): Benefits to female

helpers in wild Rhinopithecus roxellana. Int. J. Primatol. 29:

593-600.

ZHANG, YONG-ZU, SUNG-WUNG & GUO-QIANG GUAN (1981): On the

geographical distribution of primates in China. J. Human. Evol.

10(3): 215-218. INI-IN2:219—226.

ZOTHANSIAMA (2013): Socio-ecology and breeding behavior of

Stump-tailed Macaque (Macaca arctoides) in Mizoram.

Ph.D. thesis submitted to Mizoram University, Aizawl, India.

Pp. 1-213.

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

FORAGING BEHAVIOUR OF THE NEAR THREATENED

GREY-HEADED BULBUL PYCNONOTUS PRIOCEPHALUS IN RELATION

TO SEASONS AND BREEDING STAGES

P. BALAKRISHNAN!”

"Wildlife Research and Conservation Trust, c/o Anupallavi, Chungathara P.O., Nilambur 679 334, Kerala, India.

“Address for Correspondence: Division of Conservation Biology, Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical Botanic Garden and Research

Institute, Palode, Thiruvananthapuram 695 562, Kerala, India.

Email: [email protected]

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56520

I studied the foraging behaviour and adaptive strategies of the Grey-headed Bulbul Pycnonotus priocephalus, an

endemic species of the Western Ghats, India, in relation to seasons and reproductive stages in two tropical rainforest

sites, Silent Valley National Park and Muthikkulam Reserve Forest, from 2002 to 2005 and 2012 to 2013. The species

was recorded to use various foraging manoeuvres and food handling techniques, and was found to frequently use

energy conserving manoeuvres and feeding techniques such as gleaning and gulping. There were significant differences

in its foraging height and foraging tree use due to differential habitat selection during the breeding and non-breeding

seasons. It showed plasticity in the foraging behaviour during the different reproductive stages. Its participation in

mixed-hunting flocks during the local migratory phase (non-breeding season) seems to be an adaptive strategy to cope

with resource competition and predation risks in a new and challenging habitat, which is in accordance with other

studies on the flocking behaviour of tropical birds.

Key words: behavioural plasticity, foraging behaviour, Grey-headed Bulbul, mixed-species flocks, Pycnonotus

10-18

priocephalus, Western Ghats

INTRODUCTION

Studies of foraging behaviour are central to explaining

patterns in nature because survival and reproduction depend,

ultimately, on an individual’s success 1n acquiring and using

energy from food resources (Hutto 1990). An understanding

of the foraging manoeuvres, foraging height, and foraging

site characteristics are also important in answering questions

concerning co-existence and ecological segregation of similar

species (Lack 1971). Moreover, information on the temporal

changes in foraging strategies could be of vital importance

for formulating strategies to conserve rare species. It has been

widely demonstrated that food abundance and distribution are

the primary determinants of foraging behaviour (reviewed in

Morrison et al. 1990). Optimal foraging behaviour, however,

may encompass other conflicting activities such as anti-

predator behaviour that lead animals to trade food intake rate

against other activities. Decision-making based on trade-offs

may be influenced by the internal state of the animal (Krebs

and Kacelnik 1991). Closely related birds nearly always show

differences in the frequency of use of foraging manoeuvres

(Root 1967). Theory and empirical evaluation of adaptations

dictate that morphological features designed to perform one

type of movement are unlikely to be well-designed for other

types of movements (Moermond 1990).

Variations in foraging behaviour between sexes or

during the seasons are well-known, and those associated with

the stages of breeding cycle are pronounced (Brennan and

Morrison 1990; Dobbs and Martin 1998; Sakai and Noon

1990). Moreover, behavioural and morphological traits that

affect foraging efficiency would be adapted in part to the

diet available during the periods when food limits survival

or reproduction (Martin and Karr 1990). Thus, knowledge of

partitioning of a species’ foraging niche by sex or season is

essential to increase our understanding of its life history.

Multi-species foraging flocks are a widespread

phenomenon in both tropical and temperate forests. Two

principal selective advantages thought to favour the evolution

of mixed-species flocking behaviour are decreased predation

and increased foraging efficiency (Chen and Hsieh 2002;

Jullien and Thiollay 1998; Sridhar et al. 2009). However,

it can also lead to increased intraspecific competition,

particularly when food is a limiting factor (Milinski and

Parker 1991). Numerous studies on mixed-species flocks

have been conducted in the tropics (see Chen and Hsieh 2002;

Jullien and Thiollay 1998; Sridhar et al. 2009 for reviews).

Many endemic species of the Western Ghats of India are

known to participate in mixed-species flocks (Goodale et al.

2009), but there is lack of detailed information on the flock

feeding strategies of these species.

I carried out a study on the foraging behaviour and

adaptive strategies of Grey-headed Bulbul Pycnonotus

priocephalus, one of the 16 range-restricted bird species of

the Western Ghats in relation to seasons and breeding stages.

This species is listed as a Near Threatened species (BirdLife

International 2014) owing to habitat loss and complex life

FORAGING BEHAVIOUR OF GREY-HEADED BULBUL

history characteristics (Balakrishnan 2007, 2011). It has a

very limited distribution in the heavy rainfall areas along

the south-western region of India, from Belgaum and Goa

south through Kerala, and east to the Nilgiris and Palnis,

western Mysore and Coorg; from the plains to c.1,000 m,

_ rarely to 1,800 m; optimum zone between 600 m and 900 m

(Ali and Ripley 1987). Recent studies show a distinct patchy

distribution of the species within the breeding sites and

regular seasonal migration at the end of the breeding season

(Balakrishnan 2007). The species is known to feed on fruits

of several plant species, which include many canopy and

sub-canopy trees, shrubs, lianas, and epiphytes, and insects

(Ali and Ripley 1987; Balakrishnan 2007).

STUDY AREA

The study was undertaken during 2002—2005 and

2012-2013 in Silent Valley National Park (89.52 sq. km;

11° 00'-11° 15’ N; 76° 15’—76° 35’ E; 658—2,383 m above

msl) and Muthikkulam Reserve Forest (63.83 sq. km; 10°

56'—10° 59’ N; 76° 41'—76° 45’ E; 610—2,065 m above msl) in

the Western Ghats, both the sites separated by an area about

30 sq. km of human-modified landscape. The vegetation

of both the study sites is dominated by west coast tropical

evergreen forest, followed by southern montane wet temperate

forest with grasslands restricted mainly to the higher slopes

and hill tops. Silent Valley receives comparatively higher

rainfall during the south-west monsoon (>6,000 mm/yr) than

Muthikkulam (4,500 mm/yr). All the breeding season data

were collected from Silent Valley, and data for non-breeding

season and mixed-hunting flocks were from Muthikkulam,

due to the complete absence of the study species in the former

site consequent to the altitudinal migration during June to

December. Further descriptions of the two study areas are

available elsewhere (Balakrishnan 2007; Basha 1999; Nair

and Balasubramanyan 1985).

METHODS

Foraging behaviour

The foraging behaviour of the Grey-headed Bulbul

was studied by the methods described by Remsen and

Robinson (1990), the observations recorded while walking

slowly through existing trek paths and animal trails. For each

foraging observation, the foraging manoeuvre, substrate used

(twig, leaf, flower, and air), height of the foraging location,

species and height of the foraging tree, the horizontal position

of the bird in the canopy (nine categories: three vertical and

and three horizontal), and foliage density at the foraging site

(calculated as percentage cover within a one metre radius

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

around the bird) were recorded. The relative foraging height

was calculated as the foraging height relative to the height

of the tree (foraging height of bird/tree height). The fruits

consumed were identified by direct observations. Attempts to

identify arthropod component of the diet were not successful

due to poor visibility in the rainforest canopies.

Foraging manoeuvres and food handling techniques

were again categorized based on Remsen and Robinson

(1990). The major near-perch manoeuvres were classified as:

(1) glean [pick food items from a nearby substrate (including

from the ground) that can be reached without full extension

of legs or neck, with no acrobatic movements involved];

(41) reach (extend completely the legs or neck upwards,

outwards, or downwards to reach food); (111) hang (use legs

and toes to suspend the body below the feet to reach food

that cannot be reached from any other perched position); and

(iv) Junge (manoeuvres in which the food item is beyond

reach, and rapid leg movements rather than flight are used

to reach and obtain the food item). Aerial manoeuvres were

grouped as: (1) sally (to fly from a perch to obtain a food

item and then return to a perch), and (11) /eap (launch into

the air to reach a food item too far for a reach but too close

for a sally. This differs from sa//y in that the upward thrust

seems to come mostly from leg movements rather than wing

movements).

The major food handling techniques recorded were

classified as: (1) gulp (to swallow upon capture/contact

without any noticeable manipulation other than being held

briefly in the bill), (41) engulf (to capture and swallow in

one continuous motion without being held by the bill), and

(111) bite (to bite and remove a section of the food item).

Breeding birds were observed to study the heterogeneity

in foraging behaviour within the breeding season (mid

January to mid May), the reproductive stages categorized as

pre-incubation, incubation, brooding, and post-brooding.

Participation in mixed-hunting flocks

Mixed-species flocks are defined after Stotz (1993)

as “associations between two or more species moving in

the same direction for at least 5 min”. The Grey-headed

Bulbul participated in mixed-hunting flocks only during the

non-breeding season. Once a mixed-hunting flock with the

Grey-headed Bulbul was located, it was followed for up to

an hour or till it disappeared from sight. For each flock, I

recorded the number of species and their individual numbers.

To minimize duplication of observations, I excluded multiple

flocks encountered in the same area. For each foraging

individual, data were collected on the foraging behaviour,

foraging positions, substrate, and food plants. To determine

the foraging diversity of the major participants of mixed-

FORAGING BEHAVIOUR OF GREY-HEADED BULBUL

hunting flocks, I recorded a single foraging event for each

bird in the flock. The foraging niche-breadth of mixed-flock

participants was calculated following Levins (1968): B = J

/ P?. The foraging niche-overlap (Pianka 1973) between

the Grey-headed Bulbul and other flock participants was

calculated by the formula g a Peay as NN a at P’., where

6 = Pianka’s measure of niche overlap between species j and

species k, P= proportion resource i is of the total resource

used by species j, and P., = proportion resource i is of the

total resource used by species k.

To understand the advantages of flock participation

on foraging behaviour, I compared the foraging intensity

(feeding rate/minute) of solitary non-breeders in the non-

breeding site (Muthikkulam) with those foraging in mixed-

species flocks from the same study site. The feeding rates

were assessed during focal sampling of two-minutes duration.

Foraging samples where interactions between the bird species

occurred (e.g., chases) were omitted. The influence of prey-

density on the feeding rate was not considered since both

the feeding samples were collected during same period and

from the same site.

RESULTS

Foraging manoeuvre

Based on the 1,827 foraging records of the Grey-

headed Bulbul, the species was recorded to mostly forage

in pairs (89%), and rarely in flocks. The diet comprises

fruits (65.57%), invertebrates (34.26%), and the remaining

nectar. Gleaning was the most preferred foraging manoeuvre

(70.17%), followed by reach (14.01%), hang (9.30%) and

sally (5.58%). Of the different techniques used to catch

insects, gleaning was the most used manoeuvre (Chi-square

test: y? = 482.23; df= 4; n = 626; P < 0.001). Gulping was

the most used food handling technique. The Grey-headed

Bulbul handled smaller fruits, arthropods, and lepidopteran

larvae by either gulping or engulfing, while larger fruits of

Persea macrantha, Leea indica, Litsea floribunda, Syzygium

spp., and Symplocose racemosa, and larger insects were

pecked and eaten.

Foraging locations

The mean foraging height was 4.49 +2.52 m (range:

1—20 m) and the mean height of trees used for foraging was

5.78 £3.30 m (range: 1-22 m). The birds foraged more in the

upper (36.20%) and middle edges (23.44%) of the canopy.

Foraging at the edges was significantly higher than in the

inner areas of the canopy (Chi-square test: y? = 1162.46;

df=5;n= 1826; P<0.01). The average foliage density at the

point of observations was 33.76 +18.37% (range: 2—80%).

Seasonal variation in foraging during the breeding and

non-breeding seasons

Overall, there were no marked changes in the diet of

Grey-headed Bulbul during the breeding and non-breeding

seasons. Fruits were the most preferred food during breeding

(66.09%) and non-breeding seasons (63.95%), followed

by invertebrates (33.69% and 36.05% respectively), the

remaining nectar. However, the fruit species consumed varied

between the seasons. Symplocos cochinchinensis, Antidesma

menasu, Clerodendrum viscosum, Syzygium cumini, and

Litsea floribunda were the more preferred fruits during the

breeding season, and Maesa indica, Callicarpa tomentosa,

Leea indica, and Lantana camara during the non-breeding

season.

Foraging manoeuvres and food handling techniques

were consistent during the breeding and non-breeding

seasons (Fig. 1). There were significant differences in

the height of trees used for foraging (mean + S.E: 6.41

+3.39 m vs 3.81 £1.98 m; Mann-Whitney U-test: z = -16.36;

P<0.001) and the foraging height (mean + S.E: 5.01 £2.60 m vs

2.88 £1.29 m; Mann-Whitney U-test: z = -18.01; P <0.001)

between the breeding (n = 1,386) and non-breeding (n = 441)

seasons. During the breeding season, birds foraged more in

m Breeding

tC] Non-breeding

% observations

Bis

Soe

Glean Reach Hang Lunge Sally

Leap

Foraging manoeuvres

% observations

Gulp

Engulf Bite

Food handling methods

Fig. 1: (a) Foraging manoeuvres and (b) food handling methods

of Grey-headed Bulbul during the breeding (n = 1,386) and

non-breeding (n = 441) seasons

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

FORAGING BEHAVIOUR OF GREY-HEADED BULBUL

che Hi Upper

Ed Middle

40 Mi Lower

% observations

Inner Middle Outer

Horizontal positions during breeding season

fH Upper

E] Middle

% observations

Inner Middle Outer

Horizontal positions during non-breeding season

Fig. 2: Horizontal position use in canopy by the Grey-headed

Bulbul during the (a) breeding and (b) non-breeding seasons

the upper canopy, while it was more in the understorey shrubs

during the non-breeding season, but there was no significant

difference in the relative foraging heights (relative to the height

of the foraging tree) between the breeding and non-breeding

seasons (Mann-Whitney U-test: z = -0.777; P = 0.437).

Foraging at the edges was significantly higher than in the inner

canopy during both the breeding (Chi-square test: y* = 955.94;

df = 2; n = 1,384; P <0.01) and non-breeding seasons

(Chi-square test: y? = 203.08; df = 2; n = 440; P <0.01;

Fig).

Annual variation in foraging

There was no significant annual variation in the

foraging height use (ANOVA: F.,_,., = 2.783, P = 0.062),

2,1382

but the height of foraging trees (ANOVA: F, ,,,, = 21.004,

P <0.001) and the relative foraging heights (F,, ,,., = 86.900,

P=0.001) varied between the years (2003—2005) during the

breeding seasons (Table 1). In contrast, the yearly variations

in all these three parameters were prominent during the

non-breeding seasons (ANOVA: F,, ,,.= 17.525, 29.236, and

35.093 respectively, P <0.001; Table 1).

Heterogeneity of foraging behaviour within the breeding

cycle

The Grey-headed Bulbul showed significant plasticity

in foraging behaviour during the different reproductive

stages. Although the foraging behaviour varied between the

reproductive stages, gleaning was the dominant method in

all the stages (Fig. 3). There were significant differences in

the mean height of trees used for foraging, and also in the

mean foraging height (Table 2). During the incubation and

brooding stages, bulbuls foraged on taller trees, however,

the relative foraging height was less during these stages

(P <0.001, Table 2). Moreover, the birds foraged more in

areas with high foliage cover during the incubation and

Table 1: Foraging height, height of the foraging tree, and relative foraging height

during the breeding and non-breeding seasons of the Grey-headed Bulbul

Breeding Season

Variable 2003

Foraging height (m) 5.39'£2:36

Height of foraging tree (m) 7.96. £3:95

Relative foraging height 0.76 +0.18

Non-breeding Season

Variable 2002

Foraging height (m) 2.62 40.97

Height of foraging tree (m) 3,66 £1,61

Relative foraging height 0.76 +0.18

2004 2005 Fi P

4.90 +2.77 4.99 +2.20 2.183 0.062

6.63 +3.68 5.69 42.42 21.004 0.001

0.76 +0.18 0.89 40.17 86.900 0.001

2003 2004 F r

3.49 +1.62 2./7 1.24 17525 0.001

4.96 +2.63 3.18 +1.46 29.236 0.001

0.74 0.18 0,90 £1.70 35.093 0.001

Variable expressed as mean +SE and P values after Bonferroni correction

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

FORAGING BEHAVIOUR OF GREY-HEADED BULBUL

% observations

(Ry

Post-brooding

0 3555 inna! el sewis

Pre-incubation incubation Brooding

Reproductive stages

Fig. 3: Foraging methods of Grey-headed Bulbul during the

different stages of reproduction (n = 324)

brooding stages than the other breeding stages (ANOVA:

PY) ae Foals 1) S000);

Foraging in mixed-species flocks

The Grey-headed Bulbul was recorded foraging in

54 mixed-species flocks during the non-breeding season,

associating with a total of 27 species (Table 3). The mean

number of species per flock was 6.46 +2.03 species (range:

3-11 species), and the mean number of individuals per

flock was 21.94 +8.90 birds (range: 8—53 birds). Table 4

gives the foraging niche breadth of ten common species

involved in the mixed-hunting flocks, calculated from

data on foraging manoeuvre, foraging height, height of the

foraging tree, horizontal position in the canopy, and food

items. The White-bellied Blue Flycatcher Cyornis pallipes,

Asian Paradise-Flycatcher Terpsiphone paradisi, Common

lora Aegithinia tiphia, Grey-headed Canary-Flycatcher

Culicicapa ceylonensis, and Yellow-browed Bulbul Jole

indica had larger niche breadths than the Grey-headed Bulbul

(Table 4). Even though the Grey-headed Bulbul was recorded

to have generalized foraging manoeuvres, food, and use of

canopy in mixed-foraging flocks, it is a specialist in terms

of the selection of foraging trees and use of foraging heights

(Table 4).

Although the foraging niche overlap with the Grey-

headed Bulbul was high for some of the foraging attributes,

most species exhibited a relatively low, overall foraging niche

overlap with it (Table 5). Since most of the species (and the

Grey-headed Bulbul) devoured insects during mixed-species

foraging, a high overlap (@ >90) for food occurred. Although

the Yellow-browed Bulbul and Common Iora showed high

overlap in the foraging height with the Grey-headed Bulbul,

canopy use varied significantly among them. The foraging

intensity of Grey-headed Bulbul differed in the absence or

presence of mixed-flocking species, showing a significantly

higher feeding rate in mixed-flocks (8.29 +0.16 pecks/min;

n= 171) vs (4.70 £0.10 pecks/min in their absence; n = 240;

ANOVA: F. ,,,= 379.604; P <0.001).

1,409

DISCUSSION

Foraging behaviour and diet

The Grey-headed Bulbul uses a number of foraging

manoeuvres and food handling techniques, of which gleaning

was the most frequently used method to obtain both fruits

and invertebrates. Gleaning is an energy conserving foraging

technique as it involves only a simple pick of the food

items from a nearby substrate without the full extension of

legs, neck, or any acrobatic movements. Other manoeuvres

such as reach, hang, and sally were used only when a fruit

or an insect could not be obtained from a perch. The food

handling techniques of the Grey-headed Bulbul were found

to vary with the size of food items — handling small fruits

and arthropods by engulfing or gulping, and larger fruits

such as Persea macrantha, Litsea spp. and Syzygium spp.

by biting.

Bulbuls are reported to use a variety of foraging

behaviour based on food resources. Ali (1932) reported that

the Red-vented Bulbul Pycnonotus cafer nipped open mature

buds of mistletoe (Loranthaceae) and probed into the exposed

corolla tubes for nectar. In Africa, species such as Criniger

barbatus and Andropadus tephrolaemus took all their fruits

from a perch, while another species Andropadus latirostris

frequently used its wings to pick a fruit while fluttering or

flying (Moermond 1990). Gleaning of fruits while airborne

has also been recorded in the Square-tailed Black Bulbul

Hypsipetes ganeesa in southern India (P. Balakrishnan,

unpubl.). The Grey-headed Bulbul used aerial manoeuvres

Table 2: Foraging height, height of the foraging tree, and relative foraging height

of Grey-headed Bulbul during the different stages of reproduction

Variable Pre-incubation Incubation

Foraging height (m) 4.79 +2.29 Bi SZ

Height of foraging tree (m) 6.55 +3.40 9:3 F E2199

Relative foraging height 0.76 +0.16 0.74 £0.17

Brooding Post-brooding i PP

6.08 +1.84 5.40 +2.14 14.811 0.001

9.31.3. 16 6.40 +2.54 22.404 0.001

0.68 +0.13 0.86 +0.17 11.447 0.001

Variables expressed as mean +SE and P values after Bonferroni correction

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

SI. Bird species

No.

1 Grey-headed Bulbul Pycnonotus priocephalus

2 Indian Scimitar-Babbler Pomatorhinus horsfieldii

5 Grey-headed Canary-Flycatcher

Culicicapa ceylonensis

4 Yellow-browed Bulbul /o/e indica

5 White-bellied Blue Flycatcher Cyornis pallipes

6 White-bellied Treepie Dendrocitta leucogastra

7 Asian Paradise-Flycatcher Terpsiphone paradisi

8 Common lora Aegithinia tiphia

SS) Dark-fronted Babbler Rhopocichla atriceps

10 Oriental White-eye Zosterops palpebrosa

11 Black-lored Yellow Tit Parus xanthogenys

12 Black Drongo Dicrurus macrocercus

es Scarlet Minivet Pericrocotus flammeus

14 Greater Racket-tailed Drongo

Dicrurus paradiseus

45 Common Flameback Dinopium javanense

16 Red-whiskered Bulbul Pycnonotus jocosus

17 Square-tailed Black Bulbul Hypsipetes ganeesa

18 Brown-cheeked Fulvetta A/cippe poioicephala

19 Rufous Treepie Dendrocitta vagabunda

20 White-cheeked Barbet Megalaima viridis

za" Velvet-fronted Nuthatch Sitta frontalis

22 Heart-spotted Woodpecker Hemicircus canente

23 Black-headed Oriole Oriolus xanthornus

24 Asian Fairy-Bluebird Irena puelia

25 Small Minivet Pericrocotus cinnamomeus

26 Black-naped Blue Monarch Hypothymis azurea

eT. Malabar Barbet Megalaima malabarica

Species Foraging

manoeuvre

Grey-headed Bulbul 4.25

Indian Scimitar-Babbler 2.08

Grey-headed Canary-Flycatcher 4.38

Yellow-browed Bulbul 253

White-bellied Blue Flycatcher 3.76

White-bellied Treepie 2.87

Asian Paradise-Flycatcher 4.15

Common lora 4.03

Dark-fronted Babbler 2.34

Oriental White-eye 1.34

FORAGING BEHAVIOUR OF GREY-HEADED BULBUL

Table 3: Frequency of occurrence and flock characteristics of mixed-species flocks associated with

Grey-headed Bulbul in Muthikkulam Reserve Forest

Table 4: Foraging niche-breadths of the common bird species recorded in the mixed-species flocks (n=10)

No. of

flocks

Ais

Ss sy, ey SS

N N © ©

Ep Se on ae

eee ND, EINECS! GC =

—

oO fF oOo oO DN NN won co ao CO =

Frequency of

occurrence

100.00

50.00

44.44

Song

576 RO.)

31.48

29.99

24.07

Aaa2

22:22

20,37

20 on

20.37

16.67

14.81

(ees)

14.81

12°96

12.96

petal

9.26

9:26

741

3.70

with Grey-headed Bulbul

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

Foraging

height

2.87

2.¥1

4.33

4.74

4.38

ZAT

5.0

3.74

3.06

4.26

Mea

size

ibiowé

4.81

10.1

2.21

1.78

woe

1.94

1.86

8.08

7.00

1.83

2.00

1.82

O22

5.88

213

Pee

1.86

i ecoW

1.67

2.00

1.80

1.25

1.50

n flock

Niche breadth

Foraging tree

height

201

2.08

4.92

4.61

4.59

3.66

4.46

2.60

2:99

301

Horizontal

position in

canopy

2200

1.95

2.40

3.57

5.83

3.90

3.85

5.33

3.84

4.27

O69

(mele,

5.80

0.92

0.43

1:55

0.43

0.36

2.56

2.83

0.58

ORS,

0.00

0.30

0.40

3.03

3.04

0.35

0.49

0.46

0.38

0.53

0:52

0.00

0.45

0.50

0.71

Food

1.56

1.42

1,69

1.10

1.41

1.06

12653

1.05

1.87

Min. & Max.

no./flock

1-3

2-7

4-24

1-4

1-2

2-9

1-3

1-2

9-12

3-13

Overall

3.05

T.30

3.43

3.93

2.80

3.78

3.45

2.66

3.01

Table 5: Foraging niche overlap of Grey-headed Bulbul with common species in mixed-species flocks (n=9)

FORAGING BEHAVIOUR OF GREY-HEADED BULBUL

Species Foraging

manoeuvre

Indian Scimitar-Babbler 0.60

Grey-headed Canary-Flycatcher 0.88

Yellow-browed Bulbul 0.88

White-bellied Blue Flycatcher 0.80

White-bellied Treepie 0.69

Asian Paradise-Flycatcher 0.79

Common lora 0.89

Dark-fronted Babbler 0.86

Oriental White-eye 0.74

Niche overlap

Foraging Foraging tree _ Horizontal Food Overall

height height position in

canopy

0.04 pal 2) 0.03 0.99 0.36

0.74 0.79 0.02 0.96 0.68

0.89 0.78 0.02 0.54 0.62

O37 0.49 0.06 0.96 0.54

0.02 Gris 0.03 0.97 0.37

0.49 0.73 0.20 0.96 0.63

0.86 0.91 0.03 0.99 0.74

0.52 0.99 0.28 0.96 O72

0.74 0.94 0.03 0.32 O:55

while hunting insects among the foliage. The differential

strategies used by the Grey-headed Bulbul for obtaining

fruits and insects indicate its flexibility in the use of foraging

techniques based on the type and size of resources.

Fruits were the most preferred food of Grey-headed

Bulbul, followed by insects and nectar. This is similar to

patterns reported for the majority of pycnonotids, which

are essentially frugivores that augment their diet with a

certain amount of arthropod food (Ali and Ripley 1987;

Bhatt and Kumar 2001; Fishpool and Tobias 2005; Vijayan

1975). However, a significant number of species, mostly

in Africa and Madagascar, are insectivorous, some with

quite specialized niches (Fishpool and Tobias 2005). Many

open country species are skilled opportunists and extreme

generalists. The Yellow-vented Bulbul Pycnonotus goiavier

of Southeast Asia, for example, has one of the broadest

foraging niches yet measured among non-forest passerines

studied globally (Fishpool and Tobias 2005). In this study, I

did not record any significant variation in the proportionate

use of fruits and arthropods by the Grey-headed Bulbul

between the breeding and non-breeding seasons.

Although the Grey-headed Bulbul uses similar general

foraging strategies for the breeding and non-breeding

seasons, there were differences in the foraging height and

foraging tree use. During the breeding season, birds foraged

at an average height of 5 m, while it was below 3 m during

the non-breeding season. Similarly, the height of the trees

selected for foraging was also considerably lower during the

non-breeding season (3.81 m) than in the breeding season

(6.41 m). These variations could be mainly due to the

differences in the vegetation structure of the breeding

and non-breeding habitats, as they were restricted to the

evergreen forests during the breeding season, and in the

lowland evergreen forests, moist deciduous forests, and

thorny scrub during the non-breeding season. However, the

relative foraging height (relative to the height of the foraging

tree) was the same during both the seasons, since the species

preferred the inner canopy zone, probably to avoid predators

and/or to avoid dominant competitors. Although fruits in the

majority of the plants were congregated at the periphery, the

Grey-headed Bulbul tended to forage inside the canopy, while

the other dominant and larger species such as Square-tailed

Black Bulbul, Yellow-browed Bulbul, and pigeons foraged

at the extreme periphery of the canopy. This indicates that

the Grey-headed Bulbul has a specialized foraging niche,

presumably due to competition with congeners, and species

with similar food resources. The intra-species variation in the

heights of the fruit bearing trees could be a plausible reason

for the annual variations in the foraging heights.

Behavioural plasticity within the breeding seasons

Birds have to resolve many constraints during incubation

and brooding compared to other stages of their life cycle.

Changes in foraging behaviour during the different nesting

stages have received limited attention, but energy expenditure

and acquisition during differing stages of breeding are critical

elements in understanding life history strategies (Martin

1987). The Grey-headed Bulbul showed significant variations

in foraging behaviour during the different breeding stages.

These variations could be considered as the responses of birds

to time or energy constraints, or changing prey availability

and distribution (Root 1967). During all the stages, breeding

bulbuls foraged away from the nest sites, probably to reduce

parental activity at the nest sites to help reduce nest predation

(Balakrishnan 2007). Similar observations were reported

by several authors (e.g., Martin et al. 2000; Fontaine and

Martin 2006). Foraging in areas with high foliage density

during the incubation and brooding stages could reduce

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

FORAGING BEHAVIOUR OF GREY-HEADED BULBUL

predation risks. Although gleaning was, overall, the most

frequently used foraging manoeuvre during the breeding

season, energetically expensive manoeuvres such as sallying

were higher towards the end of the nestling stage. Feeding

rates were significantly higher during the incubation and

brooding periods, as reported in many previous studies

(Lovette and Holmes 1995; Martin and Karr 1990). The

rapid foraging rates during the incubation and nestling stages

compared to the egg-laying stage suggests that incubation

may also place time constraints on females, requiring them

to forage speedily and return to the nest quickly (Dobbs

and Martin 1998; Sakai and Noon 1990). The tradeoff

between the thermal needs of the eggs and the energy needs

of the adult could be overcome by this increased feeding

rate. Therefore, it is clear that breeding birds use different

behavioural mechanisms to cope with energetic constraints

and predation risks.

Mixed-hunting, and its significance in the non-breeding

season

Many species of insectivorous birds in both the

temperate and tropical latitudes are known to gather in

mixed-hunting flocks during the non-breeding season (Chen

and Hsieh 2002; Jullien and Thiollay 1998). There could be

several advantages for a species to be associated with mixed-

hunting flocks. An individual may increase its rate of food

capture by associating with other individuals. For example,

among the insect-eating birds, flocking may be advantageous

because prey may be flushed by the activities of other

individuals. Another advantage of flocking behaviour is

the reduction in predation rates. Moreover, grouping may

have an anti-predator function by the mobbing responses

of several species (see Chen and Hsieh 2002; Jullien and

Thiollay 1998).

The Grey-headed Bulbul was recorded to participate in

mixed-hunting flocks led by different nucleus species during

the non-breeding season. The most numerous participants

in mixed-species flocks were resident species of the area,

most being insectivores. On an average, the flocks consisted

of around six species comprising totally c. 21 individuals.

Although identification of the nucleus species in many of

these mixed-species flocks was difficult, the White-bellied

Treepie Dendrocitta leucogastra and Common Flameback

Dinopium javanense appeared to be the ‘leaders’ in several

flocks. The alertness of the nucleus species and its propensity

to give alarm calls could be the greatest incentive for attendant

species to join the flock and exploit them further (Sullivan

1984). Several species appeared as sentinel species, and were

recorded giving alarm calls at the approach of predators. The

Common Flameback, Indian Scimitar-Babbler Pomatorhinus

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

horsfieldii, Dark-fronted Babbler Rhopocichla atriceps,

and Brown-cheeked Fulvetta Alcippe poioicephala gave

repeated alarm calls when predators approached. In Peru,

Munn (1986) reported that the flock members rely mainly

on the alarm calls of the sentinel species in the understorey

and canopy flocks. A similar alertness of both nucleus and

sentinel species on the approach of predators was common

in the flocks observed, which lends support to this foraging

efficiency and anti-predator hypothesis, and justifies the

participation of the Grey-headed Bulbul during non-breeding

season in mixed-hunting flocks.

Preference of arthropod food by the Grey-headed

Bulbul during mixed-species flocking resulted in a high

food niche overlap with most of the flock members. It

hunted for arthropods in the middle or outer canopy, using

several foraging manoeuvres, and avoided the upper canopy

where the highly niche-overlapping, generalist species such

as Yellow-browed Bulbul Jole indica and Common Iora

Aegithinia tiphia were abundant. Although it is restricted

to certain heights, apparently due to the presence of other

species with similar niches, it showed much generalized

foraging manoeuvres and use of horizontal positions in the

canopy during flock participation. The Grey-headed Bulbul

was seen to associate with flocks having the Square-tailed

Black and Red-whiskered Bulbuls at Muthikkulam, but the

number of observations was not sufficient to work on niche

overlaps. In the lower altitude, non-breeding habitats (scrub

forest), it also associated with other bulbuls, namely, Red-

vented Bulbul Pycnonotus cafer and White-browed Bulbul

Pycnonotus luteolus. The foraging rate was significantly

higher while foraging in mixed-species flocks than those of

singletons.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank the Ministry of Environment and Forests,

and Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB),

Department of Science and Technology, Government of

India for funding. For helpful discussions, encouragement,

and support during the field work, I would like to thank

V.S. Viyayan, L. Vijayan, the late R. Sankaran, P.A. Azeez,

L.D.C. Fishpool, K.S.A. Das, S. Suresh, Divin Murukesh,

and M. Vimal. I am grateful to the Forest and Wildlife

Department of Kerala for permissions, generous support

and cooperation, and SACON, JNTBGRI, and WRCT

for infrastructure facilities. I thank Karuppusamy, Jose,

Mohandas, Mahesh, Sainudheen, Kaliappan, and Mari for

field assistance. V.S. Vijayan, K.S.A. Das, A.P. Zaibin,

T.N. Bindu and anonymous reviewers provided helpful

comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

FORAGING BEHAVIOUR OF GREY-HEADED BULBUL

REFERENCES

Au, S. & S.D. Riptey (1987): Handbook of the Birds of India and

Pakistan. Compact edn. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Aut, S. (1932): Flower-birds and bird-flowers in India. J. Bombay Nat.

Hist. Soc. 35(3): 573-605.

BALAKRISHNAN, P. (2007): Status, distribution and ecology of the Grey-

headed Bulbul Pycnonotus priocephalus in the Western Ghats,

India. Ph.D. thesis, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore.

BALAKRISHNAN, P. (2011): Breeding biology of the Grey-headed

Bulbul Pycnonotus priocephalus (Aves: Pycnonotidae) in

the Western Ghats. India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3:

1415-1424.

Basua, S.C. (1999): Forest types of Silent Valley. Pp. 109-116.

In: Manoharan, T.M., S.D. Biju, T.S. Nayar & P.S. Easa (Eds):

Silent Valley Whispers of Reason. Kerala Forest Department,

Thiruvananthapuram.

Buart, D. & A. Kumar (2001): Foraging ecology of Red-vented Bulbul

‘Pycnonotus cafer in Haridwar, India. Forktail 17: 109-110.

BirDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2014): Species factsheet: Pycnonotus

priocephalus. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on

30/10/2014.

BRENNAN, L.A. & M.A. Morrison (1990): Influence of sample size

on interpretations of foraging patterns by Chestnut-backed

Chickadees. Studies in Avian Biology 13: 187-192.

Cuen, C. & F. Hsien (2002): Composition and foraging behaviour

of mixed-species flocks led by the Grey-cheeked Fulvetta

in Fushan Experimental Forest, Taiwan. /bis 144: 317-330.

Cotiar, N.J., M.J. Crosspy & A.J. STATTERSFIELD (1994): Birds to

watch 2. The world list of threatened birds. BirdLife International,

Cambridge.

Dosss, R.T. & T.E. Martin (1998): Variation in foraging behavior

among nesting stages of female red-faced warblers. Condor

100: 741-TAS.

Fisupoo., L.D.C. & J.A. Topas (2005): Family Pycnonotidae (Bulbuls).

Pp. 124-253. In: del Hoyo, J., A. Eliott & D.A. Christie (Eds):

Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol. 10. Lynx Edicions,

Barcelona.

FontTAINE, J.J. & T.E. MartIN (2006): Parent birds assess nest predation

risk and adjust their reproductive strategies. Ecology Letters 9:

428434.

GoopDALE, E., B.Z. Nizam, V.V. Rosin, H. Sripuar, P. TRIVEDI,

S.W. KotacaMa, U.K.G.K. PADMALAL, R. PERERA, P. PRAMOD &

L. VuAyan (2009): Regional variation in the composition and

structure of mixed-species bird flocks in the Western Ghats and

Sri Lanka. Current Science 97: 648-663.

Hutto, R.L. (1990): Measuring the availability of food resources.

Studies in Avian Biology 13: 20-28.

JuLLIEN, M. & J.M. TuioLtLay (1998): Multi-species territoriality and

dynamic of neotropical forest understorey bird flocks. Journal

of Animal Ecology 67: 227-252.

Kress, J.R. & A. KACELNIK (1991): Decision making. Pp. 105-136.

In: Krebs, J.R. & N.B. Davies (Eds): Behavioural Ecology: An

Evolutionary Approach. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.

Lack, D. (1971): Ecological isolation in birds. Blackwell Scientific

Publications, Oxford and Edinburgh.

Levins, R. (1968): Evolution in Changing Environments. Princeton

University Press, Princeton.

Lovette, I.J. & R.T. Hotmes (1995): Foraging behavior of American

Redstarts in breeding and wintering habitats: implications for

relative food availability. Condor 97: 782-791.

Martin, T.E. (1987): Food as a limit on breeding birds: a life-history

perspective. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 18:

453-487.

Martin, T.E. & J.R. Karr (1990): Behavioral plasticity of foraging

manoeuvres of migratory warblers: multiple selection periods

for niches? Studies in Avian Biology 13: 353-359.

Martin, T.E, J. Scorr & C. MENGE (2000): Nest predation increases

with parental activity: separating nest site and parental activity

effects. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B,

Biological Sciences 267: 2287-2294.

Mixinski, M. & G.A. PARKER (1991): Competition for resources.

Pp. 137-168. Jn: Krebs, J.R. & N.B. Davies (Eds): Behavioural

Ecology. An Evolutionary Approach. Blackwell Scientific,

Oxford.

Moermonpb, T.C. (1990): A functional approach to foraging: morphology,

behaviour, and the capacity to exploit. Studies in Avian Biology

13: 427-430.

Morrison, M.L., C.J. RALPH, J. VERNER & J.R. JEHL JR. (Eds) (1990):

Avian foraging: theory, methodology, and applications. Studies

in Avian Biology No. 13. Cooper Ornithological Society,

California.

Munn, C.A. (1986): Birds that ‘cry wolf’. Nature 319: 143-145.

Nair, P.V. & K. BALASUBRAMANYAN (1985): Long-term environmental

and ecological impact of multipurpose river valley projects. KFRI

Research Report 26. Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi.

PIANKA, E.R. (1973): The structure of lizard communities. Annual

Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 53-74.

ReMSEN Jr., J.V. & S.K. Rosinson (1990): A classification scheme for

foraging behaviour of birds in terrestrial habitats. Studies in

Avian Biology 13: 144-160.

Root, R.B. (1967): The niche-exploitation pattern of the Blue-gray

Gnatcatcher. Ecological Monographs 37: 317-350.

SAKAI, H.F. & B.R. Noon (1990): Variation in the foraging behaviours

of two flycatchers: associations with the stage of the breeding

cycle. Studies in Avian Biology 13: 237-244.

SRIDHAR, H., G. BEAUCHAMP & K. SHANKER (2009): Why do birds

participate in mixed-species foraging flocks? A large-scale

synthesis. Animal Behaviour 78: 337-347.

Stotz, D.F. (1993): Geographic variation in species composition of

mixed species flocks in lowland humid forests in Brazil. Papéis

Avulsos Zoologia 38: 61-75.

SULLIVAN, K.A. (1984): Information exploitation by downy woodpeckers

in mixed-species flocks. Behaviour 91: 294-311.

VuUAYAN, V.S. (1975): Ecological isolation of Bulbuls with special

reference to Pycnonotus cafer cafer and P. luteolus luteolus

at Point Calimere, Tamil Nadu. Ph.D. thesis, University of

Bombay, Bombay.

ZAR, J.H. (1999): Biostatistical Analysis. 4th edn. Prentice-Hall,

New Jersey.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

19-28

THYSANOPTERA (INSECTA) FAUNA OF THE KEIBUL LAMJAO NATIONAL PARK,

MANIPUR, NORTHEAST INDIA

K. NISHIKANTA SINGH!” AND R. VARATHARAJAN)?*

‘Centre of Advanced Study in Life Sciences, Department of Life Sciences, Manipur University, Imphal 795 003, Manipur, India.

“Email: [email protected]

*Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56522

Our study reports 119 thrips species of 74 genera from Keibul Lamjao National Park (KLNP), Manipur. Out of 119 species

collected during the study, 48 are endemic to India, and 22 are recorded for the first time from Manipur. Mycterothrips

auratus Wang (1999), earlier known from China and Taiwan, has been collected for the first time from India.

Key words: Thysanoptera, Thrips fauna, Keibul Lamjao National Park, Thrips diversity, Manipur

INTRODUCTION

Order Thysanoptera includes an important group

of insects commonly known as thrips, with body size

ranging from 0.5—15 mm in length and possessing unique

features like the presence of fringes on wings, asymmetrical

mouth parts (only left mandible functional, right mandible

vestigial), protrusible bladder-like structure at the tip of

tarsus, and occurrence of pre-pupal stage between larval

and pupal stages. Thrips are mainly sporophagous as well

as phytophagous, while a few are predatory. A perusal of the

literature indicates that nearly 95% of suborder Terebrantia

depend on green plants, and about 60% of suborder Tubulifera

are mycophagous (Mound 2005). Their adaptive feeding has

enabled successful exploitation of diverse niches such as leaf,

flower, plant galls, litter, grass clumps, and dry twigs. Though

the majority of them are benign, some thrips are involved in

inducing plant galls, and a few act as pollinators, vectors, and

pests (Ananthakrishnan 1993). About 300 species of thrips

belonging to 57 genera are gall makers, and the nature of the

galls reflects insect phylogenetic relationships (Crespi et al.

1997). Thrips in general exhibit varied levels of sociality and

remarkable structural polymorphism (1zzo et al. 2002). The

world checklist records nearly 7,400 species groups (Mound

n.d.: www.ento.csiro.au/thysanoptera/worldthrips.php)

including about 700 species from the Indian subcontinent,

of which 200 species have been reported from NE India

(Varatharajan 2005). Although faunistic survey of thrips in

certain parts of Manipur has been made earlier (Chochong

2004; Muraleedharan 1982; Varatharajan 1999), the Keibul

Lamjao National Park (KLNP) has not been studied so far,

probably due to its exclusiveness and restricted entry imposed

to conserve the Sangai Deer Rucervus eldii eldii McClelland

which is known to occur only in this floating park. Therefore,

a maiden survey was undertaken during 2010—2012 to study

the faunal composition of thrips at KLNP.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thrips survey was carried out at the Keibul Lamjao

National Park (KLNP) (24° 27’—24° 31' N, 93° 53’—93°

55’ E; 767—788 m above msl), that spreads over an area of

40 sq. km. KLNP is positioned at the south-eastern corner

of Loktak lake, which is present in the Bishnupur district of

Manipur State, and has been declared as a Ramsar site. Thrips

were collected at random from diverse plants growing in

different habitats and the collected specimens were preserved

in the conventional collection fluid (10% ethanol, glacial

acetic acid and glycerol in 9:1:1 ratio with a few drops of

Triton-X) (Bhatti 1997). The material was later processed

using standard protocol for preparing permanent slides for

identification (Ananthakrishnan and Sen 1980). The collected

host plants were also processed for herbarium preservation

and documentation. The thrips specimens are deposited in

the Department of Life Sciences, Manipur University, and

also at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI),

New Delhi, along with the Pusa National Collections.

RESULTS

The survey carried out at KLNP revealed the

occurrence of 119 species of thrips belonging to 74 genera

in four subfamilies and three families of Order Thysanoptera.

Merothrips indicus was the only species under Merothripidae,

while Thripidae under suborder Terebrantia was represented

by 47 species, and Phlaeothripidae of suborder Tubulifera by

72 species. Among different genera, the following two genera

Haplothrips and Megalurothrips had 5 species each, Liothrips

had 6 species, and Thrips had 8 species, thus showing

an average representation of 6, while the rest had 1, 2 or

3 species. This study is significant as 40% of the specimens

collected are endemic, which reflects the importance of

KLNP. 22 species have been recorded for the first time

THYSANOPTERA FAUNA OF THE KEIBUL LAMJAO NATIONAL PARK, MANIPUR

from Manipur during the present survey. The feeding — with the help of local people.

habit and the microhabitat of each species are provided in Thrips are unique insects known for their diversity

Table 1 along with the date of collection and numbers of | (Mound 2005). In terms of feeding habits and habitats, the

specimen collected. Although the present work isthe outcome ~— collection records of the survey showed a maximum of

of a three-year survey, a continuous search will yield much —_26 species of free living foliage thrips, 18 flower inhabiting

more data since KLNP is completely protected by government forms, 18 mycophagous leaf-litter dwellers, 15 mycophagous

Sl.

No.

10.

Table 1: Systematic collection record of Thrips of KLNP

Name of the species with Date of Habit, microhabitats & Distribution

registration number collection & No. Host plants

of specimens

studied

Sub order: Terebrantia

Family: Merothripidae

Merothrips indicus Bhatti & 14.ix.2011 Two Mycophagous & dry twigs India (Manipur, Kerala, Tamil Nadu), China.

Ananthakrishnan, 1975;

KLNP/MU/Lr 1

Family: Thripidae; Subfamily: Thripinae

Dendrothrips schimae Kudo, 1989; 8.v.2011 One Weed; Delonix regia (Boj. India (widespread), Nepal (Kathmandu).

KLNP/MU/Wd 1 ex Hook) (Fabaceae)

Dendrothrips strasseni*@ Bhatti, 8.v.2011 One Weed; Delonix regia (Boj. India (Manipur, Maharashtra).

1971; KLNP/MU/Wd 2 ex Hook) (Fabaceae)

Hydatothrips ananthakrishnani* 8.v.2012 Three Leaf; Quercus serrata India (Madhya Pradesh, Manipur,

Bhatti, 1973; KLNP/MU/L 1 Thunb. (Fagaceae) Tamil Nadu).

Hydatothrips ramaswamiahi* Karny, 22.v.2012 Two Leaf; Vicia faba Linn. India (Delhi, Manipur, Tamil Nadu).

1926; KLNP/MU/L 2 (Fabaceae)

Neohydatothrips samayunkur Kudo, 4.xii.2011 Five Flower; Tegetes erecta Linn. India, Australia, China (Taiwan), Japan, USA

1995; KLNP/MU/FI 1 (Asteraceae) (Hawaii, Florida).

Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood, 1919; 31.x.2011 Seven Pest; Capsicum annum L. India (Kerala, Karnataka, Manipur), Australia,

KLNP/MU/P 1 (Solanaceae) Indonesia (Sumatra).

Sciothrips cardamomi 14.xi.2011 Five Pest; Hedychium India (Manipur, Tamil Nadu), Costa Rica.

(Ramakrishna, 1935); coronarium J. Koenig

KLNP/MU/P 2 (Zingiberaceae)

Anaphothrips sudanensis Trybom, = 14.v.2011 Grass; /mperata cylindrica __|ndia (Kerala, Manipur), Australia (New

1911; KLNP/MU/Gr 1 (L) P. Beauv. (Poaceae) South Wales), USA (Bayamon, Puerto Rico),

Philippines (Bacolod), Egypt, Philippines,

Trinidad, Japan (Mount Shinten), China

(Taiwan), South Africa.

Rhamphothrips parviceps 21.ili.2011 Two Grass; Erianthus procerus _ I|ndia (Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra,

(Hood, 1919); KLNP/MU/Gr 2 (Poaceae) Manipur, Tamil Nadu), China.

Ayyaria chaetophora Karny, 1927; 7.1x.2011 Four Flower; Phaseolus vulgaris — India (Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana,

KLNP/MU/FI 2 L. (Fabaceae) Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra,

Manipur, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh), China,

Japan, Philippines.

Bolacothrips indicus* 28.ix.2011 Two Grass; Arundo donax L. India (Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh,

(Ananthakrishnan, 1965); (Poaceae ) Manipur, Tamil Nadu).

KLNP/MU/Gr 3

Chaetanaphothrips orchidii 2.v.2011 Two Leaf; Dendrobium India (widespread), Indonesia, Japan, USA

(Moulton, 1907); KLNP/MU/L 3 chrysotoxum Lindl. (California).

(Orchidaceae)

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

Sl.

No.

14.

16.

ay.

18.

19.

20.

LES

23.

24.

25,

26.

28.

au,

30.

THYSANOPTERA FAUNA OF THE KEIBUL LAMJAO NATIONAL PARK, MANIPUR

Table 1: Systematic collection record of Thrips of KLNP (contd.)

Name of the species with

registration number

Craspedothrips minor (Bagnall,

1921); KLNP/MU/FI 3

Dichromothrips nakahari Mound,

1976; KLNP/MU/FI 4

Euphysothrips minozzii@ Bagnall,

1926; KLNP/MU/L 4

Frankliniella intonsa (Trybom, 1895);

KLNP/MU/FI 5

Frankliniella schultzei (Trybom,

1910); KLNP/MU/FI 6

Fulmekiola serrata@ (Kobus, 1893);

KLNP/MU/Gr 4

Megalurothrips distalis

(Karny, 1913); KLNP/MU/FI 7

Megalurothrips mucunae (Priesner,

1938); KLNP/MU/FI 8

Megalurothrips peculiaris

(Bagnall, 1918); KLNP/MU/FI 9

Megalurothrips typicus Bagnall,

1915; KLNP/MU/FI 10

Megalurothrips usitatus (Bagnall,

1913); KLNP/MU/FI 11

Microcephalothrips abdominalis

(Crawford, 1910); KLNP/MU/FI 12

Mycterothrips auratus® Wang, 1999;

KLNP/MU/L 5

Mycterothrips ricini? Shumsher,

1946; KLNP/MU/L 6

Organothrips indicus® Bhatti, 1974;

KLNP/MU/Wd 3

Stenchaetothrips biformis

(Bagnall, 1913); KLNP/MU/L 7

Thrips coloratus Schmutz, 1913;

KLNP/MU/FI 13

Thrips flavus Schrank, 1776;

KLNP/MU/FI 14

Date of

collection & No.

of specimens

studied

6.vii.2011 One

2.V.2010 Six

9.vi.2011 Two

14.v.2011 Five

14.vi.2012 Four

14.x.2012 Five

14.x.2011 Two

22.X.2011 Two

14.x.2011 Three

14.x.2011 Seven

15.v.2011

Thirteen

14.vi.2011 One

3.vii.2012 One

22.V.2012 Five

14.x.2011 Five

14.vi.2011 Four

14.vi.2011 Two

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

Habit, microhabitats &

Host plants

Leaf; Schima wallichii (DC.)

Korth. (Theaceae)

Flower; Dendrobium

chrysotoxum Lindl.

(Orchidaceae)

Leaf; Pennisetum

typhoideum Rich. (Poaceae)

Flower/Leaf; Hibiscus rosa-

sinensis L. (Malvaceae)

Pest/Vector; Dahlia sp.

(Asteraceae), Oxalis

corniculata L. (Oxalidaceae)

Grass; Saccharum Officinalis

(Poaceae)

Flower; Phaseolus vulgaris

L. (Fabaceae)

Flower; Phaseolus vulgaris

L. (Fabaceae)

Flower; Pongamia pinnata

(L.) Pierre (Fabaceae),

Phaseolus vulgaris L.

(Fabaceae)

Flower; Phaseolus vulgaris

L. (Fabaceae)

Flower; Pongamia pinnata

(L.) Pierre (Fabaceae)

Flower; Eclipta prostrata

Linn., Gynura sp., Tagetes

erecta L. (Asteraceae)

Leaf; Melia azedarach L.

(Meliaceae)

Leaf; Ricinus communis L.

(Euphorbiaceae)

Aquatic weed; Eichhornia

crassipes (Mart.) Solms

(Pontederiaceae)

Leaf; Bambusa sp.

(Poaceae), Oryza sativa L.

(Poaceae)

Flower; Eichhornia

crassipes (Mart.) Solms,

(Pontederiaceae)

Flower; Mikania cordata

(Burm.f.) B.L. Rob.

(Asteraceae)

Distribution

India (widespread), Indonesia, China

(Kaohsiung Hsien, Taiwan).

India (Kolkata, Manipur), USA.

India (Manipur, Tamil Nadu), France, Austria,

Spain (Canary Islands), Egypt, Mozambique.

Widespread in Asia and Europe.

Cosmopolitan.

Southeast Asia.

India (Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya,

Manipur, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal),

Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Korea, Fiji.

India, Indonesia, Fiji (Sigatoka, Viti Levu).

India (Bihar, Delhi, Karnataka, Manipur,

Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh), China.

India (Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh,

Maharashtra, Manipur, Tamil Nadu),

Malaysia (Sarawak), Indonesia (Sumatra),

China (Taiwan).

India (Manipur, Tamil Nadu), Sri Lanka,

Australia, Thailand.

India (Widespread), Australia, Mexico

(Jalisco), Egypt (Maadi), Georgia, USA

(Colorado).

China (Taiwan) and first record for India

(Manipur).

India (Delhi, Manipur), China, Japan.

India (Darjeeling, Delhi, Manipur), Australia,

Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Thailand, USA

(Florida).

India (Manipur, Nagaland), Australia,

Bangladesh, England, Indonesia (Sumatra),

Romania.

India (Meghalaya, West Bengal, Punjab,

Himachal Pradesh), Australia, Japan,

Sri Lanka.

India (Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tamil Nadu,

Uttar Pradesh), Austria, England, Europe

(Croatia), Germany, Japan, Korea, Iran, USA,

China (Taiwan).

Sl.

No.

32.

33.

34.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44,

45.

A6.

THYSANOPTERA FAUNA OF THE KEIBUL LAMJAO NATIONAL PARK, MANIPUR

Table 1: Systematic collection record of Thrips of KLNP (contd.)

Name of the species with

registration number

Thrips flavidulus (Bagnall, 1923);

KLNP/MUI/L 8

Thrips orientalis@

(Bagnall, 1915); KLNP/MU/FI 15

Thrips hawaiiensis (Morgan, 1913);

KLNP/MU/FI 16

Thrips palmi Karny, |925;

KLNP/MU/P 3

Thrips simplex (Morison, 1930);

KLNP/MU/FI 17

Thrips tabaci Lindemann, 1889;

KLNP/MU/P 4

Date of

collection & No.

of specimens

studied

21.vi.2012 Two

12.iv.2012 Five

14.x.2011 Five

7.vii.2011 Seven

157.2071 Five

14.iv.2011 Five

Family: Thripidae; Subfamily: Panchaetothripinae

Astrothrips tumiceps Karny, 1921;

KLNP/MU/Wd 4

Helionothrips kadaliphilus

(Ramakrishna & Marg., 1931);

KLNP/MU/L 9

Helionothrips parvus Bhatti, 1968;

KLNP/MU/L 10

Heliothrips haemorrhoidalis

(Bouche, 1833); KLNP/MU/L 11

Panchaetothrips indicus Bagnall,

1912; KLNP/MU/P 5

Phibalothrips peringueyi (Faure,

1925); KLNP/MU/Gr 5

Retithrips syriacus Mayet, 1890;

KLNP/MU/P 6

Rhipiphorothrips pulchellus

Morgan, 1913; KLNP/MU/L 12

Selenothrips rubrocinctus

(Giard, 1901); KLNP/MU/L 13

7 x.2010 Three

14.iv.2011 Six

23.V.2012 Three

7.x.2011 Two

8.viil.2011 Five

22.Vvili.2012

Seven

22.x.2012 Two

4.x.2011 Two

27 .%.2010 Four

Habit, microhabitats &

Host plants

Leaf; Schima wallichii (DC.)

Korth. (Theaceae)

Flower; wild Jasmine

flowers

Flower; [oomea palmata

Forssk. (Convolvulaceae),

Lantana camara L.

(Verbenaceae), Melia

azedarach L. ( Meliaceae),

Mikania cordata (Burm.f.)

B.L. Rob (Asteraceae)

Pest; Hibiscus rosa-sinesis

Linn., Urena lobata L.

(Malvaceae)

Flower; Musa paradisiaca L.

(Musaceae)

Pest/Vector; Allium cepa L.

(Amaryllidaceae)

Weed; Melia azedarach L.

(Meliaceae)

Leaf; Colocasia esculenta

(L.) Schott, (Araceae), Musa

paradisiaca L. (Musaceae)

Leaf; Musa paradisiaca L.

(Musaceae)

Leaf; Ficus glomerata Roxb.

(Moraceae)

Pest; Curcuma longa L.

(Zingiberaceae)

Grass; Sporobolus indicus

(L.) R.Br., Paspalum

orbiculare G. Forst.

(Poaceae)

Pest; Ricinus communis

Linn. (Euphorbiaceae)

Leaf; Cynodon dactylon,

Sporobolus indicus

(Poaceae)

Leaf; Quercus sp.

(Fagaceae)

Distribution

India (Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh,

Manipur, Nagaland, Uttar Pradesh), China,

Japan, Korea, Nepal, Sri Lanka.

India, China, Thailand, Japan, Philippines,

Java, Borneo, Tahiti, USA (Hawaii), Malaysia

(Sarawak), Tanzania.

India, Hawaii, USA, Indonesia, Japan, Fiji

Australia, Sri Lanka.

India, Sumatra, Indonesia, Sudan, China

(Taiwan), widespread in the tropics and the

Caribbean. :

India (Tamil Nadu, Manipur), South Australia,

Queensland, Canada, France, South Africa.

India (widespread), Moldova, Southern

Russia, USA, Austria, England, Hungary,

Canada, Japan, France.

India (widespread), Indonesia, Philippines,

northern Australia.

NE India, southern India, New Guinea.

India (Manipur, Uttar Pradesh), China.

India, Australia, Germany, England, Finland,

Sri Lanka, Surinam.

India (Bihar, Kerala, Manipur, Tamil Nadu),

China, Bangladesh, Thailand.

India (Manipur, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal),

South Africa, Pretoria, China (Taiwan).

India (Kerala, Manipur, Tamil Nadu),

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka.

India (Madhya Pradesh, Manipur),

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Java, Pakistan,

Philippines, Sri Lanka.

_ India (Andaman & Nicobar Is., Kerala,

West Bengal, Manipur, Assam), Philippines,

China (Taiwan), Myanmar, Thailand,

Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Honduras, Mexico.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

Sl.

No.

47.

48.

49.

50.

Ole

52.

oo:

34.

DS.

56.

of.

58.

59.

60.

GA.

62.

THYSANOPTERA FAUNA OF THE KEIBUL LAMJAO NATIONAL PARK, MANIPUR

Table 1: Systematic collection record of Thrips of KLNP (contd.)

Name of the species with Date of Habit, microhabitats &

registration number collection & No. Host plants

of specimens

studied

Zaniothrips ricini Bhatti, 1967; 5.11.2012 One Leaf; Ricinus communis

KLNP/MU/L 14 Linn. (Euphorbiaceae)

Sub order: Tubulifera

Family: Phlaeothripidae; Subfamily: Phlaeothripinae

Adraneothrips disjunctus* 21.1.2012 One §Mycophagous & Dry twigs

Ananthakrishnan, 1972;

KLNP/MU/Lr 2

Aleurodothrips fasciapennis® 5.vi.2010 One Predator; Citrus sp.

(Franklin, 1909); (Rutaceae)

KLNP/MU/Pd 1

Androthrips flavitibia* Moulton, 12.11.2011 One Predator; Dry leaves

1933; KLNP/MU/Pd 2 of Lantana camara L.

(Verbenaceae)

Apelaunothrips consimilis 20.ix.2010 Three Mycophagous & litter

(Ananthakrishnan, 1969);

KLNP/MU/Lr 3

Athlibothrips inquilinus* (Ananth. & — 12.xii.2012 Two Gall inquilines; Bixa orellana

Varadarasan,1978); KLNP/MU/G 1 Linn. (Bixaceae)

Azaleothrips amabilis* 14.vi.2010 Two Mycophagous & Dry twigs

Ananthakrishnan, 1964;

KLNP/MU/Lr 4

Baenothrips asper (Bournier, 1963); 4.vi.2011 One |= Mycophagous & litter/Dry

KLNP/MU/Lr 5 grass

Bamboosiella nayari 24.ix.2011 Five Mycophagous & litter

(Ananthakrishnan, 1958);

KLNP/MU/Lr 6

Bamboosiella varia® 14.vi.2012 Two Mycophagous & litter

(Ananthakrishnan & Jagadish,

1969); KLNP/MU/Lr 7

Bradythrips hesperus Hood & 22.vi.2012 Two Mycophagous & Dry twigs

Williams, 1925; KLNP/MU/Lr 8

Coxothrips tarai* (Stannard, 1970); 14.xi.2012 Two Mycophagous & litter

KLNP/MU/Lr 9

Dexiothrips (=Apelaunothrips) 24.ix.2011 Five Mycophagous & litter

madrasensis (Ananthakrishnan,

1964); KLNP/MU/Lr 10

Dolichothrips indicus* (Hood, 1919); 12.ii.2012 Two Weed; Albizia myriophylla

KLNP/MU/Wd 5 Benth. (Fabaceae)

Dolichothrips malhavii* 7.xil.2011 Five Weed; Leaves of Albizia

Ananthakrishnan, 1961; myriophylla Benth

KLNP/MU/Wd 6 (Fabaceae)

Dolichothrips montanus* 4.viii.2011 Two Flower; Lantana camara

Ananthakrishnan, 1964; Linn. (Verbenaceae)

KLNP/MU/FI 18

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

Distribution

India (Madhya Pradesh, Manipur,

West Bengal), China.

India (Andhra Pradesh, Manipur).

India (Kerala, Manipur, Tamil Nadu,

West Bengal), Australia, Belgium, Bermuda,

China, Cuba, Indonesia, Jamaica, Japan,

Nassau, Sri Lanka, Fiji, USA, Vietnam,

Puerto Rico.

India (Dehradun, Manipur, Assam).

India (Karnataka, Kerala, Manipur), China,

Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia.

India (Bihar, Manipur).

India (Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Goa, Uttar Pradesh,

West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra).

India (Andhra Pradesh, Manipur), Angola,

China.

India (Kerala, Manipur), China.

India (Kerala, Uttar Pradesh), China,

Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Japan.

India (Kerala, Manipur), Guyana

Borneo, South America.

India (Manipur, Uttar Pradesh).

India (Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Manipur),

Indonesia, Java, Malaysia.

India (Assam, Karnataka, Manipur,

Tamil Nadu).

India (Agra, Manipur).

India (Manipur, Nagaland, West Bengal).

THYSANOPTERA FAUNA OF THE KEIBUL LAMJAO NATIONAL PARK, MANIPUR

Table 1: Systematic collection record of Thrips of KLNP (contd.)

Sl. Name of the species with Date of Habit, microhabitats & Distribution

No. registration number collection & No. Host plants

| of specimens

studied

63. | Ecacanthothrips tibialis 12.11.2010 One Mycophagous & Dry twigs India (Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal,

(Ashmead, 1905); KLNP/MU/Lr 11 Meghalaya, Tripura, Manipur), Australia,

China, Japan, Philippines, Tanzania,

Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand.

64. Eothrips coimbatorensis*@ 15.ix.2012 Five Leaf gall; galls of an India (Manipur, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan).

Ramakrishna, 1928; KLNP/MU/G 2 unidentified plant

65. Gigantothrips elegans Zimmermann, 12.viii.2011 Two Leaf; Ficus glomerata Roxb. India (Widespread), Philippines, Japan,

1900; KLNP/MU/L 15 (Moraceae) Indonesia, Thailand.

66. . Gigantothrips ochroscelis*® 26.v.2012 One Leaf; Ficus glomerata Roxb. India (Manipur, Tamil Nadu).

Priesner, 1951; KLNP/MU/L 16 (Moraceae)

67. Gigantothrips seshadrii* 4.viii.2012 Two Leaf; Ficus glomerata Roxb. India (Manipur, Kerala).

(Ananthakrishnan, 1964); (Moraceae)

KLNP/MU/L 17

68. Gynaikothrips bengalensis* 21.i.2012 Five Gall; Ficus religiosa Linn. India (Assam, Manipur, West Bengal).

Ananthakrishnan, 1973; (Moraceae) :

KLNP/MU/G 3

69. Gynaikothrips cecedii* 22.viii.2012 Four Gall; Ficus sp. (Moraceae) India (Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh).

Ananthakrishnan, 1968;

KLNP/MU/G 4

70. Haplothrips andres/® Priesner, 8.11.2012 Five Leaf; Scirpus lacustris L. India (Tamil Nadu, Manipur), Egypt, France,

1931; KLNP/MU/L 18 (Cyperaceae) Cyprus.

71. — Haplothrips ceylonicus Schmutz, 14.v.2011 Five Grass; Arundo donax L. India (Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Manipur,

1913; KLNP/MU/Gr 5 (Poaceae), [pomea palmata Nagaland), Sri Lanka, Java, Sumatra.

Forssk. (Convolvulaceae)

72. —Haplothrips gowdeyi 28.x.2012 Two Flower; Andropogon India (Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, West Bengal,

(Franklin, 1908); KLNP/MU/FI 19 zizanioides (Linn.) Urban, Manipur), China, Japan, Latin America.

Arundo donax L., Bambusa

sp. (Poaceae)

73. Haplothrips longisetosus*@ 7.iv.2012 Six Leaf; Schoenoplectus India (Manipur, Kerala, Tamil Nadu).

Ananthakrishnan, 1955; lacustris (L.) Paila

KLNP/MU/L 19 (Cyperaceae)

74. — Haplothrips tenuipennis Bagnall, 8.xii.2011 Three Flower/leaf; Scirpus India (Assam, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh,

1918; KLNP/MU/FI 20 lacustris L. (Cyperaceae) & Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal),

Ipomoea palmata Forssk. | Bangladesh, China, Indonesia.

(Convolvulaceae)

75. — Hoplandrothrips corticis* 21.iii.2013 One Mycophagous & Dry twigs India (Manipur, Tamil Nadu).

Ananthakrishnan, 1972;

KLNP/MU/Lr 12

76. | Hoplandrothrips flavipes Bagnall, 12.ix.2011 One Mycophagous & Dry twigs India (Western Ghats, NE India), Philippines,

1923; KLNP/MU/Lr 13 Brazil, Europe, Kenya, Nigeria, USA

(Hawaii), China, Colombia, Solomon Islands,

Trinidad, St. Lucia, Venezuela.

77. — Hoplothrips fungosus Moulton, 22.vi.2012 One Mycophagous & Dry twigs India (Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, West Bengal),

1928; KLNP/MU/Lr 14 Japan, China, widespread in east Asia.

78. | Karnyothrips melaleucus 8.ix.2011 Six Grass; Cymbopogon nardus_ India (Kerala, Manipur, Tamil Nadu), China,

(Bagnall, 1911); KLNP/MU/Gr 6 (L.) Rendle (Poaceae) Florida, Vietnam, Denmark, Indonesia.

24 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.,.111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

Sl.

No.

(pes

80.

81.

82.

SS.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

Bg;

90.

91.

g2.

93.

94.

95.

96.

THYSANOPTERA FAUNA OF THE KEIBUL LAMJAO NATIONAL PARK, MANIPUR

Table 1: Systematic collection record of Thrips of KLNP (contd.)

Name of the species with

registration number

Karnyothrips mucidus*

(Ananthakrishnan & Jagadish,

1971); KLNP/MU/Lr 15

Leeuwenia ananthakrishnani**

Varatharajan & Sen, 2000;

KLNP/MU/L 20

Leeuwenia eugeniae*@ Bagnall,

1924: KLNP/MUI/L 21

Leeuwenia maculans* Priesner &

Seshadri, 1953; KLNP/MU/Lr 15

Liophloeothrips pavettae*

Ananthakrishnan & Jagadish, 1969;

KLNP/MU/G 3

Liophloeothrips segnis*

Ananthakrishnan & Jagadish, 1969;

KLNP/MU/G 4

Liothrips aberrans* Muraleedharan

& Sen, 1978; KLNP/MU/G 5

Liothrips aequilus®@*

Ananthakrishnan & Jagadish, 1969;

KLNP/MU/G 6

Liothrips bournieri*™* Sen, 1984;

KLNP/MU/G 7

Liothrips himalayanus*

Ananthakrishnan & Jagadish, 1970;

KLNP/MU/G 8

Liothrips (Liothrips) litseae Moulton,

1933; KLNP/MU/G 9

Liothrips mohanrami*™* Bhatti,

Varatharajan & Singh, 2006;

KLNP/MU/G 10

Margaritothrips sumatrensis@

Priesner, 1932; KLNP/MU/Lr 16

Mesothrips extensivus*

Ananthakrishnan & Jagadish, 1969;

KLNP/MU/L 22

Mesothrips latus**

Muraleedharan & Sen, 1981;

KLNP/MU/L 23

Mystrothrips dammermani (Priesner,

1933); KLNP/MU/Lr 17

Ocnothrips indicus*

Ananthakrishnan, 1969;

KLNP/MU/G 11

Phlaeothrips nilgiricus*®

Ananthakrishnan, 1968;

KLNP/MU/G 12

Date of

collection & No.

of specimens

studied

3.vii.2012 One

24.11.2012 Seven

24.11.2011 Six

24.11.2012 One

16.viii.2012 Two

4.xi.2011 Two

21.iv.2012 Three

26.v.2012 Two

21.xii.2012

Three

4.viii.2012 Four

18.11.2011 Five

4.ix.2012 Two

4.ix.2011 Two

21.x.2012 Three

5.x.2012 Four

4.ix.2011 Two

5.x.2012 One

14.vi.2012 Four

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

Habit, microhabitats &

Host plants

Mycophagous & Dry twigs

Leaf; Quercus serrata

Thunb. (Fagaceae)

Leaf; Eugenia jambolana

Lam. (Myrtaceae)

Leaf; Eugenia jambolana

Lam. (Myrtaceae)

Gall; Pavetta sp.

(Rubiaceae)

Gall; galls of an unidentified

plant

Gall; gall of Bixa orellana

Linn. (Bixaceae)

Gall; Eugenia jambolana

Lam. (Myrtaceae)

Gall; Quercus sp.

(Fagaceae)

Gall; Quercus serrata

Thunb. (Fagaceae)

Gall; Gall of unknown plant

Mycophagous & Dry twigs

Leaf; Quercus serrata

Thunb. (Fagaceae)

Leaf; Quercus serrata

Thunb. (Fagaceae)

Mycophagous & litter

Gall; Quercus sp.

(Fagaceae)

Gall; galls of an unidentified

plant

Distribution

India (Kerala, Manipur, West Bengal).

India (Manipur, Nagaland).

India (Manipur, Tamil Nadu,

Arunachal Pradesh).

India (Manipur, Tamil Nadu).

India (Andhra Pradesh, Manipur).

India (Karnataka, Manipur).

India (Manipur, West Bengal, Sikkim).

India (Andhra Pradesh, Nagaland).

India (Manipur, Tripura).

India (Darjeeling, Manipur, Nagaland).

India (Eastern Ghats, Manipur), Japan.

India (Manipur, Nagaland).

India (Kerala, Meghalaya, Tamil Nadu),

Sumatra, Indonesia.

India (Eastern & Western Ghats, Assam,

Meghalaya, Manipur).

India (Manipur, Tripura).

India (Karnataka, Manipur, Tamil Nadu),

Egypt, Indonesia.

India (Manipur, Western Ghats).

India (Manipur, Tamil Nadu).

THYSANOPTERA FAUNA OF THE KEIBUL LAMJAO NATIONAL PARK, MANIPUR

Table 1: Systematic collection record of Thrips of KLNP (contd.)

Sl. Name of the species with Date of Habit, microhabitats & Distribution

No. registration number collection & No. Host plants

of specimens

studied

97. Plicothrips apicalis*@ 14.ix.2011 One Grass; Cynodon dactylon India (Almora, Kumaon, Manipur).

(Bagnall, 1915); KLNP/MU/Gr 7 (L.) Pers. (Poaceae)

98. Podothrips scitulus*@ 14.vii.2011 Four Grass; Cymbopogon nardus |ndia (Manipur, Tamil Nadu).

Ananthakrishnan, 1967; (L.) Rendle & Saccharum

KLNP/MU/Gr 8 munja Roxb. (Poaceae)

99. Praepodothrips indicus* Priesner 21.v.2012 Two Leaf; Pinus kesiya Royle ex. India (Manipur, Tamil Nadu).

& Seshadri, 1952; KLNP/MU/L 24 Gordon (Pinaceae)

100. Praepodothrips priesneri* 21.v.2012 Five Grass; Bambusa sp. India (Manipur, Tamil Nadu).

Ananthakrishnan, 1955; (Poaceae)

' KLNP/MU/Gr 9

101. Sophiothrips nigrus 6.iv.2012 One Mycophagous & litter India (Manipur, West Bengal), China, Japan,

(Ananthakrishnan, 1971); Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia.

KLNP/MU/Lr 18

102. Stigmothrips consimilis® 5.xi.2011 Four Mycophagous & litter India (Karnataka, Kerala, Manipur), Japan.

Ananthakrishnan, 1969;

KLNP/MU/Lr 19

103. Adraneothrips (=Stigmothrips) 12.iii.2012 Four Mycophagous & litter India (West Bengal, NE India), Japan.

infirmus (Ananthakrishnan, 1971);

KLNP/MU/Lr 20

104. Adraneothrips (=Stigmothrips) 4.x.2012 Two Mycophagous & Litter India (Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura).

okajimai** (Muraleedharan & Sen,

1981); KLNP/MU/Lr 21

105. Thlibothrips manipurensis** 8.ix.2012 Two Gall; Quercus sp. India (Manipur).

Muraleedharan, 1982; (Fagaceae) ,

KLNP/MU/G 13

106. Tylothrips indicus** Sen & 21.vii.2012 One Leaf; an unidentified wild North East region of India.

Muraleedharan, 1976; plant

KLNP/MU/L 25

107. Xylaplothrips inquilinus® (Priesner, = 22. xii.2012 Gall; Pavetta sp. India (Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu),

1921); KLNP/MU/G 14 Three (Rubiaceae) Indonesia.

108. Xylaplothrips pusillus* Ananth. & 8.iv.2012 Two Mycophagous & litter India (Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Manipur,

Jagadish, 1969; KLNP/MU/Lr 22 West Bengal).

109. Xylaplothrips tener* Ananth. & 23.iii.2012 One Mycophagous & litter India (Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Manipur).

Jagadish, 1969; KLNP/MU/Lr 23

Family: Phlaeothripidae; Subfamily: Idolothripinae (Mycophagous)

110. Acallurothrips (=Pygothrips) amplus 5.ix.2011 Two Mycophagous & dry twigs India (Manipur, Tamil Nadu), South Africa.

(Faure, 1949); KLNP/MU/Lr 24

111. Elaphrothrips curvipes Priesner, 14.ix.2011 Mycophagous & dry twigs India (Manipur, Meghalaya, West Bengal),

1929: KLNP/MU/Lr 25 Seven Sumatra, Thailand.

112. Elaphrothrips denticollis 14.ix.2011 Three Mycophagous & dry leaves India (Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka,

(Bagnall, 1909); KLNP/MU/Lr 26 Tripura), Myanmar, Malaysia, Indonesia.

113. Elaphrothrips insignis* 21.viii.2012 Two Mycophagous & dry twigs India (Manipur, Uttar Pradesh).

Ananthakrishnan, 1973;

KLNP/MU/Lr 27

114. Holurothrips manipurensis** 7.x.2011 Five Mycophagous & litter India (Manipur).

Varatharajan & Chochong, 2004;

KLNP/MU/Lr 28

26 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

THYSANOPTERA FAUNA OF THE KEIBUL LAMJAO NATIONAL PARK, MANIPUR

Table 1: Systematic collection record of Thrips of KLNP (contd.)

Date of

collection & No.

of specimens

Sl. Name of the species with

No. registration number

studied

115. Machatothrips indicus*® 12.ii1.2011 Two

Ananthakrishnan & Jagadish,

1970; KLNP/MU/Lr 29

116. Meiothrips menoni* 5.xii.2012 One

Ananthakrishnan, 1964;

KLNP/MU/Lr 30

117. Meiothrips nepalensis Kudo & 12.vi.2012 One

Ananthakrishnan, 1974;

KLNP/MU/Lr 31

118. Nesidiothrips alius* 5.111.2012 Nine

(Ananthakrishnan, 1970);

KLNP/MU/Lr 32

119. Nesothrips brevicollis (Bagnall, 2.11.2011 Nine

1914); KLNP/MU/Lr 33

Habit, microhabitats &

Host plants

Mycophagous & litter

Mycophagous & dry twigs

Distribution

India (Kerala, Manipur).

India (Manipur and Nagaland), Nepal,

Thailand. —

India (Kerala, Manipur).

India (Kerala, Madhya Pradesh), China

(Taiwan), Japan, Indonesia, Mauritius, USA

(Hawaii).

* indicates species endemic to India; ** endemic to NE India; @New record for Manipur.

thrips occurring on dry twigs, 17 gall thrips, 10 grass dwellers,

7 pests, 5 weed infesting forms, 2 predatory thrips and an

aquatic form. Among the total number of species, 25% are

mycophagous, 73.5% associate with flowering plants, and

only 1.5% are predatory.

DISCUSSION

The world fauna indicates that 60% of known tubuliferans

are mycophagous (Mound 2005), while in the present study

only 46% of phlaeothripids were mycophagous, of which

10 species belonging to subfamily Idolothripinae exclusively

fed on spores, while the rest fed on mycelia and fungal hyphae.

Individuals of the above two subfamilies — Phlaeothripinae

and Idolothripinae can be distinguished by their stylets: the

stylets of idolothripines are slightly thicker and band-like

(S—10 um diameter) to enable them to feed on spores, while

phlaeothripines have slender maxillary stylets with a diameter

of 1-3 um (Mound 1974). The survey revealed the dominance

of phytophagous species over mycophagous species. However,

this ratio may change with the collection of more individuals.

Thrips that are denoted as pest are based on the available

record with the author, especially under the climatic conditions

of NE India (Varatharajan 2005). It is also significant to note

that thrips have been collected from plant hosts of about

86 species belonging to 30 different families; families Poaceae,

Fagaceae, Fabaceae, Asteraceae, and Convolvulaceae are worth

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

mentioning as they harbour at least a dozen thrips species each.

Although many thrips species show association with plants

of diverse families, it is difficult to pinpoint their plant hosts,

with the exception of certain pests and gall thrips. Most of the

phytophagous species are either polyphagous or oligophagous,

feeding on a variety of plants. For instance, Stenchaetothrips

biformis, Sciothrips cardamomi, and Panchaetothrips

indicus have restricted hosts such as paddy, cardamom, and

turmeric plants respectively. Similarly, Leewwenia eugeniae,

Leeuwenia ananthakrishnani, and Gigantothrips elegans infest

Eugenia, Oak, and Ficus respectively. Likewise the gall thrips

Thlibothrips manipurensis makes a marginal roll on Ardisia sp.

and Athlibothrips inquilinus on Bixa orellana, exemplifying

a narrow host range. On the other hand, the cosmopolitan

pests like Anaphothrips sudanensis, Thrips tabaci, Thrips

palmi, and Scirtothrips dorsalis have a wide range of hosts.

This view is in tune with that of Mound (2011) who has noted

nearly 9,000 species of grasses supporting 300 species of

thrips. Therefore, based on the present study, it appears that

the common families namely Poaceae, Asteraceae, Fabaceae

mentioned above appear to accommodate an appreciably large

number of species.

Mycterothrips auratus Wang, 1999

Mycterothrips auratus Wang, 1999 has been reported

earlier from Taiwan (Masumoto and Okajima 2006) and

THYSANOPTERA FAUNA OF THE KEIBUL LAMJAO NATIONAL PARK, MANIPUR

China (Mirab-Balou et al. 2011). In Manipur, the species was

collected from the Keibul Lamjao National Park (24° 27'—-24°

31'N; 93° 53'-93° 55’ E; 767-788 m above msl).

1999. Mycterothrips auratus: Wang, Chinese Journal of

Entomology 19: 229-238

2006. Mycterothrips auratus: Masumoto & Okajima,

Loong AZOT: 190

Diagnostic characters: Body uniformly yellowish brown.

Head with cheeks straight. Rows of microtrichia on the

antennal segment IJ. Male with antennal segment VI much

longer than that of female. Pronotum with about 50 discal

setae. A pair of median setae placed near the posterior margin

on the mesonotum. Metascutum with a pair of median setae

near the anterior margin, close to the submedian setae.

Abdominal terga II to VII with numerous microtrichia along

the lines of sculpture. Abdominal terga with B4 setae minute

gradually. Total body length: 1721; Length of antennal

segments (width) I: 37-39(49-50), I : 53-55(31-32),

Il: 52-53(31-34), IV: 37—41(36—37), V:16—21(32), VI:

356-367(41—46), VII: 6-8(7) and VUI: 13(6—7); Head

length: 48.3, width across eyes: 64; width across cheeks:

67; Leneth of Ocellar.setac 28-29: Ile 26-27 sll: SOs)

and distance between ocellar setae: 39-41; Pronotum length

(width): 44(69). Inner post angular setae: 98—99; Outer post

angular setae: 82; Fore wing length (width across the middle):

Fig. 1: Whole mount of Mycterothrips auratus Wang, 1999

411-420(58-59). Length of abdominal segments (width) VII:

88(221), VIII: 90(183), IX: 58(131) and X: 49(98) (all the

measurements are in micrometres) (Fig. 1).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the Department of Forest,

Government of Manipur, for granting permission and to the

Head, Department of Life Sciences, Co-ordinator, CAS in Life

Sciences, Manipur University, for encouragement. Thanks are

also due to the DST, New Delhi, for financial support.

REFERENCES

ANANTHAKRISHNAN, T.N. (1993): Bionomics of thrips. Annual Review

of Entomology 38: 71-92.

ANANTHAKRISHNAN, T.N. & S. SEN (1980): Taxonomy of Indian

Thysanoptera. Handbook series No. 1. Zoological Survey of

India. 234 pp.

Buarti, J.S. (1997): Thysanoptera. Zoological Survey of India. State

Fauna Series 6: Fauna of Delhi 291-324.

Crespt, B.J., Davip A. CARMEAN & THOMAS W. CHAPMAN (1997): Ecology

and evolution of galling thrips and their allies. Annual Review

of Entomology 42: 51-71.

Cuocuona, S.V. (2004): Biodiversity of Thysanopteran Fauna of

Manipur. Ph.D. Thesis, Manipur University. 162 pp.

Izzo, T.J., S.M.J. PINENT & L.A. Mounp (2002): Aulacothrips dictyotus

(Heterothripidae), the first ectoparasitic thrips (Thysanoptera).

(Source: Mound 2005).

Miras-Ba ou, M., X. Tone, J. FENG & X. CHEN (2011): Thrips (Insecta:

Thysanoptera) of China. Zootaxa 7(6): 720-744.

Masumoto, M. & S. OKAsMA (2006): A revision of and key to the world

species of Mycterothrips Trybom (Thysanoptera, Thripidae).

Zootaxa 1261: 1-90.

Moun, L.A. (1974): Spore-feeding Thrips (Phlaeothripidae) from leaf

litter and dead wood in Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology

(Supplementary Series No. 27): 106 pp.

Mounp, L.A. (2005): Thysanoptera: Diversity and Interactions. Annual

Review of Entomology 50: 247-269.

Mounp, L.A. (2011): Grass-dependant Thysanoptera of the family

Thripidae from Australia. Zootaxa 3064: 1-40.

Moun, L.A. (N.D.): Thysanoptera (Thrips) of the World — a checklist.

http://www.ento.csiro.au/thysanoptera/worldthrips.php.

MURALEEDHARAN, N. (1982): Studies on Thysanoptera of N.E. India - 4

Tubulifera from Manipur. Records of the Zoological Survey of

India 79: 373-384.

VARATHARAJAN, R. (1999): Biodiversity of insects with special

reference to thrips (Thysanoptera) of Manipur. Pp. 77—80.

In: Kharbuli, B. (Ed.): People’s Participation in Biodiversity

Conservation. North Eastern Hill University, Shillong,

Meghalaya.

VARATHARAJAN, R. (2005): Faunistic diversity of Thrips (Thysanoptera)

of North Eastern India. Silver Jubilee Publication of Manipur

University. 74 pp.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

AEROBIC CULTURABLE BACTERIAL MICROFLORA IN

RESIDENT GYPS VULTURE SPECIES OF INDIA

RouHAN N. SHRINGARPURE!**, MANDAR D. KULKARNI'>, CHHAYA SAWANT”’, ASHOK BHAGWAT?%,

Tosy H. GALLIGAN? AND VIBHU PRAKASH!*°

‘Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001, Maharashtra, India.

*Shri Chhota Bhai Patel Research Centre, Vile Parle, Mumbai 400 056, Maharashtra, India.

3RSPB Centre of Conservation Science, Sandy, Bedfordshire, SG19 2DL, UK. Email: [email protected]

“Email: [email protected]

>Email: [email protected]

°Email: [email protected]

7Email: [email protected]

‘Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56524

Microflora of three Critically Endangered, resident Gyps species of Indian vultures was studied at the Vulture

Conservation Breeding Centre, Pinjore, Panchkula district, Haryana. Cloacal and choanal swabs from 32 adult Gyps

vultures (10 White-rumped Gyps bengalensis, 11 Long-billed G. indicus and 11 Slender-billed G. tenuirostris) held

in captivity at the centre were collected in October 2011 and analyzed to determine the presence of aerobic culturable

bacteria. A total of 23 bacterial species were isolated from the 64 cloacal and choanal samples collected and analyzed.

The commonly encountered bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract were Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, and

Enterococcus avium, while Staphylococcus epidermidis, S. saprophyticus, and Streptococcus pneumoniae were prevalent

in the respiratory tract. The rest of the bacterial species were of low prevalence, and no specific pattern of colonization

was seen. In spite of their exposure to a variety of microorganisms due to the scavenging nature of the vultures, only

a few organisms were observed to colonize successfully and form the normal flora. The bacterial species richness and

diversity among the three vulture species was simular.

Key words: Gastrointestinal, respiratory, aerobic culturable bacteria, Gyps vultures, conservation, Critically

29-35

Endangered

INTRODUCTION

In animals, the microflora of an individual plays a vital

role in the normal physiological functions. The communities

of microorganisms established in the gut of an individual

have been shown to be essential for its metabolic activities

(Apajalahti 2005). The microflora of humans has been

extensively studied, and the individual’s gut microflora

composition has been linked to the diet (Benno et al. 1989;

Muegge et al. 2011). It has also been shown that the patterns

of gut microflora deviate considerably from normal in certain

disease conditions, such as ulcerative colitis (Hartley ef al.

1992).

As obligate scavengers, vultures provide important

ecosystem services by feeding on dead animals, thus

limiting the multiplication and spread of pathogens present

in carcasses, thereby limiting disease in livestock and

humans. The population of three resident Gyps species of

India — White-rumped Vulture Gyps bengalensis, Long-billed

Vulture G. indicus, and Slender-billed Vulture G. tenuirostris

— has declined by over 99% in the past two decades due to

diclofenac contamination of domesticated animal carcasses

(Green et al. 2004; Oaks et al. 2004; Prakash et al. 2012).

To prevent the possible extinction of these species, a

conservation breeding programme was initiated in India

by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government

of India, in collaboration with the Bombay Natural History

Society and Haryana Forest Department. The first Vulture

Conservation Breeding Centre was established at Pinjore,

Haryana. Individuals of the three species were caught from

the wild to establish a founder population. These species

were rarely kept in captivity earlier, and hence information

on various aspects of their health and disease is lacking.

Nothing is known about the prevalence of microflora

in these three Critically Endangered species of Indian Gyps

vultures. The microflora of some vulture species has been

studied in other parts of the world: Turkey Vulture Cathartes

aura in North America (Winsor et al. 1981); American Black

Vulture Coragyps atratus in South America (Rodrigues ef

al. 2003); Eurasian Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus (Kocijan

et al. 2009); and Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus

(Blanco et al. 2007) in Europe. The microflora of other raptor

species has also been studied (Bangert et a/. 1988; Blanco

et al. 2006). These studies reported that species richness

AEROBIC CULTURABLE BACTERIAL MICROFLORA IN RESIDENT GYPS VULTURE

and diversity of gram positive bacteria was comparatively

less than gram negative bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract.

Some of these studies discussed the impact of variations in

the diet of birds on the microflora composition in captive or

wild birds (Bangert et al. 1988; Blanco et al. 2006). Another

study showed the effects of geographical variations on the

microflora and their antibiotic resistance properties (Blanco et

al. 2007). The general pattern that emerged from these studies

was that the diet of a raptor plays a major role in determining

the gastrointestinal tract microflora.

The majority of the studies mentioned above collected

faecal samples to study the gut microflora (Bangert et al.

1988; Kocijan et al. 2009; Rodrigues et al. 2003). However,

some other studies such as Blanco et al. (2007) on Egyptian

Vulture and Lombardo et al. (1996) on Tree Swallow

Tachycineta bicolor also worked with cloacal samples. The

bacterial microflora in the respiratory system has not been

studied before in vulture species, and has been studied to

a limited extent in other raptors, such as Peregrine Falcon

Falco peregrinus using choanal samples (Cooper et al. 1980).

Several studies have reported a significant difference between

the microflora of wild and captive animals of the same species

(Ley et al. 2008; Nelson et al. 2013; Scupham et al. 2008;

Uenishi et al. 2007; Villers et al. 2008; Wienemann et al. 2011;

Xenoulis et al. 2010). The authors of these studies concluded

that these differences in microflora existed between animals

born in the wild and those born in captivity.

In this paper, we report the aerobic culturable bacteria

recorded in three resident species of wild-caught, captive

vultures at the Vulture Conservation Breeding Centre,

Pinjore. The findings of this study, besides being the first to

document the microflora of Gyps vultures in India, could be

used as a benchmark to detect deviations from the normal,

which could reflect on health issues for these and similar

species.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Study Animals

The vultures from which the samples were collected

were housed at the Vulture Conservation Breeding Centre

(VCBC), Pinjore, Haryana. VCBC falls within the normal

distribution range of all the three species studied (Ali and

Ripley 1983). The vultures are kept in flocks in near natural

conditions in large aviaries (30.48 x 12.19 x 6.10 m). They

are fed on entire skinned goat carcasses. The diet of the wild

Gyps vultures consists almost exclusively of carrion, and

Gyps vultures are especially adapted to consume the soft

tissues such as muscle and internal organs of animal carcasses

(Ali and Ripley 1983).

All the birds sampled were caught from the wild

in different parts of India, including the northern states

of Haryana and Delhi, the western states of Maharashtra,

Gujarat, and Rajasthan, the north-eastern state of Assam,

and Madhya Pradesh in central India. The vultures had been

in captivity for two or three years at the time of sampling.

All the sampled birds were adults and chosen at random for

the sampling.

Processing of samples for isolation and identification of

bacteria

Cloacal swab samples were collected during October

2011 to investigate the gastrointestinal bacteria, and choanal

samples to study the upper respiratory tract bacteria. Such

samples were taken from 10 randomly selected White-

rumped, 11 Long-billed, and 11 Slender-billed vultures.

Two cloacal and choanal samples were taken from each bird

and analyzed simultaneously. The swabs were inoculated in

soybean casein digest broth to enrich the bacteria present

in the sample. 10 ul of the overnight culture from both the

sets was then used to streak onto nutrient agar plates, so as

to get isolated colonies of all the enriched bacteria. These

streaked plates were used to observe different colony types

on the basis of their colony characters. The different colony

types were isolated for further identification. The method for

the enrichment and isolation of different bacterial species

was standard microbiological procedure similar to that

followed for studying the faecal bacteria in raptors (Bangert

et al. 1988), Red Kite Milvus milvus (Blanco et al. 2006),

and Eurasian Griffon (Kociyan et al. 2009). Preliminary

tests for identification of bacterial genera and secondary

biochemical tests for identification of species were carried

out using traditional culture based methods and biochemical

tests following standard literature (Holt 1984, 1986; Quinn

et al. 1994). The secondary biochemical tests employed

for the genus and species identification of the isolates are

summarized in Table 1.

Results from these tests were fed into an online

bacterial identification system called ABIS (www.tgw1916.

net). The identification results using the above mentioned

software are comparable with the results obtained using the

Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Vols 1 and 2,

and Clinical Veterinary Microbiology, Quinn and Carter.

Isolates requiring further confirmation for identification of

species were sent for 16s rRNA sequencing service provided

by SciGenom Labs, Pune, Maharashtra, India.

Analysis

Bacteria are known to occupy a certain niche, and

live commensally with the host. However, they could

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

AEROBIC CULTURABLE BACTERIAL MICROFLORA IN RESIDENT GYPS VULTURE

Table 1: Summary of biochemical tests used for species level identification

Group of organisms Tests applied

Gram negative rods and coccobacilli

Fermentation of sugars glucose, sucrose, maltose, mannitol, xylose, trehalose, and lactose,

growth on MacConkey’s agar and EMB agar, Oxidase, Nitrate test, Indole test, MR test, VP test,

Citrate utilization test, Urease test, growth on TSI agar to check for H,S production.

Gram positive catalase positive cocci

Haemolysis on sheep blood agar, slide coagulase, tube coagulase, growth at 6.5% NaCl,

DNase, TNase, Phosphatase, Resistance to Novobiocin, fermentation of sugars mannitol and

trehalose.

Gram positive catalase negative cocci

Haemolysis on sheep blood agar, fermentation of esculin, bile tolerance, growth at 6.5% NaCl,

hydrolysis of hippurate, resistance to Bacitracin, fermentation of sugars lactose, mannitol,

trehalose, sorbitol, and raffinose.

Gram positive rods

Presence of endospores, presence of volutin granules, motility in semi-solid medium, nitrate

reduction test and colony morphology.

be pathogenic when in a different niche within the same

host. For example, Escherichia coli normally inhabits the

gastrointestinal system, but could turn into a pathogen when in

the respiratory system. Comparison of the prevalence patterns

of the bacterial groups in the gastrointestinal and respiratory

tracts could give an idea of any abnormal prevalence. Hence,

all the bacterial species isolated (13 from gastrointestinal

tract and 10 from respiratory tract) were grouped into five

families according to their biochemical characteristics:

Enterobacteriaceae, Enterococcaceae, Streptococcaceae,

Staphylococcaceae, and Bacillaceae, and the differences in

the microflora among the vulture species were analyzed by the

same Statistical tests. The prevalence patterns of the bacterial

groups were tested by the Mann-Whitney U test through the

lacostatistical software GraphPad Prism version 5. Prior to

the grouping into families, the differences in the bacterial

diversities among the three vulture species were assessed by

the Kruskal-Wallis test and its post-tests (Dunn’s Multiple

Comparison tests).

RESULTS

Bacterial species in gastrointestinal and respiratory

tracts

A total of 13 and 10 bacterial species were isolated

from the gastrointestinal (Table 2) and respiratory (Table 3)

tracts for all the three vulture species. The bacterial species

richness and diversity across the gastrointestinal tracts and

the respiratory tracts between the three vulture species were

similar (p> 0.05, Kruskal-Wallis test). While determining the

habitat specificity of the bacteria, it was found that bacteria

of the family Enterobacteriaceae was more prevalent in the

gastrointestinal tract (p=0.01, Mann-Whitney U test), whereas

Staphylococcaceae was more prevalent in the respiratory tract

(p=0.032, Mann-Whitney U test). No difference was observed

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

in the prevalence of Enterococcaceae, Streptococcaceae, and

Bacillaceae between the gastrointestinal and respiratory tract

samples (p> 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test).

DISCUSSION

Bacterial microflora in the gastrointestinal tract

Escherichia coli was the most prevalent bacterial species

in the gastrointestinal tract of all the three vulture species,

followed by the enterococcal species Enterococcus faecalis

and E. avium. This is similar to the findings on Eurasian

Griffon (Kociyan et al. 2009), American Black Vulture

(Rodrigues et al. 2003), Turkey Vulture (Winsor et al. 1981),

Red Kite (Blanco et al. 2006), and raptors of Falconiformes

and Strigiformes (Bangert et al. 1988). These bacterial species

are also of common occurrence in the gastrointestinal system

of humans and a variety of animals, and are responsible for

metabolism of carbohydrates to generate energy, production

of Vitamin K, immuno-stimulation, creation of anaerobic

conditions to facilitate succession by strict anaerobes and

outcompeting pathogens (Silva et a/. 2011). These bacteria

are most likely to be contributors to the normal gut microflora

of these vulture species.

Houston and Cooper (1975) had studied the digestive

tract of the White-backed Vulture Gyps africanus, and had

reported that the high acidity of the digestive environment

(a pH range as low as 1-2) effectively eliminates most of

the pathogenic bacteria found in rotting animal carcasses,

including Bacillus anthracis. This is also possibly the reason

for the low diversity of bacteria recorded by us in Indian Gyps

vultures. They had suggested that Escherichia coli colonize

the gut at a very early stage of growth, when the high acidic

condition has not developed.

The majority of bacteria isolated in the gastrointestinal

tract samples are indicative of the feeding habits of the birds,

AEROBIC CULTURABLE BACTERIAL MICROFLORA IN RESIDENT GYPS VULTURE

Table 2: Prevalence of bacterial microflora in the gastrointestinal tract of three Gyps vultures

Vulture species

Bacterial species

White-rumped (n=10) Long-billed (n=11) Slender-billed (n=11)

Bacillaceae Bacillus cereus 30% 27% 9%

Bacillus subtilis 0% 0% 9%

Enterobacteriaceae Escherichia coli 90% 91% 91%

Edwardsiella tarda 10% 9% 0%

Enterobacter asburiae 0% 9% 0%

Salmonella enterica 10% 9% 9%

Enterococcaceae Enterococcus avium 30% 36% 36%

Enterococcus faecalis 50% 36% 36%

Streptococcaceae § Streptococcus adjacens 10% 0% 0%

Streptococcus pneumoniae 10% 9% 0%

Staphylococcaceae Staphylococcus epidermidis 20% 9% 18%

Staphylococcus haemolyticus 10% 0% 0%

Staphylococcus saprophyticus 10% 0% 9%

Note: The values represent the percentage of birds tested positive for the bacterial species with one sample per bird.

Table 3: Prevalence of bacterial microflora in the respiratory tract of three Gyps vultures

Bacterial species Vulture species

White-rumped Long-billed Slender-billed

(n=10) (n=11) (n= 11)

Bacillaceae Bacillus cereus 20% 36% 45%

Enterobacteriaceae Escherichia coli 60% 45% 36%

Escherichia fergusonii 20% 18% 27%

Salmonella enterica 10% 0% 0%

Streptococcaceae Streptococcus pneumoniae 0% 45% 27%

Enterococcaceae Enterococcus avium 40% 27% 18%

Enterococcus durans 10% 18% 27%

Staphylococcaceae Staphylococcus pseudintermedius 10% 0% 0%

Staphylococcus epidermidis 20% 45% 27%

Staphylococcus saprophyticus 40% 54% 27%

Note: The values represent the percentage of birds tested positive for the bacterial species with one sample per bird.

as these are found in a variety of animals, including goats

and sheep that form the food source of the vultures at our

Centre. Edwardsiella tarda recorded during this study could

also have been obtained through water. This bacteria is a

widely reported fish pathogen (Park et al. 2012), but is also

an opportunistic human pathogen and an agent of zoonosis

(Janda et al. 1991; John et al. 2012; Slaven et al. 2001).

One bird each of White-rumped and Long-billed Vultures

recorded carrying this bacterium did not exhibit symptoms of

disease, indicating that the organism was unable to colonize

and induce pathogenicity.

Bacillus cereus was found in 22% of the cloacal

samples, while Salmonella enterica, Edwardsiella tarda,

Bacillus subtilis, and Staphylococcus haemolyticus were

obtained at low frequencies from a small number of samples.

No clear trend in the prevalence patterns of these bacterial

species was observed, and they probably represent transient

flora obtained through food, water, or the environment.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

AEROBIC CULTURABLE BACTERIAL MICROFLORA IN RESIDENT GYPS VULTURE

Bacillus spp. cannot survive in the highly acidic conditions

which prevail in vulture gastrointestinal tract, and would

have mostly come as spores through goat and sheep

meat. They are opportunistic pathogens that can infect

immuno-compromised hosts. The lack of any clinical

symptoms in the host vultures carrying these organisms

confirms that they were unable to proliferate and express

any pathogenicity.

Bacterial microflora in the respiratory tract _

The high prevalence of Escherichia coli recorded in all

three species of vultures, not considered a normal component

of the microflora of the respiratory environment (Gingerich

2011), suggests the possibility of cross colonization of

bacteria through the various routes of bacterial transmission

including the faeco-oral route from one vulture to another.

As these organisms are eliminated from the respiratory tract

by the action of ciliated epithelial cells lining the respiratory

tract (Gingerich 2011), the absence of any symptoms in

the birds carrying these organisms indicates that these

could be transient flora. It would be interesting to check

the degree of colonization, if any, of the respiratory tract

by organisms of this group. Considerable overlap was also

observed in the prevalence patterns of the bacterial groups

Enterococcaceae, Streptococcaceae, and Bacillaceae in the

gastrointestinal and the respiratory tract. Organisms from

the group Staphylococcaceae, especially Staphylococcus

epidermidis and S. saprophyticus were found to be common

in the respiratory environment, and are likely members of

the normal flora of the respiratory tract. These organisms

are able to colonize the respiratory tract on account of its

almost neutral pH (range 7.2—7.4, compared to pH 1-2 in

the gastrointestinal tract). Also, these organisms colonize

the respiratory tract at an early stage on account of their

tissue specificity and out-compete the other bacterial

groups for binding sites (Todar 2008). Thus, their major

role in the respiratory tract is the prevention of pathogens

from the environment from colonizing the respiratory tract.

Apart from these common staphylococci, an opportunistic

pathogen Staphylococcus pseudintermedius, was obtained

from the choanal sample of a White-rumped Vulture. The

identity of this isolate was confirmed through sequencing

of the 16s rRNA gene. This organism was discovered from

clinical and necropsy isolates from a horse, dog, cat, and

parrot by Devriese et al. in 2005. However, the role of

this organism in causing pathogenicity was not clear. The

vulture from which this organism was isolated was healthy

and exhibited no apparent symptoms of infection. This is

the first reported incidence of the presence of this organism

in vultures.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

Comparison of gastrointestinal and respiratory tract

bacteria

There were no differences in the bacterial prevalence

patterns in the cloacal and choanal samples among the three

Gyps species of vultures. Although the three vulture species

are congeneric, they exhibit certain differences in their

ecology and feeding patterns in captivity. Thus, it could be

concluded that these ecological and feeding differences do

not lead to a significant variation in their microflora.

CONCLUSIONS

The study has provided baseline information on the

bacterial microflora composition in the gastrointestinal and

respiratory tracts of three resident Gyps species of vultures

of India. The findings may be of help in detecting abnormal

occurrence of potential pathogens. Bacterial microflora reported

as normal flora in various taxa was also recorded in the vultures

during the study. The vulture species in this study are grouped

in flocks of 30—35 birds housed in aviaries, which represents

a high density of birds per unit area, considering that all their

routine activities, including feeding, take place in this limited

space. This could be the reason for the high prevalence of

enterobacteria in the respiratory tract of the vultures. Microflora

examined from four free-ranging Red-headed Vultures

Sarcogyps calvus has indicated lower prevalence of Escherichia

coli and Enterobacteriaceae in general, in the choanal samples

(R. Shringarpure, unpublished data). These findings may reflect

differences between free ranging and captive birds. Future

studies on vultures of the same species from both natural and

captive environments need to be carried out to substantiate

these findings.

Pathogens were rarely encountered and were not

observed to express pathogenicity in the host, as all the

studied vultures were healthy. Thus, it could be said that the

present captive management strategies have not significantly ©

altered the microflora of the captive vultures hatched in the

wild. The conservation status of these vultures makes it very

difficult to capture wild birds purely for research purposes.

However, questions arising from this study have provided a

rationale to expand research on these free-ranging vultures.

Such a study could identify the cause of deviations from

normal microflora in captive birds and develop strategies

to ensure that the birds remain healthy and are fit for

reintroduction in the wild.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was funded by the Royal Society for

Protection of Birds (RSPB), UK, through a grant from

AEROBIC CULTURABLE BACTERIAL MICROFLORA IN RESIDENT GYPS VULTURE

the Darwin’s Initiative for Survival of Species, UK, for

the Vulture Conservation Breeding Programme. We thank

Ms Nikita Prakash for her valuable inputs in the review of

the article and Dr. Richard Cuthbert for help in statistical

analysis and review of the article. We thank Dr. Amarinder

Kaur, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) and

Chief Wildlife Warden, Haryana, for her continued support

towards the Conservation Breeding Programme. We are

thankful to the Director, Bombay Natural History Society,

for his constant encouragement and support.

REFERENCES

Aul, S. & S.D. RipLey (1983): Handbook of the Birds of India

and Pakistan. Compact Edition. Oxford University Press,

New Delhi.

APAJALAHTI, J. (2005): Comparative gut microflora, metabolic challenges,

and potential opportunities. Journal of Applied Poultry Research

14: 444-453.

BANGERT, R.L., A.C.S. Warp, E.H. STAUBER, B.R. Coo & P.R. WIDDERS

(1988): A survey of the aerobic bacteria in the feces of captive

raptors. Avian Disease 32(1): 53-62.

BENNO, Y., K. ENpo, T. MizuTant, Y. NAMBA, T. Komori & T. MirsuoKA

(1989): Comparison of fecal microflora of elderly persons in

rural and urban areas of Japan. Applied and Environmental

Microbiology 55(5): 1100-1105.

BLANCO, G., J.A. Lemus & J. GRANDE (2006): Faecal bacteria associated

with different diets of wintering red kites: influence of livestock

carcass dumps in microflora alteration and pathogen acquisition.

Journal of Applied Ecology 43: 990-998.

BLANco, G., J.A. Lemus, J. GRANDE, L. GANGOoso, J.M. GRANDE,

J.A. DoNAzAR, B. Arroyo, O. Frias & F. HirRALpo (2007):

Geographical variation in cloacal microflora and bacterial

antibiotic resistance in a threatened avian scavenger in

relation to diet and livestock farming practices. Environmental

Microbiology 9(7): 1738-1749.

DEvrRIESE, L.A., M. VANCANNEYT, M. BAELE, M. VANEECHOUTTE, E. DE

GRAEF, C. SNAUWAERT, I. CLEENWERCK, P. DAWYNDT, J. SWINGS,

A. DECOSTERE & F. HAESEBROCK (2005): Staphylococcus

pseudintermedius sp. nov., a coagulase-positive species from

animals. International Journal of Systematic Evolutionary

Microbiology 55(4): 1569-1573.

GincERICH, E. (2011): E. coli infections in poultry. Diamond V: 1-4.

GREEN, R.E., I. Newton, S. SHuLTZ, A.A. CUNNINGHAM, M. GILBERT,

D.J. PAIN & V. PRAKASH (2004): Diclofenac poisoning as a cause

of vulture population declines across the Indian subcontinent.

Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 793-800.

HartTiey, M.G., M.J. Hupson, E.T. Swarprick, M.J. Hitt, A.E. GENT,

M.D. HELLER & R.H. Grace (1992): The rectal mucosa-

associated microflora in patients with ulcerative colitis. Journal

of Medical Microbiology 36: 96-103.

Ho tt, J.G., N.R. Krigc, PH.A. SNgatuH, J.T. Stacey & S.T. WILLIAMS

(1984): Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology.

9th edn. Williams and Williams, Baltimore, MD.

Houston, D.C. & J.E. Cooper (1975): The digestive tract of white-back

griffon vulture and its role in disease transmission among wild

ungulates. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 11: 306-313.

JANDA, J.M., S.L. ABpBpott, S. KroskE-BystTrom, W.K. CHEUNG,

C. Powers, R.P. KokKA & K. TAmMurRA (1991): Pathogenic

properties of Edwardsiella species. Journal of Clinical

Microbiology 29: 1997-2001.

JoHN, A.M., J.A.J. PRAKASH, E.G. Simon & N. THomAs (2012):

Edwardsiella tarda sepsis with multiple liver abscesses in a

patient with Cushing’s syndrome. Indian Journal of Medical

Microbiology 30(3): 352-354.

KocuAn, I., R.E. PRUKNER, R. Beck, A. GALov, A. MARINCULIC &

G. Susic (2009): Microflora and intestinal parasites of the

Eurasian Griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus) in Croatia. European

Journal of Wildlife Research 55: 71-74.

LAMBERSKI, N., A.C. HULL, K. BECKMEN & T.Y. Morisnita (2003): A

survey of the choanal and cloacal aerobic bacterial flora in free-

living and captive red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) and

Cooper’s hawks (Accipiter cooperii). Journal of Avian Medicine

and Surgery 17: 131-135.

Ley, R.E., M. Hamapy, C. Lozupone, P.J. TuRNBAUGH, R.R. RAMEY,

J.S. Brrcuer, M.L. SCHLEGEL, T.A. Tucker, M.D. SCHRENZEL,

R. Knicut & J.I. Gorpon (2008): Evolution of mammals and

their gut microbes. Science 320(5883): 1647-1651.

LomBarbo, M.P., P.A. THorpE, R. CIcHEwiIcz, M. HENSHAW, C. MILLARD,

C. STEEN & T.K. ZELLER (1996): Communities of cloacal bacteria

in Tree Swallow families. Peer Reviewed Publications. Paper

13. http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/biopeerpubs/13.

MueacE, B.D., J. KuczYNsk1, D. Knicuts, J.C. CLEMENTE, A. GONZALEZ,

L. FoNnTANA, B. HENRISSAT, R. KniGHT & J.I. Gorpon (2011):

Diet drives convergence in gut microbiome functions across

mammalian phylogeny and within humans. Science 332(6032):

970-974.

NEEDHAM, J.R. (1981): Bacterial flora of birds of prey. Pp. 3-9.

In: Cooper, J.E. & A.G. Greenwood (Eds): Recent Advances in

the Study of Raptor Diseases. Chiron Publishers Ltd., Keighley,

Yorks.

NE son, T.M., T.L. RoGers, A.R. CARLINI & M.V. Brown (2013): Diet

and phylogeny shape the gut microbiota of Antarctic seals:

a comparison of wild and captive animals. Environmental

Microbiology 15(4): 1132-1145.

Oaks J.L., M. GicBert, M.Z. Virani, R.T. Watson, C.U. METEYER,

B.A. Ripgout, H.L. Survaprasap, S. AHMED, M.J. CHAUDHRY,

M. Arsuap, S. MAHMoop, A. ALI & A.A. KHAN (2004): Diclofenac

residues as the cause of vulture population decline in Pakistan.

Nature 427(6975): 630-633.

Park S.B., T. Aoki & T.S. JuNG (2012): Pathogenesis of and strategies

for preventing Edwardsiella tarda infection in fish. Veterinary

Research 43(1): 43-67.

PRAKASH, V., N. PRAKASH, R. SHRINGARPURE & M. KULKARNI (2012):

Working Manual on the Vulture Conservation Breeding

Programme.

PRAKASH V, M.C. BISHWAKARMA, A. CHAUDHARY, R. CUTHBERT & R. DAVE

(2012): The population decline of Gyps vultures in India and

Nepal has slowed since veterinary use of Diclofenac was banned.

PLoS ONE 7(11): e49118. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049118.

Qumnn, P.J., M.E. CARTER, B.K. MARKEY & G.R. CARTER (1994): Clinical

Veterinary Microbiology. Wolfe Publishing, London.

RopriGuEs, L., L. MAcEbo, J. RoBErT, M.C. FERNANDES, A.T. SANTOS

Meira, L.A. De Lima, R.A. FERNANDES, P.C. PEREGRINO &

M.E. BERNARDES (2003): Dominant culturable bacterial

microbiota in the digestive tract of the American Black Vulture

(Coragyps atratus Bechstein 1793) and search for antagonistic

substances. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology 34: 218-224.

ScuPHAM, A.J., T.G. Patton, E. Bent & D.O. BayLes (2008): Comparison

of the cecal microbiota of domestic and wild turkeys. Microbial

Ecology 56: 322-331.

SILVA N., G. IGREJAS, A. GONZALVES & P. Poeta (2011): Commensal

gut bacteria: distribution of Enterococcus species and

prevalence of Escherichia coli phylogenetic groups in animals

and humans in Portugal. Annals of Microbiology DOI 10.1007/

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

AEROBIC CULTURABLE BACTERIAL MICROFLORA IN RESIDENT GYPS VULTURE

$13213-011-0308-4.

SLAVEN E.M., F.A. Lopez, S.M. Harr & C.V. SANDERS (2001):

Myonecrosis caused by Edwardsiella tarda: A case report

and case series of extraintestinal E. tarda infections. Clinical

Infectious Diseases 32(10): 1430-1433.

Topar, K. (2008): Todar’s Online Textbook of Bacteriology. Available

online at http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/.

UENISHI, G., S. Funta, G. OHASHI, A. Kato, S. YAMAUCHI, T. MATSUZAWA

& K. Usnipa (2007): Molecular analyses of the intestinal

microbiota of chimpanzees in the wild and in captivity. American

Journal of Primatology 69: 367-376.

VILLERS, L.M., S.S. JANG, C.L. LENT, S.C. LEwin-Kouw &

J.A. Norosoarinalvo (2008): Survey and comparison of major

intestinal flora in captive and wild ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta)

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

populations. American Journal of Primatology 70: 175-184.

WIENEMANN, T., D. ScCHMITT-WAGNER, K. MEuSER, G. SEGELBACHER,

B. Scutnx, A. BRUNE & P. BERTHOLD (2011): The bacterial

microbiota in the ceca of Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) differs

between wild and captive birds. Systematic Applied Microbiology

34: 542-551.

Winsor, D.K., A.P. BLOEBAUM & J.J. MATHEWSON (1981): Gram-negative,

aerobic, enteric pathogens among intestinal microflora of wild

turkey vultures (Cathartes aura) in west central Texas. Applied

and Environmental Microbiology 42(6): 1123-1124.

XENOULIS, P.G., P.L. Gray, D. BricutsmitH, B. PALcutict, S. Hoppss,

J.M. Steiner, I. Tizard & J.S. SUCHODOLSKI (2010): Molecular

characterization of the cloacal microbiota of wild and captive

parrots. Veterinary Microbiology 146(3—4): 320-325.

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

36-37

OBITUARY

T.C. Narendran

(1944-2013)

Prof. T.C. Narendran, a distinguished

entomologist, has left behind a remarkable

legacy in the field of insect taxonomy.

During his 44 years of teaching and

research at the Department of Zoology,

University of Calicut, Kerala, India, he

was completely dedicated to his work.

He has made outstanding contributions

to the development of taxonomy, a

largely neglected field in our country.

His systematic thinking, scientific

approach, and time management were an

inspiration to his colleagues and students.

A man of impeccable integrity, he inspired many to pursue

entomological research in India.

Thekke Curuppathe Narendran was born on February

24, 1944, in Trichur district in Kerala state, as the son of

an agricultural scientist, Ramanuja Menon. He obtained

his Bachelor’s degree in Zoology from Kerala University

in 1965, and Master’s degree from St. John’s College,

Agra University, Uttar Pradesh in 1967. After obtaining his

Master’s degree he started his career as a Zoology teacher

at St. Aloysius College, in his native town. He started his

research as a Research officer at Calicut University in a

project dealing with the study of the biology and systematics

of Oriental Brachymeria (1969-1972). He continued his

interest in insect systematics, and for his studies on biology,

morphology, and host-parasite relationships of Brachymeria

lasus (Walker), under the guidance of K.J. Joseph, Calicut

University awarded him a Doctorate degree in 1975. In

the same year, he joined as a lecturer in the University of

Calicut and pursued his passion by teaching insect diversity,

morphology, and insect systematics, and principles of

taxonomy to postgraduate students and research scholars.

Simultaneously, he continued his research on parasitic wasps

and made a long-lasting contribution to the field of Chalcid

systematics through a number of landmark publications.

He advanced his knowledge and experience in the field

by becoming a postdoctoral fellow at the British Natural

History Museum, London (1980). During his stay in London,

he was fortunate to have collaborated with many experts in the

field, especially Z. Boucek, who is considered to be the father

of Modern Chalcidology. Later, he visited the US National

Museum of Natural History and worked in collaboration

with the world-renowned Eurytomid expert

Eric E. Grissell. In addition, he collaborated

with many scientists in India and abroad

through discussions, exchanging type

specimens, and so on. Some significant

contacts were between him and Mohammad

Hayat (Aligarh Muslim University); John S.

Noyes (Natural History Museum, London);

Kees van Achterberg (National Museum

of Natural History, Leiden); Antonius van

Harten and Lotfalizadeh (Iran).

His research on insect systematics

was funded by a number of agencies

that facilitated him to study many agriculturally important

parasitic wasps of the families Eurytomidae, Torymidae,

and Eulophidae. He continued his research more intensively

after his retirement in 2004 in collaboration with M. Nasser,

Associate Professor, Department of Zoology, University of

Calicut, on the biology and taxonomy of Chalcidoids of the

rice ecosystem and biosystematics of Eupelmidae of the

Southern Western Ghats (2006—2009). In 2005, DST awarded

him an Emeritus Professorship for his research work on

Tetrastichinae, and an USERS grant in 2008 for systematic

studies on Eulophidae. In the same year, Harvard University

awarded him the Ernst Mayr Grant to continue his work at

the Natural History Museum, London.

His hard work and dedication to research in insect

systematics brought him many laurels and awards. He

was elected a Fellow of the Royal Entomological Society

of London (1980), and Fellow of the Indian Academy

of Sciences (2000). His commendable achievements in

taxonomic studies on parasitic Hymenoptera won him

an Appreciation Certificate from USDA, Washington in

1998. He was a founder Fellow of the Indian Academy of

Entomology, since 1999. He received the highest honour

of the MoEF, New Delhi, the E.K. Janaki Ammal National

Award in 2004, in recognition of his outstanding contribution

to systematic entomology. In 2008, Kerala Government

conferred on him the Swadeshi Sastra Puraskaram.

He was a member of many committees and boards

like National Biodiversity Authority, Research Monitoring

Committee (CES, IISc); National Accreditation Committee

(UGC); and Research Co-ordination Committee of the

Central Silk Board. He served as the Chairman of Programme

OBITUARY

Advisory Committee of the Zoological Survey of India,

and Vice President of the Ethological Society of India,

Bangalore.

Prof. Narendran published over 394 papers in Indian

and international journals and 10 books, including seven

monographs on Chalcids of Indo-Malayan and Middle East

regions in collaboration with other scientists. Through his

revision studies he proposed one new tribe, 1,091 species

names, and 55 generic names across many families of

hymenopteran wasps. More interestingly, he trained many

minds, 26 students in insect systematics, and thereby his

legacy will continue for many generations to come. His

swiftness in providing identification services to individuals

from various institutions in India was remarkable.

The trust which Prof. Narendran founded in 2004 in

his name for animal taxonomy, to help small-scale funding

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

for taxonomic research, organizing short-term entomology

courses, offers insect identification consultancy services

and promotes young taxonomists in India. He was the Chief

Editor of the Journal Biosystematica and a member of the

editorial board of Journal of the Bombay Natural History

Society, Entomon, and Oriental Insects.

His service to the scientific field is not fully enumerated

here, but only very few are mentioned from among the

many. He left behind many incomplete manuscripts and

works when he passed away due to a heart attack on

December 31, 2013. He is survived by his wife, Mangalabai

and two sons, Rajeev Menon and Ranjith Menon. Only

by paying more attention to the field of taxonomy can we

honour his memory. |

@ Thresiamma Varghese

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

38-39

REVIEWS

INDIAN MAMMALS —A FIELD GUIDE by Vivek Menon (2014). Published by Hachette India, Gurgaon.

Size: 22 cm x 14 cm. 528 pp. Price ¥ 850, $24.99, £20. Paperback.

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56719

This is an enlarged version of Vivek Menon’s earlier

book with a similar title published in 2003. Like the

previous edition, this too is likely to be popular as it is the

only field guide on Indian mammals where brief species

accounts, particularly the larger and conspicuous species,

are accompanied by photographs. The new edition has more

photos, some of which are excellent, and larger maps. The

species accounts of several species have also been enlarged

significantly, providing more data on identification. There are

some illustrations of skulls too. Most contributors have been

acknowledged and photographers have been duly credited for

their photographs, which is a good addition to this revised

work. Many species are depicted with photographs from

different parts of their range, which helps to understand

variations across their range. There are hardly any editorial

or grammatical mistakes in this well-designed book.

This said, one cannot ignore the fact that an enlarged

edition has its own issues, unless thoroughly cross-checked.

In this work, inclusion of subspecies and enlargement of maps

has resulted in some mistakes, including disparity between

text and maps. In the case of maps, at least for some, revised

maps should be pasted upon the existing ones to prevent wrong

dissemination of information among the readers, especially as

this is a popular field guide. For example, in the case of Capped

Langur, the range of the forms durga and pileatus are separated

by elevation (rightly mentioned in the text, p. 90) but the map

(p. 91) indicates otherwise. The langurs of the Brahmaputra

plains are also durga. Almost the entire western Arunachal

Pradesh has been excluded as range of the Capped Langur!

The photos (p. 91) show both forms — pileatus and durga —

in Kaziranga, which is incorrect. These are photos taken in

different seasons when these primates have significant colour

variations. The subspecies assamensis of Assamese Macaque

occurs south of the Brahmaputra river but the map (p. 75)

indicates the entire Northeast as its range. The main range of

Macaca munzala has been mentioned as western Arunachal in

the text (p. 76) but the map (p. 77) indicates eastern Arunachal

as its major range. The range of Golden Langur (p. 93) has

been doubled towards east across the Manas river. For the

Muntjac, the text mentions subspecies vaginalis in north-east

India (p. 156) with a photograph from Kaziranga, but the map

excludes both Kaziranga and the bulk of the Northeast (p. 157).

The range map of Sambar excludes entire Mizoram, Manipur,

Tripura, and western Meghalaya where it still occurs and is

even common at some places (p. 159). The range of Gaur

also excludes all the main areas of the Northeast such as the

entire Manas belt and Karbi Anglong in Assam, the whole

of Meghalaya, south-east Manipur, and Mizoram (p. 169).

In Tripura, the only confirmed Gaur population is found in

Trishna Sanctuary, which is excluded from the map. Inclusion

of large areas of Bengal such as Malda and Dinajpur, where

there are no records for the last 150 years, is also confusing.

The Takin has a much larger range in Arunachal Pradesh and

in Sikkim, occurs only in a small corner of south-east (p. 199).

In the case of Red Goral (p. 201), the text mentioned only

eastern Arunachal Pradesh but the map not only excludes the

actual range but includes virtually the entire Northeast south

of the Brahmaputra! Regarding the distribution of Pygmy Hog,

the locations in Dinajpur (Bengal) and southern Meghalaya

(two spots highlighted with circles) are confusing, as the text

does not mention these sites where it actually never occurred

(p. 205). The map for Clouded Leopard (p. 245) excludes

entire Assam, including Karbi Anglong and North Cachar,

where this feline has the largest habitat with many records,

entire Meghalaya (it is the State Animal) and the bulk of

Mizoram. The map of Golden Cat and Marbled Cat also

excludes their main range in Assam and the entire Mizoram

and Meghalaya (p. 247). In the case of Fishing Cat too, its

main range (Brahmaputra valley) is completely excluded

(p. 257). Sikkim is omitted from the range for Wolf (p. 277),

while the range map of Dhole includes Brahmaputra valley

where it hardly occurs, but excludes its entire range in western

Assam (Manas belt: common), Meghalaya, Manipur, and

Mizoram (p. 281). Vulpes ferrilata occurs in a small area of

northern Sikkim, but the map shows the entire state and even

north Bengal (p. 283). The Red Panda does not occur in the

whole of north Bengal but in two tiny pockets (p. 293). Forrest’s

Pika does not occur in the plains of Assam as shown (p. 329).

The Particoloured Flying Squirrel occurs all over the Northeast

(p. 381). The subspecies of Hystrix brachyura are separated by

the Brahmaputra river but the map is a bit strange with many

colour shades confined to the south bank (p. 369). Gangetic

Dolphin also occurs in southern Assam and Odisha (p. 465).

Though major mistakes have been made in the maps,

the text and photographs are a useful feature of this field

guide for the Subcontinent.

mM ANWARUDDIN CHOUDHURY

REVIEWS

BIRDS AND PEOPLE by Mark Cocker and David Tipling (2013). Published by Jonathan Cape, London.

Size: 28 x 21.5 cm. 592 pp. Price: ¥ 3,960, £ 40.00. Hardback.

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56720

BIRDS AND PEOPLE is a Celebration of our relationship

with a group of about 10,500 unique avian species

whose flight inspires the human imagination. This

vast chronicle, dedicated to its 650 contributors from

81 countries, explores the world of birds in human cultures

and civilizations. By the authors’ own admission, had they

done a “comprehensive” study, the work would run to 20 such

volumes. This reviewer comes up against a similar obstacle:

what to write about and what to leave out of the review. This

review mentions but a fragment of the prodigious amount of

information that has been compiled by the authors.

Even a cursory attempt to browse through the book

leaves the reader amazed at the vast amount of information

gathered worldwide. For the purpose of this review, I touch

upon some interesting facts about the birds of the Indian

subcontinent.

The Indian Peacock Pavo cristatus was a forest dweller,

which “has become so entwined with the religion, folk culture

and destiny of India’s Hindu population that peacocks are

now birds of scrub, cultivation and even of the village.”

I may add that they are now birds of towns and cities as

well. “These birds have also acquired a secondary role in

shaping an outsider’s stereotypic impression of India.” This

introduction to our national bird is followed up with minute

details about the call of the peacock, its blue-green feathers

as associated with Krishna, its place in Indian mythology as

the mount of Kartikeya, the god of war, and a brief mention

of the hazard of pesticide poisoning that has decimated the

species. The author goes on to describe, with the help of

numerous references, the Indian Peacock in Pakistan and

China, and then devotes two more pages to illustrations and

text on the species in western art and literature, where the

bird is sometimes considered an ill omen. The paintings of

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

J.M. Whistler, including the story of his piece de resistance, the

painting titled Harmony in Blue and Gold, are described.

Similar treatment is given to the Common Pigeon

Columba livia, with lively images of these birds being fed

on a Jodhpur street. The Asian Koel Eudynamys scolopacea,

according to a contributor, is to us Indians what the Common

Nightingale is to the British. This bird and many other

cuckoos with onomatopoeic names linked to their melodious

calls find mention in the book. The same holds good for

the Hoopoe Upupa epops, commonly called hudhud. The

importance of this bird in Muslim art and its dark associations

with Greek legend are fascinating. Four pages describe

the House Sparrow Passer domesticus, which shot into

prominence following reports of its decline in urban India. As

for Family Bucerotidae and its numerous species of hornbills,

a photograph of the Great Hornbill Buceros bicornis on page

327 and the caption say it all: “It is not difficult to see why

the Great Hornbill has been held in such esteem by many

of its human neighbours.” No wonder it also inspired the

BNHS to incorporate this forest flagship species in its logo,

the name of its popular magazine Hornbill, and of the ENVIS

newsletter Buceros.

Not a page is wasted in this volume which is enhanced

by a brief glossary, followed by two pages devoted to

biographical details of the greatest names in ornithology,

including Salim Ali and Allan Octavian Hume.

A final word of appreciation for the second author:

David Tipling is one of the foremost wildlife photographers

of Europe, and each of his pictures, as they say, is worth a

thousand words. He has travelled in 39 countries across seven

continents to photograph birds for this volume.

M@ GAYATRI W. UGRA

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

40-70

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

1. DIETARY OPPORTUNISM IN DESERT FOX OR

WHITE-FOOTED FOX VULPES VULPES PUSILLA

HARKIRAT SINGH SANGHA!

'B-27, Gautam Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur 302 021, Rajasthan, India. Email: [email protected]

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56525

The Desert or White-footed Fox Vulpes vulpes pusilla,

due to its pelage colour, is treated as a subspecies of the Red

Fox Vulpes vulpes. It is characterized by its smaller size,

lighter build, shorter body fur, less bushy tail, and extensive

white areas on outer limbs and paws (Roberts 1997). In

western Rajasthan, it is still fairly common and locally known

as Lonki. Prater (1971) gives its range as from “Rajputana

[Rajasthan], Cutch [Kachchh], and Sind westwards into

Baluchistan, Persia, and Mesopotamia’.

Like other canids, the Desert Fox is the most versatile

among carnivores in respect of diet. It is opportunistic

and omnivorous, eating several food items ranging from

mammals to birds, reptiles, insects, fruits, and carrion.

The few fox species that have been studied were found to

be opportunistic, eating whatever food is available locally

(Johnsingh and Manjrekar 2013; Wilson and Mittermeier

2009). The fox will turn to anything for its diet, and some of

the ways it secures its food are amazing (Hemmington 2001).

A study by Home and Jhala (2009) on scat analysis suggests

that it primarily subsists on arthropods and fruits. According

to them, the Spiny-tailed Lizard Uromastyx hardwickii 1s a

major component of the fox’s diet in Kachchh, Gujarat. In

this note, I report a case of unusual feeding opportunism by

the Desert Fox.

While birding at Tal Chhapar Wildlife Sanctuary, Churu

district, Rajasthan, I observed a Desert Fox preying largely

on Spiny-tailed Lizard during the post monsoon period. This

lizard is common in the Thar Desert and it is a significant

source of food for raptors (Baindur 2009). On October 20,

2010, I noticed a tail-less and blood-splattered lizard sunning

itself above its burrow. Obviously, it had got injured while

escaping from the clutches of the fox, as I found enough tell-

tale signs of the mammal around the burrow. Later, during a

brief stay at Tal Chhapar, a fox was observed several times

digging up the burrows of the lizard. While no special effort

was made to look for burrows, ten damaged burrows were

found while walking in the Sanctuary, and these were usually

10 to 22 cm wide at the mouth. The fox’s effort varied from

a few scratches at a burrow to its total destruction, leaving

mounds of earth around it. I assume that after the monsoon

the soft ground facilitates digging by foxes. Evaporation is

fast in the open grassland and the earth soon hardens around

early November. Foxes do not waste energy in digging the

hard ground after that. This behaviour was observed again

after the monsoon in October 2012, when the ground was

soft after rains. Usually, foxes are successful in digging out

the reptiles at Tal Chhapar, but are unable to enjoy the hard

earned prey. Many-a-times they are deprived of the prey by

Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca and Tawny Eagle Aquila rapax,

which patiently wait for the fox to catch the reptile and then

forcibly snatch it away.

One night in August 2013, I saw a Desert Fox following

a tractor ploughing the field in my agricultural farm in

Chhayan village, c. 20 km north of Ramdeora, Jaisalmer

district, Rajasthan. There was no light that night for miles

around, except for the headlamps of the tractor. A large

number of dung beetles (Scarabaeidae) were attracted by

the bright light of the headlamps and were flying into them.

Those falling on the ground were quickly eaten by the fox. It

appeared to be not too perturbed by the farmer broadcasting

seeds while walking behind the moving tractor, and just

maintained a safe distance from the man. The fox did not

leave even when the man shooed it away two or three times.

The fox continued to feed for more than half an hour.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank Surat Singh Poonia, ACF, Tal Chhapar Wildlife

Sanctuary, for his assistance in the field and Divyabhanusinh

for commenting on an earlier draft.

REFERENCES

Bainpur, A. (2009): The raptors and the agamid. Indian Birds 5(1):

11-13.

HEMMINGTON, M. (2001): Foxwatching: In the Shadow of the Fox.

Whittet Books, Stowmarket, Suffolk. Pp. 16-18.

Home, C. & Y.V. JHALA (2009): Food habits of the Indian Fox (Vulpes

bengalensis) in Kutch, Gujarat, India. Mammalian Biol. 74:

403-411.

JOHNSINGH, A.J.T. & N. MANIJREKAR (EpDs) (2013): Mammals

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

of South Asia. Vol. 1. Universities Press, Hyderabad.

Pp. 355-365.

Prater, S.H. (1971): The Book of Indian Animals. 3rd edn (reprinted

with corrections, 1980). Bombay Natural History Society and

Oxford University Press. Pp. 127-128.

Roserts, T.J. (1997): The Mammals of Pakistan. Oxford University

Press, Karachi. Pp. 147-149.

Witson, D.E. & R.A. MITTERMEIER (Eps) (2009): Handbook of the

Mammals of the World. Vol. 1. Carnivores. Lynx Edicions,

Barcelona. Pp. 352-411.

2. FERRET-BADGER RECORDS FROM MIZORAM, MEGHALAYA, AND NAGALAND, INDIA

NIMESH VED! AND LALTLANHLUA ZATHANG?

'Srinivas Nagar, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad 500 061, Telangana, India. Email: [email protected]

*Tuikal South, Aizawl 796 001, Mizoram, India. Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56526

Introduction

In India ferret-badgers are restricted to the tropical

and subtropical forests and grasslands of northeast India

(Datta 2008). This region, comprising the states of Assam,

Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Meghalaya,

and Tripura, forms a part of the biodiversity “hotspots” of the

world (Myers et a/. 2000; Ved and Lalramnuna 2008).

Ferret-badgers are nocturnal, usually active at dusk.

Like most badgers they live in holes dug by themselves

or in burrows of other animals, and 1n rock crevices. They

are good climbers and often sleep on the branches of trees.

They are omnivorous and known to feed on small animals,

insects, earthworms, and fruits. They prey upon insect pests

such as cockroaches, and therefore, the locals like Lepchas

and Bhotias encourage them to enter into their huts (Prater

1980).Their young are born during May and June. Their litter

size ranges from 1 to 3, the usual number of individuals in

a litter being three. They are born blind, and show the same

pattern of coloration as of adults (O’ Donel 1916).

In the paper, we give an account of the morphology

and distribution of the Burmese and Chinese ferret-badgers

that occur in northeast India, and discuss the records of their

occurrences based on specimens in museums, our records,

and records by other workers.

Morphology and Distribution Range

The Burmese and Chinese ferret-badgers look extremely

similar. The main identification character is the size of molar

teeth, which is difficult to observe unless caught or examined

in a dead animal (Choudhury 1999). The Burmese Ferret-

badger is also known as Large-toothed Ferret-badger due to

its massive and wide-crowned molars. The Chinese Ferret-

badger, because of its small and narrow-crowned molars,

is also known as Small-toothed Ferret-badger (Datta 1999;

Prater 1980). Due to the difficulties in differentiating between

the two species based on external characters, there remains

confusion over the range boundaries of both these species in

mainland Asia (Schank et al. 2009).

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

Burmese Ferret-badger Melogale personata |. Geoffroy

Saint-Hilaire, 1831

In India, the Burmese Ferret-badger is distributed from

Nepal eastwards to West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur,

and Arunachal Pradesh (Chakraborty and Bhattacharya 1999;

Datta 1999; Hussain 1999; Pocock 1941; Ramakantha 1992).

It weighs around 1—3 kg, has a head—body length of 33-

45 cm while the tail length is 12—23 cm (Mudappa 2013). It is

listed as Data Deficient on the IUCN Red List of Threatened

Species (Duckworth et a/. 2008a).

Chinese Ferret-badger Melogale moschata (Gray, 1831)

In India, the Chinese Ferret-badger is distributed

throughout northeast India from West Bengal eastwards

to Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh

(Choudhury 1997; Datta 1999; Hussain 1999; Pocock 1941;

Ramakantha 1992). It weighs around 1-3 kg, has a head—

body length of 33-43 cm while the tail length is 14-23 cm

(Mudappa 2013). It is listed as Least Concern on the IUCN

Red List of Threatened Species (Duckworth et al. 2008b).

It is reported to feed on earthworm, insects, and amphibians

(Chuang and Lee 1997).

Museum Records

Burmese Ferret-badger: The Field Museum of

Natural History (FMNH) has a specimen (FMNH Mammals

75851) from Mawphlang in Khasi Hills, Meghalaya collected

by W.N. Koelz on December 31, 1952 [Anon. (a) n.d.].

There is a specimen from Shillong, East Khasi Hills district

(Meghalaya) in ZSI (Choudhury 2013), a specimen from

Laitkynsao, Meghalaya (Choudhury 2013; Hinton and

Lindsday 1926), a specimen from ‘Tipperah Hills’ in the

Indian Museum, Kolkata (Sclater 1891), and one in ZSI

from Tripura district of Bengal (probably Comilla district

of Bangladesh) collected by F. Skipuith in 1845 (Choudhury

2013).

Chinese Ferret-badger: The FMNH, Chicago, USA,

has a specimen (FMNH Mammals 75850) from Cherrapunji in

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Khasi Hills, Meghalaya collected by W.N. Koelz on June 05,

1952. [Anon. (b) (n.d.)]. During the mammal survey of BNHS

(see Mills 1923), specimens were obtained from Mokokchung

(Nagaland), 1,500 m (5,000 ft) (Choudhury 2013).

Our Records

Mizoram

1. NV and LZ came across a specimen of a ferret-badger

at the Mizoram State Museum at Aizawl, referred to as

“Mizoram Ferret-badger” (specimen number 2008/7). It

was procured from Mr. Lalrinawma of Aizawl on April

24, 2008, but the exact site from where it was obtained is

unclear. A Forest Department publication (Anon. 2006)

gives the Mizo name of the species as Sahmaitha.

2. Inthe late evening on August 19, 2006, two ferret-badgers

were sighted among squash vines Cucurbita maxima by

locals of Tuikual South locality of Aizawl (23° 43' N;

92° 44' E). One was killed, and the other caught. On

August 20, 2006, LZ was called for help in identification

of the captured individual, and the animal was released

in the nearby forest after photographing it.

3. LZ, during his tenure as the Field Director of the Dampa

Tiger Reserve was able to obtain an image of ferret-badger

through camera traps in September 2011, in Dampa Tiger

Reserve.

Nagaland

On October 18, 2011, at around 10:30 hrs, NV saw a

ferret-badger being sold at Benbenzhu (25° 52' N; 94° 10' E;

1,360 m), Kohima district, while driving from Kohima to

Mokokchung. It is known there as Nkie (Ringma dialect),

and the locals said that it is nocturnal, feeds on earthworms,

occurs in rocky areas, and was a rare species. NV noticed

that the tail tip of the individual was white. The face was

darker than the ears with long whiskers almost reaching to

the ears. The dorsal side was darker than the belly. Nails were

present on all the toes. Despite these details, he was unable

to identify the species.

Meghalaya

Samrakshan Trust’s Wildlife Distribution Survey

taken up in the South Garo Hills showed that 3 and

34 (i.e. 1% and 10% respectively) of the 334 respondents

said that they had seen the Burmese Ferret-badger and

Chinese Ferret-badger in their areas during the last five years

(Ved and Sangma 2007). However, it is most likely that the

respondents may not have been able to distinguish between

the two Ferret-badger species.

Recent records by other workers

Ferret-badgers have been frequently recorded in

various localities of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, and

Meghalaya (Choudhury 2003), but no further information is

provided on these reports (Datta 2008). A stuffed specimen of

the Burmese Ferret-badger was recovered from a local tribal

in Se1yusa, Pakhui WLS (Datta 1999). Two specimens of the

Chinese Ferret-badger were examined in Namdapha NP and

one specimen of Burmese Ferret-badger was recorded near

Roing, Dibang Valley district (Chakraborty and Sen 1991;

Choudhury 2003). Choudhury (2009) reported ferret-badgers

on a number of occasions at Karbi Anglong, Assam, during

1991-92, but did not identify the species. A killed specimen

that seemed to be the Burmese Ferret-badger was on sale at

Kohima in 1997 (Choudhury 2000). Besides this, two shot

animals that appeared to be Chinese Ferret-badger were

recorded for sale at the Kohima market in 1997 (Choudhury

2000). A ferret-badger pair was captured from sub-tropical

pine forests (1,200—1,500 m above msl) of Chandel district,

Manipur (Ramakantha 1992). Several live animals were

observed in the wild in Barak valley districts (mainly in Inner

Line RF) and Karbi Anglong (mainly in Dhansiri RF) district,

which could be either of the two species (Choudhury 2013).

Dutta (2008) obtained camera-trap records for the ferret-

badgers (species unknown) from Namdapha NP (Arunachal

Pradesh), which are the first photographic evidence of ferret-

badgers in the wild from India. They were taken during

October 2006 — January 2007, and it took on an average

384 camera-trap nights to get each of these images (total

effort of 1,537 camera trap-nights).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors express their heartfelt gratitude to Mizoram

Forest Department, Mizoram State Museum — Aizawl, Will

Duckworth, Chiden Yadein, Bensen Sangma, Samrakshan

Trust, Foundation for Ecological Security (FES), Nagaland

Empowerment of People through Economic Development

(NEPED), Kashmira Kakati, and two anonymous reviewers.

REFERENCES

Anonymous (2006): Department of Environment and Forests, Aizawl,

Mizoram.

ANONYMOUS (a) (N.D.): Burmese Ferret-Badger. Retrieved from http://

www.ebiodiversity.net/mammals/mammals/mammalia/carnivora/

mustelidae/melogale-personata. Accessed on November 20, 2011.

ANONYMOUS (b) (N.D.): Chinese Ferret-Badger. Retrieved from http://

www.ebiodiversity.net/mammals/mammals/mammalia/carnivora/

mustelidae/melogale-moschata. Accessed on November 20, 2011.

CHAKRABORTY, S. & U. BHATTACHARYA (1999): Burmese Ferret-Badger,

Melogale personata Geoffroy (Carnivora: Mustelidae) in Jalpaiguri

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

District, West Bengal, India. Tigerpaper 26(2): 17-18.

CHAKRABORTY, S. & A.K. SEN (1991): Mammals of the Mehao Wildlife

Sanctuary (Dibang Valley, Arunachal Pradesh) with remarks

on their status. Records of the Zoological Survey of India 88:

263-285.

Cuoupuury, A. (1997): The distribution and status of small carnivores

(Mustelids, Viverrids and Herpestids) in Assam, India. Small

Carnivore Conservation 16: 25—26.

Cuoupuury, A. (1999): Conservation of small carnivores (Mustelids,

Viverrids and Herpestids) in north Bengal, India. Small Carnivore

Conservation 20: 15-17.

CHouDHuRY, A. (2000): Some small carnivore records from Nagaland,

India. Small Carnivore Conservation 23: 7-9.

CHoubuury, A. (2003): Mammals of Arunachal Pradesh. Regency

Publications, New Delhi.

Cuoupbuury, A. (2009): A Naturalist in Karbi Anglong. 2nd edn. Gibbon

Books, Guwahati.

CHOUDHURY, A. (2013): The Mammals of Northeast India. Gibbon Books

and The Rhino Foundation for nature in NE India.

CHUANG, S. & L. Leg (1997): Food habits of three carnivore species

(Viverricula indica, Herpestes urva and Melogale moschata) in

Fushan Forest, northern Taiwan. J. Zool. 243: 71-79.

Datta, A. (1999): Small carnivores in two Protected Areas of Arunachal

Pradesh. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 96(3): 399-404.

Datta, A. (2008): Occurrence and conservation status of small

carnivores in two protected areas in Arunachal Pradesh, north-east

India. Small Carnivore Conservation 39: 1-10.

Duckworth, J.W., R.J. Timmins, B. Lona, P. YONZon, S. ROBERTON &

TRAN QUANG PHUONG (2008a): Melogale personata. In: IUCN 2012.

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. <www.

jucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on December 26, 2012.

DuckwortH, J.W., R.J. Timmins, S. ROBERTON, B. LONG, M.W.N. Lau

& A. CHoupuury (2008b): Melogale moschata. In: UCN 2012.

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. <www.

jucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on December 26, 2012.

Hinton, M.A.C. & H.M. Linpsay (1926): Bombay Natural History

Society’s mammal survey of India, Burma & Ceylon. J. Bombay

Nat. Hist. Soc. 31: 383-403.

Hussain, S.A. (1999): Mustelids, viverrids and herpestids of

India: species profile and conservation status. ENVIS Bulletin

2: 1-38.

Mutts, J.P. (1923): Bombay Natural History Society’s Mammal Survey

of India, Burma and Ceylon. Report Number 36. J. Bombay Nat.

Hist. Soc. 29(1): 221-229.

Mupappa, D. (2013): Herpestids, Viverrids and Mustelids Jn: Johnsingh,

A.J.T. and N. Manjrekar (Eds): Mammals of South Asia — Vol. 1.

Universities Press.

Myers, N., R.A. MITTERMEIER, C.G. MITTERMEIER, DA FONSECA,

A.B. Gustavo & J. Kent (2000): Biodiversity hotpots for

conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853-858.

O’ DoneL, H.V. (1916): Notes on the Burmese ferret-badger (Helictis

personata), H.V. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 24(4): 819.

Pocock, R.I. (1941): The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma.

Mammalia. Third edition. Vol. 2. Taylor and Francis, London.

Prater, S.H. (1980): The Book of Indian Animals. 3rd edn. Bombay

Natural History Society. 324 pp.

RAMAKANTHA, V. (1992): Ferret Badger in Manipur, India. Small

Carnivore Conservation 7: 15.

SCHANK, C., E. PoLLARD, W. SECHREST, R. Timmins, J. HOLDENI &

J. WALSTON (2009): First confirmed records of Large-toothed Ferret

Badger Melogale personata in Cambodia, with notes on country

records of Melogale. Small Carnivore Conservation 40: 11-15.

SCLATER, W.L. (1891): Catalogue of Mammalia in the Indian Museum,

Calcutta. Part II. Indian Museum, Calcutta.

Vep, N. & B. SANGMa (2007): Wildlife distribution, hunting and conflict:

A preliminary survey. Baghmara, Samrakshan Trust, Meghalaya

Field Office.

Vepb, N. & S. LALRAMNUNA (2008): Yellow-bellied Weasel Mustela

kathiah records from Mizoram, India. Small Carnivore

Conservation 39: 35-36.

3. ON THE OCCURRENCE OF DARK-COLOURED INDIAN OR RED MUNTJAC

MUNTIACUS MUNTJAK ZIMMERMANN IN SIKKIM-DARJEELING AREAS

WITH A RECENT SIGHTING FROM WEST SIKKIM, INDIA

ANWARUDDIN CHOUDHURY!

'The Rhino Foundation for nature in NE India.

Address for correspondence: House No. 7, Islampur Road, Guwahati 781 007, Assam, India Email: [email protected]

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56527

The muntjacs (Family Cervidae) are a complex group

of deer where new variants are still being discovered. The

only muntjac known from the Indian Subcontinent was the

Indian or Red Muntjac Muntiacus muntjak Zimmermann,

till the Leaf Muntjac M. putaoensis and Gongshan Muntjac

M. gongshanensis were recorded from Arunachal Pradesh.

The Leaf Muntjac has also been recorded in Nagaland

(Choudhury 2003, 2013). M. gongshanensis is a darker

animal. The extralimital Fea’s Muntjac M. feae, found in

Southeast Asia, is also a dark animal. Recently, a dark-

coloured muntjac was camera trapped in Senchal Wildlife

Sanctuary in Darjeeling district of northern West Bengal

(Sunar et al. 2012).

I report here an observation made while on a visit to

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

Sikkim. We left Pemayangtse near Pelling, West Sikkim

district, in the morning hours, crossed Geyzing (Gyalshing)

and proceeded towards Legship enroute to Bagdogra on

June 15, 2014. At about 08:00 hrs before reaching Legship

(27° 16' N; 88° 16’ E), we came across two adult muntjacs

— one in the middle of the road and the other along it.

The first animal was a typical M. muntjak with a reddish

coat. The other was a dark animal, rather brownish-grey

overall (Fig. 1).

I had crossed this stretch on several occasions from

March to May 2014 while posted as Election Observer, but

except for a few Assamese Macaque Macaca assamensis,

on only one occasion, no other mammals were seen, and for

this reason did not have my camera ready to photograph it.

CHANGA LACHUNGPA

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Fig. 1: The dark coloured muntjac Muntiacus muntjak in

South Sikkim district

Hence, I used my mobile phone to take a photo of the darker

animal — the animals did not panic but tried to move away.

A car from the opposite direction disturbed the deer, one

crossed the road and vanished into the wooded slope while

the dark animal turned back and climbed up the old road

side-cutting, where I could notice a young with it. The fawn

was dull reddish-brown. The habitat was light forest with

young sal trees Shorea robusta and other shrubs with some

grass including Thysanolaena maxima. The elevation was

around 700 m above msl.

Had the dark animal been alone, its sighting could

have lead to the assumption that it was an undescribed form

of muntjac or the Gongshan Muntjac, but the presence of

a normal coloured muntjac along with it indicated that it

was a dark morph of M. muntjak During subsequent visits

to Sikkim in September 2014, again as Election Observer,

I got reports of muntjacs with dark coats from the South

District. The local Forest Department officials reported a

sighting in Kitam Bird Sanctuary, and once an injured juvenile

(attacked by a Yellow-throated Marten Martes flavigula)

was rescued from near Phungla in October 2013. It was

rescued, treated, and released back into the wild (Nischal

Gautam, Divisional Forest Officer; Hari Maya Thapa,

Range Officer and Changa Lachungpa, Beat Officer, all of

wildlife wing, Namchi, pers. comm.) — (Fig. 1). They also

informed of the rescue of a few more such animals from

Soreng area of West District in the past, although the exact

dates are not known. The districts of South and West

Sikkim are adjacent and contiguous with the Darjeeling

district of West Bengal, and all the recent records of

dark coloured muntjacs are from this belt. So far, there

has been no record of the Gongshan Muntjyac, also a dark-

coloured animal from the west of the Brahmaputra—Siang

divide in China.

REFERENCES

Cuoupuury, A.U. (2003): The Mammals of Arunachal Pradesh. Regency

Publications, New Delhi, India. 140 pp.

CuoupuHury, A.U. (2013): The Mammals of North East India. Gibbon

Books and The Rhino Foundation for nature in NE India, with

support from Forestry Bureau (COA), Taiwan. Guwahati, India.

430 pp.

SuNAR, D., R. CHAKRABORTY, B.K. SHARMA, P.S. GHOSE, P. BHUTIA

& S. PRADHAN (2012): Status and distribution of Asiatic

Black Bear and the status of human—bear conflict at

Senchal Wildlife Sanctuary. Technical Report (unpublished).

WWE-India and West Bengal Forest Department, Kolkata,

India.

4. SIGHTING OF THE RED-BILLED TROPICBIRD PHAETHON AETHEREUS

FROM GOPALPUR-ON-SEA, ODISHA, INDIA

AVISEK CHATTERJEE!”* AND DIPABALI PAUL!”

'Block-I, Plot-51, Baishnabghata Patuli Township, Kolkata 700 094, West Bengal, India.

*Email: [email protected]

>Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56528

The Red-billed (or Grey-Backed) Tropicbird Phaethon

aethereus 1s a pelagic species occurring in the northern part of

the Indian Ocean. It has also been recorded off Pakistan coast,

west coast (Mumbai, Kerala), Lakshadweep, Andamans, and

Sri Lanka (Ali and Ripley 1987; Manakadan et al. 2011).

During a trip to Gopalpur-on-Sea on June 27, 2013,

we were photographing Brahminy Kites Haliastur indus

that were flying in good numbers overhead while sitting

on the balcony of Hotel Kalinga. It was around two in the

afternoon, and suddenly, we saw a white bird with long

white tail-steamers and red bill, flying from the beach. It

was flying at a height of 8 m, and we were able to see the

bird at eye level from the balcony. It was a fast flier. The

bird crossed us and after a short while, came back and

disappeared in the direction from where it came from.

We managed to click a few photographs of the bird, and

identified it as an adult Red-billed Tropicbird Phaethon

aethereus after referring to field guides. Our sighting

makes this the first record of the species from the Odisha

coast.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

REFERENCES

Ault, S. & S.D. Rietey (1987): Compact Handbook of the Birds of India

and Pakistan together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and

Sri Lanka. 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press, Delhi.

MANAKADAN, R., J.C. DANIEL & NikHIL BHOPALE (2011): Birds of the

Indian Subcontinent — A Field Guide. Bombay Natural History

Society, Mumbai. Pp. 35.

5. GREY-FACED BUZZARD BUTASTUR INDICUS: FIRST RECORD FROM INDIA

SHIRISH MANcHI'*, ASAD R. RAHMAN? AND DHRITIMAN MUKHERJEE?

'Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Anaikatty P.O., Coimbatore 641 108, Tamil Nadu, India.

Email: [email protected]

*Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Opp. Lion Gate, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001, Maharashtra, India.

Email: [email protected]

3Saevus Wildlife India LLP, 253, Powai Plaza, 2nd floor, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, Maharashtra, India.

Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56530

The Grey-faced Buzzard Butastur indicus breeds

in Eastern Palearctic and winters in Myanmar, Thailand,

Malaysia, Indochina, Indonesia, and Hong Kong (Ferguson-

Lees and Christie 2001; King et al. 1983). There is no

record of the species from mainland India and the islands

(particularly from Andaman and Nicobar). On March 25,

2013, during a field trip in Narcondam Island, we sighted

around 12 raptors soaring, mostly Crested Serpent Eagle

Spilornis cheela, and probably a few Andaman Serpent

Eagle S. elgini. One among them was very different and

appeared to be a buzzard. We sent the photographs to

Dr. Vibhu Prakash and William Clarke who independently

identified it as Grey-faced Buzzard Butastur indicus. The

species is new addition to the birds of India (and the Indian

subcontinent), as none of the books (Ali and Ripley 1987;

Grimmett et al. 2011; Manakadan et al. 2011; Rasmussen

and Anderton 2012) have listed this species from India. It

should be mentioned here that although Narcondam Island

is politically in India, geographically it is closer to South-

east Asia than mainland India. It is around 80 miles from

Myanmar and around 252 miles from Thailand where this

species is regularly seen. Therefore, it is likely that the

Grey-faced Buzzard is regularly found during migration in

Narcondam Island.

REFERENCES

Au, S. & S.D. RipLey (1987): Compact Handbook of the Birds of

India and Pakistan together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal,

Bhutan and Sri Lanka. 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press,

Delhi.

FERGUSON-LEES, J. & D.A. Curistie (2001): Raptors of the World.

Christopher Helm, London.

GRIMMETT, R., C. INskipp & T. INskipp (2011): Birds of the Indian

Subcontinent. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, UK.

Kina, B., M. Woopcock & E.C. DICKINSON (1983): A Field Guide to the

Birds of South-East Asia. Collins, London.

MANAKADAN, R., J.C. DANIEL & Nikuit BHOPALE (2011): Birds of the

Indian Subcontinent — A Field Guide. Bombay Natural History

Society, Mumbai.

RASMUSSEN, P.C. & J.C. ANDERTON (2012): Birds of South Asia:

The Ripley Guide. Vols 1 and 2. 2nd edn. National Museum

of Natural History — Smithsonian Institution, Michigan State

University, and Lynx Edicions, Washington, D.C., Michigan

and Barcelona.

6. FIRST RECORD OF PECTORAL SANDPIPER CALIDRIS MELANOTOS

AND CASPIAN PLOVER CHARADRIUS ASIATICUS FROM KERALA, INDIA

P.C. RAJEEVAN!, K.M. KHALEEL? AND JAYAN THOMAS? *

'Pandanchira House, Kizhuthally, Kannur 670 018, Kerala, India. Email: [email protected]

*Sir Sayed College, Taliparamba, Kannur 670 142, Kerala, India. Email: [email protected]

3Cannanore Eye Hospital, Kannur 670 001, Kerala, India. Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56531

Madayipara (12° 02’ N; 75° 16’ E; 40-47 m above msl),

c. 22 km north of Kannur in Kerala, is a large laterite hillock

with sparse grass and open rocky areas, wedged between

the Western Ghats and the Arabian Sea. It is a hotspot for

migratory passerines, and the site where the Buff-breasted

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

Sandpiper 7ryngitis subruficollis was first photographed from

South Asia (Rajeevan and Thomas 2013). The first sightings

of the Isabelline Wheatear Oenanthe isabellina and Tawny

Pipit Anthus campestris in Kerala were also from Madayipara

(Rajeevan et al. 2012).

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

On a routine birding trip to Madayipara on September

19, 2013, PCR spotted a brownish bird among a flock

consisting of Lesser Sand Plover Charadrius mongolus,

Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea, Little Stint Calidris

minuta, and Broad-billed Sandpiper Limicola falcinellus.

This bird was about the size of a Curlew Sandpiper. The bill

was narrow and long with a reddish-brown base and black

tip. The breast was well-streaked. As it flew away, PCR saw

that there was white on both sides of the rump and black at

the centre of the tail. On the basis of these, he identified the

bird as the Pectoral Sandpiper. Later KMK and JT joined him

and took photographs, and the identification was confirmed

by experts. The bird was seen till September 22.

Birding further along on the same day, PCR noticed

another bird. This bird was of the size of a Greater Sand

Plover Charadrius leschenaultii with pale yellowish-brown

plumage and broad white supercilium. The legs were long

and greenish-yellow. The bill was black and somewhat similar

to the Greater Sand Plover, but finer and pointed. The breast

band was slightly visible and a white wing-bar was clearly

seen in flight. The photographs of the bird taken by JT were

sent to experts, who identified it as Caspian Plover. The bird

was recorded in the area till September 30.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to C. Sashikumar, Praveen J.,

Dipu K., and Muhamed Jafer Palot for help in identifying

the Pectoral Sandpiper, and Harkirat Singh Sangha

for confirming the identify of the Caspian Plover,

besides other birders. We extend our sincere thanks to

Mr. K.P. Chandragadhan, Secretary of Madayipara

Protection Council, and A. Mohan Kumar for their

wholehearted support and encouragement.

REFERENCES

RAJEEVAN, P.C. & JAYAN THomas (2013): Photographic record of the

Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis in Kerala — fifth

record from the Indian subcontinent. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

110(3): 225-226. |

RAJEEVAN, P.C., P.B. Buu & JAYAN THoMas (2012): First record of Tawny

Pipit Anthus campestris from Kerala. Indian Birds 7(6): 167.

7. FIRST RECORD OF RED-NECKED PHALAROPE PHALAROPUS LOBATUS FROM KERALA, INDIA

MuHAMED JAFER PALot)*, DipU KARUTHEDATHU?, PRAVEEN J.*, MIKE PRiINcE* AND E. KUNHIKRISHNAN?

‘Zoological Survey of India, Western Ghat Regional Centre, Kozhikode 673 006, Kerala, India. Email: [email protected]

"#301, Jaya Emerald, Maruthinagar, Bengaluru 560 075, Karnataka, India. Email: [email protected]

3B303, Shriram Spurthi, ITPL Main Road, Brookefields, Bengaluru 560 037, Karnataka, India. Email: [email protected]

“GA Regency Alandon, 2 Ware Road, Fraser Town, Bengaluru 560 005, Karnataka, India. Email: [email protected]

°Department of Zoology, University College, Thiruvananthapuram 695 034, Kerala, India. Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56533

The Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus

(Linnaeus) is considered a winter visitor to seas (usually

10-50 km offshore) from South Pakistan till Gujarat and

also wintering in SE India and Sri Lanka (Grimmett et al.

2011; Rasmussen and Anderton 2012). It is also a widespread

passage migrant throughout India with several inland records

(Ali and Ripley 1987), including recent photographic records

from Mysore (2009) and Coimbatore (2012). However, this

bird has never been recorded from the SW coastal waters

south of Goa.

During a pelagic expedition in South Kerala, a Red-

necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus was observed in the

Arabian Sea (8° 54’ 58” N; 76° 29’ 15” E; depth: 18.39 m),

about 9 km offshore from Neendakara estuary, Kollam

district on October 30, 2012, at 16:30 hrs. The sea was a bit

turbulent and a strong wind was blowing in a southwest to

northeast direction. The bird was first spotted flying over

the water, and it settled quickly, floating on the waves very

close to the boat, enabling several photographers in the boat

to photograph it. It kept around the boat for about 10 minutes

before flying away.

The bird was moulting to first-winter plumage: it

had a brownish crown and hind-neck, and showed several

freshly-grown adult scapulars. It had a clear white circular

spot on the breast-sides, level with and just in front of the

first upper scapular. The normally distinctive white “V” on

the mantle was not very obvious, presumably because of the

onset of moult into winter plumage. In flight, the bird was

dark above and pale below with a well-defined, relatively

narrow, white wingbar on the upperwing. The long, thin,

black bill (contra shorter, pale-based bill) was the key

feature to distinguish it from the Red Phalarope P. fulicarius

which is a vagrant to the Indian subcontinent. The presence

of a clear white wingbar and its structure eliminated the

unlikely possibility that it was the extralimital Wilson’s

Phalarope P. tricolor.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

This constitutes the first record of Red-necked

Phalarope in Kerala. However, this observation is not

surprising, as the species is predominantly pelagic in winter

and it is only in the last two years that much birding has

been done at sea. The species breeds in low-Arctic region in

May to August and is a winter visitor to the coasts of Peru,

equatorial West Africa and the Arabian and South China Sea

(Harrison 1995).

Since our submission, there has been a more recent

photographic record of this species from the Arabian sea off

Kerala coast on September 28, 2014, by several birdwatchers

on a similar pelagic survey (Jinesh 2014).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the authorities of Kerala State

Fisheries Department for permission to undertake the survey

in Kollam and Thiruvananthapuram districts. We would like

to acknowledge our fellow birdwatchers who accompanied

us during the pelagic survey. The first author is grateful to the

Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, and the Officer-

in-Charge, ZSI, Calicut, for facilities and encouragements.

REFERENCES

Au, S. & S.D. RipLey (1987): Compact Handbook of the Birds of

India and Pakistan together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal,

Bhutan and Sri Lanka. 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press,

Delhi.

GrimMMetTT, R., C. INskipp & T. INskipp (2011): Birds of the Indian

Subcontinent. Helm Field Guides, Oxford University Press, UK.

528 pp.

Harrison, P. (1995): Seabirds of the World. A photographic guide.

Christopher Helm, London, UK. 317 pp.

JINESH, P.S. (2014): http://ebird.org/ebird/view/

checklist?subID=S20058651. Accessed on October 23, 2014.

RASMUSSEN, P.C. & J.C. ANDERTON (2012): Birds of South Asia: The

Ripley Guide: Attributes and Status. Smithsonian Institution,

Michigan State University, and Lynx Edicions.

8. ORIENTAL SKYLARK ALAUDA GULGULA NESTING IN ELEPHANT DUNG

IN CORBETT TIGER RESERVE, INDIA

Mano; SHARMA!

'Shankarpur, Ramnagar, Nainital 244 715, Uttarakhand, India. Email: [email protected]

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56534

The Oriental Skylark Alauda gulgula is resident in

India (Rasmussen and Anderton 2012), and found throughout

much of the subcontinent, except for parts of the northwest

and northeast (Grimmett et al. 1998). The species is known

to occur in open grasslands (Kazmierczak 2000) on the edge

of jheels (Ali and Ripley 1987). It breeds in the western

Himalaya from May to July (Ali and Ripley 1987) and builds

a cup-shaped nest of grass, usually under an earth clod or

grass tuft (Grimmett et al. 1998). “The nest is made in a

natural depression in the ground, such as cattle hoof-print

or maybe partly scraped out by the bird itself and comprises

a hollow cup woven of grasses and lined with animal hair or

finer roots” (Roberts 1992).

The Dhikala grassland is an area of roughly 10 sq. km

in the Patli Dun valley of Ramganga river, located in the

heart of Corbett Tiger Reserve. It is an undulating, riverine

grassland, located on the upper end of Ramganga reservoir.

The Oriental Skylark is a common resident bird, found

throughout the year in the grassland. The species has been

observed to breed in this area during the months of May and

June (pers. obs.). On June 15, 2008, J.P. Khulbe brought to

my attention an interesting nest site of the species at Leed

Khalia area (29° 35’ N; 78° 49’ E; c. 347 m) in Dhikala

grassland. The nest was placed in a hollow, excavated in a dry

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

elephant-dung ball. It was made of dry grass vegetation lined

with soft thin grass strands. The nest, located on high ground

and at a distance of 20—25 m from the edge of the reservoir,

was facing south-west. It is presumed that the orientation of

the nest provided safety from the heat of the sun during the

hot season. There were three chicks in the nest. The chicks

were young and had dirty white, downy feathers over some

parts of their body, with the rest of the body still unfeathered.

The nest was videographed, and the chicks responded by

opening their gapes, apparently seeking food, mistaking

the clicking sound of the video camera whenever it was

switched on or off for the calls of the parents. Two chicks,

apparently a little older than the third, were more aggressive

in demanding food. Later, the nest was observed for over ten

minutes from a distance and the parents brought feed twice

during this period. The adult was a medium-sized lark, with

pale coloration, streaked above, streaked on the breast, and

with a white unmarked belly and vent. It had a short streaked

crest, a fine bill, buffy white outer-tail feathers, and rufous

tinge to the flight feathers.

Some lark species are known to use animal dung for

nesting materials: Beesley’s Lark Chersomanes beesleyi

uses dung to line the nest; Black Lark Melanocorypha

yeltoniensis has its nest site often surrounded by animal

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

dung; Bimaculated Lark Melanocorypha bimaculata uses

dung to construct the outer walls of its nest; and Red-capped

Lark Calandrella cinerea is known to use dung to make the

ramparts of its nest (del Hoyo et al. 2004). The rim of the nest

of Large Crested Lark Galerida cristata has been recorded to

be lined with bits of baked cowdung (Ali and Ripley 1987).

The only species of lark that has been reported to place its

nest in animal dung is Botha’s Lark Spizocorys fringillaris,

with a record of a nest placed in a pile of sheep dung (del

Hoyo et al. 2004).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank J.P. Khulbe (nature guide, Corbett Tiger

Reserve) for showing me the nest and Harkirat Singh Sangha

for commenting on the manuscript.

REFERENCES

Aut, S. & S.D. RipLey (1987): Compact Handbook of the Birds of India

and Pakistan together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan

and Ceylon. (Larks to the Grey Hypocolius). 2nd edition. Oxford

University Press, Delhi.

DEL Hoyo, J., A. ELLiotr & D.A. CuristiE (Eps) (2004): Handbook of

the Birds of the World. Vol. 9. Cotingas to Pipits and Wagtails.

Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.

GRIMMETT, R., C. INskipp & T. INskipp (1998): Birds of the Indian

Subcontinent. Christopher Helm, A&C Black, London.

KAZMIERCZAK, K. (2000): A Field Guide to the Birds of India. Pica

Press, East Sussex.

RASMUSSEN, P.C. & J.C. ANDERTON (2012): Birds of South Asia:

The Ripley Guide. Vols 1 and 2, 2nd edn. Smithsonian

Institution, Michigan State University and Lynx Edicions,

Washington, D.C., Michigan and Barcelona.

~Roserts, T.J. (1992): The Birds of Pakistan. Passeriforms:

Pittas to Buntings. Vol. 2. Oxford University Press,

Karachi.

9. CAPTURING PROBLEM SALTWATER CROCODILES

CROCODYLUS POROSUS SCHNEIDER USING INDIGENOUS TECHNIQUES

IN THE ANDAMAN ISLANDS, INDIA

VISWAKANNAN, P.)4. C. SrVAPERUMAN2*, S, SENTHIL KUMAR? AND SHASHIKUMAR!”

9 y) 9)

'Department of Environment &Forests, Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Port Blair 744 102, A & N Islands.

*Zoological Survey of India, Andaman & Nicobar Regional Centre, Port Blair 744 102, A & N Islands. Email: [email protected]

*Forests and Wildlife Department, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry 605 004, India. Email: [email protected]

“Email: [email protected]

°Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56535

Introduction

The Andaman & Nicobar Islands are known for their

rich biodiversity resources (Mathur and Padalia 2010).

The archipelago comprises 572 islands, islets, and

rocky outcrops extending over 800 km and located between

6° 45'-13° 30’ N and 90° 20'—-93° 56’ E. The topography

is hilly and undulating, and Saddle Peak is the highest

elevation (732 m) in North Andaman Islands. The Saltwater

Crocodile is found in the northeastern coastal region

of mainland India and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands

(Singh and Kar 2006). In the Andaman Islands, it is

widely distributed, but population expansion appears to

be constrained by the lack of suitable breeding habitat.

Human occupation is displacing crocodiles and recent

studies have examined the human-crocodile conflicts in this

area (Andrews and Whitaker 1994; Kumar et al. 2012;

Whitaker 2008).

The human response and management action towards

crocodiles that attack and kill livestock or people is complex.

As crocodile conservation programmes succeed, and

human populations expand, interactions between the two

become more frequent and problematic. These problems are

especially intense when people (e.g., recent migrants) who

are inexperienced in sharing resources with crocodiles are

subjected to the conflict.

People’s perception of risk from natural events and

creatures has been well-studied (Ross 1998) and increases

as the consequences become serious (injury or death), and

the frequency of events increases but the predictability

is low. Most influential is the degree to which people feel

they can influence the probability of attack and the outcome.

When people feel helpless and powerless, their fear and

concern rises. When people feel they have some control, their

tolerance and willingness to manage and accept risk rises.

Fear, panic, revenge killing, and inappropriate management

actions such as crocodile nest destruction compromise

conservation and cohabitation of people and crocodiles.

Understanding and applying indigenous knowledge

and beliefs is one tool to improve effective management

of crocodiles, empower local people, and provide a

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

setting where crocodile conservation and people can

coexist.

This was the second incident of capture of a problem

Saltwater Crocodile in Andaman & Nicobar Islands. The

first individual was captured using locally available and

indigenous methods on June 6, 2010, when the crocodile

killed a 25-year old American tourist off Radha Nagar Beach,

Havelock (Kumar et al. 2012). In this paper, we describe

the capture of another problem saltwater crocodile using

indigenous techniques.

Capture and translocation of problem crocodile

A Saltwater Crocodile attacked Ajay Kulla, a

23-year old youth of Bakultala village, Middle Andaman on

August 01, 2012, at 09:00 hrs, when he was fishing in a

nearby nullah along with his friend. His friend witnessed

the incident and alerted the villagers nearby, but when they

reached the spot Ajay was missing. Despite their best efforts,

officials of the Department of Environment & Forests and

Police could not trace the victim’s body. This was the fifth

fatal attack by a crocodile within a period of 28 months in

Andaman & Nicobar Islands.

Immediately, the Department of Environment and

Forests advised locals to be vigilant of the presence of

crocodiles around Bakultala village, and a warning signboard

was placed at a nearby mangrove creek. Consequently, a

squad was constituted on August 01, 2012, under the direction

of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) to

capture the problem crocodile in order to mitigate crocodile

attacks following the unfortunate event. The squad members

included the staff of Department of Environment and Forests,

local people, and the Police Department. The animal was

monitored by direct and indirect observations (e.g., foot

prints, faecal matter) on the shore in shallow water, mudflats,

and mangrove creeks. After a month-long operation, the

problem crocodile was captured from Shyamkunj mangrove

creek by the team of the Department of Environment and

Forests and successfully shifted to Mini Zoo, Port Blair.

Capture of the problem crocodile

The captured adult male crocodile was 4.10 m long,

and weighed 450 kg (Fig. 1). The team members thoroughly

combed the entire area and singled out the problem animal

based on various characters and set traps to capture it. Three

methods were employed to capture the problem crocodile

in Bakultala mangrove creek. At first, a cage constructed of

bamboo (Bambusa bambos and B. vulgaris) was placed in the

mangrove creek; this attempt was unsuccessful as the cage

was too small (Fig. 2). Secondly, a snare trap — a technique

used nationally and internationally to capture crocodiles —

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

Fig. 1: Captured crocodile

Fig. 2: Cage made with bamboo

was attempted. In this method, a wooden dowel was placed

inside a dead chicken, and a rope tied to it extended from

the chicken’s body to buoys that would help to trail the

crocodile. The team waited for the crocodile to swallow the

bait. Once the bait was taken, the team followed the crocodile

for more than two hours, but could not capture it because of

accessibility issues within the mangrove creek area, and also

because the crocodile regurgitated the bait.

Thereafter, a metal cage was devised by the team.

The cage was first placed on the shore with chicken as bait,

unsuccessfully. Then the cage was placed in the territory of

the crocodile in open water using floater logs, and baited with

dead chicken (Fig. 3). After 27 days, the target crocodile bit

the bait. This was the second largest crocodile captured so

far in Andaman & Nicobar Islands and was suspected to be

the man-eater. The captured individual was transported to

Shyamkunj Jetty on a dinghy. Thereafter, the cage was further

improved with planks to avoid any injury to the crocodile

during transportation. Finally, the animal was transported

to Port Blair by road and relocated to the Mini Zoo at

Port Blair.

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Fig. 3: Metal cage with floater logs

This immediate action by the Department of

Environment and Forests temporarily restored the safety

and well-being of the local population in Bakultala village. It

is very likely that another large male will dominate the area,

and again pose a threat to people and their livelihoods.

Possible reasons for attack

Destruction of crocodile habitat, and habitat sharing

by humans and crocodiles, are the major reasons for

human-crocodile conflict. Increasing human activities, such

as fishing in the mangrove areas and crossing the creeks

without adequate protection result in crocodile attacks on

humans. Another possible reason for attacks on people is

nest defence by females. The presence of livestock and other

domestic animals on the seashore may also attract crocodiles

to inhabited areas. The dumping of waste food materials on

the seashore provides an added attraction for crocodiles. It is

possible to manipulate the size distribution of the crocodiles by

removing some of the larger and more dangerous individuals

to other locations in the Islands (Ross 1998). Relocation of

problem crocodiles has been suggested as a management

strategy in Australia (Walsh and Whitehead 1993). However,

experiences in relocating large specimens of C. porosus in

Darwin, Australia, suggest that some of these animals return

to their capture area after relocation up to 100 km away. The

best solution is to change people’s behaviour so that they are

unlikely to encounter crocodiles. In Sri Lanka, communities

construct riverside barriers with local materials to provide

safe areas for bathing and water collection. Education about

the presence and danger of crocodiles, improved (larger)

fishing craft, and careful disposal of organic waste such as

fish and meat offal can reduce the risk of crocodile attack.

Presenting such information in local languages and in

forms familiar to local communities (dance, music, theatre,

religious discussion, folk belief, and folk tales) and by local

communicators, leaders, and opinion makers assists effective

transfer of these messages.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The second author (CS) is thankful to Dr. James

Perran Ross, Crocodile Specialist Group Red List Authority,

and Dr. Ruchira Somaweera, Senior Zoologist, Biologic

Environmental Survey, CSIRO, Ecosystem Sciences, North

Perth, Australia, for their valuable comments and support to

improve the manuscript.

REFERENCES

ANpbREWS, H.V. & R. WHITAKER (1994): Population dynamics and ecology

of the saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus Schneider) in the

Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Interim survey report. Phase II.

Submitted to the Andaman and Nicobar Forest Department and

the Centre for Herpetology (AN/C-2-94). 18 pp.

Kumar, S.S., C. SIVAPERUMAN & B.P. Yapav (2012): Management of

problem saltwater crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus Schneider)

— A case study in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India.

Herpetological Bulletin 120: 9-15.

Matuvr, V.B. & H. Papatia (2010): Protected area network in Andaman

and Nicobar Islands: a gap analysis for biodiversity representation

and conservation status. Pp. 519-532. Jn: (Ramakrishna,

Raghunathan, C. & C. Sivaperuman (Eds): Recent Trends in

Biodiversity of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. ZSI, Kolkata.

Ross, J.P. (1998): Crocodiles. Status Survey and Conservation Action

Plan, 2nd edn. IUCN/SSC Crocodile Specialist Group. IUCN,

Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

SincH, L.A.K. & S.K. Kar (2006): Status of the Saltwater Crocodile

in Orissa: an overview. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 103(2—3):

274-285.

Wa tsi, B. & P.J. WHITEHEAD (1993): Problem crocodiles, Crocodylus

porosus, at Nhulunbuy, Northern Territory: An assessment

of relocation as a management strategy. Wildl. Res. 20(1):

127-135.

Wuitaker, N. (2008): Survey of Human/Crocodile Conflict in the

Union Territory of the Andaman Islands, Hut Bay, Little Andaman,

January 2008. http://1ucncsg.org/ph1/modules/Publications/

reports.html.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

10. RECORD OF THE RARE BIBRON’S CORAL SNAKE CALLIOPHIS BIBRONI

FROM NELLIYAMPATHY HILLS, KERALA, INDIA

JOSPEH J. ERINJERY!*, SAYANTAN Das!°, RAM SUBRAMANIAN MUTHUVARMADAMZ AND Mewa Sincu!?*

9) y)

'Biopsychology Laboratory and Institution of Excellence, Department of Psychology, University of Mysore, Mysore 570 006,

Karnataka, India.

“Laboratory for the Conservation of Endangered Species, CSIR-Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Uppal Road,

Hyderabad 500 007, Andhra Pradesh, India. Email: [email protected]

‘Evolutionary and Organismal Biology Unit, Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research, Bengaluru 560 064,

Karnataka, India.Email: [email protected]

‘Email: [email protected]

°Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56536

We encountered Bibron’s Coral Snake Calliophis

bibroni (Beddome 1864; Boulenger 1896; Jan 1858) at

Nelliyampathy (10° 25’—10° 30' N; 76° 35’-76° 45’ E)

at an elevation of 1,050 m adjoining the buffer area of

Parambikulam Tiger Reserve (PTR) in Kerala (Fig. 1). The

snakes were identified by their dark dorsal coloration, orange-

red bands, and characteristic head scales, i.e. absence of

pre-ocular scales, prefrontal scale in contact with third upper

labial, and paired sub-caudals. Scale counting of one of the

specimens revealed mid-body scale rows of 13:13:13 and

38 sub-caudal scales, which were consistent with the

observations made by Deepak et al. (2010), whereas a count of

253 ventral scales differed by 2 scales (251 scales) from Deepak

et al. (2010). This species was spotted thrice in a period of

15 months during 2012-2013, of which two sightings were

made at 19:35 hrs and 20:00 hrs respectively at Pakuthipalam

(10° 27’ 39.88" N; 76° 40’ 50.95” E), and the third at 18:30 hrs

close to Victoria (10° 27’ 57.05" N; 76° 40’ 40.75" E). During

all these sightings, the snake was always spotted on the forest

floor. The relevance of the current records is considerable,

since the species is ‘rare’ (Wall 1919), ‘endangered’ (Molur

and Walker 1998), and information on the natural history,

distribution, ecology (Deepak et al. 2010), and behaviour of

the species is scarce. Moreover, the species has never been

reported from Nelliyampathy hills or PTR in Kerala and only

a single scientific publication reports its presence south of the

Fig. 1: Bibron’s Coral Snake photographed in Victoria,

Nelliyampathy, Kerala, illustrating its characteristic head

morphology and body coloration

Palghat Gap in the Western Ghats (Deepak ef al. 2010).

Bibron’s Coral Snake is endemic to the Western Ghats

and is listed as a species of Least Concern (IUCN 2014) since its

distribution is stated to be wide, and population status unlikely

to be low or declining. In sharp contrast to the justification

given for its current status, IUCN (2014) also states the species

to be ‘rare’ and insufficiently assessed. Earlier records from

south of the Palghat Gap exist from specimens collected from

Chathankode, Kerala (BNHS 3460, 2002) and Anamalai Tiger

Reserve, Tamil Nadu (ZS1, Calicut 2123; ZSI, Kolkata 25638;

ZSI, Kolkata 25639) along with an anecdotal newspaper report

from Kalamkulam, Kerala (Deepak et a/. 2010). Therefore,

this is only the second publication reporting the occurrence of

this species south of the Palghat Gap, broadening the current

knowledge of its distribution.

REFERENCES

Beppomg, R.H. (1864): Description of a new species of Elaps from

Malabar. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1864: 179-180.

BOouLENGER, G.A. (1896): Catalogue of the snakes in the British Museum

(Natural History), III containing the Colubridae (Opisthoglyphae

and Proteroglyphae), Amblycephalidae and Viperidae. British

Museum (Natural History), London. 720 pp. pls. 1-25.

Deepak, V., S. HARIKRISHNAN, K. VASUDEVAN & E.N. SmitH (2010):

Redescription of Bibron’s coral snake, Calliophis bibroni Jan, 1858

with notes and new records from south of the Palghat and Shencottah

Gaps of the Western Ghats, India. Hamadryad 35: 1-10.

IUCN (2014): IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2.

<www.iucnredlist.org>.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

JAN, G. (1858): Plan d’une iconographie descriptive des ophidiens et

description sommaire denouvelles espéces de serpents. Rev. Mag.

Zool. Paris 10: 514-527.

Movour, S. & S. WALKER (Eps) (1998): Reptiles of India: Report

on biodiversity conservation prioritisation project (BCPP),

India Endangered species project, Conservation Assessment

and Management Plan (C.A.M.P.) workshop. Zoo Outreach

Organisation/Conservation breeding specialist group, India,

Coimbatore, 175 pp.

WALL, F. (1919): Notes on a collection of snakes made in the Nilgiri

Hills and the adjacent Wayanaad. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 26(3):

552-584.

JOSEPH J. ERINJERY

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

11. APOGON HYALOSOMA BLEEKER (PISCES: PERCOIDEI: APOGONIDAE) —

A NEW REPORT TO KERALA, INDIA

M.H. Suyia!?:* AND K.S. JAMEELA BEEvi!?

‘Department of Zoology, Maharaja’s College, Ernakulam, Kochi 682 011, Kerala, India.

*Email: [email protected]

7Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56538

Introduction

Bleeker (1852) described Apogon hyalosoma (Family

Apogonidae, Suborder Percoidei, Order Perciformes)

based on the description of Apogon thermalis in 1832 from

Singapore, Ambon, Batavia, Sumatra, and Indonesia. Day

(1878) reported 14 species of the genus Apogon, including

A. hyalosoma from the Red Sea and east coast of Africa

through the seas of India and Malay Archipelago.

A. hyalosoma is abundant off the Sind and Mumbai coasts,

and Andaman Islands (Day 1878). Herre (1925) reported

A. hyalosoma from Philippines as Mionorus bombonensis

and as A. hyalosoma when collected from the Andamans, in

1939 and 1941 respectively. Munro (1955) also described

A. thermalis Cuvier as a synonym of A. hyalosoma. Thresher

(1984) collected A. hyalosoma from Philippine Is. and

reported it as M. bombonensis. Subsequently, A. hvalosoma

was reported by Letowmeur et al. (1988), Blaber et al. (1991),

Donaldson and Myers (2002), Kottelat (1993), and Thollot

(1996). Recently, Palavai and Davidar (2009) recorded the

presence of A. hyalosoma in the fresh waters of Andamans.

A. hyalosoma is widely distributed in the coastal waters of

most countries in Southeast Asia, except Myanmar, and in

the western Pacific Ocean, including the coast of Papua New

Guinea (Anon. 2013).

In this paper, we record its occurrence in an estuary

in Kerala, the first report of A. hyalosoma from the state.

The species was collected by cast nets from Vayalkara at

Puthenvelikkara, Ernakulam, which is an estuarine area of

the River Periyar (10° 7’ 50” N; 76° 17' 13” E), in October

2011. The samples were preserved in 10% formaldehyde

and deposited in Maharaja’s College Zoology Museum

with Accession No. MCZMF-305. Morphometrics, meristic

counts, and identification were done following Day (1878)

and Munro (1955). Measurements were taken to the nearest

0.1 mm by using dial calipers, and body proportions expressed

as percentages of standard length (SL) and head length (HL).

Below, we give the biometrics of the specimens examined

from the collection at Vayalkara.

Description

Morphometric data based on four specimens collected

a 2

Fig. 1: Apogon hyalosoma Bleeker, (MCZMF 305,121.3 mm SL)

collected from Periyar at Vayalkara, Ernakulam

are given in Table | and the general body shape in Fig.1.

Di VI,.D2L+9 AU +8; P14; V1.4 5; C1 7b). 26;

PDS 8; Ltr 2/7.

Body is robust and rhomboid, with standard length

(SL) 120.2—122.4 mm, depth 34.4-38.6%, pre dorsal length

44.0-45.8%, post dorsal length 73.3—75.0% and pre pelvic

length 41.5—-42.3% of SL. Head moderately large, head length

40.7-42.3%, depth 23.5—25.7% and width 15.9-17.9% of SL.

Snout short, elevated, snout length 24.1—28.6% of head length

(HL). Mouth oblique, lower jaw slightly longer, maxilla

reaches below the hind end of orbit. Eyes large, eye diameter

24.2-25.2% of HL. Nape concave, nape width 17.9-19.1%

of HL. Both rims of preopercle feebly serrated, other bones

of head and shoulders entire. Teeth on jaws, vomers, and

palatine. Branchiostegal rays 7. Two dorsal fins, first with

6 strong spines, the membrane between 2nd and 3rd black.

Pectoral fins slightly longer than ventrals, pectoral fin length

21.4-24.6% and length of ventral fins 18.3—21.2% of SL.

Anal fin with 2 strong spines, anal fin length 15.0-17.1% of

SL. Soft dorsal as high as anal. Caudal fin emarginate, a large

round black spot at the end of caudal peduncle, similar small

spots present at the end of base of soft dorsal and anal fins.

Body creamy white with dark pigmentation on dorsal side in

some specimens. Lateral line complete, with 26 scales.

Discussion

The specimens of Apogon hyalosoma collected by us

match the description of the species by Day (1878) in many

biometric characters, such as rhomboid body, large eyes,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Table 1: Morphometric data of four specimens of Apogon hyalosoma collected from Periyar at Vayalkara, Ernakulam

Length (in mm) of fishes

Characters range mean +/- Std dev

| lI iT IV

Total length 145.3 145.1 145.7 144.1 144.1-145.7 145.0 0.8

Standard length 120.2 1 2ae3 122.4 A213 120.2-122.4 1213 0.9

Body depth 41.2 46.1 45.0 46.9 41.2-46.9 44.8 2.4

Head length 48.9 oO) y/ 51.8 50.9 48.9-51.8 50.5 he

Head depth 28.3 Bilee 31.4 30.3 28.3-31.4 30.3 1.4

Head width ZanZ 19.3 22.0 19.8 19.3-22.0 20.5 TZ

Snout length 11.9 PA 14.8 1223 11.9-14.8 12.8 13

Eye diameter A2e4 12.8 12.9 1223 12.1-12.9 1256 0.4

Inter orbital width 9.3 9.1 9.9 9.1 9.1-9.9 9.3 0.4

Pre dorsal length DOr SOF 53.9 5572 53.9-55.2 54.8 0.6

Post dorsal length 90.2 90.0 91.8 88.9 88.9-91.8 90.5 0.9

Pre pelvic length 49.9 Sint 51.8 50.9 49.9-51.8 50.9 0.8

Pectoral fin length 274 29.9 26.2 28.9 26.2-29.9 28.0 Vk

Pelvic fin length 25:2 25.70 22.4 23:4 22.4—25.7 24.1 1.6

Caudal fin length 2541 23.8 23.3 22.8 22.8-25.1 23 th 0.9

Caudal peduncle length 30.0 31.4 3Ax9 30.8 30.0-31.9 30.9 0.8

Caudal peduncle depth 20.8 20.2 Zs8 Zine 20.2—21.8 220) Oe

Anal fin length 20-41 20.8 19.0 18.2 18.2-20.8 19.5 ahs

Anal fin base length 12.9 12:0 12a 12:2 12.0-12.9 ORS: 0.4

Soft dorsal length 19.0 20.1 19.8 19.2 19.0—20.1 19.5 0.5

oblique mouth, elevated snout, longer lower jaw, maxilla

reaching below the orbit, serrated limbs of preopercle, other

bones of head and shoulders entire, large round black blotch

at the end of caudal peduncle, first dorsal fin with 6 spines,

membrane between 2nd and 3rd dorsal spines black, anal

spines 2, lateral line scales 26 (Fig. 1). Munro (1955) described

A. thermalis which agrees with the description of Day (1878).

Lateral transverse scales are 2/7 in the present specimen, but

2 1/2 / 7 1/2 in the specimen described by Day (1878) and

2—3/7-8 in the description of A. thermalis by Munro (1955).

Caudal fin emarginate in our specimens agrees with Munro

(1955), but Day (1878) described it as lobed. A. hyalosoma

resembles fishes of the Family Ambassidae, especially

Parambassis thomassi in its colour (creamy white), elevated

snout, oblique mouth, longer lower jaw, and serrations on

preopercle, and differs in large ctenoid scales vs cycloid scales;

maxilla reaching hind end of orbit vs maxilla reaching below

the middle of orbit; absence of spines on pre orbital vs presence

of 7—8 spines on pre orbit; dorsal spines 6 vs 7; anal fin with

2 spines vs 3; emarginate caudal fin vs forked; and the presence

of caudal spot vs its absence in Parambassis.

According to Allen et a/. (2002) and Donaldson and

Myers (2002), A. hyalosoma is an estuarine species whose

adults inhabit mangroves and lower reaches of freshwater

streams. It 1s nocturnal and carnivorous (Day 1878; Munro

1955). Specimens were also collected from mangrove areas

at Vayalkara. This fish is known to the locals, is edible and

eaten fresh, dried, or salted.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the Head, Department of

Zoology, Maharaja’s College, Ernakulam, for providing the

necessary facilities to carry out the research. Special thanks

are due to Dr. J.D. Marcus Knight for help rendered in

confirmation of the identification. One of the authors, Shyla

M.H. extends her sincere gratitude to the UGC for granting

her a Teacher Fellowship.

REFERENCES

ALLEN, G.R., S.H. Mepiry & M. ALLEN (2002): Field guide to the

freshwater fishes of Australia. Western Australian Museum, Perth,

Western Australia. 394 pp.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

Anon. (2013): Hump-backed cardinal fish. Jn: www.ecologyasia.

com/Vverts/fishes/humpbacked cardinal fish.htm. Downloaded on

June 30, 2013.

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

BiaBeR, S., D.A. Mitton & N.J.F. RAWLINSON (1991): A checklist of

fishes recorded by the baitfish research project in Solomon islands.

South African Journal of Aquatic Sciences 17: 2-11.

BLeeker, P. (1852): Bijdraje tot de Kennis der icthyologische

fauna van Singapore. Natuurk. Tijdschr. Ned. Indie. v. 3: 51-58.

Day, F. (1878): The Fishes of India; being a Natural History of fishes

known to inhabit the seas and freshwaters of India, Burma, and

Ceylon. William Dawson & Sons Ltd. London, Text & Atlas in

2 parts. xx + 778, 196 pls.

DonaALpsoNn, T.J. & R.F. Myers (2002): Insular freshwater fish faunas of

Micronesia: patterns of species richness and similarity. Environ.

Biol. Fish. 65: 139-149.

Herre, A.W.C.T. (1925): A new species of cardinal fish from the

Philippines. Philipp. J. Sci. 26(3): 341-343. pl. 1.

Herre, A.W.C.T. (1939): On a collection of littoral & freshwater fishes

from Andaman Islands. Rec. Indian. Mus. 41: 327-372.

Herre, A.W.C.T. (1941): A list of the fishes known from the Andaman

Islands. Mem. Indian Mus. 13(3): 331-403.

Korteat, M. (1993): Technical report on the fishes from fresh and

brackish waters of Leyte, Philippines. Technical Report prepared

for the Deutsche Gesellschaft fiir Technische Zusammenarbeit

(GTZ) GmbH and ViSCA-GTZ Ecology Program, Visayan State

College of Agriculture, Philippines. Route de Fregiécourt 96c,

Case postale 57, CH-2952 Cornol, Switzerland. 54 pp.

LetTowrneur, Y., M. Kuvpicxi & P. LaBrosse (1988): Length—Weight

relationships of fish from coral reefs and lagoons of New

Caledonia, Southwestern Pacific Ocean: an update. Naga ICLARM

Q. 21(4): 39-46.

Munro, I.S.R. (1955): The marine and freshwater fishes of Ceylon.

Dept. of External Affairs, Canberra. 349 pp.

Paraval, V. & P. Davipar (2009): A survey of freshwater fishes

of Andaman Islands. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 106(1): 61-65.

THOoLLor, P. (1996): Les poissons de mangrove du lagon sud-ouest de

Nouvelle-Calédonie. ORSTOM Editions, Paris.

THRESHER, R.E. (1984): Reproduction in reef fishes. T.F.H. Publications,

Inc. Ltd., Neptune City, New Jersey. 399 pp.

12. FIRST REPORT OF THREE SURGEON FISHES (FAMILY: ACANTHURIDAE) FROM THE NORTH OF

EAST COAST OF INDIA

DIPANJAN Ray!”, PRAsAD C. Tupu!? AND ANIL MOHAPATRA!**

'Marine Aquarium and Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Digha 721 428, West Bengal, India.

*Email: [email protected]

7Email: [email protected]

*Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56539

Introduction

The surgeonfishes (Family: Acanthuridae) are

comprised of seven genera and about 81 species throughout

the world (Kamla Devi and Rao 2003), of which only

18 species occur on the east coast of the Indian mainland

(Barman et al. 2004, 2007, 2011; Chatterjee et al. 2000; Das

et al. 2007; Goswami 1992; Krishnan et al. 2007; Manna and

Goswami 1985; Mohapatra et al. 2007, 2013; Murty 2002;

Talwar and Kacker 1984; Talwar et al. 1994; Varghese et al.

2011). Recently, during a survey of ornamental fish fauna

from the east coast of India, we collected three species of

surgeonfish, namely Acanthurus auranticavus Randall, 1956;

Acanthurus bariene Lesson, 1831; and Ctenochaetus striatus

(Quoy and Gaimard 1825) that had not been reported from the

Indian mainland coast. From Indian waters, the three species

have been reported only from the waters of the Andaman and

Nicobar Islands (Rajan et al. 2011).

In this paper, we discuss the sites and methods through

which the species were obtained, and provide morphometric

measurements and details of the specimens of these three

Acanthuridae species.

Material and Methods

_ The specimens were obtained by trawl net from the

Digha Mohona coast of West Bengal and the Chandipur coast

of Odisha, from 29-32 km from the coast.

After capture, the specimens were photographed,

preserved in 10% formaldehyde solution. The taxonomic

identification was carried out following Randall (1956).

The specimens were deposited in the Museum of Marine

Aquarium and Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of

India, Digha.

The characteristics, key features, and distribution of the

three species of surgeonfish collected are discussed below.

For morphometric measurements, see Table 1.

Acanthurus auranticavus Randall, 1956:

Orange-socket Surgeonfish (Fig. 1)

Material examined: | example; Standard Length (SL):

208 mm; Collection Site: Digha Mohana (21° 37.843’ N;

87° 32.827’ E), Date of Collection: 22.vi1i.2012; Registration

No. MARC/ZSI/F2599.

Meristic formula: D: IX, 26; A: III, 24; P: 16;

Nadie}

Characters: Body oblong, compressed, not very deep;

body depth (BD) 2.03 to SL; covered with thick minute scales.

Dorsal profile of head gradually sloping to snout; length of

head (HL) 3.92 times to SL; snout not very short, moderate

and its length 4.83 times in SL. Mouth terminal, not small,

its width 3.21 times in HL; single series of numerous comb

like close sets of teeth on both jaws with denticulated cutting

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Table 1: Morphometric measurements and other details of the three Acanthuridae species

Characters Acanthurus auranticavus (n=1, A. bariene (n=3, 2 specimens Ctenochaetus striatus (n=1,

collected from Digha Mohana) collected from Digha Mohana & collected from Digha Mohana)

1 Specimen from Chandipur)

Standard Length (mm) 208 262-353 184

% of Standard Length

Head length 24.06 25.73—26.79 25.92

Body depth 49.03 46.03—47.70 45.92

Eye diameter 0.29 4.76-5.19 ord)

Interorbital space O13 9.88—10.79 10.54

Snout length 20.43 19.84—20.53 19.40

9th dorsal spine 15.86 13.65-15.26 —

3rd anal spine 14.42 15.26-17.46 17.39

Pectoral fin 26.46 22.93-23.17 26.35

Ventral spine 7.96 10.30—11.11 11.61

Ventral ray 23.179 21.60—21.98 23.47

Caudal peduncle depth 10.58 10.69-11.29 12.39

Caudal peduncle length 12.04 10.76—11.39 10.54

Caudal spine 9.15 7.29-8.26 9.45

% of Head length

Mouth width 35.96 37.01—38.46 44.12

Eye diameter 21.99 18.50-19.51 2a22

Interorbital space 37.98 36.89-—39.48 40.67

Caudal peduncle depth 43.99 41.57-42.16 47.79

Caudal spine 38.06 32.14—34.89 36.47

edge; number of teeth on both jaws 19. Eye high on head, its

diameter (ED) 4.52 times to HL; narrow, convex inter orbital

space 2.77 to HL. Gill opening restricted to sides; anterior gill

rakers 22 and posterior gill rakers 25; isthmus attached to gill

membrane. Scales from gill opening to posterior end of caudal

spine 225. Single continuous unnotched dorsal consisting

of 9 spines and 26 soft rays; length of 9th spine 6.30 times

to SL; anal fin with 3 spines and 24 soft rays; length of 3rd

spine 8.32 times to SL. Pectoral fin rays with 16 rays and

its length 3.74 times to the SL; ventral fin with 1 spine and

5 rays, length of ventral spine 8.48 times to SL and ventral

Fig.1: Acanthurus auranticavus Randall, 1956

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

fin length 4.16 to SL. Caudal fin lunate, caudal concavity

6.70 times in SL. Caudal peduncle depth 2.38 times to HL;

bearing sharp scalpel-like spines on both sides which are

2.71 times to HL.

Colour: Body dark brown with very narrow bluish

wavy lines; a dark brown horizontally elongate spot at

upper end of gill opening which is larger than eye diameter

and tilting slightly downward posteriorly with a blunt end.

Socket of caudal peduncular spine orange; dorsal fin brown

and darker at base; anal fin more brown than dorsal; Pectoral

fin light brown and ventral fin greyish-brown; caudal fin light

brown with bright white bar at its base.

Distribution: This species is widespread in Indo- West

Pacific, ranging from Seychelles (Randall and van Egmond

1994), Philippines, Indonesia and Great Barrier Reef,

Maldives, Malaysia (Mohsin et al. 1993) and Samoa (Wass

1984); also found in Western Indian Ocean in Mozambique

(Gell and Whittington 2002). In Indian waters, it has been

reported only from Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Rajan

et al. 2011).

Key features: Caudal spine socket is orange in fresh;

dark brown shoulder mark narrow above gill opening and

rounded below gill opening; caudal fin with bright white

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

bar at its base; dorsal fin without bluish or yellowish band;

dorsal fin IX, 25—26 anal fin HI, 23—24; Posterior gill rakers

25-28.

Acanthurus bariene Lesson, 1831:

Black-spot Surgeonfish (Fig. 2)

Material examined: 2 Specimens; SL: 262-

315 mm; Collection Site: Digha Mohana (21° 37.843’ N;

87° 32.827’ E), Date of Collection: 12.1.2011 & 17.viii.2012;

Registration No. MARC/ZSI/F2597 & MARC/ZSI/F2598;

and 1 specimen; SL: 353 mm, Collection Site: Chandipur

(21° 27.212' N; 87° 03.064’ E), Date of Collection: 21.x.12;

Registration No. MARC/ZSI/F2725.

Meristic Formula: D: [X, 28; A: III, 26; P: 17;

Wea Dy

Characters: Body oblong, compressed, its depth

1.98—2.04 to SL; covered with minute scales. Profile of head

convex; its length 3.70—3.88 times to SL. Mouth terminal, its

width 2.61—2.73 to HL; single series of fixed teeth on both

jaws denticulated on entire margin with expanded incurved

tips; 20 teeth on both jaws. Diameter of eye 4.90—5.69 to HL,

convex interorbital space 2.41—2.72 to HL; snout moderate

its length 4.71—5 times to SL. Gill membrane attached with

isthmus; gill opening restricted to corner; number of anterior

gill rakers 22—23 and posterior gill rakers 24. Scales from

gill opening to posterior end of caudal spine 211—217. Single

continuous dorsal fin with soft part having longer base than

spinous part; dorsal spine 28 and soft rays 26; 9th dorsal spine

6.55—7 times to SL. Anal fin with three spines and 26 soft

rays; posterior angle of anal fin pointed; 3rd anal spine 2.2—

2.21 times to HL. Pectoral fin rays 17, its length 4.31-

4.53 to SL; ventral fin with single spine its length 9—9.70 to SL

and five rays, ventral fin rays 4.54—4.59 times to SL. Caudal

fin lunate its concavity 5.72—6.55 to SL. Caudal peduncle

depth 2.38—2.43 to HL; caudal peduncle with 1 folding spine

2.34—2.61 to HL.

Colour: Body brown with numerous irregular

longitudinal pale blue lines. A black round spot about two-

Fig. 2: Acanthurus bariene Lesson, 1831

thirds of eye diameter present just above gill opening; margin

of gill opening black. Dorsal fin yellowish-brown with a blue

line at the base, and three bluish-violet margins at base. Anal

fin brown with blue basal and marginal line. Pectoral fin

blackish-blue with yellow bar near upper 2/3rd part; ventral

fin blackish. Caudal fin light brown with yellow lobes.

Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: range from East

Africa to the Riu Kiu Islands (Randall 1956). In Indian waters

itis only reported from Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Rajan

et al. 2011).

Key Features: Caudal spine socket black; dark

shoulder mark as large as eye present just below the eye;

dorsal fin with bluish border (white in preserved); dorsal fin

IX, 26-28; anal fin HI, 25—26; posterior gill rakers 22—24.

Ctenochaetus striatus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1825):

Line bristletooth Surgeon (Fig. 3)

Material examined: | specimen; SL: 184 mm;

Place of Collection: Digha Mohana (21° 37.843’ N; 87°

32.827' E); Date of collection: 01.vii1.12; Registration No.

MARC/ZSI/ F2596.

Meristic formula: D: VIII, 29; A: III, 26; P: 16; V:

| Pie

Characters: Body ovate, compressed and covered with

minute scales; body depth 2.17 in SL; head profile convex,

HL 3.85 to SL. Mouth small, teeth numerous, movable and

comb like with expanded incurved tips which are denticulate

on the lateral margin; upper jaw with 5 denticulations and

lower jaw with 4 denticulations. Snout straight and its length

5.15 to SL; interorbital space convex and 2.45 to HL; Eye

diameter 4.5 to HL. Gill rakers 35 in anterior row and 39 in

posterior row of first arch. Dorsal fin single, continuous and

unnotched; anal and dorsal fin with pointed end. Pectoral fin

3.79 to SL; ventral fin 4.25 to SL. Caudal fin lunate; caudal

concavity 5.2 in SL; depth of caudal peduncle 2.09 to HL

Fig. 3: Ctenochaetus striatus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1825)

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

and length of caudal peduncle 2.45 to HL; a lancet-like,

sharp, forward directed spine present on each side of caudal

peduncular horizontal groove, its length 2.74 to HL.

Colour: Body dark brown with blue lengthwise lines;

small orange spots on nape and head; eyes surrounded by

yellow border. Dorsal and anal fin with five lengthwise

horizontal bluish bands; pectoral fins yellowish; ventral fin

brown; caudal fin also brown but anterior part pale.

Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: throughout the region

except Hawaiian, Marquesan and Easter islands; in western

Indian Ocean; from Red Sea to Natal (Randall and Clements

2001). In Indian coastal waters, it is reported only from

Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Rajan et al. 2011).

Key features: Caudal fin lunate; body, dorsal and anal

fin with longitudinal blue lines; dorsal fin VIII, 29-30; anal

fin III, 25—26.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are thankful to Dr. K. Venkataraman, Director,

Zoological Survey of India, for providing necessary facilities

to work.

REFERENCES

BARMAN, R.P., S. KAR & P. MUKHERJEE (2004): Marine and estuarine

fishes. State fauna Series No. & - Fauna of Andhra Pradesh,

Part-2 (Mammals and Marine and Estuarine fishes). Pp. 97-311.

Published by Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.

BarMAN, R.P., S.S. MISHRA, S. KAR, P. MUKHERJEE & S.C. SAREN (2007):

Marine and estuarine fish fauna of Orissa. Rec. Zool. Surv. India,

Occ. Paper No. 260: 1-186.

BARMAN, R.P., S.S. Misra, S. Kar, P. MUKHERJEE & S.C. SAREN (2011):

Marine and Estuarine Fish. Fauna of Tamil Nadu, State Fauna

Series, 17 (Part-2): 293-417.

CHATTERJEE, T.K., RAMAKRISHNA, S. TALUKDAR & A.K. MUKERJEE (2000):

Fish and Fisheries of Digha Coast of West Bengal. Rec. Zool Surv.

India, Occ. Paper No. 188: i-iv,1—87.

Das, P., S.P. DE, R.M. BHowmik, P.K. PANpiT, R. SENGupTA, A.C. NANDI,

S.C. THAKURTA & S. SAHA (2007): Piscine diversity of West Bengal.

Fishing Chimes 27(5): 15—28.

GELL, F.R. & M.W. WHITTINGTON (2002): Diversity of fishes in seagrass

beds in the Quirimba Archipelago, northern Mozambique. Mar.

Freshwater Res. 53: 115-121.

GoswaMI, B.C.B. (1992): Marine fauna of Digha coast of West Bengal,

India. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India 34(1-2): 115—137.

Kama Devi & D.V. Rao (2003): A field guide to the fishes of

Acanthuridae (Surgeonfishes) and Siganidae (Rabbitfishes) of

Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Published by Director, Zoological

Survey of India, Kolkata. Pp. 1-42.

KRISHNAN, S., S.S. MisHra & D. PRABHAKAR (2007): Fishes. Jn: Fauna

of Chennai coasts, Marine Ecosystem series /: 119-287.

Manna, B. & B.C.B. Goswami (1985): A checklist of marine &

estuarine fishes of Digha, West Bengal, India. Mahasagar 18(4):

489-499.

Mouapatra, A., R.K. Monanty, S.K. Monanty, K.S. BHATTA &

N.R. Das (2007): Fisheries enhancement and biodiversity

assessment of fish, prawn and mud crab in Chilika lagoon through

hydrological intervention. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 15: 229-251.

Monaratra, A., D. Ray & P. YENNAWAR (2013): First record of Naso

reticulatus (Perciformes: Acanthuridae) from Indian waters.

Marine Biodiversity Records 6: e56

Mousin, A.K.M., M.A. AMBAK & M.N.A. SALAM (1993): Malay, English,

and scientific names of the fishes of Malaysia. Occas. Publ. Fac.

Fish. Mar. Sci. Univ. Pertanian Malaysia 11: 226.

Murty, V.S. (2002): Marine ornamental fish resources of Lakshadweep.

CMFRI Special Publication CMFRI 72: 1-134.

Ragan, P.T., C.R. SREERAJ & T. IMMANUEL (2011): Fish fauna of coral

reef, mangrove, freshwater, offshore and seagrass beds of Andaman

and Nicobar Islands. Zoological Survey of India, Andaman and

Nicobar Regional Centre, Haddo, Port Blair.

RANDALL, J.E. (1956): A revision of the surgeonfish genus Acanthurus.

Pac. Sci. 10(2): 159-235.

RANDALL, J.E. & K.D. CLEMENTS (2001): Second revision of the

surgeonfish genus Ctenochaetus (Perciformes: Acanthuridae), with

descriptions of two new species. Indo-Pac. Fish. 32: 33.

RANDALL, J.E. & J. VAN EGmonp (1994): Marine fishes from the

Seychelles: 108 new records. Zool. Verh. Leiden 297: 43-83.

TALWaR, P.K. & R.K. KACKER (1984): Commercial Sea Fishes of India:

Published by Zoological Survey of India. Pp. 1-997.

TALWAR, P.K., P. MUKHERJEE, D. SAHA, S.N. PAUL & S. Kar (1994):

Marine and estuarine fishes. Pp. 243-342. Jn: State Fauna Series:

Fauna of West Bengal, Part-2.

VARGHESE, M., M.K. MAnissgriI, N. RAMAMURTHY, P.M. GEETHA,

V.J. THomas & A. GANDHI (2011): Coral reef fishes of Gulf of

Mannar, S.E. of India. Fishing Chimes 31(1): 38-40.

Wass, R.C. (1984): An annotated checklist of the fishes of Samoa. Natl.

Ocean. Atmos. Adminis. Tech. Rept., Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Spec.

Sci. Rept. Fish. 781: 1-43.

13. ONAN ABNORMAL SPECIMEN OF LUTJANUS JOHNII (BLOCH, 1792)

(PISCES: PERCIFORMES: LUTJANIDAE) FROM WEST BENGAL COAST, INDIA

R.P. BARMAN!**, A. Das!? AND S.S. MisHra!4

'Zoological Survey of India, F.P.S. Building, Kolkata 700 016, West Bengal, India.

"Email: r_ p [email protected]

-Email: [email protected]

*Email: [email protected]

* Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56543

Occurrences of abnormalities or deformities in

fish have been reported in Indian waters and in other

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

countries. As recorded by Gudger (1936), the case of

abnormality in fish was first depicted in a figure during 1553.

“Wi

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Dawson (1964, 1966, 1971) and Dawson and Heal (1976)

documented 1,499 references that described deformities

in fishes. The reasons for such abnormal conditions range

from genetic aberrations, pollution, environmental stress,

abnormal growth or development of vertebral column,

stunted growth, to accidental injury during the growing

period of the fish (Bengtsson 1979; Evans and Neff 2009;

Lemly 1997; Saha and Saha 2013; Sindermann 1976;

Sun et al. 2009; Villeneuve et a/. 2005). At one time,

Channa orientalis was considered “as a series of abnormal

specimens” (Myers and Shapovalov 1931) leading to the

merging of two distinct species, 1.e., C. orientalis and

C. gachua (Mishra et al. 2013). The occasional absence of

one or both of the paired fins is often reported (Hora 1921;

James and Badrudeen 1968). Dorsal and anal fin deformities

are also observed (Al-Mamry et al. 2010; Barman 1991),

while regeneration of caudal fin is well-known (Akimenko

et al. 2003; Patra and Dutta 2013; Shao et al. 2009). The

absence of the entire caudal peduncle including caudal fin

has not yet been reported.

During the course of the study on the fishes of the

Family Lutjanidae, under the Order Perciformes from India

by the first author, an abnormal specimen (Fig. 1b) was

collected off Digha coast, West Bengal. In this specimen, the

posterior part of the body behind the dorsal and anal fins was

entirely lacking. A short description of the specimen is given

hereunder, with a discussion on the probable reasons for the

abnormality. The radiograph of the specimen (Fig. 2) was

taken to study the osteological condition of the fish.

Lutjanus johnii (Bloch, 1792) (Fig.1a, b)

Anthias johnii Bloch, 1792, Naturges. ausland.

Fische, 6: 113, pl. 318 (type locality: rnpia: Gujarat: Surat,

Suratta).

Lutjanus johnii, Allen, 1985, FAO Fish. Synop., (125)

6: 94-95.

Material Examined: ZSI F10732/2, 1 ex., 87 mm up

to posterior end of dorsal fin; Off Digha coast, West Bengal;

A. Das; 08.x11.2012.

Description of deformed specimen: Body moderately

deep, with convex head profile. Head length slightly shorter

than body depth. Eye diameter 4.0 times in head length.

Suborbital width 1.64 times of eye diameter, and 6.57 times

of head length. Interorbital width 5.75 times of head length.

Preopercular notch and knob poorly developed. Vomerine

tooth patch crescentric without posterior extension; tongue

with a patch of granular teeth. Gill rakers 11 on lower limb

of first arch (including rudiments). Maxilla extending below

front border of the orbits. Dorsal fin continuous, not incised

Fig. 1: Lutjanus johnii (Bloch): a. Normal (preserved specimen);

b. Abnormal (preserved specimen)

in between spinous and soft portions, with 10 spines and

13 soft rays. Anal fin with 3 spines and 8 rays. Soft parts

of dorsal and anal fins rounded. Pectoral fins shorter than

head length (1.31 times in head length) with 16 rays. Pelvic

fin with one spine and 5 soft rays. Bases of both dorsal and

anal fins with scales. Caudal peduncle and caudal fin entirely

absent. Longitudinal scales rows on sides of body above

and below lateral line horizontal or parallel to lateral line.

Body bronze or reddish. All the fins yellowish in colour in

live specimen. Each scale with a distinct brownish/dark spot

forming the appearance of longitudinal scale rows on sides.

A large black spot present above the lateral line, below front

part of soft rays.

From the radiograph (Fig. 2) it is evident that only 18

(10 + 8) vertebrae are present in this abnormal specimen,

while all lutjanids normally have 24 (10 + 14) vertebrae

(Nelson 2006). All 18 vertebrae are well-developed as

compared with the radiograph of a normal specimen. Only

the pterygiophores connecting dorsal and anal fin rays turned

backward instead of remaining in slanting position as in

normal fish.

Discussion

The body of the specimen does not show any fresh

injury and it was sure to have died after being captured but

not of injury. As the vertebral column is normal up to 18th

vertebra and last 6 vertebrae are missing in the radiograph

taken, it is obvious that the missing caudal peduncle 1s due

to injury. Probably, the tail region would have been bitten off

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Fig. 2: Radiograph of abnormal specimen of L. johnii

by a predatory fish when this snapper was young, judging

from the regeneration that had taken place.

Following the amputation, the posterior part of the

body had not regenerated as usually happens if the caudal

fin is cut off. All organisms have biological responses to

damage, but these vary widely in the degree to which they can

recover from damage. Homeostatic renewals are thought to be

mediated by resident stem cells of specific lineages (Shao et

al. 2009). Lower vertebrates such as fish have a remarkable

capacity to regenerate complex structures damaged by injury

or disease. This process, termed epimorphic regeneration,

involves progenitor cells created through the reprogramming

of differentiated cells or through the activation of resident

stem cells (Stoick-Cooper et al. 2007).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to Dr. K. Venkataraman,

Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, for

encouragement and facilities. The authors are also thankful

to Shri K.C. Gopi, Joint Director-in-charge of the Fish

Division, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, for valuable

suggestions on the manuscript.

REFERENCES

AKIMENKO, M.A., M. MAry -BeFFA, J. BECERRA & J. GE RAUDIE (2003):

Old questions, new tools, and some answers to the mystery of fin

regeneration. Developmental Dynamics 226: 190-201.

At-Manry, J.M., L.A. JAwAD, I.H. AL-RAsAby & S.H. At-Hassi (2010):

First record of dorsal and anal fin deformities in silver pomfrets,

Pampus argenteus (Stromateidae, Actinopterygii). Anales de

Biologia 32: 73-77.

Barman, R.P. (1991): An abnormal specimen of Channa orientalis

Schneider (Pisces: Channidae) from Tripura. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.

Soc. 88(1): 124.

BenctTsson, B.E. (1979): Biological variables, especially skeletal

deformities in fish, for monitoring marine pollution. Philos. Trans.

R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 286(1015): 457-464.

Dawson, C. (1964): A bibliography of anomalies of fishes. Gulf Research

Report 1: 308-399.

Dawson, C. (1966): A bibliography of anomalies of fishes. Supplement

1. Gulf Research Report 2: 169-176.

Dawson, C. (1971): A bibliography of anomalies of fishes. Supplement

2. Gulf Research Report 3: 215-239.

Dawson, C. & E. HEAL (1976): A bibliography of anomalies of fishes.

Supplement 3. Gulf Research Report 5: 35-41.

Evans, M.L. & B.D. Nerr (2009): Non-additive genetic effects contribute

to larval spinal deformity in two populations of Chinook salmon

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Aquaculture 296: 169-173.

Gupcer, E.W. (1936): Beginnings of fish teratology, 1555-1642. Sci.

Monthly 43: 252-261.

Hora, S.L. (1921): Notes on the occasional absence of the paired

fins in freshwater fishes with some observations on two Apodal

genera Channa Gronov and Apua Blyth. Rec. Indian Mus. 22

(1): 27-32.

JAMES, P.S.R.B. & M. BADRUDEEN (1968): On certain anomalies in the

fishes of the family Leiognathidae. J. mar. biol. Ass. India 10(1):

107-113.

Lemiy, A.D. (1997): Ecosystem recovery following selenium

contamination in a freshwater reservoir. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.

36(3): 275-281.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

MIsHRA, S.S., A. DAS & R.P. BARMAN (2013): Notes on some snakehead

fishes of India with an aid to their identification. Rec. zool. Surv.

India 113(2): 145-152.

Myers, G. & L. SHapovaLov (1931): On the identity of Ophicephalus

and Channa, two genera of labyrinth fishes. Peking Natural History

Bulletin 6: 33-37.

NELson, J.S. (2006): The Fishes of the World. 4th edn. John Wiley &

Sons, Inc. New York. 601 pp.

Patra, A.K. & T. Datta (2013): Occurrence of regenerated tail in Indian

freshwater spiny eel, Macrognathus pancalus Hamilton, 1822

(Teleoste1: Mastacembelidae), in northern West Bengal, India.

Turk. J. Zool. 37: 519-522.

SAHA, H. & R.K. Sana (2013): Occurrence of innate morphological

deformities in fishes of Tripura, North East India — A possible

case of inbreeding. World Journal of Fish and Marine Sciences

5(4): 405-408.

SHAO, J., X. QIAN, C. ZHANG & Z. Xu (2009): Fin regeneration from tail

segment with musculature, endoskeleton, and scales. J. Exp. Zool.

(Mol. Dey. Evol.) 312 B: 1-8.

SINDERMANN, C.J. (1976): Pollution-associated diseases and

abnormalities of fish and shellfish: a review. Fishery bulletin

76(4): 717-749.

STOICK-CoopErR, C.L., G. WEIDINGER, K.J. RIEHLE, C. HUBBERT,

M.B. Masor, N. Fausto & R.T. Moon (2007): Distinct Wnt

signaling pathways have opposing roles in appendage regeneration.

Development 134: 479-489.

Sun, P.L., W.E. Hawkins, R.M. OveRSTREET & N.J. BROWN-PETERSON

(2009): Morphological deformities as biomarkers in fish from

contaminated rivers in Taiwan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health

6: 2307-2331. doi: 10.3390/ijerph6082307.

VILLENEUVE, D.L., L.R. Curtis, J.J. JENKINS, K.E. WARNER, F. TILTON,

M.L. Kent, V.G. WaTRAL, M.E. CUNNINGHAM, D.F. MARKLE,

D. SETHIAJINTANIN, O. KRISSANAKRISANGKRAI, E.R. JOHNSON,

R. Grove & K.A. ANDERSON (2005): Environmental stresses and

skeletal deformities in fish from the Willamette River, Oregon.

Environ. Sci. Technol. 39(10): 3495-3506.

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

14. NEW RECORD OF LESSER BLUE WING RHYOTHEMIS TRIANGULARIS KIRBY, 1889

(ODONATA: LIBELLULIDAE) FROM ODISHA, INDIA

S.K. SAJAN)* AND PRATYUSH P. MOHAPATRA?

'P.G. Dept of Wildlife and Biodiversity Conservation, North Orissa University, Sri Ram Chandra Vihar, Takatpur 757 003, Odisha, India.

Email: [email protected]

603/972, Metro Residency, Beherasahi, Nayapali, Bhubaneswar 751 012, Odisha, India. Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56544

The order Odonata is an important ancient group

of insects and they are key indicators of water quality

and fluvial ecosystem disturbance (Castella 1987).

Fossil evidence suggests that the origin of this group

dates back to the Permian era. Eight superfamilies,

9 families and some 58 subfamilies of dragonflies

comprising 600 genera and 6,000 species of odonates are

recorded (Subramanian 2009a,b) and Odisha harbours

110 species of odonates under 60 genera and 9 families

(Nair 2011).

The study of the odonate fauna of Odisha was mainly

carried out by Laidlaw (1915), Fraser and Dover (19272),

Srivastava and Das (1987), Mitra (2002), Sethy and Siddiqui

(2007), Das et al. (2010, 2011, 2012), Nair (2011), and

Debata et al. (2013). Perusal of literature shows that

Rhyothemis triangularis has not been reported hitherto from

Odisha state.

The Lesser Blue Wing Rhyothemis triangularis was

sighted on April 07, 2012, from Odisha during an Odonata

survey in Kotagarh Wildlife Sanctuary. The species was found

in the core area of the Sanctuary in Balliguda forest division

near Dupi waterhole (19.89° N; 83.66° E). The terrain 1s flat

with mixed forest.

Description

Rhyothemis triangularis belongs to family Libellulidae

having medium-sized metallic blue-green wings with metallic

markings on the base of the wings. The thorax is metallic blue-

green and wings opaque metallic blue, while the remaining

area is transparent (ed.: photographic evidence provided).

Field Diagnostic Features: Head: labium, labrum,

and face black; frons and vesicle dark green or metallic

greenish blue; occiput black; eyes blackish brown above;

Prothorax blackish brown; Thorax dark metallic green.

Legs, abdomen, and anal appendages are entirely black.

Wings hyaline enfumed with pale brown, uniform in tint or

gradually depending towards apices, bases of all black with

dark metallic blue reflex, in forewing as far distal as second

or third antenodal nervure and thence in a ragged line to

posterior border of wing near the region of apex of anal loop;

Pterostigma dark reddish brown colour and very short.

Distribution: The species distribution earlier ranged

from India to south China and south to Java. In India, it 1s

found in Assam, Karnataka, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu (Dow

and Sharma 2010).

Conservation Status: This species is placed in Least

Concern category in the IUCN Red List.

REFERENCES

CASTELLA, E. (1987): Larval Odonata distribution as a describer of fluvial

ecosystems: the Rhone and Ain rivers, France. Adv. Odonatol. 3:

23-40.

Das, S.K., H.K. Sanu & S.D. Rout (2010): Odonates of Baripada

Division of Similipal Biosphere Reserve, including North Orissa

University Campus, Orissa, India. Tigerpaper 37(2): 13-15.

Das, S.K., B. Baruan, N. Dasu, S. SINGHNAIK & H.K. Sanu (2011):

Diversity of Odonates in Nandankanan Zoological Park with range

extension notes of white dartlet (Agriocnemis pieris) in Orissa,

India. Tigerpaper 39(2): 29-32.

Das, S.K., R.A. AnMeED, S.K. Sagan, N. Dasu, P. SAHoo, P. MOHANTA,

H.K. Sanu, S.D. Rout & S.K. Durta (2012): Diversity, distribution

and species composition of Odonates in buffer areas of Similipal

Tiger Reserve, Eastern Ghats, India. Academic Journal of

Entomology 5(1): 54-61.

Depart, S., H.K. Sanu, S. Rout & R. Kumar (2013): An observation on

Odonata diversity in Hadgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Odisha, Eastern

India. Tigerpaper 40(2): 10-13.

Dow, R.A. & G. SHARMA (2010): Rhyothemis triangularis. In: IUCN

2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. www.

jucnredlist.org. Downloaded on December 29, 2013.

Fraser, F.C. & C. Dover (1922): The fauna of an island in the Chilka

Lake — Dragonflies. Records of the Indian Museum 24(3):

303-311.

LaiwLaw, E.F. (1915): Fauna of the Chilika lake. No. 2 Odonata. Memoirs

of Indian Museum 5: 177-188.

Mitra, T.R. (2002): Geographical distribution of Odonata (Insecta) of

Eastern India. Memoirs of the Zoological Survey of India 19(9):

1-208.

Nair, M.V. (2011): Dragonflies and Damselflies of Orissa and Eastern

India. Wildlife Organization, Forest and Environment Department,

Government of Orissa. 254 pp.

SETHY, P.G.S. & S.Z. Sippigul (2007): Observation on Odonates in

Similipal Biosphere Reserve, Orissa. Zoosprint Journal 22(11):

2893-2894.

SRIVASTAVA, V.K. & S. Das (1987): Insecta: Odonata. Pp. 135-159.

In: Fauna Series-I, Fauna of Orissa, Part I. Zoological Survey of

India, Calcutta.

SUBRAMANIAN, K.A. (2009a): India — A lifescape, dragonflies of India.

A Field Guide. Vigyan Prasar, India Offset Press, New Delhi.

80 pp.

SUBRAMANIAN, K.A. (2009b): A checklist of Odonata (Insecta) of India.

Zoological Survey of India, Western Regional Station, Pune,

Maharashtra, India. 36 pp.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

15. SPECIES DIVERSITY OF BUTTERFLIES (INSECTA : LEPIDOPTERA: RHOPALOCERA)

ON TWO TREES OF SOUTH ANDAMAN, INDIA

T.C. Kuatri!

'J.N.Government College, Port Blair 744 104, Andaman, India. Email: [email protected]

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56545

I received news of butterflies on a tree Ligustrum amazed to see 300 to 350 butterflies comprising 19 species

glomeratum (Family Oleaceae) in the office premises of (Table 1) hovering over the tree in full bloom. Some of the

Central Agricultural Research Institute (CARI), Port Blair, butterflies were photographed. Two species of day flying

South Andaman in August, 2007. On visiting the site was moths were also recorded flying among the butterflies. This

Table 1: Butterflies recorded feeding on two tree species at Port Blair, South Andaman

S. Butterfly species Ligustrum glomeratum Premna integrifolia Status

No (Family: Oleacae) August, 2007 (Family : Verbenacae) July, 2010

Family: Papilionidae

1 Pachliopta aristolochae goniopeltis Male Male, Female R

2 Papilio mayo** - Male R

3; P. polytes stichioides Male Male, Female C

4 Graphium agamemnon andamana - Male, Female R

a G. eurypylus macronius** Male - R

Family: Pieridae

6) Leptosia nina nina Male, Female - C

7 Delias hyparete indica Male, Female - C

8 Cepora nerissa dapha - Male, Female C

9 Appias libythea olferna*** - Male, Female NR

10 A. albina darada - Male, Female NR

11 Ixias pyrene andamana - Male, Female NR

12 Hebomoia glaucippe roepstorfii - Male, Female NR

13 Catopsila pomona Male, Female Male, Female R

14 C. pyranthe Male, Female R

15 Eurema hecabe blairana Male, Female Male, Female C

Family: Lycaenidae

16 Nacaduba pactolus andamana** - Male, Female NR

Family: Nymphalidae

We Parthenos sylvia andamana** Male, Female Male, Female NR

18 Neptis hylas andamana - Male C

19 Hypolimnas bolina Male Male R

20 Doleschallia bisaltide andamanensis* Male, Female - NR

21 Junonia hierta magna Male, Female Male, female C

22 J. a. almana Male, Female Male, Female C

23 J. atlites Male, Female Male, Female Cc.

24 Atella alcippe andamana - Male, Female NR

20 Vindula erota pallida Male Male C

26 Algia fasciata Male, Female - VR

ef Cethosia cyanae ~ Male, Female C

28 Euploea a. andamana Male, Female Male, Female NC

29 Mycalesis visala andamana - Male, Female C

Family: Hesperiidae

30 Tagiades japetus ravina Male - NR

31 Notocrypta p. paralysos - Male R

32 Cupitha purreea Male - NR

C- common, R- rare, VR- very rare, NR- not rare.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

Species protected under WildLife (Protection) Act, 1972: * in Schedule I, ** in Schedule II and *** in Schedule III;

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

phenomenon continued for about two weeks and gradually,

as the flowers dried, the butterfly numbers came down and

they finally left the spot.

A similar observation was made in the campus of

J.N. Government College, Port Blair in July 2010. This time,

the tree species was Premna integrifolia (Family Verbenaceae).

The number of butterflies observed flying varied from 100 to

150, comprising not less than 27 species (Table 1).

Ligustrum glomeratum is a small evergreen tree. The

inflorescence is a terminal panicle of cyme (Parkinson 1972).

Premna integrifolia is a small tree. The presence of large

congregations of butterflies species on these two tree species

suggests that secondary forests can provide important food

resource for butterflies. Such an observation was also made by

Sondhi (2009) in Dalhousie, Himachal Pradesh, on Butterfly

Bush Buddleia davidii.

REFERENCES

PARKINSON, C.E. (1972): A Forest Flora of the Andaman Islands. Reprint

Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. 32 pp.

SONDHI, ANCHAL (2009): An hour at the butterfly bush. Sanctuary Asia

(December): 68-69.

16. A NOTE ON THE OCCURRENCE OF STERNASPIS SCUTATA (RENIER 1807)

—ASTERNASPID POLYCHAETE FROM SUNDARBAN MANGROVES, WEST BENGAL, INDIA

H.M. PreetHa Mini Jose!’, S. MuTHUVELU!”, S. Stvaras'* AND P. MuRUGESAN!”*

'Centre of Advanced Study in Marine Biology, Faculty of Marine Sciences, Annamalai University, Parangipettai 608 502, Tamil Nadu, India.

“Email: [email protected]

3Email: [email protected]

“Email: [email protected]

>Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56547

Sternaspis scutata belongs to Phylum Annelida, Order

Canalipalpata and Class Polychaeta. Members of Family

Sternaspidae were first recognised in the 16th century and

formally described in the late 1810s (Ranzani 1817). They

are commonly called Mud Owls because their large, stiff,

ventral shield resembles two large eyes and the plump,

peanut-shaped body completes the resemblance. Sternaspids

are mostly shallow water forms, and a few deepwater forms

also occur in the estuarine and mangrove environments. A

total of 640 no./sq. m of the polychaete Sternaspis scutata

were recorded by the authors in the core area of Sundarban

mangrove region during June 2012.

Sediment samples were collected using Petersen grab

(0.1 sq. marea) from Sundarban Mangroves, West Bengal

(21° 42’ 705' N; 88° 18' 145” E) during June 2012 (Fig. 1).

The area mostly comprised muddy sand.

Sternaspidae comprises a single genus Sternaspis, in

which about 10 species have been reported by Fauchald (1977)

and subsequently 12 valid species by Hutchings and Fauchald

(2000). According to Petersen (2000), Sternaspidae is a

monogeneric family of polychaetes with 13 nominal species

and two subspecies. Recently, Sendall and Salazar-Vallejo

(2013) recorded two new genera in this family. However, one

or two species are recorded from many different localities

and they are regarded as cosmopolitan (Hartman and Reish

Fig. 1: Map showing the study area

1950). All Sternaspis species are typically sublittoral, marine,

infaunal and non-selective, direct deposit feeders. Since the

first record in the literature in the mid-1700s (Plancus 1760),

members of this genus have been reported from all oceans of

the world. Although they have been collected from depths as

great as 4,418 m (Kirkegaard 1983), they are more likely to

be collected from depths less than 200 m (Fauchald 1977).

In Australia, one species of S. scutata has been recorded off

the south Australian coast (Benham 1916). Records from

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

<< Chaetal spines

~“* Mouth

~~-m-m Genital papillae

weet VVantral shield

sso Chaetae

Fig. 2: Sternaspis scutata, entire worm

the Australian Museum database indicate that a species of

Sternaspis occurs at Sandy Cape, Rottnest Island, Western

Australia. Sternaspids occur mostly in sandy and muddy

substrate in all depths, but are usually found at depths of 100-

200 m, rarely in large numbers (Fauchald 1977). They are

easily recognised in sediment samples by their characteristic

dark yellow to reddish chitinized shield. Although only the

type species, S. scutata (Renier 1807), has been reported

as cosmopolitan from the Arctic to the Antarctic in shallow

to great depths (Day 1967), in reality several other species

may be present.

Sternaspis scutata is described as follows: A stout

burrowing worm, with leathery texture; body up to 35 mm

long, 18 mm wide, divided into 30 segments, the first seven

segments forming the anterior region and the remaining

segments forming the posterior region; anterior region

much smaller and narrower than the posterior region into

which it can withdraw; head reduced, bearing a small,

translucent, rounded prostomium above the mouth (Figs

2 and 3). The first segment a peristomium that is covered

by short papillae. Prostomium hemispherical, without

eyespots, opalescent, translucent; peristomium rounded,

flattening at the position of the mouth, devoid of papillae.

Mouth circular, completely covered with minute papillae,

extends from behind the head forms prostomium to edge of

second segment. Genital papillae protrude ventrally from

body wall between segments 7 and 8. Pre-shield region with

7 segments, sometimes bearing a bundle of small, short,

fine capillary chaetae laterally. Shield plate divided into

two unequal parts by a slanting line and marked with ridges

and striae. Ventro-caudal shield flat, ribbed with concentric

lines; suture restricted to anterior region. Anterior margins

truncate, straight; anterior depression deep; anterior keels not

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

Fig. 3: Sternaspis scutata (ventral view)

exposed. Lateral margins straight, not expanded medially.

Fan smooth, markedly projecting beyond posterior corners,

with margin smooth, barely crenulated. Marginal shield

chaetal fascicles include 10 lateral ones, chaetae in an oval

arrangement; six posterior fascicles, chaetae in a slightly

curved arrangement.

Sternaspids are deposit feeders. According to Dales

(1963) they lie head down, just under the surface of the

mud, with the branchiae on the sediment surface of the mud,

presumably to enhance oxygen exchange. The septa have

mostly broken down and the gut is greatly coiled, in order to

maximize the adsorption of nutrients. The simple, eversible

axial pharynx helps to scoop up the sediment.

S. scutata ingests mainly fine sediment particles and

thus increases the organic content of material in the gut over

the content of sediment on which it feeds. The fine fraction

has a high organic content because 1. fine inorganic particles

have a high surface area for adsorption of organic matter, and

11. most organic particles in the sediment are fine.

In a separate study, this species, which 1s non-native to

the given area, rapidly expanded its range in inshore muddy

sediments along the coast of the temperate region. Therefore,

to determine the impact that the arrival of this moderately

large infaunal deposit feeding polychaete could have on

benthic biodiversity and ecosystem function, a mesocosm

experiment was initiated elsewhere. It was concluded that

despite its size, the relative immobility of S. scutata dictates

that its presence has little impact on the species around it. The

addition of this species did significantly reduce the release

of nitrite (NO, >) and increase the release of ammonium

(NH,,") from the sediment (Rachel et al. 2008). Therefore, the

occurrence of this species is to be viewed with caution.

Presently we have collected 640 no./sq. m individuals of

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

S. scutata, which is uncommon in the mangrove environment.

Similarly, Joydas and Damodaran (2009), while studying the

benthic diversity in the continental shelf region of Arabian

Sea (200 m depth), reported Sternaspis scutata as one of the

dominant species, which is worthy of note.

Further, they have found that the species number,

total biomass, and total numerical abundance exhibited

progressive decrease with increasing depth. Likewise, Pillai

(2001), while studying the benthic polychaetes from Cochin

estuary reported as many as 30 species of polychaetes, of

which Sternaspis sp. constituted a major proportion in terms

of occurrence.

The present study provides only the qualitative list

of occurrence of S. scutata in Sundarbans, West Bengal,

which has high marine faunal diversity. An attempt is being

made to quantify the data as this species has been recorded

in exceedingly large numbers. An attempt is being made to

relate the water and sediment parameters to the abundance

of this species since sedimentary organic carbon might play

a key role in its distribution.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Prof. Dr. K. Kathiresan, Dean of the Centre

of Advanced Study in Marine Biology, Faculty of Marine

Sciences, Annamalai University, for encouragement and

facilities provided. We also thank Prof. Dr. T. Balasubramanian,

Former Director and Dean of the Centre for support and

constant encouragement. We gratefully acknowledge the

Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India, for

financial support as this work forms a part of an MoEF

funded project. |

REFERENCES

BenuaM, W.B. (1916): Report on the Polychaeta obtained by the F.LS.

Endeavour on the coasts of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania

and South Australia. Pp. 125-162, pls. 46-48. Jn: Dannevig, H.C.

(Ed.): Biological results of the fishing experiments carried on by

the F.I.S. Endeavour 1909-14, vol. IV, part II.

Dates, R.P. (1963): Annelids. Hutchinson University Library, London.

200 pp.

Day, J.H. (1967): A monograph on the polychaeta of southern Africa.

Part II Sedentaria. British Museum of Natural History, London.

Pp. 459-878.

FAUCHALD, K. (1977): The polychaete worms: definitions and keys to the

orders, families and genera. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles County

Sci. Ser. 28: 1-190.

Hartman, O. & D.J. ReisH (1950): The marine annelids of Oregon.

Oregon State College Monographs, Studies in Zoology 6: \—64.

Hutcuines, P.A. & K. FAUCHALD (2000): Class Polychaeta: definition

and general description. Pp. 1-3. Jn: Beesley, P.L., G.J.B. Ross &

C.J. Glasby (Eds): Polychaetes and Allies: the Southern Synthesis.

CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.

Joypas, T.V. & R. DamMoparRAN (2009): Infaunal macrobenthos along

the shelf waters of the west coast of India, Arabian Sea. Indian J.

Mar. Sci. 38: 191-204.

KIRKEGAARD, J.B. (1983): Bathyal benthic polychaetes from the N.E.

Atlantic Ocean, S.W. of the British Isles. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK

63: 593-608. doi: 10.1017/S00253 15400070909.

Petersen, M.E. (2000): Family Sternaspidae Carus 1863. Taxonomic

Atlas of the Benthic Fauna of the Santa Maria Basin and

Western Santa Barbara Channel. Jn: Blake, J.A., B. Hilbig &

P.V. Scott (Eds): Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Santa

Barbara, California 4: 311—336.

Piancus, J. (1760): Ariminensis. De Conchis Minus Notis Liber.

Cui accessit specimen aestus reciproci maris superi ad Littus

Portumque Arimini. Editio Altera. Duplici Appendice Acuta,

Roma. 136 pp, 14 Pl.

Pittat, N.G.K. (2001): On some benthic polychaetes from Cochin

Estuary. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India 43 (1&2): 120-135.

RACHEL, SHELLEY, STEPHEN WIDDICOMBE, MALCOLM Woopwarp, TIM

STEVENS, C. Lourse McneILL & MiIcHAEL A. KENDALL (2008):

An investigation of the impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem

functioning of soft sediments by the non-native polychaete

Sternaspis scutata (Polychaeta: Sternaspidae). J. Exp. Mar. Biol.

and Ecol. 366(1—2): 146-150.

RANZANI, C. (1817): Eumolpe maximan., neue Sippe der Roth-

Wiirmer (Anneliden), beschrieben von dems.und obda. 105.

Isis oder Encyclopaedische Zeitung von Oken 1(11/12) (182):

1452-1456.

Renigr, S.A. (1807): Tavole per servire alla classificazione e connoscenza

degli Animalai. Stabe and fils: Padova & tables.

SENDALL K. & SERGIO I. SALAZAR-VALLEJO (2013): Revision of Sternaspis

Otto, 1821 (Polychaeta, Sternaspidae). ZooKeys 286: 1—74.

17. PLAGIOCHILA DUTHIANA STEPH. — A POORLY KNOWN SPECIES DISCOVERED

FROM WESTERN GHATS, INDIA

PRAVEEN KUMAR VERMA!* AND KRISHNA KUMAR RAWAT?

'Rain Forest Research Institute, Sotai Ali, Deovan, Post Box # 136, Jorhat 785 001, Assam, India. Email: [email protected]

2CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow 226 001, Uttar Pradesh, India. Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56548

Introduction

Plagiochila (Plagiochilaceae) is one of the most

common liverwort genera in the Nilgiri hills of Tamil Nadu

as well as in India (Srivastava et al. 2002, 2007; Verma 2005;

Verma and Srivastava 2008). The genus is characterised by: a

simple to vigorous plant, sparsely branched with dichotomous

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

to dendroid branching habit; stem typically differentiated into

thick-walled cortical and thin-walled medullary cells; leaves

always alternate, succubus, and usually toothed, rarely entire

or with very small teeth as in Plagiochila duthiana, sub-

transversely to obliquely inserted; perianth inflated, dorso-

ventrally compressed, usually campanulate or with truncate

mouth. Owing to enormous plasticity in morphological

characters, Plagiochila is considered as one of the most

problematic genera among the liverworts, with about 1,800

names described so far from the world, out of which about

480 names were reported from Asia (So and Grolle 2000).

In India, the genus Plagiochila is represented by more than

100 species distributed in the Himalaya, southern India, and

Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Interestingly, Central India

4,9-11,14

5-8,12,13

Figs 1-14: Plagiochila duthiana Steph.: 1. A portion of the plant in

dorsal view with basal rhizoids, 2. A portion of the plant in ventral

view, 3. Cross section of stem, 4. Aportion of the same enlarged, 5-8.

Leaves, 9. Apical cells of leaf, 10. Median cells of leaf, 11. Basal cells

of leaf, 12. A female bract, 13. A female bract subtending a group of

archegonia, 14. Apical cells of female bract (All figures drawn from

R. Udar & Party 60 S/ 1972).

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

lacks any representation of the genus. Examination of some

old herbarium samples from the Nilgiri hills has revealed

the presence of Plagiochila duthiana Steph., a species so

far known only from the Indian Himalayan region in Indian

bryoflora, belonging to section Poeltiae Inoue, which is

characterised by orbicular to oblong-ovate leaves with small

marginal teeth that may be often absent, and cyathiform

perianth. In India, this section is represented by two species,

namely P. duthiana Steph. and P. poeltii Inoue. Discovery of

P. duthiana from the Nilgiri hills, therefore, constitutes not

only its range extension, but also the first ever report of the

section Poeltiae from southern Indian territory.

Plagiochila duthiana Steph., Bull. Herb. Boissier.

Sem) 3277 1903: & Spi Hepat. 2: 331.1903; So, Syst. Bot.

Monogr. 60: 118.2001. P. himalayensis Steph., Bull. Herb.

Bossier, ser’ 2) 32527/1903 & Sp) Hepat 2331/1903:

P. seminuda Inoue, Hara, Fl. E. Himalaya 1: 520.1966.

(Figs 1-14)

Plants in loose patches, light brown in colour, 20—

35 mm long, |.8—2.9 mm wide, sparsely branched, branching

lateral intercalary. Stem 13—14 cells across the diameter,

differentiated, cortical cells 3-layered, thick-walled, small,

light brown, 8—17 < 8-17 um, medullary cells thin-walled,

large, 26-35 x 22—35 um. Rhizoids arising from rhizomatous

axis, restricted only at base. Leaves imbricate, appressed to

stem, obliquely inserted, broadly ovate, 1.0—1.5 mm long,

0.91—-1.4 mm wide, dorsal margin recurved, base short

decurrent, apex broadly rounded, ventral margin strongly

arched, margin entire or minutely toothed; teeth 1—2 cells

long, 1—2 cells wide; apical leaf cells 15—22 x 22-30 um,

median leaf cells 26-34 <x 34-38 um, basal leaf cells 45—

69 x 22-30 um, cells trigonous.

Dioecious. Gynaecia terminal on main axis; female

bracts much longer and more toothed than stem; leaves sub-

orbicular 1.0—-1.4 x 0.91—1.04 mm. Perianth cyathiform,

mouth dentate; teeth 1-4 cells long, 1—2 cells wide at base.

Mature sporophyte not seen.

Type locality: INDIA: Jammu & Kashmir (So 2001).

Range: Myanmar, China, India, Japan, Nepal, Pakistan,

and Taiwan (So 2001; Wang et al. 2011).

Distribution in India: Eastern Himalaya: Meghalaya

(Shillong); Western Himalaya: Jammu & Kashmir (Tragbal

pass), Himachal Pradesh (Kullu), Uttarakhand (Mussoorie).

southern India: Tamil Nadu [Nilgiri hills, Upper Bhavani

(Avalanche)] (see also Inoue 1965; Kashyap 1932; Rawat and

Srivastava 2007; Singh and Singh 2009; So 2001; Srivastava

1979; Stephani 1903).

Habitat: Plants growing in rough mats on base

of angiosperm tree, mainly in diffused patches and not

completely attached with substrate; occurrence very rare.

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Characteristics of the species: 1. Leaves orbicular-

ovate 2. Leaves entire to minutely dentate (teeth 1—2 cells

long) 3. Gynaecia always terminal and cyathiform, mouth

truncate.

Specimens examined: southern India: Tamil Nadu,

Nilgiri hills — Upper Bhavani (Avalanche), c. 2,250 m,

02.x.1972, R. Udar & party 60 S/1972 (LWU).

Other specimen examined: Plagiochila himalayensis

Steph. N.W. Himalaya: Kashmir, Bashar, 1200, May 1894,

J.S. Gamble 24923 (G 011003: Typus).

Plagiochila duthiana Steph. was first reported from

India (Jammu & Kashmir) on the basis of the collection

of F. Duthie. Stephani (1903) also reported another

species P. himalayensis Steph. Inoue (1965) synonymized

P. himalayensis under P. duthiana. An examination of plants

collected from Nilgiri hills — Avalanche by the late Prof. Ram

Udar and his associates revealed the presence of this species

in the Western Ghats. The presence of this species in Nilgiri

hills shows a southward extension of range of distribution, not

only of the species but also of the section Poeltiae. In its overall

appearance, P. duthiana appears like a species of Jungermannia

due to orbicular-ovate leaves, which are often entire.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to Prof. S.C. Srivastava, former

Head, Department of Botany, University of Lucknow and

UGC Emeritus Fellow, CSIR-National Botanical Research

Institute, Lucknow, for guidance and valuable suggestions

and to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of

India, New Delhi, for financial support under AICOPTAX

project to one of us (PKV).

REFERENCES

INouE, H. (1965): Contribution to the knowledge of the Plagiochilaceae

of southeastern Asia. VI. Synopsis of Plagiochila (Dum.) in the

Himalayan region. Bull. Natl Sci. Mus. (Tokyo) 8: 375—403.

Kasuyap, S.R. (1932): Liverworts of the Western Himalayas and the

Panjab plains. Part II — Lahore.

Rawat, K.K. & S.C. Srivastava (2007): Genus Plagiochila in eastern

Himalaya. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehradun.

SINGH, S.K. & D.K. Stncu (2009): Hepaticae and Anthocerotae of

Great Himalayan National Park and its environs (HP), India.

BSI, Dehradun.

So, M.L. (2001): Plagiochila (Hepaticae, Plagiochilaceae) in China.

Syst. Bot. Monogr. 60: 1-214.

So, M.L. & R. GROLLE (2000): Checklist of Plagiochila in Asia. Journ.

Hattori Bot. Lab. 88: 199-243.

SRIVASTAVA, S.C. (1979): Hepaticae of Kashmir valley. Nova Hedwiga

63: 333-338.

SRIVASTAVA, S.C., P.K. VERMA & A. ALAM (2007): Plagiochila gracilis

Lindenb. & Gott. and P. subtropica St. in Western Ghats (Nilgiri

Hills). Phytotaxonomy 6: 78-83.

SRIVASTAVA, S.C., P.K. VERMA & S.A.H. Rizvi (2002): Plagiochila

peradenyensis Schiffn. new to India. Geophytology 30: 75—79.

STEPHANI, F. (1903): Species Hepaticarum 2: 342-452. Geneve.

VERMA, P.K. (2005): Studies in Hepaticae of Nilgiri hills with special

reference to epiphytic taxa. Ph.D thesis in Department of Botany,

Lucknow University, Lucknow. xxv + 400 pp. with 105 pp.

illustrations.

VERMA, P.K. & S.C. Srivastava (2008): Plagiochila junghuhniana

Sande Lac. new to Indian mainland (Nilgiri Hills, Western Ghats)

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 105(2): 236-238.

WANG, J., M.J. Lar & R.L. Zuu (2011): Liverworts and hornworts of

Taiwan: an updated checklist and floristic accounts. Ann. Bot.

Fenni. 48: 369-395.

18. BEGONIA INTEGRIFOLIA DALZELL — AN ADDITION TO THE FLORA OF GOA, INDIA

MAKARAND M. AITAWADE!”:* AND SHRIRANG R. YaApav!”?

'Department of Botany, Shivaji University, Kolhapur 416 004, Maharashtra, India.

“Email: [email protected]

*Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56549

Introduction

A species of Begonia L. was collected during our

visit to Goa state. It was found growing on walls and

rock crevices on both sides of the national highway near

Poinguinim, southern Goa. So far it was known from the

states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala

(Gamble 1919; Nair and Henry 1983; Nayar et al. 2006;

Rao 2001; Sharma et al. 1984). However, in the present

record, Begonia integrifolia Dalzell is reported for the first

time from Goa. The identity of the species was confirmed by

comparing the specimens with images of types deposited in

the Herbarium of Trinity College, Dublin (No. TCD0017180

and TCD0017181).

Begonia integrifolia Dalzell in Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew

Gard. Misc. 3: 230. 1851; C.B. Clarke in Hook. f.,, Fl. Brit.

India. 2: 648. 1879; J.S. Gamble in Fl. Pres. Madras 1: 546.

1919; T. Cooke Fl. Pres. Bombay 1: 584. 1967 (Repr.);

N.C. Nair & A.N. Henry in Fl. Tamil Nadul: 175. 1983;

C.J. Saldanha in Fl. Karnataka 1: 289. 1984; B.D. Sharma et

al. in Fl. Karnataka: analysis 116. 1984; K.M. Rao in Singh

et al. Fl. Maharashtra State, Dicot 2: 77. 2001; T.S. Nayar et

al. in Fl. Pl. Kerala. p.142. 2006.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

A succulent herb, c. 20 cm high. Stem erect, branched,

densely to sparsely covered with small white hairs. Root

stock tuberous, tubers large, pea-like. Leaves simple,

asymmetrical, obliquely ovate to lanceolate, obliquely

cordate at base, acute at apex, minutely hairy on both

surfaces, dark red beneath, margin serrate and finely ciliate,

measuring 8—23 x 5—19 cm, petiolate; petiole pale to darker

pink; stipule 6-12 x 3—7 mm, pinkish white, glabrous

or glabrescent, persistent. Inflorescence axillary few-

flowered cymes, peduncle glabrous, 6—9 cm long. Flowers

white, unisexual, bracteate; bract broadly ovate, glabrous,

1.3 x 1.3 cm, pedicellate; pedicel 2—2.3 cm long, glabrous.

Male flowers: Tepals 4, petalloid, white, outer 2 tepals

larger than inner 2, 1-1.4 x 1.1—1.5 cm, broadly ovate,

obtuse at apex; inner 2, ovate to lanceolate, 0.9—1.2 x 0.6—

0.8 cm, glabrous. Stamens more than 100, basally connate,

c. 2mm long; filament 1 mm long; anther elliptic, 1 mm long.

Female flower: Tepals 5, outer two larger than inner, 0.9—1.3

x 1—1.4 cm, white; inner perianth elliptic oblong, 0.8—1.1 x

0.4—0.45 cm; styles 2, bifid, linear, each stylodium bifurcates

in the stigmatic region, stigmatic surfaces spirally twisted

linear coiled, 2.2 mm long; ovary winged. Fruit capsule,

2 x 2 cm, 3-winged, one of them larger than the other two

with slight protuberance at tip, glabrous with persistent

style; seeds numerous, elliptic ovate, 0.4 x 0.2 mm, truncate

and stalked at base, brown, very small with alveolate

surface.

Flowering and Fruiting: August to September.

Specimens examined: Mukkali forest (Palghat),

24.vili.1966, Vajravelu 27810 (MH); Panathur (Cannanore),

29.v1.1980, Ansari 67896 (CAL); Poinguinim, 6.vii.2011,

M.M. Aitawade 6 (SUK); and Ansighat, 6.vi1.2011,

M.M. Aitawade 7 (SUK).

Distribution: Southern India, Sri Lanka, Indo-China,

Laos, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia.

Note: Many individuals are found to be growing in

humid and shady places on walls and roadsides. This species

can be distinguished by its pea-like tubers, leaves dark red

beneath, flowers white, broadly ovate bracts, and 3-winged

capsule of which one wing is larger than others. This species

has potential as an ornamental and should be brought under

cultivation.

REFERENCES

GAMBLE, J.S. (1919): Flora of the Presidency of Madras. Adlard and

Sons, London.

Nair, N.C. & A.N. Henry (1983): Flora of Tamil Nadu. Botanical Survey

of India. Southern Circle, Coimbatore, India.

Nayar, T.S., A.R. BEEGAM, N. MOHANAN & G. RAJKUMAR (2006):

Flowering plants of Kerala: A handbook. Tropical Botanic Garden

and Research Institute, Palode, Kerala.

Rao, K.M. (2001): Begoniaceae. Jn: Singh, N.P., P. Laxminarasimhan,

S. Karthikeyan & P.V. Prasanna (Eds): Flora of Maharashtra State,

II, Dicotyledons. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta.

SHARMA, B.D., N.P. SINGH, R.S. RAGHAVAN & U.R. DESHPANDE (1984):

Flora of Karnataka. Botanical Survey of India, New Delhi.

19. ARTEMISIA SANTOLINIFOLIA TURCZ. EX BESSER (ASTERACEAE) —

AN OVERLOOKED SPECIES IN INDIAN FLORA

BHASKAR Datt!**, MEENA BALESHWAR!? AND T.S. RANA!

'CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow 226 001, Uttar Pradesh, India.

"Email: [email protected]

7Email: [email protected]

‘Email: [email protected]

* Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56550

During the course of identification of some of the

collections of Artemisia species from Western Himalaya at

the herbarium of CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute,

Lucknow (LWG), the authors encountered eight quite old

specimens of Artemisia L., which were collected on the way

to Milam, presently in Uttarakhand state (four specimens

collected by D.D. Awasthi on October 07 and 08, 1950, and

the other four by J.G.S. Srivastava and party on November 08

and 09, 1959). These specimens were identified as Artemisia

sacrorum Ledeb., and have been reported as common in

their localities. Y.R. Ling, who was working on Chinese

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

Artemisia had critically examined the said specimens and

identified them as Artemisia santolinifolia Turcz. ex Besser.

These specimens might have escaped the notice of recent

Indian taxonomists, hence Artemisia santolinifolia remained

unreported even in recent publications (Hajra et al. 1995;

Untyal et al. 2007). Quaiser (/.c.) has reported its distribution

in Kashmir and Ladakh, that too without citing any precise

locality for the plants. Hence, the present report is virtually a

new distributional record of this species for the flora of India,

and even otherwise it extends its distribution from Kashmir

to the Kumaon region in eastern Uttarakhand. This species

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Fig. 1: Artemisia santolinifolia Turcz. ex Besser:

a. Habit; b., c. & d. outer, median & inner involucral bracts

is not included in Hooker’s (1881) Flora. Pertinent on-line

plant taxonomic databases were also critically examined

for background information on the taxon in question. A

description along with nomenclature and illustration of this

species 1s given below to facilitate its identification.

Artemisia santolinifolia Turcz. ex Besser in Nouv.

Mém. Soc. Imp. Naturalistes Moscou 3: 87. 1834; Podlech

in Rech. f., Fl. Iran. 158: 172. 1986; Quaiser, ‘Asteraceae’ in

Fl. Pakistan 207: 139. 2008. A. sacrorum Ledeb. var. minor

Ledeb., Fl. Alt. 4: 72. 1833. A. sacrorum var. santolinifolia

(Turcz. ex Besser) Pamp. in Nuov., Giorn. Bot. Ital. n. s. 34:

69321927 sight):

Perennial, erect, stiff herb, up to 1 m high. Stem basally

woody, much branched above, 1.0—1.5 cm thick, sparsely

pubescent to glabrous, grooved. Leaves 2.0—4.0 x 1.5—

2.5 cm, ovate-triangular, sparsely hairy; lower 3-pinnatisect;

uppermost leaves 1-2-pinnatisect or simple; ultimate

segments |.0—4.0 x 0.3—1.0 mm, narrowly lanceolate-linear;

petioles up to 2.5 cm long. Heads subsessile, 3.0—5.0 mm

across, in many-flowered, terminal, leafy, 20-40 cm long

panicles. Involucral bracts 3-seriate; outermost 2.0—2.2 x

0.3-0.4 mm, linear-oblong, green, sparsely hairy; median

c.2.0 x 1.2 mm, elliptic, with widely scarious margins, laxily

hairy along midrib; innermost obovate, equalling the median

ones, scarious hyaline. Florets yellow, all fertile; marginal

florets with c. 1 mm long, narrow, 2-toothed corolla tube;

disc-florets with c. 1.2 mm long, 5-toothed, corolla tube.

Achenes c. 1.0 mm long, brown.

Fl. & Fr.: August-November.

Ecology: Common on dry stony slopes with sandy-

clay soils between Mirtoli and Milam, and on the way

to Milam and Sanglikund in eastern Kumaon region, but

this species has not so far been collected from other places.

Distribution: INDIA: W. Himalaya (Kashmir and

Kumaon), 3,000-4,000 m; Pakistan, Afghanistan, Central

Asia, Russian Federation, China, and Mongolia.

Specimens examined: Pithoragarh dist.: Between

Mirtoli and Milam, Awasthi, 1872; on way from Milam

to Sanglikund, Awasthi, 1875; on way to Milam glacier,

Srivastava & Party, 52352, 52400.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors are thankful to the Director, CSIR-National

Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow, for facilities and

encouragements.

REFERENCES

Hagra, P.K., R.R. Rao, D.K. SincH & B.P. Unrya (1995): Flora of India ‘Asteraceae’. Vol. 12. BSI, Calcutta. 454 pp.

Hooker, J.D. (1881): The Flora of British India ‘Compositae’. Vol. 3. Lovell Reev & Co., London. 712 pp.

UnrvaL, B.P., J.R. SHarma, U. CHowpnery & D.K. Sincu (2007): Flowering Plants of Uttarakhand (a checklist). Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh,

Dehradun. 404 pp.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

20. PHYSALIS PRUINOSA L. (SOLANACEAE) — A NEW RECORD FOR THE FLORA OF

UTTAR PRADESH AND UTTARAKHAND, INDIA

S.C. StncH!” AND BHASKAR DatT?

'CSIR-Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Lucknow 226 015, Uttar Pradesh, India. Email: [email protected]

*CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow 226 001, Uttar Pradesh, India. Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/bnhs/2014/v111i1/56552

The genus Physalis L. comprises 75+ species of

cosmopolitan distribution (Mabberley 2008). According

to Deb (1980), six species of Physalis occur in India,

namely P. alkekengi L., P. angulata L., P. ixocarpa Brot.

ex DC., P. virginiana Mill. var. sonorae (Torr.) Waterf.,

P. peruviana L., and P. minima L., of which the former

three species are cultivated whereas rest are adventive.

Singh and Pandey (2002) added one more species,

P. maxima Mill. to the list, as a new introduction to India.

The hybridization among some of these species outside their

native range poses ambiguity in their correct identification.

Raju et al. (2007) discussed the status of P. minima and

P. maxima and their alleged presence in the Indian

subcontinent. According to them the name “P. minima”

is misapplied to two different species, P. angulata and

P. lagascae Roem. & Schult. The correct name of the widely

known P. minima 1s P. lagascae. The name of “P. maxima”

applied to the naturalized weed in the Indian subcontinent

and elsewhere is to be substituted by P. pruinosa L., a name

misapplied to P. grisea (Waterf.) M. Martinez. During

field surveys in different parts of Garhwal Himalaya in

Uttarakhand, some interesting specimens of Physalis were

collected by one of us (SCS). Similar specimens were

also collected from Lucknow. All the specimens were

identified as P. pruinosa. A perusal of relevant literature

(Khanna et al. 1999; Uniyal et al. 2007) revealed that

the species is not hitherto reported from Uttar Pradesh or

Uttarakhand states. So, it is reported here as a new record.

Voucher specimens are deposited in the Herbarium of

the Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants,

Lucknow (CMAP). A description along with nomenclature

and a photograph of this species is given below to facilitate

its identification.

Physalis pruinosa L., Sp. P|. 1: 184. 1753; Martinez in

Taxon 42: 104. 1993; Raju et al. in Acta Phytotaxon. Sinica

45(2): 243. 2007. P. maxima Mill., Gard. Dict. ed. 8, Physalis

no. 15. 1768; Singh & Pandey in Ind. J. Forest. 25 (1-2): 187,

f. 1(a-k), Pt. 1-2. 2002.

Annual, erect, stout, sticky, dichotomously branched

herb with spreading branches. Stem 0.5—1.0 m high,

subangular-terete, fistular especially in lower part, densely

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

pubescent; hairs long and short mixed, 0.3—2.0 mm long,

partly gland-tipped. Leaves alternate, 4.0-18 x 2.5—

13.0 cm, broadly ovate, unevenly and prominently dentate

to sinuate, shortly acuminate at apex, obliquely rounded to

cordate at base, pubescent on both sides with both simple

and gland-tipped hairs, midribs and lateral veins prominent

with dense pubescence, light green; petiole 2—5.5 cm long,

densely pubescent with rather longer hairs. Flowers solitary,

axillary, 1.0-1.5 cm across, creamy white; pedicels 1.5—

4.0 cm long, erect, nodding and elongated up to 7.0 cm in

fruit, glandular-hairy. Calyx 5.0—9.0 mm long, campanulate,

divided half way down, glandular-hairy; lobes 5, subulate,

long acuminate, glandular-hairy on the margins. Corolla 1.0-

1.5 cm long, campanulate, glandular pubescent, with 5 pale

green glandular blotches on the throat; lobes 5, obscure.

Stamens 5, glabrous; filaments 3.0-4.0 mm long, inserted on

the tube; anthers 2.5—3.0 mm long, oblong, basifixed, yellow.

Ovary globose, seated on a short disciform gynophore,

glandular pubescent; style 3.0-4.0 mm long; stigma obscurely

2-lobed, green. Fruiting calyx 2.0—2.5 cm long, bladder-like,

5-angled with 5 short ridges between the expanded angles,

reticulately veined, thinly pubescent along the angles, apex

gradually narrowed to a beak-like tip. Berries enclosed

within inflated calyx, 1.0—1.5 cm in diameter, globose, viscid,

pale green; seeds many, c. 2.0 mm long, ovoid, granulate,

white.

FL. & Fr.: August—October

Ecology: Ruderal (growing on waste) along roads

and waysides, preferably in moist fertile soil; not common,

localized in small patches.

Distribution: Mexico and Central America; introduced

into tropical Asia (INDIA: Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan,

and Tamil Nadu). Present report extends its distribution

to Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh and to the Himalaya, up to

1,500 m (Byasi in Pauri Garhwal district and Pipalkoti in

Chamoli district of Uttarakhand state).

Specimens examined: Uttar Pradesh: Lucknow,

Janakipuram extension, 14.1x.2012, S.C. Singh 14556

(CIMAP); Uttarakhand: Pauri district, Byasi, 9.x.2012,

S.C. Singh 11278; Chamoli district, Pipalkoti, 9.x.2012,

S.C. Singh 12679 (CIMAP).

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the Directors, CSIR-

CIMAP and CSIR-NBRI, Lucknow, for providing

necessary facilities and the respective Divisional Heads

for encouragement. We are thankful to Dr. C.S. Reddy,

Scientist, Forestry and Ecology Division, National

Remote Sensing Agency, Hyderabad, India, for

useful discussions and also for providing pertinent

literature.

REFERENCES

Des, D.B. (1980): Enumeration, synonymy and distribution of the

Solanaceae in India. J. Econ. Taxon. Bot. 1: 33-54.

KHANNA, K.K., V. MupGAt, B.P. Unrya, & J.R. SHARMA (1999):

Dicotyledonous plants of Uttar Pradesh: a checklist. Bishen Singh

Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehradun. Pp. 265.

MABBERLEY, D.J. (2008): Mabberley’s Plant Book: A portable dictionary

of plants, their classification and uses. 3rd edn. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Ragu, V.S., C.S. Reppy & K.G. RAsArAo (2007): The myth of “minima”

and “maxima’’, the species of Physalis in the Indian subcontinent.

Acta Phytotaxon. Sinica 45(2): 239-245.

SINGH, V. & R.P. PANDEY (2002): Physalis maxima Miller - Anew record

from India. Ind. J. Forest. 25(1—2): 187-190.

UNIYAL, B.P., J.R. SHARMA, U. CHOWDHERY & D.K. SINGH (2007):

Flowering Plants of Uttarakhand (a checklist). Bishen Singh

Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehradun. Pp. 184.

Printed by Printania Offset Pvt. Ltd., D-20/21, Shalimar Industrial Estate, Matunga, Mumbai 400 019 and published on December 22,

2014 by Ms. Sumaira Abdulali for Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Dr. Salim Ali Chowk,

Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001, Maharashtra, India.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(1), Jan-Apr 2014

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

The Journal welcomes concise reports of original research in natural history,

taxonomy and other aspects of zoology and botany of general interest.

SUBMISSION OF MANUSCRIPT

A hard copy of manuscript (including illustrations), typewritten

in double space on one side of the paper and a copy of the MS

on a CD using MS Word, should be submitted to the Editor,

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House,

Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001. Submission

of a manuscript to the Journal implies that it has not been

submitted for publication elsewhere.

A copy of the manuscript may also be emailed to us at

publications @ bnhs.org.

PREPARATION OF MANUSCRIPT

Main Papers and New Descriptions

Manuscripts of papers for the Main section and New Descriptions

should be as concise as possible. Pages should be numbered

consecutively, and the matter on Page 1 should be arranged in

the following order: Title of the paper; Name(s) of Author(s),

Department(s) and Institution(s); Footnote containing address

of Author for correspondence with e-mail id, followed by the List

of Abbreviations used in text. A short running title derived from

the original title may also be given for main papers. Page 2

should contain the Abstract. The text may be arranged in the

following order: Introduction; Material and Methods or

Methodology; Results; Discussion; Acknowledgements;

References. Abstract, Key Words, Tables and Captions for

Figures should be typed separately.

Title: The title should be such as to be useful for indexing and

information retrieval.

Abstract: The abstract, not exceeding 200 words, should

indicate the scope and significant content of the paper,

highlighting the principal findings and conclusions.

Introduction: The introductory part should bear no heading,

should be brief and state precisely the objective of the study in

relation to the present status of knowledge in the field. Review

of literature should be restricted to the essential references.

Material and Methods or Methodology: The nomenclature,

sources of materials and the procedures should be clearly stated.

New methods should be described in detail, but if the methods

are well known, a mere reference to them will do; any modifications

made in the methods should be stated.

Results: Only data relevant to the objectives of the study and

main conclusions emerging from the study should be included.

The data should be arranged in a unified and coherent sequence

for clarity and readability. The same data should not be presented

in both tables and figures, and such data as can be easily and

briefly stated in the text should not be depicted diagrammatically.

Only such tables and figures as are necessary should be given.

Tests of statistical significance should be identified and

references used should be cited. Statements about the statistical

significance of the results must be borne out by the level of

significance, preferably provided in the tables and legends. The

use of the word “significant” should be restricted to “statistically

significant”.

Discussion: The discussion should provide an interpretation of

the results of the study, without repeating information already

presented under Results. It should relate the new findings to

the known and include logical deductions. Where necessary,

the Results and Discussion can be combined.

Illustrations: The number of illustrations should be kept to the

minimum and numbered consecutively in Arabic numerals.

Simple linear plots or linear double reciprocal plots that can be

easily described in the text should be avoided. Extension of

graphs beyond the last experimental point is permissible only

while extrapolating data.

Line drawings should be either laser prints of computer

generated illustrations or manually prepared in Indian ink on

tracing paper, drawn to approximately twice the printed size.

The drawings are usually reduced to the page width or column

size, and care should be taken that the size of letters,

numerals, dots and symbols is relatively uniform and

sufficiently large to permit this reduction.

Photographs: Photographs for reproduction must be clear, with

good contrast. Prints should be at least 9x12 cm and on glossy,

glazed paper.

Please note that illustrations and photographs need to be

submitted as image files (.jpeg or .tiff format at 300 dpi with

legible text).

Image files incorporated in MS Office will not be considered as

submissions.

Tables: Each table should have an explanatory title and should

be numbered in Arabic numerals. Units (metric) of measurement

should be abbreviated and placed below the headings. Negative

results should be indicated as Nil (0) and absence of a datum

by a dash.

Acknowledgements: Acknowledgements should be brief and

relevant.

References: Responsibility for the accuracy of references rests

with the author(s). Abstracts of papers presented at scientific

meetings may be cited. References to literature should be

alphabetically arranged under author’s name, with the abridged

titles of journals or periodicals in italics and titles of books or

papers in Roman type, thus:

Avuri, Rasu J.S. & C. SuBHA Repp! (1995): Ecology of the pollination

in two cat-mint species. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 91(1): 68-66.

Prater, S.H. (1971): The Book of Indian Animals. 3rd Edn.

Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai. pp. 35-48.

Species names should carry the Author’s name and subspecies

(trinomials) should only be used where identification has been

authentically established by comparison of specimens actually

collected.

For the standardised common and scientific names of the birds

of the Indian subcontinent refer to Buceros Vol. 6, No. 1 (2001).

Miscellaneous Notes: The section accommodates incidental

observations on flora and fauna of the Asian region, and need not

follow strictly the above section headings. No abstract is required,

but key words may be included and references must be cited as

in the rest of the Journal.

The Editors reserve the right, other things being equal, to

publish a member’s contribution before that of a non-

member. The Editors also reserve the right to publish invited

papers on priority.

Registered with the Registrar of Newspapers under RN 5685/57 ISSN 0006-6982

NIAN LIBRA

wn I

) iat

FE) EC | | aN mela an 22 ieee sateen ka ea nari Re ackeh in aero ASE. un Raa Ape aa Ree MOM NERS caigMiaee, ONL NMOS Rin neta ma: 1

ROLE OF MOTHER AND ALLOMOTHERS IN INFANT. INDEPENDENCE IN CAPPED LANGUR

TRACHYPITHECUS PILEA TUS | |

Piprendinersta Kania ARIS SSA ice ahs seated coutntmaseb ans osinjuenct laahavadseonninranndendesadensverensrectals <i oe

FORAGING BEHAVIOUR OF THE NEAR THREATENED GREY-HEADED BULBUL PYCNONOTUS |

PRIOCEPHALUS IN RELATION TO SEASONS AND BREEDING STAGES

P. Balakrishnan............ neh ea TRAM CaN ee ARE RIOT it LMS RO avai. OT. Siete tabs olnecw fy Ore ine MACHEN wae noe ee 10

THYSANOPTERA (INSECTA) FAUNA OF THE KEIBUL LAMJAO NATIONAL PARK, MANIPUR,

NORTHEAST INDIA

K. Nishikanta Singh and RR. Varathar aja .........2ccccc..sscccccedsvinesecssssecetseeeasseseenseeeatens Rai Ne oueiees hel nc ehakeiaae 19

| AEROBIC CULTURABLE BACTERIAL MICROFLORAIN RESIDENT GYPS VULTURE SPECIES OF INDIA

RohanN. i le Mandar D. Kulkarni, Chhaya Sawant, Ashok Bhagwat, Toby H. Galligan and

CONTENTS

ViDHU PrakASH ..cocseeerere SMe esd St MOEN ths A oe ee 29

A ee Si nermeet Co ty ee We UPR I eter owe a 36

i a te ce mcr ce Base Nie

YAIRI NTE NTE ee gett hoe SG, See rte Ot “40

Printed by Printania Offset Pvt. Ltd., D-20/21, Shalimar Industrial Estate, Matunga, Mumbai 400 019 and published by

Ms. Sumaira Abdulali for Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Dr. Sélim Ali Chowk, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road,

Mumbai 400 001. Website: www.bnhsjournal.org; Email: [email protected]/publications. bnhs@gmail. com

BOMBAY NATURAL HISTOR SOC!

CONSERVING : ; 7 tt,

NATURE SINCE 1883 . | |

JOURNAL OF THE BOMBAY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY

Hornbill House, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai 400 001.

ExEcuTIvE Epitor

Asad R. Rahmani, Ph. D.

Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai

Copy Ebitor

Ranjit Manakadan, Ph. D.

Bombay Natural History Society

Copy AND PropucTION EpItor

Vibhuti Dedhia, M.Sc.

Bombay Natural History Society

Editorial Board

Ajith Kumar, Ph. D.

National Centre for Biological Sciences,

GKVK Campus, Hebbal, Bengaluru,

Karnataka

C.R. Babu, Ph. D.

Professor, Centre for Environmental Management

of Degraded Ecosystems,

University of Delhi,

~ New Delhi

Anwaruddin Choudhury, Ph. D., D. Sc.

The Rhino Foundation for Nature,

Guwahati, Assam

Indraneil Das, D. Phil.

Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation,

Universiti Malaysia, Sarawak,

Malaysia

Y.V. Jhala, Ph. D.

Wildlife Institute of India,

Dehradun, Uttarakhand

K. Ullas Karanth, Ph. D.

Wildlife Conservation Society — India Program,

Bengaluru, Karnataka

Consultant Editors

Aasheesh Pittie, B. Com.

Bird Watchers Society of Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh

G.S. Rawat, Ph. D.

Wildlife Institute of India,

Dehradun, Uttarakhand

J.D. Marcus Knight, Ph. D.

Chennai, Tamil Nadu

J.S. Singh, Ph. D.

Professor, Banaras Hindu University

Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh

S. Subramanya, Ph. D.

University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK,

Hebbal, Bengaluru, Karnataka

R. Sukumar, Ph. D.

Professor, Centre for Ecological Sciences,

Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, Karnataka

Romulus Whitaker, B. Sc.

Madras Reptile Park and Crocodile Bank Trust,

Tamil Nadu

S.R. Yadav, Ph. D.

Shivaji University, Kolhapur,

Maharashtra

Gayatri W. Ugra, Ph. D.

Bombay Natural History Society

Raghunandan Chundawat, Ph. D.

Wildlife Conservation Society, Bengaluru

Nigel Collar, Ph. D.

BirdLife International, UK

Rhys Green, Ph. D.

Royal Society for Protection of Birds, UK

Qamar Qureshi, M. Phil.

Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun

Editorial Assistant: Sonali V. Vadhavkar, M. Sc.

Layout and Typesetting: V. Gopi Naidu

recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS). Enquiries concerning

reproduction outside the scope of the above should be addressed to the Honorary Secretary, BNHS at the address given above.

VOLUME 111(2): AUGUST 2014

CONTENTS

ENE Re slat cattails SN a ie an a a le PR ee SN OE ceca gee SOR cl Ms ihn dar iM a as ahaha

MOLECULAR SEXING OF THE CRITICALLY ENDANGERED SLENDER-BILLED VULTURE GYPS TENUIROSTRIS AND ITS

CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS

Mandar Dilip Kulkarni, Rohan Shringarpure, Chandra Mohan S., Mohini Saini, Tapan K. Palai, Praveen K. Gupta,

~ Purvi Bhatt, Nikita Prakash, Ashok Bhagwat and Vibhu Prakash... [email protected] ee eee et eee tt meee «Li

THE GRASSLAND BIRDS OF ROLLAPADU WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, ANDHRA PRADESH, INDIA, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE

TO THE IMPACT OF GRAZING-FREE ENCLOSURES

FRAP apat AST aR CL NA ete seein ide eoarus ee a ee Rte oe Ac enc Cee Meg re TR A, tm Oe en og Oe ae Ue le a Nr nsia cued el

FOOD HABITS OF INDIAN GREY HORNBILL OCYCEROS BIROSTRIS IN SATHYAMANGALAM FOREST DIVISION,

EASTERN GHATS, INDIA

E. Santheshkumear ane F:. Bala sere aes etd, pees eece ala tt cane oe es Ute eareg giee hg tele a am sense rare art oe Pail tre ts eg

NEW RECORD OF LIVE CORAL SPECIES COLONIZING INTERTIDAL ZONES ALONG SOUTHERN SAURASHTRA, INDIA

Paresh Poriya, Bhavik Vakarmicand Falla suis. ft entra es oe sieeve ap ycuial serene eoeeenen<teaes ee ee ae Se ea

NEW RECORDS OF SEAWEEDS FROM THE GOA COAST, INDIA

N.. Pereira ame TR Aes ai tse, ces ce rad R acre ca tice Ne er NO 2 eae ga tN laa el ea er oe

REVIEW

NATURE CHRONICLES OF INDIA: ESSAYS ON WILDLIFE .

Reviewed by Asad R. RahARhAn cous, datest naets of Ure sori some are ee c

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

MAMMALS 11. First report of Forest Owlet Heteroglaux blewittifrom Tansa

“| A further record of Large Indian Civet Viverra zibetha Wildlife Sanctuary (Western Ghats), Maharashtra, India

Linnaeus 1758 from Odisha, India Sunil Laad and Rohidas. Dagale ...c.......s.c.csdtssvsenverses

Pratyush P. Mohapatra and Himanshu S. Palei ............ 125 12. Unusual congregation of Savanna Nightjar Caprimulgus

2. Mongoose rabies in Kannur, Kerala, India affinis in a wheat field

E.A. Jayson and Suresm-KAGovinGh nis ..tc. erste es 125 Girish Jathar, Sachin Anpat, Balu Bhangare and

3. _ Firstrecord of Indian Long-eared Hedgehog Hemiechinus DhaitnararPatbl: Sais Wen Bait) Os Fie ae i

collaris from Dhaulpur, eastern Rajasthan, India

Rajeev Tomar and Rakesh Vy@s ...........:::::ecceseeeeeeneeeeees 126 Ber cee

13. Indian Spiny-tailed Lizard Saara hardwickii in Sariska

Tiger Reserve, north-eastern Rajasthan, India

Manoj Parashar, Dibyendu Mandal, Pooja Chourasia

4. Observations of masturbation and consumption of

ejaculate by Five-striped Palm Squirrel Funambulus

pennantii

Anu/-D. Raiia.euul ie lestiet lake thal te gest 127 ANE Bn BANG ACY tse pcoperenngt enna amas

14. Photographic record and field observations of a

BIRDS Brown-spotted Pit Viper

5. The Malayan Night-Heron Gorsachius melanolophus in BARE CLT CHINN, WO La fac casgsn mre ode ch eds sce ee eee

Mount Harriet National Park, Andaman Islands

Harkirat Singh.Sanghali nda. Uinat.ee ee e e 128 bach

15. Onareport of Red-bellied Pacu Piaractus brachypomus

(Cuvier, 1818), (Characiformes: Characidae) from

Muvattupuzha river, Kerala, India

K.V. Zeena and K.S. Jameela BeeVi .................ccccceeeeees

16. Ichthyofaunal diversity of Tundi wetland, Bajana,

Little Rann of Kachchh, Gujarat, India

6. First record of Greater White-fronted Goose Anser

albifrons (Scopoli, 1769) Amravati, Maharashtra, India

Ashahar Khan, Manoj Bind and Ahsan Sheikh ............. 129

7. First report of Long-billed Plover Charadrius placidus

from Maharashtra, central India

Kiran Morey, Ninad Abhang, J.S. Wadatkar, G.A. Wagh

and GS. Kaden tne. tutus i feed) the eowin 130 HS. Banyal Qe SABO BUMAM ts ween pier apy

8. Sighting of a flock of leucistic Black-tailed Godwit Limosa INSECTS

limosa in Chilika lake, Odisha, India 17. Yucca decipiens Trel., a new host of Florida Red Scale

Monalisa Bhujabal and Nanda Kishore Bhujabal .......... 131 Chrysomphalus aonidum L. in India

9. Records of Ibisbill /bidorhyncha struthersii in the BA ere ere Tinie: SF oo titi ivtae ucts

Bhagirathi river, Harsil, Uttarakhand, India 18. Mass occurence of Stink Bug Cyclopelta siccifolia

Ankita Sinha, Tanvi, B.S. Adhikari and K. Ramesh....... 132 (Westwood) (Heteroptera: Pentatomoidea: Dinidoridae)

10. Mountain Imperial-Pigeon Ducula badia (Raffles) feeding on Millettia pinnata (L.) Panigrahi, at Kannur, Kerala,

on Caesalpinia pulcherrima (Fabaceae) flower buds southern India

TIN IR te aa BR ENG csp salaita antaaincabaee 133 TAME TO Fv ciekt sks bua oases eT eaten

106

124

134

£35

136

137

138

140

144

BOTANY

a9:

20.

Solanum sisymbriifolium Lam. — an addition to the flora

of Jharkhand, India

S.P. Panda, H.K. Sahoo, A.K. Sahu and

FAIA SSD RNIN. sca uctS hed cor esha Mc teela erecta eines adore tg Ak

Ficus variegata Blume (Moraceae) — anew record from

Arunachal Pradesh, India

Rubul Buragohain, P.R. Gajurel, P. Rethy and

Smilacaceae in Darjeeling and Sikkim Himalaya,

India

A.K. Samanta and Sauris Panda....................cccesesesesenes

ee:

147

148

24.

149

Cover Photograph: Striped Hyena Hyaena hyaena By Meet Agrawal

Digitaria radicosa (J. Presl) Mig. and Pennisetum

purpureum Schumach. — additions to the grass

(Poaceae) flora of Manipur, India

Kangjam Tilotama Devi, Potsangbam Kumar Singh and

Sp Os ikea ileal VN a rrastcs ce eter’. s eketrnw diary, coabeeedcdnlenwh

Pteris biaurita L. (Pteridaceae) — an addition to the fern

flora of Uttar Pradesh, India

Shobhit Kumar Srivastava, S. Dominic Rajkumar and

Shashamk Auimat, Sin Gita A a-chcanadnd on tei tte ck. dea: of

New distributional record of two species of Ophioglossum

L. for the Deccan peninsula, India

Sachin Patil, Rajendra Lavate and Meena Dongare .....

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

WE ARE GRATEFUL TO THE MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

GOVT. OF INDIA,

FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE JOURNAL.

153

154

Editorial

Immediate Needs, Distant Concerns

The basic struggle between conservation and development can be encapsulated into immediate

needs of human beings, and future or distant concerns such as depletion of natural resources (water,

land, soil productivity, timber, fish stock) and climate change. Only for a few of us, wildlife and

biodiversity is an immediate and a future concern. For politicians and decision makers of all hues,

wildlife does not even register in their mind, except for the ritual lip service during some function or

seminar. The campaign Save Wildlife is a good photo-opportunity and pretence during Wildlife Week

and Biodiversity Day.

Whichever issues we look at, we find the same dichotomy — we take care of our immediate human

needs, but do not care for future concerns. Water is a good example. No one can dispute that without

clean water, life is not possible. Water is the basic life support system of our world. The grandiose

plans that we are making to expand cities and build smart cities, and expand/intensify agriculture to

feed the world, are not possible without freshwater. Interestingly, only 3% of water is freshwater, the

rest is saline. Even in this 3%, slightly more than 1% is in the form of permanent ice at the poles. What

we are left with is less than 2% of the world’s water for our drinking, agriculture, and industrial needs.

Such a precious natural resource, without which we cannot live, should be taken care of properly. But

wetland destruction continues in most parts of the world, sometimes at an increasing rate, because of

wetland-unfriendly land-use planning (Junk et al. 2013). Water is one of the most abused resources of

the world. Look at what we are doing with our water resources. We are polluting rivers, draining lakes

and ponds, over-using ground- and fossil- water as if there is no tomorrow. Our immediate needs make

us blind to the distant future when river water will become totally unpotable (even now we cannot

drink directly from most of our rivers), underground water will be exhausted, and fashionable malls

or bus stations will be standing on urban lakes.

Indian villages, towns and cities, and our agriculture system survived hundreds of years by

managing water resources properly. In arid areas, rainwater harvesting was a part of life. But now the

situation is different. Our daily water requirement is supplied through pipes (not for all Indians though)

that come from a distant reservoir that was built at great ecological and social costs. The social cost

was paid by a poor farmer or tribal whose land was taken over for the reservoir — whereas we pay our

water bill to the municipality. As long as I get my ‘clean’ water supply from a tap, why should I bother

about the nearby lake that is getting filled up with garbage or is being encroached upon? My immediate

need is met, so why should I bother that the nearby reservoir that may be 500 years old was recharging

ground water, supplying irrigation water, was a source of fish and a habitat of wildlife. Such destruction

of urban lakes and ponds is going on all over India. Bengaluru is a classic example, where nearly 50%

of the lakes that supplied drinking water and moderated the climate have been destroyed.

Wild fish stocks are another classical example. Out of the 32 to 35 major fisheries of the world,

30 have collapsed or are collapsing due to industrial-scale overfishing. Our immediate need to feed

the world with cheap fish has made us blind to our future needs. The irony is that sustainable fisheries

involving restrictions on certain types of fishing gear, implementation of complicated international

laws by nations, and restrictions on catch-size will provide us with sufficient fish for the present and

in the future to feed the growing human population. The catch word is ‘sustainability’ that we human

beings miss all the time. We have to develop systems that result in harvesting of wild fish stocks within

safe biological limits. At present, such international restrictions, if present, are rarely followed in the

high seas.

A slightly dated report of the Ecological Society of America (Palmer ef a/. 2005) puts it in a

nutshell: 1. Ecological science can and must play a greatly expanded role in ensuring a future in

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72534

which natural systems, and the human populations they include, exist on a more sustainable planet;

2. Implementation of a bold, proactive action plan for ecological science will generate the necessary

knowledge to conserve, restore, and design the world’s ecological systems; and 3. Ecologists must act

now to inform decisions with ecological knowledge, advance innovative and anticipatory ecological

research directed at sustainability, and stimulate cultural changes that facilitate a forward-looking and

international ecology.

Most world leaders, politicians and decision makers are concerned only with economic

development, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and growth, without giving thought to the fundamental

pillars on which our economic development stands: water, land, soil, climate, biological, human, and

earth resources. These pillars are interconnected and depend on each other, as we depend on all of

them. Our future depends on whether we are able to recognize or not that human civilizations cannot

survive unless we make a quick transition towards sustainability at a personal level, at the local level,

at landscape level, and at the global level as a whole. The time has come for sustainability science

to leave the arcane pages of scientific journals and become mainstream, as the present and future of

humankind and this planet depends on sustainable use of natural resources.

Asad R. Rahmani

REFERENCES

Junk, W.J., S. AN, C.M. FINLAySOoN, B. GopaL, J. Kvit, S.A. MircHei, W.J. Mirscu & R.D. Roparts (2013): Current state of

knowledge regarding the world’s wetlands and their future under global climate change: a synthesis. Aquatic Sciences

75: 151-167. DOI 10.1007/s00027-012-0278-z.

Paumer, M.A., E.S. BERNHARDT, E.A. CHOoRNESKY, S.L. Cotuins, A.P. Dosson, C.S. Duke, B.D. GoLp, R.B. JAcoBson,

S.E. KINGSLAND, R.H. Kranz, M.J. Mappin, M.L. MARTINEZ, F. MICHELI, J.L. Morse, M.L. Pace, M. Pascua, S.S. PALUMBI,

O.J. REICHMAN, A.R. TOWNSEND & M.G. TurNER (2005): Ecological science and sustainability for the 21st century. Frontiers

in Ecology and the Environment 3(1): 4-11.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 111(2), May-August 2014

MOLECULAR SEXING OF THE CRITICALLY ENDANGERED SLENDER-BILLED VULTURE

GYPS TENUIROSTRIS AND ITS CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS

MANDAR Ditip KULKARNI'?°, ROHAN SHRINGARPURE!**®, CHANDRA MOHAN S.”7, MOHINI SAINI?%,

TAPAN K. PAcar®®, PRAVEEN K. Gupta‘, Purvi Buatt>!°, Nikita PraKAsH!!!, AsHoK BuHacwat!!? AND

ViBHU PRaKAsH!!3-*

‘Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Dr. Salim Ali Chowk, S.B. Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001, Maharashtra, India.

*Centre for Wildlife Conservation, Management and Disease Surveillance, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar 243 122,

Uttar Pradesh, India.

*School of Science, University of NMIMS (Deemed-to-be University), JVPD Scheme, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai 400 056,

Maharashtra, India.

“Division of Veterinary Biotechnology, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar 243 122, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Email: [email protected]

>Email: [email protected]

°Email: [email protected]

7Email: [email protected]

*Email: [email protected]

'OFmail: [email protected]

Email: [email protected]

"Email: [email protected]

Email: [email protected], [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/71746

The Slender-billed Vulture is probably the most endangered of the three resident Gyps vulture species of the Indian

subcontinent, with a population of less than 1,000 individuals in the wild. A Conservation Breeding Programme was

initiated by the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS) to save this species from possible extinction. Sex identification

of individuals is important to maintain the right sex ratio to maximize breeding success in the Conservation Breeding

Programme. The Slender-billed Vulture is not sexually dimorphic, hence the applicability of polymerase chain reaction

based (molecular sexing) methods for sex identification was assessed, and the first ever successful application of

W-specific PCR combined with ZW-common PCR for sex identification in Slender-billed Vulture (n=12) was established.

The PCR method was validated by comparing results with sex identification based on the study of breeding biology of

nesting pairs. The reported molecular sexing method could prove a useful tool in management of Conservation Breeding

73-80

Programmes, and also in determining the sex of dead birds collected from the wild during ecological studies.

Keywords: Molecular sexing, sex identification, Slender-billed Vulture, W-specific PCR, ZW-common PCR

INTRODUCTION

Over 97% population of the three resident Gyps

species, Oriental White-backed Vulture Gyps bengalensis,

Long-billed Vulture G. indicus, and Slender-billed Vulture

G. tenuirostris, has disappeared from the Indian subcontinent

since the early 1990s (Prakash et al. 2007). Due to the rapid

decline, all three species are listed as Critically Endangered

(IUCN 2013). The Slender-billed Vulture is probably the

worst affected in the genus, as less than 1,000 individuals

are estimated to survive in the wild (Prakash et al. 2007).

The veterinary use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug

(NSAID) diclofenac was found to be the major cause for

decline in the vulture populations (Cuthbert et al. 2009;

Das et al. 2011; Green et al. 2006, 2007; Naidoo et al.

2009, 2010; Oaks et al. 2004; Swan et al. 2006). Vultures

get exposed to toxic levels of diclofenac when they feed

on carcasses of livestock that die within two to three days

of administration of diclofenac. Following the discovery

of diclofenac as the major cause of decline in the three

resident Gyps species, diclofenac was banned for veterinary

use in India and neighbouring countries (Kumar 2006;

Singh 2008). However, misuse of human formulations in

veterinary treatment was evident from various field surveys

that showed the prevalence of drug residues in cattle carcasses

at concentrations sufficient to cause decline in the vulture

populations (Cuthbert et a/. 201 1a, b; Saini et al. 2012).

A number of in situ and ex situ conservation initiatives

were undertaken in India and neighbouring countries to save

the three resident Gyps species from possible extinction — a

Conservation Breeding Programme by the Bombay Natural

History Society (BNHS) being a major initiative. The

objective of the Conservation Breeding Programme was

to capture a specified number of individuals (to gather a

MOLECULAR SEXING OF SLENDER-BILLED VULTURE GYPS TENUIROSTRIS AND ITS CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS

genetically viable population) from the wild, breed them in

captivity, and release them back into the wild after the major

cause of decline was addressed. Currently in India, three

Vulture Conservation Breeding Centres house the Slender-

billed Vulture and the total population in captivity comprises

66 individuals. In view of the low number of birds available

for breeding, knowing the sex ratio in this monogamous

species is extremely important to facilitate maximum pair

formation and breeding. However, determining sex in the

Slender-billed Vulture (like the other two resident Gyps

species) is not possible on morphological characters, as the

species is not sexually dimorphic.

For sex identification of monomorphic birds, various

techniques are available, such as laparotomy (Risser 1971),

laparoscopy (Richner 1989), flow cytometry (Nakamura

et al. 1990), karyotyping (Hatzofe and Getreide 1990),

and Raman spectroscopy (Harz et al. 2008). However, the

advanced polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based methods

(molecular sexing methods) are preferred over these methods

because of ease, high sensitivity, and accuracy (Fridolfsson

and Ellegren 1999; Ghorpade et al. 2012). PCR-based

methods rely on the variation in length of intron in the

chromodomain-helicase-DNA-binding protein gene (CHD)

present on Z and W sex chromosomes of birds. The oldest

and most widely used method was P2/P8 Griffiths’ molecular

sexing method (Griffiths et al. 1998) that provided reliable

results with most species where intronic length variation

among the CHD genes present on W and Z chromosomes

was considerable. However, in species where intronic length

variation was negligible (Accipitridae), the method was less

accurate (Chang et al. 2008a,b,c; Ghorpade et al. 2012;

Ito et al. 2003). A number of modifications of the original

method were tried out over the years, in order to circumvent

this problem. These involved the use of ARMS-PCR

(Ito et al. 2003), PCR-RFLP (Sacchi et al. 2004), W-specific

PCR combined with ZW-common PCR (Chang et al. 2008b),

melting curve analysis (Chang et al. 2008a), TaqMan

probe based real time PCR (Chang et al. 2008c; Chou et

al. 2010) and single strand conformation polymorphism

(SSCP) (Ramos et al. 2009). Among these, the W-specific

PCR combined with ZW-common PCR had been successfully

used for sex identification in Oriental White-backed, Long-

billed, and Himalayan Vulture Gyps himalayensis (Ghorpade

et al. 2012). In addition, the method was reported to be a

simple, one-step method for unambiguous identification

of sex in the tested species. However, as the applicability

of this method had not been tried out for sex identification

in Slender-billed Vulture, we tested this method at the

Vulture Conservation Breeding Centre, Pinjore, during

2013-2014.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sample Collection

Blood samples were collected from 12 Slender-billed

Vultures of the Pinjore Centre during routine health checks

in October 2013. The samples were collected in 4 ml EDTA

vacutainers and stored at 4 °C until isolation of genomic

DNA.

Characterization and in silico analysis of CHD-W and

CHD-Z sequences

Genomic DNA was isolated from the blood samples

of a known male (A63) and female (A60) using an in-house

developed genomic DNA isolation method (Kulkarni et al.

unpubl.). The quality of DNA was checked in 1% agarose

gel electrophoresis. The purity assessment and quantification

of DNA samples were carried out using the Nanodrop 1000

spectrophotometer and ND 1000 V3.7.1 software.

The partial CHD-W and CHD-Z sequences were

amplified using the P2/P8 primer pair (Griffiths et al. 1998).

PCR was carried out in 25 ul reaction volume, consisting

of 1X reaction buffer with 2 mM magnesium chloride,

0.2 mM of each dNTP, 100 ng genomic DNA, 0.4 uM of

P2 (Forward 5’-TCTGCATCGCTAAATCCTTT-3’) and P&

(Reverse 5’-CTCCCAAGGTGAGRAAYTG-3’) primers

and 1 U Pfu Ultra II fusion HS DNA polymerase. Negative

control with no genomic DNA was also run with every PCR.

Thermal cycling conditions were set as initial denaturation

at 94 °C for 4 min, followed by five cycles of 94 °C for

30 s, 49 °C for 30 s, 72 °C for 30 s, followed by 49 cycles

of 94 °C for 30 s, 48 °C for 20 s, 72 °C for 20 s, with a final

extension at 72 °C for 5 min. The obtained PCR products were

separated on 2% agarose gel and purified using QIA quick

gel extraction kit. Cloning of the extracted PCR products

was carried out using pJET1.2 blunt end PCR cloning kit into

Escherichia coli (DH5a) competent cells. From overnight

grown cultures of transformed E. coli, plasmids were isolated

using plasmid isolation kit. The plasmids were screened for

the insert by PCR, using 0.4 uM of each of 77 promoter primer

as forward and PS as reverse primer with thermal cycling

conditions as mentioned above. The positive plasmids were

further characterized using PCR with P2 as forward primer

and W-specific (5’- GGTTTTCACACATGGCACA-3’) or

ZW-common (5’-GATCAGCTTTAATGGAAGTGAAG-3’)

as reverse primer. The thermal cycling conditions were set

as initial denaturation at 95 °C for 7 min, 35 cycles of 95 °C

for 30s, 57 °C for 30 s, and 72 °C for 30 s, followed by final

extension at 72 °C for 8 min. The characterized plasmids were

sequenced at Xcelris Labs Ltd., Anand, Gujarat. Finally, the

partial nucleotide sequences from the CHD-W and CHD-Z

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MOLECULAR SEXING OF SLENDER-BILLED VULTURE GYPS TENUIROSTRIS AND ITS CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS

alleles of Slender-billed Vulture were aligned with the

available CHD-W and CHD-Z sequences of Oriental White-

backed, Long-billed, Himalayan, and Cinereous Vulture

Aegypius monachus using MegAlign Lasergene software.

From CHD-W and CHD-Z sequences of Slender-billed

Vulture, the primer binding regions and recognition sites

for the respective restriction endonucleases for ARMS-PCR,

PCR-RFLP, and W-specific PCR were mapped in silico.

Molecular sexing by using W-specific PCR combined with

ZW-common PCR

Genomic DNA isolated from the blood samples of

12 Slender-billed Vultures was qualitatively and quantitatively

assessed as described in the above section.

W-specific PCR combined with ZW-common PCR

suggested for Crested Serpent-Eagle Spilornis cheela hoya

(Chang et al. 2008b) was employed for sex identification of

12 Slender-billed Vultures. The method employed two PCR:

Reaction ‘A’ was common for the CHD alleles present on

Z and W chromosomes, ZW-common primer and P2 primer

were used as reverse and forward primers respectively;

Reaction ‘B’ was specific for the CHD-W allele, W-specific

primer and P2 primer were used as reverse and forward

primers respectively. PCR was carried out in 25 ul reaction

volume, using 1X reaction buffer, 1.5 mM magnesium

chloride, 0.2 mM of each dNTP, 0.4 uM of either

ZW-common primer or W-specific primer as reverse primer

and P2 primer as forward primer, 0.5 U Taq DNA polymerase

and nuclease free water. 50 ng of the isolated genomic DNA

was used as template. Negative control with no genomic DNA

was also run with every PCR. Thermal cycling conditions were

set as described above. The amplified PCR products were

resolved on 2% agarose gel along with 100 bp DNA ladder

as reference and analysed for presence (indicating female) or

absence (indicating male) of 263 bp W-specific product.

Sex identification based on the study of breeding

biology

For sex identification based on the study of breeding

biology, nest observations of three established pairs of tagged

(numbered leg-bands) Slender-billed Vulture at the Pinjore

Centre were carried out through CCTV monitors over three

consecutive breeding seasons. Each of the three established

breeding pairs, viz. A50-A56, A64-A58, and A55-A53, was

observed once a week throughout the daylight hours. Data

collection was carried out at various stages of breeding, i.e.,

nest building, coition/copulation, egg laying, hatching, and

fledging. The coition and egg laying events provided clues to

sex identification. The nests were observed intensively until

hatching, and then less regularly till the nestlings fledged.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

RESULTS

Characterization and in silico analysis of CHD-W and

CHD-Z sequences

The CHD-Z and CHD-W sequences from Slender-billed

Vulture, amplified using Griffiths’ P2/P8 primers and the PCR

products, were successfully cloned, and the recombinant

plasmid sequence characterized. Alignment report for CHD-Z

sequence was prepared using the available data from other

vulture species, namely Oriental White-backed, Long-billed,

Himalayan, and Cinereous Vultures by Clustal W (Ghorpade

etal. 2012). Similarly, alignment report for CHD-W sequence

was prepared using the available data from Oriental White-

backed, Long-billed, and Himalayan Vultures by Clustal W

(Ghorpade et al. 2012; Fig. 1). Result of percent identity

demonstrated that the characterized CHD-Z sequence for

Slender-billed Vulture was identical to that of the Long-

billed Vulture, and 98.9%, 99.5%, 99.7% similar to that

of the Cinereous, Himalayan, and Oriental White-backed

Vulture respectively. The percent identity of Slender-billed

Vulture CHD-W sequence with that of Himalayan Vulture

was 99.5%, and 99.7% with Oriental White-backed and Long-

billed Vulture. The primer binding regions for primers P2,

P8&, NP, MP, ZW-common, and W-specific were located and

marked along with the recognition sequences for restriction

endonucleases BamHI and Rsal on the alignment reports

(Fig. 1). The primer binding regions for MP and W-specific

primers were recorded only on the CHD-W sequence. The

recognition sequence for restriction enzyme Rsal was found

at different locations on CHD-W and CHD-Z sequences,

but the BamHI specific recognition sequence was recorded

only on CHD-Z sequence. Based on identified recognition

sequences and primer binding regions, the applicability of

various PCR-based methods was predicted (Table 1). It was

evident from the predicted gel pattern that in Griffiths’ P2/

P8 method, the amplified CHD-Z and CHD-W sequences

would have negligible intronic length (3 bp) variation. In

PCR-RFLP, the digestion of the P2/PS PCR amplicon with

BamHI would yield two bands of 286 bp and 100 bp for

CHD-Z sequence, and CHD-W would not be digested. Thus,

females would produce three bands of 389 bp, 286 bp, and

100 bp, and males would produce two bands of 286 bp and

100 bp. Likewise, the RsaI digestion of P2/P8 amplicon

would generate two fragments of 278 bp and 111 bp for

CHD-W sequence, and two fragments of 330 bp and 56 bp

for CHD-Z sequence, 1.e. two fragments of 330 bp and 56 bp

in males and four fragments of 330 bp, 278 bp, 111 bp and

56 bp in females. In ARMS-PCR using P2/NP/MP primers,

a multiplex-PCR would produce two bands of 378 bp and

293 bp for CHD-W sequence and one band of 375 bp for

MOLECULAR SEXING OF SLENDER-BILLED VULTURE GYPS TENUIROSTRIS AND ITS CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS

T J i a

SO 60 76 80

i i 4 BoM | xf

Slender-billed Vulture (4) (TCCCAAGGATIGAG GAACT GIT GCAAAACAGGTATCTCTGGGTTTTGACCAACTAAATTTGATTTITITIGTTGTTGEITGT 86

See ee AE ee gM ta eee oar oe, ae LE ee ee ee EE ee ee ee Se en ee ee ee ee Re a ge 80

cata wine packet (ihr ee Pee, peer yw Shee, Bt SNe Ln ee Fook eee eee es a a ee ei SAN ee ee ee eee Se SEs ee. te AS 80

feeiever valleys dio ws.=5 ef 23 Ase eee eee Pa eae ee ee fe ee Be A ee eee ee ere See eee ey ee ee eee es 80

W-specific primer

130

Slender-billed Vulture i) TTGTTTTTTICATTGCTGTTGTITTGTCTIGTAC 160

pone Dilcaveunm i MERE Shee” Boh PESTA! Lhe Lee we ee WE ee ee Dh Be Ee ok COPD Caer el eR SRL Ae Lette Cat) ow Lo, 160

OE STE eS US i Re Doe, teas Aye ek See pe, eee ee eee A a eS See Og ee ee, ee ae ee, oes cer eee) oar are 160

maaan, ee © PA ORE AA eee en ee ee tee OES ANE RO RR. oe ie, YE ee ee, RS re Me PR, on BERL, 0 160

Te T

j i i ]

170 180 190 200 210 220 230

4 i L L i }

Slender-billed Vulture (#7) ATTITIGACAGGCTAGATAACATATTA ATA AAAT GTITITAGT CACGCTAGCTIITGAAC TACTTIAATCI GAA ATTCCA : | 240 (a)

ene bilecwworme ir: SMI NSE aw EC Ae Cot Peewens See LENE Brenan nl ADD BOW. cD AME.E FRSA RITA BI pi Sted as pe St Gola & ene, Pe ee th A eae Soda Ge 2 ae i AA 240

Ri C bE ie CHIR (ap hes oh Gee, ote GR ert byes. ces ert en eae SRS ee ee RE he eG ee eS ee a ee ee eae ee eee Bee es ee 240

hrraieeyia ile Fc Red Fad och oy Fd Sette EP he Be YE ee od et eco dk ey go BAe ERPS RL ches BRA ls Shaw Bete a SMate eh eek he asad wile elas 240

2Z¥-commen primer MP primer

¥ I i i

258 270 288 296 316 320

i L i £ i

Slender-billed Vulture (i) AAACGCAGTAGGAGCAGAAGATAPITCIGGATCTGATAGTGACTICCATCTCAGAAAGAAA 320

Long-billed Vuiture (7) dy DEAR PS at 2 eck Aid Mieke Ree OAD ee PEP By? > eR PEAT ES Beh A oi ABM P. rhree ALAe Peek x Re ee ght cS 320

DRI are eT 27) 11 | EO cS Oe a See ee ee en) ce ee ee A re eS keer ee ee See ee Cee ee ns a ae 320

Tein ee OE hee the ee aa ld sek. Sas ae tee tthe I Eee + > be ee ee ae Cee ere ee eae 320

AC GACCAAAAAAACGTGGACGACCACGAACTATTCCTCGAGAAAATAT YAAAGGATTTAGCGATGCAGA

Slender-billed Vulture (#} 389

pone uuled yam ioe | 4 Me bee See Eee, oo ees ESS Se & wee tS) eRe BOS is Be eo = S Ee Bee eS a Ae Be ee eS Aes 389

Uiionta uh te acted Valance tte & Bate tee ce ge Sets cot ear ee Re pe ae Ge cee rae ae, Bare ses a: RRR ee oe aa 389

Hiswlsyen Vale me Ee ee a ee ee Re we ee Se ed we oe ee es ee ds we se 389

Decoration ‘Decoration #1': Hide (as'.) residues that match Slender-billed Vulture sequence exactly

a —————

49 30 60 70 $0

2 se ees oa | Aon aie etal coe ates ERP i) eee one es Os A ie Pc yi eel eee 9 ede LINO re 3 ME rere erred 0s Cee | Ser eee eo ae |e eet Re. ON Pee Sea ie

Stender-billed Vulture (Z) FGCAAAACAGIGTGTCTCTTGGTITCTGACTGACTIGTACTTTTATATTGCTATTGGTTTAG 80

Pon nei EE Ve wy Ae ae os O88 eS Late ety nie e.en Oar tate ties Ee tie, . 4 Where Opes, Be te 2 Re poem ae. “we cia deste: afe . ees 80

osetia ATER URS SS ere 8 i rn | ieee ee ae Se eer eae ee ee re a Oe eee ee ee eee eee) eee eee 80

Phindbivnn yulciwce sys PT) te Seer es os ees BAR Se A PS eee = See ee eee ee 6 WS Sen se Boe eS ee Pee + SR ee oe was ee oe pate ee er 80

CinereousVulte(Z i i(<isésdEC (ws we ed ee eee eae 3 Se er eae te re, eee tee! | Sri ee Set ine eee, a ae ee ae 80

"it cr “PL Le ane Dek. Li Le => ie Gein ai aan ook H a ee a aed me T T T

98 106 118 126 136 146 186 166

peste I ee ee hae Peds Aa lar race, Second, EM eed Pete tec chen tad a BO Meare te | eel J | i

Slender-billed Vulture (Z} PIE LG LI GeGGe LG) TGoGG PEE toaGi yl Ll TAA TT GG Tri r REEI Ts TE Trt eer hie PGAACACALTAT T 160

DEORE EAs ee Wee. gO Ae ee ee ie eee Re ROL een eer aR nor aS Me. ee oe ee aie Dat MO ge Boo ae en ele on eee PM cle eee es see Me att or 160

RAR Oe ete os) Ae i ee os A ee. eee ee me A a, ee ee an ane ee ee ee: ee +e oe | oe eS a eg 137

PM ik om Sag rhe elie Wei eit ee 4S AR oe Oo He PEA ws ae bd. ee de ae es 4 ug is, Wipe Ree: Sieh ae oa toe Ae ete Stiga t 2 160

ee.) es (a ee ee ee ee ee a ee ee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee re ee ke ere ee ee ras Ed

176 180 190 200 216 20

Peet A Ie eh cele ee i J i eet we Ee H

Slender-billed Vulture (Z) TT TGACAGGCTAGGTAAAACTTTATTTACGGTTGTTAATCAC GTAGCT TTGAACTACCTATTCTGAAATTCCAGATCAGC] 24¢ (b)

DT eg a i a oe ee ae eee eS eee soe, ee ee ee ee ee ee ee Se eee ee ee ee eee eee ee reo ee eee ae ae 240

ieee See ee a Pe ee ee ee ee ee ee we ee oo MR ene gee ee EEE, a See og A! BAP Paes ae ee 237

Ficdalayen Vidnwet7), | A ee ee Be SR a ae ie ee Be ES ole ee i ee ee ot 240

gee Allele ee a Re a At ht aay er Se a oe i ee ee ee ee Rd oe oa we ten 234

Bamit

ZW-common primer

y H ‘ ] —S 7 I I lor ]

250 260 270 286 298 308 340 326

i i | j ad if | I

Slender-billed Vulture (Z) TTTAAT GGAAGT GAAGIGGAGACG CAGTAGGAGCAGAAGATACTCTIG GAT CCIGATAGTGACTCCATCTCAGAAAGAAAACG 320

inane Ne TEs ee aks Bae OS PID eA LB cde eee ole Pg cs te eB ts ee eS | 320

Grientdl White barked Wilts Z): 4- oo <> vac Aye ye @ Ome ne tothe ee a mes RIK Ae RR ee oy ae Re ge ae elf e oe 317

Viraeven Velie ee ee we ee He we ek Ee Re Eg ol ie eR ne ew tele a ote G : 320

Cinereous Vulture (Z) ee ee eo ek ee ee es eee ee ge Oe ee ae ee ee ee ee eee eee 314

338 340

Mei mel AR RTO PE L i

Siender-billed Vulture (2) GCCTAAAA AACGTGGAAGAC CACGAACTATTCCTCGAGAAAATATT 389

coe gig ce a . .- SR a eS ent een any ares, kee 389

Se pened Od. a ty: ZR ER Oh ‘Ga AS hb ae Wi «>. eRe 386

ORO OS es ee ee a ee ee ks ee. ame Lz 389

cmeroneatey ay: ell Leta os Oe SE Py ete ls et eee te Pees Se oeeee ess 7EA 8S te Sie. > eee 383

Decoration 'Decoration #1': Hide (as'.) residues that match Slender-billed Vulture sequence exactly

Fig. 1: Sequence alignment of CHD-Z and CHD-W sequences amplified by Griffith's universal primer P2/P8 from Slender-billed Vulture with

Oriental White-backed, Long-billed, Himalayan and Cinereous Vulture by Clustal W (MegAlign DNAstar).

(a) alignment of CHD-W sequences (b) alignment of CHD-Z sequences

Note: Sequences of primers P2, P8, NR MP, ZW-common, W-specific and recognition sites of Rsal, BamHI are boxed and

dotted (...) lines indicate sequence similarity

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MOLECULAR SEXING OF SLENDER-BILLED VULTURE GYPS TENUIROSTRIS AND ITS CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS

P2/P8

PCR-RFLP

BamHI digest

Slender-billed Vulture

ARMS PCR (Multiplex

with P2/NP/MP primers)

Rsal digest

Table 1: Predicted gel pattern for analysing applicability of available molecular sexing methods for

W-specific PCR

P2/ZW-common P2/W-specific

of P2/P8 amplicon of P2/P8 amplicon

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male

389(W)_ Nil 389 330 378(P2/NP-W) 153(W) 263(W) Nil

386(Z) 386(Z) 286 286 278 330 375(P2/NP-Z) 375(P2/NP-Z) 153(Z) 153(Z)

100 100 111 293(MP/NP-W)

56 56

Note: PCR amplicon size is in ‘bp’

CHD-Z sequence, i.e. two bands for females, one common

band for 378 bp and 375 bp and the other for 293 bp, and

one band of 375 bp for males. Another method employing

W-specific PCR combined with ZW-common PCR would

produce one amplicon each for both the sexes of 153 bp

for CHD-Z and CHD-W sequences using P2/ZW-common

primer (Reaction ‘A’) and one amplicon of 263 bp, only for

the CHD-W sequence using P2/W-specific primer (Reaction

‘B’). Thus, in two separate PCRs, males would show a

single amplicon for P2/ZW-common, while females would

show single amplicon each for both P2/ZW-common and

W-specific.

Molecular sexing using W-specific PCR combined with

ZW-common PCR

The W-specific PCR combined with ZW-common PCR

was successfully used for sex identification of all the 12

Slender-billed Vultures. Six were identified as males (A50,

A64, KA, UA, UT, A55) and six as females (A52, A56, A57,

A58, CV, A53) (Fig. 2). As predicted (Fig. 1), the results

M NIG. fl 2 3 4 5 6

300bp

200bp

100bp

showed presence of PCR product in reaction ‘A’ for both the

sexes, as a band of 153 bp on 2% agarose gel. PCR product

in reaction ‘B’ was recorded for only female as a band of

263 bp on 2% agarose gel. No PCR product for males was

recorded in reaction ‘B’ (Fig. 2) as the W-specific primer does

not have any binding site on CHD-Z allele.

Sex identification based on the study of breeding biology

All the individuals of the three established breeding pairs

did not show any external sexual morphological differences.

Based on the study of breeding biology of the three breeding

pairs, ASO, A64, and A55 were identified as males, and A56,

A58, and A53 were identified as females, which was in

concurrence with the results of molecular sexing.

DISCUSSION

W-specific PCR combined with ZW-common PCR

was found to be a simple and reliable method for sex

identification of the critically endangered Slender-billed

7 8 ., 10 11 12 13 14

(a) PCR products from P2/ZW-common PCR

300bp

200bp

-100bp

(b) PCR products from P2/W-specific

Fig. 2: Gel electrophoresis of PCR amplicons obtained for sex identification of Slender-billed Vulture using the W-specific PCR combined

with ZW-common PCR in 2% agarose gel PCR. M: 100 bp DNA ladder, NTC: No template control, Lanes 1-14 individual samples listed as

1: Male positive control, 2: Female positive control, 3: A50 (vulture tag number), 4: A52, 5: A56, 6: A57, 7: A58, 8: CV, 9: A64, 10: KA,

11: UA, 12: UT, 13: A55, 14: A53

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MOLECULAR SEXING OF SLENDER-BILLED VULTURE GYPS TENUIROSTRIS AND ITS CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS

Vulture, after screening the available PCR methods. The

screening consisted of the following steps: characterization

of CHD-Z and CHD-W sequences; in silico analysis of

characterized sequences for predicting the applicability

of available molecular sexing methods; application of

W-specific PCR combined with ZW-common PCR for sex

identification; and finally, validation. The CHD-W and

CHD-Z sequences for the species were successfully cloned,

characterized, and submitted to the NCBI GenBank. The

submitted CHD-W and CHD-Z sequences of Slender-billed

Vulture were assigned NCBI accession numbers KF977832

and KF977833 respectively.

For reliable sex identification, discriminating the

CHD-Z and CHD-W amplicons was very important and

any deviation would have resulted in false identification of

sexes. Hence, the obtained sequences were analysed in silico

for predicting applicability of available PCR-based methods

for sex identification. The similarity among the sequences of

various species proved significant during in silico analysis.

The in silico analysis predicted that molecular methods

previously used for identification of sex in Oriental White-

backed and Long-billed Vulture (Ghorpade et al. 2012) would

also be applicable in sex identification of Slender-billed

Vulture. Similarity in the sequences among vulture species

also meant that similar inherent problems can arise during

sex identification of this species, and hence, predicting a

simple and robust method was essential for unambiguous

sex identification and application at Conservation Breeding

Centres with basic laboratory facilities.

The small intronic length variation (only 3 bp)

between amplicons, obtained using the Griffiths' P2 and P&

primers for the CHD-Z and CHD-W alleles, would make sex

identification impossible as PCR products corresponding to

CHD-Z and CHD-W alleles for female individuals cannot be

differentiated on agarose gels. Similar problems have been

reported in other species, and in particular among raptors

in earlier studies (Chang et al. 2008a, b, c; Ghorpade et al.

2012; Ito et al. 2003).

The PCR-RFLP using Griffiths’ P2/PS PCR followed

by BamHI or Rsal restriction digestion could be a potential

method for sex identification as shown in the case of other

Gyps species (Ghorpade et al. 2012) and Short-toed Snake-

Eagle Circaetus gallicus (Sacchi et al. 2004); however, the

method requires an additional step of restriction digestion

after PCR. Usage and difficulty in prolonged storage of

restriction enzymes at field-based laboratories further restrict

the application. Likewise, another predicted approach,

ARMS-PCR using the WP, NP and Griffiths’ P2 primer used

for sex identification in a number of Falconiformes species

(Ito et al. 2003), and indicated earlier for sex identification

of Oriental White-backed and Long-billed Vulture with some

reservations (Reddy et al. 2007), would be unsuitable for the

Slender-billed Vulture. The presence of only one nucleotide

mismatch in primer MP for the CHD-Z and CHD-W alleles

could lead to some ambiguity in interpretation with this

method as described earlier (Ghorpade et al. 2012). The

multiple alignments at all the repititions also predicted

possible application of W-specific PCR combined with ZW-

common PCR for sex identification. This method employing

ZW-common and W-specific primers with Griffiths’ P2

primer had been derived from the method reported for sex

identification for Crested Serpent-Eagle (Chang et al. 2008b),

and was successfully applied for sex identification of Oriental

White-backed and Long-billed Vultures earlier (Ghorpade et

al. 2012). The method is also simple and does not require the

use of any restriction enzyme or additional step.

The results of the W-specific PCR combined with

ZW-common PCR method for sex determination matched

the results of the study carried out on the breeding biology

of three breeding pairs. Although observations on breeding

pairs could assist in determining sex in monomorphic

species, this requires observing the established breeding pairs

(with tagged individuals) for at least two or three breeding

seasons. In addition, sex identification of non-breeding

individuals would be impossible, unlike molecular sexing,

which provides quick and unambiguous results for any age

group. Sex identification at our Conservation Breeding

Centres is important as most of the wild-caught individuals

(c. 70%) were nestlings, juveniles, or subadults, and

managing sex ratio in captive populations before breeding

commences is important to achieve high breeding success.

Molecular sexing could also be used for sex identification

of Slender-billed Vultures found dead in the wild, as the

gonads in birds are reported to regress completely during the

non-breeding season (Hau 2001; Nazrul Islam ef al. 2012;

Sharah et al. 2007).

Conservation Implications

The findings of the study revealed that W-specific PCR

combined with ZW-common PCR is a simple and reliable

method for sex identification of Slender-billed Vulture. This

molecular sexing method needs to be adopted for all Slender-

billed Vultures in captivity to aid in management of sex ratio

to improve breeding success. The method could also be

important in field studies of the species for sex identification

of dead birds found in the wild. The method had been applied

for sex identification in Crested Serpent-Eagle, Oriental

White-backed, Long-billed, and Himalayan Vultures in the

past. W-specific PCR combined with ZW-common PCR may

also find applications in sex identification of monomorphic,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MOLECULAR SEXING OF SLENDER-BILLED VULTURE GYPS TENUIROSTRIS AND ITS CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS

rare, and endangered raptor species of Accipitridae recorded

across the globe.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to the Director and Joint Director

(Research), Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar,

and the Director, Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai,

for providing the necessary facilities and funding to carry out

this work. We are also grateful to the Chief Wildlife Warden,

Haryana, for permissions.

REFERENCES

CHANG, H.W., C.A. CHENG, D.L. Gu, C.C. CHANG, S.H. Su, C.H. Wen,

C.Y.-Crou,. T.C. Caou, C.-T? Yao, C.-L. Tsai & C.C. ‘GaEenGc

(2008a): High-throughput avian molecular sexing by SYBR

green based real-time PCR combined with melting curve

analysis. BMC Biotechnology 8: 8-12.

CHANG, H.W., T.C. CHou, D.L. Gu, C.A. CHENG, C.C. CHANG, C.T. YAo,

L.Y. CHUANG, C.H. WEN, Y.C. CHou, K.Y. TAN & C.C. CHENG

(2008b): An improved PCR method for gender identification of

eagles. Molecular and Cellular Probes 22: 184-188.

CHANG, H.W., D.L. Gu, S.H. Su, C.C. CHANG, C.A. CHENG, H.W. HUANG,

C.T. YAo, T.C. Cuou, L.Y. CHUANG & C.C. CHENG (2008c): High-

throughput gender identification of Accipitridae eagles with real-

time PCR using TaqMan probes. Theriogenology 70: 83-90.

Cuou, T.C., C.T. Yao, S.H. Su, Y.C. Hunc, W.S. CHEN, C.C. CHENG,

C.N. TsEnc, H.M. Wana, Y.C. Cuou, S.S. Li, D.L. Gu &

H.W. CHANG (2010): Validation of Spilornis cheela hoya TaqMan

probes for potential gender identification of many Accipitridae

species. Theriogenology 73: 404-411.

CUTHBERT, R., V. PRAKASH, C. BOWDEN, D. Das, R.E. GREEN, Y. JHALA,

D.J. Pain, K.R. SenacHa, N. SHAH & M.A. TaGGart (2009): Role

of veterinary diclofenac in decline of vulture populations in South

Asia. Indian Journal of Veterinary Medicine 29: 80-85.

CUTHBERT, R., M.A. TaGGart, V. PRAKASH, M. SAINI, D. SwARuP,

S. Upreti, R. MATEO, S.S. CHAKRABORTY, P. DEoRI & R.E. GREEN

(2011a): Effectiveness of action in India to reduce exposure of

Gyps vultures to the toxic veterinary drug diclofenac. PLoS

One 6: €19069.

CUTHBERT, R., V. PRAKASH, M. Saini, S. Upreti, D. Swarup, A. DAs,

R.E. GREEN & M. TAGGart (2011b): Are conservation actions

reducing the threat to India’s vulture populations? Current

Science 101: 1480-1484.

Das, D., R.J. CUTHBERT, R.D. JAKATI & V. PRAKASH (2011): Diclofenac

is toxic to the Himalayan vulture Gyps himalayensis. Bird

Conservation International 21: 72-75.

FRIDOLFSSON, A. & H. ELLEGREN (1999): A simple and universal method

for molecular sexing of non-ratite birds. Journal of Avian Biology

30: 116-121.

GHORPADE, P.B., P.K. Gupta, V. PRAKASH, R.J. CUTHBERT, M. KULKARNI,

N. Prakasu, A. Das, A.K. SHARMA & M. Saint (2012): Molecular

sexing of threatened Gyps vultures: an important strategy for

conservation breeding and ecological studies. SpringerPlus

1: 62.

GREEN, R.E., M.A. TacGart, D. Das, D.J. Patn, S. KuMaR,

A.A. CUNNINGHAM & R. CUTHBERT (2006): Collapse of Asian

vulture populations: risk of mortality from residues of the

veterinary drug diclofenac in carcasses of treated cattle. Journal

of Applied Ecology 43: 949-956.

GREEN, R.E., M.A. TAGGART, K.R. SENACHA, B. RAGHAVAN, D.J. PAIN &

R. CUTHBERT (2007): Rate of decline of the Oriental White-backed

Vulture population in India estimated from a survey of diclofenac

residues in carcasses of ungulates. PLoS One 2(8): e686.

GRIFFITHS, R., M.C. DouBLg, K. ORR & R.G.J. DAwWson (1998): A DNA

test to sex most birds. Molecular Ecology 7: 1071-1075.

Harz, M., M. Krause, T. BARTELS, K. CRAMER, P. Rosco & J. Popp (2008):

Minimal invasive gender determination of birds by means of

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

UV-resonance Raman spectroscopy. Analytical Chemistry 80:

1080-1086.

Hatzore, O. & S. GETREIDE (1990): Sex determination in vultures and

other monomorphic raptors. Jorgos 8: 27-29.

Hau, M. (2001): Timing of breeding in variable environments: tropical

birds as model systems. Hormones and Behavior 40(2):

281-290.

Ivo, H., A. Supo-Yamaui, M. ABg, T. Murase & T. Tsusota (2003): Sex

identification by alternative polymerase chain reaction methods

in Falconiformes. Zoological Science 20(3): 339-344.

IUCN (2013): IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2

(www.iucnredlist.org).

KULKARNI, M., R. SHRINGARPURE, P. BHATT, N. PRAKASH & V. PRAKASH

(UNPUBL.): A simple and inexpensive method of DNA isolation

from avian blood samples.

Kumar, A. (2006): Subject: diclofenac for veterinary use. Letter to

‘All State Drug Controllers’ from the ‘Drug Controller General

(Iindia)’, 11th May 2006, F.No. 18-03/2006/DC.

Narpoo, V., K. WoLTER, R. CUTHBERT & N. DuNCAN (2009): Veterinary

diclofenac threatens Africa’s endangered vulture species.

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 53: 205-208.

Narpoo, V., K. WoLTErR, D. CRoMArtTy, M. DIEKMANN, N. DUNCAN,

A.A. MEHARG, M.A. TAaGGart, L. VENTER & R. CUTHBERT

(2010): Toxicity of NSAIDs to Gyps vultures: a new threat from

ketoprofen. Biology Letters 6: 339-341.

Nakamura, D., T.R. TrerscH, M. Doucias & R.W. CHANDLER (1990):

Rapid identification of sex in birds by flow cytometry.

Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics 53: 201—205.

Nazrut Istam, M., N. TSUKAHARA & S. SuGiTAA (2012): Apoptosis-

mediated seasonal testicular regression in the Japanese

Jungle Crow (Corvus macrorhynchos). Theriogenology 77:

1854-1865.

Oaks, J.L., M. GmtBert, M.Z. VirANI, R.T. Watson, C.U. METEYER,

B.A. Ripgout, H.L. SHivaprasab, S. AHMED, M.J. CHAUDHRY,

M. ArsHAD, S. MAHMoop, A. ALI & A.A. KHAN (2004): Diclofenac

residues as the cause of vulture population decline in Pakistan.

Nature 427(6975): 630-633.

PRAKASH, V., R.E. GREEN, D.J. PAIN, S.P. RANADE, S. SARAVANAN,

N. PRAKASH, R. VENKITACHALAM, R. CUTHBERT, A.R. RAHMANI

& A.A. CUNNINGHAM (2007): Recent changes in populations

of resident Gyps vultures in India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

104(2): 129-135.

Ramos, P.S., E. Bastos, R.W. MANNAN & H..GUEDES-PINTO (2009):

Polymerase chain reaction-single strand conformation

polymorphism applied to sex identification of Accipiter cooperii.

Molecular and Cellular Probes 23(2): 115-118.

Reppy, A., V. PRAKASH & S. SHrvas (2007): A rapid, non-invasive,

PCR-based method for identification of sex of the endangered

Old World vultures (white-backed and long-billed vultures) —

implications for captive breeding programmes. Current Science

92: 659-662.

RIcHNner, H. (1989): Avian laparoscopy as a field technique for sexing

birds and an assessment of its effects on wild birds. Journal of

Field Ornithology 60: 137-142.

Risser, A.C. JR (1971): A technique for performing laparotomy on small

MOLECULAR SEXING OF SLENDER-BILLED VULTURE GYPS TENUIROSTRIS AND ITS CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS

birds. Condor 73: 376-379.

SaccHl, P., D. SoGiia, S. SANDRA MAIongE, G. MENEGUzZA, M. CAMPORA

& R. RAsero (2004): A non-invasive test for sex identification

in short-toed eagle (Circaetus gallicus). Molecular and Cellular

Probes 18: 193-196.

SAINI, M., M.A. TaGGart, D. Knopp, S. Upreti, D. Swarup, A. Das,

P.K. Gupta, R. NIESSNER, V. PRAKASH, R. MATEO & R.J. CUTHBERT

(2012): Detecting diclofenac in livestock carcasses in India

with an ELISA: a tool to prevent widespread vulture poisoning.

Environmental Pollution 160(1): 11-16.

SHARAH, H.A., G.K.A. BUAHIN & S.D. Yusuru (2007): Effect of photoperiod

changes on breeding activities and weight of sex organs in cattle

egrets (Bubulcus ibis L). The Zoologist 5: 16—23.

SINGH, S. (2008): Subject: Prohibition to manufacture, sale and

distribution of diclofenac and its formulations for animal use.

Letter to ‘Manufacturer’s Associations’ from the ‘Drug Controller

General (India)’, 6th August 2008, F. No. 18-01/2007-DC.

SwAaN, G.E., R. CUTHBERT, M. QuEVEDO, R.E. GREEN, D.J. PAIN,

P. BARTELS, A.A. CUNNINGHAM, N. DuNcAN, A.A. MEHARG,

J.L. Oaks, J. PARRy-Jones, S. SHuLTz, M.A. TAGGART,

G. VERDOORN & K. WOLTER (2006): Toxicity of diclofenac to

Gyps vultures. Biology Letters 2: 279-282.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 111(2), May-August 2014

THE GRASSLAND BIRDS OF ROLLAPADU WILDLIFE SANCTUARY,

ANDHRA PRADESH, INDIA, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE

TO THE IMPACT OF GRAZING-FREE ENCLOSURES

RanyitT MANAKADAN!

'Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Dr. Salim Ali Chowk, S.B. Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001, Maharashtra, India. |

Email: [email protected]

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/71744

Grassland bird composition was studied in grazed (village grazing lands) and ungrazed grasslands (grassland enclosures

of the Forest Department) at Rollapadu Wildlife Sanctuary from August 1992 to July 1994, using belt transect sampling.

A total of 32 grassland dependent birds (21 resident, 4 winter migrant, and 7 seasonal migrant) were recorded in both

the habitat types. Of these, 25 species were recorded in each of the two habitat types with 20 of them common to

both. Although based on small sample size, our study showed that the species composition differed between grazed

and ungrazed grasslands. Five species common in grazed grassland (Indian Courser Cursorius coromandelicus, Red-

wattled Lapwing Vanellus indicus, Red-winged Bush-Lark Mirafra erythroptera, Rufous-tailed Finch-Lark Ammomanes

Phoenicurus, and Plain Prinia Prinia inornata) were not recorded in ungrazed grassland, while two species common

in ungrazed grassland (Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis and Black Drongo Edolius macrocercus) were not recorded

in grazed grassland. The abundance of certain bird species differed between the grazed and ungrazed grassland.

Ungrazed grassland had higher numbers of Oriental Skylark Alauda gulgula, while the numbers of Sykes’s Crested Lark

Galerida deva, Ashy-crowned Sparrow-Lark Eremopterix grisea, and Yellow-wattled Lapwing Vanellus malabaricus

were greater in grazed grassland. These differences could be due to the impact of livestock grazing, protection, the

interaction of relative abundance of food resources and foraging strategy of birds, and/or other unknown factors. The

study suggests that mosaics of grazed and ungrazed grasslands may result in an increase in grassland bird diversity.

However, since the majority of Indian grasslands are grazed, we recommend the establishment of more grazing-free

refuges encompassing different grassland types, to conserve bird species intolerant to grazing. There necessarily has

also to be a landscape-level conservation strategy since the majority of India’s grasslands have high human dependence,

and thus, their conservation requires the support of local communities in the long run.

Keywords: grassland birds, Rollapadu Wildlife Sanctuary, Great Indian Bustard, Ardeotis nigriceps, Lesser Florican,

81-89

Sypheotides indicus, grazing

INTRODUCTION

Grasslands are neglected ecosystems in India, tend

to be either overgrazed or considered as wastelands in

need of afforestation, and have been largely overlooked in

most governmental and conservation plans (Rahmani 1988,

1997). However, their values, especially as ecosystems

supporting wildlife, started to be recognized in the mid

1980s (Anon. 1990; Maheswaran 2002; Narayan 1992;

Rahmani 1989, 1997, 2006, 2008; Sankaran 1991; Zarri et

al. 2005). One of the recommendations during and after an

intensive study undertaken on the now Critically Endangered

Great Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps (Rahmani 1989;

Rahmani and Manakadan 1988, 1990), hereafter GIB, was

the establishment of grazing-free grassland enclosures

for its conservation. Adopting this recommendation, the

Andhra Pradesh Forest Department established grazing-free

enclosures for the GIB at Rollapadu after its occurrence was

reported there in 1982.

The establishment of enclosures in Rollapadu

was found to benefit many other grassland fauna such

as Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra, Indian Fox Vulpes

bengalensis, Wolf Canis lupus, Black-naped Hare Lepus

nigricollis nigricollis, and Common Indian Monitor Varanus

bengalensis (Manakadan and Rahmani 1993). However,

their impact on most other grassland bird species was largely

unknown. Hence, as part of a project on grasslands of the

Indian plains, we conducted a study on the grassland birds of

Rollapadu during 1992-1995, with special reference to the

impact of grazing-free enclosures (Manakadan and Rahmani

1997). The findings of this study are significant in the context

of conservation of grassland birds in countries like India, and

additionally, pertain to a case of biodiversity conservation of

grasslands in a human-impacted landscape.

STUDY AREA

Location and Climate

Rollapadu Wildlife Sanctuary (6.14 sq. km, hereafter

RWS) lies 18 km southeast of Nandikotkur (15° 58' N; 78°

18'E), Kurnool district, Andhra Pradesh, in the plains between

the Nallamalai and Yerramalai hills, and at an altitude of

IMPACT OF GRAZING-FREE ENCLOSURES ON GRASSLAND BIRDS OF ROLLAPADU WILDLIFE SANCTUARY

éCherkucherla

¥ % hee

% x

4 *

. YS

% me

78° 10°50.18" E

S942" 31.77" N

78° 27° 59.7F E

Fig. 1: Rollapadu Wildlife Sanctuary and surrounding areas

c. 200 m above msl. The terrain is gently undulating with

streams flowing in the depressions during the monsoon.

RWS primarily consists of three grassland plots (Fig. 1):

Enclosure I (320 ha), Enclosure II (40 ha), and Enclosure

IIT (120 ha). The enclosures are demarcated by trench-cum-

mound (TCM) walls, which primarily serve as a demarcation

boundary to deter humans and their livestock, and do not

hinder the movement of wildlife. The region is semi-arid

with an average annual rainfall of 668 mm, received from

both the southwest monsoon (June to August) and northeast

monsoon (September to December). Summer (March to

May) temperature peaks at 42 °C, and winter (November to

February) is mild (17 °C).

Vegetation

The area is a mosaic of short, open grasslands with

scattered small shrubs and trees like Prosopis cineraria,

Cassia fistula, Butea monosperma, Ziziphus mauritiana,

Morinda tinctoria, Carissa spinarum, and Cassia auriculata.

Scrub vegetation occurs along the lower reaches of streams,

but faces severe woodcutting pressure. Common tree/scrub

species along streams are Canthium parviflora, Diospyros

melanoxylon, Dolichandrone falcata, Mitragyna parvifolia,

Morinda tinctoria, Maytenus emarginata, and Phoenix

sylvestris. The grasslands of Rollapadu, which owe their

origin to deforestation, fire, and grazing (Dabadghao and

Shankarnarayan 1973), come under the Sehima-Dichanthium

type — Dichanthium occurring in alluvial soil areas (now

mostly under cultivation) and Sehima in non-alluvial soils.

Grazed Grassland: The grass is short (c. 15 cm),

patchy with much exposed bare ground. A total of

23 species were recorded. Species diversity (2.25) and evenness

(0.72) values were high due to lack of dominance by a few

species, unlike in ungrazed grassland. The grass community

was of Chrysopogon fulvus-Heteropogon contortus-

Melanocenchris jacquemontii type (Manakadan and Rahmani

ODA)

Ungrazed Grassland: The grass growth was dense

(except in areas of exposed rock or alkaline soil), averaging

50 cm in height. A total of 17 species were recorded.

Species diversity (0.58) and evenness (0.21) were low due

to dominance by a few species. The grass community was

of Heteropogon contortus-Chrysopogon fulvus-Eremopogon

foveolatus type. Sehima nervosum (the climax species of the

soil type) had regenerated in some areas forming pure stands.

In wet season, the month-wise mean (dry) biomass production

was about 125% higher than grazed grassland. In summer,

the standing (dead) grass biomass was fourfold higher than

in grazed grassland (Manakadan and Rahmani 1997).

Livestock and Agriculture

Livestock consists of cows, buffaloes, sheep, and

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

IMPACT OF GRAZING-FREE ENCLOSURES ON GRASSLAND BIRDS OF ROLLAPADU WILDLIFE SANCTUARY

some goats, with a density of 138 animals/sq. km. Grazing

begins with the onset of southwest monsoon in June and

ends by December with drying-up of grasslands. After this,

sheep, which are totally dependent on grasslands, migrate

to other areas, and cows and buffaloes are largely stall-fed.

Dry-land agricultural crops such as jowar Sorghum bicolor,

groundnut Arachis hypogaea, cotton Gossypium arboreum,

redgram Cajanus cajan, foxtail millet Setaria italica, and —

sesame Sesamum indicum are grown. The cropping season

starts in June and ends by February, except in a few places

where irrigation is available, where vegetables such as

tomato, brinjal (egg plant), chillies, and beans are cultivated.

Fauna

Besides the GIB, the other major fauna are Blackbuck

Antilope cervicapra (c. 450 animals — Manakadan and

Rahmani 1993, 1998), the Wolf Canis lupus, Golden Jackal

Canis aureus, Jungle Cat Felis chaus, Indian Grey Mongoose

Herpestes edwardsi, Indian Hare Lepus (Indolagus) nigricollis

nigricollis, Common Indian Monitor Varanus bengalensis,

and Lesser Florican Sypheotides indicus. The sanctuary is a

major roosting ground of harriers, largely Montagu’s Harrier

Circus pygargus (Rahmani and Manakadan 1986).

METHODS

Two one-kilometre transects were laid in grazed and

ungrazed grasslands (enclosures of Forest Department), and

these were sampled in the morning every fortnight from

August 1992 to July 1994 (Fig. 1). Each transect was walked

31 times, covering all the seasons of the two years. Both

transects in ungrazed grassland were laid only in Enclosure |

(320 ha), since Enclosure II was too small (40 ha), and the ban

on grazing in Enclosure III (120 ha) was not enforced due to

protests of loss of grazing lands. Areas around streams were

skipped as these are scrub dominated, supporting scrubland

birds (Manakadan et al. 2002).

It was not possible to have more transects due to

scarcity of ungrazed grassland habitat. The transects in

grazed grassland were laid as far away from crop fields as

possible, and at least 1.5 km away from enclosures, to reduce

the impacts of edge effects. In case of transects within the

enclosure, one was sufficiently far from crop fields while

the other bordered crop fields. Although this site could be

potentially impacted by birds that frequented crop fields, it

was observed that these birds, such as parakeet, babblers,

chats, robins, warblers, starlings, and crows, did not generally

‘stray’ into grasslands or were transient.

For estimating species densities, distance bands were

selected based on the bird’s body size. For small species

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

(e.g., larks, pipits, cisticolas, quails, and munias), the width

was 50 m (on either side of transect), as these birds could be

easily missed or were difficult to identify if a larger width

was adopted. For larger birds (e.g., drongos, doves, harriers,

lapwings), the width was 150 m, and it was 300 m for the GIB.

The proportion of individuals missed within these distance

bands would not be much since sampling was carried out

in the mornings when birds are most active, and the overall

grass height differed only by c. 30 cm. Because of this, we

are confident that the results fairly reflect the profile of the

bird communities in the two habitat types, which was also

suggested during our other regular field trips to the study area

during the three study years.

Data Analysis

Only terrestrial, arboreal, or aerial species that

were predominantly grassland dependent, and were not

transient, were considered for analysis. Two pipit species

— Tawny Pipit Anthus campestris (a winter migrant to the

Indian region: Ali and Ripley 1987), and the Paddyfield

Pipit Anthus rufulus (a resident species in the Indian

region: Ali and Ripley 1987) were extremely difficult

to tell apart in field, and were pooled during analysis

(Table 1). Due to the small number of spatial replicates

(2 transects/habitat type), only exploratory analysis of

the data was carried out, wherein mean and standard

deviations of bird densities were estimated from 30 temporal

replications of each transect. The densities given in the

tables are either annual or seasonal, based on the status

of the species. Densities were calculated by dividing the

number of birds recorded in a transect by its area, which

was 0.1 sq. km for small birds, 0.3 sq. km for larger birds

and 0.6 sq. km for the GIB.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Grassland Birds of Rollapadu Wildlife Sanctuary

A total of 32 species of grassland birds were recorded

from grazed and ungrazed grasslands (Table 1). Of these,

19 species are obligate inhabitants of grasslands in India,

while 13 use grasslands as part of a wider array of habitats

(Ali and Ripley 1987). The former included largely typical

grassland birds such as quails, larks, pipits, harriers, lapwings,

and bustards, and the latter were species such as doves,

shrikes, drongos, swallows, and munias. Of the 32 species,

21 are residents, 4 are seasonal migrants, and 7 are winter

migrants (Table 1). The Rain Quail Coturnix coromandelica,

Common Quail Coturnix coturnix, Black Drongo Edolius

macrocercus, and Lesser Florican Sypheotides indicus were

treated as seasonal migrants to RWS. The Rain Quail is

IMPACT OF GRAZING-FREE ENCLOSURES ON GRASSLAND BIRDS OF ROLLAPADU WILDLIFE SANCTUARY

m Migratory Season (Nov. - Mar.)

Non-Migratory Season (Apr. - Sept.)

2021.97

1992-93 1993-94

Ungrazed 2

1992-93 1993-94

Grazed 2

1992-93 1993-94

Grazed 2

1992-93 1993-94

Ungrazed 1

Fig. 2: Overall densities of grassland bird species in ungrazed and

grazed grasslands of Rollapadu Wildlife Sanctuary

Note: The extremely high value for Grazed 2 during 1992-93 was

due to a.,record of a huge flock of Greater Short-toed Lark Cal/andrella

brachydactyla in November 1993

generally detected based on calls, but since it shies away

from human observers, detections on transects are rare. There

were only a few records of Common Quail. Since records

of these two species were obtained mainly from September

to February, they are treated as seasonal migrants. The only

other quail in the area is the Jungle Bushquail Perdicula

asiatica, which is largely found in scrub dominated areas,

and is seen throughout the year, unlike the Rain and Common

Quails, which further suggests that they are seasonal

migrants. The Black Drongo, though seen frequently in the

countryside, frequents the Rollapadu grasslands only from

September to February, and hence is treated as a seasonal

migrant. The endangered Lesser Florican was observed every

year during this study, appearing in October and leaving by

June, after males attained breeding plumage (Manakadan

and Rahmani 1999). However, during an earlier study

(Sankaran and Manakadan 1990), Lesser Florican was not

recorded during the first two years, and was sighted during

the third year (1987), with three territorial cocks displaying

in partial breeding plumage from October and a nest located

in November. This was a drought year in Rajasthan, Gujarat,

and western Madhya Pradesh, which are their major breeding

grounds (Ali and Ripley 1987).

Grassland birds in grazed and ungrazed grassland

The study showed no difference in bird species richness

and overall abundance in grazed and ungrazed grassland,

unlike reported from other studies (Bock and Bock 1988;

Rohrbaugh et al. 1999; Temple et al. 1999). In the two

grassland types sampled, 25 species each were recorded,

19 of which were common to both habitat types (Table 1).

The overall densities of birds between the two habitat types

also did not show much variation, with both sites recording

higher numbers during winter due to the influx of migrants

(Fig. 2). However, there were differences in the abundance

of some species to the point of total/near absence in either

of the habitat types. Five species (Indian Courser Cursorius

coromandelicus, Red-wattled Lapwing Vanellus indicus,

Red-winged Bushlark Mirafra erythroptera, Rufous-tailed

Finch-Lark Ammomanes phoenicurus, and Plain Prinia Prinia

inornata) that were common in grazed grassland were not

recorded in ungrazed grassland, while two species common

in ungrazed grassland (Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis and

Black Drongo Edolius macrocercus) were not recorded in

grazed grassland (Table 1). The ungrazed grassland recorded

higher numbers of Oriental Skylark Alauda gulgula, while

the abundance of Sykes’s Crested Lark Galerida deva, Ashy-

crowned Sparrow-Lark Eremopterix grisea, and Yellow-

wattled Lapwing Vanellus malabaricus, were more in grazed

grassland (Table 1).

Impacts of grazing-free enclosures

The establishment of enclosures has primarily resulted

in an increase in cover of grassland vegetation, making it

unsuitable for species that prefer open conditions. This has

caused disappearance or decline of bird species dependant

on grazing, and increase of bird species intolerant to grazing

pressure, as has been reported in a number of studies (Bock

et al. 1993; Koford 1999; Nuttall 1993). For example, a few

sightings of Ashy-crowned Sparrow-Lark (a common species

in grazed grasslands) in enclosures were in rocky areas with

sparse grass growth. For some species, preference of grass

height differs between activities. For example, the GIB

has an overall preference for short to medium grass (up to

50 cm) for foraging, roosting, and nesting, but prefers tall

grass (c. 75 cm) for resting and chick-rearing (Manakadan

1986; Rahmani 1989; Rahmani and Manakadan 1988).

Grasshoppers are an important prey for insectivorous

birds in grasslands (McEwen 1987; Wiens and Rotenberry

1979). Sampling of grasshopper in RWS showed that the

species richness and overall abundance of grasshoppers

(identified up to genus level) did not vary between the two

habitat types, but there were differences in the abundance of

five of the seven commonly recorded grasshoppers. Acorypha

sp., Pyrrhicia sp., and Trilophidia sp. were more abundant in

ungrazed grassland, while Chrotogonus sp. and Dnopherula

sp. were abundant in grazed grassland (see Manakadan and

Rahmani 1997). These changes are expected to influence

bird species that preferably feed on these grasshoppers. The

observations at RWS suggest that the foraging strategy ofa

bird species and the nature/behaviour of its principle prey

are important factors that govern the bird’s foraging success

and habitat use. For example, the Oriental Skylark was

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

IMPACT OF GRAZING-FREE ENCLOSURES ON GRASSLAND BIRDS OF ROLLAPADU WILDLIFE SANCTUARY

probably abundant in enclosures as its ‘fast and agile pursuit’

foraging strategy through grass was effective on Acorypha

(abundant in ungrazed grassland), which took flight on the

approach of predators. In contrast, Sykes’s Crested Skylark,

lapwings, and Indian Courser had an unhurried ‘walk and

pick-up prey’ foraging strategy, which would not be effective

in catching Acorypha and other agile prey species. Their

foraging behaviour suggests that they prefer slow-moving

prey that relies on camouflage to escape predators, such

as Chrotogonus (abundant in grazed grassland). The diet

of lapwings and coursers largely comprises slow-moving

prey such as ants, beetles, caterpillars, and molluscs (Ali

and Ripley 1987). Additionally, lapwings and coursers were

observed to have difficulty in moving in the uniform tall

grass of ungrazed grassland, which would further impact their

foraging success. As for species-specific food preference, a

captive chick GIB showed a clear preference for Acorypha

(c. 5.5 cm long) over Chrotogonus (c. 2.5 cm long), and it

stopped eating Chrotogonus after about four months of age

(Manakadan and Rahmani 1990).

The importance of short grass for short grass dependant

species has been established in some studies (Bock and

Bock 1988; Nuttall 1993). Short grass increases visibility

and improves mobility for catching prey, thus improving the

foraging success for such species and thereby determining

their habitat choice. This may explain why Montagu’s Harrier

was recorded foraging more in grazed grassland though

its diet consisted largely of Acorypha (judging by analysis

of regurgitated pellets). Montagu’s Harrier probably finds

detection and capture of Acorypha easier in the short grass

of grazed grassland, even though this prey is more abundant

in ungrazed grassland.

Another major factor determining the presence of bird

species, especially shy skulkers, is their level of tolerance to

human disturbance (see Burger 1981). In Rollapadu, the shy

and secretive Lesser Florican was only recorded in Enclosure

I (with males defending wintering/breeding territories each

year), probably due to a combination of lack of disturbance,

availability of grass cover, and food resources. GIB is partial

to ungrazed grasslands due to lack of disturbance, but as

discussed earlier, it requires a mosaic of grazed and ungrazed

zones for different activities, which explains its occurrence in

grazed grassland and high degree of variation in densities in

the ungrazed grassland (Table 1). However, it is important to

note that almost all of the 112 nests of GIB recorded between

1985 tol1995 in RWS were in Enclosure I (Manakadan and

Rahmani 1993, 1997).

Other factors influencing the occurrence of birds in the

enclosures are more complex, such as predation and inter-

specific competition. A significant increase in the population

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

of the Indian Fox (Manakadan and Rahmani 2001) and Indian

Monitor Lizard (Manakadan and Rahmani 1993, 1997) was

reported after the establishment of the enclosures, which could

cause an increase in predation on bird nests and chicks. The

blackbuck population also increased from around 20 animals

in 1985 to c. 500 in 1995 (Manakadan and Rahmani 1998),

and their direct/indirect impacts on the grassland habitat

and bird species is unknown. The increase in blackbuck

population has had negative conservation implications due

to crop-depredation and the resulting loss of support from

locals (Manakadan and Rahmani 1993, 1997).

Implications of the Study

Grassland birds are reported to be declining in many

countries, largely due to habitat loss and degradation (Goriup

et al. 1991; Knopf 1994; Sauer et al. 2008; Tucker 1991;

Vickery et al. 1999). The situation of Indian grasslands is

serious because India with just a fortieth of the total land

mass of the world supports more than 50% of its buffaloes,

15% of its cattle, 15% of its goats and 4% of its sheep, and

additionally, lacks a grazing policy (see Rahmani 1988).

Hence, urgent steps are required to be taken to protect India’s

grasslands.

One way of achieving this would be by setting up

grazing and disturbance free grassland enclosures, which

has proven to help in the conservation of two threatened

bird species, namely the GIB and Lesser Florican, besides

benefiting many other grassland fauna. In this study, some

relatively common bird species were observed to largely

confine themselves to the enclosures of RWS, suggesting

that these were till then surviving in suboptimal conditions

in the grazing lands.

Though the studies show that some grassland bird

species have been adversely affected by the establishment

of the enclosures, this should not be a cause for concern, as

grazed grasslands are much more common than ungrazed

grasslands in India. Additionally, there is an urgency to

conserve grassland bird species that are threatened and

intolerant to extreme grazing disturbances, and hence,

managers should focus on setting up of grazing-free

enclosures. However, care needs to be exercised on setting

up enclosures in climatic or edaphic regions/conditions

where the grass growth becomes too tall and dense,

resulting in almost total habitat loss for most bird species,

as was the case in Karera Bustard Sanctuary, Shivpuri

district, Madhya Pradesh (Rahmani 1989). Furthermore,

studies on the GIB (Rahmani 1988, 1989) have shown that

this species needs a mosaic of habitats within an enclosure

to cater to its different activities, life-cycles, and survival,

So a judicious mix is necessary, depending on the focal

IMPACT OF GRAZING-FREE ENCLOSURES ON GRASSLAND BIRDS OF ROLLAPADU WILDLIFE SANCTUARY

SpJiq ‘S]JU9POJ

sisuajeybuaeg seioesog

c8 OF Lc 0 66 0F LEO 6S°0F O10 c8'0F 120 ‘sueiqiydue ‘sajijdai ‘sjoasu| E uy JO|JOY UEIPU] “9]

sije]uauo Sdoleyy

z c6 €F VOL r 5 S}O9SU| 4 uy J9}€9-99q U99IH) |JEWS “Gl

ojo0e2ep el/jadojdays

00' V+ COE 96'S+ 8V7'T GC EF 80'S VG CF OGL SPp989S | uy SAOQ-PSe|jOD uelsein>y “yl

| SNJSNXO SOajIOJA}]q

€9'6F 709 6L 6LF 80'L Le SLF COG Lo 9F 86 1 spees ssei6 pue poo), O uy esnoJBpues pal|jeq-jnujseyo “€}

snouegejew snjjaue/

- LL'€F GEL 06'Z¥ 80'Z 26 VF 90'7 sajjeeq ‘siaddoyssesp O P| Buimde 7] payem-Mo}|a, ‘Z|

Jeyew

9)qe1eB69A ‘sosnjjow ‘sjoasul SNDIPUI SN|JeueA

= FS G6'EF GL O€'l+ LEO ‘sJe||Id9}e9 ‘sajjaeq ‘s}uy | uy Buimde7] pajyjem-pay "|

s]eyol0 ‘suaddoyussesb SNIDIJ@PUCWIOJOD SNUOSIND

a a LG°CCF LES CO VCF EL EL ‘eeAIE| 1194} pue sajjeoq O uy JESINOD UEIPU] “OL

snoipul sepliloaydAsS

€L OF 910 - a — S]O8SU| O INS UeDIIO|4 JOSS] “6

S]USPOL |JeEWS

‘sBuljiseu pulg ‘saliydes ‘s}oesul sdaoubiu suoapiy

vO LF cv 0 66'0+ LEO Lv OF OL 0 6V OF 910 Jayjo ‘sajeeq ‘siaddoysseso O uy pjejsng UeBIPU] JesIE) 8

XIUINJOD XIUINJOD

OL'GFEE' | - _ — S]O8SUI ‘Spe8es SSEID O WS END UOWWOD “7

COIAPUPLWWOION XIUINJOD

89°F L9'0 “4 = S SJDOSUI ‘SP9ES SSeJO) O INS JIEND uley “9

snjnounuulj ooje{

96°1* 860 18° L¥ 820 GO'CF 96" LG°l¥ 860 S}O98SuU| O WM |91}SO UOWWIOD °G

uoIssnosiq snbiebAd snoug

Le LF 690 L9°C¥ OL OL'9F LEV G2 8F L9'9 Japun aas jng ‘eAoge sv O NM Jaluey s,nbeyuoy| “7

sieddoyusseib

‘Spuig Buyseu punos6 BunoA Jo SNINODIDEW SNIIID

L8°0+ 020 L804 020 62 CF 860 L8°0F 020 yoIs ‘soll play ‘spsezi| ‘sbo14 O NM JOJEH Pliled “€

ese] unjsejng

6S°0+ O10 = ‘ 66'0F LEO Spilq ‘sajjdei ‘sjoosu| 4 uy puezzng pahe-s}IyM\ “Z

snejnieed snue/z

f a cL LF 2S'0 re SPJIQ YOIS “OIL “SpJeZI] “S}OSsu| a qd OH PSssp|Noys-yoe|q “|

||-}OoSueI | |-JO9SuUeL | [|-}oesued | |-]JOOSUBI

aS Ur er Cn Be ay eit (90UdJaJa1d JO JOPJO U]) pue|ssels

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Ayisuaq |euosees

/jenuuy ues/\|

Aysuag jeuoseas Aysueqg jeuoseas

jjenuuy ues/\

Ayisuag jeuoseas

jjenuuy ues

uo soUspUusdeq snes saineds

(286) Aaidiy pue |i) J9I1d

jjenuuy ues|\|

puegjsseig pezesbun pue|SSels paezesg

Asenjoues dji|pyi\\ npedeyjoy jo spuejsses6 pezes6un pue pezeib ul saioeds psig puejssesb Jo saijisuep GSF ues/| :} a1qeL

IMPACT OF GRAZING-FREE ENCLOSURES ON GRASSLAND BIRDS OF ROLLAPADU WILDLIFE SANCTUARY

v8'St VV9

8e VF COC

L9°Lo+ 906

67 8lLF OO'SL

SV VF 617

vO LL+ EIS

Vise’ s

06 ELF 8E'6S

00°019+ 90° ZS1

VI VEF C9 OV

G6SIFEL 8

GE E?F LEO?

[|-JoO9SsueI]

(wy “bs/#)

Ayisuaq jeuoseas

jjenuuy ues

“sjeqiqey Jo Aewe Japim e jo wed se spuejsseub sas — eaneynoe :4 ‘spuejsses6 UO JuspUEd~ap AjauljUS sOWe JO AjosUy — a1e6IGO :O ‘JUeUIjUODGNS

UeIPU| BY} JO SUOIHa1 JAU}JO LWOIJ JOJSIA [eUOSe~aS e ‘jUBIHIY\ JeUOSeaS = WIS ‘UOIHal ONOUeSeleY OY} WOdJ JOPSIA e :JUCIBIY| JO}UI\\ = WA ‘(Seeue Bulpunowns pue AJenjoues) juspisey = yY

GL'9+ 29'8

L0'L+ 09°2

VIECF VV EL

GS VF Ob'9

68 €+ VBC

CL e+ VE CL

68 LLZF 9G'96

08 0V+ 00 ST

O06 LL+ €9°S

Bo LF LOL

|-JoOSsueI]

(wy “*bs/#)

Ayisuaq jeuoseas

jjenuuy ues

pue|sseidg pezeibun

O€ b+ LEO

C6 VF GCL

L8°S+ L8-¢

L8'ct CEE

97 LF OLS

ce EF BLL

G6 66+ 76°02

LG LOVV+ C8 86LL

GL18+ 90°17

CL CC OSG CC

ec LF OGL

8S 1S+ 90°6S

Lo vt GCL

\|-Jo9SUeL]

(wu “bs/#)

Ayisuaq jeuosees

jjenuuy ues

SL Lt 1LoO0

CL L+ 90°70

OF CF: 90 =

81°S+ 96'1

Ce SF BLL

LL 9S+* 0S°2S

VV EL+ BOP

G£ect Sc Oe

06'S 76'0

c6 SEF €9 0S

OC V+ BL C

|-JOOSUEI

(uy “bs/#)

Ayisueq jeuosess

jyenuuy ues

PUBISSEID PezZelD

sjeuwew

‘Spulg ‘sajijdau ‘sjoasu|

sajijdes ‘s}oasu|

S}O9SUI ‘SP8E8S

sJOesu|

S}OeSu|

sjeuuwew

‘Spiiq ‘sajijdes ‘s}oesu|

S]O@SUI [ELOY

S]O9SUI |eLOY

s]oesu|

Sps8esS

$}09SU]

s]oesu|

S}JO9SUI ‘SPp8ES

S]O9SUI ‘SP8ES

S]D8SU|

(99uUsJaJdId JO JAPJO UJ)

(2861 Aaidiy pue tiv) 1910

a WS

pue|ssess

UO soUspusdeq snes

SnaJe00JIeW SNIjOPF

o6uoJg yoelg “ZF

SI]SL] SAJOYJOPLIOW

BUA UOWLUOXD “LE

eouegejew adiponz

[IQUSAIIS UBIPU] “OE

eBJEUJOU! CIUU

EIU UIEld ‘62

siprounf e/09/SID

BIONSID HuNIZ “8Z

SI/BUOIPUAW SNiuezy

ayYS ABD WayyNnoS “1Z

eouinep OpunJip

MOJJEMS peduunJ-pey “9Z

eCONSNs OPUNJIH

MO|JEMS UOWWOD ‘GZ

sningni snyjuy

did pjayApped “HZ

sujsedwes snyjuy

ydiq Aumel “€Z

ejAjoepAyoesg ejjaspueseg

le] P8O}-LOYS JE}B9lQ) CZ

einbjn6 epnejy

yIe|AYS JEJUSUO “LZ

eAap epluajey

yie] pelsaud s SsaeyAS ‘0Z

sninoiuaoyd sauewowwuy

yle7]-Youl4 pajle}-snojny “6L

easub xuajdowaly

yle7-mMoleds peumoo-Ausy ‘81

elaJdolyyAa Cel

ywelysng pebuim-pay “2

saioeds

(‘pjuo0a) Asenyoues ayiipllAA Npedeyjoy Jo spuejsses6 pezesHbun pue pezej6 ul saioads puiq puejsses6 Jo sanisuep GSF UBS :p BIqeL

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

IMPACT OF GRAZING-FREE ENCLOSURES ON GRASSLAND BIRDS OF ROLLAPADU WILDLIFE SANCTUARY

species to be conserved. In areas like Karera, some form of

grazing/harvesting regime has to be implemented to check

the excessive grass growth. Even in RWS, where grass

growth is not much of a problem due to the shallow soil and

aridity, clearing the growth of scrub, trees, and tall stands of

Sehima nervosum grass has to be done once every few years

(Manakadan et al. 2002).

Lastly, it is important to assess conservation issues

of Indian grasslands at a landscape level, since these

largely fall under human-impacted landscapes and will

ultimately be influenced by the support and land-use

practices of local communities, especially in the light of the

problems arising from the growing human population and

its impacts.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is an outcome of the Grassland Ecology

Project of the Bombay Natural History Society headed by

Dr. Asad R. Rahmani (now Director BNHS) funded by the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and sponsored by the Ministry

of Environment and Forests. We thank the officials of the

Andhra Pradesh Forest Department for permission to work

in the Sanctuary, and especially the help and cooperation

extended by the Department’s staff based in Rollapadu

Wildlife Sanctuary. We are indebted to Dr. Qamar Qureshi

of WII, Dehradun, for guidance on the methodology section

write-up, and to anonymous reviewers for comments and

edits, which have considerably improved the paper.

REFERENCES

Aut, S. & S.D. Riptey (1987): Compact Handbook of the Birds of India

and Pakistan together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan,

and Sri Lanka. 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, Delhi.

ANONYMOUS (1990): Status and ecology of the Lesser and Bengal

floricans. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay. 155 pp.

Bock, C.E. & J.H. Bock (1988): Grassland birds in southeast Arizona:

Impacts of fire, grazing and alien vegetation, Pp. 43-58. ICBP

Technical Publication No. 7 (Ed: Gortup, P.D.).

Bock, C.E., V.A. Saas, T.D. Rich & D.S. Doskin (1993): Effects of

livestock grazing on neotropical migratory landbirds in western

North America. Jn: Finch, D.M. & D.W. Stangel (Eds): Status

and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. Gen. Tech.

Rep. RM-299. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Burcer, J. (1981): The effects of human activity on birds at a coastal

bay. Biological Conservation 21: 231-241.

DABADGHAO, P.M. & K.A. SHANKARNARAYAN (1973): The Grass Cover of

India. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.

Goriup, P.D., L.A. BATTEN & J.A. Norton (1991): The conservation

of lowland dry grasslands birds in Europe. Joint Nature

Conservation Committee, Peterborough and The Nature

Conservation Bureau, Berkshire, UK. 136 pp.

Knopr, F.L. (1994): Avian assemblages on altered grasslands. Studies

in Avian Biology 15: 247-257.

Kororp, R.R. (1999): Density and fledging success of grassland birds

in conservation reserve program fields in North Dakota and West

Central Minnesota. Studies in Avian Biology 19: 187-195.

MAHESWARAN, G. (2002): Status and ecology of the endangered Hispid

Hare Caprolagus hispidus in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary, West

Bengal, India. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay and

Wildlife Conservation Society, New York. 45 pp.

MANAKADAN, R. (1986): Ecology of the Great Indian Bustard Ardeotis

nigriceps (Vigors) habitats. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Bombay,

Bombay.

MANAKADAN, R. & A.R. RAHMANI (1990): Growth and development

of a captive Great Indian Bustard chick. Avicultural Magazine

96: 133-140.

MANAKADAN, R. & A.R. RAHMANI (1993): A decade of conservation of

the Great Indian Bustard at Rollapadu Wildlife Sanctuary, 1-3.

In: Verghese, A., S. Sridhar & A.K. Chakravarthy (Eds): Proc.

Changing Scenario of Bird Ecology and Conservation, Bangalore,

Nov 1993. Ornithological Society of India, Bangalore.

MANAKADAN, R. & A.R. RAHMANI (1997): Rollapadu Wildlife Sanctuary.

Pp: 117-180. Jn: Rahmani, A.R. (Ed.): A study of the ecology of

the grasslands of the Indian plains with particular reference to

their endangered fauna. Final Report. Bombay Natural History

Society, Mumbai.

MANAKADAN, R. & A.R. RAHMANI (1998): Crop damage by blackbuck at

Rollapadu Wildlife Sanctuary, Andhra Pradesh. J. Bombay Nat.

Hist. Soc. 95(3): 408-417.

MANAKADAN, R. & A.R. RAHMAN! (1999): More on the Lesser Florican

Sypheotides indica at Rollapadu Wildlife Sanctuary, Kurnool

district, Andhra Pradesh. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 96(2):

314-316.

MANAKADAN, R. & A.R. RAHMANI (2001): Population and ecology of

the Indian Fox Vulpes bengalensis at Rollapadu Wildlife

Sanctuary, Andhra Pradesh, India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

97(1): 3-14.

MANAKADAN, R., A.R. RAHMANI & Y.N. RAo (2002): Spread of scrub in

grasslands of Rollapadu Wildlife Sanctuary, Andhra Pradesh,

India, and its impact on the avifauna. Pp. 186—195. Jn: Rahman,

A.R. & Gayatri Ugra (Eds): Birds of Wetlands and Grasslands:

Proc. Salim Ali Centenary Seminar on Conservation of Avifauna

of Wetlands and Grasslands. Bombay Natural History Society,

Mumbai.

McEwen, L.C. (1987): The function of insectivorous birds in shortgrass

IPM system. Pp. 324-333. Jn: Capinera, J.P. (Ed.): Integrated

Pest Management on Rangeland. West View Press, Colorado,

USA.

Narayan, G. (1992): Ecology, distribution, and conservation of the

Bengal Florican Houbaropsis bengalensis (Gmelin) in India.

Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bombay, Bombay.

NutTTALL, R.J. (1993): Seasonal changes in the birdlife of a peri-urban

grassland community. Ostrich 64: 1-7.

RAHMANI, A.R. (1988): Grassland birds of the Indian subcontinent:

A review. Pp. 187-202. Jn: Technical Publication No. 7.

International Council of Bird Preservation, UK.

RAHMANI, A.R. (1989): The Great Indian Bustard. Final Report. Pp. 234.

Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay.

RAHMANI, A.R. (1997): A study of the ecology of the grasslands of the

Indian plains with particular reference to their endangered fauna.

Final Report. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai.

RAHMANI A.R. (2006): Need to start Project Bustards. Bombay Natural

History Society, Mumbai.

RAHMANI, A.R. (2008): Need for Project Bustard. Hornbill (Oct—Dec):

139-146.

RAHMANI, A.R. & R. MANAKADAN (1986): A large roost of harriers

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

IMPACT OF GRAZING-FREE ENCLOSURES ON GRASSLAND BIRDS OF ROLLAPADU WILDLIFE SANCTUARY

in Andhra Pradesh, India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 83(4)

Supplement: 203-204.

RAHMANI, A.R. & R. MANAKADAN (1988): Bustard Sanctuaries of India:

Strategies for their conservation and management. Technical

Report No. 13. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai.

AO pp.

RAHMANI, A.R. & R. MANAKADAN (1990): The past and present

distribution of the Great Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 87(2): 175-194.

ROHRBAUGH, R.W., JR. D.L. RemnKING, D.H. Wo Fe, S.K. SHERROD

& M.A. Jenkins (1999): Effects of prescribed burning and

grazing on nesting and reproductive success of three grassland

passerine species in tall grass prairie. Studies in Avian Biology

19: 165-170.

SANKARAN, R. (1991): Some aspects of the breeding biology of the

Lesser Florican Sypheotides indica and the Bengal Florican

Houbaropsis bengalensis. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Bombay,

Bombay.

SANKARAN, R. & R. MANAKADAN (1990): Recent breeding records of

the Lesser Florican Sypheotides indica from Andhra Pradesh.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. §7(2): 294-296.

SAUER, J.R., J.E. Hines & J. FALLON (2008): The North American

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966—2007, version

5.15.2008. U.S. Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, Maryland.

TEMPLE, S.A., B.M. FEvoLp, L.K. PAINE, D.J. UNDERSANDER &

D.W. SaAmpLe (1999): Nesting birds and grazing cattle:

Accommodating both on Midwestern Pastures. Studies in Avian

Biology 19: 196-202.

Tucker, G.M. (1991): The status of lowland dry grassland birds in

Europe. Pp. 37-48. Jn: Goriup, P.D., L.A. Batten & J.A. Norton

(Eds): The conservation of lowland dry grasslands birds in

Europe. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough

and Nature Conservation Bureau, Berkshire, UK.

VickgERY, P.D., P.L. Tuparo, J.M.C. Da Sitva, B.G. PETERJOHN,

J.R. HeERKERT & R.B. CAVALCANTI (1999): Conservation of

grassland birds in the Western Hemisphere. Studies in Avian

Biology 19: 2-26.

WeInS, J.A. & J.T. ROTENBERRY (1979): Diet niche relationships

among North American grassland birds and shrub steppe birds.

Oecologia 42: 253-292.

ZARRI, A.A., A.R. RAHMANI & S. MuruGAN (2005): Ecology of Shola

Grassland. Final Report. Bombay Natural History Society,

Mumbai. 112 pp.

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 111(2), May-August 2014

90-97

FOOD HABITS OF INDIAN GREY HORNBILL OCYCEROS BIROSTRIS

IN SATHYAMANGALAM FOREST DIVISION, EASTERN GHATS, INDIA

E. SANTHOSHKUMAR!?” AND P. BALASUBRAMANIAN!3>*

'Division of Landscape Ecology, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Anaikatty P.O., Coimbatore 641 108,

Tamil Nadu, India.

"Email: [email protected]

-Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/71745

The foraging ecology of Indian Grey Hornbill Ocyceros birostris was studied in Sathyamangalam Forest Division,

Eastern Ghats, from 2006 to 2008. Its diet in the breeding season was assessed by 720 hours of direct observations

of food deliveries to 10 different nest inmates and by nest midden analysis. Observations at nest holes revealed that

males visited nests an average of 16 times per day, and the food items delivered to the nest inmates (female and

chicks) included both plant (63.7%) and animal matter (36.3%). Fleshy fruits of 14 species were delivered, and the

animal matter was mainly insects (99%). Seeds collected from the nest middens on analysis showed the presence of

26 fruit species of 16 plant families. Food habits of this hornbill during the non-breeding season were assessed by

walking along transects and observing foraging activities. Of the 3,086 feeding observations obtained, 83% were on

fruits and the rest were on leaves (8.8%), insects (7.7%), and flowers (0.5%). Of the 38 fruit species eaten, Ficus spp.

constituted 25.3% of the non-breeding season fruit diet. In all, fruits of 41 species of 21 families were recorded in the

diet. The study revealed that both fig and non-fig species are important for the survival of the Indian Grey Hornbill

in the Eastern Ghats.

Key words: Hornbill, Indian Grey Hornbill, figs, frugivory, fruit preferences, nest midden

INTRODUCTION

Food selection is an important aspect of understanding

the relationships between frugivorous animals and fruiting

plants, because their interactions are important in the

maintenance and regeneration of flora (Janzen 1970). Studies

on frugivore diets are extremely valuable as they help outline

the potential interactions between bird-dispersed plants

and fruit-eating birds. Hornbills are among the major avian

frugivores and seed dispersers in tropical forests (Kemp

1995). Asian hornbills are generally frugivorous, but turn

omnivorous in the breeding season (Poonswad et al. 1998).

Although many consume a diversity of animal prey, both

vertebrates and invertebrates, the bulk of the diet by weight

and nutrition rewards come from fruits (Kinnaird and O’ Brien

2007). The interactions between frugivorous hornbills and

fruiting plants have received considerable attention.

Although detailed studies on food and feeding

habits of various Asian hornbills have been conducted

(Balasubramanian and Maheswaran 2002; Balasubramanian

et al. 2004; Datta and Rawat 2003; Kannan and James

1997; Kinnaird et al. 1996; Leighton 1982; Mudappa 2000;

Poonswad and Tsuji 1994; Poonswad et al. 1998; Suryadi

et al. 1994), information on one of the most common species

in the Indian subcontinent, namely the Indian Grey Hornbill

Ocyceros birostris, has been inadequate. The species is

distributed in India, Pakistan, and Nepal (Ali and Ripley

1987), occurring in deciduous biotopes, open thorn forests,

and rural cultivated areas (Ali and Ripley 1987; Kemp

1995). In southern India, it occurs along the entire stretch

of Eastern Ghats and in the foothill forests of Western Ghats

(Balasubramanian et al. 2005). Anecdotal observations

on the species were made by Hall (1918) and Patil et al.

(1997), providing preliminary observations on their dietary

habits during the breeding season. Kasambe (2011) carried

out a detailed study on the food habits and breeding ecology

of this species in Central India, but this study was from an

urban landscape. Hence, we undertook a study on the Indian

Grey Hornbill to assess the species’ food and feeding habits

and fruit preferences during the breeding and non-breeding

seasons in a forest landscape in the Eastern Ghats from

2006 to 2008.

STUDY AREA

The Eastern Ghats is an important habitat for diverse

biota across the east coast of India, traversing the states of

Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and a small part of

Karnataka. The Eastern Ghats is a “poor relation” of the

Western Ghats, being less heavily forested and disjointed

in many sections due to a number of large rivers flowing

across. These rivers divide the Eastern Ghats into a number

of distinct hill regions, endowing each section with its own

unique characteristics. Sathyamangalam Forest Division

FOOD HABITS OF INDIAN GREY HORNBILL IN SATHYAMANGALAM FOREST DIVISION

(11243? AON; 7722722" Beols a SSesqitkin) lies*an the

southernmost stretch of the Eastern Ghats, in Erode district

of Tamil Nadu. This division, along with tracts of adjoining

forests, was declared as the Sathyamangalam Wildlife

Sanctuary and Tiger Reserve (1,408.41 sq. km) in 2011.

Hasanur Range of Sathyamangalam Forest Division

(164.86 sq. km), where the study was carried out, receives

rainfall from both the southwest and northeast monsoon,

varying from 600 to 850 mm per annum. The elevation is

c. 490 m above mean sea level. The temperature is high

(40 °C) during summer and low (20 °C) during winter

nights. The vegetation at the study site mainly comprised dry

deciduous forests in the plateau and semi-evergreen forests

along the streams and rivers. Sandalwood Santalum album

and bamboo Bambusa arundinacea are dominant species in

the dry forests. Riparian forests are dominated by Terminalia

spp., Mangifera indica, Syzygium cumini, Melia dubia, and

Ficus spp.

METHODS

Food habits

Data was gathered for two breeding and non-breeding

seasons from July 2006 to June 2008. In the breeding season

(March to May) at Sathyamangalam, 32 active nest trees

were located by following breeding pairs or on observing

breeding males carrying food to nests. From these, a few

focal males and nest middens were studied to document

the diet of the species during the breeding season. This

data was obtained from systematic observations of feeding

birds while walking along transects. Details of the sampling

during the breeding and non-breeding seasons are discussed

below.

Remains of food items consumed by nest inmates

(mother and young) are generally squirted out through

the nest slit, which get deposited beneath the nest tree as

middens, which include seeds, undigested parts of plant

and animal food, and nesting material. The middens of

10 nests (five nests per year) were examined and analyzed

once a week during the nesting period. Very small seeds

(e.g., fig seeds <2 mm) were not taken into account. The

seeds collected from middens were compared with other

seeds of fruits collected from the study area to confirm the

identity of the species. The midden area was cleaned after

each collection.

Extended observations were also carried out at 10

nests (five nests per year) to assess the food utilized during

the breeding season. A total of 720 hours (360 hours per year,

72 hours per nest) were spent in hides set up near nests to

record food delivery by males to nest inmates. Observations

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

were carried out from 06:00 hrs to 18:00 hrs. During nest

monitoring the number of visits made by the male, food

items delivered, and number of items delivered per visit were

recorded. To determine the percentage composition of plant

and animal food required for the nest inmates to complete

the breeding cycle, we distinguished the nesting period into

two main phases: the pre-hatching and the post-hatching

phase. The mean duration of nesting period was 87 +2 days,

the young hatched in an average of 30 +2 days (pre-hatching

phase) from the day of incarceration of the female. The

post-hatching phase was 57 +3 days (Santhoshkumar and

Balasubramanian 2010). The pre-hatching and post-hatching

phase could be distinguished based on calls of chicks heard

from nests, especially when the male approached the nest to

pass on the food to the female.

the non-breeding

were done along two transects, mostly from 06:00 hrs to

10:00 hrs and 15:00 hrs to 18:00 hrs when the feeding

activity of hornbills is high (Balasubramanian et al. 2004).

During the transect walk, birds sighted within 50 m on either

side of the transect were recorded. During each sighting, the

tree species in which hornbills were feeding and food item

During season, observations

consumed were recorded. Since fruits form the major diet

of hornbills (Ali and Ripley 1987; Balasubramanian et al.

2004), efforts were made to determine their preferred fruit

species in Sathyamangalam.

Food Availability

Vegetation sampling was done in the two main

vegetation types, namely dry deciduous forest and riparian

forest to enumerate the availability of woody species,

mainly trees, which would serve as an index on the

availability of fruiting trees to the hornbill. In dry deciduous

forest, a 1 ha plot (100 x 100 m) was laid, and subdivided

into 100 sub-plots of 10 x 10 m. In the riparian forest, a

1 ha belt transect (1000 x 10 m) was laid along the river

bank and subdivided into 100 sub-plots of 10 x 10 m. In

both the habitats, woody plants measuring >20 cm GBH

(girth at breast height) within the sub-plots were measured

and recorded. This vegetation data was analyzed to obtain

quantitative values of the density, abundance, and frequency,

using standard formulae.

Fruiting phenology was monitored by tagging

210 plants belonging to 21 fleshy-fruited species for two

years from July 2006 to June 2008. Tagged plants were

monitored once in a fortnight to record fruit availability.

Percentage of fruit in the canopy was visually estimated

and divided into percentages of ripe and unripe fruits, based

primarily on colour changes indicating ripeness (Anggraini

et al. 2000; Balasubramanian et al. 2004).

FOOD HABITS OF INDIAN GREY HORNBILL IN SATHYAMANGALAM FOREST DIVISION

Table 1: Proportion of plant and animal matter consumed by Indian Grey Hornbill in Sathyamangalam Forest Division, Eastern Ghats

Breeding season

Non-breeding season

% utilized % utilized

Ist year IInd year Ist year IInd year

|. Plant matter

Fruits

Figs 30.44 23177 39.05 37.90

Non-figs 13.76 48.79 39.86 41.26

Leaves 41.56 0.86 10.39 10.87

Flowers - - 1.29 -

Il. Animal matter

Insects 53.91 26.38 9.42 9.96

Eggs 0.23 0.08 - -

Lizards 0.06 0.10 - -

Others 0.04 0.02 - -

(chicks, snakes, rodents)

Statistical Analysis

Preference Index (PI) was calculated using Ivlev’s

Index of Selectivity (Ivlev 1961), (PI= U-A/U+A, where U

denotes utilization of the species and A denotes availability

of corresponding species). Availability of the fruit tree

species was estimated from the vegetation sampling data.

Utilization of the species was obtained from the number of

feeding observations recorded. Values of PI range between

-1 and +1, where -1 indicates avoidance, while +1 indicates

highest preference.

The food items brought to the nest were classified into

figs, non-figs, and animal matter. The proportion of different

food items consumed was tested with Chi-square test. The

difference in food items consumed between the pre-hatching

and post-hatching phases of nesting period was tested for

statistical significance using t-test.

RESULTS

Breeding Season Diet

During nest monitoring, 13,680 food items were

observed being delivered to the 10 focal nests. Food items

delivered comprised both plant (63.7%) and animal matter

(36.3%). The animal diet was mainly insects (99%), the

rest comprised lizards, snakes, and rats. The plant diet was

mainly fruits (98.3%) with a small proportion of Melia

dubia leaves. Among the fruits delivered, figs formed the

majority (26%), followed by Premna tomentosa (25%).

While figs were available throughout the year, fruiting of

Premna tomentosa was restricted to three months (May to

July) towards the end of the breeding season.

Yearwise comparison showed that fig consumption did

not show much difference between the two years of study

(Table 1). Non-figs comprised 14% of the diet in the first

year, and 49% in the second year. Animal matter constituted

54% in the first year, and 26% in the second year (Table 1).

The increase in the consumption of non-figs in the second

year could be due to high fruiting of Premna tomentosa,

considering that it constituted 25% of the diet during the

breeding season. The major portion of the animal diet in the

first year was cicadas; in the second year only a few insects

were delivered to the nest inmates.

Fruits of 26 plant species were consumed by the

hornbills during the breeding season: 14 species recorded

while monitoring food deliveries to nests and 12 from nest

middens. The preferred fruit species included six species

of figs, and a few non-figs, namely Premna tomentosa,

Santalum album, and Solanum erianthum (Table 2).

The food items delivered to the nest inmates were

classified into figs, non-figs, and animal matter. A comparison

of diet composition of pre-hatching phase and post-hatching

phase in the breeding season indicated a predominance of

animal food in the post-hatching phase, and figs in the

pre-hatching phase. The proportion of non-fig and animal

matter delivered to the nest inmates was significantly higher

(t-test, t = -3.508, df = 57, p<0.01 and t = -4.133, df = 79,

p<0.01) in the post-hatching phase than the pre-hatching

phase.

Non-breeding Season Diet

Based on 3,086 feeding observations, the diet of the

Indian Grey Hornbill during the non-breeding season was

found to comprise fruits (83%), leaves (8.8%), flowers

(0.5%), and insects (7.7%). It fed on a total of 38 fruit

species (21 families), of which six species of Ficus (Ficus

benghalensis, F. drupacea, F- infectoria, F’ microcarpa,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

FOOD HABITS OF INDIAN GREY HORNBILL IN SATHYAMANGALAM FOREST DIVISION

Table 2: Preference index of food plant species of Indian Grey Hornbill in Sathyamangalam Forest Division, Eastern Ghats

S.No Plant species

Bridelia crenulata

Canthium dicoccum

Capparis grandis

C. sepiaria

Celtis tetrandra

Clausena dentata

Diospyros montana

Drypetes roxburghii

- PoP Pas fe Mas

Erythroxylum monogynum

—_

Ficus benghalensis

—_

—

F. drupacea

12. —F infectoria

13. | F microcarpa

14. F racemosa

15. F. religiosa

16. /xora pavetta

17. Lantana camara

18. | Mimusops elengi

19. _Naringi crenulata

20. Premna tomentosa

21. Santalum album

22. | Schleichera oleosa

23. Solanum erianthum

24. Syzygium cumini

25. Vitex altissima

26. Ziziphus mauritiana

27. Z. oenoplia

FE. racemosa, and F: religiosa) constituted 25% of the

3,086 feeding observations. Non-figs such as Diospyros

montana (9%) and Vitex altissima (7%) were also major

food. The hornbills were also recorded feeding on the leaves

of Melia dubia and Ailanthus excelsa, and a few observations

showed feeding on Vitex altissima flowers. Cultivated fruit

species such as Pithecellobium dulce, Carica papaya,

Morus alba, Psidium guajava, and Muntingia calabura

were also eaten (4%). There was not much difference in the

non-breeding season diet between the two years (Table 1).

Ivlev’s preference index showed that Indian Grey Hornbill’s

preferred species in the non-breeding season were Bridelia

crenulata (0.97), Ficus religiosa (0.95), and Solanum

erianthum (0.95) (Table 2).

Overall, fruits constituted 79.03% of the diet in

non-breeding season and 58.38% in the breeding season,

these comprising 41 species of fleshy fruits belonging to

21 families (Appendix 1).

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Breeding season

Preference Index (PI)

Non-breeding season

- 0.97

- -0.11

- 0.50

- -0.61

- 0.91

- 0.70

0.06 CAFS

- 0.94

- -0.83

0.97 ; 0.90

0.78 0.94

0.92 0.96

0.99 0.93

0.96 0.91

0.93 0.95

- -0.30

-0.97

- 0.83

. -0.50

0.99 0.71

0.98 0.93

- 0.67

0.96 0.95

- 0.71

- 0.45

- -0.05

- 0.81

DISCUSSION

Studies by Hall (1918), Patil et al. (1997), and

Kasambe (2011) reported that fruits are an important

component in the diet of Indian Grey Hornbill during the

breeding season. Whitney et al. (1998) reported that fruits

comprised over 90% of the diet of Ceratogymna hornbills

in Daj Reserve, Cameroon. Fruits constitute a major portion

of the dietary requirements of Asian hornbills (Kinnaird and

O’Brien 2007). In our study on the Indian Grey Hornbill in

Sathyamangalam Forest Division, the species was recorded

to feed on the fruits of 41 species from 21 families.

Many studies on the food habits of hornbills show

a high proportion of figs in their diet (Table 3), which

was also true in our study, where figs comprised 26% of

the diet during the breeding season and 25% during the

non-breeding season; six species of figs were found to be

highly preferred. Suryadi et al. (1994) observed that figs

FOOD HABITS OF INDIAN GREY HORNBILL IN SATHYAMANGALAM FOREST DIVISION

Table 3: Proportion of figs in the diet of hornbill species in Asia

Species Study area % of figs

Brown Hornbill Thailand 21

Anorrhinus tickelli

Bushy-crested Hornbill Indonesia 66

Anorrhinus galeritus

Great Hornbill Thailand OL

Buceros bicornis

Great Hornbill Western Ghats, "3

Buceros bicornis India

Great Hornbill Thailand 57

Buceros bicornis

Helmeted Hornbill Indonesia 98

Buceros vigil

Malabar Grey Hornbill Western Ghats, 26

Ocyceros griseus India

Malabar Grey Hornbill Western Ghats, 62

Ocyceros griseus India

Malabar Pied Hornbill Western Ghats, i2

Anthracoceros coronatus India

North Sulawesi Tarictic Hornbill North Sulawesi, 34

Penelopides exarhatus exarhatus \|ndonesia

Oriental Pied Hornbill Arunachal 47

Anthracoceros albirostris Pradesh, India

Oriental Pied Hornbill Thailand 35

Anthracoceros albirostris

Rhinoceros Hornbill Indonesia T/

Buceros rhinoceros

Rufous-necked Hornbill Thailand 18

Aceros nipalensis

Sulawesi Red-knobbed Hornbill North Sulawesi, 83

Aceros cassidix Indonesia

Sulawesi Red-knobbed Hornbill North Sulawesi, 69

Aceros cassidix Indonesia

Sulawesi Red-knobbed Hornbill North Sulawesi, 81

Aceros cassidix Indonesia

Wreathed Hornbill Indonesia 64

Aceros undulatus

Writhed-billed (sic) Hornbill Philippines Over one-third

of food at nest

Methodology

Wet weight of fruits

Wet weight, fruit type and

endosperm character

Wet weight of fruits

Direct observations at nest

and nest midden analysis

Wet weight of fruits

Wet weight, fruit type and

endosperm character

Observations at focal nest

and middens

Direct observations and

midden analysis

Direct observations and

midden analysis

Focal observation at nests

Direct observations and

seed count

Wet weight of fruits

Wet weight, fruit type and

endosperm character

Observations at focal nest

and midden analysis

Fruit weight, size and colour

Observations at focal nest

Fruit biomass

Wet weight, fruit type and

endosperm character

Direct observations at nest

Reference

Poonswad et al. (1986)

Hadiprakarsa and Kinnaird

(2004)

Poonswad et al. (1986)

Kannan and James (1997)

Poonswad et al. (1986)

Hadiprakarsa and Kinnaird

(2004)

Mudappa (2000)

Balasubramanian and

Maheswaran (2002)

Balasubramanian et al. (2004)

O’Brien (1997)

Datta and Rawat (2003)

Poonswad ef al. (1986)

Hadiprakarsa and Kinnaird

(2004)

Chimchome et al. (1998)

Suryadi et al. (1994)

Kinnaird and O’Brien (1993)

Kinnaird and O’Brien (1999)

Hadiprakarsa and Kinnaird

(2004)

Kauth et al. (1998)

Aceros waldeni

were available throughout the year and were preferred by

Sulawesi Red-knobbed Hornbill Aceros cassidix in the

non-breeding season in the Tangkoko-Dua Sudara Reserve,

North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Kanwatanakid et al. (2009)

studied the food overlap between gibbons and four species

of hornbills (Great Hornbill Buceros bicornis, Wreathed

Hornbill Rhyticeros undulatus, Oriental Pied Hornbill

and White-throated Brown

Hornbill Anorrhinus austeni) in Thailand, and reported a

higher component of figs, as well as animal matter in the

Anthracoceros albirostris,

breeding season diet of hornbills. Reddy and Basalingappa

(1993) and Balasubramanian ef al. (2004) reported that

figs were one of the most preferred fruits of Malabar Pied

Hornbill Anthracoceros coronatus in the Western Ghats.

Non-fig fruit species also formed a substantial part of

the Indian Grey Hornbill’s diet in Sathyamangalam Forest

Division, with Santalum album and Premna tomentosa

being highly preferred. Poonswad et al. (1983) reported

that 45% of the fruits consumed by Oriental Pied Hornbill

Anthracoceros albirostris in Thailand during the breeding

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

FOOD HABITS OF INDIAN GREY HORNBILL IN SATHYAMANGALAM FOREST DIVISION

season were non-figs. Kinnaird and O’Brien (1993)

reported that 20% of the breeding season diet of Red-

knobbed Hornbill comprised non-fig species. Kannan and

James (1997) found Vitex altissima and Strychnos nux-

vomica to be important food plants of the Great Hornbill

Buceros bicornis in the Western Ghats. Balasubramanian

et al. (2004) reported that 20% of the non-breeding season

diet and 21% of the breeding season diet of Malabar Pied

Hornbill in the Western Ghats comprised non-fig species.

In our study, we recorded that the Indian Grey —

Hornbill utilizes a higher proportion of animal food during

the breeding season, particularly during the post-hatching

phase. Poonswad et al. (1986) reported that 14% of the

non-breeding season food of the Great Hornbill comprised

animal matter. Animal food formed nearly 10% of the

diet of Ceratogymna hornbills in Daj Reserve, Cameroon

(Whitney et al. 1998). According to Mudappa (2000), the

utilization of animal food in the post-hatching phase could

be to provide the growing chicks with high quality food

having essential nutrients.

Leaves in the diet of Indian Grey Hornbill have

received some attention. Hall (1918) recorded Indian Grey

Hornbill delivering green leaves to the nest inmates in

Gurdaspur, Punjab. Patil et al. (1997) studied the excreta

contents of the Indian Grey Hornbill and listed various

food items including green leaves of unknown species

in Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

Kasambe and Pimpalapure (2007) observed Indian Grey

Hornbill plucking and swallowing the leaves of Ailanthus

excelsa in Maharashtra. In our study, we observed Indian

Grey Hornbills feeding on the leaves of Melia dubia and

Ailanthus excelsa on a few occasions during the non-

breeding season. In the breeding season, leaves of Melia

dubia being fed to the nest inmates were recorded. The

probable reason for feeding the nest inmates with leaves

could be to supply low energy food to the female, who does

not require higher nutrition, as she is totally confined to the

nest during this period.

CONCLUSION

Overall, our findings showed that figs, non-figs, and

animal matter constitute the diet of Indian Grey Hornbill in

the Sathyamangalam forests, southern Eastern Ghats. Among

these, fruits constituted the major proportion of the diet, both

in the breeding and non-breeding season. Hence, conservation

of fleshy-fruited plant species (see species listed in

Appendix 1) is vital for the survival of the species.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is an offshoot of a research project,

“Ecology of Indian Grey Hornbill in southern Eastern

Ghats” sanctioned (to P. Balasubramanian) by the Ministry

of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government

of India. We thank Dr. P.A. Azeez, Director, Salim Ali Centre

for Ornithology and Natural History, for encouragement.

We thank the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Tamil

Nadu Forest Department, for granting permission to work

in Sathyamangalam Forest Division, and thanks are due to

Mr. S. Ramasubramanian, IFS, former Divisional Forest

Officer of the Division, for support extended.

REFERENCES

Aut, S. & S.D. Rietey (1987): Compact Handbook of the Birds of

India and Pakistan together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal,

Bhutan and Sri Lanka. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press,

New Delhi. Pp. 737.

ANGGRAINI, K., M.F. KINNAIRD & T.G. O’BRIEN (2000): The effect of fruit

availability and habit disturbance on an assemblage of Sumatran

hornbills. Bird Conserv. Int. 10(3): 189-202.

BALASUBRAMANIAN, P. & B. MAHESWARAN (2002): Studies on hornbill

tree interactions with special reference to identification and

conservation of “Keystone Mutualists” in Nilgiri Biosphere

Reserve. Project Report. Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and

Natural History, Coimbatore, India. Pp. 122.

BALASUBRAMANIAN, P., R. SARAVANAN & B. MAHESWARAN (2004): Fruit

preferences of Malabar Pied Hornbill Anthracoceros coronatus

in Western Ghats, India. Bird Conserv. Int. 14: S69—S79.

BALASUBRAMANIAN, P., R. RAvi, R. VENKITACHALAM, B. MAHESWARAN,

N. KRISHNAKUMAR, V.S. VIJAYAN & S.N. PRASAD (2005): Status

and conservation of the hornbills in southern India. Pp. 143-153.

In: Kemp, A.C. and M.I. Kemp (Eds): The Active Management

of Hornbills and their Habitats for Conservation. CD-ROM

Proceedings of the 4th International Hornbill Conference,

Mabula Game Lodge, Bela-Bela, South Africa. Naturalists and

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Nomads, Pretoria.

CHIMCHOME, V., A. VIDHIDHARM, S. SIMCHAREON, S. BUMRUNGSRI &

P. Poonswap (1998): Comparative study of the breeding

biology and ecology of two endangered hornbills species in

Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand. Pp. 111-136

In: Poonswad, P. (Ed.): The Asian Hornbills: Ecology and

Conservation. Biodiversity Research and Training Program,

National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology,

Bangkok, Thailand.

Datta, A. & G.S. Rawat (2003): Foraging patterns of sympatric

hornbills during non-breeding season in Arunachal Pradesh,

Northeast India. Biotropica 35(2): 208-218.

HALL, E.F. (1918): Notes on the nidification of the Common Grey

Hornbill (Lophoceros birostris). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

25(3): 503-505.

HADIPRAKARSA, Y. & M.F. KINNAIRD (2004): Foraging characteristics of

an assemblage of four Sumatran hornbill species. Bird Conserv.

Int. 14: S53-S62.

Ivtev, V.S. (1961): Experimental ecology of the feeding fishes. Yale

University Press, New Haven, USA. Pp. 302.

JANZEN, D.H. (1970): Herbivores and the number of tree species in

tropical forests. Am. Nat. 104: 501-528.

FOOD HABITS OF INDIAN GREY HORNBILL IN SATHYAMANGALAM FOREST DIVISION

KANNAN, R. & D.A. James (1997): Breeding biology of Great Pied

Hornbill (Buceros bicornis) in the Western Ghats of South

India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 94(3): 451-465.

KANWATANAKID, C.S., P. PooNswaD & T. Savini (2009): An assessment

of food overlap between gibbons and hornbills. Raffles Bulletin

of Zoology 57(1): 189-198. |

KasamBeE, R. (2011): Indian Grey Hornbill: Study of the ecology

and breeding behaviour in Central India. Lambert Academic

Publishing, Germany. Pp. 156.

KASAMBE, R. & A. PimpALAPURE (2007): Communal foraging of Indian

Grey Hombill Ocyceros birostris on the leaves of Ailanthus

excelsa tree. Zoos’ Print Journal 22(12): 2939.

Kautu, M., 8. ENGEL., L.L. Lastimoza & E. Curio (1998): Observations

on the breeding biology of the Writhed-billed Hornbill (Aceros

waldeni) in the Philippines. J. Ornithol. 139(4): 475-483.

Kemp, A.C. (1995): The Hornbills. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Pp. 318.

KinnairD, M.F. & T.G. O’Brien (1993): Preliminary observations

on the breeding biology of endemic Sulawesi Red-knobbed

Hornbill (Rhyticeros cassidix). Trop. Biodiversity 1: 107-112.

KINNAIRD, M.F. & T.G. O’ BRIEN (1999): Breeding ecology of Sulawesi

Red-knobbed Hornbills Aceros cassidix. Ibis 141: 60-69.

Kinnairp, M.F. & T.G. O’Brien (2007): The ecology and conservation

of Asian hornbills: farmers of the forest. University of Chicago

Press, ‘Chicago. Pp. 315.

Kinnairp, M.F., T.G. O’Brien & S. SuryApr (1996): Population

fluctuation in Sulawesi Red-knobbed Hornbills: tracking figs in

space and time. Auk 113(2): 431-440.

LeiGuTon, M. (1982): Fruit resources and patterns of feeding, spacing

and grouping among sympatric Bornean hornbills (Bucerotidae).

Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Davis, USA.

Mupapra, D. (2000): Breeding biology of the Malabar Grey Hornbill

(Ocyceros griseus) in Southern Western Ghats, India. J. Bombay

Nat. Hist. Soc. 97(1): 15-24.

O’BRIEN, T.G. (1997): Behavioural ecology of the North Sulawesi

Tarictic Hornbill Penelopides exarhatus exarhatus during the

breeding season. Jbis 139: 97-101.

Patit, N., N. CaaTurveD! & V. HEGDE (1997): Food of Common Grey

Hornbill Jockus birostris (Scopoli). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

94(2): 408-411.

PoonswapD, P. & A. Tsun (1994): Ranges of males of the Great Hornbill

Buceros bicornis, Brown Hornbill Ptilolaemus tickelli and

Wreathed Hornbill Rhyticeros undulatus in Khao Yai National

Park, Thailand. /bis 136: 79-86.

PoonswaD, P., A. Tsun & C. NGARMponGsAI (1983): A study of the

breeding biology of sympatric hornbill species (Bucerotidae)

in Thailand . Pp. 239-265. In: Proceedings of the Jean

Delacour/IFCB symposium on breeding birds in captivity.

International Foundation for the Conservation of Birds,

North Hollywood, CA.

Poonswab, P., A. Tsun & C. NGARMPONGSAI (1988): A comparative

ecological study of four sympatric hornbills (Family

Bucerotidae) in Thailand. Pp. 2781—2791. Jn: Ouellet, H. (Ed.):

Acta XIX Congressus Internationalis Ornithologici (Ottawa,

Ontario, 1986. National Museum of Natural Science, Ottawa.

Poonswap, P., A. Tsun, N. JirawaTKAvi & V. CHIMCHOME (1998):

Some aspects of food and feeding ecology of sympatric

hornbill species in Khao Yai National Park, Thailand.

Pp. 137—157.Jn: Poonswad, P.(Ed.):TheAsian Hornbills; Ecology

and Conservation, Thai Studies in Biodiversity 2. BIOTECH,

NSTDA, Bangkok.

Reppy, M.S. & S. BASALINGApPA (1993): The food of the Malabar Pied

Hornbill. J. Ecol. Soc. 8: 23-28. |

SANTHOSHKUMAR, E. & P. BALASUBRAMANIAN (2010): Breeding

behaviour and nest tree use by Indian Grey Hornbill Ocyceros

birostris in the Eastern Ghats, India. Forktail 26: 82-85.

SuryApI, S., M.F. Kinnairp, T.G. O’srRIEN, J. SUPRIATNA &

S. SOMADIKARTA (1994): Food preferences of Sulawesi Red-

knobbed Hornbill during the non-breeding season. Trop.

Biodiversity 2: 377-384.

Wuitneéy, K.D., M.K. Fociet, A.M. Lamperti, K.M HOoLprook,

D.J. STAUFFER, B.D. Harpesty, V.T. PARKER & T.B. SMITH

(1998): Seed dispersal by Ceratogymna hornbills in the Daj

Reserve, Cameroon. J. Trop. Ecol. 14: 351-371.

Appendix 1: Fruit species recorded in the diet of Indian Grey Hornbill in Sathyamangalam Forest Division, Eastern Ghats, India

S.No Species

Boraginaceae

Cordia monoica Roxb.

Z. Cordia obliqua Willd.

Caesalpiniaceae

3. Pithecellobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth.

Capparidaceae

4. Capparis grandis L.f.

5: Capparis sepiaria L.

Caricaceae

6. Carica papaya L.

Celastraceae

he Euonymus indicus Heyne ex Wallich

Ebenaceae

8. Diospyros montana Roxb.

Erythroxylaceae

9. Erythroxylum monogynum Roxb.

Fruiting season

Breeding season Non-breeding season

+ +

+ 4:

+ +

- +

+ +

- +

+ +

- +

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

FOOD HABITS OF INDIAN GREY HORNBILL IN SATHYAMANGALAM FOREST DIVISION

Appendix 1: Fruit species recorded in the diet of Indian Grey Hornbill in Sathyamangalam Forest Division, Eastern Ghats, India (contd.)

S. No

10.

Ti.

13:

14.

15.

16.

iit

18.

20.

20:

22.

Tas

24.

26.

ere

28.

29)

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

30.

36.

345

38.

OY.

40.

41.

Species

Euphorbiaceae

Bridelia crenulata Roxb.

Drypetes roxburghii (Wallich) Hurusawa

Loganiaceae

Strychnos potatorum L..

Moraceae

Ficus benghalensis L.

Ficus drupacea Thunb.

Ficus infectoria Roxb.

Ficus microcarpa L..

Ficus racemosa L.

Ficus religiosa L.

Morus alba L.

Myrtaceae

Psidium guajava L.

Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels

Rhamnaceae

Scutia myrtina (Burm.f.) Kurz

Ziziphus mauritiana Lam.

Ziziphus oenoplia (L.) Miller

Rubiaceae

Psydrax dicoccos (Gaertner) Teijsm. & Binnend

lxora pavetta Andrews

Rutaceae

Atalantia monophylla (L.) Corr. Serr.

Naringi crenulata (Roxb.) Nicolson

Clausena dentata (Willd.) Roemer

Sapindaceae

Filicium decipiens (Wight & Arn.) Thwaites

Schleichera oleosa (Lour.) Oken

Sapotaceae

Mimusops elengi L.

Santalaceae

Santalum album L.

Solanaceae

Solanum erianthum D. Don

Solanum violaceum Ortega

Tiliaceae

Grewia tiliifolia Vahl

Muntingia calabura L.

Ulmaceae

Celtis tetrandra Roxb.

Verbenaceae

Lantana camara L.

Premna tomentosa Willd.

Vitex altissima L.f.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Fruiting season

Breeding season

+ + + + + +

Non-breeding season

+ + + + + +

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 111(2), May-August 2014

98-105

NEW RECORD OF LIVE CORAL SPECIES COLONIZING INTERTIDAL ZONES

ALONG SOUTHERN SAURASHTRA, INDIA

PaARESH Porrtya!”, BHAVIK VAKANI? AND RAHUL KuNDu!**

'Department of Biosciences, Saurashtra University, Rajkot 360 005, Gujarat, India.

"Email: [email protected]

3Email: [email protected]

4Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/71742

The intertidal zone of southern Saurashtra shows a great deal of marine biodiversity. However, the coral diversity was

negligible earlier as the coastline is muddy or sandy with occasional rocky outcrops. The diversity of other cnidarians

like zoantharians was also low along this coastline. However, this scenario has changed over the last few years. A number

of changes in the macrofaunal diversity were observed in the vertical zones of the intertidal area off this coastline,

including the invasion of zoantharians and different coral species into the intertidal zone. The present communication

reports the cropping up of new colonies of hard corals in the intertidal zone of the shores along the south Saurashtra

coastline, India. Eight species of scleractinian corals belonging to four families and six genera were recorded from

the intertidal zone of this coastline. Diversity, distribution, and taxonomic features based on morphology and corallite

structures are described. Most of the colonies were small to medium and appeared to be not more than a few years old.

These species are recorded for the first time from the south Saurashtra coastline off the Kathiawar Peninsula.

Key words: Intertidal zone, coral diversity, new record, south Saurashtra coastline, Gujarat, India

INTRODUCTION

Saurashtra region is located in southwest Gujarat, India,

and occupies a total coastal stretch of 865 km. The Dwarka

to Diu segment of south Saurashtra coastline is c. 300 km

long with sandy and rocky-muddy intertidal zone. Tides in

this area are mixed and semidiurnal type, with large diurnal

variation. Literature survey indicated that the published

reports on intertidal macrofauna along this long coastline

are not very significant. Most of the reports dealt with the

diversity and population ecology of molluscs and arthropods

(Prasad 1984). Published reports on corals and other lower

invertebrates are also few (Patel 1984). This is possibly due

to the nature of this coastline which is muddy or sandy, with

occasional rocky outcrops (Malli 1993). Corals and other

cnidarians were rare along this coastline (Misra and Kundu

2005). This scenario was, however, found to be changing

over the last few years. Small and newly established live

coral colonies were visible in all littoral zones (Bhadja 2010;

Poriya 2010; Vaghela 2010). It has also been observed that

large areas of the upper and middle littoral zones of rocky-

muddy coastlines are now significantly occupied by Zoanthus

sansibaricus, replacing the algal vegetation which was once

thriving in these zones (Desai 1987). Large numbers of small

coral colonies are common these days in almost all rocky

shores along the South Saurashtra coastline.

During the present study, intertidal zones of four

different coasts, namely Dwarka, Mangrol, Veraval, and Diu

were intensively surveyed for coral diversity from January to

November, 2012. There is plenty of literature on taxonomy,

distribution, and diversity of corals in the Gulf of Kachchh

(Deshmukhe et al. 2000; Hornell 1909; Patel 1978, 1985;

Pillai 1983, 2010; Pillai and Patel 1988; Rashid 1985).

However, very few reports are available for the coastline of

South Saurashtra. Raghunathan et al. (2004) conducted a

survey of coral diversity along the Saurashtra coastline and

recorded four species Polycyathus verrilli, Porites lutea,

Tubastrea aurea, and Turbinaria crater in the intertidal zone

from Dwarka, Veraval, Diu, and Mahuva. The present study

was undertaken to explore the diversity of live coral species

along the coastline of South Saurashtra.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In the present survey, four different coasts, namely

Dwarka (22° 13' N; 68° 58’ E), Mangrol (21° 07’ N;

10°07 EB)? Veraval (21° SS 'N: 69° 36° FE), and Din

(20° 42' N; 71° O1’ E) were selected for the study. The

intertidal zone of Dwarka bears large rocks and boulders.

The rocky portion is sharp-edged, with abundant tiny pools

and puddles. The intertidal belt of Mangrol is uniform and

rocky with many small to medium tide pools, puddles,

and crevices. The upper zone of this intertidal belt is

covered with sandy silt and studded with pieces of broken

molluscan shells. The intertidal zone of Veraval coast

is mainly rocky with a few sandy patches. However, this coast

LIVE CORAL SPECIES COLONIZING INTERTIDAL ZONES ALONG SOUTHERN SAURASHTRA

does not have a significantly long tidal exposure since the

lower littoral zone ends as a steep vertical decline towards

the subtidal zone. The intertidal belt at Diu has large rocks

and boulders together with many small channels, pools,

and puddles. At Veraval and Diu, the intertidal area that is

exposed during low tide has large rock pools with partially

exposed rock.

From January 2012 to November 2012, surveys

were conducted at all the locations during the lowest

tide. Photographs of the corals were taken in situ, and

small portions of the colonies were collected for further

identification. A portion of each collected sample was

bleached with Hypochlorite solution to expose the corallite

structure required for identification. All the observed coral

species were identified up to species level by comparing

differences in morphology, size, and colour with identification

keys and other literature (Coles 1996; Patterson et al. 2004;

Veron 2000; Veron and Pichon 1976, 1980, 1982; Veron and

Wallace 1984), manuals (Venkataraman and Satyanarayana

2012) and with extensive web search.

RESULTS

Eight species of hard corals belonging to four families

and six genera were recorded from the intertidal zone of South

Saurashtra (Figs 1-8). Three species of two genera from

family Poritidae, three species of two genera from family

Siderastreidae, one species of one genus from Acroporidae

and one species of one genus from Dendrophylliidae were

identified. Small to large patches of Porites species were

found to be abundant throughout the selected coastline, while

other species were found to be unevenly distributed. Small

colonies of Pseudosiderastrea tayami were also recorded

at all the locations, while Montipora venosa, Psammocora

vaughani and Turbinaria peltata were recorded only from

Diu (Table 1).

Taxonomic position of the corals of Order Scleractinia

(Bourne, 1900)

1. Goniopora columna (Dana, 1846)

Family: Poritidae (Gray, 1842)

Table 1: Site wise distribution and status of observed coral species

Sr. Coral species Reported in GoK/ Dwarka Mangrol Veraval Diu

No. Saurashtra

1. | Goniopora columna (Dana, 1846) + /- ++ ms A hast

S S S,Lg

M,L M,L U,M,L

2. Porites lutea (Milne Edwards and Haime, 1851) a {+ ++ + +++ ++

S, Lg S S, Lg S)

U,M,L M,L U,M,L U,M

3. Porites stephensoni (Crossland, 1952) Pic ++ + van re

S Ss S, lg S

M,L M U,M,L U,M

4. _Psammocora superficialis (Gardiner, 1898) +/- +: + te =

S S S, Lg

M,L M,L M,L

5. | Psammocora vaughani (Yabe and Sugiyama, -/- - s +

1936) Lg

6. Pseudosiderastrea tayami (Yabe and + /- ++ + ++ +++

Sugiyama, 1935) S S Ss Ss

M,L M,L M,L U,M,L

7. | Montipora venosa (Ehrenberg, 1834) + /- : : 3 +

8. Turbinaria peltata (Esper, 1794) + /- - - - +

*Abbreviations used: ‘+’ Rare; ‘++’ Common; ‘+++’ Abundant; ‘-’ Absent;

‘S’ Small colony; ‘Lg’ Large colony;

‘U’ Upper Littoral Zone; ‘M’ Middle Littoral Zone; ‘L’ Lower Littoral Zone; ‘Gok’ Gulf of Kachchh

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

LIVE CORAL SPECIES COLONIZING INTERTIDAL ZONES ALONG SOUTHERN SAURASHTRA

Genus: Goniopora (Blainville, 1830)

Specimen: Goniopora columna (Dana, 1846)

Taxonomic references: Veron and Pichon (1982),

Veron (2000), Venkatraman and Satyanarayana (2012).

IUCN Red List Category (2014): Near Threatened.

Description: Colonies are encrusting with short

columns. Corallites are rounded or polygonal. Corallites near

the upper surface of columns have fine irregular septa and

diffused columellae. Tentacles are light brown with white

oral disc (Fig. 1).

Distribution: This species is found in the Red Sea,

Gulf of Aden, southwest, northwest and northern Indian

Ocean, Arabian/Iranian Gulf, central Indo-Pacific and west

Pacific Ocean, north, west and eastern Australia, Southeast

Asia, Japan and East China Sea (IUCN 2014). This is a new

record from the Saurashtra coastline.

2. Porites lutea (Milne Edwards and Haime, 1851)

Family: Poritidae (Gray, 1842)

Genus: Porites (Link, 1807)

Specimen: Porites lutea (Milne Edwards and Haime,

1851)

Taxonomic references: Veron and Pichon (1982),

Veron (2000), Patterson et al. (2004), Venkatraman and

Satyanarayana (2012).

IUCN Red List Category (2014): Least Concern.

Description: Colonies are hemispherical and helmet-

shaped and form micro atolls in intertidal habitats. Corallites

are filled with skeletal structures (Fig. 2).

Distribution: This species is found in the Red Sea,

Gulf of Aden, southwest and northern Indian Ocean, Persian

Gulf, the central, eastern and west Pacific Ocean, east, west

and north Australia, Southeast Asia, Japan and south China

Sea, Hawaiian Islands and Johnston Atoll (UCN 2014).

This species was previously reported from Gulf of Kachchh

(Patel 1978; Pillai 1983; Pillai and Patel 1988) and Saurashtra

(Raghunathan et al. 2004).

3. Porites stephensoni (Crossland, 1952)

Family: Poritidae (Gray, 1842)

Genus: Porites (Link, 1807)

Specimen: Porites stephensoni (Crossland, 1952)

Taxonomic references: Veron and Pichon (1982),

Veron (2000).

IUCN Red List Category (2014): Near Threatened.

Description: Colonies are encrusting, hemispherical,

or columnar and are usually less than 0.1 m. Corallites are

filled with skeletal structures (Fig. 3).

Distribution: This species is found in the Red Sea,

Sri Lanka, central Indo-Pacific and west Pacific Ocean, west,

100

north and east Australia, Southeast Asia, southern Japan and

South China Sea IUCN 2014). This is a new record from

the Gujarat coast.

4. Psammocora superficialis (Gardiner, 1898)

Family: Siderastreidae (Vaughan & Wells, 1943)

Genus: Psammocora (Dana, 1846)

Specimen: Psammocora superficialis (Gardiner,

1898)

Taxonomic references: Veron and Pichon (1976),

Veron (2000), Venkatraman and Satyanarayana (2012).

IUCN Red List Category (2014): Least Concern.

Description: Colonies are encrusting with low

irregular ridges, and bright green. Corallites are small and

irregularly distributed. Primary septo-costae have petaloid

shape (Fig. 4).

Distribution: This species is found in the Red Sea,

Gulf of Aden, southwest, northwest, and north Indian Ocean,

Arabian/Iranian Gulf, central Indo-Pacific and Pacific

Ocean, Australia, Southeast Asia, Japan and east China Sea,

Hawaiian Islands, and Johnston Atoll (IUCN 2014). This

species is a new record from the Saurashtra coastline.

5. Psammocora vaughani (Yabe and Sugiyama, 1936)

Family: Siderastreidae (Vaughan & Wells, 1943)

Genus: Psammocora (Dana, 1846)

Specimen: Psammocora vaughani (Yabe and Sugiyama,

1936)

Taxonomic references: Veron and Pichon (1976),

Veron (2000).

IUCN Red List Category (2014): Near Threatened.

Description: Colonies are sub-massive or encrusting.

Corallites are in groups in shallow depressions. Septo-costae

are thick, compressed, with granulated margins (Fig. 5).

Distribution: This species is found in Japan, east

China Sea and west Pacific Ocean (IUCN 2014). This is a

new record from the Gujarat coastline.

6. Pseudosiderastrea tayami (Yabe and Sugiyama, 1935)

Family: Siderastreidae (Vaughan & Wells, 1943)

Genus: Pseudosiderastrea (Yabe and Sugiyama, 1935)

Specimen: Pseudosiderastrea tayami (Yabe and

Sugiyama, 1935)

Taxonomic references: Veron and Pichon (1980),

Coles (1996), Veron (2000), Venkatraman and Satyanarayana

(2012).

IUCN Red List Category (2014): Near Threatened.

Description: Colonies are encrusting to slightly dome-

shaped. Corallites are cerioid, polygonal and 3—6 mm in

diameter. Septa are evenly spaced and usually fuse with each

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

LIVE CORAL SPECIES COLONIZING INTERTIDAL ZONES ALONG SOUTHERN SAURASHTRA

Live colony Corallites structure

Fig. 1: Goniopora columna

Corallites structure

Fig. 2: Porites lutea

Live colony Corallites structure

Fig. 3: Porites stephensoni

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014 101

LIVE CORAL SPECIES COLONIZING INTERTIDAL ZONES ALONG SOUTHERN SAURASHTRA

Live colony Corallites structure

Fig. 6: Pseudosiderastrea tayami

102 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

LIVE CORAL SPECIES COLONIZING INTERTIDAL ZONES ALONG SOUTHERN SAURASHTRA

Live colony

Corallites structure

Fig. 8: Turbinaria peltata

other in fan-like groups. Walls have a fine edge along the top.

Uniform brown or light orange colour (Fig. 6).

Distribution: This species is found in the Red

Sea and Gulf of Aden, southwest, northwest and north

Indian Ocean, Arabian/Iranian Gulf, central Indo-Pacific,

Australia, Southeast Asia, Japan and east China Sea, and

west Pacific Ocean (IUCN 2014). This is a new record

from the south Saurashtra coastline. It was previously

reported from Gulf of Kachchh (Pillai 1983; Pillai and Patel

1988).

7; Montipora venosa (Ehrenberg, 1834)

Family: Acroporidae (Gray, 1847)

Genus: Montipora (de Blainville, 1830)

Specimen: Montipora venosa (Ehrenberg, 1834)

Taxonomic references: Veron and Wallace (1984),

Veron (2000), Venkatraman and Satyanarayana (2012).

IUCN Red List Category (2014): Near Threatened.

Description: Colonies are massive or sub-massive

and pale brown. Corallites are integrated, papillae are absent

(Fig. 7):

Distribution: This species is found in the Red Sea,

Gulf of Aden, southwest, northwest and northern Indian

Ocean, Arabian/Iranian Gulf, central Indo-Pacific and west

Pacific Ocean, north, west and eastern Australia, Southeast

Asia, Japan and east China Sea (IUCN 2014). This species

was previously reported from Gulf of Kachchh (Pillai 1983;

Pillai and Patel 1988). However, it is a new record from the

Saurashtra coastline.

8. Turbinaria peltata (Esper, 1794)

Family: Dendrophylliidae (Gray, 1847)

Genus: Turbinaria (Oken, 1815)

Specimen: Turbinaria peltata (Esper, 1794)

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

103

LIVE CORAL SPECIES COLONIZING INTERTIDAL ZONES ALONG SOUTHERN SAURASHTRA

Synonym: Turbinaria dichotoma Verrill, 1871,

Turbinaria maxima Ortmann, 1888

Taxonomic references: Veron and Pichon (1980),

Veron (2000), Venkatraman and Satyanarayana (2012).

IUCN Red List Category (2014): Vulnerable.

Description: Colonies are encrusting or tubular,

thickened with budding margins. Corallites project outward

and average 6 mm diameter, calices circular. Polyps large,

tentacles usually extended during the day (Fig. 8).

Distribution: This species is found in the Red Sea,

Gulf of Aden, southwest, northwest and central Indian Ocean,

Arabian/Iranian Gulf, central Indo-Pacific and west Pacific

Ocean, Australia, southern Japan and South China Sea IUCN

2014). It was reported from Gulf of Kachchh (Pillai 1983;

Pillai and Patel 1988; Rashid 1985). However, this species

is a new record from the Saurashtra coast.

In the present study, seven coral species were recorded

from the intertidal zone of Diu, but the distributions of coral

colonies were uneven in upper, middle, and lower zones. A

single large colony of Montipora venosa from the middle

littoral zone and another large colony of Psammocora

vaughani from the lower littoral zone were recorded at Diu.

Numerous small (15—45 cm diameter) to large (0.6—1.2 m

diameter) colonies of Goniopora columna were distributed

unevenly in all three littoral zones. Most of the large colonies

of Turbinaria peltata were in the lower littoral zone; only one

colony (0.5—0.6 m diameter) was recorded from the middle

zone. Numerous small (S—20 cm diameter) colonies of Porites

lutea and P. stephensoni were recorded from the upper and

middle littoral zones. Small colonies (10—15 cm diameter)

of Pseudosiderastrea tayami were also found unevenly

distributed in the entire intertidal zone at Diu. On the other

hand, at Veraval, large colonies of Porites species were seen

even in the upper littoral zone, while small colonies were

found in the middle and lower littoral zones. Formation of

these coral species was found to be fairly widespread in this

area compared to others. This may be due to the presence

of small pools and puddles in the upper littoral zone even

during the lowest tide. Small (0.3—0.6 m diameter) to large

(0.9-1.5 m diameter) colonies of Psammocora superficialis,

and tiny, newly established colonies (10—15 cm diameter)

of Pseudosiderastrea tayami and Goniopora columna were

recorded in middle and lower intertidal zones. At Mangrol

coast, a few live colonies of Porites lutea, P. stephensoni, and

Pseudosiderastrea tayami were recorded from the middle

and lower littoral zones. The coastline exhibits abundant

growth of seaweed which might have created unfavourable

conditions for coral settlement. Widespread and small to large

colonies of Porites lutea and P. stephensoni were evenly

distributed in the entire littoral zone of Dwarka, and small

104

colonies (10-15 cm diameter) of Pseudosiderastrea tayami

and Goniopora columna were recorded in middle and lower

intertidal zones. Small (0.3—0.6 m diameter) colonies of

Psammocora superficialis were also recorded from middle

and lower littoral zones of Mangrol. Almost all the colonies

were of the encrusting type and the height of the colonies

rarely exceeded 5 cm, except for Montipora venosa and some

colonies of Goniopora columna.

DISCUSSION

In this report, eight scleractinian corals have been

identified as new records from the intertidal zones of south

Saurashtra, Gujarat. Out of the eight species recorded, seven

are from reef building (hermatypic) group. The occurrence

of the hermatypic corals along the western shores of India

indicates that these corals are adapted to wider fluctuations

in salinity and turbidity which they experience during the

monsoon (Vaghela et al. 2010). The growth of coral requires

uniform conditions of temperature, salinity, and turbidity.

Along the Saurashtra coastline, the seawater temperature

remains more or less uniform almost throughout the year.

However, small variations in salinity are observed during

monsoon (Bhadja and Kundu 2012). High level of turbidity

was also observed in the monsoon and postmonsoon, possibly

due to rainwater runoff during the south-west monsoon (Gohil

et al. 2011; Misra and Kundu 2005). The occurrence of

hermatypic corals in this intertidal zone is interesting because

of their adaptation to changes in salinity and turbidity.

From the size of the colonies observed in this area,

it is likely that the corals have been growing in these

areas for quite some time, and would have experienced

changes in environmental conditions. This indicates that

although corals typically require uniform conditions, they

can survive short spells of unfavourable changes in the

environment.

All the surveyed locations where corals were recorded

have luxurious growth of seaweeds. Strong wave action along

the coast possibly prevents the growth of branching types of

corals in this area. However, taking into account the slow

growth rate of reef building corals and the size and height

of the coral colonies, these colonies are probably not more

than 3-4 years old. An interesting study would be about the

possible origin of these coral colonies in this region. Since

some of the genera recorded are also found in the Gulf of

Kachchh, it is possible that planktonic plenula larvae might

have drifted and settled in the intertidal region of south

Saurashtra. However, the Gulf of Kachchh is too far to be

the possible source of these corals. The possibility of live

coral colonies in the subtidal regions as a source from where

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

LIVE CORAL SPECIES COLONIZING INTERTIDAL ZONES ALONG SOUTHERN SAURASHTRA

coral larvae might be migrating and colonizing the intertidal

zones needs examination.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to UGC, Govt. of India,

New Delhi, for supporting this study through its

DSA/Centre of Advanced Study Programme (CAS).

UGC is also thankfully acknowledged for a

Meritorious Research Fellowship awarded to the senior

author.

REFERENCES

BuapiA, P. (2010): Marine wealth of Saurashtra coast: spatial and

temporal variations in the seawater quality and its role in

intertidal assemblage and macrofaunal diversity around

anthropogenically influenced shores. Ph.D. Thesis, Saurashtra

University, Rajkot, India.

Buapsa, P. & R. Kunpbu (2012): Status of seawater quality at few

industrially important coasts of Gujarat (India) off Arabian Sea.

Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Science 41(1): 954-961.

Co gs, S.L. (1996): Corals of Oman. Keech, Samdani and Coles (publ),

Thorns, UK. 106 pp. http://www.bishopmuseum.org/research/

pbs/Oman-coral-book/.

Desal, A.Y. (1987): Ecological studies on the two intertidal hermit crabs,

Clibanarius zebra (Dana) and Clibanarius nathi (Chopra and

Das) from Veraval, West Coast of India. Ph.D. Thesis, Saurashtra

University, Rajkot, India.

DESHMUKHE, G., K. RAMAMOoRTHY & R. SEN GupTA (2000): On the coral

reefs of the Gulf of Kachchh. Curr. Sci. 79: 160-162.

Gout B., P. PortyA & R. Kunbu (2011): Status of intertidal macro faunal

and floral diversity of Dwarka Sea Coast in prospects of some

environmental factors. Bionano Frontier 4(2): 290-293.

Horne__, J. (1909): Marine Zoology of Okhamandal in Kattiawar.

Pp. 1-35. Jn: Hornell, J. (Ed.): Report to the Government of

Baroda on the marine zoology of Okhamandal, 1.

IUCN (2014): IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.1.

<www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on June 25, 2014.

MALLI, P.C. (1993): Ecological studies on two turbinid gastropod[s]

Turbo coronatus (Gmelin) and Turbo intercostalis (Manke)

from Saurashtra, west coast of India. Ph.D. Thesis, Saurashtra

University, Rajkot, India.

Misra, S. & R. Kunpu (2005): Seasonal variations in population

dynamics of key intertidal molluscs at two contrasting locations.

Aquatic Ecology 39: 315-324.

PateL, A.N. (1984): Ecological studies on two cerithiid gastropods],

Cerithium caeruleum (Sowerby) and Clypeomorus monoliferus

(Miener) from Saurashtra Coasts, India, Ph. D. Thesis, Saurashtra

University, India.

PaTeL, M.I. (1978): Generic diversity of Scleractinians around Poshitra

Point, Gulf of Kutch. Indian J. Mar. Sci. 7: 30-32.

Pate, M.I. (1985): Patchy corals of the Gulf of Kutch. Proc. Symp.

Endangered Marine Animals & Marine Parks 1: 411-413.

PATTERSON, EDWARD J.K., JAMILA PATTERSON, M. VENKATESH, G. MATHEWS,

C. CHELLARAM & DAN WILHELMSSON (2004): A Field Guide to

Stony Corals (Scleractinia) of Tuticorin in Gulf of Mannar,

Southeast coast of India. SDMRI Special Research Publication

No. 4. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of

India.

Pittal, C.S.G. (1983): Structure and generic diversity of recent

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Scleractinia of India. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India 25(1 & 2):

78-90.

PILLAI, C.S.G. (2010): A review of the status of corals and coral reefs

of India. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 80(4) (Suppl. 1):

53-56.

PILLal, C.S.G. & M.I. PAret (1988): Scleractinian corals from the Gulf

of Kutch. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. India 30: 54-74.

PortyA, P.U. (2010): Diversity and ecological status of Phylum

Coelenterata in a rocky intertidal shore of South Saurashtra

Coastline. M. Phil Thesis, Saurashtra University, Rajkot, India.

PRASAD, M.N. (1984): Ecological studies on two limpets Cellana

radiata (Born) and Siphonaria siphonaria (Sowerby) from

Saurashtra coast, India. Ph.D. Thesis, Saurashtra University,

Rajkot, India.

RAGHUNATHAN, C., R. SEN Gupta, U. WANGIKAR & J. LAKHMAPURKAR

(2004): A record of live corals along the Saurashtra coast of

Gujarat, Arabian Sea. Current Science 87(8): 1131-1138.

Rasuip, M.A. (1985): Gujarat’s Gulf of Kutch — A marine paradise.

Proc. Symp. Endangered Marine Animals & Marine Parks 1:

467-474.

VAGHELA, A.G. (2010): Spatial and temporal variations in population

dynamics of few key rocky intertidal macrofauna at

anthropogenically influenced intertidal shoreline. Ph.D. Thesis,

Saurashtra University, Rajkot, India.

VAGHELA, A.G., P. BHADJA, J. RAMOoLIYA, N. PATEL & R. Kunbu (2010):

Seasonal variations in the water quality, diversity and population

ecology of intertidal macrofauna at an industrially influenced

coast. Water Science and Technology 61(6): 1505-1514.

VENKATARAMAN, K. & CH. SATYANARAYANAN (2012): Coral Identification

Manual. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta. 136 pp.

VERON, J.E.N. (2000): Corals of the World. Volumes 1—3. Australian

Institute of Marine Science and CRR Qld. Pty. Ltd. Australia.

1382 pp.

VERON, J.E.N & M. PicHon (1976): Scleractinia of the Eastern Australia.

Part I. Families Thamnastriidae, Strococentidae, Pocilloporidae.

Australian Inst. Mar. Sci. Monogr. Ser. 1: 1-86. Townsville.

VERON, J.E.N. & M. PIcHOoN (1980): Scleractinia of Eastern Australia,

Part III. Families Agariciidae, Siderastreidae, Fungiidae,

Oculinidae, Merulinidae, Mussidae, Pectiniidae, Caryophylliidae,

Dendrophylliidae. Australian Inst. Mar. Sci. Monogr. Ser. 4:

1-422. Townsville.

VERON, J.E.N. & M. PicHon (1982): Scleractinia of Eastern Australia,

Part IV. Family Poritidae. Australian Inst. Mar. Sci. Monogr. Ser.

5: 1-159. Townsville.

VERON, J.E.N. & C. WALLACE (1984): Scleractinia of Eastern Australia,

Part V. Family Acroporidae. Australian Inst. Mar. Sci. Monogr.

Ser. 6: 1-485. Townsville.

105

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 111(2), May-August 2014 106-123

NEW RECORDS OF SEAWEEDS FROM THE GOA COAST, INDIA

N. PEREIRA’* AND M.R. ALMEIDA?

'c/o Abhijit Mazumder, Scientist, BSIP, 53, University Road, Lucknow 226 007, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Email: [email protected]

°1401, Eco-Tower, Opp. Patel Petrol Pump, Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400 062, Maharashtra, India.

Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/71736

A seasonal study on the occurrence of marine algae was conducted during 2008—2010 along 17 stations on the Goa

Coast. About 39 species have been reported for the first time, thereby forming new records for the Coast of Goa. This

paper gives a preliminary report of these species. An attempt to list the algae along with its taxonomic descriptions

and ecological notes has been made here.

Key words: Seaweeds, Goa Coast, new records, seasonal growth

INTRODUCTION

Goa is situated along the West Coast of India (14° 49' —

15° 52'N; 73° 38'— 74° 24' E), with a short coastline of about

120 km. It is segmented by estuaries, beaches, rocky shores,

cliffs, bays, and creeks. There are seven estuaries, three bays,

and 28 sandy as well as rocky beaches. The seaweeds along

the Goa coast have been studied extensively by Agadi and

Untawale (1978), Dhargalkar et al. (1981), Untawale and

Dhargalkar (1986), Agadi (1986), and Dhargalkar (1981,

2008). One of the early records of seaweeds along the Goa

coast enumerated about 50 species (Agadi and Untawale

1978), followed by 81 species recorded by Dhargalkar

(1981). Later, Agadi (1986) documented 77 species along

the Goa coast. The present study reports a larger number

of algae than previous studies, and agrees with Dhargalkar

(1981) and Agadi’s (1986) findings in ranking Rhodophyta

as the group with the highest number of species. In all,

154 species of seaweeds belonging to Cyanophyta, Rhodophyta,

Xanthophyta, Phaeophyta, and Chlorophyta were obtained in

this study (Table 1). Of these, 39 species have not been reported

earlier from the Goa coast, though their presence has been

documented along different parts of the Indian coast. Hence,

they are new records for the Goa region.

The growth of seaweeds is governed by environmental

factors, which are in turn influenced by different seasons

(Dhargalkar 1981). It was observed that algae show maximum

growth during winter. The nature of the substratum is an

important factor for seaweed growth. Stations having lateritic

rocks exhibited maximum growth of algae. Earlier studies

of seaweeds conducted along the Goa coast by Dhargalkar

(1981) and Agadi (1986) were restricted to 12 and 5 stations

respectively. In order to obtain a comprehensive idea about

the seaweed distribution along the Goa coast, more stations

Scale (km)

Fig. 1: Stations surveyed along the Goa coast

were added to the study area. In the present investigation,

17 stations were chosen to study seaweed distribution. Thus,

more seaweed species were found.

METHODOLOGY

The study area comprised 17 stations spanning the

entire coast of Goa. Terekhol, Chapora, Vagator, Anjuna,

NEW RECORDS OF SEAWEEDS FROM THE GOA COAST

Baga, Reis Magos, Dona Paula, and Siridao in northern Goa,

and Mormugao, Bogmalo, Holant, Betul, Cabo-de-Rama,

Palolem, Talpona, and Polem in southern Goa were chosen

for seaweed collection and seasonal studies (Fig. 1). In view

of its ecological importance, Chicalim Bay, was surveyed

once. Beaches with rocky shores were chosen for surveys,

as rocks form a suitable substratum for seaweeds (Srinivasan

1969). Seaweed collection done in different seasons helps

in determining variation in algal growth (Chennubothla

et al. 1987). Seaweeds were therefore collected during

three seasons: Pre-monsoon (March—June), Monsoon

(July-September), and Post-monsoon (October—February),

between October 2008 and September 2010, from the study

area. A stratified random sampling method was followed to

collect the seaweeds (Coppejans et al. 2009). Specimens

collected were preserved in the form of herbarium and also

in 4% seawater-formalin solution. The specimens were then

identified following Taylor (1960), Lawson and John (1982),

and Tseng (1983), followed by more recent literature (Barbara

2009; Coppejans et al. 2009; Jha et al. 2009).

Table 1: Seaweeds of the Goa coast

Sr. No. Species

Herbarium Voucher/ Sample No.

1 Chroococcus turgidus (Kutzing) Nageli MAEC/Goa/Cya/Sp.Jar 1

2 Lyngbya majuscula Harvey ex Gomont MAEC/Goa/Cya/001

3 Oscillatoria nigroviridis Thwaites ex Gomont MAEC/Goa/Cya/Sp.Jar 2

4 Leptolyngbya fragilis (Gom.) Anagnostidis & Komarek MAEC/Goa/Cya/Sp.Jar 3

5 Microcoleus chthonoplastes Thuret ex Gomont MAEC/Goa/Cya/002

6 Sirocoleum kurzii Gomont MAEC/Goa/Cya/Sp.Jar 4

Fi Trichormus variabilis (KUtzing ex Bornet & Flahault) Komarek & Anagnostidis MAEC/Goa/Cya/Sp.Jar 1

8 Scytonema rivulare Borzi ex Bornet & Flahault MAEC/Goa/Cya/Sp.Jar 5

9 Erythrocladia irregularis Rosenvinge MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 6

10 Porphyra crispata Kjellman MAEC/Goa/Rho/003

11 Pyropia suborbiculata (Kjellman) Sutherland, Choi, Hwang & Nelson MAEC/Goa/Rho/004

12 Porphyra vietnamensis T. Tanaka & Pham-Hoang Ho MAEC/Goa/Rho/005

13 Acrochaetium robustum Bgergesen MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 7

14 Ahnfeltia plicata (Hudson) Fries MAEC/Goa/Rho/006

15 Gelidium micropterum Kutzing MAEC/Goa/Rho/007

16 Gelidium pusillum (Stack.) Jolis MAEC/Goa/Rho/008

17 Pterocladia capillacea (Gmelin) Bornet MAEC/Goa/Rho/009

18 Gracilaria corticata (J. Ag.) J. Ag. MAEC/Goa/Rho/010

19 Gracilaria foliifera (Forsskal) Berges. MAEC/Goa/Rho/011

20 Gracilaria verrucosa (Huds.) Papenf. MAEC/Goa/Rho/012

Z| Grateloupia filicina (Lamour.) C. Ag. MAEC/Goa/Rho013

22 Grateloupia filicina (Lamour.) C. Ag. f. horrida (Kutz.) Borges. MAEC/Goa/Rho/014

23 Grateloupia lithophila Berges. MAEC/Goa/Rho/015

24 Peyssonnelia obscura Bosse var. bombayensis Berges. MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sample 1

25 Hildenbrandia rubra (Sommerfelt) Menegh. MAEC/Goa/Rho

26 Amphiroa anceps (Lamarck) Decaisne MAEC/Goa/Rho/016

27 Amphiroa fragilissima (L.) Lamour. MAEC/Goa/Rho/017

28 Amphiroa rigida Lamour. MAEC/Goa/Rho/018

29 Cheilosporum spectabile Harvey ex Grunow MAEC/Goa/Rho/019

30 Corallina officinalis L. MAEC/Goa/Rho/020

31 Hydrolithon farinosum (Lamour) Penrose & Chamber. MAEC/Goa/Rho/021

He Pi Hydrolithon reinboldii (Bosse & Foslie) Foslie

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sample 2

107

Sr. No.

108

NEW RECORDS OF SEAWEEDS FROM THE GOA COAST

Table 1: Seaweeds of the Goa coast (contd.)

Species

Jania rubens (L.) Lamour.

Lithophyllum orbiculatum (Foslie) Foslie

Mesophyllum erubescens (Foslie) Lemoine

Catenella caespitosa (Withering) L.Irvine

Chondracanthus acicularis (Roth) Fredericq

Hypnea flagelliformis Greville ex J. Ag.

Hypnea musciformis (Wulfen) Lamour.

Hypnea Spinella (C.Ag.) Kutz.

Hypnea valentiae (Turner) Mont.

Ahnfeltiopsis pygmaea (J. Ag.) P. Silva & DeCew

Champia compressa Harvey

Champia parvula (C. Ag.) Harvey

Gastroclonium compressum (Hollen.) Chang & B.Xia

Gelidiopsis variabilis (Greville ex J. Agardh) Schmitz

Antithamnion cruciatum (C. Ag.) Nageli

Centroceras clavulatum (C. Ag.) Montagne

Ceramium cimbricum H. Petersen

Ceramium cruciatum Collins & Hervey

Gayliella flaccida (Harv. ex Kutz.) Cho & Mclvor

Aglaothamnion tenuissimum (Bonnemaison) Feldmann-Mazoyer

Crouania attenuata (C. Ag.) J. Ag.

Ptilothamnion speluncarum (Coll. & Herv.) Ballan. & Wynne

Wrangelia argus (Montagne) Montagne

Dasya ocellata (Grateloup) Harvey

Caloglossa leprieurii (Montagne) G. Martens

Caloglossa ogasawaraensis Okamura

Erythroglossum lusitanicum Ardré

Hypoglossum hypoglossoides (Stack.) Collins & Hervey

Martensia fragilis Harvey

Acanthophora muscoides (L.) Bory

Acanthophora spicifera (Vahl) Berges.

Bostrychia radicans (Montagne) Montagne

Bostrychia tenella (Lamour.) J. Ag.

Chondria armata (Kutz.) Okamura

Chondria capillaris (Hudson) Wynne

Herposiphonia secunda (C. Ag.) Am. f. tenella (C. Ag.) Wynne

Laurencia obtusa (Hudson) Lamour.

Neosiphonia ferulacea (Suhr ex. J. Ag.) Guim. & Fujii

Polysiphonia atlantica Kapraun & Norris

Polysiphonia denudata (Dillwyn) Greville ex Harvey

Vaucheria longicaulis Hoppaugh

Herbarium Voucher/ Sample No.

MAEC/Goa/Rho/022

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sample 3

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sample 4

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 1

MAEC/Goa/Rho/023

MAEC/Goa/Rho/024

MAEC/Goa/Rho/025

MAEC/Goa/Rho/026

MAEC/Goa/Rho/027

MAEC/Goa/Rho/028

MAEC/Goa/Rho/029 7

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 6

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 7

MAEC/Goa/Rho/030

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 7

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 8

MAEC/Goa/Rho/031

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 9

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 10

MAEC/Goa/Rho/032

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 11

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 12

MAEC/Goa/Rho/033

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 13

MAEC/Goa/Rho/034

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 14

MAEC/Goa/Rho/035

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 15

MAEC/Goa/Rho/036

MAEC/Goa/Rho/037

MAEC/Goa/Rho/038

MAEC/Goa/Rho/039

MAEC/Goa/Rho/040

MAEC/Goa/Rho/041

MAEC/Goa/Rho/042

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 16

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 17

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 18

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 19

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 20

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 21

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Sr. No.

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

111

192

113

114

NEW RECORDS OF SEAWEEDS FROM THE GOA COAST

Table 1: Seaweeds of the Goa coast (contd. )

Species

Feldmannia indica (Sonder) Womersley & Bailey

Feldmannia irregularis (Kutz.) Hamel

Hincksia mitchellae (Harvey) Silva

Ralfsia verrucosa (Aresch.) Aresch.

Sphacelaria furcigera Kutz.

Canistrocarpus cervicornis (Kutz.) Paula et Clerck

Canistrocarpus crispatus (Lamour.) Paula et Clerck

Canistrocarpus magneanus (Clerck et Coppejans) Paula et Clerck

Dictyopteris australis (Sonders) Askenasy

Dictyota bartayresiana Lamour.

Dictyota ceylanica Kutz.

Dictyota ciliolata Sonder ex Kutzing

Dictyota dichotoma (Huds.) Lamour.

Dictyota divaricata Lamour.

Dictyota dumosa Berges.

Padina antillarum (Kutz.) Piccone

Padina australis Hauck

Padina boryana Thivy

Padina gymnospora (Kutz.) Sond.

Padina pavonica (L.) Thivy

Spatoglossum asperum J. Ag.

Spatoglossum variabile Figari & De Notaris

Stoechospermum polypodioides (Lamour.) J. Ag.

Chnoospora minima (Hering) Papentf.

Colpomenia sinuosa (Mert. ex Roth) Derbes et Solier

lyengaria stellata (Borges.) Berges.

Rosenvingea orientalis (J. Ag.) Borges.

Sargassum cinctum J. Ag.

Sargassum cinereum J. Ag.

Sargassum cinereum J. Ag. var. berberifolium Berges.

Sargassum crassifolium J. Ag.

Sargassum glaucescens J. Ag.

Sargassum ilicifolium (Turner) C. Ag.

Sargassum plagiophyllum C. Ag.

Sargassum polycystum C. Ag.

Sargassum prismaticum Chauhan

Sargassum swartzii C. Ag.

Sargassum tenerrimum J. Ag.

Sargassum vulgare C. Ag.

Gayralia oxysperma (KUutz.) Vinogradova ex Scagel

Ulva clathrata (Roth) C. Ag.

Herbarium Voucher/ Sample No.

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 22

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 23

MAEC/Goa/Rho/Sp.Jar 24

MAEC/Goa/Pha

MAEC/Goa/Pha/043

MAEC/Goa/Pha/044

MAEC/Goa/Pha/045

MAEC/Goa/Pha/046

MAEC/Goa/Pha/047

MAEC/Goa/Pha/048

MAEC/Goa/Pha/049

MAEC/Goa/Pha/050

MAEC/Goa/Pha/051

MAEC/Goa/Pha/052

MAEC/Goa/Pha/053

MAEC/Goa/Pha/054

MAEC/Goa/Pha/055

MAEC/Goa/Pha/056

MAEC/Goa/Pha/057

MAEC/Goa/Pha/058

MAEC/Goa/Pha/059

MAEC/Goa/Pha/060

MAEC/Goa/Pha/061

MAEC/Goa/Pha/062

MAEC/Goa/Pha/063

MAEC/Goa/Pha/064

MAEC/Goa/Pha/065

MAEC/Goa/Pha/066

MAEC/Goa/Pha/067

MAEC/Goa/Pha/068

MAEC/Goa/Pha/069

MAEC/Goa/Pha/070

MAEC/Goa/Pha/071

MAEC/Goa/Pha/072

MAEC/Goa/Pha/073

MAEC/Goa/Pha/074

MAEC/Goa/Pha/075

MAEC/Goa/Pha/076

MAEC/Goa/Pha/077

MAEC/Goa/Chi/078

MAEC/Goa/Chi/079

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

109

NEW RECORDS OF SEAWEEDS FROM THE GOA COAST

Table 1: Seaweeds of the Goa coast (contd. )

Sr. No. Species Herbarium Voucher/ Sample No.

115 Ulva compressa L. MAEC/Goa/ChI/080

116 Ulva conglobata Kjellman MAEC/Goa/Chl/081

117 Ulva flexuosa Wulfen MAEC/Goa/Chl/082

118 Ulva intestinalis L. MAEC/Goa/ChI/083

119 Ulva lactuca L. MAEC/Goa/Chl/084

120 Ulvarigida C. Ag. MAEC/Goa/Chl/085

121 Ulva taeniata (Setch.) Setch. et Gardn. MAEC/Goa/Chl/086

122 | Chaetomorpha antennina (Bory) Kutz. MAEC/Goa/ChI/087

123 | Chaetomorpha linum (Muller) Kutz. MAEC/Goa/Chl/088

124 | Chaetomorpha spiralis Okam. MAEC/Goa/ChlI/Sp.Jar 25

125 | Cladophora bombayensis Borges. MAEC/Goa/Chl/Sp.Jar 26

126 Cladophora coelothrix Kutz. MAEC/Goa/Chl/Sp.Jar 27

127 Cladophora glomerata (L.) Kutz. MAEC/Goa/Chl/Sp.Jar 28

128 Cladophora herpestica (Mont.) Kutz. MAEC/Goa/Chil/089

129 Cladophora lehmanniana (Lindenberg) Kutz. MAEC/Goa/Chl/Sp.Jar 29

130 Cladophora prehendens Kraft & Millar MAEC/Goa/Chl/Sp.Jar 30

131 Cladophora prolifera (Roth) Kutz. MAEC/Goa/Chi/090

132 Cladophora rhizocloniodea Hoek & Womersley MAEC/Goa/Chl/091

133 Cladophora saracenica Borges. MAEC/Goa/Chi/Sp.Jar 31

134 Cladophora socialis Kutz. MAEC/Goa/Chil/092

135 Cladophora vagabunda (L.) Hoek MAEC/Goa/Chi/093

136 Rhizoclonium riparium (Roth) Harv. MAEC/Goa/Chi/094

137 Rhizoclonium tortuosum (Dill.) Kutz. MAEC/Goa/ChI/095

138 | Boodlea composita (Harvey) Brand MAEC/Goa/Chi/Sp.Jar 32

139 | Cladophoropsis sundanensis Reinbold MAEC/Goa/Chil/096

140 Phyllodictyon anastomosans (Harvey) Kraft & Wynne MAEC/Goa/Chi/097

141 + Valoniopsis pachynema (Martens) Berges. MAEC/Goa/Chi/098

142 Bryopsis hypnoides Lamour. MAEC/Goa/Chi/099

143 Bryopsis pennata Lamour. MAEC/Goa/Chi/100

144 Bryopsis plumosa (Hudson) C. Ag. MAEC/Goa/Chl/101

145 Caulerpa peltata Lamour. MAEC/Goa/Chil/102

146 Caulerpa racemosa (Forsskal) J. Ag. MAEC/Goa/Chi/103

147 Caulerpa scalpelliformis (Brown ex Turner) C. Ag. MAEC/Goa/Chl/104

148 Caulerpa sertularioides (Gmelin) Howe MAEC/Goa/ChI/105

149 Caulerpa sertularioides f. brevipes (J. Ag.) Svedelius MAEC/Goa/Chl/106

150 Caulerpa sertularioides f. longiseta (Bory) Sved. MAEC/Goa/Chl/107

151. Caulerpa verticillata J. Ag. MAEC/Goa/Chil/108

152 Avrainvillea erecta (Berkeley) A. Gepp & E. Gepp MAEC/Goa/Chl/109

153 Boodleopsis pusilla (Coll.)Taylor, Joly & Bernatowicz MAEC/Goa/ChlI/Sp.Jar 33

154 Chlorodesmis hildebrandtii A. Gepp & E. Gepp MAEC/Goa/ChlI/Sp.Jar 34

110 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

NEW RECORDS OF SEAWEEDS FROM THE GOA COAST

RESULTS

In all, 154 species were identified, of which

39 species were found to be new to the Goa coast, including

19 rhodophytes, 1 xanthophyte, 6 phaeophytes, and

13 chlorophytes. Several species mentioned here have been

reported from different parts of India along the east and

west coasts (Sahoo ef al. 2001). Though some species such

as Cladophora herpestica, Cladophoropsis sundanensis,

and others were found to occur in the neighbouring Konkan

region, they were not reported from Goa and hence form

new records. This study resulted in the preparation of

24 herbarium specimens, 12 samples preserved in formalin

and 3 specimens as dry forms (Table 2). All the specimens

are deposited at the Magdelin Almeida Environmental Centre

(MAEC) at Sawantwadi.

Species account

1. Porphyra crispata Kjellman, Bih. Kongl. Svenska

Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 23 (Afd. III, 4: 15, t. 1, f. 4, 5; t. 3,

f. 5—7; t. 5, f. 15, 1897; Anil Kumar et al. Seaweed Res. Util.

17(1&2): 37-50, 1995.

Phyllona crispata (Kjellman) Kuntze, Rev. Gen.

t. 3(3): 420, 1898.

Type locality: Goto-retto, Nagasaki Prefecture, Japan

(fide Silva 2012).

Diagnosis: Thalli membranous, light purple to greenish

hued, monostromatic, ovate or reniform, caespitose, often

laciniated, 2—5 cm tall, 2-4 cm broad with dentate edge,

basal part cordate or umbilicate. Vegetative cells with stellate

chromatophore. Monoecious plant with both spermatangial

and carposporangial regions on the same margin.

Material examined: Two specimens.

Season: Monsoon.

Habitat: Intertidal rock surface.

Distribution: Bogmalo.

Remark: According to algaebase.org, this species

could be referred as a taxonomic synonym of Monostroma

nitidum Wittrock.

2. Pyropia suborbiculata (Kjellman) J.E. Sutherland,

H.G. Choi, M.S. Hwang & W.A. Nelson, J. Phycol. 47(5):

1131-1151, 2011.

Porphyra suborbiculata Kjellman 1897 Bih. Kongl.

Svenska Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 23 (Afd. III, 4): 10, pl. 1:

figs. 1-3; pl. 2: figs. 5—9; pl. V: figs. 4-7, 1897. Anil Kumar

et al., Seaweed Res. Util. 17(1&2): 37-50, 1995; Sahoo

et al., Seaweeds of the Indian Coast 283, 2001.

Type locality: Goto-retto, Nagasaki, Japan (fide Silva

2012).

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Diagnosis: Plants membranous, gregarious, greenish

purple; attached by small rhizoids; blade monostromatic,

ovate to reniform, 3—4 cm in diameter; margin undulate,

with small, spinulose processes which are not in the same

plane as the blade; presence of a minute basal stipe. Cells

in surface view angular with rounded corners, isodiametric

in transverse section, 28—35 um in diameter, slightly higher

than broad, containing a stellate plast with central pyrenoid.

Plants monoecious, sori of deep red carpogonia and yellowish

spermatangia in irregular patches (sori) arranged along the

margin of the frond.

Material examined: Two specimens.

Season: Monsoon.

Habitat: Epilithic in the supralittoral fringe of rock

outcrops exposed to extreme surf; only present in the wet

season.

Distribution: Palolem.

3. Gelidium micropterum Kitzing, Tab. Phycol. 21,

t. 59: f. c-g, 1868; Borgesen, J. Indian Bot. Soc. 17: 205-242,

t. 7. f. 3, 1938; Untawale et al. Indian J. Mar. Sci. 18: 73-81,

t. 2, f. 3, 1989; Jha et al. Diversity Distr. Seaweeds Guj.

Coast 215, 2009.

Type locality: South Africa: Cape of Good Hope (fide

Silva 2012).

Diagnosis: Plants dark red in colour, 5 cm tall, growing

as tufts or patches, cartilaginous, flattened, 0.2—0.5 mm broad

with blunt apices, branching bi- to tri-pinnate or sometimes

irregular, tetrasporangia confined to short swollen fertile tips,

cystocarps swollen and sub-spherical, giving the branches a

roundish appearance.

Material examined: Four specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Found horizontally on rocks at low water

level of the coast.

Distribution: Chapora, Baga, Reis Magos, Talpona.

4. Peyssonnelia obscura Weber-van Bosse var.

bombayensis Borgesen, Biol. Meddel. Kongel. Danske

Vidensk. Selsk. 12(2): 44-47, f. 18, 19, 1935; Umamaheshwara

Rao & Sreeramulu, Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 63: 23—45, f. 65, 1970;

Jha et al. Diversity Distr. Seaweeds Guj. Coast 215, 2009.

Type locality: Malabar Hill, Bombay (now Mumbai),

India (fide Bergesen 1935).

Diagnosis: Thalli deep rose red on the upper surface

and smooth, crustose, orbicular, growing on old subtidal coral

fragments. The crust 1-3 cm broad adheres by numerous

short, unicellular rhizoids given out from hypothallium. In

transverse section, the central part is about 4 cells thick,

hypothallium composed of one layer of rectangular cells.

111

NEW RECORDS OF SEAWEEDS FROM THE GOA COAST

Material examined: Two specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Occurs in the lower eulittoral zone.

Distribution: Talpona.

Remark: According to algaebase.org, this species 1s

currently considered as a taxonomic synonym of Peyssonnelia

obscura Weber-van Bosse.

5. Amphiroa rigida Lamouroux, Histoire des polypiers

coralligenes flexibles, vulgairement nommeés zoophytes:

297, t. 11, f. 1, 1816; Untawale & Jagtap, Aquatic Botany

19: 97-103, t. 1, f. 3, 1984; Jagtap, Jn: Marine Plants

(Eds: Krishnamurty, V. & A.G. Untawale), 43—50. t. 1, f. 4,

1985.

Type locality: Mediterranean Sea (fide Silva et al.

1996)...

Diagnosis: Plants about 2—10 cm tall, bushy, chalky-

pink to purplish-pink, composed of erect axes that are

complanate, di- to trichotomously branched; attached

by a crustose holdfast; branch apices rounded to blunt;

intergenicula cylindrical to compressed, fairly uniform in

width, sometimes tapering slightly basally, rectangular in

shape, 2-8 mm long, 0.5—2 mm in diameter, with surfaces

covered in wart-like reproductive capsules. Reproductive

structures borne in hemispherical conceptacles on the surface

of intergenicula.

Material examined: Four specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Epilithic, rarely epiphytic, mostly in the

subtidal, occurring to 34 m depth but also found in intertidal

rock pools.

Distribution: Cabo-de-Rama, Palolem.

6. Hydrolithon farinosum (Lamouroux) Penrose &

Chamberlain, Phycologia 32: 295, 302, 1993; Sahoo et al.

Seaweeds of the Indian Coast 283, 2001.

Melobesia farinosa Lamouroux, Hist. Polyp.: 315,

t. 12, f.3, 1816; Balakrishnan, J. Ind. Bot. Soc., 47: 305-319,

1946; Krishnamurthy & Joshi, A Checklist of Marine Algae,

36, 1970. |

Fosliella farinosa (Lamouroux) Howe, The Bahama

flora: 587, 1920; Umamaheshwara Rao & Sreeramulu, Bot.

J. Linn. Soc. 63: 23-45, f. 65, 1970; Untawale et al., List of

marine algae from India 42, f. 36, 1983.

Type locality: Mediterranean Sea (fide Chamberlain

1983).

Diagnosis: Plants generally forming small, circular

disks about 5 mm to 10 mm in width, 1 cell thick in sterile

plants and 3 cells thick in fruiting portions, showing radiating

rows of cells and frequently colourless, slightly elongated

112

heterocyst cells; sporangial and cystocarpic conceptacles

140 to 250 um in diameter.

Material examined: Five specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Occurs as pink spots on the surface of larger

brown algae in the eulittoral zone up to a depth of 15 m.

Distribution: Talpona.

7. Hydrolithon reinboldii (Weber-van Bosse &

Foslie) Foslie, K. Norske Vid. Selsk. Skr. 1909(2): 55, 1909;

Desikachary & Ganesan, Phykos, 5: 83-90, f.13, 1967;

Krishnamurthy & Jayagopal, Seaweed Res. Util., 10: 81-96,

f. 30, 1987; Sahoo et al. Seaweeds of the Indian Coast 283,

2001.

Lithophyllum reinboldii Weber-van Bosse & Foslie in

Foslie, K. Norske Vid. Selsk. Skr. 1901(1): 5, 1901.

Goniolithon reinboldii (Weber-van Bosse & Foslie)

Weber-van Bosse & Foslie in Foslie, Siboga-Exped. Monogr.

61: 49-51, t. 10, f. 21, 3-5, 1904.

Porolithon reinboldii (Weber-van Bosse & Foslie)

Lemoine, Ann. Inst. Oceanogr. [Monaco] 2(2): 166-169,

1911.

Spongites reinboldii (Weber-van Bosse & Foslie)

D. Penrose & W.J. Woelkerling, Phycologia 27: 173, t. 2,

1988.

Type locality: Muaras Reef, Borneo Bank, Indonesia.

(fide Silva et al. 1996).

Diagnosis: The thallus is characterized by a pale

egreyish-blue-violet to pale bluish-violet rough-textured large

knobbed surface, having 5—10 cm in diam., occurs either as a

calcareous crust on dead limestone reef or ranges from small

fragments up to fist-sized nodules. Hypothalltum comprised

of vertically elongated cells about 10-15 um in diam.,

perithallium composed of irregularly rounded cells of 16—

25 um in diam. Nodules are formed (as are the nodules of other

crustose coralline seaweeds) when the spores of the seaweed

settle on and grow over loose reef rubble fragments that are

rolled about by waves or surge as the seaweed grows.

Material examined: Two specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Occurs over the entire reef flat, extending

into waters 20 m deep.

Distribution: Baga.

8. Mesophyllum erubescens (Foslic) Lemoine, Bull.

Soc. Bot. France 75: 252, 1928; Tseng, Common seaweeds

of China 316, 1983.

Lithothamnion erubescens Foshe, K. Norske Vid.

Selsk. Skr. 1899 (5): 9, 1900; Untawale et al., List of marine

algae from India, 42, f. 36, 1983.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

NEW RECORDS OF SEAWEEDS FROM THE GOA COAST

Type locality: Chaloup Bay, Fernando de Noronha

(fide Silva et al. 1996).

Diagnosis: Thin, dark pink somewhat leafy crust

measuring about 5—7 cm, surface usually non-lustrous,

undulate, sometimes developing random low knobs.

Epithallium single layer of rounded cells, 3—4 um long

and 4-7 um in diam. Intercalary meristem elongate; cells

4—5 um long and 5—6 um in diam. Perithalltum multilayered,

irregular; cells somewhat square, 2—10 wm long and 3—9 um in

diam. Hypothallium weakly coaxial 20—60 um thick; cells 7—

27 um long and 5-12 um in diam. Tetrasporangial

conceptacles multipored, low and rounded domes, epithallium

persistent.

Material examined: Five specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Found on huge rocks in low tide zones.

Distribution: Cabo-de-Rama.

Remark: According to Athanasiadis and Ballantine

(2014), this species is a taxonomic synonym of Melyvonnea

erubescens (Foslie).

9. Chondracanthus acicularis (Roth) Fredericq in

Hommersand et al., Hydrobiologia 260/261: 117, 1993;

Sahoo et al., Seaweeds of the Indian Coast 283, 2001; Jha

et al., Diversity Distr. Seaweeds Guy. Coast 215, 2009.

Fucus acicularis Wulfen, Crypt. Aquat.: 63, 1803.

nom.illeg.

Ceramium aciculare Roth, Cat. Bot. 3: 114, 1806.

Gigartina acicularis (Roth) Lamouroux, Ann. Mus.

Hist. Nat. [Paris] 20: 136, 1813; Sreenivasa Rao & Kale,

Phykos, 8: 71—82, f. 35, 1970; Bergesen, Dan. Vidensk. Selsk.

Biol. Med. 12: 64, 1935; Untawale et al., List of marine algae

from India, 42, f. 36, 1983.

Sphaerococcus acicularis (Roth) C. Agardh, Syn.

Hi1l6, 417.

Mamillaria acicularis (Roth) Kuntze, Rev. Gen. t. 2:

902, 1981.

Type locality: Adriatic Sea (fide Silva et al. 1996).

Diagnosis: Plants forming clumps or mats, dark

purple or reddish brown, 3—5 cm tall, branching irregularly

dichotomous or pinnate, secund; branches terete or subterete

towards apices, 2 mm in diameter, partly procumbent with

ultimate branches often recurved and forming attachment

discs on contacting the substratum.

Material examined: 25 specimens.

Season: Monsoon and Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Occurs as cushion-like clumps on wave

exposed rocks in lower parts of upper eulittoral subzone.

Distribution: Chapora, Vagator, Anjuna, Baga,

Reis Magos, Dona Paula, Siridao, Mormugao, Bogmalo,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Holant, Betul, Cabo-de-Rama, Palolem, Polem, Chicalim

Bay.

10. Hypnea flagelliformis Greville ex J. Ag., Sp. Alg.

446, 1851; Borgesen, J. Indian Bot. Soc. 17: 205—242, t. 7,

f. 3, 1938; Untawale et al., List of marine algae from India,

42, f. 36, 1983; Kaliaperumal et al., Seaweed Res. Util., 14:

103-107, t. 1, 1992; Jha et al., Diveristy Distr. Seaweeds

Guj. Coast 215, 2009.

Hypnophycus flagelliformis (Greville ex J. Agardh)

Kuntze, Revisio generum plantarum, 900, 1891.

Type locality: “ad littus Hindostaniae” [India] (fide

Silva et al. 1996).

Diagnosis: Plants often solitary or in loose clumps,

8—16 cm long, branches | mm diameter, irregularly divided

few times near base, gradually attenuate towards tips;

branchlets absent in uppermost parts of branches, long and

sometimes divided near the base of branches, becoming

shorter and spine-like towards branch tips.

Material examined: Four specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Occurs on moderately wave exposed rocks

in the lower subzone and becomes abundant in case of wave

surge.

Distribution: Anjuna, Baga.

11. Ahnfeltiopsis pygmaea (J. Agardh) P.C. Silva &

DeCew, Phycologia 31: 578, 1992; Sahoo et al., Seaweeds

of the Indian Coast 283, 2001.

Gymnogongrus pygmaeus J. Agardh, Sp. Alg. 2: 317,

1851; Krishnamurthy & Joshi, A Checklist of Marine Algae,

36, 1970; Kalimuthu et al., Seaweed Res. Util. 15: 119-126,

ts af) 2992:

Type locality: India (fide Coppejans et al. 2009).

Diagnosis: Plant gregarious, growing in isolated

bushy clusters; well-developed specimens are densely

intricated; attachment by means of discoid holdfasts;

thalli erect, 2—2.5 cm high, of rubbery texture, cylindrical

at the base, slightly compressed higher up, 0.5 mm in

diameter, repeatedly dichotomously branched in a single

plane; marginal proliferations absent; dark red. Medulla

pseudoparenchymatous with all cells approximately of the

same size and shape, cortex thick and composed of radially

arranged filaments of small cells. Cystocarps intercalary on

slightly widened parts of branches often situated proximal

to a dichotomy, deeply embedded in branches, with multiple

carpostomes.

Material examined: Two specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Sloping rock surfaces along surf-exposed

143

NEW RECORDS OF SEAWEEDS FROM THE GOA COAST

coasts, at about mid-intertidal; continuously waveswept.

Distribution: Chapora, Polem.

12. Antithamnion cruciatum (C. Agardh) Nageli, Neue

Denkschr. Allg. Schweiz. Ges. Gesammten Naturwiss. 9[2]:

202, 1847; Borgesen, F. Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes

Selskab. Biologiske Meddelelser. Kobenhaven, 159, 1930;

Subramanian, Marine Plants (Eds: Krishnamurthy, V. &

A.G. Untawale) 191-204, f. 51, 1985; Sahoo et al., Seaweeds

of the Indian Coast 283, 2001.

Calithamnion cruciatum C. Agardh, Flora 10: 637,

1827.

Type locality: Trieste, Italy (fide Silva et al. 1996).

Diagnosis: Plants tufted, height up to 3 cm, colour dull

rose red, alternately and sparingly divided, branches long,

at the tips branchlets densely tufted or appearing ocellate-

congested; main axis below 50—90 um in diam., cells 90—

300 um long; lateral branches short, spreading, of even

length, opposite in alternately placed pairs; branchlets

alternate, in 2 rows; tetrasporangia sessile or briefly stalked,

75—85 um long, 50-55 um in diam, mostly on the upper side

of the short branches.

Material examined: Five specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Found on stones and coarse algae.

Distribution: Dona Paula, Chicalim Bay Island.

13. Gayliella flaccida (Harvey ex Kiutzing) Cho

& Mclvor in T.O. Cho, S.M. Boo, M.H. Hommersand,

C.A. Maggs, L. Mclvor & S. Fredericq, J. Phycol. 44: 723,

2008; Fernandez-Garcia et al., Bot. Mar. 54: 53—73, 2011.

Ceramium flaccidum (Kitzing) Ardissone, Nuovo

Giorn. Bot. Ital. 3: 40, 1871; Sahoo et al., Seaweeds of the

Indian Coast 283, 2001.

Hormoceras flaccidum Kiutzing, Tab. Phycol. 12: 21,

t. 69: f. a-d, 1862.

Ceramium gracillimum Griffiths & Harvey ex Harvey,

1848, Gomez Garreta et al., Bot. Mar. 44: 425-460, 2001;

Beorgesen, Bull. Misc. Info., Royal Bot. Garden 30, 1934.

Ceramium masonii E.Y. Dawson, Farlowia 4: 126—127,

t: (Zit; 11, 1251958:

Type locality: Kilkee, County Clare, Ireland (fide

Silva 2012).

Diagnosis: Plants forming small tufts, about 5 cm

tall; branches alternately or dichotomously divided, apices

forcipate; nodal bands 130 um in diameter, 70 wm in length,

consisting of lowermost row of quadrate or angular cells,

separated by a clear space from a row of large, elongated

cells, gland cells present, axial cells 3-4 times longer than

broad; tetrasporangia often prominent and whorled.

114

Material examined: Ten specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Occurs with other species of Ceramium found

growing on crustose coralline algae on the lower eulittoral

subzone.

Distribution: Dona Paula, Mormugao, Holant, Cabo-

de-Rama, Palolem, Talpona, Polem.

14. Crouania attenuata (C. Agardh) J. Agardh, Alg.

Mar. Medit.: 83, 1842; Untawale et al., List of marine algae

from India, 42, f. 36, 1983.

Mesogloia attenuata C. Agardh, Syst. Alg.: 51, 1824.

Type locality: France: Brittany (fide Silva 2012).

Diagnosis: Plants 1—1.5 cm high, either tufted or

entangled with other algae, filaments 0.2—0.3 mm diam.,

much branched, tetraspores single, on the basal cell of the

fascicle of the ramul1.

Material examined: Four specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Common on stone or brickwork or on larger

algae in shallow water.

Distribution: Dona Paula, Chicalim Bay.

15. Wrangelia argus (Montagne) Montagne, Sylloge

Generum Specierumque Cryptogamarum: 444, 1856;

Bergesen, J. Indian Bot. Soc., 16: 311-357, f. 20, 1937;

Umamaheshwara Rao & Sreeramulu, Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 63:

23-45, f. 65, 1970; Chauhan & Mairh, Salt Res. Ind. 14(2):

21-41, t. 11, f. 5, 1978.

Griffithsia argus Montagne, Histoire Naturelle des Iles

Canaries: 176, t. 8, f. 4, 1841.

Type locality: Roque del Gando, Islas Canarias (fide

Silva et al. 1996).

Diagnosis: Thalli purplish red-green often iridescent,

turf-like colonies, soft texture, 1—-1.5 cm tall; Main axis

percurrent, alternately and pinnately branched, 0.45 to

6 mm in diam., with internodes 2—3 diameters in length, lower

portions of axis and main branches covered with cortical

layer formed by rhizoidal filaments. Younger portions not

corticated, branches verticillate. Tetrasporangia sessile, borne

on verticillate branches, tetrahedrally divided, spherical to

ovoid.

Material examined: Single specimen.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Found on corals and coral debris subtidally

between 4 and 30 m depth.

Distribution: Dona Paula.

16. Dasya ocellata (Grateloup) Harvey, Brit. Fl. 335,

1833; Untawale et a/., List of marine algae from India, 42,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

NEW RECORDS OF SEAWEEDS FROM THE GOA COAST

f. 36, 1983; Sahoo et al., Seaweeds of the Indian Coast. 283,

2001.

Ceramium ocellatum Grateloup, Descriptiones

aliquorum Ceramiorum novorum, cum iconum

explicationibus.1806: f. 2, 1806.

Hutchinsia ocellata (Grateloup) C. Agardh, Syst. 157,

1824.

Type locality: Sete, Herault, France (fide Silva

2012).

Diagnosis: Plants bushy, reddish purple, 2 cm tall,

lightly to densely branched, sparingly alternate branching;

axes heavily corticated; ramelli irregularly disposed over

the cortex, dichotomously branched, attenuate towards

tips; stichidia on 1-2 celled stalks on the lower divisions

of ramelli.

Material examined: Two specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Shallow water plant, growing on mangrove

roots or Sargassum plants.

Distribution: Dona Paula.

17. Caloglossa ogasawaraensis Okamura, Bot. Mag.

[Tokyo] 11: 12, text-figs. A-D, 1897; Sahoo et al., Seaweeds

of the Indian Coast 283, 2001.

Delesseria zanzibariensis K.1.Goebel, Flora, 85: 67,

f. 1-6, 1898.

Caloglossa zanzibariensis (Goebel) De Toni, Syll.

Alg. 4: 731, 1900.

Caloglossa bombayensis Bergesen, Bull. Misc. Inform.

[Kew] 1933: 127-129, f. 10-12, 1933; Lewis, Checklist and

bibliography of benthic marine macroalgae recorded from

northern Australia I. Rhodophyta. 1-98, 1984; Krishnamurthy

& Joshi, A Checklist of Marine Algae, 36, 1970; Chaugule &

Gunale, M.V.M. Patrika, 16 (1&2): 5-14, 1981.

Type locality: Bonin Islands, Japan (fide Silva

2012).

Diagnosis: Thallus brown-red, forming loose entangled

mats 5—10 mm thick, composed of slightly arching, flat, linear

branches 100—200 um broad, internodes 1-4 mm long between

slightly constricted nodes; attached by uniseriate rhizoids.

Growth apical, with a dome-shaped apical cell cutting off

axial cells and lateral and transverse pericentral cells;

secondary pit-connections frequent. Blades monostromatic

apart from the midrib, margins entire. Branching of blades

exogenous near apices with adventitious proliferous blades

arising from nodal pericentral cells. Gametophytes dioecious;

Cystocarps sessile, ovoid. Spermatangial sori produced on

both sides of the blades.

Material examined: Two specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Habitat: Epiphytic on Avicennia pneumatophores or

on mud below mangroves.

Distribution: Chicalim Bay.

18. Erythroglossum lusitanicum Ardré, Portugaliae

Acta Biologica sér. B, 10: 137-555, 1970; Barbara et al.,

Anales del Jardin Botanico de Madrid 62: 69-100, 2005;

Araujo et al., Botanica Marina 52: 2446, 2009; Barbara,

Algas Bentonicas Marinas Y Salobres De Galicia: Indice

429, 2009.

Type locality: Buarcos, Portugal (fide Guiry & Guiry

2012).

Diagnosis: Thallus membranous, flattened, with

pinkish red fronds, measuring c. 3—4 cm, arising from a

discoid base bearing a stipe, from which arise irregular

lateral elongate proliferations and erect ovate to oblanceolate

blades with a midrib. The lobes are deeply cleft into wedge-

shaped segments about 0.4 cm in breadth at the base.

Blades simple and ovate-oblanceolate. Presence of a faint

midrib, veins anastomosing, microscopic veins present in

young parts. Some proliferations have discrete patches of

rhizoids, and thalli form elaborate creeping rhizomatous

bases. As a mode of regeneration, old blades bear young

blades irregularly located along margins of basal parts and

on broken tips. Thallus usually alternately branched and

produces proliferations from margin.

Material examined: Three specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Grows on sand-covered rocks in exposed

sites.

Distribution: Mormugao, Polem.

Remark: This species was confirmed with the help

of Barbara’s (2009) description. The plant differs from

Hypoglossum, a similar plant, due to the presence of

proliferations from the margins and not the midrib. This is

the first record of this species for the Indian Coast.

19. Herposiphonia secunda (C. Agardh) Ambronn

forma tenella (C. Agardh) Wynne, Cryptogamie: Algologie

32473; 1985.

Hutchinsia tenella C. Agardh, Sp. Alg. 2: 105, 1828.

Polysiphonia tenella (C. Agardh) Moris & De Notaris,

Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, ser.

2,25 26041839,

Herposiphonia tenella (C. Agardh) Ambronn, Bot.

Zeit. 38: 197, 1880; Taylor, Mar. Algae East. Trop. Subtrop.

Coasts Amer. 870, t. 80, 1960; Papenfuss, Israel Journal of

Botany 17: 1-118, t. 1, map 1, 1968; Abbott & Hollenberg,

Marine Algae of California, 827, 1976; Untawale et al., List

of marine algae from India, 42, f. 36, 1983.

115

NEW RECORDS OF SEAWEEDS FROM THE GOA COAST

Type locality: Sicily (fide Silva 2012).

Diagnosis: Plant small, about 1—2 cm tall, closely

attached to the substratum, usually forming close mats; colour

purplish; branching of main axis irregularly alternate, apices

slightly upcurved; axes 100—150 um in diameter, either an

erect ramulus or an indefinite branch, 1 to 3 ramuli alternating

with an indefinite branch; ramuli 35 to 45 segments, 5—7 mm

long, 65—90 um diameter, with 12 to 14 pericentral siphons;

tetrasporangia in a long series on the ramulus.

Material Examined: 10 specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon. _

Habitat: Found as tufts in crevices of rocks in midtidal

zone.

Distribution: Vagator, Anjuna, Baga, Polem.

20. Vaucheria longicaulis Hoppaugh, American

Journal of Botany 17: 329-347, t.24—-27, f. 2, 1930; Silva

et al., Cat. Benthic Marine Algae Indian Ocean. 79: 1,259,

1996.

Type locality: Eckhorn Slough, Monterey County,

California (fide Silva 2012).

Diagnosis: Thalli made up of green mats consisting

of microscopic siphons. Oogonia form club-like terminal

swellings on vegetative filaments. Asexual sporangia

(aplanosporangia) resemble oogonia but have a smaller

diameter and increase gradually from the width of the

vegetative filaments. The asexual sporangia are wider than

the oogonia, ranging between 80 and 170 um. Antheridia

are cylindrical.

Material examined: Single specimen.

Season: Monsoon.

Habitat: Found on intertidal mud flats or below low

tide level. A rare alga; has been reported from Siridao during

monsoon.

Distribution: Siridao.

21. Dictyota ceylanica Kitzing, Tab. Phycol. 9: 11,

t. 25, f. I, 1859; Misra, In: Proc. Sem. Sea, Salt & Plants

(Ed.: Krishnamurthy, V.), 227—233, 1967; De Clerck, Opera

Bot. Belg. 13: 205, 2003; Coppejans et al., Sri Lankan

Seaweeds. 6: 1-8, 1-265, 2009.

Type locality: Sri Lanka (fide Silva et al. 1996).

Diagnosis: Thalli iridescent or non-iridescent and tan

to muddy brown, 1.5—6.5 cm tall. Erect. Axes dichotomous

in regular fashion or anisotomous, but never resulting in

an alternate branching pattern, 0.5 to 2 mm wide below,

gradually or abruptly extending distally or as marginal

filiform proliferations; surface proliferations absent.

Material examined: Single specimen.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Mostly found in rock pools of the midlittoral

region. Exposed rocky areas harbour smaller forms, whereas

larger, less entangled forms are found in sheltered areas.

Distribution: Anjuna.

22. Dictyota ciliolata Sonder ex Kiitzing, Tab. Phycol.

12, t. 27, f. I, 1859; Misra, In: Proc. Sem. Sea, Salt & Plants

(Ed.: V. Krishnamurthy), 227-233, 1967; Chaugule & Gunale,

M.V.M. Patrika, 16 (1&2): 5-14, 1981; Untawale et al., List of

marine algae from India, 42, f. 36, 1983; Jha et al., Diveristy

Distr. Seaweeds Guj. Coast 215, 2009.

Type locality: La Guaira, Venezuela (fide Silva et al.

1996).

Diagnosis: Plants yellowish brown, 15—20 cm in

length, membranous, ribbon-like, upper parts regularly

dichotomously branched with a cuneate disc at base. Branches

uniformly broad, apices acute to sub-acute, forking angles

between branches are round. Margins of branches possess

small ascending projections.

Material examined: 12 specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Found on rocks and coralline stones in the

intertidal zone.

Distribution: Anjuna, Baga, Reis Magos, Dona Paula,

Mormugao, Palolem, Polem.

23. Dictyota divaricata Lamour. J. Bot. [Desvaux] 2:

43. 1809; Taylor, Mar. Algae East. Trop. Subtrop. Coasts

Amer. 870, t. 80, 1960; Silva et al., Cat. Ben. Mar. Alg. Ind.

Ocean. 79: 14+ 1,259, 1996; Untawale et al., List of Marine

algae from India, 42, f. 36, 1983.

Zonaria dichotoma (Hudson) C. Ag. var. intricata

C. Ag., Sp. Alg. 134, 1820.

Dictyota dichotoma (Hudson) Lamour var. intricata

(C. Ag.) Greville, Alg. Brit.: 58, 1830; Borgesen,

J. Indian Bot. Soc., 16: 1-56, f. 33, 1937; Misra, Phaeophyceae

in India, 203, t. 5, f. 100, 1966; Krishnamurthy & Joshi, A

Checklist of Marine Algae, 36, 1970; Sahoo et al., Seaweeds

of the Indian Coast, 283, 2001.

Dictyota vulgaris (Kutz.) Kiitz. var. intricata (C. Ag.)

Kutz., Phycol. Germ.: 270-271, 1845.

Type locality: Cadiz, Spain (fide Silva et al. 1996).

Diagnosis: Plants light brown hued, forming entangled

clumps, up to 10 cm tall, branching at a divergence of

100°—130° in upper parts, somewhat less below, with many

adventitious branches often arising along the margins;

branches commonly about 3 mm in width below, abruptly

narrowing above to less than 0.5 mm with the tips blunt or

rounded; tetrasporangia occurring on both surfaces of thallus.

Sporangia are spherical in shape.

116

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

NEW RECORDS OF SEAWEEDS FROM THE GOA COAST

Material examined: Three specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Grows on rocks in shallow puddles of the

midlittoral region; also in the sublittoral fringe in sheltered

conditions. The plants found at shallow depths have a marked

bluish iridescence.

Distribution: Baga, Cabo-de-Rama.

Remark: According to Tronhom et al. (2010), this

species is a taxonomic synonym of Dictyota implexa

(Desfontaines) J.V. Lamouroux.

24. Padina australis Hauck, Hedwigia 26: 44, 1887;

Silva et al., Cat. Ben. Mar. Alg. Ind. Ocean 79: 1,259,

1996.

Type locality: Cape York, Queensland, Australia (fide

Silva 2012).

Diagnosis: Thalli erect or dissected into basally

constricted flabellate lobes from a fibrous holdfast and a

short stupose stalk or almost horizontally spreading, sessile,

frequently overlapping and broad at base. Plants pale to

dark brown, up to 11 cm in length, c. 10.5 cm wide, broadly

lobed, lightly calcified ventrally. Apical margins circinnately

coiled. Fronds c. 90-100 um thick. Cells of dorsal and ventral

layers almost uniform in size. Reproductive bodies in sori

alternating on dorsal and ventral side of blade between hair

bands, leaving a sterile intercalary band.

Material examined: Seven specimens.

Season: Pre-monsoon and Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Grows in sheltered places between rocks.

Distribution: Baga, Reis Magos, Holant, Betul.

25. Chnoospora minima (Hering) Papenfuss, Journal

of South African Botany 22: 69-70, 1956; Sahoo et al.,

Seaweeds of the Indian Coast 283, 2001.

Fucus minimus Hering, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 8: 92,

1841.

Chnoospora pacifica J. Ag., Ofvers. K. [Svenska]

Vet.-Akad. Forh. 4: 7. 1847; Dawson, Allan Hancock Pacific

Expeditions 3: 1—5, 189-432, t. 31-77, 1944.

Chnoospora fastigiata J. Ag., Sp. Alg. 171-172, 1848.

nom. illeg; Bergesen, J. Ind. Bot. Soc. 17: 205—242. t. 7-8,

f. 13, 1938; Krishnamurthy & Joshi, A Checklist of Marine

Algae, 36, 1970.

C. fastigiata J. Ag. var. pacifica (J. Ag.) J. Ag., Sp. Alg.

172, 1848; Borgesen, In: Natural History of Juan Fernandez

and Easter Island. (Ed: Skottsberg, C.) 2: 247-309, 1924;

Umamaheshwara Rao & Sreeramulu, J. Ecol. 52: 595-616,

t' 2-8 F, 1964:

Type locality: Port Natal, South Africa (fide Silva

et al. 1996).

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Diagnosis: Thalli yellow brown, erect, about 5 cm

tall, almost dichotomously branched, not entangled, attached

by small holdfasts. Branches subcylindrical, compressed in

the joints, c. 1 mm broad with numerous colourless hairs

arising from superficial depressions, ultimate branchlets with

acute apices. Rectangular cells with chromatophores present

around layers of irregularly shaped larger cells. Plurilocular

sporangia scattered on surface of thalli.

Material examined: Three specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Grows on exposed lower intertidal rocks.

Distribution: Chapora.

26. Colpomenia sinuosa (Mertens ex Roth) Derbes

& Solier in Castagne, Supplément au catalogue des plantes

qui croissent naturellement aux environs de Marseille:

95, 1851; Borgesen, Bull. Misc. Info., Royal Bot. Garden

30, 1934; Misra, In: Proc. Sem. Sea, Salt & Plants

(Ed.: V. Krishnamurthy), 227—233, 1967; Krishnamurthy &

Joshi, A Checklist of Marine Algae, 36, 1970; Chauhan, Salt

Res. Ind. 14(1): 1-10, map, t. 2, 1978; Solimabi & Naqvi,

Mahasagar - Bull. Natl Inst. Ocean. 8: 97-99, t. 1, 1975;

Agadi & Untawale, Seaweed Res. Util. 3: 56-70, f. 3, t. 2,

1978; Kalimuthu et al., Seaweed Res. Util. 15: 119-126,

t. 2, f. 1, 1992; Jha et al., Diversity Distr. Seaweeds Gu}.

Coast 215, 2009.

Ulva sinuosa Mertens ex Roth, Cat. Bot. 327, t. 12,

1806.

Encoelium sinuosum (Mertens ex Roth) C. Agardh,

Sp. Alg. 146, 1820.

Asperococcus sinuosus (Mertens ex Roth) Bory,

Botanique: 326, 1832.

Hydroclathrus sinuosus (Mertens ex Roth) Zanardini,

Saggio di classificazione naturale delle Fice...: 39, 1843;

Piccone, Elenco delle alghe della Crociera del Corsaro alle

Baleari. pp. [1]—22, 1889.

Type locality: Near Cadiz, Spain (fide Silva et al.

1996).

Diagnosis: Plants light yellowish brown, solitary or

clustered, sessile, spherical, becoming lobed, or irregularly

expanded, individually reaching a diameter of 1—12 cm,

more or less compressed, surface of thalli smooth when

young, somewhat corrugated when old, sessile, the wall

0.3—-0.4 mm thick, cortical cells cuboidal or polygonal,

small with chromatophores, medullary cells large, rounded,

colourless. Gametangia growing around hairy filaments

during intital stage, later spreading over the thallus, usually

biseriate.

Material examined: 10 specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

117

NEW RECORDS OF SEAWEEDS FROM THE GOA COAST

Habitat: Grows on intertidal rocks in exposed

conditions.

Distribution: Reis Magos, Siridao.

Uses: Traditionally consumed wholly as food, now

used as a fertilizer and source of alginates.

27. Ulva conglobata Kjellman, Bih. Kongl. Svenska

Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 23 (Afd. 3, 11): 10-11, t. 2: f. 1-7;

t. 3: f. 9-14, 1897; Ohno & Mairh, Reports Usa Mar. Biol.

Inst. 4: 1-8, t. 5, f. 4, 1982; Jha et al., Diversity Distr.

Seaweeds Guj. Coast 215, 2009.

Type locality: Various in Japan (fide Silva et al.

1996).

Diagnosis: Thalli bright green, subcartilaginous below,

membranous above, caespitose and expanding in almost

globular mass, 2—4 cm tall. Membrane 30-50 um thick at

upper side and about 100—125 um thick at the base. Cells

rectangular and vertically elongated.

Material examined: 32 specimens.

Season: Monsoon, Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Grows in upper and middle intertidal rocks

covered with sand.

Distribution: Terekhol, Chapora, Vagator, Anjuna,

Baga, Reis Magos, Dona Paula, Siridao, Mormugao,

Bogmalo, Holant, Betul, Cabo-de-Rama, Palolem, Talpona,

Chicalim Bay.

28. Ulva rigida C. Ag., Sp. Alg. 410-411, 1823. Jagtap,

Indian J. Mar. Sci. 21: 56-58, 1992; Silva et al., Cat. Benthic

Mar. Algae Indian Ocean 79: 1,259, 1996.

Ulva lactuca Linnaeus var. rigida (C. Ag.) Le Jolis,

Mém. Soc. Imp. Sci. Nat. Cherbourg 10: 38, 1863; Borgesen,

F, (1926 £1925’). Konge. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. Biol. Med.,

5(3): 1-123, f. 49; Lewis & Gonsalves, New Phytologist,

61: 288-290, t.2, 1962; Kale & Krishnamurthy, Salt Res.

Ind., 3:14, 1966.

Phycoseris ulva Sonder, Bot. Zeit. 3: 49, 1845.

Phycoseris gigantea Kutzing var. perforata Kutzing,

Sp. Alg: 476, 1849.

Ulva australis Areschoug, Nova Acta R. Soc. Sci.

Upsal., Ser. 3, 1: 370. 1854.

Letterstedtia petiolata J. Agardh, Alg. Syst. 19(2):

176-177, t. 4, f. 123, 124. 1883; Chapman, J. Linnean Soc.

of London, Botany 55: 333-501, t. 24—50, f. 153, 1956.

Ulva spathulata Papenfuss, J. Linn. Soc. London,

Bot. 56: 309, 1960; Womersley, H.B.S. Mar. Benthic Flora

Southern Australia. I: 329, t. 16, f. 102, 1984.

Type locality: Cadiz, Spain (fide Papenfuss 1960).

Diagnosis: Blades pale to dark olivaceous, drying to

black, firm and comparatively rigid, ovate to ovate-lanceolate,

118

at times circular, highly dissected single or multiple fronds

from a basal holdfast, 3-10 cm tall, 10-30 cm broad, 40—

60 um thick, commonly with short, distinct stipe; margins

smooth to variously incised but lacking minute teeth; cells

irregularly arranged, 10—15 um in diameter, 2 layers of blade

separated by pronounced accumulation of mucilaginous

material; chloroplast with 1-2 pyrenoids; gametes may be

of anisogamous nature.

Material examined: 15 specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Occurs in eulittoral zone on rocks and

stranded logs. Grows extensively in exposed zones;

occasionally extending into the littoral zone.

Distribution: Chapora, Vagator, Anjuna, Reis Magos,

Cabo-de-Rama.

29. Ulva taeniata (Setchell) Setchell et Gardner, Univ.

Calif. Publ. Bot. 7: 286, 1920; Mantri et a/., Curr. Sci. 93.6:

773-774, 2007.

Ulva fasciata f. taeniata Setchell in Collins, Holden,

& Setchell, Phycoth. Bor. Amer.: no. 862, 1901.

Type locality: Monterey, California, USA (fide Silva

2012).

Diagnosis: Thallus rigid, pale green in colour, up to

12 cm tall, irregularly lobed; lobes 0.5—3.5 cm broad with

crisply ruffled appearance. Basal portion of the frond long,

slender and divided, with distinctly dentate or wavy margin.

Fronds are attached with round to oval greenish-brown discs,

which are about 3-4 mm in diameter. In surface view, the

polygonal vegetative cells are compactly arranged without

any intercellular space, 14-32 mm in diameter.

Material examined: Four specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Grows on rocks located in the mid-tide zone.

Distribution: Mormugao.

30. Chaetomorpha spiralis Okamura, Algae Japonicae

Exsiccatae: No. 94 (Bot. Mag. [Tokyo], 17: 131, 1903; Jha

et al., Diversity Distr. Seaweeds Guj. Coast 215, 2009.

Chaetomorpha clavata Kitzing var. torta Farlow ex

Collins, Tufts Coll. Stud. (Sci.) 2: 323, 1909.

Chaetomorpha torta (Farlow ex Collins) Yendo, Bot.

Mag. [Tokyo] 28: 264-265, 1914; Untawale et al., List of

marine algae from India, 42, f. 36, 1983; Lewis, Revue

Algologique, Ser. 2, 7:15—25, t. 3, 1963; Umamaheshwara

Rao & Sreeramulu, J. Ecol. 52: 595-616, t. 2, f. 7, 1964;

Krishnamurthy & Joshi, A Checklist of Marine Algae, 36,

1970.

Type locality: Japan (fide Silva et al. 1996).

Diagnosis: Some plants gregarious, others solitary, 4—

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

NEW RECORDS OF SEAWEEDS FROM THE GOA COAST

5 cm long, growing in open populations between other algae;

basal parts of the stiff, unbranched filaments coiled or at least

markedly sinuous, dark green; upper parts straight or slightly

sinuous, light green; diameter in the basal parts 450—600 um,

where the cells are cylindrical and isodiametric, gradually

becoming bead-like and reaching a diameter of 1 mm at the

filament apices.

Material examined: Two specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: In shallow, low intertidal rock pools with

sandy bottom; continuously wave-swept.

Distribution: Terekhol, Anjuna, Baga, Dona Paula.

31. Cladophora glomerata (L.) Kiutzing, Phycol.

General.: 266, 1843; Patnaik, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Sec.

B., 43: 53-65, t. 1, f. 3, 1973; Murthy et al., Bot. Mar. 21:

381-386, f. 6, 1 map, 1978; Skinner & Entwisle, Telopea

10(3): 731-748, 2004.

Conferva glomerata Linnaeus, Sp. Pl.: 1167, 1753.

Polysperma glomerata (Linnaeus) Vaucher, Hist.

Conferv.: 99, 1803.

Chantransia glomerata (Linnaeus) A.P. de Candolle in

Lamarck & A.P. de Candolle, Fl. Frang., ed. 3, 2: 51, 1805.

Annulina glomerata (Linnaeus) Nees, Horae Phys.

Berol. [Index p. 1], 1820.

Type locality: Europe (fide Silva et al. 1996).

Diagnosis: Thallus attached to rocks, stones, boulders

or other solid substrate by means of rhizoids; hardly free

floating; frequently branched; yellowish green; branches

feather-like, curved inwards towards upper part, branchlets

many and are further divided, older branches falsely

dichotomous, primary branch varying from 60-125 um

in diameter, intermediate branches 20—75 um in diameter,

apical branches 20—35 um in diameter; cell membrane thick,

fibrillose, apical cells obtusely rounded.

Material examined: Four specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Epilithic, on sand or mud covered shallow

pools in intertidal zone. Cosmopolitan, reported from both

freshwater and saline habitats.

Distribution: Baga, Siridao, Chicalim Bay.

32. Cladophora herpestica (Montagne) Kutzing, Sp.

Alg. 15, 1849; Fernandez-Garcia et al., Bot. Mar. 54: 53-73,

2011.

Conferva herpestica Montagne, Prodromus generum

specierumque phycearum novarum, in itinere ad polum

antarcticum... collectarum...: 15, 1842; Leliaert & Coppejans,

Phycologia, 45: 657-679, 2006.

Cladophoropsis herpestica (Montagne) Howe, Mem.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Torrey Bot. Club 15: 31, 1914; Silva et al., Cat. Benthic

Mar. Alg. Ind. Ocean, 79: 1-1259, 1996; Coppejans et al.,

Sri Lankan Seaweeds Methodologies and field guide to the

dominant species. 6: 265, 2009.

Aegagropila javanica Kitzing, Flora, 30: 773, 1847;

Leliaert & Coppejans, Phycologia 45: 657-679, 2006.

Cladophora zollingeri Kutzing, Sp. Alg.: 415, 1849;

Papenfuss, Israel Journal of Botany 17: 1-118, table 1, 1968.

Aegagrophila zollingeri (Kutzing) Kutzing, Tabulae

phycologicae 4: 14, t. 64: f. 2, 1854.

Siphonocladus zollingeri (Kutzing) Bornet ex De Toni,

Sylloge algarum...I. Chlorophyceae: 359, 1889.

Cladophoropsis zollingerii (Kutzing) Reinbold Nuova

Notarisia, 16: 147, 1905; Borgesen, 1933; Sreenivasa Rao

& Kale, Phykos, 8: 71-82, f. 35, 1970; Chaugule & Gunale,

M.V.M. Patrika, 16 (1&2): 5-14, 1981; Chaugule et al.,

Seaweed Res. Util. 11: 107—115, t. 3, f. 58, 1989; Untawale

et al., List of marine algae from India 42, f. 36, 1983.

Cladophoropsis javanica (Kitzing) Silva, Basson &

Moe, 1996 (1. c); Sahoo et al., Seaweeds of the Indian Coast

283, 2001.

Type locality: Java, Indonesia (fide Silva 2012).

Diagnosis: Plants yellowish to dark green in colour,

occurring as cushions or tufts, entangled uniseriate, without

a distinct main axis; measuring 2—20 cm across and 1—2 cm

high; attached by a multicellular hapetra, erect filaments

abundantly branched; apical cells and cells of the terminal

branch systems subcylindrical, generally curved or sinuous,

120-450 um in diameter, up to 10 mm long; branches

without basal wall near the base of branches, cells large with

numerous nuclei and scattered chloroplast.

Material examined: 10 specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Epilithic, just above low water mark, exposed

to air at low tide but continuously wave-swept; surf exposed

coasts.

Distribution: Anjuna, Dona Paula, Holant, Talpona,

Polem.

33. Cladophora lehmanniana (Lindenberg) Kiutzing,

Phycol. General: 268, 1843; Sahoo et al., Seaweeds of the

Indian Coast 283, 2001.

Conferva lehmanniana Lindenberg, Linnaea 14:

179-180, t. 2, 1840.

Cladophora utriculosa Kiutzing, Phycol. General.:

269, 1843; Taylor, Mar. Algae East. Trop. Subtrop. Coasts

Amer. 870, t. 80, 1960; Borgesen, Kongelige Danske

Videnskabernes Selskab, Biologiske Meddelelser 5(3):

1-123, f. 49, 1935; Untawale er al., List of marine algae from

India, 42, f. 36, 1983.

119

NEW RECORDS OF SEAWEEDS FROM THE GOA COAST

Cladophora ramulosa Meneghini, Giornale Botanico

Italiano Anno 1 Tomo 1(1): 306, 1844; Papenfuss, Israel

Journal of Botany 17: 1-118, 1968.

Type locality: Helgoland, Germany (fide Silva et al.

1996).

Diagnosis: Thallus light to medium green, c. 3 cm

high, singly or as clustered tufts of several plants, attached by

rhizoids from the basal and adjacent cells; epilithic; filaments

tapering only slightly, much branched above from almost

every cell, forming fastigiate to spreading tufts, filaments

almost straight. Growth acropetal and mainly apical, with

intercalary divisions in lower cells; laterals first arising

1-3 cells from apex, ultimately with each parent cell bearing

1-3 laterals of varying length. Cross walls arising and

remaining oblique to parent cell. Reproduction by apical or

sub-apical cells developing into slightly swollen or clavate

zooidangia. Apical cells about 70—90 um in diameter.

Material examined: Six specimens.

Season: Monsoon and Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Occurs on rough water rock platforms and

extending to 25 m deep.

Distribution: Bogmalo, Cabo-de-Rama, Talpona.

34. Cladophora prehendens Kraft & A. Millar, Austral.

Syst. Bot. 13: 545, f. 1SA—D, 2000; Kraft, Marine Algae of

Lord Howe Island and the Southern Great Barrier Reef, 1.

Green Algae - Algae of Australia 358, 2007.

Type locality: Lord Howe Island (fide Silva 2012).

Diagnosis: Plants pale green, soft, about 5 mm long.

Thalli solitary or aggregated, anchored by digitate, non-

septate rhizoidal outgrowths from the basal cell which spread

over the host surface. Hapteral digitations ending in fine

processes that extend into a stolon, developing a digitate

pad on further solid contact. Branching generally acropetal.

Branches broadly incurved. Ultimate branches 1—7 celled

and young plants with 8 cells, apical cells about 13—15 wm in

diameter. Segments cylindrical, slightly clavate, articulations

slightly constricted, without annulations. Apical cells linear

or sharply tapering.

Material examined: Two specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Epiphytic on various green (also Cladophora

sp.), brown, and red algae.

Distribution: Cabo-de-Rama.

35. Cladophora socialis Kiutzing, Sp. Alg.: 416, 1849;

Rao & Umamaheshwara Rao, Ind. J. Mar. Sci. 15: 102-106, f. 4,

1986; Sahoo et al., Seaweeds of the Indian Coast 283, 2001.

Aegagropila socialis (Kutzing) Kitzing, Tab. Phyc.,

4:15, 1854.

120

Cladophoropsis infestans Setchell, Carnegie Inst.

Wash., Dept. Mar. Biol. 341: 177, text-fig. 41. 1924; Leliaert

& Coppeyjans, Phycologia 45: 657-679, 2006.

Type locality: Tahiti (fide Silva et al. 1996).

Diagnosis: Thallus medium to dark green, forming

0.5—1 cm thick prostrate mats, composed of interwoven,

densely branched filaments. Thallus loosely attached to the

substratum by branched or unbranched, uni- or multicellular

rhizoids arising from the basal poles of the short cells of the

stolon-like filaments. Apical cells cylindrical with rounded

tip, 25-50 um in diameter; basal cells cylindrical, 60-120 um

in diameter. Basal filaments give rise to the upright, terminal

branch-systems. Growth by division of apical cells, and by

intercalary cell division lower down. Terminal branches are

irregular, wide-angled (45°—90°), with occasional rhizoids

from the basal poles of the cells. Filaments of basal and

terminal branch-systems sometimes attached to one another by

terminal hapteroidal holdfasts at the tips of the apical cells.

Material examined: Four specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Found on intertidal sand covered rock, loosely

attached to the substratum.

Distribution: Dona Paula, Cabo-de-Rama.

36. Rhizoclonium riparium (Roth) Harvey Phycol.

Brit. t. 238, 1849.

Conferva riparia Roth, Cat. Bot. 216-217, 1806.

Tiresias riparia (Roth) Areschoug, Phyceae

Capenses.... 7, 1851.

Rhizoclonium implexum (Dillwyn) _ Kiitzing,

Phycologia Germanica: 206, 1845.

Rhizoclonium —_kochianum Kitzing, Phycologia

Germanica: 206, 1845; Borgesen, Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. Biol.

Med. 12: 64, 1935; Chaugule & Gunale, M.V.M. Patrika,

16 (1&2): 5-14, 1981; Krishnamurthy & Joshi, A Checklist

of Marine Algae, 36, 1970.

Rhizoclonium kerneri Stockmayer, Verh. K.-K. Zool.-

Bot. Ges. Wien 40(Abh.): 582, 1890; Taylor, Marine algae of

the eastern tropical and subtropical coasts of the Americas.

870, t. 80, 1960; Krishnamurthy, J. Madras Uni., Sec. B, 24:

161-178, t. 1, f. 16, 1954; Nair et al., Seaweed Res. Util. 12:

125-135, t. 2, f. 9, 1990.

Type locality: Norderney, East Frisian Islands,

Germany (fide Silva et al. 1996).

Diagnosis: Thalli in entangled masses, dark green

to pale yellowish green. Uniseriate filaments occasionally

twisted, usually with few or none rhizoidal branches,

composed of 2—5 cells; filaments 35—50 um in diameter,

1—3 times longer; reticulate chloroplast with numerous

pyrenoids.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

NEW RECORDS OF SEAWEEDS FROM THE GOA COAST

Material examined: 15 specimens.

Season: Monsoon.

Habitat: Found on clay banks, upper as well as

midtidal zone on rocks and woodwork.

Distribution: Terekhol, Chapora, Anjuna, Reis Magos,

Siridao, Palolem, Polem.

37. Rhizoclonium tortuosum (Dillwyn) Kutzing,

Phycol. Germ. 205, 1845; Sahoo et al., Seaweeds of the

Indian Coast 283, 2001.

Conferva tortuosa Dillwyn, Brit. Conferv.: t. 46, 1805.

Lola tortuosa (Dillwyn) V. Chapman, Proceedings

of the Seventh Pacific Science Congress [New Zealand] 5:

65; 11953:

Lola capillaris (Kutzing) G. Hamel, Revue Algologique

6: 25-27, f. 37: 1, 1931. Borgesen, Dan. Vidensk.Selsk. Biol.

Med. 12: 64, 1935; Chaugule & Gunale, M.V.M. Patrika, 16

(1&2): 5-14, 1981.

Type locality: Swansea, Wales (fide Blair 1983).

Diagnosis: Plants forming dull, dark green masses;

filaments curled, stiff, 40-70 um diameter, height of cells is

twice its breadth; branches absent. Filaments unbranched,

in some cases without but in other material with 1—5 celled

lateral rhizoids. Cells 25—40 um in diameter; cell wall 3—

5 um thick; chloroplast moderately to densely reticulate with

numerous pyrenoids.

Material examined: Seven specimens.

Season: Monsoon and Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Found in lower tide pools of exposed shores

as dark crisp masses.

Distribution: Terekhol, Vagator, Baga, Siridao, Cabo-

de-Rama, Palolem, Polem.

38. Cladophoroposis sundanensis Reinbold,

Nuova Notarisia 16: 147, 1905; Bergesen, Dan. Vidensk.

Selsk. Biol. Med. 12: 64, 1935; Krishnamurthy & Joshi,

A Checklist of Marine Algae, 36, 1970; Chauhan & Mairh,

Salt Res. Ind. 14(2): 21-41, t. 11, f. 5, 1978; Chaugule

& Gunale, M.V.M. Patrika, 16 (1&2): 5-14, 1981;

Untawale et al., List of marine algae from India, 42, f. 36,

1983; Leliaert & Coppejans, Phycologia, 45 (6): 657-679,

2006.

Siphonocladus sundanensis (Reinbold) Reinbold in

Weber van Bosse, Siboga Exped. Monogr. 59a: 83, 84, expl.

t..1%, 1913.

Type locality: Various in Indonesia (fide Silva et al.

1996).

Diagnosis: Plants light green, turf forming single axes

measuring 15—16 mm in length. Branching widely or closely

spaced. Laterals connected to parent cells, arising at wide

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

angles adjacent to the cross walls. Anchoring is done by a

series of interwoven prostrate filaments on which numerous

1-3 celled laterals are borne. Basal filaments usually straight,

180—250 um in diameter. Apical cells (sub) cylindrical, with

rounded tip, straight, slightly curved or sinuous. Cells of

the terminal branch systems straight or slightly curved, 80—

140 um in diameter.

Material examined: 10 specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Found on sand-covered rock substratum in the

intertidal zone, exposed to air at low tide, but continuously

wave-swept.

Distribution: Terekhol, Dona Paula, Betul, Cabo-de-

Rama, Talpona, Polem. _

Remark: According to Wynne (2011), this species

is a taxonomic synonym of Cladophoropsis fasciculata

(Kjellman) Wille.

39. Boodlea composita (Harvey) Brand, Beth. Bot.

Centralbl. 18 (Abt. 1): 187-190, 1904; Jha et al., Diversity

Distr. Seaweeds Guj. Coast 215, 2009.

Conferva composita Harvey, J. Bot. [Hooker] 1: 157,

1834.

Cladophora composita (Harvey) Kutzing, Species

algarum: 415, 1849.

Aegagropila composita (Harvey) Brand, Tab. Phycol.

14, t. 67, f. b-d, 1854.

Boodlea siamensis Reinbold, Bot. Tidsskr. 24:

191-192, 1901; Bergesen, J. Indian Bot. Soc. 9: 151-174,

f. 10, 1930; Chauhan & Mairh, Salt Res. Ind. 14(2): 21-41,

t. 11, f. 5, 1978; Bergesen, J. Indian Bot. Soc. 9: 151-174,

f. 10, 1930; Krishnamurthy & Joshi, A Checklist of

Marine Algae, 36, 1970; Chaugule et al., Seaweed Res. Util.

11: 107-115. f. 58, 1989; Untawale et al., List of marine algae

from India, 42, f. 36, 1983; Jagtap, Ind. J. Mar. Sci. 16: 256—

260, t. 1, f. 3, 1987; Jagtap, Indian J. Mar. Sci. 21: 56—58,

1992.

Type locality: Mauritius (fide Silva et al. 1996).

Diagnosis: Plants rather soft and loose, sponge-like

clumps, up to 2 cm tall, consisting of filaments twisted

together, branches irregularly divided and becoming

somewhat whorled towards the apices, branches irregular in

all directions, cells of the main axes 200—350 um in diameter

and 0.8—2 mm long.

Material examined: Seven specimens.

Season: Post-monsoon.

Habitat: Found as spongy mats or as cushion-like tufts,

or mixed with other algae on moderately sheltered, horizontal

platforms in lower eulittoral subzone.

Distribution: Anjuna, Siridao, Holant, Talpona.

121

NEW RECORDS OF SEAWEEDS FROM THE GOA COAST

DISCUSSION

Agadi (1986) had reported less diversity of seaweeds

along the Goa coast compared to Gujarat and Maharashtra.

This was attributed to the strong wave action and smaller

intertidal expanse in Goa. Recent studies have reported

209 species of seaweeds along the Gujarat Coast (Jha

et al. 2009), followed by 159 species from the Maharashtra ~

coast and 75 species from Goa coast (Oza and Zaidi 2000).

However, the present study conducted along the Goa coast has

revealed a greater algal diversity comprising of 154 species.

Maximum diversity of seaweeds was found post-monsoon.

Among the newly reported 39 species, 35 were collected

post-monsoon. Two species belonging to Porphyra were

found to be exclusively confined to the monsoon season.

Two species of Rhizoclonium were found during the monsoon

and sporadically during post-monsoon. Pre-monsoon was

observed to be the least suitable season for algal growth;

only one species — Padina australis — was collected during

this period. Our work corroborates earlier studies on seasonal

distribution of marine algae along Indian shores that reveal

maximum seaweed growth during December to February

(Untawale et al. 1989).

All these species have been found to occur along

the Indian coast with some of them being reported from

neighbouring regions like the Konkan belt, as well as Mumbai

coast. The algal species found along the west coast of India

are known to harbour several cosmopolitan taxa such as Ulva

lactuca, Rosenvingea intricata and Caulerpa sp., among

others, which are found to occur in both tropical and temperate

regions (Srinivasan 1960). The species composition of algae

along the west coast of India reflects similarities with the

tropical flora (Agadi 1986). Some species that were earlier

recorded from the east coast or Andaman and Nicobar Islands,

have been found to occur along the Goa coast in this study. The

occurrence of these species in Goa can possibly be explained

through the phenomenon of migration.

The seaweeds found along the Goa coast have been

mentioned in marine algal checklists of India (Oza and

Zaidi 2000; Sahoo et al. 2001). Of the 39 species reported

here, two species namely, Erythroglossum lusitanicum and

Cladophora prehendens have not been reported from India

before (Sahoo et al. 2001). It has been observed earlier that

the benthic marine algal flora of Indian shore is cosmopolitan,

with several of its species occurring in both tropical and

temperate areas (Srinivasan 1960).

Cladophora prehendens has been reported from

Australia (Kraft 2007; Womersley 1984) while E. lusitanicum

has been reported from the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean

Sea. Phytogeographically, Asia, Europe, and Australia may

have similar flora, but recent additions in the algal flora along

the Indian coastline could be explained by the phenomenon

of floral migration aided by shipping activities, with the help

of wave action wherein spores get carried from one coast to

another. Dispersal of algae can be aided by transportation

activities in the sea wherein the ballast water becomes a

carrier for several algal and dinoflagellate spores.

This study has revealed presence of species that were

earlier not reported from the Goa coast and the absence of

certain species that were earlier found in Goa. A detailed

survey of the Indian coast will help to gain insights into the

nation’s marine biodiversity.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank Dr A.R. Rahmani, Director, BNHS,

for support and encouragement.

REFERENCES

Acapt, V.V. (1986): Marine algal studies of the Central West Coast of

India. Ph.D. thesis. 176 pp. |

AcapI, V.V. & A.G. UNTAWALE (1978): Marine algal flora of Goa coast.

Seaweed Research and Utilisation 3: 56—70..

ATHANASIADIS, A. & D.L. BALLANTINE (2014): The genera Melyvonnea gen.

nov. and Mesophyllum s.s. (Melobesioideae, Corallinales,

Rhodophyta) particularly from the central Atlantic Ocean. Nordic

Journal of Botany 35: 385-436.

BArBara, I. (2009): Algas Bentonicas Marinas Y Salobres De Galicia:

Indice. Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de A Corufia.

429 pp.

CHENNUBOTHLA, V.S.K., N. KALIAPERUMALL, S. KALIMUTHU & P.V.R. NAIR

(1987): Biology of the economically important Indian Seaweeds

—a review. Seaweed Res. Utiln. 10(1): 21-32.

CopPEJANS, E., F. LELIAERT, O. DARGENT, R. GUNASEKARA & O. DE CLERCK

(2009): Sri Lankan Seaweeds: Methodologies and field guide to

the dominant species. 6: 265 pp.

De Cuerck, O. (2003): Dictyota in the Indian Ocean. Opera Bot. Belg.

f 32201,

DHARGALKAR, V.K. (1981): Studies on marine algae of the Goa coast.

Ph.D. thesis, Bombay University. Pp. 168.

DHARGALKAR, V.K. (2008): Marine biodiversity: A comprehensive

catalogue of seaweeds of the Central West Coast of India.

152 pp.

DHARGALKAR, V.K., V.V. AGApDI & A.G. UNTAWALE (1981): Occurrence

of Porphyra vietnamensis (Bangiales, Rhodophyta) along

the Goa coast. Mahasagar-Bulletin of the National Institute

of Oceanography (India| 14: 75—77, including 1 pl., 3 figs.

Jactap, T.G., S. Natk & V.L. NAGLE (2001): Assessment of Coastal

Wetland Resources of Central West Coast, India, using

LANDSAT Data. Photonirvachak— Journal of the Indian Society

of Remote Sensing 29(3): 140-150.

JHA, B., C.R.K. Reppy, M.C. THAKurR & M.U. RAo (2009): The diversity

and distribution of Seaweeds of the Gujarat Coast. Springer,

Dordrecht, Netherlands. 215 pp.

Krart, G.T. (2007): Marine Benthic Algae of Lord Howe Island and the

eee

122

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

NEW RECORDS OF SEAWEEDS FROM THE GOA COAST

Southern Great Barrier Reef, 1. Green Algae - Algae of Australia.

Australian Biological Resources Study/ CSIRO Publishing.

vi + 347 pages.

KRISHNAMURTHY, V. & H.V. Josui (1970): A check-list of Indian marine

algae. 36 [37 = Errata] pp. Central Salt and Marine Chemicals

Research Institute, Bhavnagar.

Lawson, G.W. & D.M. Joun (1982): The marine algae and coastal

environment of tropical West Africa. Beihefte Zur Nova

Hedwigia, J. Cramer, 455 pp with 65 plates and 14 figures.

Mantrl, V.A., M.C. THakur, C.R.K. Reppy & B. JHA (2007): Ulva

taeniata (Setchell) Setchell et Gardner: A taxon new to Indian

seaweed flora. Current Science 93(6): 773-774.

Oza, R.M. & S.H. Zarpi (2000): A revised checklist of Indian Marine

Algae. Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute,

Bhavanagar, India. 296 pp.

SILVA, P.C. (2012): Index Nominum Algarum, University Herbarium,

University of California, Berkeley. Available at: http:// ucjeps.

berkeley.edu/INA.html.

SRINIVASAN, K.S. (1960): Distribution patterns of marine algae

in Indian seas. Jn: Kachroo, P. (Ed.): Proc. Symposium

Algology. Indian Council of Agricultural Research. New Delhi.

242 pp.

SRINIVASAN, K.S. (1969): Phycologia indica (Icones of Indian marine

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

algae). LI pls., 7 photos, [24] groups of figs. Calcutta, Botanical

Survey of India. Vol. 1, pp. xix + 52.

SUBRAMANIAN, B. (1985): An annotated list of ceramiaceous algae

(Rhodophyta) of Tiruchendur coast, South India. Seaweed

Research and Utilisation 7: 71-83.

TayLor, W.R. (1960): Marine algae of the East tropical and Subtropical

Coast of the Americas. University of Michigan Press, pls. 80,

pp. 825.

TSENG, C.K. (1983): Common seaweeds of China. Science press, Beijing,

China, pp. 316.

UNTAWALE, A.G. & V.K. DHARGALKAR (1986): Ecological studies of Ulva

reticulata Forsskal in Chapora Bay, Goa. Mahasagar-Bulletin of

the National Institute of Oceanography [India]. Vol. 19, 175-184,

3 figs., I table.

UNTAWALE, A.G., V.K. DHARGALKAR & V.V. AGapi (1983): List of marine

algae from India.[Mimeographed.] Goa. National Institute of

Oceanography. pp. 42 + 36 figs.

UNTAWALE, A.G., C.R.K. Reppy & V.D. AMBIYE (1989): Marine algal

flora of submerged Angria Bank (Arabian Sea). Indian Journal

of Marine Sciences 18: 207-209.

Wynne, M.J. (2011): A checklist of benthic marine algae of the tropical

and subtropical western Atlantic: third revision. Nova Hedwigia

Beihefte 140 [1]: 7-166.

—_—— 0 Dee

123

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 111(2), May-August 2014

124

REVIEWS

NATURE CHRONICLES OF INDIA: ESSAYS ON WILDLIFE edited by Ananda Banerjee.

Published by Rupa Publications India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi. Size: 21.5 cm x 13 cm. 159 pp.

Price: € 195/-. Paperback.

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/71747

Despite the presence of spectacular wildlife and

increasing number of wildlife researchers, there are very

few good wildlife writers in India who can chronicle natural

history. Nature magazines like Hornbill, Sanctuary, and

Saevus publish short pictorial articles, not essays.

Ananda Banerjee has done us a remarkable favour by

bringing out an eminently readable book containing wildlife

essays written by some of the most prominent young and

not-so-young wildlife scientists of India. The book is divided

into two parts: contemporary articles and archival material,

which complement each other. The tone of the book is set

by Jay Mazoomdaar’s essay on community conservation

work for the protection of Olive Ridley turtles, followed

by Krupakar-Senani’s wonderful piece on Wild Dogs. My

First Days in the Field by Rauf Ali and Lunch with the Snow

Leopard by Yash Veer Bhatnagar are delights to read, mainly

due to the fact that the articles are firsthand experiences

written with passion and wonderment that nature bestows

on all of us if we go to her. My favourite is by Madhusudan

Katti Are Warblers Less Important than Tigers? | think this is

the essay that should be read by every Indian conservationist

and decision maker. It is a very fine piece of research showing

how warblers — perhaps the most difficult group of birds to

identify — despite their small size and unobtrusive living, eat

a huge amount of insects and keep our forests healthy.

The second section of the book consists of diverse

stories by seven British wildlife writers of the past. As

Banerjee has written “These writings ... will transport you

to the forests and landscape of yore. These are interesting

records of the forest and lives of people in British India. The

stories tell us about a flourishing wildlife, jungle packed with

wild animals, and backyards and kitchen gardens teeming

with common species.” Sadly, those days are gone but

perhaps with more books like this, greater interest will be

created amongst the general public to enjoy, write, preserve,

and protect India’s wildlife and wild places.

At Rs. 195/- (less than the price of a pizza ina mall!), it

is anice buy and a good gift for friends interested in nature.

The front cover is adorned with an intense looking Snow

Leopard by Dhritiman Mukherjee and the back cover has

the image of a warbler by the author, precariously balanced

on a thin branch — the juxtaposition of these two contrasting

taxa brings home the point that both these species are

equally important. I recommend this book to all who care

for wildlife.

@ ASAD R. RAHMANI

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 111(2), May-August 2014

125-157

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

1. AFURTHER RECORD OF LARGE INDIAN CIVET VIVERRA ZIBETHA LINNAEUS 1758

FROM ODISHA, INDIA

PRATYUSH P. MOHAPATRA! AND HIMANSHU S. PALEI”*

‘Department of Zoology, Government Science College, Chatrapur, Ganjam 761 020, Odisha, India. Email: [email protected]

"Department of Zoology, North Orissa University, Baripada, Mayurbhanja 757 003, Odisha, India. Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72231

Acharjyo and Patnaik (1987) reported occurrence

of the Large Indian Civet Viverra zibetha from Odisha in

Phulnakhara, Cuttack district, and thereafter another specimen

was collected from Satpada (Saha 1995). On June 23, 2010,

during a field trip to Hindol area of Dhenkanal district (20°

30' N; 85° 15.10' E), a male was spotted by us at 19:30 hrs,

crossing a forest road. The animal was observed from a

distance of about 5 m for about 2 or 3 seconds, after which it

disappeared into a thicket. It was of the size of a medium-sized

dog in height, had a curved back with a mid-dorsal crest of

long fur, short legs, and a long bushy tail. From these features,

and from the prominent black bands on the whitish tail, it

was identified as the Large Indian Civet. The animal was too

large to be the Small Indian Civet Viverricula indica, which

is commonly seen crossing roads at night.

The Large Indian Civet is known to occur in northeast

India and Upper Bengal, and elsewhere in Southeast Asia

(Prater 1965), and now Odisha appears to be the southernmost

distribution limit of the species. It is protected under Schedule

I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and is listed as Near

Threatened in IUCN Red List (assessed during June, 2012).

Since there are now a few records of the species from Odisha,

a systematic survey in the protected and non-protected areas

of the state is urgently needed to know the exact status,

which may help in preventing the species from becoming

locally extinct.

REFERENCES

ACHARJYO, L.N. & S.K. PATNAIK (1987): Occurrence of Large

Indian Civet Viverra zibetha in Orissa. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.

Soc. 84(1): 201-202.

Prater, S.H. (1965): The Book of Indian Animals. 2nd (Revised)

Edition. Bombay Natural History Society and Prince of Wales

Museum of Western India, Bombay. 324 pp.

SAHA, S.S. (1995): Mammalia, Wetland Ecosystem Series — I. Fauna of

Chilika Lake. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta. Pp. 601-610.

2. MONGOOSE RABIES IN KANNUR, KERALA, INDIA

E.A. JAYSon!”:* AND SURESH K. Govinpb!?

'Wildlife Department, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi 680 653, Kerala, India.

?Email: [email protected]

3Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72227

The Indian Grey Mongoose Herpestes edwardsi is

distributed almost throughout India (Prater 1965). It feeds on

small mammals, birds, reptiles, fruits, eggs, and invertebrates;

lives in burrows and breeds throughout the year (Prater

1965). Mongoose species are known to be vectors of the

rabies virus (Rhabdoviridae) (Rabies Survey Report 2003).

Though the occurrence of mongoose transmitted rabies has

been reported from various countries, the occurrence of dog

rabies has masked its importance (Everard and Everard 1988).

The outbreak of rabies through Asian Mongoose Herpestes

javanicus in Puerto Rico led to secondary transmission to

dogs and other animals (Tierkel et a/. 1952). Other species

of Herpestidae like Yellow Mongoose Cynictis penicillata,

Suricate Suricata suricatta, Small Grey Mongoose Myonax

pulverulentus, and Genet Cat Geneta felina are reported to be

important vectors of rabies virus in South Africa (Neitz and

Marais 1932; Snyman 1940; Snyman and Thomas 1938).

Although the Indian Grey Mongoose is listed as a

rabies virus vector in India, the Golden Jackal Canis aureus

is known to be the principal wild species which transmits

the virus (Fagan 1950). In Bangladesh, eight cases of human

rabies due to mongoose-bite were reported (Rahman et al.

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

2007). Human rabies in northern India was studied by Ratho

et al. (2001), reporting one case of death by the bite of a

rabid mongoose. In a survey of incidence of rabies among

wild animals, 92 cases of mongoose rabies were confirmed

from wildlife parks and zoos in India (Rabies Survey Report

2003).

In this communication, we report cases of rabid

mongoose in Edakkad, Kannur District, Kerala, based on data

collected during our visits on June 18, 2010. This is the first

report from India on a massive attack of rabid mongooses

on humans in a village, and for which compensation was

given by the Kerala Forest and Wildlife Department. There

have been 21 cases of attacks on humans by rabid mongoose

at Edakkad from March 2010 to June 2010. We visited the

houses of two victims, Imtiyas (10, boy) and Shahana Sherin

(9, girl). The boy had been bitten on the cheek, and the girl

on the thigh. The locals said that mongooses were sighted

frequently during that period in large numbers, approaching

and attacking people without any provocation. Most of the

bites were on legs. The increase in the numbers of mongoose

and subsequent death of the animals were noticed by them

and brought to the attention of the Forest Department. On

post-mortem examination of the animals, rabies symptoms

were detected. Some incidents of rabid mongoose attacking

people were also reported in May 2009.

The Department took initiatives to make the locals

aware of the rabies threat and provided assistance for anti-

rabies vaccination. The compensation details available

with the Thaliparamba Forest Range Office, Kannur

Forest Division, revealed that 21 victims (43% female and

57% male) applied for compensation. A total amount of

Rs. 77,000/- (rupees seventy seven thousand only) was

claimed by the victims, and an amount of Rs. 30,375/- (rupees

thirty thousand three hundred and seventy-five only) towards

compensation was disbursed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are thankful to Dr. K.V. Sankaran (Former Director),

Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, Kerala, India, and

the forest officials of Kannur Forest Division, Kerala, India,

for supporting the study. |

REFERENCES

EVERARD, C.O.R. & J.D. EvERARD (1988): Mongoose rabies. Rev. Inf.

Dis. 10: 5610-5614.

FaGANn, R. (1950): Rabies in animals other than dogs. CDC Bull 9:

10-11.

Neitz, W.D. & I.P. Marais (1932): Rabies as it occurs in the union of

South Africa. 18th Report of the Director of Veterinary Service

and Animal Industry. Union of South Africa.

Prater, S.H. (1965): The Book of Indian Animals. 2nd (rev.) Edn.

Bombay Natural History Society and Prince of Wales Museum

of Western India, Bombay. 324 pp.

RaBies SurvEY Report (2003): Assessing burden of rabies in India.

Association for Prevention and Control of Rabies in India (APCRI)

and World Health Organisation (WHO). 104 pp.

RAHMAN, M.M., M. SALIMUZZAMAN, M.D.B. ALAM, M.A. Rour,

M.J. Hossain & M.R. RAHMAN (2007): Human rabies in Bangladesh

— A study of 684 cases. J. Medicine 8: 3-6.

RaTHO, R.K., R. GRover & R.C. MAHAJAN (2001): Experience of

human rabies in North India. Indian J. Pathol. Microbiol. 44(1):

41-44.

SNyMAN, P.S. (1940): The study and control of the vectors of rabies

in South Africa. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sc. & Animal Indust.

15: 9-140.

SNYMAN, P.S. & A.D. THomas (1938): The carriers of rabies in South

Africa. In: Congres International de medicine tropicale et

d’Hygiene, 3d, Amsterdam. Acta Conventus Tertii de Tropicis

Atgue Malariae Morbis, pars. I. Pp. 616-638.

TIERKEL, E.S., G. ARBONA, A. RIVERA & A. DE JUAN (1952): Mongoose

rabies in Puerto Rico. Public Health Reports 67(3): 274-278.

3. FIRST RECORD OF INDIAN LONG-EARED HEDGEHOG

HEMIECHINUS COLLARIS FROM DHAULPUR, EASTERN RAJASTHAN, INDIA

RAJEEV TOMAR! AND RAKESH VyYAS”*

'Kayasthpada, Dhaulpur 328 001, Rajasthan, India. Email: [email protected]

204, Washleigh Manor, Rustam Bagh, Bengaluru 560 017, Karnataka, India. Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72228

Dhaulpur (=Dholpur) (26° 41' 59" N; 77° 54' 00" E;

177 m above msl) lies in the eastern corner of Rajasthan. It is

known for its ravines extending all over the catchment of the

Chambal river. The river and its banks are part of National

Chambal Sanctuary and harbour some of the most endangered

mammalian, avian, and reptilian fauna like the Ganges

Dolphin Platanista gangetica, Indian Skimmer Rynchops

126

albicollis, Black-bellied Tern Sterna acuticauda, River Tern

Sterna aurantia, River Lapwing Vanellus duvaucelii, Gharial

Gavialis gangeticus, Marsh Crocodile Crocodylus palustris,

and many species of endangered turtles.

The first author had sightings of the Indian Long-eared

Hedgehog Hemiechinus collaris in agricultural fields on

the outskirts of Dhaulpur city for three years, and in 2013,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

brought it to the notice of the second author during his visit

to Dhaulpur, after which we realized that this species is not

reported to be as common as the Pale Hedgehog Paraechinus

micropus in eastern Rajasthan (Prater 1988). The Indian

Long-eared Hedgehog can be easily differentiated from the

Pale Hedgehog by the long ears and absence of parting spines

running from forehead to crown.

Two species of hedgehogs occur within Indian limits,

namely Long-eared Hedgehog Hemiechinus auritus with

subspecies collaris (Gray) and Pale Hedgehog Paraechinus

micropus with subspecies micropus (Blyth) and nudiventris

(Horsfield) (Prater 1988). Prater (1988) states that hedgehogs

are mainly confined to the dry desert zone of Kachchh, Sindh,

Punjab, and the former NWFP and neighbouring tracts;

P. m. nudiventris is confined to the plains of southern India.

The C.A.M.P. report (Molur et al. 2005), with collated

data from various sources on the distribution and status of

small mammals in India, states the distribution of Long-

eared Hedgehog in the arid western parts of Rajasthan and

Gujarat. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Molur

2008) states that it is distributed in the western part of India

in Desert National Park in Rajasthan and Narayan Sarovar

Sanctuary in Gujarat.

In the distributional map of the species in The IUCN

Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2014.2. <www.

iucnredlist.org>, a very limited area of central Uttar Pradesh

in Doab area of Ganges (= Ganga) and Yamuna river is shown

as the area of its occurrence. In a recent publication, Singh et

al. (2013) report its presence in Thar, Aravalli, and southeast

Rajasthan (south-east Rajasthan here referring to the area east

of the Aravalli range in the districts of Bhilwara, Rajsamand,

and southern part of Ajmer district).

Himmat Singh (pers. comm.), who worked on the

non-volant small mammals of Rajasthan after Singh et

al. (2013), recorded it at the foothills of Alwar in east

Rajasthan, which is c. 200 km to the west of Dhaulpur,

but this report has not been published. Our sightings at

Dhaulpur reconfirm the presence of Indian Long-eared

Hedgehog from north-eastern Rajasthan, and this is also

the first report of its occurrence in Dhaulpur. It was found

to be a common species there, living in burrows amidst

crop fields. It was more frequently sighted after the harvest,

during which road-kills involving it were also recorded. Its

vocalization is not reported in literature, but we heard it

making wailing noises resembling those of a human baby.

It seems possible that this species that frequents various

habitats is more common in the northern part of central

India than previously assumed.

REFERENCES

Movwvr, S. (2008): Hemiechinus collaris. The IUCN Red List of

Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>.

Downloaded on July 24, 2014.

Mo vr, S., C. SRINIVASULU, BHARGAVI SRINIVASULU, SALLY WALKER,

P.O. NAMEER & LATHA RAVIKUMAR (2005): Status of South Asian

Non-Volant Small Mammals: Conservation Assessment and

Management Plan Workshop Report. Zoo Outreach Organisation

/ CBSG-South Asia, Coimbatore, India. Pp. 133-134.

PRATER, S.H. (1988): The Book of Indian Animals. 3rd Edn. Bombay

Natural History Society and Oxford University Press, Bombay.

Pp. 166-167.

SINGH, P., R.S. TripatH! & B.K. SHARMA (2013): Non-Volant Small

Mammals of Rajasthan. Pp. 549-561. Jn: Sharma, B.K., Seema

Kulshreshtha & A.R. Rahmani (Eds): Faunal heritage of Rajasthan,

India: General background and ecology of vertebrates. Springer,

New York.

4. OBSERVATIONS OF MASTURBATION AND CONSUMPTION OF EJACULATE

BY FIVE-STRIPED PALM SQUIRREL FUNAMBULUS PENNANTII

ANus D. Ratna!

'C-18, Manali Apartment, Opp. AMA, Behind Apang Manav Mandal, Ambawadi 380 015, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.

Email: [email protected]

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72229

Introduction

The Five-striped Palm Squirrel Funambulus pennantii

is a small rodent, distributed in the Indian peninsula from the

base of Himalaya till the northern parts of southern India,

and its flexibility to habitat requirement makes it one of

the most common mammals adapting to urban landscapes

in India (Prater 1988). In this communication, I report on

40 observations of masturbation and consumption of ejaculate

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

by an individual squirrel recorded during a five month period

in Ahmedabad, Gujarat.

The site of observation was on a Neem Azadirachta

indica tree, which was frequented by three adult squirrels,

a female and two males; the masturbations observed were

by the smaller male. The first observation was at 7:00 hrs in

late October 2013, after which the individual was monitored

7-10 times a month. During these observation bouts

127

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

(07:00—07:40 hrs), the individual was seen lying motionless

and basking in the sun till the weather warmed up. Then,

the process of grooming commenced with pandiculation

(stretching and yawning), licking and cleaning of body parts,

cleaning the paws and nails, then tail, which was followed by

masturbation with simultaneous consumption of the ejaculate.

The squirrel used the same place for grooming during my

observations till March 2014.

Each time this activity was observed, the squirrel was

seen to be alone, and the presence of any other squirrel was

not seen during the act. It was occasionally seen engaged in

grooming with the female. The skittering call of the species

was commonly heard during the observations, but not being

made by the masturbating individual. The observed squirrel

was seen being chased by the other male on three occasions.

No act of copulation between the other squirrels was seen

during the observations, which was also the case of squirrels

on other trees in the vicinity. Around 150 photographs of

grooming and social grooming were taken during the study.

Masturbation with consumption of ejaculate has been

reported in the promiscuous Cape Ground Squirrel Xerus

inauris by Waterman (2010), and extracts of the findings

are quoted here “... masturbation to be far more frequent on

days of female oestrus and mostly occurred after copulation.

Masturbation rates were higher in dominant males, which

copulate more, than in subordinates and increased with

number of mates a female accepts. These results suggest

that masturbation in this species was not a response to sperm

competition nor a sexual outlet by subordinates that did not

copulate. Instead masturbation could function as a form of

genital grooming. Female Cape ground squirrels mate with

up to 10 males in a 3-hr oestrus, and by masturbating after

copulation males could reduce the chance of infection.”

In my observations, masturbation was done by a

smaller, subordinate male and appeared to be a sexual outlet

or a form of genital grooming, as it was never recorded

copulating with the female in the area. Since squirrels are

territorial and this was the younger male, I wonder whether

consuming the ejaculate could be a process for removing

scent mark from the location to prevent territorial fights —

semen is also rich in protein.

On reporting my observations to Jane Waterman,

she commented “I am not surprised to hear about another

squirrel masturbating but it is really cool to know of

another species. I suspect it occurs in a number of species

that breed throughout the year. There is a tree squirrel in

southern Africa that has been described as ‘grooming’ in

a way that is obviously masturbation.” In another personal

communication, she comments: “I see that in this species

females mate with multiple males and that breeding can occur

year round. Indeed, I suspect that males may have to contend

with sexually transmitted infections. In other words, the

behaviour could be a thorough way to groom. Masturbation

has not been described for this species. You only have a

single individual, so it is hard to say whether the behaviour

is common or not. ”

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to Jane M. Waterman at the University

of Minnesota, for guidance and her suggestion for writing

a note in a journal. This note would not have been possible

without the support of BNHS in improving the write-up of

the manuscript.

REFERENCES

Prater, S.H. (1988): The Book of Indian Animals. 3rd edn. Bombay

Natural History Society and Oxford University Press, Bombay.

Pp. 166-167.

WATERMAN, J.M. (2010): The adaptive function of masturbation in a

promiscuous African Ground Squirrel. http://journals.plos.org/

plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013060

5. THE MALAYAN NIGHT-HERON GORSACHIUS MELANOLOPHUS

IN MOUNT HARRIET NATIONAL PARK, ANDAMAN ISLANDS

HARKIRAT SINGH SANGHA!

'B-27, Gautam Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur 302 021, Rajasthan, India. Email [email protected]

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72230

The Malayan Night-Heron Gorsachius melanolophus

is one of the peculiar, discontinuously distributed Indo-

Malayan species of evergreen biotope found in the Indian

subcontinent. It occurs as a summer visitor to Assam and

128

Manipur, migrating through Meghalaya and Mizoram. It

is partly resident in the Western Ghats, some migrating to

Sri Lanka and resident to central and south Nicobar Islands

(Ali and Ripley 1978; Rasmussen and Anderton 2012). It is

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

represented by two subspecies within Indian limits of which

G. m. minor Hachisuka is endemic in the Nicobar group of

islands, which differs from the nominate subspecies G. m.

melanolophus Raffles in being smaller (Ali and Ripley 1978;

Tikader 1984).

On February 24, 2011, in the morning while walking

from the forest rest house in Mount Harriet National Park,

Andaman Islands, I saw a Malayan Night-Heron close to the

road near the abandoned Chief Commissioner’s Bungalow.

Moving slowly, I was able to get quite close to the bird

and observe it. On noticing my presence, it slipped into the

dense forest.

Ali and Ripley (1978) and Tikader (1984) describe its

habitat as streams and swampy patches in thick forest, but

the place I sighted it had no swamp or stream; although the

forest was dense. The species is “scarce (or overlooked)” in

Andamans (Rasmussen and Anderton 2012). The sighting of

the species in Mount Harriet National Park, where there are

no previous records, indicates that it could be resident in the

Andamans, as it is in the Nicobar Islands.

REFERENCES

Au, S. & S.D. Riptey (1978): Handbook of the Birds of India

and Pakistan. 2nd edition. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press,

Delhi.

RASMUSSEN, P.C. & J.C. ANDERTON (2012): Birds of South Asia. The

Ripley Guide. Vol. 2. Smithsonian Institution and Lynx Edicions,

Washington D.C. and Barcelona.

TIKADER, B.K. (1984): Birds of Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Zoological

Survey of India, Calcutta.

6. FIRST RECORD OF GREATER WHITE-FRONTED GOOSE ANSER ALBIFRONS

(SCOPOLI, 1769) AMRAVATI, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA

ASHAHAR KHAN!*, MANOJ BIND? AND AHSAN SHEIKH?

'59, Rahul Nagar, Camp Amravati, Amravati 444 602, Maharashtra, India. Email: [email protected]

*Public Work Circle, P-W.D. Campus, Camp road, Amravati 444 602, Maharashtra, India. Email: [email protected]

*C/o Studio 99, Ravi Nagar, Amravati 444 605, Maharashtra, India. Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72232

The Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons is a

winter visitor to Nepal, NW India, and Bangladesh in vagrant

category and has not been recorded in Maharashtra (Grimmett

et al. 2009; Kazmierczak and Van Perlo 2012; Sinclair

1886). On January 20, 2014, we visited Kekatpur (21° 5’

36.7" N; 77° 57' 7.4" E), district Amravati, Maharashtra, often

referred to as a “birder’s paradise”. As the first author (AK)

clicked photographs of birds 1n the wetland, he noticed a bird

(Ed.: photographic evidence provided) that was slightly

larger than the Ruddy Shelduck Yadorna ferruginea it was

foraging with. After hearing alarm calls of a Black-naped

Ibis Pseudibis papillosa, both the shelducks and goose were

alerted and flew off; the goose uttering high nasal calls of

gaanng-gaanng-gaang. Mano} initially wrongly identified it

as the Greylag Goose Anser anser, which was last sighted by

Raju Kasambe at Warud in 1993 (Kasambe et al. 2007).

On a closer look at the photographs, we observed that

the bird had long bright orange legs, a brownish-grey body,

belly with slightly black splotches, and black tail with a white

band at the tip, matching the Greater White-fronted Goose

(Grimmett et al. 2009). The identification was confirmed by

Ragoo Rao (India Nature Watch), Mysore and Raju Kasambe

(BNHS India). After a week, the bird was sighted again by

Jayant Wadatkar and team (Jayant Wadatkar pers. comm.),

in the same place. This is the first record for the species

from Amravati, Maharashtra, in central India (Kasambe et

al. 2007; Khan 2014; Mahajan et a/. 2012; Pachlore and

Chandrakar 2011).

In recent years, there have been a number of

records of the Greater White-fronted Goose by birdwatchers

at some new sites in India, which are summarized in

Table 1.

Table 1: Recent sighting records of Anser albifrons in |India

Sr. Name of birder Location

1 Avijan Saha

2. Tejus Naik and Rakesh

3. Kannan Achi Sundararajan

4. Mansur Ahmad

Dighal, Jnaggar, Haryana

Little Rann of Kachchh, Gujarat

Tamil Nadu

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Fulbari barrage, Siliguri, West Bengal

Koonthankulam Bird Sanctuary, Tirunelveli,

Date Source No. of birds

Jan. 27, 2013 www.indianaturewatch.net 1

Nov. 13, 2013 pers. comm. 1

Dec. 24, 2013 Oriental Bird Club 4

Dec. 28, 2013 pers. comm. 2

129

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are thankful to Ms Tejashree Nakashe, ENVIS,

BNHS, for providing some relevant literature. Sincere thanks

to Ragoo Rao and Raju Kasambe for feedback and to Forest

Department, Amravati, and Ganesh Deshmukh for media

coverage. Thanks are also due to Mansur Ahmad, Tejus Naik, and

Avijan Saha for providing recent sighting records across India

and to our team members for their valuable inputs and

cooperation.

REFERENCES

GRIMMETT, R., C. INskipp & T. INskipp (2009): Pocket Guide to

the Birds of Indian Subcontinent. Oxford University Press,

New Delhi. Pp. 7.

KASAMBE, R., A. PIMPLAPURE, R. THOSAR & M. Kuope (2007): Sighting

records of Greylag Goose (Anser anser) from Maharashtra.

Newsletter for Birdwatchers 47(6): 94.

Kuan, K. (2014): First record of Greater White-fronted Goose in

Central India from Amravati. http://www.indianaturewatch.net/

displayimage.php?id=458872.

KAZMIERCZAK, K. & B. VAN PERLO (2012): Birds of India. Om Field

Guides. Pp. 54-55.

MauaJAn A., P. Lap, V. INGoLE, M. KHOpDE, R. KASAMBE & J. WADATKAR

(2012): Checklist of birds of Mahendri Reserve Forest. Newsletter

for Birdwatchers 52(2): 17-23.

PacHLore, G. & M. CHANDRAKAR (2011): Avifauna of wetlands of

Amravati region, Maharashtra, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa

3(1): 1478-1484.

SINCLAIR, W.T. (1886): Notes on the waters of western India. Part I —

British Deccan and Khandesh. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 1(3):

97-123.

7. FIRST REPORT OF LONG-BILLED PLOVER CHARADRIUS PLACIDUS

FROM MAHARASHTRA, CENTRAL INDIA

Kiran Morey!?”, NINAD ABHANG!®, J.S. WADATKAR!**, G.A. WaGuH!° AND G.S. Kapu!®

'Wildlife & Environment Conservation Society (WECS), 42, Green Park Colony, Shegaon Road, Amravati 444 604, Maharashtra, India.

*Email: [email protected]

“Email: [email protected]

°Email: [email protected]

‘Email: gauravkadul @gmail.com

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72233

Long-billed Plover Charadrius placidus is a winter

visitor to NE India from Nepal and north Uttar Pradesh to

Assam valley and Manipur; there are a few sight reports from

Bangladesh, Delhi, Andaman Is., and Sri Lanka. It breeds in

NE Asia to SW China (Rasmussen and Anderton 2012). It

is also reported in Arunachal Pradesh (Greeshma 2011) and

breeds in Sangti Valley of western Arunachal Pradesh (Eaton

and Rheindt 2009).

During our study on summer breeding birds and

passage migrants, on April 06, 2014, we visited Kekatpur

reservoir (21° 05’ 28” N; 77° 57' 15" E), Amravati district,

Maharashtra, and sighted the Black-tailed Godwit Limosa

limosa, Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola, Common

Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos, and Little Ringed Plover

Charadrius dubius feeding in the shallows. A bird in the

flock of Little Ringed Plover Charadrius dubius attracted

our attention, as it was being mobbed by them. The bird,

however, tried to stay with the flock. On checking through

binoculars, we noted that the bird was bigger than the Little

Ringed Plovers, and photographed it. Later, with the help

of field guides we identified it as the Long-billed Plover

Charadrius placidus. The bird stayed in the area for the

next three days.

On literature survey, we found that this is the first

sighting of the species from Maharashtra (Abdulali 1981;

Ali and Ripley 1983; Rahmani et a/. 2013).

REFERENCES

ABDULALI, H. (1981): Checklist of the Birds of Maharashtra. 2nd Edition.

Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai.

Aul, S. & S.D. Rietey (1983): A Pictorial Guide to the Birds of the Indian

Subcontinent. Oxford University Press, Bombay. Pp.1—183.

Eaton, J.A. & FE. Ruemnpt (2009): Long-billed Plover Charadrius

placidus nesting in its Himalayan wintering range: first breeding

record for the Indian Subcontinent. Forktail 25: 152-153.

GREESHMA, M. (2011): On the presence of Long-billed Plovers

Charadrius placidus in Rupa, Arunachal Pradesh in the summer

months. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(6): 1862-1863.

130

RAHMANI, A.R., Z. ISLAM, R. KASAMBE & J. WADATKAR (2013): Important

Bird Areas of Maharashtra: Priority Sites for Conservation. Indian

Bird Conservation Network, Bombay Natural History Society,

Wildlife and Environment Conservation Society, Royal Society for

the Protection of Birds, BirdLife International. Oxford University

Press. Pp. viii + 174.

RASMUSSEN, P.C. & J.C. ANDERTON (2012): Birds of South Asia. The Ripley

Guide. Vols. 1 and 2, 2nd edition. National Museum of Natural

History — Smithsonian Institution, Michigan State University and

Lynx Edicions, Washington, D.C., Michigan and Barcelona.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

8. SIGHTING OF A FLOCK OF LEUCISTIC BLACK-TAILED GODWIT LIMOSA LIMOSA

IN CHILIKA LAKE, ODISHA, INDIA

MOoNALISA BHUJABAL!?** AND NANDA KISHORE BHUJABAL2

'Wild Orissa, BJ-29, BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar 751 014, Odisha, India.

*Wild Orissa, At / P.O. Tangi, District Khurda 752 023, Odisha, India.

*Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72234

Chilika (19° 43’ N; 85° 19’ E; 1,165 sq. km), Odisha

is one of the major wintering grounds for waterbirds along

the east coast of India (Balachandran et al. 2005; Dev 1988;

Kar and Sahu 1993). Chilika is an estuarine lagoon, shallow

throughout its spread, and connected to the Bay of Bengal.

It receives water from Rivers Daya and Bhargavi, and

several small streams. Several islands are located in the

lagoon covering an area of 22,300 ha (http://www.chilika.

com/ Accessed February 8, 2012). Mangalajodi, a village on

the banks of the lagoon, witnessed a successful initiative by

Wild Orissa (http://wildorissa.org/ Accessed February 8,

2012) to prevent poaching of waterfowl by involving former

poachers/hunters as their protectors (Nayak 2012; Pathak

2009).

During a monitoring trip for waterbirds on January

22, 2012, in the Mangalajodi area, we sighted a flock of six

whitish birds on the shore that resembled the Black-tailed

Godwit Limosa limosa except for the coloration; some

birds had pale buff markings. The birds were foraging in

a grassy patch a few metres from a flock of 4,000+ Black-

tailed Godwit. The godwits were seen occasionally chasing

the whitish birds. The birds were again observed during

subsequent visits to the area, during which six or less birds

were observed. The birds were photographed by Mr. Nanda

Kishore Bhujabal (Fig. 1).

~ Fig. 1: Leucistic Black-tailed Godwit sighted at Chilika Lake

In the field, the birds did show the presence/signs of the

black tail-band that is distinctive in the Black-tailed Godwit,

but one of the photographs examined later on showed that one

had a band on the underside of the tail. This feature and the

black (vs. pink) eyes seen in the photograph suggest that the

birds were leucistic individuals, rather than albinos. Instance

of leucism/abinism has been reported for many species in

the wild, but our sighting is interesting as besides probably

being the first report for the Black-tailed Godwit, six birds

were seen together in a flock.

REFERENCES

BALACHANDRAN, S., A.R. RAHMANI & P. SATHIYASELVAM (2005): Habitat

evaluation of Chilika Lake with special reference to birds as

Bioindicators. Final Report 2001—2005. Mumbai. Bombay Natural

History Society.

Dev, U.N. (1988): The winter grandiose of Chilika lake. Journal of

Nature and Wildlife Conservation Society of Orissa 1(1): 10-15.

Wildlife Today.

Kar, S.K. & H.K. Sanu (1993): Preliminary study on ecology of aquatic

birds in Chilika lake, Orissa. Pp. 62-64. Jn: Bird Conservation:

- Strategies for the nineties and beyond. Ornithological Society of

India, Bangalore.

Nayak, S. (2012): Innovative Approach in Wildlife Conservation —

Case of Waterfowl Conservation in Mangalajodi (Chilika) with

Participation of Poachers and Hunters Jn: Proceedings of Odisha

Environment Congress 2011. Orissa Forestry Sector Development

Project, Centre for Environment and Development, Human

Development Foundation & Regional Museum of Natural History,

Bhubaneswar.

PaTHAK, N. (2009): Community Conserved Areas in India—A Directory.

Kalpavriksh, Pune.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

13!

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

9. RECORDS OF IBISBILL JBIDORHYNCHA STRUTHERSITI IN

THE BHAGIRATHI RIVER, HARSIL, UTTARAKHAND, INDIA

ANKITA SINHA!**, Tanvi'?, B.S. ADHIKARI* AND K. RAmMeEsH!”

'Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, Post Box No. 18, Dehradun, 248 001, Uttarakhand, India.

"Email: [email protected], [email protected]

-Email: [email protected]

“Email: [email protected]

>Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72236

Ibisbill [bidorhyncha struthersii has long been an

enigma on account of its rarity, elusive behaviour, and

specialized niche requirement. It is a good swimmer and

feeds on aquatic invertebrates by probing underneath rocks

and gravel in shingle beds of fast-flowing streams (Pierce

1986). Its evolutionary status is not well-established though

it appears to be most closely related to oystercatchers,

avocets, stilts, and Pluvialis plovers (Baker et al. 2007).

However, because of its unique and distinctive features, and

absence of subspecies (Sibley and Monroe 1990), it has been

placed in a family of its own, Ibidorhynchidae.

The global population of this species is largely

unknown. The population estimate for China mentions about

100 breeding pairs (Brazil 2009). Even though the IUCN

conservation status of the species is Least Concern (BirdLife

International 2012), its distribution in India is restricted to

a few places in the Himalaya and records of sightings have

been invariably very rare (Grimmett et al. 2011).

BirdLife International describes the breeding range

of this bird between south-eastern Kazakhstan and northern

China, touching the north-western tip of the Himalayan range

in India. The range spans across Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir,

some places in Uttarakhand and a few sites in north-east India

(Grimmett et al. 2011). Early records of sightings in India

date back to 1906 (Whymper 1906) and 1910 (Whymper

1910) in the upper Bhagirathi in Uttarakhand and in 1935

(Stanford 1935) in upper Burma (now Myanmar). Recent

records are from Kosi river, Ramnagar, Jim Corbett National

Park in Nainital district, Uttarakhand, and Jia Bhorali river in

Nameri National Park in Assam. Ideal habitats of the species

comprise shingle-bed river valleys between 1,700 m and

4,400 m above msl with intermittent stretches of sand and

silt, boulders, cobbles, and pebbles (Ye et al. 2013).

As part of an on-going study of riverine forests and birds

along the River Ganga in the Bhagirathi catchment area, field

surveys are being carried along the banks of the Bhagirathi

river at regular intervals by us. During this survey, Ibisbills

were spotted thrice at an elevation of about 2,500 m above msl.

In October 2013, two adults and two subadults were spotted

132

feeding from shingle beds near Bagori village in the Harsil valley

(31° 02' 19.93" N; 78° 44' 14.17” E). In March 2014, two

adults were seen feeding in the same locality. An adult with two

chicks were spotted towards the end of May 2014, on a pebble

and sand island in the middle of several streams around the

same site. Harsil is a broad valley on the banks of Bhagirathi,

with moderately flowing braided streams and pebbled sandy

banks, at an altitude of 2,500 m above msl in Uttarkashi

district, Uttarakhand, which appears to be ideal habitat for

the species. During all the observations the birds were well-

camouflaged because of their greyish plumage. However, their

long, curved, red bill and prominent black band at the neck

made them visible amongst the grey pebbles and sand. They

were feeding voraciously by probing under the rocks, gravel,

and water collected in between small boulders.

Ibisbills were reported breeding in this area almost

a century ago (Whymper 1910). The sightings of birds in

different seasons of the year during our study confirm that

Harsil is still a potential breeding ground for these birds.

The general information obtained so far indicates that the

species breeds in the trans-Himalayan region and migrates

to lower elevations during the non-breeding season. Further

monitoring of birds in Harsil could reveal interesting facts

about this bird’s breeding behaviour.

Factors such as climate change, geographical and

altitudinal shifts in habitat suitability, and pressures on

riverine habitat from tourism, infrastructure development

and waste disposal, could affect this riverine specialist

(Buckton and Ormerod 2002). Given that little is known

about the ecology and other aspects of the species, and that

the river systems are undergoing adverse climatic change and

anthropogenic impacts in India, these sightings are significant

and call for concerted monitoring strategies to understand the

conservation status of the bird.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to the Department of Science

and Technology, Government of India, for financial

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

assistance to carry out the study on the effects of climate

change on riverine forests and indicator species along

River Ganga in Uttarakhand. Thanks are also due to

V.B. Mathur, Director, and P.K. Mathur, Dean, Wildlife

Institute of India, for their continued guidance and

support.

REFERENCES

Baker, A.J., L.P. SERGIO & A.P. TARA (2007): Phylogenetic relationships

and divergence times of Charadriiformes genera: multigene

evidence for the Cretaceous origin of at least 14 clades of

shorebirds. Biology Letters 3(2): 205-210.

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2012): [bidorhyncha struthersii. T'UCN Red

List of Threatened Species, Version 2013.2. International Union

for Conservation of Nature. Retrieved in May 2014.

BraziL, M. (2009): Birds of East Asia: eastern China, Taiwan, Korea,

Japan, eastern Russia. Christopher Helm, London.

Bucxton, S.T. & S.J. ORMEROD (2002): Global patterns of diversity

among the specialist birds of riverine landscapes. Freshwater

Biol. 47: 695-709.

GRIMMETT, R., C. INskipp & T. INskipp (2011): Pocket Guide to the Birds

of the Indian Subcontinent. Oxford University Press, UK.

Pierce, R.J. (1986): Observations on behaviour and foraging of the

Ibisbill Jbidorhyncha struthersii in Nepal. [bis 128: 37-47.

SiBLEY, C.G. & B.L. Monroe (1990): Distribution and taxonomy of birds

of the world. Yale University Press, New Haven, USA.

STANFORD, J.K. (1935): On the occurrence of the Ibisbill bidorhyncha

struthersii (Gould) in Upper Burma. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

38(2): 403-404.

Wuymeer, 8.L. (1906): Nesting of the Ibis-bill (bidorhynchus struthersi)

and the Common Sandpiper (7otanus hypoleucus). J. Bombay Nat.

Hist. Soc. 17(2): 546-547.

Wuymper, S.L. (1910): A breeding ground of the Ibisbill Ubidorhynchus

struthersi). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 20(2): 519-520.

Ye, Y., G.W.H. Davison, P. ZHu, L. Duan, W.N. Nan, S. XING &

C. Dine (2013): Habitat Utilization, Time budget and Daily

Rhythm of Ibisbill (/bidoryncha struthersii). Waterbirds 36(2):

135-143.

10. MOUNTAIN IMPERIAL-PIGEON DUCULA BADIA (RAFFLES) FEEDING ON

CAESALPINIA PULCHERRIMA (FABACEAE) FLOWER BUDS

ANILKUMAR, S.!

‘Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical Botanic Garden & Research Institute, Palode P.O., Thiruvananthapuram 695 562, Kerala, India.

Email: [email protected]

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72237

Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical Botanic Garden and

Research Institute (8° 45’—-8° 47' N; 77° 1'-77° 4' E; 120 ha)

is situated at the foothills of the southern Western Ghats,

Thiruvananthapuram district, Kerala. A study on bird diversity

of the garden initiated in 2011 revealed the presence of 135

species till April 2014. During the studies, a flock of eight

Mountain Imperial-Pigeon Ducula badia (Raffles) was sighted

in the campus from June 2013 onwards. On July 26, 2013,

afternoon, a bird was sighted flying and perching on a small

flowering shrub of Caesalpinia pulcherrima (Fabaceae).

C. pulcherrima is an exotic that has been introduced

throughout the world as an ornamental plant (Dassanayake

and Fosberg 1991). The bird first sat near an inflorescence in

the lower branch and started feeding on the flower buds. The

feeding process was slow and about six buds were consumed

within 15 minutes. It took only the buds, even though the stalk

had six open flowers and two pods. Then the bird moved to

the upper part of the plant with an inflorescence consisting of

three opened flowers and 13 buds. Here too, it took only the

buds and not the open flowers.

The Mountain Imperial-Pigeon occurs in the rainforests

of the Western Ghats and E. Himalaya from Arunachal to

Nepal up to c. 2,300 m and NE hill states (Ali and Ripley

1987; Manakadan et al. 2011). They are highly arboreal and

frugivorous, consuming especially fruits of banyan and other

wild figs and nutmeg (Ali and Ripley 1987). My observation

on the species feeding on the flower buds is interesting, as

the only other such record from India is on the flower buds

of Avicennia officinalis L. in mangroves of Kannur district,

Kerala (Jerdon 1846). However, this species has been

reported to feed occasionally on buds and young leaves in

other countries of its range (del Hoyo et al. 1997).

REFERENCES

Aul, S. & S.D. RipLey (1987): Compact Handbook of the Birds

of India and Pakistan together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal,

Bhutan and Sri Lanka. 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press,

Delhi.

DassANAYAKE, M. & F.R. FosBerG (1991): A Revised Handbook to the

Flora of Ceylon. Vol. 7. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.,

Delhi. Pp. 46-48.

DEL Hoyo, J., A. ELLiott & J. SARGATAL (1997): Handbook of the Birds

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

of the World. Vol. 4. (Sandgrouse to Cuckoos). Lynx Edicions,

Barcelona. Pp. 239-240.

JERDON, T.C. (1846): Second supplement to the catalogue of the birds

of south India. Madras Journal of literature and science XIII(3 1):

116-144.

MANAKADAN, R., J.C. DANIEL & N. BHOPALE (2011): Birds of the Indian

Subcontinent — A Field Guide. Bombay Natural Hisory Society

and Oxford University Press, Mumbai.

133

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

11. FIRST REPORT OF FOREST OWLET HETEROGLAUX BLEWITTI FROM

TANSA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY (WESTERN GHATS), MAHARASHTRA, INDIA

SUNIL LAAD!* AND ROHIDAS DAGALE?

'C-36/37 Park View, Kulupwadi Road, Borivali (East), Mumbai 400 066, Maharashtra, India. Email: [email protected]

*115 Shaswat Apartment, Sambhaji Nagar, Asangaon (West), Thane 421 601, Maharashtra, India. Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72238

The Forest Owlet Heteroglaux blewitti was considered

extinct for 113 years, until its rediscovery in November

1997 in the Toranmal Reserve Forest of Shahada, Nandurbar

district, Maharashtra (King and Rasmussen 1998). Subsequent

surveys reported its occurrence from Taloda Reserve Forest

(Ishtiaq and Rahmani 2000), Nandurbar district; Yawal

(Chavan and Rithe 2009), Jalgaon district; Melghat (Ishtiaq

and Rahmani 2000; Jathar and Rahmani 2004; Mehta ef

al. 2008), Amaravati district; Narnala (Chavan et al. 2013)

Akola district; Khaknar (Ishtiaq and Rahmani 2000; Mehta

et al. 2008) Burhanpur district; and Piplod, East Kalibhit and

West Kalibhit forest ranges (Mehta et al. 2008) in Khandwa

district, Madhya Pradesh. Historically, the species was known

from Phuljhar in Chhattisgarh, Sambalpur in Odisha (earlier

Orissa), and Taloda and Shahada in Maharashtra (Rasmussen

and Collar 1999). All these past and present records are

from Satpuda mountain ranges, and the species has not been

recorded south of Tapti river. In this communication, we

report its occurrence in Tansa Wildlife Sanctuary (19° 45’ N;

73° 20’ E), which partly lies in the northern Western Ghats

region in Maharashtra.

On October 24, 2014, during a field survey of birds in

and around the periphery of Tansa Wildlife Sanctuary (Tansa),

we observed an owlet perched in a dry tree at 10:56 hrs. It

was unusual to see an owlet perched in the open during the

day. We observed that it differed from the Spotted Owlet

Athene brama in having an unspotted crown, complete collar

on the breast, dark primaries, and a broadly banded tail. We

managed to take one clear photograph before the bird flew

off. Later, we confirmed the identification with Dr. Girish

Jathar, who had worked on the species. The habitat adjoining

the area was dry deciduous forest with open patches, which

is the typical habitat of the species (Ishtiaq and Rahmani

2000; Jathar and Rahmani 2004, 2011). The area is slightly

degraded due to encroachments and human disturbances.

Subsequent to this sighting in Palghar district, we also

recorded the species in November 2014, in the adjoining

areas of Tansa Wildlife Sanctuary in Thane district, c. 20 km

from our first location. |

Our observation reveals the occurrence of the Forest

Owlet in the Western Ghats for the first time, and this site

is c. 250 km southwest of Taloda in Nandurbar, its nearest

known distribution site. The discovery of the species in Tansa

and adjoining forests of Thane and Palghar districts calls for

reassessment of the distribution of the species, especially

in areas with similar habitat other than those historically

known. |

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We appreciate the cooperation provided by the Forest

Department and thank Mr. Saipun Imam Shaikh, Assistant

Conservator of Forest, Tansa Wildlife Sanctuary, for

permission to list the birds of Tansa.

REFERENCES

CHavaN, R.A. & K.D. RiTHE (2009): Occurrence and breeding record

of the Forest Owlet Heteroglaux blewitti from Yawal Wildlife

Sanctuary, Maharashtra, India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 106(2):

207-208.

CHAVAN, R., M. PARIWAKAM & V. BANsop (2013): Occurrence of the

Forest Owlet Heteroglaux blewitti in Narnala Wildlife Sanctuary,

Maharashtra. Journal Care4Nature I(1): 33-35.

IsHTIAQ, F. & A.R. RAHMANI (2000): Further information on status

and distribution of Forest Owlet (Athene blewitti). Forktail 16:

125-130.

JATHAR, G.A. & A.R. RAHMANI (2004): Ecological studies of the Forest

Spotted Owlet Athene (Heteroglaux) blewitti. Final Report.

134

Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, India. Pp. 77.

JATHAR, G.A. & A.R. RAHMANI (2011): Ecology of the Forest Owlet: A

comprehensive study of the Critically Endangered Forest Owlet in

Central India. Lambert Academic Publishing, Germany.

Kina, B.F. & P.C. Rasmussen (1998): The rediscovery of the Forest

Owlet Athene (Heteroglaux) blewitti. Forktail 14: 51-53.

Menta, P., J. KULKARNI & D. Patit (2008): A survey of the Critically

Endangered Forest Owlet Heteroglaux blewitti in Central India.

BirdingASIA 10: 77-87.

RASMUSSEN, P.C. & N.J. CoLLar (1999): Major specimen fraud in the

Forest Owlet Heteroglaux (Athene auct.) blewitti. [bis 141 (1):

11-21.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

12. UNUSUAL CONGREGATION OF SAVANNA NIGHTJAR CAPRIMULGUS AFFINIS

IN A WHEAT FIELD

GiRISH JATHAR!”*, SACHIN Anpat!?, BALU BHANGARE!* AND DHARMARAJ PATIL!”

'Watershed Organization Trust, 2™ Floor, The Forum Building, Padmavati Corner, Pune-Satara Road, Pune 411 009, Maharashtra, India.

"Email: [email protected]

*Email: [email protected]

“Email: [email protected]

°Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72239

On February 15, 2012, we were at Partala (22° 49’

4.56” N; 80° 18’ 33.83” E), initiating People’s Biodiversity

district in Madhya Pradesh. The village is surrounded by

forested hills on three sides, and a small river flows amidst

them. The river banks are surrounded by agricultural fields

with scattered trees. The main crops are paddy, wheat, maize,

and various pulses. The dominant vegetation in this region

is Zectona grandis, Terminalia arjuna, Aegle marmelos,

Soymida febrifuga, Madhuca indica, Ficus religiosa, and

Butea monosperma.

At 18:15 hrs we reached a huge Peepal tree Ficus

religiosa, which is one of the roosting sites of the Yellow-

footed Green-pigeon Treron phoenicoptera. On reaching, we

heard a cacophony of nightjar calls from an adjacent field.

It was getting dark and we could only see silhouettes of the

nightjars flying erratically, crisscrossing each other above the

wheat field. There were around 30-35 birds, continuously

calling and sallying on swarms of insects (moths). We

identified them as Savanna Nightjar Caprimulgus affinis

based on their distinct cweetzz, cweetzz, cweetzz calls. Along

with nightjars, small insectivorous bats were also observed

feasting on the moths. Two more species of nightjars, namely

Indian Jungle Nightjar Caprimulgus indicus and Indian Little

Nightjar Caprimulgus asiaticus, are found in this region.

However, we could not hear the calls of these species to

ascertain their presence in the congregation. The nightjars

were scattered across the wheat field, and since visibility was

extremely poor, we could not take photographs. We observed

this congregation for almost half an hour, after which we

could not follow their movements due to nightfall.

Ali and Ripley (1983) indicate that the Savanna

Nightjar forms loose flocks of 7 or 8 while undertaking local

movements. Similarly, Rasmussen and Anderton (2005) also

state that Savanna Nightjars ‘often fly in groups’. These

anecdotes suggest the gregarious tendency of Savanna

Nightjars. However, large congregations of Savanna

Nightjars, as recorded by us, have not been published. A

similar observation was made by P. Jeganathan (pers. comm.)

in Sri Lankamalleshwara Sanctuary, Andhra Pradesh, on

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

June 16, 2001. He observed 15 individuals, probably of Indian

Little Nightjar Caprimulgus asiaticus, near an agricultural

field foraging on insects. The European Nightjar Caprimulgus

europaeus is known to form loose parties or flocks of 6 to

20 individuals on their passage to autumn migration (Ali

and Ripley 1983).

The only known gregarious species of nightjar is the

Sand-colored Nighthawk Chordeiles rupestris of South

America, with flocks of up to 50 individuals observed (del

Hoyo et al. 1999). Del Hoyo et al. (1999) also mention that

during migration and in the non-breeding season, more

than one species of nightjar join to form groups of more

than 20 birds, gathering at good food resources, such as

grazing animals, animal corrals, lights or fires, or at insect

swarms or termite emergence. Some species of nighthawk,

such as Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor and Lesser

Nighthawk Chordeiles acutipennis, often forage in large

flocks of several hundred birds.

On February 16, 2012, we collected some moths which

were identified as Helicoverpa sp., a common pest on wheat.

King (1994) mentions that “Adult moths emerge from just

after dark to midnight and crawl onto a plant or vertical

substrate where their wings dry”. Williams et al. (2011)

mentions that “Night birds such as the Tawny Frogmouth and

nightjars feed on Helicoverpa moths as they are also active

at night.” These probably explain the reason for the large

congregation of Savanna Nightjars sighted by us at Partala.

It is very likely that such assemblages are common in this

region. However, this needs further investigation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to Divya Varier and Sujit Narwade

of BNHS India for their help in sharing information and

references with us. We are also grateful to Prithviraj Gaikwad

and Nitin Pachundkar of Watershed Organization Trust

for help in identification of the moth. We also thank Swiss

Development and Cooperation, Embassy of Switzerland, and

National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development for

funding this project.

£35

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

REFERENCES

Au, S. & S.D. RipLtey (1983): Handbook of the Birds of India and

Pakistan. Compact edn. Oxford University Press, Bombay.

DEL Hoyo, J., A. ELuiott & J. SARGATAL (1999): Handbook of the Birds

of the World. Vol. 5. Barn-Owls to Hummingbirds. Lynx Edicions,

Barcelona.

Kina, A.B.S. (1994): Heliothis/Helicoverpa (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).

Pp. 39-106. Jn: Mathews, G.A. & J.P. Turnstall (Eds): Insect Pests

of Cotton. CAB International. Wallingford, U.K.

Rasmussen, P.C. & J.C. ANDERTON (2005): Birds of South Asia. The

Ripley Guide. Vols 1 and 2. Smithsonian Institution and Lynx

Edicions, Washington, D.C. and Barcelona.

WILLIAMS, S., L. WILSON & S. VOGEL (Eps) (2011): Pests and Beneficials

in Australian Cotton Landscapes. A production of The Australian

Cotton Industry Development & Delivery Team. Pp. 98.

13. INDIAN SPINY-TAILED LIZARD SAARA HARDWICKII

IN SARISKA TIGER RESERVE, NORTH-EASTERN RAJASTHAN, INDIA

MANo] PARASHAR!, DIBYENDU MANDAL??, PooJA CHOURASIA2* AND K. SANKAR2>**

2 by)

'Sariska Tiger Reserve, P.O. Sariska, Alwar 301 022, Rajasthan, India.

*Wildlife Institute of India, P.O. Box 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, Uttarakhand, India.

7Email: [email protected]

. “Email: [email protected]

°Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72240

The Indian Spiny-tailed Lizard Saara hardwickii

is endemic to the dry areas of north-western Indian

subcontinent (Daniel 2002; Das 2002), and has a patchy

distribution throughout its range. While largely herbivorous,

it occasionally feeds on insects during the summer (Dutta

and Jhala 2007). It is solitary; adult lizards excavate burrows

generally 6—8 cm wide and 2 m long. Therefore, active

burrows surrogate the number of individuals, and can be

used to estimate population density (Dutta and Jhala 2007).

In India, it is known to occur in small isolated patches in the

Thar Desert and surrounding semi-arid regions of Rajasthan,

Gujarat, and western Uttar Pradesh. In Rajasthan, it is known

to occur in the Thar Desert, which extends through the

westernmost districts of Jaisalmer, Barmer, Jodhpur, Bikaner,

and Sri Ganganagar. Apart from Thar Desert, it was only

known to occur in the Tal Chhapar Wildlife Sanctuary, which

is situated in Churu district, adjacent to Bikaner district (Das

et al. 2012), classified under biogeographic zone 3A-Thar

Desert (Rodgers et al. 2002).

Perhaps the most serious threat to the Indian Spiny-

tailed Lizard population is habitat loss, brought about by

developmental activities, such as agriculture (expansion of

farmlands and irrigated areas), industries, and urbanization

(housing) in western Rajasthan (Ramesh and Ishwar 2008)

and Kachchh, Gujarat (Patel 2011). These lizards are hunted

for their flesh as a protein substitute and oil extracted from

their skin and tail is considered aphrodisiac. Due to limited

data on its distribution, status, and ecology, Spiny-tailed

Lizard is considered as Data Deficient in India (Molur and

Walker 1998).

The presence of the species was recorded by the first

author in May 2013, in Kalakhedi beat (27° 22' 11.8" N; 76°

136

31’ 57.5” E) of Akbarpur Range in Sariska Tiger Reserve

(STR).(25° 527° 33! N; 74°. 17'—16° 34” E), which is the

first record for this species in north-eastern Rajasthan.

Five belt transects of 500 x 6 m were laid at Kalakhedi

where lizard distribution was recorded and active burrows

were counted by two observers during June 2013. Since, the

population is confined to a small patch, more belt transects

could not be laid.

In all, 146 active burrows were recorded in the study

area. The estimated density of active burrows in the study

area was 98 +42.92 SE/ha (13.86—182.13 burrows /ha,

95% CI). The reported density of active burrows in dry

districts of Rajasthan is as follows: 1 burrow/ha in Barmer,

28.85 burrows/ha in Jaisalmer, 51.59 burrows/ha in Thalar

substrate or gravel plains (Ramesh and Ishwar 2008) and

324 burrows/ha in Tal Chhapar Wildlife Sanctuary (Das et al.

2012). In Abdasa tehsil of Kachchh, Gujarat, the estimated

burrow density was 90.83 +58.14 SE/hain 2007, buthad declined

to 30.95 +19.99 SE burrows/ha in 2010 (Jhala et al. 2012).

The recorded population of Spiny-tailed Lizard in STR is

isolated and confined to peripheral rocky hillocks interspersed

in a matrix of human-dominated landscape subjected

to livestock grazing. It is recommended that prevention

of livestock grazing and not allowing any watershed

management activities in this area is vital for the survival

of this species.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Shri P.R. Sinha, Director, and Dr. V.B. Mathur,

Dean, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, for their

encouragement and support extended for the study, and

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Rajasthan Forest Department for providing necessary

support and for permission to carry out field work.

We would also like to thank Sutirtha Dutta for his useful

comments on the draft manuscript, and Rajesh, Ratan,

Mamraj, and Jairam for their assistance in field data

collection.

REFERENCES

DanigEL, J.C. (2002): The Book of Indian Reptiles and Amphibians.

Bombay Natural History Society & Oxford University Press,

Mumbai. Pp. 238.

Das, I. (2002): A Photographic Guide to Snakes and Other Reptiles of

India. New Holland (UK) Publishers Ltd., London, 144 pp.

Das, S.K., S. Dooxia, K. Das & S.K. Dutta (2012): Ecological

observations on the Indian Spiny-tailed Lizard Saara hardwickii

(Gray, 1827) (Reptilia: Squamata: Agamidae) in Tal Chhapar

Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India. J. Threat. Taxa 5(1):

3516-3526.

Dutta, S. & Y.V. JHALA (2007): Ecological aspects of Indian Spiny-tailed

Lizard Uromastyx hardwickii in Kutch. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

104(3): 255-265.

JHALA, Y.V., A.R. RAHMANI, R. SANKARAN, I.P. BOPANNA, K.K. Mourya

& S. Dutta (2012): Research and Conservation of Endangered

and Threatened Fauna of Kachchh: An Integrated Approach.

Final Report. 2004—2011. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

Pp. 591.

Mo tur, S. & S. WALKER (Eds) (1998): Report of the Workshop

‘Conservation Assessment and Management Plan for Reptiles of

India’ (BCCP-Endangered Species Project). Conservation Breeding

Specialist Group, Zoo Outreach Organisation, Coimbatore, India.

156 pp.

PaTEL, P. (2011): Will development spare the spiny-tailed lizards in

Kachchh? Curr. Sci. 101(12): 1519-1520.

RAMESH, M. & N.M. IsHwar (2008): Status and distribution of Indian

Spiny-tailed Lizard (Uromastyx hardwickii) in the Thar Desert,

Western Rajasthan. GNAPE Technical Report No. T 02. Group for

Nature Preservation and Education, Chennai, India. 48 pp.

Ropcers, W.A., H.S. PANWAR & V.B. MATHUR (2002): Wildlife protected

area network in India: a review (executive summary). Wildlife

Institute of India, Dehradun. Pp. 14—17.

14. PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS OF

A BROWN-SPOTTED PIT VIPER

BHATTACHARJEE, K.!

'40/1 Tangra Road, Block-D, Flat 4, Kolkata 700 015, West Bengal, India. Email: [email protected]

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72242

On November 05, 2013, during a field survey of

vertebrates of Namdapha National Park (27° 29’ 27.8” N;

96° 22’ 32.2" E; 516 m above msl), Changlang district,

Arunachal Pradesh, India, a team of biologists came across

what appeared to be a Brown-spotted Pit Viper approaching

a small rodent on the forest floor. They observed the snake

for nearly 60 minutes. During this time, the snake initially

hid itself beneath foliage and left the prey for a while. It

approached the prey, which was already dead presumably

due to an initial bite, finally after 7-10 minutes and began

swallowing the prey.

Observations were made and photographic records

obtained (Figs 1—3). An imaginary line of the body from

head to tail (depending on the position of the snake) was

measured using a string, which was later measured using a

scale to obtain the average length of the snake (Fitch 1987;

Jesus et al. 2008).

The taxonomic identification of the pit viper is

unconfirmed as no scalation data was recorded. Visually, the

species appeared similar to Protobothrops mucrosquamatus.

The type locality of P mucrosquamatus 1s Naga Hills, which

has similar topography to the present recorded location of

this viper (Boulenger 1890, 1896; Giinther 1864; Levinton

et al. 2003).

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Fig. 1: The viper approaching its prey

Fig. 2: Full view of the viper

137

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Fig. 3: Feeding on its prey

Description: Slender, elongated yellowish-brown

body with series of black-edged large brown blotches

along the dorsum. Sixty four separate blotches, and light

coloured small lateral blotches along the body. Markings

on tail-end are close and form a band-like pattern. Tail tip

black. Ventral surface pale. Body scales with pointed tips.

Small yellowish-brown scales, devoid of any markings, on

dorsal surface of head. Faint lateral stripes extending from

eyes to angle of mouth. Prominent rostral scale between the

internasals. Eyes with vertical pupil. Fangs approximately

2 cm. Bifid tongue dark with red tinge. Total body length

c. 120ena.

Further investigation of this species is needed to

ascertain its taxonomic identity.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author is grateful to Dr. Jihosuo Biswas, Dr. Nabajit

Das, Primate Research Centre, Guwahati, and Mr. J. Abedin

for their kind cooperation in the field. Special thanks are due

to the Forest Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, for

allowing the team to conduct night surveys.

REFERENCES

BouLeNGER, G.A. (1890): The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon

and Burma. Reptilia and Batrachia. Taylor & Francis, London.

xvill, 541 pp.

BouLENGER, G.A. (1896): Catalogue of the Snakes in the British

Museum, Vol. 3. Taylor & Francis, London. xiv + 727 pp.

Fitcu, H.S. (1987): Collecting and life-history techniques. Pp. 143—164.

In: Seigel, R.A., J.T. Collins and S.S. Novak (Eds): Snakes: Ecology

and Evolutionary Biology. MacMillan Publishing, New York.

GuntTuer, A. (1864): The Reptiles of British India. Taylor & Francis,

London. xxvii + 452 pp.

Jesus, R.A., E.A. RAFAEL & D.C.M. Maria (2008): What is the length

of a snake? Contemporary Herpetology 2008(2): 1-3.

Leviton, A.E., O.U.W. GUINEVERE, MICHELLE S. Koo, GEorRGE R. ZUG,

Ruonpa S. Lucas & V. JENs (2003): The dangerously venomous

snakes of Myanmar Illustrated checklist with keys. Proc. Cal.

Acad. Sci. 54(24): 407-462.

15. ON A REPORT OF RED-BELLIED PACU PIARACTUS BRACHYPOMUS (CUVIER, 1818),

(CHARACIFORMES: CHARACIDAE) FROM MUVATTUPUZHA RIVER, KERALA, INDIA

K.V. ZEENA!2* AND K.S. JAMEELA BEEv1!?

'P.G. and Research Centre, Department of Zoology, Maharaja’s College, Ernakulum, Kochi 682 011, Kerala, India.

"Email: [email protected]

7Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72243

Piaractus brachypomus, an introduced fish species

from South America of Family Characidae, commonly

known as Red-bellied Pacu, was collected from Mukkam

in Muvattupuzha river, Kerala. It closely resembles the Red

Piranha Pygocentrus nattereri, but differs from it in terms

of feeding habits, dentition, and behaviour. Pacu species

are omnivores, while piranhas are highly carnivorous. The

lower jaw in pacu is thin and equal to the upper jaw, whereas

in piranha, the lower jaw is thicker and juts out beyond the

upper jaw. Pacus have two rows of molar-like teeth, while

piranhas have one row of pointed razor sharp teeth (Anon.

2010-2011; Datta and Nandeesha 2006).

Invasive alien fish species are one of the emerging

potential threats to indigenous species (Ajithkumar et al.

1998; Gopalakrishnan and Ponnaiah 1999; Katwate et al.

2012; Kottelat and Whitten 1996; Krishnakumar ef al. 2009;

Menon 1979; Molur and Walker 1998; Raghavan et al. 2008;

Shetty et al. 1989). Like some other exotic species, Piaractus

brachypomus was introduced to India from Bangladesh

between 2003 and 2004 for the aquaculture and aquarium

trade (Chatterjee and Mazumdar 2009; Singh and Lakra

2011). It has been reported from the rivers of Tripura (Datta

and Nandeesha 2006), Periyar river, Kerala (Dahanukar

et al. 2011; Singh and Lakra 2011), Dimbhe reservoir,

Maharashtra (Singh and Lakra 2011), and Chalakudy river,

Kerala (Katwate et al. 2012).

This communication highlights the occurrence of

Piaractus brachypomus in Muvattupuzha river, Kerala, which

138

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Table 1: Biometric characters of Piaractus brachypomus (n = 2)

Characters (in mm) Range (mm)

Standard Length (mm) 327-347

% SL

Head Length 26.23—27.95

Body Depth 51.38—-55.62

Pre Dorsal Length 56.2/7-56.77

Post Dorsal Length 55.66—57.64

Pre Pectoral Length 24.46—24.50

Pre Ventral Length 50.46—51.00

Pre Anal Length 74.62-77.81

Dorsal Fin Length 23.05—23.24

Dorsal Fin Base 23.24—23.63

Pectoral Fin Length 19.27-21.61

Anal Fin Length 18.04—-18.73

Anal Fin Base 25.38—27.67

Caudal Length 8.07-8.87

% HL

Snout Length 27 .84—30.23

Eye Diameter 15.46—23.26

Inter Orbital Distance 52.33—-53.61

Meristic counts

Dorsal fin rays 18

Pectoral fin rays i/15

Ventral fin rays i/7

Anal fin rays ii/23

Caudal fin rays 19

Scales in lateral series 102

Note: SL = Standard Length; HL = Head Length

could have arrived here due to inter-basin water transfer from

the Periyar river through the Idukki Project, or as escapees

from aquarium or aquaculture farms. The two specimens were

collected using hook and line from Mukkam (9° 47’ 00” N;

76° 21’ 00" E) in Kottayam district during an ichthyofaunal

survey conducted in March 2012. Biometrics was made to

the nearest 0.1 mm using digital calipers (Table 1). The fish

was identified based on Jegu (2003). The specimens were

deposited in the museum of Zoology Department, Maharaja’s

College, Ernakulam (F.456 and F.457).

Considering the negative impacts of exotic species on

biodiversity, there is an urgent need for standard quarantine

procedure on the introduction of exotic species. Other

exotic species like Osphronemus goramy, Pangasianodon

hypophthalmus, and Clarias gariepinus have been collected

from the Muvattupuzha river during our earlier survey (Zeena

Mean (mm) Standard Deviation

2E13 shal 6

53/50 | 3.00

5G 52 me ree

56.65 1.40

24.48 0.02

50.73 0.39

76.21 2.26

23515 0.13

23.44 0.28

20.44 1.66

18.39 | 0.49

26.52 1.61

8.47 0.57

29.03 1.70

19.36 5.51

52.97 0.91

and Jameela Beevi 2013). The impacts of P brachypomus on

natural waters are well-documented (Arsenia 2007; Singh et

al. 2013; Witkowski and Grabowska 2012), but there is still an

urgent need for a detailed investigation of its biology and impacts

on indigenous fish fauna in different Indian wetlands.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the Head, Department of

Zoology, Maharaja’s College, Ernakulam, for providing

necessary facilities to carry out the research. The authors also

express their heartfelt gratitude to Dr. V.S. Basheer, Senior

Scientist, National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources, Kochi

Unit, for confirmation of the fish’s identification. One of the

authors, Zeena, K.V. extends her sincere gratitude to the UGC

for granting her Teacher Fellowship.

REFERENCES

AJITHKUMAR, C.R., C.R. Bru & R. THomas (1998): Plecostomus

multiradiatus an armoured catfish from freshwater ponds near

Kunnamkulam, Kerala and its possible impact on indigenous

fishes. LAK News, Limnological Association of Kerala. Pp. 1-2.

Anonymous (2010-2011): Annual Report. National Bureau of Fish

Genetic Resources, Lucknow. Pp. 23-24.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

ARSENIA, G. CAGAUAN (2007): Red-bellied Pacu in the Philippines.

Journal of Environmental Science and Management 10(1):

42-47.

CHATTERJEE, N.R. & B. Mazumpar (2009): Induced breeding of pacu

(Piaractus brachypomus) in captivity with pituitary extract.

Aquaculture Asia 14(2): 23.

139

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

DAHANUKAR, N., R. RAGHAVAN, A. ALI, R. ABRAHAM & C.P. SHAN (2011):

The status and distribution of freshwater fishes of the Western

Ghats. Pp. 21-48. Jn: Molur, S., K.G. Smith, B.A. Daniel and

W.R.T. Darwall (Compilers): The status of freshwater biodiversity

in the Western Ghats. International Union for Conservation of

Nature (IUCN) Gland, Switzerland & Zoo Outreach Organization

(ZOO), Coimbatore, India. 116 pp.

Datta, M.K. & M.C. NANDEESHA (2006): Pacu (Piaractus brachypomus),

water loving exotic finfish enter Indian aquaculture scene. Fishing

Chimes 26(6): 10-12.

GOPALAKRISHNAN, A. & A.G. PONNAIAH (1999): Introduction of Red

Piranhas for aquarium purposes in Kerala. Fishing Chimes 1&(12):

53-55.

Jecu, M. (2003): Serrasalminae (Pacus and Piranhas). Pp. 182-196.

In: Reis, RE., S.O. Kullander and C.J. Ferraris Jr (Eds): Checklist

of the freshwater fishes of South and Central America. EDIPUCRS,

Porto Alegra, Brazil.

KatwaTeE, UNMESH, DEEPAK APTE & RuUPESH RAuT (2012): Invasion in our

rivers. Hornbill April—June: 42-45.

KotrTeLat, M. & T. WHITTEN (1996): Freshwater biodiversity in Asia

with special reference to fish. World Bank Technical Paper

No. 343. The World Bank, Washington DC. 59 pp.

KRISHNAKUMAR, K., R. RAGHAVAN, G. PRASAD, A. BIJUKUMAR,

M. SEKHARAN, B. PEREIRA & ANVAR ALI (2009): When pets become

pests! Exotic aquarium fishes and biological invasions in Kerala,

India. Current Science 97(4): 474-476.

Menon, A.G.K. (1979): Conservation of ichthyofauna of India.

Pp. 25-33. In: Jhingran, A.G. and V.V. Sugunan (Eds): Conservation

and management of inland capture fisheries resources of India.

Mo ur, S. & S. WALKER (EDs) (1998): Report of the Workshop

“Conservation Assessment and Management Plan for Freshwater

Fishes of India”. Zoo Outreach Organization, Conservation

Breeding Specialist Group India, Coimbatore, India. 156 pp.

RAGHAVAN, R., G. PRASAD, P.H. ANVAR-ALI & B. PEREIRA (2008): Exotic

fish species in a global biodiversity hotspot: observations from

River Chalakudy, part of Western Ghats, Kerala, India. Biological

Invasions 10(1): 37-40.

SHETTY, H.P., M.C. NANDEESHA & A.G. JHINGRAN (1989): Impact

of exotic aquatic species in inland waters. Pp. 45-55.

In: De Silva, S.S. (Ed.): Exotic aquatic organisms in Asia.

Proceedings of the Workshop on Introduction of exotic organisms

in Asia. Asian Fisheries Society, Spec. Publ. No.3, Asian Fisheries

Society, Manila, Philippines.

SINGH, A.K. & W.S. LAKRA (2011): Risk and benefit assessment of alien

fish species of the aquaculture and aquarium trade into India.

Reviews in Aquaculture 3(1): 3-18.

SINGH, A.K., SHARAD C. SRIVASTAVA, DINESH KUMAR, ABUBAKAR ANSARI,

Rita VERMA & PANKAJ VERMA (2013): Exotic fish diversity,

invasion and its impacts on aquatic biodiversity and ecosystems

in Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh State Biodiversity Board Souvenir.

Pp. 129-140.

Witkowski, A. & J. GRABowSKA (2012): The non-indigenous

freshwater fishes of Poland: Threats to the native ichthyofauna

and consequences for the fishery: A review. Acta Ichthyol. Piscat.

42(2): 77-87.

ZEENA, K.V. & K.S. JAMEEA BEEVI (2013): Pangasianodon hypophthalmus

(Sauvage, 1878) —an alien catfish in Muvattupuzha River, Kerala,

India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 110(3): 228-229.

16. ICHTHYOFAUNAL DIVERSITY OF TUNDI WETLAND, BAJANA,

LITTLE RANN OF KACHCHH, GUJARAT, INDIA

H.S. BANYAL!” AND SANJEEV KUMAR!?*

‘Desert Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Jodhpur 342 005, Rajasthan, India.

*Email: [email protected]

-Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72246

Kachchh Biosphere Reserve (KBR), Gujarat, India,

is known for its unique geomorphology and ecology. KBR

(12,524 sq. km) comprises the Great Rann of Kachchh (7,500

sq. km) and the Little Rann of Kachchh (4,954 sq. km) —

rann 1s a salt impregnated area, often referred to as saline

wasteland. The silts of Little Rann of Kachchh (LRK) show

strong affinity to the local soil resources of Gujarat, unlike

the silts of Great Rann of Kachchh (GRK), which are the

deposits of the Indus river (Meena et al. 2005).

The Rann is a seasonally flooded wetland ecosystem,

most of which dries up by the end of November/December

and remains dry till the arrival of the monsoon in July. The

Little Rann of Kachchh (LRK) supports marine, estuarine,

and freshwater fish species, as it has a mix of fresh water

from the Banas, Brahmni, Rupen, and Machchhu rivers

and the salt-brackish water from Surajbari Creek. Singh et

140

al. (1999) reported 22 fish species from the Little Rann of

Kachchh (LRK), while Baqri and Bohra (2002) recorded

20 species. :

In recent times, the fringe areas of the Little Rann at

Bajana, Surendernagar district, have been receiving water

from the Narmada Canal. This canal ends at Bajana forming

the Tundi wetland, which has a spread of up to 2.5 km in

diameter (Fig.1). Tundi has water for most parts of the year.

This region is an important part of LRK because it is located

near the Wild Ass Sanctuary. There is no information on the

fish fauna of this area of the Narmada Canal, and hence, we

carried out a survey of the Tundi wetland during 2012—2013

to explore its fish diversity. Collections were made by hand

and cast net, and were preserved in 10% formalin for further

studies. The species were identified following Talwar and

Jhingran (1991) and Jayaram (1999).

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

70° 7°.

| 68° 69°

| =

4 ? See. iS

lad %% : | ees: o J ? ,

| “a LITTLE RANN OF KRACHCHH

: |

CUP neem) ~”MACHCHHU RIVER -4f BRAHMNI RIVER thal

IO 3 ‘ leat i at steal r a AW aa a. “i , Ar 930.

} ee .. on gay Ls AN > ROA ™. 4 Me

\ ef~ MALTY * HALWAD NARMADA

“ ~ | CANAL

re DHRANGADHRA

68° 69° 70° 71° ee

Fig.1: Little Rann of Kachchh, showing Tundi wetland

RESULTS

Twelve species of fish were collected from the Tundi

wetland (Table 1). Cypriniformes, represented by eight

species belonging to one family, was the dominant order

with maximum fish catch and diversity. This was followed

by Perciformes, represented by three species belonging to

two families, then Beloniformes, represented by one species

belonging to one family. The systematic account of the fishes

recorded from the wetland is as follows:

Class: Actinopterygii

Order: Cypriniformes

Family: Cyprinidae

Genus: Salmophasia Swainson

1. Salmophasia bacaila (Hamilton, 1822)

Material examined: | ex., Tundi wetland at Bajana,

Surendernagar, 29.xi1.2012, Coll.: S. Kumar & H.S. Banyal,

Reg. No. V/2999.

_ Diagnostic Characters:

aa 7: Ani ee Pei yan,

Body elongated and strongly compressed; mouth

oblique; dorsal fin inserted well in advance of anal fin;

scales very small; lateral line slightly decurved, with 105

scales; fins hyaline, silvery in colour.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Genus: Rasbora Bleeker

2. Rasbora daniconius (Hamilton, 1822)

Material examined: 3 ex., Tundi wetland at Bajana,

Surendernagar, 27.xi1.2012, Coll.: S. Kumar & H.S. Banyal,

Reg. No. V/2997.

Diagnostic Characters:

Diu7;An 5; P1 14; Vis

Body oblong and compressed; mouth small, a fairly

distinct blue black mid-lateral stripe from eye to base of

caudal fin, fins hyaline, origin of dorsal fin nearer to caudal

fin base, pectoral fins shorter than head, lateral line complete

with 32 scales; barbels absent.

Genus: Osteobrama Heckel

3. Osteobrama cotio (Hamilton, 1822)

Material examined: | ex., Tundi wetland at Bajana,

Surendernagar, 29.x11.2012, Coll. S. Kumar & H.S. Banyal,

Reg. No. V/3000.

Diagnostic Characters:

D it 8; A ii 36; P1 13; Vi8

Body considerably compressed, abdominal edge trenchant

from behind pelvic-fin base to anal fin, but rounded in front of

pelvic fins; mouth small; barbels absent. Dorsal spine weak

and serrated, lateral line with c. 65 scales; colour in life silvery

with scattered pigment spots on dorsal side; a dark blotch on

nape. Scales somewhat deciduous and irregularly arranged.

141

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Table 1: Fish species recorded by earlier workers in the Little Rann of Kachchh and during this study in Tundi wetland at Bajana

Family

Cyprinidae

Belonidae

Channidae

Cichlidae

Bagridae

Ariidae

Synodontidae

Trichiuridae

Cynoglossidae

Clupeidae

Engraulidae

Chirocentridae

Mugilidae

Polynemidae

Gobiidae

Binomial

Pethia ticto

Labeo bata

Labeo calbasu

Cirrhinus mrigala

Salmophasia bacaila

Rasbora daniconius

Osteobrama cotio

Systomus sarana

Puntius sophore

Dawkinsia arulius

Labeo rohita

Labeo boggut

Labeo potail

Labeo fimbricatus

Xenentodon cancila

Channa punctata

Channa marulius

Oreochromis mossambicus

Sperata seenghala

Mystus cavasius

Arius sona

Harpodon nehereus

Saurida tumbil

Trichiurus lepturus

Cynoglossus macrolepidotus

Tenualosa ilisha

Tenualosa toll

Coilia dussumieri

Coilia reynaldi

Chirocentrus dorab

Mugil cephalus

Chelon subviridis

Liza parsia

Leptomelanosoma indicum

Filimanus heptadactyla

Trypauchen vagina

Boleophthalmus dussumieri

Periophthalmus barbarus

Singh et al. (1999)

(Collections mainly from

Hadakiya Creek near

Surajbari)

+ + t+ +t t+ + + +t + + + +t FF + + + +

Bagri and Bohra* (2002)

(Names of collection sites

not given)

Present study (Collection

from Tundi wetland,

Bajana)

+ + + + + +

Note: + = recorded; - = not recorded

Genus: Systomus McClelland

4. Systomus sarana (Hamilton, 1822)

long as orbit, maxillary pair much longer. Dorsal fin inserted

slightly nearer to tip of snout than to base of caudal fin;

Material examined: | ex., Tundi wetland at Bajana,

Surendernagar, 29.x11.2012, Coll.: S. Kumar & H.S. Banyal,

Reg. No. V/3003.

Diagnostic Characters:

D iv 8; Ai 5; P1 14; Vi8

Mouth moderate; barbels two pairs, rostral ones as

lateral line complete with 33 scales; a dull blotch on lateral

line before base of caudal fin.

Genus: Pethia Pethiyagoda et al.

5. Pethia ticto (Hamilton, 1822)

Material examined: 2 ex., Tundi wetland at Bajana,

142 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Surendernagar, 27.xii.2012, Coll.: S. Kumar & H.S. Banyal,

Reg. No. V/2897.

Diagnostic Characters:

Div 8A 4; Pat 2-V 18

Body elongate, short; mouth terminal; barbels absent,

dorsal fin inserted posterior to base of pelvic fin; last

unbranched ray osseous, strong and serrated at posterior

edge, black spot present on pectoral fin; lateral line complete

with 25 scales.

Genus: Puntius Hamilton

6. Puntius sophore (Hamilton, 1822)

Material examined: 2 ex., Tundi wetland at Bajana,

Surendernagar, 27.xii.2012, Coll.: S. Kumar & H.S. Banyal,

Reg. No. V/2896 (b).

Diagnostic Characters:

D iv 9; Ait 55; P1 15; V1i8

Body short; mouth terminal, dorsal fin inserted

equidistant between tip of snout and base of caudal fin,

black spot present on dorsal fin; barbels absent; lateral line

complete with 26 scales.

Genus: Cirrhinus Cuvier

7. Cirrhinus mrigala (Hamilton, 1822)

Material examined: | ex., Tundi wetland at Bajana,

Surendernagar, 29.xii.2012, Coll.: S. Kumar & H.S. Banyal,

Reg. No. V/3002.

Diagnostic Characters:

Day 13;A 105: Pili V rs

Body streamlined; snout blunt, often with pores;

barbels a single short pair of rostrals only. Dorsal fin as high

as body. Pectoral fins shorter than head. Caudal fin deeply

forked. Lateral line with 42 scales. Pectoral, pelvic and

anal fins orange-tipped (especially during beeding season);

dorsal and caudal fins dusky.

Genus: Labeo Cuvier

8. Labeo bata (Hamilton, 1822)

Material examined: | ex., Tundi wetland at Bajana,

Surendernagar, 27.xi1.2012, Coll.: S. Kumar & H.S. Banyal,

Reg. No. V/2902.

Diagnostic Characters:

Div 10; Ai 5; P117;Vi8

Mouth inferior; lips thin, lower lip slightly fringed;

dorsal fin inserted closer to snout-tip than base of caudal

fin; pectoral fins as long as head, extending to pelvic fins;

lateral line with 38 scales, an irregular black blotch present

on anterior (fourth to sixth) scales of lateral line.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Order: Beloniformes

Family: Belonidae

Genus: Xenentodon Regan

9. Xenentodon cancila (Hamilton, 1822)

Material examined: 2 ex., Tundi wetland at Bajana,

Surendernagar, 27.xii.2012, Coll.: S. Kumar & H.S. Banyal,

Reg. No. V/2903.

Diagnostic Characters:

D 17;A 16; P11; V 6

Body elongated and slightly compressed; head

pointed, beak-like; dorsal fin inserted usually anterior to

vertical through origin of anal fin; scales very small; caudal

fin truncate, a series of five blotches on sides of body

between pectoral and anal fins.

Order: Perciformes

Family: Channidae

Genus: Channa Scopoli

10. Channa punctata (Bloch, 1793)

Material examined: 2 ex., Tundi wetland at Bajana,

Surendernagar, 27.xii.2012, Coll.: S. Kumar & H.S. Banyal,

Reg. No. V/2898 and V/2904.

Diagnostic Characters:

325A 2leP 16: V6

Body elongate and rounded in cross-section; pectoral

fins extend to anal fin; ventral fin almost 75% of pectoral fin

length; caudal fin rounded. Scales on summit of head large,

predorsal scales 12, scales 40 in lateral series.

11. Channa marulius (Hamilton, 1822)

Material examined: 2 ex., Tundi wetland at Bajana,

Surendernagar, 27.xii.2012, Coll.: S. Kumar & H.S. Banyal,

Reg. No. V/2998.

Diagnostic Characters:

D4$2;4:39228 TOs 6

Dorsal fin long; pectoral fins about half head length;

ventral fin about 75% of pectoral fin length, rosette of head-

scales lies between orbits, frontal head-scale occupying central

portion of rosette; two scales between rosette and basal head-

scale; 10 scale-rows between preopercular angle and hind

border of orbit; predorsal scales 16; scales 68 in lateral series,

five dark oval blotches present along the lateral line.

Family: Cichlidae

Genus: Oreochromis Gunther

12. Oreochromis mossambicus (Peters, 1852)

Material examined: 2 ex., Tundi wetland at Bajana,

143

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Surendernagar, 29.x1i1.2012, Coll.: S. Kumar & H.S. Banyal,

Reg. No. V/3001.

Diagnostic Characters:

D xv 10; Ai 11; P 14; V15

Snout long; forehead with relatively large scales,

starting with 2 scales between the eyes followed by 9 scales

up to the dorsal fin; 14 lower gill-rakers; pharyngeal teeth very

fine, a duckbill-like snout due to enlarged jaws, often causing

the upper profile to become concave in male specimen.

Discussion

Singh et al. (1999) reported 22 fish species from LRK,

mainly from collections made in Surajbari Creek area, where

estuarine conditions prevail. Hence, mostofthefishesreported

by them are estuarine or marine species. Bagri and Bohra

(2002) stated that 20 species of fish occur in LRK, but listed

only 8 species, namely Cirrhinus mrigala, Labeo boggut,

L. fimbricatus, L. potail, Dawkinsia arulius, Systomus

sarana, Mystus cavasius, and Channa punctata. Our study

recorded the presence of 12 fish species from Tundi wetland,

of which 4 were recorded by earlier workers in other areas

of Kachchh.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to Dr. K. Venkataraman,

Director, ZSI, Kolkata, for providing necessary facilities to

undertake the work.

REFERENCES

Baagart, Q.H. & P. Boura (2002): Deserts: Rann of Kachchh. Pp. 111-122.

In: Alfred, J.R.B., A.K. Das and A.K. Sanyal (Eds): Ecosystems of

India. ENVIS, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.

JAYARAM, K.C. (1999): The Freshwater Fishes of the Indian Region.

Narendra Publishing House, Delhi, India. 551 pp.

MEENA, R.L., Y.L. VERMA, V.T. Korvapiya, B.J. PATHAK &

A.R. KsuatriyA (2005): Kachchh Biosphere Reserve Management

(A Plan for Protection, Conservation, Research and Development).

Gujarat State Forest Department, Gujarat.

SinGcH, H.S., B.H. PATEL, R. PARveEz, V.C. Soni, NIBA SHAH,

Ketan Tatu & D. Patet (1999): Ecological Study of Wild

Ass Sanctuary. Technical Report. GEER Foundation, GFD,

Gandhinagar, Gujarat.

TALWAR, P.K. & A.G. JHINGRAN (1991): Inland fishes of India and adjacent

countries. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

Vols I & H. 1158 pp.

17. YUCCA DECIPIENS TREL., ANEW HOST OF FLORIDA RED SCALE

CHRYSOMPHALUS AONIDUM L. IN INDIA

B.A. Kore!** anp Tuite, S.V.!°

'Department of Botany, Yashvantrao Chavan Institute of Science, Satara 415 001, Maharashtra, India.

“Email: [email protected]

*Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72248

Yucca decipiens Trel. (Fig. 1a) is widely grown as an

ornamental plant in landscape design. This plant is native to

central Mexico, naturally found at elevations between 1,800

and 2,500 m. In nature, this plant forms branches and grows

up to 10 m height. The specimen used for this study is not

branched and is 30 cm in height. Leaves are stiff, sharp, and

edged with a white border. The plant tolerates a wide range of

environmental conditions, but is best grown in bright sunlight

in subtropical or mild temperate areas. The inflorescence,

flowers, fruits, and seeds of some species of Yucca are edible

(Couplan 1998).

During a routine visit to the botanical garden of our

institute, Yucca decipiens was found to be attacked by Florida

Red Scale from August 2012 to 2014 (Fig. 1b). Scale insects

are sap sucking hemipterous insects that include all members

of the superfamily Coccoidea. These are closely related

to aphids (Aphidoidea), whiteflies (Aleyrodoidea), and

jumping plant lice (Psylloidea), which make up the suborder

144

Sternorrhyncha (Gullan and Martin 2003). Scale insects are

some of the most serious pests of ornamental plants.

These insects are usually less than 5 mm in length.

Florida Red Scale has circular armour made up of three

concentric rings. The colour is dark reddish brown with a

conspicuous light brown centre (Fig.1c). The adult female is

c. 2.0 to 2.2 mm in diameter and produces bright yellow eggs,

which are deposited under the scale armour in groups of c. 10

eggs. The crawlers are bright lemon-yellow, oval (Fig. 1d), and

very active; they move quite a distance before settling down.

During summer, the life cycle of this pest is completed in less

than six weeks, while in winter it undergoes longer life cycle.

Heavy infestation was observed from August to September,

which decreased up to January. Summer months showed poor

infestation. Generally there are six generations in a year, but in

the present study the largest scale population increase occurred

in monsoon. Heavy and continuous rains during 2013 did not

affect the population under observation.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Fig. 1a: Host plant

Fig. 1c: Seldome of insect

Usually scales feed on the underside of leaves, but

here they are observed on both the surfaces (Hill 1983, 2008;

Miller and Davidson 2005; Soto et al. 2008). The opposite

side of the leaf carries a yellow spot where the scale is

feeding. The spots become progressively larger as the scales

continue to feed. If the scales are not controlled, the leaves

dry up and drop prematurely. Generally scales infest tender

shoots, branches, and main stem (Hill 1983, 2008; Miller

and Davidson 2005; Schweig and Grunberg 1936; Watson

2005), but in this study they have been reported on leaves

only. Scale infestation on plants and its nature of damage

reduces the ornamental value of garden plants. Interestingly

no other garden plant nearby was infested by the scale insect.

Fig. 1b: Enlarged photograph of infected leaf

Fig. 1d: Crawler

This indicates that Yucca decipiens is a new host of Florida

Red Scale.

Scales are preyed upon by numerous beneficial insects

that keep them under control (Steinberg et a/. 1986). But

no such biocontrol agent was observed during the study

period.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Principal and Head

Department of Botany Yashvantrao Chavan Institute of

Science, Satara. Thanks are also due to Dhanaji Ghadage for

providing the technical assistance.

REFERENCES

CoupLan, F. (1998): The Encyclopedia of Edible Plants of North

America. McGraw Hill Professional.

GULLAN, P.J. & J.-H. MARTIN (2003): Sternorrhyncha (jumping plant-lice,

whiteflies, aphids and scale insects). Pp. 1079-1089. In: Resh, V.

and R. Cardé (Eds): Encyclopedia of Insects. Academic Press,

Amsterdam.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

£45

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Hitt, D.S. (1983): Agricultural Insect Pests of the Tropics and their

Control. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York.

746 pp.

Hitt, D.S. (2008): Pests of crops in warmer climates and their control.

Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 704 pp.

Miter, D.R. & J.A. DAvipson (2005): Armored Scale Insect Pests of

Trees and Shrubs (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). Cornell University

Press, Ithaca, New York. 442 pp.

ScHWEIG, C. & A. GRUNBERG (1936): The problem of black scale

(Chrysomphalus ficus Ashm.) in Palestine. Bulletin of Entomological

Research 27: 677-713.

Soto, A., M. Borras, R. VERCHER & F. GARCIA-MARI (2008):

Chrysomphalus aonidum (L.) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) in Spain.

Studies on its biology and population dynamics. Pp. 77—81. In:

Proceedings of the meeting at Catania (Italy), November 5-7,

2007. IOBC/wprs Bulletin 38: 345 pp.

STEINBERG, S., H. PopoLER & D. RosEN (1986): Biological control of

the Florida red scale, Chrysomphalus aonidum, in Israel by two

parasite species: current status in the coastal plain. Phytoparasitica

14: 199-204.

Watson, G.W. (2005): Arthropods of Economic Importance: Diaspididae

of the World. World Biodiversity Database 2005.

18. MASS OCCURENCE OF STINK BUG CYCLOPELTA SICCIFOLIA (WESTWOOD)

(HETEROPTERA: PENTATOMOIDEA: DINIDORIDAE) ON MILZETTIA PINNATA (L.)

PANIGRAHI, AT KANNUR, KERALA, SOUTHERN INDIA

_ VINAYAN Nair!

‘Division of Agriculture, Tagore Vidyaniketan GVHSS, Rabeendrapuram, Taliparamba P.O., Kannur 670 141, Kerala, India.

Email: vinayanpnair@ gmail.com

Address for correspondence: XV/446, Al, Nethaji Housing Colony, Trichambaram, P.O. Taliparamba, Kannur 670 141, Kerala, India.

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72249

Cyclopelta siccifolia (Westwood) is a dirty brown,

oval-shaped pentatomid bug, with a pungent odour, belonging

to Family Dinidoridae. It was recorded as a pest of Coral

tree Erythrina (L.) (Distant 1902) and several other species

of Leguminosae. Beeson (1993) reported C. siccifolia

congregrating on twigs in crowded colonies. Beeson (1993)

reported the host plants of Cyclopelta as Coral tree Erythrina

(L.), Red Gram Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. and Indian

Beech tree Pongamia Vent., while McCann (1942) recorded

Cyclopelta siccifolia on Pongamia glabra Vent., at Khandala,

Western Ghats. Further, David and Venugopal (1961)

recorded it on Tree Wisteria Sesbania speciosa Taub. ex Engl.,

from Coimbatore; Varshney (1967) observed Cyclopelta

siccifolia (Westwood) on Bastard Teak Butea monosperma

(Lam.) Taub., while Ranjith et al. (1992) recorded it on

Erythrina indica (Lam.) at Kannur; Hill (1993) on Betel

vine Piper betle (L.); Nair (1995) on Moringa (Adans.) in

Maharashtra; Naveed ef al. (2000) on Pongamia glabra

Vent. in Karnataka; Joshi et al. (2011) on Millettia pinnata

(L.) Panigrahi (~Pongamia glabra = Pongamia pinnata)

(Fabaceae) in Maharashtra; and Kulkarni et a/. (2012) on

Holigarna grahamii (Wt.) Kurz, also in Maharashtra. The

present note reports a heavy infestation of C. siccifolia

on Millettia pinnata in Tagore Vidyaniketan Government

Vocational Higher Secondary School Campus, Taliparamba,

Kannur, Kerala.

During the first week of October 2013, I came across

a heavy infestation of C. siccifolia on a 6 m tall M. pinnata

in Tagore Vidyaniketan Government Vocational Higher

Secondary School Campus. There were roughly 1,000 bugs

within | m from the base of the tree. Numerous bugs were

also found on the base of the tree, the trunk, and upper

branches. A pungent smell was emitted by the bugs and a

very fine white thread-like structure was found connecting

the bugs in the groups. The majority of them were adults,

with a few nymphs. Around 2,000—3,000 bugs were on the

tree. The bugs were not flying when disturbed; instead they

were found crawling. Upon dislodging and falling to the

ground, they crawled back onto the plant. I could not see

the infestation on another tree. Though I could not observe

these bugs sucking the sap of M. pinnata, wrinkling and

drying of young leaves and tender branches was observed.

Application of neem extract (Azadirachta indica) reduced

the infestation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to Smt. Rama V., Principal, Division of

Agriculture, Tagore Vidyaniketan GVHSS, Taliparamba, for

facilities and encouragement, and Rajith P., LTA, Division of

Agriculture, for his help. I am also grateful to the anonymous

reviewer for suggestions for improving this note.

REFERENCES

BEESON, C.F.C. (1993): The ecology and control of forest insects of

India and neighbouring countries. Indian Reprint. Bishen Singh,

Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehradun.

146

Davin, S.K. & S. VENUGOPAL (1961): Mass incidence of Cyclopelta

siccifolia Westwood (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) on Sesbania

speciosa in Coimbatore. Madras Agric. Jour. 48: 183-184.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Distant, W.L. (1902): The Fauna of British India including Ceylon

and Burma. Rhynchota, Vol. I (Heteroptera). Taylor and Francis,

London, U.K. 438 pp.

Hit, Dennis S. (1993): Agricultural Insect Pests of the Tropics and their

Control. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press. 746 pp.

Josu1, R., G. PATHAK & H.V. GHATE (2011): Photographic evidence of

heavy infestation on Millettia pinnata (Fabaceae) by Cyclopelta

siccifolia (Westwood) (Pentatomoidea: Dinidoridae). Bugs R All

18: 2-3.

KULKARNI, D.K., R.B. BHAGatT, S.M. PUNALEKAR & D.S. NIPUNAGE (2012):

Occurrence of Cyclopelta siccifolia (Westwood) on Holigarna

grahamii (Wt.) Kurz. from (M.S.) India. <http://www.jssr.in>

Downloaded on November 01, 2013.

McCann, C. (1942): The plant bug Cyclopelta siccifolia on Pongamia

glabra. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 43(1): 109-110.

Narr, M.R.G.K. (1995): Insects and Mites of Crops in India. Reprint

Edition. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.

408 pp.

NaveeD, A., K.L. Naik & B.B. Hoserti (2000): Infestation of Pentatomid

bugs on Pongamia glabra W in the B.R. Project area of Western

Ghats of Karnataka. Entomon 25(4): 341-345.

RanuitH, A.M., K.P. MAmmootty, S. SASIKUMARAN & V.S. PILLAY

(1992): Biology of Cyclopelta siccifolia Westwood (Dinidoridae:

Hemiptera) on Erythrina standards in pepper gardens. Spice India

5(2): 9-10.

VARSHNEY, R.K. (1967): Some observation on stink bug Cyclopelta

siccifolia Westwood (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) a pest of Butea

monosperma Lam. Indian Forester 93(11): 765-771.

19. SOLANUM SISYMBRHIFOLIUM LAM. — AN ADDITION TO THE FLORA OF JHARKHAND, INDIA

S.P. Panpa!*, H.K. Sanoo’, A.K. SAnu* AND H.N. SuBupHI*

‘Acharya Jagdish Chandra Bose Indian Botanic Garden, Botanical Survey of India, Shibpur, Howrah 711 103, West Bengal, India.

Email: [email protected]

“Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Royal Enclave Sriramapura, Jakkur Post, Bengaluru 560 064,

Karnataka, India.

*State Project Management Unit, Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project, 108 Surya Nagar, Bhubaneswar 751 003,

Odisha, India. Email: [email protected]

“Central Rice Research Institute, Bidyadharpur, Cuttack 753 006, Odisha, India. Email: dr_hatanath [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72250

Introduction

During a floristic survey to Ranchi, Jharkhand, an

interesting plant was collected, identified, and deposited in

the herbarium of Post Graduate Department of Botany, Utkal

University, Bhubaneswar. After consultation of available

literature, the plant was found to be a new record for the state

of Jharkhand (earlier part of state of Bihar). Haines (1921-25)

and Mooney (1950), earlier workers in the state of Bihar

and Orissa (now Odisha), did not report this species. Recent

workers, viz. Paria and Chattopadhyay (2000) and Singh

(2001) too have not reported this species from Jharkhand.

The updated taxonomy, diagnostic characters, phenology,

ecology and distribution are provided in brief.

Solanum sisymbriifolium Lam. Illus. 2: 25. 1792;

Matthew, Exot. Fl. Kodaikanal 162. 1969; Naik, FI.

Osmanabad 226. 1979; Gamble, Fl. Madras II: 938. 1986

(Rev. ed.); Singh et a/., Fl. Maharashtra state (Dicotyledons)

I: 505. 2001. Solanum balbisii Dunal — Sims, Bot. Mag.

52: t. 2568. 1825; Dassanayake & Fosberg, Rev. Handb. F1.

Ceylon VI: 387. 1987 (Solanaceae).

Annual erect herb, height up to 1 m; stem and branches

viscid, hairy, and armed with straight, sharp, flat, orange-

yellow prickles up to 15 mm in length, thinly covered with

grey tomentum. Leaves 10—15 x 4-6 cm, pinnately lobed

into 4—6 coarse lobes, oblong-lanceolate, pubescent on both

sides with stellate glandular hairs. Inflorescence inter-nodal,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

arising from the foliage, unbranched racemes composed of

1-10 perfect or staminate flowers. Flowers white, often 1—

1.5 cm diameter, in lateral racemes. Berries globose, yellow,

smooth. Seeds large, pitted.

Flowering & Fruiting: June—September.

Ecology: Commonly found in wastelands.

Distribution: South America, North America, Europe,

Asia, Africa, and Australia. InpIA: Western Ghats, Nilgiris,

Pulney hills, Coimbatore.

Specimen Examined: Ranchi, Jharkhand; F.N. 26001

Note: A viscid, hairy herb of South American origin,

it is now widely distributed throughout the world. It has

naturalized in North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and

Australia. In many cases it acts as an invasive. The plant

is used as a trap crop for potato cyst nematodes; the fruit is

a source of solasodine (used to synthesize hormones) and

consumed by birds and humans.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to the Professor and Head,

Post Graduate Department of Botany, Utkal University,

Bhubaneswar, Odisha, for rendering necessary help to carry

out this work. The first author is thankful to the Director,

Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata, for providing necessary

facilities.

147

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

REFERENCES

Haines, H.H. (1921-1925): The Botany of Bihar and Orissa. Adlard &

Sons and West Newman, London.

Mooney, H.F. (1950): Supplement to the Botany of Bihar and Orissa.

Catholic Press, Ranchi.

Paria, N.D. & S.P. CHattopapHyay (2000): Flora of Hazaribagh District,

Bihar. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta.

SincuH, N.P. (2001): Flora of Bihar — Analysis. Botanical Survey of

India, Calcutta.

20. FICUS VARIEGATA BLUME (MORACEAE) —

A NEW RECORD FROM ARUNACHAL PRADESH, INDIA

RuBUL BURAGOHAIN!*, P.R. GAJUREL!”, P. RETHY!* AND B. SINGH!”

'Department of Forestry, North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology (Deemed University), Nirjuli 791 109, Itanagar,

Arunachal Pradesh, India.

7Email: [email protected]

*Email: [email protected]

“Email: [email protected]

°Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72251

Introduction

The genus Ficus is represented by c. 750 species

distributed worldwide, mainly in tropical and subtropical

forest (Berg 2011). A total of 115 species have been listed

from India (Chaudhary et al. 2012), of which 51 taxa have

been reported from Arunachal Pradesh (Giri et al. 2008).

During field survey in the eastern part of Arunachal Pradesh,

a few specimens of Ficus were collected from three districts,

namely Papumpare, West Siang, and Lohit. After survey

of literature, examining type and other specimens in CAL,

ARUN, ASSAM herbaria, and discussion with Dr. Venkata

Jana, we confirmed the identity as Ficus variegata Blume.

This species is a new distributional record to the state of

Arunachal Pradesh. Earlier, F’ variegata was reported from

Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Assam, Bihar, Meghalaya,

and Sikkim in India. It is also known to occur in Australia,

Bangladesh, China, Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Solomon

Islands, and Thailand.

The specimens were deposited in the herbarium of

Forestry Department, NERIST and Botanical Survey of India,

Itanagar (ARUN).

Ficus variegata Blume, Biydr. Fl. Ned. Ind. 9: 459.

1825; King, Ann. Roy. Bot. Gard. (Calcutta) 1: 169, t. 212,

213. 1888 & in Hook. f., Fl. Brit. India 5: 535. 1888; Prain,

Bengal Pl. 2: 737. 1903; Brandis, Indian Trees 609. 1906;

Corner, J. Mal. Br. R. As. Soc. 11: 48, f. 25, 26. 1933 &

Gard. Bull. Singapore 21(1): 83. 1965; Berg & Corner in

Nooteboom, Fl. Malesiana 17(2): 347. 2005; Berg et al., in

Santisuk et al., Fl. of Thailand 10(4): 576. 2011; Chaudhary

et al., Taiwania 57(2): 204. 2012.

F. cordifolia Blume, Bijdr. 438. 1825; Wight, Icon.

Pl. Ind. Orient. 2: t. 640. 1843; King, Ann. Roy. Bot. Gard.

(Calcutta) 1: 180, t. 225. 1888.

148

F. subracemosa Blume, Biydr. Fl. Ned. Ind. 9: 469.

1825.

F.. racemifera Roxb., FI. Ind. 3: 560. 1832; Wight, Icon.

Pl. Ind. Orient. 2: t. 639. 1843.

Covellia racemifera (Roxb.) Migq., Hook. London J.

Bot. 7: 465. 1848.

Vernacular name: Ramn (Wan.); Saep-lee (D. Mish.);

Aapombo (I. Mish.).

Type locality: Indonesia.

Trees, up to 30 m tall, deciduous; bark whitish with

longitudinal ridges, trunk buttressed, straight; branches

numerous on top, spreading in all directions; aerial roots

absent. Leaves spirally arranged; lamina simple, broadly

ovate to ovate-elliptic, sometimes cordate, 10-28 x 7—

12.5 cm, symmetrical, apex with c. 1 cm long acumen, base

rounded or cordate to subcordate, margins entire, subrepand

or coarsely denticulate; adaxial surface glabrous, abaxial

surface minutely appressed, puberulous on the main veins;

lateral vein 4—S pairs, basal pair 2, distinct, ’/ to '4 the length

of the lamina, often unequal in length; tertiary venation

reticulate; waxy glands in slit-shaped extension of the axils

of the main lateral veins; petiole 2-7 cm long, glabrous

or appressed-puberulous; stipules 0.8—1 cm, glabrous,

ovate-lanceolate, caducous. Figs in fascicles from woody

tubercles, ramiflorous to cauliflorous, dioecious, drooping,

pedunculate; peduncle 1—3 cm long; basal bracts 3, 0.5—

0.8 cm long, verticillate and persistent; receptacle globose

or subglobose to pyriform, c. 5 cm long, 3—5 cm in diam.,

smooth, glabrous, yellowish-green, pink to red with white

streaks and spots when ripe, sometimes with a short stipe (up

to 8 mm); ostiole slightly depressed, 4-5 mm across, 1|.5—

2 mm depth; Staminate flowers: sessile, found near ostiole,

2—2.5 mm long; perianth more or less polyphyllous; tepals 3

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

or 4, linear-lanceolate or spatulate, 1.5—2 mm long; stamens

2, anthers broadly ovoid, filaments short; Pistillate flowers:

long-style flowers sessile or shortly pedicellate, 2.5—3 mm

long; tepal 3 or 4, gamophyllous or basally connate, style

lateral, cylindric, stigma infundibuliform; short-style flowers

with the pedicel 2—3 mm long; tepals gamophyllous, tubular, 4

or 5 lobed, 1—1.5 mm long, inflated at apex; ovary ovoid, red-

brown to pale; style lateral, white; stigma infundibuliform.

Achenes ovoid or obovoid.

Flowering: January—March;

Fruiting: June—July.

Habitat: Distributed in tropical evergreen forest in

small numbers. During field survey, it was recorded only

from three districts of the state.

Distribution: NDIA: Andaman & Nicobar Islands,

Assam, Bihar, Meghalaya; Australia; Bangladesh; China;

Japan; Malaysia; Myanmar; Solomon Islands; Thailand.

Specimen Examined: Arunachal Pradesh: Lohit, Tezu,

on the way to Dwaraka Nagar, 22.vi.2011, R. Buragohain 232;

Papumpare, Karsingsa, 200 m, 16.vi1.2011, R. Buragohain

293; West Siang, on the way from Likabali to Gensii 290 m,

??.x11.2010, R. Buragohain 557; West Siang, Likabali, 380 m,

25.1x.2012, R. Buragohain 916 (NERIST).

Additional specimen examined: Meghalaya, Khasia

hills, Feb. 1886, G. Mann 36 (CAL); Andaman, 20.111.1916,

C.E. Parkinson 1113 (CAL); Sikkim, 21.11.1887, Dr. King (7?)

(CAL); Tebba Valley, 21.11.1887, G.A. Gammie (?) (CAL);

Assam, Dhonsiri river, June 1886, G. Mann (?) (CAL).

Note: The species can be distinguished by its buttressed

trunk and branches on the top. Leaves spirally arranged, ovate

or sub-ovate. Figs in fascicles from woody tubercles in older

trunk, smooth, 3—5 cm in diameter.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to Dr. Venkata Sudhakar Jana for

confirming the identity of the species. We are also grateful

to the Director, NERIST (Deemed University), Nirjuli, for

providing necessary facilities.

REFERENCES

Bera, C.C., P. NANNAPAT & B. CHANTARASUWAN (2011): Moraceae.

In: Santisuk, T., K. Larsen, C.C. Berg, N. Pattharahirantriein &

B. Chantara Suwan (Eds): Flora of Thailand. 10(4): 475-675. The

Forest Herbarium, Bangkok, Thailand.

CHAUDHARY, L.B., J.V. SUDHAKAR, A. Kumar, O. Baspal, R. Trwari &

G.V.S. Murtuy (2012): Synopsis of the Genus Ficus L. (Moraceae)

in India. Taiwania 57(2): 193-216.

Girt, G.S., A. PRAMANICK & H.J. Giri (EDs) (2008): Materials for the

Flora of Arunachal Pradesh. 2: 388-407. Botanical Survey of

India, Kolkata.

21. SMILACACEAE IN DARJEELING AND SIKKIM HIMALAYA, INDIA

A.K. SAMANTA! AND SAuRIS PANDA?*

'Department of Botany, Ramnagar College (Vidyasagar University), Depal 721 453, East Midnapore, West Bengal, India.

Email: [email protected]

"Department of Botany, Charuchandra College (University of Calcutta), 22, Lake Road, Kolkata 700 029, West Bengal, India.

Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72253

Introduction

The Darjeeling and Sikkim parts of Eastern Himalaya

are contiguous and situated between 26° 31'—28° 7'N and

87° 59'-89° E. These hills cover about 9,020 sq. km out of

the total 1,22,802 sq. km area of Eastern Himalaya (Negi

1990). Great altitudinal as well as climatic variations favour

luxuriant growth of vegetation in these mountainous regions.

The floristic diversity in these regions is well-known for its

innumerable rare, endangered, endemic, and medicinally

useful plants (Hara 1966, 1971; Hara et al. 1978; Hooker

1849, 1892; Matthew 1981; Ohashi 1975; Panda 2009;

Samanta 2006).

The members of the family Smilacaceae are distributed

over tropical to temperate zones. The present note records

the species of Smilacaceae collected from Darjeeling and

Sikkim Himalaya, India.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Material and Methods

Field and herbarium methods were followed according

to Jain and Rao (1977). The specimens were identified with

the help of literature and confirmed in Central National

Herbarium (CAL), Howrah, West Bengal. The voucher

specimens were deposited in CAL.

Enumeration

Eight species in two genera of the monocotyledonous

family Smilacaceae have been recorded from Darjeeling

and Sikkim Himalaya. The genera and species are arranged

alphabetically. Each species is provided with a protologue

and relevant references, vernacular name(s) when available,

description, flowering and fruiting time, local and general

distribution, exsiccatae i.e. voucher specimens citing locality,

habitat and altitude where collected, and use(s) when available.

149

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

KEY TO THE GENERA

1. Male peduncle 2.5—6 cm long, tepals united ...... Heterosmilax

— Male peduncle up to 1.5 cm long, tepals free........... Smilax

Abbreviations Used

BP= Bengal Plants (Prain, D.); EFPN =An Enumeration

of the Flowering Plants of Nepal (Eds: Hara, H. et al.);

FB = Flora of Bhutan (Eds: Grierson, A.J.C. & D.G. Long);

FBI = The Flora of British India (Ed.: Hooker, J.D.);

FEH = The Flora of Eastern Himalaya (Ed.: Hara, H. /

Ohashi, H.); FPK = The Flowering Plants of Kurseong

(Matthew, K.M.).

Heterosmilax japonica Kunth., Enum. Pl. 5: 270.1850.

H. indica A. DC., Monog. Phan. 1: 43. 1878; FBI 6: 314.

1892; FB 3(1): 36. 1994.

Shrubby tendril climber. Stem terete, greenish-yellow,

internodes 9-12 cm long, glabrous. Stipules modified into

tendrils. Petioles 1.2—2.3 cm long, terete, glabrous; lamina

12-16 x 8.5—12.5 cm, oblong-lanceolate, margin entire, apex

acuminate to caudate, cuspidate, base cuneate to cordate,

membranous, both surfaces shiny, glabrous, 5-nerved,

parallel, convergent, middle 3 more prominent than others,

yellowish-green. Umbel compound, axillary; peduncle 2.5—

6 cm long, slender, flattened, smooth. Bracts minute, ovate,

acuminate; pedicels 5—6 mm long, flat, glabrous. Male umbels

obovoid, deep brown, flowers 3.5—4.5 x 1.7—2 mm; tepals

united; stamens 3, anthers 2 x 1 mm, white, base attenuate,

apical lobes 3, oblong, filaments 4-6 mm long, connate

(female flowers not seen). Berries 0.8-10 mm in diam.,

globose, blackish; seeds 5.5—5.7 mm in diam., hemispheric,

pale orange-brown.

Fl. & Fr.: April to June.

Local distribution: Darjeeling — less common; found

at Jalapahar-Rung-Dung areas, 1,500—2,650 m.

General distribution: INDIA: tropical and subtropical

Himalaya, Assam, and Meghalaya.

Exsiccatus: Darjeeling: Jalapahar, in a moist rocky

place, 2,150 m, 12.x1.2013, Samanta 48.

KEY TO THE SPECIES OF SMILAX L.

1. Inflorescence panicled spike, [email protected]+ S. aspera

— Inflorescence elongated umbellate raceme or whorled or

2. Inflorescence elongated umbellate raceme or whorled.............

a il ce i Ma ol a tc S. perfoliata

= WARIS e eco CN oko os on kiro ce aire orauhe eet cil Malu. 3

3. Lamina 15-18 x 10.2—12.6 cm; costae 7............... S. ovalifolia

— Lamina 1.9-13.5 x 1.2—8.5 cm; costae 35 00... eeeeeeeeeeees 4

150

Ae) Pettoles monesiinah 122 [cmtlongseen te. treme «eegee.-.d002 5

= Petidles aiptorll.2 emilongisnadi sy. Breton eer) enaetiise.. 6

5. Male umbels 30—40 flowered; pedicels almost absent .............

hm. Sidich eal hee) Sie clientes. pid S. aspericaulis

— Male umbels up to 25 flowered; pedicels 6-8 mm long...........

hysclies. xgesl aveloeyedeans eleva) wate toasts £8. 1a S. lanceifolia

6. Tendrils twisting to right; stem strongly prickled......... S. ferox

— Tendrils twisting to left; stem glabrous, without prickles.........

Be eRe MME OL OR Wa in ate Se ee S. glaucophylla

Smilax aspera L., Sp. Pl. 1028. 1753; FBI 6: 306. 1892;

FEH 414. 1966; EFPN 1:78. 1978. S. maculata Roxb. ex

D. Don, Prodr. Fl. Nepal 49. 1825.

Shrubby tendril climber. Tendrils simple, terete,

stipular. Stem and branches with prickles. Lamina ovate,

deltoid to lanceolate, margin entire, apex acute to acuminate,

base hastate or cordate, blotched with white. Inflorescence

panicled spike, drooping. Flowers dioecious, fragrant; tepals

6, subequal, free, white; anthers oblong, 2-celled; carpels 3,

ovary 3-celled, stigmas 3, recurved. Berries globose, blue —

black, 3-seeded. |

Fl. & Fr.: September to July.

Local distribution: Darjeeling — common; Kurseong,

Neora Valley National Park, 1,500—3,200 m; Sikkim —

common; Yaksum, Rishi, Tingling, up to 2,600 m.

General distribution: INDIA: Eastern Himalaya,

Darjeeling, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Assam.

Mediterranean and east Africa to India, Nepal, Myanmar,

and Sri Lanka.

Exsiccatae: Darjeeling: Chitray, Neora Valley National

Park, in a moist rocky area, 2,500 m, 12.x1.2013, Samanta

25; Sikkim: Soreng, in rock crevices, 1,560 m, 15.x1.2013,

Samanta 211.

Uses: The roots of this plant are prescribed in urinary

and skin diseases.

Smilax aspericaulis Wall. ex DC., Monog. Phan. 1: 195.

1878; FBI 6: 306. 1892; FB 3 (1): 29. 1994.

Vernacular names: Dathun, Kukurdaini (Nepali).

Shrubby tendril climber. Tendrils simple, terete,

glabrous, stipular. Branches terete, scabrid, with 5—6 mm

long bristles, often with recurved prickles. Petioles 1.2—

2.5 cm long, sheathing below the mid-internodes; lamina

10—13.5 x 4-8.5 cm, ovate to oblong or linear-oblong, margin

entire, apex acute, base rounded to cuneate, costae 3 from

base. Umbels solitary or 2—3 on peduncles, peduncles 9—

15 mm long, bracteate. Male umbels 30—40 flowered; pedicels

almost absent; tepals 6, free, creamy white, reflexed in older

flowers; stamens as long as tepals (female flowers not seen).

Berries 8—10 mm across, globose.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Fl. & Fr.: September to April.

Local distribution: Darjeeling — common; Mangpoo,

Birch Hill, 300—2,100 m; Sikkim — common; Singling Basty,

Yaksum, up to 2,200 m.

General distribution: INDIA: Eastern Himalaya,

Darjeeling, Sikkim, Khasia Hills, Andaman Islands;

Myanmar.

Exsiccatae: Darjeeling: St. Mary’s, Kurseong, in a

moist rocky place, 1,548 m, 4.v.1994, Samanta 169; Sikkim:

Soreng, in rock crevices, 1,560 m, 30.x.1995, Samanta 898.

Use: The ripe fruits are edible.

Smilax ferox Wall. [Cat. No. 5119. 1830, nom. nud. |

ex Kunth, En. Pl. 5: 251. 1850; Monog. Phan. 1: 130. 1878;

FBI 6: 307. 1892; FEH 415. 1966; EFPN 1: 89. 1978; FPK

116. 1981; FB 3(1): 33. 1994.

Shrubby tendril climber. Tendrils simple, coil dextrorsely,

i.e. twisting to right, glabrous, stipular. Stem solid, much

branched, armed with strong prickles, glabrous. Petioles 3—

4 mm long, coriaceous, sheathing half of its length; lamina

1.9-8 x 1.5—2.8 cm, elliptic-ovate-oblong, margin entire, apex

acute, base cuneate or rounded, yellowish green, membranous,

glabrous, costae 3—5 from base, convergent. Umbels solitary or

18—20 flowered in fascicles, dioecious. Peduncles 1.2—1.4 cm

long; bracteoles conspicuous, ovate, acuminate; pedicels 2—

3 mm long. Male umbels globose, 1.2—1.3 cm diam.; tepals 6,

free, 3 x 2 mm, lanceolate, light brown; filaments 1.4—2.1 mm

long, anthers 0.5—10 x 0.3—0.4 mm, oblong. Female umbels

conical, 1 mm diam., green; ovary swollen at base, stigma

papillose. Berries 8-10 mm across, green-purple, 1—2 seeded.

Seeds 5.5—5.7 mm diam., reddish-brown.

Fl. & Fr.: April to December.

Local distribution: Darjeeling — abundant;

Manebhanjan, Tonglu, 1,850—3,200 m; Sikkim — abundant;

Gangtok, Rengli, 1,500—2,700 m.

General distribution: INDIA: Eastern Himalaya,

Darjeeling, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur;

Nepal.

Exsiccatae: Darjeeling: Meghyma, in a rocky area,

3,000 m, 16.1v.1994, Samanta 114; Sikkim: Rengli, in rock

crevices, 1,600 m, 16.x1.2013, Samanta 37).

Smilax glaucophylla Koltz. in Reise Prinz. Wald. Bot.

45, t, 91. 1862; FEH 415. 1966; EFPN 1: 89. 1978; FB 3(1):

35. 1994. S. elegans Wall. (Cat. No. 5117 B. 1830, nom. nud.)

ex A. DC., Monog. Phan. 107. 1878. S. parviflora Wall. ex

Hook. f., FBI 6: 304. 1892. S. longibracteolata Hook. f.,

FBI 6: 305. 1892.

Vernacular names: Harina-shuk-china (Bengali);

Kukardara (Nepali).

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Shrubby tendril climber. Stem terete, glabrous, without

prickles, shiny, internodes 9.5—22 cm long. Tendrils simple,

coil sinistrorsely, i.e. twisting to left, terete, solid, glabrous,

stipular. Petioles up to 1.2 cm long, with a sheath; lamina

2.5—-11 x 1.2—7 cm, ovate-cordate, margin entire, apex acute,

base cordate, membranous, costae 3—5 from base. Umbels

many-flowered, bracteoles minute; peduncle 1.3—1.5 cm long;

pedicels 1—2 mm long, glabrous; tepals 6, linear-oblong, free,

2 x 1 mm, ovate-oblong, apex acute, glabrous; stamens 4,

didynamous, filaments connate, anthers 1 mm long, white,

staminodes 1—3; ovary ovoid. Berries globose.

Fl. & Fr.: April to September.

Local distribution: Darjeeling — less common; Neora

Valley National Park, Tonglu, up to 3,050 m.

General distribution: INDIA: Eastern Himalaya; Tibet,

West China.

Exsiccatus: Darjeeling: way to Jorepukri, growing

along roadside among rocks, 2,550 m, Neora Valley National

Park, 23.1v.1995, Samanta 305.

Smilax lanceifolia Roxb., Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3: 792. 1832;

Monog. Phan. 1: 57. 1878; FBI 6: 308. 1892; FEH 415. 1966;

FPK 116. 1981; FB 3(1): 32. 1994.

Shrubby tendril climber. Branches slender, terete,

glabrous. Tendrils simple, stipular, sheathing up to middle

of petiole. Petioles 2—2.7 cm long; lamina 11—13 x 4.9-

8 cm, oblong-lanceolate, margin entire, apex acuminate,

base rounded, membranous, coriaceous, costae 5 from base,

prominent. Male umbels up to 25 flowered, subsessile,

peduncles up to 1.5 cm long; bracteoles ovate, acute; pedicels

6—8 mm long; tepals 6, linear, subequal, free; filaments

filiform, anthers 1.1 x 0.5 mm, oblong; female umbels

subsimilar, peduncle up to 1.2 cm long, stout, flattened;

bracteoles subulate; staminodes 3, ovary trigonous, stigmas

recurved. Berries 6—6.5 mm across.

Fl. & Fr.: May to December.

Local distribution: Darjeeling — less common;

Kurseong, Neora Valley National Park, 1,500—3,200 m;

Sikkim — less common; Yaksum, Rishi, up to 2,200 m.

General distribution: INDIA: subtropical to temperate

Himalaya, Assam, Khasia Hills, Manipur; Nepal; Myanmar;

Thailand; Indo-China.

Exsiccatae: Darjeeling: St. Mary’s, Kurseong, in

a rocky area, 1,548 m, 4.v.1994, Samanta 159; Sikkim:

Pangthang, among rocks, 1,900 m, 20.x1.1995, Samanta

1016.

Smilax ovalifolia Roxb., Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3: 794. 1832;

FEH 417. 1966; FB 3(1): 30. 1994. S. macrophylla Roxb.,

Fl. Ind. 3: 793. 1832; FBI 6: 310. 1892, non Willd. 1805.

151

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Suzeylanicacdky, Spr Plph029sdi7 93 [AB onBOo? 1892;

FiH32 el8S5497SnBRPN Ts -799 1978;

Vernacular names: Kumarika Mitri, Rajdan-tini,

Muter (Bengali); Kukurdaini (Nepali).

Shrubby tendril climber. Stem terete, stout, hollow,

glabrous, with light striations, often sparsely prickled, mternodes

8-9 cm long. Tendrils simple, coiled dextro sinistrorsely, flat,

glabrous, stipular. Petioles 2.1—2.5 cm long; lamina 15—18

x 10.2—12.6 cm, broadly ovate, margin entire, apex acute,

base cuneate, glabrous, greyish, costae 7. Umbel paniculate;

peduncles up to 1.5 cm long, branched, many flowered;

bracteoles 1.2—1.4 mm; pedicels 8—13 mm long; tepals 6, free;

filaments 5.2—5.4 mm long, anthers 1.2—-1.5 x 0.40.6 mm,

linear. Berries 0.6—0.8 mm in diam., red, 1—2 seeded.

FI. & Fr.: April to November.

Local distribution: Darjeeling — common; Gorubathan,

Pesok, 110—800 m; Sikkim — common; Jorethang-Nayabazar,

Melli, Ravongla, up to 1,000 m.

General distribution: INDIA: Foothills to subtropical

Himalaya, central and southern provinces; Bangladesh;

Myanmar; Indo-China.

Exsiccatae: Darjeeling: Bamanpokri, in a moist loamy

soil, 200 m, 14.1.1995, Samanta 486; Sikkim: Ravongla,

growing along roadside among rocks, 900 m, 17.x1.2013,

Samanta 375.

Uses: The seeds are used in the treatment of dysentery,

abnormal discharge of semen, infection in kidney and urine,

venereal diseases, and rheumatism.

Smilax perfoliata Lour., Fl. Cochin. 622. 1790; FEH

417. 1966; EFPN 1: 79. 1978. S. prolifera Roxb., FI. Ind. 3:

795. 1832, p.p.; FBI 6: 312. 1892. 8. ocreata A. DC., Monogr.

Phan. 1: 193. 1878. S. roxburghiana Wall. ex Hook.f., FBI 6:

ZddiAB92n BR 21 OGL Al 903:

Shrubby tendril climber. Tendrils simple, stipular,

up to 10 cm long. Stem and branches stout, terete, with

recurved prickles. Lamina broadly ovate-oblong or orbicular,

margin entire, apex acuminate or cuspidate, base rounded,

3-7 costate, petiole up to 3 cm long, auricled. Inflorescence

elongated umbellate raceme or whorled. Flowers dioecious;

tepals 6, free, pale greenish or yellowish; stamens 6, filaments

unequal, anthers oblong, 2-celled; carpels 3, ovary 3-loculed,

ovules 1—2 per locule, stigmas 3, recurved. Berries globose,

red when ripe.

Fl. & Fr.: April to December.

Local distribution: Darjeeling — rare; Kurseong,

1,550 m; Sikkim — rare; Yaksum, Gangtok, Rishi, 2,200 m.

General distribution: INDIA: Eastern Himalaya,

Darjeeling, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya,

Assam, central and southern provinces; Nepal; Bangladesh;

152

Myanmar; Indo-China; Southeast Asia.

Exsiccatae: Darjeeling: St. Mary’s, Kurseong, in a

rocky place, 1,548 m, 13.x1.2013, Samanta 59; Sikkim:

Yaksum, growing close to a narrow waterfall among rocks,

2,200 m, 16.x1.2013, Samanta 310.

Discussion

The members of Smilacaceae are widespread in the

tropical and subtropical parts of the world, and several

species grow in temperate regions and at higher altitudes.

They beautify the forest particularly with their attractive

foliage showing prominent parallel venation. Like the

family Cucurbitaceae among the dicotyledons, species of

the monocotyledonous family Smilacaceae bear tendrils for

climbing in search of better light at the crown of the trees

in the forest (Samanta and Panda 2011). In Smilacaceae, the

tendril is a modified stipule.

The present survey in Darjeeling and Sikkim Himalaya

revealed eight species of the family Smilacaceae distributed

between 110—3,200 m. Smilax ovalifolia occurs at low to

medium-high altitude, 1.e. 110—1,000 m; Smilax aspericaulis

and Smilax perfoliata are distributed between 300—2,200 m;

and Heterosmilax japonica, Smilax aspera, Smilax ferox,

Smilax glaucophylla and Smilax lanceifolia grow between

1,500—3,200 m. Regarding frequency of each species in

these hills, Smilax ferox is abundant; Smilax aspera, Smilax

aspericaulis, and Smilax ovalifolia are quite common;

Heterosmilax japonica, Smilax glaucophylla and Smilax

lanceifolia are less common; and Smilax perfoliata is rare.

Appropriate conservation measures are necessary to save

particularly the less common / rare species from further loss

of population.

In the family Smilacaceae, only Smilax species were

so far reported from the state of West Bengal (Chakraverty

et al. 1999); the present collection is the first report of the

genus Heterosmilax from West Bengal.

Some Smilax species are useful to the locals in these

regions, for example, the ripe fruits of S. aspericaulis are

edible; the seeds of S. ovalifolia are used in the treatment of

dysentery, abnormal discharge of semen, urinary infection,

venereal diseases and rheumatism; the roots of S. aspera are

prescribed in urinary and skin diseases. The data presented

in this paper will be useful in updating the plant resources of

the country.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We are thankful to the Director, Botanical Survey of

India, for allowing us to consult CAL herbarium and its

library.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

REFERENCES

CHAKRAVERTY, R.K., R.C. Srivastava, S. Mitra, S. BANDYOPADHYAY &

S. BANDYOPADHYAY (1999): West Bengal. Pp. 1575-1621. Jn:

Floristic Diversity and Conservation Strategies in India. Vol. III.

Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta.

Hara, H. (compitepD 1966, 1971): The Flora of Eastern Himalaya. Ist

& 2nd Report. University of Tokyo, Japan.

Hara, H., W.T. STEARN & L.H.J. WILLIAMS (EDs) (1978): An Enumeration

of the Flowering Plants of Nepal. Vol. I. British Museum (Natural

History), London.

Hooker, J.D. (1849): Notes chiefly botanical, made during an excursion

from Darjeeling to Tonglo, a lofty mountain on the confines of

Sikkim and Nepal. Journ. Asiat. Soc. Beng. 15: 419-446.

Hooker, J.D. (ED.) (1892): The Flora of British India. Vol. 6. L. Reeve

& Co., London.

JAIN, S.K. & R.R. RAo (1977): A Handbook of Field and Herbarium

Methods. Today & Tomorrow’s Printers and Publishers,

New Delhi. Pp. 159.

MatTHEw, K.M. (1981): The Flowering Plants of Kurseong. Dehradun.

Neal, S.S. (1990): A Handbook of Himalaya. Indus Publishing Co.,

New Delhi.

OuAsHI, H. (COMPILED 1975): Flora of Eastern Himalaya. 3rd Report.

University of Tokyo, Tokyo.

PanpA, S. (2009): Uses of some medicinal plants in the Kalimpong

Himalaya (India): conservation, potential and prospects. J. Econ.

Taxon. Bot. 33 (Suppl.): 205-212.

-SAMANTA, A.K. (2006): The genus Dioscorea L. in Darjeeling and Sikkim

Himalayas — a census. J. Econ. Taxon. Bot. 30(3): 555-563.

SAMANTA, A.K. & S. PANDA (2011): Diversity in angiospermic climbers

in Midnapore districts, West Bengal. J. Econ. Taxon. Bot. 35(4):

715-726.

22. DIGITARIA RADICOSA (J. PRESL) MIQ. AND PENNISETUM PURPUREUM SCHUMACH. —

ADDITIONS TO THE GRASS (POACEAE) FLORA OF MANIPUR, INDIA

KANGJAM TILOTAMA Devi!?, POTSANGBAM KUMAR SINGH? AND DEBJYOTI BHATTACHARYYA!**

‘Department of Life Science & Bioinformatics, Assam University, Silchar 788 011, Assam, India.

"Department of Life Sciences, Manipur University, Canchipur, Imphal 795 003, Manipur, India. Email: [email protected]

7Email: [email protected]

“Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72254

While working on the grass (Poaceae) flora of valley

districts of Manipur, India, the first author collected two

interesting specimens from Nambul river bank area. After

critical morpho-taxonomic analyses and herbarium (CAL)

consultation, they were identified as Digitaria radicosa

(J. Presl) Mig. and Pennisetum purpureum Schumach. Perusal

of literature (Deb 1961; Kabeer and Nair 2009, Khan et al.

2007; Shukla 1996; Singh 1987; Singh 1990; Sreekumar

and Nair 1991) revealed that both the species were hitherto

unrecorded from Manipur. These two species are reported

here as new records for the flora of Manipur.

1. Digitaria radicosa (J. Presl) Migq., Fl. Ned. Ind.

3: 437. 1857; Veldkamp in Blumea 21: 35. t. 5b. 1973;

S. Moulik, Grasses Bamboos India 1: 94. 1997; Sreek. &

V.J. Nair, Fl. Kerala Grasses: 240. 1991; U. Shukla, Grasses

N.E. India: 320. 1996; Kabeer & V.J. Nair, Fl. Tamil Nadu

Grasses: 245. t.47. 2009; Panicum radicosum J. Presl, Reliq.

Haenk. 1: 297. 1830; Digitaria timorensis (Kunth) Balansa

in J. Bot. (Morot) 4: 138. 1890; Bor, Grasses Burma, Ceylon,

India & Pakistan: 306. 1960; Panicum timorense Kunth,

Enum. Pl. 1: 83. 1833. Paspalum sanguinale Lam. var.

debile Hook. f. in J.D. Hooker, Fl. Brit. India 7: 16. 1896.

(Figs la—f).

Fl. & Fr.: September—December

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

Habitat: Commonly grows in moist open places of

grasslands, river/pond banks, and cultivated fields.

Distribution: iNp1A: Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Kerala,

Maharashtra, Manipur (present report), Meghalaya, Nagaland,

Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal; Africa; Australia;

China; Indonesia; Japan; Madagascar; Malaysia; Mauritius;

Myanmar; Nepal; Pakistan; Philippines; Seychelles; Sri

Lanka; Tanzania; Thailand.

Specimen Examined: Manipur, Imphal West district,

Nambul river bank, Naoremthong, 24° 48' N, 93° 55' E,

769 m, 15.x1.2011, Coll.: K. Tilotama Devi 11115,

Fl. & Fr. Deposited at Herbarium of Department of Life

Science & Bioinformatics, Assam University, Silchar.

2. Pennisetum purpureum Schumach., Beskr. Guin.

PI.: 44. 1827; Stapf in Kew Bull. 309. 1912; Bor, Fl. Assam

5: 298.1940; Bor, Grasses Burma, Ceylon, India & Pakistan:

348. t. 40. 1960; Blatt. & McCann, Bombay Grasses: 184.

1984; Sreek. & V.J. Nair, Fl. Kerala Grasses: 292. 1991; U.

Shukla, Grasses N.E. India: 351. 1996; S. Moulik, Grasses

Bamboos India 1: 140. t. 23. 1997; Kabeer & V.J. Nair, FI.

Tamil Nadu Grasses: 295. t. 55. 2009. (Figs 1g—k).

FI.: November.

Habitat: Commonly found near river banks and

streams.

153

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Fig. 1: Digitaria radicosa (Presl) Mig (a—f): a. Habit; b. & c. Rachis showing

spikelet position; d. Paired spikelets; e. Spikelet showing lower glume;

f. Spikelet showing upper glume Pennisetum purpureum Schumach.

(g—k): g. Habit; h. Spikelet with bristles; i. Primary bristle; j. Spikelet

< showing lower glume; k. Spikelet showing upper glume

Distribution: INDIA: Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal

Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala,

Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur (present study),

Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal; Native

of tropical Africa; introduced in many tropical countries;

Bhutan; China; Taiwan.

Specimen Examined: Manipur, Imphal West District,

Nambul river bank, Khagempali, 04.1.2012, Coll.: K. Tilotama

Devi 11122, Fl. Deposited at Herbarium of Department of

Life Science & Bioinformatics, Assam University, Silchar.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to the Head, Department of

Life Science and Bioinformatics, Assam University, Silchar,

for providing necessary facilities. They are also thankful

to the Additional Director, Central National Herbarium

(CAL), Botanical Survey of India, Howrah, for permission

to consult the herbarium and library. First author (KTD)

thanks University Grants Commission, New Delhi, for

financial support.

REFERENCES

Des, D.B. (1961): Monocotyledonous plants of Manipur Territory. Bull.

Bot. Surv. India 3(2): 115-138.

KaBEER, K.A.A. & V.J. Nair (2009): Flora of Tamil Nadu — Grasses.

Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata.

Kuan, M.R., P.S., YADAVA & A. Kikim (2007): Additions to the flora of

Manipur State. Bull. Bot. Surv. India 49: 215-218.

SHUKLA, U. (1996): The Grasses of North-Eastern India. Scientific

Publishers, Jodhpur.

SINGH, H.B. (1987): Floristic study of Tengnoupal District. Ph.D. Thesis,

Manipur. University. (Unpubl).

SINGH, O.K. (1990): Floristic study of Tamenglong District, Manipur with

Ethnobotanical notes. Ph.D. Thesis, Manipur University. (Unpubl).

SREEKUMAR, P.V. & V.J. Narr (1991): Flora of Kerala — Grasses. Botanical

Survey of India, Calcutta.

23. PTERIS BIAURITA L. (PTERIDACEAE) — AN ADDITION TO THE FERN FLORA

OF UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

SHOBHIT KUMAR SrIvASTAVA!*, S. DOMINIC RAJKUMAR!** AND SHASHANK KUMAR SINGH!*

'Department of Botany, St. Andrew’s College, Gorakhpur 273 001, Uttar Pradesh, India.

"Email: [email protected]

*Email: [email protected]

‘Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72255

Introduction

Pteris L. is a pantropical genus with about 280 species

worldwide (Copeland 1947), 48 species (Dixit 1984), and 46

species (Chandra 2000) in India. 15 species are reported from

154

Western Ghats, southern India (Manickam and Irudayaraj

1992), 14 species from Assam (Borthakur et al. 2001), and

14 species from Malabar region (Nayar and Geevarghese

1993). Pteris biaurita is a common species in Western

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Ghats, southern India (Irudayaraj and Manickam 1995).

During a recent exploration of Dudhwa National Park, Uttar

Pradesh, the species was collected and found to be common

throughout the Park. This note reports P. biaurita for the first

time from Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh is bound by Nepal on

the north, Uttarakhand on the north-east, Himachal Pradesh

on the north-west, Haryana on the west, Rajasthan on the

south-west, Madhya Pradesh on the south and south-west,

and Bihar on the east.

Pteris biaurita L. Sp. P1. 2: 1076. 1753; Clark in Trans.

Linn. Soc. Lond., II Bot. 1: 469. 1880; Walker in Br. Fern

Gaz. 10: 149. 1970; Nayar & Kaur, Comp. Beddome Handb.

31. 1974; Dhir, Ferns N.W. Himal. 49. 1980; Baishya & Rao,

Ferns and Fern Allies Meghalaya, 110. 1982; Dixit, Cens. Ind.

Pterid. 69. 1984; Manickam, Fern F1. Palni Hills, 21. 1986;

Jamir & Rao, Ferns Nagaland, 146. 1988.

Campteria biaurita (L.) Hook, Gen. Fil. t. 65 A. 1841;

Beddome. Handb. Ferns Brit. India, 116. 1883; Holttum, Rev.

Fl. Mal. 2: 407. 1954.

Description (Fig. 1)

Rhizome erect up to 3 cm diameter, densely covered

by scales at the apex, scales lanceolate, 3 x 0.75 mm,

brown, translucent at the periphery, dark brown and opaque

at the centre, apex acuminate, hairy margin. Stipe tufted,

numerous, 36—71 cm long, 3—7 mm thick, pale brown at

the base, abaxially rounded, adaxially grooved, scaly at the

base, glabrous above. Lamina lanceolate, up to 71 x 40 cm,

bipinnatifid; pinnae up to 12 pairs with one or two accessory

branches on the basal basiscopic side of the basal-most pairs,

subopposite, lanceolate, shortly stalked, apex acuminate,

base broadly cuneate, margin lobed within 3 mm from the

costa, lobes oblong slightly falcate, up to 3.3 x 0.8 cm, apex

rounded, margin entire; veins distinct both above and below,

basal veins of adjacent costule forming an arc along costa

with five to seven excurrent veins passing to the sinus base,

other veins forked once and reaching the margin; pinnae pale

green; texture subcoriaceous; small spinule borne at the base

of each costule. Sori borne all along the margin except at the

base of the sinus and at the apex of the lobes; spores 47 x

47 um, dark brown, exine with dense reticulate thickenings

and winged perispore.

Fig. 1: Pteris biaurita L. a) Rhizome, b) Rhizome scale,

c) Habit, d) Enlarged pinna showing venation & sori,

e) Sporangium, f) Spore

Specimen Examined

Pteris biaurita: Dudhwa National Park — Lakhimpur

Kheri, 16.x.2012, 160 m, SAC-415, SAC-450. All the

specimens are deposited in Centre for Plant Species

Biology, Department of Botany, St. Andrew’s College (PG),

Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to the Principal, St. Andrew’s

(PG) College, Gorakhpur, for facilities and encouragement

given to us. One of the authors (SDR) is thankful to UGC

(UGC Sanction No. 40-308/2011) for financial assistance.

REFERENCES

BorTHAKuR, S.K., P. DEKA & K.K. Natu (2001): Illustrated Manual of

Ferns of Assam. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehradun.

Pp. 170-198.

CHANDRA, S. (2000): The Ferns of India (Enumeration, Synonyms

& Distribution). International Book Distributors, Dehradun.

Pp. 28-47.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

CopELAND, E.B. (1947): Genera filicum. The genera of ferns. Chronica

Botanica, Waltham, Mass, USA.

Dixit, R.D. (1984): A Census of the Indian Pteridophytes. Botanical

Survey of India, Dept. of Environment, Howrah. Pp. 69.

TRUDAYARAJ, V. & V.S. MANICKAM (1995): Biodiversity and conservation

of ferns and fern allies of the Nilgiris. S.B. Academic Review

155

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

4(1): 61-63.

ManickaM, V.S. & V. IRUDAYARAJ (1992): Pteridophyte Flora of the

Western Ghats, South India. BI Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

Pp. 65-81.

Nayar, B.K. & K.K. GEEVARGHESE (1993): Fern Flora of Malabar. Indus

Publishing Co., New Delhi. Pp. 101-118.

24. NEW DISTRIBUTIONAL RECORD OF TWO SPECIES OF OPHIOGLOSSUM L.

FOR THE DECCAN PENINSULA, INDIA

SACHIN Patit!**, RAJENDRA LAVATE!? AND MEENA DoNGARE!

'Department of Botany, Shivaji University, Kolhapur 416 004, Maharashtra, India.

"Email: [email protected]

3Email: [email protected]

‘Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i2/72256

Introduction

The genus Ophioglossum L. has 40 species and a

few varieties known so far worldwide (Pichi-Sermolli

1958; Yadav and Goswami 2010). In India, the genus is

represented by 12 species (Goswami et al. 2008). Manickam

and Irudayaraj (1992) reported five Ophioglossum species

from southern Western Ghats, and Bhuskute (1999) reported

six species from Maharashtra. Since then, there has been

no authenticated study on the genus Ophioglossum. While

investigating the pteridophytes from Maharashtra, the

authors collected eight species of Ophioglossum, of which

O. parvifolium Grev. and O. polyphyllum A. Braun ex Seubert

are reported as new records to the Deccan peninsula, India.

The present note deals with taxonomic account, distribution,

and phenology. A modified key to the Ophioglossum species,

based on Panigrahi and Dixit (1969), is also given.

KEY TO SPECIES OF OPHIOGLOSSUM L. FROM

DECCAN PENINSULA

LorPiaitis lessthamclt) emis .2. Ab ol ae. ee. LR AS ji

#2 / Plants above [On fa S. Asa at A 5

2. Sterile lamina linear, grass-like ..............eee O. gramineum

— Sterile lamina ovate-elliptic or elliptic-lanceolate.................. 3

3. Rhizome subglobose, trophophyll ovate-elliptic ..........0.0..0.. A

— Rhizome tuberous, trophophylls elliptic-lanceolate, apex

BOS). 1G NL) A ON AE ae ee O. lusitanicum

4. Trophophylls ovate or elliptic, apex obtuse, base cuneate .......

2b ee ABA aed tSe dk. RAIN POA, ASS, O. nudicaule

— Trophophylls ovate, apex acute-apiculate, base cuneate ..........

aod ith quran AMR IO oe Men ee | ARAN ROE As Cae tiaee Jag bench ag O. parvifolium

5. (Rilizomig @loeose in ules ys, Be PUI e oie occ. csiee so vadeanrcecarnss 6

=r RiizomedOt globose. csc eran ded) en so 7

6. Sterile trophophylls small, lanceolate, obtuse-ovate ................

nee inn en MR Fe sani. first Ae HR Sy 9 Re ly, O. costatum

— Sterile trophophylls large, elliptical-oblong, glabrous..............

RLa. I oe Mh STOR he AMALIE MET A O. polyphyllum

156

Tia Te AILS OE lel Me. A. holed. Ah AM. eet O. reticulatum

7 lLatinadanceolates.t...0t. Wear. AT.... O. petiolatum

Ophioglossum parvifolium Grev. & Hook. Bot. Misc.

3221801833:

Terrestrial herb, height 4-5 cm; rhizome 3—4 mm

diam., erect, soft, tuberous, bearing 1—2 trophophylls at the

apex; trophophylls 0.4—1 cm long, 0.4—0.6 mm broad, ovate-

lanceolate, apex acute to apiculate, margin entire, base cordate;

veins obscure, four or five veins passing up through the stalk of

the blade; fertile segment 24 cm long, linear oblong; strobili

0.5—1 cm long, 0.3 mm broad, 3—6 sporangia, alternate on

either side; spores 25-45 um diam., trilete, exine reticulate.

Distribution

World: India, China, South America, Sumatra,

Malaysia, Thailand.

India: Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra.

Maharashtra: Tableland plateau (Panchgan1),

Ghanbi, Radhanagari, Dajipur, Ajara, Tilhari Nagar, Achirne,

Fonda.

Phenology: June—August.

Ecology: Common species, growing in patches on fully

exposed plateaus at an altitude 200—1,200 m. The species

is associated with Ophioglossum gramineum, O. costatum,

and O. nudicaule.

Ophioglossum polyphyllum A. Braun ex Seubert,

Fl. Azor. 17. 1844; Pichi-Sermolli, Webbia 9: 632. 1954;

Panigrahi and Dixit, Proc. Nat. Inst. Sci. India 35 B(3): 255.

1969; Dixit, Indian Fern J.6: 146. 1989.

Ophioglossum cuspidatum Milde, Bot. Zeit. 22: 107.

1864;

Ophioglossum aitchisonii (Clarke) d’ Almeida, J.

Indian Bot. Soc. 3: 63 f. 12-13. 1922; Mahabale, Bull. Bot.

Surv. India 4: 71. 1962.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Plant up to 15 cm long, terrestrial or semiaquatic;

rhizome linear elongate, unbranched fusiform, bearing

numerous fibrous rhizoids; trophophylls 4-12 cm long,

1—2 cm broad, tuft, elliptical-oblong, glabrous, narrowed

at base and apex, wider medially, apex acute-mucronate,

margin entire; texture herbaceous; veins without free

endings, anastomosing with simple included veinlets;

fertile segments 4—6 cm long without strobili, arising from

the base of each sterile leaf under the soil; strobili 1—-2.5 cm

long, green when young, yellow at maturity; spores c. 30—-

40 um diam., trilate with circular amb. and fine reticulated

exinic.

Distribution

World: India, Ethopia, Kenya, south-west Africa,

North America.

India: Uttar Pradesh, north-east Himalaya,

Maharashtra.

Maharashtra: Jat (Sangli district).

Phenology: July—October.

Ecology: Constrained to the ground and its adjoining

grassland area at Raje Ramrao College, Jat, Sangli district,

Maharashtra, India. Grows where the annual rainfall is below

1,000 mm at 700 m altitude.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors are thankful to the Head, Department

of Botany, Shivaji University, Kolhapur, for providing

laboratory facilities.

REFERENCES

BuuskuTE, S.M. (1999): Ophioglossums of Bhandara district,

Maharashtra state, India. Indian Fern Journal 16: 51—S4.

GoswaMI, H.K., S.C. VERNA & B.D. SHARMA (EDs) (2008): Biology of

Pteridophytes — I. Ophioglossum, Linnaeus. Bionature Monograph.

Catholic Press, Ranchi. Pp. 1-135.

MANIcKAM, V.S. & V. IRUDAYARAJ (1992): Pteridophyte Flora of

South India. Today & Tomorrow’s Publications, New Delhi. Pp. 653.

PANIGRAHI, G. & R.D. Drxir (1969): Studies in Indian Pteridophytes

IV. The family Ophioglossaceae in India. Proc. Nat. Inst. Sci. India

35 B (3): 230-266.

PIcHI-SERMOLLI, R.E.G. (1958): The higher taxa of the Pteridophyta and

their classification. In: Hedberg, O. (Ed.): Systematics of Today.

Uppsala UnivArsskrift 1958(6): 70-90.

Yapav, B.L. & H.K. Goswami (2010): A new, pink-brown Ophioglossum

(Ophioglossaceae) from India. Bull. Natl. Mus. Nat. Sci., Ser. B

36(4): 155-159,

Printed by Printania Offset Pvt. Ltd., D-20/21, Shalimar Industrial Estate, Matunga, Mumbai 400 019 and published on July 07, 2015

by Ms. Sumaira Abdulali for Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Dr. Salim Ali Chowk,

Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001, Maharashtra, India.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(2), May-August 2014

157

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

The Journal welcomes concise reports of original research in natural history,

taxonomy and other aspects of zoology and botany of general interest.

SUBMISSION OF MANUSCRIPT

Manuscripts should be submitted as Word documents (.doc) or

RTF (.rtf) files. Figures may be uploaded separately or embedded

into the text of your initial submission. On acceptance, you will

be required to upload your manuscript as one text file and

additional high resolution graphics files in TIFF (tiff). Please

ensure that the track changes feature has been turned off and

any reviewing notes removed before submission or they will be

visible throughout the review process.

If a new taxon is described, the institution in which the type

material is deposited must be given, together with details of the

registration assigned to it; the specimen should be deposited in

a National Depository. Full binomial names should be given on

the first occasion an organism is mentioned (and abbreviated

thereafter), except at the beginning of a sentence. Avoid

footnotes except to add information below the body of a table.

Do not use initial capitals for the common names of animals

unless derived from a proper noun.

Revised manuscripts must be submitted in their final form within

two months of receipt of a revision letter from the Editor.

PREPARATION OF MANUSCRIPT

Main Papers and New Descriptions

Manuscripts of papers for the Main section and New Descriptions

should be as concise as possible and must be typed in double

spacing. The text should run in one, single column and have

generous margins. Pages should be numbered consecutively,

and the matter on Page 1 should be arranged in the following

order: Title of the paper; Name(s) of Author(s), Department(s)

and Institution(s) [in case of multiple affiliations, author(s) should

specify current affiliation]; Footnote containing address of

Author for correspondence with e-mail id, followed by the List of

Abbreviations used in text. A short running title derived from the

Original title may also be given for main papers. Page 2 should

contain the Abstract. The text may be arranged in the following

order: Introduction; Material and Methods or Methodology;

Results; Discussion; Acknowledgements; References. Abstract,

Key Words, Tables and Captions for Figures should be typed

separately.

Title: The title should be such as to be useful for indexing and

information retrieval.

Abstract: The abstract, not exceeding 200 words, should

indicate the scope and significant content of the paper,

highlighting the principal findings and conclusions.

Introduction: The introductory part should bear no heading,

should be brief and state precisely the objective of the study in

relation to the present status of knowledge in the field. Review

of literature should be restricted to the essential references

Material and Methods or Methodology: The nomenclature,

sources of material and the procedures should be clearly

stated. New methods should be described in detail, but if the

methods are well known, a mere reference to them will do; any

modifications made in the methods should be stated.

Results: Only data relevant to the objectives of the study

and main conclusions emerging from the study should be

included. The data should be arranged in a unified and coherent

sequence for clarity and readability. The same data should not

be presented in both tables and figures, and such data as can

be easily and briefly stated in the text should not be depicted

diagrammatically. Only such tables and figures as are necessary

should be given. Tests of statistical significance should be

identified and references used should be cited. Statements about

the statistical significance of the results must be borne out by

the level of significance, preferably provided in the tables and

legends. The use of the word “significant” should be restricted

to “statistically significant”.

Discussion: The discussion should provide an interpretation of

the results of the study, without repeating information already

presented under Results. It should relate the new findings to

the known and include logical deductions. Where necessary,

the Results and Discussion can be combined.

Illustrations: The number of illustrations should be kept to

the minimum and numbered consecutively in Arabic numerals.

Simple linear plots or linear double reciprocal plots that can be

easily described in the text should be avoided. Extension of

graphs beyond the last experimental point is permissible only

while extrapolating data. The drawings are usually reduced to the

page width or column size, and care should be taken that the size

of letters, numerals, dots and symbols is relatively uniform and

sufficiently large to permit this reduction. Photographs should be

the same size as they will appear in the journal and should be

selected to fit neatly into one column (80 mm) or two columns

(168 mm). Photographs should be labelled and numbered as for

line drawings. For microscopical preparations, scale bars with

appropriate units must be provided; statements of magnification

are not acceptable.

Tables: Each table should have an explanatory title and should

be numbered in Arabic numerals. Units (metric) of measurement

should be abbreviated and placed below the headings. Negative

results should be indicated as Nil (0) and absence of a datum

by a dash.

Acknowledgements: Acknowledgements should be brief and

relevant.

References: Responsibility for the accuracy of references rests

with the author(s). References must be checked against the text

to ensure (a) that the spelling of authors’ names and the dates

given are consistent and (b) that all authors quoted in the text

(in date order if more than one) are given in the reference list

and vice versa. The full title of the paper must be given together

with the first and last pages. Abstracts of papers presented

at scientific meetings may be cited. References to literature

should be alphabetically arranged under author’s name, with

the abridged titles of journals or periodicals in italics and titles

of books or papers in Roman type.

Miscellaneous Notes: The section accommodates incidental

observations on flora and fauna of the Asian region, and need

not follow strictly the above section headings. No abstract is

required, but key words may be included and references must

be cited as in the rest of the Journal.

The Editors reserve the right, other things being equal, to publish

a member’s contribution before that of a nonmember and also

to publish invited papers on priority. Authors may suggest up to

four referees for their paper; however, the Editor reserves the

right to choose referees other than those suggested.

Visit www.bnhsjournal.org for details

Registered with the Registrar of Newspapers under RN 5685/57

Print ISSN 0006-6982 ¢ Online ISSN 2454-1095

emens (UTIL

SPE (2. eReaepe ane dle WORN alah gts tee one eA E en Fae tid Tec AE RD OT STS; 4 AAR Main ely OC ee ee ery

MOLECULAR SEXING OF THE CRITICALLY ENDANGERED SLENDER-BILLED VULTURE GYPS

' TENUIROSTRISAND ITS CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS

Mandar Dilip Kulkarni, Rohan Shringarpure, Chandra Mohan S., Mohini Saini, Tapan K. Palai,

Praveen K. Gupta, Purvi Bhatt, Nikita Prakash, Ashok Bhagwat and Vibhu Prakash................:ccseees ae 13

THE GRASSLAND BIRDS OF ROLLAPADU WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, ANDHRA PRADESH, INDIA, WITH ;

SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE IMPACT OF GRAZING-FREE ENCLOSURES

FR TMU Nt Rr te oe rea ean es ry crn carts pe ate et edna ane cd ayineaainneritde Ma bidanarnieianatinwadlaniia sara 81

FOOD HABITS OF INDIAN GREY HORNBILL OCYCEROS BIROSTRIS IN SATHYAMANGALAM FOREST

DIVISION, EASTERN GHATS, INDIA |

E. Santhoshkummiar and, BalasutirarAmial...;....:c.c-ce-c-seacccerecessacsseunsiverssveneevsseevsenvesasctendpdivatuawesesssnseceuedees G0

NEW RECORD OF LIVE CORAL SPECIES COLONIZING INTERTIDAL ZONES ALONG SOUTHERN

SAURASHTRA, INDIA

Paresh Poriya, Bhavik Vakariiand Rahul KUNGU.......-i..ccecsescessssnssnsceesesssesssaccnstesvenesnatiesdesseeseneestseesays gee ae 98

NEW RECORDS OF SEAWEEDS FROM THE GOACOAST, INDIA

N. Pereira and M.R. Almeida...............:. Od ie tases MNEs a ak AC en ie ull see tte cs Mita yay pots Ue Senne cn ere 106

Fe NR Ae ees egy ae te ee Me ee, STN En ree A a ie i at Pa oa ail tO Seka Lait culate acerca a 124

fe peg Ge he FE Ss CES SO | Se ca ge Rogers ana eet Re Rr Oe es aoe pee otek 125

__ Printed by Printania Offset Pvt. Ltd., D-20/21, Shalimar Industrial Estate, Matunga, Mumbai 400 019 and published by

Ms. Sumaira Abdulali for Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Dr. Salim Ali Chowk, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road,

Mumbai 400 001. Website: www.bnhsjournal.org; Email: [email protected]/[email protected]

~ JOURN

BOMBAY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY

CONSERVING :

NATURE SINCE 1883

JOURNAL OF THE BOMBAY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY

Hornbill House, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai 400 001.

Executive Epitor

Asad R. Rahmani, Ph. D.

Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai

Copy Ebitor

Ranjit Manakadan, Ph. D.

Bombay Natural History Society

Copy AND PRobucTION EpITtor

Vibhuti Dedhia, M. Sc.

Bombay Natural History Society

Editorial Board

Ajith Kumar, Ph. D. Aasheesh Pittie, B. Com.

National Centre for Biological Sciences, ) Bird Watchers Society of Andhra Pradesh,

GKVK Campus, Hebbal, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh

SSULEUELG | G.S. Rawat, Ph. D.

C.R. Babu, Ph. D. Wildlife Institute of India,

Professor, Centre for Environmental Management Dehradun, Uttarakhand

of Degraded Ecosystems, J.D. Marcus Knight, Ph. D.

University of Delhi, Chennai, Tamil Nadu

New Delhi J.S. Singh, Ph. D.

Anwaruddin Choudhury, Ph. D., D. Sc. Professor, Sutera Hindu University

The Rhino Foundation for Nature, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh

Guwahati, Assam S. Subramanya, Ph. D.

Bud a mt Pe University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK,

Indraneil Das; D. Phil Hebbal, Bengaluru, Karnataka

Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation,

Universiti Malaysia, Sarawak, R. Sukumar, Ph. D.

Malaysia Professor, Centre for Ecological Sciences,

Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, Karnataka

Romulus Whitaker, B. Sc.

Madras Reptile Park and Crocodile Bank Trust,

Tamil Nadu

S.R. Yadav, Ph. D.

Shivaji University, Kolhapur,

Maharashtra

Y.V. Jhala, Ph. D.

Wildlife Institute of India,

Dehradun, Uttarakhand

K. Ullas Karanth, Ph. D.

Wildlife Conservation Society — India Program,

Bengaluru, Karnataka

Consultant Editors

Gayatri W. Ugra, Ph. D.

Bombay Natural History Society

Raghunandan Chundawat, Ph. D.

Wildlife Conservation Society, Bengaluru

Nigel Collar, Ph. D.

BirdLife International, UK

Rhys Green, Ph. D.

Royal Society for Protection of Birds, UK

Qamar Qureshi, M. Phil.

Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun

Editorial Assistant: Sonali V. Vadhavkar, M. Sc.

Layout and Typesetting: V. Gopi Naidu

recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS). Enquiries concerning

reproduction outside the scope of the above should be addressed to the Honorary Secretary, BNHS at the address given above.

VOLUME 111(3): DECEMBER 2014

CONTENTS

2) 2% led ite gn ei Fe, Pein Pra vo) Une Reith MEME nth ete cots eee a CG Orin ante. eeieeatie, Stee oh et

REOCCUPATION OF FORMER TERRITORIES BY THE ASIATIC LION PANTHERA LEO PERSICA, MEYER, 1826, INSOUTHERN

SAURASHTRA, GUJARAT, INDIA: A VISION FOR FUTURE MANAGEMENT

MAK. RRANPRSIIA egies ses ccneee cancccecctgeal RO a eas MOE, 5 2 ceo, BNA alee Mi ste ttn rate cent caste cat handed ene SRR Aa Ne Pa ce

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF SPOTTED OWLET ATHENE BRAMA (TEMMINCK, 1821)

Ashish N. Nerlekar, Gaurang G. Gowande and Pratik S. Joshi

TOC PPP CeCe eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee

TAXONOMIC STUDIES ON THE GRASSHOPPER FAUNA (ORTHOPTERA: ACRIDIDAE) RECORDED FROM PADDY FIELDS IN

UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

Md HumayoonAkhtarand MelieaK amit Stine) M8: 57 te es Oe Oe RR FOREN Bae Ain cha dacie cpt tin ta nega ea ge Ra as

A REPORT OF EREBIDAE (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUOIDEA) FROM THE TAMIL NADU PART OF THE WESTERN GHATS, INDIA

K. Sivasankaran arma’ S: Tomaqcainitrviie ecceMte tr ecoets scecec corte tater ate erate eee a eats carte ie Rote eee one agree eee eeaneees

REVIEWS

1. SHIFTING GROUND: PEOPLE, ANIMALS, AND MOBILITY OF INDIAS ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY

Reviewed Dy ASAC: IS. Fal ®. ctascsaadt es enact tee teste anne ee oad vaneer irene seeaaneaecn

2. THE SONG OF THE MAGPIE ROBIN

REVICWEG DY AGAC tae FREPIMEN sera nn ten easmasebancaaianhanaaiantonhaatanntizes fine alanec hereon Mos aaa mae FEB O4 2075 bat Stine: San etae

3. GREEN WARS: DISPATCHES FROM A VANISHING WORLD

Reviewed by Asad R. RANMan......-c... edhe Metts Ry ak teste Mat vette Sel cae

See eins | nn

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

MAMMALS 8. Jungle Babbler Turdoides striata at Tanot in Thar desert,

1. Hanuman Langur Semnopithecus dussumieri feeding on western Rajasthan: a range extension

the apical stem of Euphorbia nivulia at Mount Abu and Pramod Patil, Siddhesh S. Surve, Noor Khan and

Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuaries in Rajasthan, India SIN Ai OS a! os an aatdsicaln serra tin a enartald Sea naga Beene erels

Satish Kumar Sharma and Vijay Kumar Koli................. 212 9. Sightings of Buffy Fish-owl Ketupa ketupu and Mangrove

2. Firstrecord of Hodgson’s Bat Myotis formosus Hodgson, Pitta Pitta megarhyncha in Sundarbans Tiger Reserve,

1835 (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae, Myotinae) from the West Bengal, India

Western Ghats, India Harkirat Singh Sangha and Sandeep S. Dhumal .........

Rohit Chakravarty, Shashank Dalvi, 10. Observations on bill deformities in three bird species

Vishnupriya Sankararaman and D.V. Girish................. ais from Maharashtra, India

3. Endangered Ganges River Dolphin Platanista gangetica R.V. Hippargi, P.M. Bolde, M.K.Rao, A.M. Bolde and

gangetica sighted in Rapti river, Balrampur district, SrA AR ao Se cs Pee Ei Pca abil ch,

Uttar Pradesh, India 11. The Buff-bellied Pipit Anthus rubescens japonicus at

Kamlesh K. Maurya, Dabeer Hasan and Ranthambhore, Rajasthan, India

Cees (ct: a eee ees ee Meer wr cree re 214 Harkirat Singh Sangha ......-scscssesseecseecsesssessseeseeesteeseeeeees

4. A scientometric analysis of the trends of information

dissemination on ‘true albino’ and ‘white’ mammals REPTILES

He IR RON aie sac cens rex eee igs alseats oaGaa vy toate gauadaeeae Shea eras 216 12. Albino Common Trinket Snake Coelognathus helena

(Daudin, 1803) from Udaipur, Rajasthan, Northwest

BIRDS India

5. Sighting of Indian Spotted Eagle Clanga hastata trom Satish Kumar Sharma and Padam Singh Rathore........

Tal Chhapar Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India

Siddhesh S. Surve, Pramod Patil, Noor Khan FISH

and: @ujit Nanwadecw: mo. maeiwilidtie ies ae 220 13. Onacollection of fish from Manjaly — an estuarine area

6. Sighting of Rose-ringed Parakeet (blue) at Kachoriya nala of the river Periyar in Ernakulam district, Kerala,

from Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh district, Rajasthan, India India

Charchit Jain, AkKshun Gupta and Rimal Sudhindran .... 221 M.H. Shyla and K.S. Jameela B@evi «0... cccccecenerneeees

7. Slender-billed Babbler Turdoides longirostris in Rajiv 14. Sexual dimorphism in a benthic fish Oxyurichthys

Gandhi Orang National Park, Assam, India tentacularis (Valenciennes, 1837), Gobiidae, inhabiting

Biswajit Chakdar, Manabendra Ray Choudhury, Ashtamudi estuary, Kerala, India

Panna Deb and Hilloljyoti Singha...............::::cceeeeeeeeeees 222 Remya Mohan and Sherly Williams, E. ......... cee

ise

161

172

180

193

210

211

224

225

226

229

230

231

235

INSECTS

16.

cre

Anote on the occurrence of Bindahara phocides (Fabricius)

(Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) as a fruit borer of Salacia

fruticosa Heyne ex Lawson at Peechi, Kerala, India

Revathy, V.S., George Mathew, N. Sasidharan and

K. Muhammad AnazZ 25 ae ctr ceca indent oe

Papilio xuthus Linnaeus (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae) — a

new record for India

Nosang MUNinglas iImbOGs. S15 ac cdobalassaeselaakt ata

Geographical convergence patterns in the distribution of

Drosophila species in Nagaland, a sub-Himalayan hilly

state of North-east India

Bovito Achumi, Shridhar N. Hegde, Pardeshi Lal,

Zevelou and Sarat Chandra Yenisetti.............0000.....

236

238

239

BOTANY

18.

20.

Zit.

Present status of Aldrovanda vesiculosa L. in India

S210 LIESt re | 0 Fe Paaee oobi) & PAA Eben na A ee

On the ecology and occurrence of Aeginetia indica L. and

Wrightia dolichocarpa Bahadur et Bennet in southern

Gujarat, India

WS el ater] SSSI RSE (0 [Ea alter call eta ill in a ea

Croton hirtus L’Herit. (Euphorbiaceae) — a new record

for Karnataka, India

SEO Z EN AIS Tes S10 eee ee ee

Eleocharis spiralis (Rottb.) Roem. & Schult. (Cyperaceae)

— a new record for Andaman and Nicobar Islands,

India

A.N. Chandore, M.Y. Kamble and K.V.C. Gosavi ..........

Cover Photograph: Shaggy Lady Slipper Orchid Paphiopedilum hirsutissimum By Isaac Kehimkar

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

WE ARE GRATEFUL TO THE MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

GOVT. OF INDIA,

FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE JOURNAL.

Editorial

Symbolism par excellence

Besides the national animal (Tiger) and national bird (Peafowl), each state in India has a state

animal, state bird, state tree, and state flower. The species thus selected is either very rare or widespread

or has sociocultural values. Another reason for picking up a species for this honour is to connect people

with the species and its habitat so they will become interested in its protection. The state is expected to

take measures for species survival — why would a government select a species to represent the state when

it is not interested in its protection? Let us take some examples and see what the states are doing.

First let’s consider globally threatened species. Great One-horned Indian Rhinoceros is the state

animal of Assam and Great Indian Bustard is the state bird of Rajasthan. What a contrast in the action

of the two states! While the rhino has risen literally from mud in the last 100 years, the bustard is

going to dust in another ten years or less. In the early 1900s, it is said that there were less than two

dozen rhinos left in the swamps and muddy grasslands of Kaziranga in Assam, thanks to poaching

and hunting. Poaching is still a problem, but the rhino numbers have increased to more than 2,000 in

Kaziranga. To accommodate this increasing number, the Assam government has increased the area of

Kaziranga six times; as a result this famous Park now spreads to 849 sq. km. The Assam government

has developed Rhino Vision 20:20 under which the state aims to increase the Great One-horned Indian

Rhinoceros numbers to 3,000 by the year 2020. Besides Kaziranga, rhinos are found in Orang, Pobitora

and Manas, and will be reintroduced in Laokhowa Burha-chapori Wildlife Sanctuary from where they

became extinct in 1983. Every poaching case of rhino results in public outrage, and is discussed in

the state assembly. Perhaps for no other species have public rallies been taken out for its protection.

Children write poetry, make paintings, youngsters join cycle rallies, elders express concern in seminars,

and media thrashes the government after every rhino death, sometimes even when the death is due

to natural causes. Every Assamese is proud of the state animal. Posters of rhinos are present in many

Street corners.

Contrast this with the status of Great Indian Bustard, now the rarest bustard of the world. From

many thousands, hundred years ago, the Bustard number has gone down to less than 150 individuals

in 2014. Along with Macqueen’s Bustard, Chinkara (state animal), and Sandgrouse, the Great Indian

Bustard is extensively hunted by poachers and criminals, but no one has been prosecuted till now.

The Desert National Park where the GIB, as it is commonly known, was found will be reduced by

half to accommodate the mining and industrial lobby. Project Bustard, announced with fanfare by the

previous Rajasthan government three years ago, has been thrown to dust by the present government.

Diyatra Closed Area in Bikaner district has been dismantled, and I know some wildlife officers who

have never visited it in their entire tenure of posting in Bikaner, although it is only 40 km from the

state headquarters. The bustard is practically extinct in Diyatra region, once its stronghold in Rajasthan.

No bird has been seen for the last five years. Similar is the fate of Sonkhaliya Closed Area in Ajmer

district, where nearly 80 bustards used to be present in the 1980s — this year (2014) none were seen.

In the Sorsan Bustard Area in Baran district, the last bustard died in the mid-1990s.

The Bustard story is repeated in some other states too. Kashmir Stag or Hangul is the state animal

of Jammu & Kashmir. This subspecies of Red Deer was widespread in Himachal and Jammu & Kashmir

—now no more. Between 160 and 170 deer cling to their last stronghold in Dachigam National Park in

Kashmir. You will think that the state government must be doing everything to protect its state symbol.

Far from it! A request to remove the intrusive Sheep Breeding Farm from the National Park has been

under discussion for the last 30—35 years. The request to start a state-of-the-art Conservation Breeding

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82593

160

Programme is pending for lack of funds and interest. We hear a lot of homilies from politicians, but

ground action is lacking. While in Europe the Red Deer has made a comeback, and there are millions

of them, our own majestic subspecies trots towards extinction.

Another species that will become extinct is the central Indian Wild Buffalo, the state animal of

Chhattisgarh. While for other wild animals we may not be able to immediately point out their importance

to the general public, the Wild Buffalo is perhaps one of our most important genetic resources. On one

side we have enacted a strong National Biodiversity Act to prevent ‘stealing’ of our genetic resource

and the government encourages scientists to map the gene pool of wild plants and animals. On the

other side, there is a gene pool in the form of Wild Buffalo that is dying out due to sheer neglect and

apathy. One would assume that the Agriculture Ministry and the Animal Husbandry Department would

be interested to take up this issue as they benefit from genetic diversity — one cannot be more wrong. It

is only the understaffed and demoralized Chhattisgarh Forest Department that is taking some measures

to protect the last few herds of Wild Buffalo. Their Conservation Breeding Programme perpetually

suffers from a resource crunch.

Fortunately, there are some success stories also. Barasingha, for example, the state animal of

Madhya Pradesh has made a comeback. Like the Wild Buffalo of Chhattisgarh, it was widespread in

central India, but poaching, so-called sport hunting and conversion of its grassland habitat, brought

it to the verge of extinction. Less than 70 animals were left in the grasslands of Kanha National Park

in the 1970s. Thanks to good research-based conservation actions, now the number is more than 600,

and increasing. Similar is the well-known case of Asiatic Lions of Gir. It is too famous to be repeated

here.

Asiatic Elephant, an iconic animal, is the state animal of three states: Jharkhand, Karnataka and

Kerala, while Blackbuck is the state animal of Punjab, Haryana and Andhra Pradesh. All state animals or

birds are not necessarily rare. For example, White-breasted Kingfisher is the state bird of West Bengal,

while Indian Roller is the state bird of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Odisha. Indian Roller was

selected as it eats insects, and thus is considered ‘a friend of the farmer’. But why the White-breasted

Kingfisher, which is such a widespread bird in South and South-east Asia. Why not Masked Finfoot

or Mangrove Pitta that is found in Sundarbans — the largest mangroves in the world?

Similarly, selection of state flower does not follow any pattern. While Uttarakhand has opted for

the famous Brahma Kamal that grows above the tree-line from 3,000 m to 4,500 m, the Uttar Pradesh

government has opted for Palash or Flame-of-the-Forest. Manipur is proud of its endemic Siroi Lily,

confined to a small area. Gujarat has opted for Marigold, a religious symbol being the thought. Bihar

also has Marigold as its state flower.

Declaring state species 1s fine, but it should not remain symbolic. If the species is rare, and many

species are, the state should do everything to improve its status. Just declaring a state animal or a state

flower and not doing anything is “Symbolism par excellence’. Species cannot survive on symbolism

— they need concrete actions on the ground!

Asad R. Rahmani

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

REOCCUPATION OF FORMER TERRITORIES BY THE ASIATIC LION

PANTHERA LEO PERSICA, MEYER, 1826, IN SOUTHERN SAURASHTRA,

GUJARAT, INDIA: A VISION FOR FUTURE MANAGEMENT

M.K. RANIITSINH!

‘Former Director, Wildlife Preservation, Govt. of India, 5 Tiger Lane (W6-C lane), Sainik Farms, New Delhi 110 062, India.

Email: [email protected]

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82338

While the total lion population has increased by 27% from 2010 to 2015, the increase during the same period in

protected areas is only 6%, but the increase outside of them is 126%. The total area of the Gir National Park and

Sanctuary and the Girnar, Mitiyala, and Paniya sanctuaries and their environs, is approximately 1,900 sq. km, while

the current landscape occupied by the Lion in Southern Saurashtra is about 22,000 sq. km. No large wild cat has

affected reoccupation of its former habitat on such a scale, neither in Asia nor in Africa, in the last more than 50 years.

An encouraging factor which will assist the lion reoccupation of former territories is the sense of tolerance and pride

with which the local people view the arrival of lions in their neighbourhood. The fact that lions prey substantially

upon nilgai which cause damage to agriculture, has helped in their acceptance by the local communities. However,

public opinion can change if lions come in serious conflict with human interests. The authorities, therefore, must

prepare a comprehensive prospective management plan, which would assist the lion to reoccupy suitable former

habitats including the Barda landscape, allow movement of specimens to prevent in-breeding, as well as to safeguard

the lions, their prey and their habitats.

Keywords: Gir, Girnar, Barda, Shetrunja Hill, Nes, Nilgai

161-171

On the kind invitation of the Chief Wildlife Warden of

Gujarat, I participated in the quinquennial enumeration of

the Asiatic Lion in Saurashtra, from May 1-6, 2015. Having

participated as a schoolboy in the first enumeration of the

lion in independent India, carried out by the Principal of my

school Mr. M.A. Wynter-Blyth in 1950 (Ranjitsinh 1997),

and having been involved with the conservation of the lion

and its habitats over the decades, it was a most rewarding

experience. The total count of the lion went up from 411 in

2010 to 523 in 2015, an increase of 27%. However, more

significant than the gross increase in population is the spread

in distribution, consequent to the reoccupation of part of its

former range by the lion.

Following the merger of the princely states in 1948, the

entire extant world habitat of the Asiatic Lion, in southern

Saurashtra, came under one authority for the first time — the

Government of the State of Saurashtra at the outset, followed

by the Government of the State of Bombay and then of

Gujarat.

Lions have always exhibited their propensity to travel

distances and to occupy contiguous habitats, even if it involves

traversing open terrain. After their numbers grew following

the disastrous decline after the famine of 1899-1900, they

started appearing in Mitiyala, then a part of the princely state

of Bhavnagar, from 1917 onwards. The most assiduous duty

assigned to the field staff of the princely state of Junagarh,

which had the major population of the lion, was to prevent

lions from straying out of the territories of Junagarh State

into the neighbouring Kathi estates and thereby getting shot.

In independent India too, the policy was that of containment

of the lion within the precincts of the Gir Forest. With the

establishment of the Gir Sanctuary in 1965, followed by the

initiation of the Gir Lion Sanctuary Project in 1972 upon

the promulgation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972,

and finally the establishment of Gir National Park (NP) over

a major part of the Sanctuary in 1975 and the relocation of

over a hundred “maldhari nesses”’, the conservation status of

both the Gir and of the lion improved significantly. The lion

population within the precincts of the Gir NP and Sanctuary

attained its optimum levels and started straying out. Some

animals moved eastwards into what was called Baroda Gir,

east of Jasadhar, and Mitiyala became a permanent abode of

the lion. However, the major diaspora occurred southwards

along the coast, where the Forest Department had carried

out plantation of casuarina trees, augmented and invaded

by Prosopis juliflora. The lions that occupied these new

territories, especially along the southern coast, mostly

survived on livestock supplemented with Wild Pig and Nilgai

and were, of course, a major source of man-animal conflict,

and were themselves in danger of being eliminated because

of their cattle-killing propensity. The standard practice then

was to capture these “truant” lions and to bring them back for

release into the Gir, resulting in intra-specific conflict, and,

frequently, the death of the “salvaged” lions. Very frequently,

'Encampments of livestock owners

REOCCUPATION OF FORMER TERRITORIES BY THE ASIATIC LION IN GUJARAT

these very same lions themselves dispersed out of Gir again.

The authorities in charge were reluctant to address the reasons

of and the remedies for the lion dispersal — that the Gir had

reached the limits of its carrying capacity of lions and that

the lions needed more /ebensraum (living space).

Like most democratic governments, the Government

of Gujarat was reluctant to establish more protected areas

or to enlarge existing ones. The Gir Lion Sanctuary Project

entailing the shifting of the maldhari nesses and establishment

of the Gir NP, had been initiated during the period Gujarat

was under the rule of the Central Government. The then

Administrator, Shri K.T. Satarawala, I.A.S, had a personal

interest in the conservation of the Gir and constantly sought

the advice of the Bombay Natural History Society and of

the Director of Wildlife Preservation, Government of India,

which I then was. The Girnar massif had the only outlying

discrete lion population during the 1950 enumeration and it

had gene-flow connectivity with the main Gir population, for

the major part of the 20th century, which now unfortunately

is curtailed due to the intensive land use in the intervening

landscape. Yet Girnar became a sanctuary only as late as

2008 and Mitiyala in 2004 (Singh 2004), despite constant

reminders from the Government of India and the conservation

lobby.

During my first tenure as Director of Wildlife of

India (1972-75), the Indian Wildlife Board, whose member

secretary I then was, had debated the idea of a second home

for the lion; the first attempt in the Chandraprabha Sanctuary

of Uttar Pradesh having failed in the 1950s. A subcommittee

had been formed to identify a second home, with the late

R.K. Dharmakumarsinhyji as the chairperson and I as the

member secretary. I visited the potential sites identified —

Jaisamand and Todgarh sanctuaries in Rajasthan and the Barda

forest in Gujarat. I had recommended that the Government

of Gujarat should consider Barda as a potential second home

for the lion and that Barda should become a sanctuary. This

was not accepted and indeed, Barda was not even established

as a sanctuary till 1979. A coalition of two young male lions,

locally called “belad”, had marched on their own into the

marshland and scrub of Mokar near Porbandar and indeed,

were on the outskirts of Ranavav, just below the Barda Hills.

They would surely have reached Barda and reoccupied the

former domain of the lion after a lapse of 120 years. But they

killed two valuable horses and in February 2003, were caught,

brought back to the Gir and released near Kankai in the centre

of the Gir, where they were promptly killed by the resident

dominant male. It is ironical that the Government of Gujarat

has now established, at considerable expense, a rehabilitation

centre for the lion in the Barda Sanctuary and has already

placed captive lions there, for release.

162

During the past decades, the Government of Gujarat

has been receiving suggestions for the enhancement of

the protected area adjacent to the Gir, to provide for the

increase and the “spillover” of the lion population. I had been

suggesting that the landscape being occupied by the march of

the lions should be called the “brihad” (enlarged) Gir, jokingly

suggesting that just as emperors in ancient India practised

‘“ashwamedha” whereby the emperor’s armies followed a

wandering stallion of the emperor, claiming for the emperor

all the territories that the horse traversed, the State Wildlife

Department should practice “a sinhamedha” and claim all

the territories that this animal emperor occupied! The State

wildlife authorities were not unaware of the needs of the

growing population of Gir lions. However, in any developing

nation, and particularly so in India, significant progress in

nature conservation, especially involving a change in land

use, can only be achieved through political will and support.

The requisite change in perception, priority, and practice came

about in the past decade, especially when Gujarat came to

realize that it may lose its “monopoly” over the lion, for which

a second home was being readied in Kuno-Palpur sanctuary

in Madhya Pradesh, at the suggestion of scientists from the

Wildlife Institute of India. The urgency and importance of

in situ lion conservation became even more evident after the

Supreme Court order of 2013 directing the translocation of

lion to Kuno-Palpur in Madhya Pradesh. The demand for a

second home outside of Gujarat needed to be countermanded

by the claim that the lion had itself occupied a number of

“satellite” secondary homes around the Gir; that it was safe

even from the threat of an epidemic in its current expanded

range and that it was loved by the local people and was a

part of their local culture and milieu, which they would be

very loath to part with.

Both the lion and its habitat have greatly benefited by

this change. The policy of lion containment within the Gir

NP and Sanctuary (1,412 sq. km) morphed into Asiatic Lion

Landscape (ALL) conservation, encompassing 22,000 sq.

km, all in South Saurashtra. Girnar became a sanctuary at

long last and Barda is being readied to receive lions (Gujarat

Forest Department 2015), its control having been transferred

to the wildlife wing of the State in 2013. Poaching of lion for

commercial purposes in 2007 led to large scale recruitment of

forest guards and other field staff, a novelty in India today. But

perhaps the most significant volte face has been the change in

the attitude of the local people. Retaliatory poisoning of lions

to avenge the killing of livestock was not uncommon in the

past. Not anymore. The proximity of lions, their presence on

private land and indeed their predation of livestock are often

viewed not just with indulgence, but with a sense of pride

and of ownership. Compensation for livestock killed by lions

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

REOCCUPATION OF FORMER TERRITORIES BY THE ASIATIC LION IN GUJARAT

is sometimes not claimed. Vanyaprani Mitra or volunteers

from 300 villages and 14 other settlements help the Forest

Department and provide information on the presence and

movement of lions in peripheral areas of the Gir (Gujarat

Forest Department 2015). Over 6,000 volunteers from across

Gujarat wanted to participate in the lion enumeration of

2015. In an opinion poll survey carried out by a prominent

newspaper some years ago, 97% of the people of Gujarat did

not want the lions to be moved out of Saurashtra. Gujarat

has achieved with the lion what the rest of India has not

succeeded in doing vis-a-vis the tiger, in endearing the lion

and instilling pride and a sense of possession of the lion,

amongst the common man. Whether the lion goes to the

Kuno-Palpur Sanctuary or not, despite the categorical order

of the Supreme Court, is a moot point, but the purpose of

securing the safety of the lion has been ensured. Gujarat till

just a few years ago had the unique distinction of being the

only political entity in the world which had both the lion and

the tiger. It is unfortunate that since the last tiger disappeared

from the Dang forest of south Gujarat, the State has spurned

the suggestions of many, including mine, to bring back the

tiger to Gujarat.

During my periodic visits since the 1970s, I have

witnessed an improvement in the biota, especially of the

ungulate population, in the Gir NP and Sanctuary. With the

reduction and stoppage of grazing, the habitat has significantly

improved. Nowhere in India can one find such a profusion

of the banyan tree Ficus benghalensis. More aerial roots are

reaching the ground now than before, because there is less

nibbling by livestock. The population of wild pig Sus scrofa

is less than it was in the 1950s, but the nilgai Boselaphus

tragocamelus have increased and now appear to have

stabilized their numbers along the periphery of the protected

areas and have multiplied outside of them. Chital Axis axis

have truly proliferated, especially in the last decade and it

is heartening to see the increase of sambar Cervus unicolor.

I was fortunate to see the rare and elusive rusty-spotted cat

Felis rubiginosa for the first time in Saurashtra. What has

apparently not increased is the cryptic four-horned antelope

Tetracerus quadricornis, an animal in retreat throughout the

country and which is ignored almost universally. The lion

has become bold and diurnal for the past number of decades.

However, there is a dramatic change in the behaviour of the

leopard Panthera pardus. Renowned for its shyness and

circumspection, the leopard in the Gir has not only become

diurnal and can be seen even at midday, but uncommonly bold

as well, which is proof of the safety of its past generations.

However, what were most revealing and interesting

were the changes outside of the Park and sanctuaries. I was

2Vidi : Grassland - scrub area

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

able to utilize my five day stay at Sasan Gir to traverse areas |

had not visited for decades and some parts which I had never

been to before — from Mangrol in the west to Bhavnagar

in the east; from Visavadar and Krankach in the north to

Jasadhar and Jamwala in the south. Over the years one had

been receiving reports of the progressive colonization of

past habitats by the lion. I was not aware of the extent and

dimension of it till I saw it for myself.

The Paniya Sanctuary established in 1989 (Sandeep

Kumar and Pathan 2015) and containing Charakio Dungar,

the second highest peak in the Gir after Nandivelo and

adjacent to the Kankai-Sap Nes forest tract, used to be overrun

with livestock. It is a spectacular area now, greatly improved

in habitat quality, with its resident lion population which we

saw. The May 2015 enumeration showed 11 lions in Paniya

Sanctuary and adjoining areas (Table 1).

We continued eastwards past Dalkhania to Krankach

and Liliya into the Prosopis thickets lining the banks of the

Shetrunji river, where we saw nilgai and a pride of lions

near its kill of a bullock. The area is removed from lands

under the control of the Forest Department and we asked

the local people what they felt about the presence of lions

in their vicinity. They replied that they had no objection to

sharing the space with the large carnivore and indeed, some

even stated that they were glad to have them. Lions did kill

cattle they said, but they also controlled the nilgai population

which raided their crops. The people only wanted quick

compensation to be paid if there were cattle kills. This area

showed 28 lions in the 2015 lion count (Table 4).

We saw lions in the Nani Vadal vidi’, which is under

the control of the Forest Department and with control over

demographic impact, is now a fine lion habitat. We also saw

chital and nilgai here. The 2015 enumeration showed nine

lions in Nani Vadal.

Further eastwards, we saw chital and nilgai in

Dhaulikui / Hippa Vadli and of course, the lions, which

Table 1: Distribution of Asiatic Lion in Gir National Park, Sanctuary

and other areas in 14th Asiatic Lion Population Estimate 2015

a Areas Total

1 Gir National Park & Sanctuary and adjoining areas 304

2 Girnar Sanctuary mF

3. Mitiyala Sanctuary 8

4 Paniya Sanctuary 11

5 South Western Coast (Sutrapada-Kodinar-Una-Veraval) 32

6 South Eastern Coast (Rajula-Jafrabad-Nageshree) 18

7 Savarkundla, Liliya and adjoining areas of Amreli 80

8 Bhavnagar district 37

Total 523

163

REOCCUPATION OF FORMER TERRITORIES BY THE ASIATIC LION IN GUJARAT

Hingoigadh

ey Sanctuary

. JAMNAGAR

a =e tS : G6... ¢ Velavadar

: < re es National Park

nfeeop Kansicliya °

Chattar Vilage

Barda

anctuary Raydi

Legend

| 1990-2015 (Movement of Lion)

WEE since Jan-2014 ™

‘ae Outer Boundary of The Asiatic Lion Landscape Nes

Wengen

_ Girnar Sanctuary

ae Barda Sanctuary

[-_] Velavadar NP

[_] District Boundary Image Courtesy: Abhinav Mehta

[~) Other Villages Source: Wildlife Division, Sasan Gir

ere

| Paniya Sanctuary

MM vovacerne

"Junagadh

Gir Somnath

: Image Courtesy: Abhinav Mehta

Note”: Movement is based on Kill Data observed during 1990-2015 : Source: Wildlife Division, Sasan Gir

Fig. 2: Frequency of Lion visitation =

164 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

REOCCUPATION OF FORMER TERRITORIES BY THE ASIATIC LION IN GUJARAT

Table 2: Comparison of population estimates in 2010 and 2015

(Inside and Outside PA)

Year Inside PAs & Outside PAs Total

adjoining areas

2010 337 74 411

2015 356 167 523

Difference 19 93 iz

Percent growth 6% 126% 27%

have been resident here for the past some years. The habitat

is also in a reasonably good state and there are shady

nullahs with water to provide coolness and cover. The 2015

enumeration counted one lion in Nal. The narrow scrub

forests of Sonsariyo provides safe link with habitats beyond.

In Ranigala, we saw three more lions at the waterhole. There

were 10 lions reported in this area in the enumeration.

From this area, the lions have marched eastwards

through the vidis and pastures of Jesar, Hathsani, Bodana,

Vadal, Rajasthali, Kotiya, and Gebar to reach areas adjacent

to the townships of Ghogha, Mahuva, and Talaja in southern

Bhavnagar district. They had arrived in the Khokhra hills

within sight of Bhavnagar city and had even reached the

Chamardi hills within sight of Velavadar NP, before turning

back (Fig. 1).

Southwards, the lion has taken up permanent residence

in the coastal forests of Kodinar, Sutrapada, and opposite

Table 3: Villages in three districts having lion movement

in Asiatic Lion Landscape

District Total Villages Villages having

in the districts lion movement

Junagadh district 898 760

Amreli district 652 457

Bhavnagar district 832 258

Diu Island. Westwards, lions now live close to Madhapur

and Mangrol, where we saw footprints of a lioness in the

impenetrable Prosopis thickets along the coast. Inland, in the

Babra vidi we saw chital and close by in an orchard of the

famous kesar mango, a lioness with cubs near its nilgai kill.

The current enumeration showed a population of five lions

for Babra vidi and its surrounds.

Northwards, lions have gone past Bagasara and Jasdan

to reach the Hingolgadh Sanctuary, where a pregnant lioness

took up residence for a period of time, their northernmost

outpost after the 19th century, in Saurashtra. From Hingolgadh,

the landmark hill of Chotila is visible and next to it lie the

xerophytic forests of the Mandav hills, which are in sight of

hills of the Rampara Wildlife Sanctuary in Wankaner, where a

lion breeding and rehabilitation effort 1s already underway.

The enumeration of May 2015 revealed a remarkable

fact, which perhaps has not received the attention that is due.

Table 4: Lion count in talukas outside PAs

Sr. Cubs

a Place Male

1 Bhesan 0 0

2 Mendarda 0 2

3. Mangrol 0 0

4 Malia 7 1

5 Visavadar i 0

6 Una 2 1

7 ~~ Gir Gadhda > )

8 Kodinar . 0

9 Savarkundla 0 0

10 _Liliya 10 3

11. Rajula 3 0

12 Jafrabad 0 2

13 Bhavnagar 2 0

14 Gariadhar 0 0

15 Mahuva 2 1

16 Palitana 0 0

17 Talaja 0 1

Total 41 11

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

Subadult Adult

Female Unidentified Male Female ssa

0 0 1 1 2

0 0 3 5 10

0 0 0 1 1

1 0 ie 10 26

0 0 3 9 19

1 0 1 6 11

0 0 2 2 9

0) 0 1 4

0 0 1 0 1

Hi 2 2 4 28

0 2 1 3 9

2 0 0 2 6

0 0 1 2 5

0 0) 3 3 6

1 1 6 7 18

0 3 0 3 6

0 0 1 0 2

12 8 33 62 167

165

REOCCUPATION OF FORMER TERRITORIES BY THE ASIATIC LION IN GUJARAT

Fig. 3: Location of talukas in which lions occur outside of Protected Areas

The increase of the total lion population of 411 mm 2010 to 523

in 2015 marked an overall increase of 27%. However, while

the increase in the protected areas and their adjacent habitats

Gir NP and Sanctuary, and Girnar, Mitiyala and Paniya

sanctuaries) was only 6%, proving that these protected areas

and their adjuncts have reached the limits of their carrying

capacities, the population in the areas outside of the protected

area has increased by a startling 126% (Tables 1 and 2).

The range occupied by the lion has increased from

approximately 1,900 sq. km (Gir NP and Sanctuary, Paniya,

Girnar and Mitiyala sanctuaries and their environs and

outlying outposts occupied earlier by lions along the southern

coast of Saurashtra), to the current ALL admeasuring some

22,000 sq. km, as noted earlier (Figs 1 and 2). Though this

entire area of 22,000 sq. km is not occupied, lions have taken

up residence in a substantial number of contiguous habitats

and even isolated outposts far removed, within this ALL. A

substantial number of villages in the adjoining districts of

Junagadh, Amreli, and Bhavnagar have had lion visitation or

continuous occupation, some far removed from the protected

areas (Figs 1—3; Table 3). No large wild cat has reoccupied its

former habitat on such a scale, neither in Asia nor in Africa,

in the past 50 years and more. It is a pronounced ghar wapsi

(return to homeland) of the Asiatic Lion! In comparison, the

tiger occupancy in the country shrank by almost 12,000 sq.

km between 2006 and 2010, from 93,647 sq. km when their

number was estimated at 1,411, to 81,906 sq. km when their

population was believed to be 1,706. In the 2014 enumeration,

the tiger population was estimated at 2,226, but the total range

was reckoned as 92,154 sq. km, still over 1,500 sq. km less

than the range in 2006 (Jhala et al. 2015). |

Success demands a price. The protected areas, as noted

earlier, have already reached the limits of their carrying

capacity for lions. It is the exponential increase outside of

the protected areas that has to be provided for, and plans

prepared and implemented for the further increase in numbers

and the consequent occupation of additional lands, in the

decades to come.

Three important factors that will greatly facilitate

this task of preparation for further occupation of former

territories by the lion need to be noted. Firstly, the natural

prey base of the lion has also appeared in most of the lands

reoccupied by the lion. Apart from the wild pig, nilgai has

helped in the dispersal of the lion (Fig. 4). It is pertinent to

note that in the Gir NP and Sanctuary, which comprises the

Forest Divisions of West Gir and East Gir, nilgai was found

166

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

REOCCUPATION OF FORMER TERRITORIES BY THE ASIATIC LION IN GUJARAT

Gir

Sanctuary

Fig. 5: Movement along eastern corridors

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

REOCCUPATION OF FORMER TERRITORIES BY THE ASIATIC LION IN GUJARAT

to comprise only 13% and 29.7% respectively, of the lion

kills located. The antelope does not prefer dense forest and

the presence of other prey in these protected areas accounts

for this low percentage. It is pertinent that within the Gir NP

and Sanctuary, the eastern Gir, which is drier and has more

open forest and supports a larger nilgai population and less

chital and sambar, recorded more than double the percentage

of nilgai kills than in the more forested western Gir. Outside

of the PAs, where wild pig was the only other wild prey in

most places, nilgai formed 58.4% of the kills located in the

Bhavnagar forest area and, 58.6% in the Amreli, and 46.3%

in the Junagarh Revenue areas, respectively. Considering

the quantum of domestic livestock available and the ease

with which it could be killed in these areas outside of the

PAs, the preponderance of nilgai kills is remarkable and has

greatly facilitated the dispersal of lion, while at the same

time reducing the antipathy of local population, which would

obviously have been enhanced had there been more kills of

livestock. Chital have occupied a number of the lion outposts,

travelling over agricultural areas and human habitations in the

process. This simultaneous colonization by the chital is very

significant and important from the viewpoint of reduction in

man-animal conflict. For, while both wild pig and nilgai can

take up residence in human habitats and agricultural fields, to

pursue which the lion has to move in these tracts and thereby

come in contact with livestock upon which it preys, the chital

is confined to forested tracts. The chital, therefore, will help

keep the lions in forested terrains and away from demographic

contact. chital are also prolific and can provide a significant

quantum of food to the lions in their new colonies, as they

already do in the protected areas.

The second factor is the distinct improvement in the

foliage, grass and biota in general in the habitats recently

occupied by the lion, an obvious outcome of the greater

protection that they have received since the lions arrived,

together with the greater reluctance of the local populace to

graze their livestock in these areas after the arrival of the lions.

This improved cover will give shelter to both lions and their

prey, thus preventing them from straying into human-occupied

territories. It will also provide more natural resources to the

local populations and help the water regimes.

Thirdly, the people around the areas recently colonized

by the lions are not averse to the new arrivals. Some have

welcomed them. The majority look upon the lions with

equanimity and tolerance, indeed, with some degree of

pride, as mentioned before. This is a very positive factor

which bodes well not only for the survival of the present

lion colonies, but for their further expansion in the future.

The state authorities have their task greatly facilitated by this

liberal outlook of the local people. However, they need to

generously and expeditiously compensate for any livestock

killed by lions.

The state authorities need to develop a master plan for

the conservation of the current colonies of the lion outside

of the protected areas. In this regard, the upgradation of the

status of the habitat has to be considered. Ideally, some of

the major outposts like Hippa Vadli / Malia which has a

population of 26 lions, Babra and Mendarda to the west of

the Gir Sanctuary having 10 lions, and parts of Visavadar

which has 19 lions and Una in the south-east having 11 lions,

should be declared as sanctuaries or conservation reserves.

Other areas having lion populations in double figures,

namely Liliya (28 lions) and Mahuva (18 lions) are mostly

not under the direct control of the wildlife authorities and

are surrounded by human habitations. These should become

conservation reserves or community reserves under the aegis

of the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972. The particulars of

the 167 lions found in talukas outside of the protected areas

in the enumeration of 2015, are given in Table 4.

The extended habitats actually occupied by the lion

as currently confirmed in the 2015 enumeration is estimated

as 285 sq. km (Table 5). Of this, 37 sq. km is forest land

which can readily be declared as sanctuaries or conservation

reserves. Non-forest government wasteland, which would

be under the control of the Revenue Department of the

state, extends to 93 sq. km, which could be designated

as conservation reserves. For the remainder, comprising

privately owned “maliki” land and “gauchar” or grazing

lands, efforts can be made to establish community reserves

for the lion. In any case, these entire tracts covering 285 sq.

km should be declared as eco-sensitive zones forthwith.

A prospective management plan would not only

require to give details of future management of the lion, its

prey species and habitats recently occupied, but would also

have to project the areas that are adjacent to the territories

now occupied and where the lion is expected to move in

the forthcoming decade. The plan would, therefore, have

to envisage the present and future requirements of current

Table 5: Details of extended habitat for Lion

Status Area in Ha.

Government Wasteland 9364.48

Gauchar Land 1767.8

Forest area 3734.68

Maliki Land 13665.42

Total Area 28532.38

Say... 285.32 sq. km

* Note: The potential area of 285 sq. km. comprises

31 Villages of 4 Talukas

168

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

REOCCUPATION OF FORMER TERRITORIES BY THE ASIATIC LION IN GUJARAT

habitats outside of the PAs as well as of areas which the lion

is expected to colonize in the coming decade. The protective

staff and the basic infrastructure required would have to be

put in place in the immediate future, so that the future habitats

could be effectively protected and made ready to receive the

lions in the coming years. The prospective plan, therefore,

should combine a vision and a practical roadmap for the future

conservation of the lion, its prey and of the ALL.

These conservation plans will have to be site specific

and would need to be revised every two years. It will obviously

have to emphasize on the conservation of specific corridors,

perhaps the most important being the linkage connecting in

the east Liltya, Krankach, Nanivadli, Hippavadli, Ranigala,

Savarkundla, Shetrunja, and Sihor and connecting this axis with

another further south — Una, Kodinar, Rayula, Mahuva, and Talaja

(Fig. 5). The other most important corridor to be maintained

and augmented is the link between the Gir and the Barda,

via Babra, Malia, Mangrol, Madhapur, Mokar, and Ranavav

(Fig. 6). Connecting Barda with Alech is another possibility.

The management of the Barda landscape, which

includes the Barda Sanctuary and the Alech and Dalasa

hills as a composite entity, would be of great significance

(Fig. 7). Barda is not only an ecological entity by itself, but

can also provide a separate viable population of the lion, which

would be distinct from the Gir and Girnar and form a second

home for the lion in Gujarat itself. In this regard, therefore, it

is ecologically a more important alternative habitat for the lion

than the Girnar and is of course, much larger. While efforts

must be made to allow movement of the lion between Girnar

and Barda, the linkage with the Gir via Mangrol — where they

already are — is a more viable route at present (Fig. 6), as was

attempted by a pair of males mentioned earlier. A small pride

of wild lions can be translocated and rehabilitated in Barda.

Needless to say, Barda needs urgent and active management

to make it ready to receive the lions, as its prey base is as yet

inadequate. Efforts should be made in the entire lion landscape

to eliminate free-ranging dogs, as they are the carriers of

deadly diseases such as canine distemper and rabies, and

they are today major predators of wild ungulates which are

the prey of lions. The ongoing chital reintroduction needs to

be accelerated. The Maldharis from Barda also need to be

relocated and they appear to be ready to go, as they themselves

approached the author in this regard three years ago.

From where they are today, the lions are within easy

Fig. 6: Future lion movement locations in Western Saurashtra landscapes

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

169

REOCCUPATION OF FORMER TERRITORIES BY THE ASIATIC LION IN GUJARAT

Barca

Sanctuary

image Courtesy: Abhinav Mehta

Source: Wildlife Division, Sasan Gir

Fig. 7: Barda-Alech landscape

reach of two former habitats, which are landmarks and which

can be regarded as the eastern limits of their habitat in southern

Saurashtra — the iconic Shetrunja massif (Fig. 5) sacred to

the Jain community and the Sihor Hills eastwards, which

was their abode a century and a half ago. For the movement

to Shetrunja, the outlying hills of Kadam Giri and Hasta Giri

need to be safeguarded and a sanctuary established to protect

them adequately. Within the Shetrunja massif, the valley of

Garmara on the western side of it would need special attention.

Further north and east of Shetrunja and Sihor lies heavily

inhabited level land intensively cultivated and a further march

of the lion beyond these outposts is not advocated, though it

may be tempting to envisage their reaching the Velavadar NP

in the Bhal and the Prosopis thickets of Nari near Bhavnagar.

Conflict with man, however, will be intense in the Bhal, from

Nari to Velavadar. Sihor Hills and its forests can, however,

sustain a small, stable lion population if the prey base can be

built up. As the area is owned by the government, it should

be declared as a sanctuary.

It is crucial to prepare for and facilitate the future

colonization of the lion as mentioned above. If it is not

implemented, the present colonies will become isolated and

insular, resulting in an increasing conflict with man, especially

170

as lion numbers grow in these current colonies. They cannot be.

translocated back to the Gir, as that would only be consigning

them to death or disability. A long genetic isolation of these

outlying populations could result in an inbreeding depression.

Though at present the males in these outlying areas travel huge

distances, for once they have mated with the few females in

these scattered populations, they are compelled to move afield

to look for lionesses in estrus elsewhere and are, therefore,

themselves the agents of lion colonization. The Asiatic Lion

has undergone genetic “bottlenecks” in the past (O’Brien

2003), with the last notable population depression occurring

around the turn of the 20th century. If further isolation results

and the animals occupying the scattered outposts of today

become relict populations losing intra-specific contact, it is

possible that inbreeding will lead to genetic deficiencies. The

author saw a young male lion in Ranigala which appeared

to have a defective backbone. Its movements were laboured

and it needed to rest repeatedly. It was surviving because the

other members of the pride were able to kill. The forest staff

informed the author that this particular animal was born with

the defect, which could be a manifestation of inbreeding,

though the author had no means of ascertaining the real cause

for the deformity. As compared with the sex ratio in Gir,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

REOCCUPATION OF FORMER TERRITORIES BY THE ASIATIC LION IN GUJARAT

Sex Ratio in Meta Population Clusters \

JAMNAGAR

Barda

wee Sanctuary RAJKOT

GONDAL

Girnar

big gen d South Western —

Coast

[~] District Boundary

[9 All PAs 1:2.6

MRE No. of Animals in Each Cluster 0 25

Sanctuary

Velavadar

National Park

F Bhavnagar North

AMREL] NORTH

Savarkundla-Liliya &J

Adjoining Areas ~

bs Badabs

BHAVNAGAR

ae BHAVNAGAR

South Eastern

Coast

100 Image Courtesy: Abhinav Mehta

————— ee Km Source: Wildlife Division, Sasan Gir

Blue Colour digits shows Male:Female Ratio

Fig. 8: Sex ratio in meta-population clusters

Paniya and Mitiyala Park/Sanctuaries all contiguous with each

other, that of the lions in the more isolated outlying areas of

Girnar, south-western and south-eastern coasts show a skewed

sex ratio with far fewer males (Fig. 8).

It is imperative, therefore, that contiguity of habitats

and the quality of the corridors are assiduously protected

and maintained and the lions encouraged to move along

them to ensure gene-flow connectivity. This could also

encourage the surplus population of males from the periphery

of the Gir NP and Sanctuary and from Pantya and Mitiyala

adjacent to them, to move to the outlying colonies, thereby

reducing conflicts and casualties amongst the males in these

protected areas, as well as reducing lion infanticide. It may

also lessen to some extent the mismatch in the sex ratios in

the protected areas and outside of them, as conveyed in

Fig. 8.

Mitigation of man-animal conflict, research and

monitoring, and the inculcation of nature education and

awareness amongst the people surrounding the current and

prospective lion habitats, will have to be other important,

integral components of the future management plan of the

lion meta-population in the ALL.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My deep appreciation and thanks for assistance are

due to Dr. Sandeep Kumar, IFS, DFO West Gir and to

Shri Abhinav Mehta, GIS Specialist, who have unstintedly

provided me with data, maps, and graphs used in this article.

I also wish to express my gratitude to Dr. S.C. Pant, PCCF,

Wildlife, Gujarat, Dr. A.P. Singh, CCF, Junagarh Wildlife

Circle and to Shri Yogendra Shah and tracker Muhammadbhai

who accompanied me and constantly assisted me throughout

my travels in southern Saurashtra.

REFERENCES

GUJARAT ForEST DEPARTMENT (2015): “Forester’s Diary, Asian Lion

Landscape”. Wildlife Division, Sasan Gir.

JHALA, Y.V., Q. QURESHI & R. GOPAL (EDS) (2015): The Status of Tigers

in India 2014. National Tiger Conservation Authority, New Delhi

& The Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

O’BRIEN, STEPHEN J. (2003): Tears of the Cheetah. Thomas Dunne Books,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

St. Martin’s Press, New York.

RANJITSINH, M.K. (1997): Beyond the Tiger. Brijbasi Publishers, Delhi

SANDEEP KUMAR & MoIn PATHAN (2015): The Majestic Lions of Gir.

R.R. Seth and Co., Ahmedabad.

SINGH, H.S. (2004): Protected Areas and National Heritage Sites of

Gujarat. Gujarat Biodiversity Board, Gandhinagar.

171

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

172-179

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF SPOTTED OWLET

ATHENE BRAMA (TEMMINCK, 1821)

ASHISH N. NERLEKAR!*, GAURANG G. GOWANDE? AND PRATIK S. JosHP

‘Department of Botany, Fergusson College, Pune 411 004, Maharashtra, India. Email: [email protected]

"Department of Zoology, Fergusson College, Pune 411 004, Maharashtra, India. Email: [email protected]

*Department of Environmental Sciences, Fergusson College, Pune 411 004, Maharashtra, India. Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82356

The Spotted Owlet Athene brama is a common nocturnal raptor widely distributed in the Indian Subcontinent and

neighbouring regions. Though subject to some studies, there is only fragmentary data available on its behaviour.

Hence, we undertook a study in an urban habitat to construct a comprehensive behavioural ethogram of the species.

A pair of Spotted Owlets with two juveniles was observed near their nesting site in the Fergusson College campus,

Pune. Following the focal animal sampling method, the owlets were observed for 303 hrs (89 nights during pre-mating

and mating, and 214 nights during post-mating periods). A total of 34 behaviours were compiled and classified into

10 functional groups, and a maximum number of behaviours (11) were recorded for the functional group Comfort

and Maintenance. Out of the 50 mating/mounting events observed, 12% (n=6) involved ritual feeding before mating/

mounting, and 88% (n=44) were direct mounting/mating instances. The availability of baseline information that defines

each behaviour would be important for further quantitative studies.

Key words: Spotted Owlet, Athene brama, ethogram, Fergusson College, urban landscape

INTRODUCTION

The Spotted Owlet Athene brama is a nocturnal

owl, widely distributed in the Indian Subcontinent and

neighbouring regions (Ali 2002; BirdLife International

2014). It has been the subject of several ecological studies.

General descriptions of the species are available in Ali

and Ripley (1983) and Rasmussen and Anderton (2005).

Kumar (1985) provides a comprehensive monographic

work on its life history. The diet has been well-studied

by Beg et al. (1990), Jain and Advani (1983), Jadhav and

Parasharya (2003), Nerlekar et al. (2014), Pande et al. (2004),

Santhanakrishnan et al. (2011a), Shah et al. (2004), and Zade

et al. (2011). Studies regarding the breeding biology were

carried out by Mahmood ul Hassan (2008), Peppe (1962),

and Santhanakrishnan et a/. (2011b). Roosting/nesting were

studied by Currie (1916), Jadhav and Parasharya (2003),

Kler (2005), Kler and Kumar (2012), Pande et al. (2006),

and Santhanakrishnan et al. (2010a). The demography and

perches were examined by Santhanakrishnan et al. (2010b)

and Ali and Santhanakrishnan (2013) respectively. Some

studies on physiology were made by Kumar and Ramana

Rao (1984), Sudhakumari and Haldar (2001), and Pande et

al. (2005).

Multiple ethological studies have been carried out on

various species of: Flammulated Screech Owl Otus flammeolus

(Marshall Jr. 1939), Saw-whet Owl Cryptoglaux acadia

(Santee and Grenfield 1939), and Florida Burrowing Owl

Athene cunicularia floridana (Mrykalo 2005). As for Indian

species, Indian Eagle-Owl Bubo bengalensis (Ramanujam

2003, 2007, 2010) and Forest Owlet Heteroglaux blewitti

(Ishtiagq and Rahmani 2005; Jathar and Rahmani 2004, 2011)

have been studied for their behavioural ethogram. However,

despite being a common species, only fragmentary data is.

available on the behavioural aspects of the Spotted Owlet

(Allen 1920; Brahmachary et al. 1972; Gupta 1966; Jadhav

and Parasharya 2003; Jose 1964; Kumar 1985; Mahmood

ul Hassan 2008; Nilakanta 1972); the present study was

undertaken to address this lacuna.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fergusson College is located in Pune, Maharashtra. The

campus houses century old Gothic style buildings, and an

array of exotic and indigenous plants. The B.J. Wadia Library

is located in the central part of the campus, north of the main

building (18° 31’ 17.75” N; 73° 50’ 20.17” E). The Spotted

Owlets that were monitored had a known roosting site on a

wooden ledge on the eastern side of the library, 10 m from

the ground, just below the tiled roof of the building.

A pair of adult Spotted Owlets and two juveniles

(c. 20 days of hatching) were monitored from April 01, 2012

to October 31, 2012 (214 days) during the post-mating period.

The same pair (presumably, as it frequented the same roost

site) was again monitored from February 01, 2013 to April

30, 2013 (89 days) for observations during courtship (pre-

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF SPOTTED OWLET

Types of courtship behaviours

No. of events

f+p

f+m m f p

Fig. 1: Types of courtship behaviours observed

(n = 57 events, events of mounting = 50)

“Abbreviations: ftm= feeding+mounting; m= only mounting;

f= only feeding; p= only preening; f+p= feeding+preening

mating and mating) period. The owlets were monitored using

‘focal animal/subgroups sampling’ method (Altmann 1974)

and the observed behaviours were noted, photo-documented

and classified based on functions. The birds were observed

for an hour daily between 18:30—21:30 hrs with the help

of torches and binoculars. A total of 303 hrs were spent

observing the two adult and two juvenile owlets (of unknown

sex). For quantification of courtship behaviours, the number

of mountings, and behaviours by either owlet before and

after mounting were noted. A literature survey was done to

assimilate the recorded behaviour patterns, to construct an

ethogram for the species.

RESULTS

A total of 34 individual behaviours were identified for

the adults, which were classified into 10 functional groups

(Table 1). The juvenile owlet behaviours were of four types

classified in four functional groups (Table 2). Some of the

behaviours are explained using images (Figs 3-6). The

maximum number of individual behaviours was recorded for

the functional group Comfort and Maintenance (11), followed

by Vocalization (4).

Of the 50 mounting events recorded, the male

(presumed male from position during copulation) brought

food [insects (n=2), centipedes (n=1) and geckos (n= 3)| to the

Table 1: Ethogram for adult Spotted Owlet

Staring and bobbing or Up and down movements of head and/or with staring

References

Kumar (1985), Ali (2002), Mahmood

with eyes wide open. Performed when threatened or

curious. Four stages of bowing are described by previous

Head turns around almost by 180 degrees to face the

Two or more owlets sitting very close together with eyes

partially closed on a branch during the day or just before

Eyes completely/partially closed while perching.

The head/neck regions are rubbed with the toe.

Feathers are groomed using the beak. It might be self-

preening or allopreening. Generally observed in the

Performed just after emerging from roost/nest.

Wings extended and flapped while remaining perched.

Sr. Functional Individual behaviour Description

No group (34)

1 Alert

bowing

studies.

Back turning

intruder.

2 Resting Huddling

dark.

Sleeping

3. Comfortand Scratching

maintenance

Preening

evening.

Wing and leg

stretching

Wing fluttering/wing

fan

Bill gaping

Toe/leg cleaning

Body fluffing

Mouth is kept open for a short while and head held

high.

One toe is cleaned with the help of the beak generally

after feeding.

Feathers on the body are erected for a short time and

then followed by a ‘body shake’. Also includes ‘sleeked

plumage’ described by previous studies.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

ul Hassan (2008), Jose (1964),

Nilakanta (1972), Present study

Kumar (1985), Nilakanta (1972),

Present study

Ali (2002), Present study

Kumar (1985), Present study

Kumar (1985), Mahmood ul Hassan

(2008), Present study

Mahmood ul Hassan (2008),

Present study

Kumar (1985), Mahmood ul Hassan

(2008), Present study

Kumar (1985), Present study

173

Sr. Functional

No group

4 Locomotion

5 Ingestion and

Excretion

6 __Inter-specific

response

7 Researcher

induced

behaviour

8 Sexual

behaviour

174

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF SPOTTED OWLET

Table 1: Ethogram for adult Spotted Owlet (contd.)

Individual behaviour Description

(34)

Gular fluttering

Tail and wing flick

Bill wiping

Peck down

Walking

Flying

Hovering

Foraging and feeding

Defecation

Pellet regurgitation

Looking skyward

Response to aggressive

behaviour

Male territorial

behaviour

Attacking

Distraction display

Male courtship

behaviour

Female courtship

behaviour

Copulation behaviour

Observed during the hot days. Bill opened, head raised

and followed by fluttering

Downward motion of the tail followed by lateral motion

and later by upward motion. Wing flick consisted of rapid

extension of both the wings forward

After feeding, the owlet rubs its beak sideways on a branch

with eyes closed for removing any food attached.

Single/multiple pecking movements resembling normal

feeding

The bird walks with an awkward gait on the ground during

feeding of terrestrial prey.

The flight from one perch to another is short, swift and

with fast wing beats.

One of the methods used to catch prey.

Having perched on a branch, the owlet scans the ground

for prey. On spotting, it grasps the prey swiftly using its

talons or beak. After catching, the prey is held in one toe

and eaten part by part (lizards, frogs) or ingested whole

(smaller insects). Eyes are closed sometimes while

ingestion. Wings could also be extended slightly. During

the breeding season, the female hunts small sized prey

and feeds it to the young while holding it in her beak.

Performed randomly during the study period while

perched. Faecal matter is excreted.

Undigested prey parts are ejected out from the mouth in

the form of an elongated mass.

Tilted head pointing upwards, generally when another

raptor is around.

As a result of attacking by the Common Myna, owlets

reported to vacate nests.

During the breeding season, two males interacted/

threatened each other through vocalizations

Aggressive response of the owlets by swooping down

from the roost and attacking humans

Flying over intruders, fast movements, zig-zag wing

beats, loud screeches with widely opened bill

Before copulation, the male offers prey to the female —

ritual feeding. This is followed by preening. Reported in

the Forest Owlet (Ishtiaq and Rahmani 2005; Jathar and

Rahmani 2004; Jathar and Rahmani 2011)

Female perches on a branch and utters begging calls

(churr...churr). Reported in Forest Owlet (Jathar and

Rahmani 2011)

a) Mounting: The male mounts the female from the top.

The female leans forward, partially extends the wings

laterally and deflects tail. Reported in the Forest Owlet

(Jathar and Rahmani 2011)

References

Kumar (1985)

Kumar (1985), Present study

Kumar (1985)

Present study

Allen (1920), Nilakanta (1972)

Mahmood ul Hassan (2008),

Present study

Kumar (1985), Jadhav and .

Parasharya (2003), Present study

Present study

Prakash (1963)

Present study

Gupta (1966)

Kumar (1985)

Present study

Mahmood ul Hassan (2008),

Present study

Mahmood ul Hassan (2008),

Present study

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

Sr.

Functional

group

Maternal

behaviour

Vocalizations

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF SPOTTED OWLET

Table 1: Ethogram for adult Spotted Owlet (contd. )

Individual behaviour Description

(34)

Incubation

Chuckling call

Begging calls

Sharp note call uttered

by male

Calling during

mounting

b) Post mounting preening: After mounting, the male

preens the female. Reported in the Forest Owlet (Jathar

and Rahmani 2011).

c) Post copulation feather shake: After copulation, both

the partners shake feathers briefly.

Adult of unknown sex seen incubating the eggs.

Harsh, chattering, squabbling and chuckling notes with

irregular bursts of jarring, raucous, scolding crackles. This

call as reported as chirurrr- chirurrr...cheevak- cheevak

and termed as ‘screeching’ by previous studies.

These calls were uttered multiple times before and after

mating by the female.

A short, monosyllabic peeew/ keeew was uttered by

the male. After the male’s call, on all the five occasions,

the female immediately replied with begging calls.

The male usually uttered this call just before the ritual

feeding.

This vocalization was heard during each mounting event

of more than 4 seconds. When the male starts to mount

the female utters short, multiple successive kho- kho- kho

calls, followed by a squeaky note just before the male

leaves the female. This call was heard on 24 occasions.

References

Kumar (1985), Present study

Present study

Jadhav and Parasharya (2003)

Ali (2002), Rasmussen and

Anderton (2005), Kumar (1985),

Brahmachary et al. (1972)

Nilakanta (1972), Present study

Mahmood ul Hassan (2008),

Present study

Probably the ‘contact call’ as

described by Rasmussen and

Anderton (2005), Present study

Present study

(See Fig. 2)

female during 6 (12%) mating/mounting events. The number

of events of ritual feeding by the male that was not followed

by mounting, events of allopreening followed by feeding, and

events of only preening are represented in Fig. |. The ratio

of mountings to ritual feeding followed by mounting events

was 44:06, indicating a comparatively low frequency of ritual

feeding after mounting in the Spotted Owlet.

DISCUSSION

Walter (1983) highlighted homogeneity in the

behaviour of Strigidae members. Our observations pertaining

to the sequence of behaviours during mounting/mating is

partially in line with those of Mahmood ul Hassan (2008), but

with a few exceptions. Ritual feeding behaviour by the male

during courtship was not reported earlier, but was observed in

the diurnal Forest Owlet (Jathar and Rahmani 2004). During

mounting, a characteristic call was heard (Fig. 2) that was

not reported earlier (Mahmood ul Hassan 2008).

In order to study behaviour, it is necessary to list

all the discrete responses to stimuli shown by the animal

(Sakamoto et al. 2009). Thus, description and classification of

behaviour or formulating an ethogram of the species is a

prerequisite for further quantitative studies (MacNulty et al.

2007). Ethogram data for several related species (say owls)

can be further collated and an ‘Actigram’ (Walter 1983)

should be drafted for the taxa to ensure uniformity, objectivity

which would render behavioural data comparable. Such

Fig. 2: Analysis of the call during mounting

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

175

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF SPOTTED OWLET

Fig. 3: (a) Walking on ground; (b) Staring; (c) Feeding by the adult (on right) to the juvenile (on left); (d-f) Flying practice by juveniles

Fig. 4: (g) Prey in beak of the juvenile (on right) delivered by adult; (h) Resting behaviour of juveniles; (i) Toe cleaning behaviour;

(j) Scanning for prey; (k) Feeding behaviour - prey item in one leg; (I) Scratching

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF SPOTTED OWLET

Fig. 5: (m) Bill wiping after feeding; (n) Self preening; (0) Juvenile waiting for prey delivery by the adult; (p) Bill gaping;

(q) Eyes closed while feeding; (r) Eyes open and wings extended during feeding

Fig. 6: (s) Allopreening just before mounting; (t) Mounting. Male on the top and female below; (u) Self preening by the female near cloacal

region just after mating; (v) Back turning; (w) Adult preening a juvenile; (x) Resting during daylight with eyes closed

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF SPOTTED OWLET

Table 2: Ethogram for Juvenile Spotted Owlet

Sr. Functional group Individual behaviours Description

1 Alert Threat display

and bill snapping

Z Comfort and Preening One of the adults preens the juvenile

Maintenance .

Locomotion Flying practice

Vocalization Begging calls

baseline studies on the ethology of this species will be useful

in calculating the time-activity budgets for this species.

The current work on the construction of an ethogram

for the Spotted Owlet provides standard definitions of the

multiple behaviours. Due to logistical limitations, we could

not document the behaviours exhibited during nesting like

incubation, egg turning etc. Also, daytime behaviours were not

observed in detail. Further, age, sex and habitat specific studies

along with correlation with other environmental parameters

could provide better insights into the ethology of the species.

The attempts of juvenile to fly

References

Wing extension, ruffling, bill opening, hissing/screeching Kumar (1985)

Kumar (1985), Present study

Present study

Uttered by juveniles between two feeding sessions. These Kumar (1985), Present study

calls are described as low, hissing, shrill vshhh-vshhh

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to Prof. S.B. Nalavade for his guidance

and the CPE (Colleges with Potential for Excellence)

grants awarded by UGC (University Grants Commission)

to Fergusson College for funding this work. We would

also like to thank the Principal, Fergusson College for

encouraging this work. Thanks are also due to Dr. Girish

Jathar for providing valuable inputs during the manuscript

preparation.

REFERENCES

Aul, S. (2002): The Book of Indian Birds. Bombay Natural History

Society and Oxford University Press, Mumbai. 326 pp.

Aut, S. & S.D. Riptey (1988): Compact Handbook of the Birds of India

and Pakistan: Together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan,

and Sri Lanka. Oxford University Press, Bombay. 890 pp.

ALLEN, G.O. (1920): Hovering habit of the Spotted Owlet (Athene

brama). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 26(4): 1045.

ALTMANN, J. (1974): Observational study of behaviour: Sampling

methods. Behaviour 49: 227-267.

Bec, M.A., M. Maqpoot & M. Musutag-uL-HAssan (1990): Food

habits of the Spotted Owlet Athene brama. Pakistan Journal of

Agriculture and Science 27(2): 127-131.

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2014): Species factsheet: Athene brama.

Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 03/10/2014.

BRAHMACHARY, R.L., T.K. BAsu & A. SENGUPTA (1972): On the daily

screeching time of a colony of Spotted Owls Athene brama

(Temminck). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 69(3): 649-651.

Currig, A.J. (1916): Unusual nesting sites. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

24(3): 600-601.

Gupta, K.K. (1966): Aggressive behaviour of a Spotted Owlet

[Athene brama (Temminck)]. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 63(2):

441-442. |

Husert, C., A. GALLO & G.L. Pape (1995): Modification of parental

behaviour during the nesting period in the Common Buzzard

(Buteo buteo). J. Raptor Res. 29(2):103—109.

IsHTIAQ, F. & A.R. RAHMANI (2005): The Forest Owlet Heteroglaux

blewitti: vocalization, breeding biology and conservation. [bis

147: 197-205.

JADHAV, A. & B.M. ParAsHaryA (2003): Some observations on the

nesting behaviour and food of the Spotted Owlet Athene brama.

Zoos’ Print Journal 18(8): 1163-1165.

JAIN, P. & R. ADVANI (1983): Winter food of Spotted Owlet Athene brama

indica. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 80(2): 415-416.

JATHAR, G.A. & A.R. RAHMANI (2004): Ecological studies of the Forest

Spotted Owlet Athene (Heteroglaux) blewitti Final Report.

Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai. 77 pp.

JATHAR, G.A. & A.R. RAHMANI (2011): Ecology of the Forest Owlet: A

comprehensive study of the critically endangered Forest Owlet

in Central India. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing GmbH,

Germany. 204 pp.

Jose, T.V. (1964): A southern Spotted Owlet (Athene brama) attacked

by crows. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 4(8): 8. |

Kter, T.K. (2005): Analysis of nesting material in bird nest-boxes. Zoos’

Print Journal 20(5): 1882.

Kier, T.K. & M. Kumar (2012): Breeding of Spotted Owlet Athene

brama in nest boxes and conservation aspects. J. Bombay Nat.

Hist. Soc. 109 (1&2): 135-139.

Kumar, T.S. (1985): The Life History of the Spotted Owlet (Athene

brama brama Temminck) in Andhra Pradesh. Raptor Research

Centre, Hyderabad, India.

Kumar, T.S. & J.V. RAMANA RAo (1984): Diurnal changes in the body

temperature of nestling Spotted Owlet Athene brama brama (T.).

Geobios 1]: 229-231.

MacNutty, D.R., L.D. Mecu & D.W. SmitH (2007): A proposed

ethogram of large-carnivore predatory behaviour, exemplified

by the wolf. J. Mammal. 88(3): 595-605.

MaAuHmoop uL Hassan, M. (2008): Some observations on behaviour of

spotted owlet (Athene brama) during its breeding season. Journal

of Animal and Plant Sciences 18(1): 47-49.

MarsuaL_L, J.T. Jr. (1939): Territorial behaviour of the Flammulated

Screech Owl. Condor 41: 71-78.

MrRyYKALO, R. (2005): The florida burrowing owl in a rural environment:

breeding habitat, dispersal, post-breeding habitat, behaviour,

and diet. Graduate School Theses and Dissertations. http://

scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/779.

NERLEKAR, A.N., G.G. GOWANDE & P.S. Jost (2014): Diet of the Spotted

Owlet Athene brama in an urban landscape. Indian Birds 9(2):

45-48.

178

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

BEHAVIOURAL ETHOGRAM OF SPOTTED OWLET

NILAKANTA, S.V. (1972): The Spotted Owlet, Athene brama (Temminck).

Newsletter for Birdwatchers 12(2): 4-6.

PALMER, A.G., D.L. NoRDMEYER & D.D. Rosy (2001): Factors influencing

nest attendance and time-activity budgets of peregrine falcons in

interior Alaska. Arctic 54(2): 105-114.

PANDE, S., A. PAWASHE & A. MAHABAL (2005): Melanism in Spotted

Owlet Athene brama. Indian Birds 1(4): 86-87.

PANDE, S., A. PAWASHE, D.B. BAsSTAWADE & P.P. KULKARNI (2004):

Scorpions and molluscs: Some new dietary records for Spotted

Owlet Athene brama in India. Newsletter for Ornithologists

1(5): 68-70.

PANDE, S., A. PAWASHE, M.N. MAHAJAN & A. MAHABAL (2006): Changing

nest site preference for holes in earth cuttings in Spotted Owlet

Athene brama. Indian Birds 2(1): 7-8.

Pepper, J.H.H. (1962): The Spotted Owlet, Athene brama. Newsletter for

Birdwatchers 2(4): 10.

Prakasu, L.I. (1963): Competition between the Spotted Owlet and the

Common Myna. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 3(2): 12.

RAMANUJAM, M.E (2003): Inter-specific intimidatory behaviour of adult

Indian Eagle owls Bubo bengalensis (Franklin) in defence of their

nestlings. Zoos’ Print Journal 19(2): 1343-1345.

RAMANUJAM, M.E. (2007): A catalogue of auditory and visual

communicatory traits in the Indian Eagle Owl Bubo bengalensis

(Franklin, 1831). Zoos’ Print Journal 22(8): 2771—2776.

RAMANUJAM, M.E. (2010): Some observations on the spread-winged

agonistic displays of the Indian Eagle Owl Bubo bengalensis

(Franklin, 1831). Journal of Threatened Taxa 2(9): 1147-1152.

RASMUSSEN, P.C. & J.C. ANDERTON (2005): Birds of South Asia. The

Ripley Guide. Vols. 1 & 2. Smithsonian Institution and Lynx

Editions, Washington D.C. and Barcelona. 683 pp.

SAKAMOTO, K.Q., K. Sato, M. IsHizuKa, Y. WATANUKI, A. TAKAHASHI, F.

Daunt & S. WANLEss (2009): Can ethograms be automatically

generated using body acceleration data from free-ranging birds?

PLoS ONE 4(4): €5379. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005379

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

SAMSOoOR ALI, A.M. & R. SANTHANAKRISHNAN (2013): On usage of perches

by the Spotted Owlet. Zaprobanica 5(2): 154-155.

SANTEE, R. & W. GRENFIELD (1939): Behaviour of the Saw-whet Owl

on its nesting grounds. Condor 41: 3-9.

SANTHANAKRISHNAN, R., A.M. SamMsoor ALI & U. ANBARASAN (2010a):

Roost-site preference of Spotted Owlet Athene brama (Aves:

Strigiformes) in Madurai district, Tamil Nadu, India. Global

Journal of Environmental Research 4(3): 161—167.

SANTHANAKRISHNAN, R., A.M. SAmMsoor ALI & U. ANBARASAN (2010b):

Population densities of Spotted Owlet Athene brama (Aves:

Strigiformes) in Madurai district, Tamil Nadu, India. Middle-East

Journal of Scientific Research 6(6): 617-621.

SANTHANAKRISHNAN, R., A.M. SAMsoor ALI & U. ANBARASAN (201 1a):

Food habits and prey spectrum of Spotted Owlet Athene brama

in Madurai district, Tamil Nadu, Southern India. Chinese Birds

2(4): 193-199.

SANTHANAKRISHNAN, R., A.M. SAMSooR ALI & U. ANBARASAN (2011b):

Breeding biology of the Spotted Owlet (Athene brama Temminck,

1821) in Madurai district, Tamil Nadu, India. /nternational

Journal of Environmental Sciences 1(7): 1682-1691.

SHAH, Z.A., M.A. BEG & A.A. KHAN (2004): Prey preferences of the

Spotted Little Owl (Athene brama) in the croplands near

Faisalabad-Pakistan. International Journal of Agriculture and

Biology 6(2): 278-280.

SUDHAKUMARI, C.C. & C. HALpaR (2001): Effects of photoperiod

alterations on adrenocortical, pineal and gonadal activity in

nocturnal bird, Athene brama and diurnal bird, Perdicula

asiatica. Zool. Sci. 18(1): 71-79.

Watter, H. (1983): The raptor actigram: a general alphanumeric notation

for raptor field data. Raptor Research 17(1): 1-8.

ZADE, V., V. THAKARE & P. Cuirpde (2011): Prey preferences of

Spotted Owlet Athene brama in G.V.I.S.H. Campus, Amravati,

Maharashtra, India. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research

10(3): 410-413.

179

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

180-192

TAXONOMIC STUDIES ON THE GRASSHOPPER FAUNA (ORTHOPTERA: ACRIDIDAE)

RECORDED FROM PADDY FIELDS IN UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

Mp HuMAYOON AKHTAR!”* AND MoubD Kamit UsMAntr?

‘Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh 202 002, Uttar Pradesh, India.

"Email: [email protected]

-Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82371

India has the world’s largest area under rice cultivation and Uttar Pradesh is one of the chief rice producing states.

During surveys of paddy fields in Uttar Pradesh, 21 species of grasshoppers representing 14 genera of Family

Acrididae, belonging to 7 subfamilies, were recorded in 2010, 2011, and 2012. A maximum number of seven species

represented the subfamily Oedipodinae, followed by Oxyinae with five species and one subspecies, Acridinae with

three species, Hemiacridinae and Catantopinae with two species each, and Spathosterninae and Eyprepocnemidinae

with one species each.

Key words: Taxonomy, Grasshopper, Acrididae, paddy fields, Uttar Pradesh

INTRODUCTION

Orthoptera is one of the largest orders of insects and

constitutes 22,500 species (Ghosh and Sengupta 1982)

worldwide, out of which 1,750 species, 400 genera and

21 families are known from India (Tandon and Hazra 1998).

It currently comprises 26,730 valid species worldwide

(Eades et al. 2015). The Order Orthoptera is divided into

two suborders, 1.e., Caelifera or short-horned grasshoppers

and Ensifera or long-horned grasshoppers (Ander 1939),

Acridoidea, the largest superfamily with 11,000 species

worldwide, has 290 species representing 138 genera reported

from India (Shishodia et al. 2010). Family Acrididae shows

the maximum diversity, comprising 8,000 species, of which

136 species under 28 genera are endemic (Chandra and

Gupta 2013).

Acridids cause considerable damage to agricultural

crops, pastures and forests, and are well-reputed for their

destructiveness all over the world (Joshi et al. 1999). They

are primarily graminivorous, feeding on several common

grasses and sedges (Mulkern 1967).

The major work on Indian Orthoptera was published

by Kirby (1914) in FAUNA OF BRITISH INDIA, wherein

329 species belonging to 124 genera and 8 subfamilies, under

family Acrididae were reported. Grasshoppers of India were

published by Tandon (1976) and Shishodia et al. (2010),

and of different states of India such as Kerala by Priya and

Narendran (2003), Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh by

Shishodia and Gupta (2009), northeast India by Usmani and

Khan (2010), Jharkhand by Nayeem and Usmani (2012),

Punjab by Kumar and Usmani (2012) and Bihar by Nayeem

et al. (2013) respectively.

There are sporadic reports on the grasshopper fauna

of Uttar Pradesh, but no consolidated report on taxonomic

studies on grasshoppers of paddy, and the present study is the

first effort. From western Uttar Pradesh, 33 species of locusts

and grasshoppers were reported by Usmani et al. (2010);

14 species from pulses of Uttar Pradesh by Usmani et al.

(2012a). 32 species of grasshoppers were reported from

Aligarh by Usmani et al. (2012b). Biology of Acrida

gigantea and Spathosternum prasiniferum has been studied

by Usmani et al. (2012c) and Usmani and Rafi (2013), while

grasshoppers of Purvanchal region of Uttar Pradesh have been

studied by Rafi and Usmani (2013).

Uvarov (1922) first studied the grasshoppers of

paddy in the Old World. Akhtar et al. (2012) explored the

grasshopper pests of paddy from Uttar Pradesh; Usmani

et al. (2012d) reported grasshoppers of pulses and paddy

from Bihar and Jharkhand. Chitra et al. (2000) reported

28 species of grasshoppers from paddy of Coimbatore, while

Chitra et al. (2001) described the grasshopper pests of rice in

southern India. Kandibane et al. (2004) studied grasshoppers

from irrigated rice ecosystems in Madurai, Tamil Nadu

respectively.

Hieroglyphus banian has been reported as a pest of

paddy from Maharashtra by Jadhao and Khurad (2011),

and also from north-eastern Uttar Pradesh by Singh and

Singh (2014). This species was also reported by Das

et al. (2002) from paddy fields in West Bengal. Bhatia et al.

(1965) recorded Hieroglyphus nigrorepletus from the desert

part of Rajasthan, and Singh (1972) from Kutch district of

Gujarat. Acrida exaltata was confirmed as pest of paddy

in India by Haldar et al. (1995), and confirmed by Khan

et al. (1963) from Rajasthan. Riffat and Wagan (2007, 2008)

TAXONOMIC STUDIES ON THE GRASSHOPPER FAUNA RECORDED FROM UTTAR PRADESH

confirmed Hieroglyphus nigrorepletus as a pest of paddy in

Pakistan.

Asian rice Oryza sativa (family Poaceae) is one of

the most important staple foods of the world, especially in

Asia. It is a plant of wet and humid climate and is cultivated

twice a year in most parts of India, the crops are known as

Rabi and Kharif.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

I. Study area: Uttar Pradesh (northern India) is the

top-ranking state in the country in terms of population —

more than 199.5 million people as per the census 2011. The

state is bordered by Rajasthan to the west, Haryana and

Delhi to the northwest, Uttarakhand to the north, Bihar to

the east, Jharkhand to the southeast and Madhya Pradesh

to the southwest. It is located at 26.85° N, 80.91° E and

spread across a land area of 2,43,286 sq. km. The State is

demarcated into three distinct regions, the Himalayan region

in the north, the Gangetic plains in the centre and the Vindhya

hills and plateau to the south. It is characterized by highly

fertile alluvial soil and the River Ganga. Being in the fertile

Gangetic plains, it is an agricultural haven and the largest

food producer of India. The crops cultivated are rice, wheat,

barley, and sugarcane. The Vindhya hills and the plateau in

the south comprise hard rock strata with a varied topography

of hills, valleys, plateaux, and plains.

It has a humid temperate climate and experiences four

seasons. The winter in January and February is followed by

summer between March and June and the monsoon season

between June and September. Summers are extreme with

temperatures fluctuating anywhere between 0 °C and 50 °C

in parts of the state. The Gangetic plain varies from semiarid

to sub-humid. The mean annual rainfall ranges from 650

mm in the southwest corner of the state to 1,000 mm in the

eastern and southeastern parts of the state. The climate of the

Vindhya Range and plateau is subtropical with a mean annual

rainfall between 1,000 and 1,200 mm, most of which comes

during the monsoon. Typical summer months are from March

to June, with maximum temperatures ranging from 30

to. 38.9.

II. Collection and preservation: Grasshoppers were

collected by hand and by sweeping using a aerial insect

net; the net was used for catching insects individually or by

sweeping over crops. The insects caught were transferred to

a bottle that containing cotton soaked in ethyl acetate, to kill

the specimen. Once killed, the specimen was removed from

the bottle to prevent morphological changes, specifically

colour change.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

III. Identification: Specimens were first relaxed (right

wings were stretched putting a piece of paper on it, and

pinned by inserting a pin on the posterior right on thorax) on

a stretching board and left to dry for 72 hours. The specimens

were later identified up to species level on the basis of external

morphological characters with the help of stereoscopic

microscope and keys in available literature.

IV. Morphometry: This was done (in mm) with the

help of Vernier callipers. Mean and Standard Deviation were

calculated to show the possible mean deviation of body size

and to determine the stability of the data.

V. Storage: Pinned specimens were kept in storage

boxes and cabinets, with naphthalene balls to prevent

decomposition. Wet specimens were stored in 70% ethyl

alcohol in plastic vials.

RESULTS

A total of 21 species of grasshoppers representing 14

genera of Family Acrididae belonging to seven subfamilies

have been recorded during survey from paddy fields of Uttar

Pradesh during three years 2010, 2011, and 2012. Maximum

seven species from subfamily Oedipodinae (Oedaleus

abruptus, O. senegalensis, Aiolopus simulatrix simulatrix,

A. thalassinus thalassinus, Heteropternis respondens,

Trilophidia annulata, and Acrotylus humbertianus),

followed by Oxyinae with five species (Gesonula

punctifrons, Oxya fuscovittata, Oxya hyla, Oxya japonica

japonica and Oxya velox), Acridinae with three species

(Truxalis nasuta, Acrida exaltata and Acrida gigantea),

Hemiacridinae with two species (Hieroglyphus banian

and Hieroglyphus nigrorepletus), Catantopinae with two

species (Yenocatantops karnyi and Diabolocatantops

pinguis), Spathosterninae (Spathosternum prasiniferum

prasiniferum) and Eyprepocnemidinae (Eyprepocnemis

alacris) with one species each.

This conforms with the result of Akhtar et a/. (2012)

who recorded 26 species of Acridoidea from rice ecosystem

of Uttar Pradesh; Chitra et al. (2000) who reported

28 species of grasshoppers from rice field of Coimbatore.

Jadhao and Khurad (2011) described only one species of

grasshopper Hieroglyphus banian out of 23 species of

insect pest of rice ecosystem from Maharashtra. Singh

and Singh (2014) reported Hieroglyphus banian as a pest

of rice from north-eastern Uttar Pradesh, whereas Akhtar

et al. (2014b) described Hieroglyphus nigrorepletus as

a major pest of paddy and reported taxonomic studies of

H. banian and H. nigrorepletus in Uttar Pradesh (Akhtar

181

TAXONOMIC STUDIES ON THE GRASSHOPPER FAUNA RECORDED FROM UTTAR PRADESH

et al. (2014a). This result is on par with the findings

of Kandibane et al. (2004) with only fifteen species

of grasshoppers described from irrigated fields of rice

ecosystem and Paulraj et al. (2009) reported only four

species of grasshoppers.

KEY TO SUBFAMILIES OF INDIAN ACRIDIDAE MACLEAY, 1821

1. | Prosternal process usually absent, if present, body

strongly elongate and antennae ensiform; hind tibia

without extertial apicalispine xy.20. WOES. SOs, 2

— Prosternal process present; hind tibia with or without

SRECEIAL APACS PIS a OOM toast a apes xe hale S

2. Body usually slender; frons oblique; medial area of

tegmen usually without intercalary vein, if present,

never seratedkim bothwexes wane .154¢... MAUD

paises aan oR aOR aul Altar a te stile Acridinae Macleay, 1802

— Body rather sturdy; frons usually vertical; medial area

of tegmen with intercalary vein usually serrated ........

sa eS Noho OR on Oedipodinae Walker, 1871

3. Lower knee lobe of hind femur never spined; valves

of ovipositor never serrate or spined; hind tibia never

At enSdiys Wee, ieee. VRC iee, wee sebelah ye snteedt, caes 4

— Lower knee lobe of hind femur spined; valves of

Ovipositor serrate or spined; hind tibia flattened........

osetia RNa hea hae. aay Oxyinae Brunner, 1893

4. Radial area of tegmen with transverse stridulatory

Mer eieursliaaiomnde . lta damon ae heer 5

— Radial area of tegmen without transverse stridulatory

meine ida. 23st wens hr nal seas ew ch meen hahha 6

5. Radial area of tegmina with some parallel, thickened,

transverse stridulatory veinlets; prosternal process not

spainilateesria Th. keane Hemiacridinae Dirsh, 1956

— Radial area of tegmina with a series of regular, parallel,

condensed transverse stridulatory veinlets; prosternal

process spatulate............ Spathosterninae Rehn, 1957

6. Pronotum with lateral carinae linear; male cercus

strongly compressed, apex downcurved.................00.

). dan dseig aie, Eyprepocnemidinae Brunner, 1893

— Pronotum without lateral carinae, if present, never

linear; male cercus variable, never strongly compressed,

apex normialy.))01k. Yes Catantopinae Brunner, 1893

KEY TO INDIAN GENERA OF SUBFAMILY ACRIDINAE

Mac ray, 1821

1. Stridulatory file present on inner side of hind femur ..

Sowiin deed ga, Truxalis (Fabricius, 1775)

ar» Biadolatowiile aloseuteos. Nel. Vue eon 2am.

e 7ruxalis is represented by single species, 1.e. 7ruxalis

nasuta

Key to Indian species of Acrida Linnaeus, 1758

Lateral carinae not edged within a black line..............

sighs Bel dei clNGetin Uglies std Acrida exaltata (Walker, 1859)

Lateral carinae edged within a black line....................

visens iv QEEOEEL BRA AAS A. gigantea (Herbst, 1786)

KEY TO INDIAN GENERA OF

SUBFAMILY OEDIPODINAE WALKER, 1871

Dorsum of pronotum with X-shaped pattern...............

6h: etrseste, sycty oot. byrenel deremrtl.).. Oedaleus Fieber, 1853

Dorsum of pronotum without X-shaped pattern ...... 2

Pronotum with median carina crossed by one transverse

sulots ormiotersssediatvall,. ser. hctel.cavoran bese 3

Pronotum with median carina intersected by two or

inNGheikansvense; SUlChi slate nitommmes hocks. domonen =

math Aree eusk hams Sarde. Aiolopus Fieber, 1853

Pronotum with median carina well-developed............

ALANIS ones taseae Mum odeeeet Heteropternis Stal, 1873

Pronotum with median carina strongly raised in

prozona forming two tooth-like projections, sharp in

MC 1TAZO MN Ave. chs. ceomonmerben Amen ess anes Trilophidia Stal, 1873

Pronotum with median carina equally raised in prozona

and metazona, not forming tooth-like projection........

i treyeshratence ald. Losses Ades: Acrotylus Fieber, 1853

Key to Indian species of Oedaleus Fieber, 1853

Hind wings fascia complete; posterior transverse sulcus

placediat thesngddle:|:. sce scecsy-aocserlt Mie ebpeheteeth

nimanys eee eG Oedaleus senegalensis (Krauss, 1877)

Hind wings fascia broadly interrupted; posterior

transverse sulcus placed much before the middle......

westemeh ce. ppbteoumacnietehs O. abruptus (Thunberg, 1815)

Key to Indian species of Aiolopus Fieber, 1853

Hind femora short and stout, as wide as width of

tegmina; pronotum weakly narrowed and moderately

GMMAstn Old PIR OZONAieldes Sy tue’ fone sired wre aild-stak

releaesees: Aiolopus simulatrix simulatrix (Walker, 1870)

Hind femora long and slender, narrower than width of

tegmina; pronotum saddle-shaped, distinctly narrowed

and-constiieted 1a ProZone rscanmtisussvere uss | déeeseveesoerts

hie 3) froma Balaction A. thalassinus (Fabricius, 1781)

182

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

TAXONOMIC STUDIES ON THE GRASSHOPPER FAUNA RECORDED FROM UTTAR PRADESH

e Heteropternis 1s represented by single species i.e.,

Heteropternis respondens respondens

e Trilophidia is represented by single species L.e.,

Trilophidia annulata

e Acrotylus is represented by single species 1.e.,

Acrotylus humbertianus

KEY TO INDIAN GENERA OF

SUBFAMILY OXYINAE BRUNNER, 1893

Antennae longer than head and pronotum together;

radial area of tegmina with a series of transverse

stridulatory veinlets; female ovipositor valves short

with acute dents, apical tips pointed; male supra-anal

plate with spatulate apex; cercus long and conical .....

eg nda tn or anh a toa el heen RR Gosonula Uvarov, 1940

Antennae longer than, as long as, or shorter than head

and pronotum together; radial area of tegmina lacking

stridulatory veinlets; female ovipositor valves long and

slender, serrated, toothed or spined; male supra-anal

plate with rounded or angular apex; cercus simple or

COMMDLCSSEU dec ccs tisoeeetenssnce eee Oxya Serville, 1831

@ Gosonula is represented by single species 1.e.,

Gosonula punctifrons

Key to Indian species of Oxya Fieber, 1853

Posterior ventral basivalvular sclerites of ovipositor

without any well-defined spines on its ventral inner

AMATI ol bet. See. ahuntee- Geer Masses. Mees Aa eS 2

Posterior ventral basivalvular sclerites of ovipositor

with one or two tooth-like spines on its ventral inner

CEES EL acelin ea gc eee a ST So RE ne EUR 3

Male-cercus with bitid apex’... Maule ak... Mheteata:

5 ae Lr Bo Oxya fuscovittata (Marschall, 1836)

Male cercus conical with subacute apex ....................

ee et ee O. velox (Fabricius), 1787

Ovipositor valves with long hook-like dents; posterior

ventral basivalvular sclerites with small spinelets on

its inner ventral margin; male cercus with subacute or

puncate APOE «1. 5) Ak O. hyla Serville, 1831

Ovipositor valves with short dents; posterior ventral

basivalvular sclerites with a large spine on its inner

ventral margin; male cercus with bifid apex ..............

ible SE cd cre O. japonica japonica (Thunberg), 1815

Key to subspecies of Oxya hyla Serville, 1831

Ventral surface of subgenital plate with two longitudinal

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

ridges extending forwards from posterior margin, these

ridges often spined; epiphallus with inner lophi usual

spel ie Era SNe cared Sica 3 Oxya hyla hyla Serville, 1831

Ventral surface of subgenital plate without longitudinal

ridges or with only slight traces of them apically

and they are not at all spined; epiphallus with inner

POPU TORO COOL GUSCU Toi v cc Tate iclas Schuathucichascanailsadaitse

KEY TO INDIAN GENERA OF SUBFAMILY HEMIACRIDINAE

DirsH, 1956 AND SPATHOSTERNINAE REHN, 1957

Prosternal process conical, never compressed, elytra

or wings fully developed or shortened, dorsum of

pronotum rounded or flattened, lateral carinae present

GOS CIN st anette tion teerercch Hieroglyphus Krauss, 1877

Prosternal process anteroposteriorly compressed; elytra

or wings fully developed, much longer than pronotum;

dorsum of pronotum flattened, lateral carina present.

Lae Ae WS oth lckn Ter dee tote cee nh Spathosternum Krauss, 1877

Key to Indian species Hieroglyphus Krauss, 1877

Dorsum of pronotum with two broad black parallel

Sands commeeuns al suler eh ee Ae

Rt Seek te Hieroglyphus nigrorepletus Bolivar, 1912

Dorsum of pronotum without bands connecting all

Sule: ey, 2 hoe ees H. banian (Fabricius, 1798)

e@ Spathosternum is represented by single species 1.e.,

Spathosternum prasiniferum prasiniferum

KEY TO THE GENERA OF THE SUBFAMILY CATANTOPINAE

BRUNNER, 1893

Pronotum slightly constricted in prozona; prosternal

process.acutely comieal nina iid Ca eee

Pe ee alisnd Xenocatantops Dirsh & Uvarov, 1953

Pronotum not constricted in prozona; prosternal process

cylindrical, anteroposteriorly compressed..................

phbaea | ate aide tees te, Diabolocatantops Jago, 1984

e Xenocatantops is represented by single species i.e.,

Xenocatantops karnyi

e Diabolocatantops is represented by single species

1.e., Diabolocatantops pinguis

* SUBFAMILY EYPREPOCNEMIDINAE

This subfamily is represented by a single genus and

species 1.e., Eyprepocnemis alacris

183

TAXONOMIC STUDIES ON THE GRASSHOPPER FAUNA RECORDED FROM UTTAR PRADESH

TAXONOMIC ACCOUNT

Truxalis nasuta (Linnaeus, 1758)

Gryllus (Acrida) nasutus Linnaeus, 1758. Systema

Naturae per Regna tria naturae, (10th ed.) 1: 427.

Truxalis nasuta (Linnaeus); Massa, 2009. Jour. Orth.

Res. 18(1): 87.

Diagnostic characters: Head elongate, acutely conical;

fastigium of vertex elongate; fastigial foveolae absent; frons

oblique; frontal ridge shallowly sulcate; pronotum elongate,

slightly tectiform and saddle-shaped with well-developed

median carina and dorsum crossed by posterior sulcus only,

lateral carinae straight or slightly excurved; metazona as

long as or slightly shorter or slightly longer than prozona,

posterior margin angular.

Distribution: INpIA: Chattisgarh, Jammu & Kashmir,

Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, and Rajasthan. ELSEWHERE: Myanmar

and Sri Lanka.

Material Examined: Azamgarh, 4, 69, 08.x.2010;

Fatehpur, 53, 49, 10.ix.2011; Etawah, 34, 49, 08.viii.2012;

Aligarh, 5¢, 49, 01.viii.2012; Saharanpur, 36, 59,

23.vii.2012.

Morphometry:

Measurement Mean + SD

Male Female

(mm) Male Female

Body length 37.89-42.58 38.94-43.37 39.65+1.60 41.38 + 1.49

Pronotum 7.21-8.32 7.72-8.82 7.76+0.42 8.28+0.40

Tegmina 28.48-—30.24 28.67-30.25 29.12+0.60 29.32 +0.56

Hind Femur 17.66-19.36 18.67-19.78 18.33+0.58 19.08 + 0.37

Acrida exaltata (Walker, 1859)

Truxalis exaltata Walker, 1859. Ann. Nat. Hist. (3)4:

222!

Acrida exaltata (Walker); Nayeem and Usmani, 2012.

Munis Entomology & Zoology 7(1): 404.

Diagnostic characters: Head conically ascending,

fastigium of vertex wide; pronotum with lateral carinae

prominent, not lined internally with black, prozona shorter

than metazoan.

Distribution: INDIA: Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Andhra

Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh,

Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu &

Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra,

Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Odisha (earlier Orissa),

Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttarakhand,

Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. ELSEWHERE: Afghanistan,

Bangladesh, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South East Tibet,

Sri Lanka, Yemen, and West Aden.

Material Examined: Varanasi, 2¢, 29, 04.x.2010;

Azamgarh, 43, 59, 08.x.2010; Ghazipur, 44, 39, 09.x.2010;

184

Mau, 43, 59, 10.x.2010; Ballia, 54, 49, 11.x.2010;

Deoria, 54, 69, 12.x.2010; Hamirpur, 5¢, 69, 04.ix.2011;

Jalaun, 44, 39, 05.ix.2011; Kanpur Dehat, 44, 59,

06.ix.2011; Fatehpur, 53’, 49, 11.ix.2011; Banda, 54, 89,

12.ix.2011; Shahjahanpur, 4¢, 39, 14.viii.2012; Rampur,

44, 39, 15.viii.2012; Moradabad, 44, 59, 16.viii.2012;

Muzaffarnagar, 43, 49, 22.viii.2012; Saharanpur, 5<, 49,

23.viii.2012; Baghpat, 44, 59, 24.viii.2012; Bijnor, 4¢,

59, 25.viii.2012.

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 42.46-48.78 62.65-66.72 45.6943.16 64.63 +2.03

Pronotum 6.12-7.38 9.35-10.78 6.78+0.63 10.2340.77

Tegmina 32.64-37.45 44.65-48.34 34884242 46.49 + 1.84

Hind Femur 24.84-30.43 34.68-37.32 27.554+2.79 36.15+1.34

Acrida gigantea (Herbst, 1786)

Truxalis giganteus Herbst, 1786. Lasts R BSP? von

Johan Caspar Fuessly. 7-8: 191.

Acrida gigantea (Herbst); Nayeem and Usmani, 2012.

Munis Entomology & Zoology 7(1): 404.

Diagnostic characters: Pronotum finely granulated,

median carina sharp crossed by posterior transverse sulcus

only, lateral carinae prominent and edged with a black line.

Distribution: iNnpIA: Assam, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh,

Haryana, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan,

Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and West Bengal.

ELSEWHERE: Africa and Nepal.

Material Examined: Allahabad, 4<', 59, 06.x.2010;

Jaunpur, 53, 49, 07.x.2010; Azamgarh, 34, 49, 08.x.2010;

Ghazipur, 2¢, 39, 09.x.2010; Unnao, 2, 39, 08.ix.2011;

Kannauj, 54, 39, 09.ix.2011; Auraiya, 3, 49, 10.ix.2011:

Fatehpur, 5d, 39, 11.ix.2011; Aligarh, 34, 49, 01.viii.2012;

Bulandshahr, 3¢, 29, 18.viii.2012; Meerut, 34, 49,

21.viii.2012; Saharanpur, 4d', 39, 23.viii.2012.

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 45.25-52.52 63.28-67.46 48.85+3.63 64.64 + 1.09

Pronotum 7.46-8.84 9.48-10.83 8.18+0.09 10.18 + 0.67

Tegmina 35.53-38.34 40.52-44.48 36.23+2.46 42.564 1.95

Hind Femur 24.53-28.46 32.43-34.57 26.49+1.96 33.61+1.18

Oedaleus senegalensis (Krauss, 1877)

Pachytylus senegalensis Krauss. 1877. Anz. Akad.

Wiss. Wien 14: 144.

Oedaleus senegalensis Krauss, Hemp. 2009. Jour.

Orth. Res. 18(2): 208.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

TAXONOMIC STUDIES ON THE GRASSHOPPER FAUNA RECORDED FROM UTTAR PRADESH

Diagnostic characters: A characteristic X-mark on the

pronotum, which is shorter and broadly rounded posteriorly,

principal sulcus placed at the middle.

Distribution: INDIA: Andhra Pradesh, Bihar,

Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab,

Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and

West Bengal. ELSEWHERE: Afghanistan, North Africa, and

Pakistan.

Material Examined: Azamgarh, 20, 29, 08.x.2010;

Ghazipur, 34, 29, 09.x.2010; Mau, 20, 29, 10.x.2010;

Faizabad, 44, 29, 24.x.2010; Fatehpur, 34, 19, 10.ix.2011;

Hamirpur, 44, 49, 04.ix.2011; Aligarh, 14,19, 01.viii.2012;

Saharanpur, 3, 29, 23.viii.2012.

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 20.48-24.34 21.36-25.82 22.124+1.99 23.92 +2.30

Pronotum 3.88—4.32 4.36-4.86 4.10+0.22 456+0.26

Tegmina 18.26-19.46 19.15-20.68 18.80+0.60 20.05 +0.79

Hind Femur 10.57-11.78 11.70-12.41 11.2640.62 12.14+40.38

Oedaleus abruptus (Thunberg, 1815)

Gryllus abruptus Thunberg, 1815. Mem. Acad. Imp.

Sci. St. Peterburg. 5: 233.

Oedaleus abruptus (Thunberg); Nayeem & Usmani,

2012. Munis Entomology & Zoology 7(1): 408.

Diagnostic characters: Body small to medium

sized, green to dull brick red with brown and white

markings; fastigium of vertex angular, flat or slightly

concave, with obtuse lateral carinulae; hind wings fascia

broadly interrupted, anterior termination of hind wing

fascia flattened, reaching or just surpassing second anal

vein.

Distribution: 1NpIA: Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal

Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Haryana,

Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala,

Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya,

Odisha, Pondicherry, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil

Nadu, Tripura, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal.

ELSEWHERE: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, Indo-China,

Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand,

and Vietnam.

Material Examined: Mirzapur, 24, 29, 02.x.2010;

Azamgarh, 36, 39, 08.x.2010; Ghazipur, 20, 39,

09.x.2010; Hamirpur, 23', 39, 04.ix.2011; Jalaun, 34, 49,

05.ix.2011; Kanpur Dehat, 2¢, 29, 06.ix.2011;

Fatehpur, 34, 29, 11.ix.2011; Aligarh, 34, 49, 01.viii.2012;

Firozabad, 44, 19, 05.viii.2012; Saharanpur, 44, 49,

23.vili.2012.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 20.45-22.32 25.28-26.45 21.44+0.94 26.01+0.63

Pronotum 3.14—3.76 4.254.86 3.484+0.31 448+0.32

Tegmina 15.27-16.14 19.36-20.82 15.73+0.43 20.20+0.75

Hind Femur 10.32-11.65 13.52-14.58 11.06+0.67 14.15+0.55

Aiolopus simulatrix simulatrix (Walker, 1870)

Epacromia simulatrix Walker, 1870. Catalogue of the

Specimens of Dermaptera Saltatoria in the Collection of the

British Museum. 4: 773.

Aiolopus simulatrix simulatrix (Walker); Hollis, 1968.

Bull. Br. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Ent. 22(7): 320.

Diagnostic characters: Head obtusely rounded in

profile; fastigtum of vertex elongate angular, slightly longer

than wide; fastigial foveolae visible from above, slightly

depressed, longer than wide; frons slightly oblique; pronotum

finely tectiform, constricted in prozona, posterior transverse

sulcus crossing median carina, prozona shorter than metazona,

median carina sharp, lateral carinae lacking.

Distribution: INDIA: Andaman & Nicobar Islands,

Bihar, Delhi, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir,

Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Punjab,

Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and

West Bengal. ELSEWHERE: Africa, Arabian Peninsula, Islands

of Indian Ocean, Pakistan, Myanmar, and Seychelles.

Material Examined: Allahabad, 2, 29, 06.x.2010;

Azamgarh, 43), 3°, 08.x.2010; Ghazipur, 34, 32, 09.x.2010;

Mau, 34, 2°, 10.x.2010; Deoria, 24, 39, 12.x.2010;

Gorakhpur, 2¢', 39, 14.x.2010; Gonda, 24, 39, 20.x.2010;

Faizabad, 34, 29, 24.x.2010; Sultanpur, 34), 49, 25.x.2010;

Kanpur Nagar, 36, 49, 07.ix.2011; Fatehpur, 34, 39,

11.ix.2011; Aligarh, 24, 39, 01.viii.2012; Shahjahanpur, 4,

39, 14.viii.2012; Rampur, 34, 39, 15.viii.2012; Moradabad,

34, 39, 16.viii.2012; Saharanpur, 4, 3°, 23.viii.2012.

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 16.86—20.98 19.41-23.58 18.804+2.07 21.8442.16

Pronotum 3.24—3.96 3.69-4.48 3.594036 416+0.41

Tegmina 17.46—20.34 17.61-21.10 19.17+1.51 19.03 + 1.28

Hind Femur 9.15-10.32 10.38-11.66 9.76+0.58 11.13+0.66

Aiolopus thalassinus thalassinus (Fabricius, 1781)

Gryllus thalassinus Fabricius, 1781. Species Insectorum

hi B67;

Aiolopus thalassinus thalassinus (Fabricius); Nayeem

& Usmani, 2012. Munis Entomology & Zoology 7(1): 407.

185

TAXONOMIC STUDIES ON THE GRASSHOPPER FAUNA RECORDED FROM UTTAR PRADESH

Diagnostic characters: Median carina sharp, lateral

carinae apparent in metazona while obsolete in prozona;

fastigium of vertex elongate, slightly longer than wide;

frons slightly oblique; fastigial foveolae visible from above,

shorter, slightly depressed; frontal ridge flat, wide, weakly

depressed at median ocellus, converging anteriorly with

lateral carinulae weak.

Distribution: INDIA: Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar,

Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab,

Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. ELSEWHERE:

Ethiopia.

Material Examined: Allahabad, 24, 2°, 06.x.2010;

Azamgarh, 2, 39, 08.x.2010; Ghazipur, 24, 29, 09.x.2010;

Deoria, 24, 49, 12.x.2010; Gorakhpur, 2¢, 29, 14.x.2010;

Faizabad, 24, 29, 24.x.2010; Sultanpur, 24, 29, 25.x.2010;

Kanpur Nagar, 34, 39, 07.ix.2011; Fatehpur, 50, 49,

11.ix.2011; Aligarh, 34, 49, 01.viii.2012; Saharanpur, 3<,

3Q, 23502012,

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 16.46-17.85 20.76-21.64 17.24+0.71 21.24+0.44

Pronotum 2.86—3.43 4.10-4.76 3.13+0.28 4.47+40.32

Tegmina 14.58-15.64 18.58-19.74 15.15+0.53 19.22 +0.58

Hind Femur 10.62-11.74 12.58-13.72 11.2340.56 13.24+40.59

Heteropternis respondens respondens (Walker, 1859)

Acridium respondens Walker, 1859. Ann. Mag. nat.

Hist. 3-4: 223.

Heteropternis respondens (Walker); Ingrisch & Garai,

2001. Esperiana. 8: 763.

Diagnostic characters: Fastigium of vertex nearly as

long as wide, frons straight, slightly excurved; frontal ridge

flat, granulose, depressed at median ocellus, interocular

space twice than frontal ridge and slightly shorter than

longest diameter of eye; pronotum weakly tectiform, strongly

granulose; mesosternal interspace wide, lobes rounded, much

wider than long.

Distribution: iNpDIA: Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal

Pradesh, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka,

Meghalaya, Nagaland, Odisha, Sikkim, Uttar Pradesh, and

West Bengal. ELSEWHERE: Asia-Tropical, Java, Malaysia, and

Sri Lanka.

Material Examined: Allahabad, 3, 39, 06.x.2010;

Azamegarh, 3,49, 08.x.2010; Ghazipur, 24, 39, 09.x.2010;

Deoria, 34, 39, 12.x.2010; Basti, 44, 49, 18.x.2010;

Faizabad, 43, 59, 24.x.2010; Sultanpur, 26', 39, 25.x.2010;

Hamirpur, 5¢, 39, 04.ix.2011; Kanpur Dehat, 34, 49,

06.ix.2011; Fatehpur, 34, 29, 11.ix.2011; Raebareli, 20,

186

39, 16.ix.2011; Sitapur, 34’, 39, 17.ix.2011; Farrukhabad,

34, 49, 06.viii.2012; Mainpuri, 3¢, 49, 07.viii.2012;

Shahjahanpur, 34, 49, 14.viii.2012; Meerut, 20, 39,

21.vii.2012.

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 16.24-24.32 20.95-26.75 20.0342.72 23.90+2.13

Pronotum 3.92-5.24 4.24-5.96 4.734044 5.1440.57

Tegmina 18.41-24.71 22.4-25.37 20.7142.24 23.93+41.13

Hind Femur 10.73-13.68 11.28-14.02 11.97+1.01 12.72 + 1.00

Trilophidia annulata (Thunberg, 1815)

Gryllus annulatus Thunberg, 1815. Mem. Acad. Imp.

Sci. St. Peterburg. 5: 234.

Trilophidia annulata (Thunberg); Nayeem & Usmani.

2012. Munis Entomology & Zoology 7(1): 406.

Diagnostic characters: Small sized insect; pronotum

rugose with a high median carina forming teeth-like

projections in prozona; dorsum crossed by two transverse

sulci, prozona considerably shorter than metazona, hind

wings yellow at base and brown-black beyond.

Distribution: INDIA: Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal

Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Himachal

Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Karnataka, and West Bengal.

ELSEWHERE: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Borneo, China, and

Vietnam.

Material Examined: Sultanpur, 2¢', 29, 25.x.2010;

Hamirpur, 43, 49, 04.ix.2011; Jalaun, 43, 49, 05.ix.2011;

Kanpur Dehat, 3, 39, 06.ix.2011; Kanpur Nagar, 34, 39,

07.ix.2011; Unnao, 34), 49, 08.ix.2011; Ghaziabad, 43', 49,

17.viii.2012; Bulandshahr, 44', 59, 18.viii.2012; Meerut, 46,

4Q, 21.viii.2012; Muzaffarnagar, 34), 3°, 22.viii.2012.

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 13.71-17.06 16.78-19.68 15.41+1.67 18.3141.45

Pronotum 3.38-3.82 4.32-4.88 3.58+0.22 4.5840.28

Tegmina 16.76-17.88 18.42-19.26 17.32+0.56 18.84 +0.42

Hind Femur 8.25-8.86 9.33-9.88 8.55+0.30 9.59+0.27

Acrotylus humbertianus Saussure, 1884

Acrotylus humbertianus Saussure, 1884. Mem. Soc.

Phys. Hist. Nat. Geneve. 28(9): 189.

Acrotylus humbertianus Saussure; Ingrisch, 1990.

Spixiana (Munich). 13: 177.

Diagnostic characters: Wings with broad lunate

fascia, area anterior to fascia with blackened venation while

the area posterior to fascia faint yellow, wingspan big; one

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

TAXONOMIC STUDIES ON THE GRASSHOPPER FAUNA RECORDED FROM UTTAR PRADESH

prominent fascia present on interno-medial disc of hind

femora while fascia near hind knee not circular.

Distribution: iNpIA: Andhra Pradesh, Bihar,

Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh,

Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan,

Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and

West Bengal. ELSEWHERE: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal,

Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

Material Examined: Allahabad, 3, 49, 06.x.2010;

Azamgarh, 43, 39, 08.x.2010; Kushinagar, 34, 29,

13.x.2010; Faizabad, 43’, 59, 24.x.2010; Sultanpur, 4,

49, 25.x.2010; Hamirpur, 53’, 49, 04.ix.2011; Jalaun, 3¢,

4°, 05.ix.2011; Kanpur Dehat, 36’, 29, 06.ix.2011; Kanpur

Nagar, 34, 49, 07.ix.2011; Sitapur, 44, 49, 17.ix.2011;

Aligarh, 34, 49, 01.viii.2012; Hathras, 54, 49, 02.viii.2012;

Rampur, 34, 49, 15.viii.2012; Moradabad, 43, 39,

16.vi1.2012; Bulandshahr, 34,49, 18.viii.2012; Meerut, 5d,

49, 21.viii.2012; Saharanpur, 54, 49, 23.viii.2012.

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 18.24-23.56 22.67-25.82 20.9342.05 4.654 1.20

Pronotum 4.61-5.36 4.84-5.76 49540.29 5.3340.38

Tegmina 19.03-22.34 23.30-25.20 20.994+1.60 24.40 +0.87

Hind Femur 11.38-13.34 12.02-13.92 12.3040.75 13.12 40.73

Gesonula punctifrons (Stal, 1861)

Acridium (Oxya) punctifrons Stal, 1861 [1860]. Kongiga

Svenska fregatten Eugenies Resa omkring jorden under befall

af C.A. Virgin aren, 1851-1853 (Zoologi) 2(1): 336.

Gesonula punctifrons (Stal); Hongchang et al. 2006.

Fauna Sinica, Insecta 43: 50.

Diagnostic characters: Pronotum subcylindrical,

expanded posteriorly, acutely tectiform, prozona longer

than metazona, dorso-lateral band extending behind the eyes

continuing through pronotum; fastigium of vertex slightly

longer than wide, weakly convex with acutely parabolic apex,

median carinula absent; frons considerably oblique.

Distribution: inpIA: Andhra Pradesh, Andaman

and Nicobar Islands, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar,

Chattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh,

Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Odisha,

Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal.

ELSEWHERE: Bangladesh, Borneo (Kalimantan), China

(Hainan), Japan, Java, Malacca, Myanmar, North Vietnam,

Philippines, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, and Thailand.

Material Examined: Ballia, 24, 39, 11.x.2010;

Deoria, 24, 39, 12.x.2010; Kushinagar, 2’, 29, 13.x.2010;

Gorakhpur, 44, 39, 14.x.2010; Faizabad, 34,49, 24.x.2010;

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

Sultanpur, 24, 29, 25.x.2010; Hamirpur, 53, 49, 04.ix.2011;

Kanpur Dehat, 30, 39, 06.ix.2011; Fatehpur, 34, 49,

11.ix.2011; Sitapur, 34, 39, 17.ix.2011; Meerut, 2, 29,

21.ix.2012; Saharanpur, 23’, 19, 23.ix.2012.

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 21.48-23.29 22.14-24.06 22.56+0.91 23.18+0.64

Pronotum 4.20-4.81 4.51-5.32 4.53+40.26 5.07+0.40

Tegmina 19.43-21.51 21.74—-23.11 20.21+0.84 22.50+0.61

Hind Femur 17.87-19.46 20.89-21.41 18.67+0.60 21.34+0.37

Oxya fuscovittata (Marschall, 1836)

Gryllus fuscovittatus Marschall, 1836. Ann. Naturhist.

Mus. Wien. 1(2): 211.

Oxya fuscovittata (Marschall); Mishchenko, 1965.

Fauna of Russia Orthopt. 148 (125).

Diagnostic characters: Body medium sized;

integument almost smooth and shiny; fastigium of vertex

short, wide, concave with obtusely parabolic apex, transverse

furrow absent; hind tibiae with two rows of dorsal black-

tipped spines, nine dorso-external while ten dorso-internal.

Distribution: tNpIA: Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal

Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Himachal

Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala,

Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and West

Bengal. ELSEWHERE: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal,

Pakistan, and South West Russia.

Material Examined: Azamgarh, 3<, 39, 08.x.2010;

Ghazipur, 43, 39, 09.x.2010; Mau, 44, 39, 10.x.2010;

Gorakhpur, 34, 49, 14.x.2010; Deoria, 3’, 49, 12.x.2010;

Basti, 46, 49, 18.x.2010; Balrampur, 43°, 59, 19.x.2010;

Faizabad, 34,49, 24.x.2010; Sultanpur, 2¢, 39, 25.x.2010;

Hamirpur, 3,49, 04.ix.2011; Fatehpur, 4, 49, 11.ix.2011;

Sitapur, 54, 49, 17.ix.2011; Aligarh, 5, 49, 01.viii.2012;

Meerut, 24, 39, 21.viii.2012; Saharanpur, 4¢, 39,

23.vill.2012.

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 21.34-22.86 25.14-26.68 22.26+0.81 26.06+0.81

Pronotum 6.31-6.74 6.34682 6.534021 656+0.24

Tegmina 20.24—21.46 22-22.68 20.85+0.61 22.42 +0.27

Hind Femur 13.42-14.46 16.26-17.17 14.004+0.53 16.76 + 0.46

Oxya velox (Fabricius, 1787)

Gryllus velox Fabricius, 1787. Mantissa insectorum

exhibens species nuper in Etruria collectas a Ptro Rossio.

hb: 239.

187

TAXONOMIC STUDIES ON THE GRASSHOPPER FAUNA RECORDED FROM UTTAR PRADESH

Oxya velox (Fabricius); Nayeem & Usmani, 2012.

Munis Entomology & Zoology 7(1): 397.

Diagnostic characters: Head subconical; fastigium

of vertex short, less widened, weakly concave, with apex

obtusely parabolic, transverse furrow absent; frontal ridge

uniformly sulcate, widened above median ocellus and

uniformly narrowed below; prosternal process conical, basal

half anteroposteriorly compressed, apex subacute rather than

pointed, surface considerably hairy; hind tibiae with two rows

of dorsal black-tipped spines.

Distribution: tNpDIA: Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal

Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu &

Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland,

Odisha, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar

Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and West Bengal. ELSEWHERE:

Bangladesh, China, Myanmar, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri

Lanka, and Thailand.

Material Examined: Allahabad, 3, 39, 06.x.2010;

Azamgath, 34), 39, 08.x.2010; Deoria, 34, 39, 12.x.2010;

Basti, 34, 29, 18.x.2010; Balrampur, 2¢', 29, 19.x.2010;

Faizabad, 24’, 39, 24.x.2010; Sultanpur, 44, 39, 25.x.2010;

Hamirpur, 33, 32, 04.ix.2011; Fatehpur, 54, 49, 11.ix.2011;

Sitapur, 40, 39, 17.ix.2011; Aligarh, 34, 49, 01.viii.2012;

Meer 3 653s. 21 a1, 20 Salananpiit.~. 2, 2 O-

23, vilie2012,

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 21.46—22.38 24.34—-26.23 22.004+0.69 25.41 +0.97

Pronotum 5.38-6.12 6.32-6.84 5.76+0.37 6.57+0.26

Tegmina 17.44-18.83 21.42-22.64 18.17+0.48 22.13 +0.63

Hind Femur 13.76-14.82 15.47-16.94 14.31+40.53 16.21 40.73

Oxya hyla hyla Serville, 1831

Oxya hyla Serville, 1831. Ann. Sci. nat. 22 (86): 28-65,

134-167, 262-292.

Oxya hyla hyla (Serville); Nayeem & Usmani, 2012.

Munis Entomology & Zoology 7(1): 397.

Diagnostic characters: Prosternal process subconical,

anteroposteriorly compressed, apex obtuse; pronotum

subcylindrical, median carina virtually obliterated in prozona,

obtusely present in metazona; hind tibiae with eight dorso-

external spines and ten dorso-internal spines.

Distribution: iNpDIA: Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal

Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat,

Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura,

Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and West Bengal. ELSEWHERE:

Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Cameroon, Chad,

Iran, and Zambia.

188

Material Examined: Allahabad, 3’, 29, 06.x.2010;

Azamgath, 23, 29, 08.x.2010; Ghazipur, 4', 52, 09.x.2010;

Mau, 4, 62, 10.x.2010; Deoria, 53’, 72, 12.x.2010; Basti,

54, 42, 18.x.2010; Hamirpur, 54, 69, 04.ix.2011; Jalaun,

53, 49, 05.ix.2011; Fatehpur, 54, 39, 11.ix.2011; Sitapur,

64, 692, 17.ix.2011; Shahjahanpur, 44', 59, 14.1x.2012;

Rampur, 43, 72, 15.viii.2012; Bulandshahr, 5, 69,

18.viii.2012; Meerut, 54, 49, 21.viii.2012; Saharanpur, 6,

79, 23.viii.2012. |

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 21.45-23.25 22.87-24.75 22.10+0.79 24.93 + 1.65

Pronotum 3.92—4.84 4.68-5.25 4.53+40.33 5.03+40.20

Tegmina 21.02-22.34 21.09-23.16 21624047 22.14+0.64

Hind Femur 20.41-21.37 20.45-21.43 20.7240.36 20.87+0.42

Oxya hyla intricata (Stal, 1861)

Acridium (Oxya) intricatum Stal. 1861[1860]. Kongliga

Svenska fregatten Eugenies Resa omkring jorden under befal

af C.A. Virgin aren 1851-1853 (Zoologi) 2(1): 335

Oxya hyla intricata (Stal); Tan, Ngiam & Ismail, 2012.

Nature in Singapore 5: 66

Diagnostic characters: Head conical; fastigium of

vertex short, wide, broadly rounded with weak concavity,

transverse semicircular furrow present; frontal ridge sulcate,

slightly narrowing upwards with distinct parallel carinulae;

prosternal process subconical, anteroposteriorly compressed,

apex obtuse; pronotum subcylindrical, median carina virtually

obliterated in prozona, obtusely present in metazoan.

Distribution: iNpDIA: Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal

Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, and Uttar

Pradesh. ELSEWHERE: China, Java, Krakatau Island, Myanmar,

Philippines Palaui Island, Ryukyu Island, Singapore, Sumatra,

Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, and West Malaysia.

Material Examined: Azamgarh, 24, 19, 08.x.2010;

PSO CaO tes oa UO: Dash, dey 4, lS 2ehOe

Faizabad, 33, 39, 24.x.2010; Sultanpur, 24, 39, 25.x.2010;

Hamirpur, 53, 49, 04.ix.2011; Fatehpur, 44, 11.ix.2011;

Sitapur, 43, 39, 17.ix.2011; Aligarh, 64, 59, 01.viii.2012;

Shahjahanpur, 3¢, 59, 14.viii.2012; Saharanpur, 4<', 49,

23.vili.2012.

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 24.53-26.12 26.24-27.47 25.504+0.85 26.83 +0.81

Pronotum 5.32-5.92 6.41-6.87 562+0.30 6.62+40.23

Tegmina 21.25-22.43 23.12-24.75 21.84+0.59 23.90 +0.61

Hind Femur 15.38-16.56 17.62—-18.78 16.05+0.60 18.25+0.58

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

TAXONOMIC STUDIES ON THE GRASSHOPPER FAUNA RECORDED FROM UTTAR PRADESH

Oxya japonica japonica (Thunberg, 1815)

Gryllus japonicas Thunberg, 1815. Mem. Acad. Imp.

Sci. St. Peterburg. 5: 253.

Oxya japonica japonica (Thunberg); Nayeem &

Usmani, 2012. Munis Entomology & Zoology 7(1): 397.

Diagnostic characters: Prosternal process

anteroposteriorly flattened, apex conical; antennae filiform,

as long as head and pronotum together; fastigium of vertex

short, considerably wide, less concave, with apex rounded

and slightly protruding, transverse furrow less prominent;

hind tibiae nearly straight, flattened distally, distal half hairy,

nine dorso-external spines and eleven dorso-internal spines;

arolium of moderate size.

Distribution: INDIA: Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Karnataka,

Kerala, Manipur, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Tripura,

Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. ELSEWHERE: Bangladesh,

Bali, Borneo, Celebes, China, Halmahera Island, Hawaii,

Japan, Java, Lombok, Myanmar, Pakistan Philippines, Palaui

Island, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sula, Sumba, Sumatra, Taiwan,

Thailand, Timor, Vietnam, and West Malaysia.

Material Examined: Allahabad, 43’, 3°, 06.x.2010;

Azamgarh, 2<4', 62, 08.x.2010; Deoria, 53, 69, 12.x.2010;

Basti, 53, 52, 18.x.2010; Balrampur, 4¢', 59, 19.x.2010;

Faizabad, 63,49, 24.x.2010; Sultanpur, 54, 49, 25.x.2010;

Hamirpur, 53, 89, 04.ix.2011; Fatehpur, 54, 59, 11.ix.2011;

Sitapur, 4, 59, 17.ix.2011; Aligarh, 40, 29, 01.viii.2012;

Shahjahanpur, 4¢, 59, 14.viii.2012; Rampur, 50, 49,

15.viii.2012; Meerut, 24, 49, 21.viii.2012; Saharanpur, 5<,

72, 23.viii.2012.

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 21.27-23.12 23.29-24.98 22.39+0.98 24.20+0.85

Pronotum 5.23-5.88 5.34-5.96 5.574032 564+0.31

Tegmina 17.32-18.46 17.44-18.82 17.82+0.58 18.20+0.70

Hind Femur 13.4-14.84 13.93-14.78 14.20+0.72 14.39+40.43

Hieroglyphus nigrorepletus Bolivar, 1912

Hieroglyphus nigrorepletus Bolivar, 1912. Trab. Mus.

Cienc. nat., Madrid (Ser. zool.), 6: 56.

Hieroglyphus nigrorepletus Bolivar; Nayeem &

Usmani, 2012. Munis Entomology & Zoology 7(1): 398.

Diagnostic characters: Medium to large sized; body

robust and cylindrical; pronotum with sides markedly

expanded in metazona; dorsum with characteristic black

pattern connecting all sulci by two irregular stripes; first and

third sulci joined by a black band.

Distribution: inpIA: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar,

Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh,

Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. ELSEWHERE: Bangladesh

and Pakistan.

Material examined: Allahabad, 4<', 59, 06.x.2010;

Azamgarh, 54, 59, 08.x.2010; Ghazipur, 8d, 79,

09.x.2010; Deoria, 54, 69, 12.x.2010; Kannauj, 53, 79,

09.ix.2011; Fatehpur, 15¢, 149, 11.ix.2011; Barabanki,

54, 62, 15.ix.2011; Sitapur, 103, 62, 17.ix.2011; Aligarh,

53, 49, O1.viii.2012; Shahjahanpur, 84, 59, 14.viii.2012;

Moradabad, 54’, 69, 16.viii.2012; Bulandshahr, 63, 79,

18.viii.2012; Saharanpur, 86', 89, 23.viii.2012.

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 32.46-38.51 36.01-41.52 35.77+2.01 39.22+1.84

Pronotum 7.49-8.03 7.86-9.32 8.18+048 8.79+0.63

Tegmina 12.35-16.67 16.53-19.16 14.6941.52 18.1540.91

Hind Femur 16.30-18.19 17.62-19.78 17.41+40.73 18.72+0.77

Hieroglyphus banian (Fabricius, 1798)

Gryllus banian Fabricius, 1798. Supplementum

Entomologiae Systematicae Suppl. 194.

Hieroglyphus banian (Fabricius); Nayeem & Usmani,

2012. Munis Entomology & Zoology 7(1): 398.

Diagnostic characters: Body medium to large sized; head

globular in profile; fastigium of vertex short, as long as wide

in males, wider than long in females; pronotum shiny, overall

smooth with fine punctations in metazona and as band beneath

anterior pronotal margin in prozona, lateral carinae absent;

prosternal process small in size, conical with subacute apex.

Distribution: INDIA: Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Himachal

Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil

Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. ELSEWHERE:

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Myanmar, Nepal,

Thailand, and Vietnam.

Material examined: Azamgarh, 6¢', 79, 08.x.2010;

Ghazipur, 33’, 49, 09.x.2010; Deoria, 44’, 49, 12.x.2010;

Faizabad, 3, 39, 24.x.2010; Kannauj, 44, 49, 09.ix.2011;

Auraiya, 24, 39, 10.ix.2011: Fatehpur, 4, 49, 11.ix.2011;

Sitapur, 44’, 39, 17.ix.2011; Aligarh, 54, 69, 01.viii.2012;

Rampur, 3d, 49, 15.viii.2012; Moradabad, 40, 39,

16.viii.2012; Meerut, 53, 69, 21.viii.2012; Saharanpur, 4<,

52, 23.viii.2012.

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 38.57-42.54 47.68-53.72 40.634+1.98 50.96 + 3.05

Pronotum 7.24-8.85 8.74-10.22 8.144082 9.51+0.74

Tegmina 27.69-30.57 34.53-37.48 29.19+1.44 36.16 + 1.50

Hind Femur 18.45-19.84 22.38-25.22 19.2140.70 23.994 1.45

189

TAXONOMIC STUDIES ON THE GRASSHOPPER FAUNA RECORDED FROM UTTAR PRADESH

Spathosternum prasiniferum prasiniferum (Walker, 1871)

Heteracris prasinifera Walker, 1871. Catalogue of the

Specimens of Dermaptera Saltatoria in the Collection of the

British Museum. 5: 65.

Spathosternum prasiniferum (Walker); Nayeem &

Usmani, 2012. Munis Entomology & Zoology 7(1): 398.

Diagnostic characters: Body small sized; fastigium of

vertex wide, slightly depressed, apex parabolic; frons strongly

oblique; pronotum coarsely tectiform, dorsum flattened with

three transverse sulci.

Distribution: tnpiA: Andaman & Nicobar Islands,

Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar,

Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. ELSEWHERE:

Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, South and East China,

Hainan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam, and West Malaysia.

Material Examined: Faizabad, 5, 59, 24.x.2010;

Sultanpur, 50,'0, 25-%.2010; Pratapear, 56, 4°,

26.x.2010; Mahoba, 53, 72, 03.ix.2011; Hamirpur, 5<,

4°, 04.1x.2011; Jalaun, 54, 49, 05.ix.2011; Kanpur Dehat,

53, 62, 06.ix.2011; Bulandshahr, 44, 49, 18.viii.2012;

Gautam Buddh Nagar, 4¢, 49, 19.viii.2012; Jyotiba Phule

Nagar, 44, 49, 20.viii.2012; Meerut, 5, 62, 21.viii.2012;

Muzaffarnagar, 64, 39, 22.viii.2012; Saharanpur, 54, 49,

23.vili.2012; Baghpat, 34’, 39, 24.viii.2012; Bijnor, 43,

69, 25.viii.2012.

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 14.13-15.46 18.46-19.68 14.94+0.71 19.164+0.82

Pronotum 3.16-3.79 4.25489 3.464031 456+0.32

Tegmina 11.35-12.62 13.25-14.32 12.094+0.66 14.16+0.74

Hind Femur 8.37-9.54 9.38-10.45 8.95+0.58 10.20+0.61

Eyprepocnemis alacris alacris (Serville, 1838)

Acridium alacre Serville, 1838[1839]. Histoire

naturelle des insectes. Orthopteres. 682.

Eyprepocnemis alacris alacris (Serville); Nayeem &

Usmani, 2012. Munis Entomology & Zoology 7(1): 402.

Diagnostic characters: Body medium sized; fastigium of

vertex longer than wide, frons oblique; frontal ridge moderately

wide, weakly convex; pronotum apparently smooth with

metazona strongly tectiform and slightly expanded; prosternal

process moderate in size, anteroposteriorly flattened, slightly

bent towards mesosternum; hind tibiae straight with two rows

of ten black-tipped spines each; spurs not specialized.

Distribution: tnpIA: Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal

Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Haryana,

Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala,

Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya,

Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura,

Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. ELSEWHERE: Afghanistan,

Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

Material Examined: Gorakhpur, 24, 39, 14.x.2010;

Jhansi, 44), 39, 01.ix.2011; Lalitpur, 44, 49, 02.ix.2011;

Mahoba, 40, 49, 03.ix.2011; Hamirpur, 5@, 89, 04.ix.2011;

Jalaun, 63, 49, 05.ix.2011; Kannauj, 5d’, 62, 09.ix.2011;

Aligarh, 3¢, 49, 01.viii.2012; Ghaziabad, 53, 49,

17.viii.2012; Bulandshahr, 5, 49, 18.viii.2012; Meerut, 23,

39, 21.viii.2012; Saharanpur, 40, 39, 23.viii.2012.

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 30.38-33.22 34.46-38.24 31.7641.42 36.51+1.91

Pronotum 5.66-6.48 6.74-7.53 6.09+0.47 7.04+0.42

Tegmina 25.22-26.86 28.24—-29.88 26.1440.83 29.15+0.83

Hind Femur 16.65-18.77 21.56-22.58 17.654+1.06 22.16+0.53

Xenocatantops karnyi (Kirby, 1910)

Catantops karnyi Kirby, 1910. A Synonymic Catalogue

of Orthoptera (Orthoptera Saltatoria, Locustidae vel

Acridiidae). 3(2): 483.

Xenocatantops karnyi (Kirby); Nayeem & Usmani,

2012. Munis Entomology & Zoology 7(1): 403.

Diagnostic characters: Body small sized; integument

finely rugose; pronotum finely rugose and tectiform; hind

femora slightly robust, not exceeding abdomen, upper carina

with black-tipped serrations, upper external carinula with

intermittent black-tipped tubercles, externo-medial disc with

two broad prominent fuscous spots continued to upper region

of interno-medial disc, faded dorsally, lower external carinula

with contiguous black stripe beneath extending over it in a

regular fashion; hind tibiae slightly hairy with two rows of

dorsal black-tipped spines; arolium small.

Distribution: tnpIA: Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal

Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh,

Maharashtra, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttarakhand, and

Uttar Pradesh. ELSEWHERE: Nepal.

Material Examined: Azamgarh, 3, 49, 08.x.2010;

Deoria, 40), 49, 12.x.2010; Kushinagar, 43', 59, 13.x.2010;

Fatehpur, 23,49, 11.ix.2011; Aligarh, 23', 49, 01.viii.2012;

Meerut, 4d, 29, 21.viii.2012; Saharanpur, 53, 49,

23.vili.2012.

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 26.32-27.76 28.63-30.42 27.16+0.75 29.50+0.89

Pronotum 4.92-5.43 512-597 51540.25 552+0.42

Tegmina 19.54—20.32 20.27-21.96 19.91+0.39 21.24+0.87

Hind Femur 12.32-12.95 13.56-14.73 12.64+0.31 14.27+40.62

190

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

TAXONOMIC STUDIES ON THE GRASSHOPPER FAUNA RECORDED FROM UTTAR PRADESH

Diabolocatantops pinguis (Stal, 1861)

Acridium pingue Stal, 1861 [1860]. Kongliga Svenska

fregatten Eugenies Resa omkring jorden under befal af C.A.

Virgin aren 1851-1853 (Zoologi) 2(1): 330.

Diabolocantops pinguis (Stal); Nayeem & Usmani,

2012. Munis Entomology & Zoology 7(1): 403.

Diagnostic characters: Head obtusely conical;

fastigium of vertex wide, trapezoidal; fastigial foveolae

lacking; frontal ridge flat, depressed at median ocellus with

obtuse virtually parallel lateral carinulae; pronotum finely

tectiform, median carina obtusely present, crossed with equal

intensity by three transverse sulci, lateral carinae absent;

prosternal process cylindrical with flat apex; mesosternal

interspace open, moderately wide, lobes rounded, slightly

wider than long.

Distribution: INDIA: Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala,

Manipur, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh.

ELSEWHERE: Cambodia, China (Hainan), Japan, Myanmar,

Sri Lanka, and Taiwan.

Material Examined: Allahabad, 24’, 3°, 06.x.2010;

Deoria, 43, 39, 12.x.2010; Jhansi, 24, 49, 01.ix.2011;

Hamirpur, 34, 39, 04.ix.2011; Aligarh, 44), 49, 01-viii.2012;

Hathras, 54, 39, 02.viii.2012.

Morphometry:

Measurement Male Female Mean + SD

(mm) Male Female

Body length 28.74—-30.17 31.69-33.12 29.6040.75 32.51 +0.73

Pronotum 5.04-5.98 6.13-6.97 5.564047 6.5140.42

Tegmina 21.04-21.89 23.35-24.48 21.50+0.42 23.92 + 0.56

Hind Femur 12.31-12.97 14.34-14. 86 12.6140.33 14.56 + 0.26

DISCUSSION

Grasshoppers have chewing mouthparts and are

commonly thought of as foliage feeders, but they also feed

on flowers, fruits, seed heads, stems, and essentially all aerial

plant parts, causing considerable damage to agricultural

crops, pastures, and forests (Joshi et al. 1999). Though

generalist, eating plants from a broad range of families

depending upon the availability in their habitat (Gangwere

1961), they are primarily graminivorous (Joern 1979). Host

preferences, feeding behaviour and even habitat of different

species of grasshoppers among the subfamilies vary and are

indicators of different ecosystems.

Grasshoppers are widely distributed in paddy fields

in Uttar Pradesh. Both nymphs and adults feed vigorously

on rice foliage, leaving the bare stems, resulting in drying

of leaves and plants. The adults cause seven to eight times

more damage than the nymphs. Some species cause severe

defoliation that restricts the growth, leaving lean stems with

few leaves, resulting low or no rice yield, thus they may be

considered as major pests of rice.

Grasses have poor nutrition as compared to other crops

(Tscharntke and Greiler 1995) hence grasshoppers tend to

move on crops or other mixture of plants for their nutritional

requirements for better growth and reproduction (Behmer and

Joern 1993). Vegetation pattern is more important regarding

the species composition, disturbed area having less species

number and abundance as compared to the undisturbed area

(Kemp et al. 1990). Grasshopper damages all stages of paddy

crop. Both nymphs and adults can feed on leaves by cutting

the edges of leaves. When found in huge numbers, they

can feed even on the midribs and entire leaves, and cause

extensive defoliations.

The impressive growth of Indian agriculture has helped

the county achieve food security at national level. To sustain

this growth and achieve nutritional security, it is necessary to

further study the Acridid pests of rice crops and their control

measures, to increase rice yield.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are highly grateful to UGC for financial

assistance under Maulana Azad National Fellowship scheme

(MANF2011-12-BIH-MUS-1999) and to the Chairman,

Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh,

for providing necessary facilities.

REFERENCES

AKHTAR, M.H., M.K. USMANI, M.R. NAYEEM & H. Kumar (2012): Species

diversity and abundance of Grasshopper fauna (Orthoptera)

in rice ecosystem. Annals of Biological Research 3(5): 2190—

2193;

AKHTAR, M.H., M.R. NAYEEM & M.K. Usmani (2014a): Abundance,

distribution and taxonomic studies on Hemiacridinae (Acrididae:

Acridoidea: Orthoptera) in Uttar Pradesh, India. Journal of Global °

Biosciences 3(6): 910-918.

AKHTAR M.H., M.K. UsMAnr & M.R. NAyeEEM (2014b): Taxonomic

studies and ecological observations of Hieroglyphus nigrorepletus

(Hemiacridinae: Acrididae: Orthoptera) as a Pest of Paddy in

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

Uttar Pradesh, India. Scholars Academic Journal of Biosciences

2(10): 681-686.

ANDER (1939): Division of Orthoptera into two suborders, Ensifera and

Caelifera. Opuscula Entomologica 2 (Suppl.): 306.

BeHMerR, S.T. & A. JOERN (1993): Diet choice by a grass-feeding

grasshopper based on the need for a limiting nutrient. Functional

ecology 7: 522-527.

BuatiA, D.R., C. SINGH & P.J.S. AHLUWALIA (1965): Incidence of

Hieroglyphus nigrorepletus Bol. (Orthoptera, Acrididae) in the

desert parts of Rajasthan and Kutch district of Gujarat. Indian

Journal of Entomology 26: 464-475.

191

TAXONOMIC STUDIES ON THE GRASSHOPPER FAUNA RECORDED FROM UTTAR PRADESH

CHANDRA, K. & S.K. Gupta (2013): Endemic Orthoptera eee) of

India. Prommali 1: 17-44.

Cuitra, N., R.P. SOUNDARARAJAN & K. GUNATHILAGARAS (2000):

Orthoptera in rice fields of Coimbatore. Zoos’ Print Journal

15(8): 308-311.

Cuitra, N., K. GUNATHILAGARAJ & R.P. SOUNDARARAJAN (2001):

Orthoptera in rice ecosystem of South India. Bionotes 3(4): 88.

Das, A., S. Das & P. HALDAR (2002): Effect of food plants on the

growth rate and survivability of Hieroglyphus banian (Fabricius)

(Orthoptera: Acridoidea), a major paddy pest in India. Applied

Entomology and Zoology 37: 207-212.

Eaves, D.C.D. Otte, M.M. CIcLIANo & H. BRAuN (2015): Orthoptera

Species File. Version 5.0/5.0. <http://Orthoptera.SpeciesFile.org>.

Accessed on March 27, 2015.

GANGWERE, S.K. (1961): A monograph on food selection in Orthoptera.

Transactions of the American Entomological Society 87: 67—230.

GuosH, A.K. & S. SENGUPTA (1982): Insect Collection, Preservation

and Study (Handbook). Zoological Survey of India Publication.

65 pp.

Hapa, P., K.P. BHANDARI & S. NATH (1995): Observations on the food

preference of an Indian grasshopper Acrida exaltata (Walker)

(Orthoptera: Acrididae). Journal of Orthopteran Research 4:

57-59.

JADHAO, M.F. & A.M. Kuurap (2011): Insect Pests Complex of Rice

Ecosystem in Eastern Vidarbha of Maharashtra, India. Research

Analysis and Evaluation 2(24): 19-21.

JoERN, A. (1979): Feeding pattern in grasshoppers (Orthoptera:

Acrididae): factors influencing diet specialization. Oecologia

38: 325-347.

Josui, P.C., J.A. Lockwoop, N. VASHISHTH & A. SINGH (1999):

Grasshopper (Orthoptera: Acridoidea) community dynamics in a

moist deciduous forest in India. Journal of Orthopteran Research

8: 17-23.

KANDIBANE, M., S. RAGURAMAN, D.N. GANAPATHY & K. GUNATHILAGARAJ

(2004): Orthopteran diversity and in irrigated rice ecosystem

in Madurai, Tamil Nadu. Zoos’ Print Journal 19(10): 1663—

1664.

Kemp, W.P., S.J. HARVEY & K.M. O’NEILL (1990): Patterns of vegetation

and grasshopper community composition. Oecologia 83:

299-308.

Kuan, R.M., H.K. Vyas & O.P. VaisH (1963): Paddy pests in Rajasthan.

Rice News Teller 11(1): 15-17.

Kirpy, W.F. (1914): The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and

Burma. Orthoptera (Acrididae), 1: IX + 276 pp. London.

Kumar, H. & M.K. Usmani (2012): A Checklist of Acridoidea

(Orthoptera) of Punjab, India. Journal of Entomological Research

36(2): 173-175.

MULKERN, G.B. (1967): Food selection by grasshoppers. Annual Review

of Entomology 12: 59-78.

NaAyYEEM, M.R. & M.K. Usmani (2012): Preliminary checklist of

Acridoidea (Orthoptera) of Jharkhand, India. Journal of

Entomological Research 36(2): 161-163.

NayeEEM, M.R., M.K. Usmanr & M.H. Akutar (2013): Preliminary

checklist of grasshoppers and locust fauna (Orthoptera: Acrididae)

of Bihar, India. World Journal of Applied Sciences and Research

3(1): 35-38.

PAuLRAJ, M.G., V. ANBALAGAN & S. IGNAcIMUTHU (2009): Distribution

of Grasshoppers (Insecta: Orthoptera) among different host plants

and habitats in two districts of Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of

Threatened Taxa 1(4): 230-233.

Priya, A.V. & T.C. NARENDRAN (2003): A key and a checklist of the

genera of short-horned grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acridoidea) of

Kerala. Entomon 28(3): 223-230.

Rar, U. & M.K. Usmani (2013): Diversity and distribution of Acridid

pests (Orthoptera: Acrididae) of Purvanchal region, Uttar Pradesh.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 110(1): 50-56.

RiFFat, S. & M.S. WaAGAN (2007): The effect of food plants on

growth, fecundity and survivability of grasshopper Hieroglyphus

nigrorepletus I. Bolivar (Orthoperta: Acrididae) a major paddy pest

in Pakistan. Journal of Biological Sciences 7: 1282-1286.

RiFFat, S. & M.S. Wacan (2008): Notes on taxonomy, distribution

and ecology of Hieroglyphus nigrorepletus I. Bolivar, 1912

(Hemiacridinae: Acrididae: Orthoptera), a major paddy pest in

Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Zoology 40(3): 171-178.

SHISHODIA, M.S. & S.K. Gupta (2009): Checklist of Orthoptera (Insecta)

of Himachal Pradesh, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 1(11):

569-572.

SHISHODIA, M.S., K. CHANDRA & S.K. Gupta (2010): An annotated

checklist at Orthoptera (Insecta) from gies Rec. Zool. Surv.

India 314: 1-366.

SINGH, C. (1972): Further incidence of Hieroglyphus nigrorepletus

Bol. (Orthoperta: Acrididae) in the desert parts of Gujarat. Plant

Protection Bulletin, India 22: 38.

SINGH, B.B. & R. SINGH (2014): Major rice insect pests in Northeastern

U.P. International Journal of Life Sciences Biotechnology and

Pharma Research 1(3): 124-143.

TANDON, S.K. (1976): A Checklist of the Acridoidea (Orthoptera) of India

Part I Acrididae. Rec. Zool. Surv. India. Occ. paper no. 3: 1-48.

TANDON, S.K. & A.K. Hazra (1998): Faunal diversity in India:

Orthoptera. ENVIS Center, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.

Pp. 183-188.

TSCHARNTKE, T. & H.J. GREILER (1995): Insect communities, grasses and

grasslands. Annual Review of Entomology 40: 535-558.

Usmanl, M.K. & M.I. KHAN (2010): A preliminary checklist of Locusts

and Grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acridoidea) of North East India.

Trends in Biosciences 3(1): 40-55.

Usman, M.K. & U. Rar (2013): Effects of some abiotic factors on

the post embryonic development of Spathosternum prasiniferum

Walker (Orthoptera: Acridoidea: Hemiacridinae). Perspectives in

Animal Ecology and Reproduction 9: 186-199. Daya Publishing

House, New Delhi.

Usmanl, M.K, M.I. Kuan & H. Kumar (2010): Studies on Acridoidea

(Orthoptera) of Western Uttar Pradesh. Biosystematica 4(1):

39-58.

Usmanl, M.K., M.H. AkHTar & M.R. NAYEEM (2012a): Diversity and

taxonomic studies of Acridoid pests (Acridoidea: Orthoptera) of

pulses from Uttar Pradesh, India. Munis Entomology & Zoology

7(2): 837-846.

Usmanl, M.K., M.H. Akutar, M.R. NAveEM & U. Rari (2012b):

Diversity, distribution and taxonomic studies of grasshopper fauna

(Acrididae: Acridoidea: Orthoptera) of Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh,

India. Annals of Entomology 30(1): 31-40.

Usmanl, M.K., U. RarFi & Z. SHAMAEL (2012c): Effects of temperature

and humidity on growth and development of Acrida gigantea

(Orthoptera: Acridoidea: Acrididae). Folia Heyrovskyana, series

A 20(1-2): 67-73.

Usmanl, M.K., M.R. Naveem & M.H. Akutar (2012d): Field

observations on the incidence of grasshopper fauna (Orthoptera)

as a pest of Paddy and pulses. European Journal of Experimental

Biology 2(5): 1912-1917.

Uvarov, B.P. (1922): Rice grasshopper of the genus Hieroglyphus and

their nearest allies. Bull. Ent. Res. London. 13(2): 225-241.

192

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

193-209

A REPORT OF EREBIDAE (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUOIDEA) FROM

THE TAMIL NADU PART OF THE WESTERN GHATS, INDIA

K. SIVASANKARAN! AND S. IGNACIMUTHU”’*

'Division of Taxonomy and Diversity, Entomology Research Institute, Loyola College, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034,

Tamil Nadu, India. Email: ganesh [email protected]

*Entomology Research Institute, Loyola College, Chennai 600 034, Tamil Nadu, India. Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82380

In a study on the Erebidae of the Tamil Nadu part of the Western Ghats, 67 species were collected of which two

species are new records for the state and one species is new to India. The material collected, habits and habitats of

these species, and geographical details are presented.

Key words: Taxonomy, Erebidae, Western Ghats, Tamil Nadu

INTRODUCTION

The family Erebidae was separated from family

Noctuidae in the 1990s, based on the results from

molecular research which provided increasingly robust

support for a close relationship between the Arctiidae

and the quadrifid subfamilies of the Noctuidae (Mitchell

et al. 1997, 2000; Weller et al. 1994), indicating that the

Noctuidae are paraphyletic with respect to the Arctiidae and

Lymantriidae (~Lymantriinae). The family name Erebidae

was coined for the “quadrifid noctuids” which includes

the subfamilies Catocalinae and Erebinae. Fibiger and

Lafontaine (2004) have treated the quadrifid subfamilies

(Herminiinae, Hypenodinae, Hypeninae, Catocalinae,

Calpinae, Hypeninae, Stictopterinae, and Euteliinae) as

subfamilies of the re-established family Erebidae. The

recent classification places Calpinae in the family Erebidae

(Fibiger and Lafontaine 2004). Calpinae now consists of

three tribes: Calpini Boisduval, Phyllodini Hampson, and

Ophiderini Guenée.

The family Erebidae is characterized by: 1) the vein

M, in the hindwing being strongly developed in the

lower part of the cell, so that the cubital vein appears to be

four-branched; ii) having no basal abdominal brushes

which are derived characters found in most of the subfamilies

in Noctuidae; 111) Scales on the ventral half of the frons

deciduous, quickly fall off to leave the area bare in most

Erebids.

Most Erebidae are phytophagous as larvae and nectar

sucking as adults, and function as herbivores, pollinators,

and prey, as well as one of the most damaging groups of

agricultural pests (Reiger et al. 2009). The adults of some

genera damage fruit crops by piercing the skin to suck juice

(Banziger 1982).

The Western Ghats (8° 20’—20° 40’ N; 73°-77° E)

is one of the mega biodiversity hotspots in the subtropical

region. The habitat types in this region include scrub, dry

deciduous, moist deciduous, semi-evergreen, evergreen,

montane temperate, and grasslands. The Tamil Nadu part of

the Western Ghats consists of the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve,

Kodaikanal, and Palani Hills. The Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve

(10° 45'-12° N; 76°—77° 15’ E; area: 5,520 sq. km), which

is one among the 18 hotspots in the world, is situated in

the Western Ghats. Altitude within the Nilgiri Biosphere

Reserve varies from 250 m to 2,670 m. Kodaikanal hills

(10° 14’ 6” N; 77° 29' 6” E; area: 21.45 sq. km) situated in

Dindigul district, Tamil Nadu, form the eastern region of

the Western Ghats. This paper presents a tentative list of

the Erebidae from the Tamil Nadu part of Western Ghats,

with illustrations. This is the first study documenting the

Erebidae from the Tamil Nadu part of the Western Ghats

Nilgiri Biosphere (Table 1) and the proposed Kodaikanal

Wildlife Sanctuary (Table 2).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Collections were made using mercury vapour light

source during five-day periods at 26 sites every month from

2008 to 2012. This study is based primarily on the collections

carried out by the Entomology Research Institute (ERI),

Loyola College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. Voucher specimens

were deposited at Entomology Research Institute, Loyola

College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. Photographs of the adult

moths were taken with digital cameras, and the plates were

compiled using Adobe Photoshop software. The specimens

were identified using the keys provided by Hampson (1894)

and Moore (1881). We have made taxonomic changes in the

Noctuoidea by referring to Lafontaine and Schmidt (2010).

A REPORT OF EREBIDAE FROM THE TAMIL NADU PART OF THE WESTERN GHATS

Table 1: Collection sites of Family Erebidae from the Kodaikanal hills

No Locality Latitude Longitude Elev. ft/m

1 Kodaikanal Bus Terminus 10° 23" 53677(N 77° 49' 2933” E 6983/2130

2 Perumalmalai (site 1) 10° 26’ 4066" N Neve S0so ge 5127/1563

3 Perumalmalai (site 2) 10° 27' 045" N Tl Oo oOo T= 4934/1504

4 Observatory 10° 22' 9166" N 717° 45' 95° E 7529/2295

5 Poomparai 10° 24’ 705" N 77° 40'4°E 6320/1926

6 Pallangi 10°-27°3233"N 77° 45' 2316" E 5461/1665

u Mattupatti 10° 27°375 N 77° 45' 54" E 5511/1680

8 Moonjikal 10° 23° 9152N 77° 49'7716° E 6700/2030

9 Bear Shola 10° 24” N 77° 48' 0283" E 6908/2106

10 Bryant Park 10° 23' 0983" N 17° 49' 4483" E 6987/2130

11. Kodaikanal Lake 10° 23’ 8383" N 77° 48' 7683" E 6894/2101

12 Coaker’s Walk 10° 23' 0983" N 77° 49' 4483" E 6987/2130

13 Senbaganur 10° 23' 1733" (N 17° 50"3 E 5899/1798

15 Vellagavi 10° 19’ 7033” N 77° 49' 9183" E 4408/1343

Table 2: Collection sites of Family Erebidae from the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve

No Locality Latitude Longitude Elev.ft/m

1 Ooty Botanical Garden 11° 41' 758" N 76° 71' 048" E 7306/2228

2 Benchmark Tea Estate 11° 41'181" N (G2 42> 07) se 7840/2389

3 Doddabetta 11° 40’ 116" N (0° (3 58" E 8607/2624

4 Ooty Lake 11° 40' 45" N 76°69' 0933” E 7286/2221

5 Coonoor Municipal building 11° 33’ 916N fa cw ee Cima gown = 5539/1686

6 Sim’s Park 11° 35’ 485" N 76° 80’ 03" E 6082/1855

7 Ketti 11°38 Zid IN 76° 73' 745" E 7014/2137

8 Ithalar 11° 34’ 275" N 76° 65, 566" E 6932/2112

9 Emerald Dam 11° 32' 636" N 76° 61' 995" E 6596/2009

10 Avalanche 11° 30'015" N 76° 59’ 083" E 6579/2005

11. Kothagiri Pandian Park 11° 42' 155" N 76° 85' 006" E 6218/1897

RESULTS

An account of moths collected in this study is given

below under their respective taxonomic categories. Altogether,

67 species of Erebidae were collected by K. Sivasankaran of

Entomology Research Institute, during this study in Tamil Nadu

part of the Western Ghats. Among the specimens collected,

three species namely Phyllodes consobrina Westwood

(Phyllodini), Lygniodes hypoleuca Guenée (Erebini), and

Hyperlopha crucifera Walker (Hypopyrin1) were reported for

the first time from the state. For the nomenclature, we have

followed Kononenko and Pinratana (2005).

Subfamily: Scoliopteryginae

Tribe: Anomini

Gonitis mesogona Walker, [1858] 1857

Gonitis mesogona Walker, [1858] 1857, List Specimens

lepid. Insects Colln Br. Mus. 13: 1002.

Anomis mesogona Walker; Holloway, 1976: 37.

Material in the collection: 03.1x.2009, 7 ex.;

OF ax 2010) Stexs 11 x 2000, P57ex 12 4x. 2001, Avex:

OF SoZ OM AS HExe

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Coonoor

Municipal building, Sim’s Park, and Kethi. Kodaikanal: Bus

Terminus, Moonjikal, Bryant Park, and Bear Shola.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Malaysia, Korea, Japan

(Honshu, Shikoku, Kyushu, Tsushima Islands), China, South

of Russian Far East (migrant), Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines,

Indonesia, Sri Lanka.

Gonitis involuta Walker, [1858] 1857

Gonitis involuta Walker, [1858] 1857, List Specimens

lepid. Insects Colln Br. Mus. 13: 1003.

Gonitis basalis Walker, [1858] 1857, List Specimens

lepid. Insects Colln Br. Mus. 13: 1004.

Tiridata colligata Walker, 1857, List Specimens lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 33: 870.

194

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

A REPORT OF EREBIDAE FROM THE TAMIL NADU PART OF THE WESTERN GHATS

Gonitis vitiensis Butler, 1886, Trans. ent. Soc. London

1886: 408.

Gonitis basalis Butler, 1886, Trans. ent. Soc. London

1886: 408.

Cosmophila dona Swinhoe, 1919, Ann. Mag. Nat.

Hist, (9)32313.

Anomis brima Swinhoe, 1920, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist.

(W5025S.

Material in the collection: 15.1v.2008, 23 ex.;

26.iv.2009, 7 ex.; 07.v1.2009, 12 ex.; 29.iv.2010, 21 ex.;

15.x11.2010, 14 ex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Coonoor

Municipal building, Sim’s Park, and Kethi. Kodaikanal: Bus

Terminus, Moonjikal, Bryant Park, and Bear Shola.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Indochina, Nepal,

Pakistan, Afganistan, China, Taiwan, Australia, Vanuatu,

Korea, South of Russian Far East (migrant), Indonesia

(New Guinea, New Caledonia, Fiji [Rotuma], Bismarck Is.,

Solomon Is.), Oceania.

Rusicada privata (Walker, 1865)

Rusicada privata (Walker, 1865), List Specimens lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 33: 863.

Gonitis commode Butler, 1878, A.M.N. 4(5) 1: 203.

Gonitis metaxantha Walker, 1857, Cat. xiii: 1005.

Gonitis guttanivis Walker, 1857, Cat. xiii: 1003.

Gonitis combinans Walker, 1857, Cat. xiii: 1001.

Gonitis privata Walker, 1862, Cat. xxxiii: 863.

Gonitis revocan, Walker, 1858, Cat. xv: 1794.

Gonitis vulpine Butler, 1886, 7r Ent. Soc. 408.

Gonitis xanthochroa Butler, 1886, Tr, Ent. Soc. 409.

Gonitis inducens Walker, 1862, Cat. xxxili: 864.

Diremma simulatrix Walker, 1862, Cat. xxxiil: 864,

Gonitis albitibia Walker, 1857, Cat. xii: 1001.

Rusicada nigritarsis Walker, 1857, Cat. xiii: 1006;

Moore, 1887, Lep. Ceyl. 111: pl. 155.

Rusicada subfulvida Warren, 1913, in Seitz, Macrolepid.

World 3: 360, pl. 66.

Rusicada griseolineata Warren, 1913, in Seitz,

Macrolepid. World 3: 360, pl. 66.

Cosmophila fulvida Guenee, 1852, Noct. 11: 397;

Moore, 1882, Lep. Ceyl. 11: pl. 155; Hampson, 1894, Faun.

Brit. Ind. 11: 409. |

Material in the collection: 15.1v.2008, 13 ex.;

26.1v.2009, 7 ex.; 07.vi.2009, 12 ex.; 29.1v.2010, 21 ex.;

15.x11.2010, 4 ex. |

Collection Localities: Nilgiri1 Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Coonoor

Municipal building, Sim’s Park, and Kethi. Kodaikanal: Bus

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

Terminus, Moonjikal, Bryant Park, and Bear Shola.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Indochina, Korea,

Japan, China, South Russian Far East (migrant), Australia,

Sri Lanka, North America (introduced).

Anomis flava (Fabricius, 1775)

Anomis flava (Fabricius, 1775), Syst. Ent.: 601.

Material in the collection: 15.iv.2008, 4 ex.;

26A1v. 2010) Vex 07x 201 EB tex s: PS a2 Os Avex!

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Coonoor

Municipal building, Sim’s Park, and Kethi. Kodaikanal: Bus

Terminus, Moonjikal, Bryant Park, and Bear Shola.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Indochina, Nepal,

Pakistan, China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, South Russian Far

East, Philippines, Micronesia, Indonesia (Samoa, Tonga,

New Caledonia Solomon Is.), Vanuatu, Tasmania, New

Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Morocco, Africa, South of

Sahara, Madagascar, Mauritius, Hawaii, North America

(introduced).

Subfamily: Calpinae Boisduval, 1840

Tribe: Calpini

Plusiodonta coelonota (Kollar, [1844])

Plusiodonta coelonota (Kollar, [1844]), in Hugel,

Kaschmir und das Reich der Siek 4: 482

Material in the collection: 09.v.2010, 3 ex.; 27.v.2011,

2 OR-224 VU 2Biex

Collection Localities: Kodaikanal: Bus Terminus,

Bryant Park, and Moonyikal.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam,

Nepal, Sri Lanka, Indonesia (Java, Sumatra, Timor, Flores),

China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea.

Calyptra minuticornis (Guenée, 1852)

Calpe minuticornis Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat. Insectes,

Spec. gen. Lépid. 6: 374.

Calpe novaepommeraniae Strand, 1919, Arch.

Naturgesch., 83A (10): 143.

Calpe minuticornis Guenée; Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 38.

Material in the collection: 15.1v.2008, 5 ex.;

26.iv.2009, 9 ex.; 27.v.2010, 7 ex.; 5.v.2012, 8 ex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, and Coonoor

Municipal building. Kodaikanal: Bryant Park, Moonjikal,

and Bear Shola.

Distribution: India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Taiwan,

Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia (Java, Timor, Flores,

Sumbawa, Borneo, New Guinea, Bismarck Is., Sulawesi),

195

A REPORT OF EREBIDAE FROM THE TAMIL NADU PART OF THE WESTERN GHATS

China, Japan, New Britian, Rook Island, Papua Guinea

(Oomsis), Australia (Queensland).

Oraesia emarginata (Fabricius, 1794)

Noctua emarginata Fabricius, 1794, Ent. Syst. III, 2: 82.

Oraesia metallescens Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat.

Insectes, Spec. gén. Lépid. 6: 364.

Oraesia alliciens Walker, [1858] 1857, List Spec. lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 12: 945.

Oraesia tentans Walker, [1858] 1857, List Spec. lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 12: 954.

Oraesia camaguina Swinhoe, 1918, Ann. Mag. Nat.

Hist. (9), 2:90.

Calpe emarginata Fabricius; Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 38.

Material in the collection: 15.iv.2008, 5 ex.;

26.1v.2009,, 9eX.; 27:vi22010,,. 7. exe 52020129 Lbex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Doddabetta,

Sim’s Park, and Coonoor Municipal building. Kodaikanal:

Moonjikal, Bryant Park, Bear Shola, and Senbaganur.

Distribution: India, Korea, Japan (Honshu, Shikoku,

Kyushu, Tsushima Is.), China, Tibet, East Africa, Taiwan,

Philippines, Indonesia (Sulawesi, Borneo).

Tribe: Ophiderini Guenée, 1852

Eudocima materna Linnaeus, 1767

Material in the collection: 03.i1x.2009, 13 ex.;

07.1x.2010 4 ex.; 05.ix.2011, 5 ex.; 04.1x.2012, 9 ex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Ooty Lake,

Doddabetta, Sim’s Park, and Coonoor Municipal building.

Distribution: India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Indonesia

(Java, New Guinea), Australia.

Eudocima salaminia (Cramer, 1777)

Noctua salaminia Cramer, [1777] 1779, Uitlandsche

Kapellen 2: 117.

Eudocima salaminia Cramer; Holloway, 1976:

Malayan Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 36.

Material in the collection: 09.v.2009, 12 ex.;

28.v1.2010, 8 ex.; 15.x11.2012, 11 ex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Doddabetta,

Sim’s Park, and Coonoor Municipal building. Kodaikanal:

Moonjikal, Bryant Park, Bear Shola, and Senbaganur.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Indochina, Nepal,

China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea (tropical migrant), Philippines,

Indonesia (Java, Sumatra, New Guinea), Micronesia, Central

Africa, Australia.

Eudocima [Adris| sikhimensis (Butler, 1895)

Adris sikhimensis Butler, 1895, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist.

(6), 15: 1260.

Othreis abathyglypta Prout, 1928, Bull. Hill Mus.

Witley 2: 264.

Othreis abathyglypta Prout; Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 36.

Material in the collection: 15.iv.2008, 2 ex.;

DAWU OOS Ext SIX O02 sAtex:

Collection Localities: Kodaikanal.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia,

Nepal, Bhutan, Indonesia (Borneo, Sumatra, Bali).

Eudocima [Othreis| phalonia Linnaeus [fullonia Clerck, 1764]

Phalaena (Noctua) phalonia Linnaeus, 1763, Centuria

Insectorum rariorum: 28.

Phalaena fullonia Clerck, [1764] 1759, Icones Insect.

rariorum pl. 48, ff. 1-4.

Phalaena (Attacus) fullonica Linnaeus, 1767, Syst.

Nat.(éd.12): 812.

Noctua dioscoreae Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent.: 593.

Phalaena (Noctua) pomona Cramer, [1775] 1779, Uitlandsche

Kapellen 1: 122.

Ophideres princeps Boisduval, 1832, in d’Urville

Voyage de Découvertes de |’ Astrolabe P| 1: 245.

Ophideres obliterans Walker, 1857, List Spec. lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 13: 1229. |

Othreis fullonia Clerck; Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 36.

Material in the collection: 26.iv.2008, 2 ex.;

06.1v.2009, 4 ex.; 09.v.2009, 6 ex.; 15.iv.2010, 3 ex.;

2 RNOZOMOLNS Bee; OSMKEZOROF SitexvihBux/ 20 k0i54 tex

VS HaPZO lO Bex 8 ADO M2 exe OS 20M 2 exe;

OFZ 5 ex. ; OF K. 2014 i 4iexs 09x 200003 ex:

26,.1V- 202, Ate ay D012 ex, A 20 POD ex:

Foik DOD) Siex.; OF ii. 20124 ex,

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Ooty

Lake, Doddabetta, Sim’s Park, Coonoor Municipal building,

Nonsuch, and Kothagiri. Kodaikanal: Moonjikal, Bryant

Park, Bear Shola, and Senbaganur.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Myanmar, Vietnam,

Nepal, China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, South of Russian

Far East (migrant), Philippines, Indonesia (New Guinea),

Micronesia, Australia, New Zealand, Central Africa (Gabon,

Zaire, Congo).

Eudocima [Othreis| homaena (Hiibner, [1823] 1816)

Othreis homaena Hubner, [1827] 1816, Verz. Bekannter

Schmett.: 264.

196

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

A REPORT OF EREBIDAE FROM THE TAMIL NADU PART OF THE WESTERN GHATS

Phalaena (Noctua) ancilla Cramer, 1777, Uitlandsche

Kapellen 2: 84.

Phalaena strigata Donovan, [1804] 1800, Epitome Nat.

Hist. Insects Ind. pl. 54: fig. 2.

Ophideres bilineosa Walker, [1858] 1857, List Spec.

lepid. Insects Colln Br. Mus. 13: 1227.

Othreis ancilla formosana Okano, 1964, Tohoku

Konchu Kenkyu 1(2): 43-4.

Othreis homaena Hubner; Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 36.

Material in the collection: 15.1v.2008, 3 ex.; 09.1v.2009,

DiC OTN. 200G IT Exe ORLive 2010, 1 2icenrt i) kota 200}

2nexts 2UM20T0 86x .3008tx QO TON B ext; OFaxt 2 ONOs 2iexe

15\x11201032'ex:; 0S. i201 ex. 229012012, 4rex:

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Ooty

Lake, Doddabetta, Sim’s Park, and Coonoor Municipal

building; Kodaikanal: Moonjikal, Bryant Park, Bear Shola,

and Senbaganur.

Distribution: India, Nepal, Taiwan, Vietnam,

Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Australia (Christmas

Island), Indonesia (Borneo, Timor, Flores), China, Japan.

Eudocima cajeta (Cramer, 1779)

Eudocima cajeta (Cramer, 1779), Papilio exot. 1: 48,

Pres!

Eudocima multiscripta Walker, 1857, List Specimens

lepid. Insects Colln. Br. Mus.13: 1226.

Material in the collection: 15.iv.2008, 1 ex.;

O91iv. 2009) 2 Ox. OF 9220095 1S OR a9 20s Dre.

16av.20.10, 1 exs 27:v.2010; 2 ex4052v.2011, | exe

Collection Localities: Kodaikanal: Moonjikal, Bryant

Park, and Bear Shola.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Vietnam, Sri Lanka,

Indonesia (Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, Batavia,

Moluccas, Seram), Philippines.

Eudocima |Khadira\ aurantia (Moore, 1877)

Ophideres aurantia Moore, 1877, Proc. zool. Soc.

Lond. 1877: 607.

Adris rutilus Moore, 1881, 7rans. zool. Soc. Lond. 11:70.

Khadira aurantia Moore; Holloway, 1976: Malayan Nature

Soc. & Sabah Foundation 36.

Material in the collection: 31.111.2010, 2 ex.;

26.111.2011, 1 ex.; 05.111.2012, 2 ex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Benchmark Tea Museum.

Distribution: India, Sri Lanka, China, Andaman

Islands, Indonesia (Sulawesi, Seram, New Guinea, Solomon

Is.), Australia (Queensland).

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

Tribe: Phyllodini Guenée, 1852

Phyllodes consobrina Westwood, 1848*

Phyllodes consobrina Westwood, 1848, Cab.Or. Ent.

ply 28yanpe a2 pash,

Phyllodes perspicillator Guenee, 1852, Guen. Noct.

ii, p. 120.

Phyllodes maligera Butl. Ent. Mon. Mag. xx, p. 138.

Phyllodes roseigera Butl. P.Z.S. 1883, p. 164.

Material in the collection: 20.v11.2010, 2 ex.;

18.vu1.2011, 1 ex.

Collection Localities: Kodaikanal: Bus Terminus.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia

(Java, Borneo, Sumatra), China, Tibet, Japan, Bangladesh,

Vietnam, Philippines.

Note: This species is recorded for the first time in

Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, Western Ghats.

Subfamily: Hypocalinae

Tribe: Hypocalini

Hypocala deflorata (Fabricius, 1794)

Hypocala deflorata Fabricius, 1794, Ent. Syst. 3 (2): 127.

Hypocala moorei Butler, 1892, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (6), 10:21.

Hypocala australiae Butler, 1892, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (6),

Lona,

Material in the collection: 31.111.2008, 19 ex.;

06.111.2009, 23 ex.; 13.i1v.2009, 29 ex.; 26.11.2010, 21 ex.;

ES.iv.2010, 16i\exsy 03.1%, 2000s 230ex1; 726.11 QO 62 3.ex,;

26riv.2011, 26cex;; O07 4x 2011, 2--ex.: hangs, thext

29.1v.2012, 32 ex.; 29.1x.2012, 4 ex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Coonoor

Municipal building, Sim’s Park, Kethi, Emerald Dam, and

Kothagiri Pandian Park. Kodaikanal: Moonjikal, Bryant Park,

Bear Shola, and Observatory.

Distribution: India, Korea, Japan (Honshu, Shikoku,

Kyushi, Tsushima Is., Okinawa Is.), South Russian Far

East (migrant), Indonesia (Borneo, Fiji (Rotuma), New

Caledonia), Sri Lanka, Nepal, Africa, China, Vanuatu, France,

Samoa vagrant to Norfolk Islands, New Zealand, Australia

(Queensland), Hawaii.

Hypocala subsatura Guenée, 1852

Hypocala subsatura Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat. Insectes,

Spec. gen. Lepid. 7: 75.

Hypocala aspersa Butler, 1883, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond.,

1883: 164.

Hypocala subsatura var. limbata Butler, 1889, //lust.

Typical Specimens lepid. Heterocera Colln Br. Mus., 7: 76.

Hypocala subsatura Guenée 1852 Holloway, 1976:

Malayan Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 35.

197

A REPORT OF EREBIDAE FROM THE TAMIL NADU PART OF THE WESTERN GHATS

Material in the collection: 13.iv.2009, 9 ex.;

15.1v.2010, 6-ex.* 03Hx.2010 ns Cmga2Ooiw20 LG iexs

OFax.20Nly. 7 eS 294v2012)3 exs29.x2012.7 ex

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Coonoor

Municipal building, and Sim’s Park. Kodaikanal: Bus

Terminus and Moonjikal.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Malaysia, Myanmar,

Vietnam, Nepal, Pakistan, Indonesia (Borneo, Java), China,

Taiwan, Japan, Korea, South of Russian Far East.

Hypocala guttiventris (Walker, [1858] 1857)

Hypocala guttiventris Walker, 1858, List Specimens

lepid. Insects Colln Br. Mus. 13: 1176.

Hypocalta lattivitta Walker, 1865, List Specimens lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 33: 929.

Material in the collection: 09.v.2009, 32 ex.;

13.v.2010, 2. ex. 27 V2Ok lee exepdoiye20i2. 2 ex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Benchmark Tea Museum, Coonoor Municipal building, and

Sim’s Park. Kodaikanal: Bus Terminus.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Malaysia, Laos,

Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia (Sumatra,

Borneo, Java, Sulawesi, Timor, Flores), Australia.

Hypocala rostrata (Fabricius, 1794)

Hypocala rostrata Fabricius, 1794, Ent. Syst. 3(2):

123.

Hypocala plumicornis Guenée, 1852, Noct. iii.

Hypocala efflorescens Guenée, 1852, Noct. 111.

Material in the collection: 15.1v.2009, 3 ex.; 09.v.2009,

2 exXijwl0.1v32010;. Jrex; 27 v7. 2010, -Teexn007 91.2010;

4neX co D3 IKI2Z0L0j 07 /exeti2 sim: 20 V1 643s een 23mQ01 1s

lhwexs 28:.477:2011..3 expo07ian20 Mods exw 29mte 7012,

SeKHI29 wi 2012) Onex.;. 234 2012) 2émei2 rig 201 2,

8 ex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum,

Coonoor Municipal building, Sim’s Park, and Kethi.

Kodaikanal: Bus Terminus, Moonjikal, Bryant Park, and

Bear Shola.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Indochina, Korea Japan

(Shikoku, Kyushu), China, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia,

Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Africa.

Hypocala violacea Butler, 1879

Hypocala violacea Butler, 1879, Trans. Ent. Soc.

London 1879: 6.

Hypocala clarissima Butler, 1892, Ann. Mag. Nat.

Hist. £6), WO:21,

198

Hypocala kebeae Bethune-Baker, 1906, Novit. zool.

13: 249.

Hypocala violacea Butler Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 35.

Material in the collection: 31.111.2008, 13 ex.;

06.111.2009, 32 ex.; 15.1v.2009, 29 ex.; 26.11.2010, 29 ex.;

10.iv.2010, 22 ex.; 26.11.2011, 13 ex.; 26.iv.2011, 31 ex.;

18.111.2012, 9 ex.; 29.1v.2012, 33 ex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum,

Sim’s Park, Coonoor Municipal building, Kethi,

Doddabetta, Ithalar, Emerald Dam and Kothagiri. Kodaikanal:

Kodaikanal Lake, Bryant Park, Bear Shola, Coaker’s Walk,

Moonyikal, Perumalmalai, Poomparai, and Observatory.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Vietnam, Nepal,

Indonesia (Timor, Flores, New Guinea), Philippines, Taiwan,

Japan (Kyushu), Korea.

Hypocala biarcuata Walker, 1858

Hypocala biarcuata Walker, 1858, Cat. xv: 1816;

Hampson, 1894, Faun. Brit. Ind. 11: 454.

Material in the collection: 31.111.2008, 9 ex.;

OG 07.2009, 113 ex.; 13.1v.2009, 19 ex.: 26.17.2010, 19 ex.;

15.12.2010 5 14-exx; 03 1x20 10 lGtexs} 26318.20 hess text

AGA 20ARaliivexs OF1k 20 Ui tsrexvals. 01-2012, 17 ex.;

29 1. 2002 22eks; 291%. 2012 961exe

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum,

Sim’s Park, Coonoor Municipal building, Kethi,

Doddabetta, and Kothagiri Pandian Park. Kodaikanal:

Kodaikanal Lake, Bryant Park, Bear Shola, Coaker’s

Walk, Moonjikal, Perumalmalai, Poomparai, and

Observatory. |

Distribution: India, Thailand, Malaysia, Taiwan, South

Japan, Indonesia (Sulawesi, Sumbawa, New Guinea).

Subfamily: Tinoliinae

Tribe: Tinoliini

Calesia stillifera Felder & Rogenhofer 1874, Reise ost.

Fregatte Novara 2(2): Pl: 117:18.

Calesia satellita Moore, [1885], Lepid. Ceylon,

3: 184, P1171: 6.

Material in the collection: 15.iv.2009,

2 CkirdOAvi20 Oy exe 2682041 Pil nem. 31/2918. 2012,

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Benchmark Tea Museum. Kodaikanal.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam,

Sri Lanka, China, Philippines.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

A REPORT OF EREBIDAE FROM THE TAMIL NADU PART OF THE WESTERN GHATS

Subfamily: Erebinae

Tribe: Toxocampini

Subtribe: Toxocampina

Lygephila dorsigera (Walker, 1865)

Lygephila dorsigera (Walker, 1865), List Specimens

lepid. Insects Colln Br. Mus. 33: 873.

Material in the collection: 23.1x.2009, 1 ex.;

031.1%. 201.05 2:ex1 7k 201 Mexeo ix 200i alt ex

Collection Localities: Kodaikanal: Moonjikal.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Nepal, Sri Lanka,

Pakistan, Afghanistan, Korea, Japan, China, South Russian

Far East, Russia (Khabarovsk).

Tribe: Acantholipini

Hypospila bolinoides Guenée, 1852

Hypospila bolinoides Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat. Insectes,

Spec. gen. Lépid. 7: 358.

Thermesia signipalpis Walker, 1858, List Specimens

lepid. Insects Colln Br. Mus. 15: 1572.

Hypospila thermesina Guenée, 1863, in Maillard,

Notes sur l’Ile de la Réunion Lep: 53.

Moepa concisa Walker, 1865, List Specimens lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 33: 982.

Thermesia orientalis Leech, 1900, Trans. Ent. Soc.

London 1900: 570.

Hypospila andamana Swinhoe, 1919, Ann. Mag. Nat.

Hist. (9) 4: 124.

Hypospila bolinoides Guenée Holloway, 1976:

Malayan Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 38.

Material in the collection: 15.1v.2009, 2 ex.; 09.v.2009,

Syexs} 0am 2020 plexczlS me 20 10) Qrere26 iv Z2OPk ed ex;

24%; 27.V2011, 3 ex.; 29.106 Z201 2922010), 2iex.

Collection Localities: Kodaikanal: Bus Terminus,

Bryant Park, Moonjikal, and Bear Shola.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia,

Nepal, Indonesia (New Guinea, Moluccas), Taiwan, China,

Japan, Korea, Australia, Caroline Is.

Tribe: Erebini

Erebus hieroglyphica (Drury, 1773)

Noctua hieroglyphica Drury, 1773, Ill. Exot. Ins. 2: 3.

Noctua harmonia Cramer, [1777] 1779, Uitlandsche

Kapellen 2: 119.

Noctua mygdonia Cramer, [1777] 1779, Uitlandsche

Kapellen 2: 119. |

Noctua ulula Fabricius, 1781, Species Insectorum 2:

Aad:

Bocana lunaris Walker, 1864, List Specimens lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 29: 57.

Argiva hieroglyphica celebensis Hopffer, 1874, Stettin.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

ent. Ztg. 35: 46.

Nyctipao hieroglyphica tenebrata Prout, 1919, Ann.

Mag. Nat. Hist. (9)3: 170.

Erebus hieroglyphica Drury Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 29; Kobes, 1985: Heteroc.

Sumatr. 26.

Material in the collection: 09.v.2009, 3 ex.; 15.v.2010,

Deon. 7 sy. 201 T38ex P27 2012, 2rex.

Collection Localities: Kodaikanal: Bryant Park,

Moonjikal, Bear Shola, and Senbaganur.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia,

Vietnam, Myanmar, China, Indonesia (Sumatra, Borneo,

Java, Sulawesi, New Guinea), Philippines.

Erebus macrops (Linnaeus, 1768)

Noctua macrops Linnaeus, 1768, Syst. Nat. 12(3)

App.: 225.

Noctua bubo Fabricius, 1781, Species Insectorum 2:

209.

Patula boopis Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat. Insectes, Spec.

gen. Lépid. 7: 178.

Eupatula macrops Linnaeus, Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 29; Kobes, 1985: Heteroc.

Sumatr. 27.

Material in the collection: 09.iv.2009, 12 ex.;

0912009) Sexes 1S. 1V 20 BONG iexe 2 Tw ZOO: PS ex.

OS ZOTOy. f2exs 13.%.201 097 ems 26nm20blyoO]exs

OF 1x ZOT IG ext O72 O11 sem 29 a 209 ex:

25 M2012) 6 x 15282012," 1 2:ex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s Park,

Coonoor Municipal building, and Kethi. Kodaikanal: Bus

Terminus, Moonjikal, Bryant Park, and Bear Shola.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam,

Myanmar, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, China, Indonesia

(Sumatra, Java, Borneo), Philippines, Japan, Korea, South

of Russian Far East (migrant), Central Africa.

Lygniodes reducens Fabricius, 1794

Material in the collection: 10.1v.2010, 2 ex.;

2hiwr2091¢ dex.

Collection Localities: Kodaikanal: Bryant Park.

Distribution: India.

Lygniodes hypoleuca Guenée, 1852*

Lygniodes hypoleuca In Boisduval & Guenée, 1852,

Hist. Nat. Insects (Lepid.) 7: 125, pl. 16.

Material in the collection: 10.iv.2010, 2 ex.;

2 levi 201d, hex.

Collection Localities: Kodaikanal: Bryant Park.

199

A REPORT OF EREBIDAE FROM THE TAMIL NADU PART OF THE WESTERN GHATS

Distribution: India, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam,

Nepal, Bangladesh, China, Taiwan.

Note: This species is recorded for the first time in

Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, Western Ghats.

Sympis rufibasis Guenée, 1852

Sympis rufibasis Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat. Insectes,

Spec. gen. Lepid. 7: 344.

Sympis rufibasis Guenée; Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 34.

Remarks: Hampson has described the female as not

having the scarlet lunule, but we have seen the marking in

the present described species.

Material in the collection: 15.1v.2009, 4 ex.;

10.1v.2010, 3 ex.; 26.1v.2011, 4 ex.; 29.1v.2012, 2 ex.

Collection Localities: Kodaikanal: Bus Terminus,

Bryant Park, Moonyjikal, and Bear Shola.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia,

Vietnam, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, China, Taiwan,

Philippines, Indonesia (Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Bali, Flores,

Sumbawa, Sulawesi, Moluccas, Amboina, Solomon Is.),

Seram, Australian tropics east to New Guinea, Queensland.

Tribe: Catocalini

Catocala macula (Hampson, 1891)

Audea macula Hampson, 1891, I/lust. typical

Specimens lepid. Heterocera Colln Br. Mus. 8: 84.

Ulothrichopus macula reducta Prout, 1922, Bull. Hill

Mus. Witley 1: 223.

Ulotrichopus macula Hampson; Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 28; Kobes, 1985: Heteroc.

Sumatr. 24.

Material in the collection: 27.11.2008, 3 ex.; 06.11.2009,

5 ex.; 09.v.2009, 9 ex.; 26.111.2010, 4 ex.; 15.1v.2010, 7 ex.;

260i BOM eBitex 26.120 We Bebe hi Ti 207 Io theses

1$4102012, 3 exu29_ 1v-20126 eX. '23::V;:2012.6.2x:

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s Park,

Coonoor Municipal building, and Kothagiri Pandian Park.

Kodaikanal: Bryant Park, Moonjikal, and Senbaganur.

Distribution: India, Tatwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Nepal,

Sri Lanka, China, Japan, Indonesia (Java, Borneo, Sumatra,

Timur, Flores, Sulawesi), Philippines.

Tribe: Cocytiini

Serrodes campana Guenée, 1852

Serrodes campana Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat. Insectes,

Spec. gen. Lépid. 7: 252.

Serrodes nigha Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat. Insectes, Spec.

gen. Lépid. 7: 253.

200

Serrodes callipepla Prout, 1929, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist.

(10)3: 598.

Serrodes campana Guenée, Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 34.

Material in the collection: 15.1v.2009,

M1 cextseh0.1V.2010, 7h ExSe00 va2O10) Sex! wi fed.2010)

Sex J LEV OMS. Osemie2 Sivar20lds GiekeidSeat.2011,

Bex. 229072 One, mS exe 3.90!2012.. 12 ex: 29.511. 20

4 ex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s

Park, Coonoor Municipal building, Nonsuch, Kethi, and

Bandisolai; Kodaikanal: Moonjikal, Bryant Park, Bear Shola,

Senbaganur, and Perumalmalai.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Indochina, Nepal,

China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Russian Far East (migrant),

Vanuatu, Indonesia (New Guinea, Samoa, New Caledonia

Fiji), Philippines, Australia.

Avatha discolor (Fabricius, 1794)

Noctua discolor Fabricius, 1794, Ent. Syst. II,

2: 50.

Avatha includens Walker, 1857, List Specimens lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 13: 1107.

Hypaetra trigonifera Walker, 1858, List Specimens

lepid. Insects Colln Br. Mus. 14: 1411.

Hypaetra curvifera Walker, 1858, List Specimens ae

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 14: 1412.

Hypaetra complacens Walker, 1858, List Specimens

lepid. Insects Colln Br. Mus. 14: 1414.

Ophiusa frontalis Walker, 1858, List acini lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 14: 1434.

Achaea expectans Walker, 1858, List Specimens lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 15: 1827.

Avatha discolor Fabricius; Kobes, 1985: Heteroc.

Sumatr. 50.

Remarks: This species is often mistaken for a form

of Avatha noctuoides.

Material in the collection: 15.1v.2009, 2 ex.;

10.14, 20:10. 30x20 TAA2010m 3Hexe9 O8uie 20,00 dAexs

IB.ee2ZOLOoshexin TTR 20tO ww iivexe261v.20bb2 ex:

28 Vids, 2656.1 07. 20deln v6 ex scOF xe. 200.3: ex:

1 Sea POrl)..6, ex.: 29.17.2012, 3 ext 2381201 2o\2vexk

29:-132042, 57 ER 15. E20 Qe Srex.: 29x11 201 2.3 ex!

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s

Park, Coonoor Municipal building, and Kethi. Kodaikanal:

Moonjikal and Bryant Park.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Laos, Sri Lanka,

Taiwan, South Japan, Philippines, Indonesia (Sumatra, New

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

A REPORT OF EREBIDAE FROM THE TAMIL NADU PART OF THE WESTERN GHATS

Caledonia, Tenimber Isl., New Guinea, Vanuatu, Cook Is.,

Marquesas, Society Isl., Fiji), Australia.

Tribe: Euclidiini

Trigonodes hyppasia (Cramer, 1779)

Noctua hyppasia Cramer, [1779] 1782, Uitlandsche

Kapellen 3: 99.

Phalaena deliana Stoll, 1790, Uitlandsche Kapellen

5: 160.

Ophiusa anfractuosa Boisduval, 1833, Fauna

entomologique de Madagascar, Bourbon et Maurice Lep: 104.

Trigonodes acutata Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat. Insectes,

Spec. gen. Lépid. 7: 283.

Trigonodes exportata Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat.

Insectes, Spec. gén. Lépid. 7: 284.

Trigonodes inacuta Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat. Insectes,

Spec. gen. Lépid. 7: 284.

Trigonodes compar Walker, 1858, List Specimens lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 14: 1451.

Trigonodes hyppasia Cramer; Holloway, 1976:

Malayan Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 31; Kobes, 1985:

Heteroc. Sumatr. 47.

Material in the collection: 11.vi.2008, 2 ex.;

DSA 2009, Miers OF iv 20M Wilwexes 21.57.2011, 1ex.:

i 2012. 2 ex.

Collection Localities: Kodaikanal: Bus Terminus.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam,

Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan, Iran, China, Taiwan, Japan,

Philippines, Indonesia (Sumatra, Borneo, Java, Sumbawa, New

Guinea, Tongo, New Caledonia, Vanuatu, Norfolk Is., Tenimber

Is.), Australia, Africa, Mauritius, Madagascar, Seychelles.

Subtribe: Mocisiini

Mocis frugalis (Fabricius, 1775)

Noctua frugalis Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent.: 601.

Chalciope lycopodia Geyer, 1837, Hubner '’s Zutrage

Sammi. exot. Schmett. 5: 25.

Remigia translata Walker, 1865, List Specimens lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 33: 1015.

Remigia nigripunctata Warren, 1913, Gross-Schmett.

Erde 3: 333.

Mocis frugalis Fabricius; Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 31; Kobes, 1985: Heteroc.

Sumatr. 49. |

Material in the collection: 07.v.2009, 4 ex.; 27.v.2010,

606x403 9x 201025 cows 1S 00120): 3-ex 0514201,

Siexy O71 20144)7 ex xi 204 bem. 229:15,2012¢ 5 ex.;

29.xii.2012, 4 ex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Doddabetta,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

Kethi, Sim’s Park, Coonoor Municipal building, Nonsuch,

and Kothagiri Pandian Park. Kodaikanal: Lake, Bryant Park,

Moonjikal, Senbaganur, and Perumalmalai.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia,

Laos, Vietnam, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, China, Taiwan,

Japan, Philippines, Vanuatu, Indonesia (Sumatra, Java,

Sulawesi, New Guinea, Solomon Is., New Caledonia, Samoa,

Kermadec Is.), Micronesia, Australia.

Mocis undata (Fabricius, 1775)

Noctua undata Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent.: 600.

Phalaena archesia Cramer, [1780] 1782, Uitlandsche

Kapellen 3: 145.

Phalaena virbia Cramer, [1780] 1782, Uitlandsche

Kapellen 3: 146.

Remigia gregalis Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat. Insectes,

Spec. gen. Lépid. 7: 320.

Ophisma velata Walker, [1863] 1864, J. Linn. Soc.

(Zool) 7: 180.

Remigia bifasciata Walker, 1865, List Specimens lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 33: 1014.

Cauninda bifasciata Warren, 1913, Gross-Schmett.

Erde 3: 333.

Mocis uberia Wileman, 1923, Entomologist 56: 190.

Mocis undata Fabricius, Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 31; Kobes, 1985: Heteroc.

Sumatr. 48.

Material in the collection: 07.v.2009, 12 ex.;

27.V.2010,. 8rex3-03-4x: 2010.09 rex sy. Picetig 20 O16 ex

0597-208 ock3 exc2n07.1Kj 2011. G:em5 1Zontk 207 ex.:

29, 1x 2012, Ad ex, 29exis.2012., Guvex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s

Park, Coonoor Municipal building, Nonsuch, Bandisolai,

Kethi, and Kothagiri Pandian Park. Kodaikanal: Moonjikal,

Kodaikanal Lake, Bryant Park, and Bear Shola.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam,

Nepal, Sri Lanka, China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, South of

Russian Far East (migrant), Philippines, Indonesia (Sumatra,

Timor, Flores, Sumbawa, Borneo).

Tribe: Ercheiini

Ercheia cyllaria (Cramer, 1782)

Noctua cyllaria Cramer, [1779] 1782, Uitlandsche

Kapellen 3: 100.

Achaea cyllota Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat. Insectes, Spec.

gen. Leépid. 7: 248.

Achaea fusifera Walker, 1858, List Specimens lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 14: 1398.

Achaea signivitta Walker, 1858, List Specimens lepid.

201

A REPORT OF EREBIDAE FROM THE TAMIL NADU PART OF THE WESTERN GHATS

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 14: 1398.

Achaea polychroma Walker, 1858, List Specimens

lepid. Insects Colln Br. Mus. 14:1400.

Achaea atrivitta Walker, 1864, J. Linn. Soc. (Zool.)

TEESE,

Achaea purpureilinea Walker, 1864, J. Linn. Soc.

(ZOOL) TAB:

Achaea semipallida Walker, 1864, J. Linn. Soc. (Zool.)

Tish

Ercheia tenebrosa Moore, 1867, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond.

1867: 66.

Melipotis gundiana Felder, 1874, Reise 6st. Fregatte

Novara Lep: pl. 116, f. 10.

Melipotis costipannosa Moore, 1882, Descr. new

Indian lepid. Insects Colln W.S. Atkinson: 166.

Ercheia pannosa Moore, 1883, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond.

1883: 24.

Ercheia uniformis Moore, 1883, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond.

1883: 24.

Ercheia anvira Swinhoe, 1918, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist.

OMad th

Ercheia cyllaria Cramer Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 30; Kobes, 1985: Heteroc.

Sumatr. 36.

Material in the collection: 15.iv.2008, 3 ex.;

09.4v.2009; 2-ex!2 07.v.2009) Bi ex.s 123x1.2009, Sexe

03.iv.2010, 4 ex.; 16.iv.2010, 5 ex.; 27.v.2010, 6 ex.;

O3ix-2OIOS Svex::SOTARIZO1OR7 Sxt; QO R200 3 exc:

O37. 201-1), 3x2 07 120K; Sex

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum,

Ooty Lake, Doddabetta, Sim’s Park, Coonoor Municipal

building, Nonsuch, and Kothagiri Pandian Park; Kodaikanal:

Moonyikal, Bryant Park, Bear Shola, and Senbaganur

Distribution: India, Taiwan, Japan, Indochina,

Thailand, Peninsular Malaysia, Indonesia (Sumatra, Borneo,

Ceram, Kei Islands).

Tribe: Pandesmini

Pandesma quenavadi Guenée, 1852

Pandesma quenavadi Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat.

Insectes, Spec. gén. Lépid. 6: 438.

Pandesma jubra Swinhoe, 1889, Proc. zool. Soc.

Lond., 1889: 413.

Material in the collection: 15.iv.2009, 7 ex.;

10.iv.2010, 3 ex.; 07.vi.2010, 6 ex.; 03.1x.2010, 11 ex.;

13.x.20bOy d3cexm26uv. 200, 6 exh 28,2002 exes

OF ax. 2007) WBirextt OF 5020114 Sexy 2OMyi2OID)2 ex.;

23.Vi.2042;9:ext} 29x DOV, 8 ex:; ISOTONIC:

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s Park,

Coonoor Municipal building, and Bandisolai; Kodaikanal:

Moonjikal, Bryant Park, Bear Shola, Pallangi, Poomparai,

and Senbaganur.

Distribution: India, Taiwan, Burma, Thailand, Japan,

Indonesia (Sumatra, Borneo, Java), Philippines, Australia.

Polydesma boarmoides Guenée, 1852

Polydesma boarmoides Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat.

Insectes, Spec. gén. Lépid. 6: 441.

Polydesma mastrucata Felder & Rogenhofer, 1874,

Reise ost. Fregatte Novara Lep. 4: pl. 111, f. 31.

Material in the collection: 15.iv.2009, 2 ex.;

10.iv.2010, 3 ex.; 07.vi.2010, 3 ex.; 03.1x.2010, 4 ex.;

13.X.2010) 30exe 26HvV 201 486s 261201 | Dee

OF RD ONY S8Sxep OF Ax 20019 St SK HS 290Av 2012) 12 exis

ZIV OA DNGERIZ 9 AX 201 2X. PS KOTO 6 Se.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Sim’s Park. Kodaikanal: Bryant Park.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar,

Nepal, China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea (migrant), Philippines,

Indonesia (Java, Borneo, New Caledonia, Samoa, Fiji Is.),

Vanuatu, Society Is., Nicobar Is., Hawaii, Tahiti, Australia.

Ortopla lindsayi (Hampson, 1891)

Material in the collection: 09.v.2009, 2 ex.; 15.v.2010,

SISREALTS. AZO OMS Cx 07 120 LE eRO7X 20TH 3 ex

122012) 6tex:- 15%.20127 8 Ex .

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s Park,

and Coonoor Municipal building. Kodaikanal: Bryant Park,

Coaker’s Walk, and Perumalmalai.

Distribution: India (Nilgiris).

Tribe: Hulodini

Lacera noctilio (Fabricius, 1794)

Noctua noctilio Fabricius, 1794, Ent. Syst. IIT, 2: 12.

Lacera capella Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat. Insectes, Spec. gén.

Lepid. TS37,

Material in the collection: 15.iv.2009, 12 ex.;

OPV 2008) 13 x; MWav-20T0Y 16 €x.; 27.v. 2010, see

07.vi.2010, 12 ex.; 03.1x.2010, 7 ex.; 13.x.2010, 31 ex.;

15.x1.2010, 26 ex.; 26.iv.2011, 24 ex.; 05.v.2011, 13 ex.;

28.91.2011, 13'ex.5-07 Ax. 20 115-9 ex: 07x. 2011- 36'eRG

LZ xa DOE 22%ex.*-/ 294v. 201222 SO 23. vn 2012) 14-exe

Doi 2002, dPtex.7 19.2090 27 Gx 29112012, 26-ex!

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s Park,

Coonoor Municipal building, Kethi, Doddabetta, Ithalar,

Emerald Dam, and Kothagiri. Kodaikanal: Kodaikanal

202

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

A REPORT OF EREBIDAE FROM THE TAMIL NADU PART OF THE WESTERN GHATS

Lake, Bryant Park, Bear Shola, Coaker’s Walk, Moonjikal,

Perumalmalai, Poomparai, and Observatory.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Malaysia, Laos,

Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia (Timor, Flores,

Sumbawa, Sulawesi, New Guinea, New Caledonia Fiji,

Tongo, Samoa, Solomon Is.), Vanuata, Micronesia (Guam).

Hulodes caranea (Cramer, 1780)

Phalaena caranea Cramer, [1780] 1782, Uitlandsche

Kapellen 3: 140.

Hulodes angulata Prout, 1928, Bull. Hill Mus., Witley

B58,

Hulodes caranea Cramer; Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 33.

Material in the collection: 07.v.2009, 3 ex.; 27.v.2010,

57exit'13:%.2010,-12-ex5 05.47.2011, 4 ex; 0F x20: ores

Wx ZOD. 7 ex

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s Park, and

Coonoor Municipal building. Kodaikanal: Lake, Bryant Park,

Bear Shola, Coaker’s Walk, Moonjikal, and Perumalmalai.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Malaysia, Myanmar,

Nepal, China, Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia (Sumatra, Borneo,

Java, Timor, Flores, Kei Is.), Philippines.

Ericeta inangulata (Guenée, 1852)

Hulodes inangulata Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat. Insectes,

Spec. gen. Lépid. 7: 210.

Remigia optativa Walker, 1858, List Specimens lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 14: 1510.

Remigia optatura Walker, 1858, List Specimens lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 15: 1848.

Remigia comitata Walker, 1865, List Specimens lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 33: 1018.

Hulodes umbrosa Walker, 1869, Characters undescribed

Lepid. Heterocera: 91.

Ericeia intextilia Schultze, 1908, Philippine J. Sci.

3(A): 32.

Ericeia levuensis Prout, 1929, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist.

(10)3: 597.

Ericeia certilinea Prout, 1929, Bull. Hill Mus., Witley,

EAs Be

Ericeia intextilia Schultze Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 33. |

Material in the collection: 15.iv.2009, 3 ex.; 07.v.2009,

3 @x.; 1O0.1v.2010, 6° eR.xe2 Fe 2O 10s Sinexis OF vi 20IO,

26en 5? 0329 2010-9) exes bSiK010, 3 ex2Ody.2011,

2 0x.; OSai20141,-3 ex 282011 YS ex.s OF ime20bt,

TRK FS OPRR 2011, Oee sg 2OIV201252 exes 23191-2092. 4 ex:.;

29:1%,2012, 6 ex.2:15.%,2012)7 ex.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s Park, and Coonoor

Municipal building. Kodaikanal: Kodaikanal Lake,

Bryant Park, Bear Shola, Coaker’s Walk, Moonjikal, and

Perumalmalai.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Malaysia, Laos,

Cambodia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan,

Japan, China, Taiwan, Indonesia, Philippines, Africa south

of Sahara, Madagascar, Reunion Is.

Ericeia eriophora (Guenée, 1852)

Hulodes eriophora Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat. Insectes,

Spec. gen. Lépid. 7: 210.

Ophisma deficiens Walker, 1858, List Specimens lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 14: 1383.

Remigia perfidiosa Walker, 1858, List Specimens lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 14: 1511.

Hypopyra apicalis Walker, [1863] 1864, J. Linn. Soc.

(AOGL) de V8:

Ericeia eriophora Guenée, Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 33.

Material in the collection: 15.iv.2009, 3 ex.;

1L0.1V. 2010; Qe 29 392010, 3) ees 264200, 2 ‘ex.:

O7 x. 2011, Sex. 29-1v. 2012.2 ex.s 16.2012 Arex.

Collection Localities: Kodaikanal: Bus Terminus.

Distribution: India, Philippines, Indonesia

(Sulawesi).

Tribe: Ophiusini Guenée, 1837

Ophiusa olista (Swinhoe, 1893)

Ophiusa olista Swinhoe, 1893, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist.

(G) 12: 26k.

Material in the collection: 15.1v.2008, 3 ex.; 09.iv.2009,

2 ex.) 07,2009, 1 6x. 03:1, 2010, 2 Gx 6 2080.

DOK. 276.20 1.0,,3-ex.3:03.4%.201023,ex, 3 OF 4, 2010, 2 ex.

05.1. 2011eT ex 15a0i1,2011, 22x: 291i QO 4 iex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s Park,

Coonoor Municipal building, Bandisolai, Kethi, Kothagiri,

and Doddabetta. Kodaikanal: Moonjikal, Bear Shola, Bryant

Park, and Senbaganur.

Distribution: India, Korea, Japan (Honshu, Shikoku,

Kyushu, Tsushima Is.), China, Taiwan, Philippines, Thailand,

Vietnam, Nepal.

Ophiusa discriminans (Walker, 1858)

Ophiodes discriminans Walker, 1858, List Specimens

lepid. Insects Colln Br. Mus. 14: 1358.

Pseudophia pygospila Snellen, 1880, Tijdschr. Ent.

23% 9B.

203

A REPORT OF EREBIDAE FROM THE TAMIL NADU PART OF THE WESTERN GHATS

Anua intacta Hampson, 1913, Cat. Lepid. Phal. Colln

Br. Mus. 12: 437.

Anua discriminans Walker, Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 29.

Material in the collection: 15.1v.2009, 2 ex.;

1O0.iv:2010,'2 Exe 2650-2017, 1ex!*29.4912012; 3 ex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s Park,

and Coonoor Municipal building. Kodaikanal: Moonjikal,

Bear Shola.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Vietnam, Sri Lanka,

Philippines, Indonesia (Sumatra, Sulawesi, Kei Isl.,

Moluccas, New Guinea, Bismarck Archipelago, New

Caledonia), Vanuata, Australia.

Ophiusa trapezium (Guenée, 1852)

Ophiodes trapezium Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat. Insectes,

Spec. gén. Lépid. 7: 231.

Ophisma circumferens Walker, 1865, List Specimens

lepid. Insects Colln Br. Mus. 33: 956.

Ophisma cognata Walker, 1865, List Specimens lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 33: 958.

Ophiodes adusta Moore, 1882, Descr. new Indian lepid.

Insects Colln W.S. Atkinson: 2: 169.

Minucia prunicolor Moore, [1885] 1884—1887: 160.

Ophiusa kebea Bethune-Baker, 1906, Novit. Zool.

13-253:

Anua trapezium Guenée, Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 29.

Ophiusa trapezium Guenée, Kobes, 1985: Heteroc.

Sumatr. 35.

Material in the collection: 15.1v.2009, 2 ex.;

2647-2010 FP “ext OSE 204093 "ex 22 Oy. 2OPE 2 ex.;

OF X22010 2 eR? OSH DOL29 De.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s Park,

and Coonoor Municipal building. Kodaikanal: Moonjikal,

Bear Shola.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Nepal,

Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, China, Taiwan, Japan, Philippines,

Indonesia (Sumatra, Timor, Flores, New Guinea, Bismark

Is., New Caledonia), Australia.

Ophiusa triphaenoides Walker, 1858

Ophiodes triphaenoides Walker, 1858, List Specimens

lepid. Insects Colln Br. Mus. 14: 1358.

Ophiodes cuprea Moore, 1867, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond.

1867: 74.

Ophiusa triphaenoides Walker; Kobes, 1985: Heteroc.

Sumatr. 36.

204

Material in the collection: 15.iv.2009, 2 ex.;

17741012010; DiexpQOw20nes Mexi27w2001, Tex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s Park, and

Coonoor Municipal building. Kodaikanal: Bryant Park.

Distribution: India, China, Taiwan, Thailand,

Burma, Indonesia (Sumatra, Borneo), Nepal, Japan, Korea,

Philippines.

Ophiusa tirhaca (Cramer, 1777)

Ophiusa tirhaca (Cramer, 1777), Uitlandsche Kapellen

POPGPlr 1723

Ophiusa tirrhaea (Cramer, 1777) Fabricius, 1781

Spec. Ins. 2.

Ophiusa vesta Esper, 1789, Die Schmett. 4(2): 445,

Pl. 141: 1.

Ophiusa olivacea de Villers, 1789, Caroli Linnaei Ent.,

Fauna Suecica 2: 65.

Ophiusa auricularis Hubner [1803], Samml. Eur.

Schmett. 3: pl. 6: 321.

Ophiusa tirrhaca: Treitschke, 1826, Die Schmett. Eur.

5 (3): 300, misspelling.

Ophiusa hottentota Guenee, 1852, in Boisduval &

Guenée, Hist. Nat. Insectes (Lepid.) 7: 229.

Ophiusa tirhaca Walker, 1858, List Specimens lepid.

Insects Colln. Br. Mus. 14: 1357.

Material in the collection: 09.v.2009, 3 ex.; 15.v.2010,

2 OR 2ZI NO JS ex VON 2. Dex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden and Benchmark Tea Museum. Kodaikanal:

Bryant Park.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Vietnam, Nepal,

Indonesia, China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Russian Far East

(migrant), South Russia, South and Central Europe Turkey,

Near East, Africa, Madagascar, Seychelles, Australia.

Thyas coronata (Fabricius, 1775)

Noctua coronata Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent.: 596.

Noctua leonine Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent.: 596.

Noctua ancilla Fabricius, 1794, Ent. Syst. I, 2: 17.

Corycia magica Hubner, 1827, Zutradge Sammi. exot.

Schmett. 3: 32.

Ophiodes ponderosa Mabille, 1879, Annls Soc. ent.

Fr, (5) 9: 346.

Anua coronata Fabricius, Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation. 2.

Ophiusa coronata Fabricius, Kobes, 1985: Heteroc.

Sumatr. 36.

Material in the collection: 26.iv.2008, 7 ex.;

06.iv.2009, 11 ex.; 09.v.2009, 4 ex.; 15.1v.2010, 13 ex.;

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

A REPORT OF EREBIDAE FROM THE TAMIL NADU PART OF THE WESTERN GHATS

27.2010; 9.ex:;, L&.iv OO, 2Otexe] 23) wale dent

26.2012 NVexs 29.v2012: Vier

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s Park,

Coonoor Municipal building, Bandisolai, Kethi, Kothagiri,

and Doddabetta. Kodaikanal: Moonjikal, Bear Shola, Bryant

Park, and Senbaganur.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam,

Myanmar, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Japan,

Indonesia (Sumatra, Borneo, Java, Sulawesi, Irian Java, New

Guinea, New Caledonia, Samoa, Fiji), Micronesia (Guam),

Gilbert Is., Vanuata, Philippines.

Artena dotata (Fabricius, 1794)

Noctua dotata Fabricius, 1794, Ent. Syst. UI, 2: 55.

Artena dotata Fabricius, Holloway, 1976: Malayan Nature

Soc. & Sabah Foundation 29.

Material in the collection: 26.iv.2008, 3 ex.; 06.1v.2009,

250%; 09.2009."4 ex; 15.1v.2010) Frexy 27.01 2010) 7 ex.;

03.1x.2010, 4 ex.; 13.x.2010, 3 ex.; 8.iv.2011, 2 ex.; 23.v.2011,

230%4, 07 ax 20b1.2 emn0 P20 kl? ex 2hriw 200, 2 ex.;

2.V.20 125 Sek 0 Ox 20192 3 ex 5xP70 1 Dolfexe

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s

Park, Coonoor Municipal building, and Kothagiri Pandian

Park. Kodaikanal: Bryant Park and Moonjikal.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam,

Cambodia, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, China, Taiwan,

Japan, Korea, South of Russian Far East (migrant), Indonesia

(Sumatra, Borneo), Philippines.

Tribe: Poaphilini

Achaea janata (Linnaeus, 1758)

Geometra janata Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (Edn 10)

1525

Noctua melicerta Drury, [1773] 1770, I/lust. Nat. Hist.

exot. Insects 1: 46.

Noctua tigrina Fabricius, 1781, Species Insectorum 2: 218.

Noctua cyathina Macleay, 1826, Cat. Insects Coll. King

pp. 138-469.

Catocala traversii Fereday, 1877, Trans. N. Z. Inst. 9:

457. Ophiusa ekeikei Bethune-Baker, 1906, Novit. Zool. 13: 256.

Achaea janata Linnaeus, Kobes, 1985: Heteroc.Sumatr. 39.

Material in the collection: 26.iv.2008, 27 ex.;

06.iv.2009, 19 ex.; 09.v.2009, 24 ex.; 15.iv.2010, 23 ex.;

21 Nal, 19se% 5) 1 Savi 2016029) ex 123502081523 ex.;

26.1v.2012, 27 ex.; 29.v.2012, 39 ex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s Park,

Coonoor Municipal building, Bandisolai, Kethi, Doddabetta,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

and Kothagiri Pandian Park; Kodaikanal: Moonjikal,

Bear Shola, Bryant Park, Mattupatti, and Senbaganur.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam,

Nepal, China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, Micronesia,

Philippines.

Achaea mezentia Cramer, 1783

Material in the collection: 23.111.2008, 7 ex.;

06.111.2009, 3 ex.; 09.v.2009, 6 ex.; 23.1x.2009, 3 ex.;

Aor DOLON Sex. 03 .pa2O) On drexes 2601720 bh Deny

27 N.20AderThexind 8.1201 2ealsend| 255720172. Scene?

07 4x2012., Ziex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s Park,

and Coonoor Municipal building. Kodaikanal: Bryant Park,

Moonyjikal, Bear Shola, and Senbaganur.

Distribution: India, Sri Lanka.

Achaea serva (Fabricius, 1775)

Noctua serva Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent.: 593.

Achaea fasciculipes Walker, 1858, List Specimens

lepid. Insects Colln Br. Mus. 14: 1400.

Achaea serva fuscosuffusa Gaede (ex Strand, 1914)

1938, Gross-Schmett. Erde 11: 480.

Achaea serva Fabricius, Holloway. 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 30, 1982: Malayan

Nature Soc. & E.W. Classey 235; Kobes, 1985: Heteroc.

Sumatr. 40.

Material in the collection: 31.11.2008, 18 ex.;

06.111.2009, 21 ex.; 09.v.2009, 14 ex.; 26.11.2010, 19 ex.;

b5.iv.Z000, 7ex.; OFwat2010.18 ten 3 OTe Vives

26.111.201%,..13,ex8 26.1201 by 8-ex. 3274201 Si exe

28:¥1,2011, 21 .ex.; OTER20 ied Boxer HO 2012s Onext)

2202s FS eRe 23 POL? Fron D3. wi 202. 9 exu

29.4K%.2012,, Hex

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s Park,

Coonoor Municipal building, Bandisolai, Kethi, Doddabetta,

and Kothagiri Pandian Park. Kodaikanal: Moonjikal, Bear

Shola, Bryant Park, Pallangi, and Senbaganur.

Distribution: India (Andaman Islands), Thailand,

Malaysia, Vietnam, Nepal, Yemen, China, Taiwan, Japan,

Indonesia (Sumatra, Timor, Flores, Sumbawa, Sulawesi,

Samoa, Tongo, New Caledonia, Guam), Vanuata, Philippines,

Micronesia, Melanesia, Australia.

Bastilla crameri (Moore, [1885])

Dysgonia crameri Moore, 1885, Lep. Ceylon 3: 177.

Phalaena (Noctua) achatina Cramer, [1780] 1782,

Uitlandsche Kapellen 3: 171.

205

A REPORT OF EREBIDAE FROM THE TAMIL NADU PART OF THE WESTERN GHATS

Dysgonia discalis Moore, 1885, Lep. Ceylon 3: 177.

Parallelia crameri Moore; Kobes, 1985: Heteroc. Sumatr. 45.

Material in the collection: 09.v.2009, 1 ex.; 27.v.2010,

Zuexcs03 1x.204:09) 2lexarOF e201 ha Duex, sw238 Vv 202%

2 Ox

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, and Sim’s Park.

Kodaikanal: Moonjikal, Bryant Park, and Senbaganur.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam,

Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, China, Sri Lanka, Andaman

Islands, Indonesia (Sumatra).

Bastilla joviana (Stoll, 1782)

Noctua joviana Stoll, 1782, Uitlandsche Kapellen 4:

2a:

Noctua sinuata Fabricius, 1781, Species Insectorum

2: S07,

Dysgonia jovis Hubner, [1823] 1816, Verz. bekannter

Schmett. p. 269.

Parallelia curvisecta Prout, 1919, Ann. Mag. Nat.

Histo (9)93-: 185,

Parallelia joviana Stoll, Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 30.

Material in the collection: 09.v.2009, 2 ex.; 15.v.2010,

Der OUV2001; Siem liv 201255 ex.

Collection Localities: Kodaikanal: Moonjikal, Bear

Shola, Bryant Park, Senbaganur, and Perumalmalai.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Nepal,

Sri Lanka, China, Taiwan, Japan, Philippines, Indonesia

(Sumatra, Borneo, Java, Timor, Flores, Sumbawa, Sulawesi,

Moluccas, New Guinea, Fiji), Australia.

Parallelia rigidistria (Guenée, 1852)

Parallelia rigidistria (Guenée, 1852), In Boisduval &

Guenee, Hist. Nat. Insects (Lepid.) Noct. 7: 240.

Naxia calefaciens Walker, 1858, List Specimens lepid.

Insects Colln Br. Mus. 14: 1405.

Parallelia mediifascia Wileman & South, 1920:

Entomologist 53: 273.

Material in the collection: 17.1x.2008, 4 ex.;

23.:3%12009, Avexa! OFswis2040, duext : OGrimDO10672 ex.

28 20d dw2iex.123 5.201202 eke O07 1xi2012) 2 exe

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s

Park, and Kothagiri Pandian Park. Kodaikanal: Moonjikal

and Bryant Park.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia,

Vietnam, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Philippines,

Indonesia (Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi, Moluccas, Sunda Is.,

New Guinea, Solomon Is.).

206

Bastilla stuposa (Fabricius, 1794)

Material in the collection: 15.iv.2009, 2 ex.;

TOA 2ORk09 Preexocn a2 OhON Bwekm yi 2:61iv 20.11),

ext: 28.1. 20dasviexs| 29120125 3nexan 23ivi2 Os

4 ex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Coonoor

Municipal building, Sim’s Park, and Kothagiri Pandian Park;

Kodaikanal: Kodaikanal Lake, Bear Shola, Bryant Park,

Moonyikal, and Senbaganur.

Distribution: India, Korea, Cambodia, China,

Indonesia (Sumatra, Timor), Japan (Honshu, Shikoku,

Kyushu, Ryukyu Is.), Nepal, Philippines, Russian Far East,

Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Vietnam.

Bastilla absentimacula (Guenée, 1852)

Naxia absentimacula Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat. Insectes,

Spec. gén. Lépid. 7: 255.

Dysgonia absentimacula Guenée, Kobes, 1992:

Heteroc. Sumatr. 92.

Material in the collection: 17.1x.2008, 2 ex.;

23.1x.2009, 3 ex.; 03.1x.2010, 4 ex.; 07.1x.2012, 2 ex.

Collection Localities: Kodaikanal: Moonjikal, Bear

Shola, Bryant Park, and Senbaganur.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Taiwan,

Indonesia (New Guinea, Java, Sumatra), Korea.

Bastilla amygdalis Moore, [1885] |

Dysgonia amygdalis Moore, [1885] 1884-1887, Lepid.

Ceylon 3: 551.

Parallelia amygdalis Moore, Kobes, 1985: Heteroc.

Sumatr. 93.

Material in the collection: 11.vi.2008, 2 ex.;

28.vil2009;. 3..exs. O07. Vis2010slicexighT xi.20:10; 7 exe;

Ace Ol «Bex. nA ony Z0L1 6 2 excl wi2012. 4eexe

29.x11.2012, 4 ex.

Collection Localities: Nilgir1 Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s

Park, Coonoor Municipal building, and Kothagiri Pandian

Park. Kodaikanal: Moonjikal, Bryant Park, Bear Shola, and

Senbaganur.

Distribution: India, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia

(Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi), Sri Lanka, Nepal.

Pindara illibata (Fabricius, 1775)

Noctua illibata Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent.: 592.

Hemeroblemma peropaca Hubner, 1825, Zutrage

Sammil. exot. Schmett. 3: 33.

Ophisma laetabilis Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat. Insectes,

Spec. gen. Lépid. 7: 241.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

A REPORT OF EREBIDAE FROM THE TAMIL NADU PART OF THE WESTERN GHATS

Pindara colorata Warren, 1913, Gross-Schmett. Erde

3328.

Pindara illibata Fabricius; Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 30; Kobes, 1985: Heteroc.

Sumatr. 41.

Material in the collection: 09.iv.2009, 12 ex.;

09.V,2009, 1.ex.; AS 4v.2010>.6 2x3 27 v 2010. 4 ek:

03.1x,2010, 7 ex:; 2649 200153065 OF Ire:

ZV OID. 96x. 523 ai 2 6] 2MSiexe

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s Park,

Coonoor Municipal building, Bandisolai, Kethi, Doddabetta,

and Kothagiri Pandian Park. Kodaikanal: Moonjikal, Bear

Shola, Bryant Park, and Senbaganur.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Malaysia, Laos,

Cambodia, Vietnam, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, China,

Taiwan, Japan, Philippines, Indonesia (Sumatra, Borneo,

Timor, Flores, Sulawesi, Moluccas, Seram, New Guinea,

Biak), Australia.

Grammodes geometrica (Fabricius, 1775)

Noctua geometrica Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. p. 599.

Phalaena ammonia Cramer, [1779] 1782, Uitlandsche

Kapellen 3: 98.

Grammodes bifulvata Warren, 1913, Gross-Schmett.

Erde 3°33.

Grammodes orientalis Warren, 1913, Gross-Schmett.

Erde 3: 331.

Grammodes geometrica Fabricius, Holloway, 1976:

Malayan Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 31; Kobes, 1985:

Heteroc. Sumatr. 46.

Material in the collection: 09.iv.2008, 1 ex.; 15.iv.2009,

QE. USav.2010; 2exiplsan2010, 3 exe 261 20NIN 2 ex:

Oie2011, 2Zexw 2Ouv 2012) Dew TSix 2010 12 om

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Sim’s

Park, and Kothagiri Pandian Park. Kodaikanal: Moonjikal

and Bryant Park.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia,

Vietnam, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, China, Taiwan,

Japan, Philippines, Indonesia (Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi),

Australia, Africa south of Sahara, Ghana, Madagascar.

Chalciope mygdon (Cramer, 1777)

Noctua mygdon Cramer, [1777] 1779, Uitlandsche

Kapellen 2: 94.

Noctua triangulum Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa

Insectorum 2: 145.

Chalciope mygdonias Hubner, 1823 [1816], Verz.

bekannter Schmett. p. 268.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

Chalciope mygdon Cramer, Holloway, 1976: Malayan

Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation 31; Kobes, 1985: Heteroc.

Sumatr. 48.

Material in the collection: 11.vi.2008, 2 ex.;

AO WIZO09S: ex $207 Wi 2086, dvexsp2ih.ve20ih.3. ex,;

19.v1.2012, 4 ex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, and

Sim’s Park; Kodaikanal: Bryant Park, Kodaikanal Lake,

and Moonjikal.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Malaysia, Laos,

Cambodia, Vietnam, Nepal, Sri Lanka, China, Taiwan, Japan,

Philippines, Indonesia (Java, Sumatra, Borneo).

Oxyodes scrobiculata (Fabricius, 1775)

Oxyodes scrobiculata Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. 592

(Noctua); Sp. Ins. 11: 212; Moore, 1882,

Lep. Cey. 111: 164; Hampson, 1894, Faun. Brit. Ind.

11: 546.

Phalaena clytia Cramer, 1779, Pap. Exot. IV, pl.

399.

Material in the collection: 26.111.2008, 43 ex.;

26.1v.2008, 45 ex.; 14.11.2009, 18 ex.; 17.11.2009, 32 ex.;

06.1v.2009, 41 ex.; 09.v.2009, 34 ex.; 22.11.2010, 19 ex.;

05..111.201 0) 22x.) BS 1V2010>39 ex. 27 2080, 28.1e%:?

07.vi.20T0, 23 ex: OS 2010; S2tex.; 13.x.2010, 64 ex.:

20.x1.2010, 27, ex.; 15:x1.2010) [8 ex. DAm2Ohe 2 tex:

Siv. 20145291 ex5123:.0.201 bse 23227 ex.

07 .1x.2011,22-ex3. OF x/20M1, SdiexnO7 RE 201 oarexs:

9 xi 2O0LT 28x 26AV.2012 537 exam 2082. 25 ex.:

25, Vi.2012) 2Oex, £29:-1x:201 2) Sihrem 45 2012) 3 7.ex,

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum,

Doddabetta, Sim’s Park, Coonoor Municipal building,

Nonsuch, Kethi, Bandsolai, Kothagiri, Ithalar, and

Avalanche. Kodaikanal: Moonyjikal, Bryant Park, Bear Shola,

Observatory, Villpatti, Poomparai, Pallangi, Mattupatti, and

Perumalmalai.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam,

Sri Lanka, Nepal, China, Myanmar, Taiwan, Japan, Korea,

Indonesia (Sumatra, Sumbawa, Timor, Flores, New Guinea,

New Caledonia, Fiji Is., Samoa), Vanuata, Melanesia,

Philippines.

Tribe: Catephiini

Catephia linteola Guenée, 1852

Catephia linteola Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat. Insectes,

Spec. gen. Lépid. 7: 44.

Catephia pilipes Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat. Insectes,

Spec. gen. Lépid. 7: 44.

207

A REPORT OF EREBIDAE FROM THE TAMIL NADU PART OF THE WESTERN GHATS

Catephia syba Guenée, 1852, Hist. Nat. Insectes, Spec.

gen. Lépid. 7: 44.

Catephia ecclesiastica Butler, 1874, Cistula ent. 1:

292.

Serrodes leucocelis Mabille, 1879, Ann. Soc. ent.

France (5), 9: 330.

Nagia accolytis Hampson, 1926, Descr. Gen. Spec.

Noctuinae Br. Mus. p. 65.

Nagia hieratica Hampson, 1926, Descr. Gen. Spec.

Noctuinae Br. Mus. p. 66.

Nagia monastica Hampson, 1926, Descr. Gen. Spec.

Noctuinae Br. Mus. p. 69.

Nagia magaruna de Joannis, 1932, Livre Centenaire,

Soc. ent. Fr. p. 432.

Nagia homotima Tams, 1935, Ins. Samoa 3 (4): 220.

Nagia pilipes griveaudi Viette, 1968, Lambillionea

67: 41.

Material in the collection: 09.v.2009, 3 ex.; 15.v.2010,

heen 27 w 2014, 2-ex.; 12.47.2012, 3ex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve: Ooty

Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, and Ooty Lake.

Kodaikanal: Moonjikal, Bryant Park, and Bear Shola.

Distribution: India, East Africa, Madagascar, Australia,

Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Borneo, Marshall Islands.

Tribe: Hypopyrini

Spirama retorta (Clerck, 1759)

Spirama retorta Cramer, 1779, Pap. Exot. ii: pl. 116;

Hampson, 1894, Faun. Brit. Ind. I: 553.

Noctua spiralis Fabricius, 1781, Sp. Ins. ii: 211.

Speiredonia helicina Hiibner, 1818, Zutr. iii: 14.

Spirama suffumosa Guenee, 1852, Noct. iti : 195.

Spirama triloba Guenee, 1852, Noct. iii: 197.

Hypopyra mollis Guenee, 1852, Noct. iii: 198.

Spirama remota Felder, 1864, Sitzb. Akad. wiss. Wien.

M.N.CTI. xl, 111: 43.

Spirama cohaerens Walker, 1858, Cat. xiv: 1321.

Spirama simplicior Butler, 1881, Trans. Ent. Soc.

198.

Spirama modesta Moore, 1879, Lep. Atk. 168.

Spirama rosacea Butler, 1889, J/l. Het. vii: 78.

Spirama confusa Butler, 1889, J//. Het. vii: 78.

Spirama indenta Hampson, 1893, J/l. Het. viii: 89.

Material in the collection: 27.111.2008, 8 ex.;

06.111.2009, 4 ex.; 15.iv.2009, 7 ex.; 26.ii1.2010, 7 ex.;

10.iv.2010, 6 ex.; 03.1x.2010, 9 ex.; 26.i11.2011, 6 ex.;

261202 vox OFA 20 excehhS 118 DOLD 95 ex);

29.1v.2012, 2 ex.; 29.1x.2012, 6 ex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Ooty

Lake, Doddabetta, Sim’s Park, Coonoor Municipal building,

Nonsuch, and Kothagiri. Kodaikanal: Moonjikal, Bryant

Park, Bear Shola, Senbaganur, Vattakanal, and Vellagavi.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Korea, Myanmar,

Vietnam, Cambodia, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka,

Indonesia, China, Taiwan, Japan.

Spirama helicina (Hiibner, 1831)

Material in the collection: 15.iv.2009, 9 ex.; 07.v.2009,

Lexie hOuw20 10S tere 71 v22 0110.4 emg 03% 2010;

4 ex.; 26.1v.2011, 4 ex.; 05.v.2011, 7 ex.; 07.ix.2011, 6 ex.;

29.1v.2012, 5 ex.; 29.1x.2012, 7 ex.

Collection Localities: Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve:

Ooty Botanical Garden, Benchmark Tea Museum, Ooty

Lake, Doddabetta, Sim’s Park, Coonoor Municipal building,

Nonsuch, and Kothagiri. Kodaikanal: Moonjikal, Bryant

Park, Bear Shola, Senbaganur, Vattakanal, Mattupatti, and

Vellagavi.

Distribution: India, Thailand, Indochina, Nepal,

Indonesia (Java, Sumatra), China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan,

South of Russian Far East (migrant). :

Hyperlopha crucifera Walker, 1865*

Material in the collection: 28.vi.2011, 2 ex.

Collection Localities: Kodaikanal: Moonjikal.

Distribution: Borneo.

Note: The species is reported from India for the first

time.

DISCUSSION

The Erebidae are widely distributed throughout

the Tamil Nadu part of the Western Ghats, recorded from

250—2,670 m msl. All the species included in this study

were captured at elevations between 1,000—2,670 m msl.

Maximum numbers of Erebidae moths were recorded

during spring (March to May) and monsoon (October to

December) seasons. The family Erebidae is represented

by subfamilies Erebinae, Hypocalinae, Calpinae, and

Scoliopteryginae. Based on our results, the dominant

subfamily of Erebidae is Erebinae, which comprises

45 species from 13 tribes. Tribe Poaphilini was represented

by 13 species. Calpinae is the second largest subfamily of

Erebidae, representing fruit-sucking and vampire moths of

11 species from 3 tribes. The genus Eudocima was represented

by seven species.

Among the specimens collected, three species,

namely Phyllodes consobrina Westwood (Phyllodini),

Lygniodes hypoleuca Guenée (Erebini), and Hyperlopha

crucifera Walker (Hypopyrini) were reported for the first

208

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

A REPORT OF EREBIDAE FROM THE TAMIL NADU PART OF THE WESTERN GHATS

time from the state. The most widely distributed species in

the study area were Oxyodes scrobiculata, Lacera noctilio,

and Achaea janata which were recorded from 18 out of 26

localities. The former was most abundant with 830 specimens

which accounted for over 50% of the total specimens

captured and was collected throughout the year. Four more

species, namely Hypocala deflorata, Lacera noctilio,

Achaea janata, and Hypocala violacea were also recorded

as abundant, with 260, 355, 230, and 211 specimens,

respectively.

This paper gives some information about the family

Erebidae in the Tamil Nadu part of the Western Ghats.

However, through upcoming investigations we expect the

list of Indian Erebidae to be expanded by several species,

both known and undescribed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to Entomology Research

Institute, Loyola College, Chennai, India for financial

assistance. We thank Dr. V.V. Ramamurthy, Principal

Scientist, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa, Delhi,

and Director, Zoological Survey of India for providing

facilities to confirm the specimens. We also thank Dr. Vernon

Antoine Brou Jr. Louisiana USA, for critically reviewing a

draft of this paper.

REFERENCES

BANzicrR, H. (1968): Preliminary observations on a skin-piercing blood-

sucking moth [Calyptra eustrigata (Hmps.) (Lep. Noctuidae)]

in Malaya. Bull. Ent. Res. 58: 159-163.

BAnziGER, H. (1971): Blood sucking moths of Malaya. Fauna 1:

3-16.

BAnzicer, H. (1979): Skin-piercing blood-sucking moths II: studies on

a further 3 adult Calyptra [Calpe] sp. (Lepid. Noctuidae). Acta

Tropica 36: 23-37.

BANzIGER, H. (1982): Fruit-piercing moths (Lep. Noctuidae) in Thailand:

a general survey and some new perspectives. Mitteilungen der

Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft. 55: 213-240.

Berio, E. (1959): Studi sulla sistematica delle cosidette “Catocalinae”

e “Othreinae” Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di

Genova. 7/: 276-327.

Fipicer, M. & J.D. LAFontaine (2004): A review of the higher

classification of the Noctuoidea (Lepidoptera) with special

reference to the Holarctic fauna. Buchreihe zur Entomologie.

1]: 7-609.

GoaTer, B., L. RonKAY & M. Fipicer (2003): Noctuidae Europaeae.

Catocalinae, Plusiinae. SorQ: Entomological Press. 453 pp.,

Pl.1—16.

Hampson, G.F. (1894 & 1895): Fauna of British India. Moths Vols II

& III: 161-582; 1-104.

Hampson, G.F. (1902): Catalogue of the Lepidoptera Phalaenae in the

collection of the British Museum. Vol. V: 1-746.

Hottoway, J.D. (1976): The moths of Borneo with special reference

to Mont Kinabalu. Malayan Nature Soc. & Sabah Foundation.

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 264 pp.

Hottoway, J.D. (2005): The Moths of Borneo: family Noctuidae,

subfamily Catocalinae). Malay Nat. J. [published as Moths of

Borneo 15& 16]: 1-529 +28 b/w pls.

Kitcuina, I.J. (1984): An historical review of the higher classification of

the Noctuidae (Lepidoptera). Bull. Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist. (ENT).

49; 153-234.

Kitcuine, I.J. & J.E. RAwuINs (1998): The Noctuoidea. /n: Kristensen,

N.P. (Ed.): Lepidoptera: Moths and Butterflies. Evolution,

Systematics and Biogeography. Handbook of Zoology/Handbuch

de Zoologie. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin & New York Vol. 1: pp.

355-491.

KONONENKO, V.S. & A. PINRATANA (2005): Moths of Thailand

3: Noctuidae. An Illustrated Catalogue of the Noctuidae

(Lepidoptera) in Thailand: Part 1: Herminiinae, Rivulinae,

Hypeninae, Catocalinae, Aganainae, Euteliinae, Stictopterinae,

Plusiinae, Pantheinae, Acronictinae and A garistinae. St. Gabriel,

Bangkok. 261 pp, 45 pls.

LAFONTAINE, J.D. & B.C. Scumipt (2010): Annotated checklist of the

Noctuoidea (Insecta, Lepidoptera) of North America north of

Mexico. ZooKeys 40: 1-239.

Mirtcue.i, A., C. Mitrer & J.C. ReGiER (2000): More taxa or more

characters revisited: combining data from nuclear protein-

encoding genes for phylogenetic analyses of Noctuoidea (Insecta:

Lepidoptera). Syst. Biol. 49: 202-224.

MITcHELL, A., S. CHo, J.C. ReGirER, C. MITTER, R.W. PooLe &

M. Matuews (1997): Phylogenetic utility of elongation factor-1”

in Noctuoidea (Insecta: Lepidoptera): the limits of synonymous

substitution. Mol. Bio. Evolution. 14: 381-390.

Moore, F. (1881): On the genera and species of the lepidopterous

subfamily Ophiderinae inhabiting the Indian Region. Trans. R.

ent. Soc. Lond. 11: 63-76.

Park, K.T., L. Ronkay., L. PRzyByLowicz., A. KuN & L. PEREGOVITS

(2001): Moths of North Korea (Lepidoptera, Heterocera,

Macrolepidoptera). Jn: Park, K.T. (Ed.): Insect Koreana 7:

1-443.

SPEIDEL, W., H. FANGER & C.M. NAUMANN (1996): The phylogeny of

the Noctuidae. Syst. Ento. 2]: 219-251.

SPEIDEL, W. & C.M. NAUMANN (1995): Phylogenetic aspects in the

higher classification of the subfamily Catocalinae (Lepidoptera,

Noctuidae). Beitrdge Entomology 45: 109-118.

Warren, W. (1911-1913): Eulenartige Nachtfalter. Die Gross-

Schmetterlinge des Indo-Austalischen Faunen-gebietes.

In: Seitz, (Ed.): Die Gross-Schmetterlinge de Erde 11. pp. 496.

52 pls. Alfred Kemen Verlag, Stuttgart.

WELLER, S.J., D.P. PAsHLEy, J.A. MARTIN & J.L. CONSTABLE (1994):

Phylogeny of Noctuoid moths and the utility of combining

independent nuclear and mitochondrial genes. Syst. Bio. 43:

194-211.

ZASPEL, J.M. (2008): Systematics, biology, and behavior of fruit-

piercing and blood-feeding moths in the subfamily Calpinae

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Ph.D. Dissertation, University of

Florida, Gainesville.

ZASPEL, J.M., V.S. KONONENKO & P.Z. GOLDSTEIN (2007): Another blood

feeder? Experimental feeding by a fruit-piercing moth on human

blood in the Primorye Region of Far Eastern Russia. J. Insect

Behavior 20: 437-451.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

209

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

210-211

REVIEWS

1. SHIFTING GROUND: PEOPLE, ANIMALS, AND MOBILITY OF INDIA’S ENVIRONMENTAL

HISTORY edited by Mahesh Rangarajan and K. Sivaramakrishnan. 2014. Published by Oxford University

Press, New Delhi. Size: 21.5 cm x 13.5 cm. 310 pp. Price: ¥ 875/-. Hardbound.

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82382

The enigmatic title is a precursor to what one

should expect in the book. A long introduction by the

editors, consisting of 38 pages and 73 references/notes,

prepares the reader for the following ten chapters written

by eminent social scientists and thinkers. The language 1s

heavy, with complicated sentences and equally complicated

views on subjects directly or remotely connected with the

environmental history of India. Although the language is

not technical, there are many complicated sentences with

abstruse thoughts. I could not comprehend the meaning and

context of many statements. For example, on page 6, “To

understand the ways in which nature was redefined it was

essential to step beyond political ecology to look at cultural

categories and effective communities as areas of contest.”

Or another sentence “Well-grounded cultural histories of

mega fauna showed a series of complex relationships and

representations at work, with changing aesthetics and forms

of leisure being crucial in shaping the worldview of dominant

groups.” (page 7).

Fortunately, the remaining chapters are not as

complicated as the Introduction. They range from Kathleen

D. Morrison’s essay “Conceiving Ecology and Stopping

the Clock” which talks about watersheds, reservoir systems,

climax vegetation theory, palaeoecology, etc., to a highly

interesting essay by Julie E. Hughes “Environmental Status

and Wild Boars in Princely India”. She deals with the

environmental history of wild boar, the areas where they

existed in the princely states of Rajasthan, and how wild boar

helped to define regional cultures. Puzzling linkage, isn’t 1t?

Some other chapters worth mentioning are Divyabhanusinh’s

“Lions, Cheetahs, and Others in the Mughal Landscape’, and

Ghazala Shahabuddin’s “The ‘Tiger Crisis’ and the Response”.

These are more straightforward and easy to understand.

Each chapter has its own references and notes, but a

select Bibliography covering 20 pages adds value to the book.

If you are interested in serious reading on environmental and

quasi-environmental issues, this is the book for you. I have

certainly added this book to my personal library.

M@ ASAD R. RAHMANI

2. THE SONG OF THE MAGPIE ROBIN by Zafar Futehally, with Shanthi Chandola and Ashish

Chandola. 2014. Published by Rupa Publications India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi. Size: 21.5 cm x 14cm. 197 pp.

Price: % 500/. Hardbound.

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82384

Zafar Futehally, who died in 2013 at the ripe old age

of 93, was an iconic figure among amateur birdwatchers

and professional ornithologists of India. He was one of the

pioneer conservationists of Independent India, in league with

the legendary Salim Ali, M. Krishnan, Dharmakumarsinhji,

and E.P. Gee. Despite his genteel disposition, the soft-spoken

Zafar, as he preferred to be called, was a resolute fighter

when it was the question of nature protection. Recipient

of numerous awards and recognitions, he remained a

quintessential birdwatcher, enjoying his daily birding even if

he had to see the same bird day after day in his large garden.

Anyone who had met him, and | had the privilege of knowing

him personally, came back impressed by his knowledge, wit,

perseverance, and clear ideas on the question of development

and conservation.

Shanthi Chandola and Ashish Chandola have to

be congratulated for giving to us the biography of this

remarkable man. The cover painting by Carl D’ Silva, India’s

finest wildlife artist, of a Magpie Robin pensively looking at

Zafar Futehally straddled on his favourite horse outside his

sea-side Kihim house, with the splash of sea waves breaking

in the background, is superb. The design and get-up of the

book is wonderful, for which the publisher Rupa needs to

be congratulated.

Zafar Futehally belonged to an illustrious family, with

many achievers in various fields, starting with Badruddin

Tyabji who was not only a fine barrister, he later became

Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, and for a short

time was President of the Indian National Congress. This

large family of Bohra Muslims was basically in business and

entrepreneurship. Zafar also followed the family tradition

and joined Dynacraft Machine Company as a junior partner,

REVIEWS

and later became its Joint Managing Director, till he was

cheated by a relative and thrown out from the company.

Being a thorough gentleman, Zafar has not named his cousin

in the book. Much later, he was again cheated when he gave

the printing of his much-loved Newsletter for Birdwatchers

(NLBW) to a young upstart, who soon took it over completely

and even stopped communicating with Zafar Futehally.

In the history of Indian ornithology, the name

Newsletter for Birdwatchers will be written in golden words.

No other publication has popularized birdwatching and its

documentation as this Newsletter has done. From its first

cyclostyled issue published in December 1959 from Zafar’s

Andheri (a suburb of Mumbai) house, the News/etter became

essential reading for anyone interested in Indian birds. I have

quoted articles from the News/etter in all my books — it has

such a mine of information.

The book THE SONG OF THE MAGPIE ROBIN is full of

interesting anecdotes of the pulls and pressures of the

Executive Committee of BNHS. Zafar Futehally was

Honorary Secretary of BNHS for many terms, so he had a

ring-side view. I recommend this book to readers of JBNHS.

Rest assured, you will not be disappointed. Zafar lived such a

remarkable and successful life, an envy for many of us, and

a delight to read about.

@ ASAD R. RAHMANI

3. GREEN WARS: DISPATCHES FROM A VANISHING WORLD by Bahar Dutt. 2014. Published

by HarperCollins Publishers India Ltd. New Delhi. Size: 21.5 cm x 13.5 cm 163 pp. Price: € 299/-.

Paperback.

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82385

This is the book that should be read by decision makers

as it shows in simple eminently readable language the trials

and tribulations of conservation battles that have been

fought, and are being fought to keep India green and healthy.

The cover of the book shows the skull of a Wild Buffalo,

with long majestic horns, floating in a jhee/, most likely in

Kaziranga National Park of Assam, poignantly depicting its

lost battle of survival. But other pictures of Hoolock Gibbon

and Sarus Crane on the cover symbolize that all is still not

lost.

Bahar Dutt, an indomitable fighter, is clearly proved

from the first chapter ‘Of Charmers and Hunters’. She

inherited this spirit from her journalist mother who was the

first woman to report on the Indo-Pak war from the border.

One of the two daughters of successful parents (her father

was in Air India), like any young girl Bahar has a passion to

do something different. Her love for animals, and the cruelty

that she saw in the animal trade, made her want to become

‘the Mother Teresa of the animal world’.

All 12 chapters tell a different story of her personal

struggles: to protect the Chambal river from the sand mining

mafia, to save Sarus habitat from an airport that a Chief

Minister wants in his village — Safai — knowing full well

that it will destroy Sarus breeding areas, or her adventurous

trip to Nayamgiri Hills in Odisha where the corporate giant

Vedanta wants to mine the hill that is sacred to the Dongriya

tribals. Every chapter is a delight to read, thanks to simple

eloquent language and also contemporariness. Many of

these conservation struggles are still going on. For example,

Vedanta is still eyeing the richness buried under the sacred

mountains. As far as the Dongriyas are concerned, they can

be fixed by throwing a few crumbs to them in the form of

Corporate Social Responsibility.

Bahar has gone deep into the murky world of

environmental permissions that are given (or fixed?) based

on dubious Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports,

submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forests

(MoEF) (now carrying the additional appellation of Climate

Change, so it is now MoEF & CC). Some say that the real

meaning of CC is ‘corporate clearances’!

Do not get fooled by the sylvan pictures of Goa, sandy

beaches, smiling tourists, palm-covered holiday resorts,

and gaudily-lit ships offering gambling offshore, therefore

technically outside the purview of prevailing laws against

gambling that are applicable on land. The twisting of the

law is not only for gambling — the real underbelly of crime

in Goa is mining. In the chapter “An Encounter with the

Mining Mafia of Goa’, Bahar describes how she and her party

escaped goons set up by the miners when she went there to

film the ravages brought about by unrestricted mining of coal

in the middle of farmlands.

At the price of only Rs. 299/- it is worth a purchase

by anyone interested in conservation. The cover design,

get up and overall feel of the book is good, for which the

credit should go to the publisher, HarperCollins. I highly

recommend this book to everyone.

@ ASAD R. RAHMANI

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

211

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

212-250

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

1. HANUMAN LANGUR SEMNOPITHECUS DUSSUMIERI FEEDING ON

THE APICAL STEM OF EUPHORBIA NIVULIA AT MOUNT ABU AND

KUMBHALGARH WILDLIFE SANCTUARIES IN RAJASTHAN, INDIA

SATISH KUMAR SHARMA!:* AND VUJAY KUMAR Kor

Wildlife Sanctuary Jaisamand, Jaisamand P.O., Udaipur 313 905, Rajasthan, India. Email: [email protected]

*Wildlife Research Laboratory, Department of Zoology, Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur 313 001, Rajasthan, India.

Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82391

Hanuman Langur Semnopithecus dussumieri is one

of the most widely distributed primates of India (Chhangani

2002; Mathur and Manohar 1994; Nag et al. 2011; Roonwal

et al. 1984; Sharma 2010). On September 04, 2005, while

surveying the biodiversity of Mount Abu Wildlife Sanctuary

in Sirohi district of Rajasthan, we came across a group of

Hanuman Langur near Trevor’s Tank, feeding on bushes of

Euphorbia nivulia at about 14:00 hrs. Some in the troop were

sitting on a rock holding tender apical tips of the branches of

the plant in their hands, while others were climbing up the

bushes to pluck the tender stems. The leaves and spines were

removed before the stem was eaten, beginning with the lower

end. At times, the foraging was so severe that a substantial

number of branches on a bush lacked tips. Once the apical

tip was lost, the affected branch produced lateral branches

during the next monsoon, which too were devoured by the

langurs as they had more soft tissue.

Bushes of EF. nivulia with broken tips can be seen in

many parts of Mt Abu and Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuaries

in Rajasthan. E. nivulia (Family Euphorbiaceae) is a dendroid,

bushy, succulent. It is a xerophytic shrub growing in rocky and

dry conditions in many parts of Rajasthan. Every year, during

monsoon (pers. obs.), the old bare branches of E. nivulia add

2 to 9 inches of new stem. Only the new stem bears leaves,

while the old stem remains leafless. After the monsoon, the

leaves drop off, leaving behind scars and axillary flower buds,

which develop into flowers and fruits during summer. The

new stem remains soft till the end of the monsoon. After the

departure of the monsoon, the stem hardens and no further

feeding by the langurs was observed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are very grateful to the forest officials of

Mt Abu and Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuaries for providing

necessary support during the study.

REFERENCES

CHHANGANI, A.K. (2002): Group composition and sex ratio in Hanuman

Langur (Semnopithecus entellus) in the Aravali Hills of Rajasthan,

India. Zoos’ Print Journal 17(8): 848-852.

Matuour, R. & B.R. MANOHAR (1994): Group composition,

percentage survivorship, birth rate and population of Presbytis

entellus in Jaipur, Rajasthan. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 91(3):

391-397.

Naa, K.S.C., P. PRAMop & K.P. KARANTH (2011): Taxonomic

implications of a field study of morphotypes of Hanuman Langurs

(Semnopithecus entellus) in Peninsular India. Int. J. Primatol.

32(4): 830-848.

RoonwaL, M.L., S.M. Mounor & N.S. RATHORE (Eps) (1984): Current

Primate Researches. Dept. of Zoology, University of Jodhpur,

Jodhpur (India). 627 pp.

SHARMA, S.K. (2010): A note on distribution range of Hanuman Langur

Semnopithecus entellus (Dufresne) and Rhesus Macaque Macaca

mulatta (Zimmermann) in Rajasthan. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

107(1): 49-51.

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

2. FIRST RECORD OF HODGSON’S BAT MYOTIS FORMOSUS HODGSON, 1835

(CHIROPTERA: VESPERTILIONIDAE, MYOTINAE)

FROM THE WESTERN GHATS, INDIA

RouiT CHAKRAVARTY!*, SHASHANK DALvi**, VISHNUPRIYA SANKARARAMAN2” AND D.V. GIRISH?

‘Post-graduate Program in Wildlife Biology & Conservation, Wildlife Conservation Society India Program,

National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bengaluru 560 065, Karnataka, India. Email: [email protected]

Centre for Wildlife Studies, Banashankari, Bengaluru 560 050, Karnataka, India.

*Kaimara Post, Chikkamagaluru 577 101, Karnataka, India. Email: [email protected]

‘Email: [email protected]

-Email: vishnupriyal [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82400

Hodgson’s Bat Myotis formosus Hodgson, 1835 (Order:

Chiroptera, Family: Vespertilionidae, Subfamily: Myotinae)

is a widespread species with its distribution ranging from

Afghanistan to North India, Nepal, Tibet, East and Southeast

China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan (Tsushima Island) and parts

of Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, Laos)

(Smith and Xie 2008; Wilson and Reeder 2005). In the

Indian subcontinent, it is known from 19 localities (Molur

et al. 2002) including the type locality, Kathmandu Valley,

Nepal. Of the 19 localities, 15 lie in 10 states in north, east

and central India (Bates and Harrison 1997; Fig. 1). Based

on the recorded localities, this species mainly appears to be

a temperate species with only a few published records from

the tropics (Bates and Harrison 1997; Francis 2008; Molur et

al. 2002). Despite its widespread distribution, it is a poorly

known species (Bates and Harrison 1997). The striking pelage

and wing colour of Myotis formosus are similar to those of

the Painted Woolly Bat Kerivoula picta Pallas, 1767, which

could be a reason for overlooking it, and resulting in its poor

documentation. The pelage colour is known to serve the same

function in both the species, that of concealment in their

diurnal roosts in dry foliage (Menon 2003; Prater 1971). In

Taiwan, its roosting site includes the Longan tree Dimocarpus

longan and in China it was found in an unidentified bush

(Bates and Harrison 1997). M. formosus is categorized as a

Least Concern species by the IUCN, however, it is classified

as Near Threatened in Nepal (Molur et a/. 2002).

On January 12, 2013, at 11:13 hrs, we visited

Mullayanagiri peak (13° 23’ 26.47" N, 75° 43’ 17.56" E;

elevation 1,875 m) in Chikkamagaluru district, Karnataka.

Two bats roosting in torpid condition were observed in one of

the caves. The cave is at the edge of the Mullayanagiri peak,

which has high altitude grasslands interspersed with shola

forests. The bats were roosting c. 10 m from the mouth of

Fig. 1: Published sight records of Myotis formosus;

new sight records are marked in red

Fig. 2: Ventral view of hibernating Myotis formosus from

Chikkamagaluru. The shape of the ears and

particoloured wings can be seen

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

213

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

the cave and the ceiling was 1.6 m high. Since the bats were

torpid, we abstained from catching them. A thorough visual

examination was made and the individuals photographed

(Fig. 2). Pelage colour was pale buff and the wings and ears

were orange. Bold, black markings extending till the femur

were visible on the contrasting orange of the wing membranes.

The ears were ovate and rounded anteriorly, unlike the

funnel-shaped ears of Kerivoula picta, and the tragus was

long, narrow and pointed. Rough measurements of forearm

(FA) and head-body length (HBL) were taken by placing

a ruler next to one of the bats, which are FA=47 mm and

HBL=70 mm. The morphological characters, combined with

our rough measurements, helped confirm our identification.

In India, the southernmost locality of MZ. formosus

recorded hitherto was Nagpur in Central India by D’ Abreu in

1925 (Bates and Harrison 1997; Molur et al. 2002). Menon

(2003) has called it a “rare bat” in India, and Bates and

Harrison (1997) have suggested that it is a little known bat

throughout its geographical range. Our observation is not only

significant in that it is the first record of the species from the

Western Ghats (at a location c. 1,178 km from Nagpur), but

is also possibly the first observation of this bat undergoing

torpidity in a cave in tropical India. Interestingly, Smith and

Xie (2008) have mentioned that in China this bat hibernates

in caves, which is also true for many other foliage-roosting

bats in the temperate regions of the New World, as cave

temperatures are more constant compared to foliage or tree

hollows (Altringham 2011).

Specimens of this bat have been collected from

altitudes of 1,200—3,000 m in Western Himalaya and

Nepal (Bates and Harrison 1997), suggesting that it is not

uncommon at high elevations. It is probable that, owing to

lack of sampling effort, the species’ behaviour of roosting

amidst foliage, and misidentification with Kerivoula picta,

its distribution has remained relatively unknown. We were

able to spot this bat perhaps because it was easier to detect,

being torpid in a cave. We therefore suggest that the species

may well be present in suitable regions of the Western Ghats

and in southern India. Night sampling with mist-nets, harp

traps, and acoustic sampling may yield more information on

its actual status and distribution.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank our institution, National Centre for Biological

Sciences. We are also grateful to Zeeshan Mirza, Kadambari

Deshpande, and Nachiket Kelkar for their invaluable inputs

and suggestions on the manuscript.

REFERENCES

ALTRINGHAM, J.D. (2011): Bats: From Evolution to Conservation. 2nd

edn. Oxford University Press. Pp. 107.

Bates, P.J.J. & D. Harrison (1997): Bats of the Indian Subcontinent:

Harrison Zoological Museum publication. Pp. 122-123.

FRANCIS, C.M. (2008): A Guide to the Mammals of Southeast

Asia. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA. Pp. 58, 230.

Menon, V. (2003): Field Guide to Indian Mammals. Dorling-

Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd. in association with Penguin Books, India,

Pp. 164.

Mo wr, S., G. MARIMUTHU, S. SRINIVASALU, S. Mistry, A.M. Hutson,

P.J.J. Bates, S. WALKER, K. PADMA PriyA & A.R. BINU PRIYA

(2002): Status of South Asian Chiroptera. Conservation Action

Management Plan (CAMP) Workshop Report. Zoo Outreach

Organisation. Pp. 36, 136, 268.

Prater, S.H. (1971): The Book of Indian Animals. Bombay Natural History

Society and Oxford University Press, India. Pp. 183. 187H

SmITH, A.T. & Y. Xie (2008): A Guide to the Mammals of China.

Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA. Pp. 108, 376.

WILson, D.E. & D.M. REEDER (2005): Mammal Species of the World:

A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd edn). Electronic

database accessible at http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/. Accessed

on January 15, 2013.

3. ENDANGERED GANGES RIVER DOLPHIN PLATANISTA GANGETICA GANGETICA

SIGHTED IN RAPTI RIVER, BALRAMPUR DISTRICT, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

KAMLESH K. Maurya!”*, DABEER HASAN2 AND Mupit GuptA2*

‘World Wide Fund for Nature-India, 172-B, Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110 003, India. Email: [email protected]

“WWE India (TAL) Field Office, A-35, Avas Vikas Colony, Pilibhit 262 001, Uttar Pradesh, India.

7Email: [email protected]

‘Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82408

The Ganges River Dolphin Platanista gangetica

gangetica, also known as Susu, was formerly distributed

throughout the Ganges-Brahmaputra river system of

214

Bangladesh, India, and Nepal, and possibly Bhutan, below

an elevation of c. 250 m (Smith et a/. 2012). Although it still

has a fairly extensive range, its distribution has contracted,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

and its abundance has declined dramatically in some areas.

Currently, it is found in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna

and Karnaphuli-Sangu river systems of Bangladesh and India

(Smith et al. 2012). A few individuals survive in Nepal in the

Karnali river, and possibly, the Saptakoshi river (Sinha and

Sharma 2003; Smith et al. 2012).

Once present in tens of thousands, the Ganges River

Dolphin has dwindled abysmally to less than 2,000 during

the last century, owing to direct killing, habitat fragmentation

by dams and barrages, indiscriminate fishing and pollution of

the rivers, mining for sand and stones, and incidental catches

in gillnets (Smith et al. 2000). Due to decline in population

in most of its distribution ranges, it has been given high level

of legal protection by declaring it Endangered, and placing

it under Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act,

1972. The species was declared as the National Aquatic

Animal of India in 2010 (MoEF 2010).

In Uttar Pradesh, the Ganges River Dolphin is

patchily distributed in some rivers with an estimated total

population of 671 individuals (Behera et al. 2013; WWF-

India 2012). Bashir et al. (2010) reported a density of 4.974

0.60 individuals/sq. km in a 28 km stretch of Upper Ganges

river between Narora Barrage and Anupshahr. In the Terai Arc

landscape, the species is found in and around Dudhwa Tiger

Reserve with a population of c. 50 individuals in Gerwa river

of Katerniaghat WLS, Bahraich district (WWF-India 2012).

Little is known about its status from the eastern terai districts

of Shravasti, Balrampur, Siddharthnagar, Gorakhpur, and

Maharajganj. In December 2009, an individual was sighted

in a tertiary canal near Bhinga town in Shravasti district by

the second author.

Balrampur district is situated on the banks of the

Rapti river. The district shares its north and northeast border

with Nepal and is rich in biodiveristy due to its geographic

location. Suhelwa Wildlife Sanctuary is situated on the

northern boundary of the district. It is a narrow strip (3-

7 km wide) of bhabar-terai forest spread in Shravasti and

Balrampur districts. The area primarily comprises rugged

mountains and boulder strewn river beds, especially along the

northern boundary. The Rapti river is part of the Ganges (now

Ganga) river system and passes by the city of Balrampur.

A biological assessment and human wildlife conflict survey

was carried out in Suhelwa WLS by WWE in 2014, during

which we obtained sightings of the Ganges River Dolphin in

the river near Abar village (27° 24’ 43.1" N; 82°21' 10.1” E) and

around Suhelwa WLS in December 2014. The first sightings

were for a few minutes at a site in the Rapti river at 02:57 hrs

on December 31, 2014. Within 30 minutes of the observation,

we also recorded about 3 or 4 surface jumps by them.

According to boatmen, there are four Ganges River

Dolphins in the 20 km stretch of the river since the last two

to three years. Interviews with locals, Forest Department

officials and naturalists revealed that the species did not occur

there earlier. The probable reason for the sudden presence of

these dolphins in the area could have been the result of heavy

flooding during the monsoon, which permitted the animals to

move in from the bordering areas of Nepal. The incidents of

such movements have been reported in several other rivers

(Behera et al. 2013). As for the conservation issues related

to the river, in addition to the Tulsipur and Balrampur sugar

mills, a number of drainage outlets from adjoining villages

discharge sewage directly into the river. The natural flow

of the river has been altered on several occasions and a few

villages got submerged after the construction of a dyke. The

habitat around the sighting area included agriculture, mainly

sugarcane and seasonal crops.

The record of the Ganges River Dolphin, hitherto

unknown in the Rapti river, is interesting, and there could

possibly be more individuals occurring in the district. There

is aneed to carry out an intensive survey to assess the status

and distribution of the species in Rapti river, and urgent

conservation initiatives for the species should be taken up

by the Forest Deparment and local NGOs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to Mr. Ravi Singh, SG & CEO,

Dr. Sejal Worah, Dr. Dipankar Ghose and Dr. A.K. Singh

from WWF-India, for permitting us to use the organization's

facilities and coordinating project logistics. We thank Jimmy

Borah and I.P. Bopanna for reviewing an earlier draft of the

manuscript.

REFERENCES

Basuir, T., A. KHAN, P. GAUTAM & S.K. BEHERA (2010): Abundance and

prey availability assessment of Ganges River Dolphin (Platanista

gangetica gangetica) in a stretch of Upper Ganges River, India.

Aquatic Mammals 36(1): 19-26. |

BEHERA, S.K., H. SincH & V. SAGAR (2013): Status of Ganges River

Dolphin (Platanista gangetica gangetica) in the Ganga River

Basin, India: A review. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management

16(4): 425-432.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

MoEF (2010): Notification. F.No.6-74/2009 WL, New Delhi, dated

May 10, 2010.

SINHA, R.K. & G. SHARMA (2003): Current status of the Ganges River

Dolphin in the river Kosi and Son, Bihar, India. J. Bombay Nat.

Hist. Soc. 100(1): 27-37.

SmiTH, B.D., R.K. Smnna, K. ZHou, A.A. CHAUDHARY, L. RENJUN,

D. Wana, A.K.M. AMINULHAQUE, K. SAPKOTA & R.S.L. MOHAN

(2000): Register of water development projects affecting Asian

215

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

river cetaceans. Pp. 22—39. In: Reeves, R.R., B.D. Smith &

T. Kasuya (Eds): Biology and conservation of fresh water cetaceans

in Asia (IUCN Species Survival Commission Occasional Paper

No. 23) IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

SMITH, B.D., G.T. BRAULIK & R. SINHA (2012): Platanista gangetica ssp.

gangetica. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version

2014.3.

WWFE-INp1A (2012): Dolphin census in Uttar Pradesh (http://www.

wwitindia.org/?7920/up-chief-minister-shri-akhilesh-yadav-

announces-the-final-dolphin-count).

4. A SCIENTOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF THE TRENDS OF INFORMATION DISSEMINATION

ON “TRUE ALBINO’ AND ‘WHITE’? MAMMALS

L.A.K. Sincu!

'Puspaswini, 1830-Mahatab Road, Old Town, Bhubaneswar 751 002, Odisha, India. Email: [email protected]

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82414

Introduction

Four distinct trends were noticed in the mechanism

of information dissemination during the last 128 years

between 1886 and 2014: (1) Disagreement, confusion or

supplementary discussions over the observation or the issue

of ‘true albino’ and ‘white variants’ have remained alive.

(2) The first source of information from the wilderness is

no longer confined to professional ‘foresters’ or the range

of biological and nature researchers. It also encompasses a

wide spectrum of well-equipped photographers and nature

observers. (3) Newspapers and journals with more frequent

publication over the internet seem to be preferred because

of quick information dissemination. Other parallel outlets

used for data dissemination are websites about locations

and personal blogs. (4) Information from captive facilities

and zoos continues to bear interest for reporting. For an

impactful contribution in the field of wildlife data storage and

mining, the future is expected from entities having frequently

published journals that disseminate searchable soft versions

on the internet and reach remote points through hardcopy

versions as well.

Background and Results

The present article is an incidental by-product of a

search I made for published information on ‘albino’ Chital

Axis axis. The search was in connection with the sighting and

video-recording of an albino Chital fawn on June 5, 2014, in

Satkosia Tiger Reserve (Pradhan et al. 2014).

Three primary sources were searched for the required

information. The first choice was the Journal of the Bombay

Natural History Society, covering 128 years from the first

issue published in January 1886 to a recent issue of August

2013. It includes 110 volumes with three to four issues per

volume. The second choice was publications from Zoo

Outreach Organisation (ZOO), Coimbatore. The publications

of ZOO that were searched are Zoos’ Print Magazine, Zoos’

Print Journal and Journal of Threatened Taxa. The third

216

option, other sources of information, were from the web

through Google searches. The journals which were expected

to have some information were /ndian Forester, Cheetal

magazine of the Wildlife Preservation Society of India,

and Jiger Paper. A chronological record of information on

‘albino’ and ‘white’ mammals that emerged from the exercise

is presented in Table 1.

Discussion

The sighting of albino, white or differently coloured

animals in nature is rare. Therefore, any new observation, or

notes and photographs that are already published on the topic

are of considerable interest. When an albino or white animal

is born or acquired in captivity, it attracts much attention.

Albino Mammal data frequency

Spread across the 19th to 21st centuries, the Journal of

the Bombay Natural History Society (JBNHS) is the oldest

and most appropriate destination for publishing and searching

information on natural history from the South Asian region.

It provided me with 34 records on the subject of ‘white’

and ‘albino’ mammals during 109 years between 1886 and

1994, which is a report frequency of 0.312 instances per

year. During the next 15 years from 2000 to 2014, with a

frequency of 1.3 instances per year, there are twenty reports

in all. These reports include three from JBNHS, seven from

the Zoo Outreach Organisation, Coimbatore (ZOO), one from

the Zoological Survey of India (ZSI), and nine reports in other

more recent outlets for information dissemination which are

newspapers, websites and personal blogs (Table 1).

Information Dissemination: The Time Factor

It appears that a journal like Zoos’ Print with monthly

publication in hard copy along with soft copy available

on the internet is getting preference for quick information

dissemination. Two reports from Mahabal et al. (2005, 2012)

constitute a case on the transitional phase of this aspect.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

Year of

report

1886

1906

1907

1910

1916

1918

1927

1928

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1939

1946

1949

1950

1991

1953

1956

1959

1986

1987

1988

1994

2000

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Table 1: Records of ‘true albino’ and ‘white’ mammals accessed

Species

white squirrel, albino birds

common mongoose and desert

fox with white tail tips

albino blackbuck with photo

white muntjac

white tiger

albino hog deer

white tiger

white elephant

albino elephant

goral

white tiger (not albino)

albino chital

white bison

albino sambar

albino mammals

albino elephant

albino boar

albino and melanic rat

albino feral rat

albino sambar

albino elephant

albino muntjac

tiger

albino/white form

nilgai

albino bat

albino sloth bear

albino mongoose

albino ‘deer’ (chital?)

Notes on location

Cutch region

from Raja of Faridkote for Lahore Zoological Garden

caught from north Nepal

sighted in south India

Mulin Subdivision, Dnenkanal district, Orissa

Cooch Bihar district, West Bengal

Bilaspur, Central Provinces

calf in Burma, grew darker

birth in north Siam; identification confirmed by official

from Royal White Elephant Department, Bangkok

Chamba state

shot in Orissa; notes from Editors

perhaps shot in Dehra Dun

south Coimbatore jungles

more discussion on how the colour should be

described

account on white bison

discussion regarding white bison

‘white bison in Mandla-Balaghat and Chanda district in

Central Province

Kohtri Valley, Nainital region

albinism reports: not uncommon among deer and

antelopes; rare in larger mammals; albino tigers,

bison and elephants occasional

Travancore, Kerala 1945

45 miles from Udaipur

Rangoon

Singapore

white sambar stag and hind from two separate reports

in Talamalai, north Coimbatore

Burma

gives list of mammals with partial or complete

albinism

an account of albinism and partial albinism with

reference to Rewa

birds and mammals in Ahmedabad Zoo

Sariska; off-white with marking on head

Rhinopoma microphyllum kinnear in Jodhpur

female + 3 albino cubs; vill. Madakote, Marwahi,

Bilaspur. 1980: a white male seen

15 km from Udaipur

seizure contained two albino deer (chital?) among

others

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

Journal /

Source

JBNHS

Zoos’ Print

Journal

JBNHS

Newspaper

Author and Year

Newnham (1886)

Aitken (1886)

Robertson Milne (1906)

Smith (1906)

Charrington (1907)

Editors (1910)

Adamson (1916)

D’Abreu (1916)

MacNaghten (1918)

Macfie (1927)

Singh (1928)

Robinson (1928)

Atkinson (1932)

Morris (1933)

Dunbar Brander et al.

(1933)

Morris (1934)

Dunbar Brander (1935)

Dunbar Brander (1936)

Champion (1939)

Editors (1946)

Simon (1946)

Sinha (1946)

Romer (1949)

Harrison (1950)

Gibson-Hill (1950)

Pillay (1953)

Yin (1956)

Editors (1959)

Gee (1959)

Anonymous (1986)

Ranjitsinh (1987)

Bhati (1988)

Bharos (1988)

Tehsin and Chawra (1994)

Dey (2000)

Indian Express

217

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Table 1: Records of ‘true albino’ and ‘white’ mammals accessed (contd.)

Year of Species Notes on location Journal/ Author and Year

report Source

2004 albino palm civet Phulwari WLSanctuary, Udaipur district Zoos’ Print Sharma (2004)

Journal

2004 albino northern palm squirrel Udaipur Zoos’ Print Sharma (2004)

Journal

2004 albino hoary-bellied Himalayan Albino female at Samsing in Darjeeling district, West Records of Bhattacharyya and

squirrel Bengal ZS/ Murmu (2004).

(Cited in Kalita, 2009)

2005 albino five-striped palm squirrel Sindhudurg, Maharshtra JBNHS Mahabal et al. (2012)

2006 albino sambar Udaipur JBNHS Tehsin (2006)

2008 white chital Nagarhole Newspaper Staff Reporter,

Hindu (2008)

2009 albino hoary-bellied squirrel Sibsagar District, Assam JoTT Kalita (2009)

2010 albino sambar Corbett JBNHS Pande et al. (2010)

2010 white sambar birth at Manipur Zoological Garden Newspaper Sangai Express (2010)

2010 albino chital Ahmedabad Zoo Newspaper Anonymous (2010)

2012 albino bonnet macaque Goa Zoos’ Print Mahabal et al. (2012)

2012 albino sambar Udaipur Newspaper Tehsin (2012)

2013 albino chital albino mother and fawn photograph, Zoos’ Print Prabu et al. (2013)

Ranthambhore TR

2013 white (albino) porcupine Nandankanan Biological Park, Odisha Website Anonymous (2013)

2014 albino blackbuck Jamshedpur Zoo Zoos’ Print Mohan (2014)

2014 albino chital with photo, Satkosia Tiger Reserve Zoos’ Print Pradhan et al. (2014)

2014 albino chital Katerniyaghat Blog Dasgupta (2014)

2014 albino chital Katerniyaghat Blog Mishra (2014)

2014 albino chital Sonanadi WL Sanctuary Website Anonymous (undated

web)

Key: JBNHS- Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, JoTT- Journal of Threatened Taxa

Note: Scientific name of species, even if cited in original publication, is excluded as the names may have changed.

The common name of species is according to Prater (1971), and name of mammal-group (eg., mongoose, fox, etc.) and locations are as

cited in the publication.

Agoramoorthy (2008) rightly pointed out that some of the

journals in India take more than two years for publishing

a paper after submission, and as a result, the information

becomes outdated. The category of science dealt and

disseminated under wildlife is aimed at a targeted audience

(Singh 2011), and therefore specialist wildlife journals

providing such coverage do not have any or appreciable

impact factor (Gunasekaran and Arunachalam 2012).

Changing sources of wildlife data

The higher frequency of publications during 2004—

2014 appears to be the result of an increase in the number

of people who are writing or reporting back from nature.

The first source of information from the wilderness is

no longer confined to wildlife professionals comprising

‘foresters’ or the range of biological and nature researchers.

218

A wide spectrum of well-equipped photographers and nature

observers are also making valuable contributions in providing

initial and incidental records of an event or feature related to

wildlife. Information on blogs and other websites, where a

specific description of the animal or a photograph is required,

is still significant enough to stimulate further investigation

and confirmation.

Information on Captive Animals

Information from captive facilities and zoos continues

to interest reporters (Table 1). In 1981, I had the opportunity

to meet Dr Reuben David, the founder of Ahmedabad Zoo,

when I took trainees from Central Crocodile Breeding and

Management Training Institute to observe his collection of

‘white’ and ‘albino’ animals. Perhaps, Ahmedabad Zoo holds

a record for the maximum number of species in ‘white’ or

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

‘albino’ form held in captivity. The species included in the

list are spotted deer, squirrel, rhesus macaque, mongoose,

porcupine, crow, sparrow and partridge (Anonymous 1986,

2010). Almost all Zoological Parks have such collections

of white and albino animals (Anonymous 2013; Sangai

Express 2010), and information appears to hit the newspapers

first and then the pages of a scientific journal, if that ever

happens.

Lesson for the future

It is felt that in future for permanent and verifiable

nature-related information, a researcher would prefer the

domains of frequently published journals disseminating

searchable soft versions on the internet and making their

contents available in remote areas through hard copy versions

as well. Such publications, therefore, have a greater role to

play in future towards quick publication and dissemination

of education and research materials.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Iam grateful to the Forest and Environment Department,

Government of Odisha for providing scope to study and

analyse records from the Wildlife Organisation, particularly

the Similipal Tiger Reserve and Satkosia Tiger Reserve.

Dr. Siba Prasad Parida and Dr. G.N. Indresha, Officer-in-

Charge, Regional Museum of Natural History, Bhubaneswar

helped with information. Dr. P.G.S. Sethy and several other

serving and retired Scientists of ZSI helped in accessing

records of ZSI.

REFERENCES

ApamMson, G. PERCEVAL (1916): Albino Hog Deer (Cervus porcinus).

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 24(3): 589-590.

AGORAMOORTHY, G. (2008): India’s science journals need vigorous

marketing. Current Science 94(6): 700.

AITKEN, E.H. (1886): On the frequency of albinism in Cutch, &c. notes

by Mr Aitken. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 1(1): 71-72.

ANONYMOUS (1986): Ahmedabad Zoo Albinos. Zoos’ Print, Journal of

Zoo Outreach Organisation 1(5): 31.

Anonymous (2010): A spotted deer gave birth to an albino fawn at

Ahmedabad Zoo (Photo caption). The Times of India, Mumbai

Section: Times Nation, April 21: 19.

ANONYMOUS (2013): Animal Inventory 1st Quarter (from Ist April, 2013

to 30th June, 2013), Nandankanan. http://www.nandankanan.org/

animal-inventory.php. Downloaded on June 18, 2014.

ANONYMOUS (UNDATED WEB): http://www.united2 lresortcorbett.com/

sonanadi-wildlifesanctuary.aspx. Downloaded on 15 June 2014;

& www.e-pao.net/GP.asp?src=27..310310.mar10. Downloaded

on 29 Oct 2015.

ATKINSON, G. (1932): An albino Chital (Axis axis). J. Bombay Nat. Hist.

Soc. 35(4): 888.

Buaros, A.M.K. (1988): Albino Sloth Bear. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.

Soc. 85(1): 187.

Buatl, U.S. (1988): Occurrence of an albino Rat-tailed Bat Rhinopoma

microphyllum kinneari Wroughton in the Indian desert. J. Bombay

Nat. Hist. Soc. &5(3): 608.

BHATTACHARYYA, T.P. & A. MurMu (2004): First record of occurrence of

albino Hoary-bellied Himalayan Squirrel Callosciurus pygerythrus

lokroides (Hodgson) [Rodentia: Sciuridae]. Records of Zoological

Survey of India 103(Part 3-4): 181 + pl-1.

Cuampion, H.G. (1939): An albino Sambar. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

40(2): 322-323.

CHARRINGTON, S.H. (1907): A white muntjac. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

17(3): 836.

D’apreu, E.A. (1916): An albino tiger from the Central Provinces.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 24(4): 819.

DascupTA, SHAILAZA Soop (2014): A dreamy night at Katernia Ghat

Wildlife Sanctuary. http://mytravelingexp.blogspot.in/2014/02/a-

night-at-katarnia-ghat-wildlife.html.

Dey, J. (2000): 60 birds, animals seized from Panvel ‘zoo’. Indian

Express, Bombay, 7 Nov 2000. http://expressindia.indianexpress.

com/ie/daily/20001107/ina07057. html.

DUNBAR BRANDeR, A.A. (1935): White Bison. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

37(4): 951-952.

DUNBAR BRANDER, A.A. (1936): White Bison. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

38(3): 619-620.

DUNBAR BRANDER, A.A., R.C. Morris & Epirors (1933): The colour of

‘White Bison’ (Bibos gaurus). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 36(4):

985—986.

Epitors, JBNHS (1910): A white tigress in Orissa. J. Bombay Nat.

Hist. Soc. 19(3): 744.

Epitors, JBNHS (1946): Albinism. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 46(3):

543.

Epitors, JBNHS (1959): An albino barking deer. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.

Soc. 56(1): 131-132.

Gee, E.P. (1959): Albinism and partial albinism in Tigers. J. Bombay

Nat. Hist. Soc. 56(3): 581-587, 1 plate.

Gipson-Hitt, C.A. (1950): Feral albino and piebald rats. J. Bombay Nat.

Hist. Soc. 49(2): 298-300.

GUNASEKARAN, S. & S. ARUNACHALAM (2012): Impact factors of Indian

open access journals rising. Current Science 103(7): 757-760.

Harrison, J.L. (1950): The occurrence of albino and melanic rats.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 49(3): 548-549.

Katita, G. (2009): Note on breeding and parental care behaviours of

albino Hoary-bellied Squirrel Callosciurus pygerythrus (Rodentia:

Sciuridae) in Sibsagar District of Assam, India. Journal of

Threatened Taxa 1(6): 358-360.

Macrig, D.F. (1927): A white elephant calf. Reprinted from the ‘Field’

of December 16, 1926. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 32(1&2): 214.

MacNacuten, H. (1918): On white elephants. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.

Soc. 26(1): 285-286.

Manasat, A., R.M. SHARMA & M.S. PRADHAN (2005): A case of total

albinism in the Five-striped Palm Squirrel Funambulus pennanti

Wroughton in Sindhudurg district, Maharashtra state. J. Bombay

Nat. Hist. Soc. 102(1): 98-99.

MaAuwaBAL, ANIL, P.D. RANE & S.K. Pati (2012): A case of total albinism

in the Bonnet Macaque Macaca radiata (Geoffroy) from Goa.

Zoos’ Print, Magazine of Zoo Outreach Organisation 27(12):

22-23.

Misura, Amit (2014): Wildlife Notes. Chital or Spotted Deer.

Katerniyaghat. http://wildlifernotes.blogspot.in/2008/06/chital-

or-spotted-deer.html. Downloaded on 15 June, 2014.

Mouan, JAYASHREE RAM (2014): My Volunteering experience at

Jamshedpur Zoological Park. Zoos’ Print, Magazine of Zoo

Outreach Organisation 29(5): 34-35.

219

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Morris, R.C. (1933): ‘White’ Bison. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 36(2):

492-493. |

Morris, R.C. (1934): White Bison. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 37(2):

483-484.

NewnuaM, A.T.H. (1886): On the frequency of albinism in Cutch, &c.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 1(1): 71.

PanbA, ADITYA (2009): http://www.indiawilds.com/forums/archive/

index.php/t-323.html posted on 03-02-2009. Downloaded on

June 15, 2014.

PANDE, ANANT, DEBMALYA ROYCHOWDHURY, DEVLIN LEISHANGTHEM,

SUDEEP BANERJEE, PUSHKAL BAGCHIE, NEHA AWASTHI, RUBI KUMARI

SHARMA, PRIYANKA RUNWAL & SHIKHA BisHT (2010): First record of

albino Sambar Rusa unicolor (Kerr) from Corbett National Park,

India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 107(3): 246.

PARASHAR, MANos (2012a): http://www.indianaturewatch.net/

displayimage.php?id=3 11321. Downloaded on June 15, 2014.

PARASHAR, MANoJ (2012b): http://www.indianaturewatch.net/

displayimage.php?id=347276. Downloaded on June 15, 2014.

PrtLay, B. Suspian (1953): Albino Sambar. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

S14): 935.

Prasu, C.L., AYAN SADHU & DEVLIN LEISHANGTHEM (2013): First

photographic record of albino chital with albino fawn (Axis axis

Erxleben, 1777) in Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India.

Zoos’ Print 28(9): 8.

PRADHAN, R.N., P. BEHERA & L.A.K. SinGH (2014): The first record of

albino Chital (Axis axis) in Satkosia Tiger Reserve, Odisha. Zoos’

Print, Magazine of Zoo Outreach Organisation 29(6): 15-17.

Prater, S.H. (1971): The Book of Indian Animals. 3rd edn. Bombay

Natural History Society, Mumbai, xx1ii+324 pp.

Ranuitsino, M.K. (1987): Unusual coloration of Nilgai (Boselaphus

tragocamelus). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 84(1): 203.

ROBERTSON Mixne, C.J. (1906): Albinism in the Black Buck. J. Bombay

Nat. Hist. Soc. 16(4): 742.

Rosinson, P.R. (1928): White Tigers. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 32(3):

584-586.

Romer, J.D. (1949): Naturally occurring albinism in a specimen of Rattus

norvegicus Berkenhout. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 48(3): 579.

SANGAI Express (2010): White Sajal. http://thesangaiexpress.manipur.

us/2010/03/31/.

SHARMA, S.K. (2004): Occurrence of albino Common Palm Civet and

Northern Palm Squirrel in Southern Rajasthan. Zoos ’Print Journal

19(5): 1483.

Siwon, E.S. (1946): An albino elephant from the Travancore forests.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 46(2): 396-397, with 1 plate.

SincH, L.A.K. (2011): Language and Technique for Popular Wildlife

Science: Extracts from a First Person Account of Life and

Experience. Zoos ’Print, Magazine of Zoo Outreach Organisation

27(12): \-3.

SINGH, RAM (1928): Albino goral (Nemorrhaedus goral) in Chamba.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 32(2): 373.

SINHA, R.D. (1946): An albino boar. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 46(3):

542-543.

SmiTH, J. MANNERS (1906): A white Kakar or Muntjac (Cervulus

muntjac). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 16(4): 742-743.

STAFF REPORTER, THE Hinpbu (2008): A deer with a difference. The Hindu.

Dated 20 May 2008.

TEHSIN, A. (2012): India’s First Albino (White) Sambar in Udaipur.

http://www.udaipurtimes.com/indias-first-albino-white-sambar-

in-udaipur. 4 July 2012.

Teusin, R. (2006): Albino Sambar Cervus unicolor Kerr. J. Bombay

Nat: Hist: Soe. TOS)? 97.

TEHSIN, RAZA & SATYENDRA SINGH CHAWRA (1994): Albino Common

Mongoose (Herpestes edwardsi Geoffroy). J. Bombay Nat. Hist.

Soc. 91(2): 304-305.

Yin, Tun (1956): Albino elephants. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 54(1):

179-181.

5. SIGHTING OF INDIAN SPOTTED EAGLE CLANGA HASTATA

FROM TAL CHHAPAR SANCTUARY, RAJASTHAN, INDIA

SIDDHESH S. SURVE!”*, PRAMOD PatTiL!*, Noor KHAN!* AND SusiIT NARWADE!”

‘Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Dr. Salim Ali Chowk, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001,

Maharashtra, India.

*Email: siddhesh.surve1 [email protected]

-Email: [email protected]

“Email: [email protected]

°Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82423

On January 26, 2014, we were conducting a bird

survey in the Tal Chhapar Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan, an

Important Bird Area (now Important Bird and Biodiversity

Area), as the site regularly holds a significant number of

globally threatened species (Islam and Rahmani 2004).

During the visit, we sighted the White-browed Bushchat

Saxicola macrorhynchus, Water Pipit Anthus spinoletta,

Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris, Isabelline Shrike

Lanius isabellinus, Green Sandpiper Tringa ochropus and

Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta, among others. But one

raptor flying above us caught our eye. It was a medium sized

220

Clanga eagle, smaller than the Greater Spotted Eagle Clanga

clanga, which is a common winter visitor to Rajasthan. The

bird had six-fingered primaries, while the Greater Spotted

Eagle has seven. PP suggested that this could be the Indian

Spotted Eagle Clanga hastata. A photograph was taken

and later compared with field guides to confirm its identity.

Dr. Vibhu Prakash, a well-known raptor expert, confirmed

that it was the Indian Spotted Eagle.

The photographed bird matched the description by

Naoroji (2007) — a medium sized, well-proportioned eagle,

less bulky, clearly smaller and narrower-winged than the

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Greater Spotted Eagle. It was found that the bird was an

immature, as it had a mottled appearance.

This 1s the first sight record of the Indian Spotted Eagle

from this site. Rasmussen and Anderton (2012) did not record

it from most of Rajasthan. Grimmett et al. (2011) provided one

uncertain record from Rajasthan; Sharma and Singh (1989)

did not record this bird from Tal Chhapar. Prakash (1988)

recorded nesting of the Indian Spotted Eagle from Keoladeo

National Park, Rajasthan and Kalra et al. (2006) recorded

it in Desert National Park, Rajasthan. The distribution map

of Indian Spotted Eagle given by Naoroji (2007) shows

just two records from Rajasthan: Ranthambhore Tiger

Reserve, and a nesting record from Keoladeo National Park.

He, however, suspected the presence of the bird in various

parts of the state. This suggests that the species has a larger

range and perhaps a larger population in the state, and

further surveys are required to assess its distribution in

Rajasthan.

BirdLife International (2014) describes Indian Spotted

Eagle as Vulnerable, as it is widespread but remains a poorly

known species, and is thought to have a small and declining

population.

REFERENCES

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2014): Species factsheet. Downloaded from

http://www.birdlife.org. Accessed on August 06, 2014.

GRIMMETT, R., C. INskipp & T. INskipp (2011): Birds of the Indian

Subcontinent. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, London. 528 pp.

Kara, M., A.R. RAHMANI, B.C. CHoupHURY & Q. QuREsHI (2006):

Development of Desert National Park as Biosphere Reserve.

Final Report. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, India.

Pp. 73.

Naorou, R. (2007): Birds of Prey of the Indian Subcontinent. Om Books

International, New Delhi. Pp. 443-451.

Prakasu, V. (1988): Lesser Spotted Eagle (Aquila pomarina hastata)

nesting in Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur. J. Bombay Nat.

Hist. Soc. 85(3):614.

RASMUSSEN, P.C. & J.C. ANDERTON (2012): Birds of South Asia:

The Ripley Guide. Vols 1 & 2, 2nd edn. National Museum

of Natural History - Smithsonian Institution, Michigan State

University and Lynx Edicions, Washington D.C., Michigan and

Barcelona.

SHARMA, A.K. & K.R. SINGH (1989): Tal Chhapar Blackbuck Sanctuary.

Sanctuary Asia 9(2): 36-45.

6. SIGHTING OF ROSE-RINGED PARAKEET (BLUE) AT KACHORTYA NALA

FROM RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH DISTRICT, RAJASTHAN, INDIA

CHARCHIT JAIN', AKSHUN GUPTA” AND RIMAL SUDHINDRAN**

'C/37-39, Heavy Water Colony, PO: Bhabhanagar, Rawatbhata 323 307, via Kota, Rajasthan, India. Email: [email protected]

"Block No.51, 301-302, Heavy Water Colony, P.O. Bhabhanagar, Rawatbhata 323 307, via Kota, Rajasthan, India.

Email: [email protected]

*Type-2-49X K, Anukiran Colony, P.O. Bhabhanagar, Rawatbhata 323 307, via Kota, Rajasthan, India. Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82434

Rose-ringed Parakeets Psittacula krameri, also known

as Ring-necked Parakeets, are found in India and introduced

or feral populations are found in many parts of the world, to

northern and west Africa in Guinea, Senegal and southern

Mauritania, east to western Uganda and southern Sudan as

well as South Asia (depending on the subspecies) (Forshaw

1978). These gregarious tropical parakeets are popular in

the pet industry and their numbers are decreasing in some

areas due to trapping for domestic pet trade (S. Kumar, ZSI,

Jodhpur pers. obs.). The global population of the species

has not been quantified, but it is reported to be common

to abundant throughout its natural range with increasing

population trend (BirdLife International 2012). Rose-ringed

parakeets are popular as pets and they have a long history

in Indian aviculture. The ancient Greeks kept the Indian

subspecies P. krameri manillensis and the ancient Romans

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

kept the African subspecies P. krameri krameri (Alderton

2003). P. krameri borealis and P. krameri manillensis are

major agricultural pest in India (Ali and Ripley 1987). In its

Asiatic distributional range, P. krameri is considered the worst

avian agricultural pest (Dhindsa and Saina 1994).

Rose-ringed parakeets in the wild mostly have bright

green plumage. The face, abdomen, and under wing-coverts

are yellowish-green. The nape and the back of the head are

variably washed with blue. There is a broad chin/cheek-stripe

and a black narrow line from cere to eye. There is a narrow

pink band to nape. The upper sides of the middle tail-feathers

are blue with greenish-yellow tips. The outer feathers are

green. The underside of outer tail-feathers is olive-yellowish.

The middle feathers are blackish. The bill is blackish-red

with black tips. The irises are yellowish-white and the feet

greenish-grey. The females look like males, except that they

221

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

lack the black stripe to the cheek and pink band to the nape.

The nape is variably washed with blue and the middle tail-

feathers are on an average shorter.

A number of colour mutations of Rose-ringed parakeets

have occurred in captivity, including white (albinos), blue,

grey, and yellow (lutino) (Butler 2003; Low 1992; Sullivan

2013; Williams 2015). Colour mutations of Rose-ringed

parakeet have become widely available in India in recent

years.

We have been living in Kachoriya nala near Tamlav

village, c. 9 km from Rawatbhata (24.93° N; 75.58° E), in

Chittorgarh district of Rajasthan for the last 20 years, but have

not spotted a Rose-ringed Parakeet (blue) until December

2013. Kachoriya nala has deep gorges on both sides, rocky

terrain, with many trees and shrubs like the Indian Maple

and Lantana, up to Rana Pratap Sagar (RPS) Lake. Streams

remain dry with small waterholes throughout the year except

in the monsoon. A blue Rose-ringed Parakeet was observed

with a flock of Rose-ringed parakeets with normal coloration;

it had complete plumage of an adult. The bird was observed

with binoculars (10 x 50x) and photographed. The adult

blue parakeet had a white nape band and long tail. Tail of

male was longer than the female. Lower beak black with

slight red at base and upper beak dark red. The blue colour

seems to be from selective breeding in aviculture. The blue

parakeet could be a natural mutation or captive-bred, escaped

or released from captivity, living as feral. So far, there is no

report of blue, lutino, or albino parakeet from this region.

We saw no resistance to the blue bird from the other normal

birds in the group.

REFERENCES

ALDERTON, Davip (2003): The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Caged and

Aviary Birds. Hermes House, London, England. Pp. 189-190.

Aut, S. & S.D. Riptey (1987): Handbook of the Birds of India and Pakistan.

Oxford University Press, Oxford. Handbook Vol. 3. Pp. 169-172.

BirDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2012): Psittacula krameri. The IUCN Red

List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. <www.iucnredlist.

org>. Downloaded on August 14, 2014.

BUTLER, CHRISTOPHER JOHN (2003): Population biology of the introduced

Rose-ringed Parakeet Psittacula krameri in the UK. Thesis.

312 pp. (Online version).

DutnpsA, M.S. & H.K. Satna (1994): Agricultural ornithology: an Indian

perspective. Journal of Biosciences 19(4): 391-402.

ForsHaw, J.M. (1978): Parrots of the World. 2nd edn. David and Charles,

UK. 616 pp.

Low, R. (1992): Parrots. Their breeding and care. Blandford, London,

UK. 432 pp.

SULLIVAN, Rose (2013): Ringneck Parakeets, The Complete Owner’s

Guide to Ringneck Parrots, Including Indian Ringneck Parakeets,

their Care, Breeding, Training, Food, Lifespan, Mutations, Talking,

Cages and Diet. ELK Publishers. 150 pp.

WILLIAMS, AMANDA (2015): Indian Ringneck color varieties. Indian

Ringneck Parrot. Avian Web: Beauty of Birds.com.animals.

mom.me/indian-ringneck-colour-varieties-7647.html. Accessed

on August 13, 2015.

7. SEENDER-BILLED BABBLER TURDOIDES LONGIROSTRIS IN

RAJIV GANDHI ORANG NATIONAL PARK, ASSAM, INDIA

o) b)

'Department of Ecology & Environmental Science, Assam University, Silchar 788 011, Assam, India.

*Centre for Biodiversity & Natural Resources Conservation, Assam University, Silchar 788 011, Assam, India.

*Email: [email protected]

“Email: [email protected]

>Email: [email protected]

°Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82439

On April 23,2013, at 06:15 hrs, the first two authors (BC

and MRC) observed two babblers foraging in the grasslands

near Magurmari Watch Tower of Rajiv Gandhi Orang National

Park (RGONP), Assam (26° 29'—26° 40’ N; 92° 16’—92°

27’ E). Later, we sighted a flock of four individuals, c. 50

m from the earlier site. The birds were sitting on a shrub

Leea asiatica. The grassland was dominated by Saccharum

narenga. We identified the birds as the Slender-billed Babbler

Turdoides longirostris. They had a black, slender, and curved

bill; reddish brown above with whitish lores and cheeks (Ali

2012; Grimmett et al. 1999),

The Slender-billed Babbler is distributed in the

terai of Nepal, Assam, Manipur, and historically Uttar

Pradesh in India (BirdLife International 2001, 2011). The

species is thought to have a small fragmented population,

which is declining as a result of extensive destruction and

degradation of its tall grassland habitats. It therefore qualifies

as Vulnerable (BirdLife International 2001, 2011). It is a

222

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

sedentary resident of tall grasslands in lowlands, where it

is usually found near water (Rahmani 2012). It is described

as a shy grassland bird, rarely seen, and conspicuous only

during the breeding season (May—June) because of its loud

song (Ali and Ripley 1983).

Subsequently, we recorded this species in RGONP from

April 26 to June 08, 2014, on eight occasions in Magurmari

and Bhutia ali grassland. Every year during February—March,

controlled burning of grasslands is carried out by the Forest

Department, and it becomes easier to sight the bird in the

short grass during April. Most of the grassland birds of the

floodplains breed from March onwards, avoiding the heavy

monsoon rain, and this species is no exception (Ali and Ripley

1987). It forages on the ground and also higher up, among

grasses and reed stems (del Hoyo e¢ al. 2007).

We recorded flock sizes of one to five individuals

(average 2.8 +1.4 SD, n = 10). Hume (1888) reported it in

flocks of six to ten birds, but also solitary and in pairs. In

Chitwan National Park, Baral and Chaudhary (2006) found

that the flock size varied from 1 to 12 with larger flock sizes

in April and May, compared to January to March.

Besides RGONP, there are only a few records of

Slender-billed Babbler in the grasslands of Assam. In

November 1993, a pair was reported near Dunga beel

(wetland) at Bagori Range in Kaziranga National Park by

Barua and Sharma (1999). Barua (2005) also reported it

from Kohora, Bagori, and Agoratoli ranges in Kaziranga

NP. Choudhury (2007) reported it from the grasslands of

Bhuyanpara in Manas Tiger Reserve. There is no published

information of its occurrence in Dibru-Saikhowa National

Park (Rahmani and Choudhury 2012). Based on Abidur

Rahman (pers. comm. 2012), Rahmani and Choudhury

(2012) included it in the bird checklist of Orang NP. In a

recent survey of 19 grasslands in Assam from February 5

to March 1, 2012, it was recorded only from Kaziranga and

Manas National Parks (Phukan et al. 2012).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the then Head,

Prof. D.C. Ray and present Head Prof. J. Rout, Department

of Ecology & Environmental Science, Assam University,

Silchar, for encouragement and support. The authors also

thank Mr. Suresh Chand IFS, PCCF (Wildlife) & Chief

Wildlife Warden, Assam, for permission to do research in

Orang National Park, and Mr. S.K. Daila IFS, Divisonal

Forest Officer, and Mr. Chakrapani Ray, Range Forest Officer,

Orang National Park, for their kind support and cooperation.

Our sincere thanks to Ecosystemd-India for their logistic

support.

REFERENCES

Aut, 8. (2012): The Book of Indian Birds. 13th edn. Bombay Natural History

Society, Oxford University Press. vii + 326 pp.

Au, S. & S.D. RieLey (1983): Compact Handbook of the Birds of India

and Pakistan together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and

Sri Lanka. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Aut, S. & S.D. RieLey (1987): Compact Handbook of the Birds of India and

Pakistan. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Mumbai. 737 pp.

BarAL, H.S. & D.B. CHAUDHARY (2006): Status and distribution of Slender-

billed Babbler Turdoides longirostris in Chitwan National Park, Central

Nepal. Danphe 15(4): 1-6.

BirDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2001): Threatened Birds of Asia: the BirdLife

International Red Data Book. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.

BirDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2011): IUCN Red List for birds. Downloaded from

http://www. birdlife.org on 25/07/2011.

Barua, M. (2005): Kaziranga. Birding Hotspots. BirdingASIA: Bulletin of

the Oriental Bird Club 3: 28-34.

Barua, M. & P. SHARMA (1999): Birds of Kaziranga National Park, India.

Forktail 15: 47-60.

Cuoupuury, A. (2007): The day of the grassland birds: A firsthand report

from Manas National Park. Mistnet 8(3): 4—S.

DEL Hoyo, J., A. ELtiotr & D.A. Curistiz (2007): Handbook of the Birds of

the World. Vol. 12: Picathartes to Tits and Chickadees. Lynx Edicions,

Barcelona.

GRIMMETT, R., C. INskipp & T. INskipp (1999): Pocket Guide to the Birds of the

Indian Subcontinent. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. 384 pp.

Hume, A.O. (1888): Detailed list of species observed in Manipur, together

with notes of all species observed in Assam, Sylhet and Cachar. Stray

Feathers 11: 1-353.

PHUKAN, M.P., A. Puitip & P. O’CONNELL (2012): A survey of grassland birds

in Assam, specifically concentrating on the Brahmaputra Valley 2012.

Final Report submitted to Indian Bird Conservation Network/Bombay

Natural History Society, Mumbai. Mimeographed Report. 20 pp.

RAHMANI, A.R. (2012): Threatened Birds of India: Their Conservation

Requirements. Indian Bird Conservation Network, Bombay Natural

History Society, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and BirdLife

International. Oxford University Press. 864 pp.

RAHMANI, A.R. & A.U. CHoupuury (2012): Threatened Birds of Assam.

Indian Bird Conservation Network, Bombay Natural History Society,

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and BirdLife International.

Oxford University Press. viii + 167 pp.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

223

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

8. JUNGLE BABBLER TURDOIDES STRIATA AT TANOT IN THAR DESERT,

WESTERN RAJASTHAN: A RANGE EXTENSION

PRAMOD PatiL!**, SIDDHESH S. SuRVE!?, Noor KHAN!* AND Susit NARWADE!”

'Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Dr. Salim Ali Chowk, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001, Maharashtra, India.

"Email: [email protected]

7Email: siddhesh.surve1 [email protected]

“Email: [email protected]

°Email: [email protected]

* Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82445

The Jungle Babbler Turdoides striata is usually found

in flocks near human habitations. It feeds on insects such as

Large Ant Monomorium indicum, Desert Locust Schistocerca

gregaria, and beetles and food grains like Bajra, Wheat,

Jowar, and Rice. At times it is also found feeding on grass

seeds (Rana 1970).

On February 07, 2014, we were conducting a bird

survey in Thar desert, Rajasthan. We did a road transect for

the Ramgarh—Tanot route. The entire landscape is desert,

dominated by smooth sand dunes, with small patches of

Calligonum polygonoides and Cenchrus biflorus, along with

a few trees of Prosopis cineraria and Salvadora oleoides.

We reached Ghantiyali Mata Temple (27.76° N;

70.40° E) at 12:04 hrs and got down from our car to visit

the temple. In a small garden, outside the temple, we could

see some House Sparrow Passer domesticus and House

Crow Corvus splendens. We were seated in the garden when

we heard a familiar bird call which went ke-ke-ke. To our

surprise, we saw a flock of Jungle Babbler on the ground

close to trees and in bushes around the temple. One bird was

perched at the top of a tree, observing, while the others were

feeding in the leaf litter. They were medium sized babblers,

much bigger than the Common Babbler Turdoides caudata

and smaller than the Large Grey Babbler 7. malcolmi. The

tail lacked the white sides prominent in Large Grey Babbler;

throat and breast were moderately mottled, lores pale,

bill prominent yellow without a black tip, and the overall

appearance was drab grey.

The birds matched the description of Rasmussen and

Anderton (2012), and Grimmett et al. (2011). Jungle Babblers

are commonly and frequently observed elsewhere in suitable

habitat so there was no ambiguity in its identification. A

photograph could not be taken, for we had to keep our

equipment (camera, binoculars and GPS device) in the car,

as the area is under the control of the Border Security Force

(BSF).

This is the first record of Jungle Babbler from this site.

Ali and Ripley (1987) reported absence of Jungle Babbler

from Thar desert. Rasmussen and Anderton (2012) did not

record it from westernmost Rajasthan, while the distribution

map in Grimmett et al. (2011) shows no record of Jungle

Babbler from the same area. The distribution map of Jungle

Babbler on BirdLife website (2014) also lacks the presence

of this bird in the reported area.

_ This suggests that a small population of Jungle

Babbler Turdoides striata is present in the area in which it

was previously marked as absent. Presumably, this is due to

the development of plantations on both sides of the Indira

Gandhi Nahar canal. Waterbodies have formed as a result of

seepage from the canal that now attract many species of birds

not reported earlier in the Thar desert. It is worth mentioning

that the vegetation in Thar has changed from xerophytic

and psammophytic to hydrophytic and mesophytic plants

(Rahmani 1997).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors thank Dr. Asad R. Rahmani, Director,

BNHS India, for giving them the opportunity to be a part of

the Thar desert survey.

REFERENCES

Aul, S. & S.D. RipLey (1987): Compact Handbook of the Birds of

India and Pakistan together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal,

Bhutan and Sri Lanka. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Delhi.

Pp. 448-449.

BirDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2014): Species factsheets. Downloaded from

http://www.birdlife.org. Accessed on August 06 and August 22,

2014.

GRIMMETT, R., C. INskipp & T. INskipp (2011): Birds of the Indian

224

Subcontinent. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, London.

528 pp.

RAHMANI, A.R. (1997): The effect of Indira Gandhi Nahar Project on

the avifauna of the Thar Desert. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 94(2):

233-266.

Rana, B.D. (1970): Some observations on food of the Jungle Babbler

Turdoides striata and the Common Babbler Turdoides caudatus,

in the Rajasthan desert, India. Pavo 8: 35-44.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

RASMUSSEN, P.C. & J.C. ANDERTON (2012): Birds of South Asia: The

Ripley Guide. Vols 1 & 2, 2nd edn. National Museum of Natural

History - Smithsonian Institution, Michigan State University and

Lynx Edicions, Washington D.C., Michigan and Barcelona.

9. SIGHTINGS OF BUFFY FISH-OWL KETUPA KETUPU AND MANGROVE PITTA

PITTA MEGARHYNCHA IN SUNDARBANS TIGER RESERVE, WEST BENGAL, INDIA

HARKIRAT SINGH SANGHA!* AND SANDEEP S. DHUMAL?

'B-27, Gautam Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur 302 021, Rajasthan, India. Email: [email protected]

*Sandeep Engineering Shop No.1/44, Mihir Apt, Udyamnagar, Pimpri, Pune 411 018, Maharashtra, India.

Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82451

In August and September 2014, two interesting records

of uncommon bird species were obtained from Sundarbans

Tiger Reserve, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal (21° 56’

42" N; 88° 53’ 45” EB).

Buffy Fish-owl Ketupa ketupu

A Buffy Fish-owl Ketupa ketupu was observed

incubating from August 02—04, 2014. The nest was in the fork

of a bare Avicennia tree on the edge of the water on Donbanki

Island. The exterior of the old-looking nest was made entirely

of sticks. The nest occupied by the owl probably belonged to

an Oriental Honey-Buzzard Pernis ptilorhynchus, commonly

occurring in the reserve and known for building stick platform

nests. Later, from August 31 to September 02, 2014, a chick

was noticed in the nest and photographed.

The Buffy Fish-owl Ketupa ketupu is the smallest

fish-owl with prominent, outward-facing, tousled ear-tufts

(Mikkola 2012). It is found in South Burma (now Myanmar),

south and east to Trung Phan, peninsular Thailand and Malay

Peninsula, Riau Archipelago, Sumatra with neighbouring

islands on the western side, Mangka, Belitung, Java, Bali

and Borneo (Konig ef al. 1999). In the Indian subcontinent,

there was no record of this species since the early 20th century

from central and eastern Assam (Coltart 1904; Stevens 1915)

until a record from Sundarbans East Wildlife Sanctuary,

Bangladesh (Khan 2005; Neumann-Denzau and Denzau

2003). Other than these two references, there are no recent

records from Assam, where presumably it was rare or extinct

(del Hoyo et al. 1999). Its status, according to Grimmett er

al. (1998) was not known, and there was no recent published

record from this area. According to Rasmussen and Anderton

(2012), Buffy Fish-owl is either very scarce or overlooked

in the Indian subcontinent.

The eggs of the species are found mainly during

February to April, but less commonly during May to July in

West Java, or in April and September to January in Malay

Peninsula (Konig and Weick 2008; Konig et al. 1999).

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

However, nothing is known about its breeding habits in

the Indian subcontinent and this is probably the first

breeding record of the species from the Indian subcontinent.

Due to inclement monsoon weather and logistical difficulties

in the Sundarbans, prolonged observations were not

feasible.

Mangrove Pitta Pitta megarhyncha

While birding from the open deck of a boat, Mangrove

Pitta Pitta megarhyncha was heard calling almost throughout

the day in the Sundarbans. One bird was sighted on August 04,

2014. This scarce species is restricted to a highly specialized

and restricted habitat, and is therefore likely to have a

moderately small global population. It is also suspected

to be in moderately rapid decline as a result of habitat loss

and degradation. It is therefore listed as Near Threatened by

BirdLife International (2014).

Mangrove Pitta is sometimes considered conspecific

with Blue-winged Pitta P. moluccensis (Lambert and

Woodcock 1996; Rasmussen and Anderton 2012), and is

found on the west coast of Myanmar and Malaysia, from

Tenasserim in the north to Singapore in the south, Bangladesh,

and Java and Borneo (Erritzoe and Erritzoe 1998).

Ali and Ripley (1983) described its status in the

Indian subcontinent as 'migratory, chiefly extralimital’. A

bird collected on March 19, 1925, by F. Field from Barisal,

Bangladesh (Whistler 1934) is mentioned by Ali and Ripley

(1983) and Rasmussen and Anderton (2012).

The disjunct range and locally variable status of the

Mangrove Pitta reflect its strong preference for mangrove

and coastal forests (Erritzoe and Erritzoe 1998). While

Rashid (1967) felt that it was likely to occur as a summer

or rainy season migrant in Bangladesh, Paynter (1970)

described it as being a ‘conspicuous element of the avifauna’

in the Sundarbans of Bangladesh. It has been recorded in

Bangladesh Sundarbans (Grimmett et a/. 1998, 2011; Halder

2010; Khan 2005). Therefore, finding the bird in Sundarbans

225

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Tiger Reserve was not unexpected. The species has been

probably overlooked, as very few people venture out for

birding during the monsoon season when it is most noisy

and easier to sight.

REFERENCES

Aul, S. & S.D. Riptey (1983): Handbook of the Birds of India and

Pakistan together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan

and Sri Lanka. Vol. 4, 2nd edn. Frogmouth to Pittas. Oxford

University Press, Delhi. Pp. 253-254.

BirDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2014): IUCN Red List for birds. Downloaded

from http://www.birdlife.org. Accessed on October 08, 2014.

Cortart, H.N. (1904): The occurrence of the Malay Fish-owl (Ketupa

Javanensis) in Assam. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 15(4): 719.

DEL Hoyo, J., A. ELLiotT & J. SARGATAL (EDS) (1999): Handbook of the

Birds of the World. Vol. 5. Barn-owls to Hummingbirds. Lynx

Edicions, Barcelona. Pp. 194.

ERRITZOE, J. & H.B. Erritzoz (1998): Pittas of the World. A Monograph

of the Pitta Family. The Lutterworth Press, Cambridge.

Pp. 146-148.

GRIMMETT, R., C. INskipp & T. INskipp (1998): Birds of the Indian

Subcontinent. Christopher Helm, London. Pp. 434 & 583.

GRIMMETT, R., C. INskipp & T. INskipp (2011): Birds of the Indian

Subcontinent. 2nd edn. Christopher Helm, London. Pp. 264.

HALpDeER, R.R. (2010): A photographic guide to birds of Bangladesh.

Baikal Teal Production, Dhaka. Pp. 159.

KuAN, M.M.H. (2005): Species diversity, relative abundance and habitat

use of the birds in the Sunderbans East Wildlife Sanctuary of

Bangladesh. Forktail 21: 79-86.

Konia, C. & F. WEIcK (2008): Owls of the world. 2nd edn. Christopher

Helm, London. Pp. 344-345.

Konia, C., C. WEICK, F. WEIcK & J.-H. BECKING (1999): Owls. A Guide

to the Owls of the World. Pica Press, Robertsbridge, UK, Yale

University Press, New Haven. Pp. 309-310.

LAMBERT, F. & M. Woopcock (1996): Pittas, Broadbills and Asities.

Pica Press, Mountfield, UK. Pp. 170-174.

Mikko La, H. (2012): Owls of the World: A Photographic Guide. Firefly

Books, New York. Pp. 294-295.

NEUMANN-DENZAU, G. & H. DENzAu (2003): Buffy Fish-owl Ketupa

ketupu in Sunderbans, Bangladesh. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

100(1): 138-141.

PAYNTER, R.A. (1970): Species with Malaysian affinities in the

Sundarbans, East Pakistan. Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 90: 118.

Rasuip, H. (1967): Systematic list of the birds of East Pakistan. The

Asiatic Society of Pakistan. Publ. no. 20.

RASMUSSEN, P.C. & J.C. ANDERTON (2012): Birds of South Asia. The

Ripley Guide. Vol. 2. Smithsonian Institution, Michigan State

University and Lynx Edicions, Washington D.C., Michigan and

Barcelona.

WHISTLER, H. (1934): Occurrence of the Larger Blue-winged Pitta (Pitta

megarhyncha Schlegel) in eastern Bengal. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.

Sac. 3/ (1) 222.

10. OBSERVATIONS ON BILL DEFORMITIES IN THREE BIRD SPECIES

FROM MAHARASHTRA, INDIA

R.V. Hipparai'**, P.M. BoLpe*, M.K.Rao*, A.M. Botpe!® AnD S.A. GaIkKWAD*

‘Department of Zoology, Walchand College of Arts & Science, Solapur 413 006, Maharashtra, India.

*Dept of Electronics and Telecommunication, A.G. Patil Institute of Technology, Solapur 413 008, Maharashtra, India.

Email: [email protected]

*Conservator of Forests, Pune Division, Pune 411 022, Maharashtra, India. Email: [email protected]

“Dept. of Anatomy, Bombay Veterinary College, Parel, Mumbai 400 012, Maharashtra, India. Email: [email protected]

°Email: [email protected]

* Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82461

Introduction

Reports on bill deformities in birds have been well-

documented around the world (Craves 1994; Pomeroy 1962)

and mainly involve grossly deformed crossed or elongated

beaks. Published reports of naturally occurring bill deformities

from India include long bill deformity in House Crow Corvus

splendens, Large-billed Crow C. macrorhynchos and Yellow-

billed Blue Magpie Urocissa flavirostris (Kasambe et al.

2009). Bill deformity has also been reported in Blue Rock

Pigeon Columba livia (Kasambe 2010). Many reasons, like

trauma or injury, poor nutrition, diseases caused by bacteria,

virus, fungi, or parasitic infections, genetic mutations,

chemical pollutants, and radiation, have been cited to cause

226

bill deformities (Brown 1976; Craves 1994; Fox 1952;

Marshall and Stoleson 2000; Pomeroy 1962; Sharp and

Neill 1979). In this note, we discuss our observations on bill

deformities in three bird species, recorded during bird trails

in and around Solapur city, and possible causes behind such

instances. Bill deformity in Great Indian Bustard Ardeotis

nigriceps and Common Tailorbird Orthotomus sutorius is

probably recorded for the first time from India.

1. Great Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps

Bill deformity was recorded in a rescued injured adult

female Great Indian Bustard (GIB) on March 04, 2012,

being taken care of at Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Fig. 1: Great Indian Bustard with deformed upper mandible (a) compared with normal specimens (b & c)

Nannaj, Solapur. The bird had no other visible anatomical

deformity. The cause of injury could not be ascertained.

The bill was abnormally long, down-curved, with a pointed

upper mandible that was visibly longer than the lower, a

condition referred to as long-bill deformity (Fig.la—c). The

total length of the upper mandible (maxilla) was 78.2 mm

and that of the lower mandible was 68.5 mm. Measurements

of the deformed GIB were compared with normal specimens

from the Ornithology collection of Bombay Natural History

Society, Mumbai (Table 1). Except for the abnormally

long, decurved bill, all other morphological features of

the deformed GIB appeared normal. This injured bustard,

although well cared for, died after three months and has

been preserved at Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Borivali,

Mumbai.

2. House Crow Corvus splendens

Six instances of bill deformity were recorded in

House Crow from Solapur city. The deformity involved an

abnormally long, down-curved and pointed upper mandible

that was visibly longer compared to the lower mandible. The

bill deformity was so pronounced that it could be diagnosed

even with the naked eye (Fig. 2). All the six observations

were recorded independently (dated 13.x11.2009; 18.1x.2010,

24.%,2010: 61.2011; 26:vi.2012; 12.vin 2OT2) duce

separate field surveys between January 2009 and December

2012, mostly in flocks of more than 15 crows. The crows

with deformity showed normal feeding and group behaviour

with other crows.

3. Common Tailorbird Orthotomus sutorius

Only one case of bill deformity was recorded in a

juvenile Common Tailorbird on October 08, 2010, from

Solapur city. The upper and lower mandibles crossed

each another. The upper mandible was straight. The lower

mandible was longer than the upper mandible (Fig. 3).

Despite having a deformed beak, the bird appeared normal

and it fledged.

Table 1: Measurements of maxilla and mandible of deformed bustard specimen and normal female bustard specimens

Specimen with

deformed bill (cm)

Upper Mandible 7.82

Lower Mandible 6.85

Difference in length 0.97

Observed difference beyond crossing point 0.78

of Maxilla and Mandible

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

Female Specimen with normal bill

(R.No. BNHS. 14026) (cm)

Female Specimen with normal bill

(R.No. BNHS. 14025) (cm)

Fas 7.06

(fan: 7.01

0.04 0.05

Nil Nil

227

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Fig. 2: Bill deformity in House Crow (Long-bill deformity)

Fig. 3: Bill deformity in Common Tailorbird (Cross-bill deformity)

Conclusion

Bill deformity, although rare and statistically

insignificant, raises a serious question. Is this representative

of a widespread problem in the natural population, which

we are not aware of or fail to assess in the wild? There is

no direct observational evidence to support the impact of

low population and teratogenic chemicals on the fitness of

Great Indian Bustard in the wild. Being an omnivore and

vagrant, GIB frequents agricultural habitats. Solapur region

has experienced an overall shift in agricultural pattern from

traditional sorghum based agriculture to intensive cash crops,

which require high doses of pesticide round the year (Dutta et

al. 2010). With declining population, bustards have reduced

genetic diversity (Ishtiaq et al. 2011), which may be one of

the reasons for the observed deformity.

We failed to find any published reports of Common

Tailorbird with deformed beak, while there are 25 sightings

of House Crow with deformed beak at 12 places in various

cities from six states in India (Kasambe et al. 2009). The

factors responsible for beak deformities in these birds are

not well understood. We may speculate that these birds may

be getting higher exposure to teratogenic chemicals in cities

where they mainly feed on dead carcasses, of which many

are killed with the use of chemicals.

The Solapur region is presently one of the most rapidly

developing areas in western Maharashtra. Once known for its

vast grasslands and traditional agricultural practices, Solapur

region in the last decade has experienced intense urbanization,

industrialization, conversion of grassland to arable land

and introduction of exotic species like Gliricidia sepium.

Grasslands from this region are currently under high peril as

evidenced by the continued decline in the population of the

Critically Endangered Great Indian Bustard (Hippargi et al.

2012). As birds are indicators of environmental health, the

recent increased incidence of beak deformity poses a serious

challenge. Therefore our findings are important, especially

with respect to the conservation and management of Great

Indian Bustard. Although our reports are incidental, more

data needs to be gathered to diagnose the underlying cause

and rate of prevalence of such anomalies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors acknowledge University Grants Commission,

New Delhi, for financial assistance; Dr. Asad R. Rahmani,

Director, BNHS, Mr. Rahul Khot, Curator, and Mr. Sujit

Narwade, Project Scientist, BNHS, Mumbai, for providing

required permission and assistance to take measurements of

Great Indian Bustard specimens; Principal Chief Conservator

of Forest (Nagpur); Forest Department (Solapur); and Sanjay

Gandhi National Park (Mumbai) for necessary permissions, and

Rahul Bharadwaj for logistic support during field studies.

REFERENCES

Brown, L.N. (1976): Prevalence of bill abnormalities in Florida Brown

Thrashers. Florida Field Natur. 4: 11-13.

Craves, J. (1994): Passerines with deformed beaks. North American

Bird Bander 19(1): 14-18.

Dutta, S., A. RAHMANI & Y.V. JHALA (2010): Running out of time?

The Great Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps — status, viability,

and conservation strategies. Eur. J. Wild Res. 57: 615-625. DOI

10.1007/s10344-010-0472-z.

Fox, W. (1952): Behavioral and evolutionary significance of the

abnormal growth of beaks of birds. Condor 54: 160-162.

228

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

HrpparGl, R., P. BOLDE, S. MANTHEN & S. ALAND (2012): Population and

breeding ecology of avifauna in a highly fragmented grassland

patch near Solapur, Maharashtra. Avishkar. Solapur University

Research Journal 2: 22-30.

IsHT1aQ, F., S. Dutta, B. YUMNAM & V. JHALA (2011): Low genetic

diversity in the endangered Great Indian Bustard (Ardeotis

nigriceps) across India and implications for conservation. Conserv.

Genet. 12: 857-863.

KASAMBE, R. (2010): Bill deformity in Blue Rock Pigeon (Columba livia),

in Thane, Maharashtra. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 50(5): 73.

KASAMBE, R., A. JosHt & S. Meprayur (2009): Bill deformities in House

Crows Corvus splendens, Large-billed Crow C. macrorhynchos

and Yellow-billed Blue Magpie Urocissa flavirostris in India.

Newsletter for Birdwatchers 49(5): 73-77.

MarsHALL, R.M. & S.H. STOLESON (2000): Threats. Jn: Finch, D.M.

and S.H. Stoleson (Eds): Status, Ecology, and Conservation of

the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. U.S. Forest Service General

Technical Report RMRS-GTR-60. 13 1pp.

Pomeroy, D.E. (1962): Birds with abnormal bills. Brit. Birds 55:

49-72.

SHARP, M.S. & R.L. NEILL (1979): Physical deformities in a population

of wintering black birds. Condor 81: 427-430.

11. THE BUFF-BELLIED PIPIT ANTHUS RUBESCENS JAPONICUS AT RANTHAMBHORE,

RAJASTHAN, INDIA

HARKIRAT SINGH SANGHA!

'B-27, Gautam Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur 302 021, Rajasthan, India. Email: [email protected]

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82467

The Buff-bellied Pipit Anthus rubescens breeds in

central and western Siberia from Tunguska to Kamchatka

and south to northern Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands. Of

the four recognized subspecies, 4.r. japonicus winters in

South Asia (Ali and Ripley 1998; del Hoyo et al. 2004).

On migration and in winter it is found in a variety of open,

often wet habitats such as damp grasslands, stubble and

ploughed fields, meadows, sea and lakeshores, mudflats,

river courses, etc. (Alstr6m and Mild 2003). Its status in the

Indian subcontinent is variously described as uncommon

winter visitor to Pakistan (Kohat, Bannu, and the plains

of the Indus south to Karachi), Nepal, Darjeeling, and

Manipur (Ali and Ripley 1998), “generally rare” but more

frequent in north-central Pakistan (Rasmussen and Anderton

2012) rare in north-western India (Alstr6m and Mild 2003;

Grimmett et al. 1998), vagrant for Bhutan and recorded twice

(Spierenburg 2005) and “probably a rare winter visitor and

migrant in Nepal (Grimmett et a/. 2000). Very few sightings

are shown in the distribution map for the species in the

Indian subcontinent (Grimmett et al. 2011; Kazmierczak

2000). |

While birding near Jogi Mahal in Ranthambhore

National Park, Sawai Madhopur district, Rajasthan on

December 30, 2013, a Buff-bellied Pipit was sighted

feeding in wet, grassy edges of the lake. The species was

sighted again on December 31, 2013, in the same area and

well observed. Many of the pipit species are confusingly

similar, differing in only small morphological details which

make them difficult to separate in the field (Simms 1992).

However, the identification of the species at Ranthambhore

was possible using a combination of field marks pertaining

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

to wing-bar colour, overall colour, degree of streaking,

thickness of malar stripe, boldness of the eye-ring, and

leg colour. Moreover, having seen the species a number of

times at Tal Chhapar, Churu district (Poonia et al. 2014)

in rather open surroundings helped us in easily identifying

this rare bird.

Overall it appeared small, slender and drab. Its

upperparts were brown with faint streaks. Wing-bars

were prominently white but not really dazzling white.

Large streaks were conspicuous not only on the breast and

underparts but also on the flanks. The dark coloration of the

streaks contrasted strongly with the white underparts, and

they were also considerably darker than the grey-brown

upperparts. Some streaks coalesced longitudinally, giving

a “striped” appearance (this feature was noticed in the

birds at-Tal Chhapar also). The face of the pipit was

distinctive with complete but faint white eye-ring standing

out and buffish supercilium extending behind the eye. The

cheeks were grey-brown. The bill was fine and appeared

dark. The legs were pink or pale brown coloured. It was

separated from the similar looking Water Pipit Anthus

spinoletta by its darker upperparts, prominent malar-stripe

and paler legs.

The species is known from Bharatpur in eastern

Rajasthan, as both Kazmierczak (2000) and Grimmett ef

al. (2011) show isolated record(s) from the area. However,

the only confirmed record of the species in Rajasthan

supported by photographic evidence is from Tal Chhapar,

Churu district where it was first sighted in December 2011

and subsequently in winter months in 2012, 2013 and 2014

(Poonia et al. 2014).

229

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

REFERENCES

ALI, S. & S.D. Riptey (1998): Handbook of the Birds of India and Pakistan

together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and

Sri Lanka. Vol. 9. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Delhi.

ALSTROM, P. & K. Mitp (2003): Pipits and Wagtails of Europe, Asia

and North America. Identification and Systematics. Christopher

Helm, London.

DEL Hoyo, J., A. ELtiotr & D. CuristiE (EDs) (2004): Handbook of the

Birds of the World. Vol. 9. Cotingas to Pipits and Wagtails. Lynx

Edicions, Barcelona.

GRIMMETT, R., C. INskipp & T. INskipp (1998): Birds of the Indian

Subcontinent. Christopher Helm, London.

GRIMMETT, R., C. INskipp & T. INskipp (2000): Birds of Nepal. Prakash

Books, New Delhi.

GRIMMETT, R., C. Inskipp & T. INskipp (2011): Birds of the Indian

Subcontinent. 2nd edn. Christopher Helm, London.

KAZMIERCZAK, K. (2000): A Field Guide to the Birds of India. Om Book

Service, Delhi.

PoontA, S.S., H.S. SANGHA, S. SRIDHAR & M. SHARMA (2014): The Buff-

bellied Pipit Anthus rubescens japonicus at Tal Chhapar, Churu

district: a new species for the Thar Desert, Rajasthan. Indian

BIRDS 9(5 & 6): 164-165.

RASMUSSEN, P.C. & J.C. ANDERTON (2012): Birds of South Asia. The Ripley

Guide. Vol. 2. Smithsonian Institution, Michigan State University

and Lynx Edicions, Washington D.C., Michigan and Barcelona.

SIMMS, E. (1992): British Larks, Pipits & Wagtails. Harper Collins,

London.

SPIERENBURG, P. (2005): Birds in Bhutan. Status and Distribution.

Oriental Bird Club, Bedford, U.K.

12. ALBINO COMMON TRINKET SNAKE COELOGNATHUS HELENA (DAUDIN, 1803)

FROM UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN, NORTHWEST INDIA

SATISH KUMAR SHARMA!’* AND PADAM SINGH RATHORE2

Wildlife Sanctuary Jaisamand, Jaisamand Post, Udaipur 313 905, Rajasthan, India. Email: [email protected]

*Wildlife Street Animal Rescue Society, 136, Dewali, Udaipur 313 001, Rajasthan, India. Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82472

On July 12, 2012, at around 24:00 hrs, we rescued an

albino Trinket Snake Coelognathus helena (Daudin) from a

house in Udaipur city. It was pale pinkish to whitish in colour

with a pair of faint lines on the nape. Its characteristic oblique

streak from eye to lip was not traceable. The streak on top of the

head was quite faint. The ocellated crossbars of the anterior part

of the body were missing. The broad dark stripes of posterior

part were also faint. Its head was pale yellowish and its eyes

were reddish. The tongue was reddish white, contrary to bluish

grey in a normal conspecific (Sharma and Koli 2014). It was

a juvenile, measuring about 350 mm in total body length. Its

body scalation was: scale rows at mid body 27; supralabials 9

(Sth and 6th were touching the eye); preocular 1, postoculars

2; temporals 2+2; ventrals 221; anal plate 1; subcaudals 85,

paired. Sex of the snake could not be determined, since it was

a juvenile. The snake was photographed for record (Fig. 1) and

released in Neemach Mata Reserve Forest Block of Udaipur

(North) Forest Division.

There are a few records of albinism in snakes from

India (D’Abreau 1918; Jadhav and Mahabal 2012; Kumar

1988; Lahiri 1955; Nivalkar et al. 2012; Vyas 2009, 2012;

Whitaker 1971). Various abnormal colour morphs have also

been reported in Indian snakes (Vyas 2013; Vyas et al. 2012).

A detailed account of aberrant colours and patterns in Indian

serpents has been given by Mahabal and Thakur (2014). There

are five published reports of total albinism in Trinket Snake

Fig. 1: Albino (rescued) and normal Trinket Snake seen in Udaipur

C. helena (Mahabal and Thakur 2014) in India. So far, all

cases of total albinism have been reported from Gujarat and

Maharashtra, and no case has been reported from Rajasthan.

The present case is the first record of total albinism in Trinket

Snake Coelognathus helena from the state of Rajasthan, and

hence worth placing on record.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to Dr. T. Mohanraj, Deputy

Conservator of Forests, Wildlife Division, Udaipur, Rajasthan,

for providing facilities during the course of the study.

230

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

REFERENCES

D’ AsreAu, E.A. (1918): On an undescribed colour variety of the snake

Zaocys mucosus from the Central Provinces. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.

Soc. 25(4): 753.

JADHAV, M. & A. MAHABAL (2012): Sighting of albino Common Sand Boa

Gongylophis conicus from Northern Western Ghats, Maharashtra,

India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc 109(3): 205-206.

Kumar, R. (1988): The albino Cobra. Environ. Today 3(1 & 2): 6-8.

Lauri, R.K. (1955): A ‘White’ Python. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

53(1): 135-136.

ManasaL, A. & S. THAKUR (2014): Instances of aberrant colors and

patterns among the Indian herpetofauna: A review. Russ. J.

Herpetol. 21(2): 80-88.

Nrvackar, A., V. PatiL, M. Patt & V. SHINDE (2012): Report of an albino

Beaked Worm-Snake Grypotyphlops acutus (Dumeril and Bibron

1844). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 109(3): 206-207.

SHARMA, S.K. & V.K. Kori (2014): A preliminary study on tongue

coloration of some Indian snakes and Monitor Lizard. Cobra

VIIT(1): 26-28.

Vyas, R. (2009): Albinism in the Common Krait Bungarus caeruleus

(Schneider, 1801). Sauria 31(4): 57-58.

Vyas, R. (2012): Albinism in two Indian Colubrine snakes Oligodon

arnensis and Coelognathus helena. Sauria 34(3): 57-61.

Vyas, R. (2013): Notes on unusual color morphism in Oriental Rat Snake

Ptyas mucosa (Linnaeus, 1758). Reptile Rap 15: 43-44.

Vyas, R., V. PRAJAPATI & D. PARMAR (2012): The case of incomplete

albinism in Indian Red Sand Boa Eryx johnii johnii (Russell,

1801) (Reptilia, Serpents, Boidae). Russ. J. Herpetol. 19(4):

299-302.

Wuitaker, R. (1971): Notes on Indian Snakes - 1. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.

Soc. 68(2): 461-463.

13. ON A COLLECTION OF FISH FROM MANJALY — AN ESTUARINE AREA OF

THE RIVER PERTYAR IN ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, INDIA

M.H. Suyta!** AND K.S. JAMEELA BEEvi'”

'P.G. and Research Centre, Department of Zoology, Maharaja’s College, Ernakulam, Kochi 682 011, Kerala, India.

*KKTM Government College, Pullut (P.O.), Kodungallur, Thrissur 680 663, Kerala, India. Email: [email protected].

*Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82480

Introduction

Many studies have been conducted in the upper reaches

of the Periyar river, but those in the lower reaches are very

few. Earlier studies on the ichthyodiversity of the Periyar

river date back to Chacko (1948), who listed 35 species

from Periyar lake. Indra and Rema Devi (1990) collected

19 species from Thekkady Wildlife Reserve (Periyar Tiger

Reserve). Arun et al. (1996) reported the presence of

Oreochromis mossambica (Peters) for the first time, along

with five other species from Periyar Tiger Reserve (PTR).

Zacharias et al. (1996) collected 35 species from PTR, which

included all the fishes in the list of Chacko (1948), except

Mystus cavasius (Ham.), M. vittatus (Bloch), and Notopterus

notopterus (Pallas). Raju et al. (2000) collected 46 species

from Idukki-Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuaries. Jameela Beevi

and Ramachandran (2003) reported Danio fraseri (Hora

and Mukerji) from Periyar river. Recently, Radhakrishnan

and Kurup (2010) provided an updated checklist of the fish

fauna of PTR with 54 species, including 17 species additional

to earlier lists. Many new species have also been reported:

Menon and Rema Devi (1995) described Hypselobarbus

kurali from Periyar lake; Menon and Jacob (1996) described

Crossocheilus periyarensis and rediscovered Puntius

ophiocephalus (Raj) from Periyar river; Zacharias and

Minimol (1999) described Nemacheilus menoni, and Gopi

(2001) described Garra periyarensis from PTR. Kurup

and Radhakrishnan described Nemacheilus periyarensis

from Periyar lake in 2005, and Garra emarginata and

G. mlapparaensis from Periyar river in 2010. The present

study lists 33 species of fishes collected from the estuarine

area in the lower reaches of Periyar river at Manyaly.

It provides a comparison with fishes collected in earlier

studies from the freshwater areas of Periyar and adds

17 more species to the checklist of Radhakrishnan and Kurup

(2010), raising the number to 71.

Material and Methods

A survey was conducted on the fish diversity of the

estuarine area of River Periyar at Manjaly (10° 8’ 24” N;

76° 13’ 48” E) near North Paravur in Ernakulam district,

for a period of three months from August to October

2011. Weekly samples were collected with the help of

local fishermen using cast net. The samples were

preserved in 10% formaldehyde and deposited in

the Zoology Museum, Maharaja’s College, Ernakulam, with

accession numbers MCZMF 303-335. Morphometric and

meristic studies were done following Jayaram (1999, 2010).

Fishes were identified and classified following Day (1878),

Nelson (1984), Talwar and Jhingran (1991), and Jayaram

(1999, 2010).

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

231

13.

14.

16.

17.

232

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Table 1: List of fishes collected from an estuarine area of River Periyar and comparison with earlier studies

Fishes collected in the

present study

Order : Perciformes

Family : Ambassidae

Genus ___: Ambassis Cuvier

Ambassis ambassis (Lacepéde)* (MCZMF 303)

Genus _: Parambassis Bleeker

Parambassis thomassi (Day) (MCZMF 304)

Family : Apogonidae

Genus _: Apogon (Lacepéde)

Apogon hyalosoma (Bleeker)* (MCZMF 305)

Family : Terapontidae

Genus’: Jerapon Cuvier

Terapon jarbua (Forsskal)* (MCZMF 306)

Family : Lutjanidae

Genus — : Lutjanus Bloch

Lutjanus argentimaculatus (Forsskal)*

(MCZMF 307)

Family : Gerreidae

Genus ___: Gerres Cuvier

Gerres filamentosus (Cuvier)* (MCZMF 308)

Gerres poieti (Cuvier)* (MCZMF 309)

Family : Scatophagidae

Genus : Scatophagus Cuvier

Scatophagus argus (Linnaeus)* (MCZMF 310)

Family : Anabantidae

Genus: Anabas Cuvier

Anabas testudineus (Bloch) (MCZMF 311)

Family : Cichlidae

Genus : Etroplus Cuvier

Etroplus suratensis (Bloch) (MCZMF 312)

Etroplus maculatus (Bloch) (MCZMF 313)

Genus _: Oreochromis Gunther

Oreochromis mossambicus (Peters) (MCZMF 314)

Family : Gobidae

Genus __: Glossogobius Gill

Glossogobius giuris (Hamilton) (MCZMF 315)

Family : Channidae

Genus: Channa Scopoli

Channa marulius (Hamilton) (MCZMF 316)

Channa Striata (Bloch) (MCZMF 317)

Order : Siluriformes

Family : Siluridae

Genus : Ompok Lacepéde

Ompok malabaricus (Valen)* (MCZMF 318)

Genus’: Wallago Bleeker

Wallago attu (Bloch & Schneider) (MCZMF 319)

Chacko Indra &

(1948) Rema

Devi (1990)

= +

os a

+ +

Zacharias

et al. (1996)

Arun Raju Radha Krishnan

et al. et al. & Kurup (2010)

(1996) (2000)

+ +

4 +

a1 vs

+ +

J. Bombay Nat.

- +

+ -

+ +

2 +

+ =

Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

18.

jpol

20.

21.

22.

23!

24.

20.

26.

28.

29.

30.

31).

32:

30.

Table 1: List of fishes collected from an estuarine area of River Periyar and comparison with earlier studies (contd. )

Fishes collected in the

present study

Family : Bagridae

Genus___: Horabagrus Jayaram

Horabagrus brachysoma (Gunther) (MCZMF 320)

Genus : Mystus Scopoli

Mystus oculatus (Valen.) (MCZMF 321)

Mystus gulio (Hamilton)* (MCZMF 322)

Family : Heteropneustidae

Genus —: Heterpneustes Muller

Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch) (MCZMF 323)

Family _: Ariidae

Genus _~ : Arius Valen.

Arius arius (Hamilton)* (MCZMF 324)

Order : Cypriniformes

Family : Cyprinidae

Genus _: Hypselobarbus Bleeker

Hypselobarbus thomassi (Day)* (MCZMF 325)

Genus’: Labeo Cuvier

Labeo dussumieri (Valen.)* (MCZMF 326)

Genus’: Puntius (Hamilton)

Puntius mahecola (Valen.) (MCZMF 327)

Genus — : Dawkinsia (Pethiyagoda,

Meegaskumbura & Maduwage)

Dawkinsia filamentosa (Valen.) (MCZMF 328)

Genus: Amblypharyngodon Bleeker

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Chacko

(1948)

Amblypharyngodon melettinus Valen.*(MCZMF 329) -

Genus’: Rasbora Bleeker

Rasbora daniconius (Hamilton) (MCZMF 330)

Order : Beloniformes

Family : Belonidae

Genus: Xenentodon Regan

Xenentodon cancila (Hamilton) (MCZMF 331)

Family : Hemiramphidae

Genus — : Hyporhamphus Gill

Hyporhamphus limbatus (Valen.)* (MCZMF 332)

Order : Mugiliformes

Family : Mugilidae

Genus : Mugil/ Linnaeus

Mugil cephalus (Linnaeus)* (MCZMF 333)

Order : Clupeiformes

Family : Clupeidae

Genus’ : Dayella Talwar & Whitehead

Dayella malabarica (Day)* (MCZMF 334)

Order : Elopiformes

Family : Megalopidae

Genus’ : Megalops Lacepéde

Megalops cyprinoides (Broussonet)* (MCZMF 335) -

+ indicates presence of species; - indicates absence of species; * indicates species collected in the study and not recorded in the

compared lists

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

Indra &

Rema

Devi (1990)

Zacharias

et al. (1996)

Arun

et al.

(1996)

Raju

et al.

(2000)

Radha Krishnan

& Kurup (2010)

233

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Results and Discussion

A total of 33 species of fishes belonging to 28 genera,

20 families, and 6 orders were collected. Order Perciformes

dominated the study with 10 families, 12 genera and

15 species, followed by Order Siluriformes with 4 families,

6 genera and 7 species. Order Cypriniformes was

represented by a single family, Cyprinidae with 6 genera and

6 species. Order Beloniformes was present with 2 families,

2 genera and 2 species. Orders Mugiliformes, Clupeiformes,

and Elopiformes were represented by one species each.

A comparative list of the collected fishes with their

systematic positions and accession numbers is given in

Table 1.

Of the collected fishes, the only exotic species —

Oreochromis mossambica (Peters) — was present in all

previous checklists except in Chacko (1948). It was reported

for the first time by Arun et al. in 1996 from Pertyar lake.

Apogon hyalosoma (Bleeker) collected during the study

was the first report of the species from Kerala (Shyla and

Jameela Beevi 2014). The only species of genus Puntius

collected during the study was identified as Puntius mahecola

Valenciennes (MCZMEF 327), based on the presence of a

caudal spot, a single pair of maxillary barbels, and lateral

line scales being 22(1)—23(2) (Pethiyagoda and Kottelat

2005). The Hypselobarbus sp. collected during the study

(lateral line scales 32, Ltr 5 1/2 / 1/2 1/2, predorsal scales

11) was identified as H. thomassi Day (MCZMEF 325) as

per Knight et al. (2013a, b). Other than the four species,

namely Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch), Rasbora daniconius

(Hamilton), Glossogobius giuris (Hamilton), and Channa

striata (Bloch) mentioned in Chacko (1948), Wallago attu

(Schneider), a near threatened species (IUCN Red List

2012.2), was collected and recorded in the study. Sixteen

species collected in the present study were previously

reported from Periyar. Most of the species collected during

the study, like Ambassis ambassis (Lacepéde), Terapon

jarbua (Forsskal), Lutjanus argentimaculatus (Forsskal),

Scatophagus argus (Linnaeus), Amblypharyngodon melettinus

(Valenciennes), Ompok malabaricus (Valenciennes), Dayella

malabarica (Day), Megalops cyprinoides (Broussonet),

Mugil cephalus (Linnaeus), Mystus gulio (Hamilton),

Arius arius (Hamilton), Gerres filamentosus (Cuvier),

G. poieti (Cuvier), Hyporhamphus limbatus (Valenciennes),

Labeo dussumieri (Valenciennes), Hypselobarbus thomassi

(Day), are estuarine forms or species visiting lower reaches,

and hence not reported earlier. Many freshwater species

of Garra, Anguilla, Tor, Salmophasia, Barilius, Devario,

Danio, Macrognathus, Crossocheilus, Nemacheilus,

Bhavania, Travancoria, Schistura, Batasio, Lepidocephalus,

Glyptothorax, Clarias, Poecilia, Mastacembelus, and

Pristolepis were not collected from Manjaly as it is an

estuarine habitat. Most of the collected fishes, despite their

food value, have great demand in the ornamental fish market,

either in the young or adult stage (Beevi and Ramachandran

2009).

This study highlights the richness of estuarine

ichthyofauna of Periyar river with the report of 17 additional

species. If 33 species could be collected within three

months, a year-long collection may add more species to the

list.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the Head of the Department

of Zoology, Maharaja’s College, Ernakulam, for providing

necessary facilities to carry out the research. One of the

authors, M.H. Shyla, extends her sincere gratitude to the

UGC for granting her a Teacher Fellowship.

REFERENCES

Arun, L.K., C.P. SHan & P.S. Easa (1996): Record of new fishes

from Periyar Tiger Reserve. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 93(1):

103-104.

Cuacko, P.I. (1948): Development of fisheries of the Pertyar Lake.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 48(1): 191-192.

Day, F. (1878): The Fishes of India; being a natural history of fishes

known to inhabit the seas & freshwaters of India, Burma and

Ceylon. William Dawson & Sons, London. Text & Atlas in

2 parts. xx + 778, 196 pls.

Gop!, K.C. (2001): Garra periyarensis — a new Cyprinid fish from

Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala, India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

98(1): 82-83.

InpRA, T.J. & K. Rema Devi (1990): On a small collection of fish from

Thekkady Wildlife Sanctuary, Western Ghats. Rec. Zool. Surv.

India 87(3): 249-257.

IUCN (2012): IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

www.iucnredlist.org.

JAMEELA BEEVI, K.S. & A. RAMACHANDRAN (2003): Danio fraseri Hora

234

and Mukerji (Pisces: Cyprinidae): A new report to Kerala and

Southern Western Ghats. Zoo s Print Journal 18(6): 1111-1112.

JAMEELA BEEVI, K.S. & A. RAMACHANDRAN (2009): Checklist of

freshwater fishes collected from Ernakulam District, Kerala, India.

Journal of Threatened Taxa 1(9): 493-494.

JAYARAM, K.C. (1999): The Freshwater Fishes of the Indian Region.

Narendra Publishing House, Delhi. 551 pp.

JAYARAM, K.C. (2010): The Freshwater Fishes of the Indian Region. 2nd

edn. Narendra Publishing House, Delhi. 616 pp.

KnicuT, J.D.M., A. Rar & R.K.P. D’souza (2013a): Re-description

of Hypselobarbus lithopidos (Teleostei: Cyprinidae), based on

its re-discovery from the Western Ghats, India, with notes on

H. thomassi. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(13): 4734-4742.

KniGcutT, J.D.M., A. RAt & R.K.P. D’souza (2013b): On the identities

of Barbus mussallah Sykes and Cyprinus curmuca Hamilton

with notes on the status of Gobio canarensis Jerdon (Teleostei:

Cyprinidae). Zootaxa 3750(3): 201-215.

Kurup, B.M. & K.V. RADHAKRISHNAN (2005): Fishes of the genus

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Nemacheilus (Bleeker, 1863) in Kerala with description of a new

species, Nemacheilus periyarensis. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.

102(1): 75-78.

Kurup, B.M. & K.V. RADHAKRISHNAN (2010): Two new Cyprinid fishes

under the Genus Garra (Hamilton) from Kerala, Southern India.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 107(3): 220-223.

Menon, A.G.K. & K. Rema Devi (1995): Hypselobarbus kurali (Pisces:

Cyprinidae) — a new large barb from the south western rivers of

peninsular India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 92(3): 389-393.

Menon, A.G.K. & P.C. Jacos (1996): Crossocheilus periyarensis, a

new cyprinid fish from Thannikudy (Thekkady), Kerala, India.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 93(1): 62-64.

NELson, J.S. (1984): Fishes of the World. John Wiley and Sons,

New York. 523 pp.

PETHIYAGODA, R. & M. Korrterat (2005): The identity of the South

Indian Barb Puntius mahecola (Valenciennes, 1844) (Teleostei:

Cyprinidae). Jn: Yeo, D.C.J., P.K.L. Ng & R. Pethiyagoda (Eds):

Contributions to biodiversity exploration and research in Sri Lanka.

The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology Supplement No. 12: 145-152.

RADHAKRISHNAN, K.V. & B.M. Kurup (2010): Ichthyodiversity of Periyar

Tiger Reserve, Kerala, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 2(10):

1192-1198.

Raju THOMAS, K., C.R. Buu & C.R. AsiTHKUMAR (2000): Fish fauna of

Idukki and Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuaries, southern Kerala, India.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 97(3): 443-445.

SHYLA, M.H. & K.S. JAMEELA BEEvI (2014): Apogon hyalosoma Bleeker

(Pisces: Percoidei: Apogonidae) — a new report to Kerala, India.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 111 (1): 52-54.

TALWAR, P.K. & A.G. JHINGRAN (1991): Inland fishes of India and adjacent

countries. Vols 1 & 2. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd,

New Delhi.1158 pp.

ZACHARIAS, V.J., A.K. BHARADWAJ & P.C. Jacos (1996): Fish fauna of

Periyar Tiger Reserve. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 93(1): 39-43.

ZACHARIAS, V.J. & K.C. Minimot (1999): Nemacheilus menoni — a new

species of fish from Mlappara, Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 96(2): 28.

14. SEXUAL DIMORPHISM IN A BENTHIC FISH

OXYURICHTHYS TENTACULARIS (VALENCIENNES, 1837), GOBIIDAE,

INHABITING ASHTAMUDI ESTUARY, KERALA, INDIA

REemMYA Mouan!* AND SHERLY WILLIAMS, E.!?

‘Environmental Science, Aquaculture and Fish Biotechnology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, Fatima Mata National College

(autonomous), Kollam 691 001, Kerala, India.

“Email: [email protected]

>Email: [email protected]

* Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82485

Introduction

Members of the Gobiidae family are small benthic

fishes inhabiting a wide range of habitats in temperate and

Fig. 1: Oxyurichthys tentacularis male (lower) and female (upper)

tropical regions (Nelson 1994). Oxyurichthys tentacularis

(local name Koozhali) is one of the important Gobiid food fish

of Ashtamudi estuary. Though its abundance and distribution

Fig. 2: Urogenital papilla of male (upper) and female

(lower) Oxyurichthys tentacularis

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

235

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

is noted in other estuaries and backwaters of India, Ashtamudi

estuary is the only estuary in India where a gobiid is fished

commercially (Kurup and Thomas 2001). Sexual dimorphism

study is the preliminary step to distinguish sexes of a species.

Such studies have been carried out only on a few fish species

in India. Given the lack of biological or ecological data on

Oxyurichthys tentacularis, the objective of this work was to

document its sexual dimorphism.

A total of 725 specimens were analyzed for the study.

The specimens were collected from Ashtamudi estuary

(8° 52'—9° 2' N; 76° 32’-76° 41’ E), in Kollam, for a period

of one year from August 2013 to September 2014. Specimens

of Oxyurichthys tentacularis were collected using modified

gill nets, locally known as koozhalivala. Freshly collected

specimens were brought to the laboratory and studied. The

colour pattern in the sexes was noted in the fresh catch.

Total length and weight were measured. Sex was determined

by observing the appearance of the gonads through the

naked eye.

Macroscopic features of the male and female fish

were noted to document sexual dimorphism. The sexes of

O. tentacularis can be distinguished by differences in the

urogenital papilla, which is in the ventral region between the

anal orifice and the anal fin origin. The urogenital papilla is

short, blunt, and pinkish in females, while in males it is thin,

pointed, pale, and smooth (Figs | and 2). In both sexes, the

urogenital papillae are covered only by epithelium and not

by scales. In most cases, male fishes are larger, head rather

long, compressed, a darker olive green body, and longer fin

rays than female fishes of similar length.

Minos et al. (1995), while studying Red Porgy Pargus

pargus stated that the dimorphic characters may reflect the

adaptation of males and females to different social or/and

reproductive roles rather than different niche utilization.

This is the first report of sexual dimorphism in Oxyurichthys

tentacularis.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We extend our gratitude to Rajiv Gandhi National

Fellowship for research fellowship to carry out the work.

We thank Sr. Dr. Soosamma Kavumpurath (Principal) and

Rev. Fr. Anil Jose (Manager), Fatima Mata National College,

Kollam, Kerala, for facilities.

REFERENCES

Kurup, B.M. & K.V. THomas (2001): Fishery resources of the Ashtamudi

estuary. Technical Report No. 14. ASR Ltd., Marine and Freshwater

Consultants, Hamilton, New Zealand and Centre for Earth Sciences

Studies, Thiruvananthapuram, India.

Minos, G., G. KATsELis, P. Kaspiris & I. ONpRIAS (1995): Comparison of

the change in morphological pattern during the growth in length

of the grey mullets Liza ramada and Liza saliens from western

Greece. Fish. Res. 23: 143-155.

NELSsoNn, J.S. (1994): Fishes of the World. 3rd edn. John Wiley and Sons,

Inc., New York, USA. 600 pp.

15. ANOTE ON THE OCCURRENCE OF BINDAHARA PHOCIDES (FABRICIUS)

(LEPIDOPTERA: LYCAENIDAE) AS A FRUIT BORER OF

SALACIA FRUTICOSA HEYNE EX LAWSON AT PEECHI, KERALA, INDIA

Revatuy, V.S.!*:*, GeEoRGE MaTHEw!*, N. SASIDHARAN?” AND K. MUHAMMAD ANAZ”°

'Forest Health Division, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi 680 653, Kerala, India.

*Non Timber Forest Production Department, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi 680 653, Kerala, India.

-Email: [email protected]

‘Email: [email protected]

°Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82493

Introduction

Bindahara phocides (Fabricius) is a rare butterfly, listed

under Schedule II of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act

(1972). Mostly found in evergreen forests, it is a swift flier

and typically active in the late afternoon or early evening.

It spends much of its time in shady and thickly vegetated

areas among the canopy. It is able to fly quickly and the flight

236

is reminiscent of tailed Lycaenids like Common Imperial

Cheritra freja Fabricius. According to D’Abrera (1986), it

occurs in two forms, namely phocides and moorei. Bindahara

phocides moorei is reported from southern India and

Sri Lanka and B. phocides phocides from Sikkim eastwards

(Kehimkar 2008).

Salacia is a genus of the plant family Hippocrateaceae,

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

consisting of about 200 species distributed in tropical

America, Africa, and Asia. In India, it is represented by

21 species, of which 15 are known from Peninsular India.

Of the 9 species of Salacia known from Kerala (Udayan

et al. 2012), S. macrosperma and S. reticulata are listed

as larval food plants of Bindahara phocides (Kunte 2000).

Ilse and Nafus (1997) reported Salacia prinoides (= Salacia

chinensis), a climbing shrub, as a host of Bindahara phocides

in Asia.

Salacia fruticosa is a medicinal shrub, occurring in

southern India. Its root is used in traditional Indian medicine

for treating diseases, particularly diabetes (Premila 2009).

The species is locally called Ekanayakam or Ponkarandi in

Kerala. Fruits of S. fruticosa are 2—3 cm across, globose and

bright orange or orange-red in colour, containing 1 seeds.

The seeds are covered with fleshy sweet aril. Ripe fruits are

available during February to July. Recently, caterpillars of

Bindahara phocides were found to bore into the fruit of Salacia

fruticosa at Peechi, Kerala, and information on the biology and

pest status of the insect is presented in this note.

Methodology

Premature falling of fruits of S. fruticosa was noticed

in the Medicinal Plants Garden of Kerala Forest Research

Institute, Peechi, Kerala, during May 2013. Ten infested fruits

were collected from the field and on examination were found

to be eaten up by an unidentified caterpillar. The infested

fruits were placed in small glass jars of 16 x 10 cm, covered

with a clean, dry cloth securely fastened with a rubber band.

The jars were kept moist by placing a small piece of wet

cotton within. All frass and excreta were removed daily. Ten

larvae were reared in the laboratory and all of them completed

their life cycle successfully.

Results and Discussion

Infestation was evident from the small pin-hole like

mark present on the pericarp. The larva inside the fruit grew

by feeding on the fleshy aril and seed. As the larva grew,

the contents of the fruit including the seed were completely

eaten up and the frass and excreta were ejected through the

hole on the pericarp. During the initial stage of infestation,

the width of the hole is around 0.5—1 mm and gradually as

the larva grew inside, the hole increased in size. When the

larva attained full maturity, the opening measured 6-10 mm

in width.

The fully-grown larva is black with the head and tip of

abdomen yellow, measures 15—20 mm in length with the head

region having a width of about 0.04 mm. It is dorso-ventrally

compressed and possesses lateral bulgings. The first as well

as parts of the second and third thoracic segments and some

dorsal sclerites of the abdomen have a brownish tinge. It has a

broad white band in the middle and the head capsule is more

flattened and differentiated from the body. The larva, which

is sluggish in habit, is slimy. Prior to the pupation, the larva

becomes inactive and pupation occurs within the fruit. The

total duration of larval period lasts for 15—18 days.

The pupa, which measures 10—15 mm in length, is

smooth, tubular and brown in colour. Prior to eclosion, the

pupa turns dark brown in colour. The pupal stage lasts for 7—

12 days, after which the adult hatches out. The total life cycle

is completed in about 30 days.

Conclusion

Salacia fruticosa is used for the treatment of diabetes,

rheumatism, gonorrhea, and skin diseases. The natural

propagation of S. fruticosa is through seeds. Even though

a mature plant produces several seeds per season, this plant

is rather rare and this could be due to fruit damage caused

“by Bindahara phocides. As it supports one of the rarest and

protected butterfly species, and considering the demand for

this medicinal plant, systematic cultivation of S. fruticosa

may be undertaken.

REFERENCES

D’Aprera, B. (1986): Butterflies of the Oriental Region part III.

Lycaenidae and Riodinidae. Hill House Publishers, Australia.

672 pp.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (1972): The Wildlife (Protection) Act,

(Amendment, 1982). Controller of Publication, Govt of India,

New Delhi.

Itsz, S. & D.M. Narus (1997): Butterflies of Micronesia. Agricultural

Experiment Station, College of Agriculture and Life Science,

University of Guam, Mangilao. 40 pp.

KEHIMKAR, I. (2008): The Book of Indian Butterflies. Bombay Natural

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

History Society, Bombay. 497 pp.

KuntTeE, K. (2000): Butterflies of Peninsular India. Universities Press

(Hyderabad) and Indian Academy of Sciences (Bangalore).

XV1lI+254 pp.

PREMILA, M.S. (2009): Ayurvedic Herbs — a Clinical Guide to the Healing

Plants of Traditional Indian Medicine. The Haworth Press Inc.

New York. 404 pp.

Upbayan, P.S., R. YOHANNAN, M.S. DevipriyA, V. DEVIPRIYA &

A.K. PRADEEP (2012): Anew species of Salacia (Hippocrateaceae)

from south India. Edinburgh Jour. Botany 69(2): 255-258.

237

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

16. PAPILIO XUTHUS LINNAEUS (LEPIDOPTERA: PAPILIONIDAE)

— A NEW RECORD FOR INDIA

NosANG MurRINGLA LimsBoo!

'Darap West Sikkim 737 113, Sikkim, India. Email: [email protected]

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82498

Introduction

Papilio xuthus Linnaeus is a common Asian butterfly,

known to occur from Japan (Yokoyama 1955) through China

to northern Vietnam (Yutaka 2015) and northern Myanmar

(Evans 1932). It is common throughout the range except in

northern Myanmar, where Evans (1932) noted it to be very

rare.

Although Papilio xuthus is similar to P. machaon

Linnaeus, Remington (1959) noted that P. xuthus in its early

stages, is a Rutaceae feeder and much closer to P. demoleus

Linnaeus, P. polytes Cramer, and P. liomedon Moore, rather

than the Umbelliferae-feeding P. machaon group.

Although several subspecies and forms have been

proposed, Yutaka (2015) lists these as synonyms, including

Papilio xanthus neoxuthus Fruhstorfer recorded from

Ta-Tsien-Lu village, not very distant from the present

record. Therefore, it is proposed to follow the treatment of

Yutaka (2015) and regard the taxon P. xuthus as having no

discernible, consistent geographical variation.

It is known to migrate up to 200 km (NatureServe

2013). It has been reported to be on the wing from May to

September (http://lepidoptera.pro/taxonomy/15093).

Material and Methods

On March 13, 2014, Papilio xuthus was photographed

in Walong town (28° 8’ N; 97° 1’ E), Anjaw district, in the

extreme east of Arunachal Pradesh. A group of around 10

individuals were observed feeding on flowers of a rosaceous

tree, perhaps a wild cherry for 10 minutes. During this

encounter, both the upperside and underside were clearly

photographed, to confirm the identity of the butterfly.

Papilio xuthus differs from P. machaon and other Asian

members of the machaon-group, by the forewing cell having

dark streaks on a yellow ground, rather than yellow sprinkled

with some dark scales.

No other butterflies were observed on the wing during

that period. The presence of so many individuals together

on the same tree suggests that they might be members of the

same brood. They might also breed in the area.

Remarks

The present report extends the known distribution of

this butterfly to India. It was recorded in June in Vietnam

(Yutaka 2015). The current record confirms that it is on the

wing even earlier, in March. Since Papilio xuthus is known to

migrate, one cannot be certain if the individuals photographed

in Walong were members of a breeding population or part of

a dispersal from its known habitat further east. The presence

of so many individuals feeding on the same tree also suggests

that they might have gathered on the only nectar resource

available at that time of year. We did not see any other

flowering trees during our visit to the area.

It needs to be confirmed whether this butterfly actually

breeds in the area, and if so, its seasonality in India. The

report by Evans (1932) that it is “Very Rare” was in all

likelihood a reflection of its status in collections at that time

rather than an assessment of its actual status in nature. Since

it is common over most of its known distribution, there is

no need to consider it ‘threatened’ or ‘endangered’ since the

main reason for its recent discovery is that no one had really

looked for butterflies in that area earlier.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank Chewang R. Bonpo and Jainy Maria for

permitting me to accompany them to Walong. Peter

Smetacek, Butterfly Research Centre, identified the butterfly

and he and Isaac Kehimkar, Bombay Natural History Society,

helped with the technical part. I am grateful to my friends

Silash Tamang, Sonam Palzor Bhutia and Phurba Tsh. Bhutia

for their valuable support and Sonam P. Sherpa for always

encouraging me in this field.

REFERENCES

Evans, W.H. (1932): The Identification of Indian Butterflies.

2nd edn. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay. x + 454 pp.

32 pl.

NATURESERVE (2013): “NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of

life [web application]: Papilio xuthus - Linnaeus, 1767’. Virginia:

NatureServe. Retrieved on January 17, 2015.

REMINGTON, C.L. (1959): Wide experimental crosses between Papilio

xuthus and other species. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society

13(3): 151-164.

YoxoyAMA, M. (1955): Coloured Illustrations of the Butterflies of Japan.

238

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Hoikusha, Osaka. 136 pp. 63 pl.

YuTAKA, I. (2015): A Checklist of Butterflies in Indo-China. Chiefly from

Thailand, Laos and Vietnam. http://yutaka.it-n.jp/pap/10270001.

html. Accessed on January 17, 2015.

17. GEOGRAPHICAL CONVERGENCE PATTERNS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF

DROSOPHILA SPECIES IN NAGALAND, A SUB-HIMALAYAN HILLY STATE OF

NORTH-EAST INDIA

Bovito AcHUMI’?, SHRIDHAR N. HEGDE?”, PARDESHI LAL!*, ZEVELOU!” AND SARAT CHANDRA YENISETTI!°*

‘Drosophila Laboratory, Department of Zoology, Nagaland University (Central), Lumami 798 627, Nagaland, India.

*Department of Studies in Zoology, Manasagangotri, University of Mysore, Mysore 570 006, Karnataka, India.

Email: [email protected]

*Email: [email protected]

‘Email: [email protected]

°Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82502

Introduction

The fruit fly Drosophila is one of the most intensively

studied organisms in biology that serves as a model system

for investigations of many developmental and cellular

processes, disease, adaptation, diversity, and evolution, whose

underlying fundamental principles are comparable to higher

eukaryotes, including man (Devineni and Ulrike 2013).

Significant progress has been made in the field of

taxonomy and systematics of the family Drosophilidae

(Order: Diptera) in India. However, a vast area of great

ecological interest is poorly explored. Particularly, very little

is known regarding Drosophila fauna of the north-eastern

region of the Indian subcontinent. This region, with its

diverse climatic conditions, variable altitudes, deep valleys,

luxuriant flora, streams and moist habitats, is one of the

richest repositories of biodiversity in the world (Chatterjee

et al. 2006). It provides an ideal location for colonization

of several Drosophila species (Achumi et al. 2011, 2013;

Dwivedi 1979; Dwivedi et al. 1979; Gupta and Singh 1979;

Singh 1987; Singh and Gupta 1977; Yenisetti et al. 2002).

Some Drosophila species have been reported from the

Northeast. Dwivedi (1979) reported two new species of genus

Drosophila (Drosophila guptai and D. ramamensis) from

Darjeeling, West Bengal. Gupta and Singh (1979) reported

7 species including 2 new species Drosophila novaspinofera

and D. penispina from Shillong, Meghalaya. Gupta and

Singh (1981b) reported two new species D. paralongifera

and D. neomakinoi from Rimbick, West Bengal. Kumar

and Gupta (1983) reported 18 species from Meghalaya

and Arunachal Pradesh. Singh (1987) reported 11 species

of Drosophila from Dimapur, Medziphema, and Kohima

of Nagaland. Yenisetti et al. (2002) reported 8 species of

Drosophila from Mokokchung, Nagaland. Achumi et al.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

(2011) reported one new species Drosophila hegdii from

Lumami, Nagaland. Achumi ef a/. (2013) also reported

19 species from Mount Japfu of Nagaland.

No systematic comprehensive study has been done

on the Drosophila diversity of Nagaland. Singh (1987)

conducted a pioneering preliminary survey on Drosophilids

of Dimapur, Medziphema, and Kohima of Nagaland. Yenisetti

et al. (2002) published a preliminary report on Drosophilids

of Mokokchung. Achumi ef al. (2011) recently described

Drosophila hegdii from Lumami in Zunheboto district.

As most parts of Nagaland are unexplored areas, in order

to understand distribution patterns of Drosophila species,

collections were made from wild localities of all 11 districts

of Nagaland.

Material and methods

Collections were made from wild localities of

11 district headquarters of Nagaland state post-monsoon in

2012 (post-monsoon period October to December is ideal for

proliferative growth of Drosophilids in the wild, due to the

availability of food and rotting substrates).

Drosophila collections were made following two

methods (Fig. 1):

1) Bottle trapping method: For this method, milk

bottles of 200 ml capacity containing a mashed ripe banana

sprayed with yeast were tied to twigs underneath small bushes

at 0.9 m to 1.5 m above the ground. Ten traps were kept in

an area of 1 km radius. After 2 days, the mouth of the bottle

was plugged with cotton and removed from the bushes. The

flies attracted to the bait were thus trapped and collected

in the bottles soon after sunrise or just before sunset. The

collected Drosophila were later transferred to fresh bottles

containing wheat cream agar medium, prepared as follows:

239

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

(d)

Fig. 1: Drosophila collection from wild localities: (a) Drosophila collection net (b) Spreading of bait for net sweeping method

(c) Arrangement for bottle trapping method (d) Ice cream cup covered over the bottle during rainy season (e) Culturing Drosophila

collected from the wild in bottles containing soji, jaggery and agar medium in the laboratory

100 gm sugar (jaggery) was added to 500 ml water, boiling

it with gentle stirring till the jaggery dissolved. Then, 500

ml water, 100 gm semolina (soji), and 8 gm agar-agar were

added to the boiling sugar-water mixture. When the medium

turned sticky, 7.5 ml propionic acid (antifungal agent) was

added while continuously stirring the medium, which became

a thick fluid. The medium was then distributed to sterilized

glass bottles (200 ml milk bottles) or vials of 1” x 3” size.

The mouth of the bottles/vials was kept closed with cotton.

Next day, moisture was removed from the bottles/vials and

two drops of yeast solution were added to the medium. This

medium was used after 24 hours.

2) Net sweeping method: For this method, a handmade

Drosophila net containing a fine cloth cone tied to the rim of the

net was used. Sweeping was done on fermenting fruit (crushed

bananas were spread in shady areas of bushes in the wild, and

flies were collected after 2 days) that were spread out in four

shady regions in an area of 1 km radius. After each sweep (three

240

(2)

sweeps were performed), flies were collected at the bottom of

the cone of the net and were transferred to the bottles containing

freshly prepared wheat cream agar medium.

The flies were then brought to the laboratory, isolated,

and the sex identified. The males were directly used for

identification of species on the basis of morphological

characters such as presence or absence of the sex comb; if

present, the number of sex comb rows and teeth in each row

were recorded and the characteristics of the genital plate

were studied. Individual females were kept in separate food

vials and allowed to produce isofemale lines. The males of

the Fl progeny of these gravid females were used for species

identification.

Genital plate of male Drosophila was dissected

by keeping the fly on a glass slide under a dissecting

microscope with one or two drops of 0.7% NaCl (invertebrate

physiological saline). The tip of the abdomen was immersed

in a solution of 4% KOH for 15—20 minutes to clear the

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

soft tissue. The genital plate was mounted in glycerol on a

cavity slide. The slides were observed under low (10x) and

high (40x) magnification with a microscope. Similarly, the

sex comb, which is present on the foreleg of the male fly,

was dissected out by keeping the fly on a glass slide with

one or two drops of 0.7% NaCl. The sex comb was mounted

in glycerol on a clean glass slide. After placing the cover

glass, slides were observed under low (10x) and high (40x)

magnification under a microscope.

The collected Drosophila flies were taxonomically

identified by employing the parameters suggested by Bock

(1971), Patterson and Stone (1952), Sturtevant (1921), and

Throckmorton (1962). The most important specific characters

are the morphological features, like colour and size of

imago, number and nature of aristal branches, nature and

arrangement of genital arch, nature and number of acrostichal

hairs, wing length and indices, the internal characters of the

adults, shape and number of egg filaments, pupal characters,

pupal spiracles, and behaviour.

Diagnostic features of the species collected:

1. Abdomen of male entirely pale brown; sex comb on first

tarsomere in two rows (six basal, eight distal teeth) single setae

present on second tarsomere....... D. bipectinata (Duda, 1923).

2. Yellowish overall, with longitudinally striped pleurae; preapical

setae absent-on‘second.anddhirdaibiegnhitn. i.) ).scemontecnlade

bic, cine | Ob dee ay ee area as ere bret D. buskii (Coquillet, 1901).

2.9 Sex combiwithionly two stremgsctee <a teerek.f dae ete,

Meare Re is. We rye cere mde D. eugracilis (Bock and Wheeler, 1972).

4. Secondary clasper partially connected, three large setae present

on secondary clasper, and these setae are larger dorsally

whe ones See bi Lxxere Since, cael SD cil ald D. hegdii (Achumi et al. 2011).

5. Secondary clasper nearly oval in shape; larger medial seta on

secondary-clasper inserted dorsal lyst... cis.1.d seen tarel Las bee.

LT eee ae. See D. jambulina (Parshad and Paika, 1964).

6. Abdominal tergites yellow to rufous, with dark posterior bands

in both sexes). sparerows:of large setae a). io.. donecke en

Petpet, iA ears be tes de catacs.. taf essence D. kikkawai (Burla, 1954).

7. Tips of longitudinal veins black, male foreleg Ist tarsomere

witita dénse cluster of tme-hai i052. cee st bata Ee

AP Red et ds Be DON ty ee os D. immigrans (Sturtevent, 1921).

8. Sex comb with single row on basitarsus (three teeth) and two

rows on second tarsomere (one basal and two distal teeth)......

Re SOT. er ae D. malerkotliana (Prashad and Paika, 1964).

9. Sex comb present on the fore tarsus of male, primary clasper

onli resentznl.. andosws. D. melanogaster (Meigen, 1830).

10. Abdominal pattern reduced in both sexes. Male frons strongly

whitish, pruinose when viewed from certain angles. First

basitarsus of male normal................. D. nasuta (Lamb, 1914).

11. Two prominent setae present on anal plate; secondary clasper

oval with simeledanve blackisetais: snc na..dd..ccsmerrvschieeethe

Ps ope SE, Sele thot D. parvula (Bock and Wheeler, 1971).

12. Inner margin of femur with a row of stout, peg-like setae, this

LOM IG NOC! GEV ClOPed cn. .J eure craled soc. d hdecdee,phlvewtyes QE

eet... 8 D. paraimmigrans (Gai and Krishnamurthy, 1986).

13. Metatarsus of fore leg in male with sex comb in two rows,

proximal row with 6 to 7 teeth and distal row with 3 teeth.

Genital arch carries 25 to 30 bristles. Primary clasper

independent of genital arch, roughly triangular, bent interiorly

and accommodates a primary row of 6 to 7 teeth; secondary

row with 3 to 4 teeth present at posterior outer angle of primary

GHSPelts 035 D. rajasekari (Reddy and Krishanamurthy, 1968).

14. Apical band on tergites not widened to form a triangle in

the lateral area; scutum grey, with many dark brown spots

ereiaetbten 12.4 cownlen ol faren: <8, D. repleta (Wollaston, 1858).

15. Primary surstylus with a ventrolateral comb of long, rounded,

black:setae, only a-few teeth dorsolaterally...........c2c.cs2}) cccseoeul

water eR. dt J. ot semutgecd prea ones ie. D. takahashii (Sturtevent, 1927).

16. Three subequal katepisternal setae present; prescutellar

acrostichal setulae present ............... D. nigra (Meiere, 1908).

Results

The list of Drosophila species collected in 11 districts

of Nagaland and their taxonomic position is shown in

Table 1. Total of 16 species were collected, belonging

to four subgenera, namely Sophophora, Drosophila,

Dorsilopha, and Scaptodrosophila. Pooled data collected from

11 districts yielded a total of 2,326 individuals. Out of these,

1,463 individuals (62.89%) belonged to 10 species of

subgenus Sophophora; 569 individuals (24.46%) belonged

to 4 species of subgenus Drosophila; 121 individuals (5.20%)

belonged to 1 species of subgenus Dorsilopha; the remaining

173 individuals (7.43%) belonged to | species of subgenus

Scaptodrosophila.

Drosophila fauna at Dimapur

Analysis of Drosophila collection of 279 flies from this

locality revealed the occurrence of 14 species representing

four subgenera, namely Sophophora, Drosophila, Dorsilopha,

and Scaptodrosophila, of the genus Drosophila. Out of

these, 187 individuals (67.02%) belonged to 8 species of

subgenus Sophophora, namely D. bipectinata, D. eugracilis,

D. jambulina, D. kikkawai, D. malerkotliana, D. parvula,

D. melanogaster, and D. takahashii. 59 individuals

(21.14%) belonged to 4 species of the subgenus Drosophila

(D. immigrans, D. nasuta, D. repleta, and D. paraimmigrans).

22 individuals (7.88%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus

Dorsilopha (D. buskii). The remaining 11 individuals

(3.94% )belonged to | species of subgenus Scaptodrosophila

(D. nigra).

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

241

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

92EC 961 6Z1 Z81 esl ECC Lec Z81 cLl Cue O91 6Lé JE}O} PUEIS)

EL VI ec CC a 0c eS OL . 9 CC A! LL JE}OL

eLl VL A GC - 0c cc OL 91 CC cl LL e/BIU “Gq "|

ejilydosoipojdeos snueigqns

LoL eb 7 GC 144 LL 61 =a Z € CC [B}0]

LoL 73 Cl = CG 144 LL 61 7 Zz c Os Ibgsng "qd "|

eydojisiog snuebgns

69S 9S GC vv 67 GL LS ec 9S G6 Ie 6S [E}OL

68 Sl a 9 fe el Ol mn LL vl 8 Cl ejajdas “q “y

cl = LL VC oC 8e LL is LI Lo - Z suesbjwiwlesed *q “€

ZA! CC = es 8 vc GIL 6 or CG Ol Cl EYNSEU “ *~

902 61 VL VI SL a Gl vl 8c 8e 81 8c sueJBIWUI “Gq *|

ejlydosoig snueBqns

E9rl 971 SLL A CLL vOL Ava’ Gel 001 602 601 18 |E}O)

40) v0 = ~ a = = = = “ = = LIpbay °q, OL

661 v2 €Z LZ 6 = vl 81 = eV 61 8Z Nyseyeye} q 6

€Z = ‘ € = =~ = = Li € rm 5 Leyaselel ‘q'g

ZOL rAS p = 02 = Ol LL 90 60 GI Zl JajseBouejew ‘gq *)

OSL Al Ol = SI 672 6Z = GZ rap GI envied ‘q “9

€€Z = €€ 92 62 QI LI A O€ SI CC CUBIJOYIB/EU * °G

GLI 1Z = €Z Le O€ > Lt 61 82 lEMeY4Y “GQ “7

racy 61 LZ l ZL Ol GZ 1Z 3 SI - €Z euyjnquiel ‘q *¢

G6l ef LL Nr 0z 8I 61 Ge vz = ve syjoesbna “q °Z

022 8Z LL oe 61 Tks fe vl 3 Ov 92 GZ eyeuyoediq ‘q'|

esoydoydos :snuebqns

ejilydosoiq :snues

je}O] oJOqeyuuNZ eyyo\\ BHuesueny youd Udlad uo] HBunyoyoyoyy 6Husj6u07 ewiyuoy aud undewiq soioeds

BIpu| ‘a}e]s puejeben Jo sjoujsip || ul saloads ejlydososq jo usayed UONNGISIP pue BOUSIINDIO :} BIqQeL

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

242

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Drosophila fauna of Kiphire

Total of 11 species were collected comprising of

four subgenera viz. Sophophora, Drosophila, Dorsilopha,

and Scaptodrosophila. Pooled data collected from

Kiphire district has yielded a total of 160 individuals.

Out of these 109 individuals (68.12%) belonged to

6 species of subgenus Sophophora (D. bipectinata,

D. kikkawai, D. malerkotliana, D. parvula, D. melanogaster,

and D. takahashii). 36 individuals (22.5%) belonged to

3 species of the subgenus Drosophila (D. immigrans,

D. nasuta, and D. repleta). 3 individuals (1.87%) belonged to

1 species of subgenus Dorsilopha (D. buskii). The remaining

12 individuals (7.5%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus

Scaptodrosophila (D. nigra).

Drosophila fauna at Kohima

Samples analyzed revealed a total of 15 species

representing four subgenera, namely Sophophora,

Drosophila, Dorsilopha, and Scaptodrosophila. Pooled

data collected from Kohima yielded a total of

333 individuals. Out of these, 209 individuals (62.76%)

belonged to 9 species of subgenus Sophophora

(D. bipectinata, D. eugracilis, D. jambulina, D. kikkawai,

D. malerkotliana, D. parvula, D. melanogaster, D. rajasekari,

and D. takahashii). 95 individuals (28.52%) belonged

to 4 species of the subgenus Drosophila (D. immigrans,

D. nasuta, D. paraimmigrans, and D. repleta). 7 individuals

(2.10%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Dorsilopha

(D. buskii).The remaining 22 individuals (6.60%) belonged

to 1 species of subgenus Scaptodrosophila (D. nigra).

Drosophila fauna of Longleng

A total of 8 species were collected, belonging to

three subgenera, namely Sophophora, Drosophila, and

Scaptodrosophila. Pooled data collected from Longleng

district yielded a total of 172 individuals. Out of these,

100 individuals (58.13%) belonged to 4 species of

subgenus Sophophora (D. eugracilis, D. malerkotliana,

D. melanogaster, and D. rajasekari). 56 individuals

(32.55%) belonged to 3 species of the subgenus Drosophila

(D. immigrans, D. paraimmigrans, and D. repleta).

16 individuals (9.30%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus

Scaptodrosophila (D. nigra).

Drosophila fauna of Mokokchung

Total of 11 species were collected belonging to four

subgenera namely, Sophophora, Drosophila, Dorsilopha, and

Scaptodrosophila. Pooled data collected from Mokokchung

district has yielded a total of 187 individuals. Out of

these, 135 individuals (72.19%) belonged to 7 species of

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

subgenus Sophophora (D. bipectinata, D. eugracilis, D.

jambulina, D. malerkotliana, D. parvula, D. melanogaster,

and D. takahashii). 23 individuals (12.29%) belonged to

2 species of the subgenus Drosophila (D. immigrans and

D. nasuta). 19 individuals belonged to 1 species of subgenus

Dorsilopha (D. buskii). 10 individuals (5.34%) belonged to

1 species of subgenus Scaptodrosophila (D. nigra).

Drosophila fauna at Mon

A survey of Drosophila fauna here yielded a total

of 227 flies comprising 13 species representing four

subgenera namely, Sophophora, Drosophila, Dorsilopha,

and Scaptodrosophila. Out of these, 142 individuals

(62.55%) belonged to 7 species of subgenus Sophophora

(D. eugracilis, D. jambulina, D. kikkawai, D. malerkotliana,

D. parvula, D. melanogaster, and D. takahashii).

51 individuals (22.46%) belonged to 4 species of the subgenus

Drosophila (D. immigrans, D. nasuta, D. paraimmigrans,

and D. repleta). 11 individuals (4.84%) belonged to

1 species of subgenus Dorsilopha (D. buskii). The remaining

23 individuals (10.13%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus

Scaptodrosophila (D. nigra).

Drosophila fauna of Peren

Analysis of the sample revealed the presence of

10 species comprising four subgenera, namely Sophophora,

Drosophila, Dorsilopha, and Scaptodrosophila. Pooled

data collected from Peren district yielded a total

of 223 individuals. Out of these, 104 individuals

(46.63%) belonged to 5 species of subgenus Sophophora

(D. bipectinata, D. eugracilis, D. jambulina, D. malerkotliana,

and D. parvula). 75 individuals (33.63%) belonged to

3 species of the subgenus Drosophila (D. nasuta,

D. paraimmigrans, and D. repleta). 24 individuals (10.76%)

belonged to 1 species of subgenus Dorsilopha (D. buskii).

The remaining 20 individuals (8.96%) belonged to 1 species

of subgenus Scaptodrosophila (D. nigra).

Drosophila fauna of Phek

A total of 10 species were collected, comprising

three subgenera, namely Sophophora, Drosophila,

and Dorsilopha. Pooled data collected from Phek

yielded a total of 183 individuals. Out of these,

112 individuals (61.20%) belonged to 6 species of subgenus

Sophophora (D. bipectinata, D. eugracilis, D. jambulina,

D. kikkawai, D. melanogaster, and D. takahashii).

49 individuals (26.77%) belonged to 3 species of the

subgenus Drosophila (D. immigrans, D. nasuta, and

D. paraimmigrans). 22 individuals (12.02%) belonged to

1 species of subgenus Dorsilopha (D. buskii).

243

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Drosophila fauna of Tuensang

A total of 11 species were collected, belonging to

three subgenera, namely Sophophora, Drosophila, and

Scaptodrosophila. Pooled data collected from Tuensang

district yielded a total of 187 individuals. Out of these,

121 individuals (32.35%) belonged to 7 species of

subgenus Sophophora (D. bipectinata, D. eugracilis,

D. jambulina, D. kikkawai, D. malerkotliana, D. rajasekari,

and D. takahashii). 44 individuals (11.76%) belonged

to 3 species of the subgenus Drosophila (D. immigrans,

D. paraimmigrans, and D. repleta). 22 individuals

(5.88%) belonged to 1 species of subgenus Scaptodrosophila

(D. nigra).

Drosophila fauna of Wokha

Total of 11 species were collected, comprising four

subgenera, namely Sophophora, Drosophila, Dorsilopha, and

Scaptodrosophila. Pooled data collected from Wokha district

yielded a total of 179 individuals. Out of these, 118 individuals

(65.92%) belonged to 7 species of subgenus Sophophora

(D. bipectinata, D. eugracilis, D. jambulina, D. malerkotliana,

D. parvula, D. melanogaster, and D. takahashii).

25 individuals (13.96%) belonged to 2 species of the

subgenus Drosophila (D. immigrans and D. paraimmigrans).

13 individuals (7.26%) belonged to | species of subgenus

Dorsilopha (D. buskii). 23 individuals (12.84%) belonged to

1 species of subgenus Scaptodrosophila (D. nigra).

Drosophila fauna of Zunheboto

A total of 11 species were collected, belonging

to three subgenera, namely Sophophora, Drosophila,

and Scaptodrosophila. Pooled data collected from

Zunheboto district yielded a total of 196 individuals. Out

of these, 126 individuals (64.28%) belonged to 7 species

of subgenus Sophophora (D. bipectinata, D. hegdii,

D. jambulina, D. kikkawai, D. parvula, D. melanogaster, and

D. takahashii). 56 individuals (28.57%) belonged to 3 species

of the subgenus Drosophila (D. immigrans, D. nasuta, and

D. repleta). 14 individuals (7.14%) belonged to 1 species of

subgenus Scaptodrosophila (D. nigra).

Discussion

The abundance and taxonomy of Drosophila species

collected in 11 district headquarters of Nagaland (including

a recently described species Drosophila hegdii) was

studied. Pooled data collected from 11 districts yielded

a total of 2,326 individuals of subgenera Sophophora,

Drosophila, Dorsilopha, and Scaptodrosophila. The

subgenus Sophophora was represented by 10 species;

subgenus Drosophila was represented by 4 species; subgenera

244

Dorsilopha and Scaptodrosophila were represented by one

species each. The study indicates that the Drosophila fauna

of Nagaland is diverse.

The, present: study réveals the presence: of

D. malerkotliana in abundance. D. malerkotliana is

considered to be sub-cosmopolitan and widespread in

Southeast Asia, Borneo, West Malaysia, Australia, and several

island groups in the Oriental region (Markow and O’Grady

2006). This species was reported in all previous collections

made by multiple workers from north-eastern India (Achumi

et al. 2013; Dwivedi and Gupta 1979; Gupta and Singh 1979,

1981a; Singh 1987; Yenisetti et al. 2002). This suggests that

Nagaland’s Drosophila diversity represents the confluence

of South Asia and East Asia. Dominance of D. malerkotliana

can be due to its ability to exploit diverse habitats.

D. bipectinata was found to be the second most

dominant species in Nagaland. Literature review reveals

that D. bipectinata 1s widespread in Kuala Lumpur, west

Malaysia. This species is also widely distributed in Borneo,

Philippines, Thailand, West Malaysia, Nepal, Japan, Taiwan,

and India (Markow and O’Grady 2006).

In the present collection, the third most abundant

species was D. immigrans, a cosmopolitan species found

from Taiwan to Southeast Asia, Indonesia, India (Markow and

O’Grady 2006). From their studies on Drosophila diversity

of the Western Ghats, Ranganath and Krishnamurthy (1972)

observed that D. immigrans is abundant at higher altitudes.

The presence of D. immigrans in sub-Himalayan hilly regions

supports this observation.

The present collection reports Drosophila takahashii,

D. parvula, D. nasuta, D. repleta, D. eugracilis, D. jambulina,

D. kikkawai, D. rajasekari, D. nigra, and D. paraimmigrans

in Nagaland. D. takahashii is most widespread being found

from India to Japan and into Micronesia; D. parvula is found

from Southeast Asia, west Malaysia and Thailand; D. nasuta

is thought to be from eastern Africa although this species has

become widespread from South east Asia into Micronesia;

D. repleta species is cosmopolitan in distribution;

D. eugracilis is widespread in Indian subcontinent, found

throughout Southeast Asia and into Australia; D. jambulina

is widespread from India to southern China to Southeast Asia;

D. kikkawai is circumtropical in distribution; D. rajasekari is

found in India, Combodia, and Thailand; D. nigra is found

in Australia, New Guinea, Borneo, Philippines, Malaysia,

Thailand, and India; and D. paraimmigrans is found in India,

Taiwan to Southeast Asia (Markow and O’Grady 2006).

Carson (1965) based on the pattern of distribution

of various members of Drosophila, has recognized three

distinct groups, namely 1) Virtually cosmopolitan species,

2) Species that are widespread but not cosmopolitan, and

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

3) Species having restricted distribution (endemic species). He

included five species, namely, D. melanogaster, D. simulans,

D. ananassae, D. buskii, and D. repleta as truly cosmopolitan.

In the present study, D. melanogaster, D. repleta, and D. buskii

were present. Though Drosophila simulans is cosmopolitan

(Markow and O’Grady 2006), it was not found in any of the

11 sites in Nagaland. Contrarily, David et al. (2007) observed

that D. simulans was absent from most of West Africa, very

rare in the Cote d’ Ivoire, and was absent in most parts of

East Asia (David et al. 2007). Collections in Nagaland were

made from wild localities. This can be the reason behind the

absence of D. ananassae and D. simulans.

The striking observation in this study was that in all

11 study locations Drosophila species belonging to two

subgenera, namely Sophophora and Drosophila, dominated

in relative proportions of different species and their densities.

This finding agrees with the observation of Bock and Wheeler

(1972), who stated that in Drosophila collections made in

any part of Southeast Asia or New Guinea, only two species

groups comprise all or practically of all the catch, that is the

melanogaster group of subgenus Sophophora and immigrans

group of subgenus Drosophila. They further hypothesized that

the melanogaster and immigrans species group might have

originated in Southeast Asia and then colonized other regions.

As Nagaland is a sub-Himalayan hilly state, which is a part

of South Asia, the prevalence of subgenus Sophophora and

immigrans species groups in the present collection reaffirms

the observation made by Bock and Wheeler (1972).

The present study reveals that Drosophila fauna of

Nagaland exhibits geographical convergence not only with

South Asia but also with East Asia, which can be explained by

the geographical location of this north-eastern state of India.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is supported by a major research project

awarded to Sarat C. Yenisetti (No. 34-445/2008 (SR)) from

University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi. We

thank the reviewers for their suggestions that were helpful

in improving the quality of the manuscript.

REFERENCES

ACHUMI B., P. LAL & S.C. YENISETTI (2011): Drosophila hegdii, a new

species of Drosophila (Diptera: Drosophilidae) from Lumami

(Nagaland: India). Entomon 36(1—4): 1-6.

AcHUMI B., S.N. HecpE, P. LAL & S.C. YENiseTTI (2013): Altitudinal

and seasonal variation in Drosophila species on mount Japfu of

Nagaland, a sub-Himalayan hilly state of India. Journal of Insect

Science 13: 117.

Bock, I.R. (1971): Taxonomy of the Drosophila bipectinata complex.

Studies in genetics VI. University of Texas publication 72/3:

1-102.

Bock, I.R. & M.R. WHEELER (1972): The Drosophila melanogaster

species group. University of Texas publication 72/3: 1-102.

Carson, H.L. (1965): Chromosomal polymorphism in geographically

widespread species of Drosophila. Pp. 503-531. Jn: Baker, H.G.

& G.L. Stebbins (Eds): The Genetics of Colonizing Species.

Academic Press, New York.

CHATTERJEE, S., A. SAIKIA, P. Dutta, D. GHOsH, G. PANGGING & K.G. ANIL

(2006): Biodiversity significance of North East India. WWF-India,

New Delhi. Pp. 1-71.

Davin, J.R., F. LEMEUNIER, L. Tsacas & A. YASSIN (2007): The historical

discovery of the nine species in the Drosophila melanogaster

species subgroup. Genetics 177: 1969-1973.

Devinen!, A.V. & H. ULRIKE (2013): The evolution of Drosophila

melanogaster as a model of Alcohol Research. Annual Review of

Neuroscience 36: 121-138.

Dwivepl, Y.N. (1979): Description of two new species of subgenus

Drosophila (Drosophilidiae: Diptera) from Darjeeling, India.

Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences 88 (ser. B, 4):

299-304.

Dwivepi, Y.N., B.K. SincH & J.P. Gupta (1979): Further addition to the

Indian fauna of Drosophilidae. Oriental Insects 13(1—2): 61-74.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

Gupta, J.P. & B.K. SINGH (1979): Two new species of Drosophila

(Diptera: Drosophilidae) from Shillong, Meghalaya. Entomon

4(2): 167-172.

Gupta, J.P. & B.K. SINGH (1981a): Two new and two unrecorded Indian

species of Drosophila (Diptera) from Kurseong, Darjeeling.

Entomologist's Monthly Magazine (Oxford) 113: 71-78.

GupTA, J.P. & O.P. SINGH (1981b): Two new and two known species

of Drosophila from Rimbick, West Bengal, India. Entomon 6(1):

33-39,

Kumar, A. & J.P. Gupta (1983): Further record of Drosophila species

from North-East India. Drosophila information Service 104: 61.

Markow, T.A. & Patrick M.O’ Grapy (2006): Drosophila a guide to

species identification and use. Academic Press, UK.

PATTERSON, J.T. & W.S. STONE (1952): Evolution in the genus Drosophila.

Macmillan Company, New York.

RANGANATH, H.A. & N.B. KRISHNAMURTHY (1972): Seasonal studies on

Drosophila fauna of Biligirirangana Hills, Mysore. Drosophila

Information Service 49: 83.

Sincu, B.K. & J.P. Gupta (1977): Two new and two unrecorded species

of the genus Drosophila (Diptera: Drosophilidae) from Shillong,

Meghalaya. Proceedings of Zoological Society of Calcutta 30:

31-38.

SINGH, O.P. (1987): Drosophilidae in North Eastern India: A preliminary

survey in Nagaland. Drosophila Information Service 66: 67.

STURTEVANT, A.H. (1921): The North American Species of Drosophila.

Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication 30/: 1-141.

THROCKMorTON, L.H. (1962): The problem of phylogeny in the genus

Drosophila. University of Texas publication 6205: 207-345.

YENISETTI, S.C., S.N. HepGE & M.S. KrisHNa (2002): A preliminary

report on Drosophilids of Mokokchung (Nagaland State, India).

Drosophila Information Service 85: 16-17.

245

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

18. PRESENT STATUS OF ALDROVANDA VESICULOSA L. IN INDIA

SAURIS PANDA!

'Department of Botany, Charuchandra College (University of Calcutta), 22, Lake Road, Kolkata 700 029, West Bengal, India.

Email: [email protected]

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82507

Introduction

Aldrovanda vesiculosa L. is an insectivorous aquatic

perennial herb, and an interesting flowering plant, due to

its carnivorous habit. Aldrovanda L. is a monotypic genus

(Aston 1982) belonging to family Droseraceae. The species

was reported to be widely, but sparsely, distributed in Europe,

tropical Africa, eastern and north-eastern India, Bangladesh,

Japan, Timor, and Australia (Aston 1982; Tutin et al. 1964).

Its Indian distribution was mostly localized in central Bengal

and Salt Lake 1.e., Bidhan Nagar areas in Kolkata (Clarke

1878; Prain 1903) and Manipur (Singh ef al. 2000). The

species was earlier recorded as ‘vulnerable’ in the context of

the Indian region (Giri and Nayar 1983). According to the

latest IUCN Red List, the status of the species is ‘Endangered’

(cf. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version

2015.2... www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on August 16,

2015). The present status of the species in India has been

assessed in this article with remarks on its conservation.

Material and Methods

The specimens of Aldrovanda vesiculosa housed at CAL

(Central National Herbarium, Howrah, India) were studied,

and literature thoroughly consulted. The field observations

of the author regarding occurrence of the species is based on

survey in wetlands / waterbodies of eastern and north-eastern

India, spanning three decades (Panda et al. 2009).

Aldrovanda can be distinguished from its closely

related genus Drosera L., which also comprises carnivorous

species, with the following key characteristics:

1. Leaves with sensitive hairs on trap-like lamina; lamina

articulate; cauline leaves in whorls, vesicular; aquatic,

planktonic, rootless herbs.........0...000cc00 Aldrovanda

— Leaves bearing glandular hairs / tentacles; lamina

not articulate; cauline leaves in basal rosette or

alternate along the stem or absent; terrestrial, rooted

Eile eaaitinmeraatench eae iene: somertan AE elie seri, 1 Drosera

Aldrovanda vesiculosa L., Sp. Pl. 1: 281. 1753; DC.,

Prodr. 1: 319. 1825; C.B. Clarke in Hook. f., Fl. Brit. India

2: 425. 1878; Deb in Bull. Bot. Surv. India 3: 327. 1961;

Chauhan in Singh et al., Fl. Manipur 1: 373. 2000. Syn.: A.

verticillata Roxb., Fl. Ind. 2: 112. 1832.

Common names: English— Waterbug Trap, Waterwheel

Plant; Bengali — Malacca Jhangi.

Small aquatic herb, free-floating to submerged,

rootless, succulent, perennial; insectivorous / carnivorous.

Stem articulate with whorls of spatulate-orbicular leaves at

nodes, irregularly branched. Leaves in crowded whorls of

5—9, 6-18 mm long, each leaf with a cuneate basal part and

terminating in 4—7 bristles and an orbicular lobe, hinged along

midrib, which can close rapidly to entrap and digest small

insects. Flowers axillary, solitary, emergent, shortly stalked /

peduncled, peduncles decurved in fruit; bracts absent. Calyx

5-partite, lobes ovate, 3-4 mm long, imbricate. Petals 5,

greenish white or tinged pink, narrowly obovate, 4—5 mm

long, hypogynous, connivent in a cap. Stamens 5, almost

as long as sepals, hypogynous; filaments filiform-subulate;

anthers bilobed, dehisce laterally. Carpels 5, connate in

unilocular subglobose ovary, placentation parietal, ovules

numerous; styles 5, filiform, free, spreading, each with

terminally branched and fringed stigmas. Fruit subglobose

capsule, 5-valved, membranous, c. 4 mm long, c. 3 mm wide,

ripening underwater; seeds many, rarely few (6-8), oblong to

broadly ellipsoidal, c. 1.5 mm long, with a short thick basal

foot, testa blackish, shiny. |

Flowering & Fruiting: August to September.

Pollination: Flowers emergent or submerged,

entomophilous or autogamous, usually cleistogamous.

Perennation: The disseminules are seeds or turions

(specialized apical buds).

Earlier distribution in India: Salt-pans in south of

Calcutta (now Kolkata) in West Bengal (Clarke 1878), and

Imphal in Manipur (Singh ef al. 2000).

World distribution: Central and southern Europe and

southwest former U.S.S.R., Japan and adjacent portions of

Manchuria and U.S.S.R., tropical Africa, Bangladesh, Timor,

and northern Australia (Aston 1982; Tutin et al. 1964).

Ecology: The plant usually occurs in shallow, still

fresh water, floating or often caught on submerged vegetation

below the water surface, usually found among reeds, sparse

or in tangled masses. It was recorded as a ‘water-weed’ in

erstwhile Bengal (Prain 1903).

Specimens examined: Specimens in the CAL

herbarium: 1. Lower Bengal, Salt Pans near nullah, November

1869, S. Kurz, s.n. Acc. No. 161085; 2. Salt Lakes — margins

near the southern side of Calcutta — floating in small clumps,

246

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

July 12, 1914, M.S. Ramaswami, 187; 3. Jhils (fresh water

lakes), south of Calcutta, November 10, 1955, Collector not

known, Acc. No. 161084. 4. Bangladesh: collected between

Tarpassa and Boloi, Vikrampur, Dacca, on August 07, 1936,

by J.C. Sen Gupta, Acc. No. 161086, and annotated as “found

growing near the surface of water on submerged rice fields,

associated with Utricularias, Myriophyllums, Hygrorhiza

aristata and other aquatic plants”.

Among the newer floras, the species was reported only

from Imphal in Manipur — a north-eastern state (Singh et al.

2000). There is no mention of the species in the RED DATA BOOK

OF INDIAN PLANTS (Nayar and Sastry 1987, 1988, 1990).

The availability of only three herbarium specimens of

A. vesiculosa from India at CAL indicates that this species has

not been collected after 1955. Cook (1996), while working

on the aquatic and wetland plants of India, commented that

A. vesiculosa has been reported as extinct in Salt Lake near

Calcutta. The present author, while exploring macrophytic

vegetation in the wetlands of West Bengal, did not sight a

single plant (Panda et al. 2009). The herbarium, literature, and

field study reveal that the species has probably disappeared

from the Indian region.

Considering its wide general distribution vis-a-vis a

localized distribution in India, it is likely that it was introduced

in the neighbourhood of Calcutta, the capital of India during the

colonial period. A. vesiculosa has probably disappeared from

India due to change in its natural habitat and imposed threats,

which mainly include practice of aquaculture / pisciculture and

reclamation / conversion for cultivation apart from infestation

of Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms. and siltation from run-

offs, besides regular retting of jute in some waterbodies.

It is assumed that the rarity of a species in herbaria

indicates under-exploration and not extinction or otherwise.

But in case of A. vesiculosa, the inference has been drawn

from the author’s findings in the field, and study of literature

and herbaria specimens spanning over three decades. The

question of under-exploration or an oversight to record the

species can therefore be ruled out in this case.

The author, therefore, strongly recommends the

propagation of this species in its natural habitat (shallow

freshwater) in the country, possibly through germplasm

and in vitro tissue culture / micro-propagation techniques.

Conservation of wetlands, the natural habitat of the species,

becomes all the more imperative.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author is thankful to the Director, Botanical Survey

of India, for allowing him to consult CAL herbarium and

its library.

REFERENCES

Aston, H.I. (1982): Aldrovanda. Pp. 64-66. Jn: Briggs, B.G.,

B.A. Barlow, H. Eichler, L. Pedley, J.H. Ross, D.E. Symon,

P.G. Wilson, A. McCusker & A.S. George (Eds): Flora of Australia.

Vol. 8. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

CLARKE, C.B. (1878): Droseraceae. /n: Hooker, J.D. (Ed.): The Flora of

British India. Vol. I. Pp. 423-425. L. Reeve & Co., London.

Cook, C.D.K. (1996): Aquatic and Wetland Plants of India: A reference

book and identification manual for the vascular plants found in

permanent or seasonal fresh water in the subcontinent of India

south of the Himalayas. Oxford University Press. 394 pp.

Girt, G.S. & M.P. Nayar (1983): Some threatened plants of Bengal plains.

In: Jain, S.K. & R.R. Rao (Eds): An assessment of threatened plants

of India. Botanical Survey of India, Botanic Garden, Howrah.

Nayar, M.P. & A.R.K. Sastry (Eps) (1987): Red Data Book of Indian

Plants. Vol. 1. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta.

Nayar, M.P. & A.R.K. Sastry (Eps) (1988): Red Data Book of Indian

Plants. Vol. 2. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta.

Nayar, M.P. & A.R.K. Sastry (Eps) (1990): Red Data Book of Indian

Plants. Vol. 3. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta.

PANDA, S., D. BHATTACHARYYA & P.K. MUKHERJEE (2009): Macrophytic

vegetation of wetlands of West Bengal — some case studies:

perspectives of conservation. J. Econ. Taxon. Bot. 33(3): 643-6056.

Prawn, D. (1903): Bengal Plants. Vol. I. Calcutta.

SINGH, N.P., A.S. CHAUHAN & M.S. Monpat (Eps) (2000): Flora of

Manipur. Vol. 1. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta.

TuTin, T.G., V.H. HEywoop, N.A. BurGces, D.H. VALENTINE,

S.M. Watters & D.A. Wess (Eps) (1964): Flora Europaea.

Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press.

19. ON THE ECOLOGY AND OCCURRENCE OF AEGINETIA INDICA L. AND

WRIGHTIA DOLICHOCARPA BAHADUR ET BENNET IN SOUTHERN GUJARAT, INDIA

S.R. KsHirSAGAR!

'Post Graduate Department of Botany, Shri Shivaji Vidya Prasarak Sanstha’s Late Karmveer Dr. P.R. Ghogrey Science College,

Dhule 424 005, Maharashtra, India. Email: [email protected]

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82511

Southern Gujarat includes four districts, namely Surat,

Valsad, Navsari, and Dangs. Of these, the Dangs forest

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

receives heavy rainfall and is rich in plant diversity. The

Saputara Hills are considered as an offshoot of the Western

247

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Ghats. During a plant diversity survey of southern Gujarat,

we recorded two plant taxa, Aeginetia indica L., and Wrightia

dolichocarpa Bahadur et Bennet.

Systematic Enumeration

Aeginetia indica L. (Orobanchaceae)

Taxonomic Identity: A small, ephemeral, leafless,

parasitic herb. Stem weak and tinged purple. Flowers pinkish-

purple, solitary on top of naked scape. Capsules ovoid,

beaked, enclosed in the persistent calyx and corolla. Seeds

pale-yellow, testa loose and hyaline.

Flowering and Fruiting: August—October.

Location of specimen: Pindval in Dharampur forest

of the district Dangs in southern Gujarat.

Ecology: This species was found in association with

litter of bamboo thicket on well-mulched ground and under

dense shade.

Threats: Loss of habitat and removal of mulch.

Remarks: Rare. There are only three species of the

genus Aeginetia in tropical and subtropical Asia, two of which

are found in India. A. indica 1s habitat specific; its possible

habitats are mulched and rotten litter, in dense shady areas.

This species may occur in other areas of southern Gujarat.

Wrightia dolichocarpa Bahadur et Bennet

(Apocynaceae)

Taxonomic Identity: A tall tree. Leaves opposite

with milky latex. Flowers white. Follicles c. 65-95 cm long,

dark green. Wrightia dolichocarpa is closely associated

with Wrightia tinctoria, but differs from the latter in having

leaves dark green and follicles more than 65 cm long while

in W. tinctoria leaves are light green and follicles are

c. 65 cm long.

Flowering and Fruiting: February—June.

Location of specimen: Nibarpada near Saputara in

southern Gujarat.

Ecology: Found only once along river bank in association

with Wrightia tinctoria in dense forest on low hilly areas.

Present Status: Very rare.

Remarks: There are three species of Genus Wrightia in

India, namely W. tinctoria, W. tomentosa (Syn. W. arborea),

and W. dolichocarpa. Wrightia dolichocarpa was earlier

reported only from Goa, where its status was endemic and

rare. It has also been recently recorded from Daman and Diu.

This species is included in the IUCN Red List of Threatened

Plants 1997 (Walter and Gillett 1997). The present report is

a range extension of the species.

REFERENCE

Wa tter, K.S. & H.J. Gittett (1997): IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants. WCMC, Cambridge, England. Pp. 57.

20. CROTON HIRTUS L’HERIT. (EUPHORBIACEAE) —

A NEW RECORD FOR KARNATAKA, INDIA

K. GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT!

'Taxonomy Research Centre, Department of Botany, Poornaprajna College, Udupi 576 101, Karnataka, India.

Email: [email protected]

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82512

The genus Croton L., consisting of about 800-—

1,200 species (Mabberley 2009), is distributed in the

tropics and subtropics of the Old and New World. Of these,

16 species have been reported from India (Chakrabarty

and Balakrishnan 2012). This includes two exotic species,

namely Croton bonplandianus Baill. and C. hirtus L’

Herit., introduced from tropical America. C. bonplandianus

is widespread and common throughout India, while

C. hirtus has been reported only from Tamil Nadu and Kerala

(Chakrabarty and Balakrishnan 2012) till now. In Karnataka,

genus Croton is represented by 10 species (Saldanha 1996).

During a field trip in Kundapur taluka of Udupi district

(Karnataka), the author noticed C. hirtus growing by the

roadside along National Highway 66 in Kumbhashi. The

248

present collection of C. hirtus, therefore, forms a new record

for Karnataka. It is presumed that this species may occur

in many more places in coastal Karnataka and is likely to

become widespread in southern India. This species is closely

allied to C. bonplandianus, but differs in having broadly

ovate-lanceolate leaves and stalked capitate-glandular hairs

in the rachis of the inflorescence.

A brief description of the taxon is provided below for

identification.

Croton hirtus UL’ Herit., Stirp. Nov. 17, t. 9. 1785; V.S.

Ramach. et al. in Indian J. Forest. 15(2): 183, f. 1. 1992.

C. glandulosus L. var. hirtus (L’Herit.) Muell.Arg. in DC.,

Prodr. 15, 2: 684. 1866; Chakrab. & Balakr. in Fl. India 23:

234. 2012.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

Annual erect herb, up to 60 cm high; stem branched,

retrorsely stellate-hispid. Leaves alternate, opposite or

whorled in the region of branching; lamina 2.5—6 x 2—

5.5 cm, broadly ovate-lanceolate or triangular-ovate, with a

pair of stalked glands at base, membranous, rounded, obtuse

to subtruncate at base, margins doubly crenate-serrate, acute

at apex, sparsely strigose above, densely stellate-hairy

beneath, 3—5-veined from base; petiole up to 4 cm long;

stipules filiform, stellate-hispid. Inflorescence terminal, 1.5—

5 cm long, racemose, male flowers at the top and female at

base; rachis hirsute with branched capitate glands towards

base; bracts linear-lanceolate, capitate-glandular with c. 4

slender, stalked, ellipsoid glands with stalks up to 5 mm

long. Male flowers: pedicels c. 1 mm long; sepals 5, 1.0—

1.5 mm long, hispid; petals 5, white, spatulate, equaling

sepals; stamens usually 11, filaments and anthers white.

Female flowers: pedicels c. 0.5 mm long; sepals 4-5, 4—

5 mm long, unequal, green, narrowly oblanceolate; petals

usually absent; ovary globose, densely hirsute, 3-celled,

with one ovule in each cell; styles 3, c. 2 mm long, bifid into

linear branches. Fruit capsular, c. 4 mm in diam., subglobose,

stellate-hispid, 3-seeded. Seeds 2.5—3 x 2 mm, ovoid, greyish-

brown, carunculate.

Flowering & Fruiting: August-September.

Distribution: Native to West Indies, C. & S. America,

but becoming naturalized in tropical Africa and Asia.

Specimen examined: INDIA: Karnataka, Udupi district,

Kumbhashi, c. 9 km south of Kundapur, 24.vi11.2014,

K.G. Bhat 11448 (MH).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author is thankful to Dr. Lakshminarasimhan,

Central National Herbarium, Botanical Survey of India,

Howrah, for providing information about the distribution

of the plant. Prof. Sudhakara Rao deserves a word of

gratitude for his suggestions during the preparation of this

note.

REFERENCES

CHAKRABARTY, T. & N.P. BALAKRISHNAN (2012): Euphorbiaceae —

Subfamily II. Crotonoideae. Pp. 203—269. Jn: Balakrishnan N.P.,

T. Chakrabarty, M. Sanjappa, P. Lakshminarsimhan & P. Singh

(Eds): Flora of India. Vol. 23. Botanical Survey of India,

Kolkata.

MABBERLEY, D.J. (2009): Mabberley’s Plant-Book: A_ portable

dictionary of plants, their classification and uses. 3rd edn, repr.

with corrections. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

SALDANHA, C.J. (1996): Flora of Karnataka. Vol. II. Oxford & IBH

Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

21. ELEOCHARIS SPIRALIS (ROTTB.) ROEM. & SCHULT. (CYPERACEAE)

— ANEW RECORD FOR ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS, INDIA

A.N. CHANDORE!’*, M.Y. KAMBLE? AND K.V.C. Gosavr

'Department of Botany, Abasaheb Marathe Arts and New Commerce, Science College, Rajapur 416 702, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra,

India. Email: [email protected]

*Botanical Survey of India, Andaman and Nicobar Regional Centre, Port Blair, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India.

Email: [email protected]

*Department of Botany, Shahada College, Shahada 425 409, Maharashtra, India. Email: [email protected]

* Corresponding author

doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82515

Introduction

During a floristic survey of Andaman and Nicobar

Islands in 2014, we collected some specimens of Eleocharis

R. Br. On examination of relevant literature and critical

analysis of nut morphology (Cook 1996; Hooker 1893;

Koyama 1985; Prasad and Singh 2002), the identity of the

species was determined as Eleocharis spiralis (Rottb.) Roem.

& Schult. A thorough literature survey (Pandey and Diwakar

2008; Vasudeva Rao 1986) revealed that this species has,

so far, not been recorded from Andaman and Nicobar Is.

Hence, it is reported here as a new record for Andaman and

Nicobar Is.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

Eleocharis spiralis (Rottb.) Roem. & Schult., Syst.

Veg. 2: 155. 1817; Clarke, Hook. f., Fl. Brit. India 6: 627.

1893; Koyama, Dassanayake & Fosberg, Rev. Handb.

Fl. Ceylon 5: 257. 1985. C.D.K. Cook, Aquat. Wetl. Pl. India

130, f. 126 a-d. 1996. Scirpus spiralis Rottb., Descr. & Ic.

4h ste vGed 1, 1773:

Perennial herb with short rhizome; scaly stolons 4—

13 cm long and c. 3 mm thick. Culms densely tufted, erect,

triquetrous, gradually narrowing to an acute apex, 25-—

65 cm tall, 2-4 mm in diameter, deep green, smooth, shiny,

not septate. Sheath 2—3, membranous, pale green, becoming

purple-red above, oblique at mouth. Spikelet cylindrical,

249

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

slightly broader than apex of the stem, 1.5—3.5 cm long and

3—6 mm in diameter. Glumes tightly and spirally arranged,

imbricate, suborbicular to broadly ovate, truncate at apex and

cuneate at base c. 3 x 3 mm distinctly brown spotted towards

the centre and scarious towards margins. Stamens 3. Perianth

bristles 4—6, unequal, smooth, from much shorter than to as

long as the nut. Style c. 1.8 mm long, 2-3 cleft; style base

pyramidal. Nut biconvex, obovoid to oval c. 1.7 mm long

and c. 1.3 mm in diameter, glossy, straw-coloured becoming

deep brown to black later, longitudinally striate with

c. 18 rows of cells, without neck and apical annulus.

Flowering & Fruiting: September—January.

Habitat: Grows in ponds with shallow brackish water

along the margin of estuaries and sea shore, in association

with Ceratopteris sp. and Eleocharis dulcis (Burm. f.) Trin.

ex Hensch.

Distribution in India: Kerala, Karnataka, Maharashtra,

Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Andaman and Nicobar

Islands.

Specimens Examined: INDIA: Andaman and Nicobar

Islands: Burmanala on way to Chidia Tapu (South

Andaman), 11.1.2014, A.N. Chandore 1851 (SUK); Sippighat,

South Andaman, 12.1.2014, M.Y. Kamble 30973 (PBL);

Maharashtra: Ratnagiri district, Rajapur tehsil, Burambe

lake near estuary of Sagave-Shirse village, 08.xii.2013,

A.N. Chandore 1838 (SUK). |

Note: Eleocharis spiralis (Rottb.) Roem. & Schult.

can be easily identified by its triquetrous stem that gradually

narrows towards the apex, and glumes tightly and spirally

arranged, imbricate, suborbicular to broadly ovate, truncate

at apex and cuneate at base.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are thankful to Dr. S.R. Yadav, Professor and Head,

Department of Botany, Shivaji University, Kolhapur, for

encouragement. Dr. A.N. Chandore thanks SERB, Department

of Science and Technology (DST), New Delhi, for financial

assistance under DST Fast Track Young Scientist Scheme,

also thanks to the Principal, Abasaheb Marathe Arts & New

Commerce Science College, Rajapur, for laboratory facilities.

Dr. M.Y. Kamble is grateful to Dr. P. Singh, Director, Botanical

Survey of India, Kolkata, and Dr. C. Murugan, Head of

Office, BSI, ANRC, Port Blair, for facilities and support, and

Dr. K.V.C. Gosavi is thankful to the Principal, PSGVPM ASC

College, Shahada, Maharashtra, India.

REFERENCES

Cook, C.D.K. (1996): Aquatic and Wetland Plants of India. Oxford

University Press, London. Pp. 130-131.

Hooker, J.D. (1893): Flora of British India. Vol. 6. Bishen Singh

Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehradun, U.P. (India). (Repr. 1992).

Koyama, T. (1985): Cyperaceae. Jn: M.D. Dassanayake and F.R. Fosberg

(Eds): A Revised Handbook to the Flora of Ceylon. Vol. 5. Oxford

& IBH, New Delhi. Pp. 257-258.

PANDEY, R.P. & P.G. Diwakar (2008): An integrated checklist flora of

Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India. J. Econ. Taxon. Bot. 32(2):

403-500.

PRASAD, V.P. & N.P. SincH (2002): Sedges of Karnataka (India).

(Reprinted from J. Econ. Taxon. Bot. Addl. Ser. No. 21). Scientific

Publishers, Jodhpur. Pp. 148-150.

VASUDEVA Rao, M.K. (1986): A preliminary report on the angiosperms

of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. J. Econ. Taxon. Bot. 8(1):

107-184.

Printed by Printania Offset Pvt. Ltd., D-20/21, Shalimar Industrial Estate, Matunga, Mumbai 400 019 and published on November 18,

2015 by Dr. Ashok Bhagwat for Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Dr. Salim Ali Chowk,

Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001, Maharashtra, India.

250

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 111(3), Sept-Dec 2014

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS |

The Journal welcomes concise reports of original research in natural history,

taxonomy and other aspects of zoology and botany of general interest.

SUBMISSION OF MANUSCRIPT

Manuscripts should be submitted as Word documents (.doc) or

RTF (.rtf) files. Figures may be uploaded separately or embedded

into the text of your initial submission. On acceptance, you will

be required to upload your manuscript as one text file and

additional high resolution graphics files in TIFF (tiff). Please

ensure that the track changes feature has been turned off and

any reviewing notes removed before submission or they will be

visible throughout the review process.

If a new taxon is described, the institution in which the type

material is deposited must be given, together with details of the

registration assigned to it; the specimen should be deposited in

a National Depository. Full binomial names should be given on

the first occasion an organism is mentioned (and abbreviated

thereafter), except at the beginning of a sentence. Avoid

footnotes except to add information below the body of a table.

Do not use initial capitals for the common names of animals

unless derived from a proper noun.

Revised manuscripts must be submitted in their final form within

two months of receipt of a revision letter from the Editor.

PREPARATION OF MANUSCRIPT

Main Papers and New Descriptions

Manuscripts of papers for the Main section and New Descriptions

should be as concise as possible and must be typed in double

spacing. The text should run in one, single column and have

generous margins. Pages should be numbered consecutively,

and the matter on Page 1 should be arranged in the following

order: Title of the paper; Name(s) of Author(s), Department(s)

and Institution(s) [in case of multiple affiliations, author(s) should

specify current affiliation]; Footnote containing address of

Author for correspondence with e-mail id, followed by the List of

Abbreviations used in text. A short running title derived from the

original title may also be given for main papers. Page 2 should