Newsletter of the Rodentia, Insectivora, Lagomorpha ......Dr. Prakash has done pioneering research...

Rat-a-tattle - RILSCINSA Newsletter, Volume 3, Number 1, October 2003

Newsletter of the Rodentia, Insectivora, Lagomorpha & ScandentiaConservation & Information Network of South Asia -- RILSCINSA

Representing the IUCN SSC Specialist Groups Rodent (RSG) Insectivora (ISG) & Lagomorpha (LSG)

Volume 3, Number 1 October 2003

Dr. Mohammed Mymoon AnimonAssistant Professor, College of ForestryKerala Agricultural UniversityVellanikkara, Thrissur 680 656, Kerala

Ms. Binu ArthurResearch Assistant, Zoo OutreachOrganisation, 29/1, Bharathi colony,Peelamedu, Coimbatore 641004, Tamil Nadu

Mr. T. Raveendra BabuResearch Associate, AICRP on RodentControl, College of AgricultureUniversity of Agricultural Sciences,GKVK, Bangalore 560065, Karnataka

Dr. Ahibaran Singh BhadauriaAssociate Professor, Department ofEntomology, C.S.A. Univerisity of Agri.Technology, Kanpur 208002, Uttar Pradesh

Mr. Samal BhubaneshwarLB-65, BRIT Colony, BadagadBhubaneshwar 751018, Orissa

Dr. Renee Maria BorgesAssistant Professor, Centre for EcologicalSciences, Indian Institute of Science,Bangalore 560012, Karnataka

Dr. (Mrs.) Rina ChakrabortyScientist, Zoological Survey of IndiaF.P.S. Building, 27, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,Calcutta 700016, West Bengal

Dr. Sujit ChakrabortyService, Zoological Survey of India,’M’ Block, New Alipore,Calcutta 700053, West Bengal

Dr. Akshay Kumar ChakravarthyChief Scientific OfficerRegional Research StationVC farm, Mandya 571405, Karnataka

Mr. Vipin ChaudharyAICRP on Rodent ControlCentral Arid Zone Research InstituteJodhpur 342003, Rajasthan

RILSCINSA - Members as of October 2003

Dr. B.A. DanielEntomologist, Zoo Outreach OrganisationPB 1683, Peelamedu, Coimbatore 641004,Tamil Nadu

Mr. Suresh GanapathiappanF-7, Rear Block, 657, Tristar Apartments,Avanashi Road, Coimbatore 641037, T.N.

Dr. Thygarajan GaneshResearcher, Asoka Trust for Research inEcology and the Environment,659, Vth ‘A’ Main RoadHebbel, Bangalore 560024, Karnataka

Mr. W.L.D.P.T.S. de A. GoonatilakeDepartment of ZoologyUniversity of Colombo 03, Sri Lanka

Mr. Mahmudul HassanC/o. Prof. Dr. Anwarul IslamDepartment of Zoology, University of DhakaDhaka 1000

Dr. Mohammad IdrisTraining Associate, AICRP on RodentControl, Central Arid Zone ResearchInstitute, Jodhpur 342 003, Rajasthan

Ms. Nusrat JahanC/o. Prof. Dr. Anwarul Islam, Department ofZoology, University of Dhaka, Dhaka 1000,Bangladesh

Mr. JayahariKerala Forest Research InstitutePeechi, Thrissur 680653, Kerala

Dr. Mike John Roger JordanChester Zoological GardensUpton-by-Chester, Chester CH2 1LH, U.K.

Dr. Justus JoshuaScientist, Gujarat Institute of DesertEcology, Patwadi Naka (Kachchh) 370001,Gujarat

Mr. Kazi Ahmed KabirRoom No 806, Shahidullah HallDhaka University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Dr. Soundara Pandian KannanLecturer/Scientist, Department ofBiotechnology, A.J. College (Autonomous),Sivakasi 626124, Tamil Nadu

Mr. Ahmad KhanConservation Biologist, C/o Pak-ChinaGeneral Store, Nishat Chorok, Mugora-District Swat, NWFP- Pakistan

Mr. Mohammad Monirul Hasan KhanService, IUCN-The World ConservationUnion, House No. 3A, Road No. 15 (New)Dhanmondi, Dhaka 1209, Bangladesh

Mr. Mohammad Safayet KhanDhaka University, 471, South Monipur,Mirpur 222, Dhaka 1216, Bangladesh

Dr. Ramachandran K.K.Scientist, Wildlife Biology Division,Kerala Forest Research Institute,Peechi, Thichur district 680653, Kerala

Dr. Ajith KumarScientist, Salim Ali Centre for Ornothologyand Natural History (SACON), AnaikattyP.O., Coimbatore 641010, Tamil Nadu

Mr. Arun LakshminarayanNew No. 124/Old No. 167 Race CourseCoimbatore 641018, Tamil Nadu

Dr. Gopinath MaheswaranScientist, Bombay natural History SocietyHornbill House, S.B.Singh Road,Mumbai 400 023

Mr. A. ManimozhiZoo Biologist, Arignar Anna ZoologicalPark, Vandalur Zoo, Chennai 600048,Tamil Nadu

Mr. Khan Ayaz MohammadConservation Biologist, Irrigation ColonyShamsi Road Mardan- 23200, NWFPPakistan

.... Continued on the last page.

i


OBITUARY

Dr. Iswar Prakash, Ph.D., D.Sc., FNA left forheavenly abode on 14.5.2002. He was 71. He issurvived by his wife, a son and two daughters. Dr.Iswar Prakash, popularly known as IP among hisfriends and colleagues was born on 17.12.1931 atJaipur. He was educated at Mount Abu, Pilani andJaipur. He took his M.Sc. (Zoology) degree in 1952from University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. He was awardedPh.D. in Zoology from the same University in 1957 onEcology of desert mammals under a UNESCO Project.He was conferred with D.Sc. degree on his thesis onEcology and Management of Desert rodents in 1983 byUniversity of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

After a brief instinct as a Lecturer in Zoology inRajasthan Education Service (RES) and University ofRajasthan, Jaipur, Dr. Prakash joined the Central AridZone Research Institute, Jodhpur as Animal Ecologistin 1961. CAZRI was his real “Karm Bhoomi” where heserved for over three decades in different capacitiesand retired on 31.12.1991. Dr. Prakash has beeninstrumental in initiating an ICAR funded All IndiaCoordinated Research Project on Rodent Control in1977 and served as its founder Project Coordinator.The Rodent Newsletter, the only Newsletter/Journal onRodents published from India was started by him,which is still in great demand from the rodentologistsworld over. Based on his outstanding contributions andleadership in the field of rodent ecology, Dr. Prakashwas awarded the prestigious chair of Professor ofEminence from 1980-1991. He was solely responsiblefor establishing the discipline of rodentology on a firmpedestal in India. After retirement also he was soactive and dedicated scientist that he got selected asSenior Scientist of Indian National Science Academyand continued as Professor Emeritus of DST fundedproject on small mammals of Aravallies at DesertRegional Station of Zoological Survey of India, Jodhpur.

Dr. Prakash has done pioneering research on Ecologyof desert mammals, Environmental Analysis andDesertification studies. In addition to hisaccomplishments on rodent research, for which he wasreferred as “Father of Indian Rodentology”, Dr. Prakashwas an authority on desert fauna in general havingcarried out pioneering work on insectivores, primates,chiropterans and carnivores inhabiting the region.During his stay in Birla College of Science, Pilani as aM.Sc. student, he was so much fascinated by theIndian desert gerbils, Meriones hurrianae inhabiting thesandy plains that he opted this tiny rodent species ashis experimental animal and continued to explore itszoogeography, ecology, breeding, feeding, pheromonalcommunication, burrowing and other behaviouralmanifestations. His love for the desert gerbils has

made this species to be one of the most studiedmammals of the world.

During his professional career, honours and awardscontinued to chase Dr. Prakash. He was the recipient ofprestigious Rafi Ahmad Kidwai Award of ICAR for thebiennium 1974-75 and the Harswarup Memorial Award ofINSA in 1990. He has also been elected Fellow of INSAand a foreign Fellow of International TheriologicalSociety. He had the distinction of being invited to serveon a number of National and International Committees,viz., UGC, ICAR, DST, ICMR, Planning Commission,Wildlife Institute of India, MAB Committee, Ministry ofEnvironment, FAO/DANIDA panel etc.

A prodigiously hard working man, Dr. Prakash has over500 research publications to his credit. He had authored/edited several books published by world renownedpublishers, like Dr. W Junk of The Hague, ArnodHeinmann, CRC, ICAR, etc. Dr. Prakash was a widelytraveled scientist. In pursuance of the knowledge ofMammalian Ecology of Thar Desert, he visited severalcountries as far away as Australia, New Zealand, USA,Thailand, Philippines, U.K., France, China, USSR,Kuwait and Italy.

Dr. Prakash had his own way of winning friends andinfluencing people by the charm of his innate calm andpedigreed manners. He was a combination of aneminent scientist, a great administrator and a perfectgentleman. He willl always be remembered not only bythose who had the priviledge working with him but alsoby those who had ever corresponded with him.

Due to his sudden demise, the scientific world has lost agreat environmentalist. May the Almighty grant peace tothe departed soul.

From : AICRP on Rodent Control, CAZRI, Jodhpur-342003, Rajasthan.

Dr. Iswar Prakash, 1931 - 2002

ii


NVSM (Non-volant Small Mammals) C.A.M.P. / G.M.A. AnnouncementThe long-pending C.A.M.P workshop for Selected Groups ofNon-volant Small Mammals of South Asia has beenconfirmed and will be held from 9-13 February 2004. TheC.A.M.P. will collaborate with the Global MammalAssessment (GMA).

The Global Mammal Assessment itself is a collaborativeeffort between the SSC mammal-related Specialist Groupsand partner institutions. The data collected will becontinually updated as part of the Species InformationService. It is expected that the GMA will take two yearsto complete, but it is hoped that by April 2004, there will besufficient information to allow a comparative analysis of theconservation status of mammals, birds, and amphibians.In 2000 CBSG, South Asia, DAPTF, South Asia, CBSG, SouthAsia, ZOO and WILD ran a C.A.M.P. / G.A.A. for South AsianAmphibians along the same lines.

The venue is in Combatore at the Karl Kübel Institute forDevelopmental Studies in Anaikatti where invitees fromoutstation will stay throughout the workshop.

Background:Mammal C.A.M.P.,1997: Under the auspices of theBiodiversity Conservation Prioritisation Project (BCPP)more than 100 non-volant small mammals were assessed,but due to the large number of mammals (400 +) to becovered, and the skewed proportion of large as opposed tosmall mammal specialists, there were a large number ofData Deficient species. With this workshop, we want toimprove that assessment as was recently done forChiroptera where over 50% DD species became 9% withassiduous work to collect information.

Because of space, time and budgetary constraints, wehave to limit the number of people who we can accomodateat the workshop itself. As you know, if there are too manypeople at such workshops, our ability to complete theworkshop within the time frame gets compromised. Thusparticipants for attending will be prioritised on the basis ofamount and type of information they possess, on speciesand regions represented and on rarity of species.

Researchers whom we are unable to accomodate or fortheir own reasons are unable to attend will be invited asexternal participants. They will have full participant statusand information they supply by post on BiologicalInformation Sheets and get credit for what they contribute.

If you have colleagues who are not members of theRILSCINSA network, and have recently carried out smallmammal studies please request them to write to usdescribing their work so we can consider them for theworkshop. Researchers who study small carnivores alsooften find useful information in scat studies for rodents, etc.and are welcome to contribute if they can identify thespecies represented in the scat.

We have enclosed a copy of the Draft checklist of species inthe orders we plan to cover. Please take this as a Draft, asa C.A.M.P. workshop always leaves final decisions aboutspecies lists to participants at the workshop. This checklistwas prepared by Dr. P. O. Nameer, Forestry Professor, atKerala Agricultural University, who prepared the bookMammals of India and had prepared the checklist for the

1997 BCPP C.A.M.P. for Mammals and has now preparedfor South Asia. This checklist is included, along withC.A.M.P. / G.M.A. information in this issue of Rat-a-tattle.There are other people working on checklists which includesubspecies and some of these will be published in ZOOS'PRINT Journal (Murids will come in December issue).

We have included all C.A.M.P. information in the newsletterbecause we hope to inspire some researchers tocontribute information for this initiative to us via BiologicalInformation sheets (BIS). A BIS is enclosed along withinstructions for filling it out. We also require historicallocality information from museum collections and oldrecords. A format for recording such information is includedin this issue also. A fresh BIS is required for every species.For locality information you can list each entry separately. Ifyou require more sheets, please xerox the from in this copyof the magazine. Again, if your information is used in theC.A.M.P. workshop you will be given external participantstatus, credited in the taxon data sheet and given a freecopy of the Report.

Regarding the Biological Information Sheets, we would liketo emphasize their importance. The information you sendwill be evaluated and entered into a database, a printout ofwhich will be given to participants who attend the workshop.In small working groups you can discuss and decide whatinformation should be retained in the data base and how itshould be organised. In this way we will save a lot of time,and further discussion of each species will be moredetailed and fruitful.

For the G.M.A., much emphasis is given to mapping inwhich accurate location information is an absoluterequirement -- coordinates, if available and location name,including the taluk, district and state of the location.

On the basis of the discussion of people who have studiedand are sure of their identification of the species and itslocality, workshop participants will assist Sanjay Molur, RedList Advisor, to derive an IUCN Red List Category and thiswill be submitted officially to the IUCN SSC SpecialistGroup Chairs, all of whom will be present, to review for usein their recommendations for next IUCN SSC Red List ofThreatened Species.

The C.A.M.P. workshop is being coordinated by SallyWalker, Administrator, RILSCINSA and Sanjay Molur, RedList Advisor who are also associated with CBSG, SouthAsia, RSG, South and East Asia, ZOO and WILD and thewhole ZOO/WILD team.

For the GMA component, described in more detail separately,project coordination is being carried out by a team comprisingDr. Wes Sechrest, at the CI/CABS - IUCN/SSC BiodiversityAssessment Initiative in Washington, DC, Dr. Jonathan Baillieat the Zoological Society of London, and Dr. Mariano Gimenez-Dixon at IUCN headquarters in Gland, Switzerland.

This is an important exercise. As much as 30-35% of themammalian diversity of South Asia will be assessed in thisworkshop. It is an opportunity to call attention to thisneglected group of mammals which provide crucialservices for ecosystems and make up so much of themammal diversity of the earth.

1


Mammals are one of the most important groups of specieson earth in terms of evolution, ecology and economicimpact. They occupy nearly all of the planet’s ecosystemsand play critical roles in ecosystem dynamics, including aspredators and keystone species. Mammals figureprominently in basic ecological and evolutionary research,and as flagship species they are the centerpieces ofsignificant work in conservation science.

Although a great deal is known about mammalian biology,systematics, distribution patterns and conservation status,this knowledge is neither uniform nor complete. Moreover,of the more than 5,000 mammal species known worldwide,the threat status of more than 2,500 is insufficiently knownor inadequately documented.

The goal of the Global Mammal Assessment(GMA) is to consolidate available information onthe systematics, distribution, ecology andconservation status of mammals.

For the first time, mammal biodiversity data will be availableto

a) determine the total set of threatened speciesoccurring in a particular region or hotspot;

b) identify the necessary conservation interventions; and

c) establish a baseline against which the success ofconservation actions can be measured.

The G.M.A. is part of a larger IUCN Species SurvivalCommission portfolio with the overall long-term objective ofproducing relevant and accessible biodiversity assess-ments and analysis tools to enhance conservation andsustainable development decision making. The GlobalMammal Assessment will review the status of all species ofmammals focusing on mapping geographic distributions,assessing the degree of threat, and recording essentialhabitats and important threats for each species.

The project is in line with the IUCN 2000-2004 ProgrammeKey Result Area (KRA) 5: Assessment of Biodiversity and ofrelated social and economic factors; and KRA 6:Information Management and Communications Systems.The project is also directed to the implementation of allthree Objectives of the SSC Strategic Plan. Furthermore theproposal contributes to the outputs listed below (perObjective of the SSC Strategic Plan)

Objective 1: Decisions and policies affecting biodiversityinfluenced by sound interdisciplinary scientific information.SSC Strategic Plan outputs:

1.1 Status of biodiversity measured by indicators derivedfrom the Red List1.3 Status of key taxonomic groups assessed1.4 Impacts of key threats to biodiversity assessed

1.5 Key techniques and policies for the conservation ofbiodiversity developed and disseminated1.6 Selected multilateral environmental agreements andnational agencies supported through the provision ofinformation on the status and conservation of species1.7 Spatial information on species integrated to supportbiodiversity conservation priority-setting, planning andmanagement

Objective 2: Modes of production and consumption thatpromote the conservation of biodiversity adopted byusers of natural resources. SSC Strategic Plan outputs:

2.2 Tools developed to assist decision makers inmanaging natural resources sustainably2.3 Decisions on use of natural resources increasinglybased on sound scientific information provided by SSC

Objective 3: Capacity increased to provide timely,innovative and practical solutions to conservationproblemsSSC Strategic Plan outputs:3.2 Management capacity and performance of SpecialistGroups improved3.3 Internal and external access provided to SSCpublications, products and lessons learned3.4 Species Information Service fully operational and dataadded on an ongoing basis3.5 Capacity of IUCN members to use SSC products andtools increased3.6 Awareness of SSC authority on global biodiversityenhanced3.7 Knowledge, expertise and surveillance on emergingissues improved

The data gathered will be kept within the SSC SpeciesInformation Service (SIS); it is a way to jump-start data-acquisition capabilities for the mammal-related SpecialistGroups. Thus, the data incorporated in this project, will goback to the SSC Specialist Groups to be maintained,managed, and continually updated.

The Global Mammal Assessment works synergistically witha Conservation Assessment and Management Plan, eachproviding breadth and depth of approach which is notcomplete in the other.

The South Asian Non-Volant Small Mammal C.A.M.P. is thesecond attempt at combining these two dynamicprocesses, the first being the Global AmphibianAssessment (G.A.A.) and South Asian Amphibian C.A.M.P.held in Coimbatore in 2002. The experience and out putpromise to be exciting, exhausting and effective.

Using Mammals to Pioneer New Approaches to Identifying Conservation Priorities : TheGlobal Mammal Assessment (G.M.A.) and the IUCN Species Survival Commission

2


Wildlife – both flora and fauna – is in crisis today.Reduction and fragmentation of wildlife populations andtheir habitats are occurring at a rapid and accelerating rate.The results for an increasing number of taxa are small andisolated populations that are at risk of extinction. For thesepopulations to survive and recover, intensive managementis urgently required :

habitat management and restoration,intensified information gathering,captive breeding

as well as other actions. The problems for wildlife are sovast that it is imperative to protect and manage it asefficiently and effectively as possible. ConservationAssessment and Management Plans (or C.A.M.P.s) havebeen developed and continue to evolve in response to thisneed.

CBSG Conservation Assessment and Management Plan(C.A.M.P.) WorkshopsCBSG C.A.M.P. Workshops are intended to provide strategicguidance for application of intensive management andinformation collection techniques to threatened taxa. CBSGC.A.M.P. workshops provide a rational and comprehensivemeans of assessing priorities for intensive managementwithin the context of the broader conservation needs ofthreatened taxa.

A C.A.M.P. process brings together 10-50 experts (e.g., fieldbiologists, wildlife managers, Specialist Group members,scientists from the academic community and/or the privatesector, land owners, and captive managers) to evaluate thethreat status of all taxa in a broad group, country, or geo-graphic region to set conservation action and information-gathering priorities.

IUCN Red List Categories 2001The New IUCN Red List Categories provide a system thatfacilitates comparisons across widely different taxa, and isbased both on population and distribution criteria. Thesecriteria can be applied to any taxonomic unit at or below thespecies level, with sufficient range among the differentcriteria to enable the appropriate listing of taxa from thecomplete spectrum of taxa, with the exception of micro-organisms. The 2000 revisions include guidelines fornational and regional assessments, increasing their utilityat this level. The new IUCN Red List Categories are Extinct(EX), Extinct in the Wild (EW), Critically Endangered (CR),Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Near Threatened (NT),Least Concern (LC), Data Deficient (DD) and Not Evaluated(NE).

The C.A.M.P. ProcessThe C.A.M.P. process itself is intensive and interactive andis unique in its ability to facilitate objective and systematicprioritization of research and management actions neededfor species conservation, both in situ and ex situ.Participants develop assessments of risk and formulaterecommendations for action using a computerized DataEntry Programme developed by CBSG to record informationsystematically.

Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (C.A.M.P.) DescriptionDuring a C.A.M.P. process, the wild and captive status foreach taxon under consideration are reviewed, on a taxon-by-taxon basis.

For each taxon, there is an attempt to estimate the totalpopulation. It is often very difficult, even agonizing, to benumerate because so little quantitative data on populationsizes and distribution exists. However, it is frequentlypossible to provide order-of-magnitude estimates,especially whether the total population is greater or lessthan the numerical thresholds for the population data usedin determining categories of threat.

C.A.M.P. data base includes a “data quality” column so that“guesstimates” can be distinguished from populationestimates based on solid documentation. Informationabout population fragmentation and trends, distribution, aswell as habitat changes and environmental stochasticityalso are considered. The C.A.M.P. process attempts to beas quantitative or numerate as possible for two majorreasons: 1. Action plans ultimately must establishnumerical objectives for population sizes and distribution ifthey are to be viable. 2. Numbers provide for moreobjectivity, less ambiguity, more comparability, bettercommunication and hence better cooperation.

For each taxon reviewed, three kinds of assessment/recommendations are made:1) assigning taxa to New IUCN Red List Category of Threat;2) making recommendations for research andmanagement activities to contribute to the taxon’sconservation.3) making recommendations for captive programmes if theycan contribute to the conservation of the taxon

Participants of C.A.M.P. workshops report that they arestimulated by the group interaction and are able to producemore information than they could remember on their own. Itis possible that the group dynamic produces anincremental effect – that the small bits of information heldby individuals would be of negligible value taken bythemselves, but combined with other pieces of informationheld by other group members and discussed, add up torespectable data. Dynamic discussion between peers –which may be friendly or argumentative – produces a verydifferent output or conclusion than the opinion of oneperson. Finally, information about habitat as well asimpending or future threats, is convenient to collect frompeople who live in or near the area.

The Review Process for C.A.M.P.sThe results of the Initial C.A.M.P. process are reviewed:1) by distribution to the workshop participants for minorcorrections and additions of information, such as sources;2) by distribution of a Report to C.A.M.P. participants, wildlifemanagers, academic institutions and internationalorganizations. After three to five years, a C.A.M.P. Review isconducted with improved information, additional fieldbiologists and the benefit of the earlier C.A.M.P. lacunaeand strengths as a guide. CBSG, India conducted a seriesof C.A.M.P.s for Mammals, Amphibians, Reptiles, Mangrove

3


C.A.M.P. Philosophy, Procedure and Ground Rules

species, Medicinal Plants, Freshwater Fishes, selected soilinvertebrates etc. in 1997 for India. In 2002 we haveconducted C.A.M.P. reviews for subsets of some of thesetaxonomic groups, such as separate C.A.M.P.s for primatesand bats, and now for non-volant small mammals. Unlikethe 1997 C.A.M.P.s which were national workshops forIndia, these reviews include all countries of South Asia.

Thus C.A.M.P.s are not single events or “one offs”. Instead,they are part of a continuing and evolving process ofdeveloping conservation and recovery plans for the taxainvolved.

The C.A.M.P. process is unique in its ability to prioritizeintensive management action for species conservation,providing a framework for intensive management in the wildand in captivity. C.A.M.P. documents can be used asguidelines by national and regional wildlife agencies aswell as regional captive breeding programs as they developtheir own action plans. The long-term impact of the C.A.M.P.process on global priority setting has the potential to beprofound. Within the near future, wildlife and zoo animalmanagers will have a set of comprehensive documents attheir disposal, collaboratively and scientifically developedby the experts on the taxon or region, establishing prioritiesfor global and regional species management andconservation. It is the intent that the C.A.M.P. process willultimately contribute to the wise worldwide use of limitedresources for species conservation.

There are several ground rules made explicit at thebeginning of a C.A.M.P. process which are intended to aid infacilitation of the workshop. These ground rules have beendeveloped by persons experienced in group dynamics and,in the case of a C.A.M.P. workshop, assist greatly ininformation gathering and achieving group bonding andconsensus.

Working Group Tasks: the C.A.M.P. Taxon Data SheetsIn each working group, several people have very specifictasks :1) the group facilitator who keeps the group on track and ontime;2) the data recorders (one for the computer and one to takedown information on data sheets);3) the Researcher, who is responsible for looking upinformation in books and references.Data Sheet information should be checked as each iscompleted to be sure that all data have been recorded.Working group facilitators may be designated by theC.A.M.P. facilitators and organizers.

Each participant is given a list of taxa before the workshopto check for spelling, correctness and completeness.Issues of nomenclature and taxonomy can be raised at theworkshop, which is discussed even before forming workinggroups. After the list and workshop objective has beenagreed working group participants begin to systematicallywork through the questions and prepare an electronic copyand a hand-written copy, which forms the basis of theassessments.

By signing the Rio Convention, South Asian countriesagreed to prioritise their species and sites and developstrategies for conservation of biodiversity. In order toprioritise species, one needs a good idea of their status,distribution, rate of growth or decline, threats, etc. Formany, many species, however, we don’t know much. Wecertainly don’t have the kind of information required to makea definite status statement. Many species have not beenstudied for years, decades, maybe even a century. What todo for this ?

Ideally, all species in a country, or region and in the worldshould be surveyed systematically. Systematic surveysrequire manpower, money, time,etc. lf we wait forsystematic surveys, surely some of the species willbecome extinct while we wait. We need to make a start, atleast.

Comprehensive taxon status reports in the past, such asRed Data Books, have been criticised for errors. Errors arebound to occur, particularly when one specialist or oneinstitution attempts to collect status information aboutspecies by post, from museum specimens, from scatteredand out-of-date literature ... there are gaps in information,individual or institutional bias, etc. We need a method inwhich all individuals and institutions which are doing workon the taxa can be represented, and thereby share in theresponsibility — both the responsibility for contributing tothe Report as well as the responsibility for rectifying

information gaps. Taxon status reports, whether they areRed Data books or some other method should reflects aconsensus by specialists and other stakeholders in thecountry.

The C.A.M.P. Process was developed as a dynamicorganising force for conservation in order to respond to thisvery need for basic information and consensus. TheC.A.M.P. Process provides two unique items : 1. anobjective workshop environment, 2. a neutral facilitationprocess

The objective workshop environment is achieved byinsuring that all individuals and institutions participating inthe workshop have an equal chance to contribute, andattempting to settle disagreements by conflict resolutionand consensus. This is accomplished by facilitation.Trained and experienced facilitators will guide participantsthrough the workshop so as to garner the most informationin the time allotted. Facilitators are by definition personswho have no stake in the information supplied or generatedin the workshop. Their role is to help resolve conflicts andkeep the flow of information at a steady pace. The energy ofspecialists is kept free to contribute information andexpertise to the working groups.

This approach makes possible 1) the sharing of availableinformation, 2) reaching agreement on the issues andavailable information, and 3) making useful and practical

4


management recommendations for the taxon or regionunder consideration.

Criticism of the C.A.M.P. Process:The main criticism of the C.A.M.P. Process is that it forcesfigures when there is no systematic study. Again, we mustask : when there is no information, what to do ? Order ofmagnitude “guesstimates” by specialists are better thansaying and doing nothing. In the IUCN Red List categoriesalso, there is a Data Deficient category, when there is reallyand truly NO IDEA. The philosophy behind theConservation Assessment and Management Planworkshop is that a start must be made irregardless.

Good faithWhen attempting to satisfy a commitment such asprioritising all species in an area so large as diverse asSouth Asia or any of its individual countries in a short spanof time, it is necessary to accept a principle of “bestpossible” in “good faith”. The underlying principle is that wegather as many specialists from as many agencies andinsitutions as possible participate to avail every bit ofinformation and expertise to arrive at the “best possible”conclusion at this time . . .in “good faith”. A gathering ofspecialists who agree to set aside their personal agendasin the best interests of the taxa has its own authority andpower. Their faith is further strengthen by the knowledgethat the process can and should be repeated after someyears when more studies have been done and theinformation and recommendations of the previous exercisehave provided a fodder for better investigation.

Process vis-a-vis ResolutionTherefore, the C.A.M.P. Workshop is called a “process”because it is never complete. Information will not becomplete for many, perhaps most, species. Even ifinformation is complete, in a very few years, the habitat, thehabits of man, the general environment will have changedand also the status of many species. The C.A.M.P.workshop is a first cut or first attempt to define the problemand make strategic decisions for management of the mosthighly endangered species. In the conservation arena,where time and resources are scarce, such decisions canmake a big difference for species survival.

This integrated and analytical review of data never beforeassembled, coming from many different sources, usingknowledge of many individuals and groups on a commonground, has a unique power to guide difficult managementdecisions. Much of the information typically mobilized hasnever before been available to managers in useful form.The process is a useful means to improve management inorder to minimize extinction risk and minimize regrets whileawaiting improved information.

The process generates priorities for information that wemost need to know, and may suggest that particular orsharper focus should be drawn to planned data collectionand research, whereas other data collecting activities maybe found less important and can be de-emphasized.

So far, from more than 90 C.A.M.P. Workshops over theworld, there always has been enough information resultingfrom the entire process to provide better guidance tomanagers than existed before. If this is not the case, the

process produces clear priorities for data collection so thatthey can be carried out systematically.

Because changes and disturbances to the habitat, humanand otherwise, do not stop while we may delay analysis oraction in pursuit of more information, a decision not toproceed must be recognized as a decision withconsiderable consequences of its own. Again, the issue of“good faith” provides a foundation which should result in afeeling of trust in the process to improve our knowledge ofthe species and their status and, consequently, the ability tojustify forging ahead.

Safety featuresThere are several “safety features” built into C.A.M.P.Workshops and their output.1) In the Taxon Data Sheets where participants recordinformation about individual species, there is a space forlisting the names of the contributors of information so thateveryone is credited for his input;

2) If an individual disagrees with the group opinion on anitem or issue, he is permitted to write his dissentingopinion which, if it is signed, will be included in the Report,

3) C.A.M.P. Reports are circulated at or a few days after theworkshop in Draft form and participants are given anopportunity to correct mistakes, or even add bits ofinformation as long as the information does not go againstthe group opinion;

4) C.A.M.P. Reports are not published in hardback editionsas the ‘last word’ on the status of a taxon, They are normallyxeroxed with spiral binders in sufficient numbers forparticipants, policy makers and the implementing agencyfor wildlife conservation to be used for draftingmanagement plans and action plans. This providesreinforcement to the participants and puts managementoptions into the hands of those who should implementthem as soon as possible.

5) It is taken for granted that C.A.M.P. workshops will findnumerous information gaps which themselves can be usedto generate management recommendations for furtherstudies.

6) After some time, it may be felt that the conservationscenario has changed and requires revisiting so anotherC.A.M.P. Workshop may be held for the same group, or asmaller group on a more regional basis.

Special Issue Working GroupsIn every C.A.M.P. workshop, participants can suggestissues important to a particular species or a group to bediscussed and short reports of the discussions areincluded in the documents produced from the workshop.

Changes in the ProcessThe C.A.M.P. Workshop Process is dynamic ... it changesaccording to the needs of the conservation requirements ofthe users. Over the years that C.A.M.P.s have been held, agreat many modifications have been done to it. Thesemodifications evolved at workshops just like the one we areabout to undertake and adopted as a better way by CBSGand the 50 odd countries in the world which have adoptedthis process for prioritising their species.

5


Museum specimens studied(Name of species)

Location information(Specimen collected from)

Date of collection ofspecimen

Form for listing Museum Studies for use at the C.A.M.P. Workshop

Is the specimen list published?If so, give publication date and

journal details

6

Name of the Museum:


Instructions on filling out the Biological Information Sheet

The Biological Information Sheet is considered a ‘first step’ in preparation of species information for theCAMP workshop. This is to ensure that information on a taxon is represented from as wide ageographical area as is studied, rather than restricting the information from a few representative areaswith some information. Gathering information from as wide an area in South Asia will help in assessingthe status of a taxon with more accuracy. The BIS will also help gather information from individuals whohave data but have not yet published it in a peer-reviewed journal. Since the information provided in theBIS will be accredited to the person contributing the information, the person will get credit as being theauthor of the document, which will come out of the assessment. With information/ knowledge on anygiven taxon being so restricted, relying on only published data will only result in a biased assessment,since popular studies have shown that only 5-10% of a field biologist’s information actually getspublished. A C.A.M.P. workshop is an attempt to gather disparate information from literature, museumrecords, publications, field notes and unpublished information from various stakeholders (e.g. biologists,ecologists, foresters, scientists, students, conservationists, traders, policy makers, local communities,etc.) to derive the status of a taxon.

Please keep the following points in mind while filling in the Biological Information Sheet.

1. Use one sheet for one taxon only. If you have information for many taxa, use photocopies of the blanksheet for each of the taxa.

2. Fill in your personal details completely for at least one of the sheets if you are sending information formore than one taxon. Include your name on all the sheets and follow it with your signature at the end.

3. If there is some confusion in taxonomy, indicate what you feel is the correct status of the taxon (e.g.species, subspecies or population). There will always be an opportunity to work out taxonomic issues inthe working groups at the workshop.

4. The information you provide must be your own experience and from the geographical area of your study.In case you have information from museums, please do mention the same and provide all details.

5. In case you have local maps, please send a map along with the BISs with the locations for the taxa. Thiswill help when you finally assess the taxa at the workshop in working groups.

6. Estimate the area (in sq. km.) of taxa distribution within your area of study only. In case you have extrainformation, you can always provide them in the Comments section.

7. While filling in information for the other sections, if you feel you do not have sufficient knowledge, pleasedo not leave it blank. You can always enter ‘unknown’ in the margin.

8. Under recent field studies, provide complete information on your area of study, date of study (notpublication date), under what topic the study was conducted, if published, include full reference. You mayneed to bring your paper(s) for reference at the workshop.

9. If you have information that is unique for the taxon and for your area of study, please be sure to include it inthe comments section.

10. Send the filled in sheets to

RILSCINSA - NVSM C.A.M.P. / G.M.A. C/o Zoo Outreach Organisation29/1 First Cross, Peelamedu, Coimbatore, 641 004, Tamil Nadu, India

Ph. 91 422 2563159; 2561087; Fax: 2563269Email : <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>

If you would like electronic copies of the forms, please send an email with your request to either of the twoemails above. Probably <[email protected]> would be the better choice.

Remember, any information may be useful information in assessing the status of the taxon.

If you feel uncomfortable in filling these sheets because this is the first time you are actually penningthem, please let us know of the same. We urge you to fill in as much as you remember or know from yourpublications, field notes and your observations (even if not published) because the exercise is to assessthe status of taxa for which you may be the only one or one of the few individuals with any specificinformation. We promise you that not a single piece of information will be utilized unethically or for anyother purpose other than compiling a database for working groups to assess the status during theworkshop. We assure you that your information will be credited in the final Report and that you will beconsidered an author of the final Report and a contributor to the assessment of the specific taxon. Incase you are unable or do not attend the workshop, then your information will be credited in the finalTaxon Data Sheets of the final Report.

7


Biological Information Sheet

C.A.M.P. Workshop for Non-volant Species name:Small Mammals

Your name:

Date:Name: ________________________________________________________ Title: Mr. Ms. Mrs. Dr. OthersAddress for communication:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Phone: ___________________________Fax: _________________________ E-mail: _____________________________

Please answer the following questions only with respect to the geographical area of your rodent study in the wild1. Scientific Name (With authority and date) ________________________________________________________________________

1A. Synonyms:_________________________________________________________________________________________________1B. Family:____________________________________________________________________________________________________1C. Common name(s) with language:________________________________________________________________________________1D. Taxonomic level of assessment: Species Sub species Population

2. Distribution of the taxon2A. Geographical area of your study: _______________________________________________________________________________2B. Habitat of the taxon:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________2C. Niche, elevation, specific habitat: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________2D. Names of the localities in which the taxon was studies or sighted by you (please give details of places as accurately as possible):Name of Area Exact Location Area in km2 Habitat Threats________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________in case you need more space, fill the same information under comments, or make another copy of the blank sheet to fill in for locations.

3. Number of Locations or Subpopulations in which the taxon is distributed: ____________________________________________5A. Are the locations or subpopulations: Contiguous Fragmented

4. Habitat status:4A. Is there any change in the habitat where the taxon occurs: Yes No If yes, Is it a

Decrease in area Increase in area Stable in area Unknown4B. If Decreasing, what has been the decrease in habitat (approximately, in percent) over years?:

< 20% > 20% > 50% > 80% in the last _____ years4C. If Stable or Unknown, do you predict a decline in habitat (approximately, in percent) over years?:

< 20% > 20% > 50% > 80% in the next _____years4D. State primary cause of change:_______________________________________________________________________________4E Is there any change in the quality of habitat where the taxon occurs: Yes No If yes,

Decrease in quality Increase in quality Stable in quality Unknown 4F. State primary cause of change:______________________________________________________________________________

5. Threats: 5A. What are the threats to the taxon? (Circle past [P] or future (predicted) [F] threats below):

Human interference [P] [F] Stoning [P] [F] Nutritional disorders [P] [F]Damming [P] [F] Trade of parts [P] [F] Pathogens [P] [F]Horticultural practices [P] [F] Trade for market or medicine [P] [F] Predation [P] [F]Hunting [P] [F] War [P] [F] Predation by exotics [P] [F]Hunting for medicine [P] [F] Ultraviolet radiation [P] [F]Hunting for food [P] [F] Natural/ Man induced threats [P] [F]Lopping [P] [F] Climate [P] [F] Catastrophes [P] [F]Loss of habitat [P] [F] Disease [P] [F] Drought [P] [F]Habitat fragmentation [P] [F] Decline in prey species [P] [F] El Nino [P] [F]Habitat loss due to exotic animals [P] [F] Drowning [P] [F] Fire [P] [F]

8


Habitat loss due to exotic plants [P][F] Edaphic changes [P] [F] Hurricane [P] [F]Overexploitation [P] [F] Genetic problems [P] [F] Landslide [P] [F]Pesticides [P] [F] Hybridization [P] [F] Tsunami [P] [F]Poisoning [P] [F] Interspecific competition [P] [F] Volcano [P] [F]Pollution [P] [F] Interspecific competition from exotics [P] [F]Powerlines [P] [F] Interspecific competition from lifestock [P] [F] Others (please specify):

Political unrest [P] [F]_____________________________________

5B. Are these threats resulting in (perceived or inferred) or may result in (predicted) population decline?: Yes No

6. Trade: 6A. Is the taxon in trade?: Yes No If yes, is it Local Domestic Commercial International 6B. Parts in trade/kinds: Meat Whole animal

for Scientific collections Medicinal trade Laboratory work Others, please specify______________________________________________________________________________________

7. Population:7A. Generation time (Defined here as the average age of parents in population):___________________________________________

8. Population trends:8A. Is the population size/ numbers of the taxon:

Declining Increasing Stable Unknown8B. If Declining, what has been the rate of population decline perceived or inferred:

< 10% > 10% > 20% > 30% > 40% > 50% > 60% > 70% > 80% > 90% in the last _______ years/ generations8C. If Stable or Unknown, do you predict a future decline in the population. Yes NoIf yes, please specify rate and factors e.g. habitat loss, threats, trade, etc._____________________________________________

< 10% > 10% > 20% > 30% > 40% > 50% > 60% > 70% > 80% > 90% in the last _______ years/ generations

9. Data Quality:9A. Are the above estimates based on:

Census or monitoring General field study Informal field sighting Literature Indirect information such as from trade, etc. Museum / records Hearsay/ popular belief

10. Recent field studies (in the last 10-15 years). Indicate year of study NOT year of publication.Researcher name(s) Location Dates Topics________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

11. Does Captive breeding already exist: Yes No If yes,11A. Names of facilities:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

12. Other comments:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________ Signature

In case you need an electronic copy of the Biological Information Sheet, please email us at the addresses given below.

Send this BIS to Zoo Outreach Organisation, 29-1 Bharathi Colony, Peelamedu, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641004, IndiaFax: +91 422 2563269; E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected]

9


We were terribly saddened by the untimely and tragic deathof Dr. Iswar Prakash, the first Chairman of this RILSCINSANetwork. His Obituary appears in this, the first issue of Rat-a-tattle since his demise, in 2002. Dr. Iswar Prakash istoday remembered fondly and with great respect by all whoknew him.

We are very grateful that Dr. Sujit Chakraborty, recentlyretired from many years service in the Zoological Survey ofIndia was willing to step into the Chairmanship. Dr.Chakraborty, although he is still working in retirement,always has time to advise us on what to do in RILSCINSA.His stature as a small mammal researcher makes himinvaluable. For those readers and members who do notknow him Dr. Chakraborty personally, we thought we shouldtell something about him in this issue.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. SujitChakraborty personally for taking on the Chairmanship andfor sparing his time for advising and directing the technicalaspects of the network.

Dr. Chakraborty has been carrying out research on Indianmammals for last 35 years. In the BCCP C.A.M.P.Workshop, Bangalore, he facilitated the working group onRodents (except Sciuridae) and Insectivora. He is Memberof the Pioneering Steering Committee of RILSCINSA.Dr. Chakraborty regularly represents his department in themeetings of the Wildlife Advisory Boards of the Central andState Governments. He actively participated in theAmendment of the Schedules of the Indian Wildlife(Protection) Act, 1972. Dr. Chakraborty has participated inmany different training programmes of rodentmanagement, conservation and identification as resourceperson. He has had many students over his 35 years withZSI, both official in degree programmes and casual, towhom he has simply passed his encyclopaedic knowledge.He has published over 70 conservation-related publicationsas of as of three years ago and is still researching andpublishing despite his retirement from ZSI.

We are very much looking forward to Dr. Chakrabortyplaying the major role in our upcoming Non-volant SmallMammal C.A.M.P. fo which you will read much in this issue.

S. Walker, Administrator, RILSCINSAEditor, Rat-a-Tattle

Dr. Sujit Chakraborty -- Some details

Date of Birth: 2 April 1942Sex: MaleOccupation: Researcher

Address: IA-28, Sector-III, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata,West Bengal 700 097, IndiaPhone: 033-24006893, 24002856 (O),23350300 (R)

Research Interests (Conservation-related): Taxonomy,ecology and zoogeography of Indian mammals, Wildlifemanagement and trade and impact assessment

Ph.D. in Rodentia / Insectivora: Yes, “Studies on thesystematics and biology of some Oriental rodents”, KolkataUniversity, 1981, Guide: Dr. B. Biswas

Species/Group of special interest: All groups of mammalswith special reference to Rodentia, Insectivore, Chiroptera,Scandentia, Primates, Artiodactyla, Periscodactyla,Lagomorpha, Carnivora of Indian region

Projects (Conservation-related):1983 Fauna of Jammu & Kashmir1993 Fauna of West Bengal1997 Fauna of Gujarat1997 Fauna of Valmiki Tiger ReserveOngoing Fauna of Andra Pradesh

Captive populations of Rodentia / Insectivora maintained:Bandicota indica, Bandicota bengalensis, Rattus rattus

Welcome to new RILSCINSA Chair, Dr. Sujit Chakraborty

Conservation Assessment and Management Plan, C.A.M.P. Ground rules

-- Every idea or plan or belief about the Taxon or Region can be examined and discussed.-- Everyone participates in discussions and no one dominates.-- Set aside all personal agendas except conserving the Taxon or Region in question.-- Assume good intent of all participants. Treat other participants with respect.-- Stick to the schedule; begin on time and end when the group reaches closure.-- The primary work will be conducted in sub-groups called “working groups”.-- Facilitators of group discussion can call “time out” when discussions become unproductive.-- Agreements or recommendations are reached by consensus.-- Plan to complete and review a draft by the end of the meeting.-- Flexibility is key. We will adjust our process and schedule as needed to achieve our goals.

10


I. ORDER: INSECTIVORA1) Family: Erinaceidae (hedgehogs)

Subfamily: Erinaceinae1. Hemiechinus auritus (Gmelin, 1770), Long-earedHedgehog - PK, P.2. Hemiechinus collaris (Gray, 1830), Collared or IndianLong-eared Hedgehog – I, PK (EN)3. Hemiechinus hypomelas (Brandt, 1836), Brandt’sHedgehog – PK, P4.Hemiechinus micropus (Blyth, 1846), Indian (Pale)Hedgehog – I, PK (EN)5.Hemiechinus nudiventris (Horsfield, 1851), MadrasHedgehog – I (EN)

2) Family: Talpidae (Moles)Subfamily Talpinae

6.Euroscaptor micrura (Hodgson, 1841), Himalayan (Short-tailed) Mole – I, N, SE7.Parascaptor leucura (Blyth, 1850), White-tailed (Eastern,Assam) Mole – I, M, SE, P

3) Family Soricidae (Shrews)Subfamily Soricinae

8.Anourosorex squamipes Milne-Edwards, 1872, MoleShrew or Chinese Short-tailed Shrew – I, M, BH, SE, P9.Chimarrogale himalayica (Gray, 1842), Himalayan WaterShrew – I, M, SE, P10.Nectogale elegans Milne-Edwards, 1870, Sikkim(Tibetan, Elegant) Water Shrew – I, N, M, P11.Sorex minutus Linnaeus, 1766, Tiny Shrew - I, PK, N, P12.Sorex thibetanus Kastschenko, 1905, Tibetan Shrew - I,P13.Soriculus caudatus (Horsfield, 1851), Horsfield’s Long-tailed (Hodgson’s Brown-toothed) Shrew - I, M, P14.Soriculus leucops (Horsfield, 1855), White-headed(Indian Long-tailed) Shrew - I, N, M, SE, P15.Soriculus macrurus Blanford, 1888, Blanford’s Long-tailed (Arboreal Brown -toothed) Shrew - I, N, M, SE, P16.Soriculus nigrescens (Gray, 1842), Sikkim large-clawed(Himalayan) Shrew - I, N, M, P

Subfamily Crocidurinae17.Crocidura andamanensis Miller, 1902, Miller’s AndamanSpiny Shrew - I (EN)18.Crocidura attenuata Milne-Edwards, 1872, Grey(Woodland) Shrew - I, N, M, SE, P19.Crocidura fuliginosa (Blyth, 1856), South-east AsianWhite-toothed Shrew - I, M, SE20.Crocidura gmelini (Pallas, 1811), Steppe Pigmy Shrew –PK (EN)21.Crocidura güeldenstäedtii (Pallas, 1811), Güldenstädt’sWhite-toothed Shrew - I, PK, AF, P22.Crocidura hispida Thomas, 1913, Andaman SpinyShrew – I (EN)23.Crocidura horsfieldii (Tomes, 1856), Horsfield’s Shrew -I, SR, N, M, SE, P

24.Crocidura jenkinsi Chakraborthy, 1978, Jenkins’Andaman Spiny Shrew – I (EN)25.Crocidura miya Phillips, 1929, Sri Lankan Long-tailedShrew – SR (EN)26.Crocidura nicobarica Miller, 1902, Nicobar Spiny Shrew– I (EN)27.Crocidura pergrisea Miller, 1913, Pale Grey Shrew – I(EN)28.Crocidura pullata Miller, 1911, Kashmir White-toothedShrew - I, PK, AF, SE, P29.Crocidura zarudnyi Ognev, 1921, Zarudny’s Shrew - PK,P30.Feroculus feroculus (Kelaart, 1850), Kelaart’s Long-clawed Shrew - I, SR (EN)31.Solisorex pearsoni Thomas, 1924, Pearson’s Long-clawed Shrew – SR (EN)32.Suncus dayi (Dobson, 1888), Day’s Shrew – I (EN)33.Suncus etruscus (Savi, 1822), Pygmy (White-toothed)Shrew - I, PK, N, M, BH, SE, P34.Suncus fellowesgordoni Phillips, 1932, Sri LankanShrew – SR (EN)35.Suncus montanus (Kelaart, 1850), Highland ShrewShrew – I, SR (EN)36.Suncus murinus (Linnaeus, 1766), House (Grey Musk)Shrew, Musk rat - I, PK, SR, N, M, BH, BA, SE37.Suncus stoliczkanus (Anderson, 1877), Anderson’s(Yellow-throated) Shrew – I, N (EN)38.Suncus zeylanicus Phillips, 1928, Jungle Shrew – SR(EN)

II.ORDER SCANDENTIA4) Family Tupaiidae (tree shrews)

Subfamily Tupaiinae39.Anathana ellioti (Waterhouse, 1850), South Indian(Madras) Tree Shrew – I (EN)40.Tupaia belangeri (Wagner, 1841) - I, N, M, BA, SE41.Tupaia nicobarica (Zelebor, 1869), Nicobar Tree Shrew-I (EN)

Mammals of South Asia (Insectivora, Scandentia, Rodentia, Lagomorpha and Pholidota)Checklist of non-volant small mammals -- 186 species in 14 familiesP.O. Nameer *

Legend: AU – Australian, BA – Bangladesh, BH – Bhutan, EN – Endemic, ET – Ethiopian, EX – Extinct, I – India, M –Myanmar, N – Nepal, NE – Nearctic, P – Paleacrtic, PK – Pakistan, SE – South East Asia, SR – Sri Lanka

11

* Assistant Professor, Dept., of Wildlife Sciences, Collegeof Forestry, Kerala Agril. Univ. , Thrissur, Kerala


III. ORDER: RODENTIASUBORDER: SCIUROGNATHI

5) Family: SciuridaeSubfamily: Sciurinae (Squirrels)

42.Callosciurus erythraeus (Pallas, 1778), Pallas’s Squirrel /Red-bellied Squirrel - I, M, BH, SE, P43.Callosciurus pygerythrus (I Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, 1832),Hoary-bellied Himalayan (Irrawaddy) Squirrel - I, N, M, SE, P44.Dremomys lokriah (Hodgson, 1836), Orange-belliedHimalayan Squirrel - I, N, M, P45.Dremomys pernyi (Milne-Edwards, 1867), Perny’s Long-nosed Squirrel - I, SE, P46.Dremomys rufigenis (Blanford, 1878), Red-cheeked Squirrel -I, SE, P47.Funambulus layardi (Blyth, 1849), Layard’s Striped Squirrel /Travancore Striped Squirrel - I, SR (EN)48.Funambulus palmarum (Linnaeus, 1766), Indian (Three-striped) Palm Squirrel - I, SR (EN)49.Funambulus pennantii Wroughton, 1905, Northern (Five-striped) Palm Squirrel - I, PK, N, P50.Funambulus sublineatus (Waterhouse, 1838), Dusky StripedSquirrel - I, SR (EN)51.Funambulus tristriatus (Waterhouse, 1837), Jungle StripedSquirrel / Western Ghats Squirrel - I (EN)52.Marmota caudata (Jacquemont, 1844), Long-tailed Marmot /Golden Marmot - I, PK, P

53.Marmota himalayana (Hodgson, 1841), Himalayan Marmot - I,N, P54.Ratufa bicolor (Sparrman, 1778), Black (Malayan) GiantSquirrel - I, N, M, SE, P55.Ratufa indica (Erxleben, 1777), Indian (Malabar) GiantSquirrel - I (EN)56.Ratufa macroura (Pennant, 1769), Grizzled (Sri Lankan) GiantSquirrel - I, SR (EN)57.Tamiops macclellandi (Horsfield, 1840), Himalayan StripedSquirrel - I, M, SE, P

Subfamily: Petauristinae (Flying squirrels)58.Belomys pearsonii (Gray, 1842), Hairy-footed Flying Squirrel -I, N, M, SE59.Biswamoyopterus biswasi Saha, 1981, Namdapha FlyingSquirrel - I (EN)60.Eupetaurus cinereus Thomas, 1888, Woolly Flying Squirrel - I,PK (EN)61.Hylopetes alboniger (Hodgson, 1836), Particoloured FlyingSquirrel - I, N, M, SE, P62.Hylopetes baberi (Blyth, 1847), Kashmir Flying Squirrel - I,PK, P63.Hylopetes fimbriatus (Gray, 1837), Small Kashmir FlyingSquirrel - I, PK (EN)

64.Petaurista elegans (Müller, 1840), Spotted GiantFlying Squirrel - I, M, SE, P65.Petaurista magnificus (Hodgson, 1836),Hodgson’s Flying Squirrel - I, N (EN)66.Petaurista nobilis (Gray, 1842), Gray’s Giant FlyingSquirrel - I, N, BH (EN)67.Petaurista petaurista (Pallas, 1766), Red(Common) Giant Squirrel Flying - I, PK, N, M, SE68.Petaurista philippensis (Elliot, 1839), Elliot’s GiantFlying Squirrel / Large Brown Flying Squirrel - I, SR, M,SE, P69.Petinomys fuscocapillus (Jerdon, 1847),Travancore Flying Squirrel - I, SR (EN)

6) Family: MuridaeSubfamily: Murinae (Rats and Mice)

70.Acomys cahirinus Desmarest, 1819, Cairo SpinyMouse - PK, P, ET71.Apodemus draco (Barrett-Hamilton, 1900), FukienWood Mouse - I, M, P72.Apodemus gurkha Thomas, 1924 - N (EN)73.Apodemus rusiges Miller, 1913, Miller’s WoodMouse - I (EN)74.Apodemus sylvaticus (Linnaeus, 1758), WoodMouse - I, PK, N, P75.Apodemus wardi (Wroughton, 1908), Wroughton’sWood Mouse - I, PK, N, P76.Bandicota bengalensis (Gray and Hardwicke,1833), Lesser Bandicoot-rat (Indian Mole-rat) - I, PK,SR, N, M, BA, SE77.Bandicota indica (Bechstein, 1800), Large(Greater) Bandicoot-rat - I, PK, SR, N, M, BA, SE, P78.Berylmys bowersi (Anderson, 1879), Bower’s Rat -I, SE, P79.Berylmys mackenziei (Thomas, 1916), Kenneth’sWhite-toothed Rat - I, M, SE80.Berylmys manipulus (Thomas, 1916), Manipur Rat- I, M, P81.Chiropodomys gliroides (Blyth, 1856), Pencil-tailedTree Mouse - I, SE, P82.Cremnomys blanfordi (Thomas, 1881), White-tailed Wood (Blanford’s) Rat - I, SR (EN)83.Cremnomys cutchicus Wroughton, 1912, Cutch Rat– I (EN)84.Cremnomys elvira (Ellerman, 1946), Ellerman’sRat - I (EN)85.Dacnomys millardi Thomas, 1916, Millard’s(Large-toothed) Rat - I, SE

12


86.Diomys crumpi Thomas, 1917, Crump’s (Manipur)Mouse - I, N I (EN)87.Golunda ellioti Gray, 1837, Indian Bush Rat - I, PK, SR,N, P88.Hadromys humei (Thomas, 1886), Hume’s (ManipurBush) Rat - I, P89.Leopoldamys edwardsi (Thomas, 1882), Edward’s Rat -I, SE, P90.Micromys minutus (Pallas, 1771), Harvest Mouse - I, M,SE, P91.Millardia gleadowi (Murray, 1886), Sand-coloured Rat - I,PK (EN)92.Millardia kondana Mishra and Dhanda, 1975, KondanaRat (Kondana Metad) - I (EN)93.Millardia meltada (Gray, 1837), Soft-furred Field Rat(Metad) - I, PK, SR, N (EN)94.Mus booduga (Gray, 1837), Little Indian Field Mouse - I,PK, SR, M (EN)95.Mus cervicolor Hodgson, 1845, Fawn-coloured Mouse -I, N, M, SE96.Mus cookii Ryley, 1914, Cook’s Mouse - I, N, M, SE97.Mus famulus Bonhote, 1898, Bonhote’s Mouse – I (EN)98.Mus fernandoni (Phillips, 1932) – SR (EN)99.Mus mayori (Thomas, 1915) – SR (EN)100.Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758, House Mousethroughout101.Mus pahari Thomas, 1916, Sikkim Mouse (Gainrdner’sShrew-mouse ) - I, M, SE, P102.Mus phillipsi Wroughton, 1912, Fawn-coloured Mouse– I (EN)103.Mus platythrix Bennett, 1832, Spiny Field (Indian BrownSpiny) Mouse – I (EN)104.Mus saxicola Elliot, 1839, Elliot’s Brown Spiny Mouse –I, PK (EN)105.Mus terricolor Blyth, 1851, Pygmy (Earth-coloured) FieldMouse - I, PK, N, SE106.Nesokia indica (Gray and Hardwicke, 1830), Short-tailed Bandicoot-rat - I, PK, N, P, ET107.Niviventer brahma (Thomas, 1914), Mishmi Rat - I, M,P108.Niviventer eha (Wroughton, 1916), Smoke-bellied Rat -I, N, M, P109.Niviventer fulvescens (Gray, 1847), Chestnut Rat - I, PK,SE, P110.Niviventer langbianis (Robinson and Kloss, 1922),Langbian Rat - I, M, SE111.Niviventer niviventer (Hodgson, 1836), White-belliedRat – I, PK (EN)112.Niviventer tenaster (Thomas, 1916), Tenasserim Rat - I,M, SE113.Rattus burrus (Miller, 1902), Miller’s Rat - I (EN)114.Rattus exulans (Peale, 1848), Polynesian Rat - M, BA,SE, AU115.Rattus montanus Phillips, 1932 – SR (EN)116.Rattus nitidus (Hodgson, 1845) Himalayan Rat - I, N, M,SE

117.Rattus norvegicus (Berkenhout, 1769), Brown (Norway)Rat - I, PK, SR, M, BA, SE, P, ET, NE, AU118.Rattus palmarum (Zelebor, 1869), Nicobar Rat – I (EN)119.Rattus ranjiniae Agarwal and Ghosal, 1969 Ranjini’sRat - I (EN)120.Rattus rattus (Linnaeus, 1758), House (Roof, Black)Rat - I, PK, SR, N, M, BH, BA, SE, P121.Rattus sikkimensis Hinton, 1919, Sikkim Rat - I, N, M,SE, P122.Rattus stoicus (Miller, 1902), Andaman Rat – I (EN)123.Rattus tiomanicus (Miller, 1900), Malaysian Wood Rat -I, SE124.Rattus turkestanicus (Satunin, 1903), Turkestan Rat - I,PK, P125.Srilankamys ohiensis (Phillips, 1929) – SR (EN)126.Vandeleuria nolthenii Phillips, 1929 - SR (EN)127.Vandeleuria oleracea (Bennett, 1832), Palm Mouse(Indian long-tailed Tree Mouse) - I, SR, P

Subfamily: Calomyscinae128.Calomyscus baluchi Thomas, 1920 - PK, P129.Calomyscus hotsoni Thomas, 1920 – PK (EN)

Subfamily: Cricetinae (Hamsters)130.Cricetulus alticola Thomas, 1917, Ladakh Hamster - I,N, P131.Cricetulus migratorius (Pallas, 1773), Grey Hamster - I,PK, P

Subfamily: Gerbillinae (Gerbiles, Jirds)132.Gerbillus aquilus Schlitter and Setzer, 1972 - PK, P133.Gerbillus cheesmani Thomas, 1919, Cheeseman’sGerbil - PK, P134.Gerbillus gleadowi Murray, 1886, Indian Hairy-footedGerbil – I, PK (EN)135.Gerbillus nanus Blanford, 1875, Baluchistan Gerbil - I,PK, P, ET136.Meriones crassus Sundevall, 1842, Sundeall’s Jird -PK, P137.Meriones hurrianae Jerdon, 1867, Indian Desert Jird -I, PK, P138.Meriones libycus Lichtenstein, 1823, Liyan Jird - PK, P,ET139.Meriones persicus Blanford, 1875, Persian Jird - PK, P140.Rhombomys opimus (Lichtenstein, 1823), Great Gerbil- PK, P141.Tatera indica (Hardwicke, 1807), Indian Gerbile(Antelope Rat) - I, PK, SR, N, P

Subfamily: Platacanthomyinae (Dormouse)142.Platacanthomys lasiurus Blyth, 1859, Malabar SpinyMouse (Spiny Dormouse) – I (EN)

13


Subfamily: Arvicolinae (Voles)143.Alticola albicauda (True, 1894), Baltistan Mountain Vole– I (EN)144.Alticola argentatus (Severtzov, 1879), Silvery MountainVole - I, PK, P145.Alticola montosa (True, 1894), Kashmir Mountain Vole– I (EN)146.Alticola roylei Gray, 1842, Royle’s Mountain Vole – I(EN)147.Alticola stoliczkanus (Blanford, 1875), Stoliczka’sMountain Vole - I, N, P148.Alticola stracheyi Thomas, 1880, Thomas’s MountainVole - I, N, P149.Ellobius fuscocapillus Blyth, 1843, Afghan Mole-Vole -PK, P150.Eothenomys melanogaster (Milne-Edwards, 1871),Père David’s Vole – I, M (EN)151.Hyperacrius fertilis (True, 1894), True’s Vole – I, M (EN)152.Hyperacrius wynnei (Blanford, 1881), Murree Vole – I,PK (EN)153.Microtus juldaschi (Severtzov, 1879) - PK, P154.Microtus kirgisorum (Ognev, 1950) - PK, P155.Microtus leucurus (Blyth, 1863), Blyth’s Vole – I, P156.Microtus sikimensis (Hodgson, 1849), Sikkim Vole - I,N, BH, P157.Microtus transcaspicus Satunin, 1905 - PK, P

Subfamily: Rhizomyinae (Bamboo rats)158.Cannomys badius (Hodgson, 1841), Lesser BambooRat - I, N, M, BH, BA, SE, P159.Rhizomys pruinosus Blyth, 1851, Hoary Bamboo Rat - I,M, SE, P

7) Family: MyoxidaeSubfamily: Leithiina

160.Dryomys nitedula (Pallas, 1779), Forest Dormouse -PK, P

8) Family: DipodidaeSubfamily: Allactaginae

161.Allactaga elater (Lichtenstein, 1828), Small Five-toedJerboa - PK, P162.Allactaga hotsoni Thomas, 1920, Hotson’s Five-toedJerboa - PK, P

Subfamily Cardiocraniinae163.Salpingotus michaelis Fitzgibbon, 1966, BaluchistanPigmy Jerboa - PK, P

Subfamily Dipodinae164.Jaculus blanfordi (Murray, 1884), Blanford’s Jerboa -PK, P

Subfamily Sicistinae165.Sicista concolor (Büchner, 1892), Chinese BirchMouse - I, PK, P

SUBORDER HYSTRICOGNATHI10) Family Hystricidae (Porcupines)

166.Atherurus macrourus (Linnaeus, 1758), Asiatic Brush-tailed Porcupine - I, M, SE, P167.Hystrix brachyura Linnaeus, 1758, Malayan (HimalayanCrestless) Porcupine - I, N, BA, SE, P168.Hystrix indica Kerr, 1792, Indian (Crested) Porcupine -I, P

11) Family: CaviidaeSubfamily: Caviinae

169.Cavia porcellus (Linnaeus, 1758) Guinea Pig -throughout

IV. ORDER LAGOMORPHA

12) Family: Leporidae (Hares and Rabbits)170. Caprolagus hispidus (Pearson, 1839), Assam Rabbit,Hispid Hare – I, N (EN)171.Lepus capensis Linnaeus, 1758, Cape Hare – I, P, ET172.Lepus nigricollis F Cuvier, 1823, Indian Hare, Black-naped Hare, Rufous-tailed Hare - I, PK, SR, N, BA (EN)173.Lepus oiostolus Hodgson, 1840, Woolly Hare - I, N, P174.Oryctolagus cuniculus Linnaeus, 1758, EuropeanRabbit, Domestic Rabbit - THROUGHOUT

13) Family Ochotonidae (Mouse hares and Pikas)175.Ochotona curzoniae (Hodgson, 1858), Black-lippedPika, Plateau Pika - I, N, P176.Ochotona forresti Thomas, 1923, Forrest’s Pika - I, BH,P177.Ochotona himalayana Feng, 1973 – N, P178.Ochotona ladacensis (Günther, 1875), Ladakh Pika/Long-eared Pika - I, PK,179.Ochotona macrotis (Günther, 1875), Large-eared Pika -I, PK, N, P180.Ochotona nubrica Thomas, 1922, Nubra Pika - I, N, P181.Ochotona roylei (Ogilby, 1839), Royle’s Pika(Himalayan Mouse-hare) – I (EN)182.Ochotona rufescens (Gray, 1842), Afghan Pika - PK, P183.Ochotona thibetana (Milne-Edwards, 1871), MountainPika – I (EN)

V. ORDER PHOLIDOTAFamily: Manidae (Pangolins)

184.Manis crassicaudata Gray, 1827, Indian Pangolin - I, PK,SR, BA (EN)185.Manis javanica Desmarest, 1822, Sunda Pangolin - M,SE186.Manis pentadactyla Linnaeus, 1758, Chinese Pangolin- I, N, M, SE, P

14


Following the big success of lastyear's pilot project to establish arelease protocol for Harvest MiceMicromys minutus, we decided to takethe project into a much larger secondstage in 2003.

Early in 2003, we carried out a seriesof live-mammal trapping sessions inthe area in and around the 2002release site, where 130 mice hadbeen released last May. We wereencouraged to find harvest mice,offspring of those we released lastyear, that had successfully overwintered and were in excellentcondition. Given that we know that thisis a species that is subject to hugenatural winter mortality rates, thissuccess prompted us to undertake aneven more exciting project this year,which enabled us to encompassmany of the lessons learned during2002.

Just a reminder that the HarvestMouse is the UK‘s smallest rodent,weighing in at just 5 - 6 grams. Itsvery size poses enormous problemsfor researchers who have to find waysof following these minute creatures toestablish how they survive, where theygo, and what habitat they prefer. Thisinformation will help to establish theideal conditions in which well-informed re-introduction programmescan be carried out. Needles andhaystacks spring to mind but the teamat Chester have taken up thatchallenge!

During the week commencing 9 June2003, at the culmination of a hugeamount of planning and a multi-disciplinary ‘team effort‘, 270 HarvestMice, 50% males, and 50% females,were released from our stock onto theZoo‘s farmland adjacent to theShropshire Union Canal. Once again,the animals had not only been bred inthe Zoo - at the off-show HarvestMouse unit run by Mammal Keeper,Felicity Fair, but by several ‘volunteers‘from as far away as Huddersfield andWindsor! Those bred by volunteershad been returned to the Zoo to jointhe Zoo-bred animals in time for athorough veterinary screening carriedout by the Zoo‘s vets prior to release.Each was in perfect condition thanks

The 2003 Harvest Mouse ReleasePenny Rudd*

to significant husbandry efforts madeduring the preparation process. Themice were between 8 weeks and 12months old, and every individual wasmicro-chipped so that we know theirlineage, have exact information aboutwhere they were released, and canmonitor their progress once they havebeen released.

On the 9 June we individually placed135 mice out into secure mesh ‘softrelease‘ enclosures which were thenstaked into place at allocated pointsaround the release site. One of the

Radio-collaring was attempted for the first time for such a tiny creature. Photo byMike Jordan

Release cages for Micromys minutus. Photo by Mike Jordan

*Project Coordinator, Animal Division,Chester Zoo, Upton -by-Chester,Chester CH2 1LH, United Kingdom

15


significant findings from last year's release was that weneeded to design much better soft-release enclosures forthis year if we were going to obtain a more accurate idea asto whether soft-release is beneficial, in comparison to hard-release. Paul Howse, the Twilight Zone‘s Team Leaderwas allocated this daunting (because Harvest Mice seemable to escape from almost anything!) task. He workedwonders, and thankfully, our 135 new soft-releaseenclosures worked brilliantly, the aim being to provide food,water, shelter, protection from predation and also the hopeof establishing a small home-range prior to actual release48 hours later.

During the evening of the 11 June, a further 135 harvestmice were added through a hard-release, whereby animalsare simply placed in suitable habitat, again in allocatedplaces on the same site.

By ‘joining‘ those already placed in position in their soft-release cages two days earlier, we effectively releasedanimals in clusters of two males and two females on eachof 67 release points covering a two hectares area. At thesame time, the soft-release cages were ‘loosened‘ to allowanimals to move out of them if they wished. It was like amilitary exercise! A team of nine staff and volunteerschoreographed our move from one end of the site to theother carefully releasing animals in a set order to avoid therisk of damaging our precious habitat and of treading onanimals we had just released!

Perhaps the most exciting, and certainly scientificallyground-breaking aspect of this years release has been ourdecision to radio-collar 20 individuals. This has neverbeen attempted before, anywhere in the world, with sucha tiny creature. We commissioned Biotrack in Dorset tomake the minute collars for us, having thoroughlyinvestigated any animal welfare issues involved with collaruse. They were able to produce a collar weighing just .35of one gram, and with a fair amount of ‘tweaking‘ byextending the audio-pulse intervals used to track theanimals, we were given a battery life of about 21 days.Collaring was carried out by Zoo Vet Shan Siah whoanaesthetised the mice whilst MSc Student, Leon Barnes(who is a dentist in his ‘other life!) attached the collars,

using tiny instruments designed for orthodontic work!These tiny collars need soldering to activate them, and awilling member of our Maintenance Team, the MechanicKeith Bragan, was roped in, with some trepidation, as he isused to welding rather larger subjects, to do the honours.Truly a joint effort!

A team of three well-trained, committed, ‘trackers‘, SarahBird from Botanics, Eleanor Condon from our ResearchDepartment and Leon Barnes, an MSc student registeredwith the Zoo, then took over. With just the very occasionalhelp from Roy Leigh, of the Cheshire Mammal Group, andPaul Howse from the Twilight Zone, Sarah, Eleanor andLeon took on the huge and complicated task of trackingthese animals, over a 24 hour-a-day period for 20 days, in aseries of shifts. The aim was to ‘track‘ each mouse twiceduring each of the four six-hour shifts, thus obtaining 8 ‘hits‘per mouse, per 24 hour period, and to record its location,and habitat choice.

To maintain consistency, ten of the radio-collared animals(five male and five female) were placed in soft-releaseenclosures, and tracking started immediately. This maysound a little bizarre as technically we should know where

Microchipping by Chester Zoo Vet. team. Photo by MikeJordan

Micromys minutus - radio-collaring. Photo by Mike Jordan

Micromys minutus in hand-rearing. Photo by Mike Jordan

16


they are if they are in a secure soft-release enclosure, butby a stunning piece of good luck, one of these collaredanimals found an escape route. We were able to track itsbehaviour with regard to its use of the soft-releaseenclosure and noted that he kept coming back to base fromday one, and travelled a little further on each foray out.From this mouse alone we have confirmed research thatwas otherwise speculative.

The remaining ten (5.5) radio-collared mice were hard-released with the others two days later and tracking startedimmediately. It will be extremely interesting to see whatboth the radio-tracking and all the other post-releasemonitoring data reveals when it has been analysed.

Our first post-release monitoring session of all the micetook place over three days of live trapping during the lastweek of June and we were thrilled by the number ofpregnant Harvest Mice we were already re-capturing at thatstage. We know that none of our animals were pregnant atthe time of release so we now know that at least they were‘finding each other‘ after they had been released!

Radio tracking was expensive and exhausting, but soworthwhile. The data we obtain from this, specifically aboutsurvival, dispersal and habitat choice, will not only be farmore accurate than that achieved by any other method, butwill very significantly impact on release and re-introductionresearch around the world. Scientists eagerly await ourfindings and Chester should be very proud of our part insuch important re-introduction research.

Editor's Message

Dear RILSCINSA Members and other readers :

Last year, for the entire year of 2002, we did not bring out a Newsletter. For this we apologise.There was "news" for sure, such as the Field Techniques Training Workshop and the thenupcoming C.A.M.P., but -- with reference to the C.A.M.P.-- the dates kept changing and then wepostponed waiting for the Global Mammal Assessment, so the year just slipped by. We hope thisdouble-sized issue makes up for it.

In any case, the Non-volant Small Mammal C.A.M.P. Workshop has now been scheduled, and theGlobal Mammal Assessment is a collaborating partner, so events are back on track. This issuehas been devoted largely to the C.A.M.P. and G.M.A. -- definition, news, preparation (with formswhich you can xerox and fill), etc. Also associated with the C.A.M.P., but not confirmed as to whetherjust before or just after, is a CBSG/RSG training workshop in Reintroduction, Welfare, and Captivemanagement of non-volant small mammals, overseen by the Reintroduction Specialist Group,South and East Asia (Chaired by Sanjay Molur) and the Conservaton Breeding Specialist Group,South Asia (Convened by Sally Walker). Dr. Mike Jordan, Chair of the Small Mammal Subgroup,Reintroduction Specialist Group and Small Mammal Curator, Chester Zoo will lead the training and(we hope) Simone de Vries of the Rotterdam Zoo, both of whom have had direct experience incaptive breeding leading to reintroduction.

Speaking of which, we are running three articles about reintroduction projects, from England, fromNetherlands and from Australia. In England and in Netherlands, it is worth mentioning that thespecies which required captive management and reintroduction were "common species", theHarvest Mouse in England and the European Guinea Pig in Netherlands. This is just to remindeveryone that every species and subspecies has its singular role and if it is eradicated, worsethings can happen than from its damage as a pest !

Again, speaking of the above, there is some movement afoot to revise the Schedules of the Wildlife(Protection) Act to address the anomaly of all "rats and mice" being classified as "Vermin", whensome of them were assessed as threatened in the last C.A.M.P. workshop, and undoubtedly in thecoming workshop, others may join the threatened list. This action is pending for a long time andwe hope these movements will result in success.

Another part of the issue reports the 2002 Field Techniques Training Workshop and the follow-upwhich was that we were able to raise sufficient funds for supplying one dozen researchers withSherman traps and travel money for conducting small but important studies.

Finally, last but not least, we have several contributed articles on rodents from different parts ofIndia. We would be happy to include more articles and news from members in other parts of SouthAsia and invite the same. Wishing you a bit early a very happy new year in 2004. You can keeptrack of it with the RILSCINSA year Calendar which we have included along with this issue.

17


Field observations were recorded during 2001-03 forpresence and absence of porcupine in Shimoga (13°56'N,75°31'E), Hassan (13°18'N, 76°10'E), Chikmagalur (13° 7'N75°37'E) and Dakshina Kannada (12°27'N, 74°35’E)districts in Western Ghats region of Karnataka, Gir forest(20°40'N, 70°50'E) in Gujarat and in the campus of theAgriculture University, Thrissur (09°20'N, 77°08'E) of Kerala.In plain habitats of these districts, the porcupines were notpresent in abundance (1-2 animals/Km²) and in fringeareas bordering the forest tract, its population wascomparatively high (4-6 animals/ Km²) and its damage tocultivable plants was also more. It has been observedfeeding on a wide range of plants. The plants damaged byporcupine in these areas are presented in Table 1.

Damage to plants was identified by the teeth marks.Porcupine preferred tuber crops and tender shoots ofplants. It supplemented its diet with coconut bark tobalance its nutrient requirements. Debarking wasseasonal and the porcupines debarked palms duringSeptember to February months for want of nutrientsupplements or for maximum height of one meter upto theage of >20-year old palms. In grown-up palms, it debarksby removing bark pieces from the trunk exposing the pithand in young palms it will cut the basal portion just abovethe ground and dig the soil and scoop the nut, eating theendocarp resulting in death of the seedling. These types ofdamages are common in Dakshina Kannada region. InKidu, Subramanya, 120 coconut seedlings out of 2000planted were succumbed to porcupine feeding. Porcupinespreferred young coconut seedlings of age <2 years old.They dig the soil and feed on the tuber corms and tendershoots of bamboo. Pineapple and canes are eaten bypeeling the plant apart and eating the growing tip killing thewhole plant. Since natural forest cover is decreasing(forest cover of 8000 km² in North Kanara district 40 yearsago has been reduced to 6000 km² in recent years) andincrease in cultivated areas, have lead the animal to feedon the crops.

Survey and observations revealed that the people in theregion of Western Ghats hunt the porcupine for meat.People shoot the animal with guns or even raid burrows tokill the animal with a sickle. They also kill the animal byclosing the burrow openings, make a noose of nylon ropeat one opening and fumigate the burrow. When the animalruns out of the borrow, it gets strangled and killed. Sincethe porcupine is not a protected animal under WildlifeProtection Act of 1972, it is being hunt and killed. Only inprotected areas like in Bhadra Reserve Forest and Shiradiforest tract, people are afraid to hunt since shooting isprohibited in these areas. Forest officials frequently visitthe areas.

Table 1. Plants damaged by Porcupine in coastal and hillregions of Karnataka

Common Scientific Name % DamageNameSweet potato Ipomea batatas 3% of 20 tubersBamboo Bamboosa arundinacea 8% of 25 tillersTapioca Manihot esculenta 6% of 22 tubersAlocasia Alocasia indica 2% of 15 tubersCashewnut Anacardium occidentale 10% of 200 nutsCane Calamus tenuis 5% of 35 tillersSweet potato Diascorea esculenta 6% of 42 tubersAnanus Ananas comosus 6% of 350 plantsBanana Musa paradisiaca 2-8% of 150

plantsKathale Agave Americana 15-30% of 450

plantsWild turmeric Zingiber zerumbet 10-15% of 750

plantsColacasia Colacasia indica 10-15% of 50

plantsGauri gedde Gloriosa superba 10-15% of 10

plantsByne palm Caryota urens 15-20% of 15

plantsThare mara Acacia catechu 3-5% of 75 fruitsCoconut Cocos nucifera 20-40% of 4000

palms

Porcupine (Hystrix indica Kerr) foraging activity in cultivated ecosystemsin Western Ghats of KarnatakaA.K. Chakravarthy*, B.B. Hosetti** and A.C. Girish*

*Department of Entomology, ZARS, V.C. Farm, Mandya 571405, Karnataka*Department of Applied Zoology, Kuvempu University, B.R.Project, Badravathi

18

Rat-a-tattle - RILSCINSA Newsletter, Volume 3, Number 1, October 2003 19

In 1999, the Dutch governmentdecided to start a program for thebreeding and reintroduction ofCommon hamsters (Cricetuscricetus). The breeding, carried out byVereniging Das & Boom andRotterdam Zoo, has been verysuccessful. In spring 2002 the firstgroup of hamsters was reintroducedin a reserve, specially managed forthis species. In 2003 the smallpopulation in this reserve wasreinforced, while at the same timehamsters where introduced in a newlydeveloped area.

BackgroundIn the 90’s the number of Europeanhamsters in The Netherlands droppeddramatically, mainly due to habitatloss. Until then, hamsters were widelydistributed in the southern provinceLimburg. In 1999, only one small arearemained. In Heer, near Maastricht, 5occupied burrows were found (KrekelsR., 1999), apparently populated withless than 20 animals. The Dutchgovernment decided to capture theremaining animals to start a breedingprogram. Rotterdam Zoo was asked toco-ordinate this program. At the sametime measures where taken to expandthe area suitable for Commonhamsters, in order to make quickreintroduction possible. The plan is for11 reserves of at least 45 ha to bedeveloped in the course of five years,with connecting zones in between(Protection Plan Hamster 2000-2004).

Breeding programIn 1999 15 animals (7 males and 8females) were captured. They weretaken to two breeding centres:Vereniging Das & Boom, a Dutchassociation dedicated to natureprotection, and Rotterdam Zoo. In theyear that followed four males and sixfemales produced offspring, a total of34 young (17m/17f) in seven litters.Using these animals breeding wascontinued in 2001, which resulted in99 young (41m/58f) in 19 litters.Females easily produced two littersper season. Reintroduction wasplanned to start inspring 2002 andwith these breeding results therewould be more than enough animalsavailable. While the first reintroductiontook place in 2002, the breeding incaptivity continued. That year females

were allowed only to have one litter,because the capacity of the breedingcentres was limited. Another 124young (63m/60f/1unknown) were bornin the breeding centres in 2002. For2003 it was decided to limit thebreeding to roughly 100 young, to suitthe needs for reintroduction andfurther breeding. In fact the breeding inthis year did not go as smoothly asbefore (many ‘good’ matings did notresult in offspring), resulting in 82young. The sex ratio was male biased(48m/34f).

So in four years time 339 young(169m/169f/1unknown) were born inthe breeding program. In the first threeyears litter size varied from 1 to 9, withan average of 5.04 (standard deviation2.03). In 2003 the average litter sizewas slightly smaller (4.82) with avariation from 1 till 8.

One-year-old animals had the bestbreeding results. In the year 2000there were two two-year-old and sixone-year-old females in the breedingprogram. Both older females did notbreed, while all the younger femaleshad one or two litters. Only one ofthese six female breeders, bred againin 2001 (even two litters), and alsoone two-year-old male. While in theirfirst year all females had a regularoestrus cycle of four days, some two-year-old females had an irregular

Breeding and reintroduction of the Common Hamster in The NetherlandsSimone de Vries*

*Rotterdam Zoo, Postbus 532, 3000 AMRotterdam, The Netherlands

In the 90's the number of European hamsters in Netherlands dropped drama-tically. In 2003 common hamsters (Cricetus cricetus) were reintroduced intoa reserve to strengthen a small population. Photo by Simone de Vries

cycle. Both in males and females, theinterest in mating seemed todecrease in the second year of life.When mating occurred, it did notalways lead to a successfulpregnancy. All these observationshave led to the decision to focusmainly on one-year-olds in thebreeding program. In some cases itwas necessary to use older males, asthe younger males are sometimes notbig enough to breed. In a successfulbreeding pair the male is typically 100grams heavier than the female. On atotal of 66 litters in four years, threelitters were bred from two two-year-oldfemales and eight were bred fromseven two-year-old males.

Although it was clear that all founderanimals could have been related toeach other, the only known relationwas of one female and her sixoffspring. This is documented in thestudbook (Vries, S. de, 2002). For allthe other animals the starting-offinbreeding coefficients (i.c.) wereassumed to be zero.

As the need to breed as much aspossible in the first year was high andnot all combinations turned out to be


compatible, it could not be avoided to breed with the wildcaught siblings. Two litters, with in total seven young, wereborn out of such a combination. These young had a ratherhigh i.c. of 0.1250. Therefore the average offspring i.c. for2000 was 0.0257. By forming unrelated pairs in 2001, theaverage offspring i.c. decreased to 0.0088. In 2002 it wasalmost impossible to form unrelated couples, because allanimals were more or less related, resulting in an averageoffspring i.c. of 0.0542. In 2003 the average increased evenmore and it is clear that this coefficient will increase furtherin the years to come, if no fresh blood will be added to thebreeding program.

Since the beginning of the project the small genetical basisof the captive population has been a cause for concern.Therefore co-operation with Germany and Belgium wassaught. As a first result of this, one wild caught malehamster was imported from Belgium in August 2003. Thissingle hamster was found to be the only inhabitant of aformerly well stocked hamster habitat in Flanders, Belgium.It is hoped that this one male will produce offspring in 2004.

Reintroduction in 2002Experience in the breeding program has learned thatCommon hamsters hibernate from the end of Septemberuntil April. In May the breeding season starts. With this inmind, the first reintroduction was planned to take place inmid-April 2002. Unfortunately, in February 2002 it becameclear that there would not be a suitable area ready forreintroduction in early spring. The government had boughtan area of 60 ha in Sibbe, but it was a monoculture ofrecently sowed wheat. The hamsters would neither haveenough nutritional variety nor sufficient protection againstpredators. The reserve first had to be sown with a variety ofdifferent crops, especially alfalfa (an important food sourceand a good cover provider). The area was estimated not tobe ready until July 2002. As it would not be wise to wait thatlong with the reintroduction, a new plan was developed.

25 Large cages (6 by 6 metres) were placed throughout thereserve, 50 metres from each other, in order to givepregnant females protection during their first weeks in thereserve. Also ten smaller cages (round, with a diameter of2 metres) were placed for the males.

At the end of April 2002, part of the captive population wasbrought to a new breeding centre, next to the reserve. It wasthought to be too risky to travel long distance with pregnantfemales, so the mating had to take place close to thereserve. Females and males were brought together here tomate. If mating is observed and interest in breedingdisappears (observed until five days after the mating), the

female is supposed to be pregnant. She was then placed inone of the large cages and fed on a daily basis. If all wentwell, after a gestation period of 18 days the young wereborn in the cage. When the young were four to five weeksold, the cage was opened. By the time the first cage wasopened it was July and the reserve could offer everythinghamsters need. As a female hamster can easily producetwo litters per season, some adult males were alsointroduced at this time, using the small cages.

Results 2002In total 26 ‘supposedly pregnant’ females were placed incages. One of them did not survive and was replaced. Justbefore the cages were opened, we tried to catch all theanimals inside. It turned out that at least 19 litters wereborn, with in total at least 95 young. The actual number isprobably even higher. The caught offspring shows anaverage litter size of 5 (standard deviation 1.75). Theaverage inbreeding coefficient of these young was 0.0630(standard deviation 0.0051).

The young were in general much larger than those born incaptivity. An exact comparison is not possible, since theyoung in captivity are normally not weighed at such an earlyage. Table 1 illustrates the differences.

It is unclear which factor is responsible for this difference ingrowth pace; the food offered in the cages was the same asin the breeding centres. A lot of the young in the reintro-duction cages seemed ready to breed at an age of only fiveweeks, which was never the case in the breeding centres atthat age. Probably some of the ‘free-born’ young did alreadyreproduce in the same season as they were born.

Table 1. The average weight (g) of hamsters born before June 13, in captivity (all litters) and in reintroduction cages (first 9 litters). (N = number of individuals) Average age

(range) (days) Year N Weight

Females Males Reintroduction

cages

31.3 (27-37) 2002 46 184.5 198.5

Captivity

62.0 (48-90) 2000 / 2001 43 148.6 182.5

Acclimitisation cages. Photo by Simone de Vries

20


Alterra, a Dutch research institute, isresponsible for monitoring theanimals in the reserve. A number ofadult hamsters were equipped with aradio transmitter placed in theabdominal cavity. Radio telemetry hasshown that the hamsters do not stayin the reserve at all times, but donormally return after a few days. Moremales than females were found dead,predation being the main cause ofdeath. Apparently the males take morerisks going from one burrow toanother, while the females stay in oneplace. One adult female was founddead with signs of a fight, probablykilled by a cat or other small carnivore.This female was pregnant for thesecond time that season, so she hadbeen impregnated in the wild. Thisjustifies the thought that somefemales have produced second littersin 2002.

Reintroduction in 2003In the spring of 2003 a few dozens ofhamsters woke up from hibernation inthe reserve Sibbe. It was decided toreinforce this small population byadding animals from the breedingprogram. As the cages for pregnantfemales were still there, somefemales were impregnated beforereintroduction. The cages for maleswere no longer used, so all the otheranimals were released in just asimple, hand-made burrow.

At the same time a second area wasready for reintroduction in Amby.Roughly half of this area is managedby the same organisation as thereserve in Sibbe, the other half ismanaged by farmers who have acontract with the government. ThisAmby area is a bit smaller then Sibbe.

All animals except one wereintroduced between 22 May and 7August. One pregnant female wasbrought to a cage on 12 August andshe was not released until September.In table 2 the results of thereintroduction in 2003 are reproduced.The monitoring program shows thatthe best time to do a reintroduction isearly spring. Later in the season the

Table 2. Number of animals reintroduced per area and the survival rate until end of August 2003 # Males # Females # Pregnant females Total Survival until end of August 2003 Sibbe 15 11 16 42 40 % Amby 35 32 0 67 50 % 109

released animals have a lowersurvival rate. Risks are very high in thefirst week after release and thandecrease. Males have a lower survivalrate than females. Males are moreactive, have bigger territories and canmove hundreds of metres per night.Females stay near the burrow andtherefore have a lower predation risk.In Amby the average number of nestsper female is estimated to be 2.2,while in Sibbe an average of 1.5 isestimated. In both cases this wouldbe a very positive result. The deathrates that can be derived from table 2can easily be compensated by thesebirth rates. A detailed report fromAlterra on the monitoring of thehamster will be ready in winter 2003/2004.

Literature: 1. Krekels R., 12 September 1999, Standvan zaken hamsterinventarisatie 1999,Bureau Natuurbalans / Limes Divergens 2. Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheeren Visserij, 2000, BeschermingsplanEuropese hamster 2000-2004 (ProtectionPlan Hamster 2000-2004) 3. Vries S. de, December 2002, StudbookEuropean Hamster 2002, Rotterdam Zoo

Awaiting release.Photo by Simone de Vries

Common hamster, born in captivityreleased into its wild habitat.

Photo by Simone de Vries

Below : Monitoring with Radiotelemetry. Photo by Simone de Vries

21


In connection with the project "Studies on the faunaldiversity of Thar desert in Rajasthan", extensive surveys arebeing conducted in the different Desert habitats of the statesince 2000. From direct observation and systematictrapping, it has been found that almost all the habitats suchas sand dunes, sandy arable lands, irrigated farms,fallows, dry deciduous forests, dry riverbeds, rocky hills andresidential areas lying within the desert zone areabounding with huge populations of rodents, but with a veryfew number of species, usually one to five. However, duringthe survey of Harsh Parbat, Sikar district, relatively muchgreater species diversity combined with abundance wasfound. The present article describes the details of rodentspecies composition and their relative abundance at HarshParbat.

Harsh Parbat (270 30’02" N, 75 10’29" E), a small section ofAravalli range, rises from about 10 km South east of Sikartown and its elevation goes up to about 936 m. near HarshNath Temple. Greater parts of the lower hills have beenbrought under cultivation of jowar, bajra and vegetables,while upper hills support only a few stray patches ofcultivated land. Entire hill is rocky containing thin tomoderate layer of top soil. Entensive plantationprogramme is being carried out in many parts of the hill.As a result entire Harsh Parbat looks greener than thesurrounding plains. Important plant species are Aldusa,Churel, Thor, Solar, Dho, Agare, Peepal, Jhari, Eucalyptusand Prosopis. There are scattered growths of shrubs andgrasses of different species. Only one metallic road ofabout 11 km. stretch goes from foothills up to the temple.

The area was surveyed during November, 9-11, 2000 andSeptember, 12-14, 2002 with special reference tomammalian species. On both the occasions, same stretchof sloping land of about 100 x 100 m. area just below HarshNath temple was selected for trapping. The altitude of thestudy plot varied from about 800-900 m. Only a smallportion measuring about 18 X 24m of the said plot wasunder cultivation, while rest of the area was covered eitherby naked rocks or by various species of grass, shrubs andtrees as mentioned above. A total of 120 snap traps wereplaced round the clock in five line transects. Three kinds ofbaits viz., roasted dry fish, roasted coconut and peanutbutter were used in equal number of traps. Traps wereinspected at 06.00 AM, 12.00 noon, 06.00 PM and 11 PMdaily. Each time, baits were replenished with freshmaterial. Traps with specimen were removed at the time ofeach inspection, after setting a new trap at the same spotwith same bait material. List of species along with numberof specimens collected and bait preference are shown inTable 1.

Diversity and Abundance of Rodent Species at Harsh Parbat, Sikar,RajasthanS. Chakraborty, R. Chakraborty, S. Pratihar and Q.H. Baqri*

*Desert Research Station, Zoological Survey of India,Jodhpur 342005

Table 1. Rodent species diversity and abundance at HarshParbat, Sikar district, Rajasthan.

Name of sp. Tot. no. No. of specimens trapped withof spp. Peanut Roasted Roastedtrapped Butter Dry Fish Coconut

Rattus rattus 18 3 7 8Cremnomys 22 6 1 15cutchicusGolunda ellioti 7 2 - 5Mus saxicola 14 8 1 5Mus musculus 7 2 4 1Millardia meltada 4 1 1 2Tatera indica 14 6 1 7

All the specimens of Golunda ellioti, two of Mus saxicola,one each of Rattus rattus and Tatera indica were collectedeither during inspection at 12.00 noon or 06.00 PM, whilerest were obtained at 11.00 PM or 06.00 AM. Apart from therodent species collected by trapping, a fairly goodpopulation of Funumbulus pennanti, and one specimen ofHytrix indica could be sighted in and around study plotduring the surveys. From the study, it has been found thatat least nine species of rodents occur at Harsh Parbat ofwhich Cremnomys cutchicus appeared to be mostdominant in the area.

Rodent Newsletter, 26(4): 15-16, 2002

22


A visit to the Native Species BreedingProgramme at Perth Zoo is anexperience in outstanding practice andimplementation in zoo conservation ascompared to the pompous theoriesand incorrect practice one sees insome zoos in this hemisphere. It is arefreshing change and a stimulus torecommitment to the tool of captivepropagation as a conservationsolution.

Perth is located in Western Australiawhich has suffered from the wrongfulintroduction of the European fox(Vulpes vulpes) and the domestic cat(Felis catus). These are not the onlyspecies which have been introducedinto Australia; there are many. Thesehave, however, resulted in the declineof a number of native species -- manyof them endemic marsupials -- tofragmented and isolated populations.These populations have beencategorised as Threatened (eitherCritically Endangered, Endangered orVulnerable) under the IUCN Red ListCriteria.

Correction of the problem of introducedor “Alien” species has been undertakenby a government department known asCALM, the Department of Conserva-tion and Land Management. CALMhas done predator control whichcreated an environment with conditionssuitable for the native species tobecome re-established and recover.

Enter the zoo or captive breeding.Zoos and captive propagationprogrammes have no meaning unlessthe conditions which caused decline orextirpation of native species arecorrected. This is laid out clearly in theGuidelines of the SSC, IUCNReintroduction Specialist Group, but

are very rarely adhered in our part ofthe world. That, among many otherreasons, is why there have beenalmost no genuinely successfulreintroduction programmes in S. Asia.

In Western Australia the wildlifeauthority and other organisations aswell as the zoo work together tostrengthen or re-establish threatenedpopulations to the wild. The goal of theNative Species Breeding Program(NSBP) in Perth Zoo is to supportthreatened Species Recovery Plans byproviding animals for release into thewild and conducting scientific researchinto the reproductive biology ofthreatened fauna. Some of theanimals which are part of thisprogramme are:

Numbat (Myrmecobius fasciatus)The numbat was once categorised asEndangered but has been reclassifiedas Vulnerable after CALM and PerthZoo together re-established a numberof populations which now total over2000. The zoo bred 95 numbats sincethey started the programme in 1993and provided 59 of them for release insites selected by CALM. As the numbatis a specialised marsupial which eatsonly termites, the zoo had to establishand perfect a termite breeding facility.When we visited, they provided theguidelines for this to us for circulationto zoo professionals in South Asia whomight require a supply of termites forcaptive populations.

Chuditch (Dasyurus geoffroii)Chuditch is also called a quoll and isthe largest marsupial predator inWestern Australia. Although theWestern quoll occurred in about 70%of Australia at the time of European

settlement, by late 1980’s they wereEndangered with less than 6000 left inSW Western Australia. Perth Zoo hasbred 300 quolls for release; they haverecategorised as Vulnerable.

Dibbler (Parantechinus apicalis)Dibbler (Endangered) is a smallcarnivorous marsupial which wasfound only on two islands off WesternAustralia. Perth Zoo has bred 134island Dibblers, of which 86 have beenreleased to one of the islands toestablish a fresh population. Morerecently the mainland Dibbler hasbeen the focus of recovery efforts.Perth Zoo is putting research andbreeding efforts now into the recoveryof the mainland Dibbler.

Djoongari (Pseudomys fieldi)Also known as the Shark Bay Mouse,Djoongari (Vulnerable) was known onlyon one island prior to 1993. Anestimated 6000-7000 population is allthere are of one of Australia’s mostgeographically restricted mammals.Perth Zoo has bred more than 150Djoongari. Now 126 have beenreleased to multiple sites in the NWWestern Australia. These are beingmonitored by CALM.

Conservation Breeding and Reintroduction of Small Mammals (some of thempouched): the Native Species Breeding Programme at Perth ZooSally Walker*

Keeper inspects animals inoutdoor holding enclosures.

Special breeding box for mice

* Founder/Hon. Director, Zoo OutreachOrganisation, PB 1683, Coimbatore641004

23


Research facilities at Perth Zoo- Perth Zoo has had a Director ofResearch since 1996 and a fullresearch facility

- Perth Zoo is one of the six nodes ofthe national programme “MarsupialCooperative Research Centre” as a fullresearch partner- As a result of this partnership, theResearch Programme is fully funded.- Perth Zoo has had a ConservationGeneticist of its own since 1996.Findings from his studies have beenused in preparation of managementand translocation plans for thesespecies.

- Perth Zoo and the Western AustralianDepartment of Conservation and LandManagement work together toreintroduce threatened fauna into theirformer ranges.

Why is there no such facilities orcooperation in South Asia ? Althoughsome countries in South Asia pay lipservice to cooperation between wildlifeagency and zoos, the lack of otherelements and also the difficulty ofgenuine cooperation within a severehierarchical service prevents thecommunication and respect for allparties necessary to achieve genuinecooperation.

Another aspect which prevents agenuine conservation success inSouth Asian countries is the emphasison large mammals which areexpensive to keep, sometimes difficultto breed (but not always), difficult tomove around for mixing gene pools,and almost impossible to reintroduce.All of the species taken up by Perth Zooand CALM are small bodied mammalsand reptiles. These have their owndifficulties and problems but they alsohave many advantages, not the least ofwhich is a short generation time andsmall body size. With these charac-teristics it is possible to keep andbreed a large number of animals in asmall space and in a short period oftime. There is time for failures,experimentation and correction. Whenthere is a success, the lift given to thestaff and the zoo community in generalis enormous.

South Asian zoos and breeding centreshave their own problems whichperhaps Australian zoos do not, butthere is no reason to think they couldnot achieve much with more practicallydirected effort. There is also no realreason why other institutions could notconduct captive breeding projects forsmall mammals such as rodents andinsectivores. Penny Rudd of theChester Zoo Harvest Mouse breedingprogramme kept the entire programmein her office, and looked after the mice,their records, etc. while holding downanother job in the zoo.

There are a number of rodents andinsectivores in South Asia which wereassessed as threatened by IUCN andby the various national efforts. Thesecould be bred with an eye to deve-loping expertise and investigation donewhether the habitat problems could besolved to justify reintroduction.

A Conservation Assessment andManagement Plan (C.A.M.P.) workshopis coming up in 2004 in which morespecies will be assessed andcategorised with recommendations formanagement for the entire group. Iftime permits species managementplans will be written up for allthreatened species. Such species areimminently "do-able" -- let's do it inSouth Asia.

For further information on theprogrammes described in this articlevisit Perth Zoo website: http://www.perthzoo.wa.gov.au.

Djoongari (Pseudomys fieldi)Shark Bay Mouse

Fully equipped lab at NSBP, Perth Zoo

Keeper with device for training smallmammals to fear predators.

- Reprinted from Zoos' Print, 17(5): 1-2,February, 2002.

24


A Training in Field Techniques and Taxonomy forConservation of Rodents and Insectivores was held at theCollege of Veterinary Science, Kerala Agricultural Universityfrom 22-26 July 2002. The host/organizer at KAU was theCollege of Forestry. More than 56 biologists from 17institutions and organizations participated in the workshop,23 of which were zoology students and faculty from theCollege of Forestry, and 33 from various organizations inIndia, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.

The workshop was conceived and organized by the Rodent,Insectivore, Scandentia and Lagomorpha Conservation andInformation Network of South Asia (RISLCINSA) and ZooOutreach Organisation. The following organizations werecollaborators in the workshop: Conservation BreedingSpecialist Group, South Asia, Wildlife Information LiaisonDevelopment (WILD), the IUCN SSC Rodent SpecialistGroup, South Asia, The IUCN SSC Insectivore SpecialistGroup, South Asia, and the IUCN SSC Small MammalSubgroup, Reintroduction Specialist Group. The workshopwas fully sponsored by Knowsley Safari Park, UnitedKingdom.

BackgroundThere are about 140 species of rodents, insectivores,scandentia, and lagomorphs which are found in South Asia,approximately 120 in India alone, or about 30% of allmammals found in this region. Approximately 38 are endemic to the region, meaning that they arefound in one or more countries of South Asia and nowhereelse. Of these numerous rodent species, only 10 are orhave the potential to be economically destructive. Otherwise,rodents and insectivores play a vital role in the ecosystem bydispersing seeds, consuming vegetation, serving as prey fora large variety of small carnivores, and consuming insects.Considering the size and importance of this group of smallmammals, RISCINSA was initiated in 2000 as a network toprovide a catalyst for communication, collaboration andcooperation of field biologists studying rodents and

insectivores from the perspective of wildlife and biodiversityconservation. RISLCINSA has more than 45 rodentspecialists as members. RISLCINSA had undertaken twomajor projects for the year, i.) to conduct a training workshopin field techniques for rodent field biologists, and ii.) toconduct a Conservation Assessment and Management PlanWorkshop (C.A.M.P.) for Rodents, Insectivores, Scandentiaand Lagomorphs. Now, the number of projects hasincreased to include the coordination of rapid, presence/absence surveys, absolute/relative density surveys andpublic education.

WorkshopThe training workshop covered a variety of conservationbiology tools, including a great variety of field techniques forcollection of populations and distribution information,preparation of specimen, elements of a CAMP workshop, toprepare participants for the upcoming exercise, the IUCNRed List.

RISCINSA’s external advisor, Dr. Mike Jordan of SparsholtCollege, U.K., has had direct, hands-on, successfulexperience in conservation action with rodents andinsectivores in conservation action with rodents andinsectivores and was the main resource person. Dr. Jordancovered a wide variety of topics having to do with almostevery aspect of field work. Other resource persons fromwithin India were Dr. M.S. Pradhan of Zoological Survey ofIndia, Dr. Kartik Shankar, Madras Crocodile Bank, Dr. R.S.Tripathi of the Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpurall of whom spoke on different aspects of Indian Rodents.Sally Walker, Sanjay Molur and B.A. Daniel from ZOO, WILD& RISCINSA coordinated and facilitated the workshop andintroduced “ BIO-NET” (an international institution whichpromotes taxonomy in developing countries), the CAMP

Training in Field Techniques and Taxonomy -- July 2002Sally Walker*

Mike Jordan, Resource Person from UK, both lectures andlistens. There were many Resource Persons among

participants. Photo by S. Walker

Kartik Shankar, Resource Person, shared his experiencefrom surveying rodents in tropical ecosystems.

Photo by S. Walker

*Founder/Hon. Director, Zoo Outreach Organisation, PB 1683,Coimbatore 641004

25


process and IUCN Red List toparticipants.

The workshop covered:— Introduction to field techniques:Field trapping and monitoringtechniques— Case studies from United Kingdomand India— Small mammal diversity andconservation— Practical workshop session ondifferent techniques and equipment forhandling and restraint, sexing ofanimals, and welfare issues— Reintroduction planning andmonitoring of small mammals – longterm— Field visits to nearby forested areasof Kerala Agricultural University— Demonstration of animal handlingfrom animal welfare as well as safetyperspective— Lab demonstration ofcryopreservation, karyotyping and otherprocedures— and other topics

Several interactive sessions wereconducted to discuss tasks whichshould be completed to prepare for theupcoming Conservation Assessmentand Management Plan workshop andGlobal Mammal Assessment (Rodentsand Insectivores). These included:

Data Deficient and Not EvaluatedSpecies session – discussion ofspecies which could not be assignedto an IUCN Red List Category at the1997 Biodiversity Conservation

Prioritisation Project (BCPP) CAMP forIndian Mammals workshop due to lackof information or problems ofnomenclature. Sources, both humanand published, were identified for allthese species and participantsvolunteered to track down missinginformation for some.

Field surveys for non-protected forestand other forest grassland areas –strategies and protocol wereestablished. Participants committed toconducting some surveys andindividuals not present were identifiedto approach for possible collaborationin “presence/absence” and “absolutedensity” surveys. Examples of “ otherforested areas” are large college anduniversity campuses, public parks,zoological parks, industrial complexeswhich are well vegetated with someundisturbed area.

Nearly all participants committed tocomplete some task for the upcomingCAMP, whether individually or in aninstitutional effort.

A small meeting was held ofexperienced participants involved in thetechnical planning of the CAMP andGMA to review the list of species ofrodents (rats, mice, squirrels,porcupines), insectivores (hedgehogs,shrews), scandentia (trees shrews)and lagomorphs (hares) and thenshortlist items of uncertainty to beresearched. All items were tasked.

A C.A.M.P. workshop calls fieldbiologists, taxonomists, foresters andother wildlife workers together to sharetheir knowledge on a particular animalor plant group. The CAMP Workshopprocess uses the IUCN SSC Red ListCriteria to assess species andsubspecies and assign them to anIUCN SSC Red List Category. Thecategories decided by the group arecommunicated to the IUCN SSC RedList Authority. CAMP workshopsprovide a means for field biologistsfrom range countries of the species toparticipate in the IUCN SSC RedListing process directly. The IUCNSSC Red List of Threatened Species,which is accessible by anyone on theInternet, has replaced the old IUCNRed Data Books. The informationcollected and the categorization will becollected into a Report which will bewidely circulated to policy makers,forest and wildlife officials, academicinstitutions studying wildlife, non-governmental organizations, andothers with an interest in wildlife.

Zoo Outreach Organisation and CBSG,South Asia, with technical help from theIUCN SSC Conservation BreedingSpecialist Group has evolved a 5 pointconservation action “formula” fordealing with non-charismaticorganisms. While animals like tigersand elephants get the “lion’s share” ofmoney, human resources, and presscoverage, these animals are very few

Participants watch Mike Jordanweighing a rodent in the field

Photo by S. Walker

Dr. Pradhan demonstrating how tomeasure rodents. Photo by Padma

Priya

26

Mike Jordan with participants


compared to the smaller creatures. Tigers are “felids” ofwhich there are only 30 odd species in all South Asia.Elephants belong to Proboscidea of which there is only onespecies in South Asia. By comparison, there are 131species and 143 subspecies of bats, 140 species of rodentand insectivores, 330 species of amphibians, 600 speciesof reptiles and a staggering number of more than 80,000known species of invertebrates. ZOO and WILD havecreated networks for these taxon groups and are pursuing asystematic conservation action strategy for them. It is

1. Network: network taxon specialists for each groupthrough South Asia2. Training: Field techniques, taxonomy, captivemanagement for each group3. Field studies: Coordinated through the network to pickup DD and NE spp.4. Assessments: CAMP workshops for each group5. Education: follow up CAMP workshops using mostcurrent information

During the months between now and the Rodent CAMPWorkshop, participants and other RISLCINSA networkmembers will search for information about the 140 oddspecies of rodents, insectivores, tree shrews, andlagomorphs in literature, museums and in the field.

RISLCINSA welcomes members from the following: fieldbiologists specializing in rodents and insectivores who havean interest in biodiversity conservation, students with aninterest in rodents, rodent taxonomists, and wildliferesearchers studying other species for which rodents areprey. RISLCINSA is searching for all field biologists withhard data (published and unpublished) on the distribution,status, threats, etc. of rodents, insectivores. Think Rat! andcontact us!

List of participating institutions- College of Forestry, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur- Regional Research Station, VC farm, Mandya- Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur- Department of Zoology, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka- Department of Zoology, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh- Sparsholt College, Aparsholt, Hampshire, UK

Abhilash, D.Achiyanda, RoshniJanardhanaAnimon, MohammedMymoonArimboore, Lisha D.Arthur, BinuBellur, Srinivas ReddyChakravarthy, AkshayKumarChaudhary, VipinCyrus, JosephDaniel, B.A.Elias, Ani AnnaGanapathiappan, SureshGirija Pusshpom, R.P.Goonatilake, W.L.D.P.T.S.de A.Hassan, MahmudulIdris, MohammadJayahari, Mr.Govindan, JayantJayaram, JackinJahan, NusratJordan, Mike John RogerJinsy M. JosephKabir, Kazi AhmedKhan, Mohammad SafayetKizhekkepurakkal, A.R.Kollanoor, Anup JohnysKrishnambika, Natalya

Kulankara, AnilkumarLakshminarayan, ArunMaheswaran, GopinathanMolur, SanjayMukherji, ShomenMuraleedharan, K.K.Navami, Sangeeth S.Neelanarayanan, P. ,Ommer, NameerPaingamadathil,Pillai, Karthik VijayakumarPradhan, MalharShyamsunderraoPriya, K. PadmaRadhakrishnan, S.R.Ramamoorthy, SangeethNarayanReddy, PrakashShanker, KartikShenoy, KausalyaSiddhaarth, Mr.Siliwal, Manju S.Singh, Shiv MangalSrinivasulu, ChelmalaThakur, Sanjay SinghaThekkedathu, Ritto CyriacTripathi, Rakesh SharanVenkataraman, MeenaVipin, S.L.Walker, Sally

Names of participants:

- Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, Maharashtra- Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun, Uttaranchal- Thrissur Zoo, Thrissur- Nehru Memorial College, Puthanampatti- Madras Crocodile Bank, Chennai- C.S. Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur- Department of Zoology, Osmania University, Hyderabad- Wildlife Information Liaison Development (WILD), Cbe- Zoological Survey of India, Pune- Zoo Outreach Organisation, Coimbatore

Mike Jordan demonstrating the method of handling rodentsafter trapping

Radio-collaring of rodents for reintroduction programmesand monitoring

27


CBSG, South Asia is one of a suite of highly organizedNetworks hosted and administered by Zoo OutreachOrganisation (Z.O.O.) and Wildlife Information LiaisonDevelopment (WILD) Society. However, the IUCN SSCConservation Breeding Specialist Group, to which theCBSG, South Asia Regional Network owes its name andmany of its tools and talents, is the most influential of ournetworks. The combination of CBSG’s mandate,techniques, processes philosophy and vitality create aframework around which all of our networks operate,synchronistically and systematically.

ZOO, WILD, CBSG, South Asia and the other Networks workaccording to a five-part model or loop consisting of thefollowing elements : Networking <-> ConservationWorkshops <-> Training <-> Field studies and other fieldactivities <-> Education /Awareness/Lobbying <->Networking. The model works dynamically andstochastically, like this

Our networks are systematic, more like organizations, withmemberships (albeit complimentary), Directory ofmembers, services for members and SSC SpecialistGroups, searching for like-minded conservation scientistswho might benefit by being linked to others and lobbying forlegislative and social solutions to conservation problems.

This took some time to evolve. In 1997, CBSG, India alongwith SACON organised an Indian Mammal C.A.M.P. for theBiodiversity Conservation Prioritisation Project (BCPP).One of the recommendations of the Rodent Working Groupwas for networking, training and funding for field studies.

As there were very few members of the small mammalcontingent of this C.A.M.P., the need for networking wasclear, so in 2000 ZOO/WILD/CBSG, South Asia organisedRILSCINSA. RILSCINSA began by catching up all thepeople we could find doing studies of rodents andinsectivores, tasking them with finding information on DataDeficient Species from the C.A.M.P., and providing themwith a communications mechanism. This we did withoutany grant or fund; we just pinched it from our t-shirt andcard money. In 2001 we got a sponsor - the nobleKnowsley Safari Park, in England, and we could plan muchmore, such as organised a Field Techniques, Taxonomy

C.A.M.P. and Field Training -- two components of the ZOO/WILD/CBSG,South Asia Conservation Network Model

and Conservation Training Workshop, reported in detailabove.

On the last day of the workshop, it was clear that ournetwork members were very keen to do more field studiesand use what they had learned. Some of them werestudying other animal groups but could also do somerodent and insectivore studies if they were properly kittedout. The biggest gap in studies for most were the lack ofSherman traps -- safe for animals and humans, non-lethaland humane -- which are absolutely necessary for studyingsmall mammals. So RILSCINSA proposed that ifparticipants, led by Mike Jordan, would draw up a fieldstudies protocol, we would raise funds for simple fieldstudies. The funds were primarily for traps. It takes aminimum of 100 traps to cover even a small area and thatadds up to Rs. 15,000 alone. Then there is the cost oftravel, maintenance, etc. So we made "traps and travel" thetarget of our fundraising efforts and called for proposals.

We had 15 applicants of which we accepted 12 andsupplied them with "T&T." A review of their subjects andareas is on the following page. It was our first attempt tofundraise for field studies and it was an extemelysuccessful beginning.

So now we have Networking <-> CAMPs <-> Training <->Field studies in RILSCINSA conservation action plan -- onlyone to add, this is Education /Awareness/Lobbying. We willtry to add that this year after the South Asian Non-volantSmall Mammal C.A.M.P..

Many, many thanks to our sponsors for allthese components. They are listed below.

Knowsley Safari Park, U.K. is our major donor forRILSCINSA. Knowsley sponsors the:-- RILSCINSA Network since 2000;-- Field Techniques Training Workshop, 2002;-- Non-Volant Small Mammal C.A.M.P., 2004-- Reintroduction & Captive Breeding Training, 2004-- Part of administration costs of ZOO/South Asia

Miami Metro Zoo (via AZA Rodent TAG)Cleveland Zoological Park (via AZA Rodent TAG)Flora and Fauna International, North (via Chester Zoo)Marwell Zoological Gardenssponsored the 12 field studies

SOS RhinoUniversities Federation for Animal WelfareChester Zoological and Botanical Gardenssponsor other administrative costs of ZOO/CBSG, SouthAsia

28


Name: P.O. Nameer and M.M. AnimonInstitution: Kerala Agricultural University, ThrissurName of Project: Diversity and abundance of Rodents andInsectivores in the Kerala Agricultural University campus and LiveStock Research Station, ThiruvizhamkunnuReport: Mus booduga was most abundant in these areas. Themost effective trap was found to be the Sherman trap.BIS submitted for: Bandicoota indica, Funambulus tristriatus,Millardia meltada, Mus booduga, Mus musculus, Mus platythrix,Rattus rattus, Suncus murinus, Tatera indica

Name: Dr. Gopinathan MaheswaranInstitution: Bombay Natural History Society, MumbaiName of Project: Survey of Hispid hare and other smallmammals at Jaldapara Wildlife SanctuaryReport: About 30 individuals were trapped during the studyperiod. More number of individuals were trapped from closedcanopy forest area followed by grasslands with scattered trees.BIS submitted for: Caprolagus hispidus, Crocidura attenuata,Golunda elliotiLepus nigricollis, Mus cervicolor, Rattus rattus,Suncus murinus, Tupaia belangeri

Name: C. Srinivasulu and Bhargavi SrinivasuluInstitution: Osmania University, HyderabadName of Project: Surveys of non-volant small mammals in andaround Hyderabad city, especially Osmania University Campus,Grasslands of Kurnool district, and Nagarjunasagar Srisailam TRReport: Excepting Nagarjunasagar Srisailam Tiger Reserve,surveys from other localities are completed. However, hoping toadd more on existing information, trapping and surveys are stillongoing in these localities.BIS submitted for: Anathana ellioti, Bandicota bengalensis,Bandicota indica, Funambulus palmarum, Golunda ellioti, Hystrixindica, Lepus nigricollis, Manis crassicaudata, Millardia meltada,Mus booduga, Mus musculus, Mus platythrix, Petauristaphilippensis, Ratufa indica, Suncus estruscus, Suncus murinus,Tatera indica, Vandeleuria oleracea

Name: Ms. Kousalya ShenoyName of Project: Small Mammals of BangaloreReport: Rattus rattus wroughtoni and Rattus blanfordi were thetwo dominant species. Habitat parameters were also analysed.BIS submitted for:Golunda ellioti, Millardia meltada, Musplatythrix, Rattus blandfordi, Rattus rattus rufescens, Rattusrattus wroughtoni, Suncus murinus, Tatera indica, Vandeleuriaoleracea

Name: Mr. W.L.D.P.T.S.de A. GoonatilakeDesignation: Researcher, Department of ZoologyInstitution: University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka.Name of Project: Small mammal distribution of selected localitiesin Sri Lanka; a rapid assessment of Sri Lankan Rodents,Lagomorphs and InsectivoresReport: Indirect observations (footprints, burrows, scats) werealso carried out for identify the larger species (Squirrel, Hare,Porcupine etc.), other than trapping.BIS submitted for: Bandicota bengalensis, Bandicota indica,Cremnomys blanfordi, Crocidura horsfieldi, Crocidura miya,Funambulus layardi, Funambulus palmarum, Funambulussublineatus, Feroculus feroculus, Golunda ellioti, Hystrix indica,Lepus nigricollis, Mus booduga, Mus fernandoni, Mus mayori,Millardia meltada, Mus musculus, Pteromys fuscocapillus,Petaurista philippensis, Ratufa macroura, Rattus motanus, Rattus

norvegicus, Rattus rattus, Suncus etruscus, Suncusfellowesgordoni, Suncus montanus, Suncus murinus, Srilankamysohiensis, Solisorex pearsoni, Suncus zeylanicus, Tatera indica,Vandeleuria nolthernii, Vandeleuria oleracea

Name(s): Kazi Ahmed Kabir, Mahamudul Hasan,Safayat Khan, Md Roushan Ali, Nusrat JahanInstitution: Dhaka University, BangladeshName of Project: Survey of Small Mammals at BangladeshReport: Suncus murinus was found to be most abundant followedby Bandicota bengalensis.BIS submitted for: Bandicota bengalensis, Bandicota indica,Funambulus palmarum, Funambulus pennanti, Hystrix indica,Mus musculus, Nesokia indica, Rattus rattus, Ratufa bicolor,Suncus murinus, Tupaia glis

Name(s): P. NeelanarayananInstitution: Nehru Memorial CollegeName of Project: Small Mammal Species Composition inPuthanampatti and Omandur Villages, TrichyReport: Suncus murinus was the most abundant species.BIS submitted for: Bandicota bengalensis, Bandicota indica,Funambulus palmarum, Millardia meltada, Mus booduga, Musmusculus, Rattus rattus, Suncus murinus, Tatera indica

Name: Mr. Sanjay Sinha ThakurAddress: Associated with ZSI PuneName of Project: Survey for small mammals in Turanmal andAmba Valley and also of Ratufa indica spp. in DangsReport: Not submitted yetBIS submitted for: Not submitted yet

Name(s): Dr. Akshay Kumar ChakravarthyInstitution: Regional Research Station, MandyaName of Project: A Survey for Non-volant rodents in WesternGhats of Karnataka (Shiradi Ghat tracts)Report: In 52 days, 70 individuals of rodents of 7 species weretrapped at five localities of 5 different habitats along Shiradi andCharmadi Ghats.BIS submitted for: Not submitted yet

Name(s): Mr. Arun Lakshminarayanan and Mr.Suresh GanapathiappanInstitution: Individual researchers from CoimbatoreName of Project: Survey for rodents at Anaikatty, CoimbatoreReport: Preliminary report submitted. Project ongoingBIS submitted for:Tatera indica

Name(s): Ms. Meena VenkataramanInstitution: Wildlife Institute of IndiaName of Project: Rapid survey of small mammals in Gir PAReport: Not submitted yet.BIS submitted for: Not submitted yet.

Name(s): Mr. Sanjay MolurInstitution: Wildlife Information and Liaison Development (WILD)SocietyName of Project: Survey of small mammals at CoorgReport: Not submitted yet.BIS submitted for: Not submitted yet.

Rodent Field Survey Projects – An UpdateNames of Applicants and Project details

29


* LB-65, BRIT Colony, Badagad, Bhubaneswar 751 018, Orissa

Common Giant Flying Squirrel in Sravasti Forest Division,Uttar Pradesh was sighted for the first time in 1997 by SriTung Nath Tiwari, Deputy Ranger, while marking the treesfor felling. This was the first record for this area.

After 1997, the Giant Flying Squirrel was repeatedly seen inthe Bhinga and Kakardari forest ranges of this forestdivision, by many officials of this range.

Since March 2003, I had sighted this animal frequently inthe compartment number 1, 5, 27, 29, 32 and 45 of BhingaForest Block covering an area of 2375.10 hectares.

According to Prater (1997), though this area is not a normaldistribution range of Common Giant Flying Squirrel. Thearea bears Dry Sal Forest, the main species being Shorearobusta, Syzygium cumini, Dalbergia sissoo, Acaciacatechu etc. The vast tract of Sal and Jamun trees arepresent with a good number of hollow trees and shade-bearing trees like Ficus religiosa. Ficus racemosa, Ficus

Occurrence of the Common Giant Flying Squirrel (Petaurista petaurista) inSravasti Forest Division, Uttar PradeshDevendra Kumar*

*Divisional Forest Officer, Sravasti Forest Division, Dist-Sravasti 271 831, Uttar Pradesh

bengalensis and Adina cordifolia trees are well distributedover the entire area. Studies are going on to determine itsdistribution limits in Uttar Pradesh.

AcknowledgementThe author is grateful to Mr. M. Zafar Varasi, President,Paryavarna Jeev Seva Sansthan, Gonda for providing helpduring survey.

ReferencePrater, S.H. (1997). The Book of Indian Animals (10th

impression), Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai.

Project RodentBhubaneswar Samal*

Rodents, today play a vital role as experimental animals inlaboratories. The need for laboratory animals hasincreased with increase in experimental methods in biologyand medicine. One can say without exaggeration that greatmedical or biological discoveries have used only animalsfor testing and in ninety percent of these cases, the animalshave been rodents. Initially rodents, particularly the rat, wasused more as a “passive model” when scientists wished tostudy the life functions and compare them with humans. Inthe nineteen century, however, rodents became thestandard experimental animals by biologist, medicaldoctors and chemists. Rodents as “biological reagents”are a familiar organisms, whose living conditions are easilystandardized. Scientists has tested reactions by rodents toa wide variety or treatments, the injection of germs,administration of medicines, vitamins, radiation, the growthof spontaneous tumors and many more. Large numbers oftest animals are exposed to these treatments so thatscientists can obtained quantitatively valid results andcompare and evaluate the results statistically.

Scientific research in microbiology, immunology,pharmacology, harmonology and biological research ontuberculosis, cancer nutrition and radiation biology cannotbe carried out today without rodents.

Recently because of the frightening rise in birth deformitiesamong humans, people demand that medicines usedduring pregnancy be tested carefully to ascertain whether itmay cause deformities in the foetus or not. In this case,scientists need an “animal model” with a placenta that isas similar as possible to that of human, where the fertilized

egg was embedded in the mucous membrane similar tohumans. So, rodents have been the most appropriate.Many tests are proven invalid because of infections in theexperimental animals, so more germ-free animals areraised today under rigorously sterile conditions. Themajority of the animals raised in this manner are rodents.

The house mouse has been kept in laboratories as a basicexperimental animal by geneticists, long before researchproved how important the use of hereditarily pure animalswere for obtaining scientifically valid results in theexperiments. In 1930, P. Hertwigs, in Germany, has alreadystudied the effect of X-rays on male mice and as a result,had obtained mutations in their offspring. These allowedhim to study many inherited characteristics. The laws ofinheritance apply to all creatures including humans.

As important and indispensable laboratory animals,rodents have made possible many medical and biologicaldiscoveries, without which we would not have risen to thelevels of health and well-being. Rodents are a food sourcefor many carnivores and as modifiers of habitats.

These animals play a very important role in the balance ofnature. So we should endeavor to protect and safeguardrodents.

30


Curriculum Vitae Andrew Thomas Smith

PersonalBirth Date 14 March 1946;Locality: Glendale, California, USACitizenship: United States of AmericaMarital Status: Married to Harriet J. SmithChildren : J. Rachel and Justine

EducationUniversity of California, Berkeley, A.B. Zoology, 1968University of California, Los Angeles, Ph.D. Biology, 1973

Areas of SpecializationConservation Biology, Population Biology, BehavioralEcology, Mammalogy

Academic Appointments-- University of California, Los AngelesTeaching Associate, 1968-1972-- Department of Zoology, University of Alberta, EdmontonSessional Lecturer, 1973-1974-- Department of Zoology, University of Miami, Coral Gables,Assistant Professor, 1974-1978-- Department of Biology, University of Miami, Coral GablesAdjunct Assistant Professor, 1978-1980-- Department of Biology, Arizona State University, Tempe,Assistant Professor, 19781983-- Department of Zoology , Arizona State University, TempeAssociate Professor, 1983-1991--Department of Zoology, Arizona State University, TempeProfessor, 1991-present--Department of Biology, IUCN-The World ConservationUnion, Species,-- Sabbatical Leave, 1994--Survival Programe, Gland, Switzerland, IUCN-The WorldConservation Union - US-- Senior Research Fellow, 1999 - present-- University of Sydney, Sabbatical Leave, 2001 Institute ofWildlife Research

Professional organisationsAmerican Society ofMammalogistsAnimal BehaviorSocietyEcological Society ofAmericaSociety forConservationBiology

PUBLICATIONS (last5 years; 118 total)[Readers maycontact RILSCINSAAdministrator for anemail list of thesepublications.

Editor's Note : A few months ago during our initial CAMPplans, it seemed sensible to include Lagomorphs in thenetwork. It is a small mammal and a small group ofmammals. When assessing rodents, insectivores, etc. it iseasy enough to include Lagomorphs. Dr. Andrew Smith,Chair of the IUCN SSC Lagomorph Specialist Group, washappy to permit us to represent LSG in South Asia. Thereare two specialist group members in South Asia,Gopinathan Maheswaran from India who has studiedLagomorphs in Dudhwa, Jaldapara and Dudwa NPs, andDr. Bhaiya Kanal, Kathmandu, Nepal.

We have collected Dr. Smith's c.v. to share with you, and hehas written a note.

October 13, 2003

Dear RILSCINSA Newsletter:

As Chair of the IUCN/SSC Lagomorph SpecialistGroup, I would like to congratulate all thoseassociated with RILSCINSA. The very idea of sucha regional network of specialists who concentrateon small mammals is terrific and especially in anarea of the world where we are so in need of datasyntheses on these forms. Sally and hercolleagues are to be thanked, as well as all thespecialists who are taking part in this venture.There are not as many lagomorphs as other taxa,but we do have some very special forms (theHispid Hare), and some quite enigmatic ones(some of the isolated pika populations in thenorth). I look forward to our C.A.M.P. and to theopportunity to work closely with everyone on theRILSCINSA team.

Best Wishes,

Andrew SmithChair, IUCN/SSC Lagomorph Specialist GroupSchool of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempe, AZ 85287-4501 USA

Dr. Andrew T. SmithSchool of Life SciencesHuman Dimensions of BiologyBox 874501Arizona State UniversityTempe, AZ 85287-4501 USAPhone: ++.480.965.4024FAX: ++.480.965.6899e-mail: [email protected]://sols.asu.edu/faculty/asmith.htm

Welcome to Andrew Smith, Lagomorph Specialist Group Chair

31


I got an opportunity of attending “International Course onRodent Ecology and Management” held at InternationalRice Research Institute (IRRI), Las Banos, Laguna State,Philippines between 19th May 2003 and 06th June 2003.This three week course was jointly sponsored by the IRRI,Philippines; the ATSE Crawford Fund (An Australian NGO);Australian Center for International Agricultural Research(ACIAR); and Commonwealth Scientific and IndustrialResearch Organization (CSIRO) Sustainable Ecosystems,Australia. This course was designed to give importance tostrong ecologically based approach to rodent managementin rice related ecosystems. The main aims of the coursewere:

(1) to minimize rodenticide usage,(2) to develop methods of rodent pest management that areconsistent with sustainable agriculture and areenvironmentally benign and(3) to have positive impact on living conditions of ruralcommunities through improving their income and health.The course also covered sociological aspects of pestmanagement, rodent taxonomy, community ecology, rodentdiseases (impact on rodent populations and the effect ofrodent borne diseases on domestic animals and humans),a systems approach to pest management and a variety offield and analytical techniques.

Dr. Grant Singleton, IRRI consultant for Rodents andLeader, CSIRO Community Ecology Group, Canberra,Australia organized this course. The training team included

1. Prof. Charles J. Krebs, Emeritus Professor of Zoology atthe University of British Columbia and Honorary ResearchFellow in the CSIRO Community Ecology Group, Canberra,Australia.2. Dr. Ken Aplin and3. Mr. Peter R.Brown of CSIRO Community Ecology Group,CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra, Australia and4. Dr. Zahirul Islam, Project Scientist, Entomology and PlantPathology Division, IRRI, Philippines.Sixteen participants attended this course. They were drawnfrom 8 Asian, 2 African and 1 European countries and onefrom Australia. Asian participants were from Bangladesh(Two), Cambodia (One), India (One- It’s me), Indonesia(Two), Lao-PDR (One), Myanmar (Two), Papua New Guinea(One) and Philippines (Two). There were two Africans oneeach from Sudan and Tanzania. Australia and Portugalcountries represented by one each participant. There wasone observer from United Kingdom.

Of the three weeks, first week’s sessions were handled byProf. Charles J. Krebs and Dr. Grant Singleton. During thisweek, we were enlightened about the theoretical aspects ofwildlife management, principles of ecologically basedrodent management, ecological methodologies,population-modeling exercises in Excel, communityecology, relationship between disease and populationregulation and biological control of rodents –

Immunocontraception (still under laboratory trials). Wewere instructed to do population-modeling exercises onAge structured population projection and Rodent populationprojection.

Population modeling exercises:1. Age structured population projectionIn this model, birth and death rate detail on different ageclasses is used to determine the population growth rate. Ithas an advantage of allowing you to start with an unevenage structure. In this model only female sex class isincluded (females giving rise to more females) and malesare ignored. We used Age_Structured_Population_Projection.xls program that was available in the computer.

2. Rodent population projectionThis exercise uses the programRodent_Population_Projection.xls to determine the detailsof population change in a rodent species that has a givenage structure and a specified set of birth and death rates. Itis similar to the previous program, however, it is in generalsuited to the rodent life cycle. In this model, age classesare specified as juveniles, subadults instead of ages.Further, this program allows one to set the time period overwhich an individual will remain in a stage before movinginto next stage. Similar to the previous one, this is a modelof female rodents giving to female rodents. Prof. Charles J.Krebs one of the resource persons of this coursedeveloped both the above-cited models.

At the middle of second week the participants were dividedinto four groups. Each group was given a short-termproject. Each participant of course was allowed to involvehimself/herself in all four short-term projects on a rotationbasis. The title and details of each group project are:

Group 1:Management of rats in the field; decision analysis andsurvey of farmersGroup 2: Radio tracking and line and spool tracking ofrice field rodentsGroup 3:Trapping of rodents in the forest of Mount Makilingadjoining to IRRI farmGroup 4:Survey of incidence and taxonomy of rodents in andaround urban environments

AcknowledgementI thank Dr. A.M.K. Mohan Rao, NPPTI, Hyderabad; Dr. GrantSingleton ; Staff of IRRI-India office, New Delhi, Trainingcenter, IRRI, Las Banos, Laguna, Philippines, Managementand Principal of Nehru Memorial college for permitting andencouraging me to attend this course.

Report on the Rodent Ecology and Management Course held atInternational Rice Research Institute (IRRI), PhilippinesP. Neelanarayanan*

*Department of Zoology, Nehru Memorial College,Puthanampatti-621 007, Tiruchirappalli – Dt. Tamil Nadu,India. E-mail: [email protected]/[email protected]

32


Rats can be ideal landmine detectorsPeople who think of rats as vermin may wish to reconsider,With proper training, the animal could turn out to be man’sbest friend, at least if the main in question lives in an areawith unmapped minefields. Apopo, a Belgian charity, isexploring the use of African giant pouched rats, prizedhitherto only for their meat, as biosensors capable oflocating landmines.

The idea of using animals to find mines is hardly new.Researchers have studied ways to harness ‘bees andcockroaches’ keen senses of smell to detect explosives,and dogs are already used in de-mining work. Butaccording to Ron Verhagen, the chief scientist at Apopo,rats offer a number of advantages when it comes tolocating mines.

First, despite their impressive size for a rodent (25 cm fromnose to tail when full grown), they are too light to set offmines if they tread on them. They are also faster learnersthan dogs, and their behaviour is easier to decipher andcontrol than an insect’s. Unlike dogs, rats do not requirethe care and attention of dedicated trainer. Since they liveon a diet of nuts and fruit, they are cheaper to feed than theircanine competitors. They are easier to house andtransport than dogs, and being African animals, areimmune to most of the tropical diseases that afflictimported dogs. The rats only weakness is that they arenocturnal, and therefore prone to heat stroke. To train theirrats, Apopo’s scientists blow air containing explosive tracesat the animals. Using food rewards-bananas andavocados – the researchers have taught their rats to signalwhat they sniff by pushing levers. The 80 or so rats, knownas Victor, Stefan, Nicholas and so on, are able to detectsmaller amounts of explosive than most existingbiosensors.

Apopo is exploring two ways of putting the rats to work. Onewould be to use the rats directly to detect landmines: theywould be taught to scratch at the soil to indicate a mine.The alternative is the opposite idea, having the rats confirmareas to be free of mines. This would involve using mobilefield laboratories keeping the rats caged and cool andcollecting soil samples for them to sniff for explosives.

Following two years of laboratory work in Belgium, Apoposcientists have now moved to Sokoine University ofAgriculture in Tanzania, where they are conducting fieldtests with local scientists. The charity is also planning toconduct tests in Angola, in conjunction with Menschengegen Minen, a German de-mining organisation. If all goeswell, Victor, Stefan and their colleagues could graduate fromproviding protein to sweeping for mines within the next twoyears (The Economist)

-Times of India”, New Delhi ,14/08/2001“

Rodents in the News

Giant rodent foundHate cleaning pet cages? It could be worse. At least yourguinea pig isn’t the size of a buffalo like the now-extinctcreature described by paleontologists on Friday.

Living in then-lush marshes in Venezuela six million yearsago, the 1,500- pound Phoberomys (FOE-ber-o-mees)weighs in as the largest rodent ever discovered. Thediscovery of two fossil skeletons, including a nearlycomplete one nicknamed “Goya” is reported in Sciencemagazine.

“It looks like a very large guinea pig, only the animal had along tail, “says paleontologist Marcelo Sanchez-Villagra ofGermany’s Tubingen University. He led the research teamthat discovered the fossils in an arid region of northernVenezuela. Only a few fragmentary fossil teeth of thecreature had previously been uncovered, making sizeestimates uncertain.

Nine feet long and 4.2 feet tall, Phoberomys had a long tailto help balance its weight as it moved. The researchersalso have found trace fossils of jumbo crocodiles thatprobably preyed on the rodents.

Competition from North American animals and a changingclimate likely led to the giant rodent’s extinction, saysSanchez-Villagra.

- USA Today

Published in ‘H.T’ – New Delhi, 20/09/03.

iii


Ms. Kausalya Shenoy104, Vijay Mansion, Ist MainVijaynagar, 2nd StageBangalore 560040, Karnataka

Dr. Tej Kumar ShresthaProfessor, G.P.O. Box 6133Kathmandu, Nepal

Ms. Manju P. SiliwalResearch AssociateZoo Outreach Organisation29/1, Bharathi colony, PeelameduCoimbatore 641004, Tamil Nadu

Dr. Andrew SmithChair, IUCN/SSC Lagomorpha SpecialistGroup, School of Life Sciences, ArizonaState University, Human Dimensions ofBiology, Arizona State University, TempeAZ 85287-4501, USA

Dr. Pankaj SoodAssistant Entomologist, MAREC, Sangla(Kinnour) – 172106, Himachal Pradesh

Dr. (Mrs.) Shakuntala SridharaScientist-Professor, AICRP on RodentControl, University of AgriculturalSciences, College of Agriculture, GKVK,Bangalore 560065, Karnataka

Mr. Shiv Mangal SinghAssistant Professor of EntomologyDept. of EntomologyC.S. Azad University of Agriculture andTechnology, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh

Rat - a - tattleEditor: Sally WalkerEditorial advisors : Sujit Chakraborty

Sanjay MolurEditorial assistant: Padma Priya; Binu ArthurGraphics: Sonali Lahiri

Rat - a - tattle is the occasional Newsletter of the Rodentia, Insectivora,Scandentia and Lagomorpha Conservation & Information Network ofSouth Asia or RILSCINSA. This is Vol.3, No.1, October 2003.

RILSCINSA is for Ratters in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal,Maldives, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Rat - a - tattle and the activities of RILSCINSA are fully funded by theKnowsley Safari Park, North England, United Kingdom.

RILSCINSA,29-1, Bharathi Colony, PeelameduCoimbatore 641 004 T.N.Ph. 422 2563 159 Fx. 422 2563 269Email : [email protected]

Mr. Sanjay MolurZoo Outreach Organisation, PB 1683,Peelamedu, Coimbatore 641004, Tamil Nadu

Ms. Divya Mudappa8/364 Coperative ColonyValparai 642 127, Tamil Nadu

Mr. Shomen MukherjeeMitrani Dept. of Desert EcologyBen-Gurior University of NegevSede Boker Campus84990, Israel

Dr. (Mrs.) Krishnoji Rao Muktha BaiScientist, Food Protection and Infestationcontrol Department,Central Food Technological ResearchInstitute, Mysore 570013, Karnataka

Dr. P. NeelanarayananLecturer, Department of Zoology, NehruMemorial College, Puthanampatty 621007

Mr. Nameer Paingamadathil OmmerAsst. Professor, College of Forestry,Kerala Agricultural UniversityThrissur 680656, Kerala

Dr. Vir Rajinder ParshadScientist, Senior Zoologist (Rodents),Punjab Agricultural University,Ludhiana 141004, Punjab

Dr. Malhar Shyamsunderrao PradhanDeputy Director, Scientist – D, ZoologicalSurvey of India, WRSVidyanagar, Sector. 29, Rawet Road,PCNTDA Post, Pune 411044, Maharahtra

Ms. K. Padma PriyaResearch Assistant, Zoo OutreachOrganisation, PB 1683, Peelamedu,Coimbatore 641004, Tamil Nadu

Ms. Nandini RajamaniStudent, 20-A, Murrays Gate Road,Alwarpet, Chennai 600018, Tamil Nadu

Mr. Tahir RasheedHouse # D-1, Wahdat Colony, BrewaryRoad Quetta, Balochistan, Pakistan

Dr. Ali RezaWildlife Biologist, Assistant ProgrammeOfficer, IUCN Bangladesh Country OfficeHouse #3A, Road #15 (New)Dhanmondi, Dhaka 1209, Bangladesh

Dr. Karthik ShankarH-6/2, Habib Complex, DurgabaiDeshmukhRoad, RA Puram, Chennai 600 028, T.N.

Dr. Chander SheikherLecturer/Researcher, Department ofEntomology and Agriculture,Dr. Y.S. Parmer University of Horticulture &Forestry, Solan 173230, Himachal Pradesh

Dr. Chelmala SrinivasuluResearch AssociateDept. of Zoology, Wildlife Biology sectionUniversity College of ScienceOsmania University, Hyderabad 500007, AP

Dr. Dinesh Chandra SrivastavaGovernment service, Entomology Division,Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research,Dilkusha, Lucknow 226002, Uttar Pradesh

Mr. Shyamkant Sukhadeorao TalmaleZoological Survey of IndiaSector-29, Ravet RoadP.C.N.T. D.A. Post, Pune 411 044

Mr. Sanjay Singha Thakur666/1, Bhoi-Ali, Raviwar Peth, TalegaonDabhade, Pune 410 506, Maharashtra

Dr. Moni ThomasScientist, Krishi Vigyan Kendra,Shahdol 486001, Madhya Pradesh

Dr. Rakesh Sharan TripathiSenior Scientist (Rodent Control), AICRP onRodent control, Central Arid ZoneResearch Institute, Jodhpur 342 003

Ms. Meena VenkataramanWildlife Institute of India,P.B. 18, ChandrabaniDehra Dun, 248001, Uttaranchal

Ms. Sally WalkerAdmin. Chair, RILSCINSA, C/o ZooOutreach Organisation, PB 1683,Peelamedu, Coimbatore 641004, Tamil Nadu

...Continued from Page 1

iv

Newsletter of the Rodentia, Insectivora, Lagomorpha ......Dr. Prakash has done pioneering research...

Documents

Transcript of Newsletter of the Rodentia, Insectivora, Lagomorpha ......Dr. Prakash has done pioneering research...