August 2012 - Journal of Threatened Taxa

August 2012 | Vol. 4 | No. 9 | Pages 2845–2932Date of Publication 26 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)© Sathyanarayana SrinivasanJuvenile Jerdon’s BazaCreative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of articles in any mediumfor non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and thesource of publication.

Jo u r n a l o f Th r e a t e n e d Ta x aPublished byWildlife Information Liaison Development SocietyTypeset and printed atZoo Outreach Organisation96, Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore 641035, Tamil Nadu, IndiaPh: +91422 2665298, 2665101, 2665450; Fax: +91422 2665472Email: threatenedtaxa@gmail.com, articlesubmission@threatenedtaxa.orgWebsite: www.threatenedtaxa.orgEDITORSFo u n d e r & Ch i e f Ed i t o rDr. Sanjay Molur, Coimbatore, IndiaMa n a g in g Ed i t o rMr. B. Ravichandran, Coimbatore, IndiaAs s o c ia t e Ed i t o r sDr. B.A. Daniel, Coimbatore, IndiaDr. Manju Siliwal, Dehra Dun, IndiaDr. Meena Venkataraman, Mumbai, IndiaMs. Priyanka Iyer, Coimbatore, IndiaEd i t o r ia l Ad v i s o r sMs. Sally Walker, Coimbatore, IndiaDr. Robert C. Lacy, Minnesota, USADr. Russel Mittermeier, Virginia, USADr. Thomas Husband, Rhode Island, USADr. Jacob V. Cheeran, Thrissur, IndiaProf. Dr. Mewa Singh, Mysuru, IndiaDr. Ulrich Streicher, Oudomsouk, LaosMr. Stephen D. Nash, Stony Brook, USADr. Fred Pluthero, Toronto, CanadaDr. Martin Fisher, Cambridge, UKDr. Ulf Gärdenfors, Uppsala, SwedenDr. John Fellowes, Hong KongDr. Philip S. Miller, Minnesota, USAProf. Dr. Mirco Solé, BrazilEd i t o r ia l Bo a r d / Su b j e c t Ed i t o r sDr. M. Zornitza Aguilar, EcuadorProf. Wasim Ahmad, Aligarh, IndiaDr. Sanit Aksornkoae, Bangkok, Thailand.Dr. Giovanni Amori, Rome, ItalyDr. István Andrássy, Budapest, HungaryDr. Deepak Apte, Mumbai, IndiaDr. M. Arunachalam, Alwarkurichi, IndiaDr. Aziz Aslan, Antalya, TurkeyDr. A.K. Asthana, Lucknow, IndiaProf. R.K. Avasthi, Rohtak, IndiaDr. N.P. Balakrishnan, Coimbatore, IndiaDr. Hari Balasubramanian, Arlington, USADr. Maan Barua, Oxford OX , UKDr. Aaron M. Bauer, Villanova, USADr. Gopalakrishna K. Bhat, Udupi, IndiaDr. S. Bhupathy, Coimbatore, IndiaDr. Anwar L. Bilgrami, New Jersey, USADr. Renee M. Borges, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Gill Braulik, Fife, UKDr. Prem B. Budha, Kathmandu, NepalMr. Ashok Captain, Pune, IndiaDr. Cleofas R. Cervancia, Laguna , PhilippinesDr. Apurba Chakraborty, Guwahati, IndiaDr. Kailash Chandra, Jabalpur, IndiaDr. Anwaruddin Choudhury, Guwahati, IndiaDr. Richard Thomas Corlett, SingaporeDr. Gabor Csorba, Budapest, HungaryDr. Paula E. Cushing, Denver, USADr. Neelesh Naresh Dahanukar, Pune, IndiaDr. R.J. Ranjit Daniels, Chennai, IndiaDr. A.K. Das, Kolkata, IndiaDr. Indraneil Das, Sarawak, MalaysiaDr. Rema Devi, Chennai, IndiaDr. Nishith Dharaiya, Patan, IndiaDr. Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman, Queenswood, SouthAfricaDr. William Dundon, Legnaro, ItalyDr. Gregory D. Edgecombe, London, UKDr. J.L. Ellis, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Susie Ellis, Florida, USADr. Zdenek Faltynek Fric, Czech RepublicDr. Carl Ferraris, NE Couch St., PortlandDr. R. Ganesan, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Hemant Ghate, Pune, IndiaDr. Dipankar Ghose, New Delhi, IndiaDr. Gary A.P. Gibson, Ontario, USADr. M. Gobi, Madurai, IndiaDr. Stephan Gollasch, Hamburg, GermanyDr. Michael J.B. Green, Norwich, UKDr. K. Gunathilagaraj, Coimbatore, IndiaDr. K.V. Gururaja, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Mark S. Harvey,Welshpool, AustraliaDr. Magdi S. A. El Hawagry, Giza, EgyptDr. Mohammad Hayat, Aligarh, IndiaProf. Harold F. Heatwole, Raleigh, USADr. V.B. Hosagoudar, Thiruvananthapuram, IndiaProf. Fritz Huchermeyer, Onderstepoort, South AfricaDr. V. Irudayaraj, Tirunelveli, IndiaDr. Rajah Jayapal, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Weihong Ji, Auckland, New ZealandProf. R. Jindal, Chandigarh, IndiaDr. Pierre Jolivet, Bd Soult, FranceDr. Rajiv S. Kalsi, Haryana, IndiaDr. Rahul Kaul, Noida,IndiaDr. Werner Kaumanns, Eschenweg, GermanyDr. Paul Pearce-Kelly, Regent’s Park, UKDr. P.B. Khare, Lucknow, IndiaDr. Vinod Khanna, Dehra Dun, IndiaDr. Cecilia Kierulff, São Paulo, BrazilDr. Ignacy Kitowski, Lublin, Polandcontinued on the back inside cover

JoTT Ed i t o r i a l 4(9): 2845–2848Scientific conduct and misconduct: honesty is still thebest policyNeelesh Dahanukar 1,2 & Sanjay Molur 2,31Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), First floor, Central Tower, Sai Trinity Building, Garware Circle,Sutarwadi, Pashan, Pune, Maharashtra 411021, India2Zoo Outreach Organization, 3 Founder & Chief Editor, Journal of Threatened Taxa, 96 Kumudham Nagar, Villankurichi Road,Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641035, IndiaEmail: 1 n.dahanukar@iiserpune.ac.in, 2 herpinvert@gmail.comPublication of scientific research is a cooperativesystem where manuscripts are received by journalsin good faith that scientific integrity is maintained byauthors while performing research and writing articles.This faith is also bi-directional as authors expect thatthe editorial and reviewing processes are confidential,that the ideas expressed by authors are not misused andthat the judgment is fair. Since the dawn of scientificcommunications, both publishers and authors haveabided by this unwritten agreement to further scientificprogress. However, like any other cooperative system,even scientific publication is vulnerable to defection byeither parties leading to scientific misconducts, whichnot only leads to controversies, but also shakes thefoundation of this cooperative institution.Scientific misconduct has become a serious concernin recent years with exposure of several high profilecases (for details see Montgomerie & Birkhead 2005;Triggle & Triggle 2007; Errami & Garner 2008; Redman& Merz 2008; Rathod 2010). As a result of theseexposures and in the interest of maintaining scientificintegrity many journals have now formalized theirpolicies against scientific misconduct (for example seeAronson 2007; Mukunda & Joshi 2008; Handa 2008;Editorial 2011), while European Science Foundationand ALLEA (All European Academies) have publisheda code of conduct for research integrity (Anonymous2011). With recent research on the nature of scientificmisconduct, its social effects and the journal’s standagainst the same (Martinson et al. 2005; Errami et al.Date of publication (online): 26 August 2012Date of publication (print): 26 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Citation: Dahanukar, N. & S. Molur (2012). Scientific conduct andmisconduct: honesty is still the best policy . Journal of Threatened Taxa4(9): 2845–2848.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOAD2008; Fanelli 2009; Long et al. 2009; Resnik et al.2009) it is now becoming clear that journal policiesregarding scientific misconduct, which hitherto wereonly implied, should be put more explicitly in the formof a formal document.In a recent issue of the Journal of Threatened Taxa(JoTT) (Vol. 4, No. 7) an article authored by VirendraMathur, Yuvana Satya Priya, Harendra Kumar, MukeshKumar and Vadamalai Elangovan was found to be acase of duplication as a similar article was publishedby the authors elsewhere. The moment this case wasbrought to our attention, the article was withdrawnfrom JoTT online issue and appropriate disciplinaryactions were taken. This incident made us realize thata formal statement and description of the protocol fordefining JoTT policies against misconduct are essential.This editorial, therefore, tries to explain the conceptof scientific misconduct and set the grounds for JoTTpolicies against scientific misconduct.Understanding what is scientific misconductBefore setting JoTT policies against scientificmisconduct, it is essential to define the idea of scientificmisconduct more objectively. Building upon thedifferent types of scientific misconducts identified byThe European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity(Anonymous 2011) and giving a special recognitionto duplicate publishing, we identify four types ofscientifically unethical behaviors: (i) fabrication(creating a false data), (ii) falsification (manipulationof data), (iii) plagiarism (copying ideas, statements,results, etc. from other author/s without acknowledgingthe author/s and/or the source), and (iv) self-plagiarism(multiple identical publications with major overlap inideas, data, inferences, etc.).Based on different forms of scientifically unethicalbehaviors, for all practical purposes, we will followJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2845–2848 2845

Scientific conduct and misconductand build up on the definition of scientific misconductprovided by Resnik (2003) who defines scientificmisconduct as follows:(1) Misconduct is a serious and intentional violationof accepted scientific practices, common sense ethicalnorms, or research regulations in proposing, designing,conducting, reviewing, or reporting research.(2) Punishable misconduct includes fabrication ofdata or experiments, falsification of data, plagiarism,or interference with a misconduct investigation orinquiry.(3) A person who commits a form of punishablemisconduct may receive a sanction proportional to theseriousness of the misconduct.(4) Misconduct does not include honest errors,differences of opinion, or ethically questionableresearch practices.JoTT policies against scientific misconductJoTT will not tolerate any form of scientificmisconduct and all allegations of such nature willbe evaluated objectively. JoTT will also not take thedecision hastily and all allegations will be reviewedthoroughly before making the final verdict. In any kindof allegation JoTT will follow the protocol provided inBox 1.Fabrication (false data) and falsification(manipulation of data) are severe crimes and JoTT’srigorous peer-review and editorial process will detectsuch a fraud. Even if some erroneous data may escapeN. Dahanukar & S. Molurthe reviewing process and get published, we believe thatfuture research will expose such faulty data and undersuch cases JoTT can request authors of the accusedpublication to provide raw data used for analysis, andwill take appropriate disciplinary actions against theaccused publication (Box 1). However, another majorconcern is plagiarism, which, fortunately, has becomerelatively easy to detect with the advent of internet andonline databases. It is essential that authors understandthe concept of plagiarism properly and understand itsseverity to avoid any allegations based on the same.Plagiarism is copying of ideas, statements, results,data, figures, etc. from other author(s) withoutacknowledging the original source, either publishedor unpublished, which may at times include copyrightinfringement (Amstrong 1993). Plagiarism is ethicallywrong because authors try to take credit of ideasstolen from other sources. Self-plagiarism is a formof plagiarism where authors express same ideas, data,representations, etc. in multiple publications withoutacknowledging the original publication. While, at aglance, self-plagiarism does not appear as unethicalstealing of credits, it is still an inappropriate behavioras it leads to multiple duplicate publications and mayalso contribute to copyright infringement. Copyrightinfringement is a severe crime especially if the authorshave transferred the copyright of their article to thepublisher. This issue does not always arise, especiallywhen the publication is licensed under “CreativeCommons Attribution 3.0 Unported License”, likeBox 1: JoTT policies against scientific misconductAny form of scientific misconduct is unacceptable and JoTT reserves the right to expose such work with appropriate level of penaltysuitable for the situation.A. In the case of suspected scientific misconduct, JoTT will follow the protocol given below:1. The submitted manuscript will be investigated objectively by the chief editor, associate editors and subject editors of JoTTand JoTT will take appropriate actions suitable for the crime.2. If scientific misconduct is detected during the reviewing or editing process, JoTT will (i) reject the manuscript, (ii) inform therespective heads of institutions of all the authors, and (iii) inform the funding agency(s) about the misconduct.3. If in doubt of fabrication or falsification, JoTT can ask for raw data, analysis, photographs, genomic sequences, gel pictures,etc. used by the authors.B. In case scientific misconduct is reported/detected in a published paper, JoTT will take appropriate actions in the followingorder:1. The subject editor and/or reviewers of the paper will be asked to comment on any evidence of scientific misconduct.2. If the investigation suspects misconduct a response will be asked from the authors along with raw data, analysis, photographs,genomic sequences, gel pictures, etc., if applicable.3. If the response from authors is satisfactory revealing a mistake or misunderstanding, the matter will be resolved.4. If not, JoTT will withdraw the paper from online version and appropriate announcements will be placed in upcoming issue ofJoTT.5. JoTT will also inform the respective head of the institutions of all the authors and the funding agency(s) about themisconduct.2846Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2845–2848

Scientific conduct and misconductAddendums will be peer reviewed before publication.It should be noted that addendums must not challengethe major findings of the main paper.A shared responsibilityOur fight against scientific misconduct is a sharedresponsibility (Aronson 2007; Cross 2007; Titus et al.2008; Rathod 2010). While JoTT requests the authorsto follow the norms of scientific conduct faithfullyand honestly, JoTT also assures the authors that thereviewing and editing process will be fair. JoTT requeststhe reviewers, subject editors as well as the readers tobe vigilant against any form of scientific misconduct.JoTT also assures that none of the decisions will betaken hastily and all accusations will be evaluatedobjectively before taking any disciplinary actions.REFERENCESAlberts, B., B. Hanson & K.L. Kelner (2008). Reviewing peerreview. Science 321: 15.Amstrong, J.D. II (1993). Plagiarism: what is it, whom does itoffend, and how does one deal with it? American Journal ofRoentgenology 161: 479–484.Anonymous (2011). The European Code of Conduct for ResearchIntegrity. Published by European Science Foundation andALLEA (All European Academies), 24pp. Aronson, J.K. (2007). Plagiarism-please don’t copy. BritishJournal of Clinical Pharmacology 64(4): 403–405.Benos, D.J., E. Bashari, J.M. Chaves, A. Gaggar, N. Kapoor,M. LaFrance, R. Mans, D. Mayhew, S. McGowan, A.Polter, Y. Qadri, S. Sarfare, K. Schultz, R. Splittgerber,J. Stephenson, C. Tower, R.G. Walton & A. Zotov (2007).The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in PhysiologyEducation 31: 145–152.Berkenkotter, C. (1995). The power and the perils of peerreview. Rhetoric Review 13(2): 245–248.Cross, M. (2007). Policing plagiarism. British Madical Journal335: 963–964.Editorial (2011). Combating scientific misconduct. Nature CellBiology 13(1): 1.Errami, M. & H. Garner (2008). A tale of two citations. Nature451: 397–399.Errami, M., J.M. Hicks, W. Fisher, D. Trusty, J.D. Wren, T.C.Long & H.R. Garner (2008). Deja vu–a study of duplicatecitations in Medline. Bioinformatics 24: 243–249.Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsifyresearch? A systematic review and meta-analysis of surveydata. PLoS ONE 4: e5738.Handa, S. (2008). Plagiarism and publication ethics: Dos andN. Dahanukar & S. Molurdon’ts. Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology andLeprology 74: 301–303Kassirer, J.P. & E.W. Campion (1994). Peer review: crude andunderstudied, but indispensable. JAMA: The Journal of theAmerican Medical Association 272: 96–97.Laband, D.N. & M.J. Piette (1994). A citation analysis of theimpact of blinded peer review. JAMA: The Journal of theAmerican Medical Association 272: 147–149.Long, T.C., M. Errami, A.C. George, Z. Sun & H.R. Garner(2009). Responding to possible plagiarism. Science 323:1293–1294.Martinson, B.C., M.S. Anderson & R. de Vries (2005).Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435: 737–738.McNutt, R.A, A.T. Evans, R.H. Fletcher & S.W. Fletcher(1990). The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review.JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association263: 1371–1376.Montgomerie, B. & T. Birkhead (2005). A beginner’s guide toscientific misconduct. International Society for BehavioralEcology 17(1): 16–24.Mukunda, N. & A. Joshi (2008). Note on plagiarism. Journalof Genetics 87: 99.Rathod, S.D. (2010). Combating plagiarism: a sharedresponsibility. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 7: 173–175.Redman, B.K. & J.F. Merz (2008). Scientific misconduct: dothe punishments fit the crime? Science 321: 775.Relman, A.S. (1990). Peer review in scientific journals - whatgood is it? The Western Journal of Medicine 153: 520–522.Resnik, D.B. (2003). From Baltimore to Bell Labs: reflectionson two decades of debate about scientific misconduct.Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance10(2): 123–135.Resnik, D.B. & C.N. Stewart Jr. (2012). Misconduct versushonest error and scientific disagreement. Accountability inResearch: Policies and Quality Assurance 19(1): 56–63.Resnik, D.B., S. Peddada & W. Brunson Jr. (2009). Researchmisconduct policies of scientific journals. Accountability inResearch: Policies and Quality Assurance 16(5): 254–267.Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heartof science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society ofMedicine 99: 178–182.Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. Trendsin Biotechnology 20(8): 357–358.Titus, S.L., J.A. Wells & L.J. Rhoades (2008). Repairingresearch integrity. Nature 453: 980–982.Triggle, C.R. & D. J. Triggle (2007). What is the future of peerreview? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out ofcontrol? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of:“all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good mendo nothing”? Vascular Health and Risk Management 3(1):39–53.van Rooyen, S., F. Godlee, S. Evans, R. Smith & N. Black(1998). Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality ofpeer review: a randomized trial. JAMA: The Journal of theAmerican Medical Association 280: 234–237.2848Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2845–2848

JoTT Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(9): 2849–2856Western GhatsSpecial SeriesStreamside amphibian communities in plantations and arainforest fragment in the Anamalai hills, IndiaRanjini Murali 1 & T.R. Shankar Raman 21,2Nature Conservation Foundation, 3076/5, 4 th Cross, Gokulam Park, Mysore, Karnataka 570002, IndiaEmail: 1 ranjini@ncf-india.org (corresponding author), 2 trsr@ncf-india.orgDate of publication (online): 26 August 2012Date of publication (print): 26 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Editor: Sanjay MolurManuscript details:Ms # o2829Received 09 June 2011Final received 27 February 2012Finally accepted 07 August 2012Citation: Murali, R. & T.R.S. Raman (2012).Streamside amphibian communities in plantationsand a rainforest fragment in the Anamalaihills, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(9):2849–2856.Copyright: © Ranjini Murali & T.R. ShankarRaman 2012. Creative Commons Attribution3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricteduse of this article in any medium for non-profitpurposes, reproduction and distribution byproviding adequate credit to the authors and thesource of publication.Author Details: See end of this article.Author Contribution: The first authorparticipated in study design, carried out the fieldwork, analysis, and writing. The second authorhelped design the study, analyse data, and writethe manuscript.Acknowledgements: This study formed partof the rainforest restoration and sustainableagriculture project, financially supported bythe Ecosystems Grant Programme of theNetherlands Committee for the IUCN, and theCritical Ecosystems Partnership Fund (CEPF).We are grateful to Tata Coffee Ltd. and ParryAgro Industries Ltd. for permission to work intheir estates, and to Dinesh and Kannan forfield assistance. We are very grateful to Dr. K.V. Gururaja, Saloni Bhatia, and Sachin Rai fortheir help with the identification of amphibiansand to the reviewers for helpful suggestionsthat improved the manuscript. We thank ourcolleagues, Divya Mudappa, M. Ananda Kumar,and P. Jeganathan, for discussions and help.Abstract: Stream amphibian communities, occupying a sensitive environment, areoften useful indicators of effects of adjoining land uses. We compared abundance andcommunity composition of anuran amphibians along streams in tea monoculture, shadecoffee plantation, and a rainforest fragment in Old Valparai area of the Anamalai hills.Overall species density and rarefaction species richness was the highest in rainforestfragment and did not vary between the coffee and tea land uses. Densities of certaintaxa, and consequently community composition, varied significantly among the landuses, being greater between rainforest fragment and tea monoculture with shade coffeebeing intermediate. Observed changes are probably related to streamside alterationdue to land use, suggesting the need to retain shade tree cover and remnant riparianrainforest vegetation as buffers along streams.Keywords: Herpetofauna, shade coffee, species richness, tea plantation, WesternGhats.IntroductionHabitat alteration, fragmentation, and destruction are the greatestthreats to biodiversity worldwide (Vitousek et al. 1997), especially intropical zones where diversity is high and forests are being transformedat a rapid rate (Pineda & Halffter 2004). The negative effects of thesethreats include decreased species richness and abundance, changes inspecies composition, and loss of genetic diversity (Saunders et al. 1991;Turner 1996; Laurance et al. 2002; Bell & Donnelly 2006). There isalso increasing concern over the impacts of such threats on freshwaterecosystems (Strayer & Dudgeon 2010), particularly streams and rivers(Collier 2011). Streams and stream-dependent organisms are particularlysensitive and most likely to be affected by such changes in land use (Welsh& Ollivier 1998; Sreekantha et al. 2007; Gururaja et al. 2008), especiallyin plantations where they are susceptible to agro-chemical drift, erosionand run-off (Logan 1993).In the tropics, amphibians are good biological indicators of streamquality for several reasons. They usually have a bi-phasic life cycle withOPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADThis article forms part of a special series on the Western Ghats of India, disseminating theresults of work supported by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), a joint initiativeof l’Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the Global EnvironmentFacility, the Government of Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank. A fundamentalgoal of CEPF is to ensure civil society is engaged in biodiversity conservation. Implementation ofthe CEPF investment program in the Western Ghats is led and coordinated by the Ashoka Trustfor Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE).Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2849–2856 2849

Streamside amphibian communitiesan aquatic larval stage and a terrestrial adult stage, theirhighly permeable skin makes them extremely sensitiveto physical and chemical changes in their environment,and they occur at high densities in the tropicalenvironments as important primary, mid-level, and topconsumers (Wyman 1990; Wake 1991; Blaustein et al.1994; Bell & Donnelly 2006). During their aquaticstage, many amphibian larvae are susceptible to evenminor changes in the stream environment because oftheir specialised use of the stream microhabitats (Welsh& Ollivier 1998). Depending on the availability ofbreeding habitats and the dispersal ability of species,streams in a region can vary considerably in amphibiandiversity and this variation can greatly influence localand regional amphibian species diversity (Krishna etal. 2005; Vasudevan et al. 2006).The Western Ghats mountains, a biodiversityhotspot, extend for nearly 1600km (from 8 0 N to 21 0 N)along the west coast of India. Considerable tractsin the wetter and higher reaches, once covered bytropical rainforests are now dominated by plantationsof tea, coffee, rubber, and cardamom with isolatedfragments of forests and other areas of conservationvalue (Kumar et al. 2004; Das et al. 2006; Bali etal. 2007; Dolia et al. 2008). The region has a highdiversity and endemism of amphibian species with181 known species, (including new species describedin recent years) of which 159 (88%) are endemic to theWestern Ghats (Aravind & Gururaja 2011; Bhatta et al.2011; Biju et al. 2011; Dinesh & Radhakrishna 2011;Zachariah et al. 2011a,b). There is need for betterdocumentation of the animal communities of tropicalstreams in the Western Ghats and the relationshipbetween community structure and terrestrial landscapeelements or land-uses (Krishna et al. 2005; Sreekanthaet al. 2007; Gururaja et al. 2008; Karthick et al. 2011;Prakash et al. 2012).Here, we evaluate the influence of land use onstream anuran diversity and density in the WesternGhats of southern India during the monsoon season.Earlier research from other parts of the Western Ghatshas shown that amphibians can be sensitive indicatorsof change in habitat and land-use (Daniels 2003;Krishna et al. 2005; Gururaja et al. 2008). We extendthis work to a fragmented landscape in the Anamalaihills where we compare the occurrence, abundance,and species composition of anurans along streamsin three land uses: monoculture tea plantation, shadeR. Murali & T.R.S. Ramancoffee plantation, and rainforest fragment. This studyaimed to understand stream amphibian communityresponse to alterations in land use in order to helpin formulating strategies for species conservation inhuman-dominated landscapes.Materials and MethodsThis study was conducted during July and August2010 (southwest monsoon season) in the Valparaiplateau in the Tamil Nadu part of the Anamalai hillsin the southern Western Ghats. The Valparai plateauspans an area of 220km² with plantations of tea(Camellia sinensis), coffee (Arabica: Coffea arabica,Robusta: C. canephora), Eucalyptus, and cardamom(Elettaria cardamomum) plantations with around 40rainforest fragments embedded in the landscape matrix(Mudappa & Raman 2007). The Valparai plateau lieswithin a larger landscape adjoining the AnamalaiTiger Reserve (958km², 10 0 12’–10 0 35’N and 76 0 49’–77 0 24’E) to the north and east in Tamil Nadu, andreserved forests and the Parambikulam Tiger Reserveto the south and west in Kerala.The selected sites included tea and coffeeplantation in Velonie Estate, and Tata Finlay (OldValparai) rainforest fragment, all of which were withina 2km radius and at an altitude of c. 1000m (Image 1).Sampling was carried out along a first order and fourthorder stream in both coffee and tea plantations, whileonly first order stream was available within the 32harainforest fragment for sampling. The same fourthorder stream flowed through the tea and coffee. Thefirst order streams in the coffee and the tea estate wereboth around 100m long.Visual encounter surveys (Heyer et al. 1994) werecarried out in quadrats 50m long and 4m wide. Sevenseparate quadrats were sampled in each habitat, foursampled once and three sampled on two occasionsyielding a total of 10 samples in each land-use type. Asthe sampling in the repeat quadrats was carried out atleast six weeks apart, they are considered independentsamples for the purpose of the present analysis. Fivequadrats were along the fourth order stream in thecoffee and tea estate and two quadrats were along thefirst order streams.All quadrat surveys were carried out at nightbetween 1900 and 2000 hr. Two observers surveyed2850Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2849–2856

Streamside amphibian communitiesR. Murali & T.R.S. RamanImage 1. Map showing locations of start and end points along stream transects (yellow lines) in the Valparai plateau,Anamalai hills (Courtesy: Google Earth).each quadrat using torches to look for amphibianswhile walking very slowly to complete each quadratin 60 min. No stones or logs were overturned alongthe site so as to cause minimum disturbance to thehabitat and shrubs (coffee and tea, in the case ofplantations) were also scanned during the sampling.Most amphibians were identified in the field. We madeno specimen collections and minimised handling toavoid harm or disturbance to amphibians. Photographswere taken of amphibians that could not be identifiedon field for later identification using field guides(Daniel 2002), taxonomic literature (Kuramoto et al.2007; Biju & Bossuyt 2009), and consultation withexperts (K.V. Gururaja, Sachin Rai, Saloni Bhatia).All species belonging to the genus Fejervarya andRaorchestes were identified only to the genus level asproper identification would require closer taxonomicand genetic analysis. Further, all young ones wereexcluded from this study.Species diversity of amphibians was analysed bothas species density (number of species per quadrat)as well as species richness (number of species for astandardised sample of 100 individuals) followingGotelli & Colwell (2001). Estimates of species richness(and corresponding 95% confidence intervals) throughrarefaction analysis were made using the programEcoSim (Gotelli & Entsminger 2009). Amphibiandensity was measured as the number of amphibians perquadrat (density of individuals) for both total individuals(total density) as well as for individual taxa. We usedone-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed byTukey’s HSD tests to examine statistical significanceof differences among land uses in species densityand amphibian densities (total density and individualtaxa). For individual taxa, ANOVA was performedonly for those taxa where more than 10 individualswere observed (i.e., Duttaphrynus sp. and Indirana sp.were excluded). ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests wereperformed using the R statistical and programmingenvironment (version 2.10, R Development Core Team2009). Amphibian species composition across siteswas analysed by non-metric multi-dimensional scaling(MDS) ordination of the Bray-Curtis dissimilaritymatrix of quadrats, using the software PRIMER(Clarke & Warwick 1994; Clarke & Gorley 2001).Significance of variation in community compositionwas assessed using analysis of similarities (ANOSIM)using PRIMER (Clarke & Warwick 1994).Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2849–28562851

Streamside amphibian communitiesR. Murali & T.R.S. RamanTable 1. Amphibian density along streams in the three land-use types in the Anamalai hills. Tabled values represent densityas individuals / 200 m² ± SE, total number of individuals recorded (in parantheses), and statistics from 1-way analysis ofvariance (ANOVA).Taxon Tea* Coffee* Rainforest* ANOVA F (2,27)PAll 12.2±1.47 (122) 14.9±2.09 (149) 14.2±1.45 (142) 0.68 0.514Duttaphrynus melanostictus 0.6±0.31 (6) 0.4±0.22 (4) 0.1±0.10 (1) 1.25 0.303Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis 0.6±0.27 ab (6) 2.4±0.86 b (24) 0 a (0) 5.79 0.008Fejervarya sp. 10±1.57 b (100) 6.3±0.98 ab (63) 2.4±1.24 a (24) 8.73 0.001Hylarana aurantiaca (Image 2) 0.2±0.13 (2) 1.8±1.06 (18) 2.5±0.87 (25) 2.19 0.132Hylarana temporalis (Image 3) 0 (0) 1.1±0.72 (11) 1.4±0.31 (14) 2.65 0.089Nyctibatrachus sp. 0 b (0) 0 b (0) 1±0.30 a (10) ** **Micrixalus sp. (Image 4) 0 b (0) 0 b (0) 5.9±1.80 a (59) ** **Raorchestes sp. 0.7±0.26 a (7) 2.9±0.94 b (29) 0.7±0.21 a (7) 4.89 0.015Duttaphrynus sp. 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.1 (1) - -Indirana sp. 0.1 (1) 0 (0) 0.1 (1) - -*Different superscripted alphabets indicate statistically significant difference from each other as per Tukey HSD multiple comparisons test.** Although ANOVA outputs indicated significantly higher density in rainforest, the statistical test results were superfluous because these two taxa werecompletely absent in the samples from plantations.Figure 2. Variation in amphibian species composition in quadrat samples along streams in three land-use types in theAnamalai hills using non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) ordination.Quadrat labels: F - Rainforest fragment, C - Coffee plantation, and T - Tea plantation.atmospheric humidity (Saunders et al. 1991; Pineda &Halffter 2004) could account for the decreased speciesrichness in coffee and tea plantations. Similarly,Krishna et al. (2005) reported a decrease in richnessbetween forest and coffee and cardamom land uses inthe central Western Ghats.Studies on conservation value of plantations inthe Western Ghats for other taxonomic groups haveshown that a diversity of species use these plantations,including many species typical to forests of the regionas well as more widely distributed species of more openhabitats (Raman 2006; Bali et al. 2007; Dolia et al.2008; Anand et al. 2008). Daniels (2003) also opinedthat tea plantations were capable of supporting manyamphibian species. Similarly, our study indicates thata number of anurans use the coffee and tea plantations,Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2849–28562853

Streamside amphibian communities© Kalyan VarmaImage 2. Hylarana aurantiacaImage 3. Hylarana temporalisImage 4. Micrixalus sp.© Kalyan Varma© Kalyan VarmaR. Murali & T.R.S. Ramanalthough the diversity is lower than in the rainforestfragment.Species composition often varies among land usetypes, and species with specific ecological requirementsthat are not available in modified land uses may bemore affected than others (Waltert et al. 2004). In thepresent study, Micrixalus sp. and Nyctibatrachus sp.(genera of mainly forest-dependent species endemicto the Western Ghats; Aravind & Gururaja 2011) werethe most affected by land use, being absent from coffeeand tea plantations. Krishna et al. (2005) also reportedthe absence of Micrixalus sp. from coffee plantations.The highest number of Fejervarya sp. was found inthe tea estate. Fejervarya are generalists known tooccur near still and stagnant water where they areknown to breed (Kuramoto et al. 2007), such habitatswere available in the streams through tea estate wheredue to open canopy and dense growth of grassesand sedges, the streams were partly swampy alongthe valley. Daniels (2003) also noted the commonoccurrence of generalist anurans such as Fejervaryasp. and Duttaphrynus melanostictus in his survey in teaplantations. Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis was completelyabsent in the forest fragment and was sighted mainlyin coffee with very few individuals recorded in tea.This species is aquatic or semi-aquatic and usuallylive half submerged in water or at the water’s edgein ponds, wetlands, paddy fields and ditches (Joshy etal. 2009). Andrews et al. (2005) and Krishna et al.(2005) also reported an absence of Euphlyctis sp. fromrainforest. Our results showing more generalist speciesin plantations and more forest-dependent endemicspecies in fragments are consistent with Gururaja etal.’s (2008) observation that human induced changesin land-uses, canopy cover, and hydrological regimesmay support generalist amphibian species whereas lessdisturbed forest areas with higher canopy cover, treedensity and rainfall support more endemic species.The differences in species composition may be dueto variation in streamside vegetation and environment,including decreased riparian vegetation and decreasedclear-flowing water in the plantations, especiallythe highly modified tea monocultures (as noticedin a parallel study in the same landscape; Prakashet al. 2012). It is unlikely that variation in speciescomposition is due to variation in stream order as thefirst and fourth order streams in the coffee and the teaplantations did not differ noticeably from each other,2854Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2849–2856

Streamside amphibian communitieswhile clearly differing from the first order streamthrough the rainforest fragment. As amphibiansoften display a patchy distribution linked to microclimateconditions or spawning places (Zimmerman& Bierregaard 1986), such factors may be moreinfluential on variation in species composition due toland use change.Despite some clear patterns, the present study hadseveral limitations. Being carried out during Julyand August, it is representative only of the southwestmonsoon season. Besides canopy species beingcompletely omitted, other species may have beenmissed as well as the observers tried to be as nonintrusiveas possible. Visibility also varied acrossthe three land uses, being highest in tea, followedby coffee, and then rainforest fragment, suggestingthat the higher richness in the latter may only be aconservative estimate. However, the species richnessin the coffee land use may be higher as Raorchestessp., identified only to genus, may represent severalspecies. We conclude that a longer-term study ofamphibian species in coffee and tea plantations canprovide a more comprehensive view of the effects ofland use change, of which the present study forms auseful baseline. Such research can also help pinpointbetter agricultural land-use practices that minimiseor avoid negative environmental impacts on streams(Logan 1993), and may be linked to opportunitiesfor sustainable agriculture certification for plantationbusinesses that adopt such better land-use practices(Aerts et al. 2010).ReferencesAerts, J., D. Mudappa & T.R.S. Raman (2010). Coffee,conservation, and Rainforest Alliance certification:opportunities for Indian coffee. Planters’ Chronicle 106(12):15–26.Anand, M.O., J. Krishnaswamy & A. Das (2008). Proximityto forests drives bird conservation value of shade-coffeeplantations: Implications for certification. EcologicalApplications 18: 1754–1763.Andrews, M.I., S. George & J. Joseph (2005). Amphibians inprotected areas of Kerala. Zoos’ Print Journal 20(4): 1823–1831.Aravind, N.A. & K.V. Gururaja (2011). Amphibians of theWestern Ghats. Theme paper, Western Ghats Ecology ExpertPanel, Ministry of Environment and Forests, India.Bali, A., A. Kumar & J. Krishnaswamy (2007). The mammalianR. Murali & T.R.S. Ramancommunities in coffee plantations around a protected areain the Western Ghats, India. Biological Conservation 139:93–102.Bell, K.E. & M.A. Donnelly (2006). Influence of forestfragmentation on community structure of frogs and lizardsin Northeastern Costa Rica. Conservation Biology 20: 1750–1760.Bhatta, G., K.P. Dinesh, P. Prashanth, N. Kulkarni & C.Radhakrishnan (2011). A new caecilian Ichthyophis davidisp. nov. (Gymnophiona: Ichthyophiidae): the largest stripedcaecilian from the Western Ghats. Current Science 101:1015–1018.Biju, S.D. & F. Bossuyt (2009). Systematics and phenology ofPhilautus Gistel, 1848 (Anura Rhacophoridae) in the WesternGhats of India with description of 12 new species. ZoologicalJournal of the Linnean Society 155: 374–444.Biju, S.D., I.V. Bocxlaer, S. Mahony, K.P. Dinesh, C.Radhakrishnan, A. Zachariah, V. Giri & F. Bossuyt(2011). A taxonomic review of the Night Frog genusNyctibatrachus Boulenger, 1882 in the Western Ghats, India(Anura: Nyctibatrachidae) with description of twelve newspecies. Zootaxa 3029: 1–96.Blaustein, A.R., D.B. Wake & W.P. Sousa (1994). Amphibiandeclines: judging stability, persistence, and susceptibility ofpopulations to local and global extinctions. ConservationBiology 8: 60–71.Clarke, K.R. & R.N. Gorley (2001). Primer v5: User manual/tutorial. PRIMER-E, Plymouth.Clarke, K.R. & R.M. Warwick (1994). Change in marinecommunities: An approach to statistical analysis andinterpretation. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth.Collier, K.J. (2011). The rapid rise of streams and rivers inconservation assessment. Aquatic Conservation: Marine andFreshwater Ecosystems 21: 397–400.Daniel, J.C. (2002). The Book of Indian Reptiles and Amphibians.Bombay Natural History Society. Oxford University Press,238pp.Daniels, R.J.R. (2003). Impact of tea cultivation on anurans inthe Western Ghats. Current Science 85: 1415–1421.Das, A., J. Krishnaswamy, K.S. Bawa, M.C. Kiran, V. Srinivas,N.S. Kumar & K.U. Karanth (2006). Prioritisation ofconservation areas in the Western Ghats, India. BiologicalConservation 133: 16–31.Dinesh, K.P. & C. Radhakrishnan (2011). Checklist ofamphibians of Western Ghats. Frogleg 16: 15–21.Dolia, J., M.S. Devy, N.A. Aravind & A. Kumar (2008). Adultbutterfly communities in coffee plantations around a protectedarea in the Western Ghats, India. Animal Conservation 11:26–34.Gotelli, N.J. & R.K. Colwell (2001). Quantifying biodiversity:procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparisonof species richness. Ecology Letters 4: 379–391.Gotelli, N.J. & G.L. Entsminger (2009). EcoSim: Null modelssoftware for ecology. Version 7. Acquired Intelligence Inc.& Kesey-Bear. Jericho, VT 05465 < http://garyentsminger.com/ecosim/index.htm>Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2849–28562855

Streamside amphibian communitiesGururaja, K.V., A. Sameer & T.V. Ramachandra (2008).Influence of land-use changes in river basins on diversity anddistribution of amphibians, pp. 33–42. In: Ramachandra, T.V.(ed.). Environment Education for Ecosystem Conservation.Capital Publishing Company, New Delhi.Heyer, W.R., M.A. Donnelley, R.W. McDiarmid, L.C. Hayek,& M.S. Foster (eds.) (1994). Measuring and MonitoringBiological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians.Smithsonian Institution Press, 384pp.Joshy, S.H., M.S. Alam, A. Kurabayashi, M. Sumida & M.Kuramoto (2009). Two new species of genus Euphlyctis(Anura, Ranidae) from southwestern India, revealed bymolecular and morphological comparisons. Alytes 26: 97–116.Karthick, B., M.K. Mahesh & T.V. Ramachandra (2011).Nestedness pattern in stream diatom assemblages of centralWestern Ghats. Current Science 100(4): 552–558.Krishna, S.N., S.B. Krishna & K.K. Vijayalaxmi (2005).Variation in anuran abundance along the streams of theWestern Ghats, India. Herpetological Journal 15: 167–172.Kumar, A., R. Pethiyagoda & D. Mudappa (2004). WesternGhats and Sri Lanka, pp.152–157. In: Mittermeier, R.A., P.R.Gil, M. Hoffmann, J. Pilgrim, T. Brooks, C.G. Mittermeier,J. Lamoureux & G.A.B. da Fonseca (eds.)Hotspots Revisited- Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most EndangeredEcoregions. CEMEX, Mexico.Kuramoto, M., S.H. Joshy, A. Kurabayashi & M. Sumida(2007). The genus Fejervarya (Anura: Ranidae) in centralWestern Ghats, India, with descriptions of four new crypticspecies. Current Herpetology 26: 81–105.Laurance, W.F., T.E. Lovejoy, H.L. Vasconcelos, E.M. Bruna,R.K. Didham, P.C. Stouffer, C. Gascon, R.O. Bierregaard,S.G. Laurance & E. Sampaio (2002). Ecosystem decayof Amazonian forest fragments: a 22-year investigation.Conservation Biology 16: 605–618.Logan, J.T. (1993). Agricultural best management practicesfor water pollution control: current issues. Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment 46: 223–231.Mudappa, D. & T.R.S. Raman (2007). Rainforest restorationand wildlife conservation on private lands in the Valparaiplateau, Western Ghats, India, pp. 210–240. In: Shahabuddin,G. & M. Rangarajan (eds.). Making Conservation Work.Permanent Black, Ranikhet.Pineda, E. & G. Halffter (2004). Species diversity and habitatfragmentation: frogs in a tropical montane landscape inMexico. Biological Conservation 117: 499–508.Prakash, N., D. Mudappa, T.R.S. Raman & A. Kumar (2012).Conservation of the Asian Small-clawed Otter (Aonyxcinereus) in human-modified landscapes, Western Ghats,India. Tropical Conservation Science 5: 67–78.R Development Core Team (2009). R: A language andenvironment for statistical computing. R Foundation forStatistical Computing,Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL Raman, T.R.S. (2006). Effects of habitat structure and adjacenthabitats on birds in tropical rainforest fragments and shadedR. Murali & T.R.S. Ramanplantations in the Western Ghats, India. Biodiversity andConservation 15: 1577–1607.Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs & C.R. Margules (1991).Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: areview. Conservation Biology 5: 18–30.Sreekantha, M.D., S. Chandran, D.K. Mesta, G.R. Rao, K.V.Gururaja & T.V. Ramachandra (2007). Fish diversityin relation to landscape and vegetation in central WesternGhats, India. Current Science 92(11): 1592–1603.Strayer, D.L. & D. Dudgeon (2010). Freshwater biodiversityconservation: recent progress and future challenges. Journalof the North American Benthological Society 29: 344–358.Turner, I.M. (1996). Species loss in fragments of tropical rainforest: a review of the evidence. Journal of Applied Ecology33: 200–209.Vasudevan, K., A. Kumar & R. Chellam (2006). Speciesturnover: the case of stream amphibians of rainforests in theWestern Ghats, southern India. Biodiversity and Conservation34: 3515–3525.Vitousek, P.M., H.A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco & J.M. Melillo(1997). Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science277: 494–499.Waltert, M., A. Mardiastuti & M. Muhlenberg (2004). Effectsof land use on bird species richness in Sulawesi, Indonesia.Conservation Biology 18: 1339–1346.Wake, D.B. (1991). Declining amphibian populations. Science253: 860.Welsh, H.H. & M.L. Ollivier (1998). Stream amphibians asindicators of ecosystem stress: A case study from California’sRedwoods. Ecological Applications 8: 1118–1132.Wyman, R.L. (1990). What’s happening to the amphibians?Conservation Biology 4: 350–352.Zachariah, A., K.P. Dinesh, E. Kunhikrishnan, S. Das,D.V. Raju, C. Radhakrishnan, M.J. Palot & S. Kalesh(2011a). Nine new species of frogs of the genus Raorchestes(Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from southern WesternGhats, India. Biosystematica 5: 25–48.Zachariah, A., K.P. Dinesh, C. Radhakrishnan, E.Kunhikrishnan, M.J. Palot & C.K. Vishnudas (2011b).A new species of Polypedates Tschudi (Amphibia: Anura:Rhacophoridae) from southern Western Ghats, Kerala, India.Biosystematica 5: 49–53.Zimmerman, B.L. & R.O. Bierregaard (1986). Relevance ofthe equilibrium theory of island biogeography and speciesarearelations to conservation with a case from Amazonia.Journal of Biogeography 13: 133–143.Author Details: Ra n j i n i Mu r a l i worked as a Research Affiliate on thisproject and currently works as the Conservation Coordinator in the HighAltitude Programme of the Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF).T.R. Sh a n k a r Ra m a n is a Senior Scientist with NCF working on rainforestrestoration and conservation in the Western Ghats.2856Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2849–2856

JoTT Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(9): 2857–2874Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea and Hesperoidea)and other protected fauna of Jones Estate, a dyingwatershed in the Kumaon Himalaya, Uttarakhand, IndiaPeter SmetacekButterfly Research Centre, The Retreat, Jones Estate, Bhimtal, Uttarakhand 263136, IndiaEmail: petersmetacek@rediffmail.comDate of publication (online): 26 August 2012Date of publication (print): 26 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Editor: Rudi MattoniManuscript details:Ms # o3020Received 25 November 2011Final received 02 February 2012Finally accepted 15 July 2012Citation: Smetacek, P. (2012). Butterflies(Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea and Hesperoidea)and other protected fauna of Jones Estate,a dying watershed in the Kumaon Himalaya,Uttarakhand, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa4(9): 2857–2874.Copyright: © Peter Smetacek 2012. CreativeCommons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in anymedium for non-profit purposes, reproductionand distribution by providing adequate credit tothe authors and the source of publication.Author Details: Pe t e r Sm e t a c e k is an authorityon Indian Lepidoptera and has pioneered theuse of insect communities as bio-indicators ofclimatic change and ground water.Acknowledgements: I am grateful to my latefather, Fred Smetacek Sr.; to the Times FellowshipCouncil, New Delhi, for a Fellowship to studyIndian rivers in 1992 and to the Rufford SmallGrant Foundation, U.K., for funding the work onLepidoptera and Himalayan forest ecosystemsbetween 2006 and the present study via aseries of grants. I am indebted to Rudi Mattoni,Argentina for encouragement to write this andvaluable suggestions on an earlier draft anddrawing my attention to the format developed byhim and used in Table 1 and to Zdenek FaltynekFric, Ceske Budejovice in the Czech Republic, forvaluable taxonomic comments on Table 1. Also, Iam indebted to the anonymous referees whoserecommendations considerably improved thepaper and to my children, Kanika and Pius, whospent many hours sorting through note books,loose leaf lists, books and specimens to compilethe enormous amount of data that went into themaking of Table 1.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADAbstract: Two hundred and forty three species of butterflies recorded from Jones Estate,Uttarakhand between 1951 and 2010 are reported. The ongoing rapid urbanization ofJones Estate micro-watershed will destroy the habitat of 49 species of wildlife protectedunder Indian law, as well as several species of narrow endemic moths and butterflies.The only known Indian habitat for the butterfly Lister’s Hairstreak Pamela dudgeoniwill be destroyed. The effect on the water flow of both the Bhimtal and Sattal lakesystems will clearly be adverse, as is evident from the drying up of Kua Tal and thereduced flow of perennial water springs during the dry season on the Estate. Theundoubtedly negative effect of urbanization on these valuable fresh water resources willbe irreversible in the long term. The trend can be reversed by extending protection toJones Estate by re-declaring it a Green Belt of Bhimtal and by banning construction inthe catchment area of Bhimtal lake, as has been done in Nainital and Mussoorie, bothin Uttarakhand.Keywords: Bhimtal, drinking water, drying lakes, freshwater resources, Green Belt,Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, Pamela dudgeoni.Hindi Abstract: lu~ 1951 vkSj 2010 ds chp tkSal LVsV mRrjk[k.M esa ladfyr 243 iztkfr dh frrfy;ksa dk o.kZufn;k x;k gSA orZeku esa tkSl LVsV lw{e tykxe esa rsth l spy jgh ‘kgjhdj.k dh izfØ;k ls Hkkjrh; dkuwu ds vUrxZrlajf{kr 49A ou tho dh iztkfr;ka rFkk dbZ fo’ks”k iraxs vkSj frrfy;ksa dh iztkfr ¼tks dsoy tkSal LVsV esa ikbZ tkrhgSa½ ds vkokl u”V gks tk;saxsA blesa fyLV~lZ gS;j LVªhd frryh dk Hkkjr esa ,d ek= fuokl u”V gks tk;sxkA HkherkyrFkk lkrrky >hyksa dk ikuh ds ty lzksr ij bldk dqizHkko iM+sxkA bldk orZeku esa daqvkrky ty lzksr ds lw[kusrFkk bykds ds lnkcgkj ty lzksr ds xehZ ds ekSle esa yxHkx lw[k tkus ls Li”V gSA yacs le;kof/k esa bu vewY; ehBsikuh ds la’kk/kuksa ij ‘kgjhdj.k ds udjkRed vlj dk dksbZ lq/kkj rHkh laHko gS tc tkSal LVsV dks gfjr iV~Vh ?kksf”krdh tk;s rFkk Hkherky >hy d sty laxzg.k {ks= esa fuekZ.k dk;Z ij ikcanh yxs tSls fd mRrjk[k.M ea uSuhrky rFkkelwjh esa fd;k x;k gSAINTRODUCTIONJones Estate (“June State” on Revenue Department records) is aforested microwatershed in Nainital district, Uttarakhand (29 0 21’17”N &79 0 32’34.27”E), separating the Bhimtal and Sattal lake systems (Image1). In the Himalaya, it is a unique geographical feature, being the onlyforested watershed separating two lake systems comprising a total ofeight perennial and seasonal lakes. Bhimtal (tal = lake in Hindi) lies atthe southeastern end while the Sattal lies along the northern half of thewestern face of the Estate. Comprising roughly 4.8 sq.km (1200 acres) ofprivate forest in 1951, the forest area of Jones Estate has been reduced byroughly 30% due to cultivation and habitation over the years.The lowest point is 1200m at the conjoined Ram and Sita lakesof the Sattal (seven lakes) system, while the highest point is Thalaat 1731m. The range runs northwest to southeast for a distance ofroughly 3km from Dhupchaura pass on the northwest to Tallitalmarket and Bohrakun Village on its southeastern and southern facesrespectively (Image 1). To the east lies the Bhimtal lake system comprisingJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2857–2874 2857

Protected fauna of Jones EstateP. SmetacekImage 1. Google map showing Jones Estate watershed outlined in white and adjoining lake systems. Source: GooglemapsImage 2. Garurtal with the western face of Jones Estate inthe background.of three lakes—Nal-Damayantital, Kuatal and Bhimtal.To the west lies the Sattal lake system comprising ofPannatal (=Garurtal) (Image 2); Ramtal and Sitatal,Lakshmantal, Sukhatal, Sariyatal and Lokhamtal.Jones Estate lies in the outermost range of theHimalayan foothills and receives heavy rainfall.Although Osmaston (1927) gives a range of 2000–3000 mm of rainfall for this area, actual precipitation israther less nowadays, averaging 1443mm for the fiveyearperiod from 2005 to 2009 (Anonymous 2010).The forest consists of three plant associations,namely sub-tropical broadleaf with HimalayanOak Quercus leucotrichophora as a nodal species;Chir Pine Pinus roxburghii forest and elements ofmiscellaneous deciduous forest. In addition, there is2858Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2857–2874

Protected fauna of Jones Estatea patch of naturalized Himalayan Cypress Cupressustorulosa several acres in extent.HISTORYThe Bhimtal Valley has been inhabited and cultivatedfor over a millennium and Atkinson (1882) noted thatit was one of the largest single sheets of cultivation inthe Kumaon Himalaya.Jones Estate watershed and the Sattal Valley werenot inhabited during past centuries, although some smallpatches of cultivation were attempted by share-croppersand itinerant families until 1952. The major part of theEstate has always been forested. It came into existencein 1867 as a fee-simple estate, with the main aimof developing it for the production of green tea for theTibetan market. Since then, it has remained in privatehands.On 17 January 2001 the then Minister forEnvironment and Forests, Mr. Kandari, stated inthe Uttarakhand State Assembly that all concernedgovernment departments, including the Public WorksDepartment, Forest Department, Pollution ControlDepartment, etc. in their reports on the possibilityof construction of buildings on the Jones Estatewatershed, had stressed that any such move wouldresult in disastrous consequences for Bhimtal and forthe water storage capability of the Sattal lakes (SpecialCorrespondent 2001).In 1954, a Forest Working Plan was passed forJones Estate by the Forest Department. In the LandRecord Settlement known as the Bandobast in 1957,land use of the greater part of Jones Estate wasrecorded as “forest”. Under the provisions of theForest Conservation Act 1980, no land use change ispermitted on such land without the permission of theCentral Government.Despite this, numerous houses and resortsare being constructed and there is no doubt thatthe eventual urbanization of the Estate is well underway, to the detriment of the Bhimtal and Sattal lakesystems and the wildlife inhabiting the Estate atpresent. Therefore, the present paper documents thebutterflies recorded on the Estate (Table 1) so as toget a better idea of what is being lost and the eventualconsequences of urbanization of the Jones Estatewatershed.P. SmetacekThe present paper also documentsthe butterflies and vertebrates affordedprotection under the Schedules of the Indian Wildlife(Protection) Act 1972 (Anonymous 2006) that havebeen recorded on the Estate (Table 2). In total, theseconstitute 49 species, 11 on Schedule 1 and 39 onSchedule 2 (Hypolimnas misippus Linnaeus figures onboth Schedules and is counted only once).MATERIAL AND METHODSThe butterflies of the Estate have been studiedsince 1951. Some original specimens still exist, butthe major resource from this era is in the form of notesmaintained by my father, the late Fred Smetacek Sr. Inthe course of studying local butterflies, two butterflysubspecies new to science were discovered on theEstate, namely Neptis miah varshneyi Smetacek andNeptis clinia praedicta Smetacek (both Nymphalidae)(Smetacek 2002; 2011b). Besides, several butterfliespreviously unrecorded from the Western Himalayahave been reported (Smetacek 2010). Moths have beenstudied since 1972. Several species new to sciencehave been described from the Estate (Smetacek 2002;2005; 2010a). Besides, the population of hawkmoths(Lepidoptera: Sphingidae) on the Estate providedmaterial for pioneering work in using members ofan insect community as bio-indicators to predict andtrack climate change (Smetacek 1994; 2004).The sightings of mammals and birds included inAnnexure 2 were compiled mostly during the 1980s,when much time was spent patrolling the forest. Theyare all based on actual sightings by the author. Themost recent sighting of a mammal protected under theprovisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 andlisted as Near Threatened on the IUCN Red Data Listis of a Himalayan Serow (Capricornis sumatraensisthar) which was sighted and photographed outside theButterfly Research Centre, Jones Estate at 10am on 07November 2011.The use of a lepidopteran community as an indicatorof forest health and consequently the health of theecosystem including sub-surface water resources hasbeen explored on the Estate by the author for thepast 30 years (Smetacek 1993–2010). The format ofImage 1, which enables a great deal of informationto be presented concisely, has been taken with kindJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2857–28742859

Protected fauna of Jones EstateP. SmetacekTable 1. Butterflies recorded in Jones Estate, Bhimtal, Between 1951 and 2011.1 - Name2 - Geographic distribution of the species.3 - General distribution G - garden species, found everywhere; NA - widespread but only in undisturbed areas; LO - localized incolonies; RM - not resident, but regular migrants; SM - sporadic,rare migrants;4 - Usual Habitat: U - universal across all habitats; SE - subtropical evergreen forest above 1200m; TD - tropical deciduous forestbetween 400 and 1400 m; SR - Shorea robusta forest below 1000m; S - scrubland; G - grassland.5 - Relative abundance, sightings per day during seasonal optimum: V - very rare, none or one: R - rare (2–4); O - occasional (5–9);A - abundant (10–49); C - common (>50).6 - Index of relative movement of an average individual during adult lifespan. The values are existential estimates and subject toerror. 0 - moves less than 100m; 1 - moves 100–1000 m; 2 - moves 1–5 km; 3 - strongly migratory/dispersive.7 - Voltinism, Number of complete life cycles per year. S - Univoltine, single generation; B - Bivoltine, two discrete generations;M - Multivoltine, multiple, usually overlapping generations. Months during which adults have been recorded are in parentheses eg(iii–vii).8 - Stage of life cycle that diapauses: O - none; E - egg; L - larva; P pupa; A - adult.9 - Span of larval food plant (FP) preferences: M - Monophagous, feeds on plant species within one genus; O - Oligophagous, feedson plant genera within one family; P - Polyphagous, feeds on plants in two or more families.10 - Larval food plant families; in cases where the spectrum of families is very wide, only two of the most important families in thearea are included. For others, reference may be made to Robinson et al. (2001).Throughout the paper, the symbol ? indicates the lack of dependable data.PAPILIONIDAE1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101. Troides aeacusFelder & Felder2. Atrophaneuraaidoneus Doubleday03. Byasa dasaradaravana Moore04. Byasa polyeuctesletincius Fruhstorfer05. Byasa latreilleiDonovan06. PachlioptaaristolochiaearistolochiaeFabricius07. Papilio agestorgovindra Moore08. Papilio clytia clytiaLinnaeus09. Papilio protenorprotenor Cramer10. Papilio bianorpolyctor Boisduval11. Papilio parisLinnaeus12. Papilio polytesromulus Cramer13. Papilio demoleusLinnaeus14. Papilio machaonLinnaeus15. Graphium(Pazala)eurous cashmirensisRothschildHimalaya fromGarhwal east toChina and TaiwanHimalaya fromGarhwal east toVietnamHimalaya fromAfghanistan to Indo-ChinaHimalaya fromAfghanistan toVietnamAfghanistan to Chinaand Vietnam.Afghanistan throughIndia to Japan andIndonesia.West Himalaya toIndo-China.India to Malaysia.SM SE R 1 or 2 B: v-vii. ? P O AristolochiaceaeLO SE R 1 or 2?RM/ LO SE O 1 or 2?RM/ LO SE R 1 or 2B: iv-v;vii-viiiB:iv-vi;vii-ix.B: iv-vi;viii-ix? P O Aristolochiaceae?P O Aristolochiaceae?P O AristolochiaceaeSM SE V ? ?B: v; viii. ?P ?O Aristolochiaceae?RM/ NA SR, S O 2/ 3M: i; iii-v;x-xii.? PAristolochiaceae;Dioscoreaceae.NA SE R 0 to 2 S: iii-v. P O LauraceaeNATD,SRO 0 to 2M: iii- viii;x.?P PPakistan to Japan NA SE, S O 1 to 2 M: ii-x. P PPakistan to Indo-China.India to China andS.E. AsiaPakistan throughoutIndia to Indonesia..Iran to China andAustralia.NA SE, S O 1 to 2NA SE, S R 2M: ii-vii;viii-x.M: iii-v;vii; x.Lauraceae,SapotaceaeLauraceae;Rutaceae;Polygalaceae.P O Rutaceae?P O RutaceaeG, NA U A/C 2 M: iii-x. P O RutaceaeG, NA U O 2, 3 M: iii-x. ?P O RutaceaePalaearctic Region G, LO S, G O 0 - 2 M: ii-vii. P O UmbelliferaeWest Himalaya toIndo-China.SM SE V 1 to 2 S: iv-v. P O Lauraceae2860Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2857–2874

Protected fauna of Jones EstateP. Smetacek16. Graphium(Pathysa) nomiusEsper1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1017. Graphium(Graphium) cloanthusWestwood18. Graphium(Graphium) sarpedonLinnaeus19. Graphium(Graphium)agamemnonLinnaeusPIERIDAE20. Leptosia ninaFabricius21. Pontia daplidicemoorei Röber22. Pieris canidiaindica Evans23. Pieris brassicaenipalensis Gray24. Aporia agathonGray25. Delias eucharisDrury26. Delias belladonnahorsfieldii Gray27. Delias acalisGodart28. Anaphaeis aurotaFabricius29. Cepora nerissaphryne Fabricius30. Appias lalagelalage Doubleday31. Catopsiliapomona Fabricius32. Catopsiliapyranthe minnaHerbst33. Gonepteryxrhamni nepalensisDoubleday34. Eurema brigittarubella Wallace35. Eurema laetaBoisduval36. Eurema hecabefimbriata Wallace37. Colias fieldiiMenétries38. Colias erateEsper39. Ixias pyreneLinnaeus40. Ixias marianneCramer41. Pareronia valeriaCramerNYMPHALIDAE42. Parantica agleamelanoides MooreIndia to Thailand.SMTD,SRHimalaya to China NA SE O 1, 2India to Japan andAustralia.India to China andAustralia.India to thePhilippines.V 1, 2 B: iv-v; vii. ? O AnnonaceaeM: iii-vi;viii-x.NA SE O 1, 2 M: ii-x. P PRM SR V 3LOTD,SRPalaearctic. G, NA S, G O 2, 3India to China. G, NA U A 2VOB or M: iiiiv;viii.M: ii-v;ix-xii.M: iii-vii;ix-x; xii.M: i-v; vii;ix-xii.P O Lauraceae? PPalaearctic. G, NA U C 3 M: iii-xi. ?P PLauraceae;AnnonaceaeAnnonaceae;Magnoliaceae; etc? O Capparaceae?P O Cruciferae?P O CruciferaeCruciferae;Resedaceae; etc.Himalaya to China NA SE A 0 to 2 S: iv-vi. ? O BerberidaceaeThroughout IndiaWest Himalaya toChina.Himalaya to Indo-ChinaThroughout India toS.E. AsiaThroughout India toS.E. Asia.Himalaya to Indo-China.Indo-AustralianRegion.Throughout India toS.E. AsiaRMTD,SRO 2 - 3LO SE O 1 to 2M: i-v;x-xii,M: ii-v;viii-x.? PLoranthaceae;Malvaceae; etc.? O LoranthaceaeSM TD V 2 to 3 B: iii-iv; ix. ? ? ?RM SR, S A 3RM SR, S A 3RM ? O 3M: iv-v; viiix;xii.M: iii-iv;vi-xii.M: ii-v; viii;xii.? PCapparaceae;Oleaceae? O Capparaceae? ? LeguminosaeRM U C 3 M: i-xii. ? O LeguminosaeRM U C 3 M: ii-x. ? O LeguminosaePalaearctic Region. NA SE, S O 1 to 2 M: i-xii. A ?PAfrica through Indiato Malaysia.India to Japan andAustralia.African and Indo-Australian RegionsEastern PalaearcticRegionG, NA U A 0 to3 M: i-xii. ? PG, NA U A 0 to ?2M: i; iii-iv;vi-xii.G, NA U C 0 to ?2 M: i-xii. ? PRhamnaceae;EricaceaeLeguminosae;Guttiferae; etc.? O LeguminosaeG, NA SE, G A 3 M: i-xii. ? ? ?Leguminosae;Euphorbiaceae;etc.Palaearctic Region NA SE, G O 3 M: i-xi. ? O LeguminosaeIndia to China. SM S V 3B: ix-x;xii-i.? O CapparaceaeIndia SM S V 3 B: i-iv; xii. ? O CapparaceaeIndia to thePhilippines.Himalaya to S.E.Asia.RMG, NATD,SRSE,TDR 3O 0 to 2M: iii-v;x-xii.M: ii-v;vii-x; xii.? O Capparaceae? O AsclepiadaceaeJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2857–28742861

Protected fauna of Jones EstateP. Smetacek1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1072. Melanitis phedimagalkissa Fruhstorfer73. Melanitis ziteniusHerbstIndia to Malaysia.NASE,TD,SRR 0 to 2 M: v-x. ? O GraminaeOriental Region LO TD R 0 to 2 S: viii. ? O Graminae.74. Elymniashypermnestraundularis DruryIndia to Malaysia. LO. SR. R. 0 to 2 M: iv-xi. ? O Palmae75. Elymnias malelasnilamba FruhstorferHimalaya toMalaysia.LO TD R 0 to 2M: iv-v;viii-xi.? ?M Musaceae76. Polyura athamasDruryOriental RegionNASE,TDO 0 to 2 M: iv; vi-x. ? PLeguminosae;Tiliaceae.77. Polyura agrariaSwinhoeOriental RegionNATD,SRR ? B: iv; ix-x. ? ? ?78. Polyura dolonWestwoodHimalayan to S.E.AsiaSM SE V 0 to 2 B: v; ix. ? ? ?79. Dilipa morgianaWestwood80. Apatura(Mimathyma) ambicaambica Kollar81. Sephisa dichroaKollarHimalaya ?SM/LO SE V ?M: iii; v;viii.? ? ?Himalaya ?SM/LO SE V ? M: iv-x. ? M UlmaceaeWest HimalayanendemicLO SE A 0 to 1 M: v-x. ?P M Fagaceae82. Euripus consimilisWestwoodHimalaya to S.E.Asia, S. IndiaLOTD,SRR 0 to 1B: iii-v;vii-ix.? O Ulmaceae83. Hestina persimiliszella ButlerHimalaya LO SE R 1 to 2 M: iii-x. ? O Ulmaceae84. Hestinalis namaDoubleday85. DichorragianesimachusBoisduval86. Stibochiona niceanicea GrayHimalaya toMalaysiaHimalaya to Japanand PhilippinesHimalaya toMalaysia.NASE,TDR 1 to 2M: ii-vi;ix-x.? ? Urticaceae?SM/LO SE V ?1 B: iii-iv; viii. ? O MeliosmaceaeLOSE/TDR 1 to 2M: iv-vii;ix-x.? PMoraceae;Urticaceae.87. Tanaecia juliiappiades MenétriesHimalaya to Indo-ChinaSMTD/SRV ? ?: v. ? ?O Sapotaceae88. Euthalia acontheaHewitsonOriental RegionGTD,SRO 0 to 2M: iii-iv; vivii;x-xi.?P PAnacardiaceae;Moraceae; etc.89. Euthalia lubentinaindica FruhstorferIndia to Malaysia.NATD,SRR 0 to 2M: iii; v;viii, x-xi.? O Loranthaceae90. Euthalia patalapatala KollarWest Himalaya toChinaLO SE O 0 to 2 S: v-viii. P O Fagaceae91. Symphaedra naisForst92. Auzakia danavaMoore93. Moduza procrisprocris Cramer94. Athyma camaMoore95. Athymaselenophoraselenophora Kollar96. Athyma opalinaopalina KollarIndian Subcontinent. SM SR V 0 to 2 ?B: iv; ix. ? PHimalaya toMyanmarIndia to Philippinesand Indonesia.NA SE R 0 to 2M: iv-v;viii; x.? ? ?SM SR V 1 to 2 ?M: iv; x-i. ? PDipteracarpaceae;Ebenaceae.Rubiaceae;Capparaceae.Himalaya NA SE O 0 to 2 M: iv-x. ? ? EuphorbiaceaeIndia to ChinaNATD,SRR 0 to 2 M: ii-vi; xi. ? ? RubiaceaeHimalaya NA SE O 0 to 2 M: iii-xii. P O Berberidaceae97. Athyma periusLinnaeusIndia to China andMalaysia.NA TD O 0 to 2 M: iv-xii. ? O Euphorbiaceae98. Athyma asuraMooreHimalaya. SM SE V ? ?B: vi; viii. ? ? Rubiaceae99. Phaedymacolumella ophianaMooreHimalaya.SMTD,SRV 0 to 2M: iv; vi-vii;xii-i.? PGuttiferae;Leguminosae; etc.100. Neptis natayerburii ButlerIndia to Borneo.LOSE,TD,SRO 0 to 2M: iii- vi;ix-x.? ?P?Ulmaceae;?Combretaceae.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2857–28742863

Protected fauna of Jones EstateP. Smetacek1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10101. Neptis cliniapraedicta Smetacek102. Neptis hylaskamarupa Moore103. Neptis sapphoastola Moore104. Neptis somabutleri Eliot105. Neptis sankarasankara Kollar106. Neptis carticacartica Moore107. Neptis miahvarshneyi Smetacek108. Neptis zaidazaida Westwood109. Neptis anantaMoore110. Pantoporiahordonia hordoniaStoll111. Pantoporiasandaka Moore112. Cyrestisthyodamas ganeschaKollar113. Pseudergoliswedah Kollar114. Hypolimnasbolina Linnaeus115. Hypolimnasmisippus Linnaeus116. Kallima inachushuegeli Kollar117. Junonia hiertahierta Fabricius118. Junonia orithyaLinnaeus119. Junonialemonias persicariaFruhstorfer120. Junonia almanaLinnaeus121. Junonia atlitesLinnaeus122. Junonia iphitasiccata Stichel123. Vanessa carduiLinnaeus124. Vanessa indicaindica Herbst125. Kaniska canacehimalaya EvansIndia to Indo-China.HimalayaPalaearctic Region.LONANATD,SRTD,SRSE,TD,SR, SO 0 to 2O 1 to 2A 0 to 2M: iii-vi;x-xi.M: iii-vi;ix-xi.M: ii-vi;ix-xi.? ?P? P?Bombacaceae;Ulmaceae; etc.Leguminosae;Bombacaceae;etc.? O LeguminosaeIndia to China. LO SE A 0 to 2 M: iii; v-x. ? O UlmaceaeHimalaya to China. LO SE O 0 to 2 B: iv-viii; x. ? ? ?Himalaya.West Himalaya toChina.West Himalaya toChina.Himalaya toMalaysia.Oriental RegionOriental RegionIndia to Japan.LO?SE/?TDLO TD O 0 to 2LOLORMRMNA?SE/?TDSE/TDTD,SRTD,SRSE,TDV ?0 to ?2 S: iv- vi. ? ? ?B: iv-vi;x-xi.? ? ?V 0 to 1 S: v-vii. ? ? ?R 1 to 2O 0 to 2O 0 to 2B: v-vi;viii-x.B: iv-vi;x-xi.B: iv-vi;x-xi.O 0 to 2 M: ii-x. ? ?P? O Lauraceae? O Leguminosae.? ?O Leguminosae.Moraceae;?Dilleniaceae;Himalaya to China. NA SE O 0 to 2 M: iii-ix. ? O Urticaceae.Indo-AustralianRegionAfrican, southernPalaearctic, Oriental,Australian, southernNearctic andnorthern NeotropicalRegionsIndia to ChinaOriental RegionAfrican, Palaearctic,Indo-AustralianRegionsIndia to China andMalaysiaIndia to thePhilippinesRMTD,SRR 2 to 3SM SR V 2 to 3NANANAG, NANASE,TDTD,SR, STD,SR, STD,SR, STD,SR, SM: iii; viixiii.?M: iv;viii-xii.? P? PO 0 to 2 M: iv-x. ? PAcanthaceae;Convolvulaceae;etc.Acanthaceae;Convolvulaceae;etcUrticaceae,Acanthaceae; etc.A 1 to 3 M: iii-viii; x. ? O AcanthaceaeA 1 to 3M: iii-vi; ixx;xii-i.? PA 0 to 2 M: i-xi. ? PO 0 to 2India to Sulawesi NA TD O 0 to 2India to China andMalaysiaNearctic, African,Oriental, Australian,Palaearctic RegionsNASE,TDM: i-vi;ix-x.M: iv-vi;x-xii.? P? PAcanthaceae;Convolvulaceae;etc.Acanthaceae;CannabaceaeAcanthaceae;Graminae; etc.Acanthaceae;Amaranthaceae;etc.A 0 to 2 M: i-x. P O AcanthaceaeNA U A 3 M: i- xi. ? PIndia to S.E. Asia. NA SE A 0 to 3 M: iii-i. ?P PIndia to Malaysia. NA SE O 0 to 2M: I; v-vii;ix-xi;? PUrticaceae,Asteraceae, etc.Urticaceae;Tiliaceae;Ulmaceae.Liliaceae,Smilacaceae,Dioscoreaceae2864Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2857–2874

Protected fauna of Jones EstateP. Smetacek1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10126. Nymphalisxanthomelasfervescens Stichel127. Aglaiscashmirensis aesisFruhstorfer128. Symbrenthialilaea khasiana Moore129. Symbrenthiabrabira Moore130. Symbrenthianiphanda hysudraMoore131. Argynnis(Argyreus) hyperbiusLinnaeus132. Argynnis(Childrena) childrenisakontala Kollar133. Issoria lathoniaissaea Doubleday134. Cuphaerymanthis lotis Sulz135. Phalantaphalantha Drury136. Vagrans sinhapallida Evans137. Ariadne merionetapestrina Moore138. Acraea issoriaanomala Kollar139. Acraea violaeFabricius140. Libythea lepitalepita Moore141. Libytheamyrrha sanguinalisFruhstorferLYCAENIDAE142. Zemeros flegyasindicus Fruhstorfer143. Dodona durgaKollar144. Dodonaeugenes Bates145. Dodona dipoeanostia Fruhstorfer146. Abisara echeriussuffusa Moore147. Abisara fyllaDoubleday148. Poritia hewitsonihewitsoni Moore149. Miletuschinensis assamensisDoherty150. Allotinus drumilaMoore151. Talicada nyseusGuérin-Menéville152. Chilades laiuslaius CramerPalaearctic Region. SM SE V 0 to 2 M: iii; v; ix. P PUlmaceae;Salicaceae;Anacardiaceae.Himalaya. G, NA SE O 0 to 2 M: i-xii. A O UrticaceaeIndia to China andMalaysia.Himalaya to W.China.NA SE O 0 to 2M: ii-v;viii-x.? O UrticaceaeNA SE V 0 to 2 B: v; viii. ? ? ?UrticaceaeHimalaya. NA SE V 0 to 2 ?S: v. ? ? ?Abyssinia throughIndia to AustraliaNASE,S, GO 1 to 2M: iv-v; viiviii;x-xii.? PHimalaya to China NA/?RM SE V 1 to 2 B: v-x. ? ? ?Violaceae;ScrophulariaceaePalaearctic Region. SM SE, G V 0 to 2 M: iii-x. ? O Violaceae.India to Malaysia. RM TD A 2 to 3India to Japan andAustralia.Indo-AustralianRegion.India to Malaysia.G, NANA/?RMNA/GTD,SRTD,SRTD,SRB: iv-vi;viii-x.? PC 0 to 3 M: v-x. ? PO 1 to 2 M: v; vii-x. ? PFlacourtiaceae;Sapindaceae.Salicaceae;Flacourtiaceae;etc.Flacourtiaceae;Dilleniaceae.C 0 to 2 M: iii; v-xii. ?P O EuphorbiaceaeHimalaya to China. NA SE C 0 to 1 M: iv-ix. ?P PIndia to Sri Lanka. SM SR, S V 1 to 2M: iv; viiviii;x.? PRubiaceae;UrticaceaeMalvaceae;Passifloraceae,etc.India to China. NA SE O 0 to 1 M: i-xi. ? O UlmaceaeIndia to China. NA SE O 0 to 1 M: ii-x. ? O UlmaceaeHimalaya to Chinaand Malaysia.SMTD,SRV 0 to 2 M: iii-x. ? O Myrsinaceae.Himalaya to China. SM SE R 0 to 2 M: iii-xi. ? O GraminaeHimalaya to China. SM SE V 0 to 2 M: iii-x. ? PMyrsinaceae;GraminaeHimalaya SM SE V 0 to 2 M: iii-xi. ? O MyrsinaceaeIndia to China.LOTD,SRR 0 to 2M: iv-v;vii-x.? ? MyrsinaceaeHimalaya to China. LO SE R 1 to 2 B: iii-v; ix. ? ? MyrsinaceaeHimalaya SM SR V 1 to 2 M: iii; v; ix. ? O DipterocarpaceaeHimalaya to China. LO SE V 0 to 2 ?M: ix. ?Himalaya toMyanmar.India to ThailandIndia to China, S.E.AsiaLO ? V ? ? ?LOG; NA.TD,SRTD;SRInsectaInsectaAphididaeR 0 to 2 M: i - xi.. ? O CrassulaceaeA 0 to 2 M: xi-iii ? P?Rutaceae;Anacardiaceae;etc.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2857–28742865

Protected fauna of Jones EstateP. Smetacek1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10153. Chiladespandava HorsfieldIndia to Sumatra.NA.SE;TD.O 0 to 2 M: vi-x. ? PRutaceae;Leguminosae; etc.154. Neopithecopszalmora ButlerIndia to Australia. NA. TD. O 0 to 2 B: iii; vii. ? PRutaceae;Ebenaceae.155. Everes argiadesindica EvansHimalaya NA. SE. O 1 to 2 M: iv; vii-ix. ? O Leguminosae156. Everes diporidesChapman157. Everes huegeliidipora Moore158. Megisba malayasikkima Moore159. Acytolepis puspagisca FruhstorferHimalaya to Indo-China.Himalaya to Indo-China.Himalaya to Taiwanand Sulawesi.India to Japan andthe Philippines.NA. SE. O 1 to 2 M: v-x. ? ? ?NA. SE. O 1 to 2 M: iv; ix. ? ? LeguminosaeNA.G; NA.SE;TD;SR.SE;SR.A 1 to 2 B: vii; x. ? PO 0 to 2 M: vii-x. ? PEuphorbiaceae;Sapindaceae; etc.Fagaceae;Ericaceae, etc.160. Udara dilectadilecta Moore161. Celastrinahuegelii huegeliiMoore162. Celastrina gigasHemming163. Celastrinaargiolus kollariWestwood164. Ariciaagestis Denis &Schiffermuller165. Leptotes pliniusFabriciusPakistan to Japanand Malaysia.West Himalaya toChina.West Himalayanendemic.NA. SE. R 2 M: v; viii; x. ? O Fagaceae.NA. SE. C 0 to 1 M: iv-x. ? ?O RosaceaeNA. SE. C 0 to 1 M: iv- x. ? M RosaceaePalaearctic Region. G; NA. SE. C 1 to 2 M: iv-x. ? ?PPalaearctic Region.. NA. SE. O 0 to 2 M: iii-vii. ? ? ?India to AustraliaG; NA;RM.U. A 2-3M: iv; vii-ix..? PLeguminosae;Rosaceae; etc.Leguminosae;Rhamnaceae; etc.166. Freyeriatrochylus FreyerIndia to Sumatra.NA.TD;SR;S; G.O 1 to 2 M: x. ? PBoraginaceae;Leguminosae; etc.167. Pseudozizeeriamaha maha Kollar168. Zizeeriakarsandra Moore169. Zizula hylaxFabriciusIran to India andJapan.N. Africa throughAsia to Australia.African Region, N.America, Asia southof the Himalaya.G; NA.G; NA.G; NA.TD;SR;S; G.TD;SE;SR;S; G.TD;SR;S; G.C 0 to 1 M: vii-x. ? PO 1 to 2 M: iv-ix. ? PO 1 to 2 B: iv; viii. ? POxalidaceae;Acanthaceae; etc.Leguminosae;Amaranthaceae.Acanthaceae;Leguminosae;Graminae; etc.170. Zizina otis otisFabriciusIndia to China,Taiwan and Australia.NA.TD;SR;S; G.O 1 to 2 M: vii-x. ? PLeguminosae;Zygophyllaceae.171. Euchrysopscnejus FabriciusIndia to China andAustralia.G; NA;RM.U C 3 M: iv-x. ? PLeguminosae;Orchidaceae; etc.172. Catochrysopsstrabo FabriciusIndia to MoluccasG; NA;RM.U C 2 M: iv-x. ? PLeguminosae;Sapindaceae173. Lampidesboeticus LinnaeusAfrican, Palaearcticand Indo-AustralianRegions.G; NA;RM.U C 3 M: ii-x. ? PLeguminosae;Liliaceae.174. Jamides bochusbochus CramerIndia to Australia.NA; RM.TD;SR.O 1 to 2 B: iv; x. ? O Leguminosae.175. Jamides celenoceleno CramerIndia to Sulawesi.NA.TD;SR.O 0 to 2 M: iv- x. ? PLeguminosae;Zingiberaceae; etc.176. Prosotas noranora Felder & FelderIndia to Myanmar.NA.TD;SR.O 0 to 1 M: i-xii. ? PLeguminosae;Combretaceae;etc.177. Prosotas noreiahampsoni de NicévilleIndia to Myanmar.NA.TD;SR.R 0 to 1 M : vii. ? ? ?178. Lycaena pavanaKollarWest Himalayanendemic.NA ; LO.S ;SE.R 0 to 1 M : i ; iv-vi. ? ? ?Polygonaceae2866Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2857–2874

Protected fauna of Jones EstateP. Smetacek1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10179. Lycaena phlaeasindicus Evans180. Heliophorussena Kollar181. Heliophorusmoorei coruscansMoore182. Pameladudgeoni de Nicéville183. Thermozephyrusataxus ataxusDoubleday184. Chrysozephyrussyla syla Kollar185. Euaspa ziha deNicéville186. Curetis bulisDoubleday &Hewitson187. Curetis acutadentata Moore188. Iraota timoleonStoll189. Arhopala atraxHewitson190. Arhopala singlade Nicéville191. Arhopaladodonea Moore192. Arhopala ramarama Kollar193. Arhopala ganesaganesa Moore194. Surendravivarna Horsfield195. Loxura atymnusCramer196. Cigaritisnipalicus Moore197. Pratapa deva lilaMoore198. Tajuria diaeusHewitson199. Tajuria illurgisHewitson200. Horaga onyxonyx Moore201. Horagaalbimacula violaMoore202. Chliaria kinakina Hewitson203. Chliaria othonaHewitson204. Deudorixepijarbas ancusFruhstorfer205. Deudorixisocrates Fabricius206. Rapala varunagrisea Moore207. Rapala maneaschistacea MoorePalaearctic andNearctic RegionsHimalayan.Himalaya toW.China.Himalaya to Indo-China.NA.G ; NA.SM.S ;SE.S ;SE.S ;SE.O 0 to 1 M : ii-x. ? PA 0 to 2 M : iv-x. ? PV 0 to 2 B : v-iv ; ix. ? ? ?LO. SE. V ? B : iv ; x. ? ? ?Polygonaceae;Malvaceae.Polygonaceae;Malvaceae.Himalaya to China. LO. SE. V 0 to 1 M : v-x. ? ?O FagaceaeHimalaya. NA ; LO. SE. R 0 to 2West Himalayanendemic.India to JapanIndia to S.E. Asia.India to China.B : iv-vi ;ix-x.? ? ?NA ; LO. SE. A 0 to 1 S : v-vi. ? ? ?G ; NA.G; NA.NA ; ?RM.TD ;SR.TD;SR.TD;SR.R 0 to 2 M : v-x. ? O LeguminosaeR 0 to 2 M : v-x. ? O LeguminosaeO 0 to 2M : v ;vii ; x.? PLythraceae;Moraceae;India to Malaysia. RM. SR. O 0 to 2 S : vi. ? M DipterocarpaceaeHimalaya to S.W.China.West Himalayanendemic.HimalayaSM. ? V ? S : v. ? ? ?NA ; LO. SE. O 0 to 2NA.SE ;SR.O 0 to 2M : v-vi ;x ; xii-i.M : iii-vi ;x ; xii-i.? M Fagaceae? OFagaceae;DipterocarpaceaeHimalaya to Japan NA. SE. A 0 to 2 S : v-vi. ? O FagaceaeIndia to Sulawesi. NA. TD. O 0 to 2 M : vii. ? O Leguminosae.India to PhilippinesNA ; ?RM.TD ;SR.Himalayan. NA ; LO. SE. C 0 to 2Himalaya to Java.Himalaya to Indo-China.Himalaya to Indo-ChinaLO.TD ;SE.O 1 to 2 M : iv-x. ? PB : iv-v ;viii.? ? ?Dioscoreaceae;SmilacaceaeV 0 to 2 S: vii- viii. ? O LoranthaceaeNA ; LO. SE. V ? ? O Loranthaceae.NA ; LO. SE. R 1 to 2B : iii-iv ;vi-viii.India to Malaysia. NA ; LO. SE. R 1 to 2 B : iv ; ix-x. ? ?O? ?O Loranthaceae.Coriariaceae;Bombacaceae.India to S.E. Asia. NA; LO. SE. V 1 to 2 B : x ? ?P Coriariaceae.Himalaya to Indo-China.Himalaya to Indo-China.India to AustraliaIndia to Myanmar.NA ; LO. SE. R 0 to 2 M : iv-x. ? O OrchidaceaeNA ; LO. TD. V 0 to 2 S : iv-v. ? O OrchidaceaeG ; NA.G ; NA.TD ;SR.TD ;SR.India to Australia. NA; LO. SE. A 0 to 2India to S.E. Asia.NA.SE;TD.O 0 to 2 M : v-x. ? PO 0 to 2 B : vii-ix. ? PB : iv-vi ;ix-x.? PA 0 to 2 M : iv-xi. ? PLythraceae;Sapindaceae; etc.Euphorbiaceae ;Lythraceae; etc.Combretaceae;Myrtaceae;Sapindaceae; etc.Caprifoliaceae;Leguminosae; etc.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2857–28742867

Protected fauna of Jones EstateP. Smetacek1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10208. Rapalapheretima petosirisHewitsonHimalaya to Borneo.LO.TD ;SR.O 0 to 2 B: iv- v. ? PAnacardiaceae;Myrtaceae; etc.209. Rapala iarbusFruhstorfer210. Rapala nissaKollar211. Sinthusachandrana Moore212. Sinthusa nasakapallidior FruhstorferHESPERIIDAEIndia to the SundaIslands.Himalaya to China,Malaysia.NA.TD;SR.O 0 to 2M : iv-v ;vii-xi.? PNA. SE. A 0 to 2 M : v-xii. ? PAnacardiaceae;Leguminosae; etc.Leguminosae;Rosaceae; etc.Himalaya. NA ; LO. SE. V ? B : iv ; ix. ? O Rosaceae.Himalaya toMalaysia.NA ; LO. SE. V ? S : iv-v. ? ? ?213. Hasora chromuschromus CramerIndia to Australia.NA.SR ;TD.R 2B : vi ;viii-ix.? PEuphorbiaceae;Leguminosae; etc.214. Bibasisoedipodea belesisMabille215. Bibasis anadi deNicéville216. Bibasis senaMoore217. BadamiaexclamationisFabricius218. Choaspesbenjaminii japonicaMurray219. Celaenorrhinuspero pero de Nicéville220. Celaenorrhinusleucocera leucoceraKollar221. Celaenorrhinusmunda munda Moore222. Celaenorrhinuspulomaya Moore223. Lobocla lilianaignatius Plotz224. Tagiadeslitigiosa litigiosaMoschler225. Tagiades japetusravi Moore226.Pseudocoladenia danfatih Kollar227. Sarangesadasahara Moore228. Sarangesapurendra purendraMoore229. Caprona alidayerburyi Evans230. Spialia galbaFabricius231. Suastus gremiusFabricius232. Aeromachusstigmata Moore233. Notocryptafeisthamelii alysosMoore2868Himalaya to Chinaand Indo-ChinaHimalaya to Indo-ChinaIndia to thePhilippines.India to Australia.Himalaya to Chinaand Japan.NA ; ?SM. TD. V 2 to 3 B : i ; iii. ? ? CombretaceaeNA; LO. SE. A 0B: v-vi ;viii-ix.? ? ?NA ; LO. SE. R ?2 M : v-ix. ? ?NA.SR ;TD.R 3B : iv ;viii-ix.? PNA; ?SM. SE. V 2 M : iii – ix.. ? PHimalaya. NA ; LO. SE. R 0 to 2B : iv-vi ;viii.? ? ?Combretaceae;MalphigiaceaeCombretaceae;Moraceae; etc.Sabiaceae;Meliosmaceae.India to Indo-China. NA. SE. A 0 to 2 M : iv-x. ? O AcanthaceaeHimalaya. NA ; LO. SE. R 0 to 2 M : iv- ix. ? ? ?Himalaya. NA ; LO. SE. R 0 to 2 ?S: iv. ? ? ?W. Himalaya. NA. SE. C 0 to 2 B : v-vi ; x. ? ? ?LeguminosaeHimalaya to China.Himalaya to Indo-China.India to Malaysia.India to Malaysia.India.NA.SE ;TD.C 0 to 2 ?S : ix. ? O Dioscoreaceae.NA ; ?RM. ?TD. V ? M : iv-x. ? O Dioscoreaceae.NA.NA.NA.SE ;TD ;S.S ;SE ;TD.S ;SE ;TD.C 0 to 2 B : iv-v ; x. ? O Amaranthaceae.C 0 to 2 M : v-xi. ? O AcanthaceaeC 0 to 2M : iii-vi ;ix-x? ?M Acanthaceae.India to China. SM. ? V ?2 to 3 M : v-xi. ? ? ?India to Myanmar.NA.S ;G ;SE.O 0 to 2 B : iv-v ; x. ? ? ?India to China. NA. S; G. O 0 to 2 M : vi-x. ? ? ?HimalayanNA.SE;S.A 0 to 2 S : v. ? O GraminaeIndia to Malaysia. NA. SE. O 1 to 2 B: v; viii. ? O Zingiberaceae.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2857–2874

Protected fauna of Jones EstateP. Smetacek234. Notocryptacurvifascia Felder &Felder235. Erionota torusEvans236. Matapa ariaMoore1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10237. Taractroceradanna Moore238. Ampittiadioscoridesdioscorides Fabricius239. Udaspes folusCramer.240. Pelopidasassamensis Wood-Mason & de Nicéville241. Pelopidasmathias Fabricius242. Polytremislubricans Herrich-Schaeffer243. Polytremis eltolaHewitsonIndia to Malaysia. NA. SE. O 1 to 2 B: iv-vi. ? PHimalaya toMalaysia.India to thePhilippines.NA.SE;TD.R 0 to 2 B : iii ; ix-x ? PCostaceae;Zingiberaceae;Musaceae.Musaceae;PlamaeSM. ?SR. V ? M : iii. ? O Graminae.India. NA. S; G. O 0 to 2 S : v-vi. ? ? ?Graminae.India to Myanmar. SM. S; G. O 1 to 2 S: viii. ? O GraminaeIndia to Malaysia G; NA. S; G. O 1 to 2 B : iv-ix ? PZingiberaceae;Liliaceae;Loganiaceae.India to Malaysia. NA. SE. R 1 to 2 M : ii-xi. ? O GraminaeIndia to China.NA.SE ;S.A 0 to 2 M : iii-xi. ? PIndia to Sulawesi. NA. SE. V ? B: iv; ix. ? ? ?India to Malaysia.NA.S;SE.Graminae,Leguminosae,PalmaeO 0 to 2 S : ix-x. ? O Graminae.permission from Mattoni (1990) and Mattoni &Vannucci (2008), for which I am grateful.The information recorded in Table 1 regardingvoltinism is based on specimens recorded or bred,while the information regarding diapause is based onbreeding experiments by Fred Smetacek Sr. and theauthor.WATERSHED FUNCTIONSBoth the Bhimtal and Sattal lake systems dependlargely on subsurface water from this watershed tosustain them. This fact was acknowledged by Atkinson(1882) in the words, “The hills on the western sideof the [Bhimtal] lake [i.e. present day Jones Estate]are considerably higher than on the east, and are ofsuch formation that it is highly improbable that thelake can ever dry up.” Of course, back then, it wasimprobable that Mr. Atkinson could even conceive ofthe present threat of urbanization facing Bhimtal ingeneral and Jones Estate in particular (Image 3).Today, one lake of the system, Kuatal, has actuallydried up during the last decade. With regard to Kuatal,the only thing that has changed during the past 30 yearsis that the Himalayan Oak forest in its catchment areain Jones Estate has been severely degraded (Image 4).In the wake of nearly unprecedented rain during Julyand September 2010, Kuatal filled twice for the firsttime in over 60 years. A photograph from around 1890(Image 5) shows the area as it apparently used to beand Image 6 shows Kuatal when it was full in 2010.The loss of Kuatal is not recognized by any level ofGovernment. Government maps used by the LakesDevelopment Authority and other Governmentaldepartments do not even have a lake marked at thespot.The only over-ground feeder for any of the lakes,is a small stream that rises on the Aru Plain north ofBhimtal and enters the northern end of Bhimtal aftera course of roughly 3km, of which nearly 1km isunderground. This stream entirely dried up for twomonths between May 2012 and July 2012, for thefirst time in history. This is an extremely worrisomedevelopment since the prospect of Bhimtal lakebecoming seasonal in the coming years is a very realprobability. For the first time, too, water supply fromBhimtal Lake to Haldwani City was extended from 15–30 June 2012 by the State Irrigation Department due tothe lack of alternate water resources to supply the city.In addition to the subsurface springs feeding the lakes,there are two over-ground water springs on the easternJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2857–28742869

Protected fauna of Jones EstateP. SmetacekTable 2. Annotated list of wildlife included in the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 and subsequent notificationsrecorded in Jones Estate since 1974.SCHEDULE 1Mammals1) 16B Leopard (Panthera pardus): regular visitor. Jones Estate forms an integral part of the home range.2) 17. Leopard Cat (Felis bengalensis): often seen.3) 31A: Serow (Capricornis sumatraensis): last recorded in Jones Estate on 7 November 2011.Birds4) 2. Cheer Pheasant (Catreus wallichi): a group of 4 sighted repeatedly during 1984 to 1986 near the highest point of the Estate, Thalla Ridge.5) 6. Lammergeyer (Gypaetus barbatus): often seen over the Estate during the daytime.6) 7. Large Falcons (Falco peregrinus): often seen flying about the Estate.7) 22. Kalij Pheasant (Lophura leucomelas): at least 70 individuals in over 14 parties resident on the Estate. The number greatly increases after thebreeding season.Butterflies8) Horaga albimacula: (=Horaga albimacula viola) found on the Estate in spring.9) Listeria dudgeoni; (=Pamela dudgeoni): one record from March 1974.10) Nacaduba noreia hampsoni (=Prosotas noreia hampsoni): resident population. Several favoured sites. A common butterfly in June.11) Hypolimnas misippus: singletons recorded. A male last recorded in October 2010.SCHEDULE 2Mammals1) Common Langur (Presbytis entellus): several resident parties of up to 25 individuals each.2) Rhesus Macaque (Macaca mulatta): several resident parties totaling roughly 80 individuals which greatly increases during the monsoon months.Butterflies3) Dodona dipoea: recorded in Jones Estate.4) Libythea lepita: well established, common resident.5) Bibasis sena: resident. Rare.6) Chliaria kina: used to be common before macaques pulled off all orchids, its larval foodplants, from trees during the late 1990s. Now present inreduced numbers.7) Euchrysops cnejus: common in large numbers, especially during the spring migrations and in winter.8) Horaga onyx: well established resident in several discrete populations.9) Lampides boeticus: swarms in spring. In smaller numbers the rest of the year.10) Poritia hewitsoni: a few individuals of this low elevation butterfly recorded over the years.11) Pratapa deva: one record of a male from Sattal, May 1990; another male in 1994.11) Rapala varuna: a common, well established butterfly on the Estate.12) Spindasis nipalicus: a common, well established species. Jones Estate holds the densest known population of this butterfly.13) Tajuria diaeus: single record of a male, 1974.14) Tajuria illurgis: two stable populations in Jones Estate.15) Thecla ataxus ataxus (=Thermozephyrus ataxus ataxus): a pair recorded on the western border of the Estate in October1980.16) Thecla ziha (=Euaspa ziha): extremely common in some years. Jones Estate holds one of three known populations of this butterfly and probablythe largest one.17) Diagora persimilis (=Hestina persimilis): the only known population of this butterfly in Uttarakhand is in Jones Estate, where it is quite common.18) Eriboea dolon (=Polyura dolon): stragglers from higher elevation recorded.19) Euripus consimilis: present in small numbers.20) Hypolimnas misippus: stragglers from lower elevation stay for a few days, patrolling a beat.21) Limenitis danava (=Auzakia danava): a resident. Small numbers regularly seen every year.22) Neptis zaida: the only known population in Nainital district. Two other populations are known, one in the main range and one in Garhwal.23) Pantoporia asura asura (=Athyma asura): single record from Jones Estate in October 1969.24) Symbrenthia niphanda: small numbers recorded over the year. Apparently quite rare. Seen sporadically.25) Metaporia agathon (=Aporia agathon) a common resident but several populations of this butterfly on the Estate have been wiped out recently duedirectly to destruction of its larval hostplant, Berberis sp.26) Elymnias malelas nilamba: resident population. Common in some years. Population greatly diminished over most of the Estate due to habitatchange.27) Erebia hyagriva (=Dallacha hyagriva): common resident.28) Mycalesis heri: a common resident species.Mammals29) Civets (Viverridae):Common Palm Civet (Paradoxurus hermaphroditus) a pest on cultivated fruit including mulberries.30) Civets (Viverridae): Himalayan Palm Civet (Paguma larvata): common on cultivated fruit.31) Flying Squirrel: Petaurista petaurista: common but eradicated from most parts of the Estate during the last 20 years due to habitat destruction.32) Himalayan Black Bear (Selenarctos thibetanus): occasional winter visitor in severe winters. Last personally seen in 1986 but there have beensubsequent reports of this animal on the Estate.33) Jackal (Canis aureus): common. At least one resident family.34) Martens (Martes flavigula): commonly seen, especially in winter.35) Otters (Lutra sp.): one species steals all fish from fish ponds in the area. Probably common otter.36) Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes): regular winter visitor. Sightings usually between December to March, but one individual seen in May 2009.37) Weasels: Himalayan yellow-bellied weasel (Mustela kathiah): a pair resident for a few months in summer 2002Reptiles and Amphibians38) Varanus species: Monitor Lizard: a few individuals reside on the Estate.39) Indian Cobra (Naja naja): resident: last seen in September 2010 at the Butterfly Research Centre, Jones Estate.2870Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2857–2874

Protected fauna of Jones EstateP. SmetacekImage 3. Looking west over Bhimtal Lake, showing ongoingurbanization on Jones Estate watershed in January 2012.Image 4. Kuatal catchment in the background, showingdegraded broadleaf forest when Kuatal filled for the firsttime in living memory July 2010.Image 5. Kuatal, circa 1890.face of the watershed and three on its western face. Inaddition, there are several sub surface springs on thelake beds of both lake systems. Of the over-groundsprings, both eastern face springs used to be perennialbut one is now almost seasonal, with its flow reducedto a thin trickle during the dry season. Similarly, allof the three western-face springs, which used to beperennial, are seasonal today, due, presumably, todepleted Oak forest in the catchment areas of thesesprings. It is clear that as long as the Oak forest was ingood condition, the springs were perennial. Changesto the Oak forest ecosystem in the form of the largescale drying up of trees due to forest fires, destructionof the canopy due to lopping for fodder, cutting oftrees, etc were reflected in reduced flow during the dryseason and increased flow, sometimes even formingnew outlets, during the wet season.Image 6. Kuatal when it filled in July 2010 for the first timein living memory.DISCUSSIONThe Jones Estate watershed separates two lakesystems which together constitute five perenniallakes and several seasonal ones. These lakes are aninestimably valuable resource of drinking qualitywater for future generations. However, with theurbanization of the Jones Estate watershed, their futurelooks uncertain, especially the Sattal lake system,which has no over-ground tributaries and a very smallcatchment area.Of the 400+ species of butterflies known fromUttarakhand (Mackinnon & de Nicéville 1899;Hannyngton 1910, 1915; Smetacek 1987, 1992,1993a, 1995, 1999, 2001, 2002, in press b, unpub. data;Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2857–28742871

Protected fauna of Jones EstateSingh 2003, 2005, 2005a, 2006, 2007), 243 species ofbutterflies (Annexure 1) and approximately 550 speciesof macro-moths (Smetacek 2008, 2009) have beenrecorded from the Jones Estate watershed. This maybe compared with the entire Indian Peninsula, whichis home to 330 species of butterflies (Gaonkar 1996)and an undetermined number of moth species.Forty nine species of wildlife included in theSchedules of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act, 1972have been recorded on the watershed (Table 2), yeteven this impressive figure is not enough to preventthe ongoing destruction of this forest ecosystem.Of special interest is the record of Lister’sHairstreak Pamela dudgeoni de Nicéville (=Listeriadudgeoni) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in March 1974in Jones Estate. This butterfly was known fromSikkim (Type locality: specimen described in 1894)and Mussoorie (Evans 1932). Wynter-Blyth (1957)noted a specimen from Siuni camping ground nearRanikhet in Kumaon. The single specimen wasrecorded in 1909 and is currently in the collection ofthe Natural History Museum, London. It has not beenrecorded from Sikkim since the type was reportedand was evidently recorded from Mussoorie between1899 and 1932, since Mackinnon & de Nicéville(1899) do not report it. The male specimen onwhose basis Evans (1932) reported it from 1829m(6000ft) elevation in Mussooorie is currently in thecollection of the Forest Research Institute, Dehradun.Sidhu (2011) has reported the substantial loss of habitatfor the Lycaenidae in Mussoorie. It is almost certainthat Pamela dudgeoni will not be found in that areanow. This leaves Jones Estate as the only known habitatwhere this extremely rare butterfly has been recordedrecently. The genus is monobasic and was believedto be confined to the Himalaya (Varshney 1997;2010) although Inayoshi (1996–2011) has reported itfrom Thailand. It is not improbable that the ongoingdestruction of the insect’s habitat in Jones Estate willresult in the global extinction of the species.Besides this, Jones Estate is one of three knownlocalities for Euaspa ziha de Nicéville (Lepidoptera:Lycaenidae) (P. Smetacek unpub. data); one of twoknown localities for Neptis miah varshneyi Smetacek;one of two known localities for Comostola hauensteiniSmetacek (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) (Smetacek2002). It supports one of the two known populationsof Hestina persimilis Westwood in UttarakhandP. Smetacek(Schedule 2, Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972)(P. Smetacek unpub. data).Populations of most butterfly species listed inTables 1 and 2 are now concentrated around theButterfly Research Centre, due to the destruction ofhabitat in other parts of the Estate, prior to the processof building houses. However, the area where thesebutterfly and moth species are now confined is verysmall and the possibility that they become locallyextripated from the Estate in the near future is a veryreal probability.The only way to have prevented the ongoingdestruction and to stabilize the Bhimtal and Sattallake systems as a drinking water resource for futuregenerations would be, as earlier, to ban the constructionof houses, resorts and cottages on the Estate. However,lacking Governmental will to do so, the future outlookfor this watershed is bleak from the point of viewof insect communities, water resources, the existingforest ecosystems and especially for the residents ofthe areas downstream, who might have relied upon theBhimtal and Sattal lakes for a dependable supply ofdrinking quality water.RECOMMENDATIONSIf competent decision making bodies make thefollowing decisions and ensure their implementation,the gravity of the situation outlined above can bereduced or reversed in the long term:1. Re-declare Jones Estate a Green Belt, with thearea extended to include the area outlined in Fig. 1.2. Establish a competent Central Governmentcommittee to look into the implementation of existinglaws, especially the Forest Conservation Act, 1980and the bylaws of the Lakes Development Authority,in Jones Estate, and break down illegal constructionsto restore the status quo ante.3. Ban the keeping of cattle and goats within thejurisdiction of the Bhimtal Town Area Committeein the same way this is banned within the NainitalMunicipal Area.Extrapolating the results of the above findings tothe catchment area of Bhimtal and Sattal lake systemsis not difficult, since the areas are contiguous andwithin the same altitudinal limits.2872Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2857–2874

Protected fauna of Jones EstateIf the Bhimtal and Sattal lakes systems are to bestabilized in the long term, then the following pointsmay be taken into consideration:1. An immediate ban be put into effect onconstruction of roads, houses and commercialestablishments within the catchment areas of Bhimtaland Sattal lakes, i.e. extending from the CatholicChurch in Bhowali, east along the crest line toGhorakhal, thence along the ridges to the hamlet ofBinayak, south along the crest of Karkot and thencewest to Bohrakoon hamlet, then further west to SuriyaGaon and northwards along the crest of Hidamba(Hirrup) to the crest of Hatchhina and thence againfollowing the line of crests to the Catholic Church inBhowali. The same provisions as applied in Nainitalor Mussoorie Municipalities regarding construction bemade applicable within this area.2. Within this area, so as not to alienate residents,a provision be made to permit residents for at leasttwo generations (i.e. 40 years) to construct additionalhousing for extended families or build commercialestablishments for a source of family income. Theverification for this may be made sensible but strictso that lower officials do not consider the possibilityof issuing fake reports or certificates, as the case maybe.3. A ban on cattle and goat breeding be implementedwithin the jurisdiction of the Bhimtal Town AreaCommittee, on the same lines as that in force withinNainital Cantonment and Municipality.4. A ban on free range grazing by cattle within thecatchment area, to be enforced by concerned agencies,i.e. Forest Department and Van Panchayats.5. A wood depot be set up in Bhimtal so thatresidents are able to purchase fuel legally, as in othersmall towns throughout Kumaon.6. If necessary, one or more fodder depot(s) be setup in the higher reaches of the catchment area, eg. inFarsoli, to cater to the needs of villages in that area andreduce dependence on lopping forest trees.All these recommendations are well within thescope of the Government, require no extra funds andwill have to be implemented in due course in theBhimtal Valley in any case. If it is done now, thenthe action will come into force before the damage isirreversible, unlike Nainital and Mussoorie, wherethe bans came into effect after the damage had beendone.REFERENCESP. SmetacekAnonymous (2006). The Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972. NatrajPublishers, Dehra Dun, 235pp.Anonymous (2010). District rainfall for last 5 years. District:Nainital. Hydromet Division. India MeteorologicalDepartment.http://www.imd.gov.in/section/hydro/distrainfall/webrain/uttarakhand/nainital.txt. Accessed on21 July 2010.Atkinson, E.T. (1882). The Himalayan Districts of the NorthWest Provinces of India. Vol. 2, Chapter 2. Zoology(Invertebrata).Government Press, Allahabad, 87–266pp.Evans, W.H. (1932). The Identification of Indian Butterflies.2nd Edition. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay,10+454pp+32pls.Gaonkar, H. (1996). Butterflies of the Western Ghats, Indiaincluding Sri Lanka. A Biodiversity Assessment of AThreatened Mountain System. Centre for EcologicalSciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore; ZoologicalMuseum, Copenhagen and the Natural History Museum,London, 89pp.Hannyngton, F. (1910). The butterflies of Kumaon. Journalof the Bombay Natural History Society 20: 130–142; 361–372.Hannyngton, F. (1915). Kumaon Butterflies. Journal of theBombay Natural History Society 24(1): 197.Inayoshi, Y. (1996–2011). A Check List of Butterflies in Indo-China, page on Family Lycaenidae http://yutaka.it-n.jp/lyc4/81565001.html (accessed on 09 February 2012).Mackinnon, P.W. & L. de Nicéville (1899). List of butterfliesof Mussoorie in the Western Himalayas and neighbouringregions. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 11:205–221, 368–389, 585–605.Mattoni, R. (1990). Butterflies of Greater Los Angeles.Lepidoptera Research Foundation, Beverly Hills, 1–20pp.Mattoni, R. & N. Vannucci (2008). Garden Butterflies ofBuenos Aires. Lepidoptera Research Foundation, BeverlyHills, 1–24pp.Osmaston, A.E. (1927). A Forest Flora for Kumaon.Government Press, Allahabad, 34+605pp.Robinson, G.S., P.R. Ackery, I.J. Kitching, G.W. Beccaloni& L. Hernandez (2001). Hostplants of The Moth andButterfly Caterpillars of The Oriental Region. The NaturalHistory Museum, London and Southdene Sdn. Bht., KualaLumpur, 744pp.Sidhu, A.K. (2011). Changing biodiversity scenario in theHimalayan ecosystem: Mussoorie, Uttarakhand, Indiaas revealed by the study of blue butterflies (Lycaenidae).Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(2): 1559–1563.Singh, A.P. (2003). Distribution range extension of bush hopperbutterfly, Ampittia dioscorides Fabricius (Lepidoptera:Hesperidae) into the lower western Himalayas. IndianForester 129(8): 1046–1048.Singh, A.P. (2005). Initial colonization of Red Pierrot butterfly,Talicada nyseus nyseus Guerin (Lycaenidae) in the lowerwestern Himalayas: an indicator of the changing environment.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2857–28742873

Protected fauna of Jones EstateCurrent Science 89: 41–42.Singh, A.P. (2005a). Recent records on thedistribution, seasonality and occurrence of Redspotbutterfly, Zesius chrysomallus Hübner from the lowerwestern Himalayas. Journal of the Bombay Natural HistorySociety 102(2): 238–239.Singh, A.P. (2006). Range extension of BrownGorgon butterfly, Meandrusa gyas gyas Westwoodinto Kedarnath Musk Deer Reserve, Western Himalayas: Alesser known species from north-east India. Indian Forester132(12a): 187–189.Singh, A.P. (2007). A new butterfly species of the genusYpthima Hübner (Nymphalidae: Satyrinae) from GarhwalHimalaya, India. Journal of the Bombay Natural HistorySociety 104(2): 191–194.Smetacek, P. (1987). A new type of mimicry in butterflies.Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society: 83: 471.Smetacek, P. (1992). Record of Plebejus eversmanni(Staudinger) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) from India. Journalof the Bombay Natural History Society 89: 385–386.Smetacek, P. (1993). Towards the Re-habilitationof Indian rivers. Report submitted to TimesFellowship Council, New Delhi, 53pp.Smetacek, P. (1993a). Neptis cartica Moore (Lepidoptera:Nymphalidae) in the U.P. Himalaya. Journal of the BombayNatural History Society 90: 527–528.Smetacek, P. (1994). An annotated list of the Hawkmoths(Lepidoptera: Sphingidae) of Kumaon, North India: aprobable case of faunal drift. Records of the ZoologicalSurvey of India. Occasional Paper 156: 1–55.Smetacek, P. (1995). A new altitudinal and range record forthe Copper Flash Butterfly Rapala pheretimus Hewitson(Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Journal of the Bombay NaturalHistory Society 92: 127–128.Smetacek, P. (1999). The distribution and ecology of Polyuraagraria Swinhoe (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in India.Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 96: 487–488.Smetacek, P. (2001). Resolution of the controversial westernlimit of the range of Delias acalis Godart (Lepidoptera:Pieridae). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society98: 298–300.Smetacek, P. (2002). The genus Pontia Fabricius (Lepidoptera:Pieridae) in the Kumaon Himalaya. Journal of the BombayNatural History Society 99: 224–231.P. SmetacekSmetacek, P. (2004). Descriptions of new Lepidoptera from theKumaon Himalaya. Journal of the Bombay Natural HistorySociety 101: 269–276.Smetacek, P. (2004). On the occurrence of Marumba cristataButler (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae) in Shimla, HimachalPradesh, India. Journal of the Bombay Natural HistorySociety 101: 171–172.Smetacek, P. (2005). The Epipleminae (Lepidoptera: Uraniidae)of the Kumaon Himalaya. Journal of the Bombay NaturalHistory Society 102: 186–194.Smetacek, P. (2008). Moths recorded from different elevationsin Nainital district, Kumaon Himalaya, India. Bionotes10(1): 5–15.Smetacek, P. (2009). Additions and corrections to the list ofmoths recorded from different elevations in Nainital district,Kumaon Himalaya, India. Bionotes 11(4): 117–118.Smetacek, P. (2010a). A new species of Ceryx Wallengren(Lepidoptera: Arctiidae) from the Kumaon Himalaya.Journal of Threatened Taxa 2(5): 894–895.Smetacek, P. (2010b). Climate Change and HimalayanLepidoptera. Abstract Book. International Workshop onMountain Biodiversity and Impacts of Climate Change withspecial reference to Himalayan Biodiversity Hotspot. G.B.Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development,Kosi-Katarma, Almora, 130–134pp.Smetacek, P. (2011a). Four new Lycaenid records from theKumaon Himalaya, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(2):1555–1558.Smetacek, P. (2011b). A review of West Himalayan Neptini(Lepidoptera: Nympalidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists’Society 65(3): 153–161.Special Correspondent (2001). Permission for constructionin Bhimtal’s Green Belt a mistake: Government acceptsonus in State Assembly.(in Hindi) Amar Ujala newspaperfor January 18, 2001 Dehra Dun Edition, page 1 lead story,continued on page 2. (Bhimtal ki harit patti kshetra meinnirman ki anumati galat: Sarkar nay Vidhan Sabha meinsweekar kiya).Varshney, R.K. (1997). Index Rhopalocera Indica Part III.Genera of Butterflies from India and neighbouring Countries[Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae]. Oriental Insects 31: 83–138.Varshney, R.K. (2010). Genera of Indian Butterflies. NatureBooks India, New Delhi, 186pp.Wynter-Blyth, M.A. (1957). Butterflies of the Indian Region.Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay, 20+523pp.+72pls.2874Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2857–2874

JoTT Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(9): 2875–2882Evaluation of macrobenthic fauna in hill streamenvironment of Western Himalaya, IndiaIndu Sharma 1 & Rani Dhanze 21Zoological Survey of India, High Altitude Regional Centre, Solan, Himachal Pradesh 173211, India2Department of Fisheries, COVAS, CSKHPKV, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh 176062, IndiaEmail: 1 induzsi@gmail.com (corresponding author), 2 rdhanze@yahoo.co.inDate of publication (online): 26 August 2012Date of publication (print): 26 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Editor: Humphrey SmithManuscript details:Ms # o2725Received 07 March 2011Final received 27 June 2012Finally accepted 02 July 2012Citation: Sharma, I. & R. Dhanze (2012).Evaluation of macrobenthic fauna in hill streamenvironment of Western Himalaya, India. Journalof Threatened Taxa 4(9): 2875–2882.Copyright: © Indu Sharma & Rani Dhanze 2012.Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 UnportedLicense. JoTT allows unrestricted use of thisarticle in any medium for non-profit purposes,reproduction and distribution by providingadequate credit to the authors and the sourceof publication.Author Details: Ind u Sh a r m a is a Scientist inthe Zoological Survey of India, HARC, Solan(Himachal Pradesh). Her field of specializationis Fish and Fisheries. She is at present engagedin ecological, taxonomy and systematic offreshwater fishes.Ran i Dh a n z e is Professor in Department ofFisheries, COVAS, CSKHPKV, Palampur,Himachal Pradesh. Her field of specialization isFish and Fisheries. She is at present engagedin ecological, taxonomy and systematic of freshwater fishes.Author Contribution: The study: Both authorsconducted the present study. Current paper:IS worked out for the frame work of paper andwriting of mss; RD worked out for the writingand statical analysis of the mss.Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful toDr. K. Venkataraman, Director, Zoological Surveyof India, Kolkata and Dr. A.K. Sidhu, Offiicerin-charge,HARC, Zological Survey of India,Solan (H.P.) for facilities and encouragement.We are thankful to State Council for Scienceand Technology and Environment, Shimla andDirector-cum-chief Warden Fisheries, Bilaspur(H.P.) for financial grant to conduct the study. Weare also thankful to Dean College of Veterinaryand Animal Science, CSKHPKV, Palampur forthe facilities. The authors are thankful to thereviewers for useful suggestions.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADAbstract: The purpose of this study is to evaluate seasonal occurrence of macrobenthicfauna in the tributaries of river Beas. The seasonal diversity of macrobenthicfauna was calculated in relation with physico-chemical parameters which revealed thatbenthic diversity is largely controlled by temperature, water current and volume of water.The width and depth of the streams exhibited an inverse relation with benthic fauna. Aninverse relation between temperature and benthos was recorded at the sites located athigher elevation whereas a direct relation was inferred at the lower elevation. The peakof benthic fauna was recorded during winter season at all sampling sites. The benthicfauna was mainly represented by eight groups out of which four are highly distributedat all the sites among which Ephemeroptera were most dominating taxa in the River.Simple correlations were applied for benthos and abiotic factors, which revealedthat water temperature, dissolved oxygen, alkalinity, depth and width influenced theinvertebrate’s distribution and abundance.Keywords: Abundance, altitude, benthos, species diversity.INTRODUCTIONThe benthic fauna forms an important source of food for fish andexhibits a remarkable diversification in their assemblage and life cyclesespecially in upland waters. It is mainly influenced by the abiotic factorsand helps significantly in the estimation of the production potential ofaquatic ecosystem. It converts the organic detritus into invertebratebiomass, which provide direct food energy to the fishes. Though anappreciable amount of literature on benthic fauna is available from freshwater of Indian subcontinent (Singh & Singh 1996; Srivastava & Singh1996; Singh 1997; Srivastava & Desai 1997), works reported from uplandwaters of Himachal Pradesh are scattered in nature (Sehgal 1983; Kumar1987; Dhanze et al. 1998, 2001). The hill streams comprise many subhabitats from rapids to slow flowing, which influence the diversity ofbenthic fauna. Thus, the present study attempts to determine the seasonaldistribution of macro benthic fauna in different tributaries of Beas drainagesystem as it contains diversified fish fauna.MATERIAL AND METHODSThe five snow-fed northern tributaries of Beas drainage systemwere selected for the present study from 2007 to 2008. A total of 20sampling sites (Fig.1) were selected, three on Dehar stream (Kotla,360msl; Dehar bridge, 340msl and Har Village, 300msl), three on Gaj(Rajol, 550msl; Lunj, 340msl and Jarpal-Bassa 240msl), six on BannerJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August | 4(9): 2875–28822875

Macrobenthic fauna of western HimalayaI. Sharma & R. Dhanze1. Kotla2. Dehar Bridge3. Har Village4. Rajol5. Lunj6. Jarpal-Bassa7. Manjhi8. Chamunda9. Saddar10. Bathoo11. Tripal12. Haripur13. Parour14. Punner15. Thural16. Sehal17. Majharna18. Langu19. Chobu20. TriveniFigure 1. Sampling sites in the streams of Beas River(Chamunda, 900msl; Manjhi, 600msl; Saddar,490msl; Bathoo, 275msl; Tripal, 250msl and Haripur,210msl), three on Neugal (Parour, 800msl; Punner,650msl; Thural, 350msl) and five on Binwa (Sehl,890msl; Langu, 810msl; Majharna, 790msl; Chobu,540msl and Triveni, 390msl). These sites are locatedbetween upstream and its confluence with Beas andsampling was done in every month from March 2007to February 2008. Benthos, mud and stone sampleswere collected by dredging one square meter area andwere sieved through a metallic gauge and transferredto enameled trays for sorting and separation ofindividual organisms from debris and stones. Thefaunal elements were fixed in 4% formalin for furtherinvestigations. Identification of benthic organisms isbased on the publications of Ward & Whipple (1959)and of Subramanian & Shivaramakrishnan (2005).The abiotic factors pH, dissolved oxygen, free carbondioxide, alkalinity, hardness, chloride were estimatedby following standard methods APHA (1985) andsimple product-moment correlation was applied forbenthos and abiotic factors. Simpson’s diversity index(1949) was applied for calculation of species richnessand species diversity. Data were analyzed statisticallyby calculating correlation coefficients (r) and applyingstudent t test at 5% level of significance.RESULTSDehar StreamThe maximum number of individuals per squaremeter of water was reported during winter except atKotla (Fig. 2). The lowest population was reportedduring rainy season due to change of substratum. Thedominating group was Ephemeroptera which showedits existence throughout the year with few exceptionsand it varied from 28.8 to 88% of total benthos at varioussites of this stream (Fig. 3). The next dominating groupwas Diptera, reported throughout the study period andthe percentage of this group varies from 13 to 52%of total benthos at different sampling sites. The peak2876Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2875–2882

Macrobenthic fauna of western HimalayaI. Sharma & R. Dhanze500450400350300250200150100River DeharWinter Summer Rainy 500450400350300250200150100500River Gaj GajWinter Summer Rainy50Rajol Lunj Jarpal-Bassa0Kotla Har village Dehar Bridge700River Banner600500400River NeugalWinter Summer Rainy600500400300Winter SummerRainy3002002001000100Chamunda Manjhi Saddar Batthoo Tripal Haripur0Parour Punner Thural600500River Binwa400Winter Summer Rainy300200100Figure 2. Seasonal variation of macrobenthic fauna in different tributaries of river Beas0Sehal Majharna Langu Chobu Trivenipopulation of Diptera was recorded during summerat all the sites, except at Har Village where overallpopulation of this group was also less (Fig. 4.). Theco-dominating group was Trichoptera, its populationwas high (6.5 to 29% of total benthic fauna) duringwinter but was found absent in summer except atKotla. The Coleoptera were mainly noticed duringthe winter season and constituted 0.76 to 24.74% oftotal benthic fauna at Har Village site, but were rareat other two sites. The Odonata were reported onlyfrom Dehar Khud Bridge during rainy season. Thebenthic population of this stream exhibited a positiveand significant correlation with dissolved oxygen (r= +0.88) but negative and statistically non significantcorrelation with water temperature (r = -0.52),alkalinity (r = -0.305), average depth of the stream (r= -0.45) whereas significant correlation with averagewidth of the stream (r = -0.706) and water velocity (r= -0.83) (Table 1).Gaj StreamThe total number of individuals per square meterof water was high during the winter season at all thesites, though Lunj and Rajol were comparatively richin macrobenthic fauna (Fig. 2). The Ephemeropterawas the dominating group and varied from 32 to 80%of total benthos at all the selected sites (Fig. 3). Thisrevealed the richness of Ephemeroptera at Lunj andits maximum was recorded during the summer season,except at Rajol where maxima were noticed duringwinter and rainy seasons. The Diptera were the nextdominating group and varied between 12 to 60% oftotal benthos at all the selected sites (Fig. 4). Thus,it is inferred that Rajol is a polluted site, being rich inJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2875–28822877

Macrobenthic fauna of western HimalayaI. Sharma & R. Dhanze908070605040River GajWinterSummer100908070605040RiverRiverDeharDeharWinter Summer Rainy 303020100908070Rajol Lunj Jarpal-BassaRiver NeugalWinter Summer Rainy2010090807060Kotla Har village Dehar BridgeRiver Banner River BannerWinter Summer Rainy605050403040203010020Chamunda Manjhi Saddar Batthoo Tripal Haripur1090River River Binwa Binwa800Parour Punner Thural70Winter Summer Rainy6050403020100Sehal Majharna Langu Chobu TriveniFigure 3. Seasonal variation in the percentage of Ephemeroptera in different tributaries of river BeasDiptera. The maxima of this group were recorded indifferent seasons at different sites. The Trichoptera,a co-dominating group were reported mainly duringwinter season, except at Rajol, and the populationvaried between 2 to 14.49% of total benthos. Anotherco-dominating group were Coleoptera and thepopulation was also noticed during winter monthsonly except at Lunj. The benthos population of thisstream inferred a positive and significant correlationwith dissolved oxygen (r = +0.82) but negative andsignificant relation with average width of the stream(r = - 0.86) but non significant with water temperature(r = -0.57), alkalinity (r = -0.29), average depth of thestream (r = -0.22) and water velocity (r = -0.52) (Table1).Banner StreamThis stream showed an altitudinal variation in totalnumber of individuals per square meter of water. As aresult the winter peak was noticed upstream, whereasthe summer peak was observed downstream (Fig. 3).The maximum number of individuals was recorded fromBathoo during summer and minimum from Chamundaand Tripal during rainy season. The percentage ofEphemeroptera in total benthic population varied from14.74 to 72.57% of total benthic population at varioussampling sites (Fig. 3). Thus, it depicted richness ofEphemeroptera at Tripal and their maximum numberwas observed in summer at all the sites except atManjhi. The next dominating groups were Dipterawhich vary in relation to total benthic fauna from 7.98to 78.85% of total population of benthos at differentsites (Fig. 4). Further, Chamunda and Manjhi were2878Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2875–2882

Macrobenthic fauna of western HimalayaI. Sharma & R. Dhanze7060River River Gaj Gaj6050River River Dehar Dehar5040Winter Summer Rainy4030WinterSummerRainy302020101000Kotla Har village Dehar Bridge100908070605040Rajol Lunj Jarpal-BassaRiver River NeugalWinter SummerRainy605040302010River River BinwaWinter Summer Rainy30020Sehal Majharna Langu Chobu Triveni100Parour Punner Thural605040River BinwaRiver BinwaWinter Summer Rainy302010Figure 4. Seasonal variation in the percentage of Diptera in different tributaries of river Beas0Sehal Majharna Langu Chobu Triveniricher in Diptera populations and minimum numberswere noticed at Tripal. The maxima of this group werereported during rainy season at all the sites except atChamunda. The Trichoptera, a co-dominating group,were reported almost in all the seasons except at Haripurand Manjhi where their existence was reported duringsummer and winter months respectively. Coleopterawere reported only from Haripur, Saddar and Manjhiin different seasons. Their population was less atHaripur i.e. 1–2 % whereas maxima were noticed atSaddar (1–5.6 %) in winter. Gastropoda were observedin summer season at Saddar and Chamunda, but inwinter and summer at Haripur, and constituted 0.78to 3.4% of total benthic fauna. The Odonata wereseen only at Tripal and Bathoo during winter seasonbut their maximum population was reported fromTripal where it formed 0.16 to 40% of total benthos.The total population of benthos exhibited a positiveand significant correlation with dissolved oxygen (r =+0.62) but non significant with alkalinity (r = +0.46).The negative and significant correlation has beennoticed for average width of the stream (r = -0.86)and water velocity (r = -0.65) whereas non significantrelationship with water temperature (r = -0.15) andaverage depth of the stream (r = -0.51) (Table 1).Neugal StreamThe benthic fauna of this stream showed thehighest population at Parour during winter anddecreasing trends were recorded down stream (Fig.2). Another winter peak was observed at all the sitesexcept at Punner. The lowest number of benthosJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2875–28822879

Macrobenthic fauna of western HimalayaI. Sharma & R. DhanzeTable 1. Abiotic factors of different tributaries of river Beas and their correlation with the benthosParametersWatertemperature 0 CDissolvedoxygen (mg/l)Alkalinity (mg/l)Water velocity(m/s)Avg. depth (cm)Avg. width (m)DeharRangeMeanCorrelationT-STAT13.7–24.319.56-0.518551.917767.8–1310.10.8833065.95834350.3–63.355.81-0.304881.633· -1.831.38-0.835531.0123153.3 – 6255.78-0.458833.1552341.67 – 78.6753.3-0.706324.80879GajRangeMeanCorrelationT-STAT17–25. 321.63-0.573672.214818.2–1510.40.8196754.52498748.67–64.855. 28-0.293490.729120.87–1.91. 34-0.521830.9708565.8 – 90.277. 66-0.224674.908626 – 45.334.85-0.840651.93444BannerRangeMeanCorrelationT-STAT13–22.618.94-0.151810.485697–13.5100.624192.52647238.8–6749.310.4586221.892350.6–2.31.17-0.652051.63204942.5- 92.563. 38-0.513495.4256227 – 4532.85-0.863962.71963NeugalRangeMeanCorrelationT-STAT11–2318.83-0.780683.950438–14.2710.350.8034194.26700628–41.3336.47-0.018022.895470.44–1. 270.77-0.255830.0569819.58- 34.6726.03-0.676091.806914. 3 – 41. 322.56-0.496110.83684BinwaRangeMeanCorrelationT-STAT12.2–24.418.88-0.905066.729758.2–13. 49.460.7966294.16755826. 4–51. 437.480.4212970.676380.68–2.081.12-0.788311.46898922.4 – 43.631.12-0.209164.5723423.2 – 39.829.5-0.822464.05153was recorded during the rainy season at all the sitesbut higher numbers were reported at Punner andlower numbers at Thural in the same season, due todifferences in water velocity and volume of water.The percentage population of Ephemeroptera variedbetween 7.12 to 82% of total benthic fauna at varioussites. The population of Ephemeroptera exhibited anincreasing trend downstream similar to that of riverBanner and the species richness of Ephemeropterawas noted during rainy season at all the sites (Fig. 3).The percentage of Diptera varied between 8 and 90%and a winter peak was observed almost at all the sites(Fig. 4). Trichoptera were mainly noticed during thewinter and constituted 1.13 to 41% of the total benthicpopulation. The minima were recorded at Punner andmaxima at Parour in winter. Though Coleoptera werefound during winter months at all the sites, at Punnertheir presence was noticed during summer also. Thepercentage of population was much less at Parour (0.01to 0.35%) but higher at Punner (0.55 to 3.7%). Thebenthic population of this stream showed a positiveand statistically significant correlation with dissolvedoxygen (r = +0.803) but negative and statisticallysignificant correlation with water temperature (r =-0.78) and average depth of the stream (r = -0.676).Further, negative and non significant correlation wasnoticed with alkalinity (r = -0.02), average width ofthe stream (r = -0.496), and water velocity (r = -0.256)(Table 1).Binwa StreamThe benthic fauna of this river showed a winterpeak at all the selected sites except at Sehal that isupstream. The maximum benthos was collected fromChobu and minimum from Triveni. The increasingtrends of benthic population were noticed downstreamexcept at Triveni due to high water velocity. A winterpeak of Ephemeroptera was noticed at all the selectedsites except at Majharna and Triveni. Its populationvaries between 15 to 80.85% of total benthos at varioussites (Fig. 3). These parameters showed that Chobuand Langu sites were richer in Ephemeroptera. Thenext dominating group was Diptera which showedwinter dominancy at all the sites except at Sehal.The percentage of Diptera in total benthic populationvaried between 12 to 53.5% at different sampling sites(Fig. 4). The Coleoptera, a co-dominating group, werenoticed from Sehal, Majharna and Triveni sites of thisriver and constituted 0.74 to 15.6% of total benthicfauna at different sites and the maxima were observed2880Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2875–2882

Macrobenthic fauna of western Himalayaduring winter at Majharna and minima at Sehal. Thisgroup was reported mainly during winter from all thesites with a few exceptions. Another co-dominatinggroup was Trichoptera which were mainly observedduring summer and winter months from all the sitesand constituted 8.6 to 29.82% of total benthic fauna.The maxima were noticed at Chobu and minima atTriveni. Plecoptera were seen only once at Majharnaduring summer and constituted 1.06% of total benthicfauna. The positive and statistically significantcorrelation has been noticed between total benthos anddissolved oxygen (r = + 0.796629) and alkalinity (r = +0.421297) though negative and statistically significantcorrelation have been reported between benthic faunaand water temperature (r = -0.905), average width ofthe stream (r = -0.822) and water velocity (r = -0.788)(Table 1). The non significant correlation was foundwith alkalinity (r= 0.42) and average depth of thestream (r= -0.20916).DISCUSSIONThe present study reveals that the benthic faunamainly dominates during winter at all the studied sites(except for a few) and lowest numbers were observedduring the rainy season, due to influx of more waterand high water velocity. Pathani & Upadhyay (2006)reported a high percentage of zoo benthos in summer,but in the present study it was evident only for thosesites situated at lower altitudes. Further, they haveI. Sharma & R. Dhanzealso noticed low quantity of zoo benthos in the rainyseason and confirmed the present findings. Thebenthic fauna is mainly represented by eight groupsout of which four are highly distributed at all the sites.The relative abundance of different groups in thedifferent tributaries of Beas exhibited that the relativeabundance of Ephemeroptera are high at Banner andBinwa, while Diptera and Tricopetra are more atNeugal (Table 2). They (Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera,Diptera, Coleoptera) show an Inverse relation withtemperature, when the difference in winter and summertemperature is small, but at lower altitudes, where thedifferences are greater, the relation is direct. Most ofthe sites of River Beas are rich in Ephemeroptera (Fig.3) mainly Baetis and Ephemerella (Har, Lunj, Tripal,Thural, Punner and Chobu). The Ephemeroptera areinhabitants of freshwater, rich in oxygen and associatedwith clean water quality as reported by Emere &Nasiru (2009) and Tonapi (1980). Further, Emere &Nasiru (2009) also reported that Ephemeroptera wererecovered only during the rainy season. This could bedue to dilution during the rains, which caused someimprovement in the water quality. In the presentstudy the maximum population of Ephemeroptera wasnoticed during the rainy season at all the sites of Neugaland Triveni of Binwa. Diptera are mainly representedby the families Chironomidae and Choboridae anddominate in different seasons at different sites. Themaximum population was reported from Chamundaand Manjhi of River Banner, Rajol of Guj, Kotla andDehar Khud bridge of Dehar, Parour of Neugal andTable 2. Taxa diversity using Simpson diversity indexTaxaNo.Gajn(n-1)No.Deharn(n-1)No.Bannern(n-1)No.Neugaln(n-1)No.Binwan(n-1)Annelida 2 2ArthroodaInsectaOdonata 44 1892Ephemeroptera 1440 2072160 1695 2871330 3237 10474932 1373 1883756 2757 7598292Plecoptera 20 380Trichoptera 168 28056 267 71022 555 307470 626 391250 240 57360Coleoptera 60 3540 56 3080 30 870 25 600 64 4032Diptera 815 663410 791 624890 2101 4412100 1598 2552006 1461 2133060MolluscaGastropoda23 506 2 2Total(n) 2483 2767166 2809 3570322 6012 15198152 3622 4827612 4524 9792746Diversity index (D) 0.55 0.547 0.579 0.632 0.521Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2875–28822881

Macrobenthic fauna of western HimalayaSehal as well as Langu of Binwa (Fig. 4). Verma &Saksena (2006) reported that populations of Diptera(particularly Chironomus and Tubifex) indicate theeffect of pollution and this coincides with the presentobservations, as during the study period mainly animalorigin pollution from live stock was noticed at theaforementioned sites. Further, the present studiesshowed that the population of Ephemeroptera hasdecreased over the years and thus it shows that the trendof water of some of these streams is shifting towardspollution. This is confirmed by the lesser number ofEphemeroptera in the present study, compared with thefindings of Dhanze et al. (1998, 2001). A significantpositive correlation was noticed between benthos anddissolved oxygen at all the sites and confirmed theresults of Joshi et al. (2007). The dissolved oxygen,water temperature, width and water velocity showeda strong correlation with benthos; however a strongcorrelation between depth and benthos was alsoobserved at Banner and Neugal only. Pires et al.(2000) reported that temperature, conductivity, depthand width influenced the invertebrates’ distributionand abundance and confirmed the present findings.Further Dinakaran & Anbalagan (2010) also reportedthat climate and altitude are considered as the majorfactors responsible for macro invertebrate distribution.In the present study, the species diversity was more atNeugal and Banner but less at Binwa (Table 2).REFERENCESAPHA (1985). Standard Methods for the Examination of Waterand Waste Water - 16th Edition. American Public HealthAssociation, AWWA, WPCF, New Yark, 1268pp.Dhanze, J.R. & R. Dhanze (1998). Post impoundment impacton the biodiversity of western Himalayan River system.A case study. Proceeding of Academy of EnvironmentalBiology 7(1): 11–16.Dhanze, R., I. Sharma & J.R. Dhanze (2001). Role ofplankton and benthos in the productivity of streams of thesub temperate zone in Himachal Pradesh, pp. 123–134. In:Agarwal, V.P. & S.V.S. Chauhan (eds.). Role of Biosciencesin New Millennium. Publisher and total pages?Dinakaran, S. & S. Anbalagan (2010). Spatio-temporaldynamics of caddisflies in streams of southern WesternGhats. Journal of Insect Science 10: 46.I. Sharma & R. DhanzeEmere, M.C. & C.E. Nasiru (2009). Macro invertebratesas indicators of the water quality of an urbanized stream,Kaduna, Nigeria. Nature and Science 2009: 7(1).Joshi, P.C., R.K. Negi & T. Negi (2007). Seasonal variationin benthic macro-invertebrates and their correlation withenvironmental variables in fresh water stream in Garhwalregion (India). Life Science Journal 4(4): 85–89.Kumar, K. (1987). Observation on seasonal variations of benthicorganisms in two trout streams of Kashmir. Proceedings ofIndian National Academy of Sciences B 53(3): 227–234.Pathani, S.S. & K.K. Upadhyay (2006). An inventory onzooplankton, zoo benthos and fish fauna in the river RamGanga (W) of Uttaranchal, India. ENVIS Bulletin 14(2):37–46.Pires, A.M., I.G. Cowx & M.M. Coelho (2000). A benthicmacro invertebrate community of intermittent streamsin the middle reaches of Guadiana basin (Portugal).Hydrobiologia 435: 167–175.Sehgal, K.L. (1983). Fishery resources and their management,pp. 225–272. In: Singhand, T.V. & J. Kaur (eds.) Studiesin Ecodevelopment: Himalayas Mountain and Men. PrintHouse (India), Lucknow..Simpson, E.H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature 168:688.Singh, J.P. & U. Singh (1996). Seasonal variations of macrozoo-benthosof Rajendra Sarovar, Chapra, Bihar, India.Journal of Environmental Biology 17(3): 205–209.Singh, A.K. (1997). Abundance of macrobenthic organismsin relation to the physicochemical characteristics of RiverGanga at Patna (Bihar) India. Journal of EnvironmentalBiology 18(2): 103–110.Srivastava, K. & S.R. Singh (1996). On the populationdynamics of Chironomids sp. (Chironomidae, Diptera,Insecta) in relation to water quality and soil texture of theRiver Ganga (Between Buxar and Balia). Proceedings ofIndian National Academy of Sciences B 62(4): 259–270.Srivastava, N.P. & V.R. Desai (1997). Studies on the bottommacro fauna of Rihand reservoir. Journal of EnvironmentalBiology 18(4): 325–331.Subramanian, K.A. & K.G. Sivaramakrishnan (2005).Habitat and microhabitat distribution of stream insectcommunities of the Western Ghats. Current Science 89(6):976–987.Tonapi, G.T. (1980). Fresh Water Animal of India: AnEcological Approach. Oxford and IBH publishing Co.,New Delhi.Verma, A.K. & D.N. Saksena (2006). Macrobenthiccommunity of Morar (Kalpi) River, Gwalior (M.P.). In:Aquatic Biodiversity Management and Conservation.Nature Conservator Publication 9: 101–106.Ward, H.B. & G.C. Whipple (1959). Freshwater Biology—2 ndEdition. John Wiley and sons. Inc. New Yark, 1248pp.2882Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2875–2882

JoTT Sh o r t Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(9): 2883–2888A new species of parasitic wasp Neastymachus Girault(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Encyrtidae) collected byfogging Vateria indica L. (Dipterocarpaceae) canopy inthe Western Ghats of IndiaSudhir Singh 1 & Y.B. Srinivasa 21Forest Entomology Division, Forest Research Institute, New Forest, Dehra Dun, Uttarakhand 248006, India2Institute of Wood Science and Technology, P.O. Malleswaram, Bangaluru, Karnataka 560003, IndiaEmail: 1 sudhirs@icfre.org (corresponding author), 2 ybsrinivasa@gmail.comAbstract: A new species of the encyrtid genus Neastymachus(N. punctatiscutellum Singh, sp. nov.) is described from afemale specimen collected from the Western Ghats of India.It was collected by fogging the canopy of Vateria indica L.(Dipterocarpaceae). A key to the females of the Afrotropical,Australian and Oriental species is also given.Keywords: Canopy fogging, Discodini, Encyrtidae, Hymenoptera,new species.Rainforest canopies are a treasure trove ofbiodiversity, adaptations and complex interactions(Mitchell 1986). Forest arthropods contribute majorityof this species diversity which in turn is due to largenumber of insects in the canopy (Erwin 1982, 1983).Tropical rainforest insects are more abundant in theDate of publication (online): 26 August 2012Date of publication (print): 26 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Editor: Md. HayatManuscript details:Ms # o2960Received 30 September 2011Final received 13 June 2012Finally accepted 18 July 2012Citation: Sudhir Singh & Y.B. Srinivasa (2012). A new species of parasiticwasp Neastymachus Girault (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Encyrtidae)collected by fogging Vateria indica L. (Dipterocarpaceae) canopy in theWestern Ghats of India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(9): 2883–2888.Copyright: © Sudhir Singh & Y.B. Srinivasa 2012. Creative CommonsAttribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this articlein any medium for non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution byproviding adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.Acknowledgements: The first author is thankful to Dr. S.S. Negi, theDirector, Forest Research Institute, and Dr. Mohd. Yousuf, the Head, ForestEntomology Division for providing the necessary laboratory facilities. Weare also thankful to Indian Council of Forestry Research and Educationfor funding the research work. First author is thankful to Dr. Mohd. Hayat,Department of Zoology, AMU, Aligarh for his comments and verifying thematerial during his visit to FRI, Dehradun. Thanks are also due to thetwo unknown reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions forimproving the quality of the paper.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADcanopy than near the forest floor (Erwin 1982; Smythe1982; Erwin 1983; Sutton et al. 1983; Stork 1991). Anumber of insect diversity works have been done inthe rainforests of South America and elsewhere in theworld, but in India studies on canopy biodiversity arenegligible. Srinivasa et al. (2004) has done some workon insect diversity in the canopies of two rainforestspecies Vateria indica L. and Dipterocarpus indicusBedd. (Dipterocarpaceae) from linear tree incrementplot that lay undisturbed since the 1920s. From thiscollection chalcids were also recovered, some ofwhich were found new to science. Singh, in Singh &Srinivasa (2010) has already described a new species ofEutrichosomella Girault (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae)collected during this study. In the present work a newspecies of the genus Neastymachus Girault (1915)(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Encyrtidae) is described.A key to some species of this genus is also given.Material and MethodsThis species was collected from canopies ofVateria indica L. trees located at an altitude of 128m,which had a moderately dense canopy and about 40mtall with the lower most branch at about 22m fromthe ground. At the time of sampling, V. indica wasfruiting. Samples were obtained using an insecticidefog (Kingfog® @ of 0.34% a.i.) generated from athermal fogger (Vanfog®) (Srinivasa et al. 2004).Body length is given in millimeters. All othermeasurements are in µm. The holotype of the newspecies is deposited in the National Forest InsectCollection, Entomology Division of the ForestResearch Institute, Dehradun, India (NFIC-FRI).Abbreviations and measurements used in the textare according to Noyes & Hayat (1984) and Singh &Agarwal (1993).Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2883–2888 2883

A new parasitic waspGenus Neastymachus GiraultNeastymachus Girault, 1915:86. Type speciesNeastymachus auraticorpus Girault, by monotypy.Nikolskiella Trjapitzin and PseudmicroterysShafee, Alam & Agarwal are synonyms of the genus(Noyes & Hayat 1984).Diagnosis: Head in frontal view wider than high;antennal scrobes shallow or moderately impressedwith lateral margins rounded, not longer than half thedistance between a torulus and median ocellus. Funicle6-segmented; club 3-segmented, apex rounded.Mandibles tridentate or with two sharp teeth and atruncation. Wing hyaline, marginal vein at least twotimes as long as wide. Hypopygium not extendingmore than two-thirds length along gaster; ovipositoreither not exserted or only slightly exserted. Bodygenerally yellow, orange or brownish-yellow to darkbrown; gaster darker than rest of the body. Antennayellowish, with scape and club may be brown. Legscompletely pale yellow.Comments: The type species of Neastymachusand the Palaearctic and Costa Rican species have shortnotaular lines (=parapsidal furrows) on the mesoscutum(Dahms & Gordh 1997; Noyes 2010). The Indianspecies lack notaular lines on the mesoscutum. Buta short curved darker line is present on either sideof mesoscutum just behind the pronotum which is anarrow gap in the underlying muscles visible throughtranslucent mesoscutum. However, reflections fromsculptural patterns from this area show no sign of anygroove or ridge. Similar pattern was also seen in theholotypes of N. axillaris and N. latiscapus. On thebasis of setation on base of the fore wing, shape ofgaster and location of the cercal plates and colourpattern of the pronotum, Hayat (1999) divided Indianspecies into two groups: the cerococci group with fourspecies (angustifrons, burksi, cerococci and latiscapus)and the delhiensis group with two species (axillarisand delhiensis). Hayat did not elaborate on the colourof pronotum. It has been observed that all the speciesfrom India and Australia have a black spot or band onanterior face of pronotum and a corresponding darkband or spots on the occiput (same may be present onthe African species but due to its darker colour thesecharacters may not be distinguishable. All the speciesin cerococci group usually have a dark brown spot onthe pronotum, whereas delhiensis group has a narrowdark brown band on the pronotum and also brownS. Singh & Y.B. Srinivasaspots or band on the occiput of head behind eyes.The genus belongs to tribe Discodini (Hayat2006; Noyes 2010). They are parasitoids of familiesAclerdidae and Asterolecaniidae of Hemiptera (Noyes& Hayat 1984).Species and distributionNeastymachus is an old world genus with 14described species (including the new one). The genusis represented by two undescribed species in theNearctic region (Noyes et al. 1997). The region wisedistribution of species is as follows:Afrotropical (1): Neastymachus dispar Prinsloo,1996.Australian (1): Neastymachus auraticorpus Girault,1915.Oriental (7, all from India): Neastymachusangustifrons (Shafee, Alam & Agarwal, 1975); N.axillaris Singh, Agarwal & Basha, 1991; N. burksi(Shafee, Alam & Agarwal, 1975); N. cerococci (Shafee,Alam & Agarwal, 1975); N. delhiensis (Subba Rao,1957); N. latiscapus Singh, Agarwal & Basha, 1991and N. punctatiscutellum Singh, sp. nov.Palaearctic (3): N. luteus (Nikol’skaya, 1952),N. secundus (Trjapitzin, 1962) and N. japonicus(Tachikawa, 1970).Neotropical (2, from Costa Rica): N. orthanesNoyes, 2010; N. peyries Noyes, 2010.Neastymachus punctatiscutellum Singh, sp. nov.(Images 1–10)Material examined: Holotype: 26.vi.2003, female(on card, with both antennae, wings, fore and middlelegs and left hind leg mounted on a slide under fivecover slips), (12 0 04’39.2”N & 75 0 43’33.6”E) in theWestern Ghats; ex. canopies of Vateria indica, locatedat an altitude of 128m; collected by canopy fogging,Makuta near Virajpet, Bannadapaare, Karnataka, India,coll. Y.B. Srinivasa. (NFIC-FRI, Dehradun. AccessionNo. 21906).Diagnosis: Female: Body pale yellow exceptscutellum and middle portion of scape brownish.Scutellum asetose, with distinct punctate reticulatesculpture and with conical distal margin, basal portionof fore wing naked.Description: Female, length 1.65 mm (holotype).Colour, setation and sculpture: Body completely2884Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2883–2888

A new parasitic waspS. Singh & Y.B. SrinivasaImages 1–4. Neastymachuspunctatiscutellum Singh, sp.nov., female (holotype)1 - body in dorsal view; 2 - bodyin lateral view; 3 - antenna;4 - dentitions of mandibles.© Sudhir Singhpale yellow except central part of scutellum and middleportion of scape brownish. Head completely paleyellow with very faint and shallow reticulate sculpture,sculpture much distinct at ocellar region than aroundscrobes; setae translucent and very inconspicuous,along the inner margins of eye setae longer; eyesnaked, light grey in colour, ocelli colourless; mandiblewith teeth reddish-brown; maxillary and labial palpipale yellow. Antenna white, except scape with basaltwo-thirds of brown, ventral margin and apical thirdwhite; pedicel slightly pale yellow; funicle segmentswith translucent, fine and long setae. Mesosoma paleyellow except central area of scutellum brownish;collar of pronotum with about 20 moderately strongsetae; mesoscutum pale yellow with faint and veryshallow reticulate sculpture which is larger than thaton head, with about 100 pale, inconspicuous andscattered setae; axillae pale yellow and smooth, withone or two setae; scutellum brown, except narrow paleyellow stripes on sides; brown area of scutellum withprominent punctate reticulate sculpture (Image 8), setaeabsent; lateral pale stripes of scutellum smooth. Wingshyaline, venation almost translucent; setae transparentand hardly visible even under higher magnificationof compound microscope; basal portion of fore wingnaked. All legs pale yellow, lighter than mesosoma.Metasoma pale yellow, lighter than mesosoma, withinconspicuous setae.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2883–28882885

A new parasitic waspS. Singh & Y.B. SrinivasaImages 5–10. Neastymachuspunctatiscutellum Singh, sp.nov., female (holotype)5 - head in dorsal view; 6 - headin frontal view; 7 - mesosoma;8 - part of mesosoma showingsculpture on the scutellum;9 - part of the fore wingshowing venation and 10 -basal part of the fore wingshowing venation and setalpattern.© Sudhir SinghStructure: Head in dorsal view (Image 5)semicircular, anterior margin rounded, posteriormargin concave; 1.8x as wide as long (587:317),4.8x as wide as frontovertex width at level of medianocellus (587:120); ocelli in acute angle triangle;POL as long as, OCL 3.15x and OOL about 0.2x thediameter of middle ocellus (38:120:9:38); eye about1.4x as long as wide (321:230). Head in frontal view(Image 6) rounded, slightly wider at eye and taperingtowards genal area; 1.16 x as wide as long (586:504);inner eye margins smoothly curved and diverginganteriorly from level of median ocellus; eye 1.7x aslong as wide (370:216); toruli 1.6x as long as wide(78:48), half their length below the line joining lowerends of eyes; distance between toruli 1.34x, distancebetween torulus and eye margin 1.53x, torulo-mouthmargin distance slightly shorter than torular length(105:120:72:78); scrobes narrow, moderately deep,not meeting dorsally, reaching halfway betweentorulus and median ocellus (168:340). Head in profile(Image 2) triangular, anterior margin smoothly curved,2.5x as high as malar space length (504:201); eye1.12x as long as wide (360:321). Antenna (Image 3)with scape flattened and expanded beneath, 2.3x aslong as wide (264:114); pedicel long conical, 1.87x aslong as wide (91:48); all funicle segments longer thanwide; F1 slightly longer than pedicel, 2.96x as long aswide (95:32); F2 as long and as wide as F1, F3 2.27x(82:36), F4 1.65x (68:41), F5 1.36x (68:50), F6 1.23x(68:55); club 2.36x as long as wide (182:77).2886Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2883–2888

A new parasitic waspMesosoma (Image 7): 0.9x head width (528:585);pronotum, visible part, narrow, about 9x as wide aslong (432:48); mesoscutum convex from side to side,posterior margin at the middle curved and producedover the axillae separating them, 1.57x as wide as long(528:336); axillae rounded on sides, width of axillae0.67x the thorax width (355:528); scutellum flat,conical apically, as long as wide (288); propodeum11.2x as wide as long (538:48). Fore wing 2.5x as longas wide (1445:578); marginal vein (104) longer thanpostmarginal (68) as well as stigmal vein (91). Middletibial spur slightly longer than basitarsus (211:192).Metasoma (Image 1): Longer than mesosoma,1.16x as long as wide (696:600), cercal plates situatedslightly before middle of metasoma; hypopygiumextending to two-thirds length along gaster; ovipositorlength 0.73x the mid tibia length (456:624), ovipositorsheath length 0.17x the ovipositor length (77:456).Male: Unknown.EtymologyNamed after the distinct punctate reticulatesculpture of the scutellum.DistributionIndia: Western Ghats (Karnataka).CommentsThis is a distinct species and can be separatedfrom other known species by shape (flat and apicallyv-shaped), colour (dark brown with lateral narrowwhite stripes) and sculpture (prominently deeppunctuate reticulate) of the scutellum; flattened scapeand the asetose scutellum. (See key to species.)ReferencesDahms, E.C. & G. Gordh (1997). A review of the generaof Australian Encyrtidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea)described from Australia by A.A. Girault with a checklistof included species. Memoirs on Entomology, International9: v+518ppErwin, T.L (1982). Tropical forests: their richness in Coleopteraand other arthropod species. The Coleopterists Bulletin 36(1): 74–75.Erwin, T.L (1983). Beetles and other insects of tropicalforest canopies at Manaus, Brazil, sampled by insecticidalfogging, pp. 59–75. In: Tropical Rain Forest: Ecology andS. Singh & Y.B. SrinivasaManagement. Special Publication No. 2 of The BritishEcological Society. Blackwell Scientific Publications.Boston, Massachusetts.Girault, A.A. (1915). Australian Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea—VII. The family Encyrtidae with descriptions of newgenera and species. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum4: 1–184.Hayat, M. (1999). Taxonomic notes on Indian Encyrtidae(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea)—V. Oriental Insects 33:349–407Hayat, M. (2006). Indian Encyrtidae (Hymenoptera:Chalcidoidea). Published by M. Hayat, Department ofZoology, Aligarh Muslim University, India, 496pp.Mitchell, A.W. (1986). The Enchanted Canopy. MacmillanPublishing Company, New York, 288pp.Nikol’skaya, M. (1952). Chalcids of The Fauna of The USSR(Chalcidoidea). Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR. No. 44:Zoologicheskim Institutom Akademii Nauk SSSR, Moscowand Leningrad, 575ppNoyes, J.S. (2010). Encyrtidae of Costa Rica (Hymenoptera:Chalcidoidea) —3. Memoirs of the American EntomologicalInstitute 84: 848pp.Noyes, J.S. & Hayat, M. (1984). A review of the genera of Indo-Pacific Encyrtidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Bulletinof the British Museum (Natural History) (Entomology) 48:131–395.Noyes, J.S., J.B. Woolley & G. Zolnerowich (1997). FamilyEncyrtidae. Chapter 8, pp. 170–320. In Gibson, G.A.P.,Huber, J.T. & Woolley, J.B. (eds.). Annotated Keys to theGenera of Nearctic Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). NationalResearch Council Canada, NRC Research Press, Ottawa,794pp.Prinsloo, G.L. (1996). Neastymachus dispar sp. n.(Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), a parasitoid of Cribrolecaniumandersoni (Newstead) (Hemiptera: Coccidae) on citrus insouthern Africa. African Plant Protection 2(2): 117–120.Shafee, S.A., S.M. Alam & M.M. Agarwal (1975). Taxonomicsurvey of encyrtid parasites (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) inIndia. Aligarh Muslim University Publications (ZoologicalSeries) on Indian Insect Types 10: iii+1–125pp.Singh, S. & M.M. Agarwal (1993). Taxonomic studies onIndian encyrtid parasites (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) fromnorth-eastern region. Aligarh Muslim University ZoologicalPublication on Indian Insect Types 14: 180ppSingh, S., M.M. Agarwal & M.C. Basha (1991). Descriptionsof three new species of Neastymachus (Hymenoptera:Encyrtidae) from north-eastern India. Oriental Insects 25:221–230.Singh, S. & Y.B. Srinivasa (2010). Description of a new speciesof the genus Eutrichosomella Girault (Hymenoptera:Chalcidoidea: Aphelinidae) from the Western Ghats, India.Annals of Entomology 28(2): 1–5.Smythe, N. (1982). Seasonal abundance of night flying insectsin a neo-tropical forest, pp.309–318. In: The Ecologyof A Tropical Forest: Seasonal Rhythms and Long-termChanges. Smithsonian Institute Press. Washington, DC.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2883–28882887

A new parasitic waspS. Singh & Y.B. SrinivasaKey to Afrotropical, Australian and Oriental species of Neastymachus (females) (partly based on Singh & Agarwal 1993, andHayat 2006)1 Fore wing basal triangle with a large bare area; metasoma usually subequal in length to mesosoma, apicallyrounded, and with cercal plates situated in about middle; occipital margins sharp (except in angustifrons);anterior face of pronotum usually with a central dark brown spot ……………..…….....….............…………..… 2- Fore wing basal triangle setose to base, with at most a small bare area; metasoma at least slightly longer thanmesosoma, pointed apically, and with cercal plates situated in about basal third; occipital margins narrowlyrounded, not sharp; anterior face of pronotum with a broad transverse dark brown stripe ….........………… 72 Body strikingly bicolourous; head entirely black, mesosoma and gaster blackish-brown to almost black exceptdistal half of mesoscutum, entire prepectus and scutellum brownish-yellow; antenna sordid white to pale brownwith club largely brown. (South Africa; Swaziland) …….........................…………..……...…...….....dispar Prinsloo- Body mostly pale yellow to orange, only certain small areas on genal margins, scape, club, postocciput,pronotum or scutellum brown …………….…..............................................................................................…….. 33 Frontovertex at level of median ocellus about 0.2x of head width; ocellar triangle with apical angle acute;antennal club may or may not be brown …........................................................................................................ 4- Frontovertex at level of median ocellus broader, at least about 0.33x of head width; ocellar triangle with apicalangle not acute; antennal club brown …...……..............................................................................................….. 54 Scape cylindrical, about 5.0x as long as wide; F1 equal to pedicel in length; antennal club dark brown; bodycompletely yellow, except a brown patch at the centre of anterior face of the pronotum (India); scutellumwith black setae ..................................................................................... angustifrons (Shafee, Alam & Agarwal)- Scape expanded, about 2.3x as long as wide; F1 distinctly longer than pedicel; antennal club white; bodycompletely pale except scutellum brown with lateral narrow white stripes; scutellum without setae (India) ............................................................................................................................... punctatiscutellum Singh, sp. nov.5 Antennal scape short, and slightly flattened, not more than 3.0x as long as wide; fore wing proximal to lineacalva with numerous setae (more than 70); ovipositor sheath not more than one-fifth length of second valvifer;malar area concolourous with face ……………….……………….........................……………………………………. 6- Antennal scape relatively long, at least 4.0x as long as broad; fore wing proximal to linea calva with fewer setae(less than 40); ovipositor sheath 0.28x the length of second valvifer; lower malar area dark brown (India) ..............…………....…….......................…………………………......………….. cerococci (Shafee, Alam & Agarwal)6. Scape yellowish, 3.0x as long as wide; F1 longer than wide, rest of funicle segments, subequal, quadrate towider than long; ovipositor sheath 1.5x as long as wide and 0.16x second valvifer length; occiput without abrown spot (India) ………….…….................................................................…… burksi (Shafee, Alam & Agarwal)- Scape dark brown, 2.5x as long as wide; all funicle segments longer than wide; ovipositor sheath about 3x as longas wide and 0.19x second valvifer length; occiput with a brown spot (India) .................................................................................................................................................................................latiscapus Singh, Agarwal & Basha7. Funicle with F1 and F2 each at least twice as long as wide, remaining segments shorter but all longer than wide;body yellow to yellowish-brown ……............................................................................................................……. 8- All the funicle segments at least about twice as long as wide; body testaceous. (Malar space brownish, frontovertexlight brown, occiput with a dark brown spot on the occiput behind the eyes; pronotum with dark brown anterior tocollar and a spot on each side; distal two-thirds of scutellum and sides of propodeum light brown,gaster dark brown) (India) ………………....................................................….............…… delhiensis (Subba Rao)8. Frontovertex at level of median ocellus 0.33x head width; F1 slightly longer than pedicel; ovipositor slightlyexserted, about one-tenth of gaster length; body with head and mesonotum light brownish-yellow, gaster brown,VII-tergum lighter; two dark brown spots on either side of occiput behind the eyes; pronotum with broadtransverse dark brown stripe on the anterior face of pronotum which extends dorsally and appear as spots oncollar on either side. (Scutellum distinctly deep reticulate) (India) .........…..… axillaris Singh, Agarwal & Basha- Frontovertex at level of median ocellus 0.29x of head width; F1 shorter than pedicel; ovipositor exserted by abouta-fifth (0.19x) of gaster length; body yellow brown; a narrow black patch transversely across occiput behind eyeswhich aligns with a broad transverse black stripe on anterior face of pronotum (Australia) ................………………................................................................…………….……..……………..................... auraticorpus GiraultSrinivasa Y.B., A. Kumar & K.D. Prathapan (2004). Canopyarthropods of Vateria indica L. and Dipterocarpus indicusBedd. in the rainforests of Western Ghats, South India,Current Science 86(10): 1420–1426.Stork, N.E. (1991). The composition of arthropod fauna ofBornean lowland rain forest trees. Journal of TropicalEcology 7: 161–180.Subba Rao, B.R. (1957). Some new species of IndianHymenoptera. Proceedings of the Indian Academy ofSciences (B) 46: 376–390.Sutton, S.L, C.P.J. Ash & A. Grundy (1983). The verticaldistribution of flying insects in lowland rainforests ofPanama, Papua New Guinea, and Brunei. Zoology Journalof Linnaean Society 78: 287–297.Tachikawa, T. (1970). Notes on some Japanese species ofEncyrtidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Transactions ofthe Shikoku Entomological Society 10: 100–106.Trjapitzin, V.A. (1962). Encyrtidae (Hymenoptera) - parasitesof Nipponaclerda turanica (Arch.) (Homoptera: Aclerdidae)in Nogai steppe. Zoologicheskiy Zhurnal 41(4): 560–570.2888Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2883–2888

JoTT Sh o r t Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(9): 2889–2899Twelve species of nematodes: new records for IndiaPadma BohraDesert Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, IndiaEmail: bohrapadma@gmail.comAbstract: Twelve species of nematodes belonging to ordersTylenchida (6 sp.) and Dorylaimda (6 sp.). Under nine generaof nine familes; were reported as.new record from India.Sampleswere collected from agriculture fields, surrondigs of lakes ofUdaipur and Sitamata Wild Life Sanctuary, Rajasthan.Keywords: Family, genera, nematodes, new records, species,taxonomy.A review of literature reveals that Rajasthan Statedoes not feature in nematlogical literature till Arya(1957) reported the first plant parasitic nematode(Meloidogyne sp.) from the Thar Desert from Jodhpurexactly after 57 years of the first record of plantnematodes from India in 1901. Khera (1967–1969)and his associates identified and reported a significantnumber of species, including many new to science,from Jodhpur, Pali, Bikaner and Jaisalmer districts ofRajasthan (Sethi & Swarup 1968 a, b; Tikyani & Khera1968; Tikyani et al. 1969; Nandkumar & Khera 1969,1970; Khera 1971; Bajaj & Jairajpuri 1979; Bohra &Baqri 2000, 2003; Baqri & Bohra 2001, 2003; Bohra2008, 2011).Despite all these studies, our knowledge ofDate of publication (online): 26 August 2012Date of publication (print): 26 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Editor: Anonimity requestedManuscript details:Ms # o2703Received 10 February 2011Final received 19 April 2012Finally accepted 05 July 2012Citation: Bohra, P. (2012). Twelve species of nematodes: new records forIndia. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(9): 2889–2899.Copyright: © Padma Bohra 2012. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any mediumfor non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequatecredit to the authors and the source of publication.Acknowledgements: The Author is grateful to Dr. K. Venkataraman,Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata for providing research facilitiesfor preparation of the paper.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADfreshwater nematode fauna from Rajasthan is meagre.Keeping this point in view, attempts were made tocollect water samples from different depths of the lakesof Udaipur and from submerged plants surrounding thelakes. However, from the samples taken from differentdepths of the lakes, the recovery of nematodes was notsatisfactory.The present paper is based on the collectionbrought from agricultural fields, surroundings of lakesof Udaipur during (2009–2010) surveys, districts ofUdaipur, Rajsamand and Sitamata Wildlife Sanctuary,Chittorgarh. The analysis of samples yielded a widevariety of nematodes which included 12 species ofnematodes belonging to Orders Tylenchida (6 spp.) andDorylaimida (6 spp.) as new records for India. Besides,brief descriptions, illustrations and information onhost(s) and locality(ies) of these species have alsobeen provided.Material and methodsForty soil samples were collected around the rootsof host plants with the help of a shovel from depths of5–15 cm in two surveys of six days duration. The soil/sediment samples were collected in a polythene bag,labelled and brought to the laboratory. Samples can bestored at 6–10 0 C to keep the nematodes physiologicallyyoung and active. Lower storage temperature (4–5 0 C)may cause chilling injury. Exposer to 40 0 C or aboveeven for a short time kill some species moderatetemperature for storage of samples is 10–15 0 C.Samples were processed through Cobb’s sieving anddecantation technique. Nematodes were killed andfixed in hot 4% formaldehyde and kept for dehydrationin desiccators. Body measurements were taken forspecific species identification. Presently specimensare deposited in National Zoological Collection ofDesert Regional Centre, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.Abbreviations: L = body length (mm/µm); a = body length/maximum body width; b = body length/oesophageal length; c =body length/tail length; c´ = tail length/body width at anus; V = dJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2889–2899 2889

New records of nematodesResultsThe analysis of samples yielded a wide variety ofnematodes which included 12 species belonging tonine genera of nine families of Orders Tylenchida andDorylaimida.Systematic Account:Order: Tylenchida Thorne, 1949Family: Tylenchidae Orley, 1880Zanechus zanchus Siddiqi, 1979(Fig. 1 A–B and Image 1 A–C)Material examined: Two females, two males;15.x.2009, coll. P. Kadela; Reg.No. IV/2332Measurements: Females: L = 0.70–0.75 mm; a= 39.47–41.21; b = 6.8–7.0; c = 12.50–14.00; c´ =3.2–3.5; V = 80–82. Males: L = 0.56–0.57 mm; a =31.30–33.30; b = 5.8–6.2; c = 11.34–12.54;Description: Female: Body ventrally arcuate uponfixation. Cuticle deeply annulated, annules contiguous.Lip region low, continuous with body contour. Stylet8–9 µm long. Median bulb oval. Vulva post equatorial.Post vulval uterine sac absent. Tail 50–55 µm long,elongate conoid to a hooked tip (Fig. B)Male: Spicules 15–16 µm long. Gubernaculumtrough–shaped, 7–8 µm long; fixed. Cloacal lipspointed forming a narrow tube. Bursa adanal. Tailelongate conoid to hooked tip.Habitat: Collected from moist soil surrounding thebank of Pichola Lake, Udaipur.Remarks: The measurement of present specimensfits well within the range given by Siddiqi (1979).Family: Hoplolaimidae Filipjev,1934P. Bohraposterior to oesophago–intestinal valve. Ovariespaired. Phasmid two annules anterior to anus. Tail withpronounced ventral projection, terminus irregularlyhemispherical, marked by eight annules (Fig. C.)Habitat and locality: Collected from soil aroundroots of wheat (Triticum aestivum) at village Poonmal(Sayra), Udaipur District, Rajasthan, India.Remarks: H. californicus can be distinguished fromrelated species H. bryophilus in having shorter styletknobs with flattened stylet; offset anterior surface;spermathecae and irregular ventral projection of thefemale tail (Stylet 28–32 µm; ventral projection of tailhemispherical in H. bryophilus).AA15µmIEE,FFBB50µmCGI,J20µm 30µmLDC,D,G,H,K20µmKHLHelicotylenchus californicus Sher, 1966(Fig. 1, C–D and Image 2 A–C)J20µmMaterial examined: Three females, 05.i.2010, coll.R. Sultana, Reg.No. IV/2350.Measurements: Females: L = 0.57–0.61 mm; a =19–27; b = 5.6–6.9; c = 30.50–32.50; c´ = 0.8–1.3; V= 59–62.Description: Female: Body spirally coiledupon fixation. Lip region hemispherical, markedby four annules. Stylet 25–26µm long, basal knobswith flattened anterior surfaces. Excretory pore justFigure 1. Zanenchus zanchus Siddiqi, 1979A - Anterior end; B - Posterior end.Helicotylenchus californicus Sher, 1966C - Anterior end; D - Posterior end.Helicotylenchus densibullatus Siddiqi, 1972E - Anterior end; F - Posterior end.Helicotylenchus minzi Sher, 1966G - Anterior end; H - Posterior end.Helicotylenchus talonus Siddiqi, 1972I - Anterior end; J - Posterior end.Neodolichorhynchus judithae (Andrássy, 1962) Jairajpuri &Hunt, 1984K - Anterior end; L - Posterior end.2890Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2889–2899

New records of nematodesP. BohraA B CImage I. Zanenchus zanchus Siddiqi, 1979. A - Anterior end; B - Posterior end; C - Male - Posterior endA B CImage 2. Helicotylenchus californicus Sher, 1966. A - Anterior end; B - Basal Knobs; C - Posterior end.ABImage 3. Helicotylenchus densibullatus Siddiqi, 1972. A - Anterior end; B - Posterior end.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2889–28992891

New records of nematodesHelicotylenchus densibullatus Siddiqi, 1972(Fig. 1, E–F and Image 3 A–B)Material examined: Five females, 31.xii.2009, coll.P. Bohra, Reg.No. IV/2329.Measurements: Females: L = 0.43–0.44 mm; a =22–24; b = 4.7–6.2; c = 42–44; c´ = 0.76–0.90; V =65–67.Description: Female: Body spirally coiled uponfixation. Lip region hemispheroid and marked bythree distinct annules. Labial sclerotization moderate.Lateral fields marked by four incisures, outer onesslightly crenate. Stylet 21–23 µm long. Medianoesophageal bulb spheroidal in shape. Excretory poreopposite to oesophago–intestinal junction. Ovariespaired. Intestine not exceeding into rectum. Taildorsally convex–conoid to a short usually acute ventralprojection, with 7–10 annules. Annules becomingslightly coarser ventrally towards distal end.Habitat and locality: Collected from soil aroundroots of Banana (Musa balbisiana) from Kakarwadistrict, Rajasamand, Rajasthan, India.Remarks: H. densibullatus is characterized in havingbasal knobs of stylet appearing to be amalgamatedwith the shaft, not distinctly marked off individually(hence specific name); it comes closer to H. indicusSiddiqi, 1963 which has narrow truricurate lip region,indistinct labial annules, a more conspicuous labialsclerotization, from H. elegans Roman, 1965 has wellseparated anteriorly cupped stylet knobs. Lip regionbearing five or six annules.Helicotylenchus minzi Sher, 1966(Fig. 1, G–H and Image 4 A–B)Material examined: Three females, 27.7.2009,Coll. P.Bohra, Reg. No. IV/2331 & 2277.Measurements: Females: L = 0.61–0.80mm; a= 26–34; b = 5.5–6.4; c = 46–71; c´ = 0.5–1.0; V =60–65.Description: Female: Body in loose spiral shape.Lip region truncated, marked by 5 annules. Stylet 26–28µm long, basal knobs indented anteriorly. Excretorypore anterior to oesophago–intestinal, junction.Hemizonid at level of excretory pore. Femalereproductive system amphidelphic. Spermathecaoffset; with sperms. Phasmids 2–4 annules anterior toanus. Tail more curved dorsally, terminus irregularlyP. Bohrahemispherical bearing 10–11 annules.Habitat: Collected from moist soil around the bankof Pichola lake, Udaipur District, Rajasthan, India.Remarks: H. minzi can be distinguished fromH. canadiensis by having shorter stylet; (stylet30–33µm; female tail terminus hemispherical toirregularly hemispherical with six to 12 annules in H.canadiensis).Helicotylenchus talonus Siddiqi, 1972(Fig. 1, I–J and Image 5 A–B)Material examined: 3 females, 31.xii.2009; coll. P.Bohra, Reg.No. IV/2344.Measurements: Females: L = 0.41–0.46 mm; a =22–24; b = 5.8–6.5; c = 1.1–1.2; c´ = 0.8–0.9; V =62–66.Description: Female: Body spirally curved uponfixation. Lateral fields marked by four incisures. Lipregion hemispheroid, distinctly marked by 4–5 labialannules. Stylet 19–20µm long; basal knobs largewith flattened to concave anterior surface–medianoesophageal bulb oval. Ovaries paired. Tail dorsallyconvex–conoid, with 3–7 annules ventrally and alarge, bluntly rounded, claw–like unstriated ventralprojection.Habitat and locality: Collected from soil aroundroots of Lemon (Citrus reticulate) at Kakarwa,Rajasamand District, Rajasthan, India.Remarks: H. talonus Siddiqi, 1972 comes close toH. glissus Thorne & Malek, 1968; H. bradys Thorne &Malek, 1968 and H. borinquensis Roman, 1965. FromH. glissus it differs in having a distinctly annulated lipregion, a wider tail projection and inner incisures ofthe lateral fields usually fusing distally on tail. FromH. bradys it can be differentiated by spear length(spear 29–33 µ long in H. bradys), finer body annules(3µ wide at mid– body in H. bradys) and fewer tailannules. From H. borinquensis it can be separatedby its fewer tail annules, a large tail projection andphasmids which are closer to the anal level.2892Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2889–2899

New records of nematodesP. BohraABImage 4. Helicotylenchus minzi Sher, 1966. A - Entire Female; B - Posterior end.ABImage 5. Helicotylenchus talonus Siddiqi, 1972; A - Anterior end; B - Posterior end.A B CImage 6. Neodolichorhynchus judithae (Andrássy, 1962) Jairajpuri & Hunt, 1984. A - Anterior end; B - Male Posterior end;C - Female Posterior end.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2889–28992893

New records of nematodesFamily: Telotylenchidae Siddiqi, 1960Neodolichorhynchus (Neodolichorhynchus)judithae (Andrassy, 1962) Jairajpuri & Hunt, 1984(Fig. 1, K–L and Image 6 A–C)Material examined: Two females, two males;14.x.2009, coll. R. Sultana, Reg.No. IV/2336.Measurements: Females: L = 0.51–0.55mm; a =27–28; b = 4.9–5.6; c = 17–18; c´ = 2.25–3.55; V =57–58; Males: L = 0.55–0.60mm; a = 27; b = 4.5–5.3;c = 17; c´ = 3.55–4.00.Description: Female: Body ventrally arcuateupon fixation. Annules prominent, marked by deeptransverse striae. Cuticle with 6–14 longitudinal ridgesor lamellae outside lateral fields. Lateral fields withfour incisures variably aerolated. Lip region rounded,labial framework moderately sclerotized. Stylet 12–17 µm long; conus solid appearing in anterior third.Median bulb round or oval. Female reproductivesystem amphidelphic. Tail 27–36 µm long, conoidto subcylindrical, ending in a rounded often lobe–likehyaline terminus.Male: Spicules 20–22 µm long. Gubernaculum12–15 µm long, protrusible. Tail 32–36 µm long,enveloped by large bursa, 59–62 µm long; Bursa notnotched at tail terminus (Image 6 B)Habitat and locality: Collected from soil aroundroots of Chickoo (Manikara zopota) at Nathdwaradistrict, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India.Remarks: The measurements of specimens are inconformity with those given by Jairajpuri & Hunt,1984.P. Bohrafemales and ventrally arcuate at posterior extremitiesin females. Lip region continuous with adjoiningbody. Odontostyle 12–14 µm long, aperture onethird odontostyle length. Guiding ring thin single.Odontophore 18–20 µm long. Oesophagus enlargesin its middle. Expanded part of oesophagus occupies47–50 % total oesophageal length. Vulva transverse.Ovaries paired. Tail 117–145 µm long, elongatefilifom about 8.5–8.6 anal body width long.Male: Spicules 42–43 µm long. Lateral guidingpieces 12–13 µm long. Ventromedian supplements8–9. Tail short conoid.Habitat: Collected from moist soil around the bankof water body around Aarmpura Range, SitamataWildlife Sanctuary, Chittorgarh.Remarks: Identification done with the help ofAA10µmB10µmBE10µmD20µmC10µmDCOrder: Dorylaimida Pearse, 1942Family: Dorylaimidae de Man, 1876Mesodorylaimus subtiloides (Paetzold, 1958)Andrassy, 1959(Fig. 2 A–B and Image 7 A–C)EFFMaterial examined: Two females, two males,14.x.2009, coll. P. Kadela, Reg.No. IV/ 2283.Measurements: Females: L = 1.17–1.21 mm; a =31–41; b = 4.45–4.92; c = 8.36–10.85; c´ = 8.5–8.6; V= 47–50. Males: L = 0.88–1.06 mm; a = 31–35; b =3.50–3.98; c = 40–50 ; T = 52–55.Description: Female: Body almost straight in100µmFig.2. Mesodorylaimus subtiloides (Paetzold, 1958Andrássy, 1959A - Anterior end; B - Posterior end.Aporcelaimellus adoxus Tjepkema, Ferris & Ferris, 1971C - Anterior end; D - Posterior end.Sicorinema sericatum Siddiqi, 1982E - Anterior end; F - Posterior end.2894Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2889–2899

New records of nematodesP. BohraA B CImage 7. Mesodorylaimus subtiloides (Paetzold, 1958) Andrássy, 1959. A - Anterior end; B - Female Posterior end;C - Male Posterior end.A B CImage 8. Aporcelaimellus adoxus Tjepkema, Ferris & Ferris, 1971. A - Anteror end; B - Vulval reion; C - Female Posterior region.ABImage 9. Sicorinema sericatum Siddiqi, 1982. A - Anterior region;B - Female Posterior Region.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2889–28992895

New records of nematodesthe key provided by Andrassy, 1986 for the genusMesodorylaimus. Measurements of present specimensfit well within the range give by Andrassy, 1986.Family: Aporcelaimidae Heyns, 1965Aporcelaimellus adoxus Tjepkema, Ferris &Ferris, 1971(Fig. 2, C–D and Image 8 A–C)Material examined: Four females, 25.vii.2009,coll. P. Bohra, Reg.No. IV/2235.Measurements: Females: L = 1.7–2.2 mm; a = 28–33; b = 3.4–4.5; c = 39–48; c´ = 1.4–1.5; V = 45–52.Description: Female: Body curved moreposteriorly upon fixation. Lips well separated fromeach other and set off from body by deep constriction.Amphids funnel–shaped, weakly duplex. Odontostyle14–19 µm long; its aperture 62–65 % of odontostylelength. Odontophore 22–25 µm long. Guiding ringplicated anteriorly. Oesophageal expansion gradual,expanded part of oesophagus occupies 55–59 % oftotal oesophageal length. Cardia conical. Cardiac discpresent between oesophagus and intestine. Femalereproductive system amphidelphic. Prerectum 60–62µm long or 1.9–2.1 anal body-width long. Rectum 35–36 µm long or 1.0–1.2 anal body-width long. Tail 45–47 µm long or 1.4–1.5 anal body-width long, dorsallyconvex with blunt tip.Habitat and locality: Collected from soil around theroots of Rizka (Medicago sativa) at Manda Ki Ghati,Sitamata Wildlife Sanctuary, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan,India.Remarks: Identification done with originaldescription and measurements provided by Tijpkema,Ferris & Ferris, 1971.Family: Qudsianematidae Jairajpuri, 1965Sicorinema sericatum Siddiqi, 1982(Fig. 2, E–F and Image 9 A–B)Material examined: Two females.Measurements: Females: L = 0.84–0.89 mm; a= 42–44; b = 3.1–3.5; c = 14–15; c´ = 3.1–3.9; V =42–44.Description: Female: Body slender, ventrallyarcuate upon fixation. Lip region wider than adjoiningbody with raised lips and papillae. Odontostyle 10–11P. Bohraµm long, with 7µm long aperture and wide lumen.Odontophore 17–22 µm long. Expanded part ofoesophagous occupies 39–44 % of total oesophageallength. Vulva a small, transverse oval pore-like.Posterior genital branch present (opisthodelphic).Pre–rectum about 30–35 µm or two anal body–widthlong. Rectum 1.5 anal body width long. Tail 22–25µm long, ventrally arcuate, regularly tapering to asmall rounded terminus.Habitat and locality: Collected from moist soilaround water body at Borunddi maugra, SitamataWildlife Sanctuary, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, India.Remarks: The identification of species is basedon measurements and original description given bySiddiqi, 1982.Family: Longidoridae Thorne, 1935Paralongidorus rex (Andrassy, 1986) Hunt, 1993.(Fig. 3, A–B and Image 10 A–B)Material examined: Two females, 29.vii.2009, coll.P. Bohra, Reg. No. IV/2239.Measurements: Females : L = 2.68–2.74mm; a =83–85; b = 8.5–8.7; c = 90–91; c´ = 0.9–1.0; V = 53.Description: Female: Long, slender nematodes.Straight to C–shape upon fixation. Lip regioncontinuous with body contour. Amphidial apertures inthe form of transverse slits. Amphidial fovea elongate,funnel shaped. Odontostyle long, 55–60 µm long,attenuated and strongly sclerotized. Odontophore45–50 µm long, without basal flanges. Slender part ofoesophagus abruptly expand to form bulboid expandedpart which occupies 27–30 % part of total neck length.Vulva transverse. Ovaries paired and reflexed. Tail28–30 µm long, conoid.Habitat and locality: Collected from moist soilaround Dalia Jalashya on Udaipur to Jaisamand Road,Udaipur District, Rajasthan, India.Remarks: The measurement of specimens fits wellwithin the range.Family: Leptonchidae Thorne, 1935Sclerostylus karri Goseco, Ferris & Ferris, 1981(Fig. 3, C–D and Image 11 A–B)Material examined: Two females, 25.vii.2009; coll.P. Bohra, Reg.No. IV/2237.2896Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2889–2899

New records of nematodesP. BohraAA,E,GB50µm 50µmBlong, about one anal body–width.Habitat and locality: Collected from soil aroundroots of unidentified grasses at Borundimaugra,Sitamata Wildlife Sanctuary, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan,India.Remarks: Measurements of specimens fit wellwithin the range of measurements provided by Goseco,Ferris & Ferris, 1981.Family: Mydonomidae Thorne, 1964CC,DDDorylaimoides (Longidorylaimoides) akon GosecoFerris & Ferris, 1976(Fig. 3, E–F and Image 12, A–C)EF20µmE20µmFigure 3. Paralongidorus rex (Andrássy, 1986) Hunt,1993A - Anterior end; B - Posterior end.Sclerostylus karri Goseco, Ferris & Ferris, 1971C - Anterior end; D - Posterior end.Dorylaimoides (L) akon Goseco Ferris & Ferris, 1976E - Anterior end; F - Male Posterior end; G - Female posteriorend.Measurements: Females: L = 0.50–0.72 mm; a= 30–33; b = 4.5–4.8; c = 48–50; c´ = 1.0–1.1; V =47–48.Description: Female: Body cylindroids, ventrallyarcuate up on fixation. Lip region set off, papillaedistinct. Labial disc prominent. Odontostyle 11–13 µmlong; odontophore 15–17 µm long with distinct basalflanges. Oesophageal bulb pyriform, about 19–21 µmlong or 14% of oesophageal length. Vulva transverse.Anterior uterine branch about one anal body widthlong. Posterior gonad normal. Intestine prerectumjunction surrounded by three distinct cells, prerectumabout 10–12 anal body width long. Tail 13–15 µmGMaterial examined: One female, one male,29.ix.2009, coll. P. Kadela, Reg. No. 2334.Measurements: Female: L = 1.36 mm; a = 34.05; b= 6.8; c = 12.16; c´ = 7.4; V = 44; Male: L = 1.28mm;a = 40.25; b = 5.8; c = 19.8; c´ = 3.10, T = 63–65.Description: Female: Body cylindroids, ventrallyarcuate upon fixation. Lip region slightly off set, outerliplets and papillae distinct. Odontostyle 12µm long;ventral arm 4µm long. Odontophore 13µm long,arcuate. Oesophageal bulb cylindroids which occupies50% of oesophageal length. Vulva transverse, ovariespaired. Prerectum distinct. Rectum 20µm long or oneanal body diameter. Tail 112µm long, elongate conoidor 7.4 anal body width, terminus dorsally bent. Male:Spicules 40µm long. Lateral guiding pieces present.Series of 5–8 ventromedian supplements plus adanalpair. Tail elongate conoid 3.10 anal body-width long.Habitat and locality: Collected from moist soilaround the bank of Fatehsagar Lake, Udaipur District,Rajasthan, India.Remarks: Measurements fit well within the rangegiven by Goseco, Ferris & Ferris, 1976.ReferencesAndrássy, I. (1986). The genus Mesodorylaimus Andrassy,1959 and its relatives (Nematoda: Dorylaimidae). ActaZoologica Hungarica 32(3–4): 207–261.Andrássy, I. (1986). Paralongidorus rex sp.n., a new nematodespecies from Hungary. Allattani Kozlemenyek 73: 115–118.Arya, H.C. (1957). Root–knot disease of tomatoes in Jodhpur.Science & Culture 22: 391–392.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2889–28992897

New records of nematodesP. BohraABABImage 10. Paralongidorus rex (Andrássy, 1986) Hunt,1993.A - Anterior region; B - Posterior end;Image 11. Sclerostylus kari Goseco, Ferris & Ferris,1971. A -Anterior region; B - Posterior.region.A B CImage 12. Dorylaimodes(L)akon Goseco, Ferris & Ferris,1976. A - Anterior end; B - Male Posterior end; C - Female Posteriorend.Bajaj, H.K. & M.S. Jairajpuri (1979). A review of the genusXiphinema Cobb, 1913 with descriptions of species fromIndia. Records of Zoological Survey India 75: 255–325.Baqri, Q.H. & P. Bohra (2001). Nematodes from Rajasthan,India. I. Six new species of Dorylaimida. Nematology 3(2):113–127.Baqri, Q.H. & P. Bohra (2003). Prothornenema gen. n. and fournew species of Dorylaimoidea (Nematoda: Dorylaimida)from India. International Journal of Nematology 13(2):185–194.Bohra, P. (2008). Qualitative and Quantitative Studies of Plantand Soil Nematodes associated with crops of economicimportance in Rajasthan. Records Zoological Survey IndiaOccasional Paper 278: 1–180.Bohra, P. (2011). Pictorial Hand Book on Plant and SoilNematodes of Rajasthan. Published by Director ofZoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 243pp+31pls.Bohra, P. & Q.H. Baqri (2000). Nematodes from Rajasthan II.Six new records of order Dorylaimida from India. RecordsZoological Survey India Kolkata 98(4): 117–122.Bohra, P. & Q.H. Baqri (2003). Nematodes from Rajasthan,India. IV. Seventeen species as new record from the State.Records Zoological Survey India Kolkata 101(3&4): 129–145.Goseco, C.G., V.R. Ferris & J.M. Ferris (1976). Revision inLeptonchoidea (Nematoda: Dorylaimida). Dorylaimoidesin Dorylaimoididae, Dorylaimoidinae; Calolaimus andTimmus n. gen. in Dorylaimoididae, Calolaiminae; andMiranema in Miranematidae. research bulletin No. 941:1–45. Purdue Univrsity, Agricultural Experiment Station,West Lafoyette, Indiana, 47907.Goseco, C.G., V.R. Ferris & J.M. Ferris (1981). Sclerostylusn. gen. from Panama and other Neotropical species ofLeptonchoidea (Dorylaimida). Journal of Nematology2898Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2889–2899

New records of nematodes13(1): 79–86.Hunt, D.J. 1993. Aphelenchida, Longidoridae andTrichodoridae: Their Systematic and Bionomics. CABInternational. Research Bulletein No. 941: 1–45. PurdueUniversity, Agricultural Experiment Station, WestLafoyette, Indiana, 47907, xi–339pp.Jairapuri, M.S. & D.J. Hunt (1984). The taxonomyof Tylenchorhynchinae(Nematoda: Tylenchida)withlongitudinal lines and ridges. Systematic Parasitology 15:261–268.Jairajpuri, M.S. & W. Ahmad (1992). Dorylaimida - Freeliving, Predaceous and Plant–parasitic Nematodes. Oxford& IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, v+449pp.Khera, S. (1967). Acrobelinema cornis n. g., n. sp. subfamilyAcrobelinae Thorne from rhizosphere of millets from India.Indian Journal of Helminthology 21(2): 159–163.Khera, S. (1969). Nematodes from the banks of still andrunning waters. VI. Order Rhabditida from Sewar. Journalof Helminthology XLIII (3&4): 347–363.Khera, S. (1971). Nematodes from the banks of still andrunning waters. VII. Family Monhysteridae. Nematologica(1970) 16: 492–502.Nandkumar, C. & S. Khera (1969). Paurodontus aberrans n.sp. (Nematoda: Tylenchida) with a note on a special branchof the oviduct. Indian Journal of Helminthology 21: 1–15.Nandkumar, C. & S. Khera (1970). A new nematode speciesPratylenchus mulchandi from Millets of Rajasthan, IndianJournal of Phytopathology 22: 359–363.Sethi, C.L. & G. Swarup (1968a). Plant parasitic nematodesP. Bohraof north–western India. III. The genus Pratylenchus: IndianJournal of Phytopathology 24: 410–412.Sethi¸C.L. & G. Swarup (1968b). Plant parasitic nematodesof north-western India. I. The genus Tylenchorhynchus.Nematologica 14: 77–88Sher, 1966. Revision of the Hoplomaiminae (Nematoda) VI.Helicotylenchus Steiner, 1945. Nematologica 12: 1–56.Siddiqi, M.R. (1972). On the genus Helicotylenchus Steiner,1945 (Nematoda : Tylenchida), with description of ninenew species. Nematologica 18: 74–91.Siddiqi, M.R. (1979). The origin and phylogeny of nematodesof order Tylenchida. Nematropica 9: 109.Siddiqi, M.R. (1982). Sicorinema gen.n. and Moshajia gen.n.(Dorylaimida:Crateronematidae) with description of fournew species. Nematologia Mediterranea 10: 157–166.Tikyani, M.G. & S. Khera (1968). Neopaurodontusasymmetricus n. g., n. sp. (Nematoda: Paurodontidae) fromrhizosphere of great millet. Indian Journal of Helminthology20: 34–39.Tikyani, M.G., S. Khera, & G.C. Bhatnagar (1969).Helicotylenchus goodi n. sp. (Nematoda: Paurodontidae)from rhizosphere of great millet. Zoologischer Anzeiger182: 420–423.Tjepkema, R. Virginia, V.R. Ferris & J.M. Ferris (1971).Review of the genus Aporcelaimellus Heyns, 1965 and sixspecies group of the genus Eudorylaimus Andrassy, 1959(Nematoda: Dorylaimida). Research bulletin no. 882: pp:1–51. Purdue University. Agricultural Experiment Station,Lafoyette, Indiana.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2889–28992899

JoTT Sh o r t Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(9): 2900–2910An inventory of mammals, birds and reptiles along asection of the river and banks of upper Ganges, IndiaTawqir Bashir 1 , Sandeep Kumar Behera 2 , Afifullah Khan 3 & Parikshit Gautam 41Senior Research Fellow, Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001, India2Associate Director, River Basins and Biodiversity, 4 Director, Freshwater and Wetland Division, WWF-India, 172 Lodhi Estate, NewDelhi, India3Professor, Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh 202002, IndiaEmail: 1 tbashir@wii.gov.in (corresponding author), 2 sbehera@wwfindia.net, 3 afifkhan@rediffmail.com, 4 pgautam@wwfindia.netAbstract: A study was conducted to assess faunal diversity alonga 165-km stretch of the upper Ganges River between Bijnor andNarora cities, Uttar Pradesh, from January to June 2007. Bothriver and bank species diversity of reptiles, birds and mammalsusing a combination of boat surveys, linear walks and randomsearches were inventoried. Presence of 18 species of mammals,55 species of birds and 13 species of reptiles were recordedfrom the river stretch including 16 species of global conservationsignificance. Maximum encounter rate was observed for littlecormorant (3.160±0.290), macaque (2.385±0.442) and brownroofed turtle (1.009±0.107). Our study is an attempt towardsgenerating baseline information on the faunal diversity of theupper Ganges and we recommend exhaustive surveys andregular monitoring of this river stretch through indicator speciesapproach.Keywords: Conservation, encounter rate, faunal diversity,Ganges, monitoring.Date of publication (online): 26 August 2012Date of publication (print): 26 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Editor: Rahul KaulManuscript details:Ms # o2692Received 02 February 2011Final received 08 July 2012Finally accepted 30 July 2012Citation: Bashir, T., S.K. Behera, A. Khan & P. Gautam (2012). An inventoryof mammals, birds and reptiles along a section of the river and banks ofupper Ganges, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(9): 2900–2910.Copyright: © Tawqir Bashir, Sandeep Kumar Behera, Afifullah Khan &Parikshit Gautam2012. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium for non-profitpurposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to theauthors and the source of publication.Acknowledgements: We thank the Department of Wildlife Sciences,Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, for providing the logistic sup port andfacilities necessary for conducting the recent surveys. We are grateful toWWF-India for providing the financial support and their information gatheredthrough previous surveys. We express our gratitude to the Department ofEnvironment and Forests (Narora, Brijghat & Bijnor) for their official helpand support. Last but not the least, we thank our field assistants for theirhelp.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADAquatic ecosystems are critical components of ourenvironment. In addition to being essential contributorsto biodiversity and ecological productivity, they alsoprovide a variety of services to human populations(Poff et al. 2002). Rivers, lakes, wetlands and estuariesconstituting the freshwater ecosystem alone supportabout 6% of the described world species (Hawksworth& Kalin-Arroyo 1995) and provide habitats consistingof benthic, aquatic, and terrestrial components(FISRWG 2001). Freshwater biodiversity constitutesa valuable natural resource, in economic, cultural,aesthetic, scientific and educational terms (Dudgeonet al. 2006). However, there is an increasing concernworldwide on the loss of aquatic ecosystems andtheir associated biodiversity (Georges & Cottingham2002; Saunders et al. 2002; Cullen 2003), particularlyfor riverine landscapes (Dunn 2004). Rivers andassociated freshwater habitats are among the mostthreatened ecosystems of the world (Revenga et al.2005; WWF 2006) due to a wide range of intensivehuman use and developmental activities. In addition,declines in biodiversity are far greater in fresh watersthan in the most affected terrestrial ecosystems (Salaet al. 2000), because inspite of facing varied threatsand large scale exploitations, the freshwater hotspotsgenerally receive less management attention than theirterrestrial counterparts (Myers et al. 2000). Moreover,knowledge of the diversity of fresh waters is woefullyincomplete and the data are insufficient to accuratelyestimate rates of freshwater biodiversity loss in manyregions (Dudgeon et al. 2006).River Ganges regarded as one of the largest riverscoursing through 2,510km from northern to easternIndia and acting as a lifeline to the vast Indian plainsis well recognised for its enormous cultural andeconomic significance (Adel 2001). It supports about8% of the world’s population living in its catchments2900Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2900–2910

Mammals, birds and reptiles of upper Ganges(Newby 1998) and is also a centre of social andreligious tradition. Above all, the river is home toa wide variety of life forms ranging from primitivephytoplanktons to highly evolved species such asdolphins, thus signifying its biological and ecologicalimportance. Information on species diversity, abundanceand habitat characteristics are key baselineparameters for conservation planning; unfortunatelysuch information is lacking for many river segmentsof the Ganges.A stretch of upper Ganges between Rishikesh andKanpur functions as an ecologically important sectionbecause of its hydrological characteristics (Behera1995). But, due to high regulation of dams, barragesand associated irrigation canals, infrastructuredevelopment, water abstraction and pollution, presentdayflow of the upper Ganga Basin has decreased byabout 2–8 % and such a reduced flow regime alsoimpacts downstream water availability, water qualityand riverine ecosystems (Salemme 2007; Behera etal. 2008; Bharati et al. 2011). Within this, a stretchof 165km from Bijnor to Narora has been reported tobe rich in biodiversity and the only promising habitatfor the elusive species such as, Ganges River DolphinPlatanista gangetica gangetica, Smooth-coatedOtter Lutrogale perspicillata and Mugger CrocodileCrocodylus palustris in the upper Ganges (Behera1995; Behera & Rao 1999; Behera 2002; Bashiret al. 2010a). There is a knowledge gap regardingthe faunal assemblage of this stretch and whateverinformation is available, is in the form of casualrecords and sightings reported in least accessibleformats. With this background, we conducted briefsurveys in the stretch in an attempt towards assessingrelative abundance and habitat occurrence of species(mammals, birds and reptiles) in the study stretch andalong its banks.Material and MethodsThe study was conducted in a 165-km stretch ofupper Ganges, between Bijnor (29 0 22’12.6”N & 78 0 02’07.8”E) and Narora (28 0 11’28.4”N & 78 0 23’48.1”E)barrages in western Uttar Pradesh, India (Fig. 1),between January and June, 2007. The entire studyarea had an average width of 200m and was generallyshallow with only intermittent small stretches of deepwater pools. The banks are either sandy or muddycharacterized by forest, shrub and grasses.T. Bashir et al.Surveys were conducted on a motor boat poweredby a 15-hp engine at a constant speed of 6km/h.Surveys were done between 0600 to 1800 h whichalso included frequent halts at the banks generallyafter every 5km on both sides of the river dependingon their accessibility. Banks were surveyed up to 1kmaway from the river course through linear walks (1to 1.5 km) along the river, and random searches forwildlife sightings, signs and evidences by a team offive observers (one researcher and four trained fieldassistants). Further information regarding the presenceof various mammal and reptile species was gatheredthrough informal conversations with farmers, fishermenand other people living along the banks. In addition,during boat surveys opportunistic animal sightings onadjacent banks were also recorded. Field recordingswere done with naked eye and using 50×10 binoculars(generally for birds) followed by comparison with fieldguides (Prater 1971; Ali & Ripley 1987; Grimmett etal. 2001; Das 2002; Menon 2003; Whitaker & Captain2004). Photographs were also taken wherever possibleas supporting evidence and later compared with fieldguides and discussed with species experts for properidentification. We separately calculated encounterrates (number/km) of species recorded during boatsurveys and during bank searches and also generatedinformation on their habitat occurrence (river course,islands [small temporary landmasses created in thestretch due to variation in water flow speeds along thebanks], riverbeds, bank cliffs, marshlands, agriculturalfields and dense forests along banks) based on recordsand local information. Each survey of the entirestretch along with the bank surveys took about 12–15days. A total of four boat surveys (two upstream &two downstream) with an effort of 660 and 116 km ofbank searches were done.Methodological considerationsBiodiversity surveys in general are limited by anumber of factors. Wetlands being dynamic systemsspecies occurrence and detection are constrainedby season and time of the day due to variation inactivity levels and behaviour among species (Shields1977; Rollfinke & Yahner 1990). Consequently, acombination of boat surveys and ground based banksearches were conducted for estimating relativeabundances in terms of encounter rates (separate foreach method) as these could act as a useful monitoringJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2900–2910 2901

Mammals, birds and reptiles of upper GangesT. Bashir et al.75 0 30’E 80 0 30’E 85 0 30’E24 0 00’N 27 0 00’N 30 0 00’NFigure 1. The location of the study area in Uttar Pradesh, India. Source: WWF-Indiatool for rapid assessment for a range of species(Anonymous 1998; Kiszka et al. 2004).We conducted linear surveys along a river stretch,covering 15–20 km and sampling 3–4 segments on eachday. Two upstream and two downstream surveys (eachsurvey 165km) were done in this way. Consequently,segments were exposed to sampling over a mixture ofdaily time periods. Thereafter, we pooled sightingsand signs during each complete survey and reportedencounter rates of species for the entire river stretch.Similar, technique was used to calculate encounterrates of species recorded during bank searches fora total search/walking effort of 116km. Our surveymethod is the most feasible monitoring techniqueused for wildlife inventories along river stretches andwetlands (Anonymous 1998; Carletti et al. 2004). Weinvoke that care should be administered in comparingthese results with future studies and comparisonsshould be made only with studies involving similarsurvey protocols.ResultsFaunal diversityWe recorded the presence of 18 species of mammals(Table 1), 55 species of birds (Table 2) and 13 speciesof reptiles (Table 3) from the study stretch (aquatic &terrestrial) including one Critically Endangered, fourEndangered, six Vulnerable and five Near Threatenedspecies (IUCN 2010) (Images 1–3). While surveyingthe banks we also encountered antlers of Swamp DeerRucervus duvaucelii (Image 1b) and scats of a wildfelid species probably that of Fishing Cat Prionailurusviverrinus (Image 1e). Among mammals the maximumencounter rate (individuals/km ± Standard Error)was observed for macaque (2.385±0.442) followedby Jackal (0.478±0.153) and Ganges River Dolphin(0.24±0.061), while minimum was for the Fishing Cat(0.025±0.012 [signs/km]). In case of birds maximum2902Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2900–2910

Mammals, birds and reptiles of upper GangesT. Bashir et al.Table 1. List of mammalian species recorded along upper Ganges and its banks.Common nameScientific nameEncounter rate (#/km)±S.E.During boatsurveysDuring banksearchesEvidenceHabitat(s)Ganges River Dolphin Platanista gangetica 0.24±0.061 - S RCSmooth-coated Otter Lutrogale perspicillata - 0.060±0.015 SG RC, I, RBHog Deer + Hyelaphus porcinus - 0.046±0.006 SG M, ASwamp Deer + Rucervus duvaucelii - 0.086±0.012 SG M, ABlackbuck* Antilope cervicapra - - LI M, ANilgai Boselaphus tragocamelus - 0.144±0.032 S A, FFishing Cat + Prionailurus viverrinus - 0.025±0.012 SG I, MIndian Wolf* Canis lupus pallipes - - LI -Jackal Canis aureus 0.019±0.007 0.478±0.153 S M, A, FWild Boar Sus scrofa - 0.178±0.037 S M, ARhesus Macaque Macaca mulatta 0.353±0.103 2.385±0.442 S BC, FIndian Porcupine Hystrix indica - 0.028±0.007 SG M, AFive-striped Palm Squirrel Funambulus pennanti - 0.121±0.023 S RB, A, FSmall Indian Civet + Viverricula indica - - LI M, A, FSmall Indian Mongoose Herpestes auropunctatus - 0.092±0.017 S A, FIndian Hare Lepus nigricollis - - LI M, A, FIndian Hedgehog Paraechinus micropus - - LI -Indian Pangolin Manis crassicaudata - - LI -Soft-furred Field Rat Millardia meltada - 0.063±0.012 S A, FFulvous Fruit Bat Rousettus leschenaultii - 0.042±0.017 S F* Species reported by Behera (1995) but not recorded in the present surveys; + New additions to the lsitS = Sighting, SG = Signs, LI = Local information; RC = river course, I = islands, RB = riverbeds, BC = bank cliffs, M = marshlands, A = agricultural fields,F = dense forests along banks.Table 2. List of avian species recorded along upper Ganges and its banks.Common nameScientific nameEncounter rate (#/km) ± S.E.During boatsurveysDuring banksearchesHabitat(s)Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibiss 1.016±0.085 1.20±0.268 I, RB, M, AIndian Pond Heron Ardeola grayii 0.089±0.032 0.257±0.128 I, RB, MGrey Heron Ardea dinerea 0.050±0.018 - I, RB, MLittle Egret Egretta garzetta 0.292±0.100 - I, RB, M, AIntermediate Egret Egretta intemedia 0.106±0.072 - I, RB, MLarge Egret Egretta alba 0.095±0.056 - I, M, AGreat Cormorant* Phalacrocorax carbo - - -Little Cormorant Phalacrocorax niger 3.160±0.290 - I, RBDarter/Snakebird Anhinga rufa 0.065±0.015 - I, RB, MIndian Shag* Phalacrocorax fuscicollis - - -Common Teal Anas crecca 0.245±0.047 - RC, I, MCommon Pochard Aythya ferina 0.156±0.082 - RC, I, MRed Crested Pochard Netta rufina 0.097±0.044 - RC, IPintail Anas acuta 0.080±0.051 - RC, I, MIndian Peafowl Pavo cristatus - 0.103±0.025 A, FSarus Crane Grus antigone 0.285±0.065 0.192±0.076 I, RB, M, AJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2900–29102903

Mammals, birds and reptiles of upper GangesT. Bashir et al.Common nameScientific nameEncounter rate (#/km) ± S.E.During boatsurveysDuring banksearchesHabitat(s)White-breasted Waterhen Amaurornis phoenicurus 0.045±0.020 0.309±0.134 RC, I, RB, M, AMoorhen Gallinula chloropus 0.033±0.006 0.280±0.114 RC, I, MEurasian Coot Fulica atra 0.057±0.031 - RC, I, MPainted Stork Mycteria leucocephala 0.063±0.011 0.041±0.014 RC, I, RB, MBlack Necked Stork Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus 0.015±0.006 - RC, I, MAsian Openbill Anastomus oscitans 0.024±0.010 - RC, IEurasian Spoon Bill Platalea leucorodia 0.116±0.020 - RC, IGreater Flamingo Phoenicopterus ruber 0.015±0.007 - RC, IBar Headed Goose* Anser indicus - - -Ruddy Shelduck Tadorna ferruginea 0.054±0.017 - RC, INorthern Shoveller Anas clypeata 0.057±0.016 - RC, I, MSpotbill Duck Anas poecilorhyncha 0.168±0.045 - RC, I, MComb Duck* Sarkidiornis melanotos - - -Red-wattled Lapwing Vanellus indicus 0.698±0.057 0.941±0.238 I, RB, BC, M, ABlack Winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus 0.047±0.025 0.102±0.035 I, RB, MCommon Sandpiper Tringa hypoleucos 0.056±0.017 - I, RB, MWhite-throated Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis 0.077±0.029 0.106±0.046 I, RB, BC, M, APied Kingfisher Ceryle rudis 0.027±0.017 0.030±0.021 I, RB, MHoopoe Upupa epops 0.036±0.006 0.202±0.097 RB, A, FEurasian Stone-curlew* Burhinus oedicnemus - - -Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta 0.150±0.038 - RC, IGreat Stone-curlew* Esacus recurvirostris - - -Little Ringed Plover* Charadrius dubius - - -Kentish Plover* Charadrius alexandrinus - - -Spur Winged Plover* Vanellus spinosus - - -Common Redshank* Tringa totanus - - -Blue Tailed Bee-eater Merops philippinus - 0.038±0.016 M, A, FGreen Bee-eater* Merops orientalis - - -Indian Roller Coracias benghalensis - 0.010±0.005 M, AIndian Bushlark* Mirafra erythroptera - - -Rufous-tailed Lark* Ammomanes phoenicurus - - -Little Tern* Sterna albifrons - - -Brown-headed Gull* Larus brunnicephalus - - -Black-headed Gull* Larus ridibundus - - -River Tern Sterna aurantia 0.272±0.059 - I, MBlack-bellied Tern* Sterna acuticauda - - -Indian Skimmer Rynchops albicollis - 0.090±0.055 I, MCrow-pheasant Centropus sinensis - 0.021±0.009 M, FWhite-rumped Vulture Gyps bengalensis - 0.005±0.003 FEgyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus - 0.130±0.061 BC, MShikra* Accipiter badius - - -Pallas’s Fish-eagle* Haliaeetus leucoryphus - - -Blue Rock Pigeon Columba livia 0.130±0.033 0.374±0.071 RB, BC, A, FEurasian Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto - 0.141±0.063 RB, A, F2904Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2900–2910

Mammals, birds and reptiles of upper GangesT. Bashir et al.Common nameScientific nameEncounter rate (#/km) ± S.E.During boatsurveysDuring banksearchesRed Turtle Dove* Streptopelia tranquebarica - - -Habitat(s)Rose-ringed Parakeet Psittacula krameri - 0.071±0.027 M, FBrown Fish-owl* Bubo zeylonensis - - -Little Swift* Apus affinis - - -Red Vented Bulbul Pycnonotus cafer 0.07±0.017 0.135±0.051 BC, M, A, FIndian Myna Acridotheres tristis 0.172±0.052 0.492±0.108 RB, BC, A, FPied Myna Sturnus contra 0.040±0.016 0.231±0.075 RB, A, FBank Myna* Acridotheres ginginianus - - -Black Headed Myna* Sturnus pagodarum - - -House Sparrow Passer domesticus 0.089±0.017 0.989±0.218 RB, BC, A, FRufous Treepie Dendrocitta vagabunda - 0.045±0.015 A, FOriental Magpie Robin Copsychus saularis - 0.028±0.012 M, A, FIndian Robin Saxicoloides fulicata - 0.013±0.007 A, FBrahminy Kite* Haliastur indus - - -Black-Winged Kite* Elanus caeruleus - - -Black Kite* Milvus migrans - - -Long-tailed Shrike Lanius schach - 0.062±0.015 M, AGrey Wagtail* Motacilla cinerea - - -Large Pied Wagtail* Motacilla maderaspatensis - - -Common Babbler Turdoides caudatus - 0.032±0.010 RB, M, A, FLarge Grey Babbler Turdoides malcolmi - 0.097±0.024 RB, BC, M, A, FBran Swallow* Hirundo rustica - - -Red-rumped Swallow* Hirundo daurica - - -House Crow Corvus splendens 0.178±0.026 0.448±0.153 I, RB, M, A, FJungle Crow Corvus macrorhynchos - 0.218±0.083 RB, M, A, FCommon Drongo Dicrurus adsimilis 0.034±0.011 0.181±0.033 M, A*Species reported by Behera (1995) but not recorded in the present surveysRC = river course, I = islands, RB = riverbeds, BC = bank cliffs, M = marshlands, A = agricultural fields, F = dense forests along banks.encounter rate was for Little Cormorant (3.160±0.290)and minimum for Indian White-rumped Vulture Gypsbengalensis (0.005±0.003). While among reptilesmaximum encounter rate was observed for BrownRoofed Turtle (1.009±0.107) and minimum for IndianCobra (0.011±0.011), respectively. The informationon the habitat occurrence of mammal speciesdepicted that more than 50% of species occurred inagricultural fields, dense forests along banks as wellas in marshlands while just 12% occurred in rivercourse, islands and river beds. In case of birds morethan 60% species were encountered in marshlands andislands, and more than 30% in agricultural fields, riverbeds, in dense forests along banks as well as in rivercourses, while only 14% were encountered in bankcliffs. In addition, more that 50% of the reptile specieswere encountered in river beds, agricultural fields,marshlands and dense forests along banks, while morethan 30% in islands and river courses and only 15% inbank cliffs. Interestingly, more than 80% of the snakespecies were encountered in agricultural fields.Besides this, we encountered carcasses of IndianMonitor Lizard Varanus benghalensis with fatalwounds (Image 1a) and Swamp Deer with cut antlers(Image 1c). We also found entangled Peacock SoftShell Turtle Nilssonia hurum (Image 3b) in one ofthe permanently laid fishing nets, recovered antlersof Swamp Deer and Hog Deer Heylaphus porcinus(Image 1d) and rescued a live specimen of IndianRoofed Turtle from local farmers, who superstitiouslyJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2900–29102905

Mammals, birds and reptiles of upper GangesT. Bashir et al.Table 3 List of reptilian species recorded along upper Ganges and its banks.Common nameScientific nameEncounter rate (#/km) ± S.E.During boatsurveysDuring banksearchesHabitat(s)Indian Rock Python + Python molurus - 0.104±0.031 M, A, FRussell’s Viper + Daboia russelii - 0.040±0.011 RC, A, FCheckered Keelback + Xenochrophis piscator 0.015±0.006 0.230±0.055 RC, RB, M, AIndian Rat Snake + Ptyas mucosas - 0.044±0.011 RB, A, FRed Sand Boa + Eryx johnii - 0.040±0.008 RB, AIndian Cobra + Naja naja - 0.011±0.011 A, FMugger Crocodile Crocodylus palustris 0.058±0.010 - RC, I, RB, MGharial Gavialis gangeticus - - -Black Pond Turtle* Geoclemys hamiltonii - - -Crowned River Turtle* Hardella thurjii - - -Red-crowned Roofed Turtle* Batagur kachuga - - -Three-striped Roofed Turtle* Batagur dhongoka - - -Brown Roofed Turtle Pangshura smithii 1.009±0.107 - I, RBIndian Roofed Turtle* Kachuga tecta - - -Indian Tent Turtle* Pangshura tentoria - - -Indian Black Turtle* Melanochelys trijuga - - -Indian Flapshell Turtle* Lissemys punctata - - -Indian Softshell Turtle Aspideretes gangeticus 0.052±0.032 - RC, I, RBPeacock Softshell Turtle Nilssonia hurum - - I, RB, MNarrow-headed Softshell Turtle* Chitra indica - - -Monitor Lizard + Varanus bengalensis - 0.134±0.064 M, A, FCommon Calotes + Calotes versicolor - 0.276±0.048 I, RB, BC, M, A, FIndian Bull Frog + Hoplobatrachus tigerinus - 0.961±0.021 I, RB, BC, M, A, F*Species reported by Behera (1995) but not recorded in the present surveys; + New additions to the listRC = river course, I = islands, RB = riverbeds, BC = bank cliffs, M = marshlands, A = agricultural fields, F = dense forests along banks.believed the turtle carapace as a sign of protection totheir cattle. During our visits to the local fish market(mandi) we also got evidences of illegal fishing(catches

Mammals, birds and reptiles of upper GangesT. Bashir et al.ab© Tawqir Bashirc d eImage 1. (a) Monitor Lizard carcas with deadly wounds; (b) Swamp Deer antler; (c) Swamp Deer carcas with cut antlers;(d) Swamp and Hog deer antlers recovered; (e) Fishing Cat scatabc© Tawqir BashirImage 2. (a) Sarus Cranes; (b) Greater Flamingo and Eurasian Spoon Bill; (c) Indian SkimmerJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2900–29102907

Mammals, birds and reptiles of upper GangesT. Bashir et al.a© Tawqir BashirbcImage 3. (a) Common Calotes; (b) Peacock Softshell Turtle entangled in fishing net; (c) Russell’s Viperspecies in the stretch as reported earlier (Behera 1995;2002), signifying it as a potential habitat in the upperGanges for dolphin and turtle conservation (Behera1995; Behera & Rao 1999; Behera 2002). Occurrenceof a major proportion of water birds is also an indicatorof good habitat quality. Majority of mammal, bird andreptile species occurrences in agricultural fields, forestpatches along banks and in marshlands symbolisesthat not only the river stretch but its banks are equallyrich in biodiversity representing a rich riverineecosystem, but with few concerns; since agriculturalactivities are continuing to increase along the banks(Bashir et al. 2010a) and additionally some threatsto riverine biodiversity were identified at local levelin this study. Increasing agricultural activities andpercentage of cultivated land of riparian wetlandshave been suggested to affect bird communities bydecreasing species diversity (Mensing et al. 1998).Despite survey constraints, there is a regular need toassess the level of biodiversity and health of this riverstretch. An indicator species approach can be a usefulassessment tool in this regard (Anonymous 2008). Ina multi-organisimal study of a dynamic ecosystem(wetlands), water birds have been suggested asexcellent environmental indicators as their populationsare not only extremely dynamic and sensitive tochange but more often reflect land use conditions thanother groups (Galatowitsch et al. 1999; Anonymous2008). Hence, future studies should be conductedwith this approach along with awareness programs atlocal levels.ReferencesAdel, M.M. (2001). Effect on water resources from UpstreamWater Diversion in the Ganges Basin. Journal ofEnvironmental Quality 30: 356–368.Ali, S & S.D. Ripley (1987). The Compact Handbook of theBirds of India and Pakistan. Oxford University Press, NewDelhi, 820pp.2908Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2900–2910

Mammals, birds and reptiles of upper GangesAnonymous (1998). Inventory methods for colonial-nestingfreshwater birds. Standards for Components of BritishColumbia’s Biodiversity No. 8. Ministry of Environment,Lands and Parks Resources Inventory Branch for theTerrestrial Ecosystems Task Force Resources InventoryCommittee, 38pp.Anonymous (2008). Biodiversity Survey of the IntegratedConstructed Wetland at Tolka Valley Park. Finglas, Co.Dublin. Dublin City Council. Openfield EcologicalServices, 20pp.Bashir, T., A. Khan, S.K. Behera & P. Gautam (2010a).Socio-economic factors threatening the survival of GangesRiver Dolphin Platanista gangetica gangetica in the upperGanges River, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 2(8):1087–1091.Bashir, T., A. Khan, P. Gautam & S.K. Behera (2010b).Abundance and Prey Availability Assessment of GangesRiver Dolphin (Platanista gangetica gangetica) in a stretchof Upper Ganges River, India. Aquatic Mammals 36(1):19–26.Behera, S.K. (1995). Studies on Population Dynamics, HabitatUtilization and Conservation Aspects of for GangeticDolphin (Platanista gangetica) in a stretch of Ganga Riverfrom Rishekesh to Kanpur. PhD Thesis, School of Studiesin Zoology, Jiwaji University Gawalior, 198pp.Behera, S.K. & R.J. Rao (1999). Observation on the behaviorof Gangetic Dolphins in the upper Ganga River. Journal ofthe Bombay Natural History Society 96(1): 43–47.Behera, S.K. (2002). Status Report of Upper Ganga River(Bijnor to Narora), Ganges River Dolphin ConservationProject, World Wide Fund for Nature- India, 31pp.Behera, S.K., V. Sagar & A. Nawab (2008). Environmentalflow requirements vis-à-vis habitat use pattern of freshwaterdolphins. Proceedings of the 11th International RiverSymposium, Brisbane, Australia.Bharati, L., G. Lacombe, P. Gurung, P. Jayakody, C.T.Hoanh & V. Smakhtin (2011). The impacts of waterinfrastructure and climate change on the hydrology ofthe Upper Ganges River Basin. Colombo, Sri Lanka:International Water Management Institute, 36pp. (IWMIResearch Report 142), [doi: 10.5337/2011.210].Carletti, A., De Leo, G.A. & I. Ferrari (2004). A criticalreview of representative wetland rapid assessment methodsin North America. Aquatic Conservation: Marine andFreshwater Ecosystem 14: 103–113.Choudhary, S.K., B.D. Smith, S. Dey & S. Prakash (2006).Conservation and biomonitoring in the VikramshilaGangetic Dolphin Sanctuary, Bihar, India. Oryx 40(2):189–197.Cullen, P. (2003). The Heritage River Proposal - ConservingAustralia’s undamaged rivers, pp. 513–520. In: Beumer,J.P., A. Grant & D.C. Smith (eds.). Aquatic ProtectedAreas: What works best and how do we know? Proceedingsof the World Congress on Aquatic Protected Areas, Cairns,Australia - August 2002, University of Queensland Printery,St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.T. Bashir et al.Das, I. (2002). A Photographic Guide to Snakes and OtherReptiles of India. New Holland Publishers Ltd, London,UK, 144pp.Dudgeon, D., A.H. Arthington, M.O. Gessner, Zen-Ichiro,Kawabata, D.J. Knowler, C. Le´veˆque, R.J. Naiman,Anne-He´le`ne Prieur-Richard, D. Soto, M L.J.Stiassny & C.A. Sullivan (2006). Freshwater biodiversity:importance, threats, status and conservation challenges.Biological Review 81: 163–182.Dunn, H. (2004). Defining the ecological values of rivers: theviews of Australian river scientists and managers. AquaticConservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14:413-433.FISRWG (2001). Stream corridor restoration – principles,processes and practices, adopted as Part 653 of the NationalEngineering Handbook, USDA-Natural ResourcesConservation Service. Available from: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration/. Federal InteragencyStream Restoration Working Group.Galatowitsch, S.M., Whited, D.C. & J.R. Tester (1999).Development of community metrics to evaluate recovery ofMinnesota wetlands. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stressand Recovery 6: 217–234.Georges, A. & P. Cottingham (eds.) (2002). Biodiversity ininland waters – priorities for its protection and management.Recommendations from the 2001 Fenner Conference onthe Environment. Technical Report 1/2002. CooperativeResearch Centre for Freshwater Ecology, Canberra, 37pp.Grimmett, R., C. Inskipp & T. Inskipp (2001). Pocket Guideto the Birds of the Indian Subcontinent. Oxford UniversityPress, 384pp.Hawksworth, D.J. & M.T. Kalin-Arroyo (1995). Magnitudeand distribution of biodiversity, pp.107–191. In: V.H.Heywood (ed.). Global biodiversity Assessment, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, U.K.IUCN (2010). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2010.2. www.iucnredlist.orgKiszka, J., S. Hassani & S. Pezeril (2004). Distribution andstatus of small cetaceans along the French Channel coasts:using opportunistic records for a preliminary assessment.Lutra 47: 33–45.Menon, V. (2003). Field Guide to Indian Mammals. DorlingKindersley (India), Penguin Books India, Delhi, 200pp.Mensing, D.M., S.G. Galatowitsch & J.R. Tester (1998).Anthropogenic effects on the biodiversity of riparianwetlands of a northern temperate landscape. Journal ofEnvironmental Management 53: 349–377.Mohan, R.S.L., S.C. Dey, S.P. Bairagi & S. Roy (1997). Ona survey of Ganges River dolphins Platanista gangetica ofBrahamputra River, Assam. Journal of the Bombay NaturalHistory Society 94: 483–495.Myers, N., R.A. Mittermier, C.G. Mittermier, G.A.B. daFonseca & J. Kent (2000). Biodiversity hotspots forconservation priorities. Nature 40: 853–858.Newby, E. (1998). Slowly Down The Ganges. Lonely PlanetPublications, 23–25pp.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2900–29102909

Mammals, birds and reptiles of upper GangesPoff, N.L., M.M. Brinson & J.W. Day (Jr.) (2002). Aquaticecosystems and global climate change. Technical Report,Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, USA,45pp.Prater, S.H. (1971). The Book of Indian Animals. BombayNatural History Society, Oxford University Press. Oxford,324pp.Revenga, C.I., R. Campbell, P. Abell de Villiers & M. Bryer(2005). Prospecting for monitoring freshwater ecosystemstowards the 2010 targets. Philosophical Transactions of theRoyal Society B: Biological Sciences 360: 397–413.Rollfinke, F.B. & R.H. Yahner (1990). Effects of time of dayand season on winter bird counts. Condor 92: 215–219.Sala, O.E., F.S. Chapin, J.J. Armesto, R. Berlow, J.Bloomfield, R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald, L.F.Huenneke, R.B. Jackson, A. Kinzig, R. Leemans, D.Lodge, H.A. Mooney, M. Oesterheld, N.L. Poff, M.T.Sykes, B.H. Walker, M. Walker & D.H. Wall (2000).T. Bashir et al.Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science287: 1770–1774.Salemme, E. (2007). “The World’s Dirty Rivers”. Time. 22January 2007.Saunders, D.L., Meeuwig, J.J. & C.J. Vincent (2002).Freshwater protected areas: strategies for conservation.Conservation Biology 16: 30–41.Shields, W.M. (1977). The effect of time of day on avian censusresults. Auk 94: 380–383.Wakid, A. (2005). Status and distribution of a newlydocumented residential Gangetic dolphin population inEastern Assam. Journal of the Bombay Natural HistorySociety 102: 158–161.Whitaker, R. & A. Captain (2004). Snakes of India - The FieldGuide. Draco Books, Chennai, xiv+481pp.WWF (2006). Conservation and Management of River Dolphinsin Asia. World Wide Fund for Nature, Kathmandu, Nepal.2910Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2900–2910

JoTT No t e 4(9): 2911–2914New floral distribution records ofAquilegia nivalis (Baker) Falc. ex B.D.Jacks and Doronicum falconeri C.B.Clarke ex Hook. f. from the Valley ofFlowers National Park, Uttarakhand,IndiaC.S. Rana 1 & D.S. Rawat 21Herbal Research and Development Institute, Mandal-Gopeshwar, Chamoli, Uttrakhand 246401, India2Department of Biological Sciences, College of Basic Scienceand Humanities, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture &Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand 263145, IndiaEmail: 1 drcsir@gmail.com (corresponding author),2drds_rawat@yahoo.comThe Valley of Flowers National Park (VoFNP)is a world heritage site and second core zone of theNanda Devi Biosphere Reserve (NDBR) locatedin Uttarakhand. The credit for the discovery of theValley of Flowers and its global popularity goes tothe British mountaineers Frank S. Smythe and R.L.Holdsworth who incidentally reached this valleyafter a successful expedition to Mount Kamet in 1931(Kandari & Gusain 2001). Fascinated by its floralbeauty and grandeur Smythe revisited the valley andpublished a book named “The Valley of Flowers” in1938 narrating floral beauty and his mountaineeringDate of publication (online): 26 August 2012Date of publication (print): 26 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Editor: K.S. NegiManuscript details:Ms # o3036Received 15 December 2011Final received 07 June 2012Finally accepted 23 August 2012Citation: C.S. Rana & D.S. Rawat (2012). New floral distribution records ofAquilegia nivalis (Baker) Falc. ex B.D. Jacks and Doronicum falconeri C.B.Clarke ex Hook. f. from the Valley of Flowers National Park, Uttarakhand,India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(9): 2911–2914.Copyright: © C.S. Rana & D.S. Rawat 2012. Creative Commons Attribution3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in anymedium for non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providingadequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.Acknowledgements: The authors are grateful to Prof. R.D. Gaur, FNAScand Dr. R.M. Painuli, Museum Curator, Department of Botany, HNB GarhwalUniversity, Srinagar, Garhwal for their kind help and encouragement time totime. CSR is grateful to Mr. T.S. Bisht (Forest Guard), Mr. B.S. Chauhan andRagubir Chauhan (Professional Photographer) for their kind helps duringthe various field expeditions within Valley of Flowers.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADexperiences in this then unknownHimalayan valley.The Valley of Flowers liesbetween at 31 0 41–31 0 48’N and79 0 33’–79 0 46’E in the upper catchment area ofAlaknanda River which is a major tributary of theGanges drainage system. A small snow fed stream,Pushpawati, which has its source in the Tipra Glacier,flows through this valley. It is almost a flat valley ofabout 5km length and 2km width with an altitudinalrange varying from 3200 to 6675 m. The valley issurrounded by Gauri Parbat (6590m) and Rataban(6126m) in the east, Kunth Khal (4430m) in thewest, Saptshring (5013m) in the south and NilgiriParvat (6479m) in the north. The Valley of Flowersis approached through an arduous trek of about 16kmfrom the last motorable place Govindghat, whichis 25km away from Joshimath town en route toBadrinath. From Govindghat one has to trek 13km toreach Ghangaria the base camp, and from Ghangariathe valley is situated at a distance of 3km (Kala et al.1998; Rana et al. 2011).For the last two decades we have been trying tosearch for populations of rare alpine endemics inGarhwal Himalaya and have already succeeded inthe rediscovery of Arenaria curvifolia Majumdar(Caryophyllaceae), Dicranostigma lactucoidesHook.f. et Thoms. (Papaveraceae), Gentiana infelixC.B. Clarke, and G. tetrasepala Biswas (Gentianaceae)after a gap of more than a century (Rawat & Gaur1996; Rawat & Rana 2007; Rawat 2009; Rawat et al.2009; Rana et al. 2011).During one of our recent botanical explorationsin the Valley of Flowers National Park (Image 1),we noticed and collected a few interesting specimensof two alpine herbs belonging to Ranunculaceaeand Asteraceae. On going through literature andherbarium studies, they were confirmed as Aquilegianivalis (Baker) Falc. ex B.D. Jacks (Ranunculaceae)and Doronicum falconeri C.B. Clarke ex Hook.f.(Asteraceae). A perusal of literature indicated thatboth are rare species and are distributed from Pakistanto Himachal Pradesh (Polunin & Stainton 1984). Bothare new records for the Valley of Flowers NationalPark (Kala et al. 1998) as well as additions to the Floraof Chamoli District (Naithani 1984). Though, thesespecies were earlier known to occur in UttarakhandJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2911–2914 2911

New records for Valley of FlowersC.S. Rana & D.S. Rawat© D.S. Rawat © D.S. RawatImage 1. A view in Valley of Flowers National Park showingcollection area(Uniyal et al. 2007) they are meagerly represented inthe herbaria indicating rare occurrence in this part of theHimalaya. Aquilegia nivalis is an endangered speciesas mentioned by Rao et al. (2003). Considering therarity of records, photographs of the collection areaand these two species are being given here for easyidentification and subsequent monitoring. The voucherspecimens were deposited and are being maintained atG.B. Pant University Herbarium Pantnagar (GBPUH)and H.N.B. Garhwal University Herbarium, SrinagarGarhwal, Uttarakhand (GUH).Aquilegia nivalis (Baker) Falc. ex B.D.Jacks.in Index Kew. 1:167. 1893; Munz in Gentes Herb.7:24. 1946. A. glauca Lindl. var. nivalis Baker in Gar.Chron. 2(10): 76. 1878. A. vulgaris L. var. jucundaHook.f. & Thomson in Fl. Brit. India 1:24.1872. Rau,Flora India 1:43. 1993. (Image 2)Specimen examined: 07.vii.2010, Kunth Khal,Garhwal Himalaya, India, coll. C.S. Rana, 19577(GUH) (Image 3).Perennial herbs up to 25cm high; stems simple,scapose, short, leafless or one-leaved. Radical leavesfew, long-petioled, 2-ternate; leaflets sessile, withbroad blunt teeth; cauline leaves - one or two orabsent, similar to radical leaves. Flowers solitary,terminal, drooping, 3.5–5.5 cm across, dark purple.Sepals five, petaloid-purple, broadly ovate-orbicular,spreading. Petals, erect, funnel-shaped, spur muchbent inwards, stamens numerous, inner ones reducedto scales. Carpels five or more, apocarpous. Fruit anImage 2. Aquilegia nivalisetaerio of five follicles.Flowering & Fruiting: June–July.Distribution: India: Northwestern Himalaya (above3000m), Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh,Uttarakhand; Pakistan.Ecology: Rare, in shady places at 3800–4000 m;Kunth Khal of Valley of Flowers, a small populationof 07-17 plants was observed in the area.Aquilegia nivalis is a rarely distributed species inthe Himalaya. It differs from commonly found speciesA. pubiflora in having all basal leaves, bigger and darkcoloured flower and distribution at comparativelyhigher elevation.Doronicum falconeri C.B. Clarke ex Hook.f.,Fl. Brit. India 3: 333. 1881; Mathur, Flora India13: 203. 1995; Karthikeyan et al., Fl. Plants India 1:225. 2009.Specimen examined: 07.vii.2010, Kunth Khal,Garhwal Himalaya, India, coll. C.S. Rana, 19586(GUH) (Image 4).2912Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2911–2914

New records for Valley of FlowersC.S. Rana & D.S. RawatImage 3. Herbarium of Aquilegia nivalisImage 4. Herbarium of Doronicum falconeriStout perennial erect herbs, up to 30cm high,puberulous. Stems simple, erect, ribbed. Leavesobovate to spathulate, acute, irregularly serrate, 2.5–8x 2–4 cm, puberulous on upper surface, glabrescent onthe lower surface; upper most cauline leaves lanceolate,serrate, sessile, amplexicaul; middle cauline leavesspathulate; basal leaves with 2–8 cm long petiole; Heads3–5 cm across, radiate, solitary, pubescent. Involucralbracts lanceolate, 10–12 mm long, acute, serrate. Rayflorets yellow, ca. 25mm long; ligule oblong, 20–22mm long, 3–5 veined, tridentate; corolla tube 4–5 mmlong, hairy outside. Disc florets 5–6 mm long; corollalimb 2–3 mm long, 5-lobed; lobes triangular-ovate,ca. 1mm long. Achenes broadly oblong, 1.5–2 mmlong, ribbed, white pubescent on the ribs. Pappus ofreddish-brown, scabrid deciduous hairs, 4.5–5 mmlong; scanty, absent in ray achenes.Flowering & Fruiting: June–July.Distribution: India: Western Himalaya (between4000–4500 m), Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh,Uttarakhand; Pakistan.Ecology: Rare, a small population of 9–12individuals was observed in a small area on moist slopeat 3900–4000 m, Kunth Khal of Valley of FlowersJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2911–29142913

New records for Valley of FlowersNational Park.The presence of A. nivalis and D. falconeri inthe Valley of Flowers National Park on the one handshows richness of flora, and on the other hand indicatesbetter chances of survival of these rare species in thearea where anthropogenic stresses are at a minimum.However, since the population sizes are very small, aclose watch on the fate of these species is needed infuture.REFERENCESKala, C.P., G.S. Rawat & V.K. Uniyal (1998). Ecology andConservation of Alpine Meadows in the Valley of FlowersNational Park. Wildlife Institute of India, 88pp.Kandari, O.P. & O.P. Gusain (2001). National parks andequivalent reserves, pp. 217–238. In: Kandari, O.P. & O.P.Gusain (eds.). Garhwal Himalaya Nature, Culture andSociety. Trans Media, Srinagar Garhwal.Naithani, B.D. (1984). Flora of Chamoli—Vol. 1. BotanicalSurvey of India, Howarah, 379pp.Polunin, O. & A. Stainton (1984). Flowers of the Himalaya.Oxford University Press, Delhi, 580pp.C.S. Rana & D.S. RawatRana, C.S., V. Rana & M.P.S. Bisht (2011). New distributionalrecord of Gentiana tetrasepala Biswas (Gentianales:Gentianaceae) from the Valley of Flowers National Park,Garhwal Himalaya. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(9):2100–2103.Rao, C.K., B.L. Geetha & G. Suresh (2003). Red List ofThreatened Vascular Plant Species in India. ENVISBotanical Survey of India, Howrah, 144pp.Rawat, D.S. (2009). A presumed extinct endemic alpine herbGentiana tetrasepala rediscovered after 123 years: will itsurvive? National Academy Science Letters 32: 169–17.Rawat, D.S. & C.S. Rana (2007). Arenaria curvifoliaMajumdar (Caryophyllaceae): an endangered and endemicHimalayan herb rediscovered. Current Science 92: 1486–1487.Rawat, D.S. & R.D. Gaur (1996). On the occurrence ofGentiana infelix (Gentianaceae) in Garhwal Himalaya.Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 93: 118–119.Rawat, D.S., H. Singh & C.S. Rana (2009). New distributionalrecords of Dicranostigma lactucoides and Dipcadiserotinum from Uttaranchal. Journal of Economic andTaxonomic Botany 33: 32–34.Uniyal, B.P., J.R. Sharma, U. Chaudhari & D.K. Singh(2007). Flowering Plants of Uttarakhand (A Checklist).Bishan Singh Mahendra Pal Singh. Dehradun, 404pp.2914Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2911–2914

JoTT No t e 4(9): 2915–2919Ecology and population structureof a terrestrial mycoheterotrophicorchid, Aphyllorchis montana Rchb.f.(Orchidaceae) in Soppinabetta forestsof the Western Ghats, IndiaPalatty Allesh Sinu 1,2 , Neethu Sinu 3 & KruthikChandrashekara 41Department of Animal Science, Central University of Kerala,Padennakad P.O., Kasaragod, Kerala 671328, India2Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment,Royal Enclave, Jakkur Post, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India3Palatty House, Puthenvelikara P.O., Ernakulam, Kerala683594, India4Krushikoota, Begar post, Sringeri, Chikmagalur, Karnataka577139, IndiaEmail: 1 sinupa@gmail.com (corresponding author), 3 neethu_punneli@yahoo.co.in, 4 krushikoota@yahoo.comThe Western Ghats is a mega-biodiversity hotspotin India, and one among the 34 global BiodiversityHotspots (Mittermeier et al. 2004). The 1,60,000km 2hill stretch inhabits at least 1,500 endemic plant speciesthat includes many rare, endangered and threatenedplants (Ahamedullah & Nayar 1986). During ourongoing research in an unprotected, farmer-managedSoppinabetta forest (Sinu et al. 2011, 2012) of WesternGhats, we came across several populations of a datadeficientmycoheterotrophic terrestrial orchid species,Date of publication (online): 26 August 2012Date of publication (print): 26 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Editor: Pankaj KumarManuscript details:Ms # o2743Received 01 April 2011Final received 05 July 2012Finally accepted 22 July 2012Citation: Sinu, P.A., N. Sinu & K. Chandrashekara (2012). Ecology andpopulation structure of a terrestrial mycoheterotrophic orchid, Aphyllorchismontana Rchb.f. (Orchidaceae) in Soppinabetta forests of the WesternGhats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(9): 2915–2919.Copyright: © Palatty Allesh Sinu, Neethu Sinu & Kruthik Chandrashekara2012. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allowsunrestricted use of this article in any medium for non-profit purposes,reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authorsand the source of publication.Acknowledgements: The study was supported by a DST Young Scientistgrant of the Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi &Conservation, Research and Exploration grant of the National GeographicSociety, USA to PAS and an ATREE (Bangalore) small grant program toKC. We thank the anonymous reviewers for the constructive commentsthat helped us to improve the manuscript.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADAphyllorchis montana Rchb. f..Here we report the populationstructure and ecology of thespecies, and discuss the possiblereasons for the locally rare statusof the species in the Western Ghats.Aphyllorchis montana is a terrestrialmycoheterotrophic (McKendrick et al. 2002) orchidspecies that grows in low and midland broadleavedforests of India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Borneo, thePhilippines, southern Japan, southern China, Vietnamand Taiwan (Boufford et al. 2003). Aphyllorchismontana is categorized as a data deficient orchid ofconservation concern in India, and is enlisted in theRET plant list of India (Mohanan et al. 1982; Santhan& Rajasekaran 1993; Nayar et al. 2006). A total of 30species (Xinqi & Gale 2009) belonging to the genusAphyllorchis Blume are known to exist in various partsof the world of which three species have been reportedfrom India, namely, Aphyllorchis alpina King &Pantl., Aphyllorchis gollanii Duthie and Aphyllorchismontana Rchb.f. The ecology and breeding systemof the species and the possible causes for its rarity arenot known. The non-chlorophyllous, non-leafy singleerect orchid shoot grows to a height of 20–60 cm, andbears laxly arranged flowers in raceme (Image 1).Materials and MethodsThe study was conducted in Soppinabetta forestsof Sringeri area 12 0 55’–13 0 54’N and 75 0 01’–75 0 22’E,average 725m above sea level) of central WesternGhats in Karnataka State of India. The sparselypopulated Sringeri Taluk is largely under the forestcover of two types, reserve forests (owned by the forestdepartment) and Soppinabetta forests (leased to localfarmers by the forest department as a source of organicmanure; hereafter, “SBF”) (Sinu et al. 2012). Theforests of Sringeri adjoin pristine evergreen forests ofKudremukh National Park and Agumbe rain forests.The mean annual rainfall at Sringeri varies between4,000 and 6,500 mm (Pascal 1988). Most of therainfall happens during the southwest monsoon (June–September). Mean daily maximum temperatures varybetween 22.8 0 C (July) and 35.1 0 C (April). However,the mean daily minimum temperature varies between13.2 0 C (January) and 19.8 0 C (May).SBF are managed semi-evergreen forest patches(area ca. 1–4 ha) and can be ascribed as Hopea ponga-Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9):2915–2919 2915

Aphyllorchis montana orchidP.A. Sinu et al.ABCImage 1. Morphology of Aphyllorchis montana. © P.A. SinuA - a clump of the orchid; B - a single flower; C - terminal part of an inflorescence with mature capsules.Memecylon umbellatum-Dimocarpus longan-Vateriaindica-Syzigium spp. type (P.A. Sinu pers. obs. 2006–2007). However, the dominance of the tree speciesvaries between forest patches. Vateria indica L.,Hopea ponga (Dennst.) Mabb. and Hopea parvifloraBedd. (Dipterocarpaceae) are some of the canopy treespecies that have clear dominance in some SBFs.Fourteen different SBFs were surveyed to study thedistribution and population structure of A. montana(Table 1). The study was undertaken in the monsoonmonths (July–September) of 2007 and 2008. All theselected forest fragments were less than 4ha in size;hence, the survey was conducted on the entire forestfloor. Vegetation structure and tree composition,however, was estimated using two belt transects of100×10 m in each forest patch. Once the orchid wasdetected, a fine-scale leaf litter study was made inthe vicinity of the orchids. Leaf litter of 30×30 cm 2quadrate that surrounds the orchid clump was studied;the number of leaves (fresh and old) in the litter bedwas checked by inserting a fine knife; litter depth waschecked using a measuring gradient scale; and the treespecies of the leaves was recorded. Canopy cover wasvisually ranked from six random points in each of theforest patches. The clump size, length of the shoots,number of flowers, and number of fruit capsuleswere recorded for every recorded orchid clump. Thedistance between two orchid clumps was measured ineach of the forest fragments.The differences in the number of orchid clumps2916Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2915–2919

Aphyllorchis montana orchidP.A. Sinu et al.Table 1. A general overview of 14 Soppinabetta forest patches (study sites) selected for the study in Sringeri area of centralWestern Ghats, India.SerialNo.Study site CoordinatesAltitude(m)Soil pHCanopycover (%)Litter depth(cm)*Percentage ofdipterocarpacean plantleaves in leaf litterDominant treespecies1**13 0 30.664’N75 0 10.643’E6754.767 2.5 61 Hp-Dl-Ci2**13 0 21.232’N75 0 18.612’E6924.857 1.3 85 Hp-Mu3**13 0 28.566’N75 0 09.122’E7124.480 1.4 100 $ Vi4**13 0 29.439’N75 0 12.038’E7285.070 3 81.5 Hp-Mu5**13 0 29.467’N75 0 20.664’E7384.780 3 35 Hp-Al613 0 29.332’N75 0 11.891’E6544.880 3.5 0 Al-Mu713 0 22.104’N75 0 13.356’E7574.980 2.5 0 Ah-Dl813 0 29.309’N75 0 10.436’E7125.165 1 77.5 Hp913 o 29.309’N75 o 10.436’E6945.170 1 0 Dl-Mu-Gm1013 o 30.087’N75 o 11.841’E7904.965 0.5 88 Hp1113 o 27.112’N75 0 13.538’E6904.865 1 54.4 Hp-Al1213 0 26.548’N75 0 13.330’E7614.875 1.5 12.4 Lw-Mu-Hp1313 0 25.056’N75 0 12.321’E7585.075 1.5 0 Dl-Mu1413 0 23.221’N75 0 18.112’E7225.165 1 68.5 Hp-Al* - recorded during the Orchid survey; ** - SBFs having Aphyllorchis montana populations; $ - Vateria indica leavesAbbreviations of plant species: Hp - Hopea ponga; Dl - Dimocarpus longan; Ci - Calophyllum inophyllum; Me - Mimusops elengi; Vi - Vateria indica;Al - Aporusa lindleyana; Mu - Memecylon umbellatum; Ah - Artocarpus heterophyllus; Gm - Garcinia morella; Lw - Lophopetalum whitianumbetween years and forest fragments were comparedusing Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal Wallis rankANOVA test, respectively.ResultsThe flowering A. montana shoots were seen by theonset of southwest monsoon in June. The floweringof the orchid continued until mid September. Fruitdevelopment occurred until mid October. Although theorchid was found growing with a single shoot in somefragments, most of them were found in clumps (Image1) of up to 13 shoots (average 3.83 shoots/clump (±3.21 SD; N=70). The length of the erect shoots variedbetween 16cm and 78cm (av. 40.86±12.70 SD; N=268).The number of flowers per shoot varied between fiveand 24 (av. 11.47±3.65 SD; N=149). The fruit setranged between 0% and 64.7% per shoot (N=214) ofthe flowers set fruits. Orchid distribution tends to becluttered; the inter-clump distance ranged betweenfour and 21 m in a forest fragment (av. 9.8±3.9 m SD;N=30). The voucher specimens are deposited in theSringeri field station of ATREE (17.viii.2007, 4 nos,Soppinabetta Kumbarakodu: SRINGERI, Collectionno. 315).Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2915–29192917

Aphyllorchis montana orchidThe orchid clumps were located only in five SBFfragments that were separated by 6–20 km. TheSBFs having the orchid populations were dipterocarpspecies dominated (H. ponga, H. parviflora and V.indica). The orchid clumps were seen under the thickcanopy (>80% canopy cover) of forests. Overall, 286orchid shoots of 72 clumps were recorded in boththe years. Most of these clumps were present during2007 and 2008. However, two additional clumps werelocated, and some of the previously located clumpswere enriched by additional shoots in 2008 survey(Fig. 1). The difference in the number of orchid shootsbetween years was not significant (Mann-Whitney Utest: U=463.5, P=0.08; Fig. 1). The difference in thenumber of orchid shoots between five SBFs was alsonot significant (Kruskal-Wallis test: H=3.99, d.f.=4,P=0.40; Fig. 1).DiscussionTerrestrial orchids are in need of species-specificfungi for seed germination and growth (Warcup 1973;Clements et al. 1986); however, the relationship isobligate in mycoheterotrophic orchids (McCormick etal. 2004). As the vegetative growth of the terrestrialmycoheterotrophic orchid is absolutely an undergroundmechanism, it is a challenge to locate them in vegetativeconditions (Rasmussen & Whigham 1998). Althoughthe present study does not go in depth to identify theectomycorrhizal fungi associated with the A. montana,P.A. Sinu et al.the study assumes that the fungi is also associated withdipterocarp plants (Tho et al. 2007).The study initiated with the assumption that A.montana occurs in dipterocarp plant dominated forests.Tho et al. (2007) reported A. montana populations inShorea guiso and Vatica odorata (Dipterocarpaceae)dominated forests in Vietnam. The results supportedour assumption as we found four A. montanapopulations in the H. ponga dominated SBFs, and thefifth population in a V. indica dominated SBF. It isalso previously reported that leaf litter quantity andquality has an effect on some symbiotic associations,such as mycorrhiza-plant associations in tropicalforests (Rasmussen & Whigham 1998; Batty et al.2001; Bergman et al. 2006). Meanwhile, some SBFshaving H. ponga as a co-dominant species had no A.montana in it (Table 1), indicates the effects of otherenvironmental features on the population ecology ofA. montana.A. montana distributed in a cluttered mannerin forest fragments indicates that the germinationhappens in the vicinity of fruiting orchids (Bergmanet al. 2006). In some fragments, the overall orchiddistribution was limited within a 30m radius. The studyalso showed that the orchid grows in clumps of 2–13shoots. Both these findings indicate that the patchydistribution of associated fungi primarily determinesthe terrestrial mycoheterotrophic orchid growthand colonization. The reports that germination in77Mean Mean number number of of orchid shoots shoots (±1 (± SE) 1SE)65432101 2 3 4 51 2 Study 3 site4 5Figure 1. Number of Aphyllorchis montana shoots per Study clump sitein the year 2007 (closed bars) and 2008 (open bars) inSoppinabetta forest patches. Refer Table 1 for study site information2918Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2915–2919

Aphyllorchis montana orchidterrestrial orchids increases in the vicinity of the adultorchid (Rasmussen & Whigham 1998) also wouldhave been a reason behind the clumpy growth of thespecies, but this is required to be studied in more detail.Large numbers of fruit capsules indicate that there areno reproductive barriers in the species. However, it isworth undertaking a study on the pollination systemin the species. Although we did not extend our studyfurther, we could collect 42 muscid flies (Muscidae:Diptera) from a fruit capsule. This indicates that theseed predation by some agents, either the muscidfly itself or some lepidopteran caterpillar that wasparasitized by the fly, exists in the species. Thismay be a reason why seeds do not disperse to a greatdistance.The data deficiency status of the species in Indiamight be due to the sampling artifact (Rao 1998). Likemany other mycoheterotrophic terrestrial orchids, theabove ground stage of the orchid is visible only in anarrow window of time during peak monsoon in India,a period of few botanical expeditions. The presentinventory of A. montana populations in SBFs ofSringeri point out that unprotected human-influencedforests of Western Ghats are also significant in theconservation of rare and endangered flora and fauna(Sinu et al. 2011). Based on the present and someprevious studies, it is imperative that conservationpractitioners identify various ‘potentially-unprotectedforests’ in the Western Ghats, while designatingecologically sensitive areas (Gadgil et al. 2011).ReferencesAhamedullah, M. & M.P. Nayar (1986). Endemic Plants ofIndian Region (Vol. 1). Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta,261pp.Batty, A.L., K.W. Dixon, M. Brundrett & K. Sivasithamparam(2001). Constraints to symbiotic germination of terrestrialorchid seed in a Mediterranean bushland. New Phytologist152: 511–520.Bergman E, J.D. Ackerman, J. Thompson & J.K. Zimmerman(2006). Land-use history affects the distribution of thesaprophytic orchid Wullschlaegelia calcarata in PuertoRico’s Tabonuco forest. Biotropica 38: 492–499.Boufford, D.E., C.F. Hsieh, T.C. Huang, C.S. Kuoh, H.Ohashi, C.I. Peng, J.L. Tsai & K.C. Yang (eds.) (2003).Flora of Taiwan 2 nd Edition (Vol. 6). Department of Botany,National Taiwan University, Taipei, 343pp.Clements, M.A., H. Muir & P.J. Cribb (1986). A preliminaryreport on symbiotic germination of European terrestrialP.A. Sinu et al.orchids. Kew Bulletin 41: 437–445.Gadgil, M., R.J. Daniels, K.N. Ganeshaiah, S. NarendraPrasad, M.S.R. Murthy, C.S. Jha, B.R. Ramesh & K.A.Subramanian (2011). Mapping ecologically sensitive,significant and salient areas of Western Ghats: proposedprotocols and methodology. Current Science 100: 175–182.McCormick, M.K., D.F. Whigham & J.P. O’Neill (2004).Mycorrhizal diversity in photosynthetic terrestrial orchids.New Phytologist 163: 425–438.McKendrick, S.L., J.R. Leake, D.L. Taylor & D. Read(2002). Symbiotic germination and development of themycoheterotrophic orchid Neottia nidusavis in nature andits requirement for locally distributed Sebacina spp. NewPhytologist 154: 233–247.Mittermeier, R.A., P. Robles-Gil, M. Hoffmann, J.D. Pilgrim,T.M. Brooks, C.G. Mittermeier, J.L. Lamoreux & G.Fonseca (2004). Hotspots Revisited: Earth’s BiologicallyRichest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions.CEMEX, Mexico City, 390pp.Mohanan, M., A.N. Henry & N.C. Nair (1982). Notes of threerare and interesting orchids collected from TrivandrumDistrict, Kerala. Journal of the Bombay Natural HistorySociety 79: 234–236.Nayar, T.S., A.R. Beegam, N. Mohanan & G. Rajkumar (2006).Flowering Plants of Kerala - A Handbook. Tropical BotanicalGarden and Research Institute, Thiruvananthapuram,1069pp.Rao, T.A. (1998). Conservation of Wild Orchids of Kodaguin The Western Ghats. The Karnataka Association for theAdvancement of Sciences, Bangalore, 242pp.Rasmussen, H.N. & D.F. Whigham (1998). The undergroundphase: a special challenge in studies of terrestrial orchidpopulations. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 126:49–64.Santhan, P. & K. Rajasekaran (1993). Karyological study onAphyllorchis montana Reichbf.f. (Orchidaceae). CurrentScience 64: 321–323.Tho, L., B.H. Manh, N. Vu Khoi & L.D. Tuan (2007).Aphyllorchis montana (Reichenbf.f.). Wildlife at risk (accessed on 14 March 2011)Sinu P.A., G. Kuriakose & K. Chandrashekara (2011).Epiphytic orchid diversity in farmer-managed Soppinabettaforests of Western Ghats: Implications for conservation.Current Science 101: 1337–1346.Sinu P.A., S. Kent, & K. Chandrashekara (2012). Forestresource use and perception of farmers on conservation of ausufruct forest (Soppinabetta) of Western Ghats, India. LandUse Policy 29: 702–709Warcup, J.H. (1973). Symbiotic germination of some Australianterrestrial orchids. New Phytologist 72: 387–392.Xinqi, C. & S.W. Gale (2009). Aphyllorchis Blume, pp.177–179. In: Z.Y. Wu, P.H. Raven & D.Y. Hong (eds.). Flora ofChina 25 (Orchidaceae). Science Press, Beijing,and Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2915–29192919

JoTT No t e 4(9): 2920–2923Records of Jerdon’s Baza Avicedajerdoni (Blyth, 1842) (Aves:Falconiformes: Accipitiridae) in AndhraPradesh, IndiaSathyanarayana Srinivasan 1 , B. Ramakrishna 2 ,C. Srinivasulu 3 & G. Ramakrishna 41Birdwatchers’ Society of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, AndhraPradesh, India2,3Department of Zoology, Osmania University, Hyderabad,Andhra Pradesh 500007, India4Office of the Divisional Forest Officer (Wildlife Management),Pocharam Wildlife Sanctuary, Medak, Andhra Pradesh 500005,IndiaEmail: 1 satya.srini@gmail.com, 2 raaam27@gmail.com,3hyd2masawa@gmail.com (corresponding author),4gubbala_rkrishnarao@yahoo.comJerdon’s Baza Aviceda jerdoni occurs in Southand Southeast Asia in a rather discontinuous range.Five subspecies are recognized: (a) nominate Avicedajerdoni jerdoni (Blyth, 1842) (Range: mainland Asiaincluding the Himalayan foothills east from Darjeeling,Date of publication (online): 26 August 2012Date of publication (print): 26 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Editor: V. ShantharamManuscript details:Ms # o2922Received 23 August 2011Final received 11 May 2012Finally accepted 30 July 2012Citation: Srinivasan, S., B. Ramakrishna, C. Srinivasulu & G. Ramakrishna(2012). Records of Jerdon’s Baza Aviceda jerdoni (Blyth, 1842) (Aves:Falconiformes: Accipitiridae) in Andhra Pradesh, India. Journal ofThreatened Taxa 4(9): 2920–2923.Copyright: © Sathyanarayana Srinivasan, B. Ramakrishna, C. Srinivasulu &G. Ramakrishna 2012. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium for non-profitpurposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to theauthors and the source of publication.Acknowledgements: We thank the following for having helped inidentification and sharing their valuable comments: Aasheesh Pittie,Krys Kazmierczak, Rishad Naoroji, Humayun Taher, Clive Mann, RobertDeCandido, Alfred Chia, Dirk Van Gansberghe and Ralph Buij. Fellowbirders from Birdwatchers’ Society of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad havebeen a great help in more than one way and we thank them all. For theEastern Ghats trip, we would like to thank Mr. Prabhu Podipireddy and Mr.Rudra Podipireddy of the Asian Wildlife Foundation for all their enthusiasmand support both on and off the field in making the trip possible. As forMedak, we would like to thank Forest Department staff at Pocharam WLS,whose interest in birds made this trip possible. We greatly appreciate theencouragement and permissions to study fauna by Andhra Pradesh ForestDepartment, Government of Andhra Pradesh, and we express our heartfeltgratitude to Shri Hitesh Malhotra, IFS, PCCF (Wildlife). CS acknowledgesresearch grant received from DBT, New Delhi and facilities extended byOsmania University, Hyderabad.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADSoutheast Asia to Sumatra, SWYunnan and Hainan, and rarelyin Malaysia and Singapore), (b)A. j. ceylonensis (Legge, 1876)(Range: Sri Lanka and peninsularIndia), (c) A. j. magnirostris (Kaup, 1847) (Range: thePhilippines), (d) A. j. borneensis (Brüggemann, 1876)(Range: Borneo), and (e) A. j. celebensis (Schlegel,1873) (Range: Sulawesi, Bangai and Sula Islands)(Grimmett et al. 1998; Wells 1999; Ferguson-Lees etal. 2001; Wang & Lim 2003; Robson 2005).In India, two subspecies - jerdoni and ceylonensisare reported (Ali & Ripley 1987; Grimmett et al.1998). The former taxon is known from tropicalevergreen and moist deciduous evergreen forests ofthe Himalayas along Sikkim, eastward to Myanmar,while the latter occurs in the tropical and subtropicalevergreen and moist deciduous forests of WesternGhats, Eastern Ghats and Sri Lanka. However, owingto lack of information on the subspecific identity ofAviceda jerdoni in the northern Eastern Ghats, theboundaries of the northern and the southern subspecies,whether distinct or overlapping is debatable. Veryfew sighting records of the taxa A. j. ceylonensis inIndia are published and this species has been knownfrom a few localities in Kerala (Vishnudas 2007)and Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka (Achar & Nayak2000). Ripley et al. (1987), Grimmett et al. (1998) andNair (2007) reported the presence of A. jerdoni in thenorthern Eastern Ghats in Andhra Pradesh and Orissa.Naoroji (2006) maps this species’ distribution in theWestern Ghats from south of Goa, parts of EasternGhats including Shevarayan and Javadi hills in TamilNadu, Seshachalam, Nallamala and Papikonda hills inAndhra Pradesh and Similipal hills in Orissa. In thenortheast, the species occurs in eastern Nepal, Sikkim,West Bengal, Assam and most of the northeasternstates (Image 1).In recent years there have been additionalsightings of Jerdon’s Baza in Andhra Pradesh (Image1). Through this note we report the sightings of thistaxon in tropical forested tracts further away from theEastern Ghats and also corroborate our findings withits calls.Srinivasulu (2004) has reported the sighting of thisspecies in Kawal Wildlife Sanctuary, Adilabad District.A single individual was sighted on the edge of openagricultural fields at Udhumpur Village (19 0 12’N &2920Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2920–2923

Jerdon’s Baza in Andhra PradeshS. Srinivasan et al.Image 1. Map depicting the distribution range of Aviceda jerdoni in India and site records from Andhra Pradesh78 0 53’E) on 23 February 1998. The bird was identifiedas Jerdon’s Baza based on the prominent white-tippedblack crest, mesial stripe and distinct banding patternon the ventral side while in flight. The vegetation ofthe Kawal Wildlife Sanctuary is tropical dry deciduous- mainly teak and mixed forest type.More recently, on 6 February 2011, between 0900and 1000 hr, a juvenile Jerdon’s Baza was sighted(Image 2) near Dantepally (18 0 10’N & 78 0 19’E),Pocharam Wildlife Sanctuary by the first two authors.This bird was observed for well over 20 minutes andwas heard calling. From the lake bund, we observedthe Baza calling from an exposed perch on a tall treesurrounded by rice fields just beyond the bund - thislake forms a barrier between some low but densedry deciduous forest on one side and cultivation onthe other. The Baza was seen on the cultivated side.The call was a pi-weeu repeated after short intervals(Video 1). This was the only type of call made by thisbird, heard by us. The bird was calling for quite sometime and did not seem in any hurry to move away -having got some pictures and some video, we decidedto go ahead along the bund, walking behind some tallshrubbery, for a closer look; in the couple of minutesit took us to come out again, into the open, we founda much larger bird in place of the Baza - this was aChangeable Hawk-eagle Nisaetus cirrrhatus. Weinfer that the Hawk-eagle had flown in displacing theBaza. We could, however, still hear the Baza calling- this time even closer. We then went further alongthe bund to see the Baza perched on a thin branch atthe top of Butea monosperma calling. This time weagain recorded the call, videoed and photographedthe bird. After about a couple of minutes or so, thebird flew away. We were able to record a video of thetakeoff. This video is our only source of under-wingviews (Video 1). In addition to the Changeable Hawkeagleseen above, we also observed a Crested SerpentEagle Spilornis cheela in the vicinity (quite far fromus, though) shortly after the Baza flew away. We arenot clear if the loud persistent calling was in some waycorrelated with the presence of the two much largerraptors. The Baza’s calling did not appear to elicit anykind of response from the Changeable Hawk-eagle.After the Baza had flown away, we found the Hawkeaglesitting at the same perch for a long time (> 10Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2920–29232921

Jerdon’s Baza in Andhra Pradeshmin) before we walked off to get better views of theCrested Serpent Eagle. Subsequent visits a day later,about one week later and about two months later didnot yield any sighting of the Baza.The bird was identified as juvenile Jerdons’ Bazabased on the combination of the following characters- small size (significantly small relative to theChangeable Hawk-eagle seen nearby, but larger than aShikra), white-tipped black crest (Image 3), barring onthe belly and flanks (Image 2), trailing edge of underwinglined with black (Video 1), mesial stripe (Image3), indentations on the beak (Image 3), aspect, smallsize of feet relative to body (as against the ChangeableHawk-eagle, the only other raptor in the vicinity withan erect crest), and calls. The vegetation at Dantepallyis that of a typical tropical dry deciduous secondaryforest. It is interesting to note that both the inlandrecords of the Jerdon’s Baza were in dry deciduousforests. The subspecific status of the individual sightedcould not be ascertained with confidence.On 5 March 2011 at around 0640hr, the first authorsighted an adult individual of Jerdon’s Baza (Image 4a&b) on a silk cotton tree (Bombax sp.) with unopenedbuds at Vanavihari Eco-tourism Complex, Maredumilli© Sathyanarayana SrinivasanImage 2. Juvenile Jerdon’s Baza at Dantepally, PocharamWildlife Sanctuary, Medak District, Andhra Pradesh, India© Sathyanarayana SrinivasanS. Srinivasan et al.Image 3. Close up of the head of the juvenile Jerdon’s Bazaat Dantepally, Pocharam Wildlife Sanctuary, Medak District,Andhra Pradesh, India depicting double indentations on theupper mandible, mesial stripe and white-tipped black crest(17 0 35’N & 81 0 43’E), East Godavari District. Thebird was observed to be silent while perching but wascalling while in flight. From the calls heard thereseemed to be two individuals, but only one was sighted(Video 2). The call was a ki-kiya but could not berecorded. The tree where the bird was perched was in aplot of land on a hillside adjacent to a densely forestedslope - the forest had moist deciduous vegetation. Thesurrounding areas though, are planted with rubber,coffee and teak. The bird seemed to be unperturbed byhuman activities close by, beneath its perch. The birdwas identified as an adult female. Light was too poorto ascertain the subspecies, however, it is clear fromthe photos that there is a lot of rufous coloration onthe upper body. Furthermore, this taxon was sightedat Maredumilli and its vicinity on June 2011 (Image 5)and July 2011.The sighting records in the recent past indicate thatthe Jerdon’s Baza could be more widely distributed in itsgeneral range than earlier thought or it does undertakesome local migration as the records from Kawal andPocharam Wildlife Sanctuaries indicate. AlthoughA. jerdoni is known to prefer well wooded tracts,the species as such is highly adaptable and has beenreported from a variety of habitats from undisturbed2922Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2920–2923

Jerdon’s Baza in Andhra PradeshS. Srinivasan et al.A© Sathyanarayana SrinivasanB© Sathyanarayana SrinivasanImage 5. Adult Jerdon’s Baza in flight at Maredumilli, EastGodavari District, Andhra Pradesh, IndiaImage 4. Adult Jerdon’s Baza at Maredumilli, East GodavariDistrict, Andhra Pradesh, India.A - side profile; B - frontal view showing mesial stripeforests to urban areas and from sea level to 1200m(Grimmett et al. 1998; Naoroji 2006; Nair 2007). Wefeel that the there may be resident populations of thisspecies in northern Eastern Ghats of Andhra Pradeshnorth of river Godavari and some individuals spreadtheir range to nearby areas. Long term observationsof the sighting and site records may yield interestinginformation on its distribution, habitat, and threats.ReferencesLondon, 384pp.Nair, M.V. (2007). On the occurrence of Jerdon’s Baza Avicedajerdoni in Similipal Tiger Reserve, with some observationson behaviour and vocalization. Indian Birds 3(2): 61–62.Naoroji, R. (2006). Birds of Prey of The Indian Subcontinent.OM Books International, New Delhi, India, 692pp.Ripley, S.D, B.M. Beehler & K.S.R.K. Raju (1987). Birds ofthe Visakhapatnam Ghats, Andhra Pradesh. Journal of theBombay Natural History Society 84(3): 540–559.Robson, C. (2005). A Field Guide to the Birds of South-EastAsia. New Holland Publishers, London, 544pp.Srinivasulu, C. (2004). Birds of Kawal Wildlife Sanctuary,Andhra Pradesh, India. Journal of the Bombay NaturalHistory Society 101(1): 1–25.Vishnudas, C.K. (2007). Notes on the breeding of Jerdon’sBaza Aviceda jerdoni in Wayanad District, Kerala. IndianBirds 3(2): 62.Wang, L.K. & K.S. Lim (2003). First record of Jerdon’s BazaAviceda jerdoni for Singapore. Singapore Avifauna 17(2):30–31 (mimeo.).Wells, D.R. (1999). The Birds of The Thai-Malay Peninsular.Vol. I, Non-passerines. Academic Press, London, 648pp.Achar, K.P. & K.G. Nayak (2000). A Field Guide to The Birdsof Dakshina Kannada. Bhuvanendra Nature Club, India,214pp.Ali, S. & S.D. Ripley (1987). Compact handbook of the birdsof India and Pakistan. Oxford University Press, Delhi,820pp.Ferguson-Lees, J., D. Christie, P. Burton, K. Franklin & D.Mead (2001). Raptors of The World. Christopher Helm,London, 992pp.Grimmett, R., C. Inskipp & T. Inskipp (1998). A Guide toThe Birds of The Indian Subcontinent. Christopher Helm,Video 1. Juvenile Jerdon’sBaza at Dantepally,Pocharam WildlifeSanctuary, Medak District,Andhra PradeshVideo 2. Adult Jerdon’sBaza at Maredumilli, EastGodavari District, AndhraPradesh.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2920–29232923

JoTT No t e 4(9): 2924–2927Observation of Bryde’s WhaleBalanoptera edeni / brydei(Cetartiodactyla: Balaenoptiidae) in theoffshore waters of southern Odisha,eastern IndiaSajan John 1 , K. Sivakumar 2 , B.C. Choudhury 3& Muntaz Khan 41,2,3Wildlife Institute of India, Post Box # 18, Chandrabani,Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001, India4Research scholar, Chilika Development Authority, Plot No.C-11, BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha 751014, India1Present address: Dakshin Foundation, Sahakaranagar,Bengaluru, Karnataka 560092, IndiaEmail: 1 sajanjohn09@gmail.com (corresponding author),2ksivakumar@wii.gov.in, 3 bcc@wii.gov.in, 4 soneyal@yahoo.co.inBalanoptera edeni / brydei (Anderson, 1879 /Olsen, 1913) is a widely distributed rorqual (Reillyet al. 2008) that inhabits tropical waters and does notperform extensive migrations to high latitude feedinggrounds like other whales in the genus (Best 2001). Thetaxonomy of the genus is uncertain due to the similarappearance of two generally recognised forms whichare almost certainly separate species, B. edeni and B.brydei (Wada et al. 2003). The International Unionfor Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists this species asDate of publication (online): 26 August 2012Date of publication (print): 26 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Editor: Brian SmithManuscript details:Ms # o2732Received 19 March 2011Final received 16 May 2012Finally accepted 25 July 2012Citation: John, S., K. Sivakumar, B.C. Choudhury & M. Khan (2012).Observation of Bryde’s Whale Balanoptera edeni / brydei (Cetartiodactyla:Balaenoptiidae) in the offshore waters of southern Odisha, eastern India.Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(9): 2924–2927.Copyright: © Sajan John, K. Sivakumar, B. C. Choudhury & Muntaz Khan2012. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allowsunrestricted use of this article in any medium for non-profit purposes,reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authorsand the source of publication.Acknowledgements: We thank The Directorate General of Hydrocarbon-Wildlife Institute of India (DGH-WII) Marine turtle tracking project forlogistics and support, Anouk Ilangakoon and Elisabeth Mansur for valuablesuggestions, annonymous reviewers for their comments and field staff inRushikulya, Odisha for their assistance.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADData Deficient (Reilly et al. 2008)but it is included in Appendix Iof Conservation of InternationalTrade of Endangered Species ofFlora and Fauna (CITES) and listed in Appendix II ofConvention on Migratory Species (CMS).Bryde’s Whales are widely distributed in the IndianOcean; however, records in Indian waters are rare(Sathasivam 2004) and largely based on strandings.On 22 May 2009, around 09:35 (IST) three whales(two adults and one probable juvenile) were sighted6km offshore (19 0 16’42.43N & 85 0 02’46.87E), at adepth of 28–32 m, south of Rushikulya River mouth,southern Odisha (Image 1). All three whales wereheading north along the coast at about 3.5km/hr. Noindications of feeding were observed. The lengths ofthe adult whales were estimated to be 11–13 m and theprobable juvenile 8–10 m based on their size relativeto our 7m long boat.The whales were identified as Bryde’s Whales(Balanoptera edeni / brydei) based on the prominentlateral ridges located on each side of the median ridgeon the head of the two adult whales and their pointedfalcate dorsal fin (Cummings 1985). The irregularrolling pattern of the smaller whale did not allow usto observe its head region. The smaller whale wasslightly paler in contrast to the adults and its dorsal finwas more falcate.The whales were cruising through the water andapproached the boat as close as 2m. The surfacingsequence was captured using a digital still camera(Image 2). The whale did not lift its flukes when diving.Three whales, which were sighted earlier in the sameregion during April 2009 (by the first author), hadsimilar dorsal fins and rolling patterns; it is uncertainwhether or not these were the same individuals.Bryde’s Whales are the only non-migratory speciesof Baleen Whale. They are found in the tropics andsub-tropics (Barlow 2006). The nearest knownBryde’s Whale population from the Odisha coast is500km north in the Bangladesh region of the Swatchof-No-Ground(SoNG) submarine canyon (Smith etal. 2008). Genetic evidence from the MtDNA controlregion of 38 tissue samples from Bryde’s Whales inthe SoNG indicates the presence of the small edeniform; however, the same analysis also included asingle tissue sample of a Bryde’s Whale that stranded2924Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2924–2927

Bryde’s Whale in OdishaS. John et al.Image 1. Map of the Odisha coast showing the Rushikulya River and whale sighting locations.near Cox’s Bazaar which was found to be from thelarge brydei form. So there is at least some degree ofsympatry between the two incipient species in the Bayof Bengal (Smith B.D, pers. comm. 29 May 2011).A stranded Bryde’s Whale from Gulf of Mannar(south-east coast of India) was identified as B. edenibased on genetic evidence from MtDNA (Jayasankaret al. 2009). Another stranded Bryde’s Whale fromThiruvananthapuram coast (southwest coast of India)also was genetically identified as B. edeni based onDNA sequences of mitochondrial cytochrome oxidasesubunit I (COI) gene (George et al. 2011). Theserecords are the only published information till date thathave used genetic materials to confirm that the Bryde’sWhale from Indian waters are the edeni form.Odisha has a rich cetacean diversity. A total of14 cetacean species [Minke Whale Balaenopteraacutorostrata, Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis,Bryde’s Whale Balanoptera edeni / brydei, SpermWhale Physeter macrocephalus, False Killer WhalePseudorca crassidens, Ganges River DolphinPlatanista gangetica gangetica, Irrawaddy DolphinOrcaella brevirostris, Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiopsaduncus / trancatus, Indo-Pacific HumpbackDolphin Sousa chinensis, Spinner Dolphin Stenellalongirostris, Striped Dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba,Risso’s Dolphin Grampus griseus, Finless PorpoiseNeophocaena phocaenoides phocaenoides, CommonDolphin Delphinus delphis] have been recorded fromthe coastal and inland waters of Odisha (James et al.1989; Jayaprakash et al. 1995; M. Khan pers. comm.2010). Till date, only seven published documents areavailable on the occurrence of Bryde’s Whale fromIndian waters (Table 1). Of these, only one was alive sighting (Leatherwood 1984) and the rest werestranding records. The lack of systematic offshorecetacean monitoring might be a reason for this.Photo-identification of distinctive marks fromBryde’s Whales in the Indian region of Bay of Bengalcould inform us whether the species migrates fromSoNG or if a separate population exists in the Indianregion of the Bay of Bengal. Molecular studies canalso unravel the taxonomic complexities associatedwith these species.All marine mammals are given priority under“Schedule I” of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act,1972 (Anon 2003). There are no targeted fisheries formarine cetaceans in India. Possible threats to marinemammals are from ongoing and proposed off-shoredevelopment activities. In the near future, majorJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2924–29272925

Bryde’s Whale in OdishaS. John et al.Image 2. Complete rolling sequence of the adult whale before diving sighted during May 2009. © Sajan Johnhydrocarbon exploration is planned for the offshorewaters of Odisha (Pannu 2005). Oil explorationactivities may impact pelagic and coastal marinemammals. Noise pollution from oil and gas explorationand increased vessel traffic can have negative impactson cetaceans (Wyrick 1954; Bogoslovskaya et al.1981; Malme et al. 1989). Oil itself can also causecetacean mortality and adversely affect the fish andinvertebrates on which the cetaceans feed (Ridoux etal. 2004).Within a single year, the Odisha coast has witnessedtwo oil spills: from MV Black Rose near Paradip port(Pattnaik 2009) and the oil slick of MV Malavika, nearGopalpur Port (Reddy 2010). How these offshoredevelopment activities and marine pollution will affectthe cetaceans along the Odisha coast needs furtherinvestigation and management interventions.REFERENCESAnonymous (2003). The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, pp.149–163. Wildlife Trust of India. Natraj, Dehradun, India.Barlow, J. (2006). Cetacean abundance in Hawaiian watersestimated from a summer/fall survey in 2002. MarineMammal Science 22 (2): 446–464.Best, P.B. (2001). Distribution and population separation ofBryde’s whale Balaenoptera edeni off southern Africa.Marine Ecology Progress Series 220: 277–289.Bogoslovskaya, L.S., L.M. Votrogov & T.N. Semenova(1981). Feeding habits of the gray whale off Chukotka.Report of the International Whaling Commission 31: 507–510.Cummings, W.C. (1985). Bryde’s WhaleBalaenoptera edeni Anderson, 1878, pp.137–154. In:Ridgway. S.H. & R.J. Harrison (eds.). Handbook ofMarine Mammals, Vol. 3: The Sirenians and BaleenWhales. Academic Press, London, UK, 362pp.De Silva, P.H.D.H. (1987). Cetaceans whales, dolphins andporpoises recorded off Sri Lanka, India, from the ArabianSea and Gulf, Gulf of Aden and from the Red Sea. Journalof the Bombay Natural History Society 84(3): 505–525.George, S., K. Meenkashi & A. Bijukumar (2011). Moleculartaxonomy of marine mammals stranded along Kerala coast,India. Current Science 100(1): 117–120.James, P.S.B.R., M. Rajagopalan, S.S. Dan, A. BastianFernando & V. Selvaraj (1989). On the mortality andstranding of marine mammals and turtles at Gahirmatha,Orissa from 1983 to 1987. Journal of the Marine BiologicalAssociation of India 31(1): 28–35.Jayaprakash, A.A., P. Nammalwar, S.K. Pillai & M.N.K.Elayath (1995). Incidental by catch of dolphins at FisheriesHarbour, Cochin, with a note on their conservation andmanagement in India. Journal of the Marine BiologicalAssociation of India 37(1&2): 126–133.Jayasankar, P., B. Anoop, V.V. Afsal & M. Rajagopalan(2006). Species and sex of two baleen whales identifiedfrom their skin tissues using molecular approach. MarineFisheries Information Service 190: 16–17.Jayasankar, P., B. Anoop, M. Rajagopalan, K.M.M. Yousuf,P. Reynold, P.K. Krishnakumar, V.V. Afsal & A.A.Krishnan (2009). Indian efforts on the inventorizationof marine mammal species for their conservation and2926Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2924–2927

Bryde’s Whale in OdishaS. John et al.Table 1. Sighting and stranding records of Bryde’s Whale from Indian waters chronologically.Date Details References1 ??? Recorded from Bay of Bengal By Blanford De Silva,1987 *2 02 Jul 1979 13m male stranded Near Calicut, west coast of India Lal Mohan, 19923 20 Feb 1983 Seven of these whales seen on cruise from Madras to Trincomalee Leatherwood, 1984 *4 20 Feb 1983 13.52m stranded specimen from Gulf of Mannar, east coast of India Lal Mohan, 19925 14 Nov 2000 12 m stranded specimen from Point Calimere, east coast of India Sathasivam, 20026 08 Aug 2006 12m male stranded near Mandapam at gulf of Mannar, East coast of India Jayasankar et al. 20067 23 May 2007 12m stranded specimen from south of Rushikulya River, Odisha, East coast of India M. Khan pers. obs. April 20098 22 May 2009 Three, live whales sighted off Odisha coast Present report9 29 July 201015.7m stranded specimen from south of Rushikulya River, Near Gopalpur light house,Odisha, East coast of India. Skeleton preserved at RMNH, BhubaneshwarDr. Siba Prasad Parida pers.obs. July 201010 27 Jun 2009 3.9 m stranded specimen from Trivandrum District, Kerala, south west coast of India George et al. 2011* Source of the reference - K. Sathasivan 2004management. Asian Fisheries Science 22: 143–155.Mohan, R.S.L. (1992). Observations on the whales Balaenopteraedeni, B. musculus and Megaptera novaeangliae washedashore along the Indian coast with a note on their osteology.Journal of the Marine Biological Association of India34(1&2): 253–255.Leatherwood, S. (1984). Further notes on cetaceans of SriLanka. Paper No.SC/36/06 presented to the InternationalWhaling Commission Scientific Committee, 12pp.Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, G.W. Miller, W.J. Richardson,D.G. Roseneau, D.H. Thomson & C.R. Greene (1989).Analysis and ranking of the acoustic disturbance potentialof petroleum industry activities and other sources ofnoise in the environment of marine mammals in Alaska.Final report No. 6945 to the US minerals managementservice, Anchorage, AK. BBN systems and TechnologiesCorporation. Downloaded from Downloaded on 30September 2011Pannu, S.P.S. (2005). Shackles off oil hunt on Orissacoast. Downloaded from: Downloaded on 17 October 2010Pattnaik, S. (2009). Oil spill: clean-up will cost crores.Downloaded from: Downloaded on 17 October 2010Reddy, M.V. (2010). Threat of Gopalpur port oil spill to OliveRidley Turtles and their hatchlings. Current Science 99(3):267–268.Reilly, S.B., J.L.Bannister, P.B. Best, M. Brown, R.L.Brownell Jr., D.S. Butterworth, P.J. Clapham, J.Cooke, G.P. Donovan, J. Urbán & A.N. Zerbini (2008).Balaenoptera edeni. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species. Version 2010.3. . Downloaded on 18 October 2010Ridoux, V., L. Lafontaine, P. Bustamante, F.Caurant, W.Dabin, C. Delcroix, S. Hassani, L. Meynier, Da Silva V.P, S. Simonin, M. Robert, J. Spitz & O. Canneyt (2004).The impact of the “Erika” oil spill on pelagic and coastalmarine mammals: Combining demographic, ecological,trace metals and biomarker evidences. Aquatic LivingResources 17: 379–387.Sathasivam, K. (2002). Two whale records from Tamil Nadu,southern India. Journal of the Bombay Natural HistorySociety 99(2): 289–290.Sathasivam, K. (2004). Marine Mammals of India. UniversityPress, Hyderabad, xxiii+184pp.Smith, B.D., B. Ahmed, R.M. Mowgli & S. Strindberg (2008).Species occurrence and distributional ecology of nearshorecetaceans in the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh, with abundanceestimates for Irrawaddy dolphins Orcaella brevirostris andfinless porpoise Neophocaena phocaenoides. Journal ofCetacean Research and Management 10(1): 45–58.Wada, S., M. Oishi, & T.K. Yamada (2003). A newlydiscovered species of living Baleen Whale. Nature 426:278–281.Wyrick, R.F. (1954). Observations on the movements of thePacific Gray Whale Eschrichtius glaucus (Cope). Journalof Mammalogy 35(4): 596–598.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2924–29272927

JoTT No t e 4(9): 2928–2932Identification of hairs of somemammalian prey of large cats in GirProtected Area, IndiaNishith Dharaiya 1 & V.C. Soni 21,2Department of Biosciences, Saurashtra University, Rajkot,Gujarat 360005 IndiaPresent address: 1 Department of Life Sciences,Hemchanracharya, North Gujarat University, Patan, Gujarat384265 IndiaEmail: 1 nadharaiya@gmail.com (corresponding author),2vcsoni2009@gmail.comThe Gir Protected Area (GPA) is spread over1412km 2 in western India; where two top carnivorespecies coexist viz. the Asiatic Lion Panthera leopersica and Leopard Panthera pardus. GPA ranksamongst the top regions in supporting very high largecarnivore densities in India. It is important to know thediet of these two sympatric cat species since both areapex predators and also of conservation importance.One of the best methods to determine the prey speciesof carnivores is scat analysis, since scats containundigested matter of prey like hair, hooves, quillsand feathers that can be used for identification (Joslin1973; Johnsingh 1983; Norton et al. 1986; Sinha 1987;Chellam 1993; Mukherjee et al. 1994 a,b; Singh et al.1999).In the present work the hair structure of those animalsDate of publication (online): 26 August 2012Date of publication (print): 26 August 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Editor: Shomita MukherjeeManuscript details:Ms # o3032Received 12 December 2011Final received 14 May 2012Finally accepted 30 July 2012Citation: Nishith Dharaiya & V.C. Soni (2012). Identification of hairs ofsome mammalian prey of large cats in Gir Protected Area, India. Journalof Threatened Taxa 4(9): 2928–2932.Copyright: © Nishith Dharaiya & V.C. Soni 2012. Creative CommonsAttribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this articlein any medium for non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution byproviding adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.Acknowledgements: We express our thanks to the Zoo Superintendentsof Sakkarbaug Zoo, Junagadh and Rajkot Zoo, Rajkot for providing the hairspecimens. Thanks are also due to the Head, Department of Biosciences,Saurashtra University, Rajkot for the necessary lab facilities. The help of Dr.Vimal Bhuva in taking microphotographs is also acknowledged.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADidentified as the chief prey base ofboth the carnivores was studied(Dharaiya 2001; Dharaiya & Soni2010). The practical applicationsof hair identification in biological and forensic scienceshave been enumerated by several investigators (Brunner& Coman 1974; Koppikar & Sabnis 1976; Rajaram& Menon 1985). Hair identification is also useful inidentifying a mammal inhabiting a den or a tree aswell as in surveys (Dharaiya 2001). Hair remains alsoserve as evidence in convicting a law violator and isalso useful in wildlife forensic cases where the legalityof confiscated material can be determined (Soni et al.2003). Though molecular tools are a far more reliableoption for species confirmation this method is veryeasy and handy and hence applicable for preliminaryinvestigations.The purpose of this project is to provide a set ofillustrations of the structure of mammalian hair thatcan be used to make visual comparisons with unknownhair samples. All the characteristics are tabulated.Major macroscopic and microscopic distinguishingcharacters of the hair of each species are given alongwith their drawings prepared from microphotographs,which can be used in routine monitoring activities bythe forest field staff. They can also serve as a quicktool to study the diet and prey preference of these twolarge cats in the Gir ecosystem.Methods: The hair samples of the prey species werecollected from the Sakkarbaug Zoological Garden,Junagadh and from the Municipal Corporation Zoo,Rajkot. The hair samples were collected from the rumpportion of the animal. The specimens were carefullywashed in running water and air-dried. Cross sectionswere taken using a sharp blade and imprints weretaken by placing hair specimens on thin gelatin layeror on a layer of Kores Correcting Fluid as described bySoni et al. (2003). The permanent mountings of haircross sections were observed under a light binocularmicroscope under the magnification of 10X as wellas 45X and microphotographs were taken at 45Xmagnification. All the measurements of hair lengthand width were taken using micrometer.Results and Discussion: The structural parts of thehair are the cuticle, cortex and medulla. In the systemof hair identification to be outlined only cuticular andmedullary structure are important (Rajaram & Menon2928Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2928–2932

Identification of hairs of prey1975). Table 1 and 2 show all the structural details(macroscopic and microscopic) of the hair specimenof those animals, which are the chiefly consumed asfood by the big carnivore species of the said protectedarea (Singh et al. 1999; Dharaiya 2001). Speciesidentification through the hair cuticular patterns whilestudying diet can lead to misidentification becausethe cuticle is often damaged while passing throughthe gut of the predator. The identification criteria andthe microphotographs presented here can serve assuitable reference for further confirmation and rapididentification of prey of carnivores (Chellam 1993;Singh et al. 1999; Dharaiya 2001). Regular monitoringof both large felids in Gir and their prey is a priorityin management by the forest department; henceidentification of hairs from scats may serve as a rapid,inexpensive and practical technique which wouldhelp the field staff as well as the researchers. Further,the photographs presented in this paper illustrate themicroscopic appearance of the hair cross sectionsunder 40X magnification, which can be used as areference for further studies in monitoring carnivorefeeding pattern and prey base identification.ReferencesN. Dharaiya & V.C. SoniBrunner, H. & B. Comman (1974). The Structure of Hairs.Ikata Press, Melbourn, 170pp.Chellam, R. (1993). Ecology of the Asiatic Lion (Pantheraleo persica). PhD Thesis, Saurashtra University, Rajkot,170pp.Dharaiya, N. (2001). A study on the ecology of satellitic lionmeta population around Gir PA and its conservation. PhDThesis, Saurashtra University, Rajkot, 174pp.Dharaiya, N. & V.C. Soni (2010). Ecological studies onLeopard (Panthera pardus) with special reference to habitatuse and feeding patterns in Girnar Wildlife Sanctuary,Gujarat, India. Life Sciences Leaflets 4: 127–134.Johnsingh, A.J.T. (1983). Large mammalian prey-predator inBandipur. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society80: 1–57.Joslin, P. (1973). The Asiatic Lion - A study of the ecology andbehaviour. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, 249pp.Koppikar, B.R. & J.H. Sabnis (1976). Identification ofmammalian hair of some Indian animals. Journal of theBombay Natural History Society 73(1): 5–20.Mukherjee, S., S.P. Goyal & R. Chellam (1994a).Standardization of scat analysis techniques for Leopard(Panthera pardus) in Gir National Park, Western India.Mammalia 58: 139–143.Mukherjee, S., S.P. Goyal & R. Chellam (1994b). RefinedTable 1. Macroscopic characteristics of mammalian hair for rapid identificationMacroscopic appearance of the hairAnimal SpeciesProximalColourDistalLength (cm)Diameter (m)1 Antilope cervicapra (Black Buck) White Grayish 1.7±0.3 482 Axis axis (Chital) White Brown to Yellow 3±1.5 783 Boselaphus tragocamelus (Blue Bull) Brownish Yellowish 20±3 1374 Canis aureus (Golden Jackal) Brown Black-Gray 5±1 905 Rusa unicolor (Sambar) White Yellowish 4±1.5 1806 Domestic Buffalo Black Black 2.5±1 807 Domestic Cow Darker Lighter 1.2±0.3 358 Domestic Goat Darker Lighter 4 to 6 519 Domestic Sheep White Brownish 4 to 6 2010 Gazella gazella (Chinkara) Black Grayish to White 16.5±1 5211 Lepus ruficaudatus (Hare) Dark brown Light brown 2.9±0.3 1012 Mellivora capensis (Ratel) Brown/ White Brown/White 4±0.5 5513 Panthera leo persica (Asiatic Lion) White Yellow 3.1±0.1 4014 Panthera pardus (Leopard) Yellowish White 4±1 4515 Semnopithecus sp. (Langur) Gray Gray 6±0.2 5816 Viverricula indica (Small Indian Civet) Light gray Dark gray 3±1.5 6217 Sus scrofa (Wild Boar) Dark brown Brown 3.8±0.5 160Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2928–29322929

Identification of hairs of preyN. Dharaiya & V.C. SoniTable 2. Microscopic characteristics of mammalian hair for rapid identificationMicroscopic appearance of the hairAnimal speciesMedullary structureCuticular scale structureMargin Pattern Distance1 Antilope cervicapra (Black Buck) Curved Crenate Ir. Waved Near2 Axis axis (Chital) (Image 1) Large oval Smooth R. Waved Closed3 Boselaphus tragocamelus (Blue Bull) (Image 2) Large rounded Crenate Ir. Waved Near4 Canis aureus (Jackal) Cigar Scalloped R. Waved Distant5 Rusa unicolor (Sambar) (Image 3) Large oval Smooth R. Waved Near6 Domestic Buffalo (Image 4) Large rounded Crenate R. Waved Closed7 Domestic Cow (Image 5) Oval Rippled R. Waved Closed8 Domestic Goat (Image 6) Cigar Dentate Diamond Distant9 Domestic Sheep (Image 7) Irregular oval Smooth Ir. Waved Closed10 Gazella gazella (Chinkara) (Image 8) Elliptical Crenate Ir. Waved Near11 Lepus ruficaudatus (Hare) Small rounded Smooth R. Waved Closed12 Mellivora capensis (Ratel) (Image 9) Large oval Rippled Ir. Waved Near13 Panthera leo persica (Asiatic Lion) (Image 10) Small rounded Rippled R. Waved Near14 Panthera pardus (Leopard) (Image 11) Large oval Crenate R. Waved Near15 Semnopithecus sp. (Langur) Small rounded Crenate R. Waved Closed16 Viverricula indica (Small Indian Civet) (Image 12) Large oval Crenate R. Waved Closed17 Sus scrofa (Wild Boar) Large oval Rippled Ir. Waved Distant© Nishith Dharaiya © Nishith DharaiyaImage 1. Cross section of hair of Chitaltechniques for the analysis of Asiatic Lion Panthera leopersica scats. Acta Theriologica 39: 425–430.Norton, P.M., A.B. Lawson, S.R. Henley & G. Avery (1986).Prey of leopards in four mountain area of the south-westernCape Prov. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 16:47–52.Image 2. Cross section of hair of Bluebull2930Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2928–2932

Identification of hairs of preyN. Dharaiya & V.C. Soni© Nishith Dharaiya© Nishith DharaiyaImage 3. Cross section of hair of Sambar© Nishith DharaiyaImage 4. Cross section of hair of Domestic Buffalo© Nishith DharaiyaImage 5. Cross section of hair of Domestic Cow© Nishith DharaiyaImage 6. Cross section of hair of Domestic GoatImage 7. Cross section of hair of Domestic SheepRajaram, A. & R.K. Manon (1985). A scanning electronmicroscopic study of the hair keratin of some animals ofthe Indian subcontinent - a preliminary report. Journal ofthe Bombay Natural Society 83: 427–429.Singh, H.S. & L. Gibson (2011). Aconservation success storyin the otherwise dire megafauna extinction crisis: TheAsiatic Lion (Panthera leo persica) of Gir forest. BiologicalConservation. doi: 10,1016/j.biocon.2011.02.009.Singh, M., P.P. Rawal, N. Dharaiya & V.C. Soni (1999).Feeding niche of the Asiatic Lion and leopard in the GirP.A. Tigerpaper 26(2): 12–15.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2928–29322931

Identification of hairs of preyN. Dharaiya & V.C. Soni© Nishith Dharaiya © Nishith DharaiyaImage 8. Cross section of hair of ChinkaraImage 9. Cross section of hair of Ratel© Nishith Dharaiya© Nishith DharaiyaImage 12. Cross section of hair of LeopardImage 10. Cross section of hair of Small Indian Civet© Nishith DharaiyaSinha, S.P. (1987). Ecology of wildlife with special referenceto the lion in Gir Wildlife Sanctuary, Saurashtra, Gujarat.PhD Thesis, Saurashtra University, Rajkot, 264pp.Soni, V.C., R. Kushwaha & N. Dharaiya (2003). Structuralvariations in the hair from different body parts of the Indianratel (Mellivora capensis). Journal of Tissue Research 3(1):60–63.Image 11. Cross section of hair of Asiatic Lion2932Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | August 2012 | 4(9): 2928–2932

Dr. Pankaj Kumar, Tai Po, Hong KongDr. Krushnamegh Kunte, Cambridge, USAProf. Dr. Adriano Brilhante Kury, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilDr. P. Lakshminarasimhan, Howrah, IndiaDr. Carlos Alberto S de Lucena, Porto Alegre, BrazilDr. Glauco Machado, São Paulo, BrazilDr. Gowri Mallapur, Mamallapuram, IndiaDr. George Mathew, Peechi, IndiaProf. Richard Kiprono Mibey, Eldoret, KenyaDr. Lionel Monod, Genève, SwitzerlandDr. Shomen Mukherjee, Jamshedpur, IndiaDr. P.O. Nameer, Thrissur, IndiaDr. D. Narasimhan, Chennai, IndiaDr. T.C. Narendran, Kozhikode, IndiaMr. Stephen D. Nash, Stony Brook, USADr. K.S. Negi, Nainital, IndiaDr. K.A.I. Nekaris, Oxford, UKDr. Heok Hee Ng, SingaporeDr. Boris P. Nikolov, Sofia, BulgariaProf. Annemarie Ohler, Paris, FranceDr. Shinsuki Okawara, Kanazawa, JapanDr. Albert Orr, Nathan, AustraliaDr. Geeta S. Padate, Vadodara, IndiaDr. Larry M. Page, Gainesville, USADr. Arun K. Pandey, Delhi, IndiaDr. Prakash Chand Pathania, Ludhiana, IndiaDr. Malcolm Pearch, Kent, UKDr. Richard S. Peigler, San Antonio, USADr. Rohan Pethiyagoda, Sydney, AustraliaMr. J. Praveen, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Mark R Stanley Price, Tubney, UKDr. Robert Michael Pyle, Washington, USADr. Muhammad Ather Rafi, Islamabad, PakistanDr. H. Raghuram, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Dwi Listyo Rahayu, Pemenang, IndonesiaDr. Sekar Raju, Suzhou, ChinaDr. Vatsavaya S. Raju, Warangal, IndiaDr. V.V. Ramamurthy, New Delhi, IndiaDr (Mrs). R. Ramanibai, Chennai, IndiaProf. S.N. Ramanujam, Shillong, IndiaDr. Alex Ramsay, LS2 7YU, UKDr. M.K. Vasudeva Rao, Pune, IndiaDr. Robert Raven, Queensland, AustraliaDr. K. Ravikumar, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Luke Rendell, St. Andrews, UKDr. Anjum N. Rizvi, Dehra Dun, IndiaDr. Leif Ryvarden, Oslo, NorwayProf. Michael Samways, Matieland, South AfricaDr. Yves Samyn, Brussels, BelgiumDr. Asok K. Sanyal, Kolkata, IndiaDr. K.R. Sasidharan, Coimbatore, IndiaDr. Kumaran Sathasivam, IndiaDr. S. Sathyakumar, Dehradun, IndiaDr. M.M. Saxena, Bikaner, IndiaDr. Hendrik Segers, Vautierstraat, BelgiumDr. R. Siddappa Setty, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Subodh Sharma, Towson, USAProf. B.K. Sharma, Shillong, IndiaProf. K.K. Sharma, Jammu, IndiaDr. R.M. Sharma, Jabalpur, IndiaDr. Tan Koh Siang, Kent Ridge Road, SingaporeDr. Arun P. Singh, Jorhat, IndiaDr. Lala A.K. Singh, Bhubaneswar, IndiaProf. Willem H. De Smet, Wilrijk, BelgiumMr. Peter Smetacek, Nainital, IndiaDr. Humphrey Smith, Coventry, UKDr. Hema Somanathan, Trivandrum, IndiaDr. C. Srinivasulu, Hyderabad, IndiaDr. Ulrike Streicher, Danang, VietnamDr. K.A. Subramanian, Pune, IndiaMr. K.S. Gopi Sundar, New Delhi, IndiaDr. P.M. Sureshan, Patna, IndiaProf. R. Varatharajan, Imphal, IndiaDr. Karthikeyan Vasudevan, Dehradun, IndiaDr. R.K. Verma, Jabalpur, IndiaDr. W. Vishwanath, Manipur, IndiaDr. E. Vivekanandan, Cochin, IndiaDr. Gernot Vogel, Heidelberg, GermanyDr. Ted J. Wassenberg, Cleveland, AustraliaDr. Stephen C. Weeks, Akron, USAProf. Yehudah L. Werner, Jerusalem, IsraelMr. Nikhil Whitaker, Mamallapuram, IndiaDr. Hui Xiao, Chaoyang, ChinaDr. April Yoder, Little Rock, USAEnglish EditorsMrs. Mira Bhojwani, Pune, IndiaDr. Fred Pluthero, Toronto, CanadaJournal of Threatened Taxa is indexed/abstractedin Zoological Records, BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts,Index Fungorum, Bibliography of Systematic Mycology,EBSCO and Google Scholar.

Jo u r n a l o f Th r e a t e n e d Ta x aISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)August 2012 | Vol. 4 | No. 9 | Pages 2845–2932Date of Publication 26 August 2012 (online & print)EditorialScientific conduct and misconduct: honesty is stillthe best policy-- Neelesh Dahanukar & Sanjay Molur, Pp. 2845–2848CommunicationsCEPF Western Ghats Special SeriesStreamside amphibian communities in plantationsand a rainforest fragment in the Anamalai hills, India-- Ranjini Murali & T.R. Shankar Raman, Pp. 2849–2856Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea andHesperoidea) and other protected fauna of JonesEstate, a dying watershed in the Kumaon Himalaya,Uttarakhand, India-- Peter Smetacek, Pp. 2857–2874Evaluation of macrobenthic fauna in hill streamenvironment of Western Himalaya, India-- Indu Sharma & Rani Dhanze, Pp. 2875–2882Short CommunicationsA new species of parasitic wasp NeastymachusGirault (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Encyrtidae)collected by fogging Vateria indica L.(Dipterocarpaceae) canopy in the Western Ghats ofIndia-- Sudhir Singh & Y.B. Srinivasa, Pp. 2883–2888NotesNew floral distribution records of Aquilegia nivalis(Baker) Falc. ex B.D. Jacks and Doronicum falconeriC.B. Clarke ex Hook. f. from the Valley of FlowersNational Park, Uttarakhand, India-- C.S. Rana & D.S. Rawat, Pp. 2911–2914Ecology and population structure of a terrestrialmycoheterotrophic orchid, Aphyllorchis montanaRchb.f. (Orchidaceae) in Soppinabetta forests of theWestern Ghats, India-- Palatty Allesh Sinu, Neethu Sinu & KruthikChandrashekara, Pp. 2915–2919Records of Jerdon’s Baza Aviceda jerdoni (Blyth,1842) (Aves: Falconiformes: Accipitiridae) in AndhraPradesh, India-- Sathyanarayana Srinivasan, B. Ramakrishna, C.Srinivasulu & G. Ramakrishna, Pp. 2920–2923Observation of Bryde’s Whale Balanoptera edeni/ brydei (Cetartiodactyla: Balaenoptiidae) in theoffshore waters of southern Odisha, eastern India-- Sajan John, K. Sivakumar, B.C. Choudhury & MuntazKhan, Pp. 2924–2927Identification of hairs of some mammalian prey oflarge cats in Gir Protected Area, India-- Nishith Dharaiya & V.C. Soni, Pp. 2928–2932Twelve species of nematodes: new records for India-- Padma Bohra, Pp. 2889–2899An inventory of mammals, birds and reptiles alonga section of the river and banks of upper Ganges,India-- Tawqir Bashir, Sandeep Kumar Behera, Afifullah Khan& Parikshit Gautam, Pp. 2900–2910Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of articles in any mediumfor non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and thesource of publication.