The Fauna of Sri Lanka:
Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation
Edited by
Channa. N. B. Bambaradeniya
This publication has been prepared by
the World Conservation Union in Sri Lanka
with financial assistance from the Royal Netherlands Government.
Printing of this publication has been made possible by
the Royal Netherlands Government and the Protected Area Management
and Wildlife Conservation (PAM & WC) Project
i
The designation of geographical entities in this report, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country
territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers and boundaries. The
views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN.
This publication has been prepared by the World Conservation Union in Sri Lanka with financial assistance
from the Royal Netherlands Government. Printing of this publication has been funded by the Royal
Netherlands Government and the Protected Area Management and Wildlife Conservation Project.
Published by:
The World Conservation Union (IUCN), Colombo, Sri Lanka
Government of Sri Lanka.
Copyright:
© 2006, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial
purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder
provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is
prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
Citation:
Bambaradeniya, C.N.B. (Editor), 2006. Fauna of Sri Lanka: Status of
Taxonomy, Research and Conservation. The World Conservation Union,
Colombo, Sri Lanka & Government of Sri Lanka. viii + 308pp
ISBN:
955-8177-51-2
Cover photographs:
Stenella longirostris - © Anouk Ilangakoon
Notocrypta paralysos - © Naalin Perera
Panthera pardus kotiya - © Gehan de Silva Wijeratne
Produced by:
The World Conservation Union (IUCN), Sri Lanka
Printed by:
Karunaratne & Sons Ltd.,
67, UDA Industrial Estate,
Katuwana Rd, Homagama, Sri Lanka
Available from:
The World Conservation Union (IUCN), Sri Lanka
53, Horton Place. Colombo 7, Sri Lanka
Biodiversity Secretariat
Ministry of Environment,
104, ‘Parisarapiyasa’,
Robert Gunawardane Mawatha,
Battaramulla, Sri Lanka
ii
Contents
Message from the Country Representative of IUCN Sri Lanka
Message from the Secretary of the Ministry of Environment
Dedication
Acknowledgements
Editorial
v
vi
vii
ix
x
Section 1: Status of Invertebrate Fauna in Sri Lanka
1
An Overview of the Taxonomic Status of Class Hexapoda (Insecta) in Sri Lanka
Anura Wijesekara
3
Current Status and Future Directions in Bee Taxonomy in Sri Lanka
W. A. I. P. Karunaratne and J. P. Edirisinghe
12
Current Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation of Dragonfly Fauna of Sri Lanka
Matjaz Bedjanic
20
Current Status of Aphid Taxonomy in Sri Lanka
Jayanthi P. Edirisinghe and M. A. P. Wijerathna
35
Current Taxonomic Status of Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Sri Lanka
R. K. Sriyani Dias
43
Species Richness, Distribution and Conservation Status of Butterflies in Sri Lanka
W. P. N. Perera and C. N.B. Bambaradeniya
53
Taxonomic Status of Ticks in Sri Lanka
P. R. M. P. Dilrukshi
65
Systematics and Conservation of Spiders in Sri Lanka: Current Status and
Future Prospects
Suresh P. Benjamin and Channa N. B. Bambaradeniya
70
Conservation of Sri Lankan Freshwater Crabs
Mohomed M. Bahir & Rohan Pethiyagoda
77
Land Snails in Sri Lanka
K. B. Ranawana
84
Section 2: Status of Vertebrate Fauna in Sri Lanka
101
Conservation of Sri Lankan Freshwater Fishes
Rohan Pethiyagoda
103
Some Aspects of Ecology of Endemic Freshwater Fishes of Sri Lanka
Upali S. Amarasinghe, R. R. A. R. Shirantha and M. J. S. Wijeyaratne
113
Sri Lankan Amphibians: Diversity, Uniqueness and Conservation
Rohan Pethiyagoda, Kelum Manamendra-Arachchi, Mohomed M. Bahir and
Madhava Meegaskumbura
125
Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka
Anslem de Silva
134
iii
Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
Professor Sarath W. Kotagama, Rex I. De Silva, Athula S. Wijayasinha &
Vathsala Abeygunawardane
164
Status of Waterfowl in Sri Lanka
Deepal Warakagoda and Udaya Sirivardana
204
Taxonomic Status of the Mammals of Sri Lanka
D. K. Weerakoon and W. L. D. P. T. S. de A. Goonatilake
216
Ecological Traits of Endemic Small Mammals in Rainforests of Sri Lanka,
and Their Implications for Conservation
Mayuri R. Wijesinghe
232
The Ecology of the Wild Cats of Sri Lanka
Sriyanie Miththapala
235
Section 3: Status of Marine Fauna in Sri Lanka
257
Coral Associated Invertebrates: An Overview of the Current Taxonomic Status
Malik Fernando
259
Current Status of Taxonomy and Ecology of Marine Molluscs in Sri Lanka
Darshani de Silva
274
The Taxonomy and Status of Offshore Birds (seabirds) of Sri Lanka
S. W. Kotagama1 and Rex I. De Silva
288
Taxonomy and Status of the Sharks and Rays of Sri Lanka
Rex I. De Silva
294
Taxonomy and Current Status of Marine Mammals in Sri Lanka
A. D. Ilangakoon
302
iv
Message from the Country Representative of IUCN Sri Lanka
In the year 2004, after a lapse of nearly two decades, The World Conservation Union (IUCN), in
collaboration with the Biodiversity Secretariat of the Ministry of Environment organized a series of
national workshops on the status of fauna in Sri Lanka.
The intention of organizing these workshops was to upgrade and disseminate the knowledge pertaining to
taxonomy, ecology and research on the fauna of the island through presentations made by eminent
scientists and naturalists, based on recent research. Since a wealth of information was presented at these
workshops, IUCN recognized the need to compile this valuable knowledge and information into a single
comprehensive publication, which could be used by a variety of stakeholders, including policy makers,
protected area managers, researchers, conservation biologists, environmentalists and students.
Most of the scientists who presented papers at these national workshops came forward voluntarily to write
up full papers on their research in relation to taxonomy, ecology and the conservation of fauna in Sri Lanka.
Thus, this publication includes updated information on all groups of inland vertebrate fauna, selected groups
of inland invertebrate fauna and selected groups of marine fauna.
We wish to thank all the scientists and naturalists who contributed towards this publication and sincerely
acknowledge the group of peer reviewers that included Sri Lankan and foreign scientists who assisted us
to review each paper in order to enhance the technical quality of this publication.
We sincerely hope that this publication would be used by various stakeholders for the conservation of fauna
in Sri Lanka.
Mrs. Shiranee E Yasaratne
Country Representative
The World Conservation Union (IUCN)
Sri Lanka
v
Message from the Secretary of the Ministry of Environment, Sri Lanka
It is with great pleasure that I write this message for this comprehensive publication on the status of fauna
in Sri Lanka, on behalf of the Ministry of Environment. Being the government focal member, the Ministry
of Environment has been actively involved in biodiversity conservation activities in collaboration with IUCN
– The World Conservation Union in Sri Lanka, during the past two decades. Such collaborations have
resulted in several valuable outputs, including publications such as the 1999 Biodiversity Conservation
Framework for Action, and several workshops to raise awareness and/or build capacity to conserve the
rich biodiversity in the island. The Ministry decided to co-finance the printing of this publication through
financial assistance from the ADB/GEF funded Protected Area Management and Wildlife Conservation
Project, in order to disseminate it and provide information on the current status of fauna in Sri Lanka,
among a wider group of stakeholders including researchers, students, teachers and policy makers. I am
confident that this publication would contribute towards promoting research on the different groups of
fauna in the island, and also be used to develop and implement relevant conservation policies. I wish to
thank all the researchers who contributed with very interesting papers on the status of different groups of
fauna, in order to make this publication a success.
Mr. Jayalath R. W. Dissanayake
Secretary
Ministry of Environment
Sri Lanka
vi
Dedication
This publication is dedicated to the memory of late Prof. Felix Prashantha Amerasinghe, a brilliant research
scientist and an exemplary university academic who contributed immensely towards the development of
natural sciences in Sri Lanka.
Although initially selected to enter medical college, Prof. Amerasinghe, in his youth, opted to pursue
biological sciences as an undergraduate at the University of Ceylon, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, where he
obtained a First Class Honours Degree in Zoology. Subsequently, he obtained a Ph.D. in Entomology from
the University of Bristol, UK. He commenced his university teaching career in 1972 as an Assistant
Lecturer at the Department of Zoology, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, where he served for nearly
three decades. In 1996, he was appointed Professor of Applied Zoology and between 1998 and 1999, held
the position of Head of the Department of Zoology, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. Between 1990
and 1992, Prof. Amerasinghe also served as a Visiting Associate Professor at the Department of
Entomology, University of Maryland, USA. He was a dedicated teacher who possessed unique teaching
skills that encouraged and stimulated students to develop an interest in biology.
As a research scientist, Prof. Amerasinghe specialised primarily in the field of Medical Entomology. He
was very methodical and systematic in his research work, with extra-ordinary commitment to deliver
scientifically objective and high quality outputs. During his research career spanning 35 years, he was able
to publish more than 80 peer-reviewed papers in reputed national and international journals, and also
present more than 50 papers at national, regional and international conferences. He believed in applied
research that would benefit the country and the world at large. He made an invaluable contribution to the
field of Medical Entomology, through his pioneering research work on mosquito ecology and taxonomy.
The findings of his enduring research work enabled the government of Sri Lanka to design and implement
effective malaria control programmes, especially in the Mahaweli irrigation systems. Apart from his
primary research interests related to Medical Entomology, he also pursued an interest in the field of ecology
and biodiversity as an ardent naturalist. Some of his unique research related to these fields include the
study of food habits of the Sri Lankan Leopard, and description of the structure and identification of the
hairs of the mammals of Sri Lanka.
He supervised the research work of several undergraduate and postgraduate students in Sri Lanka, where
his able guidance enabled them to complete their research successfully and pursue their careers in the field
of biology. He always encouraged creative thinking amongst students, and promoted constructive criticism
and positive approaches in designing and implementing research work.
Prof. Amerasinghe held several professional affiliations, in national and international scientific bodies. A
few that highlight his reputation and credibility as a scientist include being a Fellow of the National
Academy of Sciences of Sri Lanka, Fellow of the Institute of Biology, Sri Lanka, Fellow of the Royal
Society of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene, and Member of the Entomological Society of America. He also
held chairmanship of committees and councils in several professional associations and national institutes in
Sri Lanka.
His expertise was regularly sought by many international organizations, including the World Health
Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), where he was hired as an advisor on assignments related to vector control. He was
invited to be one of the Lead Authors of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and was also a member of
an international working group on a WHO/UNEP-commissioned project on Biodiversity and Human
Health. He carried out several short-term consultancies in countries such as the Philippines, Pakistan,
Thailand and India.
vii
At the time of his unexpected demise, he held the position of Theme Leader overseeing the global research
program related to the Water, Health and Environment Theme of the International Water Management
Institute (IWMI), a CGIAR-supported research institute with headquarters in Colombo, Sri Lanka. During
his six year tenure at IWMI, he initiated a collaborative partnership with The World Conservation Union
through a unique project integrating biodiversity conservation aspects into an irrigation development scheme
in Southern Sri Lanka. This was the first time in Sri Lanka where conservation concerns were addressed
parallel to the implementation of a large-scale irrigation development and agricultural settlement scheme.
Prof. Amerasinghe managed to introduce the concept of eco-agriculture into this project.
Prof. Amerasinghe received several national and international research awards and honours, for his unique
research work. In 2001, he brought immense honour and glory to his motherland by being included in the
First Edition of the “2000 OUTSTANDING SCIENTISTS OF THE 21ST CENTURY” published by the
International Biographical Centre, Cambridge, England.
His untimely demise, which left a vacuum in the field of biological research in Sri Lanka, is an irreplaceable
loss to the scientific community of the world.
viii
Acknowledgements
The World Conservation Union gratefully acknowledges the scientists and naturalists who contributed their
findings through scientific papers towards making this publication possible. The Union would also like to
thank the following scientists who reviewed the papers in this publication for technical content: Dr. Pamela
Rasmussen, Michigan State University Museum West Circle Drive, East Lansing, MI, USA; Prof. Colin P.
Groves, School of Archaeology & Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia;
Dr. Indraneil Das, University of Sarawak Malaysia, Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia; Mr. Sanjay
Molur, Zoo Outreach Organization, Coimbatore, India; Prof. Jayanthi Edirisinghe, Department of Zoology,
Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka; Dr. Michael van der Poorten, Wariyapola, Sri
Lanka; Mr. Rohan Pethiyagoda, Wildlife Heritage Trust, Sri Lanka; Mr. Jerker Tamelander, Regional
Marine Programme, Asia Regional Office, Colombo 7, Sri Lanka; Dr. Sriyanie Miththapala, IUCN - Asia
Regional Office, Colombo 7, Sri Lanka and Dr. Channa Bambaradeniya, Regional Species Programme,
IUCN - Asia Regional Office, Colombo 7 Sri Lanka.
We would like to thank the Biodiversity Secretariat of the Ministry of Environment for the continuous
support rendered.
The Protected Area Management and Wildlife Conservation (PAM & WC) Project, along with the Royal
Netherlands Government are gratefully acknowledged for providing the financial support needed to print
this document.
ix
Editorial
Species Richness of Fauna in Sri Lanka: Current Status and Future Prospects
Taxonomic research on the faunal groups of Sri Lanka has undergone a tremendous growth since the
1990s, initiated by a handful of Sri Lankan naturalists and taxonomists. This has resulted in the discovery
and scientific description of several new species of invertebrate and vertebrate fauna. In particular, the
numbers of amphibian and freshwater crab species have increased considerably, due to intensive scientific
surveys of these groups. The number of amphibian species recognised by Kirtisinghe (1957) has undergone
a three-fold increase (102 species at present), as a result of the work carried out during the past decade by
Dutta and Manamendra-Arachchi (1996); Manamendra-Arachchi and Pethiyagoda (1998); ManamendraArachchi and Pethiyagoda (2005); Meegaskumbura and Manamendra-Arachchi (2005). Similarly, over the
past 12 years, a surge in interest of research on Sri Lanka’s freshwater crabs has resulted in the discovery
of more than 40 new species (Ng, 1994, 1995a, b; Bahir, 1998, 1999; Ng and Tay, 2001; Bahir and Ng,
2005; Bahir and Yeo, 2005). It is interesting to note the discovery of new species even among popular
groups of vertebrates such as birds (Warakagoda and Rasmussen, 2004) and mammals (Groves and
Meijaard, 2005), after a lapse of more than 100 years. It is also encouraging to note that a few researchers
have begun to focus on lesser-known invertebrates such as insects, spiders and land snails in the island,
leading to the discovery of new species (Karunaratne, 2004; Wijesinghe, 1991a, 1991b; Benjamin, 2000;
Benjamin and Jocqué, 2000; Benjamin, 2001; Naggs et al., 2005).
Although many species of fauna have been described recently in Sri Lanka, there was no attempt to collate
updated information in the form of a single publication, in order to facilitate and enhance research,
education, awareness and conservation activities. This publication is intended to collate and present updated
information on the status of taxonomy, research and conservation of different groups of fauna in Sri Lanka.
Based on the papers appearing in this publication, the current species richness among different groups of
fauna in Sri Lanka is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Species richness of inland and marine fauna in Sri Lanka. (The number of endemic species is
presented in parenthesis)
Group
Number of Species
Group
Invertebrate Fauna
Vertebrate Fauna
Bees
148 (21)
Freshwater Fish
Dragonflies (Odonates)
120 (57)
Amphibians
Aphids
Ants
Butterflies
Ticks
Spiders
Freshwater Crabs
Land Snails
x
Number of Species
84 (2)
181
243 (20)
501
51 (51)
246 (204)
102 + (88+)
Reptiles
184 (105)
Birds
482 (33)
Mammals
27
82 (44)
91(16)
Marine Fauna
Echinoderms
213
Marine Molluscs
228
Sharks
61
Rays
31
Marine Mammals
28
This recent research also highlights a higher degree of endemism than hitherto estimated among most
groups of fauna in the island. Among the inland indigenous vertebrate species (i.e., excluding marine forms
and migratory birds) described currently, 43% are endemic to Sri Lanka. A higher percentage of endemism
is evident among the freshwater crabs (100%), amphibians (86%), and land snails (83%), with many of
them being point endemics. Most of this endemic fauna are restricted to the wet zone of the island. Even
though Sri Lanka has experienced prolonged land connections with India during much of the Pleistocene
period, recent molecular investigations have revealed a unique endemic insular radiation, especially among
the less mobile faunal groups such as tree-frogs (Meegaskumbura et al., 2002), agamid lizards (Macey et
al., 2000; Schulte et al., 2002) and skinks (Austin et al., 2004).
Several measures are needed to further enhance our current knowledge and understanding on the richness
of fauna in Sri Lanka. Although there are several theories pertaining to the biogeographic evolution in Sri
Lanka and India, none of them have been able to unravel gaps and pecularities in the geographic
distribution of taxa, and many of the evolutionary processes are yet to be understood adequately.
Therefore, researchers from the two countries should pursue in collaborative studies related to
biogeography. As highlighted in some papers of this publication, comprehensive taxonomic revisions need
to be carried for several groups of fauna, and a close collaboration between taxonomists in India and Sri
Lanka is a prerequisite to such taxonomic revisions. Careful examination - both morphological and
molecular - of Indian and Sri Lankan faunal specimens, through collaborative and synchronised taxonomic
investigations, is necessary to address problems related to taxonomy. The lack of a well-maintained national
faunal repository in Sri Lanka is a major obstacle to taxonomists studying different groups of fauna. The
type specimens of many faunal taxa described to date are located in museums of the developed world,
which can be accessed only by a handful of taxonomists and naturalists. Therefore, attempts should be
made to upgrade the faunal repository of the National Museum of Sri Lanka, and encourage researchers
to deposit type specimens there. This would certainly encourage young researchers to become involved in
the study of fauna in Sri Lanka.
With current trends in development, many ecosystems and with them, their species, are under severe
pressure, if not under threat, from human activities. Continued taxonomic research will provide a sound
scientific foundation on which conservation and management decisions about the fauna of Sri Lanka can
be based.
Channa N.B. Bambaradeniya
The World Conservation Union (IUCN)
Asia Regional Species Conservation Programme,
53, Horton Place, Colombo 07, Sri Lanka.
Email: cnb@iucnsl.org
xi
Literature Cited
Austin, C.C., I. Das & A. De Silva. 2004. Higher-level molecular phylogenetic relationships of the endemic
genus Lankascincus from Sri Lanka based on nuclear DNA sequences. Lyriocephalus, 5: 11-22.
Bahir, M. M. 1998. Three new species of montane crabs of the genus Perbrinckia (Crustacea,
Parathelphusidae) from the central mountains of Sri Lanka. Journal of South Asian Natural
History, 3: 197–212.
Bahir, M. M., 1999. Description of three new species of freshwater crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda:
Parathelphusidae: Ceylonthelphusa) from the south-western rain forests of Sri Lanka. Journal of
South Asian Natural History, 4: 117–132.
Bahir, M. M. & P. K. L. Ng, 2005. Description of ten new species of freshwater crabs (Parathelphusidae:
Ceylonthelphusa, Mahatha, Perbrinckia) from Sri Lanka. In: Yeo, D. C. J., P. K. L. Ng & R.
Pethiyagoda (eds.), Contributions to Biodiversity Exploration and Research in Sri Lanka. The Raffles
Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 12: 47–75.
Bahir, M. M. & D. C. J. Yeo, 2005. A revision of the genus Oziotelphusa Müller, 1887 (Crustacea:
Decapoda: Parathelphusidae), with descriptions of eight new species. In: Yeo, D. C. J., P. K. L. Ng
& R. Pethiyagoda (eds.), Contributions to Biodiversity Exploration and Research in Sri Lanka. The
Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 12: 77–120.
Benjamin, S. P. 2000. Epidius parvati sp. n., a new species of the genus Epidius from Sri Lanka
(Araneae:Thomisidae). Bull. Br. arachnol. Soc., 11(7), 284-288.
Benjamin, S. P. and Jocqué R. 2000. Two new species of the genus Suffasia from Sri Lanka (Araneae:
Zodariidae). Revue suisse de Zoologie, 107(1): 97-106.
Benjamin, S. P. 2001. The genus Oxytate L. Koch 1878 from Sri Lanka, with description of Oxytate
taprobane sp. n. (Araneae: Thomsidae). Journal of South Asian Natural History. 5(2): 153-158,
10 figs.
Dutta, S. K. & K. Manamendra-Arachchi, 1996. The amphibian fauna of Sri Lanka. Wildlife Heritage
Trust of Sri Lanka, Colombo. 232 pp.
Groves, C.P. and Meijaard, E. 2005. Interspecific variation in Moschiola, the Indian chevrotain. Raffles
Bulletin of Zoology, 12: 413-421.
Karunaratne, W. A. I. P., 2004. Taxonomy and Ecology of Bees of Sri Lanka. Ph.D. Thesis
(Unpublished), Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya.
Kirtisinghe, P., 1957. The Amphibia of Ceylon. Published by the author, Colombo. xiii+112 pp, 1 pl.
Macey, J.R., J.A. Schulte, A. Larson, A.B. Ananjeva, Y. Wang, R. Pethiyagoda, N. Rastegar-Pouyani &
T.J. Papenfuss, 2000. Evaluating Trans-Tethys migration: an example using acrodont lizard
phylogenetics. Systematic Biology, 49: 233-256.
Manamendra-Arachchi, K. & R. Pethiyagoda, 1998. A synopsis of the Sri Lankan Bufonidae (Amphibia:
Anura) with description of new species. Journal of South Asian Natural History, 3: 213–248.
Manamendra-Arachchi, K. & R. Pethiyagoda, 2005. The Sri Lankan shrub-frogs of the genus Philautus
Gistel, 1848 (Ranidae: Rhacophorinae), with description of 27 new species. Raffles Bulletin of
Zoology, Supplement 12: 163–303.
Meegaskumbura, M., F. Bossuyt, R. Pethiyagoda, K. Manamendra-Ararchchi, M. Bahir, M. C.
Milinkovitch & C. J. Schneider, 2002. Sri Lanka: an amphibian hotspot. Science, 298: 379.
Meegaskumbura, M. & K. Manamendra-Arachchi, 2005. Descriptions of eight new species of shrub frogs
(Ranidae: Rhacophorinae: Philautus) from Sri Lanka. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement 12:
305–338.
Naggs, F., Raheem, D., Ranawana, K., Mapatuna, Y. 2005. The Darwin initiative project on Sri Lankan
xii
Land snails: Patterns of diversity in Sri Lankan forests. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 12: 23 – 29.
Ng, P. K. L., 1995a. A revision of the Sri Lankan montane crabs of the genus Perbrinckia Bott, 1969
(Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Parathelphusidae). Journal South Asian Natural History, 1:
129–174.
Ng, P. K. L., 1995b. Ceylonthelphusa scansor, a new species of tree-climbing crab from Sinharaja Forest
in Sri Lanka (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Parathelphusidae). Journal South Asian Natural
History, 1: 175–184.
Ng, P. K. L. & W. M. Tay, 2001. The freshwater crabs of Sri Lanka (Decapoda: Brachyura:
Parathelphusidae). Zeylanica, 6: 113–199.
Schulte, J.A., J.R. Macey, R. Pethiyagoda and A. Larson, 2002. Rostral horn evolution among agamid
lizards of the genus Ceratophora endemic to Sri Lanka. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution,
22: 111-117.
Warakagoda, D.H. and P.C. Rasmussen (2004). A new species of scops-owl from Sri Lanka. Bull. B.O.C.
124 (2): 85-105.
Wijesinghe, D. P. 1991a. A new species of Gelotia (Araneae: Salticidae) from Sri Lanka. Journal of
theNew York Entomological Society 99(2): 274-277.
Wijesinghe, D. P. 1991b. New species of Phaeacius from Sri Lanka, Sumatra and the Philippines
(Araneae: Salticidae). Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society 8(8): 249-255.
xiii
Scolia aureipenniformes
Naalin Perera
Tetrathemis yerburiya
M. Bedjanic
Section 1:
Status of Invertebrate
Fauna in Sri Lanka
Nephila maculata
Naalin Perera
Pathysa antiphates
Vimukthi Weeratunga
Oziotelphusa hippocastanum
Wildlife Heritage Trust
1
2
THE FAUNA OF SRI LANKA (2006): 3-11
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
An Overview of the Taxonomic Status of
Class Hexapoda (Insecta) in Sri Lanka
Anura Wijesekara*
*P.O. Box 11, Horticulture Research and Development Institute, Peradeniya, 20400
Abstract
A project initiated to compile a list of all insect species recorded from Sri Lanka found the names of
11,144 species belonging to 30 insect orders, the only order not represented in Sri Lanka being
Grylloblattodea. The number of insects recorded from Sri Lanka is 53% of all known organisms in
Sri Lanka and 81% of the known animal species, according to the biodiversity data given in
Statistical Compendium 2000. Our knowledge of Sri Lankan insects, however, varies widely
according to the order. The five apterygote orders are probably the least studied; no attempts to
systematically collect or comprehensively study Sri Lankan material belonging to any of these orders
were found.
There seem to be four impediments for research on insect taxonomy in Sri Lanka. They are (a) lack
of passionate amateur entomologists and trained taxonomists, (b) lack of well-curated insect
collections in the country and poor accessibility to existing collections, (c) lack of well -organized
training in systematic entomology, and (d) lack of comprehensive literature collections.
Key words: Insects, Taxonomy
Status of Insect Taxonomy in Sri Lanka
Taxonomy is the science of discovering, describing and classifying species. The taxonomic knowledge of
a group of organisms in a country or region includes the number of described species in that country or
region, their names, their place in a systematic classification and the means for their identification. It has
been claimed by some writers that insects are a taxonomically poorly known group in Sri Lanka. For
example, while reporting the presence of over 5,000 species of plants in Sri Lanka the authors of several
recent publications on biodiversity and the environment display awareness of the presence of only a very
few insect groups in Sri Lanka; the number of insect species recorded from Sri Lanka according to these
publications ranges between 900-1,200 (SOBA, 1994; Statistical Compendium 2000; State of the
Environment 2002). This, however, is not an accurate representation of the state of the taxonomic
knowledge of Sri Lankan insects, nor a true picture of the actual diversity and richness of Sri Lanka’s
insect fauna. Even as far back as 1861 Walker listed 2,007 species recorded from the country belonging to
nine insect orders (Tennent, 1861), and Haly (1890) listed 1,510 beetle species alone in the collection of the
Colombo Museum. Since then numerous entomologists have added significantly to the taxonomic
knowledge of Sri Lankan insects. Among them E.E. Green, G.M. Henry, C.H. Fernando and C. V.
Krombein have made notable contributions. For most groups of Sri Lankan insects this information is widely
scattered in the vast taxonomic literature going back to the mid 19th century. For only a very few groups
are there comprehensive accounts available dealing with the Sri Lankan species.
Wijesekara and Wijesinghe (2003) made an attempt to compile a list of all insect species recorded from Sri
Lanka. Although a list was not published they found the names of 11,144 species recorded from Sri Lanka
belonging to 30 insect orders, the only order not represented in Sri Lanka being the Grylloblattodea. This
number is 53% of all known organisms in Sri Lanka and 81% of the known animal species, based on the
data found in Statistical compendium 2000. This information is currently being used to compile a database
of all known Sri Lankan insects. The database will consist of the valid name, synonyms, literature
references, distribution, and where available photographs of all Sri Lankan insects. This work has been
3
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
financed by the Council for Agriculture Research Policy (CARP) in Sri Lanka. The objective of this paper
is to present the status of taxonomic knowledge of Sri Lankan insects under each insect Order represented
in Sri Lanka. The orders are not listed in any particular systematic sequence.
Apterygote Orders
Of all the insect orders represented in Sri Lanka the five apterygote orders are probably the least studied.
There has been no attempt to systematically collect or comprehensively study Sri Lankan material of any
of these orders. Our knowledge of these orders in Sri Lanka is based on random descriptions of species
by various taxonomists based on material found among the collection of other insects from Sri Lanka.
Information on these orders can be found in Ritter, 1910-1; Imms, 1912; Nosek, 1976; Fernando, 1958;
Pages, 1984; Silvestri, 1913 and Wygodzinsky, 1957. Number of species known to occur in Sri Lanka under
each order is given by Wijesekara and Wijesinghe (2003).
Smaller Pterygote Orders
Ephemeroptera, Odonata, Orthoptera and Phasmatodea
The order Ephemeroptera is represented in Sri Lanka by 46 species in 8 families. This is a relatively wellstudied insect group in Sri Lanka. Hubbard and co-workers studied the systematics, phylogeny and ecology
of this order from Sri Lanka (Hubbard and Peters, 1978; Hubbard, 1983; Hubbard, 1985). Many
taxonomists have studied Sri Lankan Odonata, too. De Fonseka (1998) compiled the taxonomic knowledge
of this group from Sri Lanka according to which there are 117 species in 12 families representing this order.
It should also be regarded as a better studied group in the country. A recent revival of interest on this group
is evident, by the work initiated by Bedjanic (2002, 2004). Some notable taxonomic work on Sri Lankan
Odonata includes Laidlaw, 1924; Fraser, 1933; Laidlaw, 1951 and Lieftinck, 1955.
G.M. Henry (better known in Sri Lanka for his work on birds) is mainly responsible for our considerable
knowledge of the Orthoptera of Sri Lanka (Henry, 1933, 1934, 1937, 1939, 1940, 1942, 1944). In addition,
Chopard (1936) and Sandrasagara (1949) have studied Sri Lankan Orthoptera, including the families
Acrididae and Gryllidae. Phasmatodea of Sri Lanka is also well known. In the most recent study of this
group, Henneman (2002) recorded 69 species from this country. This study is a good example of how
things are with most of the insect taxa in Sri Lanka. Hennemann collected Phasmatodea in only 4
locations, Kandapola, Gelioya, Hunnas falls and roadside on the way to Hunnas falls from Kandy. Studying
this material he revised some groups of the Order and found many synonyms and few new species. Similar
studies are needed for many insect groups of Sri Lanka.
Blattaria, Mantodea, Dermaptera, Isoptera and Embioptera
There are records of 66 species of Blattaria (cockroaches) from Sri Lanka. However no exclusive
taxonomic studies on Sri Lankan cockroaches have been conducted so far, leading to a relatively poor
knowledge of this group. Present knowledge consists of scattered descriptions of species in world
literature. Unlike cockroaches, the order of praying mantises (Mantodea) is better known (Henry, 1931,
1932; Beier, 1956).
The knowledge of Dermaptera of Sri Lanka is fairly complete. Earlier records of Sri Lankan species were
first compiled by Burr (1901), and Brindle (1972) revised this Order for Sri Lanka. There are records of
56 species of termites from Sri Lanka. Green in 1913 first compiled a catalogue of Isoptera for Sri Lanka.
Since then, except for additions of a few new species and records, no comprehensive taxonomic work
dealing exclusively with Sri Lankan termite species has been published. The tea research institute of Sri
Lanka (TRI) is conducting studies on Isoptera but their main concern is on ecology and control of pest
species. Knowledge of Embioptera is limited to 4 species, which Ross recorded in 1979. Ross (personal
communications) is in the opinion that many more species could be present in this country.
4
Wijesekera: An Overview of the Taxonomic Status of Class Hexapoda (Insecta) in Sri Lanka
Plecoptera, Zoraptera, Psocoptera, Pthiraptera, Thysanoptera, Neuroptera, Mecoptera
and Siphonaptera
Taxonomic knowledge on Plecoptera, Zoraptera and Pthiraptera in Sri Lanka is very poor and limited to
scattered description of species. Zwick (1980) studied the Plecopteran genus Neoperla from Sri Lanka.
It is necessary to conduct systematic studies on these groups to improve our knowledge. New (1977)
studied two Psocopteran families, Epipsocidae and Pseudocaeciliidae, from Sri Lanka. There is very little
information on thrips (Thysanoptera) of Sri Lanka. Schmuts in 1913 reported all known thrips from Ceylon
and since then only Oda et al have done any exclusive work on Sri Lankan thrips. The study of Oda et al.
(1997) was limited to a small collection from Sri Lanka. Very little information limited again to isolated
descriptions of species is available on Sri Lankan Neuroptera, Mecoptera, and Siphonaptera which indicate
the need for taxonomic study of these groups. Meinander (1982) studied the Neuropteran Family
Coniopterygidae of Sri Lanka.
Hemiptera, Homoptera, Trichoptera and Strepsiptera
There are over 794 species of Hemiptera recorded from Sri Lanka (Wijesekara and Wijesinghe, 2003).
The only comprehensive work is that by Distant (1902-1918) in the Fauna of British India series. His sevenvolume work needs to be used carefully as it contains numerous errors. However, many others have
studied various families of Hemiptera from Sri Lanka. Even so many large families such as the
Pentatomidae and Reduviidae are yet to be comprehensively studied. Slater (1972) studied a collection of
Lygaidae from Sri Lanka and gave a checklist for the Family. Wijesekara and Henry (1999) have started
to work on Miridae of Sri Lanka and the study is being continued with the intension of revising the Family.
In addition a Catalog of Hemiptera of Sri Lanka is being compiled as a collaborative work between the Sri
Lanka Department of Agriculture and United States Department of Agriculture.
The status of Homoptera is similar to that of Hemiptera. Some groups have been studied but a
comprehensive work for the Order is lacking. There are few major studies on this group: Reen, 1896-1922
(Coccoidea); Goot, 1918 (Aphidae); Fenna, 1975 (Delphacidae); Pringle, 1955 (Cicadidae); and Melichar,
1903 (Homoptera). Trichoptera is another group that has been fairly well studied. Schmid (1958) and
Malicky (1973) did exclusive studies of Sri Lankan Trichoptera. There are several recent works including
a checklist of Strepsiptera of Sri Lanka (Kathirithamby, 1994; Kifune, 1997). However there has not been
any systematic collection of this group in the country.
Larger Pterygote Orders
Diptera
The order Diptera is the fourth largest insect order in Sri Lanka, consisting of 1,341 species (Wijesekara
and Wijesinghe, 2003). A substantial amount of taxonomic work has been done on various families of
Diptera in Sri Lanka. Notable studies include Amerasinghe, 1983, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991 (Culicidae);
Burger, 1981 (Tabanidae); Camras, 1957 (Conopidae); Davies and Gyorkos, 1987-1989 (Simuliidae);
Hardy, 1971 (Bibionidae); Oldroyd, 1957 (Tabanidae); Wijesekara, 2002 (Agromyzidae), etc. There are
many more families yet to be studied from Sri Lanka.
Hymenoptera
Hymenoptera is the third largest insect order in Sri Lanka. It is considered that Hymenoptera is a betterstudied group in Sri Lanka. But it is no better studied than other larger insect orders represented in the
country. Hymenoptera is a large Family divided in to 20 super families. Symphyta is not well represented
in the country. Smith (1982) studied the Symphyta. Most of the work on Sri Lankan Hymenoptera has
concerned three superfamilies of Apocrita. Recent work has been mainly based on the Smithsonian
Institution project ‘Biosystematic Studies on Ceylonese Insects’ led by Dr. K. V. Krombein. Krombein
(1978-1998) revised many groups of Apocrita from Sri Lanka. The informal division Parasitica includes
5
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
mostly micro Hymenoptera and they are very specious. Very little work has been done on micro
Hymenoptera of Sri Lanka. Even economically very important groups like Ichneumonoidea are yet to be
systematically studied. Notable works on Sri Lankan Parasitica include Dessart, 1975, 1988 and
Wijesekara and Schauff, 1994. Recent initiatives have also been taken to study the other hymenopteran
groups in Sri Lanka. For instance, Dias (2002a, 2002b, 2003) has initiated work on ants, while Karunaratne
(2004) has done a comprehensive study on the taxonomy and ecology of bees of Sri Lanka.
Lepidoptera
The order Lepidoptera is the second largest insect Order in the county with 2,158 species (Wijesekara and
Wijesinghe, 2003). It is divided into 32 superfamilies. The only group we know well is the butterflies, most
of which are in the superfamily Papilionoidea. Many taxonomists have worked on the butterflies of Sri
Lanka and a fair amount of taxonomic studies and identification guides are available for the group
(Ormiston, 1924; Woodhouse, 1952; d’Abrera, 1998). Since Hampson’s (1892-1896) account of Sri Lankan
Lepidoptera in the Fauna of British India very little work has been done on moths and other
microlepidoptera of Sri Lanka. Recent works on of Sri Lanka Lepidoptera other than butterflies include
Wu and Pack, 1998, 1999; Buttiker, 1962; Diakonoff, 1982 and Orhant, 1981.
Coleoptera
The Coleoptera of Sri Lanka includes at least 3,033 species. The taxonomic status of this order is more or
less similar to that of other large orders. Being the largest group of insects in Sri Lanka (also the world)
there are more to study than what we already know. Some recent work on Sri Lankan Coleoptera include;
Bonadona, 1986 (Anthicidae); Chujo, 1975 (Erotylidae and Languridae); Hammond, 1972 (Staphylinidae:
Oxytelini); Kaszab, 1980 (Tenebrionidae); Lobl, 1971 (Scaphidiidae); Medvedev, 1989 (Chrysomelidae);
Ohira, 1973 (Elateridae); Therond, 1971 (Histeridae); Ullrich, 1975 (Staphylinidae: Tachyporinae );
Wewalka, 1973 (Dytiscidae ); Wiesner, 1975 (Cicindelidae); Wittmer, 1956, 1973 (Drilidae, Cantharidae,
Prionoceridae). The Coccinellidae of Sri Lanka is being studied at Horticulture Research and Development
Institute, Gannoruwa under a CARP funded project with the objective of preparing an identification guide
for this important group.
Insect Taxonomy in Sri Lanka - Constraints
Most taxonomists who have studied Sri Lankan insects in the past were not Sri Lankans and this continues
to be the case. If there were more local scientists working in this field our knowledge of Sri Lankan insects
would have been much better by now. However, there are a few noteworthy local taxonomists who have
contributed to increase the knowledge of Sri Lankan insects since Sri Lanka gained independence in 1948.
Karunaratne, Fernando (C.H.), Amerasinghe, and Wijesekara have contributed by describing new species
from Sri Lanka and compiling the taxonomic knowledge of several groups. W. Fernando also described
many new insect species from Sri Lanka but his types are lost and most descriptions cannot be used to
recognize the species. When one contemplates the present status of insect taxonomy in Sri Lanka one can
identify three major impediments, though they are not exclusive of each other. First and foremost among
the impediments is the lack of passionate amateur entomologists. It may be due to cultural taboo in the
country that leads most people to teach children to avoid or let alone the animals they find in their
environment. The second impediment is the lack of well-curated insect collections in the country. The
national insect collection is not housed adequately nor well curated. The status of a few existing smaller
collections is the same. In addition, these collections are virtually inaccessible even to local researchers as
they are simply kept locked up. The third impediment is the lack of well-organized education in systematic
entomology. There is no satisfactory training in modern systematic biology available even at university level,
where the subject should be taught in conjunction with insect ecology, evolutionary biology, genetics,
molecular biology and biological illustrations. Lack of comprehensive literature collection is the fourth
impediment. Local libraries do not subscribe to any modern taxonomic journals. There is a fairly good
collection of old literature but no one seems to take notice of the availability or need to preserve what is
6
Wijesekera: An Overview of the Taxonomic Status of Class Hexapoda (Insecta) in Sri Lanka
available. It is ironic that sometimes it is easier to find a locally published item in a library outside the
country!
That is briefly my knowledge of the status of insect taxonomy in Sri Lanka. I will let readers to draw their
own conclusions from this short review.
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to Dr. D. P. Wijesinghe of the City University of New York, USA who has helped generously
by collaborating and sending his collection of references on the insects of Sri Lanka. He also reviewed the
manuscript and gave valuable suggestions to improve it. I thank Dr. Channa Bambaradeniya, IUCN Sri
Lanka for inviting me to give a presentation in the Workshop of Status of invertebrate Fauna in Sri Lanka.
Finally I gratefully appreciate the financial support for my work from the Council for Agriculture Research
Policy in Sri Lanka, grant No. 12/486/362.
References
Amerasinghe, F. P. 1983. A Note on Aedes (Stegomyia) novalbopictus Barraud from Sri Lanka, including
first descriptions of the female and egg (Diptera: Culicidae). Journal of Natural History, 17(2):
203-212.
Amerasinghe, F. P. 1987. Present status of mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) taxonomy in Sri Lanka.
Proceedings of the Seminar on Present Status of Faunal Taxonomy in Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka
Association for the Advancement of Science, Section D: 20-38.
Amerasinghe, F. P. 1989. Redescription of Heizmannia (Heizmannia) greenii Theobald from Sri Lanka
(Diptera: Culicidae). Mosquito Systematics, 21(2): 83-99.
Amerasinghe, F. P. 1990. A guide to the identification of the anopheline mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of
Sri Lanka. I. Adult females. Ceylon Journal of Science Biological Sciences, 21(1): 1-16.
Amerasinghe, F. P. 1991. A guide to the identification of the anopheline mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of
Sri Lanka. II. Larvae. Ceylon Journal of Science Biological Sciences, 22(1): 1-13.
Amerasinghe, F. P., 1993. A new species of Heizmannia from Sri Lanka (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosquito
Systematics, 25(2): 110.
Banks, J. and J Banks. 1986. A Selection of the Butterflies of Sri Lanka. Lake House Investments Ltd.,
Colombo. 16 col. pl.
Bedjanic, M., 2002. Dragonflies collected in Sri Lanka during January and February 1995 (Odonata).
Opuscula Zoologica Fluminensia 205: 1-22.
Bedjanic, M., 2004. Odonata fauna of Sri Lanka: research state and threat status. In: V. Clausnitzer & R.
Jödicke (Ed), Guardians of the watershed - Global status of dragonflies: critical species, threat and
conservation, pp. 279-294, International Journal of Odonatology 7(2), Worldwide Dragonfly
Association, Worcestershire.
Beier, M. 1956. Mantiden aus Ceylon (Orth.). Verhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in
Basel, 67(1): 33-40.
Bonadona, P. 1986. Anthicidae (Coleoptera) de Sri Lanka. Entomologica Scandinavica Supplement, 30:
55-75.
Brindle, A. 1977. Dermaptera from Ceylon. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 84(2): 453-461.
Burr, M. 1901. The earwigs of Ceylon. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 14: 59-78, 316-336.
Chopard, L. 1936. The Tridactylidae and Gryllidae of Ceylon. Spolia Zeylanica, 20(1): 9-87.
7
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Chujo, M. 1975. Coleoptera: Erotylidae and Languridae from Ceylon. Entomologica Scandinavica
Supplementum, 4: 195-198.
d’Abrera, B. 1998. The Butterflies of Ceylon. WHT Publications (Private) Limited, Colombo. 224 pp.
de Fonseka, T. 1997. A Guide to the Dragonflies of Sri Lanka. [Printed & published by author, London.]
229 pp.
Dias, R.K.S. 2002 (a). Current knowledge on ants of Sri Lanka. ANeT Newsletter, 4, 17 –21 pp.
Dias, R.K.S. 2002 (b). Ants of Sri Lanka with a brief description of field and laboratory
Sarvodaya Vishvalekha Press, Ratmalana, 44 p.
methods.
Dias, R. K. S., 2003. Taxonomic study of the worker ants collected from Colombo and Galle districts in Sri
Lanka. Proceedings of the Fourth ANeT workshop held at Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand in
November, 2003.
Distant, W. L. 1902-18. The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Rhynchota. Taylor and
Francis, London. Vol. I (1902) Heteroptera, 438 pp.; Vol. II (1903-04) Heteroptera, 504 pp.; Vol. III
(1906) Heteroptera-Homoptera, 503 pp.; Vol. IV (1907-08) Homoptera and Appendix, 501 pp.; Vol. V
(1911) Heteroptera: Appendix, 362 pp.; Vol. VI (1916) Homoptera: Appendix, 248 pp.; Vol. VII (1918)
Homoptera: Appendix, Heteroptera: Addenda, 210 pp.
Fennah, R. G. 1975. Homoptera: Fulgoroidea Delphacidae from Ceylon. Entomologica Scandinavica
Supplementum, 4: 79-136.
Green, E. E. 1896-1922 The Coccidae of Ceylon. London. 5 Pts. Pt. 1. pp. i-xi, 1-103 (1896); Pt. 2. pp.
105-169 (1899); Pt. 3. pp. 171-249 (1904); Pt. 4. pp. 251-344 (1909); Pt. 5. pp. 345-472 (1922)
Green, E. E. 1937. An annotated list of the Coccidae of Ceylon, with emendations and additions to date.
Spolia Zeylanica, 20(3): 277-341.
Gunawardane, W. T. T. P. & Karunaratne, P. B. 1965. The genus Hydrometra (Hemiptera, Heteroptera)
in Ceylon, with description of a new species. Spolia Zeylanica, 30(2): 233-244, 3 pl., map.
Goot, P. van der 1918. Aphididae of Ceylon. Spolia Zeylanica, 11(40):70-75.
Haly, A. 1890. First Report on the Collection of Beetles in theColombo Museum. George J A Skeen,
Government Printer, Colombo. 208 pp.
Hampson, G. F. 1892-1896. The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Moths. Taylor and
Francis, London. Vol. I (1892) 527 pp.; Vol. II (1894) 609 pp.; Vol. III (1895) 546 pp.; Vol. IV (1896)
594 pp.
Hammond, P.M. 1973-75. Coleoptera Staphylinidae Oxytelini from Ceylon. ). Entomologica
Scandinavica Suppliment. 4:141-178.
Henry, G. M. 1932. Notes on Ceylon Tettigoniidae, with descriptions of new species. Part 1. Spolia
Zeylanica, 16(3): 229-256.
Henry, G. M. 1933. Descriptions and records of Ceylonese Acrididae. Spolia Zeylanica, 17(3): 155-200.
Henry, G. M. 1933. Observations on the genus Genimen Bolivar (Insecta, Acrididae), with description of a
new genus and species. Spolia Zeylanica, 18(1): 193-198.
Henry, G. M. 1934. New and rare Hexacentrinae (Insecta, Orthoptera) from Ceylon. Spolia Zeylanica,
19(1): 1-21.
Henry, G. M. 1937. A new genus and species of Acrididae from South India and Ceylon (Orthoptera).
Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London Series B Taxonomy, 6: 197-200.
Henry, G. M. 1937. Euprepocnemis kalkudensis sp. nov. (Insecta, Acrididae) from Ceylon with remarks
on Euprepocnemis alacris (Serville) in the island. Spolia Zeylanica, 20(3): 343-345.
8
Wijesekera: An Overview of the Taxonomic Status of Class Hexapoda (Insecta) in Sri Lanka
Henry, G. M. 1939. Five new species of Pseudophaneroptera Brunner (Insecta, Tettigoniidae) from
Ceylon. Spolia Zeylanica, 21(2): 97-111.
Henry, G. M. 1939. The genus Zumala Walker, (Insecta, Orthoptera) with description of a new species.
Spolia Zeylanica, 21(3): 219-228.
Henry, G. M. 1939. A new tettigoniid genus and species from Ceylon. Spolia Zeylanica, 21(3): 229-232.
Henry, G. M. 1940. The genus Pelerinus Bolivar (Allodapa Brunner) (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae) with
descriptions of three new species. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London Series
B Taxonomy, 9(1): 7-15.
Henry, G. M. 1940. A new Indian genus and species of Tettigoniidae (Orthoptera). Proceedings of the
Royal Entomological Society of London Series B Taxonomy, 9(6): 97-101.
Henry, G. M. 1944. Diogena lankae, sp. nov. (Insecta, Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae). Ceylon Journal of
Science Section B Zoology, 22(2): 183-186.
Henry, G. M. 1944. Reflex bleeding in Sathrophyllia rugosa (L.) (Insecta, Orthoptera). Ceylon Journal of
Science Section B Zoology, 22(2): 187-188.
Henry, G. M. 1944. An organ of unknown function in some Pseudophyllinae (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae).
Ceylon Journal of Science Section B Zoology, 22(2): 189.
Henry, G. M. 1944. Facial asymmetry in Eumastacidae (Orthoptera, Acridoidea). Ceylon Journal of
Science Section B Zoology, 22(2): 191.
Henry, G. M. 1944. Notes on the behaviour of Orchetypus rugifrons (Waterhouse) (Orthoptera,
Acridoidea, Eumastacidae). Ceylon Journal of Science Section B Zoology, 22(2): 193-195.
Hennemann, F.H. 2002. Notes on the Phasmatodea of Sri Lanka (Orthoptera). Mitteilungen der
Munchner Entomologischen Gesellschaft. 92: 37-78.
Hlisnikovsky, J. (1972). Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Liodidae (Coleoptera) von Ceylon. Mitteilungen der
Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft, 45(1-3): 131-149.
Hubbard, M. D. 1983. Ephemeroptera of Sri Lanka: Ephemeridae. Systematic Entomology, 8(4): 383-392.
Hubbard, M. D. and W. L. Peters. 1978. A Catalogue of the Ephemeroptera of the Indian sub region.
Oriental Insects Supplement. 9:1-43.
Karunaratne, W. A. I. P. 2004. Taxonomy and Ecology of Bees of Sri Lanka. Ph.D. Thesis (Unpublished)
Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya.
Kathirithamby, J. 1994. Records and a checklist of Strepsiptera (Insecta) from Sri Lanka. Journal of
South Asian Natural History, 1(1): 17-25.
Kaszab, Z. 1979. Faunistik der Tenebrioniden von Sri Lanka (Coleoptera). Folia Entomologica
Hungarica, 32(2): 43-128.
Kifune, T. 1997. On the genus Paraxenos from Sri Lanka in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution
with a checklist of Strepsiptera from Sri Lanka and India (Notulae Strepsipterologicae-XXIV).
Japanese Journal of Entomology, 65(2): 407-412.
Krombein, K. V. 1979a. Biosystematic studies of Ceylonese wasps, IV. Kudakrumiinae, a new subfamily
of primitive wasps (Hymenoptera: Mutillidae). Transactions of the American Entomological
Society, 105(1): 67-83.
Krombein, K. V. 1979b. Biosystematic studies of Ceylonese wasps, V: A monograph of the Ampulicidae
(Hymenoptera: Sphecoidea). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 298: i-iii, 1-29.
Krombein, K. V. 1981. Biosystematic studies of Ceylonese wasps, VIII: A monograph of the Philanthidae
(Hymenoptera: Sphecoidea). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 343: i-iii, 1-75.
9
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Krombein, K. V. 1982. Biosystematic studies of Ceylonese wasps, IX: A monograph of the Tiphiidae
(Hymenoptera: Vespoidea). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 374: i-iv, 1-121.
Krombein, K. V. 1983. Biosystematic studies of Ceylonese wasps, XI: A monograph of the Amiseginae
and Loboscelidiinae (Hymenoptera: Chrysididae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 376:
i-iii, 1-79.
Krombein, K. V. 1984. Biosystematic studies of Ceylonese wasps, XIII: A monograph of the Stizinae
(Hymenoptera: Sphecoidea, Nyssonidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 388: i-iii, 1-37.
Krombein, K. V. 1985. Biosystematic studies of Ceylonese wasps, XV: A monograph of the Alyssoninae,
Nyssoninae, and Gorytinae (Hymenoptera: Sphecoidea: Nyssonidae). Smithsonian Contributions to
Zoology, No. 414: i-iii, 1-43.
Krombein, K. V. 1996. Biosystematic studies of Ceylonese wasps, XXI: A revision of the Bethylinae and
Epyrinae (Cephalonomiini and Sclerodermini) (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae). Smithsonian
Contributions to Zoology, No. 579: i-iii, 1-29.
Lobl, Ivan 1971. Scaphidiidae von Ceylon (Coleoptera). Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 78(4): 937-1006.
Malicky, H. 1973. Results of the Austrian-Ceylonese Hydrobiological Mission 1970...Part XVI: The
Ceylonese Trichoptera. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Station Sri Lanka (Ceylon) 24(1-2):
153-177.
Medvedev, Lev Nikadrovich 1989. Chrysomelidae (Coleoptera) of Sri Lanka. The subfamilies
Cryptocephalinae and Chlamisinae. Annotationes Zoologicae et Botanicae, Bratislava, No. 193: 1-8.
Meinander, M. (1982). The Coniopterygidae of Ceylon (Neuroptera). Entomologica Scandinavica, 13(1):
49-55.
New, T. R. 1977. Epipsocidae and Pseudocaeciliidae (Psocoptera) from Sri Lanka. Oriental Insects, 11(3):
409-420.
Oda, Y, U. C. Kahawatta, P. Rajapaksha and H. Rajapaksha, 1997. Thrips collected in Sri Lanka.
Research-Bulletin-of-the-Plant-Protection-Service-Japan. 33: 71-73.
Ohira, Hitoo 1973. Coleoptera: Elateridae from Ceylon. Entomologica Scandinavica Supplementum
4: 27-38.
Ross, E. S. (1979). Embioptera from Sri Lanka (Ceylon). Entomologica Scandinavica, Supplement No.
11: 30-32.
Schedl, K. E. 1972. Scolytidae of Ceylon. Contributions to the morphology and taxonomy of Scolytoidea.
Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft. 45: 221-229.
Schmid, F. 1958. Trichopteres de Ceylan. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie, 54(1/2): 1-173.
Schmutz, K. 1913. Zur Kenntnis der Thysanopterenfauna von Ceylon. Sitz. Ber. Akad. Wiss. Wien, math.naturw. Kl., Abt. I, 122(7): 991-1088.
Slater, J. A. 1982. Hemiptera, Heteroptera: Lygaeidae from Sri Lanka (Ceylon). Entomologica
Scandinavica Supplement, No. 11: 1-27.
Smith, D. R. 1982. Symphyta (Hymenoptera) from Sri Lanka. Proceedings of the Entomological Society
of Washington, 84(1): 117-127.
Soba. (1994). Soba, Biological Diversity of Sri Lanka. Environmental Publication. Ministry of Transport,
Highways, Environment and Women’s affairs. 5(3):8-15.
State of the Environment in Sri Lanka. 2002. A National Report Presented for the South Asian Association
for Regional Cooperation. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. Sri Lanka. 245 pp.
Statistical Compendium on Natural Resources Management. Sri Lanka. 2000.
10
Wijesekera: An Overview of the Taxonomic Status of Class Hexapoda (Insecta) in Sri Lanka
Tennent, J. E. 1861. Sketches of the Natural History of Ceylon with Narratives and Anecdotes. Longman,
Green, Longman, and Roberts, London. 1861: 500 pp.Division of Ministry of Forestry and
Environment. Sri Lanka. 343 pp.
Therond, J. 971. Coleoptera: Histeridae de Ceylan. Entomologica Scandinavica Supplementum 1: 251-256.
Ullrich, Wolfgang G. 1975. Coleoptera: Staphylinidae Tachyporinae von Ceylon I. Teil: Gattung
Tachinomorphus Kraatz. Entomologica Scandinavica Supplementum, 4: 137-140.
Wewalka, G. 1973. Results of the Austrian-Ceylonese Hydrobiological Mission 1970...Part IX. Dytiscidae
(Coleoptera). Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Station Sri Lanka (Ceylon), 24(1-2): 83-87.
Wijesekara, G. A. W. and M. E. Schauff. 1994. Revision of the tribe Euplectrini of Sri Lanka
(Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Oriental Insects. 28: 1-48.
Wijesekara, G. A. W and T. J. Henry. 1999. The taxonomic status of the plant bugs (Hemiptera: Miridae)
of Sri Lanka. Proceedings of the Annual Symposium of the Department of Agriculture, Sri Lanka. 1:
173-194.
Wijesekara, A. 2002. Synopsis of the Agromyzidae (Diptera) of Sri Lanka. Ceylon Journal of Science
(Biological Sciences), 29: 41-62.
Wijesekara, A. and D.P. Wijesinghe. 2003. History of insect collection and a review of insect diversity in
Sri Lanka. Ceylon Journal of Science (Bio. Sci.) 31: 43-59.
Wiesner, J. 1975. Notes on Cicindelidae of India and Sri Lanka. Cicindela, 7(4): 61-70.
Wittmer, W. 1956. Drilidae, Cantharidae, Prionoceridae von Ceylon (Col.) (17. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der
indo-malayischen Malacodermata). Verhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Basel,
67(1): 49-52.
Wittmer, W. 1973. Coleoptera: Cantharidae und Malachiidae von Ceylon. Entomologica Scandinavica
Supplementum 4: 24-26.
Zwick, P. 1980. The genus Neoperla (Plecoptera: Perlidae) from Sri Lanka. Oriental Insects, 14(2): 263-269.
11
The
T
HE F
Fauna
AUNA OFofSRI
SriLANKA
Lanka
(2006):
(2006)
12-19
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Current Status and Future Directions in Bee Taxonomy in Sri Lanka
W.A. Inoka P. Karunaratne* and Jayanthi P. Edirisinghe*
*Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya
Abstract
Bees (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) are the most important pollinators of flowering plants resulting in fruit
and seed production. Bees are unique among all other pollinators due to the presence of special
pollen carrying hairs on their body. The very first record of taxonomic work on bees of Sri Lanka
dates back to 1897 and was later followed by the Smithsonian Surveys in the late 1970’s. A recently
conducted field study in 29 collection sites distributed among 13 districts of Sri Lanka led to the
identification of 148 species of bees in 38 genera and 4 families. Among them are 5 genera and 15
species of bees previously not recorded from Sri Lanka and a bee species new to Science. Of the
so far known bees, twenty one species are considered to be endemic to Sri Lanka. Based on field
collections made in 29 sites, the highest number of bee species was recorded from the Low Country
Dry Zone. Of the different habitats from which the bees were collected agricultural habitats
documented the highest diversity of bees. Floral hosts on which bees were collected consisted of
167 species in 115 genera distributed in 44 plant families. Weeds and wild flowers were the most
preferred floral hosts of bees being visited by 129 bee species, followed by vegetable crops and
trees. Many gaps in our knowledge of bees were evident during our study. The need to conduct year
round surveys especially in the Dry and Arid Zones of the country has been highlighted. Priority
should be given to the revision of taxa in the light of new findings. Collaboration with experts on
different taxa in the region is essential for this purpose. Proper management and protection of bee
nesting sites and their foraging plants would lead to the conservation of bees.
Key words: Bees, Taxonomy, Diversity, Floral hosts, Affinities
Introduction
Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Apiformes) are the most important pollinators of flowering plants resulting
in fruit and seed production. The specialized hairs on different parts of the body enable bees to carry pollen
thus making them different from all other hymenopterans. Bees are an ancient group of insects that
originated about 120 million years ago (Roubik, 1992). The present distribution of bees depends on their
ability to reach suitable areas under their own power (Michener, 2000). The highest bee diversity has been
recorded from warm temperate, desert regions of the world.
The world bee fauna comprises 16,325 species in 425 genera and 7 families (Michener 2000). From both
temperate and tropical India about 2,500 species of bees have been recorded (Gupta, 2003). From Sri
Lanka, 148 species of bees in 38 genera and 4 families have been recorded (Karunaratne, Edirisinghe and
Pauly, 2005). The floral hosts of the documented bees comprise 167 species in 115 genera and 44 plant
families (Karunaratne, 2004).
Taxonomic History
The published work on bees of Sri Lanka dates back to the British Colonial Period when Dalla Torre (1896)
listed 17 species of bees from Sri Lanka. Bingham (1897) recorded and described 42 species of bees from
Sri Lanka. Through a survey of published literature on bees of Sri Lanka, Wijesekara (2001) compiled an
annotated list of bees of Sri Lanka documenting 132 bee species in 25 genera and 4 families. In addition to
the latter two noteworthy publications on bees several others have described numerous species of bees
from Sri Lanka. Among them are Sakagami and Ebmer (1987), Schwarz (1990), Sakagami (1978 and
12
Karunaratne & Edirisinghe: Current Status and Future Directions in Bee Taxonomy in Sri Lanka
1991), Sakagami, Ebmer and Tadauchi (1996 and 1998), Snelling (1980) and Baker (1996). The landmark
publication on the bees of the world by Michener (2000) includes 29 genera and several subgenera of bees
that have been documented form Sri Lanka. The Smithsonian Sri Lanka Insect Survey has resulted in the
identification of several bee species. Duplicate specimens of bees identified through this survey have been
deposited in two locations in Sri Lanka. The insect collection at the National Museums, Colombo holds
about 58 species and about 42 species are held in the Invertebrate Systematics and Diversity Facility
(ISDF) of the Department of Zoology, University of Peradeniya.
Following the work of Bingham (1897) and the Smithsonian Survey, recently local scientists undertook
taxonomic studies on bees, their floral hosts and nesting. The recent study (Karunaratne, Edirisinghe and
Pauly, 2005) documented 148 species of bees that are deposited in the ISDF of the Department of Zoology,
University of Peradeniya.
Diversity of Bees
The world bee fauna according to Michener (2000) is classified under seven families of which only four
families are known to occur in Sri Lanka (Appendix 1). The four families are Apidae (with 9 genera and
58 species), Colletidae (with one genus and two species), Halictidae (with 19 genera and 53 species) and
Megachilidae (with 9 genera and 35 species). Apidae and Halictidae are the most specious families of bees
in Sri Lanka while the two genera Lasioglossum and Megachile include the most number of species.
The recent study conducted in Sri Lanka documented 5 genera and 15 species of bees previously not
recorded and a species new to science. Karunaratne, Edirisinghe and Pauly, (2005) provides an updated
list of bees with new records. The so far recorded bees numbering 148 species are listed in Appendix 1.
Affinities of the Bee Fauna
Of the 38 bee genera recorded from Sri Lanka 10 genera are cosmopolitan in distribution according to
Michener (2000). These include the well-known bee genera such as Apis, Ceratina, Lasioglossum,
Megachile, and Xylocopa. The remaining bee genera are shared with one or more zoogeographic regions
of the world while one genus is confined to the Oriental Region. Our bee fauna has close affinities with the
Ethiopian Region where 34 of our genera (89%) are shared with this region. Eighteen genera (47%) are
shared with the Palearctic Region and another 18 genera with the Australian Region.
With reference to the bees of the Indian subcontinent (Gupta 2003), 18 of our bee species have been
recorded from other countries of the subcontinent other than India. About 30 species of our bees have also
been recorded from neighbouring India. It is noteworthy that of them, seven species are confined to Sri
Lanka and India.
Floral Hosts of Bees
Floral relationships of bees of Sri Lanka have not been recorded previously except for the four well known
species of honeybees (Punchihewa, 1994) and Euaspis edentata (Gupta, 2003). The recent field study by
Karunaratne (2004) documented 167 species of plants as floral hosts of bees. Pollen carriage by these
flower-visiting bees was also documented.
The documented floral hosts of bees consist of 167 species of plants in 115 genera and 44 families. Of the
different plant families, Fabaceae included the most number of bee floral hosts (23 species). Majority
(51%) of the floral hosts of bees were indigenous plants. Naturalized exotic floral species (44%) were
equally attractive to bees. Wild flowers were the most frequented floral hosts of bees followed by
vegetable crops. Flowers of 6 plant species attracted unusually large number of bee species. Of them,
Hyptis suaveolens, a naturalized exotic weed is highly attractive to bees from which 60 species of bees
were recorded.
13
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Nesting Ecology
Bees are diverse in their nesting habits. Honeybees make hives in which they store honey and pollen for
their young. All other bees are termed pollen bees as they store only pollen to feed their young. Pollen bees
have diverse nesting habits. Majority are ground nesters. Others nest in plant stems, in wood and in
crevices.
Krombein and Norden (2001) were the first to record nesting in pollen bees in Sri Lanka during the
Smithsonian Surveys. Three species of trap nesting bees, Anthidiellum butarsis, A. krombeini
(Megachilidae) and Hylaeus sedens (Collectidae) have been reported. Recent field study identified 16
species of trap nesting bees in the families Apidae (5 species) and Megachilidae (8 species). Thirteen
species of ground nesting bees were also recorded. Nesting in three species of wood boring carpenter bees
of the Genus Xylocopa were also documented.
Gaps in Bee Taxonomy
The major constrains in bee taxonomy in Sri Lanka is the lack of regional bee specialists. Revision of
known taxa is an essential task. Recent upgrading of the subfamily Nomiinae in Sri Lanka (Karunaratne,
Edirisinghe and Pauly, 2005) resulted in 11 genera of bees that were previously under 3 genera. This
highlights the need for revision of our bee taxa by experts of the regional fauna. Lack of an expert
identified reference bee collection in the country is a major impediment to taxonomy.
Conservation
Being the most efficient pollinators of most of our flowering plants including certain crops, conservation
priorities and proper management plans should focus on bees. Conserving the floral hosts that provide food
for bees and their nesting sites is a priority. Rational and planned application of insecticides and weedicides
that would affect the bees the least should be followed. Measures such as application of insecticides prior
to flowering and at a time of the day when bees are less active on flowers (late evenings) would minimize
their exposure to such chemicals.
Acknowledgements
Authors are grateful to the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka for funding (RG/2001/B/02) the
project on ‘Taxonomy and Ecology of bees of Sri Lanka’. Drs. S.W.T. Batra, formerly of the USDA and
B.B. Norden, formerly of the Smithsonian Institution are acknowledged for initiating bee research in Sri
Lanka.
References
Baker, D. B. (1996) Notes on some palearctic and oriental Systropha, with descriptions of new species and
a key to the species (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Halictidae), Journal of Natural History, 30. 1527-1547
Bingham, C. T. (1897) The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma, Hymenoptera Vol. 1,
Wasps and Bees. Taylor and Francis. London.
Dalla Torre, C. G., (1896) Catalogus Hymenopterorum hucusque descriptorum systematicus et
synonymicus. X: Aphidae (Anthophilla) – Leipzig 643 pp.
Gupta, R. K. (2003) An annotated catalogue of bees of the Indian Region, online http://geocities.com/
BeesInd2/braunsapis.htm
Karunaratne, W. A. I. P. (2004). Taxonomy and Ecology of Bees of Sri Lanka. Ph.D. Thesis
(Submitted), Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya.
14
Karunaratne & Edirisinghe: Current Status and Future Directions in Bee Taxonomy in Sri Lanka
Karunaratne, W. A. I. P., Edirisinghe, J. P., and Pauly, A. (2005). An updated checklist of bees of Sri Lanka
with new records. MAB Checklist and Handbook Series. Publication No. 23. National Science
Foundation. (In press)
Krombein, K. V. & Norden, B. B. (2001) Notes on trap-nesting Sri Lankan wasps and bees (Hymenoptera:
Vespidae, Pompilidae, Sphecidae, Colletidae, Megachilidae), Proceedings of the Entomological
Society, Washington, 103(2), 274-281.
Michener, C. D. (2000) The Bees of the World, pp. 913. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: Johns Hopkin
University Press.
Punchihewa, R. W. K. (1994). Beekeeping for honey production in Sri Lanka: management of Asiatic
Hive honeybee Apis cerana in its natural tropical monsoonal environment. Sri Lanka Department
of Agriculture, Sri Lanka.
Roubik, D. W. (1992). Ecology and Natural History of tropical bees. Cambridge University Press. New
York.
Sakagami, S. F. and Ebmer, P. A. (1987) Taxonomic notes on Oriental halictine bees of the genus Halictus
(Subgen. Seladonia) (Hymenoptera Apoidea), Linzer biol. Beitr. 19.2, pp 301-357.
Sakagami, S. F., Ebmer, A. W. and Tadauchi, O. (1996) The Halictine bees of Sri Lanka and the vicinity.
III. Sudila (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) Part 1. Esakia, 36: 143-189.
Sakagami, S. F., Ebmer, A. W. and Tadauchi, O. (1998) The Halictine bees of Sri Lanka and the vicinity.
III. Sudila (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) Part 2. Esakia, 38: 55-83.
Sakagami, S. F. (1978) Tetragonula stingless bees of the Continental Asia and Sri Lanka (Hymenoptera,
Apidae), Journal of the Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Series VI, Zoology, Vol.21, No.2:
165-247.
Sakagami, S. F. (1991) The halictid bees of Sri Lanka and the vicinity. II. Nesohalictus (Hymenoptera:
Halictidae). Zoological Science 8: 169-178. Japan: Hokkaido University.
Schwarz, H. F. (1990). Beitrag zur Kenntnis orientalischer Nomada Arten. Entomofauna Suppl, cited in
Michener, C. D. (2000) Bees of the world. Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Snelling, R. R. (1980) New bees of the genus Hylaeus from Sri Lanka and India (Hymenoptera:
Colletidae). Contributions in Science, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 328: 1-18.
Wijesekara, A. (2001). An annotated list of bees (Hymenoptera:Apodea: Apiformes) of Sri Lanka,
Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 144: 145-158.
15
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Appendix 1: List of Bees recorded from Sri Lanka.
FAMILY – COLLETIDAE
SUBFAMILY - HYLAEINAE
Hylaeus krombeini Snelling, 1980
Hylaeus sedens Snelling, 1980
FAMILY - HALICTIDAE
SUBFAMILY - HALICTINAE
Halictus (Seladonia) lucidipennis Smith, 1853
Homalictus singhalensis (Blüthgen, 1926)
Homalictus paradnanus (Strand, 1914)
Lasioglossum (Ctenonomia) amblypygus (Strand, 1913)
Lasioglossum (Ctenonomia) cire (Cameron, 1897)
Lasioglossum (Ctenonomia) clarum (Nurse, 1902)
Lasioglossum (Ctenonomia) semisculptum (Cockerell, 1911)
Lasioglossum (Ctenonomia) vagans (Smith, 1857)
Lasioglossum (Evylaeus) carinifrons (Cameron, 1904)
Lasioglossum (Nesohalictus) halictoides (Smith, 1859)
Lasioglossum (Nesohalictus) serenum (Cameron, 1897)
Lasioglossum (Sudila) alphenum (Cameron, 1897)
Lasioglossum (Sudila) aulacophorum (Strand, 1913)
Lasioglossum (Sudila) bidendatum (Cameron, 1898)
Lasioglossum (Sudila) kandiense (Cockerell, 1913)
Pachyhalictus bedanus (Blüthgen, 1926)
Pachyhalictus kalutarae (Cockerell, 1911)
Pachyhalictus sigiriellus (Cockerell, 1911)
Pachyhalictus vinctus (Walker, 1860)
Sphecodes biroi Friese, 1909
Sphecodes crassicornis Smith, 1875
Sphecodes decorus (Cameron, 1897)
SUBFAMILY - NOMIINAE
Austronomia notiomorpha Hirashima, 1978
Austronomia krombeini Hirashima, 1978
Austronomia sp. 1
Austronomia sp. 2
Curvinomia formosa (Smith, 1858)
Curvinomia iridiscens (Smith, 1857)
Hoplonomia westwoodi (Gribodo, 1894)
Leuconomia sp.
Lipotriches basipicta (Wickwar, 1908)
Lipotriches bombayensis (Cameron, 1908)
Lipotriches comberi (Cockerell, 1911)
Lipotriches sp nr. comperta (Cockerell, 1912)
Lipotriches exagens (Walker, 1860)
Lipotriches fervida (Smith, 1875)
16
Karunaratne & Edirisinghe: Current Status and Future Directions in Bee Taxonomy in Sri Lanka
Lipotriches fulvinerva (Cameron, 1907)
Lipotriches sp. *
Lipotriches pulchriventris (Cameron, 1897)
Macronomia rustica (Westwood, 1875)
Maynenomia sp. 1
Maynenomia sp. 2
Nomia crassipes Fabricius 1798
Nomia nasicana* Cockerell, 1911
Nomia sp.
Pachynomia sp.
Pseudapis oxybeloides (Smith, 1875)
Steganomus nodicornis Smith 1875
Ceylalictus appendiculata (Cameron, 1903)
Ceylalictus horni (Strand, 1913)
Ceylalictus cereus (Nurse, 1901)
Ceylalictus taprobanae (Cameron, 1897)
Systropha tropicalis Cockerell, 1911
FAMILY – MEGACHILIDAE
Anthidiellum butarsis Griswold, 2001
Anthidiellum krombeini Griswold, 2001
Anthidiellum ramakrishnae (Cockerell, 1919)
Exanthidium rotundiventre Pasteels, 1987
Euaspis edentata Baker, 1995
Pachyanthidium sp. 1
Pseudoanthidium sp. 1
Lithurgus atratus Smith, 1854
Coelioxys angulata Smith, 1870
Coelioxys apicata Smith, 1854
Coelioxys capitata Smith, 1854
Coelioxys confusus Smith, 1875
Coelioxys fenestrata Smith, 1873
Coelioxys fuscipennis Smith, 1854
Coelioxys minutus Smith, 1879
Coelioxys nitidoscutellaris Pasteels, 1987
Coelioxys taiwanensis Cockerell, 1911
Megachile albolineata Cameron, 1897
Megachile amputata Smith, 1858
Megachile ardens Smith, 1879
Megachile ceylonica Bingham, 1896
Megachile conjuncta Smith, 1853
Megachile disjuncta Fabricius, 1781
Megachile hera Bingham, 1897
Megachile kandyca Friese, 1918
Megachile lanata Fabricius, 1793
Megachile mystacea Fabricius, 1775
Megachile nana Bingham, 1897
17
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Megachile nigricans Cameron, 1898
Megachile reepeni Friese, 1918
Megachile relata Smith, 1879
Megachile umbripennis Smith, 1853
Megachile vestita Smith, 1853
Megachile vigilans Smith, 1878
Heriades binghami Cameron, 1897
FAMILY - APIDAE
Amegilla (Amegilla) confusa Smith, 1854
Amegilla (Amegilla) quadrifasciata de Villers, 1789
Amegilla (Glossamegilla) violacea Lepeletier, 1841
Amegilla (Micramegilla) mucorea (Klug, 1845)
Amegilla (Zebramegilla) fallax Smith, 1879
Amegilla (Zebramegilla) subcoerulea Lepeletier, 1841
Amegilla (Zonamegilla) cingulata Fabricius, 1775
Amegilla (Zonamegilla) cingulifera Cockerell, 1910
Amegilla (Zonamegilla) comberi Cockerell, 1911
Amegilla (Zonamegilla) niveocincta (Smith, 1854)
Amegilla (Zonamegilla) perasserta Rayment, 1947
Amegilla (Zonamegilla) puttalama Strand, 1913
Amegilla (Zonamegilla) subinsularis (Strand)
Amegilla (Zonamegilla) zonata Linnaeus, 1758
Amegilla sp.
Braunsapis cupulifera Vachal, 1894
Braunsapis flaviventris Reyes, 1991
Braunsapis mixta Smith, 1852
Braunsapis picitarsis Cameron, 1902
Ceratina (Ceratinidia) hieroglyphica Smith, 1854
Ceratina (Pithitis) binghami Cockerell, 1910
Ceratina (Pithitis) smaragdula Fabricius, 1787
Ceratina (Simoceratina) tanganyicensis Strand, 1911
Ceratina (Xanthoceratina) beata Cameron, 1897
Ceratina (Xanthoceratina) picta Smith, 1854
Nomada adusta Smith, 1875
Nomada antennata Meade-Waldo, 1913
Nomada bicellularis Schwarz, 1990
Nomada ceylonica Cameron, 1897
Nomada lusca Smith, 1875
Nomada priscilla Nurse, 1902
Nomada wickwari Meade-Waldo, 1913
Tetralonia commixtana Strand, 1913
Tetralonia taprobanicola Strand, 1913
Tetralonia fumida Cockerell, 1911
Thyreus ceylonicus Friese, 1905
Thyreus histrio Fabricius, 1775
Thyreus insignis Meyer, 1912
18
Karunaratne & Edirisinghe: Current Status and Future Directions in Bee Taxonomy in Sri Lanka
Thyreus ramosellus Cockerell, 1919
Thyreus surniculus Lieftinck, 1959
Thyreus takaonis Cockerell, 1911
Xylocopa aestuans Lepeletier, 1841
Xylocopa amethystina Fabricius, 1793
Xylocopa auripennis Lepeletier, 1841
Xylocopa bryorum Fabricius, 1775
Xylocopa coerulea Fabricius, 1804
Xylocopa dejeanii Lepeletier, 1841
Xylocopa fenestrata Fabricius, 1798
Xylocopa nasalis Westwood, 1842
Xylocopa nigrocaerulea Smith, 1874
Xylocopa ruficornis Fabricius, 1804
Xylocopa tenuiscapa Westwood, 1840
Xylocopa tranquibarica Fabricius, 1804
Apis cerana Fabricius, 1793
Apis dorsata Fabricius, 1793
Apis florea Fabricius, 1787
Trigona iridipennis Smith, 1854
Trigona sp.
(148 bee species in 38 genera)
* Genus and species have been upgraded and published in Karunaratne et. al. (2005).
19
The
T
HE F
Fauna
AUNA OFofSRI
SriLANKA
Lanka
(2006):
(2006)
20-34
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Current Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation of
Dragonfly Fauna (Insecta: Odonata) of Sri Lanka
Matjaz Bedjanic*
*Kolodvorska 21b, SI-2310 Slovenska Bistrica, Slovenia
e-mail: matjaz.bedjanic@guest.arnes.si
Abstract
Altogether 116 described odonate species are known from Sri Lanka. The level of endemism is high
– 53 taxa or 45.7 % are confined to the island. The families Chlorocyphidae, Euphaeidae,
Protoneuridae, Platystictidae, Gomphidae and Corduliidae consist of almost exclusively endemic taxa.
Additionally, four new endemic species are currently being described, bringing the actual number of
dragonfly taxa to a total of 120 and the number of endemic representatives to a total of 57 taxa or 47.5
%. The odonate fauna of Sri Lanka is still insufficiently known. The knowledge on distribution, biology
and taxonomy of adults and especially larval forms is very poor. Destruction of primary and secondary
rainforests, destruction of forest corridors along streams, pollution and other pressures on streams and
rivers in the southwestern and central parts of Sri Lanka are the major threats to the exceptionally
rich endemic dragonfly fauna. More than 80% of the species confined to Sri Lanka are classified as
endangered. Altogether 20 highly threatened endemic dragonfly species from Sri Lanka are currently
proposed for inclusion on the new IUCN Global Red List of Threatened Animals. The paper elaborates
on future research priorities, with recommendations for the conservation of odonate fauna in Sri Lanka.
Key words: Odonata, Dragonflies, Sri Lanka, Taxonomy, Research, Conservation,
Endangered species
Short Outline of Dragonfly Biology
With the exception of the sea, extremely cold north and south parts of the Earth, completely dry deserts or
high mountains, there is virtually no dragonfly-free place on the planet. They are predatory insects with
incomplete metamorphosis, which spend most of their lives hidden from human eyes as larvae in the water.
Adult winged insects can be met along rivers, streams, paddy fields, marshes, pools and lakes almost year
round. Dragonflies are very interesting and diverse insects, which instantly attract our attention with their
amazing flight skills and beautiful colours. They represent an independent insect order (lat. Odonata) with
almost 6000 described species, of which around 120 are known to occur in Sri Lanka.
The dragonflies of Sri Lanka can be divided in two suborders – damselflies (lat. Zygoptera) and dragonflies
(lat. Anisoptera), but the broadly applied term “dragonflies” applies to both suborders. Damselflies (Zygoptera)
are generally small and delicate insects with hammer-shaped head on which the compound eyes are well
separated, match-like slender abdomen and essentially equally shaped narrow wings, which at rest are folded
over abdomen or are slightly spread. Dragonflies (Anisoptera) are generally larger and more robustly built
insects, in which large compound eyes cover almost entire head. Their hind wings are always expanded at
the base, the venation of fore and hind wings differs substantially and at rest the wings are broadly opened.
Incomplete metamorphosis – the life cycle consisting of egg and several larval instars followed by the adult
phase – is characteristic of dragonflies. After several moults the larva becomes proportionally larger and
its swollen wing pads declare it is ready to emerge. It climbs out of water and the adult emerges from
unbearably tight larval casing, remarkably quickly expands its soft wings and flies away before even
developing brighter colours. Before becoming sexually mature, adults indulge in feeding and their attractive
colouration develops only after several days. During the pre-reproductive period and while feeding, the
adults are encountered often far from their breeding places. At breeding places, which are usually near
water, they mate and lay eggs.
20
Bedjanic: Current Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation of
Dragonfly Fauna of Sri Lanka
Ecological Significance of Dragonflies
Although dragonflies are generally considered of little economic significance, both larvae and adults are
predators near the top of food chains in their ecosystems. Some species feed chiefly on mosquitoes and
their larvae. Thus, in some regions, their potential in pest control in paddy fields is substantial. The latter
aspect has been well documented in a paddy field ecosystem in Sri Lanka (Bambaradeniya et al., 2004).
Fonseka (2000) and Orr (2003) provide additional relevant information on dragonfly biology and ecology.
Dragonflies are often addressed as the “guardians of the watershed”. In nature conservation efforts they
appear at two levels – as the subject of conservation concern in the case of endangered species and as
indicators of wetland habitat quality. In different stages of their lives dragonflies occur both in terrestrial
and freshwater habitats and are sensitive for disturbances in both. While the habitat selection of adult
insects strongly depends on vegetation structure, their larvae develop in water and are critical in regard to
water quality and aquatic habitat structure. Therefore, along with birds and amphibians, dragonflies can
serve as one of the key bioindicator groups, whose high species diversity clearly mirrors favourable
conservation state of wider wetland ecosystem.
An Overview of Past Dragonfly Research in Sri Lanka
The odonatological research in Sri Lanka has a very long history. The very first contribution to the
knowledge of the island’s dragonflies was made by E. de Selys - Longchamps and H. A. Hagen in the
middle of the 19th century. Although their work has been continued by several recognized odonatologists,
e. g. B. W. F. Kirby, F. F. Laidlaw, F. C. Fraser, M. A. Lieftnick and D. St. Quentin, in the last years it
became very clear that our knowledge of the dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka is still very incomplete.
Famous dragonfly manuals published by F. C. Fraser in his series The Fauna of British India including
Ceylon and Burma: Odonata: Vol. I-III (1933-1936), are still very relevant for the odonatological research
in Sri Lanka. However, it is noteworthy that Sri Lanka is one of the few Asian countries, for which a book
on its dragonfly fauna is available - titled “Dragonflies of Sri Lanka” (Fonseka, 2000). It represents the
first overview of many different odonatological aspects, ranging from the history of odonatological
research, compilation of the known species descriptions, determination keys for adults and larvae, summary
of distributional records, notes on ecology etc. Despite some deficiencies and gaps it represents an
important milestone in odonatological research in Sri Lanka and will surely stimulate further research.
For the past ten years I have studied the Sri Lankan dragonfly fauna, which made the main subject of my
graduation thesis titled “An attempt of the analysis of the dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka (Insecta: Odonata)”
(Bedjaniè, 1998). In this work I gathered all published information on each dragonfly taxon, and combined
with the results of my fieldwork in January and February 1995, I compiled a synopsis of the odonate fauna
of Sri Lanka. Thus, an analysis of the present knowledge of the dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka as well as a
preliminary analysis of adult dragonfly phenology was presented. My research into the dragonfly fauna of Sri
Lanka has continued since, with additional fieldwork in October - November 2001 and in April-May 2003, and
with a number of publications (Bedjanic, 1999; 2000; 2001; 2002a; Bedjanic & Šalamun, 2002). In the
special issue of International Journal of Odonatology, which has brought the first ever overview of dragonfly
threat status and conservation priorities in different regions of the world also the status of dragonfly fauna of
Sri Lanka has been discussed. Comprehensive article with the title Odonata fauna of Sri Lanka: research
state and threat status (Bedjanic, 2004) covers different aspects of odonatology in Sri Lanka in detail.
Status of Taxonomy and Research on Sri Lankan Dragonfly Fauna
According to the present knowledge altogether 116 described dragonfly species from 12 families occur in
Sri Lanka. Currently, four new endemic species are in the process of description, thus bringing the number
of dragonfly taxa to a total of 120 (Appendix 1). The odonate fauna of Sri Lanka is similar to that of South
India, but 53 species (45.7 %) are unique to the island. Four undescribed species bring the number of likely
21
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
endemic representatives to a total of 57 (47.5 %). Endemism is very high or almost exclusive in the
families Chlorocyphidae, Euphaeidae, Protoneuridae, Platystictidae, Gomphidae and Corduliidae (Fig. 1).
More than half of all endemic species are probably not closely related to the species occurring in India.
Some species, viz. Sinhalestes orientalis, Cyclogomphus gynostylus, Microgomphus wijaya and
Anisogomphus solitaris seem to be taxonomically isolated.
Figure 1: Endemism of dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka. Total number of dragonfly taxa (grey columns) and
number of endemic dragonfly taxa (black columns), sorted by families.
To gain a better overview of the present knowledge of the dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka all published data
for all species and subspecies were analysed in order to evaluate their research state. Also some of the
author’s unpublished data were included (Table 1). The analysis clearly shows that at present we know
very little about dragonflies of Sri Lanka. Most species in given categories are confined to Sri Lanka and
this fact definitely has also “global” importance from the biodiversity conservation point of view.
Category I: The species group known from one sex consists of only endemic taxa. Females are mostly
undescribed. The reason is that females are rarely seen at waters, their behaviour is less known, and they
are difficult to determine.
Category II: About one quarter of the species in Sri Lanka has been found on only a few localities and
the records are from a limited number of specimens. This category also consists of exclusively endemic
taxa. This information clearly indicates a poor faunistical research state of dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka
and in some cases should not be interpreted as actual species rareness.
Category III: The group of species with unknown larval stages or larval skin, contains no less than 75
species and subspecies or more than 60 % of the odonate fauna of Sri Lanka. This information is important
because records of larvae and exuviae clearly indicate the development of the species in a particular habitat.
For the research of ecological requirements of individual species, which forms a basis for the effective
species conservation measures, the correct determination of larvae or exuviae is of crucial importance.
Category IV: Some species, e.g. Sinhalestes orientalis, Heliogomphus ceylonicus and Heliogomphus
nietneri, have not been found for more than 120 years since their original descriptions. All species in this
category appear rare and endangered or even extinct. They deserve special attention in the future.
22
Bedjanic: Current Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation of
Dragonfly Fauna of Sri Lanka
Table 1:
Research state of dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka. In each category the number of taxa and their
proportion to all taxa known for Sri Lanka is given. All species, except those with an asterisk,
are endemic to the island. Species for which the material is present in the author’s collection
and awaits further treatment are underlined.
CATEGORY
SPECIES LIST
I.
Mortonagrion ceylonicum, Archibasis sp. nov., Drepanosticta fraseri,
D. sinhalensis, D. starmuehlneri, D. submontana, Drepanosticta sp.
nov. A, Drepanosticta sp. nov. B, Disparoneura ramajana, Elattoneura
caesia, Anisogomphus solitaris, Heliogomphus ceylonicus, H. nietneri,
Macrogomphus annulatus keiseri, Gomphidia pearsoni, Macromia
flinti, M. zeylanica, Macromidia sp. nov.
SPECIES WITH AN
UNKNOWN SEX:
14 taxa; 11,7 %
II. SPECIES
Sinhalestes orientalis, Mortonagrion ceylonicum, Archibasis sp. nov.,
Drepanosticta adami, D. austeni, D. brincki, D. digna, D. fraseri,
D. hilaris, D. montana, D. sinhalensis, D. starmuehlneri, D. submontana,
D. subtropica, D. walli, Drepanosticta sp. nov. A, Drepanosticta sp.
nov. B, Disparoneura ramajana, Elattoneura. leucostigma,
Anisogomphus solitaris, Heliogomphus ceylonicus, H. nietneri, H. lyratus,
Macrogomphus lankanensis, M. annulatus keiseri, Megalogomphus
ceylonicus, Macromia flinti, Macromidia sp. nov., Hylaeothemis
fruhstorferi
KNOWN
FROM LESS THAN
FIVE LOCALITIES:
29 taxa; 24,2 %
III. SPECIES STILL
LACKING
DESCRIPTION OF
LARVAL STAGES OR
EXUVIA:
75 taxa; 62,5 %
IV. SPECIES
NOT FOUND
FOR MORE THAN
YEARS:
50
Libellago adami, L. finalis, L. greeni, L. lineata indica, Lestes
praemorsus decipiens*, L. elatus*, L. malabaricus*, Sinhalestes
orientalis, Indolestes divisus, I. g. gracilis, Mortonagrion ceylonicum,
Onychargia atrocyana*, Paracercion malayanum*, Enallagma
parvum*, Aciagrion occidentale*, Ceriagrion cerinorubellum*,
Pseudagrion malabaricum*, P. rubriceps ceylonicum, Archibasis sp.
nov., Drepanosticta adami, D. austeni, D. brincki, D. digna, D. fraseri,
D. hilaris, D. lankanensis, D. montana, D. nietneri, D. sinhalensis,
D. starmuehlneri, D. submontana, D. subtropica, D. tropica, D. walli,
Drepanosticta sp. nov. A, Drepanosticta sp. nov. B, Platysticta apicalis,
P. maculata, Disparoneura ramajana, Elattoneura bigemmata,
E. caesia, E. centralis, E. leucostigma, E. tenax, Prodasineura sita,
Anax indicus*, Anaciaeschna donaldi*, Gynacantha dravida*,
Cyclogomphus gynostylus, Heliogomphus ceylonicus, H. lyratus,
H. nietneri, H. walli, M. annulatus keiseri, Macrogomphus
lankanensis, Gomphidia pearsoni, Macromia flinti, Macromidia sp.
nov., Hylaeothemis fruhstorferi , Tetrathemis yerburii, Cratilla lineata
calverti*, Lathrecista a. asiatica*, Orthetrum chrysis*, O. glaucum*,
O. luzonicum*, O. t. triangulare*, Indothemis carnatica*, I. limbata
sita*, Trithemis pallidinervis*, Onychothemis tonkinensis ceylanica*,
Palpopleura s. sexmaculata*, Rhyothemis triangularis*, Aethriamanta
b. brevipennis*, Hydrobasileus croceus*, Macrodiplax cora*
Sinhalestes orientalis, Drepanosticta adami, D. austeni, D. hilaris,
D. montana, D. submontana, Elattoneura leucostigma, Heliogomphus
ceylonicus, H. nietneri, H. lyratus, Macrogomphus lankanensis
11 taxa; 9,2 %
23
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Additional comment: There are many additional species, whose occurrence in Sri Lanka is very poorly known
but are not rare elsewhere. The following species could be included in this category: Lestes malabaricus,
Agriocnemis f. femina, Paracercion malayanum, Anax indicus, Hemianax ephippiger, Gynacantha dravida,
Indothemis carnatica, Indothemis limbata sita, Onychothemis tonkinensis ceylanica, Palpopleura s. sexmaculata,
Rhyothemis triangularis, Aethriamanta b. brevipennis and Zyxomma petiolatum.
From the above analysis of the present knowledge of the dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka the following
important conclusions can be made:
¾
The dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka is insufficiently known. The fact, that almost 65% or 78 species
and subspecies are included in at least one category is self-explaining.
¾
Special attention should be devoted to projects dealing with taxonomy of larval forms and adults in
direct connection with rigorous faunistic mapping.
¾
In whole South and South-east Asia more attention should be devoted to the description of larval
forms and exuviae. To the present not a single Zygopteran larval form of mostly endemic Sri Lankan
representatives of the families Chlorocyphidae, Lestidae, Platystictidae and Protoneuridae has been
described.
Threat Status of the Dragonfly Fauna of Sri Lanka
It is obvious that at present we know very little about dragonflies of Sri Lanka. Relevant published
information on the biology and ecology of endemic representatives is virtually nonexistent, while our
knowledge on the taxonomy and distribution is patchy.
Not a single dragonfly species from Sri Lanka is included in the global 2003 IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species (IUCN, 2003). So far only one species, Sinhalestes orientalis has been placed on the
“prestigious” world list of dragonfly taxa to which special attention should be devoted in the following years
(Moore et al., 1997). Unfortunately there are many additional ones which would deserve such status and
should be declared as priority species for future investigations. This is imperative since endemic dragonfly
fauna of Sri Lanka is severely threatened and some very interesting taxa are at the brink of extinction.
The main reason for this is rapid destruction of primary rainforest, which has approached a catastrophe in
the last decades. In the middle of 20th century more than 50% of Sri Lanka was covered with forest but
only thirty years later the percentage has fallen to around 20%. Impoundment, extraction for irrigation,
over-use of pesticides and careless pollution of rivers and streams, together with other pressures on flowing
waters, have brought most endemic species near to extinction. Factors as high population growth followed
by urbanisation and acute shortage of land (Sri Lanka has nearly 19 million inhabitants and population
density over 300 people per sq. km!), mining, soil erosion and environment pollution result in additional
habitat loss and affect fauna and flora both directly and indirectly.
It may look surprising but around 14% of the island is within different forms of protected areas, ranging
from biosphere reserves and national parks, nature reserves, forest reserves, wildlife sanctuaries etc.
Unfortunately, there is a complete lack of systematically gathered information on dragonfly fauna of
existing protected areas in Sri Lanka and not a single professional study on this topic has ever been made.
In this situation we can only guess to which extent the existing protected areas really ensure the long-term
conservation of dragonfly fauna. Despite the fact that the proportion of protected areas in Sri Lanka is
relatively high they are mainly located in the dry zone lowlands because of the historically strong
attachment of official nature conservation towards elephants, leopards and other large animals. Our data
indicates that only a small proportion of endemic dragonfly taxa inhabit dry zone forests with lowland rivers
and numerous water tanks.
The speculation that some endemic species may already be extinct and that many small and isolated
dragonfly populations are probably on the brink of disappearance is unfortunately very close to reality. In
24
Bedjanic: Current Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation of
Dragonfly Fauna of Sri Lanka
addition, many protected areas are too small for long term survival of endangered species or degraded to a
considerable extent. Even more problematic is the exclusion of several patches of rainforests with
exceptionally rich fauna and flora from the current protected area network.
Only recently the nature protection agencies and institutions in Sri Lanka started to recognise dragonflies
as an important part of island’s biodiversity. Not a single dragonfly species is mentioned in the official
“Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance”. On the other hand, in the publication named “The 1999 List of
Threatened Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka” (IUCN Sri Lanka, 2000), altogether 50 dragonfly species are
listed as threatened (TR), 20 dragonfly species as highly threatened (HT) and 4 dragonfly species as data
deficient (DD). More or less the same data are presented also in “A Comparison of the Conservation and
Legal Status of the Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka” (IUCN Sri Lanka, 2003). Unfortunately, the only basis
for the mentioned evaluation of the dragonfly species’ threat status has been the book Dragonflies of Sri
Lanka (Fonseka, 2000), which is not the best source for such task, especially for the non-odonatologist.
Despite numerous deficiencies in listing and ranking of single dragonfly taxa the general message was
stressed quite correctly – dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka with its numerous endemic representatives is very
endangered.
Bedjanic (2004) assessed the threat status of the Sri Lanka dragonfly fauna. The list of endangered
dragonfly species of Sri Lanka comprises 47 exclusively endemic taxa, among them also 4 recently
discovered, yet undescribed species. This means that more than 80% of endemic dragonfly taxa are
threatened. Almost all endemic representatives of the families Protoneuridae, Platystictidae, Gomphidae
and Corduliidae are listed as endangered.
In the framework of IUCN SSC Odonata Specialist Group, Bedjanic (2005a) published a report titled
Globally Endangered Dragonflies of Sri Lanka. Threat and conservation status of 20 most endangered
endemic dragonfly species, viz. Sinhalestes orientalis, Drepanosticta adami, D. austeni, D. hilaris,
D. montana, D. submontana, Elattoneura leucostigma, E. caesia, Disparoneura ramajana,
Anisogomphus solitaris, Cyclogomphus gynostylus, Gomphidia pearsoni, Heliogomphus ceylonicus,
H. lyratus, H. nietneri, Macrogomphus lankanensis, Microgomphus wijaya, Macromia flinti,
Tetrathemis yerburii and Hylaeothemis f. fruhstorferi was assessed and they were proposed for
inclusion on the new IUCN Global Red List of Threatened Animals.
It should be stressed that this list is very incomplete. Surely some additional endemic species as well as
some undescribed taxa are highly endangered and are at the brink of extinction. Globally, all endangered
dragonfly species of Sri Lanka can be marked as range restricted species. Their known occurence is
limited almost exclusively to a few isolated localities in the wet and intermediate zones of Sri Lanka. These
facts are alarming and definitely have global importance from the biodiversity conservation point of view.
Conservation Priorities and Recommendations
Effective nature conservation measures in declared protected areas as well as establishment of new
protected areas in the wet zone is of utmost importance and probably the only way to ensure the long-term
preservation of rich endemic fauna and flora of Sri Lanka, including dragonflies. Since natural vegetation
and habitats are already so disturbed and fragmented the focus should be set on taking an effective action
to stop further encroachment on the wet zone rainforests and establishment of smaller protected areas and
corridors between them. Only such a “network” could ensure long-term preservation of endemic fauna
and flora.
Basic information on biology and distribution of endemic dragonfly species is still very poor. It is therefore
impossible at this point to suggest “single-species-oriented” conservation measures. In order to improve
our knowledge on the dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka special attention should be devoted to projects dealing
with taxonomy of larval forms and adults, in connection with serious faunistic mapping and research on the
biology of selected dragonfly species. Only in this way we will be able to effectively assess their
25
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
conservation status, suggest appropriate conservation measures for the key species as well as recognise
and promote the importance of dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka for biodiversity conservation.
General guidelines for protection of rich endemic dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka include the following:
¾
Establishment of network of new small protected areas and corridors in the wet zone.
¾
Conservation of forest corridors along streams and rivulets outside protected areas in the wet zone.
¾
Effective execution of appropriate nature conservation measures in partially degraded existing
protected areas.
Fortunately very high diversity of fauna and flora, especially the number of taxa confined to the island, has
already been recognised and there are good reasons to name Sri Lanka as one of the “hot-spots” of South
and South-east Asia (Mittermeier et al., 2000). In addition, Sri Lankan Moist Forests (Ecoregion 21) and
South-western Sri Lanka Rivers and Streams (Ecoregion 172) are included in the prestigious WWF’s
Global 200 list of the Earth’s most biologically outstanding habitats.
Research Priorities and Recommendations
Dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka is very interesting but insufficiently known. Knowledge on distribution,
biology and taxonomy is very poor - especially regarding larval forms. Due to the habitat destruction
(mainly primary tropical rainforest) the dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka is also very endangered – some very
interesting or/and endemic taxa are threatened with extinction or are probably already extinct.
According to the above facts the main dragonfly research priorities are as follows:
¾
Special attention in the future should be devoted to taxonomy of larval forms and adults. Expert
taxonomic knowledge should be focused especially on description of larval forms and exuviae. In adult
dragonfly taxonomy a revision of exclusively endemic family Platystictidae with remarkable species
radiation is urgently needed.
¾
Serious faunistic mapping should cover the whole island. In order to get an overview of conservation
status of less widespread and highly endangered endemic species, the research should be focused on
protected areas and other still preserved areas without nature conservation status. Especially reserves
and sanctuaries in the wet and intermediate zone will surely bring many new dragonfly taxa to light,
not to mention the crucial nature conservation overview, namely, to which extent the existing protected
areas really ensure the long-term preservation of extremely interesting endemic dragonfly fauna.
¾
Research of biology and ecology of most endangered species should be carried out in order to
evaluate their remaining population size and options of long term survival.
¾
All existing odonatological data (museum collections, literature, unpublished field observation) should
be gathered in the odonatological database called “Distributional Atlas of the dragonflies of Sri
Lanka”, which will enable an overview of present knowledge for each species and generate outputs
such as distribution maps, seasonal phenology and altitudinal distribution charts etc.
¾
An expert should produce a photographic field guide for the dragonfly fauna of the island with a
comprehensive, clear and reliable determination key for adult dragonflies as soon as possible.
To carry out the suggested measures successfully, some basic conditions have to be fulfilled on local and
international level. Above all, mutual cooperation with appropriate nature conservation institutions and
experts in Sri Lanka should be built and joint projects should be prepared. A small team of local scientist or
students should be trained in dragonfly research. With appropriate taxonomic and field knowledge on
biology of dragonflies it would be possible for them to carry out the necessary field work in different
seasons at selected localities year around or to explore many different parts of the island in the same
season.
26
Bedjanic: Current Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation of
Dragonfly Fauna of Sri Lanka
For serious scientific faunistic work, which is inevitably connected to capturing of dragonflies and building
a scientifically managed museum collection, a legal permission has to be issued by the appropriate nature
conservation authority. However, a mechanism should be developed, which would ensure easier obtaining
of necessary permits for field work on one hand and on the other hand would control the field work in
terms of collecting and submitting the results. IUCN Species Survival Commission – Odonata Specialists
Group could act as an important mediator in issuing recommendation based on references of the researcher
and could also play an important role in the exchange and evaluation of results.
Finally, the necessary funds for additional odonatological fieldwork and research should be assured at the
state or international level.
Current Odonatological Activities and Future Perspectives
In last years the interest on the dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka has considerably grown. Herewith the book
Dragonflies of Sri Lanka (Fonseka, 2000) greatly fulfilled its basic purpose. In addition, some popular
articles on dragonflies, such as the one written for unfortunately discontinued nature conservation magazine
Sri Lanka Nature (Silva Wijeyeratne, 2001), definitely helped to stimulate this aspect. Based on the
cooperation of the author with local naturalists and sponsored by the leading Sri Lankan ecotouristic
company Jetwing, a small photographic guide to the dragonflies of Sri Lanka has been published in last two
years (de Silva Wijeyeratne et al., 2003; reprint 2004). It comprises 88 photographs of 64 dragonfly species,
including many interesting endemic representatives. Dragonfly photographs and short species descriptions
will also form a part of the new popular Field Guide to Birds, Butterflies and Dragonflies of Sri Lanka,
which is scheduled to be hopefully published in 2005 in Sinhala and English language. In the frame of
activities of ecotouristic company Jetwing, also a special Dragonfly Research Project is being developed,
details of which can be found on the Internet (www.jetwingeco.com).
As already mentioned the author is involved in the studies of the dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka since his
first field trip to the island in 1995. Up to now a comprehensive graduation thesis (Bedjanic, 1998), as well
as some faunistic and taxonomic articles were published on the topic (Bedjanic, 1999; 2000; 2001; 2002a;
Bedjanic & Šalamun, 2002). Three years ago, a small booklet Dragonflies of Sri Lanka in Colour has been
privately published as a draft of future photographic manual to the dragonfly fauna of the island (Bedjanic,
2002b). After January and February 1995 the serious faunistic work in the frame of the PhD project was
continued in October-November 2001 and in April-May 2003. In absence of official permits the fieldwork
has unfortunately mainly been limited to the non-protected areas, but nevertheless gave very good results.
More than 50 localities in different parts of the island were visited and more than 70 species were recorded
both in 2001 and 2003. Among the recorded species there are some very interesting and even new taxa as
well as many hereto unknown larval forms. Currently, two new species (genus Archibasis and
Macromidia, which were previously not known to be present on the island) are in the process of describing
from material collected in 2001 and at least two new species (genus Drepanosticta) are present in the
material gathered in April and May 2003. All of them are endemic, and the percentage of the species
confined to the island is slowly nearing 50%, a fact that is of immense conservation importance on a global
scale. In addition, larval stages of more than dozen mostly endemic species are now known and await
description. This will enable additional field work methods and open better possibilities for detecting the
species with unusual behaviour and/or out of optimal season. In this way, the knowledge on distribution,
larval biology and habitat requirements of selected species is expected to be greatly improved.
In the beginning of 2005 the work on the odonatological database called “Distributional Atlas of the
dragonflies of Sri Lanka” finally started. Considerable proportion of all existing odonatological data (all
published literature, unpublished author’s data, data from some museum collections) is already imported
and currently there are about 3500 faunistic records of different quality in the database. Further important
step includes geolocating of all dragonfly localities what will enable future GIS analysis. In this way it should
soon be possible to generate basic outputs such as distribution maps, seasonal phenology and altitudinal
27
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
distribution charts etc. Also the distribution map of all dragonfly localities in Sri Lanka will be elaborated in
order to point out the white spots and very limited distribution of many endemic species.
Hopefully, the nature conservation authorities in Sri Lanka will show some interest and support towards
planned dragonfly research projects in the future. Of course, the most important thing would be exchange
of experience and knowledge as well as logistic support in the field, not to mention help in obtaining
necessary permits. On the other hand, funds for covering of travel and material costs will have to be
organized. With the proper advice, knowledge support or contacts with possible donors, the IUCN SSC,
IUCN Sri Lanka and National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka could play an important role in this respect.
Acknowledgements
For the constant support and help with literature the author is thankful to Dr Bastiaan Kiauta (Bilthoven,
The Netherlands). Dr Jan van Tol (Leiden, The Netherlands) enabled the work in the odonatological
collection of the National Natuurhistorisch Museum in Leiden, allowed the copying of a part of Dr M. A.
Lieftick’s correspondence and helped in various other aspects. Especially encouraging were fruitful
discussions with the late Mr Terence de Fonseka (London, UK), who also greatly helped with literature.
Due to help and enthusiasm of Mr Gehan De Silva Wijeyeratne (Colombo, Sri Lanka) the work on Sri
Lanka’s Dragonfly Research Project continues in various ways. Colleagues from Sri Lanka, Mr Gehan De
Silva Wijeyeratne, Mrs Karen Coniff, Mrs Nancy van der Poorten and Mr Amila Salgado, regularly e-mail
me their dragonfly photographs, including some very interesting dragonfly records. Dr Channa
Bambaradeniya (Colombo, Sri Lanka) helped with different information and stimulated the writing of
present contribution. Mr Ali Šalamun (Koper, Slovenia) and Mrs Mojca Bedjanic (Slovenska Bistrica,
Slovenia) rendered pleasant company and helpful hand during the fieldwork in Sri Lanka.
References
Bambaradeniya C.N.B., Edirisingha J.P., De Silva D.N., Gunatilleke C.V.S., Ranawana K.B. & Wijekoon
S. (2004) Biodiversity associated with an irrigated rice agro-ecosystem in Sri Lanka, Biodiversity and
Conservation 13: 1715-1753.
Bedjanic, M., 1998. An attempt of the analysis of the dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka (Insecta: Odonata).
Graduation Thesis, University of Ljubljana. [In Slovenian; English title and abstract].
Bedjanic, M., 1999. The dry season aspect of the odonate fauna of Sri Lanka - Abstr. Pap. 2nd Odonatol.
Symp. Alps-Adriatic reg. Comm.,Wiena. Anax 2(1): 45.
Bedjanic, M., 2000. Description of the last larval instar of Epophthalmia vittata cyanocephala Hagen,
1867 (Anisoptera: Corduliidae). Odonatologica 29(1): 57-61
Bedjanic, M., 2001. Erforschungsstand der Libellenfauna von Sri Lanka. Abstracts of papers and posters
presented on the XVII. SIEEC Symposium, Radenci, Slovenia, 20.V.-26.V.2001. Radenci. pp. 9-10
Bedjanic, M., 2002a. Dragonflies collected in Sri Lanka during January and February 1995 (Odonata).
Opuscula Zoologica Fluminensia 205: 1-22
Bedjanic, M., 2002b. Dragonflies of Sri Lanka in Colour: First Draft Version 2002. Privately Published,
Fram.
Bedjanic, M. & A. Šalamun, 2002. Additional notes on the last larval instar of Epophtalmia vittata
cyanocephala Hagen, 1867 from Sri Lanka (Odonata: Corduliidae). Opuscula Zoologica
Fluminensia 204: 1-6
Bedjanic, M., 2004. Odonata fauna of Sri Lanka: research state and threat status. In: V. Clausnitzer & R.
Jödicke (Ed), Guardians of the watershed - Global status of dragonflies: critical species, threat and
conservation, pp. 279-294, International Journal of Odonatology 7(2), Worldwide Dragonfly
Association, Worcestershire.
28
Bedjanic: Current Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation of
Dragonfly Fauna of Sri Lanka
Bedjanic, M., 2005. Globally Endangered Dragonflies of Sri Lanka. Datasheets for assessing species for
the IUCN Global Red List of Threatened Animals, Prepared for the IUCN SSC Odonata Specialist
Gro up,Version 1 - January 2005, Slovenska Bistrica. 42 pp. <unpublished>
Bridges, C. A., 1994. Catalogue of the family-group, genus-group and species-group names of the Odonata
of the world. 3rd Edn., Bridges, Urbana, Illinois. xlviii+905 pp.
De Silva Wijeyeratne, G., M. Bedjanic & K. Coniff, 2003. Dragonflies of Sri Lanka. Jetwing Research
Initiative, Colombo.
Fonseka, T. De, 2000. Dragonflies of Sri Lanka. Wildlife Heritage Trust, Colombo.
Fraser F. C., 1933a. The Platystictas of Ceylon (Order Odonata). Ceylon Journal of Science (B) 17 (3):
201-224.
Fraser F. C., 1933b. The Gomphinae of Ceylon (Order Odonata). Ceylon Journal of Science (B) 18(1):
19-36.
Fraser, F.C., 1933c. The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma: Odonata: Vol. I. Taylor
& Francis, London.
Fraser, F.C., 1934. The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma: Odonata: Vol. II. Taylor
& Francis, London.
Fraser, F.C., 1936. The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma: Odonata: Vol. III. Taylor
& Francis, London.
IUCN 2001. IUCN Red List Categories: Version 3.1. Prepared by the IUCN Species Survival
Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. <www.redlist.org>
IUCN SRI LANKA, 2000. The 1999 list of Threatened Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka. IUCN Sri Lanka,
Colombo.
IUCN SRI LANKA, 2003. A Comparison of the conservation and legal status of the Fauna and Flora of
Sri Lanka. IUCN Sri Lanka, Colombo.
Kirby, W. F., 1891. On some Neuroptera (Odonata) collected by Mr. E. E. Green in Ceylon. Proceedings
of the Zoological Society of London 1891: 203-206, pl. 20.
Kirby, W. F., 1894. Catalogue of the described Neuroptera Odonata (Dragonflies) of Ceylon, with
Description of New Species. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 24 (157): 545-566, pls. 41,
42 excl.
Kirby, W. F., 1905. List of a small Collection of Odonata (Dragonflies) from Ceylon, collected by Mr. E.
Ernest Green, with Notes on the genus Zygonidia and its allies, and Descriptions of new Species of
Zygonidia, Kirb., and Onychothemis, Brauer, frorm Ceylon and Tonkin. Annals and Magazine of
Natural History (VII) 15 (87): 270-278.
Laidlaw, F. F. 1924. A catalogue of the dragonflies (Odonata) recorded from Ceylon, based on material
collected by Mr. E. E. Green, with description of a new species. Spolia Zeylanica 12(47/48): 335-374
Laidlaw, F. F., 1951. A note on the Derivation of the Odonate Fauna of the Island of Ceylon.
Entomological News 62 (2): 77-8.
Lieftnick, M. A., 1940. On some Odonata collected in Ceylon, with description of new species and larvae.
Ceylon Journal of Science (B) 22(1): 79-117
Lieftnick, M. A., 1955. Synopsis of the dragonflies (Odonata) of Ceylon. Zoologische Mededelingen
34(5): 67-87.
Lieftnick, M. A., 1971. Odonata from Ceylon. Entomologica Scandinavica, Suppl. 1: 188-207.
29
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Mittermeier, R. A., N. Myers & C. G. Mittermeier, 2000. Hotspots: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most
Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. CEMEX Conservation International, USA.
Moore, N. W., 1997 (Comp.). Dragonflies - Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC
Odonata Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland & Cambridge, UK.
Orr, B., 2003. A guide to the dragonflies of Borneo – their identification and biology. Natural History
Publications, Kota Kinabalu. 195 pp.
Silva Wijeyeratne, G. DE, 2001. Dragonflies and damselflies for beginners. Sri Lanka Nature 3(1): 20-24
St. Quentin, D., 1972. Results of the Austrian Ceylonese Hydrobiological Mission 1970 of the 1st Zoological
Institute of the University of Vienna (Austria) and the Department of Zoology of the Vidyalankara
University of Ceylon, Kelaniya. Part VI: a new Drepanosticta from Ceylon (Order: Odonata;
Insecta). Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Station, Sri Lanka 23: 137-139.
St. Quentin, D., 1973. Results of the Austrian Ceylonese Hydrobiological Mission 1970 of the 1st
Zoological Institute of the University of Vienna (Austria) and the Department of Zoology of the
Vidyalankara University of Ceylon, Kelaniya. Part XII: Contributions to the Ecology of the Larvae of
some Odonata from Ceylon. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Station, Sri Lanka 24 (1&2): 113-124
30
Bedjanic: Current Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation of
Dragonfly Fauna of Sri Lanka
Appendix 1: Species List of the Dragonflies of Sri Lanka
According to the present knowledge altogether 116 described dragonfly species from 12 families occur in
Sri Lanka. Currently, four new endemic species are in the process of description (numbered and indicated
as “sp. nov.”, not printed bold), thus bringing the number of dragonfly taxa to a total of 120. Altogether 57
taxa are endemic and are marked with (*).
Additional 7 species (marked with §, not printed bold) are included in the present species list without a
number: Aciagrion hisopa (Selys, 1876), Hemicordulia asiatica Selys 1878, Neurothemis fluctuans
(Fabricius, 1793), Trithemis kirbyi kirbyi Selys, 1891, Rhyothemis obsolescens Kirby, 1889 and
Rhyothemis phyllis phyllis (Sulzer, 1776). Their occurrence on Sri Lanka is doubtful and not well
documented or the record is based on determination error. One of them, viz. Trithemis kirbyi kirbyi is
listed in FONSEKA (2000), who gives 117 species and subspecies for the island.
System and nomenclature mainly follow the Catalogue of the family-group, genus-group and species-group
names of the Odonata of the world (BRIDGES, 1994).
ORDER ODONATA
SUB-ORDER ZYGOPTERA
FAMILY CALOPTERYGIDAE
1.) Neurobasis chinensis chinensis (Linnaeus, 1758)
*2.) Vestalis apicalis nigrescens Fraser, 1929
FAMILY CHLOROCYPHIDAE
*3.) Libellago adami Fraser, 1939
*4.) Libellago finalis (Hagen, 1869)
*5.) Libellago greeni (Laidlaw, 1924)
6.) Libellago lineata indica (Fraser, 1928)
FAMILY EUPHAEIDAE
*7.) Euphaea splendens Hagen, 1853
FAMILY LESTIDAE
8.) Lestes elatus Hagen, 1862
9.) Lestes malabaricus Fraser, 1929
10.) Lestes praemorsus decipiens Kirby, 1894
*11.) Sinhalestes orientalis (Hagen, 1862)
*12.) Indolestes divisus (Hagen, 1862)
*13.) Indolestes gracilis gracilis (Hagen, 1862)
FAMILY COENAGRIONIDAE
14.) Agriocnemis femina femina (Brauer, 1868)
15.) Agriocnemis pygmaea (Rambur, 1842)
*16.) Mortonagrion ceylonicum Lieftinck, 1971
17.) Onychargia atrocyana Selys, 1865
18.) Paracercion malayanum (Selys, 1876)
§ Aciagrion hisopa (Selys, 1876)
19.) Aciagrion occidentale Laidlaw, 1919
20.) Enallagma parvum Selys, 1876
31
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
21.)
22.)
23.)
24.)
25.)
26.)
*27.)
*28.)
Ischnura aurora aurora (Brauer, 1865)
Ischnura senegalensis (Rambur, 1842)
Ceriagrion cerinorubellum (Brauer, 1865)
Ceriagrion coromandelianum (Fabricius, 1798)
Pseudagrion malabaricum Fraser, 1924
Pseudagrion microcephalum (Rambur, 1842)
Pseudagrion rubriceps ceylonicum (Kirby, 1891)
Archibasis sp. nov.
FAMILY PLATYCNEMIDIDAE
29.) Copera marginipes (Rambur, 1842)
FAMILY PLATYSTICTIDAE
*30.) Drepanosticta adami (Fraser, 1933)
*31.) Drepanosticta austeni Lieftinck, 1940
*32.) Drepanosticta brincki Lieftinck, 1971
*33.) Drepanosticta digna (Selys, 1860)
*34.) Drepanosticta fraseri Lieftinck, 1955
*35.) Drepanosticta hilaris (Hagen, 1860)
*36.) Drepanosticta lankanensis (Fraser, 1931)
*37.) Drepanosticta montana (Hagen, 1860)
*38.) Drepanosticta nietneri (Fraser, 1931)
*39.) Drepanosticta sinhalensis Lieftinck, 1971
*40.) Drepanosticta starmuehlneri St. Quentin, 1972
*41.) Drepanosticta submontana (Fraser, 1933)
*42.) Drepanosticta subtropica (Fraser, 1933)
*43.) Drepanosticta tropica (Hagen, 1860)
*44.) Drepanosticta walli (Fraser, 1931)
*45.) Drepanosticta sp. nov. A
*46.) Drepanosticta sp. nov. B
*47.) Platysticta apicalis Kirby, 1894
*48.) Platysticta maculata Hagen, 1860
FAMILY PROTONEURIDAE
*49.) Disparoneura ramajana Lieftinck, 1971
*50.) Elattoneura bigemmata Lieftinck, 1971
*51.) Elattoneura caesia (Hagen, 1860)
*52.) Elattoneura centralis (Hagen, 1860)
*53.) Elattoneura leucostigma (Fraser, 1933)
*54.) Elattoneura tenax (Hagen, 1860)
*55.) Prodasineura sita (Kirby, 1894)
SUB-ORDER ANISOPTERA
FAMILY AESHNIDAE
56.) Anaciaeschna donaldi Fraser, 1922
57.) Anax guttatus (Burmeister, 1839)
58.) Anax immaculifrons Rambur, 1842
32
Bedjanic: Current Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation of
Dragonfly Fauna of Sri Lanka
59.) Anax indicus Lieftinck, 1942
60.) Hemianax ephippiger (Burmeister, 1839)
61.) Gynacantha dravida Lieftinck, 1960
FAMILY GOMPHIDAE
*62.) Anisogomphus solitaris Lieftinck, 1971
*63.) Burmagomphus pyramidalis sinuatus Fraser, 1933
*64.) Cyclogomphus gynostylus Fraser, 1926
*65.) Heliogomphus ceylonicus (Selys, 1878)
*66.) Heliogomphus lyratus Fraser, 1933
*67.) Heliogomphus nietneri (Selys, 1878)
*68.) Heliogomphus walli Fraser, 1925
*69.) Macrogomphus annulatus keiseri Lieftinck, 1955
*70.) Macrogomphus lankanensis Fraser, 1933
*71.) Microgomphus wijaya Lieftinck, 1940
*72.) Paragomphus henryi (Laidlaw, 1928)
*73.) Megalogomphus ceylonicus (Laidlaw, 1922)
*74.) Gomphidia pearsoni Fraser, 1933
75.) Ictinogomphus rapax (Rambur, 1842)
FAMILY CORDULIIDAE
*76.) Epophthalmia vittata cyanocephala Hagen, 1867
*77.) Macromia flinti Lieftinck, 1977
*78.) Macromia zeylanica Fraser, 1927
*79.) Macromidia sp. nov.
§ Hemicordulia asiatica Selys, 1878
FAMILY LIBELLULIDAE
*80.) Hylaeothemis fruhstorferi fruhstorferi(Karsch, 1889)
*81.) Tetrathemis yerburii Kirby, 1894
82.) Brachydiplax sobrina (Rambur, 1842)
83.) Cratilla lineata calverti Förster, 1903
84.) Lathrecista asiatica asiatica (Fabricius, 1798)
85.) Orthetrum chrysis (Selys, 1891)
86.) Orthetrum glaucum (Brauer, 1865)
87.) Orthetrum luzonicum (Brauer, 1868)
88.) Orthetrum pruinosum neglectum (Rambur, 1842)
89.) Orthetrum sabina sabina (Drury, 1773)
90.) Orthetrum triangulare triangulare (Selys, 1878)
91.) Potamarcha congener (Rambur, 1842)
92.) Acisoma panorpoides panorpoides Rambur, 1842
93.) Brachythemis contaminata (Fabricius, 1793)
94.) Bradinopyga geminata (Rambur, 1842)
95.) Crocothemis servilia servilia (Drury, 1770)
96.) Diplacodes nebulosa (Fabricius, 1793)
97.) Diplacodes trivialis (Rambur, 1842)
98.) Indothemis carnatica (Fabricius, 1798)
33
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
99.)
§
100.)
101.)
102.)
103.)
104.)
105.)
§
106.)
107.)
108.)
§
§
109.)
110.)
111.)
112.)
113.)
114.)
115.)
116.)
117.)
118.)
119.)
*120.)
34
Indothemis limbata sita Campion, 1923
Neurothemis fluctuans (Fabricius, 1793)
Neurothemis intermedia intermedia (Rambur, 1842)
Neurothemis tullia (Drury, 1773)
Rhodothemis rufa (Rambur, 1842)
Sympetrum fonscolombii (Selys, 1840)
Trithemis aurora (Burmeister, 1839)
Trithemis festiva (Rambur, 1842)
Trithemis kirbyi kirbyi Selys, 1891
Trithemis pallidinervis (Kirby, 1889)
Onychothemis tonkinensis ceylanica Ris, 1912
Palpopleura sexmaculata sexmaculata (Fabricius, 1787)
Rhyothemis obsolescens Kirby, 1889
Rhyothemis phyllis phyllis (Sulzer, 1776)
Rhyothemis triangularis Kirby, 1889
Rhyothemis variegata variegata (Linnaeus, 1763)
Hydrobasileus croceus (Brauer, 1867)
Pantala flavescens (Fabricius, 1798)
Tramea basilaris burmeisteri Kirby, 1889
Tramea limbata (Desjardins, 1832)
Tholymis tillarga (Fabricius, 1798)
Zyxomma petiolatum Rambur, 1842
Aethriamanta brevipennis brevipennis (Rambur, 1842)
Macrodiplax cora (Kaup, 1867)
Urothemis signata signata (Rambur, 1842)
Zygonyx iris ceylonicum (Kirby, 1905)
Edirisinghe & Wijerathna: Current Status
THE of
FAUNA
Aphid
OF Taxonomy
SRI LANKA (2006):
in Sri Lanka
35-42
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Current Status of Aphid Taxonomy in Sri Lanka
Jayanthi P. Edirisinghe* and M.A.P. Wijerathna §
*Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya
§
Wildlife Trust, TREE Centre, Randenigala, Rantambe
Abstract
Aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) are a group of minute insects (with winged and wingless adults) that
live on plants. They are plant sap feeders and thereby act as vectors of viral diseases of plants.
Hence, aphids are of much economic importance. Presently, the known aphid fauna of Sri Lanka
consists of 84 species in 46 genera and 6 subfamilies. Two species of aphids are considered to be
endemic to Sri Lanka, while 74 of our aphid species are shared with India. The aphids that are found
particularly on upcountry vegetables are cosmopolitan in distribution. Distribution of aphids in Sri
Lanka is associated more with the distribution of their host plants than the geography of the country.
Field studies indicate that aphids are more abundant in the Mid Country Wet Zone. Majority of the
aphid species are polyphagous, inhabiting a variety of unrelated host plants. Aphids have been
recorded from 300 species of plants belonging to 71 families.
To fill the gaps in aphid taxonomic research it is necessary to make extensive field collection
covering parts of the country where previous collections have not been made. Furthermore, the
balance of the flowering plants including crops need to be examined for aphids. Specially, host
specific or oligopahgous aphid species on crops need to be identified. Since aphids are considered as
potential pests and viral vectors, their management becomes more important than conservation.
Key words: Aphids, Taxonomy, Affinities, Host plants, Distribution
Introduction
Aphids (Homoptera:Aphididae) are one of the most harmful insect groups as plant sap feeders, plant gall
formers and vectors of viral diseases of plants. They occur both in the tropics and the temperate regions of
the world. The greatest distribution of aphids is in the temperate region. The world aphid fauna comprises
over 4,000 species in 493 genera and 9 subfamilies (Blackman et al., 1982). In India, where both tropical and
temperate climates prevail a rich aphid fauna is present nearing 1,000 species in 214 genera and 9 subfamilies
(Blackman and Eastop, 1984; Gosh and Agarawala, 1982). Presently, 82 species of aphids in 46 genera and 6
subfamilies have been recorded from Sri Lanka (Wijerathna and Edirisinghe, 1999). The aphids documented
from Sri Lanka have been recorded from 300 species of plants belonging to 21 families. Eighteen species of
aphids have been documented from vegetable crops and over 20 species from weeds. Among the aphid
species are several potential vectors of plant viruses. Aphids have been proven to be the vector of viral
diseases in several local crops (Abeygunawardena and Perera, 1964; Jeyanadarajah and Liyanage, 1994).
Systematics
The early records of aphids of Sri Lanka date back to the British Period (Westwood, 1890; Scoutenden,
1905; van der Goot, 1918) during which several aphid species collected on water traps have been
described. Therefore, the aphid species recorded are without host records. Thereafter, Judenko and Eastop
(1963), Caver (1965) and Blackman and Eastop (1984) reported several aphid species from Sri Lanka with
their host records. The most comprehensive study so far conducted of aphids is by Wijerathna (1997). In this
study aphids were collected from 26 sites located in 7 agroecological regions within the Wet, Intermediate and
Dry Zones of the country. The collection sites came within 17 Administrative Districts of Sri Lanka. A total of
47 species of aphids in 28 genera and 5 subfamilies were collected during this study. Over 1,000 plant species
were examined for aphids and of them, aphids were present on 300 plant species in 71 plant families.
35
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
The list of aphids so far recorded from Sri Lanka is given in Table 1. Aphids of the Family Aphididae is
represented in Sri Lanka by 6 subfamilies. Within each subfamily are several tribes. Subfamily Aphidinae
includes 2 tribes; Aphidini and Macrosiphini. Each of the remaining subfamilies includes only a single tribe
in Sri Lanka. In the tribe Aphinidi, 7 genera are included of which the Genus Aphis is represented by the
largest number of species. The Tribe Macrosiphini includes the largest number of genera (22). Each of
these genera is represented by 1-3 species. Subfamily Drephanociphinae includes two tribes with a single
Genus in each. Subfamily Pemphiginae has a single tribe represented by 5 genera. A comprehensive list of
the taxonomy of the currently known aphid species from Sri Lanka is provided in Wijerathna and
Edirisnghe, 1999.
Table 1:
Aphid taxa recorded from Sri Lanka
Subfamily
Tribe
Genus
Aphidinae
Aphidini
Aphis
Hylopterus
Hysteroneura
Melanaphis
Rhopalosiphum
Schizaphis
Toxoptera
Acyrthosiphon
Akkaia
Aulacorthum
Brachycaudus
Chaetosiphon
Dysaphis
Ipuka
Liaphis
Macrosiphoniella
Macrosiphum
Matsumuraja
Micromyzus
Myzuz
Neotoxoptera
Pentalonia
Phorodon
Rhodobium
Rhopalosiphoninus
Sinomegoura
Sitobion
Uroleucon
Vesiculaphis
Tinocallis
Phyllaphidini
Macrosiphini
Drepanosiphinae
Phyllaphidini
36
No. of species
6
1
1
1
3
4
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1 *
3
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
1
1
1
1
Edirisinghe & Wijerathna: Current Status of Aphid Taxonomy in Sri Lanka
Greenidenae
Sebaphidini
Greenideni
Hormaphidinae
Ceratophidini
Lachninae
Pemphiginae
Schoutedenia
Greenidea
Greenideoida
Astegopteryx
Cerataphis
Ceratoglyphina
Ceratovacuna
Pseudoregma
Lachnus
Pyrolachnus
Ceratopemphigus
Eriosoma
Geoica
Kaltenbachiella
Tetraneura
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 *
1
1
2
2
* Species Endemic to Sri Lanka
The type specimens of aphids of Sri Lanka have been deposited in museums outside Sri Lanka. Type
specimens of 40 species of aphids (in 22 genera) are held in the Natural History Museum (NHM), London.
Several expert-identified (mostly by taxonomists at the NHM) aphid specimens are held in local Institutions.
In the Agriculture Department, the HORDI museum holds a number of specimens collected and identified
by the British. In the University of Peradeniya, Department of Zoology holds specimens of 34 aphid
species collected during a field survey (Wijerathna, 1997) whose identity been confirmed by the
Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London.
Identification of aphids (collected into 70% alcohol) is based on slide mounted specimens. The
identification key prepared by Martin (1983) for tropical aphids includes most of the common aphids of Sri
Lanka and is a useful illustrated guide.
Affinities of the aphid fauna
A quarter of the world aphid fauna has been described from India. Therefore, it is not surprising that most
of our aphids are shared with India. Of the 84 known species of aphids of Sri Lanka (Appendix 1), 74
species are shared with India (Gosh, 1971). Few other species are shared with Central Asia, East Africa
and Mauritius. The aphid, Sitobion wickstroemiae recorded from the shrub Wickstroemia indica (Family
Thymelaeceae) also occurs in South Africa and Mauritiu. The shrub, Wickstroemia indica has been
introduced to Sri Lanka from East Africa and it has since become a weed in and around Kandy. Majority
of the aphids on vegetable crops are cosmopolitan in distribution (Wijerathna and Edirisinghe, 1997).
Endemism in aphids of Sri Lanka cannot be ascertained accurately as the aphids of the Indian subcontinent
are not fully known. According to Ghosh (1971A) 10 aphid species are endemic to Sri Lanka. However, 8
of these species have been subsequently reported from other countries in the Indian subcontinent, thus
making only two aphid species endemic to Sri Lanka. The two species are Matsumaraja capitophoroides
H.R.Lo. and Ceratopemphigus zehntneri Schouteden ( Schouteden, 1905; Judenko and Eastop, 1963).
The aphid fauna of India is well known through the work of several authors among whom Ghosh (1971A,
1971B, 1974 & 1990) has made a significant contribution. From Pakistan, 15 species of vegetable infesting
aphids have been recorded by Nasir and Yousuf (1995).
37
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Host Plants of Aphids
During a field survey nearly one third of our flowering plants were examined for aphids. The 300 plant
species in 71 families that harboured the 84 species of aphids recorded for Sri Lanka are included in
Wijerathna and Edirisinghe (1999). The host plants of aphids were grouped into14 categories based on the
economic use or taxonomic status of the plant. Most aphid species was found on non - graminaceous
weeds followed by vegetable crops and fruit trees. Endemic plants that were examined for aphids
harboured a few species of very common aphids.
The number of flowering plant species endemic to Sri Lanka is 879 (Bandaranayake and Sultanbawa,
1991) which is very high compared to India. Yet, Sri Lanka is poor in endemic aphid species. About half of
the aphid species (443) recorded from India is endemic to that country (Ghosh, 1990). In Sri Lanka most
of the endemic plant species are found in very stable mixed forests where plant diversity is very high
forming several canopy layers. Furthermore, most endemic plant species are trees and not herbaceous
plants on which aphids continuously feed.
Of the two species of aphids considered to be endemic to Sri Lanka, the plant host of Matsumaraja
capitophoroides is recorded as Brunfelsia uniflora Pohl.D. (F.Solanaceae) (Judenko and Eastop, 1963).
The other endemic aphid species, Ceratopemphigus zehntneri has been recorded from water traps and
hence is without a host record. Majority of the aphids recorded are polyphagous, living on several unrelated
plants. The aphids on vegetables in particular are polyphagous except for the two species that occur on
carrots. Few other species of aphids are host specific. The host specific aphids known from Sri Lanka are,
Macrosiphoniella psedoartemesiae on Artemesia vuigaris (F.Compositae) Greenideoida ceyloniae on
Mesua ferra (F.Guttiferae) and Sitobion wickstroemiae on Wickstroemia indica (F. Thymelaeceae )
Distribution
Distribution of aphids (based to collection sites) is associated more with the distribution of their host plants
than any other factor. Mid country Wet Zone had the highest diversity of aphid species than any other
agro-ecological region of the country. In terms of habitats, areas cultivated with vegetables and weedy
areas harboured the most number of aphids. In primary forests such as the Sinharaja and Delwala, only
the forest edge and boundaries bearing common weeds harboured aphids.
Economically Important Aphids
Of the different plant categories on which aphids were collected, vegetables formed a very important
group. Although, aphids were recorded from 55 crops only about 20 vegetable species can be considered
as extensively cultivated and commonly consumed. These include both up country and low country
vegetables. A total of 18 species of aphids infested vegetable plants. Among these vegetables beans, carrot,
cauliflower, chilly, lettuce and tomato harboured the most number of aphids.
Of the aphids recorded from Sri Lanka about 30 species are potential viral vectors, known world over
(Blackman and Eastop, 1984). Work of Thevasagayam and Canagasinghum (1961), Abeygunawardena and
Perera (1964), Peries (1985) and Jayanandaraja and Liyanage (1994) have confirmed the role of aphids
as viral vectors of vegetable crops of Sri Lanka.
In conclusion the aphid species recorded from Sri Lanka is relatively small (84 species) in comparison to
most other countries in the Indian subcontinent. Considering the high diversity of our flowering plants, the
paucity of the aphid fauna cannot be explained. It is more so when the aphids endemic to Sri Lanka (2
species) are considered. Although Sri Lanka has a rich endemic flora, none of them harboured any
endemic aphids. Aphids have limitations in distribution, as only the alates produced under high population
density are able to take to flight. Natural barriers may limit their dispersal by air. Extensive field studies
encompassing the entire country and the balance of the flowering plants and ferns would shed further light
on our aphid fauna.
38
Edirisinghe & Wijerathna: Current Status of Aphid Taxonomy in Sri Lanka
Acknowledgements
The field study on aphids and their host plants was made possible through a grant from the National
Science Foundation (NSF) of Sri Lanka. The taxonomists at the Commonwealth Institute of Entomology,
London are acknowledged for confirming the identity of aphids.
References
Abeygunawardena, D. V. W. and Perera, S. M. D. (1964). Virus disease affecting Cowpea in Ceylon.
Trop. Agric. Vol. CXX: 181-204.
Bandaranayake, W. M. and Sultanbawa, M. U. S. (1991). A list of the endemic plants of Sri Lanka.
Forestry Information Service, Forest Department, Sri Lanka: 27pp.
Blackman, R. L. and Eastop, (1984). Aphids on the World’s crops: an identification guide. John Wiley and
Sons, New York. 446 pp.
Carver, M. (1965). Two new species of Micromyzus van der Goot (Homoptera: Aphididae). Proc. R. Ent.
Soc. London. (B) 34(9-10):113-116.
Ghosh, A. K. (1971A). A list of Aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) from India and adjacent countries. J.
Bombay Nat. His. Soc. (2): 201-220
Ghosh, A. K., Banerjee, H., Raychaudhar, D. N. (1971B). Studies at the aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae)
from Eastern India. Oriental Insects. Vol. 5(1): 103-110.
Ghosh, A. K. (1974). Aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) of economic importance in India. Indian Agric. Vo.
18(2): 81-214.
Ghosh, A. K. (1990). Endemism in the Aphidoidea fauna of the Indian Region. Acta. Phytopathologica et.
Entomologica Hangaria. 25/1-4/1: 343-349
Ghosh, A. K. and Agarawala B. W. (1983). A catalogue of Aphidiid Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae) parasites
of Aphids (Homoptera) of India. J. Bombay. Nat. Hist. Soc. Vol. 79 (1): 125-134
Jayanandaraja, P. and Liyanage, T. (1994). Viruses isolated from tomato affected by a severe disease
condition. Proceedings Part 1. Abstract of Papers. Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of
Science B 76:92pp.
Judenko, E. and Eastop, V. F. (1963). A list of Sinhalese aphids. Entomologists Monthly Magazine 3: 62-63.
Martin, J. H. (1983). The identification of common aphid pests of tropical agriculture. Trop. Pest.
Management. 29: 395-441.
Nasir, A. &Yousuf, M. (1995). Aphids and their host plants in the province of Punjab, Pakistan. Pk. Journ.
Zool. 27 (3): 282-284.
Peries, I. D. R. (1985). Systhetic Pyrethroid insecticides and their potential use in Sri Lanka. Tropical
Agriculture. Vo. 141: 65-75
Schouteden, H. (1905). Notes on Ceylonese aphids. Spolia Zeylanica. 11: 181-190.
Thevasagayam, E. S. R. and Canagasinghum, L. S. C. (1961). Major insect pests of Brinjol (Solanum
melongena) and their control. Trop. Agric. Vo. CXVII: 105-114.
van der Goot, P. (1918). Aphididae of Ceylon. Spolia Zeylanica: 70-75.
Westwood, J. O. (1890). On a species of aphideous insects infesting the Bread Fruit trees of Ceylon.
Trans. R. Ent. Soc. Lond. 4: 647-651.
Wijerathna, M. A. P. and Edirisinghe, J. P. (1999). A checklist of aphids and their host plants from Sri Lanka.
MAB Checklist and Handbook Series. Publication No. 21. National Science Foundation, Sri Lanka.
Wijerathna, M. A. P. (1997). A survey of aphids and their natural enemies on economic and other plants.
M.Phil. Thesis. University of Peradeniya. Sri Lanka.
39
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Appendix 1. List of Aphids Recorded from Sri Lanka
FAMILY –APHIDIDAE
SUBFAMILY- APHIDINAE
TRIBE-APHIDINI
Aphis craccivora (Koch, 1854)
Aphis fabae solanella (Theobald, 1914)
Aphis gossypii (Glover, 1877)
Aphis nasturtii (Kaltenbach, 1843)
Aphis nerii (Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841)
Aphis spiraecola (Patch, 1914)
Hylopterus pruni (Geoffroy, 1762)
Hysteroneura setariae (Thomas)
Melanaphis sacchari (Zehntner)
Rhopalossiphum maidis (Fitch, 1859)
Rhopalossiphum padi L., 1758
Rhopalossiphum rufiabdominali (Sasaki)
Schizaphis cyperi (Passerini, 1874)
Schizaphis graminum (Rondoni, 1852)
Schizaphis hypersiphonata Basu, 1970
Schizaphis minuta (van der Goot )
Toxoptera aurantii (Boyer de Fonsocolombe, 1841)
Toxoptera citricidus (Kirkaldy)
Toxoptera odinae (van der Goot )
TRIBE-MACROSIPHINI
Acyrthosiphon gossypii (Mordvilko, 1914)
Acrythosiphon kondoi (Shinji, 1938)
Acrythosiphon pisum (Harris, 1776)
Akkaia taiwana Tak.
Aulacorthum circumflexus (Buckton, 1876)
Aulacorthum solani (Kaltenbach, 1843)
Brachycaudus helichrysi (Kaltenbach, 1843)
Chaetosiphon tetrarhodum (Walker, 1849)
Dysaphis crataegi (Kaltenbach, 1843)
Ipuka dispersum (van der Goot )
Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach)
Macrosiphoniella sanborni (Gillette, 1908)
Macrosiphoniella pseudoartemisiae (Shinji, 1933)
Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas)
Macrosiphum rosae (Linnaeus, 1758 )
Matsumuraja capitophoroides (Hille Ris Lambers)
Micromyzus judenkoi (Carver)
Micromyzus kalimpongensis (Basu, 1967)
Micromyzus nigrum (van der Goot, 1918)
Myzus ascalonicus (Doncaster, 1946)
Myzus boehmeriae (Takahashi, 1933)
40
Edirisinghe & Wijerathna: Current Status of Aphid Taxonomy in Sri Lanka
Myzus cerasi (Fabricius, 1775)
Myzus obtusirostris (David)
Myzus ornatus (Laing, 1932)
Myzus persicae (Sulzer, 1776)
Neotoxoptera oliveri ( Essig, 1935 )
Pentalonia nigronervosa (Coquerel, 1859)
Phorodon humuli (Schrank, 1801)
Rhodobium porosum (Sanderson, 1900)
Rhopalosiphoninus latysiphon (Davidson, 1912)
Sinomegoura citricola (van der Goot, 1917)
Sitobion avenae (Fabricius, 1775)
Sitobion lambersi (David)
Sitobion leelamaniae (David)
Sitobion miscanthi (Takahashi, 1921)
Sitobion pauliani (Ram)
Sitobion phyllanthi Takahashi
Sitobion wikstroemiae (Marmet)
Sitobion sp. (Unidentified)
Uroleucon minutum (van der Goot )
Vesiculaphis caricis (Fullaway, 1910)
SUBFAMILY-DREPANOSIPHINAE
Tinocallis kahawaluokalani (Kitkaldy, 1907)
TRIBE-PHYLLAPHIDINI
Shivaphis celti (Das, 1918)
SUBFAMILY- GREENIDINAE
TRIBE - SEBAEPHIDINI
Schoutedenia lutea L., 1917
TRIBE- GREENIDENI
Greenidea artocarpi (Westwood, 1890)
Greenidea formosana Takahashi, 1916
Greenideoida ceyloniae van der Goot, 1918
SUBFAMILY-HORMAPHIDINAE
TRIBE-CERATOPHIDINI
Astegopteryx bambusae (Buckton, 1893)
Astegopteryx insularis (van der Goot, 1917)
Astegopteryx minuta (van der Goot, 1917)
Cerataphis variabilis (Hille Ris, 1934)
Ceratoglyphina bambusae (van der Goot, 1917)
Ceratovacuna lanigera (Zehntner, 1897)
Pseudoregma bambusicola (Takahashi, 1893)
41
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
SUBFAMILY-LACHNINAE
Lachnus greeni (van der Goot)
Pyrolachnus pyri (Buckton, 1899)
SUBFAMILY-PEMPHIGINAE (ERIOSOMATINAE)
TRIBE- ERIOSOMATINI
Ceratopemphigus zehntneri Schouteden, 1905
Eriosoma lanigerum (Hausmann, 1802)
Geoica lucifuga (Zehntner, 1898)
Kaltenbachiella elsholtriae (Shinji, 1936)
Kaltenbachiella japonica (Matsumura, 1917)
Tetraneura nigriabdominalis (Sasaki, 1899)
Tetraneura yezoensis (Matsumura, 1917)
42
Dias: Current Taxonomic Status of Ants (Hymenoptera:
THE FAUNA Formicidae)
OF SRI LANKA (2006):
in Sri Lanka
43-52
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Current Taxonomic Status of
Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Sri Lanka
R. K. Sriyani Dias*
*Department of Zoology, University of Kelaniya, Kelaniya.
Abstract
The paper highlights the status of research on ants of Sri Lanka, based on published information and
ongoing research of the author. A total of 181 ant species in 61 genera have been recorded from Sri
Lanka, which includes the endemic and relict monotypic genus Aneuretus. Majority of the ant
species recorded from Sri Lanka belong to the subfamily Myrmicinae. The Genus Camponotus
(Formicinae) includes the highest number of ant species recorded so far in the island.
Key words: Ants, Species, Distribution, Research
An overview of past research on ants of Sri Lanka
Ants are a very common group of insects in most terrestrial habitats in Sri Lanka. Their habitats vary from
highly disturbed urbanized areas to undisturbed forests. They inhabit buildings and outdoors, their
microhabitats extend into soil (even up to a depth of 20 cm) decaying wood, plants, trees, litter, termite
nests etc. Bingham (1903) was one of the very first to publish a list and descriptions of ant species
recorded from Sri Lanka. This publication provides identification keys to the species. The past five decades
has seen several publications on taxonomic work on ants in Sri Lanka (Bolton and Belshaw, 1987; Dorow
and Kohout, 1995; Jayasooriya and Traniello, 1985; Wilson, 1964; Wilson et al., 1956). A revival of
taxonomic work on ants of Sri Lanka in recent times began with the work initiated by the author in 2000. A
preliminary taxonomic study of the ants collected from the premises of the Kelaniya University (Gampaha
District) was carried out (Dias and Chaminda, 2000; Dias et al., 2001) and this work was later extended to
areas in the Districts of Gampaha, Colombo, Ratnapura and Galle (Dias and Chaminda, 2001; Chaminda
and Dias, 2001).
The subfamilies, genera and species of ants identified during these studies are listed in the Tables 1 and 2.
The absence of a given subfamily, genus or species in a given district does not indicate that the particular
taxa are actually absent in the area as ants were not collected from each and every site in a district. Field
and laboratory methods for the study of ants and a list of ants held in the Reference Insect collection of
the Department of National Museums, Colombo is given in Dias (2002a, 2002b).
Ant Diversity and their distribution in Sri Lanka
According to the currently accepted classification of ants by Bolton (1994), ants belonging to ten
subfamilies have been recorded from Sri Lanka (Table 1). The provisional checklist of ants documented
from Sri Lanka given in Appendix 1 is based on Bolton (1995), specimens deposited at the National
Museums, Colombo and recent field studies by the author. Certain generic and species names appearing
in this list are different from those of Dias (2002) due to the updating of taxonomic names according to
Bolton (1995). Fifty six genera of ants have been recorded from Sri Lanka by Bolton (1995). Our studies
added five more genera namely Aphaenogaster Mayr, Cardiocondyla Emery, Ochetellus, Prenolepis
Mayr and Protanilla Taylor to the ant fauna of the country. Although the genus Leptanilla (subfamily
Leptanillinae) has not been recorded from the recent field study, it is recorded by Bolton (1995) as being
present in Sri Lanka.
43
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Currently, a total of 181 ant species in 61 genera have been recorded from Sri Lanka (Table 1 and
Appendix 1) and includes the endemic and relict monotypic genus Aneuretus. Majority of the ant species
recorded from Sri Lanka belong to the subfamily Myrmicinae (75 spp,), followed by Formicinae (49 spp.)
and Ponerinae (30 spp.). The Genus Camponotus (Formicinae) includes the highest number of ant species
(22) recorded so far.
Table 1:
A summary of the taxonomic diversity of ants of Sri Lanka, based on information gathered up
to 2004.
Subfamily
Aenictinae
Aneuretinae
Cerapachyinae
Dolichoderinae
Dorylinae
Formicinae
Myrmicinae
Ponerinae
Pseudomyrmecinae
Leptanillinae
Total
Genera
Species
01
01
01
04
01
12
24
13
01
02
61
05
01
05
09
01
49
75
30
04
02
181
Worker ants belonging to 58 species in 39 genera and ten subfamilies collected from the Districts of
Gampaha, Colombo, Ratnapura and Galle were identified (Table 2). Ant subfamilies that were common to
the four districts were Dolichoderinae, Formicinae, Myrmicinae, Pseudomyrmecinae and Ponerinae. Among
the dolichoderines, Tapinoma and Technomyrmex were common in all the four districts. The formicines
Anoplolepis gracilipes, Camponotus, Paratrechina and Oecophylla smaragdina and the myrmicines,
Crematogaster, Pheidologeton, Monomorium, Pheidole, Meranoplus bicolor, Lophomyrmex and
Solenopsis were common in all four districts. The Pseudomyrmecine, Tetraponera and the ponerines,
Diacamma, Odontomachus and Hypoponera were also common in the four districts. Pachycondyla was
found in all three districts except Colombo district. The sole living representative of the Subfamily
Aneuretinae, Aneuretus simoni was found only in the Ratnapura District and the cerapachyine,
Cerapachys was collected from Maimbula forest (Gampaha District) only. Worker ants belonging to the
genus Aenictus was collected from Gampaha, Ratnapura and Galle districts. So far, Polyrhachis
rastellata was recorded only from Colombo District and a single specimen of Strumigenys was collected
from Galle District. Several unidentified species belonging to six genera (Crematogaster, Cerapachys,
Myrmicaria, Anochetus, Leptogenys, Myrmoteras and Cataulacus) were collected from the forest
reserves.
The field surveys enabled the identification of micro-habitats preferred by certain ant species. Aenictus
and most ponerines were found in the leaf litter, while Aneuretus simoni inhabited the leaf litter and
associated soil. Species of the genera Tetraponera and Crematogaster occurred in vegetation.
Monomorium was generally found indoors. Dorylus and Lophomyrmex were found both indoors and
outdoors, indicating that they are generalists. Protanilla occurred in soil.
Recent research (Dias and Chaminda, 2001; Perera, 2003; Perera and Dias, 2003; Perera and Dias, 2004
collection) showed that the single living representative species (Aneuretus simoni – Plate 1) of the
Subfamily Aneuretinae recorded only from Sri Lanka (Bolton, 1995) inhabits the city - reservoir
associated forest (“Pompekelle”) in Ratnapura. Its density in a selected region of this forest was 7 m-2.
This species has been found in the Gilimale forest too. It is listed as globally threatened (IUCN, 2004).
44
Dias: Current Taxonomic Status of Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Sri Lanka
Table 2:
Ants recorded from University of Kelaniya premises, areas in Gampaha, Colombo, Ratnapura
and Galle Districts
Species
Aenictinae
Aenictus sp.
Aneuretinae
Aneuretus simoni
Cerapachyinae
Cerapachys sp.
Dolichoderinae
Tapinoma melanocephalum
Tapinoma indicum
Technomyrmex bicolor
Technomyrmex elatior
Tapinoma sp.
Technomyrmex sp.
Dolichoderus sp.
Dorylinae
Dorylus orientalis
Dorylus sp.
Formicinae
Anoplolepis gracilipes
Oecophylla smaragdina
Paratrechina longicornis
Camponotus sp.
Paratrechina sp.
Polyrhachis sp.
Prenolepis sp
Polyrachis rastellata
Lepisiota sp.
Myrmoteras sp.
Acropyga sp.
Myrmicinae
Pheidologeton diversus
Monomorium destructor
Monomarium floricola
Meranoplus bicolor
Pheidole spathifera
Solenopsis geminata
Lophomyrmex quadrispinosus
Lophomyrmex spp.
Crematogaster spp.
Kelaniya
Gampaha
Colombo
R’pura
X
Galle
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
45
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Pheidole spp.
Pheidologeton spp.
Tetramorium sp.
Monomarium spp.
Crematogaster Sp.1
Crematogaster Sp.2
Crematogaster Sp.3
Crematogaster Sp.4
Crematogaster Sp.5
Crematogaster Sp.6
Cataulacus sp.
Strumigenys sp.
Leptanillinae
Protanilla sp.
Pseudomyrmecinae
Tetraponera rufonigra
Tetraponera spp.
Tetraponera allaborans
Ponerinae
Odontomachhus simillimus
Diacomma ceylonense
Diacomma rugosum
Diacamma spp.
Odontomachus spp.
Hypoponera sp.
Leptogenys spp.
Pachycondyla sp.
Platythyrea sp.
Anochetus sp.
Total Species
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
33
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
26
X
X
X
20
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
35
X
24
Issues pertaining to taxonomy and research on ants
Like most other tropical countries, Sri Lanka has a rich ant fauna that remains undiscovered due to lack of
taxonomic research by local scientists. Setting up a good reference collection of ants collected island wide
is an essential task, since the collection at the National Museum is very old, incomplete and not properly
curated.
Although a colony of ants consist of queen/s, males, major workers and minor workers, taxonomic keys of
ants, generally, are based on the morphology of minor workers. However, identification to the species level
requires the collection of both minor and major workers for some ant genera such as Pheidole. Ant genera
of subfamily Leptanillinae have been identified on the basis of male morphology (Ogata et al., 1995) and it
appears that workers are rare in this subfamily (Three workers of Protanilla were present in our recent
collection).
46
Dias: Current Taxonomic Status of Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Sri Lanka
The two publications, Bolton (1994) and Bolton (1995) provide the most recent classification and taxonomic
keys for the subfamilies and genera of ants recorded from the world. About 9200 species of ants have
been recorded from the world according to Bolton (1995) but this number has been increased to 11,100 by
2002. However, lack of a good reference collection of ants and unavailability of publications that provide
species descriptions are two major problems for the identification of ants collected from Sri Lanka.
In the past, very few research has been carried out to collect, identify and record ants of Sri Lanka.
Bingham (1903) is the only publication which carries species descriptions of ants based on sporadic
collections. The system of classification used in this publication is outdated. Dias and Chaminda (2000,
2001) and Dias (2002, 2003) provide accounts on ants of Sri Lanka and a reference collection of ants is
held in the Department of Zoology, University of Kelaniya.
The inadequacy of research that focuses on forest ants of Sri Lanka (except for Perera 2003, Perera and
Dias, 2003) with only a few sporadic publications by foreign researchers is a major barrier for the
development of myrmecology in Sri Lanka. The current research (funded by the National Science
Foundation of Sri Lanka) in progress at the Department of Zoology, University of Kelaniya to study ant
communities in the city reservoir associated forests in Ratnapura, Gilimale and Sinharaja would reveal most
of the wet zone ants. In addition, steps should be taken to extend ant surveys to other districts in the Wet
zone and also to the Dry zone of Sri Lanka.
Research priorities and recommendations
z
Initiate taxonomic research on ants in the other districts of Sri Lanka, with emphasis on forestdwelling ants.
z
Initiate detailed studies on the single living representative species of the subfamily Aneuretinae (A.
simoni) in the Ratnapura District. One of its current localities includes the highly disturbed
“Pompekelle” forest, it would be worthwhile to document how it survives in such disturbed areas.
z
Develop a well-maintained reference collection of ants at the Dept. of National Museums, Colombo.
z
Maintain active links with the Network for the study of Asian ants (ANeT), an association comprising
Asian myrmecologists who work towards the development of myrmecology in Asia (Website:http://
www.geocities.com/anet_malaysia). New research findings of the members of this association are
published through ANeT Newsletter printed at the Kagoshima University in Japan.
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka for the Research Grants, RG/ZSSL/99/02
and RG/2003/ZOO/06, and travel grants to develop myrmecology in Sri Lanka. I wish to convey my
deepest gratitude to Prof. Seiki Yamane, Kagoshima University, Japan, Mr. Barry Bolton, Natural History
Museum, London and Research Assistants, Miss. K. Ranawaka, Mr. K. M. G. R. Chaminda and Miss. K.
A. M. Perera.
References
Bingham, C. T. (1903). Hymenoptera Vol. 2. Ants and cuckoowasps. Taylor and Francis, London.
Bolton, B. (1987). A review of the Solenopsis genus-group and revision of Afrotropical Monomorium
Mayr. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Entomology) 54: 263 – 452.
Bolton, B. (1994). An identification guide to the ant genera of the world. Harvard University Press,
London, 222 p.
Bolton, B. (1995). A new general catalogue of the ants of the world. Harvard University Press, London,
504 p.
47
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Bolton, B., and R., Belshaw (1993). Taxonomy and biology of the supposedly lestobiotic ant genus
Paedalgus (Hym:Formicidae). Systematic Entomology 18: 18 –189.
Dias, R. K. S. and K. M. G. R. Chaminda (2000). A preliminary taxonomic study of Sri Lankan ants.
Proceedings of the Second ANeT workshop and seminar held at Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota
Kinabalu, East Malaysia. (Abstract).
Dias, R.K.S., K.M.G.R. Chaminda and S. Yamane (2001). Systematics of the worker ant fauna collected
from the premises of Kelaniya University Proceedings of the 57th SLAAS Annual Session, 176 p.
(Abstract).
Dias, R. K. S. and K. M. G. R. Chaminda. 2001. Systematics of some worker ants (Hymenoptera,
Formicidae) collected from several regions of Sri Lanka (Abstract). Proceedings of the Third ANeT
workshop and seminar held in Hanoi, Vietnam. ANeT Newsletter, 4, 15 p.
Chaminda, K.M.G.R. and R.K.S. Dias. 2001. Taxonomic key for the identification of Sri Lankan ants:
Subfamilies (Abstract). Proceedings of the Third ANeT. ANeT Newsletter, 4, 15 –16 p.
Dias, R.K.S. 2002 (a). Current knowledge on ants of Sri Lanka. ANeT Newsletter, 4, 17 –21 p.
Dias, R.K.S. 2002 (b). Ants of Sri Lanka with a brief description of field and laboratory methods.
Sarvodaya Vishvalekha Press, Ratmalana, 44 p.
Dias, R.K.S. and K.M.G.R. Chaminda. Taxonomic key for the subfamilies of worker ants (Family:
Formicidae) in Sri Lanka and some information on Aneuretus simoni Emery in Ratnapura. Submitted
to Spolia Zeylanica, National Museums Department, Colombo in May, 2002.
Dias, R. K. S., 2003. Taxonomic study of the worker ants collected from Colombo and Galle districts in Sri
Lanka. Proceedings of the Fourth ANeT workshop held at Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand in
November, 2003.
Dorow, W. H. O. and Kohout, R. J. 1995. A review of the Subgenus Hemioptica Roger of the genus
Polyrhachis Fr. Smith with description of a new species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Formicinae).
Zool. Med. Leiden., 69: 93 -104 pp.
Eguchi, K., 2001. A revision of the Bornean species of the ant genus Pheidole (Insecta: Hymenoptera:
Formicidae: Myrmicinae), Tropics, Monograph Series No. 2, 154.
Holldobler, B. and E. O. Wilson. 1990. The Ants. Springer Verlag, Berlin. 732 p.
IUCN (2004). 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. (www.redlist.org). Accessed 21 July 2005.
Jayasooriya, A. K. and Traniello, J. F. O., 1985. The biology of the primitive ant Aneuretus simoni Emery
(Formicidae: Aneuretinae) – Distribution, abundance, colony structure and foraging ecology. Insectes
Sociaux (Paris), 32 (4): 363 -374 pp.
MacKay, W. P. 1993. A review of the New World ants of the genus Dolichoderus (Hymenoptera:
Formicidae). Sociobiology, 22 (1), 148 p.
Ogata, K., Terayama, M. and K. Masuko, 1995. The ant genus Leptanilla: discovery of the workerassociated male of L. japonica and a description of a new species from Taiwan (Hymenoptera:
Formicidae: Leptanillinae). Systematic Entomology, 20, 27 – 34 pp.
Perera, K. A. M., 2003. The relative abundance and density of Aneuretus simoni Emery (Order:
Hymenoptera, Family: Formicidae) in a selected region in the forest (“Pompakelle”) associated with
water pumping station in Ratnapura. Unpublished thesis submitted for the B. Sc. (Special) Degree in
Zoology, University of Kelaniya, 55 p.
Perera, K. A. M. and R. K. S. Dias, 2003. The relative abundance of Aneuretus simoni Emery in the
forest (“Pompekelle”) associated with the water pumping station in Ratnapura. Proceedings of the 59
th Annual Sessions of SLAAS
48
Dias: Current Taxonomic Status of Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Sri Lanka
Sumanasinghe, H. P. W., 2001. Diversity of worker ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) collected from four
pineapple fields and some biological aspects of Paratrechina longicornis Latrielle, a selected
formicine ant found in the pineapple fields infested with Dysmicoccus sp., Unpublished thesis
submitted for the B. Sc. (Special) Degree in Zoology, University of Kelaniya, 80 p.
Sumanasinghe, H. P. W. and R. K. S. Dias. 2002. Diversity of worker ants collected from four
Dysmicoccus brevipes Cockerell infested and uninfested pineapple fields in Attanagalla and a
preliminary study on the association between Paratrechina longicornis Latreille and Dysmicoccus
brevipes (Abstract). Proceedings of the 58 th Annual Sessions of SLAAS, 168 pp.
Traniello, J. F. A. and A. K. Jayasuriya. 1985. The biology of the primitive ant Aneuretus simoni Emery
(Formicidae; Aneuretinae) ii. The social ethogram and division of labour. Insectes sociaux, Paris,
375-388 pp.
Wilson, E. O., 1964. The true army ants of the Indo-Australian area (Hymenoptera: Formicidae:
Dorylinae). Pacific Insects, 6 (3); 427 - 483 pp.
Wilson, E. O., Eisner, T., Wheeler, G. C. and J. Wheeler, 1956. Aneuretus simoni Emery, a major link in
ant evolution. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 115 (03): 81 -105 pp.
49
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Appendix 1: A provisional checklist of subfamilies, genera and species of ants
recorded from Sri Lanka (10 subfamilies, 61 genera and 180 species)
AENICTINAE
Aenictus Shuckard
Aenictus fergusoni Walker
Aenictus porizonoides Walker
Aenictus biroi Forel
Aenictus pachycercus (Dalla Torre)
Aenictus ceylonicus (Dalla Torre)
ANEURETINAE
Aneuretus Emery
Aneuretus simoni Emery (Endemic)
CERAPACHYINAE
Cerapachys Smith
Cerapachys coecus (Emery)
Cerapachys fossulatus Forel
Cerapachys fragosus (Emery)
Cerapachys luteoviger Brown
Cerapachys typhlus (Emery)
DOLICHODERINAE
Dolichoderus Lund
Dolichoderus taprobanae (Mayr)
Ochetellus Shattuck
Ochetellus glaber Shattuck
Tapinoma Foerster
Tapinoma melanocephallum (Santschi)
Tapinoma indicum Forel
Technomyrmex Mayr
Technomyrmex albipes Emery
Technomyrmex bicolor Emery
Technomyrmex detorquens (Donisthorpe)
Technomyrmex elatior Bingham
Technomyrmex albipes (Emery)
DORYLINAE
Dorylus Fabricius
Dorylus orientalis Fabricius
FORMICINAE
Acropyga Roger
Acropyga acutiventris Roger
50
Anoplolepis Santschi
Anoplolepis gracilipes (Jerdon)
Camponotus Mayr
Camponotus irritans (Roger)
Camponotus albipes Emery
Camponotus auriculatus Mayr
Camponotus mitis (Roger)
Camponotus barbatus Roger
Camponotus fletcheri Donisthorpe
Camponotus greeni Forel
Camponotus sericeus Mayr
Camponotus indeflexus (Donisthorpe)
Camponotus variegatus Mayr
Camponotus mendax Bingham
Camponotus maculatus (Mayr)
Camponotus isabellae Forel
Camponotus latebrosus (Donisthorpe)
Camponotus ominosus Forel
Camponotus rufoglaucus Forel
Camponotus reticulatus Roger
Camponotus sesquipedalis Roger
Camponotus simoni Emery
Camponotus thraso Bingham
Camponotus varians Roger
Camponotus wedda Forel
Lepisiota Santschi
Lepisiota capensis Mayr
Myrmoteras Forel
M. binghami Forel
Myrmoteras ceylonica Gregg
Oecophylla Smith
Oecophylla smaragdina Fabricius
Paratrechina Motschoulsky
Paratrechina longicornis Latrielle
Paratrechina taylori (Bolton)
Paratrechina yerburyi (Bolton)
Plagiolepis Mayr
Plagiolepis pisssina Roger
Polyrhachis Smith
Polyrhachis rastellata Smith F.
Polyrhachis (Hemioptica) bugnioni Forel
Polyrhachis (Hemioptica) scissa (Roger, 1862)
Polyrhachis (campomyrma) exercita
Dias: Current Taxonomic Status of Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Sri Lanka
Donisthorpe
Polyrhachis (Myrma) horni Emery
Polyrhachis (Myrma) illaudata Donisthorpe
Polyrhachis (Myrmhopla) jerdonii Emery
Polyrhachis (Myrma) nigra Emery
Polyrhachis (Myrmhopla) tibialis var. pectita
Santschi
Polyrhachis (Myrma) punctillata Emery
Polyrhachis (Myrmhopla) rupicapra Emery
Polyrhachis (Myrmhopla) sophocles Emery
Polyrhachis (Myrmothrinax) thrinax Forel
Polyrhachis (Myrmhopla) xanthippeEmery
Polyrhachis (Myrma) yerburyi Emery
Prenolepis Mayr
Pseudolasius Emery
Pseudolasius isabellae Forel
Acanthomyrmex Emery
Acanthomyrmex luciolae Emery
MYRMICINAE
Anillomyrma Emery
Anillomyrma decamera Ettershank
Aphaenogaster Mayr
Aphaenogaster becarii Emery
Calyptomyrmex Baroni Urbani
Calyptomyrmex singalensis Baroni Urbani
Calyptomyrmex tamil Baroni Urbani
Calyptomyrmex vedda Baroni Urbani
Cardiocondyla Emery
Cardiocondyla nuda Forel
Cataulacus Emery
Cataulacus simoni Emery
Cataulacus taprobanae Smith F.
Crematogaster Lund
Crematogaster dohrni Mayr
Crematogaster anthracina Smith
Crematogaster apicalis (Emery)
Crematogaster biroi (Emery)
Crematogaster brunnescens (Emery)
Crematogaster haputalensis (Emery)
Crematogaster pellens (Donisthorpe)
Crematogaster ransonneti Emery
Crematogaster rogeri Emery
Crematogaster rogenhoferi Mayr
Dilobocondyla Santschi
Dilobocondyla didita (Donisthorpe)
Lophomyrmex Emery
Lophomyrmex quadrispinosus (Jerdon)
Metapone Forel
Metapone greeni Forel
Metapone johni Karavaiev
Meranoplus Smith F.
Meranoplus bicolor (Smith F.)
Monomorium Mayr
Monomorium destructor (Jerdon)
Monomorium floricola (Jerdon)
Monomorium pharaonis (L.)
Monomorium latinode Mayr
Monomorium consternens (Donisthorpe)
Monomorium subopacum (Mayr)
Monomorium rogeri (Ettershank)
Monomorium criniceps (Emery)
Monomorium taprobanae (Bolton)
Monomorium mayri Forel
Myrmicaria Saunders
Myrmicaria brunnea Saunders
Oligomyrmex Ettershank
Oligomyrmex bruni Forel
Oligomyrmex butteli (Ettershank)
Oligomyrmex deponens (Donisthorpe)
Oligomyrmex aprobanae Forel
Paedalgus Forel
Paedalgus escherichi Forel.
Paratopula Wheeler
Paratopula ceylonica (Wheeler)
Pheidole Westwood
Pheidole barreleti Forel
Pheidole ceylonica Motchoulsky
Pheidole diffidens Walker
Pheidole gracilipes (Emery)
Pheidole horni Emery
Pheidole latinoda (Roger)
Pheidole malinsii Forel
Pheidole megacephala (Roger)
Pheidole nietneri Emery
Pheidole noda Smith
Pheidole parva Mayr
51
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Pheidole pronotalis Forel
Pheidole rugosa Smith F.
Pheidole spathifera Emery
Pheidole sulcaticeps Roger
Pheidole templaria Forel
Pheidologeton Mayr
Pheidologeton diversus (Jerdon)
Pheidologeton pygmaeus Emery
Pheidologeton ceylonensis Forel
Rophalomastix Forel
Rophalomastix escherichi Forel
Recurvidris (Bolton)
Recurvidris pickburni (Bolton)
Solenopsis Westwood
Solenopsis geminata Mayr
Solenopsis nitens Bingham
Stereomyrmex Emery
Stereomyrmex horni Emery (Endemic)
Strumigenys F. Smith
Strumigenys godeffroyi Brown
Strumigenys lyroessa (Roger)
Tetramorium Mayr
Tetramorium bicarinatum (Mayr)
Tetramorium curvispinosum Mayr
Tetramorium tortuosum Roger
Tetramorium simillimum (Mayr)
Tetramorium pilosum Emery
Tetramorium pacificum Mayr
Tetramorium transversarium Roger
Tetramorium yerburyi Bingham
Vollenhovia Mayr
Vollenhovia escherichi Forel
PONERINAE
Anochetus Mayr
Anochetus consultans (Brown)
Anochetus longifossatus Mayr
Anochetus madaraszi Mayr
Anochetus nietneri (Mayr)
Anochetus yerburyi Forel
Centromyrmex Mayr
Centromyrmex feae (Emery)
Cryptopone Emery
Cryptopone testacea Emery
52
Diacamma Mayr
Diacamma rugosum Mayr
Diacamma ceylonense Emery
D. didita (Donisthorpe)
Gnamptogenys Brown
Gnamptogenys coxalis (Brown)
Harpegnathos Jerdon
Harpegnathos saltator Jerdon
Hypoponera Santschi
Hypoponera ceylonensis (Taylor)
Hypoponera confinis Wilson & Taylor
Hypoponera taprobanae Bolton
Leptogenys Roger
Leptogenys ocellifera Emery
Leptogenys exudans (Donisthorpe)
Leptogenys falcigera Roger
Leptogenys hysterica Forel
Leptogenys. meritans (Donisthorpe)
Leptogenys. pruinosa Forel
Leptogenys. diminuta (Emery)
Leptogenys. yerburyi Forel
Leptogenys peuqueti (Andre)
Myopopone Roger
Myopopone castanea (Roger)
Myopias Roger
Myopias amblyops Roger
Odontomachus Latreille
Odontomachus simillimus Fred Smith
Pachycondyla Smith F.
Pachycondyla luteipes Brown
Platythyrea Roger
Platythyrea parallela (Donisthorpe)
Platythyrea clypeata Forel
PSEUDOMYRMECINAE
Tetraponera Smith F.
Tetraponera rufonigra (Smith F.)
Tetraponera allaborans
Tetraponera nigra var. insularis
(Bolton)
T. petiolata (Bingham)
LEPTANILLINAE
Leptanilla Emery
Leptanilla besucheti Baroni Urbani
Protanilla Taylor
Perera & Bambaradeniya: Species Richness,
THE FDistribution
AUNA OF SRI LANKA
and (2006):
Conservation
53-64
©
IUCN of
- The
World Conservation
Union
Status
Butterflies
in Sri Lanka
Species Richness, Distribution and Conservation Status of
Butterflies in Sri Lanka
W. P. N. Perera and C.N.B. Bambaradeniya
IUCN – The World Conservation Union, 53, Horton Place, Colombo 07, Sri Lanka
Abstract
Although butterflies are a group of charismatic insects, only a few researchers have studied them in
Sri Lanka. The total butterfly species in Sri Lanka described to date includes 243 species, classified
under five families. This includes 20 species that are endemic to the island. Their distribution in Sri
Lanka is governed by climate, topography and vegetation types. In general, a higher species richness
of butterflies occurs in the foothill areas. Several species of butterflies exhibit mass migrations,
usually from the Dry and Arid zones towards the Intermediate and Wet Zones. The paper discusses
the current conservation status of butterflies, and recommends actions to enhance their conservation.
Key words: Butterflies, Species, Distribution, Conservation
Historical background
The butterflies of Sri Lanka have been studied in detail by only a handful of researchers, starting from the
work of Fedric Moore (1880). This was followed by the pioneering studies of Ormiston (1924), Woodhouse
and Henry (1942), and Woodhouse (1950), based on extensive field observations. More recently, d’Abrera
(1998) made a publication based mainly on a study of local butterfly specimens in the Natural History
Museum in Britain, supplemented by some field observations carried out in the island.
Apart from the above works, several researchers have studied and published on the status of specific
butterfly families (Bambaradeniya and Ranawana, 1996), butterflies occurring in specific localities
(Samarasinghe et al., 1996; van der Poorten, 1996; Dening, 1992; Goonatilake and Goonatilake, 2000;
Chamikara and Sumanaratne, 1998: Perera and Perera 2001; Samarawickrama and Rajapaksha, 2003), life
cycle and natural history of species (Kolambaarachchi, 2001; Munidasa K.G.H. 1995; Nanayakkara, 1999;
Chamikara, 1998; Samarasinghe et al., 1998), and migration of species (Perera, 2001, 2002; Senaratne,
1997; Williams and Senaratne, 1998). A paper published by Gaonkar (1996) highlights the butterflies of the
Western Ghats region in India, including Sri Lanka.
Current taxonomic status
Based on phylogenetic analysis of butterflies in the world, Ackery et al (1999) revised the classification of
butterflies, and grouped them under three super families; Hedyloidea, Hesperoidea and Papilionoidea.
According to the classification of Ackery et. al (1999), the butterflies of Sri Lanka belong to the latter two
super families, representing five families. The total butterfly species in Sri Lanka described to date includes
243 species (d’Abrera, 1998) (Appendix 1), classified under Papilionoidea (Family Papilionidae – 15
species; Pieridae – 27 species; Nymphalidae – 69 species; Lycaenidae – 86 species) and Hesperoidea
(Family Hesperridae – 46 species). The total includes 20 endemic species (Papilionidae – 2; Nymphalidae
– 8; Lycaenidae – 8; Hesperridae – 2). However, ongoing taxonomical work on the group may result in an
increase in the number of endemic species (Gaonkar, in prep.).
Distribution of butterfly species
The major factors that govern the distribution of butterfly species in the island include climate, topography and
vegetation types. Most butterfly species in Sri Lanka are distributed island-wide, with differences in their
53
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
relative abundance related to bioclimatic zones. Some species occur in more than one bioclimatic/floristic zone,
while certain others are restricted in their distribution, as highlighted in Table 1. In general, a higher species
richness of butterflies occurs in the foothill areas. The populations of butterflies in the Dry and Arid Zones
reach peak levels soon after the monsoons. Their populations in the Wet Zone are also seasonal but not so
pronounced, being generally stable throughout the year, with slight reductions during high rainfall periods.
Table 1:
Butterfly species with restricted distribution patterns
Bio-climatic Zone Habitats /
Vegetation types
Species
Lowland Wet Zone
Jamides coruscans , Mycalesis rama, Hasora
badra, “Papilio helenus”
Parantica taprobana, Vanessa indica,
Lethe daretis, Udara lanka
Baracus vittatus
Pathysa nomius, Charaxes solon,
Amblypodia anita
Zizula hylax, Freyeria trochilus,Azanus jesous
Symphaedra nais, Ypthima singala
Tropical Rain Forests
Montane Wet Zone Montane and Lower
Montane Forests
Wet Patana Grassland
Lowland Dry and
Dry Zone Forests (Evergreen/
Intermediate Zone Deciduous) and scrubland
Grasslands
Savanna and Dry &
Intermediate Patana
Arid Zone (North) Scrubland, mangrove and
other coastal vegetation
Arid Zone (South) Scrubland, mangrove and
other coastal vegetation
Wet coastal zone
Mangrove and coastal
scrub Home Gardens
and secondary vegetation
Colotis danai, Colotis fausta, Azanus ubaldus,
Tarucus nara, Spindasis lunulifera, Tajuria jehana
Ixias marianne, Gomalia elma, Colotis amata,
Belenois aurota, Tarucus callinara
Euploea phaenareta, Ideopsis similes, Curetis
thetis,Zesius chrysomallus
Several species of butterflies exhibit mass migrations, soon after the north-eastern monsoon rains.
Woodhouse (1950) has listed 70 butterfly species that exhibit migratory behaviour. Most common species
that take part in mass migrations include members of the Pieridae (Pioneer, Mottled Emmigrant, Lemon
Emmigrant, Lesser Albatross). They usually migrate from the Dry and Arid zones towards the Intermediate
and Wet Zones.
Butterflies that occur in forest and scrubland vegetation types also exhibit vertical stratification, as
highlighted in Table 2.
Table 2:
Vertical stratification of butterfly species according to forest types
Vegetation Type
Strata 1
Lowland Tropical
Rain Forest
Canopy (30-40m) Sub-canopy
Pachliopta jophon, Papilio helenus,
Vindula erota
Idea iasonia,
Kallima philarchus
Understorey
Ground
Mycalesis rama,
Nissanga patina,
Jamides coruscans Melantis leda
Cheritra freja
Lowland Dryand
Intermediate Zone
Forest
Understorey
Canopy (25m)
Neptis jumbah,
Papilio crino,
Pachliopta hector, Euploea core
Hebomoia
glaucippe
Ground
Ypthima ceylonica
Leptosia nina
54
Strata 2
Strata 3
Strata 4
Perera & Bambaradeniya: Species Richness, Distribution and Conservation
Status of Butterflies in Sri Lanka
Dry and Arid
Zone Scrubland
Tall scrub (3m)
Ground layer
Cotopsila pyranthe, Leptosia nina
Ixias marianne,
Belenois aurota
-
-
Conservation status, constraints and threats to butterflies
Among the total butterfly species in Sri Lanka, 76 are nationally threatened (IUCN Sri Lanka, 2000), while
one species (the endemic Ceylon Rose – Atrophaneura jophon) is listed as globally threatened, under the
critically endangered category (IUCN, 2003). The status of 40 species could not be analyzed due to lack
of data on their occurrence and distribution. The natural history of more than 50% of the butterflies in the
island is still unknown. The major threats to butterflies in Sri Lanka include destruction and degradation of
habitats, air pollution, over-use of pesticides, over-exploitation for commercial trade and natural factors
such as prolonged drought and over-predation by opportunistic predators in managed landscapes.
A majority of the endemic species in Sri Lanka are restricted to natural forests in the Wet Zone, and their
populations have been negatively affected by clearance and fragmentation of these forests. Similarly, a
decrease in the mass migrating pierids is clearly evident during the past decade, and this may be attributed
to clearance of scrubland vegetation in the Dry and Arid Zone, for human settlements and other
development activities. Similarly, the Common Banded Peacock (Papilio crino) has declined in many
parts of the Dry Zone, with the felling of its primary food plant - Satin wood (Chloroxylon sweitenia).
The mass migratory species are also subjected to large scale mortality due to road accidents, when they
move between forest/scrubland patches fragmented by road networks.
Many species of butterflies visit and/or breed in agricultural landscapes. For instance, Bambaradeniya
(2004) documented 53 species of butterflies from a single rice field ecosystem in Bathalagoda. The
agricultural ecosystems such as rice fields in Sri Lanka are subjected to over-use of pesticides and
weedicides, and this could lead to negative impacts on butterflies that use many herbaceous food plants
(weeds) growing in such landscapes.
Over-collection of butterflies such as the Papilionids for ornamental trade is a growing concern, as indicated
by the detections of the Customs Department over the past decade.Among the butterflies subjected to
commercial trade in Sri Lanka, two species (Ceylon Rose – Pachliopta jophon, Ceylon Birdwing –
Troides darsius) are included in the CITES appendices.
Prolonged periods of drought experienced in different parts of the island during the past decade may have
also affected butterflies populations in such area, due to scarcity of food resources, and harsh conditions.
The butterflies that have adapted to survive in managed landscapes such as home gardens are negatively
affected by opportunistic predatory animals such as Ants, Mynahs, Bulbuls and Drongos, which feed on
eggs, caterpillars, pupae and adult butterflies.
There are several species that have become commoner during the past two decades, due to the expansion
of larval host plants in modified landscapes. For instance, the population of the Blue Mormon (Papilio
polymnestor) has expanded, due to the increase in the availability of its larval food plants, belonging to the
Family Rutaceae (Lime, Lemon, Orange etc.). Among the pierids, the Lemon Emigrant (Catopsilia
pomona) has increased in numbers, due to the use of Cassia fistula in avenue plantations. Similarly, the
populations of the Common Grass Yellow (Eurema hecabe) and the Three-spot Grass Yellow (Eurema
blanda) have also increased, due to the planting of Sesbania grandiflora in home gardens, and the
spread of Cassia tora in degraded areas, which are preferred larval food plants of these butterflies.
Among the danaids, the Single-banded Crow (Euploea core) has also increased in numbers, due to the
use of Nerium oleander as a home garden hedge plant. Among the lycaenids, the population of the Lesser
Grass Blue (Zizina otis) has also grown, due the expansion of grasses in disturbed areas.
55
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Current conservation actions
At present, a revival of interest on butterflies of Sri Lanka and their conservation is evident. IUCN is in the
process of compiling data on butterflies, to evaluate their conservation status, using the global Redlist
criteria and categories. IUCN has also initiated a joint programme with Dr. Michael van der Poorten, who
possesses a wealth of knowledge and experience on the butterflies in Sri Lanka, to promote research and
awareness on butterflies in the island. A pioneering website (www.srilankaninsects.net) initiated by Dr. van
der Poorten provides useful information on the butterflies of Sri Lanka, including the distribution and life
histories of several species. A proposal has already been prepared for a comprehensive field study on the
abundance, distribution, and life histories of butterflies in Sri Lanka. Several awareness creation workshops
were also organized during the recent past. Several individuals (mostly foreigners) involved in illegal
collections have been caught and filed legal action by the Department of Wildlife Conservation and the
Customs Department over the past decade. It is interesting to note that some of the private sector
corporates have begun to use butterflies to promote eco-tourism, and produced pictorial awareness material
(Wijeyeratne, 2004).
Recommendations for conservation of butterflies in Sri Lanka
The following recommendations are made to promote research and other activities to conserve the
butterflies in Sri Lanka.
z
Conduct an island-wide survey on the distribution,and flight seasons, with particular emphasis on the
once that were categorized as data deficient in the IUCN analysis conducted in 1999. This should lay
the foundation for long-term monitoring of prioritized populations in selected localities in the island.
Identify butterfly hotspots, and promote restoration of degraded areas with suitable larval host plants.
z
Conduct comparative molecular biological studies to verify the taxonomic status of the endemic
species, sub-species, races in Sri Lanka (proposed by Woodhouse, 1950 and d’Abrera, 1998) with
those of the Indian mainland.
z
Special studies should be initiated by academic institutions, focusing on the following aspects:
o
Impact of habitat degradation / forest fragmentation on local and meta populations
o
Impact of industrial/agro-chemicals.
o
Impacts of invasive alien plant species.
o
Studies on life histories and ecology of butterflies
o
Indigenous nectaring sources and larval food plants
o
Adaptations of species to changing habitats.
o
Seasonal migration, morphological variations and other behavioural patterns.
z
The repository at the national museum needs to be upgraded, in order to facilitate future research on
the taxonomy of butterflies in Sri Lanka.
z
Establish butterfly friendly habitats in non-forested areas. This should be done with the cooperation of
the private sector organizations, schools, NGOs, temples and government agencies.
o
Establish relevant larval food plants and adult nectaring plants in home gardens, urban parks, and
agricultural landscapes
Acknowledgements
We wish to extend our sincere gratitude to Dr. Michael van der Poorten, a veteran lepidopterist, for his
untiring efforts to conserve the butterflies in Sri Lanka, and for commenting on the manuscript.
56
Perera & Bambaradeniya: Species Richness, Distribution and Conservation
Status of Butterflies in Sri Lanka
Reference
Ackery, P., de Jong R. and Vane-Wright R.I. (1999), The Butterflies: Hedyloidea, Hesperoidea and
Papilionoidae. In Lepidoptera, Moths and Butterflies. 1. Evolution, Systematics and Biogeography.
Handbook of Zoology 4 (35) 263 – 300 (ed. N.P. Kristensen). Berlin: de Gruyter
Bambaradeniya C.N.B., Edirisingha J.P., De Silva D.N., Gunatilleke C.V.S., Ranawana K.B. & Wijekoon
S. (2004) Biodiversity associated with an irrigated rice agro-ecosystem in Sri Lanka , Biodiversity
and Conservation 13: 1715-1753.
Bambaradeniya and Ranawana K.B. (1996), The Swallowtail Butterflies of Sri Lanka- A plea for their
conservation, Loris xxi (2): 33-36.
Chamikara S. & Sumanarathne B.S. (1998) Records of Southern Duffer-Diseophora lepida ceylonica
(Lepidoptera:Amathusiidae) from Madakada Mukalana and Dombagaskanda, Kaluthara District. Sri
Lanka Naturalist 2 (3):20.
Chamikara S. (1998) Notes on the life history of Common Tiger Danaus genutia (Lepidoptera: Danaidae)
Sri Lanka Naturalist 2 (4): 41-43.
d’ Abrera B., (1998), The Butterflies of Ceylon, wildlife Heritage trust, Sri Lanka
Dening R.C. (1992) Butterflies in tourist resorts of Nuwara Eliya, Sri Lanka. Loris XIX (5): 168-170.
Gaonkar, H. (1996). Butterflies of Western Ghats India, including Sri Lanka. Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society, 05: 20-40.
Gaonkar, H. The Atlas of the butterflies of the Western Ghats and Sri Lanka, The Natural History
Museum, London (In preparation).
Goonatilake M.R.M.P.N. & Goonatilake W.L.D.P.T.S. de A. (2000), Butterflies (Lepidoptera: ditrysia:
Papilionoid) of Handurumulla – Pohonaruwa Forest, Loris 22 ( 4):8-10.
Kolambaarachchi R. (2000). Notes on the life cycle of Common Mormon (Papilio polytes Linn, 1758).
Sri Lanka Naturalist 4 (1):4-6.
Moore F.C. (1880-1881) The Lepidoptera of Ceylon (Vol I,II,III ) Reeve, London.
Munidasa K.G.H. (1995), Papilio crino, The Common Banded Peacock Butterfly. Loris Vol 20 (5):224225.
Nanayakkara S. (2000) Breeding the Common Grass Yellow Butterfly. Loris 22 (2): 52-53.
Ormiston W. (1924). The Butterflies of Ceylon. W.H. Cave & Company.
Perera W.P.N. (2002). An Observation of the Emigration of Pioneer Butterfly (Belenois aurota Fabricius,
1793) in Southern Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Naturalist V (3 & 4): 53-55.
Perera W.P.N. (2001). Some notes on migration of Lesser Albatross (Appias paulina) in Badulla District.
Sri Lanka Naturalist IV (4): 60-61.
Perera M.S.J. & Perera W.P.N. (2001). From the Field Note Books. Sri Lanka Naturalist 4 (1): 18-19.
Samarasinghe M.D.P., Paranagama P. and Veediyabandara S. (1998), Survey of the butterfly fauna of
Udawalawa National Park. Proceedings of the Second Annual Forestry symposium 1996,
Department of Forestry and Environmental Science, University of Sri Jayawardenapura.
Samarawickrama V.A.M.P.K and Rajapaksha D.R.N.S. (2003), A study on the butterfly faunal diversity
in various habitats in the Knuckles forest range. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Forestry symposium
2003, Department of Forestry and Environmental Science, University of Sri Jayawardenapura.
Senarathne C.V. (1997) An unusual flight of the Fivebar Swordtail Graphium antiphates ceylonicus. Sri
Lanka Naturalist 1 (2): 18-19.
57
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Tennant J.E. (1861). Natural History of Ceylon.
Van der Poorten N. (1996), Butterflies in Sri Lanka. Loris XXI: 5-7.
Williams N. & Senarathne C. (1998), Flight of butterflies at Kirinda, Hambanthota District. Sri Lanka
Naturalist II (3): 21.
Wijeyeratne, G.De S. (2004). Butterflies of Sri Lanka. Jetwing Eco Holidays.
Woodhouse L.G.O (1950). The Butterfly Fauna of Ceylon. Ceylon Government Press
Woodhouse L.G.O. & Henry G.M.R. (1942). The Butterfly Fauna of Ceylon, Ceylon Government Press,
Colombo.
58
Perera & Bambaradeniya: Species Richness, Distribution and Conservation
Status of Butterflies in Sri Lanka
Appendix 1: Checklist of Butterflies in Sri Lanka
Family
PAPILIONIDAE
PIERIDAE
Species
Troides darsius E
Pachliopta hector
Pachliopta jophon E
Pachliopta aristolochiae
Papilio crino
Papilio demoleus
Papilio helenus
Papilio polytes
Papilio polymnestor
Chilasa clytia
Graphium sarpedon
Graphium doson
Graphium agamemnon
Pathysa nomius
Pathysa antiphates
Leptosia nina
Delias eucharis
Prioneris sita
Belenois aurota
Cepora nerissa
Cepora nadina
Appias indra
Appias libythea
Appias lyncida
Appias albina
Appias paulina
Ixias marianne
Ixias pyrene
Hebomoia glaucippe
Catopsilia pyranthe
Catopsilia pomona
Pareronia ceylanica
Colotis amata
Colotis fausta
Colotis danae
Colotis aurora
Colotis etrida
Eurema brigitta
Eurema laeta
Eurema hecabe
Common Name
Common Birdwing/ Ceylon Birdwing
Crimson Rose
Ceylon Rose
Common Rose
Banded Peacock
Lime Butterfly
Red Helen
Common Mormon
Blue Mormon
Mime
Blue Bottle
Common Jay
Green Jay/ Tailed Jay
Spot Swordtail
Five bar Swordtail
Psyche
Jezebel
Painted Saw-tooth
Pioneer
Common Gull
Lesser Gull
Plain Puffin
Striped Albatross
Chocolate Albatross
Common Albatross
Lesser Albatross
White Orange Tip
Yellow Orange Tip
Great Orange Tip/ Giant Orange Tip
Mottled Emigrant/ African Emigrant
Lemon Emigrant
Blue Wanderer/ Dark Wanderer
Small Salmon Arab
Large Salmon Arab
Crimson Tip
Plain Orange Tip
Little Orange Tip
Small Grass Yellow
Spotless Grass Yellow
Common Grass Yellow
59
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
NYMPHALIDAE
60
Eurema blanda
Eurema andersoni
Idea iasonia
Ideopsis similis
Tirumala limniace
Tirumala septentrionis
Parantica aglea
Parantica taprobana
Danaus chrysippus
Danaus genutia
Euploea core
Euploea sylvester
Euploea phaenareta
Euploea klugii
Ariadne ariadne
Ariadne merione
Byblia ilithyia
Cupha erymanthis
Phalanta phalantha
Phalanta alcippe
Vindula erota
Cirrochroa thais
Cethosia nietneri
Argynnis hyperbius
Vanessa indica
Vanessa cardui
Kaniska canace
Junonia lemonias
Junonia orithya
Junonia hierta
Junonia atlites
Junonia iphita
Junonia almana
Hypolimnas bolina
Hypolimnas misippus
Doleschallia bisaltide
Kallima philarchus E
Pantoporia hordonia
Neptis hylas
Neptis jumbah
Moduza procris
Parthenos sylvia
Three-spot Grass Yellow
One-spot Grass Yellow
Tree Nymph
Blue Glassy Tiger
Blue Tiger
Dark Blue Tiger
Glassy Tiger
Ceylon Tiger
Plain Tiger
Common Tiger
Common crow
Double- banded Crow
King Crow
Brown King Crow
Angled Castor
Common Castor
Joker
Rustic
Leopard
Small Leopard
Cruiser
Tamil Yeoman/ Yeoman
Ceylon Lace Wing
Indian Fritillary
Indian Red Admiral
Painted Lady
Blue Admiral
Lemon Pansy
Blue Pansy
Yellow Pansy
Grey Pansy
Chocolate Soldier
Peacock Pansy
Great Eggfly
Danaid Eggfly
Autumn Leaf
Blue Oakleaf
Common Lasker
Common Sailor
Chestnut-streaked Sailor
Commander
Clipper
Perera & Bambaradeniya: Species Richness, Distribution and Conservation
Status of Butterflies in Sri Lanka
LYCAENIDAE
Symphaedra nais
Dophla evelina
Euthalia lubentina
Euthalia aconthea
Rohana parisatis
Polyura athamas
Charaxes solon
Charaxes psaphon
Libythea celtis
Libythea myrrha
Acraea violae
Discophora lepida
Melanitis leda
Melanitis phedima
Lethe drypetis
Lethe daretis E
Lethe dynaste E
Lethe rohria
Orsotriaena medus
Mycalesis visala
Mycalesis mineus
Mycalesis perseus
Mycalesis ramaE
Nissanga patnia
Ypthima ceylonica
Ypthima singala E
Elymnias hypermnestra
Elymnias singala E
Spalgis epeus
Curetis thetis
Arhopala abseus
Arhopala amantes
Arhopala ormistoniE
Arhopala bazaloides
Arhopala pseudocentaurus
Surendra vivarna
Zesius chrysomallus
Amblypodia anita
Iraota timoleon
Catapaecilma major
Loxura atymnus
Rathinda amor
Baronet
Red spot Duke
Gaudy Baron
Baron
Black Prince
Nawab
Black Rajah
Tawny Rajah
Beak
Club Beak
Tawny Costor
Southern Duffer
Common Evening Brown
Dark Evening Brown
Tamil Treebrown
Ceylon Treebrown
Ceylon Forester
Common Treebrown
Nigger
Tamil Bush Brown
Dark-brand Bushbrown
Common Bushbrown
Cingalese Bushbrown
Gladeye Bushbrown
White Four-ring
Jewel Four-ring
Common Palmfly
Ceylon Palmfly
Apefly
Indian Sunbeam
Aberrant Bushblue
Large Oakblue
Ormiston’s Oakblue
Tamil Oakblue
Centaur Oakblue
Common Acacia Blue
Redspot
Purple Leafblue
Silverstreak Blue
Common Tinsel
Yamfly
Monkey-puzzle
61
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Horaga onyx
Horaga albimaculata
Cheritra freja
Spindasis lohita
Spindasis vulcanus
Spindasis schistacea
Spindasis ictis
Spindasis lunulifera
Spindasis nubilus E
Tajuria cippus
Tajuria jehana
Tajuria arida E
Pratapa deva
Hypolycaena nilgirica
Bindahara phocides
Virachola perse
Virachola isocrates
Rapala iarbus
Rapala manea
Rapala varuna
Rapala lankana
Deudorix epijarbas
Anthene lycaenina
Petrelaea dana
Nacaduba pactolus
Nacaduba hermus
Nacaduba ollyetti E
Nacaduba berenice
Nacaduba sinhala E
Nacaduba kurava
Nacaduba beroe
Nacaduba calauria
Prosotas nora
Prosotas dubiosa
Prosotas noreia E
Ionolyce helicon
Jamides bochus
Jamides coruscans E
Jamides lacteata
Jamides alecto
Jamides celeno
Catochrysops panormus
62
Blue Onyx
Brown Onyx
Common Imperial
Long -banded Silverline
Common Silverline
Plumbeous Silverline
Ceylon Silverline
Scarce Shot Silverline
Clouded Silverline
Peacock Royal
Plains Blue Royal
Ceylon Indigo Royal
White Royal
Nilgiri Tit
Plane
Large Guava Blue
Common Guava Blue
Indian Red Flash
Slate Flash
Indigo Flash
Malabar Flash
Cornelian
Pointed Ciliate Blue
Dingy Lineblue
Large 4-Lineblue
Pale 4-lineblue
Woodhouse’s 4-Lineblue
Rounded 6-Lineblue
Pale Ceylon 6-Lineblue
Transparent 6-Lineblue
Opaque 6-Lineblue
Dark Ceylon 6-Lineblue
Common Lineblue
Tailless Lineblue
White-tipped Lineblue
Pointed Lineblue
Dark Cerulean
Ceylon Cerulean
Milky Cerulean
Metallic Cerulean
Common Cerulean
Silver Forget-me-not
Perera & Bambaradeniya: Species Richness, Distribution and Conservation
Status of Butterflies in Sri Lanka
HESPERIIDAE
Catochrysops strabo
Lampides boeticus
Syntarucus plinius
Castalius rosimon
Discolampa ethion
Caleta decidia
Tarucus nara
Tarucus callinara
Freyeria trochilus
Zizeeria karsandra
Zizina otis
Zizula hylax
Talicada nyseus
Everes lacturnus
Azanus ubaldus
Azanus jesous
Actyolepis lilacea
Actyolepis puspa
Celastrina lavendularis
Udara singalensis
Udara akasa
Udara lanka E
Neopithicops zalmora
Megisba malaya
Euchrysops cnejus
Chilades pandava
Chilades lajus
Chilades parrhasius
Abisara echerius
Bibasis oedipodea
Bibasis sena
Badamia exclamationis
Choaspes benjaminii
Gangara thyrsis
Gangara lebadea
Hasora chromus
Hasora taminatus
Hasora badra
Celaenorrhinus spilothyrus
Coladenia indranii
Sarangesa dasahara
Tapena thwaitesi
Forger-me-not
Pea Blue
Zebra Blue
Common Pierrot
Banded Blue Pierrot
Angled Pierrot
Striped Pierrot
Butler’s Spotted Pierrot
Grass Jewel
Dark Grass Blue
Lesser Grass Blue
Tiny Grass Blue
Red pierrot
Indian Cupid
Bright Babul Blue
African Babul Blue
Hampson’s Hedge Blue
Common Hedge Blue
Plain Hedge Blue
Singalese Hedge Blue
White Hedge Blue
Ceylon Hedge Blue
Quaker
Malayan
Gram Blue
Plains Cupid
Lime Blue
Small Cupid
Plum Judy
Branded Orange Awlet
Orange-tail Awl
Brown Awl
Indian Awl king
Gaint Redeye
Banded Redeye
Common Banded Awl
White-banded Awl
Ceylon Awl
Black flat
Tricolour Pied Flat
Common Small Flat
Black Angle
63
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Tagiades japetus
Tagiades litigiosa
Caprona ransonnettii
Caprona alida
Gomalia elma
Baracus vittatus
Ampittia dioscorides
Halpe decorata E
Halpe egena E
Halpe ceylonica
Suastus gremius
Suastus minuta
Iambrix salsala
Udaspes folus
Notocrypta paralysos
Notocrypta curvifascia
Hyarotis adrastus
Matapa aria
Spalia galba
Tractrocera maevius
Oriens goloides
Potanthus pallida
Potanthus pseudomaesa
Potanthus confuscius
Telicota colon
Telicota ancilla
Baoris penicillata
Borbo cinnara
Pelopidas agna
Pelopidas mathias
Pelopidas thrax
Pelopidas conjuncta
Cattoris kumara
Cattoris philippina
Panara bada
Ceylon Snow Flat
Water Snow Flat
Golden Angle
Ceylon Golden Angle
African Marbled Skipper
Hedge Hopper
Bush Hopper
Decorated Ace
Rare Ace
Ceylon Ace
Indian Palm Bob
Ceylon Palm Bob
Chestnut Bob
Grass Demon
Common banded Demon
Restricted Demon
Tree Flitter
Common Red eye
Indian Skipper
Common Grass Dart
Common Dartlet
Indian Dart
Common Dart
Tropic Dart
Pale Palmdart
Dark Palmdart
Paintbrush swift
Wallace’s Swift
Little Branded Swift
Small Branded Swift
Large Branded Swift
Conjoined Swift
Blanck Swift
Philippine Swift
Smallest Swift
(E – Endemic species)
64
Dilrukshi: Taxonomic
THE FAUNA
Status
OF SRI
ofLTicks
ANKA (2006):
in Sri Lanka
65-69
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Taxonomic Status of Ticks in Sri Lanka
P.R.M.P. Dilrukshi*
*National Science Foundation, 47/5, Maitland Place, Colombo 07, Sri Lanka
Abstract
Twenty-seven species of Ixodid ticks (hard ticks) belonging to nine genera have been reported to
date from Sri Lanka. Of the nine genera, genus Haemaphysalis is the best represented genus in Sri
Lanka with 11 species of ticks recorded to date. These tick species have been recorded feeding on
a range of wild and domesticated vertebrate hosts in the country.
The geographic distribution of these tick species on the island is less well understood, except in the
case of species parasiting domestic pets and livestock. A recent study carried out on the distribution
of cattle ticks in Sri Lanka recorded eight species of ticks. Of these, Boophilus sp., Haemaphysalis
bispinosa, Haemaphysalis intermedia and Rhipicepahlus haemaphysaloides showed a wide
distribution in the country, from montane to dry zones. Hyalomma marginatum, Hyalomma
brevipunctata Amblyomma integrum and Haemaphysalis spinigera were found to be more
prevalent in the low country dry zone.
The Boophilus sp. found in Sri Lanka (hitherto identified as B. annulatus s.l.) is here considered to
be an undescribed species. The immature stages (larva and nymph) of Amblyomma sp., Hyalomma
spp. and Rhipicephalus spp. have been found to attack humans extensively and have been reported
to cause severe intra-aural (within ear canal) conditions in humans in some areas of Sri Lanka.
Key words: Ticks, Research, Parasites, Taxonomy
Introduction
Ticks are obligate blood sucking external parasites of mammals, birds and reptiles found in almost every
region of the world. They are primarily parasites of wild animals and only 10% of the species feed on
domestic animals (Lane and Crosskey, 1993). Many ticks feed opportunistically on humans; some species
feed more avidly than others on human hosts. Ticks have biologically complex interactions with microorganisms and with their vertebrate hosts, on whom they depend for blood meals and survival (Wilson,
2002). Therefore, they transmit a wide variety of pathogens (bacteria, rickettsiae, protozoa and viruses)
that surpasses any other group of blood sucking arthropods. They rank second only to the mosquitoes as
vectors of life-threatening, debilitating diseases. Apart from being vectors, they also cause severe damage
to the host through their bite.
Ticks belong to the suborder Ixodida, of the Order Parasitiformes (class Arachnida; subclass: Acari), a
taxon that also includes mites (Sonenshine, 1991, Goddard, 1989). About 850 tick species belonging to two
major tick families are known to occur in the world. The Family Ixodidae includes ticks that are commonly
called ‘hard ticks’ because they possess a hard sclerotized dorsal scutum. The group includes more than
650 species belonging to thirteen genera. The Family Argasidae includes ‘soft ticks’, and contains 150
species belonging to five genera (Sonenshine, 1991). There is a third Family, the Nuttaliellidae, which is
monophyletic and share characters of both Argasidae and ixodidae, in addition to having many derived
features. The only species found in Family Nuttaliellidae is Nuttalliella namaqua Bedford 1931 collected
in localities in Namibia, Republic of South Africa, and Tanzania from nests of rock swallows and hyraxes,
and is of minor veterinary and medical importance (Sonenshine, 1991).
The studies conducted on the taxonomy and ecology of ticks in Sri Lanka are scanty. The most
comprehensive study on hard ticks in Sri Lanka was conducted by Seneviratne (1965). This study reported
26 species of ticks belonging to nine genera. This study was conducted on the samples collected by the
65
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
various persons in different parts of the country on wild and domesticated animals. Weilgama (1974)
conducted another study on taxonomy of the cattle tick Boophilus annulatus (sensu lato) in Sri Lanka.
Halim et al (1983) recorded tick species on goats in the dry zone of the country. Other citations are short
reports or brief mentions of tick species in works focused on disease aspects (e.g., Balasuriya et al., 1995;
Dilrukshi and Amerasinghe (1999 a,b); Weilgama, 1982; Weilgama et al., 1986a, 1986b, 1989a, 1989b). The
most recent and comprehensive eco-taxonomic study was by Dilrukshi (2004) on cattle ticks.
The Ixodid Tick Fauna of Sri Lanka
Twenty-seven species of ixodid ticks belonging to nine genera have been reported to date from Sri Lanka
(Seneviratne, 1965). These genera are as follows: Amblyomma Koch, 1844; Aponomma Neumann, 1899;
Boophilus Curtice, 1891; Dermacentor Koch, 1844; Haemaphysalis Koch, 1844; Hyalomma Koch, 1884;
Ixodes Latreille, 1795; Rhipicephalus Koch, 1844; and Nosomma Schulze, 1919. In the paragraphs below,
information on hosts and distribution from available literature are summarized. It is to be notes that most
are derived from fragmentary records accumulated over the years and collated in works such as
Seneviratne (1965) and others. Understandably, the bulk of information relates to ticks parasiting domestic
pets and livestock. We have, at present, a very poor understanding of the geographic distribution and host
relations of ticks parasiting wild animals in the country.
In the genus Amblyomma, three species are recorded to occur in Sri Lanka to date. They are A. integrum
Karsch, 1879, A. clypeolatum Neumann, 1899, and A. testudinarum Koch 1844. They have been reported
commonly on wild animals. Adult A. clypeolatum have been reported on the star tortoise (Testudo elegans
Schoepff), wild boar (Sus scrofa cristatus Wagner) and water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis bubalis
Linnaéus), while A. integrum has been found on a variety of animals such as sloth bear (Melursus ursinus
Shaw), water buffalo, Sambar (Cervus unicolor unicolor), domestic pig (Sus scrofa domesticus), horse
(Equus caballus), cattle (Bos spp), and elephant (Elephas maximus zeylanicus). Immature stages have
been reported on humans, the domestic cat (Felis catus), and mouse deer (Moschiola meminna).
Immature stages of A. integrum were the major intra-aural tick species in human patients in a recent study
in the Sabaragamuwa Province (Dilrukshi et al., 2004). Amblyomma testudinarum has been collected on
wild boar (Sus scrofa cristatus) and water buffalo (Senadhira, 1969).
Three species (and one variety) belonging to genus Aponomma are reported in Sri Lanka namely, A.
gervaisi Lucas, 1847; A. gervaisi var lucasi Warburton, 1910; A. javanense Supino, 1897 and A.
trimaculatum Lucas, 1878 (Seneviratne, 1965). Ticks of this Genus have been found usually on reptiles
and, rarely, on wild boar (Senadhira, 1969).
The status of the species of Genus Boophilus in Sri Lanka is presently rather unclear. Seneviratne (1965)
listed both B. microplus and B. annulatus characters in Boophilus sp. in Sri Lanka. Later, Weilgama
(1974) found that the Sri Lankan “B. annulatus” differed from the typical form, listed it as B. annulatus
(sensu lato). Dilrukshi (2004) provides a detailed analysis of the complex of character traits seen in the Sri
Lankan species and does not consider the species to be closely allied to B. annulatus. Taxonomic material
pertaining to the Sri Lanka Boophilus is currently under study at the Institute of Arthropodology and
Parasitology, USA, and the consensus of opinion is that this is a distinct and as yet undescribed species
(personal communication from L. Durden, Institute of Arthropodology and Parasitology (IAP), Georgia,
Southern University, USA). Boophilus generally feed on mammalian hosts and have been recorded on
the domestic dog (Canis famialiris), leopard (Panthera pardus kotiya), spotted deer (Cervus axis
ceylonensis), Sambar (Cervus unicolor) , buffalo, goat (Capra hircus), sheep (Ovis sp.), cattle and horse
(Seneviratne 1965, Balasuriya et al 1997, Dilrukshi and Amerasinghe 1999 a&b, Dilrukshi and
Amerasinghe, 2000). They have been recorded on humans (Seneviratne, 1967, Dilrukshi et al, 2004). This
species was the most abundant cattle tick found in Sri Lanka (Dilrukshi, 2004).
The genus Dermacentor Koch, 1844 is represented by only one species D. auratus in Sri Lanka on wild
pig, Sambar and sloth bear. Edussuriya and Weilgama (2003) reported immature stages of this species
infesting human ear canals at the Central Province location of Kandy.
66
Dilrukshi: Taxonomic Status of Ticks in Sri Lanka
The Genus Nosomma too, is represented by one species, N. monstrosum Nuttall and Warburton 1908 on
wild pig, and wild and domesticated water buffalo (Seneviratne 1965). The genus Ixodes, is represented
by two species, Ixodes petauristae Warburton, 1938 and Ixodes ceylonensis Kohls, 1950 (Kohls, 1950).
The ticks of this genus are poorly represented on large mammals and seem to occur more on small
mammals such as mongoose (Herpestes fuscus), rat (e.g. Rattus rattus kandiyanus), and birds such as
the Ceylon bush lark (Mirafra affinis ceylonensis) in Sri Lanka.
The Genus Rhipicephalus Koch, 1844 is represented by two species, R. haemaphysaloides Supino, 1897
and R. sanguineus Latreille, 1806. These two species have a wide distribution in the country.
Rhipicephalus haemaphysaloides is found on animals such as domestic dog, cattle, domesticated water
buffalo, sheep, goat, horse, chicken (Gallus domesticus), and on wild animals such as black-naped hare
(Lepus nigricollis sinhala) and wild boar; immature forms occur on humans (Senadhira, 1969; Halim et
al., 1983, Dilrukshi 2004, Dilrukshi et al., 2004). The species R. sanguineus is found more on domestic
stock such as the cat, domesticated water buffalo, sheep, cattle, dog, chicken and also on hare. The larva
and nymph occurs on humans (Seneviratne, 1965; Senadhira, 1969, Dilrukshi et al., 2004).
In the Genus Hyalomma, Seneviratne (1965) recorded one species Hy. marginatum isaaci Sharif, 1928 on
cattle, domesticated water buffalo, goat, sheep horse, leopard, and wild water buffalo. The larva occurs
on mongoose (Herpestes flavidens), hare and mouse deer in Sri Lanka. More recently Weilgama et al.
(1989) reported the presence of another species Hy. brevipunctata Sharif, 1928 on domestic water
buffaloes in Sri Lanka. Dilrukshi and Amerasinghe 1999 reported the presence of Hy. brevipunctata on
neat cattle in Sri Lanka in the areas of low country dry zone , low country wet zone and mid county regions
in the island. Dilrukshi et al. (2004) reported the occurrence of nymphs of Hy. marginatum and Hy.
brevipunctata in the ear canal of humans in Ratnapura district. This is one of the common species found
to attack humans in association with jungle or areas with a high density of vegetation.
Of the nine genera, Genus Haemaphysalis is the best represented genus in Sri Lanka with 11 species of
ticks recorded to date. They are as follows 1. H. aculeata Lavarra, 1905; 2. H. bispinosa Neumann,
1897; 3. H. cuspidata Warburton, 1910; 4. H. cornigera var anamala Warburton; 1913, 5. H. hystricis
Supino, 1897; 6. H. intermedia Warburton and Nuttal 1909; 7. H. kyasanursensis Trapido, Hoogstraal and
Rajagopalan, 1964; 8. H. leachi var indica Warburton, 1910; 9. H. minuta Kohls, 1950; 10. H. spinigera
Neumann, 1897; 11. H. turturis Nuttall and Warburton 1915. The ticks of this genus are found on a wide
variety of animals such as wild mammals, livestock, birds, and immature forms sometimes on humans
(Seneviratne 1965, Senadhira, 1969).
The most widespread species of this Genus are H. bispinosa and H. intermedia which are found on cattle,
domesticated buffaloes, sheep, goat, dog, chicken, leopard, Ceylon jackal (Canis lanka Wroughton), sloth
bear, hare, mouse deer, and Ceylon jungle fowl (Gallus lafayetti Lesson). Apart from these hosts,
H. intermedia also has been found on wild boar and spotted deer, and immature stages found on the forest
wagtail (Dendronanthus indicus Gemlin), a migrant bird from India (Senevirathene, 1965, Halim et al.,
1983 and Halim 1984). The H. bispinosa and H. intermedia are common cattle ticks found in all parts of
the country (Dilrukshi, 2004). Recent morphometric analyises done on the H. bispinosa populations found
in the low country dry, low country wet, mid country, and montane wet zones showed three distinct sub
populations of this taxon. This is an indication of the probable presence of a subspecies or species complex
within the taxon identified as “H. bispinosa” on the island – an aspect that needs further investigation.
The species H. spinigera has been recorded on cattle, leopard and sloth bear, and immature stages
recovered from the forest wagtail (Seneviratne, 1965). H. spinigera was only found in the cattle of low
country dry zone (Dilrukshi, 2004). Haemaphysalis cornigera has been collected only from sambar at
Elahara in the North Central Province. Heamaphysalis aculeata has been recorded on mouse deer,
leopard and mongoose, and is known to attack humans. The species H. cuspidata is another species found
on domestic goat, and also has been recorded on wild animals such as leopard, Ceylon civet cat
(Viverricula indica mayori), mongoose, polecat (Paradoxurus hermaphroditus hermaphroditus) and
mouse deer. This species appears to be restricted to Sri Lanka (Seneviratne, 1965). Haemaphysalis
67
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
hystricis has been found only on wild mammals such as the sloth bear wild boar, and birds such as the
common Ceylon mynah (Acridotheres tristis melanosternus). Haemaphysalis kyasanursensis has been
recorded on the Indian crested porcupine (Hystrix indica), and H. leachi var indica has been recorded on
goat, Ceylon civet cat and Grey flying squirrel (Petaurista philipensis lanka ) and nymphs collected on
forest wagtails. Haemaphysalis minuta has been recorded on chicken, Ceylon civet cat, and Ceylon jungle
fowl. Haemaphysalis turturis has been recorded on leopard, civet cat, spotted deer, wild boar, Sambar,
Ceylon small civet (Viverricula indica mayori), spotted dove (Streptopelia chinensis ceylonensis) and
black crow (Corvus macrorhynchos culminatus) (Seneviratne, 1965).
The checklist of the ticks found in Sri Lanka presented here is based on the studies of Seneviratne (1965),
Weilgama et al. (1989), Dilrukshi et al. (1999 a&b) and Dilrukshi (2004).
Issues and gaps related to tick research
There have been many studies relating to livestock-related tick-borne disease aspects in Sri Lanka (see
review in Dilrukshi 2004). However, a paucity of published literature in the fields of tick taxonomy and
ecology show that these areas have been somewhat neglected during the past 25 years. There are no
comprehensive taxonomic keys or descriptions of the tick fauna of the island. Intra-species morphological
variability in relation to geographic, climatological, and/or other factors within their distributional range on
the island is poorly known except for the Boophilus annulatus (sensu lato) of Weilgama (1974) and the
cattle ticks investigated by Dilrukshi (2004). Information on ecology, too, seems to have been more a byproduct of studies focused on disease aspects of tick infestations, rather than ecologically focused
investigations. The most recent work is that of Dilrukshi, (2004), who carried out a taxonomic and
ecological study of ticks parasitizing cattle in four zones climatological within Sri Lanka in order to
determine the distribution of ticks species, the tick parasite burden borne by cattle in different localities,
and the distribution of different species on the body of the host. Dilrukshi et al, (2004) conducted a limited
investigation on human infestations of ticks, based on hospital records and surgically removed tick
specimens. An attempt also was made by author to investigate the molecular basis of the intra-species
morphological variation seen in tick populations.
Future research priorities
It is felt that apart from the tick species presently known there can be more unknown species present in
Sri Lanka. Therefore more comprehensive island wide surveys on ticks in different hosts in Sri Lanka
should be carried out to investigate the current status of ticks in the country. Additionally, systematically
collected information is necessary on distributional, ecological, and pathogen relations of ticks that parasitize
both domestic and wild animals, as well as those that appear to be exclusive wild animal feeders. This is an
important priority in an era when, increasingly, human population expansion at the expense of wild areas
creates conditions where zoonotic infections are tranisiting from their natural cycles, impinging on humans,
and causing human disease.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Dr. F.P. Amerasinghe and Dr. P.H. Amerasinghe for their guidance in this work. I thank
for the support given by the staff of the Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science in the University of
Peradeniya where the work of this study was carried out. This work was supported by the Sri Lanka
National Science Foundation (Grant No. Rg/96/B/01).
References
Balasuriya, C.A., Amerasinghe, P.H. and Amerasinghe, F.P. (1995). Distribution of ticks (Acarina:
Ixodidae) on the body of the dogs. Abst. Proceedings of the Annual Research Sessions 1995.
Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. Session IIB, 8.
68
Dilrukshi: Taxonomic Status of Ticks in Sri Lanka
Dilrukshi, P.R.M.P. (2004). Aspects of the Ecology and Morphotaxonomy of cattle ticks (Acarari:Ixodidae)
in Sri Lanka. Ph.D. thesis, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. unpublished.
Dilrukshi, P.R.M.P., and Amerasinghe, F.P. (1999a). Trends in the abundance of cattle ticks
(Acari:Ixodidae) in different climatic zones in Sri Lanka. Abst. Annual Research Session: University
of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. Proceedings and Abstracts, 26.
Dilrukshi, P.R.M.P. and Amerasinghe, F.P. (1999b). A study on the ecology of cattle ticks (Acari:Ixodidae)
in Sri Lanka. Abs. Proceedings of the 55th Annual Sessions, Sri Lanka Association for the
Advancement of Science, Part 1, 173-174.
Dilrukshi, P.R.M.P. and Amerasinghe, P.H. (2000). A study on the abundance, distribution and protein
profiles (SDS-PAGE) of cattle ticks (Acarina: Ixodidae). Abs. Proceedings of the 56TH Annual
Sessions, Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science, Part 2, 186.
Dilrukshi, P.R.M.P., Yasawardene, A.D.K.S.N., Amerasinghe P.H. and Amerasinghe, F.P. (2004). Human
otoacariasis: a retrospective study from an area of Sri Lanka. Transactions of the Royal Society of
Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 98, 489-495.
Edussuriya, B.D.P., Weilgama, D.J. (2003). Case reports: intra-aural tick infestations in humans in Sri
Lanka. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 97: 412-413.
Goddard, J. (1989). Ticks and tick borne diseases affecting military personnel. School of Medicine,
Human System Division (AFSC), Brook Air Force Base, Texas, 78235-5301.
Halim, S.R. (1984). Studies on the Ixodidae of goats in the dry zone of Sri Lanka with special reference to
Haemaphysalis intermedia Warburton and Nuttal 1909, M.V. MSc. thesis, University of Peradeniya,
Sri Lanka.
Halim S.R., Weilgama, D.J., Perera, P.S.G., and Fernando S.T. (1983). Ixodidae on Goats in the dry zone
of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Veterinary Journal 31, 14-20.
Kohls, G. M. (1950). Two new species of ticks from Ceylon (Acarina: Ixodidae). Journal of Parasitology
36, 319-321.
Lane, R.P. and Crosskey, R.W. (1993). Medical Insects and Arachnids. Chapman and Hall, 2-6 Boundary
Raw, London SE1 8HN, UK.
Senadhira, M.A.P. (1969). The parasites of Ceylon V. Arthropoda, a host check list. Ceylon Veterinary
Journal, XVII (1), 3-25.
Sonenshine, D.E. (1991). Biology of Ticks. Vol 1. New York Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Weilgama, D.J. (1974). Studies of Boophilids in Sri Lanka. MVS thesis, University of Sri Lanka,
Peradeniya campus, Sri Lanka.
Weilgama, D.J. (1982). Ecto and haemoprotozoan parasites of the water buffalo in Sri Lanka. Proceedings
of the Workshop on water buffalo research in Sri Lanka 24-28 November 1982, Peradeniya, Sri
Lanka. SAREC report R3: Stockholm, Sweden, 134.
Weilgama, D.J., Perera, P.S., Nanayakkara, E., and Nambuge, D. (1986a). Observations on Theileriosis
among cattle and buffaloes in Sri Lanka. Abs. S.L. Vet. J., 34, 64.
Weilgama D.J., Weerasinghe, H.M.C., Perera P.S.G., Navaratne M., (1986b). Pre-imunisation of calves
using 60Co irradiated Babesia bigemina. Abst. Sri Lanka Veterinary Journal 34, 65-66.
Weilgama, D.J., Bahirathan, M. and Perera P.S.G. (1989a). Studies on some protozoan infections of
buffaloes in Sri Lanka. Abs. Proceedings of Symposium on buffalo research in Sri Lanka. 41-43.
Weilgama, D.J., Perera, P.S., Nanayakkara, E., and Nambuge, D. (1989b). Observations on Theileriosis
among cattle and buffaloes in Sri Lanka. Abs. Sri Lanka Veterinary Journal 34, 64.
Wilson, M.E. (2002). Prevention of tick-borne diseases. Medical Clinics of North America (Philadelphia,
PA) 86 (2), 219-238.
69
The
T
HE F
Fauna
AUNA OFofSRI
SriLANKA
Lanka
(2006):
(2006)
70-76
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Systematics and Conservation of Spiders in Sri Lanka:
Current Status and Future Prospects
Suresh P. Benjamin* and Channa N. B. Bambaradeniya§
*University of California, Berkeley, Insect Biology Division – ESPM, 201 Wellman Hall #3112 Berkeley,
CA 94720-3112. E-mail: sureshb@gwu.edu.
§
IUCN – The World Conservation Union, Regional Species Programme,
53, Horton Place, Colombo 07, Sri Lanka. E-mail:cnb@iucnsl.org
Abstract
In this review we examine recent advances in our understanding of the systematic status of Sri
Lankan spider fauna, which currently consist of 501 known species. In general they are very poorly
known. The endemic spider fauna are confined to the natural forests of the south-west and the
central highland region and are related to that of Western Ghats in India. Detailed collection based
study is needed before further conclusions could be drawn.
Key words: Spiders, Taxonomy
Introduction
Sri Lanka with a forest cover of approximately 23% of total land area, is known to be of great conservation
importance, highlighted by the presence of a rich endemic fauna and flora. The island is classified as one
of the 25 global biodiversity ‘hot spots’ with an extraordinary level of endemism, and with an imminent
threat of habitat loss. The tropical rainforests in the south-west of Sri Lanka has been reduced to a great
extent during the past five decades, and at present the near-primary forest cover accounts for less than
5% of the land area of the biodiversity-rich Wet Zone of the island. The existing forest patches of the wet
zone are in a severely fragmented state.
Spiders are one of the most diverse arthropod groups, and an important component in terrestrial
ecosystems. They are valuable indicators of endemism, and for early warning of ecological change. They
are capable of responding more rapidly to changes in the environment than long-living vertebrates and plants.
Many spiders in Sri Lanka could be used as focal species in the complex process of deciding which habitats
afford conservation priority. The above salient aspects related to spiders and ongoing rapid habitat destruction,
make the collection and study of Sri Lankan spider fauna most important. In this review we will highlight the
current status of spider taxonomy using a set of families currently under revision. We discuss previous work
on the group, current state of knowledge, problems encountered and suggest future directions. Although,
our focus is on spiders, the interpretations presented should prove useful for other arthropod taxa as well.
Taxonomy of spiders in Sri Lanka
In general spiders in Sri Lanka are very poorly known. Scientific documentation of spiders in Sri Lanka
began with the work of Pickard-Cambridge (1869). The last comprehensive study was conducted more
than a century ago by Pocock (1900). A few foreign researchers worked on a few spider families in Sri
Lanka there after (Brignoli, 1972, 1975; van Helsdingen, 1985). Involvement of local researchers in spider
taxonomy in Sri Lanka began with the works of Wijesinghe (1983, 1987) who conducted a preliminary
survey and a review on the group. He stated that a little over 400 species of spiders are known from Sri
Lanka, with an estimation of the actual total number to be close to 1000. The 1990s onwards has been a
period of renowned interest on spider taxonomy in Sri Lanka, with several new species being described
(Benjamin, 1999, 2000, 2001; Benjamin and Jocque, 2000; Wijesinghe, 1997, 1999a, 1999b). Bambaradeniya
(2001) documented seven spider taxa (two species and five genera occurring in the oriental region) that
70
Benjamin & Bambaradeniya: Systematics and Conservation of Spiders in Sri Lanka:
Current Status and Future Prospects
are new records to Sri Lanka, from a rice field ecosystem at Bathalagoda. Recently, Huber and Benjamin
(2005) described a new genus (Wanniyala) of pholcid spiders from the island.
Based on a review of these recent advances on spiders, it could be stated that the Sri Lankan spider fauna
consists of about 501 known species, under 45 families (Appendix 1). However, the actual number might
be even exceeding 4000 species. Among the total species described so far, the Mygalomorphs (commonly
referred to as ‘tarantulas’ or ‘bird-eating spiders’) consist of 21 species, under five families. They are
dominated by the Family Theraphosidae, which is represented by 10 species currently described from the
island (Smith and Kirk, 2002). The balance consist of Araneomorphs, which are dominated by the jumping
spiders (Family Salticidae – 104 species).
In general even the described taxa are very poorly known. Many species and even new genera await
discovery and description. The taxonomical identity of most known species is uncertain as these were
described without modern taxonomical standards and/or were based on juvenile specimens. Further, field
work, mainly in the south western and central highlands and detailed systematic studies will be needed to
provide a more complete picture of the spider fauna of Sri Lanka.
Distribution
The spiders of Sri Lanka are distributed throughout the island, from the high mountains to the coast, occurring
in natural and managed environments. Preliminary results suggest that the endemic spider fauna are confined
to the intact natural forests in the south-west and the central highland region. In some cases there appears to
be sister species in lowland rainforest, central highlands and the forest of the knuckles conservation area.
Preliminary results suggest that Sri Lankan endemic spider fauna are more related to that of Western Ghats
in India. This biogeographic pattern is in accordance to that of what is known for other faunal groups.
For example, the primitive jumping spider Genus Onomustus Simon. 1900, is represented by O. nigricauda
in the Sinharaja forest reserve, by O. quinquenotatus (Agra-bopath forest reserve) and Onomustus sp A
(from Hakgala) in the central highlands and by Onomustus sp B from Knuckels conservation area. In the
case of Oxytate subvirens (Strand, 1907), which is not an endemic, it is found in disturbed habitats and is
widely distributed. On the other hand Oxytate taprobane Benjamin, 2001 is endemic to the central
highlands. The two Sri Lankan Oxytate species are certainly closely related, but their taxonomic affinities
to other species in Oriental region is unclear due to the limited information available. Although the type
species of Oxytate was re described, a generic revision still remains to be done. Thus, most species of the
genus are only known from their original descriptions. Thus, even the non-endemic spider fauna of Sri
Lanka is in need of study.
Research in progress
Currently the spiders of the families Thomisidae, Tetragnathidae, Saticidae, Pholcidae and Zodariidae are
being revised. Some Genera of the spider Families Tetrablemmidae (Lehtinen, 1981), Stenochilidae
(Lehtinen, 1982), Ochyroceratidae (Brignoli, 1972, 1975), Hersiliidae (Baehr & Baehr, 1993), Nesticidae
(Lehtinen & Saaristo, 1980), Linyphiidae (Helsdingen, 1985) and Lycosidae (Lehtinen & Hippa, 1979) have
been revised. Benjamin (2004) has conducted a taxonomic revision for the jumping spider subfamily
Ballinae (Araneae, Salticidae). A survey of the pholcid spiders of the island has been undertaken (Huber &
Benjamin, 2005). A study on the occurrence and distribution of Theraphosids in the south-western part of
Sri Lanka is currently under progress. However, as only a few habitats have been sampled in these studies,
many more new species should be expected.
Conservation
So far Arachnida and other invertebrates have hardly been considered for conservation in Sri Lanka,
neither for biodiversity assessment nor for conservation research. The reasons for this are multifold: Sri
71
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Lanka’s conservation program is based on large vertebrates, of high aesthetic value. The other reasons
include the unmanageable number of species involved, non-availability of sufficient taxonomical information
and a dearth of trained personnel to work on the group. The drawbacks are that decisions have been based
on a very small fraction of the total biodiversity. Not much work has been done on the ecology or biology
of the Sri Lankan spider fauna. This absence of faunistic information could also hamper attempts to
interpret the faunal composition of the Indian subcontinent as well as understanding biogeography patterns.
For a detailed assessment of the spider fauna a good systematic collection of material representing all
ecological regions within the island is needed. To date no such collection is available. Collections housed in
major museums seem to be random collections not suitable for a detailed study.
The descriptions of most of the known species are around 100 or more years old, no illustrations were
provided, making identification difficult. Furthermore, the exact localities are unknown, in some cases only
the main cities like Colombo, Galle or Kandy is given, making positive identification extremely difficult.
It may be necessary to examine museum material, most of which are in Europe or the USA. These
voucher specimens are difficult to obtain from Sri Lanka. Moreover, in some cases it is necessary to
examine types of Indian species, as related species of a Genus currently known only from India may occur
in Sri Lanka. For example the Genus Colaxes Simon, 1900 (Salticidae) was only known by a single
species, Colaxes nitidiventris, from Trichinopoly, India. During recent field work two new species,
Colaxes wanlessi Benjamin, 2004 (from Hakgala, Hakgala forest and Agra-bopath forest) and Colaxes
horton, Benjamin, 2004 (from Horton Plains) both in the central highland were discovered. In another case,
the Genus Suffasia was established in 1893, for two species from southern India. The type species,
S. tigrina (Simon, 1893) from Kodaikanal, Tamil Nadu, and an undescribed species from the same locality.
During recent field work in Sri Lanka two undescribed species were collected. The first one, Suffasia
mahasumana Benjmain and Jocqué, 2000 (from the Knuckles Range) and the second species, Suffasia
attidiya Benjamin and Jocqué, 2000 (from the Bellanwila-Attidiya sanctuary and the Kalugala, Labugama
Forest Reserve). Thus, if we are to avoid the creation of new synonyms the simultaneous study of Indian
types may be necessary.
In some cases the types may be lost. The type of Oxytate subvirens (Strand, 1907) was deposited in the
Staatlichees Museum für Naturkunde, Stuttgart, Germany. This collection was destroyed during the
second-world war, and the description was based on female specimens, with no illustrations. There was no
recent redescription of O. subvirens or any other Oxytate species from Sri Lanka. As closely related
Oxytate species can be reliably identified only by male genital morphology the designation of a male
neotype and redescription of the species based on both sexes become necessary.
Future directions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Establishing a reference collection of spiders.
Redescription of known taxa.
Study of their behaviour/life history.
Inclusion of spiders in conservation decision-making.
Training of taxonomists and para taxonomists in Sri Lanka.
References
Baehr, M. & Baehr, B. 1993. The Hersiliidae of the Oriental Region including New Guinea. Taxonomy,
phylogeny, zoogeography (Arachnida, Araneae). Spixiana Supplement 19: 1-95.
Bambaradeniya, C.N.B. and Jayanthi P. Edirisinghe. 2001. The Ecological Role of Spiders in the Rice
fields of Sri Lanka. Biodiversity 2: 3-10.
72
Benjamin & Bambaradeniya: Systematics and Conservation of Spiders in Sri Lanka:
Current Status and Future Prospects
Benjamin, S. P. 1999. Taxonomical studies on some spiders (Araneae) from Sri Lanka. Families:
Scytodidae, Tetragnathidae, Lycosidae and Thomisidae. M.Sc. Thesis, University of
Innsbruck.pp.140.figs.280.
Benjamin, S. P. 2000. Epidius parvati sp. n., a new species of the genus Epidius from Sri Lanka
(Araneae:Thomisidae). Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society 11: 284-288.
Benjamin, S. P. and Jocqué R. 2000. Two new species of the genus Suffasia from Sri Lanka (Araneae:
Zodariidae). Revue suisse de Zoologie, 107: 97-106.
Benjamin, S. P. 2001. The genus Oxytate L. Koch 1878 from Sri Lanka, with description of Oxytate
taprobane sp. n. (Araneae: Thomsidae). Journal of South Asian Natural History. 5: 153-158, 10 figs.
Benjamin, S. P. 2004. Taxonomic revision and phylogenetic hypothesis for the jumping spider subfamily
Ballinae (Araneae, Salticidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 142: 1-82.
Brignoli, P. M. 1972. Ragni di Ceylon I. Mission biospeleologica Aellen-Strinati (1970) (Arachnida,
Araneae). Revue Suisse de Zoologie. 79: 907-929.
Brignoli, P. M. 1975. Araneae: Ochyroceratidae from Ceylon. Spiders from Ceylon II. Entomologica
Sacandinavica Supplementum. 4: 234-239.
Helsdingen, P. J. van 1985. Araneae: Linyphiidae of Sri Lanka, with a note on Erigonidae. Entomologica
Scandinavica Supplement. 30: 13-30.
Huber, B. A. & Benjamin, S. P. 2005. The pholcid spiders from Sri Lanka: redescription of Pholcus
ceylonicus and description of a new genus (Araneae: Pholcidae). Journal of Natural History. 39
(37): 3305-3319
Lehtinen, P. T. 1982. Spiders of the Oriental-Australian region IV.
Stenochilidae. Annales Zoologici Fennici 19: 115-128.
Lehtinen, P. T. & Hippa, H. 1979. Spiders of the Oriental-Australian region. I. Lycosidae: Venoniinae and
Zoicinae. Annales Zoologici Fennici 16: 1-22.
Lehtinen, P. T. & Saaristo, M. I. 1980. Spiders of the Oriental-Australian region. II. Nesticidae. Annales
Zoologici Fennici 17: 47-66.
Lehtinen, P. T. 1981. Spiders of the Oriental-Australian region. III. Tetrablemmidae, with a world revision.
Acta Zoologica Fennica 162: 1-151.
Pocock, R. I. 1900. The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Arachnida: i-xii, 1-279.
London.
Smith, A. and Kirk, P. (2002). A Field Guide on the Theraphosid Spiders of India and Sri Lanka, particularly
the Genus Poecilotheria. Fittzgerald Publication.
Wijesinghe, D.P. 1983. Spiders of Sri Lanka: An introductory survey. B.Sc Thesis (unpublished) University
of London, London.
Wijesinghe, D.P. 1987. The present status of spider taxonomy in Sri Lanka. Proceedings of the workshop
on “Present Status of Faunal Taxonomy in Sri Lanka”, Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of
Science. pp 7-19.
Wijesinghe, D. P. 1991a. A new species of Gelotia (Araneae: Salticidae) from Sri Lanka. Journal of the
New York Entomological Society 99: 274-277.
Wijesinghe, D. P. 1991b. New species of Phaeacius from Sri Lanka, Sumatra and the Philippines
(Araneae: Salticidae). Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society 8: 249-255.
Wijesinghe DP. 1997. Relationships of Spartaeine and other Primitive Jumping Spiders, with Reviews of
Cyrba and Cocalus and Description of a New Genus (Arachnida: Araneae: Salticidae). Unpublished
D. Phil. Thesis, The City University of New York.
73
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Appendix 1. Species richness of spiders under different families and genera in Sri Lanka
Family / Genera
Number of
pecies
Mygalomorphs
Idiopidae
Heligmomerus, Scalidognathus
4
Dipluridae
Ischnothele
1
Nemesiidae
Atmetochilus
1
Barychelidae
Diplothele, Plagiobothrus, Sason, Sipalolasma
5
Theraphosidae
Chilobrachys, Plesiophrictus, Poecilotheria
10
Araneomorphs
Scytodidae
Loxosceles, Scytodes
3
Tetrablemmidae
Brignoliella, Pahanga, Shearella, Tetrablemma
7
Pholcidae
Artema, Belisana, Crossopriza, Leptopholcus, Micropholcus, Modisimus, Pholcus,
Psilochorus, Smeringopus, Spermophora, Wanniyala
18
Ochyroceratidae
Merizocera, Simonocera
7
Segestriidae
Ariadna
12
Stenochilidae
Stenochilus
1
Mimetidae
Mimetus, Phobetinus
3
Oonopidae
Aprusia, Epectris, Gamasomorpha, Ischnothyreus, Opopaea, Orchestina, Xestaspis
5
Eresidae
Stegodyphys
1
Oecobiidae
Oecobius
1
Hersiliidae
Hersilia, Tama
5
Uloboridae
Hyptiotes, Miagrammopes, Uloborus, Zosis
6
Nesticidae
Nesticella
1
Theridiidae
Achaearanea, Anelosimus, Argyrodes, Cephalobares, Chrysso, Coleosoma,
Coscinida, Dipoena, Enoplognatha, Episinus, Euryopis, Gnathonarium,
Latrodectus, Molione,Phoroncidia, Steatoda, Theridion, Theridula, Thwaitesia
42
74
Benjamin & Bambaradeniya: Systematics and Conservation of Spiders in Sri Lanka:
Current Status and Future Prospects
Theridiosomatidae
Ogulnius, Theridiosoma
2
Theridiosomatidae
Ogulnius, Theridiosoma
2
Mysmenidae
Mysmenella, Phricotelus
2
Linyphiidae
Atypena, Labullinyphia, Lepthyphantes, Meioneta, Metalepthyphantes,
Microbathyphantes, Neriene, Obrimona, Lygarina, Nematogmus, Trematocephalus,
Typhistes
20
Tetragnathidae
Dyschiriognatha, Nephila, Tetragnatha
28
Araneidae
Anepsion, Arachnura, Araneus, Argiope, Caerostris, Chorizopes, Clitaetrea, Cyclosa,
Cyrtarachne, Cyrtophora, Gasteracantha, Gea, Glyptogona, Herennia, Homalopoltys,
Mangora, Neogea, Neoscona, Nephilengys, Ordgarius, Poltys, Pronous,Ursa
53
Hahniidae
Aviola, Hahnia
5
Dictynidae
Atelolathys, Brigitta, Dictyna, Dictynomorpha, Rhion
5
Agelenidae
Tegenaria
2
Titanoecidae
Pandava
1
Psechridae
Fecena, Psechrus
2
Oxyopidae
Oxyopes, Peucetia
7
Ctenidae
Ctenus
2
Zoridae
Diallomus
2
Lycosidae
Arctosa, Hippasa, Hogna, Ocyale, Pardosa, Zoica
16
Pisauridae
Perenethis, Thalassius
5
Miturgidae
Campostichomma, Devendra
4
Liocranidae
Argistes, Paratus
4
Clubionidae
Cheiracanthium, Corinna, Matidia, Medmassa, Simalio, Sphingius
11
Corinnidae
Castianeira, Aetius, Coenoptychus, Copa (Koppe), Oedignatha, Orthobula,
Sphecotypus, Trachelas, Utivarachna
21
75
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Zodariidae
Cryptothele, Storena. Suffasia
6
Cryptothelidae
Cryptothele
1
Selenopidae
Selenops
1
Sparassidae
Heteropoda, Olios, Pandercetes, Spariolenus, Thelcticopis
22
Philodromidae
Thanatus, Gephyrota, Tibellus
2
Thomisidae
Amyciae, Ascurisoma, Boliscus, Borboropactus, Cymbacha, Diaea, Epidius,
Holopelus, Lysiteles, Monaeses, Pagida, Peritraeus, Phrynarachne, Runcinia,
Stiphropus, Tagulis, Talaus, Thomisus, Tmarus
36
Salticidae
Asemonea, Ballus, Bianor, Brettus, Carrhotus, Chrysilla, Cocalus, Colaxes, Colopsus,
Cosmophasis, Curubis, Cyrba, Epidelazia, Epocilla, Euphrys, Flacillula, Gangus,
Gelotia, Harmochirus, Hasarius, Hispo, Hyllus, Icius, Irura, Maevia, Marengo,
Menemerus, Modunda, Mymarachne, Onomastus, Padillothoraz, Panachraesta,
Panysinus, Phaeecius,Phausina, Phintella, Phyaces, Plexippus, Plotius, Portia,
Ptocasius, Rhene, Saitis, Sandalodes, Sigytes, Siler, Simaetha, Spartaeus, Stergusa,
Telamonia, Thiania, Thyene, Uroballus
106
Total
501
76
Bahir & Pethiyagoda: Conservation
THEofFAUNA
Sri Lankan
OF SRI LANKA
Freshwater
(2006): Crabs
77-83
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Conservation of Sri Lankan Freshwater Crabs
Mohomed M. Bahir*§ & Rohan Pethiyagoda*
*
§
Wildlife Heritage Trust, 95 Cotta Road, Colombo 8, Sri Lanka.
Durrell Institute for Conservation Ecology, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NS, U.K..
Abstract
A surge in research interest on Sri Lanka’s freshwater crabs since the early 1990s has resulted in
the discovery of several new crab species in the island, with 51 species being described to date. All
Sri Lankan freshwater crab species recorded so far, along with 5 genera are endemic to the island.
It is alarming to note that 37 of the 51 species are threatened with extinction, with 26 species being
restricted to a single site. This paper discusses the threats in detail, and lists actions that need to be
taken to safeguard these species from future extinction. Based on the findings it is apparent that
conservation actions should involve not only more extensive research in to this field, but also legal
and institutional reforms which will engage local communities in the in- situ conservation of
freshwater crabs.
Key words: Freshwater crabs, Conservation, Pollution, Invasive species
Introduction
The exploration of Sri Lanka’s freshwater crabs began 125 years ago with the description in 1880 of
Thelphusa [now Perbrinckia] enodis and Thelphusa [Ceylonthelphusa] rugosa by the American
zoologist, J. S. Kingsley. Following partial treatments by Rathbun (1904), Roux (1915) and Fernando (1960),
the freshwater crab fauna of Sri Lanka was treated in a single revision for the first time only in 1970, by
the German carcinologist R. Bott in his Süßwasserkrabben von Ceylon.
In the early 1990s, there was a surge in interest in Sri Lanka’s freshwater crabs following a collaborative
exploration and taxonomic treatment of this fauna by the National University of Singapore and the Wildlife
Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka (Ng, 1994, 1995a, b; Bahir, 1998, 1999; Ng & Tay, 2001; Bahir & Ng, 2005;
Bahir & Yeo, 2005). This was followed by an (on-going) island-wide survey of the freshwater
carcinofauna commissioned by the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka.
While only eight species in four genera were recognized as valid as at 1994, the fauna today stands at 51
species in seven genera, with every prospect of the species-count increasing as exploration continues.
Based on the present state of knowledge of the peninsular Indian carcinofauna (Bossuyt et al., 2004; MMB
& D. C. J. Yeo, in prep.), it appears that all Sri Lankan freshwater-crab species are endemic, as are the
genera Ceylonthelphusa, Perbrinckia, Mahatha, Clinothelphusa and Pastilla. The lowland genera
Oziothelphusa and Spiralothelphusa, however, are shared also with southern India.
All the Sri Lankan freshwater crabs belong to a single family, the Parathelphusidae (some species were
assigned to the Sundathelphusidae by earlier workers, but this family has been synonymised with
Parathelphusidae by recent authors). The restricted range of many species, together with extensive loss of
habitat, cause concern for the security of this fauna into the future. Twenty-six of the 51 species presently
recognized from Sri Lanka occur only at a single site each, rendering them extremely vulnerable to habitat
loss, degradation and stochastic events. A conservation assessment leading to species under threat being
identified and classified according to the IUCN’s Red List criteria was made by Bahir et al. (2005), using
quantitative data to calculate the probability/risk of extinction for each species at the global scale; the
present report draws heavily on the content of this paper.
77
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
As a result of prioritising species for conservation action and gathering information on the distribution of
and threats to each species through the Red List assessment process, it is now possible to proceed to the
preparation of recovery plans for the conservation of threatened species.
Country Background
Sri Lanka (65,230 km2) receives relatively low rainfall (< 2,000 mm yr-1) except in the south-western ‘wet
zone’ (~ 17,200 km2), where precipitation ranges from ~ 2,000–5,000 mm yr-1. Diversity, richness and
endemism across all taxa are much higher in the wet (including the montane) zone than in the dry zone, the
biota of which resemble those of southern India.
The wet zone, which accounts for only a quarter of Sri Lanka’s territory, contains 88% of the flowering
plants occurring in the island, and 95% of the island’s angiosperm endemics (Dassanayake et al., 1980–
2004). This pattern repeats also for other groups for which the results of recent surveys are available, such
as amphibians (Meegaskumbura et al., 2002; Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005) and land snails
(Naggs & Raheem, 2000; Naggs et al., 2005). Not surprisingly, the same is true also of the freshwater
crabs, in which 41 (80%) of the 51 known species are restricted to the wet zone. Yet, only 4.6% of the
wet zone (800 km2) now contains natural forest. This predicament is exacerbated by the fact that the wet
zone contains 67% of the island’s 19 million human population (Anon., 2003)—a density of 700km-2 —
which is exceptional by the standards of all other global biodiversity hotspots (Cincotta et al., 2000).
Given the very poor representation of Sri Lankan freshwater crabs in old museum collections, there is no
reliable historical baseline against which to judge trends in distributions or populations. As a result, it is
unlikely that evidence of recent extinctions will be found, unlike has been the case for flowering plants (~
130 species: see Dassanayake et al., 1980–2004); amphibians (19 species: Manamendra-Arachchi &
Pethiyagoda, 2005; Stuart et al., 2004); and freshwater fish (2 species: Pethiyagoda, 1994). The
conservation of the entire freshwater crab fauna, given its remarkable diversity, richness and endemism, is
therefore a matter of the highest priority.
Sri Lanka’s freshwater carcinofauna is undoubtedly rich in comparison with other similar, well-studied
tropical Asian countries. For example, Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore, which together have a territory
about twice the extent of Sri Lanka, have about the same number of freshwater crab species (Ng, 1988),
while Taiwan (36,000 km2) has 34 species (Ng et al., 2001).
Conservation
With 37 of 51 species threatened with global extinction, it is clear that conservation interventions are
urgently necessary. The urgency is more so given that freshwater crabs are not targeted for exploitation in
Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, several important conservation-relevant questions remain unanswered for lack of
data. Are the crab species that are known from exceedingly small populations naturally rare or cryptic, or
are they the vanishing remnants of a sudden decline? Have species been reduced to extremely small
Extents of Occurrence because of habitat loss (or other impacts) or are their distributions naturally so
severely restricted?
We propose that a precautionary approach be adopted in determining strategies for conserving this fauna:
the present tentative conservation assessments should be accepted at face value, and recovery strategies
devised accordingly, until data become available to support the conclusion that each threatened species is
in fact secure.
Sri Lanka’s aquatic habitats are threatened by invasive alien species (>90% of the freshwater-fish biomass
comprises exotics: Pethiyagoda, 1994) and pollution, while its forests are threatened by encroachment and
illegal produce extraction. The greater threats to the island’s remaining wet zone habitats are perceived to
be from indirect sources exacerbated by ‘island effects’ resulting from fragmentation — invasive species,
78
Bahir & Pethiyagoda: Conservation of Sri Lankan Freshwater Crabs
encroachment, pesticide influx, edge effects, local climate change (Schaefer, 1998), rainwater acidification
and increased erosion (and consequential silt load in flowing waters).
Pesticides are a serious concern given that these substances are freely and widely used in Sri Lanka.
Regulation presently addresses only human safety issues, and not impacts on other non-target organisms or
the environment in general (Anon., 1980). Given that 24 of Sri Lanka’s 51 freshwater crab species are
restricted to montane and sub-montane habitats, poor sloping-land management and unwise land-use
change in the highlands continues to be a serious problem (Hewawasam et al., 2003). An estimated 292
MT ha-1 yr-1 of topsoil is lost to erosion from these lands, degrading habitats and increasing silt loads in
streams and rivers (ADB, 2003).
A handful of freshwater-crab species have wide distributions and are clearly tolerant of land-use change,
given that they persist in rice fields (e.g. Oziothelphusa spp.) and tea plantations (e.g. Ceylonthelphusa
rugosa and Ceylonthelphusa soror). Even such species, however, could suffer catastrophic declines as a
result of changes, for example, in land development, hydrology or pesticide-use regimes. It is noteworthy
that the populations of two species of widely distributed freshwater fishes (Labeo lankae and
Macrognathus aral) assessed in 1980 as “common” (Senanayake, 1980) crashed within a decade, without
warning, for reasons still unknown— they are now presumed extinct (Pethiyagoda, 1994).
It is of immediate concern that 26 (51%) of the island’s 51 crab species are known from Extents of
Occurrence <100 km2 (see Table 1). Studies in Brazil (Bierregaard et al., 2001; Ferraz et al., 2003) have
shown that extreme rainforest fragmentation could lead to catastrophic declines and extinction of species
in less than a decade. The long-term security of Sri Lanka’s biodiversity will therefore depend on
minimizing fragmentation impacts through effective land-use planning and restoration initiatives while
maximizing habitat connectivity between forest sites. Such goals can be met only through a policy
framework built on sound scientific data, implemented through sustained, long-term financing mechanisms.
Planning on such a scale is not imminent in Sri Lanka, and in the mean time, it is best that conservation
activities be aimed primarily at preserving the integrity of sites and habitats while at the same time closely
monitoring key populations.
The only other Sri Lankan fauna that has been completely assessed for conservation status are the
Amphibia (Stuart et al., 2004). These results show that 11, 28 and 5 of the 94 amphibian species recognized
from the island at the time of the assessment were Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable,
respectively (cf. 23, 8 and 6 for the crabs, respectively). A total of 19 species of amphibians are suspected
to have become extinct in Sri Lanka, a result that is evidently not paralleled in the crabs. Nevertheless, the
proportion of the Extinct and Threatened amphibian fauna (67%) is comparable to that of the crabs (73%).
Given that the conservation of freshwater crabs hinges almost entirely on preserving patches of natural
forest large enough to maintain good water quality, it is of concern that water quality is deteriorating even
in key natural habitats (Gunawardena et al., 1998). Many freshwater crabs are extremely sensitive to
polluted or silted waters and will not survive when exposed to these factors. In Singapore for example, the
small patch of primary forest of Bukit Timah Hill (~ 70 ha) has been sufficient to maintain a thriving
population of the endemic potamid Johora singaporensis (see Ng, 1988; 1989; 1990a). The same is also
true for Parathelphusa reticulata, which is known to occur in only a small remnant patch of peat-swamp
forest patch of less than five hectares (Ng, 1989; 1990a, b). Decade-long monitoring of these populations
demonstrates that crab species will persist even in small habitat fragments if these are managed well,
though exposed to extirpation by stochastic events (Brook et al., 2003).
Recommended conservation actions
1.
It is necessary that the national freshwater crab survey commissioned by the National Science
Foundation be completed, leading to a gap analysis and the identification of key habitats for
conservation attention.
79
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
2.
Periodic monitoring of Critically Endangered species is necessary, especially so as to detect actions
that could alter habitat, so that these could be treated before they impact on the population involved.
3.
All pesticides approved for release in Sri Lanka should be assessed for impact on non-target
organisms and the environment in general, and the labelling of such products should include
information on environmental safeguards.
4.
Legal and institutional reforms need to be made to engage local communities in the in situ
conservation of point-endemic freshwater crabs.
5.
The ex situ management of crabs is still in its infancy. It is necessary that capacity in ex situ
management be built so that captive populations of Critically Endangered species could be maintained.
Literature cited
ADB (Asian Development Bank), 2003. Sri Lanka: environmental statistics (PDF). http://www.adb.org/
Documents/EDRC/Statistics/Environment/srilanka.pdf [accessed 01.01.2004].
Anonymous, 1980. Control of Pesticides Act. Government Publications Bureau, Colombo. 32 pp.
Anonymous, 2003. Statistical pocket book, 2003. Department of Census and Statistics, Colombo. 100 pp.
Bahir, M. M. 1998. Three new species of montane crabs of the genus Perbrinckia (Crustacea,
Parathelphusidae) from the central mountains of Sri Lanka. Journal of South Asian Natural
History, 3: 197–212.
Bahir, M. M., 1999. Description of three new species of freshwater crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda:
Parathelphusidae: Ceylonthelphusa) from the south-western rain forests of Sri Lanka. Journal of
South Asian Natural History, 4: 117–132.
Bahir, M. M. & P. K. L. Ng, 2005. Description of ten new species of freshwater crabs (Parathelphusidae:
Ceylonthelphusa, Mahatha, Perbrinckia) from Sri Lanka. In: Yeo, D. C. J., P. K. L. Ng & R.
Pethiyagoda (eds.), Contributions to Biodiversity Exploration and Research in Sri Lanka. The Raffles
Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 12: 47–75.
Bahir, M. M., Ng, P. K. L., Crandall, K. & R. Pethiyagoda, 2005. A conservation assessment of the
freshwater crabs of Sri Lanka. In: Yeo, D. C. J., P. K. L. Ng & R. Pethiyagoda (eds.), Contributions
to Biodiversity Exploration and Research in Sri Lanka. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement
No. 12: 121–126.
Bahir, M. M. & D. C. J. Yeo, 2005. A revision of the genus Oziotelphusa Müller, 1887 (Crustacea:
Decapoda: Parathelphusidae), with descriptions of eight new species. In: Yeo, D. C. J., P. K. L. Ng
& R. Pethiyagoda (eds.), Contributions to Biodiversity Exploration and Research in Sri Lanka. The
Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 12: 77–120.
Bierregaard, R.O., C. Gascon, T. E. Lovejoy & R. Masquita, 2001. Lessons from Amazonia: the ecology
and conservation of a fragmented forest. Yale University Press, New Haven. 478 pp.
Bossuyt, F., M. Meegaskumbura, N. Beenaerts, D. J. Gower, R. Pethiyagoda, K. Roelants, A. Mannaert,
M. Wilkinson, M. M. Bahir, K. Manamendra-Arachchi, P. K. L. Ng, C. J. Schneider, O. V. Oommen
& M. C. Milinkovitch, 2004. Local endemism within the Western Ghats–Sri Lanka Biodiversity
Hotspot. Science, 306: 479–481.
Bott, R., 1970. Die Süßwasserkrabben von Ceylon. Arkiv för Zoologi, 22: 627–640.
Brook, B.W., N. S. Sodhi, & P. K. L. Ng, 2003. Catastrophic extinctions follow deforestation in Singapore.
Nature, 424: 420–423.
Cincotta, R.P., J. Wisnewski & R. Engelman, 2000. Human populations in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature,
404: 990–992.
80
Bahir & Pethiyagoda: Conservation of Sri Lankan Freshwater Crabs
Dassanayake, M. D., F. R. Fossberg & W. D. Clayton (eds.), 1980–2004. A revised handbook to the
flora of Ceylon. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi. 15 vols.
Ferraz, G., G. J. Russel, P. C. Stouffer, R. O. Bierregaard, S. L. Pimm, & T. E. Lovejoy, 2003. Rates of
species loss from Amazonian forest fragments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
100: 14069–14073.
Gunawardena, E. R. N., U. Rajapakshe, K. A. Nandasena, & P. T. W. Rosier, 1998. Water quality issues
in the uplands of Sri Lanka. In: Gunasena, H.P.M. (ed.), Proceedings of the final workshop:
University of Peradeniya — Oxford Forestry Institute Link Project. Faculty of Agriculture, Univ.
Peradeniya, Peradeniya. Pp. 37–44.
Hewawasam, T., F. von Blanckenburg, M. Schaller & P. Kubik, 2003. Increase of human over natural
erosion rates in tropical highlands constrained by cosmogenic nuclides. Geology, 31: 597–600.
IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources), 2001. The IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species: 2001 Categories and Criteria (version 3.1). http://www.redlist.org/
info/categories_criteria2001.html [accessed 01.01.2004].
Manamendra-Arachchi, K. & R. Pethiyagoda, 2005. The Sri Lankan shrub-frogs of the genus Philautus
Gistel, 1848 (Ranidae: Rhacophorinae), with description of 27 new species. In: Yeo, D. C. J., P. K. L.
Ng & R. Pethiyagoda (eds.), Contributions to biodiversity exploration and research in Sri Lanka. The
Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 12: 5–145.
Meegaskumbura, M., F. Bossuyt, R. Pethiyagoda, K. Manamendra-Arachchi, M. Bahir, M. C. Milinkovitch
& C. J. Schneider, 2002. Sri Lanka: An Amphibian Hotspot. Science, 298: 379.
Naggs, F. & D. Raheem, 2000. Land snail diversity in Sri Lanka. Natural History Museum, London. CD ROM.
Naggs, F., D. Raheem, K. Ranawana & Y. Mapatuna, 2005. The Darwin Initiative project on Sri Lankan
land snails: patterns of diversity in Sri Lankan forests. In: Yeo, D. C. J., P. K. L. Ng & R. Pethiyagoda
(eds.), Contributions to Biodiversity Exploration and Research in Sri Lanka. The Raffles Bulletin of
Zoology, Supplement No. 12: 23–29.
Ng, P. K. L., 1988. The freshwater crabs of peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Department Zoology,
National University of Singapore. viii+156 pp., 4 pls.
Ng, P. K. L., 1989. Endemic freshwater crabs in Singapore: discovery, speciation and conservation.
Singapore Institute of Biology Bulletin, 13: 4551.
Ng, P. K. L., 1990a. Endemic freshwater crabs and prawns of Singapore. In: Chou, L. M. & P. K. L. Ng
(eds.), Essays in Zoology. Department of Zoology, National University of Singapore. Pp. 189–204.
Ng, P. K. L., 1990b. Parathelphusa reticulata sp. nov., a new species of freshwater crab from blackwater
swamps in Sigapore (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Gecarcinucoidea). Zoologische
Mededelingen, 63: 241–254.
Ng, P. K. L., 1994. A note on the freshwater crabs of the genus Spiralothelphusa Bott, 1968 (Crustacea:
Decapoda: Brachyura: Parathelphusidae), with description of a new species from Sri Lanka. Journal
South Asian Natural History, 1: 27–30.
Ng, P. K. L., 1995a. A revision of the Sri Lankan montane crabs of the genus Perbrinckia Bott, 1969
(Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Parathelphusidae). Journal South Asian Natural History, 1: 129–174.
Ng, P. K. L., 1995b. Ceylonthelphusa scansor, a new species of tree-climbing crab from Sinharaja Forest
in Sri Lanka (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Parathelphusidae). Journal South Asian Natural
History, 1: 175–184.
Ng, P. K. L. & W. M. Tay, 2001. The freshwater crabs of Sri Lanka (Decapoda: Brachyura:
Parathelphusidae). Zeylanica, 6: 113–199.
81
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Ng, P. K. L., C. -H. Wang, P. -H. Ho & H. -T. Shih, 2001. An annotated checklist of brachyuran crabs from
Taiwan (Crustacea: Decapoda). National Taiwan Museum Special Publication Series, 11: 1–86, 8 pls.
Pethiyagoda, R., 1994. Threats to the indigenous freshwater fishes of Sri Lanka and remarks on their
conservation. Hydrobiologia, 285: 189–201.
Schaefer, D. 1998. Climate change in Sri Lanka? Statistical analyses of long-term temperature and rainfall
records. In: Domroes, M. & Roth, H. (eds.), Sri Lanka: past and present — Archaeology, geography,
economics — selected papers on German research. Margraf Verlag, Weikersheim. Pp. 103–117.
Senanayake, F. R., 1980. The biogeography and ecology of the inland fishes of Sri Lanka.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University of California,
Davis. 421 pp.
Stuart, S., J. S. Chanson, N. A. Cox, B. E. Young, A. S. L. Rodrigues, D. L. Fischman & R. W. Waller,
2004. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science, 306: 1783–1786.
Table 1: Checklist of the freshwater crabs of Sri Lanka (Parathelphusidae). Conservation status is derived
using the IUCN (2001) Red List criteria. CR, Critically Endangered; EN, Endangered; VU,
Vulnerable; NT, Near Threatened; LC, Least Concern. Extent occurrence is estimated based on
available habitat; Number of Locations is the number of discontiguous sites from which the
species was recorded; Habitat Protection notes whether at least one population lies within a
protected area and if so, the institution managing the protected area: FD = Forest Department,
WD = Department of Wildlife Conservation.
Species
Conservation ~ Ext. of
Status
Occurrence (km2)
No. of
sites
Habitat
protection
Ceylonthelphusa alpina
EN
10
2
Y FD
Ceylonthelphusa armata
EN
20
2
N
Ceylonthelphusa callista
CR
5
1
N
Ceylonthelphusa cavatrix
VU
10
3
Y FD
Ceylonthelphusa diva
CR
10
1
N
Ceylonthelphusa durrelli
CR
1
1
N
Ceylonthelphusa kandambyi
NT
1,750
5
Y FD
Ceylonthelphusa kotagama
CR
5
1
Y FD
Ceylonthelphusa nata
CR
5
1
N
Ceylonthelphusa orthos
CR
5
1
N
Ceylonthelphusa rugosa
LC
> 20,000
>10
Y FD/WD
Ceylonthelphusa savitriae
CR
5
1
N
Ceylonthelphusa sentosa
LC
5,000
>10
Y FD
Ceylonthelphusa sanguinea
CR
10
1
Y FD
Ceylonthelphusa soror
LC
5,600
>10
Y FD/WD
Ceylonthelphusa venusta
NT
250
3
Y FD
Clinothelphusa kakoota
CR
100
1
N
Mahatha adonis
NT
2,000
3
Y FD
Mahatha helaya
CR
5
1
N
82
Bahir & Pethiyagoda: Conservation of Sri Lankan Freshwater Crabs
Mahatha iora
CR
100
1
N
Mahatha lacuna
CR
5
1
N
Mahatha ornatipes
LC
5,000
>10
Y FD
Mahatha regina
CR
5
1
N
Oziothelphusa ceylonensis
NT
12,000
5
N
Oziothelphusa dakuna
EN
1,000
2
Y WD
Oziothelphusa gallicola
EN
100
2
N
Oziothelphusa hippocastanum
NT
> 20,000
3
Y WD
Oziothelphusa intuta
CR
10
1
N
Oziothelphusa kodagoda
CR
10
1
N
Oziothelphusa mineriyaensis
LC
2,500
2
Y WD
Oziothelphusa populosa
EN
2,000
2
N
Oziothelphusa ritigala
VU
900
1
Y WD
Oziothelphusa stricta
NT
10,000
5
Y WD
Pastilla ruhuna
EN
350
3
Y FD
Perbrinckia fenestra
VU
1
1
Y FD
Perbrinckia cracens
CR
10
1
N
Perbrinckia enodis
CR
10
1
Y WD
Perbrinckia fido
CR
10
1
N
Perbrinckia gabadagei
VU
10
1
Y WD
Perbrinckia glabra
VU
50
1
Y WD
Perbrinckia integra
NT
300
5
Y FD/WD
Perbrinckia morayensis
CR
100
1
Y WD
Perbrinckia nana
NT
1,750
5
Y FD
Perbrinckia punctata
CR
50
1
Y WD
Perbrinckia quadratus
CR
5
1
N
Perbrinckia rosae
CR
5
1
N
Perbrinckia scansor
LC
6,500
>10
Y FD
Perbrinckia scitula
CR
80
2
N
Perbrinckia uva
VU
120
3
Y FD
Spiralothelphusa fernandoi
EN
1,800
2
N
Spiralothelphusa parvula
EN
250
3
N
83
The
T
HE F
Fauna
AUNA OFofSRI
SriLANKA
Lanka
(2006):
(2006)
84-99
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Land Snails in Sri Lanka
K.B. Ranawana*
*Department of Zoology, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka
Abstract
Land snails in Sri Lanka form a highly diverse group. Of the 246 land snail species recorded from
the island, 83% are endemic to the country. These include five endemic and relict land snail genera.
Pulmonate land snails (Sub class Pulmonata) form the major group (64% of the total) of the land
snail fauna in Sri Lanka, while prosobranch land snails (Sub class Prosobranchia) form the balance
component (36%). About 18 exotic snail and slug species have been introduced to the country during
the last century, mainly through the agricultural trade. The introduced pest snail and slug species
have been concentrated in vegetable growing landscapes in the high altitude region. Pest species
have not moved deep inside the natural forests. Most of island’s land snail diversity is concentrated
in lowland wet zone forests and wet montane forest regions of the country. Therefore, the
conservation of these important forest regions is essential for the long-term survival of the islands’
rich land snail fauna.
Key words: Molluscs, Species richness, Endemicity, Distribution, Conservation
Introduction to molluscs
Molluscs are among the most ancient of animals on earth today. They appear in the oldest Cambrian
deposits, more than 500 million years BP (Kay, 1995). With an estimated 80,000 species worldwide,
molluscs (snails and slugs) comprise the second most diverse animal phyla after arthropods (Solem, 1984;
Emberton et al., 1997). They also form a most successful animal group living today (Kay, 1995). Majority
of the molluscs are aquatic (marine and freshwater) while terrestrial species comprise of about 25% of the
total number (Emberton et al., 1997).
Class Gastropods is the largest class of molluscs having over 75,000 living species. Gastropod molluscs are
the most successful of all molluscan classes and thy have colonized a wide range of habitats including the
oceans, freshwaters as well as the land. The class Gastropods is divided in to three major subclasses,
namely Prosobranchia, Opisthobranchia and Pulmonata. Opisthobranchs are generally marine.
Prosobranchs have robust calcareous shells, long thin tentacles with eyes at their bases and a circular plate,
the operculum, fixed to the top of the shell, which closes the shell’s aperture when the snail retracts. The
sexes are separate. Land pulmonates are highly evolved for a terrestrial life than are Prosobranchs and
their physiology and anatomy is more specialized for dealing with life on land. Some pulmonates possess
shells as solid as those of prosobranchs but many do not. The shells often have little calcium carbonate
and may be largely made from protein. The shell may be reduced in size to the extent that the snail can no
longer retract into its shell as in Eurychlamys. In several independent pulmonate lineages such as slugs a
shell is residual or completely absent. Most pulmonates have a lower pair of chemosensory and tactile
tentacles and all possess a longer pair of upper tentacles with eyes located in the bulbous tips. They are
hermophrodites with a combined genital orifice usually sites just behind the right tentacles (Barnes, 1982).
During recent years, molluscs along with other animals and plants are undergoing a rapid process of
extinction largely due to human activities, and the present extinctions of species occur in time spans of less
than ten years (Kay, 1995). Majority of the terrestrial molluscs are forest dwellers, which are sensitive to
habitat disturbance. Therefore, the terrestrial molluscs are of regional and global concern, from the
biodiversity conservation point of view (Emberton, 1995; Tattersfield et al., 2001). Molluscs have become
important elements in the studies on mechanisms of evolution and examining the effects of ecology on
84
Ranawana: Land Snails in Sri Lanka
evolutionary change (Crampton, 1932; Cain and Sheppard 1950; Cain and Currey, 1963; Cowie, 1992;
Johnson et al., 1993). Their low vagility also makes them suitable as indicators for biogeographical studies
of early tectonic events (Solem, 1981).
Land snail communities occur nearly world-wide, with sympatric species richness varying from one in sub
Antarctic islands (Solem, 1984) to 97 indigenous species recorded from a patch of rainforest in
southwestern Camaroon (de Winter and Gittenberger, 1998). According to Solem (1984) land snail
communities with more than 30 species is extremely rare, especially in tropical rainforests, where “snails
generally are neither diverse nor abundant”. However, recent land snail surveys conducted in afromontane
forests of Mount Kenya (Tattersfield et al., 2001) and Pukeamaru Ecological District in northeastern New
Zealand (Barker and Mayhill, 1999) resulted in recording high species richness (68 species from Mount
Kenya and 94 species from New Zealand), indicating that land snails are a poorly understood group in
tropical forests (de Winter and Gittenberger, 1998). According to Lange and Mwinzi (2003), although the
malacofauna is facing a conservation challenge, patterns of their biodiversity in many parts of the world
are poorly understood.
Most of the ecological studies on land snails in the tropics are confined to African tropics (de Winter and
Gittenberger, 1998; Emberton et al., 1997; Lange and Maes, 2001; Lange and Mwinzi 2003; Tattersfield,
1996; Tattersfield, 1998, Tattersfield, 2001). Similarly, land molluscs in the Madagascan rainforests have
also been well studied (Emberton, 1995). Outside the tropical region more attention has been paid for the
land molluscs in New Zealand, where there is a high species richness (Barker and Pauline, 1999; Emberton,
1995). A comparatively limited amount of work has been carried out on land molluscs in the South Asian
region.
Studies on land snail fauna of Sri Lanka
Studies on land snails in Sri Lanka was initiated more than 100 years ago (Collet, 1897, 1898, 1900;
Blanford and Godwin-Austen, 1908; Guade 1914, 1921). Although these works were mainly on the
taxonomy and distribution of species, they still remain as the pioneering work on the land molluscs in Sri
Lanka. After this initial period, work on land molluscs showed very slow progress until the 1980’s
(Ratnapala, 1984; Ratnapala and Arudpragasam, not dated; Breckenridge and Fallil, 1973). A revival of
interest on ecological research on Sri Lankan land molluscs occurred in the late 1990’s (Morden et al.,
2003; Naggs et al., 2003; Raheem et al., 2000; Raheem and Butterworth, 1998). Commencement of the
Darwin Initiative (UK) land snail diversity project in Sri Lanka (1999 – 2002) was mainly responsible for
initiating the second phase of ecological research on Sri Lankan land molluscs.
Although there is a growing interest on ecological research on land molluscs in Sri Lanka little is known of
the ranges of distribution and population sizes of a large proportion of the fauna. Basic distributional
information is lacking for nearly 30% of snail taxa known from Sri Lanka. Many of the endemic species
are known only from single localities and they have not been recorded since the publication of the last
volume of the Fauna of British India series in 1921 (Raheem et. al., 2000).
Land snail surveys conducted in Sri Lanka during the recent past have focused on the distribution of land
snails in the wet southeastern part of the county, where there is a high endemism of species (Naggs et al.,
2003; Raheem, et al., 2000; Raheem and Butterworth, 1998). Natural forest of the other parts of the
country has not been surveyed to the same extent and hence data on the distribution and diversity of land
snails in those regions are not available. Naggs et al. (2003) stressed that land snails are ideal subjects for
addressing high priority questions relating to rainforest biotas and have long been recognized as possessing
a number of attributes that make them particularly suitable subjects for studies in evolutionary biology. Due
to their low mobility land snails have become models for studying the effects of pesticides and influence of
the activities of man in altering the environment. Therefore, information on the distribution and ecology of
land snails is an important prerequisite for monitoring habitat quality. Some land snails are vectors of
helminthic diseases of vertebrates in Sri Lanka (Ratnapala, 1984).
85
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Species richness and endemicity of land snails
Species richness and endemicity is high among Sri Lankan land snails (Naggs et al., 2003). Approximately
246 species of land snails are known from Sri Lanka of which the majority (83%) are endemic to the
country (Naggs and Raheem, 2000). Sub class Pulmonata is represented by 159 species in 23 families and
subclass Prosobranchia is represented by 88 species in four families (Appendix 1). This indicates that the
pulmonate group dominates land snails in Sri Lanka.
The families Ariophantidae (mainly Cryptozona and Euplecta) with 45 species and Glessulidae (22
species) are the largest pulmonate families found in the country. Cyclophoridae (48 species) is the largest
Prosobranch family (Appendix 1)
Much of this endemism is concentrated in the wet, southwestern portion of the island (Raheem, 2000). A
significant portion of Sri Lankan snail fauna consists of Gondwanan relicts, with origins dating back prior to
the break up of the southern super-continent over 100 million years ago (Naggs et al., 2003). Despite its
faunistic affinities with Indian mainland the Sri Lankan land mollusc fauna is the most distinct in the South
Asian Region (Naggs et al., 2003). A total of five land snail genera, namely, Ravana, Ratnadvipia,
Acavus, Oligospira and Aulopoma are endemic to Sri Lanka. Except for the latter Genus, the rest
belongs to the pulmonate group. Fourteen species are included in these five genera. All the species
belonging to these genera show discontinued distribution and are restricted to few specific habitats.
Although some large and brilliantly coloured snails of the Genus Acavus has attracted attention from
scientists, nature lovers and traditional medical practitioners (Hausdorf and Perera, 2000; Perera, 1991),
ecological information on the species of other four genera are almost lacking.
Land-snail fauna in Sri Lanka bears evidence of the island’s long association with the Indian subcontinent.
Of the 60 land snail genera recorded from the island 13 (Ruthvenia, Thysanota, Cryptozona, Euplecta,
Mariaella, Eurychlamys, Corilla, Beddomea, Trachia, Leptopomodes, Micraulax, Tortulosa and
Nicida) are restricted to Sri Lanka and Peninsular India, primarily to Western Ghats; approximately 50%
of the 247 species recorded from the island belong to genera endemic to southern India and Sri Lanka
(Raheem et al., 2000)
About 18 exotic land snails and slug species, most of which are agricultural pests, have also been recorded
from the country during recent studies (Naggs et al., 2003).
Land snail distribution
Recently concluded studies (Raheem et al., 2000; Ranawana, 2005) show that the lowland rainforest zone
and the montane rainforest zone in Sri Lanka have distinctive snail faunas. The lowland rainforest fauna is
composed of a widely distributed element and a localized or restricted-range component. Widely distributed
lowland rainforest species include Cryptozona chenui, Ratnadvipia irradians, Acavus phoenix, Corilla
adamsi, Beddomea albizonatus aggregate and Leptopoma semiclausum These taxa range across most
or all of the forested area of the lowland wet zone: some species such as Ratnadvipia irradians occur in
both forest and non forest habitats (Raheem et al., 2000).
Recent and on-going studies on land snails in Sri Lanka
Recently concluded Darwin Initiative Land Snail Diversity project: October 1999 – October 2002, was the
most intensive study undertaken to evaluate the status of land snails in the country (excluding the Knuckles
Region) during the last century. During this three-year study approximately 150 morphospecies were
recorded, including 110 endemic species. At least 50 species (undescribed) are new to science, which
include several unidentified genera and exotic species (Naggs et al., 2005). Systematic work on these new
species is now being carried out at the Natural History Museum, London.
86
Ranawana: Land Snails in Sri Lanka
Forty-nine species of land snails have been recorded from Knuckles region alone during the same period.
Of these, 37 species haven been positively identified in to species level while 12 species could not be
identified to the species level. These included 36 species of pulmonates, while 15 were prosobranchs. Of
the 49 species recorded 28 (57%) were endemics, including species representing three endemic genera.
Of the 39 species recorded from the montane forests of Knuckles 22 were endemics, including three
endemic genera. Sub montane forests supported 20 endemic species including four endemic genera. The
intermediate zone forests of Knuckles harboured 19 endemic species with three endemic genera (Table 1)
(Ranawana, 2005).
Darwin initiative Land Survey has also resulted in recording 18 exotic species of snails and slugs (Table 2)
with seven previously unrecorded species (Arion intermedius, Cochlicopa lubrica, Deroceras laeve, D.
reticulatum, Milax gagates, Oxychilus alliarius and a Semperula sp.) (Naggs et al., 2003). Most of the
exotic species are recorded in association with agricultural land, especially in Nuwara Eliya area, where
climatic conditions are conducive for their survival and reproduction. Although the exotic Lissachatina
fulica occurs along the forest edges, no other exotic species have been found inside natural forests. The
threats from these exotics to the survival of the endemic land snail fauna in the country are yet to be
evaluated.
Table 1: Land snail distribution in the Knuckles region (+ present, - absent, * Endemic species , **
Endemic Genera Habitats: MF – Montane Forest; MC – Montane Cardamom; SMF –
Submontane Forest; SMC- Submontane Cardamom. SMGL- Submontane Grasslands; IMFIntermediate Zone Forests; IMHG - Intermediate Zone Home Gardens.)
Family
Species
Montane
zone
MF MC
Intermediate
Zone
SMC SMGL IMF IMHG
Sub montnae zone
SMF
Pulmonata
ACAVIDAE
Oligospira polei**
+
-
+
+
+
+
-
ACHATINIDAE
Achatina fulica
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
ARIOPHANTIDAE Cryptozona bistrialis
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
Cryptozona ceraria*
+
+
-
-
-
+
-
Cryptozona chenui*
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
Euplecta colletti*
-
+
+
-
-
-
-
Euplecta indica
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
Euplecta layardi*
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
Euplecta Sp A
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Euplecta new Sp. B
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Euplecta partita*
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
Euplecta prestoni*
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
Euplecta semidecussata
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
Euplecta travancorica
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Macrochlamys nepas*
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
Macrochlamys woodina
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
Rathnadvipia irradians**
+
-
+
+
+
-
+
Ravana politissima**
-
-
+
-
-
-
+
87
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
BULIMINIDAE
Mirus stalix*
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
CAMAENIDAE
Beddomea albizonata*
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
CAMAENIDAE
Beddomea trifasciatus*
-
-
+
+
-
+
+
CHAROPIDAE
Ruthvenia sp A
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
CHAROPIDAE
Thysanota elegans*
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
CORILLIDAE
Corilla colletti*
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
Corilla gudei*
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
-
-
+
-
ENDODONTIDAE Philalanka sp A
EUCONULIDAE
Eurychlamys regulata*
-
-
+
-
-
+
+
GLESSULIDAE
Allopeas layardi*
-
+
-
+
-
-
-
Glessula sp A
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Glessula sp B
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
STEPTAXIDAE
Indoartemom layardianus* +
-
-
-
-
+
-
SUBULINIDAE
Subulina octona
-
+
-
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
+
-
-
+
-
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
Aulopoma Sp.A.**
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Aulopoma Sp B**
+
-
+
-
-
+
-
Cyclophorus ceylanicus*
-
+
+
+
-
+
+
Japonia vesca*
+
-
-
-
+
+
-
Leptopomoides poecilus*
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
Leptopoma Sp.A
-
+
+
+
+
-
-
Pterocyclus cumingi
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
Theobaldius annulatus*
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Theobaldius bairdi*
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
Theobaldius Sp. A
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Theobaldius subplicatus* +
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tortulosa nevilli*
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
Tortulosa Sp A
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
Tortulosa Sp B
+
-
+
-
-
-
-
VERONICELLIDAE Laevicaulis alte
VERTIGINIDAE
Pupisoma longstaffae*
Prosobranchia
CYCLOPHORIDAE Aulopoma grande**
PUPINIDAE
88
Ranawana: Land Snails in Sri Lanka
Table 2: Distribution of the 18 exotic land snail species across the four major climatic zones of Sri Lanka
(source: Naggs et al., 2003)
lowlands (<1000m altitude ) and highlands (>1000m altitude) of the wet zone
a
include plantations, vegetable field and home gardens
* occur in natural forest, which has been subjected to intensive selective logging in the last three decades.
SPECIES
Allopeas gracile
A. panayensis
Arion intermedius
Bradybaena similaris
Cochlicopa lubrica
Deroceras laeve
D. reticulatum
Eustreptaxis kibweziensis
Gulella bicolor
Kaliella barrakporensis
Laevicaulis alte
Lissachatina fulica
Mariaella dussumieri
Milax gagates
Oxychilus alliarius
Phaedusa ceylanica
Semperula sp.
Subulina octona
Total
CLIMATIC ZONE
HABITAT
Lowland
Wet
Highland
Wet
Inter
mediate
Dry
Modi
fieda
Natural
Forest
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
9
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
12
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
8
+
+
+
0
3
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
18
+*
+*
+*
+*
4*
Conservation issues
Habitat loss is the main threat faced by land snails in the country today. The high diversity areas such as
lowland rainforests of the wet zone are highly fragmented. Ground cover of the mountain regions like
Knuckles Region is cleared for cardamom cultivation. Since most of our land snails are leaf litter
inhabitants, clearance of forest floor is detrimental to their survival. Vast are of land in the wet zone of Sri
Lanka was inundated due to large scale dam construction for river diversion (especially the Mahaweli
river) and hydroelectric generations. Such land losses due to development activities either minimize the
area available for land snails or completely wipe out a species from the area due to habitat loss. Frequent
fires in the grasslands, scrublands and forests are detrimental to the survival of land snails and as a result
very few land snail species are recorded from the grasslands, which are subjected to repeated fires. Use
of agrochemicals is also harmful to native land snail species found in association with human settlements.
Species belonging to endemic genera such as Acavus and Ratnadvipia, which are found in synanthropic
habitats are severely affected by agrochemicals.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Lowland rainforests in the wet zone and the montane zone forests harbour a significant portion of island’s
land snail diversity and endemism with many species restricted to localized areas in these zones. Survival
89
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
of highly diverse land snail fauna of Sri Lanka is therefore dependent on the effective conservation of the
country’s remaining rainforest fragments and the montane forests. The following recommendations are
made to promote research and conservation activities of land snails of Sri Lanka:
z
Conduct research on the ecology and distribution of land snails of Sri Lanka, with particular emphasis
on the endemic and relict taxa which intern help us to identify the land snail hotspots
z
Develop plans for population restoration of endemic and relict species which are facing the danger of
extinction due to habitat loss (such as development activities, inundation of land due to dam building).
The affected taxa could be translocated to a suitable areas having similar habitat conditions.
z
There should be a strict regulation to control the entry of exotic land snails in to the country. These
exotic species have entered the country mainly through the import trade of vegetables and foliage
plants. In the mean time attempts should be made to control these exotic species as much as possible
before they colonize natural forest habitats in the country
z
Care should be taken to control the spread of some predatory gastropods, which has been introduced
to the country in early 1950’s to control Lissachatina fulica. Still individuals of predatory gastropod
Eustreptaxis kibweziensis are recorded from Peradeniya, where it was first introduced. This
predatory carnivore population has to be eradicated before it enters the natural habitats.
Literature cited
Baker, G.M., and P. C. Mayhill. 1999. Patterns of diversity and habitat relationships in terrestrial mollusc
communities of the Pukeamaru Ecological District, northeastern New Zealand. Journal of
Biogeography 26: 215 – 238.
Barns, R.D. 1980. Invertebrate Zoology. Holt- Saunders, Tokyo, Japan: 316 – 362pp.
Blanford, W. T. and Godwin – Austin, H.H. 1908. Mollusca, Vol. I, Testacellidae and Zontidae. Fauna
of British India. Taylor and Francis, London.
Breckenridge, W.R., and S.F.M. Fallil. 1973. Histological observations on the reproductive system of
Achatina fulica (Gastropods, Pulmonata, Stylommatophora). Ceylon Journal of Science
(Biological Science), 10 (2): 85 – 118.
Cain, A. J. and J.D. Currey. 1963. Area effects in Cepaea. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London, ser B,. 256: 1 -81.
Cain, A. J. and P.M. Sheppard. 1950. Selection of in the polymorphic lad snail Cepaes nemoralis.
Heridity, 4: 275 – 294.
Collet, O. 1900. Contribution to Ceylon Malacology. (3) The terrestrial Mollusca of
Ambagamuwa (Part II). Journal, R.A.S. (Ceylon) 16 (51): 132 -139.
Collet, O. 1898. Contribution to Ceylon Malacology. (2) Description of a new helicoids land shell from
the southern province. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (Ceylon Branch), 15 (49): 153 - 154.
Collet, O. 1897. Contribution to Ceylon Malacology. (1) The terrestrial Mollusca of Ambagamuwa.
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (Ceylon Branch), 15 (48): 12 -22.
Cowie, R.H. 1992. Variation in species diversity and shell shape in Hawaiian land snails: in situ speciation
and ecological relationships. Evolution 49, 1191 – 1202.
De Winter, A.J. and E. Gittenberger. 1998. The land snail fauna of a square kilometre of rainforest in SW
Cameroon: high species richness, low abundance and seasonal fluctuations. Malacologia, 40, 231 -250.
Emberton, K.C., T.A. Pearce, P. F. Kasigawa, P. Tattersfield and Z. Habibu. 1997. High diversity and regional
endemism in land snails of eastern Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation, 6: 1123 – 1136.
Emberton, K.C. 1995. Land-snail community morphologies of the highest-diversity sites of Madagascar,
North America and New Zealand, with recommended alternatives to height-diameter plots.
Malacologia, 36 (1 -2): 43 -66.
Gude, G.K. 1921. Mollusca, Vol. III. Land Operculates (Cycloporidae, Truccatellidae, Assimineidae,
Helicinidae). Fauna of British India. Taylor and Francis, London, 386p.
90
Ranawana: Land Snails in Sri Lanka
Gude, G.K. 1914. Mollusca, Vol. II. Trochomorphidae – Janellidae, Fauna of British India. Taylor and
Francis, London, 520p.
Hausdorf, B., and K.K. Perera. 2000. Revision of the genus Acavus fron Sri lanka (Gastropods:
Acavidae). Journal of Molluscan Studies, 66: 217 – 231.
Kay, E.A. 1995. Which molluscs for extinction?. In: The conservation Biology of Molluscs. ed. E.
Alison Kay. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, Chapter 1; 1-11.
Lange, C.N., and M. Mwinzi. 2003. Snail diversity, abundance and distribution in Arabuko Sokoke forest,
Kenya. African Journal of Ecology, 41: 61 – 67.
Lange, C.N., and K. Maes. 2001. The land snails of Kakamega forest in Kenya. African Journal of
Ecology, 39: 219 – 222.
Morden, P., F. Naggs, K. Ranawana, S. Kumburegama, and B. Grimm. 2003. A guide to the PEST and
EXOTIC GASTROPODS of SRI LANKA. Department of Zoology, Natural History Museum,
London: 10pp.
Naggs, F., Raheem, D., Ranawana, K., Mapatuna, Y. 2005. The Darwin initiative project on Sri Lankan
Land snails: Patterns of diversity and in Sri Lankan forests. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 12: 23 – 29.
Naggs, F., Raheem, D.C., Mordan, P.B., Grimm, B., Ranawana, K.B. and Kumburegama, N.P.S. (2003).
Ancient relicts and contemporary exotics: faunal change and survivorship in Sri Lanka’s snail fauna.
Slugs & Snails: Agricultural, Veterinary & Environmental Perspectives, British Crop Protection
Council Symposium Proceedings No. 80, 103 - 108.
Naggs, F. and Raheem, D. (2003). The Darwin Initiative project on Sri Lankan land snails: patterns of
diversity in Sri Lankan forests. Molluscan Conservation and Biodiversity, Special Publication
Conchological Society, 8pp.
Naggs, F. and Raheem, D. (2000). Land snail diversity in Sri Lanka. The Natural History Museum,
London. xiii + pp 203.
Perera, K.K. 1992. A snails’s tale – Acavus of Sri Lanka. Loris, 19: 90 -92.
Raheem, D., T. Butterworth, C. Inglis, T.G. Mahesh Priyadarshana and L.J.K. Ranil Perara. 2000. Land
snail diversity in Sri Lankan rainforest remnants, 29 + xxix.
Raheem, D. and Butterworth, T. (1998). A survey of land mollusk diversity in southwestern Sri Lanka.
Final Report of an Imperial College (University of London) expedition to southwestern Sri
Lanka, 1-34pp.
Ranawana, K.B. 2005. Patterns of diversity and ecology of land snails in the Knuckles region, Sri Lanka,
(Unpublished report).
Ratnapala, R. (1984). Land snails: distribution and notes on ecology. In: C. H. Fernando Ecology and
biogeography in Sri Lanka (ed.). Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague: 391 – 410.
Ratnapala, R. and K.D. Arudpragasam. A checklist of land snails of Sri Lanka. UNESCO: Man and
Biosphere National Committee for Sri Lanka, Publication No.13. Natural resources, Energy and
Science Authority of Sri Lanka: 10 pp.
Solem, A. 1984. A world model of land snail diversity and abundance. World – wide snails. In: A. Solem
and A.C. van Bruggen (eds.) Biogeographical studies on none-marine Mollusca. Brill and Backhuya,
Leiden. 6 -62pp.
Solem, A. 1981. Land snail biogeography: a true snail’s pace of change. In: G, Nelson and D. E. Rosen
(eds.), Vicariance biogeography: a critique, 197 – 237.
Tattersfield, P., C.M. Warui, M.B. Seddon, and J.W. Kiringe. 2001. Land - snail faunas of afromontane
forests of Mount Kenya, Kenya: ecology, diversity and distribution patterns. Journal of
Biogeography, 28, 843 -861.
Tattersfield, P. 1998. Patterns of diversity and endemism in east African land snails and their implications
for conservation. Journal of Conchology, Special Publication no. 2: 77 -86.
Tattersfield, P. 1996. Local patterns of land snail diversity in a Kenyan rainforest. Malacologiya, 38:
161 – 180.
91
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Appendix 1: Checklist of Land Snails in Sri Lanka
(reproduced with permission from Naggs and Raheem, 2003)
* : Endemic species
** : Endemic Genus
CLASS
: GASTROPODA
SUBCLASS
: PULMONATA
SUPERORDER : STYLOMMATOPHORA
SUPERFAMILY : PUPILLOIDEA
FAMILY
: PUPILLOIDEA
Sub Family
: Pupillinae
1. Microstele muscerda (Benson 1853)
2. Pupoides coenopictus Hutton 1834
FAMILY
: VERTIGINICLAE
Sub Family
: Gastrocoptinae
3. Gastrocopta (Gastrocopta) mimula* (Benson 1853)
Sub Family
: Nesopupinae
4. Nesopupa (Indopupa) cinghalensis* (Gude 1914)
5. Pupisoma longstaffae* Godwm-Austen 1912
6. Pupisoma miccyla* (Benson 1860)
FAMILY
: PYRAMIDULIDAE
7. Pyramidula halyi* (Jousseaume 1894)
Subfamily
: Bulimininae
FAMILY
: BULIMININAE
Subfamily
: Bulimininae
8. Mirus panos* (Benson 1853)
9. Mirus proletaria* (Pfeiffer 1855)
10. Mirus stalix* (Benson 1863)
FAMILY
: CERASTUIDAE
11. Rachis punctatus (Anton 1839)
12. Rhachistia adumhratus* (Pfeiffer 1855)
13. Rhachistia pulcher (Gray 1825)
SUPERFAMILY : PUNCTOIDEA
FAMILY
: ENDODONTIDAE
14. Philalanka circumsculpta* Sykes 1897
15. Philalanka depressa* (Preston 1909)
16. Philalanka edithae* (Preston 1909)
17. Philalanka lamcabensis* Jousseaume 1894
18. Philalanka liratula* (Pfeiffer 1860)
19. Philalanka mononema *(Benson 1853)
20. Philalanka secessa* Godwin-Austen 1898
92
Ranawana: Land Snails in Sri Lanka
21. Philalanka sinhila *(Godwin-Austen 1897)
var. suavis (Jousseaume 1894)
22. Philalanka thwaitesi* (Pfeiffer 1854)
23. Philalanka trifilosa* (Pfeiffer 1854)
FAMILY
: CHAROPIDAE
Subfamily
: Charopinae
24. Ruthvenia biciliata* (Pfeiffer 1855)
25. Ruthvenia caliginosa* (Sykes 1898)
26. Ruthvenia clathratula* (Pfeiffer 1850)
var. compressa (Sykes 1898)
27. Thysanota elegans* Preston 1909
28. Thysanota eumita* Sykes 1898
29. Thysanota hispida* Sykes1898
SUPERFAMILY : CLAUSILIOIDEA
FAMILY
: CLAUSILIDAE
Subfamily
: Phaedusinae
30. Phaedusa ceylanica* (Benson 1863)
SUPERFAMILY : GASTRODONTOIDEA
FAMILY
: GASTRODONTIDAE
31. Zonitoides arboreus (Say 1816)
SUPERFAMILY : HELICARIONOIDEA
FAMILY
: EUCONULIDAE
32. Eurychlamys layardi* (Benson manuscript name )
33. Eurychlamys regulala *(Benson 1860)
34. Eurychltiniys winifredae* (Preston 1909)
FAMILY
: HELICARIONIDAE
Subfamily
: Sesarinae
35. Kaliella barrakporensis (Pfeiffer 1853)
36. Kaliella colletti* Sykes 1899
37. Kaliella delectabilis* Sykes 1898
38. Kaliella leithiana* Godwin-Austen 1883
39. Kaliella salicensis* Godwin-Austen 1897
40. Sivella galerus* (Benson 1856)
41. Sivella hyptiucyclos* (Benson 1863)
FAMILY
: ARIOPHANTIDAE
Subfamily
: Ariophantinae
42. Cryptozona bistrialis (Beck 1837)
43. Cryptozona ceraria* (Benson 1853)
44. Cryptozona chenui* (Pfeiffer 1847)
45. Cryptozona Juliana* (Gray 1834)
var. ganoma (Pfeiffer 1854)
93
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
Cryptozona novella* (Pfeiffer 1855)
Cryptozona semirugata (Beck 1837)
Euplecta acuducta (Benson 1850)
Euplecta albnonata (Dohm 1858)
Euplecta binoyaensis* Godwin-Austen 1899
Euplecta colletti* Sykes 1897
Euplecta concavospira* (Pfeiffer 1854)
Euplectu emiliana * (Pfeiffer 1853)
Euplecta gardeneri* (Pfeiffer 1846)
Euplecta hyphasma* (Pfeiffer 1854)
Euplecta indica (Pfeiffer 1846)
Euplecta isabellina* (Pfeiffer 1854)
Euplecta laevis* Blanford 1901
Euplecta lankaensis* Preston 1909
Euplecta layardi* (Pfeiffer 1853)
Euplecta neglecta11* Preston 1909
Euplecta partita* (Pfeiffer 1854)
Euplecta phidias* (Hanley & Theobald 1876)
Euplecta prestoni* (Godwin-Austen 1897)
Euplecta rosamonda* (Benson 1860)
Euplecta scobinoides* Sykes 1897
Euplecta semidecussata (Pfeiffer 1853)
Eiip!ecta subopaca* (Pfeiffer 1854)
Euplecta trimeni* (Jousseaume 1894)
Euplectaturritella (H. Adams 1869)
Euplecta travancoricii (Benson 1865) [= praeeminens Sykes 1898]
Euplecta verrucula* (Pfeiffer 1855)
Ratnadvipia edgariana** (Benson 1853)
Ratnadvipia irradians** (Pfeiffer 1853)
Ravana politissima** (Pfeiffer 1854)
Mariaella dussumieri Gray 1855
Subfamily
: Macrochlamydinae
77. Macrochlamys mdica Godwin-Austen 1883
78. Macrochlamys kandiensis* Godwin-Austen 1883
79. Macrochlamys neaps* (Pfeiffer 1855)
80. Macrochlamys perfucata* (Benson 1853)
81. Macrochlamys tratanensis* (Jousseaume 1894)
82. Macrachlmys umbrina* (Pfeiffer 1859)
83. Macrachlmy vilipensa (Benson 1853)
84. Macrochlamys woodiana (Pfeiffer 1853)
85. Microcystina bintennensis* Godwin-Auten1899
86. Microcystina lita* Sykes 1898
Subfamily
: Durgellinae
87. Satiella membranacea* (Benson 1853)
88. Sitala operiens* Sykes 1898
94
Ranawana: Land Snails in Sri Lanka
89. Sitala phyll.ophila* ( Benson 1863)
90. Sitala pyramidalis* Sykes 1898
SUPERFAMILY : LIMACOIDEA
FAMILY
: LIRNACIDAE
91. Deroceras reticulatum (Miiller 1774)
SUPERFAMILY : ACHATINOIDEA
FAMILY
: FERUSSACIIDAE?
92. Digoniaxis? cingalensis* (Benson 1863)
FAMILY
: GLESSULIDAE
Subfamily
: Glessulinae
93. Glessula capillacea (Pfeiffer 1855)
94. Glessula ceylanica* (Pfeiffer 1845)
95. Glessula collettae* Sykes 1898
96. Glessula deshayesi (Pfeiffer 1853)
97. Glessula fulgens* (Pfeiffer 1858)
98. Glessula inornata* (Pfeiffer 1853)
var. minor Beddome 1906
99. Glessula lankana* Pilsbry 1908
100. Glessula layardi* Pilsbry 1908
101. Glessula nitens* (Gray 1825)
102. Glessula pachycheila* (Benson 1853)
var. taprobanicci Pilsbry 1908
103.Glessula pullens* Beddome 1906
104. Glessula panaethu* (Benson 1860)
105. Glessula pwahilis* (Benson 1856)
106. Glessula prestoni* Ci ude 1914
107. Glessulapunctogallana* (Pfeiffer 1852)
108. Glessula pusilla Beddome 1906
109. Glessula reynelli* Gude 1914
var. immitis Gude 1914
110. Glessula sattaraensis (Hanley & Theobald 1874)
111. Glessula serena* (Benson 1860)
112. Glessula simony* (Jousseaume 1894)
113. Glessula sinhila* Preston 1909
114. Glessula veruina* (Benson 1853)
FAMILY
: SUBULINIDAE
Subfamily
: Subulinidae
115. Subulina octona (Bruguiere 1789)
116. Allopeas gracile (Hutton 1834)
var. panayensis (Weiffer 1846)
117. Allopeas layardi* (Benson 1863)
118. Allopeas marine* (Jousseaume 1894)
119. Allopeas prestoni* (Sykes 1898)
95
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
120. Allopeas pussilus* (H.. Adams 1867)
121. Allopeas sykesi* (Pilsbry 1906)
122. Paropeas achatinaceum (Pfeiffer 1846)
Sub Family
: Rumininae
123. Zootecus insularis (Ehrenberg 1831)
FAMILY
: ACHATINIDAE
124. Achatina fulica Bowdich 1822
FAMILY
: STREPTAXIDAE
Subfamily
: Streptaxinae
125. Indoartemon cingalensis* (Benson 1853)
126. Indoartemon gracilis* (Collet 1898)
127. Indoartemon layardianus* (Benson 1853)
128. Perrottetia peroteti (Petit de la Saussaye 1841)
129. Perrottetia ravanae* Blanford 1899
Subfamily
: Enneinae
130. Gulella bicolor (Hutton 1834)
131. Sinoennea planguncula (Benson 1863)
SUPERFAMILY : ACAVOIDEA
FAMILY
: ACAVIDAE
Subfamily
: Acavinae
132. Acavus haemastoma** (Linnaeus 1758)
[=concolor (Pilsbry 1890), conns (Pilsbry 1890), fastosus (Albers 1854) and melanotragus (born 1778)
133. Acavus phoenix** (Pfeiffer 1854)
[= prosperus (Albers 1857)]
134. Acavus superbus**
(Pfeiffer 1850) species complex including grevillei (Pfeiffer 1857) and reseolabiata (Nevill 1881)
135. Oligospira polei** (Collet 1899)
136. Oligospira skinneri** (Reeve 1854)
137. Oligospira waltoni** (Reeve 1842)
SUPERFAMILY : CORILLIDOIDEA (=PLECTOPYLIDOIDEA?)
FAMILY
: CORILLIDAE (=PLECTOPYLIDAE?)
138. Corilla adamsi* Gude 1914
var. hinidunensis Nevill 1871
139. Corilla beddomeae * (Hanley 1875)
140. Corilla carabmata* (Ferussac 1821)
141. Corilla colletti* Sykes 1897
142. Corilla erronea* (Albers 1853)
var. eronella Gude 1896
143. Corilla fryae* Gude 1896
144. Corilla giidei* Sykes 1897
145. Corilla humberti* (Brot 1864)
96
Ranawana: Land Snails in Sri Lanka
146. Corilla lesleyae *Barnacle 1959
147. Corilla odontophora * (Benson 1865)
SUPERFAMILY : CAMAENOIDEA
FAMILY
: CAMAENIDAE
Subfamily
: Camaeninae
148. Beddomea albizonatus* (Reeve 1849)
var. simoni (Jousseaume 1894)
149. Beddomea ceylanicus*(Pfeiffer 1846)
150. Beddomea intermedius* (Pfeiffer 1855)
151. Beddomea frifasciatus* (Gmelin 1786)
var. rufopicta (Benson 1856)
152. Trachia fallaciosa (Ferussac 1821)
153. Trachia vittata (Muller 1774)
154. Landouria radleyi* (Jousseaume 1894)
SUPERFAMILY : HELICOIDEA
FAMILY
: BRADYBAENIDAE
Subfamily
: Bradybinaenae
155. Bradybaena similaris (Femssac 1822)
Subfamily
: Succineinae
156. Succinea ceylanica Pfeiffer 1855
ORDER
: SYSTEUOMMATOPHORA
FAMILY
: VERONICELLIDAE
157. Laevicaulis alte (Femssac 1821)
158. Semperula maculata (Tempieton 1888)
159. Semperula siamensis (Martens 1867)
SUBCLASS
: PROSOBRANCHIA
SUPERFAMILY : CYCLOPHOROIDEA
FAMILY
: C YCLOPHORIDAE
Subfamily
: Cyclophorinae
160. Cyclophorus alabastrimis* (Pfeiffer 1855)
161. Cyclophorus ceylanicus* (Pfeiffer 1849)
162. Cyclophorus involvulus (Muller 1774)
163. Cyc!ophorus menkeanus * (Philippi 1848)
164. Aulopoma grande* * (Pfeiffer 1855)
165. Aulopoma helicinum ** (Chemnitz 1786)
166. Aulopoma itieri** (Guerin 1847)
Ver. Hofmeisteri Troshcel 1847
167. Aulopoma sphaeroideum** Dohrn 1857
168. Cyathopoma (Cyathopoma) album Beddome 1875
169. Cyathopoma (Cyathopoma) artatum* Sykes 1897
170. Cyathopoma (Jerdonia) ceylanicum* Beddome 1875
171. Cyathopoma (Jerdonia) colletti* Sykes 1898
97
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
172. Cyathopoma (Jerdonia) conoideum* Sykes 1898
173. Cyathopoma (Jerdonia) innocens* Sykes 1899
174. Cyathopoma (Cyathopoma) leptomita* Sykes 1898
175. Cyathopoma (Cyathopoma) mariae* Jousseaume 1894
176. Cyathopoma (Jerdonia) ogdenianum* Preston 1909
177. Cyathopoma (Jerdonia) perconoideum* Preston 1909
178. Cyathopoma (Cyathopoma) prestoni* Sykes 1897
179. Cyathopoma (Jerdonia) serendibense* Preston 1903
180. Cyathopoma {Jerdonia) turbinatum* Sykes 1897
181. Cyathopoma (Jerdonia) uvaense* Preston 1909
182. Japonia binoyae* ( Sykes 1899)
183. Japonia occulta* Sykes 1899
184. Japonia vesca *(Sykes 1899)
185. Leptopoma apicatum* Benson 1856
186. Leptopoma elatum* Pfeiffer 1852
187. Leptopoma semiclausum* (Pfeiffer 1855)
188. Leptopomoides conulus* (Pfeiffer 1855)
189. Leptopomoides flammeus* (Pfeiffer 1855)
190. Leptopomoides halophilus* (Benson 1851)
191. Leptopomoides orophilus* (Benson 1853)
192. Leptopomoides poecilus* (Pfeiffer 1855)
193. Leptopomoides taprobanensis26* (Preston 1909)
194. Micraulax coeloconus (Benson 1851)
195. Scabrina brounae* (Sykes 1898)
196. Scabrina liratula* (Preston 1909)
197. Theobaldius annulatus* (Pfeiffer 1847)
var. discus Kobelt 1902
198. Theobaldius bairdi* (Pfeiffer 1854)
199. Theobaldius cadiscus* (Benson 1860)
200. Theobaldius cratera* (Benson 1856)
201. Theobaldius cytopoma* (Benson 1860)
202. Theobaldius layardi* (H. Adams 1868)
203. Theobaldius liliputianus* (Preston 1909)
204. Theobaldius loxostoma* (Pfeiffer 1854)
205. Theobaldius parapsis* (Benson 1853)
206. Theobaldius parma* (Benson 1856)
207. Theobaldius subplicatulus* (Beddome 1875)
208. Theobaldius thwaitesi* (PfeifFer 1855)
Subfamily
: Pterocyclinae (?)
209. Pterocyclus bifrons* PfeifFer 1855
210. Pterocyclus bilabialus Sowerby 1835 var. cornice Nevill 1878
211. Pterocyclus cingalensis* Benson 1853
212. Pterocyclus cumingi PfeifFer 1851
213. Pterocyclus troscheli* Benson 1851
98
Ranawana: Land Snails in Sri Lanka
FAMILY
: DIPLOMATINIDAE
Subfamily
: Diplomatininae
214. Nicida catathymia* (Sykes 1898)
215. Nicida ceylamca* (Beddome 1875)
216. Nicida delectabilis* (Preston 1905)
217. Nicida lankaensis* (Preston 1905)
218. Nicida pedronis* (Beddome 1875)
219. Nicida prestomi* (Sykes 1897)
FAMILY
: PUPINIDAE
Subfamily
: Pupininae
220. Tortulosa aurea* (PfeifFer 1855)
221. Tortulosa austeniana* (Benson 1853)
222. Tortulosa barnaclei* Tomlin 1928
223. Tortulosa blanfordi* (Dohrn 1862)
224. Tortulosa colletti* (Sykes 1898)
225. Tortulosa congener* (Sykes 1905)
226. Tortulosa connectens* (Fulton 1903)
227. Tortulosa cumingi* (PfeifFer 1857)
228. Tortulosa decora* (Benson 1853)
229. Tortulosa duplicate* (PfeifFer 1855)
230. Tortulosa eurytrema* (PfeifFer 1852)
231. Tortulosa greeni* (Sykes 1899)
var. robusta (Fulton 1903)
232. Tortulosa haemastoma* (PfeifFer 1857)
233. Tortulosa hartleyi* Tomlin 1928
234. Tortulosa layardi * (PfeifFer 1851)
235. Tortulosa leucocheilus* (A. Adams & Sowerby 1866)
236. Tortulosa marginata* (PfeifFer 1854)
var. crenulata (Fulton 1904)
var. notata (Sykes 1905)
237. Tortulosa nevilli* (Sykes 1898)
vsz.flaveola (Fulton 1904)
238. Tortulosa metneri* (Nevill 1871)
var. caperata (Collett 1899)
var. unicolor (Collett 1899)
239. Tortulosa prestoni*(Sykes 1905)
240. Tortulosa pyramidata* (PfeifFer 1852)
241. Tortulosa rugosa *(Fulton 1904)
242. Tortulosa smithi* (Sykes 1905)
243. Tortulosa sykesi* (Fulton 1904)
244. Tortulosa templemani* (Pfeiffer 1852)
245. Tortulosa thwaitesi* (Pfeiffer 1852)
SUPERFAMILY : RISSOIDEA
FAMILY
: TRUNCATELLIDAE
246. Truncatella ceylanica * Pfeiffsr 1856
99
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
100
Trachypithecus vetulus
Vimukthi Weeratunga
Section 2:
Status of Vertebrate
Fauna in Sri Lanka
Philautus femoralis
Wildlife Heritage Trust
Ceratophora stoddartii
Vimukthi Weeratunga
Puntius srilankensis
Wildlife Heritage Trust
Urocissa ornata
Vimukthi Weeratunga
101
102
THE FAUNA OF SRI LANKA (2006): 103-112
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Conservation of Sri Lankan Freshwater Fishes
Rohan Pethiyagoda*
*
Wildlife Heritage Trust, 95 Cotta Road, Colombo 8, Sri Lanka.
Abstract
The paper highlights the species richness of freshwater fish in Sri Lanka, which consist of 82 species,
including 44 endemics. It provides a discussion on conservation issues that pose a threat to the
island’s freshwater fish fauna, mainly invasive alien species, hydrological alterations and degradation
of aquatic habitats and recommends specific conservation actions.
Key words: Freshwater fish, Taxonomy, Conservation, Issues, Invasive species
Introduction
Sri Lanka has one of the world’s best known freshwater-fish faunas thanks to it having been well
represented in the international ornamental fish trade from its beginnings in the 1930s, when wild-caught
fish were exported to Europe and the United States. This trade was conducted necessarily using sea
freight, involving passages of several weeks in widely varying environments, and succeeded only because
the economics allowed for extremely high mortality. The Red Ruby Barb (Puntius nigrofasciatus), the
Cherry Barb (P. titteya), the killifishes (Aplocheilus spp.) and many others have thus played a prominent
part in international trade for decades, diminishing only when the principle of sustainability was absorbed
into the regulatory process in the wake of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity.
The island’s freshwater fish fauna has received significant attention in the technical literature, beginning
with the description of specimens sent by expatriate enthusiasts to the British Museum (now The Natural
History Museum) in the 1860s (e.g. Günther, 1864, 1868). Prior to this, the only fish descriptions from Sri
Lanka had been based on a single collection made ca 1827 near the Kinniyar hot springs north of
Trincomalee by A. Reynaud, a French explorer, based on which Georges Cuvier and Achille Valenciennes
described several species as new (Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1828–49). The first local exploration of this
fauna by an expert, however, occurred only in the early 1860s, when the Dutch ichthyologist P. Bleeker
broke journey at Galle and made a collection from the Gin River basin, from which he described several
new species. In 1900, Bleeker’s work drew George Duncker, a German ichthyologist, to the same river
and several other localities, based on which work the first checklist of Sri Lankan freshwater fishes was
published (Duncker, 1912).
Following Duncker’s work, the freshwater fishes received detailed attention in the work of P. E. P.
Deraniyagala, who described several new species and the first illustrated faunal treatment (Deraniyagala,
1952), to which were added synopses by way of Mendis (1954) and Munro (1955). The first systematic
exploration of the island’s fish fauna however, took place only in the late 1970s in the seminal work of
Senanayake (1980), which sadly remains unpublished. Senanayake (1982) and Senanayake et al. (1987)
also reviewed, for the first time, the conservation of Sri Lanka’s freshwater fishes. This work was
supplemented by the work of Pethiyagoda (1990; 1994) and through the description of several additional
new species.
Current taxonomic status of freshwater fish
Despite the early attention to freshwater fish in Sri Lanka, several novelties remain to be described
(Pethiyagoda, in progress; see also Appendix 1), an activity retarded by the need to address several
taxonomic and nomenclatural problems in the Indian literature (e.g. see Pethiyagoda & Kottelat 2005a,b).
At present, a total of 82 species of freshwater fishes (44 species, 54% of them endemic) are known from
103
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
the island, including diadromous species but not adventitious marine species that sometimes enter fresh and
brackish waters (see Appendix 1). Thirteen of these species remain to be identified and/or described
(Pethiyagoda, in progress).
A fuller understanding of Sri Lanka’s freshwater fish fauna is also likely to develop as the results of
molecular analyses now in progress become available (e.g. see Bossuyt et al., 2004; Meegaskumbura &
Pethiyagoda, work in progress). This approach is likely to be particularly important in informing
conservation-management decisions relating to populations that show distinct inter-basin differences.
Conservation Status
Endangered Species. At present, nine species of freshwater fish in Sri Lanka are considered as globally
threatened (IUCN, 2004), while 39 species have been identified as nationally threatened (IUCN Sri Lanka,
2000) (see Table 1).
Extinctions. The populations of two species (Labeo lankae and Macrognathus aral) have crashed
precipitously and they may be extinct (Pethiyagoda, 1994). Trends in almost all other species are not
documented, and with no comprehensive assessment having been made over the past 15 years, it is
possible that several other species have disappeared or are on the brink of extinction. The foremost priority
for the conservation of this fauna therefore is a competent scientific national assessment based on fresh
sampling.
Conservation Issues
Invasive species: While the primary cause of Sri Lanka’s amphibian extinctions has probably been habitat
loss, invasive species are likely to be flagged as the key agent for the extinction of freshwater fishes. Some
nine alien species of freshwater fishes (and several other aquatic organisms) are now naturalised in Sri
Lanka (Bambaradeniya, 2002), many of them invasive. Many other exotic species are recorded
sporadically, and persist as potential invasives.
Both the freshwater fishery and the ornamental fish industry are clearly implicated in the introduction of
freshwater invasive species to Sri Lanka. The first alien species introduced was the rainbow trout, in the
1880s to the highlands, to support a sport fishery. Two unidentified species of fishes recorded from an
altitude of 1,800 m in the 1840s by Kelaart (1852) disappeared after the introduction of trout. The decline
of the trout fly fishery in the 1970s led to the rapid decline of the population of this fish through poisoning
for local consumption everywhere except in the Belihul Oya within Horton Plains National Park, where
this species is strictly protected. Given that trout have inhabited this stream for more than a century now, it
is likely that they have already done such damage as they are capable of doing and have reached a ‘steady
state’ ecological position. The protection accorded to them is, however, a poor reflection on conservation
science in Sri Lanka, especially given that they occur syntopically with several restricted-range endemics
such as the crabs Ceylonthelphusa sorror, Perbrinckia punctata and P. glabra; and the shrimp
Lancaris singhalensis.
Fishes introduced the lowland reservoir fishery, however, pose far more serious problems. Beginning with
Oreochromis mossambicus in the 1950s, several tilapiine cichlids and their hybrids have been introduced
to Sri Lanka (e.g., O. niloticus, O. urolepis, Tilapia rendalli, T. zillii) in a continuing fisheries
development programme. Tilapias represent between 70 and 90 percent of the freshwater fish harvest at
present, and a major share of the national freshwater fish biomass. Apart from the effects of competition
and predation, increasingly more intensive gill-net fisheries also impact directly on the larger species of
indigenous fishes (e.g. Wallago attu, Channa ara, which are now extremely rare). They may also have
impacted on Labeo lankae, which was in fact represented incidentally in the reservoir fishery (Senanayake,
1980), and led to the near extirpation of freshwater turtles in most reservoirs that support a fishery.
104
Pethiyagoda: Conservation of Sri Lankan Freshwater Fishes
Approximately 30,000 MT of freshwater fish (all of them alien) are harvested annually in Sri Lanka,
representing an important source of nutrition and employment for rural communities. Yet, this fishery
represents less than 0.1% of annual per capita GNP, which suggests that it is not indispensable in economic
terms. Tragically, international fisheries development agencies such as the Asian Development Bank and
the UN Food and Agriculture Organization have continued indiscriminately to support the introduction of
alien species with no consideration of the environmental consequences involved. Indeed, an environmental
impact assessment has not been made or mandated for the introduction of even one of the dozen or so
alien species released in Sri Lanka by the fishery, and fisheries scientists continue to ignore the potential
for negative consequences (see De Silva et al., 2004, for a review).
Given that no other causes have been implicated in the population crash of Labeo lankae (an endemic
carp the distribution of which overlapped completely with that of tilapia), it is necessary to recognize that
tilapia appears to have been responsible for at least a single species extinction in Sri Lanka. Given also that
tilapias have extended their range to rivers, streams and estuaries, and even to the highlands (Pethiyagoda,
1994), it is time to consider controls in respect of both past and future introductions. The problem of
invasive alien species is particularly important because the declines of indigenous fish populations they
precipitate tend to be sharp and catastrophic, allowing little time of remedial interventions to be planned
(Moyle et al., 1986). No possibilities for reducing existing tilapia populations present themselves, except by
way of yet-to-be-developed biological controls, towards which international fisheries development agencies
such as the ADB and FAO are yet to direct significant attention or investment. Given the “sustainable
development” rhetoric these agencies espouse, their role in this tragic outcome needs to be highlighted, and
the need for them to engage in the development of controls canvassed internationally. It is also necessary
that any future intended release of exotic organisms in Sri Lanka (whether aquatic or otherwise) be
informed by an environmental impact assessment, together with safeguards against their potential for
invasiveness. This is especially necessary given that fisheries agencies have consistently ignored the
provisions of Sections 37 and 38 of the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance, which regulate the import
and release of live organisms to Sri Lanka.
Ornamental fish industry: The ornamental fish industry too, has been less than responsible in its
management of exotic aquatic organisms. Several species of fishes imported for the local aquarium trade
have become established in natural habitats as a result of (e.g.) escapes from ponds during floods, or
deliberate release of redundant specimens because of widespread religious and ethical aversion to
destroying life. Given the increasing number of organisms entering international trade, it is necessary even
now that a “positive list” of organisms that can be imported or kept for trade be developed and enforced,
choosing only from among species that pose little risk of becoming established should they be released.
While the collection of freshwater fishes for the ornamental fish trade has diminished significantly in the
course of the last decade, it needs to be recognized that such collection does impact also on non-target
species, especially as it occurs largely in habitats in which there is no food fishery (and therefore no other
harvesting). In the interest of sustainability therefore, the industry should be encouraged, through
appropriate incentives and regulation, to shift entirely from collection to culture. While the ornamental fish
industry poses threats as detailed above, it also presents a unique opportunity through its capacity for ex
situ conservation. The industry possesses important knowledge and technology for breeding fishes, and has
already engaged in conservation programmes for three threatened species, Puntius bandula,
P. srilankensis and Devario pathirana (A. Pathirana, pers. comm.). Engagement with the industry, and
commissioning competent institutions and individuals within it to undertake the sustainable and scientific
maintenance of captive freshwater fish populations could prove to be the only strategy whereby future fish
extinctions could be averted. The development of ex situ conservation strategy requires however, that an
unfortunate oversight in Section 49A of the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance, which prohibits the
keeping of animals (including fish), be revised.
It is important to emphasise here that extreme care must be taken in releasing fishes (or any organism),
105
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
even in the course of conservation practice. The release of fishes from the Kelani Basin into the Mahaweli
Basin has already been commented on (see Pethiyagoda, 1991: 36); similar releases should be discouraged
in the future except perhaps in extreme circumstances, such as preventing an otherwise inevitable
extinction. A practice has also evolved where animals confiscated by customs or wildlife authorities are
released into natural habitats. While the ethics behind this are clear, the ecological consequences are
potentially serious. A process for the safe disposal of such animals needs to be developed: e.g., they should
be destroyed or maintained in captivity in perpetuo, e.g., in the National Zoological Gardens.
Hydrological alterations: Compared with invasive species, other impacts on Sri Lanka’s freshwater fishes
appear less important though not negligible. Sri Lanka has no natural lakes or perennial lentic habitats. In
the course of the past two millennia however, widespread hydrological alterations have taken place, mainly
in the construction of lowland impoundments, giving rise to thousands of reservoirs. The Accelerated
Mahaweli Development Project between 1978 and 1988 resulted in the creation for the first time of several
large highland reservoirs, and also perhaps more importantly, in a trans-basin diversion. The impacts of
these historical hydrological alterations on fish faunas, while widely speculated on in the popular media,
have never been objectively assessed; no direct negative impacts are known.
Degradation of habitats. Pollution of waterways by urban and industrial refuse has had local impacts in
some areas, while silt deposition resulting from poor agricultural practices on highland slopes has had much
more widespread effects (Hewawasam et al., 2003). Pesticides and agricultural chemicals too, pose a risk,
especially as the regulatory process for their approval addresses only health, and not environmental, risks
(Anon., 1980). Although Sri Lanka has experienced extensive deforestation, there is as yet no evidence
that this, or the land use change that usually accompanies it, has directly impacted on freshwater fishes
except where riparian shade has been lost (e.g. Helfman, 1981).
Fishes and other aquatic organisms need to be treated separately from other groups for conservation
purposes. Protected areas provide only marginal overlap with aquatic ecosystems, and very few of Sri
Lanka’s many “point endemic” fishes (e.g., Puntius bandula, P. srilankensis, Devario pathirana)
occurs in a protected area. Species-protection too, does not work well for these organisms because they
are seldom targeted for exploitation. Their conservation therefore depends largely on beneficial
engagement by civil society, especially local communities. Unfortunately, no provision exists in Sri Lanka’s
essentially protectionist legal framework to facilitate conservation, especially interventional management,
and this deficiency needs to be addressed in future reforms.
Recommended conservation actions
1.
A conservation assessment of the freshwater fauna is overdue, but for most species up to date information
on populations and trends simply does not exist to facilitate one. A comprehensive assessment of the
populations of all freshwater fish species based on fresh sampling is therefore an urgent necessity.
2.
While fisheries managers maintain detailed catch records at several stations in Sri Lanka, taxonomic
data are not acquired. The maintenance of records of the catch of each species, especially the
indigenous-species by-catch, could provide a means to make trend analyses that could inform future
conservation decisions.
3.
All pesticides approved for release in Sri Lanka should be assessed for impact on non-target
organisms and the environment in general, and the labelling of such products should include
information on environmental safeguards.
4.
All future releases of exotic fishes should be preceded by an environmental impact assessment
involving specific safeguards against invasiveness.
5.
A positive list of organisms that may be imported by the ornamental fish industry needs to be
developed and enforced. The necessary legal provisions for this already exist in the Fauna and Flora
Protection Ordinance.
106
Pethiyagoda: Conservation of Sri Lankan Freshwater Fishes
6.
Legal and institutional reforms need to be made to engage local communities in the in situ conservation
of point-endemic freshwater fishes; and to engage the ornamental fish industry in ex situ conservation,
especially the development of methodologies to breed “difficult” threatened species (e.g. Puntius
asoka) in captivity.
7.
International agencies, particularly the FAO and ADB should be informed of the negative
consequences of their fisheries development projects in Sri Lanka and urged to engage in supporting
the research and capacity-building necessary to manage the fishery sustainably into the future.
8.
Incentives and regulatory measures need to be introduced to phase out, over a defined time scale
(say 2-3 years), the harvesting of fishes from the wild by the ornamental fishery, while encouraging
the culture of such species as for which there is commercial demand.
9.
Finally, although its consequences will have minimal conservation benefit at this stage, the Department
of Wildlife Conservation should take steps to eradicate the last population of rainbow trout in Sri
Lanka, in Horton Plains National Park, at least so as to demonstrate that it is alive to the risk alien
species pose to the indigenous biodiversity of Sri Lanka.
Table 1: Current IUCN Global Red List of Sri Lankan freshwater fishes (IUCN, 2004) and National
Red List (IUCN Sri Lanka, 2000). CR – Critically endangered; EN – Endangered; VU –
Vulnerable; LR – Lower Risk, DD – Data deficient.
Species
Global status
National status
1. Acanthocobitis urophthalmus
2. Aplocheilus dayi
3. Aplocheilus werneri
4. Belontia signata
5. Channa ara
6. Channa orientalis
7. Clarias brachysoma
8. Danio aequipinnulus [sic] aequipinnatus
9. Danio pathirana
10. Esomus thermoicos
11. Garra ceylonensis
12. Garra phillipsi
13. Heteropneustes microps
14. Horadandia atukoralei
15. Labeo fisheri
16. Labeo lankae
17. Lepidocephalichthys jonklaasi
18. Macrognathus aral
19. Malpulutta kretseri
20. Microphis brachyurus
21. Monopterus desilvai
22. Ophisternon bengalense
23. Puntius asoka
24. Puntius bandula
LR/cd
–
–
LR/cd
–
–
–
DD
CR
–
–
DD
VU
–
EN
CR
EN
DD
LR/cd
–
–
–
EN
CR
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Highly Threatened
Highly Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
–
Threatened
Threatened
Highly Threatened
Threatened
Highly Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Highly Threatened
Threatened
Highly Threatened
Highly Threatened
107
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Puntius cumingii
Puntius martenstyni
Puntius nigrofasciatus
Puntius pleurotaenia
Puntius srilankensis
Puntius ticto
Puntius titteya
Rasbora vaterifloris
Rasbora wilpita
Schismatogobius deraniyagalai
Schistura notostigma
Sicyopterus griseus
Sicyopterus halei
Sicyopus jonklaasi
Stiphodon martenstyni
Xenentodon cancila
LR/cd
EN
LR/cd
LR/cd
–
–
LR/cd
LR/cd
EN
DD
DD
DD
–
–
Threatened
Highly Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Highly Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Highly Threatened
Threatened
Literature cited
Anon., 1980. Control of Pesticides Act. Government Publications Bureau, Colombo.
Bambaradeniya, C.N.B. 2002. The status and implications of invasive alien species in Sri Lanka. Zoos’
Print Journal, 17 (11): 930-935.
Bossuyt, F., M. Meegaskumbura, N. Beenaerts, D. J. Gower, R. Pethiyagoda, K. Roelants, A. Mannaert,
M. Wilkinson, M. M. Bahir, K. Manamendra-Arachchi, P. K. L. Ng, C. J. Schneider, O. V. Oommen
& M. C. Milinkovitch, 2004. Local endemism within the Western Ghats–Sri Lanka Biodiversity
Hotspot. Science, 306: 479–481.
Cuvier, G. & A. Valenciennes, 1828–49. Histoire naturelle des poissons. Paris, Strassbourg.
Deraniyagala, P. E. P., 1952. A coloured atlas of some vertebrates from Ceylon, 1: fishes. National
Museum, Colombo.
Duncker, G. 1912. Die Susswasserfische Ceylons. Jahrb. Hamburg Wiss. Anst., Beiheft 2, Mitt.
Naturhist. Mus. Hamburg, 29 (2): 241–272.
Günther, A. 1864. Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum, 5. British Museum, London.
Günther, A. 1868. Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum, 7. British Museum, London.
Helfman, G. S. 1981. The advantage to fishes hovering in shade. Copeia, 1981: 392–399.
Hewawasam, T., F. von Blanckenburg, M. Schaller & P. Kubik, 2003. Increase of human over natural
erosion rates in tropical highlands constrained by cosmogenic nuclides. Geology 31: 597–600.
IUCN Sri Lanka. 2000. The 1999 list of threatened fauna and flora of Sri Lanka. Colombo: IUCN Sri
Lanka. 114 pp.
IUCN (2004). 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. (www.redlist.org).
Kelaart, E.F. 1852. Prodromus faunae Zeylanicae; being contributions to the zoology of Ceylon, Observer
Press, Colombo.
Mendis, A.S. 1954. Fishes of Ceylon. Fisheries Research Station, Colombo.
108
Pethiyagoda: Conservation of Sri Lankan Freshwater Fishes
Moyle, P. B., H. W. Li & B. A. Barton, 1986. The Frankenstein effect. The impact of introduced fishes on
native fishes of North America. In: Stroud, R. H. (Ed.), Fish culture in fisheries management.
American fish. Soc., Bethesda.
Munro, I.S.R. 1955. The Marine and Freshwater Fishes of Ceylon, Department of External Affairs, Canberra.
Pethiyagoda, R. 1991. Freshwater fishes of Sri Lanka. Wildlife Heritage Trust, Colombo.
Pethiyagoda, R. 1994. Threats to the indigenous freshwater fishes of Sri Lanka and remarks on their
conservation. Hydrobiologia, 285: 189–201.
Pethiyagoda, R. & M. Kottelat, 2005 a. A review of the barbs of the Puntius filamentosus group
(Teleostei: Cyprinidae) of southern India and Sri Lanka. In: Yeo, D. C. J., Ng, P. K. L. & Pethiyagoda,
R. (Eds.), Contributions to biodiversity exploration and research in Sri Lanka. The Raffles
Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement 12: 127–144.
Pethiyagoda, R. & M. Kottelat, 2005 b. The identity of the south Indian barb Puntius mahecola (Teleostei:
Cyprinidae). In: Yeo, D. C. J., Ng, P. K. L. & Pethiyagoda, R. (Eds.), Contributions to biodiversity
exploration and research in Sri Lanka. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement 12: 145–152.
Senanayake, F.R. 1980. The biogeography and ecology of the inland fishes of Sri Lanka, unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Biology, University of California, Davis.
Senanayake, F.R. & P.B. Moyle. 1982. Conservation of Freshwater Fishes of Sri Lanka, Biol.
Conservation, 22: 181–195.
Senanayayake, F.R., Soulé, M. & J. W. Senner. 1977. Habitat values and endemicity in the vanishing rain
forests of Sri Lanka, Nature, 265: 351–354.
109
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Appendix 1: Provisional Checklist of Freshwater Fishes of Sri Lanka
(Note: Exotic species have been omitted. The use of “sp.” does not imply that the species is new: only that
without further research, a name cannot reliably be assigned to it. ‘E’ refers to endemic species, it being
noted that the diadromous sicydiine gobies are unlikely to be truly endemic.)
FAMILY: ANGUILLIDAE
1. Anguilla nebulosa
2. Anguilla bicolour
FAMILY: CYPRINIDAE
3. Amblypharyngodon melettinus
4. Amblypharyngodon grandisquammisE
5. Chela ceylonensisE
6. Chela sp. 1E
7. Chela sp. 2E
8. Devario malabaricus
9. Devario pathiranaE
10. Devario sp.E
11. Esomus thermoicosE
12. Garra ceylonensisE
13. Garra sp.E
14. Rasboroides atukorali
15. Rasboroides vateriflorisE
16. Labeo dussumieri
17. Labeo fisheriE
18. Labeo lankaeE
19. Puntius asokaE
20. Puntius bandulaE
21. Puntius bimaculatus
22. Puntius chola
23. Puntius cumingiiE
24. Puntius dorsalis
25. Puntius martenstyniE
26. Puntius nigrofasciatusE
27. Puntius pleurotaeniaE
28. Puntius saranaE
29. Puntius singhalaE
30. Puntius srilankensisE
31. Puntius titteyaE
32. Puntius vittatus
33. Puntius sp. 1E
34. Puntius sp. 2E
35. Puntius sp. 3E
36. Puntius sp. 4E
37. Puntius sp. 5E
38. Rasbora caverii
39. Rasbora daniconius
110
Pethiyagoda: Conservation of Sri Lankan Freshwater Fishes
40. Rasbora wilpitaE
41. Tor khudree
FAMILY: BALITORIDAE
42. Acanthocobitis urophthalmusE
43. Schistura notostigmaE
FAMILY: COBITIDAE
44. Lepidocephalichthys jonklaasiE
45. Lepidocephalichthys thermalis
FAMILY: BAGRIDAE
46. Mystus gulio
47. Mystus cavasius
48. Mystus vittatus
49. Mystus sp.E
FAMILY: SILURIDAE
50. Ompok bimaculatus
51. Wallago attu
FAMILY: CLARIIDAE
52. Clarias brachysomaE
FAMILY: HETEROPNEUSTIDAE
53. Heteropneustes fossilis
FAMILY: ADRIANICHTHYIDAE
54. Oryzias sp. 1E
55. Oryzias sp. 2E
FAMILY: SYNBRANCHIDAE
56. Ophisternon bengalense
57. Ophisternon desilvaiE
FAMILY: APLOCHEILIDAE
58. Aplocheilus dayiE
59. Aplocheilus parvus
60. Aplocheilus werneriE
FAMILY: CICHLIDAE
61. Etroplus maculatus
62. Etroplus suratensis
FAMILY: ANABANTIDAE
63. Anabas testudineus
111
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
FAMILY: BELONTIIDAE
64. Belontia signataE
65. Malpulutta kretseriE
66. Pseudosphromenus cupanus
FAMILY: CHANNIDAE
67. Channa araE
68. Channa gachua
69. Channa orientalisE
70. Channa punctata
71. Channa striata
FAMILY: MASTACEMBELIDAE
72. Macrognathus cf. aral
73. Mastacembelus armatus
FAMILY: GOBIIDAE
74. Awaous melanocephalus
75. Oligolepis acutipinnis
76. Sicyopterus griseus
77. Sicyopterus halei
78. Sicyopus jonklaasiE
79. Stenogobius malabaricus
80. Stiphodon martenstyniE
81. Schismatogobius deraniyagalai
82. Glossogobius giuris
112
Amarasinghe et al.: Some Aspects of Ecology of Endemic
THE FAUNA
Freshwater
OF SRI LANKA
Fishes
(2006):
of Sri113-124
Lanka
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Some Aspects of Ecology of Endemic Freshwater Fishes of Sri Lanka
Upali S. Amarasinghe, R.R.A.R. Shirantha and M.J.S. Wijeyaratne
Department of Zoology, University of Kelaniya, Kelaniya 11600, Sri Lanka.
Abstract
Sri Lanka supports a diverse freshwater fishes, about 48% of which are endemic. Most of these
endemic freshwater fish species occur in the hill country forested streams of the wet zone. There
are sophisticated interactions between fish species in a fish community and its environment for food,
space and/or spawning. As evident from the biology of cyprinids in hill streams in Sri Lanka, most of
the endemic freshwater fish species tend to show well-defined niche segregation and ecological
adaptations. Several anthropogenic activites such as deforestation, gem mining and uncontrolled use
of agrochemicals, pose significant threats to survival of many endemic freshwater fish species in Sri
Lanka. Exploitation of endemic fish species from the wild for ornamental fish trade is also a major
cause of decline of their populations. Further, accidental introduction of clown knife fish (Chitala
ornatus) and cleaner fish (Ptrygoplichthys multiradiatus), which poses threats to diversity of
freshwater fishes in Sri Lanka, is an indirect adverse effect of ornamental fish trade. Although some
introductions of exotic fish species such as African cichlids, most notably Oreochromis
mossambicus and O. niloticus, have socio-economic benefits, effective strategies should be
implemented to control transfer and introduction of aquatic organisms.
Key words: Endemic fish, Ecology, Distribution
Introduction
As mentioned by Greenwood (1992), fishes, no less than other organisms, are threatened by numerous
human activities, but because fishes are less obvious than terrestrial life they are often overlooked, as is
their role in global ecology. Literature on riverine fisheries (Welcomme 1979) and tropical fish ecology
(Lowe-McConnell 1987) highlights Africa and the Neotropics and contains relatively little about most Asian
rivers except the Mekong river basin (Rainboth 1996) and southern India and Western Ghats (Kurup et al.,
2004). However in tropical Asia, there are more than 105 families of freshwater fishes compared to 74 in
Africa and only 60 in South America (Dudgeon 2000). Sri Lanka supports a diverse freshwater fishes,
about 48% of which are endemic. However, as in many parts of the tropical Asia (oriental region),
information on the ecology of freshwater fish species in rivers and streams in Sri Lanka is scanty and not
well-synthesized. Nevertheless, such information is imperative in order to identify conservation status of
individual species, especially due to the fact that a number of endemic freshwater fish species are reported
to be threatened with extinction and that others are depleted due to various anthropogenic activities
(Senanayake and Moyle 1982). Although it is a fact that endemic freshwater fish species and other cooccuring non-endemic fish species share the same ecological conditions, ecology of former needs to be
emphasized in relation to conservation of endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka. In this paper,
information on ecology of endemic freshwater fish species is reviewed with a view to identifying major
threats to them and future needs to generate information required for planning conservation strategies.
Distribution of endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka
Senanayake and Moyle (1982) have suggested that based on the distribution pattern of freshwater fish
species, three ichthyofaunal provinces could be identified in Sri Lanka. They are, (i) the Southwestern
Province; (ii) the Mahaweli Province; and (iii) the Dry Zone Province. The Southwestern Province
consists of the river basins from the Nilwala Ganga in the south and to the Attanagalu Oya in the north,
113
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
with the border of the second peneplain forming the boundary in the east. The Mahaweli Province is
essentially the drainage basin of the Mahaweli River. This province covers all three peneplains and the fish
fauna in the first peneplain of this ichthyofaunal province is largely identical to that in the Dry Zone
Province. The Dry Zone Province covers all parts of the first peneplain except the area in the wet zone
climatic region. Out of the total of 62 freshwater fish species, at least 30 species are endemic to Sri Lanka
(Pethiyagoda 1991, 1994; Bailey and Gans 1998; Watson 1998; www.fishbase.org). List of endemic
freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka and their occurrence in the three ichthyological provinces are
presented in Table 1. The highest number of endemic freshwater fish species is found in the Southwestern
ichthyological province. According to Pethiyagoda (1991), 25 out of 30 species (83.3%) occur in this
province. In the Mahaweli ichthyological province 10 endemic species (33.3%) are found (Silva 1993).
There are four endemic species in the Dry zone ichthyological province, which form only 13.3% of the
total number of endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka. However, the concept of ichthyological
provinces in Sri Lanka is questionable when it is viewed on the basis of the comprehensive account by
Pethiyagoda (1991) regarding distribution of freshwater fishes of Sri Lanka.
The taxonomy of the fishes of South Asia is however not very accurate (Kottelat 1989), hence it needs to
be revised. Such revisions will undoubtedly increase the degree of endemism of freshwater fishes in Sri
Lanka (Pethiyagoda 1994). For example, Pethiyagoda and Kottelat (2004) have shown that the cyprinid
species, generally known as Puntius filamentosus (De Silva et al. 1981; Pethiyagoda 1991), is P. singhala,
which is endemic to Sri Lanka. On the other hand, Heteropneustes microps is now considered as a junior
synonym of H. fossilis (Pethiyagoda and Bahir 1998).
Table 1: List of endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka and their occurrence in three ichthyofaunal
provinces. SW – Southwestern ichthyofaunal province; M – Mahaweli ichthyofaunal province; D
– Dry zone ichthyofaunal province (Senanayake and Moyle 1982). Occurrence of fish species in
the three ichthyofaunal provinces was compiled on the basis of information given in Pethiyagoda
(1991, 1994), Bailey and Gans (1998), Watson (1998) and www.fishbase.org.
Family
Belontiidae
Aplocheilidae
Balitoridae
Claridae
Cobitidae
Channidae
Cyprinidae
114
Species
Belontia signata
Malpulutta kretseri
Aplocheilus dayi
Aplocheilus werneri
Acanthocobitis urophthalmus
Schistura notostigma
Clarias brachysoma
Lepidocephalichthys jonklaasi
Channa orientalis
Danio (=Devario) pathirana
Garra phillipsi
Garra ceylonensis
Labeo fisheri
Labeo porcellus lankae
Puntius asoka
Ichthyofaunal Province
SW
M
D
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Amarasinghe et al.: Some Aspects of Ecology of Endemic Freshwater Fishes of Sri Lanka
Gobiidae
Total
Percentages
Puntius bandula
Puntius cumingii
Puntius martenstyni
Puntius nigrofasciatus
Puntius pleurotaenia
Puntius srilankensis
Puntius titteya
Rasbora (=Rasboroides) vaterifloris
Rasbora wilpita
Schismatogobius deraniyagalai
Sicyopterus halei
Sicyopus jonklaasi
Stiphodon martenstyni
30 species
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
25
83.3%
10
33.3%
04
13.3%
Endemic freshwater fish species and their ecology
As there are no natural lakes in Sri Lanka, all freshwater fish species indigenous to Sri Lanka are either
riverine or marsh-dwelling species. Hence, endemic fish species occur in riverine habitats. It is known that
the biology and ecology of riverine species, which complete their entire life cycle in riverine habitats, are
closely linked with the annual hydrological regimes and flood patterns (Poff et al., 1997; Welcomme and
Halls 2001). As mentioned by Kortmulder (1987), there are sophisticated interactions between fish species
in a fish community and its environment. The interactions between species are for food, space and/or
spawning. Any direct human influenece that works on this web of inter-relationships or through large
disturbances such as erosion, pollution or climatic factors, are likely to have far-reaching and largely
unpredictable effects (Kortmulder 1987). As such, better understanding of ecology of endemic fish species
is necessary for planning conservation strategies for them.
Moyle and Senanayake (1984) have investigated resource partitioning among the fishes of small rainforest
streams of Sri Lanka, which included 11 Cyprinidae, 2 Gobiidae, 2 Channidae, and one species each in the
Cobitidae, Cyprinodontidae, Belontidae, Belonidae and Mastacembelidae. They have shown that although
several species were habitat generalists, most species occurred in distinct habitats. Moyle and Senanayake
(1984) have also shown that within the habitats of these fish communities, microhabitat overlap among cooccurring species was low, particularly in relation to position in the water column. They have also observed
feeding specialization among the fish species co-occurring in rainforest streams in Sri Lanka. Based on a
more detailed study however, the macro- and micro-habitats, and feeding habits of several Barbus species
in Sri Lanka (Table 2; Kortmulder et al. 1990) indicate that habitat characteristics are common for most
endemic and indigenous species. Wickramanayake and Moyle (1989) have suggested that fish assemblages
in wet zone streams of Sri Lanka are co-evolved systems with competition serving as an important
structuring force that reinforces species segregation.
Kortmulder (1987) has analyzed the altitudinal distribution of 11 Puntius species studied in Sri Lanka,
beginning with headwaters and ending with brackishwater near the coast. The order of sequence was, P.
titteya, P. bimaculatus, P. pleurotaenia, P. nigrofasciatus, P. cumingii, P. dorsalis, P. filamentosus, P.
vittatus, P. sarana, P. chola and P. amphibius. The first five species in this list are endemic species
which prefer higher altitudes.
115
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Kortmulder (1987) further indicated that these Puntius species are distributed over a range of stream
types. In the marshy brooks with relatively still water, P. titteya is found, while P. bimaculatus occurs in
areas with strong currents. Also in rocky brooks with generally strong currents, only adult individuals of
P. bimaculatus inhabit. Although they can withstand strong currents, they favour relatively quiet parts of
the stream. In the irregular hill streams of the forested areas, P. pleurotaenia inhabits in deep parts with
rapid flow, while P. nigrofasciatus inhabits in shallow areas of the stream with abated current. Kortmulder
(1987) also mentioned that P. cumingii is found in deep pits of the lower courses of hill streams and
torrents, with a relatively high current pattern. The latter species prefers these deep pits where there is a
balance between the verge of current and non-current. According to Kortmulder (1987), endemic species
did not occur in the lowland marshes and wet paddylands.
Table 2: Macro- and micro-habitats, feeding habits of some endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka.
Figures in column 3 indicate stream gradient (in %), depth (d. in cm) and width (w. in m) of the
stream. (Adopted from Kortmulder et al.,1990).
Species
P. titteya
Macro-distribution
Altitude Water bodies
ranges
Micro-distribution
Soils
Haunts
Red laterite, fine
300-150 m Marshy, slowflowing streams, particulate and
<0.5% 10-30 d., detrital
<1 w.mainly hill
country
Feeding habits
Mostly hidden,
fallen leaves,
overhanging
vegetation
Picks or scrapes
small items from
bottom and
vertical
substrates; little
moving about
P. nigrofasciatus 150-80 m
Rocky or sandy
Clear, flowing
rivulets, streams,
0.5%-2.5% 1080 d., 0.5-10
w.hill country
Sheltered
relatively shallow
areas where
current is slow
Picks small items
from bottom and
vertical substrates, some from
water column
P. pleurotaenia
150-10 m
Sandy or rocky
Clear, flowing
streams, rivers,
0.5-2.5% 80-300
d., 2-30 w.hill
country
Deep areas
including pools
and rapids,
tolerates strong
currents
Snaps foods
from all
substrates and
water column,
chops
macrophytes
P. cumingii
100-60 m
Clear flowing
Sandy
rivulets and
streams <0.5%
10-80 d., 2-20
w.boarder of hill
country
Near banks in
pools with
hanging tree
roots; shallow
channels; avoids
strong currents
Like P.
nigrofasciatus,
slightly more
water column
Many fishes in rivers and streams exhibit high seasonal feeding activity (Dudgeon 2000). However, no
studies have been reported from Sri Lanka on the seasonal variation of feeding patterns in fishes of rivers
and streams. Weliange and Amarasinghe (2003) have shown that in size-structured fish communities in
three Sri Lankan reservoirs, feeding patterns vary seasonally. Many freshwater fishes in rivers and streams
of Sri Lanka migrate within river systems and they are frequently associated with breeding (Silva and
Davies 1986). Most fishes synchronize breeding activity with monsoon or flood season (De Silva et al.
1985). On the basis of the biology of cyprinids in hill streams in Sri Lanka (De Silva and Kortmulder 1977;
116
Amarasinghe et al.: Some Aspects of Ecology of Endemic Freshwater Fishes of Sri Lanka
Kortmulder et al., 1978; De Silva et al. 1977, 1980; Kortmulder 1982), it can be seen that endemic species
tend to show well-defined niche segregation and ecological adaptations as compared to indigenous species,
which have come from the mainland. As such any form of habitat altration might pose threats to the
existence of endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka.
From the above review of literature, it is obvious that information on the ecology of endemic freshwater
species is highly fragmented and restricted to a few river basins. Also, no comprehensive studies on these
aspects have been reported for the last two decades. As such, it is imperative that further research on
ecology of freshwater fish species be carried out in order to define effective strategies for conservation.
This is of particular importance because it has been shown that the apparent biotic affinities between the
Indian mainland and Sri Lanka, which have been hitherto interpreted as a result of frequent migrations of
species during the recent periods of low water level, are due to limited biotic interchange between these
areas (Bossuyt et al., 2004). As the endemism in Sri Lanka is much higher than hitherto suspected, Bossuyt
et al. (2004) indicate that treating Western Ghats and Sri Lanka as a single biodiversity hotspot carries with
it the danger of overlooking the strong biogeographic structure within this region.
Threats to diversity of endemic freshwater fish
Various authors have indicated a number of threats to endemic freshwater fish in the island. Dudgeon
(2000) indicated that in Asian rivers and associated wetlands, anthropogenic influences imperil the
biodiversity. According to him, the main threats include, (i) deforestation and drainage basin alteration that
destroy or degrade instream and riparian habitats; (ii) river regulation, including flow modification and
impoundment by dams, water extraction for irrigation etc.; (iii) pollution; and (iv) over-harvesting of fishes.
In Sri Lanka too, decline of the native freshwater fish populations can be attributed to interaction of a
number of factors, foremost of which are (i) deforestation; (ii) urbanization; (iii) river damming; (iv) gem
mining; (v) improper use of pesticides; (vi) siltation and pollution; (vii) over-exploitation for ornamental fish
trade; (viii) use of destructive fishing methods such as plant-derived poisons; and (ix) introduction of exotic
species (Senanayake and Moyle 1982; Wijeyaratne 1993; Pethiyagoda 1994, 1998; Gunasekara 1996;
Wijesekara and Yakupitiyage 2001).
Most of these factors are interrelated with each other. As such, habitat degradation due to these factors
should be minimized through appropriate strategies in order to reduce threats to endemic freshwater fishes.
Due to the changes in land-use patterns with increased human population, forest cover of Sri Lanka has
reduced from 70% to about 22% of land area during the twentieth century (Anon. 1991). Deforestation,
improper cultivation practices in upper catchment areas of drainage basins of rivers and gem mining cause
heavy siltation in streams and rivers. Due to the loss of shade as a result of deforestation, some endangered
endemic fish species such as Lepidocephalichthys jonklaasi and Rasbora wilpita, which prefer shaded
habitats in forested areas (Pethiyagoda 1991) are adversely affected. Senanayake and Moyle (1982) have
also shown that the abundance of endemic species, P. pleurotaenia, P. nigrofasciatus and
Acanthocobitis urophthalmus in streams of Sri Lanka is correlated with the extent of riparian forest cover
(shade). Many freshwater fish species of Sri Lanka, including endemic species such as Danio (=Devario)
pathirana, Garra phillipsi and Rasbora (=Rasboroides) vaterifloris prefer habitats with unsilted clear
water (Pethiyagoda 1991). Senanayake and Moyle (1982) have also identified siltation due to gem mining
as a threatening factor for the survival of B. signata, P. nigrofasciatus and Sicyopterus halei.
Pethiyagoda (1994) also showed that several endemic fish species such as P. srilankensis, Labeo fisheri,
R. vaterifloris and Malpulutta kretseri are far less common in turbid water compared to clear water.
River damming is known to radically alter flood pattern. Fishes and other elements of lotic fauna are
adapted to the flood patterns in rivers of tropical Asia. It has been reported that due to the damming of the
Mahaweli river, Labeo fisheri was severely threatened (Senanayake and Moyle 1982). Smith and Jiffry
(1986) have mentioned that due to the alteration of hydrological pattern in the flood plains of the Mahaweli
river after construction of three major dams, reproductive biology of Labeo dussumieri, an indigenous
species, had been adversely affected.
117
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
It is a fact that there is an increase in the use of pesticides and herbicides in Sri Lanka, which might pose a
severe threat to aquatic biodiversity. However, due to lack of data, impact of these agrochemicals on
freshwater fish populations is poorly understood.
It is well known that freshwater endemic fish species are caught from the wild for the aquarium trade
(Evans 1981; Senanayake and Moyle 1982; Wijeyaratne 1993). Gunasekara (1996) has presented data on
export quantities of five freshwater endemic species, based on the records of Sri Lanka Customs, Export
Development Board, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Board of Investment and
information gathered from live fish exporters. Export quantities of five species of endemic freshwater
fishes during 1994 are given in Table 3.
Table 3: Export quantities of five species of endemic freshwater fishes during four quarters in 1994
(Adopted from Gunasekara 1996).
Species
1st Quarter
2nd Quarter
3rd Quarter
4th Quarter
Puntius cumingii
46,800
15,000
8,770
9,750
P. nigrofasciatus
103,800
44,500
12,102
16,912
P. titteya
82,300
43,500
18,678
18,487
Belontia signata
43,100
14,500
7,331
10,390
Rasbora (=Rasboroides) vaterifloris
84,800
43,500
32,104
29,650
Total
360,800
161,000
78,985
85,189
Gunasekara (1996) has shown that a multinational company has exported three shipments of large
quantities of five endemic fish species presented in Table 3 with much shorter time intervals than the time
period required for captive breeding. He therefore suggested that it was virtually impossible to export such
large volumes of endemic fish within short durations depending solely upon captive breeding. As such, most
shipments of endemic freshwater fishes contain individuals caught from the wild. Gunasekara (1996) also
indicated that the death rate of endemic fish reported at the air cargo terminal in Katunayake was 10-30% so
that higher numbers are transported to the air cargo terminat in order to compensate for dead animals. On
the other hand, captive breeding of most endemic freshwater species is possible (Chandrasoma et al. 1993;
Kithsiri et al. 2003) and as such, strict regulations should be imposed in order to change the existing system
of wild collection of freshwater fish species to captive breeding in the ornamental fish export industry.
Unfortunately, the export trade of several nationally threatened fish species are not currently restricted and/
or regulated by the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Act No. 2 of 1996 (see Table 4 for details).
Table 4: Fish species included in the IUCN red data list of 1999 and those protected under the Fisheries
and Aquatic Resources Act No. 2 of 1996 (Source: Wijesekara and Yakupitiyage 2001; Ekaratne
et al. 2003). HT – Highly threatened; TR – Threatened; (VU) – Vulnerable according to IUCN
Global Red List.
Family/Species
Family: Cyprinidae
Danio aequipinnatus
Danio pathirana
Esomus thermoicos
Garra ceylonensis
Garra phillipsi
Horadandia atukorali
118
IUCN Red Data
List of 1999
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
Act No. 2 of 1996
HT
HT
TR
TR
TR
TR
No export restriction
Export restricted
No export restriction
No export restriction
No export restriction
No export restriction
Amarasinghe et al.: Some Aspects of Ecology of Endemic Freshwater Fishes of Sri Lanka
Labeo fisheri
Labeo lankae
Puntius asoka
Puntius bandula
Puntius cumingii
Puntius matenstyni
Puntius nigrofasciatus
Puntius pleurotaenia
Puntius srilankensis
Puntius ticto
Puntius titteya
Rasbora vaterifloris
Rasbora wilpita
Family: Cobitidae
Lepidocephalichthys jonklaasi
Family: Balitoridae
Acanthocobitis urophthalmus
Schistura notostigma
Family: Clariidae
Clarias brachysoma
Family: Heteropneustidae
Heteropneustes microps (= H. fossilis)
Family: Beloniidae
Xenentodon cancila
Family: Aplocheilidae
Aplocheilus dayi
Aplocheilus werneri
Family: Synbranchiformes
Monopterus desilvai
Family: Gobiidae
Schismatogobius deraniyagalai
Sicyopterus griseus
Sicyopterus halei
Sicyopus jonklaasi
Stiphodon martenstyni
Family: Belontiidae
Belontia signata
Malpulutta kretseri
Family: Mastecembelidae
Macrognathus aral
Family: Channidae
Channa ara
Channa orientalis
TR
HT
HT
HT
TR
HT
TR
TR
TR
TR
HT
TR
TR
Export prohibited
Export prohibited
Export prohibited
Export prohibited
Export restricted
Export prohibited
Export restricted
No export restriction
Export prohibited
No export restriction
Export restricted
Export prohibited
Export prohibited
TR
Export prohibited
TR
TR
No export restriction
No export restriction
TR
Export restricted
(VU)
No export restriction
TR
No export restriction
TR
TR
No export restriction
No export restriction
HT
No export restriction
TR
TR
TR
TR
HT
Export prohibited
No export restriction
Export prohibited
Export prohibited
No export restriction
TR
TR
Export restricted
Export prohibited
HT
Export restricted
TR
TR
No export restriction
Export prohibited
119
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
As mentioned earlier, information on the ecology of freshwater fish species in rivers and streams in Sri
Lanka is scanty and not well-synthesized. Hence, most of the development plans are based on such
incomplete information, which might adversely affect on aquatic biodiversity. For example, in Kukule Ganga
hydropower project area in the Kalu Ganga river basin, R. vaterifloris, a nationally threatened species
(IUCN 2000), was found prior to commencement of the project activities (Shirantha 2004). However, in
the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report of this hydropower project, this species has not been
listed. The EIA report indicates that many of the endemic fish species such as P. nigrofasciatus and
P. titteya found in the project area are also found in other river basins of the wet zone. However, as this
EIA report was based on incomplete information on the distribution and abundance of endemic freshwater
fish species, no mitigatory measures have been proposed to sustain the populations of the threatened fish
species such as R. vaterifloris.
Do exotic species adversely affect endemic species?
Introduced African cichlids (Oreochromis mossambicus, O. niloticus and Tilapia rendalli) are ubiquitous
in Sri Lankan reservoirs and support profitable fisheries. These species are essentially limnophilic fishes
(Fryer and Iles 1972) so that when present in rivers and streams, they occur only in non-flowing parts. The
Tilapia (O. mossambicus) is found in restricted areas of Debegama stream in Kelani river basin
(Atalugama in Kagalle district) and Attanagalu Oya in Waharaka (Hettiarachchi, 2005), Dehiovita and
Atulugama in the Kelani river basin and Kuruwita in the Kalu Ganga river basin (Fernando et al. 2002).
Fernando et al. (2002) reported that during 278 fish collecting field visits in the Kelani river basin, 66
specimens of O. mossambicus were caught near a rubber estate in the village Dehiovita, that only 4
specimens of O. mossambicus were caught in the Kalu river basin during 240 fishing trials with cast nets
and scoop nets and that they were escapees from fishponds close to the sampling sites in the two river
basins. Fernando et al. (2002) also mentioned that during the fish collecting field visits to three other river
basins of Sri Lanka (Gin Ganga – 42; Polwathu Oya – 44; Nilwala Ganga – 47) using electrofishing and
cast netting, none of the exotic tilapia species was caught.
The indigenous riverine species have colonized artificial lacustrine habitats (tanks and reservoirs) as feeding
grounds. Most endemic freshwater fish species such as P. nigrofasciatus, P. cumingii, P. titteya and
R. vaterifloris are not found in reservoirs where tilapias are abundant, but occur in the streams and rivers
in the central hill areas of Sri Lanka (Pethiyagoda 1991). As such, it is unlikely that introduced O.
mossambicus may pose threats to endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka. No published data are yet
available on the temporal variation of the co-occurring pupulations of endemic fish species and exotic
tilapias in order to come to a definite conclusion on the impact of exotic tilapias on endemic fish species in
Sri Lanka.
However, accidental introduction of two exotic fish species (Clown Knife Fish - Chitala ornatus and Tank
Cleaner - Ptrygoplichthys multiradiatus) has been reported recently. Chitala ornatus, which was first
reported in Diyawanna Oya in 1994 (Gunawardane 2002), is widespread in streams and reservoirs in the
wet zone of Sri Lanka (e.g., Diyawanna Oya, Panape Ela in Mellana (Horana), Wevita Wewa in
Bandaragama, Weres Ganga in Moratuwa, Godangoda and Mathugama) (Mr. Jagath Gunawardena, pers.
comm.; R.R.A.R.S., pers. obs.). The water bodies of the wet zone invaded by Chitala ornatus and
Ptrygoplichthys multiradiatus, are known to harbour endemic fish species such as Aplochielus dayi,
Puntius nigrofasciatus, P. titteya, Belontia signata, Channa orientalis, Garra ceylonensis, Malpulutta
kretseri, Micropterus desilvai, R. vaterifloris, Schistura notostigma and Sicyopus jonklaasi (Mr.
H.G.S. Maduranga, pers. comm.). Chitala ornatus is known to be a voracious piscivore. Ptrygoplichthys
multiradiatus is found in Polgolla reservoir (Sumanasinghe, 2005), hence there is a possibility to expand its
range of occurrence in the Mahaweli river basin. The scraping feeding habit of this species could change
habitat/substrate quality, leading to detrimental effects on co-occuring species. Gunawardane (2002)
mentioned that due to the increase in numbers of C. ornatus, abundance of several small, surface-dwelling
fish species has decreased. According to Gunawardane (2002), since introduction of C. ornatus in 1994,
120
Amarasinghe et al.: Some Aspects of Ecology of Endemic Freshwater Fishes of Sri Lanka
decrease in abundance of Aplochielus dayi, A. parvus, Horadandiya athukorali, P. vittatus, P.
bimaculatus, R. daniconius and Amblypharyngodon melettinus has taken place. These two alien invasive
species have been introduced to Sri Lankan freshwaters accidentally through ornamental fish industry.
Conclusion
It is well understood that the endemic status of the species is primarily as a result of geographical isolation.
As evident from the biology of cyprinids in hill streams in Sri Lanka (De Silva and Kortmulder 1977; De
Silva et al. 1977, 1980; Kortmulder 1982), most of the endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka tend to
show well-defined niche segregation and ecological adaptations. As such, any form of habitat alteration
might be detrimental to the existence of endemic fish species. Despite this, several anthropogenic activites
such as deforestation, gem mining and uncontrolled use of agrochemicals, pose significant threats to
survival of many endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka. Exploitation of endemic fish species from
the wild for ornametal fish trade is a major cause of decline of their populations. Accidental introduction of
clown knife fish (C. ornatus) and cleaner fish (P. multiradiatus), which poses threats to biodiversity of
freshwater fishes in Sri Lanka, is also an indirect adverse effect of ornamental fish trade. Although some
introductions of exotic fish species such as African cichlids, most notably Oreochromis mossambicus and
O. niloticus, have socio-economic benefits and do not pose any significant threats to freshwater fish
biodiversity in Sri Lanka (Fernando et al. 2002), effective strategies should be implemented to control
transfer and introduction of aquatic organisms. Wijeyaratne (1993) has shown that most of the endangered
and vulnerable freshwater fish species (73%) occur only in lotic habitats. Most endemic freshwater fish
species in Sri Lanka prefer forested streams in higher altitudes. As such, conservation and management of
not only the aquatic habitats but also the associated terrestrial habitats such as riparian vegetation, land-use
patterns of catchment areas of streams and rivers, especially in the higher altitudes of the country, should
be part of the overall strategy for conservation of endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka. There is
little compatibility between conservation and legal status in Sri Lanka as regards to export of endemic
freshwater fish species (Ekaratne et al. 2002). As Wijeyaratne (1993) has shown, conservation status of
endemic freshwater fish species changes with time. Hence, legal framework pertaining to their
conservation needs to be revised from time to time based on the prevailing conservation status of species.
An effective means for rapid assessment of conservation status is therefore necessary for the endemic
freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka. Scanty and incomplete information on the ecology of endemic
freshwater fish species is of little use for the decision making process in the approval of development
project proposals. A complete revision of the taxonomy of freshwater fish in Sri Lanka is a timely need.
Acknowledgements
We are thankful to Mr. M.G.S. Maduranga and Mr. Jagath Gunawardade who kindly sent us information
on the accidentally introduced freshwater fish species in the wet zone of Sri Lanka.
References
Anon. (1991) Natural resources of Sri Lanka: Conditions and Trends. Natural Resources, Energy and
Science Authority of Sri Lanka, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 280 p.
Bailey, R.M. and C. Gans (1998) The new synbranchid fishes, Monopterus roseni from Peninsular India
and M. desilvai from Sri Lanka. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, The University of
Michigan, No. 726, 18 p.
Bossyut, J., M. Meegaskumbura, N. Beenaerts, D.J. Gover, R. Pethiyagoda, K. Roelants, A. Mannaert,
M. Wilkinson, M.M. Bahir, K. Manamendra-Arachchi, P.K.L. Ng, C.J. Schneider, C.V. Commen and
M.C. Milinkovitch (2004) Local endemism within the Wester Ghats-Sri Lanka biodiversity hotspot.
Science 306: 479-481.
121
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Chandrasoma, J., H.C. Chin and H.P. Amandakoon (1993) Reproductive biology and breeding of Cuming’s
barb (Puntius cumingii Gunther). Journal of Applied Ichthyology 10: 209-214.
De Silva, S.S. (1987) Impact of exotics on the inland fishert resources of Sri Lanka. Archiv für
Hydrobiologie 28: 273-293.
De Silva, S.S. and K. Kortmulder (1987) Some aspects of the biology of three species of Puntius (= Barbus)
(Pisces, Cyprinidae), endemic to Sri Lanka. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 27(2): 182-194.
De Silva, S.S., K. Kortmulder and M.J.S. Wijeyaratne (1977) A comparative study of the food and feeding
habits of Puntius bimaculatus and P. titteya (Pisces, Cyprinidae). Netherlands Journal of Zoology
27(3): 253-263.
De Silva, S.S., P.R.T. Cumaranatunga and C.D. De Silva (1980) Food, feeding ecology and morphological
features associated with feeding of four co-occurring cyprinids (Pisces: Cyprinidae). Netherlands
Journal of Zoology 30(1): 54-73.
De Silva, S.S., J. Schut and K. Kortmulder (1985) Reproductive biology of six Barbus species indigenous
to Sri Lanka. Environmental Biology of Fishes 12(3): 201-218.
Dudgeon, D. (2000) The ecology of tropical Asian rivers and streams in relation to biodiversity
conservation. Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics 31: 239-263.
Ekaratne, K., R.H.S.S. Fernando, S. De Silva, C.N.B. Bambaradeniya and D. De Silva (2003) A
comparison of the conservation and legal status of the fauna and flora of Sri Lanka. IUCN Sri
Lanka, Colombo. 163 p.
Evans, D. (1981) Threatened freshwater fish of Sri Lanka. IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre. 58 p.
Fryer, G. and T.D. Iles (1972) The cichlid fishes of the Great Lakes of Africa: Their biology and evolution.
Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, U.K. 641 p.
Fernando, C.H., R.R.A.R. Shirantha, M.J.S. Wijeyaratne and P.R.T. Cumaranatunga (2002) Tilapias and
indigenous fish biodiversity in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Journal of Aquatic Sciences 7: 1-22.
Greenwood, P.H. (1992) Are the major fish faunas well-known? Netherlands Journal of Zoology 42:
131-138.
Gunasekara, S. (1996). Export of indigenous freshwater fish – a survey. Customs Courier 3(2): 10-11.
Gunawardane, J. (2002) Occurrence of Chitala chitala (Syn. Notopterus chitala) in native freshwater
habitats. Sri Lanka Naturalist, A Publication of the Young Zoologists’ Association of Sri Lanka 5(1): 6-7.
Hettiarachchi, C.P. (2005) Impact of exotic cichlids on riverine communities of indigenous fish species of
Sri Lanka. Unpublished M.Sc. dissertation, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. 67 p.
IUCN (2000) The 1999 List of Threatened Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka. IUCN Sri Lanka, Colombo. 114 p.
Kithsiri, H.M.P., P.P.G.S.N. Siriwardena and G.R.M. Rupika (2003) Captive breeding of some endemic
ornamental fish species in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Journal of Aquatic Sciences 8: 85-93.
Kottelat, M. (1989) Zoogeography of the fishes from Indochinese inland waters with an annotated checklist. Bulletin of the Zoological Museum, University of Amsterdam 12: 1-54.
Kortmulder, K. (1982) Etho-ecology of seventeen Barbus species (Pisces, Cyprinidae). Netherlands
Journal of Zoology 32(2): 144-168.
Kortmulder, K. (1987) Ecology and behaviour of tropical freshwater fish communities. Archiv für
Hydrobiologie 28: 503-513.
Kortmulder, K., E.J. Feldbrugge and S.S. De Silva (1978) A combined field study of Barbus (= Puntius)
nigrofasciatus Gunther (Pisces, Cyprinidae) and water chemistry of its habitats in Sri Lanka.
Netherlands Journal of Zoology 28(1): 111-131.
122
Amarasinghe et al.: Some Aspects of Ecology of Endemic Freshwater Fishes of Sri Lanka
Kortmulder, K., K.G. Padmanabhan and S.S. De Silva (1990) Patterns of distribution and endemism in
some cyprinid fishes as determined by the geomorphology of South-West Sri Lanka and South Kerala
(India). Ichthyological Explorations in Freshwaters 1(2): 97-112.
Lowe-McConnell, R.H. (1987) Ecological studies of tropical fish communities. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, U.K. 382 p.
Moyle, P.B. and F.R. Senanayake (1984) Resource partitining among the fishes of rainforest streams in Sri
Lanka. Journal of Zoology, London 202: 195-223.
Pethiyagoda, R. (1991) Freshwater fishes of Sri Lanka. Wildlife Heritage Trust, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 362 p.
Pethiyagoda, R. (1994) Threats to the indigenous freshwater fishes of Sri Lanka and remarks on their
conservation. Hydrobiologia 285: 189-201.
Pethiyagoda, R. (1998) Fishes in trouble: The decline and fall of Sri Lanka’s freshwater fish fauna. LORIS,
Journal of Wildlife and Nature Protection Society of Sri Lanka 22(2): 56-64.
Pethiyagods, R. and M.M. Bahir (1998) Heteropneusetes microps, a junior synonym of H. fossilis
(Osteichthyes: Heteropneustidae). Journal of South Asian Natural History 3(1).
Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, R.E. Sparks and J.C.
Stromberg (1997) The natural flow regime. BioScience 47: 769-784.
Kurup, B.M., K.V. Radhakrishnan and T.G. Manojkumar (2004) Biodiversity status of fishes inhabiting
rivers of Kerala (S. India) with special reference to endemism, threats and conservation measures.
In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on the Management of Large Rivers for
Fisheries. Volume II (R. Welcomme and T. Petr eds) FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific,
bangkok, Thailand, RAP Publication 2004/17, pp. 163-182.
Rainboth, W.J. (1996) Fishes of the Cambodian Mekong. FAO Species Indentification Sheets for Fishery
Purposes, FAO, Rome. 265 pp.
Senanayake, F.R. and P.B. Moyle (1982) Conservation of freshwater fishes of Sri Lanka. Biological
Conservation 22: 181-195.
Shirantha R.R.A.R. (2004) Some aspects of biology and population dynamics of selected endemic
freshwater fish species inhabiting two river basins of Sri Lanka. Unpublished M.Phil. thesis, University
of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. 241 p.
Silva, E.I.L. (1993) Discontinuum of the Mahaweli river and its impact on the distribution and diversity of
indigenous riverine fish fauna. In: W. Erdelen, C. Preu, N. Ishwaran and C.M. Madduma Bandara
(eds) Ecology and Landscape management in Sri Lanka, Proceeding of the international and
interdisciplinary Symposium, 12-26 March 1990. Margraf Scientific Books, Weikersheim, Germany.
397-414 pp.
Silva, E.I.L. and R.W. Davies (1986) Movement of some indigenous riverine fish in Sri Lanka.
Hydrobiologia 137: 265-270.
Smith, M.A.K. and F. Jiffry (1986) Reproductive strategy of labeo dussumieri and implications of
hydroelectric and irrigation projects on the Mahaweli Ganga, Sri Lanka. In: J.L. Maclean, L.B. Dizon
and L.V. Hosillos (eds) The first Asian fisheries forum. Asian Fisheries Society, Manila, Philippines.
693-696 pp.
Sumanasinghe, H.P.W. (2005) Investigation of the status of the fishery of exotics in Polgolla reservoir, Sri
Lanka. Unpublished M.Sc. dissertation, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. 51 p.
Watson, R.E. (1998) Stiphodon martenstyni, a new species of freshwater goby from Sri Lanka (Teleostei:
Gobiidae: Sicydiini). Journal of South Asian Natural History 3(1): 69-78.
Weliange, W.S. and U.S. Amarasinghe (2003) Seasonality in dietary shifts in size-structured freshwater
fish assemblages in three reservoirs of Sri Lanka. Environmental Biology of Fishes 68: 269-282.
123
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Welcomme, R.L. (1979) Fisheres ecology of floodplain rivers. Longman, London, U.K. 317 p.
Welcomme, R.L. and A. Halls (2001) Some considerations of the effects of differences in flood patterns
on fish populations. Ecohydrology and Hydrobiology 1: 313-321.
Wikramanayake, E.D. and P.B. Moyle (1989) Ecological structure of tropical fish assemblages in wet-zone
streams of Sri Lanka. Journal of Zoology, London 218: 503-526.
Wijesekara, R.G.S. and A. Yakupitiyage (2001) Ornamental fish industry in Sri Lanka: Present status and
future trends. Aquarium Science and Conservation 3: 241-252.
Wijeyaratne, M.J.S. (1993) Conservation of freshwater fish biodiversity in Sri Lanka. Conservation and
Sustainable Development 1: 61-73.
124
Pethiyagoda et al.: Sri Lankan Amphibians: Diversity,
THE FAUNA
Uniqueness
OF SRI LANKA
and
(2006):
Conservation
125-133
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Sri Lankan Amphibians: Diversity, Uniqueness and Conservation
Rohan Pethiyagoda*, Kelum Manamendra-Arachchi*,
Mohomed M. Bahir* and Madhava Meegaskumbura*§
*Wildlife Heritage Trust, 95 Cotta Road, Colombo 8, Sri Lanka.
Department of Biology, Boston University, 5 Cummington Street, Boston, MA, 02215, USA
§
Abstract
A recent acceleration of amphibian research in Sri Lanka has resulted in the discovery of more than
100 new species, with descriptions of 102 valid amphibian species been published up to now. A
significant finding of research spanning the past decade is a unique endemic radiation among direct
developing tree frogs belonging to the genus Philautus in Sri Lanka. The paper discusses
conservation issues related to the amphibians in the island, and highlights research needs to facilitate
their conservation.
Key words: Amphibians, Taxonomy, Conservation, Research
Introduction
Knowledge of Sri Lanka’s amphibians has, during the past decade, increased rapidly. The first review of
this fauna, Kirtisinghe (1957) recognized 35 species-group taxa. This figure was increased to 53 species by
Dutta & Manamendra-Arachchi (1996), based on examination of museum materials and also a field survey
that commenced in 1993. Based on this field survey, Pethiyagoda & Manamendra-Arachchi (1998)
suggested that Sri Lanka’s amphibian fauna might comprise of as many as 250 species, a figure revised to
~140 species by Meegaskumbura et al. (2002). As at now, descriptions of 102 valid amphibian species have
been published (Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005; Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi,
2005), and a single species of caecilian remains identified but not yet described: see Table 1. A total of 94
species have been treated under the Global Amphibian Assessment (Stuart et al., 2004;
www.globalamphibians.org), of which 79 (i.e. 84%) species are—or were—endemic to Sri Lanka. Several
further species remain to be described.
The recent acceleration of research, both in southern India (e.g. Biju, 2001; Biju & Bossuyt, 2003) and Sri
Lanka has resulted in a complete re-evaluation of the Amphibia of this region. Rarely has so much effort,
across so many disciplines, been invested in the investigation of a fauna as has been done for the Amphibia
of Sri Lanka. Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda (2005) examined all the Sri Lankan type material and
almost all the other preserved material, in museums in Europe, the U.S.A. and India, alongside extensive
field surveys, in a project initiated by the Department of Wildlife Conservation in 1998. This facilitated the
re-discovery of several species that had otherwise been known only from type specimens collected in the
19th century, and also provided data for conservation assessments to be made.
At the same time, several workers undertook molecular analyses to attempt resolution of interesting
questions. Bossuyt et al. (2000) showed that the family Rhacophoridae (the tree frogs) contained more
than one evolutionary lineage, and demonstrated that the striking morphological and reproductive
resemblances between Madagascan and Asian tree frogs (such as direct-developing larvae that bypass the
“conventional” tadpole stage) is the result of evolutionary convergence and not common ancestry.
Meegaskumbura et al. (2002) confirmed that the Sri Lankan direct-developing rhacophorids all belong to a
single genus, Philautus, and not several other genera such as Theloderma and Rhacophorus, which do
not occur in the island. Another smaller group of rhacophorids, all but one endemic, are represented by five
species of Polypedates, which build foam nests. Meegaskumbura et al. (2002) also showed that the Sri
Lankan Philautus represent a large, endemic insular radiation, having evolved in the island from ancient
ancestral populations.
125
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
While they demonstrate also that a few species had back-migrated to India, Bossuyt et al. (2004) show
conclusively that the Sri Lankan Philautus have long been isolated from the Indian group, with no biotic
exchange having taken place between the island and the mainland in the past ~ 500,000 years. This result
is surprising as Sri Lanka has experienced prolonged terrestrial connections with India during the sea-level
low-stands that accompany glacial maxima. For example, the most recent Ice Age resulted in sea levels
that were ~ 120 m lower than today, and a ~ 140 km-wide land connection across what is now the Palk
Strait. The reasons for this “land bridge” not serving as a medium for biotic exchange between the two
land masses are not yet clearly understood, especially as Pleistocene climate is not well known at the local
level (Pant & Rupa Kumar, 1997), both drier (Prematihilake & Risberg, 2003) and wetter (Ashton &
Gunatilleke, 1987) climates having been postulated.
The presence in Sri Lanka of ancient lineages of amphibians was demonstrated also by Roelants et al.
(2004), who showed that the endemic genus Lankanectes diverged from the mainstream of Ranidae
before the India-Sri Lanka plate separated from the Madagascar plate, in the Upper Cretaceous. This
species may in the future be classified as a monotypic family, beside some equally unique montane frog
clades from southern India. Indeed, a new family of frogs was described from the same region by Biju &
Bossuyt (2003), the first new amphibian family to be discovered worldwide in 75 years.
Sri Lanka’s Amphibia then, are important not just for their species richness, but also for their representation
of ancient lineages. Several species have been diagnosed but remain to be described (Meegaskumbura &
Manamendra-Arachchi, in prep.). Others are known from molecular analyses (e.g. Gower et al., 2005)
and await formal description.
While work on exploration, taxonomy and systematics has been progressing, little indeed is known of the
biology of the Sri Lankan Amphibia. This appears paradoxical given that one of the world’s best-studied
amphibians is a Sri Lankan endemic. Ichthyophis glutinosus was the first species of amphibian to be
described from Sri Lanka, by Seba (1735). Sarasin & Sarasin’s (1887–1890) study of this species remains
fundamental not just to the study of caecilians, but to embryology itself (Gower et al., 2005), while Plate’s
(1922–1931) study of its histology has not been improved on. Since then, apart from Kirtisinghe’s (1946)
casual observation of direct development in a species of Sri Lankan Philautus, little has been added, e.g.
to knowledge of ecology, ethology and reproduction in this group of animals.
Recently, Bahir et al. (2005) reported in detail reproduction and development in 17 species of Philautus
and Wickramasinghe et al. (2004) have summarized larval biology and life history in Nannophrys
ceylonensis. However, large gaps remain in our knowledge of the natural history of other species of Sri
Lankan amphibians. Breeding has not been observed in Lankanectes corrugata or Nannophrys
marmorata, both of which represent endemic genera. Such observations could be crucial to future captive
breeding projects, should populations of these species crash (the latter species is presently categorized as
Critically Endangered in the IUCN Red List).
Conservation
The Global Amphibian Assessment (www.globalamphibians.org ; see also Stuart et al., 2004;) evaluated all
5,743 species of amphibians described and considered valid world-wide. Of these, 94 (i.e. 1.64%) are from
Sri Lanka. While this is not a record amongst the biodiversity-rich countries of the world, the GAA analysis
does award to this island a dismal record of failure: 19 of the 34 species of amphibians confirmed as extinct
worldwide in the past 500 years are from Sri Lanka. These comprise of 17 species of Philautus, and one
species each of the endemic genera Adenomus and Nannophrys. Three further apparently extinct species
of Philautus are known from 19th century museum collections (Manamendra-Arachchi et al., work in
progress).
A broad-based multi-stakeholder assessment of the amphibian fauna, together with the results of the WHT
amphibian survey of 1993–, concluded that 63 (67%) of the 94 species then recognized are Threatened
126
Pethiyagoda et al.: Sri Lankan Amphibians: Diversity, Uniqueness and Conservation
with extinction. In addition to the 19 extinct species, 11 species were evaluated as Critically Endangered,
28 as Endangered and 5 as Vulnerable. Sri Lanka’s Amphibia are in trouble and little is being done about it.
The conservation of a sensitive fauna that is not victim to targeted exploitation, such as the Sri Lankan
amphibians, is a challenge in the extreme. What are the threats? Habitat loss is the first cause to be
implicated by most workers. The vast majority of the Sri Lankan amphibians are restricted to the southwestern wet zone quarter of the island (Dutta & Manamendra-Arachchi, 1996) and more than 95% of the
original forest cover has now vanished. Only ~ 800 km2 of relatively undisturbed forest now remain in the
wet zone, and even this is severely fragmented. Three fragments (Knuckles, Sinharaja, Peak Wilderness)
account for half this estate: the balance 400 km2 are contained in > 100 fragments of varying size, many of
which exist only on maps. Clearly, fragmentation is a threat, and needs to be addressed through the active
management of habitat quality at key sites, and through the establishment of habitat corridors between
them.
Fragmentation per se, is however, unlikely to be the only significant threat. Pesticide use in Sri Lanka is still
to be regulated: the Pesticides Control Act (Anon., 1980) addresses only threats to human health and not
environmental health or impact on non-target organisms. Taken together with massive erosion from sloping
lands (Hewawasam et al., 2003), aquatic ecosystems in general are gravely at risk, and these risks remain
unassessed.
Air pollution too, is yet to be assessed in Sri Lanka except in the context of human health in urban areas.
Acid rain and mist has been implicated in montane forest dieback (now widespread in key amphibian
habitats including Horton Plains and Knuckles) in many other countries. The single report there has been
of this phenomenon in Sri Lanka (Gunawardena et al., 1998), has largely been ignored by the conservation
establishment.
While threats to amphibians such as the above are self-evident, the causes for the extreme rarity of many
species are as yet not fully understood. In a phase during which new species continue to be discovered, it
could be argued that a discussion of either rarity or extinction is inappropriate, and that rare and even
“extinct” species could be discovered with further exploration. However, given the record of exploration of
the last decade, Sri Lanka is now one of the better-explored countries with respect to amphibians. It is
necessary to explain then, how it is that so many species are known from just one or a handful of
specimens, albeit from relatively good-quality forest (Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005).
Amphibian species may be under-sampled in surveys because their populations are in any case small, or
because individuals are otherwise difficult to locate (e.g. cryptic coloration; small size; restriction to
arboreal or canopy habitats; lacking prominent vocalisation in males). The population declines observed in
many parts of the world (see www.globalamphibians.org) have as yet not been observed in Sri Lanka, but
this could be because no populations have been monitored over sufficiently long periods of time. Such
monitoring is now in place, but only at a single site (Agra-Bopath Forest Reserve, a montane cloud forest
habitat, the surrounding anthropogenic habitats and a regenerating forest patch). It is imperative that
monitoring be carried out, at least in major bio-geo-climatic zones and prominent habitats within these zones.
In addition to monitoring populations, it is necessary also to acquire data on parameters known to pose
threats to amphibians, such as UV-B radiation, water quality, climatic variation, and infection by known
pathogens such as the oomycete, Saprolegnia ferax (Kiesecker et al., 2001) and the chytrid fungus
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Blaustein et al., 1994; Pounds et al., 2006).
Only in a single case has it been possible to obtain quantitative information on range shrinkage of an
amphibian species in Sri Lanka, that of the torrent toad Adenomus dasi. Discovered only in 1997, this
species is known from only a single location, the forest surrounding the Fishing Hut at Rajamally in Moray
Estate, Maskeliya (Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 1998). Even here, it is rare, though tadpoles
have been seen in the stream that descends from the Peak Wilderness forest. Adenomus dasi is, however,
well represented from 19th century museum collections made from around Nuwara Eliya ~ 30 km distant,
127
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
from which its present locality is separated by the Dimbula Valley. Its representation in museum collections
suggests that it was both widely distributed and abundant up to the 1880s. The species appears to be
dependent on clear, unpolluted high altitude (> 1,300 m) streams: it has not been recorded, however from
Horton Plains, in which the Belihul Oya is possibly the only unpolluted high altitude stream remaining in the
island. At Rajamally, both adults and tadpoles were observed to be mostly aquatic. Ranked as Critically
Endangered, A. dasi is clearly in need of conservation attention, and it would be a challenge to see it
successfully reintroduced to its former habitat in Nuwara Eliya.
How could such a feat be achieved?
Research needs
Before research needs could be listed, it is necessary to note that research in general is discouraged by the
regulatory framework that has evolved subsequent to the illusion of sovereign ownership of biodiversity
that the Convention on Biological Diversity thrust on biodiversity-rich developing nations (Pethiyagoda,
2004). While keeping and breeding amphibians as a hobby is commonplace in much of the developed world,
it is both illegal and unfashionable in Sri Lanka. Two consequences of this are a lack of popular empathy
with amphibians (which are, by and large, treated with revulsion); and a lack of human resources skilled
and interested in managing captive populations.
Captive breeding and reintroduction are clearly actions of last resort, but given a track record of 19
extinctions and a further 11 Critically Endangered, it is one that needs to be considered at least for some
Sri Lankan species. Taking A. dasi as an example, the starting point would be the accumulation of local
climatic and water quality data, together with in situ observations of activity patterns, diet, resource
utilization, breeding behaviour and larval development, together with an assessment of threats at each lifehistory stage. Such a programme would also need examine possible in situ options, such as improved
upstream water-quality management; the maintenance of riparian vegetation. With these data in hand, an
informed judgement could be made with regard to restoring degraded former habitats of the species with a
view to reintroduction within a rigorous monitoring regime. Even if ex situ measures were not to be
implemented immediately, the importance of developing the methodologies for this cannot be overemphasized. For example, the work of Bahir et al. (2005) has bestowed captive breeding potential for all
seven Critically Endangered Sri Lankan Philautus species, a process that may otherwise have involved a
lead-time of several years.
The keys provided by Dutta & Manamendra-Arachchi (1996); Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda
(2004) and Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi (2005) facilitate the identification of all currently
known Sri Lankan amphibians. With names and diagnoses available for these species, reliable work could
commence on assessing populations, habitat requirements and distributions with a view to improving
conservation practices. By offering only protection, the present regulatory framework discourages
engagement with this fauna by scientists and interested citizens. The threats to amphibians in Sri Lanka
however, will persist regardless of how effectively they are protected. The need of the hour is sciencebased conservation that seeks to address threats such as environmental pollution, climate change and
habitat degradation.
128
Pethiyagoda et al.: Sri Lankan Amphibians: Diversity, Uniqueness and Conservation
Table 1: Provisional checklist of the amphibian species of Sri Lanka as at 1 Jan. 2006, giving also
conservation as determined by the Global Amphibian Assessment (Stuart et al., 2004;
www.globalamphibians.org). Where the conservation status has not yet been formally included in
the IUCN Red List, the recommended status is represented by ‘E’ for endangered and ‘V’ for
vulnerable.
Taxon
Endemicity Conservation
status
Bufonidae (8)
Adenomus dasi Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 1998
Adenomus kandianus (Günther, 1872)
Adenomus kelaartii (Günther, 1858)
Bufo atukoralei Bogert & Senanayake, 1966
Bufo kotagamai Fernando & Dayawansa, 1994
Bufo melanostictus Schneider, 1799
Bufo noellerti Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 1998
Bufo scaber Schneider, 1799 (see Dubois & Ohler, 1999: 154)
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
—
Endemic
—
Critically Endangered
Extinct
Endangered
Least Concern
Endangered
Least Concern
Endangered
Least Concern
—
Endemic
—
—
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
—
—
Least Concern
Critically Endangered
Least Concern
Least Concern
Endangered
Vulnerable
Near Threatened
Endangered
Least Concern
Least Concern
—
—
Endemic
Endemic
—
—
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
—
Endemic
Endemic
—
—
Least Concern
Least Concern
Endangered
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Least Concern
Vulnerable
Extinct
Critically Endangered
Vulnerable
Least Concern
Near Threatened
Least Concern
Least Concern
Microhylidae (10)
Kaloula taprobanica (Parker, 1934)
Microhyla karunaratnei Fernando & Siriwardhane, 1996
Microhyla ornata (Duméril & Bibron, 1841)
Microhyla rubra (Jerdon, 1854)
Microhyla zeylanica Parker & Hill, 1949
Ramanella nagaoi Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2001
Ramanella obscura (Günther, 1864)
Ramanella palmata (Parker, 1934)
Ramanella variegata (Stoliczka, 1872)
Uperodon systoma (Schneider, 1799)
Ranidae (Raninae) (15)
Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis (Schneider, 1799)
Euphlyctis hexadactylus (Lesson, 1834)
Fejervarya greenii (Boulenger, 1904)
Fejervarya kirtisinghei Manamendra-Arachchi & Gabadage, 1994
Fejervarya limnocharis (Boie, 1835)
Hoplobatrachus crassus (Jerdon, 1853)
Lankanectes corrugatus (Peters, 1863)
Nannophrys ceylonensis (Günther, 1868)
Nannophrys guentheri Boulenger, 1882
Nannophrys marmorata Kirtisinghe, 1946
Rana aurantiaca Boulenger, 1904
Rana gracilis Gravenhorst, 1829
Rana temporalis (Günther, 1864)
Sphaerotheca breviceps (Schneider, 1799)
Sphaerotheca rolandae (Dubois, 1983)
129
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Ranidae (Rhacophorinae) (66)
Philautus abundus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus adspersus (Günther, 1872)
Philautus alto Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus asankai Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus auratus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus caeruleus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus cavirostris (Günther, 1869)
Philautus cuspis Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus decoris Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus dimbullae (Shreve, 1940)
Philautus eximius (Shreve, 1940)
Philautus extirpo Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus femoralis (Günther, 1864)
Philautus fergusonianus (Ahl, 1927)
Philautus folicola Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus frankenbergi Meegaskumbura & ManamendraArachchi, 2005
Philautus fulvus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus hallidayi Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi, 2005
Philautus halyi (Boulenger, 1904)
Philautus hoffmanni Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi, 2005
Philautus hoipolloi Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus hypomelas (Günther, 1876)
Philautus leucorhinus (Lichtenstein, Weinland & Von Martens, 1856)
Philautus limbus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus lunatus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus macropus (Günther, 1869)
Philautus malcolmsmithi (Ahl, 1927)
Philautus microtympanum (Günther, 1859)
Philautus mittermeieri Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi, 2005
Philautus moororum Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi, 2005
Philautus nanus (Günther, 1869)
Philautus nasutus (Günther, 1869)
Philautus nemus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus ocularis Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus oxyrhynchus (Günther, 1872)
Philautus papillosus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus pleurotaenia (Boulenger, 1904)
Philautus poppiae Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi, 2005
Philautus popularis Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus procax Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus regius Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus reticulatus (Günther, 1864)
130
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Least Concern
Extinct
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Extinct
Extinct
Extinct
Endangered
Least Concern
Endangered
‘E’
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endangered
‘V’
Extinct
‘E’
Least Concern
Extinct
Extinct
Critically Endangered
Critically Endangered
Critically Endangered
Extinct
Endangered
‘V’
‘E’
Extinct
Extinct
Critically Endangered
Endangered
Extinct
Critically Endangered
Endangered
‘E’
Least Concern
Critically Endangered
Data Deficient
Endangered
Pethiyagoda et al.: Sri Lankan Amphibians: Diversity, Uniqueness and Conservation
Philautus rugatus (Ahl, 1927)
Philautus rus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus sarasinorum (Müller, 1887)
Philautus schmarda (Kelaart, 1854)
Philautus semiruber (Annandale, 1913)
Philautus silus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus silvaticus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus simba Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus sordidus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus stellatus (Kelaart, 1853)
Philautus steineri Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi, 2005
Philautus stictomerus (Günther, 1876)
Philautus stuarti Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi, 2005
Philautus temporalis (Günther, 1864)
Philautus variabilis (Günther, 1859)
Philautus viridis Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus zal Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Philautus zimmeri (Ahl, 1927)
Philautus zorro Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005
Polypedates cruciger Blyth, 1852
Polypedates eques Günther, 1858
Polypedates fastigo Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2001
Polypedates longinasus (Ahl, 1931)
Polypedates maculatus (Gray, 1834)
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
—
Extinct
Near Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Data Deficient
Endangered
Endangered
Critically Endangered
Near Threatened
Extinct
‘E’
Near Threatened
‘E’
Extinct
Extinct
Endangered
Extinct
Extinct
Endangered
Least Concern
Endangered
Critically Endangered
Endangered
Least Concern
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Least Concern
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
-
Ichthyophiidae (4)
Ichthyophis glutinosus (Linnaeus, 1758)
Ichthyophis orthoplicatus Taylor, 1965
Ichthyophis pseudangularis Taylor, 1965
Ichthyophis sp.
Literature cited
Anon., 1980. Control of Pesticides Act. Government Publications Bureau, Colombo. 32 pp.
Ashton, P. S. & C. V. S. Gunatilleke, 1987. New light on the plant geography of Ceylon I: historical plant
geography. Journal of Biogeography 14: 249–285.
Bahir, M. M., M. Meegaskumbura, K. Manemendra-Arachchi, C. J. Schneider & R. Pethiyagoda, 2005.
Reproduction and terrestrial direct development in Sri Lankan shrub frogs (Ranidae: Rhacophoridae:
Philautus). Raffles Bulletin of Zoology Supplement, 12: 339–350.
Biju, S. D. 2001. A synopsis to the frog fauna of the Western Ghats, India. Occasional Papers of the
Indian Society for Conservation Biology, 1: 1–24.
Biju, S. D. & F. Bossuyt, 2003. New frog family from India reveals and ancient biogeographical link with
Seychelles. Nature, 425: 711–714.
Blaustein, A. R., D. G. Hokit, R. K. O’Hara, & R. A. Holt, 1994.Pathogenic fungus contributes to
amphibian losses in the Pacific Northwest. Biological Conservation, 67: 251–254.
131
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Bossuyt, F. & M. C. Milinkovitch, 2000. Convergent adaptive radiations in Madagascan and Asian ranid
frogs reveal covariation between larval and adult traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 97: 6585–6590.
Bossuyt, F., M. Meegaskumbura, N. Beenaerts, D. J. Gower, R. Pethiyagoda, K. Roelants, A. Mannaert,
M. Wilkinson, M. M. Bahir, K. Manamendra-Arachchi, P. K. L. Ng, C. J. Schneider, O. V. Oommen
& M. C. Milinkovitch, 2004. Local endemism within the Western Ghats–Sri Lanka Biodiversity
Hotspot. Science, 306: 479–481.
Dubois, A. & A. Ohler, 1999. Asian and Oriental toads of the Bufo melanostictus, Bufo scaber and Bufo
stejnegeri (Amphibia, Anura): a list of available and valid names and redescription of some namebearing types. Journal of South Asian Natural History, 4: 133–180.
Dutta, S. K. & K. Manamendra-Arachchi, 1996. The amphibian fauna of Sri Lanka. Wildlife Heritage
Trust of Sri Lanka, Colombo. 232 pp.
Gower, D. J., M. M. Bahir, Y. Mapatuna, R. Pethiyagoda, D. Raheem & M. Wilkinson, 2004. Molecular
phylogeny of Sri Lankan ichthyophis (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Ichthyophiidae) with discovery of a
cryptic species. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology Supplement, 12: 153–161.
Gunawardena, E. R. N., U. Rajapakshe, K. A. Nandasena, & P. T. W. Rosier, 1998. Water quality issues
in the uplands of Sri Lanka. In: Gunasena, H.P.M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the final workshop:
University of Peradeniya — Oxford Forestry Institute Link Project. Faculty of Agriculture, Univ.
Peradeniya, Peradeniya. Pp. 37–44.
Hewawasam, T., F. von Blanckenburg, M. Schaller & P. Kubik, 2003. Increase of human over natural
erosion rates in tropical highlands constrained by cosmogenic nuclides. Geology 31: 597–600.
Kiesecker, J. M., A. R. Balustein & L. K. Belden, 2001. Complex causes of amphibian population declines.
Nature, 410: 681–684.
Kirtisinghe, P., 1946. The presence in Ceylon of a frog with direct development on land. Ceylon Journal
of Science, Series B, 23: 109–112.Kirtisinghe, P., 1946. The presence in Ceylon of a frog with direct
development on land. Ceylon J. Sci., (B), 23: 109–112.
Kirtisinghe, P., 1957. The Amphibia of Ceylon. Published by the author, Colombo. xiii+112 pp, 1
pl.Kirtisinghe, P., 1957. The Amphibia of Ceylon. Colombo: i-xiii + 1–112, 1 pl.
Manamendra-Arachchi, K. & R. Pethiyagoda, 1998. A synopsis of the Sri Lankan Bufonidae (Amphibia:
Anura) with description of new species. Journal of South Asian Natural History, 3: 213–248.
Manamendra-Arachchi, K. & R. Pethiyagoda, 2005. The Sri Lankan shrub-frogs of the genus Philautus
Gistel, 1848 (Ranidae: Rhacophorinae), with description of 27 new species. Raffles Bulletin of
Zoology, Supplement 12: 163–303.
Meegaskumbura, M. & K. Manamendra-Arachchi, 2005. Descriptions of eight new species of shrub frogs
(Ranidae: Rhacophorinae: Philautus) from Sri Lanka. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement 12:
305–338.
Meegaskumbura, M., F. Bossuyt, R. Pethiyagoda, K. Manamendra-Ararchchi, M. Bahir, M. C.
Milinkovitch & C. J. Schneider, 2002. Sri Lanka: an amphibian hotspot. Science, 298: 379.
Pant, G. P. & K. Rupa Kumar, 1997. Climates of South Asia. Wiley, New York. 344 pp.
Pethiyagoda, R. 2004. Biodiversity law has had some unintended effects. Nature, 429: 129.
Peters, W., 1860. Über einige interessante Amphibien, welche von dem durch seine zoologischen Schriften
rühmlichst bekannten österreichischen Naturforscher Professor Schmarda während seiner auf
mehrere Welttheile ausgedehnten, besonders auf wirbellose Thiere gerichteten,
naturwissenschaftlichen Reise, mit deren Veröffentlichtung Hr. Schmarda gegenwärtig in Berlin
beschäftigt ist, auf der Insel Ceylon gesammelt wirden. Monatsb. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1860: 182–186.
132
Pethiyagoda et al.: Sri Lankan Amphibians: Diversity, Uniqueness and Conservation
Pethiyagoda, R. & K. Manamendra-Arachchi, 1998. Evaluating Sri Lanka’s amphibian diversity.
Occasional Papers of the Wildlife Heritage Trust, 2: 1–12.
Plate, L. 1922–31. Fauna et Anatomia ceylanica. [In German]. University of Jena, Jena. 4 vols., 2,372
pp., 105 pl.
Pounds, J. A., M. R. Bustamante, L. A. Coloma, J. A. Consuegra, M. P. L. Fogden, P. N. Foster, E. La
Marca, K. L. Masters, A. Merino-Viteri, R. Puschendorf, S. R. Ron, G. A. Sánchez-Azofeifa, C. J.
Still and B. E. Young, 2006. Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global
warming. Nature, 439: 161-167.
Prematihilake, R. & J. Risberg. 2003. Late Quaternary climate history of the Horton Plains, central Sri
Lanka. Quaternary Science Review, 22: 1525–1541.
Roelants, K., J. Jiang & F. Bossuyt, 2004. Endemic ranid (Amphibia: Anura) genera in southern mountain
ranges of the Indian subcontinent represent ancient frog lineages: evidence from molecular data.
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 31: 730–740.
Sarasin, P. & F. Sarasin, 1887–1890. Ergebnisse Naturwissenschaftlicher. Forschungen auf Ceylon.
Zweiter Band: Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte und Anatomie der ceylonesischen Blindwühle
Ichthyophis glutinosus. L. Keidel’s Verlag, Wiesbaden. 263 pp.
Stuart, S., J. S. Chanson, N. A. Cox, B. E. Young, A. S. L. Rodrigues, D. L. Fischman & R. W. Waller,
2004. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science, 306: 1783–1786.
Wickramasinghe, D. D., S. W. Kotagama & R. J. Wassersug, 2004. Larval biology and life history of the
Sri Lankan rock frog Nannophrys ceylonensis (Anura: Ranidae). Lyriocephalus, 5: 55–61.
133
The
T
HE F
Fauna
AUNA OFofSRI
SriLANKA
Lanka
(2006):
(2006)
134-163
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka
Anslem de Silva*
*Amphibia and Reptile Research Organization of Sri Lanka (ARROS)
15/1 Dolosbage road, Gampola, Sri Lanka
kalds@sltnet.lk
Abstract
Sri Lanka is endowed with high herpetofaunal diversity and endemism. According to past research,
a total of 184 reptile species occur in the island, of which 105 are endemic. The endemics include
22 species of saurian reptiles and 10 species of serpentoid reptiles which are considered
geographical relicts. The present paper provides a detailed account on the current status of the
reptiles in Sri Lanka, including their distribution, and conservation issues. It also highlights research
gaps, and proposes several activities to promote the conservation of reptiles in Sri Lanka.
Keywords: Reptiles, Research, Conservation,Threats
Introduction
Sri Lanka ranks as a great herpetological paradise in the world. It is blessed with not only high amphibian
and reptile diversity and endemism, but also relatively high densities of individuals interested in herpetology
and publications, especially when compared with other countries in South Asia (refer bibliographies by de
Silva 1998a, 1998b & 1998c for publications on herpetology up to December 1997). Within the last decade,
however, herpetology in Sri Lanka has undergone a renaissance, spurred mainly by organizations such as
the Amphibia and Reptile Research Organization of Sri Lanka (ARROS), the Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri
Lanka (WHT) and Turtle Conservation Project (TCP). In addition, organizations such as the Young
Zoologists Association (YZA), Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force (DAPTF/IUCN/SSC) Working
Group Sri Lanka, Wildlife Conservation Society (Galle), and the World Conservation Union (IUCN), have
promoted the appreciation of amphibians and reptiles and provided outlets for the publication of research
findings of these animals.
Several significant herpetological fora were held in Sri Lanka organized by ARROS in collaboration with
the WHT. These were:
1.
The First National Herpetological Conference held at the University of Peradeniya in 1995.
2.
The First International Conference of South Asian Amphibians, Reptiles, and their Habitats in 1996 at
the Institute of Fundamental Studies and University of Peradeniya
3.
A CAMP (Conservation Assessment & Management Plan) workshop for amphibians and reptiles in
1998 at the University of Peradeniya,
4.
The Fourth World Congress of Herpetology, held in Bentota in December 2001
5.
The First PHVA (Population Habitat & Viability Assessment) for Geochelone elegans and CAMP
workshop for chelonians of Sri Lanka in 2003 at the Zoological Gardens, Dehiwela.
The above herpetological meetings, especially the Fourth World Congress of Herpetology, were products
of this renaissance and a benchmark for a new age in Sri Lankan herpetology, characterized both by
increased international cooperation in research and by the blossoming of herpetology as a research
discipline for many young Sri Lankan zoologists. Three recent volumes: The amphibia of Sri Lanka: recent
research (2001), The herpetology of Sri Lanka: current research (2004) and The Diversity of the Dumbara
Mountains (The Knuckles Massif, Sri Lanka): with special reference to its herpetofauna (2005 – in press)
134
De Silva: Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka
are perfect reflections of these trends. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, volume 12 (2005) is another
significant issue with many herpetological contribution. Because the herpetofauna is so rich and varied,
these many contributions merely scratch the surface of amphibian and reptile study in Sri Lanka.
Nonetheless, they serve to illustrate the depth and breadth of topics currently under research and serve as
evidence of the vitality of herpetology as a discipline in Sri Lanka.
The present paper focuses on the status of reptiles of Sri Lanka under five headings. It is envisaged that
this will stimulate further research and studies into the natural history and distribution of amphibians and
reptiles and initiate effective management and conservation strategies by the relevant government
departments, researchers, and NGOs.
Carl Linnaeus [1707-1778] described the first reptile (Cylindrophis maculata) from Sri Lanka in 1754.
Since then, a host of subsequent workers included descriptions of reptiles from Sri Lanka in their
publications during the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st centuries.
The reptile fauna of Sri Lanka is highly diverse and shows affinities to that of the Western Ghats of
peninsular India. Though the wet zone of Sri Lanka is remarkably similar to the Western Ghats region in
India, it is considered the ‘least influenced by recent invasion from southern India’ (Crusz & Nugaliyadde,
1977). In fact, recent molecular studies of some amphibians and uropeltid snakes show that Sri Lanka has
maintained a fauna distinct from that of the Indian Mainland (Bossuyt et. al., 2004).
Knowledge of the Sri Lankan reptiles, however, is largely limited to species descriptions and basic
information. The general and systematic treatments on the reptiles of Sri Lanka consist of outdated
classics, such as those of Malcolm A. Smith (1933, 1935, 1943), Edward H. Taylor (1950a, 1950b, 1953),
Paulus E. P. Deraniyagala (1953, 1955), P. H. D. H. de Silva (1980, 1969), and Frank Wall (1921). Three
genera have been revised recently with descriptions of new species: Aspidura (Reptilia: Ophidia:
Colubridae) by Gans & Fetcho, 1982; Lankascincus (Reptilia: Scincidae) by Greer, 1991 and
Ceratophora (Reptilia: Agamidae) by Pethiyagoda & Manamendra-Arachchi, 1998. In addition five new
species of geckos of the Genus Cyrtodactylus was described by Batuwita and Bahir (2005), while a new
species of the Genus Boiga (Reptilia: colubridae) was recently described by Samarawickrama et al. (2005)
Reports published to date list 184 reptile species in Sri Lanka (Table 1, Appendix 1), of which 105 are
endemic (Deraniyagala, 1953, 1955; de Silva, 1990a, 2001, de Silva, P.H.D.H., 1980; Gans & Fetcho, 1982;
Greer, 1991; Pethiyagoda & Manamendra-Arachchi, 1998; Smith,1933, 1935, 1943 and Taylor, 1950a,
1950b, 1953, Bahir & Maduwage, 2005; Bahir & Silva, 2005 and Batuwita & Bahir, 2005). This number
includes the 5 species of marine turtles that visit the beaches of Sri Lanka for nesting and the 13 species of
marine snakes (Family Hydrophiidae) that inhabit the coastal waters, estuaries, mangroves, and river
mouths of the country.
Of the reptiles, six endemic genera comprising of 22 species of saurian reptiles (Chalcidoseps – 1 species,
Lankascincus – 6 species; Nessia – 8 species) and three of agamid lizards (Ceratophora – 5 species;
Lyriocephalus – 1 species; Cophotis – 1 species), are considered geographical relicts (Crusz, 1986; Greer,
1991, de Silva 2001). Likewise, five endemic genera of serpentoid reptiles — one uropeltid genus
(Pseudotyphlops – 1 species) and four colubrid genera (Aspidura – 6 species; Cercaspis – 1 species;
Haplocercus – 1 species; Balanophis – 1 species) are considered geographical relicts (Crusz, 1986; de
Silva, 1990a & 1990b). Several new species of geckos, lacertids, skinks, and snakes that have been
discovered recently await description.
135
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Table 1: Current taxonomic status of Reptiles in Sri Lanka (As at 2005)
Reptile
Group
Crocodilia
Testudines
Sauria
Serpentes
Total
No of
Genera
Endemic
Genera
No of
Species
Endemic
Species
01
08
25
46
80
Nil
Nil
06
05
11
02
09
76
97
183
Nil
Nil
48
46
92
unique at the Endemicity
sub-species
%
Nil
01
06
05
12
Nil
1
63
47
50
Source: Bahir & Maduwage, 2005; Bahir & Silva, 2005 and Batuwita & Bahir, 2005; de Silva,
1990a, 2001
Some of the current taxonomical studies of the reptiles of Sri Lanka include the following:
1.
Studies of geckos, skinks, lacertids, and snakes indicate the presence of several new species in the
island. Molecular and alpha taxonomy of these reptiles are being determined by Rohan Pethiyagoda,
K. Manamendra-Arachchi, M. Bahir, Anslem de Silva, Aaron Bauer, Christopher Austin and Indraneil
Das.
2.
Studies of phylogenetic affinities within major lineages of these groups is in progress.
3.
Preliminary molecular DNA sequencing to resolve the placement of Lankascincus within the larger
lygosomine radiation shows that Lankascincus represents an independent lineage separate from the
Eugongylus, Mabuya, Egernia, or Sphenomorphus groups (Austin, Das & de Silva 2004).
4.
Guide to reptiles with easy keys and colour illustrations of all species are in print.
5.
Preparation of a well preserved and identified collection of reptiles with relevant locality data for the
National Museum has commenced.
Distribution of Reptiles in Sri Lanka
Published literature (de Silva, 1998a, 1998b & 1998c) and recent island-wide surveys of some reptiles give
us a fair idea of the distribution of reptiles in the country. Reptile distribution has been studied using
different parameters, such as the three climatic zones (de Silva, 1987, 1990a, 1992, 2003), seven vegetation
zones (Crusz, 1984, 1986), the four biogeographic regions (Senanayake et al., 1977) and altitudinal
stratification (Gans & Fetcho, 1982, Greer, 1991, Erdelen, 1984 & Pethiyagoda and ManamendraArachchi, 1998). Others have documented reptiles in specific locations or ecosystems such as Knuckles
(Bambaradeniya & Ekanayake, 2003); Nilgala, (de Silva et al., 2004a; Goonewardene et al., 2004),
Bolgoda (Ranwella, 1995), Sinharaja, (Jones et al., 1998), Polgolla (Nathaniel et al., 2004). The distribution
of reptiles is fairly clearly determined by the three climatic zones (wet, intermediate and dry), with altitude
forming another important parameter.
The relict species (all Ceratophora, Cophotis, Lyriocephalus, Chalcidoseps, Nessia and several
species of Lankascincus, Aspidura, Balanophis, Cercaspis and Haplocercus) are confined to the wet
and parts of the intermediate climatic zones from sea-level to 2200 m above the mean sea level. Within this
altitudinal range, the species are distributed according to their ecological needs: e.g., Ceratophora
stoddartii inhabits cloud forest from 1500 to 2200 m above the mean sea level. Appendix 2 shows the
distribution of reptiles in the seven vegetation zones of Sri Lanka (Figure 1) used by Eisenberg & McKay
(1970), Gaussen et al. (1964), and Crusz (1984).
136
De Silva: Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka
Present Conservation Status of Reptiles
Deforestation, with consequent loss of wildlife habitats and habitat fragmentation, is the biggest threat faced
by Sri Lanka’s herpetofauna. The rate of depletion of forests and wild life habitats in Sri Lanka is
considered one of the highest in South Asia (McNeely et. al., 1990). Forests were preserved untouched by
the ancient rulers of the island as catchment areas and for security. Conservationists consider that the
extensive felling of forests that took place during the last few hundreds of years would have had a
tremendous impact on the endemic fauna of the country, as the majority of endemic amphibian and reptile
species inhabit wet and intermediate lowland and montane forests. These forests today contain the most
distinctive elements of the Sri Lankan reptile fauna that has been least influenced by recent invasions from
the Indian mainland (Crusz 1984). During more recent times (commencing from the early 1980s) vast areas
of the dry zone and monsoon forests were cleared once again under the Accelerated Mahaweli Project for
agriculture and settlement.
The natural forest cover that was around 84% of the land area in 1880 is now reduced to 23% (Gunatilleke
et al., 1995). Although there are laws and enactments pertaining to the protection of flora and fauna, these
are routinely violated. Typical examples are the marine turtle hatcheries and the large scale robbing of
turtle eggs and killing turtles for their flesh. The International Institute for Environment and Development
(1992) and the Central Environmental Authority (1988) of Sri Lanka state that the enforcement of these
laws has been very ineffective. They are outdated and have glaring inadequacies.
Reptiles are adaptable and less extinct-prone than most other vertebrates (Wilcox, 1980) that adapt poorly
to environmental changes. This could be a reason we witness appreciable populations of many reptile
species. However, our studies indicate that many endemic and relict reptiles face numerous threats. In
1998 during a five-day CAMP workshop on amphibians and reptiles of Sri Lanka held at the University of
Peradeniya, 119 reptile species were assessed using IUCN Red List (1994) criteria and 43 species were
classified as Vulnerable, 27 Endangered and 18 as Critically Endangered (de Silva et. al., 2000). The IUCN
Sri Lanka, using different criteria reflecting the data available in the country, has determined that 86 species
are threatened (IUCN Sri Lanka, 2000). The leaf nose lizard (Ceratophora tennentii) was listed as an
endangered reptile in the IUCN Red List for many years. These lizards inhabit only the montane forests in
the Knuckles Mountain range. Senanayake (1980) considers that this species may become extinct if its
habitat is lost due to clearing of the primary forests for cardamom (Elettaria cardamomum) plantations. A
recent study at Knuckles (de Silva et. al., 2005a) indicates the presence of healthy and appreciable
populations of Ceratophora tennentii widely distributed in the Knuckles Mountain range. However, it was
observed that there is a marked decline of Cophotis ceylanica in the Knuckles Mountain range though
appreciable numbers were observed in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.
In contrast, recent studies indicate that some species of reptiles which were earlier considered rare (e.g.
Lyriocephalus scutatus, Calodactylodes illingworthorum, Calotes liolepis, Balanophis ceylonensis,
etc) in the country exist in fairly healthy populations at present (de Silva et al., 2004 a, . 2004 b, de Silva et.
al., 2005a, de Silva et. al., 2005b). They even occupy ranges larger than those hitherto reported by
Deraniyagala (1953, 1955), P. H. D. H. de Silva (1980) and de Silva (1990a). In addition, the lack of data
regarding the golden gecko (Calodactylodes illingworthorum) has led to the assumption that they were
uncommon (e.g., Manamendra-Arachchi, 1997, Wickramsinghe and Somaweera, 2003). However, after
investigating nearly 50 specific sites inhabited by the golden gecko, and counting the number of individuals
sighted or heard in each of the study sites as well as the number of healthy egg clusters, it is our conclusion
that Calodactylodes illingworthorum is the dominant gecko species in its range (de Silva et al., 2004a).
Most of the endemic fossorial reptiles (e.g. the species Chalcidoseps thwaitesii and the Genus Nessia
etc) when kept out from their niche for 10 to 15 minutes the skin commences to dry and would then
proceed to shrivel up. Thus, the coolness and moisture content in its microhabitat is a critical factor for the
survival of these fossorial relict reptiles. Chalcidoseps thwaitesii is mainly confined to the Knuckles
ecosystem. Studies on the annual rainfall of the Knuckles Range have shown a decrease in the rainfall
137
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
(Giragama & Madduma Bandara, 1993; Madduma Bandara 1991). In addition, the negative impacts of the
cultivation of cardamom at the Knuckles have been extensively reported (Abeygunawardena & Vincent
1993; Gunawardane et al., 2003). Studies have shown that in natural forested areas without cardamom
cultivation the ‘A’ horizon is well preserved and covered with mulch to a depth of 30-35 cm whilst in
cardamom fields the mulch level has reduced to 15-25 cm (Madduma Bandara, 1991). This data is from a
study conducted in mid 1980’s, thus, it is possible that at present this mulch level could be further reduced.
When we measured the mulch level in some cardamom plantations at Kobonila in 2004, we found that it
was less that 10 cm (de Silva et al., 2005). In addition, the soil erosion was high. Thus, we see possible
long-term irreversible habitat degradation at the Knuckles that could affect the microhabitat of these and
other fossorial animals that inhabit the cool moist humus and leaf litter of the forest floor and lay their eggs.
Threats Faced by Herpetofauna
Diminishing availability of natural habitats have pushed many reptiles to adapt to live in home gardens,
plantations, and in degraded habitats (de Silva, 1990b, 2001). Some of these reptiles are Lankascincus
species, Lyriocephalus scutatus, Calotes liolepis, Otocryptis wiegmanni etc. As a result these reptiles
are presently over-exposed to predators such as domestic cats, poultry and the common coucal (Centropus
sinensis) as well as climatic changes, human predation, and other threats.
Predators
Domestic cats, poultry and the Common Coucal (Centropus sinensis) are known predators of agamids,
geckos, skinks and snakes. With increasing human population, domestic cats and poultry have also
increased and have become an important threat to reptiles (de Silva, 2001).
A pilot study conducted in 99 households in a village in Gampola showed that cats were reared in 49 houses
and poultry in 16. These animals had killed or killed and eaten 346 reptiles and amphibians within a period
of 12 months. The three cats which I kept killed the following within a period of 12 months (1992) a total
of 39 reptiles: Calotes liolepis = 2, Calotes calotes = 3, C. versicolor = 4, Otocryptis wiegmanni = 7,
Aspidura brachyorrhos = 2, Mabuya madaraszi = 2, Mabuya carinata = 3, Lankascincus fallax = 5,
Geckos = 11(de Silva, 2001).
Field observations conducted in the Gampola area (Central Province) over a period of ten years showed a
sharp decrease in the numbers of the ground dwelling agamid Otocryptis wiegmanni due to preying by
domestic cats and the common coucal. The common coucal is now commonly found near human
habitations in rural and urban areas. Recent observations show that in addition to these predators, adult
lizards prey on the young of other lizard species (de Silva 2001). Senanayake (1980) observed the common
garden lizard (Calotes versicolor) predating on juvenile Rhino horned lizards (Ceratophora stoddartii). It
is known that adult Calotes versicolor feed on young Sitana ponticeriana and that Calotes nigrilabris
feed on young Cophotis ceylanica (de Silva, 2001).
Expansion of Human Settlements
A rapid increase in human population has occurred in Sri Lanka over the past century with much land being
cleared for agriculture, plantations, and human settlements. Erdelen (1988) has shown that the area of
natural forest cover is inversely proportional to population growth, thereby disturbing, fragmenting, and
reducing the natural habitats of animals. Furthermore, the human consumption rate of the flesh and eggs of
some reptiles such as sea and fresh water turtles, Crocodylus palustris, C. porosus, and Varanus
bengalensis has also increased. Also a high rate in killing and excessive collecting of reptiles is also
evident, with the expansion of settlements (de Silva, 1982, 1984, 1990a & 1990b; Gans, 1973; Crusz, 1973;
1984; Erdelen 1988; Richardson, 1994; Senanayake et al,1977; Whitaker and Whitaker, 1978).
138
De Silva: Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka
The Accelerated Mahaweli Project was the biggest single human settlement scheme in recent years and
resulted in the replacement of about 200,000 hectares of natural wildlife habitats with agriculture (Baldwin,
1991). It is one of the largest irrigation projects to be carried out in Asia and many reptiles were killed and
considerable extents of their nesting habitats were destroyed in the process.
Forest fires
Over a thousand hectares of forests and grasslands are set on fire annually. These fires may be a serious
threat to the herpetofauna, including their eggs that are laid in leaf litter. Daniels (1991) considers this a
threat faced by amphibians in India.
Climatological changes
Increasing temperatures and decreasing annual rainfall is a trend seen in Sri Lanka in the recent past
(Fernando & Chandrapala, 1991).This may have adverse effects on reptiles that require moist cool habitats
(discussed above). In the first quarter of 1992 a catastrophic mortality of Cophotis ceylanica was
observed around Hakgala (1,500 m) and Nuwara Eliya (1,800 m) where hundreds of dead specimens were
found within a few days (de Silva, 1996, Palihawadana, 1998). Although post mortem and other
pathological examinations were not conducted to ascertain the cause of death, an extended drought with
high temperatures reported during this period is believed to have been a major contributory factor (de Silva,
1996). According to Fernando and Chandrapala (1991) there has been an increase in temperature and a
decrease in the annual rain-fall in these areas during the past century.
Agrochemical use
Pesticides were first used in Sri Lanka to control malaria in 1946. Since then there has been a gradual
increase in the use of pesticides. Presently some 100 active ingredients are used in both agriculture and in
public health. Sri Lanka imports about 2000 metric tons of pesticides per year, 70 % being used in paddy
cultivation. (Mubarak, 1986). Although there is no data regarding the direct effects of pesticides on reptiles,
a considerable number of human deaths occur in Sri Lanka annually due to toxic effects of pesticides.
According to the Ministry of Health (1999) it is the 5th leading cause of human death in Sri Lanka: often
due to self ingestion while accidental poisoning is caused while spraying pesticides on paddy and vegetable
fields. Frogs that were common in paddy fields in the past are now less common. It is reasonable to
assume that use of pesticides and herbicides in paddy cultivation could be a factor responsible for reducing
the frog populations. The author took part in a survey around Naula and Dambulla in 1970-80 to investigate
the effects of spraying malathion for malaria mosquitoes. During this survey, all householders informed the
author that since spraying they have not observed a single house gecko in their houses, which had been
common earlier. High application rates of nitrogen fertilizer may be another contributory factor. Nearly one
third of Sri Lanka’s land is cropped, and its farmers use 77-124 Kg of nitrogen fertilizer per hectare which
is 2 to 8 times more fertilizer than is used in any other country in the region (Baldwin, 1991).
Road kills
In Sri Lanka an appreciable number of reptiles and amphibians are run over daily and killed by road traffic
(Bambaradeniya et al., 2001; de Silva, 1999, 2001, 2003). One of the first reports on this aspect was
documented by the author in a study of the herpetofauna of the Horton Plains National Park (de Silva.
1999). In a subsequent study along the Dolosbage road, Gampola was that used by the author daily to travel
from his residence to Gampola town. This stretch of road is approximately 2.25 long. The authors’ house
was built in the early 1970’s. Up to 1997 there was less traffic on this road, thus there was virtually no
road deaths of reptiles and amphibians along this stretch of road. However, this increased to approximately
six road kills per year since 1997. Forty-four reptiles comprising of 15 species and 4 amphibians comprising
of 2 species were run over and killed by vehicles. The common (8) reptile that was run over and killed was
139
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Calotes calotes. All were males. One Coeloganthus helena with a rat in its mouth was observed run over
and killed. The present study, though observed twice a day by the author has shown 44 road deaths.
However, several checks daily will show more as it was observed that during the day crows feed on road
kills. However, these random observations made in 2.25 km stretch reflect the magnitude of road kills of
reptiles and amphibians in Sri Lanka annually. Furthermore, many colleagues from different parts of the island
too have informed the author of several road kills they observe regularly, including juvenile crocodiles.
Smuggling
Under the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance (Amendment-Schedule 1) all reptiles are protected
except Naja naja, Bungarus caeruleus, Bungarus ceylonicus, Daboia russelii, and Echis carinata.
Only occasional permission is given by the Department of Wildlife to zoos and researchers to study or
export reptiles under the provisions of CITES. Nevertheless, there is evidence that reptiles are smuggled
out of the Island quite often.
Killing of snakes
Snakes, both venomous and non-venomous, are widely killed in Sri Lanka through fear and ignorance, as a
precautionary measure against snakebite. The high incidence of snakebite morbidity and mortality in Sri
Lanka is the major contributory factor for this attitude (de Silva, 1981 & 1982. In the Accelerated
Mahaweli areas the settlers are constantly exposed to snake bite (de Silva, 1981; de Silva & Ranasinghe,
1983; de Silva & Hewage, 1987; Deniyage & de Silva 1989). Field observations conducted in all the
Mahaweli settlements indicated that many snakes are ‘over killed’, especially the Russell’s viper (Daboia
russelii) and the common krait (Bungarus caeruleus). Furthermore, a host of other non-venomous and
venomous snakes such as the Trinket snake (Coeloganthus helena), common kukri snake (Oligodon
arnensis) the Gamma cat snake and Forsten’s cat snake (Boiga trigonata trigonata and Boiga forsteni)
and the green pit viper (Trimeresurus trigonocephalus) were also killed usually while clearing forests
during preparation of land. Studies indicated that an average of five snakes was killed each day in the
Mahaweli settlement areas alone (de Silva, 1982, de Silva & Ranasinghe 1983).
Species specific threats
Ongoing studies on geckos and skinks show that despite the fact that Calodactylodes illingworthorum is
both widespread in the savannah and locally abundant where it occurs, it remains vulnerable to a variety of
threats. Perhaps most importantly, the boulder outcrops with which it is associated are naturally discrete
from one another, promoting the isolation of individual populations. Prior to human modification of the
landscape, the surrounding monsoon forest would have provided corridors connecting boulder retreats.
These forests, however, are now highly fragmented, in part due to extensive logging and clearing for
agriculture over the past several centuries. As a result much of the region is covered by extensive
grasslands and fire resistant trees such as Terminalia chebula, Terminalia bellirica, Phyllanthus
emblica and Careya arborea, which are unsuitable for Calodactylodes. On a smaller scale, other possible
threats are those associated with direct disturbance of rocky retreat sites and the immediately adjacent
vegetation. Thus interesting scenarios of possible population “isolation” within the same locality of
Calodactylodes illingworthorum was observed. This may lead to eventual extinction of the species.
Research Gaps and Proposals Pertaining to the Taxonomy of Reptiles in
Sri Lanka
There are several difficulties faced by local taxonomists, such as:
z
140
Lack of comparative material in the National Museum as well as in Zoology museums of Universities
throughout the country.
De Silva: Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka
z
Lack of “properly” preserved collections in the National Museum.
z
Lack of easy and reliable identification keys for most reptile groups.
z
Lack of training facilities in taxonomy and field techniques.
z
Though expertise is available, chemicals and other relevant material for molecular taxonomy is very
expensive.
z
The intraspecific variation is unstudied for most reptile species, explicit phylogenies being non-existent.
z
Most subspecies erected by Deraniyagala need confirmation by comparison with more Indian and Sri
Lankan samples and molecular studies.
z
Studies on the ecology and behavior of reptiles are almost non-existent except for a few papers (de
Silva, 1992; de Silva, 2003; de Silva et. al., 2004a, de Silva et. al., 2004b, de Silva et. al., 2005a, de
Silva et. al., 2005b and Palihawadana, 1998 etc).
z
The distribution of most species is incompletely known.
z
Threats faced by reptiles are poorly understood.
z
Conservation, conservation breeding, and management of reptiles are in early stages of development.
z
There are difficulties in obtaining permits for research and research grants and for the exchange of
material with international collaborators, universities, and museums.
The following initial steps are recommended:
z
The National Museum to establish links with reputed museums that hold types and other specimens
needed for comparative taxonomic studies
z
Initiate collection of “properly” preserved specimens with detailed data including latitude and longitude
coordinates of locations.
z
Develop easy and reliable identification keys.
z
Conduct workshops and hands-on-training in taxonomy and field techniques.
z
Ensure availability of relevant material for molecular taxonomy.
z
Initiate research on systematics, biology, and ecological aspects of the reptiles of Sri Lanka with the
broader goal of placing these reptiles into their evolutionary and ecological contexts.
z
Establish and encourage joint studies with India.
z
Initiate and encourage island wide surveys.
z
Identify threats to reptiles and initiate action to address the issues that arise.
z
Initiate programs on conservation breeding by the National Zoological Gardens with assistance from
relevant experts.
z
Generate data that can be used to formulate conservation and management plans.
z
Ensure availability of research grants; the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWLC) to take a
leading role in promoting research.
Conservation and Management of Reptiles of Sri Lanka
Some specific and general proposals regarding conservation, management and captive breeding of reptiles
are listed below:
General proposals
1.
Introduction of a module on reptile and amphibian diseases into the undergraduate curriculum.
2.
Initiate well designed studies to gather information on the distribution and status of reptiles. It is on the
basis of such studies that warnings could be given (Crusz, 1973).
141
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
3.
Declare smaller isolated forests with high biodiversity as protected areas. These could serve as school
“field laboratories”; to be managed and protected by the schoolchildren and NGO’s in the particular
area.
4.
Captive breeding of endangered and vulnerable taxa need high priority. Captive breeding programs
should be initiated when the wild population is still in the thousands (1990 IUCN Red List).
5.
Identify natural enemies and other threats.
6.
Commercial breeding and harvesting of reptiles (monitor lizards, crocodiles and terrapins) at well
supervised farms could be an effective way of controlling poaching.
7.
Encouraging farmers to employ organic farming methods instead of using insecticides and artificial
fertilizers.
8.
Studying traditional beliefs and practices regarding reptiles will enable utilization of some of these
beliefs in public awareness programs to reduce the wanton destruction and killing of these animals.
For example, it is widely believed that the flesh of Geochelone elegans is poisonous and therefore it
should not be killed. Geckos are not killed, as it is believed the geckos are indicators of either good or
bad luck. The flesh and fat of Varanus salvator is considered highly poisonous, and the scavenging
habits of the water monitor are perhaps reasons that Sri Lankans do not kill it for flesh.
9.
Conduct awareness programs on the importance of reptiles.
10. Initiate immediate steps to reduce road kills.
Some Specific Proposals:
1.
Protection of the chief nesting habitats of Crocodylus porosus along the south and west coasts of
the island (e.g. ecosystems that support the flag plant - Lagenandra toxicaria).
2.
Identify localities where Crocodylus palustris and C. porosus are killed for consumption and end the
practice.
3.
Monitor turtle hatcheries with immediate effect to ensure that accepted best practice codes are
followed (Refer Hewavisenthi, 1993, Richardson, 1995, Weerasinghe & Walker, 1995 and de Silva,
1996).
4.
Conduct awareness programs for cultivators in areas with large populations of Geochelone elegans
in an attempt to minimize burns and other severe injuries to these animals during land preparation
activities.
5.
Initiate immediate conservation breeding programs for critically endangered reptiles such as
Ceratophora karu and C. erdelani etc.
6.
Establish a rapid response mechanism in the veterinary unit of the DWLC in collaboration with the
Veterinary Faculty of the University of Peradeniya. Such a mechanism would have enabled quick
investigation into the causes of the mass mortality of Cophotis ceylanica in 1992 around Hakgala
and Nuwara Eliya.
Literature cited
Abeygunawardena, P. & J. R. Vincent. 1993. Bare Knuckles: fighting deforestation in Sri Lanka. Harvard
Institute for International Development, (Spring 1993): 1-17
Austin, C.C., I. Das & Anslem De Silva. 2004. Higher-level molecular phylogenetic relationships of the
endemic genus Lankascincus from Sri Lanka based on nuclear DNA sequences. In: de Silva, Anslem
(Editor). 2004. The herpetology of Sri Lanka: current research (including the Proceedings of the
Fourth World Congress of Herpetology, Sri Lankan papers and the Nilgala Expedition papers).
Lyriocephalus Special Issue, Vol. 5, Nos. 1 & 2:11-22.
142
De Silva: Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka
Bahir, M. M. & A. Silva 2005. Otocryptis nigristigma, a new species of agamid lizard from Sri Lanka.
The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 12: 235-241.
Bahir, M. M. & K. P. Maduwage 2005. Calotes desilvai, a new agamid lizard from Morningside Forest,
Sri Lanka. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 12: 134-150.
Baldwin, M. F. (Ed.). 1991. Natural Resources of Sri Lanka Conditions and Trends. NARESA,
Colombo, 280 pp.
Bambaradeniya, C. N. B., L.J.M. Wickramasinge, V.A.P. Samarawickrama & L.D.C.B. Kekulandala.
2001. Herpetofaunal mortality in highways: a case study from Sri Lanka. Abstracts Fourth World
Congress of Herpetology. pp 10-11.
Bambaradeniya, C..N..B. & S. P. Ekanayake. 2003 A Guide to the Biodiversity of the Knuckles Forest
Region. IUCN, Sri Lanka Country Office, Colombo. 68 pp.
Batuwita, S. & M. M. Bahir, 2005. Description of five new species of Cyrtodactylus (Reptilia:
Gekkonidae) from Sri Lanka. In: Yeo, D. C. J., P. K. L. Ng & R. Pethiyagoda (eds.), Contributions to
biodiversity exploration and research in Sri Lanka. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No.
12: 351–380.
Bossuyt, F., M. Meegaskumbura, N. Beenaerts, D. Gower, R, Pethiyagoda, K. Roelants, A. Mannaert, M.
Wilson, M. Bahir, K. Manmendra-Arachchi, P. K. L. Ng. C. Schneider, O. V. Oommen & M. C.
Milinkovitch. 2004. Local endemism within the Western Ghats-Sri Lanka biodiversity hotspot.
Science., Volume 306. 479-481.
Central Environmental Authority. 1988. Sri Lanka National conservation strategy. Central Environmental
Authority, Colombo, xvii + 160 p
Crusz, H. 1973. Nature conservation in Sri Lanka (Ceylon). Biological Conservation, 5(3): 199 207.
Crusz, H. 1984. Parasites of endemic and relict vertebrates: a biogeographical review, IN: Ecology and
Biogeography in Sri Lanka, Ed. Fernando, C.H., Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague; 321 351.
Crusz, H. & L. Nugaliyadde. 1977. Parasites of the relict fauna of Ceylon; VII. General consideration and
first host-parasite checklist; C.R. Soc. Biogeor. 477: 85-106.
Crusz, H. 1986. The vertebrates of Sri Lanka: endemism and other aspects. Rep. Soc. Res. Native
Livestock 11: 65-85.
Daniels, R. J. R. 1991. The problem of conserving amphibians in the Western Ghats, India. Current
Science, 60(11): 630 632.
Das, I. 1991. Color Guide to the Turtles and Tortoises of the Indian Subcontinent. R & A Pub. Ltd.
Portishead, 133 pp.
Das, I. 1996. Biogeography of the reptiles of South Asia. Krieger Publishing Co. Florida, 87 pp.
Das, I. & Anslem de Silva. 2005. Photographic guide to snakes and other reptiles of Sri Lanka. New
Holland Publishers, UK.Ltd. 144 pp (in press).
David, P. & I. Ineich. 1999. Les serpents venimeux du monde: systématique et répartition. Dumerillia, 3:
3-499.
de Silva, Anslem. 1980. Cercaspis carinatus, a relict snake of Sri Lanka. Loris, 15(3): 105 107.
de Silva, Anslem. 1981. Snakebite in Anuradhapura district. The Snake, 13: 117 130.
de Silva, Anslem. 1982. Snakes of Sri Lanka: How they are endangered. Proc. IUCN/SSC Snake Group,
Madras, November 1982, p. 1 & 2.
de Silva, Anslem. & L. Ranasinghe. 1983. Epidemiology of snakebite in Sri Lanka: a review. Ceylon
Medical Journal, 28(3):144 154.
143
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
de Silva, Anslem. 1984. Snakes of Sri Lanka: Endangered?. Loris, 16(5):221 222.
de Silva, Anslem. 1987. Ecological notes on Bungarus ceylonicus Gunther, 1864. The Snake, 19(1): 59
66.
de Silva, Anslem. & P. Hewage. 1987. Snake bite in Mahaweli System H area: Galnewa. Proc. Kandy
Society of Medicine, 10: 115 116.
de Silva, Anslem. 1990a. Colour Guide to the Snakes of Sri Lanka. R & A Publishing Ltd., Avon,
England, 130 pp.
de Silva, Anslem. 1990b. Observations on some vanishing relict lizards of Sri Lanka. Hamadryad 15(1):
34-35.
de Silva, Anslem. 1992. Bungarus caeruleus: it’s ecology and bite in Sri Lanka. IN: Recent advances in
toxicology research, Vol.1, Eds. Gopalakrishnakone, P. & Tan, C. K. Venom and Toxin Research
Group, National University of Singapore. pp. 746 759.
de Silva, Anslem. 1996. Proposed Action Plan: Conservation, restoration and management of the
Testudines and their habitats in Sri Lanka. Department of Wildlife Conservation & Global
Environmental Facility Progamme, 28 pp.
de Silva, Anslem. 1998a. The Sauria (lizards and varanids) of Sri Lanka: a checklist and an annotated
bibliography. Dept. of Wildlife Conservation/GEF/UNDP/FAO, 52 pp.
de Silva, Anslem. 1998b. The Snakes of Sri Lanka: a checklist and an annotated bibliography. Dept. of
Wildlife Conservation/GEF/UNDP/FAO, 112 pp.
de Silva, Anslem. 1998c. The Testudines and Crocodilians of Sri Lanka: a checklist and an annotated
bibliography. Dept. of Wildlife Conservation/GEF/UNDP/FAO, 42 pp.
de Silva, Anslem. 1999. The habitat preferences and the status of amphibians and reptiles at Horton
Plains National Park. Report, Zoological Survey of Sri Lanka. National Science Foundation,
Colombo. 67 pp.
de Silva, Anslem. S. Molur & S. Walker. 2000. Conservation Assessment and Management Plan CAMP
Report for amphibians and selected taxa of reptiles of Sri Lanka. Conservation Breeding
Specialist Group, Sri Lanka. 226 pp.
de Silva, Anslem. 2001. The Herpetofauna of Sri Lanka: historical aspects and current status. Ministry
of Environment, 100 pp + 150 plates .ISBN 955-96005-0-8
de Silva, Anslem. 2003. The Biology and status of the star tortoise (Geochelone elegans) in Sri Lanka.
Ministry of Environment, 100 pp + 16 plates.
de Silva, Anslem. A. Bauer, C. C. Austin, S. Goonewardene,, Z. Hawke, V. Vanneck, A. Drion, P.
De Silva, B. J. K. Perera, R. L. Jayaratne & M. M. Goonasekera. 2004a. Distribution and the natural
history of Calodactylodes illingworthorum (Reptilia: Gekkonidae) in Sri Lanka: preliminary findings.
In: de Silva, Anslem (Editor). 2004. THE HERPETOLOGY OF SRI LANKA: CURRENT RESEARCH
(Including the Proceedings of the Fourth World Congress of Herpetology, Sri Lankan papers and the
Nilgala Expedition papers). Lyriocephalus Special Issue, Vol. 5, Nos. 1 & 2: 192 - 198.
de Silva, Anslem. A. Bauer, C. C. Austin, S. Goonewardene,, Z. Hawke, V. Vanneck, A. Drion, & M. M.
Goonasekera. 2004b. Some behavioural aspects of Ophisops leschenaultii lankae (Reptilia:
Lacertidae) at Nilgala fire-savannah, Sri Lanka.2004. In: de Silva, Anslem (Editor). 2004. The
herpetology of Sri Lanka: current research (Including the Proceedings of the Fourth World
Congress of Herpetology, Sri Lankan papers and the Nilgala Expedition papers). Lyriocephalus
Special Issue, Vol. 5, Nos. 1 & 2: 206 - 212.
de Silva, Anslem, A. Bauer, C. Austin, S. Goonewardene, J. Drake, & M. M. Goonasekera. 2005a.
Chalcidoseps thwaitesii (Günther, 1872) (Reptilia: Scincidae) four-toed skink: preliminary
144
De Silva: Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka
observation. IN: The Diversity of Dumbara Mountains (Knuckles Massif, Sri Lanka): With
special reference to its herpetofauna. Lyriocephalus Special issue, Volume 6 Numbers 1 & 2: (in
press).
de Silva, Anslem, A. Bauer, C. Austin, R. Meek, S. Goonewardene, J. Drake, & M. M. Goonasekera.
2005b. Ceratophora tennentii Günther & Gray, in Tennent, 1861 (Reptilia: Agamidae) some notes on
its ecology. IN: The Diversity of Dumbara Mountains (Knuckles Massif, Sri Lanka): With special
reference to its herpetofauna. Lyriocephalus Special issue, Volume 6 Numbers 1 & 2: (in press).
de Silva, P. H. D. H. 1980. Snake Fauna of Sri Lanka. National Museums of Sri Lanka. Colombo, xi +
472 pp.
Deniyage, S. L. & De Silva, Anslem. 1989. Snakebite at Galnewa: June 1986 May 1987. Proc. Kandy
Society of Medicine, 11:4 5.
Deraniyagala, P. E. P. 1953. A Colored atlas of some vertebrates from Ceylon, Vol.2, Tetrapod reptilia.
Ceylon National Museum, 101 pp.
Deraniyagala, P. E. P. 1955. A Colored Atlas of some Vertebrates from Ceylon. Serpentoid Reptilia.
Ceylon national Museums, Colombo, vii + 107 pp.
Eisenberg, J. F. & G. M. McKAY. 1970. An annotated checklist of the recent mammals of Ceylon with
keys to the species. Ceylon J. Sci. (Bio. Sci.). 8:69-99.
Erdelen, W. 1984. The Genus Calotes (Sauria, Agamidae) in Sri Lanka: distribution patterns. J of
Biogeography, 11: 515 525.
Erdelen, W. 1988. Forest Ecosystem and Nature Conservation in Sri Lanka. Biological Conservation, 43:
115 135.
Fernando, T. K. & L. Chandrapala. 1991. Global warming and rainfall variability Sri Lanka situation.
Proc. 47th Ann. Ses. Sri Lanka Assoc. Adv. of Sci. Part., 1 : 138.
Gans, C. 1973. Uropeltid snakes survivors in a changing world. Endeavor, 32(116); 60 65.
Gaussen, H. P., L. M. Viart & L. Labroue. 1964. International map of vegetation, Ceylon. Ceylon Survey
Dept. Colombo.
Gans, C. & Fetcho, J. R. 1982. The Sri Lankan Genus Aspidura (Serpentes. Reptilia, Colubridae). Annals
of Carnegie Museum, 51(14): 271 316.
Giragama, W. M. G. B. & C. M. Madduma Bandara. 1993. Rainfall and relative humidity of the Dumbara
Hills (Knuckles Range). Annual Review 1992, Institute of Fundamental Studies, Kandy, pp.72-73.
Golay, P., H.M. Smith, D.G. Broadley, J.R. Dixon, C. McCarthy, J.C. Rage, B. Schtti & M. Toriba. 1993.
Endoglyphs and other major venomous snakes of the world. A checklist. Azemiops, Herpetological
Data Center. 478 pp.
Goonewardene, S., Z. Hawke, V.Vanneck, A. Drion, Anslem de Sikva R. Jayaratne & J. Perera. 2004.
Report of Project Hoona – 2003. Diversity of Nilgala fire savannah, Sri Lanka: with special
reference to its herpetofauna. Project Hoona. 81 pp + 164 – 220 pp.
Greer, A.E., Jr. 1970. A subfamilial classification of scincid lizards. Bulletin of the Museum of
Comparative Zoology 139(3):151-184.
Greer, A. E. 1991. Lankascincus a New Genus of Scincid Lizards from Sri Lanka, with Descriptions of
Three New Species. Journal of Herpetology, 25(1): 59 64.
Gunatilleke, I. A. U. N., P.B. Karunaratne & C.V.S. Gunatilleke.1995. Status of natural habitats in relation
to the herpetofuana of Sri Lanka. Lyriocephalus, 2(1&2): 71-80.
Gunawardane, H. G. 2003. Ecological implications of cardamom cultivation in the high altitudes of
Knuckles Forest Reserve, Central; province, Sri Lanka. The Sri Lanka Forester. 26: 1-9.
145
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
HewavisenthI, S. 1993. Turtle Hatcheries in Sri Lanka: boon or bane?. Marine Turtle Newsletter. 60: 19 –
22.
International Institute for Environment and Development. 1992. Environmental Synopsis of Sri Lanka.
Overseas Development Administration, 26 pp.
IUCN Sri Lanka. 2000. The 1999 list of threatened fauna and flora of Sri Lanka. Colombo: IUCN Sri
Lanka. 114 pp.
Jones, J.P.G., C.D.Ferry, C.E.Isherwood, C.G.Knight, K. Weerakoon. 1998. A conservation review of
three wet zone forests in south-west Sri Lanka. CSB Conservation Publications, UK. 59 pp +
appendix. ISBN 1 901399 044.
Kluge, A. G. 2001. Gekkotan lizard taxonomy. Hamadryad, 26(1): 1-209.
Maduma Bandara, C. M. 1991. Climate and hydrology of the Dumbara Hills. Annual Review 1990.
Institute of Fundamental Studies, Kandy. p. 51.
Manamendra-Arachchi, K. 1997. Gecko! Sri Lanka Nature 1(1):45-55.
McDiarmid, R. W., J. A. CampbelL & T. A. Toure. 1999. Snake species of the world: a taxonomic and
geographic reference. The Herpetologists’ League. 511 pp.
McNealy, J. A., K.R. Miller, W. V. Reid, R. A. Mittermeier, & T. B. Werner. 1990. Conserving the
World’s Biological Diversity. IUCN, WRI, CI & WWF US, Gland, 193 pp.
Ministry of Health. 1999. Annual Health Bulletin Sri Lanka (1999). Colombo. Govt. Printer.157 pp.
Mubarak, A.M. 1986. Pesticides and their impact on the environment. In: Dissanayake, C. B. & L.
Gunatilake (eds), Some aspects of the chemistry of the environment of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Association
for the Advancement of Science, Colombo. pp. 89-99.
Nathanael , S. D. M. Nayna Pradeep, S. M. M. Samarakoon & Anslem de Silva. 2004. Herpetofaunal
diversity with special reference to endemic and nationally threatened species at Polgolla, an upland
area in the mid country wet zone of Sri Lanka. In: de Silva, Anslem (Editor). 2004. THE
HERPETOLOGY OF SRI LANKA: CURRENT RESEARCH (Including the Proceedings of the Fourth
World Congress of Herpetology, Sri Lankan papers and the Nilgala Expedition papers).
Lyriocephalus Special Issue. Vol. 5, Nos. 1 & 2: 86-95.
Palihawadana, A. 1998. An ecological study of Cophotis ceylanica. IN: Biology and Conservation of
the Amphibians, reptiles and their habitats in South Asia. (Ed.) Anslem de Silva, 253-260.
Pethiyagoda, Rohan & Kelum Manamendra Arachchi. 1998. A revision of the endemic Sri Lankan agamid
lizard genus Ceratophora Gray, 1835, with description of two new species. J. South Asian Nat.
Hist., 3(1): 1-50.
Pethiyagoda, Rohan & Kelum Manamendra Arachchi. 1998. Evaluating Sri Lankas amphibian diversity.
Occ. Pap. Wildlife Heritage Trust Sri Lanka (2): 1 12
Ranwella, S. P. 1995. A checklist of vertebrates of Bolgoda south lake area. YZA Publication No. BG1-1995. 82 pp.
Richardson, P. 1994. The Turtle Conservation Project (TCP) Sri Lanka: How much is a turtle worth?.
Testudo, 4(10: 17 – 21.
Richardson, P. 1995. The Marine Turtle Hatcheries of Sri Lanka. Care for the Wild, Turtle Conservation
Project (Unpublished Document), 14pp.
Samarawickrama, V. A. M. P. K., V. A. P. Samarawickrama, N. M. Wijesena and N. L. Orlov 2005. A
new species of Genus Boiga (Serpentes: Colubridae) from Sri Lanka. Russian Journal of
Herpetology, 12 (3): 213-222
146
De Silva: Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka
Senanayake, F. R. 1980. The status of the endemic lizard, Genus: Ceratophora in Sri Lanka. Tiger paper,
7(4): 26 28.
Senanayake, F. R., M. Soule & J. W. Senner. 1977. Habitat values and endemicity in the vanishing rain
forests of Sri Lanka. Nature, London, 265: 351 354.
Smith, M. A. 1933.The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and Amphibia.
Vol.I. Loricata, Testudines. Taylor & Francis. London. xxviii+ 185 pp.
Smith, M. A. 1935. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia & Amphibia.
Vol. 11- Sauria. Taylor & Francis, London. 440 pp.
Smith, M. A. 1943. The Fauna of British India, Ceylon and Burma, including the Whole of the IndoChinese Sub-Region. Reptilia and Amphibia Vol. 3 - Serpents (R.B.S. Sewell editor) Taylor and
Francis, London, xii + 568 pp.
Stuart, S., J. S. Chanson, N.A. Cox, B.E. Young, A.S.L. Rodrigues, D.L. Fischman & R.W. Waller, 2004.
Status and trends of amphibians declines and extinctions worldwide. Science, 306: 1783-1786.
Taylor, E. H. 1950 (a). Ceylonese Lizards of the Family Scincidae. University of Kansas Science Bulletin,
33 (13): 481-518.
Taylor, E. H. 1950 (b). A Brief Review of Ceylonese Snakes. University of Kansas Science Bulletin. 33
(14): 519-603.
Taylor, E. H. 1953. A Review of the Lizards of Ceylon. University of Kansas Science Bulletin. 35 (12):
1525-1585.
Wall. Frank. 1921. Ophidia Taprobanica or the Snakes of Ceylon, H.R. Cottle, Govt. Printer Colombo.
xxii + 581.
Weerasinghe, A. AND B. Walker.1995. Some Notes on the Turtle Hatchery, Yaddehimulla, Unawatuna, Sri
Lanka. Lyriocephalus, 2 (1 & 2): 43 – 47.
Whitaker, R. AND Z. Whitaker. 1978. Preliminary crocodile survey Sri Lanka. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society, 76(21):66 85.
Wickramsinghe, M. AND Somaweera, R. 2003. Distribution and current status of the endemic geckos of
Sri Lanka. Gekko 3(1):2-13.
Wilcox, B. A. 1980. Insular ecology and conservation. In: Conservation biology, an evolutionaryecological perspective (Eds.) Soule, M.E. & B. A.Wilcox. 95-117. Sunderland, M.A. Sinauer
Associates.
147
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Appendix 1: Provisional checklist of the reptiles of Sri Lanka (As at June 2005).
The list of reptiles below is provisional, as the validity of some generic and species allocations needs
to be examined with more samples. The families, genera, and species are listed alphabetically.
Sources consulted in preparing this list are: Bahir & Maduwage, 2005; Bahir & Silva, 2005 and
Batuwita & Bahir, 2005; Das, 1991, 1996; Deraniyagala, 1953, 1955; de Silva 1990a, 2001, de Silva,
P. H. D. H., 1980; Greer, 1991; Kluge, 2001; Pethiyagoda & Manamendra-Arachchi, 1998, Taylor,
1950b, 1953, McDiarmid et al., 1999, Golay et al., 1993, David & Ineich, 1999 and Samarawickrama
et. al., 2005. The endemic status according to current knowledge is given; but more taxa are presently
being studied and may eventually be given endemic status.
FAMILY CROCODYLIDAE Gray, 1825
Genus: Crocodylus Laurenti, 1768.
1. Crocodylus palustris Lesson, 1831. English: Mugger or Marsh Crocodile, Sinhala: Hala Kimbula,
Tamil: Kulathi Muthalei. Status: Not endemic.
2. Crocodylus porosus Schneider,1801. English: Saltwater or Estuarine Crocodile, Sinhala: Gata
Kimbula, Tamil: Semmukku Muthalei. Status: Not endemic.
FAMILY BATAGURIDAE
Genus: Melanochelys Gray, 1869
3. Melanochelys trijuga parkeri (Deraniyagala, 1939). English: Parker’s Black Turtle, Sinhala:
Parkerge Gal Ibba. Status: unique at sub-species level
4. Melanochelys trijuga thermalis (Lesson, 1830). English: Black Turtle, Sinhala: Gal Ibba, Tamil:
Amai, Karuppu amai. Status: Not endemic.
FAMILY CHELONIIDAE Gray, 1825
Genus: Caretta Rafinesque, 1814.
5. Caretta caretta (Linnaeus, 1758). English: Loggerhead Sea Turtle, Sinhala: Olugedi kasbaeva,
Kannadi kasbaeva = Spectacled Turtle, Tamil: Perunthalai amai = bigheaded turtle. Status: Not
endemic.
Genus: Chelonia Brongniart, 1800
6. Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus, 1758). English: Green turtle, Sinhala: Gal Kasbaeva (= rock turtle), Mas
Kasbaeva = flesh turtle, Vali Kasbaeva (= sand turtle), Tamil: Pal Amai = Tamil. Status: Not endemic.
Genus: Eretmochelys Fitzinger, 1843.
7. Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus, 1766). English: Hawksbill Sea Turtle, Sinhala: Pothu Kasbaeva =
Scaly turtle, Leli Kasbaeva = Scally turtle, Tamil: Nanja Amai = poisonous Turtle. Status: Not
endemic.
Genus: Lepidochelys Fitzinger, 1843.
8. Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz, 1829). English: Olive Ridley Sea Turtle, Sinhala: Batu Kasbaeva
= Dwarf Turtle or Mada Kasbaeva = Mud Turtle, Tamil: Pul Amai = Grass turtle. Status: Not
endemic.
FAMILY DERMOCHELYIDAE Stejneger, 1907
Genus: Dermochelys Blainville, 1816.
9. Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli, 1761). English: Leatherback Sea Turtle, Sinhala: Dara Kasbaeva = ridge
turtle or Tun Dara Kasbaeva = three ridge turtle, Tamil: Dhoni Amai = boat turtle. Status: Not endemic.
148
De Silva: Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka
FAMILY TESTUDINIDAE Gray, 1825
Genus: Geochelone Fitzinger, 1835
10. Geochelone elegans (Schoepff, 1795). English: Indian Star Tortoise, Sinhala: Mevara Ibba = marked
tortoise or Taraka Ibba = Star tortoise, Tamil: Katu Amai = forest tortoise, Kattupta Aamai. Status:
Not endemic.
FAMILY TRIONYCHIDAE Bell, 1828
Genus: Lissemys Smith, 1931.
11. Lissemys punctata punctata (Bonnaterre, 1789). English: Flapshell Turtle, Sinhala: Kiri Ibba = milk
turtle, Tamil: Pal Aamai = milk turtle. Status: Not endemic.
FAMILY AGAMIDAE Gray, 1827
Genus: Calotes Cuvier, 1817.
12. Calotes calotes (Linnaeus, 1758). English: Green garden lizard, Sinhala: Pala katussa = Green Lizard,
Tamil: Pachai karata. Status: Not Endemic.
13. Calotes ceylonensis (Müller, 1887). English: Painted lip lizard, Sinhala: Thola-visituru katussa. Status:
Endemic.
14. Calotes desilvai Bahir & Maduwage, 2005. English: Maculate lizard, Sinhala: Lapawan Katussa.
Status: Endemic.
15. Calotes liocephalus Günther, 1872. English: Crestless lizard, Sinhala: Kondu datirahita katussa.
Status: Endemic.
16. Calotes liolepis Boulenger, 1885. English: Whistling lizard, Forest lizard, Sinhala: Sivuruhandalana
katussa. Status: Endemic.
17. Calotes nigrilabris Peters, 1860. English: Black cheek lizard, Sinhala: Kalu kopul katussa. Status:
Endemic.
18. Calotes versicolor versicolor (Daudin, 1802). English: Common garden lizard, Sinhala: Gara katussa
(= house lizard). Status: Not Endemic.
Genus: Ceratophora Gray, 1834.
19. Ceratophora aspera Günther, 1864. English: Rough horn lizard, Sinhala: Raluang katussa Kuru
angkatussa. Status: Endemic.
20. Ceratophora erdeleni Pethiyagoda & Manamendra-Arachchi. 1998. English: Erdelen’s horn lizard,
Sinhala: Erdelenge angkatussa. Status: Endemic.
21. Ceratophora karu Pethiyagoda & Manamendra-Arachchi. 1998. English: Karunaratne’s horn lizard,
Sinhala: Karunaratnage angkatusua. Status: Endemic.
22. Ceratophora stoddartii Gray, 1835. English: Rhinohorn lizard, Sinhala: Kagamuva angkatussa.
Status: Endemic.
23. Ceratophora tennentii Günther and Gray, 1861. English: Leafnose lizard, Sinhala: Pethi angkatussa.
Status: Endemic.
Genus: Cophotis Peters, 1861.
24. Cophotis ceylanica Peters, 1861. English: Pygmy lizard, Sinhala: Kandukara kurukatussa. Status:
Endemic.
Genus: Lyriocephalus Merrem, 1820.
25. Lyriocephalus scutatus (Linnaeus, 1758). English: Lyre head lizard, Hump snout Lizard, Sinhala:
Gatahombu katussa = Humpsnout lizard, Karamal bodiliya = Crested lizard, Kandukara bodiliya =
Montane lizard, Sondura = Beloved. Status: Endemic.
149
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Genus: Otocryptis Wagler, 1830.
26. Otocryptis nigristigma Bahir & Silva, 2005. English: Lowland kangaroo lizard, Sinhala: Thalawe .
talikatussa = lowland Pendant lizard. Status: Endemic.
27. Otocryptis wiegmanni Wagler, 1830. English: Upland kangaroo lizard, Sinhala: Gomu talikatussa =
Forest Pendant lizard; Pinum katussa = Jumping lizard, Tali katussa = pendant lizard, Kala katussa.
Status: Endemic.
Genus: Sitana Cuvier, 1829.
28. Sitana ponticeriana Cuvier, 1829. English: Fanthroat lizard, Sinhala: Pulina talikatussa = Sand
pendant lizard, Vali katussa = Sand lizard, Pullibim katussa = spotted ground lizard. Tamil: Veeseri
wona. Status: Not Endemic.
FAMILY CHAMAELEONIDAE Gray, 1825
Genus: Chamaeleo Laurenti, 1768.
29. Chamaeleo zeylanicus Laurenti, 1768. English: Sri Lankan Chameleon, Sinhala: Bodilima, Bodiliya,
Tamil: Pachai wona. Status: Not endemic.
FAMILY GEKKONIDAE Boulenger, 1885
Genus: Calodactylodes Strand, 1926.
30. Calodactylodes illingworthorum Deraniyagala, 1953. English: Sri Lankan golden gecko, Sinhala:
Maha galhuna. Status: Endemic.
Genus: Cnemaspis Strauch 1887.
31. Cnemaspis jerdonii scalpensis (Ferguson, 1877). English: Jerdon’s day gecko, Sinhala: Jerdonge
divasarihuna. Status: unique at sub-species level
32. Cnemaspis kandiana (Kelaart, 1853 “1852”). English: Kandyan day gecko, Sinhala: Kandukara
divasarihuna. Status: Endemic.
33. Cnemaspis podihuna Deraniyagala, 1944. English: Dwarf day gecko, Sinhala: Kuda divasarihuna,
Podi galhuna. Status: Endemic.
34. Cnemaspis tropidogaster (Boulenger, 1885). English: Roughbelly day gecko, Sinhala: Ralodara
divasarihuna. Status: Not endemic.
Genus: Cosymbotus Fitzinger, 1843.
35. Cosymbotus platyurus (Schneider, 1792). English: Frilltail Gecko, Sinhala: Nagutavakarali huna.
Status: Not endemic.
Genus: Cyrtodactylus. Gray, 1827.
36. Cyrtodactylus cracens Batuwita & Bahir, 2005. English: Sinharaja bent-toe gecko, Sinhala: Sinharaja
vakaniya huna. Status: Endemic
37. Cyrtodactylus edwardtaylori Batuwita & Bahir, 2005. English: Namunukula bent-toe gecko, Sinhala:
Namunukula vakaniya huna. Status: Endemic
38. Cyrtodactylus fraenatus (Günther, 1864). English: Great forest gecko, Sinhala: Maha kalae huna or
Mukalam huna. Status: Endemic.
39. Cyrtodactylus ramboda Batuwita & Bahir, 2005. English: Ramboda bent-toe gecko, Sinhala:
Ramboda vakaniya huna. Status: Endemic
40. Cyrtodactylus soba Batuwita & Bahir, 2005. English: Dumbara bent-toe gecko, Sinhala: Dumbara
vakaniya huna. Status: Endemic
41. Cyrtodactylus subsolanus Batuwita & Bahir, 2005. English: Dolahena bent-toe gecko, Sinhala:
Dolahena vakaniya huna. Status: Endemic
150
De Silva: Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka
Genus: Geckoella Gray 1867.
42. Geckoella collegalensis (Beddome, 1870). English: Collegal rockgecko, Sinhala: Collegalge
vakaniyahuna. Status: Not endemic.
43. Geckoella triedrus (Günther, 1864). English: Spotted bowfinger gecko, Sinhala: Pulli vakaniyahuna.
Status: Endemic.
44. Geckoella yakhuna (Deraniyagala, 1945). English: Blotch bowfinger gecko; Demon gecko, Sinhala:
Lapavan vakaniyahuna, Yak huna = demon gecko. Status: Endemic.
Genus: Gehyra Gray, 1834.
45. Gehyra mutilata (Wiegmann, 1834). English: Four-claw gecko, Sinhala: Caturanguli huna. Status: Not
endemic.
Genus: Hemidactylus Oken, 1817
46. Hemidactylus brookii parvimaculatus Deraniyagala, 1953. English: Spotted housegecko, Sinhala:
Pulli gehuna. Status: unique at sub-species level
47. Hemidactylus depressus Gray, 1842. English: Kandyan gecko, Sinhala: Hali gehuna. Status: Endemic.
48. Hemidactylus frenatus Duméril & Bibron, 1836. English: Common house-gecko, Sinhala: Sulaba
gehuna. Status: Not Endemic.
49. Hemidactylus leschenaultii Duméril & Bibron, 1836. English: Bark or Sycamore gecko, Sinhala:
Kimbul huna = crocodile gecko, Gas huna = tree or Kumbuk huna = Terminalia arjuna. Status: Not
Endemic.
50. Hemidactylus maculatus hunae Deraniyagala, 1937. English: Spotted giantgecko or Rock gecko.
Sinhala: Davanta tit huna. Status: Not endemic
51. Hemidactylus scabriceps (Annandale, 1906). English: Scaly gecko, Sinhala: Korapotu huna. Status:
Not endemic.
52. Hemidactylus triedrus lankae Deraniyagala, 1953. English: Termite hill gecko, Sinhala: Humbas
huna. Status: unique at sub-species level
Genus: Hemiphyllodactylus Bleeker, 1860.
53. Hemiphyllodactylus typus Bleeker, 1860. English: Slender gecko, Sinhala: Sihin huna. Status: Not
endemic.
Genus: Lepidodactylus Fitzinger 1843.
54. Lepidodactylus lugubris (Duméril & Bibron, 1836). English: Scaly-finger gecko or Mourning gecko,
Sinhala: Salkapa huna. Status: Not endemic.
FAMILY LACERTIDAE Gray, 1825
Genus: Ophisops. Ménétries, 1832.
55. Ophisops leschenaultii lankae (Deraniyagala, 1953). English: Leschenault’s Snake eye Lizard,
Sinhala: Panduru sarpakshi katusa. Status: unique at sub-species level
56. Ophisops minor minor (Deraniyagala, 1971). English: Lesser snake eye lizard, Sinhala: Kuda
sarpakshi katusa. Status: unique at sub-species level
FAMILY SCINCIDAE Gray, 1825
Genus: Chalcidoseps Boulenger 1887.
57. Chalcidoseps thwaitesii (Günther, 1872). English: Fourtoe snakeskink, Sinhala: Caturanguli
sarpiyahikanala. Status: Endemic.
151
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Genus: Dasia Gray, 1839.
58. Dasia halianus (Haly & Nevill in: Nevill, 1887). English: Haly’s treeskink, Sinhala: Helige rukhiraluva.
Status: Not endemic.
Genus: Lankascincus Greer, 1991.
59. Lankascincus deignani (Taylor, 1950). English: Deignan’s lankaskink, Sinhala: Deignange
lakhiraluva. Status: Endemic.
60. Lankascincus deraniyagalae Greer, 1991. English: Deraniyagal’s lankaskink, Sinhala: Daraniyagalge
lakhiraluva. Status: Endemic.
61. Lankascincus fallax (Peters, 1860). English: Common lankaskink, Sinhala: Sulaba lakhiraluva. Status:
Endemic.
62. Lankascincus gansi Greer, 1991. English: Gans’s lankaskink, Sinhala: Gansge lakhiraluva. Status:
Endemic.
63. Lankascincus taprobanensis (Kelaart, 1854). English: Smooth lanka skink, Sinhala: Sumudu
lakhiraluva. Status: Endemic.
64. Lankascincus taylori Greer, 1991. English: Taylor’s lanka skink, Sinhala: Telorge lakhiraluva. Status:
Endemic.
Genus: Lygosoma
65. Lygosoma punctatus (Gmelin, 1799). English: Dotted skink, Sinhala: Tit hiraluhikanala. Status: Not
endemic.
66. Lygosoma singha (Taylor, 1950). English: Taylor’s skink, Sinhala: Taylorge hiraluhikanala. Status:
Endemic.
Genus: Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826.
67. Mabuya beddomii (Jerdon, 1870). English: Beddome’s stripe skink, Sinhala: Vairan hikanala. Status:
Not endemic.
68. Mabuya bibronii (Gray, 1838). English: Bibron’s sand skink, Sinhala: Vali hikanala. Status: Not
endemic.
69. Mabuya carinata lankae Deraniyagala, 1953. English: Common skink, Sinhala: Sulaba hikanala.
Status: unique at sub-species level
70. Mabuya floweri Taylor, 1950. English: Taylor’s skink, Sinhala: Taylorge hikanala. Status: Endemic.
71. Mabuya macularia maculara (Blyth, 1853). English: Bronzegreen little skink, Sinhala: Pingu
hikanala. Status: Not endemic.
72. Mabuya madaraszi Méhely, 1897. English: Spotted skink, Sinhala: Pulli hikanala. Status: Endemic.
Genus: Nessia Gray, 1839.
73. Nessia bipes Smith, 1935. English: Smith’s snakeskink, Sinhala: Smithge sarpahiraluva. Status:
Endemic.
74. Nessia burtonii Gray, 1839. English: Threetoe Snakeskink, Sinhala: Triyanguli sarpahiraluva. Status:
Endemic.
75. Nessia deraniyagalai Taylor, 1950. English: Deraniyagala’s snakeskink, Sinhala: Derniyagalage
sarpahiraluva. Status: Endemic.
76. Nessia didactylus (Deraniyagala, 1934). English: Two toe snakeskink, Sinhala: Dvayanguli
sarpahiraluva. Status: Endemic.
77. Nessia hickanala Deraniyagala, 1940. English: Sharkhead snakeskink, Sinhala: Morahis
sarpahiraluva. Status: Endemic.
78. Nessia layardi (Kelaart, 1854). English: Layard’s snakeskink, Sinhala: Leyardge sarpahiraluva. Status:
Endemic.
152
De Silva: Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka
79. Nessia monodactylus (Gray, 1839). English: Toeless snakeskink, Sinhala: Ananguli sarpahiraluva.
Status: Endemic.
80. Nessia sarasinorum (Müller, 1889). English: Sarasin’s snakeskink, Sinhala: Sarasinge sarpahiraluva.
Status: Endemic.
Genus: Sphenomorphus Fitzinger 1843.
81. Sphenomorphus dorsicatenatus Deraniyagala, 1953. English: Catenated litter skink, Sinhala:
Damwal singitihikanala. Status: Endemic.
82. Sphenomorphus dussumieri (Duméril & Bibron, 1839). English: Dussumier’s litter skink, Sinhala:
Salkasahita singitihikanala. Status: Not endemic.
83. Sphenomorphus megalops (Annandale, 1906). English: Annandale’s litter skink, Sinhala: Annandalege
singitihikanala. Status: Endemic.
84. Sphenomorphus rufogulus (Taylor, 1950). English: Redthroat litter skink, Sinhala: Taylorge
singitihikanala. Status: Endemic.
85. Sphenomorphus striatopunctatus (Ahl, 1925). English: Ahl’s litter skinks, Sinhala: Ahlge
singitihikanala. Status: Endemic.
FAMILY VARANIDAE Gray, 1827
Genus: Varanus Merrem, 1820.
86. Varanus bengalensis (Daudin, 1802). English: Land monitor, Sinhala: Talagoya. Status: Not endemic.
87. Varanus salvator salvator (Laurenti, 1768). English: Water monitor, Sinhala: Kabaragoya. Status: Not
Endemic.
ORDER SERPENTES
FAMILY ACROCHORDIDAE Bonaparte, 1831
Genus: Acrochordus Hornstedt, 1787
88. Acrochordus granulatus (Schneider, 1799). English: Wart snake, Sinhala: Diya goya, redi naya.
Status: Not endemic.
FAMILY BOIDAE Gray, 1825
SUB FAMILY ERYCINAE Bonaparte, 1831
Genus: Gongylophis Wagler, 1830.
89. Gongylophis conica brevis (Deraniyagala, 1951) English: Sand boa, Sinhala: Vali pimbura, kota
pimbura. Status: unique at sub-species level
SUB FAMILY PYTHONIDAE Fitzinger, 1826
Genus: Python Daudin, 1803
90. Python molurus molurus (Linnaeus, 1758). English: Indian python, Pimbura. Status: Not endemic.
FAMILY CYLINDROPHIIDAE Fitzinger, 1843
Genus: Cylindrophis Wagler, 1828
91. Cylindrophis maculata (Linnaeus, 1758). English: Pipe snake, Sinhala: Depath naya. Status:
Endemic.
153
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
FAMILY COLUBRIDAE
Genus: Ahaetulla Link, 1807
92. Ahaetulla nasuta (Lacépcde, 1789): English: Green vine snake, Sinhala: Ahaetulla. Status: Not
endemic.
93. Ahaetulla pulverulenta (Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854). English: Brown vine snake, Sinhala:
Henakandaya. Status: Not endemic.
Genus: Amphiesma Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854.
94. Amphiesma stolatum (Linnaeus, 1758). English: Buff striped keelback, Sinhala: Aharukuka. Status:
Not endemic.
Genus: Argyrogena Werner, 1924.
95. Argyrogena fasciolata (Shaw, 1802). English: Banded racer, Sinhala: Wal gerandiya. Status: Not endemic.
Genus: Aspidura Wagler, 1830
96. Aspidura brachyorrhos (Boie, 1827). English: Boie’s roughside, Sinhala: Le madilla. Status: Endemic.
97. Aspidura copei Günther, 1864, English: Cope’s roughside, Sinhala:Kalumedilla. Status: Endemic.
98. Aspidura deraniyagalae Gans & Fetcho, 1982. English: Deraniyagala’s roughside, Sinhala: Kandu
madilla. Status: Endemic.
99. Aspidura drummondhayi Boulenger, 1904. English: Guenther’s Drummond – Hay’s roughside,
Sinhala: Ketiwalmadilla. Status: Endemic.
100. Aspidura guentheri Ferguson, 1876. English: Ferguson’s roughside, Sinhala: Kudamadilla. Status:
Endemic.
101. Aspidura trachyprocta Cope, 1860. English: Common roughside, Sinhala: Dalawa madilla. Status:
Endemic.
Genus: Atretium Cope, 1861
102. Atretium schistosum (Daudin, 1803). English: The Olive keelback watersnake, Sinhala: Diyawarna.
Status: Not endemic.
Genus: Balanophis Smith, 1938
103. Balanophis ceylonensis (Günther, 1858). English: Sri Lanka keelback, Sinhala: Nihaluwa. Status:
Endemic.
Genus: Boiga Fitzinger, 1826
104. Boiga barnesii (Günther, 1869). English: Barnes’s cat snake, Sinhala: Panduru mapila. Status:
Endemic.
105. Boiga beddomei (Wall, 1909). English: Beddoms cat snake, Sinhala: Kaha mapila. Status: Not endemic.
106. Boiga ceylonensis (Günther, 1858). English: Sri Lanka cat snake, Sinhala: Nidi mapila. Status: Not
endemic.
107. Boiga forsteni (Duméril, Bibron and Duméril, 1854). English: Forsten’s cat snake, Sinhala: Naga
mapila. Status: Not endemic.
108. Boiga trigonatus trigonatus (Schneider, 1802). English: Gamma cat snake, Sinhala: Ran mapila.
Status: Not endemic.
109. Boiga ranawanei Samarawickrama, 2005. Ranawana’s Golden cat snake. Status: Endemic.
Genus: Cerberus Cuvier, 1829
110. Cerberus rynchops (Schneider, 1799). English: Dog-faced water snake, Sinhala:Kuna diya kaluwa.
Status: Not endemic.
Genus: Cercaspis Wagler, 1830
111. Cercaspis carinata (Kuhl, 1820). English: The Sri Lanka wolf snake, Sinhala: Dhara radanakaya.
Status: Endemic.
154
De Silva: Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka
Genus: Chrysopelea Boie, 1826
112. Chrysopelea ornata ornata (Shaw, 1802). English: Ornate flying snake, Sinhala: Malsara. Status:
Not Endemic.
113. Chrysopelea taprobanica (Smith, 1943). English: Striped flying snake, Sinhala: Dangara danda.
Status: Endemic.
Genus: Coeloganthus Fitzinger, 1843.
114. Coeloganthus helena (Daudin, 1803). English: Trinket snake, Sinhala: Katakaluwa. Status: Not endemic
Genus: Dendrelaphis Boulenger, 1890
115. Dendrelaphis bifrenalis (Boulenger, 1890). English: Boulenger’s bronze back, Sinhala: Pandura
haldanda. Status: Not endemic.
116. Dendrelaphis caudolineolatus (Günther, 1869). English: Gunther’s bronze back, Sinhala: Viri
haldanda. Status: Not endemic.
117. Dendrelaphis oliveri (Taylor, 1950). English: Oliver’s bronze back, Sinhala: Oliverge haldanda.
Status: Endemic.
118. Dendrelaphis tristis (Daudin, 1803). English: Common bronze back Sinhala: Tura haldanda. Status:
Not endemic.
Genus: Dryocalamus Günther, 1858.
119. Dryocalamus gracilis ( Günther, 1864). English: The scarce bridal snake, Sinhala: Megata
radanakaya. Status: Not endemic. .
120. Dryocalamus nympha (Daudin, 1803). English: Bridal snake, Sinhala: Geta Radanakaya, Geta
karawala. Status: Not endemic.
Genus: Gerarda Gray, 1849
121. Gerarda prevostianus (Eydoux & Gervais, 1837). English: Gerard’s water snake, Sinhala: Prevostge
diyabariya. Status: Not endemic.
Genus: Haplocercus Günther, 1858
122. Haplocercus ceylonensis Günther, 1858. English: The black spine snake, mould snake, Sinhala:
Kurunkarawala. Status: Endemic.
Genus: Liopeltis Fitzinger, 1843
123. Liopeltis calamaria (Günther, 1858). English: Reed snake, Sinhala: Punbariya. Status: Not endemic.
Genus: Lycodon Boie in: Fitzinger, 1826
124. Lycodon aulicus (Linnaeus, 1758). English: Wolf snake, house snake, Sinhala: Alu radanakaya.
Status: Not endemic.
125. Lycodon osmanhilli (Taylor, 1950). Flowery wolf snake, Sinhala: Mal radanakaya. Status: Endemic.
126. Lycodon striatus sinhaleyus Deraniyagala, 1955. English: Shaw’s wolf snake, Sinhala: Kabara
radanakaya. Status: unique at sub-species level
Genus: Macropisthodon Boulenger, 1893
127. Macropisthodon plumbicolor palabariya Deraniyagala, 1955. English: The green keelback, Sinhala:
Palabariya. Status: Endemic.
Genus: Oligodon Boie in: Fitzinger, 1826
128. Oligodon arnensis (Shaw, 1802). English: Common kukri snake, Banded Kukri, Sinhala: Arani dath
ketiya. Status: Not endemic.
129. Oligodon calamarius (Linnaeus, 1758). English: Templeton’s kukri snake, Sinhala: Kabara dath
ketiya. Status: Endemic.
130. Oligodon sublineatus Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854. English: Dumerul’s kuki snake, Sinhala: Pulli
dath ketiya. Status: Endemic.
155
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
131. Oligodon taeniolata ceylonicus Wall, 1921. English: The variegated kukri snake, Sinhala: Wairi dath
ketiya. Status: unique at sub-species level
132. Oligodon taeniolata fasciatus (Günther, 1864). English: Russell’s kukri snake, Sinhala: Pulli dath
ketiya. Status: Not endemic.
Genus: Ptyas Fitzinger, 1843
133. Ptyas mucosa maxima (Deraniyagala, 1955). English: Rat snake, Sinhala: Gerandiya. . Status: unique
at sub-species level
Genus: Sibynophis Fitzinger, 1864
134. Sibynophis subpunctatus (Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854). English: Jerdon’s polyodent, Sinhala:
Dathigomaraya. Status: Not endemic.
Genus: Xenochrophis Günther, 1864
135. Xenochrophis asperrimus (Boulenger, 1891). English: The checkered keelback, Sinhala: Diya
polonga, Diya bariya. Status: Endemic.
136. Xenochrophis piscator piscator (Schneider, 1799). English: The Checkered keelback, Sinhala: Diya
naya, Diya bariya. Status: Not endemic.
FAMILY ELAPIDAE
Genus: Bungarus Daudin, 1803
137. Bungarus caeruleus (Schneider, 1801). English: The common krait, Sinhala: Thel karawala. Status:
Not endemic.
138. Bungarus ceylonicus ceylonicus Günther, 1864. English: Sri Lanka (= Ceylon) krait, Sinhala: Madu
karawala. Status: Endemic.
139. Bungarus ceylonicus karavala Deraniyagala, 1955. English: Sri Lanka (= Ceylon) krait, Sinhala:
Hath karawala. Status: Endemic.
Genus: Calliophis Gray, 1834
140. Calliophis melanurus sinhaleyus Deraniyagala, 1951. English: Sri Lanka coral snake, Sinhala:
Depath kaluwa. Status: unique at sub-species level
Genus: Naja Laurenti, 1768
141. Naja naja (Linnaeus, 1758). English: Indian cobra, Sinhala: Naya. Status: Not endemic.
FAMILY HYDROPHIIDAE
Genus: Astrotia Fischer, 1855
142. Astrotia stokesii (Gray in Stokes, 1846). English: Stoke’s sea snake, Sinhala: Mahavalakkadiya.
Status: Not endemic.
Genus: Enhydrina Gray, 1849
143. Enhydrina schistosa (Daudin, 1803). English: Hook nose sea snake, Sinhala: Valakkadiya. Status: Not
endemic.
Genus: Hydrophis Latreille in Sonnini & Latreille, 1801
144. Hydrophis bituberculatus Peters, “1872” 1873. English: Peter’s sea snake, Peterge muhudunaya.
Status: Not endemic.
145. Hydrophis cyanocinctus (Daudin, 1803). English: The chitul, Sinhala: Wairan muhudunaya. Status:
Not endemic
146. Hydrophis gracilis (Shaw, 1802). English: John’s sea snake, Sinhala: Kudahis Muhudu naya. Status:
Not endemic.
156
De Silva: Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka
147. Hydrophis lapemoides (Gray, 1849). English: Persian Gulf seasnake, Sinhala: Persiyanu bokke
muhudu naya. Status: Not endemic
148. Hydrophis ornatus ornatus (Gray, 1842). English: Gray’s sea snake, Sinhala: Grayge Muhudu naya.
Status: Not endemic.
149. Hydrophis spiralis (Shaw, 1802). English: Narrow banded sea snake, Sinhala: Sihin Mudhu naya.
Status: Not endemic
150. Hydrophis stricticollis (Günther, 1864). English: Guenther’s sea snake, Guntherge muhudunaya.
Status: Not endemic.
Genus: Kerilia Gray, 1849
151. Kerilia jerdonii (Gray, 1849). English: Jerdon’s sea snake Sinhala: Jerdonge Muhudu naya. Status:
Not endemic.
Genus: Lapemis Gray, “1834” (1835)
152. Lapemis curtus (Shaw, 1802). English: Shaw’s sea snake, Sinhala: Shawge kuda muhudunaya. Status:
Not endemic.
Genus: Pelamis Daudin, 1803
153. Pelamis platurus (Linnaeus, 1766). English: Yellow bellied sea snake, Sinhala: Badakaha muhudu
naya. Status: Not endemic.
Genus: Thalassophina Smith, 1929
154. Thalassophina viperina (Schmidt, 1852). English: Schmidt’s sea snake, Sinhala: Polon muhudunaya.
Status: Not endemic.
FAMILY TYPHLOPIDAE Merrm, 1820.
Genus: Ramphotyphlops Fitzinger, 1843
155. Ramphotyphlops braminus (Daudin, 1803). English: Common blind snake, Sinhala: Dumuta kanaulla.
Status: Not endemic.
Genus: Typhlops, Oppel, 1811
156. Typhlops ceylonicus Smith, 1943. English: Smith’s blind snake, Sinhala: Smithge kanaulla. Status: Endemic.
157. Typhlops lankaensis Taylor, 1947. English: Lanka blind snake, Sinhala: Lak kanaulla. Status: Endemic.
158. Typhlops leucomelas Boulenger, 1890. English: Pied typhlops, Sinhala: Dewarna kanaulla. Status:
Endemic.
159. Typhlops malcolmi Taylor, 1947. English: Malcolm’s blind snake, Sinhala: Malcomge kanaulla. Status:
Endemic.
160. Typhlops mirus Jan in: Jan and Sordelli, 1860. English: Jan’s blind snake, Sinhala: Heenkanaulla.
Status: Endemic.
161. Typhlops porrectus Stoliczka, 1871. English: Stoliczka’s blind snake, Sinhala: Stoliczkage kanaulla.
Status: Not endemic.
162. Typhlops tenebrarum Taylor, 1947. English: Taylor’s blind snake, Sinhala: Taylorge kanaulla. Status:
Endemic.
163. Typhlops veddae Taylor, 1947. English: Veddha’s blind snake, Sinhala: Veddage kanaulla. Status: Endemic.
164. Typhlops violaceus Taylor, 1947. English: Violet blind snake, Sinhala: Dan kanaulla. Status: Endemic.
FAMILY UROPELTIDAE Müller, 1832
Genus: Platyplectrurus Günther, 1868
165. Platyplectrurus madurensis ruhunae Deraniyagala, 1954. Status: Endemic. DOUBTFUL SPECIES.
157
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Genus: Pseudotyphlops Schlegel, 1839
166. Pseudotyphlops philippinus (Schlegel, 1839). English: Large shield tail, Sinhala: Maha bimulla.
Status: Endemic.
Genus: Rhinophis Hemprich, 1820
167. Rhinophis blythii (Kelaart, 1853). English Blyth’s earth snake, Sinhala: Gomarathudulla. Status:
Endemic.
168. Rhinophis dorsimaculatus (Deraniyagala, 1941). English: Orange shield tail, Sinhala: Thambapani
walga ebaya. Status: Endemic.
169. Rhinophis drummondhayi (Wall, 1921). English: Drummond-Hay’s earth snake, Sinhala:
Thapothudulla. Status: Endemic.
170. Rhinophis homolepis (Hemprich, 182). English: Kelaarts earth snake, Sinhala: Depaththudulla. Status:
Endemic
171. Rhinophis oxyrynchus (Schneider, 1801). English: Schneider’s earth snake, Sinhala: Ulthudulla.
Status: Endemic.
172. Rhinophis philippinus (Cuvier, 1829). English: Cuvier’s earth snake, Sinhala: Cuvierge walga ebaya.
Status: Endemic.
173. Rhinophis porrectus (Wall, 1921). English: Willey’s earth snake, Sinhala: Digthudulla. Status:
Endemic.
174. Rhinophis punctatus (Müller, 1832). English: Muller’s earth snake, Sinhala: Ticthudulla. Status:
Endemic.
175. Rhinophis tricoloratus (Deraniyagala, 1975). English: Deraniyagala’s shield tail, Sinhala:
Deraniyagalage walga ebaya. Status: Endemic.
Genus: Uropeltis Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854.
176. Uropeltis melanogaster (Gray, 1858). English: Black shield tail, Sinhala: Kaluwakatulla. Status:
Endemic.
177. Uropeltis phillipsi (Nicholls, 1929). English: Phillips’s shield tail, Sinhala: Iriwakatulla. Status: Endemic.
178. Uropeltis ruhunae (Deraniyagala, 1954). Status: Endemic. DOUBTFUL SPECEIS.
FAMILY VIPERIDAE Oppel, 1811
Genus: Daboia Gray, 1842
179. Daboia russelii russelii (Shaw & Nodder, 1797). English: Russell’s viper, Sinhala: Tith Polonga.
Status: Not endemic.
Genus: Echis Merrem, 1820
180. Echis carinatus carinatus (Schneider, 1801). English: Saw scale viper, Sinhala: Vali polonga. Status:
Not endemic.
Genus: Hypnale Fitzinger, 1843
181. Hypnale hypnale (Merrem, 1820). English: The Merrem’s Hump nose viper, Sinhala: Polonthelissa.
Status: Not endemic.
182. Hypnale nepa (Laurenti, 1768). English: Merrem’s hump-nosed viper, Sinhala: Mukalan thelissa.
Status: Endemic.
183. Hypnale walli (Gloyd, 1977). English: Gloyd’s Hump-nosed viper, Sinhala: Kuda mukalan thelissa.
Status: Endemic.
Genus: Trimeresurus (Lacépcde, 1804)
184. Trimeresurus trigonocephalus (Latereille in: Sonini & Latreille, 1801). English: Green pit viper,
Sinhala: Pala polonga. Status: Endemic.
158
De Silva: Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka
Appendix 2: Distribution of reptiles of Sri Lanka in the seven vegetation zones
Distribution zones:
A1 = Monsoon scrub jungle - extreme north and North West.
A2 = Monsoon scrub jungle - extreme south east
B
= Monsoon forest and grassland
C
= Inter monsoon forests
D1 = Rain forest and grassland – below 900 m
D2 = Rain forest and grassland – 900 to 1500 m
D3 = Rain forest and grassland – above 1500 m
*
= Five species of marine turtles that visit the beaches of A1, A2, B, C, and D1
**
= Marine and snakes that inhabit estuaries, mangroves along the beaches of A1, A2, B, C, and D1
z%
= The species of the genus Sphenomorphus is presently subjected to revision. Thus not listed under
vegetation zones.
Occurrence: P – present, Ab – Absent, NR – not recorded
Source: Bahir & Maduwage, 2005; Bahir & Silva, 2005 and Batuwita & Bahir, 2005; de Silva,
2001, Das & de Silva, 2005.
Species
1. Crocodylus palustris
2. Crocodylus porosus
CROCODILIA
3. Melanochelys trijuga parkeri
4. Melanochelys trijuga thermalis
5. Caretta caretta *
6. Chelonia mydas *
7. Eretmochelys imbricata *
8. Lepidochelys olivacea *
9. Dermochelys coriacea *
10. Geochelone elegans
11. Lissemys punctata punctata
TESTUDINES
12. Calotes calotes
13. Calotes ceylonensis
14. Calotes desilvai
15. Calotes liocephalus
16. Calotes liolepis
17. Calotes nigrilabris
18. Calotes versicolor versicolor
19. Ceratophora aspera
20. Ceratophora erdeleni
21. Ceratophora karu
22. Ceratophora stoddartii
A1
P
P
2
NR
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
8
P
NR
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
A2
P
P
2
NR
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
8
P
NR
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
B
P
P
2
P
P
NR
P
P
P
P
P
P
8
P
P
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
C
P
P
2
NR
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
8
P
P
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
D1
NR
P
1
Ab
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
7
P
NR
P
P
P
Ab
P
P
P
P
Ab
D2
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
NR
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
NR
P
P
P
P
Ab
NR
NR
P
D3
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
159
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
160
Ceratophora tennentii
Cophotis ceylanica
Lyriocephalus scutatus
Otocryptis nigristigma
Otocryptis wiegmanni
Sitana ponticeriana
Chamaeleo zeylanicus
Calodactylodes illingworthorum
Cnemaspis jerdoni scalpensis
Cnemaspis kandiana
Cnemaspis podihuna
Cnemaspis tropidogaster
Cosymbotus platyurus
Cyrtodactylus cracens
Cyrtodactylus edwardtaylori
Cyrtodactylus fraenatus
Cyrtodactylus ramboda
Cyrtodactylus soba
Cyrtodactylus subsolanus
Geckoella collegalensis
Geckoella triedrus
Geckoella yakhuna
Gehyra mutilata
Hemidactylus brookii parvimaculatus
Hemidactylus depressus
Hemidactylus frenatus
Hemidactylus leschenaultii
Hemidactylus maculatus hunae
Hemidactylus scabriceps
Hemidactylus triedrus lankae
Hemiphyllodactylus typus
Lepidodactylus lugubris
Ophisops leschenaultii lankae
Ophisops minor minor
Chalcidoseps thwaitesii
Dasia halianus
Lankascincus deignani
Lankascincus deraniyagalae
Lankascincus fallax
Lankascincus gansi
Lankascincus taprobanensis
Lankascincus taylori
Ab
Ab
Ab
NR
NR
P
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
NR
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
P
Ab
Ab
P
P
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
NR
NR
P
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
NR
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
NR
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
NR
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
NR
P
NR
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
NR
NR
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
NR
Ab
P
P
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
NR
P
P
P
NR
P
P
P
P
P
NR
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
NR
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
P
NR
NR
NR
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
P
NR
P
NR
P
Ab
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
Ab
P
P
P
P
NR
NR
Ab
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
P
NR
NR
P
Ab
NR
P
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
P
NR
NR
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
P
P
P
NR
P
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
NR
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
NR
Ab
NR
Ab
Ab
NR
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
NR
Ab
P
NR
De Silva: Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka
65. Lygosoma punctatus
66. Lygosoma singha
67. Mabuya beddomii
68. Mabuya bibronii
69. Mabuya carinata lankae
70. Mabuya floweri
71. Mabuya macularia maculara
72. Mabuya madaraszi
73. Nessia bipes
74. Nessia burtonii
75. Nessia deraniyagalai
76. Nessia didactylus
77. Nessia hickanala
78. Nessia layardi
79. Nessia monodactylus
80. Nessia sarasinorum
81. Sphenomorphus dorsicatenatus z
82. Sphenomorphus dussumieri z
83. Sphenomorphus megalops z
84. Sphenomorphus rufogulus z
85. Sphenomorphus striatopunctatus z
86. Varanus bengalensis
87. Varanus salvator salvator
SAURIA
88. Acrochordus granulatus **
89. Gongylophis conica brevis
90. Python molurus molurus
91. Cylindrophis maculate
92. Ahaetulla nasuta
93. Ahaetulla pulverulenta
94. Amphiesma stolatum
95. Argyrogena fasciolata
96. Aspidura brachyorrhos
97. Aspidura copei
98. Aspidura deraniyagalae
99. Aspidura drummondhayi
100. Aspidura guentheri
101. Aspidura trachyprocta
102. Atretium schistosum
103. Balanophis ceylonensis
104. Boiga barnesii
105. Boiga beddomei
P
NR
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
NR
NR
P
P
Ab
P
NR
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
P
NR
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
P
NR
NR
NR
P
Ab
P
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
P
P
Ab
P
Ab
P
Ab
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
P
26
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
P
P
P
17
P
P
P
Ab
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
P
34
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
P
P
P
30
P
Ab
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
P
P
P
45
P
Ab
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
NR
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
26
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
NR
P
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
6
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
NR
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
161
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
162
Boiga ceylonensis
Boiga forsteni
Boiga trigonatus trigonatus
Cerberus rynchops **
Cercaspis carinata
Chrysopelea ornata ornata
Chrysopelea taprobanica
Coeloganthus helena
Dendrelaphis bifrenalis
Dendrelaphis caudolineolatus
Dendrelaphis oliveri
Dendrelaphis tristis
Dryocalamus gracilis
Dryocalamus nympha
Gerarda prevostianus **
Haplocercus ceylonensis
Liopeltis calamaria
Lycodon aulicus
Lycodon osmanhilli
Lycodon striatus sinhaleyus
Macropisthodon plumbicolor palabariya
Oligodon arnensis
Oligodon calamarius
Oligodon sublineatus
Oligodon taeniolata ceylonicus
Oligodon taeniolata fasciatus
Ptyas mucosa maxima
Sibynophis subpunctatus
Xenochrophis asperrimus
Xenochrophis piscator piscator
Bungarus caeruleus
Bungarus ceylonicus ceylonicus
Bungarus ceylonicus karavala
Calliophis melanurus sinhaleyus
Naja naja
Astrotia stokesii **
Enhydrina schistosa **
Hydrophis bituberculatus **
Hydrophis cyanocinctus **
Hydrophis gracilis**
Hydrophis lapemoides**
Hydrophis ornatus ornatus**
Ab
P
P
P
Ab
NR
P
P
P
Ab
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
P
Ab
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
NR
P
P
Ab
Ab
NR
P
NR
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
NR
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
P
Ab
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
P
P
P
NR
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
P
Ab
Ab
P
P
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
P
P
NR
NR
Ab
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
P
Ab
P
P
P
Ab
P
P
Ab
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
P
P
Ab
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
Ab
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
NR
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
P
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
De Silva: Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka
148. Hydrophis spiralis**
149. Hydrophis stricticollis**
150. Kerilia jerdonii **
151. Lapemis curtus **
152. Pelamis platurus **
153. Thalassophina viperina **
154. Ramphotyphlops braminus
155. Typhlops ceylonicus
156. Typhlops lankaensis
157. Typhlops leucomelas
158. Typhlops malcolmi
159. Typhlops mirus
160. Typhlops porrectus
161. Typhlops tenebrarum
162. Typhlops veddae
163. Typhlops violaceus
164. Platyplectrurus madurensis ruhunae
165. Pseudotyphlops philippinus
166. Rhinophis blythii
167. Rhinophis dorsimaculatus
168. Rhinophis drummondhayi
169. Rhinophis homolepis
170. Rhinophis oxyrynchus
171. Rhinophis philippinus
172. Rhinophis porrectus
173. Rhinophis punctatus
174. Rhinophis tricoloratus
175. Uropeltis melanogaster
176. Uropeltis phillipsi
177. Uropeltis ruhunae
178. Daboia russelii russelii
179. Echis carinatus carinatus
180. Hypnale hypnale
181. Hypnale nepa
182. Hypnale walli
183. Trimeresurus trigonocephalus
SERPENTES
GRAND TOTAL (except Sphenomorphus)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
P
52
88
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
P
37
64
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
P
P
P
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
P
59
103
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
P
P
Ab
Ab
P
56
96
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
Ab
P
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
P
P
Ab
P
P
Ab
P
Ab
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ab
P
P
P
P
75
128
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
P
Ab
P
Ab
P
P
P
P
21
47
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
P
P
P
8
14
163
The
T
HE F
Fauna
AUNA OFofSRI
SriLANKA
Lanka
(2006):
(2006)
164-203
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
Sarath W. Kotagama*, Rex I. De Silva§, Athula S. Wijayasinha*
& Vathsala Abeygunawardane*
*
Field Ornithology Group of Sri Lanka, Department of Zoology, University of Colombo, Colombo 03.
§
Seabird Watch, 31 Dampe, Madapatha 10306, (Piliyandala)
Abstract
The paper elaborates on a scientific discussion related to the avifaunal richness in Sri Lanka, and
presents the current avifaunal list in the island, based on a set of scientific criteria and principles.
The list includes 482 species, under eleven categories. These include 220 breeding residents. Aspects
related to their distribution, research and conservation is also discussed briefly.
Key Words: Birds, Endemics, Conservation
Introduction
Avian taxonomy has undergone vast changes over the last 15 years. These have caused tremendous
debate among professional ornithologists, it is only now, and that some settlement is seen in the literature.
New techniques in the identification of species using DNA-DNA hybridization methodologies resulted in
this primary change.
In 1990 Sibley and Monroe (Sibley Monroe 1990) stunned the ornithological world by publishing the
“Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World” based on the new method (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990).
Their publication presented a highly novel taxonomic scheme for birds of the world. Secondly, they also
proposed revisions to common English names for some known species. Their classification has been highly
controversial among professional ornithologists, but was nevertheless adopted by the Oriental Bird Club.
The result was too much for even the professional ornithological taxonomist, so that the acceptance of the
revised classification was almost suspended for need of further verification. Further work over the year
has now clearly resulted in its acceptance as evident from the numerous publications that are coming out.
The avifaunal list of a country is further complicated by the large number of amateur birdwatchers who
are not scientists but merely persons interested in the avian organism; this phenomenon is not present in
most other faunal groups. Further, over the years with the upsurge of interest in biodiversity and the
consequent commercialization of bird watching; species lists have been flouted to enhance the “image of
the country’s bird life with absolute disregard to the principles of taxonomy. This unscientific approach to
listing species has affected most seriously the endemic species.
Species names and certain classification changes are recognized by taxonomists, even though it is not
always accepted or appreciated by amateur bird watchers. One other factor that affects the species list of
a country is the character of birds migrating and appearing in unexpected locations because of their flying
ability. The decision as to whether to include such sight records in the “country list” has always been
difficult. However, considering the positive contributions that such sight records can have; the authors have
adopted a system following already accepted practices.
Species richness of birds in Sri Lanka
Bird species lists for Sri Lanka have been published by Phillips (1978), Ripley (1982), Perera and
Kotagama (1983), De Silva (1990), Wijesinghe (1994), Inskipp et al (1996), and Grimmett et al (1998) over
the last two decades. Except for Wijesinghe (1994), all the other publications of the 90’s have followed the
same principles of taxonomy.
164
Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
There are numerous apparent inconsistencies between the lists and the taxonomy adopted by some authors,
requires us to state some basic principles on which the list must be based on. Therefore, this “Avifaunal list
of Sri Lanka” is based on the following criteria and principles.
1.
Taxonomy (includes scientific nomenclature and classification)
We have followed the taxonomy (nomenclature and classification) of Grimmett et al (1998) which is based
on Inskipp et al (1996). The nomenclature and classification of both these publications is based on Sibley
and Monroe (1990). This is not new to Sri Lanka as the senior author had already used Sibley and
Monroe’s classification in A Field Guide to the Birds of Sri Lanka (Kotagama and Fernando 1994) and in
the Sinhala publication Sirilaka Kurullo (Kotagama and Wijayasinha 1998).
The scientific names in the recent publication by Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) “are those of Ali & Ripley
(1983) with some changes adopted by Inskipp et al (1996) and subsequent authors”. A closer look at the
taxonomic status of species in the new publication, has however opened up a new situation. The taxonomic
status of some species has been given as “ Taxonomy-dependent”. The definition given in the glossary of
the book is “ Used here to indicate that extralimital range statement depends on species limits adopted”.
We interpret this, to mean that there is some more taxonomic work needed to be done, to make such a
species a definitive species. Accordingly, we have not changed the scientific names in this list from that
published for Sri Lanka previously (Kotagama and Wijayasinha 1998). However, for reference we have
indicated as foot notes all such changes proposed by Rasmussen & Anderton (2005).
Even though text or illustrations distributed electronically (e.g. by means of the World Wide Web) are
treated as “unpublished” by the ICZN 4th Edition; Article 9/9.8, we have included literature source
information for taxa from the most widely published electronic version of the avifaunal taxonomy compiled
and updated by Alan P Peterson. (www.zoonomen.net/avtax ). This electronic version is constantly being
updated. A visit to this site will give an indication of the complications of avifaunal taxonomy and its
constant changes.
2.
Species List
The species list is based on the following principles taking in to consideration the factor of flight, and the
large number of “bird watchers” both local and foreign now looking out for birds in the country. “An
annotated species list of the birds of Sri Lanka” (Kotagama et al in press) is to be published shortly.
Over the years the species number has increased considerably as there are more observers looking for
birds than in the past. This has also become a problem, as the acceptance of some of these sightings, being
subjective, has caused groups taking opposing stands on the issue. Including these subjective identifications
in a scientific listing of species within a geographic area will always be controversial. We believe our
principles will however overcome this problem without unduly affecting the contributions of bird watchers.
The list of species compiled for Sri Lanka in the current article includes 482 species (Appendix 1), under
eleven categories (Table 1), based on the criteria and principles explained here.
Table 1: Present avifaunal richness in Sri Lanka
Catergory
Number
Breeding Residents (BrR)
220
Winter Visitors (WV)
127
Winter Vagrants (WVa)
69
Status Uncertain (SU)
38
Vagrant (Va)
10
165
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Summer Visitor (SV)
4
Passage Migrants (PM)
2
Breeding Resident and Winter Visitor (BrR & WV)
5
Breeding Resident and Summer Visitor (BrR & SV)
1
Breeding Resident/ Uncertain Winter Visitor (BrR/UWV)
5
Winter Visitor/ Uncertain Breeding Resident (WV/UBr)
1
Total species number
3.
482
Format of species categorization
The following categorization of species is modified from a system devised by the Records Committee of
the British Ornithologists’ Union. While accepting that this categorization is, to some extent arbitrary; it is
our opinion that this represents the best compromise under the circumstances. It is hoped that this will
encourage naturalists to report new sightings and that ornithologists will pay more attention to species in
List III.
List I. Includes species whose presence is confirmed by one or more specimens in Legge (1983), Wait
(1931), Whistler (1946), Phillips (1978) and other confirmed publications and sight records within the last
25 years. A total of 359 belongs to List. I (Appendix 1)
List II. Includes species for which there are three or more sight records. Sightings should be confirmed by
more than one observer or documented by valid description in a recognized refereed ornithological or
scientific publication. Species with specimens but not recorded (sighted) within last 25 years are also
included here. A total of 41 species belongs to List II (Appendix II).
List III. Includes species for which there are one or two sight- records. [Observers are encouraged to pay
particular attention to species in this list, some of which may be more common than the records indicate].
A total of 82 species belongs to List III (Appendix 1).
4.
Sub-species
The number of birds present in Sri Lanka has been boosted with the use of sub species, e.g. Phillips (1978)
lists “427 birds”, but the same author has listed only 100 mammal species (Phillips 1980, 1981, 1984). If his
mammal lists were expanded to sub-species level the list would increase to 130!
The recognition of sub species is however more difficult in the present dynamic “taxonomically volatile
environment”. With a great desire to revise the traditional taxonomy using modern tools, and also the new
emphasis on biodiversity, endemic species and conservation of isolated species, has resulted in many sub
species being upgraded to species level. Further, the boundaries of discrimination needed for differentiation
have been severely questioned. All these have resulted in the practice of listing organisms in a country at
“species level”, unless the sub species is definitely distinctive.
In order avoid further confusions, the species listing adopted here is based on “definitive full or true
species” and not sub species.
5.
Endemic Species
The number of endemic species has undergone numerous changes over the years. Much of this has been
the result of “close taxonomic revisions” (Table 2). Since 1977 the numbers basically settled at around
21. This increased with the addition of two species in 1990 bringing the total to 23. The number in Sibley &
Monroe (1990), Kotagama and Fernando (1994), Kotagama and Wijayasinha (1998), Harrison (1999),
Inskipp et al (1996) and Grimmett et al (1998) is 23 definitive endemic species.
166
Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
Table 2: Changes in the number of endemic birds recognized for Sri Lanka since 1872
Year Number of Reference
Species
1872
1880
37
47
1931
25
1944
1946
22
20
1952
21
1975
20
1977
1978
1990
21
21
23+1
1994
23+1
1994
23+3
1996
23+3
1998
23
1999
23
Comment
Holdsworth – Catalogue of Birds found in Ceylon
Legge – A history of birds of Ceylon
Including 17 species in the
present list
Wait – Manual of Birds of Ceylon
Excluded the Red facedMalkoha
Whistler – Avifaunal survey of Ceylon
Ripley – Comments to Endemic Birds of Ceylon Grey Hornbill, Rufous Babbler
and Red- faced Malkoha were
excluded
Phillips – Revised Checklist of Birds of
Red- faced Malkoha and Ceylon
Ceylon
Grackle included
Phillips – Revised Checklist of Birds of
Black capped Bulbul excluded
Ceylon
Flemming – Notes on endemic birds of Ceylon
Rufous Babbler included
Phillips – Revised checklist of Birds of Ceylon
Sibley & Monroe – Distribution and Taxonomy Crimson fronted Barbet
of Birds of the World
suggested as Endemic
Kotagama and Fernando – A field guide to the Follow Sibley and Monroe
Birds of Sri Lanka
Wijesinghe – A checklist of the
3 species are suggested as
birds of Sri Lanka
Endemic
Inskip et al. – An Annotated Checklist of
Follow Sibley and Monroe refers
the Birds of the Oriental Region
to Wijesinghe
Grimmett et al. – Birds of the Indian
Subcontinent
Harrison – A Field Guide to the Birds of
Sri Lanka
Wijesinghe (1994) published a “checklist” which considered an addition of three more species, which did
not receive widespread acceptance because its treatment was not in keeping with sound taxonomic
practice. None of the subsequent publications on the avifauna of the region and Sri Lanka have listed these
three species as endemics (Inskipp et al 1996, Grimmett et al 1998).
We have always maintained that the definitive number of endemic species for Sri Lanka was 23 and that
three others were “proposed” by Wijesinghe (1994). Subsequently, Warakagoda and Rasmussen (2005)
described a new bird species (Serendib Scops Owl - Otus thilohofmanni) that is endemic to Sri Lanka.
However, within Sri Lanka some sectors considered the endemic species proposed by Wijesinghe (1994)
as acceptable; although they violated basic principles of scientific taxonomy. This may be due to an over
enthusiasm in boosting endemic numbers to create a better ornithological image and increase demand in
“commercial bird watching”.
This has now been put to rest by the publication of Rasmussen and Anderton (2005) were the new number
of endemics has been given as 33.
167
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
In a personal electronic communication prior to the publication Rasmussen (Sri Lanka Wildlife News-April
2004) indicated that the number of endemic species would rise to 33. In her note she stated:
“Based on this work, which will be described fully in the forthcoming book, the proposed list of thirty three
Sri Lankan Endemic Birds is given below.” Further, she stated, “The ten newly recognized endemics,
which will doubtless attract renewed interest, are listed below for convenience.”
The “taxonomic status” assigned to these 33 birds however, has complicated the final number of endemic
species. Some of them are “taxonomic-dependent”, while others are not (Table 3). Two species that were
definitive species under Grimmett et al. (1998) have been given as “taxonomic-dependent” – in this case
we retain the former status till verified fully.
Accordingly, based on our interpretation of “taxonomic-dependent”, we propose that the number of
endemics should be “25 definitive and eight as proposed, making a total of 33 species”, as highlighted in
Table 3.
Table 3: Status change of endemic species based on Rasmussen & Anderton (2005)
Species
GALLIFORMES:
1.Galloperdix bicalcarata
2. Gallus lafayetii
PICIFORMES
3. Chrysocolaptes lucidus
4. Megalaima flavifrons
5. Megalaima rubricapilla
BUCEROTIFORMES:
6. Ocyceros gingalensis
CUCULIFORMES:
7. Phaenicophaeus pyrrhocephalus
8. Centropus chlororhynchus
PSITTACIFORMES:
9. Loriculus beryllinus
10. Psittacula calthropae
STRIGIFORMES:
11. Otus thilohofmanni
12. Glaucidium castanonotum
COLUMBIFORMES:
13. Columba torringtoni
14. Treron pompadora
PASSERIFORMES:
15. Urocissa ornate
168
Grimmett Rasmussen & Anderton (2005)
et al. 1998
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
-
Endemic; Taxonomy dependent
Chrysocolaptes lucidus stricklandi
upgraded to C. stricklandi
Endemic
Endemic - M. r. rubricapilla upgraded to
M. rubricapilla
Endemic
-
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic; taxonomy-dependent
Endemic
-
Endemic
Endemic; taxonomy dependent
T.p.pompodora upgraded to T. pompodara
Endemic
Endemic
Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
*16. Dicrurus paradiseus lophorhinus
*17. Tephrodornis pondicerianus
-
-
18. Myophonus blighi
19. Zoothera spiloptera
20. Zoothera dauma
Endemic
Endemic
-
21. Eumyias sordida
22. Sturnus albofrontatus
23. Gracula ptilogenys
24. Pycnonotus penicillatus
25. Pycnonotus melanicterus
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
26. Zosterops ceylonensis
27. Bradypterus palliseri
28. Garrulax cinereifrons
29. Pellorneum fuscocapillum
30. Pomatorhinus horsfieldii
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
-
31. Turdoides rufescens
32. Dicaeum vincens
33. Hirundo daurica
Endemic
Endemic
-
6.
Endemic; taxonomy dependentDicrurus
paradiseus lophorhinus upgraded to
D. lophorhinus
Endemic; taxonomy dependentT.
pondicerianus affinis upgraded to T. affinis
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic; taxonomy dependent
Z. dauma imbricata upgraded to Z.
imbricata
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic; taxonomy dependent
Endemic
Endemic; taxonomy dependent
P. m. melanicterus upgraded to
P. melanicterus
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic; taxonomy dependent
P. schisticeps melanurus and
P.s. holdsworthii upgraded to
P (schisticeps) melanurus
Endemic
Endemic
Endemic; taxonomy dependent
Sub species H. daurica hyperythra
Upgraded to H. hyperythra
Vernacular names
We are well aware that vernacular names have no place in scientific taxonomy. However, because of the
unusual interest in birds and the growing public interest in “bird watching” both internationally and locally,
we felt that it would justify the inclusion of the vernacular names. The names are available only for English
and Sinhala, while Tamil names are in preparation. Hence, they are not included here.
6.1 English vernacular names
The English names follow Grimmett et al (1998). It must be emphasized here that the use of country prefix
(Sri Lanka) in common names has been restricted to endemic species only. We do not agree with the
reason for use of Ceylon by Sibley & Monroe (1990), as we do not agree with their reason for retaining
“Ceylon” which is - “ Sri Lanka occupies the island of Ceylon, but the geographical name is normally
used for bird ranges (as Madagascar is used rather than its nation, the Malagasy Republic.” This is totally
unacceptable in any geographical sense.
We also do not agree with the reasoning given in the ENVIS list (Manakadan & Pittie 2001) for retaining
“Ceylon”.
169
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
We take the stand that the change of the English name from Ceylon to Sri Lanka should be properly
reflected and it should therefore be used only for endemic birds as was proposed by the senior author and
accepted by most authorities since 1983.
6.2 Sinhala vernacular names
The Sinhala names follow the principles developed by Perera & Kotagama (1983), modified and published
in Kotagama & Wijayasinha (1998). These principles bring the Sinhala vernacular names in line with the
scientific names and enable the coining of Sinhala names for all avian species for the world as well as
higher taxonomic levels. The higher taxonomic names are not given in this publication.
7.
Distribution
The distribution of birds is based very much on subjective deductions supplemented by observations over
the years. No formal distributional survey has been conducted to date. The initial attempts to rectify this
situation were done with the first Zoological Survey programme launched by the National Science
Foundation (then NARESA) in 1984.
The Survey enabled the acceptance of the use of the 10 km2 grid system for the study of the bird
distribution. This grid system was developed and applied on an experimental basis and showed that
distribution can be given with greater accuracy than with earlier methodology (Kotagama 1986). For lack
of funds, the study never took off beyond the initial stage. Thus, the distribution of birds in Sri Lanka is still
very much a subjective representation.
The present distribution is based on climatic-topographical delineations recognized as zones, e.g. Dry Zone,
Low Country Wet Zone etc. The distribution is also given on the basis of the Avifaunal zones (Kotagama
1986).
Avifaunal zones were recognized using as a basis, studies of the available published distributional
information (Kotagama 1986). The zones were an improvement on zones recognized by Legge (1881).
Allocation of all the birds to these zones is not yet possible because of limited data availability on the birds.
Use of more refined methods and instruments involving opportunistic observational records, in-depth
transect and mist-netting applications should be pursued using the grid; further refined to 5 km2 which is
made possible by using accurate GPS coordinates. With the application of GIS, more descriptive and
refined distribution patterns could be recognized in the future. This aspect has to be a major component of
future research directions
8.
Research
Taxonomic research has never been properly achieved in Sri Lanka. Any taxonomic study requires
adequate samples and these do not exist even at the National Museum. Numerous foreigners made the
earlier collections, and most of the specimens have been deposited in museums across the globe. Duplicate
collections no doubt may have been left behind but such specimens are not known to exist. The most
comprehensive recent Avifaunal Survey was last conducted in 1936–1939 by Hugh Whistler. What is left
of his specimens are in very bad condition.
Very recently, a fairly good collection of specimens appeared on the pavement of Nugegoda town. This
was fortunately recovered and handed over to the Museum in 1990. This collection, referred to as the
“Zoysa collection”, was a personal one made by a Mr. Zoysa, who was a member of the collection team
of Hugh Whistler. The specimens have not been described and published by the Museum to date.
Today, it would not be necessary to pursue a specimen collection survey as was done in the past. However,
birds will need to be captured where possible without killing them and fresh tissues/blood samples collected
for use in modern molecular biological taxonomic treatments such as DNA analysis. Such an exercise
170
Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
would reveal more interesting taxonomic information about the avifauna of the country. This can easily be
coupled with a distributional study. The time is right for such a survey and we hope the conservation
community will be enlightened by such a benign (“ahimsa”) technique, which will enable us to understand
the avifauna and assist in its future conservation.
9.
Conservation
The natural habitats of birds have undergone considerable change over the years. These changes have
affected the distribution and abundance of birds. The impacts of these changes were presented by
Kotagama (1996). The effect can be recognized under three groups:z
species that have been threatened due to reduction in habitat,
z
species that have expanded in response to habitat changes, and
z
species with apparently no effect
9.1 Threatened Species
Various authors have over the years tried to recognize affected species. Kotagama (1989) had considered
the biology and ecology in an attempt to bring objective considerations into play for the recognition opf
threatened species. Moving in this direction, we now have the list in the Asian Red Data Book (2001).
These efforts culminated with the BirdLife International / IUCN threatened species listing of 2000,
Threatened Birds of the World. These publications recognize 16 species as threatened in Sri Lanka (Table
4). The list contains 1 critical, 2 endangered, and 13 vulnerable species.
Table 4: Threatened Birds of Sri Lanka (based on IUCN criteria) ARDB/ BirdLife / IUCN 2000.
(Status: End – Endemic, BrR – Breeding resident, Vag – Vagrant, Mig – Migrant;
Habitat: For – Forest, Wet – Wetland, OC – Ocean)
CRITICAL
1. Christmas Island Frigatebird Fregata andrewsi, Vag, OC
ENDANGERED
2. Spotted Greenshank Tringa guttifer, Vag, WET
3. Sri Lanka Whistling-thrush Myophonus blighi End, For
VULNERABLE
4. Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanus philippensis BrR, Wet
5. Lesser Adjutant Leptoptilos javanicus BrR, Wet
6. Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni Mig, For
7. Sociable Lapwing Vanellus gregarious Vag, Wet
8. Wood Snipe Gallinago nemoricola Mig, Wet
9. Spoon-billed Sand piper Eurynorhynchus pygmeus Mig, Wet
10. Sri Lanka Wood-pigeon Columba torringtoni End, For
11. Red-faced Malkoha Phaenicophaeus pyrrhocephalus End, For
12. Green-billed Coucal Centropus chlororhynchos End, For
13. Ashy-headed Laughing Thrush Garrulax cinereifrons End, For
14. Kashmir Flycatcher Ficedula subrubra Mig, For
15. White faced Starling Sturnus albofrontatus End, For
16. Sri Lanka Magpie – Urocissa ornata End, For
171
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Near Threatened
z Malabar Pied Hornbill Anthracoceros cronatus BrR, For
z Sri Lanka Chestnut-backed Owlet Glaucidiuim cstanonotum End,For
z Great Snipe Gallinago media Vag, Wet
z Asian Dowithcher linmodromus semipalmattus Vag, Wet
z Grey-headed Fish Eagle Ichthyophaga ichthyaetus BrR, Wet
z Pallied Harrier Circus macrourus Mig, Open Land
z Darter Anhinga melanogaster BrR, Wet
z Black headed Ibis Threskiornis melanocephalus BrR, Wet
z Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala BrR, Wet
z Black -necked Stork Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus BrR, Wet
z Sri Lanka Spot-winged Thrush Zoothera spiloptera End,For
z Sri Lanka Dull-blue Flycatcher Eumyias sordida End, For
z Sri Lanka Myna Gracular ptilogenys End, For
z Sri Lanka Yellow-eared Bullbull Pycnonotus penicllatus End, For
z Sri Lanka Bush Warbler Bradypterus palliseri End, For
z Sri Lanka Orange-billed Babbler Tudoides ruffescens End, For
z Sri Lanka Legge’s Flowerpecker Dicaeum vincens End, For
Critical species
The critical species is a pelagic species. It is not a breeding resident of the country and as such, there is
very little we can do other than ensuring its total protection when sighted within the territorial waters of Sri
Lanka.
Endangered Species
The Endangered species contain one endemic species and one migrant species. The status of the migrant
species in the country is “vagrant” and the current records indicate less than three sightings. Providing full
protection is the only action possible, as there does not appear any site tenacity to enable site-specific
conservation action for such a migrant species.
On the other hand the endemic species is generally found in very restricted locations. Current information
justifies recognizing some specific areas for its conservation, and it is also necessary to have some specific
research and study instituted to enable development of conservation plans for this species.
Vulnerable species
The strategy for vulnerable species will have to be the same. With very little information on their actual
distribution, biology and ecology, any action is going to have very limited impact.
Further to this list a feature (only in birds) is the “near threatened” category. There are 17 species in this
category. An analysis of the total threatened and near threatened birds indicates 15 endemics, 8 breeding
residents, 5 regular migrants and 5 vagrants. With respect to habitats there are 18 forest birds, 15 wetland
birds, one ocean bird and one open habitat bird.
The international criteria developed recognize threatened species at the international level, but fail to
recognize some species that are of national concern. This has resulted in the application of modified criteria
for recognizing “Nationally threatened species”. The national list initially published in 1989; revised in 1993
172
Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
(Wijesinghe et al 1989, 1993) contained 56 species. This exercise was further developed by application of
modified IUCN criteria by Weerakoon et al in the 2000 List of Threatened fauna and flora of Sri Lanka
(IUCN 2000). The work recognized 60 species (Table 4). A further revision is being undertaken with
further revised criteria.
9.2 Threats
The principle threat is habitat loss. Most of the species recognized as threatened have been brought to this
status due to habitat loss in forests and wetlands. Conservation action requires protecting existing natural
habitats. Limited to a few locations and at rather insignificant level is the killing of birds for food etc.
A new threat that has an adverse effect on the avifauna is the “commercialization of bird watching”. The
use of tape lures to attract rare and elusive birds (mostly endemics) to be shown to foreign visitors by
using breeding or communication calls has clearly had its impact. The practice, on the merit of clear
evidence, resulted in prohibiting tape lures within Sinharaja Wilderness Area. We wish to record our
gratitude to the Conservator of Forest for the prompt action and the Forest Officer at Sinharaja who was
enlightened enough to recognize the impact immediately it was reported and acted swiftly to take remedial
measures.
The Field Ornithology Group of Sri Lanka (FOGSL) in recognition of potential impacts of “over-watching”
has already instituted a Code of Ethics, which it enforces strictly among its members.
9.3 Research constraints
The major constraints related to avifaunal research in Sri Lanka include the following:
1.
The lack of due recognition for the science of taxonomy at all levels. Starting from the portals of
higher education and research, taxonomy receives the lowest priority. It is often not part of the
curriculum and is often excused by the (invalid) argument “that there are no employment prospects
for taxonomists”. The research/ education institutes do not get the necessary funds and cadres for
taxonomy as it is of low priority. Thus, we get caught in the “chicken and egg” situation and the net
result being the negative effect on the knowledge of biodiversity.
2.
The absence of a proper referral collection to compare and study, to enable any worthwhile
taxonomic work to be done. The poor state of specimens in the Museum and inability to have proper
access, are some of the problems faced by researchers.
3.
The absence of original descriptive literature,
4.
The conservation conscious “activists” who are ever ready to voice concern about “biodiversity rich
Sri Lanka”, are extremely critical if not naive about identifying species based on taxonomic principles.
5.
The lack of willingness to apply the “rigor of science” in data collection for gathering information
needed for specific conservation actions beyond the designation of areas for protection.
10. Current conservation actions and future directions
In recognition of the threats, the following action has been initiated:
1.
IBAs.The need to ensure habitat / ecosystem protection as the principle pathway for conservation of
the wild populations, the Important Bird Areas(IBA) programme to recognize habitat/ ecosystems was
launched in 2001 by FOGSL. This exercise resulted in the identification from literature and limited
field verification of 77 potential IBA’s for Sri Lanka. An extensive education programme island wide
(except north and east) was also conducted. The follow up will involve a detailed survey of these
potential IBA s in the coming years and establishing Site Support Groups (SSG s) to assist in their
management with the assistance of the relevant state agency.
173
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
2.
Research into species. The absence of information on the biology and ecology of the avifauna of Sri
Lanka is appalling. It is not surprising, as scientific interest in the subject did not commence till 1976.
We now have some reliable information on avian communities but lack species specific information.
The initial work commenced with the study on the endemic Spot winged Thrush (Chandralal &
Weerakoon in press), and presently a study on the flagship species Blue Magpie (Ratnayake 2004 ),
Ashy headed Babbler (Siriwardena 2004) and the Spot billed Pelican (eco-V 2000 – 2004) is ongoing.
More are planned for the future.
3.
Database. Sri Lanka can be proud of having the largest database of continuous flock studies in the
world at Sinharaja, (Since 1980). Similarly, detailed studies on communication and habitat needs have
been pursued in the present flock studies (Goodale et al 2003).
4.
Species Recovery Plan. Under the Protected Area Management and Wildlife Conservation Project,
plans for species recovery are expected to be initiated. This will enhance the required conservation
action for some of the species.
5.
Annual Waterfowl Counts. The Ceylon Bird Club has been conducting the Annual Waterfowl Count
in Sri Lanka on behalf of Wetlands International. These counts provide data for “estimates and trend
analysis” of the use of wetlands by waterfowl. The data however, does not stand the rigor of
scientific analysis for “good estimates or census” due to constraints in the data collection methodology.
This however does not make the survey redundant for macro level assessments of the waterfowl. It
is useful for conservation especially for the identification of wetland sites for designation under the
Ramsar criteria.
At least in the case of birds, we do not usually need to collect specimens for identification, but we need to
initiate a serious survey to undertake some molecular biological analysis using modern methodologies for
taxonomic and phylogenetic studies. We hope that funding for such an activity will be forthcoming in the
future.
The taxonomy keeps changing, so does the status of the species in each country, new threats emerge as
we go along - monitoring and evaluation is a constant necessity. This exercise repeated at least every five
years, will be a major step to put science into its correct perspective and to enable the proper conservation
of species.
References
De Silva, R.I. 1989. Identity of Skuas Catharacta in Sri Lanka. Cormorant 17.
De Silva, R.I. 1990. The seabirds of Sri Lanka: An annotated checklist. Ceylon Journal of Science
(Biological Science): 21 (1): 28-33
De Silva, R.I. 2000a. An Australian Wader Himantopus himantopus leucocephalus in Sri Lanka. Loris
22:15-17.
De Silva, R.I. 2000b. A further note on the Australian Stilt Himantopus leucocephalus in Sri Lanka. Loris
22:27.
De Silva, R.I. 2003. An Unusual Stilt from Sri Lanka. Loris 23.
Fry, C.H. 1980. The Evolutionary Biology of Kingfishers (Alcedinidae). Living Bird 18: 113-160.
Grimmett, R. et al.1998. Birds of the Indian Subcontinent. Christopher Helm (Publishers) Ltd, London.
Harrison, J. 1999. A Field Guide to the Birds of Sri Lanka. Oxford University Press.
Inskipp, T. et al.1996. An Annotated Checklist of the Birds of the Oriental Region. Oriental Bird Club, UK.
Jonsgard, P. 1981. The Plovers, Sandpipers and Snipes of the World. Lincolin: University of Nebraska Press.
174
Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
Kotagama, S. and Fernando, P. 1994. A Field Guide to the Birds of Sri Lanka. Wildlife Heritage Trust.
Kotagama, S. and Wijayasinha, A. 1998. Siri Laka Kurullo. Wildlife Heritage Trust.
Legge, W. V. 1983. A History of the Birds of Ceylon. (2nd edition). Thisara Prakasakayo, Dehiwala,
Sri Lanka.
Livezey, B.C. 1996. A Phylogenetic Analysis of Modern Pochards (Anatidae: Aythyini). Auk 113:74-93.
Manakandan, R. & Pittie, A. 2001. Standardised common and scientific names of the birds of the Indian
Subcontinent. Buceros (ENVIS Newsletter)6. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. Mumbai.
Mees, G.F. 1997. On the Identification of Heteronis senex Bonaparte. Bulletin of British Ornithological
Club, 117:67-68.
Moynihan, M. 1959. A Revision of the Family Laridae (Aves).Amer. Mus. Novit. 1928:1-42.
Phillips, W.W.A. 1978. Annotated Checklist of the Birds of Ceylon. Wildlife and Nature Protection Society
of Ceylon.
Rassmussen, P. C. and Anderton, J. C. 2005. Birds of South Asia. The Ripley Guide. Volumes 1and 2.
Smithsonian Institution and Lynx Edicions, D.C. and Barcelona.
Sibley, C. G. and Monroe, B.L. 1990. Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World.Yale University
Press, New Haven & London.
Wait, W.E. 1931. Manual of the Birds of Ceylon (2nd edition). Sony Reprints Agency, Delhi-31, India.
Warakagoda, D.H. and P.C. Rasmussen (2004). A new species of scops-owl from Sri Lanka. Bull. B.O.C.
124 (2): 85-105.
Whistler, H. 1944. The Avifaunal Survey of Ceylon conducted Jointly by the British and Colombo Museum.
Spolia Zeylanica. Vol.23, Parts 3 & 4.
Wijesinghe, D.P. 1989. List of Sri Lanka Bird Species. Ceylon Bird Club.
175
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Appendix 1: Checklist of avifauna in Sri Lanka
Legends:
(L1) List I. Includes species whose presence is confirmed by one or more specimens in Legge (1983),
Waite (1931), Whistler (1944), Phillips (1978) and other confirmed publications and sight records within the
last 25 years.
(L2) List II. Includes species for which there are three or more sight records. Sightings should be
confirmed by more than one observer or documented by valid description in a recognized refereed
ornithological or scientific publication. Species with specimens but not recorded (sighted) within last 25
years are also included here.
(L3) List III. Includes species for which there are one or two sight- records. [Observers are encouraged
to pay particular attention to species in this list, some of which may be more common than the records
indicate].
BrR
- Breeding Resident
WV
- Winter Visitor
WVa
- Winter Vagrant
Va
- Vagrant
SU
- Status Unknown
SV
- Summer Visitor
PM
- Passage Migrant
BrR & WV - Breeding Resident and Winter Visitor
BrR & SV
- Breeding Resident and Summer Visitor
BrR/UWV
- Breeding Resident/ Uncertain Winter Visitor
WV/UBr
- Winter Visitor/ Uncertain Breeding Resident
Availability of specimens confirmed in..
d – Specimen lodged in Department of Wildlife Conservation, Sri Lanka
w – Whistler. H (1944)
g – Legge. W.V. (1983)
t – Wait. W.E. (1931)
p – Phillips W.W.A. (1978)
GALLIFORMES
PHASIANIDAE
1.
2.
3.
176
Francolinus pictus (Jardine & Selby) 1828
( E: Painted Francolin. S: Tith Watu-kukula )
Francolinus pondicerianus (Gmelin) 1789
(E: Grey Francolin. S: Alu Watu-kukula )
Coturnix coromandelica (Gmelin) 1789
( E: Rain Quail. S: Wahi Piriwatuwa )
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
SU
L1 w g t p
Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Coturnix coturnix ( Linnaeus ) 1758
( E: Common Quail. S: Podu Piriwatuwa )
Coturnix chinensis (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Blue-breasted Quail. S: Laya-nil Piriwatuwa )
Perdicula asiatica (Latham) 1790
( E: Jungle Bush-quail. S: Wana Panduru-watuwa )
Galloperdix bicalcarata (Forster, JR) 1781 END
( E: Sri Lanka Spurfowl. S: Sri Lanka Haban-kukula )
Gallus lafayetii Lesson 1831 END
( E: Sri Lanka Junglefowl. S: Sri Lanka Wali-kukula )
Pavo cristatus Linnaeus 1758
( E: Indian Peafowl. S: Monora/ Sebeda )
WVa L2 g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1g
BrR L1 w g
ANSERIFORMES
DENDROCYGNIDAE
10. Dendrocygna bicolor (Vieillot) 1816
( E: Fulvous Whistling-duck. S: Maha Thamba-seruwa )
11. Dendrocygna javanica (Horsfield) 1821
( E: Lesser Whistling-duck. S: Heen Thamba-seruwa )
ANATIDAE
12. Anser anser (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Greylag Goose. S: Karalu Paththaya )
13. Tadorna ferruginea (Pallas) 1764
( E: Ruddy Shelduck. S: Rath Sakwalaya )
14. Sarkidiornis melanotos (Pennant) 1769
( E: Comb duck. S: Kabaliththiya )
15. Nettapus coromandelianus (Gmelin) 1789
( E: Cotton Pygmy-goose. S: Mal-seruwa )
16. Anas strepera Linnaeus 1758
( E: Gadwall. S: Gadwal Seruwa )
17. Anas penelope Linnaeus 1758
( E: Eurasian Wigeon. S: Eurasiya Wijana Seruwa )
18. Anas platyrhynchos Linnaeus 1758
( E: Mallard. S: Mallard Seruwa)
19. Anas poecilorhyncha Forster, JR 1781
( E: Spot-billed Duck S: Thith-hota Seruwa )
20. Anas clypeata Linnaeus 1758
( E: Northern Shoveler S: Uthuru Saval Seruwa )
21. Anas acuta Linnaeus 1758
( E: Northern Pintail S: Uthuru Ulpenda Seruwa )
22. Anas querquedula Linnaeus 1758
( E: Garganey S: Garganey Seruwa )
WV L1 w g t p
BrR L1g
WVa L2 w g p
WV L1 g
SU
L1 g
BrR L1 g
WV L1 w g t p
WV L1 g t p
WVa L3
WV L1 g p
WV L1 g
WV L1 g
WV L1 g
177
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
23. Anas crecca Linnaeus 1758
( E: Common Teal S: Podu Seruwa )
24. Marmaronetta angustirostris (Menetries) 1832
( E: Marbled Duck S: Garandu-sera)
25. Rhodonessa rufina
( E: Red-crested Pochard S: Rathu Kudumbi-seruwa )
26. Aythya ferina (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Common Pochard S: Podu Mada-sera )
27. Aythya fuligula (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Tufted Duck S: Kudumbi Mada-sera )
WV L1 g
WVa L3
WVa L3
WVa L3
WV L2 g p
TURNICIFORMES
TURNICIDAE
28. Turnix sylvatica (Desfontaines) 1789
( E: Little Button-quail S: Punchi Bola-watuwa )
29. Turnix suscitator (Gmelin) 1789
( E: Barred Button-quail S: Bola Watuwa )
WVa L3
BrR L1 w g
PICIFORMES
PICIDAE
30. Jynx torquilla Linnaeus 1758
WVa
( E: Eurasian Wryneck S: Eurasiya Gelanamiya
31. Dendrocopus nanus [Dendrocopos moluccensis] (Gmelin) 1788
BrR
( E: Brown-capped Pygmy Woodpecker S: Bora Esasi Gomara-karela )
32. Dendrocopos mahrattensis (Latham) 1802
BrR
( E: Yellow-crowned Woodpecker S: Kaha-silu Gomara-karela )
33. Celeus brachyurus (Vieillot) 1818
BrR
( E: Rufous Woodpecker S: Borath Koda-karela )
34. Picus chlorolophus (Vieillot) 1818
BrR
( E: Lesser Yellow-naped Woodpecker S: Heen Kaha-gelasi Karela )
35. Picus xanthopygaeus (Gray, JE & Gray, GR) 1846
BrR
( E: Streaked-throated Woodpecker S: Punchi Kawuru Karela )
36. Dinopium benghalense (Linnaeus) 1758
BrR
( E: Black-rumped Flameback S: Rath-karela )
37. Chrysocolaptes lucidus (Scopoli) 1786
BrR
( E: Greater Flameback S: Lepita Maha-karela )
38. Chrysocolaptes festivus (Boddaert) 1783
BrR
( E: White-naped Woodpecker S: Kahapita Maha-karela )
1
Rasmussen and Anderton 2005
178
-
L2
L1 w g
L1 w g
L1 w g
L1 w g
L1 w
L1 w g
L1 w g 1
L1 w g
Chrysocolaptes lucidus stricklandi upgraded to endemic species level under “taxonomic
dependent” as Chrysocolaptes stricklandi
Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
MEGALAIMIDAE
39. Megalaima zeylanica (Gmelin) 1788
BrR L1 w g
( E: Brown-headed Barbet S: Polos Kottoruwa )
40. Megalaima flavifrons (Cuvier) 1816 END
BrR L1 w g
( E: Sri Lanka Yellow-fronted Barbet S: Sri Lanka Ranmunatha Kottoruwa )
41. Megalaima rubricapilla (Gmelin) 1788
BrR L1 w g 2
( E: Crimson-fronted Barbet S: Rathmunath Kottoruwa )
42. Megalaima haemacephala (Muller) 1776
BrR L1 w g
( E: Coppersmith Barbet S: Rathlaye Kottoruwa )
BUCEROTIFORMES
BUCEROTIDAE
43. Ocyceros gingalensis (Shaw) 1811
( E: Sri Lanka Grey Hornbill S: Sri Lanka Alu Kandaththa )
44. Anthracoceros coronatus (Boddaert) 1783
( E: Malabar Pied Hornbill S: Poru-Kandaththa )
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 g
UPUPIFORMES
UPUPIDAE
45. Upupa epops Linnaeus 1758
( E: Common Hoopoe S: Podu Poroluwa)
BrR L1 w g
TROGONIFORMES
TROGONIDAE
46. Harpactes fasciatus (Pennant) 1769
( E: Malabar Trogon S: Lohawannichchiya )
BrR L1 w g
CORACIIFORMES
CORACIIDAE
47. Coracias benghalensis (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Indian Roller S: Dumbonna )
48. Eurystomus orientalis (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Dollarbird S: Dumkawa )
ALCEDINIDAE
49. Alcedo atthis (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Common Kingfisher S: Mal Pilihuduwa )
50. Alcedo meninting Horsfield 1821
( E: Blue-eared Kingfisher S: Nilkan Pilihuduwa )
51. Ceyx erithacus (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Oriental Dwarf Kingfisher S: Peradiga Ran-pilihuduwa )
2
Rasmussen and Anderton 2005
-
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g t
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 g
Confirms endemic species status
179
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
HALCYONIDAE
52. Halcyon capensis
( E: Stork-billed Kingfisher S: Manathudu Madi-pilihuduwa)
53. Halcyon smyrnensis (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: White-throated Kingfisher S: Layasudu Madi-pilihuduwa )
54. Halcyon pileata (Boddaert) 1783
( E: Black-capped Kingfisher S: Kalu Esasi Madi-pilihuduwa )
CERYLIDAE
55. Ceryle rudis (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Pied Kingfisher S: Gomara-pilihuduwa )
MEROPIDAE
56. Merops orientalis Latham 1802
( E: Green Bee-eater S: Punchi Binguharaya )
57. Merops philippinus Linnaeus 1766
( E: Blue-tailed Bee-eater S: Nilpenda Binguharaya )
58. Merops apiaster Linnaeus 1758
( E: European Bee-eater S: Europeeya Binguharaya )
59. Merops leschenaulti Vieillot 1817
( E: Chestnut-headed Bee-eater S: Thambala-hisa Binguharaya )
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
WV L1 w g t
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
WV L1 w g
WV L2
rR
L1 w g
CUCULIFORMES
CUCULIDAE
60. Clamator jacobinus (Boddaert) 1783
( E: Pied Cuckoo S: Gomara Kondakoha )
61. Clamator coromandus (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Chestnut-winged Cuckoo S: Thambala-piya Kondakoha)
62. Hierococcyx varius
( E: Common Hawk Cuckoo S: Ukusukoha )
{Cuculus varius Vahl 1797
63. Cuculus micropterus Gould 1838
( E: Indian Cuckoo S: Indu Kookilaya)
64. Cuculus canorus Linnaeus 1758
( E: Eurasian Cuckoo S: Podu Kookilaya )
65. Cuculus poliocephalus Latham 1790
( E: Lesser Cuckoo S: Punchi Kookilaya )
66. Cacomantis sonneratii (Latham) 1790
( E: Banded Bay Cuckoo S: Vayira Gurukoha )
67. Cacomantis passerinus (Vahl) 1797
( E: Grey-bellied Cuckoo S : Kusalu Gurukoha )
68. Chrysococcyx maculatus (Gmelin) 1788
( E: Asian Emarald Cuckoo S: Asia Marakoha )
180
BrR L1 w g
WV L1 w g t
BrR /UWV L1g
SU
L1 w g t
WV L1 w t
WV L1 w g
BrR L1g
WV L1 w g
Wva L1 w g t
Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
69. Surniculus lugubris (Horsfield) 1821
BrR
( E: Drongo Cuckoo S: Kawudukoha )
70. Eudynamys scolopacea (Linnaeus) 1758
BrR
( E: Asian Koel S: Kowula )
71. Phaenicophaeus viridirostris (Jerdon) 1840
BrR
( E: Blue-faced Malkoha S: Wathanil Malkoha )
72. Phaenicophaeus leschenaultii (Lesson) 1830
BrR
( E: Sirkeer Malkoha S: Pathan Malkoha / Atikukula )
73. Phaenicophaeus pyrrhocephalus (Pennant) 1769
BrR
( E: Sri Lanka Red-faced Malkoha S: Sri Lanka Watha-rathu Malkoha)
CENTROPODIDAE
74. Centropus sinensis (Stephens) 1815
( E: Greater Coucal S: Ati-kukula )
75. Centropus bengalensis (Gmelin) 1788
( E: Lesser Coucal S: Heen Ati-kukula )
76. Centropus chlororhynchus Blyth 1849 END
( E : Sri Lanka Green-billed Coucal S: Sri Lanka Bata Ati-kukula )
L1 w g
L1 w g
L1 w g
L1 w g
L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
Va
L2 w g t p
BrR L1 w g
PSITTACIFORMES
PSITTACIDAE
77. Loriculus beryllinus (Forster, JR) 1781 END
( E: Sri Lanka Hanging Parakeet S: Sri Lanka Giramaliththa )
78. Psittacula eupatria (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Alexandrine Parakeet S: Labu Girawa )
79. Psittacula krameri (Scopoli) 1769
( E: Rose-ringed Parakeet S: Rana Girawa )
80. Psittacula cyanocephala (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Plum-headed Parakeet S: Pandu Girawa )
81. Psittacula calthropae (Blyth) 1849 END
( E: Sri Lanka Layard’s Parakeet S: Sri Lanka Alu Girawa )
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
APODIFORMES
APODIDAE
82. Collocalia unicolor (Jerdon) 1840
( E: Indian Swiftlet S: Indu Upa-thurithaya )
83. Hirundapus giganteus (Temminck) 1825
( E: Brown-backed Needletail S: Pitabora Katupenda-thurithaya)
84. Cypsiurus balasiensis (Gray, JE) 1829
( E: Asian Palm Swift S: Asiaa Thal-thurithaya )
85. Tachymarptis melba (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Alpine Swift S: Alpine-thurithaya )
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w
181
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
86. Apus pacificus (Latham) 1802
( E: Fork-tailed Swift S: Debal –waliga Thurithaya
87. Apus affinis (Gray, JE) 1830
( E: House Swift S: Punchi Thurithaya )
88. Apus acuticauda (Jerdon)
( E: Dark-rumped Swift S: Nithamba-anduru Thurithaya )
HEMIPROCNIDAE
89. Hemiprocne coronata (Tickell) 1833
( E: Crested Treeswift S: Silu Ruk-thurithaya )
WVa L3
BrR L1 w g
WVa L3
BrR L1 w g
STRIGIFORMES
TYTONIDAE
90. Tyto alba (Scopoli) 1769
( E: Barn Owl S: Atu Wesbassa )
PHODILINAE
91. Phodilus badius (Horsfield) 1821
( E: Oriental Bay Owl S: Peradigu Gurubassa )
BrR L1 g t
BrR L1 w g t 3
STRIGIDAE
92. Otus sunia (Hodgson) 1836
BrR L1 g
( E: Oriental Scops Owl S: Peradigu Kanbassa )
93. Otus bakkamoena Pennant 1769
BrR L1 w g
( E: Collard Scops Owl S: Karapati Kanbassa )
94. Otus thilohofmanni Warakagoda & Rassmusan 2004 END
BrR L1d
( E: Serendib Scops Owl S: Panduwan Kanbassa)
95. Bubo nipalensis Hodgson 1836
BrR L1 w g t
( E: Spot-bellied Eagle Owl S: Ukusu Bakamoona / Ulama)
96. Ketupa zeylonensis (Gmelin) 1788
BrR L1 g
( E: Brown Fish Owl S: Bora Kewul-bakamoona)
97. Strix leptogrammica Temminck 1832
BrR L1 w g
( E: Brown Wood Owl S: Bora Wana-bakamoona )
98. Glaucidium radiatum (Tickell) 1833
BrR L1 w g
( E: Jungle Owlet S: Wana Upabassa )
99. Glaucidium castanonotum (Blyth) 185 END
BrR L1 g
( E: Sri Lanka Chestnut-backed Owlet S: Sri Lanka Pit-a June thambala Upabassa))
100. Ninox scutulata (Raffles) 1822
BrR L1 g
( E: Brown Hawk Owl S: Bora Ukusu-bassa)
101. Asio flammeus (Pontoppidan) 1763
WV L1 w g t
( E: Short-eared Owl S: Keti Kan-Bakamoona)
3
Rasmussen and Anderton 2005
182
-
Phodilus badius assimilis upgraded to species level Phodilus assimilis
Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
BATRACHOSTOMIDAE
102. Batrachostomus moniliger Blyth 1849
( E: Frogmouth S: Madi-muhuna )
CAPRIMULGIDAE
103. Caprimulgus indicus Latham 1790
( E: Grey Nightjar S: Alu Bimbassa )
104. Caprimulgus atripennis Jerdon 1845
( E: Jerdon’s Nightjar S: Jerdon Bimbassa )
105. Caprimulgus asiaticus Latham 1790
( E: Common Nightjar S: Indu Bimbassa )
BrR L1 w g t
BrR L1 g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
COLUMBIFORMES
COLUMBIDAE
106. Columba livia Gmelin 1789
( E: Rock Pigeon S: Podu Paraviya )
107. Columba torringtoni Bonaparte 1854 END
( E: Sri Lanka Wood Pigeon S: Sri Lanka Mayila Paraviya )
108. Columba punicea Blyth 1842
( E: Pale-capped Pigeon S: La-esasi Paraviya )
109. Streptopelia orientalis (Latham) 1790
( E: Oriental Turtle Dove S: Peradigu Kayuru Kobeiyya )
110. Streptopelia chinensis (Scopoli) 1786
( E: Spotted Dove S: Alu Kobeiyya )
111. Streptopelia tranquebarica (Hermann) 1804
( E: Red Collared Dove S: Rathmala Kobeiyya )
112. Streptopelia decaocto (Frivaldszky) 1838
( E : Eurasian Collard Dove S: Mala Kobeiyya )
113. Chalcophaps indica (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Emerald Dove S: Neela-Kobeiyya )
114. Treron bicincta (Jerdon) 1840
( E: Orange-breasted Green-pigeon S: Laya-ran Batagoya )
115. Treron pompadora (Gmelin) 1789
( E: Pompadour Green-pigeon S: Pompadoru Batagoya )
116. Treron phoenicoptera (Latham) 1790
( E: Yellow-footed Green-pigeon S: Seepadu Batagoya )
117. Ducula aenea (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Green Imperial Pigeon S: Neela Mahagoya )
4
Rasmussen and Anderton 2005
-
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g t
WV L2
wtp
WV L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
WV L1 w g p
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g 4
BrR/UWV L1 g t
BrR L1 w g
Treron pompadora pompadora upgraded to endemic species level under “taxonomy
dependent” as Treron pompadora
183
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
GRUIFORMES
RALLIDAE
118. Rallina eurizonoides (Lafresnaye) 1845
( E: Slaty-legged Crake S: Alu-pa Keraliya )
119. Gallirallus striatus (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Slaty-breasted Rail S: Layaalu Pati-reluwa )
120. Rallus aquaticus Linnaeus 1758
( E: Water rail S: Diya Reluwa )
121. Crex crex (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Corn Crake S: Goda-keraliya )
122. Amaurornis phoenicurus (Pennant) 1769
( E: White-breasted Waterhen S: Laya-sudu Korawakka )
123. Porzana pusilla (Pallas) 1776
( E: Baillon’s Crake S: Baillon Wil-keraliya )
124. Porzana fusca (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Ruddy-breasted Crake S: Laya-rathu Wil-keraliya )
125. Gallicrex cinerea (Gmelin) 1789
( E: Watercock S: Kora )
126. Porphyrio porphyrio (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Purple Swamphen S: Podu Dam-kithala )
127. Gallinula chloropus (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Common Moorhen S: Podu Gallinuwa )
128. Fulica atra Linnaeus 1758
( E: Common Coot S: Podu Kalu-kithala )
WV L1 w g t
BrR L1 w g
WV L2 w g p 5
WV L2 g p
BrR L1 w g t
WV L1g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1g
BrR L1 w g t
CICONIIFORMES
SCOLOPACIDAE
129. Scolopax rusticola Linnaeus 1758
( E: Eurasian Woodcock S: Eurasiya Arathuduwa )
130. Gallinago nemoricola Hodgson 1836
( E: Wood Snipe S: Wana Kaswatuwa )
131. Gallinago stenura (Bonaparte) 1831
( E: Pintail Snipe S: Ulpenda Kaswatuwa )
132. Gallinago megala Swinhoe 1861
( E: Swinhoe’s Snipe S: Swainhoo Kaswatuwa )
133. Gallinago media (Latham) 1787
( E: Great Snipe S: Maha Kaswatuwa )
134. Gallinago gallinago (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Common Snipe S: Podu Kaswatuwa )
135. Lymnocryptes minimus (Brunnich) 1764
( E: Jack Snipe S: Heen-kaswatuwa )
5
Rasmussen and Anderton 2005
184
-
WV L1 g
WVa L3
WV L1 w g
WV L2 w g p
WV L1 w g p
WV L1g t
WV L1g p
Rallus aquaticus indicus upgraded to species level Rallus indicus
Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
136. Limosa limosa (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Black-tailed Godwit S: Kalu-penda Gohuduwiththa )
137. Limosa lapponica (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Bar-tailed Godwit S: Waira-penda Gohuduwiththa )
138. Numenius minutus (Gould) 1841
( E: Little Curlew S: Heen Kalikaya )
139. Numenius phaeopus (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Whimbrel S: Wimburali Kalikaya )
140. Numenius tenuirostris Vieillot 1817
( E: Slender-billed Curlew S: Heen-thudu Kalikaya)
141. Numenius arquata (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Eurasian Curlew S: Eurasiya Kalikaya )
142. Tringa erythropus (Pallas) 1764
( E: Spotted Redshank S: Tith Rathpa Silibilla )
143. Tringa totanus (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Common Redshank S: Podu Rathpa Silibilla )
144. Tringa stagnatilis (Bechstein) 1803
( E: Marsh Sandpiper S: Waguru Silibilla )
145. Tringa nebularia (Gunnerus) 1767
( E: Common Greenshank S: Podu Palapa Silibilla )
146. Tringa guttifer (Nordmann) 1835
( E: Nordmann’s Greenshank S: Thith Palalpa Silibilla )
147. Tringa solitaria Wilson, A 1813
( E: Solitary Sandpiper S: Thanikada Silibilla )
148. Tringa ochropus Linnaeus 1758
( E: Green Sandpiper S: Kola Silibilla )
149. Tringa glareola Linnaeus 1758
( E: Wood Sandpiper S: Wana Silibilla )
150. Xenus cinereus (Guldenstadt) 1775
( E: Terek Sandpiper S: Terek Silinna )
151. Actitis hypoleucos (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Common Sandpiper S: Podu Siliththa )
152. Tringa macularia (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Spotted Sandpiper S: Pulli Silibilla )
153. Arenaria interpres (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Ruddy Turnstone S: Rath Galperaliya )
154. Limnodromus semipalmatus (Blyth) 1848
( E: Asiatic Dowitcher S: Asiya Siliwatuwa )
155. Calidris tenuirostris (Horsfield) 1821
( E: Great Knot S: Mahanott Hinna )
156. Calidris canutus (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Red Knot S: Rathu Not Hinna)
WV L1 w g
WV L1 w g
WVa L3
WV L1 w g
WVa L3
WV L1 w
WV L1 w g p
WV L1 w g
WV L1g
WV L1 w g
WVa L3
WVa L3
WV L1g
WV L1 w g
WV L1 g
WV L1 w g
WVa L3
WV L1 g
WVa L3
WVa L3
WV L1 w g p
185
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
157. Calidris alba (Pallas) 1764
( E: Sanderling S: Wali Hinna )
158. Calidris pygmeus
( E: Spoon-billed Sandpiper S: Handi Hinna )
159. Calidris minuta (Leisler) 1812
( E: Little Stint S: Punchi Hinna )
160. Calidris ruficollis (Pallas) 1776
( E: Rufous-necked Stint S: Dumburu-gela Hinna )
161. Calidris temminckii (Leisler) 1812
( E: Temminck’s Stint S: Temminck Hinna )
162. Calidris subminuta (Middendorff) 1853
( E: Long-toed Stint S: Digaangili Hinna)
163. Calidris fuscicollis (Vieillot) 1819
( E: White-rumped Sandpiper S: Nithamba-sudu Hinna )
164. Calidris acuminata (Horsfield) 1821
( E: Sharp-tailed Sandpiper S: Ul-penda Hinna )
165. Calidris alpina (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Dunlin S: Dumbulu Hinna )
166. Calidris ferruginea (Pontoppidan) 1763
( E: Curlew Sandpiper S: Kalika Hinna )
167. Tryngites subruficollis (Vieillot) 1819
( E: Buff-breasted Sandpiper S: Layapandu Sili-hinna )
168. Limicola falcinellus (Pontoppidan) 1763
( E: Broad-billed Sandpiper S: Mathudu-hinna )
169. Philomachus pugnax (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Ruff S: Lowichchiya )
170. Steganopus tricolor Vieillot 1819
( E: Wilson’s Phalarope S: Wilsonge Diyawatuwa )
171. Phalaropus lobatus (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Red-necked Phalarope S: Rathgela Diyawatuwa)
172. Phalaropus fulicaria (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Red Phalarope S: Rathu Diyawatuwa )
WV L1 w g
WV L2
WV L1 w g
WV L2
WV L1 w g
WV L1 g
WVa L3
WV L1 g p
WV L2
WV L1 w g
WV L2 g p
WV L1 w g
WV L1 w g
SU
L3
WV L2
WVa L3
ROSTRATULIDAE
173. Rostratula benghalensis (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Greater Painted-snipe S: Raja Ulu-kaswatuwa )
BrR L1 w g
JACANIDAE
174. Hydrophasianus chirurgus (Scopoli) 1786
( E: Pheasant-tailed Jacana S: Savul-penda Diyasaana )
BrR L1 g
186
Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
BURHINIDAE
175. Burhinus oedicnemus (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Eurasian Thick-knee S: Eurasia Golukiraluwa )
176. Esacus recurvirostris (Cuvier) 1829
( E: Great Thick-knee S: Maha-Golukiraluwa )
CHARADRIIDAE
177. Haematopus ostralegus Linnaeus 1758
( E: Eurasian Oystercatcher S: Eurasia Bolugulla )
178. Himantopus himantopus (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Black-winged Stilt S: Kalupiya Ipalpawa )
179. Himantopus leucocephalus Gould 1837
( E: Australian Stilt S: Australiyanu Ipalpawa )
180. Recurvirostra avosetta Linnaeus 1758
( E: Pied Avocet S: Gomara Avasatha )
181. Pluvialis fulva (Gmelin) 1789
( E: Pacific Golden Plover S: Sethkara Ran Maha-oleviya )
182. Pluvialis squatarola (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Grey Plover S: Alu Maha-oleviya )
183. Charadrius hiaticula Linnaeus 1758
( E: Common Ringed Plover S: Loku Mala Oleviya )
184. Charadrius placidus Gray, JE & Gray, GR 1863
( E: Long-billed Plover S: Dick-thuda Oleviya )
185. Charadrius dubius Scopoli 1786
( E: Little Ringed Plover S: Punchi Mala Oleviya )
186. Charadrius alexandrinus Linnaeus 1758
187. ( E: Kentish Plover S: Kenti Oleviya ) WV
( E: Lesser Sand Plover S: Heen Wali Oleviya )
188. Charadrius leschenaultii Lesson 1826
( E: Greater Sand Plover S: Raja Wali Oleviya )
189. Charadrius asiaticus Pallas 1773
( E : Caspian Plover S: Caspia Oleviya )
190. Charadrius veredus Gould 1848
( E: Oriental Plover S: Peradigu Oleviya )
191. Vanellus malabaricus (Boddaert) 1783
( E: Yellow-wattled Lapwing S: Kaha-yatimal Kirella )
192. Vanellus cinereus (Blyth) 1842
( E: Grey-headed Lapwing S: Hisa-alu Kirella )
193. Vanellus indicus (Boddaert) 1783
( E: Red-wattled Lapwing S: Rath-yatimal Kirella )
194. Vanellus gregarius (Pallas) 1771
( E: Sociable Lapwing S: Ranchu Kirella )
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1g
WV L2
BrR L1 w g
WV L2
WV L1 w g
WV L1 w g
W V L1 w g
WV L2
WVa L3
BrR & WV L1 w g
BrR & WV L1 w g
L1 w
WV L1 g
WV L1 g p
WVa L3
BrR L1 w g
WVa L3
BrR L1 w g
WV L2 g
187
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
GLAREOLIDAE
195. Dromas ardeola Paykull 1805
( E: Crab-plover S: Kakulu-oleviya )
196. Cursorius coromandelicus (Gmelin) 1789
( E: Indian Courser E: Indu Javalihiniya )
197. Glareola pratincola (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Collared Pratincole S: Karapati Javasariya )
198. Glareola maldivarum Forster, JR 1795
( E: Oriental Pratincole E: Peradigu Javasariya )
199. Glareola lactea Temminck 1820
( E: Small Pratincole S: Punchi Javasariya )
LARIDAE
200. Catharacta lonnbergi Mathews 1831
( E: Brown Skua S: Dumburu Piri-vilumbuwa )
201. Catharacta maccormicki (Saunders) 1893
( E: South Polar Skua S: Dakunu-drava Piri-vilumbuwa )
202. Stercorarius pomarinus (Temminck) 1815
( E: Pomarine Jaeger S :Pomarine Vilumbuwa )
203. Stercorarius parasiticus (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Parasitic Jaeger S: Paraputu Vilumbuwa )
204. Larus hemprichii (Bruch) 1853
( E: Sooty Gull S: Dumbutu Galuviya )
205. Larus argentatus Pontoppidan 1763
( E: Herring Gull S: Herring Galuviya )
206. Larus heuglini Bree 1876
( E: Heuglin’s Gull S: Heuglin Galuviya )
207. Larus cachinnans Pallas 1811
( E: Yellow-legged Gull S: Kahapa Galuviya )
208. Larus fuscus Linnaeus 1758
( E: Lesser Black-backed Gull S: Heen Pita-kalu Galuviya )
209. Larus ichthyaetus Pallas 1773
( E: Pallas’s Gull S: Maha Kalu-hisa Galuviya )
210. Larus brunnicephalus Jerdon 1840
( E: Brown-headed Gull S: Bora-hisa Galuviya )
211. Larus ridibundus Linnaeus 1766
( E: Black-headed Gull S: Kalu-his Galuviya )
212. Larus genei Breme 1839
( E: Slender-billed Gull S: Heen-thudu Galuviya )
SU
BrR L1 w g
WV L1g p
BrR L1g
BrR L1g
SV
L2 g t 6
SU
L3 t 7
SV
L1 w g t p
SU
L3
SU
L3
WV L3
WV L1 w g t
SU
L2
WV L3
WV L1 g
WV L1 w g
WV L3
SU
6
Originally identified as C.antarctica (Legge 1983 and Wait 1931). Error corrected by De Silva (1989d)
7
Specimen originally identified by Wait (1931) was an error, corrected by De Silva (1989)
188
L1 w g
L3
Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
213. Gelochelidon nilotica
( E: Gull-billed Tern S: Galuthudu Sayurulihiniya )
214. Sterna caspia Pallas 1770
( E: Caspian Tern S: Caspia Muhudulihiniya )
215. Sterna bengalensis Lesson 1831
( E: Lesser Crested Tern S: Heen Konda Muhudulihiniya )
216. Sterna bergii Lichtenstein 1823
( E: Great Crested Tern S: Maha Konda Muhudulihiniya )
217. Sterna sandvicensis Latham 1787
( E: Sandwich Tern S : Sandwich Muhudulihiniya )
218. Sterna dougallii Montagu 1813
( E: Roseate Tern S: Arunu Muhudulihiniya )
219. Sterna sumatrana Raffles 1822
( E: Black-naped Tern S: Kalu-gelasi Muhudulihiniya )
220. Sterna hirundo Linnaeus 1758
( E: Common Tern S: Podu Muhudulihiniya )
221. Sterna albifrons Pallas 1764
( E: Little Tern S: Punchi Muhudulihiniya )
222. Sterna saundersi Hume 1877
( E: Saunders’s Tern S: Saunders Muhudulihiniya )
223. Sterna repressa Hartert 1916
( E: White-cheeked Tern S: Kopula-sudu Muhudulihiniya )
224. Sterna anaethetus Scopoli 1786
( E: Bridled Tern S: Kadiyalam Muhudulihiniya )
225. Sterna fuscata Linnaeus 1766
( E: Sooty Tern S: Dumbutu Muhudulihiniya )
226. Chlidoniasus (Pallas) 1811
( E: Whiskered Tern S: Alupiya Kangul-lihiniya )
227. Chlidonias leucopterus (Temminck) 1815
( E: White-winged Tern S: Sudupiya Kangul-lihiniya )
228. Chlidonias niger (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Black Tern S: Kalu Kangul-lihiniya )
229. Anous stolidus (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Brown Noddy S: Bora Nidilihiniya )
230. Anous minutus Boie 1844
( E: Black Noddy S: Kalu Nidilihiniya )
231. Anous tenuirostris (Temminck) 1823
( E: Lesser Noddy S: Heen Nidilihiniya )
ACCIPITRIDAE
232. Pandion haliaetus (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Osprey S: Kuralaya )
SU
L1 g
WV L1 g t
WV L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
WV L1 g
SV/BrR
SU
L1 w g
L3
WV/UBrR L1 w g t
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 g
Va
L3
SU
L1 g t
PM
L1 g t p
WV L1 w g
WV L1 w g t
WV L3
Va
L1 g t
SU
L3
Va
L1 g
WV L2
189
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
233. Aviceda jerdoni (Blyth) 1842
( E: Jerdon’s Baza S: Jerdon Saratakussa )
234. Aviceda leuphotes (Dumont) 1820
( E: Black Baza S: Kalu Saratakussa )
235. Pernis ptilorhyncus (Temminck) 1821
( E: Oriental Honey-buzzard S: Silu Bambarakussa )
236. Elanus caeruleus (Desfontaines) 1789
( E: Black-shouldered Kite S: Uris-kalu Pathannkussa )
237. Milvus migrans (Bonddaert) 1783
( E: Black Kite S: Bora Parakussa )
238. Haliastur indus (Boddaert) 1783
( E: Brahminy Kite S: Bamunu Piyakussa )
239. Haliaeetus leucogaster (Gmelin) 1788
( E: White-bellied Sea-eagle S: Kusa-ali Sayurukussa )
240. Ichthyophaga ichthyaetus (Horsfield) 1821
( E: Grey-headed Fish-eagle S: Raja Alu-his Masukussa )
241. Neophron percnopterus (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Egyptian Vulture S: Ejupthu Gijulihiniya )
242. Spilornis cheela (Latham) 1790
( E: Crested Serpent Eagle S: Silu Sarapakussa )
243. Circus aeruginosus (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Western Marsh Harrier S: Batahira Waguru Harikussa )
244. Circus macrourus (Gmelin, SG) 1770
( E: Pallid Harrier S: Sudumali Harikussa )
245. Circus melanoleucos (Pennant) 1769
( E: Pied Harrier S: Gomara Harikussa )
246. Circus pygargus (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Montagu’s Harrier S: Montegu Harikussa )
247. Accipiter trivirgatus (Temminck) 1824
( E: Crested Goshawk S: Silu Ukussa )
248. Accipiter badius (Gmelin) 1788
( E: Shikra S: Ukussa )
249. Accipiter virgatus (Temminck) 1822
( E: Besra S: Besra Ukussa )
250. Accipiter nisus (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Eurasian Sparowhawk S: Eurasiya Ukussa )
251. Buteo buteo (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Common Buzzard S: Urasiya Lasikussa )
252. Buteo rufinus (Cretzschmar) 1829
( E: Long-legged Buzzard S: Dikpa Lasikussa )
8
Rasmussen and Anderton 2005
190
-
BrR L1g
WV L1g
BrR & WV L1g
BrR L1g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1g
WVa L1 w g t p
BrR L1 w g
WV L1 w g
WV L1 w g
WV L1 w g
WV L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1g
WVa L3
WV L1 w g 8
WVa L3
Buteo buteo burmanicus upgraded to species level Buteo burmanicus
Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
253. Ictinaetus malayensis (Temminck) 1822
( E: Black Eagle S: Kalukussa )
254. Hieraaetus fasciatus (Vieillot) 1822
( E: Bonnelli’s Eagle S: Bonelli Rajaaliya )
255. Hieraaetus pennatus (Gmelin) 1788
( E: Booted Eagle S: Kesarupa Rajaaliya )
256. Hieraaetus kienerii (Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, I) 1835
( E: Rufous-bellied Eagle S: Kusarath Rajaaliya )
257. Spizaetus cirrhatus (Gmelin) 1788
( E: Changeable Hawk Eagle S: Perali Kondakussa )
258. Spizaetus nipalensis (Hodgson) 1836
( E: Mountain Hawk Eagle S: Hela Kondakussa )
FALCONIDAE
259. Falco naumanni Fleischer 1818
( E: Lesser Kestrel S: Heen Kurulugoya )
260. Falco tinnunculus Linnaeus 1758
( E: Common Kestrel S: Podu Kurulugoya )
261. Falco chicquera Daudin 1800
( E: Red-necked Falcon S: Rathuhis Kurulugoya )
262. Falco amurensis Radde 1863
( E: Amur Falcon S: Amur Kurulugoya )
263. Falco severus Horsfield 1821
( E: Oriental Hobby S: Peradigu Hobby Kurulugoya )
264. Falco peregrinus Tunstall 1771
( E: Peregrine/ Shaheen Falcon S: Peri/shahin Kurulugoya )
265. Microhierax fringilarius
(E: Black-thighed Falconet S: Kalu-kalawa Kurulaya )
PODICIPEDIDAE
266. Tachybaptus ruficollis (Pallas) 1764
( E: Little Grebe S: Punchi Gembithuruwa )
PHAETHONTIDAE
267. Phaethon aethereus Linnaeus 1758
( E: Red-billed Tropicbird S: Raththudu Gimwalaya )
268. Phaethon lepturus Daudin 1802
( E: White-tailed Tropicbird S: Kahathudu Gimwalaya )
SULIDAE
269. Sula dactylatra Lesson 1831
( E: Masked Booby S: Wes Sulaviya )
BrR L1 g
SU
L1 w g p
WV L1 w g t p
BrR L1 w g t
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 g
WVa L3
BrR/UWV L1 w g t
WVa L3
WVa
L1
wgtp
WV L2 w g p
BrR/UWV L1 w g
Va
L3
BrR L1 w g
SV
L1 g p
SU
L1 w g t p
SU
L1 w g t p
191
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
270. Sula sula (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Red-footed Booby S: Rathpa Sulaviya )
271. Sula leucogaster (Boddaert) 1783
( E: Brown Booby S: Bora Sulaviya )
ANHINGIDAE
272. Anhinga melanogaster Pennant 1769
( E: Darter S: Peradigu Ahikava )
PHALACROCORACIDAE
273. Phalacrocorax niger (Vieillot) 1817
( E: Little Cormorant S: Punchi Diyakava )
274. Phalacrocorax fuscicollis Stephens 1826
( E: Indian Cormorant S: Indu Diyakava )
275. Phalacrocorax carbo (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Great Cormorant S: Maha Diyakava )
ARDEIDAE
276. Egretta garzetta (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Little Egret S: Punchi Ali-koka )
277. Egretta gularis (Bosc) 1792
( E: Western Reef Heron S: Batahira Pera Ali-koka )
278. Ardea cinerea Linnaeus 1758
( E: Grey Heron S: Alu Koka )
279. Ardea goliath Cretzschmar 1829
( E: Goliath Heron S: Yoda Koka )
280. Ardea purpurea Linnaeus 1766
( E: Purple Heron S: Karawal Koka )
281. Casmerodius albus (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Great Egret S: Maha Sudu-koka )
282. Mesophoyx intermedia Wagler 1829
( E: Intermediate Egret S: Sudu Madi-koka )
283. Bubulcus ibis (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Cattle Egret S: Gava-koka )
284. Ardeola grayii (Sykes) 1832
( E: Pond Heron S: Kana-koka )
285. Ardeola bacchus (Bonaparte) 1855
( E: Chinese Pond Heron S: Cheena Kana-koka )
286. Butorides striatus (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Little Heron S: Pala-koka )
287. Nycticorax nycticorax (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Black-crowned Night Heron S: Ra-koka )
192
SU
L1 g p
Va
L1 g p
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g t
BrR L1 g
BrR L1 g
BrR L1 g
BrR L1 g p
WVa L1 w g t
BrR L1 g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
WVa L3
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
288. Gorsachius melanolophus (Raffles) 1822
( E: Malayan Night Heron S: Malaya Thambala-koka )
289. Ixobrychus sinensis (Gmelin) 1789
( E: Yellow Bittern S: Kaha Mati-koka )
290. Ixobrychus cinnamomeus (Gmelin) 1789
( E: Cinnamon Bittern S: Kahabora Mati-koka )
291. Dupetor flavicollis (Latham) 1790
( E: Black Bittern S: Kalu Pili-koka )
292. Botaurus stellaris (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Great Bittern S: Eurasiya Pan-koka )
PHOENICOPTERIDAE
293. Phoenicopterus ruber Linnaeus 1758
( E: Greater Flamingo S: Raja Siyakkaraya )
294. Phoenicopterus minor Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, E 1798
( E: Lesser Flamingo S: Heen Siyakkaraya )
THRESKIORNITHIDAE
295. Plegadis falcinellus (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Glossy Ibis S: Silutu Dathuduwa )
296. Threskiornis melanocephalus (Latham) 1790
( E: Black-headed Ibis S: Indu Sudu Dakaththa )
297. Platalea leucorodia Linnaeus 1758
( E: Eurasian Spoonbill S: Eurasiya Handialawa )
PELECANIDAE
298. Pelecanus onocrotalus Linnaeus 1758
( E: Great White Pelican S: Maha Sudu Pasthuduwa )
299. Pelecanus crispus Bruch 1832
( E: Dalmatian Pelican S: Dalmatian Pasthuduwa )
300. Pelecanus philippensis Gmelin 1789
( E: Spot-billed Pelican S: Thithhota Pasthuduwa )
CICONIIDAE
301. Mycteria leucocephala (Pennant) 1769
( E: Painted Stork S: Lathuwakiya )
302. Anastomus oscitans (Boddaert) 1783
( E: Asian Openbill S: Asia Vivarathuduwa )
303. Ciconia nigra (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Black Stork S: Kalu Manawa )
304. Ciconia episcopus (Boddaert) 1783
( E: Woolly-necked Stork S: Padili Manawa )
WV L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
WVa L2
WV L1 g
WVa L3
WV L1 g
BrR L1 g
BrR L1 g
SU
L3
SU
L3
BrR L1 g
BrR L1g
BrR L1g
SU
L3
BrR L1 g
193
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
305. Ciconia ciconia (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: White Stork S: Sudu Manawa )
306. Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus (Latham) 1790
( E: Black-necked Stork S: Ali-manawa )
307. Leptoptilos javanicus (Horsfield) 1821
( E: Lesser Adjutant S: Heen Bahuru-manawa )
FREGATIDAE
308. Fregata minor (Gmelin) 1789
( E: Great Frigatebird S: Maha Sahasiya )
309. Fregata ariel (Gray, GR) 1845
( E: Lesser Frigatebird S: Singithi Sahasiya )
310. Fregata andrewsi Mathews 1914
( E: Christmas Island Frigatebird S: Naththal Diw Sahasiya )
PROCELLARIIDAE
311. Daption capense (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Cape Petrel S: Keppa Pita-raleya )
312. Pterodroma baraui (Jouanin) 1964
( E: Barau’s Petrel S: Barau Raleya )
313. Pterodroma lessonii (Garnot) 1826
( E: White-headed Petrel S: Hisa-sudu Raleya )
314. Pterodroma mollis (Gould) 1844
( E: Soft-plumaged Petrel S: Sumudu Pill Raleya )
315. Bulweria bulwerii (Jardine & Selby) 1828
( E: Bulwer’s Petrel S: Bulwer Heen-raleya )
316. Bulweria fallax Jouanin 1955
( E: Jouanin’s Petrel S: Jouanin Heen-raleya )
317. Calonectris leucomelas (Temminck) 1835
( E: Streaked Shearwater S: Kadiiri Pirilavakaya )
318. Puffinus pacificus (Gmelin) 1789
( E: Wedge-tailed Shearwater S: Kungnapenda Diyalavakaya )
319. Puffinus carneipes Gould 1844
( E: Flesh-footed Shearwater S: Palolpa Diyalavakaya )
320. Puffinus griseus (Gmelin) 1789
( E: Sooty Shearwater S: Dumbutu Diyalavakaya )
321. Puffinus tenuirostris (Temminck) 1835
( E: Short-tailed Shearwater S: Ketipenda Diyalavakaya )
322. Puffinus lherminieri Lesson 1839
( E: Audubon’s Shearwater S: Audubon Diyalavakaya )
323. Oceanites oceanicus (Kuhl) 1820
( E: Wilson’s Storm-petrel S: Wilson Sadawasuruwa )
194
SU
L2 w
BrR L1 g
BrR L1 g
Va
L2 w t p
Va
L1 p
SU
L2 t
SU
L2 w g t p
SU
L3
SU
L3
SU
L3
SU
L3
SU
L1 g
SU
L1 w t p
Va
L2 w g t p
PM
L1 w g t p
SU
L3
SU
L1 g p
SU
L3
SV
L1 w g t
Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
324. Pelagodroma marina (Latham) 1790
(E: White-faced Storm-petrel S:Watha Sudu Sadawasuruwa)
325. Oceanodroma monorhis (Swinhoe) 1867
( E: Swinhoe’s Storm-petrel S: Swinhoe Kunatusuruwa )
WV L3
SU
L1 w g p
PASSERIFORMES
PITTIDAE
326. Pitta brachyura (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Indian Pitta S: Avichchiya )
IRENIDAE
327. Irena puella (Latham) 1790
( E: Asian Fairy Bluebird S: Asia Neelarajaya )
328. Chloropsis cochinchinensis (Gmelin) 1789
( E: Blue-winged Leafbird S: Nilpiya Kolarisiya )
329. Chloropsis aurifrons (Temminck) 1829
( E: Golden-fronted Leafbird S: Rannalala Kolarisiya )
LANIIDAE
330. Lanius cristatus Linnaeus 1758
( E: Brown Shrike S: Bora Sabariththa )
331. Lanius vittatus Valenciennes 1826
( E: Bay-backed Shrike S: Pita-alu Sabariththa )
332. Lanius schach Linnaeus 1758
( E: Long-tailed Shrike S: Dikpenda Sabariththa )
333. Lanius meridionalis Temminck 1820
( E: Southern Grey Shrike S: Alu Sabariththa )
CORVIDAE
334. Urocissa ornata (Wagler) 1829 END
( E: Sri Lanka Blue Magpie S: Sri Lanka Kahibella )
335. Corvus splendens Vieillot 1817
( E: House Crow S: Kolamba Kaputa )
336. Corvus macrorhynchos Wagler 1827
( E: Large-billed Crow S: Kalu Kaputa )
337. Artamus fuscus Vieillot 1817
( E: Ashy Woodswallow S: Alu Wanalihiniya )
338. Oriolus oriolus (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Eurasian Golden Oriole S: Eurasiya Ran Kahakurulla )
9
Rassmussen and Anderton 2005
-
WV L1 w g
WV L2 w g p
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
WV L1 w g t
WV L2
BrR L1 w g
WVa L3
BrR L1 g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
WV L1 g p 9
Oriolus oriolus kundoo upgraded to speciel level Oriolus kundoo, both Oriolus oriolus and
Oriolus kundoo present in Sri Lanka
195
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
339. Oriolus chinensis Linnaeus 1766
( E: Black-naped Oriole S: Kalu-gelasi Kahakurulla )
340. Oriolus tenuirostris Blyth 1846
( E: Slender-billed Oriole S: Heen Thudu Kahakurulla)
341. Oriolus xanthornus (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Black-hooded Oriole S: Kahakurulla )
342. Coracina macei (Lesson) 1830
( E: Large Cuckooshrike S: Maha Kovul-saratiththa )
343. Coracina polioptera (Sharpe) 1879
( E: Indochinese Cuckooshrike S: Induchina Kovul-saratiththa )
344. Coracina melanoptera (Ruppell) 1839
( E: Black-headed Cuckooshrike S: Kalu-his Kovul-saratiththa )
345. Pericrocotus cinnamomeus (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Small Minivet S: Punchi Miniviththa )
346. Pericrocotus flammeus (Forster, JR) 1781
( E: Scarlet Minivet S: Dilirath Miniviththa )
347. Hemipus picatus (Sykes) 1832
( E: Bar-winged Flycatcher-shrike S: Wairapiya Masi-saratiththa )
348. Rhipidura aureola Lesson 1830
( E: White-browed Fantail S: Bama-sudu Pawanpenda )
349. Rhipidura javanica (Sparrman) 1788
( E: Pied Fantail S: Gomara Pawanpenda )
350. Dicrurus macrocercus Vieillot 1817
( E: Black Drongo S: Kalu Kawuda )
351. Dicrurus leucophaeus Vieillot 1817
( E: Ashy Drongo S: Alu Kawuda )
352. Dicrurus caerulescens (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: White-bellied Drongo S: Kawuda )
353. Dicrurus paradiseus (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Great Racket-tailed Drongo S: Maha Kawuda )
354. Hypothymis azurea (Boddaert) 1783
( E: Black-naped Monarch S: Kalu-gelasi Radamara )
355. Terpsiphone paradisi (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Asian Paradise- flycatcher S: Asia Rahanmara )
356. Aegithina tiphia (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Common Iora S: Podu Iorawa )
357. Aegithina nigrolutea (Marshall, GFL) 1876
( E: Marshall’s Iora S: Marshallge Iorawa)
WV L1 w g t p
WVa L3
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
WVa L3
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g t
BrR L1 w g
WVa L3
BrR L1 w g t
WV L1 g t
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g 10
BrR L1 w g
BrR & WV L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
SU
L 2 11
10
Rassmussen and Anderton 2005 -
Dicrurus paradiseus lophorinus, upgraded to endemic species level as Dicrurus lophorinus under
“taxonomy dependent”. Both Dicrurus lophorinus and Dicrurus paradiseus occur in Sri Lanka
11
Rassmussen and Anderton 2005 -
A male specimen (BMNH; previously considered an abberent common) from Uva (SE Sri
Lanka) is this species but shows slight tendency towards tiphia
196
Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
358. Tephrodornis pondicerianus (Gmelin) 1789
( E: Common Woodshrike S: Podu Wana-saratiththa )
BrR L1 w g t 12
MUSCICAPIDAE
359. Monticola solitarius (Linnaeus) 1758
WV
( E: Blue Rock Thrush S: Nil Gal-thirasikaya )
360. Myophonus blighi (Holdsworth) 1872 END
BrR
( E: Sri Lanka Whistling Thrush S: Sri Lanka Uruwan-thirasikaya )
361. Zoothera wardii (Blyth) 1842
WV
( E: Pied Thrush S: Gomara Thirasikaya )
362. Zoothera citrina (Latham) 1790
WV
( E: Orange-headed Thrush S: Hisaran Thirasikaya )
363. Zoothera spiloptera (Blyth) 1847 END
BrR
( E: Sri Lanka Spot-winged Thrush S: Sri Lanka Thithpiya Thirasikaya )
364. Zoothera dauma (Latham) 1790
BrR
( E: Scaly Thrush S: Kayuru Thirasikaya )
365. Turdus merula Linnaeus 1758
BrR
( E: Eurasian Blackbird S: Urasia Kalu Bimsariya )
366. Turdus obscurus Gmelin 1789
WV
( E: Eyebrowed Thrush S; Ahibami Bimsariya )
367. Muscicapa striata (Pallas) 1764
WVa
( E: Spotted Flycatcher S: Pulli Masimara)
368. Muscicapa daurica Pallas 1811
WV
( E: Asian Brown Flycatcher S: Asia Bora Masimara )
WV
369. Muscicapa muttui (Layard, EL) 1854
( E: Brown-breasted Flycatcher S: Layabora Masimara )
370. Ficedula zanthopygia (Hay) 1845
WVa
( E: Yellow-rumped Flycatcher S: Nithamba-kaha Rath-masimara )
371. Ficedula parva (Bechstein) 1792
Va
( E: Red-throated Flycatcher S: Rathu-gela Rath-masimara )
372. Ficedula subrubra (Hartert & Steinbacher) 1934
WV
( E: Kashmir Flycatcher S: Kashmira Rath-masimara )
373. Ficedula tricolor (Hodgson) 1845
WVa
( E: Slaty-blue Flycatcher S: Neelawan Rath-masimara)
374. Ficedula nigrorufa (Jerdon) 1839
WVa
( E: Black-and-Orange Flycatcher S: Kalu-thambili Rath-masimara )
375. Eumyias sordida (Walden) 1870 END
BrR
( E: Sri Lanka Dull Blue Flycatcher S: Sri Lanka Neelan-masimara )
L1 g
L1 w g
L1 w g
L1 w g
L1 w g
L1 g 13
L1 w g
L2
L3
L1 g
L1 w g t
L3
L3
L1 w
L3
L2
L1 w g
12
Rasmussen and Anderton 2005
-
Tephrodornis pondicerianus affinis upgraded to endemic species level as Tephrodornis affinis
under “taxonomy dependent”
13
Rasmussen and Anderton 2005
-
Zoothera dauma imbricata upgraded to endemic species level Zoothera imbricata, under
“taxonomy dependent”
197
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
376. Cyornis pallipes (Jerdon) 1840
( E: White-bellied Blue Flycatcher S: Sudu-udara Nil-masimara )
377. Cyornis rubeculoides (Vigors) 1831
( E: Blue-throated Flycatcher S: Neelagela Nil-masimara )
378. Cyornis banyumas (Horsfield) 1821
( E: Hill Blue Flycatcher S: Kandukara-neela Nil-masimara )
379. Cyornis tickelliae Blyth 1843
( E: Tickell’s Blue Flycatcher S: Tickel Nil-masimara )
380. Culicicapa ceylonensis (Swainson) 1820
( E: Grey-headed Canary Flycatcher S: Aluhis Kaha-masimara )
381. Luscinia svecica (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Bluethroat S: Nilgela Sitikichcha )
382. Luscinia brunnea (Hodgson) 1837
( E: Indian Blue Robin S: Indu Nil Sitikichcha )
383. Cercotrichas galactotes (Temminck) 1820
( E: Rufous-tailed Scrub Robin S: Rathpenda Chatasikaya )
384. Copsychus saularis (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Oriental Magpie Robin S: Polkichcha )
385. Copsychus malabaricus (Scopoli) 1786
( E: White-rumped Shama S: Wana Polkichcha )
386. Saxicoloides fulicata (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Indian Robin S: Indu Kalukichcha )
387. Saxicola caprata (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Pied Bushchat S: Gomara Sitibichcha )
388. Oenanthe pleschanka (Lepechin) 1770
( E: Pied Wheatear S: Gomara Kateesithaya )
389. Oenanthe deserti (Temminck) 1825
( E: Desert Wheatear S; Kathara Kateesithaya )
390. Oenanthe isabellina (Temminck) 1829
( E: Isabelline Wheatear S: Isabelline Kateesithaya )
WVa L3
WV L1 g
WVa L3
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
WV L1 g t p
WV L1 w g
WVa L2
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w
BrR L1 w
BrR L1 w g
WVa L3
WVa L3
WVa L3
STURNIDAE
391. Sturnus albofrontatus END
BrR
( E: Sri Lanka White-faced Starling S: Sri Lanka Wathasudu Sharikawa )
392. Sturnus malabaricus (Gmelin) 1789
WVa
( E: Chestnut-tailed Starling S: Thambala penda Sharikawa )
393. Sturnus pagodarum (Gmelin) 1789
BrR
( E: Brahminy Starling S: Bamunu Sharikawa )
394. Sturnus sturninus (Pallas) 1776
WVa
( E: Purple-backed Starling S: Dampita Sharikawa)
395. Sturnus roseus (Linnaeus) 1758
WV
( E: Rosy Starling S: Rosa Sharikawa )
198
L1g
L3
L1 w g
L3
L1 g
Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
396. Sturnus contra Linnaeus 1758
( E: Asian Pied Starling S: Asia Gomara Sharikawa)
397. Acridotheres tristis (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Common Myna S: Mayna )
398. Gracula ptilogenys Blyth 1846 END
( E: Sri Lanka Myna S: Sri Lanka Salalihiniya )
399. Gracula religiosa Linnaeus 1758
( E: Hill Myna S: Salalihiniya )
WVa L3
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
SITTIDAE
400. Sitta frontalis Swainson 1820
( E: Velvet-fronted Nuthatch S: Villuda Nalal Yatikuriththa )
BrR L1 w g
PARIDAE
401. Parus major Linnaeus 1758
( E: Great Tit S: Maha Tikiriththa )
BrR L1 w g
HIRUNDINIDAE
402. Riparia riparia (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Sand Martin S: Karapati Ivurilihiniya )
403. Hirundo fuligula Lichtenstein 1842
( E: Rock Martin S: Gal Wahilihiniya )
404. Hirundo concolor Sykes 1832
( E: Dusky Crag Martin S: Anduru Wahilihiniya )
405. Hirundo rustica Linnaeus 1758
( E: Barn Swallow S: Atu Wahilihiniya )
406. Hirundo tahitica Gmelin 1789
( E: Pacific Swallow S: Sethkara Wahilihiniya )
407. Hirundo smithii Leach 1818
( E: Wire-tailed Swallow S: Kurupenda Wahilihiniya )
408. Hirundo daurica Linnaeus 1771
( E: Red-rumped Swallow S: Nithamba rathu Wahilihiniya )
409. Hirundo fluvicola Blyth 1855
( E: Streak-throated Swallow S: Irigela Wahilihiniya )
PYCNONOTIDAE
410. Pycnonotus melanicterus (Gmelin) 1789
( E: Black-crested Bulbul S: Kalu Hisasi Kondaya )
WV L2
WVa L3
WV L2
BrR L1 w g p
BrR L1 g
WVa L3
BrR L1 w g 14
WVa L3
BrR L1 w g 15
14
Rasmussen and Anderton 2005
-
Hirundo daurica hyperythra upgraded to endemic species level as Hirundo hyperythra, under
“taxonomy dependent”. Both Hirundo hyperythra and Hirundo daurica occur in Sri Lanka.
15
Rasmussen and Anderton 2005
-
Pycnonotus melenecturus melenecturus upgraded as an endemic species Pycnonotus
melenicturus under “taxonomy depemdent”
199
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
411. Pycnonotus cafer (Linnaeus) 1766
BrR
( E: Red-vented Bulbul S: Kondaya )
412. Pycnonotus penicillatus Blyth 1851 END
BrR
( E: Sri Lanka Yellow-eared Bulbul S: Sri Lanka Kahakan Kondaya )
413. Pycnonotus luteolus (Lesson) 1841
BrR
( E: White-browed Bulbul S: Bamasudu Kondaya )
414. Iole indica (Jerdon) 1839
BrR
( E: Yellow-browed Bulbul S: Bamakaha Guluguduwa )
415. Hypsipetes leucocephalus (Gmelin) 1789
rR
( E: Black Bulbul S: Kalu-kondaya )
CISTICOLIDAE
416. Cisticola juncidis (Rafinesque) 1810
( E: Zitting Cisticola S: Iri Pawansariya )
417. Prinia rufescens Blyth 1847
( E: Rufescent Prinia S: Rath Priniya )
418. Prinia hodgsonii Blyth 1844
( E: Grey-breasted Prinia S: Laya-alu Priniya )
419. Prinia sylvatica Jerdon 1840
( E: Jungle Prinia S: Wana Priniya )
420. Prinia socialis Sykes 1832
( E: Ashy Prinia S: Alu Priniya )
421. Prinia inornata Sykes 1832
( E: Plain Prinia S: Sarala Priniya )
ZOSTEROPIDAE
422. Zosterops ceylonensis Holdsworth 1872 END
( E: Sri Lanka White-eye S: Sri Lanka Sithasiya )
423. Zosterops palpebrosus (Temminck) 1824
( E: Oriental White-eye S: Peradigu Sithasiya )
SYLVIIDAE
424. Cettia pallidipes (Blanford) 1872
( E: Pale-footed Bush Warbler S: Lapaya Pandururaviya )
425. Bradypterus palliseri (Blyth) 1851 END
( E: Sri Lanka Bush Warbler S: Sri Lanka Wanaraviya )
426. Locustella lanceolata (Temminck) 1840
( E: Lanceolated Warbler S: Lansa Piliraviya )
427. Locustella naevia (Boddaert) 1783
( E: Grasshopper Warbler S: Palangati Piliraviya )
428. Locustella certhiola (Pallas) 1811
( E: Rusty-rumped Warbler S; Nithamba Rathbora Piliraviya )
200
L1 w g
L1 w g
L1 w g
L1 w g
L1 w g
BrR L1 w
WVa L3
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR
L1 w g
WVa L3
BrR L1 w g
WVa L3
WVa L3
WVa L1 p
Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
429. Acrocephalus dumetorum Blyth 1849
WV L1 g
( E: Blyth’s Reed Warbler S: Blyths Panraviya )
430. Acrocephalus stentoreus (Hemprich & Ehrenberg) 1833
BrR/UWV L1 w g t p
( E: Clamorous Reed Warbler S: Gosa Panraviya )
431. Hippolais caligata (Lichtenstein) 1823
WV L1 w g t 16
( E: Booted Warbler S: Kesarupa Rukraviya )
432. Orthotomus sutorius (Pennant) 1769
BrR L1 w g
( E: Common Tailorbird S: Battichcha )
433. Phylloscopus fuscatus (Blyth) 1842
WVa L3
( E: Dusky Warbler S: Anduru Gassraviya )
434. Phylloscopus trochiloides (Sundevall) 1837
WV L1 w g 17
( E: Greenish Warbler S: Kola Gassraviya )
435. Phylloscopus magnirostris (Blyth) 1843
WV L1 w g
( E: Large-billed Leaf Warbler S: Mathusu Gassraviya )
436. Seicercus burkii (Burton) 1836
WVa L3
( E: Golden-spectacled Warbler S: Ran Upasraviya )
437. Schoenicola platyura (Jerdon) 1844
WVa L2 w g t p
( E: Broad-tailed Grassbird S: Mapenda Thanaraviya )
438. Garrulax cinereifrons Blyth 1851 END
BrR L1 g
( E: Sri Lanka Ashy-headed Laughing –thrush S; Sri Lanka Alu-demalichcha)
439. Pellorneum fuscocapillum (Blyth) 1849 END
BrR L1 w g t
( E: Sri Lanka Brown-capped Babbler S: Sri Lanka Boraga-demalichcha)
440. Pomatorhinus horsfieldii Sykes 1832
BrR L1 w g 18
( E: Scimitar Babbler S: Da-demalichcha )
BrR L1 w g
441. Dumetia hyperythra (Franklin) 1831
( E: Tawny-bellied Babbler S: Kusakaha Landu-demalichcha )
442. Rhopocichla atriceps (Jerdon) 1839
BrR L1 w g
( E: Dark-fronted Babbler S: Wathanduru Panduru-demalichcha)
443. Chrysomma sinense (Gmelin) 1789
BrR L1 w g
( E: Yellow-eyed Babbler S: Nethkaha Thana-demalichcha )
444. Turdoides rufescens (Blyth) 1847 END
BrR L1 w g
( E: Sri Lanka Orange-billed Babbler S: Sri Lanka Rathu Demalichcha )
445. Turdoides affinis (Jerdon) 1845
BrR L1 w g
( E: Yellow-billed Babbler S: Demalichcha )
446. Sylvia curruca (Linnaeus) 1758
WV L1 w t 19
( E: Lesser Whitethroat S: Heen Gelasudu Rusiraviya )
16
Rasmussen and Anderton 2005
-
Hippolais caligata rama upgraded to species level Hippolais rama. Hippolais caligata and
Hippolais rama both occur in Sri Lanka.
17
Rasmussen and Anderton 2005
-
Phylloscopus trochiloides nitidus upgraded to species level Pylloscopus nitidus, both species
Phylloscopu trociloides and Phylloscopus nitidus occur in Sri Lanka
18
Rasmussen and Anderton 2005
-
Pomatorhinus schisticeps horsfieldii upgraded to endemic species level Pomatorhinus
horsfieldii, under “taxonomy dependent”
19
Rasmussen and Anderton 2005
-
Sylvia curruca althaea upgraded to Sylvia althaea species level. Both Sylvia curruca
halimodendri and Sylvia althaea occur in Sri Lanka
201
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
ALAUDIDAE
447. Mirafra assamica Horsfield 1840
BrR L1 w g
( E: Rufous-winged Bushlark S: Rathpiya Akul-thulikawa )
448. Eremopterix grisea (Scopoli) 1786
BrR L1 w g
( E: Ashy-crowned Sparrow Lark S: Kirulalu Gekurulu-thulikawa )
449. Alauda gulgula Franklin 1831
BrR L1 w g
( E: Oriental Skylark S: Peradigu Ahas Thulikawa)
NECTARINIIDAE
450. Dicaeum agile (Tickell) 1833
( E: Thick-billed Flowerpecker S: Mathudu Pililichcha )
451. Dicaeum vincens (Sclater, PL) 1872 END
( E: Sri Lanka Legge’s Flowerpecker S: Sri Lanka Pililichcha )
452. Dicaeum erythrorhynchos (Latham) 1790
( E: Pale-billed Flowerpecker S: Lathudu Pililichcha )
453. Nectarina zeylonica (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Purple-rumped Sunbird S: Nithamba Dam Sutikka )
454. Nectarina minima (Sykes) 1832
( E: Crimson-backed Sunbird S: Rathpita Sutikka )
455. Nectarina asiatica (Latham) 1790
( E: Purple Sunbird S: Dam Sutikka )
456. Nectarina lotenia (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Loten’s Sunbird S: Lotenge Sutikka )
PASSERIDAE
457. Passer domesticus (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: House Sparrow S: Gekurulla )
458. Petronia xanthocollis (Burton) 1838
( E: Chestnut-shouldered Petronia S: Pingu-uris Kuruliththa )
459. Dendronanthus indicus (Gmelin) 1789
( E: Forest Wagtail S: Wana-halapenda )
460. Motacilla alba Linnaeus 1758
( E: White Wagtail S: Sudu Halapenda )
461. Motacilla maderaspatensis Gmelin 1789
( E: White-browed Wagtail S: Gomara Halapenda )
462. Motacilla citreola Pallas 1776
( E: Citine Wagtail S: Kaha-his Halapenda )
463. Motacilla flava Linnaeus 1758
( E: Yellow Wagtail S: Kaha Halapenda )
464. Motacilla cinerea Tunstall 1771
( E: Grey Wagtail S: Alu Halapenda )
465. Anthus richardi Vieillot 1818
( E: Richard’s Pipit S: Richard Varatichcha )
202
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
SU
L3
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w
WVa L2 t p
WV L1 g
WV L1 w g p
WV L1 w g p
WVa L3
WV L1 g
WV L1 w g
WV L1 w g
Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka
466. Anthus rufulus Vieillot 1818
( E: Paddyfield Pipit S: Keth Varatichcha )
467. Anthus campestris (Linnaeus) 1758
( E:Tawny Pipit S: Thani Varatichcha)
468. Anthus godlewskii Taczanowski 1876
( E: Blyth’s Pipit S: Blyth Varatichcha )
469. Anthus hodgsoni Richmond 1907
( E: Olive-backed Pipit S: Olivepita Varatichcha )
470. Anthus cervinus (Pallas) 1811
( E:Red-throated Pipit S: Rathgela Varatichcha)
471. Ploceus manyar (Horsfield) 1821
( E: Streaked Weaver S: Pan Wadukurulla )
472. Ploceus philippinus (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Baya Weaver S: Ruk Wadukurulla )
473. Amandava amandava (Linnaeus) 1758
(E: Red Avandavat S; Rathu Amnadavatha)
474. Lonchura malabarica (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Silverbill S: Sarala Weekurulla )
475. Lonchura striata (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: White-rumped Munia S: Nithamba Sudu Weekurulla )
476. Lonchura kelaarti (Jerdon) 1863
( E: Black-throated Munia S: Gelakalu Weekurulla )
477. Lonchura punctulata (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Scaly-breasted Munia S: Laya Kayuru Weekurulla )
478. Lonchura malacca (Linnaeus) 1766
( E: Black-headed Munia S: Hisakalu Weekurulla )
479. Lonchura oryzivora (Linnaeus) 1758
( E: Java Sparrow S: Ja Weekurulla )
FRINGILIDAE
480. Carpodacus erythrinus (Pallas) 1770
( E : Common Rosefinch S: Podu Rosa Pincha)
481. Emberiza melanocephala Scopoli 1769
( E: Black-headed Bunting S: Kalu hisa Buntiya)
482. Emberiza bruniceps Brandt 1841
(E: Red-headed Bunting S: Rathu hisa Buntiya)
BrR L1 w g
WVa L3
WV L1 w g p
WVa L3
WVa L3
BrR L1 g
BrR L1 w g
SU
L2 g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
BrR L1 w g
SU
L2 g
WVa L3
WVa L3
WVa L3
203
The
T
HE F
Fauna
AUNA OFofSRI
SriLANKA
Lanka
(2006):
(2006)
204-215
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Status of Waterfowl in Sri Lanka
Deepal Warakagoda and Udaya Sirivardana
Ceylon Bird Club, 39, Chatham Street, Colombo 1
Abstract
Based on the annual waterbird census conducted by the Ceylon Bird Club, approximately 155
species belonging to 21 families have been identified in Sri Lanka. These birds reside in a wide
variety of wetlands ranging from sea level to c. 1,900m, with a large concentration found in the
coastal and inland wetlands of the dry zone. Over the past century researches have documented
significant changes to the actual and known status of several species. The continued survival of
waterbirds is largely dependent on the maintenance of wetlands which provide the habitat niche. The
paper also highlights the spatial and temporal trends of waterbird populations in Sri Lanka.
Keywords: Waterbirds, Wetlands, Conservation, Distribution
Background
Today the word ‘waterbirds’ has generally replaced ‘waterfowl’ used in the title above provided by IUCN.
The Ramsar Convention defines ‘waterbirds’ as birds ‘ecologically dependent upon wetlands’. Wetlands
International (WI) uses a more precise working definition, viz., all species in 33 Families which are stated
(WI 2002). Among these the 21 Families listed below are represented in Sri Lanka (Henry 1998). In
general use today ‘waterbirds’ approximates to but does not exactly match this definition, referring to a
few species not in the stated Families and leaving
out a few species that are in them.
A large part of the information in this paper is
derived from the annual waterbird census in Sri
Lanka conducted in January-February during the
northern winter migrant season. This has been
carried out every year since 1983 to date except
one, by the Ceylon Bird Club (CBC) in association
with WI and its predecessor. The data from this
have been published in Hoffmann (1983 to 1998),
Gunawardena (1999 to 2001), Sirivardana (2002,
2003a), and in further detail in a series of books by
WI on the waterbird census in Asia from 1986 to
2001 including Li & Mundkur (2004).
As shown in Fig. 1, the island is divided into 10
regions for the census, demarcated for ecological
or logistical reasons (Hoffmann 1992b). Eight lie
along the coast and one is near the coast. The rest
of the island is treated as one region because the
number of waterbirds it yields is low.
Figure 1: Areas of high waterbird density and
regions for the annual census
204
The armed conflict has prevented the census in
1985 and coverage of certain areas in other years.
A few rich sites have been excluded in many years
for this reason. Most of the rich Jaffna region,
though much affected, has been covered nearly
every year.
Warakagoda & Sirivardana: Status of Waterfowl in Sri Lanka
Even if not for this limitation, the data from the census cannot be regarded as a perfect representation of
the numbers of the various taxa of waterbirds in Sri Lanka at the time it is taken. Several factors can
significantly affect the figures in a waterbird census. Four of these are: the extent of coverage of each
region and site, weather conditions, movements of birds among sites, and the degree of visibility of the
birds being sought. To expand on the last factor, rails and crakes (Family Rallidae), for example, are very
elusive, hence greatly under-represented in the count; in this example, though, even the actual numbers are
generally low.
The data from the census are extremely valuable but not the only source for information in this paper. The
authors draw on wider experience in sightings and observations and other knowledge, their own and that
available in Henry (1998) and Ceylon Bird Club Notes (1943 to 2004).
Waterbirds in Sri Lanka
As at April 2004 a total of 441 species of birds have been recorded in Sri Lanka by the CBC, which
maintains the ornithological data and checklists for the country (Wijesinghe 1994; Ceylon Bird Club Notes
1998: 53, 59; 2004: 109). Following the definition of WI, 155, or 35%, of these species are waterbirds. The
Appendix gives a complete and annotated list of waterbird species in Sri Lanka.
202 species of birds are migrants to the island, arriving as winter sets in at their breeding grounds and
flying back as it ends. The great majority are from northern latitudes, visiting during winter in the northern
hemisphere, while a small number of pelagic species visit from southern regions during their winter. Of the
migrant species 92, or 46%, are waterbirds.
Waterbirds,
migrant
92
Figure 2: Species diversity correlations of resident,
migrant and wetland birds in Sri Lanka
Waterbirds recorded in Sri Lanka belong to the
following families: Podicipedidae (grebes),
Phalacrocoracidae (cormorants), Anhingidae
(darters), Pelecanidae (pelicans), Ardeidae
(herons, egrets), Ciconiidae (storks),
Threskiornithidae (ibises, spoonbills),
Phoenicopteridae (flamingos), Anatidae
(ducks), Rallidae (rails, crakes, coots),
Jacanidae (jacanas), Rostratulidae (paintedsnipes), Haematopodidae (oystercatchers),
Recurvirostridae (stilts, avocets), Dromadidae
(Crab Plover), Burhinidae (stone-curlews,
stone-plovers), Glareolidae (coursers,
pratincoles), Charadriidae (plovers, lapwings),
Scolopacidae (stints, sandpipers, etc), Laridae
(gulls) and Sternidae (terns) (Henry 1998).
In statistics from the census the Families are grouped as shown in Table 1. The words ‘shorebirds’ or
‘waders’ are used for all species in the Families Rostratulidae to Scolopacidae in the list above. The census
figures over the 10 years 1994 to 2003 show that the most numerous waterbirds in Sri Lanka are ducks
and shorebirds. (See Table 1 and Fig. 3). The majority of these belong to gregarious migrant species.
205
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Table 1 and Figure 3: Composition by bird groups in census statistics for the ten years 1994 to 2003.
‘Raptors’ refers to species of raptors associated with wetlands.
General distribution and habitats
Waterbirds inhabit a wide variety of wetlands throughout Sri Lanka from sea level to c. 1,900 m. Large
concentrations are found in the coastal and inland wetlands of the dry zone: (See Fig. 1). The crosshatching on the map shows the richest areas. Much useful information on waterbird habitats in the country
including detailed lists of wetlands is presented by Scott (1989) and Hoffmann (1982, 1993b).
Table 2 and Fig. 4 reflect the predominance in numbers along and near the coastal areas. Among these
their preference is clearly seen for sites less populated and altered by humans, with the exception of
salterns. The coastal systems favoured in Sri Lanka by waterbirds are lagoons, marshes, estuaries,
mangroves, the seashore, islets in the sea, sand and mud flats, and salterns. Large numbers of birds in
these habitats belong to Families Anatidae, Charadriidae, Scolopacidae, Laridae and Sternidae. Locally
numerous at these sites are species in Ardeidae, Ciconiidae, Threskiornithidae and Phoenicopteridae. Most
of the coastal waterbird species, including all the forms found in large numbers, are migrants.
The favoured systems inland are paddy fields and marshes, reservoirs and their associated wetlands.
Waterbirds inland are much less numerous. Large populations, however, are seen of species in
206
Warakagoda & Sirivardana: Status of Waterfowl in Sri Lanka
Phalacrocoracidae and Ardeidae. Locally common are species in Anatidae, Rallidae and Ciconiidae. A
number of species in Rallidae are of a retiring nature, and hence the figures in the census and other records
of inland birds tend to under-represent their already relatively low populations and their species diversity.
Most of the inland species are residents.
Table 2: Waterbird census, 2003: groups of waterbirds by region
Table 2 is part of the last full set of data published of a census and relates to 2003 (Sirivardana 2003a).
The records of the CBC for the 2002-2003 migrant season within and out of the period of this count
demonstrate a deficiency in such censuses explained by the factors listed earlier. In September 2002 a
concentration of 80-100,000 waders was seen in the Batticaloa area (Gunawardena & Wikramanayake
2002), but the total number of waders counted in Sri Lanka during the census (as the table shows) is c.
27,000, although the area in question was covered well.
Figure 4: Distribution of waterbirds among regions, from census data, 1993 to 2004
207
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Temporal trends in populations
Instances of changes in the populations of certain species are given in the section on ‘Changes in Status’
below. Other than these no significant long-term trends of changes in numbers have been noted in a
species or the total of waterbirds counted in the census. This is illustrated by Figs. 5 and 6. The variations
seen in these are explained by the factors listed in the section on ‘Background’ above. There has been no
large fluctuation noted in the numbers of any common migrant waterbird species from year to year, as has
been observed in a few other common migrant species.
Figure 5: Variations in total number of waterbirds in census, 1983 - 2004.
Figure 6: Variations in totals of selected groups of waterbirds in census.
208
Warakagoda & Sirivardana: Status of Waterfowl in Sri Lanka
Species ‘globally threatened’ according to IUCN
In the IUCN 2004 global red list (IUCN 2004) among ‘globally threatened’ waterbirds in the ‘Critically
endangered’ category is one species found in Sri Lanka, the Sociable Plover Vanellus gregarius. In the
last half-century the only records of it in the island have been a large flock in 1960, one bird in 1962 and a
flock of 12 in 1972 (Henry 1998). The ‘Endangered’ category also holds one species for Sri Lanka, the
Spoon-billed Sandpiper Eurynorhynchus pygmeus. It has been recorded in the island only once, in 1978
(Henry 1998).
The ‘Vulnerable’ category lists three waterbird species pertinent to Sri Lanka.
z
The Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanus philippensis occurs in South and South-East Asia and is reckoned
to total 12-15,000 in its range (Wetlands Inernational: in press). The authors estimate its population in
Sri Lanka at over 3,000. This appears to be increasing over the long term. From records it is wholly
resident. A major nesting colony in Ruhuna East National Park was destroyed when the Park was
abandoned during the armed conflict but is regenerating well, according to an official of the
Department of Wildlife Conservation who has been familiar with the area across several decades
(Perera S 2004: pers. comm.). The Lesser Adjutant Leptoptilos javanicus breeds in Sri Lanka, the
rest of South Asia, and South-East Asia. Its world population is estimated at c. 5,000 (WI: in press).
In the island it is recorded only in very small numbers except when congregating for water in drought
(Ceylon Bird Club Notes 1943 to 2004). The population in Sri Lanka of each of these two species
appears to be stable.
z
The Wood Snipe Gallinago nemoricola had been reported in Sri Lanka when snipe shooting was
prevalent in the island but there is no definite record (Henry 1998).
In the ‘Near Threatened’ category are six species of waterbirds in Sri Lanka.
z
The Black-necked Stork Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus has a very small population in the island,
estimated by the authors as 10-15. This appears to be stable, as for many decades about six birds in
total have been regularly seen in Ruhuna and Ruhuna East National Parks, and young birds are noted
there from time to time (Ceylon Bird Club Notes 1965 to 2004).
z
The Indian Darter Anhinga melanogaster, Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala and White Ibis
Threskiornis melanocephalus have stable resident populations with quite satisfactory numbers
(Hoffmann 1983 to 1998; Gunawardena 1999 to 2001; Sirivardana 2002, 2003a).
z
The Great Snipe Gallinago media has been recorded very few times in the island and the Asiatic
Dowitcher Limnodromus semipalmatus twice (Henry 1998; Ceylon Bird Club Notes 2002: 215).
Changes in status
There have been significant changes in the actual or known status of several species of waterbird during
the past half-century.
The Common Tern Sterna hirundo and Bridled Tern Sterna anaethetus were considered migrants, the
latter offshore on passage, until 1980 and 2003 respectively. The two species were then found to breed on
islands in the sea off Sri Lanka, the former by the east, and subsequently north-west, coasts and the latter
north-west (Hoffmann 1980; Perera L 2003). Until very recently the Spot-billed Duck Anas
poecilorhyncha was a very rare migrant in Sri Lanka. In 2003 it was found to be established as a breeding
resident, in the north-west and north of the island, where the armed conflict has restricted access by
observers (Sirivardana et al. 2003; Gunawardena et al. 2003).
Until very recently the Common Coot Fulica atra was recorded as a scarce breeding resident and only in
northern areas of the island. There has now been a great increase in the number of birds and of sites
where it is noted, a few 1,000s of birds being observed during migrant seasons and a few 100s with young
at other times of year. (Ceylon Bird Club Notes 1943 to 2004; Sirivardana 2003b).
209
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
The two migrant species Wigeon Anas penelope and Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa were very rarely
recorded in Sri Lanka until a few decades ago. Since then during most seasons they have been recorded in
the 1,000s (Ceylon Bird Club Notes 1943 to 2004).
The Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus and Comb Duck Sarkidiornis melanotos are recorded as having
been breeding residents in Sri Lanka. About a century ago they became extinct in the island. They have
reappeared as migrants, scarce and rare respectively (Henry 1998; Bavinck 2002, 2003; Prasad 2003).
Conservation of waterbirds
The habitat niches of waterbirds are provided by wetlands, and the protection of these is essential for their
survival. Wetlands in Sri Lanka are of a special importance in being the final destination each year for tens
of thousands of migrant birds flying southward along the broad Central-South Asia ‘flyway’. Conversely,
waterbirds form a chief part of the ecology of wetland ecosystems, hence the conservation of waterbirds
is essential for the continuance of wetlands. Waterbirds are an important measure of the health of a
wetland system, for their presence is an indicator of food availability and habitat conditions.
Several wetlands in the island are Protected Areas, for example the Kalametiya, Anavilundawa and
Chundikkulam Santuaries. Several are within Protected Areas such as the Bundala, Ruhuna, Ruhuna East
and Maduru Oya National Parks.
Wetlands throughout the island constantly face threats, among which are filling, other transformations by
humans, pollution, alteration of water level, loss of nesting sites, hunting (despite a total ban) and raiding of
heronries. Many wetlands have already been destroyed or badly damaged. Threats and harm in recent
years have been described in detail, and remedies suggested, by many parties, e.g. by the CBC in its journal
(Ceylon Bird Club Notes 1995 to 2004) and by the CBC and other bodies in other media (Hoffmann 1995,
1996, 1998; Warakagoda & Gunawardana 1999; Gunawardena 1999 to 2001; Sirivardana 2002, 2003a).
The CBC has taken by far the leading role in providing authentic information and applying effective
persuasion to Governments to afford Protected and Ramsar Site status to such sites.
A case of current relevance is the lagoon Karagan Lewaya, a prime site for waterbirds in the south-east
of Sri Lanka. In the past several years a larger area which includes this site has been the subject of
proposals by the State for development in various forms, the most recent being a harbour, by which it would
be lost to the birds. The data compiled for the site in the recently conducted census for 2004 included, as
conservative estimates: c. 15,000 Pintail Anas acuta, 8,000 Garganey Anas querquedula, 10,000 Curlew
Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea, 8,000 Little Stint Calidris minuta, 8,000 Marsh Sandpiper Tringa
stagnatilis, 3,500 Lesser Sand Plover Charadrius mongolus and 200 Kentish Plover Charadrius
alexandrinus. (Seneviratne et al. 2004). It is a prime feeding site in the south-east for Greater Flamingo
Phoenicopterus ruber during their stay in Sri Lanka.
Hoffmann (1998) proposes thirteen more Ramsar Sites listed in order of importance. The first, Kalametiya
has only suffered further. Anavilundava was declared but then faced human-caused problems now being
addressed by the authorities. Listed next are the Mannar mainland, the Sri Lankan side of Adam’s Bridge,
and Giant’s Tank. The next seven sites are in the Jaffna region, and the last on the east coast. The present
lessening of the armed conflict allows meaningful work to begin on these.
The site which the CBC at present considers to be of the highest priority for receiving Protected Area
status and effective protection is the ‘Vankalai Triangle’ in the Mannar area. (Gunawardena et al. 2003;
Warakagoda & Sirivardana 2003; Sirivardana 2003b). It qualifies for Ramsar Site status and this too is
urged. A preliminary proposal has been submitted to the Department of Wildlife Conservation by the club.
Presently receiving the club’s attention for similar proposal is Navadankulama Tank in the North Western
Province.
210
Warakagoda & Sirivardana: Status of Waterfowl in Sri Lanka
Acknowledgements
We thank Dr Channa Bambaradeniya for suggesting re-arrangements and additions which have improved
this paper, and Mr Sarath Seneviratne for help in referring to several issues of the Ceylon Bird Club Notes.
References
Bavinck C B (2002, 2003) In: Ceylon Bird Club Notes. 2002: 64, 2003: 32
Ceylon Bird Club Notes (1943 to 2004) [Monthly]
Gunawardena K (1999 to 2001) The [current year in numerals] Waterbird Census in Sri Lanka. Loris
Gunawardena K & Wikramanayake T (2002) In: Ceylon Bird Club Notes: 184
Gunawardena K, Sirivardana U & Warakagoda D (2003) In: Ceylon Bird Club Notes: 36-39
Henry G M (1998) A Guide to the Birds of Sri Lanka. Third edition, revised by T W Hoffmann, D
Warakagoda & U Ekanayake. KVG de Silva and Sons (Kandy) & Oxford University Press
Hoffmann T W (1980) In: Ceylon Bird Club Notes: 27
Hoffmann T W (1982) Provisional Inventory of Wetlands In Sri Lanka. Loris December 1982
Hoffmann T W (1983 to 1998) [Title denoting report of annual waterfowl census for current year]. Loris
[Twice-yearly]
Hoffmann T W (1992b) Detailed map of main wetland sector with description of sites Ceylon Bird Club
Notes [Four maps: pp. 89, 99, 103, 109]
Hoffmann T W (1993b) Wetland Birds in Sri Lanka. Proceedings of the Conference of the Ecology of
Freshwaters in Sri Lanka
Hoffmann T W (1998) More Ramsar Sites Needed. Loris June 1998
IUCN (2004) 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN Species Survival Commission
Li Z W D & Mundkur T (2004) Numbers and Distribution of Waterbirds and Wetlands in the Asia-Pacific
Region. Results of the Asian Waterbird Census 1997-2001 Wetlands International
Perera L (2003) In: Ceylon Bird Club Notes: 127
Perera, Shirley (2004) Interview with U S
Prasad W K L (2003) In: Ceylon Bird Club Notes: 89
Scott D A (1989) A Directory of Asian Wetlands IUCN
Seneviratne S, Seneviratne H & Seneviratne S (2004) In: Ceylon Bird Club Notes: 3
Sirivardana U (2002, 2003a) The [current year in numerals] Waterbird Census in Sri Lanka. Loris
Sirivardana U (2003b) Report from the Ceylon Bird Club for 2002. Loris
Sirivardana U, Wijemanne A, Kumaranayagam K & Prasad W K L (2003) In: Ceylon Bird Club Notes: 9
Warakagoda D & Gunawardana J (1999) Ceylon Bird Club Notes for 1998. Loris
Warakagoda D & Sirivardana U (2003) AWC News for the Region: Sri Lanka Newsletter of the Asian
Waterbird Census May 2003
Wetlands International (2002) Waterbird Population Estimates - Third Edition. Wetlands International
Wetlands International (in press) Waterbird Population Estimates - Fourth Edition. Wetlands
International
Wijesinghe D P (1994) Checklist of the Birds of Sri Lanka Ceylon Bird Club.
211
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Appendix 1: Waterbirds in Sri Lanka, their general distribution and abundance
Status:
R - Resident, M - Migrant
Distribution Zones:
C - Coastal, I - Inland
Abundance:
C - Common (found in fair numbers islandwide within its zone/s
L - Locally common (occurs in fair numbers locally but is rare or not well distributed elsewhere)
U - Uncommon (found in small numbers throughout its zone /s or locally)
R - Rare (occurs in the island only in very small numbers or only occasionally).
Species
Family Podicipedidae
Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis
Family Phalacrocoracidae
Little Cormorant Phalacrocorax niger
Indian Shag Phalacrocorax fuscicollis
Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo
Family Anhingidae
Indian Darter Anhinga melanogaster
Family Pelecanidae
Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanus philippensis
Family Ardeidae
Eurasian Bittern Botaurus stellaris
Yellow Bittern Ixobrychus sinensis
Chestnut Bittern Ixobrychus cinnamomeus
Black Bittern Ixobrychus flavicollis
Malay Bittern Gorsachius melanolophus
Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax
Little Green Heron Butorides striatus
Indian Pond Heron Ardeola grayii
Chinese Pond Heron Ardeola bacchus
Median Egret Ardea intermedia
Cattle Egret Ardea ibis
Grey Heron Ardea cinerea
Purple Heron Ardea purpurea
Goliath Heron Ardea goliath
Large Egret Egretta alba
Little Egret Egretta garzetta
Indian Reef Heron Egretta gularis
Family Ciconiidae
Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala
Openbill Anastomus oscitans
212
Resident/
Migrant
Zone
Abun-dance
R
I, C
C
R
R
R
I, C
I, C
I
C
C
U
R
C, I
U
R
C, I
L
M
R,M
R
R,M
M
R
R
R
M
R
R,M?
R
R
M
R
R
M
I
I, C
I
I, C
I
I, C
I, C
C, I
C, I
C, I
I, C
C, I
I, C
C?
C, I
C, I
C
R
C
U
U
R
C
U
C
R
C
C
L
C
R
C
C
R
R
R
C, I
I, C
L
C
Warakagoda & Sirivardana: Status of Waterfowl in Sri Lanka
Black Stork Ciconia nigra
White-necked Stork Ciconia episcopus
White Stork Ciconia ciconia
Black-necked Stork Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus
Lesser Adjutant Leptoptilos javanicus
Family Threskiornithidae
Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus
White Ibis Threskiornis melanocephalus
Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia
Family Phoenicopteridae
Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus ruber
Family Anatidae
Large Whistling Teal Dendrocygna bicolor
Lesser Whistling Teal Dendrocygna javanica
Greylag Goose Anser anser
Ruddy Shelduck Tadorna ferrugineaI
Comb Duck Sarkidiornis melanotos
Cotton Teal Nettapus coromandelianus
Wigeon Anas penelope
Gadwall Anas strepera
Common Teal Anas crecca
Spot-billed Duck Anas poecilorhyncha
Pintail Anas acuta
Garganey Anas querquedula
Shoveller Anas clypeata
Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula
Family Rallidae
Water Rail Rallus aquaticus
Blue-breasted Banded Rail Gallirallus striatus
Banded Crake Rallina eurizonoides
Baillon’s Crake Porzana pusilla
Ruddy Crake Porzana fusca
Corncrake Crex crex
White-breasted Waterhen Amaurornis phoenicurus
Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus
Purple Coot Porphyrio porphyrio
Watercock Gallicrex cinerea
Common Coot Fulica atra
Family Jacanidae
Pheasant-tailed Jacana Hydrophasianus chirurgus
Family Rostratulidae
Painted Snipe Rostratula benghalensis
Family Haematopodidae
Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus
M
R
M
R
R
I
I, C
C, I
C
I, C
R
U
R
R
R
M
R
R
C, I
C, I
C, I
R
L
L
M
C
L
M
R
M
M
M,R?
R
M
M
M
R,M?
M
M
M
M
I
I, C
C
C
I
I
C
C
C
C, I
C, I
C, I
C, I
I
R
C
R
R
R
U
L
R
U
R
L
L
U
R
M
R,M?
M
M
R
M
R
R
R
R
R
I
I, C
I
I
I, C
I
I, C
I, C
I, C
I, C
I, C
R
U
U
R
U
R
C
U
C
U
L
R
I, C
C
R
I, C
U
M
C
R
213
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Family Recurvirostridae
Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus
Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta
Family Dromadidae
Crab Plover Dromas ardeola
Family Burhinidae
Stone-Curlew Burhinus oedicnemus
Great Stone-Plover Esacus recurvirostris
Family Glareolidae
Indian Courser Cursorius coromandelicus
Collared Pratincole Glareola pratincola
Oriental Pratincole Glareola maldivarum
Little Pratincole Glareola lactea
Family Charadriidae
Little Ringed Plover Charadrius dubius
Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula
Kentish Plover Charadrius alexandrinus
Lesser Sand Plover Charadrius mongolus
Large Sand Plover Charadrius leschenaultii
Caspian Plover Charadrius asiaticus
Oriental Plover Charadrius veredus
Asiatic Golden Plover Pluvialis fulva
Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola
Yellow-wattled Lapwing Vanellus malabaricus
Grey-headed Lapwing Vanellus gregarius
Red-wattled Lapwing Vanellus indicus
Sociable Plover Vanellus gregarius
Family Scolopacidae
Great Knot Calidris tenuirostris
Red Knot Calidris canutus
Sanderling Calidris alba
Red-necked Stint Calidris ruficollis
Little Stint Calidris minuta
Temminck’s Stint Calidris temminckii
Long-toed Stint Calidris subminuta
Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos
Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata
Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea
Dunlin Calidris alpina
Spoon-billed Sandpiper Eurynorhynchus pygmeus
Broad-billed Sandpiper Limicola falcinellus
Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis
Ruff Philomachus pugnax
Jack Snipe Lymnocryptes minimus
214
R,M
M
C, I
C
C
R
R
C
R
R
R
C, I
C, I
U
U
R
M
R
R
C
C
I, C
C, I
R
R
L
U
R,M
M
R,M
M
M
M
M
M
M
R
M
R
M
C, I
C, I
C, I
C, I
C
C
C
C, I
C
C, I
C
I, C
C
U
R
L
C
R
R
R
L
U
U
R
C
R
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
C
C
C
C
C, I
C, I
C
I
C
C, I
C
C
C
C
C
I
R
R
U
R
C
R
R
R
R
C
R
R
U
R
U
R
Warakagoda & Sirivardana: Status of Waterfowl in Sri Lanka
Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago
Great Snipe Gallinago media
Pintail Snipe Gallinago stenura
Swinhoe’s Snipe Gallinago megala
Wood Snipe Gallinago nemoricola
Asiatic Dowitcher Limnodromus semipalmatus
Woodcock Scolopax rusticola
Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa
Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus
Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata
Spotted Redshank Tringa erythropus
Common Redshank Tringa totanus
Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis
Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia
Green Sandpiper Tringa ochropus
Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola
Terek Sandpiper Xenus cinereus
Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos
Turnstone Arenaria interpres
Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus
Family Laridae
Sooty Gull Larus hemprichii
Great Black-headed Gull Larus ichthyaetus
Common Black-headed Gull Larus ridibundus
Brown-headed Gull Larus brunnicephalus
Slender-billed Gull Larus genei
Heuglin’s Gull Larus fuscus
Yellow-legged Gull Larus cachinnans
Family Sternidae
Gull-billed Tern Sterna nilotica
Caspian Tern Sterna caspia
Large Crested Tern Sterna bergii
Lesser Crested Tern Sterna bengalensis
Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis
Black-naped Tern Sterna sumatrana
Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii
Common Tern Sterna hirundo
Bridled Tern Sterna anaethetus
Little Tern Sterna albifrons
Saunders’s Tern Sterna saundersi
Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybridus
Black Tern Chlidonias niger
White-winged Black Tern Chlidonias leucopterus
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
I, C
C, I
I, C
I
I
C
I
C, I
C
C
C
C
C, I
C, I
C, I
I, C
C, I
C
C, I
C
C
R
R
C
R
R
R
R
C
R
U
U
R
C
C
U
R
U
R
U
U
R
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
R
L
R
L
R
L
R
M,R
R,M
R
M
M
M
R
M,R
M,R
R
R
M
M
M
C, I
C, I
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C, I
C
C, I
C
C, I
L
L
L
L
R
R
U
L
R*
L
R
C
R
L
* Common passage migrant off coast
215
The
T
HE F
Fauna
AUNA OFofSRI
SriLANKA
Lanka
(2006):
(2006)
216-231
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Taxonomic Status of the Mammals of Sri Lanka
D. K. Weerakoon and W. L. D. P. T. S. de A. Goonatilake
Department of Zoology, University of Colombo, Colombo 3
Abstract
According to literature, there are 91 species of indigenous mammals in Sri Lanka, of which 16
species are endemic to the island. Another 12 species have been introduced to Sri Lanka, of which
four species, namely Bubalis bubalis, Equus caballus, Equus asinus and Rattus norvegicus have
well established feral populations. In addition 26 species of marine mammals have been recorded
from the maritime zone of Sri Lanka. The paper highlights the issues and research gaps related to
the taxonomy of mammals in Sri Lanka.
Key words: Mammals, Taxonomy, Research gaps, Conservation
Introduction
Many authors have reviewed the taxonomic status of the mammals of Sri Lanka. Some of these reviews
were on a local scale while others are on a regional scale. Although a number of mammals were described
prior to the mid nineteenth century, the first systematic account of the mammals of Sri Lanka was given by
Kelaart (1851). Thereafter, Phillips (1935) wrote an extensive review of the mammals of Sri Lanka which,
even though somewhat outdated in terms of information remains the standard reference work for the
mammals of Sri Lanka even at present.
After Phillips, several attempts have been made to revise the taxonomic status of the country’s mammals.
Some of these reviews have focused specifically on the Sri Lankan situation (W.C.O.Hill, 1939; Eisenberg
and Mckay, 1970; J.E.Hill, 1980; Mckay 1984) while others treated the country’s mammals in a regional
context (Ellerman and Morrison-Scott 1966; Corbet and Hill, 1992). In addition there are number of reviews
that have focused on specific taxonomic groups (Moore, 1960; Ellerman, 1961; Marshall, 1977; Musser,
1981; Bates and Harrison, 1997; Sirinivasulu and Pradhan, 2003; Chakraborty et al., 2004; Sirinivasulu and
Jordan, 2004; Sirinivasulu and Sirinivasulu, 2004; Sirinivasulu et al., 2004a and Sirinivasulu et al., 2004b).
The taxonomic status of several mammals of Sri Lanka has changed since the last complete revision by
Mckay (1984). The aim of this paper is to synthesize the information presented in recent literature to
construct a list of mammals as it stands today.
The current taxonomy of the mammals of Sri Lanka
A total of 144 species and subspecies of mammals were described from Sri Lanka from 1758 to1965. Of
these 24 are currently considered as valid species. According to literature, there are 91 species of
indigenous mammals in Sri Lanka (annex 1), of which 16 species are endemic to the island. Another 12
species have been introduced to Sri Lanka (annex 2) by humans of which four species, namely Bubalis
bubalis, Equus caballus, Equus asinus and Rattus norvegicus have well established feral populations.
In addition 27 species of marine mammals have been recorded from the maritime zone of Sri Lanka (annex
3). A summary of the mammalian fauna of Sri Lanka is given in Table 1.
216
Weerakoon & Goonatilake: Taxonomy Status of the Mammals of Sri Lanka
Table 1: Summary of the mammal species recorded from Sri Lanka
Order
Number of
families
Pholidota
1
Insectivora
1
Chiroptera
7
Primates
2
Carnivora
6
Proboscidea
1
Perrisodactyla
1
Artiodactyla
4
Rodentia
4
Lagomorpha
1
Total
28
Cetacea
5
Sirenia
1
Total
6
Genera
1
4
15
4
9
1
6
14
1
55
19
1
20
Total
Species
1
9
30
5
14
1
8
22
1
91
26
1
27
Endemic
Genera
Species
1
4
3
1
2
1
6
2
16
-
Introduced
Genera
Species
2
2
1
2
5
6
1
1
1
1
10
12
-
Eisenberg and McKay (1970) proposed a system for classifying the habitats of mammals in Sri Lanka
based on the climate map of Muller-Dombois and Sirisena (1967); they recognize seven mammalian zones,
namely monsoon scrub jungle in the northwest (A1) and southeast (A2), monsoon forest and grassland
(B), inter monsoon forest (C), rain forests and grasslands below 3000 feet (D1), between 3000-5000 feet
(D2) and above 5000 feet (D3). However, the distribution of the mammals in the present list follows a
more recent classification proposed by Wijesinghe et al. (1993), where the country has been divided to six
bioclimatic zones (Figure 1):
A. low and mid country
wet zone,
B.
dry zone,
C.
low and mid country
intermediate zone,
D. montane wet zone,
E.
montane intermediate
zone
F.
arid zone.
Figure 1: Bioclimatic zones of Sri Lanka
217
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
The endemic status of two Sri Lankan shrews has been changed as they have recently been reported
from equivalent bioclimatic zones in India. In 1997 Pradhan et al. has recorded Kelart’s long-clawed shrew,
Feroculus feroculus, from Kerala and Tamil Nadu provinces, while the Sri Lanka highland shrew, Suncus
montanus, was recorded from Upper Nilgiri region by Shankar and Sukumar (1998). At the same time
two recent revisions of the South Asian murids (Sirinivasulu and Pradhan, 2003), primates (Walker and
Molur, 2004), and artiodactyls (Groves and Meijaard, 2005) have indicated that the flame striped jungle
squirrel Funambulus layardi, the red slender loris Loris tardigradus and two species of mouse deer,
Moschiola meminna and M. kathygre are endemic to Sri Lanka. Therefore, the number of endemic
mammals in Sri Lanka stands at 16 at present. Revision of the South Asian primates also resulted in the
change of the species name of the Grey langur found in Sri Lanka to Semnopithecus priam.
Issues pertaining to taxonomy of the mammals of Sri Lanka
Most revisions of Sri Lankan mammals have been based mainly on museum collections rather than detailed
field studies. The work of Phillips therefore remains the only truly reliable source today, even though
advances in systematics during recent years has made some of his nomenclature obsolete and, as noted
above, the endemic status of several species of mammals has changed. Other aspects that need to be
resolved are the sub specific status of some Sri Lankan mammals, the doubtful records of some marine
mammals, and the status of two species of small mammals described by Deraniyagala (1958 and 1964),
Gatamiya weragami and Podihik kura.
Gatamiya weragami and Podihik kura are nowadays omitted from the list of Sri Lankan mammals.
Corbett and Hill (1992) consider that the former is probably a synonym of Mus booduga, while the
description of the latter is based on a juvenile of Suncus murinus. However, Deraniyagala placed P. kura
in the subfamily Soricinae, which possess reddish incisor enamel, while the subfamily Crocidurinae, to
which Suncus belongs, has white enamel a character unlikely to be mistaken by Deraniyagala. Thus the
status of Podihik, at least, needs to be re-examined.
Similarly the Southern bottlenose whale recorded by Deraniyagala (1960), and subsequently by National
Aquatic Resource Agency as well as Ilangakoon (2002), has been listed as a questionable record by
Corbet and Hill (1992). According to them this species is confined to the southern polar region, and what
Deraniyagala recorded was most probably Cuvier’s beaked whale, Ziphius cavirostris.
All this points to the need to carry out a systematic review of the taxonomy of Sri Lankan mammals based
on detailed field collections as well as existing museum specimens.
Research gaps related to the taxonomy of mammals of Sri Lanka
Most of the research on mammals of Sri Lanka has been biased towards the large charismatic animals
with little emphasis on the small mammals. Many of the small mammals have not been recorded in recent
times and their present status remains unknown. Furthermore, many areas of Sri Lanka, such as the north,
northwest, isolated hills in the dry zone and the montane regions (especially the Knuckles Range, DeniyayaRakwana hills, Peak wilderness, and the Nuwara Eliya region), have not been properly surveyed and may
harbour species that are not recorded to date. It is extremely important, therefore, for Sri Lanka to
establish a systematic survey program for the country’s mammals (for both terrestrial and marine
mammals), with a special emphasis on small mammals, under the auspices of the national museum or other
relevant government agency. Such a survey would bring about a wealth of information on the mammalian
fauna of Sri Lanka as well as provide us the basis to resolve many of the taxonomic issues that we face
today.
218
Weerakoon & Goonatilake: Taxonomy Status of the Mammals of Sri Lanka
Conservation issues pertaining to mammals of Sri Lanka
Even though many of the mammals show a wide distribution within Sri Lanka, a majority of the endemic
and threatened mammals are confined to the wet zone and especially the montane zone, where habitat loss
and degradation are taking place at a rapid rate. Furthermore, fragmentation of habitats also has a
detrimental effect on mammal populations, especially small mammals who have low mobility. Expansion of
human settlements into forested areas has resulted in an influx of pest species, such as house rat and brown
rat that compete with indigenous species, and domestic predators such as cats and dogs have brought about
increased predator pressure. A number of small predators, such as the fishing cat and brown mongooses,
live in small urban forests and marshes which are at risk of being converted to human use, endangering
these small urban populations. Hunting and killing to avoid conflict also remains a major concern, especially
for the large charismatic species.
References
Bates, P.J.J. and Harrison, D.L. 1997. Bats of the Indian sub continent. Harrison Zoological Museum.
London.
Chakraborty, S., Sirinivasalu, C., Sirinivasalu, B., Pradhan, M.S. and Nameer, P.O. 2004. Checklist of
insectivores (Mammalia: Insectivora) of South Asia. Zoos Print Journal 19 (2):1361-1371.
Corbet, G.B. and Hill, J.E. 1992 Mammals of the Indomalayan Region: A Systematic Review. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Deraniyagala, P.E.P. 1958. Ceylon Administration Reports for 1957 (Part IV) Education E3-E23 Part 1.
Deraniyagala, P.E.P. 1960. Some southern temperate zone fishes, a bird and whales that enter the Ceylon
area. Spolia Zeylanica 29 (1):79-85.
Deraniyagala, P.E.P. 1964. Some aspects of the Fauna of Ceylon. Journal Ceylon Branch of the Royal
Asiatic Society 9 (1):165-220
Eisenberg, J.F. and Mckay G.M. 1970. An annonated checklist of the recent mammals of Ceylon with keys
to species. Ceylon Journal of Science 8 (2):69-99.
Ellerman, J.R. 1961. The fauna of India including Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon: Mammalia, Rodentia.
Volume 3. 2nd Edition. Zoological Survey of India, Culcutta.
Ellerman, J.R. and Morrison-Scott, T.C.S. 1966. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian mammals. 2nd
Edition. British museum of Natural History. London.
Groves, C.P. and Meijaard, E. 2005. Interspecific variation in Moschiola, the Indian chevrotain. The
Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement 12: 413-421
Hill, J.E. 1980. The mammals of Sri Lanka. Spolia Zeylanica 35:203-211.
Hill, W.C.O. 1939. A revised checklist of the mammals of Ceylon. Ceylon Journal of Science, 21:139184.
Ilangakoon, A. 2002. Whales and dolphins of Sri Lanka. WHT publications, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Kelaart, E.F. 1852. Prodromus Faunae Zeylanicae: Being contributions to the Zoology of Ceylon.
Kandy, Sri Lanka.
Marshall, J.T. Jr. 1977. A synopsis of Asian species of Mus (Rodentia: Muridae). Bulletin of the American
Museum of Natural History 158:173-220.
Mckay, G.M. 1984. Ecology and biogeography of mammals. In: Biogeography and Ecology of Sri
Lanka. Ed. Fernando, C.H. Dr. W. Junk Publishers. 413-429.
Moore, J.C. 1960. Squirrel geography of the Indian subregion. Systematic Zoology 9:1-17.
219
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Muller-Dombois, D. and Sirisena, V.A. 1967. Climate map of Ceylon. Ceylon Survey Department,
Colombo, Ceylon.
Musser, G.G. 1981. Results of the Archbold expeditions number 105. Notes on sytematics of Indo-malayan
murid rodents, and descriptions of new genera and species from Ceylon, Sulawesi, and the Philippines.
Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 168:225-234.
Nekaris, K.A.I. and Jayawardena, J. 2004. Survey of Slender loris (Primates, Lorisidae Grey, 1821: Loris
tardigradus Linnaeus, 1758 and Loris lydekkerianus Cabrera, 1908) in Sri Lanka. Journal of
Zoology. 262: 327-338.
Phillips, W.W.A. 1935. Manual of the Mammals of Ceylon. Ceylon Journal of Science, Dulau and
Company, London.
Pradhan, M.S., Sharma, R.M. and Shanker, K. 1997. First record of Kelaart’s Long-clawed Shrew
Feroculus feroculus (Kelaart) from peninsular India. Mammalia 61:448-450.
Shanker, K. and Sukumar, R. 1998. Community structure and demography of small-mammal populations in
insular montane forests in southern India. Oecologia 116:243-251.
Sirinivasalu, C. and Pradhan, M.S. 2003. Checklist of murids (Mammalia: Rodentia: Muridae) of South
Asia. Zoos Print Journal 18 (12):1286-1310.
Sirinivasalu, C. and Jordan, M.J.R. 2004. Checklist of dipodids, myoxids, and hystricids (Mammalia:
Rodentia: Dipodidae, Myoxidae, and Hystricidae) of South Asia. Zoos Print Journal 19 (2):13461350.
Sirinivasalu, C. and Sirinivasalu, B. 2004. Checklist of scandents and pholidots (Mammalia: Scandentia and
Pholidota) of South Asia. Zoos Print Journal 19 (2):1372-1374.
Sirinivasalu, C., Chakraborty, S. and Pradhan, M.S. 2004. Checklist of sciurids (Mammalia: Rodentia:
Sciuridae) of South Asia. Zoos Print Journal 19 (2):1351-1360.
Sirinivasalu, C., Sirinivasalu, B., Chakraborty, S., Pradhan, M.S. and Nameer, P.O. 2004. Checklist of
logomorphs (Mammalia: Logomorpha) of South Asia. Zoos Print Journal 19 (2):1375-1380.
Walker S. and Molur, S. (Compilers) 2003. Summary of the status of the South Asian primates.
Extracted from the CAMP 2003 report. Zoo Outreach Organisation, CBSG-South Asia and WILD,
Coimbatore, India.
Wijesinghe, L.C.A. de S., Gunatilleke, I.A.U.N., Jayawardene, S.D.G., Kotagama, S.W., and Gunatilleke,
C.V.S. 1993. Biological conservation in Sri Lanka: A national status report. IUCN World
Conservation Union, Sri Lanka.
220
Weerakoon & Goonatilake: Taxonomy Status of the Mammals of Sri Lanka
Annex 1: List of naturally occurring terrestrial mammals of Sri Lanka
(Note: endemic species denoted by *)
ORDER : PHOLIDOTA
FAMILY : MANIDAE
Manis Linnaeus, 1758
M. crassicaudata Gray, 1827 [E: Pangolin; S: Kaballewa]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,F
ORDER : INSECTIVORA
FAMILY : SORICIDAE
Crocidura Wagler, 1832
C. horsfieldi (Tomes, 1856) [E: Horsfield’s shrew; S: Kunuhik-miya]
Distribution: A,C,D,E
*C. miya Phillips, 1929 [E: Sri Lanka long-tailed shrew; S: Sri Lanka Kunuhik-miya]
Distribution: D1,E
Feroculus Kelaart, 1852
F. feroculus (Kelaart, 1850) [E: Kelaart’s long-clawed shrew; S: Pirihik-miya]
Distribution: D1,E
Solisorex Thomas, 1924
*S. pearsoni Thomas, 1924 [E: Pearson’s long-clawed shrew; S: Sri Lanka Mahik-miya]
Distribution: A, D
Suncus Ehrenberg, 1832
S. etruscus (Savi, 1822) [E: Pigmy shrew; S: Podi Hik-miya]
Distribution: A,D,F
*S. fellowes-gordoni Phillips,1932 [E: Sri Lanka pigmy shrew; S: Sri Lanka Podi Hik-miya]
Distribution: D1,E
S. montanus (Kelaart, 1850) [E: Highland shrew; S: Kandu Hik-miya]
Distribution: D,E
S. murinus (Linnaeus, 1766) [E: Common musk shrew; S: Podhu Hik-miya]
Distribution: A,B,C,F
*S. zeylanicus Phillips, 1928 [E: Sri Lanka jungle shrew; S: Sri Lanka Kele Hik-miya]
Distribution: A,B
ORDER : CHIROPTERA
FAMILY : EMBALLONURIDAE
Taphozous Geoffrey, 1818
T. longimanus Hardwicke, 1825 [E: Long-armed sheath-tailed bat; S: Dikba Kepulum- vavula]
Distribution: A,B,C,F
T. melanopogon Temminck, 1841 [E: Black-bearded sheath-tailed bat; S: Ravulkalu Kepulum- vavula]
Distribution: A,B,C
T. saccolaimus Temminck, 1838 [E: Pouch-bearing sheath-tailed bat; S: Maha Kepulum- vavula]
Distribution: A,B,F
221
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
FAMILY : HIPPOSIDERIDAE
Hipposideros Gray, 1831
H. ater Temleton, 1848 [E: Bicolored leaf-nosed bat; S: Depata Pathnehe-vavula]
Distribution: A,B,F
H. fulvus Gray, 1838 [E: Fulvous-leaf nosed bat; S: Malekaha Pathnehe-vavula]
Distribution: C,F2
H. galeritus Cantor, 1846 [E: Dekhan leaf-nosed bat; S: Kesdiga Pathnehe-vavula]
Distribution: A,B,D,E
H. lankadiva Kelaart, 1850 [E: Great leaf-nosed bat; S: Maha Pathnehe-vavula]
Distribution: A,B,C,F
H. speoris (Schneider, 1800) [E: Schneider’s leaf-nosed bat; S: Kesketi Pathnehe-vavula]
Distribution: A,B,C,E,F
FAMILY : MEGADERMATIDAE
Megaderma Geoffroy, 1810
M. lyra Geoffroy, 1810 [E: False vampire bat; S: Boru Ley-vavula]
Distribution: A,B,C,F1
M. spasma (Linnaeus, 1758) [E: Long-eared vampire bat; S: Kandiga Boru Ley-vavula]
Distribution: A,B,C,F
FAMILY : M OLOSSIDAE
Tadarida Rafinesque, 1814
T. aegyptiaca (Geoffroy, 1818) [E: Continental wrinkled-lip bat; S: Mahadive Rallithol-vavula]
Distribution: A,C
T. plicata (Buchnnan, 1800) [E: Common wrinkled-lip bat; S: Podhu Rallithol-vavula]
Distribution: A,C
FAMILY : PTEROPODIDAE
Cynopterus Cuvier, 1824
C. brachyotis (Muller, 1838) [E: Lesser dog-nosed fruit bat; S: Heen Thala-vavula]
Distribution: B,C,D,E
C. sphinx (Vahl, 1797) [E: Short-nosed fruit bat; S: Thala-vavula]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,F
Pteropus Brisson, 1762
P. giganteus (Brunnich, 1782) [E: Flying fox; S: Ma-vavula]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,F
Rousettus Gray, 1821
R. leschenaulti (Desmarest, 1820) [E: Fulvous fruit bat; S: Rath dumburu pala vavula]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,F
FAMILY : RHINOLOPHIDAE
Rhinolophus Lacepede, 1799
R. beddomei Anderson, 1905 [E: Great horse-shoe bat; S: Maha Ashladan-vavula]
Distribution: A,B,C,F
R. rouxii Temminck, 1835 [E: Rufous horse-shoe bat; S: Borath Ashladan-vavula]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,E,F
222
Weerakoon & Goonatilake: Taxonomy Status of the Mammals of Sri Lanka
FAMILY : VESPERTILLIONIDAE
Hesperoptenus Peters, 1869
H. tickelli (Blyth, 1851) [E: Tickle’s bat; S: Awara-vavula]
Distribution: A,B,C,F
Kerivoula Gray, 1842
K. hardwickii (Horsefield, 1824) [E: Malpas’s bat; S: Rathbora Kehel-vavula]
Distribution: A,C
K. pictus (Pallas, 1767) [E: Painted bat; S: Visithuru Kehel-vavula]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,F
Miniopterus Bonaparte, 1837
M. schreibersii (Kuhl, 1819) [E: Long-winged bat; S: Dickpiya-vavula]
Distribution: A,B,C
Myotis Kaup, 1829
M. hasseltii (Temminck, 1840) [E: Brown bat; S: Bora-vavula]
Distribution: B,F2
Murina Gray, 1842
M. cyclotis Dobson, 1872 [E: Tube-nosed bat; S: Nalanehe-vavula]
Distribution: A,D2
Pipistrellus Kaup, 1829
P. affinis (Dobson, 1871) [E: Chocolate bat; S: Bora Koseta-vavula]
Distribution: D1,E
P. ceylonicus (Kelaart, 1852) [E: Kelaart’s pipistrel; S: Rathbora Koseta-vavula]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,E
P. coromandra (Gray, 1838) [E: Indian pipistrel; S: Indu Koseta-vavula]
Distribution: A,B,C,F
P. tenuis (Temminck, 1840) [E: Pigmy pipistrel; S: Heen Koseta-vavula]
Distribution: A,B,C,F
Scotophilus Leach, 1821
S. heathii Horsefield, 1831 [E: Great yellow bat; S: Maha Kaha-vavula]
Distribution: A,B,C
S. kuhlii Leach, 1821 [E: Lesser yellow bat; S: Heen Kaha-vavula]
Distribution: B,C,F
ORDER : PRIMATES
FAMILY : CERCOPITHECIDAE
Macaca Lacépéde, 1799
*M. sinica (Linnaeus, 1771) [E: Sri Lanka toque monkey; S: Sri Lanka Rilawa]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,E,F
Semnopithecus Desmarest, 1822
S. priam Blyth, 1844 [E: Grey langur; S: Eli-wdura]
Distribution: B,C,F
223
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Trachypithecus Reichenbach, 1862
*T. vetulus (Erxleben, 1777) [E: Purple-faced leaf monkey; S: Sri Lanka Kalu-wandura]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,E,F
FAMILY : LORISIDAE
Loris Geoffroy, 1796
L. lydekkerianus Cabrera, 1908 [E: Grey slender loris; S: Alu Unahapuluwa]
Distribution:,B,C,D,F
*L. tardigradus (Linnaeus, 1758) [E: Sri Lanka red slender loris; S: Sri Lanka Rath Unahapuluwa]
Distribution: A
ORDER : CARNIVORA
FAMILY : CANIDAE
Canis Linnaeus, 1758
C. aureus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Jackal; S: Nariya / Hiwala]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,E,F
FAMILY : FELIDAE
Felis Linnaeus, 1758
F. chaus Gueldenstaedt, 1776 [E: Jungle cat; S: Wal Balala]
Distribution: B,C,F
Panthera Oken, 1816
P. pardus (Linnaeus, 1758) [E: Leopard; S: Kotiya/ Diviya]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,E,F
Prionailurus Severtzov, 1858
P. rubiginosus (Geoffroy, 1831) [E: Rusty-spotted cat; S: Kola Diviya / Balal Diviya]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,F
P. viverrinus (Bennett, 1833) [E: Fishing cat; S: Handun Diviya]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,F
FAMILY : HERPESTIDAE
Herpestes Illiger, 1811
H. brachyurus Gray, 1837 [E: Brown mongoose; S: Bora Mugatiya]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,F
H. edwardsii (Geoffroy, 1818) [E: Grey mongoose; S: Alu Mugatiya]
Distribution: A,B,C,F
H. smithii Gray, 1837 [E: Black-tipped or Ruddy mongoose; S: Rath Mugatiya / Hothambuwa]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,F
H. vitticollis Bennett, 1835 [E: Stripe-necked or badger mongoose; S: Maha Mugatiya / Gal Mugatiya]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,F
FAMILY : MUSTELIDAE
Lutra Brisson, 1762
L. lutra (Linnaeus, 1758) [E: Otter; S: Diya-balla]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,F
224
Weerakoon & Goonatilake: Taxonomy Status of the Mammals of Sri Lanka
FAMILY : URSIDAE
Melursus Meyer,1793
M. ursinus (Show & Nodder, 1791) [E: Sloth bear; S: Walaha]
Distribution: B,F
FAMILY : VIVERRIDAE
Paradoxurus Cuvier, 1821
P. hermaphoditus (Pallas, 1777) [E: Palm cat; S: Uguduwa]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,E,F
*P. zeylonensis (Pallas, 1778) [E: Sri Lanka golden palm cat; S: Sri Lanka Ran Kalawedda]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,E,F
Viverricula Hodgson, 1838
V. indica (Desmarest, 1817) [E: Ring-tailed civet; S: Urulewa]
Distribution: A,B,C,F
ORDER : PROBOSCIDEA
FAMILY : ELEPHANTIDAE
Elephas Linnaeus, 1758
E. maximus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Elephant; S: Etha / Aliya]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,E,F
ORDER : ARTIODACTYLA
FAMILY : BOVIDAE
Bubalus Smith, 1827
B. arnee (Kerr, 1792) [E: Wild buffalo; S: Kulu Haraka / Wal Meema]
Distribution: B,C,F
FAMILY : CERVIDAE
Axis Smith, 1827
A. axis (Erxleben, 1777) [E: Spotted deer; S: Tith Muwa]
Distribution: B,C,F
A. porcinus (Zimmermann, 1777) [E: Hog deer; S: Vil Muwa / Gona Muwa]
Distribution: A
Cervus Linnaeus, 1758
C. unicolor Kerr, 1792 [E: Sambur; S: Gona]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,E,F
Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815
M. muntjak (Zimmermann, 1780) [E: Barking deer; S: Olu Muwa / Weli Muwa]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,E,F
FAMILY : SUIDAE
Sus Linnaeus, 1758
S. scrofa Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Wild boar; S: Wal Ura]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,E,F
225
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
FAMILY : TRAGULIDAE
Moschiola Hodgson, 1844
* M. meminna Erexleben, 1777 [E: Sri Lanka mouse-deer; S: Sri Lanka Meminna]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,E,F
* M. kathygre Groves & Meijaard, 2004 [E: Sri Lanka pigmy mouse-deer; S: Sri Lanka Kuru Meminna]
Distribution: A, D
ORDER : RODENTIA
FAMILY : HYSTRICIDAE
Hystrix Linnaeus, 1758
H. indica (Kerr, 1792) [E: Procupine; S: Ittewa]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,E,F
FAMILY : MURIDAE
Bandicota Gray, 1873
B. bengalensis (Gray 1835) [E: Mole rat; S: Heen Uru-miya]
Distribution: A,B,C,F
B. indica (Bechstein, 1800) [E: Malabar bandicoot; S: Uru-miya]
Distribution: A,B,C,E,F
Cremnomys Wroughton, 1912
C. blanfordi (Thomas, 1881) [E: White-tailed rat; S: Waligasudu-miya]
Distribution: B,F
Golunda Gray, 1837
G. ellioti Gray, 1837 [E: Bush rat; S: Panduru-miya]
Distribution: B,C,D,F
Millardia Thomas, 1911
M. meltada (Gray, 1837) [E: Soft-furred field rat; S: Kesmudu Keth-miya]
Distribution: B,C,D,F
Mus Linnaeus, 1758
M. booduga (Gray, 1837) [E: Field mouse; S: Wel Heen-miya]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,F
*M. fernandoni (Phillips, 1932) [E: Sri Lanka spiny mouse; S: Sri Lanka katu Heen-miya]
Distribution: B,C,F2
*M. mayori (Thomas, 1915) [E: Sri Lanka spiny rat; S: Sri Lanka Depahe Katu Heen-miya]
Distribution: A,D,E
M. musculus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Indian house mouse; S: Ge Heen-miya/ Koseta-miya]
Distribution: A,B,C,F
Rattus Fischer, 1803
*R. montanus Phillips, 1932 [E: Nelu rat; S: Sri Lanka Nelu Miya]
Distribution: D1,E
R. rattus (Linnaeus, 1758) [E: Common rat; S: Podu Ge Miya]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,E,F
226
Weerakoon & Goonatilake: Taxonomy Status of the Mammals of Sri Lanka
Srilankamys Musser, 1981
*S. ohiensis (Phillips, 1929) [E: Sri Lanka bicolored rat; S: Sri Lanka Depehe-miya]
Distribution: A,D
Vandeleuria Gray, 1842
*V. nolthenii Phillips, 1929 [E: Sri lanka long-tailed tree mouse; S: Sri Lanka Gas-miya]
Distribution: A,D,E
V. oleracea (Bennett, 1832) [E: Long-tailed tree mouse; S: Gas-miya]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,E,F
Tatera Lataste, 1882
T. indica (Hardwicke, 1807) [E: Antelope rat; S: Weli-miya]
Distribution: A,B,C,F
FAMILY : PTEROMYIDAE
Petaurista Link, 1795
P. philippensis (Elliot, 1839) [E: Giant flying squirrel; S: Ma-hambawa]
Distribution: A,D
Petinomys Thomas, 1908
P. fuscocapillus (Jerdon, 1847) [E: Small flying squirrel; S: Heen-hambawa]
Distribution: A,B,C,D
FAMILY : SCIURIDAE
Funambulus Lesson, 1835
*F. layardi (Blyth, 1849) [E: Sri Lanka flame-striped jungle squirrel; S: Sri Lanka Mukalan Leena]
Distribution: A,B,C,D
F. palmarum (Linnaeus, 1766) [E: Palm squirrel; S: Leena]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,E,F
F. sublineatus (Waterhouse, 1838) [E: Dusky-striped jungle squirrel; S:Punchi Leena]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,E
Ratufa Gray, 1867
R. macroura (Pennant, 1769) [E: Giant squirrel; S: Dandu-leena]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,E,F
ORDER : LAGOMORPHA
FAMILY : LEPORIDAE
Lepus Linnaeus, 1758
L. nigricollis Cuvier, 1823 [E: Black-naped hare; S: Wal Hawa]
Distribution: A,B,C,D,E,F
227
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Annex 2: List of introduced terrestrial mammals of Sri Lanka
ORDER : CARNIVORA
FAMILY : CANIDAE
Canis Linnaeus, 1758
C. familiaris Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Domestic dog; S: Balla]
Distribution: Domestic. Feral in some districts.
FAMILY : FELIDAE
Felis Linnaeus, 1758
F. catus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Domestic cat; S: Balala / Pusa]
Distribution: Domestic.
ORDER : ARTIODACTYLA
FAMILY : BOVIDAE
Bos Linnaeus, 1758
B. indicus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Domestic hump-backed cattle; S: Sinhala Elaharaka/ Batu Haraka]
Distribution: Domestic. A small feral population is present in the Block II of Ruhuna National Park.
B. taurus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: European cattle; S: Rata Elaharaka]
Distribution: Domestic
Bubalus Smith, 1827
B. bubalis (Linnaeus, 1758) [E: Domestic water buffalo; S: Mee Haraka]
Distribution: Domestic. Feral populations are reported from zones B,C,D2,F.
Capra Linnaeus, 1758
C. hircus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Domestic goat; S: Eluva]
Distribution: Domestic
Ovis Linnaeus, 1758
O. aries Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Domestic sheep; S: Betaluwa]
Distribution: Domestic
FAMILY : SUIDAE
Sus Linnaeus, 1758
S. domesticus Brisson, 1762 [E: Domestic pig; S: Gam Ura]
Distribution: Domestic
ORDER : PERISODACTYLA
FAMILY : EQUIDAE
Equus Linnaeus, 1758
E. asinus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Donkey; S: Buruwa / Puttalam Buruwa]
Distribution: Domestic. Feral populations are reported from zone F1
E. caballus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Mannar ponies/Delft ponies/Horse; S: Diweldiwa Poniya/Poniya/Ashwaya]
Distribution: Domestic. Feral populations are reported from zone F1
ORDER : RODENTIA
FAMILY : MURIDAE
Rattus Fischer, 1803
R. norvegicus (Berkenhout, 1769) [E: Brown rat; S: Bora Miya]
Distribution: A,B,F
228
Weerakoon & Goonatilake: Taxonomy Status of the Mammals of Sri Lanka
ORDER : LAGOMORPHA
FAMILY : LEPORIDAE
Oryctolagus Lilljeborg, 1874
O. cuniculus (Linnaeus, 1758) [E: Domestic rabbit; S: Rata Hawa]
Distribution: Domestic
229
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Annex 3: List of marine mammals recorded from the Indian Ocean around
Sri Lanka
ORDER : CETACEA
FAMILY : BALAENOPTERIDAE
Balaenoptera Lacepede, 1804
B. acutorostrata Lacepede, 1804 [E: Mink Whale; S: Minki thalmaha ]
B. edeni Anderson, 1879 [E: Bryde’s Whale; S: Brydige thalmaha ]
B. musculus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Blue Whale; S: Nil thalmaha]
B. physalus (Linnaeus, 1758) [E: Fin Whale; S: Waral thalmaha]
Megaptera Gray,1846
M. novaeangliae (Borowski, 1781) [E: Hump backed Whale; S: Molli thalmaha]
FAMILY : DELPHINIDAE
Delphinus Linnaeus, 1758
D. delphis Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Common Dolphin; S: Sulaba mulla]
Feresa Gray, 1870
F. attenuata Gray, 1875 [E: Pygmy killer Whale; S: Kuru minimaru thalmaha]
Globicephala Lesson, 1828
G. macrorhinchus Gray, 1846 [E: Short finned pilot whale; S: Ketiwaral niyamu thalmaha]
Grampus Gray, 1828
G. griseus (Cuvier, 1812) [E: Rissos Dolphin / Gray Dolphin; S: Malina mulla]
Lagenodelphis Fraser, 1957
L. hosei Fraser, 1957 [E: Fraser’s Dolphin; S: Keti hota mulla]
Orcinus Fitzinger, 1860
O. orca (Linnaeus, 1758) [E: Killer Whale; S: Minimaru thalmaha]
Peponocephala Nishiwaki & Norris, 1966
P. electra (Gray, 1846) [E: Melon headed Dolphin; S: Puhulolu thalmaha]
Pseudorca Reinhardt, 1862
P. crassidens (Owen, 1846) [E: False killer Whale; S: Boru minimaru thalmaha]
Sousa Gray, 1866
S. chinensis (Osbeck, 1765) [E: Indo-pacific hump-back Dolphin; S: Kabara mulla]
Stenella Gray, 1866
S. coeruleoalba (Meyen, 1833) [E: Striped Dolphin; S: Thith mulla]
S. attenuata (Gray, 1846) [E: Pan tropical spotted Dolphin; S: Wairam mulla]
S. longirostris (Gray, 1828) [E: Spinner Dolphin; S: Sannali mulla]
230
Weerakoon & Goonatilake: Taxonomy Status of the Mammals of Sri Lanka
Steno Gray, 1846
S. bredanensis (Lesson, 1828) [E: Rough-Toothed Dolphin; S: Ralu dat mulla]
Tursiops Gervais, 1855
T. truncatus (Monotagu, 1821) [E: Bottle nosed Dolphin; S: Digasubu mulla]
FAMILY : PHOCOENIDAE
Neophocaena Palmer, 1899
N. phocaeroides (Cuvier, 1829) [E: Finless Propoise; S: Awaral mulla]
FAMILY : PHYSETERIDAE
Kogia Gray, 1846
K. breviceps (Balainville, 1838) [E: Pygmy sperm Whale; S: Kurumanda thalmaha]
K. simus (Owen, 1866) [E: Dwarf sperm Whale; S: Miti-manda thalmaha]
Physter Linnaeus, 1758
P. macrocephalus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Sperm Whale; S: Manda thalmaha]
FAMILY : ZIPHIIDAE
Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850
M. densirostris (Blainville, 1817) [E: Blainville’s beaked Whale; S: Blainvillege hota-ul thalmaha ]
M. ginkgodensis Nishiwaki & Kamiya, 1958 [E: Ginko-toothed beaked Whale; S: Japan hota-ul thalmaha]
Ziphius Cuvier, 1823
Z. cavirostris Cuvier, 1823 [E: Goose beaked Whale/Cuvier’s beak whale; S: Cuvierge hota-ul thalmaha]
ORDER : SIRENIA
FAMILY : DUGONGIDAE
Dugong Lacepede, 1799
D. dugon (Muller, 1776) [E: Common Dugong, Sea cow; S: Muhudu ura]
231
The
T
HE F
Fauna
AUNA OFofSRI
SriLANKA
Lanka
(2006):
(2006)
232-234
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Ecological Traits of Endemic Small Mammals in Rainforests of
Sri Lanka, and Their Implications for Conservation
Mayuri R. Wijesinghe*
*Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka
Abstract
Small mammals are of particular interest to Sri Lanka because they form a conspicuous part of the
mammalian fauna of the country, represented by 31 species of rodents and shrews. Furthermore,
they contribute significantly to the nation’s endemic faunal component. Many of these endemics
inhabit the fragmented rainforests of southwest Sri Lanka and are extremely vulnerable to habitat
destruction. Several ecological traits of endemic small mammals render them more susceptible to
anthropogenic habitat destruction than the widespread species. The paper elaborates on specific
ecological traits of endemic small mammals with implications for their conservation.
Key words: Small mammals, Endemic, Conservation
Introduction
Small mammals are generally small sized animals predominantly included in the two orders Rodentia and
Insectivora. Many of these species are difficult to observe in the wild because of their small size and their
secretive and/or nocturnal habit. Small mammals play diverse ecological roles that have an impact on the
structure and function of many ecosystems. In rainforests, rodents and shrews are integral components,
because they function as prey, predators and seed dispersers. Their disappearance may thus bring about
changes in the diversity of other faunal and floral elements in such ecosystems. Small mammals can also
be regarded as excellent subjects to test suppositions about population growth, migration and reproduction,
and, in particular, to study how human-induced changes in landscape patterns have affected vertebrate
fauna
Compared to other groups of mammals, small mammals have been largely neglected as a target group for
conservation efforts. One reason for this discrepancy is their general r-selective strategy, which makes
them highly prolific and hence less vulnerable to environmental deterioration and human control. Many of
the widespread species are also classified as pests. In addition, the taxonomic difficulties in identifying
species, insufficient knowledge of their distribution patterns, and the lower appeal of rodents to the general
public, also have been contributory factors (Amori and Zima 1994). Human impact on natural habitats has
nevertheless affected several native and endemic small mammal species throughout the world with a large
number of extinctions being recorded (Ceballos and Brown 1995).
Richness of endemic small mammals in Sri Lanka
For Sri Lanka, small mammals are of particular interest because they form a conspicuous part of the
mammalian fauna of the country. Of the 90 species of mammals recorded in the island, 31 species are
rodents and shrews. Additionally, small mammals are also of considerable biological importance because
they contribute significantly to the nation’s endemic faunal component. The endemic rodents include Mus
fernandoni, M. mayori , Rattus montanus, Srilankamys ohiensis,Vandeleuria nolthenii and
Funambulus layardi while the endemic shrews include Crocidura miya, Solisorex pearsoni, S.
fellowes-gordoni and S. zeylanicus. Many of these endemics inhabit the fragmented rainforests of
southwest Sri Lanka and are, hence, extremely vulnerable to habitat destruction. Consequently, a majority
of these species have been recognized as threatened or endangered at the national level (IUCN 2000).
They are thus subjects of legitimate concern.
232
Wijesinghe: Ecological Traits of Endemic Small Mammals is Rainforests of
Sri Lanka and their Implications for Conservation
Ecological traits with conservation implications
Several ecological traits of endemic small mammals render them more susceptible to anthropogenic habitat
destruction than the widespread species. A study carried out in Sinharaja across habitats representing
varying levels of disturbance clearly demonstrated that endemic rodents and shrews are incapable of
utilizing disturbed areas surrounding the natural forest (Wijesinghe 2001). In contrast, the non-endemics
were seen to be able to utilize both forest and non-forest habitats or were restricted to the disturbed areas.
In fact, some non-endemics were seen to thrive in plantation and abandoned habitats adjacent to the natural
forest.
This difference in the distribution patterns between endemics and non-endemics can be attributed to several
factors. The habitat usage patterns of selected rat and mice species within the forest have shown that
endemic species are more specialized in their habitat requirements than the non-endemics (Goodyear 1992).
Endemic species consistently use closed canopy areas where the undergrowth is relatively sparse. On the
other hand, non-endemics such as Rattus rattus kandianus displayed an ability to use canopy gaps and
areas with a dense understorey. Also, the endemic rat Srilankamys ohiensis had a larger home range than
the non-endemic Rattus rattus (Wijesinghe 2001) suggesting that the endemics have a specialized diet and/
or habitat preferences (Mazurkiewickz and Rajska-Jugiel 1998; Tobin et al. 1996; Wijesinghe 2001).
Furthermore, demographic analysis of murids indicated that the endemics, in contrast to the non-endemics,
are incapable of surviving and reproducing in disturbed areas that border the natural forest (Alder and
Wilson 1987).
In addition to their specialized nature, several lines of investigations suggest that endemics are in fact
inferior competitors and so may face adverse consequences when competing with widespread nonendemics (e.g. Hadfield et al. 1993; Goodman 1995). Negative abundance relationships were recorded
between endemic and non-endemic rat species in study sites within Sinharaja suggesting that these species
are competing. Captive experiments further supported the fact that endemic species are inferior
competitors (Wijesinghe 2001).
The demography and ecology of the endemic small mammals has many important implications for
conservation. As many endemics are core-forest species, forest destruction and fragmentation will lead to
the loss of more habitats for these species than for the species that utilize non-forest habitats. Habitat loss
also causes habitat fragmentation, which leads to the creation of small isolated patches. Because range
restricted species generally have a lower population density than those that are widespread, their surviving
populations will be smaller and hence face greater extinction. As one of the best predictors of persistence
of non-volant mammals is density (Laurance 1991), the low densities of the endemics may indicate greater
vulnerability. Fragmented forests also suffer from edge effects, which threaten core-forest species but have
a favorable impact on habitat generalists, particularly invasive species (Laurance 1991). As the invasion of
communities is greatly enhanced by habitat disturbance, there is a possibility that the forest-adapted
endemics would be displaced by such non-endemics.
Future research directions
The present status of our knowledge of the ecology of fauna of the wet zone is very poor. Future research
should include studies that monitor faunal populations at regular intervals to determine changes in
abundance over time. The viability of species in habitat fragments, ability for species to utilize habitat
linkages and their dispersal patterns across modified landscapes should also be addressed. Further,
investigations should also focus on aspects of fine scale habitat usage, as this will remain an important
component when selecting suitable sites for conservation. Additionally, taxonomic issues of species should
be resolved.
If biodiversity is to be protected high priority in conservation strategies should be given to species with
restricted distributions. Small mammals have been used as experimental model systems to study the effects
233
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
of habitat disturbance on the demography and behavior of other vertebrate groups. Thus, knowing the
ecological and demographic traits of rainforest small mammals, especially those of endemics, might help us
to assess their capacity to adapt to human-induced changes, and so provide a step in evaluating how
populations of endemic vertebrates in general react to the loss and fragmentation of their natural habitats.
Literature Cited
Alder, G. H. and Wilson, M. L. (1987). Demography of a habitat generalist, the white-footed mouse, in a
heterogeneous environment. Ecology, 68, 1785-1796.
Amori, G. and Zima, J. (1994). Threatened rodents in Europe: Species status and some suggestions for
conservation. Folia Zoologica, 43, 1-9.
Ceballos, G. and Brown, J. H. (1995). Global patterns of mammalian diversity, endemism, and
endangerment. Conservation Biology, 9, 559-568.
Goodman, S. M. (1995). Rattus on Madagascar and the dilemma of protecting the endemic rodent fauna.
Conservation Biology, 9, 450-455.
Goodyear, N. C. (1992). Spatial overlap and dietary selection of native rice rats and exotic black rats.
Journal of Mammalogy, 73, 186-200.
Hadfield, M, G., Miller, S. E. and Carwile, A. H. (1993). The decimation of endemic Hawaiian tree snails
by alien predators. American Zoologist, 33, 610-622.
IUCN (2000). The 1999 list of threatened fauna and flora of Sri Lanka. IUCN - The World Conservation
Union - Sri Lanka, Colombo.
Laurence, W. F. (1991). Edge effects in tropical forest fragments: Application of a model of the design of
nature reserves. Biological Conservation, 57, 205-219.
Mazurkiewicz, M. and Rajska-Jurgiel, E. (1998). Spatial behaviour and population dynamics of woodland
rodents. Acta Theriologica, 43, 137-161.
Tobin, M. E., Sugihara, R. T., Koehler, A. E. and Ueunten, G. R. (1996). Seasonal activity and movements
of Rattus rattus (Rodentia, Muridae) in a Hawaiin macadamia orchard. Mammalia, 60, 3-13.
Wijesinghe, M. R. (2001). Habitat selection of endemic and non-endemic vertebrates in Sinharaja, a
rainforest in Sri Lanka. Thesis. Cambridge University, U.K.
234
Miththapala: The Ecology
THE FAUNA
ofOF
theSRIWild
LANKA
Cats
(2006):
of Sri235-256
Lanka
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
The Ecology of the Wild Cats of Sri Lanka
Sriyanie Miththapala*
*Address for correspondence: IUCN – The World Conservation Union,
53, Horton Place, Colombo 7, Sri Lanka. Email snm@iuncnsl.org
Abstract
The ecology of the four wild cats of Sri Lanka is reviewed in this paper. Their geographical
distribution, taxonomic status and ecology within the island is discussed. Past and present research
of each species is reviewed. Their conservation status and threats both globally and in Sri Lanka is
reviewed and recommendations made for immediate and essential research.
Keywords: Leopard, Jungle cat, Fishing cat, Rusty spotted cat, Sri Lanka
Introduction
Despite its small size, Sri Lanka is an island that boasts of great ecosystem and species diversity (Jansen
& Soysa 1992; Wijesinghe, 2000; Wijesinghe et al, 1993). Among the 91 species of native mammals found
in the island are 14 species of the order Carnivora (Weerakoon & Goonatilake, this volume; Phillips, 1984).
Of these, are four members of the Felid family: the Leopard (Panthera pardus kotiya), the Jungle cat
(Felis chaus), the Fishing cat (Prionailurus viverrinus) and the Rusty-spotted cat (Prionailurus
rubiginosa) (Phillips, 1984).
Based on their body size, the cat family can be divided into three groups. The leopard is classified as a
medium sized cat with a body mass of 40-60 kg, which feeds on larger prey ranging from 2 kg to their own
mass and larger; while the Jungle cat, Fishing cat and Rusty-spotted cat are classed as small cats, less
than 20 kg in mass, which eat small prey weighing less than 1 kg (Seidensticker, 2002; Emmons, 1991).
Leopards are sleek medium-sized cats with head and body lengths ranging from 910-1910 cm and an
average mass of 37-90 kg for males and 28-60 kg for females (Seidensticker & Lumpkin, 1991). There is
marked sexual dimorphism in leopards, with males varying greatly in size across their geographical range
(Miththapala, 1992; Van Valkenburg & Ruff, 1987). In Sri Lanka, this dimorphism is pronounced, likely due
to the absence of competitors (Seidensticker & Lumpkin, 2004). In Sri Lanka, the leopard is distinguished
easily from the other wild cats by its larger size. (Figure 1)
Of the three small cat species in Sri Lanka, the Jungle cat is long-limbed, with an average head and body
length of 739 mm for males and 628 mm for females, and an average mass of 7.9 kg and 4.8 kg for males
and females respectively (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002); the Fishing cat is the heaviest and stockiest with a
head and body length of 718 mm for males and 660 for females and a mass of 15 kg for males (Sunquist
& Sunquist, 2002); the Rusty-spotted cat is the tiniest – in fact it is one of the smallest cats in the world –
measuring a mere 370 mm in head and body for females and weighing a little over a kilogram for females
and 1.5kg for males (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002, Phillips, 1984). (See Figure 2)
Leopard coats are marked with clusters of spots called dark brown/black rosettes and the base colour is a
golden tawny in Sri Lanka (Phillips, 1984). (Figure 1) The Jungle cat is unmistakable in Sri Lanka because
its coat is an unpatterned sandy brown or reddish grey, with some stripes on its limbs and with black ear
tufts (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002) (Figure 3). The Fishing cat is an olive grey in colour, with rows of black
spots extending from its head to its back; it also has a short tail that is only one third of its head and body
length (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002) (Figure 4). As its name implies, the Rusty spotted cat’s coat is russet
coloured with rust coloured blotches patterning its body and stripes on its face. (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002).
235
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
It has long been accepted that top predators play a critical role in structuring communities (Soulé &
Terborgh, 1999; Clark et al., 1999; Seidensticker, 2002) as they not only control overabundance of prey, but
also control medium sized predators (Karanth & Sunquist, 1995, 2000; Palomares & Caro, 1999;
Seidensticker, 2002). They are also the first to disappear as a result of anthropogenic activities such
habitat degradation, habitat fragmentation and the proliferation of roads around protected areas
(Seidensticker, 1986, Kerley et al., 2002, Maehr, 1997). Therefore, top carnivores are pivotal components
of biodiversity conservation (Seidensticker, 2002). As Seidensticker (2002) succinctly states:
‘We must shift our thinking from viewing top carnivores as an isolated part of ecosystem management to
viewing their maintenance as an essential component. . . Top carnivores can be the stars in our ongoing
efforts to restore and maintain biodiversity. But the star power of top carnivores, their flagship and umbrella
role, is more than symbolic. Without top carnivores, our efforts to stem the loss of biodiversity will ultimately
fail.
Until recently, small cats were given scant attention in the preparation of conservation plans and little is
known about their ecology and biology (Cat Specialist Group, 2003). Yet, they are important components of
ecosystems as they prey, inter alia, on rodents and insectivores, which can become serious pests if their
populations are unchecked.
In this paper, I review the ecology of the four wild cats of Sri Lanka and discuss their geographical
distribution, taxonomic status and their distribution and ecology within the island, reviewing also past and
present research on the species. I examine their conservation status and threats both globally and in Sri
Lanka, and finally make recommendations for their conservation.
Distribution
Leopards are cosmopolitan animals, having one of the largest geographic distributions of all terrestrial
mammals, and range from the southern cape mountains of South Africa, through most of sub-Saharan
Africa in a wide range of habitats from humid rainforests to arid desert habitats; through forest and
Mediterranean scrub of Northwest Iran and the Caucasus; in most of the Indian subcontinent excepting
the deserts and the mangroves of the Sunderbans; in most of China and even in the Himalayas below the
timber line; and through the cloud forests of mainland Malaysia (Bertram, 1979; Bothma & Riche, 1986;
Hamilton, 1986; Hoppe-Dominik, 1984; Illany, 1986; Johnsingh, 1983; Neff, 1981; Schaller, et al, 1985;
Seidensticker, 1986, Seidensticker, 2002; Seidesticker et al, 1990; Karanth & Sunquist, 1995; Karanth &
Sunquist, 2000). They are also extant on Java, Zanizibar, Kangea and Sri Lanka (Johnson & O’Brien
2005).
Leopards have been reported as living in close proximity to humans, and even around major cities and
towns such as Nairobi in Kenya, Bombay in India and Kandy in Sri Lanka (Bajoria, 2003; Felidtag, 2003;
Jayewardene, 2002). Extremely generalist in their prey utilization, leopards prefer small and medium sized
ungulates, but have been known to eat primates preferentially when the ungulate prey base is low or
depauperate such as in rain forests or deserts (Hoppe-Dominik, 1984; Illany, 1986).
The conservation status of leopards is disparate: the IUCN red list (2003) lists selected populations/
subspecies in South Arabian, North African and Amur populations of leopards as Critically Endangered;
and North Chinese, Sri Lankan, Javan and Persian leopards as Endangered; while no other leopard
populations are noted as being subject to threat. CITES places the entire species on Appendix I, yet permits
quotas for the export of sport hunting trophies from Botswana, the Central African Republic, Ethiopia,
Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. (CITES, 2003)
The Jungle cat has a wide distribution ranging from Egypt through the Middle East to central Asia, the
Indian subcontinent and Sri Lanka and extending to south western China into the Malaysian peninsular and
Myanmar.
236
Miththapala: The Ecology of the Wild Cats of Sri Lanka
In contrast, both the Fishing cat and the Rusty spotted cat have limited geographical distributions, the latter
with a very restricted range. The Fishing cat is distributed discontinuously in Pakistan and the foothills of
the Himalayas, in south India (where there are scattered populations), Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar,
northern Thailand and Vietnam as well as on the islands of Sumatra and Java (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002).
The Rusty-spotted cat’s range is even more restricted to an isolated patch in north India in the Kashmir
region, southern India and Sri Lanka. Recently, photographs of this species have been recorded as far
east as Panna National Park, in central India, where they are reported from scrubland with the invasive
Lantana (Seidenstiker & Lumpkin, 2004).
Resource use
Leopards are generalists that are among the most adaptable of all cats and can occupy a broad range of
habitat from forests and scrub to desert and hills (Seidensticker & Lumpkin, 1991).
Jungle cats use a wide range of habitats, from tall grass, thick brush and desert scrub to riparian habitats
as well as cultivated areas, indicating that they are generalists in their habitat use (Sunquist & Sunquist,
2002). In contrast, Fishing cats are habitat specialists, always associated with wetlands and marshes.
Seidensticker & Lumpkin (2004) note that fishing cats live ‘in a linear, one-dimensional landscape rather
than in a two-dimensional area, because their home areas stretch along the linear extent of the stream or
pond bank, not over an area whose boundaries form a polygon.’ Rusty spotted cats in India are found in
dry and moist deciduous forests, scrub forests and grasslands; in Sri Lanka they are found where there is
forest cover (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002; Phillips, 1984).
Taxonomic status
Molecular genetic analyses have revealed that all modern cats evolved about 10.2 million years ago, during
the Miocene, and diverged into eight major lineages (Johnson & O’Brien, 2005; Johnson & O’Brien, 1997).
About 1.8 million years ago, the Panthera lineage diverged giving rise to the Genus Panthera; molecular
research indicates that leopards originated in Africa, some 470 000825 000 years ago and radiated into Asia
(Uphyrkina et al, 2001)
Leopards in Sri Lanka have been isolated from mainland leopards of India since the end of the Pleistocene
some 10,000 years ago (Bossuyt et al 2004; Jacob, 1949). Molecular biological analyses using three
different matrices (protein polymorphism, mitochondrial DNA restriction fragment polymorphisms, and
variation in variable nuclear tandem repeats) and morphometric analysis has revealed that the Sri Lankan
leopard is a unique and distinct subspecies, one of ten subspecies in the world (Miththapala, 1992;
Miththapala et al, 1996, Uphyrkina et al, 2001).
The earliest recorded history of leopards in Sri Lanka is from two main ancient chronicles of history – the
Mahawamsa and Chulavamsa (Jayewardene, 2002).
In recent history, one of the earliest records of leopards in Sri Lanka is by d’Oyly (1812, in Jayewardene,
2002) who writes of a chieftain who kills a leopard. Since then, there have been many incidental records of
leopards (Jayewardene, 2002).
During the British occupation of Sri Lanka in the 19th century, leopards were considered vermin, killed
actively, and trapped, with bounties provided for each skin (Jayewardene 2002). Between 1872 and 1899,
records reveal that 8,873 leopards were killed (Jayewardene 2002). This killing, now for sport, continued in
the early 20th century, and here too records reveal a high rate of slaughter. In the British Museum of
Natural History, are eight skulls of leopards shot by one hunter, in one region of Sri Lanka, during an eightmonth period at the turn of the 20th century (Miththapala, personal observation).
237
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Notwithstanding this decimation of the leopard population of Sri Lanka, molecular studies reveal that Sri
Lankan leopards have retained within-group genetic diversity consistent with an ancient population
bottleneck less than 10,000 years ago circa 2000 years ago, as compared to other species such as Asiatic
lions (Panthera leo asiatica) in India that are genetically homogeneous as a result of a recent (100 year
old) population bottleneck (Miththapala, 1992). Nonetheless, Sri Lankan leopards show markedly less
genetic variation than their Indian counterparts, indicative of a population insulated from gene flow from
the mainland (Miththapala, 1992; Miththapala et al., 1996; Uphyrkina et al, 2001).
About 3.95 million years ago, the Leopard cat lineage diverged in Southeast Asia, giving rise, among other
cat species, to the Fishing cat (Johnson & O’Brien, 1997). The Rusty spotted cat diverged as far back as
10 million years ago and no one really knows where it fits into the felid phylogenetic tree (Johnson &
O’Brien, 1997).
The Domestic cat lineage also diverged from its common ancestor some 10 million years ago in the
Mediterranean region and radiated in the Pliocene (6 million years ago) giving rise to several Eurasian and
African species, including the Jungle cat (Johnson & O’Brien, 1997).
It is apparent therefore, that each of the Sri Lankan cat species belongs to a different clade or group that
had its origins in different times and in different regions of the world, and are all, therefore, taxonomically
unique.
The validity of the subspecific status and of the smaller Sri Lankan wild cats is is highly questionable as
rigorous molecular and morphometric analyses have not been carried out.
Distribution and ecology within Sri Lanka.
Leopards
In 1935, Phillips noted that the range of the Sri Lankan leopard at the turn of the century extended from
sea level to Horton Plains in the central hills (over 2000m) in all forests of the island, but that through
trophy hunting and loss of forests, it was confined to the national parks of Sri Lanka. Santiapillai (2002),
nearly 70 years later, echoes these observations and writes that the range of leopards in Sri Lanka includes
some 624,484 ha, or 78% of the country’s protected areas. He notes that Sri Lankan leopards are found in
all types of forests: from thorn scrub and dry deciduous forests, to lowland rain forests and montane forests
(Santiapillai, 2002).
In the early 1970s, John Eisenberg and his collaborators carried out a seminal study on the ecology of
leopards in Wilpattu National Park – the key results of which are summarised in Table 1 (Eisenberg &
Lockhart, 1972; Muckenhirn & Eisenberg, 1973). The 1980s and 1990s saw only a very few and sporadic
field studies, likely as a result of the then political situation in the island which made field research both
risky and sporadic. These are: Santiapillai et al, 1982 and Chambers et al, 1983, which preceded island
wide political unrest, Amerasinghe et al., 1990, Amerasinge and Ekanayake, 1992, de Silva and Jayaratne,
1994 and Ranawana et al., 1998. The results of these studies are also summarised in Table 1.
Thankfully, for the future of the Sri Lankan leopard, the mid 1990s and the early years of the 21st century
saw an increased interest in Sri Lanka’s top carnivore. For several decades now, Lal Antonis has been
taking still photographs of leopards and in the last decade, Rukshan Jayawardene and Gehan de S
Wijeratne have focused on photographing the leopard in Yala Block I (Miththapala, personal observation).
These efforts as well as a BBC documentary initiated by Jehan Kumara in the early years of the new
millennium put the Sri Lankan leopard in the spotlight and greatly increased awareness of and interest in
this top carnivore.
Meanwhile, since 1994, Perera, Kumara, Samarasingha (Kumara & Samarasingha, 2002; Samarasinha,
2002) have focused on identifying individual leopards in Yala Block I, using spot pattern variation (based on
238
25 in Block I
not estimated
not estimated
Eisenberg &
Lockhart, 1972
Muckenhirn &
Eisenberg, 1973
Santiapillai et al,
1982
Amerasinghe et
al., 1990
Amerasinghe &
Ekanayake,
1992
Wilpattu
National Park
Wilpattu
National Park
Ruhuna
National Park
(Yala Block I)
Wilpattu,
Ruhuna,
Wasgamuwa
Nat. Parks
Ruhuna
National Park
(Yala Block I)
20 residents
not estimated
not estimated
not estimated
not estimated
51% Axis; 45% of Bubalus & Sus
then, Presbytis and/or Macaca,
and Ratufa in a single scat.
Wilpattu: 76.5% Axis, 17.7%
Bubalus
Yala: 54.3% Axis, 20.7 % Sus
Wasgamuwa: 50% Lepus, 37.5%
Tragulus, 12.5 % Axis
mentions Axis as main prey species
Considerable
overlap
5.6 sq km
(rough estimate)
31.7% Axis; 25.49% Sus;
5.88% Cervus; 7.84% Presbytis;
5.88% Lepus; 1.96% Hystrix;
7.84% Bulbalus; 3.92% Muntiacus;
3.92% Ratufa; 1.96% Bird;
3.92% unsure
none
concentrate round
permanent water
holes.
48.3% Axis; 27.59% Sus;
3.45% Cervus: 6.90% Presbytis;
6.90% Lepus; 3.45% Hystrix;
3.45% Bulbalus (calf)
Prey analysis
Males and female
Males show little
overlap
Home range
overlap
estimated 29 sq km
in Villu habitat
8- 10 sq km
Table 1: Past and present ecological studies of the leopard in Sri Lanka.
Researchers
Estimated
Home
Area of
population size range size
study
not estimated.
not estimated
0700 - ‘1100 hr
1500 - 2100 hr
with two peaks at
0700 and ‘1800
with shift from
diurnal during
the dry season
to nocturnal during
wet season.
0600 - 1000 hr
1500 -18.30 hr
called at night
Time of activity
Miththapala: The Ecology of the Wild Cats of Sri Lanka
239
240
not estimated
45 total
33.75 resident
11.25 transient
Ranawana et.
al., 1998
Kittle &
Watson, 2002
Kittle &
Watson, 2003
unpulbished
data ongoing
study
Horton Plains,
Hakgala, Peak
Wilderness
Ruhuna
National Park
(Yala Block I)
Dunumdallawa
FR (Kandy)
3, 1 inferred
1 resident male
1 resident female
1 cub
1 resident
female inferred
16
De Silva &
Jayaratne, 1994
Ruhuna
National Park
(Yala Block I)
Estimated
population size
Researchers
Area of
study
Male partially within
FR but also outside
female’s within the
study area
male = 38.8 sq km,
core 23.7
sq km
female = 6.8 sq km
Horton Plains: 75.8% Cervus
Hakgala: 42.8% Cervus
Peak Wilderness: 64.2%
Presbytes, 14.2% Cervus
not yet estimated
not done yet, but Muntiacus,
Tragulus, Sus, Hystrix, Lepus,
Macaca and Jungle fown in
study area
averaged 5.9 sq km 48% Axis; 22% Sus;
(range 2.5-9 sq km) 10% Bulbalus; 7% mixed
3% Cervus; 4% Presbytes;
2% Lepus; 4% Hystrix;
not estimated
not yet estimated
peaks of activity
at crepuscular
hours but
visible all day.
cubs 8 mnth - 2 yr
are more visible
not estimated
Time of activity
not estimated
Prey analysis
0700-0900 hr
after 1600 hrs
Home range
overlap
Males: Coastal - 10 km2 Females have
not estimated.
2
overlapping ranges
Inner forest - 33 km
Females - Coast: 8 km2
Inner forest - 25 km2
Home
range size
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Miththapala: The Ecology of the Wild Cats of Sri Lanka
Pennycuik & Rudnai 1970 and Miththapala et al. 1989). Since 1994, Samarasingha has been maintaining a
‘life history’ file of every leopard that he has sighted in Yala, and information recorded includes individual
identification, location of sighting, as well as parents and siblings/ cubs where known (Kumara &
Samarasingha, 2002; Samarasinha, 2002). The result was that in the span of four years, these researchers
were able to identify and sex 30 different individuals in Yala Block I (Kumara, 2001; Kumara &
Samarasingha, 2002; Samarasinha, 2002).
An intensive study that included over 250 sightings and extended over a 20-month period from October
2000 to June 2002, carried out by Kittle and Watson, began to look at the demography, behaviour and
ecology of leopards in Yala Block I (Kittle & Watson, 2003). Involving both day and night time fieldwork,
the research has provided valuable data on a number of important facets for this population of leopards
(Kittle & Watson, 2002, 2003 and unpublished data).
Kittle & Watson’s detailed study of the Yala Block I leopards reveals a very high density of leopards with
35.75 adults residents; an adult resident population density for Yala Block I of 0.15 leopards / km2 per year
or 6.6 km2/adult leopard (Kittle & Watson, 2002). This reported figure is much higher than densities of
leopards elsewhere in the world (Norton & Henley 1987; Bothma & Le Riche 1984; Hamilton 1976;
Schaller 1972 quoted in Kittle & Watson, 2003) and comparable only to densities in South Africa (Bailey,
1993 quoted in Kittle & Watson, in press). Kittle & Watson (in press) consider this substantially high
density a result of the conditions in Block I ‘approaching what could be considered ideal for leopards.’
They attribute this to many facets of leopard ecology, biology and behaviour and extrinsic factors: the fact
that leopards are dominant predators in this ecosystem; that there is an abundance of the preferred prey
species (Wignaraja et al., 1978) but also because they can also easily switch prey, as evidenced by scat
analysis; that despite the Park being in the arid zone of Sri Lanka (where rainfall is less than 1000mm per
annum) there are artificially maintained permanent water holes; that their intrinsic behaviour patterns allow
for maintenance of home ranges within those of others, as well as maintaining tiny home ranges for
females; and that their reproductive rates are high (litters were observed almost every month of the year).
Further details of their study in Yala are tabulated in Table 1.
Ratnayeke and her co-workers have examined the diversity and habitat use of carnivores in Wasgamuwa
National Park and her initial data reveal high densities for leopards in Wasgamuwa too (Ratnayeke,
personal communication).
After completion of their study in Yala, Kittle & Watson (unpublished data) moved to Dunumadallawa
Forest Reserve in Kandy and in an ongoing study, have estimated three to five individuals resident within
the area. They note that this forest reserve connects, albeit patchily, to Hantane. There have been other
reports of leopards in the Hantane area, which is just south of the heavily populated city of Kandy in the
central hills (Jayewardene, 2002). These patches of forest continue south to Galaha and eventually to
Pidurutalagala and Nuwara Eliya. The latter connects through Horton Plains National Park to the Peak
Wilderness Sanctuary. They note that although this ‘corridor’ leads through Pinus plantations, roads, tea
estates and villages, it provides a link between protected areas and is used by leopards.
What is critically important in these initial data is that they confirms earlier reports (Jayewardene, 2002)
that there are leopards outside the protected area system, contrary to Phillips (1984) and Santiapillai (2002)
who state that leopards would be confined within the protected area system. These data are buttressed by
other island wide data (Kittle & Watson, unpublished data), again from an ongoing study, which show many
sightings of leopards on the edge of, or outside protected areas (Figure 5).
Currently, Bambaradeniya and his associates are carrying out a resource inventory of Wilpattu National
Park, and their research includes surveys of the leopards, including coordinates of sightings. Samarasinha
is also carrying out a study of the ecology of leopards in Wilpattu.
241
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Jungle Cats
According to Phillips (1984), the Jungle cat is limited to the northern monsoon forests of the dry zone, and
southwards through Puttlam and Chilaw up to Kurunegala.
The work of current researchers appears to confirm Phillips’ observation that the Jungle cat is largely a
species of the dry zone, as it has been recorded patchily: wherever there is forest cover, except in the wet
zone. (See Figure 4; Balagalle et al., unpublished document IUCN, 1997, 2000; Nekaris, 2003; Ratnayeke,
personal communication;) Ratnayeke et al., find that relative abundances for Jungle cats is higher in
Wasgomuwa National Park than in Yala Block 1 (Ratnayeke, personal communication). Nekaris sited this
species in three locations in the dry zone and one in the intermediate zone (See Figure 6.)
There are no direct studies of the feeding ecology of this species in Sri Lanka. Phillips (1984) records that
the Jungle cat feeds on small mammals and ground dwelling birds. Nekaris (2003) suggests that Jungle
cats may prey on the Grey Slender Loris (Loris lydekkerianus) In other countries examination of stomach
remains of Jungle cats reveal a preponderance of rodents, and ranked next, ‘game’ birds (Sunquist &
Sunquist, 2002). It has been noted that they will feed opportunistically on reptiles and frogs as well as fish.
A study in Russia has also revealed that Jungle cats may supplement their winter diets by eating fruit
(Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002).
Little is known about the breeding biology of this species, except that litters consist usually of one or two
kittens who are not spotted (Seidensticker and Lumpkin, 1991).
Again, little is known about its social organization, except for the observation that, like most other cat
species, it is solitary (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002).
Fishing Cats
According to Phillips (1984), the Fishing cat is found all over the island, even at high elevations and in the
forests of both the wet and dry zones, but has not been reported north of the Central province.
An ongoing study by Balagalle et al., seeks to survey selected urban and suburban habitats to determine
the presence or absence of Fishing cats and Rusty spotted cats in populated areas, with the expected
outcome of obtaining their geographical distribution and ensuring that measures for their conservation are
incorporated in urban planning programmes. Thus far, their study - using camera traps around the suburbs
of Colombo - has revealed the presence of Fishing cats in the outskirts of Colombo in the BellanwilaAttidiya Sanctuary, which is a wetland habitat and one which also has an ancient Dutch canal running by
it; and in Nawala, which is a residential suburb of Colombo, but which also has a canal that runs alongside
the town (Balagalle et al., unpublished document, Seidensticker, 2004) (See Figure 7). They have also
documented Fishing cats in Wasgomuwa National Park, which is in the dry zone, both in the buffer zone
area and within the park.
Nekaris (2003) reports a sighting of a Fishing cat in Polonnaruwa (Figure 7).
Kittle & Watson (unpublished data) report, as incidental sightings along with their ongoing project on
leopard ecology, Fishing cats in several dry zone sanctuaries and Wasgomuwa National Park, as well as
other locations in the north central province (most of which are associated with ancient tanks in the dry
zone). (See Figure 5.) They also report sightings in the central hills, both in Horton Plains National Park as
well as in a tea estate (Bogawantalawa) and a forest reserve (Dunumadalawa) (Figure 7). Kittle &
Watson’s data corroborates Balagalle et al.’s research and report sightings in populated suburbs around
Colombo (Piliyandala, Kotte, Battaramulla, Attidiya, Panadura) as well as around the towns of Ja-ela and
Negombo, further north (Figure 7). In all of these towns, there are disused canals, flooded areas or
wetlands (Ranjit Galappatti, personal communication). It appears, therefore, from these preliminary findings
that although Fishing cats are considered habitat specialists, they are able to adapt to human presence and
live in and around human habitation, as long as there is water.
242
Miththapala: The Ecology of the Wild Cats of Sri Lanka
Contrary to Balagalle et al., Ratnayeke et al., in an ongoing study of carnivores in Wasgamuwa National
Park, do not record any Fishing cats, although they report sightings in Pottuvil and Kantalai (Ratnayeke,
personal communication, Figure 7).
Balagalle identified Porcupine (Hystrix indica) remains in the scats of fishing cats, indicating that they are
supplementing their aquatic prey with terrestrial species (Seidensticker, 2004). These researchers have
not yet reported densities of this species in the areas they have been photographed. Balagalle et al’s
research also shows that Fishing cats are both diurnal and nocturnal (Seidensticker, 2004).
Elsewhere in the world, it has been reported that fishing cats prey primarily on fish, next on water birds
and on small mammals, although they are known to eat dogs, calves and fawns and even small children
(Sunquist & Sunquist, 2004).
Little is known about the social organization or reproductive biology of Fishing cats.
Rusty spotted cats:
Phillips (1984) records that the elusive Rusty spotted cat is resident in all forested areas of the island.
Based on museum records that show the presence in and around Colombo of Rusty spotted cats some 3050 years ago, Balagalle et al., set out to camera trap this species, but so far have not succeeded in
photographing it in the suburbs of Colombo, Dambulla or Kandalama (Balagalle et al., unpublished document.)
Nekaris (2003) lists nocturnal sightings in Yala Block 1. Kittle & Watson (in press) also record 30 sightings
of Rusty spotted cats but only in the southern and central part of Yala Block 1. They attribute the lack of
sightings in other areas of the park to the floristic composition, which is open scrub in the northern part of
Block 1, and relate this absence to the need of Rusty spotted cats to use dense vegetative cover. They
confirm that Rusty spotted cats can live in arid conditions (See Figure 8), as does Nekaris (2003) who
reports sightings from scrub forests.
All Kittle and Watson’s sightings were between 19.00 and 6.00 supporting previous reports that the Rusty
spotted cat is truly nocturnal. Kittle & Watson (in press) report that Rusty spotted cats are more commonly
sighted in the wet season, close to or on roads.
Ratnayeke’s ongoing study of carnivores reveals that the densities of this species are higher in Yala than in
Wasgomuwa (Ratnayeke, personal communication).
Nekaris (2003) reports one sighting of predation of an Antelope Rat (Tatara indica) by a Rusty spotted cat
in Yala Block 1. Apart from this sighting, nothing much is yet known about the feeding ecology, social
organization of this species nor their breeding biology except for Phillips’ (1984) account that there are two
kittens born per litter.
In captivity, it has been reported that Rusty spotted cats have prodigious appetites - and they eat more
than 6% of their body weight each day (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). They are known to have very high
basal metabolic rates and therefore are very active, and have been dubbed ‘the hummingbirds of the cat
family’ (Seidensticker & Lumpkin, 2004, Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). Elsewhere in the world, their prey
appears to consist mainly of birds and small mammals (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). Phillips (1984) reports
the same diet in Sri Lanka.
Conservation status and threats to the wild cats of Sri Lanka
Leopards
Leopards are protected by the Flora and Fauna Ordinance of Sri Lanka, where killing or selling leopards or
leopard parts carries with it a fine of ten to thirty thousand rupees and a possible prison term of two–five
years (FFPO, 1992).
243
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Notwithstanding this national and global protection (the Asian leopards are on Appendix I of CITES where
trade is prohibited), there have been reports of leopards caught in wire snares purportedly set for wild boar
and deer; poisoning of cattle carcasses on which leopards feed; shooting and spearing (Jayewardene, 2002;
Kittle & Watson, 2002). IUCN Sri Lanka notes that annually the Department of Wildlife Conservation
records at least five leopard kills and that snares and noose traps set for other species also result in the
deaths of leopards (IUCN, 2003). A recent report by Kittle and Watson (2002) warns of increased leopard
poaching that is a ‘mere tip of the iceberg.’ In the course of their 2-year field research, they report having
seen 26 skins of leopards near national parks (10 from around Wasgamuwa; five from around Udawalewe;
five from Yala, four from Wilpattu and two from the central hill region) (Kittle & Watson, 2002). It appears
from their report that although there is a high demand for leopard products in the region, there is an
additional demand for leopards in Sri Lanka for medicinal purposes (Kittle & Watson, 2002).
Much more insidious and as debilitating to the population of leopards in Sri Lanka, is habitat loss, habitat
degradation and habitat fragmentation. Sri Lanka has only 23.8% of area under forest cover, and has lost
approximately half the area of forests it had in the 1950s (Wijesinghe, 2000). Although there has been an
island wide moratorium on logging since the 1980s, illicit tree felling and clearing for shifting cultivation (in
the dry zone) still continues (Wijesinghe 2000, Miththapala, personal observation). Collection of non-timber
forest products and widespread poaching of ungulates contributes to habitat degradation (Wijesinghe 2000,
Jayewardene, 2002).
Sri Lanka boasts of some 70 protected areas in the island (40 of which were declared in the 1990s), and
has, at least on paper, a reasonably extensive system extending over nearly 14% of its total land area
(WCMC, 2000, Conservation International 2004). However, these areas are under constant threat of
illegal/unsustainable extraction of resources and encroachment from a burgeoning population of humans
(19.2 million in 2000) (Wijesinghe, 2000). It should be noted that except for a few protected areas in the
Mahaweli region, most Sri Lanka’s protected areas are islands in a sea of human habitation (see Figure 3).
Jungle Cats
The Jungle cat is listed in the IUCN Red list of 2003 as a species of least concern, and on CITES Appendix
II (IUCN 2003, CITES 2003). Hunting of this species is prohibited in Bangladesh, China, India, Israel,
Myanmar, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Thailand and Turkey (Nowell & Jackson, 1996).
In Sri Lanka, the Jungle cat is afforded full protection under the Flora and Fauna Protection Ordinance and
listed as threatened in the National list of flora and fauna (FFPO, 1992; IUCN, 2000).
Like other species, the Jungle cat is affected by habitat loss, although its generalist habits may confer a degree
of adaptability that ensures its survival (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). An alarming threat to its survival has
been the illegal trade in skins, particularly in India, where 306,343 skins were declared when export was banned
in 1979, and 14,242 skins found in 1980 (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). Way back in 1973, de Alwis stated
that forest clearing had a ruinous effect on Jungle cat populations, as suitable prey were being decimated
and that many jungle cats then resorted to killing livestock, and were in turn being killed by farmers (de
Alwis, 1973). He also reported the alarming rate of killing of twelve jungle cats per month (de Alwis, 1973).
Bambaradeniya and Amerasinghe (2001) report that feral dogs kill Jungle cats.
Fishing cats
The Fishing cat is listed as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List and on Appendix II of CITES (IUCN, 2003;
CITES 2003). The Red List also estimates the effective global population size at below 10,00 mature
individuals and recognizes a declining trend in population size. The Felid Taxonomic Group identifies the
Javan population as Critically Endangered, as there are less than 200 individuals (Felidtag, 2003). Eighty
fishing cat skins were found in 1991 in North Bengal (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002).
Fishing cats are protected under the FFPO and are considered nationally threatened (FFPO, 1992; IUCN,
2000).
244
Miththapala: The Ecology of the Wild Cats of Sri Lanka
Balagalle et al. note that conflict with humans is high for this species as they kill chickens (Seidensticker,
2004). Bambaradeniya & Amerasinghe (2001) list snares and noose traps set for wild boar as threats to
Fishing cats, as well as accidental falls into uncovered wells in human habited areas. They also note that
road kills, particularly on the Colombo-Kandy road, are becoming a threat to this species. Kittle & Watson
(personal communication) observe that in the Hingurangoda/ Kaudulla forest area in the north central
province Fishing cats are hunted and eaten by villagers.
Rusty spotted cats
Rusty spotted cats are listed as vulnerable in the IUCN Red list with a declining global population (IUCN,
2003). Trade of Indian Rusty spotted cats is prohibited under CITES as this population is listed in Appendix
I and the Sri Lankan population, on Appendix II.
Like the other wild cats of Sri Lanka, the Rusty spotted cat is protected in Sri Lanka and is considered
nationally threatened (FFPO,1990; IUCN 2000).
De Alwis (1973) reports that this species is killed for its flesh, and that adults are killed mistakenly as
leopard cubs. Bambaradeniya & Amerasinghe (2001) note road kills in the Hambantota District, and state
that road kills and feral dogs are beginning to pose threats to this species. Kittle & Watson’s observation
(in press) that Rusty spotted cat is more commonly found in and around roads in Yala Block 1 during the
wet season lends support to Bambaradeniya & Amerasinghe’s statement.
A more insidious threat is Kittle & Watson’s observation (in press) of a mating between a Rusty spotted
cat and a domestic cat, confirming Phillips’ comment that such matings would be likely. Cross species
matings could erode the genetic integrity of Rusty spotted cats. Similar events in the recent history of
Florida panthers (Puma concolor coryii) resulted in genetic introgression, so that certain individuals had
alleles from two different subspecies (O’Brien et al., 1990).
Conservation needs for the wild cats of Sri Lanka
Leopards
Thankfully, the 1990s and the 21st century have seen several results-driven studies of leopards (Kittle &
Watson 2003; Kumara & Samarasingha, 2002; Miththapala et al., 1996; Ratnayeke, personal
communication).
However, what we have is fragmented knowledge. There are serious gaps in the data available on Sri
Lankan leopards and we lack a national picture for this species. Data are urgently needed about these
unique sub-species across its entire range in Sri Lanka, so that a meaningful and effective plan for
conservation, that transcends park boundaries and ecosystems and one which includes all stakeholders, is
developed. We need to know these answers because of the reality conveyed in the axiom ‘good
conservation is based on good science’. Without data, we have no basis for conservation. Without a proper
road map for conservation, we cannot minimise risks for the species in question.
Listed below are recommendations for further study of the Sri Lankan leopard that need priority attention.
z
Obtaining the national distribution of leopards.
A rigorous and standard method should be employed to examine the distribution of leopards in Sri
Lanka, initially as presence/absence noted with an exact location. This should exclude reports,
however reliable, and only document, using geographical coordinates for exact locations, actual
sightings or the presence of scats. Kittle and Watson are developing such a distribution map and their
work needs to be supported so that they can continue this documentation. Incidental but reliable data
such as data from the National Conservation Review could be included.
245
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
z
Estimating populations, densities and home ranges in different habitats and all national parks.
There is a real danger that Kittle & Watson’s density and population estimates of Yala Block I will be
extrapolated to estimate the population of leopards in Sri Lanka. In the past, some authors have
estimated national figures for leopards extrapolating from data that Eisenberg and Lockhart obtained
in Wilpattu in 1972.
We cannot fall prey to this trap, as the indisputable fact is that we have insufficient data to estimate
leopard numbers in Sri Lanka. The necessary data must be obtained from scientific estimates based
on home range sizes for leopard in all national parks and in different habitats.
Pabla & Mathur (2001) have recommended monitoring the populations by using pugmarks, but this is
only good for establishing presence/absence of a species in an area. Karanth et al. (2003) have
demonstrated that pugmark censuses of tigers in India have not been a reliable means of assessing
numbers of individuals. Therefore, we should not also resort to census-based studies, but must rely
on sample-based research.
Before any national estimates are attempted, home ranges sizes and density estimates for leopards in
different habitats in different parts of the island must be obtained.
If, as Kittle & Watson (in press) posit, Yala Block I is a near-ideal habitat for leopards, then would
population sizes be smaller in wetter areas of lowland rainforest and in central hills? This needs
examination.
Particularly important are border areas where there has been ethnic conflict. Kittle & Watson state
that they were not able to get down in the Vanni area as it was land-mined, but note that all the way
on the Vavuniya-Mannar road there still was forest (Watson, personal communication).
As a priority, estimates must be obtained for previously inaccessible conflict areas. In other areas
occupied by government forces, there has been evidence of poaching of primates and ungulates
(Miththapala, personal observation.)
z
Examining scats in different habitats.
Although there is good data on prey utilization in Yala Block I and Wilpattu (in the past), we need scat
analyses in other protected areas and habitats in both wet and dry seasons to identify the preferred
prey of leopards as well as other prey species eaten in other habitats.
z
Estimation of ungulate and other potential prey populations in different habitats.
Top carnivores cannot survive if they do not have adequate numbers of prey. This facet of
conservation was largely ignored until Karanth (1993) demonstrated quantitatively a correlation
between tiger (Panthera tigris) and prey densities and Wikramanayake et al., (1998) confirmed that
suitable patches of tiger habitat existed sans tigers. Since then, empirical data from most of South
and Far Eastern Asia, has shown that there are no tigers even in sizeable spaces of suitable habitat
when prey populations have been decimated by poaching (Karanth & Stith, 1999; Miquelle et al.,
1999).
Although leopards are far more of generalist in feeding as compared to tigers, and have the ability to
switch prey species and survive on small mammals and insects (Seidensticker, 2002), we cannot be
complacent, as there are some potential problems if there is prey depletion. Firstly, a shift of prey use
by leopards from a preferred prey species to smaller sized prey will place an additional demand on
the prey-base of medium and small sized carnivores, with the result that one or more of these species
may become threatened with extinction (Seidensticker, 1985). This, in turn, will change community
structure. Secondly, if prey numbers are not sufficient, then leopards could turn to preying on livestock,
which, in turn, generates conflict between leopards and humans.
Thus, an estimation of ungulates and other prey species must be an essential component of the
conservation of leopards. Again, methods of estimation must be scientific, and consistent methodology
must be used island wide.
246
Miththapala: The Ecology of the Wild Cats of Sri Lanka
z
There is a critical and imminent need to examine leopards living outside protected areas.
That there are leopards living outside the protected area system of Sri Lanka can be construed as
good news, as it could be inferred that this is a result of healthy populations that have enough cover
and prey to survive and reproduce. Their inferred movement between protected areas (Kittle &
Watson, unpublished data) is also excellent in terms of their genetic diversity as isolated populations
are also at risk of homogenisation of their genetic variation because they are unable to disperse and
breed outside their natal areas.
The other side of this coin is that leopards could be outside protected areas because they do not have
adequate room within. The leopards in Yala Block I (Kumara & Samarasingha, 2002; Kittle &
Watson, in press) could easily spill over outside within a few years. Kittle & Watson (in press) have
noted that sub adults from Yala Block I disappear at the end of two years. This observation begs the
question: where to?
The other negative facet of leopards living outside protected areas in that they very easily become
problem animals. Our neighbour India is struggling with the issue of leopard attacks in Mumbai, which
is one of the only places in the world where there is a park (which is 103km2) within the city limits,
housing 40 leopards. In the last two years there have been 22 deaths among 45 attacks by leopards,
mostly on children (Bajoria, 2003). It has been also reported that leopards forage in garbage bins at
night (Bajoria, 2003).
We are hearing of a much smaller scale problem in Hantane where new residents are asked not to
allow domestic pets, especially dogs, to range free as they will be eaten by leopards (Ranjan
Brekenridge, personal communication). We cannot permit an escalation of this conflict to the level
that we learn of in Mumbai.
It is imperative that leopards living outside national parks are radio collared and their home ranges, the
routes they take, their dispersal patterns, what prey they are taking are examined. Kittle & Watson’s
study in the Dunumadallawa Forest Reserve should be expanded and supported to allow these
researchers to follow leopards as they move.
Leopards are known to be excellent dispersers, travelling at night across open areas devoid of cover
as well as across roads (Seidensticker, 2002; Seidensticker et al., 1990; Sunquist, 1983). This ability,
coupled with their capacity to live in close proximity to human habitation and their adaptability of prey
utilization, gives them a tremendous survival advantage over other large carnivores such as tigers
(Seidensticker, 2002).
However, these leopards are at high risk because they are exposed to new menacing dangers: direct
conflict with humans and their livestock, exposure to new diseases from livestock and deaths due to
road accidents. We need to minimise these risks for this species.
z
In order to understand and minimise the direct threat that leopards face, we have to identify exactly
what they are, and examine whether there are threats specific to particular areas.
An islandwide survey on the threats to leopards is needed. If measures are to be taken to minimise
risk to this species in a changing landscape, then we need to identify where poaching is highest, where
snaring is predominant (whether for other species or not), where leopards are being killed for
medicinal purposes, where leopards are taking livestock, whether leopards are susceptible to being
killed by vehicular traffic as they traverse main roads. Kittle & Watson’s report of leopard poaching
(2002) highlights a specific threat to leopards for medicinal purposes and requires further investigation.
The Department of Wildlife Conservation and the Forest Department can be requested to assist in
this survey. It is only when we know where the problems are greatest that we can attempt to find
solutions to them.
z
Awareness of the need for the conservation of this top carnivore must be created nationally.
Good science will result in good conservation only if that good science is disseminated in
understandable language to the general populace. To this end, the publication of books on leopards
247
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
and the publication of posters (Jayewardene et al, 2002, de S. Wijeratne, 2004, Kittle & Watson, 2005)
will help, but only with a select group of the national population. A targeted series of national public
awareness programmes on the ecologically important role that leopards play in Sri Lanka, as well as
their genetic, behavioural and ecological uniqueness, is needed urgently in the regions where it lives.
The small cats
In 2001, Bambaradeniya & Amerasinghe recommended that the focus of research should shift from
leopards to small cats. Without shifting the focus, several-pronged research efforts are currently being
made to study both leopards and small cats (Balagalle et al., ongoing study; Kittle & Watson, ongoing study;
Ratnayeke et al., ongoing study). Despite these efforts, it should be noted that there are yet very large
lacunae in our knowledge of these three species.
We know very little about the national distribution, feeding ecology, habitat use and breeding biology of the
small wild cats of Sri Lanka. Except for the Fishing cat, for which there are data accumulating of habitat
use, we know nothing about their specific habitat and prey requirements nor how they interact with each
other and with other meso-carnivores. All these data are essential if we are to formulate meaningful
conservation strategies for these wild cats.
Listed below are recommendations for further study that need attention as a priority.
z
Obtaining the national distribution of these three species.
An initial picture of the presence/absence nationwide of these three species is essential.
Balagalle et al.’s study proposes a three-tier focus of camera trapping, first in and around Colombo,
then Muthurajawala and finally Dambulla in the north central zone. They are poised to begin the
second phase of their study that entails the use of radio telemetry and comparison of the distribution
of fishing cats and their densities in suburban/urban versus natural habitats (Seidensticker, 2004). All
that is needed is augmentation and extension of their camera trapping survey across the country.
Kittle & Watson (in press) have also provided valuable sightings for two of the three species and if
their leopard work is supported, then these incidental data will continue.
Ratnayeke et al.’s ongoing study of carnivore density/ habitat use in Wasgomuwa and Yala should
yield results that are extremely beneficial to our understanding of these species.
It is essential however, that these three important studies are supported and expanded to obtain island
wide distribution data.
z
Assessing habitat use:
Across its distribution, the Fishing cat has been identified at a habitat specialist associated with riparian
or wetland habitats, whereas the Jungle cat is known to be a generalist (Seidensticker & Lumpkin,
2004; Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). The distribution map of the Rusty spotted cat in Sri Lanka obtained
from incidental reports shows that it is found in the dry, wet and arid zones, and in different habitats
(Figure 6). Does this mean that the Rusty spotted cat is a generalist in habitat use? Why then is it so
restricted in its geographic range and considered a rare species?
We need to identify which of these species is sympatric with each other and for this, we need clear
locational data and GPS positions plotted on habitat overlay maps to identify specific habitat uses of
each of these species. With these locational data, microhabitat variables such as, inter alia: altitude;
slope; visibility; percentage cover; weather conditions; number of trees0 to 7 cm dbh; number of trees
> 7cm dbh; surface area covered by fallen logs and trees; surface area covered by rocks, presence/
absence of a known water source; percentage ground cover are needed for comparison among
species.
248
Miththapala: The Ecology of the Wild Cats of Sri Lanka
z
Examining scats of the three different species:
In order to better understand the ecology of these species, it is imperative that their food habits are
studied thoroughly. We need to know what their preferred prey species are, as well as to identify
whether and how they switch prey in lean times.
We need to understand the feeding habits of Rusty spotted cats. A female at a mere 1.1kg, is possibly
as small as it can get, given constraints imposed by pregnancy and lactation. Yet, reportedly it has an
insatiable appetite in captivity (Seidensticker & Lumpkin, 2004) . In the wild, this would mean that it
has to feed very often, several times a day. In competition with other species, what are they eating,
particularly in the arid and dry zones, where food is scarce during the drought period?
z
Identifying potential competitors:
Once habitat use and dietary needs are identified and locational data are obtained, it will be possible
to assess which species are sympatric with each other. The approximate distribution maps of Jungle
cats and Fishing cats (Figure 3 & 4) reveal sightings in similar locations. Whether they are indeed
sympatric or whether there are specific habitat differences that are not reflected in the map, needs
further study.
It is also important to identify other carnivore competitors as well as their dietary requirements.
Balagalle et al.’s camera traps revealed the Ruddy mongoose (Herpestes smithii), the Brown
mongoose (Herpestes fuscus), the Striped–necked mongoose (Herpestes vitticolis), the Otter (Lutra
lutra) and the Ring-tailed civet (Viverricula indica), as well as the Golden jackal (Canis aureus) along
with Fishing cat photographs in Wasgomuwa and Dambulla.
There are also other potential competitors like raptors and snakes, which must not be overlooked.
It is particularly important that the four mongoose species are studied, as based on their body sizes,
they may be the closest in size as potential competitors of the Rusty spotted cat.
The role of jackals as competitors also needs investigation.
Many scientists have presented empirical evidence of increased densities of smaller carnivores
(meso-carnivore release) as a consequence of the absence of the top carnivore in a habitat. The
eminent mammalogist John Eisenberg believed that leopards preyed on Jungle cats and that accounted
for their scarcity in Sri Lankan forests (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). The absence of leopards and the
presence of Fishing cats in the suburbs of Colombo is extremely interesting. This presence/absence
will be studied further by Balagalle et a.l. (Seidensticker, 2004).
Ratnayeke’s results of carnivore habitat use and densities will come in extremely useful to identify
sympatric species.
z
Assessing specific threats to survival:
Reclamation of wetlands is often cited as the main threat to Fishing cats worldwide (Sunquist &
Sunquist, 2002; Wikramanyake et al., 2003) Yet, initial reports place this species within the heart of
towns and cities. Does this mean that what it needs is water and adequate prey, not necessarily
wetlands, and that man-made canals and tanks would suffice? For this, Balagalle et al.’s, telemetric
study will be invaluable.
Identifying where human conflict is highest, where direct and accidental snares and poaching is
highest, where road kills are significant is also essential.
z
Assessing genetic threats to the Rusty spotted cat:
Kittle & Watson report on cross mating between a domestic cat and a Rusty spotted cat needs
investigation. Given its phylogenetic uniqueness (it does not really fit into any cat lineage and is a
very old species) the extent and character of genetic diversity in the Rusty spotted cat need
examination.
249
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Conclusions
We need to ensure that the road map for the conservation of Sri Lankan wild cats is not only based on
good science, but is results-driven, not activity-driven. We need a goal and a vision for the conservation of
these cats that we should all work towards, using a holistic approach that includes all stakeholders.
We, as a nation, take responsibility and act to conserve our top carnivore, so that we can minimise risk to
this species in the face of pressure from human activities. We cannot fall back on global monitors to do so.
We need also to guarantee that action is taken now. Back in 1982, Santipillai made several
recommendations for the conservation of leopards inter alia of setting up buffer zones to avoid conflict and
Jayewardene (2002a) makes an impassioned plea for the conservation of leopards. But there has been no
national strategy so far.
Seidensticker & Lumpkin (2004) state concisely the importance of understanding how species are
distributed in space, estimating their abundance and discerning what their inter connections are:
‘Conservation biologist Michael Soulé pointed out “…diversity and rarity are synonyms for “everything” in
ecology.” If ecologists can explain and predict patterns of diversity and rarity in landscapes or regions, they
understand one of the most fundamental issues in biology.’
It is only when we know the true distribution of the wild cats of Sri Lanka, when we truly understand their
biology and ecology and recognise specific threats to each species, that we can begin to formulate
meaningful strategies for their conservation.
Acknowledgements:
The author is grateful to Andrew Kittle, Shyamala Ratnayeke, Anjali Watson, and Eric Wikramanayake for
generously providing unpublished data; to Eric Wikramanayake for the initial digitised map of forest cover
in Sri Lanka; to Gehan de S. Wijeyeratne for supplying a photograph of a leopard and to Janaki Galappatti
for proof-reading the manuscript.
Literature Cited
Amerasinge, F. P. Ekanayake, U. B. & Burge, R.D.A. (1990) Food habits of the leopard (Panthera
pardus fusca) in Sri Lanka. Ceylon Journal of Science (Bio. Sci) 21 (1) 17-24.
Amerasinge, F. P. & Ekanayake, U. B. (1992) Prey hair remains in leopard faeces at Ruhuna National
Park. Ceylon Journal of Science (Bio. Sci) 22 (1) 14-15.
Bajoria, J (2003). Leopards spread fear in Bombay URL: http://www.bbc.com/south asia. Dec 23
Bertram, B. C. R. (1979). Serengeti predators and their social systems, pp 221-248 in Serengeti: dynamics
of an ecosystem. Sinclair, A. R. E ad Norton Griffiths, M. eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bambaradeniya, C.N.B. & Amarasinghe, S. (2001) Wild cats in Sri Lanka. Cat News 35: 18-19.
Balagalle, S. Wikramanayake, E., Padmalal, U. K. G. K. & Seidensticker, J. Meso-caernivores as urban
conservation flagships: the role of fishing cats in Sri Lanka’s cities. Unpublished manuscript.
Bossuyt, F., Meegaskumbura, M, Beenaerts, N., Gower, D. J , Pethiyagoda, R. Roelants, K., Mannaert,
A., Wilkinson, M., Bahir, M. M., Manamendra-Arachchi, K., Ng, P. K. L., Schneider, C. J., Oommen,
V. O., Milinkovitch, M, C. (2004) Local Endemism Within the Western Ghats-Sri Lanka Biodiversity
Hotspot Science, 306 (5695): 479-481
Bothma J. DuP. & Riche, E. A. N. (1986). Prey preferences and hunting efficiency of the Kalahari Desert
leopard, pp 389-414 in Cats of the World: Biology, Conservation and Management. S. D. Miller
and D. D. Everett, eds. Washington: National Wildlife Federation.
250
Miththapala: The Ecology of the Wild Cats of Sri Lanka
Brekenridge, Ranjan. Emeritus professor, University of Peradeniya.
Cat specialist group, Species Survival Commission, IUCN (2003) http://lynx.uio.no/catfolk/planning/
planmain.htm
CITES (2003). http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/species.html
Clark, T. W., Curlee, A. P., Minta, S. C., & Kareiva, P. M. (1999). Carnivores in ecosystems: the
Yellowstone Experience. New Haven: Yale University Press.
De Alwis, w. L. E. (1973) Status of Southeast Asia’s small cats. Pp 198-208 in The World’s Cats Volume
1. ed. R. L. Eaton, Winston Oregon: World Wildlife Safari.
De Silva, M. & Jayaratne, B.V.R. (1994). Aspects of population ecology of the leopard (Panthera pardus)
in Ruhuna National Park, Sri Lanka. J.South Asian nat. Hist. 1(1), 3-13.
de S. Wijeratne (2004) Leopards of Yala. A selection of articles and images. Compiled & edited by Gehan
de Silva Wijeyeratne with contributions from various authors. Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Yala Safari
Game Lodge under the Jetwing Research Initiative.
Eisenberg, J. F., & Lockhart, M. (1972) An ecological reconnaissance of Wilpattu National Park, Ceylon.
Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 101. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Emmons, L. (1991) Body size and feeding tactics Pp 62 in Great Cats, eds, J, Seidensticker and S.
Lumpkin. Emmaus, PA: Rodale press.
Felidtag, (2003). http://www.felidtag.org/pages/Educational%5CfactSheets%5Cfishin_cat.htm
The Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance, amendment (1992). The Gazette of the Democratic Republic
of Sri Lanka. Colombo: Department of Government Printing.
Galappatti, Ranjit. Consultant Director, Lanka Hydraulics Limited, Moratuwa .
Hamilton, P. H. (1986). Status of the leopard in Kenya, with reference to sub-Saharan Africa. Pp 447-458
in Cats of the World: Biology , Conservation and Management. S. D. Miller and D. D. Everett, eds.
Washington: National Wildlife Federation.
Hoppe-Dominik, B. (1984). Etude du spectre des proies de la panthere, Panthera pardus, dans le Parc
National de Tai en Cote d’Ivoire. Mammalia 48: 477-487.
Illany, G. (1986). Preliminary observation in the ecology of the leopard (Panthera pardus jarvisi) in the
Judean desert, pp 199 Cats of the World: Biology , Conservation and Management. S. D. Miller
and D. D. Everett, eds. Washington: National Wildlife Federation.
IUCN/WCMC/FAO (1997). Designing an optimum protected areas system for Sri Lanka’s natural forest.
Volume 2. Unpublished document.
IUCN, Sri Lanka (2000). The 1999 list of threatened fauna and flora of Sri Lanka. Colombo: IUCN, Sri Lanka.
Jansen, M. & N. de Zoysa 1992 . Sri Lanka’s biodiversity: a vanishing resource. Tiger Paper 19:(4):18- 24.
Jacob, K. (1949). Land connections between Ceylon and peninsular India. Proceedings of the National
Institute of Sciences of India. 15:341-343.
Jayewardene, R. (2002a) A short history of the leopards of Sri Lanka Pp 42-47 in For the leopard. A
tribute to the Sri Lankan leopard. Jayewardene, R., Kumara, J., Miththapala, S., Perera, H.,
Samarasingha, R., Santiapillai, C., and J. Seidensticker. Colombo: Harith Perera Trust.
Jayewardene, R. (2002b) Epilogue. Pp 180-183 in For the leopard. A tribute to the Sri Lankan leopard.
Jayewardene, R., Kumara, J., Miththapala, S., Perera, H., Samarasingha, R., Santiapillai, C., and J.
Seidensticker. Colombo: Harith Perera Trust.
Johnsingh, A. J. T. (1983) Large mammalian prey-predatory relationships in Bandhipur. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 2 (3): 245-247.
251
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Johnson, W. E. & S. J. O’Brien (1997). Phylogenetic reconstruction of the Felidae using 16S rRNA and
NADH-5 mitochondrial genes. Journal of Molecular Evolution 44(supplement):S98-S116.
Johnson, W. E. & S. J. O’Brien (2005). Big cat genomics. Annual Review of Genomics and Human
Genetics 6:4-7-429.
Karanth, K. U. (1993) Predator-prey relationships among large mammals in Nagarahole National Park,
India. Mangalore University, PhD Dissertation.
Karanth, K. U., & Sunquist, M. (1995). Prey selection by tiger, leopard and dhole in tropical forests.
Journal of Animal Ecology 64:439-450.
Karanth, K. U. & Stith, B. M. (1999) Prey depletion as a critical determinant of tiger population viability.
Pp 100-111 in Riding the tiger: Tiger Conservation in human-dminated landscapes. Eds. J.
Seidensticker, S. Christie and P. Jackson. Camrbidge England: Cambridge University Press.
Karanth, K. U., & Sunquist, M. (2000) Behavioural correlates of predation by tiger (Panthera tigris),
leopard (Panthera pardus) and dhole (Cuon alpinus) in Nagarahole, India. Journal of Zoology,
London. 250:255-265.
Kerley, L. L., Goodrich , J. M., Miquelle, D. G., Smirnov, E. N., Quigley, H. B., Hornocker, M. G. (2002)
Effects Of Roads And Human Disturbance On Amur Tigers. Conservation Biology 16 ( 1) 97.
Kitchener, A. (1991). The Natural History of Wild Cats New York: Comstock Publishing Associates.
Kittle, A. M. & Watson A. (2002). Leopard poaching in Sri Lanka. Loris 23(1& 2):42-49.
Kittle, A. M, & Watson A. (2002) Home range, demography and behaviour of an arid zone population of
Sri Lankan Leopard (Panthera pardus (kotiya). Final Report to the Ministry of Environment and
Natural Resources, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka.
Kittle. A. M., and Watson, A. (in press) A short report of The Leopard Projects’ research in Ruhuna (Yala)
National Park, Block 1, Sri Lanka. Loris.
Kittle, A. & A. Watson (in press) Observation of an arid zone population of Rusty spotted cat
(Prionailurus rubiginosa phillipsi) in Sri Lanka. Cat news.
Kumara, J. (2001) Island leopards. BBC Wildlife 19(12) 44-53.
Kumara, J. & Samarasingha, R. (2002) Observations of leopards in Yala. Pp; 72.84 in For the leopard. A
tribute to the Sri Lankan leopard. Jayewardene, R., Kumara, J., Miththapala, S., Perera, H.,
Samarasingha, R., Santiapillai, C., and J. Seidensticker. Colombo: Harith Perera Trust.
Maehr, D. S. (1997) The Florida panther. Washington DC: Island Press.
Miquelle, D. G., Smirnov, E. N., Merrill, T. W., Myslenkov, A. E., Quigley, H. B., Hornocker, M. G., and
Schleyer, B. (1999). Hierarchical spatial analysis of Amur tiger relationships to habitat and prey. Pp
71-99 in Riding the tiger: Tiger Conservation in human-dominated landscapes. Eds. J. Seidensticker,
S. Christie and P. Jackson. Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press.
Miththapala, S. (1992). Genetic and morphological variation in the leopard (Panthera pardus): a
geographically widespread species. PhD dissertation, University of Florida.
Miththapala, S., Seidensticker, J., Phillips, L. G., Fernando, S, B. U., and Smallwood, J. A. (1989)
Identification of individual leopards (Panthera pardus kotiya) using spot pattern variation. Journal
of Zoology, London 218:527-536.
Miththapala, S. Seidensticker, J., and O’Brien, S. J. (1996). Phylogeographic subspecies recognition in
leopards (Panthera pardus): Molecular genetic variation. Conservation Biology: 10:1115-1132.
Muckenhirn, N. A. & Eisenberg, J. F. (1973). Home ranges and predation in the Ceylon leopard. Pp 142175 in The World’s Cats Volume 1:Ecology and Conservation. Ed. R. Eaton, Portland, Oregon:
Metropolitan Printing Press.
252
Miththapala: The Ecology of the Wild Cats of Sri Lanka
Nekaris, K. A. I. (2003) Distribution and behaviour of three small wild cats in Sri Lanka Cat News 38:30-32.
Neff, N. (1981) The big cats: paintings of Guy Coheleach. New York:Harry Adams.
Norton, P. M. & Henley, S. R. (1987) Home range and movements of male leopards in the Cedarberg
Wilderness Area, Cape Province. South African Journal of Wildlife 17, (2): 41-48.
Nowell, K. & P. Jackson (1996) Wild cats. Status survey and conservation Action Plan. Gland
Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Cat specialist group, IUCN.
O’Brien, S. J., Roelke, M. E., Yuhki, N., Richards, K. W., Johnson. W. E., Franklin, W. L., Anderson, A.
E., Bass, O. L., Belden, R. C. & J. S. Martenson (1990). Genetic introgression within the Florida
panther (Felis concolor corii) National Geographic Research 6(4):485-494.
Pabla, H. S. & Mathur, V. B. (2001), Planning for conservation of biodiversity: lessons learnt from Sri
Lanka. Loris: 22(5) 30-36.
Palomares, F. & Caro, T. M. (1999). Interspecific killing among mammalian carnivores. American
Naturalist. 153: 492-508.
Pennycuik, C. J., & Rudnai, J. (1970) A method of identifying individual lions Panthera leo, with an analysis
of the reliability of identification. Journal of Zoology, London 160:497-508.
Phillips, W. W. A (1984) Manual of the mammals of Sri Lanka 2nd edition. Colombo: Wildlife Nature
Protection Society.
Ranawana, K.B., Bambaradeniya, C.N.B., Bogahawatte, T.D. & Amerasinge, F. P. (1998) A preliminary
survey of the food habits of the Sri Lanka leopard (Panthera pardus fusca) in three montane wet
zone forests of Sri Lanka. Ceylon Journal of Science (Bio. Sci) 25, 65-69.
Ratnayeke, Shyamala. Assistant Professor, University of Tennessee.
Samarasinha, R. (2002) Visual identification of leopards. Loris (23) 1 & 2: 5-13.
Santiapillai, C. (2002) The leopard. Pp 18-31 in For the leopard. A tribute to the Sri Lankan leopard.
Jayewardene, R., Kumara, J., Miththapala, S., Perera, H., Samarasingha, R., Santiapillai, C., and J.
Seidensticker. Colombo: Harith Perera Trust.
Santiapillai, C., Chambers, M. R. and Ishawaran, N. (1982). The leopard Panthera pardus fusca in the
Ruhuna National Park, Sri Lanka, and observations relevant to its conservation. Biological
Conservation 23: 5-14.
Schaller, G. B. , Hu Jinchu, Pan Wensi, and Zhu Jin (1985). The giant pandas of Wolong.
Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Seidensticker, J. (2002) Tigers: top carnivores and controlling forces in Asian forests. Pp 56-59 in Terrestrial
Ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific- a conservation assessment. Eds. E. Wikramanayake, E. Dinerstein,
C. J. Loucks, D. M. Olson, J. Morrison, J. Lamoreux, M. McKnight and P. Hedao. Washington DC
:Island Press.
Seidensticker, J. (1986). Large carnivores and the consequence of habitat insularization: Ecology and
conservation of tigers in Indonesia and Bangladesh. Pp 1-80 in Cats of the World: Biology,
Conservation and Management. Eds.S. D. Miller and D. D. Everett. Washington: National Wildlife
Federation.
Seidensticker, J. (2004) http://nationalzoo.si.edu/ConservationAndScience/SpotlightOnScience/
seidenstickerj20030526.cfm
Seidensticker, J, & S. Lumpkin. (1991). Great Cats: majestic creatures of the wild. Pennsylvania: Rodale Press.
Seidensticker, J, & S. Lumpkin. (2004). Cats in Question: The Smithsonian Answer Book. Washington DC:
Smithsonian Books.
253
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Seidensticker, J., Sunquist, M. E., McDougal C. (1990). Leopards living at the edge of Royal Chitwan
National Park. Pp 415-423 in Conservation in Developing Countries: Problems and Prospects (eds. J.
C. Daniel and J. S. Serrao). Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay.
Soulé M. E. & Terborgh, J. (1999). Continental conservation. Scientific foundations of regional reserve
networks. Washington DC: Island Press.
Sunquist M. E. & F. C. Sunquist (2002) Wild cats of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Uphyrkina, O., Johnson, W. E., Quigley, H., Miquelle, D. Marker. L., Bush, M. and. O’Brien. S. J. (2001)
Phylogenetics, genome diversity and origin of modern leopard, Panthera pardus, Molecular Ecology
10:2617-2633.
Van Valkenburg, B. and Ruff, C. B. (1987) Canine tooth strength and killing behaviour in large carnivores.
Journal of Zoology, London 212: 379-397.
Wignaraja, S., Santiapillai, C. & Simms, C. (1978) A preliminary report on the ecology of the spotted deer
Axis axis ceylonensis (Fischer, 1829) at the Ruhuna National Park, Yala. In Joint Aberdeen and
Colombo Universities Expedition in Sri Lanka 1978, 172-193.
Wijesinghe, L. (2000) Forest resources. Pp 153-165 in Natural Resources of Sri Lanka 2000. Ed K. D.
Arudpragasam. Colombo: National Science Foundation.
Wijesinghe, L. C. A. de S., Gunatilleke, I. A. U. N., Jayawardene, S. D. J., Kotagama, S. W., & C. V. S.
Gunatilleke (1993). Biological conservation in Sri Lanka: A national status report. Colombo: IUCN, Sri
Lanka
Wikramanayake, E. D., Dinerstein, E., Robinson, G., Karanth, K. U., Rabinowitz, A. R., Olson, D.,
Matthew, T., Hedao, P., Connor, M., Hemley, G., and Bolze, D. (1998). An ecology-based method of
defining priorities for large mammal conservation: the tiger as a case study. Conservation Biology
12:865-878
Wikramanayake, E. D. Senior Conservation Scientist. World Wildlife Fund.
Wikramanayake, E. D, Balagalle, S., Padmalal, U. K. G. K., & Seidensticker, J (2002). http://natzoo.si.edu/
ConservtionAndScience/TropicalEcosystems/Ca…/researchproposal.cf
254
Miththapala: The Ecology of the Wild Cats of Sri Lanka
Figure 1: Leopard, Panthera pardus kotiya
Photograph by: Gehan de Silva Wijeratne©
Figure 2: Rusty Spotted Cat, Prionailurus
rubiginosa
Photograph by: John Seidensticker
Figure 3: Jungle cat, Felis chaus
Photograph by: Jayewardene et al, 2002 (source)
Figure 4: Fishing cat, Prionailurus viverrinus
Photograph by: Rod Williams/Howletts and Port
Lympne Zoo Parks, Kent. Kitchener, 1991
(source).
255
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Distribution maps of the four wildcat species in Sri Lanka
Figure 5: Inferred and actual present
distribution of the leopard in Sri Lanka
(Map is only approximate) © Miththapala, 2004
Figure 6: Approximate distribution of
Jungle cat in Sri Lanka.
Figure 7: Approximate distribution of
fishing cat in Sri Lanka.
Figure 8: Approximate distribution of
Rusty spotted cat in Sri Lanka.
256
Linckia laevigata
Saman Liyanage
Dasyatis kuhlii
Nishan Perera
Section 3:
Status of Marine
Fauna in Sri Lanka
Chromodesmus sp.
Nishan Perera
Culcita schmideliana
Malik Fernando
Stenella longirostris
Anouk Ilangakoon
257
258
THE FAUNA OF SRI LANKA (2006): 259-273
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Coral Associated Invertebrates:
An Overview of the Current Taxonomic Status
Malik Fernando
Sri Lanka Sub-Aqua Club
Abstract
This paper provides a detailed description of six groups of coral associated invertebrates; Ascidians,
Sponges, Sea Anemones, Polychaete worms, jellyfish and Echinoderms. There has been a steady
increase in interest in these invertebrates, as there is a realization that further to their intrinsic value
as reef constituents, these species have tremendous commercial value. Lack of research in to this
group of marine fauna has resulted in a deficit of information with regards to the taxonomy, biology
and distribution of many groups. The author identifies the underlying causes for the lack of research
conducted, and provides methods of overcoming the obstacles associated with research. It is
imperative that information be gathered which will enable the compilation of a definitive checklist
and identification guide, to ensure the conservation of these species.
Key words: Marine invertebrates, Coral, Conservation
Introduction
Many invertebrates, together with algae, are associated with hard and soft corals, and reef fish to constitute
a healthy reef. A healthy coral reef is one that is in equilibrium, with a high diversity of hard corals and
fish and associated invertebrates. These latter animals perform numerous functions in maintaining reef
health: browsing animals (like some sea urchins and starfish) prevent overgrowth by algae; many
invertebrates are preyed upon by fish and other invertebrates; filter feeders help in improving water clarity
by filtering plankton and increasing light falling on corals etc.
Apart from their intrinsic value as reef constituents some have commercial value - principally for the
aquarium industry; a fishery for consumption exists only for Holothuria (sea cucumbers) and lobsters.
There is a risk of over-exploitation as extraction is un-regulated. A few organisms are protected under the
Fauna & Flora Protection Ordinance (Cap 469) as amended by Acts nos. 44 of 1964, 1 of 1970 and 49 of
1993 (FFPO). The protected organisms are listed in Schedule IVA [§ 72, 49 of 1993]: List of Invertebrates
that are Protected.
Many filter-feeding invertebrates (such as ascidians, sponges and polychaete worms) often respond to
organic pollution by multiplying and may threaten other organisms, especially corals; these animals can be
used as indicators of pollution. Others, such as Corallimorpharian anemones, have shown growth
suggesting that they may be invasive and impact adversely on coral (Christoffelsz et al, 2000). One
species, the Crown-of thorns starfish, preys on hard corals and is a pest on coral reefs.
The aesthetic value of invertebrates becomes increasingly important as recreational diving gains in
popularity – both among Sri Lankans and tourists. Colourful reefs with a variety of life attract visitors and
are potential money-spinners; beach communities are among the beneficiaries. If visitors understand what
they see, the value of the experience is enhanced, therefore the taxonomy of reef constituents becomes
important.
Very little information is available about the taxonomy, biology and distribution of many groups of marine
invertebrates occurring in the coastal waters of Sri Lanka. Most information that is available is from papers
published in the nineteenth or early twentieth centuries. Very little work has been done recently; and very
259
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
few scientists are currently engaged in research on them. Many of those engaged in identifying marine
invertebrates and observing them underwater are non-scientist divers.
The aquarium trade has been responsible for showcasing many diverse marine animals (such as a number
of nudibranchs and starfish) that would otherwise have remained unrecognised members of Sri Lanka’s
marine biodiversity. The identities of many of them have also been established, as they enter the
international trade lists. A number are recognisable from colour illustrations in guides – but there is a danger
in relying on guides, especially those prepared from photographs taken in other areas; the species present
locally may be different, though superficially similar to an illustration. Identification should be based on
recognised anatomical criteria.
Some of the literature available relates to the “Indian Ocean”, the coast of India or the “Ceylon Area” that
encompasses the adjacent coast of India, the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Bay. It is necessary that the
fauna of the Sri Lanka coastal waters is studied to establish its biodiversity rather than relying on old
reports from a much wider area or assuming similarity with the coast of a neighbouring country. In the
three appendices to this paper are lists that have been published by early workers that are reproduced
without comment; and wherever any identification of recent material has been done, these are indicated.
Reference is made in the appropriate sections about available literature: these are listed in the Select
Bibliography.
Much of the early-published work had been done in connection with the Pearl Fishery in the early part of
the 20th century. Collections were made principally using dredges and trawls. Recent collections are by
divers who generally pick exposed material. Numbers of burrowing forms is therefore likely to be much
less than from dredge samples. There is a rich variety of material available in the tanks of ornamental fish
exporters and collectors. This resource is available for the non-diver who wishes to engage in the
taxonomic study of marine invertebrates. A major drawback is the poor and often unreliable data on locality
and habitat. But it does make specimens from a wide area available.
The following groups are discussed in this paper as the author has some familiarity with them: Ascidians,
Sponges, Sea Anemones, Polychaete worms, Jellyfish and Echinoderms. A number of other groups of
invertebrates are dealt with by other authors – e.g. molluscs and crustaceans. Readers are referred to the
Report on the Pearl Oyster Fisheries by W. A. Herdman (1903) and the numerous Supplementary Reports
upon the Marine Biology of Ceylon by other naturalists that contain descriptions and species lists of many
invertebrates that are not discussed here.
Phylum Chordata, Class Ascidiacea - Sea squirts
Ascidians are placed in the Phylum Chordata (that includes all the vertebrates) on account of the presence
of a notochord in the larva (the notochord is a rod of cells that develops into the spinal column in higher
animals). No list of ascidians of the Sri Lanka coast is available. Ascidians are filter feeders that occur as
solitary individuals or aggregated into colonies that form colourful mats on hard substrates. They respond
to organic pollution by increased growth and at times may pose a threat to hard corals, by competition for
food or by smothering. Laksiri Karunaratne and Prasanna Weerakkody reported some years ago that the
corals at Rumassala were so threatened. They are not exploited.
Phylum Porifera - Sponges
There is no distribution list of sponges in Sri Lanka other than those listed by Herdman (1903) in Part III of
his report. Sponges are filter feeders that occur in many forms of which the encrusting types are important
from an ecological perspective as these animals too respond to organic pollution by increased growth and
may threaten corals. Some sponges have been studied in this country for bioactive substances. At least 2
species of unknown identity are collected for the aquarium trade (Wood, 1996.)
260
Fernando: Coral Associated Invertebrates: An Overview of the Current Taxonomic Status
Phylum Cnidaria, Order Actiniaria – Sea anemones
Sea anemones are polypoid members of the Phylum Cnidaria. They are placed in the order Actiniaria
(Class Anthozoa; Subclass Zoantharia or Hexacorallia) together with the stony corals (Madreporaria),
zooanthids (Zooanthidea), black corals (Anthipatharia) and cerianthids (Ceriantharia or Cerianthidea). The
other subclass (Alcyonaria or Octocorallia) contains the soft corals and sea fans. (Hyman, 1940)
Many small sea anemones occur on rocky shores and shallow reefs that do not seem to have been studied
in recent years. E. F. Kelaart (1819-1860) listed 22 species and paintings of many of them are in the UK
(Pethiyagoda & Manamendra-Arachchi, 1997; Appendix I). Large sea anemones that host anemone fish
(Amphiprion spp.) are collected for the aquarium trade; many occur in association with corals on hard
substrates and others on sandy bottoms. Elisabeth Wood (1996) listed them in her report on the marine
ornamental fishery in Sri Lanka. These host anemones usually have the sexes separate. They probably
liberate eggs and sperm for external fertilization. Their reproductive success appears to be low as small
anemones are seen rarely. Some species may multiply by fission (Fautin & Allen, 1992.) Both small and
large host anemones are collected and exported – mostly of the genus Stichodactyla. The collection and
export of these species (particularly large Heteractis) should be considered for regulation, as they are likely
to be vulnerable to over-collection. Data needs to be gathered.
A colonial form of anemone with close affinity to corals (Order CORALLIMORPHARIA) has been recognized
in recent years occurring on reefs. They grow in close-packed sheets and crowd around corals
(Christoffelsz et al, 2000). The taxonomy is unknown. However, no conclusive evidence has been found to
suggest that this is an invasive species that is a possible threat to corals. Surveillance should be maintained
to detect invasive tendencies. Another colonial form that may cover dead coral is Palythoa spp.
(ZOOANTHIDEA, ZOOANTHIDAE). It does not appear to be invasive (Prasanna Weerakkody, pers. comm.).
Again, the taxonomy is unknown.
One tube-dwelling genus occurring on sandy bottoms - Cerianthus spp. (CERIANTHARIA, CERIANTHIDAE) is protected under the Fauna and Flora Protection (Amendment) Act, No. 49 of 1993, Schedule IVA.
Several species occur in Sri Lanka; the taxonomy of the genus is poorly known (Wood & Rajasuriya,
1996). (See Appendix I for a list of sea anemones and identification notes for the larger species.)
Phylum Annelida, Class Polychaeta – Segmented worms
The first extensive collection of polychaete worms from the coast of Sri Lanka was by Herdman in 1902
and reported by Willey (Ceylon Pearl Oyster Fisheries, 1905, Supplementary Reports XXX). Three older
reports of smaller collections were by Schmarda (1861), Grube (1874) and Michaelson (1892) (Willey,
1905). Willey described 111 species of tube-dwelling and free-living polychaete worms collected from the
Pearl Banks, Galle Bay, Panadura and Chilaw. Later, Pillai (1970, 1971) published two papers on
collections of Spirobids and Serpulids from Sri Lanka. There has been no recent work on Sri Lanka
species, as far as is known.
Some species of tube-dwelling annelids have been collected for the aquarium trade but are now protected:
schedule IVA to the FFPO lists the groups as Tube worms and Fan worms (families Serpulidae [calcareous
tubes] & Sabellidae [mucous tubes] respectively). These annelids are filter feeders and respond to organic
pollution by increased growth.
Phylum Cnidaria, Classes Scyphozoa & Hydrozoa - Jellyfish
Although medusae (Phylum Cnidaria or Coelenterata) are pelagic they generally have vegetative (polypoid
or hydroid) generations that are attached reef dwellers. They are included in this paper as some of them
are capable of stinging humans and some forms may have commercial value. The leatherback or leathery
turtle Dermochelys coriacea (TESTUDINES, DERMOCHELYDAE) feeds on jellyfish.
261
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
The earliest reports of the jellyfish of Sri Lanka were by Haeckel (1888) who described the Siphonophora
(an order of the Class Hydrozoa or Hydromedusae) collected by him (Browne, 1905). In 1905 E.T.
Browne reported on the jellyfish collected by Herdman in 1902 at the Pearl Banks and in Galle Bay. The
list published by him is reproduced in Appendix II: many have not been identified to specific rank as the
specimens were in poor condition. Most of the species listed are Hydromedusae, with a few in the Class
Scyphozoa or Scyphomedusae and two ctenophores (comb jellies), now considered under the Phylum
Ctenophora: they do not possess cnidocysts (nematocysts). (Hyman, 1940) These are included in the
Appendix for completeness.
We have been able to identify a number of species of Scyphomedusae collected since 1990 – mostly off
the Colombo beaches. The study was commenced to identify the species responsible for stinging swimmers
and divers. Specimens were collected on casual encounter during recreational diving and visual searching
during the southwest monsoon when swarms of them are seen off Colombo. Beach specimens were also
useful, at times.
Four venomous species have been identified: Chrysaora quinquecirra (compass jellyfish), Cyanea purpurea
(lion’s mane jellyfish), Chiropsalmus buitendijki (box jellyfish) and the siphonophore Physalia utriculus with
a single stinging tentacle (Kramp, 1961; Menon, 1930 & 1932; Peter Fenner pers. comm.) These animals
occasionally harm bathers and divers (Fernando, 1994 & 2001) but their stings usually cause only transient
pain. Numerous small hydromedusae of unknown identity are sometimes troublesome for swimmers and
divers by their irritating stings that, though mild, are repetitive.
There has been a dramatic reduction of the jellyfish seen off Colombo following the el Niño ocean warming
event of 1998. Recovery is slow. There is no commercial fishery for jellyfish in Sri Lanka, but this is a
resource worth investigating. Large numbers are seen off the east coast seasonally but their identity is not
known to the author.
Phylum Echinodermata – Featherstars, Starfish, Brittlestars, Sea Urchins
and Sea cucumbers
The first publication on the echinoderms of the country was that by F. J. Bell in 1882 where he described
19 species (excluding holothurians) from Galle. Subsequent workers added to the list. The holothurians
were dealt with by J. Pearson in 1913 in his paper on the Holothurioidea of the Indian Ocean. Clark &
Rowe relied on these many papers to write their Monograph of shallow-water Indo-west Pacific
Echinoderms (1971). A checklist for the “Ceylon Area” has been summarised from this monograph; recent
records are indicated, together with new records of species not listed by Clark & Rowe (Appendix III).
The “Ceylon Area” includes Sri Lanka “and the opposing Indian shores of the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay
including Tuticorin, Rameswaran and Mandapam.” The list relates to forms down to a depth of 20 metres.
It would be ideal if the checklist were confined to forms occurring in Sri Lankan waters and expanded to
include animals from deeper water, say to 40 m, a depth reached by divers collecting ornamental fish.
A few workers have been identifying Sri Lankan echinoderms. Collections are now made by divers: either
specifically for study or for the marine aquarium export trade or, in the case of holothurians, for beche-demer (trepang) manufacture. This contrasts with early collection methods that relied on dredging and trawling.
Hand collection does not extend to burrowing forms, except tests of dead echinoids lying on the seabed
and the occasional starfish. Beach seines and bottom-set nets are a good source of sand dwelling asteroids.
Class Crinoidea (Feather stars) Twenty-six species in 7 families are listed in the checklist with 4 doubtful
records. There is no current taxonomic work. A few species are collected for the aquarium trade, usually
in small numbers. An attempt should be made to identify even these.
Class Asteroidea (Starfish) Forty-six species in 11 families are listed in the checklist with 3 doubtful
records. We have been identifying asteroids using the key in Clark & Rowe. Specimens have been either
262
Fernando: Coral Associated Invertebrates: An Overview of the Current Taxonomic Status
collected personally by diving or from net spoil or else obtained from the tanks of an aquarium fish exporter.
Twenty-two species have been identified, including 5 new records that include 1 new family. One species
from water deeper than 20 m has not been identified even to family level; it belongs to a family not included
in the identification key in the monograph; this has not been taken into account. A species of Pentaceraster
seen in a display aquarium has also not been counted as no reliable evidence of collection in Sri Lanka
waters has been obtained. Ten species are exported. With the opening of the northern areas of the country
to free travel, large numbers of starfish not seen previously have been entering the market. Some of these
are juveniles and therefore have not been identified to species level. One starfish, Acanthaster planci
(crown-of-thorns starfish) preys on hard corals and is a pest. Conservation of coral reefs may require
destruction of these animals at times when their populations increase.
Class Ophiuroidea (Brittlestars) Forty species in 10 families are listed in the checklist with 1 doubtful
record. Weerakkody (1998) has surveyed 7 shallow reefs between Akurala and Devundara and has
recorded 13 species, including 6 new records. He reports that Ophiocoma erinaceus is collected for the
aquarium trade.
Class Echinoidea (Sea urchins) Forty-nine species in 17 families are listed in the checklist with 1 doubtful
record. The author has recorded 15 regular echinoids (with radial symmetry) of which 1 is a new record; 8
are collected for the aquarium trade. Nine irregular echinoids (with bilateral symmetry) have been
recorded, 8 from dead tests only; 3 are new records. Seven depressed echinoids (sand dollars) have been
recorded, 5 from dead tests only. One of these (Echinodiscus bisperforatus) is used at Kirinda by a
dealer in shell-craft to fashion tails of peacocks. They are collected live from the sandy seabed in waistdeep water.
One regular sea urchin (Heterocentrotus mammillatus - Slate pencil urchin) is protected. It is listed in the
Schedule as “mammiliatus”. There is a doubtful second species present: some were collected for export,
detained by the Customs and identified as “not definitely H. mammillatus”, leading to their release.
Some echinoids are ecologically important: members of the family Diadematidae and Echinometra mathei.
These algal browsers prevent overgrowth of green algae and allow coral recruitment to take place.
Population explosions of them (for example by over extraction of fish that prey on them), on the other
hand, have the opposite effect as newly recruited corals may be killed by the browsing sea urchins. Culling
of these sea urchins has been resorted to in Kenya as a management option in the rehabilitation of reefs
(Talbot & Wilkinson, 2001). E. mathei is exported from Sri Lanka; over collection could have deleterious
effects on reefs. The sand dwelling urchin Tripneustes gratilla is harvested in some South East Asian
countries for their edible gonads. They are not consumed in Sri Lanka.
Class Holothurioidea (Sea cucumbers) Fifty-two species in 8 families are listed in the checklist. These
animals have been fished commercially since historical times from shallow water by wading, breath-hold
divers or by spearing. They are cured to produce the product known as beche-de-mer or trepang for
export to the far east. Adithiya (1967) gives an interesting account of the traditional curing process at that
time. In recent years, collectors of ornamental fish have branched out into collecting holothurians from
deeper water using diving gear. They are a high value product and collection has been intense. In one
recently discovered area (1995) off Kalmunai intensive fishing by large numbers of divers resulted in the
area being fished out within three years causing the fishery to collapse and the promoters (investors) to
suffer financially (Rajasuriya, 1999). Activity has now moved to Kalpitiya where diving is going on by night
– when the animals are active and move into the open to feed.
Unrestricted intensive collection is likely to lead to depletion of this area too – a Protected Area. Reports
suggest that once a holothurian bed is fished out, recovery to a state where a commercial fishery is viable
is of the order of 50 years (Bruckner et al, 2003). There is a danger that the absence of the bottom feeding
holothurians, with their ability to process the surface layers of sand containing detritus, could lead to
changes in seabed character that may preclude its re-colonisation.
263
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Identification of commercially fished holothurians is being performed by the National Aquatic Resources
Research and Development Agency (NARA). To date 16 species have been identified (DCT Dissanayake
pers. comm.). An identification key (Conand, 1998) published by the Food and Agriculture Organisation is
being used in this project. As a welcome step in the right direction, the Department of Fisheries has initiated
action to regulate the holothurian fishery to ensure its sustainability.
One species (Holothuria edulis) is collected for the aquarium trade. One species (Pseudocolochirus sp.
Royal sea cucumber) is protected. It is listed in the schedule simply as “Royal sea cucumber” without a
scientific name.
Conclusion
The ornamental marine aquarium fish industry, that includes invertebrates, is thriving. It is largely
unregulated, but collection of certain species is prohibited by law, usually on the assumption that they are
rare and therefore susceptible to over-exploitation. The fishery for holothurians is poorly regulated and little
information is available about the species make-up of the catch. There is little information about the
biodiversity of much of the coastal waters around the Island, making assessment and subsequent
monitoring of sites identified for development very difficult.
Not only is there paucity of information about the taxa present, there is a dearth of skilled scientists able to
generate the information and to provide scientific data that would justify management options such as
establishing catch restrictions or banning collection. Compounding the lack of personnel is the lack of
appropriate taxonomic literature within the country.
Much work needs to be done in compiling definitive checklists and identification guides of the marine
invertebrates. Without such material, managing marine ecosystems becomes difficult. With increasing
pressures on reefs and other marine ecosystems by ornamental species collectors, commercial fin fisheries
using destructive methods (e.g. bottom set nets, trawls and sadly blast fishing) that destroy the habitat the
need for effective regulation is becoming more and more important.
Marine biologists should ideally be competent divers and make their own observations and collect their own
material. Facilities for gaining such competence are readily available in Sri Lanka. But until an ideal state is
reached, reliance could be placed on diving enthusiasts to enable specimen collection; the aquarium export
traders are also good suppliers of material. Volunteers from the Sri Lanka Sub-Aqua Club have been
associated with the Coral Ecology Unit of NARA for many years, helping with reef monitoring. Members
of this club with an interest in preserving the integrity and biodiversity of Sri Lanka’s marine ecosystems
would be willing to assist marine biologists in search of specimens for taxonomic studies.
Select Bibliography
Adithiya, Lala (1967). Beche-de-mer – The Sea Slug. Loris 11(2): 87-90.
Bell, F J (1882) Note on the Echinoderm Fauna of the Island of Ceylon, together with some observations
on heteractinism. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 10: 218-225
Browne, ET (1905). Report on the medusae collected by Prof. Herdman at Ceylon, in 1902. In WA
Herdman, Report to the Government of Ceylon on the Pearl Oyster Fisheries of the Gulf of
Manaar, Pt. IV. Suppl. Reps. no. XXVII: 131-166, 4 pls. Royal Society, London.
Bruckner, AW, KA Johnson & JD Field (2003). Conservation strategies for sea cucumbers: Can a CITES
Appendix II listing promote sustained international trade? SPC Beche-de-mer Information Bulletin
#18. Internet, PDF version.
Chadwick, HC (1904). On the Crinoidea. In WA Herdman, Report to the Government of Ceylon on
the Pearl Oyster Fisheries of the Gulf of Manaar, Suppl. Reps. No. XI: 151-158.
264
Fernando: Coral Associated Invertebrates: An Overview of the Current Taxonomic Status
Christoffelsz, Andrew, Malik Fernando & Arjan Rajasuriya (2000). Reef Check ’99. A new threat to the
Pigeon Islands’ corals ? Sri Lanka Nature. Vol. 2, no. 4.
Clark, AM & FWE Rowe (1971). Monograph of shallow-water Indo-west Pacific Echinoderms.
British Museum (N.H.), London.
Clark, HL (1915). The Echinoderms of Ceylon (other than Holothurians). Spolia Zeylanica 10(37): 83-102.
Conand, C (1998). Holothurians. In Carpenter, K. & V. Niem. Eds.: FAO species identification guide.
The marine resources of the Western Central Pacific, vol. 2 cephalopods, crustaceans,
holothurians and sharks: 1157-1190.
Fauna & Flora Protection Ordinance (Cap 469) as amended by Acts nos. 44 of 1964, 1 of 1970 and 49 of
1993 (FFPO). Schedule IVA [§ 72, 49 of 1993]: List of Invertebrates that are Protected. Government
of Sri Lanka.
Fautin, Daphne G. & Gerald R Allen (1992). Anemone fishes and their host sea anemones. (Internet edition).
Fernando, Malik (1994). First-aid for jellyfish stings (Letter). Ceylon Medical Journal 39: 58-60.
————————— (2001). Hunting jellyfish. Ceylon Medical Journal 46: 139-140.
Herdman, WA (1903). Report to the Government of Ceylon on the Pearl Oyster Fisheries of the Gulf of
Manaar. With Supplementary Reports upon the Marine Biology of Ceylon by other naturalists. Royal
Society, London.
Hyman, LH (1940). The Invertebrates: Protozoa through Ctenophora. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Kramp, PL (1961). Synopsis of the medusae of the world. J. mar. Biol. Assn. UK 40.
Menon, MGK (1930). The Scyphomedusae of Madras and the neighbouring coast. Bull. Madras Govt.
Museum N. H. 3(1): 1-28, 3 pls.
———————— (1932). The Hydromedusae of Madras. Bull. Madras Govt. Museum N. H. 3(2):
1-32, 3 pls.
Pearson, J (1913). Notes on the Holothurioidea of the Indian Ocean. Spolia Zeylanica 9(34): 49-101, 10 pls.
Pethiyagoda, Rohan & Kelum Manamendra-Arachchi (1997). The life and work of Edward Fredric
Kelaart. J. South Asian nat. Hist. vol. 2 no. 2.
Pillai, Gottfried (1970). Studies on a collection of Spirobids from Ceylon, together with a critical review
and revision of Spirobid systematics, and an account of their phylogeny and zoogeography. Cey. J.
Sci. (Bio. Sci.) 8(2): 100-172.
———————— (1971). Studies on a collection of marine and brackish water Polychaete Annelids of
the family Serpulidae from Ceylon. Cey. J. Sci. (Bio. Sci.) 9(2): 88-130.
Rajasuriya, Arjan (1999). Report on the chank fishery in the Hambantota District. National Aquatic
Resources Research and Development Agency. Internal Report.
Talbot, Frank & Clive Wilkinson (2001). Coral reefs, mangroves and seagrasses: A sourcebook for
managers. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville.
Weerakkody, Prasanna (1998). Observations on some shallow-water Brittlestars (Ophiuroidea) from the
south and south-western coasts; with notes on field identification of the observed species. Sri Lanka
Naturalist II(3): 22-30.
Willey, Arthur (1905). Report on the Polychaeta collected by Prof. Herdman at Ceylon, in 1902. In W. A.
Herdman, Report to the Government of Ceylon on the Pearl Oyster Fisheries of the Gulf of
Manaar, Pt. IV. Suppl. Reps. no. XXX: 243-326, 8 pls. Royal Society, London.
Wood, Elisabeth & Arjan Rajasuriya (1996). Handbook of protected marine species in Sri Lanka.
Marine Conservation Society (UK) in association with National Aquatic Resources Agency (Colombo).
Wood, Elisabeth (1996). The marine ornamental fishery in Sri Lanka: current status and management
needs. Marine Conservation Society, UK.
265
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Appendix I: Sea anemones
Class Anthozoa
List of species from the notes and paintings of E. F. Kelaart (1819-1860)
This list is compiled from Appendix I to The life and work of Edward Fredric Kelaart by Rohan
Pethiyagoda & Kelum Manamendra-Arachchi (1997). J. South Asian nat. Hist. vol. 2 no. 2.
ORDER: ACTINIARIA
Actinia arachnida
Actinia aurea
Actinia austinii
Actinia fluctuosa
Actinia Indiana
Actinia meleagrina
Actinia passiflora
Actinia pudica
Actinia refulgens
Actinia smaraqdana [smaragdana]
Actinia tranchellana [tranchelli]
Actinia vermicosa
Actinia wardiana [wardii]
Actinodendron argentea
Actinodendron horologia
Actinodendron viridis
Actinodendron zeylanicus
Capnea (?) blythiana
Dioscosoma (Actinodiscus) zeylanica
Dioscosoma ceylonica [zeylanica]
Peacha gosseana [gossei]
Zoanthura mamalifera
List of species used in the aquarium trade.
This list is based on Elisabeth Wood The marine ornamental fishery in Sri Lanka: current status and
management needs (1996). Marine Conservation Society, UK.
Taxonomy and identification after Fautin, Daphne G. & Gerald R Allen (1992). Anemone fishes and their
host sea anemones. (Internet edition).
Note: Most adult sea anemones are large – 25 cm to 1 metre in diameter according to the species. Only
small specimens are usually collected for the aquarium trade.
ORDER: ACTINIARIA
FAMILY: ACTINIIDAE
Entacmaea quadricolor (Rüppell & Leuckart, 1828) Bulb-tentacle sea anemone1
STICHODACTYLIDAE
Heteractis aurora (Quoy & Gaimard, 1833) Beaded sea anemone2
H. crispa (Ehrenberg, 1834) Leathery sea anemone, long-tentacled sea anemone3
H. magnifica (Quoy & Gaimard, 1833) Magnificant sea anemone4
Stichodactyla haddoni (Saville-Kent, 1893) Haddon.s sea anemone5
1
Tentacles with a bulb-like swelling at or just below the tip. The bulb with a white band around its middle.
2
Tentacles with a series of swellings on each giving them a beaded look.
3
Tentacles long (100 mm), sinuous, evenly tapered to a point, numerous. Column buried in sediment, oral disc lying at the surface
or the pedal disc attached to branching coral.
4
Tentacles finger-like, hardly tapering, blunt or pointed tip, to 75 mm. Typically occupies fully exposed, prominent position on
hard objects like a coral boulder.
5
Lives in sand with the oral disc spread over. Disc slightly to deeply folded, a central tentacle-free area 10-20 mm diameter
surrounds mouth, usually of a colour contrasting with the disc. When disturbed withdraws rapidly below the sand.
266
Fernando: Coral Associated Invertebrates: An Overview of the Current Taxonomic Status
? S. gigantea (Forsskäl, 1775)6
? S. mertensii Brandt, 1835 Merton’s sea anemone7
Other sea anemones of interest or of ecological importance.
ORDER: CERIANTHARIA
FAMILY: CERIANTHIDAE
Cerianthus spp. Sand anemone.8 Protected.
ORDER: CORALLIMORPHARIA
FAMILY: DISCOMATIDAE?
Undetermined species9
ORDER: ZOOANTHIDEA
FAMILY: ZOOANTHIDAE
Palythoa spp.10
6
Deeply folded oral disc covered with short (10 mm) tentacles lies on the surface of sand, the pedal disc attached to a buried object.
Much of the central oral area devoid of tentacles. In shallow water, often among corals.
7
Oral disc diameter may be very large (1 m), often oval in shape. The disc lies evenly spread over the hard substrates on which it
lives; the small pedal disc often attached in a crevice into which the animal can withdraw (but not rapidly).
8
A sand-dwelling animal with very long tentacles that occupies a soft tube into which it can withdraw. The only protected sea
anemone in Sri Lanka.
9
Brown anemones 5-6 cm diameter with numerous short tentacles arranged in concentric circles radiating outwards on the oral disc.
Occur in colonies of hundreds of individual animals packed together forming extensive sheets, possibly impacting on coral.
10
Colonial animals compacted into sheets. Each small anemone-like polyp is buried in a common soft or leathery matrix. Can be
mistaken for corals when open or for sponges when closed. Not thought to impact on corals.
267
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Appendix II: Medusae
Classified list of the species described by Edward T. Browne
This list is compiled from Report on the Medusae (Hydromedusae, Scyphomedusae, and Ctenophora)
collected by Professor Herdman, at Ceylon, in 1902, by ET Browne. In WA Herdman, Report to the
Government of Ceylon on the Pearl Oyster Fisheries of the Gulf of Manaar, Pt. IV. Suppl. Reps. no.
XXVII: 131-166, 4 pls. Royal Society, London.
HYDROMEDUSAE
ANTHOMEDUSAE
Dipurena sp?
Proboscidactyla minima. n. sp.
Cytoeis herdmani, n. sp.
LEPTOMEDUSAE
Laodice indica n. sp.
Eutima curva n. sp.
Irene ceylonensis n. sp.
Octorchis orientalis n. sp.
Aequorea conica n. sp.
Mesonema pensile (Modeer)
Mitrocomium assimila n. sp.
Irene palkensis n. sp.
Irenopsis hexanemalis Goette
Octocanna polynema (Haeckel)
Aequorea parva n. sp.
TRACHYMEDUSAE
Gonionemus hornelli n. sp.
Liriope tetraphylla (Cham. et Eys.)
Olindias sp.?
NARCOMEDUSAE
Solmundella bitentaculata (Quoy et Gaim.)
SIPHONOPHORA
Diphyes chamissonis Huxley
Agalmopsis sp?
Porpita sp?
Cupulita sp?
Physalia utriculus Esch.
SCYPHOMEDUSAE
Charybdea sp?
Pelagia sp?
Nausithoe punctata Köll
Crambessa sp?
CTENOPHORA
Pleurobrachia globosa Moser var. ceylonensis
Beroe flemingi (Esch.)
Note: Ctenophora now has Phylum rank. Medusae proper (jellyfish) are members of the Phylum Cnidaria
(Coelenterata) characterised by the presence of cnidocysts (nematocysts).
268
Fernando: Coral Associated Invertebrates: An Overview of the Current Taxonomic Status
List of species recorded by Malik Fernando
HYDROZOA (HYDROMEDUSAE)
SIPHONOPHORA
Physalia utriculus
Porpita sp. Velella sp.
SCYPHOZOA (SCYPHOMEDUSAE)
CUBOMEDUSAE
CHIRODROPIDAE
Chiropsalmus buitendijki Horst, 1907. Box jellyfish
SEMAEOSTOMEAE
PELAGIIDAE
Chrysaora quinquecirra (Desor, 1848). Compass jellyfish
CYANEIDAE
Cyanea purpurea Kishinouye, 1910. Lion’s mane jellyfish
Cyanea sp? Giant Lion’s mane jellyfish1
RHIZOSTOMEAE (Kolpophorae, Actinomyariae)
CEPHEIDAE
Netrostoma coerulescens Maas, 1903
(Daktyliophorae, Inscapulatae)
CATOSTYLIDAE
?Crambionella sp.
Acromitus sp.
LYCHNORIZIDAE
Lychnorhiza malayensis Stiasny, 1920
1
Cyanea sp. 30-45 cm diameter occurring in swarms have been identified as C. purpurea based on the canal system of the lappet
margins. Cyanea sp. 60 cm or more, occurring as solitary individuals have not been examined anatomically. These are thought to
be a separate species.
269
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Appendix III
Checklist of the Echinoderms of Sri Lanka
Summarized from A.M. Clark & F.W.E. Rowe (1971) Monograph of shallow-water Indowest Pacific Echinoderms with recent additions to this list and observations.
** Recent records by Malik Fernando
* Recent records by Prasanna Weerakkody (Ophiuroidea)
NR = new record; $ = exported ornamental species; P = protected
CLASS CRINOIDEA
CLASS ASTEROIDEA
FAMILY COMASTERIDAE
Capillaster multiradiatus
Capillaster sentosus
Cornanthina schiegeli
Comanthus parvicirrus
Comanthus samoanus
Cornatella maculata
Comatella stelligera
Comatula pectinata (?)
FAMILY LUIDIIDAE
Luidia hardwicki
Luidia herdmani
Luidia maculata **
Luidia savignyi
FAMILY ZYGOMETRIDAE
Zygometra andromeda(?)
FAMILY HIMEROMETRIDAE
Amphimetra ensifera
Heterometra amboninae
Heterometra bengalensis
Heterometra reynaudi
Himerometra robustipinna
FAMILY MARIAMETRIDAE
Lamprometra palmata
Oxymetra finschi
Stephanometra echinus (?)
Stephanometra indica (?)
Stephanometra spicata
Stephanometra tenuipinna
FAMILY COLOBOMETRIDAE
Cenometra herdmani
Decametra modica
Decametra taprobanes
Oligometra serripinna
FAMILY TROPIOMETRIDAE
Tropiometra carinata
FAMILY ANTEDONIDAE
Mastigometra micropoda
270
FAMILY ASTROPECTINIDAE
Astropecten andersoni **
Astropecten bengalensis
Astropecten euryacanthus
Astropecten hemprichi
Astropecten indicus
Astropecten mauritianus (?)
Astropecten polyacanthus
Astropecten sarasinorum
Astropecten vappa **
Astropecten velitaris **
Astropecten zebra
FAMILY GONIASTERIDAE
Anthenea pentagonula
Anthenea regalis
Anthenea rudis
Siraster tuberculatus
Stellaster equestris
FAMILY OREASTERIDAE
Culcita schmideliana **
Choriaster granulatus **NR
Pentaceraster mammillatus **?NR$1
Pentaceraster affinis **?$
Pentaceraster multispinus (?)
Poraster superbus
Protoreaster linckii **$
Protoreaster nodosus
1
Three species of Pentaceraster have been collected but not
identified with confidence.
Fernando: Coral Associated Invertebrates: An Overview of the Current Taxonomic Status
FAMILY OPHIDIASTERIDAE
Dactylosaster cylindricus
Fromia indica **$
Fromia milleporella **$
F. ?ghadaqana **NR$
Fromia nodosa
Gomophia egyptiaca **$
Linckia guildingi **
Linckia laevigata **
Linckia multifora **
Nardoa lemonnieri **$
Paraferdina sohariae **NR$2
FAMILY GORGONOCEPHALIDAE
Astroboa clavata
FAMILY OPHIACANTHIDAE
Ophiacantha indica
FAMILY AMPHIURIDAE
Amphioplus depressus
Amphiura luetkeni
FAMILY OPHIACTIDAE
Ophiactis savignyi
FAMILY OPHIOTRICHIDAE
Gymnolophus obscura
Macrophiothrix aspidota
Macrophiothrix hirsuta (?)
Macrophiothrix longipeda *
Macrophiothrix variabilis
Ophiocnemis marmorata
Ophiogymna elegans
Ophiomaza cacaotica
Ophiopteron elegans
Ophiothrix exigua
Ophiothrix foveolata
Ophiothrix trilineata
Ophiothrix proteus
Ophiothrix purpurea
Ophiothrix nereidina
FAMILY METRODIRIDAE
Metrodira subulata
FAMILY ASTEROPIDAE
Asteropsis carinifera
FAMILY ASTERINIDAE
Asterina burtoni **
Asterina coronata
Asterina lorioli
Asterina sarasini
Tegulaster ceylanica
FAMILY ACANTHASTERIDAE
Acanthaster planci **
FAMILY PTERASTERIDAE
Euretaster cribrosus (?)
CLASS OPHIUROIDEA
FAMILY OPHIOCOMIDAE
Ophiarthrum elegans
Ophiocoma brevipes *
Ophiocoma dentata *NR
Ophiocoma erinaceus *$
Ophiocoma pica
Ophiocoma scolopendrina
Ophiocomella sexradia
Ophiomastix annulosa *
FAMILY OPHIOMIXIDAE
Ophiomyxa australis
Ophiomyxa compacta *NR
FAMILY OPHIONEREIDAE
Ophionereis dubia *
Ophionereis porrecta
2
Published in 1991. Synonymy, if any, unknown.
3
Juvenile specimens of uncertain specific rank
4
Known from a single, damaged net spoil specimen. The
family not reported by Clark and Rowe from this area.
FAMILY OPHIODERMATIDAE
Cryptopelta grannulifera *NR
Ophiarachna incrassata
Ophiarachnella gorgonia *
Ophiarachnella macrantha *NR
FAMILY ECHINASTERIDAE
Echinaster callosus
Echinaster purpurea
} **$
3
FAMILY VALVASTERIDAE
Valvaster striatus **NR4
271
Pseudoboletia maculata **$
Toxopneustes pileolus **$
Tripneustes gratilla **
Ophiarachnella septemspinosa
Ophiarachnella sphenisci
Ophiochaeta hoeschmai *NR
Ophiopeza fallax
Ophiopeza spinosa *NR
FAMILY ECHINOMETRIDAE
Colobocentrotus atratus
Echinometra mathaei **$
Echinostrephus molaris **
Heterocentrotus mammillatus **P
FAMILY OPHIURIDAE
Ophiolepis cincta *
Ophiolepis rugosa
Ophiolepis superba
Ophioplocus imbricatus
Ophiura kinbergi
FAMILY ECHINONEIDAE
Echinoneus cyclostomus **
Echinoneus abnormalis **NR
CLASS ECHINOIDEA
FAMILY CIDARIDAE
Eucidaris metularia
Phyllacanthus imperialis
Prionocidaris baculosa
Prionocidaris bispinosa
}
?**5
FAMILY CLYPEASTERIDAE
Clypeaster fervens
Clypeaster humilis **
Clypeaster rarispinus **
Clypeaster reticulatus **
FAMILY ECHINOTHURIIDAE
Asthenosoma varium
Asthenosoma intermedium ?**NR$6
FAMILY FIBULARIIDAE
Fibularia cribellum (?)
Fibularia oblonga (?)
Fibularia volva (?)
FAMILY DIADEMATIDAE
Astropyga radiata **$
Diadema savignyi **
Diadema setosum **
Echinothrix diadema **
FAMILY LAGANIDAE
Laganum depressum **
Peronella lesueuri
Peronella macroproctes **
Peronella oblonga
FAMILY STOMOPNEUSTIDAE
Stomopneustes variolaris **$
FAMILY SCUTELLIDAE
Echinodiscus auritus **
Echinodiscus bisperforatus **
FAMILY TEMNOPLEURIDAE
Microcyphus ceylanicus **
Salmaciella dussumieri
Salmacis bicolor **$
Salmacis virgulata **$
Salmacis toreumaticus
Temnotrema siamense
FAMILY TOXOPNEUSTIDAE
Gymnechinus robillardi
Pseudoboletia indiana
5
One species: preserved material insufficient to distinguish
between these two genera.
6
Preserved material insufficient to distinguish between these
two species with confidence, but specimens have the
colouration and appearance of A. intermedium though not
reported from this area.
272
FAMILY ECHINOLAMPADIDAE
Echinolampas alexandri
Echinolampas ovata **
FAMILY SPATANGIDAE
Maretia planulata
Pseudomaretia alta
FAMILY LOVENIIDAE
Lovenia elongata **
FAMILY SCHIZASTERIDAE
Paraster gibberulus **
Prymnaster ? investigatoris **NR
FAMILY BRISSIDAE
Brissus latecarinatus **
Metalia latissima
Metalia sternalis **
Metalia dicrana **NR
Rhynobrissus pyramidalis
CLASS HOLOTHUROIDEA
FAMILY HOLOTHURIIDAE
Actinopyga echinites
Actinopyga lecanora
Actinopyga mauritiana
Actinopyga miliaris
Actinopyga serratidens
Bohadschia argus
Bohadschia marmorata
Bohadschia tenuissima
Bohadschia vitiensis
Holothuria (Halodeima) atra
Holothuria (Halodeima) edulis
Holothuria (Lessonothuria) glandifera
Holothuria (Mertensiothuria)
fuscocinerea
Holothuria (Mertensiothuria)
leucospilota
Holothuria (Mertensiothuna) pervicax
Holothuria (Mertensiothuria) scabra
Holothuria (Microthele) nobilis
Holothuria (Platyperona) difficilis
Holothuria (Selenkothuria) erinaceus
Holothuria (Selenkothuria) moebii
Holothuria (Semperothuria) cinerascens
Holothuria (Semperothuria) imitans
Holothuna (Theelothuria) kurti
Holothuria (Theelothuria) spinifera
Holothuria (Thymiosycia) hilla
Holothuria (Thymiosycia) impatiens
Hemithyone semperi
Pentacta armatus
Pentacta quadrangularis
Pseudocolochirus tricolor P
Staurothyone rosacea
Stolus buccalis
Stolus conjugens
Thyone papuensis
Trachythyone imbricata
Trachythyone typica
FAMILY PHYLLOPHORIDAE
Actinocucumis typicus
Ohshimella ehrenbergi
Phyllophorus (Phyllophorella)
parvipedes
Phyllophorus (Phyllothuria) cebuensis
Phyllophorus (Urodemella) brocki
FAMILY CAUDINIDAE
Acaudina molpadiodes
FAMILY SYNAPTIDAE
Opheodesoma grisea
Synapta maculata
Synaptula recta
Synaptula striata
FAMILY CHIROTIDAE
Polycheira rufescens
FAMILY STICHOPODIDAE
Stichopus chloronotus
Stichopus naso
Stichopus variegatus
FAMILY PSOLIDAE
Psolus complanatus
FAMILY CUCUMARIIDAE
Havelockia herdmani
273
The
T
HE F
Fauna
AUNA OFofSRI
SriLANKA
Lanka
(2006):
(2006)
274-287
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Current Status of Taxonomy and Ecology of
Marine Molluscs in Sri Lanka
Darshani de Silva*
*United Nations Development Programme, Sri Lanka
Abstract
Molluscs make up a major proportion of all marine biodiversity. They are an integral part of marine
ecosystems and play a number of roles, which help to support the function and stability of the
ecosystems upon which other organisms rely for their survival and well-being. Their distribution is
extensive, as remarkable number of adaptations and behaviours has enabled them to live in most of
the marine habitats.
This paper describes the current status of taxonomy of marine molluscs and their distribution in Sri
Lanka, demonstrating that the state of taxonomic, biological and ecological knowledge regarding
marine molluscs is generally poor within the country. The limited knowledge that is present varies
with location, habitat and taxonomic group. There are large gaps in our understanding of even the
relatively well-studied species or groups while many taxa are very poorly known or completely
unstudied. The paper also gives some basic information regarding the intricate linkages between
various processes and habitat features that affect the distribution patterns, with some special
reference to post El Nino years (after 1998) and highlighting areas of interest and research needs to
obtain a comprehensive understanding of the status of marine molluscs in Sri Lanka. Checklists of
marine molluscs from post mid-1990s records taken from published and reliable resources are being
included within the paper, and again referring to post El Nino years. Finally, the paper illustrates the
issues affecting the taxonomy, ecology and conservation status of marine molluscs in Sri Lanka and
some concluding remarks including recommendations to address conservation issues.
Key words: Marine molluscs, Taxonomy, Ecology
Introduction
Sri Lanka has a rich and diverse marine invertebrate fauna that has been studied since 1800s and among
them, marine molluscs had a prominent place (Tennant 1861, Kelaart 1852). As one of the most successful
forms of animal life, the molluscs have conquered almost every habitat and exist in all the oceans from
intertidal shores to the deepest trenches. Although, the importance of molluscs to the humankind and their
significant roles in ecosystems and their functions have been recognized (Kay 1995), in recent time there
has been an acceleration in terms of loss of biodiversity of marine molluscs due to natural catastrophes
(Brown 1997, Attrill and Power 2000, Addessi 2001) as well as due to harmful anthropogentic activities
(Addessi 1994). However, the biological and ecological information available to understand the exact
impacts of these threats to marine molluscs in Sri Lanka are scanty.
Marine Molluscs are a taxonomically diverse group, which exhibit a wide range of patterns in body plan
(Ponder and Lindberg 1997), distribution (Behens-Yamada 1987), abundance (Hawkins and Harnoll 1980),
habitat (de Silva 1998), mode of feeding (Hughes 1980, Hawkins and Harnoll 1983), behaviour (Bullock
1953, Branch 1979, Della Santina and Nayor 1994), etc. They are also diverse in their effects on their
surroundings (Raffaelli and Hawkins 1996). This diversity allows them to coexist successfully within their
ecosystem. These animals are also known to play an important role in determining the structure of marine
communities (Morton and Morton 1983). Within the Phylum of Mollusca, evolutionary modifications of the
internal organs and morphological features are quite extensive (Knight et al., 1960, Taylor 1996, Beiler
1992, Ponder and Lindberg 1996). Principal changes generally reflect the mode of feeding, predatory
behaviour, and habitat, and the higher taxonomic orders have been shown to exhibit some degree of
intelligence (Taylor 1996, Ponder and Lindberg 1996).
274
De Silva:Current Status of Taxonomy and Ecology of Marine Molluscs in Sri Lanka
Status of taxonomy and ecology
The marine ecosystem has a much greater taxonomic diversity (phyla, classes and orders) of invertebrates
than terrestrial or freshwater habitats (WRI 2000-2001). In this section, a brief overview of the diversity
and state of knowledge of each of the major groups of Sri Lanka’s marine molluscs is provided. This
includes a brief description of each major group in terms of distribution and trophic roles, and where
available, numbers of identified and estimated total numbers of species have been provided. This account
is intended to highlight the diversity of marine mollusc fauna in Sri Lanka, based on the recent (post- mid
1990s and post-1998) quantitative and qualitative data that have been reviewed (De Bruin et al 1995, de
Silva 1998, Fernando 2000, de Silva – ongoing study20).
The molluscs show a wide variety of morphological differences in terms of their body plan (Knight et al
1960, Taylor 1996) and details of the shells (Linsley 1978). Nevertheless, the basic body plan is one of
front-to-back bilateral symmetry, with well-defined nerve ganglia, respiratory, blood circulatory, digestive,
reproductive, and excretory organs (Purchon 1968). Despite sharing these common features, the Mollusca
is an incredibly diverse group that have radiated into 8 (7) main classes (Taylor 1996) all evolving from a.
“hypothetical ancestral mollusc”. However, it is now known that molluscan phylogeny is a lot more complex
than this (Ponder and Lindberg 1997, Wagner 2001).
There has been a prominent lag in taxonomy related work concerning marine molluscs of Sri Lanka in
recent time, except for information that have been generated during other marine faunal surveys, which
too tend to be one-off activities (De Bruin et al 1995). There has been occasional phylogenetic research
studies based on samples of Sri Lankan marine molluscs. However, the status of those studies is not known
due to the information accessibility constraints. Therefore, it should be emphasized that the information to
adequately evaluate their current status is extremely limited.
Globally approximately 120,000 species of molluscs (Chase 2002) have been described to date, but the
exact number of described marine molluscan fauna in Sri Lanka is not known. A list of nearly 240 species
of marine molluscs was compiled (see annex 1) for the current paper, through the review of relevant
literature. Recent attempts to identify marine molluscs have indicated that there is also a lot more to be
described. While the diverse, large shelled groups are relatively well known because their shells can be
collected, a great many smaller species are poorly known. It must be also noted that earlier descriptions
and distribution records have covered most of Sri Lankan marine waters (Kelaart 1852, NARESA 1989)
including the intertidal areas (Atapattu 1972, Arudpragasam and Ranatunga 1966), but most recent accounts
(de Silva 1997) have only concentrated in the southern and western region with more focus towards reef
associated fauna.
The molluscs show great structural (Taylor 1996) and ecological variability (Atapattu 1972, de Silva 1998,
de Silva 2001) and are found in a wide range of habitats. There are 7 (8) classes under the Phylum
Mollusca including Cephalopoda (octopuses, squids), Gastropoda (snails, limpets, nudibranchs), Bivalia
(clams, oysters, mussels), Scaphopoda (tusk shells), Polyplacophora (chitons), Monoplacophora and
Aplacophora (spicule worms) – Solenogadtres and Caudofoveata. In Sri Lanka, 4 out of the 7(8) classes
representing marine molluscs have been recorded at different times in history.
Cephalopoda
Relatively little is known about this class and the systematics are not very clear. The mid-water species
under this class have been surveyed from by-catch (De Bruin et al 1995). Many species are harvested as
by-catch and some are specifically targeted as a fishery resource, and others are exploited for its shell
(e.g. Nautilus). However, much remains to be done on the location of deep-sea species beyond the
20
This study mainly focuses on biology and ecology of selected keystone marine organisms on intertidal platform reefs in south and
west coasts of Sri Lanka. This study also makes an attempt to identify the current status of marine molluscs inhabiting these
rocky reefs.
275
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
continental shelf. This group includes cuttlefish, octopus and squids that falls within dibranchiates and
nautilus which falls under tetrabranchiates. Cuttlefish are generally neritic, demersal, mainly found over
mud or silty substrata and sometimes over coral or sandstone, while Octopuses are neritic, benthic, and
inhabit on hard substrata of coral or sandstone. Squids are pelagic or semi-pelagic, mainly found on silty
substrata and sometimes on sandstone or in harbours. The tetrabranchiates are pelagic, oceanic, and they
are occasionally neritic. Nineteen species of cephalopods belonging to 4 orders and 7 families have been
recorded in Sri Lanka marine waters.
Gastropoda
The diversity of this class is considerable. However, accurate figures are not available on the number of
species or families found in Sri Lanka. The latest classified groups of Gastropods include Patellogastropoda
(true limpets); Vetigastropoda (top shells, abalones, turban shells, keyhole limpets, etc.), Neritoida (nerites),
Caenogastropoda (periwinkles, whelks, cowries, cones, etc.) and Heterobranchia (seaslugs and airbreathing snails etc.) and all of these groups are represented in the Sri Lankan marine waters.
Patellogastropoda: Sri Lanka has 2 species of true limpets of 2 families being recorded and they are
typically present in intertidal rocky shores. The true limpets have an important functional role as grazers
and scrapers dominating from upper littoral to mid littoral areas (i.e. high to mid tide levels).
Neritoida: This group is comprised of one family (Nerites) in Sri Lanka and can be found in rocky and
muddy shores in high intertidal areas. The nerites feed on algae and detritus.
Vetigastropoda: These are diverse and conspicuous members of the intertidal and subtidal fauna with a
recent record of 5 families (abalone, top shells, turbins and false limpts). Most of the members of this group
are grazers specialized to feed on a wide range of substrates including detritus, algae, and colonial animals.
Caenogastropoda: This is the largest group of marine gastropoda represented in Sri Lanka. There are
indications of 33 families being observed since post-1995. These molluscs show a wide range of shell
morphologies (coiled shells, worm-like shells, limpet-forms, etc.), feeding strategies (grazing, predation,
parasitism, filter feeding) and habits. Most are benthic crawlers, some burrow, others are sessile, and a
few are permanently attached to the substrate. The group also includes cowries, cones, mitres and murexes
of interest to shell collectors. Most of the intertidal species, more-prominent subtidal and mid-sea species
have been recorded, although taxonomically not completely identified.
Heterobranchia: This group is also morphologically very diverse and includes forms with coiled or limpetlike shells to a wide variety of shell-less slugs. This sub-class has been divided into 3 groups: Heterostrophs,
Opisthobranchs and Pulmonates. Heterostropha species are carnivorous, shallow sand dwelling animals.
There is one species (sundials) recorded in recent time. The seaslugs including nudibranchs and bubble
shells comprise the Opisthobranchia. All recorded species are benthic. Few species are detritus feeders or
herbivores and most are carnivorous, preying upon sessile organisms such as sponges, hydroids,
actiniarians, and bryozoans. Post-mid 1990s records indicate 10 families out of which 8 families consist of
nudibranchs. The marine pulmonata that have been identified recently include a family of air breathing
limpets (Siphonariids) that inhabit the rocky intertidal, and a family of estuarine ear shells.
Bivalvia
This class (formerly named Pelecypoda, or Lamellibranchia) is the second largest group of molluscs found
in Sri Lanka. Although higher phylogeny is not well recorded for this class in Sri Lanka, there are definite
records under 2 out of the 6 subclasses of Bivalia with post-1995 records indicating about 21 families.
Scaphopoda
Recent records do not indicate the presence of this class in Sri Lanka.
276
De Silva:Current Status of Taxonomy and Ecology of Marine Molluscs in Sri Lanka
Monoplacophora
The few living species are known from the deep-sea and none are yet recorded from Sri Lankan waters.
Polyplacophora
There are records of one grazing species associated with rocky reefs.
Aplacophora
There are no records of these molluscs in Sri Lanka.
General distribution patterns
Sri Lanka has a coastline of about 1,585 km (GSL 1985) with an area of 230,000 km2. The continental
shelf around Sri Lanka has an area of about 31,000 km2 and the width ranges from 9 to 45 km with an
average depth of 66 m (Cooray, 1967). There are fringing and offshore reefs around the country made up
of live corals, calcareous substances, sandstone and granite (Swan 1983). However, the extent of live coral
reefs has been reduced drastically since the El Nino event in 1998 (Wilkinson et al. 1999, personal
observations). Comparatively, reefs made up of sandstone and granite still remains unchanged except for
their ecological compositions and changes due to regular phsio-chemical factors. Reefs are found from
near-shore areas to offshore areas to depths more than 50 m. The coastline of Sri Lanka has beaches and
sand dunes spreading over 300km. Intermittently, there are rocky reefs, salt marshes and muddy (estuarine)
shores. In general, the members of the Phylum Mollusca can be encountered in all the above habitats with
varying distribution patterns.
Ecological studies of marine molluscs are generally based on patterns of macro- and micro-scale taxon
distribution. However, attempts to understand the ecology and biology of marine molluscan diversity are
hampered by the small number of key studies and varying level of knowledge on taxonomic details. There
are hardly any complete reports that allow us to have a good understanding of some of the ecological
aspects of this group in Sri Lanka. However, based on the availability of information on the extents of
various geological features around Sri Lanka will allow us to get a broader understanding of the distribution
of marine molluscs at least at the level of the phylum as described above.
Ecological understanding of marine molluscs in Sri Lanka (with examples
from rocky shores)
Marine mollusc distribution is closely associated with the geographic location, physio-chemical gradients
which include vertical gradients of tides, temperature and currents, horizontal gradients of exposure to wave
action, particle size gradients and salinity gradients, geology, topography and ecological features (Raffaelli
and Hawkins 1996). The last two factors, i.e. topography and ecological features that operates at a smallscale have been observed to affect a greater extent on the distribution of low taxon levels (e.g. genera,
species, etc.) particularly with low abundance (de Silva 1997).
One of the better-studied distribution patterns comes from rocky intertidal shores of southwest Sri Lanka
(Arudpragasam and Ranatunga 1966; Atapattu 1972; de Silva 1997). The conspicuous and typical species
of open rock surface are either attached (e.g. mussels and oysters) or if mobile (e.g. periwinkles, limpets,
topshells etc.), are nevertheless capable of holding tightly to the surface of the rock or retreating to
protective crevices as occasion demands. Much less conspicuous are new recruits that tend to live in the
secondary habitats such as mussel beds, barnacles and algae during the early settling days (de Silva – on-going1).
Rocky shores such as gently sloping platforms, irregular masses and boulder beaches, which are more
common in Sri Lanka, and most of the shallow water reefs tend to demonstrate patchy distribution of
species and overlaps with the physical zones. Many of these shores can be seen as a patchwork or a
277
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
mosaic of species or assemblages on various scales on different phases of succession; from cleared bare
rock to complete cover by a dominant species. There are many positive and negative interactions between
the various elements in the patches, which make the patches dynamic through time (de Silva 2001, de Silva
– ongoing1).
Effects of 1998 El Nino event on marine molluscs
Although quantitative data are still absent, ongoing research activities indicate that there is a considerable
drop in the species number, abundance and distribution of subtidal molluscs particularly associated with
coral reefs (Wilkinson et al. 1999; Pers. comm. with P. Weerakkody) since the occurrence of El Niño. By
some measures, the 1998 El Niño was the strongest on record. This may be due, at least in part, to it being
superimposed upon naturally occurring decadal time-scale fluctuations (Kerr, 1999; McPhaden, 1999) and
anthropogenic global warming (Trenberth, 1998). However, such effect is not very apparent on most of the
intertidal molluscs, except on some subtidal and shallow water species populations that sometimes inhabited
pools and depressions of intertidal reefs (personal observations 2001 and de Silva-ongoing1).
Issues affecting the taxonomy and ecology of marine molluscs
Similar to most other invertebrate groups, the state of the taxonomic, biological and ecological knowledge
of marine molluscs are extremely poor and patchy in Sri Lanka, been largely concentrated to a few highly
visible, relatively common, or commercially important taxa. There are many knowledge gaps even with
the relatively well-studied groups, whereas many other taxa are very poorly known or almost completely
unstudied. This lack of knowledge have resulted in a less effort in managing and/or conserving the marine
molluscs, although this group of marine fauna has proved to be very important for ecosystem functions as
well as for the well-being of the humankind (Kay 1995, Duarte 2000).
There are some researches that have been carried out on intertidal, shallow water and coral reef related
groups, but in many instances unpublished. As there has not been a continuity of these studies, it is not
possible to identify the changes that may have happened within the phylum including possible extinction
from Sri Lankan waters, effects of various threats, etc. let alone to predict probable future impacts. Hardly
any phylogenetic studies have being carried out in recent time to verify the identified taxa, and in present
day there are no local specialists working on taxonomic work. This has led to many researchers identifying
mollusc fauna only to higher taxonomic levels and solely using photographic guides.
There is a need for ecological data, long term monitoring and assessments. However, there is a lack of
information on basic biology and ecology of most taxa and there are no continuous application of research
findings and updated research techniques that get developed in other parts of the world. One of the reasons
for the poor knowledge on biology and ecology are due to the non-progress in taxonomic knowledge
hindering advances in biological and ecological research. Due to the limited resources allocated
comparative to the size of the area concerned, many have not attempted to research on marine molluscs.
Resources have been mainly allocated on studies focusing on fishes, largest and colourful or commercially
exploitable species. The understanding of their diversity and extent of the marine resource that they
represent is very limited. Even the accessible intertidal and shallow-water habitats have not been studied in
recent time.
Issues of accessibility to marine mollusc habitats have also led to something of a geographical bias, with
research efforts being largely concentrated in the southwestern region. There is significant lack of data
from rest of the areas around Sri Lanka and deeper waters. However, even in the better-studied regions of
Sri Lanka, there are very few locations where the marine mollusc fauna has been sufficiently surveyed to
enable reasonable baseline data to be obtained.
Elsewhere in the world, the use of marine molluscs and their habitats for developing and testing ecological
theory has preceded apace in the 1980s and 1990s (Reise 1985; Paine 1994) as their potential as an
278
De Silva:Current Status of Taxonomy and Ecology of Marine Molluscs in Sri Lanka
ecological laboratories seem limitless. While there is a justifiable emphasis in contemporary studies on the
collection of quantitative ecological data, there are very few studies being undertaken on the biology
covering the natural history of Sri Lankan marine molluscs. With the exception of some commercial
species, there is very little research on biological aspects such as feeding, life history, life span, role in
ecosystem, etc.
Other reasons for non-progress in understanding this faunal group include lack of interest, lack of dedicated
marine stations or departments in universities, and inaccessibility of available knowledge and information.
There is a focus of research and conservation efforts towards larger animals rather than small and towards
terrestrial rather than marine environments. When establishing research and conservation priorities there is
thus an inherent bias, resulting both from the available knowledge base and from the interests of the
majority of the people. Therefore, emphasis was never given to establish dedicated institutions to carry out
the necessary research or coordinate the essential activities. One must not forget that this faunal group
does not interest the public too. Unlike the larger animals, general public rarely encounter animals such as
molluscs unless if it has an economic value, and there is also little understanding among the general public
of why the knowledge and conservation of marine molluscs matter (Collins and Wells 1983). There are
only very few keys and guides that are useful even for simple identification work in Sri Lanka (Kirtisinghe
1978; Abbot 1991; Allen and Steene 1994). There is also the issue of availability of these identification
guides as well as other related information within the country. The knowledge and information that are
present on marine molluscs of Sri Lanka is very limited and scattered with most documents can be only
found in private collections.
There are a number of practical problems that too have contributed to the non-progress in understanding
these marine organisms that have direct linkages to issues addressed earlier. These include the
impracticality in studying some of the biological and ecological criteria such as population dynamics,
recruitment, survival, etc, under natural spatio-temporal variations and difficulty in assessing the extent (in
terms of population size and distribution) of such widely scattered marine organisms. Therefore, it is
necessary to identify at least the keystone species in each main habitat and carry out detailed biological
and ecological research to understand these organisms.
Research gaps in relation to taxonomy and ecology
As discussed above, there are a number of research gaps that should be focused as future interventions to
understand and conserve the marine molluscs in Sri Lanka. These include:
z
Regular surveys on status of marine molluscs and preparation of checklists;
z
Taxonomic studies (phylogentic research) on undescribed taxa;
z
Preparation and/or compilation of guides and keys;
z
Studies on small-scale distribution at habitat level and species level and distribution ranges;
z
Ecological studies (population dynamics, community interactions, etc.) and biological studies (life
history, which is inclusive of feeding patterns, reproductive dynamics, etc.) at a local context and
particularly focusing on keystone species;
z
Ecological processes affecting communities/habitats; and
z
Threats to marine molluscs and their habitats.
Conservation issues
There are many threatening processes that although not studied could affect marine molluscs in Sri Lanka.
However, it is likely that they are vulnerable to the following potential impacts: pollution, sedimentation,
habitat modification, extraction and reductions in population changes of other organisms that have a direct
link to the survival of this group. Possible threatening effects due to alien invasive species are unknown,
279
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
except for the increase of opportunistic organisms (i.e. organisms that increase their abundance due to
change of state of habitats) that could be threatening to some of the members of this group (de Silva –
ongoing1). Accelerating these threats would include lack of management processes and knowledge and
understanding the fauna as a group and their ecosystem functions. The extents of the impacts are poorly
understood, except in some localities. This directly connects to the possibility of extinctions at local levels.
If it is actually happening, the rate or the scale of extinctions are not known due to the scarcity in other
information such as taxonomy and distribution (Carlton 1996). The sea is not immune to extinctions and
they are most likely to occur in particular habitats such as estuaries, coral reefs, intertidal shores and
shallow water habitats (Carlton et al. 1999).
In Sri Lanka, as it is in most of the other countries of the world, regards marine molluscs as insignificant,
although it is now a well recognized fact that they contribute considerably together with other invertebrates
to sustain the most essential ecological processes and systems that we depend on (Kay 1995, Duarte
2000). It is also a well-known fact that only a limited number of species are ever likely to be of major
economic importance benefiting humans. Since, in most situations the criteria for conservation of organisms
are based on possible economic values, conservation of majority of species will not occur. However, one
must not forget that an important reason for conserving a broad range of biota is to ensure the survival of
the economically important species that are intricately linked to the survival of the rest of the noncommercial or economically unimportant species. Apart from the above reasons, they are also very useful
organisms to improve scientific research, useful for educational, aesthetic and recreational activities and
for ethical reasons – i.e. their rights to exist and our moral obligation for conserving these organisms for
the use of future generations.
There have been relatively few attempts to list vulnerable marine molluscs and there are barely any
conservation measures that have been implemented as a group of taxa. There are only 14 species and one
genus protected under the last amended Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance (Anon 1993) and only 2
species identified as lower risk/conservation dependent fauna in the IUCN Global Red List (2002). Not
even a single species of marine molluscs have been identified in the IUCN Sri Lanka Red List (2000).
Few of the species may have received some protection if present within locations of protected areas such
as marine reserves or inaccessible habitats.
A broad range of measures is likely to be necessary for the management and conservation of marine
molluscs. While species-specific approach might not be feasible for a country-like Sri Lanka except for
most vulnerable or threatened species, and habitat or landscape conservation strategy (Bowen 1997) can
be recommended as a better option. Apart from this, it is recommended that the following suggestions be
also taken into consideration as part of conservation efforts. These include:
z
Policy review and/or reform on conservation and implementation of policies;
z
Effective management of threats through institutional coordination and controlling regulations;
z
Basic research;
z
Education and awareness programmes;
z
Community involvement in conservation efforts; and
z
Improving access to information.
References
Abbot, R.T. 1991. Seashells of South East Asia. Tynron Press, Scotland. 135pp.
Addessi, L. 1994. Human disturbance and long-term changes on a rocky intertidal community. Ecological
Applications 4: 786-797.
280
De Silva:Current Status of Taxonomy and Ecology of Marine Molluscs in Sri Lanka
Addessi, L. 2001. Giant clam bleaching in the lagoon of Takapoto atoll (French Polynesia). Coral Reefs
19: 220.
Allen, G. and Steene, R. 1994. Indo-Pacific Coral Reef Field Guide. Tropical Reef Research, Singapore.
Anon. 1993. Fauna and Flora Protection (Amendment) Act, No. 49. of 1993. Government Publication
Bureau. Colombo. 59pp.
Arudpragasam, K.D. & Ranatunga, K.W. 1966. On the ecology of sandstone reef in Duwa (Ceylon).
Ceylon Journal of Science (Bioscience) 6(1): 26-32.
Atapattu, D.H. 1972. The distribution of molluscs on littoral rocks in Ceylon, with notes on their ecology.
Marine Biology (Berlin) 16(3): 150-160.
Attrill, M. J. and Power, M. (2000). Effects on invertebrate populations of drought-induced changes in
estuarine water quality. Marine Ecology Progress Series 203: 133-143.
Behens-Yamada, S. 1987. Geographic variation in the growth rates if Littorin littirea and L. saxalis.
Marine Biology 96: 529-534.
Beiler, R. 1992. Gastropod phylogeny and systematics. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,
23:311-338.
Bowen, B. W. 1997. Landscape-level conservation in the marine realm. In Principles of conservation
biology. 2nd edition. G. K. Meffe and Carroll, C. R. Sunderland, MA, Sinauer: 223-225.
Branch, G.M. 1979. Aggression by limpets against invertibrate predators. Animal behaviour 27: 408-410.
Brown, B. E. 1997. Coral bleaching: causes and consequences. H. A. Lessios and MacIntyre, I. G., Eds.
Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium (Vol. 1): 65-74, Smithsonian Tropical
Research Institute.
Bullock, T.H. 1953. Predator recognition and escape responses of some intertidal gastropods in the
presence of starfish. Behaviour 5: 130-140.
Carlton, J. T. 1996. Marine conservation ecology: Recognizing the roles of invasions and extinctions in a
long-term era of declining systematics and exploration. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of
America 77: 70.
Carlton, J. T., Meller, J. B., Reaka-Kulda, M. L. and Norse, E. A. 1999. Historical extinctions in the sea.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 515-538.
Chase, Ronald 2002. Behavior and Its Neural Control in Gastropod Molluscs. Oxford University Press.
314 pp.
Collins, M. and Wells, S. 1983. Invertebrates - who needs them? New Scientist 98: 441-444.
Cooray, P.G. 1967. An introduction to the Geology of Ceylon. Spolia zeylonica 31: 1 – 324.
De Bruin, G.H.P., Russell, B.C. and Bogusch A. 1995. FAO species identification field guide for fishery
purposes. The marine fishery resources of Sri Lanka. Rome, FAO. 400 pp.
Della Santina, P. and Nayor, E. 1994. Endogenous rhythms in the homing beahviour of the limpet Patella
vulgata Linnaeus. Journal of Molluscan Studies 59: 87-91.
de Silva, Darshani 1997. Molluscan Diversity and their Present Distribution Patterns in the Beruwala
Rockyshore and the Uswetekeiyawa Sandstone Reef. BSc. Zoology Project, Faculty of Natural
Sciences, The Open University of Sri Lanka. 37pp.
de Silva, D. 1998. Molluscan diversity and their present distribution patterns in the Beruwala rocky shore
and Uswetekeiyawa sandstone reef. Abstracts of papers: Fourth Annual Scientific Sessions of
Sri Lanka Association for Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Session II: Aquatic Biology: 24.
281
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
de Silva, Darshani 2001. Reproductive biology and polulation ecology of pulmonate limpet Siphonaria
zelandica. MSc. Thesis in Environmental and Marine Sciences. School of Environmental and Marine
Science, Leigh Marine Laboratory, University of Auckland, Auckland. 186pp.
Duarte, C. 2000. Marine biodiversity and ecosystem services: an elusive link. Journal of Experimental
Marine Biology and Ecology 250: 117-131.
Fernando, Malik 2000. Nudibranchs: Snails without Homes. Loris 22(3): 4-12.
Government of Sri Lanka (GSL) 1985. Second Interim Report of the Land Commission.
Hawkins, S.J. and Hartnoll, R. G. 198o. Small scale relationships between species number and area on
rock shores. Est. Coast. Mar. Sci. 10: 201-214.
Hawkins, S.J. and Hartnoll, R. G. 1983. Grazing of intertidal algae by marine invertebrates. Oceanography
and Marine Biology Annual Review 21: 195-282.
Hughes, R.N. 1980. Predation and community structure. (In Irvine, D.E.G. and Franham, W.F. eds. The
shore environment, Vol 2: Ecosystems) (Sytematics Association Special Volume: No. 173). Academic
Press, London. 699-728.
IUCN 2002. 2002 IUCN Red List of Threaded Species. http://www.redlit.org.
IUCN Sri Lanka 2000. The 1999 list of Threatened Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka. Colombo. IUCN
Sri Lanka viii + 114pp.
Kay, Alison E. 1995. The Conservation Biology of Molluscs. IUCN SSC Occasional Paper No. 9.
California. 81pp.
Kellaart, E. F. 1852. Contributions to the Zoology of Ceylon. 342pp.
Kerr, R. A. 1999. Big El Ninos ride the back of slower climate change. Science 283: 1108-1109.
Kirthisinghe, P. 1978. Seashells of Sri Lanka. Tokyo. Charles E. Tuttle Co. Inc. 220pp.
Knight, J. B., and, Yochelson, E. L.. 1960. Monoplacophora. In Moore, R. C. (ed.) Treatise on
Invertebrate Paleontology. Part I. Mollusca 1, pp. 77-84. Geological Society of America and Kansas
University Press, Colorado and Kansas.
Knight, J. B., Cox, L. R., Keen, A. M., Batten, R. L., Yochelson, E. L., and Robertson, R. 1960. Systematic
descriptions [Archaeogastropoda]. In Moore, R. C. (ed.) Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology.
Part I. Mollusca 1, 169-310. Geological Society of America and Kansas University Press, Colorado
and Kansas
Linsley, R. M. 1978. Locomotion rates and shell form in the gastropoda. Malacologia 17, 193-206.
McPhaden, M. J. 1999. Genesis and evolution of the 1997-98 El Ninos. Science 283:950-954.
Morton, B. and Morton J. 1983. The Sea Shore Ecology of Hong Kong. Hong Kong University Press.
NARESA 1989. Mollusca. Faunal Publication Inventory. Zoological Survey of Sri Lanka.
Nesis, K.N., 1987. Cephalopods of the World. New Jersey, TFH Publications Inc.
Nixon, M. & Messenger, J.B., 1977. The Biology of Cephalopods. London, Academic Press.
Okutani, T., O’Dor, R.K. & Kubodera, T., 1993. Recent Advances in Cephalopod Fishery Biology.
Tokyo, Tokai University Press.
Paine, R. T. 1994. Marine Rocky Shores and Community Ecology: An Experimentalist’s Perspective.
Ecology Institute, Nordbruite. 159pp.
Ponder, W. F. 1998. Classification of Mollusca. In Mollusca: The Southern Synthesis. Fauna of
Australia. Vol. 5. P. L. Beesley, Ross, G. J. B. and Wells, A. Melbourne, CSIRO Publishing: 1-6.
282
De Silva:Current Status of Taxonomy and Ecology of Marine Molluscs in Sri Lanka
Ponder, W. F. and Lindberg, D. R. 1997. Towards a phylogeny of gastropod molluscs: an analysis using
morphological characters. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 119: 83-265.
Portner, H.O., O’Dor, R.K. & Macmillan, D.L., 1994. Physiology of Cephalopod Molluscs. Basel.
Gordon & Breach.
Purchon, R.D., 1968. The Biology of Mollusca. London, Pergamon Press.
Raffaelli, D. and Hawkins, S. 1996. Intertidal Ecology. Alden Press, Oxford. 356pp.
Reise, K. 1985. Tidal Flat Ecology. An Experimental Approach to Species Interactions. Ecological Studies
54. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Swan, B. 1983. An introduction to the coastal geomorphology of Sri Lanka. Spolia Zeylanica. Vol. 31
(Part 1). 182 pp.
Taylor J.D. 1996. Origin and Evolutionary Radiation of the Mollusca. Oxford University Press.
Tennant, E. 1861. Natural History of Ceylon.
Trenberth, K. E. 1998. El Nino and global warming. Journal of Marine Education 15:12-18.
Wagner, P. J. 2001. Gastropod phylogenetics: progress, problems and implications. Journal of
Paleontology 75: 1128 – 1140.
Wilkinson, C.,Linden, O., Cesar, H., Hodgson, G., Rubens, J. and Stong, A. E.. 1999. Ecological and
socioeconomic impacts of 1998 coral bleaching in the Indian Ocean: an ENSO impact and a warning
of future change? Ambio 28: 188-196.
World Resources Institute 2000-2001. People and Ecosystems: The Fraying of Web of Life. Biological
resources. WRI.
283
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Appendix 1: Checklist of Marine Molluscs in Sri Lanka (post-mid 1990s)
CLASS: Cephalopoda
ORDER: NAUTILIDEA
FAMILY: N AUTILIDAE
Nautilus pompilius
ORDER: SPIRULIDA
FAMILY: SPIRULIDAE
Spirula spirula
ORDER: TEUTHOIDEA
FAMILY: LOLIGINIDAE
Loligo duvauceli
Loligo singhalensis
Sepioteuthis lessoniana
ORDER: OCTOPODA
FAMILY: O CTOPODIDAE
Cistopus indicus
Octopus aegina
Octopus cyaneus
Octopus defilippi
Octopus globosus
Octopus membranaceus
Octopus vulgaris
FAMILY: ARGONAUTIDAE
Argonauta argo
ORDER: SEPIOIDEA
FAMILY: SEPIIDAE
Sepia aculeate
Sepia latimanus
Sepia pharaonis
Sepia prashadi
Sepiella inermis
FAMILY: SEPIOLIDAE
Euprymna berry
CLASS: Gastropoda
ORDER: PATELLOGASTROPODA
FAMILY: P ATELLIDAE
Cellana radiata*
FAMILY: ACMAEIDAE
Patelloida saccharina
ORDER: NERITOIDA
FAMILY: N ERITIDAE
Nerita albicilla*
Nerita chamaeleon*
Nerita polita*
*
Species that have been also encountered after 1998 El Nino
event
284
ORDER: VETIGASTROPODA
FAMILY: HALIOTIDAE
Haliotis varia
FAMILY: FISSURELLIDAE
Clypidna notata*
Diodora mus
Scutus unguis
FAMILY: TROCHIDAE
Euchelus asper*
Euchelus satratus*
Trochus maculates
Trochus radiatus*
Umbonium vestiarium
FAMILY: TURBINIDAE
Astralium rhodostoma*
Turbo intercostalis*
FAMILY: PHASIANELLIDAE
Phasianella solida*
ORDER: CAENOGASTROPODA
FAMILY: CERITHIIDAE
Cerithidea cingulata
Cerithidea quadrata
Clypeomorus chemnitzian*
Rhinoclavis aspera*
Rhinoclavis sinensis
FAMILY: POTAMIDIDAE
Telescopium telesopium*
FAMILY: TURRITELLIDAE
Turitella terebra
FAMILY: LITTORINIDAE
Littorina scabra
Littorina undulata*
Nodilittorina granularis*
Nodilittorina pyramidalis*
FAMILY: STROMBIDAE
Lambis chiragra
Lambis crocata
Lambis lambis
Lambis scorpius
Strombus canarium
Strombus listeri
Strombus mutabilis*
Strombus plicatus*
Strombus sp.
Tibia insulae
De Silva:Current Status of Taxonomy and Ecology of Marine Molluscs in Sri Lanka
FAMILY: XENOPHORIDAE
Xenophora pallidula*
Xenophora sp.
FAMILY: CREPIDULIDAE
Unidentified species*
FAMILY: CYPRAEIDAE
Cypraea annulus*
Cypraea arabica
Cypraea argus
Cypraea asellus*
Cypraea caputserpentis*
Cypraea errones
Cypraea felina*
Cypraea lynx
Cypraea mappa
Cypraea monata*
Cypraea ocellata*
Cypraea scurra
Cypraea talpa
Cypraea tigris*
FAMILY: OVULIDAE
Ovula sp.
Volva volva
FAMILY: NATICIDAE
Natica euzona*
FAMILY: CASSIDAE
Cassis cornuta
Cypraecassis rufa
Phalium sp.
FAMILY: BURSIDAE
Bursa granularis*
Bursa sp.
FAMILY: FICIDAE
Ficus sp.
FAMILY: C YMATIDAE
Cymatium muricinum*
Cymatium cingulatum
Cymatium pileare
Cymatium aquatile
Charonia tritonis
FAMILY: TONNIDAE
Tonna sp.
FAMILY: MURICIDAE
Chicoreus palmarosae
Chicoreus ramosus*
Chicoreus torrfactus
Chicoreus virgineus*
Drupa morum*
Drupa ricinus*
Drupella fusconigra*
Morula granulata*
Morula marginatra*
Morula sp.
Murex haustellum
Murex racemosa
Murex ternispina
Purpura pursica*
Thais bufo*
Thais tissoti*
FAMILY: BUCCINIDAE
Babylonia spirata*
FAMILY: FASCIOLARIIDAE
Pleuroploca trapezium
FAMILY: NASSARIDAE
Nassa francolinus*
Nassarius sp.
FAMILY: COLLUMBELLIDAE
Pyrene versicolor*
Pyrene spp. (3)
FAMILY: EPITONIIDAE
Gyroscala perplexa
FAMILY: HARPIDAE
Harpa harpa
FAMILY: MARGINELLIDAE
Marginella strigata
Marginella sp.
FAMILY: MITRIDAE
Mitra sp.
Chrysame ferruginea*
Vexillum sp.
FAMILY: OLIVIDAE
Oliva reticulata*
Oliva textilina
Oliva miniacea
Oliva sp.
FAMILY: VOLUTIDAE
Unidentified species
FAMILY: TURBINELLIDAE
Turbinella pyrum
Vasum ceramicum
FAMILY: MAGILIDAE
Magilus sp.
Rapa bulbiformis
285
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
FAMILY: CONIDAE
Conus abraeus*
Conus lividus*
Conus pennaceus
Conus sulcatus*
Conus zeylanicus
Conus tessulatus
Conus corunatus
Conus leopardus*
FAMILY: TERIBRIDAE
Terebra sp.
FAMILY: TURRIDAE
Lophiotoma indica
Turriella terebra
FAMILY: VASIDAE
Turbinella pyrum*
ORDER: HETEROSTROPHA
FAMILY: ARCHITECHTONIDAE
Haliacus variagatus
ORDER: OPISTHOBRANCHIA
FAMILY: HAMINOEDAE
Haminoea cymbalum*
FAMILY: BULLIDAE
Bulla ampulla
FAMILY: CHROMODORIDIDAE
Chromodoris decora
Chromodoris fidelis
Chromodoris geminus
Chromodoris tennentana
Glossodoris atromarginatra
Hypselodoris kanga
Risbecia pulchella
Risbecia sp.
FAMILY: DORIDIDAE
Jorunna funebris
FAMILY: POLYCERIDAE
Tambyja affinis
FAMILY: PHYLLIDIIDAE
Phyllidia cf. nobilis
Phyllidia spp. (6)
Phyllidia varicose
FAMILY: GLAUCIDAE
Pteraeolidia ianthina
FAMILY: ARMINIDAE
Arminia sp.
FAMILY: PLEUROBRANCHIDAE
Pleurobranchus sp.
286
FAMILY: POLYCERIDAE
Gymnodoris celonica
ORDER: PULMONATA
FAMILY: SIPHONARIIDAE
Siphonaria atra*
FAMILY: ELLOBIDAE
Cassidula musterina
FAMILY: SILIQUARIIDAE
Siliquaria anguina
CLASS: Bivalvia
ORDER: MYTILIODA
FAMILY: MYTILIDAE
Brachidontes variabilis
Modiolus tulipa
Perna perna*
Perna viridis*
Septifer bilocularis*
Septifer virgatus
ORDER: ARCOIDA
FAMILY: ARCIDAE
Andara troscheri
Arca lienosa
Arca sp.
Barbatia lima
Barbatia sp.
Barbatia velata*
Barbatia virescence*
Cucullaea labiata
Trisidos tortuosa*
FAMILY: GLYCYMERIDAE
Glycymeris rotunda
ORDER: PTERIOIDA
FAMILY: PTERIIDAE
Pinctada margaritifera*
Pinctada radiata
Pinctada vulgaris*
Pteria penguin
Pteria sp.
FAMILY: MALLEIDAE
Malleus malleus
FAMILY: ISOGNOMONIDAE
Isognomon sp.
FAMILY: PINNIDAE
Atrina sp.
Pinna bicolor*
Pinna muricata*
De Silva:Current Status of Taxonomy and Ecology of Marine Molluscs in Sri Lanka
ORDER: OSTETREOIDA
FAMILY: OSTREIDAE
Crassostrea belcheri*
Crassostrea madrasensis*
Saccostrea commersalis*
Saccostrea cucullata*
ORDER: VENEROIDA
FAMILY: CARDITIDAE
Cardita bicolor*
Cardita variagata*
FAMILY: CHAMIDAE
Chama fragum
Chama sp. *
FAMILY: CARDIIDAE
Afrocardium sp.
Fulvia sp.
Trachycardium sp.
Vasticardium sp.
FAMILY: TRIDACTINIDAE
Tridacna maxima
Tridacna squamosa
FAMILY: MACTRIDAE
Mactra sp.
FAMILY: SOLENIDAE
Siliqua radiata
Solecurtus sp.
Solen strictus
FAMILY: DONACIDAE
Donax scortum
FAMILY: PSAMMOBIIDAE
Unidentified species
FAMILY: SEMELIDAE
Semele sp.
FAMILY: TRAPEZIIDAE
Diplodonta sp.
Trapezium rostrata
FAMILY: VENERIDAE
Antigona lamellaris
Callista sp.
Dosinia sericea*
Dosinia sp.
Gafrarium dispar*
Gafrarium divaricatum*
Gafrarium tumidum
Meretrix costa
Paphia sp.
Paphia textile*
Periglypta clathrata
Peryglypta reticulata*
Sunetta sp.
Tapes sp.
Venus toreuma
FAMILY: PANDORIDAE
Pandora ceylonicus
Pandora sp.
FAMILY: TELLINIDAE
Tellina sp.
CLASS: Polyplacophora
FAMILY: CHITONIDAE
Squamopleura imitatar *
287
The
T
HE F
Fauna
AUNA OFofSRI
SriLANKA
Lanka
(2006):
(2006)
288-293
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
The Taxonomy and Status of Offshore Birds (Seabirds) of Sri Lanka
S.W. Kotagama* and Rex I. De Silva§
*
Field Ornithology Group of Sri Lanka, Department of Zoology, University of Colombo, Colombo 3.
§
Seabird Watch (Sri Lanka), 31 Dampe, Madapatha. (Piliyandala).
Abstract
A fair proportion of the offshore birds found in Sri Lanka are oceanic species. The checklist
presented in this paper lists 54 species of seabirds documented so far, all of which belong to the
order Ciconiiformes, represented by five families. The paper briefly discusses conservation issues
affecting seabirds, mostly related to fishery and habitat degradation. With regards to the taxonomy,
while advancements have been made over the recent years, a serious handicap has arisen from the
lack of specimens for comparative study and the limited access to literature.
Key words: Seabirds, Offshore birds, Conservation, Taxonomy
Background
This paper considers as offshore birds (seabirds) the purely oceanic species, the coastal birds as well as
those individual wide-ranging species which occur in the coastal waters, continental shelf and inland water
bodies. All species included here have been recorded from Sri Lanka’s territorial waters (i.e. 12 nautical
miles or 22.24km from shore). Various workers including Legge (1880), Henry (1955), Phillips (1978), De
Silva (1990), Harrison (1999) and others have earlier documented the offshore birds of Sri Lanka. The
current paper seeks to supplement the work of these authors.
We exclude from this paper those groups usually classified as seabirds but which in Sri Lanka are not
closely connected with the ocean (eg. Pelecanidae, Phalacrocoracidae, etc.). The taxonomy and
nomenclature follows Kotagama, De Silva, Wijeyasinghe and Abeygunawardane (in press), which is based
on the taxonomy and nomenclature of Inskipp, Lindsey and Duckworth (1996) modified where relevant by
the nomenclature of Bourne and Casement (1996). The birds are identified up to species level only, subspecies being excluded. The avifaunal list of Kotagama et al. (in press) separates the species into three
categories. The first list (L1) includes those species for which specimens have been collected. The second
(L2) catalogues birds which are recorded from three or more sightings or confirmed by capture and release
(as in ringing). The third list (L3) records species known from only one or two sightings. In the present
paper we follow this arrangement in cataloguing the seabird species. All species of offshore birds
catalogued by Kotagama et al. (in press) are included in the checklist appended here. These include 35
species from Ll, one from L2 and 18 from L3.
Species richness of off-shore birds
Ornithologically Sri Lanka can be considered an oceanic island, thus a fair proportion of the offshore birds
recorded are oceanic species. The 54 seabird species (Appendix 1) included here all belong to a single
Order Ciconiiformes, which is represented in our seas by five families. Of these seven (possibly eight)
species are breeding residents (R). Thirteen species are winter visitors (W) from northern regions. None
of these breed in Sri Lanka although some may loiter on during the summer months. Six species are
summer visitors (S) with two of them Sterna dougallii and S. anaethetus breeding here, but note that the
former species is also believed to be represented by a small resident population. This may well prove to be
the case for S. anaethetus as well (see below). Three species are regular passage migrants (PM); Sterna
anaethetus which migrates off the coast in large numbers during the south-west monsoon (De Silva, 1987),
S. fuscata which does so in small numbers and Puffinus carneipes which migrates annually along the
288
Kotagama & De Silva: The Taxonomy and Status of Offshore Birds (Seabirds) of Sri Lanka
west coast on the return journey to its breeding grounds in south-west Australia (De Silva & Perera, 1994).
A further eight species are believed to be irregular visitors (I) being recorded in very small numbers in
some years and absent in others, but their actual status is uncertain on account of the lack of adequate
data. The status of 22 species is uncertain. or unknown (U) at present. This includes 11 species of
Procellariidae, eight species of Laridae, two species of Sulidae and one species of Fregatidae. Many earlier
authors classed these birds as “vagrants”, “stragglers” or “accidentals”, which highlights the fact that
information is lacking. It is important to note that several species fall into two or more categories. For
example Gelochelidon nilotica is represented by both resident and (winter) migrant populations and
S. anaethetus which is largely a passage migrant, is also considered by some authors to be a winter visitor
and recent reports indicate that small numbers may breed on islets off Mannar. This raises the question as
to whether a small resident breeding population of the species occurs in Sri Lanka. Where the specified
status of a species is in some doubt, it is indicated in the checklist by a mark of interrogation (?) following
the presumed status. It is relevant to point out that Sri Lanka has no endemic seabird species. It is
inevitable that as more data becomes available the status of many species discussed here will be clarified
and the checklist will require to be amended accordingly.
Several seabird species from the Antarctic and sub-Antarctic regions visit Sri Lanka. These include
Catharacta lonnbergi, C. maccormicki and Oceanites oceanicus. Another southern seabird Pterodroma
mollis recorded recently from Sri Lanka, was the first of its species to be recorded from the tropical Indian
Ocean. Another of its congeners from the sub-Antarctic regions P. lessonii was the first of the species to
be recorded from any tropical ocean.
Conservation issues
Sri Lanka’s seabirds are subject to many threats, actual and potential. Many birds are accidentally
entangled and drowned in fishing nets. Among the species so affected for which information is available
are Sterna bergii and Sula leucogaster. Seabirds are sometimes foul-hooked on trolling lines, here again
Sula species appear to be among the victims. A major setback to some species of breeding terns (which
are ground nesters), is the loss of breeding habitat due to the littoral regions of lagoons in which they nest,
being converted into ponds for shrimp farming or into evaporation pans for salt production. Habitat
degradation has increased considerably in the last two decades. Larus brunnicephalus and occasionally
other wintering gulls are captured for food in a few northern villages. Reports indicate that at present this
appears to be carried out on a relatively limited scale. The data relating to the effects of marine pollution
on seabirds is virtually non-existent and the extent of actual or potential threats is therefore unknown.
Issues related to taxonomy
The taxonomy of offshore birds has undergone considerable revision in recent years. Regrettably in some
instances this has not clarified matters, as an element of disagreement exists among the different
authorities. A source of some confusion is the Larus argentatus / L. cachinnans / L. fuscus / L. heuglini
group. These have been considered by some authors as individual species in their own right, others
consolidate them into two (or more) species, a minority consider them to be conspecific, while some
authorities treat them as sub-species. Since each one has at some time been recorded from Sri Lanka and
the taxonomy continues to remain rather confused, we provisionally treat these as separate species,
realizing clearly that this treatment may be subject to revision in the light of new information. This also
illustrates a major drawback to workers in Sri Lanka where a lack of specimens for comparative study and
limited access to literature often proves to be a serious handicap.
289
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
References and Related Literature
Bourne, W.R.P and Casement, M.B. (1996). RNBWS Checklist of seabirds (Revised). Supplement to Sea
Swallow 45.
De Silva, R. I. (1987). Observations on the annual mass migration of Bridled Terns Sterna anaethetus off
the coast of Colombo. Ibis 129(1): 88-92.
De Silva, R.I. (1990). The Seabirds of Sri Lanka: an annotated checklist. Cey. Journ. of Sci. (BioI. Sci.)
21(1):28-33.
De Silva, R.I. (1991). Status and conservation of the breeding seabirds of Sri Lanka in J. P. Croxall (ed.)
Seabird status and conservation: a supplement. London. ICBP (Technical Publication 11): 205-211.
De Silva, R.I. (1994). Identity of the home ranges of Brown Skuas Catharacta (antarctica) lonnbergi
(AVES: STERCORARIDAE) collected in the northern Indian Ocean. Cey. Journ. of Sci. (BioI. Sci.)
23(1):52-55.
De Silva, R.I. and Perera, L. (1994). Shearwater migration off the coast of Sri Lanka. Loris 20(3): 97-100.
Harrison, J. (1999). A field guide to the birds of Sri Lanka. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Henry, G.M. (1955). A guide to the birds of Ceylon. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Inskipp, T., Lindsey, N. and Duckworth, W. (1996). An annotated checklist of the birds of the Oriental
Reqion. Sandy. Oriental Bird Club.
Kotagama, S.W., De Silva, R.I., Wijeyasinghe,A. and Abeygunawardane, V. (in press). Avifaunal list of Sri
Lanka. Colombo. IUCN.
Legge, W.V. (1880). A history of the birds of Ceylon. (Reprint edition 1983). Dehiwela. Tisara
Prakasakayo.
Phillips, W.W.A. (1978). Annotated checklist of the birds of Ceylon (Sri Lanka). Wildlife and Nature
Protection Society of Sri Lanka. (Rev. edition).
290
Kotagama & De Silva: The Taxonomy and Status of Offshore Birds (Seabirds) of Sri Lanka
Appendix 1: Checklist of Sea Birds of Sri Lanka
ORDER CICONIIFORMES
FAMILY LARIDAE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Catharacta lonnbergi Mathews, 1941.
Brown Skua. (S)
Ll
C. maccormicki (Saunders, 1893)
South Polar Skua. (U)
L3
Stercorarius pomarinus (Temminck, 1815)
Pomarine Jaeger. (S)
Ll
S. parasiticus (Linnaeus, 1758)
Parasitic Jaeger. (U)
L3
Larus hemprichii (Bruch, 1853)
Sooty Gull. (U)
L3
L. heuglini Bree, 1876
Heuglin’s Gull (I)
Ll
L. argentatus Pontoppidan, 1763
Herring Gull (W?)
L3
L. cachinnans Pallas, 1811
Sooty Gull. (U)
L2
L. fuscus Linnaeus, 1758
Lesser Black-backed Gull. (I)
L3
10. L. ichthyaetus Pallas, 1773
Pallas’s Gull. (W)
Ll
11. L. brunnicephalus Jerdon, 1840
Brown-headed Gull. (W)
Ll
12. L. ridibundus Linnaeus, 1766
Black-headed Gull. (W)
L3
13. L. genei Breme, 1839
Slender-billed Gull. (U)
L3
14. Gelochelidon nilotica (Gmelin, 1789)
Gull-billed Tern. (W/R?)
Ll
15. Sterna caspia (Pallas, 1770)
Caspian Tern. (R/W)
Ll
16. S. bengalensis Lesson, 1831
Lesser Crested Tern. (W)
Ll
17. S. bergii Lesson, 1831
Great Crested Tern. (R)
Ll
18. S. sandvicensis Latham, 1787
Sandwich Tern. (W)
Ll
19. S. dougallii Montagu, 1813
Roseate Tern. (S/R)
Ll
20. S. sumatrana Raffles, 1822
Black-naped Tern. (U)
L3
291
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
21. S. hirundo Linnaeus, 1758
Common Tern. (W/R)
Ll
22. S. albifrons Pallas, 1764
Little Tern. (R)
Ll
23. S. saundersi Hume, 1877
Saunders’s Tern. (R)
Ll
24. S. repressa Hartert, 1916
White-cheeked Tern (U)
L3
25. S. anaethetus Scopoli, 1786
Bridled Tern. (PM/W?/R?)
Ll
26. S. fuscata Linnaeus, 1766
Sooty Tern. (PM)
Ll
27. Chlidonias hybridus (Pallas, 1811)
Whiskered Tern. (W)
Ll
28. C. leucopterus (Temminck, 1815)
White-winged Tern. (W)
Ll
29. C. niger (Linnaeus, 1758)
Black Tern. (W?)
L3
30. Anous stolidus (linnaeus, 1758)
Brown Noddy. (S)
Ll
31. A. minutus (Boie, 1844)
Black Noddy. (U)
L3
32. A. tenuirostris (Temminck, 1823)
Lesser Noddy. (I)
Ll
FAMILY PHAETHONTIDAE
33. Phaethon aetherus Linnaeus, 1758
Red-billed Tropicbird. (S)
Ll
34. P. lepturus Daudin, 1802
White-tailed Tropicbird. (I)
Ll
FAMILY SULIDAE
35. Sula dactylatra Lesson, 1831
Masked Booby. (U)
Ll
36. S. sula (Linnaeus. 1766)
Red-footed Booby. (U)
Ll
37. S. leucogaster (Boddaert. 1783)
Brown Booby. (I)
Ll
FAMILY FREGATIDAE
38. Fregata minor (Gmelin, 1789)
Great Frigatebird. (I)
Ll
39. F. ariel (Gray, 1845)
Lesser Frigatebird. (I)
Ll
292
Kotagama & De Silva: The Taxonomy and Status of Offshore Birds (Seabirds) of Sri Lanka
40. F. andrewsi Mathews. 1914
Christmas Island Frigatebird. (U)
L3
FAMILY PROCELLARIIDAE
41. Daption capense (Linnaeus. 1758)
Cape Petrel (U).
Ll
42. Pterodroma baraui (Jouanin, 1964)
Barau’s Petrel. (U)
L3
43. P. lessonii (Garnot. 1826)
White-headed Petrel. (U)
L3
44
P. mollis (Gould. 1844)
Soft-plumaged Petrel. (U)
L3
45. Bulweria bulwerii (Jardine & Selby. 1828)
Bulwer’s Petrel. (U)
L3
46. B. fallax Jouanin, 1955
Jouanin’s Petrel. (U)
Ll
47. Calonectris leucomelas (Temminck, 1835)
Streaked Shearwater. (U)
Ll
48. Puffinus pacificus (Gmelin. 1789)
Wedge-tailed Shearwater. (I)
Ll
49. P. carneipes Gould, 1844
Flesh-footed Shearwater. (PM)
Ll
50. P. griseus (Gmelin, 1789)
Sooty Shearwater. (U)
L3
51. P. tenuirostris (Temminck. 1835)
Short-tailed Shearwater. (U)
Ll
52. P. Iherminieri Lesson, 1839
Audubon’s Shearwater. (U).
L3
53. Oceanites oceanicus (Kuhl, 1820)
Wilson’s Storm-petrel. (S)
Ll
54. Oceanodroma monorhis (Swinhoe, 1867)
Swinhoe’s Storm-petrel. (U)
Ll
293
The
T
HE F
Fauna
AUNA OFofSRI
SriLANKA
Lanka
(2006):
(2006)
294-301
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Taxonomy and Status of the Sharks and Rays of Sri Lanka
Rex I. De Silva*
*31 Dampe , Madapatha 10306, (Piliyandala)
Abstract
This paper presents checklists, for the 61 species of sharks and 31 species of rays found both in the
territorial waters and exclusive economic zones belonging to Sri Lanka. Conservation concerns have
arisen primarily from the fact that most selachians are rather slow breeders, and as such are very
easily affected by a variety of natural and anthropogenic threats, including intense fishing. To
implement successful conservation initiatives further research will be required for threat analysis on
a species by species basis. Furthermore the author describes some of the existing taxonomic issues
faced by selachian biologists in Sri Lanka.
Key words: Sharks, Rays, Skates, Conservation
Background
Sharks have been relatively neglected by Sri Lanka’s naturalists, possibly on account of the difficulties
inherent in identifying many species, as well as the paucity of accessible literature. Until recently the
taxonomy was also in a rather confused state.
Various authors have from time-to-time attempted to catalogue the Sri Lanka sharks. Mendis (1954) listed
15 species, which included a doubtful species - Lamna spallanzani. In his list of 22 species Munroe (1955)
included Lamna spallanzani and listed Nebrius ferrugineus twice, once under its correct taxon and again
under a synonym, hence the actual number was 20 species. De Silva (1988) listed 44 confirmed and 11
unconfirmed species in his checklist. Several of these unconfirmed species have subsequently been
recorded in Sri Lankan waters. Amarasooriya and Dayaratne (1994) listed 44 species from the west and
south-western coasts. De Bruin, Russel and Bogusch (1994) included 43 species as being of interest to the
marine fisheries industry. In a more recent paper, De Silva (1995) has listed 51 species. Weerakkody and
Fernando (2000) added a single species Centrophorus squamosus and also proposed the acceptance of
Isistius braziliensis on a provisional basis. The latter species is excluded from the checklist as evidence
for its occurrence in Sri Lanka waters is circumstantial. It is relevant to note that a few species of sharks
caught extra-territorially are sometimes unloaded in Sri Lankan ports. Care was taken therefore to ensure
that such species were not inadvertently included in the Sri Lanka checklist.
Sri Lanka’s skates and rays have received considerably less attention than their relatives the sharks.
Munroe (1955) included 29 species. De Bruin, Russel and Bogusch (1994) accepted 30 and also updated
the taxonomy.
Species richness of sharks and rays
The present paper accepts 61 species of sharks belonging to 5 orders and 17 families (Appendix 1). These
comprise the currently known shark species from both the territorial waters of Sri Lanka and the exclusive
economic zone. Since Jonklaas first reported Notorhynchus cepedianus in the 1970’s (De Silva, 1995)
there have been no further records of the species. There have also been no records of Carcharodon
carcharias and Sphyrna mokarran since they were first documented a few decades ago. Compagno (in
litt. 1989) clarified that C. carcharias is primarily a temperate zone species which seldom enters the
tropics. The paucity of records for S. mokarran however has no ready explanation. Other species for
which there are relatively few recent records include Carcharhinus amboinensis, C. plumbeus,
Odontaspis noronhai, O. ferox, Negaprion brevirostris, Hexanchus griseus and Lamiopsis temmincki.
294
De Silva: Taxonomy and Status of the Sharks and Rays of Sri Lanka
The skates and rays documented from Sri Lanka waters include a total of 31 species from four orders and
nine families (Appendix 2). However, this is an under-representation of the true species richness, as many
species of rays remain to be documented from Sri Lanka’s waters. This is a lacuna that future workers
could fill.
Conservation issues
Most selachians are rather slow breeders. They take a long time to attain sexual maturity, have long
gestation periods and produce relatively few young. For example in two of the more prolific breeders
Prionace glauca and Galeocerdo cuvier sexual maturity takes approximately four to five years and litters
vary from 4 to 135 for the former and 10 to 82 for the latter. The gestation periods for these species vary
from 9 to 12 months. Many other species however are less fecund; Eugomphodus taurus produces only
two young at a time. Carcharhinus wheeleri and Triaenodon obesus have litters of from one to five. In
comparison bony fish produce several tens of thousands of eggs at a time and a few species produce as
many as a million. It is clear therefore that selachian populations, on account of their slow reproductive
rate, can easily be adversely affected by a variety of threats both natural and those resulting from human
intervention.
Intensive fishing activity using modern equipment, coupled with the proliferation of large-scale fisheries has
resulted in greatly increased catches. Sharks are particularly affected as their flesh has recently become
more acceptable as a source of protein. Many sharks are captured as by-catch, by fishing gear set for
other species. The very large demand for shark fins has resulted in the cruel and wasteful practice of
“finning”. Pelagic species like Caraharhinus falciformis, C. longimanus, the three Alpoias species,
Sphyrna zygaena, S. lewini etc. are taken in large numbers. Many of these are slow breeders, hence it is
not clear how much longer these (and other pelagic species) can survive in commercially viable populations.
Some reef sharks have declined in numbers in recent years. For example Stegostoma fasciatum, which
was never very abundant, has all but disappeared from many of its former haunts. Nebrius ferrugineus
and Triaenodon obesus, both largely nocturnal species, have also decreased in numbers although reasons
for this are difficult to determine. The skates and rays are mainly taken by artisan fisheries, hence they
appear to have fared somewhat better, although once again precise data is lacking. In addition to direct
impact of the fisheries industry, there is the potentially adverse effect of marine pollution on selachians,
although precise data relating to the Sri Lanka condition is not available. Due to the lack of data it is not
possible to determine the exact status of many of the species in the checklist and whether any are at risk.
There is an urgent need therefore for threat-evaluation on a species-by-species basis.
Taxonomic issues
The taxonomic validity of Eugomphodus tricuspidatus (included by De Bruin et al., 1994), needs to be
re-evaluated. The status of the species described as Lamna spallanzani and Carcharhinus menisorrah,
recorded by many earlier writers as being present in Sri Lanka waters, as well as the two Gymnura
species periodically reported from our seas need to be reconsidered. In the past most small manta rays
were ascribed to Mobula diabolus which is no longer thought to occur in Sri Lanka waters. Whether this
species is actually present along with its large relative Manta birostris, as anecdotal evidence suggests, is
a matter for future research to clarify. This highlights a problem faced by selachian biologists in Sri Lanka,
viz. the lack of specimens for comparative studies and the restricted access to literature: a problem faced
by many workers in developing countries.
Acknowledgements
I thank Professor S.W. Kotagama for reading the manuscript and making several useful suggestions.
295
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
References
Amarasooriya,A. & Dayaratne,P. (1994): A species identification of the shark catches landed in the West
and the South West coasts of Sri Lanka. NARA Annual Report. Colombo. NARA.
De Bruin, G.H.P., Russel, B.C. and Bagusch, A. (1994): The Marine Fishery Resources of Sri Lanka.
Rome. FAO.
De Silva,R.I. (1988): The sharks of Sri Lanka, a key to the different species and a preliminary checklist.
Ceylon Journal of Science (Bio.Sci.) 17 & 18: 56-64.
De Silva,R.I. (1995): A history of the sharks of Sri Lanka. Sesquicentennial Commemorative Volume.
Colombo. Royal Asiatic Society of Sri Lanka.
Mendis,A.S. (1954): Fishes of Ceylon. Bulletin No.2. Fisheries Research Station.
Munroe,I.S.R. (1955): The marine and freshwater fishes of Ceylon. Canberra. Department of External
Affairs.
Weerakkody, P. and Fernando, S. (2000): Leaf scale Gulper Shark Centrophorus squamosus (Bonnaterre,
1788): The First record from Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Naturalist III. 44-45.
296
De Silva: Taxonomy and Status of the Sharks and Rays of Sri Lanka
Appendix 1: Checklist of shark species recorded from the territorial waters
of Sri Lanka
ORDER HEXANCHlFORMES
FAMILY HEXANCHIDAE
1.
2.
Hexanchus griseus (Bonaterre, 1788). B1untnose sixgill shark.
Notorynchus cepedianus (Peron, 1907). Broadnose sevengill shark.
ORDER SQUALlFORMES
FAMILY ECHINORHINIDAE
3.
Echinorhinus brucus (Bonaterre, 1788). Bramble shark.
FAMILY SQUALIDAE
4. Centrophorus squamosus (Bonaterre, 1788). Leaf scale gulper shark.
5. Centroscyllium ornatum (Alcock, 1889). Ornate dogfish.
6. Dalatias licha (Bonnaterra, 1788). Kitefin shark.
ORDER ORECTOLOBlFORMES
FAMILY HEMISCYLLIIDAE
7.
8.
9.
Chiloscyllium griseum (Muller & Henle, 1838). Grey bambooshark.
C. indicum (Gmelin, 1789). Slender bamboo shark.
C. plagiosum (Bennet, 1830). Whitespotted bamboo shark.
FAMILY STEGOSTOMATIDAE
10. Stegostoma fasciatum (Hermann, 1783). Zebra shark.
FAMILY GINGLYMOSTOMATIDAE
11. Nebrius ferrugineus (Lesson, 1830). Tawny nurse shark.
FAMILY RHINIODONTIDAE
12. Rhiniodon typus (Smith, 1828). Whale shark.
ORDER LAMNIFORMES
FAMILY ALPOIIDAE
13. Alopias vulpinus (Bonnaterre, 1788). Thresher shark.
14. A. superciliosus (Lowe, 1839). Bigeye thresher shark.
15. A. pelagicus (Nakamura, 1935). Pelagic thresher shark.
FAMILY ODONTASPIDIDAE
16. Odontaspis noronhai (Maul, 1955). Bigeye sandtiger.
17. O. ferox (Risso,1810). Smalltooth sandtiger.
18. Eugomphodus taurus (Rafinesque, 1810). Sandtiger shark.
297
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
FAMILY PSEUDOCARCHARIIDAE
19. Pseudocarcharias kamoharai (Matsubara, 1936). Crocodile shark.
FAMILY LAMNIDAE
20. Carcharodon carcharias (Linnaeus, 1758). Great white shark.
21. Isurus oxyrinchus (Rafinesque, 1809). Shortfin mako shark.
22. I. paucus (Guitart Manday, 1966). Longfin mako.
ORDER CARCHARHINIFORMES
FAMILY SCYLIORHINIDAE
23. Atelomycterus marmoratus (Bennet, 1830). Coral catshark.
24. Halaelurus hispidus (Alcock, 1891). Bristly catshark.
FAMILY PROSCYLLIIDAE
25. Eridacnis radcliffei (Smith, 1913) Pygmy ribbontail catshark.
FAMILY TRIAKIDAE
26. Mustelus manazo (Bleeker, 1854). Starspotted smoothhound.
27. M. mosis (Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1899). Arabian smoothhound.
FAMILY HEMIGALEIDAE
28. Chaenogaleus macrostorna (Bleeker, 1852). Hooktooth shark.
29. Hemigaleus microstorna Bleeker, 1852. Sicklefin weasel shark.
30. Hemipristis elongatus (Klunzinger, 1871). Snaggletooth shark.
FAMILY CARCHARHINIDAE
31. Carcharhinus albimarginatus (Ruppel, 1837). Silvertip shark.
32. C. altimus (Springer, 1950). Bignose shark.
33. C. amblyrhynchoides (Whitley, 1934). Graceful shark.
34. C. amblyrhynchos (Bleeker, 1856). Grey reef shark.
35. C. amboinensis (Muller & Henle, 1839). Pigeye shark.
36. C. brevipinna (Muller & Henle, 1839). Spinner shark.
37. C. dussumieri (Valenceiennes, 1839). Whitecheek shark.
38. C. falciformis (Bibron, 1839). Silky shark.
39. C. hemiodon (Valenciennes, 1839). Pondicherry shark.
40. C. limbatus (Valenciennes, 1839). Blacktip shark.
41. C. 1ongimanus (Poey. 1861). Oceanic whitetip shark.
42. C. macloti (Muller & Hen1e, 1839). Hardnose shark.
43. C. melanopterus (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824). Blacktip reef shark.
44. C. plumbeus (Nardo, 1827). Sandbar shark.
45. C. sealei (Pietschmann, 1916). Blackspot shark.
46. C. sorrah (Valenciennes. 1830). spot-tai1 shark.
47. C. wheeleri (Garrick, 1982) .Blacktail reef shark.
298
De Silva: Taxonomy and Status of the Sharks and Rays of Sri Lanka
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
Galeocerdo cuvier (Peron & Lesuer, 1822). Tiger shark.
Lamiopsis temmincki (Muller & Henlei. 1839). Broadfin shark.
Loxodon macrorhinus (Muller. Hen1e. 1839). Sliteye shark.
Negaprion acutidens (Ruppell, 1837). Sicklefin lemon shark.
N. brevirostris (Poey. 1868). Lemon shark.
Prionace glauca (Linnaeus, 1758). Blue shark.
Rhizoprionodon acutus (Ruppell, 1837) .Milk shark.
R. oligolinx Springer. 1964. Grey sharpnose shark.
Scoliodon laticaudus Muller & Henle, 1838. Spadenose shark.
Triaenodon obesus (Ruppell, 1837). Whitetip reef shark.
FAMILY SPHYRNIDAE
58. Eusphyra blochii (Cuvier. 1817). Winghead.
59. Sphyrna lewini (Griffith & Smith, 1834). Scalloped hammerhead.
60. S. mokarran (Ruppell. 1837). Great hammerhead.
61. S. zygaena (Linnaeus. 1757). Smooth hammerhead.
299
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Appendix 2: Checklist of skates and rays recorded from the territorial waters
of Sri Lanka
ORDER PRISTIFORMES
FAMILY PRISTIDAE
1.
2.
3.
Anoxypristis cuspidatus (Latham, 1794). Narrow sawfish.
Pristis microdon Latham, 1794. Largetooth sawfish.
P. zijsron Bleeker, 1851. Longcomb sawfish.
ORDER TORPEDINIFORMES
FAMILY NARCINIDAE
4.
5.
6.
Narke dipterygia (Bloch & Schneider, 1801). Numb fish.
N. brunnea Annandale, 1909. Brown electric ray.
N. timlei (Bloch & Schneider, 1801). Spotted electric ray.
ORDER RAJIFORMES
FAMILY RHINOBATIDAE
7.
8.
9.
10.
Rhina ancylostoma Bloch & Schneider, 1801. Shark ray.
Rhinobatos annandalei Norman, 1926. Annandale’s guitarfish.
R. granulatus Cuvier, 1829. Granulated guitarfish
Rhynchobatus djiddensis (Forsskal, 1775). Whitespotted guitarfish.
FAMILY RAJIDAE
11. Raja mamillidens Alcock, 1889. Prickly skate.
ORDER MYLIOBATIFORMES
FAMILY DASYATIDIDAE
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Dasyatis kuhlii (Muller & Henle, 1841). Bluespotted stingray.
D. marginatus (Blyth, 1860). Blackedged stingray.
D. pastinacus (Linnaeus, 1758). Stingray.
D. zugei (Muller & Henle, 1841). Pale-edged stingray.
Himantura bleekeri (Blyth, 1860). Whiptail stingray.
H. gerrardi (Gray, 1851). Sharpnose stingray.
H. imbricatus (Bloch & Schheider, 1801). Scaly stingray.
H. uarnak (Forsksk.al, 1775). Honeycomb stingray.
Pastinachus sephen (Forsskal, 1775). Cowtail stingray.
Taeniura lymma (Forsskal, 1775). Bluespotted ribbon ray.
T. meyeni Muller & Henle, 1841. Blotched fantail ray.
Urogymnus asperrimus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801). Porcupine ray.
FAMILY GYMNURIDAE
24. Gymnura poecilura (Shaw, 1804). Butterfly ray.
300
De Silva: Taxonomy and Status of the Sharks and Rays of Sri Lanka
FAMILY MYLIOBATIDIDAE
25. Aetobatus narinari (Euphrasen, 1790). Spotted eagle ray.
26. Aetomylaeus maculatus (Gray, 1834). Mottled eagle ray.
27. A. nichofii (Bloch & Schneider, 1801). Banded eagle ray.
FAMILY RHINOPTERIDAE
28. Rhinoptera adspersa (Muller & Henle, 1841). Rough cownose ray.
29. R. javenica (Muller & Henle, 1841). Javanese cownose ray.
FAMILY MOBULIDAE
30. Mobula eregoodootenkee (Cuvier, 1829). Lesser devil ray.
31. M. kuhlii (Valenciennes, 1841). Pygmy devil ray.
301
The
T
HE F
Fauna
AUNA OFofSRI
SriLANKA
Lanka
(2006):
(2006)
302-308
© IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Taxonomy and Current Status of Marine Mammals in Sri Lanka
A. D. Ilangakoon*
*Cetacean Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission
Abstract
Based on published literature and the current state of knowledge, 28 species of marine mammals
have been identified in Sri Lanka’s waters. Of these, 27 species - under two sub-orders and five
families - belong to the order Cetacea, and one species belongs to the order Sirenia. Cetacean
taxonomy is still evolving globally and the ecological needs and parameters for many of these species
have not yet been defined clearly. Even in the 2002 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species the
majority of even common species of small cetaceans are still listed as data deficient or not assessed.
Although there has been a long-term research focus on many terrestrial mammal species, dedicated
long-term research on marine mammals in Sri Lanka is lacking. As a result, there are many research
gaps in relation to this faunal group and our knowledge on population trends, distribution and species
and/or populations at risk is still very meager. As a group, marine mammals also face many threats
as a result of human activities in both near-shore and offshore marine areas.
Key words: Marine mammals, Taxonomy, Issues, Ecology, Gaps
Introduction
Sri Lanka’s territorial waters are rich in marine mammal fauna with high species richness and year-round
abundance. However, present knowledge about this diverse segment of mammalian fauna is still very
limited due to a lack of dedicated research on the subject. In scientific literature, there are records of
stranded whales and museum specimens from as far back as the 1889 (Fernando, 1912; Deraniyagala,
1960). In the mid-20th century, interactions with fisheries are mentioned for the first time (Lantz and
Gunasekera, 1955). Although travelers and historians have referred to whales in the waters around the
island as far back as the 14th century, the first scientific records of live cetaceans are documented only
after about 1980. Research carried out in the last two decades has resulted in most of what is known
about species diversity, threats and conservation issues of Sri Lankan cetaceans. The occurrence and
hunting of the dugong in Sri Lanka’s waters appears in the literature in the late 19th century (Haley, 1884;
Nevill 1885), but there has been very little recent work done on this globally threatened species.
Taxonomic classification for species in Sri lanka’s waters
Based on current taxonomy, 28 species of marine mammals within the two Orders of Cetacea and Sirenia
have been recorded from the waters around Sri Lanka (Table 1 below). This species list is based on
specimens obtained from strandings on the coastline (Deraniyagala, 1948, 1960, 1963, 1965b; Leatherwood
and Reeves, 1989, Ilangakoon, 2002), specimens from the fisheries bycatch and direct take (Prematunga
et. al., 1985; Leatherwood and Reeves 1989; Leatherwood, 1990, Dayaratna and Joseph, 1993;
Ilangakoon, 1997, 2002; Ilangakoon et. al., 2000a, 200b) and sightings from offshore surveys (Leatherwood
et. al. 1984; Alling, 1986; Alling et. al., 1991; Ilangakoon, 2000b, 2002; Anonymous, 2003). The list is by no
means complete as a new species for our waters - Blainville’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris)
- was identified as recently as 2002 (Ilangakoon, 2002; Ilangakoon and Perera, 2002).
Of the total of 28 species, 27 belong to the Order Cetacea, and are placed within the two Suborders
Mysticeti and Odontoceti, and come under the six families of Balaenopteridae, Physeteridae, Kogiidae,
Ziphiidae, Delphinidae and Phocoenidae. The single species in the Order Sirenia is the Dugong (Dugong
dugon), belonging to the family Dugongidae.
302
Ilangakoon: Taxonomy and Current Status of Marine Mammals in Sri Lanka
Table 1: Taxonomic Classification of Species in Sri Lanka’s Waters
Order
Suborder
Family
No. of Genera
No. of Species
Cetacea
Mysticeti
Odontoceti
Sirenia
Total
-
Balaenopteridae
Physeteridae
Kogiidae
Ziphiidae
Delphinidae
Phocoenidae
Dugongidae
2
1
1
3
12
1
1
21
5
1
2
4
14
1
1
28
Issues pertaining to taxonomy and ecology
In a global context, the taxonomy of cetaceans is still evolving and species are being split and lumped based
on new advances in molecular biological research; new species are also being added based on discoveries
from expanding field research. A good example of splitting is Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni). This
species is being currently split into two species based on genetic differences and skull morphometrics
(Wada et. al., 2003). Once the original type specimen is re-examined, these two new species will very
likely be named B. edeni and B. brydii. However, the problem of field discrimination of these two species
is yet to be resolved, because they are outwardly similar in appearance and are not geographically isolated,
occurring side by side. [This has been empirically proven in in the waters off Thailand where both are
present (personal communication S. Chantrapornsyl)]. In Sri Lanka’s waters, what was originally named
B. edeni is common, but recent evidence indicates that both species may occur here as well.
In contrast, the rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis, found in Sri Lankan waters, was placed
originally in a separate family called the Stenidae. However, a captive specimen in a dolphinarium in
Hawaii bred successfully with a common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and produced a calf that
lived for four years (Leatherwood and Reeves, 1982). As a result of this, and similar observations from the
wild, this species was moved to the family Delphinidae. Meanwhile new species of cetaceans are also still
being discovered in little studied families such as the Ziphiidae. For example, the Pygmy beaked-whale
(Mesoplodon peruvianus) was discovered in the South Pacific Ocean and named as recently as 1991.
Ecology
The ecological needs of many of the species occurring in Sri Lanka’s waters are not defined clearly or
even known at present. However, what is known is that the great diversity of species in the waters around
the island inhabit all available niches in both coastal and offshore waters with a few even entering coastal
lagoons (Ilangakoon, unpublished data).
Research gaps
There has been little dedicated, long-term research on marine mammals in Sri Lanka. This is mostly a result
of a lack of both financial resources (since research at sea is costly) and trained personnel to carry out the
work. Whatever studies have been carried out have been short-term projects, when funds became
available and through the use of platforms of opportunity despite he unavailability of a dedicated research
vessel. Therefore, marine mammal research has been discontinuous and as a result, what we know about
Sri Lankan marine mammals is still very incomplete.
303
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
z
We do not know which species/population are particularly at risk in Sri Lanka.
z
We still know little about distribution, migration patterns, population trends or species/populations at
particular risk.
z
No molecular biological work has been conducted to assess stock affinities or population structure of
any species in our waters.
z
Because species identification has been based largely on external morphology, there is a need for
trained marine mammal taxonomists in the country.
z
Even less is known about the dugong population in the waters of the Gulf of Mannar because little
focused research has been carried out for decades.
Threats and conservation issues
Marine mammals face a multitude of threats due to various human activities. In Sri Lanka’s waters, the
principle threat is the fisheries industry, because it causes both direct and indirect mortality of small
cetaceans and dugongs in large numbers each year (Ilangakoon, 1989, 1997, 2002; Ilangakoon et. al. 2000a,
2000b). For small cetaceans, accidental bycatch in commonly used synthetic gillnets is a major problem.
This causes the death, by drowning, of thousands of animals. Although direct hunting is not as widespread
as bycatch in Sri Lanka, in certain areas the use of hand-held harpoons to kill small cetaceans does take
place (Ilangakoon 1997, 2002; Ilangakoon et. al., 2000a). Within the past two decades, this practice has
spread to new areas and the numbers being killed annually in this way continue to increase (Ilangakoon et.
al., 2000a; Ilangakoon, 2002). Dugongs too are often caught accidentally in nets and are also hunted
deliberately whenever sighted by fishermen.
Although increased shipping traffic is a threat that affects all marine mammals, it much more of a direct
threat to large whales in the waters around the island. Recently, there has been evidence that several
large whales have been killed in our waters due to ship strikes (Ilangakoon, unpublished data). Increased
shipping also causes increased marine pollution (both acoustic and chemical) as well as the likelihood of oil
spills, which that can be extremely detrimental to marine mammals. Habitat destruction in the form of
pollution of coastal waters - through land-based and marine-based sources - also poses a threat to marine
mammals which have a restricted habitat or specialized ecological needs such as the dugong and coastal
dolphins. For instance, based on current research the range of the small cetacean Indo-pacific humpback
dolphin (Sousa chinensis) in Sri Lanka’s waters appears to be restricted to a small nearshore area off the
north-west of the island (Ilangakoon, unpublished data). Disturbance or pollution of their habitat can
become a threat to the very existence of this population and its long-term viability. However, because
detailed long-term research on this species and therefore sound scientific data are lacking, it is not possible
to formulate or enforce any protective measures based on sound scientific data.
Another conservation issue that affects the marine mammals of Sri Lanka is that marine protected areas
(MPA’s) are not given priority in the protected area system of the country (Ilangakoon, 2001). To date only
four MPA’s have been declared in the waters around the island and both have been declared with the aim
of protecting coral reefs. Even in these two marine protected areas, enforcement and management are
almost non-existent. Some marine mammal species, such as the vulnerable dugong with its specialized
ecological needs and restricted habitat, would indubitably benefit from well-managed protected areas
declared specifically for its protection. However, protection of marine mammals has been given priority or
even taken into consideration when marine protected areas have been declared in Sri Lanka.
Nature tourism, although not yet a threat to marine mammals in Sri Lanka, is potential threat. This could
become a major problem to marine mammals, as there are no regulations in place to control or monitor
such activities in this country. Even if regulations were put in place through the law, enforcement would be
very difficult at sea due to the same constraints that cause the lack of enforcement in MPA’s. In many
parts of the world today, where whale and dolphin watching is a well-developed part of the tourist industry,
304
Ilangakoon: Taxonomy and Current Status of Marine Mammals in Sri Lanka
adverse impacts - especially on species and populations inhabiting coastal waters - have become proven
(Constantine et. al., 2004; Lusseau, 2003). Such adverse impacts occurred even where strict regulations
are in place (Garrod and Fennel, 2004).
From an international perspective, of the species in Sri Lanka’s waters, the 2002 IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species lists two as endangered and three as vulnerable. Another seven are listed as low risk,
but of these six are conservation dependent and one is near threatened (Table 2, below). However, the
most for Sri Lankan marine mammals is that, of the rest, 11 are listed as data deficient, while five are not
listed at all.
Table 2: Status of Species in Sri Lanka’s Waters According to IUCN Red List
Order
Suborder
Cetacea
Mysticeti
Odontoceti
Sirenia
Total
-
Family
Balaenopteridae
Physeteridae
Kogiidae
Ziphiidae
Delphinidae
Phocoenidae
Dugongidae
IUCN 2002 Red List
CR
EN
VU
2
1
1
1
0
2
3
Categories
LR
DD
1nt
1
1cd
3
5cd
6
1
7
11
NL*
2
3
5
CR: Critically Endangered; EN: Endangered; Vu: Vulnerable; Low Risk: LR; DD: Data Deficient; NL:
notlisted; nt: Near threatened; cd: Conservation dependent
Conclusions
It is important to recognize that much more research is necessary before a clear understanding of the
marine mammal fauna in the waters around Sri Lanka can be obtained. This also means that there is an
urgent need for the allocation of resources for the specific study of marine mammals in Sri Lanka. As
marine mammals, except for a few species, are largely transient animals, with some species undertaking
long annual migrations, it is important that links for research and conservation are forged and collaborations
established with other regional countries and organizations. These linkages will also help fill resource gaps
through the use of platforms of opportunity, such as shared use of research vessels from both outside and
within the region.
Acknowledgements
My special thanks go to Dr. Hiran Jayewardene of the Indian Ocean Marine Affairs Co-operation for
initiating marine mammal research in Sri Lanka and providing constant support and encouragement in the
past two decades. I also wish to thank the late Dr. Stephen Leatherwood for imparting his extensive
knowledge and providing me with the initial training and basic knowledge in cetology. I also acknowledge
all the research assistants who have worked with me over the years and the numerous funding agencies
that have provided resources for marine mammal research in Sri Lanka’s waters.
305
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
References
Alling, A. (1986); Records of Odontocetes in the Northern Indian Ocean (1981-1982) and off the coast of
Sri Lanka (1982-1984). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 83 (2): 376-394.
Alling, A., Dorsey, E. M. and Gordon, J. C. D. (1991); Blue Whales (Balaenoptera musculus) off the
Northeast Coast of Sri Lanka: Distribution, Feeding and Individual Identification. United Nations
Environment Programme, Marine Mammal Technical Report Number 3: 247-258.
Anonymous (2003). Voyage of the Odyssey, Sri Lanka: Regional Report, 29 March to 17 June, 2003.
Report of the Ocean Alliance. 17pp.
Constantine, R., Brunton, D. H., and Dennis, T. (2004); Dolphin-watching tour boats change bottlenose
dolphin behaviour, Biological Conservation 117: 299-370.
Dayaratna, P. and Joseph, L. (1993); A study on dolphin catches in Sri Lanka, Bay of Bengal Programme,
India.
Deraniyagala, P. E. P. (1948); Some Mystacetid Whales from Ceylon. Spolia Zeylanica, 24 (2): 61-63.
Deraniyagala, P. E. P. (1960); Some Southern Temperate Zone Fishes, a Bird and Whales that enter the
Ceylon Area. Spolia Zeylanica, 29 (1): 79-85.
Deraniyagala, P. E. P. (1963); Mass Mortality of the New Subspecies of Little Piked Whale Balaenoptera
acutorostrata thalmaha and a New Beaked Whale Mesoplodon hotaula from Ceylon. Spolia Zeylanica,
30 (1): 79-84.
Deraniyagala, P. E. P., (1965b); Zoological Notes: Carcase of Balaenoptera sp. Cast ashore at Kokkilai.
Spolia Zeylanica, 30 (2): 263-264.
Fernando, H. F., (1912); Whales washed ashore on the coast of Ceylon from 1889 to 1910. Spolia
Zeylanica, 8 (29): 52-54.
Garrod, B., and Fennel, D. A. (2004); An analysis of whale watching codes of conduct, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 31, No.2: 334-352.
Haley, A., (1884); Report of the Director of the Colombo Museum for 1883.
Ilangakoon, A. (1989); A Socio-Economic Study of Cetacean Harvesting in Sri Lanka, In: Marine Mammal
Research and Conservation in Sri Lanka 1985-1986 (Edited by Stephen Leatherwood and Randall
R Reeves), United Nations Environment Programme, Marine Mammal Technical Report No.1.
Ilangakoon, A. (1990); Small Whales and Dolphins Threatened in Sri Lanka’s Waters, Loris, Vol.XIX,
No.2.
Ilangakoon, A. (1997); Species Composition, Seasonal Variation, Sex Ratio and Body Length of Small
Cetaceans Caught off the West, South-West and South Coasts of Sri Lanka, Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society, Vol.94, No.2.
Ilangakoon, A. D., Ratnasooriya, W. D., and Miththapala, S. (2000a); Species Diversity, Seasonal Variation
and Capture Method of Small Cetaceans on the West Coast of Sri Lanka, Vidyodaya Journal of
Science Vol.9: 37-52.
Ilangakoon, A. D., Miththapala, S., and Ratnasooriya, W. D. (2000b); Sex Ratio and Size Range of Small
Cetaceans in the Fisheries Catch on the West Coast of Sri Lanka, Vidyodaya Journal of Science
Vol. 9: 25-35..
Ilangakoon, A. (2001); Management of Marine and Coastal Resources in Sri Lanka., Loris, Vol.22, No.6,
December 2001.
Ilangakoon, A. (2002); Whales and Dolphins, Sri Lanka: a guide to the cetaceans in the waters
around Sri Lanka, WHT Publications Ltd., Colombo, Sri Lanka.
306
Ilangakoon: Taxonomy and Current Status of Marine Mammals in Sri Lanka
Ilangakoon, A., and Perera, L. (2002); Blainville’s Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon densirostris): A new
species identified and added to the list of Cetaceans in Sri Lanka’s waters, Loris, Vol.23, No.1, June
2002 (In press).
Leatherwood, S., and Reeves, R. R. (1983); The Sierra Club Handbook of Whales and Dolphins, Sierra
Club, California, USA.
Leatherwood, S., Peters, C. B., Santerre, M. and Clarke, J. T. (1984); Observations of Marine Mammals
in the Northern Indian Ocean Sanctuary, 1979-1983. Report of the International Whaling
Commission, 34: 509-520.
Leatherwood, S. and Reeves, R. R. (1989); Marine Mammal Research and Conservation in Sri Lanka
1985-1986. United Nations Environment Programme Marine Mammal Technical Report, Number 1:
91-105.
Lusseau, D. (2003); Effects of tour boats on the behaviour of bottlenose dolphins: using Markov Chains to
model anthropogenic impacts, Conservation Biology, Vol. 17, No.6: 1785-1793.
Nevill, H., (1885); “Dugong”. The Taprobanian, 1 (1): 2
Wada, S., Oishi, M., and Yamada, T. K. (2003); A newly discovered species of living baleen whale, Nature,
Vol.426: 278-281.
307
The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006)
Appendix 1: Checklist of Marine Mammals Recorded in Sri Lanka’s Waters
ORDER CETACEA
SUB-ORDER MYSTICETI
FAMILY: BALAENOPTERIDAE
Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus)
Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus)
Bryde’s Whale (Balaenoptera edeni)
Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)
Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)
SUB-ORDER ODONTOCETI
FAMILY: PHYSETERIDAE
FAMILY:
FAMILY:
FAMILY:
FAMILY:
Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus)
KOGIIDAE
Pygmy Sperm Whale (Kogia breviceps)
Dwarf Sperm Whale (Kogia sima)
ZIPHIIDAE
Cuvier’s Beaked Whale (Ziphius cavirostris)
Ginkgo-toothed Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon ginkgodens)
Blainville’s Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon densirostris)
Southern Bottlenose Whale (Hyperoodon planifrons)
DELPHINIDAE
Killer Whale (Orcinus orca)
False Killer Whale (Pseudorca crassidens)
Pygmy Killer Whale (Feresa attenuata)
Melon-headed Whale (Peponocephala electra)
Short-finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala macrohynchus)
Risso’s Dolphin (Grampus griseus)
Rough-toothed Dolphin (Steno bredanensis)
Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis)
Common Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)
Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis)
Fraser’s Dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei)
Long-snouted Spinner Dolphin (Stenella longirostris)
Pantropical Spotted Dolphin (Stenella attenuata)
Striped Dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba)
PHOCOENIDAE
Finless Porpoise (Neophocaena phocaenoides)
ORDER SIRENIA
FAMILY: DUGONGIDAE
Dugong (Dugong dugong)
308
View publication stats